Russian and Soviet Aircraft Carriers

kaiserbill said:
Is this dock for repairs only and unsuitable for construction?
Click to expand...
It's a repairt-only facility, both by equipment and by dock itself.
The new drydock consists of two parts - narrower inner part that's made from two smaller drydock for subs/frigates. From the photos, it's enough only for Kuz in width. If Russia plans a bigger AC (for example, Ulyanovsk revision), it may not fit. Outer part is big and theoretically you can put even a Nimitz-sized AC there. But then again, there is no significant production facilities there and no place to fit big cranes.
kaiserbill said:
What about the 2 large helicopter vessels currently being built for the navy?
Click to expand...
Kerch shipyadrds have max width of 60m so theoretically you have no limits on AC waterline width, hover current two cranes are also ~60 m wide and 320t each, so at very least you have to replace them with something wider and heavy lifting so they wouldn't limit deck size. Still better than new shipyard form scratch.
There is however question of Bosphorus and will Turkey allow passage of AC? There were no problems with USSR AC, but it was 30 years ago.
@flateric, @Deino, could you please move last replies to the right thread?
 
timmymagic said:
Anduriel said:
The question isn't about money, as with raising energy prices Russia will have aplenty, sanctions or not.
Click to expand...
It absolutely is about money. The Russian budget deficit has increased during the war. They might be making more money due to energy prices but its being spent at a colossal daily rate in Ukraine and to support the Russian economy....make no mistake this war is draining their coffers. Post war they will also have to completely re-equip their army which is being eviscerated at present, as well as try and get a functioning air force. And they'll need to do this under sanctions (because they're not going away) as their main energy customer (Europe) moves rapidly away from dependence on them, they will not have the infrastructure to move those energy supplies to other markets. The Russian Navy wll be a distant fourth place in the hierarchy as usual (Strategic Rocket Forces, Army and Air Force ahead).

To build a carrier or carriers they're going to need money for a new carrier borne aircraft, new helos, escort vessels, supply ships...you name it before they actually build one.... thats a champagne price shopping list for a customer with beer money pockets...
Click to expand...

There are those who are equally competent as well who say that Russia, though going through another hard stretch, had prepared for this in detail and explain why Russia can weather the storm. Also explain that the plan to try and regime change Russia is not on the menu in the near future. I suggest listening to more than one side of things as this geopolitical maze is not so simple and not as black and white as 96 percent of western media portrays it to be.
 
Let's keep the politics out of it please.
This thread is for unbuilt Soviet and Russian carriers. Explanations why they remained on drawing paper is fair game for this thread, speculative futurology is not. If and when Russia does build a new carrier and lays a keel it will be newsworthy and more fitting for the Military section of the forum.
 
Jemiba said:
Is it me, or does that dock give the impression of being a rather makeshift one ?
Click to expand...
Unlike Vikra, where she was upgraded in Sevmash drydock (which isn't even a drydock in a classical sense), this one should be a proper one, made from two smaller ones by removing a wall between them for Kuz to fit in width, an lengthening it.
The reason why it so unpresentable is because Kuz was too long in waiting for a dock to be placed into, so when they made dock watertight via temporary gate, they quickly placed Kuz there while continuing construction of dock itself.
 
Last edited:
LMFS said:
Kat Tsun said:
Krylov is well known for shilling for their underwater hullforms in this manner of making a decent underwater hull and...let's say speculative above waterline area.
Click to expand...
The picture has nothing to do with the real model, which is simply a slightly wider than normal carrier with a hull that is conventional at the bow but has a split keel at the stern. They report big propulsive gains, huge flight deck and a substantial increase of the air wing in relation to the displacement, therefore it seems indeed a very promising approach.

View attachment 673949
Click to expand...
I love that design so much, here's some high-res photos that I've found
 

Attachments

  • 20230107_125557.jpg
    20230107_125557.jpg
    464 KB · Views: 262
  • 20230107_125601.jpg
    20230107_125601.jpg
    465 KB · Views: 245
  • 20230107_125608.jpg
    20230107_125608.jpg
    445.7 KB · Views: 213
  • 20230107_125609.jpg
    20230107_125609.jpg
    461.9 KB · Views: 213
Tzoli said:
They don't look real. Especially the navalized Mig-21 looking aircraft. I think delta wing is not a good choice for naval aircraft.
Click to expand...
The USN had a couple that worked pretty well.

Full delta:
F4D Skyray - it had exceptionally good low-speed handling, and was considered one of the best at taking off from and landing on a carrier.
Fords on FDR.jpg

It had enough thrust-weight to not need a catapult for light-load take-off from a carrier shorter than even the USN's Essex class:
F4D Deck Launch.jpg

Tailed delta (like the MiG-21):
A4D Skyhawk - served from carriers in 4 navies (USN, RAN, ARA, and MdoB) and from land with 5 more nations.
The non-US carriers were tiny, showing the Skyhawk's good carrier handling.

A-4Fs Blue Angels Fleur de Lis 1984.JPEG
 
F.L. said:
Very interesting, but what does this have to do in the Russian aircraft carriers thread ?
Click to expand...
Simply because we was discussing and eventual naval MiG-21. So the USN assessment seems to fit, indeed the only MiG-21 suitable for naval usage was the E-7/PD seen as potential concurrent of the Yakovlev 36/38.
 
JFC Fuller said:
There is another image online, appears to be a scan of the original printed version, that shows a prospective hangar deck layout with 24 of the Phantoms, 2 of the E-1 Tracers and 2 helicopters stowed. The E-1 Tracer also makes an appearance on the missile-tastic TsKB-17 1961 design here - I assume they're from the same author and/or book? Is there a data table?

I would love to see a picture of the TsKB-17 version of this TsNII 1959 PBIA concept.
Click to expand...
1702049037461.png

hi any one have the spec for this projetc.?
The draws in black and withe shows F-4 on abord. I know its russian.
I think is mora bigger than a Clemenceau. perhaps similar than the HMS Ark Royal in tons.
The insteresting is in the foward lift the F-4 fix with out folding wing and nose. It is not the case in the lateral.
I do a western version
1702049310549.png
I think the cat would be C-13 (in this what if)
But I like that russian project.
 
The Project 1143 Krechyet is described as an ancestor of the Kiev class.
1595190079451.png
naval-encyclopedia.com

Kirov class Battlecruisers (1977-90)

The Soviet Kirov class "Battlecruisers" by default of a better term, are indeed the most powerful guided missile cruiser ever built so far.
naval-encyclopedia.com naval-encyclopedia.com
 
Last edited:
F.L. said:
The Project 1143 Krechyet is described as an ancestor of the Kiev class.
View attachment 717532
naval-encyclopedia.com

Kirov class Battlecruisers (1977-90)

The Soviet Kirov class "Battlecruisers" by default of a better term, are indeed the most powerful guided missile cruiser ever built so far.
naval-encyclopedia.com naval-encyclopedia.com
Click to expand...
That article is a mess, it mixes up the design of ships like Project 81, Project 63 and Project 1126 which were designed in the late 1950s and first years of the early 1960s alongside the Korshun SAM system, which was designed a few years later.
 
Plupsnup said:
I love that design so much, here's some high-res photos that I've found
Click to expand...
Oh, BTW. This is Shtorm-KM from Krylov center. DW 76kt. Primary Nuclear powerplant w/ gas turbine secondary.
https://imgur.com/4LvYRRu
View: https://imgur.com/4LvYRRu


Still, design is quite dubious. Especially deck elevators, which became outdated in 40-es. Krylov center as always, good for designing and developing specific ship tech, but all their ship designs are strange, to say the least.
 
Anduriel said:
Especially deck elevators, which became outdated in 40-es. Krylov center as always, good for designing and developing specific ship tech, but all their ship designs are strange, to say the least.
Click to expand...

I'm reminded of an old adage about how Russians build things, going all the way back to the AN-2 Colt:

"Russians build things their way, for their own reasons".

We don't have to like or understand it.
 
DesScorp said:
I'm reminded of an old adage about how Russians build things, going all the way back to the AN-2 Colt:

"Russians build things their way, for their own reasons".

We don't have to like or understand it.
Click to expand...
Well it wasn't built, and pretty much every other Russian CATOBAR carrier design that I'm aware of from the late 1950s onwards has deck-edge elevators.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom