Assessing the Admiral Kuznetsov Deployment in the Syrian Conflict

Real Clear Defense ^ | November 22, 2016 | By Ben Ho Wan Beng

[Brad from Tennessee]

On 15 November 2016, Russia joined the exclusive aircraft carrier combat club when its sole flat-top, RFNS Admiral Kuznetsov, took part in operations in the Syrian provinces of Homs and Idlib. Much has been made about the smoke-belching vessel during its voyage from Murmansk to the eastern Mediterranean; now that the Admiral Kuznetsov has had its baptism of fire, the key question is how operationally useful would the platform be for Russia’s Syria strategy in the days ahead? Not very, and this is mainly due to the modest – in terms of both capabilities and size – aircraft complement embarked on the Russian flat-top.

The raison d’etre of the carrier is its air wing, and the latter’s size dictate the operations the vessel can execute. Force projection is one of the flat-top’s key doctrinal roles and being able to carry out offensive missions is thus the vessel’s sine quo non. However, carriers, even “small-deck” ones like the Kuznetsov, are large, multi-billion-dollar platforms, and their protection is of utmost importance to commanders. Indeed, each Kuznetsov-class vessel has a displacement of well over 60,000 tons and costs an estimated $2.4 billion.

In light of the carrier’s capital-ship status and hefty price tag, as well as its being a symbol of national power, protecting the ship from enemy threats would be critical, and a good portion of the its aircraft complement will invariably be dedicated to this. Nevertheless, setting aside too many aircraft for defense adds credence to the contention made by various carrier critics that the platform is a “self-licking ice cream cone.”

[Snickering Hound]

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-37749007

It’s belching smoke like an old Dodge, look for it needing a tow to port soon.

[2banana]

It’s one more aircraft carrier than the UK has...

[Psalm 73]

Wow - that was some smack-down of Russian naval aviation “prowess”

[mrsmith]

China has it’s reasons for deploying the Russian carrier.

Mostly to get up-close experience in carrier combat operations.
As long as Admiral Kuznetsov performs that function it is a “good” deployment.

[AndyJackson]

That the Kuzentsov lacks the punch of a US CVAN entirely misses the point - what is going on strategically in Syria. We are playing chutes and ladders and the Russians are playing Go. They have lopped off the Black Sea, taken Syria, re-established their port in the Eastern Med at Tartus, flanking Turkey.

This is payback for pushing our tanks up to their front porch after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

And if you think the Baltics aren't in play, you better think real hard.

Sure we have overwhelming conventional capabilities - the Russians know that - and they have invested in tactical nukes and the doctrine to use them to strategically isolate and limit a conflict.

Yeah, we COULD sink the Kuznetsov with a naval strike in short order. We just might not like the consequences of doing so.

This is the consequence of playing cowboys and indians in the Middle East, thinking we were going to make it all better because of our democratic moral superiority.

I hope we learn the strategic lesson. Geography matters and proximity matters. And we are not an Asian land power. We should stop trying to be one. I am not sure that Asian landpowers like being Asian landpowers. But they don't have a choice. It's an accident of geography. We are a sea-power. We should thank the heavens for that.

[gaijin]

Lack of CATAPULT means bombload is MINIMAL —maybe just 4 or more likely just 2 bombs, max.

And they can’t loiter very long over the target.

Lack of a catapult has consequences FAR GREATER than people suspect.

After they finally get EMALS working our carriers will be far more deadly.

[bravo whiskey]

I remember someone in the 70s analyzing a US CVBG. Carrier cost, cruiser and other escorts, Hawkeyes, F-14s. All of that for just 24 A-6 attack aircraft.

[central_va]

Do you realize what 24 A-6’s can do?

[Thud]

The French should them some spare propellers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_aircraft_carrier_Charles_de_Gaulle#Trials_and_technical_problems

"The ship left Toulon for her fourteenth and final sea trial on 24 October 2000. During the night of 9–10 November, in the Western Atlantic while en route toward Norfolk, Virginia, the port propeller broke, and the ship had to return to Toulon to have a replacement fitted.[14] The investigations that followed showed similar structural faults in the other propeller and in the spare propellers: bubbles in the one-piece copper-aluminium alloy propellers near the centre.[citation needed] Although the supplier, Atlantic Industries, was not believed to have intentionally been at fault, it was nevertheless blamed for poor-quality construction.[15] To make matters worse, all documents relating to the design and fabrication of the propellers had been lost in a fire.[citation needed] As a temporary solution, the less advanced spare propellers of Clemenceau and Foch were used, limiting the maximum speed to 24 knots (44 km/h) instead of the contractual 27 knots (50 km/h).

On 5 March 2001, Charles de Gaulle went back to sea with two older propellers and sailed at 25.2 knots (47 km/h) on her trials. Between July and October, she had to be refitted once more due to abnormal noises, as loud as 100 dB, near the starboard propeller, which had rendered the aft part of the ship uninhabitable."

[bravo whiskey]

I do. It was an interesting comment on how much it actually costs to support and defend. May have been an air force guy commenting. They always forget how much it costs in political terms to get a land base close enough to a possible enemy.