Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Share

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  GarryB on Sun Sep 25, 2016 8:10 am

    Well the usual dozen of barely armed, combat aircraft deployed on the Kuz, for over 3 decades, is testament to a very well established Russian problem.

    Well established Russian problem of not being murdering bastards?

    They have not sent carriers around the world murdering people... therefore they can't send a carrier now to solve the problem of Syria?

    Your line of thought is corrupt.

    It is the normal western criticism... Russia does not use carriers the way we use carriers therefore Russia fails at being us.

    Russia does not need a carrier to perform in Syria... a Cruise missile launched from 2,500km away from the actual target that explodes with the force of a 500kg bomb already does the job.

    But then they have already done so with Corvettes and Submarines and aircraft... time to test Navy assets?

    Sending a billion dollar carrier with a billion dollars worth of aircraft and spending tens of millions of dollars on fuel to do the job a single cruise missile can perform is just a quintessentially American government way of doing things and of thinking.

    If they deploy a few planes and present everything as a "testing/training mission" it will be that the article is right.

    You mean the way they were right about 11/9? Oops... no... the way they were right about Iraqi WMDs... Oops no, the way they were sure Assad would fall because there was no way Russia could send a small force to Syria and effectively turn the whole war around... a war their mighty war machine had failed to effect much at all... ISIS grew exponentially when the US was attacking it after all.

    I doubt they would be right about what colour the sky is.... because their american sunglasses distort everything.

    You are trying to determine what this mission is from a stupid american article?

    The Kuznetsov is not an American carrier. Its job has never been to invade foreign countries or to support genocide or terrorists.

    Its original goal was to provide air cover for Soviet and then Russian groups of ships... whether in the open ocean hunting for enemy subs or near land.

    They have some new aircraft with some new capabilities... but what you are suggesting is that they have new aircraft but no trained pilots and they are going to go to Syria just to get a sun tan.

    Hopefully they are going to help the Syrian people by killing some of the terrorists and foreigners that are trying to take over said country.

    They are not going to transfer the Su-34s to deck operations... they will likely use a few MiG-29Ks with some new weapons to test them in realistic conditions and kill some people who burn women alive and cut the heads off little boys for fun.

    The French just a few months ago managed to have a good two dozen of strike fighters, of which 18 Rafales and that with a 10,000 ton lighter carrier. They hit ISIS pretty hard and everyone took notes, only a week after Paris attacks.

    Very American of them actually... they did nothing about ISIS until it effected them and then they over reacted for a short period and then went back to doing bugger all.

    For me the Kuz deployment and its continuous delay spells trouble for the Russians. They have few capable aircraft, few pilots and a severely troubled, old CV to begin with. It's a big heavy ship (i.e. lots of people manning it) and yet it always carries an insignificant air wing. It takes months to deploy it and even those dates end up getting changed in the last moment.

    Of course... they should stop spending money on carriers because they don't intend to use them the way the west uses them... because there is only the way the west does things and the wrong way... right?

    I'm not debating on theoretical capabilities and specs, but operationally utilizing the said asset in a way that makes practical sense from CV ops point of view.

    You don't even know what their objectives even are and you are judging them on you own narrow view?

    Might come as a shock but they have just introduced into service the MiG-29K and perhaps they might just want to test it on people who behead children and burn young women alive for not being their concubines.

    They are planning to build a few types of carriers in the near future... helicopter and fixed wing designs... perhaps they want a bit of experience in deploying aircraft and helicopters... but no... lets criticise them for not taking Nimitz class carriers and US pilots so they can murder some more government forces and help the terrorists some more.

    On that bit I am sure RuN is not that naive, they just try to catch up in the carrier game. But the platform and 90s disasters still haunt them.

    Yeah... cause spending 10 billion US dollars on a carrier that has capabilities the Russian Navy already has with corvettes armed with cruise missiles is pure genius...

    Those "elaborate air defenses" and that dozen of Granits are not the reason for the extra 10k tons. It's a bigger ship, it's got a comfier deck and it is so far cruising with a tiny air wing, smaller then a lighter/smaller carrier out there. Simple.

    It is a French ship... it has no defensive systems... just a big stick with a huge white flag in case they are attacked.

    The K is an air defence carrier with anti carrier missiles designed to attack other carriers while shooting down any enemy air power that tries to stop them... it was never intended as a strike carrier so it does not need 50 aircraft for a strike package, an ESW support package and an air superiority flight package.


    At the moment RuN's carrier ops track record with modern, fixed wing fighters (especially the strike component) is bad, which is only stating a fact.

    No... actually it is being a bit of a wanker.

    The Russian Navy has no track record of strike missions with carrier aircraft.

    Claiming it is bad is just being a prick.

    If the new reality "mercilessly butchers" this fact, then Russia will have truly achieved something unique.

    Merciless Butchers... don't keep bringing the American military into this.

    But for that to happen a simple demonstration of a mere 4 MiG-29K or a dozen or so Gefest-kitted Flankers won't be enough, neither will be any Ka-52K deployment on the Kuz. Much more is needed, in terms of numbers and quality.

    Of course... 1,000 PAK FAs need to get airborne from the K and finish the war in less than two hours... and we need video or it never happened.

    And with over 180 F-22s coming online, with SDB and JDAM capability, F-117 started becoming a liability for them.

    Or perhaps they realised that a subsonic weapon that delivered the equivalent of a small bomb... could be billions of dollars of stealth aircraft that ran the risk of getting shot down by a MiG-21 with guns, or it could be half a million dollars worth of cruise missile...



    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    hoom
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 255
    Points : 257
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  hoom on Sun Sep 25, 2016 10:15 am

    It is a French ship... it has no defensive systems... just a big stick with a huge white flag in case they are attacked.
    Well actually its got 32* Aster15 + 12* Mistral which makes pretty well defended.
    I'm not a fan of the 'French surrender' thing, its tacky & historically wrong.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  GarryB on Sun Sep 25, 2016 11:12 am

    Well actually its got 32* Aster15 + 12* Mistral which makes pretty well defended.

    Meh... 32 x 30km range SAMS and 12 MANPADS...

    Kuznetsov has 24 Kinzhal launchers with 192 missiles and 8 Kashtan-M systems with 256 missiles and 16 30mm gatling guns... and a further 6 individual gatling guns.

    That is 448 missiles and 22 x 30mm gatling guns.

    I'm not a fan of the 'French surrender' thing, its tacky & historically wrong.

    Not a huge fan of such stereotypes myself, but information is coming from a Western article from the nationalinterest website, why let facts get in the way of a point of view?

    It mentions that the Russians have tested a bombing system upgrade and that they are applying it to their Su-33s but they cannot accept that it might actually work... they point out the Russians don't have any money to spend on a new carrier any time soon but apparently they have money to spend on a system to improve bombing accuracy with dumb bombs that does not actually work... Rolling Eyes

    We will mention two Russian experts with differing opinions and ignore the one that is positive about the Russian military... mention one that is more negative but give the final say to some American wanker spouting BS from the kool aide stand... a waste of my time reading that crap really.

    Of course the amusing thing is that as pointed out the Russian airforce managed to make a serious difference with a few dozen planes deployed to the area on land and now they are criticising the Russian Navy because they think they are sending only 14 aircraft on a carrier to the region to solve the whole problem of Syria.

    It could not possibly be a training and testing opportunity... perhaps battle management equipment was also installed on the K that they might want to test and also the MiG-29KR and Ka-52 aircraft they want to test in addition to Su-33s with their upgrades, together with the rest of the small group of ships operating in the area... no... it is a Nimitz style strike or it is a failure... Rolling Eyes


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Singular_trafo
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 142
    Points : 142
    Join date : 2016-04-16

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  Singular_trafo on Sun Sep 25, 2016 2:43 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Well actually its got 32* Aster15 + 12* Mistral which makes pretty well defended.

    Meh... 32 x 30km range SAMS and 12 MANPADS...

    Kuznetsov has 24 Kinzhal launchers with 192 missiles and 8 Kashtan-M systems with 256 missiles and 16 30mm gatling guns... and a further 6 individual gatling guns.

    That is 448 missiles and 22 x 30mm gatling guns.

    I'm not a fan of the 'French surrender' thing, its tacky & historically wrong.

    Not a huge fan of such stereotypes myself, but information is coming from a Western article from the nationalinterest website, why let facts get in the way of a point of view?

    It mentions that the Russians have tested a bombing system upgrade and that they are applying it to their Su-33s but they cannot accept that it might actually work... they point out the Russians don't have any money to spend on a new carrier any time soon but apparently they have money to spend on a system to improve bombing accuracy with dumb bombs that does not actually work... Rolling Eyes

    We will mention two Russian experts with differing opinions and ignore the one that is positive about the Russian military... mention one that is more negative but give the final say to some American wanker spouting BS from the kool aide stand... a waste of my time reading that crap really.

    Of course the amusing thing is that as pointed out the Russian airforce managed to make a serious difference with a few dozen planes deployed to the area on land and now they are criticising the Russian Navy because they think they are sending only 14 aircraft on a carrier to the region to solve the whole problem of Syria.

    It could not possibly be a training and testing opportunity... perhaps battle management equipment was also installed on the K that they might want to test and also the MiG-29KR and Ka-52 aircraft they want to test in addition to Su-33s with their upgrades, together with the rest of the small group of ships operating in the area... no... it is a Nimitz style strike or it is a failure... Rolling Eyes


    What they saying is an active bombing system with unguided bombs works well up to 3 km height, above that the precision of it degrading .

    And actualy the manpads can shoot down an airplane that flying under 3km , so the system is effective only against enemy who doesn't has manpads.


    It is logical, considering that the normal, unguided air deffence guns are useless above 5-6 km.It is the inverse of the same reason why you need to use guided rockets to shoot down anything above 5-6km.

    PapaDragon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3684
    Points : 3796
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  PapaDragon on Sun Sep 25, 2016 3:55 pm

    Singular_trafo wrote:........

    What they saying is an active bombing system with unguided bombs works well up to 3 km height, above that the precision of it degrading .

    ............

    Of course it is degrading above certain altitude, that is why they use several bombs per strike. We all seen the videos, it is always more than one. Point is job gets done at fraction of the cost.



    And I am positive that role of Kuznetsov here is testing and data gathering. Whole thing was already supposed to undergo heavy upgrade but this was postponed for end of this year and it got just basic maintenance instead.

    It is clear that they feel that this is rare opportunity to finally use this ship in real war after decades of it sitting idle. They want to put some notches on the hull, give pilots real world experience, test new aircraft and electronics (Ka-52, Mig-29K and Hefest for Su-33, etc...) and gather data needed for final tune up of new ship designs before they start construction.

    If they wait years until proper upgrade is complete war will most likely be over and who knows when they might get next chance to use it. This is unique opportunity to do a lot of stuff in one go and they are taking it.

    Russian Military does not need this carrier deployment to complete it's objectives in Syrian war but Russian Navy need this war and this deployment to get a lot of important things done for which they might have to wait very long time if they miss this opportunity.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3057
    Points : 3155
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  medo on Sun Sep 25, 2016 5:20 pm

    This first combat operation of Kuznetsov carrier in Syria will give to the Russian NAVY the most valuable experiances after WW2. But there is one good question regarding air compain coordination with RuAF and SyAAF in Syria. Ka-52K and MiG-29KR/KUBR are new and have new data link comlexes to work in network with others in campaign, but this is a good question regarding Su-33. They are modernized with SVP-24 from Gefest, so they are equipped with satellite navigation, that it could work properly. But do they also modernize their data links to work in network with others, like with Su-30SM, Su-34 and Su-35 and share target data informations with them? Do they replace its old IRST with more modern IRST like those on Su-30 with TV and laser designator channels inside for ground attacks and modernize radar with ground attack modes? Such modernizations will make Su-33 useful plane over Syria, without them it will be useless as it will not be able to share target informations with others and without capabilities to find targets by itself.

    Singular_trafo
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 142
    Points : 142
    Join date : 2016-04-16

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  Singular_trafo on Sun Sep 25, 2016 8:04 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Singular_trafo wrote:........

    What they saying is an active bombing system with unguided bombs works well up to 3 km height, above that the precision of it degrading .

    ............

    Of course it is degrading above certain altitude, that is why they use several bombs per strike. We all seen the videos, it is always more than one. Point is job gets done at fraction of the cost.



    Problem is if you need 4 bombs on 3 km, then you need 8 on 6 km and 16 pn 12 km.


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  GarryB on Mon Sep 26, 2016 7:06 am

    What they saying is an active bombing system with unguided bombs works well up to 3 km height, above that the precision of it degrading .

    So some article writer for National Interest website tells us that the Russians are morons and liars and when they say their system is effective and they are adding the system to their theatre bombers (Tu-22M3M), and their long range tactical strike bombers (Su-24 and Su-34) and now to their naval fighters (Su-33) that obviously they must be idiots and don't know as much as America does.

    America tried it and failed so it is not possible that the Russians might have gotten it right.

    BTW making cheap dumb bombs effective is unAmerican... there is no profit margin there... it makes more sense to fit expensive guidance packages to cheap dumb bombs like Paveway...

    And actualy the manpads can shoot down an airplane that flying under 3km , so the system is effective only against enemy who doesn't has manpads.

    Yeah... of course... those dumb Russians don't know what they are talking about and their claims of being able to bomb from safe altitudes with the accuracy of guided weapons must all be made up... because some American said so.

    It is logical, considering that the normal, unguided air deffence guns are useless above 5-6 km.It is the inverse of the same reason why you need to use guided rockets to shoot down anything above 5-6km.

    It is as logical to expect good information about Russian equipment on that site as it is to expect good information about the US from the leader of North Korea... and for much the same reasons... countries that think they are at war have no reason to tell the truth.

    Do they replace its old IRST with more modern IRST like those on Su-30 with TV and laser designator channels inside for ground attacks and modernize radar with ground attack modes? Such modernizations will make Su-33 useful plane over Syria, without them it will be useless as it will not be able to share target informations with others and without capabilities to find targets by itself.

    ???? So what you are saying is that an Su-33 is bloody useless and cannot find targets nor can it use a radio or data link to share information about targets other platforms have found....

    Don't you think it would be likely that if they gave it the ability to hit ground targets with dumb bombs, that they might also give it the capacity to find said targets or be passed target data while in flight?

    Problem is if you need 4 bombs on 3 km, then you need 8 on 6 km and 16 pn 12 km.

    And if that were true what if they need 2 bombs at 12,000m?

    If the bombers were dropping bombs from 3km then where are all the videos of Tu-22M3s releasing bombs from the ground perspective... surely such an attack would be easily visible... unless they were bombing from over 10km altitude and targets on the ground didn't even know they were there until the bombs exploded on the ground.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3057
    Points : 3155
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  medo on Mon Sep 26, 2016 6:21 pm

    GarryB wrote:???? So what you are saying is that an Su-33 is bloody useless and cannot find targets nor can it use a radio or data link to share information about targets other platforms have found....

    Don't you think it would be likely that if they gave it the ability to hit ground targets with dumb bombs, that they might also give it the capacity to find said targets or be passed target data while in flight?

    Modernization of Su-33 went quite quickly and all we know is, that they install Gefest SVP-24 complex in it, which is a targeting computer connected with weather sensors and satellite navigation for accuracy. Standard Su-33 is air superiority fighter like old Su-27, where radar have air targets modes only and IRST have only IR sensor and laser range finder. Old data link is also for air interceptions only and with very limited network capabilities. Without proper data link to receive data informations from others and without radar and IRST with capabilities to operate against ground targets, Su-33 Will not be of big help against ground targets, but could only work as air defense escort. I hope they modernize it at least to Su-30KN level if not to Su-27SM or Su-30M2 level. SVP-24 on Su-24M is supported with ground attack radar and Kaira EO complex as well as with data link. I hope we Will soon know more regarding Su-33.

    KiloGolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1302
    Points : 1324
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  KiloGolf on Mon Sep 26, 2016 8:24 pm

    I see that the usual bias is present with folks like Garry especially. The point is still there though, the sole Russian CV is severely troubled and the RuN cannot yet (if ever, with such an asset and air group) reach the level of operational sophistication that MN does with the CdG and assorted Rafales/Hawkeyes. There's no point in mentioning the USN here.


    Last edited by KiloGolf on Mon Sep 26, 2016 8:40 pm; edited 1 time in total

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3057
    Points : 3155
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  medo on Mon Sep 26, 2016 8:39 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:I see that the usual bias is present with folks like Garry especially. The point is still there though, the sole Russian CV is severely troubled and cannot, yet (if ever), reach the level of operational sophistication in that MN does with CdG. There's no point in mentioning the USN here.

    Kuznetsov itself is not troubled and a squadron of multirole MiG-29KR/KUBR could do any job in front of them. Same goes for Ka-52K. Problem is only with Su-33, which without deeper modernization is stil only an air superiority fighter with very limited air to ground capabilities. Su-33 need modernization to Su-27SM level to become truely multirole fighter like MiG-29K, which could do any job.

    KiloGolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1302
    Points : 1324
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  KiloGolf on Mon Sep 26, 2016 8:45 pm

    medo wrote:
    KiloGolf wrote:I see that the usual bias is present with folks like Garry especially. The point is still there though, the sole Russian CV is severely troubled and cannot, yet (if ever), reach the level of operational sophistication in that MN does with CdG. There's no point in mentioning the USN here.

    Kuznetsov itself is not troubled and a squadron of multirole MiG-29KR/KUBR could do any job in front of them. Same goes for Ka-52K. Problem is only with Su-33, which without deeper modernization is stil only an air superiority fighter with very limited air to ground capabilities. Su-33 need modernization to Su-27SM level to become truely multirole fighter like MiG-29K, which could do any job.

    The power-plant is a disaster which makes the ship troubled. Those MiGs could, sure, but that's no use if there's only four or six of them. And the dumped Ka-52K from the Mistral deal would seem oddly misused if they were to equip in numerous numbers such a CV. I get the feeling that they have no plan whatsoever in getting serious with this. Hopefully they'll manage to eventually operate in combat a good two dozen or so, of some modern strike fighter up there. Let it be the MiG-29K, it's a handier plane than the dated Su-33s.

    PS. the repeated word "could" in your post is the reason this discussion and points are made.

    TheArmenian
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1528
    Points : 1691
    Join date : 2011-09-14

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  TheArmenian on Mon Sep 26, 2016 9:25 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:I see that the usual bias is present with folks like Garry especially. The point is still there though, the sole Russian CV is severely troubled and the RuN cannot yet (if ever, with such an asset and air group) reach the level of operational sophistication that MN does with the CdG and assorted Rafales/Hawkeyes. There's no point in mentioning the USN here.

    No offence my friend, but this post of yours is the best example of bias.

    TheArmenian
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1528
    Points : 1691
    Join date : 2011-09-14

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  TheArmenian on Mon Sep 26, 2016 9:48 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:
    The power-plant is a disaster which makes the ship troubled.  

    A disaster!.....Pump the brakes Kilo, this is gross exaggeration. There is too much unfair publicity on the Kuznetsov. The ship made several previous trips to the Mediterranean in the past. It always made it back home. Hardly a disaster.

    Those MiGs could, sure, but that's no use if there's only four or six of them.
    It took only 2x F16s and 2x A10s to inflict crtitical damage on the Syrian Army in Deir Al-Zor. You think the same number of MiG-29s are harmless to the bearded terrorists?
    The days of hundred bomber raids are long gone. In most cases one or two aircraft armed with PGMs are sufficient to achieve a given objective.

    And the dumped Ka-52K from the Mistral deal would seem oddly misused if they were to equip in numerous numbers such a CV.
    Dumped!... did you really say dumped? If the Ka-52K project was dumped, why are they building any?

    I get the feeling that they have no plan whatsoever in getting serious with this.
    Disaster!....Dumped!... Not serious!
    Your choice of words and adjectives really sucks!

    Hopefully they'll manage to eventually operate in combat a good two dozen or so, of some modern strike fighter up there. Let it be the MiG-29K, it's a handier plane than the dated Su-33s.
    And that is the plan... and they are serious about it.
    No more Su-33s will be built. Whatever they have will be retired in time and will be replaced gradually by your preferred MiGs

    Singular_trafo
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 142
    Points : 142
    Join date : 2016-04-16

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  Singular_trafo on Mon Sep 26, 2016 10:21 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    What they saying is an active bombing system with unguided bombs works well up to 3 km height, above that the precision of it degrading .

    So some article writer for National Interest website tells us that the Russians are morons and liars and when they say their system is effective and they are adding the system to their theatre bombers (Tu-22M3M), and their long range tactical strike bombers (Su-24 and Su-34) and now to their naval fighters (Su-33) that obviously they must be idiots and don't know as much as America does.

    America tried it and failed so it is not possible that the Russians might have gotten it right.

    BTW making cheap dumb bombs effective is unAmerican... there is no profit margin there... it makes more sense to fit expensive guidance packages to cheap dumb bombs like Paveway...

    And actualy the manpads can shoot down an airplane that flying under 3km , so the system is effective only against enemy who doesn't has manpads.

    Yeah... of course... those dumb Russians don't know what they are talking about and their claims of being able to bomb from safe altitudes with the accuracy of guided weapons must all be made up... because some American said so.

    It is logical, considering that the normal, unguided air deffence guns are useless above 5-6 km.It is the inverse of the same reason why you need to use guided rockets to shoot down anything above 5-6km.

    It is as logical to expect good information about Russian equipment on that site as it is to expect good information about the US from the leader of North Korea... and for much the same reasons... countries that think they are at war have no reason to tell the truth.

    Do they replace its old IRST with more modern IRST like those on Su-30 with TV and laser designator channels inside for ground attacks and modernize radar with ground attack modes? Such modernizations will make Su-33 useful plane over Syria, without them it will be useless as it will not be able to share target informations with others and without capabilities to find targets by itself.

    ???? So what you are saying is that an Su-33 is bloody useless and cannot find targets nor can it use a radio or data link to share information about targets other platforms have found....

    Don't you think it would be likely that if they gave it the ability to hit ground targets with dumb bombs, that they might also give it the capacity to find said targets or be passed target data while in flight?

    Problem is if you need 4 bombs on 3 km, then you need 8 on 6 km and 16 pn 12 km.

    And if that were true what if they need 2 bombs at 12,000m?

    If the bombers were dropping bombs from 3km then where are all the videos of Tu-22M3s releasing bombs from the ground perspective... surely such an attack would be easily visible... unless they were bombing from over 10km altitude and targets on the ground didn't even know they were there until the bombs exploded on the ground.

    Relax : )

    A tu-160 will spread its bombs over 200 meter long area, doesn't matter what you do, simply because the bombs are hanging above each other.


    By the videos that they showed a tu-160 released 12 bombs onto one target, so the precision of the bombing can't be too good.Othervise one should be enough.

    The 12 bombs fallen onto roughtly 1-2 km long line.

    Singular_trafo
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 142
    Points : 142
    Join date : 2016-04-16

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  Singular_trafo on Mon Sep 26, 2016 10:28 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:I see that the usual bias is present with folks like Garry especially. The point is still there though, the sole Russian CV is severely troubled and the RuN cannot yet (if ever, with such an asset and air group) reach the level of operational sophistication that MN does with the CdG and assorted Rafales/Hawkeyes. There's no point in mentioning the USN here.

    These are different ships with different objectives.

    The US ships are parts of an invasion/agressor navy, that has the target to supress the ship trafic in one area, or to attack countries.

    Due to that the carriers are long range ones, with minimal protection but maximal aircraft number, and depending on the other parts of the invasion flotilla.

    The CCCP carriers flotilla was a protective force, to protect the shores and the submarines.

    Due to that those was dependent on the long range anti submarine/ awacs aircrafts, and doesn't needed any sophisticated power plants.


    If the CCCP wanted nuclear carriers with catapults then they should build them , instead of the Kirovs.But they wanted to protect the homeland, not invade other countries.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  GarryB on Tue Sep 27, 2016 11:42 am

    Without proper data link to receive data informations from others and without radar and IRST with capabilities to operate against ground targets, Su-33 Will not be of big help against ground targets, but could only work as air defense escort.

    So with no radar or IRST or datalink old model Su-25s were useless for attacking ground targets?

    I guess flying to a ground coordinate and being told where to look for your target does not work any more?

    If the upgraded Su-33s will be useless except as dumb fighter escorts can I ask why you think they gave them navigation and computer bombing capabilities?

    Problem is only with Su-33, which without deeper modernization is stil only an air superiority fighter with very limited air to ground capabilities. Su-33 need modernization to Su-27SM level to become truely multirole fighter like MiG-29K, which could do any job.

    Why?

    Their job is to protect the fleet. They have been upgraded to allow them to drop dumb bombs on point targets... why waste money adapting them to carry more expensive bombs and missiles?

    A tu-160 will spread its bombs over 200 meter long area, doesn't matter what you do, simply because the bombs are hanging above each other.

    Please share any video of a Tu-160 dropping bombs in Syria... I would be very interested in seeing it.

    By the videos that they showed a tu-160 released 12 bombs onto one target, so the precision of the bombing can't be too good.Othervise one should be enough.

    It depends on the target.

    Most large oil storage tanks have fortified walls and are spaced to prevent something that destroys one from damaging others so a spread of bombs is needed to do real damage.

    A line of vehicle in a convoy is another example of a target where precision meaning all bombs hitting one point on the ground is of no value.

    The 12 bombs fallen onto roughtly 1-2 km long line.

    Perfect for a convoy or to damage a road.

    If the CCCP wanted nuclear carriers with catapults then they should build them , instead of the Kirovs.But they wanted to protect the homeland, not invade other countries.

    Exactly... the US and to a lessor extent France have colonies to impress and impose their will upon with force... they need Nimitz type carriers... though in the case of the French they can't afford 100K bohemouths... they have to murder coloured people on a budget.

    The US knows it gets it money from being dominant so it spend the money knowing the effect is war and death with feeds their machine and pays for everything... though they have been over spending for some time, so obviously they will have to lower taxes and print more money.

    Personally I am predicting that the K will sit off Syria for a couple of months sending MiGs and Flankers into Syrian territory against a range of ground targets to test some tactics and weapons, and the Ka-52s will operate near the coast testing weapons and tactics. After 3-4 months of that they will go back to Russia and absorb all the new found knowledge regarding what they can or can't do and what weapons and systems work and what don't work, and use that to decide on the shape of their future carrier and aircraft upgrade options.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    KiloGolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1302
    Points : 1324
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  KiloGolf on Tue Sep 27, 2016 3:39 pm

    TheArmenian wrote:
    KiloGolf wrote:
    The power-plant is a disaster which makes the ship troubled.  

    A disaster!.....Pump the brakes Kilo, this is gross exaggeration. There is too much unfair publicity on the Kuznetsov. The ship made several previous trips to the Mediterranean in the past. It always made it back home. Hardly a disaster.

    Those MiGs could, sure, but that's no use if there's only four or six of them.
    It took only 2x F16s and 2x A10s to inflict crtitical damage on the Syrian Army in Deir Al-Zor. You think the same number of MiG-29s are harmless to the bearded terrorists?
    The days of hundred bomber raids are long gone. In most cases one or two aircraft armed with PGMs are sufficient to achieve a given objective.

    And the dumped Ka-52K from the Mistral deal would seem oddly misused if they were to equip in numerous numbers such a CV.
    Dumped!... did you really say dumped? If the Ka-52K project was dumped, why are they building any?

    I get the feeling that they have no plan whatsoever in getting serious with this.
    Disaster!....Dumped!... Not serious!
    Your choice of words and adjectives really sucks!

    Hopefully they'll manage to eventually operate in combat a good two dozen or so, of some modern strike fighter up there. Let it be the MiG-29K, it's a handier plane than the dated Su-33s.
    And that is the plan... and they are serious about it.
    No more Su-33s will be built. Whatever they have will be retired in time and will be replaced gradually by your preferred MiGs

    So 4-6 MiG-29K it is, because the days of hundred bomber raids are gone. Nice. I seem to find this as a much more unfortunate choice of logic (and words) than e.g. the truth on the Ka-25K being simply part of a dumped concept, designed for an LHD that is no more. I also said "oddly misused" which is very fitting.

    Concerning the carrier being what it is, i.e. a disaster. It can't offer Russia the tools that the French or Americans get out of their own equivalent assets, tools that the Russians badly want and need right now with Syria in flames. The current ship and air group is useless, to say the least. And the usual doctrinal lecture of the dead USSR won't change that. Add the fact that it can't even sail on time and you get the point.

    Also the Soviets and Russians surely did not set the bar on CVs based on them simply "making it back home".  lol1
    If that's the benchmark then surely the word disaster is quite conservative.

    TheArmenian wrote:
    KiloGolf wrote:I see that the usual bias is present with folks like Garry especially. The point is still there though, the sole Russian CV is severely troubled and the RuN cannot yet (if ever, with such an asset and air group) reach the level of operational sophistication that MN does with the CdG and assorted Rafales/Hawkeyes. There's no point in mentioning the USN here.

    No offence my friend, but this post of yours is the best example of bias.

    None taken as everything I post is explained with facts in order to help discussion.

    Singular_trafo wrote:If the CCCP wanted nuclear  carriers with catapults then they should build them , instead of the Kirovs.

    The Soviets wanted and planned for CATOBAR but they run out of money and imploded. AEW&C assets couldn't just go STOBAR. So there you go. Those few Kuznetsovs were only meant to be a stop-gap class anyway.

    Singular_trafo
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 142
    Points : 142
    Join date : 2016-04-16

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  Singular_trafo on Tue Sep 27, 2016 7:29 pm

    GarryB wrote:


    Ok , so I think it is not so clear.

    If you use the aircraft to target the bomb then you you have three variable:
    1. aircraft build differences
    2.Enviromental differences ( fuel, weight, wind)
    3.Bomb manufacturing differences.


    So, if you drop in place the system the accuracy of it can be increased by doing test runs with the aircraft, and decrease hte first and potential the second problem.
    The third is a but hard to overcame.

    Acutally we don't knowthe magnitude of the three parameters, and if we know it then we are not allowed to discuss it on an open forum, maximum during the design/production meetings : )

    So, another problem with that if you use the aircraft as targeting is you can target only one place, no more than that.
    In tha tcase the spread of the bombs means opportunity to hit multiple target with one bombing run.
    So, if the bombs are hanging on the top of each other, like in a strategic bomber then the situation will be a bit mroe complicated.

    0.2 meter height difference in the bomb bay , with 300 m/sec translate into a 70 meters difference on the ground.

    So, if you have three bombse then all of them will be on a line.

    If your target is a convoy , then you have to adjust the fly path to paralel with the convoy .

    on the videos visibly the tu-160 ejected the bombs in two phase, with 0.5 sec difference, across the bay.


    Singular_trafo
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 142
    Points : 142
    Join date : 2016-04-16

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  Singular_trafo on Tue Sep 27, 2016 7:32 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:

    The Soviets wanted and planned for CATOBAR but they run out of money and imploded. AEW&C assets couldn't just go STOBAR. So there you go. Those few Kuznetsovs were only meant to be a stop-gap class anyway.

    The project 941 cost as much or more than a Nimitz.

    And the SU didn't dissolved due to money problems.
    It was simply Gorbatchov's merith.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3057
    Points : 3155
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  medo on Tue Sep 27, 2016 8:59 pm

    GarryB wrote:So with no radar or IRST or datalink old model Su-25s were useless for attacking ground targets?

    I guess flying to a ground coordinate and being told where to look for your target does not work any more?

    If the upgraded Su-33s will be useless except as dumb fighter escorts can I ask why you think they gave them navigation and computer bombing capabilities?

    Su-25 was a CAS plane from the begining. But on the other hand, yes, old Su-25 without radar, IRST and data link have to come very close to the target to use unguided bombs or rockets or laser guided missiles and they pay a heavy price to MANPADS for this in Chechnya and Georgia. This is why Russia send Su-25SM to Syria, that they could operate outside from the reach of terrorist air defense with their MANPADs and AA guns. Syrian AF also pay a heavy price with their MiGs, which have to fly low and near targets to bomb them with unguided bombs and rockets.

    Russia doesn't want to loose any jet in this war. That is why they are sending new or modernized jets there. They don't want to loose any Su-33 either. New navigation equipment and bombing computer is good to bomb known stationary targets with known locations from safe distance. But for new appearing targets they need a source to detect them and give info into computer. Problem is, that we do not know, how much other equipment in Su-33 is modernized parallely to SVP-24. But one thing is sure, Russian military want to use their Su-33 jets fully in Syria in heavy battles in Aleppo and beyond and not to have them there just for show.

    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2542
    Points : 2675
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  kvs on Tue Sep 27, 2016 10:37 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:
    OminousSpudd wrote:
    KiloGolf wrote: sometimes sense similar hype on Russian systems/platforms being preserved on this forum.
    It has come across that you are on some sort of crusade.  Smile

    Having someone viewing things differently is not a crusade.
    Diverse opinions should be welcome, otherwise we might as well move to Best Korea. pirat

    Trolling and contrarianism is not "diversity". It is unconstructive time waste and essentially a form of mental
    masturbation.

    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2542
    Points : 2675
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  kvs on Tue Sep 27, 2016 10:44 pm

    Singular_trafo wrote:
    KiloGolf wrote:

    The Soviets wanted and planned for CATOBAR but they run out of money and imploded. AEW&C assets couldn't just go STOBAR. So there you go. Those few Kuznetsovs were only meant to be a stop-gap class anyway.

    The project 941 cost as much or more than a Nimitz.

    And the SU didn't dissolved due to money problems.
    It was simply Gorbatchov's merith.

    Gorbachev was the tip of the rotting iceberg. The Soviet system had life during the 1960s but started to stagnate after 1976. The economy
    is about human perceptions and action. The Soviet system did not properly take the human element into account. All the discussion about
    communism vs. capitalism typically dances around the fact that neither system is divine perfection and both can function given the right
    conditions. Regardless if 1991 was a tragedy or not, it was the result of decomposition processes in progress before 1991. Reagan and Star Wars
    spending can't take credit, but Communist Party corruption did contribute significantly. The transition has been painful but Russia is much better off
    today in many key metrics. Some of the social costs will take much longer than 25 years to work through.

    KiloGolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1302
    Points : 1324
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  KiloGolf on Tue Sep 27, 2016 11:59 pm

    kvs wrote:
    KiloGolf wrote:
    OminousSpudd wrote:
    KiloGolf wrote: sometimes sense similar hype on Russian systems/platforms being preserved on this forum.
    It has come across that you are on some sort of crusade.  Smile

    Having someone viewing things differently is not a crusade.
    Diverse opinions should be welcome, otherwise we might as well move to Best Korea. pirat

    Trolling and contrarianism is not "diversity".  It is unconstructive time waste and essentially a form of mental
    masturbation.  

    No need for such self-reflection.
    It is diversity to have differing opinions, sorry.

    TheArmenian
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1528
    Points : 1691
    Join date : 2011-09-14

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  TheArmenian on Wed Sep 28, 2016 1:32 am

    Kilogolf wrote wrote:Also the Soviets and Russians surely did not set the bar on CVs based on them simply "making it back home". lol1
    If that's the benchmark then surely the word disaster is quite conservative.
    What are the ship's engines supposed to do apart from taking the ship to destination and back?
    Jump up and down? Sing the glory of the motherland? make an inverted loop?

    Anyways, you are entitled to your opinion and I am not interested to continue this discussion. I myself am not pro-aircraft carrier at all. These expensive to build, expensive to operate, manpower intensive behemoths had a place in naval warfare last century. They are not as important now.
    The US Navy is now down to only ten aircraft carriers. France has just one. The UK has none operational currently. etc.etc.
    Russia's Kuznetsov is not essential in Syria operations. Hmeyim, Hamadan, Torzok and the Kalibers are doing just fine.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 7:30 pm


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 10, 2016 7:30 pm