7 ms·

Russia’s Creaky, Old Aircraft Carrier Is Up to Something Strange

59 points by _of 10y ago

sandworm101 10y ago
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-crap-f3f52d299588 https://warisboring.com/your-aircraft-carrier-is-a-piece-of-...
- HillRat 10y ago
  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 10y ago
    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 10y ago
      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 10y ago
        No, aircraft carriers are not specially excluded. But the tonnage limit excludes them in practice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_the_Regime_of_the_Straits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_...
        int_19h 10y ago
        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.
  - pandaman 10y ago
    It's called "missile cruiser with aircraft capability" because it is a missile cruiser, which also has some aircraft on board. The difference between a carrier and a cruiser is that the cruiser can sink a capital ship without flying any aircraft at all while a carrier without its aircraft is quite benign.
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    Germany played similar games heading into WWII to build battleships and otherwise circumvent Treaty of Versailles / WWI treaty obligations on maximum size of navy / ships / numbers, etc.
bootload 10y ago
"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_carrier#ex-HMAS_Melbourne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Chinese_aircraft_carrie... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Melbourne_(R21) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Melbourne_(R21)
- engi_nerd 10y ago
  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 10y ago
    " 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-damned-embarrassment-d18a4bd13fd3 https://warisboring.com/this-old-aircraft-carrier-is-a-damne... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A_MiG_29K_aircraft_lands_on_INS_Vikramaditya.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A_MiG_29K_aircraft_lands_... https://warisboring.com/this-old-aircraft-carrier-is-a-damned-embarrassment-d18a4bd13fd3 https://warisboring.com/this-old-aircraft-carrier-is-a-damne...
cheiVia0 10y ago
> 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.)
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- nkw 10y ago
  > 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? Yes. I don't know the history behind it but ships and vessels are generally referred to using female pronouns in English. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_in_English#Ships https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_in_English#Ships > (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.) e.g. From Wikipedia - "USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76) is a Nimitz-class nuclear-powered supercarrier in the service of the United States Navy. The ninth ship of her class,[2] she is named in honor of former President Ronald Reagan" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Ronald_Reagan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Ronald_Reagan
- idlewords 10y ago
  It sounds antiquated and kind of icky to native speakers, so you don't ever have to do it yourself.
  - stephengillie 10y ago
    It's a throwback to an earlier time, when societal norms dictated social roles, and lonely sailors sought any reference to their opposite gender.
    - frozenport 10y ago
conistonwater 10y ago
What's the difference between an aircraft carrier and an aircraft cruiser?
- idlewords 10y ago
  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_the_Regime_of_the_Straits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_...
  - trhway 10y ago
    the cruisers don't have catapults. This is why they aren't aircraft carriers and thus allowed through the straits.
    - dogma1138 10y ago
      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 10y ago
        > 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 :)
tdicola 10y ago
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?
- gozur88 10y ago
  No, they have nuclear submarines, so it's not a question of technology. More likely just the fact that nuclear ships are dramatically more expensive.
  - tdicola 10y ago
    Yeah fascinating that they have nuclear missile ships and even icebreakers, but no carriers. Explanation above makes sense though!
- int_19h 10y ago
  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 10y ago
    >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.
scottlocklin 10y ago
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.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

59 points by _of 10y ago

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

HillRat 10y ago
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 10y ago
  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 10y ago
    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 10y ago
      No, aircraft carriers are not specially excluded. But the tonnage limit excludes them in practice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_the_Regime_of_the_Straits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_...
      - int_19h 10y ago
        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.
- pandaman 10y ago
  It's called "missile cruiser with aircraft capability" because it is a missile cruiser, which also has some aircraft on board. The difference between a carrier and a cruiser is that the cruiser can sink a capital ship without flying any aircraft at all while a carrier without its aircraft is quite benign.
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  Germany played similar games heading into WWII to build battleships and otherwise circumvent Treaty of Versailles / WWI treaty obligations on maximum size of navy / ships / numbers, etc.

bootload 10y ago

"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_carrier#ex-HMAS_Melbourne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Chinese_aircraft_carrie... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Melbourne_(R21) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Melbourne_(R21)

engi_nerd 10y ago
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 10y ago
  " 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-damned-embarrassment-d18a4bd13fd3 https://warisboring.com/this-old-aircraft-carrier-is-a-damne... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A_MiG_29K_aircraft_lands_on_INS_Vikramaditya.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A_MiG_29K_aircraft_lands_... https://warisboring.com/this-old-aircraft-carrier-is-a-damned-embarrassment-d18a4bd13fd3 https://warisboring.com/this-old-aircraft-carrier-is-a-damne...

cheiVia0 10y ago

> 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.)

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
nkw 10y ago
> 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? Yes. I don't know the history behind it but ships and vessels are generally referred to using female pronouns in English. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_in_English#Ships https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_in_English#Ships > (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.) e.g. From Wikipedia - "USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76) is a Nimitz-class nuclear-powered supercarrier in the service of the United States Navy. The ninth ship of her class,[2] she is named in honor of former President Ronald Reagan" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Ronald_Reagan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Ronald_Reagan
idlewords 10y ago
It sounds antiquated and kind of icky to native speakers, so you don't ever have to do it yourself.
- stephengillie 10y ago
  It's a throwback to an earlier time, when societal norms dictated social roles, and lonely sailors sought any reference to their opposite gender.
  - frozenport 10y ago

conistonwater 10y ago

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

idlewords 10y ago
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_the_Regime_of_the_Straits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_...
- trhway 10y ago
  the cruisers don't have catapults. This is why they aren't aircraft carriers and thus allowed through the straits.
  - dogma1138 10y ago
    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 10y ago
      > 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 :)

tdicola 10y ago

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?

gozur88 10y ago
No, they have nuclear submarines, so it's not a question of technology. More likely just the fact that nuclear ships are dramatically more expensive.
- tdicola 10y ago
  Yeah fascinating that they have nuclear missile ships and even icebreakers, but no carriers. Explanation above makes sense though!
int_19h 10y ago
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 10y ago
  >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.

scottlocklin 10y ago

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.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]