Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

Militarov wrote:

kvs wrote:Bring on the negative PR.  Those that need to consume their hate fantasies projected on Russia can lap it up.
Probably the only reason the Kuznetsov was deployed was to test for failures.  As noted above, it likely never got
new arrestor cables.   There are probably other dead rats which are the legacy of the good old 1990s which
we have not seen yet or know about.  

Some heads will roll from this exercise.   And Russia haters can not bank on these "failures" being there when it counts.

They could do all that without going to Syria. Despite common belief, deck operations do not differ much between wartime and peacetime, except pace of the launches and amount of warload you deal with. And they have far more other shit to sort before those two.

So yeah, this was bad idea to start with.

PapaDragon wrote:Pace of launches is what snapped the cable. So real war was still needed. When USN started using this AC thing in war for real back in the 40's I doubt they got everyhing right on the fist go. Nobody does.

This is Russia's first go.

You want to play, you gotta pay.

KiloGolf wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:Pace of launches is what snapped the cable. So real war was still needed. When USN started using this AC thing in war for real back in the 40's I doubt they got everyhing right on the fist go. Nobody does.

This is Russia's first go.

You want to play, you gotta pay.

Be that as it may, there's a certain technological gap associated with how cables, arrestor hooks, etc. were assessed and monitored (prior, during and after operations) in the early 60s, compared to nowadays. It is simply easier these days. Russians in 2016 have all the means at their disposal to do so more efficiently and without having to loose 10% of the carrier-borne jets in 10 days.

kvs wrote:You are just guessing.  You have no clue about the engineering specifics of these parts.

KiloGolf wrote:

kvs wrote:You are just guessing.  You have no clue about the engineering specifics of these parts.

I have a clue about Engineering then and now. Hence my comment.
The specifics of these parts are irrelevant to my point. And judging by the result neither did the RuN have any clues about these ''specifics''.

miketheterrible wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

kvs wrote:You are just guessing.  You have no clue about the engineering specifics of these parts.

I have a clue about Engineering then and now. Hence my comment.
The specifics of these parts are irrelevant to my point. And judging by the result neither did the RuN have any clues about these ''specifics''.

No you don't.  That is for sure.  And not on this specific topic either since we all know Greece doesn't operate a carrier or even a proper navy for that matter.

So please, spare us.  You haven't convinced anyone.

Militarov wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

Militarov wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:If somehow it is found the cables are "reconditioned" from Soviet stocks, heads will roll.

I somehow highly doubt they made new arresting cables like... ever.

... the worst part is that I'm not even doubting this.

Well see, i look at it like this. They probably made certain amount of spare wires at the time when carrier was made, probobably more than one set was on the carrier itself... so... they didnt launch many aircraft anyways so wear and tear was like minimal...

Chances are wires that are used atm are sozdane v SSSR.

Odin of Ossetia wrote:


And Russian Jets Keep on Crashing.


http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/russian-jets-keep-crashing-%e2%80%94-and-it-may-be-an-aircraft-carrier%e2%80%99s-fault/ar-AAlbrgh?li=AAggFp5&ocid=SKY2DHP

SeigSoloyvov wrote:It was the fault of the cable YET again. The pilots nor the plane are at fault that ship is the problem it needs to cut it's deployment shot and head back for modernization.

KiloGolf wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:It was the fault of the cable YET again. The pilots nor the plane are at fault that ship is the problem it needs to cut it's deployment shot and head back for modernization.

What's  interesting is that right now you have:

1. FS Charles de Gaulle (R91) sailing between Cyprus and Israel, conducting aerial exercises till the 15th Dec. Hollande will visit it as well.
2. USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69) sailing in the region just west off Cyprus, conducting aerial exercises till the 13th Dec.

The Americans and French will also conduct joint drills and bring along a cruiser and destroyers with them.

So you have the two global powers when it comes to carrier ops right now, witnessing the whole Kuz saga up close as it unfolds.
At least next time they have to ditch a 4th generation fast-jet into the Med, they could consider landing it on one of their partner's nearby CVs.

OminousSpudd wrote:Landing on a NATO carrier... Kilo, you live in an alternate universe.

Odin of Ossetia wrote:


And Russian Jets Keep on Crashing.


http://msn.com/en-ca/news/world/russian-jets-keep-crashing-%e2%80%94-and-it-may-be-an-aircraft-carrier%e2%80%99s-fault/ar-AAlbrgh?li=AAggFp5&ocid=SKY2DHP

Pace of launches is what snapped the cable. So real war was still needed. When USN started using this AC thing in war for real back in the 40's I doubt they got everything right on the fist go. Nobody does.

Tsavo Lion wrote:OTH, some sailor(s) may have gotten tired being there & decided to sabotage the ship to go home sooner!

At least next time they have to ditch a 4th generation fast-jet into the Med, they could consider landing it on one of their partner's nearby CVs.

OTH, some sailor(s) may have gotten tired being there & decided to sabotage the ship to go home sooner!

GarryB wrote:I am sure there is a policy of not supplying high tech equipment to the side that beheads children and burns women alive.

KiloGolf wrote:

GarryB wrote:I am sure there is a policy of not supplying high tech equipment to the side that beheads children and burns women alive.

I thought Russia recently restarted business and were talking about deals with Turkey (S-400).

Su-33 even with Gefest hardly qualifies as more cutting edge than S-400.

Militarov wrote:SU-33 hardly qualifies as cutting edge by any means.

KiloGolf wrote:

Militarov wrote:SU-33 hardly qualifies as cutting edge by any means.

Start running now

GarryB wrote:

At least next time they have to ditch a 4th generation fast-jet into the Med, they could consider landing it on one of their partner's nearby CVs.

I doubt a Russian navy pilot would hand their aircraft over to the enemy like that. ..

OTH, some sailor(s) may have gotten tired being there & decided to sabotage the ship to go home sooner!

You mean like the gay sailor on the Iowa class battleship that changed the order of the propellant charges in the gun his ex lover worked in so that it exploded and killed him when they fired... possible.

AFAIK the arresting system is not set up for different weights... only steam cat launches are.

There are only max landing weight limits set for the aircraft.

«Под палубой стоят огромные барабаны – метров шесть диаметром. При зацепе они по специальной программе стравливают с себя трос – затормаживают в зависимости от посадочного веса машины. Этот вес может сильно отличаться в зависимости от объема топлива на борту. Всякий раз при посадке пилот сообщает на борт данные об остатке топлива. Тогда в зависимости от фактического веса машины ставятся «уставки» на тормозные барабаны, чтобы успеть остановить именно данный самолет на дистанции в 90 метров. Перед каждой посадкой конкретный матросик бегает и ставит «уставки». Если поставит неправильно, то барабан также будет тормозить неправильно, что может стать одной из причин обрыва троса, – пояснил собеседник. – И такие случаи бывали».http://www.vz.ru/politics/2016/12/5/666349.print.html

Tsavo Lion wrote:

Pace of launches is what snapped the cable. So real war was still needed. When USN started using this AC thing in war for real back in the 40's I doubt they got everything right on the fist go. Nobody does.

It could also be the wrong weight entered to the arrestor system- such mistakes occurred there before. Or the arrestor, not the wire, itself  malfunctioned. I'm sure the Russians analyzed decades worth of US, French, British & Japanese carrier ops from open sources as well as info. obtained from intell. OTH, some sailor(s) may have gotten tired being there & decided to sabotage the ship to go home sooner!

kvs wrote:China's knockoff of Su fighters the J-15.   Even though they got their hands on the engines, they could not copy them after 15 years of
trying.