Totally obsolete: Russia’s ambition to match U.S. naval power with a fleet of aircraft carriers has long been hampered by geographic constraints and the limited number of warm-water ports. Historically, Russia has favored significant firepower over carrier-based power projection.

-Today, advances in anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) systems, hypersonic missiles, and drones make carriers increasingly vulnerable. Unlike the United States, which is deeply invested in carrier-based strategies, Russia can avoid this “sunk cost” trap. As the Ukrainian conflict shows, traditional naval dominance may be less relevant, highlighting the limitations of the aircraft carrier in modern warfare.

-A move away from carriers could better position Russia for future strategic influence in Eurasia.

Why Russia’s geography limits its dreams of naval power

Russia is a continental power. Spanning 11 time zones, from the Baltic Sea to the Pacific Ocean, this historic land power dreams of becoming a naval superpower. However, with only four hot water portsand more land borders than maritime, this desire to become a great navy has always been nothing more than wishful thinking. It is certain that Russia, during the Soviet era, developed a powerful navy…especially in terms of heavy cruisers and nuclear submarines.

But Soviet and now Russian naval doctrine and strategic objectives were fundamentally different from those of its main rival, the United States Navy.

While the United States is basically a giant island (surrounded by the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans as well as the Gulf of Mexico), the United States has enjoyed far greater naval power than the Russians ever had – or could ever have – due to the simple reality of American geography.

For this reason, the United States developed a powerful fleet in which gigantic nuclear-powered aircraft carriers formed the basis of all its power projection capabilities. For the Russians, their fleet was focused on the profitability of heavy firepower without aircraft carriers.

During the Cold War, the Soviets coveted the capacity of American aircraft carriers. In the 1980s, when everything in the USSR was falling apart, Moscow spent exorbitant amounts of money it didn’t need to build its own transport capacity.

THE Admiral Kuznetsov was the result of this effort. Still in use today (sort of), the Russian flat roof is the butt of every joke in the world. To be frank, the Russian carrier is a floating disaster. The Russians keep it to maintain a minimum of transport capacity, even though neither the Russian nor any other army would take the threat seriously from the Admiral Kuznetsov laid.

Aircraft carriers are obsolete

Unlike the Cold War era, anti-zone/access denial (A2/AD) capabilities have evolved to such an extent that they, in collaboration with hypersonic missiles, unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs) as well as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and submarines have all congealed into perfect aircraft carrier killing machines.

Therefore, the idea that the Russian Navy would waste even a single ruble to build any type of flat roof strains credulity. Additionally, the fact that Russia’s conflicts that would involve its navy are all closer to Eurasia means that the Russian military doesn’t really need to build expensive aircraft carriers to project its power.

Just look at the war in Ukraine. The only area where Ukraine has always performed well against Russia was in the maritime domain. Unfortunately for kyiv, Ukraine is a primarily land rather than naval war. Thus, superior Russian ground forces can attack the besieged Ukrainians to their breaking point.

This is despite the fact that Ukrainian drones have been incredibly successful in sinking or damaging key Russian warships docked at the historic headquarters of the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol. The loss of the flagship of the Black Sea Fleet, THE Moskva, for example, it did little to harm Russian power projection in Ukraine.

Yet if Russia were to build a serious aircraft carrier, that ship would be threatened by the same types of anti-ship systems that China threatens today against US aircraft carriers in the Indo-Pacific and that US-backed activists Iran, like Houthi rebels in Yementhreaten American carriers in the Greater Middle East.

The Americans are trapped in the sunk cost of the aircraft carrier. Today, no other nation needs to make this mistake.

In fact, the nation that first recognizes the obsolescence of the flat roof and acts accordingly will likely be the nation that dominates the next war. If Russia really wanted to compete with America for primacy in Eurasia, it would not waste its time on expensive, complex and easy targets, like the aircraft carrier.

Author Experience and Expertise: Brandon J. Weichert

Brandon J. Weicherta national security project of national interest analystis a former congressman and geopolitical analyst who contributes to The Washington Times, Asia Times, and The-Pipeline. He is the author of Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower, Biohacked: China’s Race to Control Life, and The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy. His next book, A Disaster of Our Own Making: How the West Lost Ukraine, is due October 22 from Encounter Books. Weichert can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.

All images are Creative Commons or Shutterstock.

From the safe

Russia panicked: why the US Navy didn’t withdraw the Iowa-class battleships

Battleship versus battlecruiser: Iowa class versus Russian Kirov class (who wins?)