Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Potential For Russian Carrier Aviation?  
User currently offlineSulman From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2035 posts, RR: 32
Posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3536 times:

interesting article here:

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070731/70008268.html

The title is misleading - the 6 carriers are not in formal plans, they are merely 'possible'. It's interesting though, because if they even build a couple, that's a change in thinking. 'Big' blue-water strategic carrier aviation has been pretty much neglected by the Russians, (much like most countries apart from the US) and it seems to indicate the surge in pride that is happening in their armed forces at the moment. I'm sceptical they can afford it though...

There's no mention of what they plan to put on them. MiG-29K's? SU-33? What say you?

James


It takes a big man to admit they are wrong, and I am not a big man.
33 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3492 times:

Interesting article James. Funny to see the Ruskies bent on building up the fleet again, when they have hundreds of their own boats rusting away at the docks. I think if you google "Russian Navy", youd get a photo of a bunch of rustbuckets tied to a pier.

Would be interesting to see them in the carrier arena...nothing as powerful or capable as one of our flattops, but would be interesting none the less.

DeltaGuy


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6485 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3446 times:

Maybe they'll revisit a modernized OREL/Ulyanovsk concept. They dusted it off once...why not one more time? There's nothing fundamentally wrong with the concept, and it's everything Kiev and Admiral Kuznetsov wishes it could be. They even got 40% done with Hull #1.




When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineTexL1649 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 296 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3434 times:

I believe the carrier in the photo in the article is the one the Chinese have been refurbishing/refitting. The Chinese will next begin building their own carriers, and have no need to purchase them second-hand in the future from the Russians (a story we wills see repeated with commercial aircraft in 20 years.)

The Russians may build a quarter of what was discussed in that article. They would better themselves by investing that amount of funds in their own petroleum infrastructure.


User currently offlineOlegShv From Sweden, joined Mar 2006, 683 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 3271 times:

It'll be interesting to follow that development. Also, I read that UK is planning to build two carriers in the next 10-15 years.

Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 1):
I think if you google "Russian Navy", youd get a photo of a bunch of rustbuckets tied to a pier.



Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 3):
They would better themselves by investing that amount of funds in their own petroleum infrastructure.

These statements are arrogant and childish, IMHO. What about the recent news regarding infrastructure (bridges) in the US?


User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3626 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3235 times:

Quoting N328KF (Reply 2):
Maybe they'll revisit a modernized OREL/Ulyanovsk concept. They dusted it off once...why not one more time? There's nothing fundamentally wrong with the concept, and it's everything Kiev and Admiral Kuznetsov wishes it could be. They even got 40% done with Hull #1.

This ship was between the size of a Kitty Hawk and Nimitz class carrier. That's shows how big this ship was.


User currently offlineTexL1649 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 296 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3235 times:

Geeze, oleg, no offense intended, but where I would agree with the assertion that we also need to invest in infrastructure/refineries and exploration domestically, I think it is blatantly obvious that Russian petroleum exports could be vastly increased with proper investment. Russian Naval capital programs just as a matter of fact have not been supported for 15 years. This is from Wikipedia, and is I think generally correct;

The Steregushchy class corvettes, the lead ship of which was laid down on 21 December 2001, is the first new surface construction since the collapse of the Soviet Union.[13] The Steregushchy and its sister-ships are the only surface ships under construction, despite the average age of frigates now being above 19 years.[14] In 2005 plans were announced for a class of two new aircraft carriers which would start construction in 2013-14 for initial service entry in 2017. [15] Jane's said it was not clear whether 'this was a funded programme'. New amphibious ships are planned as well. The economic situation 'makes most of these plans look unrealistic for the immediate and mid term future',[16] and even the nuclear deterrent force is in trouble. While three new SSBNs are now under construction, (the Borei class SSBNs), the first has been under construction for at least ten years. The mainstay of the SSBN force, the Delta IVs, joined the fleet in 1985-91. Apparently while the service life of an SSBN normally is twenty to twenty-five years, without maintenance, it may be as short as ten to fifteen years.[17]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Navy


User currently offlineOlegShv From Sweden, joined Mar 2006, 683 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3223 times:

Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 6):
I think it is blatantly obvious that Russian petroleum exports could be vastly increased with proper investment.

Agreed.

Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 6):
This is from Wikipedia, and is I think generally correct;

the sources in this article are from 2002, which was 5 years ago. Military spending in Russia more than doubled in the past 2-3 years, so the plans are not all that unrealistic. Besides their economy shows stable significant growth (not just due to oil and natural gas exports).

Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 6):
While three new SSBNs are now under construction, (the Borei class SSBNs), the first has been under construction for at least ten years.

The program was obviously severly underfunded, but they are catching up. They rolled out the first one into the dock this April and its undergoing testing right now.

I really hope to see one of those new Russian carriers sailing.


User currently offlineAcheron From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1658 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3214 times:

Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 1):
Funny to see the Ruskies bent on building up the fleet again, when they have hundreds of their own boats rusting away at the docks.

Maybe because it would be cheaper to design and build new ships than recover those obsolete "rust buckets" that probably have been moored since 1991?  Silly


User currently offlineUsnseallt82 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 4891 posts, RR: 52
Reply 9, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3189 times:

Quoting Sulman (Thread starter):
Potential For Russian Carrier Aviation?

The problem with the Russians, a problem that has been around for quite a while, is that they love to talk about what they want to do. The reality is that they simply don't have the infrastructure to support these carriers quite yet and to jump this far ahead of other problems that need attention would be a serious blow to most of the fleet already in operation.

Lot of talk has been their hand for many years. I don't see much difference here.



Crye me a river
User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 883 posts, RR: 12
Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3176 times:

Naval Aviation, from proper carriers, is not something you just start doing in a couple of years or even a decade. The United States, the UK even France and Italy have decades of experience in these things.

So say the Russians can build a carrier. Now they need to field aircraft for it. They don't really have a pool of trained pilots so that is another problem. They would need a naval AWACS platform. They would need a revamped surface force designed to screen the carrier. Then they need to keep the thing at sea to keep it properly trained up.

Not only that they would need to create a better capacity to use UNREP unless they are building nuclear escorts which would add even more expense.

Then there is the problem that, when push comes to shove, what do the Russians need with aircraft carriers? They do not have interest to defend that necessitate it, for the most part their friends and interest are within fighter range of their borders anymore. Their geography makes it hard at best to field a fleet and concentrate it in war time before it is wiped out in its various parts but if they put it in one place they risk being weeks sailing out of position.

Most importantly their primary enemies and threats to them are of a strategic nuclear variety from the United States and a land invasion from China.

These things are what prompted a move towards maritime bombers the first time and it is what the Russians should do again. Russian carriers are nothing more than show projects.


User currently offlineTexL1649 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 296 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3155 times:

Their primary threats, like ours, are islamists.

User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 12, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3100 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting OlegShv (Reply 4):
Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 3):
They would better themselves by investing that amount of funds in their own petroleum infrastructure.

These statements are arrogant and childish, IMHO. What about the recent news regarding infrastructure (bridges) in the US?

Don't get so touchy....the statement is a true one. As far as our infrastructure for roads and bridges here...well, you don't really want to compare Russia's and the United States's...do you? One fallen bridge does not make for a nationwide disaster (although I'll lay odds that the media will try to create one).

The Russian Navy, and Russian citizens no doubt, would love to have a carrier. But I'd bet they'd much rather have a better road system, as well as more reliable sources of electricity and gas.

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 9):
The reality is that they simply don't have the infrastructure to support these carriers quite yet and to jump this far ahead of other problems that need attention would be a serious blow to most of the fleet already in operation.

Without a Navy built around the carriers then it's useless to have one. They're going to have to build new destroyers, frigates and logistics vessels, along with the subs, to support a carrier. You also need the institutional technical proficiency to run such complex systems and the Russian navy's past experience with carriers has not been great. There'll be an expensive learning curve.

They do have the airplanes, as well as the pilots.....that won't be the problem....it's the incredible pace of spending necessary to maintain proficiency and send these vessels on patrol that'll be a killer. The Thai navy has a carrier and airplanes to fly off of it.....but they use it as a Royal barge and anti-pirate patrol ship because they don't feel the expenditure justified. Where does the Russian Navy need a carrier?



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineUsnseallt82 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 4891 posts, RR: 52
Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3094 times:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 12):
Without a Navy built around the carriers then it's useless to have one.

Exactly.  checkmark 

Its not just the one ship that we're talking about here, but a multitude of others that comprise the carrier battle group. That's where they've fallen short in the past....they get slaphappy about a certain vision of military strength, but fail to realize the full logistical challenge that it is to organize that "vision."

Quoting DL021 (Reply 12):
You also need the institutional technical proficiency to run such complex systems and the Russian navy's past experience with carriers has not been great.

Right again.  checkmark 

Even beyond the Navy, the Russians have a horrible reputation of facades and smoke and mirrors when it comes to portraying that military strength that they want so badly. However, when you look behind the curtain, you quickly see that they failed to accomplish steps 1 through 25...and instead jumped to step 437.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 12):
They do have the airplanes, as well as the pilots.....that won't be the problem....it's the incredible pace of spending necessary to maintain proficiency and send these vessels on patrol that'll be a killer.

Here's where I think their aviation technology might come back to bite them in the ass. They have had very strong military capabilities in the air for quite some time now, but this might give them a false sense of security when it comes to the carrier battle group. They might think that their airborne strength can make up for not having the destroyers or subs to protect them, or even care to make the interoperability plans in order for those surrounding ships to even work together with the carrier. It wouldn't surprise me at all if they simply bank on their airborne fighter assets and completely forget the other essential parts to the battle group.

Either way, Russian military developments, or at least the talk of them, will always continue to keep a certain desk in a certain building in northern Virginia busy. Big grin



Crye me a river
User currently offlineCloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3056 times:

There are two main purposes for a large modern, carrier force -

1. To control large areas of open water. The aircraft carrier is likely too vulnerable for this today, at least against modern opponents. Increasingly, there is no way to hide it or protect it from a storm of missiles launched from much cheaper platforms. It is hard to sink a carrier, but it is remarkably easy to neutralize it by making it incapable of operating its aircraft. Submarines, long range aircraft + cruise missiles, and smaller stealthy surface craft are likely to fill the sea control role in the future. Russia does not need see control as much as nations more dependent on seaborne trade do. To challenge the US or even Europe or China on the seas would require more than they are willing to invest, and would probably involve more investment in subs and long range land based aircraft, as well as advanced missiles. Using aircraft carriers would be the least efficient way to do it.


2. To project power to distant landmasses. In actual shooting wars, this has been almost the only use of aircraft carriers since World War II. Where would Russia need to project power that would be out of reach of land-based tactical
aircraft? Most places it has an interest in are right on the border - Eastern Europe, Korea, much of China, Central Asia, etc. Where would they want to project power? Africa or the Americas? Unlikely. The Middle East or South Asia? They have enough of their own oil, and large parts of the Middle East are close to them anyway. Southeast Asia, including the Southern part of China? Possibly they could if China and the US confront each other and Russia takes sides, but this is unlikely. China is close by, and the US has its own carriers. It is probable that any carriers in such a conflict would end up as burning wrecks anyway - destroyed by modern missiles. Even if only 1 out of 100 fired could break through Aegis, etc. it would be enough.

The only hope for a large carrier to survive against a competent opponent is to have absolute, top of the line anti-missile systems. This requires large quantities very sophisticated electronics and very well trained crews. Russia is not as good at these things as the west. Even with the best defense there is, the issue is in doubt.

IN SHORT.....There is really no reason for Russia to own carriers even assuming they are not obsolete, and they may indeed be obsolete in a big war between major powers - just like the battleship was obsolete by the time of the cold war. If you want to fight a relatively small war a long ways away with an enemy that can't throw hundreds of missiles at you, a carrier is still a good thing to have. But Russia is probably not interested enough in this kind of war to spend the kind of money a fleet of big carriers would require. It would be like building a new class of big gun battleships in the 70's or 80's - such ships did still have niche applications at that time, its just that they were not useful enough to build any NEW ones.


User currently offlineUsnseallt82 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 4891 posts, RR: 52
Reply 15, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3044 times:

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 14):
The only hope for a large carrier to survive against a competent opponent is to have absolute, top of the line anti-missile systems.

Not quite. You need a lot more than just missile defense to have a competent carrier force. This is one important part, yes, generically being a good defense network for the ship itself. But for outside the engagement zones, you need a full battlegroup that is operational and well-trained in order to provide total protection for the boat. Russia isn't at this point yet and to throw a carrier out there without the rest of the 437 steps that I've mentioned is a waste.

Anti-missile systems are nice, but there are ways around them. You need total protection for an asset as valuable as a carrier.



Crye me a river
User currently offlineCloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2991 times:

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 15):
Anti-missile systems are nice, but there are ways around them. You need total protection for an asset as valuable as a carrier.

I agree. What I was saying is that the Russians would find the anti-missile requirement particularly difficult.
The whole system of Aegis ships, anti-sub frigates, anti sub patrol planes, etc. just adds to the expense. Protecting a carrier really ties up a large portion of a Navy's power.



But even with the whole shebang - the Carrier may be obsolete when faced with a competent opponent. If an enemy can put hundreds of missiles in the air and just needs one lucky strike. For much less then the price of a carrier you can buy the air, missile and submarine forces to insure the destruction of anybody else's carriers. Or, failing that, you can make the enemy keep the carrier to far away and sheltered to be usefull. In this way, the carrier shares the same weakness that the Queen has as a chess piece.
So a carrier is too vulnerable in a modern war against anyone with a competent navy and air force. There are only two reasons they remain important in the US Navy, from my point of view .....

.....They are useful power projection tools against opponents who have little means to attack them. They were used in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. They can be used to send fighter sized planes over a place without having a friendly base anywhere nearby, THier escorts can launch cruise missiles, etc. This kind of capability could probably be had cheaper by other means, if we had to build it from the ground up. But since we already have carrier task forces, it makes sense to use them.

......There is a huge community built around the aircraft carrier and its escorts, and that community is resistant to change. The same thing happened with the Battleship before carriers were found superior. It took an actual war (World War II) to make navies realize carriers were superior.

IN SHORT....The current usefulness of the carrier is analogous to the continued use of the Iowa class battleships in the cold war, IMHO. Since the are built and ready they have some uses, However, that does not change the fact that they are essentially obsolete. Russia building carrier task forces would be making the same mistake as someone preparing for World War II by building a huge fleet of Battleships.


User currently offlineUsnseallt82 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 4891 posts, RR: 52
Reply 17, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2966 times:

I think you have some pretty twisted logic on several points here...

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 16):
What I was saying is that the Russians would find the anti-missile requirement particularly difficult.

Russian EW radar systems and missile defense systems are pretty good these days. The fact that they don't need and cannot support an aircraft carrier has nothing to do with their missile defense systems.

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 16):
So a carrier is too vulnerable in a modern war against anyone with a competent navy and air force.

 redflag 

Absolutely inaccurate. The defenses on a carrier, both on the ship and off, have so many different layers that it would take an attack greater than most developed countries can produce to bring it down. There are competent navies and air forces around the world who wouldn't think about going against one of our carriers because of the immense defense network that surrounds them.

To call them too vulnerable in a modern war is simply inaccurate.

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 16):
They are useful power projection tools against opponents who have little means to attack them.

 redflag 

They are useful power projection tools against anyone. I don't think you fully understand the capabilities of our carrier force against a technologically advanced opponent. The problem we are having now is figuring out how to "dumb down" our systems in order to protect ourselves against the primitive, yet effective and often successful, adversaries of today.

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 16):
This kind of capability could probably be had cheaper by other means, if we had to build it from the ground up.

 redflag 

Please, please, PLEASE explain what these other means would entail....

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 16):
There is a huge community built around the aircraft carrier and its escorts, and that community is resistant to change.

Partially true. Every community in the military will do what they can to validate their existence and prove their worth in the global scene. However, we are in an age of extreme cost-cutting measures where guys are getting their stars by finding ways to do it cheaper. There is a real value to having the battle group consist of the different ships that it consists of, far greater than simply because they're resistant to change.  eyebrow 

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 16):
The same thing happened with the Battleship before carriers were found superior. It took an actual war (World War II) to make navies realize carriers were superior.

You do realize the difference in technologies between a WWII ship and today's nuclear powered arsenal, right? I'd like to see what ship would steam out during a modern war that would change our minds towards the usefulness of the carrier.

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 16):
However, that does not change the fact that they are essentially obsolete.

 redflag 

Again, absolutely incorrect. To call one of our nuclear carriers obsolete is about as accurate as calling Jenna Jameson a virgin. You're going to need a little bit of proof to back that one up.



You have to face the facts here...in a modern wartime situation, our carriers are set up to handle damn near every threat that'll come their way. That's what they train for every day. What's cooking our goose is trying to detect Habib from driving a dingy full of stingers into our side while in port.



Crye me a river
User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 18, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2957 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 17):
Quoting Cloudy (Reply 16):
So a carrier is too vulnerable in a modern war against anyone with a competent navy and air force.



Absolutely inaccurate. The defenses on a carrier, both on the ship and off, have so many different layers that it would take an attack greater than most developed countries can produce to bring it down. There are competent navies and air forces around the world who wouldn't think about going against one of our carriers because of the immense defense network that surrounds them.

The carrier group of today is vulnerable to perhaps three air forces out there. The PLAN, the Russians, and perhaps the North Koreans or Iranians if they decided to mass their modern aircraft on the shore someplace. The sheer number of aircraft carrying the specialized missiles that are needed to penetrate the aircraft launched missiles, the ship launched missiles and the close in weapons systems is greater than pretty much what anyone has out there. And that's to get at one of the carriers. Multiple CVGs have serious air defences (even counting the loss of the Phoenix systems...a serious error in my opinion to drop it without a comparable replacement...but they didn't ask me).

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 17):
16):
However, that does not change the fact that they are essentially obsolete.



Again, absolutely incorrect. To call one of our nuclear carriers obsolete is about as accurate as calling Jenna Jameson a virgin. You're going to need a little bit of proof to back that one up.

How are these aircraft carriers obsolete? Dude...each one probably has more combat capability than 3/4s of any air forces out there, and you can put one of these suckers pretty much anywhere you want. Any nation with a carrier group offshore within 1000 miles is no longer what you could call untouchable.

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 17):

They are useful power projection tools against anyone. I don't think you fully understand the capabilities of our carrier force against a technologically advanced opponent. The

You can put 48 multiple-precision weapons armed aircraft in the air and refuel them and direct them to any target. You can make life difficult to impossible for enemy surface and submarine forces, as well as ground targets within a thousand miles of shore (buddy refueling or from USAF/allied forces) and you can penetrate most airspace in the world with a couple of carriers...in the dictionary the word capability has a photo of the USS Ronald Reagan next to it.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineUsnseallt82 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 4891 posts, RR: 52
Reply 19, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2956 times:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 18):
in the dictionary the word capability has a photo of the USS Ronald Reagan next to it.

Damn straight....though our east coast buddies swear by the late JFK. But pish posh...  Big grin



(nice quoting by the way)



Crye me a river
User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 883 posts, RR: 12
Reply 20, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2956 times:

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 14):
1. To control large areas of open water. The aircraft carrier is likely too vulnerable for this today, at least against modern opponents. Increasingly, there is no way to hide it or protect it from a storm of missiles launched from much cheaper platforms. It is hard to sink a carrier, but it is remarkably easy to neutralize it by making it incapable of operating its aircraft. Submarines, long range aircraft + cruise missiles, and smaller stealthy surface craft are likely to fill the sea control role in the future. Russia does not need see control as much as nations more dependent on seaborne trade do. To challenge the US or even Europe or China on the seas would require more than they are willing to invest, and would probably involve more investment in subs and long range land based aircraft, as well as advanced missiles. Using aircraft carriers would be the least efficient way to do it.

You fundamentally do not understand how carrier operations work. Finding a carrier in the middle of an ocean is not nearly as easy as you might think. The Soviets had far more dedicated capability to finding carrier groups than does anyone else in the world currently and even they struggled to do it.

Read the below for more info, it is a decent non-classified source on just how carriers can operate.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-031.htm

I am aware that this article refers to something that happens in 1982. But the USSR had ocean searching sats, which no one else operates in near the numbers at this point and they had scores of maritime recon aircraft along with dozens of subs and dedicated strike aircraft.


User currently offlineWvsuperhornet From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 517 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2728 times:

I would think that the Russians should be more concerned with spending their oil dollars (or Rubles in this case) on building up their infastructure for their citizens. With ther popualtion in serious decline they may build 6 aircraft carriers and man them with their best planes, but who is going to operate them? 6 Aircraft carriers is not a threat to 13 of them in the US Navy. Plus they dont have the naval resources to protect them. I would chalk it up to just talk and would look for them if they acually build them to maybe make 1 or 2 or them and thats a big IF. I do agree with some of the above posts about China I think the Chinese will have maybe 2 or 3 aircraft Carries before the Russians do.

[Edited 2007-08-18 10:16:24]

User currently offlineUsnseallt82 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 4891 posts, RR: 52
Reply 22, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 2692 times:

Quoting Wvsuperhornet (Reply 21):
I would think that the Russians should be more concerned with spending their oil dollars (or Rubles in this case) on building up their infastructure for their citizens.

Goes back to old Cold War talk and inflating of the chest politics. They should be more concerned with the citizens, but they are more worried about putting forth the big red foot again. (minus the red, somewhat)

Quoting Wvsuperhornet (Reply 21):
I would chalk it up to just talk

I would too. I'll be surprised if they get out even one carrier that is anywhere near the capabilities of ours.

But, like I said before, in light of recent events, I can guarantee you that the Russian desk in a few government agencies is probably far more active than it has been in several years.



Crye me a river
User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 2673 times:

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 10):
Then there is the problem that, when push comes to shove, what do the Russians need with aircraft carriers? They do not have interest to defend that necessitate it, for the most part their friends and interest are within fighter range of their borders anymore. Their geography makes it hard at best to field a fleet and concentrate it in war time before it is wiped out in its various parts but if they put it in one place they risk being weeks sailing out of position.

As childish as it might sound, the Russians "need" an aircraft carrier so that they can say they have an aircraft carrier. The other major nations of the world (US, England, France, Italy) have aircraft carriers so it follows this Phoenix (Russian military super power status) would need them too. Is there a practical need? Probably not. Would a carrier allow the Russians to give a "show of force" in a region? Sure, just as surely as US carriers are also used in the "show of force" role from time to time.

Since the Russians appear to be determined to re-emerge as a military super power, it follows they're going to be as intent on producing the proper "image" as much as they're determined to produce the necessary state-of-the-art equipment.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7233 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (7 years 1 month 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2615 times:

I may be missing something here, but during the cold war the Russians were the masters of missile technology, barring accuracy that is. I recall pics of the Kirvak, Kirov ships which were built around multiple layers of defense. I recall looking at their destroyers and comparing them to the Spurance and Kidds class ships, where the US had 1 or 2 phalanx mounts, the Russians had 4 or 5, they also still used AA gun mounts, may not be advanced, but what exactly is a phalanx mount? It relates to the Carrier Task force as I always had the impression that the Russian surface ships had more self protection than the US ships, Aegis may be a wonderful system, but it achilies heel is the number of shots that the ships using it have, with the early retirement of the Tico class, the Burke's carry a much smaller load, you need to be able to do something about the multiple targets inbound that you are tracking. Russians always thought big, their destroyers were like Western cruiser sizes, how many missle shots did they have?

A Russian carrier would serve the same purpose the US carriers does, show the flag and power projection. The Brits have a Caribbean Force ( not sure what its actually called) they believe it is important enough to send a destroyer / frigate to sail through the region and show the flag, they usually catch some drug smugglers and nake a huge media splash, what exactly would it mean to the local media to see a Russian Carrier Battle Group sail through the region and dock in Cuba or South America for a few days? When China have theirs sorted out won't they do the same? It is a question of money, but if the political will is there, it will be done, and with Western funding via trade, is it really their money or just their will?


25 BigJKU : I'm sorry but at no point did that make any sense or have any relation to reality. 1. The Tico's are not being retired early. The non-VLS versions we
26 Post contains links F27Friendship : It took one Dutch Diesel-Electric sub to drown an entire carrier battle-group during a NATO exercise link so yes, carriers are very vulnarable
27 Ozair : I do agree that the Carrier battlegroup is vulnerable to the SSK, especially modern AIP versions using fuel cells. The USN does have it's own sub sup
28 F27Friendship : I think this is a very good point. They might be able to built them, but then learn to play with them will take decades.
29 BigJKU : A rather simple solution that is not allowed in exercises due to the cost is to use helicopters and aircraft to drop large amounts of active sonar de
30 Usnseallt82 : No, they're not. Do they have vulnerabilities? Of course. Anyone who would argue otherwise is doomed to find out the hard way. However, this is why w
31 Ozair : Don't forget the more current environmental effects hunting with active sonar creates. Herding a sub is an effective tactic though, as long as you kn
32 BigJKU : It is almost 100% assured...
33 F27Friendship : Allright, I have to give you, that a single excersize (allthough it was an extremely big eye-opener) does not make a carrier group look like a sittin
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Potential For Russian Carrier Aviation?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
UK Government Picks Team For Aircraft Carrier. posted Thu Jan 30 2003 17:50:25 by GDB
Russian Aircraft Carrier Crash posted Fri Feb 2 2007 23:07:19 by LMP737
For Military Buffs - Hypothetical Re Carrier Group posted Wed Jun 7 2006 22:52:21 by AerospaceFan
Fokker F28 Carrier Tests For US Navy! posted Wed Mar 8 2006 23:05:24 by BuyantUkhaa
Russian AF To Do Stunt-flying In China For Big $$$ posted Wed Mar 1 2006 23:16:00 by USAFHummer
Why It Took 40's Years For A New Class Of Carrier posted Tue Feb 21 2006 00:34:47 by 747400sp
Russian And Ukrainian Naval Aviation On Display posted Sun Aug 15 2004 00:34:42 by GDB
Israel Radar On Russian Jet For India posted Wed Feb 11 2004 09:30:00 by HAWK21M
Carrier Capable Fighter For German Navy? posted Fri Sep 21 2001 10:29:04 by L-188
Potential For Russian Carrier Aviation? posted Fri Aug 3 2007 10:27:16 by Sulman

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format