Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

    George1
    George1

    Posts : 15185
    Points : 15684
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1 - Page 18 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

    Post  George1 on Wed Nov 16, 2016 11:59 am

    MOSCOW (Sputnik) — Russia's Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier will be upgraded in 2018 after returning from service, Vice President of the United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC) Igor Ponomarev said Wednesday.

    Read more: https://sputniknews.com/military/201611161047487995-russia-admiral-kuznetsov-upgrade/
    avatar
    Guest
    Guest

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1 - Page 18 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

    Post  Guest on Wed Nov 16, 2016 7:08 pm

    GarryB wrote:Me
    "New unproven, largely untested aircraft sometimes fail when used for the first few times..." -

    Mil
    MiG-29 is exactly 40 years old platform, that is the reason why the damn thing was picked to replace Su-33s coz its derivates were already in service and could be produced on same line in short period of time.

    What?

    The MiG-29K is based on the MiG-29 and was chosen because it was in production for India... unlike the Su-33 which was not in production... the Su-33 was based on the Su-27 which is just as old as the MiG-29.

    The MiG-29M2 design is new and the MiG-35 and MiG-29KR use that new design.

    They have never been used in combat from a carrier so they are new.

    What does the carrier have to do with this? the carrier was in no way at fault for this nor was it even a factor the plane failed here.

    Yes exactly an old frame it's not like this is a carrier passed T-50 these kind of problems should not be happening.

    I agree ditch them and let sukoi take over.

    Actually it is, because tho other aircraft maybe be unsafe I have over 15 years combat experience. Ground forces, it's a problem when a brand new piece of equipment fails like this in combat duty because it may pose a hazard to others. The frame maybe unsafe now we don't know so yes it does poses a problem to combat duty.

    I could list many reasons why but seems if I say one negative thing about the Russian navy people don't take well to it.

    Ignorance is bliss.

    The MiG-29KR is not an old aircraft... they are new made aircraft that have not been flying on the K for the last 20 years... apart from a few MiG-33s tested these aircraft were only made a year or two ago and have not been fully tested on the carrier... that is the whole point of the deployment.

    The F-22 is an old design... it is clearly based on the MiG-25 in basic layout... copied via the F-15 and given stealth shaping.... a 1950s plane really.

    Notice the helicopters hoevering whole time around Ku

    Duh... I wonder why the rescue helos would operate during take offs and landings... I mean surely they should be below decks in the hangar play cards.


    1. This is not a new plane this is a variant of a frame with decades plus years experience.

    Bullshit.

    The basic design is not new but these are new build aircraft based on the MiG-29M2 that have never operated from the Kuznetsov previously. The only MiG operating from the K was the MiG-33 and that was quite some time ago and a different design.

    2. Like it or not China's navy is stronger then russia's this is what all the worlds naval experts agree one. Quality does not win a war, ask the germans how that went Russia may have better boats but they have far to few and would easily get overran.

    So you are saying that the Soviet Navy was superior to the US Navy if numbers are more important than quality or training.

    3. Dude what does the Nazi's and jews have to do with this.....Honestly that not even cool you went there. I don't know why you did frankly but that's crossing a line.

    Your navy friends... I assume western navy? Same propaganda machine... they will say the same as you. Probably same hate for Russia as well.

    But OK to hate Russia... mentioning nazis and jews is not acceptable, but OK to hate Russia... yes, I know your rules.

    4. I have taken part in recovery operations, first off chances are the aircraft split apart after hitting the water it's not all going to be in one piece. they will not recover the wreck all the data they need are in it's black boxes. Wasting money to recover the wreck is pointless blow it up and that's it.

    The Med is not that deep. they have a lot of new toys for underwater exploration. The CIA has a history of recovering stuff for intel purposes... it would be a useful exercise to try to recover as much as possible.

    5. You have a problem with some being critical of your nations navy?. sorry but that doesn't give you the right to attack someone because they don't agree with it. I am critical about my own nations military, you don't see me attacking people who say Abrams suck do you?. Sorry but The Russian Navy isn't what you crack it up to be. Patriotism is fine but don't let it blind you ether.

    Russia is not my nation... never been there.

    Nothing to do with patriotism or pride... it is the display of ignorance that motivates me.

    6. You are missing the point it was an old Hornet not a brand spanking new one, now even the F-35 which I view as the single biggest flying piece of poo ever has done this. This was an aircraft from a known shitty supplier which didn't even have a couple dozen hours on it and went down. If you cannot understand this not my problem.

    An old Hornet that has been tested and used operationally for decades... all problems and issues with hardware and software and training have been ironed out yet it still crashes.

    Brand new MiG-29KR design that has never been used operationally before by Russia has a crash and MiG needs to be put out of business... if you have ever seen a MiG on the K it was probably the MiG-33 over a decade ago... since then only Su-33s and Su-25 trainer aircraft on the K.

    The Indians order some MiG-29Ks and Russia orders some too because the production costs would be greatly reduced... this is their first real deployment... do you understand... they don't have the western avionics and equipment the Indian Navy has... they are new.

    You don't even know why one crashed but the Russian Navy is pathetic and MiG should stop making planes...

    7. That's nice for Kaliber, I like the Kaliber but the Kaliber has nothing to do with this MIG.

    Kalibr is what the Russian Navy has used when MiG-29Ks are not available, and it is what it will continue to use when MiG-29Ks are doing other things... when it comes to land attack the MiG-29K is plan B. The primary job of the K is defending a group of ships, with that group of ships able to attack rather more targets with land attack cruise missiles than the K can attack with its MiGs or Sukhois.

    These are combat sorties right? not drills? why are they sending the 33's in the air are they trying to intercept or deny airspace?

    They are in situ to train... would it not be normal to test the Su-33s against ground targets and also form a CAP for the ships...

    Mig 29k is no more competitive with Superhornet, F-35 and Rafale. India bought it because there was no other solution. For their new AC I'm pretty sure they will go for F-35 or Rafale.

    Pretty much anything that was put in the MiG-35 could be put in the MiG-29K.

    The simple fact is that there is no point in making the MiG-29K into the MiG-35 when the PAK FA will likely become a carrier aircraft in the next decade or so.

    More importantly the MiG-29K does not need to defeat any of those aircraft you mention... S-400 can shoot them down while Onyx will sink the carriers they operate from...

    The MiG-29K is just an extra air defence layer to stop enemy aircraft and cruise missiles from attacking the russian ships.


    Well, 29s were never the shiniest apple in the basket.

    Well that happens when everyone spits and no one polishes.

    It was MiG-29s in western tests that kicked the asses of all current western fighters of the period in the early 1990s... the main problem for the MiG was that later models never really got a chance, so while it was the primative export MiGs that defeated all those western fighters... largely because of HMS and R-73s, the west had time to learn its strengths and weaknesses and develop tactics to deal with them.

    Of course the western powers were so ignorant to think they had the MiG beaten now despite lots of upgrades that focused on its weaknesses... they had a very low opinion of the MiG but there was still the Sukhoi to scare everyone into increasing the budget for everything.

    The result is that the west will likely get a nasty shock the next time it comes up against a competently handled MiG... look at the Indian pilots in MiG-21s against US pilots...

    They keep making the same mistakes yet call themselves professionals...

    Part of RuN's baby steps in carrier ops and naval expeditions is blunders like these.

    Obviously they would lose no aircraft and have no problems if they stayed at home and did nothing with their heads up their asses.

    Of course Americas baby steps in urban combat led to the blunder of losing men to IEDs...


    However, when India accepted bid for MiG-29K together with the carrier Russia just joined the whole party, restarting production of Su-33 did not make any sense at that moment. And yes, MiG-29K is over 80% based on original 40 years old design, 9.13, 9.18 (and others) are just further revisions of the same design which removed certain flaws, the core of the design never really changed on any major scale. Hence its old design, exactly 40 years old as of this moment.

    Its like saying F-16 Block 52 is new design compared to F-16MLU, why would you do that? Its just revision of original platform. Also, almost any aircraft can be modified to be used with STOBAR thats not the point.

    Also here is not the point what avionics Indians wanted or did not want, displays and HUD did not cause the crash. Engine stall, hydraulics, landing gear, FBW... or some of the flight crucial systems did, you can fly it with your AC generator not working, with no electricity whatsoever and no avionics except analog ones.

    SU-33 IS Su-27, they are almost identical in every but few modifications required by Navy.

    And lets not go into American urban combat experience... Russians got more than few rotten apples in that department, and it wasnt all that long ago.
    KiloGolf
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2498
    Points : 2484
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1 - Page 18 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

    Post  KiloGolf on Wed Nov 16, 2016 7:25 pm

    Militarov wrote:

    However, when India accepted bid for MiG-29K together with the carrier Russia just joined the whole party, restarting production of Su-33 did not make any sense at that moment. And yes, MiG-29K is over 80% based on original 40 years old design, 9.13, 9.18 (and others) are just further revisions of the same design which removed certain flaws, the core of the design never really changed on any major scale. Hence its old design, exactly 40 years old as of this moment.

    Its like saying F-16 Block 52 is new design compared to F-16MLU, why would you do that? Its just revision of original platform. Also, almost any aircraft can be modified to be used with STOBAR thats not the point.

    Also here is not the point what avionics Indians wanted or did not want, displays and HUD did not cause the crash. Engine stall, hydraulics, landing gear, FBW... or some of the flight crucial systems did, you can fly it with your AC generator not working, with no electricity whatsoever and no avionics except analog ones.

    SU-33 IS Su-27, they are almost identical in every but few modifications required by Navy.

    And lets not go into American urban combat experience... Russians got more than few rotten apples in that department, and it wasnt all that long ago.

    There's no point in comparing the MiG-29K with the Su-33. The former has been chosen simply because production line was open, probably thanks to Indian cash. It was a choice of convenience, not capability. The naval Flanker was left in obsolescence for over a quarter of a century, due to lack of funds from the Russian side. It was/is the better plane during the late '80s, early '90s trials by the USSR (a country that laid its first CATOBAR/STOBAR hybrid supercarrier in 1988).

    Now having said that, Russia of 2016 with its current economy, force projection needs and potential threats is probably much better served keeping both types online. One squadron of Su-33 and a couple of the MiG-29K. That way they can fit more planes on the carrier and ensure both key roles are served well enough: air superiority and strike.

    Now if only they could  fit the Kuz with one corner deck catapult, they could be on to something useful.
    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 830
    Points : 818
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1 - Page 18 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

    Post  Singular_Transform on Wed Nov 16, 2016 9:38 pm

    JohninMK wrote:

    Hi, as a newcomer I am not sure how long you have been following things around here particularly photos en route prior to your 'biased data collection' comment.

    As you say 'interesting'. Before saying what you have, did you consider that the K was smoking like a good un for the whole trip from the cold Arctic to the warm Med? According to your theory we should be congratulating the Chief Engineer for his astonishing ability to keep an engine cold all the way to generate good smoke.

    Right!

    As any motorcyclist will tell you, the dark smoke out of a diesel exhaust is unburnt fuel. Almost invariably caused by something not quite right from a wide variety of reasons. This is not just Russian ships, it is a few articles of military gear where Russians smoke more than Western products. But not going there as its OT.

    The smoking is a typical characteristic for all engine burning bunker oil in certain operation conditions.



    Question : what is the smoke of a boiler powered ship during different operation conditions, like kitty
    Observation : the pictures that you found on the net is not made during random work conditions, but pre-defined places, like channel crossing, and this are not representing a true random sample

    For me the most probable explanation is the smoker pictures made at the time when the K started one or more boiler.


    Singular_Transform
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 830
    Points : 818
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1 - Page 18 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

    Post  Singular_Transform on Wed Nov 16, 2016 9:44 pm

    hoom wrote:]the K is actually one of the biggest boiler powered ship ever build
    That's actually a pretty interesting point. Nimitzes are technically 'boiler' powered too but 'conventional steam' the only competition would be similar sized Kitty Hawk/JFK.
    How's the new boilers on Vikramaditya going in terms of smoke? Did the Chinese go with the old design boilers or build new design & how is that going?
    [/quote]

    The US using boiling water reactors, those are not boilers.
    Russia using pressurised water cooled reactors, that has steam generator.

    The boiler is a chamber, with thousands of bended pipes where the combustion heat up the water.

    Typical problem is the rapture/crack of the pipes . That case someone has to hang down on ropes and weld them.

    The K had problems with the quality of the pipes, but a leak in the pipework disabling the given boiler, so that can't be the reason of the smoke.


    The K is the biggest running boiler/steam powered ship.
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 15185
    Points : 15684
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1 - Page 18 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

    Post  George1 on Wed Nov 16, 2016 10:19 pm

    JohninMK
    JohninMK

    Posts : 8015
    Points : 8098
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1 - Page 18 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

    Post  JohninMK on Wed Nov 16, 2016 10:23 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:
    JohninMK wrote:

    Hi, as a newcomer I am not sure how long you have been following things around here particularly photos en route prior to your 'biased data collection' comment.

    As you say 'interesting'. Before saying what you have, did you consider that the K was smoking like a good un for the whole trip from the cold Arctic to the warm Med? According to your theory we should be congratulating the Chief Engineer for his astonishing ability to keep an engine cold all the way to generate good smoke.

    Right!

    As any motorcyclist will tell you, the dark smoke out of a diesel exhaust is unburnt fuel. Almost invariably caused by something not quite right from a wide variety of reasons. This is not just Russian ships, it is a few articles of military gear where Russians smoke more than Western products. But not going there as its OT.
    The smoking is a typical characteristic for all engine burning bunker oil in certain operation conditions.

    Question : what is the smoke of a boiler powered ship during different operation conditions, like kitty
    Observation : the pictures that you found on the net is not made during random work conditions, but pre-defined places, like channel crossing, and this are not representing a true random sample

    For me the most probable explanation is the smoker pictures made at the time when the K started one or more boiler.
    Every photo or video I have seen of her trip, whilst she was underway from the north of Norway to the east of the Med, shows the dark smoke. Given the multitude of military and civilian sources, that's about as random a sample as you can get. OK it may not be all her work conditions but it showed her cruising along at 10 or so knots for a considerable distance and included aircraft operations. The only important element missing was a high speed run and the likelihood of that being smoke and problem free is probably pretty low.

    Anyway I am repeating myself so that's it from me on this.
    AlfaT8
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1935
    Points : 1928
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1 - Page 18 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

    Post  AlfaT8 on Wed Nov 16, 2016 11:15 pm

    What's with the small bomb load on the Su-33s???
    avatar
    Guest
    Guest

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1 - Page 18 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

    Post  Guest on Wed Nov 16, 2016 11:34 pm

    AlfaT8 wrote:What's with the small bomb load on the Su-33s???

    Short or long answer?

    Short one would be: STOBAR.
    AlfaT8
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1935
    Points : 1928
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1 - Page 18 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

    Post  AlfaT8 on Thu Nov 17, 2016 12:25 am

    Militarov wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:What's with the small bomb load on the Su-33s???

    Short or long answer?

    Short one would be: STOBAR.

    Realy!?
    I thought that was a myth, created by U.S idiots.
    KiloGolf
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2498
    Points : 2484
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1 - Page 18 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

    Post  KiloGolf on Thu Nov 17, 2016 12:30 am

    AlfaT8 wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:What's with the small bomb load on the Su-33s???

    Short or long answer?

    Short one would be: STOBAR.

    Realy!?
    I thought that was a myth, created by U.S idiots.

    No it's not a myth. STOBAR sucks in that regard (most essential I might add).
    But I could think ways of working around that, like:

    Launch with low fuel and fullest possible load from the long launch position, refuel in-air and proceed with mission.
    avatar
    Guest
    Guest

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1 - Page 18 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

    Post  Guest on Thu Nov 17, 2016 12:51 am

    KiloGolf wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:What's with the small bomb load on the Su-33s???

    Short or long answer?

    Short one would be: STOBAR.

    Realy!?
    I thought that was a myth, created by U.S idiots.

    No it's not a myth. STOBAR sucks in that regard (most essential I might add).
    But I could think ways of working around that, like:

    Launch with low fuel and fullest possible load from the long launch position, refuel in-air and proceed with mission.

    Buddy refueling from another fighter would be probably the most practical.
    JohninMK
    JohninMK

    Posts : 8015
    Points : 8098
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1 - Page 18 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

    Post  JohninMK on Thu Nov 17, 2016 1:36 am

    Militarov wrote:
    KiloGolf wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:What's with the small bomb load on the Su-33s???

    Short or long answer?

    Short one would be: STOBAR.

    Realy!?
    I thought that was a myth, created by U.S idiots.

    No it's not a myth. STOBAR sucks in that regard (most essential I might add).
    But I could think ways of working around that, like:

    Launch with low fuel and fullest possible load from the long launch position, refuel in-air and proceed with mission.

    Buddy refueling from another fighter would be probably the most practical.
    Or in this situation, take off, land at Hmeimen, refuel and add munitions, take off and hit target before returning to K.
    KiloGolf
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2498
    Points : 2484
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1 - Page 18 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

    Post  KiloGolf on Thu Nov 17, 2016 1:38 am

    JohninMK wrote:
    Or in this situation, take off, land at Hmeimen, refuel and add munitions, take off and hit target before returning to K.

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1 - Page 18 Downey
    avatar
    Guest
    Guest

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1 - Page 18 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

    Post  Guest on Thu Nov 17, 2016 1:50 am

    JohninMK wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    KiloGolf wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:What's with the small bomb load on the Su-33s???

    Short or long answer?

    Short one would be: STOBAR.

    Realy!?
    I thought that was a myth, created by U.S idiots.

    No it's not a myth. STOBAR sucks in that regard (most essential I might add).
    But I could think ways of working around that, like:

    Launch with low fuel and fullest possible load from the long launch position, refuel in-air and proceed with mission.

    Buddy refueling from another fighter would be probably the most practical.
    Or in this situation, take off, land at Hmeimen, refuel and add munitions, take off and hit target before returning to K.

    Then the whole point of aircraft carrier is being defeated, if i may notice Smile
    avatar
    hoom

    Posts : 2156
    Points : 2146
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1 - Page 18 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

    Post  hoom on Thu Nov 17, 2016 6:18 am

    Its like saying F-16 Block 52 is new design compared to F-16MLU
    Your argument regarding Mig-29K is the equivalent of 'F-16s suck because the original F-16 is 40 years old' regardless of the upgraded capabilities of block 52 vs original F-16A  silent

    What's with the small bomb load on the Su-33s???
    Bear in mind 2* med range AA missiles, 2* short range AA missiles, 2* 500kg bombs & a half load of internal fuel is about equivalent to this
    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1 - Page 18 FA-18+Super+Hornet+2...

    Edit: Hmm looks like the actual bomb launches are minus the med-range AA missiles.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26675
    Points : 27207
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1 - Page 18 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

    Post  GarryB on Thu Nov 17, 2016 9:46 am

    And yes, MiG-29K is over 80% based on original 40 years old design, 9.13, 9.18 (and others) are just further revisions of the same design which removed certain flaws, the core of the design never really changed on any major scale. Hence its old design, exactly 40 years old as of this moment.

    The aircraft is totally different in terms of manufacture from the original MiG-29... the old MiG-29s were a structure on which outer panels were fitted... sometimes the panels did not fit perfectly and there were gaps. The new airframes are of a different design... fully wielded so each internal compartment can be filled with fuel and used as a fuel tank, or have equipment placed inside.

    the basic shape has not changed that much, but the electronics and flight control system and other systems are all new and untested... they are not even the same as the systems in the Indian fulcrums.

    The PC in front of you has not changed much in 20 years either... I have an ATX form based PC computer in front of me... the power supply and case are exactly the same as the computer I had in 1998. The motherboard and RAM and CPU and HDD are all new... could I just slap all those pieces together without installing new drivers and expect no problems?

    Its like saying F-16 Block 52 is new design compared to F-16MLU, why would you do that? Its just revision of original platform. Also, almost any aircraft can be modified to be used with STOBAR thats not the point.

    Was the F-16 block 52 tested or did it just go into service with all its new internal components and systems? If a component failed during early service and a plane crashed would you demand the makers be fired and closed down?

    Also here is not the point what avionics Indians wanted or did not want, displays and HUD did not cause the crash. Engine stall, hydraulics, landing gear, FBW... or some of the flight crucial systems did, you can fly it with your AC generator not working, with no electricity whatsoever and no avionics except analog ones.

    And you know that how?

    For all we know there could have been a fault with a wide range of systems that could cause the plane to crash. A double engine stall would be fairly unlikely... it could have been pilot error for all we know.

    And it does not need to be the failure of a critical system... it could have been a combination of several things that caused a problem... even fuel system failure.

    SU-33 IS Su-27, they are almost identical in every but few modifications required by Navy.

    Which makes it even older than the MiG-33 which was based on the MiG-29M.

    So the solution to the old brand new MiG-29KR in your opinion is an even older Flanker based aircraft... biased much?

    There's no point in comparing the MiG-29K with the Su-33. The former has been chosen simply because production line was open, probably thanks to Indian cash. It was a choice of convenience, not capability. The naval Flanker was left in obsolescence for over a quarter of a century, due to lack of funds from the Russian side. It was/is the better plane during the late '80s, early '90s trials by the USSR (a country that laid its first CATOBAR/STOBAR hybrid supercarrier in 1988).

    The MiG is a vastly superior aircraft because MiG worked hard to make it better. Sukhoi sat on their asses and the Su-33 is an Su-27 with little to no improvement/modification.

    The fact that the Indians helped pay to get it into production made the choice obvious to idiots who are blinded by politics.

    Now having said that, Russia of 2016 with its current economy, force projection needs and potential threats is probably much better served keeping both types online. One squadron of Su-33 and a couple of the MiG-29K. That way they can fit more planes on the carrier and ensure both key roles are served well enough: air superiority and strike.

    The Su-33 has a double folding wing and tail surface and can fit in a space very similar in size to a MiG-29KR.

    A MiG-29KR is a fully multirole fighterbomber that is superior to the naval flanker in every aspect except payload and flight range.

    Now if only they could fit the Kuz with one corner deck catapult, they could be on to something useful.

    The only thing that would add would be AWACS capacity which would reduce the number of useful aircraft the carrier could carry.

    What's with the small bomb load on the Su-33s???

    When you hit the target with one bomb you don't need to carry a lot of bombs.

    Short or long answer?

    Short one would be: STOBAR.

    Not really. At 500kgs the FAB-500 is not actually that much heavier than an R-27ER or ET at about 350kgs, which are normally carried.

    I thought that was a myth, created by U.S idiots.

    It is.

    No it's not a myth. STOBAR sucks in that regard (most essential I might add).
    But I could think ways of working around that, like:

    Launch with low fuel and fullest possible load from the long launch position, refuel in-air and proceed with mission.

    Official report from US State Department...

    The K is not a strike carrier... if a strike mission is undertaken then only light loads of air to ground weapons will be carried because guidance will be used... the K is primarily for providing air protection for a naval group.

    JohninMK
    JohninMK

    Posts : 8015
    Points : 8098
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1 - Page 18 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

    Post  JohninMK on Thu Nov 17, 2016 12:11 pm

    In an interview with the Rossiya 24 news network, Alexey Rakhmanov, president of the United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC), said that the Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov's air wing will be expanded and get new capabilities.

    The interview came after USC Vice President Igor Ponomarev said that the Admiral Kuznetsov will be upgraded in 2018 after returning from service. He added that, "the Zvezdochka shipyard will embark on repairs aimed at the modernization of the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier."
    .................................

    Speaking to Rossiya 24, Alexey Rakhmanov said that preparations to modernize the Admiral Kuznetsov are under way and that "it will bring the vessel to a new level in terms of the control system."

    At the same time, Rakhmanov said that the modernization will "unfortunately" not lead to any fundamental or conceptual changes in the vessel. Touching upon remarks by those who saw the Admiral Kuznetsov belching black smoke on its way to Syria, Rakhmanov explained that the carrier's boilers run on oil which in turn "has a tendency to burn with the emission of a very large amount of soot."  He stressed that it does not particularly affect the carrier's combat capability and that a possible new generation of aircraft carriers will have a completely new propulsion system.


    Read more: https://sputniknews.com/russia/201611171047533872-russia-aircraft-carrier-modernization/
    KiloGolf
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2498
    Points : 2484
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1 - Page 18 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

    Post  KiloGolf on Thu Nov 17, 2016 2:54 pm

    hoom wrote:
    Its like saying F-16 Block 52 is new design compared to F-16MLU
    Your argument regarding Mig-29K is the equivalent of 'F-16s suck because the original F-16 is 40 years old' regardless of the upgraded capabilities of block 52 vs original F-16A  silent

    What's with the small bomb load on the Su-33s???
    Bear in mind 2* med range AA missiles, 2* short range AA missiles, 2* 500kg bombs & a half load of internal fuel is about equivalent to this
    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1 - Page 18 FA-18+Super+Hornet+2...

    Edit: Hmm looks like the actual bomb launches are minus the med-range AA missiles.

    These are not Sparrows but HARMs.

    The Super Bug can comfortably launch with four 1,000 lb Mk 83s, 2 external FTs, on top of two Sidewinders and nav/targeting FLIR. It's the designated interdiction load-out. There's no comparison with that huge Su-33 recorded by RT launching with only two 1,000 lb equivalents, two short-range AAMs and two wingtip ECM pods.

    Then again, when the USN could get these numbers on board a small, less than 50,000 ton carrier in the late '80s:

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1 - Page 18 USS_Coral_Sea_(CV-43)_aerial_photo_at_Benidorm_1988

    It shows how lacking the Russian approach really is, with low numbers of aircraft that can't pull their weight in a war. unshaven
    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 5046
    Points : 5022
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1 - Page 18 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

    Post  miketheterrible on Thu Nov 17, 2016 3:35 pm

    Easy to spot a Greek. Less educated and poorly informed. Reflection of their country and economy.

    Kuznetsov is a cruiser disguised as a aircraft carrier with a ski jump, not a catapult. Thus they can only launch with limited weight. Add to that, this operation is a test since not a single time in recent history, or History of Russia's existence after soviet union, has the Kuznetsov been used used in actual combat situation.

    There is a reason there will be a refit after its Syria campaign. To modernize it based upon the needs and issues they face during its Syria campaign. Kind of obvious to even the simplest of minds.
    KiloGolf
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2498
    Points : 2484
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1 - Page 18 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

    Post  KiloGolf on Thu Nov 17, 2016 3:53 pm

    miketheterrible wrote:Easy to spot a Greek. Less educated and poorly informed. Reflection of their country and economy.

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1 - Page 18 12215635

    miketheterrible wrote: To modernize it based upon the needs and issues they face during its Syria campaign. Kind of obvious to even the simplest of minds.

    The simplest of minds at least read JohninMK's post just above, about the refit, unlike you. thumbsup
    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 5046
    Points : 5022
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1 - Page 18 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

    Post  miketheterrible on Thu Nov 17, 2016 4:02 pm

    What he posted and what you posted are two different things. If you weren't a stereotype, you would have been less lazy and realised that. Your picking on the Russian deployment of the carrier and its lack of available wings available and their weight and comparing it to an actual dedicated carrier vs the carrier/cruiser that Kuznetsov is. I pointed out how wrong you are and why its obviously a test. Which in this case, johnins post proves as such and that is from me not even reading it.
    KiloGolf
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2498
    Points : 2484
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1 - Page 18 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

    Post  KiloGolf on Thu Nov 17, 2016 4:07 pm

    miketheterrible wrote:What he posted and what you posted are two different things. If you weren't a stereotype, you would have been less lazy and realised that. Your picking on the Russian deployment of the carrier and its lack of available wings available and their weight and comparing it to an actual dedicated carrier vs the carrier/cruiser that Kuznetsov is. I pointed out how wrong you are and why its obviously a test. Which in this case, johnins post proves as such and that is from me not even reading it.

    Semantics aside, the Kuz is a dedicated STOBAR carrier. Nothing of what I posted was wrong as it was just facts, in a thread dedicated for that carrier. JohninMK's post proves that none of the major deficiencies that hamper the Syria deployment will be fixed (boilers and cats).

    PS. I'm sorry for triggering you with my stereotypes.
    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 5046
    Points : 5022
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1 - Page 18 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

    Post  miketheterrible on Thu Nov 17, 2016 4:14 pm

    Boiler isn't even a deficiency. Carrier made it to its spot. Who gives a crap about the smoke from the boilers.  And tell me, does the other carriers use cruise missiles galore like Kuznetsov does? It does hamper total wing output but it is indeed a cruiser carrier, not dedicated carrier.

    Sorry that your a dolt.

    Catapult isn't even mentioned a at all. Your efficiency at assuming things isn't all there. I suggest not going into the banking sector as a career if you love your country and want to save it.
    KiloGolf
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2498
    Points : 2484
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1 - Page 18 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

    Post  KiloGolf on Thu Nov 17, 2016 4:20 pm

    miketheterrible wrote:Boiler isn't even a deficiency. Carrier made it to its spot. Who gives a crap about the smoke from the boilers.  And tell me, does the other carriers use cruise missiles galore like Kuznetsov does? It does hamper total wing output but it is indeed a cruiser carrier, not dedicated carrier.

    Sorry that your a dolt.

    Catapult isn't even mentioned a at all. Your efficiency at assuming things isn't all there.  I suggest not going into the banking sector as a career if you love your country and want to save it.

    Sure, breaking down in the middle of the bay of Biscay, requiring towing by N. Chiker isn't even a deficiency. Thus the current deployment still requiring tug escort. And the catapult is the solution to its inability to launch its air wing with sufficient load-outs. Try to keep up.

    Sponsored content

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1 - Page 18 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Nov 30, 2020 11:21 am