Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

So MiG-29K has greater range than Su-33

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.

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.

GarryB wrote:

I disagree. They have learned a lot from the design of the K and also the new modular systems they have developed for their new ships... putting that to use in a new design that take advantage of this makes more sense than trying to rebuild the K so the K can have a sister ship.

Militarov wrote:

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.

Well i had plenty of skepticism in my bag too, but as of now we still do not have any real confirmation its SVP-24 do we. We have words of some journalists, which could also just hear someone from MOD say "new bombing equipment" and whoala they connected it with SVP-24 and it ends up on RT/Sputnik etc.

And as of now no good cockpit photo either, just this angle.

When its about the pilots, could it be they borrowed few "sniper" Su-34 pilots? Could explain all that landing-takeoff practice all the way down from Russia.

franco wrote:Read somewhere in the last day or so that the technical problem that the ditched Mik-29K had, was that the pilot was not able to land it due to rough seas, waited too long trying and ran out of fuel.

medo wrote:

Militarov wrote:

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.

Well i had plenty of skepticism in my bag too, but as of now we still do not have any real confirmation its SVP-24 do we. We have words of some journalists, which could also just hear someone from MOD say "new bombing equipment" and whoala they connected it with SVP-24 and it ends up on RT/Sputnik etc.

And as of now no good cockpit photo either, just this angle.

When its about the pilots, could it be they borrowed few "sniper" Su-34 pilots? Could explain all that landing-takeoff practice all the way down from Russia.

No, they could not borrow Su-34 pilots. Su-33 is a single seater and air force pilots could not so quickly muster carrier landings, that they could simplym borrow them. This is why so low number if MiG-29K available for operation in Syria although they got all 24 of them. Simply they don*t have enough pilots mustering carrier operations enough for deployment. Su-33 are piloted by their Su-33 pilots, who were mostly trained for air to air combat. The time scale of this Su-33 modernization is a little to fast to install untested SVP-24 and than test it and train pilots to use it.

Giulio wrote:If true, why didn't they launch an air tanker?

JohninMK wrote:

GarryB wrote:

I disagree. They have learned a lot from the design of the K and also the new modular systems they have developed for their new ships... putting that to use in a new design that take advantage of this makes more sense than trying to rebuild the K so the K can have a sister ship.

Also there would have been some lessons learnt from the Mistral construction.

Militarov wrote:...............

Mistral is however built by merchant marine standards not military standards.

Isos wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Giulio wrote:If true, why didn't they launch an air tanker?

There are no tankers around, except possibly some MiG-29K buddy refueling pod.

Do they have small tankers in their inventory to send in Syria for their operations ? Something smaller than Il-78. At least to train their crew. The crash is more the fault of the bad planning of the mission than of the Mig. They need to come back with some fuel in their plane for situation llike this where a plane can't land and if needed go back to a Syrian Airport or stay in the air.

Isos wrote:

Only tanker they currently operate is Il-78 in the Air Force. USN used for decades solution i really liked S-3 Viking for their carriers. However today they use Super Hornets with refueling probes. I somehow always wondered tho if Russians ever gets on idea (for future carrier as it has no point on current one) to develop dedicated tanker on Su-34 platform for an example.

It's not hard to develop Su-34 tanker. Take off everything and put just fuel tanker in it. Good idea actually, It could even fit in the K.

PapaDragon wrote:

Militarov wrote:...............

Mistral is however built by merchant marine standards not military standards.

I am completely clueless about this so I'm just gonna ask: what is the difference?

I always assumed it was just weapons and radars.

franco wrote:Here is a more detailed version. The snag cables were damaged in the previous 2 landings. The pilot was told to circle while they got fixed... took too long and he had to eject when he ran out of fuel.

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2273357.html

KiloGolf wrote:

franco wrote:Here is a more detailed version. The snag cables were damaged in the previous 2 landings. The pilot was told to circle while they got fixed... took too long and he had to eject when he ran out of fuel.

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2273357.html

That's terrible. Planes can't carry enough fuel/payload on this carrier and it really shows with incidents like that.

franco wrote:Here is a more detailed version. The snag cables were damaged in the previous 2 landings. The pilot was told to circle while they got fixed... took too long and he had to eject when he ran out of fuel.

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2273357.html

OminousSpudd wrote:

franco wrote:Here is a more detailed version. The snag cables were damaged in the previous 2 landings. The pilot was told to circle while they got fixed... took too long and he had to eject when he ran out of fuel.

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2273357.html

Hmm. This is a shame, but at least we now know it wasn't the '29K that malfunctioned.

Funny, how many people were slamming Mikoyan a few pages back? Oh wait, we're just supposed to forget about that now.

Militarov wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

Militarov wrote:...............

Mistral is however built by merchant marine standards not military standards.

I am completely clueless about this so I'm just gonna ask: what is the difference?

I always assumed it was just weapons and radars.

That too ofc, but not only. Merchant marine ships often lack many of the redundancy systems that are normally featured on ships built by military standards, extensive hull reinforcements, multiple auxilary generators, steel grades used are also often different, damage control is far more important on military ships so there are many sealable chambers/many pumps, various types of armor are applied around important ship systems like engine rom-command center-bridge, then there is special type of fuel tanks that prevent explosions and lightning up...list is quite extensive. Military grade ships also leave alot of space for future improvements, sub systems installation etc.

Basically almost everything is different, however though history many civilian grade built ships ended up being used for military purposes, Foklands, Desert Storm, Vietnam...

miketheterrible wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

franco wrote:Here is a more detailed version. The snag cables were damaged in the previous 2 landings. The pilot was told to circle while they got fixed... took too long and he had to eject when he ran out of fuel.

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2273357.html

That's terrible. Planes can't carry enough fuel/payload on this carrier and it really shows with incidents like that.

Oh shut up already.  You don't give a crap.  Shed your tears for your next economic meltdown.

Because you didn't see it, you don't even know what kind of armament the things can carry.  Since you know, you nor I seen the MiG-29KR or alike with all its armament.