Russia's naval doctrine and strategy

dino00 wrote:

The weight of an aircraft carrier, but much more useful and cheaper

In what way are LHDs more useful than an aircraft carrier?

LHDs sole purpose is peacetime imperialism, a carrier can be used for both peacetime imperialism and wartime operations against the west.

That image of the divers with their rebreathing kit... I think I can see an ADS rifle in one of the guys hands.... nice...

The-thing-next-door wrote:

dino00 wrote:

The weight of an aircraft carrier, but much more useful and cheaper

In what way are LHDs more useful than an aircraft carrier?

LHDs sole purpose is peacetime imperialism, a carrier can be used for both peacetime imperialism and wartime operations against the west.

I was talking about the 6 ships vs the aircraft carrier.

An LHD is useful for amphibious operations.

The-thing-next-door wrote:

dino00 wrote:The weight of an aircraft carrier, but much more useful and cheaper

In what way are LHDs more useful than an aircraft carrier?

LHDs sole purpose is peacetime imperialism, a carrier can be used for both peacetime imperialism and wartime operations against the west.

Neither are part of nuclear triad so their utility in conflicts against the West is identical

Neither are part of nuclear triad so their utility in conflicts against the West is identical

I agree with what I think you are trying to say, but disagree with the way you said it.

Once Russia had a few helicopter carriers in service then they can be used for all sorts of things... a visit to pacific islands offering free healthcare for brownie points... perhaps even do a deal with Cuba and replace one Marine of the two it can normally carry with a group of Cuban doctors that can be heli lifted out to individual islands for those unable to get to the ship... it would be like the Soccer world cup... good PR with the actual people...

But once they are operational and if Russia got wind that the in power US regime wanted to boost its flagging voter numbers by invading Venezuela then scheduling some exercises where a helicopter carrier and a few cruisers and of course the Kuznetsov have to go to Venezuela for a couple of months for an extended exercise programme might be all they need to do to make the US look at plan B.

There is no denying that in terms of a full scale nuclear conflict with HATO anything outside the nuclear triad is not very important...

dino00 wrote:An LHD is useful for amphibious operations.

In the same month, Sivkov announced that a pair of Project 23900 (Priboy) universal amphibious assault ships (UDC), which was laid down in July, worth 100 billion rubles, more meet the tasks of the Russian Navy than the French Mistral, but it does not need it at all. In his opinion, the UDC "will turn out to be expensive but useless toys" and "it would be much more useful to turn them into light aircraft carriers." https://lenta.ru/news/2020/07/31/navy/

Tsavo Lion wrote:

dino00 wrote:An LHD is useful for amphibious operations.

In the same month, Sivkov announced that a pair of Project 23900 (Priboy) universal amphibious assault ships (UDC), which was laid down in July, worth 100 billion rubles, more meet the tasks of the Russian Navy than the French Mistral, but it does not need it at all. In his opinion, the UDC "will turn out to be expensive but useless toys" and "it would be much more useful to turn them into light aircraft carriers." https://lenta.ru/news/2020/07/31/navy/

Honestly, two ships do not, they would need at least six of the class honestly, perhaps once the first two are done however long that takes they will lay down some more.

Yes, there were supposed to be 4 Mistrals. That's the plan: the next in series will be modified based on the results of their trials & use.

I read that the Chinese are buiding an LHD with an EMALS on it. It will be very interesting to see what that looks like. Perhaps Russia can license Chinese EMALS tech or the Chinese can provide it in compensation for all the tech Russia has provided to them.

mnztr wrote:I read that the Chinese are buiding an LHD with an EMALS on it. It will be very interesting to see what that looks like. Perhaps Russia can license Chinese EMALS tech or the Chinese can provide it in compensation for all the tech Russia has provided to them.

How old are you? You sound so naive. First of all Chinese tech isn't be-all and end-all, Russia had plenty of issues with whatever little experience we got of it, their engines sucked ass. Second of all, Russia is not gonna rely on anyone but itself. Today the political climate is one way, the next day it could change just like that. And China providing compensation is just laughable. They only know how to steal tech.

Also so far they can't provide anything of value anyway.

ult wrote:

How old are you? You sound so naive. First of all Chinese tech isn't be-all and end-all, Russia had plenty of issues with whatever little experience we got of it, their engines sucked ass. Second of all, Russia is not gonna rely on anyone but itself. Today the political climate is one way, the next day it could change just like that. And China providing compensation is just laughable. They only know how to steal tech.

Also so far they can't provide anything of value anyway.

They seem to be building ships at a pretty impressive rate, and they have grown their economy faster then anything the world has ever seen in its history. Also, Russia massively depends on China as a market for its products. Saying China has nothing to offer is pretty childish and absurd. China is a massive manufacturer of batteries and has invested heavily in electrfying technologies. Russia has never built a CATOBAR carrier. China took a Russian hulk, recomissioned it and built another in just over 2 years.. yet you say Russia has nothing to learn from the Chinese?

Two landing ships to start with and likely eventually four... two in the Northern Fleet and two in the Pacific Fleet, but likely all four used together when available.... there is little chance they will want to perform two simultaneous landings in different places... they will only have one CV to protect them for a start and the cruisers and destroyers they currently have should be freed up by the time these landing ships are ready because by then Russia will have enough Corvettes and Frigates for duties in and around Russian waters freeing up cold war destroyers and cruisers.... with upgrades to sail further afield..

Russia is hardly going to buy Chinese EM technology... they haven't got any aircraft that need it at the moment... they have been working on it for a period of time now and are probably at least comparable to Chinese levels of capability if not better... the thing is that until they put a CVN in the water we wont know really.

Russia and China can work together in a lot of areas and share or sell technology, but neither owes the other anything...

Personally I think Russia should choose China as a partner for their high speed train network instead of Germany... the latter are just too unreliable, while the Chinese have a lot more recent practical experience...

They seem to be building ships at a pretty impressive rate, and they have grown their economy faster then anything the world has ever seen in its history.

Building ships is nothing... if Russia was just building Sovremmeny class ships and Udaloys they could have made them in large numbers too... there is more to ship building than making an aerodynamic shell that looks modern and then filling it with copies of weapons you have licence produced...

And a rapid growth spurt is to be expected then you start near the bottom... bacteria split and double their numbers every half hour.... in a year or two that means two bacteria would have grown to an object the size and weight of the planet earth... but don't be scared when you go for that petris dish in the fridge because when they get to the edge of the dish and run out of food the exponential expansion in numbers stops and they start eating each other.

What the Chinese have achieved is impressive and clear evidence that a managed economy can work very well with investment from outside and the right conditions... but don't get blinded by the fact that now the west recognises the threat and will take measures to isolate and perhaps even attack China, and limit their ability to trade with the rest of the world... just like they are doing with Russia. All the western companies will take their investment and factories out of China and move to India or Bangledesh...

China took a Russian hulk, recomissioned it and built another in just over 2 years.. yet you say Russia has nothing to learn from the Chinese?

Do we know it is even operational? They might have just got the engines working and put a nice coat of paint on them. For all we know they might be nightmares inside.

I have a lot of respect for China, but they have been spoilt for their role in taking down the Soviet Union... but now the west recognises it is more of a threat than Russia is in terms of economics and resources, because China is also a large hungry animal that needs to eat and consume and as a competitor for the west it will drive up the prices or shut the west out of some markets completely...

Copying systems is certainly a skill in itself but copying all the time means you are always behind because what is out what is in service what is sold is already a generation behind what is working in the labs...

China is the better shipbuilder, thats a fact.

GarryB wrote:
Russia is hardly going to buy Chinese EM technology... they haven't got any aircraft that need it at the moment... they have been working on it for a period of time now and are probably at least comparable to Chinese levels of capability if not better... the thing is that until they put a CVN in the water we wont know really.

Russia and China can work together in a lot of areas and share or sell technology, but neither owes the other anything...

Personally I think Russia should choose China as a partner for their high speed train network instead of Germany... the latter are just too unreliable, while the Chinese have a lot more recent practical experience...

They seem to be building ships at a pretty impressive rate, and they have grown their economy faster then anything the world has ever seen in its history.

Building ships is nothing... if Russia was just building Sovremmeny class ships and Udaloys they could have made them in large numbers too... there is more to ship building than making an aerodynamic shell that looks modern and then filling it with copies of weapons you have licence produced...

And a rapid growth spurt is to be expected then you start near the bottom... bacteria split and double their numbers every half hour.... in a year or two that means two bacteria would have grown to an object the size and weight of the planet earth... but don't be scared when you go for that petris dish in the fridge because when they get to the edge of the dish and run out of food the exponential expansion in numbers stops and they start eating each other.

What the Chinese have achieved is impressive and clear evidence that a managed economy can work very well with investment from outside and the right conditions... but don't get blinded by the fact that now the west recognises the threat and will take measures to isolate and perhaps even attack China, and limit their ability to trade with the rest of the world... just like they are doing with Russia. All the western companies will take their investment and factories out of China and move to India or Bangledesh...

China took a Russian hulk, recomissioned it and built another in just over 2 years.. yet you say Russia has nothing to learn from the Chinese?

Do we know it is even operational? They might have just got the engines working and put a nice coat of paint on them. For all we know they might be nightmares inside.

I have a lot of respect for China, but they have been spoilt for their role in taking down the Soviet Union... but now the west recognises it is more of a threat than Russia is in terms of economics and resources, because China is also a large hungry animal that needs to eat and consume and as a competitor for the west it will drive up the prices or shut the west out of some markets completely...

Copying systems is certainly a skill in itself but copying all the time means you are always behind because what is out what is in service what is sold is already a generation behind what is working in the labs...

Oh come on Garry, I know you live close to the great dragon and they are kinda scary, yes I am uneasy about Chinas rise as well but to question if Laioning is operational?



We forget that Russia built it first heavy bomber by copying the b-29 and copied British RR engines to get to where they are today. The US copied tons as well.

If it made sense Russia could put Emals and MIG 29 on the 23900..or use it for heavy strike drones like Okhotnik. If they put 5 Okhotniks on the 23900, it would increase the strike capability of the ship by several orders of magnitude.

EMALS is not an easy tech to master. Also the Chinese claim to have made some breakthoroughs on DC power systems that could transform shipboard power systems.

The J20 is quite an impressive machine all in all as well.

In terms of great powers that do little copying, I would say France, Britain and Germany tend to develop the most independant IP.

I agree with him 100%: https://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2020-07-30/6_1102_flag.html?print=Y

Tsavo Lion wrote:I agree with him 100%: https://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2020-07-30/6_1102_flag.html?print=Y

I agree with him as well, Submarines are an area of strength and the current Russian subs can deliver decisive power at long ranges in both strategic and tactical scenarios. But as I said the UDC with a heavy drone component would be a formidable weapon. Being able to carry 2T of payload means 2 Tsirkon or 4 KH-31s, which is formidable.

Tsavo Lion wrote:I agree with him 100%: https://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2020-07-30/6_1102_flag.html?print=Y

The article is quite pesimistic in my opinion and has some points that are questionable at least:

The Pacific Fleet is completely isolated from the rest of the fleets,

VMF frequently sails the Northern Sea Route, why is the Pacific fleet isolated then?

The navies of the United States, Japan and China are quite capable of cutting off our internal communications in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk.

I guess it is the foreign navies that would have short life expectation at that distance from Russia...

In Russia, since Soviet times, there has been an endless dispute between "submariners" and "aircraft carriers". The former believe that the basis of the Russian Navy should be submarine forces, while the latter advocate a classic balanced fleet led by aircraft carriers. It must be admitted that the second option is very attractive from the point of view of prestige and external effect, but it is completely unbearable for the country economically and does not make sense from the point of view of geopolitics. Events in Syria, including the trip to its shores by our only aircraft carrier "Admiral Kuznetsov", alas, fully confirmed this. The role of the Navy in this campaign turned out to be almost symbolic (with the exception of, of course, the Syrian Express BDK and auxiliary ships).

This is a severe distortion of facts. Aircraft carriers are not built for prestige but to bring air power to the naval domain, but still journos keep hammering on that "show the flag" argument as it had any merit. And of course Syria proves nothing, since Russia has never needed carriers where it can easily offer support directly from Russia.

We have no alternative to submarines; their construction should be an absolute priority. Only submarines can make the Russian Navy a global factor creating problems for the US and PRC navies. Only they are capable of "pushing" even the most powerful fleets of the world (American, Chinese, Japanese) from our coast, only they are capable of effectively operating on enemy communications.

Submarines are easy prey of the enemy ASW forces, if you don't restrain their ability to be deployed and used at will with your surface fleet and air power.

They are not needed to keep fleets away from Russian shores either. Nobody in its right mind is going to sail to war within the operational radius of air launched Kinzhal, because there is no AD capable to counter it.

Building a large fleet to fight the "Papuans" is a criminal waste of funds. It is all the more unclear, and who are these potential "Papuans" against whom we may need one or two aircraft carriers? We do not need to seize other people's resources, to keep ours.

Tired, fake argument of surface fleet being needed only to loot other countries as US does. A properly dimensioned blue sea fleet has air power in it and that means aircraft carriers. You don't need to bomb any third world country with them, but maybe you do need to deter somebody else from doing it...

Maybe someday we will come to the point of nuclear aircraft carriers with nuclear destroyers, but only in the very distant future. There is no point in discussing this future in a world where everything can change radically in a few months. Moreover, such a discussion will inevitably raise the question: will the aircraft carriers share the fate of battleships during and immediately after World War II?

The author seems to be determined to throw anything against the carrier idea:

- The fate of carriers is not going to change in months, if it was like that no naval planing would be possible at all;
- Them being obsolete contradicts the first argument of things changing very fast and also both the planing of all other navies in the world and the dynamics of traditional race between weapon and shield. The same way tanks are not obsolete because ATGMs exist and have evolved in virtue of them being the most protected and effective way of carrying out combat on land, carriers will be reinforced and protected against hypersonic weapons, simply because they are the only known way of having the huge advantages of air power at sea.

The piece goes on with a series of other arguments based on a reductionist approach to fleet structure. MRKs are not superfluous because there are coastal defences, UDKs are not just toy carriers for attacking Papuans and so on. There is no magical weapon that can defeat all others, if only because it will be very easy for the enemy to study and counter it, specially wealthy enemies like the West. On the contrary, the optimal and most difficult fleet structure to counter is a balanced one, where a variety of elements reinforces the qualities and covers the gaps left by each other. So this demagogic discussion about whether Russia should have carriers or subs would be at best put to rest IMHO, since both are needed in a reasonable amount. That is BTW what the VMF is trying to do, if only "well intentioned" voices domestic and foreign would stop "helping"

LMFS wrote:


The navies of the United States, Japan and China are quite capable of cutting off our internal communications in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk.

I don't agree at all, if any of these players tried to blockade the Sea of Okhotsk, they would face massive risks from Russia air power and subs.

LMFS wrote:
Submarines are easy prey of the enemy ASW forces, if you don't restrain their ability to be deployed and used at will with your surface fleet and air power.

Submarines operating without satellite intelligence and airpower backup maybe. Not the case of Russia. With satellite and drone recon the Russians would know when any naval ship is miles away from their subs. P8 may be a risk, but it would have to localize the sub first. P8s also flying low and slow are at serious risk to being shot down by subs. In high tenstion times the Subs would be protected by fighters.

LMFS wrote:
They are not needed to keep fleets away from Russian shores either. Nobody in its right mind is going to sail to war within the operational radius of air launched Kinzhal, because there is no AD capable to counter it.

Subs are great predators, Russian subs can strike form very long range and be a long distance away when their missiles are arriving at the target.

VMF frequently sails the Northern Sea Route, why is the Pacific fleet isolated then?

they do, & some subs been transferred between fleets, but it takes at least 2-2.5 weeks & surface ships need icebreaker escort- so it's seldom done.

The navies of the United States, Japan and China are quite capable of cutting off our internal communications in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk.
I guess it is the foreign navies that would have short life expectancy at that distance from Russia...

enemy subs/UUVs can sneak in, just like Russian subs can get into the Med./Yellow/Red seas, & the Mexican Gulf.
U r contradicting urself here:

Nobody in its right mind is going to sail to war within the operating radius of air launched Kinzhal, because there is no AD capable to counter it.
..carriers will be reinforced and protected against hypersonic weapons, simply because they are the only known way of having the huge advantages of air power at sea.

I doubt they have any advantages left when confronting Russia & China- the USN now has to rely on the USAF for help even more than before.
I agree the fleet must be balanced, but it takes time to build new ships/subs, while in the meantime political/economic situation changes leading to changes in naval trends. That's why the militaries around the World r best prepared to fight the last war.

mnztr wrote:I don't agree at all, if any of these players tried to blockade the Sea of Okhotsk, they would face massive risks from Russia air power and subs.

We agree, that was a quote from the article and my answer was below.

Submarines operating without satellite intelligence and airpower backup maybe. Not the case of Russia. With satellite and drone recon the Russians would know when any naval ship is miles away from their subs. P8 may be a risk, but it would have to localize the sub first. P8s also flying low and slow are at serious risk to being shot down by subs. In high tenstion times the Subs would be protected by fighters.

If you allow your enemy to deploy all their ASW means unobstructed by a surface fleet with sufficient air power they will find and destroy your subs, if you put all your eggs in the sub basket they will have every incentive to invest seriously on all kinds of ASW weapons, sensor networks etc.

Tsavo Lion wrote:U r contradicting urself here:

Currently such weapons as Kinzhal cannot be reliably countered, it doesn't mean in 5 or 10 years the situation will be the same, and carriers as capital ships will have priority in getting protection... that is why I mention the race between offensive and defensive means.

I doubt they have any advantages left when confronting Russia & China- the USN now has to rely on the USAF for help even more than before.

The rot in the USN is even more serious than in other services, they have practically been left without air superiority. That does not mean that the sheer amount of air, surface and submarine power available to them is not head and shoulders above anyone else's... at the moment. But you are right, they are trying to let USAF do the heavy lifting more and more... which contradicts the very essence of naval air power doesn't it? That is, used where you can't count on land-based support. Since USN CSGs are used normally for land attack, they create a false image of what naval aviation is and how it should be used.

LMFS wrote:by subs. In high tenstion times the Subs would be protected by fighters.

If you allow your enemy to deploy all their ASW means unobstructed by a surface fleet with sufficient air power they will find and destroy your subs, if you put all your eggs in the sub basket they will have every incentive to invest seriously on all kinds of ASW weapons, sensor networks etc.

[/quote]

I am honestly not sure that is true any more. The current Russian subs can strike from such a distance, as long as they have access to drone or satellite intelligence real time they are at the top of the food chain. Nothing can really get close enough to challange them. I would say the US ASW planes are the most dangerous asset against subs. But as long as the subs stay close to Russian air cover the P-8s will not dare to engage.

China is the better shipbuilder, thats a fact.

You need to define better... China is having a growth spurt, and that is great for China, but production numbers alone really don't tell a full story.

Oh come on Garry, I know you live close to the great dragon and they are kinda scary, yes I am uneasy about Chinas rise as well but to question if Laioning is operational?

I don't fear the dragon at all... I know quite a few Chinese people and I find them honestly to be better people than the white people I know, and there is no evidence I have seen that rich Chinese people are any worse than rich Americans or rich Brits... the more money you have the less inclined you are to share it or lose it... and has more to do with human nature than ethnicity.

We forget that Russia built it first heavy bomber by copying the b-29 and copied British RR engines to get to where they are today.

The B-29 held them back... they would have been much better off spending a little more time making their own design than just copying that plane.

And BTW the Soviets landed an ANT-25 in the US that flew about 15,000km non stop to land there which actually resulted in funding being made available to build what eventually became the B-17.... without which there would be no B-29.

The Russians were using strategic bombers in WWI, and had plenty of large bomber aircraft well before WWII.

And the RR engines were rather more powerful than the engines they were already working on... but what was Britains equivalent to the MiG-15... they rapidly improved well beyond simply making copies of foreign products in every department, which does make it rather different.

If it made sense Russia could put Emals and MIG 29 on the 23900..or use it for heavy strike drones like Okhotnik.

It would make as much sense as replacing everything on a Kirov class cruiser with a flat metal plate and using it as a helicopter carrier.

The 23900 is a helicopter carrying landing ship... they have rather large numbers of naval infantry and this is the ship they will largely operate from... putting MiG-29s on it would be stupid... helicopters are critical for landings.... MIG-29s are useless except in opposing enemy air power... but at best you might get 4 onto the ship and the cost of the EMALS and the space four MiGs would take plus the fuel and weapons they need to operate would mean you will only be carrying 10 helicopters... and helicopters are useful... four MiGs in comparison are not... it is a stupid idea... and would only be considered by countries that can't afford real aircraft carriers but realise how important air power can be.

If they put 5 Okhotniks on the 23900, it would increase the strike capability of the ship by several orders of magnitude.

Are you listening to what you are suggesting... putting a subsonic drone that carries bombs and light missiles on a helicopter landing craft... why? All the ships and subs that operate with this ship will have Kalibre a subsonic long range land attack missile that does exactly the same job but much easier and much cheaper and already in place.

EMALS is not an easy tech to master. Also the Chinese claim to have made some breakthoroughs on DC power systems that could transform shipboard power systems.

The J20 is quite an impressive machine all in all as well.

I never said it was, but why do you assume that a system China has created for its own needs and its own ships would even be compatible with Russian ships or needs?

What sort of heavy AWACS aircraft is the Chinese system capable of launching? The Russians don't need a system to launch fighters because their fighters use a ski ramp for takeoffs...

In terms of great powers that do little copying, I would say France, Britain and Germany tend to develop the most independant IP.

Using term great a little loosely now I see, but nobody wants to completely reinvent the wheel... when developing anything the first step in the developing process is to look at any other solution anyone has already come up with and look at the design solutions they chose and try to work out why.

For instance with the US Space shuttle they didn't have a big powerful rocket they could launch their shuttle on so the shuttle itself needed some big rocket engines. These big rocket engines needed a huge fuel tank which made the whole thing so heavy it could not take off on its own so they added two very powerful and very expensive solid rocket motors. The Soviets were able to look at the design and recognise the problems with it and make significant changes to make Buran a better shuttle. NASA spent 2 billion dollars testing all sorts of shapes for their shuttle... it would be arrogant and short sighted of the Soviets to ignore their work...

In Russia, since Soviet times, there has been an endless dispute between "submariners" and "aircraft carriers". The former believe that the basis of the Russian Navy should be a submarine force, the latter advocate a classic balanced fleet led by aircraft carriers. We must admit that the second option is very attractive in terms of prestige and external effect, but it is completely useless for the country economically and does not make sense from the point of view of geopolitics.

Russia needs to expand it trade and its relations with the rest of the world.... ie not just the countries on its borders which the west has systematically made hostile to Russia. It can't do that with Submarines... it needs surface ships and if you want to operate surface ships away from Russian IADS and land based air power then by default you need aircraft carriers. As I keep saying, you don't need to match anyone in numbers or size, but you need radars and EO systems in the air and fighters in the air that can blunt an attack and add a layer of defence to make the ships safer and better protected.

The events in Syria, including the cruise of our only aircraft carrier, Admiral Kuznetsov, to its shores, have, alas, fully confirmed this. The Navy's role in this campaign was almost symbolic (with the exception, of course, of the BDK's" Syrian Express " and auxiliary vessels).

Without a strong navy and sea access how do you think a conflict over Venezuela or Cuba would turn out? Without the Russian Navy the HATO forces could have sat off shore and launched attack after attack supporting terrorists fighting against Assad... dismissing the effect the Navy had is ignoring that many of the cruise missiles launched came from Corvettes in the Caspian Sea and other ships... only a few from subs.

We have no alternative to submarines, and their construction should be an absolute priority.

Short sighted and stupid... there is no point in making more submarines than they are already making so there is no need to change priority... in terms of WWIII having 500 modern and capable subs might wipe out the fleets of all our enemies... but we will be dead anyway so who cares?

Developing a strong submarine fleet to win a world war is as delusional as the HATO leaders who think turning all of Russias neighbours against her is making her weaker. Cutting away the fat and making her more independent is not making her weaker.

A carrier group can further Russian interests around the world without fear of being stopped by a blockade or other some such rubbish.

[quote]Only SUBMARINES can make the Russian Navy a global factor that creates problems for the US and Chinese navies. {/quote]

Russia already is a global factor, but with very poor flexibility... lots of power during war time, but no power at all during peace time... which is when Russia needs it the most.

And why on earth would Russia want to create problems for the Chinese? That is just stupid... let them have as many islands in the south china sea as they like... at least they didn't murder the natives to get it like the western colonial powers of the US and UK did.

Only they are able to "push back" even the most powerful fleets of the world (American, Chinese, Japanese) from our coast, only they are able to effectively operate on the enemy's communications.

But they are already able to do everything Russia needs... three dozen MiG-31s with kinzhals is more effective and much faster reacting than any sub they have... near Russian coastlines there is no problem in terms of war time... it is peace time and therefore lack of surface presence that is the problem and a carrier makes a surface presence safer and more practical.

We will not be able to build a surface fleet comparable to the American and Chinese in any foreseeable future, even theoretically. Building a large fleet to fight the "Papuans" is a criminal waste of funds. All the more unclear, and who are these potential "Papuans", against which we may need one or two aircraft carriers? We don't need to capture other people's resources to keep our own.

You don't need 12 CVNs and carrier groups to go with them, but you do need surfaces ships that can operate anywhere for as long as needed and to support them it just makes sense to have aircraft carriers because that extends their view and reach in a way no submarine can.

Perhaps one day we will have to deal with nuclear-powered aircraft carriers with nuclear-powered destroyers, but only in the very distant future. It makes no sense to discuss this future in a world where everything can radically change in a few months. Moreover, such a discussion inevitably raises the question: will aircraft carriers share the fate of battleships during and immediately after world war II?

We will know when the Russian Army says they are happy with their SAMs and really don't require the Air Force any more to defend Russian airspace...

Plus you already stated at the start of the article that you need seriously long term future planning for a Navy because things are expensive and nothing happens fast so how about laying down the ground work now because in 10 years time if you think you need something it will be too late.

On the other hand, the question arises: to what extent do we need units that are conceptually opposed to aircraft carriers and destroyers – small ships and boats? For example, now under construction small missile ships (MRK) PR. 21631 and 22800. Firing "Calibers" at targets in Syria showed a very high strike potential of such ships, making them a kind of"micro-aircraft carriers". But because of their small size, they have very limited seaworthiness and range of navigation, very weak air defense. Therefore, there is a feeling that the MRC largely duplicates the coastal defense, which can also fire the same "Calibers", but with much cheaper ground-based PU, moreover better protected by air defense means. In addition, the US has released us from the INF Treaty, which allows us to place the same "Calibers" on ground-based missiles to hit ground targets. Such PU will also be cheaper than ships and better covered by air defense. Of course, the MRC, going out to sea, pushes the launch line of missiles several hundred kilometers from the coast, but at the same time creates the task of providing them with air defense at this distance from the coast, thereby "straining" the fighter aircraft or requiring cover from larger surface ships.

Certainly land based missile launchers make sense but the Russian navy has never before had corvettes able to attack land based targets from enormous distances with land attack missiles so why did the Russian navy have so many corvettes before? Is it possible there are other jobs and roles small ships can perform other than starting WWIII?

Partly, of course, the weakness of the air defense of the Russian MRC is compensated by the St. Andrew's flags on their flagpoles. That is, a strike from someone on our IDC (even if it is momentarily unpunished) automatically means aggression against Russia "with all the consequences" that no one wants. This approach is generally possible, but still somewhat adventurous. Therefore, it may be advisable to focus on the construction of ships in the Maritime zone, that is, frigates. It can be the ships of PR. 22350, and already tested PR. 11356, and some of their synthesis, and a completely new project. They will have the same St. Andrew's flags, the same "Calibers" in the PU, only in greater numbers than on the MRC, and all this will be supplemented at least by relatively adequate air defense, which together with the St. Andrew's flag will act on any potential enemy much more sobering than the St. Andrew's flag itself.

Which will result in a fleet of corvettes and Frigates able to operate well in Russian waters, but who is going to bother trading with Russia if the next day the US imposes a naval blockade and tries to replace their government like they did in Venezuela and indeed Syria.

Without international trade you are land locked by your enemies.

As for landing craft, if we abandon aircraft carriers, it is quite natural to continue building our traditional BDK ("Amphibious problem of the Russian Navy"," HVO " from 22.03.19), simultaneously able to perform the role of military transports. For their protection, those very frigates (and again, St. Andrew's flags on the masts) would be enough. As for the universal landing craft (UDC), the question of the construction of which seems almost solved, then everything is also ambiguous. Theoretically, UDC becomes some cheaper " I. O. aircraft carriers", while they are more useful in that they are able to land troops, and in an over-the-horizon way. In this role UDK just coming for the war with the natives, pretending to be a serious confrontation between the countries and their navies. However, there are still open questions as to who these aborigines are, where they are located, and why we should direct the UDC against them. Of course, UDC can also be used in the aforementioned role of military transports, for transporting troops and equipment from Russia to Russia, for example, from Vladivostok to Sakhalin, the Kuril Islands, Kamchatka and Chukotka. This is the only conceivable way to use UDC in a "real" war. However, it is quite likely that for the same money you can build twice as many traditional BDK, which are much better suited for the role of troop transports.

But hang on... I thought carriers were useless and they should just make subs... the ridiculous thing is that building mini carriers because they are cheap leads to building extra to carry the fighter planes you suddenly realise you actually need and you end up with 20 fucking carriers... all too small to be useful but still more expensive than any decent CVN you could have had that would actually do the job you need it to do.

The marine corps will largely continue to serve as a coastal defense force when limited amphibious operations are possible, and in peacetime rather than in wartime. Marine aviation requires very significant strengthening-both at the expense of specialized aircraft and helicopters (primarily patrol and anti-submarine), and at the expense of machines similar to those available in the VKS, but working in the interests of the Navy.

So piss money away making small ineffectual carriers you never really plan to use and a vertical take off fighter plane that can use it but is totally useless compared to more conventional equivalents but you have to use it anyway because you are trapped walking down teh road of small carriers and useless fighters... to save some money.
In the mean time everyone stops buying your weapons because when they do the economic sanctions from the west are intense and if they are not careful they get overthrown in some Maiden of their own, so Russia looses most of its export partners and slowly withers on the vine of isolation despite all its resources cause it was too cheap to build a navy that could defend its interests...

It is OK... Britain has already gone down that road... why not Russia.

Such a variant of the construction of the Navy could become optimal both in economic and military terms, allowing the Russian Navy to most effectively solve the tasks that it makes sense to set before it.

It is a plan for failure, and it shows a common ignorance that if Russia has carriers it must be like the west has carriers... either the US plan with too many money draining white elephants, or the UK model where the smaller carrier is less use than tits on a bull and would get slaughtered against any real enemy (fortunately the west does not select real enemies to fight, or if it does... it forms a coalition of the stupid to drag others in to fight their battles.

I agree with him as well, Submarines are an area of strength and the current Russian subs can deliver decisive power at long ranges in both strategic and tactical scenarios. But as I said the UDC with a heavy drone component would be a formidable weapon. Being able to carry 2T of payload means 2 Tsirkon or 4 KH-31s, which is formidable.

They already have as many subs as they need.. perhaps a few more... but they are not going win WWIII.

Tired, fake argument of surface fleet being needed only to loot other countries as US does. A properly dimensioned blue sea fleet has air power in it and that means aircraft carriers. You don't need to bomb any third world country with them, but maybe you do need to deter somebody else from doing it...

Exactly... if Russia can't use force anywhere on the planet then how can it ensure its interests?

If it gets a nice lucrative contract with Peru, and the US objects and threatens Peru... how are Russian frigates and corvettes or for that matter submarines going to deal with that?

And the suggestion that Frigates will be able to protect helicopter landing ships is pathetic... cold war frigates could barely protect themselves... you needed a cold war cruiser to have any chance of providing an air defence umbrella. The New ships are much better equipped but even with their new systems a modern frigate probably has enough SAMs on board to defend itself from a decent attack, but not ships nearby.... at the very least you would need a modern destroyer to protect other ships and you would do better with 3-4 of them and perhaps a cruiser or two.... and if you are building cruisers and destroyers then it makes sense to spend a little more on a fixed wing carrier to protect those ships from the attack of a more powerful country...

As I keep saying... with the Kuznetsov, they probably need two CVNs and at least 8 new cruisers and perhaps 24 destroyer types split between the only two fleets that really matter... in so called war time the Baltic and Black Sea fleets are blocked by HATO... it would be pointless basing major ships there.... with the north sea route basing them in the Pacific and Northern fleet would give them quick access to the Atlantic and Pacific oceans...

I don't agree at all, if any of these players tried to blockade the Sea of Okhotsk, they would face massive risks from Russia air power and subs.

He is quoting from the article you just agreed with...

Submarines operating without satellite intelligence and airpower backup maybe. Not the case of Russia. With satellite and drone recon the Russians would know when any naval ship is miles away from their subs. P8 may be a risk, but it would have to localize the sub first. P8s also flying low and slow are at serious risk to being shot down by subs. In high tenstion times the Subs would be protected by fighters.

What he is basically saying is that carriers are worthless because we are not a colonial power looking for resources to steal, and that therefore we can have a tiny navy based on Subs that will win WWIII for us.

And he is wrong on every count.

Subs are great predators, Russian subs can strike form very long range and be a long distance away when their missiles are arriving at the target.

They are.. but fucking useless in any situation except war time. If the US decides to get serious because trump needs a victory and he sends three carrier groups to block all sea based trade to Venezuela and says nothing is going in or out till Maduro hands power over to Guano... WTF is Russia going to do with its submarines and frigates and corvettes? Ask him to stop and tell him he is being a big bully?

Other potential trade partners in central and south america and asia and africa will look at that and think... they are a paper tiger... they have nukes and hypersonic missiles but they can't use them without starting a war that could spiral out of control... if I start trading with them they are hardly going to start a war with the US or UK or even France just so they can trade with us so there is no point buying Russian or even speaking to them because they have no muscle.

Saying Russia needs aircraft carriers is not saying Russia needs to act like a like the use does and invade countries and regime change... that is not Russia... if that was Russia then there would be a friendly government in Georgia and the Ukraine and Belarus by now... and probably the baltic countries and Finland and in fact all the former Soviet states... Russia does not need to become such a thing but they do also have to be able to back what they say and what they want with force... and sometimes that means sending surface ships around the world. They wont always need an aircraft carrier to go with them because their IADS is amazing, but a lot of the time it will make them rather more powerful and more flexible.

When a US AEGIS class cruiser sailed into Iranian waters and was firing on Iranian naval patrol boats the Americans disrespectfully called Boghammers, and they detected an aircraft approaching they tried to contact it on military radio. After getting no reply (because they were a civilian airliner on a marked civilian airliner route) the commander of the ship had to make a decision and he made the wrong one that killed almost 300 people. His erratic behaviour let to a nearby carrier to call its fighters back for fear he might shoot them down... if he wasn't such a dick riding high on his ego trip of commanding an AEGIS class cruiser in the US Navy perhaps he might have called that carrier group to fly over and investigate the incoming aircraft. Without that option he had to make a choice and murdered about 289 people.

Aircraft carriers we are talking about are fighter interceptors... they don't need strike performance like US carriers... even sending a strike package of one Su-33 with iron bombs is not cheap because you need inflight refuelling aircraft and you need fighter escort and jammers and recon... your strike package to deliver a couple of bombs might include 8-10 fighters which means even just dropping two 500kg bombs it is going to be a couple of million dollars and that is assuming nothing gets shot down. A Kalibr missile has the accuracy and right now a range of 2,500km.... and likely pretty soon much more than double that when they adapt it to the size and shape of the UKSK-M launchers.

Russian aircraft carriers will primarily be there to protect the Russian surface ships so they can do the job they are supposed to be doing.

They are neither US imperial carriers, nor the dinky half arsed toys the British had, nor the scaled up Kuznetsov sized carriers the UK currently uses without ships that could probably protect it... ironically.

they do, & some subs been transferred between fleets, but it takes at least 2-2.5 weeks & surface ships need icebreaker escort- so it's seldom done.

They are expanding it as a commerical route between the EU and Asia so it is going to become much more heavily used by military and civilian traffic.

enemy subs/UUVs can sneak in, just like Russian subs can get into the Med./Yellow/Red seas, & the Mexican Gulf.
U r contradicting urself here:

Seabed based sonar systems will make that tricky to do without being noticed...

I doubt they have any advantages left when confronting Russia & China- the USN now has to rely on the USAF for help even more than before.

Did you just say the US Navy is dependent on US AF air power for protection?

Perhaps that confirms the value of large fixed wing carriers and reflects the poor choices the USN has made in terms of selecting the aircraft it operates... the Super Hornet and F-35 were not great selections...

I agree the fleet must be balanced, but it takes time to build new ships/subs, while in the meantime political/economic situation changes leading to changes in naval trends. That's why the militaries around the World r best prepared to fight the last war.

I keep telling you... the Russian surface fleets and aircraft carriers would be zero use in WWIII... Russia needs a surface fleets that can operate for extended periods great distances from Russian soil because it means they will have global reach and global effect and can trade with countries they don't share a land border without fear of the US or UK or France deciding to interfere using naval power.

Currently such weapons as Kinzhal cannot be reliably countered, it doesn't mean in 5 or 10 years the situation will be the same, and carriers as capital ships will have priority in getting protection... that is why I mention the race between offensive and defensive means.

No major land country on the planet thinks they don't need aircraft... surely their army will be enough and they don't need to waste money on expensive planes.... they can just have ground launched anti aircraft missiles and strategic missiles... no airfields and no planes because they are expensive and too hard to protect...

Why would anyone think a group of ships or subs would be safer without aircraft protecting them?

The rot in the USN is even more serious than in other services, they have practically been left without air superiority. That does not mean that the sheer amount of air, surface and submarine power available to them is not head and shoulders above anyone else's... at the moment. But you are right, they are trying to let USAF do the heavy lifting more and more... which contradicts the very essence of naval air power doesn't it? That is, used where you can't count on land-based support. Since USN CSGs are used normally for land attack, they create a false image of what naval aviation is and how it should be used.

Which is ironic because the US Army should see the rot in the USAF and realise that Stinger and Chapparal and ground launched AMRAAM probably are not going to cut it...

I am honestly not sure that is true any more. The current Russian subs can strike from such a distance, as long as they have access to drone or satellite intelligence real time they are at the top of the food chain. Nothing can really get close enough to challange them. I would say the US ASW planes are the most dangerous asset against subs. But as long as the subs stay close to Russian air cover the P-8s will not dare to engage.

You said it yourself... do you think Trumps space forces are going to ignore those Russian Navy satellites tracking all their stuff?

And it is funny that when a western platform threatens you suggest Russian air cover can deal with it... so these global reach subs that makes cruisers and destroyers and aircraft carriers redundant can't even protect themselves from MPAs like even the smallest corvette probably could?

Sorry there is no way Russia was ready at the time (1947) to build a more advanced plane then the TU-04. Stalin had savaged the aerospace industry with his purges and while Tupolev may have been able to design a superior airframe, I doubt at the time they could have surpassed or matched the engine tech. Not sure if the TU-04 has the computerized guns. Russia has a history of brilliant people supressed by their political system and culture. Even the brilliant Mig-15 would not have been possible without British engine tech. (neither would the Saber for that matter).

Kaliber missiles are not very useful for opposed landings where you need saturated and very timely strikes. That is, - MASS. STOBAR launches simply cannot carry the payload of CATOBAR, but even with a ramp a MIG29 can carry much more payload then a KA-52 and deliver it faster with a much higher sortie rate. If you consider how much ordinance a MIG-29 or Okhotnik can deliver in 1 day vs a KA-52..that is your decider. They would probably do a combo of Helo and water landing as the HELO troops can set up a fire base and support the amphibous landing with mortar and rocket fire....but it really depends on the tactical scenario. Its not right to say if a MIG-29 or KA-52 is more useful. It really depends on the situation. A KA-52 is not gonna be useful for delivering troops either. In fact its a pretty single minded beast.

As for AWACS the Chinese carrier based AWACS is imminent. For now they probably use HELOs.

Developing a strong submarine fleet to win a world war is.. delusional

SSBNs can prevent it or deliver retaliation; SSNs & SSKs r needed to protect them, besides participating in peacetime ops & local wars. He isn't implying that subs alone can win any war. Russia has road mobile ICBMs & may revive BM trains.
If Russia needs anything she doesn't have, or it's too expensive to extract/produce, she has a long borders with former Soviet Republics, China (which in turn borders on SE Asia & Pakistan which borders on India & Iran which borders on the Caspian Sea & Azerbaijan which borders on Russia)  & Mongolia- they can supply her with the same or similar goods that r worth buying from Africa & L. América. As in the Soviet times, they can do w/o plenty of bananas, coffee & cacao. Georgian tea & wine can be transported via the Black Sea, air & land.
Russia is nearly 100% self contained & sufficient; she doesn't depend on overseas trade & SLOCs as China, UK, France, SK, Japan & the Americas. (Btw Japan will become a continental nation after roads r built to Sakhalin & Hokkaido- making her dependent on Russia for land route to Europe. Then, the US will be shown the door.)
The bottom line is that CVNs r not worth as much, if at all, to Russia as to the US, UK & China. She doesn't have possessions in Hawaii, California & Alaska anymore; $ from its sale were used to build railroads in Siberia, not the blue water navy.