That’s funny, because China’s one aircraft carrier is a twin to Russia’s. They bought it from Ukraine, who inherited the unfinished hull from the USSR when it dissolved.
The hull dissolved? What was it made from, Alka-Seltzer?
Yes, it’s worrisome that Putin would choose now to blatantly rattle even a rusty and dull saber. Not a good sign for the immediate future, either as the US changes administrations or as the Syrian mess escalates.
But let’s face it, the USN moves around more ships of more significance just because a carrier captain wants to fart downwind. And it’s worth noting that the US has around eleven more carriers and carrier groups than any other nation, including Rooshia.
Apparently the Kuznetsov is so janky that it travels with a dedicated tug, and was seen recently smoking like crazy as it transited the English Channel.
http://www.defensetech.org/2016/10/21/russian-aircraft-carrier-english-channel/
Bolding mine.
The one “carrier” Russia has now is one more than the Soviet Union ever had during the entirety of its existence. So in terms of carriers, current reality is growth from the Cold War eta, not shrinkage.
If it were ever to encounter Capt. James Kirk, whether on a hostile mission, or in port, I predict the current reality would quickly turn to shrinkage, major shrinkage.
What are you basing this on? The Soviet union had the Kiev from 1975-1993, Minsk from 1978-1993, Novorossiysk from 1982-1993, and Baku from 1987 to 1996, plus the Kuznetsov (the current carrier) from 1990 to now. Plus two helicopter carriers the Moskva 1967-1996 and Lenningrad 1969-1991. By my count, the USSR had two carriers since the late 70s, four from the mid-80s, and five just before the collapse. And one of those carriers is the same one they have now, so I can’t see arguing that it doesn’t count for some reason.
From oldest to newest:
In my view the *Moskva *& *Leningrad *were categorically not aircraft carriers. They carried helos only. Most US & allied frigates and destroyers also carried or carry helos yet we didn’t / don’t think of them as aircraft carriers. Yes, these Soviet ships carried more helos per ship. But not many more. As their sole role was ASW, unless you are a submarine they are totally defensive in nature.
As to Kiev, Minsk, and Novorossiysk you are correct. I was wrong. Those qualify as aircraft carriers to the same extent that Kuznetsov does. And they were operated by the Soviets for about a decade prior to the Soviet collapse in late 1991. The *Kiev *a bit more than 10 years and the Novorossiysk more like 8.
Baku/Gorshkov was sort-of-operational for the last two years of the Soviet Union.
Practically speaking, *Kuznetsov *never operated under the Soviet Union. It wasn’t until two years after the SU dissolution that she got her first aircraft. These were recycled from Kiev and Minsk when they were scrapped.
For all these ships, there was a period of a year or more after “commissioning” before they became usable to the fleet. And they each spent some time laid up for repairs. So by and large the Soviet Union had approximately two functional Kiev-like ships at any given time from roughly 1979 to the end in 1991.
And today the Russian Federation has one: Kuznetsov.
Frankly if the ‘largest Russian fleet since the Cold War’ consists of all of a massive seven vessels, I rather doubt there is much the world at large has to worry about.
It really hardly even merits the word ‘fleet’. Task force or squadron maybe.
Not sure what the later carriers had, but the Kiev class only operated (as well as Helicopters) the Yak-38. Which by all accounts was a total clunker, with pitiful range, avionics and weapons load as well as being horribly unreliable.
Exactly.
Part of the reason I initially discounted those in my earlier post was at the time I was in USAF. And charged with destroying the Soviet air force and navy if that became necessary.
Our focus was much more on the land-based forces than the naval forces. Even so we didn’t consider those ships and aircraft to be other than token annoyances we might find between us and our targets.
ISTR stats like each ship spending less than one month per year at sea. IOW, physically they existed; tactically they did not.
The Russians are moving their chess pieces around that’s all: http://theduran.com/russia-strengthens-black-sea-fleet/
This old useless aircraft carrier is being moved to the Black Sea … till 2020. They do not like to be made fun of by all of the nations of the world.
Do the Russians have any plan to revive the Ulyanovsk class carriers (70% complete, broken up on stocks). If Putin wants to play power projection, he needs some carriers.
The Russians have been looking at developing a new supercarrier, larger than the Ulyanovsk, and more similar in size and capacity to the US supercarriers. Russia has been hard up for cash, though, so they have apparently tried to offer to build the design for the Indian Navy.
Unless oil prices rise dramatically, it doesn’t seem likely that this ship would ever make it to sea.
Snark and posturing aside (lol ur carrier is dumb!), what’s the actual possible utility of the Kuznetsov and accompanying ships in the Black Sea fleet?
I recall some discussions of American carrier groups being extremely vulnerable in the Persian Gulf. If, say, Iran wanted to start an all-out war, they’d have a pretty decent shot at sinking a carrier in the Gulf. Launch enough anti-ship missiles and some will get through, if only because anti-missile systems can only track so many targets.
Wouldn’t that be an even bigger concern for this Russian carrier group facing, say, NATO in the Mediterranean, or even an isolated Ukraine in the Black Sea?
If you’re outnumbered you’re outnumbered. That’s never good.
But the *Kuznetsov * and aircraft would be useable against Syria. Just as nobody expects anyone other than ground-pounders of whatever allegiance in Syria to shoot at Russian land-based aircraft flying there, nobody would be expected to bother the *Kuznetsov *or its aircraft either.
The other thing even a small force does in a non-combat environment is occupy space. If they settled in offshore from Syria in a convenient spot their 7-ship formation might effectively fill a 30 mile radius around the flagship. Which any other nation’s forces would be forced to both sail and fly around. In the vastness of the Central Atlantic that’d be a pinprick obstacle. In the crowded littoral around the eastern Med that’s a much bigger deal.
Next, it creates one more thing for the opposition to worry about, and usefully reminds everybody that Russia is still a player. Growling is good; it ensures you’re not ignored.
Finally, a small force is a tripwire. If the situation heats up it provides a useful pretext for a disproportionate escalatory response.
The fact they’ve gone on to the Black Sea indicates the target of intimidation is Ukraine, not Syria. It may not be huge intimidation, but the Ukrainians have a lot on their plate already.
Good point on Ukraine. I was initially thinking along the lines of
Iran:US Gulf carrier group:
Russian Black Sea carrier group
But as you say, Ukraine is spread thin right now. A few years ago they had a pretty substantial air force, but damn near half of it was captured when Russia annexed Crimea. Russia’s returned some of the planes now. But after several years of attrition fighting [del]Russia[/del] Eastern Ukrainian separatists, their operational capacity is severely reduced. And it looks like Ukraine never really invested in serious anti-ship capacity.
We and the media have been focusing on the carrier, because it’s flashy. Perhaps as big a threat to Ukraine is the missile cruisers and destroyers, which carry several batteries worth of long and medium range surface to air missiles.
Nope, tactical vulnerability is not a concern for a Russian carrier group in a shooting war with NATO naval forces in the Mediterranean at all. The US Navy alone is large enough alone to take on every other navy in the world at the same time and remain functional afterwards. Regardless of where the Russian’s carrier is, it can’t survive a shooting war with NATO, and if there is a shooting war with NATO then there are much bigger concerns than whether a single carrier group survives, like the impending destruction of all of the major cities in the world.
The problem with the jingoistic ‘hurr hurr, Russian Navy is weak’ analysis is that there is no scenario where the Russian Navy will need to fight US forces where the result matters, the fact that a us carrier group would win a fight ignores that the fight would involve the end of civilization as we know it. It is strong enough to be a concern for non-nuclear countries that Russia is trying to influence, simply by existing in the area is a diplomatic factor for NATO craft operating around Syria or for anyone coming close to the Ukraine.
The reason for any such jingoism you might be detecting is that, first of all, this thread’s OP directly asked if we should be worried about the supposedly “largest Russian fleet” setting sail. There’s also the matter of the current Republican nominee for President, who talks a lot about our military in general and Navy in particular being weak, and not having enough ships.
In that light, countering fantasies about us needing to be worried about losing our global naval advantage should not be seen as jingoism, but as a public service to Americans and the whole world.