Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

LMFS wrote:

https://twitter.com/Strike_Flanker/status/1409552280928624648/photo/1

I'm not mistaken, that is the Adm Chabanenko next to the cofferdam seawall. Can't tell if there has been any obvious progress since the last clear pic (Aug 2020).

As long as those would be used for colonial-style gunboat diplomacy.

Pretty clear Russia is the victim of that stuff rather than the perpetrator ATM.

It is all the British Navy is capable of these days...

Russian or Chinese carriers would not care much about the on-land opponents, as none of them possess now antiship assets reaching further than 300km.

Russian carriers are air defence carriers so, they are there to support the Russian surface ships doing whatever they are doing.

That makes them simply useless in the theatres we may consider as potentially important, leaving the ones that are protected by the natives with no serious anti-ship capabilities.

But third world countries are the normal fodder the USN likes to go up against.

SO what you are saying is that the colonial imperial super carrier that the US prefers is what is rendered less than useful... except the USN has the strongest IADS system within all of HATO and the only western IADS that even approaches the Russian system.

The thing is that Kinzhal and Zircon and Kh-32 are not wonder weapons thousands of tons and hundreds of metres long which they might have one or two of.

These are standard weapons that will be widely deployed and will be affordable to operate in enormous numbers.

Most of their anti ship missiles have evolved to have land attack capacity too, which is interesting.

FSB officers came to the 35th ship repair plant and seized the plant's documentation in connection with the identified acts of embezzlement of budget funds allocated, among other things, for work on the Admiral Kuznetsov.

Source: 

"New" dock, 35th repair plant

Bit of proper ass kicking & threats/oversight -> suddenly dramatic progress

GarryB wrote:
The thing is that Kinzhal and Zircon and Kh-32 are not wonder weapons thousands of tons and hundreds of metres long which they might have one or two of.

The Zircon is a big advance. Compared to the P-800 with the same dimensions, it has twice the range and almost 4 times the speed. The American fleet would have problems intercepting the P-800, let alone Zircon or Kinzhal.Not long ago, the SM-6 did not even intercept a straight MRBM flying on a predictable trajectory.

Russian_Patriot_ wrote:The model of the nuclear aircraft carrier of the project 11430E Lamantin (Eng: Manatee), developed by JSC "Nevsky PKB" at the International Naval Salon MVMS-2021 in Saint Petersburg.
[url=https://seoon

Has anyone spotted any changes to the model ? This is a new pic

thegopnik wrote: modernizing an old ass carrier? .

It was commissioned in 1991. Which isn't particularly old in ship years. Especially in carrier years. Look at how long some of those old British carriers lived.

Plus is doesn't have that many miles on it.

The Zircon is a big advance. Compared to the P-800 with the same dimensions, it has twice the range and almost 4 times the speed. The American fleet would have problems intercepting the P-800, let alone Zircon or Kinzhal.Not long ago, the SM-6 did not even intercept a straight MRBM flying on a predictable trajectory.

You misunderstand what I was saying.

In the 1980s the missile that filled that job description was the P-700 Granit (SS-N-19 Shipwreck) (7 ton) or the P-1000 Vulcan (SS-N-12 Sandbox) (5 ton)... which were very big and very heavy missiles that could only be carried in small numbers on very large platforms... like the Oscar class SSGNs, Kirov class battlecruisers, Slava class cruisers, Kuznetsov carrier...

Because of the range and speed requirement they were huge and cumbersome, and so not widely deployed in enormous numbers like the Harpoon for instance.

The Zircon and Kinzhal on the other hand are much smaller and have much better performance and in the case of the former fit into standard launch tubes fitted to new production Corvettes and Frigates and Soon Destroyers and Cruisers, while upgraded destroyers and cruisers from the cold war are having UKSK launch tubes added, which will make them vastly more flexible and useful and capable.

Back in the day

JohninMK wrote:Back in the day...

They tried...

JohninMK wrote:Back in the day

..and will be again, once the modernisation & repairs are complete.  

Regardless of the avalanche of bullshit from certain quarters, there is NOTHING fundamentally wrong with the Kuznetsov that a much-delayed repair campaign can't fix.  The Kuz will be yet another example of how Western critics and their water-carriers are proven to be dead WRONG on their much-loved (but fake) narratives about Rusky "incompetence" (like how dumb Russians are decades behind on ABM and hypersonics, or can't build stealth aircraft...).

Nevertheless, Kuznetsov has never been considered successful carrier by Russians themselves. She was rather a prototype for later vessels that were never to be built, with all flaws familiar for a prototype vessel.

kumbor wrote:Nevertheless, Kuznetsov has never been considered successful carrier by Russians themselves. She was rather a prototype for later vessels that were never to be built, with all flaws familiar for a prototype vessel.

If the Kuznetsov is crap, what would you call the British carriers? Worse than crap?
The Chinese thought it was decent enough they refurbished one and built another one.
It was used as the basis for their future carrier designs.

lancelot wrote:

kumbor wrote:Nevertheless, Kuznetsov has never been considered successful carrier by Russians themselves. She was rather a prototype for later vessels that were never to be built, with all flaws familiar for a prototype vessel.

If the Kuznetsov is crap, what would you call the British carriers? Worse than crap?
The Chinese thought it was decent enough they refurbished one and built another one.
It was used as the basis for their future carrier designs.

Ii didn`t say she`s a crap! First real Russian carrier, the largest ship built, the most complex, first to launch fighter aircraft from the deck in the Russian navy. All flaws would have been fixed on later ships, but they were never built.

It's a byproduct of a bad time. If Russia never faced the 90's, there would have been a chance for another of the same design fixing it's issues. But, here we are

lancelot wrote:

kumbor wrote:Nevertheless, Kuznetsov has never been considered successful carrier by Russians themselves. She was rather a prototype for later vessels that were never to be built, with all flaws familiar for a prototype vessel.

If the Kuznetsov is crap, what would you call the British carriers? Worse than crap?
The Chinese thought it was decent enough they refurbished one and built another one.
It was used as the basis for their future carrier designs.

A very large coffin fit for a queen

Read the British Navy thread their new destroyers have 48 vertical launch missile tubes and they can only afford 6 ships of a planned 12, and the primary fighter on their two new carriers is about to be cancelled and thrown in the bin..

The cancellation of the destroyers means their carriers are going to be even more vulnerable but then 48 SAMs is pathetic self defence capacity anyway... it would struggle to defend itself with that sort of a load out let alone defending another ship.

But what is worse they don't have any bigger ships like cruisers... they spent all the cash on two carriers and Trident, and now they wont be able to operate those carriers because they wont have enough other ships for patrols and protect their carriers.

Nevertheless, Kuznetsov has never been considered successful carrier by Russians themselves.

Why do you think that?

What are you expecting from the carrier?

It has been not much use over the last 30 years because rebuilding itself and its industries hasn't really required global naval power, but for its future Russia seriously needs to bypass western bullshit to access real markets and countries that are not interested in keeping Russia in its place subservient to the west.

They can't do that without a global fleet and you can't have an effective global fleet without aircraft carriers.

She was rather a prototype for later vessels that were never to be built, with all flaws familiar for a prototype vessel.

She was a stepping stone... and two were built, but the final plan was for the Ulyanovsk... which sounds a lot like the ships they still plan to build... but obviously with much newer technology and aircraft.

Even if they had built several of the carriers they had wanted they would have been of no use for the last 30 years anyway, but keeping the Kuznetsov has been valuable in retaining capability and skills, for practise and training.

kumbor wrote:
Nevertheless, Kuznetsov has never been considered successful carrier by Russians themselves. She was rather a prototype for later vessels that were never to be built, with all flaws familiar for a prototype vessel.

Which Russians?  The idiots who don't understand that she is an air defense carrier not a USN-style strike carrier?  She was designed to extend naval aviation support into the Russian near-abroad and to protect their SSBNs against interdiction by NATO ASW aircraft and their fighter escorts, and she fufills that mission as designed. STOBAR is adequate for her intended role, even if it means she doesn't have indigenous AWACS support, and even if her phased-array radar wasn't a success.

The fact that the Chinese chose to build a 2nd hull (Shandong) rather than simply complete the Varyag/Liaoning should be a wakeup call to the retards who keep shit-canning the 11435 design, but naturally, they have proved to be impervious to little trivial details such as facts and reality...  

Pfftt...  I don't lose sleep over the opinions of such people.  Life is too short to worry what the mouth-breathers at the bottom end of the bell-curve are repeating to each other...

GarryB wrote:She was a stepping stone... and two were built

Actually, 3 were built, ie one by China. They obviously felt that it was worthwhile building another, so that should say a lot regarding the validity of the design intention if people are willing to disregard the BS they are fed by Western hacks.

The kuznetsov is a dangerous opponent for any navy but US navy.

It provides air cover and air detection against enemy ships. And can launch stand off attacks.

US have 10 super carrier so they outnumber the kuznetsov but near friendly shores it still adds 12 supersonic missiles and 20 aircraft.

Isos wrote:The kuznetsov is a dangerous opponent for any navy but US navy.

It provides air cover and air detection against enemy ships. And can launch stand off attacks.

US have 10 super carrier so they outnumber the kuznetsov but near friendly shores it still adds 12 supersonic missiles and 20 aircraft.

Granit launchers are to be landed off Kuznetsov during this refit. If the powerplant is only to be refurbished - boilers are still very bad. Kuz needs full boiler replacement

lancelot wrote:If the Kuznetsov is crap, what would you call the British carriers?
...

British carriers can move, launch and retrieve aircraft​ they were designed for and are not spontaneously combusting or sinking in port ergo British carriers are superior

British carriers may be a joke compared to US ones but they still make Kuznetzov look like a joke in comparison

lancelot wrote:...The Chinese thought it was decent enough they refurbished one and built another one...

Beggars can't be choosers

The moment Chinese stopped being beggars they immediately switched to different class

GarryB wrote:Read the British Navy thread their new destroyers have 48 vertical launch missile tubes and they can only afford 6 ships of a planned 12, and the primary fighter on their two new carriers is about to be cancelled and thrown in the bin..

The cancellation of the destroyers means their carriers are going to be even more vulnerable but then 48 SAMs is pathetic self defence capacity anyway... it would struggle to defend itself with that sort of a load out let alone defending another ship.

But what is worse they don't have any bigger ships like cruisers... they spent all the cash on two carriers and Trident, and now they wont be able to operate those carriers because they wont have enough other ships for patrols and protect their carriers.

Those two carriers without any real air defense was a complete waste of money and they culled so many virtually brand new ships - and probably more useful ships - in the process as well.
I feel sorry for the Royal Navy if they were ever to confront a Kuznetsov task force in any future conflict. @PD There is no ways the two British carriers can survive any conflict with a Kuznetsov task force (don't forget the Backfires and Mig31K's)

It's also important to remember (mainly for legal reasons, but still) that the Kuznetsov class was classified by the Soviets as a Aircraft Carrying Cruiser. Kuznetsov has the ability to fend for itself and not only that - it could deliver a devastating punch to any adversary. No wonder the Brits gets over excited whenever she headed their way! Soon she'll be back in the water and the British tabloids will spread fear among the Brits whenever she crosses the Channel  

kumbor wrote:

Granit launchers are to be landed off Kuznetsov during this refit. If the powerplant is only to be refurbished - boilers are still very bad. Kuz needs full boiler replacement

They will use new aircraft that can launch hypersonic missiles. Granits are being replaced, not removed.

kumbor wrote:Granit launchers are to be landed off Kuznetsov during this refit. If the powerplant is only to be refurbished - boilers are still very bad. Kuz needs full boiler replacement

No.

That is being claimed but AFAIK the claim is based solely on conjecture and there is no official confirmation of such.  For instance I've seen no evidence that the hatches on the missile tubes have been opened as part of the works, or that craneage is in place to remove missiles. They certainly haven't been cutting out the hatches and plating over.

I expect they will retain the Granites as they are still an effective missile against most opponents.  They'll replace Kashtans with navalised Pantsir, and possibly update the Khinzal bins with new missiles.  Most works will involve work below decks such as propulsion and machinery upgrades, repairing the arrestor wire recovery systems, and replacement of electronic & communications systems.