And don't forget the 1143.8 which seems to have been the modified second Ul'yanovsk class ship. Given the various designs considered for what became Kuznetzov it seems like a chosen design was assigned to a sequential number rather than the number being particularly reflective of the design evolution of the ship.
Attached is supposedly a model of the final Project 11780 design. Apparently, at this point senior navy officers had become concerned that the General Staff were trying to add a ski-jump to the bow so they could call it a carrier and have the amphibious ships constructed at Mikolaiv (the only Soviet yard capable of building them)* instead of the scheduled full-carriers so the twin 130mm main gun and Kinzhal units were moved to the bow to prevent this. Whether thats true or not the effect is a doubling of both the Kashtan and Kinzhal systems.
The design was probably meant to be able to carry two Naval Battalion landing teams (versus one in the Ivan Rogov class), meaning that an 11780 and an Ivan Rogov class would probably be able to lift almost an entire Naval Infantry regiment. Two 11780s certainly should have been able too. Given the largest Soviet naval infantry formations were in the Pacific facing Hokkaido, and that was their longest range amphibious objective, it seems logical to assume that 11780s would have been deployed there.
*One of the curious aspects of the post-war Soviet carrier and large surface warship programmes is their failure to develop infrastructure to build and support them, they never see to have developed a truly modern shipyard to build these vessels and they never built large dry-docks for them either. The sinking of PD50, itself acquired from Sweden in the 1980s, is a byproduct of this and that incident seems to have been a catalyst to finally create a large dry dock at Murmansk.
thebarentsobserver.com
