Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

Tsavo Lion wrote:Even with 3 CVNs they can be present for more than a few weeks at best in only 1 ocean constantly. That's why China wants 6 CV/Ns so 2 can be in the Pacific & Indian Oceans 24/7/364/5.
This point was beaten to death here.

12 granits won't go through any astra 15/30 or SM on burkes. They are only mach 2 and as big as a su-27 on a radar but with no manoevrability.

All but 1 fly at wave top level. The USN won't risk getting any close to it, just like off Syria.

They already laugh at this dinosorus.

That's why now they need to finish it, so the laughing stops.

Russia navy don't care about how china operate or want to operate carriers. China wants to support its trade routes with the carriers. Russia wants to protect SSBNs tgat's why they need only 2 or 4 so that they can have 1 ready for each big fleet to protect subs. They don't care about what's going on in the south china sea or in the malvinas.

The 1 above the other uses its radar so it will be spotted either by ship's radars or by its EW passively. Then they know 11 other may be flying under the lonely one. They will know where to look with radars and have enough missiles to hit every one 2 or 3 times. At mach 2 and a radar horizon of ~30km against such unstealthy missiles means they will have more than 1 minutes to use air defences which is enough.

Totally outdated missile unless nuclear armed.

Russian navy wants to keep deck aviation with a decent carrier and buy as much as possible uksk plateforms. Kuznetsov was the only one they have, that's why they kept that ship.

Not sure what you are talking about our CVN going off to the coast of Syria....what requires us to park a cvn there?

Not them, but the other surface ships & planes were kept at least 50 km away from the Adm. K. The USN CVN arrived after it left IIRC.

Russia wants to protect SSBNs tgat's why they need only 2 or 4 so that they can have 1 ready for each big fleet to protect subs.

That was before. Now they can do it from shore bases with Su-30/33/34s & MiG-25/31s. Their SSBNs safely conducted dozens of exercises/patrols while the Adm. K was in the Med., moored or in the drydock.

Totally outdated missile unless nuclear armed.

Oniks is better than Granit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-800_Oniks#Advantages

Range for low-altitude trajectory (lo-lo) – 120 km
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-800_Oniks#Specifications

Kuznetsov was the only one they have, that's why they kept that ship.

It still is, & u just stated the reason not to give it up. Even after they get 2-3 more TAKR/CV/Ns, it'll be useful.

Tsavo Lion wrote:

Not sure what you are talking about our CVN going off to the coast of Syria....what requires us to park a cvn there?

Not them, but the other surface ships & planes were kept  50 km away from the Adm K. The USN CVN arrived after it left IIRC.

Ofcourse, Russia would do the same if it was the other way around....even if it is Israel instead of US...Russia would try to avoid direct conflict and viceversa. It is called fighting by proxy and avoiding direct conflict when there is a chance of retaliation. It does not mean one is inferior to the other especially conventional US has 10 to 1 on Russia broadly speaking capabilities wise.

I know what you mean though in the context you were talking about.

Oniks is better than Granit.

I was saying granit is outdated. Oniks is beter but can't be used by K.

That was before. Now they can do it from shore bases with Su-30/33/34s & MiG-25/31s. Their SSBNs safely conducted dozens of exercises/patrols while the Adm. K was in the Med., moored or in the drydock.

Not if the subs are deployed 1000km from the base.

It's one thing doing exercices during peace time, but another thing when patrolling during tensions and war time when virginias and P-8 are following you.

It still is, & u just stated the reason not to give it up. Even after they get 2-3 more TAKR/CV/Ns, it'll be useful

Nope. It's no more since they can't repaire it. And no it won't be useful. They want to make to spend less but beter. Buying two new modern carriers and keeping money for those two to be well active is better than two + k which will need millions $ to stay afloat whike the two other are affected by lack of money.

Similar to Typhoons. Could have been modernized and kept in service with borei. But they choosed Borei and cheaper Deltas because typhoon are big for nothing compare to borei which are less expensive, better armed and easier to keep active.

Kuznetsov will go with sovs at the scrapping. Even india is producing its own carrier with shitty shipyards. Why not russia ?

Oniks is beter but can't be used by K.

With new cells they can, & it's been reported that they'll install them. Read the thread!

Not if the subs are deployed 1000km from the base.
..when patrolling during tensions and war time when virginias and P-8 are following you.

They now have Kilos+ SSNs to defend them in clear water near shores & under the ice where they patrol; the P-8s will be wasting their fuel & time there.

Nope. It's no more since they can't repaire it. And no it won't be useful. They want to make to spend less but beter. Buying two new modern carriers and keeping money for those two to be well active is better than two + k which will need millions $ to stay afloat whike the two other are affected by lack of money.

They only need to install screws & repair the deck. It's too big to fail now. They"ll $ave by staying in home waters more often than not & delaying building new CVNs; UDKs r more important & those can do most of the combat missions Adm. K was doing.

Repair of the aircraft carrier "Admiral Kuznetsov" was completed by a quarter, completed in 2020 - Shoigu

"At the moment, work is being carried out in accordance with the master plan. Technical readiness of the cruiser is 25%. It is expected to complete repairs and modernization before the end of 2020," said S.Shoigu on Tuesday at a conference call at the Russian Defense Ministry.

https://www.militarynews.ru/story.asp?rid=1&nid=505750&lang=RU

Should put to rest so many unfounded comments, for the umpteenth time, about the scrapping of the Kuznetsov... will we learn from this one or stir another round of negativity in some weeks/months from now as usually?

While there has only been suggestions of scrapping by uninvolved/russophobes, there's no particular reason to believe completion dates given by senior political leadership/management, history shows they're very rarely correct.

I'll believe 2020 when I see some pics of rapid progress linking & extending those drydocks.

More good advice from the Western friends, so worried about Russia and its problems:

A view from the West: Russia is better to cut the carrier to the metal than to shame

https://weaponews.com/news/65349734-a-view-from-the-west-russia-is-better-to-cut-the-carrier-to-the-metal-.html

Yesterday

Delusions are nice, has stated by Russia they were in the process of fixing the propulsion when the accident happened, they in a hurry sealed the hole before the area submerged into the water. the work below the water line wasn't complete that is a bald-faced lie.

Here is a Russian Article which explains the problem

https://iz.ru/863860/ilia-kramnik/chto-delat-s-avianostcem-admiral-kuznetcov-mozhet-ne-vernutsia-v-stroi

So call me a liar, when the liar is you. Don't try the old "This is a Western News Media, it's total propaganda" this newspaper has existed since 1917 was founded, created and operates in Moscow..

No they didn't fix it unless they can magically open up the hull while it's underwater and uses some magic force barrier to keep the water from coming in, wanna know something they can't do that...So no the propulsion is not fixed the Russians themselves never said it was fixed, you are just maing shit up yes call me this and that because the truth is the truth.

But you clearly know better, I'll give you a chance show me proof that indeed what you claim happened. Photos of the engines being fixed AFTER it happened not before.

See what's going to is your going to try and give me some BS picture or say "I don't have to prove anything you NATO fanboy blah blah blah".

Btw some picture of them doing surface level work proves nothing, so come on show me your proof and I'll state I am wrong and you are right.

does anyone have a real and factual account of the Kuz conditions and what remains to be completed below the waterline?

A couple of posters at Balancer who claim to be in Murmansk & at least one claims to be involved with the floating dock say it was definitely a scheduled undocking ie was all sealed up, prepared.
A bit unclear on translation but at least the props are off but possibly the shafts as well as part of the upgrade/repairs, plan was to go back in dock at the end of the rest of the work to put them back on.

Subsequent pictures & official statements fit their claims much better than claims of big holes, open hatches/valves & large uncontrolled flooding.

Another image from similar timeframe (previously posted by verkhoturye51), seems to show replacement of the deck coatings. This could be part of the general repair program, but could also be linked to repair of damage from the lay-down of the PD-50 crane.

Clearly nothing to do with the crane, the crane landed aft of the bare area, where there is still paint/coating.
The claim of a huge hole in the deck from the crane was quickly proven false because there are literally pictures showing the crane sitting there on the deck with only minor dents visible. (probably some damage to arrestor gear and I think the port, aft weapons area)

In all post-incident pics its floating far above normal waterline & on an even keel (both laterally & fore/aft) -> is hard contra-evidence for any significant flooding.
Not impossible there has been some underwater damage but clearly any flooding has been pretty minor.

Overall apparently minor damage is pretty amazing considering the violent heel, rapid release & close clearances involved.

I hope they start work on linking/extending the 35th shipyard drydocks soon & make rapid progress.

official statements confirm the crane caused major damage and it wasn't a planned undocking show me a statement from the MOD that supports that, a statement from people on Balancer is worthless.

Has for flooding, even if it did take on water they could have easily gotten it out by the time pictures where taken so again that is meaningless to say. You realize pumps can remove hundreds of thousands of gallons of water in a mere hour right? and do you think the Russian's would allow anyone to take a picture of the ship with water in it?.

Sorry but the facts show well has the story from the MOD and the head of the shipyard show indeed the ship took a couple of mil in extra damage from the incident the engines aren't fixed yet and they have stopped trying to modernize the ship.

Don't downplay what happened to paint a better picture then what it is.

official statements confirm the crane caused major damage and it wasn't a planned undocking show me a statement from the MOD that supports that, a statement from people on Balancer is worthless.

Has for flooding, even if it did take on water they could have easily gotten it out by the time pictures where taken so again that is meaningless to say. You realize pumps can remove hundreds of thousands of gallons of water in a mere hour right? and do you think the Russian's would allow anyone to take a picture of the ship with water in it?.

Sorry but the facts show well has the story from the MOD and the head of the shipyard show indeed the ship took a couple of mil in extra damage from the incident the engines aren't fixed yet and they have stopped trying to modernize the ship.

Don't downplay what happened to paint a better picture then what it is.

Your link is unofficial and wrong.
This is an official quote
http://tass.com/defense/1030573

Russia’s aircraft-carrying cruiser Admiral Kuznetsov has got no serious damage after a crane fell onto its deck when the warship was exiting the floating dock at the 82nd Ship Repair Factory, Deputy Defense Minister Alexei Krivoruchko said on Tuesday.
"Upon the warship’s arrival at the place of its repairs at the 35th Ship Repair Factory (a branch of the Zvyozdochka Ship Repair Center), a special commission started evaluating the damage. A preliminary inspection has found that the Admiral Kuznetsov did not get any substantial damage," Krivoruchko said at a conference call led by First Deputy Defense Minister Ruslan Tsalikov.

And its substantiated by photos showing minimal damage and the ship floating high and level.

The first photos are only a day or two after the incident, no time to patch holes & pump out thousands of tons of water.
There have been no rumors or evidence of any patching happening.

The amount of extra cost to fix the damage to K is quoted as ~70mil roubles if I recall correctly, which is all of about $1mil US out of a repair/refit budget thats multi-billions of roubles.
Its not nothing but its definitely not a number consistent with serious damage.

You are wrong & Russia was very lucky in an extremely embarrassing and major incident that could have easily resulted in massive damage anything up to K sinking and will definitely be a big inconvenience until a new drydock is ready.

That is not according to workers on the site.

https://b-port.com/news/220939


That is not according to President of the United Shipbuilding Corporation Alexei Rakhmanov

https://iz.ru/806496/ilia-kramnik/upustili-dok-pochemu-admiral-kuznetcov-edva-ne-utonul


I could post more, Ruslan is not anywhere on record stating what you just claimed, that article is wrong. But to be fair, I would expect a Russian military official to lie about this after all pretty dam embarrassing. Just like if this happened in the US, I'd fully expect some Admiral to BS.

First link is incorrect, it talks about the crane being stuck through the deck.

Actual evidence in HD from 4 Nov

The crane is sitting on top of the only superficially damaged deck, there is no sign whatsoever of a huge hole.
If there was to be a big hole it would probably have been made by the counterweight but we can see its sitting there on top of the deck.


This looks like one of the Kashtans probably got squished by the tip of the crane.
You can also see how high above normal waterline its floating.

2nd link claims from unnamed dock sources that there was large flooding due to the ship being unprepared for undocking and large holes from the crane.
Rakhmanov the official quoted confirms it was a planned undocking.
In a planned undocking valves, hatches etc must have been closed -> the claims by the unnamed of large flooding are false.

Article says the quote is from Deputy Defense Minister Alexei Krivoruchko not Ruslan, but Ruslan was present at the event.
Reading is hard sometimes

If there were photos of it sitting low with a heel and big gaping holes I'd absolutely believe the officials are lying, absent any photos either way I'd believe there is a good chance the officials are lying.
But we do have good photographic evidence showing minimal damage and a ship floating high and level -> backs up the official line of minimal damage.

The Crane was not removed until after the investigation is completed, so your picture is from after the incident. You're basing you information on the fact the crane is still on the deck when again they waited until the investigation was over to remove the crane, so nice try.

Also the area where the crane hit is also covered and due to this angle you cannot see certain areas of the deck where the crane hit. also five meters is what hey reported five meters is FIVE YARDS. It would be very hard to see a 5-meter gash that is covered by the crane. From the picture.

The hole its self is no big deal, but you denying the thing is there when everyone else says it is. Just Silly.

The huge problem is they have no dock capable of getting it out of the water and fixing its propulsion.

Expanding a dock could take years of work.

Its pretty obviously sitting where it landed. (look at the railing damage in the foreground)

Or perhaps you can provide some actual evidence showing a big hole?

Depends what you view has factual I have shown you the statement from the guy who owns the shipyard, again a five-meter hole is easy to cover up.

Your picture isn't factual since it was taken DAYS after the incident not during.

The hole its self isn't that big of an issue again it's the dock the ship has no propulsion and they have no means to fix it and any solution is years away at this point.

the ship is quite literally dead in the water.

So yes now you admit it only received minor damage and the only issue is getting a drydock, cool.

They have a couple of years to get a drydock done since the current stage of work is supposed to end in 2021.

I don't see that as being an impossibility with the planned linking & extension of 2 existing drydocks, its basically a question of a bunch of earthmoving, concrete pouring & building a chonky door.

hoom wrote:So yes now you admit it only received minor damage and the only issue is getting a drydock, cool.

They have a couple of years to get a drydock done since the current stage of work is supposed to end in 2021.

I don't see that as being an impossibility with the planned linking & extension of 2 existing drydocks, its basically a question of a bunch of earthmoving, concrete pouring & building a chonky door.

I never said the hole was the big issue just that existed, A couple of hundred mill in total damage isn't minor tho.

No they stopped deep modernization of the ship at this point they are fixing some minor things but for the most part the deep repair work they wanted to do is canceled.

You'd be surprised how simple something can sound but isn't.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Here is a Russian Article which explains the problem

https://iz.ru/863860/ilia-kramnik/chto-delat-s-avianostcem-admiral-kuznetcov-mozhet-ne-vernutsia-v-stroi

Maybe you should actually read the link you post.  The only info that relates to unfinished repair work is the following:

Docking is an important part of restoring the ship’s technical readiness, without which the Kuznetsov will not be able to return to service, if only because only the dock propellers previously taken during the repair can be reinstalled onto the ship.

The rest of the article pertains mainly to the issue of ongoing maintenance and how a replacemnet for PD-50 is required.  Nothing about engines being "fucked"...

Rakhmanov is stating that the K will be ready in 2021.  The only source this article quotes to challenge this is from the "Izvestia interlocutor in the military department" who suggests it may be

better to build a pair of frigates or a nuclear submarine with this money

.  Hmmm..  an anonymous source who thinks that Russias sole CV will be abandoned because the screws are missing?  Yeah, what an "expert"            

It's possible that you're not simply lying but are just incapable of comprehending what you read? Stop wasting my time.

I did read it but where is your link, I asked to see your evidence you posted NOTHING.

Where is it?. before you try and call someone else a lair show your stuff.

The fact the propellers are off show they did not a complete engine work, you do KNOW WHY they have to take Propellers off ships right when fixing the engines?. Open your mouth and call me all the names you want doesn't make you right, just makes you look silly. I mean are you that much of a blind follower, that such simple logic goes over your head?. I guess so.

It's like aruging with a US Navy Fanboy about why hypersonic missiles can sink a carrier fairly easy if fired in a salvo. It's hailrious how butt hurt you types get over this stuff.

FUN FACT IS THE ENGINES DON'T WORK THEY ARE FUCKED.

Oh really....that's why suddenly the Navy announced plans to build more frigate and landings ships, geez I wonder where that money suddenly came from, a real mystery. You know something reaaaaal weird right if you add the money those two frigates and Gren's cost to build...it's pretty much the sum of what the deep refit fo the Kuz was going to cost.

Weird how similiar those numbers are. It's almost like they stopped the deep work they planned because they can't do it anymore and instead put money towards some Frigates which they desperately need.

The fact the propellers are off show they did not a complete engine work, you do KNOW WHY they have to take Propellers off ships right when fixing the engines?.

To do maintenance on the propellers, its far from uncommon & nothing to do with the engines.
The boilers were changed while afloat before it went into drydock, we know it because there are photos of it in progress.
Presumably the steam turbines are in good enough condition, nobody seems to have suggested any issues with them.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:
The fact the propellers are off show they did not a complete engine work, you do KNOW WHY they have to take Propellers off ships right when fixing the engines?.

I'm going to be patient with you even though you don't deserve it...  The engine repair was the replacement of faulty boilers and IIRC a refurb of steam turbines (but not sure on the scope but I have read it includes a replacement of controls equipment).  Removing the propellers isn't a related task. Not sure of the scope of works, but repairs on the prop blades to perform a rebalancing would be likely, as well as the shafts themselves. In any case, its very likely that shaft and prop refurb has a significantly longer schedule than the installation of new boilers.  Its quicker to cut holes, remove dead boilers, lift in new ones, and reclose the hull than it is to remove shafts and props, transport them to a heavy engineering shop, perform the work on these massively heavy and unwieldy items, then return and replace. It's perfectly feasible that the repair plan was to vacate the PD-50, continue repairs at dockside, then return to PD-50 when the props and shafts are ready.

You have posted NO EVIDENCE to backup your claims that the "engines are fucked".  The links you have posted don't support your contentions in this regard.

The fact that you choose to believe anonymous media sources (which include no evidence) rather than official reports says more about you and your biases/proclivities than it does about either the Kuznetsov or the Russian shipbuilding industry. BTW I'm an electrical, instr and controls engineer who has spent 30 years working in the offshore Oil & Gas and maritime industries. You can rest assured that I know my stuff....