Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

hoom wrote:

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

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

Big_Gazza wrote:

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

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

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

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

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

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

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

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

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

Tass is no more official than anything else, you have posted no evidence.

Yes that theory is perfectly feasible, I agree with that but they didn't do that. There was a problem and the dock started sinking before they where ready. Don't get me wrong the workers who saved the ship did a good job.

The point is the deep engine repair that you need to get the ship outta water to do was left unfinished by the untimely sinking of the dock. You can argue this all you want until your blue in the face but hey believe what you want.

Yes this issue can be fixed IF they can get the ship out of the water which they do not and will not have the ability to do for the foreseeable future, the entire fact that depends whether this ship lives or dies is if they can get it out of the water within the next year or so.

Like I told Hoom you can have your view, in the end, we will see who is right won't we and I am man enough to admit when I am wrong, so if it turns out your right. I'll say so, but I know you aren't so I'll just wait for the facts to reveal themselves like always.

I hope you can do the same in that case.

Big_Gazza wrote:

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

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

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

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

There is more to engines the boilers, gear shafts etc.

We can agree to disagree just when it comes out they can't fix the ship unless some radical is done.

Tass is no more official than anything else, you have posted no evidence.

The point is the deep engine repair that you need to get the ship outta water to do was left unfinished by the untimely sinking of the dock

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

I wasn't aware Tass was government ran, something I should have checked prior but eh.

I know governments work they aren't honest mainly when it comes to something super embarrassing.

GarryB wrote:There was a second Kuznetsov class vessel, but the third flat top carrier, the Ulyanovsk was going to have catapults installed... they were going to be steam cats AFAIK, so it would make sense to have a steam cat system at Nitka training facility but I don't believe they actually built a steam cat there... the Ulyanovsk was not fitted with a cat system and was never finished by the Soviets (it and the other Kuznetsov class was sold to the Chinese).

It would be a waste of time developing a steam cat system now, and time and money and effort put in to developing an EMALS system would be much more useful for them.

With clever design they could use EMALS cats on any nuclear powered vessel to launch things that would otherwise be too big or too underpowered to take off from such a platform... like UAVs...

Vladimir79 wrote:

GarryB wrote:There was a second Kuznetsov class vessel, but the third flat top carrier, the Ulyanovsk was going to have catapults installed... they were going to be steam cats AFAIK, so it would make sense to have a steam cat system at Nitka training facility but I don't believe they actually built a steam cat there... the Ulyanovsk was not fitted with a cat system and was never finished by the Soviets (it and the other Kuznetsov class was sold to the Chinese).

It would be a waste of time developing a steam cat system now, and time and money and effort put in to developing an EMALS system would be much more useful for them.

With clever design they could use EMALS cats on any nuclear powered vessel to launch things that would otherwise be too big or too underpowered to take off from such a platform... like UAVs...

On a CVN steam cats make more sense as they can re-use the steam and is much cheaper than EMALs to develop.  The US is spending billions on it, we could reverse engineer a steam catapult for a million.    

GarryB wrote:There was a second Kuznetsov class vessel, but the third flat top carrier, the Ulyanovsk was going to have catapults installed... they were going to be steam cats AFAIK, so it would make sense to have a steam cat system at Nitka training facility but I don't believe they actually built a steam cat there... the Ulyanovsk was not fitted with a cat system and was never finished by the Soviets (it and the other Kuznetsov class was sold to the Chinese).

It would be a waste of time developing a steam cat system now, and time and money and effort put in to developing an EMALS system would be much more useful for them.

With clever design they could use EMALS cats on any nuclear powered vessel to launch things that would otherwise be too big or too underpowered to take off from such a platform... like UAVs...

Isos wrote:Worst decision ever.

Militarov wrote:

Isos wrote:Worst decision ever.

It would rust away by early 2000s, there was no money... people were fighting over last pack of butter in supermarkets in the center of Moscow back then. It might look today as bad decision but at that time it was the only one...

Isos wrote:Worst decision ever.

The United Shipbuilding Corporation told TASS the 35th ship repair plant was in the process of upgrading its dock facilities, which would allow for accommodating the aircraft carrier The Admiral Kuznetsov.

"It’s a complex package of measures, so we foresee a certain postponement of the second docking of the ship, but the eventual deadline for completing the repairs and upgrade - 2021 - will remain unchanged," the corporation said.



More:
http://tass.com/defense/1057257