Kiev - COMPLETELY MAD MILITARY DIRECTIVES that have no chance of
being fulfilled are usually the sign of a delusional commander in a desperate
and hopeless armed conflict. Hitler issuing orders for non-existent, long-ago
destroyed armies to attack during his last days in the bunker or Stalin
demanding that overrun and demolished armies counterattack against the
Wehrmacht invasion in June 1941 are classic examples.
What should one make of the
announcement from one of her chief admirals, Vladimir Vystosky, on the July 27
Navy Day holiday, that the Russian navy would add six carriers to its
fleet--along with all of the necessary support ships that form a carrier battle
Vysotsky did not appear to have
started early on the vodka toasts, so instead of the chest-thumping that comes
after several rounds he was probably instead following up on a visit made at
the beginning of the year by Dimitri Medvedev (then first deputy prime
minister) to the Russian naval base at Murmansk. The man who is now president
announced then that the Russian Navy's (VMF) powerful status should be revived,
"so that Russia would be a maritime and naval power. This work is
underway, maybe it is slower than we would like to do it, but we got down to it
for the first time in the last 20 years."
Construction of these carriers would
begin sometime after 2012, according to Vysotsky. Three of them would be
assigned to the Northern Fleet and the other three to the Pacific Fleet. This
plan for where the ships would be based is about the only part of the
announcement that is rational.
"This facilitates a normal type
of rotational deployment," said a U.S. Government Russian naval analyst,
"that allows for one of the carriers to be at sea in each theater at all
times. With three carrier groups in each fleet main staging base you are able
to--at the same time--have one on station, one returning to port for rest and
refitting, and a third in port undergoing re-fitting to be ready to replace the
group currently on station."
Unfortunately for the admiral, there
are several problems with these grandiose--and prohibitively expensive--plans.
Leaving aside that the navy is always the first of Russia's services to suffer
budget cuts, the cost for these six carriers would be more than the total of
all Russia's military spending for the last decade or more. Furthermore, the
only shipyard that built carriers in the Soviet period is in located in
Nikolayev, Ukraine. Moscow is unlikely to contract with Kiev and pour billions
into the Ukrainian economy, which it has thus far been doing its best to keep
in a shambles.
Russia does have its own shipyards,
but their record on carrier building has been disastrous. In 2004 Russia signed
a contract to modernize, refit, and extend the flight deck on one of its
Soviet-era carriers, the Admiral Gorshkov, for the Indian Navy. The
carrier was to have been delivered this year, but the Indians are now being
told that it will not arrive before 2012 and that the program is more than 100
per cent over budget.
The Indian defense ministry was so
alarmed by this long delay that they offered to send several hundred Indian
shipyard workers to Russia to help speed the work along. Sources in New Delhi
now state that they do not expect this carrier ever to be delivered, so how
Russian can expect to build new carriers from the keel up is unknown.
The mainstay aircraft aboard the one
VMF carrier in service, the Admiral Kuznetsov, is the Sukhoi Su-33 CV-capable
fighter, but it has been out of production at the Komsomolsk-na-Amure (KNAAPO)
plant for almost 20 years. A re-start of its production might prove difficult
and too costly unless there is an order from the Chinese Navy. Previously
KNAAPO officials had revealed an interest by the Chinese Navy in acquiring up
to 50 Su-33s, but no orders have actually been placed yet by Beijing. Given the
current tensions with Beijing over its Shenyang J-11B fighter, which KNAAPO has
called an illegal copy of the standard land-based Su-27s, this type of an order
Even if Russian industry could--in
addition to the untold billions that these six carrier battle groups will
cost--bear the costs of re-starting the Su-33 production, the avionics and
other on-board systems of this aircraft would be ancient by the time they
entered service. An entirely new configuration of on-board equipment would have
to be developed and integrated onto the air frame--another expensive operation.
An advanced variant of the Mikoyan
MiG-29K that is now being produced for the (possibly never to be delivered)
Indian carrier might be a better option, since this aircraft has a more
advanced structure and avionics suite. At the Paris Air Show in June 2007, MiG
officials stated that there had already been discussions about replacing these
older-generation Su-33s in the Russian Navy with the more contemporary MiG
Even if there was a way to build
these carriers in Russia (which there does not appear to be) and even if the
funding for this massive expansion of the Russian Navy were forthcoming (which
seems an even more dubious proposition), the real question is what would be the
function of these carrier battle groups.
The Pentagon uses carrier battle
groups for power projection--placing air power, Marines, naval guns, and guided
missiles into hot spots of the world to support U.S. foreign policy objectives.
But the Russian military has never shown itself to have any interest in being
an expeditionary force. The sole motivation behind building these carriers
seems to be the ego-boosting act of Moscow's being able to wave its arms and
shout "see we have some too - we're also a superpower."
The only real benefit to these
carrier battle groups would be for Moscow to be able to extend its air defense
network out beyond its borders and into the sea. But, in an age of increasingly
high-speed, long-range air-to-air missiles launched from fighters, it appears
to be a marginal increase in the ability to intercept incoming enemy aircraft
at an astronomical cost. And, intercept how and who--by the way? Does Moscow
still expect an attack from B-2 stealth bombers or B-52s 17 years after the
Cold War has ended?
Looking for an explanation that
makes sense is to commit the error, as one Moscow colleague reminded me
regularly, "of looking for logic inside Russian officialdom where none can
possibly exist." The only explanation is more of the same irrationality
that was the hallmark of the Soviet years. Announcing a robust presence with a
high profile hides the basic structural defects of the Soviet military.
At the same time, the Russian
government continues to shovel billions of dollars into the coffers of defense
enterprises that are controlled by the inner circle of officials in the
Kremlin. Which may be the ultimate explanation for an order to build carriers
that cannot be built and which no one really needs. Just like arms sales to
Venezuela, Algeria, and elsewhere, this aircraft carrier fantasy may end up
being a wonderful mechanism for laundering money.