Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

Indeed the pic was said to show PtG going in.
At the time it didn't seem quite right but then the 2nd pic was definitely K so I took their word for it

Charly015 shows that its definitely a Ropucha http://charly015.blogspot.co.nz/2016/12/el-pedro-el-grande-en-tartus.html


He's also counted 5* Mig-29K on K http://charly015.blogspot.co.nz/2016/12/las-aeronaves-bordo-del-kuznetsov-mig.html

Old post got lost so I'm asking again:

Have they resumed flight ops after cable SNAFU?

And by looking at the amount of space those AA launchers take up they could easily fit same number of both AA and ASh missiles that is has now in that AA space alone via Redut and UKSK and still have room to spare.

After that they could simply remove those Granit launchers from the front and still keep the amount of firepower unchanged while gaining a lot of free space.

And I called it two weeks back that they can easily fly extra MiG-29s on board. I still don't know why everyone sees that plane as something rare. MiG-29 is aerial equivalent of Ford Crown Victoria, nothing special regardless of the equipment package.

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...

If the Su-33 cost a quarter of what the Rafale does it would not exist... there would be nothing for you to refuse to fly in.

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...

Numbers should not matter at all... all US Navy equipment is perfect so it should not matter how often it is used... all faults found instantly, backup plan after backup plan allows for problems to be solved instantly... they don't even need tug boats... they have a world wide support network of alternative landing sites and support vessels... how can planes crash when the pilots clearly walk on water...

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

Not all of it.

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...

Not a chance. Just like the Soviet request for help at Chernobyl was also refused...

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

Second that. If someone could make a screenshot, it will be really wellcome.

At night:

Great photos, thanks. Now we could see this MFD more clearly.

Part 2 of Military Acceptance on K

Includes a bunch of footage of arrestor gear stuff.
My understanding is it was done after the 1st failure but before the 2nd.

Here is part 3

Good closeups of the deck, new paint looks pretty smooth maybe even gloss? Deck underneath looks plenty pitted to give decent grip anyway, the angled deck is definitely anti-skid.
I wonder if Charly015 will find some new plane numbers?
Fascinating mix of ancient manual stuff, CRTs & a few flat panels in the control center (anyone see a Mars-Passat label? think-tankers would shit bricks)
Interesting how much close observation/aircraft passes everyone seems to be doing.

Here's a nice pic of K, I think around/during English Channel transit? via Balancer forum

https://lenta.ru/news/2017/01/03/kuznets/

https://lenta.ru/news/2017/01/06/kuznetsov/

Russian carrier Admiral Kuznetsov could finish its deployment in Syria in January and not in February as planed before as part of reduction of forces in Syria.

Maybe it will sound strange, but Kuznetsov first real combat deployment was actually sucessful. Militarily speaking, it's main combat task was to support military operation to liberate Aleppo and in time of Kuznetsov deployment Aleppo WAS fully liberated, so the main task for Kuznetsov was sucessfully done and this is what really matter in real combat. They didn't lost any jet in combat missions, but they lost two because of problems with arrestor wires. Break of wire was an accident, which could happened anytime on any carrier, while the first trouble, when MiG-29 run out of fuel is the problem of crew training, which could be caused by the problem, that Yeisk center is not finished yet and SAKI is in bad shape and need general renovation. This is not only a problem for pilot training, but also for carrier crew training as they could as well have whole year training with finishers and carrier deck operations in those training centers as they also have whole carrier infrastructure. With constant training most probably MiG would not run out of fuel as crew could repaire the failure in shorter time.

https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/russian-air-force-destroyed-1200-militant-sites-syria-report/

Russian naval aviation pilots have performed 420 sorties and destroyed 1,252 terrorist facilities over the two months of the aircraft carrier naval group’s participation in the Syria operation, Commander of Russia’s Group of Forces in Syria Colonel-General Andrei Kartapolov said on Friday.


"Over the two months of their participation in combat operations, naval aviation pilots have carried out 420 sorties, including 117 in nighttime. Actually all flights were performed in complex weather conditions. A total of 1,252 terrorist facilities have been destroyed," he said.

Their operation was actually excellent. Considering that in combat they carry 2 to 4 bombs and quarter of them was in night time. This was somethong unthinkable for Su-33 a year ago.

I think China will soon send a delegation to Northern fleet to get some first hand experiences from Syrian deployment as they have sister carrier Liaoning and Su-33 clone J-15. They are for sure the most interested in them.

medo wrote:https://lenta.ru/news/2017/01/03/kuznets/

https://lenta.ru/news/2017/01/06/kuznetsov/

Russian carrier Admiral Kuznetsov could finish its deployment in Syria in January and not in February as planed before as part of reduction of forces in Syria.

Maybe it will sound strange, but Kuznetsov first real combat deployment was actually sucessful. Militarily speaking, it's main combat task was to support military operation to liberate Aleppo and in time of Kuznetsov deployment Aleppo WAS fully liberated, so the main task for Kuznetsov was sucessfully done and this is what really matter in real combat. They didn't lost any jet in combat missions, but they lost two because of problems with arrestor wires. Break of wire was an accident, which could happened anytime on any carrier, while the first trouble, when MiG-29 run out of fuel is the problem of crew training, which could be caused by the problem, that Yeisk center is not finished yet and SAKI is in bad shape and need general renovation. This is not only a problem for pilot training, but also for carrier crew training as they could as well have whole year training with finishers and carrier deck operations in those training centers as they also have whole carrier infrastructure. With constant training most probably MiG would not run out of fuel as crew could repaire the failure in shorter time.

That went well... not
RuN has a long way to go when it comes to carrier ops. Lets hope this deployment gives them useful insight to perform better next time.

KiloGolf wrote:

medo wrote:https://lenta.ru/news/2017/01/03/kuznets/

https://lenta.ru/news/2017/01/06/kuznetsov/

Russian carrier Admiral Kuznetsov could finish its deployment in Syria in January and not in February as planed before as part of reduction of forces in Syria.

Maybe it will sound strange, but Kuznetsov first real combat deployment was actually sucessful. Militarily speaking, it's main combat task was to support military operation to liberate Aleppo and in time of Kuznetsov deployment Aleppo WAS fully liberated, so the main task for Kuznetsov was sucessfully done and this is what really matter in real combat. They didn't lost any jet in combat missions, but they lost two because of problems with arrestor wires. Break of wire was an accident, which could happened anytime on any carrier, while the first trouble, when MiG-29 run out of fuel is the problem of crew training, which could be caused by the problem, that Yeisk center is not finished yet and SAKI is in bad shape and need general renovation. This is not only a problem for pilot training, but also for carrier crew training as they could as well have whole year training with finishers and carrier deck operations in those training centers as they also have whole carrier infrastructure. With constant training most probably MiG would not run out of fuel as crew could repaire the failure in shorter time.

That went well... not
RuN has a long way to go when it comes to carrier ops. Lets hope this deployment gives them useful insight to perform better next time.

Their main combat task is done. They got their first combat experiences which also show the real problems which will have to be solved and could not be seen in usual exercises. After all Kuznetsov was not designed to strike on ground enemy targets in foreign country, but for air defense protection of naval group in northern Atlantic. A lot of problems actually originate from their bad luck with training centers. SAKI was in Ukraine and Russia have to pay rent for its use, so they rarely go for trainings there. When Crimea return to Russia, NITKA was in bad shape and in need of gereral repair. Other training center, which they are building in Yeysk is not finished yet. When one of them will be ready, than Ru NAVY will be able to train pilots and crews whole time, when they are not sailing as well as constantly train new pilots and crew members. Ship itself works well and planes as well. Problem is in their training capabilities and NAVY know that.

Well, for start there is high amount of doubt in the numbers they released, we actually have seen very little material regarding SU-33s or MiG-29Ks flying over Syria.. actually almost none. And we know that SU-33s were for at least 2 weeks in Latakia. So i will take this with shovel of salt.

Then comes that claim how "they gained wast experience". What experience exactly? How to launch and aircraft and recover it after? How to arm it? They did not really have any high turn extensive bombing operations that would make deck "crowded", as tbh there is not much space for that on Kuz in a first place. Everything they did in this deployment they could easily do in North Sea...

Only difference they had in terms of this deployment and regular deck operations they performed in North Sea is the temperature and sun... they got a tan in Syria.

My favourite line is "Successful integration with forces stationed in Latakia", so...radar and control crews in Latakia did their best not to crash SU-24s into SU-33s and learned how to switch channels on their radios? Because that is what it means...

Now... losing two aircraft, two non combat loses. Su-33 that was lost due to snapped wire, okay... i get it, happens, however judging by things we heard that wire was made back in times when Walkman was still a thing, which is fact not to be proud of.

Basically i think Kuz deployment was nice way to spend fuel.

Militarov wrote:Well, for start there is high amount of doubt in the numbers they released, we actually have seen very little material regarding SU-33s or MiG-29Ks flying over Syria.. actually almost none. And we know that SU-33s were for at least 2 weeks in Latakia. So i will take this with shovel of salt.

Then comes that claim how "they gained wast experience". What experience exactly? How to launch and aircraft and recover it after? How to arm it? They did not really have any high turn extensive bombing operations that would make deck "crowded", as tbh there is not much space for that on Kuz in a first place. Everything they did in this deployment they could easily do in North Sea...

Only difference they had in terms of this deployment and regular deck operations they performed in North Sea is the temperature and sun... they got a tan in Syria.

My favourite line is "Successful integration with forces stationed in Latakia", so...radar and control crews in Latakia did their best not to crash SU-24s into SU-33s and learned how to switch channels on their radios? Because that is what it means...

Now... losing two aircraft, two non combat loses. Su-33 that was lost due to snapped wire, okay... i get it, happens, however judging by things we heard that wire was made back in times when Walkman was still a thing, which is fact not to be proud of.

Basically i think Kuz deployment was nice way to spend fuel.

Well my point is that they made a clustefvck fail list and will try in future to avoid these fails.
I agree their numbers are sketchy.

Yeah... lets be total dicks about this.

They said from the outset that this was about accumulating operational experience.

They didn't attack down town Hanoi, they didn't even carpet bomb anyone.

How could they have possibly learned anything of value...

Of course cooperating with a ground based Russian Air base means nothing and hitting multiple targets with aircraft that most in the west consider to be little more than Su-27s with tail hooks and canards means nothing at all.

You don't believe their figures.

Well that is obvious because it was all a publicity stunt... it had nothing to do with testing and operational experience in a realistic environment where there are real targets and real ordinance and real expeditionary Russian forces in situ like they said it was... you are right... they sent the K at full steam to carpet bomb Aleppo and they failed.

when the real shit hits the fan and they have to fuck up some US cities they likely wont lose any aircraft to wire breaks...

Why don't you complain about how many childrens hospitals and schools they destroyed while you are at it you western drones...

Militarov wrote:Well, for start there is high amount of doubt in the numbers they released, we actually have seen very little material regarding SU-33s or MiG-29Ks flying over Syria.. actually almost none. And we know that SU-33s were for at least 2 weeks in Latakia. So i will take this with shovel of salt.

Then comes that claim how "they gained wast experience". What experience exactly? How to launch and aircraft and recover it after? How to arm it? They did not really have any high turn extensive bombing operations that would make deck "crowded", as tbh there is not much space for that on Kuz in a first place. Everything they did in this deployment they could easily do in North Sea...

Only difference they had in terms of this deployment and regular deck operations they performed in North Sea is the temperature and sun... they got a tan in Syria.

My favourite line is "Successful integration with forces stationed in Latakia", so...radar and control crews in Latakia did their best not to crash SU-24s into SU-33s and learned how to switch channels on their radios? Because that is what it means...

Now... losing two aircraft, two non combat loses. Su-33 that was lost due to snapped wire, okay... i get it, happens, however judging by things we heard that wire was made back in times when Walkman was still a thing, which is fact not to be proud of.

Basically i think Kuz deployment was nice way to spend fuel.

Well I know they made around 400 sorties and hit around 1200 targets from it's deck or so says a buddy of mine in ONI so I'll take his word for it.

So the Russians accomplished their mission with the carrier which was to get experience.

Militarov wrote:Well, for start there is high amount of doubt in the numbers they released, we actually have seen very little material regarding SU-33s or MiG-29Ks flying over Syria.. actually almost none. And we know that SU-33s were for at least 2 weeks in Latakia. So i will take this with shovel of salt.

Then comes that claim how "they gained wast experience". What experience exactly? How to launch and aircraft and recover it after? How to arm it? They did not really have any high turn extensive bombing operations that would make deck "crowded", as tbh there is not much space for that on Kuz in a first place. Everything they did in this deployment they could easily do in North Sea...

Only difference they had in terms of this deployment and regular deck operations they performed in North Sea is the temperature and sun... they got a tan in Syria.

My favourite line is "Successful integration with forces stationed in Latakia", so...radar and control crews in Latakia did their best not to crash SU-24s into SU-33s and learned how to switch channels on their radios? Because that is what it means...

Now... losing two aircraft, two non combat loses. Su-33 that was lost due to snapped wire, okay... i get it, happens, however judging by things we heard that wire was made back in times when Walkman was still a thing, which is fact not to be proud of.

Basically i think Kuz deployment was nice way to spend fuel.

Depends on how you look at it. Kuznetsov carrier and Su-33 fighters on the deck form a naval IADS (integrated air defense system). This is not just take off and landing on carrier. It is a whole complex to provide air protection of the fleet in the ocean. It consist of radar picture from kuznetsov itself as from escorting ships, radar picture from Ka-31 AEW, ship based SAMs and guns, fighters and most importantly command post to coordinate the work of all elements inside with a network of data links and this is inside Kuznetsov. Su-33 have in NAVY the same role as MiG-31 in IA PVO. And than going to do a totaly different task is a new experience for naval IADS. Don't you think, that for squadron of MiG-31 and its PVO structure would not be this a totaly new experience, if they sudenly go to bomb terrorists in Syria considering that MiG-31 could not carry bombs and doesn't have fire control complex nor data link complex to do it. It was a wast new experience for Su-33 and Kuz as they have to modify whole IADS complex in planes and in carrier to do it. Su-33 was designed to work inside IADS in the carrier and with Ka-31 AEW. Now they have to cooperate with RuAF bomber structure and Syrian AF to bomb ground targets. This are massive changes inside planes and inside carrier to do this as well as in operational procedures, with which Kuznetsov never work before and all this changes happened in the last year with lack of time to train and with lack of proper training centers to train crews. Don't forget, that first modernized Su-33 have its first take off in September 1st 2016 and they still have to test working of the modernization package. How much time have pilots left to train carrier take off and landings and new operational procedures before the carrier sail to Syria?

This is why I think Su-33 modernization is deeper than just installing SVP-24-33 inside, which most probably will not work without modernization of the main fire control computer as well as data link complex to exchange total situation picture and not just info of air targets to intercept. This could be achieved only by Su-30KN modernization package as Su-27SM package is provided only in KNAAPO.

GarryB wrote:Yeah... lets be total dicks about this.

They said from the outset that this was about accumulating operational experience.

They didn't attack down town Hanoi, they didn't even carpet bomb anyone.

How could they have possibly learned anything of value...

Of course cooperating with a ground based Russian Air base means nothing and hitting multiple targets with aircraft that most in the west consider to be little more than Su-27s with tail hooks and canards means nothing at all.

You don't believe their figures.

Well that is obvious because it was all a publicity stunt... it had nothing to do with testing and operational experience in a realistic environment where there are real targets and real ordinance and real expeditionary Russian forces in situ like they said it was... you are right... they sent the K at full steam to carpet bomb Aleppo and they failed.

when the real shit hits the fan and they have to fuck up some US cities they likely wont lose any aircraft to wire breaks...

Why don't you complain about how many childrens hospitals and schools they destroyed while you are at it you western drones...

But it is Su-27 with tail hook and canards...

Everything you listed could have been done without deployment to Syria, everything can be simulated. Things that cant be simulated, they did not have to deal in Syria anyways.

And yeah i am very, very skeptical about the numbers. Notice how they said "naval aviation" did the airstrikes, not more.. specific term which one would expect to hear.

medo wrote:

Militarov wrote:Well, for start there is high amount of doubt in the numbers they released, we actually have seen very little material regarding SU-33s or MiG-29Ks flying over Syria.. actually almost none. And we know that SU-33s were for at least 2 weeks in Latakia. So i will take this with shovel of salt.

Then comes that claim how "they gained wast experience". What experience exactly? How to launch and aircraft and recover it after? How to arm it? They did not really have any high turn extensive bombing operations that would make deck "crowded", as tbh there is not much space for that on Kuz in a first place. Everything they did in this deployment they could easily do in North Sea...

Only difference they had in terms of this deployment and regular deck operations they performed in North Sea is the temperature and sun... they got a tan in Syria.

My favourite line is "Successful integration with forces stationed in Latakia", so...radar and control crews in Latakia did their best not to crash SU-24s into SU-33s and learned how to switch channels on their radios? Because that is what it means...

Now... losing two aircraft, two non combat loses. Su-33 that was lost due to snapped wire, okay... i get it, happens, however judging by things we heard that wire was made back in times when Walkman was still a thing, which is fact not to be proud of.

Basically i think Kuz deployment was nice way to spend fuel.

Depends on how you look at it. Kuznetsov carrier and Su-33 fighters on the deck form a naval IADS (integrated air defense system). This is not just take off and landing on carrier. It is a whole complex to provide air protection of the fleet in the ocean. It consist of radar picture from kuznetsov itself as from escorting ships, radar picture from Ka-31 AEW, ship based SAMs and guns, fighters and most importantly command post to coordinate the work of all elements inside with a network of data links and this is inside Kuznetsov. Su-33 have in NAVY the same role as MiG-31 in IA PVO. And than going to do a totaly different task is a new experience for naval IADS. Don't you think, that for squadron of MiG-31 and its PVO structure would not be this a totaly new experience, if they sudenly go to bomb terrorists in Syria considering that MiG-31 could not carry bombs and doesn't have fire control complex nor data link complex to do it. It was a wast new experience for Su-33 and Kuz as they have to modify whole IADS complex in planes and in carrier to do it. Su-33 was designed to work inside IADS in the carrier and with Ka-31 AEW. Now they have to cooperate with RuAF bomber structure and Syrian AF to bomb ground targets. This are massive changes inside planes and inside carrier to do this as well as in operational procedures, with which Kuznetsov never work before and all this changes happened in the last year with lack of time to train and with lack of proper training centers to train crews. Don't forget, that first modernized Su-33 have its first take off in September 1st 2016 and they still have to test working of the modernization package. How much time have pilots left to train carrier take off and landings and new operational procedures before the carrier sail to Syria?

This is why I think Su-33 modernization is deeper than just installing SVP-24-33 inside, which most probably will not work without modernization of the main fire control computer as well as data link complex to exchange total situation picture and not just info of air targets to intercept. This could be achieved only by Su-30KN modernization package as Su-27SM package is provided only in KNAAPO.

From what i have seen on the equipment in Kuz C3 room, they are completely relying on own sensors in terms of real time target aquisition, i did not see any proof of data sharing from other ships. And since we saw oldschool "planchete" with drawer it seems other data comes in via other means of communication, most likely like it comes here in our Air Defence, via radio.

So they had to sail to Syria to get experience on striking ground targets in airspace with no major air defence threats? How so? I am all for experience but that is not experience that you cant get in peacetime especially in wast country like Russia where you have dozens of training grounds and huge amount of wastelands where you can simulate whatever you feel like.

Also from what i picked everything from navigation to com was provided by RuAF in Palmyra, Kuz was just a "storage" for aircraft. I think you guys are overblowing this Kuznecov crew vacation out of proportion.

If they needed combat experience to learn that arresting cables should be checked occasionally and how to work with navigation from the land based station, they are in deep shit.

Most important thing now is that this ship is going into dock for the overhaul and unlike before, Navy now has actual list of things they should focus on fixing instead of going in blind like they did so far.

Some of you guys say that problems with training and cables could have been pinpointed on training without combat deployment but if that were the case why didn't they? That ship has been in use for nearly three decades?

Something was definitely done differently during actual combat that caused those problems to manifest themselves. And they would have never known about had they just stuck with training runs.

Militarov wrote:

From what i have seen on the equipment in Kuz C3 room, they are completely relying on own sensors in terms of real time target aquisition, i did not see any proof of data sharing from other ships. And since we saw oldschool "planchete" with drawer it seems other data comes in via other means of communication, most likely like it comes here in our Air Defence, via radio.

So they had to sail to Syria to get experience on striking ground targets in airspace with no major air defence threats? How so? I am all for experience but that is not experience that you cant get in peacetime especially in wast country like Russia where you have dozens of training grounds and huge amount of wastelands where you can simulate whatever you feel like.

Also from what i picked everything from navigation to com was provided by RuAF in Palmyra, Kuz was just a "storage" for aircraft. I think you guys are overblowing this Kuznecov crew vacation out of proportion.

If they needed combat experience to learn that arresting cables should be checked occasionally and how to work with navigation from the land based station, they are in deep shit.

The learning curve has to start somewhere.