Why might Russian nuclear carriers be needed?

Throughout the twentieth century, aircraft carriers were a symbol of aggression, which did not always turn into a military conflict and sometimes consisted of a demonstration of power. So the street robber, holding in his right hand a heavy crowbar, and in the left brick, politely offers to buy the latter for a round sum.

The maintenance of powerful naval forces is not affordable for poor countries. The cost of an aircraft carrier today at comparable prices is 10-15 billion dollars, and its construction entails additional budgetary costs to maintain the technical state and combat capability, annually comparable to this amount. No wonder they say that the best way to destroy an enemy is to give him a powerful warship.

The successful conduct of military operations is extremely difficult without achieving air superiority. The wars of the post-war decades (Korea, Vietnam, Falkland) did not do without the floating airbases that flew near the center of the conflict, ensuring the presence of hundreds of aircraft in the airspace.

Disputes about the extent to which Russian aircraft carriers are needed continue from the Soviet era. Opponents in them are divided into two main groups, conventionally called "pigeons" and "hawks". The former advocate the principle of sufficiency, that is, the minimization of military expenditures, and the latter - for an adequate and practically symmetrical response to any challenge.

The Soviet economy, in its efficiency, could not withstand competition with the production capacities of its main competitor, the US, so the construction of a dozen nuclear aircraft carriers did not take place. In the 1970s, each of these aircraft carriers cost the US taxpayers about a billion dollars. Nevertheless, throughout the 80s, heavy cruisers Varyag and Tbilisi were laid in Nikolaev, capable of taking on their flight decks of fifty modern multi-purpose supersonic aircraft that are not inferior in terms of technical characteristics to the Hornets and F-16, Not to mention the Tomcats and Phantoms. After the collapse of the USSR, a question arose as to whether these aircraft carriers of Russia and, in general, what they need to do with them.

Solomonic decision was made. The command of the Black Sea Fleet , which entered the construction of the Tbilisi ship, managed to be transferred to the Northern Fleet, where it successfully carries combat service called Admiral Kuznetsov, and the unfinished Varyag remained rusted at the Nikolayev shipyards until it was sold to China at the price of scrap metal.

The disruption and the complete economic decline of the nineties prompted Western analysts to think that Russia will no longer be able to claim the role of a superpower. The scenario of dividing the country and establishing full control over it seemed quite possible. However, at some point everything went not according to plan. What is called, overlooked ...

Having paid with external debts and having drawn conclusions about the danger of disregard for security by the example of other states, the country's leadership began to strengthen its defense capability, without neglecting the Russian Navy. The aircraft carriers did not intend to build at the first stage, focusing on the main strike force - the submarine fleet.

Meanwhile, the military doctrines of many states have changed significantly. China and India are countries that no one can blame for neo-colonialism - nevertheless, they began to make efforts to create their own full-fledged fleets with air support. Italy and Spain also got, albeit small, but aircraft carriers. A full-fledged ship of this class, with an atomic power plant, is France. Why do we need such weapons to countries that do not seek military seizure of foreign territories and can Russian aircraft carriers be needed?

The question is rather rhetorical. Far from our shores, the union state is difficult to exert military pressure if its aircraft carriers appear on its shores. In addition to maintaining military parity, any superpower has economic interests, the need to defend which can arise in those regions, which information portals do not remember today. Possession of a full-fledged fleet capable of solving any combat missions at remote locations is a matter not only of national prestige and military necessity, but also of economic expediency.

Apparently, the new aircraft carriers of the Russian Navy will receive, but expect this event in the next decade is not worth it. A ship of this class not only costs itself in its own right, it needs the appropriate infrastructure. The most likely to be built are full-fledged aircraft carriers, with a nuclear power plant, a displacement of more than 100,000 tons, virtually unlimited range and long-term autonomy. Perhaps, they will be less than the United States, but it is enough that the allies of Russia are not afraid of anyone.