Why Isn’t Russia an Aircraft Carrier Superpower?

Joined: September 3rd, 2012, 2:51 am

May 17th, 2018, 12:54 am #1

Historically a land power, the Soviet Union grappled with the idea of a large naval aviation arm for most of its history, eventually settling on a series of hybrid aircraft carriers. Big plans for additional ships died with the Soviet collapse, but Russia inherited one large aircraft carrier at the end of the Cold War—that remains in service today.

Although many of the problems that wracked the naval aviation projects of the Soviet Union remain today, the Russian navy nevertheless sports one of the more active aircraft carriers in the world.

https://warisboring.com/why-isnt-russia ... uperpower/
A Veteran is someone who, at one point in his life, wrote a blank check made payable to "The United States of America" for an amount of "up to and including my life."
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 24th, 2011, 4:32 pm

May 17th, 2018, 9:41 am #2

Active Carrier... as long as it has a tug with it for it's Breakdown.

As for it's replacement, given the state of the Russian industry I just can't see them replacing any of the legacy large class hulls.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 14th, 2013, 4:04 pm

May 17th, 2018, 10:54 am #3

They went down the wrong path with the thru-deck cruiser-ski jump idea then they built ships/planes not equal to the task. 
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 24th, 2011, 4:32 pm

May 17th, 2018, 3:02 pm #4

Hark wrote: They went down the wrong path with the thru-deck cruiser-ski jump idea then they built ships/planes not equal to the task. 
Wasn't at least part of that due to the treaty restrictions for the Black Sea?
Quote
Like
Share

jua
Joined: March 17th, 2005, 3:54 am

May 21st, 2018, 3:16 pm #5

Geographically, Russia was always limited in what it could deploy from where. Of its four fleet bases, two are constrained by seas who's exit is so narrow anyone one land can make the ships coming and going, and basically the local land power gets a say in whether ships leave. The Northern fleet is better off, but still had to deal with being off the coast of Norway and the GUIK gap. The Pacific fleet from Kamchatka has access to open, if freezing, water. But then the area is sparsely populated and only tentatively connected to Russia logistics wise. Given the size and capability of SAC, it was pretty obvious that the US could have it's own CV hunting bombers if it wanted to and these would have a far easier time finding targets than the Soviets did. The USSR also had nothing like the global possessions and allies the US has and does and no need to connect to them.

The other problem is that the US was already a well established carrier power, clearly the best in the biz post WWII. So it was rather pointless to try to compete with them where they were strongest. The missile armed bomber and nuclear submarine were Russia's asymmetrical response to USN carrier power. A CV fleet really would be a waste for them except as a way of dealing with third world nations.
Cheers,
Josh

https://squidjigger.com
Josh@squidjigger.com
twitter: @squid_jigger
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 14th, 2013, 4:04 pm

May 21st, 2018, 3:48 pm #6

sparky42 wrote:
Hark wrote: They went down the wrong path with the thru-deck cruiser-ski jump idea then they built ships/planes not equal to the task. 
Wasn't at least part of that due to the treaty restrictions for the Black Sea?
Not sure what treaty night be involved with this.  I recall that back in days of European Imperialism there were treaties imposed on the Ottomans that benefitted British naval power in the Med at the expense of the Russians.  I can't imagine that any of that survived WW1 however.

Its an interesting question!
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 24th, 2011, 4:32 pm

May 21st, 2018, 3:51 pm #7

Hark wrote:
sparky42 wrote:
Hark wrote: They went down the wrong path with the thru-deck cruiser-ski jump idea then they built ships/planes not equal to the task. 
Wasn't at least part of that due to the treaty restrictions for the Black Sea?
Not sure what treaty night be involved with this.  I recall that back in days of European Imperialism there were treaties imposed on the Ottomans that benefitted British naval power in the Med at the expense of the Russians.  I can't imagine that any of that survived WW1 however.

Its an interesting question!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_ ... t_carriers
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 14th, 2013, 4:04 pm

May 21st, 2018, 4:00 pm #8

Looks like the convention is in need of an up-date.  The USN will never send a capital unit into the Black Sea so it looks like a question for the Russians and Turks.  Thanks!
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: March 24th, 2011, 11:36 pm

May 23rd, 2018, 2:20 am #9

Russia isn't an expansionist state seeking to force their will on far away lands, they historically just sought to secure their own borders. After ww2, and the loss of 20+ million, they used neighbouring countries as a buffer to the troublesome West as the majority of Russias military woes came at them from the west. [they also handed japans arse back to them early in ww2]

The United States has a different world outlook and thinks it acceptable to project military might in far away lands. No doubt under the guise of removing a dictator and installing democracy & freedom.

Short answer: carriers are offensive weapons. The icbm submarines are the defensive weapons system.
A Moron Is Governing America

Let's make America great again!
Quote
Like
Share

ADP
Joined: July 13th, 2012, 3:42 pm

May 23rd, 2018, 2:31 am #10

"Russia isn't an expansionist state"

Yeah - tell that to the Poles, East Germans, Romanians, Hungarians, Czechs, Finns, Bulgarians, Ukrainians, Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians....
Quote
Like
Share