Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship

Does this ship risk being classified an aircraft carrier and banned from the black sea by the Montreaux convention? After all it has a flat deck and is largly designed as a platform to operate Helos to support amphibious troop landings and maritime power projection. Its weapons are mostly on aircraft. I just read that carriers greater then 15K tons cannot pass through the Turkish straits.

The rules regarding aircraft carriers define an aircraft carrier as a ship whose sole purpose is to operate aircraft of any kind so helos and fixed wing aircraft count.

The fact that this ship is a landing craft carrying soldiers and armour means it is not an aircraft carrier by that definition.... note the anti ship Granits on the Kuznetsov mean it is not an aircraft carrier either.... it is an aircraft carrying cruiser.

So yes under the current wording of the convention these ships are considered aircraft carriers, the Russians could ask the Turks not consider it an "Aircraft Carrier" but rather under the designation "amphibious assault ships" Which aren't banned by the convention.

They are of course Amphibious assault ships and not aircraft carriers... but then it probably doesn't matter much anyway because these carriers would be of little use in the Black Sea anyway... it is likely the ships based on the Ivan Gren will operate in the Black Sea and Baltic, while the Ivan Rogov new ships will operate in the Northern and Pacific fleets.

Keep in mind the Russians tried this tactic with the Kuzen class which the turks denied.

Would like to hear more about this...

I read the idea was to equip it with Granit and therefore call it an "Aircraft carrying cruiser" for that measure have any of the US LHDs operated in Black Sea or even HMS Ocean?

The rules are even more strict for countries that don't have land or ports inside the Black Sea...

The Soviet Union designated its Kiev-class and Kuznetsov-class ships as "aircraft-carrying cruisers" because these ships were armed with P-500 and P-700 cruise missiles, which also form the main armament of the Slava-class cruiser and the Kirov-class battlecruiser. The result was that the Soviet Navy could send its aircraft-carrying cruisers through the Straits in compliance with the Convention, but at the same time the Convention denied access to NATO aircraft carriers, which exceeded the 15,000 ton limit..[18][19][20][21]

Turkey chose to accept the designation of the Soviet aircraft carrying cruisers as aircraft cruisers, as any revision of the Convention could leave Turkey with less control over the Turkish Straits, and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea had already established more liberal passage through other straits. By allowing the Soviet aircraft carrying cruisers to transit the Straits, Turkey could leave the more restrictive Montreux Convention in place.[21]

Pretty much says it all.

These ships only have CIWS, A Gun, and Panstirs, they have no missiles on them that could even allow the Russians to try and call it a "Aircraft carrying crusier".

They have 192 Naval TOR SAMs and 12 Granit anti ship missiles... plus about 8 Kashtan gun/missile mounts and a further 6 odd AK-630 single mount gatling guns... and they also have RBU-6000 anti sub rocket launchers...

They were not designed solely for the purpose of operating aircraft.

Sorry I also missed one of your questions, No LHD or Assault ship has ever operated in the black sea that is over 15k Tons from any country.

For countries outside the Black Sea like the UK or US it is not that they can't send LHDs as such, but they have to be less than 15K tons in weight... and none qualify.

The only specifics the treat states are no "carrier" again it doesn't state what is defined as a carrier, this was done on purpose so Carrier could mean anything that carries any type of aircraft.

No. It is actually the opposite. The Kirov class battle cruisers carry about 5 helicopters... many of their new frigates and corvettes carry helicopters so by your definition would not be able to enter or leave the Black Sea either.

The definition, as stated above is that an aircraft carrier is a ship whose sole purpose is to carry aircraft... like western aircraft carriers...

Soviet and Russian vessels are multirole...

The Russians would need to ask for permission from the Turks before they could sail the ship in and out and I don't see Russia doing that has, turkey could let the ship into the black sea then ban it from ever leaving.

They could ban it but I don't see them stopping it...

Neither Russia nor Turkey would be so stupid... right now the rules basically keep US and HATO carriers out of the Black Sea and Russia likes that and clearly Turkey approves of that too otherwise the treaty would be gone and standard rules regarding freedom of navigation rules would apply.... which turkey definitely does not want and Russia does not want either.

If aircraft carriers were banned from heading out of the Black Sea why on earth would the Soviet Union make the only shipyards able to build large aircraft carrier sized vessels in the Ukraine for goodness sake.... that would be like building a new shipyard for making new carriers and oil transporters... on lake Baikal...

Are you honestly trying to dispute such a commonly known fact?

How about you explain how they built all the aircraft carriers they did... from the old Moskva class of helicopter carriers, through the Kiev class carriers and then the Kuznetsov and the Ulyanovsk class that was starting building after the transit agreement was signed... built in the Black Sea then why are they not still there?

An extract from a 1990 document:

The ultimate deployment of the new Soviet aircraft carrier from the Black Sea to the Medi-
terranean Sea will resurrect historical policy issues in a new international security envi-
ronment. The regime governing the Turkish Straits, the Montreux Convention, was conceived
in haste during the inter-war years. It has not been revised to keep pace with either tech-
nological or political changes. Entire classes of ships and weapons moving about on the
World's oceans today were unheard of in 1936 and thus are unaccounted for in the Straits
regime. Developments in the Law of the Sea have also passed the Montreux Convention by.
NATO and the Warsaw Pact have supplanted the alliances of pre-World War II Europe and meet
at the Turkish Straits. This paper reviews the principal issues associated with warship
transits of the Turkish Straits and examines policy options for the U.S.,and NATO regarding
the transit of the new Soviet aircraft carrier. It concludes that the best course of action
is for both NATO and the U.S. to be guided in their actions chiefly by the Turkish position,
which will Likely call for tacit acceptance of the transit ...

Miller, David V.; Hine, Jr., Jonathan T. (31 January 1990). Soviet Carriers in the Turkish Straits (PDF). Newport, Rhode Island: Naval War College. Archived (PDF) from the original on 14 November 2016. Retrieved 14 November 2016.

Link to PDF

The reason they built such ships there is because that is where the shipyard was.

The agreement on passage was an inter war agreement agreed upon before any aircraft carriers were made or even conceived in the Soviet Union.

Enormous shipyards would be much easier to build in the Far East.... (and are being built to make 350K ton tankers).

The Kuzen is banned from the Black sea and I see no reason for a pointless debate because this is well known.

The Black Sea would be a stupid place for Russia to operate any sort of carrier... ground based air support is already available...

What....these ships do not have Tors of Granites.....what the hell are you talking about.

The treaty specifies an aircraft carrier as being a ship over 15K tons that has the sole purpose of carrying and operating aircraft.

The Kuznetsov has anti ship missiles which can now be used for land attack too, and it has a command ship function as well, while the new Ivan Rogov vessels are primarily landing ships that carry helicopters to support landing operations so it is not an aircraft carrier either.

No, you are making this definition up there is no definition for what defines a carrier in the convention. Point to me official documents that state otherwise.

That is just a really dumb statement... even without looking at the text how could an agreement ban something without any sort of definition of what that is?

Most surface ships in the Russian Navy carry drones or helicopters of some type so are they all banned from leaving the Black Sea?

The Kirov and Slava are capital ships that also carry helicopters... the Kirovs carry about 5 from memory...

1. All the other ships but the Kuz were accepted by the turks, additionally. Russia at that time was permitted to build the ships there etc carriers and move them out of the black sea but could not move them back into it.

So they are not banned from the Black Sea, only banned from being based there... which is ridiculous because why would they want to base it there... that is just stupid.

It was special permission granted by the turks which they have the power to do.

They let it through because it does not meet the definition of being an Aircraft carrier.

Turkey was in a tough spot at the time it did not want to be caught between the USSR and the US, so it made small concessions like this to keep the soviets happy, the ships were allowed to sail out but never sail back in.

Turkey allowed it to pass because they accepted the definition of aircraft carrying cruiser...

2. Ah this document, I know it you should read page 20. Additionally nowhere in that document does it define what an AC is, its opinion. You could argue educated opinion but opinion never the less, so the document is worthless. This was also over 20 years ago standards and practices have long since changed.

The Document is from the US Navy and is non binding and merely shows the US interpretation of the treaty and its implications. Any definition there would have no meaning to the actual agreement any more than anything I say regarding my opinion does not effect the treaty either.

The facts are the facts.

The treaty bans the transit of aircraft carriers weighing more than 15k tons... the fact that the Kuznetsov and the Kiev class ships and incomplete carriers owned by the Ukraine all exited the Straits suggests they decided to not define them as being aircraft carriers.

3. Indeed there was an agreement, they could make the ships and sail them out of the straight but they couldn't sail them back into it, that is what the turks agreed to at the time.

That is irrelevant...

4. Doesn't change the facts it's banned from the Black Sea

It wasn't banned from the Black Sea... it was in the Black Sea.

5. You just lied on what the treaty states if you can't be honest do not talk, the only thing it states what defines an AC is this "designed or adapted primarily for the purpose of carrying and operating aircraft at sea."

The primary purpose of the Kuznetsov is to sink US carriers using Granit anti ship missiles. The aircraft are there to protect the ship from the US carrier aircraft that would be trying to stop it.

the Kuzen and the Amp ships fall under this definition.

What is a Kuzen? And these ships are landing ships designed to deploy naval infantry armoured units on to a beach that also carry aircraft to support its primary role of landing armour and troops.... which means it definitely not an aircraft carrier.

6. No, my statement wasn't stupid that's just how it is, the Montreux Convention didn't go into detail on what defines an AC sides that one line I gave you. You can complain and call that stupid all you want but I didn't write the thing that's just how it is.

The treaty was intended to be vague to make it flexible... they have had 90 years to revise it but they haven't... because it does what they want.... it keeps British and French and American aircraft carriers out and allowed Soviet carriers to be build and if needed repaired. These days the problem is moot because they wont be building or repairing real aircraft carriers in the Black Sea. They will more likely be building and also repairing them in the Far East shipyards.

If it was up to me I wouldn't risk it & would build them elsewhere but I don't believe Russia would commit to building these without being clear that Turkey won't cause an issue.

The new shipyards they have built to make large ships are in the Far East so it wont be an issue.

Again they accepted the others because they where primary cruisers but there is also another reason. In order for Turkey to fight the Soviet Union on the designation of ‘aircraft carrying cruisers’, it would need the full weight of NATO. What Turkey feared was that it lose its grip on the straits and other countries would get too much share of the control. So Turkey accepted the silly designation.

So Turkey accepted...

Turkey back then did not like what the USSR was pulling with the cruiser fiasco, trying to dress up the ships to violate the convention.

What are you talking about... why would Turkey give a fuck about the USSR sailing big ships through the Strait?

Violate?? There is not raping involved here. Turkey decides what goes through and they allowed them through... end of story.

There was no formal agreement on writing just a temporary agreement with words

Then how do you know it even happened?

There is no requirement for agreements... secret or otherwise... the Soviets said they are aircraft carrying cruisers and Turkey said OK.

Now times have changed the entire "aircraft-carrying cruiser" designation means nothing,

Says who?

In the end Turkey gets to decide what "Aircraft carrier" Means Russia doesn't get an ass-end say in the matter.

Hahahahahaha... but what has changed? Why was Turkey so afraid of the Soviet Union and not afraid of losing control of the straits now?

If Turkey want to play silly buggers Russia can simply say they will not recognise the convention and just use the international laws on the right of passage through straits connecting international waters to other bits of international waters and sail through anything they like.

Russua has zero control over any of this and the Kuzen is banned from the straights as it was designed for the purpose of carrying large amounts of aircraft at sea.

So how did it get out of the Black Sea?

Turkey has control currently so it is in their interests to meet the needs of all the countries who have territory in the Black Sea including Russia.

The purpose was always to prevent Britain and France from sending large ships there to threaten Turkey ironically... and now it continues to do so as well as stopping the US sending ships in large numbers and for long periods too.

The Straits aren't international waters, Russia cannot legally sail through them if the turks tell them no, Now Illegally is another matter, Odd I had to point out such a simple fact, are we altering reality now to suit the Russians?.

In that case how does Russia get out of the Baltic sea into the Atlantic... look at a map... all those islands means national waters would close off any access through without the permission of the countries that own those Islands  there is no gap more than 24 miles across to allow the 12 mile territorial limit of each side to overlap in the middle... which means no international waters there... equally the Persian Gulf... how do you get to the Suez canal without sailing through Yemeni or the waters or Eritrea?





The top map shows the gap and that gray line showing territorial waters clearly shows there is no international waters path you could follow to get through... you have to sail into the territorial waters of either Yemen or Eritrea... The second map is zoomed out so you can see the countries and the area... up to the left leads to the Suez Canal and down to the right international waters and open ocean.

Again it was a temporary agreement not on paper, and you will never find it on any official document. The other ships were allowed but not the Kuzen and I saw you asked why it left the black sea...I literally just told you. The Turks gave special one time permission to let it out.

Just flogging a dead horse... why on earth would Russia want to operate the Kuzentsov in the Black Sea it would be useless there... this temporary agreement stuff you are just pulling from your ass... if there is no official document then it is like HATO wont expand to the East... Putin can say there is no record of that... send her in...

Russia does not want HATO aircraft carriers in the Black Sea any more than Turkey does, but the rules are different for the naval powers with ports in the Black Sea... Britain and France and the US can't aircraft carriers into the Black Sea even if they called them banana boats and loaded them up with 50,000 crates of bananas.

Russia is happy with the status quo and so is Turkey... if Turkey was upset about the Kuznetsov it would still be in the Black Sea and so would the carriers the Chinese bought from the Ukraine.

That would be banned.

Mind you that Aircraft carrying Crusier deal with was with the USSR, last I checked the USSR is no more and the Russian Federation is a separate governing body.

If they accepted the situation with the SU there is no reason why they would claim that anything has actually changed.

I know you want to argue until you are blue in the face, but the Kuzen is banned unless given expression purpose from the Turkish government.

It got permission.... that ship has sailed... literally. but you like to argue...

They accepted it for a brief period of time and it was very situational, go back and find out how many times the Kiev's and what not entered the black sea you will come to learn it was very very little. The Turks still had to approve to approve time, the Soviets weren't free to sail them in and out at will.

Wow, so what you are trying to tell me is that there is some sort of agreement... lets call it the Montreux convention, that determines what vessels can sail through the Bosphorus straits?

this thread is about the new landing ships so WTF are you posting it here... helicopter landing ships didn't even exist in the 1930s when the convention was written, and it clearly states ships with the sole purpose of carrying and deploying aircraft so a landing ship is not included... in fact its command function they could simply say it is a capital ship.

The Black Sea is totally enclosed waters like the Caspian. This includes the Bosphorus which is owned by Turkey. The USA
and all the other countries that have no Black Sea coast have precisely zero to say about it. So US self-serving interpretations
of the Montreux Convention are irrelevant since they have no standing in it. If Turkey wanted it could legally prevent all non
Black Sea states from transiting through the Bosphorus.

The prime treaty wreaker USA has no moral standing to demand specific treaty adherence and interpretation from any other
country. And these days it does not have the power to force such conformity either.

If Russia were to go this route, assuming these ships had an actual mission, then it should retain the Soviet concept of
equipping the carrier with missiles. This hybrid concept is worthwhile since it turns a barge into a fighting ship. One of
the reasons that the Admiral Kuznetsov class is smaller than US carriers is that layout of US carriers dates back to
WWII when the propeller fighters using them were much less potent than modern fighter jets.

Having a smaller carrier allows a more efficient use of resources. If more jets are needed then dispatch more than one
carrier. An all your eggs in one basket approach is wasteful and WWII era parameters are obsolete.

Russia doesn't need a ultra-heavy aircraft carrier (complimented with 90 aircraft), but a light carrier with comparable deck length at 1/3rd the weight may'be ideal ticket for carrying fixed winged aircraft. Ideally speaking the capability to carry up to 30 aircraft (20 fixed and 10 helicopters with 50 armored vehicles and 500 marines) is the way to go. This would better justify the idea of developing LMFS, and if not they can go with an off-shoot or a deeply modernized/modified Yak-130 with a mix of S-70 Hunter as their fixed winged compliment.

Most of the helicopters on a helicopter landing ship are not attack helicopters.... the vast majority are transport types for lifting gear and for delivering troops... it is amusing people criticising me for suggesting a CVN should have UKSK launchers and SAM launchers to defend itself and make itself a useful platform for a range of missions but don't say anything when others suggest taking a perfectly good helicopter carrier and screwing it up to try to make it into some sort of Helicopter carrier mini CVN wannabe... Having upgraded Yak-130 jet trainers as fighters would be a joke... if they only wanted 10 helicopters they could have made it a 20k ton ship like the Mistral which would make it much cheaper.

They scaled the design up to carry more armour and more troops... they would be pretty damn stupid to then replace the helicopters that would help get them to the beach quickly with useless token fighter planes that wont last much longer than simple drones.

These landing ships will operate with CV support so there is no need to take away valuable and useful helicopters and replace them with useless bantamweight fighters... an Su-25TM would probably make a more effective fighter than a Yak-130.

Just to clarify, I didn't mean that they will convert LHDs they are building now into aircraft carriers but that they will probably use that design and modify it for later construction (as in adding angled deck and reactors)

Ships they build (and will build) in the current setup will remain LHDs

They need to get a few years experience with these new ships to work out whether to scale up and make a CVN or try something completely new.

These are replacing their Mistrals so odds are they will end up building four... two for the Pacific and two for the Northern Fleet and the upgraded Ivan Gren landing ships will likely operate in the Black Sea and Med environment (these new ships are too big for the Black Sea... and would be essentially trapped in a HATO lake in the Baltic Sea).

Personally I think those multihull designs with a super wide hull and therefore also wide hangars and decks looks promising for getting max volume and capacity at minimum weight.