Aviation cruisers (i.e. Kiev Class), yay or nay?

while not half as good as a catapult carrier, its several times over better than a SAG.
technology actually has made it more viable, with Osprey AEW.
Yak-41 disallow any surveillance a/c like an orion to get anywhere close, let alone attack,
and together with osprey strongly discourage an attack that hasnt first whittle down yaks to nothing,
by which time the carrier commander would have retired.
i think its really down to osprey AEW and a supersonic interceptor with range that makes all of the difference for survivability.
offensive wise, it works best serving as a protected bubble where Tu-22M can launch in safety and return safely

Well, AFAIK first three Kievs could not operate Yak-41M, only Baku could. The carriers would have needed a refit and I am not sure Soviet Navy was up for it, even though Yak-41 undoubtely would have made the ships much more useful. Kuznetsov, Varyag and Ulyanovsk would not have needed Yak-41. So even if they had proceeded with it, it would have served only niche role and procured in small numbers. Indians and maybe some other foreign navies would have probably bought it however.
It became moot when USSR collapsed, Russia only had money to operate 1 carrier, if that.

Aviation cruisers made sense – somewhat – for naval strategy and operational concept Soviet Navy had. It would have been pointless for Soviets to counter US carrier hegemony with carrier force of their own, instead they built an asymmetric, essentially defensive concept of heavy, long-range antiship missiles to counter US carriers long range striking power. Since those missiles were bulky, they needed large ships to carry them and when you have large warships around, it is not a bad idea to have some of them carry aircraft for defence, AEW and ASW duties. However, the main combat a/c – Yak-38 – was disappointing and AEW was limited to relatively weak helicopters of the era. And of course the ships themselves weren’t (and aren’t) so great, with serious propulsion issues.

Nowadays with miniaturization of technology there is less need for huge cruisers carrying gigantanormous missiles around. As we have seen, a corvette-sized vessel can carry warload of supersonic AShM’s nearly as powerful as those Bazalts and Granits of old. So that’s one raison d’être for those ships gone. Tactically, surface combatant and aircraft carrier need to be treated differently and it is a conundrum for commander of a squadron if one of his ships combines both roles. I don’t see any meaningful role for an ‘aviation cruiser’ in todays environment. It is better to build a dedicated carrier and put your missiles on combatants and escorts. Open question is, whether there is place for ‘command cruiser’ type combatant, which has size & height for very powerful AEW and AAW radars, or whether it is better to have those capabilities on carrier too, if you have one.

thanks for the good explanation of you two.
it would seem the Soviet and RF did the right thing not to continue the Yak-141 (limitations back then, and concept of its intended carrier no longer viable today).
sad though, really liked the design.

Aviation cruisers made sense – somewhat – for naval strategy and operational concept Soviet Navy had. It would have been pointless for Soviets to counter US carrier hegemony with carrier force of their own, instead they built an asymmetric, essentially defensive concept of heavy, long-range antiship missiles to counter US carriers long range striking power. Since those missiles were bulky, they needed large ships to carry them and when you have large warships around, it is not a bad idea to have some of them carry aircraft for defence, AEW and ASW duties. However, the main combat a/c – Yak-38 – was disappointing and AEW was limited to relatively weak helicopters of the era. And of course the ships themselves weren’t (and aren’t) so great, with serious propulsion issues.

Nowadays with miniaturization of technology there is less need for huge cruisers carrying gigantanormous missiles around. As we have seen, a corvette-sized vessel can carry warload of supersonic AShM’s nearly as powerful as those Bazalts and Granits of old. So that’s one raison d’être for those ships gone. Tactically, surface combatant and aircraft carrier need to be treated differently and it is a conundrum for commander of a squadron if one of his ships combines both roles. I don’t see any meaningful role for an ‘aviation cruiser’ in todays environment. It is better to build a dedicated carrier and put your missiles on combatants and escorts. Open question is, whether there is place for ‘command cruiser’ type combatant, which has size & height for very powerful AEW and AAW radars, or whether it is better to have those capabilities on carrier too, if you have one.

Since the topic of the yak came up, i wanted to re-think the concept of the Aviation cruiser. A heavy weapons carrying ship that also had fixed wing combat aircraft.
Growing up, I was always taught by media, it was a compromised design that allowed the ships to go through Turkey.But then Kuznetsov happened, and that’s a full blown carrier.

Technically, the same concept and classification (heavy aircraft-carrying missile cruiser) was still present on the Kuznetsov with its 12 SS-N-19 missile launchers with the benefit of being vertically launched so they could have been installed under the deck.