
Russia’s Creaky, Old Aircraft Carrier Is Up to Something Strange - _of
https://warisboring.com/russias-creaky-old-aircraft-carrier-is-up-to-something-strange-d05d5d9a927c#.vzult96ht
======
scottlocklin
I usually like warisboring, but they've gone off the deep end lately on
Russia.

If they weren't so busy hyperventilating, they'd notice the obvious fact that
this is a Mig-29/35 training mission. The Mig-35 evolution on the '29 is being
rolled out, and the Miyokan design bureau is in something of a bind, as they
haven't have been as successful as Sukhoi. So, this is an opportunity for
Miyokan to show off some of its unique capabilities.

These gizmos can be (have been) sold to China and India for their own aircraft
carrier ambitions.

------
sandworm101
This ship, in huge seas, under tow.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33DyawPG-
hw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33DyawPG-hw)

Some deck footage of some rather sad flight operations. (skip to 15:00)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNtyHKR6saI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNtyHKR6saI)

Previous article for perspective:

[https://warisboring.com/your-aircraft-carrier-is-a-piece-
of-...](https://warisboring.com/your-aircraft-carrier-is-a-piece-of-
crap-f3f52d299588)

~~~
HillRat
One interesting case of using "lawfare" to compensate for less-sophisticated
military technology is the designation of the _Kuznetsov_ -class carriers as
"missile boats with aircraft capability." Under the terms of the Montreux
Convention, carriers are not allowed to transit the Straits(1), so this bit of
definitional legerdemain gives the Russians the ability to move carriers in
and out of the Black Sea, which is denied to the US.

(1) It's a bit more complex than that, having to do with tonnage limits and
the exclusion of carriers from the definition of a "capitol ship," but the
effect is essentially the same.

~~~
steve19
My understand is that Black Sea states do not have a tonnage limit, which is
how they get around it.

If France loaded some anti-ship missiles on the Charles de Gaulle carrier, it
could be called a missile cruiser (with planes) but would violate the tonnage
limit (its about 50% heavier than the tonnage limit of the treaty).

The treaty is doing what it was designed to do, I think, by limiting non-Black
Sea ships through the strait.

~~~
HillRat
If I recall correctly (it's been a while since I looked at the Convention and
the specific implementation verbiage), aircraft carriers are explicitly
_verboten_ , but, as you say, non-riparian states also have a tonnage limit on
capitol ships which further limits freedom of transit. (Plus some further
restrictions on submarines, but those aren't germane here.)

In addition, if the US, NATO or France attempted to unilaterally redefine a
carrier as a non-carrier capitol ship for purposes of navigation, it would be
considered a hostile diplomatic act by Russia, so that also sets limits of its
own sort. During the Cold War, of course, it wasn't as important an issue,
Turkey being the only NATO Black Sea state (note: since I'm not looking at a
map right now, that might not be _completely_ correct). No NATO carrier was
going to transit the straits except in a case of war, at which point the
Convention would be the least of our problems.

~~~
idlewords
No, aircraft carriers are not specially excluded. But the tonnage limit
excludes them in practice.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_the_Regime_of_the_Straits)

~~~
int_19h
Aircraft carriers are specifically excluded from the "capital ship" category,
and said category does not have the tonnage limit for Black Sea states. Hence
why USSR created this thing - because it is a missile cruiser (that just
happens to double as a carrier), it's a capital ship, so it can be as large as
it needs to be.

------
bootload
_" Since the USSR and Russia has had little opportunity to build these skills,
and none to test them in combat, any strike missions from the Kuznetsov would
be limited and mostly for show."_

This fact impacted the Sino carrier program [0] so much that it the Sino
scrapping of the RAN, HMAS Melbourne (R21) [1] in 1980, was delayed to _study_
the steam catapult system. It was launched as a Majestic Class in 1943 and
retro-fitted to launch the Douglas A-4 Skyhawk.

Uncle served on the Melbourne and I got to take a look around the Melbourne
just before RIMPAC78. Two years later it was scrapped. and towed off to China.

Reference

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Chinese_aircraft_carrie...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Chinese_aircraft_carrier#ex-
HMAS_Melbourne)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Melbourne_(R21)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Melbourne_\(R21\))

~~~
engi_nerd
I'm not a carrier suitability expert but I have directly participated in
flight testing for carrier suitability, including TC-7 steam catapult testing.
The basic idea behind the steam catapult is really simple, but building and
operating one is not. I'm not surprised that any nation who hasn't built a
steam catapult would need to do some research to make their fist working
catapult.

~~~
bootload
_" The basic idea behind the steam catapult is really simple, but building and
operating one is not. I'm not surprised that any nation who hasn't built a
steam catapult would need to do some research to make their fist working
catapult."_

I'd agree, the point I was hinting at was the limitations of the Russian
Carriers impact on the Sino effort.

India has a similar problem, cf the second hand Vikramadity [0] (chain supply
and re-fit problems) and even the new INS Vikrant shows the inability to build
a steam-catapault based design instead opting for a ski ramp. As a result the
choice of jet is the MiG29 K instead of the Su33.

The complexity and cost of building a carrier with a steam catapult capable of
launching aircraft the size used in the USN appears, to be beyond both China
and India.

[0] [https://warisboring.com/this-old-aircraft-carrier-is-a-
damne...](https://warisboring.com/this-old-aircraft-carrier-is-a-damned-
embarrassment-d18a4bd13fd3)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A_MiG_29K_aircraft_lands_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A_MiG_29K_aircraft_lands_on_INS_Vikramaditya.jpg)

[https://warisboring.com/this-old-aircraft-carrier-is-a-
damne...](https://warisboring.com/this-old-aircraft-carrier-is-a-damned-
embarrassment-d18a4bd13fd3)

------
conistonwater
What's the difference between an aircraft carrier and an aircraft cruiser?

~~~
idlewords
Basically an aircraft carrier that pretends it could be useful without planes.
Russia is allowed to move aircraft cruisers of any tonnage through the
Dardanelles, but not large aircraft carriers.

And that's why the Russian fleet has aircraft cruisers.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_the_Regime_of_the_Straits)

~~~
trhway
the cruisers don't have catapults. This is why they aren't aircraft carriers
and thus allowed through the straits.

~~~
dogma1138
The fact that these restrictions still exist which make Russia an defacto land
locked country is one of the reasons why there is so much tension with Russia.

EU/Nato on the West, and south - south west (caspian), China and India in the
south - south east, Japan/US in the east/north east and a bunch of ice in the
north.

With the sea ice melting Russian might actually get a warm water port in
Vladivostok and stop trying to invade manchuria/korea every 50-60 years, but
at that point we'll be screwed any how.

~~~
trhway
> The fact that these restrictions still exist which make Russia an defacto
> land locked country is one of the reasons why there is so much tension with
> Russia.

Since its founding by Vikings almost 1300 years ago Russia has been a pretty
aggressively expanding empire through all its history (it was slowed down only
for a couple centuries by the more aggressive Mongol empire), so i'd say the
tension have pretty good foundation :)

------
cheiVia0
_> Admiral Kuznetsov has never seen combat, nor would she be of much practical
military use._

As a Russian speaker, I find this sentence grating. Is it normal to refer to a
ship with a male name as "she"? Would this be right?

 _> USS George Washington has never seen combat, nor would she be of much
practical military use._

(For those that don't know, Russian last names are slightly different
depending on the gender. So Admiral Kuznetsov's wife's last name would be
Kuznetsova.)

~~~
idlewords
It sounds antiquated and kind of icky to native speakers, so you don't ever
have to do it yourself.

~~~
stephengillie
It's a throwback to an earlier time, when societal norms dictated social
roles, and lonely sailors sought any reference to their opposite gender.

~~~
kirrent
Presumably you'd say the same things about other traditionally gendered
inanimate objects in english such as countries or the moon?

~~~
stephengillie
Yes.

------
tdicola
It's odd to me, why didn't Russia/the USSR develop nuclear aircraft carriers?
The USSR ran out of money before they could be developed perhaps?

~~~
int_19h
Because Russia/USSR had less need to project power on the sea, being a
continental empire on the largest landmass on the globe, rather than an
isolated oceanic one (like UK and US).

Basically, if you have lots of land borders and not that much useful shoreline
(and remember, both Black Sea and Baltic Sea are easily contained), spending
money on land armies is a wiser investment. There are some exceptions to this
rule - e.g. nuclear subs, as MAD deterrent - but overall, Russia never had,
and will likely never have, a particularly strong navy.

For the same reason, while Russia has marines (naval infantry), they are not
the "more elite" fighting forces the way USMC is treated in US, at least as
far as public perception/mythology goes. Instead, VDV - the paratroopers -
holds that role.

~~~
trhway
>Because Russia/USSR had less need to project power on the sea

not exactly. 19th century Russia tried. Alaska, Fort Ross in Pacific for
example - SF Bay was the border between Russia and Mexico :). Active
Mediterranean presence and operations since the end of 18th century and
through the 19th. The history of Russian ocean faring Navy ended in Tsushima.
With respect to Navy not much changed in Russia for the 100+ years since
Tsushima. They just (like yesterday) removed 36 top officers of Baltic Sea
Fleet (starting with the Fleet Commander) for low combat preparedness of the
Fleet and corruption. I suspect they just weren't corrupt enough.

So, yes, beside nuclear subs - pure deterrent force what just happened to be
in the water - Russian Navy is glorified Coast Guard. Pretty powerful Coast
Guard which can harm carrier groups, yet it can't really operate anywhere in
remote oceans.

~~~
pm90
Yes but that is all before the advent of modern ship technology. Alaska was
part of the eastward expansion led by the cossacks in the age of discovery.

I think the parent comment in mostly right. Remember that the US and USSR were
both mostly concerned about the state of Western Europe; that was the focus of
attention for most of the cold war. The Soviets had an enormous land boundary
and no need for ships if they wanted to invade western europe.

~~~
trhway
>Yes but that is all before the advent of modern ship technology. Alaska was
part of the eastward expansion led by the cossacks in the age of discovery.

The US got California as result of westward expansion led by gold rushers and
entrepreneurs. The point here isn't that Russia didn't want and didn't try.
Russia tried and failed.

>I think the parent comment in mostly right. Remember that the US and USSR
were both mostly concerned about the state of Western Europe; that was the
focus of attention for most of the cold war. The Soviets had an enormous land
boundary and no need for ships if they wanted to invade western europe.

That is the situation post-Crimean war. The point of Crimean War was Russian
expansion southward, ultimately to control the straits and have the access to
Mediterranean, to the soft unprotected belly of Europe, like the Osman Empire
had for centuries before. Obviously Western Europe, in particular Britain and
France didn't want it, as having the threat limited to land and attenuated by
significant land distance between them and Russia was much strategically much
more beneficial for Western Europe. And Russia lost the war (for all the
typical Russian reasons - bad tech, bad management, etc.). The same way like
losing Tsushima and the whole Russo-Japan war closed Russian attempts to be
ocean faring state in Pacific.

So the point here is that Russia did try and failed and thus it has that land
based priority that parent is talking about not by choice - it it just natural
consequence of failing to make it into big Navy league with those 2 wars being
the key stopping points.

~~~
pm90
You make good points. I think we are talking besides each other. Imperial
Russia was an expansionist monarchy but it would never reach the level of
Industrialization that the Soviet Union did. All the failures you mention are
by a Pre-Soviet Russia, whose priorities were different from its successor.
With the industrial capacity at hand in post WW2 Soviet Union, the question is
why was it not used to manufacture a blue water navy on the same scale as the
US. And the answer is: because it wasn't important to Soviet interests.

Note that the Soviet Navy was pretty formidable in itself; perhaps just not
advanced as the US due to lack of investment which was arguably caused by a
lack of interest.

