Russian and Soviet Aircraft Carriers

[Tzoli]

Found this:

Project 1160

www.globalsecurity.org

Heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser project 1143.5 "Admiral of the fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov"

The beginning of the design work on the creation of a cruiser project 1143.5 - 1978 year. Works are carried out by the Leningrad PKB. The first is an advanced advance design of the heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser 1143. The design is carried out according to the research work called “Order”, which is

en.topwar.ru

And on the russian alternative history site:

Альтернативный "Харьков", или Сказка о непотеренном времени - Альтернативная История

Альтернативный "Харьков", или Сказка о непотеренном времени - Альтернативная История

alternathistory.com

 

[Hood]

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.

 

[that_person]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

 

[starviking]

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

sounds like something around the De Gaulle class size no?

Does indeed.

 

[Archibald]

42000 tons indeed.

 

[Archibald]

Don't tell that to the Russians. While France could sold them a copy of the CdG, the Mistral case of a decade ago is not exactly encouraging. Unless of course somebody wants Egypt getting nuclear carriers for cheap, second-hand...

Mistral-class amphibious assault ship - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[tequilashooter]

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.

 

[that_person]

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.

There is no way that can be real.

 

[helmutkohl]

^ judging by the aircraft size and catapults. definite does not look 40-50k.

 

[Evgeniy]

There is no way that can be real.

Of course not.
In this case, we mean the next project of the Krylov State Research Center. Only not a catamaran, but a semi-catamaran. This:

ВПК НОВОСТИ, ИСТОРИЯ ОРУЖИЯ, ВОЕННАЯ ТЕХНИКА, БАСТИОН, ВОЕННО-ТЕХНИЧЕСКИЙ СБОРНИК. BASTION, MILITARY-TECHNICAL COLLECTION. MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX NEWS, HISTORY OF WEAPONS, MILITARY EQUIPMENT

 

[uk 75]

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.

 

[Kat Tsun]

have not seen any source posted here on this so here we go https://naukatehnika.com/katamarannyj-avianosec-rossii.html

I absolutely adore this but it needs to be a trimaran just like those weird 1990's Future War 202X mangas.

There is no way that can be real.

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.

These are the same guys who made the 23000E model.

 

[paralay]

,

 

[LMFS]

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.

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.

 

[Anduriel]

Only two shafts on such bigass carrier?

 

[Erdosain]

Black Sea Shipyard: TAKR "Ulyanovsk"​

In the late 80s, ChSY was preparing to take another step, the next technological and production height - the construction of a heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser with a nuclear power plant.

Черноморский судостроительный завод: ТАКР «Ульяновск»

В конце 80-х ЧСЗ готовился взять еще одну ступень, очередную технологическую и производственную высоту – постройку тяжелого авианесущего крейсера с ядерной энергетической установкой. «Ульяновск» на стапеле К 1988 году Черноморский судостроительный завод в Николаеве был одним из крупнейших

topwar.ru

 

[Erdosain]

Project 85 (1954)

MilitaryRussia.Ru — отечественная военная техника (после 1945г.) | Статьи

Сборник справочной информации по отечественным системам вооружений выпуска после 1945 г., форум

militaryrussia.ru

Project PBIA TsNII-45 (1959)

MilitaryRussia.Ru — отечественная военная техника (после 1945г.) | Статьи

Сборник справочной информации по отечественным системам вооружений выпуска после 1945 г., форум

militaryrussia.ru

 

[kaiserd]

Why does that 2nd design have F-4s and Hawkeyes on its deck?
Is that a real design?

 

[kaiserbill]

It's an E1 Tracer, going by the radome shape.
Maybe simply used for illustration purposes?
Makes sense if the design shown predates (1959?) the Hawkeye..

Edit: the link says the drawing was a projection from 2003, so definitely for illustration purposes.

 

[Hood]

Real project but a redrawn plan by someone in 2003 who felt like adding some aircraft I guess, perhaps to show a sense of scale? (though I have no idea if the aircraft are scaled correctly or not).

 

[Dilandu]

Why does that 2nd design have F-4s and Hawkeyes on its deck?
Is that a real design?

Just for illustration and scale purposes, author even specifically mention that he used Western aircraft here.

 

[JFC Fuller]

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.

 

[Tzoli]

Yes but they are shown as aircraft types as size equivalents for the carrier.
Originally from here:

MilitaryRussia.Ru — отечественная военная техника (после 1945г.) | Статьи

Сборник справочной информации по отечественным системам вооружений выпуска после 1945 г., форум

militaryrussia.ru

(you can change language at top right corner)

Air wing:
TsNII-45 project:
24 fighters, 2 AWACS aircraft, 2 helicopters. The diagram (see above) uses the silhouettes of American aircraft.

This was already posted 2 years ago here:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/russian-and-soviet-aircraft-carriers.1948/page-6#post-403973

 

[Geo]

After many years, it's clear: the new Russian naval doctrine includes support for the construction of aircraft carriers.

Деятельность в Арктике и создание СПГ-мощностей. Основные положения Морской доктрины РФ - ТАСС

Она относит к основным угрозам безопасности РФ курс США на доминирование в Мировом океане и рост активности НАТО

www.google.com

 

[timmymagic]

After many years, it's clear: the new Russian naval doctrine includes support for the construction of aircraft carriers.

Are you sure 'scale models' wasn't missed off the end of that sentence?

 

[Anduriel]

The question isn't about money, as with raising energy prices Russia will have aplenty, sanctions or not. The main questions are:
1. Facilities - Russia doesn't have any drydocks of necessary size apart Far Eastern Zvezda, which is already filled to brim with orders for years to come. Even if they snatch Nikolayev.
2. Experience. SInce USSR's fall Russia hasn't built military vessels of such size. Maybe new LK-120 icebreaker will help somewhat, but it's isn't the same.
3. Corruption level and mismanagment - THE main problem of Russian shipbuilding industry. OSK is, perhaps, the most problematic MIC company in Russia and routinely fails to fit in the target deadlines for almost every new ship.

That aside, it's interesting to know what design and what tonnage they will go after.

 

[timmymagic]

The question isn't about money, as with raising energy prices Russia will have aplenty, sanctions or not.

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...

 

[kaiserbill]

The question isn't about money, as with raising energy prices Russia will have aplenty, sanctions or not. The main questions are:
1. Facilities - Russia doesn't have any drydocks of necessary size apart Far Eastern Zvezda, which is already filled to brim with orders for years to come. Even if they snatch Nikolayev.
2. Experience. SInce USSR's fall Russia hasn't built military vessels of such size. Maybe new LK-120 icebreaker will help somewhat, but it's isn't the same.
3. Corruption level and mismanagment - THE main problem of Russian shipbuilding industry. OSK is, perhaps, the most problematic MIC company in Russia and routinely fails to fit in the target deadlines for almost every new ship.

That aside, it's interesting to know what design and what tonnage they will go after.

On points 1 and 2.

1. I saw an article yesterday that the carrier Kuznetsov has been successfully docked for overhaul at the newly modified facility at Murmansk, with water being pumped out and the Kuznetsov resting on supports.
I think this was the project to combine two docks into one larger one.
Is this dock for repairs only and unsuitable for construction?
2. What about the 2 large helicopter vessels currently being built for the navy?


Edit: Anyway, these points belong in naval, rather than this topic.