Russian carriers training next to Norwegian oil-platforms

I didn't see any posts about this around here, so I thoutght I'd throw it in.
A little strange that this hasn't made big headlines in other countries than Norway.
I only found one link in english, the rest is in Norwegian. But the english link pretty much sums it all up.

The Russian Northern Fleet has started a training operation in the close vicinity of a Norwegian oil platform in the North Sea. The heavy military air activities have made StatoilHydro temporary halt helicopter traffic to and from the “Troll” platform

Russian aircraft carrier training next to Norwegian oil platform







Last illustration shows how close they where to land and cities too, I myself live in Bergen.

Crazy russians....these ships are probably among those who are on the way to the Mediterranian.

The Norwegian goverment and our diplomat in Moscow have filed a complain about this to the russians..but no response yet. And the Norwegian military only confirmed their presence, and was keeping and eye on the situation from a distance. The Russians disturbed all of the sivilian air traffic in the area. Everything had to be grounded for safety reasons. Many helicopter pilots where afraid to crash with the russian fighters in the air.

I myself thought this was pretty scary... They could easily crush a little country like Norway. That I know. I've been in the military..it's not much to brag about

This training and all the bomber flyby's to the norwegian border...which has been discussed here before. They're really showing their military muscles these days.....

Discuss away.



An information link about one of the carriers that was here :

Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov

Some links to norwegian news sites:

www.dagbladet.no...

www.dagbladet.no...

www.vg.no...

www.vg.no...

www.vg.no...

pub.tv2.no...

[edit on 11/12/07 by Jericho-X]

[edit on 11/12/07 by Jericho-X]

Doesn't the Norwegian Air Force have decent F-16s?
I've seen loads of pics with these a/c intercepting Russian bombers etc.
didn't they intercept this much before it got so close to Troll?

There's a large oil spill situation there now...


Large North Sea oil spill



[edit on 2007/12/13 by Hellmutt]

LOL that "aircraft carrier" looks like a Mississippi freight barge from the 1950's.

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Doesn't the Norwegian Air Force have decent F-16s?
I've seen loads of pics with these a/c intercepting Russian bombers etc.
didn't they intercept this much before it got so close to Troll?

How are F-16s going to stop a carrier group? They can overfly it but that's the extent of what they can do. The only way to stop it would be to have an equally, or more powerful surface group in front of it, otherwise it's just going to sail right along ignoring you.

reply to post by princeofpeace

The Kuznetsov Class heavy aircraft carrying cruiser, also known as Project 1143.5 or Orel Class, was constructed at Nikolayev South Shipyard on the Black Sea in the Ukraine. The Admiral Kuznetsov, was launched in 1985. A second-of-class vessel, the Varyag, was launched in 1988 but was never commissioned. Admiral Kuznetsov is the only aircraft carrier in the Russian Navy. The hull design is based on the earlier Admiral Gorshkov, launched in 1982, but it is larger with a full load displacement, 58,500t as compared to 40,400t. Admiral Gorshkov has not been operational since 1988 but, in January 2004, India signed an agreement to buy the vessel which is to be extensively refurbished with new propulsion systems, weapons and modernization of the deck for the new aircraft. The vessel is being sold for the price of the refit along with the purchase of 16 MiG-29K fighters and eight Ka-27 and Ka-31 naval helicopters for the carrier group. The vessel was formally handed over in March 2004. Gorshkov will be renamed INS Vikramaditya and will enter service with India in 2008.

The Admiral Kuznetsov supports strategic missile carrying submarines, surface ships and maritime missile-carrying aircraft of the Russian fleet.

www.naval-technology.com...

While it may not be the same size as a Nimitz Class carrier, it's nothing to sneeze at either. It carries MANY more offensive weapons on board, and could probably come out ahead in a stand up fight against many smaller ships, without even using aircraft. It can carry up to 16 YAK-41s, or 12 SU-27Ks.

I guess it wasnt so much the size, but the archaic "look" and design of the ship along with the bellowing black smoke that makes it look like a big old diesel freighter. Im sure its packing a punch however. Its just funny looking.

That's because when you hear the words "aircraft carrier" you think Nimitz Class carrier. The Kuznetsov is actually a Heavy Aviation Cruiser, instead of a "true" aircraft carrier. The Soviets took a different approach to carriers than we did, and never built a full deck carrier. They had laid the keel for their first one, but it was never completed and was destroyed. They're planning on building 6 over the next 20 years however, which will give them the second largest carrier fleet in the world.

Is that the second largest carrier fleet in the world in 20 years comparing it to the numbers of todays competing militaries, or the worldwide projection of others as well?

Worldwide projections as well. The only other country with a rather ambitious carrier plan is China, but they have never built ANY kind of aircraft carrier in their history. They're in the process of making the ex-Varyag operational, and want to build indigenous carriers within a few years, but even they're not looking at 6 or more.

People keep talking about this carrier is if it is the the primary threat from Russia in terms of their current deployed technologies. On the contrary it is the submarines and the surface missile ships like frigates that are Russia's primary deployed hardware. Zaphod58's source says it all:

"The Admiral Kuznetsov supports strategic missile carrying submarines, surface ships and maritime missile-carrying aircraft of the Russian fleet."

Key word is - supports. Thus the carrier is not meant to be seen as the figurehead of the fleet (like US carriers are), but as nothing more than a support ship. US carriers on the other hand are the key, with the rest of the fleet pretty much supporting them. I think even the ballistic submarines deployed by the US are currently playing a lesser role than in the Cold War, and many have been converted to carry conventional instead of nuclear warheads.

Russian navy's focus always was on ballistic submarines. Pretty much the rest of the fleet plays the supporting role for these submarines (other than landing craft and ships designed to support small surface attack operations). Thus it is the submarines that the West should be fearful about, not the single support aircraft carrier Kuznetsov.


However it seems that if Kuznetsov is deployed to deal with Kosovo situation, it may actually change its role, and show that Russia has a new focus for its navy - more like that of the US: as a foundation to stage attacks and other military action from.

But if this is not happening, then I do not see a reason why Russia should focus on increasing its carrier fleet. I haven't heard about plans to build more carrier. And what are they going to base the carrier on? Defensive carriers like Kuznetsov, or the American Nimitz carriers? A large carrier fleet would be very expensive to both create and operate, and a constantly deployed offensive carrier fleet like that of US would require major improvements in the overall infrastructure and developmetn of supporting ships of the Russian navy.

I honestly see no reason for Russia to engage in such a costly undertaking. Why does Russia need 6 carriers, unless it plans to directly compete with US's offensive capabilities? And why does it need to compete with US in this respect? Russia is in no position economically-wise for this. A renewed focus on the military, will undermine Putin's efforts to rebuild the economy.

[edit on 14-12-2007 by maloy]

Damn, I actually did research on the world's carrier-owned nations.

All I remember is US still kicks arse even if you combine all the other nations' carriers together. Plus, US are the only ones deploying full-size and super- carriers.

I beileve my primary source of information was from Federation of American Scientists - Military Analysis Network

reply to post by maloy


But yet, they're planning on building them.

Russia cannot be said to be blind to the role of aircraft carriers or the navy in modern warfare. In today's unpredictable world, even the mere appearance of a formidable ship featuring three service components sailing off a trouble spot is capable of producing a sobering effect on a potential aggressor.

It was therefore not surprising that in the middle of the year Adm. Vladimir Masorin, commander in chief of the Russian navy, announced plans to reform the country's naval forces and build a blue-water navy with the world's second-largest fleet of aircraft carriers.

Or rather, in the next 20 years, Russia aims to create six aircraft carrier strike groups, giving it the world's second-largest surface navy after the United States.

An aircraft carrier looks impressive but needs a strong escort. Current world practice, where the United States is the trend-setter, dictates their operation within strike groups.

www.spacewar.com...

MOSCOW. (Nikita Petrov for RIA Novosti) - The Russian Navy will become the world's second largest in 20 years' time, said its commander-in-chief, Admiral Vladimir Masorin, speaking ahead of Navy Day.

He said the navy's core would consist of the newest strategic nuclear-powered submarines and six squadrons of aircraft carriers.

For Russia's navy, this will be its third modernization program, said the admiral. The previous two, although giving it a boost, were never completed. Now, said the admiral, there is such a chance.

Recently approved, a rearmament program until 2015 for the first time in Soviet and Russian history puts the development of the navy on an equal footing with strategic nuclear forces. Out of 4.9 trillion rubles ($192.16 billion) allocated for military rearmament, 25% will go into building new ships.

"We are already building practically as many ships as we did in Soviet times," First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov said during a visit to Severodvinsk. "The problem now is not lack of money, but how to optimize production so that the navy can get new ships three, not five, years after laying them down."

www.inteldaily.com...

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Worldwide projections as well. The only other country with a rather ambitious carrier plan is China, but they have never built ANY kind of aircraft carrier in their history. They're in the process of making the ex-Varyag operational, and want to build indigenous carriers within a few years, but even they're not looking at 6 or more.

I thought the Chinese were only allowed the Varyag under the condition they do not make it an operational carrier? Or am I misunderstanding you? Operational to me means in service and ready for combat, or are they just using it as a training base?

On topic, the Kuznetzov was only in the med a short while ago. It seems to be steaming about all over the shop at present.

Nobody really knows for certain, however, it's almost ready to sail. The Chinese are buying 50 SU-33s to put on her, and have laid down the deck coating and done much work to her. They plan to have her operational by 2009, and have her in the water by sometime next year.

reply to post by Hellmutt


Gee, I wonder how that hose broke. I'm sure the Russians had nothing to do with it...


Broken hose caused oil spill

It must have been either Russian divers with really large wire cutters, or the notorious Russian chain-saw submarines designed for underwater hose cutting. They were going to siphon the oil out too, but failed as always. It was a great plan nonetheless.

That aircraft carier looks to be steam powered

That's because it is. The Russians never built a nuclear powered carrier. And as I said before it's not really a carrier, but a cruiser that carries aircraft.

Russia vs. Norway

Originally posted by Jericho-X

They could easily crush a little country like Norway.

Not easily. If they use nukes, yes. But they know that NATO will nuke them back immediately if they do. And Norway is a "nuclear free zone", so they may not nuke Norway. If they use conventional weapons to attack Norway, there might be "just" a conventional war between NATO and Russia (just like good ol' WWI and WWII)... No sides wants to start a nuclear war (hopefully). Cause it will completely destroy the Earth. So why do that?

A (conventional) war in Norway will not be like the war in Afghanistan or Chechnya. Hitler refered to Norway as "Festung Norwegen" ("Fortress Norway") for a reason. And Norway has sophisticated weapons. Yeah, I know that Russia has sophisticated weapons too, but it won't be easy. Norway won't surrender without a fight, and it will be costly for the Russians. Russia has a huge border to guard, and they will have to fight all of NATO too. So they can't send everything they have into Norway. I agree that Norway can't do much if Russia suddenly sent thousands of tanks across the border in northern Norway. Hopefully, they won't do that Maybe next time the Russians disturb Norwegian oil/gas production or other activities, Norway could test the NSM missile against these ships? I'm sure they'll sell more of these missiles after such demonstration...

"the world's most sophisticated stealth strike missile"


I very much dislike that Russia is building a city on Svalbard. Svalbard is Norwegian. Russia have plans to buildup Barentsburg and the Russian presence on Svalbard. They want to build an airport there, and a new coal mine and a fishing terminal. The population of Barentsburg is expected to increase. And with this, I expect a military base to appear of course. They should not be allowed to do this! Are they going for the Doomsday vault? Hands off, Russia!