Why Isn't "Russia" an Aircraft Carrier Superpower? (1 Viewer)

[Litwin]

Putler´s Nigeria with snow goes down down down :lamo
"Current State of Russia’s Carrier Force

At the moment, Russia’s only aircraft carrier is the troubled Admiral Kuznetsov. A ski jump carrier, the Kuznetsov displaces some 60,000 tons, can theoretically make thirty knots, and carry a combination of forty-or-so helicopters and jet fighters. Kuzentsov was commissioned in 1990; a sister remained an incomplete hulk for many years until it was purchased by China and eventually finished as Liaoning. In addition to helicopters, Kuznetsov operates MiG-29K and Su-33 fighter bombers. Like previous Russian carriers, Kuznetsov sports a heavier missile armament than most Western ships.

Unfortunately, hiccups with Kuznetsov have also made it difficult for Russia’s naval aviators to remain practiced and effective. The ship has suffered multiple breakdowns over its career, including significant issues with its engines and recovering aircraft. Many of these difficulties came as consequence of the dramatic decline of maintenance funding at the end of the Cold War, but some was the inevitable result of inexperience with the platform type. Admiral Kuznetsov has engaged in several prestige cruises, but its most notable service came in 2016 off of Syria. After a much publicized journey to the Mediterranean, Kuznetsov conducted combat operations for two months. The operations had more of a publicity impact than a real military effect, and Kuznetsov lost two aircraft (one MiG-29K and one Su-33) to accidents. The carrier is currently in refit.

To support Kuznetsov, Russia attempted to purchase a pair of French assault carriers, but the conquest and annexation of Crimea forced France to cancel the sale. These ships would have served as amphibious platforms with antisubmarine (ASW) capabilities, but also would have given the Russian navy experience with relatively large, technologically advanced vessels. Indeed, part of the deal would have allowed Russia to construct two Mistrals to French specifications in its own yards, which would have provided a major boon to Russian shipbuilding."

Why Isn't Russia an Aircraft Carrier Superpower? | The National Interest Blog

 

[Captain Adverse]

IMO it is simply because aircraft carriers are "power projection" tools; something which gives a major power the ability to strike at other locales throughout the world without having to put "feet on the ground."

Russia is like it's animal symbol, the Russian bear. It is a territorial nation, preferring to protect it's own borders and focus on ground war to preserve and extend those borders.

That's why the Soviet's focused on nuclear subs rather than aircraft carriers. As a nuclear deterrent against American interference, while they maintained strong ground forces and a land-based air force to counter the more immediate threats of NATO and China.

The USA has had the luxury of being bordered by only two relatively weak nations, with a water barrier against invasion by most of the rest of the world. Thus we could focus on naval power projection, so we could interdict invasion and to provide naval air support for our own military actions overseas.

 

[yankintx]

Most of Russia's ports are frozen solid, therefore they have little experience in Naval conquests. Peter the Great did change that with building St Petersburg and his countries Navy. The only way they were able to overpower the German in WWII was the sheer number of troops they could throw at the German Army. Many German soldiers would describe killing one Russian soldier and there would be 2 to take his place. There Navy was, and still is inferior to not only the US fleet but the British fleet as well.

 

[Litwin]

 

[Abbazorkzog]

Is the pic ture of the guy wearing blackface really necessary?

 

[tecoyah]

This is likely a matter of technology, Finances, skilled experience, logistics and acceptance of dominance. Russia tried to buy an aircraft carrier and was rejected after Ukraine, sanctions also came into play at that point eliminating cash flow and the military infrastructure is simply not there to take on construction of such a large and detailed project. Russian navy units have been neglected and are a good 20 years behind western advancement.

 

[Evilroddy]

Because large power-projection, nuclear-powered, strike aircraft carriers are an enormous waste of the public's money and the state's scarce resources to build, operate and protect in sufficient numbers to be effective, unless your country is hell-bent on bankrupting itself as a global superpower and mono-polar naval military hegemon. Russian aircraft carriers were IIRC all smaller and more modest conventionally-powered, ASW carriers or cruise missile-armed anti-shipping cruisers for defensive operations in waters nearer to the USSR (the never-completed Leonid Brezhnev excepted) and were not designed to be nuclear-powered, power-projection, strike carriers supported by flotillas of frigates, destroyers, cruisers and attack submarines which were designed to aggressively threaten foreign states along or near distant shores by forcefully projecting military naval power into foreign waters and airspace. The USSR and later Russia were wise enough to realise that they could not sustain such a force for very long without destroying their own economies and that such a force was not in line with achieving their more modest strategic military and foreign policy interests.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[BobDick]

why put Russia in quotes?

 

[Evilroddy]

Oops. I just refreshed my memory. The Kuznetsov was the old Riga-class Leonid Brezhnev trimmed down, launched and renamed twice as a aircraft carrying guided missile cruiser. Still, it was never intended as a power projection tool.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[Rexedgar]

Maybe it has been due to the Russians being unable to secure a “warm water” port?

At least until they ‘annexed’ Crimea. Still have to come through the Dardanelles......

 

[Rogue Valley]

Most Russian surface ships are crap. They still don't have a naval inclination and never did. China will do much better.

 

[beerftw]

Putler´s Nigeria with snow goes down down down :lamo
"Current State of Russia’s Carrier Force

At the moment, Russia’s only aircraft carrier is the troubled Admiral Kuznetsov. A ski jump carrier, the Kuznetsov displaces some 60,000 tons, can theoretically make thirty knots, and carry a combination of forty-or-so helicopters and jet fighters. Kuzentsov was commissioned in 1990; a sister remained an incomplete hulk for many years until it was purchased by China and eventually finished as Liaoning. In addition to helicopters, Kuznetsov operates MiG-29K and Su-33 fighter bombers. Like previous Russian carriers, Kuznetsov sports a heavier missile armament than most Western ships.

Unfortunately, hiccups with Kuznetsov have also made it difficult for Russia’s naval aviators to remain practiced and effective. The ship has suffered multiple breakdowns over its career, including significant issues with its engines and recovering aircraft. Many of these difficulties came as consequence of the dramatic decline of maintenance funding at the end of the Cold War, but some was the inevitable result of inexperience with the platform type. Admiral Kuznetsov has engaged in several prestige cruises, but its most notable service came in 2016 off of Syria. After a much publicized journey to the Mediterranean, Kuznetsov conducted combat operations for two months. The operations had more of a publicity impact than a real military effect, and Kuznetsov lost two aircraft (one MiG-29K and one Su-33) to accidents. The carrier is currently in refit.

To support Kuznetsov, Russia attempted to purchase a pair of French assault carriers, but the conquest and annexation of Crimea forced France to cancel the sale. These ships would have served as amphibious platforms with antisubmarine (ASW) capabilities, but also would have given the Russian navy experience with relatively large, technologically advanced vessels. Indeed, part of the deal would have allowed Russia to construct two Mistrals to French specifications in its own yards, which would have provided a major boon to Russian shipbuilding."

Why Isn't Russia an Aircraft Carrier Superpower? | The National Interest Blog

Russian navy does not project force nor has a need to, their navy is defensive, and their navy fleet stays within range of their ground launched aircraft for support. Their navy is extremely effective at what it does, but their navy does not play the same roles as western powers, when russia projects power it does it by land rather than sea.

 

[beerftw]

Most Russian surface ships are crap. They still don't have a naval inclination and never did. China will do much better.

Russian naval ships are actually quite advanced, with the exception of their carriers. Russians like to use small ships like corvettes with cruise missiles and torpedos, basically their navy is designed to protect their waters and take out other ships that cross it, rather than projecting power abroad.

 

[beerftw]

Maybe it has been due to the Russians being unable to secure a “warm water” port?

At least until they ‘annexed’ Crimea. Still have to come through the Dardanelles......

Russia extends south of crimea, their are other warm water ports they could build, and to add to that prior to annexation russia has leased crimea since the breakup of the soviet union and only annexed it because the govt was overthrown and the new pro western govt was going to violate that treaty.


If you do not understand russian navy doctrine it is defense by nature, their land forces are offensive. The russians like bottlenecks and crimea offered one, while building a naval base further south was possible it would not have the protection one in crimea would.

 

[vegas giants]

Russia extends south of crimea, their are other warm water ports they could build, and to add to that prior to annexation russia has leased crimea since the breakup of the soviet union and only annexed it because the govt was overthrown and the new pro western govt was going to violate that treaty.


If you do not understand russian navy doctrine it is defense by nature, their land forces are offensive. The russians like bottlenecks and crimea offered one, while building a naval base further south was possible it would not have the protection one in crimea would.

Carriers are useless....unless you want to invade a country....then you should have ten of them like us

 

[beerftw]

Carriers are useless....unless you want to invade a country....then you should have ten of them like us

russia could invade plenty of countries but I doubt they would get carriers like america, they invade by land.

if you read enough history, you will see why russia sold alaska cheap and quick and why russia abandoned northern calii through washington and let the spanish have it, it is because they do not have offensive naval capabilities or the ability to extend their logistics a far distance without landmass attatched to it. They were afraid america or britain would use their navy to take alaska and that the russians could not supply troops that far to fight a war or even have a navy capable to projecting power that far, so they sold alaska while they thought they could profit off it instead of waiting for someone to take it.

The northwest united states was occupied by russia before the spanish, This was the same scenario as alaska but far more extreme, the land mass needed to go from alaska through canada down to northern california for logistics was far too much to hold, with the spanish settling san fransisco as a fort to stop russian expansion to the south. Russia realized might makes right and they could not extend their might that far without onnecting land and sold their forts in cali and walked away, knowing if they stayed the spanish would have taken them.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Russia doesn't have a lot of carriers because it's never needed them. Carriers are primarily a tool for force projection, something the Soviet navy never focused on even at it's height. Soviet naval doctrine was always focused on it's fleet of nuclear submarines with all surface assets, even it's carriers, designed to support it's nuclear subs.

 

[Tangmo]

Most Russian surface ships are crap. They still don't have a naval inclination and never did. China will do much better.

Chinese are far less inclined historically than the Russians are toward naval power. China has always had a small ship and small force river cruising navy that considered it the big time to sail onto a lake. China's only seagoing fleet was burned by the Ming emperor after he saw the foreign influences on its sailors from the cook to the admiral. The Admiral btw was the eunuch Zeng He (pron her) a Muslim where Chinese have always got along famously with Muslims. Even the differences between the two have similarities.

russia could invade plenty of countries but I doubt they would get carriers like america, they invade by land.

if you read enough history, you will see why russia sold alaska cheap and quick and why russia abandoned northern calii through washington and let the spanish have it, it is because they do not have offensive naval capabilities or the ability to extend their logistics a far distance without landmass attatched to it. They were afraid america or britain would use their navy to take alaska and that the russians could not supply troops that far to fight a war or even have a navy capable to projecting power that far, so they sold alaska while they thought they could profit off it instead of waiting for someone to take it.

The northwest united states was occupied by russia before the spanish, This was the same scenario as alaska but far more extreme, the land mass needed to go from alaska through canada down to northern california for logistics was far too much to hold, with the spanish settling san fransisco as a fort to stop russian expansion to the south. Russia realized might makes right and they could not extend their might that far without onnecting land and sold their forts in cali and walked away, knowing if they stayed the spanish would have taken them.

San Francisco is a hellovalot farther from Spain than it is from Russia. The Russian Army never invaded any further than Berlin and Manchuria in 1945 and the disaster in Afghanistan 1979-89. Russian armed forces are homeboyz land, sea, air. Since the Cold War their subs are the principal exception and their own subs have killed more Russian sailors than any enemy has.

The US Doctrine of AirSea Battle is designed to clear the near seas and skies of Russians while pounding 'em on the land. Move US Army corps to engage on the land inside their borders but don't penetrate. Engage only. Russia's cyber and electronic warfare isn't enough. Nor can it be sustained. As Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley said before the US Army Association in 2016 loud enough for Putin to hear him, "When we show up on your doorstep, you will know it's for real. We will beat you and we will beat you harder than you've ever been beaten before." Gen. Milley is in fact the guy in uniform everyone in the Pentagon looks to to lead the armed forces in whatever it knows it must do in the present context.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Russian naval ships are actually quite advanced, with the exception of their carriers. Russians like to use small ships like corvettes with cruise missiles and torpedos, basically their navy is designed to protect their waters and take out other ships that cross it, rather than projecting power abroad.

Their subs are advanced. Their surface ships don't match up to US in quality. Hazing is also a big problem in the Russian Navy.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Chinese are far less inclined historically than the Russians are toward naval power.

I know. But that is changing under Xi.

 

[Litwin]

Most Russian surface ships are crap. They still don't have a naval inclination and never did. China will do much better.

Its down, down , down )))
"By comparison

The Russian navy had an interesting 20th century. In 1905 Russia was a credible second-tier naval power, with sizable, modern fleets in the Baltic, the Pacific and the Black Sea. The destruction of the former two fleets at the hands of the Japanese caused a crisis, but in 13 years after the Battle of Tsushima, Russia would put seven dreadnoughts into service despite the disruption of World War I.

This placed Russia in firmly the same company as France or Italy, although well behind Britain, Germany, Japan and the United States.

The Bolshevik Revolution, not unlike the collapse of the Soviet Union, simultaneously forced a consolidation of existing forces and a renunciation of planned new construction. Like the Russian Federation, the Soviet Union futzed through the first 20 years of its existence without a clear idea of what it wanted from its navy, before embarking — on the eve of World War II — on a massive construction program.

The war disrupted these plans, but also provided clarity; Russia’s strength and security lay in its army, rather than in its navy. Nevertheless, the Soviet navy steadily increased in strength across the Cold War, at some point clearly passing the French and British fleets and becoming the world’s second most powerful navy.

And then everything fell apart, again. The Russian navy could not maintain the fleet it inherited, much less afford the pace of new construction necessary to keep its military shipbuilding industry healthy. A death spiral ensued, as the cost of maintaining older ships increased, along with the build time for new vessels, while the quality of maintenance and construction declined.

The financial crisis of the last few years, brought about by a combination of sanctions and cratering oil prices, helped snuff out signs of life in everything other than submarine construction.

International comparisons don’t do Russia any favors. China will have at least three aircraft carriers by the time Russia commissions its second; India will have at least two, as will the United Kingdom. In terms of regular surface combatants, the situation looks rather worse.

As noted above, France, Britain, Japan and China have all commissioned major, large surface warships in the last decade, all of which cleanly outclass Russia’s legacy ships in terms of technological sophistication. The comparison with China is particularly stark. While Russia has commissioned five major surface combatants since 2000, three of which were laid down during the Soviet period, China has commissioned about 40.

These numbers will get worse over the next few years."https://warisboring.com/the-russian-navy-is-in-a-death-spiral/

 

[beerftw]

Chinese are far less inclined historically than the Russians are toward naval power. China has always had a small ship and small force river cruising navy that considered it the big time to sail onto a lake. China's only seagoing fleet was burned by the Ming emperor after he saw the foreign influences on its sailors from the cook to the admiral. The Admiral btw was the eunuch Zeng He (pron her) a Muslim where Chinese have always got along famously with Muslims. Even the differences between the two have similarities.









San Francisco is a hellovalot farther from Spain than it is from Russia. The Russian Army never invaded any further than Berlin and Manchuria in 1945 and the disaster in Afghanistan 1979-89. Russian armed forces are homeboyz land, sea, air. Since the Cold War their subs are the principal exception and their own subs have killed more Russian sailors than any enemy has.

The US Doctrine of AirSea Battle is designed to clear the near seas and skies of Russians while pounding 'em on the land. Move US Army corps to engage on the land inside their borders but don't penetrate. Engage only. Russia's cyber and electronic warfare isn't enough. Nor can it be sustained. As Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley said before the US Army Association in 2016 loud enough for Putin to hear him, "When we show up on your doorstep, you will know it's for real. We will beat you and we will beat you harder than you've ever been beaten before." Gen. Milley is in fact the guy in uniform everyone in the Pentagon looks to to lead the armed forces in whatever it knows it must do in the present context.

San francisco was much farther from spain than russia, but that matters little as it was attached to spanish territory with a navy and local logistics to supply it, russia lacked both for alaska south. Now on the doctrine you mention, I doubt that is a very bright doctrine, it sounds more like a loudmouthed general who never studied the cold war. Russian navy would play a defensive role, the us has far more aircraft and attack aircraft, but russia has more air superiority fighters than america. Cyber warfare can be a game changer but not a winner by itself, it would only be effective with a combined strategy.

If you look at what the russian military has even post soviet area, they are not something we could just roll over, they still directly rival our military in strength of personel, armor and aircraft, russia also has some of the most advanced systems in the world combined with their antique crap, and their land would be one of the hardest spots on earth to invade, armies multitudes more powerful than russia in the past have failed to take them. Considering that the united states has only fought broke third world nations that have trouble keeping few ancient aircraft or tanks in service, I doubt any of the modern generals have a clue to what they think will happen.

The old cold war generals trained and worked day and night on strategies to fight the russians, the modern generals often have put no care or thought into it in a post soviet world. mattis on the other hand worked hard to convince trump not to strike russian assets in the last strike, which was wise of him, russia had assets ready not only to down aircraft, but to sink the entire coalition surface fleet near syria. Mattis got the name mad dog for a reason but he seems to be more pragmatic than others, he likes to avoid conflicts if necessary and avoid charging into battle half cocked.

 

[beerftw]

Their subs are advanced. Their surface ships don't match up to US in quality. Hazing is also a big problem in the Russian Navy.

Their small class ships are actually quite well built and even being upgraded regularly. in terms of quality russia has many anti ship cruise missiles that directly rival us ships, advanced radar systems etc. Their carrier class ships, or should I say ship is terrible, but russia never had a need for it, so it never got the attention it's smaller ships got. Russias favorite is the corvette class which america has zero of, they are small fast ships that carry anti ship missiles.


fyi hazing was and still is a problem in the us navy as well as the whole military. When my father was in the navy stationed at norfolk, one of the ships had a big problem with hazing that was killing people. they would have an officer or senior nco put on a 3d eagle ring and punch them right over the heart so it would dig into the flesh and leave an eagle shaped scar, the thing got attention because some people died from it, and the ship could only cover it up so far before it became a news headline.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Their small class ships are actually quite well built and even being upgraded regularly. in terms of quality russia has many anti ship cruise missiles that directly rival us ships, advanced radar systems etc. Their carrier class ships, or should I say ship is terrible, but russia never had a need for it, so it never got the attention it's smaller ships got. Russias favorite is the corvette class which america has zero of, they are small fast ships that carry anti ship missiles.


fyi hazing was and still is a problem in the us navy as well as the whole military. When my father was in the navy stationed at norfolk, one of the ships had a big problem with hazing that was killing people. they would have an officer or senior nco put on a 3d eagle ring and punch them right over the heart so it would dig into the flesh and leave an eagle shaped scar, the thing got attention because some people died from it, and the ship could only cover it up so far before it became a news headline.

Although America is getting into the very fast very expensive very lightly armed and probably with very low surviviability shipbuilding business as we try to bump of the fleet totals.

Showing the flag is going to be enough, apparently.

 

[Litwin]

Although America is getting into the very fast very expensive very lightly armed and probably with very low surviviability shipbuilding business as we try to bump of the fleet totals.

Showing the flag is going to be enough, apparently.

agreed,