Home » Weapons » Arms Trade » Russia Can’t Afford New Carriers, Despite Plans for Naval Revamp

Russia Can’t Afford New Carriers, Despite Plans for Naval Revamp

by John Reed on December 10, 2010

The Russian Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov

The other day we showed you pictures of Russia’s prototype 5th gen fighter, the Sukhoi T-50 PAK-FA. We mentioned that it’s a nice concept, but it remains to be seen if Russia can produce them in a timely manner. The former superpower has had serious trouble getting its nearly 20 year-old Su-34 design into service.

Well, here’s another example of Russia’s military tech ambitions being checked by reality.

From AFP:

The Russian military admitted Dec. 10 that it lacked the funds to deploy a powerful new armada of aircraft carriers as promised and that no more would be built for at least another decade.

“The state armaments program for 2011–2020 does not envision the construction of aircraft carriers,” an unnamed senior official in Russia’s defense ministry told the Interfax news agency.

He said current funding plans allowed the military to come up with new designs but not proceed with actual construction.

“Only then — after completing the advanced designs — can we examine the expediency of building aircraft carriers,” the official said.

It goes on to say that despite president Dimitri Medvedev’s call to modernize the Russian navy, no new carriers will be built before 2020.

The former Soviet Union had five aircraft carriers at the height of its power but Russia currently only has one, Admiral Kuznetsov.

This compares to the United States’ 11 operational and six reserve aircraft carriers, and the U.S. has another three under construction, according to the U.S. Congressional Research Service.

Medvedev made his country’s re-emergence as a naval power one of the planks of a new military policy that he announced with much fanfare in October 2008.

“We are not going to spare our financial resources,” Medvedev said while attending exercises in the Barents Sea.

Navy Cmdr. Adm. Vladimir Vysotsky said that same year that Russia intended to build six new aircraft carriers — three each for its Pacific and Northern Fleets.

Now, it appears those plans have been shelved, giving way to higher priority items such as the development of its new ICBM technology, according to the article.

These are the routine events that make one doubt any sweeping Russian pledge to modernize its military. They even make one skeptical as to whether Russia will be able to build and sell export versions of its most advanced new weapons like the PAK-FA in significant numbers, as some fear.

Remember, India, the only foreign buyer for that aircraft is designing a large portion of the jet. Maybe being able to co-produce the latest Russian designs is becoming a prerequisite to actually buying them.

If that’s the case, the number of foreign buyers could be pretty limited considering the resources it takes to develop in a 5th generation design skill set.

Then again, such a deals might do some serious good for the local economies and knowledge bases. We already see this around the world to some extent, when U.S. arms makers agree to have some portions of their products built in whichever nation is buying them.

Here’s the whole article on the carriers.

Share |

{ 60 comments… read them below or add one }

Justin H December 10, 2010 at 6:15 pm

They could always buy Britain's HMS Invinsible…

Reply

Jacob December 10, 2010 at 6:20 pm

Russia trying to procure aircraft carriers would be like Germany's attempt to build battleships prior to WWI. All that money put into building the fleet and training the sailors, and the only thing they were good for was sitting in port because it still wasn't enough to challenge British naval superiority.

Reply

@Joe_Schmoe12 December 10, 2010 at 7:38 pm

May I remind you of the battle of Jutland where Germany won a tactical victory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jutland

Reply

elizzar December 11, 2010 at 8:06 am

good point – but britain won the strategic victory re: jutland, in that effectively the german navy never ventured out in numbers again, and any blockade attempt of the uk didn't materialise. the failure was the 'old-school' british admirals wanting another trafalgar, coupled with a conservatism that prevented the adoption of new technologies and procedures – ie. they wanted to re-fight a previous war on their terms, rather than seeing the reality of the 'now'.

Reply

dave December 10, 2010 at 10:26 pm

Let's rephrase that.
"Russia trying to procure aircraft carriers would be like Germany's attempt to build battleships prior to WW2. All that money put into building…wasn't enough to challenge British naval superiority."

Reply

Curt December 11, 2010 at 5:26 pm

Operation Albion pretty much ended the war in the East and was only possible because Germany could use the High Seas fleet in the Baltic. The High Seas fleet also came within about 40nm of engaging and most probably sinking the entire 6th Battle Squadron (USA) in 1918 without the British Fleet being aware of the sortie. Just because the Germans did not effectively utilize their naval power does not mean it would not have been potentially extremely valuable if they had.

Reply

STemplar December 10, 2010 at 6:30 pm

Sounds like re-prioritizing based on economic reality. Pretty much what everyone else is doing. We are the lone exception at the moment. Fiscal reality will intrude on us shortly. Although we are just clinging to programs that are overly expensive and whose need is dubious. We have plenty of budget even with prudent cutting that we could spend less and be able to project more power in my opinion.

Reply

Justin H December 10, 2010 at 7:00 pm

An unnamed defense ministry official said Dec. 10 that Russia needed to have at least four aircraft carriers to be considered a truly functioning power at sea.

"The defense ministry will not give up on this idea," the official told RIA Novosti.

Reply

Drake1 December 10, 2010 at 7:48 pm

Supposedly Russia and India will close a deal on PAK-FA this month, but its future is far from certain. Maybe instead of buying Russia's old junk, India can do a joint deal on carrier construction.

Reply

Intersted December 11, 2010 at 1:05 am

PAK-FA is domestic oriented aircraft for Russian airforce made with "Russian only" technology.
Future FGFA aircraft will be designed from Russian-Indian cooperation. It would be export oriented fighter jet which should be based on PAK-FA's airframe and its basic technologies..

Modernized Ex-Gorshkov aircraft carrying cruiser is not junk. It's younger than Nitimtz-class carriers.

Reply

Drake1 December 11, 2010 at 8:48 am

What's your point on PAK-FA apart from being anal or something? They are closing a deal on sharing the development costs and sharing the technology.

Considering the cost to refurbish the carrier and its remaining service life, many Indians felt like it was a questionable deal.

Reply

Intersted December 12, 2010 at 2:17 am

No. No. No. India does not have rights for PAK-FA developments and technology. PAK-FA made with Russian components only. PAK-FA is domestic Russian 5th generation fighter jet program.
FGFA is another story. Yes, they are closing a deal with it. India wants to get these fighter jets(FGFA) into its own air force. FGFA would be produced from Russia-India cooperation, even with with a some Indian made components.

Reply

Drake1 December 11, 2010 at 8:50 am

The Indian Air Force’s requirements do differ rather substantially from the Russian Air Force’s, and are reported to demand a twin-seat configuration as well as possibly a different wing and control surfaces. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd is expected to become responsible for some 25% of the total development workload for the FGFA programme, involving modifying the PAK FA single-seater airframe to a twin-seater configuration as well as the mission computer, navigation system, cockpit displays and ECM dispensers.

Reply

Intersted December 12, 2010 at 2:19 am

"Considering the cost to refurbish the carrier and its remaining service life, many Indians felt like it was a questionable deal."

These programs are badly comparable. Indians never had problems with a Sukhoi Su-30MKI deals.

Reply

Drake1 December 12, 2010 at 8:30 am

Where did I say India had trouble with Sukhoi Su-30MKI deals, or India does not have rights for PAK-FA developments and technology?

Stop putting words in my mouth.

Reply

Intersted December 13, 2010 at 3:34 am

I don't putting words in your mounth. I just said that comparison of aircraft carrier and 5th generation aircraft for India is not correct. India and Sukhoi never had problems with Su-30MKI delivery. So why PAK-FA (FGFA later) should be delayed because of refurbish the Indian carrier?
Yes, India does not have any rights in PAK-FA program.

Maxtrue December 10, 2010 at 8:16 pm

Again, the following is a significant step forward as the Russians step back from their more conventional aspirations……
http://www.informationdissemination.net/2010/12/w

Reply

crackedlenses December 10, 2010 at 9:06 pm

Maybe we will go back to waging limited wars due to limited economic capability like it was done in medieval times. Maybe living off the country you're invading will come back into style…..

Reply

jako777 December 10, 2010 at 9:28 pm

.QUOTE ;
…"skeptical as to whether Russia will be able to build and sell export versions of its most advanced new weapons like the PAK-FA in significant numbers………
…….Remember, India, the only foreign buyer for that aircraft is designing a large portion of the jet. Maybe being able to co-produce the latest Russian designs is becoming a prerequisite to actually buying them"…..

Just few remarks although I could have made 50….
1.)Russo-Indian FGFA is export oriented, not so much Russian PAKFA ….
BTW the answer is YES they'll be able to build ( possible foreign avionics Israel,France ) enough FGFA for export. ( they'ill be produced in India which has extremely low production costs )

2.)Well if 25% of design ( by India) of FGFA "is designing a large portion of the jet" than I'll make no comment on such nonsense….
BTW India will buy only 50 PAKFA (as gesture of cooperation) just like Russia will also buy 50 FGFA

In general this article is incompetent and ill informed.
I'm happy that West is full of prejudice when it comes to Russia.
Oh, boy will you bump into GREAT surprise one day…. and with China also…

Reply

IknowIT December 10, 2010 at 9:56 pm

Da, comrade Jako. Your post makes little sense, yes?

Reply

Intersted December 11, 2010 at 1:18 am

"Well if 25% of design ( by India)"

25% of Indian money, not design

Reply

Byron Skinner December 10, 2010 at 10:12 pm

Good Evening Folks,

It looks like the year 2010 will go down as bad years for the Bear and the Dragon. This announcement on the carriers was not unexpected the only real surprise was the admission of being broke.

The Russian Federation has been having real trouble with ship building. In 2007 Russia sent ten Kilo II Submarines to China along with the four already sold to China there should be 14 on the water but only 12 have been scene. Where are the missing two?

Of the ten that came down in 07 and 08 at least four have had serious problems with batteries and electrical, rumors of other serious problems with these boats have surfaced.

Russia is in a long negotiation process with France for amphibious warfare ships. The indicator is that the problem is price and France wants to be paid.

In March of 09 China and Russia came to agreement for China to buy 48 Su.-30′s it was canceled by Russia in Nov, of 09. This is an indicator that Russia lacks the capital to get the Su. 30 line going again.

I can go on with other example such as the cancelations of the Toplo M and Bulava programs, the “new” Russian ICBM force of old Soviet RS-24′s,50 in Silos, 18 Mobile RS-24′s will make up the total force. Russia is no longer even a regional power.

China is in the same position since they relay on Russian technology for their domestic weapons programs, they are effectively stopped, too.

In short the Bear and the Dragon are no longer even a regional threat, Japan is hands down the dominate military power in Northeast Asia. So where does this leave the US.

It make Missile defense harder to justify, the F-35 has not even a potential rival with in its service life. The talks or new armor forces is premature by about fifty years. This leaves all of those big tick projects that are the darlings of the Butternut think tanks like Cato, American Enterprise, and Heritage Foundation in the dust bin.

Both China and Russia have dropped down the threat level at least a position or more. NKorea who is dependent on China as a benefactor is another big loser. It’s time for China to shut down the NKorean Nuclear program or expect another visit fro an American Carrier Battle Group in the Yellow Sea.

It is no surprise that today China asked the US to resume Defense Consultative Talks. The time has come for China to listen and the US to talk.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Reply

Intersted December 11, 2010 at 1:49 am

Hello Byron.

"I can go on with other example such as the cancelations of the Toplo M and Bulava programs, the "new" Russian ICBM force of old Soviet RS-24's,50 in Silos, 18 Mobile RS-24's will make up the total force."

I am sorry, but you wrong.
Bulava SLBM wasn't cancelled. Next test launch is planned in late days of December from their four generation SSBN.

RS-24 ICBM were deployed, and its production lines still opened

"Russia is no longer even a regional power."

Really? So what Russia is? What country In Eastern hemisphere has a stronger strategic capabilities than Russia?

"In short the Bear and the Dragon are no longer even a regional threat, Japan is hands down the dominate military power in Northeast Asia. So where does this leave the US."

Japan isn't even regional military power.

Reply

@Earlydawn December 11, 2010 at 3:22 am

Uh, Japan is certainly a regional military power. They have a small force, but it has a huge technological force multiplier. The dominant military power in Asia is still the U.S., however, with an unrivaled power projection capability vis a vis every other power in the region.

Reply

Joe Schmoe December 11, 2010 at 4:12 am

Bryon makes some interesting points.

What he means by Russia not being a regional power is that the Russian Federation lacks the logistic, financial and political capabilities and willpower to wage a conventional war with other major powers in the region.

Japan does have a very strong self-defense force, including the most modern army (bar perhaps South Korea) in the region.

Reply

Interested December 11, 2010 at 4:33 am

"What he means by Russia not being a regional power is that the Russian Federation lacks the logistic, financial and political capabilities and willpower to wage a conventional war with other major powers in the region."

Based on what? Russia still have many weapons from late cold-war era in its inventory, and also launched massive rearmament build-up for both conventional and strategic roles.

"Japan does have a very strong self-defense force, including the most modern army (bar perhaps South Korea) in the region."

Russia also fields most modern technology in its army.
Japan self-defense force might be strong, but with a very limited numbers. Also without any strategic capabilities. That means that Japan doesn't stand a chance against "Bear" or "Dragon".

Reply

TMB December 11, 2010 at 11:28 am

Russia had no problem stomping all over Georgia a couple years ago. Granted, Georgia isn't exactly Germany, but Russia certainly was able to invade a neighboring country despite the rest of the world getting in a fit about it.

Reply

STemplar December 11, 2010 at 12:14 pm

Driving across a neighboring border when you've had endless time to mass forces is no gauge of prowess or logistics, and to be clear Georgia is def no Germany, in fact it was not even a close match. The war with Georgia was also nothing but an embarrassment for Russian tacair.

I'm not sure what lnterested means in regards to 'strategic capabilities', because what that typically means is nuclear weapons and that's true. In regards to actual power projection Russia, Japan, and China all have no real ability to wage war beyond their own borders.

Fil December 11, 2010 at 1:34 pm

China not a regional power?

They have been churning out domestic 4th gen fighters for a while now. Also been building 052s and 054s at a rapid pace, which are pretty solid ships. It has has a ton of shipyards and has the ability to ramp up production far easier than America can.

Not to mention the size of nation's missile magazines.

China might not be the most, but they are sufficiently advanced, have a lot of numbers and a lot of production capability.

Reply

@Earlydawn December 11, 2010 at 2:33 pm

China has less than five-hundred fourth-generation tactical fighter aircraft. All of their domestic aircraft are untested in combat, and likely have questionable avionics and radars, based on the PRC's track record with aerospace innovation. They are also in a tricky spot with technical assistance from Russia with regard to their Russian imports, although that is likely correctable internally.

Their naval force is still under par for the region, technologically, and under-sized as well. China seems unwilling to invest heavily in amphibious assault capabilities and naval logistics. Their attitude is primarily defensive, as evidenced by their shift of airbases further west, presumably to protect them from long-range bomber and missile attacks. A paradigm shift in Chinese military posture would be a major warning sign for the West.

The only real remarkable element of their armed forces relative to their size and economic power is their missile program. Their forces are incredibly well-structured for self-defense.

Reply

Intersted December 11, 2010 at 12:59 am

"Remember, India, the only foreign buyer for that aircraft is designing a large portion of the jet."

I am reading Defensetech all the time, and i see too much ignorant and incorrect data in many articles.
PAK-FA is domestic (Russian made product) which is made by Russian companies (not only Sukhoi, but also missile manufacturers, radar designers, avionics designers etc. etc.). It does not have Indian technology inside.

Reply

Justin H December 11, 2010 at 2:36 am

They want to be able to project air power (fighters), which is something they currently lack.

Reply

STemplar December 11, 2010 at 3:21 am

They want to cling to the glory days is what they want to do. Europe and the US are no threat to Russia. Europe is completely dependent for its energy needs. The biggest threat to Russian security in internal dissent. They don't need carriers or nukes for that. They need to get over the cold war is what they need.

Reply

Justin H December 11, 2010 at 5:29 pm

Yes, and they want to bully Baltic and former Warsaw Pact states. They still want to believe that they matter and make everybody think they still do.

Reply

Intersted December 11, 2010 at 3:38 am

Massive carrier fleet build-up is stupid idea, or at least not very smart. They have a lot of other very expensive programs – new SSN, SSBN, SSK, Bulava SLBM, Sineva SLBM, RS-24 road-mobile ICBM, surface fleet ships (new class of fregates and corvetters,), modernization of Kirov class heavy cruisers, PAK-FA program, rearmament of ground troops and air defenses. Etc. etc.
They have a one operational aircraft carrying cruiser. It could be enough for power projection. Aircraft carrier is so crazy expensive to use and maintain.

Reply

Russian Salilor December 11, 2010 at 11:05 am

Bulava SLBM, isn't that the one that blows up half the time when launched? Kirovs are a dud without the means to target gather target information too, it ends up being a huge liability.

Reply

Intersted December 12, 2010 at 2:02 am

So? They had some quality problems with Bulava SLBM. Every new SLBM design has a problems. However, latest test launches were succesfull. Now its more likely fixed. Next one planned launch from Borei class sub (new generation SSBN).
Problem with a target information for modezined Kirovs could be solved as well.

Reply

Roland December 11, 2010 at 5:30 am
ano8 December 12, 2010 at 12:52 am

So what???

Reply

Tim December 11, 2010 at 8:52 am

Russian gear is unreliable , twenty years behind western designs . The bear should stay in it's cave gorging on cheap hookers and it's stolen Billions . Bye bye Putin , next up the inevietable break up of China by 2025.

I list Turkey and Pakistan as the biggest strategic threat to world peace over the next ten years .

Reply

Intersted December 13, 2010 at 3:27 am

"Russian gear is unreliable"

For reason why? Where it was proven?

"twenty years behind western designs ."

Hmm… It is not.
For example, West is years behind Russia in terms of air defense and missile technology.

You can said that they are 50 years behind, but it does not change the facts.

Reply

blight December 13, 2010 at 10:49 am

Turkey? On what grounds? The fact that they have a reasonably modern military and "Muslims are grumbling" in the secular state? Pakistan is kind of there, just like Iran before the Revolution. All it needs is a catalyst.

Hilariously enough, all three nations are/were in the American sphere of influence. Makes you wonder if the Americans and the Soviets chose not to play out their proxy wars overseas, would many nations be more stable than they are today?

Reply

Brian Black December 11, 2010 at 9:50 am

Russian foreign policy seems to be primarily concerned with it's continental neighbours rather than with overseas expeditions. Can't see any use for a Russian carrier fleet.

Certainly a huge waste of money… but if they fancy putting in a bid for the UK's QE class carriers, they might be doing us a favour.

Reply

TMB December 11, 2010 at 11:30 am

Didn't Russia sell off a mothballed carrier to India a few years ago? I recall something of the sort where India was supposed to get a great deal on this unused or unfinished carrier but it was falling apart and cost a fortune in repairs.

Reply

Drake1 December 11, 2010 at 12:36 pm

Yep.

Reply

TMB December 11, 2010 at 12:55 pm

Thought so. Seems strange that we're discussing the threat of a Russian carrier fleet when they just got rid of one.

Reply

Intersted December 12, 2010 at 2:07 am

Ex. "Admiral Gorkshov" (now it's Indian "Vikramaditya" ) was not even aircraft carrier. Read more about Kiev class Soviet cruisers.
I believe that Russia has plans to build big nuclear powered aircraft carriers(new class) just like carriers in US inventory

Reply

TMB December 12, 2010 at 2:56 am

According to an old CNN article:

India has signed a $1.5 billion deal to buy a used Russian aircraft carrier and Russian fighter jets.

Indian Defense Minister George Fernandes on Tuesday inked the package that includes the carrier Admiral Gorshkov and 28 MiG-29k fighters as Sergei Ivanov, his Russian counterpart, looked on.

blight December 13, 2010 at 10:55 am

Wikipedia has this to say:

"The hull work was completed by 2008 and the Vikramaditya was launched on 4 December 2008. Around 99% of the structural work and almost 50% of the cabling work has been completed by June 2010 on the carrier. Almost all of the large equipment, including engines and diesel generators, has been installed."

Final price ~ 2.4 billion from initial 0.8 billion + 1 billion for "aircraft and weapons systems".

Even if costs went up to three billion, still cheaper than a pair of B-2 bombers. The alternative is India designing its own carriers, which would be even more costly. The carrier-building nations cut their teeth in the second world war and decades of carrier design. The Indians may be able to jump much of it, but they still need to build up a generation of carrier-trained sailors, aviators and naval architects for consistent improvement.

Reply

Paul December 12, 2010 at 2:05 pm

When is Putin going to realize that the USSR is LONG since gone and Russia holds little if any influence in the world? Russia would have trouble fending off an attack from Israel let alone the Chinese or the US. Hell the Russian mob is more feared than the Russian military nowdays.

Reply

Intersted December 13, 2010 at 3:18 am

"When is Putin going to realize that the USSR is LONG since gone and Russia holds little if any influence in the world?

Oh really?

Russia is the worlds largest oil/gas exporter.

Russia is the only country that is able to destroy USA and its allies in terms of strategic capabilities.

Russia is major political center of multi-polar world in Eurasia with its own sphere of influence.

"Russia would have trouble fending off an attack from Israel let alone the Chinese or the US."

In terms of conventional military power Russia still stronger than both China and Israel.
Just nuke the whole China or Israel – that the 'survival' option for Russia too.

Reply

STemplar December 13, 2010 at 12:11 pm

Russia is not the largest gas/oil exporter, Saudi is the largest oil exporter and Qatar is the largest natural gas exporter. Lots of talk that Iraq could take the top spot from Saudi potentially.

Saying someone has nukes is a playground mentality, use of the correct force at the correct moment and place could potentially lay any nation low, that isn't proof of anything.

The fact the Russia has a bunch of impoverished former republics under its thumb doesn't prove anything either.

Russia's military is a joke, let me repeat, Russia's military is a joke. In the Georgian conflict they had months and years to prepare their invasion route and in a 5 day conflict with a country they had overwhelming superiority in numbers and money they lost 8 tactical aircraft to SAMs including a strategic bomber piloted by some of their country's best pilots. Let me repeat, Russia's military is a joke.

In a stand up comparison the Israeli air force would shoot the Russian's out fo the sky with little effort. Russia is parting out and selling off their navy which has been rusting in port for decades. They are looking to buy ships from the French and armor from the Italians.

Now they've announced they haven't got the money to invest in carriers which leads to the inescapable conclusion they have mismanaged the heck out of their energy profits, or they have so many things that need to be fixed they simply are overwhelmed by the enormity of it all.

Reply

Justin H December 23, 2010 at 5:29 am

Thats Russia's answer to everything, "we'll just nuke it".

Reply

RickRouss December 14, 2010 at 2:57 pm

Russia still has more tanks than you can shake a stick at. The Russian Army is still the most dominant ground force in the region.

Reply

Mike April 2, 2011 at 10:33 pm

bro are you kidding Russia has a great military i think you reading alot of Propaganda Russia can definetily Fight China or the USA the big Problem with Russia is Just aircraft Carriers

Reply

mike April 2, 2011 at 10:32 pm

well Russia has already paid for 60 Su-50 Pakfa for 2015 to 2016 and are geting ten of these stealth fighters in 2013 a total of 70 by 2016 there are said to make another 200 after that.So the Airforce and Space Forces are doing a great job my Concern is the Aircraft Carriers can Russian Make any new ones or Just keep Upgrading the Kuznetsov

Reply

steve October 27, 2011 at 10:18 pm

why do we have a bunch of pale skinned american fanatics decieving themselves and being jealous of russia. lets face facts, no european millitary might can be compared to that of russia and the US might just be a bit above russiain millitary

Reply

Intersted December 13, 2010 at 3:02 am

Hello Byron.

Please let us known where you got such absurd information about Russia's nuclear forces? What is you source? Thank you.

Your quote:
"Some rather good discussion going on here. On the topic on the Topol M and Bulava, both have similar technical problems with the second stage."

Topol-M does not have "the second stage problem". This missile is in production since 1990s, it was deployed in many couple of units in both silo-based and road-mobile variants. Topol-M missiles were succesfully tested a lot of times But you are talking about mythical "second stage fatal problems".
As well as "Bulava" SLBM, which is known as a "problem missile" does not have the 2nd stage problem. Yes, it had some problems, but these were not specified as the second stage failure all the time.

"If the Bulava's fails again it the Russian Federation will turn to the old SSN-18 liquid fueled missile for it's refurbished Delta III's and IV's as a stop gap effort to keep a nuclear force."

SS-N-18 is old news and its not in production.
Actually, Russia equipping (and they will equip anyway) their Delta4 subs with a new liquid-fueled SLBM "Sineva" ("SS-N-23" Skif). "Sineva" production had stated a few years ago.
"Bulava" is program for future rearmament of SSBN fleet.

"Both the DF-21D and the JL-2 have been string factors in American military futurists projections of the PRC's military power, with out them the PRC's image in the west will be dealt a severe blow."

Where and when any of Chinese ICBM or SLBM were succesfully tested last time? Who knows, maybe Chinese ballistic missiles just does not work!

Reply

Intersted December 13, 2010 at 3:22 am

Ok, now, after big scale rebuilding, Vikramaditya could be called as "aircraft carrier".
But when it was produced in USSR it was called as a "aicraft carrying heavy cruiser".

Reply

RickRouss December 14, 2010 at 3:02 pm

Yeah those migs are new birds bro. They're Mig 29K's. The Ruskies are planning on equipping the Kuznetzov with 'em to replace their aging su-33's because the production line will already be open due to India's need.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: