This is a discussion on Russian Navy Head Calls for 5-6 Aircraft Carriers within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Admiral Vysotsky mentions several key features of the plans for the Russian navy, including another long distance voyage for the ...
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 11,138
Threads:
Russian Navy Head Calls for 5-6 Aircraft Carriers
Admiral Vysotsky mentions several key features of the plans for the Russian navy, including another long distance voyage for the Russian navy in 2008, more Bulava tests, sea-trials for Yuri Dolgorukiy, and a carrier construction program.
That carrier requirement is an old story.
Financing the whole package, incl air wings and escorts, is another thing.
It would be also a new VMF doctrine, since so far they used their carriers either as ASW, or as OTH-targeting platform for their missile saturation attacks. Carrier based aerial assets didn't have any real attack role, just a little forward air defense.
I think the background of all of this is the desire to develop an expeditionary amphibious warfare capability. I don't think they would just drop their pretty successful anti-CBG doctrine in favour to shoot it out with the USN on an equal basis.
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 11,138
Threads:
The current Kuznetsov carriers both fighters and (ground? sea?) attack aircraft (Su-25's reworked for carrier duty). I was wondering what you guys think about this. Is it serious? Is there really going to be a carrier construction program?
Not knowing much about the Russian fleet, I think they would be better off with amphibious ships, much like the rest of the world. But if they are going to build a carrier fleet, they will need around six of them. The long standing peacetime rotation of three as a general rule still exists.
That carrier requirement is an old story.
Financing the whole package, incl air wings and escorts, is another thing.
Considering that UK cannot seem to operate even a single VSTOL carrier nowadays, Russian dreams of 5-6 CVBG's are clearly unrealistic. This kind of unrealistic thinking damages prospects of Russia developing a sustainable military.
No, Britains problem is political, i.e the decision to retire the FA2 early and give the RAF domince has caused problems for the Fleet Air Arm. All things considered the Royal Navy has done a stirling job at maintaining its 'Carrier' capability since the cancelation of its last big tops in the 60's, with little or no help from the Govt. (I do not consider a problem with a fridge to be marking the end of the UK being able to operate its ships .)
Russias problems are not only going to be paying for it, but maintaining it. They have little or no expertise in operating sustained CV operations and there is no country willing to help them out. These reports seem to be for domestic consumption rather than to be taken seriously on the international stage.
No, Britains problem is political, i.e the decision to retire the FA2 early and give the RAF domince has caused problems for the Fleet Air Arm. All things considered the Royal Navy has done a stirling job at maintaining its 'Carrier' capability since the cancelation of its last big tops in the 60's, with little or no help from the Govt. (I do not consider a problem with a fridge to be marking the end of the UK being able to operate its ships .)
I disagree, if a country decides to maintain military forces it has to spend money operating them. Without doubt RN and Russian Navy (after work-up) would be able to operate large carriers on sustained basis. However, with current financing this is clearly an impossibility.
Russia has not enough money to give the airforce more then 5-10 fighters a year so I dont think they will start building any aircraft carrier soon. Maybe in 2020-2030 the russian economy has recovert so much that a new carrier can be included in the russian military bugdet.
No most money now will go to the new SSBN class,Borei.
Russia is a very large country and really does not need carrier groups like the United States. It would be better if Russia spent the money for carrier groups to develop fifth-generation fighter aircraft to include a new longe-range bomber, more and better air defense missiles sites, more and better ICBM's, manned spacecraft, and fifth-generation attack submarines.
Aircraft carriers make a very good target for high-speed cruise missiles and short-range ballistic antiship missiles.
Short ranged ballistic missiles? You would risk an all out nuclear war with a short ranged ballistic missile? How do you target the carrier over the horizon? By the time the missile got there the carrier would have moved somewhere at 30 knots. And the carrier would still have its electronic warfare suite along with its chaff launchers. Am I missing something here?
Everyone talks of long distance cruise missiles, they are great at hitting stationary targets. Unfortunately, carriers aren't stationary. The question remains, how do you target something you don't see over the horizon?
How do you target the carrier over the horizon? By the time the missile got there the carrier would have moved somewhere at 30 knots.
A good point Sea Toby, i was reading dumb stuff about the "unsinkable carrier England", that guy just completely missed the point that you dont have the coordinates on the runway.
Last edited by Dr Freud; April 10th, 2008 at 11:12 AM.
. 
