but is that really a useful feature of the ship or the helicopter?
meaning, a Cavour or Kiev could carry the same helicopters?

Nominal 16 Harriers or 18 SH-3D Sea Kings but a mix of 13 helicoppters plus 10Harriers is possible. Not bad for a ship with 10,000 t standard and 13,850 t fulload displacement.

Kiev: 12 or 13 Yak-38 Forger VSTOL and 14 to 17 Ka-25 Hormone or Ka-27/29 Helix. Some more helicopters and STOVL jets and way heavier, offensive armement. 36,000 standard, 43,500 full load.

Moskva: 14 Ka-25 Hormone helicopters, with heavier armament on 11,200 tons standard to 19,200 tons full load.

The Kiev class – and also the Invincible class – was designed for hunting submarines. The aircraft should have been used only for defence.

The big carriers of the USN are designed as attack carriers and their aircraft are the primary offensive weapon – comparing apples and oranges.

The Russian and British ships were converted, because they were later used for different purposes than designed, because the main tasks of their navies switched from antisubmarine warfare to power projection – and therefore the aircraft were needed as offensive weapon system.

Agree, also ‘explains’ Kuz & Varyag

They’re in positions that do not affect the flight deck.

Balony

Not having Aspide launcher with associated automatic reloading systems in superstructure below the launcers would free deck space at the front and rear of the flight deck.

Not having Otomat launchers on the port and starboard side of the stern would allow for expansion of the flight deck area.

It also could be a Lakshya PTA or Mirach .it was the target of Barak interception.

The ship in that pic is a Khukri class corvette. It has 4 x P-20M missiles. It has no Barak launchers, just 2 x SA-N-5 SAM (MANPADS) launchers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khukri_class_corvette

I doubt Lakshya PTA can be launched from such a corvette in this direction (maybe from the helideck in the rear, but then it wouldn’t be fired forward). Likewise Mirach.

Styx

A little newer… October 2011

Twelve ships face axe in US budget cuts

The US Navy is planning to retire nine Ticonderoga-class cruisers and three Whidbey Island-class dock landing ships (LSDs) in Fiscal Years 2013 (FY13) and 2014 as austerity measures hit the Department of Defense (DoD).

The cruisers slated for decommissioning in FY13 are USS Normandy (CG 60), USS Anzio (CG 68), USS Vicksburg (CG 69) and USS Cape St George (CG 71), with USS Princeton (CG 59), USS Cowpens (CG 63), USS Gettysburg (CG 64), USS Chosin (CG 65) and USS Hue City (CG 66) following in FY14. The nine combatants entered service between 1989 and 1993.

The amphibious platforms scheduled for decommissioning were identified as USS Whidbey Island (LSD 41), USS Fort McHenry (LSD 43) and USS Tortuga (LSD 46). The trio entered service between 1985 and 1990.

Baseline 3
USS Princeton (CG 59)
USS Normandy (CG 60)
USS Cowpens (CG 63)
USS Gettysburg (CG 64)

Baseline 4
USS Chosin (CG 65)
USS Hue City (CG 66)
USS Anzio (CG 68)
USS Vicksburg (CG 69)
USS Cape St George (CG 71)

Odd, they all seem to be newer ships… leaving older baseline-2 ships CG 54-58 and some baseline-3 ships (cg 61-62) in service along with baseline 4 ships (cg-67, 70-73)

Interesting you left out this bit from the second article

The U.S. fleet keeps its 11 aircraft carriers as well as its 10 air wings. About a third of the fleet of 22 cruisers — seven ships — will be decommissioned early

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/01/defense-navy-avoids-most-pentagon-cuts-012612w/
http://www.airforcetimes.com/mobile/index.php?storyUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.navytimes.com%2Fnews%2F2012%2F01%2Fdefense-navy-avoids-most-pentagon-cuts-012612w%2F

That’s 2 less to be cut…

And, the specific ships may not yet be clear

Due to a Congressional requirement, stated in the Budget Control Act of 2011, to cut the Defense Budget for FY2013 and subsequent years, plans are being formulated to decommission seven of of the 22 in the cruiser class.[6] The retirements will begin in FY2013 and continue through early FY2015. Ships mentioned to be decommissioned include Vicksburg, Chancellorsville, and Leyte Gulf, as they have yet to receive the BMD radar and SM-3 upgrades of the other ships in the class.[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticonderoga_class_cruiser

Two (CG55, CG62) of three ships mentioned don’t appear in the previous list…

WOnder if this is the real reason…

an issue that is plaguing all 22 cruisers in service: cracks in the aluminum superstructure

The problem, according to the Naval Sea Systems Command, is the aluminum alloy used in the superstructure of the cruisers, which have steel hulls

“There have been various degrees of crack repair on every CG [guided-missile cruiser] in the past year,” said Chris Johnson, a NAVSEA spokesman in Washington. “The decking is the most prevalent cracking area due to exposure to elevated temperatures caused by solar absorption and exhaust temperatures.”

More than 3,000 cracks have been found so far across the entire Ticonderoga class,

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/12/navy-cracks-plague-ticonderoga-class-cruisers-120910w/

Are there any likely foreign takers for USS Whidbey Island (LSD 41), USS Fort McHenry (LSD 43) and USS Tortuga (LSD 46)? E.g. India (though to be looking to built 4 LPD at home, yard may be full/slow).

US Navy will be decommissioned 3 frigates Oliver Hazard Perry class – Boone, Stephen W. Groves and John L. Hall, Amphibious transport dock -Austin class- Ponce.

3 frigates, amphib to leave fleet in 2012

IIRC one will serve as spare parts hull but the others may be transferred. Wonder who’ll be the next taker: PN or ROCN.

http://www.brahmand.com/news/First-ever-vertical-launch-of-BRAHMOS-missile-from-moving-warship/840/1/17.html

For reference, check pics post #34 (Yakhont/Brahmos onto ex-Dutch Van Speijk in Indonesian service)
http://russiadefence.englishboard.net/t561p30-p-800-yakhont