Aircraft carrier air defense: can the Russian fleet do without such a ship?

As it was promised, we will continue our discussions about what the Russian Navy of the future might be like. Judging by numerous comments, the consensus is that our country does need a full-fledged Navy capable of effectively operating in distant sea and ocean zones, but there are some doubts about the ability to actually build it.

Its way

The main problem when discussing this topic is that in the common view, any external challenges from the collective West supposedly need to be responded to in kind, and Russia simply does not have such a physical opportunity. After which it is customary to fall into the sin of despondency, sprinkling ashes on one's head and calling for geopolitical ambitions to be forgotten.



This is especially clear when attempting to directly compare the potential of the NATO naval forces and the Russian Navy. Well, our country does not have 11-12 aircraft carrier strike groups like the United States, and will never have them. And if you add to them the British, French and Italian aircraft carriers, it becomes really sad. But does the Russian Navy need these "huge floating targets" at all? The answer to this question will not be entirely unambiguous.

On the one hand, our country has no particular need for nuclear-powered aircraft carriers like the huge American Nimitzes. Russia is a great continental power surrounded by many unfriendly neighbors, and it solves its problems with them on land. The war in Ukraine is another clear example of this.

We don't have our own "Papuans" who need to be periodically "democratized" in overseas colonies with the help of AUGs, and there is no need to permanently maintain a strike fleet in every part of the world. The maximum is to beautifully display the St. Andrew's flag somewhere in Cuba, Venezuela or off the African coast. It is not worth spending hundreds of billions of budget rubles solely for this.

On the other hand, the Russian Navy does need aircraft carriers, but they are very specialized. The fact is that the main threat from the NATO bloc from the sea to our country does not come from the decks of American, British or French aircraft carriers. The greatest and absolutely real danger comes from NATO nuclear submarines carrying intercontinental ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads aimed at Russian cities.

They can remain on combat duty for months and secretly reach the boundaries of an effective missile strike, preventive or counter-attack. Plus there are American submarines-hunters for our SSBNs of the Virginia type, which lie in wait for Russian submarine cruisers at the exit from their naval bases.

Needs and opportunities

The following picture emerges. The naval component of the "nuclear triad" is tied to the relatively few SSBNs in service with the Northern and Pacific fleets. To reliably protect them when entering combat patrol areas, a sufficient number of corvette-class warships are required in the near sea zone, and frigates and destroyers in the far sea zone.

At the moment, this is a complete and unconditional priority in the issue of building the Russian Navy! But what to do, for example, with the American SSBNs, which constantly keep our country in nuclear sights, located somewhere in the Mediterranean Sea or the Indian Ocean?

To combat them, the Soviet Navy had to enter the ocean zone, where the US Navy's carrier strike groups reigned supreme. The threat to the Soviet naval strike groups came from both American carrier-based aviation and attack submarines.

It must be understood that no matter how many anti-aircraft missiles there are on a missile cruiser of the Orlan or Atlant class, it will not be able to endlessly fight off repeated attacks by fighters and attack aircraft, covering the KUG. The ammunition supply is not endless. In addition, it was necessary to provide continuous air cover from enemy submarines, which required many anti-submarine helicopters on a rotational basis. The result of understanding these threats was the emergence and continuous evolution of the Soviet aircraft carrier fleet.

The first were the Project 1123 Kondor anti-submarine cruisers, capable of carrying up to 14 anti-submarine helicopters. To combat strategic submarines and nuclear submarines of a potential enemy in distant sea and ocean zones as part of naval search and strike groups and in cooperation with other ships and anti-submarine aviation of the Navy, they were required to ensure the presence of up to four rotary-wing aircraft in the air at the same time. Only two such cruisers were built, Moskva and Leningrad.

The third was laid down but not completed, since the aircraft-carrying cruisers of Project 1143 "Krechet" were considered more promising. The full displacement of the "Krechets" grew to an impressive 37 thousand tons, which made it possible to simultaneously carry P-500 "Bazalt" strike missiles and an air wing of 36 aircraft: not only anti-submarine helicopters Ka-25 and Ka-27, but also the first Soviet deck-based attack aircraft with vertical takeoff and landing Yak-38.

Four ships were built in this series - Kiev, Minsk, Novorossiysk and Baku. When compared to the American Nimitz, they look somewhat inferior due to the weakness of the Yak-38. Much could have changed for the better if they had been replaced by the technically superior Yak-141, but this, alas, did not happen. Nevertheless, the series was continued in the modified Project 1143.5, to which our Admiral Kuznetsov belongs, and Project 1143.6, also known as the current Chinese Liaoning.

The main problem with the Kuznetsov is considered to be the lack of a catapult to launch a heavy AWACS aircraft, the "eyes and ears" of any full-fledged AUG. These shortcomings were supposed to be corrected in Project 1143.7 Ulyanovsk, which was to become the first Soviet nuclear aircraft carrier. Its full displacement increased to almost 80 thousand tons, and its air wing - to 70 aircraft, including 4 AWACS aircraft. To launch them, the ship was to receive a steam catapult, which made it comparable in capabilities to the Nimitz.

In total, it was planned to build as many as 4 of these "Ulyanovsks"! Why so many?

To answer this question, we need to look at their air group, which included up to 60 Su-33 carrier-based fighters, 4 Yak-44 AWACS and 16 Ka-26 anti-submarine helicopters. No attack aircraft, no long-range interceptor fighters. Soviet aircraft carriers were not required to strike the coast. Their tasks included providing air cover for their own naval group from enemy carrier-based aviation and fighting enemy submarines.

And since then nothing has changed fundamentally, except that of all the aircraft-carrying cruisers in the Russian Navy, only one, the Admiral Kuznetsov, remains. It is precisely to carry out the above-mentioned tasks in distant sea and ocean zones that the Russian Navy needs aircraft carriers, anti-submarine helicopter carriers, and air defense aircraft carriers, and, alas, they cannot be solved in any other way. Not against the "Papuans"!

We will discuss in more detail below how to measure desires with available opportunities. This topic is not so simple, since there are various options for every taste and budget.