# Binhai Aircraft Carrier Theme Park; The World's Oddest Theme Park!



## nuuumannn (May 16, 2018)

I'm not really sure where to post this, it has aircraft, but its main theme is the titular 'aircraft carrier'; the rather impressive Soviet Navy aircraft carrying heavy cruiser Kiev. Bought by a Chinese entertainment consortium in 1996, the Kiev was intended on being converted into a floating hotel, but despite rooms having been built, the 'hotel' has yet to be opened. Instead, the carrier forms the centrepiece of the oddest theme park, celebrating, or commiserating Russian culture in a very kitschy fashion. Naturally there is Chinese military hardware on site, including armoured vehicles and a smattering of Shenyang J-6 fighters painted to resemble 'MiGs', but the whole thing is very contrived. There's also a water show with pyrotechnics and bad guys on jetskis riding around the bow of the ship. I decided to avoid watching this for going aboard the carrier. Despite all this, walking on the deck of a former Soviet aircraft carrier is worth the lengthy journey time and so it should definitely be on your list of things to do if you find yourself in Beijing.

The park is located in the TEDA (Tianjin Economic Development Area), Binhai New Area on the coast of the Bohai Sea, near the city of Tianjin, but it is closer to Tanngu. Catch a bullet train to Tanngu from Beijing South Station; it takes 45 - 50 minutes (at 300 kph) and gets you closer to the park than going to Tianjin itself. You'll need to get a taxi from Tanngu, as I don't think there's public transport. Anyway, photos and a link below.





Binhai 12
Shenyang J-6 (MiG-19) garden ornaments. Lots of these dotted about the park.




Kiev 2
What most people go to see, the Kiev. Entrance to the aircraft carrier is through the stairs entering into the torpedo tube hatch.




Kiev 16
The magazine for the enormous P-500 anti-ship cruise missiles, of which a number of full scale reproductions fill in for the real weapons. The lift to deck level is a vast rectangular chasm through the centre of the ship.




Kiev 17
The hangar deck has an odd mix of model aircraft, including this full scale Shenyang J-10 fighter located on the flight deck lift, which is not carrier capable and would struggle to reach take off speed flying from Kiev's short deck!




Kiev 37
I'm sure the Coca Cola emblazoned tables welded to the flight deck weren't there in Soviet service! Neither were the Nanchang Q-5s!




Kiev 80
For such a large and impressive vessel, Kiev's bridge appears sparsely equipped.




Kiev 87
Kiev and her three sisters were formidably armed, with their main armament located on the deck forward of the conning tower.




Kiev 100
Externally, the Kiev is an impressive vessel, despite the fact that much of her innards have been ripped out to convert it into a hotel.




Type 035 1
There's also a submarine, Type 035 Ming Class...




Type 051 1
And a destroyer, Type 051, Chongqing, but non-Chinese are not allowed on board either vessel!

If this place doesn't arouse your curiosity, I don't know what will. Link to more images here:

Binhai Aircraft Carrier Theme Park

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (May 16, 2018)

Sparse and uncomfortable looking bridge. Interesting place Grant, thanks for sharing


----------



## Airframes (May 16, 2018)

Good stuff Grant. I wonder what the former 'owners' think of it ?!!


----------



## Gnomey (May 16, 2018)

Cool shots!


----------



## parsifal (May 17, 2018)

fubar57 said:


> Sparse and uncomfortable looking bridge. Interesting place Grant, thanks for sharing




Agree, compared to our new LHD HMAS Canberra bridge.....






The Kievs were watched with interst in the 1970's and 1980's. It was pretty quickly determined that they were a failure as seaborne platforms. heavily armed, but missed the point of what a carrier was there for in the first place. The VTOL Yaks they carried were very limited in capability and the ships that carried them were not optimized for their primary roles vtol .
The Kiev-class carriers were an ambitious attempt to give Russia a powerful ship capable of taking on American aircraft carriers while at the same time hunting down submarines that posed a threat to the Soviet homeland. They were a failure in my opinion. At 48000 tons, they were large ships, yet carried a mere 12 fixed wing a/c or 30 rotary wing a/c. our HMAS Melbourne at only 16000 tons could carry 25 fixed wing aircraft in a balanced air group. tring to give the ship a dual capability as both a powerful surface unit, and as a carrier, that in turn was split between two roles was a mistake in my opinion. At her tonnage she should have been carrying the same numbers of a/c as the old HMS Ark Royal (the post war version) which could carry up to 50 a/c Because responsibilities were split between two vastly different, their ability to do either was severely curtailed. Ships that are half one type of ship and half another, like Japan’s World War II hybrid BBs, are usually a failure at being both. The Kiev class was no exception


----------



## Wurger (May 17, 2018)




----------



## nuuumannn (May 18, 2018)

Parsifal, Whilst I would generally bow to your extensive knowledge and experience in a naval environment, I do have to say that your assessment of the Kiev leaves a few unanswered questions. Firstly, a bit of clarification as to their existence. The Project 1143 ships were designed as aviation cruisers, designed for anti-ship and anti-submarine within a defensive position in combined operations with surface warships and crucially, submarines. They weren't designed to 'take on' US carriers as you suggest;


> The Kiev-class carriers were an ambitious attempt to give Russia a powerful ship capable of taking on American aircraft carriers while at the same time hunting down submarines that posed a threat to the Soviet homeland.


 And yes, the Yak-38 was limited in ability, therefore, your assessment of those miss the point also.

The Kievs were unconventional and did not fit within a NATO/Western ideal, so attempting to justify their existence by making comparisons to such things is futile, since they are so very different to what Western navies operated. They were designed to operate within a defensive sphere in support of cruise missile carrying submarines, and their weapons and sensor fit highlight this. Their main armament was not their aircraft, but the P-500 cruise missiles, which were a formidable weapon. Only one was required to take out a carrier and being supersonic, would have been very difficult to shoot down if continuous salvos were launched from multiple vessels simultaneously, eg, surface ships and submarines (let's also not forget long range cruise missile carrying bombers operated by Soviet naval aviation). Bearing in mind that in the 70s, Western navies did not routinely install close in weapons systems aboard their ships, whereas Soviet ships were festooned with multi-barrel remotely operated guns. The Kievs had eight of them. This changed within the 80s, but begrudgingly and it took losses during the Falklands War to highlight the need for such things on British ships. Their extensive anti-submarine sensor fit, Horse Jaw low frequency sonar in the bow and Horse Tail towed sonar in the stern, plus anti-submarine rockets and unguided mortar launchers, as well as helicopters meant this was a significant role within the ships' capabitilies. It was designed as a fleet vessel, to work within a combined operation to deter foreign incursions by submarines and surface vessels into Soviet territory.

Yes, the Yak-38 was limited in ability compared to the Harrier, since it was not fitted with search radar, but the type's warload dictated its use as short range anti-shipping or land strike aircraft, as they were only capable of carrying unguided rockets or bombs, with the ability to also carry infra-red heat seeking air-to-air missiles for defence only. The small number of aircraft per ship means that their role was secondary and played a support role to the ships' primary missions. It also should be mentioned that the Yak-38 forshadowed the use of STOVL aircraft in modern navies, being designed specifically for operations from the Kievs and entering service two years before the Sea Harrier; this role has proven useful with six different navies operating the Harrier aboard carriers as a cheap means of air power. The type's autoland system was also very effective, which meant that the pilot could land almost hands off aboard the carrier.

So, in their role as anti-ship and anti-submarine vessels, the Kievs were very effective and could be regarded as a success in what they were designed for. The Soviet navy also used them in exercises supporting fleet assault manoeuvres, their aircraft providing beach head support and its weapons array being used against enemy assets attempting to attack the assault force. Ironically, the 'cheap carrier' option that the Kievs were is something that Western navies have been striving toward for years and providing an air element to a primarily anti ship/submarine platform was a decision made with considerable foresight. Yes, the ships had their weaknesses; the magazine and uplift for the P-500 missiles was a huge opening within the ship's hull, but they were well armed, excellent seagoing vessels, with modern (for their time) sensor and weapons, able to provide a three dimensional offensive capability to any battle group. No Western warships of equal size were as heavily armed.


----------



## parsifal (May 18, 2018)

I disagree that it is futile to compare them with “western ideals”. There are certain things that ships need to be able to do regardless of the political or operational needs that underpin their existence. The Kievs are not able to meet those operational requirements, or, if they do, are an expensive way of achieving them. However the doctrine that underpinned their existence was always questionable as well.

I should correct some mistakes in my initial post before I proceed. The Kiev’s design air group was not 12 aircraft, it was closer to 24. That’s better, but still comes up short on the tonnage required per a/c carried.

The Kievs cost a bomb to build and had an impressive deck area, unfortunately for them, their hangar space was very restricted which made aircraft handling cramped and difficult. You need to be able to turn your aircraft strikes around quickly if you are going to rely on a small CAG. Further, the Yak 38s and 41s appear to have been restricted in the payload they could carry whilst embarked. Some sources say they could not carry bombs at all, but I think they were merely limited to about half the rated payload whilst embarked. This was a severe restriction if correct, but it is also not purely a fault of the aircraft, since the problem now seems to have disappeared in the follow on design the Adm Kuznetsov. This last named ship is a follow on design is a follow on development of the Kievs, using the same hull and machinery (but improved for reliability) abandoning the hybrid design concept and using the whole platform as a single purpose hull, namely a catapult-less carrier. Kuznetsov is a tacit admission by the VMF that they got it wrong in the kievs in my book 

Detouring for a minute, we should take a glance at the adm kuznetsovs. They were similar to the Kievs as indicated above, but they too have been plagued by a very poor operational status. Though the Kievs are shrouded in more mystery, since they are very much cold war poster children, it is not unreasonable in this case to utilise a bit of extrapolation based on what we do know about the Kuznetsovs.

Kuznetsovs flight deck area is 14 700 m² and aircraft take-off is assisted by a bow ski-jump angled at 12 degrees in lieu of steam catapults. The flight deck is equipped with arrester wires. Two starboard lifts carry the aircraft from the hangar to the flight deck. The ship was originally designed to operate Su-27K, MiG-29K, Yak 41 (and later the heavier and more capable Yak-43) supersonic STOVL fighters, but the only fixed wing aircraft regularly taken to sea have been the SU33, MiG-29K and Su-25UTH, the latter being used as an unarmed trainer. The Admiral Kuznetsov do not carriy any AEW fixed aircraft and their ability to use NCDS (basically see what another ship is seeing) is reportedly “limited”. More recently it has been reportedly seen operating Ka-31 helos in this role similar I guess to the RNs Mk 7 AEW assets (and now being retired with the commissioning of the new QE class carrier). It also lacks dedicated electronic warfare and defense suppression aircraft,that are used on the US carriers. Exactly the same criticism can be directed to the kiev class.

The service history of the Admiral Kuznetsov in the Russian Navy is one of being plagued with various accidents and plane crashes, mechanical breakdowns. It does not compare well with western navy, and the “spot rate” (the rate that a/c can be refuelled and re-armed) is low compared to any of the western nations operating carriers There are problems with the ship's propulsion system. Russia definitely struggles maintaining its only aircraft carrier and keeping it operational. There are no immediate plans in Russia to construct successor for this ship. The Kievs had all the same problems and more……

Despite all of this, as of 2017 it is planned that during the next couple of years the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier will be repaired, refurbished and upgraded. They are clinging to it because of the training advantages it cofers to the VMF.

Construction of a sister ship (Project 1143.6, initially named _Riga_ and later _Varyag_, the second of the class, started in December 1985 at Nikolayev, and the ship was launched in November 1988. Late in 1991 the Russian Defense Ministry stopped financing the carrier, and handed the hulk over to Ukraine. In 1998, the sale of the _Varyag_ was announced to a Macau-based entertainment company. The unfinished hull was to be towed to the Far East where it would be converted into an entertainment complex and casino. Though this company appeared to be a front for the Chinese Navy. In China Varyag was restored and refitted. This aircraft carrier entered service with the Chinese navy in 2012 as the Liaoning. It is without a doubt a major asset for the PRC Navy and one of the most ambitious Chinese naval programmes. Currently Lianoning represents a significant shift in the balance of naval power in the area. But as of 2017 it remained largely in work up mode, as the Chinese frantically try to solve the inherent operational problems of the type. I doubt the Chinese will be able to. The Chinese also acquired the kiev at about the same time, but have decided not to proceed with her refurbishment. 

The Kievs were plagued throughout their careers by high operating costs and machinery reliability issues. Though they were officially laid up 1991-1994, after the shipyard where they were built ended up in the Ukraine, and the Ukraine had a habit of seizing ex-soviet ships that it could get its hands on, but in reality most of these vessels were inactive from the mid to late 80’s. most of the time they did not even embark the fixed wing components of their CAGs as the difficulties in operating the VTOL a/c were too great most of the time. Perhaps their high point occurred 

As air defence platforms, the Kievs were limited. Ive read reports stating that during her transit voyage to the far east, minsk in 1982 launched a pair of yak 41s to intercept two snooping F-14s entering the minsks safety zone. The yaks had no chance. The tomcats jammed their radio transmissions, somehow outfoxed their radar and before the Russian pilots knew quite what was happning were on their tails “top gun” style.

The Kievs were built primarily as an answer to the USN Polaris subs , and in this regard were probably a step in the right direction. But the soviets, whilst getting that bit right, then got the next bit of their naval concept badly wrong. They also wanted these cruisers to provide air defence over their own submarines, to keep western ASW assets away from Soviet subs. The heavy surface armament was about dealing with sinking NATO ASW surface units. Trouble is, by placing such a high value surface unit with a known mission profile over or near those assets, its like a huge neon sign advertising “VMF SSNs in this area” and actually increasing the risk to those submarine assets.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 18, 2018)

Thanks for the analysis on the Kuznetsov, Parsifal, but the Kievs were different ships and yes, I do believe it is futile to compare them directly with Western carriers as you have done, as their carrier element was in support of their main function, which neither the Melbourne, nor the Invincibles or US carriers' roles were, so not the same at all. Admiral Gorshkov wanted 'aviation cruisers',with heavy anti-ship and anti-submarine weaponry against NATO threats. There was no equivalent in Western navies of these ships. As for the fundamentals, what specifically are you referring to, because the ships certainly met the requirements of the service.

Yes, you miscounted the rotary element, and I also got a couple of details wrong, the ships could carry 12 Yak-38 single seaters and two 2-seaters, which were not combat capable, along with their complement of helicopters. Their aircraft count was the same as the Invincibles - and they had a formidable weapon load. Also, the Yak-38 entered service aboard the Kiev in 1976, four years before the Sea Harrier, not two, becoming the first fixed wing VTOL service aircraft to embark aboard ships. They did suffer a high accident rate in service, but its ejection sequence was fully automatic; with engine failure (the Yaks had three engines), the ejection seat would fire automatically, so in-service casualties from lost aircraft were very low. On entry into service, the Yaks were limited to VTOL operations, and werent cleared for rolling take-offs, which effectively doubled their load carrying capability, until 1979. Their performance however was still underwhelming, as in warm weather they were unable to carry even a basic load and during trials in Afghanistan they were found to be unable to fly in the high temperatures! Odd that the ships spent much time in the Med, then! The Yak-38 was designed as a simple V/STOL attack platform and structurally was designed to be as light as possible, therefore could only have a limited capability; it was only ever intended as being a support type to the ships it operated from and the intent was always that a far more capable replacement was to be introduced. The Yak-41/141 programme ran out of funding on the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

Regarding the Kiev's reliability, I have read similar from Western reports, and yes, this appears to have been an issue that plagues large Russian ships, although there might be a propaganda element in play here, too. It is not uncommon for Western analysts to play down the capabilities of Soviet equipment; the Russians certainly did it about the West. As for Yak-38s (Yak-41s never entered service) 'intercepting' F-14s; they weren't interceptors, they did not have search radar and could only carry short range IR missiles, so the term 'intercept' might have been a little of a stretch to describe what the Yaks were doing. If there were US carrier assets in the area, it would not have been unusual for the Russians to have launched their aircraft, but the Yak-38's primarly role is as an attack aircraft. I suspect your 'source' has been indulging in a little propagandistic licence. In a Russian language account I have on the Kievs, the Yak-38 is described as a Sturmovik, clearly not a fighter, then. That's a bit like the insistence that the Russians made that MH17 was shot down by a Ukrainian Su-25! It was designed to carry IR missiles for attacking helicopters, AWACS and support aircraft, but not fighters. Therefore it was designed as part of the ships' overall surface attack role.

Despite these things however, their roles were clear; as I have pointed out, they were designed as a strike vessel in support of submarines, which, yes, they would have been a beacon for the presense of submarines, but this was in a defensive role, where there would have been other surface vessels, too, so not such a big issue as you might have made out. Their main weapon was the P-500 cruise missile, which in large numbers against any surface fleet would have been devastating. Like I said, just one hit was required to take out a carrier.

Taking the concept of the Kievs further, their design meant that their defined role was close to the Sea Control Ship concept that Zumwalt proposed; the use of VTOL aircraft on a small platform (the Invincibles were designed around the same premise, an ASW aircraft carrier), only the Kievs took the definition further by being armed with a formidable array of weaponry, so, they were ahead of their time, as I pointed out earlier, despite their vices. Despite your hubris regarding these ships, Parsifal, you cannot deny they were heavily armed and effective ships in the role they were designed for. In a combat situation, you cannot rest on the fact that the enemy's ships might be a little unreliable! Hubris is a dangerous thing, and although I have not spent time in the navy, what I can say from years of reading histories is that you can never underestimate the Russians.

Here is an account of the ships' warload; there were minor differences between the ships - this is Kiev's: 4 x 2 P-500 supersonic cruise missle launchers with 16 + reloads, 1 x twin anti-submarine guided rocket launcher, 10 x 533mm torpedo launchers in two banks of 5 trainable mounts in either beam, 2 x 12 barrel unguided anti-submarine rocket launchers, 2 twin 76mm gun turrets. Defensive armament comprises 2 x 2 Storm-M long range SAM launchers, 2 Osa VLS short range SAM launchers, 8 x six barrel AK-630 CWIS guns (these are the little 'daleks' the Russians loaded aboard their ships -well ahead of the West in installing such defensive measures), the ships also had flare dispensers. And then there are its aircraft, the Yak-38s were capable of carrying tactical nuclear bombs and although one prototype did trial fire anti-ship guided missiles, I'm not sure if the service Yak-38 had this capability. They could carry bombs, either 2 x 500 or 4 x 250kg bombs, four unguided rocket packs and 2 x twin cannon pods, as well as 4 IR AAMs. The Ka-25 helicopters were capable of carrying torpedoes.


----------



## Graeme (May 19, 2018)

I feel old.
I vividly remember when the first grainy pictures of the VTOL machines came out in magazines/books all those years ago. Back then we weren't even sure if they were from Yakovlev - "yet to be confirmed".
And now that carrier is in a Chinese Museum....amazing.

September 1976...


----------



## Wurger (May 19, 2018)




----------



## nuuumannn (May 19, 2018)

Firstly, I do apologise for going on a bit in the ship's defence; I feel my understanding of its purpose has grown with the help of Parsifal, who has vast knowledge and an ability to force us to reach for the reference sources for a better understanding of things!



> I vividly remember when the first grainy pictures of the VTOL machines came out in magazines/books all those years ago. Back then we weren't even sure if they were from Yakovlev - "yet to be confirmed".



Y'know Graeme, when I was a kid, I had this book called The Soviet War Machine and it had the same grainy pictures of the Kiev and its Yaks and I remember my older brother and I discussing in wonder the vast amount of weaponry aboard its bow and how very different it was to US and British stuff. I even made a model of it in woodwork shop at school. I never ever thought I would get the opportunity to 'see' the Kiev, let alone go aboard it. I had been up close to a Yak-38 at Monino many years ago, which I thought was pretty fascinating, but the Kiev itself, seeing it was quite a thing and I had a number of 'pinch me' moments. My brother is quietly jealous.


----------



## Micdrow (May 26, 2018)

Very cool shots there Grant


----------



## Wayne Little (Jun 12, 2018)

Missed this, pretty cool stuff.


----------

