Russia’s last remaining aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, is facing decommissioning after seven years of failed repairs and mounting structural issues, according to reports in Russian state and independent media.

The move would leave Moscow as the only permanent member of the UN Security Council without an operational carrier, highlighting the decline of its conventional naval power.

The 58,000-ton vessel has been moored in Murmansk since 2017, plagued by fires, drydock accidents, corruption allegations, and repeated delays in modernisation. According to Izvestia, work has now been suspended altogether. Senior naval officers are expected to confirm whether the ship will be scrapped in the coming weeks.

Originally commissioned by the Soviet Navy, the Kuznetsov was intended to lead a class of carriers. Its sister ship became China’s first aircraft carrier, Liaoning, while Russia retained only the original. Russia’s chronic underinvestment in carrier doctrine and shipbuilding has left it without a viable maritime aviation platform.

Public comments by Admiral Sergei Avakyants, former head of Russia’s Pacific Fleet, suggest institutional support for the decision to retire the carrier. He described classic aircraft carriers as expensive and inefficient in modern conflict scenarios, arguing that unmanned systems and robotic platforms are the future. In 2024, the ship’s crew was reassigned to the war in Ukraine, forming a ground unit operating in the Pokrovsk sector.

The Kuznetsov was once a potent symbol of Russian maritime ambition. With a full displacement of nearly 59,000 tonnes and a top speed of 29 knots, it carried a mixed air wing of Su-33 and MiG-29K fighters, Kamov helicopters, and anti-submarine assets. It was also equipped with 12 long-range P-700 Granit anti-ship missiles and a ski-jump launch system.

Unlike Western carriers powered by gas turbines or nuclear propulsion, it relied on mazut fuel, often producing a thick trail of black smoke that became a visual symbol of its ageing design and operational struggles.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

81 COMMENTS

  1. I know we laugh, but I really don’t think the Russian Navy is concerned.
    What use is a Carrier in their Bastion concept and what use is it offensively when they use long range missiles, long range naval aviation, and their Submarines?
    For NATO, in war anywhere not tucked up in the Kara, Barents or White seas their surface assets would not last five minutes, especially if the USN is still in the game.

    • DM hope your right. putin will aim below threshold of a nato response and we dont fully know how trump will respond if nato europe was attacked

    • None, that begs the question why they kept it as long as they did and why have they spent so much money and time trying to get it back into service. Not to mention the plans that they unveil year after year for monstrous super carriers that noone ever believes will be buil.

      The answer? Because they really really really WANT one for prestige and self importance and not for any real use.

    • Hi M8, I actually think if you re jiggle your statement it highlights Russias core problem and I happen to believe it# the real underlying cause of the Ukrainian war !
      What use is Russias Bastion concept without a Blue Water Fleet to defend it against NATO / US dominance ! Not only has Russia lost that capability due to age / obsolescence but it’s lost the core industrial capacity to support or replace it.
      Other than Submarines, small frigates, corvettes and Amphibious Ships Russia just can’t do it anymore due to no longer having access to the Ukrainian shipyards, workforce and technology. They can’t even build Frigates for export without Ukrainian Marine Gas Turbines (just ask India about the Talwar Frigates).
      Putin sits and dreams of past Glory and land that is lost, meanwhile he throws his male population into their graves.

      The more I watch this conflict going on the more I compare it to WW1, it’s a war of attrition but the aggressor is losing the numbers game. Unless he does something really drastic, Russia may well end up like Germany, still occupying enemy land but unable to keep on fighting. In terms of initiative, tactics, ingenuity and basic industrial resilience Ukraine is probably in a stronger position than it was in 2022, they just need Air Defences. According to sources Ukraine is actually producing more 155mm SPGz and Ammunition Pa than Western Europe can, and that’s despite Russia bombing them.

      • It’s a good point regarding bastions and a lack of a blue water navy. Traditionally the Soviets relied on long range bombers to interfere with NATO in the North Atlantic.

        However with modern cruise missiles, Russias bomber fleet won’t last long on the ground or in the air against NATO interceptors like Typhoon.

        Carriers as a mobile airfield likely have a role to play in bastion defence even if it’s just keeping long range MPA aircraft at bay.

    • I think the thing to remember with the Admiral K was that it’s a Cruiser first, and an Aircraft Carrier second. Remember she carried 12 heavyweight anti-Ship missiles (by comparison the Kirovs only carry 20 of those), plus 190 VLS tubes for SAM missiles. It was always designed to fit into the Russian/Soviet Bastion concept.

    • I think you are correct in regards to a conflict with NATO.. but there are some big buts.

      1) Russiais also a pacific power and if you want to compete in the western pacific with your not so best buddy Japan and even keep up with your “mate” China you do want to have some form of carrier aviation.. also remember Russia has geostrategic ambitions in Africa and the Middle East.. for that you want carrier aviation.

      This is a real humiliation for Russia and a massive blow to its wider geostrategic position away from the Euro Atlantic..

      But it’s also potentially a very good day for China.. China can build carriers.. it’s easily got the shipbuilding capability to build whole new surface navy for Russia.. and it has a few things it really wants from Russia.. it would happily build Russia a nice surface and sub surface navy for every bit of knowledge Russia has on building nuclear submarines.as will as unfettered access to Russian raw materials and the very last thing the west wants is China with it’s ability to build 4-5 SSNs and SSGNs a year knocking out Yasen-M class SSGNs and there have been reports of Russian navel leaders knocking around chinas SSN factory and other shipyards.. with reports that due to Russias industrial issues it’s considered swapping knowledge for ships and submarine building slots.

      • The Russian’s are restricted by geography.
        Their Pacific fleet has to get past Japanese islands.
        I think it is only their submarines that use Petropavlovsk on Kamachatka and access to open water.
        Black sea. Bottled up.
        Baltic. Same.
        Northern fleet needs to get past GIUK and as mentioned apart from subs, they hide.

      • I think the Russian navy will be happy to see the carrier go.. it is too expensive to repair or maintain and has become an embarrassment. Rather than a symbol of power it is a laughingstock.

      • Hi Jonathan,

        Within the CRINK Axis context Russia swapping knowhow for resources would be very bad news.

        The former would see the Russian Navy with it’s Corld War experience of submarine warfare (maintained ever since by an on-going hidden game of cat and mouse with NATO subs) being equipped with significant number of modern SSN / SSGN (combining Russian and Chinese tech?) along with the PLAN also attaining similar subs and Russian training. Russian experience and Chinese mass would be a serious threat to the West, especially in the Atlantic but also in the vast spaces of the Pacific.

        There was a very good indepth piece on the BBC recently about the Arctic becoming a new front line and China’s claim to being a “Near Arctic” power. Russia and China have long cooperated in exploring and exploiting the Northeast sea passage along Russia’s Arctic coastline. Coupled with the new bases Russia has been developing along that coastline and on its offshore Arctic islands, it is no wonder Norway and Finland are getting nervous about their northern coastlines, let alone Trump’s interest in the region.

        For us the CRINK Axis creates the is a very real risk that the GIUK Gap will not just be about how we keep the Russian Northern Fleet bottled up, but also about how we keep a Combined Russian PLAN Northern Fleet bottled up. That scenario could come into reality at anytime and with very little warning, although in reality I don’t seeing happening just yet.

        The benefit for China would be that they keep the Russian’s in the geopolitical game, all be it increasingly as junior partners. This would work to limit eNATO’s freedom to reinforce / support the US should / when things kick off in the South China Sea / Pacific Region. Such a Chinese Russian combined fleet base would also have implications for the US Eastern Sea Board.

        The melting of the Arctic Ice is greatly increasing the number of threat axis that the CRINK Axis can exploit. If the Chinese play their cards right they could draw of much of the USN from NATO / Atlantic region to cover the US Western Sea Board and support Taiwan and then use their rapid expansion of the PLAN to reinforce the Russian Northern Fleet to effectively force the West into a two front confrontation. I recon given the difficulties the US is having in rebuilding its industrial shipbuilding base and the vast Chinese shipbuilding capacity China, with Russia in tow, could be in a position to exploit Russian bases to confront the West on two fronts within 10 years… and be in a position to win on at least one front.

        We really do need a bigger navy. I sincerely hope your optimism about more frigates for the RN will be realised and that 25+ escorts means many more than 26..!

        In the 1930’s Hilter told that Kriegsmarine commanders to not to expect war before 1945. As such the German Navy was not ready for war in 1939 and paid the price. In China learns from the lesson it will avoid getting into a war too soon, but history also tells us that events can control decisions.

        So it is incumbent on Western politicians to maintain deterrence, and frankly they are have fallen well behind the curve making miscalculations all the more likely.

        Cheers CR

        • Sadly China has made it clear to all its forces and nations to be ready for war but 2027.. I was reading a review by the U.S. Naval war college stated that xi Jinping is the worlds greatest navalist leader today and one of the greatest navalist statesmen of the modern history.. with a profound understanding of maritime power and how to dominate using maritime power… what is really worrying is that the assessment from the naval college was not just about industrial capacity and. Building ships.. but about the talent pool, education and recruitment..apparently the massive expansion of the navy has been entirely volunteer based..the fact the PLAN will be at 400 ships by the end of 2025 has not impacted on their ability to fully crew them and their officer corp is strong.. but very focused in specific areas and political control may hopefully be a weakness.

          • Any weakness when your back is against the wall is like a straw to a drowning man.

            I would suggest that the 2027 would be at the ‘earliest’ likely point for a conflict. If I was Xi I would keep the pressure up on Taiwan and the US put focus on quality and quantity for the PLAN until I got clear numerical advantage. Given the build rate for the PLAN I would say that might buy us 5 years at most… and I am being optimistic.

            My concerns regarding the Northeast Passage are even more pertinent given the closeness of war with China…

            Cheers CR

      • Hi Jonathan,
        Mmmm not often I disagree with your analysis but I think the chances of China building a new Surface Fleet is just below zero, and there are numerous reasons for that.

        1. It would signal the complete humiliation of Russia and it accepting the status of being a 3rd tier Naval power (unable to build its own major assets and reliant upon imports). At present they are heading that way as a State incapable of designing or building large surface Warships. But they dress that up as a deliberate Strategic choice to move towards a modern “Jeune Ecole” strategy using Submarines, heavily armed small / medium surface ships and asymmetric warfare. So presently they are 2nd Tier because still have ambitions to rectify that, hence why I can pretty well guarantee that Odessa and Mykoliev Oblasts will be on their shopping list if Trump seriously wants a Truce.
        If they give up on their ambitions and were to buy a surface fleet OTS from their “Mates” they would be acknowledging and accepting that they are now a subservient client state. Hence they’d be 3rd Tier and behind US, China, UK, France, India and probably Japan / S Korea / Italy. I think the chance of Putin accepting that is very low.

        2. China doesn’t see the world the same way as us (or Russia for that matter), they look and plan ahead 50 to 100 years ! Chinas 2 biggest problems are a population demographic implosion due to the 1 child per couple law for 26 years, so long term their population will start to decrease so if they are to wage a war it’s sensible to do so sooner rather than later. In addition they need huge quantities of raw materials and are having to increasingly rely on imports by sea, which makes them vulnerable. Right next door is Siberia and all its vast resources, it’s practically unguarded. China never do anything by accident and renaming all of Russias Siberian town, rivers, mountains and city’s with Chines names is a pretty good indication of long term intent.

        3. Sometimes I look at what China is doing to increase its Military power and scratch my head as to what they actually want to do with it. Our assumption is it is all to dominate the China Sea and take Taiwan in the next 3 / 5 years. Well yes that’s a possibility but they know it will result in a World War with US followed by Japan, S Korea, Australia and possibly India, so why do all that for just a comparatively small gain. Instead they can increase their power to such a point that Taiwans position becomes untenable and deters any outside interference.
        If I were Mr Putin I’d be very nervous about trusting China, as they need Russias Far East resources far more than a rearmed Russia (population demographics are even worse). They now have an absolute Military superiority over Russia in just about every way imaginable, and due to Putins actions it’s getting worse every day.
        Your last sentence re Technology Transfer actually makes the imbalance in numbers even worse as it helps China improve their quality far quicker in Nuclear Submarine Tech than just doing it themselves.

        In 5 years Time European NATO will be well on the way to being able to not only defend themselves but due to population difference beat Russia in any conventional war scenario. Meanwhile China will have a massive modern Army, surface fleet with Amphibious expeditionary capability, overwhelming Air superiority, an enlarged Nuclear capability and probably far more quality new build SSBN and SSN in their own secure Bastion (south China sea).

        So why would China want to rearm Russia ?

        • Hi ABC.. one of the areas that china is working on is export markets for warships..it’s developing is subsurface and surface warship markets.. it’s part of its mercantile strategy. The reality is china has got SSN and surface warship production well beyond even its own vast ambitions.. some estimates but china as heading to 8 SSNs a year via a production line it’s presently got 20 covered Nuclear submarine slips ..as part of a vast complex that run from small assembly yards.. large assembly yards, nuclear propulsion and reactor site, and even a separate painting and tilling shed.. all connected by a rail system…to knock out SSNs at a huge rate.. also not long ago Russia handed over a last generation reactor to china, which means china can now build single reactor SSNs.. one of that last reports I read from the U.S. navel war college had very senior Russian navel leaders sniffing around chinas SSNs and surface yards.. there is only one reason for that.. essentially china wants Russias latest generation reactor and tec as well as oil.. the last question of why would china want to rearm Russia… pressure, china is still not convinced it can beat both Europe and the U.S…but if it can keep European nations out of any war or balanced with a threat.. then it has a different battle to fight.. essentially china will use Russia as a foil to Europe. As for Russian not trusting china.. I honestly think Putin has a pretty big blind spot.. in that he is willing to use the user and take the risk.. the very same situation Russia faces in 1939.. it fell for it then and I think it may fall for it again.

          I think china and Russia don’t trust each other much.. but they have an overwhelming geostrategic driver to work together and that is a joint enemy in the west. Just one example is semi conductors.. 50% of Russian semi conductor production was essentially developed by china and the factories designed built and sold by china and 90% of Russias semi conductor imports come from china..essentially china is supporting the Russian military industrial complex and without china it would collapse.

          In the end china wants dominion in the china seas and Taiwan it will do almost anything to reunite with Taiwan and dominate the china seas.. after that it want the US out of the western pacific.. anything that helps that goal set is fair game… the only thing that has stopped china so far is that it’s not quite ready to directly conflict with the US as yet by fully supporting russia..but that is the past not the future.. I would give 50/50 odds on a future build programme for the Russian navy.

          The U.S. naval war college Chinese maritime report 31 raised the issue of a joint Chinese Russian submarine program it concluded that due to the mix of advances between china and Russia there is a fairly good chance we may see a joint Chinese Russian submarine programme that levers chinas massive industrial capacity and leadership in conventional propulsion over Russia..

          There was also a Chinese article about this very thing… with the headline.. Russian flag over Chinese warships..is there business to be done.. it then goes on to say that china is well placed to support the recapitalisation of a Russian fleet…and the Chinese media do not produce articles without the CCP agreeing and wanting it published and speculated about.

        • Good post. Ironically, as China becomes stronger and more confident we might see Russia turning west to Europe for support. What Russia needs is to replace Putin with another enlightenment leader like Catherine the Great, with whom we can work.

      • Admiral K couldn’t even get to Syria without a Tug. It’s not going to 2nd Pacific Squadron its way to Magadan with any more success than the original 2nd Pacific Sqn.

    • Indeed. It is a status symbol for them, nothing more, nothing less. The reality is, they have never been able to truly operate a carrier – lacking the tanking, drydocking, solid stores, etc to support her. She has been a harbour queen more than an asset, much to the amusment of the OSINT community.

      With a country that crosses 11(?) timezones and has significant tarmac assets across the lands it occupies, it doesn’t need carrier aviation. They’re very much in the surface and sub-surface game, with force multipliers and sub-surface depth (pun not intended). Syria highlighted as much in terms of the losses and the gap in support.

      What it highlights for us is a need to invest in the wider capability. As I have said many times, the QE class are a great enabler, but without investment in the RFA, escort fleet, people, facilities, helicopters, weaponary, point defence and UAVs, they are nothing. Lessons can be learned from this and comparisons made.

      -goes back to my helicopter hangar-

        • Hi M8 I’d appreciate your spin on my reply to Jonathan, it’s slightly left of field ?
          Happy Sunday and hope your tracks cool down !

          • Hi mate.
            I’ll have a look, thank you.
            Tracks are fine, it is the blasted Track Circuits! A train journey that should take 30 minutes for many a train is taking over an hour with all the talking past signals at danger stuff going on.
            Utter shambles.

          • Oh mate. I’m a boring stats Orbat, infrastructure man. All this geostrategic stuff…I’d rather enjoy you, J, and CR’s comments here.

    • I’m sad – it gave them a pointless prestige project to waste resources on.

      It was doomed once the crew were sent to fight on the front lines. With the experience and expertise gone regenerating her would be very, very hard.

      That said we may see the initial Chinese carrier handed back to Russia in return for something? That would be my thought once China has its own nuclear powered carrier with catapults.

      I’m increasing sceptical that the Chinese want or need the Russian tech as they have discovered just how garbage it actually is.

  2. I wouldn’t even class it as a carrier, not really. Just another through deck cruiser type mule following on from the Kievs, trying to be too many things at once. I mean who puts missile silos in the flight deck. Come on.

    • HIMARS has been fired from the deck of a San Antonio class LPD. And I seem to recall some reference to a UK ambition to launch long range strike missile from QE.

  3. The end of the Gorshkov global fleet.
    The Russian navy has never achieved much except for firing the starting gun for the Bolshevik revolution. It proved ineffective in WW2 in both the Baltic and Black seas. Its most potent element is its submarine force which is undergoing modernisation. Makes sense to scrap Kuznetsov without replacement.

  4. What’s more relevant right now is that Russia extends across 11 time zones and is capable of burying the armaments factories which make drones and missiles out of reach of Ukrainian strikes.

  6. Safe to say they haven’t really had a carrier for nearly a decade.

    “It was up the trots” so to speak.

  8. and we were a global power that ruled the waves and now possess barely 140 fast jets, less than 75k full time troops and less than 15 escorts with barely any GBAD and no air launched anti ship capability. And we’re about to launch a frigate that has barely any more anti submarine capabilities than the Bacchante Class. We’re in no position to ridicule other nations defence when our own has been decimated

        • “remove those rose tinted and very short sighted specs and breathe some fresh air”
          You have some weird ideas about anatomy if you think spectacles can restrict a person’s breathing!! 😂🤣😂

          But then you have weird ideas about a lot of things 🤷🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️

    • rmj, you’re absolutely right to point out that successive governments have allowed our armed forces to decline to their current levels.

      However, being a global power involves far more than just troop or tank numbers. It requires significant influence and capabilities across multiple domains—military, economic, political, technological, and cultural.

      The UK is considered by most to be a global power due to its advanced military, including a nuclear arsenal and an aircraft carrier fleet; a strong economy, with London as a leading global financial center; and an influential political role as a permanent member of the UN Security Council and a key player in NATO and the G7. It also has widespread cultural impact through institutions like the BBC and the global use of the English language, along with leadership in technology and diplomacy.

      While we are not as dominant as the US or China, we remain a significant and influential player on the world stage.

      • Well said.
        As well as a top notch intelligence community, part of a comprehensive intell system, overseas bases, and the logistical tail to deploy.
        But for all that, rmj is right in that our forces remain far too small.
        And will still be, despite government grandstanding.

        • These are more great additions to the list. Our global network of overseas bases, for example, is something China doesn’t even come close to matching. Although China is expanding its strategic footprint, particularly through dual-use ports.

          The thing about the Armed Forces is that we tick all the right boxes—nuclear deterrent, aircraft carriers, SSNs, world-class frigates and destroyers, and a highly capable, professional army.
          The problem, as you rightly point out, is that we’re simply too small in pretty much every area.

  9. Serious stretch calling Russia a global power at this stage. They have lost their key forward staging bases in Syria and now Thier navy is basically limited to where it can deploy, combined with them losing most of their amphibious crafts without actually landing any troops.

    When combined with they seem to have run out or running out of tanks (numbers seen in combat has plummeted in recent months and no signs of a build up somewhere as all their storage areas are just getting smaller) and their air force has lost most of their command and control aircraft, plus a sizeable number of planes and helicopters.

    Only real thing they have that would be useful for global power projection is their subs.

    Not sure Russia could actually deploy anywhere outside Europe.

    • I agree they the Russian Air Force is pooped, but they are now churning out T90Ms** at quite a rate. One almost pities the poor untrained Basterds who have to die in them.

      ** Notice the Armata is nowhere to be seen, why they can’t manufacture them and design has endless technical problems.

      • They aren’t though. They were reconditioning them at a rate lower than they were losing them. New ones production is very low. If they are losing them faster than they can make, they will eventually run out and the war is far from over.

        • From what I read it is building somewhere between 100-200 a year new tanks, which is lower than the number it was losing them a month,.before they started vanishing from the front line.

          • Thats an old assessment- recent NATO assessments credits Russia’s industrial capacity at 30-100 MBTs per month and up to 1200 IFVs other armoured vehicles per annum- soo much more than last years estimation- they have somehow redoubled their efforts meaning they could in theory replace enough lost armoured vehicles to threaten NATO on the ground at least within 2-3 years after completion of their idiotic war in Ukraine. If that conflict ever ends.

          • have you got a link to that, as everything I have seen says the reverse other than info from Russia backed media organisations.

          • Hi Steve,

            I did a search on google,”How many tanks is Russia producing per month”.

            The AI returned a wide range of estimates from 30 to 100 tanks per month.

            Only the T90M is in production according to a June 2025 article on Military Watch Magazine which also suggests about 280-300 T90M were built in 2024 at the Uralvagonzavod tank plant. Some of the up tick is in a switch of production from the export T90MS to the Russian Army standard T90M, nevertheless, this represents a tripling of production since 2022. The article suggests that the plant will be able to knock out 1000 tanks per year by 2028 based on current trajectories.

            It should be noted that the Uralvagonzavod tank plant had a surge capacity of 2000 tanks per year during the Soviet era which probably included the T72 from which the T90M is derived.

            Given this is a mid range estimate it is where I would place my bets, but the truly bad news is that the Russian’s appear to be getting their ducks in a row which might be behind the recent moves within eNATO to up ground force numbers.

            So within a CRINK Axis context we have China building up its fleet and Russia relearning how to build tanks and other AV’s. Not a good place to be in.

            Cheers CR

          • Yeah but the MOD / CIA etc have discredited this data, as they including repaired tanks from front line service and those pulled from storage. The number of actual new tanks is very low.

      • This was raised by a journalist to a Russian tank industrialist at the arms show in Kazakhstan. Where is the T14 Armata? He replied that they can build 3 T90Ms for the price of 1 Armata. So the Armata has been shelved for now.

  10. “Russia soon to no longer be global power without aircraft carrier.”

    FTFY

    Send me your next headline and I’ll make it pithy too.

  11. Its a pity the Russian orcs are not going to persist with their attempts at modernising Kuznetsov- it was a great waste of their naval resources and budget.
    As it happens in any conflict with NATO the Russian navy surface fleet would be remorselessly pursued and hunted to extinction in very quick order- their submarine fleet- ditto- even though they might be able to muster 15+ submarines in their northern fleet and perhaps up to 8 conventionally powered SSKs in the Baltic their submarine fleet is also qualitatively and quantitatively outnumbered by NATO- especially if the USN with their far larger SSN fleet are engaged. Even against a European NATO + Canada scenario the Russian navy is in deep trouble.
    The UK however does have its own extreme difficulties- the frigate fleet is about to drop to just 7, our destroyers are finishing PIP upgrades slowly and although the type 26 and 31 programmes are finally progressing no additional frigate orders above the intended 13 are forthcoming at this time- SDSR had stated a escort warship fleet of 25+ ships- so we are 6 frigates short- 2 more type 26 and 4 more type 31s are required.

    • We need to wait for the Defence investment Plan in the autumn to know if there will be any more frigate orders, I suspect there will be as labour is desperate to keep Babcock going. It’s made major ground in the SNP specifically on ship building.

      However the massive capability enhancement in the North Atlantic will rely more on drones than frigates.

      A billion pound warship with 200 trained crew onboard is an inefficient way to tow a sensor in the modern age and surface ships on their own against modern Submarines is probably a poor exchange rate for a surface fleet.

      Frigates make sense guarding task forces that have to move but I’m not convinced they make economic sense guarding a pre determined large body of water or a choke point.

      Manned platforms are still essential for such roles but they are more likely to be providing maintenance, deployment and security for an array of unmanned Systems.

      • I’m sure Babcock will be given work. The national shipbuilding strategy suggests that a couple of the early build pre-loved T31s could for example be offered to a customer like New Zealand.

  12. Russia no longer has an effective surface fleet. Along with an obsolescent airforce that can’t compete with NATO. Their much vaunted army is suffering grievously in Ukraine. Please correct me if you think I am wrong.

  13. Do they actually need one when the pentagon is struggling to justify theirs now they nothing but floating targets and unable to project power anymore to bully states janhe their regime and steal their stuff

    Russia stretches around the globe and doesn’t need carriers to protect its interests.

    The US can only surge to five carriers a less than 50% availability. The UK carriers break down more than they run and french carriers often have to be towed to site. India and china both have capable and active carriers but carriers are huge targets and need dozens of protection vessels.

    But once they get the Mariupol yards and steelworks up and running again they might start over or get china to build them cheaper.

    The old soviet carriers have done very well for India and china so their design is fine and the aircraft work.

  15. The USS Gerald Ford cost 13 billion to build. Iran has proven that 10% of its missiles got through to Israel through saturation attacks. Thats cheap in cost terms to wipe out such a massive, prestigeous and expensive ship of of the same genre bristling with with all manner of bells and whistles. I think Russias got it right dont you?

        • It absolutely does. How much of Israel can be covered by CIWS? How many interceptors per square mile? How many targets are those interceptors and CIWS systems having to defend?

    • Completely different issue.. getting a kill chain on a carrier without being destroyed by the carrier battle group is the challenge that most militaries cannot achieve.. lobbing missiles from land will do sod all against a carrier battle group.. your very best bet is to have a better SSN than your enemy and get lucky.

      • Yeah but Anthony already decided that an Aircraft carrier is the same as a country and if you can’t defend an entire country with hundreds, if not thousands of potential targets then you can’t defend an aircraft carrier. Obviously this is a ridiculous position to hold which is why he keeps flip flopping all over the place.

      • Apparently the UK air defences are greatly lacking. If Russia launches an opportunistic air attack on us rather in the vein of Iran v Israel, then, if at sea defences are that good in general , we shall have to depend on the Royal Navy for our ultimate salvation with strategic naval placements around the British.Isles. Russia poses such an existential threat and it seems the Royal Navy is the only branch of our Services capable of some credible air defence.

          • Hi Dern, The answer is both. To expedite matters and for costs sake, if aircraft carriers defences are so good, lets treat the UK like an aircraft carrier and defend it accordingly. Our at sea deterrent capability is considerable. Our land deterrent capability is abysmal, without a ‘Patriot’ in sight!

          • Do I really need to explain the difference between a 280m Aircraft carrier and 250,000km2 archipelago? Or are you just an incredibly lazy strawman machine?

    • If you use bad faith strawman arguments then I’m not at all surprised you’ve come to that conclusion. I prefer to deal in reality and facts.

  18. The ship in question has not been operational for a while and has suffered a number of mishaps.

    I think everyone knew this was happening when they sent the crew to the frontline in Ukraine.

    I’m guessing they will come up with a ridiculous plan for 10 new submarine super carriers or some such nonsense which will never see the light of day just to give the vague impression they are still in the game when most people realise they stopped being in the game some time ago.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

By submitting this comment, you agree to the storage and handling of your data by this website in accordance with our Privacy Policy.