"Why Russian Plans To Build A Super Aircraft Carrier..." Topic

… Is A Stupid Idea.

"Russia's plan to expand its navy through the construction of an aircraft supercarrier is pretty much a tremendous waste, Nicholas Varangis of the Atlantic Council argues.

Supercarriers, by nature, allow a country to project power throughout the world.

An individual US supercarrier, for instance, can carry 70 aircraft anywhere in the world. This allows the US to hypothetically strike targets and make its influence felt the world over…"

Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

I think they are like Lay's Potato Chips – you can't have just one.

Looking forward to at least six of them, so they can almost have one in every sea.

You need at least 3 of any class ship unless you are going to keep them in standby status – one for the shipyards, one for workups, and one to actually deploy. A very exoensive proposition for a country without year round port access….

The need 3 to have one operational is very much a 'rich man's' requirement. If you can afford 1, you have to make do with 1 – better than 0.

Actually, from a money perspective, 0 is arguably better than 1 ship only available 33% of the time….

Anyway, we bankrupted the Soviets when they tried this, fully expect to do the same to the current regime.

-Will

Anyway, we bankrupted the Soviets when they tried this, fully expect to do the same to the current regime.

I agree … it did work before … And even though some may not like me saying this. The USN is the most experienced, well-trained, equipped, etc., navy on the planet. Not to mention the largest. And it's been that way generally since about 1944 or so …

I would love to see it. While the article condemns this as a total waste of resources unable to support the current geopolitical machinations (boy that sounded pompous!), there is another aspect. This keeps ship builders working, building the infrastructure needed to support this weapons system. While looking to the future when overseas efforts may require one. 20 years from now it is too late to say, "Boy I wish I had one of those things". Its another statement saying, "We are here, we are important, we are not going away."

You wont need a carrier in 20 years.

Didn't the chinese have one?

And they used it.

Amicalement
Armand

If that 33% of the time is when you need it… and that is largely a planning issue.

During the Falklands War the Royal Navy had 2 carriers. Guess how many they managed to send? Fact is, if you have one carrier in the dock and something crops up you can usually get it ready and out within a month or so – unless it's really been stripped. If you don't have any carriers, you can't field any.

Actually the RN had three in 1982 – Hermes, Invincible and Illustrious (just working up) – so 2/3rd availability

Yes, you can plan availability and plan a surge, assuming you're actually the one driving the situation and not trying to react to it….

-Will

Warm water ports are also a bit of an issue for the Russian Bear. The other issue is keeping air crews effectively trained if you platform is only available every now and then. Definitely an expensive proposition to make it work out.

Considering the fact that the Russians have always had a serious problem with the engines on their carriers breaking down and catching fire, and that generally on the few times that they deploy them they usually deploy with ocean going tugs they are certainly welcome to try. When you also realize that to have a truly effective carrier you need more than just the ship, you of course need an air group and you also need an integrated battlegroup in support it quickly becomes a staggering financial investment.

Yeah, it's an obscenely expensive investment to build a whole carrier group. The US has 11 carrier groups, which as mentioned allows us to have 3 and 2/3rds carriers deployed at any given time.

If you got really creative with your designs and crewing, you might be able to achieve a higher operational readiness at the expense of having two crews per carrier.