3 ms·

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.
    • pm90 10y ago
      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 10y ago
        >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 10y ago
          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.
• dingaling 10y ago
  They had a nuclear carrier on the slipway in the mid-1980s, the first of the Ulyanovsk class, but ran out of money. The Kirov class nuclear cruisers were formidable, though.