Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

Tugs are quite common for obvious reasons and is always needed no matter if new or old. Especially for large groups.

Prove that it broke down. Most speculated it was refuel. The picture, you don't tug from there.

KiloGolf wrote:Sure, breaking down in the middle of the bay of Biscay, requiring towing by N. Chiker isn't even a deficiency. Thus the current deployment still requiring tug escort.

Not quite, the tug is the direct consequence of lacking friendly ports, not the ship's reliability.

miketheterrible wrote:Tugs are quite common for obvious reasons and is always needed no matter if new or old. Especially for large groups.

Prove that it broke down. Most speculated it was refuel. The picture, you don't tug from there.

Tugboats are common only for Kuz's task force in this day and age, even if it's sailing in the Med which is full of friendly ports for Russia. Chiker was attached to the 2016 task force all the way off Latakia, it did not leave the group say once crossing Gibraltar. On the other hand CdG or USN flat-top task forces have no use for them, anywhere.

The Kuz broke down and drifted in the bay of Biscay back in 2012, it's a fact. And got towed by Chiker.

whir wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:Sure, breaking down in the middle of the bay of Biscay, requiring towing by N. Chiker isn't even a deficiency. Thus the current deployment still requiring tug escort.

Not quite, the tug is the direct consequence of lacking friendly ports, not the ship's reliability.

Algeria, Cyprus and Egypt are all right there in the Med. All non-NATO, safe and friendly with many ports and facilities for Kuz.
That particular tug is needed to tow the Kuz if needed, as it did in the Biscay 4 years ago. There's videos.

Oh gee, 2012? Sorry, I thought it was 2016....

miketheterrible wrote:I thought it was 2016....

N. Chiker in 2016 accompanied the Kuz task force every step of the way. Like right now.

JohninMK wrote:
Every photo or video I have seen of her trip, whilst she was underway from the north of Norway to the east of the Med, shows the dark smoke. Given the multitude of military and civilian sources, that's about as random a sample as you can get. OK it may not be all her work conditions but it showed her cruising along at 10 or so knots for a considerable distance and included aircraft operations. The only important element missing was a high speed run and the likelihood of that being smoke and problem free is probably pretty low.

Anyway I am repeating myself so that's it from me on this.

AAAAAAAAAvM/APVagHhfYDU/s1600/121-USS_John_F_Kennedy_8x10_low.jpg

PLMFyf6csKA/hqdefault.jpg
201605151039653823-russia-syria-new-strategy/



See?

Isos wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Ned86 wrote: Pile of something about Russian Subs built by means of alien technology

Russia, submarine, powerful, mega, build, Russia, powerful, nuclear, Oscar, powerful, submarine...

Yugoslavia tracked subs in Adriatic sea with Koni-class frigate which had dipping sonar lol, please.. go away.

Can you tell more about that ? What subs it tracked, distance ...

Here are some details, the sonar on the Kotor class had a range of about 1,5-2 km in the summer and 3 - 3.5 km (ideally) in the winter, the difference was due to the difference in water temperature from the surface to the bottom. The water temperature in the winter is more constant while in the summer it varies a lot causing the sonar signal change direction, it's sound refraction.

As far as the actual contacts, there was a lot of them, visual and sonar, usually the procedure was to turn the ship directly at the contact to let them know that they are detected. The contacts where often whiting Yugoslavian territorial waters.

hoom wrote:

Its like saying F-16 Block 52 is new design compared to F-16MLU

Your argument regarding Mig-29K is the equivalent of 'F-16s suck because the original F-16 is 40 years old' regardless of the upgraded capabilities of block 52 vs original F-16A  

What's with the small bomb load on the Su-33s???

Bear in mind 2* med range AA missiles, 2* short range AA missiles, 2* 500kg bombs & a half load of internal fuel is about equivalent to this
...

How did you draw paralel there i do not see, and i spent 10 min trying to figure out what did you try to say there... My point is... was... and is right... that F-16 Block 52 and MiG-29K are not new designs, both are 40 years old revisions.

How is it equivalent to that? Full internal fuel and 3 drop tanks... Its nowhere close to be compared. You are forgetting they are sacrificing the fuel. SU-33 probably could take off with full warload, but with enough fuel to make circle around carrier and land back.

Ze dis one?

JohninMK wrote:In an interview with the Rossiya 24 news network, Alexey Rakhmanov, president of the United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC), said that the Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov's air wing will be expanded and get new capabilities.

The interview came after USC Vice President Igor Ponomarev said that the Admiral Kuznetsov will be upgraded in 2018 after returning from service. He added that, "the Zvezdochka shipyard will embark on repairs aimed at the modernization of the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier."
.................................

Speaking to Rossiya 24, Alexey Rakhmanov said that preparations to modernize the Admiral Kuznetsov are under way and that "it will bring the vessel to a new level in terms of the control system."

At the same time, Rakhmanov said that the modernization will "unfortunately" not lead to any fundamental or conceptual changes in the vessel. Touching upon remarks by those who saw the Admiral Kuznetsov belching black smoke on its way to Syria, Rakhmanov explained that the carrier's boilers run on oil which in turn "has a tendency to burn with the emission of a very large amount of soot."  He stressed that it does not particularly affect the carrier's combat capability and that a possible new generation of aircraft carriers will have a completely new propulsion system.

Read more: https://sputniknews.com/russia/201611171047533872-russia-aircraft-carrier-modernization/

First hand info that i have atm is that Kuz at the start of this voyage was filled with Mazut-100

Militarov wrote:

JohninMK wrote:In an interview with the Rossiya 24 news network, Alexey Rakhmanov, president of the United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC), said that the Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov's air wing will be expanded and get new capabilities.

The interview came after USC Vice President Igor Ponomarev said that the Admiral Kuznetsov will be upgraded in 2018 after returning from service. He added that, "the Zvezdochka shipyard will embark on repairs aimed at the modernization of the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier."
.................................

Speaking to Rossiya 24, Alexey Rakhmanov said that preparations to modernize the Admiral Kuznetsov are under way and that "it will bring the vessel to a new level in terms of the control system."

At the same time, Rakhmanov said that the modernization will "unfortunately" not lead to any fundamental or conceptual changes in the vessel. Touching upon remarks by those who saw the Admiral Kuznetsov belching black smoke on its way to Syria, Rakhmanov explained that the carrier's boilers run on oil which in turn "has a tendency to burn with the emission of a very large amount of soot."  He stressed that it does not particularly affect the carrier's combat capability and that a possible new generation of aircraft carriers will have a completely new propulsion system.


Read more: https://sputniknews.com/russia/201611171047533872-russia-aircraft-carrier-modernization/

First hand info that i have atm is that Kuz at the start of this voyage was filled with Mazut-100

Yes, Mazut-100 is the normal combustible used for all russian Navy steam engines, it's absolutely cheap and even more calorific than normal heating oil, yet more viscous and making a black smoke, this last something meaning absolutely nothing in operative terms.  

Well....

Then the whole point of aircraft carrier is being defeated, if i may notice

Erm... the point of an aircraft carrier in the Russian navy is to provide air cover for the navy... they have clearly shown if the target is distant that a cruise missile is a vastly more effective and safer way to deal with the problem... even a corvette on its own can do this.

the purpose of the carrier is to protect the other vessels the carrier operates with... hense AAMs and ECM pods.

These are not Sparrows but HARMs.

So?

Russian AAMs and ARMs are not that different in weight.

The Super Bug can comfortably launch with four 1,000 lb Mk 83s, 2 external FTs, on top of two Sidewinders and nav/targeting FLIR. It's the designated interdiction load-out. There's no comparison with that huge Su-33 recorded by RT launching with only two 1,000 lb equivalents, two short-range AAMs and two wingtip ECM pods.

The Flanker would not need the tanks and would still have better range with four 500kg bombs and two AAMs... a normal loadout of 6 R-27ER would exceed 2 tons on its own at about 350kgs each...

It shows how lacking the Russian approach really is, with low numbers of aircraft that can't pull their weight in a war.

The Russians don't need aircraft to fly 2,000km to drop bombs... they have corvettes with UKSK launchers and Calibr missiles that fly 2,500km plus to targets. Their carriers are to provide air cover to the fleet.

Kuznetsov is a cruiser disguised as a aircraft carrier with a ski jump, not a catapult. Thus they can only launch with limited weight. Add to that, this operation is a test since not a single time in recent history, or History of Russia's existence after soviet union, has the Kuznetsov been used used in actual combat situation.

There is a reason there will be a refit after its Syria campaign. To modernize it based upon the needs and issues they face during its Syria campaign. Kind of obvious to even the simplest of minds.

Wow... that is a dumb thing to say.

Cruisers don't provide aircraft to support navy operations. the K is an aircraft carrier designed to carry fighters to provide air support in terms of anti aircraft defence of the Russian Navy. They will likely also provide some land attack capability in terms of naval landings, but they are not designed to invade countries and murder people and over throw legitimate governments like US carriers do.

Don't think Nimitz... think Hermes.

Semantics aside, the Kuz is a dedicated STOBAR carrier. Nothing of what I posted was wrong as it was just facts, in a thread dedicated for that carrier. JohninMK's post proves that none of the major deficiencies that hamper the Syria deployment will be fixed (boilers and cats).

All of it was wrong. I will post a photo of a Hornet taking off with no ordinance at all and I can bitch about how poor its performance is compared with land based fighters.

US carriers have cats because US carrier based fighters need 800m strips to take off and land from.

Soviet and Russian carrier aircraft routinely take off from very short strips of ground... they don't need dozens of bombs because today they use accurate bombing systems so instead of dropping 20 bombs per target in the hope one hits they will drop one or maybe two and still get the targets.

It does hamper total wing output but it is indeed a cruiser carrier, not dedicated carrier.

Nope. It is not a cruiser just because it has some anti ship missiles. It is designed to carry aircraft... it is an aircraft carrier.

And the catapult is the solution to its inability to launch its air wing with sufficient load-outs.

Proof of the payload capacity from the K please.

Prove that it broke down. Most speculated it was refuel. The picture, you don't tug from there.

Careful... tugging experts present...

Well....

What difference does it make?

In fact generating its own smoke screen would be a benefit.

How can ISIS use the presence of smoke from the K to its advantage?

Western experts can scoff at how much smoke it generates, but their multi trillion dollar efforts to fight ISIS have been pathetic in comparison the Russian efforts... in terms of results and cost effectiveness.

Well....

Look at this video, Kuz is in not any way emitting more smoke than the destroyer at its flank.
It's just black instead of white because one is a steeam engine using Mazut-100, while the other is a Gas turbine using (probably) Kerosene.

How did you draw paralel there i do not see, and i spent 10 min trying to figure out what did you try to say there... My point is... was... and is right... that F-16 Block 52 and MiG-29K are not new designs, both are 40 years old revisions.

You said Mig-29K sucks because it's 40 years old but then said F-16 block 52 is great because it's upgraded vs F-16 MLU.

How is it equivalent to that? Full internal fuel and 3 drop tanks... Its nowhere close to be compared. You are forgetting they are sacrificing the fuel. SU-33 probably could take off with full warload, but with enough fuel to make circle around carrier and land back.

Well I corrected that the bomb carrying ones weren't actually using the med range AA missiles.
But remember a full internal fuel Su-33 has range equivalent to a ferry loadout of something like F-18 so a half internal fuel Su-33 is going to have range like an F-18 with a couple of external tanks.

GarryB wrote:Proof of the payload capacity from the K please.

Operationally stuck at x2 FAB 500 at the moment.

hoom wrote:Well I corrected that the bomb carrying ones weren't actually using the med range AA missiles.
But remember a full internal fuel Su-33 has range equivalent to a ferry loadout of something like F-18 so a half internal fuel Su-33 is going to have range like an F-18 with a couple of external tanks.

When the designated interdiction load-out for F/A-18E is x4 1,000 lb Mk 83s with x2 FTs, your argument goes out of the window. Also if the USN rarely pushes the envelope that far, is purely the result of them being able to put much more aircraft in the air than the dozen (or less given few were upgraded) that the Kuz currently fields.

KiloGolf wrote:
Operationally stuck at x2 FAB 500 at the moment.

That is the more or less the ecquivalent of land based ones, that carry instead x4 OFAB 250-270 as a standard

KiloGolf wrote: When the designated interdiction load-out for F/A-18E is x4 1,000 lb Mk 83s with x2 FTs, your argument goes out of the window. Also if the USN rarely pushes the envelope that far, is purely the result of them being able to put much more aircraft in the air than the dozen (or less given few were upgraded) that the Kuz currently fields.

Yes, and?
Seems me thaat you are just get stuck in a "male reproductive organ measuration contest" there.
US carriers are way greater, has been constantely used by II world war until now and has a very different role.
Russians are at their first one operative deployement , so let's give them time to grow up their own expertise and their own operative doctrine.
Also because , until now they have put a lot of surprises from their own sleeves.

GarryB wrote: I will post a photo of a Hornet taking off with no ordinance at all and I can bitch about how poor its performance is compared with land based fighters.

The problem is we've been seeing those small Hornets (not even Super Bugs) operationally launching with 3, 4 and 5 Mk 83 bombs and equivalents since like forever. Some examples:

VFA-15 F/A-18A 163126 (AJ303) being prepared for launch from Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71) during Operation Desert Storm.  the load is five Mk83 bombs. source

marcellogo wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:
Operationally stuck at x2 FAB 500 at the moment.

That is the more or less the ecquivalent of land based ones, that carry instead x4 OFAB 250-270 as a standard

KiloGolf wrote: When the designated interdiction load-out for F/A-18E is x4 1,000 lb Mk 83s with x2 FTs, your argument goes out of the window. Also if the USN rarely pushes the envelope that far, is purely the result of them being able to put much more aircraft in the air than the dozen (or less given few were upgraded) that the Kuz currently fields.

Yes, and?
Seems me thaat you are just get stuck in a "male reproductive organ measuration contest" there.
US carriers are way greater, has been constantely used by II world war until now and has a very different role.
Russians are at their first one operative deployement , so let's give them time to grow up their own expertise and their own operative doctrine.
Also because , until now they have put a lot of surprises from their own sleeves.

See the arguments we're getting above (like here where on a second look they get it wrong, these are Mk 84 2,000 bombs ) and you'll understand that I'm merely setting the record straight.

marcellogo wrote:

Well....

Look at this video, Kuz is in not any way emitting more smoke than the destroyer at its flank.
It's just black instead of white because one is a steeam engine using Mazut-100, while the other is a Gas turbine using (probably) Kerosene.

Mazut-100 itself does not equal smoke, it requires high burning temperature however, unless its extremly unpure sulfur rich variation, which i would evade big time burning on a ship. Also if you are refering to Kirov class, it can cruise on reactor power only, for combat speeds and dash it can use its steam turbines.

An F-18 at mtow is about 25-30 tons. The most heavy aircraft on board was the F-14: 35-40 tons. Like the Mig-31 or an airliner like a DC-9 or Tu-134.

I don't think, it is proper to compare Su-33 with F/A-18, which is multirole fighter from the beginning. Su-33 could be compared with F-14A and with its upgrade to F-14A+ (F-14B Bombcat), which was capable to carry its bombload and was used in Iraq.

medo wrote: Su-33 could be compared with F-14A and with its upgrade to F-14A+ (F-14B Bombcat), which was capable to carry its bombload and was used in Iraq.

Well that would be unfair to the Su-33



Yeap, that's four Mk 84s, 2,000 lb each.

You people still haven't manage to figure out that there is a difference between payloads for skijump and catapult launched aircraft?

Daym...

PapaDragon wrote:
You people still haven't manage to figure out that there is a difference between payloads for skijump and catapult launched aircraft?

Daym...

It's killing me. This thread in general is killing me.