Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

You give kindergartners too little credit. They have an excuse for being ignorant and do not engage in pretentious poser
arguments and claims. Adults or teens who engage in such drivel spew have no excuse.

On the topic of Russia every fucking westerner is the final authority and they all claim that Russia = fail. This sort of
brain damage is why we have never ending drang nach osten.

RTN wrote:

Isos wrote:

I said unless they upgrade it to su-35 level the su-33 sucks.

Against a formation of rafale of f-35 they will be falling from skies like moskitos.

Su 33 sucks big time. That's why the Russian Navy opted for the Mig 29K.

Su-33 is generation behind F-35 Navy.

Mig 29K sucks too. Old engine. Average EW system. Lack of BVR missiles.

Even half wit Indians have realized it. So they are in the market looking for a new carrier based fighter.

rd-33mk is a heavy upgrade and besides Indians bashing it lately i have read thst it is a solid engine. the EW suite can be changed to suit the environment. also i am pretty sure mig-29k's have radars and avionics capable of utilizing the r-77-1, which is a very good missile.

The comparison with the F-35 is retarded. Transcendentally retarded. No NATzO aircraft carrier is ever going to go
against Russia. They will not last a few minutes before being turned into scrap on the bottom of the ocean. When
Daesh gets F-35s and its own Ford class aircraft carriers perhaps such comparisons will have a tinge of meaning.

Isos wrote:Those are facts. Not my opinion.

Bullshit. They are opinions, nothing more.

Backman wrote:IMO the Kuznetsov is a better looking boat

If the 2 Brit carriers were Russian or Chinese then they would be sledged mercilessly for being ugly (and for being STOBAR) but since they were built by Muricas ever-faithful stooge from the Eurotrash periphery they will be exulted as "innovative" and held as an example of Western prowess.

Double standards and spiteful propaganda seem to be the only renewable resource of any note in the West these days.

Against a formation of rafale of f-35 they will be falling from skies like moskitos.

The Su-33s massively out range both those types, and will be operating over Russian ships with Russian air defence systems.

An F-35 can carry how many AMRAAMs and how many Sidewinders?

Su-33s do have modern self defence avionics pods which will likely render AMRAAMs ineffective, have never seen any but would assume on the rear centreline pylon they could also carry pods with towed decoys and jammers as well... but how is F-35 going to deal with the missiles Su-33s launch at them?

An unknown really but you claim it will be like mosquitoes... you do understand mosquitoes probably kill more humans than humans have killed humans...

But why would it matter because any Rafale or F-35 shoots down one Su-33 then the ship it was operating from will get a Zircon up its arse and the entire flight of Rafales and F-35s already in the air had better learn to swim.

The boilers were changed before Syria. They changed only half of them. I don't see why only half would need to be change when the other half worked just the same time as the ones that needed to be changed so they were in the same shape. All of them should have been replaced.

Maybe you answered your own question... if they only changed half of them before Syria then that is perhaps because only half of them needed replacing as opposed to a clean up and overhaul.

Wasn't replacement of half the boilers part of what they did after they got it into dry dock after the adventure in Syria... which suggests all the boilers have been replaced with new ones?

We know :

-2 fighters lost.
-Arresting wires destroyed.
-Aviation operated from ground
-The ship was send for major upgrade at its return.

Nothing positive was learned.

What did you learn if I may ask ?

Two fighters were lost and that was not good. Arresting wires are trivial expendable nothings... don't give them a second thought... would be worrying about lost external drop tanks.
The problem they had was that they were in Syria to test new ideas and practise ground strikes and their arrester gear mechanism is broken and would need to get into dry dock to fix, so they changed plans... which is what you would expect from a military force with a job to do. Not beign able to operate aircraft from the carrier deck is no big deal... the aircraft on the ship could still take off and complete their mission, they would just have to recover to a land airfield and operate from their in future.

The upgrade after Syria experience was planned in advance because there were a few issues with propulsion with that ship that were ongoing, they replaced half the boilers before the operation and may have replaced the remaining boilers afterwards.... it doesn't matter... launching strikes into Syria did not involve steaming at full speed anywhere anyway.

They used the ship operationally... they received intel information on targets and they launched strikes on those targets and they followed those strikes up with recon missions to determine the results of the strikes... like they would if they were in the Falklands or Somalia or Yemen or anywhere else they might want to intervene.

It was excellent experience... the fact that they didn't launch and recover from the carrier is a meaningless technicality... once that is fixed it should be fine.

The reverse would be catastrophic... they could launch planes and recover them fine but couldn't find targets or attack them... that was the test and that is what they were trying out... to see if the C4IR system worked for the Kuznetsov... and it did... but it doesn't have super planes on it... well MiG-29KRs are actually pretty good and stack up quite well against any other operational carrier plane anywhere in the world.

Then they choosed to send a non fonctional carrier in Syria.

It wasn't me.

They struck something like 1,400 terrorist targets in Syria... the Kuznetsov has done more to defeat terrorism in the Middle East than the entire French Navy...

Su 33 sucks big time. That's why the Russian Navy opted for the Mig 29K.

You do understand that the Su-33 has a blind bombing system installed that allowed it to hit terrorist targets in Syria from 10,000m with dumb iron bombs with the precision an F-35 would get with guided weapons for 10,000 times the cost... but then of course the F-35s would be helping child killing terrorists, not bombing them.

Su-33 is generation behind F-35 Navy.

Just like the F-18 is, and the funny thing is that the Su-33 is a generation ahead of the F-14 which is better than the Hornet and the F-35.

Mig 29K sucks too. Old engine. Average EW system. Lack of BVR missiles.

The MiG-29KR has a new engine, an excellent EW system and can carry any of Russians latest AAMs including the R-37M which I believe out ranges any western AAM by a significant margin.

Even half wit Indians have realized it. So they are in the market looking for a new carrier based fighter.

Your respect for the people of India aside, only pro American posters have been talking about India buying hornets or F-35s.

US congressmen have told India they have to stop buying Russian planes and SAMs if they want US stuff and they just bought some more MiGs and Sukhois.... you work out the math...

And you dare saying I'm talking like an amateur.

Do you understand the meaning of the word... you are either an amateur or you are paid... you know... like a troll is...

I said unless they upgrade it to su-35 level the su-33 sucks.

They have upgraded it, but there is no point in giving them a full Su-33 upgrade any time soon because when they do start spending money on their carriers it is likely they will operate with Su-57 and MiG-35s on their carriers.

They seem to agree with me since they send it for a major upgrade after Syrian fiasco.

If the ship was so good like you say they would have send it off Venezuela.

The upgrade after Syria was planned years in advance... it does not take three years to rebuild an arrester gear gearbox, and that was the only fault, yet they replaced more boilers didn't they and from the last report are doing a lot more than cosmetic shit.

Mention of an electronics upgrade and new portable catapult system or some such thing... a lot of work for something they think is useless and are going to get rid of...  oops, no, that is what you think... they seem to want to keep it.

Su-33 got minor upgrades and is not produced anymore. It has no future.

What do you mean any more... they were only produced in one batch.

They are a fighter... they don't need a lot of upgrades.

Scrapping means no carrier which also means they will pay lot of money to get back that capability.

But if it is a disaster from which there can be no recovery or redemption why keep pissing money down a bottomless pit?

Major upgrade means having a nice carrier.

WHAT... PD and RTN will stop liking you for that sort of heresy...

They went with the 2nd option and failed. Now they are going with the 3rd option.

The K was in dock getting repairs when the opportunity to go to Syria presented itself... do you not think they might have decided to take it out of drydock to go and test it in a situation they might never get another chance to test it in and finish the upgrade and repair later?

I mean apart from the arrester gear problem it didn't have any other issues, but you still berate it as inferior to anything China or India have....

From what we saw it is a failure. Sure they learned some interesting things but at the end they surely were not happy with the results.

If you take away the failure of the arrester gear and look at everything else where did it fail... it completed missions and killed terrorists... good that one nation wants to get rid of people who cut peoples heads off, though I understand it doesn't really effect France so why would their military get involved... except to launch cruise missiles at the people fighting the terrorists of course.

Secondly, when talking about the air wing, you forget that Kuznetsov carries another 12 units:

Yes, Mach 2 sea skimming strike aircraft...

On the topic of Russia every fucking westerner is the final authority and they all claim that Russia = fail. This sort of
brain damage is why we have never ending drang nach osten.

Because western "experts" think carriers are strike platforms, while for the Kuztnesov it is a very secondary capability.

If they wanted it to be a strike carrier then they would have picked MiG-29Ks the first time round as they were fully multi role fighter bombers, while the Su-33 is a fighter interceptor. With upgrades it got a blind bombing capability with cheap dumb bombs which was successfully tested in Syria BTW.

Those people sent this ship for an upgrade after the fiasco in Syria. What don't you understand ?

The ship was sent from an upgrade to Syria to test it and it was always going back to the dry dock afterwards... or do you think they need a dry dock to replace arrester gear gearboxes?

Su-33 is outdated and they have 5 or 6 level of sukhoi aircraft above them. They suck.

As a medium range fighter air component operating above the equivalent of a Russian Armys air defence system it does not need to a be a super plane.

They are buying mig-29Kr to replace them.

Not enough to replace.

Those are facts. Not my opinion.

So in your opinion and based on your facts the things wrong with the Kuznetsov is the arrester gearbox and the Su-33.

Which of those can be fixed in dry dock?

rd-33mk is a heavy upgrade and besides Indians bashing it lately i have read thst it is a solid engine.

The Chinese seem to like it... in the RD-93 version with the gearbox moved they use it in their JF-17, so they must have some trust in it being a single engined aircraft...

When
Daesh gets F-35s and its own Ford class aircraft carriers perhaps such comparisons will have a tinge of meaning.

Don't say that... it could be creepy joes policy.... his version of Hilarys no fly zone bullshit.[/quote]

Isos wrote:
They are not choosing anything. They were totaly unable to create anything bigger and better than a simple Steregushchiy for a long time. They were not even able to make a missile boat 100% russian and were dependant on Ukraine.

They are just building what they can.

Well i am curious to know what would happen to the US if because of secession of states they would lose one third of their industries from one day to the other.

Yeah, since the shipyard where they build most of the carrier in in Virgina that should remain, but a lot of the supply chain would be destroyed.   Think about all of the industries in aerospace and defence existing in Texas, New Mexico and Arizona...


Concerning the Su33, if the airframes are good and do not have a high utilisation, with new engines and new internal systems they could be brought on par with Su30SM2, and become much better than F18.

It depends how much do they want to invest on the modernisation and how much life is still in the airframe...

US is modernising the B52 with new engines, as an example, and they are much older than su 33 (I know that they are in another role, but we can just compare the utilisation rate of the airframes (and their condition)  compared to their full life capabilities).

Anyway, yeah, Russia built what they could, and gradually what they can is increasing with each passing year.
What is the problem with that?

It was sensible to start small and gradually rebuild capabilities, also because small ships were the ones that had to be replaced first, while some of the larger ships could still last a couple of decades with overhaul and partial modernisation.
Of course it was not ideal, and maybe only allows a limited amount of long range sea missions for the short and medium future,  but that is the reality (and Russia accepted that they can live with it).

geopolitically Russia had little choice. so far they have done well with what little they have in comparison with the other great powers.

They have 3 or 4 wires. If it was just one that broke then they could have recover the mig-29 that was hovering around with the other wires.

It seems to me that the entire system broke down.

You are clearly not reading what I am posting.

The cables were fine, but when the arrester gear they are attached to is not working they will break every time.

If the cables just stopped the aircraft they they would not have lost any aircraft but cables able to stop an aircraft that is landing on their own have not been invented yet.

When a plane lands it hooks the cables but the cable is not bolted to the deck it is attached to other cables that is attached to arrester gear that feeds out metres of cable. If it was an unending spool of more cable then the aircraft landing would just pull out more and more cable and drop off the end of the deck into the water, but this cable is fed out under increasing tension so the plane is slowed down over the distance of several metres and eventually is stopped.

All of the cables are attached to this mechanism that slows the plane down over several metres, but if the mechanism that releases the cable is faulty or broken all the cables will just snap immediately and the plane will have to go to full AB and take off again and come around and try again.

The first cable it snaps it is OK... cables snap some times. The second approach there are now only three cables, and one cable snaps. While the plane is going around for its third attempt to land the ground crew might go out and re attach two of the cables so there are four to catch again, so the plane comes around and the cable snaps again... well they know there is a problem now because statistically three cables snapping is impossible... it is clearly not the cables, it must be the arrester gear that tensions the cables to help the plane stop in the available space.

Now that they know it is the arrester gear that is the problem they know they can't land planes so any planes in the air at the time will have to divert to a land base.

The fact that they lost two aircraft suggests that two were wanting to land and needed to land and by the time they worked out it was not a cable problem but actually an arrester gear problem they did not have enough fuel to recover to a land based airfield.

One obvious lesson from this would be to have a plane fuelled up and ready for take off with a buddy refuelling pod and external fuel tanks fitted and loaded with extra fuel that could have taken off and refuelled both aircraft trying to land and escorted them both to a land base where all three aircraft could have been recovered safely. Or perhaps a land based inflight refuelling aircraft brought to near the carrier to simultaneously refuel both aircraft trying to land and then flown with them to a nearby airfield to recover them.

Do you understand the concept of "usefullness" and the concept of "aircraft carrier" and the concept of a "barge" ?

For Russia bombing terrorists in Syria is a secondary backup feature of the Kuznetsov... its primary role will always be air defence and air support of naval surface operations away from Russian airspace.

France used its aircraft carrier to beautiful effect destroying the lives of the Libyan people and resulting in the murder and barbarity that can only be found in a civil war... money well spent... you must be proud.

Something is useful if you can use it as planed.

An aircraft carrier is meant to carry, launch and recover fighters.

The Kuznetsov is meant to provide protection from enemy aircraft... which in this case meant 360 degree coverage of air space using Ka-31 helicopters.... don't remember hearing or reading about any attacks made on Russian ships in the region while the K was there...

If you have hard time conceptualizing all this go check a doctor for brain damages.

The Kuznestov managed air attacks against terrorist targets in Syria, it gathered intel and managed attacks and monitored the results... most of the air launches were moved to ground based air fields, but the attacks were planned from the carrier, which were successful in bringing peace to a country... sort of the opposite of what the CdG did in Libya.

If the K is a barge it would be the best defended barge in HATO.

But lets take your analogy... Barges are not self propelled.

When it comes to surface fleet. They lost everything. Even had hard time with corvettes and missile boats.

Their current fleets are in need of new ships, but for a third world gas station that does not make anything the corvettes and frigates they are in the process of producing are amazing. The only reason they had a hard time with Corvettes and missile boats is because they are brand new state of the art... and honestly better than many western ships of much larger displacement which they honestly put to shame.

It is clear they have lost nothing.

Well i am curious to know what would happen to the US if because of secession of states they would lose one third of their industries from one day to the other.

The US has lost nothing but look at their latest corvettes and frigates... The US Navy has better funding than the rest of HATO combined, but please tell us about French corvettes and French Frigates that put these Russian boats to shame?

What you don't seem to understand or are being too stubborn to admit is that the main reason for the deployment in Syria was not to defeat the terrorists, since they already had an air group in Hmeimim that was taking care of them, but to test the carrier operations. And that was done, in fact in absence of failures and problems they would have learned less than what they did. So that when they really need the carrier on a deployment where the Russian military capabilities and security interests actually depend on it, everything is operational and tested.

More than that, the operation in Syria was about testing the Kuznetsovs ability to operate as a flagship and direct operations... in this case in the very secondary role of ground attack which is not even a secondary backup role... it is not that important in the scheme of things at all, but there were no air threats to the Russian surface ships in the area so that is all they could test.

@LSOS The fact that they had to operate from land is completely unimportant because that can be fixed overnight in a Russian shipyard, it was the rest of the stuff they had to do to get the job done that was the real test... which you plainly want to ignore.

And it failed the tests miserably.

The test was not being able to recover aircraft.

The test was to deploy aircraft and execute missions based on C4IR information... which they did from land bases.

It would be a valuable vessel if they used it correctly.

They did use it correctly. Land based aircraft substituted sea based air power when it was clear operations from the carrier could not be executed till work had been done to repair a problem.

Breadowns on a maintained vessels are breakdowns.

Breakdowns on a non maintained vessels aren't.

So breakdowns are not breakdowns... right... the Kuznetsov was taken out of drydock to perform this test... do you think expecting perfection is reasonable?

Sending a non maintained carrier in deployement is beyond stupidity.

They didn't have to test whether it could launch and recover aircraft... they already know how to do that, it is not hard... as you say even China and India can do it... are you saying the instant there was a problem with landing aircraft they should have sailed to the fucking Pacific fleet to fix it so they could then sail back and perform the tests they wanted to perform?

Are you a fucking idiot?

Flying from land bases changes nothing, all the tests they wanted to do they got done... or are you suggesting flexibility and getting the job done means nothing.

The only valuable thing they learned is that they shouldn't have sent it.

If that was the lesson they learned they would have scrapped it.

You can't learn anything about using a carrier against a group like ISIS.

Of course... hitting hidden targets amongst civilians is easy, and requires no sophistication... just fly in and drop bombs at random and declare all the people you kill to be terrorists and then head home as heroes.... like the CdG does.

Russian shipyard could have repaieed and replace many thing before the Syrian fiasco.

Recovering fighters is irrelevant to the main mission of killing terrorists, but of course your countries policy of welcoming them and letting them murder your teachers is obviously much better... you want to compare fiascos... how much of your taxpayers money goes into white helmets...

We aren't talking about building a new carrier but about the poor maintenance of this one.

What poor maintenance... the arrester gear failed.... fucken get over it.

geopolitically Russia had little choice. so far they have done well with what little they have in comparison with the other great powers.

I disagree, Russia could have saved billions by doing exactly nothing and let these arseholes take over Syria and invade Europe... I am sure Europe under Sharia Law will be a much more civilised and orderly place... and anyone who disagrees gets their heads cut off... you know... real justice.

The amusing thing is that in the chaos and murder the plans for gas lines to Europe probably would have failed anyway because it would be easy to fund a few nutter groups to periodically sabotage them... much cheaper and much less risk for Russia...

I think they wanted to oust Assad in order to build an oil pipeline thru Syria on into Turkey. they want to break the back of Putin's Russia. same with using Turkey to undermine Russia's influence in the Caucasus. frankly I loathe Putin but the only alternatives are old timer oligarchs or western Navalny tier stooges. geopolitically Putin has done fairly well I think.

GarryB wrote:France used its aircraft carrier to beautiful effect destroying the lives of the Libyan people and resulting in the murder and barbarity that can only be found in a civil war... money well spent... you must be proud.

+1

I'll never forgive those filthy snail-eating surrender-monkey bastards for what they did to Libya

Sarkozy and Bernard Henri-Levy should be strung up with piano wire around their nuts for their crimes. Heck, why stop there? Hang the rest of the feckless criminal Eurotrash elite.

I think they wanted to oust Assad in order to build an oil pipeline thru Syria on into Turkey.

They wanted to pump UAE gas to Europe in competition with Russian gas... for all the shit Russia goes through I would say let them do it and just fund terrorist groups to go in there and destroy sections of the pipeline every other week.

Destroy Syria to pump gas to Europe... how civilised these western people are.

Amusing... that point when you grow up and realise that western governments essentially equate to the bad guys in all those Disney Movies and all those James Bond movies....