Russian Carrier Kuznetsov

The Russian aircraft carrier Kuznetsov was recently severely damaged by a collapsing crane when the drydock the ship was in sank.  There have been some somewhat sensationalistic articles about the ramifications of the incident and the fate of the Kuznetsov.  For example, the National Interest website states,

The Russian Navy might decommission its only aircraft [carrier] without directly replacing the vessel, leaving Moscow’s fleet without any prospect of at-sea air cover for the first time in decades. (1)

Wow!  That’s some pretty big news.  Imagine the impact if the US lost all its aircraft carriers and had to operate with no naval aviation protection.

Kuznetsov - Impressive Looking But Not Combat Effective

All right, before we get too worked up about this, let’s back the sinking drydock up a bit and take a look at the reality of the situation.

For starters, Russia never had any naval air cover that amounted to anything.  Kuznetsov is a carrier in name only and doesn’t even begin to compare to, say, a US carrier.  Kuznetsov’s air wing consists of a mix of Su-33 (carrier based derivative of the Su-27 Flanker) and MiG-29K fixed wing aircraft and various helicopters.  For example, the 2016 Syrian mission saw an air wing of 6-8 Su-33, 4 MiG-29K and various helos – hardly an imposing example of air power!  Even then, two aircraft were lost due to arresting gear problems and the air wing had to be transferred ashore. (2)

Arresting gear problems aside, Kuznetsov’s meager air group is rendered even less effective due to the absence of aerial tankers, electronic warfare aircraft, and airborne early warning (AEW) and command/control aircraft.  So, the air wing is only marginally combat-effective by US standards.  Thus, the loss of Kuznetsov doesn’t have any real world impact because the carrier was never able to provide significant air power anyway.

The ship has been plagued by mechanical problems.  The vessel is powered by boilers and steam turbines that are described as defective and, indeed, the ship has suffered numerous propulsion breakdowns and is reportedly accompanied by large ocean going tugs whenever the ship puts to sea. Water pipes are, apparently, almost non-functional.  A 2016 mission to Syria, while highly touted and publicized, resulted in two lost aircraft in three weeks. (1)

Other problems have included defective fresh water supply evaporators, leading to severe water shortages, electrical problems which have cause at least one reported death, oil spills during refueling at sea, and arresting gear problems that have caused the loss of at least two aircraft. (2)

Historical reasons aside, the Kuznetsov, today, exists only as a symbolic attempt at prestige;  a public relations attempt to claim equality with the US Navy on the world stage.

Truth be told, the Russians are probably better off without the Kuznetsov and its manning and operating cost burden and this incident gives them the cover needed to discretely allow the ship to fade from view.

__________________________________

(1)National Interest website, “No More Aircraft Carrier For Russia? It Might Not Be A Bad Idea”, David Axe, 21-May-2019,

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/no-more-aircraft-carrier-russia-it-might-not-be-bad-idea-58617

(2) Wikipedia, “Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov”, retrieved 15-Jul-2019,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_aircraft_carrier_Admiral_Kuznetsov