Should Russia build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

If Russia has any intention to send warships away from the protected coastline, they need CV's that is not up for debate the level of ignorance by armchair admirals here is cute.

If you followed that mindset the Russian navy would be destroyed fairly easy. No Air cover means easy targets, Air air based ship systems only go so far.

Russian land-based systems do not have infinite range.

Russia doesn't need like eight carriers but they do need some.

And threats from missiles are why Carriers have Escorts.

If they really have such a boner for carriers they can alway go with this approach. Less wasteful and they might actually get the product on time:

There's an Exceedingly Easy Way for Russia to Get a Modern Aircraft Carrier (If It Wants One)

https://russia-insider.com/en/politics/theres-exceedingly-easy-way-russia-get-modern-aircraft-carrier-if-it-wants-one/ri23752

Waste of money and time if you ask me but carrier horndogs are quite persistent.


One very good observation from article:

Russia has no practical need of a carrier, it is simply for symbolic purposes to project status. Its only practical mission is to sustain Russian naval aviation; that part of the service doesn’t want to die so they need a carrier. If the carrier goes then the naval aviation goes.

I say let it go already....

SeigSoloyvov wrote:If Russia has any intention to send warships away from the protected coastline, they need CV's that is not up for debate the level of ignorance by armchair admirals here is cute.

If you followed that mindset the Russian navy would be destroyed fairly easy. No Air cover means easy targets, Air air based ship systems only go so far.

Russian land-based systems do not have infinite range.

Russia doesn't need like eight carriers but they do need some.

And threats from missiles are why Carriers have Escorts.

My 5 cents.

Does Russia need carriers? Yes. Imo up to 4 carriers, 2 per major fleet would be more than enough. Even 3 would do, 4 would be ideal.

Do they need 100.000t carrier... i dont think it is mandatory for carriers to be of such size, something bigger than Kuz, capable to carry 40+ fixed wing aircraft with catapults is more than enough.

Do they need carries this moment? No, as there are no facilities for such ships, nor there are enough escorts for such ships.

Do they need them in future? Yes... when they build the God damn escorts.

Can they build the carrier? Now? No. In future? I fkn hope so in few years.

Should they buy the carrier from Chinese? Well... i wouldnt if i had to choose.

Should they consult Chinese on the matter? Hell yes, buy components even if required, better Chinese than German.

Are carriers obsolete? Less invulnerable than 40 years ago, but i dont think they are as concept going anywhere for looooong time.

 Wow. According to western "experts" Russia must be the only country in the world that has no use for carriers. This is frankly pathetic.

So US, UK, France, China, India, Turkey and who not all operate or develop carriers (not to talk about the countries with LHDs). This is al ok and belongs to legitimate power projection aspirations of countries. But Russia has no need, no money, no shipyards, no experience... better not even try building CVs Russians, stay at home and please don't compete with other countries' "legitimate" colonialism.

What a load of crap!

LMFS wrote:  Wow. According to western "experts" Russia must be the only country in the world that has no use for carriers. This is frankly pathetic.

So US, UK, France, China, India, Turkey and who not all operate or develop carriers (not to talk about the countries with LHDs). This is al ok and belongs to legitimate power projection aspirations of countries. But Russia has no need, no money, no shipyards, no experience... better not even try building CVs Russians, stay at home and please don't compete with other countries' "legitimate" colonialism.

What a load of crap!

Only US carriers are helpfull because they have 20 of them of all sort and they each one carry more planes than a normal air force has fighters on the ground. They also have 70 destroyers to protect them.

All the others are useless against an army that has an airforce, subs and frigates. What would Indian or french carrier do against lets say an army like Israel ? Nothing they are sitting ducks. BIG TARGET that will be targeted by hundreds of missiles before it reaches the area of operations. And they have only 1 of them so if they loose it the rest of their ships are dead too.

Just look what argentinians did with 4 exocets and 6 Super Etandard... if they had 4 more exocets they would have destroyed the carriers whuch had air dominace around the battle group with AWACS helicopter and still they couldn't intercept non stralthy fighters 40 km away and two slow anti ship missiles. Imagine now a Pak da or a su-57 launching supersonic/hypersonic missiles hundreds of km away against a charles de gaulle with a coupke of aster or against a Kuznetsov with tor missiles or even a nimitz with some Phalanx ? They are siting ducks ...

Seriously missiles are better than ships defences. Now they even have longer range than the carrier air wings. They can launch hundreds of them fir the price of on corvette and destroy a multi billion ship with multi billion $ air wing and about 5000 people on it.

Having one or two cariiers is useless. Even the 20 us carrier are useless if you have the future tzirkon and some yassen to carry many of them on each one.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:not sure if you can read with understanding. Russia doenst need CVN now . Now half a trillion ruble is nonsense. That's why all fleet of Tu-22 and tu-160 with long range hypersonic missiles. As soon as economy jumpstarts CVNs can go or not. Never before 2030s.  With what fighter is theres only MiG-29 now?

You can be sure Gunship, I can read.   Nevertheless I am not directing my comments to you or the forum users here, rather referring to endless experts in the media trying so hard to make the case that Russia does not need bothering with carriers. No F*ckn anyone needs carriers to defend the country!! But the comment is interestingly always pointed towards Russia. What need do France and UK have for carriers, for God's sake?

To your comment: need (or rather convenience) and possibility are different things. Russia can have currently difficulties to build, protect and operate carriers, agreed. That doesn't mean that they could not be used today if they and their supporting assets were available. That also doesn't mean that they cannot make now the multi-decade plans needed to build and operate carriers in the future.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
but frankly need for colonial wars as you want Russia to have is little. Unless you need to fight Turkeys CSGs in Black Sea?!      

Not that I want Russia to engage in colonial wars. But if they are to refrain from exerting military influence abroad, then let us please require the same from the rest of countries in the world, there would be a hell of scrappin' to do in the Western navies first of all don't you think?

Black Sea has access prohibited to carriers BTW But no, I am not referring to such things. The case for the Russian CVs (not even talking of CVNs) has been made abundantly clear in this thread through the years, I think it is not needed to repeat again all the reasons why it makes sense and can be useful and how that does not mean wanting to replicate the US Navy.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
BTW Turkey aircraft carrier? never heard they have one? how many?      

I said operating or developing Gunship! But of course, everybody wants a carrier:
http://www.denizhaber.com.tr/icdas-tersanesinde-ucak-gemisi-icin-hazirliklar-basladi-haber-81684.htm

They are going for their second LHD BTW:
http://en.c4defence.com/Agenda/tcg-trakya-on-the-way/6374/1

Isos wrote:
Only US carriers are helpfull because they have 20 of them of all sort and they each one carry more planes than a normal air force has fighters on the ground. They also have 70 destroyers to protect them.

All the others are useless against an army that has an airforce, subs and frigates. What would Indian or french carrier do against lets say an army like Israel ? Nothing they are sitting ducks. BIG TARGET that will be targeted by hundreds of missiles before it reaches the area of operations. And they have only 1 of them so if they loose it the rest of their ships are dead too.

Just look what argentinians did with 4 exocets and 6 Super Etandard... if they had 4 more exocets they would have destroyed the carriers whuch had air dominace around the battle group with AWACS helicopter and still they couldn't intercept non stralthy fighters 40 km away and two slow anti ship missiles. Imagine now a Pak da or a su-57 launching supersonic/hypersonic missiles hundreds of km away against a charles de gaulle with a coupke of aster or against a Kuznetsov with tor missiles or even a nimitz with some Phalanx ? They are siting ducks ...

Seriously missiles are better than ships defences. Now they even have longer range than the carrier air wings. They can launch hundreds of them fir the price of on corvette and destroy a multi billion ship with multi billion $ air wing and about 5000 people on it.

Having one or two cariiers is useless. Even the 20 us carrier are useless if you have the future tzirkon and some yassen to carry many of them on each one.

Again:

Carriers are not intended to defend the territory of the motherland

We all agree they stand no chance against modern missile systems like the ones deployed by the RF.

They are useful to protect interests abroad. And yes, that means essentially to deploy them away from powerful countries that could sink them in the blink of an eye. That goes for all of the CSG in this world, including the American ones.

Why is it "useful" for US to bully the whole world but that wouldn't be "useful" for Russia? Why does Russia need to be the one showing morals and restrain in the face of outright Western colonialism?

Cute Russia would find it hard to sink a CBG 2000km away from it's shores, it would need to bring many missile systems in one place to stand a chance at that.

You guys act like the Carrer will be on it's own, they will not be they will be under an umbrella of multi types of AA. Getting a hit is possible but it will not be easy at all.

Meanwhile, it can gather those systems to fend off one group but oh wait here comes another.

Land based systems aren't some godly divine tool that can save your ass they help sure but they have limits.

Also 2000KM isn't that far in naval area, that really short distance to be honest.

Again armchair experts, Carriers aren't the god tools they were in WW2 sure, but they still have a very important job to play in aval assists.

LMFS wrote:  Wow. According to western "experts" Russia must be the only country in the world that has no use for carriers. This is frankly pathetic.

So US, UK, France, China, India, Turkey and who not all operate or develop carriers (not to talk about the countries with LHDs). This is al ok and belongs to legitimate power projection aspirations of countries.....

Russia has no use for carriers now. And once long down the road when they might need them they will need them in order to do same thing that first three countries on that list have been using them for last several decades: dropping bombs from uncontested airspace in neo-colonial wars. Definitely not in Midway-style​ naval battles.

As for China and India, they might use them for mutual dick-waving but should they ever try to use them in near-peer engagement those things will become coral reefs within first several hours regardless of who they fight against.

I honestly have no idea why Turks want carriers, they have even less use for them than Russia.


So long story short: Russia would need them for neo-colonial wars long down the road against seriously inferior enemies but for something like that good old LHD with STOVL fighters will more than suffice. Literally same thing that Japanese are doing right now with Izumo and F-35.

@Militarov

for the most part, me and you agree there.

I agree with your points and have said those repeatedly.

Again:

Carriers are not intended to defend the territory of the motherland

We all agree they stand no chance against modern missile systems like the ones deployed by the RF.

They are useful to protect interests abroad. And yes, that means essentially to deploy them away from powerful countries that could sink them in the blink of an eye. That goes for all of the CSG in this world, including the American ones.

Why is it "useful" for US to bully the whole world but that wouldn't be "useful" for Russia? Why does Russia need to be the one showing morals and restrain in the face of outright Western colonialism?

Yes they are not intended to defend motherland so they will be send far away near unfriendly countries.

Russia doesn't have interest abroad. Only Syria and they have already secured it during a civil war without carrier and where US army was present. So where would they send them ? In South America where US could mobilize a big fleet in matters of hours ? Or in mediteranean where NATO countries and US bombers are ? Or Pacific near US bases ?

I agree a carrier provide very good air support in open ocean but if you want to use it for canon diplomacy against modern countries it won't work. I fyou want to use it to "colonize" poor defenceless african countries well do it.

I only disagree about the use of carriers.

Cute Russia would find it hard to sink a CBG 2000km away from it's shores, it would need to bring many missile systems in one place to stand a chance at that.

You guys act like the Carrer will be on it's own, they will not be they will be under an umbrella of multi types of AA. Getting a hit is possible but it will not be easy at all.

Meanwhile, it can gather those systems to fend off one group but oh wait here comes another.

Land based systems aren't some godly divine tool that can save your ass they help sure but they have limits.

Also 2000KM isn't that far in naval area, that really short distance to be honest.

Again armchair experts, Carriers aren't the god tools they were in WW2 sure, but they still have a very important job to play in aval assists.

There is a difference between a real carrier and its escort and the US 100Kt escorted by their 70 destroyers and all the assest of their EU and arab dogs.

If you take France for exemple, only French carrier and french navy without NATO, they could deploy 3 or 4 modern frigates to protect it 2 months per year. So a volley of Kh-22 plus some kh-35 launched from a douzen of Sukhois will go through. It's not hard to deploy 1 A50U, 10 sukhoi and 20 tu-22M. Same for Indian or Russian carrier.

Many people on forums only compare Nato hundreds of vessels against the small russian navy. Sure Nato is more powerfull but stil doesn't win because of the nuk. But if you take into account a normal situation with a normal carrier and normal escort against a well armed country the carrier won't be as effective as in NATO operation agasint farmers in te middle of desert.

PapaDragon wrote:
Russia has no use for carriers now. And once long down the road when they might need them they will need them in order to do same thing that first three countries on that list have been using them for last several decades: dropping bombs from uncontested airspace in neo-colonial wars. Definitely not in Midway-style​ naval battles.

As for China and India, they might use them for mutual dick-waving but should they ever try to use them in near-peer engagement those things will become coral reefs within first several hours regardless of who they fight against.

I honestly have no idea why Turks want carriers, they have even less use for them than Russia.


So long story short: Russia would need them for neo-colonial wars long down the road against seriously inferior enemies but for something like that good old LHD with STOVL fighters will more than suffice. Literally same thing that Japanese are doing right now with Izumo and F-35.

Russia has many traditional allies and interests in the world, if they had the means they would have the occasion for using carriers.

Let's be real: big countries have interests abroad and it is just normal that they want to protect them. The advantage of multipolarity is not that 'Realpolitik' is over, but that the level of influence off the players is levelled and smaller countries can therefore chose the block that better protects their interests.

Not really disagreeing with the rest, except with the STOVL part

SeigSoloyvov wrote:
Cute Russia would find it hard to sink a CBG 2000km away from it's shores, it would need to bring many missile systems in one place to stand a chance at that.

You guys act like the Carrer will be on it's own, they will not be they will be under an umbrella of multi types of AA. Getting a hit is possible but it will not be easy at all.

Meanwhile, it can gather those systems to fend off one group but oh wait here comes another.

Land based systems aren't some godly divine tool that can save your ass they help sure but they have limits.

Also 2000KM isn't that far in naval area, that really short distance to be honest.

Again armchair experts, Carriers aren't the god tools they were in WW2 sure, but they still have a very important job to play in aval assists.

Cannot talk authoritatively here but the variety and characteristics of current AShM and carriers in Russia means IMO that in case of heavy confrontation in Russian territory the CSGs will head the opposite direction of where the fight takes place... many military analysts out there pointing exactly that.

Consider only some of the current crop of missiles: Kalibr, Kinzhal, Kh-32, Oniks. Add to it Zircon to be deployed in coming years. Is not that stopping all of them together in salvos is exceedingly difficult, stopping just one of those missiles is already a challenge.

Regarding the range: MiG-31 + Kinzhal is like 3500 km (in supersonic flight). Tu-22M3 + Kh-32 are also in that ballpark. From that distance a carrier group cannot do anything, unless they send to you their air wing with all EFTs they have and you are so kind to refuel them for the way back

Isos wrote:
Yes they are not intended to defend motherland so they will be send far away near unfriendly countries.

Russia doesn't have interest abroad. Only Syria and they have already secured it during a civil war without carrier and where US army was present. So where would they send them ? In South America where US could mobilize a big fleet in matters of hours ? Or in mediteranean where NATO countries and US bombers are ? Or Pacific near US bases ?

I agree a carrier provide very good air support in open ocean but if you want to use it for canon diplomacy against modern countries it won't work. I fyou want to use it to "colonize" poor defenceless african countries well do it.

I only disagree about the use of carriers.

No need to colonize anyone. But Russia of course has interests abroad and is entitled as ANY other country to defend them, for instance supporting allies facing a blockade or against amassing NATO forces. And everywhere in this world you can have a US CSG in matter of 48 hours, that is exactly the requirement under which the CVNs are developed AFAIK. Considering this and the ubiquitous US base presence, you better design your own CVs to defend accordingly, there is no escaping that reality.

Russia doesn't have interest abroad.

What the actual fuck xD

Militarov wrote:Russia doesn't have interest abroad.

What the actual fuck xD

Which russian interest abroad needs a carrier for defence ?

1 russian carrier won't stop US attacking poor countries. They launched attack on SAA more than once while russia has an airbase comparable to a carrier in Syria and they were not stoped.

Militarov wrote:Russia doesn't have interest abroad.

What the actual fuck xD

Yup my thoughts exactly.

I don't think some people here realize how a country is run.

Isos wrote:

Militarov wrote:Russia doesn't have interest abroad.

What the actual fuck xD

Which russian interest abroad needs a carrier for defence ?

1 russian carrier won't stop US attacking poor countries. They launched attack on SAA more than once while russia has an airbase comparable to a carrier in Syria and they were not stoped.

To be fair not like Russians were burning with desire to fight Coalition over Syria. However it would be quite different story if 50 miles from the US carries was parked 80.000t Russian carrier with 10 ship strong escort, as they wouldnt be there in such situation in a first place.

How about Russian installations in Cuba lets say. Or Kuril Islands. You think its easier to defend Kurils in case of, highly unlikely conflict but lets say for the sake of it, with or without naval wing?

What if Russians decided to prevent lets say... US attacking NK in 5 years. How are they going to do it... by walking down to Pyongyang? No, you park the carrier group, say, if you attack them, you are attacking us too, bla bla bla, negotiations table and stuff.

Its not same if you come with carrier and 4 destroyers or when you come with floating bathtub that has Gibka and 76mm peashooter. As much as military asset (expencive one i know), carrier is a statement too. Liked we that or not, South Korea and Japan are big time interested in real carriers, even tho lets say... they dont really need them either at this point. But i myself do not need Audi A8, doesnt mean i wouldnt like to have one in the times when i want to make a clear statement, if you know what i mean.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Militarov wrote:Russia doesn't have interest abroad.

What the actual fuck xD

Yup my thoughts exactly.

I don't think some people here realize how a country is run.

Every country has interests abroad, no matter how small or weird they are. Let alone Russia... lol.

Militarov wrote:

Isos wrote:

Militarov wrote:Russia doesn't have interest abroad.

What the actual fuck xD

Which russian interest abroad needs a carrier for defence ?

1 russian carrier won't stop US attacking poor countries. They launched attack on SAA more than once while russia has an airbase comparable to a carrier in Syria and they were not stoped.

To be fair not like Russians were burning with desire to fight Coalition over Syria. However it would be quite different story if 50 miles from the US carries was parked 80.000t Russian carrier with 10 ship strong escort, as they wouldnt be there in such situation in a first place.

How about Russian installations in Cuba lets say. Or Kuril Islands. You think its easier to defend Kurils in case of, highly unlikely conflict but lets say for the sake of it, with or without naval wing?

What if Russians decided to prevent lets say... US attacking NK in 5 years. How are they going to do it... by walking down to Pyongyang? No, you park the carrier group, say, if you attack them, you are attacking us too, bla bla bla, negotiations table and stuff.

Its not same if you come with carrier and 4 destroyers or when you come with floating bathtub that has Gibka and 76mm peashooter. As much as military asset (expencive one i know), carrier is a statement too. Liked we that or not, South Korea and Japan are big time interested in real carriers, even tho lets say... they dont really need them either at this point. But i myself do not need Audi A8, doesnt mean i wouldnt like to have one in the times when i want to make a clear statement, if you know what i mean.

You are far away from reality. You say 4 carriers would be what they need with each 10 escort ships it's just impossible for russia. To protect north korea ? And cuba ?

Why don't let communist china protect them ? They are world communist leaders, russia is not communist anymore and their interest in those two countries are inexistant. They even closed an observation center in cuba not long ago.

For its neighbouring area they have air force and kalibr and nuks to deal with any invasion force.

Isos wrote:

You are far away from reality. You say 4 carriers would be what they need with each 10 escort ships it's just impossible for russia. To protect north korea ? And cuba ?

Why don't let communist china protect them ? They are world communist leaders, russia is not communist anymore and their interest in those two countries are inexistant. They even closed an observation center in cuba not long ago.

For its neighbouring area they have air force and kalibr and nuks to deal with any invasion force.

Permanent escort for carrier doesnt have to be 10 ships, and not all of them are required to be destroyers. Smaller ships from Black sea fleet can join taskgroup in Meds, so 10 ship escort is far from being unrealistic.

So who remains then if we remove Cuba and Venezuela as Russian "ally" in that part of the world? Noone?

Thats why there is saying "God help those that are relying on Russia for defence and Greece for food".

Militarov wrote:So who remains then if we remove Cuba and Venezuela as Russian "ally" in that part of the world? Noone?

Actually, there is 1, if that canal ever gets built, Nicaragua.

And India isn't exactly close, worst so if people are messing with the Suez, unless that Iranian canal gets built.

The construction of the destroyer "Leader" and the aircraft carrier may be delayed until 2035

The Minpromtorg also added that they are considering three scenarios for the development of the economy and the shipbuilding industry: conservative, innovative and target

MOSCOW, July 3. / TASS /. The construction of perspective surface ships of the far sea zone with a lack of financing may be postponed until 2035. This is stated in the Draft Strategy for the Development of the Shipbuilding Industry for the period up to 2035 by the Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation.

"With regard to military shipbuilding, it is expected to postpone the commencement of R & D [research and development work] and serial purchases for a number of prospective ships and vessels for the period after 2025 due to the substantial sequestration of budgetary allocations for defense, as well as the complete refusal to purchase a number of large surface ships (a prospective destroyer, a marine aircraft carrier complex, the IAC) until 2035, "the document says.

Based on the degree of favorable macroeconomic and industry indicators, the Ministry of Industry and Trade considers three scenarios for the development of the economy in general and the shipbuilding industry in particular: conservative, innovative and targeted.

"In the conservative scenario, the slowdown in economic growth has a negative impact on the development of the shipbuilding industry, because of the declining competitiveness of the economy, the persistence of tight fiscal policy, the transition to monetary policy with a positive real key interest rate of 2-3%, and a decline in oil prices to $ 40 per barrel in constant dollars in 2017, GDP growth will be 0.2% in 2018-2020, 1.8% in 2021-2025, followed by a slowdown to 1.0% in 2031-2035, "the draft document explains.

According to the innovative scenario, in the military shipbuilding sector, it is expected that in 2020-2022 construction of the main series of ships laid before 2018 will be completed, as well as "intensification of R & D and the start of procurement of head and serial advanced models, including large surface ships of the far sea and ocean zone actions after 2020 ". Oil prices in this scenario will remain at around $ 60 per barrel.

The target (forced) scenario, in addition, involves an intensive increase in the supply of ships and ships in the framework of military-technical cooperation. The rise in oil prices under such a scenario will persist to about $ 75 per barrel in constant dollars in 2017.
Prospective ships

Earlier, Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy for armament Viktor Bursuk said that work on the construction of a prospective destroyer "Leader" for the Navy could begin in 2020.

The project of the destroyer under the code "Leader" is being developed at the Northern Design Bureau in St. Petersburg. Igor Ponomarev, vice-president of the United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC) for military shipbuilding, clarified earlier, the Russian Defense Ministry has already agreed on the outline design of the ship. It was reported that the displacement of the future destroyer could range from 10 to 15 thousand tons. According to Bursuk, "Leader" will receive a nuclear power plant.

In turn, the head of the United Shipbuilding Corporation, Alexei Rakhmanov, reported that Russian shipbuilders are designing a prospective aircraft carrier in an initiative, but there is still no contract for it. Earlier, the TASS source reported that the USC before the end of 2018 will submit for consideration to the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation a few finalized drafts of a new domestic aircraft carrier. In case of a positive decision on one of the options, development work on the ship can begin in 2019.

Currently, the Russian Navy has a single non-nuclear medium-sized aircraft carrier, Admiral Kuznetsov (according to the Russian classification, a heavy aircraft carrying cruiser). As previously stated in the Navy, the Russian fleet expects to receive a prospective aircraft carrier with an atomic power plant by the end of 2030, the displacement of the new aircraft carrier should not be less than 70 thousand tons.

Krylov State Research Center previously developed and presented to the general public an aircraft carrier design for foreign customers, which was also offered for the domestic fleet. Project 23000 was named "Storm". The sketch assumes that the ship will have a displacement of 80-90 thousand tons, it will be equipped with a combined power plant (both an atomic reactor and a gas turbine engine), the air group of the ship must number up to 60 aircraft.

http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5344390

flamming_python wrote:

LMFS wrote:

The construction of the destroyer "Leader" and the aircraft carrier may be delayed until 2035

What a joke

Same as the alledged cancellation of the Su-57. A joke

Why don't they scrap instead some of those super-duper nuclear-powered missiles and underwater drones and other expensive mallarcy useful only for deterrence.
Hardware such as next-gen fighters and destroyers on the other hand are things that our armed forces actually need.

I'll be frank, i think the delay is more to do with incompetent (if not compromised) shipyards, rather than lack of funds.