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 #2

    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 7162
    Points : 7148
    Join date : 2015-11-06

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

    Post  Isos Wed Jan 20, 2021 3:17 pm

    miketheterrible wrote:That's because neither has used them.  Russia finally did.

    The Su-33 is more of the drawback of course and needs to be scrapped.  Otherwise, it did it's task and they learned the wire for helping the plane land/stop isn't sufficient.

    Otherwise, as said, everyone blows it out of proportion.

    I trust the military to make the right decision and they chose to repair and modernize it.  So they so choose to make use of the vessel.

    Well they also need to use it properly. Most of the drawbacks in Syria were because of poor maintenance or bad decisions.

    I remember pictures of when they changed the boilers. The old were totally destroyed yet they changed only half of them.

    Ships are build by engineers. They respect the specifications so the ships will always be good if you use them as planned. Actually that's true for anything engineers make.

    Actually I must say I disagree with you. It's the military that turned this ship into a useless barge and the repair may just be to keep a carrier for formation untill a new one arrives.
    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 5468
    Points : 5442
    Join date : 2016-11-06

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

    Post  miketheterrible Wed Jan 20, 2021 3:22 pm

    Maybe. But the amount they initially agreed to for repairs, it sounds like they want this to keep floating and to be in use. The reason for half assed in the past is because I doubt they were planning to actually use it other than training exercises.

    The boilers you may have to refresh my memory but besides looking like shit, my understanding is they still worked. And it worked when they were in Syria. The major issue was the wire that snapped when the MiG 29k landed.

    They are putting emphasis on carrier use. So we will see what the plan is. They are making helicopter carriers now so they will need an aircraft carrier till they build a new one.
    Backman
    Backman

    Posts : 356
    Points : 360
    Join date : 2020-11-10

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

    Post  Backman Wed Jan 20, 2021 3:23 pm

    Isos wrote:In Syria Kuznetsov lost a su-33 and a mig-29K. Its task were completed by its aviation operating from Hmeimim.

    Su-33 sucks when compared to modern fighters. Unless they upgrade them to su-35 standard they should throw them in garbage and use only mig-29K.

    It's not a surprise they send it for a major upgrade after seeing what it did in Syria. But even the upgrade was full of accidents.

    Kuznetsov is the exemple of what a carrier shouldn't be. Chinese and indians have similar carriers and do better than the Russians.

    Rolling Eyes Cables even snap on US carriers. They were running the Kuz hard. In real combat. Something China or India haven't done in their dreams. If I recall , one of the jet losses in the Syria op was just because they ran it out of fuel because it wasn't calculated right

    12 May 2015

       US Navy Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornet, BuNo 166814, c/n F187, 'AB-210', of VFA-211, crashes into the Persian Gulf due to engine problems after launching off the USS Theodore Roosevelt.

    18 March 2016
       A landing U.S. Navy E-2C Hawkeye, BuNo 165293, of VAW-123, runs off the flight deck of the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower when a landing cable snaps.

    Big_Gazza, slasher and Hole like this post

    Backman
    Backman

    Posts : 356
    Points : 360
    Join date : 2020-11-10

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

    Post  Backman Wed Jan 20, 2021 3:44 pm

    Per Wikipedia, it says that the refit is supposed to extend the life of the boat for 25 years. That article a couple pages back said it would extend the life for 5 years.dunno
    Refit

    The carrier started an overhaul and modernisation in the first quarter of 2017. This is expected to extend its service life by 25 years.[72] Admiral Kuznetsov is expected to undergo modernization at the 35th Ship Repair Plant in Murmansk between 2020 and 2021, upgrading the ship's power plant and electronics systems.[73]
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 2976
    Points : 2978
    Join date : 2018-03-03

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

    Post  LMFS Wed Jan 20, 2021 4:30 pm

    "Useless barge", scrapping the Su-33, the boilers in the Kuznetsov are junk... Are we being paid for turning this thread in the most stupid ever or what? Embarassed

    GarryB, Big_Gazza and miketheterrible like this post

    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 8725
    Points : 8868
    Join date : 2014-09-10
    Location : Canuckistan

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

    Post  kvs Wed Jan 20, 2021 4:30 pm

    The period of 5 years is nonsense. Typical journalist inanity. They "forgot" the 2 in front of the 5. It takes 5 years to
    refurbish this size and complexity of ship so 5 years of added life would be some sort of joke. The real period is more like
    25+ all the way to 40 if not 50. If it is 25 then it means the next big overhaul in 2045.

    Of course, if they build better models in the next 25 years it may be retired in 2045 or earlier.

    Big_Gazza and LMFS like this post

    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 7162
    Points : 7148
    Join date : 2015-11-06

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

    Post  Isos Wed Jan 20, 2021 6:17 pm

    LMFS wrote:"Useless barge", scrapping the Su-33, the boilers in the Kuznetsov are junk... Are we being paid for turning this thread in the most stupid ever or what? Embarassed

    Sorry if it hurts your feelings but that's all true.

    The ship was sitting at port since 1991 and used only to keep a carrier aviation training so it's more a barge than a carrier.

    Su-33 are already getting replaced by mig-29K. They don't even produce su-33 which is totally outdated. It's ground counterpart is su-27P which was replaced by the su-27SM/SM2/SM3 then su-30SM then su-35 then su-57.

    They already have 5 new sukhoi class of fighter in the flanker family. So yeah its totally outdated.

    You have pictures of the boilers when they were changed. They looked like destroyed and not just old and used. And they changed only half of them.

    It was sent to a real operation and failed. What they learned was either scrap it or improve it. The choice was quickly made.

    Again I'm not saying the ship is shitty but russians use it like an old prostitue. Indians and Chinese often sail their carriers, probably even more than russians since 1991, and have no problems with them.

    Cables even snap on US carriers. They were running the Kuz hard. In real combat. Something China or India haven't done in their dreams. If I recall , one of the jet losses in the Syria op was just because they ran it out of fuel because it wasn't calculated right

    US use their cartiers everyday. The ratio incident/time of use shows their carriers are billion times better than the kuznetsov.

    Kuz hard used in Syria ? It just shiped 7 fighters and 2 choppers to Hmeimim and waited off the coast.

    China and India use theirs more often. Using it for training or some easy bombing in the desert against a very very very weak enemy is not different.

    Syria was more a test than a real deployment BTW.
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 8725
    Points : 8868
    Join date : 2014-09-10
    Location : Canuckistan

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

    Post  kvs Wed Jan 20, 2021 7:54 pm

    Funny how fast Russian tech turnover is used to bash Russia. Westerners are really inadequate.

    Canada has been using the same CF-18s for decades but the Su-33 is "garbage" because newer models made by Russia
    showed up after 1991. Wow, such a Russian fail. Not a shred of effort to evaluate the actual functionality of the Su-33.

    As for the dirty boilers. Put up or shut up. People clearly have a deep phobia of the colour black. If something is covered
    in soot, it must have exploded. No consideration for the removal process including detachment from the stacks. You know,
    maybe some soot will be deposited on the boilers as they are removed. But I guess the Russian workers need to wash the
    scrap to please the eyes of internet experts.

    The new over-priced US carrier is a barge. A real one. But America win.

    Big_Gazza and LMFS like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 27919
    Points : 28447
    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 Thu Jan 21, 2021 1:07 am

    Su-33 sucks when compared to modern fighters. Unless they upgrade them to su-35 standard they should throw them in garbage and use only mig-29K.

    The Russian Navy never had the funding or the interest to have super planes... you are mistaking them for the west.

    What naval person worth their salt wants to spend big money on aircraft... you spend money on ships and subs and missiles... the planes are there to deliver the missiles.

    An Su-33 has good flight range and lots of weapons pylons and will be operating under the umbrella equivalent to hundreds of S-350 and S-400 and eventually S-500 as well as Pantsir and TOR batteries... it probably wont get to do much actual fighting in combat... more likely inspection and ID during peace time and possibly carriage and launch of 2.5 ton air launched Zircon variants.

    It will get minor upgrades but nothing radical... they had an Su-33KUB upgrade that was a bit like an Su-34 upgrade but even more including active wings instead of just flaps and slats to change the wing shape, but it cost too much and was rejected.

    The MiG-29KR was put into production for India so they tagged their own orders on the end of that so they didn't have to pay for tooling and setting up production.

    If they build new CVNs in the 80-90K ton weight range I would think it would be guaranteed they will have Su-57s, with MiGs in support... MiG-29KR to start and LMFS later on.

    It's not a surprise they send it for a major upgrade after seeing what it did in Syria. But even the upgrade was full of accidents.

    That is the way things work though... you give something a real world test and then decide what needs to be upgraded and altered or just fixed.

    There was a Chinese ship and an American ship that also caught fire during upgrades/routine maintenance, so while not desirable it is not unusual either.

    Kuznetsov is the exemple of what a carrier shouldn't be. Chinese and indians have similar carriers and do better than the Russians.

    How can you say they are better when they have never been to war... we really don't know how well they would perform...

    And lets face it the real test in Syria is not about can the planes take off and land. One problem with arrester gear that could not be repaired in place caused the loss of two aircraft, and the 5 year olds here get really upset about that... the tantrums are amusing...

    But you are a grown up... you understand that getting planes to fly off the deck and then come back is the easy shit... the real hard shit that never enters into exercises or training is going to a real world place and finding real world badguys and having the C4IR to track down their locations in real time and create a mission to fly there and drop real weapons without hitting a Chinese embassy or a baby milk factory and to kill the target without destroying $50 worth of enemy junk using a 20 million dollar super precision guided missile... but using a 5000 dollar 500kg bomb to kill a group of terrorists and their bomb making factory.

    After they lost those two planes they kept working, they planned the missions on board and went through the motions like it was happening from the carrier even though the flights were from a land base. All the procedures including the attack and the attack evaluations and planning any further follow up strikes were done from the carrier like it was a carrier based operation.

    That is why it was a success and that is why it was worth while and I don't know whether China or India could do the same with their carriers but to be honest I really don't think they could.

    Their arrester gear might work flawlessly, and I would think Indias MiG-29KRs should be able to drop dumb bombs with that level of accuracy, but would it be on the correct hill? There was no enemy air activity so China would be able to use Su-33 clones for the job but would they know what to attack and they likely would have to use more expensive laser guided weapons to hit the target as accurately as these upgraded Russian Su-33s did with iron bombs from altitude.

    Writing off the Kuznetsov is like writing off all Indian and Chinese carriers because they are directly related... if one is shit then they all are.

    Makes you wonder why they have persisted with the K, but that is obvious isn't it... they are not going to make a fixed wing full sized aircraft carrier till they have cruisers and destroyers that can operate with it. And making a mini carrier would be the dumbest move they could possibly make... though if they were going to do that the K would already be gone... no point keeping a big one if you are going to make small ones and you would make the small fixed wing carriers before you bothered making helicopter landing ships... a small fixed wing carrier doesn't need helicopter landing ships for normal operations but a helicopter landing ship needs fixed wing aircraft support... so the first two helicopter carriers would be VSTOL air defence carriers... and they would likely make 8 of them... four aircraft carriers with VSTOL fighters and four helicopter carriers.

    But they are keeping the K and making the helicopter carriers with helicopter fighters with AESA radars in the form of the Ka-52K first.

    Well they also need to use it properly. Most of the drawbacks in Syria were because of poor maintenance or bad decisions.

    The only problem with the Kuznetsov in Syria was the arrester gear gearbox was faulty.

    It they had been able to fix it on site they could have continued operating as normal.

    The old were totally destroyed yet they changed only half of them.

    Would be interesting to find out how you knew they were all destroyed, and certainly interesting to find out why you think they would replace only half of them if you think all were destroyed.

    It's the military that turned this ship into a useless barge and the repair may just be to keep a carrier for formation untill a new one arrives.

    For goodness sake... there is blame for everyone isn't there... can't possibly be that an air defence carrier is only useful when your navy is operating away from ground based defences and that for the last 30 years the Russian Navy has had no reason to piss away money operating a long way away from Russian waters for long enough periods to justify an aircraft carrier escort... but they should have spent top dollar on it and kept it in perfect nick... maybe take the money away from the Poseidon programme, or maybe Bulava... or Husky...

    Cables even snap on US carriers. They were running the Kuz hard. In real combat. Something China or India haven't done in their dreams. If I recall , one of the jet losses in the Syria op was just because they ran it out of fuel because it wasn't calculated right

    Cables do snap... quite regularly... that is why there are four or five lined up for each landing and they can be replaced very quickly and easily....

    Having a cable snap is not a big deal... the plane normally follows through and comes around straight away and has another go on the 3 or 4 remaining wires.

    Two wires snapping is very unlikely... they are normally used dozens of times before they fail.

    To lose two aircraft including a Flanker that ran out of fuel suggests multiple attempts to land that failed, which likely means multiple failed cables.

    Cables don't fail like that.

    The cables are attached to arrester gears so when the hook of the plane catches them they don't immediately pull tight... they are not strong enough to stop a plane based on their strength alone. They are normally attached to a gearbox that starts out relatively firm but able to feed out several metres of cable but it gets tighter and tighter till it stops. A faulty gearbox means the cable will be tight and will snap immediately every time.

    Per Wikipedia, it says that the refit is supposed to extend the life of the boat for 25 years. That article a couple pages back said it would extend the life for 5 years.dunno
    Refit

    A carrier will have a useful life of half a century or more, and different refits and upgrades will be for different periods... it might be that they are doing a temporary refit but a refit to last 5 years makes no sense after 5 years it will likely only have been back in the water for 3 or 4 years. In that short space of time it is likely not long enough to look at the situation with new destroyers and new cruisers and potential new carriers and the decide whether to fully upgrade it with all new weapons and systems and equipment including cats and perhaps even improved propulsion design... maybe even a small nuclear propulsion system to boost the boilers, or whatever, or they might just use it as a training carrier and accelerate their first CVN.

    Building destroyers and cruisers will mean production of large AESA radar arrays and other large systems that wont fit on smaller lighter ships, and of course putting weapons into very large scale service which makes them more useful too.

    The ship was sitting at port since 1991 and used only to keep a carrier aviation training so it's more a barge than a carrier.

    Which makes French presidents brains beef stew... well they don't use them as brains now do they...

    Please entertain the Chinese threads on their barges that have never done anything either, or the Indian thread... their barges have been absolutely critical...

    Su-33 are already getting replaced by mig-29K. They don't even produce su-33 which is totally outdated. It's ground counterpart is su-27P which was replaced by the su-27SM/SM2/SM3 then su-30SM then su-35 then su-57.

    Its range and speed are fine and its level of manouver are fine too. With R-77-1s it should be as capable as a fighter as any other carrier aircraft currently in use.

    They already have 5 new sukhoi class of fighter in the flanker family. So yeah its totally outdated.

    Yet it could murder Libyans by the thousands just like the Rafales did...


    You have pictures of the boilers when they were changed. They looked like destroyed and not just old and used. And they changed only half of them.

    Looked destroyed like 103 targets in Syria destroyed?

    It was sent to a real operation and failed. What they learned was either scrap it or improve it. The choice was quickly made.

    It was sent on a real operation in Syria and it did its job. There was a problem with the arrester gear so it could not recover fighter aircraft till that was repaired, but it achieved its mission and did its job.

    Again I'm not saying the ship is shitty but russians use it like an old prostitue. Indians and Chinese often sail their carriers, probably even more than russians since 1991, and have no problems with them.

    Which missions have these Chinese and Indian boats accomplished... for that matter I would say French Rafales murdering some Libyan civilians and starting a civil war that reduced a functioning successful country into chaos that destroyed that country and whose people are still paying the ultimate price for Frances interference are not as good as the Su-33s and MiG-29s that were launched from the Kuznetsov and land based airfields that killed terrorists and criminals and helped keep Syria as a viable functioning state... I say keep the junk and the trash planes...

    The ratio incident/time of use shows their carriers are billion times better than the kuznetsov.

    The ratio of cables snapping when the arrester gear is not working is 100%... it is not a cable issue it is an arrester gear issue... the fact that you don't understand this after I have said this plenty of times seems to me to you be stirring the pot... or just being a bit thick, and I don't think it is the latter.

    It just shiped 7 fighters and 2 choppers to Hmeimim and waited off the coast.

    They were testing new upgrades and new features and also new tactics and new communications and strategies.

    They hardly needed any more fighters to test if they can locate a target and organise a flight to go and attack the target and then determine if follow up attacks are needed using cheap simple dumb iron bombs from 10km altitude with aircraft that don't need escorts.

    China and India use theirs more often. Using it for training or some easy bombing in the desert against a very very very weak enemy is not different.

    You keep saying they use them more often but where and when?

    What terrorist targets have they defeated with air power, how many missions... what is their mission rate... why would that matter if they can't find targets to attack in the first place?

    Syria was more a test than a real deployment BTW.

    It would not have been a test if it was not a real deployment...

    Wow, such a Russian fail. Not a shred of effort to evaluate the actual functionality of the Su-33.

    Obviously it is not capable if it doesn't cost more than 200 million a plane...

    Big_Gazza, kvs, miketheterrible, LMFS, Hole and TMA1 like this post

    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 2976
    Points : 2978
    Join date : 2018-03-03

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

    Post  LMFS Thu Jan 21, 2021 3:28 am

    Isos wrote:Sorry if it hurts your feelings but that's all true.

    It hurts my intelligence to see such proud display of ignorance and self entitlement. You are not talking like an amateur trying to make sense of the few facts we know, you act as if the whole VMF and USC needed schooling by you, while PD is not even trying to make an argument and just making clear how much he hates the Kuznetsov. It is embarrassing having to read through so much crap, the thread deserves more arguments and less arrogance.

    The ship was sitting at port since 1991 and used only to keep a carrier aviation training so it's more a barge than a carrier.

    So f* what? In the 90's they kept the nuclear forces and that's it. Ii is not like they had any other option, they did what was correct with the resources available. What does it have to do with the capacities of the vessel?

    Su-33 are already getting replaced by mig-29K. They don't even produce su-33 which is totally outdated. It's ground counterpart is su-27P which was replaced by the su-27SM/SM2/SM3 then su-30SM then su-35 then su-57.

    Su-33 are going nowhere, not being substituted but upgraded with avionics for strike roles and networked combat, and their engines are being produced again, that is hardly evidence that they are going to ditch them, which was obvious in advance since the airframes are practically new.

    They already have 5 new sukhoi class of fighter in the flanker family. So yeah its totally outdated.

    You surely understand that you can evolve a Su-33 into almost a Su-35-level plane, but not a Su-35 into a naval plane like the -33 don't you?

    You have pictures of the boilers when they were changed. They looked like destroyed and not just old and used. And they changed only half of them.

    So VMF decided to retire the ship from service for 4 or 5 years for modernization, but left the same shitty defective boilers inside? Is this what you mean?

    It was sent to a real operation and failed. What they learned was either scrap it or improve it. The choice was quickly made.

    What do you know about what the VMF learned or what their success criteria were? You really are in non-stop BS mode.

    Again I'm not saying the ship is shitty but russians use it like an old prostitue. Indians and Chinese often sail their carriers, probably even more than russians since 1991, and have no problems with them.

    Yeah keep making it better with the "old prostitute" analogy which has exactly zero value other than as a low level insult. It is only recently that Russia has had the resources and attention to start thinking about power projection. India and China not being destroyed in the 90's surely plays a role, regardless and correct me if I am wrong, the only one of those countries where the carrier has been in combat has been Russia. Indians are losing planes and making a circus out of bastard interests regularly so hardly a model, of what the Chinese do and what problems they have, we know nothing.

    You guys are essentially blaming today's VMF for the failures of Yeltsin  Rolling Eyes


    GarryB wrote:Its range and speed are fine and its level of manouver are fine too. With R-77-1s it should be as capable as a fighter as any other carrier aircraft currently in use.

    Yeah it is a plane with 3000 km range, 8g overload, tiny relative footprint that can be turned, relatively easily, in the most capable naval fighter in operation, especially in the air superiority role. That is hardly something worthless you want to scrap.

    GarryB, Big_Gazza, miketheterrible and TMA1 like this post

    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 7162
    Points : 7148
    Join date : 2015-11-06

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

    Post  Isos Thu Jan 21, 2021 4:47 am

    Su-33 are going nowhere, not being substituted but upgraded with avionics for strike roles and networked combat, and their engines are being produced again, that is hardly evidence that they are going to ditch them, which was obvious in advance since the airframes are practically new.

    And what expert are you to know their airframe is "new" ?

    Could you explain us how an airframe that was build 40 years ago and mostly kept outside in the hard climat of Russia can be considered "new" ?

    And you dare saying I'm talking like an amateur.

    You surely understand that you can evolve a Su-33 into almost a Su-35-level plane, but not a Su-35 into a naval plane like the -33 don't you?

    I said unless they upgrade it to su-35 level the su-33 sucks.

    Against a formation of rafale of f-35 they will be falling from skies like moskitos.

    So VMF decided to retire the ship from service for 4 or 5 years for modernization, but left the same shitty defective boilers inside? Is this what you mean?

    The boilers were changed before Syria. They changed only half of them. I don't see why only half would need to be change when the other half worked just the same time as the ones that needed to be changed so they were in the same shape. All of them should have been replaced.

    What do you know about what the VMF learned or what their success criteria were? You really are in non-stop BS mode.

    We know :

    -2 fighters lost.
    -Arresting wires destroyed.
    -Aviation operated from ground
    -The ship was send for major upgrade at its return.

    Nothing positive was learned.

    What did you learn if I may ask ?

    You guys are essentially blaming today's VMF for the failures of Yeltsin Rolling Eyes

    And you are blaming Yelysin for the failures of Russia in the 90s.

    As far as I know Yeltsin wasn't Staline to control everything by himself and they still had amirals to take decisions for their navy.

    They choosed to maintain their nuclear fleet. Then they choosed to send a non fonctional carrier in Syria.

    It wasn't me.


    I never said I was an expert. Neither you are since you are on a random forum and not in writing for some military intel'. But what I say is certainly not stupid and the arguments are not "bullshit".

    PapaDragon likes this post

    RTN
    RTN

    Posts : 372
    Points : 349
    Join date : 2014-03-24
    Location : Fairfield, CT

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

    Post  RTN Thu Jan 21, 2021 6:38 am

    Isos wrote:

    I said unless they upgrade it to su-35 level the su-33 sucks.

    Against a formation of rafale of f-35 they will be falling from skies like moskitos.
    Su 33 sucks big time. That's why the Russian Navy opted for the Mig 29K.

    Su-33 is generation behind F-35 Navy.

    Mig 29K sucks too. Old engine. Average EW system. Lack of BVR missiles.

    Even half wit Indians have realized it. So they are in the market looking for a new carrier based fighter.

    PapaDragon likes this post

    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 2976
    Points : 2978
    Join date : 2018-03-03

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

    Post  LMFS Thu Jan 21, 2021 8:02 am

    Isos wrote:Could you explain us how an airframe that was build 40 years ago and mostly kept outside in the hard climat of Russia can be considered "new" ?

    Because they have been used sparsely and that has been reported multiple times.

    And you dare saying I'm talking like an amateur.

    No, you are an amateur (as myself BTW) that talks as if your knowledge was head and shoulders above that of the VMF command, that is what looks weird.

    You like to make bold statements, here you have boldness. Sorry if it hurts your feelings but it is the truth

    I said unless they upgrade it to su-35 level the su-33 sucks.


    You said they are being replaced.

    The boilers were changed before Syria. They changed only half of them. I don't see why only half would need to be change when the other half worked just the same time as the ones that needed to be changed so they were in the same shape. All of them should have been replaced.

    Two options, either they did it because the whole VMF are idiots or you are missing some bits of information, guess what is more likely.

    Regardless, propulsion including boilers have been exchanged recently. It is simply not worth reading when you say VMF is modernizing the ship and leaving useless old material inside that defeats the whole purpose of the repair.

    Nothing positive was learned.


    I can think of many things they could have learned. And there are dozens more we cannot even imagine, because professionals do have detailed plans for what is expected for such an important deployment, it is just that neither you or I have access to them.

    What did you learn if I may ask ?


    Russia has followed a very logical path to restore their military, starting with nuclear forces, continuing with conventional deterrence around their territory and only recently they have started putting some focus on power projection. In order to do a proper development of their oceanic fleet and specifically about future carrier plans, they needed the combat experience from Syria to have at least some real information, since they had NO combat experience related to carriers. It was critical, even when they had only been able to get the ship to a minimum of readiness, hence the hurried repairs before the mission. The problem is to think that the current state of the oceanic fleet and particularly of naval aviation and carrier is the desired end state and not work ongoing, only someone that has not read nothing from VMF command talking about their assessment of the situation and corresponding plans can think that. The whole oceanic fleet is only now starting to be developed, it is pointless to talk about Kuznetsov or naval aviation as if they were done deals, they are just starting to receive some attention now...

    And you are blaming Yelysin for the failures of Russia in the 90s.

    I don't care about Yeltsin, the issue at hand is that the damage was done way before the K went to Syria and the VMF is just doing what needs to be done, following every painful step one after the other. There will be whining as there was with every other aspect of the Russian military that was restored until now, so no problem, we are used to it.

    RTN wrote:Su 33 sucks big time. That's why the Russian Navy opted for the Mig 29K.

    Su-33 is generation behind F-35 Navy.

    Mig 29K sucks too. Old engine. Average EW system. Lack of BVR missiles.

    Even half wit Indians have realized it. So they are in the market looking for a new carrier based fighter.

    It seems the troll party goes on. We know every plane is crap compared to the "optionally supersonic" F-35C Laughing

    Big_Gazza, kvs and Backman like this post

    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 7162
    Points : 7148
    Join date : 2015-11-06

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

    Post  Isos Thu Jan 21, 2021 8:22 am

    Because they have been used sparsely and that has been reported multiple times.

    They have been staying outside for 40 years. Even if they were not used they are hardly "new".

    No, you are an amateur (as myself BTW) that talks as if your knowledge was head and shoulders above that of the VMF command, that is what looks weird.

    You like to make bold statements, here you have boldness. Sorry if it hurts your feelings but it is the truth

    They seem to agree with me since they send it for a major upgrade after Syrian fiasco.

    If the ship was so good like you say they would have send it off Venezuela.

    You said they are being replaced.

    They are. They bought 20 mig-29K. The carrier can't carry more than that.

    Su-33 got minor upgrades and is not produced anymore. It has no future.

    Two options, either they did it because the whole VMF are idiots or you are missing some bits of information, guess what is more likely.

    Regardless, propulsion including boilers have been exchanged recently. It is simply not worth reading when you say VMF is modernizing the ship and leaving useless old material inside that defeats the whole purpose of the repair.

    Or they didn't want to put lot of money in it. Then they saw the Syrian fiasco and invested in this ship because it was the only solution.

    Scrapping means no carrier which also means they will pay lot of money to get back that capability.

    Minor upgrade means only training which is a waste of time with such bug ship.

    Major upgrade means having a nice carrier.

    They went with the 2nd option and failed. Now they are going with the 3rd option.

    I can think of many things they could have learned. And there are dozens more we cannot even imagine, because professionals do have detailed plans for what is expected for such an important deployment, it is just that neither you or I have access to them.

    From what we saw it is a failure. Sure they learned some interesting things but at the end they surely were not happy with the results.

    PapaDragon likes this post

    Scorpius
    Scorpius

    Posts : 174
    Points : 176
    Join date : 2020-11-05
    Age : 33

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

    Post  Scorpius Thu Jan 21, 2021 1:27 pm

    Isos wrote:
    They have been staying outside for 40 years. Even if they were not used they are hardly "new".

    God, what a pity that the Russians did not think to equip the aircraft carrier with a hangar. Wait, though... There he is:
    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 29 Scale_1200
    And here is an approximate layout of the mixed wing in the hangar:
    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 29 0_129a00_8921f959_orig

    In addition, I'm afraid to imagine what you will say about these guys, each of whom is more than 60 years old:
    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 29 2a89a5f135a50edc64cf10803fbd7c3e

    By the way, the "old" Su-33s were produced in 1993-1997, that is, they roughly correspond to the age of these guys:
    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 29 Nortrop-b-2-dux-strategicheskij-bombardirovshhik-vvs-ssha
    At the same time, the Su-33 has a significantly more reinforced fuselage, which is designed for operation in a deliberately more severe climate.


    They seem to agree with me since they send it for a major upgrade after Syrian fiasco.

    First, the modernization of Kuznetsov was planned long before the military campaign in Syria. Secondly, the Syrian campaign was a triumph, not a fiasco: Kuznetsov proved that it is a combat-ready universal aircraft carrier that can effectively operate at a considerable distance from Russian territories. If you "accidentally forgot" - Kuznetsov's visit came during the period of the fiercest fighting for Aleppo, and his air group definitely made a significant contribution then.


    If the ship was so good like you say they would have send it off Venezuela.
    Absolutely unfounded statement. Why do we need Kuznetsov in Venezuela, when we can always operate much faster and more efficiently with these guys:
    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 29 DuE8PKJWkAEDz3j

    They are. They bought 20 mig-29K. The carrier can't carry more than that.
    First, Kuznetsov can carry not only the Mig-29K. Even in Syria, with an incomplete air wing, there were 26 combat aircraft on board Kuznetsov.
    Secondly, when talking about the air wing, you forget that Kuznetsov carries another 12 units:
    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 29 Raketi-p-700-granit-3m45-protivokorabelnij_9
    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 29 Scale_1200
    And this is even if we forget that Kuznetsov has one of the most powerful air defense systems on warships in the world.

    Su-33 got minor upgrades and is not produced anymore. It has no future.


    Oh, I just don't want to read this shit anymore. Reasoning at the level of the kindergarten nursery group.
    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 29 EJRYs37WwAEb6L6

    GarryB, Big_Gazza, kvs, miketheterrible and Backman like this post

    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 8725
    Points : 8868
    Join date : 2014-09-10
    Location : Canuckistan

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

    Post  kvs Thu Jan 21, 2021 1:55 pm

    You give kindergartners too little credit. They have an excuse for being ignorant and do not engage in pretentious poser
    arguments and claims. Adults or teens who engage in such drivel spew have no excuse.

    On the topic of Russia every fucking westerner is the final authority and they all claim that Russia = fail. This sort of
    brain damage is why we have never ending drang nach osten.



    miketheterrible and Scorpius like this post

    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 7162
    Points : 7148
    Join date : 2015-11-06

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

    Post  Isos Thu Jan 21, 2021 2:07 pm

    Nice pictures. Too bad that they prove nothing but fanboi crap bullshit blindness.

    All of you points were debunked by my previoys posts. I won't loose my timr responding to each of your stupid statements.

    PapaDragon likes this post

    Scorpius
    Scorpius

    Posts : 174
    Points : 176
    Join date : 2020-11-05
    Age : 33

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

    Post  Scorpius Thu Jan 21, 2021 2:12 pm

    Isos wrote:Nice pictures. Too bad that they prove nothing but fanboi crap bullshit blindness.

    All of you points were debunked by my previoys posts. I won't loose my timr responding to each of your stupid statements.
    In matters of specialized competencies, I prefer to believe the people who served on this ship, rather than the random English-speaking victims of Western BS-news.

    Big_Gazza, kvs, miketheterrible and Backman like this post

    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 7162
    Points : 7148
    Join date : 2015-11-06

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

    Post  Isos Thu Jan 21, 2021 2:59 pm

    Scorpius wrote:
    Isos wrote:Nice pictures. Too bad that they prove nothing but fanboi crap bullshit blindness.

    All of you points were debunked by my previoys posts. I won't loose my timr responding to each of your stupid statements.
    In matters of specialized competencies, I prefer to believe the people who served on this ship, rather than the random English-speaking victims of Western BS-news.

    Those people sent this ship for an upgrade after the fiasco in Syria. What don't you understand ?

    Reality is far away from your fanboi biased vision. I'm not asking to believe me. I provided facts.

    Su-33 is outdated and they have 5 or 6 level of sukhoi aircraft above them. They suck.

    They are buying mig-29Kr to replace them.

    In Syria its aviation operated from Hmeimim and they lost 2 aircraft because of the ship. That's not how z carrier based aviation is supposed to work neither does it provide any training or experience.

    They sent it directly for major upgrade after its come back.

    Those are facts. Not my opinion.
    Backman
    Backman

    Posts : 356
    Points : 360
    Join date : 2020-11-10

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

    Post  Backman Thu Jan 21, 2021 4:32 pm

    Aesthetically which one looks better ? Just the lines and the shape.

    IMO the Kuznetsov is a better looking boat

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 29 Maxresdefault



    Last edited by Backman on Thu Jan 21, 2021 4:42 pm; edited 1 time in total

    GarryB, Big_Gazza and Scorpius like this post

    TMA1
    TMA1

    Posts : 92
    Points : 94
    Join date : 2020-11-29

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

    Post  TMA1 Thu Jan 21, 2021 4:39 pm

    RTN wrote:
    Isos wrote:

    I said unless they upgrade it to su-35 level the su-33 sucks.

    Against a formation of rafale of f-35 they will be falling from skies like moskitos.
    Su 33 sucks big time. That's why the Russian Navy opted for the Mig 29K.

    Su-33 is generation behind F-35 Navy.

    Mig 29K sucks too. Old engine. Average EW system. Lack of BVR missiles.

    Even half wit Indians have realized it. So they are in the market looking for a new carrier based fighter.

    rd-33mk is a heavy upgrade and besides Indians bashing it lately i have read thst it is a solid engine. the EW suite can be changed to suit the environment. also i am pretty sure mig-29k's have radars and avionics capable of utilizing the r-77-1, which is a very good missile.

    Big_Gazza and Scorpius like this post

    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 8725
    Points : 8868
    Join date : 2014-09-10
    Location : Canuckistan

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

    Post  kvs Thu Jan 21, 2021 4:50 pm

    The comparison with the F-35 is retarded. Transcendentally retarded. No NATzO aircraft carrier is ever going to go
    against Russia. They will not last a few minutes before being turned into scrap on the bottom of the ocean. When
    Daesh gets F-35s and its own Ford class aircraft carriers perhaps such comparisons will have a tinge of meaning.

    miketheterrible likes this post

    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 2293
    Points : 2293
    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 Thu Jan 21, 2021 5:02 pm

    Isos wrote:Those are facts. Not my opinion.

    Bullshit. They are opinions, nothing more.

    kvs, miketheterrible, LMFS and Scorpius like this post

    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 2293
    Points : 2293
    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 Thu Jan 21, 2021 5:07 pm

    Backman wrote:IMO the Kuznetsov is a better looking boat

    If the 2 Brit carriers were Russian or Chinese then they would be sledged mercilessly for being ugly (and for being STOBAR) but since they were built by Muricas ever-faithful stooge from the Eurotrash periphery they will be exulted as "innovative" and held as an example of Western prowess.

    Double standards and spiteful propaganda seem to be the only renewable resource of any note in the West these days.

    kvs, miketheterrible, Scorpius and Backman like this post

    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 7162
    Points : 7148
    Join date : 2015-11-06

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

    Post  Isos Thu Jan 21, 2021 5:17 pm

    Big_Gazza wrote:
    Isos wrote:Those are facts. Not my opinion.

    Bullshit.  They are opinions, nothing more.

    Yeah I think I have to give up here. lol1

    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 Fri Feb 26, 2021 11:12 am