Searching for Russian carrier design

[Arri_Shi]

Considering the fact that the Russians had no warm water ports since the 19th century, it would make sense that their navy would not get as much attention as it deserved. As a result, most of Russia's navy was focused around submarines, which we know is a big no-no. While we do have enough destroyers and battleships, I'm more interested in their carrier line, which was entirely on paper. Heck, even today the Russians have a hard time making a carrier. So I'm just wondering what these designs are, and whether or not they had any planned aircraft for them.

[Skygunner]

Yes, there are lots.

 

Don't worry,  information on them is a bit scarce in english,  however I'm sure the devs will have no problems at all finding designs in the deep archives.  PRobably things that up till now haven't even been published.

[Arri_Shi]

Ok, do you have a link to these ships? I would like to do my own research and see what planed fighters they had for them.

[mr3awsome]

If anywhere will have them (or links to them) this site will

 

http://www.phpbbplan...warshipprojects

[Guest]

mr3awsome, on 15 September 2013 - 06:56 PM, said:

If anywhere will have them (or links to them) this site will

http://www.phpbbplan...warshipprojects

Hmmmm interesting designs they have

[madmanthan21]

mr3awsome, on 15 September 2013 - 06:56 PM, said:

If anywhere will have them (or links to them) this site will

http://www.phpbbplan...warshipprojects

403 Forbidden

[KingDestroyer21]

madmanthan21, on 15 September 2013 - 07:02 PM, said:

403 Forbidden

i can go in.How come u cant?

[madmanthan21]

KingDestroyer21, on 15 September 2013 - 07:07 PM, said:

i can go in.How come u cant?

how am i supposed to know

[KingDestroyer21]

madmanthan21, on 15 September 2013 - 07:21 PM, said:

how am i supposed to know

What state r u in that can block u.

[madmanthan21]

KingDestroyer21, on 15 September 2013 - 07:24 PM, said:

What state r u in that can block u.

Im in India

[Flagship_Amagi]

hmmmmm...

[anonym_ajNWwqVHetEX]

The Soviet Navy did not place a high priority on aircraft carriers due to much political infighting and the  aforementioned problems that you cite. Projection of Soviet airpower was provided by a substantial array of long-range maritime strategic bombers such as the TU-22 backfire b and the TU-95 bear D. The Kievs were interestingly not classified as aircraft carriers by the Soviet military and instead were listed as helicopter cruisers. There is a great amount of video of various long-range maritime patrol aircraft such as the backfire or the bear being intercepted and followed by American aircraft from carrier battle groups. The effectiveness of these aircraft in long-range force projection as well as their ability to act as a data link between long-range missiles launched from Soviet cruise missile submarines such as the echo and guided missile cruisers such as the Slava diminishes the need for such vessels. I believe the reason the Soviets placed so much emphasis on their submarine force was due to this capability. It may not necessarily be a weakness given that the submarine force, at least the guided cruise missile elements, was in actuality working in most cases in concert with long-range maritime patrol aircraft. I might highly recommend reading about some of these Soviet submarine classes such as the Echo, Juilliet, Oscar SSGNs as well as the bear and backfire maritime variants.

[Arri_Shi]

Quote

The Soviet Navy did not place a high priority on aircraft carriers due to much political infighting and the  aforementioned problems that you cite. Projection of Soviet airpower was provided by a substantial array of long-range maritime strategic bombers such as the TU-22 backfire b and the TU-95 bear D. The Kievs were interestingly not classified as aircraft carriers by the Soviet military and instead were listed as helicopter cruisers. There is a great amount of video of various long-range maritime patrol aircraft such as the backfire or the bear being intercepted and followed by American aircraft from carrier battle groups. The effectiveness of these aircraft in long-range force projection as well as their ability to act as a data link between long-range missiles launched from Soviet cruise missile submarines such as the echo and guided missile cruisers such as the Slava diminishes the need for such vessels. I believe the reason the Soviets placed so much emphasis on their submarine force was due to this capability. It may not necessarily be a weakness given that the submarine force, at least the guided cruise missile elements, was in actuality working in most cases in concert with long-range maritime patrol aircraft. I might highly recommend reading about some of these Soviet submarine classes such as the Echo, Juilliet, Oscar SSGNs as well as the bear and backfire maritime variants.

Thanks for that information. I never meant to say that the Soviets had a weak navy but that they put less focus on boats (especially their carriers), instead deciding to focus on their subs. What I'm interested in are carriers in the conventional sense, in that they use aircraft to create air superiority and attack vessels. We know we had them, but the question is what they would have been loaded with.

[anonym_ajNWwqVHetEX]

Mig-29k and SU-33 flankers plus a version of the SU-25 were tested on the Kuznetsov, the Kiev class created the need for VTOL and a huge development effort ensued to create the YAK-38 Forger as well as the YAK-141 Freestyle. These two VSTOL craft were given substantial effort from 50s-80s because without VSTOL there was no way for the Soviet Navy to use ship based naval airpower with such small helicopter cruisers.

 

[anonym_ajNWwqVHetEX]

I should note the YAK-38 had very short legs and was a major disaapointment in terms of power projection. It was nicknamed the "forward mast aerial weapon system" and could only operate a max of 60 or so miles from Kiev with a weapons load if VTO was used.

[Guest]

ZimmerSkimmer, on 15 September 2013 - 10:50 PM, said:

I should note the YAK-38 had very short legs and was a major disaapointment in terms of power projection. It was nicknamed the "forward mast aerial weapon system" and could only operate a max of 60 or so miles from Kiev with a weapons load if VTO was used.

60 miles.. a poor range for a Missile

[Arri_Shi]

Quote

Mig-29k and SU-33 flankers plus a version of the SU-25 were tested on the Kuznetsov, the Kiev class created the need for VTOL and a huge development effort ensued to create the YAK-38 Forger as well as the YAK-141 Freestyle. These two VSTOL craft were given substantial effort from 50s-80s because without VSTOL there was no way for the Soviet Navy to use ship based naval airpower with such small helicopter cruisers.

Nice bit of information, but unfortunately well outside the range of the game. Do you know of any aircraft that would have been able to land on one of these things from WWII?

[anonym_ajNWwqVHetEX]

sorry. I misunderstood, I thought you meant modern craft. In the case of game era carrier plane development I can't find anything in my sources of carrier fighter development beyond paper imaginings or conversions of typical land based Soviet craft. If I come across anything ill post back

[Arri_Shi]

Quote

sorry. I misunderstood, I thought you meant modern craft. In the case of game era carrier plane development I can't find anything in my sources of carrier fighter development beyond paper imaginings or conversions of typical land based Soviet craft. If I come across anything ill post back

It's alright. PM me when you have sources, I have an idea for a post.