Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Share
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 666
    Points : 670
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Sat Aug 26, 2017 5:01 pm

    miroslav wrote:

    Quite interestingly, in the second picture, the Admiral Chabanenko, Udaloy II destroyer is under work of some king, maybe retrofit or modernization.

    Ok, it's on Wikipedia that it is in repairs since 2014 and that the repairs will last 3 years, are there any news on some kind of modernization?

    Ruskies said they will give it, Modern cannon, Calibers, Naval S-400 and redo all of the electronics of course if they actually are doing this remains to be seen we have heard them make pretty grand claims before only to see that was not the case.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 211
    Points : 213
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Aug 26, 2017 7:29 pm

    It'll spend 5 more years in the yard: http://nvo.ng.ru/nvoevents/2017-08-25/2_962_news.html?print=Y
    Цена модернизации может достигнуть 75% стоимости нового корабля аналогичного класса и составит сумму не менее 10 млрд руб. Решение модернизировать БПК свидетельствует о невозможности сейчас начать строительство кораблей дальней морской зоны. А все разговоры о постройке в обозримом будущем бригадного комплекта фрегатов, соответствующих по тактико-техническим характеристикам «Адмиралу Чабаненко», атомного крейсера «Лидер» и уж тем более авианосца – это разговоры от лукавого.
    Paraphrasing, "the cost is 75% of new ship of the same class, & the fact speaks of impossibility of starting construction of new such frigates in the foreseeable future, & of atomic cruiser Lider, not to mention a/c carrier." Time will tell!
    avatar
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 838
    Points : 856
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  Big_Gazza on Sun Aug 27, 2017 2:10 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:It'll spend 5 more years in the yard: http://nvo.ng.ru/nvoevents/2017-08-25/2_962_news.html?print=Y
    Цена модернизации может достигнуть 75% стоимости нового корабля аналогичного класса и составит сумму не менее 10 млрд руб. Решение модернизировать БПК свидетельствует о невозможности сейчас начать строительство кораблей дальней морской зоны. А все разговоры о постройке в обозримом будущем бригадного комплекта фрегатов, соответствующих по тактико-техническим характеристикам «Адмиралу Чабаненко», атомного крейсера «Лидер» и уж тем более авианосца – это разговоры от лукавого.
    Paraphrasing, "the cost is 75% of new ship of the same class, & the fact speaks of impossibility of starting construction of new such frigates in the foreseeable future, & of atomic cruiser Lider, not to mention a/c carrier." Time will tell!

    A lot of unsubstantiated blah-blah in there, as usual. Reading between the lines, I'd guess that the Chabanenko was originally in for repairs, but now they've decided to keep her in longer for a modernisation as she's a relatively new hull (launched 1994, commissioned 1999).
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 211
    Points : 213
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Update

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Sep 11, 2017 10:39 pm

    Repair of the heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser Admiral Kuznetsov will begin in 2018 at the 35th shipyard in Murmansk. ..the work will take at least two years. ..Initially, it was planned that the repair of the aircraft carrying cruiser will begin this year, but it was postponed to 2018. Representatives of the Navy command do not yet disclose the details of the ship's modernization project, but the press reported that the upgrade of "Admiral Kuznetsov" will cost between 40 and 65 billion rubles.
    http://www.ng.ru/news/593742.html?print=Y
    IMO, 2 years in the yard means the modernization will be extensive & substantial. The USN CVNs spend ~3 years in Refueling Complex Overhaul (RCOH). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refueling_and_overhaul
    After that, ~1 year will be spent on trials & exercises before it'll be combat ready. Hope they won't need a tug shadowing them next time!
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10666
    Points : 11145
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  George1 on Sat Oct 07, 2017 12:53 pm

    Financing of repair of TAVKR "Admiral Kuznetsov" is planned to be halved

    According to the Interfax news agency, the military department plans to reduce the amount of financial resources that are supposed to be allocated for the repair and modernization of the heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser (Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov), a source familiar with the situation told Interfax on Saturday.

    "Instead of previously planned approximately 50 billion rubles for the work, it is planned to allocate about half of the previously announced amount," he said. According to him, the reduction in the volume of financing will primarily affect modernization issues. "The repair will be carried out in full," - the source is sure.

    Earlier, according to another agency source, it became known that "repair and modernization of" Admiral Kuznetsov "was supposed to be carried out in the minimum amount, they were planned to allocate up to 50 billion rubles." "A lot or a little - apparently, a little .50 billion rubles - a little more than $ 800 million repair and modernization of the same type aircraft carrier" Vikramaditya "(in a past life -" Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Gorshkov ") for the Indian Navy cost estimated at $ 2.3 billion, "he recalled.

    As reported, the repair of "Admiral Kuznetsov" primarily will be associated with the replacement of boilers of the main power plant. To modernize, radar and radio-electronic weapons, as well as an air navigation complex were supposed.

    https://bmpd.livejournal.com/2883798.html


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 5611
    Points : 5715
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  PapaDragon on Sat Oct 07, 2017 1:02 pm

    '
    Make sense, Kuznetzov's primary value left now is pilot training and tech testing. It doesn't need upgrades for that.

    It's a surface version of Dmitry Donskoi SSBN  at this point.

    Funnel that money into building frigates and landing ships. Better yet more Yasens. Every little bit helps.
    avatar
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2130
    Points : 2146
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  KiloGolf on Sat Oct 07, 2017 1:34 pm

    George1 wrote:Financing of repair of TAVKR "Admiral Kuznetsov" is planned to be halved

    According to the Interfax news agency, the military department plans to reduce the amount of financial resources that are supposed to be allocated for the repair and modernization of the heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser (Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov), a source familiar with the situation told Interfax on Saturday.

    "Instead of previously planned approximately 50 billion rubles for the work, it is planned to allocate about half of the previously announced amount," he said. According to him, the reduction in the volume of financing will primarily affect modernization issues. "The repair will be carried out in full," - the source is sure.

    Earlier, according to another agency source, it became known that "repair and modernization of" Admiral Kuznetsov "was supposed to be carried out in the minimum amount, they were planned to allocate up to 50 billion rubles." "A lot or a little - apparently, a little .50 billion rubles - a little more than $ 800 million repair and modernization of the same type aircraft carrier" Vikramaditya "(in a past life -" Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Gorshkov ") for the Indian Navy cost estimated at $ 2.3 billion, "he recalled.

    As reported, the repair of "Admiral Kuznetsov" primarily will be associated with the replacement of boilers of the main power plant. To modernize, radar and radio-electronic weapons, as well as an air navigation complex were supposed.

    https://bmpd.livejournal.com/2883798.html

    They need to ditch that money-wasting hole of a ship.



    Time to let it ride the sunset and take out the trash.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 211
    Points : 213
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:39 pm

    Not until after something better replaces it. Even then, Adm.K will still be used for training or as a STOVL/helo carrier for some more years. They are not a "throw away society" like the Americans. As the Russian saying goes, "better to have a blue jay in hand than a crane in the sky". They'll save $ & time by doing all of the above. Adm.K will go back to sea sooner to support the fleet & train pilots that otherwise will have to use 2 NITKAs.
    They may design a new STOVL fighter & given the tight budget, build "relatively inexpensive ship using the technology & equipment intended for Universal Assault Ship":
    «У нас на конец госпрограммы вооружений 2018-2025 запланирована закладка авианесущего крейсера. Думаю, что тогда возникнет необходимость разработки нового палубного самолета, возможно, вертикального взлета», ..
    в условиях ограниченных финансовых возможностей флот рассчитывает на строительство относительно недорогого корабля с использованием технологий и оборудования, предназначенных для УДК. .. https://lenta.ru/articles/2017/07/27/grandfleet/

    avatar
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 838
    Points : 856
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  Big_Gazza on Sun Oct 08, 2017 7:33 am

    KiloGolf wrote:They need to ditch that money-wasting hole of a ship.

    Time to let it ride the sunset and take out the trash.

    ..and you need to stop being a twat by channelling HATOstani propaganda BS. The K may not be perfect and might need some repair but so fucking what? It's an effective vessel for the roles that Russia requires of her, and that is all that is important.

    If they do end up only repairing her boilers and propulsion then that will be a bit of a shame as I'd very much like to see her with a deep upgrade, but its probably sufficient to focus on improving reliability and enhancing her airwing, and to focus on new ships and subs, so lets see what call they make.
    avatar
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2130
    Points : 2146
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  KiloGolf on Sun Oct 08, 2017 8:52 am

    Big_Gazza wrote:
    KiloGolf wrote:They need to ditch that money-wasting hole of a ship.

    Time to let it ride the sunset and take out the trash.

    ..and you need to stop being a twat by channelling HATOstani propaganda BS.  The K may not be perfect and might need some repair but so fucking what? It's an effective vessel for the roles that Russia requires of her, and that is all that is important.

    If they do end up only repairing her boilers and propulsion then that will be a bit of a shame as I'd very much like to see her with a deep upgrade, but its probably sufficient to focus on improving reliability and enhancing her airwing, and to focus on new ships and subs, so lets see what call they make.

    The K is far from just "not perfect", it's a disaster. If they can't fix its propulsion issues, they need to ditch it fast.
    avatar
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 838
    Points : 856
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  Big_Gazza on Sun Oct 08, 2017 1:33 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:
    The K is far from just "not perfect", it's a disaster. If they can't fix its propulsion issues, they need to ditch it fast.

    Its a disaster? Really? Why? Tell us what you think, inside of resorting to a cheap drive-by shooting...

    Smokey flue is a cosmetic issue, and only produces the dense black smoke when bringing cold boilers online to increase speed, and is made worse by the fuel type (a low grade heavy bunker oil). The K managed to steam from Severomorsk to Syria and back without issues, so while she has powerplant issues, they are clearly manageable.

    Do you really believe that the K's propulsion system can't be overhauled and repaired? Or that catapult wires can't be replaced? Seriously?
    avatar
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2130
    Points : 2146
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  KiloGolf on Sun Oct 08, 2017 1:52 pm

    Big_Gazza wrote:
    KiloGolf wrote:
    The K is far from just "not perfect", it's a disaster. If they can't fix its propulsion issues, they need to ditch it fast.

    Its a disaster? Really?  Why? Tell us what you think, inside of resorting to a cheap drive-by shooting...

    Smokey flue is a cosmetic issue, and only produces the dense black smoke when bringing cold boilers online to increase speed, and is made worse by the fuel type (a low grade heavy bunker oil).  The K managed to steam from Severomorsk to Syria and back without issues, so while she has powerplant issues, they are clearly manageable.  

    Do you really believe that the K's propulsion system can't be overhauled and repaired? Or that catapult wires can't be replaced? Seriously?

    Fires, engine breakdown, snapping arrestor cables, spending year after year sitting idle and doing nothing. Continuously being overhauled with no result. The list is endless. Time to put this ship and with it the RuN budget, out of its misery. Start from scratch make a proper carrier, with cats.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 5611
    Points : 5715
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  PapaDragon on Sun Oct 08, 2017 3:19 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:..........

    Fires, engine breakdown, snapping arrestor cables, spending year after year sitting idle and doing nothing. Continuously being overhauled with no result. The list is endless. Time to put this ship and with it the RuN budget, out of its misery. Start from scratch make a proper carrier, with cats.

    They need to figure out first what type of aircraft they want to use on those ships.

    Kuznetzov does not work because it is neither light carrier nor supercarrier. It was built as a transitional project, basically a test-bed with lots of corners cut as part of design, not necessity.

    Russia inherited 4 Kiev-class light carriers in addition to Kuznetzov. They made a mistake of keeping Kuznetzov and retiring Kievs. They should have done it the other way around.

    Kievs were armed with Yak-38 VTOL jets and while they get overlooked often they were actually very good at what they were supposed to do. They were not built for naval areal dogfighting and they didn't need to be (naval dogfighting era ended with WW2) but they were good at 2 simple things: dropping bombs and launching anti-ship​ missiles.

    They were rough doctrinal analogue of French Super-Etendard. Not perfect but good enough for what they were supposed to do and were getting the job done. Super-Etendards were retired​ only recently. Russia should have stuck with Kiev/Yak combo. In early 90s they already worked out all the kinks and gotten very good at using them.

    Imagine if in Syria they had 2 or 3 very worked out Kievs available instead of just one Kuznetzov they were barely familiar with?

    Which brings me back to my first sentence: figuring out what they want. Carrier is built around airplanes. And Russia has to design a naval airplane they need and build ship around it.

    I think that they need to stick with single engine design that willingly sacrifices redundant dogfighting performance in favor of simplicity, small size and focus on bomb and anti-ship missile payload. VTOL  would be preferable because it would require smaller ships to be built but even with CATOBAR approach small size will still simplify ship design, keep price down and ship numbers up.

    Bombs, anti-ship missiles and long range AA missiles on small aircraft. Forget twin engine superdogfigters. They are too big, they complicate ship designs, inflate prices and are completely redundant for carrier Navy.

    Until then they will have to keep Kuznetzov floating around. It's useless in war but it's the only thing they have to practice and test new equipment on.
    avatar
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2130
    Points : 2146
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  KiloGolf on Sun Oct 08, 2017 3:29 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:Russia inherited 4 Kiev-class light carriers in addition to Kuznetzov. They made a mistake of keeping Kuznetzov and retiring Kievs. They should have done it the other way around.

    Agreed. They did operate the Adm Gorshkov till the mid-90s but it also caught fire/exploded on them while at sea iirc. They fixed it but then abandoned it in 1995. Also both Minsk and Novorosiisk caught fire too and in 1995 they were ditched, just like that. Same time they got rid of Moskva and Leningrad helicopter carriers.  1995 is basically the year Russia gave up on their carriers for very suspicious reasons. And I don't need to the hear about the financial argument, as it would cost nothing to keep all these carriers mothballed till finances got better (1 decade or more).

    scratch

    They basically lost these fine (and some quite new)ships to "accidents" and then abandoned them in a single year. Sounds quite convenient, almost too convenient. Maybe some drunken idiot in order to get re-elected made such choices and sold out his country's carrier force in the process.

    PapaDragon wrote:Which brings me back to my first sentencsentence. Figuring out what they want. Carrier is built around airplanes. And Russia has to design a naval airplane they need and build ship around it.

    I think that they need to stick with single engine design that willingly sacrifices redundant dogfighting performance in favor of simplicity, small size and focus on bomb and anti-ship missile payload. VTOL  would be preferable because it would require smaller ships to be built but even with CATOBAR approach small size will still simplify ship design, keep price down and ship numbers up.

    Bombs, anti-ship missiles and long range AA missiles on small aircraft. Forget twin engine superdogfigters. They are too big, they complicate ship designs, inflate prices and are completely redundant for carrier Navy.

    A side cat in an otherwise STOBAR carrier is the way to go for Russia. Big, twin-engined ASW/MPA and AEW&C platforms need the juice, as well heavy-loaded fighter-bombers for deep strike, CAP and other long-range patrol missions. All are major requirements for the Russian Navy.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 510
    Points : 506
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  Singular_Transform on Sun Oct 08, 2017 9:46 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:

    Fires, engine breakdown, snapping arrestor cables, spending year after year sitting idle and doing nothing. Continuously being overhauled with no result. The list is endless. Time to put this ship and with it the RuN budget, out of its misery. Start from scratch make a proper carrier, with cats.

    New carrier will not fix this issues.

    The kuz is as usable as any US carrier, and as capable as well.


    The question is : does russia wants to spend the time and efforts to create one( or more) military unit capable to operate carriers?


    The unit including of course all on shore support functions as well.

    This is the real asset, the accumulated knowledge and organisation structure, including the training and skill development.
    This takes looooooong time and lots of money to develop.
    The carrier is just an add-on to this.

    Russia doesn't have any colonies .,or dependent countries.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 510
    Points : 506
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  Singular_Transform on Sun Oct 08, 2017 9:47 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:

    A side cat in an otherwise STOBAR carrier is the way to go for Russia. Big, twin-engined ASW/MPA and AEW&C platforms need the juice, as well heavy-loaded fighter-bombers for deep strike, CAP and other long-range patrol missions. All are major requirements for the Russian Navy.

    Of course the russian navy wants these stuff ,as much as a kid wants an airplane.

    But for what purpose?


    The military assets serving a strategical purpose, not the other way around.
    avatar
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2130
    Points : 2146
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  KiloGolf on Sun Oct 08, 2017 9:54 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:The kuz is as usable as any US carrier, and as capable as well.

    As usable and as capable as which carrier in the USN?

    Singular_Transform wrote:But for what purpose?

    Exact same purpose as the Kuz (tries super hard) to serve today. Only more efficiently.
    avatar
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2130
    Points : 2146
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  KiloGolf on Sun Oct 08, 2017 10:10 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    KiloGolf wrote:..........

    Fires, engine breakdown, snapping arrestor cables, spending year after year sitting idle and doing nothing. Continuously being overhauled with no result. The list is endless. Time to put this ship and with it the RuN budget, out of its misery. Start from scratch make a proper carrier, with cats.

    They need to figure out first what type of aircraft they want to use on those ships.

    Kuznetzov does not work because it is neither light carrier nor supercarrier. It was built as a transitional project, basically a test-bed with lots of corners cut as part of design, not necessity.

    Russia inherited 4 Kiev-class light carriers in addition to Kuznetzov. They made a mistake of keeping Kuznetzov and retiring Kievs. They should have done it the other way around.

    Kievs were armed with Yak-38 VTOL jets and while they get overlooked often they were actually very good at what they were supposed to do. They were not built for naval areal dogfighting and they didn't need to be (naval dogfighting era ended with WW2) but they were good at 2 simple things: dropping bombs and launching anti-ship​ missiles.

    They were rough doctrinal analogue of French Super-Etendard. Not perfect but good enough for what they were supposed to do and were getting the job done. Super-Etendards were retired​ only recently. Russia should have stuck with Kiev/Yak combo. In early 90s they already worked out all the kinks and gotten very good at using them.

    Imagine if in Syria they had 2 or 3 very worked out Kievs available instead of just one Kuznetzov they were barely familiar with?

    Which brings me back to my first sentence: figuring out what they want. Carrier is built around airplanes. And Russia has to design a naval airplane they need and build ship around it.

    I think that they need to stick with single engine design that willingly sacrifices redundant dogfighting performance in favor of simplicity, small size and focus on bomb and anti-ship missile payload. VTOL  would be preferable because it would require smaller ships to be built but even with CATOBAR approach small size will still simplify ship design, keep price down and ship numbers up.

    Bombs, anti-ship missiles and long range AA missiles on small aircraft. Forget twin engine superdogfigters. They are too big, they complicate ship designs, inflate prices and are completely redundant for carrier Navy.

    Until then they will have to keep Kuznetzov floating around. It's useless in war but it's the only thing they have to practice and test new equipment on.

    There's only one problem here. While I agree Russia was much better off selling the Kuz to China and converting 3 Kievs to what India operates now, the Super Etendard  utilized cats to take off heavy and I'm afraid the Yak-38 would suffer from either short legs (low on fuel) or small bite (tiny load-out).

    Still I tend to agree, for Russia's current needs, those three Kievs and Yaks would work better for them, than the floating fireplace with snapping cables and ditched aircraft in the water.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 510
    Points : 506
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  Singular_Transform on Sun Oct 08, 2017 10:35 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:

    As usable and as capable as which carrier in the USN?

    Any.
    The capability of the carriers are not defined by the ship itself, but by the crew/ supporting infrastructure.

    KiloGolf wrote:
    Exact same purpose as the Kuz (tries super hard) to serve today. Only more efficiently.


    The kuz has no practical purpose in the RUN at the moment.

    In the past decades it participated only trial runs and trainings.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16741
    Points : 17349
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  GarryB on Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:11 am

    Make sense, Kuznetzov's primary value left now is pilot training and tech testing. It doesn't need upgrades for that.

    It's a surface version of Dmitry Donskoi SSBN  at this point.

    Funnel that money into building frigates and landing ships. Better yet more Yasens. Every little bit helps.

    Not strictly true.

    Its purpose is to provide an air contingent anywhere where the Russian navy operates.

    They need to ditch that money-wasting hole of a ship.

    Which other Russian vessel offers air support to the Russian navy?

    Time to let it ride the sunset and take out the trash.

    Of course they should listen to your advice... you are their biggest supporter...

    If they do end up only repairing her boilers and propulsion then that will be a bit of a shame as I'd very much like to see her with a deep upgrade, but its probably sufficient to focus on improving reliability and enhancing her airwing, and to focus on new ships and subs, so lets see what call they make.

    The K will likely have quite a few more upgrades over her operational life, right now it does not make too much sense to spend too much on her.
    Once they have expanded their fleet and start more open ocean expeditions around the place a carrier will become rather more important.

    The K is far from just "not perfect", it's a disaster. If they can't fix its propulsion issues, they need to ditch it fast.

    Spoken like a 12 year old.... if it is not a US 100K ton super carrier then I don't want it... tantrum tantrum tantrum.

    snapping arrestor cables

    Arrester cables are attached to a gearing system that allows a large heavy object to land rapidly by allowing some give... not too much or the plane will roll off the end of the runway into the water, but also not too little or the arrester wires will break.

    The problem was not the wires but the settings of the gears.

    On a steam cat you have to set it pretty accurately for the aircraft and its weight load in fuel and weapons or any other payload it might have (ie cargo planes).

    If you set it wrong the nose undercarriage might get ripped off the aircraft, or the aircraft might not get enough push to get airborne and end up in the water.

    This means that US aircraft carriers have twice the problem that the K has because even today mistakes can be made and problems can occur on both take offs and landings.

    One of the main benefits of the EM cats is that it can detect the acceleration of the aircraft as it is accelerating and increase or decrease to prevent either negative result from happening.

    spending year after year sitting idle and doing nothing. Continuously being overhauled with no result. The list is endless. T

    This list is not endless, and you are clearly no naval expert regarding carriers.

    Anyone who knows anything about carriers knows that you need a minimum of three in service to guarantee availability at any one time.

    Like submarines, carriers go through three phases.... operational, training, and overhaul and upgrade.

    If you have three carriers then you schedule each carrier to be in one of those phases at any one time so that at a pinch you will have one or two carriers available to deal with problems, while one is in dry dock getting upgrades or repairs.

    Start from scratch make a proper carrier, with cats.


    And there you go showing your ignorance... WTF is a proper carrier?

    Exactly which aircraft do they have that actually needs cats to operate?

    Cats will cost a small fortune to develop and probably a decade to perfect and the aircraft they have operational on their carriers DONT NEED CATS.

    So getting rid of an operational carrier to build what... some big fucking expensive US type white elephant money vacuum with first gen catapults... you fucking genius... congrats...

    Kuznetzov does not work because it is neither light carrier nor supercarrier. It was built as a transitional project, basically a test-bed with lots of corners cut as part of design, not necessity.

    It was an aircraft carrying ship designed to bring a small contingent of fighter aircraft to whereever the Russian Navy wanted to operate.... and in that sense there is nothing wrong with it.

    Obviously NATO fanbois hate it because it is not a trillion dollar American super carrier... what happens if taxpayers find out they don't need 10,000 dollar gold toilet seats to do their job?

    Russia inherited 4 Kiev-class light carriers in addition to Kuznetzov. They made a mistake of keeping Kuznetzov and retiring Kievs. They should have done it the other way around.

    WTF?

    Kievs were armed with Yak-38 VTOL jets and while they get overlooked often they were actually very good at what they were supposed to do. They were not built for naval areal dogfighting and they didn't need to be (naval dogfighting era ended with WW2) but they were good at 2 simple things: dropping bombs and launching anti-ship​ missiles.

    Bullshit. They were good at crashing and saving the pilot because they had an automatic ejection system.

    They were slow and short ranged and crashed a lot and could not carry a bomb further or more accurately than a Ka-32, and their ability with anti ship missiles was non-existent. They were shown with AS-7s but its performance against surface targets would be pathetic. Again the Ka-32 would perform better.

    They were rough doctrinal analogue of French Super-Etendard. Not perfect but good enough for what they were supposed to do and were getting the job done. Super-Etendards were retired​ only recently. Russia should have stuck with Kiev/Yak combo. In early 90s they already worked out all the kinks and gotten very good at using them.

    NO NO NO... the Super Etendard is actually super compared with the Yaks... if Russia had stuck with the Yaks it would not have been a problem now because they would have all crashed.

    The Yak-38M was a dog.

    Imagine if in Syria they had 2 or 3 very worked out Kievs available instead of just one Kuznetzov they were barely familiar with?

    A ship based fighter so limited in performance would have been no use at all. Land based Su-25s would have better range and payload and accuracy... the Yaks might have been a little faster but not for long.

    They don't need carrier aircraft to attack ground targets... they need carrier aircraft to hunt for subs and to protect the ships and subs from enemy attack by missiles or aircraft. The Yak would be useless for that.

    Which brings me back to my first sentence: figuring out what they want. Carrier is built around airplanes. And Russia has to design a naval airplane they need and build ship around it.

    No.

    Even an unupgraded MiG-29 is 100 times better than any in service model YAK VSTOL aircraft... and I am including the Yak-141 here.

    It had a big central engine, but its lift engines are dead weight.... it was not as fast as a MiG, it has a smaller radar and a smaller weapons payload, and is all round completely inferior to the MiG.

    Inside a VSTOL aircraft there are pipes to carry high pressure air to the wing tips and nose and tail so that the aircraft can manouver in the hover.... that adds weight and complexity and adds vulnerable points where battle damage or even faults can make the aircraft unable to function on a carrier.

    The simple conversion of the Kiev to the Gorshkov is what the Russians would have done if they had 4 Kiev class carriers and that would have made them more useful than any one carrier could have been, but VSTOL aircraft are not the solution.

    ]I think that they need to stick with single engine design that willingly sacrifices redundant dogfighting performance in favor of simplicity, small size and focus on bomb and anti-ship missile payload.

    The whole purpose of an aircraft at sea is interception and patrol... if you just want a bomb truck then they have plenty of anti ship and land attack cruise missile options already.

    They have SAMs that will hit targets 400km distant and cruise missiles able to hit targets thousands of kms away... why bother with a piece of crap slow and expensive bomber aircraft?

    The value of an aircraft is that if you spot a target 500km away you can direct a couple of fighters to take a look before you decide to attack or ignore... those fighters can engage a target or just observe from a distance.

    Your single engined VSTOL bomb truck wont be much use there because it will be slow.... a naval variant of the PAK FA will be able to supercruise to the target and inspect it from behind.

    The biggest threat to Russian navy ships in open ocean is a few dozen or more tomahawk missiles coming in low... aircraft will spot at near max range and would offer your first layer of defence shooting down many threats and passing target data to surface vessels so they are better able to deal with the rest.

    VTOL  would be preferable because it would require smaller ships to be built but even with CATOBAR approach small size will still simplify ship design, keep price down and ship numbers up.

    Smaller cheaper ships would be less useful and would not be able to operate world wide with the vessels it is supposed to be protecting.

    Or do you think the Russian Navy should be based on thousands of motor boats the size of a bus.

    Bombs, anti-ship missiles and long range AA missiles on small aircraft. Forget twin engine superdogfigters. They are too big, they complicate ship designs, inflate prices and are completely redundant for carrier Navy.

    If you want an aircraft on a Russian carrier it needs to be able to defend itself from anything the carrier comes across.

    The Russian Navy has long range precision strike capability with cruise missiles and has no need to risk aircraft or pilots when cruise missiles and anti ship missiles can do the job from ships and subs.

    The purpose of the aircraft is to defend the Russian ships from mass air and missile attack and to detect targets at great distances and allow the commander of the naval group to find out more information than just a blip on a screen to make their decision.

    Until then they will have to keep Kuznetzov floating around. It's useless in war but it's the only thing they have to practice and test new equipment on.

    Useless in war? Are all carriers useless in war too?

    If the K had short range low performance single engined bombers, how would that have made it better in say Syria?

    1995 is basically the year Russia gave up on their carriers for very suspicious reasons. And I don't need to the hear about the financial argument, as it would cost nothing to keep all these carriers mothballed till finances got better (1 decade or more).

    Not suspicious... the Yak were withdrawn from service and the Yak-141 was canceled so these vessels had and have no future.

    They worked out that VSTOL aircraft are expensive fragile junk and it is not worth making them.

    If they had money then they could have upgraded them to carry MiG-29Ks, but even if they did they had no where to sail to, no foreign ports worth visiting, so they didn't bother.

    They basically lost these fine (and some quite new)ships to "accidents" and then abandoned them in a single year. Sounds quite convenient, almost too convenient. Maybe some drunken idiot in order to get re-elected made such choices and sold out his country's carrier force in the process.

    The Kievs fine?

    No two looked the same because they were constantly changing the design to fix faults and problems... but the biggest problem they couldn't fix.... VSTOL aircraft are junk and a total dead end unless you have an enormous amount of money and want to piss it all away.


    A side cat in an otherwise STOBAR carrier is the way to go for Russia. Big, twin-engined ASW/MPA and AEW&C platforms need the juice, as well heavy-loaded fighter-bombers for deep strike, CAP and other long-range patrol missions. All are major requirements for the Russian Navy.

    Bullshit.

    They don't need heavy bombers or deep strike aircraft.... they already have deep strike cruise missiles.

    The only value for a CAT would be AWACS/AEW, but even then other options are probably better.... like tethered airships and HALE UAVs and indeed satellites.

    Still I tend to agree, for Russia's current needs, those three Kievs and Yaks would work better for them, than the floating fireplace with snapping cables and ditched aircraft in the water.

    Yeah.... NATO fanboy... they should probably sell Siberia to Japan for a billion dollars too right?

    The kuz has no practical purpose in the RUN at the moment.

    Its aircraft were tested in the ground attack role in Syria, but its primary role is CAP and defense of ships and subs within a naval group.


    _________________
    “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
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 510
    Points : 506
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  Singular_Transform on Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:19 pm

    GarryB wrote:



    Its aircraft were tested in the ground attack role in Syria, but its primary role is CAP and defense of ships and subs within a naval group.

    The US carriers has three main roles( correct me if I am qwrong : ) ) since 1930.

    -long range detection of ships/aircraft
    -Air defence
    -attacking platform against ships / land targets.

    At the moment the kuz can use helicopters, like a 5400 tons frigate .

    An s-400 naval version can shoot down anti submarine aircraft like the fighters from kuz.


    For naval/ shore targets it is as effective as a any frigate in the RUN.


    all of the mcan change, but it cost money, and make the carrier more expensive and more critical .
    avatar
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2130
    Points : 2146
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  KiloGolf on Mon Oct 09, 2017 9:01 pm

    Some of you guys like over-simplifying things. And Garry, you seem to like having a gotcha answer for everything, but you avoid addressing the issues and essence. The 'K' for its tonnage, service life and size is under-performing as a carrier (compared to say CdG or one of USN's CVNs).

    If you guys think otherwise, seek help. There's no way (or reason) to convince you further than that. Concerning the needs and vision for RuN and carriers, well they have made the effort to operate a pretty large one, which means cats, strike missions and other associated goodies are by default welcome by them.

    This endless approach so as to avoid criticism on shortcomings of the 'K' by making up some ''doctrinal excuses'' is so 90s/00s and getting old.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 510
    Points : 506
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  Singular_Transform on Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:29 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:Some of you guys like over-simplifying things. And Garry, you seem to like having a gotcha answer for everything, but you avoid addressing the issues and essence. The 'K' for its tonnage, service life and size is under-performing as a carrier (compared to say CdG or one of USN's CVNs).

    If you guys think otherwise, seek help. There's no way (or reason) to convince you further than that. Concerning the needs and vision for RuN and carriers, well they have made the effort to operate a pretty large one, which means cats, strike missions and other associated goodies are by default welcome by them.

    This endless approach so as to avoid criticism on shortcomings of the 'K' by making up some ''doctrinal excuses'' is so 90s/00s and getting old.


    You put the cart in the front of the horses.

    There is an objective that the carrier has to fulfil.


    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 211
    Points : 213
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Oct 09, 2017 11:20 pm

    The USN CV/CVNs were continuously modified for newer aircraft; building a ship around a plane is "putting a cart in the front of a horse"; The USN, RN, RTN, Indian, Italian & Spanish navies used STOVL Harriers variants for many years; America class LHA already tested flight ops with F-35 STOVL variant. Having an incarnation of the Kiev class with new Yak-141 &/ its follow on will be better than no carriers at all. As TAKRs, they could be based on the Black Sea unlike true a/c carriers, saving $ & time needed to transit to Med. Sea & beyond from the Kola base, as I noted earlier, & their ASh/LA CMs will negate lack of the airwing range/payload performances. The PLAN's carriers may have only a waist CAT before a nuclear powered is built, but they'll still be more than just "useful" even while less capable. Modernising ex-Adm. Gorshkov for India (which now has no interest in the offred Storm CVN) was too long & expensive; even if the Kievs were not sold abroad they wouldn't have been rebuilt as true carriers.  
    Adm. K is too valuable to scrap as is. Russia has to do what it can to keep up with the rest; putting LACMs on small/medium patrol boats, corvettes & SSKs is a case in point.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Tue Oct 10, 2017 10:16 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16741
    Points : 17349
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  GarryB on Tue Oct 10, 2017 11:40 am

    At the moment the kuz can use helicopters, like a 5400 tons frigate .

    It can also use 12 highly supersonic 7 ton Granit anti ship missiles which are able to target ground targets now too.

    It also carries MiG-29M2 fighter bombers and Su-33 fighter bombers... the latter fitted with Gefest and T targeting systems to allow accurate medium altitude bombing with dumb bomb.

    An s-400 naval version can shoot down anti submarine aircraft like the fighters from kuz.

    But the radar on the ship that has that S-400 SAM on board has a radar horizon issue that it can't see low flying targets beyond about 40km, and it certainly has no way of determining if that blip 400km away is a civilian airliner or an enemy MPA.

    For naval/ shore targets it is as effective as a any frigate in the RUN.

    Actually against poorly armed western vessels like the Mistral which only had MANPADS it could easily send an Su-33 to attack with dumb bombs from above MANPADS height and blow the crap out of it with little risk of being shot down.

    Some of you guys like over-simplifying things. And Garry, you seem to like having a gotcha answer for everything, but you avoid addressing the issues and essence.

    Well lets look at the issue of you wanting to scrap a ship because a few cables broke...

    A proper investigation and correction and fixed wing aircraft are operating normally from the K... all of a sudden it is a carrier again.

    The 'K' for its tonnage, service life and size is under-performing as a carrier (compared to say CdG or one of USN's CVNs).

    And for the size and power of a western ship most are seriously under armed in the anti ship role... no ship is perfect.

    The K is paid for and in service and about to get maintainence. For the minor costs involved they are going to get an operational carrier that they can use.

    Rather better than a plan of a new carrier which they can't use.

    There's no way (or reason) to convince you further than that. Concerning the needs and vision for RuN and carriers, well they have made the effort to operate a pretty large one, which means cats, strike missions and other associated goodies are by default welcome by them.

    They will not develop a VSTOL aircraft... they have been down that road and they know where it goes.

    If the UAE wants to piss away its money then they might consider buying a few but I seriously doubt it.

    If UAE wants an F-35 arab style the Russians will likely buy the land based and conventional take off naval model and wont touch the VSTOL model... Russia has been through this before with the Yak-38M and Yak-141.

    They wont go for very small carriers with VSTOL aircraft... they are not going to have an enormous navy with thousands of ships, so the ships they do have will be as potent as they can make them.

    They will develop cats, likely EM cats because it would take as long to develop steam cats as it would EM cats and steam cats are old technology with no other modern application. EM cats offer technology in all sorts of new technology areas.

    They have long range land attack cruise missiles so they wont bother with deep strike bombers on their carriers.

    They will likely develop a naval PAK FA, which will be able to operate in SEAD missions over heavily defended airspace to help the missiles get through by taking out air defence systems and enemy aircraft that might otherwise intercept the cruise missiles.

    With the new technology radar systems I rather suspect they wont even bother with a carrier based AWACS, possibly more an AEW aircraft or airship, or perhaps even HALE type drones.

    The Russian carrier will be designed to deal with undersea targets, sea surface targets, land surface targets, air targets and targets in space and ICBMs... so it will have UKSK tubes and Redut and S-500 systems to protect itself and the vessels it operates with.

    In other words it wont be like a US carrier... despite what HATO fanboys claim...

    Having an incarnation of the Kiev class with new Yak-141 &/ its follow on will be better than no carriers at all.

    VSTOL aircraft are worse than useless.

    There is no variant of the Yak-141 or Yak-38M that is even half as good as the MiG-29K in any terms... range, speed, manouver capability, payload, sensors, the only advantage the Yak VSTOLS had was an automatic ejection system that was engaged during landing and takeoffs that automatically ejected the pilot of yaw or pitch angles exceeded a specific number. Rather more Yaks crashed than Harriers but much fewer pilots were killed as a result of the auto eject system.

    They might have lost a few aircraft that could have been saved, but they saved pilots.

    Don't get me wrong the Sea Harrier is a nice aircraft, but that is because it had a very good radar and later models got AMRAAM and late model Sidewinders.

    If you look at the sea harrier in the Falklands it would have been in serious trouble against even a MiG-23 from the early 1980s let alone a MiG-29.

    the side mounted engine nozzles on the harrier means they are enormous IR targets from any angle including head on.... it is one of the few aircraft that can be shot down from any angle with an IR guided missile... even an average one.

    putting LACMs on small/medium patrol boats, corvettes & SSKs is a case in point.

    Putting UKSK launchers on all their vessels means all their ships can carry LACMs... and good ones at that, but they can also carry hypersonic Zircon missiles in 5 years time, and they can carry mach 2.5 speed ballistic rockets that can deliver a modern torpedo into the water 50km away from the ship in minutes and the target wont know it is coming until it splashes into the water nearby... it has very little to do with their need for air support.


    _________________
    “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

    Sponsored content

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:15 am