Posted on 11/09/2011 1:17:06 PM PST by kronos77
The Russian Navy has reportedly agreed to build a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier to expand the country’s influence in the world’s oceans. The decision though is yet to be approved by the president.
Currently, Russia has only aircraft cruiser, Admiral Kuznetsov, which was launched back in 1985.
For years it was debated as to whether the country needs more flattops or if having atomic subs and cruisers would be enough to face modern challenges.
Finally, Russian admirals selected the so-called American model of the fleet: ship groups with an aircraft carrier in the center, writes Izvestia daily. The marine officers believe that such grouping is a lot more efficient and would also help to expand the Russian fleet’s area of influence in the Pacific Ocean and the North Atlantic.
(Excerpt) Read more at rt.com ...
Are we sure 0bama isn’t out there offering to give them ours so they don’t have to build them?
Useless without ports of call. Russia needs to work on their diplomacy and public image more than they need aircraft carriers.
Every few years, back to the Soviet era, these predictions and plans are resurrected. After talking about it a while, they determine they do not have enough money and shelf them again.
Given the current price of oil and Russian economy, I expect the same will occur again.
Building one nuclear carrier is not very cost effective. You really need two, and probably three to be able to have one always available in a crisis, and maintain any reserve.
The Chinese are talking about it too. They just finished refurbishing the sister ship to the Kuznetsov and launched her and put her into trials. They are supposedly already starting construction of two more carrierss at Shanghai. They have the financial means to do it...and have been developing (rapidly) the other parts of their fleet to support and sustain it.
(http://www.jeffhead.com/redseadragon/)
We shall see.
“Here come old flattop...”
Don't be surprised if you can't tell the difference between China's new (in production) carriers and the USS Ronald Reagan. They saved a boatload of money on R&D.
I’d love to see a bunch of Russian sailors on Fort Lauderdale Beach during spring breakski.
was she movin’up slowly?
having served on both sub’s and carriers, you have a good point.
If 0bama could get away with it, he’s sell or give away the whole US Navy.
China has more need of aircraft carriers than Russia. Russia has secure energy resources within their borders and in neighboring countries (which they dominate). They don’t have a need to control sea lanes the way that the US, and increasingly China, do.
ping
Aircraft (and their ordnance) have been sinking more vessels than other ships (excluding subs) almost since the advent of flight. What is a Navy supposed to do when land-based aircraft are not an option? Subs are very poor at showing the flag.
Basically I agree with you in the case of Russia. For them it’s just “me too”.
I don’t expect this to go anywhere, but one never knows with Putin running around. It would be quite a showpiece for the fleet to have an honest-to-gosh carrier, and in keeping with Putin’s ever increasing nationalism.
Me, if I were in charge of their naval building programs (and I’m sure the Russians are very glad I’m not, LOL) , I’d probably spend the money on that new class of boomers they’ve been working on and build as many new attack subs as I could afford. Keep the nuclear deterrent threat viable and have plenty of nuke and diesel boats to protect your own waters.
(Keep in mind, of course, that my fleet command experience is limited to whatever I’ve read in a Tom Clancy novel. :-) )
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.