When we talk about soviet carriers, we have to know, that they all were build in Nikolaev in Ukraine. Carriers are no allowed to sail through Bosporus, that is why they made missile cruisers capable to carry planes and helicopters.
They could have build a large shipyard for building large ships anywhere in the Soviet Union.... the Montroe agreement is not new... if they wanted to build pure carriers they could have spent the money to develop carrier building facilities in the far east or the far north.
Kiev class was typical missile cruiser with limited space for small number of Yak-38 and helicopters. Yak-38 didn't have big range, but this was not a problem, as it fly only inside the range of Kiev carrier radar.
Their Kiev class carriers were designed to support sub operations and to defend against enemy sub attack... their so called fighter jets were intended to defend against small ships and maritime patrol aircraft that were hunting Soviet subs. The ships had their own anti carrier missiles... there was no need for the Yaks to carry more.
Why to create something new, when they already have Yak-141?
Because tiny aircraft carrying ships are useless. Having ships much bigger able to carry a decent number of much better performing aircraft makes rather more sense all round.
They need helicopter carriers to support naval infantry landing operations, what they don't need is tiny aircraft carriers the same size that would be cheaper but useless in the CAP role for a sea going group of ships. If you want cheap then nothing is much much cheaper and only slightly less effective.
They could modernize it inside like MiG-29 to MiG-35 and Su-27 to Su-35 with new structure and engines and new electronics and armament and got a decent plane for NAVY needs.
The aircraft would still be inferior than doing the same with an Su-33 or MiG-29K.... the Yak-41M can only fly at mach 1.4 and not for very long.... and the space and dead weight from the engine arrangement means it will never have comparable performance to either in service naval aircraft.
Let me put it this way... each 4.1 ton thrust engine mounted near the nose has similar performance to each engine in the Su-25 so you have the two engines of the Su-25 in the nose of the Yak-41M just to allow it to take off... during normal flight they are just dead weight.
What a sadly armed ship.
It was kept in international waters, it should have had an escort.
the Israelis destroyed it on purpose because it would have detected that they were going to break agreements and steal the Golan heights from Syria... but that their concentration of forces to do so would leave them vulnerable to attack from different directions... when the US captured and processed that information the Israelis knew that the Soviet would intercept that information and pass it on to the Egyptians... so they murdered 34 American sailors and injured about 175 more and then when accused of a war crime they just lied and pretended it was a mistake.
then they handed over lots of intel on Arab used Soviet equipment and the Americans forgot about it all... well the American government did anyway.
Yea i get it, its an AC, the Kiev i mean, not the Kirov.
A helicopter carrier suggests it is for landing operations, but the Kiev was always for anti sub use and also anti ship use with missiles.
No even radar, the hell, what was it's purpose than, a bomb truck that can't carry enough bombs??
It doesn't sound like something that can fulfill the CAP role at all.
the Forger was there to shoot down Orions and Nimrods and Atlantiques... and to destroy small enemy vessels with guided air to surface missiles or rockets and bombs. For use against carriers the heavy anti ship missiles the kievs carried a dozen or so.
The Forger was a test aircraft mainly... the Yak-41M was for CAP ops, and was intended to only carry AAMs.
Let's hope they implement the R-77 capability.
It would be handy for a Ka-52K operating from a helo carrier like Mistral to defend the attack against light enemy aircraft defenders, but against a serious enemy they would be much better off with the MiG-29K with R-77s and R-73s to engage enemy aircraft including helos.
And yet, it was not the Kirov that was converted.
During that period it was intended to upgrade their Kirov class ships for use as heavy cruisers... they were not intended for export.
The Kiev on the other hand was of little use to Russia but has potential for India with modifications.
Why not another one, because they had no money or interest for another carrier at the time.
Many people fixate on the cost of a carrier, yet ignore the cost of all the ships that operate in support of that carrier... and for that matter the cost of the operational deployment of that carrier group.
As I have said many times it would be of no value for the Russians to have 4 fully operational carriers right now because they don't have the funds to operate four carrier groups and no use for them either.
Perhaps in a few years time when the K is back in service and a Kirov class vessel is able to accompany her on a long trip they might send them around the world to visit some places that don't normally think about Russia.
Places like central and south america or africa or even the islands of the pacific.
It is expensive but it creates interest and business opportunities and promotes new military ties as well
I have said it before and will say it again... most of the great military powers that became global powers didn't do so without a powerful fleet... they created a powerful fleet and that gave them global reach and influence.... no one wants a friend on the other side of the planet that can't reach over and tap the nose of your neighbours for you every once in a while.
Once Russia has a global reach and a global presence then she will start to get more of a say and more influence on various international agreements and then she can start to turn things in her favour instead of accepting western hegemony and western rules and standards.
When did i say that the Kuz wasn't superior, when???
You are suggesting that a replacement for the K should be built on the basis of a Russianised Mistral helicopter carrier.
Why is smaller better for a fixed wing carrier, but bigger is better for a helicopter carrier?
Because they're cheap and seem to have a Phobia for large fixed-wing CATOBAR/STOBAR Carriers.
Nothing to do with any phobia... the carriers coming after the K in the 1990s went up to 75K ton and included catapults.
the end of the soviet union and lack of money for anything let alone the navy is what killed those programmes as well as the fact that they were based in foreign countries now.
If they were cheap they would have scrapped the Tu-160 and just used Tu-95s. If they were cheap they would not bother with the armata family of vehicles.
If they were cheap they would be pumping out corvettes and frigates and destroyers by the hundreds... but they would be old crap like they made in the 1980s...
Well there is such a thing as too heavy, and again, when did i say the Kuz wasn't better.
I agree there is such a thing as too heavy, but your suggestion that a modified helicopter carrier could replace the K is what I am picking on.
Choosing a heavy helicopter carrier so you can use its design as a fixed wing carrier is short sighted and will end up making the fixed wing carrier too small and the helicopter carriers too big and therefore wont save any money at all. And will also negatively effect the performance of both.
I get it, but it's still odd that they hadn't further developed a land based variant.
The Ka-31 was already developed... AEW and AWACS aircraft are expensive... I doubt the Army budget is huge for such things.
I could see the VKO getting together with the Navy to develop a new lighter AWACS aircraft the same way the Army and Navy got together to develop Coalition 152mm guns.
There have been a lot of aerostats reportedly designed and sold to countries like China for use in mountainous regions to monitor low flying objects and for communications relay... I don't doubt the Russians use some themselves for the same purpose.
That thing, for CAS, were they insane.
Easy to think that now, but at the time the UK also used Harriers in ground attack roles within their army too... the US marines use the AV-8 in the same role to this day and the F-35 will take that role soon too.
Obviously the Harrier is better armed and equipped for the role, but still very vulnerable to damage.
How odd, i'd always thought they'd use modified Mi-8s for that.
They would have had to develop it from scratch.... the Ka-31 already had retractable undercarriage to allow the 2.5m radar antenna folded under the belly of the aircraft full 360 degree scan angles in the horizontal...
I see they have upgraded it with a new radar and electronics and called it Ka-35...