Talk Elections

https://defence-blog.com/news/russian-navy-may-scrap-its-only-aircraft-carrier.html



I'm devastated!

I wish I could say that this is alright and Russia needs to focus its efforts on diversifying its economy, but there's far too much hostility from NATO for that to be an option.

There is just no need for Russia to have an advanced navy, strategically speaking, considering that they don’t have any ports to protect and their trade is land-based.

indeed.  Every ruble spent on the Navy is one they can't spend on air, space, intel or cyber.

Sevastopol, SPB, Vladivostok...

Buh Rusha is a threat!!1!!!11!!!

A general observation: Russia's always been screwed by its own geography when it came to accessing the high seas. Pretty ironic, isn't it, given it's the largest country on earth with thousands of miles of coastline, stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

And yet it's pretty easy to block their access in case of war. They do have the access to the Baltics, but to leave the basin one need to cross the Danish Straits or the Kiel Canal, controlled by NATO countries. To make things even more complicated their only port that is ice-free for the entire year is Kaliningrad, an enclave surrounded by the EU and NATO.

In order to reach the Mediterranean you have to cross the Turkish Straits, which is not a problem during peacetime. Then to leave the Mediterranean and access the ocean you have to go through the Suez or Gibraltar. This immediately becomes a serious complication in the event of war or international crisis.

Their Arctic ports are frozen for good portion of the year and are mostly used for the subs. And in the East Japan and Korea can block Russia's access to the ocean. Vladivostok, too, isn't ice-free all year.

Historically Russia's been struggling to get a viable foothold into high seas, as evident with Peter the Great and Catherine the Great campaigns against Sweden and the Ottomans or, presently, with Syria. What interests Russia the most is to maintain their Mediterranean naval bases there. Naval bases were important factors in annexation of Crimea too, although there probably wouldn't be much problems with making deal with the Ukrainians.

In other regards Russia is still very much of a threat. Their cyberwarfare capabilities alone proved they don't need a bloody fleet of aircraft carriers to project power.

I wonder if the Chinese would be interested in buying her. They bought the half-completed sister ship of the Kuznetsov, Varvag, from Ukraine and completed her as the Liaoning. However, they already have the one carrier to experiment with and the Chinese made modifications to the design when completing her. (Most notably eliminating the anti-ship missiles used by the Soviets/Russians to claim the class was an aircraft-carrying cruiser instead of an aircraft carrier so as to sidestep the Montreux Convention.)  Given the age of the ship and its damage, I suspect that the Chinese would buy the Kuznetsov only if there are parts that can be used as spares for the Liaoning.

Just for point of comparison, the Soviet Union had seven aircraft carriers built and operated.  Nearly all were decommissioned in the 1990s after the end of the Cold War.  This is the last of those Cold War-era carriers.   

Battle of Kuznetsov: Dockyard victory -> Decisive dockyard victory

()

Best thing ever.

I don't think those were super carriers like the Americans had, but still 7 is very impressive. The collapse of the USSR has been devastating for Russia.

I don't think any other country had "supercarriers" like the US Navy. For example British carriers were pretty small in comparision.

Russia has never really need the high seas. (Another example of how rational Putin and his advisors are when push comes to shove.)

Whenever I think about the Russian navy, my mind goes to the hilarious failure that was their Baltic turned Pacific fleet in the Russian Japanese war.

Had the Soviets completed the Ulyanovsk, they would've had one, but it's hull was only about 20% complete when the Soviet Union collapsed.

Well...whenever I think about the Russian navy, I think about Rumbalotte (https://www.buchtips.net/rez5219-rumbalotte.htm). (One of my grandfather's favourite jokes. Google Translate does a reasonable job on this one.)

Russian warfare hasn't seen any failures since 2008.

Russia's military has been suffering from accidents, decaying infrastructure and lack of abilities to upgrade in many areas. Interestingly after 1991 they stopped making spare parts for their choppers, believing that can always buy it abroad, which turned into a problem after the sanctions hit.

Of course Russia retains a formidable capabilities, but they have a real problem to deal with.

The Russians accidentally shot up some British trawlers in the dogger bank incident on the way to the far east. The British were enraged enough to seriously considering declaring war. The Russian fleet would have been annihilated by the Royal Navy.

Wasn't there some problem with Russia having to go across Africa, unable to access the Suez?

Modern Russia in nearly every measurement is a sad shriveling entity compared to the USSR in the 1960s.

Hell, if the fishing boats the Russians tried to attack had a week to prepare, they probably could have beaten the Russian fleet by itself.

Basically the only reason why we still consider Russia a Great Power is because of its nuclear weapons. 

The Russians could always ask France to build one for them.

And of course "Upper Volta with rockets" was a jibe from themselves about the Brezhnev-era USSR.

This statement doesn't make much sense unless you assume there are only two Great Powers.

There are superpowers (the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War, with the latter since being replaced by China), and then there are great powers (like Russia and India) which are one rung below.