Should Russia build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

While russia for now and the near future may well have the best brown water fleet it is no match for the multiple cNATO carrier groups on the high seas. The USSR started building its first true aircraft carrier(not small aviation cruisers)  the Ulyanovsk but the fall of the union caused it being scrapped. With China working on building its own carriers and America adding the Gerald Ford class into their naval arsenal do you think Russia should start putting money on making a new carrier or battlecruiser to replace the becoming obsolete Kirov class?
Having a capable blue water fleet is essential to spread your influence globally and the USSR knew that so they continuously upgraded their fleet up to the fall of the soviet union. After that most of  the russian navy's ships were scrapped leaving with a tiny force of cold war era weaponry. But now that the fleet is modernising it should be an objective of paramount importance to return the blue and green water capability of the russian navy. Lets hope that MoD has that in mind.

I think the two Kirov class vessels they intend to give a significant upgrade to should suffice for the next 30-40 years. Large ships tend to last longer than small ships as long as their fundamental design is sound.

The Kirovs' main drawback was the combined nuclear and diesel propulsion that meant it could sail everywhere at 16knts with nuclear only or it could use its fuel and hit 30+ knots but only for a few thousand NM till the fuel ran out.

That was because the Soviets had not developed a compact powerful nuclear power plant for large vessels and carriers.

AFAIK they have been working on this and now have or will soon have such a NPP that can power large vessels without making a large vessel really really large.

Russia doesn't need carriers because China has them or because the US has them... the Russian Army has experienced real combat with no air support and knows the penalty paid for such a situation.

It simply makes sense to have airpower as a component for both the Navy and the Army, simply because it extends vision and extends reach that simply makes the ground forces or sea forces or undersea forces safer, and more effective at the same time.

The new Russian carriers don't need to be Nimitz super carriers... in fact the Kuznetsov is a very good size, and the major overhaul it will go through to add catapults (EM hopefully) and a nuclear power plant as well as the removal of the Granits... in addition to completely upgrading the electronics and wiring, and of course all the fuel capacity for the ship can be converted to fuel capacity for the aircraft and of course more ordinance storage and food and supplies for the crews.

The upgraded Kirovs will no doubt receive other upgrades during their operational lives, as will the Kuznetsov.

The ideal number of carriers is a multiple of three, so 3 or 6.

The reason being the cycle of training, operational, and upgrade is pretty much continuous. Lots of countries with single carriers have problems where their carriers are called hangar queens because they are never ready when needed.

The reality is that this is just bad planning... ie being cheap.

If you want one carrier to be guaranteed to be available then you need to buy three. That means there will always be one ship scheduled to be available at any one time and in a real emergency you could guarantee to have two available.

With only one vessel... if it is in dry dock getting a major refit it doesn't matter if it is WWIII... it just wont be available.

With the Russian situation I would suggest 6 carriers, three in the Pacific Fleet and three in the Northern Fleet, though they could probably get away with two in each fleet.

The current air component will be Mig-29K2s, but by the time the first new carrier enters service it will no doubt carry a mix of PAK FA and UCAVs.

Oh well, would've been awsome if a new succesor for the kirov was in development that is larger, with stealth technology, more and newer missiles, much better missile shield and more lethal in every way.
The kuznetsov isnt an aircraft carrier its and aviation cruiser because it carries too little aircraft(only 12 Su-33s which would be severely outnumbered in a possible battle with a NATO carrier group) compared to true carriers like the nimitz and charle de gaulle and are also armed with antiship missiles.

It is a pity that none of the Kiev class cruisers remain in service. They couldve been upgraded like the Vikhramiditya giving russia some good light carriers better than the british Invincible class.

IMO Russia should start building a couple of aircraft carriers similar to the cancelled 70000 ton Ulyanovsk which had much more aircraft than the kuznetsov, with the same antiship armament yet still lighter than the nimitz.

BTW even 4 upgraded kirovs are highly outnumbered by the ticonderoga class and hundreds of harpoon carrying destroyers and aircraft of the NATO navies and so it would be a good idea to build a couple more battlecruisers

Trying to match all of NATO is an unachievable, pointless and wastefully task at this point.

Oh well, would've been awsome if a new succesor for the kirov was in development that is larger, with stealth technology, more and newer missiles, much better missile shield and more lethal in every way.

Actually I am quite looking forward to see what they do to the existing Kirovs to upgrade them.

The Kirov was already quite stealthy in terms of its vertical launch weapons and hull shaping.

A British Naval officer once said that the best way to detect the Kirov was from its wake because the radar signature was relatively small, but its wake was large.

I am looking forward to seeing the new destroyer design, but would rather see more support ships and smaller ships produced to replace a lot of older vessels that need to be retired.

If given a full upgrade the Kirovs will be formidibly armed and as time progresses it will get even better armed as new missiles and guns become available.

For instance the 130mm guns could be replaced with the new 152mm guns that were joint developed with the army (koalitsia) that offer the capacity to fire old shells to 40km and new shells to 80km and to allow standard shells to be fitted with guidance kits that use GLONASS to enable shots to land within 10m of the target in all weathers day or night... which sounds impressive... and it is pretty good, but set for air burst they could be devastating to a range of target types.

Of course the 152mm guns might be for Destroyers and there might be a 203mm gun for Cruisers...

The kuznetsov isnt an aircraft carrier its and aviation cruiser because it carries too little aircraft(only 12 Su-33s which would be severely outnumbered in a possible battle with a NATO carrier group) compared to true carriers like the nimitz and charle de gaulle and are also armed with antiship missiles.

It is an aviation cruiser because if it was called an aircraft carrier there would be issues with it sailing through the Turkish straights to the Black Sea.

With the massive upgrade that will remove the Granits it is likely rather more aircraft can be carried, and with the purchase of Mig-29K2s they will almost certainly carry more than 12 fighters.

Keep in mind that US carriers are strike carriers so they need fighters to protect the ships in the battle group, but they also need fighters to protect the strike aircraft... Granits don't need an escort.

With EM cats of course they will likely add heavy aircraft like AWACS, but will also be able to launch fighters at heavier weights which should make them more capable.

It is a pity that none of the Kiev class cruisers remain in service. They couldve been upgraded like the Vikhramiditya giving russia some good light carriers better than the british Invincible class.

Well yes and no. Not saying anything against the Indians... they wanted a carrier in a hurry and what they are getting will be a good vessel in my option, but with Russia they need to upgrade port facilities, they need to build new support and supply ships, and they need some decent destroyers and a couple of fully upgraded cruisers in service before they think about putting lots of carriers into use, so if they have the time they should use it wisely developing brand new carriers from scratch using new technology and new knowledge gained from studying carrier operations around the world and make sure what they build is not a white elephant, but a capable ship that is flexible and will do what they need without blowing the budget every time the engines are turned on.

IMO Russia should start building a couple of aircraft carriers similar to the cancelled 70000 ton Ulyanovsk which had much more aircraft than the kuznetsov, with the same antiship armament yet still lighter than the nimitz.

Russia has its own interests, and one of them is not to over spend to outdo all of Europe and north america (NATO).

Russia needs to look at what it needs and wants and then build a force based on that... they wont ever need to control the north atlantic or pacific, but it might want to send a battlegroup to almost anywhere on earth to promote its interests.

I say build up the Russian navy and its home ports and foster good international relations and restore supply and maintainence ports where they are welcome... like in Cuba and in Vietnam.

Anyone with a family knows that if you are going to the middle of nowhere you take everything in case you can't resupply, so it becomes a major expedition. If you know where you are going and know you have a bed for the night and shops to buy food and supplies if you forget something it becomes much easier to take that trip... there is less risk and it is easier and simpler to plan what you are going to do when you get there... it is easier to go more often.

BTW even 4 upgraded kirovs are highly outnumbered by the ticonderoga class and hundreds of harpoon carrying destroyers and aircraft of the NATO navies and so it would be a good idea to build a couple more battlecruisers

4 upgraded Kirovs is unlikely. More likely 2 upgraded Kirovs and perhaps 4 upgraded Slava class ships could form the backbone of two battle groups... one for each of the northern and pacific fleets.

The advantage of unified upgrades means that the Slavas and Kirovs will have the same NPP, the same cruise missile launchers (UKSK), the same missile launchers (Redut), the same guns, the same electronics and sensors, so maintainence and support will be greatly improved and simplified for all vessels.

Previously there was a range of different missile armament like SS-N-14, SS-N-22, SS-N-19, SS-N-12, and each with its own sets of sensors are all replaced by the UKSK system which can perform existing anti ship and anti sub missions and adds land attack capability. The Redut SAM system will do the same for SAMs. The unification of weapons and sensors includes upgrades to more stealth friendly vertical launch bins and of course advanced AESA sensor and Thermal Imager and EO arrays.

I agree a from scratch new design cruiser would be cool, but for the moment it makes more sense to upgrade existing designs to reduce their operational costs and to unify their design with the new weapons and sensors being fitted to new vessels. These new multipurpose designs are new for the Russian Navy which pretty much had custom designed vessels for their every need. The custom design optimised their performance for their particular purpose, but meant a logistic and maintainence nightmare with all the different systems.

The added problem was that the custom designs were not produced in large numbers.

I have mentioned before on a different thread that by building a new destroyer you can pretty much replace the Udaloy and Sovremmeny with one vessel, so instead of making 14 Udaloys and 14 Sovremmenys you can make 30 new destroyers that all have the same propulsion and weapons options. A Udaloy class vessel for anti sub use has 8 SS-N-14 Silex anti sub missiles as its primary armament. A Sovremmeny class vessel has 8 ready to fire Sunburns (SS-N-22). A new Destroyer fitted with two UKSK launchers can carry up to 16 missiles that could include Onyx/yakhont/brahmos... a replacement for Sunburn with higher speed and much longer range, Klub missiles including subsonic and supersonic anti ship missiles, a subsonic 2,500km range land attack missile, or a 40km range anti sub missile that delivers a guided torpedo... much the same as the SS-N-14 Silex. This means the new destroyer can have double the main armament of either the Udaloy or Sovremmeny, or a balanced combination of both armaments (ie 8 x Onyx and 8 x Klub anti sub). This makes the vessel much more flexible and versatile and cheaper to make in larger numbers. The flexibility means you could probably make 20 instead of the 28 of the two earlier types you would need.

Trying to match all of NATO is an unachievable, pointless and wastefully task at this point.

Totally agree. I think Putin has given up the cold war, his push to upgrade the Russian military is not to face NATO or the US, it is to make it a more capable more compact mobile force that can do damage well beyond its size that can protect Russia from any threat. Major threats like US or NATO can be dealt with more effectively and efficiently with nuclear weapons... tactical and strategic, so wasting money on a conventional force to take on the world will just make life in Russia less comfortable... and remember it is the Russian taxpayers that are going to pay for the military.

But even if the russian navie's doctrine is home water defence would be excessive to build 1 or 2 more admiral kuznetsov sized carriers giving the navy a little more aviation capability and giving it a little more reach in defensive or closed water operations?

The Kirov class of cruisers are outstanding battle cruisers and Yes, Russia needs to build more such cruisers but no more aircraft carriers please . Aircraft carriers are slow moving and are highly vunerable to modern day anti ship cruise missiles. Instead Russia should build a larger number of smaller flattops - smaller, light carriers .

But even if the russian navie's doctrine is home water defence would be excessive to build 1 or 2 more admiral kuznetsov sized carriers giving the navy a little more aviation capability and giving it a little more reach in defensive or closed water operations?

Home defence can be supported by land based aircraft that are cheaper to buy and operate.

The main reason for carrier based aircraft is the ability to project power globally.

The colonial powers of Europe like Portugal, Spain, Britain, and France relied on their navies to support colonies around the world... they did not become global powers and then build powerful navies... the powerful navies came first.

A global reach gives a government and a country options it would other wise not have.

Not always perfect of course... Americas enormous naval power was of no use when Georgia invaded South Ossetia, but in other instances it has been very useful.

With piracy still a problem the capacity to send a group of ships to an area to apply pressure, or to protect your interests will become more and more valuable.

If the north pole region continues to melt and become more viable as a trade route then support and control of that will be of interest to Russia.

Having just one carrier like they do at the moment is not cheap and may not be available when actually needed.

It is going into overhaul for about 5 years shortly to have a major upgrade, so any problem that occurs in the next 5 years will not be able to be handled with naval sea based air power... unless the Mistrals can deal with it like a surprise Japanese invasion of the Kuriles.

The main point is that the focus will be on carriers for defence of the naval vessels within the carrier group.

Any land strike or engagement of enemy ships can be left to the range of cruise missiles on board the vessels... and when the new frigates have twice the main armament missiles as Soviet destroyers then a Russian carrier group will be very powerful. Carriers will add air protection rings and extend the reach and vision of the group.

Very simply the AEGIS class cruiser in the persian gulf that shot down an Iranian airbus in the 1980s didn't have the option to send up a fighter squad to investigate the incoming blip on the radar screen... if they had I rather suspect hundreds of lives would have been saved both in the Persian Gulf that day and over Lockerbie a few years later... Even an unmanned drone could have been flown up to intercept the blip and identify it as not being an F-14, or a military aircraft.

Aircraft carriers are slow moving and are highly vunerable to modern day anti ship cruise missiles. Instead Russia should build a larger number of smaller flattops - smaller, light carriers .

They are not planning super carriers... it is my understanding that something in the 30-40K ton range is what they are aiming for. The main priorities would be AWACS and fighters and drones, so the electronic view from the sea surface up to space can be observed, and anything of interest can be investigated in a way that is not lethal.

They will have four Mistrals, but real fighter aircover and a platform that proper AWACS aircraft can operate from would be useful. Fixed wing carriers result in more effective air power than VSTOL carriers in my opinion... the Sea Harrier is a formidable aircraft, but a Mig-35 or Su-35 or PAK FA would be rather better.

[quote="GarryB"]

They are not planning super carriers... it is my understanding that something in the 30-40K ton range is what they are aiming for. The main priorities would be AWACS and fighters and drones, so the electronic view from the sea surface up to space can be observed, and anything of interest can be investigated in a way that is not lethal.

Thats why a few Kuznetsov sized carriers are a good idea...

Of course now that I think about it the new AESA radar being developed for the Ka-52 for use on the Mistrals would give that aircraft excellent air to air and air to surface capabilities, and as such the Mistral based Hokums should be able to carry and effectively use AAMs. Of course lack of speed or altitude would seriously reduce the performance of these missiles in combat, but against other helicopters and maritime patrol aircraft such weapons would be quite potent.

As radar pickets however I would expect target data it could transmit back to the ship should allow a helo to fly at altitudes of 4-5Km up and scan and track incoming threats or targets that could be engaged by ship based missiles or helo based AAMs.

Yes 1 or 2 UKSKs will not entirely make the carrier a worthless burden in case all its aircraft get shot down.

And here is my idea for a layout of the new russian battlecruiser:
A 45000 ton vessel with a kirov type hull modified to emit less wake. And covered with RAM of course.

The superstructure would be near the center of the hull(a nearer to the stern) unlike the back mounted kirov. With RCS reducing design and RAM coating.

In the same approximate position where the granits were placed in the Kirov there would be 25 heavy warhead long range high supersonic stealth(the adjectives just keep coming) AshM, a succesor of the granit. My personal designation for it would be P-900 Opal

Very near the AshM launchers there would be a naval S-500 launcher carrying almost 100 SAMs.

For secondary surface to surface weaponry there would be 8 UKSKs- 4 near the stern, 2near the bow and the last 2 somewhere on the aft superstructure area. The default laod for them would be land attack and ASW clubs.

There would be multiple vityaz casettes in around the ship.

For CIWS the same layout as the kirov- 4 naval pantsirs on each side.

For artillery the ship would have 3 naval koalitsiya turrets- 1 fore and 2 aft

And in the stern a small hangar carrying 3 helos

Thats all the equipment my battlecruiser design would have

plus all the latest available sensor and jamming systems ...

What do you think of my proposed layout?

I think it would be a scary beast that has zero chance of ever being built

Yes 1 or 2 UKSKs will not entirely make the carrier a worthless burden in case all its aircraft get shot down.

No carrier would have all its aircraft shot down... after it lost a few it would be used more defensively and withdrawn to a more defensive position.

Used properly a carrier compliments the air defence of the group... much the same as an airforce protects an army, except this airforce has a mobile airfield.

In the same approximate position where the granits were placed in the Kirov there would be 25 heavy warhead long range high supersonic stealth(the adjectives just keep coming) AshM, a succesor of the granit. My personal designation for it would be P-900 Opal

Intersting... but can I suggest that instead of 25 dedicated launchers that you adapt the Brahmos II to the UKSK launcher. A converted Kirov class vessel can be adapted to 10 UKSK launchers, which means 80 hypersonic long range anti ship missiles.

Very near the AshM launchers there would be a naval S-500 launcher carrying almost 100 SAMs.

S-500 will be optimised for ABM use... that is a lot of missiles considering there are no known effective ballistic anti ship missiles.

I would recommend perhaps carrying 10 missiles so the vessel can protect a port or small country, or could be positioned in the path of a BM attack.

For secondary surface to surface weaponry there would be 8 UKSKs- 4 near the stern, 2near the bow and the last 2 somewhere on the aft superstructure area. The default laod for them would be land attack and ASW clubs.

Upgraded Kirovs are to be fitted with 10 UKSK launchers so I would expect a 45K ton vessel to take at least 3 times that number.

There would be multiple vityaz casettes in around the ship.

Naval Vityaz equivalents are called Redut.

For CIWS the same layout as the kirov- 4 naval pantsirs on each side.

I would take the 8 Pantsirs and add Morfei in vertical launch tubes, and probably half a dozen Duet mounts as well.

For artillery the ship would have 3 naval koalitsiya turrets- 1 fore and 2 aft

Actually I would put Coalition on my destroyers... this is a cruiser and I would put 203mm guns on it.

What do you think of my proposed layout?

I like it, except for the comments above.

I think the idea of standardisation is excellent and I would strive to have all the cruise missiles in UKSK launchers... simply because that means more flexibility. If the naval S-500 fitted in a UKSK launcher then instead of its own dedicated S-500 launcher you could have S-500 missiles sprinkled around your ship with the spying enemy not knowing how many you are carrying or even if you are carrying.

With the SAMs having them all loaded into the Redut system is a similar advantage for all the same reasons, though it would need to be designed so that it can either carry the largest missiles, or increasing numbers of smaller missiles. ie the standard S-300 full sized missile is the biggest missile size it would take and it would take one per tube. The small S-400 missiles fit four to a tube. You would need to make sure that Morfei, which is a small IIR guided missile could be packed into two layers in the tube so perhaps 6 missiles per layer and two layers per tube means that one tube = 1 S-300 = 4 x S-400 small missiles = 12 Morfei missiles.

This means that depending on the mission the weapon load can be very much adapted to what is needed without needing different launchers for different weapons with different performances.

BTW I agree with TR-1... cool but even the US couldn't afford it.

[quote="GarryB"]

BTW I agree with TR-1... cool but even the US couldn't afford it.

I wouldnt be surprised if the US would replace half its nimitz class carriers with gerald ford ones and build 20 more zumwalt class destroyers by 2020.

Even UK with all its budget cuts will build 2 queen elizabeth supercarriers plus 6 type 45 destroyers so why cant russia whose economy is on the rise build 1 or 2 new battlecruisers?

The UK can barely afford one Queen Elizabeth, the other isn't going to be in service, the only reason they are completing it is to avoid cancellation fees.

20 more Zumwalt is impossible, the class has been capped at a far lower number.

Even UK with all its budget cuts will build 2 queen elizabeth supercarriers plus 6 type 45 destroyers so why cant russia whose economy is on the rise build 1 or 2 new battlecruisers?

The UK will most likely build one QE carrier... and by no means would I call it a super carrier... it is no 100K ton Nimitz class vessel.

Most likely they will try to convince France to share their carrier program so they can get around the problems of just having one operational carrier.

In other words they will make an agreement with France to ensure that they both don't have their carriers in overhaul at the same time so if one or both countries need a carrier capability that one or the other carrier will be available for use.

Russia is in the middle of a rebuilding phase to reconstruct its Army, Navy, Air Force, and Aerospace Defence forces.

The question they will ask is, is this something that is truly necessary right now or are there more important things to spend money on.

Will two super cruisers make them safer or will it just cost a lot of money.

Right now I would suggest it is the latter.

They have Two Kirovs they can upgrade and overhaul, they have 3-4 Slava class cruisers that can be given a similar upgrade using the same propulsion and sensor and weapon changes so that the future Russian fleet has standard propulsion and sensors and weapons so it is not a nightmare to operate and support, and it also means that suppliers of the equipment and weapons and systems can concentrate on core products instead of a different radar for each ship class and no two sets the same.

This will improve the performance of the Navy and also reduce costs and the military industrial complex that supports the navy can be consolidated down to fewer companies that will support a larger number of ships.

The old Russian/Soviet Navy had dedicated missiles with dedicated launchers, so a Sovremmeny class destroyer had 8 launch tubes for 8 SS-N-22 sunburn missiles which would have been very effective enemy ship killers, but no land attack capability or anti sub capability. To get protection from Subs they had to carry torpedo tubes and depth charge launcher rockets.

The old Krivak class frigate had a 4 tube launcher for SS-N-14 Silex missiles that dropped a guided torpedo in the water after flying subsonically to the target area.

The new frigates they are building have two UKSK launchers that could be filled with up to 16 Oniks supersonic anti ship missiles with a range of 5 times the SS-N-22 or more. Or it could carry 16 Klub missiles that deliver guided torpedoes to attack subs out to twice the range of the SS-N-14.

A frigate with 4 times the fire power of an old frigate, or twice the fire power of an old missile destroyer.

More importantly this new frigate is a multi purpose vessel whose role can be decided at port when its tubes are loaded... it can be an anti ship destroyer or an anti sub destroyer... or it could have 8 of each type of missile and be both. More importantly it can add land attack cruise missiles with 2,500km range and have a capability no previous Russian destroyer or frigate ever had. Just as important, there is now one launcher type (UKSK) and a family of related missiles made by one company instead of several different missiles with different launchers for the same job. Oniks and Brahmos can replace Granit, SS-N-22, Vulkan, and SS-N-12 on ships and submarines.

The point is reduced costs, reduced maintainence problems... which is critical for Russia because with its 5 fleets it can be an issue when all of one class of ship is located in one port and visits another port only to find there is no support equipment compatible with the system that is faulty and needs attention.

It is like a Mig-29 landing at an airfield that operates Su-27s only. Very similar looking aircraft but zero parts compatibility, so if it needs some attention in its engines you have to either take it apart and truck it to the nearest Mig-29 airfield or truck or fly in some parts and an engineer to sort it out... a pain in peacetime... potentially a real headache in wartime.

What about the US navy's gerald ford class?


I agree than starting to build a new battlecruiser now is impossible but what about 5-7 years from now?

KomissarBojanchev wrote:What about the US navy's gerald ford class?


I agree than starting to build a new battlecruiser now is impossible but what about 5-7 years from now?

5-7 years from now if anything the construction of destroyer or small cruiser sized ships will be critical, as the retirement of 1155s and 956s gets closer. They floated a date of 2016 for the new destroyers, which seem to be cruiser sized anyways. I find it highly unlikely so soon after that a massive battle cruiser will be planned - if ever in our lifetimes, even in days of big bad USSR the big cruisers were highly controversial.

So, your battlecruiser thirst will only be quenched by refitted Nakhimov this decade, which is still a more impressive cruiser than anyone has around, so all good .

What about the US navy's gerald ford class?

That is a super carrier... and there is no way the UK could afford such a vessel.

As TR-1 points out most of the small and medium sized vessels in the Russian Navy require serious upgrades or replacement.

The biggest Russian shipyards are going to be busy upgrading the Kuznetsov and the two Kirov class cruisers and likely 3-4 Slava class cruisers, while all the smaller yards will be busy making corvettes and frigates and starting their new destroyers.

The new Frigates have double the firepower of the old destroyers, so the new destroyers might make new cruisers redundant.

It is best to have only a few cruisers and lots of destroyers and heaps of smaller vessels.

The unification of parts and systems will greatly streamline the hardware in the Russian Navy, but the upgrade in electronics will also be revolutionary... they are adopting a system that is similar in concept to the AEGIS system in the US, in other words they are adopting a system that combines data from all the sensors on the ships and subs and aircraft and satellites together to form a complete view of the air and sea and undersea space around them. It also includes the communication equipment to share the information between platforms.

The system is called Sigma and is being installed on all Russian naval vessels from Corvette to Carrier.

This is going to radically change the efficiency and performance of the Russian Navy for the better.

The secret is management... good management enables a smaller perhaps even less powerful force defeat a much larger less well managed force by using its resources efficiently and in a timely manner to always get the best results.

Like the German Army in 1939-41 against the European powers, or indeed the Soviet forces in 1945 against the Japanese occupation force in Manchuria and China, or the Allied forces in Desert Storm in 1991.

Maybe its actually a good idea for russia to start building something bigger gunned?

KomissarBojanchev wrote:While russia for now and the near future may well have the best brown water fleet it is no match for the multiple cNATO carrier groups on the high seas. The USSR started building its first true aircraft carrier(not small aviation cruisers) the Ulyanovsk but the fall of the union caused it being scrapped. With China working on building its own carriers and America adding the Gerald Ford class into their naval arsenal do you think Russia should start putting money on making a new carrier or battlecruiser to replace the becoming obsolete Kirov class?
Having a capable blue water fleet is essential to spread your influence globally and the USSR knew that so they continuously upgraded their fleet up to the fall of the soviet union. After that most of the russian navy's ships were scrapped leaving with a tiny force of cold war era weaponry. But now that the fleet is modernising it should be an objective of paramount importance to return the blue and green water capability of the russian navy. Lets hope that MoD has that in mind.

Unless the Russian Federation has decided to attempt to gain a global empire. If they want to spend themselves into ruin like the USA is presently doing, then sure, build a massive and unnecessary blue water navy.



Before asking what types of ships the Russians should design, you might want to ask, "Does Russia need a blue water navy?" Why should the Russian people have additional tax burdens imposed on them to finance the construction of a navy will never be crucial to Russia's national defense?

Wouldn't it make more sense for Russia to purchase more modern tanks, IFVs, APCs, and fighter jets?

What sort of benefit will Russia gain from being able to project naval aviation around the world when they don't have enough T-90s or BMP-3s to equip all of their ground formations?


Besides, the Millenium Challenge in the USA revealed just how vulnerable carrier groups are to small and fast moving gun-boats. Russia should invest in hundreds of lightly armored, heavily armed, small go-fast boats, boats with a crew of 20-50 that have 4-6 anti-ship missiles, a few CIWS, perhaps two torpedo tubes, and maybe a heavy machine or two.

Besides, the Millenium Challenge in the USA revealed just how vulnerable carrier groups are to small and fast moving gun-boats.

I think you are underestimating the Russians... the Redut/Poliment system in its land based Vityaz system version has 16 missiles in four tubes and can engage 16 targets at once. Even a little Corvette in the Russian Navy will have a 32 tube Redut launcher, which means 128 missiles able to engage cruise missile targets at extended ranges guided to 16 targets at one time.

Small fast boats will not have long range and lack of endurance and major SAM defensive capability would make them terribly vulnerable to even one or two supersonic anti ship missile or even Kh-29/31/35/38/58/59 air to surface weapon.

The concept of swarm attack is interesting but would require the side that uses such attack concepts to accept heavy losses.

Look at the German armed forces in WWII, or indeed the US coaltion in Iraq where a smaller but well equipped and well commanded force was able to take on much larger forces and win by creating local numbers superiority and better tactics to defeat much larger forces.

People look at a carrier and think big target... but really what they should be seeing is the navy is an army that operates above and below the water and to operate effectively using air power extends its vision and its reach and adds a layer of protection and defence that other Navy or Army assets cannot supply. Saying the Navy does not need carriers is like saying the Russian Army can operate without the Air Force... it can but with heavier losses and shorter vision and fewer attack options.

The Air Force compliments the Army and the Navy, they cannot do the job on their own like the west likes to believe.

Russia's first priority should be to equip all motorized rifle and tank divisions with adequate numbers of BMP-3s [or even a more modern IFV], the BTR-90, and the T-90 [or better].


Aircraft carriers are only useful if they intend to begin projecting power across the world or going for some sort of global empire.


I would suggest that first they do something to check NATO's advance which has now come right up to their very borders. They should do something to help the Serbs and resolve the situation in Kosovo.

Russia's first priority should be to equip all motorized rifle and tank divisions with adequate numbers of BMP-3s [or even a more modern IFV], the BTR-90, and the T-90 [or better].

Existing armour could do with an upgrade but they are on the verge of introducing four entirely new armoured vehicle families... they are not just replacing the BMP, the BTR, and the T-90... they are replacing the engineer vehicles, the artillery vehicles, the air defence vehicles, the command vehicles, the ambulance vehicles, the scout recon vehicles and every other vehicle within the brigade structure with four basic vehicle types.

Upgrading existing vehicles with new night vision devices so they can train at night, communications systems and battle management systems so they can practise the new tactics the next generation vehicles will allow them to use also makes sense but large scale production of existing types does not make sense right now... not when their replacements are 2-3 years from production at most.

Aircraft carriers are only useful if they intend to begin projecting power across the world or going for some sort of global empire.

Aircraft carriers mean the navy will have freedom of movement and wont have to worry about stretching itself beyond land based aviation support.

Russian allies in the various parts of the world would be much more relaxed if they knew that in times of trouble a Russian carrier group could come and visit for a week or two, plus it makes Russian vessels in international waters much much safer.

I would suggest that first they do something to check NATO's advance which has now come right up to their very borders.

A carrier group or two would be rather more useful than more ground forces in Europe... any NATO belligerence would be met with the threat of tactical nukes rather than large armoured forces. Later conventionally armed cruise missiles will allow Russia to do to NATO what NATO has been doing to other countries.

[qutoe]They should do something to help the Serbs and resolve the situation in Kosovo.[/quote]

The Serbs need to help themselves by voting in politicians that have a spine.

The issue of Kosovo will not be solved with force of arms... it will most likely be a waiting game.

GarryB wrote:

Russia's first priority should be to equip all motorized rifle and tank divisions with adequate numbers of BMP-3s [or even a more modern IFV], the BTR-90, and the T-90 [or better].

Existing armour could do with an upgrade but they are on the verge of introducing four entirely new armoured vehicle families... they are not just replacing the BMP, the BTR, and the T-90... they are replacing the engineer vehicles, the artillery vehicles, the air defence vehicles, the command vehicles, the ambulance vehicles, the scout recon vehicles and every other vehicle within the brigade structure with four basic vehicle types.

Upgrading existing vehicles with new night vision devices so they can train at night, communications systems and battle management systems so they can practise the new tactics the next generation vehicles will allow them to use also makes sense but large scale production of existing types does not make sense right now... not when their replacements are 2-3 years from production at most.

Aircraft carriers are only useful if they intend to begin projecting power across the world or going for some sort of global empire.

Aircraft carriers mean the navy will have freedom of movement and wont have to worry about stretching  itself beyond land based aviation support.

Russian allies in the various parts of the world would be much more relaxed if they knew that in times of trouble a Russian carrier group could come and visit for a week or two, plus it makes Russian vessels in international waters much much safer.

I would suggest that first they do something to check NATO's advance which has now come right up to their very borders.

A carrier group or two would be rather more useful than more ground forces in Europe... any NATO belligerence would be met with the threat of tactical nukes rather than large armoured forces. Later conventionally armed cruise missiles will allow Russia to do to NATO what NATO has been doing to other countries.

[qutoe]They should do something to help the Serbs and resolve the situation in Kosovo.

 
The Serbs need to help themselves by voting in politicians that have a spine.
 
The issue of Kosovo will not be solved with force of arms... it will most likely be a waiting game.[/quote]




I think Russia has lost a lot of credibility with its "allies" in the last five or six years, mainly by bailing on Serbia and by basically standing by and doing nothing substantial over what is happening in Syria. They also dropped the ball on Libya. Russia should deployed some submarines and destroyers off the coast of Libya and declared that they were enforcing a "non-intervention neutrality zone" and that outside interference in the civil war would be unacceptable.



On Kosovo, I agree but I also disagree... Kosovo will be solved by force of arms, but only after much waiting. The Serbs will have to wait and bide their time while America weakens from poor domestic policies. Once America is sufficiently weak there will be a great many things happening around the world that were unable to happen when America was still vibrant, the Serbs asserting themselves in Kosovo will be one such thing.