Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

Cool 360deg footage

Interesting that there's not much smoke in the first bit but smoking during the launch.

OminousSpudd wrote:

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.

It's this KiloGolf character, I mean in another thread the guy militantly believes you should engage $15k technicals with $80k Javelin missile as your first go to system (likely because NATO media promotes it, and he swallows it)...but then again who are we kidding? The guy regurgitates the same agitprop from neocons who believe Greece and Cyprus should be caliphates for Neo-Ottoman Turkey....yeah wrap your head around that mental gymnastics....just wait until he makes claims that the F-35 will be superior to the PAK-FA lol!

OminousSpudd wrote:

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.

We covered that a few pages back. And both of you relax it was a discussion.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

OminousSpudd wrote:

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.

It's this KiloGolf character, I mean in another thread the guy militantly believes you should engage $15k technicals with $80k Javelin missile as your first go to system (likely because NATO media promotes it, and he swallows it)...but then again who are we kidding? The guy regurgitates the same agitprop from neocons who believe Greece and Cyprus should be caliphates for Neo-Ottoman Turkey....yeah wrap your head around that mental gymnastics....just wait until he makes claims that the F-35 will be superior to the PAK-FA lol!

Ehm OK, no.

KiloGolf wrote:

OminousSpudd wrote:

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.

We covered that a few pages back. And both of you relax it was a discussion.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

OminousSpudd wrote:

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.

It's this KiloGolf character, I mean in another thread the guy militantly believes you should engage $15k technicals with $80k Javelin missile as your first go to system (likely because NATO media promotes it, and he swallows it)...but then again who are we kidding? The guy regurgitates the same agitprop from neocons who believe Greece and Cyprus should be caliphates for Neo-Ottoman Turkey....yeah wrap your head around that mental gymnastics....just wait until he makes claims that the F-35 will be superior to the PAK-FA lol!

Ehm OK, no.

Face the facts, the same NATO/Neo-Con media that you base your military tech diatribes on, also for the longest defended Turkey's role financing the Fierce Sectarian Army (FSA) as well as Al-Nusra Front.

Everyone here is acting like fourth graders. This entire tread has been a joke for at least a week. And over what? Two bombs more or less? Like this ship even matters in land attack ops. This whole thing is a show, a side spectacle to take attention away from real work being done by Latakia AB crowd.

Kuznetzov is just running interference so rest of the team can work in peace FFS.

Just cool it everyone.

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...

Isnt that whole point of this discussion? Some people claiming how two FAB-500s and 2xAAMs on SU33 are "equal" (somehow allegedy) to full fuel, 3 drop tanks and 2+ tons of warload on Hornets or F-14s.

Militarov wrote:

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...

Isnt that whole point of this discussion? Some people claiming how two FAB-500s and 2xAAMs on SU33 are "equal" (somehow allegedy) to full fuel, 3 drop tanks and 2+ tons of warload on Hornets or F-14s.

No, the discussion was about the fact that some folks around here are claiming how great 1 system is over the other when they are comparing systems that are not exactly the same. And debating with someone who uses claims of 2012 as 2016 and somehow corresponding that the ship was tugged recently but using the claim of 2012 because "Well, the tug is in the group".

Sorry, but talking with such people is a waste of time and site resources.

KiloGolf wrote:

OminousSpudd wrote:

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.

We covered that a few pages back. And both of you relax it was a discussion.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

OminousSpudd wrote:

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.

It's this KiloGolf character, I mean in another thread the guy militantly believes you should engage $15k technicals with $80k Javelin missile as your first go to system (likely because NATO media promotes it, and he swallows it)...but then again who are we kidding? The guy regurgitates the same agitprop from neocons who believe Greece and Cyprus should be caliphates for Neo-Ottoman Turkey....yeah wrap your head around that mental gymnastics....just wait until he makes claims that the F-35 will be superior to the PAK-FA lol!

Ehm OK, no.

Hyper-critiquing Russian equipment while giving the benefit of the doubt to NATO or Western tech, and actually going as far as to toss normal reasoning out the window...
Maybe you're trying to play devil's advocate so as to "present an unbiased view," but majority of the time it's just baseless defending of... what exactly?
This thread is a perfect example, you're like a dog with a bone, just want to hammer the point across that Russian carrier ops are useless... But why? No one is defending it as being incredible, most simply see it as being a nice step towards a future aircraft carrier program. Constantly drawing comparisons to US carrier ops to the point you're mocking their payloads which are logically going to be much smaller due to non-CATOBAR really is verging on a form of tu quoque.

You want to believe the K broke down for crying out loud, offering no explanation but your interpretation of a photo, and the fact that a tug is travelling with the carrier.

Legitimately none of us have a clue as to exactly how these sort of ops work, half of us haven't served. Let's not pretend for a moment that we could do better eh?

Issuing non-responses like "Ehm OK, no." doesn't clarify a thing.

JohninMK wrote:Garry, the variance in comments may in part be due to there being a difference between how the K is actually used, as per your comments, and what she is legally, that is a heavy aircraft-carrying missile cruiser (TAVKR), since aircraft carriers are not allowed through the Bosphorous (Montreau Convention) and she clearly needed to pass through.

Kus legally is not allowed to enter Black Sea either either actually now, however it was always allowed to leave as it was built there. Actually Nikolayev built all of them.

hoom wrote:

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.

No that is not what i said, i only said that its not realistic calling MiG-29K "new unproven design" and i draw the line between F-16 Block 52 and MiG-29K i am not sure where did you saw me calling "F-16" great i never said anything of a sort. Even tho it truly is one of the greatest designs of 20th century in its own class.

Internal fuel of Super Hornet is some 6800kg Su-33 is 8500kg.

Militarov wrote:

JohninMK wrote:Garry, the variance in comments may in part be due to there being a difference between how the K is actually used, as per your comments, and what she is legally, that is a heavy aircraft-carrying missile cruiser (TAVKR), since aircraft carriers are not allowed through the Bosphorous (Montreau Convention) and she clearly needed to pass through.

Kus legally is not allowed to enter Black Sea either either actually now, however it was always allowed to leave as it was built there. Actually Nikolayev built all of them.

Is that actually the case? I thought as a TAVKR she would be exempt from the restrictions on carriers. It would be very unfortunate if she weren't allowed to transit the strait, as if she (or in future, other Russian TAVKR type ships) were on extended operations in the Med, it would be prudent to rotate her in and out of Sevastopol rather than sending her all the way back to Severomorsk.

Garry, the variance in comments may in part be due to there being a difference between how the K is actually used, as per your comments, and what she is legally, that is a heavy aircraft-carrying missile cruiser (TAVKR), since aircraft carriers are not allowed through the Bosphorous (Montreau Convention) and she clearly needed to pass through.

The Montreau convention does not ban aircraft carrying vessels, it bans vessels that have one purpose and that is only to carry aircraft. Any vessel that has another purpose can move freely.

The Anti Ship missiles on board the K means it has an anti ship capability that does not involve aircraft so it is a multipurpose air craft carrier.

Ironically it is an air defence carrier, not a strike carrier, which is why comparisons with Nimitz are pointless.

Operationally stuck at x2 FAB 500 at the moment.

Says you.

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.

No it doesn't. An Su-33 doesn't need external fuel tanks to match a Hornet carrying FT in range and if the Flanker can carry 2 R-73s and 2 R-27ERs and 2 FAB-500s then it can carry 2 R-73s and 4 KAB-500s easily.

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:

When the catapults are not operating they don't take off at all...

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:

Fair to compare them as long as no catapults are used...

The K does not have catapults because its mission is CAP for the fleet so the max weight the Su-33s need to carry is 6 x R-27ERs and 4 R-73s... which works out at about 2,540kgs... where the R-27ERs are about 350kgs each and the R-73s are about 110kgs each.

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

Wouldn't even get airborne clean and dry without a cat launch.

Isnt that whole point of this discussion? Some people claiming how two FAB-500s and 2xAAMs on SU33 are "equal" (somehow allegedy) to full fuel, 3 drop tanks and 2+ tons of warload on Hornets or F-14s.

No the point of this discussion is that 2 500kgs bombs and two short range AAMs is not the max payload of the Su-33 from the Kuznetsov.

The Su-33 is however likely rather more capable than a whore net no matter how many drop tanks or cheap bombs with expensive guidance kits they carry.

The R-73 along with the helmet mounted sight means the Hornet is dead meat, and the upgrades to allow dumb bombs to be used to guided bomb level accuracy means it is likely much cheaper to operate too...

The west must put down such things... imagine if the US taxpayer realised that the trillions of dollars the US spends on its navy could be better spent on less grandiose things that still get the job done.

Kus legally is not allowed to enter Black Sea either either actually now, however it was always allowed to leave as it was built there. Actually Nikolayev built all of them.

There would be no value in using the K in the Black Sea. Land based aircraft can cover the entire area easily.

No that is not what i said, i only said that its not realistic calling MiG-29K "new unproven design"

It uses the new MiG-29M2 airframe and has all new avionics... do you think they can just put it on a carrier and take it to Syria and use it?

Even if it was a 1980s MiG-29K it has never been used operationally before so it would still be unproven. The K has not been used extensively and when it has been sent places it had Su-33s and Su-25s on board... not MiG-33s or MiG-29K2s.

Internal fuel of Super Hornet is some 6800kg Su-33 is 8500kg.

So the equivalent of a 2000kg fuel tank with no extra drag...

RedJasmin wrote:

Militarov wrote:

JohninMK wrote:Garry, the variance in comments may in part be due to there being a difference between how the K is actually used, as per your comments, and what she is legally, that is a heavy aircraft-carrying missile cruiser (TAVKR), since aircraft carriers are not allowed through the Bosphorous (Montreau Convention) and she clearly needed to pass through.

Kus legally is not allowed to enter Black Sea either actually now, however it was always allowed to leave as it was built there. Actually Nikolayev built all of them.

Is that actually the case? I thought as a TAVKR she would be exempt from the restrictions on carriers. It would be very unfortunate if she weren't allowed to transit the strait, as if she (or in future, other Russian TAVKR type ships) were on extended operations in the Med, it would be prudent to rotate her in and out of Sevastopol rather than sending her all the way back to Severomorsk.

No aircraft carrier is allowed to be used inside Black sea or to enter it, however you can build one and then tow it somewhere else and deploy it. LHD/LPDs are however sort of allowed as there is no word of such class in original agreement, so in theory if Russia ever actually builds any of those they will be able to use it in Black Sea. And Kuz is in the eyes of the international law aircraft carrier, especially if they remove AShM launchers during modernisation.

Ironically it is an air defence carrier, not a strike carrier, which is why comparisons with Nimitz are pointless.

Wouldn't even get airborne clean and dry without a cat launch.

The Su-33 is however likely rather more capable than a whore net no matter how many drop tanks or cheap bombs with expensive guidance kits they carry.

The R-73 along with the helmet mounted sight means the Hornet is dead meat, and the upgrades to allow dumb bombs to be used to guided bomb level accuracy means it is likely much cheaper to operate too...

It uses the new MiG-29M2 airframe and has all new avionics... do you think they can just put it on a carrier and take it to Syria and use it?

Even if it was a 1980s MiG-29K it has never been used operationally before so it would still be unproven. The K has not been used extensively and when it has been sent places it had Su-33s and Su-25s on board... not MiG-33s or MiG-29K2s.

So the equivalent of a 2000kg fuel tank with no extra drag...

No carrier in the world is designated as "strike carrier" to my knowledge. Only "strike" prefix i can remember being used regarding carriers is in abrevation Carrier Strike Group (CSG). Aircraft onboard of US carriers perform all roles air defence, interception, strike, ASW...

But thats the point of having the catapult... so you can launch them with full fuel and 8000 pounds of warload. I dont understand what are you trying to say with that "If it didnt have the catapult", but it does...

Actually guidance kits are as low as 15k USD today due to number of them built price went down dramatically, chances are those will soon be same price as Mk-84s themself.

I wouldnt go that far and say "Hornet is dead meat", they after all carry AIM-9R and AIM-120D as main AA weapons atm and have AESA radar.

MiG-29K (9.47) as we know it now flew first time in 2007. When did the first MiG-29K reach the unit in Russian Navy exactly? Was it like.. 2013? And Naval flight testing started in 2010. right? Its not new design, but any standards, no matter how you decide to look at it. You said "Its new design", no, its not, period, end, no.

Yeah, with small issue that Su-33 empty is some 4,5t heavier and has alot thirstier engines.

OminousSpudd wrote:Issuing non-responses like "Ehm OK, no." doesn't clarify a thing.

Oh it most definitely does. I've been thorough in answering to people that are worth my time, more or less.
Read that post again.

miketheterrible wrote:No, the discussion was about the fact that some folks around here are claiming how great 1 system is over the other when they are comparing systems that are not exactly the same.  And debating with someone who uses claims of 2012 as 2016 and somehow corresponding that the ship was tugged recently but using the claim of 2012 because "Well, the tug is in the group".

The tug is with the Kuz precisely for that reason. It proves my point (against yours). What's wrong in appreciating reality here?
Nothing, so lets move on.

GarryB wrote:Wouldn't even get airborne clean and dry without a cat launch.

Yeap. Lacking cats is causing all this deficiency.

GarryB wrote:No the point of this discussion is that 2 500kgs bombs and two short range AAMs is not the max payload of the Su-33 from the Kuznetsov.

According to what we saw so far it is. Lets see if they pull off something better in terms of A2G load-out.

GarryB wrote:The Su-33 is however likely rather more capable than a whore net

Well it carries less stuff for starters, that's no great capability in places like Syria.
Also.. "whore net"

The Kuznetsov was built on the Black Sea. Launched in Nikolaev as "Leonid Brezhnev" heavy cruiser.

The trip cost around 100 million rubel fuel cost only to Syria , considering three boiler operating and high sulphur bunker fuel.

If the ship run with distillate fuel the trip cost could be 50% more, but there won't be any black smoke.


The US ships running with distillate fuel, that make better impression in the observers. : )



The ship needs at least one boiler to run the systems, so in the following weeks the fuel only will cost at least 100 million rubel/month , if it is not on anchor.

If it wants to increase the combat load of the airplanes by running with full speed then the fuel cost will increase to 150 million/week.

Interestingly the RU MOD has the choice to eliminate the black smoke by increase the fuel cost of the ship by more than 50 % , but they decided that it won't worth the money.

Singular_Transform wrote:
The trip cost around 100 million rubel fuel cost only to Syria , considering three boiler operating and high sulphur bunker fuel.

If the ship run with distillate fuel the trip cost could be 50% more, but there won't be any black smoke.


The US ships running with distillate fuel, that make better impression in the observers. : )



The ship needs at least one boiler to run the systems, so in the following weeks the fuel only will cost at least 100 million rubel/month , if it is not on anchor.

If it wants to increase the combat load of the airplanes by running with full speed then the fuel cost will increase to 150 million/week.

Interestingly the RU MOD has the choice to eliminate the black smoke by increase  the fuel cost of the ship by more than 50 % , but they decided that it won't worth the money.

It wouldnt eliminate the smoke, it would reduce the amount of it, but far from eliminating it. It was smoking even with high quality fuel, simply the burning temperature is too low, its known issue with Russian oil fired boilers of the era. We have them in some of our thermal plants and have major issues with them due to EU regulations so filters are being fitted on some and are being overhauled to fix the issues as much as possible.

And not only those, Russian jet engines also had good amount of issues due to lacking metalurgical technology which limited burning temperature at least in non forsage modes, RD-33 being the most famous for it.

Militarov wrote:Yeah, with small issue that Su-33 empty is some 4,5t heavier and has alot thirstier engines.

True. But we must not forget, that in Ufa Russia restart production of new AL-31F series 3 engines for Su-33, which will be upgraded to today level of AL-31F engines, what means lower consumption and longer service life. New engines will give to Su-33 new life and new capabilities regarding range and most probably it will go through deeper modernization, which will give the use of more capable and lighter armament like R-77-1 comparing to R-27 and the use of guided air to ground and air to sea armament. of course, there will be still limitations, when Su-33 Will operate from carrier, but when it Will operate from Severomorsk air base over Arctic sea, it will fly with full fuel tanks and with full weapons load.

No carrier in the world is designated as "strike carrier" to my knowledge. Only "strike" prefix i can remember being used regarding carriers is in abrevation Carrier Strike Group (CSG). Aircraft onboard of US carriers perform all roles air defence, interception, strike, ASW...

You are applying western terminology and standards to Russian carriers... why can't I use terms to distinguish the differences?

Up until recently the K had Su-33s and Su-25UTGs. ie fighters and trainers.

The only strike capability on board was the Granit missiles under her deck.

Now for the first time they have MiG-29K2s on board that actually have real multirole capability, but they are only testing them... there is no suggestion of a radical change in policy... they went with Flankers in the first place because they did not take up that much more internal space than a MiG-33, but had a range advantage and could carry more air to air weapons which offered better combat persistance. The MiG-33 had rather better air to ground capability than the Su-33 as the Su-33 had only basic air to ground capabilities. The point is that the Su-33 won because the air to ground capabilities were not needed, but made the MiG-33 more expensive than the larger heavier Su-33.

They have chosen the MiG-29K2 this time around because it was already put into production for the Indian navy so the production set up costs were already paid for... which actually made the MiG-29K2 cheaper than the Su-33 which was not in production.

The MiG-29K2 has rather better performance than the MiG-33 while the Su-33 is only going to be slightly better than the older model Su-33... so the MiG won.

The question this raises is does this mean the k is going to be used for land strike missions as well as its air CAP role... personally I doubt it.

But thats the point of having the catapult... so you can launch them with full fuel and 8000 pounds of warload. I dont understand what are you trying to say with that "If it didnt have the catapult", but it does...

The claim is that the Hornet and F-14 are better carrier aircraft than the Su-33. I am saying that on an even playing field... ie both with cats or both without the Su-33 has rather more potential than either of the two american aircraft.

Actually guidance kits are as low as 15k USD today due to number of them built price went down dramatically, chances are those will soon be same price as Mk-84s themself.

So they only had to make millions of them to become not cheap...

The Russian solution of putting the expensive guidance kit in the aircraft to reuse with all types of unguided bomb or rocket is much smarter.

I wouldnt go that far and say "Hornet is dead meat", they after all carry AIM-9R and AIM-120D as main AA weapons atm and have AESA radar.

No helmet mounted sight or high off boresight AAM... AMRAAMs can be jammed.

I thought the R model sidewinder was cancelled...

MiG-29K (9.47) as we know it now flew first time in 2007.

No, that was the version ordered by India... the Russian Navy didn't even order any aircraft until 2009.

When did the first MiG-29K reach the unit in Russian Navy exactly? Was it like.. 2013? And Naval flight testing started in 2010. right?

AFAIK this is their first deployment. The whole purpose of this deployment is testing the aircraft.

Its not new design, but any standards, no matter how you decide to look at it. You said "Its new design", no, its not, period, end, no.

It is less than 3 years old on its first deployment... it is certainly not 40 years old.

Yeah, with small issue that Su-33 empty is some 4,5t heavier and has alot thirstier engines.

The Sewer hornet is known for its reduced flight range compared with the hornet.

Yeap. Lacking cats is causing all this deficiency.

You mean like the Hermes lacks cats?

The K lacks cats because it was intended to operate fighters in the intercept and fighter roles.

According to what we saw so far it is. Lets see if they pull off something better in terms of A2G load-out.

The reason the Su-33 got picked over the MiG-33 was that it could carry ten AAMs and fly further than the MiG-33. That was important because its primary role is air defence where lots of AAMs and long flight range are important.

Well it carries less stuff for starters, that's no great capability in places like Syria.

It carries more external fuel because of the whores short legs in the super version.


Also the fact that the super whore is a low level interdictor that would fly near mach 1 on the deck most of the way in and out. The Su-33 would spend most of its time high to medium altitude at transonic speeds shooting down enemy aircraft.

Interestingly the RU MOD has the choice to eliminate the black smoke by increase the fuel cost of the ship by more than 50 % , but they decided that it won't worth the money.

Of course they wont spend extra money on such a trival and unimportant thing... the Israelis would not attack her like they did on the USS Liberty... and ISIS has no airforce or navy.

And not only those, Russian jet engines also had good amount of issues due to lacking metalurgical technology which limited burning temperature at least in non forsage modes, RD-33 being the most famous for it.

Funny you say that... the D30 engine in the Il-76 cost about 800K but the PS90A that had new metals that allowed a lower fuel burn and slightly higher thrust cost 6 million each. Those sophisticated new engines don't really make much sense until they are produced in large numbers to get their costs down... which of course does not apply to ships engines as you will never build enough to make it economical.

but when it Will operate from Severomorsk air base over Arctic sea, it will fly with full fuel tanks and with full weapons load.

90% of the time land based Flankers don't even fly with full fuel tanks or anything approaching a full weapons load.

The Kuznetsov has two different length takeoff runs... guess why...

hahahahaha... I remember in the 1970s all the western experts saying the Yak-38 is a limited aircraft that could not even perform rolling takeoffs to increase payload... until they did.

Of course the Yak-38 was a limited aircraft but the western experts still managed to underestimate it... just like it would not be that long ago that most western experts would agree that what Russia is doing now in Syria would be impossible... and they are half right because when they talk about can't they are talking about themselves... the US could not do what Russia did with the money they did it with because they don't have the tools the Russians have.

GarryB wrote:

I wouldnt go that far and say "Hornet is dead meat", they after all carry AIM-9R and AIM-120D as main AA weapons atm and have AESA radar.

No helmet mounted sight or high off boresight AAM... AMRAAMs can be jammed.

I thought the R model sidewinder was cancelled...

Not sure what you're talking about. USN has been using operationally AIM-9X Block I since over a decade ago, on the Hornets with JHMCS. Block II came online last year too.



Also the USN can employ twin seaters with both pilot and WSO using the JHMCS.

GarryB wrote:The Sewer hornet is known for its reduced flight range compared with the hornet.

Not sure what you're talking about. USN has been using operationally AIM-9X Block I since over a decade ago, on the Hornets with JHMCS. Block II came online last year too.

The X model is not the R model... the R model was cancelled.

Whore nets are not a issue for Russian fighters, Russian fighters are more likely to have to deal with the aircraft of third world countries... like British Typhoons...

BTW I notice that the MiG-29KR unit on the K was formed in January of this year... according to AFM.

Militarov wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:
The trip cost around 100 million rubel fuel cost only to Syria , considering three boiler operating and high sulphur bunker fuel.

If the ship run with distillate fuel the trip cost could be 50% more, but there won't be any black smoke.


The US ships running with distillate fuel, that make better impression in the observers. : )



The ship needs at least one boiler to run the systems, so in the following weeks the fuel only will cost at least 100 million rubel/month , if it is not on anchor.

If it wants to increase the combat load of the airplanes by running with full speed then the fuel cost will increase to 150 million/week.

Interestingly the RU MOD has the choice to eliminate the black smoke by increase  the fuel cost of the ship by more than 50 % , but they decided that it won't worth the money.

It wouldnt eliminate the smoke, it would reduce the amount of it, but far from eliminating it. It was smoking even with high quality fuel, simply the burning temperature is too low, its known issue with Russian oil fired boilers of the era. We have them in some of our thermal plants and have major issues with them due to EU regulations so filters are being fitted on some and are being overhauled to fix the issues as much as possible.

And not only those, Russian jet engines also had good amount of issues due to lacking metalurgical technology which limited burning temperature at least in non forsage modes, RD-33 being the most famous for it.

Yes, it will smoke like the Kitty Hawk.

The bunker oil is leftover , means it can have wide range of components.

And there is no connection between the metallurgy and the smoking of engines.

It is NOT smoking from the temperature and so on, it is smoking due to the wrong air-fuel mixture due to different fuel viscosity, or changing engine /environmental parameters.


The real reason of these is the engine control maturity.

Singular_Transform wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:
The trip cost around 100 million rubel fuel cost only to Syria , considering three boiler operating and high sulphur bunker fuel.

If the ship run with distillate fuel the trip cost could be 50% more, but there won't be any black smoke.


The US ships running with distillate fuel, that make better impression in the observers. : )



The ship needs at least one boiler to run the systems, so in the following weeks the fuel only will cost at least 100 million rubel/month , if it is not on anchor.

If it wants to increase the combat load of the airplanes by running with full speed then the fuel cost will increase to 150 million/week.

Interestingly the RU MOD has the choice to eliminate the black smoke by increase  the fuel cost of the ship by more than 50 % , but they decided that it won't worth the money.

It wouldnt eliminate the smoke, it would reduce the amount of it, but far from eliminating it. It was smoking even with high quality fuel, simply the burning temperature is too low, its known issue with Russian oil fired boilers of the era. We have them in some of our thermal plants and have major issues with them due to EU regulations so filters are being fitted on some and are being overhauled to fix the issues as much as possible.

And not only those, Russian jet engines also had good amount of issues due to lacking metalurgical technology which limited burning temperature at least in non forsage modes, RD-33 being the most famous for it.

Yes, it will smoke like the Kitty Hawk.

The bunker oil is leftover , means it can have wide range of components.

And there is no connection between the metallurgy and the smoking of engines.

It is NOT smoking from the temperature and so on, it is smoking due to the wrong air-fuel mixture due to different fuel viscosity, or changing engine /environmental parameters.


The real reason of these is the engine control maturity.

Even with best fuel available it smoked more than Kitty, alot more actually.

Mazut-100 is not "leftover" of anything. Its one of legit high calory oil fractions.

And there is no connection between the metallurgy and the smoking of engines. - I will bold this here. And copy few lines from the simpliest ever explanation of how jet engines work, from Stanford college notebook:

"The continuous flow of gas to which the turbine is exposed may enter the turbine at a temperature between 850 and 1700C, which is again far above the melting point of current materials technology. The desire to produce a high engine efficiency demands a high turbine inlet temperature, but this causes problems as the turbine blades would be required to perform and survive long operating periods at temperatures above their melting point. These blades, while glowing red-hot, must be strong enough to carry the centrifugal loads due to rotation at high speed. To operate under these conditions, cool air is forced out of many small holes in the blade. This air remains close to the blade, preventing it from melting, but not detracting significantly from the engine's overall performance. Nickel alloys are used to construct the turbine blades and the nozzle guide vanes because these materials demonstrate good properties at high temperatures"

Metalurgy is the core of turbine development, literally. RD-33 (despite often burning lower quality fuel) also has issues of lower burning temperature due to not very adequate materials used, so compromise was made with lowering the temperature, tradeoff was smoke and abit less power, gain was prolonged lifetime. This was the reason why first jet engines were an absolute rubbish with 50 hours lifespan.

If burning temperature is high enough, you wont have anything to form the smoke. Badly optimised injection can cause the smoke but it can cause at the best that "blue" smoke, not this.. pillar of...doom Kuz is forming.

I am amused at you Mil... you know the game...

Do you think all those photos of smoke coming from the K are all legitimate... or do you think it might be possible that they were doctored with Photoshop.

I mean honestly do you think the sources of the photos can be trusted... really.

Because if you do I have a bridge I have to sell you...

You can say I am in denial, but when you get lied to as much as we in the west get lied to, what reason do we have for trust?