• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Russian and Soviet Aircraft Carriers

ceccherini

In war there is no substitute for victory
Joined
Feb 26, 2015
Messages
107
Reaction score
81
In the planning stages of the postwar fleet many large carrier projects based on Graf Zeppelin were studied. The largest one was "Option 33" with a standard displacement of over 82000 tons and a full load displacement of nearly 90000 ton for a waterline length of 350 meters and a beam of 41 meters. Basically a Soviet equivalent of the nearly contemporary United States albeit apparently with a classic tactical role. Also impressive was the planned powerplant of 380000 hp, nearly one and an half that of CVA-58 project of only slightly smaller displacement, I guess at least 6 propellers were needed.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20201216_153320.jpg
    Screenshot_20201216_153320.jpg
    95.5 KB · Views: 103
  • Screenshot_20201216_153235.jpg
    Screenshot_20201216_153235.jpg
    59.5 KB · Views: 82
Last edited:

Kresta II

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Sep 26, 2006
Messages
4
Reaction score
7
Some Soviet pre-WWII and WWII carrier projects data.

Prewar projects (1936-1941), wartime projects (1942-44), finally recommended "carriers-1945" and hybrid battle-carriers and cruiser-carriers (1934-39) in comparision of German WWII hybrid projects:
 

Attachments

  • USSRCarrier-prewar.jpg
    USSRCarrier-prewar.jpg
    2.5 MB · Views: 60
  • USSRCarrier-WWII.jpg
    USSRCarrier-WWII.jpg
    3 MB · Views: 51
  • USSRCarrier-1945final.jpg
    USSRCarrier-1945final.jpg
    2.7 MB · Views: 43
  • USSRCarrier-hybrid1.jpg
    USSRCarrier-hybrid1.jpg
    2.8 MB · Views: 43
  • USSRCarrier-hybrid2.jpg
    USSRCarrier-hybrid2.jpg
    1.3 MB · Views: 62

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
484
Reaction score
635
some kind of new mid size carrier concept from Russia
english version here

5946567.jpg
 

starviking

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
1,131
Reaction score
257
At least one of the launch positions (catapults?) obstructed by the landing area. The island would take a pounding in heavy seas - and the crew members there would need super-sea legs because of the range of motion there, that’s if they weren’t swimming for their lives.
 
Last edited:

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,152
Reaction score
1,816
Does it have a catapult? Note sure if those lines are markings or a catapult? Looks more like the usual CTOL with a big blast shield, but weirdly no ski deck if it is CTOL.
Also if they were catapults then I'm assuming EMALS unless they have some steam plant aboard. Can't see much in the way of any uptakes/downtakes for the powerplant (steam or COGOG).
Agreed on the island location, too far forward. Someone has put too much emphasis on the deck park.
I can't help thinking this is more of an artists impression that an actual design.
 

Tzoli

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,561
Reaction score
847
Would a full Diesel power plant applicable for such a carrier?
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
484
Reaction score
635
can anyone make out what those 3 black aircraft are? i guess the blue ones are mig-29Ks
 

observer144

Just observing
Joined
Feb 20, 2015
Messages
9
Reaction score
4
At least one of the launch positions (catapults?) obstructed by the landing area. The island would take a pounding in heavy seas - and the crew members there would need super-sea legs because of the range of motion there, that’s if they weren’t swimming for their lives.

Is it really a concern that the launch and landing areas obstruct? Look at the waist catapults on the US carriers or even the forward launch area on the CdG. I don't think the current operating cycles on those carriers have concurrent launch and landing operations (even if using only the bow cats).
 

robunos

You're Mad, You Are.....
Senior Member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
1,970
Reaction score
375
. . . The island would take a pounding in heavy seas - and the crew members there would need super-sea legs because of the range of motion there, that’s if they weren’t swimming for their lives.

The forward part of the island appears to have a similar shape to the Ulstein 'X-Bow' concept :-


maybe to mitigate precisely this . . . :rolleyes:

cheers,
Robin.
 

Firefinder

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
104
Reaction score
140
Would a full Diesel power plant applicable for such a carrier?
Dont see why not.

The Mearsk B class container ships can hit 36 knots fully loaded with over 4k teus onboard and cruise around at 29 knots with her diesel plants.

The power is there, but turbines are better at weight to power and maintainablity.
 

Tzoli

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,561
Reaction score
847
I've suggested because of the lack of funnels and by the model it looked like a medium sized carrier.
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
484
Reaction score
635
wow this guy took a lot of money

Unfortunately this corruption case just strengthens this earlier Jamestown report about shipyard corruption being a major barrier in the construction of a new carrier
 

kaiserbill

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
1,428
Reaction score
382
That 2nd article is riddled with various "assumptions" that are then used to arrive at immutable conclusions sought by the author, if we are being generous. But this is by design, not accident.
It's not useful quoting sources like Jamestown.org if you want a true, balanced picture of what's going on.. problems as well as successes.
Jamestown has a remit to fulfill.
Who funded the Foundation during setup, the language used in the article, as well as a perusal of the website really should give you a clue what that remit is.
 
Last edited:

Kat Tsun

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jun 16, 2013
Messages
108
Reaction score
33
Yes, the article is too optimistic. There's plenty of room for axe grinding against the Russian MOD, but I'm not seeing it there. Russian yards becoming boutique submarine shops is a very real "threat" to the Russian shipbuilding industry, especially if the economy integrates more with the PRC. The PRC has trouble making good subs, the Russians have trouble making good surface ships, and Germany and Korea can potentially supply them both with machine tools and random ancillary components (turbines, diesels, pumps). They're all a natural fit for a unified Eurasian shipbuilding economy over the coming decades because they play off each others' specific weaknesses very well.

That said the Russian MOD talking about things it will not be able to do is nothing new, though.

Any new large surface combatants are probably going to be brushed aside in favor of supporting the shrinking submarine fleet. There's no reason for Russia to buy an aircraft carrier if it can't afford all the subs it thinks it needs, because the point of the carrier is to provide aviation outside, or at the margins of, the range of land based airfields.

Poseidon and Belogorod are the Russian Navy's real jewels at the moment.

After that I suppose the MOD's focused on improving the air forces with new Su-35s, getting a couple dozen T-50s flying to make NATO quiver in fear, and trying to make the strategic nuclear forces less crummy looking. In order from least to most important. Fixed wing carriers really aren't even on the Russian radar anymore with the all-but-admitted cancellation of Lider and no serious plans for a large fleet carrier. Maybe they'll get a LPD if they're lucky but that seems unlikely, since any funding is going to be needed for submarine production, as the strategic missile forces are eating the surface forces budget (both for the Navy and in general), and VDV/Wagner Group seem to be getting all the "door kicker" expeditionary jobs recently.

Currently it looks like the future of the Russian naval aviation is flying from the increasing creaky Kuznetsov, and most naval surface shipyard efforts going to ripping out bits of Kuzzles and making him less creaky. Russia needs an external backer, ultimately, to get any new major surface ships. Like France. Or Turkey.You can check back around 5 to 10 years from now to see if that changes substantially, but I doubt it will. Focus will still be around developing the Arctic bastions with a localized, nuclear powered SOSUS, increasing range of SSBN's atomic missiles so they don't have to leave the bastions at all (ideally) and wander beyond the range of land based aviation, and production of offensive anti-carrier task force weapons like Zircon and Poseidon for the VMF air force and undersea fleet.

Carriers will still be talked about but it's mostly just talk until one actually floats, flies jets, and outlives Kuznetsov in service. And despite memes about the "rusty Russian Navy", by any real metric I'd suspect Kuznetsov still has a couple decades of life (if not more) left in her. USS Harry Truman, a ship of similar vintage, almost certainly won't be vanishing in the next 5 to 10 years and is about as old as Kuznetsov. So I'd expect the Russian Navy to not seriously consider, nor need, a new fleet carrier until the 2040's.

A really big brained move (in terms of actually fighting other navies) would be to confine Kuznetsov to port for continual maintenance and readiness until she sorties to generate air power at the edge of land based aviation's range, like how the old sub fleet was kept as a fleet-in-being ready to go in Soviet times. But that would be limiting her to an actual design role and not shoehorning her into playing political hockey by sailing around carrying the Russian flag. I think it could go either way: Kuznetsov either becomes a hangar queen that can fight if needed, or becomes the Charles de Gaulle.

That said the ship is barely 25 years old so she's got some life left and the Russians have time to decide if they're going to build a new ship (unlikely) or do something like buy a Chinese Type 002 (more likely) in 20 years. However, the fact is that the only thing Russia "needs" is a new drydock and lots of new electrical cabling to overhaul Kuznetsov for another mid-life upgrade.
 
Last edited:

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,099
Reaction score
1,801
The Soviet Union sensibly focussed on systems designed to kill or disable US carriers. The combination of long range aircraft and nuclear submarines would have achieved this in many cases.
Neither Russia nor China have so far been able to replicate the resources available to the old USSR in 1988.
China has a long way to go before it can deploy Akulas and Oscars and Backfires in any quantity. Poor Mr Putin can only hope to keep those he has left a bit longer.
 

Kat Tsun

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jun 16, 2013
Messages
108
Reaction score
33
Yes, you're correct the Chinese and Russians have not replicated the resources of the USSR. It isn't clear why they would when these are obsolete.

Considering Russia is investing in long range cruise torpedoes for killing carriers, it seems unlikely it will need a carrier besides "showing the flag". Hence the Charles de Gaulle comparison. Yasen looks to be on track to replace all dozen or so Akulas, plus or minus a couple, while the three or four Belogorods will become the premier anti-carrier boats of the Northern and Pacific fleets. Boreis will replace the Delta IVs and who cares what happens to the Typhoons I guess. The rest of the Russian Navy will be a glorified coast guard of a dozen or so frigates, a handful of air defense and anti-sub ships al a Sovremenny/Udaloy, and Kuznetsov.

New surface ships in the Russian Navy are going to shrink continually and the only large ones will be Soviet era vessels like Kuznetsov. There's not really a need when Russian boats aren't operating outside of Russian oceans i.e. the Baltic, Black Sea, and Barents and White Seas. These are well within land based aviation like T-50 and so the need for the carrier becomes one of symbolism rather than actual utility. Hence the Admiral Gorshkovs are extremely cramped, tiny, and short legged but have fairly impressive strike capabilities for punting cruise missiles at ISIS towns in Syria or whatever. Whatever comes of the Mistral domestic replacement will probably equally be short legged and cramped, since its only intended for small hops across tiny puddles rather than spanning big trans-oceanic gaps. Assuming it ever gets built. AIUI the Priboy is supposed to be something around 15,000 or 25,000 tons (depending on who you ask and what time of day it is, as there's no particular reason to correct press reports that are being read by foreign intelligence agencies) or so based on the Krylov and Nevsky models shown around a few years ago.

China is veering off topic in a thread about Kuznetsov, though, but the Russians buying a Chinese carrier to replace the Kuznetsov is a possibility in the far future, albeit a distant one. They've shown they can't make a major surface warship without outside help. They'd probably prefer to buy French or German, though, at the end of the day. Submarines OTOH are fine-ish for Russia as of now, and they recently laid down a new Yasen, so they seem to be keeping a reasonable schedule.
 
Last edited:

kaiserbill

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
1,428
Reaction score
382
Sigh.
This old chestnut again, fellows.....

Russia has already laid down two large Type 23900 Universal Amphibious Assault Ships.
These were laid down simultaneously on the 20th July 2020 in Zaliv, and both have names already.
Ivan Rogov and Mitrofan Moskalenko.
These are larger than the Mistral Class, with latest reports being they are in the region of about 30 000t plus.

This was widely reported on with news and videos of the event, with President Putin himself being there, gave a speech, and screwed the brass nameplates on himself at the ceremony.

It's been mentioned already on this very thread.
It's not exactly a secret, and the info is freely available out there, only a few clicks away and some basic searching.

Yantar has also laid down two Ivan Gren follow-ons, a larger, different design of about 9 000t.

In my analysis, there must be a sound reason Russia wants to keep Kuznetsov around, and it's shipborne fixed-wing aviation going.
These are dots that can be connected.

This does not mean that a new carrier is imminent. This is unknowable right now, except within the top Russian naval and political circles. I personally suspect post 2030 sometime, unless there is a further and rapid deterioration in global politics.
The only thing I wonder about is what form a new Russian carrier will take.

There has been sustained and easily verifiable reinvestment into Russian shipyards. There is a huge new modern shipyard, Zvezda, nearing completion in Vladivostok, and although slated to initially build very large vessels for oil and gas, it is owned by USC. It has already launched a 114 000t dwt tanker with facilities that were completed in the 1st phase of the shipyard construction, and will have the ability to construct ships up to 350 000t.
It is tailor made for a new carrier.
If Russia replaces Kuznetsov, it will build it herself. It will not buy a carrier from China when it simply doesn't need to.

So, not meant personally Kat Tsun, and with respect, but IMHO your analysis regarding vessel size of the surface fleet is demonstrably very, very wide off the mark. Miles wide.
 

Attachments

  • EdYmmyoXYAAJLtb.png
    EdYmmyoXYAAJLtb.png
    749.9 KB · Views: 22
  • 1-54.jpg
    1-54.jpg
    84.2 KB · Views: 41
  • 8060080_original-1024x568.jpg
    8060080_original-1024x568.jpg
    63.7 KB · Views: 49
Last edited:

Kat Tsun

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jun 16, 2013
Messages
108
Reaction score
33
TBF, the original orders reported for many years were for 15,000 or 25,000 ton warships to be laid down in Crimea in 2017, to be laid down in May 2020, for a cost of about 40 billion RUB each. The Ivan Rogov's reported cost and construction start date fit both of those.

IIRC the 15,000 tonner was Nevsky's submission, and the 25,000 tonner is Krylov's. So it's not surprising that Nevsky would start throwing around a baby carrier for the Russian Navy, considering they just lost a major contract, but AFAIK the Priboy is not some giga LHD. And yes USC is perfectly capable of building large tankers. It's not really a question of if they could build it, it's more whether the Russian Navy wants it (they do) and whether the MOD is willing to foot the bill (they aren't). Why else drop Lider and the Storm?

One carrier is not a particularly substantial fighting force regardless. There's a reason the USSR built three Kuznetsovs after all. The point of Kuznetsov today is more to show that Russia is a "big country". A bit like how France has a Charles de Gaulle, it's more symbolic than practical, because Kuznetsov will be sitting in port most of the year (again, like CdG). Not to imply that there's anything wrong with that reasoning (diplomatic muscle has proven more useful than military muscle since few large countries have come to blows), but I don't think Kuznetsov's retention has anything to do with her performance as a combat ship fighting other navies.

The actual reasons are 1) to retain the skills of carrier operation in a naval air forces cadre, 2) to show the flag of Russia, 3) to fight, in that order.

I guess it's possible that Russia could be bringing back the Kherson or something, but it's a rather rapid turnaround after many years of wanting "basically Mistral". OTOH maybe Yevmenov managed to pull some strings after the Marines landed in Syria? That would be pretty dope.
 

TR1

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Aug 12, 2020
Messages
53
Reaction score
163
Lider wasn't really dropped- Severnoye Design Bureau just reported the MOD did not order anything after the draft design was completed in 2016.
Project 23560 was not seriously planned until late next decade anyways, a lot can and will change by then.
For one, Zvezda will be up and running, and the Severnaya Wharf reconstruction will actually be complete after the current snafu is cleaned up.

Domestic turbines for 22350 sized ships are only now being mounted on Golovko, production needs to scale up, then M90FR will be developed into the engines for the 22350M. I am very curious what engines are planned for 23900, but I have a feeling the engine makers will have plenty of time to figure that question out.

I am sure something bigger than 22350M will be built, but if it will be "just" 1164 cruiser sized or actually huge is a good question.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
5,142
Reaction score
3,027
Considering the present shape of Russia those days, the bottom three (44000 tons and less) sound much more realistic options...
 

tequilashooter

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 2, 2021
Messages
243
Reaction score
207
I definitely want the Varan because of appearance wise, it will also go well with the aesthetics of using VTOL drones probably in development like the fregat drones because of size.

Nordstream 2 and arctic projects might boost their economy to get bigger aircraft carriers, but currently I dont see that option.
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,099
Reaction score
1,801
In an ideal world some of these wonderful looking Russian designs would be getting built to serve a proud and free country working with friends and allies overseas. Always enjoy the "very Russian" (see the film "Red Heat") approach to military kit.
I shall never forget seeing a red, blue and white Su27 perform Pugachev's Cobra on a sunny day at Biggin Hill.
 

Antonio

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,534
Reaction score
313
Some links for your Russian carrier projects enjoyment:




Moderator note:
Please, remember that sources citation can be a gesture of recognition for those talented people who, generously share their creations with us, for free.
 

Antonio

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,534
Reaction score
313
As a complement to the links in post #269

Military Russia contents on USSR and Russia aircraft carrier projects


I also found this link about the Pr 1123 Kondor.
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
484
Reaction score
635
^ is it just me or is Varan or 11435 looking like the most realistic option?
 

Tzoli

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,561
Reaction score
847
11435 ( or 1143.5) should be Kuznetsov herself!
to my knowledge the 1143 series consist of:

Project 1143.1 (1970): Kiev class carrier
Project 1143.2 (1972): Modified Kiev class carrier Minsk
Project 1143.3 (1975): Improved Kiev class carrier Novorossiysk
Project 1143.4 (1978): Kiev Mod class carrier Baku
Project 1143.5 (1982): Admiral Kuznetsov class carrier
Project 1143.5M (???): Modernized Admiral Kuznetsov class carrier
Project 1143.6 (1985): Modified Admiral Kuznetsov class carrier Varyag
Project 1143.7 (1988): Ulyanovsk class nuclear-powered carrier
 

Tzoli

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,561
Reaction score
847
I often got confused by the design numbers Russia / Soviet Union uses. As some sites states 5 digit numbers without dots other include the dot.
 

Tzoli

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,561
Reaction score
847
I often got confused by the design numbers Russia / Soviet Union uses. As some sites states 5 digit numbers without dots other include the dot.
Yeah, our project numeration is sometimes... annoying.
It does not helps either that many civilan ships had such project numbers as well and from time to time the same number was allocated for a warship class and say a riverine passenger ship "class".
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,152
Reaction score
1,816
I have tried my best to unravel the project numbering system here.

It is a confusing system, especially when the 0 prefix is used for more recent numbers.
 

Tzoli

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,561
Reaction score
847
I have tried my best to unravel the project numbering system here.

It is a confusing system, especially when the 0 prefix is used for more recent numbers.

Indeed.
Some years ago myself too collected a large number of such designations but I'm not sure if I've posted them here as well..
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,152
Reaction score
1,816
The only other large-scale English-language listing seems to be the Globalsecurity one complied in the early 2000s but it has several errors in it. I had to trawl through a lot of Russian language sites to try and piece together bits, especially for the civilian ships.
The GDR system must have had labyrinthine levels of opacity for security reasons and it beats the hell out of me!
 
Top