Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16054
    Points : 16685
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  GarryB on Tue Dec 06, 2016 10:11 pm

    At least next time they have to ditch a 4th generation fast-jet into the Med, they could consider landing it on one of their partner's nearby CVs.

    I doubt a Russian navy pilot would hand their aircraft over to the enemy like that.

    I am sure there is a policy of not supplying high tech equipment to the side that beheads children and burns women alive.

    The whole point of this operation is testing, so finding this stuff out now is what it was all supposed to be about.

    Children bleating about accidents shouldn't happen should look up the definition of accidents.

    OTH, some sailor(s) may have gotten tired being there & decided to sabotage the ship to go home sooner!

    You mean like the gay sailor on the Iowa class battleship that changed the order of the propellant charges in the gun his ex lover worked in so that it exploded and killed him when they fired... possible.

    AFAIK the arresting system is not set up for different weights... only steam cat launches are.

    There are only max landing weight limits set for the aircraft.


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    KiloGolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1705
    Points : 1733
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  KiloGolf on Tue Dec 06, 2016 10:19 pm

    GarryB wrote:I am sure there is a policy of not supplying high tech equipment to the side that beheads children and burns women alive.

    I thought Russia recently restarted business and were talking about deals with Turkey (S-400).

    Su-33 even with Gefest hardly qualifies as more cutting edge than S-400.
    avatar
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5428
    Points : 5473
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  Militarov on Tue Dec 06, 2016 10:27 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:
    GarryB wrote:I am sure there is a policy of not supplying high tech equipment to the side that beheads children and burns women alive.

    I thought Russia recently restarted business and were talking about deals with Turkey (S-400).

    Su-33 even with Gefest hardly qualifies as more cutting edge than S-400.

    SU-33 hardly qualifies as cutting edge by any means.
    avatar
    KiloGolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1705
    Points : 1733
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  KiloGolf on Tue Dec 06, 2016 10:29 pm

    Militarov wrote:SU-33 hardly qualifies as cutting edge by any means.

    Start running now lol1
    avatar
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5428
    Points : 5473
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  Militarov on Tue Dec 06, 2016 10:31 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:
    Militarov wrote:SU-33 hardly qualifies as cutting edge by any means.

    Start running now lol1

    Why, not like i said something that is not true. Come on, everyone here knows that Su-33s are long past their youth.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 404
    Points : 406
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  Singular_Transform on Tue Dec 06, 2016 11:11 pm

    Maybe not so obivous to everyone , but the most expensive component of a carrier is the trained crew , shipyard workers and suppliers.


    What happens now is the RUN lear the methods how to operate,maintain, design, train and usa the carrier.


    It is an expensive training, and they are lucky because no pilot was lost.

    At the moment they haven't got experienced crew/pilots, and they lerning how to train them now.


    Few weeks ago there was a lot of noise about the fact there is more aircraft than trained pilot.


    avatar
    Tsavo Lion
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 83
    Points : 85
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Wed Dec 07, 2016 12:02 am

    GarryB wrote:
    At least next time they have to ditch a 4th generation fast-jet into the Med, they could consider landing it on one of their partner's nearby CVs.

    I doubt a Russian navy pilot would hand their aircraft over to the enemy like that. ..
    OTH, some sailor(s) may have gotten tired being there & decided to sabotage the ship to go home sooner!

    You mean like the gay sailor on the Iowa class battleship that changed the order of the propellant charges in the gun his ex lover worked in so that it exploded and killed him when they fired... possible.

    AFAIK the arresting system is not set up for different weights... only steam cat launches are.

    There are only max landing weight limits set for the aircraft.

    Neither Su-33 nor MiG-29K have the front landing gear designed &/ strong enough for CATs, so how would they get off those carriers even if they were cleared to recover on them? The J-15 is another matter- it now has a launch bar as Chinese r getting ready for CATOBAR ops on their future CVs. But even then they r a long away off, if ever, to crossdecking with the USN CVNs!
    «Под палубой стоят огромные барабаны – метров шесть диаметром. При зацепе они по специальной программе стравливают с себя трос – затормаживают в зависимости от посадочного веса машины. Этот вес может сильно отличаться в зависимости от объема топлива на борту. Всякий раз при посадке пилот сообщает на борт данные об остатке топлива. Тогда в зависимости от фактического веса машины ставятся «уставки» на тормозные барабаны, чтобы успеть остановить именно данный самолет на дистанции в 90 метров. Перед каждой посадкой конкретный матросик бегает и ставит «уставки». Если поставит неправильно, то барабан также будет тормозить неправильно, что может стать одной из причин обрыва троса, – пояснил собеседник. – И такие случаи бывали».http://www.vz.ru/politics/2016/12/5/666349.print.html
    Transl.: "Below deck are huge drums - six meters in diameter. When they trap, a special program with vented cable cause breaking action, depending on the landing weight of the plane. This weight can vary greatly depending on the amount of fuel on board. Before each landing, pilot reports data on remaining fuel. Then the "settings" depending on the actual weight of the plane are put on the brake drums in time to stop the aircraft at a distance of 90 meters. Before each specific landing sailor puts the "settings". If it's wrong, the drum will also slow down wrong, & it can be one of the causes of cable breakage, - he explained. - And such cases happened."
    I was not joking about possible sabotage- & it happened before in the Soviet Navy as well!


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Wed Dec 07, 2016 12:39 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    kvs
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2929
    Points : 3056
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  kvs on Wed Dec 07, 2016 12:08 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    Pace of launches is what snapped the cable. So real war was still needed. When USN started using this AC thing in war for real back in the 40's I doubt they got everything right on the fist go. Nobody does.
    It could also be the wrong weight entered to the arrestor system- such mistakes occurred there before. Or the arrestor, not the wire, itself  malfunctioned. I'm sure the Russians analyzed decades worth of US, French, British & Japanese carrier ops from open sources as well as info. obtained from intell. OTH, some sailor(s) may have gotten tired being there & decided to sabotage the ship to go home sooner!

    That is just fluffy unicorns fantasy. The Russian parts are not the US parts. They have their own physical characteristics
    so they have their own design learning curves.

    Exhibit A:

    China's knockoff of Su fighters the J-15. Even though they got their hands on the engines, they could not copy them after 15 years of
    trying.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 83
    Points : 85
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Wed Dec 07, 2016 12:16 am

    I'm talking about ops in general, not parts; pl. see my prev. post. BTW, where is Canuckistan? Pl. clarify it on ur profile. Thx!
    avatar
    KiloGolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1705
    Points : 1733
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  KiloGolf on Wed Dec 07, 2016 12:28 am

    kvs wrote:China's knockoff of Su fighters the J-15.   Even though they got their hands on the engines, they could not copy them after 15 years of
    trying.  

    Correct. But your sentence is missing one key word: yet. It will happen by the 2020s. High performance and efficient gas turbines are probably the most difficult aircraft assembly the Chinese can ever embark on reverse engineering. Hence it takes time, high quality R&D and money, all of which China has in abundance.
    avatar
    miketheterrible
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 851
    Points : 853
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  miketheterrible on Wed Dec 07, 2016 1:25 am

    Not likely. Hence why they are trying to convince the Russians for sale of 6 engines to each Su-35 rather than traditional 4.
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 400
    Points : 404
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Wed Dec 07, 2016 1:37 am

    miketheterrible wrote:Not likely. Hence why they are trying to convince the Russians for sale of 6 engines to each Su-35 rather than traditional 4.

    Not really selling anything that is the current generation to china is a HUGE mistake. They only reverse engineer it and sell it at a cheaper price. One would think after the SU-27 deal they would have learned about this.

    China is very capable of applying stolen tech just ask the United States, you can easily spot stolen US tech on their shit now.

    Honestly, I would have refused to sell them any SU-35's the defense agency isn't stupid they know the second they hand it over the tech will get stolen. Russia must be rather desperate for cash because they used to refuse china access to the new good toys because of this very reason now all of a sudden they are cool with it?.

    Now if they sell China Armata's/S-400's/T-50's that will be the single biggest blunder of they have ever made.
    avatar
    hoom
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 452
    Points : 452
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  hoom on Wed Dec 07, 2016 3:26 am

    how would they get off those carriers even if they were cleared to recover on them?
    That was apparently recently covered in Military Acceptance episode on K: (can't find the direct quote for some reason) Russian pilot visiting a CV back in 04 or something had actually suggested testing it to US crew, Su-33 weight is well within US arrestor limit & he believed could get enough speed despite no ski-jump by starting the takeoff run from the back of the carrier.

    Speaking of which


    Edit: not just any pilot but the great Victor Pugachev (~20mins in)


    Last edited by hoom on Wed Dec 07, 2016 3:54 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    KiloGolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1705
    Points : 1733
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  KiloGolf on Wed Dec 07, 2016 3:43 am

    hoom wrote:
    how would they get off those carriers even if they were cleared to recover on them?
    That was apparently recently covered in Military Acceptance episode on K: (can't find the direct quote for some reason) Russian pilot visiting a CV back in 04 or something had actually suggested testing it to US crew, Su-33 weight is well within US arrestor limit & he believed could get enough speed despite no ski-jump by starting the takeoff run from the back of the carrier.

    Speaking of which

    This got me thinking. Wouldn't thrust vectoring actually help an Su-33 taking off with more load?
    Maybe this (below) wasn't such a bad idea after all:



    Last edited by KiloGolf on Wed Dec 07, 2016 11:29 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    KiloGolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1705
    Points : 1733
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  KiloGolf on Wed Dec 07, 2016 4:06 am

    The 2 Big Reasons Why Russia's Only Aircraft Carrier is Having So Many Problems

    Dave Majumdar
    December 6, 2016



    The Russian Navy has lost two carrier-based fighters onboard its sole remaining carrier Admiral Kuznetsov in the span of only a few weeks. On both occasions, technical problems with Kuznetsov’s arresting gear played a central role in the accidents—which have cost the Kremlin a Mikoyan MiG-29KUBR Fulcrum-D and a Sukhoi Su-33 Flanker-D. While Kuznetsov’s hardware is old, the bigger issue is Russia’s relative lack of experience in naval aviation and insufficient proficiency with launching and recovering combat aircraft onboard a carrier at sea.

    In the case of the first crash on Nov.14—where a MiG-29KUBR ran out of fuel and crashed into the Mediterranean—the aircraft was orbiting while deck crews attempted to fix a broken arresting cable that had become entangled with one or the three remaining wires. The cable had snapped when another MiG-29KR had landed safely onboard Kuznetsov—however, that aircraft had caught the fourth and last cable on deck. Meanwhile, the second crash on Dec. 5—this time involving a Su-33 Flanker—was also due to a snapped arresting gear cable.

    Naval aviation is an inherently dangerous business, but many of Russia’s naval aviation mishaps are due to a lack of experience and proficiency in carrier-based operations. While some of the Russian Navy’s problems can be attributed to the elderly Kuznetsov’s many inherent flaws, the Russians have not developed the proper procedures or practices to operate carrier-borne aircraft safely at sea.

    Kuznetsov—commissioned on Dec. 25, 1990—is an older ship, but the vessel’s age is not the real issue. There are a good number of U.S. Navy carriers that are far older than Kuznetsov that operate perfectly well. Nimitz, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Carl Vinson, Theodore Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln—are all older than the Russian ship. Moreover, USS Enterprise (CVN-65)—which was retired on Dec. 1, 2012, after more than 50 years in service—was just as ready to launch and recover aircraft on the day she was pulled out of service as she was the day she was first deployed in 1962.

    The reason the U.S. Navy can operate a carrier for more than half a century is because the service maintains the material condition of its ships and has superbly trained crews. The Russians—especially over the past 25 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union—have not always properly maintained Kuznetsov. Nor has Kuznetsov’s crew been given enough of a chance to gain the requisite proficiency to safely conduct carrier operations at sea.

    Cables break—it happens even onboard the U.S. Navy’s fleet of supercarriers. Indeed, one particular incident I recall was when an old acquaintance of mine was nearly killed when a cable snapped onboard USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63) in 2005. His Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornet fell into the water and the ship nearly ran him and his weapons systems officer over. Meanwhile, there was chaos onboard Kitty Hawk as the ends of the cable thrashed across the flight deck—damaging aircraft and injuring crew members. Accidents happen—but a broken cable leading to a mishap is exceedingly rare onboard U.S. Navy carriers. Two accidents in less than three weeks is indicative of serious problems onboard.

    “Cables separate/break at some interval—and that's big news usually leading to injury, death or mishap. The cable system breaking does happen regularly and they usually just remove it and work with less wires—two or three now with the new design,” one senior naval aviator told me. “The bottom line is that it's very rare, sometimes preventable (settings, maintenance, etc.) and it’s big news when it happens.”


    Meanwhile, the earlier loss of the MiG-29KUBR is indicative of poor decision making on the part of the Russian commander—who should probably have diverted the jet to a shore base in Syria. U.S. Navy carriers—when operating close to shore—will designate divert airfields in case there is a serious emergency where the ship cannot recover its aircraft. Indeed, the carrier usually launches recovery tankers—aerial-refueling-configured Super Hornets—to ensure that jets have enough fuel to operate safely. While Kuznetsov does not have the ability to launch a tanker—or even buddy-refueller configured fighters—the Russians should have designated a divert field for emergencies.

    “When the carrier and air wing team first put to sea they are considered to be in divert ops until they pass their Combat Operations Efficiency (COE) evaluation, which is also called ‘blue water certification.’  We also use divert ops if there is an engineering casualty on the carrier, for example if we’re only using one reactor… whether by necessity or by choice,” another senior U.S. naval aviator told me. “Typically, a ship-based limitation that could put the recovery of fixed-wing aircraft at risk leads to a divert ops situation, so we’d need to be in relatively close proximity to land—say, 200 nautical miles or so.”

    As a force designed to project American power across the globe, the U.S. Navy has designed its procedures to enable safe carrier operations even in the middle of the ocean—far from any land bases.  “Blue water ops enable the carrier and air wing to conduct flight operations anywhere, anytime,” the second naval aviator said. “We utilize tankers to provide the required gas — ‘front side’ gas to give us more to train with, with ‘back side’ gas available as required when an aircraft’s fuel state gets low.”

    Ultimately, it is not the age of its ships or the capabilities of its hardware that makes the U.S. Navy the globe-spanning titan that it is. It is the quality of its training and the soundness of its procedures that make the service what it is. Russia has long way to go before it ever comes close to matching American naval aviation prowess.

    http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-2-big-reasons-why-russias-only-aircraft-carrier-having-18643
    avatar
    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3905
    Points : 3936
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Wed Dec 07, 2016 8:52 am

    KiloGolf wrote:
    The 2 Big Reasons Why Russia's Only Aircraft Carrier is Having So Many Problems

    Dave Majumdar
    December 6, 2016



    The Russian Navy has lost two carrier-based fighters onboard its sole remaining carrier Admiral Kuznetsov in the span of only a few weeks. On both occasions, technical problems with Kuznetsov’s arresting gear played a central role in the accidents—which have cost the Kremlin a Mikoyan MiG-29KUBR Fulcrum-D and a Sukhoi Su-33 Flanker-D. While Kuznetsov’s hardware is old, the bigger issue is Russia’s relative lack of experience in naval aviation and insufficient proficiency with launching and recovering combat aircraft onboard a carrier at sea.

    In the case of the first crash on Nov.14—where a MiG-29KUBR ran out of fuel and crashed into the Mediterranean—the aircraft was orbiting while deck crews attempted to fix a broken arresting cable that had become entangled with one or the three remaining wires. The cable had snapped when another MiG-29KR had landed safely onboard Kuznetsov—however, that aircraft had caught the fourth and last cable on deck. Meanwhile, the second crash on Dec. 5—this time involving a Su-33 Flanker—was also due to a snapped arresting gear cable.

    Naval aviation is an inherently dangerous business, but many of Russia’s naval aviation mishaps are due to a lack of experience and proficiency in carrier-based operations. While some of the Russian Navy’s problems can be attributed to the elderly Kuznetsov’s many inherent flaws, the Russians have not developed the proper procedures or practices to operate carrier-borne aircraft safely at sea.

    Kuznetsov—commissioned on Dec. 25, 1990—is an older ship, but the vessel’s age is not the real issue. There are a good number of U.S. Navy carriers that are far older than Kuznetsov that operate perfectly well. Nimitz, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Carl Vinson, Theodore Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln—are all older than the Russian ship. Moreover, USS Enterprise (CVN-65)—which was retired on Dec. 1, 2012, after more than 50 years in service—was just as ready to launch and recover aircraft on the day she was pulled out of service as she was the day she was first deployed in 1962.

    The reason the U.S. Navy can operate a carrier for more than half a century is because the service maintains the material condition of its ships and has superbly trained crews. The Russians—especially over the past 25 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union—have not always properly maintained Kuznetsov. Nor has Kuznetsov’s crew been given enough of a chance to gain the requisite proficiency to safely conduct carrier operations at sea.

    Cables break—it happens even onboard the U.S. Navy’s fleet of supercarriers. Indeed, one particular incident I recall was when an old acquaintance of mine was nearly killed when a cable snapped onboard USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63) in 2005. His Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornet fell into the water and the ship nearly ran him and his weapons systems officer over. Meanwhile, there was chaos onboard Kitty Hawk as the ends of the cable thrashed across the flight deck—damaging aircraft and injuring crew members. Accidents happen—but a broken cable leading to a mishap is exceedingly rare onboard U.S. Navy carriers. Two accidents in less than three weeks is indicative of serious problems onboard.

    “Cables separate/break at some interval—and that's big news usually leading to injury, death or mishap. The cable system breaking does happen regularly and they usually just remove it and work with less wires—two or three now with the new design,” one senior naval aviator told me. “The bottom line is that it's very rare, sometimes preventable (settings, maintenance, etc.) and it’s big news when it happens.”


    Meanwhile, the earlier loss of the MiG-29KUBR is indicative of poor decision making on the part of the Russian commander—who should probably have diverted the jet to a shore base in Syria. U.S. Navy carriers—when operating close to shore—will designate divert airfields in case there is a serious emergency where the ship cannot recover its aircraft. Indeed, the carrier usually launches recovery tankers—aerial-refueling-configured Super Hornets—to ensure that jets have enough fuel to operate safely. While Kuznetsov does not have the ability to launch a tanker—or even buddy-refueller configured fighters—the Russians should have designated a divert field for emergencies.

    “When the carrier and air wing team first put to sea they are considered to be in divert ops until they pass their Combat Operations Efficiency (COE) evaluation, which is also called ‘blue water certification.’  We also use divert ops if there is an engineering casualty on the carrier, for example if we’re only using one reactor… whether by necessity or by choice,” another senior U.S. naval aviator told me. “Typically, a ship-based limitation that could put the recovery of fixed-wing aircraft at risk leads to a divert ops situation, so we’d need to be in relatively close proximity to land—say, 200 nautical miles or so.”

    As a force designed to project American power across the globe, the U.S. Navy has designed its procedures to enable safe carrier operations even in the middle of the ocean—far from any land bases.  “Blue water ops enable the carrier and air wing to conduct flight operations anywhere, anytime,” the second naval aviator said. “We utilize tankers to provide the required gas — ‘front side’ gas to give us more to train with, with ‘back side’ gas available as required when an aircraft’s fuel state gets low.”

    Ultimately, it is not the age of its ships or the capabilities of its hardware that makes the U.S. Navy the globe-spanning titan that it is. It is the quality of its training and the soundness of its procedures that make the service what it is. Russia has long way to go before it ever comes close to matching American naval aviation prowess.

    http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-2-big-reasons-why-russias-only-aircraft-carrier-having-18643


    Oh really which is it?

    Not enough experience or not enough care?

    Because things don't happen in a vacuum. The commander did order dispersion, it only relied on the pilot data about fuel and crew estimation regarding the repair tempo.

    One of the planes DID land in Syria proper, the other one notified it wouldn't be able to make it. Which in return goes full circle to the Kuz layout. It doesn't allow a full weight launch, it doesn't allow a proper stab with 80% fuel and the flight deck length is troublesome.

    So we have a plane that can't fly full load, this limits payload and fuel load. In return this means that everything has to go perfect in order allow for a 'higher op tempo'.

    When you're tight on schedule, even the slightest delay will knock you off, if anything we go back to the whole idea that the Russians (and Eastern Europeans in general) have a habit of undertaking impossible odds and mostly getting away with it; if anything this shows a lack of capability on the ship's design, not the crew's part, which forces every one to work 120%.

    This risk taking practice is exactly what we all love and hate about these guys, but once you ponder it, this becomes unnecessary.

    Also f**k Dave Majmudar.
    avatar
    Big_Gazza
    Senior Lieutenant
    Senior Lieutenant

    Posts : 664
    Points : 686
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  Big_Gazza on Wed Dec 07, 2016 10:47 am

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:
    Honestly, I would have refused to sell them any SU-35's the defense agency isn't stupid they know the second they hand it over the tech will get stolen. Russia must be rather desperate for cash because they used to refuse china access to the new good toys because of this very reason now all of a sudden they are cool with it?.

    Now if they sell China Armata's/S-400's/T-50's that will be the single biggest blunder of they have ever made.

    An alternative interpretation is that Russia and China are well advanced in (secretly) consolidating their ever-closer political/economic/military relationship into a full-blow strategic partnership, and that Russia has re-evaluated the risks/benefits of tech transfer, and now belives that it is a low price to pay to secure Chinese trust in Russian intentions and good faith. Having Beijing being solidly in Moscows corner (and vice versa) will be worth its weight in gold for future necessity in jointly staring down the feckless arrogant Uh'murikkkanz. A unified Eurasia to which EU is gravitationally attracted due to self-interest is the WORST NIGHTMARE of the Yankistani elite, and if tech transfer is part of the "bride-price", so be it.

    In fact, transfer of tech and licensed manufacture in China would allow the later to boost manufacture of hi tech systems like S-400, PAK FA and maybe even aircraft carriers and SHLV space boosters. Leverage Chinese manufacturing prowess in exchange for energy and commodities? Its good business to leverage each others strengths to overcome each others weaknesses.
    avatar
    Giulio
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 163
    Points : 186
    Join date : 2013-10-29
    Location : Italy

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  Giulio on Wed Dec 07, 2016 1:36 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:

    This got me thinking. Wouldn't thrust vectoring actually help an Su-33 taking off with more load?
    Maybe this (below) wasn't such a bad idea after all:


    Maybe you are right. The only ways I know for to increase the lift are: 1) to increase the speed, or 2) to increase the wing's area, or 3) both. If you can't increase the wing's area and the speed is still to low, the only thing is to increase the angle of attack. So, if you don't have a skijump, the vectorial thrust could be the only way.
    avatar
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5428
    Points : 5473
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  Militarov on Wed Dec 07, 2016 3:01 pm

    TheArmenian wrote:https://www.rt.com/news/369472-us-military-fighter-jet-crashes/

    And another F-18 Hornet crashes.
    This the fourth in a short period of time.
    This is getting really embarrassing, loosing so many aircraft......

    Whoops, wrong thread.
    I forgot this is "The bash the Kuznetsov thread" where pro-NATO trolls have a duty to spill their daily quota of venom.
    pirat

    And how many Hornets are there flying? And how MUCH? Math, math, math.
    avatar
    TheArmenian
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1660
    Points : 1821
    Join date : 2011-09-14

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  TheArmenian on Wed Dec 07, 2016 3:06 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:
    TheArmenian wrote:https://www.rt.com/news/369472-us-military-fighter-jet-crashes/

    And another F-18 Hornet crashes.
    This the fourth in a short period of time.
    This is getting really embarrassing, loosing so many aircraft......

    Whoops, wrong thread.
    I forgot this is "The bash the Kuznetsov thread" where pro-NATO trolls have a duty to spill their daily quota of venom.
    pirat

    Compare the size of the two fleets and you have an answer. It's not embarrassing at all.
    #cablegate is embarrassing indeed, for reasons already outlined.

    You took the bait instantly and answered briefly and without conceding anything.
    Congratulations, you answered exactly like a true NATO-bot should.




    avatar
    KoTeMoRe
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3905
    Points : 3936
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Wed Dec 07, 2016 3:06 pm

    TheArmenian wrote:https://www.rt.com/news/369472-us-military-fighter-jet-crashes/

    And another F-18 Hornet crashes.
    This the fourth in a short period of time.
    This is getting really embarrassing, loosing so many aircraft......

    Whoops, wrong thread.
    I forgot this is "The bash the Kuznetsov thread" where pro-NATO trolls have a duty to spill their daily quota of venom.
    pirat

    Oh come on Arm, opinions man, don't take it seriously. You ought to separate due criticism with bile and slander. There's due criticism with how this unfolds...
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 83
    Points : 85
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Wed Dec 07, 2016 8:29 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:
    hoom wrote:
    how would they get off those carriers even if they were cleared to recover on them?
    That was apparently recently covered in Military Acceptance episode on K: (can't find the direct quote for some reason) Russian pilot visiting a CV back in 04 or something had actually suggested testing it to US crew, Su-33 weight is well within US arrestor limit & he believed could get enough speed despite no ski-jump by starting the takeoff run from the back of the carrier.
    All that would be too risky for USN to allow. What if a pilot &/ plane  is lost? Whose fault would it be? Cross-decking was done with the RN & the FN but compared with those fighters, the Su-33 is just too heavy w/o CAT assisted takeoff. http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/military/su33/lth/
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-4_Phantom_II_in_UK_service#/media/File:F-4J_F-4K_CV-62_NAN6-75.jpg

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-4_Phantom_II_in_UK_service#Specifications_.28F-4M.29
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Rafale#Specifications
    I use wikipedia for ease of reference, not because I trust it more than the other sites. In this case, even if the info. isn't 100% correct it's clear that those jets r a lot lighter!
    More versions on fighter crashes,etc.: http://www.militarynews.ru/story.asp?rid=1&nid=434535 Pl. use Google autotraslation- u won't regret it!

    JohninMK
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4212
    Points : 4269
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  JohninMK on Thu Dec 08, 2016 1:08 am

    I was waiting for this news. Here comes the investigating team to answer to what is going to happen to the aircraft on the seabed.

    Steffan Watkins ‏@steffanwatkins Dec 6

    #RussianNavy RV #Yantar has departed #Limassol #Cyprus AIS destination set to #Murmansk, but headed toward #Tartus #Syria. #ВМФ #MysteryTour

    avatar
    hoom
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 452
    Points : 452
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  hoom on Thu Dec 08, 2016 7:50 am

    One of the planes DID land in Syria proper, the other one notified it wouldn't be able to make it.
    Interesting, where is that from?

    Su-33 is just too heavy w/o CAT assisted takeoff.
    I'd take Victor Pugachevs' word for it that there was enough length but yes US CV guys were too scared.
    avatar
    higurashihougi
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2153
    Points : 2258
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  higurashihougi on Thu Dec 08, 2016 8:06 am

    I have a bad feeling that the ship commander and some other high-rank naval officers will be court-martialed after this mission, don't you think ? Question Idea The losses both in materiel and image is really considerable.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Jun 27, 2017 7:31 pm