Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

The snag cables were damaged in the previous 2 landings. The pilot was told to circle while they got fixed... took too long and he had to eject when he ran out of fuel.

hoom wrote:

The snag cables were damaged in the previous 2 landings. The pilot was told to circle while they got fixed... took too long and he had to eject when he ran out of fuel.

If thats what happened it is actually pretty embarrassing.
Kinda almost prefer a mechanical issue with the plane

A1RMAN wrote:

hoom wrote:

The snag cables were damaged in the previous 2 landings. The pilot was told to circle while they got fixed... took too long and he had to eject when he ran out of fuel.

If thats what happened it is actually pretty embarrassing.
Kinda almost prefer a mechanical issue with the plane

No. All this is experience. Better now without human casualties, then epic fail during hard military operation in the future.

hoom wrote:

The snag cables were damaged in the previous 2 landings. The pilot was told to circle while they got fixed... took too long and he had to eject when he ran out of fuel.

If thats what happened it is actually pretty embarrassing.
Kinda almost prefer a mechanical issue with the plane

KiloGolf wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

franco wrote:Here is a more detailed version. The snag cables were damaged in the previous 2 landings. The pilot was told to circle while they got fixed... took too long and he had to eject when he ran out of fuel.

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2273357.html

That's terrible. Planes can't carry enough fuel/payload on this carrier and it really shows with incidents like that.

Oh shut up already.  You don't give a crap.  Shed your tears for your next economic meltdown.

Because you didn't see it, you don't even know what kind of armament the things can carry.  Since you know, you nor I seen the MiG-29KR or alike with all its armament.

Yeah well, there's a valid point there. Sorry for being too cynic and realist for your taste.

magnumcromagnon wrote:The same realist who believes you should fight $15k technicals whith $80k missiles...

Why did a Russian MiG-29K crash into the Mediterranean?
November 23, 2016 MIKHAIL KHODORENOK, GAZETA.RU

On Nov. 13, the day of the accident, three MiG-29KRs took off from the aircraft carrier. After completing their flight missions the planes returned to the ship. The landings were to be conducted at an interval of three-four minutes.

The first fighter landed without any complications. The second MiG-29KR caught the second arresting cable, tore it and in the end caught the fourth, reserve cable. The torn second cable got tangled up with the third cable and incapacitated it for a plane's landing.

For some time it was basically impossible for the planes to land on the aircraft carrier. At that time the third MiG-29KR was approaching. Since the aircraft carrier's team needed some time to fix the arresting cables, the flight supervisor told the pilot of the third plane to land after circling the ship a second time.

While the plane was waiting to land both of its engines broke down. According to a preliminary theory, fuel had stopped entering the engines. In such cases, a jet plane plummets like a rock and the pilot can do only one thing: eject.

http://rbth.com/defence/2016/11/23/why-did-a-russian-mig-29k-crash-into-the-mediterranean_650231

Militarov wrote:Yes, thermal barriers are also very important part of whole thing tho i consider them part of whole metalurgical complex.

Yeah, stainless steel was for quite a while big time material for engines, even turbine blades of "later" stages. GE engine i mentioned above had some type of stainless steel turbine blades (first 7 were titanium, others steel).  MiG-25 engines had stainless steel components actually it was almost whole made from it with, however most heat intensive parts were "silverised" to increase durability.

KiloGolf wrote:

Militarov wrote:Yes, thermal barriers are also very important part of whole thing tho i consider them part of whole metalurgical complex.

Yeah, stainless steel was for quite a while big time material for engines, even turbine blades of "later" stages. GE engine i mentioned above had some type of stainless steel turbine blades (first 7 were titanium, others steel).  MiG-25 engines had stainless steel components actually it was almost whole made from it with, however most heat intensive parts were "silverised" to increase durability.

Makes sense for the Foxbat given it was 60s tech. But anything developed in the 80s and later makes little sense to make use of steel rotors and so on. My Metallurgy Professor who was a Co, Ni, Mo and Nb alloy expert praised the Soviet metallurgists as leading the world in the 80s, but they were being let down by poor manufacturing practices and inability to basically scale up the good stuff, esp when it came to gas turbines for aerospace (commercial aircraft).

Ned86 wrote:In the meantime, those who were creating fun in the media, about smoky Kuznetsov and "towing Kuznetsov", had to tow its newest Destroyer after he broke down shortly after leaving harbor and going to the sea for a exercises.

HMS Duncan has been towed back to the base on november 23, shortly after leaving its base on november 21 to participate in the military exercises together with four other NATO warships.

HMS Duncan,  Daring class destroyer, is newest destroyer in Royal navy and it has been commissioned 2013.

more on link
https://defence.ru/article/britanskii-esminec-sledivshii-za-kuznecovim-vernuli-v-port-na-buksirovali/

Going back on-topic. Basically the USNI theory of loosing both engines, reported by Gazeta.ru.

They however used some great solutions for their submarines, titanium welding, welding in vacoom, in various gasses, titanium forging etc.

Ned86 wrote:In the meantime, those who were creating fun in the media, about smoky Kuznetsov and "towing Kuznetsov", had to tow its newest Destroyer after he broke down shortly after leaving harbor and going to the sea for a exercises.

HMS Duncan has been towed back to the base on november 23, shortly after leaving its base on november 21 to participate in the military exercises together with four other NATO warships.

HMS Duncan,  Daring class destroyer, is newest destroyer in Royal navy and it has been commissioned 2013.

more on link
https://defence.ru/article/britanskii-esminec-sledivshii-za-kuznecovim-vernuli-v-port-na-buksirovali/

HMS Duncan Towed Back To Port

"HMS Duncan experienced technical issues and will resume operations once a full assessment has taken place."
It's understood tug assistance was used during berthing as a ship-handling precaution.

http://forces.tv/92165949#.WDbSNIQBNZM.twitter

NavyLookout
‏@NavyLookout



HMS Duncan towed into Plymouth yesterday. Burst salt water pipe cause, NOT Gas Turbines failure that’s been root of most Type 45 problems

Ned86 wrote:russian tugboat is sailing normally together with battle group, which is nevertheless common practice in all navies.

GarryB wrote:

Going back on-topic. Basically the USNI theory of loosing both engines, reported by Gazeta.ru.

Engines don't break down when they are not fed fuel... they just stop running.

They however used some great solutions for their submarines, titanium welding, welding in vacoom, in various gasses, titanium forging etc.

They made decisions based on requirements... for instance the mesh around the MiG-25s used to help cool it were made of Silver... which was not cheap but was not as expensive as gold which would have been slightly more efficient but also rather more expensive. They made a choice... just like the decision to go with steel rather than titanium where aluminium was simply not an option due to heat requirements.

Both steel and Titanium could do the job... the former was lighter but also more expensive and they wanted a lot of them so they went for the steel option.

KiloGolf wrote:

Ned86 wrote:russian tugboat is sailing normally together with battle group, which is nevertheless common practice in all navies.

No it's not. Had you read and news and appreciated the image (near the port) you'd realize the Kuz vs. Duncan incidents have nothing in common. With the former being more embarrassing and troubling (forced to sail with a tug alongside, from Murmansk to Latakia).

KiloGolf wrote:

Ned86 wrote:russian tugboat is sailing normally together with battle group, which is nevertheless common practice in all navies.

No it's not. Had you read and news and appreciated the image (near the port) you'd realize the Kuz vs. Duncan incidents have nothing in common. With the former being more embarrassing and troubling (forced to sail with a tug alongside, from Murmansk to Latakia).

Am i the only one noticing those are not ocean going tugs... but port tugs?

During berthing is the important part.

GarryB wrote:

Am i the only one noticing those are not ocean going tugs... but port tugs?

Well in the spirit of humorous jabs... that is because when NATO vessels break down they don't make it to the open ocean...  

The shore looks pretty distant to me in that photo...

Militarov wrote:Am i the only one noticing those are not ocean going tugs... but port tugs?

TheArmenian wrote:overpriced problematic junk from now on.

GarryB wrote:Well in the spirit of humorous jabs... that is because when NATO vessels break down they don't make it to the open ocean...  

The shore looks pretty distant to me in that photo...

Taking easy and false comfort in a NATO vessel having an incident is missing the point.