NEW: Follow the Editorial Staff on
StrategyPage Twitter Link


GROUND COMBAT +

AIR COMBAT +

NAVAL OPERATIONS +

SPECIAL OPERATIONS +

HUMAN FACTORS +

SPECIAL WEAPONS +

WARFARE BY THE NUMBERS +

LOGISTICS +

TOOLS +


Visit StrategyPage's US Cavalry Store



Naval Air Article Index : Current 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

Russian Carrier Dreams Sunk

July 23, 2009: Last year, Russian admirals were talking about building half a dozen carriers, and escort ships. That was when oil (Russia's major export) was at over a hundred dollars a barrel. Now there's a global recession, and all raw materials prices are down. Moreover, the admirals have come to realize that their nuclear submarine program is in big trouble. The submarine construction industry, which used to turn out several nuclear subs a year, has been producing less than one a year since the early 1990s, and cannot build new boats fast enough to replace those that have to be retired.

The Russian Navy has not only shrunk since the end of the Cold War in 1991, but it has also become much less active. In the last three years, only ten of their nuclear subs went to sea, on a combat patrol, each year. Most of the boats going to sea were SSNs (attack subs), the minority were SSBNs (ballistic missile boats). There were more short range training missions, which often lasted a few days, or just a few hours. But the true measure of a fleet is the "combat patrol" or "deployment." In the U.S. Navy, most of these last from 2-6 months. In the last three years, U.S. nuclear subs have carried out ten times as many patrols as their Russian counterparts.

Currently, Russia only has 14 SSBN (nuclear ballistic missile sub) boats in service, and not all of them have a full load of missiles. Some lack full crews, or have key systems in need of repair. Only eight of these SSBNs can actually go to sea. Russia has only 14 modern, 7,000 ton, Akula SSNs (nuclear attack subs) in service. These began building in the late 1980s and are roughly comparable to the American Los Angeles class. All of the earlier Russian SSNs are trash, and most have been decommissioned. There are also eight SSGN (nuclear subs carrying cruise missiles) and 20 diesel electric boats. There is a new class of SSGNs under construction, but progress, and promised funding increases, have been slow.

The peak year for Russian nuclear sub patrols was 1984, when there were 230. That number rapidly declined until, in 2002, there were none. Since the late 1990s, the Russian navy has been hustling to try and reverse this decline. But the navy budget, despite recent increases, is not large enough to build new ships to replace the current Cold War era fleet that is falling apart. The rapid decline of Russia's nuclear submarine fleet needed international help to safely decommission over a hundred obsolete or worn out nuclear subs. This effort has been going on for nearly a decade, and was driven by the Russian threat to just sink their older nuclear subs in the Arctic ocean. That might work with conventional ships, but there was an international uproar over what would happen with all those nuclear reactors sitting on the ocean floor forever. Russia generously offered to accept donations to fund a dismantling program that included safe disposal (of the nuclear reactors).

Since the end of the Cold War in 1991, most of the ship building money has gone into new nuclear subs. Six Akulas have been completed in that time, but all of these were under construction when the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991. Since 1991, only one nuclear sub has been laid down, and completed. The first of a new generation of SSBNs, the Borei class has been delayed by technical problems, a new ballistic missile that wouldn't work, and lack of money. The first Borei class boat, after many delays, is finally ready for service, but ended up costing over two billion dollars.

The Russian admirals made their big mistake in the early 1990s, when the dismantling of the Soviet Union left the second largest fleet in the world with only a fraction of its Cold War budget. Rather than immediately retire ninety percent of those ships, Russia tried to keep many of them operational. This consumed most of the navy budget, and didn't work. There were too many ships, not enough sailors and not enough money for maintenance or training at sea. The mighty Soviet fleet is mostly scrap now, or rusting hulks tied up at crumbling, out-of-the way naval bases.

While Western nuclear subs can last for about thirty years, Russian models rarely get past twenty. That means two new SSN or SSGN has to be put into service each year to maintain a force of forty boats. Unless the sub construction budget get billions more dollars a year, that is not going to happen. Right now, the priority is on producing a new class of SSBNs (11 more Boreis are planned or under construction). These Boreis are critical, because they carry SLBM (Sea Launched Ballistic Missiles) that provide a critical (they are much harder to destroy in a first strike than land based missiles) portion of the nuclear deterrent. The rest of the Russian armed forces, like most of the navy, is in sad shape, and unable to resist a major invasion. Only the ICBMs and SLBMs guarantee the safety of the state. So the way things are going now, in a decade or two, Russia will end up with a force consisting of a dozen SSNs and a dozen SSBNs. And no aircraft carriers.

 

submit to reddit
Send Link to a Friend
Next Article ISRAEL: The Arab-Israeli Alliance Against Iran


Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2
Babeouf    At the Mercy of the Rest   7/23/2009 6:06:46 AM
So in five or ten years Russia will be at the mercy of the merciless Wolf. They don't seem very bothered about it.
This is very strange given that they have been invaded so often.I can't help but notice that a lot of publications
have room only for bad news stories concerning the Russian defense forces. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Lets see how digestible Russia proves to be.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       7/23/2009 6:23:32 AM

So in five or ten years Russia will be at the mercy of the merciless Wolf. 

what wolf?  their problem will be china, and they're another bear.  historically the wolf lay to russias west in europe.... 
 
Quote    Reply

trenchsol       7/23/2009 12:40:46 PM
Russian Navy was almost useless in newer history. Last large combat deployment was in war against Japan, battles of Tsushima and Port Arthur, at the beginning of 20th century. Their major naval force had to sail almost around the globe to face the enemy and lose.
 
Russian position is complicated. They have access to Baltic sea, Black sea, Arctic Ocean and Pacific Ocean. Perhaps, Caspian Sea can be considered, too. That makes their fleet divided in several detachments, and it is almost impossible  for them to join forces or exchange ships/units. 

Baltic and Black sea are problematic, because they are accessible through narrow straits and can be blocked, even by neutral nations. Arctic Ocean has ice and harsh weather conditions, and both exists (North Sea and Bering Strait) might be monitored. The situation is, perhaps, the best for Pacific ocean detachment, but stlll, potential adversaries are in better position. There is a detachment in Mediterranean Sea, I think, but it depends on Syrian hospitality.
 
Perhaps, because of their position, it is the best for Russia not to bother too much with large Navy.  Submarines are, perhaps, their best bet. 

DG

 
Quote    Reply

FJV       7/23/2009 3:30:16 PM
I'm not yet done considering whether Russia enough ports for that amount of carriers.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Photon       7/24/2009 12:31:51 AM
The Russians should have used a portion of their Navy budget to fund decommissioning warships they are just going to have to write-off soon or later.  In order for the Russians to have a viable and capable fleet, they may have to creatively destroy their Soviet-era Navy, before getting into a new naval build-up.  They simply do not have the logistical tail (let alone demographics) to maintain a huge navy.  But I suppose they simply do not like do dwell on one of the truisms of life ... 'addition by subtraction'.  Meanwhile, counting on high energy price to increase military funding has turned out to be less than spectacular.  Finally, taking foreign donation to clean up after their decrepit nuclear subs (instead of doing it on their own) just shows how much dope they have been smoking to this day:  They have created a big dirty mess, then expects foreigners to take care of it?!?  Doh ....
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       7/24/2009 3:58:02 AM

I'm not yet done considering whether Russia enough ports for that amount of carriers.

 
IIRC, at last count of the 23 facilities that they had on the west coast and  nth west coast more than 75% were regarded as inop and sfaety hazards.
 


 
Quote    Reply

Spiky    The Rise of the Asian Suns   7/24/2009 11:25:36 AM

Russian Naval Power is in serious trouble and it will take a lot of money to bring them back from a declining shrinking trend. On the other hand, India, China, and Japan are all building large and small carriers (fixed wing or helos take your pick) and Korea is also becoming a formidable naval force. With economic growth comes military growth, and Russia's economy desperately needs the price of oil and natural gas to go back up to previous higher prices. This is one more example why we should be worried about how our economy is currently being handled by present administration. If our economy continues to suffer, in the not so distant long run it will do more to harm our future military readiness than any other outside foe will.

 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       7/27/2009 5:15:56 AM
I've serious doubts about how much damage a nuclear engine and it's support components and fuel could do to the Arctic sea (other than far-fetched stories of mutation)... but best to be safe when it's not too expensive.
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       7/27/2009 5:16:58 AM
I wonder what the radius is for the contamination...
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       7/27/2009 5:58:30 AM

Russian Navy was almost useless in newer history. Last large combat deployment was in war against Japan, battles of Tsushima and Port Arthur, at the beginning of 20th century. Their major naval force had to sail almost around the globe to face the enemy and lose.


 

Russian position is complicated. They have access to Baltic sea, Black sea, Arctic Ocean and Pacific Ocean. Perhaps, Caspian Sea can be considered, too. That makes their fleet divided in several detachments, and it is almost impossible  for them to join forces or exchange ships/units. 




Baltic and Black sea are problematic, because they are accessible through narrow straits and can be blocked, even by neutral nations. Arctic Ocean has ice and harsh weather conditions, and both exists (North Sea and Bering Strait) might be monitored. The situation is, perhaps, the best for Pacific ocean detachment, but stlll, potential adversaries are in better position. There is a detachment in Mediterranean Sea, I think, but it depends on Syrian hospitality.


 

Perhaps, because of their position, it is the best for Russia not to bother too much with large Navy.  Submarines are, perhaps, their best bet. 



DG





 
Don't forget this also means Russia doesn't have enough ports per theatre to properly sustain big operations.
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       7/27/2009 5:59:07 AM
The really big operations of course.
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       7/27/2009 6:00:14 AM
And not-so big operations as well with multiple carriers would need expansion of existing ports in certain theaters.
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       7/27/2009 6:03:31 AM

The Russians should have used a portion of their Navy budget to fund decommissioning warships they are just going to have to write-off soon or later.  In order for the Russians to have a viable and capable fleet, they may have to creatively destroy their Soviet-era Navy, before getting into a new naval build-up.  They simply do not have the logistical tail (let alone demographics) to maintain a huge navy.  But I suppose they simply do not like do dwell on one of the truisms of life ... 'addition by subtraction'.  Meanwhile, counting on high energy price to increase military funding has turned out to be less than spectacular.  Finally, taking foreign donation to clean up after their decrepit nuclear subs (instead of doing it on their own) just shows how much dope they have been smoking to this day:  They have created a big dirty mess, then expects foreigners to take care of it?!?  Doh ....

They could sell some of their active ships to India and other buyers...
But they'd need to rip out the technology and their own pride tho. Not going to happen very much.
 
Then again they just did with their officer class and tank fleet, but then they go back to oversizing their conscription...
 
Quote    Reply

Slim Pickinz    cwDeici   7/27/2009 10:12:21 PM
Can you perhaps consolidates your posts into one general one, rather than posting a 5 replies in the span of a couple of minutes. Sorry, it just helps to keep threads clean and is easier for the readers.
 
Quote    Reply

Slim Pickinz    cwDeici   7/27/2009 10:15:28 PM
Can you perhaps consolidates your posts into one general one, rather than posting a 5 replies in the span of a couple of minutes. Sorry, it just helps to keep threads clean and is easier for the readers.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2





New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy