Russian naval expansion

[Dave Wooley]

Resent reports indicate that Russia is embarking on a major naval building program that includes 6 new carriers {possible CVN} although much of the detail surrounding this new naval expansion remains unclear; particularly any new surface ships such a DDGs. In another thread it was suggested that in the early part of the cold war we over estimated the Soviets capabilities but should we look more soberly at the prospect of a expanded Russian blue water capability .
Dave Wooley

[Dave Wooley]

In the years to come could we be seeing more of this, the SU33 and is there a replacement for the F18.?

Dave Wooley

[Guest]

Resent reports indicate that Russia is embarking on a major naval building program that includes 6 new carriers {possible CVN} although much of the detail surrounding this new naval expansion remains unclear; particularly any new surface ships such a DDGs. In another thread it was suggested that in the early part of the cold war we over estimated the Soviets capabilities but should we look more soberly at the prospect of a expanded Russian blue water capability .
Dave Wooley

During the Soviet times, soviet GDP might have been low, but the raw material output of its economy was world class. Now it is no longer.
It is not to be forgotten that Russian economy substantially smaller than that of Britain. Its raw material output a fraction of the leading economies in the world. How would Russia find the wherewithal to both finance and materially construct 6 carriers?

[Werner]

How would Russia find the wherewithal to both finance and materially construct 6 carriers?

Maybe from the windfall profits made by heating Europe with natural gas?

More to the point, weren't the earlier carriers built at Nickolayev in the Ukraine? I thought modern Russia lacked the base to build such large vessels.

[Dave Wooley]

Resent reports indicate that Russia is embarking on a major naval building program that includes 6 new carriers {possible CVN} although much of the detail surrounding this new naval expansion remains unclear; particularly any new surface ships such a DDGs. In another thread it was suggested that in the early part of the cold war we over estimated the Soviets capabilities but should we look more soberly at the prospect of a expanded Russian blue water capability .
Dave Wooley

During the Soviet times, soviet GDP might have been low, but the raw material output of its economy was world class. Now it is no longer.
It is not to be forgotten that Russian economy substantially smaller than that of Britain. Its raw material output a fraction of the leading economies in the world. How would Russia find the wherewithal to both finance and materially construct 6 carriers?

Russia has been enjoying a growth rate of 6.5% and this is forecast to rise to 7.75 in 08. Its manufacturing base is also showing a steady rise whilst backed by the steep rise in mineral exports, which seem to be driving the economic revival. The problem for the West is that Putin has cleverly engaged with mineral rich states cool and in some cases hostile to the US. The EUs reliance on gas from Russia will give Russia some political leverage over the EU for many years to come. China and India are planning to joint a tripartite economic Asian axis with Russia which could prove to be politically and economically very advantageous to Russia. Yes Russia is now in a position to take advantage of the weakening economies of the West particularly in the US and UK . Given this situation Russia might well be able to fund it�s naval expansion which may provide an additional lever in Russia�s future geopolitical plans .
Dave Wooley

[Admhawk]

I believe the replacement for the F-18 is the F-35 JSF.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-35.htm

[Guest]

Much of Russian economic growth is based on selling raw, non-value-added, material. This may give a country cash to buy carriers from abroad if some are on offer, but it does not translate to domestic capability to produce them.

[Dave Wooley]

Much of Russian economic growth is based on selling raw, non-value-added, material. This may give a country cash to buy carriers from abroad if some are on offer, but it does not translate to domestic capability to produce them.

There are several yards in the boarders of Russia capable of building carriers up to 80000 tons . The Baltic shipyard has 2 slips whilst Khabarovsk on the Amur River is being developed along with other centres around the Sea of Okhotsk. In the Actic region there is Severorvinsk west of Arkhangelsk and south of the Kola Peninsula. Also the Admiralty shipyard close to the Baltic ship yard has the capacity but not the slips as yet to launch the projected carriers but can accomodate up to 60000tons per slip.
Dave Wooley

[bengtsson]

This is a good question. We know that Russia is a rump of the former Soviet Union. Much smaller and a shrinking population. That is a negative. The oil and mineral wealth of Russia is vast and much of it still undeveloped. A big plus! China and India need Russia for a number of reasons. Imports of raw materials, import of finished weapons systems of a high technological level. Another plus for Russia. The large foreign cash reserves Russia takes in can be put to work in investment in plant and material for future expansion of domestic production. Russia still holds alot of the plant and human capital left over from SOviet days of mass military production. These are out of date in many ways, but the base is there and all that foreign capital can update the plant and human resources. I'de guess that Russia could expand quite well in the long term, but they have a long, long way to go.
During Soviet times, I visited the country a few times. Outside of Moscow, about the only economic production I saw was military production. The civilian economy was of a 3rd world nature. I haven't been back since about 1996, at that time the economy was in complete collapse. I hear that things have improved greatly since then.
If there is a threat to the West, I think it is a partnership of China and Russia. They bring important things together if they cooperate. Such as business expertise, raw materials, a vast military production experience, cheap labour etc. etc. Russia can't go it alone in it's present shrunken state. It needs allies. China needs what Russia has and Russia could also use what China has. We see this partnership at work already today in their unwillingness to go along with Western sanctions against Iran.
The Carrier question: They would do better to build a submarine force of a world class nature. Only if I had that level of a sub force already built would I consider one carrier.
Bob B.

[Guest]

Much of Russian economic growth is based on selling raw, non-value-added, material. This may give a country cash to buy carriers from abroad if some are on offer, but it does not translate to domestic capability to produce them.

There are several yards in the boarders of Russia capable of building carriers up to 80000 tons . The Baltic shipyard has 2 slips whilst Khabarovsk on the Amur River is being developed along with other centres around the Sea of Okhotsk. In the Actic region there is Severorvinsk west of Arkhangelsk and south of the Kola Peninsula. Also the Admiralty shipyard close to the Baltic ship yard has the capacity but not the slips as yet to launch the projected carriers but can accomodate up to 60000tons per slip.
Dave Wooley

I am talking about the entire industrial supply chain needed to build a carrier, not just building slips or dry docks. The proliferation of large mercantile ships means several countries around the world have the slip capacity to build far larger hulls than the largest carriers yet conceived. But the sophistication to build a real carrier hull, and the industrial supply chain to equip a carrier hull, is still rare. Soviet Union just attained that capability in 1989, and it is by no means clear what fraction of that capability remains at the command of Kremlin today.

[Guest]

How would Russia find the wherewithal to both finance and materially construct 6 carriers?

Maybe from the windfall profits made by heating Europe with natural gas?

More to the point, weren't the earlier carriers built at Nickolayev in the Ukraine? I thought modern Russia lacked the base to build such large vessels.

One such a Carrier is building at Baltic bottom now
It will probably launch no Su 33 but it's impact will be at least not lesser
then an US Navy Carrier Group. And is much cheapper.

[Dave Wooley]

This is a good question. We know that Russia is a rump of the former Soviet Union. Much smaller and a shrinking population. That is a negative. The oil and mineral wealth of Russia is vast and much of it still undeveloped. A big plus! China and India need Russia for a number of reasons. Imports of raw materials, import of finished weapons systems of a high technological level. Another plus for Russia. The large foreign cash reserves Russia takes in can be put to work in investment in plant and material for future expansion of domestic production. Russia still holds alot of the plant and human capital left over from SOviet days of mass military production. These are out of date in many ways, but the base is there and all that foreign capital can update the plant and human resources. I'de guess that Russia could expand quite well in the long term, but they have a long, long way to go.
During Soviet times, I visited the country a few times. Outside of Moscow, about the only economic production I saw was military
production. The civilian economy was of a 3rd world nature. I haven't
been back since about 1996, at that time the economy was in complete collapse. I hear that things have improved greatly since then.
If there is a threat to the West, I think it is a partnership of China and Russia. They bring important things together if they cooperate. Such as business expertise, raw materials, a vast military production experience, cheap labour etc. etc. Russia can't go it alone in it's present shrunken state. It needs allies. China needs what Russia has and Russia could also use what China has. We see this partnership at work already today in their unwillingness to go along with Western sanctions against Iran.
The Carrier question: They would do better to build a submarine force of a world class nature. Only if I had that level of a sub force already built would I consider one carrier.
Bob B.

This seems to be the avenue the Russians are exploring. cooperation with partners. Both China and India have expertise Russia lacks. Although much of the e Soviet Military complex went into free fall after the callapse of the USSR, large chunks survived including the Naval air arm and with some years experience operating the Kutnetzov the Navy have gained valuable experience . Equally the design bureaus of Mig and Sukhoi remain intact and with a full order book . As a sobering thought it's worth remembering that the ship building capacity in the UK from 1979 to the present day has been almost eliminated. Yet the UK MOD have give the green light to the building of 2. 60000 carriers and the experience of operating such large vessels was lost a generation ago . The question is if the UK can do it so can the Russians .
Dave Wooley

[Werner]

This process will not only require new shipbuilding facilities and skills, but new technology. Where did Russian R&D go in the period 1985-2008? No doubt it didn't go into carriers or other surface ships. A carrier built today would have to employ Russian technology of the 1980 timeframe, or foreign components, with the concomitant loss of prestige and face for Russia.

[Dave Wooley]

Werner Russia's warship building just didn't go into limbo take a look at this. Project 20380 "Steregushchiy class" one of 4 new such classes being built for the Russian navy



The view of the West is that Russia is still driving around in the Lada car, some still survive but post Soviet Russia is emerging , slowly, but we need to be aware that Russia has capacity for development. . Analysts regard this SU34 as the best all round machine of its type and a match for the F18F. Who knows these could be like the SU 33 earmarked for future carriers.

Dave Wooley

[Guest]

This seems to be the avenue the Russians are exploring. cooperation with partners. Both China and India have expertise Russia lacks.
Dave Wooley

Like what?

Sectors of the fundamental civilian economy of China and India might be more efficient and more advanced than those of Russia, but I see no major military specific sector where China or India has surpassed or even approached 1989 Soviet level. Except in the area of funding, I don't think either China or India is at this moment capable of facilitating any major military technological advancements for Russia.

I do agree that because the economic growth in India and in particular China is very broad based and not the result of some centrally planned subsidy to the defense industry, there will probably arrive a day in 10-15 years when all of a sudden China and India overtakes Russia on many fronts over a very short period of time. But the day has not arrived yet.

[bengtsson]

This process will not only require new shipbuilding facilities and skills, but new technology. Where did Russian R&D go in the period 1985-2008? No doubt it didn't go into carriers or other surface ships. A carrier built today would have to employ Russian technology of the 1980 timeframe, or foreign components, with the concomitant loss of prestige and face for Russia.

Russia did not stand still since the fall of Communism. Communism fell, not the Russia State. Don't mix the two up, it is a common mistake made here in the west. Technology has bloomed since the collapse of the Berlin Wall. Russia has taken advantage of modern computer technology since they gained access to world markets. The Soviet military was in a bad way due to Soviet computer backwardness. Those days are over. Any new Russian weapons system will be world class. Do they have alot to learn about design and operation of a super carrier. YES, of course they do. Can they build fully modern carriers and learn to operate them? They may not match a USN Carrier task force for a heck of a long time, but they most likely could build a decent capability.
Still, Russia is in the "Sea Denial business" against a much larger force i.e. the USN. I'de spend my money and brains on the Submarine force for the next decade at least, before I spent on a Carrier force. But then ,I was a Second Class Petty Officer and they don't make the big decissions!

Bob B.

[gs]

Has Russia increased the size of its shipyard facilities? This would be a considerable undertaking.

No doubt the Russians are capable of designing & building world-class military hardware.

I would hope that the next administration will do better in more closely aligning our foreign policy with the Russians.

[Werner]

Russia did not stand still since the fall of Communism. Communism fell, not the Russia State. Don't mix the two up, it is a common mistake made here in the west.

You can't seriously believe technology didn't suffer during the switch from Communism. At one point, the MiG factory was making aluminum toaster ovens to pay the heat and electricity bills. The current Russian military budget is a shadow of the 1980s USSR. That was the whole point, after all. During the period they could not pay for the heating bill, I doubt if there was much impetus to work on a new generation of ESM for combat aircraft. The engineers were too busy selling their Electronika computers on E-Bay! (I bought one)


Elektronika 90 on Ebay

[Guest]

Has Russia increased the size of its shipyard facilities? This would be a considerable undertaking.

No doubt the Russians are capable of designing & building world-class military hardware.

I would hope that the next administration will do better in more closely aligning our foreign policy with the Russians.

The next administration aligning our foreign policy with the Russians? I think our current administration is already doing this rather well. Our foreign policy since 2003 is, after all, largely responsible for the high petroleum prices upon which the Russians are now building such high hopes for renewed greatness. I doubt Russia would be so confident and assertive at this moment in time had any other administration sat in the White House over the last 6-7 years.

[Werner]

Yeah, if by "current policy" you mean the maintenance of "boutique gasoline" regulations and an active discouragement of refinery expansion in the face of rising prices, policies also in force from 1992. It's pretty clear that the current oil prices are the result of Chinese demand combined with a soft dollar, both trends not in influence as long ago as 2002.