Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 23638
    Points : 24178
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  GarryB on 13/12/19, 03:45 pm

    Dear god... some of the comments here are laugh out loud funny.

    Some simply facts.... first of all 600 square metres of damage sounds huge... it also sound bogus because two dimensional damage in a three dimensional structure sounds odd. It is a room twenty metres wide and 30 metres long, which is a large volume for a shop or a school classroom, but for an airport or aircraft hangar it is not really that big.

    Claims they could make a new one from scratch quicker or easier or cheaper are just stupid... especially when they have not even finalised a new design yet anyway.

    Even if China could make one for them why would they do that?

    How would Russia benefit from spending money in Chinese shipyards on Chinese ships?

    I would say that there is a major problem at Russian shipyards in terms of repairing ships. Building new ones not a problem but repairing seems to be a major issue where they cause constant fires. But I agree with ISOS, at this point, cheaper and faster to buy into Shturm than it is to keep this boat going.

    Well lets assume you are right and there is a huge problem with repair and maintenance... WTF?

    Just give up having a navy?

    Get China to build and maintain all Russian ships?

    You are quick to call people idiots, but sometimes you make them look quite smart when you are upset...

    If they can't repair or maintain the K then there is no point in getting any new toys if you can't look after your existing toys... now go sit on your naughty step and think about what you have said and done...   Laughing

    The USS Forrestal fire was a lot worse, & the USN repaired it.

    Exactly... there isn't really much damage that can't be fixed on big ships... and over their lifetimes accidents and problems including battle damage happens so you need to be able to deal with it...

    Maybe it was worst than this fire but as said in Tass, it was a violation in work. This is a major issue with the repair plants. And thus already damage is to the point that it may be cheaper to build a new vessel instead. Plus may be done quicker too

    So they need to take a good hard look at their repair plants and how they work and what they are doing... how the fuck does buying new ships from China or even making them in Russia deal with that problem?

    Fire is not a friend of metals. The structure could need mort parts to be changed by the same guys who started this fire. Idk why they didn't send this ship in China for repair. They can finish in 1 or 2 months.

    I am no expert but there are obvious things on the surface of unpainted metal that will tell you if its strength has been compromised by heating and whether it needs a coat of paint or to be replaced.

    $340 million has already been wasted on this refit which should have gone to that. Unless Putin is going to magically come up with billions for a CATOBAR it is not worth pursuing.

    A VDV force fighting on the other side of the planet would benefit from air support and it is no different for Russian Navy surface ships...

    It has always been a state welfare project and platform to promote export of MiG-29K.

    It is also the only game in town at the moment for Russia for mobile air power that can follow Russian ships anywhere they go.

    Well, they have over $40B in budget surplus they can use. It would end up cheaper long run for new ship.

    It would be cheaper still disbanding the entire Russian military and rely on peace and love and democracy to keep Russia safe, but it makes rather more sense to build a sustainable smaller but powerful and mobile military structure... first of all to protect Russia, and then to protect Russian interests around the globe.

    Aircraft carriers are not needed to defend Russia... missiles from ground launchers and aircraft and some ships already can manage that fine, but moving away from Russian territory an expanding navy becomes their only mobile force that can impose their will when needed, and it will be more effective with air support.

    IMO, it should be kept to make $ spent on it already worth it. They can get all repairs faster than building a new CV or CVN.
    If it gets scrapped now, they'll have no CV/N for at least ~8-10 more years.

    Exactly.

    Well they can easily secure 5-6 billion $ in one year by stoping procurment of ground and air defence systems and increasing export gaz prices during this winter.

    Ground and air defences are more important than an aircraft carrier... and changing gas prices is not really possible within most of their gas sales contracts... especially not to cover military purchases... I am sure Germany wont be happy paying an extra 5 billion a year for their gas supplies when they find out it is to build a new CVN for Russia...

    And let's not talk about corruption. They could buy 10 carriers with that money.

    There is no point in talking about money you can't access...

    They will never order a super CATOBAR. That will be suicide. They can't repaire the kuznetsov, what would happen with a CATOBAR.

    And that is the amusing thing... they can order anything they like and they can repair the K WTF are you talking about?

    The small shtorm would be a good replacement for kuznetsov, a better ad for mig-29k/mig-35 and allow to even find export customers like South Korea or Saudi Arabia.

    It might be but they wont be able to lay it down until these two helicopter carriers they are laying down are finished so they wont be ready for service till the late 2020s. In comparison repairing the K should be much much quicker... the fire on that deep sea sub that killed 14 was much worse and they are repairing that too you know...

    New build ships create more jobs. They would have saved a lot if they had send it to China for repairs and they could have even sold it them for 4 or 5 billion so that they have both ships of the class whike Russia goes with a new and modern design.

    See, now I don't understand this mentality... new build ships do create more jobs, but a replacement carrier can't just be laid down right now and produced ready for use by Spring next year... you need to decide on a design to start with... you need to book a shipyard... you need to get a slot to lay it down and start making it... even if they started laying it down right this second a brand new ship is going to be both very expensive and a very long build... probably 6-8 years because it will likely be testing all sorts of new technology.

    Compared with repairing a little fire damage on the K... what you are suggesting is silly.

    but for political purposes, Russia can't afford to be w/o a carrier even for 1 day, & even if it spends most time in port/yards & home waters.

    But that is the point... Aircraft carriers don't spend all their time at sea... look at the US Navy for fucks sake... more than half of its carrier groups couldn't put to sea right now if they wanted to, and of their 10 odd carrier groups perhaps 2-4 of them are ever at sea at any one time for most of the time. And I am not saying that to have a dig at the US Navy... I am just pointing out the reality that ships need maintenance and upgrades and they also need training... so 70% of their operational lives they are not available...

    The area of ​​fire quickly reached 600 square meters. m, he was assigned the second rank of difficulty. However, according to sources close to the emergency commission, the new equipment was not damaged, so the fire should not adversely affect the completion dates for the repair of the only Russian aircraft carrier. In fact, workers will only have to clean up the fire and redecorate them. After that, the installation of new equipment will resume.

    Thank you for posting that... please re read 1,000 times for those who suggested scrapping the ship and making a new ship or getting china to make them a new one...

    The fire broke out in the power supply compartment and all of the diesel generators and cables are destroyed.

    Such things would burn fairly rapidly but can be replaced without problems...

    USN was getting excellent results out of Forrestal and she was more than worth repairing to say nothing of how necessary she was for US military needs

    Same doesn't apply for Kuznetzov

    The USN was killing children and stealing peoples land in Vietnam... they didn't really need another carrier. Russia needs a carrier to train and operate from while they are in the process of developing larger ships and helicopter carriers... they have nothing to replace the Kuznetsov with currently so it is actually more valuable to them than the Forrestal was to the Americans.

    Oh and another thing: every single person in that facility with access to blowtorch should be immediately fired alongside any work supervisor currently on the payroll

    What... you are going to spare their children and families?

    MiG-29K has been dead project for years now, another thing to move on from alongside this carrier

    The MiG-29KR programme is the only one going in town at the moment.

    This ship is nothing more than redundant disgrace, a floating monument to dead era and a pathetic country that died a humiliating death

    Just because you post it on the internet doesn't make it true... a Russian corvette is a powerful little ship, but it would be ten times more powerful operating with larger ships and with a carrier providing fighter aircraft and AWACS support even in the form of Ka-31s.

    Several aircraft squadrons and enough people to crew 10 frigates are stuck on this bathtub that never in it's entire existence demonstrated even an inkling of usefulness

    You could say the same about the Akula class SSBN... it has never launched a nuclear strike on the US.... bloody useless... they could have made a much smaller and much cheaper sub...

    To say nothing of the fact that there wasn't a single moment in history of modern day Russia that an aircraft carrier was ever needed for anything

    And if it was never needed or used in the past then of course it will never be needed in the future... disband the Strategic rocket forces immediately...

    Russia has never used a nuclear weapon so therefore I guess they will never need any...

    Killing this white elephant will free up enough funds to fully equip entire Navy with all the new surface combatants that are actually required

    Getting rid of air support for the Navy is like getting rid of the Air Force for Russia...

    Something people are overlooking is that a demand was made for a jump jet by 2027.

    No there wasn't. There was a request for a new naval fighter aircraft that might have short field operational capability that could include vertical take off, but they have been up that dead end alley way and they know where it leads.

    That should hint that the Kuznetsov and any carrier with both ski jumps and catapults are not needed for future.

    Actually the opposite is true... if they did intend to develop a VSTOL fighter plane then ski jumps will be critical... the cats were never needed for fighter planes, they are for AWACS and tanker and transport types that support operations.

    So future carriers may end up being similar to cargo vessels for Russia which is most ideal.

    Hahahahaha.... yeah that old chestnut... the british suggested that in the 1980s... just before they went to the Falklands... they figured that the Sea Harrier could take of from a helicopter spot, so they didn't need big fixed wing carriers like the Ark Royal, and even their dinky little Hermes carrier was big and expensive compared with any old container ship... luck the Falklands war didn't happen in the late 1980s instead of the early ones.

    Their combat experience was that while all military ships were vulnerable to sea skimming French missiles like the Exocet they did find that countermeasures could be effective if deployed in time... the problem was that their civilian ships like the Atlantic Conveyer carrying most of their helicopters for the operation doesn't have jamming or decoy equipment so when the navy vessels it was with launched chaff and flares and decoys the Exocet lost its lock on the navy vessels and locked on to the civilian transport vessel instead.

    The Amusing thing of course was that they said at the time it was OK because the Soviets didn't have any sea skimming missiles (note the designation of the SS-N-22 Sunburn was 3M80... ie 1980... a mach 2 x4.5 ton missile intended to fly under the 7m low altitude limit of the US Standard air defence SAM used on their AEGIS class cruisers).

    But on topic... they went from an aircraft carrier with AWACS and fixed wing fighter aircraft (Phantoms) with good range and speed and most importantly medium range AAMs, to the Sea Harrier and the Hermes and barely squeaked through... if they had gone cheaper with Harriers on cargo ships they would have failed because VSTOL fighters having to take off vertically can carry fuel or weapons but not both...

    With the Army variant of the harrier they also claimed it would be the only aircraft operating after day one in WWIII because it could operate from any supermarket car park... which was bullshit.  ...any open field... bullshit...

    The British reward their military every time they do a good job by cutting their funding... but even they are funding two 70K ton carriers...

    Hence why they should have not canceled the Yak 141 in first place.

    The Yak was cancelled because it didn't work, and they didn't know how to make it work.

    If they simply dumped the Kuznetsov, and use all that money towards the jump jet, they may be able to speed up development process and get something out sooner and this building vessels for it may be done quicker as well

    What money?

    If they dump the K right now they need a place to tow it to and they need to spend basic maintenance to stop it sinking and causing more problems... and this is after putting a whole lot of new stuff on it that you really can't take out and use on anything else...

    The money needed to develop a jump jet... particularly a modern stealthy one would be billions... a tiny fraction of that would repair the damage easily.

    They wouldn't need to stop funding anywhere. They have a pile of cash they are sitting on.

    They could invest that money in other things that would bring rather better returns than jump jets for internet fanboys.

    Not entirely as seen in history where they did manage to use them on transport vessels. But ideally yeah, a ski jump may be helpful. In any case, it would be cheaper and better to invest in that and replace old vessel as well wait for new jump jets for Russia's case.

    Ski jumps boost the takeoff performance of most fighter aircraft... not so useful for heavy aircraft though.

    A ski jump is a fixed structure that has no moving parts that boosts take off performance without any risk of failure in terms of being on the wrong setting.

    @Lsos... well I think it would have made sense to wait for that sort of report on the incident before passing comment about transferring future Russian carrier production to China... at the very least if they can't maintain ships properly there is no point in buying new ones...

    This is because construction of a new aircraft carrier won't begin until 2030 at the earliest, and the pilots of the naval aviation's 279th and 100th Naval Aviation Fighter Regiments need to be able to practice on a real carrier to sustain that institutional knowledge. 19/

    Well that is an injection of facts... so any new carrier aircraft with a deadline of 2027 will be operating from the K... if they were going to develop VTOL fighters there would be little need to construct new aircraft carriers in 2030 or later.

    I still feel Russia is better off building 2-3 small aircraft carriers something that has air defence and cruise missiles a way of defending itself reducing the need for a host of other vessels although a few will still be needed and being a smaller design become less of a high pay off target compared to one super large carrier.

    If they were England I would agree, but the purpose of Russian aircraft carriers is not in a strike role with all the other ships there to defend the carrier... the purpose of the Russian carrier it to protect the ships it operates with using AWACS aircraft and fighter aircraft. In that sense a bigger more capable carrier makes more sense because it will carry more aircraft and be better able to defend itself and the ships it is operating with.

    They don't need it now... but in ten years time when it has solid trade ties with Africa and central and south america then carriers and global mobility and reach will become useful for Russia to support her interests.
    avatar
    hoom

    Posts : 2059
    Points : 2049
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  hoom on 13/12/19, 03:45 pm

    On the bright side this at least removes the issue of K sitting there waiting for the drydock to be completed before they can finish off repairs...
    It'll still have plenty of work to do until the drydock is completed now jocolor


    While its a pretty big area, if damage is actually restricted to 600m^2 its not that bad relative to the total floor-area of a ship as big as K: the flight-deck alone is 14,700m^2 (wiki)

    Its got probably 8 decks, obviously each will be significantly smaller than the flight deck but thats well up in the tens of thousands of m^2.
    Even if the average deck area is only 5000m^2 & only 7 decks means total deck area of 35,000m^2, 600m^2 would be 1.7% of that.


    But with a heap of fire damage in a main engineering area I think we may be looking at a Kerch situation: officially still in service/going to be repaired but tied up without much going on.
    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 4246
    Points : 4224
    Join date : 2016-11-07

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  miketheterrible on 13/12/19, 05:27 pm

    Uh Garry, I never advocated to buy from China.  Re read my posts. Someone else mentioned to buy from China, not me.  I am not wrong on the repair plants being fucked in terms of people being stupid and breaking code.

    As for the Yak 141 not working, it worked. It wasn't as efficient as they wanted and the benefits weren't there compared to Su-33. But times have changed. Let's not forget Yak 38 was used for years prior.

    And yes, they already blew half a billion on this ship. The jump jet is actually already being funded anyway as per Putin's demand from what Borisov has said. So I rather take his word than yours.
    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 4246
    Points : 4224
    Join date : 2016-11-07

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  miketheterrible on 13/12/19, 05:33 pm

    hoom wrote:On the bright side this at least removes the issue of K sitting there waiting for the drydock to be completed before they can finish off repairs...
    It'll still have plenty of work to do until the drydock is completed now  jocolor


    While its a pretty big area, if damage is actually restricted to 600m^2 its not that bad relative to the total floor-area of a ship as big as K: the flight-deck alone is 14,700m^2 (wiki)

    Its got probably 8 decks, obviously each will be significantly smaller than the flight deck but thats well up in the tens of thousands of m^2.
    Even if the average deck area is only 5000m^2 & only 7 decks means total deck area of 35,000m^2, 600m^2 would be 1.7% of that.


    But with a heap of fire damage in a main engineering area I think we may be looking at a Kerch situation: officially still in service/going to be repaired but tied up without much going on.

    An additional six months is what is being told from after this fire. That's not enough time to build a dry dock and what not.
    Vladimir79
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2955
    Points : 3831
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Vladimir79 on 13/12/19, 08:24 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    STOVLs need ski jumps for rolling takeoffs so they can save fuel & carry more payload. QE class CVs have them, JMSDF will have them, as well as other small carriers that operated Harriers.

    You don't see any USMC F-35Bs using a ski jump do you?
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 4955
    Points : 4947
    Join date : 2015-11-07

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Isos on 13/12/19, 08:58 pm


    @Lsos... well I think it would have made sense to wait for that sort of report on the incident before passing comment about transferring future Russian carrier production to China... at the very least if they can't maintain ships properly there is no point in buying new ones...

    Never said that. I said paying chinese for repairing the ship which they do better than russians and much faster and I also said btw they could sell them the kuznetsov and use the money to start a new carrier.

    This ship even operational has no more usefulness in modern RuN. They need something updated, it will take more time to build a new one but definitly worth it.


    Those underarmed helicopter carrier they plan to build won't be more usefull than the kuznetsov. A small nuclear powered 40kT shtorm km is a better option for the same weight. Mistral class like ships with helicopters are pretty useless.  A carrier can carry only helicopter if really needed.

    Edit: This ship is pretty simple with no expensive systems. It should be quick to build and not expensive. They already have nuclear reactor for such ships (borei, icebreakers...). Other system are also simple and already produced. What increase costs are new and modern systems, not welding metal togather even if it is for a 330m ship.

    It has a good amount of planes. Very good to support upgraded kirovs and Gorsgkov frigates/destroyers.  

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 29 Cva-lm10
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 3540
    Points : 3536
    Join date : 2016-08-16
    Location : AZ, USA

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on 13/12/19, 10:03 pm

    This is because construction of a new aircraft carrier won't begin until 2030 at the earliest, and the pilots of the naval aviation's 279th and 100th Naval Aviation Fighter Regiments need to be able to practice on a real carrier to sustain that institutional knowledge.
    as I was saying!

    You don't see any USMC F-35Bs using a ski jump do you?
    it's the exception that proves the rule. They bet on CVNs for deep strikes & use LHAs to support Marines; even with a ski jump, the Harriers & F-35s can't carry as much as F-18E/Fs. Besides, a rump will take parking space from them, tilt-rotors & helos.
    This fire just shows that they lack discipline & were cutting corners with fire safety.
    Russia needs to upgrade, repair & build many other smaller ships + icebreakers before embarking on CVN construction.
    jhelb
    jhelb

    Posts : 812
    Points : 919
    Join date : 2015-04-04
    Location : Previously: Belarus Currently: A Small Island No One Cares About

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  jhelb on 13/12/19, 11:20 pm

    GarryB wrote:the purpose of the Russian carrier it to protect the ships it operates with using AWACS aircraft and fighter aircraft. In that sense a bigger more capable carrier makes more sense because it will carry more aircraft and be better able to defend itself and the ships it is operating with.

    Is a bigger aircraft carrier really necessary because a Russian carrier will at best protect 7-8 ships it operates with ?

    Russia probably could look into a

    (a) E 2 HawEye type of AWACS aircraft that can take off and land from a carrier ; and

    (b) CATOBAR carrier that will allow the Russian Navy to launch aircraft with much more payload
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 8792
    Points : 8874
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  PapaDragon on 14/12/19, 12:42 am

    Isos wrote:.....
    Edit: This ship is pretty simple with no expensive systems. It should be quick to build and not expensive....

    Your daily reminder that it takes a decade for Russian shipyard to build a frigate and that it's definitely quite expensive

    Carry on...



    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 1827
    Points : 1829
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Big_Gazza on 14/12/19, 03:57 am

    PapaDragon wrote:Your daily reminder that it takes a decade for Russian shipyard to build a frigate and that it's definitely quite expensive

    Carry on...

    Wut? You're banging on again about the Gorshkov build and development?  Laid down when the damage of the Yeltsin comprador era was still fresh and the nation lacked cash? Shipyards in a lousy state because of a over a decade of no investment or builds? All new sensors and weapons that need time to mature? Engine supply issues due to Ukropi treachery and and piss-poor quality to boot?  I'm surprised you don't invoke the Ivan Gren as well...

    Get serious and don't embarrass yourself.
    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic

    Posts : 859
    Points : 857
    Join date : 2015-12-31

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic on 14/12/19, 04:27 am

    Big_Gazza wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:Your daily reminder that it takes a decade for Russian shipyard to build a frigate and that it's definitely quite expensive

    Carry on...

    Wut? You're banging on again about the Gorshkov build and development?  Laid down when the damage of the Yeltsin comprador era was still fresh and the nation lacked cash? Shipyards in a lousy state because of a over a decade of no investment or builds? All new sensors and weapons that need time to mature? Engine supply issues due to Ukropi treachery and and piss-poor quality to boot?  I'm surprised you don't invoke the Ivan Gren as well...

    Get serious and don't embarrass yourself.
    Here i have to agree with you. Frigates built with technology already existings at that time (like the Taiwar frigates for India) were built from the Baltic shipyard in saint Petersburg and from the yantar shipyard in Kaliningrad in about 4 or 5 years.

    The admiral Gorshkov frigate has a large number of new systems that were not introduced and tested before. They wanted a modern ship, but probably it was too much at the same time and for the future it will be possibly smarter to diminish the risk by installing and testing new equipment and technologies in existing ships, and then gradually introducing them to the new built vessels.

    However now all the problems with the new weapon systems and sensors are solved, so for the future this should go better. And for admiral kuznetov... if the damage is not excessive it will be important to have it in service to train the naval pilots and to check new naval aircrafts and systems.

    In the meanwhile it will be important for Russia to add serious quality control and better safety in the maintenance operations.

    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 4955
    Points : 4947
    Join date : 2015-11-07

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Isos on 14/12/19, 04:55 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Isos wrote:.....
    Edit: This ship is pretty simple with no expensive systems. It should be quick to build and not expensive....

    Your daily reminder that it takes a decade for Russian shipyard to build a frigate and that it's definitely quite expensive

    Carry on...




    Well it depends what you mean by finished. Most of the delays about frigates are those newest systems that are not ready.

    The structure is generally quickly done because like I said welding is not the problem.

    A carrier like this one on the picture has barely no systems on it. 3 lifts, 4 pantsir, arresting gears, an already produced radar even mig-29k are already in service. The nuclear propulsion get ride of the engine issues.

    IMO such ships should take less than 10 year to be build. Like said previously the Eltsin era is gone and they are improving. Not perfect but still better than 10 years ago when every single issue took 1 year or more to be solved.

    Even india managed to build a simple carrier like the one they have. Carriers are big but they are empty.
    Vladimir79
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2955
    Points : 3831
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Vladimir79 on 14/12/19, 06:22 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    it's the exception that proves the rule. They bet on CVNs for deep strikes & use LHAs to support Marines; even with a ski jump, the Harriers & F-35s can't carry as much as F-18E/Fs. Besides, a rump will take parking space from them, tilt-rotors & helos.

    USMC is by far the largest operator of the type so they are the rule. The British carriers operate Chinooks and are for airbourne assault just like the America class. There is nothing strategic about them.
    flamming_python
    flamming_python

    Posts : 3829
    Points : 3915
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  flamming_python on 14/12/19, 06:29 am

    'Old Smokey'

    Anyway, first thing Russia should do is fire the welders who were working in that section. Whoever left that flammable material around too. Launch investigations against them. The immediate culprits; who either caused the accident themselves or turned a blind eye to their co-worker's malpractices during that day and before it.

    Next thing, sack the management of the shipyard, launch investigations against them too.
    Sack the head of the United Shipbuilding Corporation. Clearly the dock sinking wasn't enough of a fk-up to get them to buck their ideas up.
    Do a bit of a Stalin show-trials thing. Get them to all write confessions against each other, those who agree to co-operate. The ones with the least confessions against them, preferably none, are the ones who can keep their jobs.

    Then - decimation. Sack every 10th worker at that shipyard. Send every employee there a message they'll never forget; that they are all responsible for making sure they themselves and everyone who works with them follows the regulations to the letter.. else there will be consequences.
    Spot inspections at every other ship repair yard in Russia. Whoever is found to be ignoring safety regulations - fire them on the spot.

    It sounds harsh but now this rampant culture of carelessness, irresponsibility and incompetence has taken lives, in addition to the material damage all these accidents up to - and stern measures have to be taken, emergency measures.

    As for the carrier; I don't even know.
    Good thing they didn't try to refit it with nuclear power. That would have been a nightmare with such a blaze.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 23638
    Points : 24178
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  GarryB on 14/12/19, 07:08 am

    Uh Garry, I never advocated to buy from China.  Re read my posts. Someone else mentioned to buy from China, not me.  I am not wrong on the repair plants being fucked in terms of people being stupid and breaking code.

    My rant was not directed at anyone in particular, chinese production alternatives were suggested by several people... who know who they are... that is fine they want a quick cheap solution and the west has been using China for quick cheap production solutions for some time now... but if the problem is Russia not being able to fix their own ships then the solution doens't help correct that... it is not a solution it is an alternative and in this case the alternative basically is saying Russia can't build or maintain ships which is not a solution it is a suicide pact.

    As for the Yak 141 not working, it worked. It wasn't as efficient as they wanted and the benefits weren't there compared to Su-33. But times have changed. Let's not forget Yak 38 was used for years prior.

    The Yak-41 never worked... it could take off and land, but it never had a radar that worked it was never fully equipped... it never had more than four wing hard points and a 30mm cannon... with downward pointing turbojet lift engines and a huge downward pointing turbofan of enormous power belly mounted weapons were not an option either... it had a small wing for supersonic flight which limits the amount of weapons it could carry... it would likely have been no better armed than an F-35 with internal weapons only but it didn't even get stealth as a reward for such a thing.

    The Yak was complex and fragile and was not as good as the MiG-29K and was not likely to get better.

    Its one trick was that it could take off from small ships but when it did its performance was even more limited by vertical take off and landing... honestly a Ka-52K would give better service much much cheaper, though with a lower flight speed.

    And yes, they already blew half a billion on this ship. The jump jet is actually already being funded anyway as per Putin's demand from what Borisov has said. So I rather take his word than yours.

    You probably know more about fighter jets than Putin does... tell me... if you handed over 10 billion dollars to any Russian aircraft maker... how long would it take to get a 5th generation VSTOL fighter aircraft flying and operational with all the bugs sorted out... note the Yak-41 was never stealthy and is a dead end to base the design on so starting from scratch.

    With 10 billion dollars you can have a half arsed fragile short range fighter plane that crashes all the time, or you could fix the K and probably also build a CVN in ten years time as well... why are you so keen on a piece of shit vertical take off fighter... it makes the design much more difficult and fragile for no benefit at all... conventional fighters can take off from any 500m strip of motorway... no country on the planet can make holes every 200m in the motor ways of Russia...

    An additional six months is what is being told from after this fire. That's not enough time to build a dry dock and what not.

    Well it means they will be busy for an extra 6 months while they are waiting for a new dry dock... no big deal.

    You don't see any USMC F-35Bs using a ski jump do you?

    STOVL aircraft don't need skijumps but they do benefit from them.

    BTW US naval fighters like their Hornets don't use ski jumps either but they need catapult assistance to get airborne even at light weight, while Russian fighters take off with a ski jump but no cats.

    AFAIK skijumps and cats are not compatible so you either have one or the other... the new british carriers don't have cats, so they chose skijump instead, US carriers chose cats and so don't have ski jumps.

    Russian plans seem to have both because they will use cats to launch heavy aircraft like AWACS, while fighters will use ski jumps because full fuel and air to air weapons means they don't operate at max weights anyway, but their power to weight ratio means they can take off without the complication or expense of cats.

    They did always intend to develop cats for AWACS platforms and as such might have used them for fighters on strike missions, but they are primary fighter air defence carriers...

    I said paying chinese for repairing the ship which they do better than russians and much faster and I also said btw they could sell them the kuznetsov and use the money to start a new carrier.

    Two issues with that statement... do you have evidence to back that statement up, and second they are waiting for a floating dry dock to be built so whether it can be fixed in 6 months or ten minutes is irrelevant because it will sit and wait for a dry dock to be build either way.

    This ship even operational has no more usefulness in modern RuN.

    That is not what they said:

    This is because construction of a new aircraft carrier won't begin until 2030 at the earliest, and the pilots of the naval aviation's 279th and 100th Naval Aviation Fighter Regiments need to be able to practice on a real carrier to sustain that institutional knowledge. 19/

    Those underarmed helicopter carrier they plan to build won't be more usefull than the kuznetsov. A small nuclear powered 40kT shtorm km is a better option for the same weight. Mistral class like ships with helicopters are pretty useless.  A carrier can carry only helicopter if really needed.

    You are telling them what they need?

    The Mistral was underarmed... we really don't know what they are going to actually build so I don't understand how you can claim they will be underarmed.

    Edit: This ship is pretty simple with no expensive systems. It should be quick to build and not expensive. They already have nuclear reactor for such ships (borei, icebreakers...). Other system are also simple and already produced. What increase costs are new and modern systems, not welding metal togather even if it is for a 330m ship.

    It has a good amount of planes. Very good to support upgraded kirovs and Gorsgkov frigates/destroyers.  

    They said they are not looking at building a replacement CVN till 2030...

    Is a bigger aircraft carrier really necessary because a Russian carrier will at best protect 7-8 ships it operates with ?

    Size is capability and capacity... if you only have one cruiser would you make it a Kirov or a slightly bigger Sovremmeny?

    The newer ships they are making are enormously well armed... the new carriers need to provide air support.... the ships and subs will provide long range strike... the carrier will provide air cover and long range vision to find targets early so they can be dealt with more easily and efficiently.

    Russia probably could look into a

    (a) E 2 HawEye type of AWACS aircraft that can take off and land from a carrier ; and

    (b) CATOBAR carrier that will allow the Russian Navy to launch aircraft with much more payload

    Features the new CVN they will be building in 2030 will most likely address, but for now they have the K with Ka-31 AEW helicopters and fighter planes that are reasonably capable... better than 70% of the worlds airforces today.

    However now all the problems with the new weapon systems and sensors are solved, so for the future this should go better. And for admiral kuznetov... if the damage is not excessive it will be important to have it in service to train the naval pilots and to check new naval aircrafts and systems.

    Modular designs are complex to start with but once you get it right production should be rather fast as long as the funding is there...

    That is the point of a modular design... get it right and then scale it up and fix any growing pain bugs and then mass produce that too...

    It is a bit like the apparent lack of progress after 2008 when the upgrade of the military was announced... most of the work was hidden... C4IR stuff that makes cruise missile attacks in Syria successful instead of random and hit and miss. Once the basis was ready... Glonass etc then the rest is so much more effective... I would say the west was shocked at Russian performance in Syria and quite embarrassed... preparation and planning is key.

    Even india managed to build a simple carrier like the one they have. Carriers are big but they are empty.

    It was late and more expensive than promised... but that is normal generally... for everyone.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 23638
    Points : 24178
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  GarryB on 14/12/19, 03:27 pm

    Note for clarity when I say you can't have ski jump and cat launch systems what I mean is you can't have a cat running an aircraft up a ski jump... mainly because catapults are linear acceleration devices and would be terribly complicated by curving them up a ski jump ramp... and secondly because a ski jump ramp imposes a g force that large heavy aircraft would get broken if forced down with a catapult...

    A CVN could easily have both cats and a ski jump design... pretty much like the current K design with two take off positions running up the skijump but the rear take off positions would have cats and be angled to take off over the angled landing deck so no upward angle for launch...
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 1702
    Points : 1692
    Join date : 2016-04-09

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on 14/12/19, 10:02 pm

    flamming_python wrote:'Old Smokey'

    Anyway, first thing Russia should do is fire the welders who were working in that section. Whoever left that flammable material around too. Launch investigations against them. The immediate culprits; who either caused the accident themselves or turned a blind eye to their co-worker's malpractices during that day and before it.

    Next thing, sack the management of the shipyard, launch investigations against them too.
    Sack the head of the United Shipbuilding Corporation. Clearly the dock sinking wasn't enough of a fk-up to get them to buck their ideas up.
    Do a bit of a Stalin show-trials thing. Get them to all write confessions against each other, those who agree to co-operate. The ones with the least confessions against them, preferably none, are the ones who can keep their jobs.

    Then - decimation. Sack every 10th worker at that shipyard. Send every employee there a message they'll never forget; that they are all responsible for making sure they themselves and everyone who works with them follows the regulations to the letter.. else there will be consequences.
    Spot inspections at every other ship repair yard in Russia. Whoever is found to be ignoring safety regulations - fire them on the spot.

    It sounds harsh but now this rampant culture of carelessness, irresponsibility and incompetence has taken lives, in addition to the material damage all these accidents up to - and stern measures have to be taken, emergency measures.

    As for the carrier; I don't even know.
    Good thing they didn't try to refit it with nuclear power. That would have been a nightmare with such a blaze.

    It's not harsh what we have here is a clear example of criminal neglect and utter incompetence.

    I know some people will make excuses for them but that's idiotic there is no defense to this situation.

    These are a problem that has existed for years and years and years. Those in charge clearly have no will to solve the situation, they need to be removed from their post and replaced with people who CAN do the job and tried on a criminal level.

    I would go further with what you suggested (etc removing all the executives and launching criminals investigations into each of them) but these aren't bad steps.

    This is a clear cut example of corruption.

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 23638
    Points : 24178
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  GarryB on 15/12/19, 06:23 am

    A knee jerk reaction that is totally stupid and futile... tell a guy who beats his wife to stop beating her... that will work just fine too.

    How about we get rid of this stupid Stalin mentality of just firing people without even looking in to what actually went wrong... there is a western saying... don't throw the baby out with its bath water...

    Firing the management for something at this level... well why not just fire Putin... wouldn't that fix everything... I mean all these fires and problems didn't happen in one shipyard or even in one fleet, so by firing Putin you solve all the problems... who cares that he is good at his job and gets the job done... who cares if you then have to find replacements for the people you are talking about firing who were not good enough to get the job before... but maybe their realisation that they could be fired if anything bad happens will scare them in to being better perhaps.


    Nah... just fire everybody because when you are doing a job on one floor the first thing you do is check the ten levels above and below where you are working to make sure there wont be any problems.

    Clearly procedures were either not followed or need to be improved... firing every other worker in the place is not going to change that.

    Of course you have to fire them... I mean they must be empty people to not notice a couple of people they were working with are now dead... there is no way you want such people on the payroll I mean they will just continue to ignore safety regulations... why wouldn't they... they survived didn't they?

    I thought Russians would learn something... Putin has pretty much managed a turnaround comparable to Stalin but without the brutality and fear, but something bad happens and you flick back to the old ways... but then even Stalin didn't decimate his own troops... that is what the nazis and the romans did.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 3540
    Points : 3536
    Join date : 2016-08-16
    Location : AZ, USA

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on 15/12/19, 08:25 am

    USMC is by far the largest operator of the type so they are the rule.
    The USN goes by its own reqs & rules; a smaller STOVL carrier format could threaten future funding for CVNs.
    As I said: no jumps installed on LHAs as they r primaraly for amphib assault & that would interfere with helo ops: https://books.google.com/books?id=sJo_CQAAQBAJ&pg=PA132&lpg=PA132&dq=installing+jumps+on+their+LHA&source=bl&ots=0GH52rj-9D&sig=ACfU3U2tWGjZR_TuXxPrGtibcuQpmXDJLw&hl=ru&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi9n57B0rbmAhVVs54KHdxvC08Q6AEwAHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=installing%20jumps%20on%20their%20LHA&f=false

    Unlike the USN CVNs, the Storm CVN & Krylov SRC CVA also would have them:
    https://www.globalsecurity.org/jhtml/jframe.html#https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/images/23000-image01.jpg|||23000E%20Shtorm%20(Storm)

    https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/cva-newcon-1.htm

    The VMF isn't the PLAN to emulate the USN:
    https://news.usni.org/2019/09/27/china-launches-first-type-075-big-deck-amphibious-warship

    https://www.militaryfactory.com/ships/detail.asp?ship_id=cns-type-075-landing-helicopter-dock-amphibious-assault-ship-china

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_075_landing_helicopter_dock

    Dima
    Dima

    Posts : 1123
    Points : 1136
    Join date : 2012-03-22

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Dima on 15/12/19, 10:36 am

    hoom wrote:On the bright side this at least removes the issue of K sitting there waiting for the drydock to be completed before they can finish off repairs...
    It'll still have plenty of work to do until the drydock is completed now  jocolor
    The negative part being, the guys on contract for rebuilding shipyard 35 (and the establishment) could also slow down considering Kuznetsov's current mess.

    While its a pretty big area, if damage is actually restricted to 600m^2 its not that bad relative to the total floor-area of a ship as big as K: the flight-deck alone is 14,700m^2 (wiki)

    Its got probably 8 decks, obviously each will be significantly smaller than the flight deck but thats well up in the tens of thousands of m^2.
    Even if the average deck area is only 5000m^2 & only 7 decks means total deck area of 35,000m^2, 600m^2 would be 1.7% of that.


    But with a heap of fire damage in a main engineering area I think we may be looking at a Kerch situation: officially still in service/going to be repaired but tied up without much going on.
    Havn't been following the incident, so answers for few questions would be welcome

    Where exactly did the fire start? I mean which deck and which area?


    If I consider the area from where the smoke is seen, its in/around the area of the missile silos.
    But have seen some reports claiming fire breaking out in no1 power unit etc. But main power plants/unit are all concentrated amidship and that area as far as I could gather from the images are untouched.


    Dima
    Dima

    Posts : 1123
    Points : 1136
    Join date : 2012-03-22

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Dima on 15/12/19, 11:16 am

    Isos wrote:Edit: This ship is pretty simple with no expensive systems. It should be quick to build and not expensive. They already have nuclear reactor for such ships (borei, icebreakers...). Other system are also simple and already produced. What increase costs are new and modern systems, not welding metal togather even if it is for a 330m ship.

    It has a good amount of planes. Very good to support upgraded kirovs and Gorsgkov frigates/destroyers.  

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 29 Cva-lm10
    Yes it is and I'm all for it.

    Unfortunately, lots of "experts" base their opinion on Russian shipbuilding on hot air from their bottom.

    The two main reasons why shipbuilding in Russia is slow and takes much time are -

    1) Finance - Untill and unless proper and un-interrupted finance is made available to the yard, delay on the project is a given. This is the main part which differentiate China from Russia.

    2) Incompetence/Leaching - Most of the so-called "experts" base their opinion of Russian ship building pace on the most incompetent (& corrupt private yard inside of United Shipbuilding) yard in Russia - Severnya Verf.


    If anyone want to judge the Russian shipbuilding pace (for large surface combatants) when proper and almost uninterrupted finance/material flow is sustained - look at
    - Baltiysky yard (1st order of 3 x 11356, after which it changed hands to private entity that stripped and bankrupted the yard before Govt took hold of it),
    - Sevmash (11430/Vikramaditya, deducing the stagnant period when fund flow interrupted), and
    - Yantar (2nd order of 3 x 11356 for IN, and Russian orders).

    - I should also mention the 2 x 956EM that Severnya Verf built for PLAN

    Only stupids will base their opinion of what Russian shipyard is capable of on performance of the most incompetent and corrupt Severnya verf.

    There will be people to argue with stupid reasoning that Severnya verf is building new designs and hence the delay. BS.
    avatar
    walle83

    Posts : 207
    Points : 211
    Join date : 2016-11-13
    Location : Sweden

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  walle83 on 15/12/19, 07:26 pm

    Isos wrote:

    @Lsos... well I think it would have made sense to wait for that sort of report on the incident before passing comment about transferring future Russian carrier production to China... at the very least if they can't maintain ships properly there is no point in buying new ones...

    Never said that. I said paying chinese for repairing the ship which they do better than russians and much faster and I also said btw they could sell them the kuznetsov and use the money to start a new carrier.

    This ship even operational has no more usefulness in modern RuN. They need something updated, it will take more time to build a new one but definitly worth it.

    Why on earth would China buy that piece of crap now when they are in the progress building thier own supercarrier? Maybe 15 years ago.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 3540
    Points : 3536
    Join date : 2016-08-16
    Location : AZ, USA

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on 15/12/19, 07:50 pm

    Why on earth would China buy that piece of crap now when they are in the progress building their own supercarrier?
    exactly, but to the VMF it's not crap & is all they'sl have in that class for the foreseeable future.
    Besides, Russia will lose face looking like the USSR in the mid-late 80's selling capital ships for scrap.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 8792
    Points : 8874
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  PapaDragon on 15/12/19, 07:57 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    Why on earth would China buy that piece of crap now when they are in the progress building their own supercarrier?
    exactly, but to the VMF it's not crap & is all they'sl have in that class for the foreseeable future.
    Besides, Russia will lose face looking like the USSR in the mid-late 80's selling capital ships for scrap.

    Oh yeah, this pile of junk alternating between going up in flames or under water every 6 months is really cementing Russian status isn't it? lol1

    Heavy Accident Carrying Cruiser, right? Razz


    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 3540
    Points : 3536
    Join date : 2016-08-16
    Location : AZ, USA

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on 15/12/19, 09:10 pm

    It'll be a lot worse if they give up on it as u suggest.
    The USN had 3 more Forrestal class CVs, besides the older CVs, & could scrap the CV-59, but kept it.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forrestal-class_aircraft_carrier#Ships_in_class

    They also had explosions & collisions on smaller ships which were/r being repaired & returned to service.
    Following ur logic, Serbia should get rid of her Danube flotilla since the Yugoslav Navy is gone & she is landlocked now.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_of_the_Yugoslav_Navy
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_River_Flotilla#Equipment_in_service

    Even Bolivia & Mongolia have navies on their lakes:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivian_Navy

    https://www.cntraveler.com/story/visit-khovsgol-lake-to-see-mongolias-one-ship-navy

    Russia has 4 fleets, & 1 flotilla:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Navy#Military_districts_and_fleets

    The bottom line: getting rid of the Adm. K is unthinkable.

    Sponsored content

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 29 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is 29/03/20, 11:35 am