Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,604
Reaction score
3,056
A low freeboard carrier? I think it would count, you could classify as a flying boat/seaplane tender I suppose but given this was the early days of pioneering naval aviation, I would class this as an aircraft carrier.
 

Tzoli

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,777
Reaction score
1,085
More like a floating airfield (A carrier is a floating airbase)
 

Erdosain

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Messages
156
Reaction score
543

What is the denomination or name of this aircraft carrier?

Would this aircraft carrier become the second vessel in Project 1143 Modified Krechyet Class (BAKU Class for NATO)?
That is the fifth of the Kiev class.

If I remember correctly, Admiral Gorshkov was Project 1143.4 so this aircraft carrier equipped with Ski Jump and Yak-41 would be Project 1143.42?

Best regards
 

Tzoli

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,777
Reaction score
1,085

What is the denomination or name of this aircraft carrier?

Would this aircraft carrier become the second vessel in Project 1143 Modified Krechyet Class (BAKU Class for NATO)?
That is the fifth of the Kiev class.

If I remember correctly, Admiral Gorshkov was Project 1143.4 so this aircraft carrier equipped with Ski Jump and Yak-41 would be Project 1143.42?

Best regards

No Russian Project numbers don't go to the second fraction number.
See their numbering:

It would be like 1143.4M M for Modernizirovanniy (Modernized)
E for Eksport if it was for Export
or B for Bis (Modified)
 

that_person

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
May 26, 2021
Messages
40
Reaction score
57

What is the denomination or name of this aircraft carrier?

Would this aircraft carrier become the second vessel in Project 1143 Modified Krechyet Class (BAKU Class for NATO)?
That is the fifth of the Kiev class.

If I remember correctly, Admiral Gorshkov was Project 1143.4 so this aircraft carrier equipped with Ski Jump and Yak-41 would be Project 1143.42?

Best regards
I have no clue what it’s name was, but seeing as it has several Yak-141s on deck, it’s probably from the late 80s or early 90s. Also, I am thoroughly convinced this is a modernized Kiev.
 

Erdosain

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Messages
156
Reaction score
543

What is the denomination or name of this aircraft carrier?

Would this aircraft carrier become the second vessel in Project 1143 Modified Krechyet Class (BAKU Class for NATO)?
That is the fifth of the Kiev class.

If I remember correctly, Admiral Gorshkov was Project 1143.4 so this aircraft carrier equipped with Ski Jump and Yak-41 would be Project 1143.42?

Best regards

No Russian Project numbers don't go to the second fraction number.
See their numbering:

It would be like 1143.4M M for Modernizirovanniy (Modernized)
E for Eksport if it was for Export
or B for Bis (Modified)

Yes, but on this Russian website it appears as Project 1143.42 - development of the "Baku" Class with the possibility of basing conventional aircraft in addition to VTOL aircraft


Proyecto 1143.42_08.jpg
 

that_person

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
May 26, 2021
Messages
40
Reaction score
57

What is the denomination or name of this aircraft carrier?

Would this aircraft carrier become the second vessel in Project 1143 Modified Krechyet Class (BAKU Class for NATO)?
That is the fifth of the Kiev class.

If I remember correctly, Admiral Gorshkov was Project 1143.4 so this aircraft carrier equipped with Ski Jump and Yak-41 would be Project 1143.42?

Best regards

No Russian Project numbers don't go to the second fraction number.
See their numbering:

It would be like 1143.4M M for Modernizirovanniy (Modernized)
E for Eksport if it was for Export
or B for Bis (Modified)

Yes, but on this Russian website it appears as Project 1143.42 - development of the "Baku" Class with the possibility of basing conventional aircraft in addition to VTOL aircraft


View attachment 664718
The Yak-141s on the deck point to it being a much later project then the Baku.
 

EwenS

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
284
Reaction score
489
Much later?

Baku was under construction from 1978, finally commissioning in Dec 1987.

Yak 41M/141 development began around 1975 and the first flight was in March 1987 and development ran on until the early 1990s.

So it seems to me that they are very much of the same era.
 

Wyvern

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2020
Messages
910
Reaction score
1,186

Tzoli

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,777
Reaction score
1,085
Found this:


And on the russian alternative history site:
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,604
Reaction score
3,056
I would speculate that Pr.114342 was a possible option for a further improved Pr.11434 instead of Pr.11435 (Kuznetsov), perhaps for reasons of lower cost and commonality for a reduced build time.

The design is a curious hybrid, the island is subtlety different from Baku's (rear extension), the flight deck is very different with a true angled deck portion on the port side (wider) and the starboard sponson/deck extension is also much wider. The after lift has been moved further aft (this may indicate the hangar was extended further aft too). The bow section is new. The armament layout is also completely different, the Kinzhal silos having a layout similar to Pr.11435, inclusion of Kortik indicates the design dates from the early 1980s, the fixed angled Bassalt launchers I presume are to save internal hull space.

An interesting alternative but one that probably didn't look very attractive compared to the larger Pr.11435.
 
Last edited:

that_person

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
May 26, 2021
Messages
40
Reaction score
57
I would speculate that Pr.114342 was a possible option for a further improved Pr.11434 instead of Pr.11435 (Kuznetsov), perhaps for reasons of lower cost and commonality for a reduced build time.

The design is a curious hybrid, the island is subtlety different from Baku's (rear extension), the flight deck is very different with a true angled deck portion on the port side (wider) and the starboard sponson/deck extension is also much wider. The after lift has been moved further aft (this may indicate the hangar was extended further aft too). The bow section is new. The armament layout is also completely different, the Kinzhal silos having a layout similar to Pr.11435, inclusion of Kortik indicates the design dates from the early 1980s, the fixed angled Bassalt launchers I presume are to save internal hull space.

An interesting alternative but one that probably look very attractive compared to the larger Pr.11435.
The Kuznetsov was laid down in 1982, years before even the Baku would enter service. The Yak-141 and extensive design changes from the original Kiev hulls point to it being a new construction, and the timing of the Kuznetsov and Yak-141 also point towards this. I have been told that this was a proposal for a cheap ASW carrier that could be built by the mid-1990s. I believe that is indeed what this is, or at the very least an extensively modernized Kiev.
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,604
Reaction score
3,056
The Kuznetsov was laid down in 1982, years before even the Baku would enter service. The Yak-141 and extensive design changes from the original Kiev hulls point to it being a new construction
I think you've misunderstood my post, I said that Pr.114342 was an improved Pr.11434 design, not that it was the Baku.
I have seen claims in the past this was a rebuilt Kiev/Kiev Mod class proposal but that doesn't really fit with the kind of changes we're seeing here. It was certainly intended as a new build hull.
a proposal for a cheap ASW carrier
The airwing depicted of Yak-141 and Yak-44 would tend to negate that presumption - although no helicopters are shown on deck there are 11 helicopter landing spots, which is greater than the previous Kievs and Baku had, so presumably helicopters were also intended to be carried.
The other change is the complete lack of Vikh'r/Retel, RBU or torpedo tubes compared to the previous Pr.1143 series ships, which again indicates that ASW was not a primary role for the Pr.114342. It is much closer in terms of the air defence/surface strike role of Pr.1143. But I do agree that this design would probably have been better oriented to ASW instead.
 

Tzoli

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
1,777
Reaction score
1,085
Yes seems like a somewhat smaller sized and thus cheaper Kuznetsov. It is surely more economical but we know after Kuznetsov the Soviets thinking big with the Ulyanovsk aka the Sovietsky Nimitz :)
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
897
Reaction score
1,550
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.

While I know the Russian defense industry certainly has the skills to make large carriers..
I wonder if the country itself really needs them, or if they are better served with smaller 20-30000t type ships that carry 20 or so combat aircraft (either in stobar form or some new vstol aircraft), when considering the financial situation, defense needs, operational costs, etc.
 

that_person

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
May 26, 2021
Messages
40
Reaction score
57
What?!?! Russia has the industry to make carriers?? That’s a complete contradiction to everything I’ve been told. All the shipyards that built the Soviet carriers are in Ukraine, and the largest thing they’ve built since would’ve been that Kirov they finished post-1991. Even when they tried converting the Baku for India it was years behind schedule and way over budget. The Kuznetsov herself is barely functional even when she isn’t getting sunk by cranes. Russia doesn’t have the docks, budget, or skills to build large carriers.
 

Firefinder

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
184
Reaction score
282
What?!?! Russia has the industry to make carriers?? That’s a complete contradiction to everything I’ve been told. All the shipyards that built the Soviet carriers are in Ukraine, and the largest thing they’ve built since would’ve been that Kirov they finished post-1991. Even when they tried converting the Baku for India it was years behind schedule and way over budget. The Kuznetsov herself is barely functional even when she isn’t getting sunk by cranes. Russia doesn’t have the docks, budget, or skills to build large carriers.
Needs to be pointed out that Russia recently...

Acquired... The docks that built the Kuz. Its in terrible shape since it been in moth balls basically since the 90s but its there and they are rebuilding it.
 

Saber

Long way up the mirror
Joined
Dec 6, 2017
Messages
49
Reaction score
60
What?!?! Russia has the industry to make carriers?? That’s a complete contradiction to everything I’ve been told. All the shipyards that built the Soviet carriers are in Ukraine, and the largest thing they’ve built since would’ve been that Kirov they finished post-1991. Even when they tried converting the Baku for India it was years behind schedule and way over budget. The Kuznetsov herself is barely functional even when she isn’t getting sunk by cranes. Russia doesn’t have the docks, budget, or skills to build large carriers.
Needs to be pointed out that Russia recently...

Acquired... The docks that built the Kuz. Its in terrible shape since it been in moth balls basically since the 90s but its there and they are rebuilding it.

Kuz was built in Nikolaev, which remains part of Ukraine since it isn't in Crimea and could hardly be returned to use given that it's shipbuilding capabilities were utterly destroyed by Ukrainian "businessmen" who demolished part of it to use as a grain terminal, and sold off most of it's metalworking equipment as scrap metal. There is a famous story about it's 1000 ton crane which was attempted to be sold for scrap metal but the equipment necessary to disassemble the crane had already been sold off as scrap metal. 30 years of glorious independence lol.

With regards to the capability, the Russians certainly have the reactor industry for it as well as metalworking ability, only serious showstopper would be the catapult/retrieval systems as well as powertrain, (though depending on what they use such as nuclear-electric taken off the icebreakers, this issue could be a minor one).

All that remains is to select the shipyard, Zvezda is up to the ears in orders, Severnaya could complete it partially but is also busy and will be more in the future, Baltica is busy and also needs to remodel itself, Sevmash somewhat has space but that would block off one of the shipbuilding halls for submarines not to mention they're own metalworking facilities are busy with submarines anyway. And Zaliv is busy with the helo carriers(who's combined tonnage is that of a supercarrier). It is likely that they will be the ones to do the carrier program after the two helo carriers have vacated the drydock.

You can safely assume that any carrier project would be worked on by multiple yards to make use of every spare bit of capacity and simply assemble it at one yard, kind of like how the British did it with their floating megablock method. One shipyard would provide the space for final assembly and outfitting, 1-2 or more other yards that don't have space but spare capacity for metalworking would ship in blocks for assembly.

They also still maintain the skillset with their on shore facility plus Kuz will still be around to operate with to maintain skillset as well.
 

Anduriel

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Messages
96
Reaction score
153
What?!?! Russia has the industry to make carriers?? That’s a complete contradiction to everything I’ve been told. All the shipyards that built the Soviet carriers are in Ukraine, and the largest thing they’ve built since would’ve been that Kirov they finished post-1991. Even when they tried converting the Baku for India it was years behind schedule and way over budget. The Kuznetsov herself is barely functional even when she isn’t getting sunk by cranes. Russia doesn’t have the docks, budget, or skills to build large carriers.
Zaliv in Crimea can built carriers, albeit after replacing main cranes (current has load up to 640t total and gauge of 60m, which is insufficient for a deck). Zvezda in Boldhoy Kamen also can build carriers, in terms of facilities.
 

Evgeniy

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Mar 30, 2020
Messages
102
Reaction score
131
20-30000t type ships

If we move away from the calculation of Russian finance and the search for a slipway. That small aircraft carrier is simply useless.
It is impossible to get a normal air group. A normal aircraft for long-range radar detection cannot be obtained. Accordingly: either full-fledged or none.
 

royabulgaf

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
550
Reaction score
145
I read once a rule of thumb for carriers was 10K tons base, plus 1K tons per aircraft. So, a 30K ton carrier has 20 aircraft to work with. So: One fighter CAP, one copter SAR, one something or other AEW. One fighter on deck as backup. Backup SAR copter on deck too. Down to 15. Another fighter ready to go in the hangar, and say three in the shop. Down to 11.
 

starviking

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
1,236
Reaction score
407
I read once a rule of thumb for carriers was 10K tons base, plus 1K tons per aircraft. So, a 30K ton carrier has 20 aircraft to work with. So: One fighter CAP, one copter SAR, one something or other AEW. One fighter on deck as backup. Backup SAR copter on deck too. Down to 15. Another fighter ready to go in the hangar, and say three in the shop. Down to 11.
It’s a nice, but basic rule-of-thumb. That 30K can handle small aircraft, but it’s not going to have the deck area or dimensions to handle larger ones.

Quick thought: 2K tons per large aircraft (Su27/Super Hornet):

With 20 large aircraft 10K + 40K -> 50K

Close to CVA01, CVV-size, but much less ac.

1.5K tons per large aircraft:

With 20 large aircraft 10K + 30K -> 40K

Seems reasonable.

Check with CVA01 size:

53K - 10K -> 43K

43K approx 28 ac.

CVA01 had 36 primary ac, but a bit smaller than Su27s.

So, maybe a 40K could provide a worthwhile carrier for Russia.
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
897
Reaction score
1,550
I read once a rule of thumb for carriers was 10K tons base, plus 1K tons per aircraft. So, a 30K ton carrier has 20 aircraft to work with. So: One fighter CAP, one copter SAR, one something or other AEW. One fighter on deck as backup. Backup SAR copter on deck too. Down to 15. Another fighter ready to go in the hangar, and say three in the shop. Down to 11.
It’s a nice, but basic rule-of-thumb. That 30K can handle small aircraft, but it’s not going to have the deck area or dimensions to handle larger ones.

Quick thought: 2K tons per large aircraft (Su27/Super Hornet):

With 20 large aircraft 10K + 40K -> 50K

Close to CVA01, CVV-size, but much less ac.

1.5K tons per large aircraft:

With 20 large aircraft 10K + 30K -> 40K

Seems reasonable.

Check with CVA01 size:

53K - 10K -> 43K

43K approx 28 ac.

CVA01 had 36 primary ac, but a bit smaller than Su27s.

So, maybe a 40K could provide a worthwhile carrier for Russia.
sounds like something around the De Gaulle class size no?
 

TR1

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Aug 12, 2020
Messages
139
Reaction score
510
23900 is allegedly ~40k tons from the latest leaks, though not a true carrier obviously. However it will be a good yardstick for the rest of the decade, and of Zaliv as a whole these days.

Only real other prospect is them getting more amibitous with military plans for Zvezda earlier this decade than I anticipate.
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
897
Reaction score
1,550
23900 is allegedly ~40k tons from the latest leaks, though not a true carrier obviously. However it will be a good yardstick for the rest of the decade, and of Zaliv as a whole these days.

Only real other prospect is them getting more amibitous with military plans for Zvezda earlier this decade than I anticipate.

do you know if this is the final design of the 23900 they are going with? (Ive seen several thus far)
1280px-Mock_amphibious_assault_ship_of_the_surf_on_%C2%ABArmy_2015%C2%BB_1.JPG


secondly, there's always been talk of Russia (I think MiG) was developing some kind of VTOL combat aircraft. Although given the state of Mig.. not sure if anything will ever materialize. They didnt even make a VTOL model at the last air show
 

tequilashooter

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 2, 2021
Messages
586
Reaction score
704
have not seen any source posted here on this so here we go https://naukatehnika.com/katamarannyj-avianosec-rossii.html

The Russian Defense Ministry continues to consider options for aircraft carriers of a new class. According to militarywatchmagazine.com Russia is designing work to create an "unprecedented" catamaran aircraft carrier, which will be able to "partially" meet the requirements of the Russian Navy. The project is led by the Krylov Research Center. It is noted that the aircraft carrier of this form has the advantage of a larger total flight deck than an aircraft carrier of conservative design, and even with a displacement of 40 to 45 thousand tons, it will have an autonomy of 60 days, more than 30 aircraft, including AWACS aircraft, can be based on it. The type of fighters is not yet clear - currently Russia has two types of carrier-based combat aircraft (Su-33 and MiG-29K), but carrier-based versions of the Su-57, MiG-35 and VTOL can be created to replace the Yak-141.

The design of the catamaran poses significant risks, namely that it will be less stable in "rough seas", which makes it far from ideal as a platform on the high seas. But with the deployment of an aircraft carrier off the coast of Russia, "the design may be ideal." The catamaran design promises cost savings and reduced hydrodynamic drag, which will allow to achieve higher speeds than traditional aircraft carriers, and, moreover, the catamaran aircraft carrier will avoid the installation of very powerful voracious engines with the required huge supply of fuel.

Among the characteristics of the catamaran will be air defense systems "Pantsir-ME" and new sensors, as well as anti-submarine and electronic warfare systems. It remains unclear whether the electromagnetic catapult systems currently being developed in Russia will be integrated or whether the aircraft carrier will be content with springboards.


article_5e494984846ae7_84140920.jpg
 

TR1

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Aug 12, 2020
Messages
139
Reaction score
510
23900 is allegedly ~40k tons from the latest leaks, though not a true carrier obviously. However it will be a good yardstick for the rest of the decade, and of Zaliv as a whole these days.

Only real other prospect is them getting more amibitous with military plans for Zvezda earlier this decade than I anticipate.

do you know if this is the final design of the 23900 they are going with? (Ive seen several thus far)
1280px-Mock_amphibious_assault_ship_of_the_surf_on_%C2%ABArmy_2015%C2%BB_1.JPG


secondly, there's always been talk of Russia (I think MiG) was developing some kind of VTOL combat aircraft. Although given the state of Mig.. not sure if anything will ever materialize. They didnt even make a VTOL model at the last air show

I think that is a smaller 15-25k design, the "40K" ship should be similar to this:

80600812.jpg


Purely helo for the forseeable future.
 

that_person

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
May 26, 2021
Messages
40
Reaction score
57
have not seen any source posted here on this so here we go https://naukatehnika.com/katamarannyj-avianosec-rossii.html

The Russian Defense Ministry continues to consider options for aircraft carriers of a new class. According to militarywatchmagazine.com Russia is designing work to create an "unprecedented" catamaran aircraft carrier, which will be able to "partially" meet the requirements of the Russian Navy. The project is led by the Krylov Research Center. It is noted that the aircraft carrier of this form has the advantage of a larger total flight deck than an aircraft carrier of conservative design, and even with a displacement of 40 to 45 thousand tons, it will have an autonomy of 60 days, more than 30 aircraft, including AWACS aircraft, can be based on it. The type of fighters is not yet clear - currently Russia has two types of carrier-based combat aircraft (Su-33 and MiG-29K), but carrier-based versions of the Su-57, MiG-35 and VTOL can be created to replace the Yak-141.

The design of the catamaran poses significant risks, namely that it will be less stable in "rough seas", which makes it far from ideal as a platform on the high seas. But with the deployment of an aircraft carrier off the coast of Russia, "the design may be ideal." The catamaran design promises cost savings and reduced hydrodynamic drag, which will allow to achieve higher speeds than traditional aircraft carriers, and, moreover, the catamaran aircraft carrier will avoid the installation of very powerful voracious engines with the required huge supply of fuel.

Among the characteristics of the catamaran will be air defense systems "Pantsir-ME" and new sensors, as well as anti-submarine and electronic warfare systems. It remains unclear whether the electromagnetic catapult systems currently being developed in Russia will be integrated or whether the aircraft carrier will be content with springboards.


article_5e494984846ae7_84140920.jpg
There is no way that can be real.
 

helmutkohl

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
897
Reaction score
1,550
^ judging by the aircraft size and catapults. definite does not look 40-50k.
 

Evgeniy

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Mar 30, 2020
Messages
102
Reaction score
131

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,735
Reaction score
2,706
I do love these Russian warship designs. They and the models from the Cold War era of unbuilt ships are exciting if sometimes a bit weird.
 

Similar threads

Top