Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

Big_Gazza wrote:...

Facts such as the problems with the K are GROSSLY OVERSTATED and that there is NOTHING fundamentally wrong with her that a repair and moderate upgrade won't fix for a resonable price.

Those are facts, and they won't go away just because they undermine your NATOesque narratives.  Dunno why you spread NATOista bullshit about your pet-hates (Kuznetsov and "Trampoline Man") but its gets fucking monotonous.

Grossly overstated? In all caps?

Damn thing was on fire several times, nearly sank, proven to be useless in "combat" and has not only contributed nothing to security of Russia but has overall been one of the best things that happened to modern day NATO

Do you honestly think that this thing will ever demonstrate even a shred of usefulness?

Are you that much of a fanboy that you actually think that this half-assed disaster will some day do anything that will make it even look like a naval vessel?

French one carries half as many aircraft even though it's half the size

French one! French!

And theirs actually works

Again, French

I was just thinking ... If these heli carriers are going to be 40,000 tons , they might as well go a little bigger yet so they can fit some su 57's on there

Because it is not a helicopter carrier... it is intended to carry russian naval infantry and their armour, the helicopters are there to support a landing operation... it is essentially an Ivan Rogov (the original) but with a flat deck and rather more helicopters to support the landing as well as more naval infantry and armour.

Putting an Su-57 makes as much sense as putting a couple of Tu-22M3s on there...

The Kuznetsov was never intended for striking ground or sea targets.... that is why it carried Granits.

The Kuznetsov was intended to add air defence to a surface group of Soviet ships... its performance was limited by its small size so it had to use Ka-31s instead of Yak-44s but its replacement Ulyanovsk was supposed to have cats and is larger to fix those problems.

Testing the K in Syria was useful, there were problems of course, but that is why testing is such a valuable thing.

Not being able to launch fixed wing aircraft means the K was as effective as Americas latest super carrier... which is amazing performance really when you think about it.... 15 billion US dollars in value...

They have upgraded the Kuznetsov and are going to be putting it back to sea soon enough... the drive can dribble on with their expert advice all they want but their advice and suggests always run counter to Russian interests so it is very reassuring to hear them bleat that nonsense.

Like hearing western countries criticise Putin... means they are doing the right thing.

mnztr wrote:It was not very effective in delivering naval strikes, sure. But it was actually never designed for that. Deploying it with attack planes was a requriements gathering exercise. It is still a missile cruiser, the air wing is to defend it from air strikes so it can lose nuclear tipped missiles and wipe out a CBG. So even in its depleted state I doubt any US ships would dare get within 1000 km of the Kuz if hostilities were on.

Kuz was designed to extend ASW helo coverage and air supremacy over the Soviet-era SSBN bastions like the Barents Sea and guard against the interdiction of their boomers by enemy SSNs and ASW forces.  It performs this function quite well, and the ability to put air superiority fighters into the air with a useful fuel load and AAM loadout from a 1/2 length rolling takeoff (or a full loaded aircraft from the long run) without the use of steam catapult is a real positive.  She has no reliance on a potentially troublesome catapult to launch fighters (which is susceptible to battle damage) to get sorties airborne. Given that a lack of maintenance resulted in problems with the Ks arrestor gear in Syria, what problems do people think a badly-maintained steam cat would have caused??

To repeat: there is nothing wrong with her that a repair/upgrade and proper maintenance cannot fix. To endlessly harp on to the contrary is disengenuous and simply not honest.

PapaDragon, you are usually a sensible poster, but when it comes to the Kuznetsov or Rogozin you seem to get possessed with the malevolent spirit of vann7   .  May i suggest you wear a (Orthodox) crucifix when posting and chant some protective mantras as you type.  A liberal sprinkling of Holy Water on your keyboard and a bottle or two of sacramental wine should fully seal you from temporary demonic possession.  

Being a PC mouthpiece I am quite sure The Drivel is in principle against nuclear power. So any bitching about black smoke from oil
burners is thick and rich BS. If Dunning-Kruger clowns don't want to see smoke, then they should demand nuclear propulsion.
The only parameter that matters is how much oil the Kuznetsov burns and whether it can get to where it needs to go. If it
really had a problem with its propulsion system, then it would not be getting around. But for some reason I see zero evidence
being presented that it fails to reach its destination because it blew its oil tanks on failed combustion.

White smoke means small average size of smoke aerosol coming out of the stack due to Mie scattering. Grey transitioning into
black means increasing size of smoke aerosol particles. It does not mean that unburned oil is coming out of the stack like
all the uneducated retards at The Drivel and its lemming consumers think. The grade of fuel and the operating regime of the
boilers affects the aerosol size spectrum. In particular the sulfur content, which is efficient at generating aerosol particles
through nucleation. The ambient moisture as well as the moisture released by combustion affects their growth rate and
they act to entrain the organic compounds released by hydrocarbon combustion (*). A colder stack temperature will mean
darker coloured smoke.

Operating a large ship using diesel engines is not an instant win. Enormous ship diesels cam burn orimulsion (an emulsion
of bitumen in water) and other low grade fuel that is nothing like the diesel at your local pumping station. These engines
will produce lots of black smoke too.



Jesus H. Christ the inanity being spewed on every topic dealing with Russia. Like Pavlov's dogs, drooling on conditioned response
to the word "Russia".

(*) Nobody with a clue would expect pure CO2 to come out of any oil burner. Only simple compounds like CH4 can be
tuned to burn giving off mostly CO2 and H2O. Ship fuel oil is not in the same ball park.

Big_Gazza wrote:...PapaDragon, you are usually a sensible poster, but when it comes to the Kuznetsov or Rogozin you seem to get possessed with the malevolent spirit of vann7 . May i suggest you wear a (Orthodox) crucifix when posting and chant some protective mantras as you type. A liberal sprinkling of Holy Water on your keyboard and a bottle or two of sacramental wine should fully seal you from temporary demonic possession.

Only thing that needs holy water to deal with demonic possession is that fiscal-doctrinal disaster

They have equivalent of Black Sea Fleet trapped in that Soviet dead end

Isos wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

Only thing that needs holy water to deal with demonic possession is that fiscal-doctrinal disaster

They have equivalent of Black Sea Fleet trapped in that Soviet dead end

Well it has 300 tor missiles, 8 kashtan, 12 Granit, 20 fighters that can use long range missiles, ten or so ka-27.

All of which are stuck on that pier queen and rotting away

Isos wrote:It packs more power than the entire black sea fleet.

All of it wasted and useless forever sitting in port

Isos wrote:With more mig-29k and a good stock of kh-31 and kh-59MK2 and r-77M it will become tens of time more powerfull than it is with su-33.

It will barely float, what are you smoking?

It's (unreliably) floating toilet bowl for flushing down the good money after bad

Isos wrote:3 Gorshkov + 1 Kirov is far less powerfull than 3 gorshkov + 1 kirov + 1 kuznetsov with a decent air wing.

..and that is the nucleus of the reality. Murican exceptionalist trash would LOVE to see Russia scrap her only fixed-wing carrier, and only a fucking idiot would choose to oblige them.

Russia should not drop the missile cruiser functionality of the Kuznetsov class for any future design. Instead of making
oversized barges like the latest US carrier fiasco, it should invest in S-400 system functionality built into these medium
sized carriers. Of course building one or two would be idiotic. They need six of them at least. But you could probably
build six for the price of 2-3 of the full sized, unarmed tubs.

And for the black smoke faggots, equip them with nuclear power plants.

Isos wrote:3 Gorshkov + 1 Kirov is far less powerfull than 3 gorshkov + 1 kirov + 1 kuznetsov with a decent air wing.

And 3 gorshkov + 1 kirov + 1 kuznetsov with a decent air wing is far less powerful than 6 gorshkov + 2 kirov

See how that works?

Isos wrote:The ship is good and powerfull....

By what metric? And compared to what? Graff Zeppelin?

Backman wrote:If the Kuznetsov class was that useless , I don't think China would have commissioned 2 more of them.

China had no other options, nobody (including Russia) would have sold them a carrier

Beggars can't be choosers and have to settle for whatever turd is available

Backman wrote:The Shangdon is a newer carrier than the USS Ford.

And like Kuznetzov it wouldn't last 2 minutes against Ford, that overpriced showboat could botch half the aircraft launches and still easily overwhelm that knockoff of a toilet bowl

Backman wrote:Strange how the western media doesn't have a problem with China's Kuznetsov class carriers. Just Russia's.

Chinese ones aren't sinking, burning or falling apart

That alone is an accomplishment with this misbegotten dogshit

PapaDragon wrote:

Isos wrote:3 Gorshkov + 1 Kirov is far less powerfull than 3 gorshkov + 1 kirov + 1 kuznetsov with a decent air wing.

And 3 gorshkov + 1 kirov + 1 kuznetsov with a decent air wing is far less powerful than 6 gorshkov + 2 kirov

See how that works?

Do you seriously think the Kuznetsov repair & upgrade is going to cost the same as 3x extra 22350 plus another 1144 deep modernisation?

Nice way to loose the argument...

Another thing I find funny about that article is that they say putting and angled deck and ramp is a big undertaking. WHY? What is so incredibly hard about building an angled deck and a ramp when you are building a 44K ton ship...good lord.

Actually it is a big deal... the design of a ship is like the design of a house except there is the aspect of balance and ballast too.

When you design the foundations of a house or building you pretty much design it for the building you are putting on top of those foundations.

The location and shape of the structure above determines what weight supporting lower structure and foundations you use to make it work.

Taking the top off a ship and then fitting an angled deck and it changes where weight can be located.... you aren't just making the deck wider... you are also going to keep aircraft on the edges of the deck which is no minor weight and the effects in calm water and rough seas need to be taken into account.

These are helicopter carriers... it has no need for any angled decks or VSTOL aircraft other than small drones.

They are simply terrified that Russia will kick their asses in the open seas too, nothing more,

They understand the value of naval power and the global capability it gives to a country, but being a died in the wool imperial force they can't see Russia using it for her own interests without getting in Americas way... which makes them a threat and a rival if they get carriers... so of course they will say they shouldn't waste their time trying to defend their ships with mobile air power the way the US and UK and France does.... do as I say and not as I do....

The alternative of course is that they actually care about Russia and Russians and want them to not make a mistake... AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHA...

Only thing that needs holy water to deal with demonic possession is that fiscal-doctrinal disaster

They have equivalent of Black Sea Fleet trapped in that Soviet dead end

Considering you think they should make the mistake the Soviet Union and the UK already made with small carries and VSTOL fighters... which is amusing because it wasn't cheaper and was not as capable as a MiG-33.

These days it will be Su-57s which will be vastly more capable... probably with MIG-35s and later LMFS.

They like to give the impression to their readers that there is Iran or North Korea level budgetary rationing in Russia.

Yes, it is a conundrum... they can afford to have a military that seems to match the entire west in many areas, yet they are a third world gas station shithole that doesn't make anything... but everyone knows if you keep saying it and no one objects it becomes true...

With more mig-29k and a good stock of kh-31 and kh-59MK2 and r-77M it will become tens of time more powerfull than it is with su-33.

Actually it is the MiG-29KR which is MiG-35 based, not the MiG-29K which was the MiG-33 and a variant of the MiG-29M, but because neither the MiG-33 nor the MiG-29M entered service then they are confusingly reusing the old designations for brand new aircraft.

The original MiG-29K and MiG-29M have single seater canopies, while the MiG-29KR and MiG-35 and MiG-29M/2 have two seat versions and the single and twin seat models share the twin seat canopies.

Which should mean R-37M as an option for air to air use... and the new multitarget model in development... and if the work on the catapults is going OK then potential for a few Su-57s.

All of which are stuck on that pier queen and rotting away

Being upgraded and prepared to put back into use.

All of it wasted and useless forever sitting in port

No, you are confusing it with the new US helicopter carrier.... the 15 billion dollar Ford Class CVN.

But then I understand that they don't send such ship for anti piracy missions or fight some revels in the desert of Syria... costly and useless.

They are upgrading Cruisers and their only carrier, they are building two new 40K ton helicopter carriers and will likely follow that order with an order for two more, and they are likely preparing to build a destroyer class.

They don't need 10 super carriers right now... they don't need any carriers right now, but in the next decade they will need something that can bring air power in teh form of manned and unmanned aircraft around the world where ever their ships can go.

The Kuznetsov is part of that.

..and that is the nucleus of the reality. Murican exceptionalist trash would LOVE to see Russia scrap her only fixed-wing carrier, and only a fucking idiot would choose to oblige them.

Scrapping it would piss away the decade it would take to make a replacement and hand the seas to the west... I understand PD wants that... he is already owned by the US why should he give a shit about anywhere else... he wants company...

And 3 gorshkov + 1 kirov + 1 kuznetsov with a decent air wing is far less powerful than 6 gorshkov + 2 kirov

See how that works?

A Kirov could operate for 6 months away from Russian waters but Gorshkov FRIGATES would not, and would be terribly vulnerable to enemy air power and air attack.

A Russian carrier group wont include Frigates... it will be Destroyers and Cruisers.

By what metric? And compared to what? Graff Zeppelin?

But all big ships are obsolete aren't they?

Makes you wonder why Russia has so many aircraft in Syria when air power is so expensive and useless.

Beggars can't be choosers and have to settle for whatever turd is available

Take your own advice and offer a poor person near you a turd... say a Ford class CVN or Zumwalt class destroyer or LCS ship... or even an F-35... beggars are not obliged to take shit when nothing is better.

And like Kuznetzov it wouldn't last 2 minutes against Ford, that overpriced showboat could botch half the aircraft launches and still easily overwhelm that knockoff of a toilet bowl

Why would the Kuznetsov need to fight a Ford?

Are you 12?

^ I don't have a problem with your agreement with the Drivel piece tactically.

Doesn't matter what shit the Drivel spouts, or what PD says, he is so butt hurt over this there is little point discussing it.... maybe someone named Kuznetsov shagged his wife or sister or something.... who knows where irrational hatred comes from... certainly Europe is a place to start looking if you are interested.

And I agree that the Kuz has been an embarrassement in a way. It should never have been doing 24 hour carrier ops in Syria.

It is their first full deck fixed wing carrier... lets compare apples with apples... every western country has had a terrible carrier that they had to design for themselves...

Something was bound to go wrong if they were going to try and do a Desert Storm impression with it. But this wasn't the boats fault. It wasnt the designs fault. It was the leaderships fault. They didn't commit to it the way China has. Not even close.They chose not to prioritize it.

The Kuznetsov is an air defence carrier intended to protect surface fleets from enemy airpower... it was never intended for invasions, it was to allow the Soviet and then the Russian fleet to operate anywhere on earth by enhancing its protection via early warning and a high speed element that ships don't have.

Russia hasn't needed any of that for the last 30 years, but why would you think the next 30 will be the same.

The simple fact is that without a strong navy Russia is fucked, because any country like Venezuela wants to trade with Russia instead of the west and the west will be able to say... well Russia only has corvettes and frigates... lets do some regime change in Venezuela and have a shipping blockade there and fuck them over. Even if we don't succeed Venezuela was suffer and Russia will look weak and any other country thinking of leaving the western nipple and try to develop and grow into something more than a whiny infant will realise that is not a good idea...

Aircraft carriers will not allow Russia to defeat the US in open sea battles but regular visits and regular trips and bases in foreign countries will open up the world to Russian products and cooperation with Russia.

PD think VSTOL aircraft are the solution and that some how a small carrier might be better than a bigger one, but everyone who has tried that had plans for much bigger carriers in the 50-70K ton weight range because three 40K ton ships might be as good as one 70K ton ship with much much better aircraft on it, but considering you also have to develop those 5th gen VSTOL fighters you wont be saving any money at all... in fact it will cost rather more.

I remember the promises... everyone will buy Harriers because they will be the only aircraft flying after a few hours when all the airfields have been destroyed... except you can't just operate anywhere with a Harrier or any VSTOL fighter, and their nozzles make them easy kills for MANPADS and IR guided weapons when used by better skilled and aware enemies.

The Argentinians didn't have to try to manouver and get on their tails before launching missiles at them... if they had R-73 missiles those Harriers would be dead.

If it was prioritized like a Borei class submarine launching Bulava missiles, it would look no different than China's carriers out there.

Russia isn't operating in the South Pacific or the South Atlantic or other places a long way away from Russian airspace, so they don't need the Kuznetsov except for training and skills. They now have bases in Syria and agreements on bases in other places and as that list grows they are developing a more global presence.

They can either spend a few billion on carriers or a few trillion on 800 bases around the world with aircraft and ship infrastructure... not rocket science.

LMFS wrote:They are simply terrified that Russia will kick their asses in the open seas too, nothing more...

Which is why they are grateful for existence of Kuznetzov and Russian Navy's fragile ego which keeps it floating and eating away at funding

I have bookmarked this tread for when that rust bucket gets the inevitable blowtorch, it will be fun to sift through it and quote while folks try to rationalize all the accumulated nonsense (Kuznetzov defeating anything in open seas? It can't even stay afloat or recover an airplane)

Y'all are starting to sound like that idiot who kept screaming about how Russia is completing 100k supercarriers in secret shipyards

Reality is that Kuznetzov is not being worked on, it's completely covered in snow and no workers are present

If it ever floats under it's own power again it will be solely as training pad for pilots as it has been reported

It will never leave viewing distance from port again

It's a floating showboat like Dmitriy Donskoi, difference being that Donskoi is supposed to sink itself and is still useful in some roles