In an interview with TASS, retired Vice Admiral Vladimir Pepelyaev, formerly the deputy chief of general staff of the Russian Navy, discussed the spectrum of aircraft carrier projects under consideration by Russia. He highlighted a single design named Storm as the most feasible among the contemporary proposals. The admiral’s remarks point to a cautious assessment within Russia’s defense community about how to modernize maritime air power while balancing technical feasibility, budgetary considerations, and strategic doctrine.
Pepelyaev noted that during the 2010s, under guidance from the Ministry of Defense, the Krylov State Research Center conducted extensive studies alongside the Nevsky Design Bureau and aviation research institutes. The outcome of these efforts was the development of six candidate concepts for a new carrier. A seventh variant, marketed as an export version of the Storm, was also showcased at maritime exhibitions. The emphasis across these options was to explore different hull forms, flight deck arrangements, and propulsion systems to determine the most viable path forward for Russia’s naval aviation ambitions.
The former vice admiral stressed that any of the six designs could serve as a solid basis for a future carrier. He argued that strategic experience gained from special operations and the operational history of the cruiser Admiral Kuznetsov, including its voyage to the coast of Syria, as well as lessons learned from similar ships of potential adversaries, should inform the design. Specifically, he suggested expanding the air wing to include radar patrol aircraft and unmanned aerial vehicles, thereby enhancing reconnaissance, early warning, and strike capabilities. This perspective aligns with a broader trend in naval modernization seen in several major powers, where mixed air power and unmanned systems are considered essential for carrier effectiveness.
Historical notes point to Britain’s HMS Prince of Wales as a reference in discussions about carrier operations, particularly during maneuvers toward northern waters. Such references underscore how international experiences shape Russia’s thinking on carrier deployment, air defense, and command-and-control architectures. The discussion also touched on budgetary realities that influence decision-making in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, as deficits can constrain carrier procurement and the scope of accompanying air wings. These cross-national considerations are relevant to Canadian and American readers who monitor allied and adversary naval modernization programs in the North Atlantic and Arctic regions.
In recent exchanges, British officials reportedly refuted the sale of an aircraft carrier due to financial constraints, a reminder that the economics of maintaining and exporting large naval platforms are a global concern. For analysts in North America, the Storm concept illustrates how traditional carrier designs are being reimagined through modular payloads, improved deck operations, and smarter integration with unmanned systems. The Canadian and American defense communities watch such developments closely, given shared maritime routes, coalition operations, and the evolving threat landscape in the Atlantic and beyond.
Overall, Pepelyaev’s assessment frames Storm as the most realistic option among Russia’s current carrier studies, while leaving space for alternative configurations to adapt to shifting strategic objectives. The emphasis on expanding the air wing with radar-equipped patrol planes and drones suggests a move toward more versatile, cost-effective near-term capabilities while keeping open the possibility of more ambitious future iterations. For policymakers and defense planners in Canada and the United States, these insights provide a window into how Russia might balance technical feasibility with strategic signaling in its naval modernization program.