Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

Smart Bombs: Military, Defense and National Security

Russia’s Kiev-Class Aircraft Carriers Were Built for 1 Reason Only

Novorossiysk Kiev-Class
A bow view of a Soviet Kiev-class aircraft carrier (CVHG) underway

Key Points and Summary: The Soviet Union’s Kiev-class aircraft carriers, built in the 1970s, were ambitious but ultimately unsuccessful. They were designed to attack U.S. Navy aircraft carriers if World War III broke out. 

-Designed as hybrid “heavy aviation cruisers,” they combined a flight deck with heavy surface-to-air and surface-to-surface weapons, diverging from the US Navy’s carrier-centric strike group model.

-Operating with limited displacement and Yak-38 STOVL aircraft, the Kiev-class lacked the size, capacity, and operational focus of US supercarriers.

-With only a two-thirds flight deck and fewer aircraft, these carriers fell short of modern naval airpower requirements.

-Though innovative, their hybrid design compromised both carrier and cruiser functionality, highlighting the challenges of integrating disparate naval roles into a single platform.

Why the Kiev-Class Carriers Were a Miss for Russia

When viewed within a seemingly limitless expanse of time, Russia’s Kiev-class aircraft carriers could be seen as a momentary flicker of light quickly extinguished amid an eternity of darkness. Could the Russians actually build carriers? The record might not suggest that it could. 

Going back to the 1970s, the Soviet Union built four Kiev-class carriers, two of which China bought as museums, India bought one years ago, and another was scrapped. What was wrong with these carriers, and why are they largely regarded as a failure?

There are likely many reasons for this, and the Soviet Union and Russia have a poor history when it comes to carriers and a Navy overall. One complication may have been that the project was simply a bit too ambitious.

As many articles explain, the Kiev-class carriers were engineered to be full-deck carriers as well as a cruisers; the design of the ship shows a flat deck aircraft take-off area adjacent to a warship-like series of structures.  

Heavy Aviation Cruiser

Russian publications described the Kiev class as a “heavy aviation cruiser” with both a flight deck for carrier-launched aircraft and a series of missiles and weapons typically not built into carriers. By comparison, United States Navy carriers, such as destroyers and cruisers, are built into separate warships to project carriers in Carrier Strike Groups

Russia likely lacked the ability to build and operate anything close to a US Navy carrier strike group. It may have attempted to integrate several disparate or separately functioning warship systems. US Navy carriers do have some integrated defenses, of course, yet the primary focus is to support, sustain, and enable a massive, lethal Carrier Air Wing. 

US Carrier Strike Group

US Navy carriers are not intended to operate alone in a high-threat environment and will always operate with the protection of heavily armed warships.

Many US Navy destroyers and cruisers operate with both offensive and defensive attack capability, meaning they can use Aegis Combat Systems to track and intercept incoming ballistic missiles and fire Tomahawks and other weapons in an offensive attack capacity. 

The Russian concept was either too ambitious or not adequately aligned with the Concepts of Operation necessary to execute at-sea air-attack campaigns.

The Kiev-class ships were built with a flight deck that was only two-thirds of the total deck, something that may not have enabled the requisite at-sea-carrier-launched air attack space or maintenance. 

Kiev-Class Aircraft Carrier

Kiev-Class Aircraft Carrier Rebuilt and Serving in India’s Navy.

The overall size also appears to be a considerable factor, as the Kiev-class ships operated at a full displacement capacity of 45 tons, less than one-half of the 100,000-tons the USS Ford operates with. This displacement difference suggests that US carriers can operate with twice as much weight, meaning they can support a much larger number of aircraft. 

The flight deck of the Kiev class looks more like a US amphibious assault ship, and it therefore appears the Russians sought to operate Yak-38 short-take-off-and-landing attack(STOVL) aircraft. The Soviet ships may have been ill-equipped to sufficiently support air attack operations and operated with limited air-operation capability. 

The Kiev-class boats were equipped with heavy surface-to-air and surface-to-surface weapons, yet this may have significantly compromised their capacity to operate like a carrier effectively.

Simply put, a carrier and its supporting warship cannot be built as a single platform without massively compromising or disabling each distinct function. 

The Kiev-Class Never ‘Measured Up’

Simply looking at available specs, the Kiev-class flight deck is almost an entire football field shorter than the 1,092-ft flight deck of the US Navy’s Ford. The Kiev-class was reportedly able to fly up to 30-aircraft, a number roughly one-half if not one-third US Navy carrier-launch capacity.

Kiev-class Aircraft Carrier

An aerial port bow view of the Soviet aircraft carrier KIEV underway.

Armed with Yak-38 STOVL aircraft and helicopters, the Soviet ships appear somewhat similar to a US Navy amphibious assault ship. The Yak-38 was a 1970s Soviet aircraft that, much like a US Navy Harrier Jet, was engineered for vertical take-off. 

About the Author: Kris Osborn 

Kris Osborn is the Military Technology Editor of 19FortyFive and President of Warrior Maven – Center for Military Modernization. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a highly qualified expert in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Masters Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University.

Written By

Kris Osborn is the Military Affairs Editor of 19 FortyFive and President of Warrior Maven - Center for Military Modernization. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a Highly Qualified Expert with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Masters Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University.

3 Comments

3 Comments

  1. Ed

    January 24, 2025 at 8:46 pm

    Good overview but you really didn’t elaborate on why it was a failure. You just pointed out the size differences to that of a Ford class carrier. This lacked analysis.

  2. David Szeremi

    January 25, 2025 at 11:47 pm

    The Yak -38 was a dime store harrier clone, never fully capable of out performing anything comparable and critically, sort ranged. As a naval aircraft this crippled any force projection capability.
    One comment made about the aircraft is it can not engage targets that can shoot back.

  3. Sebastien

    January 27, 2025 at 11:14 am

    45 tons is less than one half of 100,000? I understand using AI to assist the writing process but this is a bit much.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Advertisement