If
tested in a showdown, Putin's sole old smoky carrier is unlikely to prove as capable
- it's inferior, inexperienced and carries a history of mishaps. For now
though, the Kremlin has one clear advantage.
Anshel
Pfeffer Oct 30, 2016 4:43 PM
A
photo taken from a Norwegian surveillance aircraft shows Russian aircraft
carrier Admiral Kuznetsov in international waters off the coast of Northern
Norway on October 17, 2016.Credit: 333 Squadron, Norwegian Royal Airforce/NTB
Scanpix/Handout via Reuters
The
aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov, flagship of the Russian fleet, entered the
Mediterranean over the weekend, with a long stream of ridicule from the western
media in its wake. Russia’s only aircraft carrier, a leftover from the days of
Soviet power, carries a long history of mishaps, at sea and in port, and diesel
engines which were built for Russia’s cold waters – as shown by the column of
black smoke raising above it. It needs frequent refueling and resupplies and
has never been operationally tested. And yet, there is significance to the
deployment of Admiral Kuzentsov to the eastern Mediterranean, even though its
contribution to the Russian war effort in Syria is likely to be minimal. It is
nevertheless a potent symbol of the Kremlin’s intentions to continue
influencing events in the region.
Admiral
Kuzentsov and the aircraft it carries won’t change the balance of power in the
Syrian arena in any major way. The Russians already have air-superiority above
the wartorn country, thanks to its land-based aircraft there. The Su-33 and
Mig-29s on Admiral Kuznetsov are fighter-jets modified for ship-borne
operations and do not have sufficient range or payload for long sorties. If the
U.S. administration changes its non-interventionist policy, what seems likely
if Hillary Clinton, who supports a no-fly zone over Syria, is the next
president, the Russian naval air squadron will be concerned mainly with
defending its base – the aircraft carrier. Some of the warships accompanying
Admiral Kuznetsov carry air-defense missiles, but these are not as efficient anyway
as the S-300 and S-400 batteries Russia has already deployed to Syria, and will
be mainly used for self-defense.
Russia’s
fleet is inferior to a potential rival American force on two crucial points.
Most of its technology is still very old and its personnel and equipment are
not conditioned or proven in carrying out long-term operations far from their
home-ports. Should the U.S., which has the ships, planes and expertise for these
missions, and its allies, impose a no-fly zone over Syria and deploy a large
force to enforce it, Admiral Kuznetsov and the other Russian ships will become
sitting targets of Syria’s shore. So why did President Vladimir Putin send them
there?
Aircraft
carriers are strategic assets of major powers. Like nuclear weapons, which have
not been used in over seven decades, they do not necessarily always have
practical use, but they reflect a military capability that only a few nations
hold. Deploying an aircraft carrier group to a faraway hotspot represents a
global power’s strategic interests and is the most tangible manifestation of
“power projection." By sending Admiral Kuznetsov to the Mediterranean,
Putin is saying to the world, but first of all to his own citizens, that Russia
once again has super-power aspirations. According to a report last week in the
Moscow Times, there is disagreement within the Russian defense establishment
over the need for investing billions in aircraft carriers. Traditionally, the
role of the Russian fleet is to protect the homelands sea approaches, not
operate far from its borders. By this strategy, an aircraft carrier is an
expensive and superfluous status symbol. The decision to continue operating
Admiral Kuznetsov and to deploy it to the Mediterranean is a victory for those
in Moscow who are in favor of maintaining all the super-power trappings, even
if their tactical and strategic use are limited.
An aircraft carrier needs long months in port for
repairs and refitting between each period at sea. It needs also thousands of
experienced seamen and aircrew to operate. This is an investment over decades
in training and professional development. The only country that has the
capability to send a carrier group anywhere in the world a short notice is the
United States with its ten Nimitz-class “super-carriers." Each of these
can carry an air-wing of ninety aircraft, including up to sixty F-18
fighter-jets, as well as electronic-warfare, command and control, transport,
air-refueling and search and rescue aircraft. The U.S. also has nine smaller
carriers, carrying mainly helicopters and vertical take-off and landing
aircraft. It has been operating carriers around the world since Word War Two.
No other nation has anything that comes close and Russia’s single carrier, like
those operated by a handful of other countries, is much smaller, and can only
carry out much more limited missions, with less availability.
The
Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov passes through the Straits of Dover
as a fleet of Russian warships sail through the North Sea, and the English
Channel Friday Oct. 21, 2016. Credit: Gareth Fuller/AP
The
U.S. does not currently have a carrier in the Mediterranean. If the
administration, or the next one, decides to act more forcefully in Syria, it
could deploy the Eisenhower from the Persian Gulf or the George Washington from
the Caribbean in a few days. It could even choose to deploy two or three
carriers. France’s Charles De Gaulle is already in the eastern Mediterranean.
Of all the non-American carriers, this is the largest and most sophisticated,
with two squadrons of the Rafale M fighter-jet onboard. The Charles De Gaulle
and its aircraft are also the only carrier group fully interoperable with the
U.S. Navy, with both Rafale and F-18s capable of landing both on American and
French carriers. In case of a carrier-based showdown with the Russians over a
no-fly zone over Syria between a joint U.S.-French force, along with the
British operating from Cyprus, the superiority of the western coalition is
clear in every parameter.
For
now though, Russia has one clear advantage. They are the only ones who have
chosen a side in the war between the Assad regime and the rebels in Syria and
are operating there. Putin has proved he is willing to follow through with his
global aspirations. The sail of Admiral Kuznetsov is further proof. But Russian
power is limited and effective mainly in the vacuum created by the west’s
non-intervention in Syria. If tested in a showdown, it is unlikely to prove as
capable. The old smoky carrier perfectly highlights these limits.
Anshel
Pfeffer
Haaretz
Correspondent
Original
post: haaretz.com
It
seems the author missed the point about Russian doctrine as they prefer cheap
supersonic missiles and submarines to counter US carriers than having expensive carrier force.
Terrified US Aircraft Carrier Flees From
Russian Subs To UK Safety: Here
This
has been proven before that US carriers are not superior during the India and Pakitan war incident during the 70s. When the US
carrier group heading to India were met with Russian submarines and naval
ships. The US carrier group turned and
left.
1971 India Pakistan War: Role of Russia,
China, America and Britain: Here
From
earlier reports the carrier is there to test the MiG-29K in actual combat
environment.
