Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues
Not quite, the tug is the direct consequence of lacking friendly ports, not the ship's reliability.KiloGolf wrote: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.
miketheterrible wrote:Tugs are quite common for obvious reasons and is always needed no matter if new or old. Especially for large groups.
Prove that it broke down. Most speculated it was refuel. The picture, you don't tug from there.
whir wrote:Not quite, the tug is the direct consequence of lacking friendly ports, not the ship's reliability.KiloGolf wrote: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.
miketheterrible wrote:I thought it was 2016....
Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1 Singular_Transform Thu Nov 17, 2016 7:09 pm
JohninMK wrote:
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.
Isos wrote:Militarov wrote:Ned86 wrote: Pile of something about Russian Subs built by means of alien technology
Russia, submarine, powerful, mega, build, Russia, powerful, nuclear, Oscar, powerful, submarine...
Yugoslavia tracked subs in Adriatic sea with Koni-class frigate which had dipping sonar lol, please.. go away.
Can you tell more about that ? What subs it tracked, distance ...
hoom wrote: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-16AIts like saying F-16 Block 52 is new design compared to F-16MLU
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 thisWhat's with the small bomb load on the Su-33s???...
JohninMK wrote: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/
Militarov wrote:JohninMK wrote: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/
First hand info that i have atm is that Kuz at the start of this voyage was filled with Mazut-100
Then the whole point of aircraft carrier is being defeated, if i may notice
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.
It shows how lacking the Russian approach really is, with low numbers of aircraft that can't pull their weight in a war.
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.
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).
It does hamper total wing output but it is indeed a cruiser carrier, not dedicated carrier.
And the catapult is the solution to its inability to launch its air wing with sufficient load-outs.
Prove that it broke down. Most speculated it was refuel. The picture, you don't tug from there.
Well....
Look at this video, Kuz is in not any way emitting more smoke than the destroyer at its flank.
Well....
You said Mig-29K sucks because it's 40 years old but then said F-16 block 52 is great because it's upgraded vs F-16 MLU.How did you draw paralel there i do not see, and i spent 10 min trying to figure out what did you try to say there... My point is... was... and is right... that F-16 Block 52 and MiG-29K are not new designs, both are 40 years old revisions.
Well I corrected that the bomb carrying ones weren't actually using the med range AA missiles.How is it equivalent to that? Full internal fuel and 3 drop tanks... Its nowhere close to be compared. You are forgetting they are sacrificing the fuel. SU-33 probably could take off with full warload, but with enough fuel to make circle around carrier and land back.
GarryB wrote:Proof of the payload capacity from the K please.
hoom wrote:Well I corrected that the bomb carrying ones weren't actually using the med range AA missiles.
But remember a full internal fuel Su-33 has range equivalent to a ferry loadout of something like F-18 so a half internal fuel Su-33 is going to have range like an F-18 with a couple of external tanks.
That is the more or less the ecquivalent of land based ones, that carry instead x4 OFAB 250-270 as a standardKiloGolf wrote:
Operationally stuck at x2 FAB 500 at the moment.
Yes, and?KiloGolf wrote: When the designated interdiction load-out for F/A-18E is x4 1,000 lb Mk 83s with x2 FTs, your argument goes out of the window. Also if the USN rarely pushes the envelope that far, is purely the result of them being able to put much more aircraft in the air than the dozen (or less given few were upgraded) that the Kuz currently fields.
GarryB wrote: I will post a photo of a Hornet taking off with no ordinance at all and I can bitch about how poor its performance is compared with land based fighters.
VFA-15 F/A-18A 163126 (AJ303) being prepared for launch from Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71) during Operation Desert Storm. the load is five Mk83 bombs. source
marcellogo wrote:That is the more or less the ecquivalent of land based ones, that carry instead x4 OFAB 250-270 as a standardKiloGolf wrote:
Operationally stuck at x2 FAB 500 at the moment.Yes, and?KiloGolf wrote: When the designated interdiction load-out for F/A-18E is x4 1,000 lb Mk 83s with x2 FTs, your argument goes out of the window. Also if the USN rarely pushes the envelope that far, is purely the result of them being able to put much more aircraft in the air than the dozen (or less given few were upgraded) that the Kuz currently fields.
Seems me thaat you are just get stuck in a "male reproductive organ measuration contest" there.
US carriers are way greater, has been constantely used by II world war until now and has a very different role.
Russians are at their first one operative deployement , so let's give them time to grow up their own expertise and their own operative doctrine.
Also because , until now they have put a lot of surprises from their own sleeves.
) and you'll understand that I'm merely setting the record straight.marcellogo wrote:Look at this video, Kuz is in not any way emitting more smoke than the destroyer at its flank.
Well....
It's just black instead of white because one is a steeam engine using Mazut-100, while the other is a Gas turbine using (probably) Kerosene.
medo wrote: Su-33 could be compared with F-14A and with its upgrade to F-14A+ (F-14B Bombcat), which was capable to carry its bombload and was used in Iraq.
PapaDragon wrote:
You people still haven't manage to figure out that there is a difference between payloads for skijump and catapult launched aircraft?
Daym...
|
|
|
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in