Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

Isos wrote:Something is useful if you can use it as planed.

What you don't seem to understand or are being too stubborn to admit is that the main reason for the deployment in Syria was not to defeat the terrorists, since they already had an air group in Hmeimim that was taking care of them, but to test the carrier operations. And that was done, in fact in absence of failures and problems they would have learned less than what they did. So that when they really need the carrier on a deployment where the Russian military capabilities and security interests actually depend on it, everything is operational and tested.

If you have hard time conceptualizing all this go check a doctor for brain damages.

Every single ship out there is susceptible of being affected by breakdowns, if you are incapable to understand that such events do not turn them into useless pieces of shit, it is you that needs help. That, or you are just being a dick putting down a valuable vessel (the capital ship of the VMF nothing less) for the fun of it, that my be the case too.

No they aren't. They just produce what they can produce. They were smart enough to keep their nuclear submarine production and produced them quite easily.

You are blatantly contradicting yourself, but still climbing higher up your horse. They were smart enough to give priorities to the nuclear subs instead of pumping money on the Kuznetsov and Su-33 to "show the flag", as they would have done if that was the main mission of a Russian carrier and so valuable for the VMF as some fools think, but instead kept them barely alive to avoid writing them off and giving themselves the chance to improve them afterwards. That is exactly the bottom line of what I am saying, they used the little money they had on the elements that were critical for the survival of the sate, and only now are starting to focus on power projection. Now some guys like you take cheap shots at them exactly for having done what was correct

What you don't seem to understand or are being too stubborn to admit is that the main reason for the deployment in Syria was not to defeat the terrorists, since they already had an air group in Hmeimim that was taking care of them, but to test the carrier operations. And that was done, in fact in absence of failures and problems they would have learned less than what they did. So that when they really need the carrier on a deployment where the Russian military capabilities and security interests actually depend on it, everything is operational and tested.

And it failed the tests miserably.

Every single ship out there is susceptible of being affected by breakdowns, if you are incapable to understand that such events do not turn them into useless pieces of shit, it is you that needs help. That, or you are just being a dick putting down a valuable vessel (the capital ship of the VMF nothing less) for the fun of it, that my be the case too.

It would be a valuable vessel if they used it correctly.

Breadowns on a maintained vessels are breakdowns.

Breakdowns on a non maintained vessels aren't.

You are blatantly contradicting yourself, but still climbing higher up your horse. They were smart enough to give priorities to the nuclear subs instead of pumping money on the Kuznetsov and Su-33 to "show the flag", as they would have done if that was the main mission of a Russian carrier and so valuable for the VMF as some fools think, but instead kept them barely alive to avoid writing them off and giving themselves the chance to improve them afterwards. That is exactly the bottom line of what I am saying, they used the little money they had on the elements that were critical for the survival of the sate, and only now are starting to focus on power projection. Now some guys like you take cheap shots at them exactly for having done what was correct

They maintained in service just a small portion of their nuclear submarine. They were totally build in russian shipyards during USSR and were the only thing protecting them from NATO after 1991.

They had to keep this industry alive. I never said fall of USSR didn't impacted them.

Sending a non maintained carrier in deployement is beyond stupidity. The only valuable thing they learned is that they shouldn't have sent it. You can't learn anything about using a carrier against a group like ISIS.

Well i am curious to know what would happen to the US if because of secession of states they would lose one third of their industries from one day to the other.

Yeah, since the shipyard where they build most of the carrier in in Virgina that should remain, but a lot of the supply chain would be destroyed. Think about all of the industries in aerospace and defence existing in Texas, New Mexico and Arizona...

Russian shipyard could have repaieed and replace many thing before the Syrian fiasco.

We aren't talking about building a new carrier but about the poor maintenance of this one.

Stay focus.

geopolitically Russia had little choice. so far they have done well with what little they have in comparison with the other great powers.

They have 3 or 4 wires. If it was just one that broke then they could have recover the mig-29 that was hovering around with the other wires.

It seems to me that the entire system broke down.

You are clearly not reading what I am posting.

The cables were fine, but when the arrester gear they are attached to is not working they will break every time.

If the cables just stopped the aircraft they they would not have lost any aircraft but cables able to stop an aircraft that is landing on their own have not been invented yet.

When a plane lands it hooks the cables but the cable is not bolted to the deck it is attached to other cables that is attached to arrester gear that feeds out metres of cable. If it was an unending spool of more cable then the aircraft landing would just pull out more and more cable and drop off the end of the deck into the water, but this cable is fed out under increasing tension so the plane is slowed down over the distance of several metres and eventually is stopped.

All of the cables are attached to this mechanism that slows the plane down over several metres, but if the mechanism that releases the cable is faulty or broken all the cables will just snap immediately and the plane will have to go to full AB and take off again and come around and try again.

The first cable it snaps it is OK... cables snap some times. The second approach there are now only three cables, and one cable snaps. While the plane is going around for its third attempt to land the ground crew might go out and re attach two of the cables so there are four to catch again, so the plane comes around and the cable snaps again... well they know there is a problem now because statistically three cables snapping is impossible... it is clearly not the cables, it must be the arrester gear that tensions the cables to help the plane stop in the available space.

Now that they know it is the arrester gear that is the problem they know they can't land planes so any planes in the air at the time will have to divert to a land base.

The fact that they lost two aircraft suggests that two were wanting to land and needed to land and by the time they worked out it was not a cable problem but actually an arrester gear problem they did not have enough fuel to recover to a land based airfield.

One obvious lesson from this would be to have a plane fuelled up and ready for take off with a buddy refuelling pod and external fuel tanks fitted and loaded with extra fuel that could have taken off and refuelled both aircraft trying to land and escorted them both to a land base where all three aircraft could have been recovered safely. Or perhaps a land based inflight refuelling aircraft brought to near the carrier to simultaneously refuel both aircraft trying to land and then flown with them to a nearby airfield to recover them.

Do you understand the concept of "usefullness" and the concept of "aircraft carrier" and the concept of a "barge" ?

For Russia bombing terrorists in Syria is a secondary backup feature of the Kuznetsov... its primary role will always be air defence and air support of naval surface operations away from Russian airspace.

France used its aircraft carrier to beautiful effect destroying the lives of the Libyan people and resulting in the murder and barbarity that can only be found in a civil war... money well spent... you must be proud.

Something is useful if you can use it as planed.

An aircraft carrier is meant to carry, launch and recover fighters.

The Kuznetsov is meant to provide protection from enemy aircraft... which in this case meant 360 degree coverage of air space using Ka-31 helicopters.... don't remember hearing or reading about any attacks made on Russian ships in the region while the K was there...

If you have hard time conceptualizing all this go check a doctor for brain damages.

The Kuznestov managed air attacks against terrorist targets in Syria, it gathered intel and managed attacks and monitored the results... most of the air launches were moved to ground based air fields, but the attacks were planned from the carrier, which were successful in bringing peace to a country... sort of the opposite of what the CdG did in Libya.

If the K is a barge it would be the best defended barge in HATO.

But lets take your analogy... Barges are not self propelled.

When it comes to surface fleet. They lost everything. Even had hard time with corvettes and missile boats.

Their current fleets are in need of new ships, but for a third world gas station that does not make anything the corvettes and frigates they are in the process of producing are amazing. The only reason they had a hard time with Corvettes and missile boats is because they are brand new state of the art... and honestly better than many western ships of much larger displacement which they honestly put to shame.

It is clear they have lost nothing.

Well i am curious to know what would happen to the US if because of secession of states they would lose one third of their industries from one day to the other.

The US has lost nothing but look at their latest corvettes and frigates... The US Navy has better funding than the rest of HATO combined, but please tell us about French corvettes and French Frigates that put these Russian boats to shame?

What you don't seem to understand or are being too stubborn to admit is that the main reason for the deployment in Syria was not to defeat the terrorists, since they already had an air group in Hmeimim that was taking care of them, but to test the carrier operations. And that was done, in fact in absence of failures and problems they would have learned less than what they did. So that when they really need the carrier on a deployment where the Russian military capabilities and security interests actually depend on it, everything is operational and tested.

More than that, the operation in Syria was about testing the Kuznetsovs ability to operate as a flagship and direct operations... in this case in the very secondary role of ground attack which is not even a secondary backup role... it is not that important in the scheme of things at all, but there were no air threats to the Russian surface ships in the area so that is all they could test.

@LSOS The fact that they had to operate from land is completely unimportant because that can be fixed overnight in a Russian shipyard, it was the rest of the stuff they had to do to get the job done that was the real test... which you plainly want to ignore.

And it failed the tests miserably.

The test was not being able to recover aircraft.

The test was to deploy aircraft and execute missions based on C4IR information... which they did from land bases.

It would be a valuable vessel if they used it correctly.

They did use it correctly. Land based aircraft substituted sea based air power when it was clear operations from the carrier could not be executed till work had been done to repair a problem.

Breadowns on a maintained vessels are breakdowns.

Breakdowns on a non maintained vessels aren't.

So breakdowns are not breakdowns... right... the Kuznetsov was taken out of drydock to perform this test... do you think expecting perfection is reasonable?

Sending a non maintained carrier in deployement is beyond stupidity.

They didn't have to test whether it could launch and recover aircraft... they already know how to do that, it is not hard... as you say even China and India can do it... are you saying the instant there was a problem with landing aircraft they should have sailed to the fucking Pacific fleet to fix it so they could then sail back and perform the tests they wanted to perform?

Are you a fucking idiot?

Flying from land bases changes nothing, all the tests they wanted to do they got done... or are you suggesting flexibility and getting the job done means nothing.

The only valuable thing they learned is that they shouldn't have sent it.

If that was the lesson they learned they would have scrapped it.

You can't learn anything about using a carrier against a group like ISIS.

Of course... hitting hidden targets amongst civilians is easy, and requires no sophistication... just fly in and drop bombs at random and declare all the people you kill to be terrorists and then head home as heroes.... like the CdG does.

Russian shipyard could have repaieed and replace many thing before the Syrian fiasco.

Recovering fighters is irrelevant to the main mission of killing terrorists, but of course your countries policy of welcoming them and letting them murder your teachers is obviously much better... you want to compare fiascos... how much of your taxpayers money goes into white helmets...

We aren't talking about building a new carrier but about the poor maintenance of this one.

What poor maintenance... the arrester gear failed.... fucken get over it.

geopolitically Russia had little choice. so far they have done well with what little they have in comparison with the other great powers.

I disagree, Russia could have saved billions by doing exactly nothing and let these arseholes take over Syria and invade Europe... I am sure Europe under Sharia Law will be a much more civilised and orderly place... and anyone who disagrees gets their heads cut off... you know... real justice.

The amusing thing is that in the chaos and murder the plans for gas lines to Europe probably would have failed anyway because it would be easy to fund a few nutter groups to periodically sabotage them... much cheaper and much less risk for Russia...

I think they wanted to oust Assad in order to build an oil pipeline thru Syria on into Turkey. they want to break the back of Putin's Russia. same with using Turkey to undermine Russia's influence in the Caucasus. frankly I loathe Putin but the only alternatives are old timer oligarchs or western Navalny tier stooges. geopolitically Putin has done fairly well I think.

GarryB wrote:France used its aircraft carrier to beautiful effect destroying the lives of the Libyan people and resulting in the murder and barbarity that can only be found in a civil war... money well spent... you must be proud.

+1

I'll never forgive those filthy snail-eating surrender-monkey bastards for what they did to Libya

Sarkozy and Bernard Henri-Levy should be strung up with piano wire around their nuts for their crimes. Heck, why stop there? Hang the rest of the feckless criminal Eurotrash elite.

Millennium 7 YT channel did a take on Soviet and Russian carrier aviation.

I think they wanted to oust Assad in order to build an oil pipeline thru Syria on into Turkey.

They wanted to pump UAE gas to Europe in competition with Russian gas... for all the shit Russia goes through I would say let them do it and just fund terrorist groups to go in there and destroy sections of the pipeline every other week.

Destroy Syria to pump gas to Europe... how civilised these western people are.

Amusing... that point when you grow up and realise that western governments essentially equate to the bad guys in all those Disney Movies and all those James Bond movies....

Big_Gazza wrote:

GarryB wrote:France used its aircraft carrier to beautiful effect destroying the lives of the Libyan people and resulting in the murder and barbarity that can only be found in a civil war... money well spent... you must be proud.

+1

I'll never forgive those filthy snail-eating surrender-monkey bastards for what they did to Libya  

Sarkozy and Bernard Henri-Levy should be strung up with piano wire around their nuts for their crimes.  Heck, why stop there?  Hang the rest of the feckless criminal Eurotrash elite.  

You are confusing french people and french gov at the time.

Most french didn't want that intervention and we know very well why Sarkozy did it. He still has probkems with justice because of Gadafi's money.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:
It was sensible to start small and gradually rebuild capabilities, also because small ships were the ones that had to be replaced first, while some of the larger ships could still last a couple of decades with overhaul and partial modernisation.
Of course it was not ideal, and maybe only allows a limited amount of long range sea missions for the short and medium future,  but that is the reality (and Russia accepted that they can live with it).

Unlike the US, where the defence budget alone is not far off their total tax revenue, there is in effect an unlimited potential spend (see the $trillions they are talking about now) as they can just create more $ out of thin air, Russia can only spend what it gets in tax revenues plus a small amount of borrowing.

That is the fundamental reason both countries act like they do. The US buys the USS Ford and dumps the old stuff whilst Russia buys AShM and upgrades where it can.

JohninMK wrote:

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:
It was sensible to start small and gradually rebuild capabilities, also because small ships were the ones that had to be replaced first, while some of the larger ships could still last a couple of decades with overhaul and partial modernisation.
Of course it was not ideal, and maybe only allows a limited amount of long range sea missions for the short and medium future,  but that is the reality (and Russia accepted that they can live with it).

Unlike the US, where the defence budget alone is not far off their total tax revenue, there is in effect an unlimited potential spend (see the $trillions they are talking about now) as they can just create more $ out of thin air, Russia can only spend what it gets in tax revenues plus a small amount of borrowing.

That is the fundamental reason both countries act like they do. The US buys the USS Ford and dumps the old stuff whilst Russia buys AShM and upgrades where it can.

That unlimited budget seems to be coming to an end. They are printing and spending more now than ever before but they are getting significantly less now than before too.

It's glorious to see.

miketheterrible wrote:That unlimited budget seems to be coming to an end.  They are printing and spending more now than ever before but they are getting significantly less now than before too.

It's glorious to see.

The collapse is coming, and their is NOTHING that these fucking idiots can do to avoid it.  Biden's "win" is the best outcome for the rest of the planet.  They have already critically damaged the legitimacy of both their electoral and judicial systems in the eyes of at least 30-40% of their public with their blatant voter fraud in the key Eastern battleground states.  He will be an incompetent puppet where the strings will be plain to see (he'll be the US equivalent of Konstantin Chernenko) and the reputation of the US ruling establishment will plummett.  The outright war waged by the Liberals and their Big-Tech & media allies against their Conservative enemies will aggravate the already deep and growing divides between the two and hasten the collapse of confidence in the state.  4 years of Bidet the Kiddy-Sniffer and Queen Mega-Bitch will inflict more damage on Amerika than tRump could ever dream of

Yep, it will be fucking GLORIOUS to watch it all unfold!

It is not just printing money though... it is easy loans they hand out to allies for weapons they don't need.... it is a great way of getting rid of old shit and at the same time getting allies to pay for it... especially allies in the region so if you need to operate there to murder this or that leader then the locals will be using your old stuff so it will be standardised.

However the Kuznetsov comes back 2021 or 2022, i am just amazed that they didnt have a backup to the arrest wire breakdown. Maybe you can enlighten me if the US carriers have a backup for the EM or arrest wires?
The old carriers had nets, but i doubt they are still in use today...

Some progress pics of the drydock expansion

They've built a coffer dam quite a distance out so looks like the expansion is going to be pretty big in the seaward direction.


K itself appears to be getting a major radar/ecm upgrade

Oh there is an update on Google Earth, July 2020

The 3 squares top left are the start of the coffer dam.
Looks like a line of buoys a bit inside that may indicate the outline of the new dock.
So yeah about 400m internal even without expanding inland.

Inside the coffer dam


And looks like they're filling the sections


Video from the shipyard but I don't think its really much interesting

Wow very interesting thanks!

From Red Samovar:


https://twitter.com/Strike_Flanker/status/1369793234642276357

Shoigu demanded to speed up the reconstruction of the dock, where the Admiral Kuznetsov should be repaired."

The Defense Minister pointed out that it is necessary to increase the number of people and equipment to work at the facility

MURMANSK, April 13. /TASS/. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu demanded to increase the pace and quality of work during the reconstruction and technical re-equipment of the dry dock of the 35th Ship Repair Plant located in Murmansk, the project is implemented by the Zvezdochka Ship Repair Center (part of the USC Group of Companies).

Shoigu noted that a clear schedule for building up forces and resources during the project implementation is needed as new areas of work are opened. In particular, he pointed out that it is necessary to increase the number of people and equipment to work at the facility.

The Minister was informed that about 400 people and several dozen pieces of equipment are currently involved here. According to Shoigu, these forces are clearly not enough to ensure the proper pace of such large-scale work, which must be carried out around the clock. Moreover, as the minister noted, when there is a backlog from the schedule.

At the same time, Shoigu did not accept the explanation of the USC management that the first contractor was unscrupulous, the work was carried out poorly and had to be replaced. "All these explanations are not accepted. We need a dock, we need to repair and modernize the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier, " Shoigu said.

The project implemented by the Zvezdochka Ship Repair Center provides for the transformation of the existing two-chamber dry dock into a single-chamber one with a significant increase in the area and depth of dock structures. The reconstruction of the dock will significantly expand the capabilities of the 35th ship repair plant in terms of dock operations.

After the reconstruction is completed, the Zvezdochki Murmansk branch dock will become the largest dock facility in the Russian Arctic zone and will be able to accept large-displacement vessels and ships, such as nuclear-powered icebreakers, heavy missile and aircraft-carrying cruisers, for dock operations.

The reconstruction of the dry dock of the 35th Ship Repair Plant is a key factor in the timely completion of factory repairs and modernization of the heavy aircraft carrier Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov.

https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/11136173

As mentioned this dock will be useful for a wide range of very large ships so getting it up and running is important.

Shoigu needs to wield the club and the hob-nailed boot. Take no prisoners. If USC executives aren't waking in the middle of the night in a cold sweat from nightmares then he isn't being tough enough....

Send the construction troops there and do it yourself.