Why might Russia need nuclear aircraft carriers?

2024 Author: Howard Calhoun | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-17 10:16

Throughout the twentieth century, aircraft carriers were a symbol of aggression, not always turning into a military conflict and sometimes consisting in a show of force. So a street robber, holding a heavy crowbar in his right hand and a brick in his left, politely offers to buy the latter for a round sum.

Poor states cannot afford to maintain powerful navies. The cost of an aircraft carrier today in comparable prices is 10-15 billion dollars, and its construction entails additional budgetary costs for maintaining the technical condition and combat capability, annually comparable to this amount. No wonder they say that the best way to ruin the enemy is to give him a powerful warship.

Successful conduct of military operations is extremely difficult without achieving air supremacy. The wars of the post-war decades (Korea, Vietnam, the Falklands) could not do without floating air bases plying near the conflict center, providing the presence of hundreds of aircraft in the airspace.

Disputes about how much Russian aircraft carriers are needed have been going on since Soviet times. Opponents in them are divided into two main groups, conditionally called "doves" and "hawks". The first advocate the principlesufficiency, that is, minimization of military costs, and the latter - for an adequate and almost symmetrical response to any challenge.

The Soviet economy, in its efficiency, could not compete with the production capacities of its main competitor, the United States, so the construction of a dozen nuclear aircraft carriers did not take place. In the 1970s, each of these aircraft carriers cost American taxpayers about a billion dollars. Nevertheless, during the 80s, heavy cruisers Varyag and Tbilisi were laid down in Nikolaev, capable of receiving fifty modern multi-purpose supersonic aircraft on their flight decks, not inferior in technical characteristics to Hornets and F-16s, not to mention Tomcats and Phantoms. After the collapse of the USSR, the question arose whether Russia needed these aircraft carriers and, in general, what to do with them.

Solomon's decision was made. The command of the Black Sea Fleet managed to transfer the ship "Tbilisi", which was commissioned, to the Northern Fleet, where it successfully carries out military service under the name "Admiral Kuznetsov", and the unfinished "Varyag" was left to rust at the Nikolaev shipyards until it was sold to China at the price of scrap metal.

The devastation and complete economic decline of the nineties suggested to Western analysts that Russia would no longer be able to claim the role of a superpower. The scenario of dividing the country and establishing complete control over it seemed quite possible. However, at some point, things didn't go according to plan. Whatcalled, overlooked…

Having paid off foreign debts and drawing conclusions about the danger of a disregard for security on the example of other states, the country's leadership began to strengthen the defense capability, not disregarding the Russian Navy. At the first stage, aircraft carriers were not going to be built, focusing on the main strike force - the submarine fleet.

Meanwhile, the military doctrines of many states have changed significantly. China and India - countries that no one can accuse of neo-colonialism - nevertheless, began to make efforts to create their own full-fledged fleets with air support. Italy and Spain also got, albeit small, but aircraft carriers. France has a full-fledged ship of this class, moreover, with a nuclear power plant. Why do countries that do not seek military seizure of foreign territories need such weapons, and can Russia's aircraft carriers be needed?

The question is rather rhetorical. It is difficult to exert military pressure on a union state far from our shores if Russian aircraft carriers appear on its shores. In addition to maintaining military parity, any superpower has economic interests, the need to defend which may arise in those regions that information portals do not remember today. Possession of a full-fledged fleet capable of solving any combat missions in remote locations is a matter not only of national prestige and military necessity, but also of economic feasibility.

Apparently, the new aircraft carriers of the Russian Navy will receive,however, this event should not be expected in the next decade. A ship of this class is not only expensive on its own, it needs the appropriate infrastructure. Most likely, full-fledged aircraft-carrying ships will be built, with a nuclear power plant, a displacement of over 100,000 tons, an almost unlimited range and long-term autonomy. Perhaps there will be fewer of them than the United States, but quite enough for Russia's allies to fear no one.