Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

Now you are talking sense.

They could have started building a carrier ten years ago, but then there would be no new submarines, frigates, corvettes and so on, because the carrier would have depleted the whole budget.

Russia orders ships that are within its means, which they can pay for without neglecting the rest of the Navy.

When I was studying economics, a public finance lecturer once said that you can always find funds for good projects. You either take it from other budget categories or raise some debt. So the main reason why they started with corvettes in 2001 is the bad shape of shipyards. Even if money was no problem and even if they didn't need first new auxillary fleet, they couldn't make a CVN in Northern shipyard, let alone others.

They had to increase their capabilities, knowledge, experience and technology gradually. 8000 ton Super Gorshkov would be unthinkable even 5 years ago, but it's completely probable in a year or two.

Honestly, i think this funding problem thing is complete nonsense, pushing 16 to 20 billion for one or two carriers shouldn't even be an issue, since this money isn't gonna be spent all at once, but over a span of decade or so, it's completely feasible.

Something I've noticed is that this thread seems to have a cyclical nature. I'm guilty of that too
We have some taking the extreme sides "carriers are redundant" vs "Russia needs another 6 or more".
I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Look at 1991 USSR, it had/was developing a huge number of carriers - both heli and aircraft variants. The USA/NATO still has many, but most of those are a result of the Cold War v1. Today America has many because it is a global sea-based empire. Also because it bullies smaller states and profits from/even creates disorder to cement its status as the reserve currency nation/ global corrupt cop. I have numerous American friends and know most Americans are decent, but it does have a nasty warmongering gang in its Establishment. America might use its carriers in Africa, the Pac rim, the M East or numerous other places. Russia doesn't currently have such an interest spread around the World. But Russian military advisors do say that aircraft and carriers do still have a role to play. Perhaps carriers have different roles in different theatres. F-35 STOLs and F-22s have different minimum requirements too. Say one carrier is 400m USD per annum, over 35 years, I think there are SOME circumstances when there HAS been a valid economic case for a US carrier, and other circumstances when the huge number of US carriers was more about vanity, hubris and dick measuring.

Moving on, I recko a Storm would cost 5bn USD or whatever the long term Ruble equivalent is. Over 30 or 40 years, that's not such a huge figure. BUT there are the running costs, the support costs of a whole naval group. How much does it do that subs, frigates, strat bombers and Kinzhal/Zircon don't do? I don't know.

If Russia is to be purely a land based power it doesn't need many carriers. But its interests DO require substantial naval capabilities. I'm thinking of its Medit. base, its possible Pac Rim base, Cuba and apparent forthcoming bases in Africa. Maybe in Lat America, Pakistan etc? Maybe even to counter a China if it ever went rogue/too big for its boots like America has become.

Ultimately, military expenditure should never be about "dick measuring". That is the route to economic disaster. So my question, is what is the economic and strategic case for 1, 2/whatever number of carriers being built and maintained? Or indeed NOT being built!

Usually a carrier is justified by protecting certain trade routes/protecting certain allies or trade with them.Who/what does Russia need to promise defence to, and what can it gain by providing that defence. After all, it can hardly nuke any country it finds itself at odds with! This is just an example, but supposing Russia chooses Vietnam to be its vital low cost supplier of say consumer electronics (funded by many Russian billions), and Vietnam's USA supplied neighbour seeks to attack/destabilise it, then there might be a case to guarantee Vietnam's sovereignty  with carriers. Russia might be able to charge for such a service, thereby making the carrier purchase very efficient and sensible.

Of course there are some things that carriers can do that frigates and destroyers can't. Imagine Syrian rebels taking over coastal region in 2015. How is Russia supposed to go there and help Assad? With strategic bombers Tu-160 and LST Ropuchas with artillery support from Grigorovich frigates? And Libya? Again, destroyers and frigates are of no use there. This is the interventionist post-Cold-war reality that we live in. It's not about bullying military junta in Kiev and islamist "government" in in Tripoli. It's setting a limit to US bullying.

Like you said dick measurement makes no sense, but 2-4 carriers make perfect sense and keep the network of Russia-friendly states alive. No need to emphasize the economic meaning of trade with those partners for Russian GDP.

Network of Soviet era partners is of course dead and Russians are putting their diplomatic efforts to build something on debris. There are two trends.

1991-2014 Russians have been losing their old friends rapidly, mainly because US stole them away. Countries like Algeria were moving towards NATO, Libya had its revolution, NATO expansion in E. Europe etc.

Since 2014 however there was complete reversal, probably side effect of their Ukraine and Syria campaigns. Their relations with China, Iran, Syria, Turkey, Egypt and N. Sudan have been consolidated, also Libya, we've seen some improvement with Saudis and other US allies, not to mention stabilization of Ukraine and Georgia. Russian intelligence has set friendly governments in EU countries like Hungary, Italy, Czechia, Slovakia, Serbia ... even US.

They have more and more things to protect and they want to convience new old allies in underdevelopted world to come back to mother Russia (visits to Mozambique...). And most important, they finally have the capability to make large surface ships again.

Under this circumstances, the only thing that could prevent them from a new military build-up is significant long term warming of relations with the West, which could acctually take place this year. After N. Korea deal is reached, I think we'll see a big Russia-US-EU deal regarding Iranian nukes and also Syria, possibly Ukraine. If Russians don't demand too much, Trump can end the sanctions without too many Russophobic paranoic reactions and EU follows later on.

How is Russia supposed to go there and help Assad? With strategic bombers Tu-160 and LST Ropuchas with artillery support from Grigorovich frigates?

Yes. That's exactly what landing forces are made for.

Air force taking land is US dream but that doesn't work in real life. You need ground forces.

Mig-29 from a carrier can't retake cities. They can destroy them and the civilians inside but retake... no.

Rebels don't have air force so in this scenario your carrier is totally useless specially if you can send paratroops to take an airfield in the desert and use it for aerial operations.

War is war. US are spending billions and billions to see other make the war for them and they only bomb from 5km in altitude anything they see and keep their big soldier in live. That's why everyone hates them. Russia doesn't seak to have this image. Neither USSR did.

Yes, ground invasions are worst nightmare of both Russia and US since Afganistan, that's why Russia is using militias in Syria. But to say that fighters aren't needed there is nonsense after Turks shot down Russian Su-24. Russian fighters are deterrent for NATO and Israeli figters, so they don't think of seriously bombing Assad or even Russian assets on sea and ground.

Besides, without Russian aircrafts, Aleppo battle would probably take longer than Leningrad. Spilled blood is tragic, but I think that Syrians don't want to watch their country become an eternal islamist chaos like Afganistan or Somalia, promising local or regional wars for next few centuries.

verkhoturye51 wrote:Yes, ground invasions are worst nightmare of both Russia and US since Afganistan, that's why Russia is using militias in Syria. But to say that fighters aren't needed there is nonsense after Turks shot down Russian Su-24. Russian fighters are deterrent for NATO and Israeli figters, so they don't think of seriously bombing Assad or even Russian assets on sea and ground.

Besides, without Russian aircrafts, Aleppo battle would probably take longer than Leningrad. Spilled blood is tragic, but I think that Syrians don't want to watch their country become an eternal islamist chaos like Afganistan or Somalia, promising local or regional wars for next few centuries.

True, I think it is difficult to dispute that Syria and Iran had indeed many "boots on the ground" before Russia started its campaign there and that the relatively small but advanced forces deployed made a difference. A big part of the success is indeed due the influence of a big power in regards of reaching political settlements with neighbouring countries, and many many other issues, but the effectiveness and deterrence value of the weapons systems operating there are out of question IMO. So it is in principle possible that a small detachment, if counting with robust support on the ground, can make a difference in this kind conflict where adversaries are so behind in military technology. That would support the case for increasing a bit the power projection capability of the Russian navy, which is now probably too small.

Firebird wrote:
Ultimately, military expenditure should never be about "dick measuring". That is the route to economic disaster. So my question, is what is the economic and strategic case for 1, 2/whatever number of carriers being built and maintained? Or indeed NOT being built!

IMHO  we have here a flat earth Russia needs powerful fleet society. I am not neglecting  thet powerful military definitely helps tin far away regions. But in next 15-20 years Russia has no real need for this.

How would you now explain people living on or below very poverty line,  that Russia needs   more CVNs? because of precisely what? how much does it cost to let young people run abroad as brain drain? why do you think in all countries around Russia many people want to vise free regimes with EU?  Because Russia cannot guarantee them enough high salaries? comfort of daily life?

So instead of buying one CVN you can buy a hardon collider in Switzerland!!! or a space station. How many research or infrastructure projects can be  paid by billions to be lost on CVNs now?!


Lets face it. China, India and USA are way above any realistic goals to reach in half century or perhaps forever (unless Russia gets extra 200mlsn people as USSR 2) . But Germany, Japan they are.  Without fast, i mean fast GDP growth Russia stays technologically well behind. That is the message of Putin's speech after elections.  Kinzhals, Tu polev bomber fleet modernization ensures long range reach of Moscow's hand.  Now development inside Russia needs to be focused on.

You are to reasonable for this discussion, Gunship.

My two cents on this issue. Also I am feeling brave today to share a couple of crazy ideas here, I would appreciate if you could point out if they are not feasible and why  

> I do not see that a CVN is currently needed to fight-off an enemy carrier group both near Russian shores or even far from them, due to the capabilities of current and planed Russian weapons systems. Therefore the defensive capabilities of such a ship, even when they would constitute an advantage, would only come at a huge cost so that it would not be an optimal solution, as far as the RF maintains its lead in missile technology.

> That would leave the offensive role as a possible justification for Russian carrier group or groups. While there is no present or foreseeable need for the RF to emulate the US, a commensurate power projection capability (say two to four CVN) in the long term would be legit and useful, and may even be affordable if the RF continues developing amidst more balanced relations between the big powers. All efforts in making allies are of no use if these can be taken out with impunity by rivals like until very recently, lets not forget that significantly affects the capacity of the RF to develop economically.

> An optimal economic solution IMHO would be a new kind of ship encompassing the tasks of an amphibious assault ship and an aircraft carrier with a very robust AD capability and additional land attack / ASW resources, in order to allow for several types of deployment missions in different theaters without multiplying the size of the fleet. Essentially a self-contained, pocket carrier / amphibious group, if even remotely possible, would save billions compared to a conventional solution and make feasible supporting interests under complex basing circumstances.

> Would a multi-hull design be capable of delivering on all those requirements? It would at least provide the internal volume needed without compromising the speed needed for a carrier. It would allow a reduced length without reducing sea worthiness. Would it make sense to build such a ship? Since nobody is apparently going this way, I assume there must be substantial issues with it but I do not know which ones are so big that would no compensate the benefits, apart from very high risks after some many decades building and operating carriers as they are now. Can only speculate that maybe building technology and shipyard equipment / layout are significant hurdles here and deck operations are complex enough to start from scratch with a new concept.

> A major possible advantage would be use the increased width of the ship to split the flight deck in two separate lanes or areas, possibly allowing take-off and landing to happen in parallel and using the full length of the deck. This would in turn reduce the required length / displacement / cost of the ship as well as increase the tempo of air operations and hence its military value. Middle section between both flight decks could house hangars, bridge and equipment as well as launcher cells for AD and land attack. In essence, many layouts would be possible due to the increased space available.

> Regarding air-wing: why is it that among so many UAV solutions like are being currently developed, no "take-off assistant" for fixed-wing aircraft has been suggested? Is it not possible even with current technologies? Essentially a big, flat UAV with very high thrust to weight ratio that would push (vertically and/or horizontally) the aircraft by its undercarriage until it reaches required speed to fly alone and then detaches and lands automatically on the ship. Range needs would be minimal so weight would be essentially devoted to propulsion. This, if possible, would allow to use aircraft with full load from small and simple sky-jump carriers allowing small ships to match effectiveness of bigger ones. By decoupling the requirements of the take-off and those from other flight phases, it would put to rest all those IMHO crazy STOVL requirements  that end up badly compromising the performance during the 99% of the flight just for the sake of take-off circumstances. Such planes are apparently still being suggested among Russian military even after seeing how badly the STOVL has burdened the JSF program.

Look forward to getting your feedback!

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
So instead of buying one CVN you can buy a hardon collider in Switzerland!!! or a space station. How many research or infrastructure projects can be  paid by billions to be lost on CVNs now?!

Indeed, it's quite sensible that the Swiss don't build a CVN, having a landlocked country

As much as I agree that science is a pillar for BDP growth, a hadron collider and space station contribute less to it than a trade-protecting carrier.

You're forgetting how dependent on MIC Russian economy is. Family of a Russian soldier gets 100 kg of potatoes for free every 3 months. New technology developted for military is later used to make civilian ships, aircraft, space rockets etc. Poverty line decreased after the government rebuilt the shipyards with orders for military ships.

Navies aren't for remote small nations. France, UK, Turkey and Egypt have better navies than Australia, New Zealand (sorry GarryB), Argentina.

PapaDragon wrote:CVN supercarrier: solves 1 problem that does not exist and costs loads of cash

Russian need for CVN is rising as they are getting more and more interventionist. You can't send LHD to Libya or Syria where enemy fighters operate.

Does anyone here notice that the current CARRIERS ARE OBSOLETE!!!1111 attitude now is similar to the TANKS ARE OBSOLETE11!!!!1 attitude in 60s when ATGMs first appeared? With new measures there always appear new countermeasures. Its the ultimate axiom of military technology.

PapaDragon wrote:

verkhoturye51 wrote:.............

PapaDragon wrote:CVN supercarrier: solves 1 problem that does not exist and costs loads of cash

Russian need for CVN is rising as they are getting more and more interventionist. You can't send LHD to Libya or Syria where enemy fighters operate.

Have you been asleep for last 3 years? They didn't even need LHD for Syria.

What if venezuela is invaded or if Russia decides to militarily help serbia take back kosovo?

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

verkhoturye51 wrote:.............

PapaDragon wrote:CVN supercarrier: solves 1 problem that does not exist and costs loads of cash

Russian need for CVN is rising as they are getting more and more interventionist. You can't send LHD to Libya or Syria where enemy fighters operate.

Have you been asleep for last 3 years? They didn't even need LHD for Syria.

What if venezuela is invaded or if Russia decides to militarily help serbia take back kosovo?

Let Serbia and Venezuela build the carriers for russians OR they could build it by themselves for themselves ...

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

What if venezuela is invaded or if Russia decides to militarily help serbia take back kosovo?

Nothing like this happens within next 15-20 years no worries.  Unlikely it will be invaded as till now it wasnt. Besides you prefer to spend ~20 USD billions of CVNSG + equipment (planes, missiles and so on) "just in case" ?

verkhoturye51 wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
So instead of buying one CVN you can buy a hardon collider in Switzerland!!! or a space station. How many research or infrastructure projects can be  paid by billions to be lost on CVNs now?!

Indeed, it's quite sensible that the Swiss don't build a CVN, having a landlocked country

Russia actually almost too      

As much as I agree that science is a pillar for BDP growth, a hadron collider and space station contribute less to it than a trade-protecting carrier.

China's economy grew without carriers isn't it? first of all you need to have something to sell, how without investment in new products you expect to sell?

You're forgetting how dependent on MIC Russian economy is. Family of a Russian soldier gets 100 kg of potatoes for free every 3 months. New technology developted for military is later used to make civilian ships, aircraft, space rockets etc. Poverty line decreased after the government rebuilt the shipyards with orders for military ships.

Putin's decree about moving 50% of production to civilian markets is somehow in contradiction with above statement I am afraid.

Navies aren't for remote small nations. France, UK, Turkey and Egypt have better navies than Australia, New Zealand (sorry GarryB), Argentina.

Currently Russia showed most interest in Silk Road II  and Northern Route, Asia and Africa and for this  current fleet is more then enough. Will economy grow? no problem with CVNs.

Isos wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

verkhoturye51 wrote:.............

PapaDragon wrote:CVN supercarrier: solves 1 problem that does not exist and costs loads of cash

Russian need for CVN is rising as they are getting more and more interventionist. You can't send LHD to Libya or Syria where enemy fighters operate.

Have you been asleep for last 3 years? They didn't even need LHD for Syria.

What if venezuela is invaded or if Russia decides to militarily help serbia take back kosovo?

Let Serbia and Venezuela build the carriers for russians OR they could build it by themselves for themselves ...

This is just nonsensical BS. Thats like Eisenhower in the 50s deciding that the BRD and ROK should rebuild their militaries by themselves. Why are you so against the notion of Russia militarily assisting some of the only states in the world remotely friendly to it.

And btw the only way for Russia to destroy the Monroe Doctrine(That's the fundamental basis that preserves America's superpower status) is to have a blue water navy that stops US gunboat diplomacy in the western hemisphere.

PapaDragon wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:........
What if venezuela is invaded....

Then it's their fucking problem. Check the map.  

KomissarBojanchev wrote:....or if Russia decides to militarily help serbia take back kosovo?

We asked for help long before there was even any need for war. No takers and we got fucked over in the process.

And how would having aircraft carrier help with Kosovo anyway? It's landlocked and Russians couldn't even get permission from Bulgaria to deliver food to their own troops during that post-war paratrooper clown-show.

By launching kalibrs and doing airstrikes. The same way NATO stole kosovo.

Honestly, it all depends on where things go, a lot of people bring up how useless the Kuz was yet at the same time forget that this was becuase of the collapse of the USSR and Russia's decline,
Now that Russia is re-surging itself and returning to the geopolitical forefront, one has to wonder how far Russia intends to expand it's influence, so it all depends where things go, and by the looks of it the conflicts aren't gonna end any time soon.

Overall i still see a Carrier been the better option, especially with respects to all-around combat capabilities.