Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

I was just thinking ... If these heli carriers are going to be 40,000 tons , they might as well go a little bigger yet so they can fit some su 57's on there

Because it is not a helicopter carrier... it is intended to carry russian naval infantry and their armour, the helicopters are there to support a landing operation... it is essentially an Ivan Rogov (the original) but with a flat deck and rather more helicopters to support the landing as well as more naval infantry and armour.

Putting an Su-57 makes as much sense as putting a couple of Tu-22M3s on there...

The Kuznetsov was never intended for striking ground or sea targets.... that is why it carried Granits.

The Kuznetsov was intended to add air defence to a surface group of Soviet ships... its performance was limited by its small size so it had to use Ka-31s instead of Yak-44s but its replacement Ulyanovsk was supposed to have cats and is larger to fix those problems.

Testing the K in Syria was useful, there were problems of course, but that is why testing is such a valuable thing.

Not being able to launch fixed wing aircraft means the K was as effective as Americas latest super carrier... which is amazing performance really when you think about it.... 15 billion US dollars in value...

They have upgraded the Kuznetsov and are going to be putting it back to sea soon enough... the drive can dribble on with their expert advice all they want but their advice and suggests always run counter to Russian interests so it is very reassuring to hear them bleat that nonsense.

Like hearing western countries criticise Putin... means they are doing the right thing.

Another thing I find funny about that article is that they say putting and angled deck and ramp is a big undertaking. WHY? What is so incredibly hard about building an angled deck and a ramp when you are building a 44K ton ship...good lord.

Actually it is a big deal... the design of a ship is like the design of a house except there is the aspect of balance and ballast too.

When you design the foundations of a house or building you pretty much design it for the building you are putting on top of those foundations.

The location and shape of the structure above determines what weight supporting lower structure and foundations you use to make it work.

Taking the top off a ship and then fitting an angled deck and it changes where weight can be located.... you aren't just making the deck wider... you are also going to keep aircraft on the edges of the deck which is no minor weight and the effects in calm water and rough seas need to be taken into account.

These are helicopter carriers... it has no need for any angled decks or VSTOL aircraft other than small drones.

They are simply terrified that Russia will kick their asses in the open seas too, nothing more,

They understand the value of naval power and the global capability it gives to a country, but being a died in the wool imperial force they can't see Russia using it for her own interests without getting in Americas way... which makes them a threat and a rival if they get carriers... so of course they will say they shouldn't waste their time trying to defend their ships with mobile air power the way the US and UK and France does.... do as I say and not as I do....

The alternative of course is that they actually care about Russia and Russians and want them to not make a mistake... AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHA...

Only thing that needs holy water to deal with demonic possession is that fiscal-doctrinal disaster

They have equivalent of Black Sea Fleet trapped in that Soviet dead end

Considering you think they should make the mistake the Soviet Union and the UK already made with small carries and VSTOL fighters... which is amusing because it wasn't cheaper and was not as capable as a MiG-33.

These days it will be Su-57s which will be vastly more capable... probably with MIG-35s and later LMFS.

They like to give the impression to their readers that there is Iran or North Korea level budgetary rationing in Russia.

Yes, it is a conundrum... they can afford to have a military that seems to match the entire west in many areas, yet they are a third world gas station shithole that doesn't make anything... but everyone knows if you keep saying it and no one objects it becomes true...

With more mig-29k and a good stock of kh-31 and kh-59MK2 and r-77M it will become tens of time more powerfull than it is with su-33.

Actually it is the MiG-29KR which is MiG-35 based, not the MiG-29K which was the MiG-33 and a variant of the MiG-29M, but because neither the MiG-33 nor the MiG-29M entered service then they are confusingly reusing the old designations for brand new aircraft.

The original MiG-29K and MiG-29M have single seater canopies, while the MiG-29KR and MiG-35 and MiG-29M/2 have two seat versions and the single and twin seat models share the twin seat canopies.

Which should mean R-37M as an option for air to air use... and the new multitarget model in development... and if the work on the catapults is going OK then potential for a few Su-57s.

All of which are stuck on that pier queen and rotting away

Being upgraded and prepared to put back into use.

All of it wasted and useless forever sitting in port

No, you are confusing it with the new US helicopter carrier.... the 15 billion dollar Ford Class CVN.

But then I understand that they don't send such ship for anti piracy missions or fight some revels in the desert of Syria... costly and useless.

They are upgrading Cruisers and their only carrier, they are building two new 40K ton helicopter carriers and will likely follow that order with an order for two more, and they are likely preparing to build a destroyer class.

They don't need 10 super carriers right now... they don't need any carriers right now, but in the next decade they will need something that can bring air power in teh form of manned and unmanned aircraft around the world where ever their ships can go.

The Kuznetsov is part of that.

..and that is the nucleus of the reality. Murican exceptionalist trash would LOVE to see Russia scrap her only fixed-wing carrier, and only a fucking idiot would choose to oblige them.

Scrapping it would piss away the decade it would take to make a replacement and hand the seas to the west... I understand PD wants that... he is already owned by the US why should he give a shit about anywhere else... he wants company...

And 3 gorshkov + 1 kirov + 1 kuznetsov with a decent air wing is far less powerful than 6 gorshkov + 2 kirov

See how that works?

A Kirov could operate for 6 months away from Russian waters but Gorshkov FRIGATES would not, and would be terribly vulnerable to enemy air power and air attack.

A Russian carrier group wont include Frigates... it will be Destroyers and Cruisers.

By what metric? And compared to what? Graff Zeppelin?

But all big ships are obsolete aren't they?

Makes you wonder why Russia has so many aircraft in Syria when air power is so expensive and useless.

Beggars can't be choosers and have to settle for whatever turd is available

Take your own advice and offer a poor person near you a turd... say a Ford class CVN or Zumwalt class destroyer or LCS ship... or even an F-35... beggars are not obliged to take shit when nothing is better.

And like Kuznetzov it wouldn't last 2 minutes against Ford, that overpriced showboat could botch half the aircraft launches and still easily overwhelm that knockoff of a toilet bowl

Why would the Kuznetsov need to fight a Ford?

Are you 12?

^ I don't have a problem with your agreement with the Drivel piece tactically.

Doesn't matter what shit the Drivel spouts, or what PD says, he is so butt hurt over this there is little point discussing it.... maybe someone named Kuznetsov shagged his wife or sister or something.... who knows where irrational hatred comes from... certainly Europe is a place to start looking if you are interested.

And I agree that the Kuz has been an embarrassement in a way. It should never have been doing 24 hour carrier ops in Syria.

It is their first full deck fixed wing carrier... lets compare apples with apples... every western country has had a terrible carrier that they had to design for themselves...

Something was bound to go wrong if they were going to try and do a Desert Storm impression with it. But this wasn't the boats fault. It wasnt the designs fault. It was the leaderships fault. They didn't commit to it the way China has. Not even close.They chose not to prioritize it.

The Kuznetsov is an air defence carrier intended to protect surface fleets from enemy airpower... it was never intended for invasions, it was to allow the Soviet and then the Russian fleet to operate anywhere on earth by enhancing its protection via early warning and a high speed element that ships don't have.

Russia hasn't needed any of that for the last 30 years, but why would you think the next 30 will be the same.

The simple fact is that without a strong navy Russia is fucked, because any country like Venezuela wants to trade with Russia instead of the west and the west will be able to say... well Russia only has corvettes and frigates... lets do some regime change in Venezuela and have a shipping blockade there and fuck them over. Even if we don't succeed Venezuela was suffer and Russia will look weak and any other country thinking of leaving the western nipple and try to develop and grow into something more than a whiny infant will realise that is not a good idea...

Aircraft carriers will not allow Russia to defeat the US in open sea battles but regular visits and regular trips and bases in foreign countries will open up the world to Russian products and cooperation with Russia.

PD think VSTOL aircraft are the solution and that some how a small carrier might be better than a bigger one, but everyone who has tried that had plans for much bigger carriers in the 50-70K ton weight range because three 40K ton ships might be as good as one 70K ton ship with much much better aircraft on it, but considering you also have to develop those 5th gen VSTOL fighters you wont be saving any money at all... in fact it will cost rather more.

I remember the promises... everyone will buy Harriers because they will be the only aircraft flying after a few hours when all the airfields have been destroyed... except you can't just operate anywhere with a Harrier or any VSTOL fighter, and their nozzles make them easy kills for MANPADS and IR guided weapons when used by better skilled and aware enemies.

The Argentinians didn't have to try to manouver and get on their tails before launching missiles at them... if they had R-73 missiles those Harriers would be dead.

If it was prioritized like a Borei class submarine launching Bulava missiles, it would look no different than China's carriers out there.

Russia isn't operating in the South Pacific or the South Atlantic or other places a long way away from Russian airspace, so they don't need the Kuznetsov except for training and skills. They now have bases in Syria and agreements on bases in other places and as that list grows they are developing a more global presence.

They can either spend a few billion on carriers or a few trillion on 800 bases around the world with aircraft and ship infrastructure... not rocket science.