Russia’s Aircraft Carrier ‘Nightmare’ Just Won’t End

We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

Key Points: Russia’s inability to build and maintain aircraft carriers stems from financial, industrial, and strategic limitations. Prioritizing land and air forces, Russia lacks the resources, skilled workforce, and shipbuilding expertise for complex carrier programs.

-The post-Soviet collapse ended momentum in naval innovation, and Putin’s military doctrine emphasizes missiles, submarines, and land warfare over expensive carrier fleets.

-The sinking of the Moskva underscores vulnerabilities of surface ships, while outdated naval aviation and insufficient infrastructure compound the problem.

-Until Russia resolves its demographic, industrial, and logistical challenges, its navy will remain focused on submarines and regional operations, not global carrier fleets.

Why Can’t Russia Build Aircraft Carriers?

Russia has always struggled with building and maintaining aircraft carriers. Just look at the cursed bucket of bolts Admiral Kuznetsov carrier, which has been a clown show for years and is still being repaired. 

There are many reasons the Navy and defense contractors can’t build carriers. Russia does not have the money and resources due to the war in Ukraine. 

The shipbuilding industry needs more expertise and an educated and skilled workforce.

Historically, land warfare has been emphasized instead of complex naval operations. 

The disintegration of the Soviet Union sapped much-needed momentum from the shipbuilding industry. 

Russia has also shown that it would instead populate a navy with submarines and surface ships instead of carriers.

The Navy Is Not a Priority in the First Place

The Russian naval command prefers cruisers and destroyers that can launch missiles. 

These are less expensive and easier to build. Emphasis on the nuclear triad necessitates more submarine-launched nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles. 

Also, the navy is not Putin’s favorite branch. He loves new tanks, hypersonic weapons, nuclear missiles, and airplanes, especially bombers and fighters.

Surface Ships Can Be a Liability

The navy has learned that surface vessels can also fall victim to anti-ship missiles. Take a look at the vaunted flagship of the Black Sea fleet, the Moskva, that the Ukrainians sank at the beginning of the war. 

Except for nuclear-powered submarines which can sail to other continents, the Russian navy rarely steams outside its region.

Sure, there are deployments to the Arctic and the Tartus naval base in Syria, but Russia still needs a true Blue Water navy to circumnavigate the globe.

Low Levels of Human Capital

Russia struggles with its defense industrial base that leans toward making airplanes, tanks, and missiles. Expensive and advanced shipyards are few and far between. Russia also has a demographic crisis with a lower life expectancy than countries in the West. 

That means fewer able-bodied men and women can work in shipyards. This doesn’t allow for the major construction project needed to build carriers. Plus, personnel are being sent to Ukraine to fight a land war instead of working in shipyards.

The End of the Cold War Kills Carrier-Building Efforts

The end of the Cold War crippled Russian shipbuilding and stopped the flow of money into the navy. 

The country had already built three aircraft carriers of the Kiev-class that saw service into the early 1990s. One was re-furbished and sold to India. The Varyag was not completed and was later purchased by China. Russia stopped work on a supercarrier – the Uklyanovsk – and never finished the vessel.

Aircraft carriers also need adequate ports, supply ships to feed the sailors and fuel other vessels, and a series of overseas naval bases to provide maintenance support for long voyages. Russia needs to be equipped with this naval infrastructure or logistical system. 

Unskilled Aircraft Carrier Operations

This means that the Kremlin has given up on carrier construction aside from the Kuznetsov. 

The naval fighter jets are obsolete, and the pilots are out of practice. Putin even ordered the sailors on the Kuznetsov to fight at the front.

Don’t look for a new carrier program any time soon. The army, air force, and rocket forces are taking precedence and funds away from the navy. Putin likes fancy ships, but the sinking of the Moskva showed that his fleets are vulnerable.

The geography of the country with the elongated borders that the Russian military must defend requires a vast standing army. This means the Navy plays second fiddle. Putin would need to order his generals and admirals to develop a new strategic plan for the 2030s, including aircraft carrier construction. There are no such strategies in place. 

The Russian military is waging land warfare in a way that is behind the times. Soldiers use unoriginal and costly frontal assaults with tanks and armored vehicles that are blasted by Ukrainian anti-tank missiles and drones – not exactly advanced 21st-century warfare. It is more like a copy of Soviet-era military doctrine. Putin would rather have a massive army with artillery firepower. However, this requires other countries to send ammunition. Putin’s own defense industrial base is already stretched too thin to supply the army, which means the navy is neglected.

Thus, the Navy does not have the money, resources, or manpower to build aircraft carriers. Until the Kuznetsov is back in the water and launching aircraft, Russia should be seen as a second-rate navy. 

The best it can offer are submarines that deliver nuclear weapons. With these constraints and limitations, a carrier fleet will never exist.

About the Author: Dr. Brent M. Eastwood 

Brent M. Eastwood, PhD, is the author of Don’t Turn Your Back On the World: a Conservative Foreign Policy and Humans, Machines, and Data: Future Trends in Warfare, plus two other books. Brent was the founder and CEO of a tech firm that predicted world events using artificial intelligence. He served as a legislative fellow for U.S. Senator Tim Scott and advised the senator on defense and foreign policy issues. He has taught at American University, George Washington University, and George Mason University. Brent is a former U.S. Army Infantry officer. He can be followed on X @BMEastwood.