Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

GarryB wrote: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?

Militarov wrote:

GarryB wrote: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?

Well i am not making anything up am i... I am always objective as one can be. I give the praise but i also need to be a critic.

Well most of them are legit, many even originate from the Russian Navy, or Russian officers. Some from other navies... There are ofc some altered photos of it to make them suitable for memes, however majority are legit as it gets.

I am getting lied as much as you, probably even more, i live in Serbia, they tell us here we have faster growing economy than China...

miketheterrible wrote:

Militarov wrote:

GarryB wrote: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?

Well i am not making anything up am i... I am always objective as one can be. I give the praise but i also need to be a critic.

Well most of them are legit, many even originate from the Russian Navy, or Russian officers. Some from other navies... There are ofc some altered photos of it to make them suitable for memes, however majority are legit as it gets.

I am getting lied as much as you, probably even more, i live in Serbia, they tell us here we have faster growing economy than China...

The government of Serbia should be shot.

I am quite interested in learning more on them and the Serbian military.  Care to point me into the right direction?

George1 wrote:So MiG-29K has greater range than Su-33

Isos wrote:

George1 wrote:So MiG-29K has greater range than Su-33

I don't know what written but the picture is in french so I don't think it's a good source for a russian secret equipement, I've never seen official numbers for Su-33 actual range. Plus, it was found on twitter.

Militarov wrote:

Isos wrote:

George1 wrote:So MiG-29K has greater range than Su-33

I don't know what written but the picture is in french so I don't think it's a good source for a russian secret equipement, I've never seen official numbers for Su-33 actual range. Plus, it was found on twitter.

Do the math, while you still lack certain variables you can get rougly close to real deal. Su-27P has 9400kg of internal fuel which allows 3.500km ferry range on altitude of 8000m. Su-33 has 8.500kg of internal fuel. Tho you would need to compensate abit for that both-on-afterburner engines on takeoff for Su-33 and 2 additional tons of weight for more precise data.

KiloGolf wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Isos wrote:

George1 wrote:So MiG-29K has greater range than Su-33

I don't know what written but the picture is in french so I don't think it's a good source for a russian secret equipement, I've never seen official numbers for Su-33 actual range. Plus, it was found on twitter.

Do the math, while you still lack certain variables you can get rougly close to real deal. Su-27P has 9400kg of internal fuel which allows 3.500km ferry range on altitude of 8000m. Su-33 has 8.500kg of internal fuel. Tho you would need to compensate abit for that both-on-afterburner engines on takeoff for Su-33 and 2 additional tons of weight for more precise data.

I bet the landing gear and extra perks of the Su-33 make it a bit heavier than your average Flanker. Much like the F/A-18 vs. F-18L.

Militarov wrote:

Isos wrote:

George1 wrote:So MiG-29K has greater range than Su-33

I don't know what written but the picture is in french so I don't think it's a good source for a russian secret equipement, I've never seen official numbers for Su-33 actual range. Plus, it was found on twitter.

Do the math, while you still lack certain variables you can get rougly close to real deal. Su-27P has 9400kg of internal fuel which allows 3.500km ferry range on altitude of 8000m. Su-33 has 8.500kg of internal fuel. Tho you would need to compensate abit for that both-on-afterburner engines on takeoff for Su-33 and 2 additional tons of weight for more precise data.

Militarov wrote:

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.

Militarov wrote:



Before and After SVP-24 on Su-33

Regards to Keypublishing

Isos wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Isos wrote:

George1 wrote:So MiG-29K has greater range than Su-33

I don't know what written but the picture is in french so I don't think it's a good source for a russian secret equipement, I've never seen official numbers for Su-33 actual range. Plus, it was found on twitter.

Do the math, while you still lack certain variables you can get rougly close to real deal. Su-27P has 9400kg of internal fuel which allows 3.500km ferry range on altitude of 8000m. Su-33 has 8.500kg of internal fuel. Tho you would need to compensate abit for that both-on-afterburner engines on takeoff for Su-33 and 2 additional tons of weight for more precise data.

Well, I was thinking about the fact that the Su-33 has to choose bettwen weapon and fuel for it's missions so it gives you a diagram in 3 dimensions: range (y) depending on load (x) and fuel (z), not a cercle.

Going back to the K topic, I was thinking that making an improved K class before going for a big carrier could be benefic for russia. At least building 1 and improving the K. They can make 2 of them for the price of 1 big as the developpement was already done for the K and the modernisation parts can be derivated from other ships (electronics from the frigate, nuc reactors from icebreakers ..), and now with the Mig-29K they can use the aviation for attacking other ships with Kh-35/31 in big numbers.

The design would be cleaner and there would be much more space for jet fuel and ammunition with a nuclear reactor. And the bridge would accomodate more jets as the big turret would be smaller.

Singular_Transform wrote:

Militarov wrote:

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.

The Russian metallurgy capability is the same / better than the US capabilities , search the RD-180 if you have  concerns.

The problem is with the engine management systems.

Say on an jet engine the target is not that to keep the averagetemperature under a certain limit, but to keep the maximum temperature under a certain limit.


Means that you can go above a certain temperature regardless of the actual parameter.


So let see what parameters we talk about : )

engine rpm
engine inlet air temperature
engine temperature
fuel temperature
air flow speed
air pressure
air humidity
air temperature
angle of attack
thrust vector direction
Throttle position
Aircraft control position


I think I left out from the list a lot of other important parameters, but based on the above data the engine management system has to define the controlled parameters of the engine including the fuel volume.

the system try to get as close as possible to the engine maximum allowed temperature as possible.

But if you don't have the proper flow model for the engine, and the correct n dimension surface that define the connection between input parameters and controlled parameters, then you have to keep a safety distance from the possible critical point.

Means your engine will have less power, or will smoke and so on.


Russia /CCCP used to be 20 years behind the curve, but now they are left behind only by 5 years, and catching up fast.


This is the case with the K engine as well.

They don't have correct control of the air/fuel mixture .

Additional the fuel is rubbish as well, this type of fuel generate the same type of smoke in the commercial ships as well.

medo wrote:

https://www.russiadefence.net/t2897p275-russian-naval-aviation-news

I find it quite strange, that Gefest could install SVP-24 in Su-33 in half a year without any testing before with integration of SVP-24 with any Flanker and than test it and train pilots in a month and than send them to war. In such short period of time they could install only upgrade equipment from a program, which is well operational. There are only two operational Flanker upgrade programs. Su-27SM(3) from KNAAPO and Su-30KN from Irkut, which is used by Baranovichi aviation repair plant in Belarus. Both give the same bombing capabilities as SVP-24. Pilots could aslo train with both upgrade programs with Su-30M2 for Su-27SM program and with Su-30KN in Lipetsk for Su-30KN program. Gefest could simply buy Su-30KN components from Irkut or from Belarus and install them in Su-33 as for Su-27SM program they must go to KNAAPO. There is also another point which made me sceptical regarding SVP-24 and compatibility with original fire control computer. After small modernization in KNAAPO, Su-33 pilots must use knee pads to use satellite navigation and not through FCS computer and they are equipped with L-150 Pastel RWR, but we never see them to carry or test launch any anti-radar missile, what could mean that old FCS computer is not compatible with Pastel. I doubt it is compatible with SVP-24 without integration work and testings. Too short time of period and Su-33 work effectively in Syria, what could only mean that they got operational modernization package through Gefest contract. Also pilots have to train with this complex before as one month is too short time. Su-24M with Gefest SVP-24 is not the same as Su-33. After all, Gefest promote SVP-24 program for ground attacking planes as Su-24, Su-25, Tu-22 and MiG-27 and not for air superiority fighters.

Militarov wrote:

RD-180 is rocket engine which does not have turbine inlets, it does not have a turbine for that matter, it has just two burning chambers, and its first stage engine. Do you know what happens with first stage engine after it burns the fuel? Also engines of such type are always cooled, temperatures they achieve (even tho its for fairly short amounts of time) is immense, and you cant really afford cooling on fighter engines cant you. What in the name of God now it has to do with engines like RD-33?

Also please... stop trying to do high end math, hurts my eyes.

What you are trying to tell us here by using thousands of words is FADEC/EEC/DEEC (whichever variant you prefer). And yes, FADEC can affect amounts of smoke engine produces in certain flight parameters but that is not what is its role and smoke reduction is mostly secondary effect of it. You have full digital FADEC controlled engines that smoke, and oposite, you have engines from 60s that had completely analog control systems which produced no smoke whatsoever.

You know why Chinese cant build decent engine of their own? Metallurgy. Now, since West would rather decide switching to flying brooms and carpets rather than selling them their modern engines they are left with only one option (id say second best option in this particular matter) which is Russia. USSR and Russia already for decades have issues with short lifespan engines due to defective metallurgical solutions.

For an example the legendary engine General Electric J79 had HUGE issues with smoke, wich led to the pilots trying to fly whole time using afterburners so the amounts of smoke would greatly reduce. It was solved later by getting hydrogenless fuel, removing steel compressor blades (first rows were titanium, rest steel) and increasing combusion temperature in later models.

Singular_Transform wrote:

Militarov wrote:

RD-180 is rocket engine which does not have turbine inlets, it does not have a turbine for that matter, it has just two burning chambers, and its first stage engine. Do you know what happens with first stage engine after it burns the fuel? Also engines of such type are always cooled, temperatures they achieve (even tho its for fairly short amounts of time) is immense, and you cant really afford cooling on fighter engines cant you. What in the name of God now it has to do with engines like RD-33?

Also please... stop trying to do high end math, hurts my eyes.

What you are trying to tell us here by using thousands of words is FADEC/EEC/DEEC (whichever variant you prefer). And yes, FADEC can affect amounts of smoke engine produces in certain flight parameters but that is not what is its role and smoke reduction is mostly secondary effect of it. You have full digital FADEC controlled engines that smoke, and oposite, you have engines from 60s that had completely analog control systems which produced no smoke whatsoever.

You know why Chinese cant build decent engine of their own? Metallurgy. Now, since West would rather decide switching to flying brooms and carpets rather than selling them their modern engines they are left with only one option (id say second best option in this particular matter) which is Russia. USSR and Russia already for decades have issues with short lifespan engines due to defective metallurgical solutions.

For an example the legendary engine General Electric J79 had HUGE issues with smoke, wich led to the pilots trying to fly whole time using afterburners so the amounts of smoke would greatly reduce. It was solved later by getting hydrogenless fuel, removing steel compressor blades (first rows were titanium, rest steel) and increasing combusion temperature in later models.

Please, check the RD-180 (191 ,, 170 ) ,and the schematics of the rocket engine.

I haven't used any math, why are you complain about it?

Prior of the digital age they used engine management systems (analogue  computers) : D

That is the reason why I haven't used "digital" "map" "memory" words.

The metallurgy is not the key element.

It was for Germany during the second world war, due to the embargo, but that was 70 years ago : ).

What the Chinese really wants is the engine management know how from the GE,  and that is the key competency of the engine manufacturers.

Everyone know how to make single crystal blades since the 80s, that is not the holly grail any more .

GarryB wrote:

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:

Militarov wrote:

RD-180 is rocket engine which does not have turbine inlets, it does not have a turbine for that matter, it has just two burning chambers, and its first stage engine. Do you know what happens with first stage engine after it burns the fuel? Also engines of such type are always cooled, temperatures they achieve (even tho its for fairly short amounts of time) is immense, and you cant really afford cooling on fighter engines cant you. What in the name of God now it has to do with engines like RD-33?

Also please... stop trying to do high end math, hurts my eyes.

What you are trying to tell us here by using thousands of words is FADEC/EEC/DEEC (whichever variant you prefer). And yes, FADEC can affect amounts of smoke engine produces in certain flight parameters but that is not what is its role and smoke reduction is mostly secondary effect of it. You have full digital FADEC controlled engines that smoke, and oposite, you have engines from 60s that had completely analog control systems which produced no smoke whatsoever.

You know why Chinese cant build decent engine of their own? Metallurgy. Now, since West would rather decide switching to flying brooms and carpets rather than selling them their modern engines they are left with only one option (id say second best option in this particular matter) which is Russia. USSR and Russia already for decades have issues with short lifespan engines due to defective metallurgical solutions.

For an example the legendary engine General Electric J79 had HUGE issues with smoke, wich led to the pilots trying to fly whole time using afterburners so the amounts of smoke would greatly reduce. It was solved later by getting hydrogenless fuel, removing steel compressor blades (first rows were titanium, rest steel) and increasing combusion temperature in later models.

Please, check the RD-180 (191 ,, 170 ) ,and the schematics of the rocket engine.

I haven't used any math, why are you complain about it?

Prior of the digital age they used engine management systems (analogue  computers) : D

That is the reason why I haven't used "digital" "map" "memory" words.

The metallurgy is not the key element.

It was for Germany during the second world war, due to the embargo, but that was 70 years ago : ).

What the Chinese really wants is the engine management know how from the GE,  and that is the key competency of the engine manufacturers.

Everyone know how to make single crystal blades since the 80s, that is not the holly grail any more .

I saw your "math knowledge" on the other threat and its unexisting. You failed at first year of highschool math there. So spare us.

I know how RD-180 looks and works, my point still stands. What does it have to do with turbofan engines?

Dont you say? Analog? Really? And what did i write? "you have engines from 60s that had completely analog control systems "

Indians also know how to make car engine you know, it doesnt mean its any good. Same goes for turbine blades, there are atm in the world some 20 producers and its far from realistic to compare ones produced by Chinese with Rolls-Royces Ni-steel single crystal blades, put aside ceramic matrix with which even Russians are still in infant stage. Also from what i am aware Russians are using directionally solidified blades, even fairly recent developments like unoficially designated RD-133 did.

Engine lifespan and TBO is directly corelating to its metalurgical solutions.

R-15B for an example had below 100h lifespan, you know why? Rubbish metalurgical choices, or better say lack of any, stainless steel all over the place, so its not WW2 issue. Its issue still.

KiloGolf wrote:Thermal barrier coatings play their part as well. As well as adhesion bonding onto the alloy itself and the science behind it. Major money is invested in making sure these coatings don't fail, and so on, and those crystals (in both DS or SC cases) are what they should be.

PS. stainless steel on gas turbine rotors/stators? Good lord, no wonder their stuff is bad.

KiloGolf wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:

Militarov wrote:

RD-180 is rocket engine which does not have turbine inlets, it does not have a turbine for that matter, it has just two burning chambers, and its first stage engine. Do you know what happens with first stage engine after it burns the fuel? Also engines of such type are always cooled, temperatures they achieve (even tho its for fairly short amounts of time) is immense, and you cant really afford cooling on fighter engines cant you. What in the name of God now it has to do with engines like RD-33?

Also please... stop trying to do high end math, hurts my eyes.

What you are trying to tell us here by using thousands of words is FADEC/EEC/DEEC (whichever variant you prefer). And yes, FADEC can affect amounts of smoke engine produces in certain flight parameters but that is not what is its role and smoke reduction is mostly secondary effect of it. You have full digital FADEC controlled engines that smoke, and oposite, you have engines from 60s that had completely analog control systems which produced no smoke whatsoever.

You know why Chinese cant build decent engine of their own? Metallurgy. Now, since West would rather decide switching to flying brooms and carpets rather than selling them their modern engines they are left with only one option (id say second best option in this particular matter) which is Russia. USSR and Russia already for decades have issues with short lifespan engines due to defective metallurgical solutions.

For an example the legendary engine General Electric J79 had HUGE issues with smoke, wich led to the pilots trying to fly whole time using afterburners so the amounts of smoke would greatly reduce. It was solved later by getting hydrogenless fuel, removing steel compressor blades (first rows were titanium, rest steel) and increasing combusion temperature in later models.

Please, check the RD-180 (191 ,, 170 ) ,and the schematics of the rocket engine.

I haven't used any math, why are you complain about it?

Prior of the digital age they used engine management systems (analogue  computers) : D

That is the reason why I haven't used "digital" "map" "memory" words.

The metallurgy is not the key element.

It was for Germany during the second world war, due to the embargo, but that was 70 years ago : ).

What the Chinese really wants is the engine management know how from the GE,  and that is the key competency of the engine manufacturers.

Everyone know how to make single crystal blades since the 80s, that is not the holly grail any more .

I saw your "math knowledge" on the other threat and its unexisting. You failed at first year of highschool math there. So spare us.

I know how RD-180 looks and works, my point still stands. What does it have to do with turbofan engines?

Dont you say? Analog? Really? And what did i write? "you have engines from 60s that had completely analog control systems "

Indians also know how to make car engine you know, it doesnt mean its any good. Same goes for turbine blades, there are atm in the world some 20 producers and its far from realistic to compare ones produced by Chinese with Rolls-Royces Ni-steel single crystal blades, put aside ceramic matrix with which even Russians are still in infant stage. Also from what i am aware Russians are using directionally solidified blades, even fairly recent developments like unoficially designated RD-133 did.

Engine lifespan and TBO is directly corelating to its metalurgical solutions.

R-15B for an example had below 100h lifespan, you know why? Rubbish metalurgical choices, or better say lack of any, stainless steel all over the place, so its not WW2 issue. Its issue still.

Thermal barrier coatings play their part as well. As well as adhesion bonding onto the alloy itself and the science behind it. Major money is invested in making sure these coatings don't fail, and so on, and those crystals (in both DS or SC cases) are what they should be.

PS. stainless steel on gas turbine rotors/stators? Good lord, no wonder their stuff is bad.

Militarov wrote:

I saw your "math knowledge" on the other threat and its unexisting. You failed at first year of highschool math there. So spare us.

I know how RD-180 looks and works, my point still stands. What does it have to do with turbofan engines?

Dont you say? Analog? Really? And what did i write? "you have engines from 60s that had completely analog control systems "

Indians also know how to make car engine you know, it doesnt mean its any good. Same goes for turbine blades, there are atm in the world some 20 producers and its far from realistic to compare ones produced by Chinese with Rolls-Royces Ni-steel single crystal blades, put aside ceramic matrix with which even Russians are still in infant stage. Also from what i am aware Russians are using directionally solidified blades, even fairly recent developments like unoficially designated RD-133 did.

Engine lifespan and TBO is directly corelating to its metalurgical solutions.

R-15B for an example had below 100h lifespan, you know why? Rubbish metalurgical choices, or better say lack of any, stainless steel all over the place, so its not WW2 issue. Its issue still.