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 : 7150
    Points : 7136
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 31 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Isos Mon Feb 15, 2021 1:20 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:Unlike the NF, the BSF is short on modern ships & firepower, & has only land based fixed wing fighters, as the article explained. NATO ships don't feel threatened there as much as they would be with a TAKR or even a UDK/LHA there.

    They have 3 Grigorovitch and 3 or 4 improved kilo. Much more modern than northern fleet before Gorshkov acceptance.

    Crimea is the perfect carrier there. Sukhois can cover all the black sea, they have supply of long range missiles directly from Russia by land or cargo plane, they have A-50U and S-400/pantsir for protection.

    K has 12 outdated su-33, 4 mig-29K and outdated ka-31.

    I don't even know why I reply to this bullshit.

    JohninMK likes this post

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5364
    Points : 5358
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 31 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Mon Feb 15, 2021 1:31 am

    K has 12 outdated su-33, 4 mig-29K and outdated ka-31.
    they can & at least some could be upgraded.
    That was just a thought!
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 27896
    Points : 28424
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 31 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  GarryB Mon Feb 15, 2021 7:45 am

    However the Kuznetsov comes back 2021 or 2022, i am just amazed that they didnt have a backup to the arrest wire breakdown.

    All arrested recovery aircraft carriers carry dozens of cables.... probably hundreds... but they don't last forever and each landing the cable that is caught depends on the landing so one cable might get caught repeatedly and need to be replaced every other day, while the last or the first wire might never get caught and therefore never break and never need replacing... there are normally four cables there and if one breaks they normally land the aircraft before replacing it... but replacing them is trivial... broken cables are usually removed to prevent them doing damage to the plane when it comes around for a second go... but they normally fit a new one after the plane has landed or if it keeps missing now there is a gap in the cables with the broken one taken away.

    Maybe you can enlighten me if the US carriers have a backup for the EM or arrest wires?

    EM is the catapult system and has nothing to do with the arrester gear or arrester cables.

    The EM cat is better than the steam cat because if you make a mistake it can correct itself. With both catapult systems you tell it what type of aircraft is attached and what its fuel and weapon and load out is... a heavy aircraft with a heavy payload is going to need more of a push than a light aircraft with a light load.

    Some aircraft have acceleration limits with different fuel weights or external fuel tank loadouts.

    If you get it wrong in a steam cat the front undercarriage might get ripped off with too much power, or a heavy aircraft might roll down the run and drop into the water with not enough power to get it airborne.

    The EM cat can be smart and during the launch it can increase or decrease power to suit the aircraft taking off so if it looks like it is not going fast enough it can boost power and make it go faster to get it airborne.

    But this is nothing to do with arrester gear.

    The arrester gear is like the gearbox in your car... a high gear and it spins fast and a lower gear it goes slower.

    When the aircraft first catches the cable... one of four lying there to be caught, the gearbox is in high gear so the cable feeds out rapidly but then the gearbox drops a gear and the tension increases... the cable still feeds out but not as fast, and then it drops down another gear and feeds it out much slower and eventually it stops feeding out at all and the aircraft comes to a complete stop.

    If it didn't feed out any cable at all then the weight and momentum of the aircraft would snap the cable every time because no cable is strong enough to stop an aircraft like that.

    If the arrester gear just fed out unlimited cable the cable would not slow the plane down and it would just run down the deck and off the edge into the water.

    What it does instead is it feeds out cable initially and then it starts to increase the tension on the cable which slows the plane down... sort of like gradually applying brakes in a car... if you jammed your foot down and the wheels locked you would skid and not slow down very fast at all.

    The purpose of the arrester gear is to absorb the momentum of the aircraft landing over time and not all at once so the cables don't break.

    The cables don't last forever and occasionally they do break but three cables breaking in three consecutive attempts to land is so unlikely as to suggest some other problem.

    The old carriers had nets, but i doubt they are still in use today...

    Old carriers used nets... straight deck carriers, with prop driven aircraft that were much lighter and much slower than the aircraft of today.

    A net would damage a new aircraft by cutting into wings and nose radomes and would probably still not be strong enough to stop modern aircraft... they were used to stop light prop driven aircraft that were landing from running in to other aircraft sitting on the front of the deck.

    Angled decks these days mean when you land with your tail hook down to catch a cable you can flick your engines into full AB so if you miss the cable you can accelerate and recover enough speed so that when you get to the end of the angled runway you are going fast enough to pull your nose up and climb away... retract your wheels and hook and fly around and have another go...

    When landing on a straight deck carrier you ran into the net and hoped it stopped you because your propeller is likely fouled by the net so you are not getting airborne again till you stop the prop and you pick bits of net out of it.

    This is 1 more reason to have the Adm. K CBG there; with its AShMs it could target NATO ships while at an anchorage off Sebastopol or Novorossiysk.

    HATO ships at anchorage off Sevastopol and Novorossiysk could be shelled with coastal artillery and land based anti ship missile bases... there is no need to waste time with the Kuznetsov bottled up in the Black Sea... that would be silly.

    One Buyan-M corvette with 8 Onyx missiles could sink all the US ships they care to sail in there without leaving port.

    the Bastions r more vulnerable on land,

    The Bastion Trucks and the other emplaced anti ship missile bases on the Crimea and Russian territory would be well protected with other land based assets and aircraft to protect them.

    The Kuznetsov on the other hand would be a sitting duck with the land based air power of all those HATO countries...

    & the Adm. K will get new AshMs soon.

    But will it? We really don't actually know. They might decide that that location could be an ideal place to fit a catapult system to help launch heavier aircraft...

    While in the E. Med., by its mere presence, it can prevent NATO ships from sailing to the Black Sea; it's AW can help to protect the fleet from air & submarine threats.

    Russia wants as many HATO ships to enter the Black Sea as Turkey will allow.

    Have you heard the term shooting fish in a barrel?

    Unlike the NF, the BSF is short on modern ships & firepower, & has only land based fixed wing fighters, as the article explained. NATO ships don't feel threatened there as much as they would be with a TAKR or even a UDK/LHA there.

    The Black Sea is a lake whose borders are largely now hostile to Russia... from the Ukraine through the EU/HATO countries, and then Turkey and then Georgia.... how many big ships does it make sense to have in there?

    In comparison the Northern Fleet will be one end of a transport corridor leading between the EU and Asia and is potentially enormously valuable to Russia and to the EU and Asia... and something the Americans don't control which pisses them off immensely.

    They have 3 Grigorovitch and 3 or 4 improved kilo.

    More than enough to sink the small number of ships that Turkey will allow into the Black Sea at any one time...


    K has 12 outdated su-33, 4 mig-29K and outdated ka-31.

    The airspace over the black sea is covered by all sorts of systems which don't really have any gaps that require an aircraft carrier to fill. Land based aircraft could cover the entire lake easily enough.

    The Northern fleet on the other hand would benefit from the range of fighters and low altitude detection performance of the Ka-31 which has recently been adopted by the Russian Army for low altitude radar tracking and monitoring of ground and air targets on a battlefield.

    they can & at least some could be upgraded.
    That was just a thought!

    It is a thought that article was hinting at.... just like that other article hinting that upgrading and expanding the Far East of Russia and the Far North was a waste of time and the Southern districts needed a boost.

    America wants Russia to stop looking north and to the far east and to be a trade route land air and sea between Europe and Asia because Europe and Asia and Russia will benefit but it wont improve things for the US at all... boo hoo.

    Scorpius likes this post

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5364
    Points : 5358
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 31 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Mon Feb 15, 2021 8:30 pm

    HATO ships at anchorage off Sevastopol and Novorossiysk could be shelled with coastal artillery and land based anti ship missile bases...
    u didn't get it: the Adm. K while at an anchorage off Sebastopol or Novorossiysk.
    there is no need to waste time with the Kuznetsov bottled up in the Black Sea...
    it won't be bottled up, & it'll be more useful there for other reasons, as I was saying before.
    The Bastion Trucks and the other emplaced anti ship missile bases on the Crimea and Russian territory would be well protected with other land based assets and aircraft to protect them.
    under massive attacks they may not be able to deal with ships; "when going to war, get all the ammo u can".
    The Kuznetsov on the other hand would be a sitting duck with the land based air power of all those HATO countries...
    it'll have updated defensive armaments & the Russian land based air power will help to defend it.
    They might decide that that location could be an ideal place to fit a catapult system to help launch heavier aircraft...
    no, the missile compartment is behind the ski rump, so the catapult would be on the angled deck; it will keep Ash/LACMs to remain a TAKR.
    Also, its AW can attack NATO ships from its deck or land bases.
    The Black Sea is a lake whose borders are largely now hostile to Russia...how many big ships does it make sense to have in there?
    the Baltic is even a smaller lake, but the Baltic Fleet has more ships & missile boats, & Will Get Six New Warships in the next few years.
    They have 3 Grigorovitch and 3 or 4 improved kilo.
    More than enough to sink the small number of ships that Turkey will allow into the Black Sea at any one time...
    not if they r destroyed/disabled at their bases or at sea.
    The airspace over the black sea is covered by all sorts of systems which don't really have any gaps that require an aircraft carrier to fill.
    true, but having it there will make it easier, & it could be used for realistic training against NATO forces & their allies, killing 2 birds with 1 stone. Also, every time it uses the Turkish Straits, it will show the flag & undermine NATO unity, helping Turkey to become another France.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Mon Feb 15, 2021 8:39 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : add link)
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 27896
    Points : 28424
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 31 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  GarryB Tue Feb 16, 2021 5:20 am

    u didn't get it: the Adm. K while at an anchorage off Sebastopol or Novorossiysk.

    There is no point putting their only aircraft carrier either place... the idea of an aircraft carrier is to be able to operate aircraft to support your naval operations beyond the range of your land based air power.

    There is a reason they sent the K to Syria for testing but relied on land bases for normal air operations through most of that conflict.

    Land based is easier and cheaper and more reliable and more easily defended... but often when operations are a long way from home then land based is not an option which is what aircraft carriers are for.

    Bigger heavier aircraft with much better and heavier armament options can operate from land air bases that can be covered by all manner of ground based gun and missile air defence as well as its own fighters.

    The other obvious problem is how do you get it in the Black Sea in the first place?

    it won't be bottled up, & it'll be more useful there for other reasons, as I was saying before.

    More than half the coastline of the Black Sea is HATO or Ukraine or Georgian... sounds more trouble than it is worth...

    It would also be massively vulnerable if it was a US Nimitz class carrier too... Carriers never like getting that close to enemy territory... it just isn't safe... a single bomber run at low level through the straights, or one submarine mine layer and they are trapped till the mines are cleared.

    under massive attacks they may not be able to deal with ships; "when going to war, get all the ammo u can".

    They are major naval bases... they will easily have rather more anti ship missiles than HATO is allowed ships in the Black Sea... the Kuznetsov does not carry much in the way of anti ship weapons apart from the 12 Granits that might have been removed already anyway.

    I rather suspect their Iskander will have the ability to hit naval ships too and considering they are hypersonic manouvering missiles intended to evade SAM interception I would think they would be ideal for sinking ships too... though extended range models would more likely be hammering AEGIS Ashore in Poland...

    it'll have updated defensive armaments & the Russian land based air power will help to defend it.

    The K would not improve protection in that situation and would also create problems like how to get it in there to start with.

    no, the missile compartment is behind the ski rump, so the catapult would be on the angled deck; it will keep Ash/LACMs to remain a TAKR.

    Of course it is behind the Ski ramp... otherwise it would be angled backwards...

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 31 Uivlry10

    the Baltic is even a smaller lake, but the Baltic Fleet has more ships & missile boats, & Will Get Six New Warships in the next few years

    But no aircraft carrier...

    not if they r destroyed/disabled at their bases or at sea.

    Their air defence systems are much newer and based on newer missiles... I would suspect HATO would be getting nuked by the time these ships are in trouble.

    true, but having it there will make it easier, & it could be used for realistic training against NATO forces & their allies

    Its role is to operate on the other side of the planet and open the worlds oceans to Russian influence... HATO forces can be destroyed with truck mounted multi stage Iskander missiles and modified land launched Zircons.

    killing 2 birds with 1 stone. Also, every time it uses the Turkish Straits, it will show the flag & undermine NATO unity, helping Turkey to become another France.

    The K was in refit... then it went to Syria and now it is back in refit... at no point did they mention sending it to the Black Sea, and I doubt that would ever be considered... no matter what it is armed with and what they call it.

    HATO can pretend its mission is to save the world from Russia, but Russia should not waste a lot of time trying to match or "take on" HATO.

    A few nuclear strikes and tactics will mean nothing.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5364
    Points : 5358
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 31 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Tue Feb 16, 2021 6:58 am

    GarryB wrote:
    u didn't get it: the Adm. K while at an anchorage off Sebastopol or Novorossiysk.

    There is no point putting their only aircraft carrier either place... the idea of an aircraft carrier is to be able to operate aircraft to support your naval operations beyond the range of your land based air power.
    There is a reason they sent the K to Syria for testing but relied on land bases for normal air operations through most of that conflict. ..
    Its role is to operate on the other side of the planet and open the worlds oceans to Russian influence...-it'll continue training & testing most of its remaining life, & I doubt they'll use it much, if at all, off the Americas, N/W/S. Africa or Australia; the Arctic/NSR/RFE r well defended w/o a TAKR, & the PLAN can face the USN, RN & FN with its own CBGs in the W. Pac & IO.

    The other obvious problem is how do you get it in the Black Sea in the first place?- Turkey won't close the straits to a TAKR; she needs good relations with Russia more than with any other country.

    it won't be bottled up, & it'll be more useful there for other reasons, as I was saying before.
    More than half the coastline of the Black Sea is HATO or Ukraine or Georgian... sounds more trouble than it is worth...-1/2 of the Persian Gulf coastline belongs to well armed Iran, but the USN still sends CVNs there.
    It would also be massively vulnerable if it was a US Nimitz class carrier too... Carriers never like getting that close to enemy territory...-often they have to ... a single bomber run at low level through the straights, or one submarine mine layer and they are trapped till the mines are cleared.- Iran can do it in the Strait of Hurmuz & the PRC in the Malakka Strait, yet CSGs use them all the time.
    ..the Kuznetsov does not carry much in the way of anti ship weapons apart from the 12 Granits that might have been removed already anyway.- by all indications, they'll be replaced with more & better missiles.

    no, the missile compartment is behind the ski rump, so the catapult would be on the angled deck; it will keep Ash/LACMs to remain a TAKR.
    Of course it is behind the Ski ramp... otherwise it would be angled backwards...-when I catch u making a mistake, u resort to wisecracks. Pay attention to detail next time, as they say in the USN!
    the Baltic is even a smaller lake, but the Baltic Fleet has more ships & missile boats, & Will Get Six New Warships in the next few years
    But no aircraft carrier...-true, but its climate isn't much better than in the Barents Sea, there's less room free of shipping & air traffic, & there r no NITKAs nearby.

    not if they r destroyed/disabled at their bases or at sea.
    Their air defence systems are much newer and based on newer missiles... I would suspect HATO would be getting nuked by the time these ships are in trouble.- not if they use Ukr. or Georgian navy they r building up against Russia.

    true, but having it there will make it easier, & it could be used for realistic training against NATO forces & their allies
    HATO forces can be destroyed with truck mounted multi stage Iskander missiles and modified land launched Zircons.- not relevant to training ops it can conduct in the BS & E. Med.

    killing 2 birds with 1 stone. Also, every time it uses the Turkish Straits, it will show the flag & undermine NATO unity, helping Turkey to become another France.
    The K was in refit... then it went to Syria and now it is back in refit... at no point did they mention sending it to the Black Sea, and I doubt that would ever be considered... no matter what it is armed with and what they call it.
    - the Russians r good at improvising, using adversity to their advantage to get on top of any situation. Case in point: NP icebreakers.

    avatar
    hoom

    Posts : 2166
    Points : 2156
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 31 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  hoom Sun Feb 21, 2021 11:43 am

    Some progress pics of the drydock expansion
    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 31 19-9491665-kym7ij7m23c
    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.
    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 31 23-9413513-iorfxtjotgm

    K itself appears to be getting a major radar/ecm upgrade
    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 31 08-9369973-instapic-48934
    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 31 08-9369973-instapic-48935
    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 31 08-9369985-instapic-48936
    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 31 08-9369985-instapic-48937
    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 31 08-9369989-instapic-48938
    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 31 08-9369989-instapic-48939
    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 31 08-9370001-instapic-48940
    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 31 08-9370001-instapic-48941

    George1, Big_Gazza, kvs, JohninMK, slasher, DerWolf, zardof and like this post

    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 2291
    Points : 2291
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 31 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Big_Gazza Sun Feb 21, 2021 11:33 pm

    Nice pics. Good to see the old girl up on the blocks thumbsup

    I guess we can put to bed any stupid suggetions from the Kuznetsov-haters that she is a pile of junk and will never return to service? Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing

    LMFS likes this post

    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 866
    Points : 894
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 31 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  mnztr Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:12 am

    I wonder if they decide to upgrade the KUz radar vs PTG since the need for this ship in the long run is greater then PTG.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 2962
    Points : 2964
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 31 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  LMFS Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:34 am

    Good info!

    I was wondering how they would solve the dock issue, since direction inland it seemed difficult to reach the needed length. It seems they will extend it to the end of the existing left dock, maybe:

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 31 Sy55_010

    From that end to the bottom of the shortest dock, which probably will be the end of the enlarged structure, it is almost 400 m. So space more than enough for the Kuznetsov or several smaller vessels
    avatar
    hoom

    Posts : 2166
    Points : 2156
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 31 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  hoom Mon Feb 22, 2021 7:39 am

    Oh there is an update on Google Earth, July 2020
    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 31 UXT6fmQ
    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.

    kvs and LMFS like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 27896
    Points : 28424
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 31 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  GarryB Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:55 am

    -it'll continue training & testing most of its remaining life,

    I would agree with that... it will be more about allowing the Russian navy to safely expand globally than an invasion tool as the west uses their carriers.

    & I doubt they'll use it much, if at all, off the Americas, N/W/S.

    I disagree... with the beligerance of the west and the US in particular I rather suspect the first voyage for the Kuznetsov and the newly upgraded Orlan class ship will probably be a trip to central and south America... Cuba and Venezuela and might even visit Mexico and Argentina to help with ties... and if they are going all the way down there anyway why not Peru and Brazil as well... it would be a good trip to test out the new upgrades and the new support ships they are building now too.

    Africa or Australia;

    Africa and Asia yes, but why bother with Australia or New Zealand... they will just moan that there are not enough trans gender crew on board the ships...

    the Arctic/NSR/RFE r well defended w/o a TAKR,

    Well that is not true... having a floating carrier up there gives flexibility and adds reach... you could launch a MiG-29KR with three external fuel tanks with a buddy refuelling system and they could climb up and refuel MiG-31s on patrol 1,000km from land based airfields... just as an example...

    & the PLAN can face the USN, RN & FN with its own CBGs in the W. Pac & IO.

    Yeah, I don't think Russia is going to give up the entire Pacific region because China is already there... Russia could help China learn to use their new ships rather more effectively by having a naval presence there and training with the Chinese forces to offset Chinas opponents all ganging up together against China... maybe a few exercises with China and Russia and North Korean naval forces working together to fight piracy...

    China could practise protecting small islands for instance... in that region Russia could practise the same...

    - Turkey won't close the straits to a TAKR; she needs good relations with Russia more than with any other country.

    Russia hasn't got any shipyards in the black sea that can handle the Kuznetsov... there is no point in taking her in there.

    -1/2 of the Persian Gulf coastline belongs to well armed Iran, but the USN still sends CVNs there.

    They don't go very close any more.

    -often they have to

    They some times get no choice you are right so that means it would be fucking stupid to sail into the Black Sea when there is no reason for them to do so.

    Do you have any shred of evidence that suggests they would ever sail the Kuznetsov into the Black Sea?

    - Iran can do it in the Strait of Hurmuz & the PRC in the Malakka Strait, yet CSGs use them all the time.

    They have good reasons for passing through those areas... there is no sensible reason for Russian CVs to enter the BS.

    - by all indications, they'll be replaced with more & better missiles.

    I would doubt it... if anything they might replace the Granits with PAKET-NKs anti torpedo weapons, or 91ER1s or their new replacement anti sub weapon.

    -when I catch u making a mistake, u resort to wisecracks. Pay attention to detail next time, as they say in the USN!

    What mistake... you can't mount anything in front of the ski jump on a carrier... there is no ship in front of the ski jumps.

    -true, but its climate isn't much better than in the Barents Sea, there's less room free of shipping & air traffic, & there r no NITKAs nearby.

    They have never based the Kuznetsov in the Black Sea so there have never been Nitkas nearby.

    - not if they use Ukr. or Georgian navy they r building up against Russia.

    The Georgian and Ukrainian navy combined would be sunk by a single Russian new Corvette... neither force is a threat to anyone but themselves.

    - not relevant to training ops it can conduct in the BS & E. Med.

    What training ops? The Eastern Med and the Black Sea region will be hit with cruise missile and Intermediate range ballistic missiles... there is no need for naval activity there at all in a WWIII scenario.

    - the Russians r good at improvising, using adversity to their advantage to get on top of any situation.

    I agree they are good at improvising, but that does not change the facts that there is no reason to send the Kuznetsov to the Black Sea... it is not a priority naval base... it is a 10,000km long choke point and ambush alley from Sevastopol to Gibraltar. and it simply does not make sense.

    In 30 years time when they have two CVNs in service they will operate the north sea route and be based in Murmansk in the northern fleet and the Pacific fleet and will practice in the arctic cold because that is where they will be operating most of the time.

    I wonder if they decide to upgrade the KUz radar vs PTG since the need for this ship in the long run is greater then PTG.

    The sensors they can fit on a ship this size makes them rather unique, so they could probably use the 2,500km range AESA radar for the S-500 on this ship as the basis for a radar system amongst other antenna sets...

    The Kuznetsov will certainly add more to the current Russian fleet than another upgraded cruiser would... traditionally they don't travel a huge amount so having two Orlans and perhaps three upgraded Slavas should already be enough in terms of escorts, while the carrier and other platforms will fill the force out a lot but they do need to speed up development of the new destroyers.

    After expanding shipyard facilities in the far east and the far north it makes even less sense to base their aircraft carriers any where else.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5364
    Points : 5358
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 31 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:30 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    the Arctic/NSR/RFE r well defended w/o a TAKR,
    Well that is not true... having a floating carrier up there gives flexibility and adds reach... you could launch a MiG-29KR with three external fuel tanks with a buddy refuelling system and they could climb up and refuel MiG-31s on patrol 1,000km from land based airfields... just as an example...- their airfields network on the cost/islands & MiG-31/Su-34 range/endurance eliminate the need for that.

    & the PLAN can face the USN, RN & FN with its own CBGs in the W. Pac & IO.
    Yeah, I don't think Russia is going to give up the entire Pacific region because China is already there...-she didn't have a TAKR there since the Minsk was sold for scrap, & could keep her Pac. coast & SLOCs safe for decades more.
    Russia could help China learn to use their new ships rather more effectively by having a naval presence there and training with the Chinese forces to offset Chinas opponents all ganging up together against China... maybe a few exercises with China and Russia and North Korean naval forces working together to fight piracy...China could practise protecting small islands for instance... in that region Russia could practise the same...- all that could be done w/o a Russian CBG. Also, No1 used CV/Ns to fight piracy anywhere; cheaper & easier to send LHA/UDKs with FFG/DDG/CGs.

    - Turkey won't close the straits to a TAKR; she needs good relations with Russia more than with any other country.
    Russia hasn't got any shipyards in the black sea that can handle the Kuznetsov... there is no point in taking her in there.- they can expand the Zaliv; even if not, Russia can use the excuse of "regular repairs" to go out & back as she dies with her subs in the BSF.

    -1/2 of the Persian Gulf coastline belongs to well armed Iran, but the USN still sends CVNs there.
    They don't go very close any more. - at its widest, it's not any wider then the Black Sea, & Iranian AshMs can hit anything there even from deep inland.

    -often they have to
    They some times get no choice you are right so that means it would be fucking stupid to sail into the Black Sea when there is no reason for them to do so.- the BS is ~ as wide as the Sea Of Japan, & TAKR Minsk sailed on it; sometimes the USN CVNs go there. That's the tyranny of geography that  Russia has to deal with.

    Do you have any shred of evidence that suggests they would ever sail the Kuznetsov into the Black Sea?- no, but it could happen, should they decide that the benefits outweigh the costs.

    - Iran can do it in the Strait of Hurmuz & the PRC in the Malakka Strait, yet CSGs use them all the time.
    They have good reasons for passing through those areas... there is no sensible reason for Russian CVs to enter the BS.-not any less than to enter the Med. Sea & losing 2 fighters there.

    - by all indications, they'll be replaced with more & better missiles.
    I would doubt it... if anything they might replace the Granits with PAKET-NKs anti torpedo weapons, or 91ER1s or their new replacement anti sub weapon.- it would be stupid not to use such large platform to carry ASh/LACMs, given the shortage of large surface ships.

    -when I catch u making a mistake, u resort to wisecracks. Pay attention to detail next time, as they say in the USN!
    What mistake... you can't mount anything in front of the ski jump on a carrier... there is no ship in front of the ski jumps.- ur mistake was to suggest a catapult in the same spot as the missile compartment, which is, as u correctly pointed out before, not compatible with the ski rump. It could be installed there but then the rump would need to be removed.

    -true, but its climate isn't much better than in the Barents Sea, there's less room free of shipping & air traffic, & there r no NITKAs nearby.
    They have never based the Kuznetsov in the Black Sea so there have never been Nitkas nearby.
    - there r now 2 NITKAs in the BS region.

    - not relevant to training ops it can conduct in the BS & E. Med.
    What training ops? The Eastern Med and the Black Sea region will be hit with cruise missile and Intermediate range ballistic missiles... there is no need for naval activity there at all in a WWIII scenario.- the new hybrid warfare may not escalate to WWIII.

    - the Russians r good at improvising, using adversity to their advantage to get on top of any situation.
    I agree they are good at improvising, but that does not change the facts that there is no reason to send the Kuznetsov to the Black Sea... it is not a priority naval base... it is a 10,000km long choke point and ambush alley from Sevastopol to Gibraltar. and it simply does not make sense.- the N. Atlantic, the Arctic, the Bering Strait & the SC Sea r bigger ambush alleys where subs & aircraft can track & engage CBGs form 100s of miles. The VKS planes can use bases in Crimea, Syria, Sudan & Egypt to cover the entire length of the Med./Red Seas.

    In 30 years time when they have two CVNs in service they will operate the north sea route and be based in Murmansk in the northern fleet and the Pacific fleet and will practice in the arctic cold because that is where they will be operating most of the time.- in that case, it'll be the waste of $Bs. The NSR can be better defended w/o CBGs; what's the point training in the cold if they'll sometimes deploy in the warm seas? Besides, Russia has enough of her own resources to extract to get involved in any war over Antarctica. So, the warm BS would be an ideal place to base, train, & deploy from. The NW BS could be used in the fall/winter/spring for cold & stormy weather training, if need be.
    After expanding shipyard facilities in the far east and the far north it makes even less sense to base their aircraft carriers anywhere else.
    not necessarily. The USN CVNs r based on both coasts & in Japan, but must go to the NPNS in Virginia for nuclear refueling. Will Russia have her yards in the FE capable of that, so they won't need to go to Kola? Basing a CVN in the RFE will entail more $Bs in investments in the local infrastructure & a 3rd NITKA, unless they want to be sending crews across the whole country.
    avatar
    hoom

    Posts : 2166
    Points : 2156
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 31 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  hoom Tue Feb 23, 2021 8:51 am

    The sensors they can fit on a ship this size makes them rather unique, so they could probably use the 2,500km range AESA radar for the S-500 on this ship as the basis for a radar system amongst other antenna sets...
    Problem is unless they've been quietly beavering away on it for other planned ships they won't have a stabilised, navalised mount for it.

    Hopefully they'll at least manage to drop a Podberezovik on it like on Vikramaditya
    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 31 000he0c5
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 27896
    Points : 28424
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 31 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  GarryB Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:03 am

    - their airfields network on the cost/islands & MiG-31/Su-34 range/endurance eliminate the need for that.

    An enormous volume of space... the more airfields and aircraft the better, plus the missile capacity (attack and defence) of the cruisers and destroyers supporting the carriers would be useful too.

    -she didn't have a TAKR there since the Minsk was sold for scrap, & could keep her Pac. coast & SLOCs safe for decades more.

    NSR didn't exist for most of that time... now it is a priority.

    - all that could be done w/o a Russian CBG. Also, No1 used CV/Ns to fight piracy anywhere; cheaper & easier to send LHA/UDKs with FFG/DDG/CGs.

    Training together would include coordinating all sorts of capabilities... I am sure the Chinese would be interested in what the Russians expect and vice versa.

    - they can expand the Zaliv; even if not, Russia can use the excuse of "regular repairs" to go out & back as she dies with her subs in the BSF.

    There is no reason to keep her in there in the first place.

    - at its widest, it's not any wider then the Black Sea, & Iranian AshMs can hit anything there even from deep inland.

    Not sure the US Navy is actually worried about Iranian anti ship missiles, unless they are heading to specific ports they don't go near Iranian territory.

    sometimes the USN CVNs go there.

    Bullshit.

    Ships of more than 15K tons displacement are not allowed in the Black Sea except ships of the Black Sea powers, which excludes pretty much all types of aircraft carrier or indeed most cruisers...

    - no, but it could happen, should they decide that the benefits outweigh the costs.

    They never will.

    .-not any less than to enter the Med. Sea & losing 2 fighters there.

    They entered the Med to support Russian and Syrian forces fighting terrorists as a first combat test of the ship and her new and upgraded aircraft... note they didn't do the same in 2008 in the Georgian Conflict... can you work out why?

    .- it would be stupid not to use such large platform to carry ASh/LACMs, given the shortage of large surface ships.

    Not at all, they could convert a cargo ship to carry missile tubes in cargo containers if that was necessary... and much much cheaper.

    - ur mistake was to suggest a catapult in the same spot as the missile compartment, which is, as u correctly pointed out before, not compatible with the ski rump. It could be installed there but then the rump would need to be removed.

    All three current launch take off runs go past where those launch tubes are located... that would be an ideal place to locate a momentum catapult... ie large heavy wheels that are spun up to speed and then their momentum is used to give heavy vehicles a speed boost for takeoff...

    Reduce the ski ramp to about 7-10 degrees angle and it should be fine...

    - there r now 2 NITKAs in the BS region.

    I know... and the fact that they are miles away from the Kuznetsov based in the Northern Fleet has not been a problem so far either.

    The VKS planes can use bases in Crimea, Syria, Sudan & Egypt to cover the entire length of the Med./Red Seas.

    What VKS planes are we talking about... they will be defending Russia not these foreign countries.

    By not having VKS aircraft in those countries they will actually be much safer than if they did have some there which would draw the attention of HATO.

    - in that case, it'll be the waste of $Bs. The NSR can be better defended w/o CBGs; what's the point training in the cold if they'll sometimes deploy in the warm seas?

    You do understand we are talking about ships that can leave home port and sail to distant areas and seas when they want to...

    Besides, Russia has enough of her own resources to extract to get involved in any war over Antarctica.

    Russia does have plenty of resources, but why not fight for a slice of Antarctica too... they have as much right to land down there as the US does.

    So, the warm BS would be an ideal place to base, train, & deploy from.

    Rubbish... it would be a stupid place to train and base an entire carrier group because they would barely fit and every voyage would either be very restrictive inside the BS, or even to the Med like leaving a glass marble and entering a gold fish bowl...

    In comparison the Pacific and Northern fleet gives them access to the two main oceans on the planet and enormous numbers of new customers and potential clients.

    Basing a CVN in the RFE will entail more $Bs in investments in the local infrastructure & a 3rd NITKA, unless they want to be sending crews across the whole country.

    Since the invention of jet aviation sending crews from one side of Russia to the other is trivial and cheap and simple.

    Investment in infrastructure is what they are doing and their country is benefiting from that.

    Problem is unless they've been quietly beavering away on it for other planned ships they won't have a stabilised, navalised mount for it.

    The plan early on was to have S-500 on new carriers to defend them from their own new Zircon type missiles... when the west eventually gets them.

    Fixed AESA array radar mounted in the structure on ships don't have stabilised mounts... that would look silly... they are called fixed arrays for a reason...
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5364
    Points : 5358
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 31 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Tue Feb 23, 2021 8:33 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    - their airfields network on the cost/islands & MiG-31/Su-34 range/endurance eliminate the need for that.
    An enormous volume of space... the more airfields and aircraft the better, plus the missile capacity (attack and defence) of the cruisers and destroyers supporting the carriers would be useful too.- a lot more efficient to use their new class of armed naval icebreakers &/  SSGNs that don't need any icebreakers, supported by Tu-142s, IL-38s & A-50/100s.

    -she didn't have a TAKR there since the Minsk was sold for scrap, & could keep her Pac. coast & SLOCs safe for decades more.
    NSR didn't exist for most of that time...- it did, but it wasn't used year-round.

    - all that could be done w/o a Russian CBG. Also, No1 used CV/Ns to fight piracy anywhere; cheaper & easier to send LHA/UDKs with FFG/DDG/CGs.
    Training together would include coordinating all sorts of capabilities... I am sure the Chinese would be interested in what the Russians expect and vice versa.- I'll like to see pics of their CBGs sailing to together in the Pacific or IO, but that is at least 10-15 years off at best.

    - they can expand the Zaliv; even if not, Russia can use the excuse of "regular repairs" to go out & back as she dies with her subs in the BSF.
    There is no reason to keep her in there in the first place.-IMO, there r more reasons to base her in the Black Sea than in the Barents Sea.

    - at its widest, it's not any wider then the Black Sea, & Iranian AshMs can hit anything there even from deep inland.
    Not sure the US Navy is actually worried about Iranian anti ship missiles, unless they are heading to specific ports they don't go near Iranian territory. -most of the PG is no wider than the Black Sea between S. Crimea & the Turkish coast; Iranian shore, ship & air based AshMs have the range to cover even a wider area.

    sometimes the USN CVNs go there.
    Bullshit. Ships of more than 15K tons displacement are not allowed in the Black Sea except ships of the Black Sea powers, which excludes pretty much all types of aircraft carrier or indeed most cruisers...- pl. read my posts more closely: I meant they go to the Sea of Japan; I was there on the CV-63.

    - no, but it could happen, should they decide that the benefits outweigh the costs.
    They never will.- how do u know? if nothing else, what if they decide to save $ & use her as a helo/UAV carrier &/ a Putin yacht like the Thai CV?

    .-not any less than to enter the Med. Sea & losing 2 fighters there.
    They entered the Med to support Russian and Syrian forces fighting terrorists as a first combat test of the ship and her new and upgraded aircraft... note they didn't do the same in 2008 in the Georgian Conflict... can you work out why?- even if it wasn't in the yard, by the time it arrived from Kola, the war would be over. But if it was in the BSF then, it could participate as an LHA by deploying Ka-29s & Mi-9/17s landing airborne troops, SOFs &/ marines.

    .- it would be stupid not to use such large platform to carry ASh/LACMs, given the shortage of large surface ships.
    Not at all, they could convert a cargo ship to carry missile tubes in cargo containers if that was necessary... and much much cheaper.- true, but it'll cost a lot of $ to do that & remove the missile compartment on the Adm. K.

    - ur mistake was to suggest a catapult in the same spot as the missile compartment, which is, as u correctly pointed out before, not compatible with the ski rump. It could be installed there but then the rump would need to be removed.
    Reduce the ski ramp to about 7-10 degrees angle and it should be fine...-since we don't see them doing it, it's a moot point.

    - there r now 2 NITKAs in the BS region.
    I know... and the fact that they are miles away from the Kuznetsov based in the Northern Fleet has not been a problem so far either.- wrong: Su-33s & MiG-29K on Kola need more preservation & maintenance then on Crimea or Kuban bases. there r not enough hangars & in winter they r completely covered in snow.

    The VKS planes can use bases in Crimea, Syria, Sudan & Egypt to cover the entire length of the Med./Red Seas.
    What VKS planes are we talking about... they will be defending Russia not these foreign countries.- defending the VMF ships on the high seas is defending Russia.

    By not having VKS aircraft in those countries they will actually be much safer than if they did have some there which would draw the attention of HATO.- true, but they don't need to be stationed there permanently.

    - in that case, it'll be the waste of $Bs. The NSR can be better defended w/o CBGs; what's the point training in the cold if they'll sometimes deploy in the warm seas?
    You do understand we are talking about ships that can leave home port and sail to distant areas and seas when they want to...- from the BS, they'll be no more & often even less distant than from Kola or Kamchatka.

    Besides, Russia has enough of her own resources to extract to get involved in any war over Antarctica.
    Russia does have plenty of resources, but why not fight for a slice of Antarctica too... they have as much right to land down there as the US does.- it'll be better for Russia if China gets it, so that she doesn't salivate at the RFE & Siberia instead.

    So, the warm BS would be an ideal place to base, train, & deploy from.
    Rubbish... it would be a stupid place to train and base an entire carrier group because they would barely fit and every voyage would either be very restrictive inside the BS, or even to the Med like leaving a glass marble and entering a gold fish bowl...- the BS isn't that small; it took a passenger ship I was on 2 nights & 1 day to get from Odessa to Sochi at @ 15knots; it takes a cargo ship 18 hours from Odessa to Istanbul. Depending where it'll deploy to, ships from other fleets can form a group, & it happened before in the Med. Sea.

    In comparison the Pacific and Northern fleet gives them access to the two main oceans on the planet and enormous numbers of new customers and potential clients.- let's wait till the RF economy can afford CVNs that will take advantage of that fact.

    Basing a CVN in the RFE will entail more $Bs in investments in the local infrastructure & a 3rd NITKA, unless they want to be sending crews across the whole country.
    Since the invention  of jet aviation sending crews from one side of Russia to the other is trivial and cheap and simple.- still, it's better to have local facilities than using those the other fleets r using. If they r used to fly in the BS conditions, how well will they fly in the Arctic/N. Atlantic/RFE conditions with more stormy days there in any given year?
    Investment in infrastructure is what they are doing and their country is benefiting from that.
    they'll need to do a lot more, to say the least.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 27896
    Points : 28424
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 31 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  GarryB Yesterday at 10:16 am

    - a lot more efficient to use their new class of armed naval icebreakers &/ SSGNs that don't need any icebreakers, supported by Tu-142s, IL-38s & A-50/100s.

    In 20 years time they might not even need icebreakers... that is why they are talking about the NSR opening up.

    - it did, but it wasn't used year-round.

    It was an option but ice thicknesses would mean sometimes there was just no way through and so instead of saving 14 days in each direction it would add months to the trip having to go back and go the other way.

    .- I'll like to see pics of their CBGs sailing to together in the Pacific or IO, but that is at least 10-15 years off at best.

    Why do you think that?

    Russia will be putting the K back into the water next year or the year after and the Kirov in upgrade will be ready then too... I would say a little bit of tentative testing to make sure everything works... perhaps a trip over the NSR from the northern fleet to the Pacific fleet is in order and once they get there then perhaps a trip further afield.... India would be a good safe option...

    -IMO, there r more reasons to base her in the Black Sea than in the Barents Sea.

    A reason does not count if it is no a good reason... a reason that benefits the Russian Navy is what we are after here... lack of facilities to dock and even work on the ships in the Black Sea count against it for a start.

    Russia has plenty of ice breakers and the ice is getting thinner every year.

    The Northern Fleet gives them direct access to the Arctic Ocean... an area of priority for Russia at the moment from a port with space for a carrier battle group to be based there too. They can also easily get to the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean fairly easily, which is exactly what a switch to the Navy will be for... opening up the globe to Russian products and trade.

    Putting their sole carrier in the Black Sea limits them to the many countries of HATO that have repeatedly rejected her offers of trade and cooperation and largely responded with harsh words, abuse, and sanctions.

    There is potential in north Africa and the Middle East but they don't need a carrier there for that...

    -most of the PG is no wider than the Black Sea between S. Crimea & the Turkish coast; Iranian shore, ship & air based AshMs have the range to cover even a wider area.

    Do they have the nerve to launch an attack knowing the likely response will involve attempted regime change and a brutal nasty obliteration of a couple of Iranian cities which CNN will tell you were surgical strikes, but in reality will be frustration carpet bombing because they are actually rather impotent against their more capable opponents.

    - pl. read my posts more closely: I meant they go to the Sea of Japan; I was there on the CV-63.

    With MiG-31Ks I am sure the Russians will prefer the US sends its carriers there all the time...

    - how do u know? if nothing else, what if they decide to save $ & use her as a helo/UAV carrier &/ a Putin yacht like the Thai CV?

    Because she is more use as a fixed wing carrier with real fighter planes than a joke ship with short range slow shit.

    Why do you think Putin wants a yacht?

    - even if it wasn't in the yard, by the time it arrived from Kola, the war would be over.

    It was on a Russian border... there was no need for carrier support, and at the time land based aircraft would be vastly superior to the Su-33s they had at the time...

    But if it was in the BSF then, it could participate as an LHA by deploying Ka-29s & Mi-9/17s landing airborne troops, SOFs &/ marines.

    They managed to land troops anyway... without risking a carrier.

    They realised they needed something like Mistral... but not in the Black Sea... they would need them for the Far East in case Japan started to get silly like the tie eater did.

    the four Mistral carriers they would have ended up buying would be based in the Pacific and Northern fleets too... see the pattern?

    - true, but it'll cost a lot of $ to do that & remove the missile compartment on the Adm. K.

    Buying a civilian cargo ship and put crates on its deck with equipment for landing forces and a few missile containers in the upper layers... including SAMs and ground attack strike missiles... the munitions wont be cheap but necessary.

    Replacing the Granit tubes on the K with UKSK launch tubes should be quite straight forward... they will be similar to the vertical launch tubes on one side of an Oscar class SSGN. The Oscar has two lots of 12 tubes... one set on each side outside the pressure hull. They said each existing launch tube could have three tubes installed... 24 x 3 = 72 Onyx missiles, which means half the number of tubes should fit 36 missiles... that is just putting three missile tube liners in each Granit tube so 36 Onyx or 36 91Er1 missiles could be fitted fairly quickly and easily.

    With a bit more work those 12 tubes could be removed and probably 5 UKSK launch bins could be fitted... probably for about 40 launch tubes for anything from Onyx to Zircon to all the different Kalibrs and anti sub missiles.

    Again... pretty straight forward.

    -since we don't see them doing it, it's a moot point.

    We don't know what they have done with the missile tubes... changing the ski jump deck angle is trivial.

    .- wrong: Su-33s & MiG-29K on Kola need more preservation & maintenance then on Crimea or Kuban bases. there r not enough hangars & in winter they r completely covered in snow.

    So build some hangars... it is not rocket science.

    The VKS planes can use bases in Crimea, Syria, Sudan & Egypt to cover the entire length of the Med./Red Seas.

    - defending the VMF ships on the high seas is defending Russia.

    So what you are saying is that they wont need Russian aircraft carriers in the Black Sea or the Mediterranean or Red seas because land based Russian aircraft can provide air cover support missions from land bases.

    Glad we agree.

    No need for Kuz in Med or BS.

    - true, but they don't need to be stationed there permanently.

    They could deploy and train with the country in questions air force while their ships train with their navy and practise working together.

    One of the things they learned from the Georgian attack in South Ossetia is that the naval infantry and airborne forces didn't train together very much, so practising working together is probably a very good thing all round.

    - from the BS, they'll be no more & often even less distant than from Kola or Kamchatka.

    In the northern or pacific fleets they can threaten US AEGIS class cruisers trying to intercept Russian ICBMs and SLBMs heading over the north pole and also perhaps trying to clear a path through MiG-31BMs for their bombers...

    Having Russian ships up there means more chance of sinking them with MiG-31Ks and preventing them from interfering with MAD.

    - it'll be better for Russia if China gets it, so that she doesn't salivate at the RFE & Siberia instead.

    Russia is happy to sell China most things they want... there is no point in coveting Siberia if it costs you a nuclear enema to actually try to get it.

    Would be easier for China to just try a bit of election fiddling in Alaska and buy up the local officials... they got Biden elected so he wont object.

    - the BS isn't that small; it took a passenger ship I was on 2 nights & 1 day to get from Odessa to Sochi at @ 15knots; it takes a cargo ship 18 hours from Odessa to Istanbul. Depending where it'll deploy to, ships from other fleets can form a group, & it happened before in the Med. Sea.

    It can have HATO subs and ships in it and until war actually starts you have to tolerate their presence...

    - let's wait till the RF economy can afford CVNs that will take advantage of that fact.

    The British economy can't afford CVNs but they buy them anyway... over a period of 10-15 years a CVN is actually rather affordable... it will be teh cruisers and destroyers and frigates and corvettes they will need to be buying too, but having carriers they can exploit their access to the worlds ports and boost trade and relations with countries that don't take every chance they can to dump on them. The future is bright because the west has pushed itself out of the picture.


    - still, it's better to have local facilities than using those the other fleets r using.

    WHAT?

    Are you trying to say the Kuznetsov can't be based in the Northern Fleet or the Pacific Fleet because the training facilities are in the Baltic Fleet and they might be using them so the Northern Fleet or Pacific Fleet wont be able to get time on them?

    I don't think that will be a problem.

    If they r used to fly in the BS conditions, how well will they fly in the Arctic/N.

    The arctic will be their primary area of operations... some days they wont be able to fly at all... tough. But certainly not a good reason not to be based there.... otherwise all the Arctic and Far East bases would be closed...

    Atlantic/RFE conditions with more stormy days there in any given year?

    Which will be good experience for developing their CVNs... what sort of hulls would allow operations in rough weather that current ships struggle to cope with....

    they'll need to do a lot more, to say the least.

    Of course there is a long way to go... but the last three presidents of America have been saying they wanted to fix the infrastructure in the US... bridges, roads, schools, electricity grids, all sorts of promises... Obama... twice.... and Trump and now Biden... but how much is actually being spent and what is actually being done.

    There have been quite a few videos posted showing renovation of buildings and cities and building bridges and rail lines and road networks...

    Sadly there was even a case of a new road being built in Siberia where a person drove the old road and broke down but because a newer shorter route had just opened everyone else took that route and the person who broke down was not found for a week of minus 40 degree temperatures.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5364
    Points : 5358
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 31 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Yesterday at 9:38 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    - a lot more efficient to use their new class of armed naval icebreakers &/  SSGNs that don't need any icebreakers, supported by Tu-142s, IL-38s & A-50/100s.
    In 20 years time they might not even need icebreakers...- they'll need them as ice can form at the pole and drift there, otherwise those NP Leader monsters wouldn't be built for year round ops.

    - it did, but it wasn't used year-round.
    It was an option but ice thicknesses would mean sometimes there was just no way through and so instead of saving 14 days in each direction it would add months to the trip having to go back and go the other way.- in the summer of 1985 IIRC, a NP icebreaker was stuck, damaging its screw, & at least 1 ship sunk in the E. Arctic. That was an exception, as the NSR was used every summer since 1920s, if not earlier.

    .- I'll like to see pics of their CBGs sailing to together in the Pacific or IO, but that is at least 10-15 years off at best.
    Why do you think that? Russia will be putting the K back into the water next year or the year after and the Kirov in upgrade will be ready then too... I would say a little bit of tentative testing to make sure everything works... perhaps a trip over the NSR from the northern fleet to the Pacific fleet is in order and once they get there then perhaps a trip further afield.... India would be a good safe option..- sure, it could join a commercial convoy escorted by an icebreaker & then circumnavigate Eurasia, but 1st it'll need to go on few shorter cruises before scheduled yard periods that may take longer, as been usual, besides training & real world ops. Cheaper to send a CGN/UDK group instead. Perhaps a TAKRN, if built, could be tasked with that, but if the Adm. K does it, it won't be anytime soon.

    -IMO, there r more reasons to base her in the Black Sea than in the Barents Sea.
    A reason does not count if it is no a good reason...-the reasons I mentioned r good enough, IMO.

    The Northern Fleet gives them direct access to the Arctic Ocean... an area of priority for Russia at the moment from a port with space for a carrier battle group to be based there too. They can also easily get to the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean fairly easily,-there isn't much to do for TAKRs in the N. Atlantic & the N. Pacific other than transiting those waters on the way to the S. Atlantic, S. Pacific, the Med. Sea or the IO; all of them can be reached from the Black Sea faster or as fast & also cheaper. The BSF will be getting more ships anyway & they could form most of the future CBG.

    which is exactly what a switch to the Navy will be for... opening up the globe to Russian products and trade.- the Globe is being opened up mostly for Chinese products and trade, & I doubt that Russian trade will make enough of a dent in it to justify a corresponding naval buildup.

    Putting their sole carrier in the Black Sea limits them to the many countries of HATO that have repeatedly rejected her offers of trade and cooperation and largely responded with harsh words, abuse, and sanctions.- all things considered, keeping 1 TAKR in NF isn't going to be more beneficial, if at all.

    There is potential in north Africa and the Middle East but they don't need a carrier there for that...- it's not much needed even in the rest of the World Ocean.

    -most of the PG is no wider than the Black Sea between S. Crimea & the Turkish coast; Iranian shore, ship & air based AshMs have the range to cover even a wider area.
    Do they have the nerve to launch an attack knowing the likely response will involve attempted regime change and a brutal nasty obliteration of a couple of Iranian cities which CNN will tell you were surgical strikes, but in reality will be frustration carpet bombing because they are actually rather impotent against their more capable opponents.- Iraq endured bombings between 1991-2003; a low intensity conflict/hybrid war with US & Israel is ongoing, & if Iran feels that attack is imminent, the USN ships won't be coming home from the PG in 1 peace, if at all. That said, Russia has more means to defend her ships in the BS & the Med., with MiG-31Ks, Tu-22M3s, & upgraded CGN/SSGNs.

    - pl. read my posts more closely: I meant they go to the Sea of Japan; I was there on the CV-63.
    With MiG-31Ks I am sure the Russians will prefer the US sends its carriers there all the time...- at least some BSF ships can hide in the Azov or the Caspian Sea & shoot their Calibers from there, while the Adm. K would be no more vulnerable on/off Crimea as it is now on/off Kola.

    - how do u know? if nothing else, what if they decide to save $ & use her as a helo/UAV carrier &/ a Putin yacht like the Thai CV?
    Because she is more use as a fixed wing carrier with real fighter planes than a joke ship with short range slow shit.- but if there is no money, the wheels can't be greased as well.

    Why do you think Putin wants a yacht?-I don't think that, & he doesn't need 1 more, but as in the RTN, it'll be a yacht by default- too good to scrap & still useful for "other than war" ops.

    But if it was in the BSF then, it could participate as an LHA by deploying Ka-29s & Mi-9/17s landing airborne troops, SOFs &/ marines.
    They managed to land troops anyway... without risking a carrier.- which took longer than if they had a UDK.
    They realised they needed something  like Mistral... but not in the Black Sea... they would need them for the Far East in case Japan started to get silly like the tie eater did. the four Mistral carriers they would have ended up buying would be based in the Pacific and Northern fleets too... see the pattern?- still, the Adm. K could be useful in the BSF, esp. since NATO, its allies & ships rn't going anywhere.

    - true, but it'll cost a lot of $ to do that & remove the missile compartment on the Adm. K.
    Replacing the Granit tubes on the K with UKSK launch tubes should be quite straight forward... they will be similar to the vertical launch tubes on one side of an Oscar class SSGN. The Oscar has two lots of 12 tubes... one set on each side outside the pressure hull. They said each existing launch tube could have three tubes installed... 24 x 3 = 72 Onyx missiles, which means half the number of tubes should fit 36 missiles... that is just putting three missile tube liners in each Granit tube so 36 Onyx or 36 91Er1 missiles could be fitted fairly quickly and easily.
    With a bit more work those 12 tubes could be removed and probably 5 UKSK launch bins could be fitted... probably for about 40 launch tubes for anything from Onyx to Zircon to all the different Kalibrs and anti sub missiles. Again... pretty straight forward.-that's called upgrading, not removing; to install a catapult there, it'll need to be removed & the deck restructured, going 1-2 levels below.

    -since we don't see them doing it, it's a moot point.
    We don't know what they have done with the missile tubes... changing the ski jump deck angle is trivial.- I doubt they'll try to fix something that isn't broken; the catapult isn't proven & if they change the rump angle & it doesn't work as expected, it'll need to be rebuilt again, making the TAKR a yard queen.

    .- wrong: Su-33s & MiG-29K on Kola need more preservation & maintenance then on Crimea or Kuban bases. there r not enough hangars & in winter they r completely covered in snow.
    So build some hangars... it is not rocket science.- ask the much richer Indians why they didn't build more hangars for their IL-78s. The Russians r known for their lax attitudes- "hopefully it's not a big deal". Unless there's profit to be made & pork budget allocated, it won't happen; the NAF is the most neglected & least invested branch of the military.

    The VKS planes can use bases in Crimea, Syria, Sudan & Egypt to cover the entire length of the Med./Red Seas.
    - defending the VMF ships on the high seas is defending Russia.
    So what you are saying is that they wont need Russian aircraft carriers in the Black Sea or the Mediterranean or Red seas because land based Russian aircraft can provide air cover support missions from land bases. Glad we agree. No need for Kuz in Med or BS.- but not in the IO & S. Atlantic which it can sail into from the BS faster. This is similar to the forward basing of a USN CVN in Japan & VMF subs in Cuba- shortening their transit times, reducing manpower, & improving flexibility.

    - from the BS, they'll be no more & often even less distant than from Kola or Kamchatka.
    In the northern or pacific fleets they can threaten US AEGIS class cruisers trying to intercept Russian ICBMs and SLBMs heading over the north pole and also perhaps trying to clear a path through MiG-31BMs for their bombers...Having Russian ships up there means more chance of sinking them with MiG-31Ks and preventing them from interfering with MAD.- SSGNs, Tu-22M3/95/142/160s, Su-24/30/34s & armed icebreakers can be tasked with that. Their new ICBMs can now go via the S. Pole instead, & the SLBMs launched from the N. Pole/E. Arctic/mid-Okhotsk Sea were no USN ships go, & the Poseidon armed subs r enough to cool the hot heads in Washington.

    - it'll be better for Russia if China gets it, so that she doesn't salivate at the RFE & Siberia instead.
    Russia is happy to sell China most things they want... there is no point in coveting Siberia if it costs you a nuclear enema to actually try to get it. - they'll continue to buy local officials to fleece the region & destroy the environment. Russia doesn't need to fight the West, Argentina, Chile, or China over Antarctica; she has the Arctic shelf, Urals, Siberia, RFE, & Mongolia to extract resources from.

    - the BS isn't that small; it took a passenger ship I was on 2 nights & 1 day to get from Odessa to Sochi at @ 15knots; it takes a cargo ship 18 hours from Odessa to Istanbul. Depending where it'll deploy to, ships from other fleets can form a group, & it happened before in the Med. Sea.
    It can have HATO subs and ships in it and until war actually starts you have to tolerate their presence...- a good realistic training opportunity for the the VKS/MF.

    - let's wait till the RF economy can afford CVNs that will take advantage of that fact.

    The British economy can't afford CVNs but they buy them anyway...- QE2 class is CV
    over a period of 10-15 years a CVN is actually rather affordable... it will be the cruisers and destroyers and frigates and corvettes they will need to be buying too, but having carriers they can exploit their access to the worlds ports and boost trade and relations with countries that don't take every chance they can to dump on them.- most of their trade can be done by land, rivers, NSR & closed seas; Russia isn't China, SK or Japan to depend on open ocean SLOCs to survive. She can get bananas, mangoes, palm oil, rubber, jute, exotic hardwoods & tea/coffee/cacao from SE Asia/India/Sri Lanka & Africa instead of L. America.

    - still, it's better to have local facilities than using those the other fleets r using.
    WHAT? Are you trying to say the Kuznetsov can't be based in the Northern Fleet or the Pacific Fleet because the training facilities are in the Baltic Black Sea Fleet and they might be using them so the Northern Fleet or Pacific Fleet wont be able to get time on them?- not always, but it'll also be more efficient not to be sending crews to train in flight ops in the area with totally different conditions.

    If they r used to fly in the BS conditions, how well will they fly in the Arctic/N.
    The arctic will be their primary area of operations... some days they wont be able to fly at all... tough. But certainly not a good reason not to be based there.... otherwise all the Arctic and Far East bases would be closed...
    -well, until they get TAKRN/CVNs to be based there, there's definitely no need for more NITKAs; OTH, if they r willing to waste more $ & time by keeping the Adm. K on Kola & add wear & tear to it in the Arctic/N. Atlantic, which would be in line with their historic & infamous inefficiency, I won't loose any sleep over it.

    Sponsored content

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 31 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Feb 25, 2021 8:16 am