No doubt Russians have the technical and economic capabilities to build several carriers even in the Ford class. The point is they do not have anywhere a surface fleet to be deployed around them and that itself is an effort far more expensive and resource intensive that the construction of few very large ships. There are no active programs to build any surface combatant larger than a frigate. I can see one or two midsize STOBAR in a two decade timeframe but nothing more and mainly as a propaganda and prestige tool more than an asset with a defined strategic role.

I would mostly agree.
Russia, as befits the world's largest country, has always been a land-based power, and latterly of course, aviation.
Only under Gorshkov in the old USSR was the navy really ramped up, if one excludes the ever present impressive submarine component.

I do believe, however, that there would be a real life role for a couple of Russian carriers in the future.
We live in a world where resources are finite, where bulk trade and goods movement happens mostly at sea.
There is certainly space for a Russian expeditionary or deterrent force, overseen and protected by a carrier, to protect their interests.
This does not mean large multiple carrier led fleets as the US operates, or presumably where China is headed.
I think the cost/benefit of that makes no sense for Russia.
But 2 midsize carriers, say, probably does make sense for Russia in the future. Yes, for prestige, but also for the potential to influence, and project in a limited fashion. A single carrier escorted by a couple of Gorshkovs, perhaps a cruiser, one of the large Universal Amphibious Assault ships now being constructed, and a SSN as an expeditionary force would be quite achievable in the future, and not break the bank.
In fact, they have nearly all that now, sans the Assault Ships still in construction.

In my humble opinion, it is this very same reasoning why they are busy building the two 40 000t Amphibious flat decks laid down in the first place.
Russia doesn't have as many airbases scattered around the globe as the US does, for example.

A carrier led force doesn't necessarily have to be designed for carrier fleet vs carrier fleet ala the Pacific War in WW2.

So I am mostly in agreement with you.
 
Last edited:
Every year in the 80s the Reagan Administration started publishing a glossy book called "Soviet Military Power" with rather badly drawn images of Russian weapons derived from satellite photos.
It routinely warned of the impending arrival of a genuine carrier to follow on from the Kievs which were seen as more heavily armed versions of the Brits' Invincibles.
The Chinese and Russian navies are as far away from deploying even a Midway sized carrier with cats, traps and strike aircraft as the Sovs were in the 80s.
To some extent as land powers this is quite understandable. Neither have any experience of modern naval combat on the high seas.
The USN and its key allies have worked together in realistic exercises and in some cases combat for seventy years! Carrier air power with actual carriers has played a key role throughout these years.
China's rulers are keen to acquire the clout that their economic progress over the last 25 years has earnt them. I dont think that a few air capable ships is too much to begrudge them. And the West's over 50 SSNs at sea have to have something to try and sink.
 
Well, the Kuznetsov was laid down in 1982, and her sister ship in 1985.
The larger catapult equipped follow on design, the 85 000 tonne Ulyanovsk, was ordered in 1986, and laid down in 1988.
So, in fairness, the warnings of an impending proper carrier fleet were correct, as nobody could foretell then that the USSR was going to collapse before completion.

I agree that China's economic rise, coupled with its role as a raw material importer and finished product exporter, all but assures the rise of their navy onto a global stage, which means multiple carriers.
 
What I find interesting is that the Soviets laid down 2 Kuznetsov carriers.
This was followed by the larger, catapult equipped Ulyanovsk.
So the Kuznetsovs in my mind were, as others have stated above, a very sensible stepping stone that would probably then have been eventually relegated to either training or fleet support roles.

China is mimicking this plan exactly and precisely so far.
2 Kuznetsov types, and now a larger follow on catapult equipped carrier.
I guess it's a sensible way to go about it.
 
One carrier does not a fleet make... (ok the RN and French Navies now make do with only one but they have built more).
I am not sure that it was just the end of the Cold War that killed off Ulyanovsk. The submarine lobby in Russia as in the RN knew how vulnerable carriers were to being disabled.. You dont need to sink a carrier just prevent it flying its airgroup.
 
I'm aware Russia is preserving its ability to build and maintain such ships; I posted the dry dock under construction that will handle the refit (I suspect the picture is old and the doc is largely complete now). I however have little faith in a follow on class after Kuznetsov, even a singular replacement. I'm also not going to assume Kuznetsov re-enters service (though clearly that is the intent at the moment) based on the very protracted refit of the cruiser Nakimov. Aircraft carriers seem to very much be a prestige project for Russia compared to much more functional nuclear submarines of several types being built, and as such I'd be surprised if refit of Kuz wasn't the first spending cut should priorities change. As I said, time will tell.
 
From a selfish Western perspective I would quite like the Russians to get Kuznetzov back into service and even build a new class of carrier.
Operating such a ship in international waters gives Russia a sense of self esteem independent of the regime that runs it. Tracking and interacting with the ship and its airgroup is the best training our and other countries' forces can get.
And then who knows one day she may operate with us in a UN or other multilateral ops.
 
No doubt Russians have the technical and economic capabilities to build several carriers even in the Ford class. The point is they do not have anywhere a surface fleet to be deployed around them and that itself is an effort far more expensive and resource intensive that the construction of few very large ships. There are no active programs to build any surface combatant larger than a frigate. I can see one or two midsize STOBAR in a two decade timeframe but nothing more and mainly as a propaganda and prestige tool more than an asset with a defined strategic role.

I would mostly agree.
Russia, as befits the world's largest country, has always been a land-based power, and latterly of course, aviation.
Only under Gorshkov in the old USSR was the navy really ramped up, if one excludes the ever present impressive submarine component.

I do believe, however, that there would be a real life role for a couple of Russian carriers in the future.
We live in a world where resources are finite, where bulk trade and goods movement happens mostly at sea.
There is certainly space for a Russian expeditionary or deterrent force, overseen and protected by a carrier, to protect their interests.
This does not mean large multiple carrier led fleets as the US operates, or presumably where China is headed.
I think the cost/benefit of that makes no sense for Russia.
But 2 midsize carriers, say, probably does make sense for Russia in the future. Yes, for prestige, but also for the potential to influence, and project in a limited fashion. A single carrier escorted by a couple of Gorshkovs, perhaps a cruiser, one of the large Universal Amphibious Assault ships now being constructed, and a SSN as an expeditionary force would be quite achievable in the future, and not break the bank.
In fact, they have nearly all that now, sans the Assault Ships still in construction.

In my humble opinion, it is this very same reasoning why they are busy building the two 40 000t Amphibious flat decks laid down in the first place.
Russia doesn't have as many airbases scattered around the globe as the US does, for example.

A carrier led force doesn't necessarily have to be designed for carrier fleet vs carrier fleet ala the Pacific War in WW2.

So I am mostly in agreement with you.
A very realistic and reasonable scenario
 
One carrier does not a fleet make... (ok the RN and French Navies now make do with only one but they have built more).
I am not sure that it was just the end of the Cold War that killed off Ulyanovsk. The submarine lobby in Russia as in the RN knew how vulnerable carriers were to being disabled.. You dont need to sink a carrier just prevent it flying its airgroup.
It really depends on the operational role you assign to the carrier. In the case of the Soviet Navy the carriers would be at the center of a bastion protecting the SSBN that would mean around hefty of cruisers, destroyers, SSN and SSK and in the range of land based aviaton. If a NATO submarine was to reach an attack range for the carrier that would have limited importance for the Soviet because in that case it is problable that most of their fleet would have been destroyed.
 
Large-scale models of aircraft carriers "Liaoning" and "Shandong"
 

Attachments

  • D40F0011-3556-42EE-8851-A254DA2C5985.jpeg
    D40F0011-3556-42EE-8851-A254DA2C5985.jpeg
    226.9 KB · Views: 34
  • 1A7C4F88-E7E6-4119-98E8-7EC6641484A2.jpeg
    1A7C4F88-E7E6-4119-98E8-7EC6641484A2.jpeg
    98.2 KB · Views: 34
A great comparison made by @AkelaFreedom and posted at the SDF: "For comparison, satellite imagery - Type 075 LHD, Shandong and Liaoning. The same pier and height." But at least for the Liaoning, it seems to be not "the same pier"! Or am I wrong?

Anyway a great comparison.


1619422515842.png
 
Deino, I think your post has ended up in the wrong thread (there is a bit of a posting glitch going around at the moment).
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom