Future Russian Aircraft Carrier

[Feanor]

The UK will have two, Russia will have 5 to 6.

The alleged date for this goal is 2050

If they split their naval battle groups they have one more carrier than the UK. That leaves another naval battle group roaming.

No. Each carrier is the center of a battlegroup. That makes for 5-6 battlegroups. Vs. 2 British ones.

Also they will not need the carriers to secure the integrity of Russian of repeal an offensive from NATO.

Russia repelling a NATO offensive is highly unlikely especially if it involves the US. Dropping lots of tactical nukes on a NATO offensive is far more likely.

Carriers suggest a more aggressive foreign policy from Russia, also it would connected to resources in the Arctic and Antarctic. You don't spend money on 6 carriers and the other naval assets to create battle groups for self-defense purposes.

No. For the purposes of the Arctic, Russia is planning to revive the icebreaker fleet and reinvest in Northern military bases. AVMF can cover the Russian Arctic claim without carriers.

Once again if you understand the Bolshevik mind-set it is also to bolster the pro-Russian party's in the Ukraine, defense contracts are big business and 6 carriers is a lot of money, it also would secure Ukrainian energy supply from Russia, regardless of who is ruling in the Ukraine.

Nothing is impossible.

There we have a feasible scenario. The carrier contract could be payment for gas debts, or even payment for oil and gas deliveries themselves. Not to mention Ukranian and Russian defence spheres are closely related as is, which is why I see nothing impossible about some components being built in Ukraine. What I don't see likely is final assembly taking place in Ukraine.

 

[Stryker001]

I though that the delivery date would start from 2020. I think they will end up using three to two carriers in each battle group, the carriers are of smaller displacement than the US.

Look like this but obviously in a different formation. The one thing they do have a lot of are the long range strategic bombers be it backfires, Bear or the Blackjacks.

 

[ASFC]

Yep, the British would have just two Carriers. But Britain isn't stupid enough to fight Russia alone. If the European Navies that operate Carriers stick to two Carriers each, and America keeps its planned 11 CVNs, then Russia will have to 5-6 Carriers to face off against NATOs almost 20 (variously sized Carriers).

And we still don't know for definite how big these carriers will be, what Aircraft they will operate and what there main task will be. With and ever melting Arctic Russia looks to have a much bigger Coastline to defend than any of the European Carrier owners. For all we know a fair amount of these Carriers could spend all their lives just securing Russia EEZ (although I'll admit that is unlikely).

As for Ukraine, the assumed anti-Russian feeling is only a recent political outburst from the Orange revolution. Who knows, in 10/20 years time they could be back to be pro-Russian. And who knows what they might build, with the two countries MIC so interlocked, Ukraine would probably still do anything for Russia if it was paid a large enough sum of cash.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Feanor]

I seriously doubt that even one new carrier will be complete by 2020. I also seriously doubt 2-3 carrier to a task force. For one the new carriers are support to carry 70-90 aircraft, so they're full fledged carriers. Secondly the purpose of Russian aircraft carriers has to date been more organic fleet air defense, then it is force projection (which would require more aircraft). So if the new carriers do end up smaller in size, then they are not likely to be paired up.

As for Ukranian political sentiment, keep in mind that the orange coalition has already collapsed, with Timoshenko switching to a pro-Russian position.

 

[Stryker001]

I thought the carrier would only hold 50 to 60 air assets, I think they have change their carrier doctrine to encompass both organic and force projection. I think if they are smaller displacement there is more chance of at least 2 perhaps 3 carriers in one battle group, it is around 120 to180 aircraft, with 3 carriers. More air assets than the RAAF for example.

Russia developing six carriers caught a few people off guard goes against their MO and naval doctrine. One reason that a country that has never seen the value in carrier warfare is going to build six is the changing environment, climate change if cyclones or hurricanes occur they can decamp the area, what happened in Cuba recently a permanent base would have suffered damage, same for Venezuela.

Carriers are mobile bases, so at the moment Venezuela is merely rally point for the proposed carrier battle groups. The scenario would be a few months before any conflict occurs, they will go down to Venezuela, by going too and fro it masks any hostile intentions. Russia deploys a naval battle group and the long-range strategic bomber, to Venezuela it is not out of the ordinary, then via Panama Canal out into the Pacific behind Guam. If one thing can be assured is they will have more air assets than the UK and not as big as the US.

 

[Stryker001]

With the proliferation of carriers India 3, Russia 6, PRC would have the capability to build 6 also.

The US might have to go back to the Reagan doctrine of 15, perhaps 18 carriers, you'll not all going to gang up on us are you.

 

[swerve]

The UK will have two, Russia will have 5 to 6. ....

I doubt you'll live long enough to see Russia having 5 or 6 carriers. It's a pipe dream, & even the dream is set in a future so far distant (2050) that it's clear that its originators see it as a distant hope, rather than a plan. To say Russia will have 5 to 6 carriers is silly.

 

[kato]

At most i could 2 or 3, rolling around in time to replace the Kirovs as fleet leaders. I.e. starting sometime in around 20 years. With minimum 10 years building time ,)

 

[moahunter]

I would say UAV AWACS would be cool ( if you find a way to manage to launch and retrieve them)

I think this is the ultimate goal of all navies with aircraft cariers at the moment - it seems inevitable.

 

[Feanor]

With the proliferation of carriers India 3, Russia 6, PRC would have the capability to build 6 also.

The US might have to go back to the Reagan doctrine of 15, perhaps 18 carriers, you'll not all going to gang up on us are you.

For one swerve is right. The entire carrier program is very questionable. It's obvious somebody important in Russia is pushing it through, but whether it will be completed, and whether even 2 or 3 enter service is questionable. And it certainly wouldn't be the first time that a platform was developed, only to never see a production run.

Anyways US increasing number of carriers is also rather unlikely. As it stands the US will need to spend quite a bit as is just to keep the USAF at it's current size.

 

[KiwiRob]

some ones having a laugh pigs are more likely fly than Ukraine build an aircraft carrier for Russianfloorl:

It not as stupid or far from reality as you may think it is, Aker Yards sold the Nikolayev Yard to a company owned by the Russian Government a couple of months ago.

 

[harryriedl]

It not as stupid or far from reality as you may think it is, Aker Yards sold the Nikolayev Yard to a company owned by the Russian Government a couple of months ago.

that was news and your right it dose make it more plausible [with the exception of political issues]. Whats the state of the Yard how dose it compare with Russian and European yards

 

[Feanor]

The Nikolayev Yards have been in general disarray for quite a few years. Unlike Russia, which is using high oil prices to fund at least some industrial development, Ukraine is still in a very poor situation economically. I seriously doubt their ability to produce large and complex warships in their current state. However it is quite likely that they still can produce some subsystems and components, as well as smaller sized ships for the BSF. Given that a new 100 000 tonn drydock is being built by Sevmash for the express purpose of building future carriers, I don't think the Nikolayev yards will be the main producer.

Now that's the situation as it stands. Given a few years (like 5-10) and a friendly government in Ukraine, the Nikolayev Yards might get a few contracts from the VMF for the BSF, possibly as an incentive for letting the Russian Navy stay in Sevastopol. Moving on from there, once (if!) the carrier program takes off, perhaps after the completion of 1-3 carriers by Sevmash, Nikolayev Yards may in the long run have some hope to be a second site for the carrier program. Final assembly won't happen there though because you can't get them out through the straights.

 

[KiwiRob]

that was news and your right it dose make it more plausible [with the exception of political issues]. Whats the state of the Yard how dose it compare with Russian and European yards

I don't know I haven't been their yet, I will be going in November, however if its anything like the majority of Russian yards it will be in bad shape and requiring lots of investment.

 

[Feanor]

Mr. Medvedev just released a statement saying that Russia plans to begin building new aircraft carrying cruisers shortly. So the idea of fuillsized carriers went down the drain? He said he expects first results around the 2013-2015 time frame.

http://www.lenta.ru/news/2008/10/11/record/

 

[ASFC]

Or maybe he is setting up a situation where he can build them in Ukraine and get them through the Straits??

Either way it is good news for the VMF, about time they started replacing some of the older bigger units.

 

[harryriedl]

Mr. Medvedev just released a statement saying that Russia plans to begin building new aircraft carrying cruisers shortly. So the idea of fuillsized carriers went down the drain? He said he expects first results around the 2013-2015 time frame.

http://www.lenta.ru/news/2008/10/11/record/

Or money issues the drop in commodities and the Russian stocks mean that the Russians have much less money to play with.

 

[Feanor]

I'm wondering whether this is indeed a new development or was actually planned that way all along. Russian reports use AC and AC-carrying cruiser interchageably in regards to Russian Navy.

 

[Jon K]

I'm wondering whether this is indeed a new development or was actually planned that way all along. Russian reports use AC and AC-carrying cruiser interchageably in regards to Russian Navy.

Isn't even the US CV designation actually "Aviation Cruiser" ?

 

[nevidimka]

why? an aircraft carrying cruiser cant be 100 000 tons? they can call it AC -frigate if they want to. All that it implies is that the deck will carry VLS.

better to integrate 2 functions in 1 ship than to build 2 ships no?