Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

wilhelm wrote:

ult wrote:

wilhelm wrote:No dates given, but it looks like she is getting ready to deploy, from what is being said.

http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/3641012

Can't get over how people call Admiral Kuznetsov "she". I know about english traditions, but it still cracks me up.

Point taken.
Now that you mention it, do I recall correctly in Russia a naval vessel is regarded as a male, or "he", or is that somewhere else?

ult wrote:

wilhelm wrote:No dates given, but it looks like she is getting ready to deploy, from what is being said.

http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/3641012

Can't get over how people call Admiral Kuznetsov "she". I know about english traditions, but it still cracks me up.

Russia's Only Aircraft Carrier Is Headed For Syria (But Suffers From One Big Flaw)

The Kremlin’s sole aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov is set to make its combat debut in the eastern Mediterranean in November according to Russian media.

The 55,000-ton vessel was originally scheduled to depart for the Syrian coast in October, but the deployment has been pushed back. While the Russian government has not stated exactly why the Kuznetsov’s deployment is being delayed, one the of reasons is likely due to the lack of pilots qualified to takeoff and land from an aircraft carrier.

Training

Analysts specializing in Russian military affairs are united in their opinion that pilot training is the weak link for Russia’s naval aviation capabilities—more so than any technical issues with the ship or aircraft. Unlike the Indian version of the Mikoyan MiG-29K, which has had technical issues due to Ukrainian-built parts—particularly with its radar, the Russian Navy’s MiG-29KR does not seem to been impacted as severely.

“The main problem for the MiG-29KR is now a lack of trained pilots for this type and not any technical problems,” said researcher Mikhail Barabanov, editor-in-chief of the Moscow Defense Brief, which is published by the Centre for the Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (CAST) in Russia.

But the lack of trained pilots might extend beyond just the MiG-29KR to the rest of Kuznetsov’s air wing. Kuznetsov’s air wing is expected to comprise of 10 Sukhoi Su-33 Flanker-D air superiority fighters and four MiG-29KR multirole fighters when it deploys in November, however is not clear that there are enough qualified aviators to operate those aircraft from a carrier flight deck. “How come nobody ever asks how many carrier-qualified pilots Russia actually has?” asked Mike Kofman, a research scientist specializing in Russian military affairs at the federally funded Center for Naval Analyses. “Planes need pilots and other support equipment. Are there 14 pilots aboard Kuznetsov certified for carrier takeoffs and landings?”

The Su-33 Flanker-D

Assuming that Kuznetsov does arrive in theatre off the coast of Syria with a full complement of pilots and aircraft, the ship will be able to provide some strike capability. The ten Su-33s onboard—which in previous years were optimized strictly for air superiority and fleet defense—have been fitted with the Gefest SVP-24 bombing sights, which the Russians claim increases the accuracy of gravity bombs to the level of precision-guided munitions (PGM). “This Gefest system worked very well on the Su-24Ms in Georgia in 2008 and in Syria in 2015-2016, why should it not work now?” Barabanov said.

Western sources are skeptical about how well the SVP-24 actually works. The U.S. Air Force’s experience during Operation Desert Storm in 1991 showed that even with continuously computed impact point (CCIP) and continuously computed release point (CCPR) bombing modes, accuracy suffered above 10,000ft. The Pentagon’s Gulf War Airpower Survey notes that manual bombing without precision-guided weapons works best at altitudes below 10,000ft above ground level. But while accuracy is increased when flying below 10,000ft, aircraft operating at those altitudes are vulnerable to ground fire from guns—even small arms—and man-portable surface-to-air missiles. Above that—even at altitudes between 10,000ft and 15,000ft—accuracy suffers greatly even as survivability is greatly increased, as the Pentagon discovered. “Gefest has upgraded a good number of Russian aircraft,” Kofman said. “It makes unguided bombs more accurate, but it in no way approaches PGM quality.”

The MiG-29KR

Kuznetsov will also carry a quartet of MiG-29KR fighters (with a total fleet of roughly 14 operational aircraft in the Russian arsenal) that are capable of carrying PGMs and air-to-surface guided missiles. According to state-run media outlet Izvestia, the jets will be able to drop KAB-500 precision-guided bombs and carry the X-35 anti-ship missile—though the aircraft is also capable of carrying Kh-31P anti-radiation missiles, according to its manufacturer. “But there is no assurance that pilot training with these weapons are completed,” Barabanov said.

While the Russians might hope to use PGMs such as the KAB-500 and X-35 over Syria, more realistically, Kuznetsov’s MiG-29KRs will likely use a mix of guided and unguided weapons. “I would venture that the actual armament will include a mix of guided and unguided munitions,” said Dmitry Gorenburg, a senior research scientist specializing in Russian military affairs at Center for Naval Analyses.

Nonetheless, the new Fulcrum variant was supposed to be replacing the Flanker-D onboard Kuznetsov due to its multirole capabilities. “The main driver of the switch is that the MiG is better for airstrikes than the Su-33, which is primarily suited for aerial combat—a largely unnecessary mission since the end of the Cold War,” Gorenburg said.

The MiG-29KR has some other advantages over the Su-33. The MiG-29KR is smaller and easier to handle on Kuznetsov’s flight deck than the Flanker, but one of the primary reasons for the transition to the Fulcrum is the need to sustain the Russian industrial base. “It’s also good business for MiG,” Kofman said. “They need to build something and continue to try to push the carrier aviation market. Sukhoi has plenty of orders already.”

However, while the Russians seemed to be planning for a transition from the Su-33 to the MiG-29KR, Moscow seems to have decided to keep both jets in service. “Apparently, both types will exist in parallel,” Barabanov said. “The MiG-29KRs are not re-equipping the 279th Regiment, instead the new 100th Regiment was formed for them.”


What can Kuznetsov Accomplish?

Even when the Kuznetsov eventually arrives off the Syrian coast, there are questions about just how effective the aging Soviet-built carrier will be. While the ship carries fixed-wing fighters, the carrier is hampered because it uses a ski-jump to launch aircraft rather than catapults. Jets such as the Flanker and the Fulcrum can’t take off with a full-load as a result. “There’s a very significant drop off in combat load. But it’s hard to compare it to something else.” Kofman said.

However, one U.S. Navy source suggested that while combat loads drop off steeply, the drop is less severe on the Flanker and the Fulcrum than it would be on the Boeing F/A-18 series because of the Russian jets’ thrust-to-weight ratio and aerodynamic performance. Nonetheless, the drop in combat load out is likely to be severe. Nor is Moscow keen on sharing that secret. “In theory, there are no formal restrictions on the load of the Su-33 at start of the ramp,” Barabanov said. “As a matter of fact—I think that a big secret, and probably depends on the experience of the pilot.”

Moreover, there are questions about just how much combat experience the Russians will gain from Kuznetsov's deployment. “I wouldn't call it combat. It will be experience in carrying out airstrikes in uncontested skies,” Gorenburg said. “Potentially, very different from combat with a peer that will have its own aircraft and air defenses. But yes, it will be like what U.S. carrier aviation has been mostly used for in the last 25 years.”

Future of Russian Naval Aviation

After its Syria deployment, Kuznetsov will enter into dry-dock for refurbishing—but exactly how extensive the refit will be is debatable. Barabanov said that the ship will not likely be extensively upgraded. But Kofman and Gorenburg suggest the modifications will be more extensive.

“It's going in early 2017 and will be out until 2020,” Kofman said. “In terms of modernization, I suspect engines and propulsion systems, flight deck, everything involved in aircraft operations on the deck.  It needs a lot of work, people were hoping the last overhaul would include modernization packages, but it did not—just an engine tune up.”

Gorenburg said that the ship will likely be overhauled, but it's not clear if Kuznetsov’s troublesome engines will be fixed. “It will be sent for a pretty thorough modernization after this deployment,” Gorenburg said. “Probably mid-2017. Facilities are available at Sevmash, where they did the Vikramaditya modernization. I'm unclear whether this will include the ship's notoriously unreliable propulsion systems. The flight deck will definitely be modernized.”

As for a future carrier to replace Kuznetsov—given Russia’s economic condition, the prospects for a new replacement flattop is remote. Kuznetsov will likely soldier on for years to come.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-only-aircraft-carrier-headed-syria-suffers-one-big-17756

GarryB wrote:Why do they think there will be a shortage of carrier trained pilots?

Who do they think trained the Indian pilots to operate on the ex Gorshkov?

The Russians built a new carrier training area when denied access to the training centre in the Crimea.

Now they have access to the training centre in the Crimea, the new training centre in Russia and the carrier itself... so there are plenty of training options for them.

Considering they are deploying the carrier to Syria they likely would have made sure they had some pilots trained to operate from the carrier they are sending.

Geeze the American experts are dumb.

they tried computer aided bombing and failed so anything the Russians have developed cannot possibly work...

And claims russian aircraft cannot operate at full payload... with accurate bombing capability how often would they need a full bomb load?

How often did F-16s operate over Iraq with 7 ton payloads of bombs?

This will be excellent operational experience for the Russian Navy and will be valuable in testing new systems and new weapons and new techniques and strategies.

KiloGolf wrote:....

Well the usual dozen of barely armed, combat aircraft deployed on the Kuz, for over 3 decades, is testament to a very well established Russian problem. They basically, as the web lingo goes, "cannot into carrier ops". We shall see if this changes in a few weeks. I doubt it. If they deploy a few planes and present everything as a "testing/training mission" it will be that the article is right.

I look forward in being positively surprised.

TheArmenian wrote:For the Mediterranean deployment, the Kuznetsov does not need to carry more than a dozen fighters and a few helicopters.
Dozens of planes are not needed. Even the US megacarriers don't carry a full load of planes most of the time.

For striking terrorists in Syria, there are enough planes in Hmeyim (if absolutely necessary, additional strikes can be performed from Russia itself or Hamadan in Iran).
I see the possible reason(s) to deploy the Kuzya in the area as follows:

1- Show of force
2- Testing crews, weapons, procedures etc.
3- Striking Libya

The last one can be a surprise on the diplomatic front.

KiloGolf wrote:

TheArmenian wrote:For the Mediterranean deployment.....

So they need to sail something near a quarter of the globe with a 55,000 ton aircraft carrier (which qualifies as very large), just to carry a mere dozen of fixed-wing fast jets. Show the flag and all that jazz (if one can see it among the smog). Nope, no sense there.

The French just a few months ago managed to have a good two dozen of strike fighters, of which 18 Rafales and that with a 10,000 ton lighter carrier.

They hit ISIS pretty hard and everyone took notes, only a week after Paris attacks.

For me the Kuz deployment and its continuous delay spells trouble for the Russians. They have few capable aircraft, few pilots and a severely troubled, old CV to begin with.

It's a big heavy ship (i.e. lots of people manning it) and yet it always carries an insignificant air wing. It takes months to deploy it and even those dates end up getting changed in the last moment.

TheArmenian wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

TheArmenian wrote:For the Mediterranean deployment.....

So they need to sail something near a quarter of the globe with a 55,000 ton aircraft carrier (which qualifies as very large), just to carry a mere dozen of fixed-wing fast jets. Show the flag and all that jazz (if one can see it among the smog). Nope, no sense there.

How about the even larger US carriers sailing across the oceans without even making a single strike in most cases. That should make sense to you.

The French just a few months ago managed to have a good two dozen of strike fighters, of which 18 Rafales and that with a 10,000 ton lighter carrier.

From the very picture you posted: At least half the air fleet is on deck because the hangars can accommodate only so much.
The Kuzya can carry just as many as the De-Gaulle. The extra 10,000 weight is for more elaborate air defenses and the GRANIT anti-ship missiles (De-Daulle does not have those extras).

They hit ISIS pretty hard and everyone took notes, only a week after Paris attacks.

Yeah, yeah, so they say. But of course, the Russian strikes will be ineffective ...even before they happen. They are doomed to fail, they have nothing but trouble, they are insignificant bla, bla, bla.

For me the Kuz deployment and its continuous delay spells trouble for the Russians. They have few capable aircraft, few pilots and a severely troubled, old CV to begin with.

And half of the US carriers are even older. So what?
But you seem to have already decided that this deployment is only going trouble. You must be knowing better than the defense minister. Maybe you should call Shoigu and advise him to immediately stop this doomed deployment.

It's a big heavy ship (i.e. lots of people manning it) and yet it always carries an insignificant air wing. It takes months to deploy it and even those dates end up getting changed in the last moment.

It is 10,000T heavier than the Charles De-Gaulle with marginally larger crew and a similar number of aircraft plus anti-ship missiles.
As I said in my previous post, it does not need to carry dozens of aircraft since Hmeyim air base is right there. The French did not have that luxury, they had to have as many aircraft possible on the De-Gaulle.

OminousSpudd wrote:...............

Future popular theories soon to be mercilessly butchered.

>US has undetectable stealth aircraft

>Russian IADS are over rated
>(courtesy of KiloGolf) Russia can not into carrier ops

I don't like those odds Kilo.  

Prepare to be "pleasantly" surprised.

PapaDragon wrote:

OminousSpudd wrote:...............

Future popular theories soon to be mercilessly butchered.

>US has undetectable stealth aircraft

>Russian IADS are over rated
>(courtesy of KiloGolf) Russia can not into carrier ops

I don't like those odds Kilo.  

Prepare to be "pleasantly" surprised.

Dude..... Aircraft Museum, Belgrade:



Radar that detected it was from the freakin'  60's  

People are selling chunks on e-bay...  

OminousSpudd wrote:
>(courtesy of KiloGolf) Russia can not into carrier ops

I don't like those odds Kilo.  

PapaDragon wrote:Radar that detected it was from the freakin'  60's  

OminousSpudd wrote:IT IS STEALTH, THAT'S WHY WE RETIRED IT SO QUICKLY, JUST SHUT UP OKAY?

The French just a few months ago managed to have a good two dozen of strike fighters, of which 18 Rafales and that with a 10,000 ton lighter carrier. They hit ISIS pretty hard and everyone took notes, only a week after Paris attacks.

55,000ton

KiloGolf wrote:

OminousSpudd wrote:
>(courtesy of KiloGolf) Russia can not into carrier ops

I don't like those odds Kilo.  

It could be somewhere between your statement and their recent CSAR helo performance. So lets not be so hasty. At the moment RuN's carrier ops track record with modern, fixed wing fighters (especially the strike component) is bad, which is only stating a fact.

If the new reality "mercilessly butchers" this fact, then Russia will have truly achieved something unique. But for that to happen a simple demonstration of a mere 4 MiG-29K or a dozen or so Gefest-kitted Flankers won't be enough, neither will be any Ka-52K deployment on the Kuz. Much more is needed, in terms of numbers and quality.

PapaDragon wrote:Radar that detected it was from the freakin'  60's  

A 60s radar detecting a 70s attempt to "stealth" (a plane introduced in the early 80s).
Fair enough, but hardly groundbreaking to those who look beyond the hype that is.

I sometimes sense similar hype on Russian systems/platforms being preserved on this forum.

OminousSpudd wrote:IT IS STEALTH, THAT'S WHY WE RETIRED IT SO QUICKLY, JUST SHUT UP OKAY?

A quarter of a century hardly qualifies as early.
And with over 180 F-22s coming online, with SDB and JDAM capability, F-117 started becoming a liability for them.

KiloGolf wrote:A 60s radar detecting a 70s attempt to "stealth" (a plane introduced in the early 80s).

KiloGolf wrote: sometimes sense similar hype on Russian systems/platforms being preserved on this forum.

OminousSpudd wrote:

KiloGolf wrote: sometimes sense similar hype on Russian systems/platforms being preserved on this forum.

It has come across that you are on some sort of crusade.  

Well the usual dozen of barely armed, combat aircraft deployed on the Kuz, for over 3 decades, is testament to a very well established Russian problem.

If they deploy a few planes and present everything as a "testing/training mission" it will be that the article is right.

The French just a few months ago managed to have a good two dozen of strike fighters, of which 18 Rafales and that with a 10,000 ton lighter carrier. They hit ISIS pretty hard and everyone took notes, only a week after Paris attacks.

For me the Kuz deployment and its continuous delay spells trouble for the Russians. They have few capable aircraft, few pilots and a severely troubled, old CV to begin with. It's a big heavy ship (i.e. lots of people manning it) and yet it always carries an insignificant air wing. It takes months to deploy it and even those dates end up getting changed in the last moment.

I'm not debating on theoretical capabilities and specs, but operationally utilizing the said asset in a way that makes practical sense from CV ops point of view.

On that bit I am sure RuN is not that naive, they just try to catch up in the carrier game. But the platform and 90s disasters still haunt them.

Those "elaborate air defenses" and that dozen of Granits are not the reason for the extra 10k tons. It's a bigger ship, it's got a comfier deck and it is so far cruising with a tiny air wing, smaller then a lighter/smaller carrier out there. Simple.

At the moment RuN's carrier ops track record with modern, fixed wing fighters (especially the strike component) is bad, which is only stating a fact.

If the new reality "mercilessly butchers" this fact, then Russia will have truly achieved something unique.

But for that to happen a simple demonstration of a mere 4 MiG-29K or a dozen or so Gefest-kitted Flankers won't be enough, neither will be any Ka-52K deployment on the Kuz. Much more is needed, in terms of numbers and quality.

And with over 180 F-22s coming online, with SDB and JDAM capability, F-117 started becoming a liability for them.

It is a French ship... it has no defensive systems... just a big stick with a huge white flag in case they are attacked.

Well actually its got 32* Aster15 + 12* Mistral which makes pretty well defended.

I'm not a fan of the 'French surrender' thing, its tacky & historically wrong.

GarryB wrote:

Well actually its got 32* Aster15 + 12* Mistral which makes pretty well defended.

Meh... 32 x 30km range SAMS and 12 MANPADS...

Kuznetsov has 24 Kinzhal launchers with 192 missiles and 8 Kashtan-M systems with 256 missiles and 16 30mm gatling guns... and a further 6 individual gatling guns.

That is 448 missiles and 22 x 30mm gatling guns.

I'm not a fan of the 'French surrender' thing, its tacky & historically wrong.

Not a huge fan of such stereotypes myself, but information is coming from a Western article from the nationalinterest website, why let facts get in the way of a point of view?

It mentions that the Russians have tested a bombing system upgrade and that they are applying it to their Su-33s but they cannot accept that it might actually work... they point out the Russians don't have any money to spend on a new carrier any time soon but apparently they have money to spend on a system to improve bombing accuracy with dumb bombs that does not actually work...

We will mention two Russian experts with differing opinions and ignore the one that is positive about the Russian military... mention one that is more negative but give the final say to some American wanker spouting BS from the kool aide stand... a waste of my time reading that crap really.

Of course the amusing thing is that as pointed out the Russian airforce managed to make a serious difference with a few dozen planes deployed to the area on land and now they are criticising the Russian Navy because they think they are sending only 14 aircraft on a carrier to the region to solve the whole problem of Syria.

It could not possibly be a training and testing opportunity... perhaps battle management equipment was also installed on the K that they might want to test and also the MiG-29KR and Ka-52 aircraft they want to test in addition to Su-33s with their upgrades, together with the rest of the small group of ships operating in the area... no... it is a Nimitz style strike or it is a failure...

Singular_trafo wrote:........

What they saying is an active bombing system with unguided bombs works well up to 3 km height, above that the precision of it degrading .

............

PapaDragon wrote:

Singular_trafo wrote:........

What they saying is an active bombing system with unguided bombs works well up to 3 km height, above that the precision of it degrading .

............

Of course it is degrading above certain altitude, that is why they use several bombs per strike. We all seen the videos, it is always more than one. Point is job gets done at fraction of the cost.

What they saying is an active bombing system with unguided bombs works well up to 3 km height, above that the precision of it degrading .

And actualy the manpads can shoot down an airplane that flying under 3km , so the system is effective only against enemy who doesn't has manpads.

It is logical, considering that the normal, unguided air deffence guns are useless above 5-6 km.It is the inverse of the same reason why you need to use guided rockets to shoot down anything above 5-6km.

Do they replace its old IRST with more modern IRST like those on Su-30 with TV and laser designator channels inside for ground attacks and modernize radar with ground attack modes? Such modernizations will make Su-33 useful plane over Syria, without them it will be useless as it will not be able to share target informations with others and without capabilities to find targets by itself.

Problem is if you need 4 bombs on 3 km, then you need 8 on 6 km and 16 pn 12 km.