Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

MOSCOW (Sputnik) — Russia's Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier will be upgraded in 2018 after returning from service, Vice President of the United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC) Igor Ponomarev said Wednesday.

GarryB wrote:Me

"New unproven, largely untested aircraft sometimes fail when used for the first few times..." -

Mil

MiG-29 is exactly 40 years old platform, that is the reason why the damn thing was picked to replace Su-33s coz its derivates were already in service and could be produced on same line in short period of time.

What?

The MiG-29K is based on the MiG-29 and was chosen because it was in production for India... unlike the Su-33 which was not in production... the Su-33 was based on the Su-27 which is just as old as the MiG-29.

The MiG-29M2 design is new and the MiG-35 and MiG-29KR use that new design.

They have never been used in combat from a carrier so they are new.

What does the carrier have to do with this? the carrier was in no way at fault for this nor was it even a factor the plane failed here.

Yes exactly an old frame it's not like this is a carrier passed T-50 these kind of problems should not be happening.

I agree ditch them and let sukoi take over.

Actually it is, because tho other aircraft maybe be unsafe I have over 15 years combat experience. Ground forces, it's a problem when a brand new piece of equipment fails like this in combat duty because it may pose a hazard to others. The frame maybe unsafe now we don't know so yes it does poses a problem to combat duty.

I could list many reasons why but seems if I say one negative thing about the Russian navy people don't take well to it.

Ignorance is bliss.

The MiG-29KR is not an old aircraft... they are new made aircraft that have not been flying on the K for the last 20 years... apart from a few MiG-33s tested these aircraft were only made a year or two ago and have not been fully tested on the carrier... that is the whole point of the deployment.

The F-22 is an old design... it is clearly based on the MiG-25 in basic layout... copied via the F-15 and given stealth shaping.... a 1950s plane really.

Notice the helicopters hoevering whole time around Ku

Duh... I wonder why the rescue helos would operate during take offs and landings... I mean surely they should be below decks in the hangar play cards.

1. This is not a new plane this is a variant of a frame with decades plus years experience.

Bullshit.

The basic design is not new but these are new build aircraft based on the MiG-29M2 that have never operated from the Kuznetsov previously. The only MiG operating from the K was the MiG-33 and that was quite some time ago and a different design.

2. Like it or not China's navy is stronger then russia's this is what all the worlds naval experts agree one. Quality does not win a war, ask the germans how that went Russia may have better boats but they have far to few and would easily get overran.

So you are saying that the Soviet Navy was superior to the US Navy if numbers are more important than quality or training.

3. Dude what does the Nazi's and jews have to do with this.....Honestly that not even cool you went there. I don't know why you did frankly but that's crossing a line.

Your navy friends... I assume western navy? Same propaganda machine... they will say the same as you. Probably same hate for Russia as well.

But OK to hate Russia... mentioning nazis and jews is not acceptable, but OK to hate Russia... yes, I know your rules.

4. I have taken part in recovery operations, first off chances are the aircraft split apart after hitting the water it's not all going to be in one piece. they will not recover the wreck all the data they need are in it's black boxes. Wasting money to recover the wreck is pointless blow it up and that's it.

The Med is not that deep. they have a lot of new toys for underwater exploration. The CIA has a history of recovering stuff for intel purposes... it would be a useful exercise to try to recover as much as possible.

5. You have a problem with some being critical of your nations navy?. sorry but that doesn't give you the right to attack someone because they don't agree with it. I am critical about my own nations military, you don't see me attacking people who say Abrams suck do you?. Sorry but The Russian Navy isn't what you crack it up to be. Patriotism is fine but don't let it blind you ether.

Russia is not my nation... never been there.

Nothing to do with patriotism or pride... it is the display of ignorance that motivates me.

6. You are missing the point it was an old Hornet not a brand spanking new one, now even the F-35 which I view as the single biggest flying piece of poo ever has done this. This was an aircraft from a known shitty supplier which didn't even have a couple dozen hours on it and went down. If you cannot understand this not my problem.

An old Hornet that has been tested and used operationally for decades... all problems and issues with hardware and software and training have been ironed out yet it still crashes.

Brand new MiG-29KR design that has never been used operationally before by Russia has a crash and MiG needs to be put out of business... if you have ever seen a MiG on the K it was probably the MiG-33 over a decade ago... since then only Su-33s and Su-25 trainer aircraft on the K.

The Indians order some MiG-29Ks and Russia orders some too because the production costs would be greatly reduced... this is their first real deployment... do you understand... they don't have the western avionics and equipment the Indian Navy has... they are new.

You don't even know why one crashed but the Russian Navy is pathetic and MiG should stop making planes...

7. That's nice for Kaliber, I like the Kaliber but the Kaliber has nothing to do with this MIG.

Kalibr is what the Russian Navy has used when MiG-29Ks are not available, and it is what it will continue to use when MiG-29Ks are doing other things... when it comes to land attack the MiG-29K is plan B. The primary job of the K is defending a group of ships, with that group of ships able to attack rather more targets with land attack cruise missiles than the K can attack with its MiGs or Sukhois.

These are combat sorties right? not drills? why are they sending the 33's in the air are they trying to intercept or deny airspace?

They are in situ to train... would it not be normal to test the Su-33s against ground targets and also form a CAP for the ships...

Mig 29k is no more competitive with Superhornet, F-35 and Rafale. India bought it because there was no other solution. For their new AC I'm pretty sure they will go for F-35 or Rafale.

Pretty much anything that was put in the MiG-35 could be put in the MiG-29K.

The simple fact is that there is no point in making the MiG-29K into the MiG-35 when the PAK FA will likely become a carrier aircraft in the next decade or so.

More importantly the MiG-29K does not need to defeat any of those aircraft you mention... S-400 can shoot them down while Onyx will sink the carriers they operate from...

The MiG-29K is just an extra air defence layer to stop enemy aircraft and cruise missiles from attacking the russian ships.

Well, 29s were never the shiniest apple in the basket.

Well that happens when everyone spits and no one polishes.

It was MiG-29s in western tests that kicked the asses of all current western fighters of the period in the early 1990s... the main problem for the MiG was that later models never really got a chance, so while it was the primative export MiGs that defeated all those western fighters... largely because of HMS and R-73s, the west had time to learn its strengths and weaknesses and develop tactics to deal with them.

Of course the western powers were so ignorant to think they had the MiG beaten now despite lots of upgrades that focused on its weaknesses... they had a very low opinion of the MiG but there was still the Sukhoi to scare everyone into increasing the budget for everything.

The result is that the west will likely get a nasty shock the next time it comes up against a competently handled MiG... look at the Indian pilots in MiG-21s against US pilots...

They keep making the same mistakes yet call themselves professionals...

Part of RuN's baby steps in carrier ops and naval expeditions is blunders like these.

Obviously they would lose no aircraft and have no problems if they stayed at home and did nothing with their heads up their asses.

Of course Americas baby steps in urban combat led to the blunder of losing men to IEDs...

Militarov wrote:

However, when India accepted bid for MiG-29K together with the carrier Russia just joined the whole party, restarting production of Su-33 did not make any sense at that moment. And yes, MiG-29K is over 80% based on original 40 years old design, 9.13, 9.18 (and others) are just further revisions of the same design which removed certain flaws, the core of the design never really changed on any major scale. Hence its old design, exactly 40 years old as of this moment.

Its like saying F-16 Block 52 is new design compared to F-16MLU, why would you do that? Its just revision of original platform. Also, almost any aircraft can be modified to be used with STOBAR thats not the point.

Also here is not the point what avionics Indians wanted or did not want, displays and HUD did not cause the crash. Engine stall, hydraulics, landing gear, FBW... or some of the flight crucial systems did, you can fly it with your AC generator not working, with no electricity whatsoever and no avionics except analog ones.

SU-33 IS Su-27, they are almost identical in every but few modifications required by Navy.

And lets not go into American urban combat experience... Russians got more than few rotten apples in that department, and it wasnt all that long ago.

JohninMK wrote:

Hi, as a newcomer I am not sure how long you have been following things around here particularly photos en route prior to your 'biased data collection' comment.

As you say 'interesting'. Before saying what you have, did you consider that the K was smoking like a good un for the whole trip from the cold Arctic to the warm Med? According to your theory we should be congratulating the Chief Engineer for his astonishing ability to keep an engine cold all the way to generate good smoke.

Right!

As any motorcyclist will tell you, the dark smoke out of a diesel exhaust is unburnt fuel. Almost invariably caused by something not quite right from a wide variety of reasons. This is not just Russian ships, it is a few articles of military gear where Russians smoke more than Western products. But not going there as its OT.

hoom wrote:]the K is actually one of the biggest boiler powered ship ever build

Singular_Transform wrote:

JohninMK wrote:

Hi, as a newcomer I am not sure how long you have been following things around here particularly photos en route prior to your 'biased data collection' comment.

As you say 'interesting'. Before saying what you have, did you consider that the K was smoking like a good un for the whole trip from the cold Arctic to the warm Med? According to your theory we should be congratulating the Chief Engineer for his astonishing ability to keep an engine cold all the way to generate good smoke.

Right!

As any motorcyclist will tell you, the dark smoke out of a diesel exhaust is unburnt fuel. Almost invariably caused by something not quite right from a wide variety of reasons. This is not just Russian ships, it is a few articles of military gear where Russians smoke more than Western products. But not going there as its OT.

The smoking is a typical characteristic for all engine burning bunker oil in certain operation conditions.

Question : what is the smoke of a boiler powered ship during different operation conditions, like kitty
Observation : the pictures that you found on the net is not made during random work conditions, but pre-defined places, like channel crossing, and this are not representing a true random sample

For me the most probable explanation is the smoker pictures made at the time when the K started one or more boiler.

AlfaT8 wrote:What's with the small bomb load on the Su-33s???

Militarov wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:What's with the small bomb load on the Su-33s???

Short or long answer?

Short one would be: STOBAR.

AlfaT8 wrote:

Militarov wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:What's with the small bomb load on the Su-33s???

Short or long answer?

Short one would be: STOBAR.

Realy!?
I thought that was a myth, created by U.S idiots.

KiloGolf wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:

Militarov wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:What's with the small bomb load on the Su-33s???

Short or long answer?

Short one would be: STOBAR.

Realy!?
I thought that was a myth, created by U.S idiots.

No it's not a myth. STOBAR sucks in that regard (most essential I might add).
But I could think ways of working around that, like:

Launch with low fuel and fullest possible load from the long launch position, refuel in-air and proceed with mission.

Militarov wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:

Militarov wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:What's with the small bomb load on the Su-33s???

Short or long answer?

Short one would be: STOBAR.

Realy!?
I thought that was a myth, created by U.S idiots.

No it's not a myth. STOBAR sucks in that regard (most essential I might add).
But I could think ways of working around that, like:

Launch with low fuel and fullest possible load from the long launch position, refuel in-air and proceed with mission.

Buddy refueling from another fighter would be probably the most practical.

JohninMK wrote:
Or in this situation, take off, land at Hmeimen, refuel and add munitions, take off and hit target before returning to K.

JohninMK wrote:

Militarov wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:

Militarov wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:What's with the small bomb load on the Su-33s???

Short or long answer?

Short one would be: STOBAR.

Realy!?
I thought that was a myth, created by U.S idiots.

No it's not a myth. STOBAR sucks in that regard (most essential I might add).
But I could think ways of working around that, like:

Launch with low fuel and fullest possible load from the long launch position, refuel in-air and proceed with mission.

Buddy refueling from another fighter would be probably the most practical.

Or in this situation, take off, land at Hmeimen, refuel and add munitions, take off and hit target before returning to K.

Its like saying F-16 Block 52 is new design compared to F-16MLU

What's with the small bomb load on the Su-33s???

hoom wrote:

Its like saying F-16 Block 52 is new design compared to F-16MLU

Your argument regarding Mig-29K is the equivalent of 'F-16s suck because the original F-16 is 40 years old' regardless of the upgraded capabilities of block 52 vs original F-16A  

What's with the small bomb load on the Su-33s???

Bear in mind 2* med range AA missiles, 2* short range AA missiles, 2* 500kg bombs & a half load of internal fuel is about equivalent to this
...

Edit: Hmm looks like the actual bomb launches are minus the med-range AA missiles.

miketheterrible wrote:Easy to spot a Greek. Less educated and poorly informed. Reflection of their country and economy.

miketheterrible wrote: To modernize it based upon the needs and issues they face during its Syria campaign. Kind of obvious to even the simplest of minds.

miketheterrible wrote:What he posted and what you posted are two different things. If you weren't a stereotype, you would have been less lazy and realised that. Your picking on the Russian deployment of the carrier and its lack of available wings available and their weight and comparing it to an actual dedicated carrier vs the carrier/cruiser that Kuznetsov is. I pointed out how wrong you are and why its obviously a test. Which in this case, johnins post proves as such and that is from me not even reading it.

miketheterrible wrote:Boiler isn't even a deficiency. Carrier made it to its spot. Who gives a crap about the smoke from the boilers.  And tell me, does the other carriers use cruise missiles galore like Kuznetsov does? It does hamper total wing output but it is indeed a cruiser carrier, not dedicated carrier.

Sorry that your a dolt.

Catapult isn't even mentioned a at all. Your efficiency at assuming things isn't all there.  I suggest not going into the banking sector as a career if you love your country and want to save it.