Soviet Air Carriers Models
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.
via strizhi.info
| Tags: russian army, russian-aircraft-carriers, russian-navy, russian-navy-ships, russian-ships-models |
Tip: To get daily entertaiment news like this one, bookmark englishrussia.com or get 
if it's more convinient for you.
if it's more convinient for you.
Our friends publish:Bloggers, send your links! |
Back to English Russia Main Page for more articles like this
12:59 pm
Loading ...
first!
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.
More powerful?? LOL! Admiral Kuznetsov is the most powerful aircraft in the world.
Why do you think so much countries buying Russian technichs ?
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!
заметьте, на америкосовском говне кол-во матросов больше более чем в два раза чем на российском корабле, а боеприпасов он может нести всего лишь в полтора раза больше… фууууу..!!
lol, people buy russian technichs as you put it because you people are whores and corrupt, selling off everything just to feed your people
That’s called capitalism and freedom, something I’m sure you never heard in your communist totalitarian USA
Now bow to your Barrack
я тебя, твою хуеву индию и жирножопую америку на хую вертел, ссука! а эти супер аиркрафт кираеры и суток не продержатся против наших ребят!
РУССКИЕ! КТО ЗА - ПЛЮСУЙТЕ!!!!!!!!!!!
Ask google for granit rockets…
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?
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…
why so many helicopter landing pads and carriers? the soviet was more helicopter than fighter based?
yes they were. one of khruschov’s decisions: usa develops airplane carriers, and we go for helicopter-carriers.
Those are very nice models. The catamaran is an unusual design for a large vessel, especially a warship.
I heard somewhere that russian carriers are not that heavy because they don’t use catapults for take-off.
“All those Soviet Navy ships were never built”
Wrong. I can see a Kiev class carrier (4 were built) and a Kuznetsov class carrier (2 built, one operational and one scrapped near completation, the Varyag). Also, the pictures show the Ulyanovsk carrier, which was scrapped at 40% completion.
Why so many helicopters? Soviet put emphasis on ’sea denial’ rather ’sea domination’ as USA did, therefore fighters weren’t a priority.
Also, they needed helicopters for antisubmarine operation, to protect their SSBN sanctuaries.
Nice photos
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
The brown one looks a bit like a cake, a big massive cake mmm
the cake is a lie.
WOW! Im astonished!!
I would love to see one of them in real size.
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.
I think Pros tried to use Photoshop.
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.
Image 12 is not a carrier - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Rogov_class_landing_ship
MiV, which one is the Ulyanovsk?
Images 5 through 10.
Actually looks like 6-8 are Admiral Kuznetzov. Sorry.
I like anal and navy
so you’re probably a fag.
haha boats are big in nature ! ! !
Is that the St. Petersburg nsvy museum in the birzha? I went there and remember lots of models
Nice models, maybe I can find them in auctions
I am totally digging the catamaran heli carrier idea. Not crazy about the bridge setup.
muchos de ustedes hablan mucha mierda!! discutiendo e insultandose por proteger su punto y su pais!! que idiotas que idiotez! ustedes creen que en verdad existe una armada invencible o algo?… la guerra es un comportamiento animal y estupido solo es para matar gente! parecen niños la verdad!! sea cual sea el portaaviones mas poderoso no es suyo!! jajajajja idiota!! y a esos gobiernos les importa una mierda lo que hablan aqui!!
if you care… translate it!!
Good on them for not building them. Lovely to look at but a waste of money.
Diverticulitis cipro….
Is cipro used for urinary. Cipro. Cipro overseas….