What's new

Russia's Only Aircraft Carrier Might Be Headed for the Scrapper

Dante80

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Apr 1, 2018
Messages
996
Reaction score
5
Country
Greece
Location
Greece
Russia's Only Aircraft Carrier Might Be Headed for the Scrapper
April 7, 2019 - TNI - David Axe

PvSVtHHh.jpg


The Russian navy might decommission its only aircraft without directly replacing the vessel, leaving Moscow’s fleet without any prospect of at-sea air cover for the first time in decades.

Admiral Kuznetsov, the Russian navy’s sole flattop, in October 2018 suffered serious damage at the 82nd Repair Shipyard in Roslyakovo, a northern port city, when the PD-50 dry-dock sank while Kuznetsov was aboard for repairs.

Dry-docks lift ships out of the water, allowing workers to access their lower hulls for deep maintenance.

Swedish-built PD-50 was the only large dry-dock capable of supporting the Russian northern fleet’s largest warships. Russia's other large dry-docks are thousands of miles from the fleet's main northern bases.

Moving the docks, or the ships needing repair, could be prohibitively difficult, expensive and time-consuming. Beside the cost, foreign sanctions complicate the acquisition of a dock similar to PD-50.

Now, according to the newspaper Izvestia, the Kremlin might just decommission Kuznetsov rather than spend the money to acquire a new dry-dock, move an existing dock or the carrier or find some other way of repairing the aging, unreliable and accident-prone flattop.

“Not everyone considers the continuation of repair to be appropriate,” a navy source reportedly told Izvestia. “There are different opinions, including those that boil down to the fact that with this money it is better to build a pair of frigates or a nuclear submarine.”

Even if Kuznetsov can be repaired, the navy most likely strictly will use the carrier as a training ship, a Kremlin source told Belsat, a Belarusian news agency.

PD-50 accidentally sank on Oct. 29, 2018 after an electrical malfunction resulting in pumps overfilling the dock's ballast tanks. Four shipyard workers were hurt.

The 60,000-ton Kuznetsov remained afloat during the sinking but suffered damage from a collapsing crane. "It's not clear what will happen to Kuznetsov now," Pavel Podvig, an independent expert on the Russian military, said at the time.

Even before PD-50's sinking, the Russian fleet was slowly replacing big, old ships with much smaller new ones that can't sail as far or carry as much weaponry, but which are cheaper and easier to operate and repair than the old vessels are.

The Kremlin bought four new, small warships in 2018. The Russian fleet numbers some 300 vessels, most of them displacing just a few thousand tons. For comparison, the U.S. Navy has roughly the same number of ships, but they are, on average, much larger.

Kuznetsov commissioned in 1990. Problems plagued the ship from the beginning. One of Kuznetsov’s major weaknesses is her powerplant. The vessel is powered by steam turbines and turbo-pressurized boilers that Defense Industry Daily generously described as “defective.”

Anticipating breakdowns, large ocean-going tugs have accompanied Kuznetsov whenever she has deployed.

Her pipes are bad. “When it’s this cold, water freezes everywhere including pipes which may cause a rupture,” English Russia reported. “To prevent this, they just don’t supply almost 60 percent of the cabins with water (neither in winter nor in summer). The situation with latrines is just as bad. The ship has over 50 latrines [for 1,900 crew] but half of them are closed.”

“In the immediate post–Cold War years, [Kuznetsov] rarely went to sea—conducting only six patrols between 1991 and 2015,” Defence Blog explained. “In 2009, an electrical accident killed a crewman off the coast of Turkey. But Russia has repeatedly pushed the ship into service, and a 2016 mission off the coast of Syria saw the ship lose two jets in just three weeks.”

Before October 2018, Moscow planned on extending the service lives of its carrier and other warships from the 1980s in order to complement the newer vessels. For long-range deployments across the Atlantic or to war zones such as Syria, Russia tended to send Kuznetsov and equally aged, Soviet-built destroyer and cruisers.

Now Moscow might no longer have that option. But that doesn’t mean Russia can’t deploy naval power. The Russian fleet’s newer corvettes, which are a fraction of the size of a Cold War cruiser, lack range and must remain close to home.

But long-range missiles and land-based air cover can obviate the need for a ship to travel across the sea with an aircraft carrier for protection. In recent years, corvettes from the Caspian Sea fleet have fired long-range Kalibr cruise missiles at targets in Syria -- all without ever leaving Russian waters or the cover provided by land-based fighter planes.

A shortage of accessible dry docks for repairing bigger ships weighs on the Kremlin's naval planning. In that way, PD-50's sinking and Kuznetsov’s potential decommissioning could accelerate the Russian fleet's transformation into a force that’s easier to maintain.

When the big ships decommission, smaller ones armed with long-range missiles could take their place. As a bonus, small ships don’t need huge, sinkable dry-docks for repairs.

Source :. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russias-only-aircraft-carrier-might-be-headed-scrapper-51222
 
A lot of Chinese reports suggest that Russia can have this air craft being maintained and repaired in China, where several dry docks and shipyards can easily do this job, but too much pride prevented Russia from even considering this feasible solution.
True but to operate a real operational carrier needs lots of money and asset which Russian ill afforded. I guess Russian makes the wiser decision to save the money for other better things.

China shall buy it and make it a real floating hotel to fulfil the previous promise :enjoy:

This is a reverse of Fortune which makes Russia the only nuclear top 5 power not to own an aircraft carrier.
 
China shall buy it and make it a real floating hotel to fulfil the previous promise :enjoy:
Yes, if Russia had made up their mind to decommission it, it can be sold to China and we can make it a carrier theme cruise ship, a win win for both.
 
Russian missile forces are effective enough to counter any carrier group. Maybe that's why they dont see it feasible to maintain a carrier force anymore.
 
An aircraft carrier is not merely a symbol but a real method of power projection. This means -- despite the fact that Russia have access to the seas -- Russia is now more of a land power than a sea power. All the missiles in Russia are now meaningless in terms of foreign affairs. Maybe 'meaningless' is harsh, but what it signifies is that unless Russia is under threat of invasion, those missiles cannot be used in any foreign affairs relationship. No one will take them seriously. Russia have essentially ceded superpower status to China.
 
An aircraft carrier is not merely a symbol but a real method of power projection. This means -- despite the fact that Russia have access to the seas -- Russia is now more of a land power than a sea power. All the missiles in Russia are now meaningless in terms of foreign affairs. Maybe 'meaningless' is harsh, but what it signifies is that unless Russia is under threat of invasion, those missiles cannot be used in any foreign affairs relationship. No one will take them seriously. Russia have essentially ceded superpower status to China.

Russia has 100 million people. Doubt they care about power projection. It's a small country.
 
Russia have essentially ceded superpower status to China.
But we only want to be an economic super power, a military super power is too costly, it bankrupted USSR and now is bankrupting US, China will not be taking that path.
 
But we only want to be an economic super power, a military super power is too costly, it bankrupted USSR and now is bankrupting US, China will not be taking that path.

Being an economic super power is connected with being a military super power, military is not bankrupting US, its the cost of being a developed nation.
 
russia has not much trade through sea like china who is largest industry and exporter so russia not need aircraft carrier when their economy is in trouble and also these carriers are vulnerable to missile attack
 
by area they are the largest country

Useless frozen land.

Being an economic super power is connected with being a military super power, military is not bankrupting US, its the cost of being a developed nation.

The US spends a shit ton on military. Trump upped military spending to 800 billion USD. Of course, this is money the US federal government does not have so it borrows to pay for military spending.
 
The US spends a shit ton on military. Trump upped military spending to 800 billion USD. Of course, this is money the US federal government does not have so it borrows to pay for military spending.

United States has a federal spending of over 4 trillion dollars, and spends most of that money on supporting the living standards of the population. 800 billion is a lot but not that much for a country with GDP of 21 trillion.
China also spends a lot on military, 200 billion goes a long way in China, to put it into perspective, a recent recruit with 5 year contract will make between 1500 to 2000 per month, which is much higher than the average salary in China.

2018-U.S.-Federal-Budget.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom