Key Points: Russia’s sole aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, is portrayed as an aged, unreliable Soviet-era disaster unlikely to sail again after eight years in refit.
-Plagued by design flaws, poor maintenance, its obsolete Mazut fuel system, and numerous accidents (fires, sunk dry dock), the ship requires tugboat escorts and saw carrier qualification halt after crashes in Syria. Its sailors have reportedly been transferred to fight as infantry in Ukraine.
-Lacking modern capabilities and trained carrier crews, the Kuznetsov serves only as costly propaganda and a symbol of Russia’s diminished naval power, ripe for scrapping.
-The Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov is a perfect icon from the Soviet Union-era, aged, unreliable, and poorly maintained military hardware.
Mazut Smoke & Mirrors: The Failing Saga of Putin’s Only Aircraft Carrier
It has been in dry dock for eight years and probably will never sail again. Built during the Soviet era, it is Russia’s lone aircraft carrier and has been nothing short of a disaster.
The ship was in such bad shape that the Kremlin transferred some of the sailors assigned to the Kuznetsov to form a mechanized infantry battalion to fight on the ground in Ukraine.
It is currently in Murmansk harbor and will probably stay there until someone with leadership skills and common sense scraps it. In 1991, an overworked and poorly maintained Kuznetsov left Murmansk harbor bound for the Syrian coast. US naval forces of the 6th Fleet shadowed her, not because of her combat worthiness, but because the Americans feared “she might sink.”
Admiral Kuznetsov, A History
Since Day 1, the carrier has been a harbinger of poor design, engineering, training, lousy equipment, and bad luck.
The Kuznetsov is a Cold War relic — and not a particularly good one. It was launched in 1985 and was then known as the Riga. It was commissioned into the fleet in 1991. The Soviets wanted to build carriers to project power worldwide, like the United States.
However, the US had more than 50 years of experience. The Russians were starting from scratch, building aircraft carriers, and it showed.
The ship began as the Riga, the Leonid Brezhnev, the Tbilisi followed, and the Kuznetsov. Since its commissioning, it has only gone on seven patrols. And many of those deployments were typical of what the ship has suffered. Mainly fires and fuel spills.
A Smoking Heap By Using Mazut
The Admiral Kuznetsov doesn’t rely on nuclear power for the engines. But rather a sticky, tar-like substance called mazut. During the Cold War, this fuel was popular due to its thick viscosity.
While older military and commercial vessels relied on mazut in the past, its use was about finished by the 1970s. The substance’s numerous shortcomings have led manufacturers to use nuclear or gas turbine propulsion systems instead. But not the Kuznetsov.
The fuel spews thick black smoke, making the carrier easy to find in the ocean and hindering flight operations. Before it ever set sail, the Kuznetsov was obsolete.
Why don’t the Russians put large gas turbines or nuclear reactors in the vessel? The Soviet Union and now Russia can’t produce large naval engines. Those have always been made in Ukraine. Now, with the war still raging, the Russians aren’t going to get Ukraine to sell them anything, let alone a carrier engine.
The Russian navy puts two tugboats out with the Kuznetsov in the event the ship broke down, which it did in 2012 and had to be towed back to Syria. When the boilers went down, which was often, the ship could only make four knots. That is some power projection.
Carrier Pilots, Flight Operations Crews Are Untrained
Unlike the US carriers, which use a steam-powered catapult to launch aircraft off the flight deck, the Russians used a bow ski ramp. This system is simpler than the steam catapults used on many Western carriers. While this design limits take-off speed, it provides pilots with a smoother, less stressful launch.
Aircraft accelerate towards and lift off the deck at lower speeds, with their afterburners engaged.
They only used the ramp twice during the war in Syria in 2016-2017. Both times, the aircraft crashed when landing when the faulty arresting wires gave way. And the Kuznetsov only carries about 30 fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft.
She carries about 18 outmoded Su-33 aircraft, six MiG-29 K multirole fighters, and a mix of Ka-27 and Ka-31 helicopters, which are used for anti-submarine warfare (ASW), search and rescue (SAR) and early warning operations.
The carrier pilots haven’t had any carrier takeoffs or landings since the debacle in Syria eight years ago. They are not even close to being combat-ready, even if the carrier is to be relaunched. And one must wonder how many of those pilots (if any) are still flying.
Aircraft Carrier Dreams Dashed: Money Wasted on Admiral Kuznetsov
The ship has been as accident-prone as they come. A welding accident started a fire that killed two workers and injured many more. A PD-50 dry dock sank that was holding the ship, and a crane fell, gashing a massive hole in the flight deck. A second fire set the timeline for the carrier to rejoin the Navy back even further.
Moscow has spent a fortune constantly overhauling a ship that can never compete with US aircraft carriers at sea.
However, Putin wants the prestige of having a mobile airfield to project power worldwide. The Russian Navy needs some good news after the disasters in the Black Sea with the sinking of the Black Sea Fleet flagship, the Moskva, and the landing ship Caesar Kunikov. It should have been scrapped years ago.
With much of their crew now cannon fodder in Ukraine operating as infantry, it doesn’t sound like the Admiral Kuznetsov will sail in 2025 or, most likely, ever again.
And even if she did, she’d be sunk in very short order, going against any Western Navy. Or the West could just watch her sink on her own.
About the Author
Steve Balestrieri is a 19FortyFive National Security Columnist. He served as a US Army Special Forces NCO and Warrant Officer. In addition to writing for 19FortyFive, he covers the NFL for PatsFans.com and is a member of the Pro Football Writers of America (PFWA). His work was regularly featured in other military publications.
Johnny
April 28, 2025 at 1:40 pm
Bit biased eh?