Russian aircraft carrier lobbyists — admirals and shipbuilders — define persistence. To them, nyet means “not yet” or “keep trying.”
Izvestiya’s Denis Telmanov reported this week on future plans to build two new nuclear-powered aircraft carriers by 2027 — one for the Pacific Fleet and one for the Northern Fleet — along with 15-ship battle groups to surround them.
After years of arguing, the admirals reportedly decided they need carriers (not just nuclear subs and cruisers) to “broaden the Russian Navy’s zone of influence in the Pacific Ocean and North Atlantic.”
The Navy is reportedly completing the “technical tasks” for a new carrier, with a first design due next year, and the final one by 2017. The first hull is supposed to be launched in 2023. According to Izvestiya, sections and components will be built in several shipyards, but final assembly will be at Sevmash to save resources instead of building a new yard large enough to put a carrier together.
The article might be as much about where carriers would be built as if they will be. There has been talk that the nascent New-Admiralty Wharves could get this work.
Izvestiya says land-based carrier trainers at Yeysk and Saki (NITKA) in Crimea will be used. The paper also notes the new carriers will need new support bases because the lack of them “killed” or complicated the service lives of Soviet “heavy aircraft-carrying cruisers,” including the Kuznetsov.
One surmises that Russia’s coming experience with building, basing, and operating Mistrals will affect all this too.
But let’s rewind a bit . . . Navy CINC, Admiral Vysotskiy said in early 2010 that Russia plans to launch a carrier by 2020. Defense Minister Serdyukov, however, has said twice in the last year that Russia has no plans to build carriers in the near future [by 2020]. On July 1, he emphasized that the Genshtab and Navy will decide on the need for an aircraft carrier after a “preliminary design” is complete.
No matter how much some say “Russia must have aircraft carriers,” it ain’t necessarily so.
It ain’t so because (1) Russia may have more important requirements to fill with its limited resources, and (2) the people talking about carriers ain’t the same people who ultimately decide which requirements get met.
Telmanov’s article is full of this:
“Strategists insist . . . . The Navy has decided . . . . The admirals have selected . . . . In the military’s opinion . . . . A Navy Main Staff representative explained . . . . The military is deciding . . . .”
“The president has decided . . . . The government has selected . . . . The VPK insists . . . . The defense minister explained . . . . In the General Staff’s opinion . . . .”
When we read that these types of people have decided to build carriers, it might really happen.
I can’t even think of any theoretical future missions for these aircraft carriers. Any potential future opponents are either nuclear states or reachable by land. The USSR over its entire history never used carriers in anger either
These discussions of carriers 10-15 years down the road seldom seem to address the issue of whether the navy will be able to come up with enough sailors to man them. Carriers tend to have large crews, and supporting battle groups compound the personnel demands. And the navy is likely to be smaller ten years from now.