D
Deleted member 13312
Guest
True , admittedly defense expenditures do often include a dose of irrationality at times. Well the US often cites the need for a 10 carrier fleet because of its self-professed title of guardian of the sea lanes and peace, meaning that it wants at least 1 carrier in every major ocean area in case of an emergency. The British on the other hand still has a need to defend far flung holdings like the Falklands and to act as a junior security partner for the US.I agree Russia definitely doesn't *need* a full blown carrier group - but military spending is rarely rational. Can the US cite a rational need for ten carrier groups, or the British the honestly somewhat bizarre concept of two 70,000 ton STOVL carriers carrying 24 planes and a handful of whirlybirds a piece? The keeping up with the Jones' drive isn't rational, but is still very much a thing for post-Soviet Russia, and is no more (or less) rational than the others. The whole political narrative in Russia right now is that they are the rightful inheritors of Soviet superpower status and that they have been cheated and exploited by the west... and I don't think that's just propaganda - there is definitely a detectable strain of that belief informing Russian policy - were it not then the Kirovs and the Kuznetsov would have been pensioned off years ago.
That said, Russia's position isn't *enitely* irrational. Russia's ability to maintain relationships often depends on her ability to provide a counterweight ally to the west, as many of those relationships stem from the Soviet era - and in the more fragmented world she inherited from the USSR, a naval presence to provide that is more central now than it was back then - especially since Russia doesn't have a network of bases around the world, any naval presence she does send out will need to be more self contained than it's Soviet forebears, both in terms of endurance (less chance to refuel, as we saw with the Kuznetsov in Syria) and in terms of providing a rounded force without assistance from land based forces. While this could and really should take the form a re-imagined fleet based around destroyers, subs and smaller carriers or multirole vessels (something like the Clemenceau mixed with the Juan Carlos would seem well suited to Russia) she will always find it hard to give up on the sheer statement of power given by large capital ships.
China on the other hand, dependent on trade for her survival absolutely needs full carriers and DDGs to keep her sea lanes open, though it seems China's aim for a final fleet size is rather closer to a needs based reality than America's, and rather less... unique... than Britain's.
Agree on the point that Russia feels that it has been wronged by the West. But one must remember one of the reasons that Russia keep the Kuznetsove and the Kirovs around is that had they been retired early, Russia would practically have no major ships left. Now with the prospects of the Admiral Gorshkov frigates coming online, Russia now can at the very least consider the prospect of retiring some of the Udaloys and the Sovremnenys.
And more importantly, I think that the current Russia foreign policy mind set is to use less public display of capital ships and more on stand off capabilities like cruise missiles and stealth submarines. It has just as much political weight and it cost less, though admittedly it is far less impressive.