Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

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.

Do you have evidence that NATO member Turkey beheads children and burns women alive?

US supported terrorists in Syria do that.

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

Trillion dollar aircraft like Rafale and Sub Par Whorenet are cutting edge... mostly cutting into US and French tax payers wallets. Su-33 does the same job for a fraction of the cost.

Come on, everyone here knows that Su-33s are long past their youth.

They are not new, they have had only minor upgrades. They do pretty much what the Russians need them to do... carry a load of AAMs a long distance from the K for the purpose of protecting ships from air and missile attack.

Neither Su-33 nor MiG-29K have the front landing gear designed &/ strong enough for CATs, so how would they get off those carriers even if they were cleared to recover on them? The J-15 is another matter- it now has a launch bar as Chinese r getting ready for CATOBAR ops on their future CVs. But even then they r a long away off, if ever, to crossdecking with the USN CVNs!

With no weapons attached and a low fuel load they likely would not need cats to get airborne from a carrier the size of the Nimitz... they could probably do a rolling take off from near the rear of the deck.

the landing gear on both aircaft is designed to operate from a ski jump so would be rather stronger than land based models, but there would not be any attachment points to lock it onto a cat launcher anyway.

Would make more sense to land them in Syria where they have the governments permission to operate rather than western carriers who might hand them over to their allies like ISIS for show trial and execution.

Compare the size of the two fleets and you have an answer. It's not embarrassing at all.
#cablegate is embarrassing indeed, for reasons already outlined.

But hang on... I thought Russia was losing aircraft because it does not know what it is doing and all its kit is poorly designed (ie not western design spec) and is old... now you are suggesting that losing aircraft happens anyway... those who don't lose aircraft don't fly...

And how many Hornets are there flying? And how MUCH? Math, math, math.

Numbers of aircraft should not matter... they have procedures and systems in place to prevent all accidents and are fucking perfect and all other navies should copy everything they do and they will be fucking perfect too.

more like a logic-bot

Your logic is weak.

Russia has crashes because they are not US Navy and don't know what they are doing... they lack training and experience.

US Navy has crashes because they have a million aircraft and fly everywhere all the time but everything they do is perfect and always have 5 or 6 backup plans... including being able to call up alien help via the Stargate.

Kilo, National Interest and Popular Mechanics aren't exactly valid sources. Just grabbing articles to back up your opinion no matter the authors can be a tad trollish.

OminousSpudd wrote:Kilo, National Interest and Popular Mechanics aren't exactly valid sources. Just grabbing articles to back up your opinion no matter the authors can be a tad trollish.

It's relative. You can get good information out of them.
Zvezda isn't either, they're not going to upload videos of the K failing hard, but the information is what counts.

Needless to say all this will be posted here as it's good input for discussion. If anyone feels triggered they can go to their safe space.

GarryB wrote:Do you have evidence that NATO member Turkey beheads children and burns women alive?

US supported terrorists in Syria do that.

Turkey supported and supports the beheaders in Syria.
I see you don't keep up with the news since.. like 2011.

You can get good information out of them.

Only by accident.

They are not interested in informing their readers... they are interested in indoctrinating their readers into thinking the west is best and everything else is wrong.

As such there is no useful information revealed.

Turkey supported and supports the beheaders in Syria.
I see you don't keep up with the news since.. like 2011.

I asked for evidence... not personal opinion.

Europe and the US have been dividing and conquering goat shaggers for the last century or more.

It seems Russia can talk to turkey, while europe and the us have no interest in talking for the time being.

GarryB wrote:they are interested in indoctrinating their readers.

If the readers are kids sure, even Zvezda and strοnk press can be indoctrinating.
But generally you get good info if you know what you're after.

GarryB wrote:I asked for evidence... not personal opinion.

Turkey was and is supporting the ''moderate'' sunni beheaders and IS too.
That's not an opinion, it is a fact.

GarryB wrote:

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.

Do you have evidence that NATO member Turkey beheads children and burns women alive?

US supported terrorists in Syria do that.

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

Trillion dollar aircraft like Rafale and Sub Par Whorenet are cutting edge... mostly cutting into US and French tax payers wallets. Su-33 does the same job for a fraction of the cost.

Come on, everyone here knows that Su-33s are long past their youth.

They are not new, they have had only minor upgrades. They do pretty much what the Russians need them to do... carry a load of AAMs a long distance from the K for the purpose of protecting ships from air and missile attack.

Neither Su-33 nor MiG-29K have the front landing gear designed &/ strong enough for CATs, so how would they get off those carriers even if they were cleared to recover on them? The J-15 is another matter- it now has a launch bar as Chinese r getting ready for CATOBAR ops on their future CVs. But even then they r a long away off, if ever, to crossdecking with the USN CVNs!

With no weapons attached and a low fuel load they likely would not need cats to get airborne from a carrier the size of the Nimitz... they could probably do a rolling take off from near the rear of the deck.

the landing gear on both aircaft is designed to operate from a ski jump so would be rather stronger than land based models, but there would not be any attachment points to lock it onto a cat launcher anyway.

Would make more sense to land them in Syria where they have the governments permission to operate rather than western carriers who might hand them over to their allies like ISIS for show trial and execution.

Compare the size of the two fleets and you have an answer. It's not embarrassing at all.
#cablegate is embarrassing indeed, for reasons already outlined.

But hang on... I thought Russia was losing aircraft because it does not know what it is doing and all its kit is poorly designed (ie not western design spec) and is old... now you are suggesting that losing aircraft happens anyway... those who don't lose aircraft don't fly...

And how many Hornets are there flying? And how MUCH? Math, math, math.

Numbers of aircraft should not matter... they have procedures and systems in place to prevent all accidents and are fucking perfect and all other navies should copy everything they do and they will be fucking perfect too.

more like a logic-bot

Your logic is weak.

Russia has crashes because they are not US Navy and don't know what they are doing... they lack training and experience.

US Navy has crashes because they have a million aircraft and fly everywhere all the time but everything they do is perfect and always have 5 or 6 backup plans... including being able to call up alien help via the Stargate.

Ill just say it this way, if someone asked me if i want to fly on air defence mission on Su-33 or Rafale-M id pick Rafale. For the purpose of bringing head back to home to my fiance, tho it might be her biggest disappointment of a day. Fraction of the cost comes with hidden price in terms of having no modern avionics whatsoever due to age of the bort. I bet if you asked RuNAV pilots they would agree with me on this one. Its easy to us here to say "ye, its good, cost effective stuff", but when your head is on the plate...

Ofc the size of fleet matters. Its quite simple, you have Super Hornets that fly some idk, 250 hours a year? Maybe even more for instructors. And you have like 450 of them flying. On other side you have like 12-13 Su-33s and 4 MiG-29Ks... which i doubt flew more than 100 hours last few years. And that is an increase compared to previous years. Some original F-18s broke 9.000 flying hours mark...

Rafale-M2 and Su 33 main difference is their launch platform. If that's your issue then the point is moot.

Everything else is largely similar.

Yes the SU 33 is past its prime but because that program went ahead in due time. France would have the same production rate in twice the timespan.

Flying hours is related to well known political, economical and social issue. If all things were equal this discussion is once again moot.

You're judging machines that are roughly similar in capability (although not really as the French has to reduce load as well for carrier ops while the plane has been tailored for its CV, while the SU-33 had to be shoehorned to the Kuznetsov class).

The problem is the decision to go ahead with the Kuznetsov class, not the SU-33 which is a beast of a plane.

Militarov wrote:

Giulio wrote:An US carrier's catapult could launch much heavier aircrafts than a Su-33. (And, I think that the Su-33's landing gear isn't physically compatible with an US catapult).
A Su-33 could takeoff from an US aircraft carrier without catapult.
But above all, I really think that the landing on a NATO aircraft carrier (or NATO country) it is not possible for Russian pilots, because it would mean to deliver Russian military technology in foreign hands and this could be treason.
(In the Malvinas/Falkland war a British Harrier did an emergency vertical landing on the first ship the pilot found on the sea, but that was a ship of an allied country, Spanish if I correctly remember).

If its Su-33 we are talking about, there are no secrets about it to US, they obtained Su-27 variants decades ago and had an insight of it in Ukrainian inventory.

But an aircraft is a war weapon, like an AK47. You can not lose your gun or ammunitions. I don't know the military Russian code, but in Italy, if a military pilot loses his aircraft in a foreign country or he shows it in a foreign country without permission, the pilot and his superior in command they risk a penalty from a some years in a military prison, to a life imprisonment, till to death (also if in Italy, afaik, death is not applied and commuted to a life imprisonment).
(And I'm pretty sure that Russian frog-men they'll try to recover/destroy the aircrafts on the sea bed).

Giulio wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Giulio wrote:An US carrier's catapult could launch much heavier aircrafts than a Su-33. (And, I think that the Su-33's landing gear isn't physically compatible with an US catapult).
A Su-33 could takeoff from an US aircraft carrier without catapult.
But above all, I really think that the landing on a NATO aircraft carrier (or NATO country) it is not possible for Russian pilots, because it would mean to deliver Russian military technology in foreign hands and this could be treason.
(In the Malvinas/Falkland war a British Harrier did an emergency vertical landing on the first ship the pilot found on the sea, but that was a ship of an allied country, Spanish if I correctly remember).

If its Su-33 we are talking about, there are no secrets about it to US, they obtained Su-27 variants decades ago and had an insight of it in Ukrainian inventory.

But an aircraft is a war weapon, like an AK47. You can not lose your gun or ammunitions. I don't know the military Russian code, but in Italy, if a military pilot loses his aircraft in a foreign country or he shows it in a foreign country without permission, the pilot and his superior in command they risk a penalty from a some years in a military prison, to a life imprisonment, till to death (also if in Italy, afaik, death is not applied and commuted to a life imprisonment).
(And I'm pretty sure that Russian frog-men they'll try to recover/destroy the aircrafts on the sea bed).

Yeah it's true over here. It's instant court martial if it's found that you damaged your issued weapon and so on.
I don't know what kind of sideshow these guys were running off Latakia, but they'll surely go through some tough questions.

Giulio wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Giulio wrote:An US carrier's catapult could launch much heavier aircrafts than a Su-33. (And, I think that the Su-33's landing gear isn't physically compatible with an US catapult).
A Su-33 could takeoff from an US aircraft carrier without catapult.
But above all, I really think that the landing on a NATO aircraft carrier (or NATO country) it is not possible for Russian pilots, because it would mean to deliver Russian military technology in foreign hands and this could be treason.
(In the Malvinas/Falkland war a British Harrier did an emergency vertical landing on the first ship the pilot found on the sea, but that was a ship of an allied country, Spanish if I correctly remember).

If its Su-33 we are talking about, there are no secrets about it to US, they obtained Su-27 variants decades ago and had an insight of it in Ukrainian inventory.

But an aircraft is a war weapon, like an AK47. You can not lose your gun or ammunitions. I don't know the military Russian code, but in Italy, if a military pilot loses his aircraft in a foreign country or he shows it in a foreign country without permission, the pilot and his superior in command they risk a penalty from a some years in a military prison, to a life imprisonment, till to death (also if in Italy, afaik, death is not applied and commuted to a life imprisonment).
(And I'm pretty sure that Russian frog-men they'll try to recover/destroy the aircrafts on the sea bed).

Yeah but it was an accident. He did not fly the aircraft to Jordan and gave it away to NATO staff.

The landing on a NATO aircraft carrier is equivalent to landing in a NATO country. Once on the ground, or on the ship, the pilot could be arrested, or persuaded to "cooperate" and the aircraft could be inspected by foreign personnel, photographed or confiscated. Afaik, the proximity to a military item of not authorized foreign personnel is not covered by any military code. Also in Italy, even NATO foreign military aircrafts are covered by Italian military police (Carabinieri) on the airport, because they are foreign war weapons on Italian soil. Even the foreign military pilot is like a "foreign war weapon": he has not to talk with nobody or accept food or drinks or drugs. Ships, like aircraft carriers, aren't exception: landing and takeoff are under the will of the foreign sovereign country, so the Russian pilot, maybe, he could land, but not refuel or takeoff. With not only military security problem, but also international problems.
How could the Russian pilot prevent the foreign personnel from approaching to his aircraft if they want?

Giulio wrote:The landing on a NATO aircraft carrier is equivalent to landing in a NATO country. Once on the ground, or on the ship, the pilot could be arrested, or persuaded to "cooperate" and the aircraft could be inspected by foreign personnel, photographed or confiscated. Afaik, the proximity to a military item of not authorized foreign personnel is not covered by any military code. Also in Italy, even NATO foreign military aircrafts are covered by Italian military police (Carabinieri) on the airport, because they are foreign war weapons on Italian soil. Even the foreign military pilot is like a "foreign war weapon": he has not to talk with nobody. Ships, like aircraft carriers, aren't exception: landing and takeoff are under the will of the foreign sovereign country, so the Russian pilot, maybe, he could land, but not refuel or takeoff. With not only military security problem, but also international problems.

Well, Serbs flew F-16s in Italy few years back for an example. US pilots flew Su-27s in Russia some years ago too, so yeah, its not all that secretive and restrictive. Thing is you cant land on carrier without being previously cleared and allowed to, so if somehow by some weird miracle Russian aircraft requested to land it would do so upon being allowed to. Since it would come via some kind of agreement its highly doubt anything would be confiscated, its not like they never saw equipment of Su-33s elsewhere.

Even MiG-25 that landed in Japan was returned to USSR after few days.

I talked to Turkish, Italian...and the US pilots in Belgrade here normally, about the aircraft and other equipment. There was just military police to assure noone stole something or made any damage etc, just standing aside.

Things like this come via agreement, you cant rogue land on carrier you would either get shot down or kill someone on the deck

But Militarov, the Soviet Mig-25 in Japan was inspected before the return (and this involved also a new Mig-25 and new missile versions in USSR) and the situation in Syria is not like international meetings or exchanges.

Giulio wrote:But Militarov, the Soviet Mig-25 in Japan was inspected before the return (and this involved also a new Mig-25 and new missiles versions in USSR) and the situation in Syria is not like international meetings or pilots exchanges.

Sure, but it was returned that is the point. In case of Su-33 they would hand it over probably same day or tomorrow. There is simply nothing in there for them.

I didnt say that, but if US carrier was hailed and asked to aid Su-33 in landing, i am quite sure they would do it. That is what i am saying. Not like that is very likely to happen, but if...

Right, and it would end on all World newspapers: "the US Navy saves Russian Navy". The Su-33 has new engines and systems. I'm sure that no military pilot being healthy in mind would do such a thing.

Giulio wrote:Right, and it would end on all World newspapers: "the US Navy saves Russian Navy". The Su-33 has new engines and systems. I'm sure that no military pilot being healthy in mind would do such a thing.

Well... newspapers need to sell. Again i am saying all this just as possibility.

Su-33 is same as it was the day it was built, we are not aware of any deep modernisations being perfomed except allegedly on few SVP-24 being fitted. Also they are still on AL-31F3 engines as they were always. So its basically just Su-27P with folding wings and reinforced landing gear.

Militarov wrote:

Giulio wrote:Right, and it would end on all World newspapers: "the US Navy saves Russian Navy". The Su-33 has new engines and systems. I'm sure that no military pilot being healthy in mind would do such a thing.

Well... newspapers need to sell. Again i am saying all this just as possibility.

Su-33 is same as it was the day it was built, we are not aware of any deep modernisations being perfomed except allegedly on few SVP-24 being fitted. Also they are still on AL-31F3 engines as they were always. So its basically just Su-27P with folding wings and reinforced landing gear.

But don't the Su-33 have new Al-31FM1 engines with 13,5 tons thrust and new satellite nav/attack system?

Giulio wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Giulio wrote:Right, and it would end on all World newspapers: "the US Navy saves Russian Navy". The Su-33 has new engines and systems. I'm sure that no military pilot being healthy in mind would do such a thing.

Well... newspapers need to sell. Again i am saying all this just as possibility.

Su-33 is same as it was the day it was built, we are not aware of any deep modernisations being perfomed except allegedly on few SVP-24 being fitted. Also they are still on AL-31F3 engines as they were always. So its basically just Su-27P with folding wings and reinforced landing gear.

But don't the Su-33 have new Al-31FM1 engines with 13,5 tons thrust and new satellite nav/attack system?

Not that i am aware of, franco might know if they did such modernisation, but i never heard of their engines being replaced. Its satelite navigation and SVP-24, its nothing spectacular really, its just quick modernisation.

Interesting video about carrier aircraft operations from today. At the first seconds we could see a cockpit of Su-33, where it seems to be a new MFD display similar to the one in the front cockpit of MiG-31BM or in Su-30KN.

Although theoretically an Su-33 could land on NATO carrier, they would rather ditch it & eject for reasons already mentioned by others (another 1 being not to show its current level of modernization or lack of it), even if it could take off w/o a CAT.

JohninMK wrote:Anyone else think that she will cruise home via Sevastopol?

I doubt it. Why burn more fuel & pay extra to Turkey twice for transiting the straits? There's nothing for her to do in the Black Sea, & Ukraine won't get scared of her anyway as it's been a PR disaster, unless it's used as a helicopter carrier in a combined operation. This is a classic example of assets not used as they were designed for- they wanted to kill 2 birds with 1 stone, by catching up on training/testing & to the show of force. But, a negative result is also a result & they'll learn from those mistakes.

medo wrote:

Interesting video about carrier aircraft operations from today. At the first seconds we could see a cockpit of Su-33, where it seems to be a new MFD display similar to the one in the front cockpit of MiG-31BM or in Su-30KN.

back in the game

I may be blind but I cant see the display that medo states. Please post screenshot.

miketheterrible wrote:I may be blind but I cant see the display that medo states.  Please post screenshot.

First 2 seconds. It's a new MFD with buttons on the edge, instead of the soviet potentiometer-like dial.

KiloGolf wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:I may be blind but I cant see the display that medo states.  Please post screenshot.

First 2 seconds. It's a new MFD with buttons on the edge, instead of the soviet potentiometer-like dial.

I see it now. Right hand side. I was looking on the left for whatever reason.

hoom wrote:K may be going into Tartus.
Apparently PtG has entered & K photographed not far off

I'm sorry if it wasn't you intention to suggest that this is the PtG, that is the silhouette of a Ropucha class assault ship.