Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Share
    avatar
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2065
    Points : 2083
    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

    Posts : 1390
    Points : 1390
    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

    Posts : 591
    Points : 595
    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

    Posts : 583
    Points : 581
    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

    Posts : 2065
    Points : 2083
    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

    Posts : 2065
    Points : 2083
    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

    Posts : 3912
    Points : 3939
    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

    Posts : 783
    Points : 801
    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

    Posts : 166
    Points : 189
    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

    Posts : 5538
    Points : 5579
    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

    Posts : 1714
    Points : 1871
    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

    Posts : 3912
    Points : 3939
    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

    Posts : 188
    Points : 190
    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

    Posts : 5035
    Points : 5098
    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

    Posts : 583
    Points : 581
    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

    Posts : 2150
    Points : 2251
    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.
    avatar
    hoom

    Posts : 583
    Points : 581
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  hoom on Thu Dec 08, 2016 12:18 pm

    K may be going into Tartus.
    Apparently PtG has entered & K photographed not far off


    Kinda surprised that they would both go in there simultaneously, its not exactly the biggest of ports.

    JohninMK

    Posts : 5035
    Points : 5098
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  JohninMK on Thu Dec 08, 2016 12:41 pm

    hoom wrote:K may be going into Tartus.
    Apparently PtG has entered & K photographed not far off

    Kinda surprised that they would both go in there simultaneously, its not exactly the biggest of ports.
    I suggested before that there could be an awful lot of munitions that they loaded onboard that the K has brought down from Northern Fleet stocks that might be nearing their use by date. Now that her air operations have probably been curtailed they may well be planning on unloading them for use at Hmeimen (sp?). If I am correct then this stop at Tartus may have been part of the original plan, regardless of how her aircraft performed.

    Anyone else think that she will cruise home via Sevastopol?
    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3912
    Points : 3939
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Thu Dec 08, 2016 1:10 pm

    hoom wrote:
    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.


    Russian chatter in LJ an some in Twitter.
    avatar
    Giulio

    Posts : 166
    Points : 189
    Join date : 2013-10-29
    Location : Italy

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  Giulio on Thu Dec 08, 2016 7:39 pm

    An US carrier's catapult could launch much heavier aircrafts than a Su-33. (And, I think that the Su-33's landing gear isn't physically compatible with an US catapult).
    A Su-33 could takeoff from an US aircraft carrier without catapult.
    But above all, I really think that the landing on a NATO aircraft carrier (or NATO country) it is not possible for Russian pilots, because it would mean to deliver Russian military technology in foreign hands and this could be treason.
    (In the Malvinas/Falkland war a British Harrier did an emergency vertical landing on the first ship the pilot found on the sea, but that was a ship of an allied country, Spanish if I correctly remember).
    avatar
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2065
    Points : 2083
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  KiloGolf on Thu Dec 08, 2016 9:15 pm

    Is the K being towed again?
    Check this video: https://twitter.com/MIG29_/status/806859842501672960
    avatar
    A1RMAN

    Posts : 57
    Points : 59
    Join date : 2016-10-08

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  A1RMAN on Thu Dec 08, 2016 9:31 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:Is the K being towed again?
    Check this video: https://twitter.com/MIG29_/status/806859842501672960

    If it's near port - of course.
    avatar
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2065
    Points : 2083
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  KiloGolf on Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:01 pm

    A1RMAN wrote:If it's near port - of course.

    In Kotemore's pics above it was the same distance without the tugs.
    Lets hope it didn't break down again. I wouldn't be surprised if it did, as it's unusual to bring it that close to the coast. My understanding is that Tartus port can't handle a ship of that size.
    avatar
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2065
    Points : 2083
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  KiloGolf on Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:12 pm

    Russia's Sad, Smokey Carrier Doesn't Seem to Be Doing Much of Anything

    Kyle Mizokami
    Dec 7, 2016



    Russia's only and therefore mightiest carrier by default, the Admiral Kuznetsov, transited the Mediterranean last month to great controversy. The ship was accused—rightly so—of moving into position to support the bombing of the Syrian city of Aleppo. Aircraft from the carrier were spotted over Aleppo the first day it began air operations over Syria.

    Since then Kuznetsov has lost two of fifteen fighters of its assigned air wing to accidents, and flight operations have been suspended at least once. A Russian television news report shot on the carrier itself attempts to portray the ship as a hive of activity but raises more questions than it answers.

    Let's look at Kuznetsov's flight deck. There are only a handful of aircraft on deck in any particular shot, and in some shots there are no planes at all. Many of the airplanes are completely unarmed, their wings devoid of missiles and bombs. In still other shots the Kuznetsov's helicopters—Kamov Ka-27 anti-submarine helicopters—are tied down on the middle of the flight deck in broad daylight, making fixed-wing air operations impossible.



    Almost all of the footage is of the carrier's nine remaining Su-33 Flanker air superiority fighters. The Flankers were recently upgraded with a navigation and targeting system designed to deliver unguided bombs with precision. Regardless, no actual air-to-ground weapons are shown on any of the Flankers. The Flankers are instead shown equipped with R-27 "Alamo" air-to-air missiles that are useless in a bombing campaign. The actual workhorses of Kuznetsov's air campaign, the remaining three MiG-29Ks, are only seen a handful of times.

    Bombs or any sort of air-to-ground ordnance at all are shown just three times. In the first instance, what appear to be 500 kilogram unguided bombs are being wheeled across the flight deck. Where those bombs are really going is anyone's guess, since the news report doesn't show them being attached to an airplane. In the second and third instances, MiG-29K fighters are seen equipped with a KAB-500Kr-F electro-optical bomb. The MiGs are shown in the air but there's no sign of any air-to-ground ordnance.

    What does all this mean? Kuznetsov just doesn't look very busy. Contrary to what the news report meant to show, there's very little evidence the carrier is actually involved in a bombing campaign. Late last month, the bulk of the carrier's air wing was sighted at Humaymim Air Base in Syria. As one senior military officer told Jane's, "We don't think the Russians are flying as many sorties off their carrier as they would want the world to think." This video makes that seem all the more likely.

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a24196/admiral-kuznetsov-lack-of-activity/
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5538
    Points : 5579
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  Militarov on Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:55 pm

    Giulio wrote:An US carrier's catapult could launch much heavier aircrafts than a Su-33. (And, I think that the Su-33's landing gear isn't physically compatible with an US catapult).
    A Su-33 could takeoff from an US aircraft carrier without catapult.
    But above all, I really think that the landing on a NATO aircraft carrier (or NATO country) it is not possible for Russian pilots, because it would mean to deliver Russian military technology in foreign hands and this could be treason.
    (In the Malvinas/Falkland war a British Harrier did an emergency vertical landing on the first ship the pilot found on the sea, but that was a ship of an allied country, Spanish if I correctly remember).

    If its Su-33 we are talking about, there are no secrets about it to US, they obtained Su-27 variants decades ago and had an insight of it in Ukrainian inventory.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Oct 18, 2017 2:26 am