Summary and Key Points: Reports seem to confirm that Russia is decommissioning its sole aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, with plans to likely scrap or sell the vessel due to prohibitive repair costs, corruption, and a lack of spare parts caused by sanctions.
-Described as “doomed from the start,” the carrier suffered from a history of technical failures, including obsolete “mazut” propulsion that emitted heavy black smoke and a reliance on a ski-jump design that limited combat effectiveness.
Admiral Kuznetsov Aircraft Carrier. Image Credit: Creative Commons.
-With the ship’s modernization deemed economically unviable and its crew reportedly reassigned to infantry roles in Ukraine, the move signals the end of Russian carrier aviation for the foreseeable future.
“No Point Repairing It”: The Sad End of the Russian Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov
Reports from mid-to-late last year confirm that Russia’s Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier is being decommissioned and will likely be scrapped or sold. Officials are stating further repairs aren’t economically viable due to its age, extensive issues, and the cost of sanctions-affected parts, ending an era for Russia’s troubled carrier fleet.
This vessel was doomed from the start, but no one in Moscow paid attention, and now the once proud symbol of Soviet naval ambition is headed for the scrap yard. And Russia is likely done with carrier aviation for at least a decade, several decades at least.
The Russians wanted to project power worldwide like the United States; however, while Russia’s Navy has had many outstanding ship designs, the construction of aircraft carriers has been a nightmare for them, and their designs have never been able to project much beyond weakness.
The US had more than 50 years of experience. The Russians were starting from scratch, building aircraft carriers, and it showed. Their only carrier/cruiser, Admiral Kuznetsov, is known more for its many failures than anything it has conducted in its long and largely dry-docked career.
The very designation, carrier-cruiser, shows that the chaos of indecision the Soviets had about whether they should follow what some admirals wanted, a navy built on the firepower of cruisers and submarines, or the others who thought they could challenge the US out of the gate with a hybrid carrier.
The Kutznetsov was a walking contradiction, and its history is chock-full of compromises, plagued by accidents, obsolete technology, and inadequate maintenance. The Soviet relic carrier’s history is riddled with failures, from its mazut-powered engines emitting black smoke to mishaps during flight operations.
Admiral Kuznetsov Aircraft Carrier. Image Credit: Creative Commons.
Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov. Image Credit: Creative Commons.
Admiral Kuznetsov Aircraft Carrier Russia. Image Credit: Creative Commons.
Admiral Kuznetsov. Image Credit: Creative Commons.
Was The Kuznetsov A Carrier Or A Cruiser?
The Russians curiously categorized the Kuznetsov as a carrier/cruiser, which would become a poor example of both. But the Soviets originally intended to classify it as an aircraft-carrying cruiser to circumvent the Montreux Convention.
According to the convention, aircraft carriers heavier than 15,000 tons may not pass through the Turkish Straits. Since the Kuznetsov exceeds the displacement limit, it would have been confined to the Black Sea if it had been classified strictly as an aircraft carrier.
The Kuznetsov had plenty of weapons, but the ship remains a lesson in futility for the Russian Navy. Why, rather than being a symbol of Russian might and an icon of the blue-water navy, is it instead a symbol of the decay of a once proud empire?
“There Is No Point In Repairing It Anymore”
With repairs having dragged on for years, with costs exceeding $250 million. The project has been further hindered by corruption, including the embezzlement of funds allocated for the repairs.
Engineers determined that the carrier would need all eight of its KVG-4 turbo-pressure boilers replaced, rather than just four. The propulsion system needed to be built from scratch in Russia, since Ukraine had cut supplies of military equipment after Moscow seized Crimea in 2014.
Andrei Kostin, the chairman of Russia’s state shipbuilding corporation (USC), told the newspaper Kommersant that “there is no point repairing it anymore.”
“It is over 40 years old, and it is extremely expensive … I think the issue will be resolved in such a way that it will either be sold or disposed of,” Kostin added.
Yörük Işık, head of the Bosphorus Observer consultancy in Istanbul, told Newsweek on Monday that such a move meant “a loss of prestige” for Russia’s Navy.
However, critics would argue that the Russian Navy’s prestige was lost almost three years ago, when its Black Sea Fleet’s flagship, the Moskva, was sunk along with much of the fleet by a country without a navy.
Russia’s Navy Is a Shadow of Its Former Self
The Soviet Navy once envisioned contesting the United States for sea supremacy. Now, their navy is just a shadow of what it once was. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Navy wasted away on the vine.
The U.S. has 11 supercarriers to Russia’s zero, which can deploy over 70 combat aircraft from multiple runways with catapult-assisted takeoffs. There are also 92 American cruisers/destroyers to Russia’s 13, while the U.S. has more than twice as many frigates (21 to 10) as Russia.
The countries’ submarines aren’t much closer in number: the U.S. has 53 attack submarines to Russia’s 28, and 14 American ballistic missile submarines to Russia’s 11.
There is no longer a competition with the US. They now have the third-largest navy, far below the US and China.
The Russians Claim They Don’t Need Aircraft Carriers
“The Russian navy does not need aircraft carriers in the classic form,” said Admiral Sergei Avakyants, a former commander of Russia’s Pacific Fleet. “The aircraft carrier is already a part of a bygone era. [It is] a huge, expensive structure that can be destroyed in a few minutes with modern weapons. The future lies with robotic systems and unmanned aircraft.”
Regardless of the plethora of missiles and drones in service around the globe, a Navy needs air support, and operating a blue-water fleet without it is playing with fire.
The Kuznetsov Has Been A Disaster Since 2017
The Kuznetsov is a perfect icon of Soviet-era, aged, unreliable, and poorly maintained military hardware.
It has been in dry dock for eight years and will never sail again. Built during the Soviet era, it has been a disaster.
One example of many was when a floating dry dock sank while the Admiral Kuznetsov was at port for repairs in 2018. During that incident, a massive crane plunged downward onto the carrier’s flight deck, damaging the ship significantly.
Rather than launching aircraft from a catapult, as US carriers do, the Russians installed a ski-jump ramp. This required that aircraft carry less fuel and ordnance to get airborne. According to a 2013 report from War is Boring, this “forces reductions in the planes’ takeoff weight and patrol time. ”
The ramp also limits the aircraft’s sortie rate. This isn’t the preferred method of projecting power with a carrier that carried only 30 aircraft, smoked badly, and brought its own tugboat in case it broke down again.
The Russian military, running short of bodies to toss into the meatgrinder in Ukraine, took members of the crew from the Kuznetsov to form a mechanized infantry battalion to fight on the ground in Ukraine.
The Kuznetsov Was A Smoking Heap
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 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.
The fuel spews thick black smoke, making the carrier easy to spot at sea and hindering flight operations. Before it ever set sail, the Kuznetsov was obsolete.
The US Shadowed It, Worried It Would Sink
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.”
Despite the Russian government’s recurring rosy pronouncements about the ship’s return to the fleet, its own state-run media has offered the exact opposite assessment.
“Ship repairmen warned the military that the condition of the ship does not allow it to be deployed due to the high probability that it would sink or capsize. During the examination, it was revealed that the metal structures below the third deck of the ship were significantly corroded.
The holds are filled with muddy water, which makes it impossible to examine the ship in detail from the inside,” the newspaper Pravda wrote.
Corruption has played a part in the nightmare of the ship’s restoration. Officials have been siphoning off millions of dollars earmarked for refurbishing the ship. Russian military writer Pavel Felgenhauer told Western media outlets, “Each additional day of repair is another million in someone’s pocket.”
The Kuznetsov was not a case of what-if for the Soviet Navy; the truth is, the ship would never have had a chance against a supercarrier task force. And now it is time to scrap the ship.
About the Author: Steve Balestrieri
Steve Balestrieri is a National Security Columnist. He served as a US Army Special Forces NCO and Warrant Officer. In addition to writing on defense, 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 many military publications.
