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
They would be better off without the carrier... but they won't let it go. It's like what you said- it's a symbolic thing and a part of what Putin considers national pride.
ReplyDeleteSo, they're going to put the ship into repairs. It will be out of commission for at least 2 years.
https://taskandpurpose.com/russian-aircraft-carrier-admiral-kuznetsov-refit
"leaving Moscow’s fleet without any prospect of at-sea air cover for the first time in decades"
ReplyDeleteThe Russia Carrier had a different job than the US Carriers, it was far closer to the UKs invincible class.
US Carriers are capital ships designed to provide offensive airpower over enemy territory.
The K is to provide defensive airpower over at best disputed territory.
Kuznetsov never really had a defined role. Its main purpose was as a test bed and learning platform for the Soviet Union on their way to US style carriers which, of course, never happened. The other problem was that for most of K's life, it never had an effective aircraft. The old Yaks just didn't make the grade. The MiG-29K, now, is decent although hobbled by light loads (no catapult) and no tanking. I guess it doesn't matter now!
DeleteOf course Russia has a large naval aviation but it's land-based rather than sea-based. At 25,000 personnel and 300 aircraft it is larger than the air forces of some mid-sized European nations.
ReplyDeleteThat 300 number is not what it seems. When you drill down you find that most of it is helos, Sukhois, and MiGs - very short range aircraft. The traditional Soviet naval aviation regiments are pretty much gone. The backbone of Russian long range naval aviation is the Tu-22 of which there are, nominally, around 60. Perhaps half of those are actually operational.
DeleteNobody disputes that it is a smaller force than under the Soviets.
DeleteThe damages were quite limited. Never considered scrapping. 2 million usd in damages. The backbone of Russian navy aviation is composed of Su 30 SM end tu 142 m maritime patrol. Tu 22 are not in the Russian navy aviation since 2011.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Wiki, the Tu-22 and Tu-22M is still in service and forms the backbone of the long range naval aviation. There are perhaps a dozen operational Tu-160 Blackjacks, also.
DeleteIf you have a better source, let me know.