loading...
36 Soviet Air Carriers Models

Soviet Air Carriers Models

Posted on April 17, 2008 by


Russian ship models 1

All those Soviet Navy ships were never built. Soviet Union had great plans on getting them in action but it never happened because of its collapse. Now we can see only the models in the official Navy Museum.

Russian ship models 2

Russian ship models 3


Advertisement



Exchange traffic with English Russia, click here

36 Responses to “Soviet Air Carriers Models”

  1. dethclock says:

    first!

    • Miss India says:

      USA has 11 Super Aircaraft Carrier all of them bigger, stronger and powerful than the one and only Aircraft Carrier of Soviet Union/ Russia Admiral Kuznetsov LOL!

      I’m not surprised USA is the one and only Superpower, who can field 5000 soldiers/ at 5 hrs notice anywhere in the world. :D

      • Karx says:

        More powerful?? LOL! Admiral Kuznetsov is the most powerful aircraft in the world.

        Why do you think so much countries buying Russian technichs ?

        • Miss India says:

          USS Reagan
          Displaces 104,000 tons, carries more than 5500 sailors and 90 fixed wings aircraft and helicopters, propelled by 2 Nuclear reactors and 4 Steam engines, can run without refuelling for 20 years.

          Admiral Kuznetsov

          Dispalces 67,500 tons, carries just 2000 sailors, just 40 fixed wing aircraft and helicopters and runs on STEAM and DIESEL engines LOL!

        • Sumar says:

          That’s called capitalism and freedom, something I’m sure you never heard in your communist totalitarian USA

          Now bow to your Barrack

        • jerry says:

          the third world buys russian military equipment because it is cheaper than the western versions, secondly the kuznetsov is not the best carrier in the world-do your research dude.

      • Falloutboy says:

        Ask google for granit rockets…

      • mo says:

        You absolutely don’t get the point here:

        USA has to cover its ass on both sides of the country (Atlantic and Pacific) while the Soviet Union (and now Russia) has actually no need for a whole bunch of aircraft carriers. Russia is mainly land.

        The second thing is that throughout the 20th century and since the beginning of the 21st century the US of A were almost all the time fighting overseas (WW2 with japan + supplies to Europe and war with allies against Germany, then Korea, then Vietnam, small conflicts with Libya, bombing Yugoslavia, Iraq take 1, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq take 2…). All that require loads of troops, loads of planes, so loads of aircraft carriers.

        The Soviet army is completely different. It was never intended to invade countries located at the far side of the planet. It was intended to keep the country in one piece and protect its interests that were handily located all around the USSR. And when it came to invasion (Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968, Afghanistan in 1979) all these countries were handily located just “a few blocks behind the corner”. This is why the USSR and now Russia uses more its planes and wheeled or tracked vehicles to transfer troops where they’re needed. And this is why when it comes to transport planes the USSR was always first and bigger.

        mm..ok?

        • Phil says:

          That sounds right. People shouldn’t try to compare one superpower to another; it’s pointless, isn’t it?

          As an American, I wish my government would mind its own business, like Russia. If we let our military focus on defending us from outside attack, our defense budget would be cut by 3/4 and we could work on things that might actually HELP people.

          Like, you know, offering a national health care system? Like every other industrialized nation in the world? And maybe a better unemployment system? And maybe more scientific research? And alternative-energy research?

          Sigh…

          • KEN says:

            I am a american and ex american army, i love the idea of russian aircraft carriers, but as with so many russian projects it seams you over prommise and under deliver, take for instance the Main battle tank t-72 , t-80, we were so worried before the first gulf war about how our tanks would fair agianst them, but after 24 hours into the land war my mind and those of our comanders were put to ease as i rolled past 1000’s of burning hulks of t72 and t-80’s burning in the desert from the iraq saudi border to the highway of death our division lost 3 tanks 2 too iraq tanks and one to a electrical fire.

            • Mig-23 says:

              Lol…….Man you are moron..You speak shit!!! T-80 in Iraq?! Are you a idiot? Or just dum ass?? 1000 burning huiks? You are crazy man!!! Speak for hundrets burning Abrams, Hammers end Bradly in Iraq end Afganistan 2001-2015!! Lol!!!

  2. yingjai says:

    why so many helicopter landing pads and carriers? the soviet was more helicopter than fighter based?

  3. John from Kansas says:

    Those are very nice models. The catamaran is an unusual design for a large vessel, especially a warship.

  4. Chicken says:

    The brown one looks a bit like a cake, a big massive cake mmm

  5. Raskolnikov says:

    WOW! Im astonished!!
    I would love to see one of them in real size.

  6. kris says:

    I have three theories on picture 11:
    a) It is a camouflaged carrier near north pole,
    b)just an error – picture is not displayed
    c)the project is classified, and therefore not visible.

  7. Evgeny says:

    Here’s the list of all Soviet carriers – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_of_the_Russian_Navy
    The Soviet Navy doctrine was targeting the submarine fleet development where as the US Navy cold war era doctrine was geared up towards developing the carrier battle groups and deploying them all around.
    As for why there are a lot of helicopters – the Moskva and Kiev class ships were not pure aircraft carriers in the US Navy kind of way. As wikipedia correctly states for the Kiev class carriers “… this class of ships is specifically designated as a heavy aviation cruiser rather than just an aircraft carrier. The intended mission of the Kiev class was support for strategic missile submarines, other surface ships and naval aviation, it was capable of engaging in anti-aircraft, anti-submarine and surface warfare.”. The Moskva carriers were primarily designed for the anti-submarine warfare.

  8. porkie says:

    MiV, which one is the Ulyanovsk?

  9. Evgeny says:

    Actually looks like 6-8 are Admiral Kuznetzov. Sorry.

  10. Boris Abramov says:

    I like anal and navy

  11. Vlado says:

    haha boats are big in nature ! ! !

  12. Obefiend says:

    yeah i notice that too. as for the Varyag i think the chinese is rebuilding her now. saw some of her pics here last year

  13. S.P. says:

    Is that the St. Petersburg nsvy museum in the birzha? I went there and remember lots of models

  14. D.N Angel says:

    Nice models, maybe I can find them in auctions

  15. Aaron says:

    I am totally digging the catamaran heli carrier idea. Not crazy about the bridge setup.

  16. no war says:

    Good on them for not building them. Lovely to look at but a waste of money.

  17. Cipro. says:

    Diverticulitis cipro….

    Is cipro used for urinary. Cipro. Cipro overseas….

  18. Buy xanax online….

    Buy xanax. Buy xanax online….

  19. Robertino says:

    увеличение члена скачать видео
    Удлинение члена после операции
    увеличение толщины пениса
    Система увеличения члена
    как увеличить пенис без таблеток
    Способы удлинения полового члена

  20. David Levy says:

    The double hulled helicopter carrier is cool did they ever build a prototype ?

Leave a Reply