Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Share

    Poll

    Do you think russia should start designing a replacement for the Kirov class?

    [ 19 ]
    76% [76%] 
    [ 6 ]
    24% [24%] 

    Total Votes: 25

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  GarryB on Thu Aug 16, 2012 12:39 am

    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.



    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    KomissarBojanchev
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 991
    Points : 1144
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Sun Oct 14, 2012 12:33 pm

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

    BTRfan
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 437
    Points : 477
    Join date : 2010-09-30
    Location : USA

    Re: Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  BTRfan on Sat Jun 01, 2013 12:19 am

    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.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jul 10, 2013 11:24 am

    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.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    BTRfan
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 437
    Points : 477
    Join date : 2010-09-30
    Location : USA

    Re: Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  BTRfan on Wed Jul 31, 2013 7:53 pm

    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.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  GarryB on Thu Aug 01, 2013 1:57 am

    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.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    BTRfan
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 437
    Points : 477
    Join date : 2010-09-30
    Location : USA

    Re: Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  BTRfan on Thu Aug 01, 2013 2:12 am

    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.

    collegeboy16
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1207
    Points : 1234
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  collegeboy16 on Fri Aug 02, 2013 12:07 pm

    I think Aircraft carriers and Battlecruisers would be needed in the next 1-2 decades esp. Once the arctic clears a bit and becomes the new suez canal. With these awesome instruments of power, Russia can own the arctic and the north pacific near its far east. Imagine controlling a huge part of global trade, the military investment would pay for itself without even exporting something.

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  sepheronx on Fri Aug 02, 2013 3:49 pm

    BTRfan wrote:
    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.




    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.[/quote]

    Yeap, Russia side stepping here and there in politics has caused issues with its allies.  Serbia was kinda understandable because of the piss poor shape Russia was in, as well as...well, guess who was in power at the time?  But they still managed to send VDV units.

    Libya was Medvedevs go ahead as they promoted the strikes.  What was funny in all of that, is not only did Russia lose out $10B in deals, even when they gave the go ahead, Rebels refused to deal with Russian's because they didn't "help".  Some major lobbying from the west right there.

    Syria, Russia is doing half right.  Russia needs to have more ships off of the cost of Syria, which they do (Mediterranean task force), but they need more of them, as well as having a carrier off of the coast so they could provide air support if needed.  That is the main reason why Kuznetsov is not undergoing modernization at the moment.

    I think, IMO, Russia needs at least 3 or 4 carriers.  1 in each major area.  Maybe 5 so that 1 can be used as a backup.  As well, they do not need a large aircraft carrier, but something that can hold 30 or so fixed wing jets, and a dozen or so helicopters.  So not power projection but at least something to provide air assets if in real need of it.  As well, ultimately, Russia should have started R&D on a jump jet (IMO) so that they could turn some shipping vessels into temporary small carriers because with jump jets, you could fit more aircraft on board.  Or go back to the Kiev class aircraft carriers with jump jets.

    In Russia's best interest right now, is developing more heavily armed frigates and Corvettes, with few "destroyers" here and there in order to not only provide protection for its coast, but modern Frigates have pretty decent endurance. With propulsion systems and automated systems ever so increasing in the Russian military, they could increase endurance easily.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  GarryB on Sat Aug 03, 2013 10:47 am

    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.

    With Serbia the Russians were in no better position to offer assistance than the US was with Georgia in 2008.

    Syria was in the middle of sucking up to the west, and while they were a buyer of Russian weapons... they didn't actually buy all that much... very similar to Syria and Iran.

    Perhaps if they had upgraded their military with purchases of Russian equipment they might have been able to defend themselves better... certainly Syrian Yakhont units will make a Naval action against them VERY unlikely... an earlier purchase of Mig-29SMTs and lots of S-300s would have cemented their sovereignty.

    Equally Iran could have bought 200 Su-27s to replace their F-14s and F-4s with a contract for domestic production of Su-27SMs and they would be rather more safe from western intervention and embargo too... but the reality is that Iran doesn't trust Russia very much either and Syria and Libya wanted better relations with the west too.

    They didn't take notice of how quickly the west can turn on its dictators...

    Or go back to the Kiev class aircraft carriers with jump jets.

    VSTOL aircraft are expensive and limited in performance... in many ways an armed helo would be more useful like the Ka-52 with AESA and R-77s.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 2:08 am


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 10, 2016 2:08 am