It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bad News for Russian Naval Aviation: Russian Defense Minister Questioning Need for Carrier

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2017 @ 03:04 PM
link   

“If we talk, let’s say, about aircraft carriers, then technologically and technically today Russian defense industry is capable of developing a ship of such displacement. But it’s a question for the military whether such a ship is needed. After all, we have to remember that, unlike the United States, we are not a great maritime power, we are a great continental power, and we have several other priorities.


russiandefpolicy.blog...

As we suspected, the Russians are not going to move forward with building a carrier. When the Kuzie is done, they seem to be done. Work has been halted on the new carrier design as well. I'm not sure exactly how far they got, but…

www.janes.com...

It would seem they are trying to either downplay their financial situation or the fact their shipyards would struggle with building something that large.




posted on May, 23 2017 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

Personally, I never really saw their need for them either. Yeah, they give you some added flexibility, but they'd only really be able to build probably 3 with the number of ports and support ships they have. Ask the French how useful their single nuclear powered carrier has been.



posted on May, 23 2017 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

It depends on what they want to be and they can afford to be.

Putin would love to be a peer for the US and that would mean needing a fleet to do effective global power projection.

However, I think they are realizing they can't really build the carrier, never mind afford it.



posted on May, 23 2017 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

He can want it, but they don't have the port facilities for more than a small number of them. Not enough to be useful.



posted on May, 23 2017 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

True. He's having a tough time with tanks. The T-14s won't be operational until at least 2020 now.



posted on May, 24 2017 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: anzha

They're always working a card. This could be to get the Indians to sweeten the pot. This could be a way to get the chimes to build one for them instead. The society Navy had ships from all around the union so it's not like the Russian Navy is adverse to operating a foreign shop. Hell they were even willing to buy French NATO ships. It would seem the Chinese can do it better and faster so why not but a few of theirs eventually?



posted on May, 24 2017 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: bra1nwash

The ship that they were designing is beyond current Chinese ability to build. It was similar in size to a Nimitz class, and nuclear powered.



posted on May, 24 2017 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Bad news for Russian naval aviation, but good news for the Russian Navy. How much cash will this free up for subs, bad-ass missiles, and arsenal ships? With missile technology being what it is today, I'm not so sure carriers are a wise investment. Sure, shipboard lasers will buy some time, but dollar for dollar, my bet is that missiles and missile platforms are a better investment; aside from giant honking space lasers that is.
edit on 24-5-2017 by Orwells Ghost because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2017 @ 06:24 PM
link   
The majority of Russian Naval power has now rusted up in far forgotten ports after the fall of the wall..They have had a very very hard time recovering..Reminiscing of Cold War strength Putin is.



posted on May, 26 2017 @ 07:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I would argue that 100000 tons of well beyond what Russia can do.. they've never demonstrated the ability to build a warship that big. The Chinese​ at least know super massive ships a little more intimately than the Russians. After their utter inability to stop that tomahawk attack with the 400 I honestly have no confidence in their "crap."
edit on 26-5-2017 by bra1nwash because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2017 @ 07:40 AM
link   
Dp
edit on 26-5-2017 by bra1nwash because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2017 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: bra1nwash

There is zero evidence that they even tried to stop the Tomahawks beyond claims made.

It's more than just a matter of building big ships though. They have to get the catapult system, the landing system, and everything else. It's a lot more complicated than just building a big ship. And then you need escorts, carrier capable aircraft, and far more importantly, doctrine.



posted on May, 29 2017 @ 12:08 AM
link   
Frankly I couldn't see the point of super carriers for Russia either. What they need are flat tops for assault work and putting troops ashore. That's why they ordered the Mistral's from France before sanctions put the brakes on that purchase. I seem to recall they were after the initial two built and wanted maybe another one or two as well.

What they should concentrate on is replacing the Kirov's if they want power projection and big symbols that are more affordable and useful. A largish hull with a couple of hundred missiles is probably more effective if you can build 4-6 than say a couple(at most) of Nimitz/Ford class sized carriers for the same cost. Couple that with operating a fleet of more than say 100 new build TU-160's and some new generation long range weapons and you have a more versatile and potent force that still projects political power.
edit on 29-5-2017 by thebozeian because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join