The bigger picture – Part 1
“The Russian Navy is a capable Navy, that’s why their ships are a part of our routine surveillance plans.”
Admiral Clive Johnstone, Commander Allied Maritime Command, NATO
Memo to useless Western MSM idiot-journalists, who suffer from “duality confusion” and write articles such as these examples and also write that the Russian pilots are a “bit shit.” Memo- your NATO maritime boss doesn’t agree with your analysis of the Russian Navy.
“The Russian Navy is a capable Navy, that’s why their ships are a part of our routine surveillance plans, in the case of the Kuznetsov group, we’ve learned what we can from the group and how it operates,” said Vice Admiral Clive Johnstone, Commander Allied Maritime Command, “we’ll continue to monitor for any changes in behavior and continue to work closely within the Alliance to ensure all Allied navies are comfortable with the level of surveillance and information flowing regarding Russian Navy assets.”
(A language Health Warning needs to attached to the wording- overuse of military babble can seriously endanger your mental health, e.g. “Recognized Maritime Picture”. Can you guess what is used to mean in ‘old’ military speak?) NB- there’s me who thought that UN language was bad enough, nicknamed “ UNese”.
The bigger picture- Part 2
It is self-evident that the US, NATO follow the same script, (down to a T). Given Obama’s speech at the UNGA 60th anniversary, where he put in 2nd place, Russia and then ISIS as a threat, some 2 years on, the Maritime commander of NATO does exactly the same in a recent speech.
The Mediterranean
All seems quiet on the ocean waves, maybe as a result of a sense of relief or anxiousness. Well, on the 17th, a US P-8, maritime patrol aircraft, did take a peek at the Russian carrier group. But there again, the P-8 were also sent to the Black Sea and off the Levant, as a matter of routine last week. Link in Spanish:
The Spanish Navy itself will escort the carrier group & has sent an ocean-going patrol boat, the” Cazadora” (P-78). A damp squib really, compare to October’s response to the Russian Navy, (with the dispatch of the oiler, Cantabria, (A-15) to the Eastern Med and also the frigate, “Juan de Borbón” (F-102) which apparently shadowed the carrier group off the Norwegian coast. Now the escort is just a patrol boat, (so NATO? -What was all the fuss back in October? Anything to do with scaremongering before US elections????) In fact, it goes beyond the ridiculous because the French Navy aren’t even bothering to shadow the carrier group, (well maybe a submarine). So for the time being that leaves the Portuguese Navy, (3 ships followed the fleet)
Navios da Marinha acompanham o trânsito de navios russos em águas sob jurisdição portuguesa. Um país seguro tem uma Marinha atenta.#Portugal pic.twitter.com/RRLhHBF57y
— Marinha (@MarinhaPT) January 21, 2017
and the UK! Note: in the photos released by the Portuguese Navy, there is the landing ship “Aleksander Shabalin“. It has finished its Syrian Express role and now is going back to the Baltic.
The Royal Navy & other NATO vessels are escorting the group through the Channel, although the media are not making so much of a big deal this time. So when the MSM & NATO officials say the “Admiral Kuznetsov” was a glorified PR stunt, I would also say so was the hysterical overblown NATO response. Interestingly one of the NATO vessel is the “Oker”, A-53, an Oste class ELINT and reconnaissance German ‘spy’ ship, the RN presence at the back is HMS “St Albans”, F83, along with Danish warship, HNOMS ” Roald Amundsen“, F-311, and another German auxiliary oiler “Spessart“, A 1442, but not HMS “Ocean” as some tweets suggest, since it is in the Gulf! Quite a show being put on by NATO in the UK’s backyard and waiting in the wings is the Belgium navy’s ‘Castor’. It must be also eye watering figure, very expensive, since it cost the RN just around £ 1.4 million back in October, just to shadow the Russian carrier.
Finally, I’d say that the transit through the straits of Gibraltar of the Russian carrier on the morning of 20th Jan was not by chance. It was finally in the Atlantic going home, after leaving Syrian shores on the 6th Jan, after much time spent loitering or slow sailing in the Med. So now for a short while, there are no aircraft carriers on active service in the Med, (not taking into account the Italians). But not for long. The US Navy stated that the USS “George H Bush” (CVN 77), leaves its home port on the 21st Jan, heading towards Europe and possibly the Gulf too, to conduct airstrikes against ISIS in Syria and Iraq.
Ok enough of the small details, so why has the Russian carrier group gone from Syria? As we can see that there is an marked increase in fighting in the east of the country, around Tiyas , Palymra, Deir Ez Zor & Al Bab. ISIS has been pushed back by the Mosul fighting and have concentrated a lot of attacks in Syria.
Russian MoD says actions of the US-led coalition in Iraqi Mosul have generally come down to squeezing major ISIS forces into East Syria. pic.twitter.com/8rvZHhowMj
— Military Advisor (@miladvisor) January 18, 2017
In essence, the Russian carrier group were there to protect the Western outer edges of the Syrian campaign military operations, as well to give the air wing some sorely needed combat experience. Now there is a change in focus in combat support, hence the arrival of the Su-25 for close air support of ground troops. There is also a marginal decrease in a serious threat of attack from the sea, as the Syrian coastal defence is supposedly integrated & solid. More importantly, it has given the Russian Navy command some thinking time, to learn, adapt and change doctrine, tactics & training content, to reflect the good and not so good lessons learned in Syria.
In my opinion, the most significant overall naval contribution is the missile-carrying, multi-purpose combat ship class, In French
Les #missiles de croisière #Kalibr, un grand avantage pour la #Marine russehttps://t.co/KmKRoz2je4#Russie #défense pic.twitter.com/fUlJpnRlrT
— Sputnik France (@sputnik_fr) January 24, 2017
such as the new Admiral Grigorovich and the Buyan class, since they pack a huge punch given their relative small size. They also exemplify the Russian defence doctrine very well, as explained recently by The Saker. Add in the Steregushchiy class, they form the new core element of the Russian Navy surface combat ship, and for some decades to come. The Pacific fleet is shortly to receive one Steregushchiy-class later this year, the “Sovershenny”, which will join the ” Boikyy”. (And that’s just on the surface ships, not mentioning the submarine capabilities).
Also scheduled to join the fleet in 2017, will be Project 1171, large amphibious assault ship, “Ivan Gren” which is still at the shipbuilders, Yantar. It will go on further sea trials in spring of 2017, after it seems some snags were encountered in previous degaussing tests. In Russian
In other news, the Russian Navy is continuing with its modernisation programme and has plans for an extensive overhaul of five antisubmarine ships, of the Project 1155 (Udaloy-class) ships. The program will cover “life-support systems” and “radio-electronic weapons systems.” This include the Northern and Pacific Fleets.
What is interesting is not to make a comparison with the US Navy, as the doctrines are not at all the same, however it is useful to look at a couple of points. One glaring example is refuelling/replenishment at sea, (RAS). The Russian Navy doesn’t have the same system as most other navies. Take the example of India
#IndianNavy Nourishing the Armada. Happy Anniversary INS Deepak, the Fleet Replenishment Tanker @SpokespersonMoD pic.twitter.com/kncByG6hEX
— SpokespersonNavy (@indiannavy) January 21, 2017
As far as I aware, there is no intention on the part of the Russian navy is build such RAS tankers. Again this shows quite clearly how the Russian defence doctrine is rooted towards the near Russian ‘space’, with a sporadic need to deploy no more than a couple of ships much farther from home. The exception to this is the Syrian campaign, however I would say that this is just a transposition of the Russian naval doctrine.
The Syrian Express is still busy shuttling to and fro, no respite for these unsung workhorses of the navy. Additionally, another repair ship has been deployed, the Amur Class “PM138”, quite possibly as part of a rotation of units. Likewise, the chartered cargo ships with provisions for Syria, are regularly passing through the Bosphorus. The Kashtan class buoy tender “KIL158” has finally gone home after 21/2 month deployment in Syria. This brings me to the next point of comparing NATO navies with the Russian Navy. Some NATO navies tend to have dedicated auxiliaries or specific cargo ship, such the UK’s Fort Rosalie class or even the US Military Sealift Command. Yet in Russia, this role is being filled by landing ships, as well as decrepit elderly cargo ships coming to the end of their lives, being used as a stopgap measure, until such a time the Syrian campaign can effectively finished.
Significantly, Russia & Syria have inked the agreement on expanding Tartus as a naval base, for at least 49 years.
#BREAKING: Up to 11 Russian warships allowed simultaneously in port of #Tartus, #Syria – new agreement https://t.co/0DHzC8lNxv pic.twitter.com/EVAibV9NKU
— RT (@RT_com) January 20, 2017
Up to 11 warships of the Russian Navy may call in simultaneously, by prior approval by Syria. (Docked or at anchor?). Seriously, this is a game changer in the Med and NATO may see this a big threat. A similar agreement was also signed on Hmemiem airbase. Russia has now an official and permanent warm-water presence outside of the Black Sea. In Russian
Last word
The new US administration has said that it wants to safeguard freedom of navigation in the South China Sea. Oh boy, this could prove to be an interesting development and not for good either. More on this in the next Naval Brief. It is not by pure coincidence that the New of the Chinese Navy was the South Sea fleet commander.
Thank you
AIS data on19th Jan showing both the Russian Navy tanker “Sergey Osipov” and ocean salvage tug “Nikolay Chiker”, (part of”„”Kuznetsov” carrier group, idling off the Algerian coast. Somewhere in the middle – the carrier itself, being refueled & replenished.
(AIS inspired modern art?)
I did a write on the Chinese carrier the Liaoning on the Moveable Feast post, maybe I should have put on a Naval Brief to begin with, anyway here it is: /moveable-feast-cafe-2017-01-23/#comment-314464
Good overview but I would disagree on the Charles de Gaulle, since you made the assumption that it worked with “while deployment against ISIS is with a US battlegroup”. Actually itdidnt for a while. It was on its own in the Med and the US group was in the group. It also has a independent capability, just the same as the Chinese carrier. In fact it is helped by having shipborne ASW planes. I’d put the French carrier 2nd , the Chinese carrier 3rd and the Kuznetsov below because of the lack of long range ASW and AWAC air wing component capacity. Both the Kuznetsov and Liaoning are ‘limited’ also due to the ski jump configuration, resulting in aicraft not being able to take off with full loads and fuel.
Having looked at the practicalities, I would say that both carriers perform their roles as per their doctrines.
It’s important to realise AK is not an aircraft carrier, but a hybrid. Part cruiser, part carrier. Her air compliment is designed for defensive ops, mainly, not to project power. She is probably the first hybrid that successfully was able to incorporate this idea of a combination ship type of this sort.
In my book the Kuznetsov is an aircraft carrier, there are aircraft on it, they can take off and land. The exact wording and role as you say makes its use different. The name is more due to the Montreux Convention.
@LeDahu
“Good overview but I would disagree on the Charles de Gaulle…”
Thanks! I did pile it a little too much on the French. I guess in a crisis they can scramble a wholly French strike group, but it would be a Falkland-level crisis and they would be essentially gambling their whole fleet to achieve that. In reality NATO nations deploy navel units with other NATO’s members, so assessing a single navy’s ability to deploy a wholly national strike group is asking those navies to do something they aren’t required to do.
The British completely gave up on “independent” action (i.e. similar to the Falkland campaign) to the point they actually ordered the new carriers to be a unit in a US navel strike group and they are actually planning on hosting USMC F-35B squadrons on the QEII when it is first deployed.
That’s why regardless of the RN’s weakness they are are planning on deploying the QEII to the South China Sea, where the British Empire’s pride was sunk on the 7th of December 1941 by Japanese planes, but hay if they want to eat a Chinese anti-carrier ballistic missile who am I to stop them :D
” It was on its own in the Med and the US group was in the group.”
I am not sure what you mean here, there is a permanent NATO presence in the Med and the French carrier was deployed to plug the US carrier gap. No carrier can be on its own, the least it needs replenishment and support ships with it, but they never sail without armed escort regardless of capabilities; The USS George Bush has been deployed to the middle-east to take over with two cruisers even though it has double the planes of the French.
NB: I forget to mention that the Indians are in the process of outfitting a 40k Indian made carrier, they will certainly beat China to the two carriers finish-line but I am sure China will beat them to the three carriers goal.
If you mean the sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse, it took place on the 10th Dec. 7th was Pear Harbour and the US ‘day of infamy’ Re the RN sinking, well that was just as calamitous.
The French carrier presence, ( Op Chammal’ (including 2 NATO escorts) was independent of the US carrier presence in the Gulf. Although the political environment wasn’t separate.
The Indians are industrious and as you quite rightly say, less so that the Chinese.
The nature of the US and Ru ocean naval design differs according to the purpose. The purpose is ultimately determined by geography.
As an “island”, and like the UK, the US has need to control the seas and attempt to force economic traffic into sea-going routes – where this trade may be controlled by naval forces. The attempts to force the traffic onto the seas consist of several ongoing actions against choke-points located in the large land mass – Europe-Asia-Africa. This is known as the MacKinder Thesis. MacKinder explains the US’s need for aircraft carriers… These ships, however, cannot be defended – but they are essential to project power over shipping and littoral assets.
I expect that most US carriers will be scrapped or laid-up over the next 10 years – they are vastly expensive and the function for which they are suited has become obsolete. One US carrier costs enough to feed and clothe the planet. One US carrier alone has a global effect on the environment… (unpublished Thesis at UW)
Similarly, the Ru naval design serves to protect littoral regions and coastal shipping – an entirely different purpose. We see the expressions of these needs in the as-built examples…
Presumably the NSR project will by-pass the choke point strategies of the US, but as things evolve, blue ocean operations by the US will become less exclusive and less aggressive. Police operations at sea may become oriented toward anti-piracy and law enforcement…and be shared with the other major powers in a condominium.
Of course there’s always the possibility of small problems…Trident seems to represent a potentially very serious safety problem… There are claims which seem credible that suggest that the UK Trident is liable to cook-off in port… Messy! Kinna Chernobyl-like. Problems do not change the direction of change.
But overall the different purposes, reflected in ship designs, stems from the geographic economy.
Nice comments, appreciated!. I’m in the process of researching the NSR and shipping for my forthcoming academic work. So thank you for the info on the MacKinder thesis, I had forgotten it! The use of US carriers is ” exceptionalism in its purest form”, very costly and I wonder is it really worth the cost, compared to unhindered merchant shipping routes. I’m not an economist.
Maritime police ops aren’t new, take the example of the Horn of Africa or even the interdiction of Barbary pirates in the 19thC.
LeDahu
You asked, ” I wonder is it really worth the cost, compared to unhindered merchant shipping routes. ”
The answer is no. It is not worth the cost compared to unhindered shipping routes. It is an added impost which other people are forced to pay.
Si
Delmar Bolshi
You wrote that, “One US carrier costs enough to feed and clothe the planet. One US carrier alone has a global effect on the environment… (unpublished Thesis at UW).”
I would like to read more about these two points. Can you direct me to where I can find out about these?
Thanks.
Si
Thesis was written by a person who cannot be named online. I am sorry… A senior thesis in the Engineering department at U Wa….might be a place to look.
But any PE who knows his salt, really any smart kid, can work it out from public data. It’s really pretty obvious. Start counting the number of deaths from the reactor fuel alone…
And no, the carriers exist in a failed exploitative policy, essentially a European diaspora, beginning in 1492, into the Americas looting and dominating whatever they liked, all the way across the continents – and even across the Pacific! The policy worked for a long time. Now it can’t work.
This represents, for the essentially Anglo-Saxon holders of power, a classical phase change in the a-priori canon of political belief. As the objective realities descend upon this collective delusional mind many, as we see, become irrational… (Very dangerous!) But more than that, one of the icons they will have to see shattered will be the carriers.
Let us hope that comes about through professional ship-breakers and not by means of anti-ship missiles…
Adios!
LD
Thanks for the update.
I think one important reason the AK group was sent to Syria was so their anti-air batteries could bolster the existing air defense forces in Syria. A deterrent against a desperate american surprise mass cruise missile strike. The powerful SA batteries of AK & PV alone effectively doubled the long range defenses, while the two escorts’ batteries increased this further still.
Once it became clear their would be no american attack, the AK group was free to leave. I have not seen anything about whether all of the AK’s air compliment is returning with the ship, or if some stayed behind to continue striking israel/american/nato terrorists. I’m wondering mostly of the ground attack helicopters.
Judging from the video of the Gen Haftar’s visit, most aircraft have been accounted for, except for the Ka 52K ! How many were onboard originally is not know.
I mentioned the air defences in a previous Brief that’s why I didn’t go into details this time, but it’s good to ‘repin’ this in the comments.
LeDahu, thanks a lot for your report! It’s always a pleasure to get educated by someone’s well done & honest homework.
Awaiting your next posts with curiosity!
Cheers.
Russian Defense ministry understands the Anglo-American need for “tit for tat” response ( otherwise no respect)
https://www.rt.com/news/375155-russia-comments-trident-scandal/