Other challenges: why Russia doesn't need aircraft carriers


In 2021, the Russian Navy will receive four new submarines, including the Belgorod nuclear submarine, which will carry the Poseidon nuclear-powered drone. At the same time, the only domestic aircraft carrier "Admiral Kuznetsov" will not be able to return to service until 2022, and the construction of new ships of this type is not planned.


It should be noted that the aforementioned fact is by no means a "weak point" of our country. The thing is that the composition of the fleet is directly related to the tasks that it has to perform.

So, today the United States is the leading aircraft carrier. The country is washed by three oceans at once, and one of the main tasks of its Navy since the Second World War has been the operational transfer of troops across the Atlantic to Europe in case of a major conflict with a potential enemy.

In turn, the fleet of the Soviet Union was supposed to prevent such a maneuver. In addition, the tasks of the USSR Navy included patrolling a small coastline (the Baltic and Black Seas, as well as the Far East) and covering the deployment areas of strategic missile carriers in the North and Barents Seas.

In fact, the naval tasks of modern Russia have not changed. At the same time, the development of domestic missile weapons makes it possible to control significantly large territories and stop the maneuvers of a potential enemy in time.

That is why our country, instead of building aircraft carriers, focuses on the submarine fleet and surface attack ships.

At the moment, the Russian Navy has 70 submarines, including 12 nuclear strategic missile carriers, 26 attack ships and 8 special-purpose nuclear submarines. In 2021, in addition to 4 newest submarines, our fleet will receive 6 more surface ships, as well as 22 boats and support vessels.

Ad
We are open to cooperation with authors in the news and analytical departments. A prerequisite is the ability to quickly analyze the text and check the facts, to write concisely and interestingly on political and economic topics. We offer flexible working hours and regular payments. Please send your responses with examples of work to [email protected]
20 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Bulanov Offline Bulanov
    Bulanov (Vladimir) 14 January 2021 11: 11
    -5
    Modern technologies make it possible to create quite a decent aircraft carrier for unmanned aviation on the basis of helicopter carriers under construction in the Crimea.
    1. Japan Offline Japan
      Japan 15 January 2021 18: 23
      -4
      Where where? : 0))))))))))))))
  2. Jacques sekavar Offline Jacques sekavar
    Jacques sekavar (Jacques Sekavar) 14 January 2021 11: 37
    +3
    why Russia doesn't need aircraft carriers

    Because they must fit into the overall military strategy, because these toys are expensive, require the creation of bases and infrastructure, the cost of their support and maintenance, which in aggregate is tens and hundreds of times higher than the cost of building and operating the aircraft carriers themselves.
    The geography of the Russian Federation is comparable to Germany - both have no direct access to the world ocean. In Germany, Britain controls the exit, and the US controls the Pacific outlet in the Russian Federation.
    In addition, the improvement of missile weapons makes it possible to keep aircraft carriers out of the zone of their combat use or to destroy them at incomparably lower costs. Therefore, the United States is revising the strategy and tactics of using the AUG, the required number and effectiveness.
    The PRC has two operating aircraft carriers, plans to increase their number to 7-8 units, several are under construction, including an analogue of the USA's D. Ford with electromagnetic catapults, but the PRC has different conditions, goals, objectives, strategy, tactics and capabilities.
    1. 123 Offline 123
      123 (123) 14 January 2021 13: 50
      +2
      Because they should fit into the overall military strategy

      What is our strategy? Coastal defense and coastal shipping? The capabilities of the fleet are growing, it is not reasonable to give the world's oceans to the sole possession of the Anglo-Saxons, especially since the merchant fleet is also growing. In addition, the squadron with the aircraft carrier is a serious force and is capable of keeping the enemy far from our shores.

      because these toys are expensive, requires the creation of bases and infrastructure, the cost of their provision and maintenance, which in aggregate is tens and hundreds of times higher than the cost of building and operating the aircraft carriers themselves.

      So Russia can afford "Admiral Kuznetsov", "Peter the Great" and "Admiral Nakhimov" too, and a couple of helicopter carriers seem to be not critical. And the aircraft carrier is not lifting? Is the difference so big?

      The geography of the Russian Federation is comparable to Germany - both have no direct access to the world ocean. In Germany, Britain controls the exit, and the US controls the Pacific outlet in the Russian Federation.

      Are you exaggerating? How is it that we do not have access to the world's oceans? Turned the globe. North Arctic in place. With the fact that the United States controls our Pacific coast, I also somehow disagree.

      Therefore, the United States is revising the strategy and tactics of using AUG, the required number and effectiveness.

      Tellingly, they do not plan to abandon them, like China, England, France, Italy and others. How can they, but is it expensive for Russia?

      but the PRC has different conditions, goals, objectives, strategy, tactics and opportunities

      What are the fundamental differences? Don't they need to guard their coast? Or sea trade routes only the Chinese should be interested in, and we should not climb into the "Kalashny row"?
  3. 123 Offline 123
    123 (123) 14 January 2021 12: 12
    +2
    In fact, the naval tasks of modern Russia have not changed.

    The USSR did not need aircraft carriers and Russia does not need it?
    And the fact that "Kuznetsov" was built by the USSR, "Ulyanovsk" was under construction, and the author did not plan to stop there?
    On this, all logical calculations fall apart. This author is broken, carry the next one.
    1. Jacques sekavar Offline Jacques sekavar
      Jacques sekavar (Jacques Sekavar) 15 January 2021 11: 03
      +3
      The aircraft carrier ships of the USSR were built to cover nuclear missile submarines on alert in the Atlantic, and today they can strike without leaving their bases, the missile flight range allows.
      The RF land power and sea trade communications are not of strategic importance, unlike the United States, Britain, Japan, China and all other states.
      The experience of World War I showed that the huge costs of building an armored fleet not only did not justify themselves, but also damaged the combat effectiveness of the armed forces.
      The experience of the USSR and Germany in World War II also showed the ineffectiveness of the costs of building battleships because the fate of the war was decided in a war on land, and the navy played a supporting role.
      Therefore, it is necessary to have a navy based on its tasks, strategy and economic capabilities.
      1. 123 Offline 123
        123 (123) 15 January 2021 13: 32
        +1
        The aircraft carrier ships of the USSR were built to cover nuclear missile submarines on alert in the Atlantic, and today they can strike without leaving their bases, the missile flight range allows.

        R29D missiles, maximum range - 9 100 km, D-30 Bulava, maximum range - 9 300 km.
        In my opinion, not so much difference.
        If the range allows you not to leave the bases, why go out on patrol?

        The RF land power and sea trade communications are not of strategic importance, unlike the United States, Britain, Japan, China and all other states.

        It depends on how you look at it. In my opinion, this is just a stereotype. Peter I would certainly not agree with such a formulation of the question. If we give the world ocean to the sole possession of the Anglo-Saxons, naturally it will not have any strategic significance for us. It is problematic to get to Africa or Latin America along the coast, therefore, all this is under US control and the development of trade and cooperation is limited. And our merchant fleet is also developing decently, it is not built for rivers.

        The experience of World War I showed that the huge costs of building an armored fleet not only did not justify themselves, but also damaged the combat effectiveness of the armed forces.

        And who proposes to build battleships?

        The experience of the USSR and Germany in World War II also showed the ineffectiveness of the costs of building battleships because the fate of the war was decided in a war on land, and the navy played a supporting role.

        Not only the USSR and Germany took part in the Second World War, and since then everything has changed somewhat. Again, I am not suggesting you build battleships, although the Admiral Nakhimov may well be considered its modern counterpart.
        Do you think in the event of the 3rd World War our enemy will be Germany? And it is difficult to get to the "decision-making centers" on a tank.

        Therefore, it is necessary to have a navy based on its tasks, strategy and economic capabilities.

        Exactly yes So let's think about our strategy. As for economic opportunities ... I'll have the nerve to quote myself laughing

        So Russia can afford "Admiral Kuznetsov", "Peter the Great" and "Admiral Nakhimov" too, and a couple of helicopter carriers seem to be not critical. And the aircraft carrier is not lifting? Is the difference so big?

        England, France, Italy and others can afford, Russia can't?
        Something like this hi
        1. Jacques sekavar Offline Jacques sekavar
          Jacques sekavar (Jacques Sekavar) 16 January 2021 14: 35
          +2
          Peter I with such a statement of the question probably would not agree

          Peter 1 fought for access to sea trade routes, and not for domination of the seas and Okians.
          The Russian Federation has two main trade partners - the EU and the PRC, and with both the Russian Federation has land borders and developed transport communications.

          And who proposes to build battleships?

          Battleships and battleships symbolized power and industrial potential. Until now, aircraft carriers have been such a visible symbol. With the development of science and technology, the military importance of aircraft carriers as a strategic weapon has greatly diminished and mainly boiled down to establishing dominance in regional conflicts that are far from the United States.
          The war in Syria revealed a shortage of transport support vessels. Civilian ships require escort, and no one will stop the military. Therefore, there was a need for helicopter carriers, large landing and other ships that, in addition to transport, can perform auxiliary and some kind of repair functions far from bases.

          England, France, Italy and others can afford, Russia can't?

          For the United States, Britain, France, Italy, Japan, China, India, Brazil and all other states, maritime communications are vital and often the only ones.
          The Russian Federation is the only state in the world that is provided with all types of natural resources in practically unlimited quantities, both exploited and conserved for economic reasons, explored, but for various reasons, not developed or assumed. Therefore, he can afford to trade in natural resources not to the detriment of his own interests. As Vladimir Putin said, the federal budget is formed by 30% at the expense of trade in natural resources and this is incomparable with little in comparison with S. Arabia, Iceland, Canada, Australia, N. Zeeland and other raw material states.
          1. 123 Offline 123
            123 (123) 16 January 2021 15: 15
            +1
            Peter 1 fought for access to sea trade routes, and not for domination of the seas and Okians.
            The Russian Federation has two main trade partners - the EU and the PRC, and with both the Russian Federation has land borders and developed transport communications.

            Once we have come to trade routes, we must use them, not just be proud of the presence of an exit. If others dominate them and they are not happy with us, it is problematic to use them, at any moment communications will be cut off.
            The main trading partners are good, but the world is big and you shouldn't get hung up on them, you need to develop cooperation with the entire planet.

            Battleships and battleships symbolized power and industrial potential. Until now, aircraft carriers have been such a visible symbol. With the development of science and technology, the military importance of aircraft carriers as a strategic weapon has greatly diminished and mainly boiled down to establishing dominance in regional conflicts that are far from the United States.

            The importance of aircraft carriers has decreased, but has not been completely exhausted, you wrote there why you built the aircraft carriers of the USSR, the tasks are still relevant.

            The war in Syria revealed a shortage of transport support vessels. Civilian ships require escort, and no one will stop the military. Therefore, there was a need for helicopter carriers, large landing and other ships that, in addition to transport, can perform auxiliary and some kind of repair functions far from bases.

            Try to answer yourself 2 questions: What became the main striking force in the Syrian company? What to do in a similar situation without having Khmeimim?

            For the United States, Britain, France, Italy, Japan, China, India, Brazil and all other states, maritime communications are vital and often the only ones.

            Are they not important to us and let others do them? How did China in ancient times self-isolate? Remember why the exit to the trade routes was punched? And how they struck, they turn out to be not important, and figs with them, we can live without them?

            The Russian Federation is the only state in the world that is provided with all types of natural resources in practically unlimited quantities, both exploited and conserved for economic reasons, explored, but for various reasons, not developed or assumed. Therefore, he can afford to trade in natural resources not to the detriment of his own interests. As Vladimir Putin said, the federal budget is formed by 30% at the expense of trade in natural resources and this is incomparable with little in comparison with S. Arabia, Iceland, Canada, Australia, N. Zeeland and other raw material states.

            The meaning of this paragraph is not quite clear? If you mean that Russia is self-sufficient and does not need anything abroad, then this is not entirely true. If we are talking about exporting natural resources, then let's not confuse warm with soft. We are talking about trade route control. What to carry on them is a slightly different topic. hi
  4. Breard Offline Breard
    Breard (Serg) 14 January 2021 12: 20
    +1
    This is called impotence.
    Want "our" authorities to have such weapons - of course they want! But they are not able to. Based on scientific, technical, economic incapacity! The Soviet COULD and DID! Ours can only yachts for "their" oligarchs, and then create "over the hill"! and SOVIET aircraft carriers are still serving China and India! Here are just Russian ... eeeeh It's a shame! "Admiral of the Fleet Kuznetsov" is a proud name! And the pride of the fleet, and to what they brought.
    I will repeat myself. This is, perhaps, characteristic of the current government of Russia!
    As we say the current "new" Vostochny cosmodrome, they want the name of the current "our president-tsar" (not every tsar in Russia ruled for more than 20 years ... and the current one was honored ...) there, during the "construction" alone, it was stolen from the Russian people more than 14.5 billion!
    1. 123 Offline 123
      123 (123) 14 January 2021 14: 16
      -1
      Want "our" authorities to have such weapons - of course they want! But they are not able to. From walking out of scientific and technical, economic failure! The Soviet COULD and DID!

      With all due respect to your pipe, we couldn’t do it, we didn’t finish much. All that could be "Kuznetsov" and then at the end of the Soviet regime. Aircraft carriers appeared abroad a little earlier than ours, why not tell me? Since they are so powerful, why, say, in the 30th year, they did not build their own?

      ours can only yachts for "their" oligarchs, and then create "over the hill"! and SOVIET aircraft carriers are still serving China and India!

      The Chinese completed the construction themselves, but for India they did it for themselves in the post-Soviet period. The shipbuilding capabilities, taking into account the "civil" ships, are greater than that of the entire USSR, and ships for the fleet, albeit in smaller volumes, are exclusively built at home, and they are not particularly full of allies.

      "Admiral of the Fleet Kuznetsov" is a proud name! and the pride of the fleet, and to what they brought.
      I will repeat myself. This is, perhaps, characteristic of the current government of Russia!

      Is it only for the current one? "Admiral Lazarev", do you remember that? Where and how he ended up because they didn't bother to build the infrastructure for him in the Pacific Ocean.

      As we say the current "new" cosmodrome "Vostochny" want the name of the current "our president-tsar"

      Where is the bike from?
      1. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
        Marzhecki (Sergei) 16 January 2021 08: 38
        +2
        Quote: 123
        Aircraft carriers appeared abroad a little earlier than ours, why not tell me? Since they are so powerful, why, say, in the 30th year, they did not build their own?

        Until 1930 Russia was a de facto agrarian power, exhausted by civil war and intervention, then industrialization was just beginning.
        1. 123 Offline 123
          123 (123) 16 January 2021 15: 50
          0
          Until 1930 Russia was a de facto agrarian power, exhausted by civil war and intervention, then industrialization was just beginning.

          And what about modern Russia as an industrial power with an extremely developed shipbuilding industry, which has accumulated "fat" during the years of perestroika during the Yeltsin period? smile
  5. Finally it came - we do not need a-carriers, they only eat money!
  6. Sapsan136 Offline Sapsan136
    Sapsan136 (Sapsan136) 14 January 2021 15: 59
    +3
    To argue about whether the Russian Federation needs aircraft carriers and other large surface ships is silly. The war in Spain also proved that missile and torpedo boats are indispensable in the Navy. Another question is, “How timely is it to build aircraft carriers now?” And here you have to understand that aircraft carriers and helicopter carriers need escort ships, without which they are just a target. So before talking about aircraft carriers and helicopter carriers, and even more so building them, it is necessary to saturate the Russian fleet with new large surface ships capable of protecting both themselves and the ships they are escorting. The fleet should be balanced, not stuck in submarines or boats.
    1. ASK.21.07 Offline ASK.21.07
      ASK.21.07 (Artyom Karagodin) 15 January 2021 00: 33
      +2
      Well said. Russia needs aircraft carriers, of course, but, given that we have huge holes in ensuring security at sea, we must first of all close them. In particular, to provide a full-fledged anti-submarine and anti-mine defense. And then - creating a normal in quantitative and qualitative terms grouping in the DMZ.

      The Soviet Navy needed aircraft carriers, there were projects (1160 and 1153), but Marshal Ustinov believed that 1143 cruisers with airborne military aircraft would be enough. So Gorshkov kept quiet, realizing that he would not achieve anything except his own dismissal from his post. "How competent the successor will be is a question, but at least I know what the fleet needs" - apparently, the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy thought about this.

      But two research projects at once (one - even under Kuznetsov, the other - in the 70s) showed that it is possible to more or less cover its surface and submarine forces from the aviation of a potential enemy only at a maximum distance of 300 miles from the coast. And then, most often not to cover, but to avenge their destruction. That is, you need aircraft carriers or you have to constantly keep up to a regiment of fighters in the sky, which would eat up the cost of an aircraft carrier for six months.

      As a result, as a result of persistent, long and tedious battles with the higher authorities, they were able to knock out "Kuznetsov" and "Varyag", and as soon as Ustinov was gone, they immediately began to work out the atomic version with catapults. As a result, in 1986, Ulyanovsk was laid down. What happened next is known.

      However, our aircraft carriers were not clones of American, multipurpose, whose task is to strike at surface ships and the coast. Ours were created as air defense aircraft carriers, giving stability to submarines and ships. And, let's say, in realizing this goal, the Ulyanovsk had serious advantages over the Nimitz - both in terms of equipment and in terms of the air group. Perhaps, it is precisely for this concept that we need to work, and strikes on the shore are left as a secondary task. At this point, let the experts decide, but God forbid - the current ones.

      Russia has no problems to build a normal aircraft carrier, at least unsolvable. Organizational only. But it will only be necessary to start a practical solution to the problem when we deal with the problems mentioned above. In general, it is necessary to work out AB projects, but not to put them in urgently.
      1. Dear sofa expert. 16 January 2021 00: 59
        0
        Competent alignment! Bravo!
  7. steelmaker Offline steelmaker
    steelmaker 14 January 2021 17: 29
    +1
    why Russia doesn't need aircraft carriers

    I would agree if we had military bases in different parts of the world. Then, I believe, aircraft carriers are advanced technologies. And Russia is obliged to own advanced technologies. Russia should have at least two aircraft carriers.
  8. Bakht Offline Bakht
    Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 15 January 2021 18: 45
    -1
    Inefficient spending of public funds is one of the main reasons why the most important industry for the development of maritime potential is shipbuilding - is in a bad condition in Russia, says Ruslan Pukhov, director of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (AST): "The industry is a black hole that absorbs large public funds. The return is not always adequate - the quality is low, the deadlines are broken, the price is growing."

    In the new doctrine, shipbuilding is placed in a separate section. The tasks are the same - to build ships at domestic enterprises and on domestic equipment, to overcome the technological backwardness. According to Pukhov, if private enterprises are still engaged in the construction of some military ships in Russia (for example, small frigates for the Vietnamese Navy are being built in Tatarstan), then the situation with civil shipbuilding is completely unimportant.

    According to the expert, a discussion is currently underway in Russia state armament programs for the period from 2016 to 2025... "There are not enough funds for everything. Apparently, in the first place, the expensive programs of the Navy will go under the knife," says Pukhov. It is obvious that in the next ten years Russia will not be able to lay down an aircraft carrier. The program for the construction of Leader-class destroyers is likely to fall victim to the sequestration. So Russia will concentrate on building ships of the "corvette" and "frigate" classes.
  9. Both world wars were won by small steamers and diesel submarines that sailed along the coast and mercilessly sank Adolf's transports!