0
0
0
From "IHS Janes 360"
Analysts cast doubt on Russian plans for supercarrier
http://www.janes.com/article/50379/analysts-cast-doubt-on-russian-plans-for-supercarrier?utm_campaign=[PMP]_PC5308_J360%203.4.15_KV_Deployment&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua
Key Points
The commander of the Russian Navy has announced plans for a 'supercarrier' exceeding 85,000 tonnes
Analysts from both East and West believe that Russia is unlikely to be able to build - or indeed meaningfully operate - such a ship
Russian Navy commander Admiral Viktor Chirkov's claim that Russia will build a new, super-sized aircraft carrier exceeding 85,000 tonnes has been met with scepticism by analysts.
Many have questioned how realistic this ambition might be, given the current limitations of Russia's shipbuilding industry in particular and defence industry in general.
The proposed supercarrier, announced by Adm Chirkov on 23 March, would be a quantum leap in capability and size over the Russian Navy's single existing carrier, Admiral Kuznetsov , which at 43,000 tonnes is less than half the displacement of the US Navy's Nimitz-class carriers.
EDITORIAL COMMENT:- Someone is indulging in a bit of wishful thinking here, but I don't know if it is the Russians who say they can do it or the critics who say they can't. After all, it's not like the Russians have ever done anything that surprises the intelligence services of other countries. I mean, America knew that Russia was going to launch a satellite long before it happened and the US government only kept quiet about it in order to lull the Russians into a false sense of security - right?
Analysts cast doubt on Russian plans for supercarrier
http://www.janes.com/article/50379/analysts-cast-doubt-on-russian-plans-for-supercarrier?utm_campaign=[PMP]_PC5308_J360%203.4.15_KV_Deployment&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua
Key Points
The commander of the Russian Navy has announced plans for a 'supercarrier' exceeding 85,000 tonnes
Analysts from both East and West believe that Russia is unlikely to be able to build - or indeed meaningfully operate - such a ship
Russian Navy commander Admiral Viktor Chirkov's claim that Russia will build a new, super-sized aircraft carrier exceeding 85,000 tonnes has been met with scepticism by analysts.
Many have questioned how realistic this ambition might be, given the current limitations of Russia's shipbuilding industry in particular and defence industry in general.
The proposed supercarrier, announced by Adm Chirkov on 23 March, would be a quantum leap in capability and size over the Russian Navy's single existing carrier, Admiral Kuznetsov , which at 43,000 tonnes is less than half the displacement of the US Navy's Nimitz-class carriers.
EDITORIAL COMMENT:- Someone is indulging in a bit of wishful thinking here, but I don't know if it is the Russians who say they can do it or the critics who say they can't. After all, it's not like the Russians have ever done anything that surprises the intelligence services of other countries. I mean, America knew that Russia was going to launch a satellite long before it happened and the US government only kept quiet about it in order to lull the Russians into a false sense of security - right?
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 1
0
0
0
They might actually do it....they have surprised the West in the past.....my question is where would they station it.... It's a little tight in the Baltic, the Barents Sea gets ice bound, I am not certain they would want to put it in the Black Sea. That leaves the Pacific......so "why" would they try to start a "Carrier building" war in that area??? It's expensive and they really don't have any allies in the Pacific that are calling for their "Sea Power"......that I know of anyways.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
LCDR Bruce Cooley - Commander; My guess would be that the Russians "would want to start a 'carrier building' war" simply to try and ensure that the United States of America out-builds them ten to one.
The Russians might not have any use for the carrier (as a carrier), but they could well have a use for it as an inducement for the US government to spend money that it doesn't have (and can't actually afford the cost of borrowing) on something which is almost totally "non-economically productive spending".
This would be quite similar to what the US government(s) did to the Russians in order to "bring them down and win the Cold War" (except, in that case, the US was actually building the hardware that the Russians had to counter [and one can't be so sure that this is the case with the latest round of "next PLUS 1 generation weapons" that the Russians are producing.
[Building something that was visually indistinguishable from an 85,000+ ton "super carrier" costs one heck of a lot less than actually building one and in order to counter what you are 100% convinced is an 85.000+ ton "super carrier" you actually have to build an 85,000+ ton "super carrier" [or start deploying obsolete technology like diesel/electric submarines that can be almost undetectable - but which make really big holes in the water for those "super carriers" to fall into].
The Russians might not have any use for the carrier (as a carrier), but they could well have a use for it as an inducement for the US government to spend money that it doesn't have (and can't actually afford the cost of borrowing) on something which is almost totally "non-economically productive spending".
This would be quite similar to what the US government(s) did to the Russians in order to "bring them down and win the Cold War" (except, in that case, the US was actually building the hardware that the Russians had to counter [and one can't be so sure that this is the case with the latest round of "next PLUS 1 generation weapons" that the Russians are producing.
[Building something that was visually indistinguishable from an 85,000+ ton "super carrier" costs one heck of a lot less than actually building one and in order to counter what you are 100% convinced is an 85.000+ ton "super carrier" you actually have to build an 85,000+ ton "super carrier" [or start deploying obsolete technology like diesel/electric submarines that can be almost undetectable - but which make really big holes in the water for those "super carriers" to fall into].
(0)
(0)
LCDR Bruce Cooley
COL Ted Mc, Colonel you make some very good points. I keep forgetting that the use of 'common sense' is not always advisable when speaking about the Russians and the seeming 'inferiority complex'. IF they did build this, I would think that the Navy would re-invigorate the Seawolf class submarine building program as they, while being expensive, are about the only other alternative to building 10 90,000 ton Super-Super Carriers. Tomahawks, and ADCAP's, along with the sub's price, would be a lot more cost effective and more combat effective than a bunch of less expensive SSK's (Diesel/Electric boats).
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google