Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2018, 06:48
by Corsair1963
Floating Dock Sinks with Russian Aircraft Carrier, casualties reported..........



The PD-50, one of the world's largest floating docks and the only one used to repair Russia's ill-fated aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov, has sunk during the repairs to the vessel.

The accident happened at the 82nd repair shipyard in the village of Roslyakovo in Russia's Murmansk Oblast in the early hours of October 30, the local publication SeverPost reported.

Two tower cranes fell, and one of them hit the aircraft carrier's deck.

SeverPost informed about three injured persons. According to early reports, shipyard workers may have fallen into the water. There might be lethal cases, the publication wrote.

About 70 people have reportedly been evacuated from the shipyard's territory.


https://www.unian.info/world/10317339-f ... 0jCVo0vYtI

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2018, 06:59
by Corsair1963

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2018, 08:02
by weasel1962
The Chinese would probably be willing to complete the servicing at Dalian for the price of a dozen or two Su-35s at its dry dock, which can't sink, if the CV could ever sail that far.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2018, 09:36
by knowan
Corsair1963 wrote:Two tower cranes fell, and one of them hit the aircraft carrier's deck.


Russia is saying there's no damage, but a crane hitting the deck makes that pretty unlikely.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2018, 10:09
by Corsair1963
Aircraft carrier is damaged as dry dock sinks

One person is reported dead and Russia’s only aircraft carrier has been damaged as dry dock sinks into the waters of the Kola Bay.


By
Atle Staalesen


AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to Facebook2Share to TwitterShare to PrintShare to EmailShare to More5

October 30, 2018







It was early morning Tuesday in Roslyakovo, near Murmansk, when Russia’s biggest dry dock experienced serious technical problems reportedly triggered by a power outage.

The accident started as aircraft carrier «Admiral Kuzentsov» was to be taken out of the dock and into the nearby waters, Interfax reports. The vessel was damaged as two large cranes fell over the ship deck, sources tell the news agency.

There has not come any official comments from Zvezdochka, the company that operates yard No 82 in Roslyakovo. However, regional Governor Marina Kovtun has issued a video report about the incident.

«It is hard to say what is the reason for the accident,» Kovtun says in the comment distributed on Twitter. «There are rescue services on site and divers in the water, and also a group from the Northern Fleet as well as an investigative team»

The accident happened as the aircraft carrier was to be taken out of the dry dock. The ship has now been towed to the nearby Sevmorput Yard No 35, yard press spokesman Yevgeny Gladyshev told Interfax. He makes clear that the power outage was what caused the accident.....


https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/secur ... dock-sinks

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2018, 10:31
by Corsair1963
The accident appears to be a major set back for the Russian military machine since the dock is seen as the only one suitable for the aircraft carrier and the Pyotr Velikiy Kirov-class battlecruiser.

An eye-witness told Murmansky Vestnik newspaper: “The dock sank partially at first, then it broke and went underwater completely, now even its machine tower is not visible.”


https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/10 ... d-accident

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2018, 11:58
by charlielima223
knowan wrote:
Russia is saying there's no damage, but a crane hitting the deck makes that pretty unlikely.


Can anyone really believe Russian state/government controlled media outlets?

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2018, 13:26
by madrat
So power outage stopped the pumps while it was purging ballast? I cannot believe it wouldn't prevent backflow.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2018, 15:06
by mixelflick
Just sink the Kustenov already, it's been a lot more trouble than it's worth. In fact, it's a great embarrassment for Russia - especially that Syrian deployment.

Russians and carrier aviation never did work out too well. It was interesting how they modified various Flanker, Fulcrum and Frogfoot aircraft to fly on and off the ship, but the vessel itself was extremely limited. If/I'm not mistaken, they've cancelled their "super carrier", probably a wise move. Better to plow more $ into submarines, long range naval aviation and the like vs. carriers.

Which makes China's foray into the carrier world very interesting. Thus far, they've copied or outright bought Russian designs with all of their inherent limitations. There's apparently a supercarrier/Nimitz size vessel with more traditional catapaults (or however you spell it), but that brings up the lack of a suitable fighter. The J-15 Flopping Fish or whatever is terribly accident prone, overweight and appears sluggish in the air. It'll have to be the J-31/their version of the joint strike fighter. Even then, they'll need tankers, AWACS etc to bring to bear the full range of capabilities American carriers enjoy.

Maybe the J-31 will be their Super Hornet. One platform for every mission. Alas, I don't think they're that dumb..

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2018, 02:43
by knowan
Unsurprisingly, Russia was severely understating the severity of the accident: https://iz.ru/806496/ilia-kramnik/upust ... -ne-utonul

According to the Izvestia correspondent, from sources in the ship repair industry, the aircraft carrier’s withdrawal from the dock was not planned and when the PD-50 began to sink, the ship was on the dock’s deck, not being ready to leave.

The prerequisite for the accident was indeed problems with power supply, however, the dock did not switch to its own power, since the PD-50 motor team was reduced, and the fuel for diesel generators was not purchased.

According to sources, Kuznetsova was rescued by the well-coordinated work of the crew remaining onboard during the repair, which in due time began the struggle for survivability and saved the ship from being flooded, despite the flow of water through the open outboard fittings and holes made during the repair. As a result, the ship remained afloat. The crew of the Kuznetsov also organized the rescue of the dock crew. As a result, the aircraft carrier, having received several thousand tons of water, was towed to the berth of the 35th shipyard - to its usual place of anchorage.

During the flooding dock tilted, which led to the fall of the crane on the deck of the aircraft carrier. In addition, according to the President of the United Shipbuilding Corporation Alexei Rakhmanov, the ship received a hole in the surface part of the board with an area of ​​about 20 square meters.


So the ship nearly sank, and will likely require extensive repairs.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2018, 03:10
by madrat
So basically someone forgot to secure fuel enough to keep the drydock sumps functioning. The ship hull was breached for repairs when the incident occurred, filling the hull that inconveniently was open for easy of passage for work crews. During the incident crews tried to secure the open hatches in the ship, but were only moderately successful. If the drydock shifted enough to topple a crane then it shifted enough for the hull to shift in its moorage. We're going to find out twenty years from now there were many more workers killed or injured than they admitted AND the ship internal framework was bent permanently.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2018, 05:30
by Corsair1963
Honestly, my concern now is China may persuade Russia to sell her the Kuznetsov. Which, she could rebuild like the Liaoning (Type 001). This would give the PLAN three Kuznetsov Class large Aircraft Carriers. Shortly to be followed by a forth equipped with both Catapults and Arresting Gear.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2018, 05:34
by popcorn
So having the floating drydock accompany the Kuznetsov on her next cruise is out of the question? :mrgreen:

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2018, 05:50
by Corsair1963
:lmao:

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2018, 06:19
by XanderCrews
madrat wrote:So power outage stopped the pumps while it was purging ballast? I cannot believe it wouldn't prevent backflow.



Theres fails, and theres Russian fails.

For all the people who suck them off for the AK-47 like simplicity they think all Russian systems are imbued with, its shocking how often Russian systems fail at the basics.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2018, 12:26
by marsavian
The Kuznetsov is like the Su-57, a WIP ;).

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2018, 22:19
by mmm
Let's be honest Russian has been a green water navy long before this happened. Say even if the lone carrier is not in a maintenance cycle(I think for USN the number of deployed carrier at any given time is no more than 3) how much power projection capability does a ski jump carrier provide? Their real naval modernization efforts is on their submarine fleet or the more modest FFGs. Consider the resource, geography and the real, likely contingency it makes more sense than vanity project like large combatant or carrier.

PLAN is the one that has the desire, mean, and in certain sense practical need to build up a carrier fleet. Ski-jump Kuznetsov was never their end goal, the move towards a proper CATOBAR is well underway. With the Type 055 very much a Ticonderoga analogy with more modern features they're also quite ready to put together their own CSG. It's all quite frankly modeled after USN. And the purpose, at least in the foreseeable future is not to duel with USN in the middle of pacific. The need to keep SEA countries in line or protecting the growing interests in Africa could be enough reasons.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2018, 22:27
by vilters
The African population is feeing to Europe in masses.

A few years from now, Africa is: "want it? have it". => But you"ll have to bring your own miners to get the goods out of the ground.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2018, 00:53
by weasel1962
Not surprised if Russian propaganda suggest that CV testing ability to withstand a 70 ton impact bomb...imho, China may be willing to buy the Kuznetzov but don't think Russia will sell. Its a pride thing. Russia needs to be able to say its one of the "big" boys and that means having a CV, even if its one with a 216 sq ft hole in the middle.

China's CVBG doctrine is not explained (as least publicly) yet. I personally think its still evolving. It could just as easily adopt the original Russian CV doctrine which is to defend/escort its naval fleets (including SSBNs). That applies in a Taiwan invasion scenario. That is consistent with the deployments of the Liaoning to date. However its not full Russian doctrine either because of the lack of ASW helos which is still the PLAN weak link, including the "effectiveness" of the Shang SSNs. Its really early "infancy" days for PLAN CV operations. Long way to go before they actually intend to, much less being ready to, go up against US CVBGs.

J-15 is, on the other hand, under-estimated. The weight class is roughly F-14. More importantly, it has the latest Chinese radar avionics and missiles, plus enough Chinese yuan to buy self built spares to keep the aircraft flying. It has a better chance of surviving against legacies especially the M-2000s or IDF-CK. The F-16 can still handle flankers but I would expect attrition.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2018, 03:15
by mmm
China is by and large past making knockoff Russian equipment. Or rather if given the chance they'd rather copy western stuff, for example S-70, even if it took them a few decades. For how much has China gotten better at building surface ship I think Russian has little to offer in this respect. In fact if Russian's really keen on maintaining an operational carrier the reverse might become true. But that would also go on to highlight how Russia had become the junior partner in this "strategic cooperation".

Chinese surface force venturing outside the reach of its mainland bastion are just juicy targets for USN, it will remain this way for the foreseeable future no questions about it. Doesn't mean it can't leverage a more limited power projection capability than US against lesser opponents. Say coerce a state with little naval capability in SEA into submission, or deal with some insurgency against a friendly regime in Africa. Its probably a tool to better strengthen its own influence than to clash with US.

I don't believe potential Taiwan contingency did that much to drove the development of carrier, the geography is there. It's well within the range of land based tactical aviation or even the shortest range missile force. Hell flights launched from Taiwan itself could theoretically fall within the reach of long range SAM based in the mainland China if flown at high enough altitude. It may still find uses for blockade or deterring intervention, but certainly not by itself a necessity for an invasion scenario.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2018, 08:31
by element1loop
mmm wrote:And the purpose, at least in the foreseeable future is not to duel with USN in the middle of pacific. The need to keep SEA countries in line or protecting the growing interests in Africa could be enough reasons.


SEA would be a nasty place for hostile PLAN DDGs to venture, many SEA states have a range of sea-denial capabilities, and such a threat would lead to a more unified SEA defense arrangement over time, which would be a fairly menacing environment for the PLAN to contemplate messing with. We'll see who keeps who in line there.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2018, 10:49
by Tiger05
Just put the Kuznetsov out of its misery already...

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2018, 11:50
by hornetfinn
Tiger05 wrote:Just put the Kuznetsov out of its misery already...


Agreed. If Russia wants to have real aircraft carriers, they'd need something like French CdG which is actually modern and useful. Of course they'd also need aircraft that'd be modern and useful too. Su-33 and MiG-29K aren't really that in any sense.

I think it'd be better for Russian navy to forget about aircraft carriers altogether.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2018, 12:38
by popcorn
Better they keep pouring funds into her rather than into.other assets eg. nuke subs, new surface fleet assets.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 02 Nov 2018, 14:30
by hornetfinn
I think Kuznetsov, Kirov and Slavas must have pretty good money burning rate... :P

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2018, 02:21
by madrat
S-70 is license built in China. Thanks, Bill Clinton and George Bush for facilitating the Chinese build up.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2018, 03:08
by sferrin
madrat wrote:S-70 is license built in China. Thanks, Bill Clinton and George Bush for facilitating the Chinese build up.


They've also introduced their own knock-off, the Z-20:


Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2018, 16:25
by rheonomic
This is just the Russians innovating and creating the world's first smoke-powered submarine...

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2018, 16:29
by vilters
Ach, those Ruskies are so friendly.
Sinking their own ships, wo that we don't have to.

And by the time their sole carrier is ready again? ? Does smoking rust float?
Because that's all it is. It is rust, and it smokes like hell.

Hey? The Brits might even put it on sale in one of their antique or flea market TV shows.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 03 Nov 2018, 17:23
by zerion
Image
Image
Image

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 04 Nov 2018, 15:06
by mixelflick
Wow...

You have to ask yourself: How big is the repair bill, and what does that get them? Looks like it'll be substantial, and the capability buy back is negligible. At the end of the day, they MIGHT have one functioning yet hopelessly obsolete aircraft carrier, which is factually accurate given it carries them more than launches/recovers them.

Just get out of the carrier business. It was a nice try but really, how far did they get? Not very. Rubles are much better put into submarines and anti-ship missiles/weapons. Nice try Russia but as the Chinese are about to find out, carrier ops are a risky and expensive proposition.

The vessel itself isn't easy to build, and operating it costs billions over its lifetime. Most onerous: The carrier air wing will essentially be built from scratch. Although they may opt for existing platforms like the MIg-29 and SU-27, modifying them for carrier ops might as well be creating a whole new aircraft. Back to the drawing board, and this too is uber expensive...

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2018, 03:30
by weasel1962
Agree China CVs is not cost-efficient but once China goes for it, they don’t hold back expenditure. Between China and Russia, China has more yuan to spend than Russia has rubles and a yuan goes further than a ruble.

The Indians tried to go cheap with the Mig-29K but ended up with an inefficient CV no 1 that cost more to modify than build. The IN then screwed themselves with CV no 2 that they can’t operationalise quickly (different from the 1st), not to mention the aircraft issues. China could have gone the same way with the minsk hull but didn’t.

China has spent a lot less on CV development. J-15 and CV blueprints probably came cheap from Ukraine (who’d gladly screw the Russkis when they can). CV no 1 came as a cheap hull but now works better than the Russki CV. J-15 internals are ported from J-11/J-16 program. The 2xKuz-class CVs buys them time to train CV crews and develop CATOBAR. CV no 2, is projected to take only 2 years from launch to commission. There’s a lot of risk and costs but China is managing both so far.

P.s. It may cost $2xx million to repair a DDG but its a lot cheaper at a Russian yard. But its an unbudgeted cost for a small purse.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2018, 07:41
by knowan
The Kuznetsov is a propaganda weapon, not a practical weapon. In Putin's Russia, propaganda weapons get higher priority than practical weapons.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2018, 10:00
by weasel1962
Try maintaining a bloated legacy armed forces a few times the size of the UK's on a budget less than the UK in US$ terms. Can't afford much else either even factoring in 1.6x PPP inflator, not even much fuel for CV ops. Propaganda (and GRU assassins) is cheap. Even NK affords that. No surprise. China's defense budget is more than 50% of US in PPP terms and continually cutting a bloated armed force whilst modernising with new equipment. China can afford the fuel (and brand new "copied" missiles that others have spent to develop).

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2018, 20:08
by ricnunes
weasel1962 wrote:J-15 is, on the other hand, under-estimated.


I swear that one day I'll understand what's all the fuzz behind the J-15...

Well I mean, IMO the J-15 is only a blatant Chinese copy/knock off of the Su-33. Hardly anything impressive or worth of "overestimating". At least that's my 2 cents anyway...


The J-15:
Image

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2018, 23:31
by popcorn
Some people just seem impressed by the Floppy Fish.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2018, 01:04
by boilermaker
ricnunes wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:J-15 is, on the other hand, under-estimated.


I swear that one day I'll understand what's all the fuzz behind the J-15...

Well I mean, IMO the J-15 is only a blatant Chinese copy/knock off of the Su-33. Hardly anything impressive or worth of "overestimating". At least that's my 2 cents anyway...


The J-15:
Image


Well, apparently they are having problem with the J15. It does not work as well as the original SU-33. The engines suck too, which when you think about Russian engines being better, is a scary thought.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2018, 01:07
by boilermaker
knowan wrote:The Kuznetsov is a propaganda weapon, not a practical weapon. In Putin's Russia, propaganda weapons get higher priority than practical weapons.

That and the Russian Navy was at the origin of the Revolution and an uprising of hard core disciplined Navy communists against the Kremlin during the Cold War. The Russians do not want a strong navy for that reason. Taking care of their boomers is already a handful.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2018, 05:35
by Corsair1963
J-15 should be just as capable as any other Flanker. So, until the F-35 enters widespread service. I would treat it with a good dose of respect....

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2018, 05:50
by Corsair1963
Russian Pride usually prevails. Yet, the Kuznetsov is becoming just one big money pit and one the Russian Navy can hardly afford. In addition selling her to China. Just puts another thorn in the side of the West. Which, I am sure Putin would appreciate....


So, while I don't consider it likely that Russia would indeed sell the Kuznetsov to China. I would hardly rule it out either.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2018, 06:50
by hythelday
The only place they are selling it is some scrapyard. PRC has zero use for Kuznetsov as of now.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2018, 07:31
by Corsair1963
hythelday wrote:The only place they are selling it is some scrapyard. PRC has zero use for Kuznetsov as of now.


What??? If, the PLAN did acquire the Kuznetsov her fleet would increase from 2 to 4 Aircraft Carriers! In addition an refitted Chinese Kuznetsov would be the sister ship of the Liaoning. (Type 001). While, being a close cousin to the Shandong. (Type 001A) Both will be followed by a third currently under construction. Which, is said to have both Catapults (maybe even EMALS) and Arresting Gear.

So, while Russian pride may prevent China from acquiring the Kuznetsov. To claim China has zero use is nothing short of "absurd"....

:doh:

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2018, 08:06
by hythelday
It is absurd to claim that China, while moving from STOBAR to CATOBAR would want to buy 30+ Kuznetsov which is in need of a big overhaul. Even if their cats & traps tech does not work out and they need more carriers they'll spend more time and money refurbishing rather than just building a new Type 001A which is already localized & optimized for PLAN needs, rather than a 1143.5 that is falling apart.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2018, 08:32
by Corsair1963
hythelday wrote:It is absurd to claim that China, while moving from STOBAR to CATOBAR would want to buy 30+ Kuznetsov which is in need of a big overhaul. Even if their cats & traps tech does not work out and they need more carriers they'll spend more time and money refurbishing rather than just building a new Type 001A which is already localized & optimized for PLAN needs, rather than a 1143.5 that is falling apart.




Your case is weak to say the least. First, the current Liaoning (ex-Varyag) was in far worse shape than the Kuznetsov is today. Second, China has considerable experience with the design now and what it would take to refit her. Third, the current Liaoning (CV-16) and Shandong (CV-17) are just entering service. So, they aren't going anywhere in the foreseeable future. So, adding a third ship of the same class. Would be a bonus not a "burden". Forth, acquiring the Kuznetsov would be a far cheaper and quicker option than building a new carrier from scratch. Plus, China can only afford to build one at a time.

In short acquiring the Kuznetsov would help China quickly close the gap with the US and at a modest price. While, offering considerable commonalty with the existing fleet.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2018, 08:37
by boilermaker
Corsair1963 wrote:J-15 should be just as capable as any other Flanker. So, until the F-35 enters widespread service. I would treat it with a good dose of respect....

IT should but it has teething problems

https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnav ... 80728.aspx

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2018, 08:54
by Corsair1963
boilermaker wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:J-15 should be just as capable as any other Flanker. So, until the F-35 enters widespread service. I would treat it with a good dose of respect....

IT should but it has teething problems

https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnav ... 80728.aspx



A blog is "hardly" a credible source....What China has had four J-15 Accidents and is new to Carrier Aviation. OMG shocking....

:doh:

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2018, 10:11
by hythelday
Corsair1963 wrote:
hythelday wrote:It is absurd to claim that China, while moving from STOBAR to CATOBAR would want to buy 30+ Kuznetsov which is in need of a big overhaul. Even if their cats & traps tech does not work out and they need more carriers they'll spend more time and money refurbishing rather than just building a new Type 001A which is already localized & optimized for PLAN needs, rather than a 1143.5 that is falling apart.




Your case is weak to say the least. First, the current Liaoning (ex-Varyag) was in far worse shape than the Kuznetsov is today. Second, China has considerable experience with the design now and what it would take to refit her. Third, the current Liaoning (CV-16) and Shandong (CV-17) are just entering service. So, they aren't going anywhere in the foreseeable future. So, adding a third ship of the same class. Would be a bonus not a "burden". Forth, acquiring the Kuznetsov would be a far cheaper and quicker option than building a new carrier from scratch. Plus, China can only afford to build one at a time.

In short acquiring the Kuznetsov would help China quickly close the gap with the US and at a modest price. While, offering considerable commonalty with the existing fleet.


1) Explain why Liaoning is in "far worse" shape than Kuznetsov?
2) Why do you think PLAN wants a third STOBAR project 1143 at all?
3) Why are they building a CATOBAR carrier instead of another Type 001A?
4) What facilities would they use to refurbish Kuznetsov if they "can only afford to build one at a time"?
5) Please give estimate of time and money spent refurbishing Kuznetsov vs building a new Type 001, Type 002 or Type 003.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2018, 11:11
by thepointblank
Corsair1963 wrote:
hythelday wrote:It is absurd to claim that China, while moving from STOBAR to CATOBAR would want to buy 30+ Kuznetsov which is in need of a big overhaul. Even if their cats & traps tech does not work out and they need more carriers they'll spend more time and money refurbishing rather than just building a new Type 001A which is already localized & optimized for PLAN needs, rather than a 1143.5 that is falling apart.




Your case is weak to say the least. First, the current Liaoning (ex-Varyag) was in far worse shape than the Kuznetsov is today. Second, China has considerable experience with the design now and what it would take to refit her. Third, the current Liaoning (CV-16) and Shandong (CV-17) are just entering service. So, they aren't going anywhere in the foreseeable future. So, adding a third ship of the same class. Would be a bonus not a "burden". Forth, acquiring the Kuznetsov would be a far cheaper and quicker option than building a new carrier from scratch. Plus, China can only afford to build one at a time.

In short acquiring the Kuznetsov would help China quickly close the gap with the US and at a modest price. While, offering considerable commonalty with the existing fleet.

I would imagine the Liaoning is in better mechanical condition than the Kuznetsov; I saw someone once post a side by side image of the engine room on both vessels:
https://twitter.com/makhnytskyy/status/ ... 5487746048

It looks like the Chinese is taking better care of the internals; for one, the Liaoning was much cleaner, especially in the engine room, with everything looking clean, not covered in grim and soot.

Considering that the Chinese took a lot of effort to rebuild and refurbish the Liaoning, while the Kuznetsov up until very recently missed a major overhaul (which the Russians cut the budget for the refit, reducing the scope of work) and through the very lean times, was severely under-maintained, I would argue the opposite; the Liaoning is in better shape by virtue of the Chinese actually taking better care of the ship.

You see it when both ships are underway; the Liaoning doesn't belch black smoke from the funnels unlike the Kuznetsov despite the same type of propulsion system; turbo-pressurized steam boilers. The Liaoning also doesn't run around with an ocean-going tug trailing her everywhere unlike the Kuznetsov.

Furthermore, it was reported that at the time of sale, the Ukrainians left the original engines onboard the ex-Varyag intact, and they were extremely well preserved in grease seals. Furthermore, when a delegation of Chinese Naval officers originally visited Varyag 6 years before the purchase in 1992, it was reported that at the time, the ship was in excellent shape on the inside.

It is also readily apparent that the Chinese also made significant upgrades as well to the engines; the Liaoning is about 6,000 tons heavier than the Kuznetsov was, and she still managed to easily make 32 knots, or the same design speed of the Kuznetsov.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2018, 11:24
by Corsair1963
thepointblank wrote:
I would imagine the Liaoning is in better mechanical condition than the Kuznetsov; I saw someone once post a side by side image of the engine room on both vessels:
https://twitter.com/makhnytskyy/status/ ... 5487746048

It looks like the Chinese is taking better care of the internals; for one, the Liaoning was much cleaner, especially in the engine room, with everything looking clean, not covered in grim and soot.

Considering that the Chinese took a lot of effort to rebuild and refurbish the Liaoning, while the Kuznetsov up until very recently missed a major overhaul (which the Russians cut the budget for the refit, reducing the scope of work) and through the very lean times, was severely under-maintained, I would argue the opposite; the Liaoning is in better shape by virtue of the Chinese actually taking better care of the ship.

You see it when both ships are underway; the Liaoning doesn't belch black smoke from the funnels unlike the Kuznetsov despite the same type of propulsion system; turbo-pressurized steam boilers. The Liaoning also doesn't run around with an ocean-going tug trailing her everywhere unlike the Kuznetsov.

Furthermore, it was reported that at the time of sale, the Ukrainians left the original engines onboard the ex-Varyag intact, and they were extremely well preserved in grease seals. Furthermore, when a delegation of Chinese Naval officers originally visited Varyag 6 years before the purchase in 1992, it was reported that at the time, the ship was in excellent shape on the inside.

It is also readily apparent that the Chinese also made significant upgrades as well to the engines; the Liaoning is about 6,000 tons heavier than the Kuznetsov was, and she still managed to easily make 32 knots, or the same design speed of the Kuznetsov.



I was stating the condition of the ex-Varyag at the time she was acquired from Ukraine. In addition she was in such poor shape and neglect. I have my doubts her internals were "like new". As a matter of fact many sources state the contrary...

They spend nearly a decade to totally rebuild her....


https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... t-it-32897

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2018, 11:41
by Corsair1963
hythelday wrote:
1) Explain why Liaoning is in "far worse" shape than Kuznetsov?
2) Why do you think PLAN wants a third STOBAR project 1143 at all?
3) Why are they building a CATOBAR carrier instead of another Type 001A?
4) What facilities would they use to refurbish Kuznetsov if they "can only afford to build one at a time"?
5) Please give estimate of time and money spent refurbishing Kuznetsov vs building a new Type 001, Type 002 or Type 003.



1.) The Liaoning was left totally abandoned and neglected. The Kuznetsov always had a crew to at least keep her up to a basic level....
2.) The PLAN will be operating two STOBAR Carriers for the foreseeable future. Why not have the benefits of a third that will share everything. At least until you can replace them with Conventional Carriers. That will take decades to build....
3.) Never said or was making a case of STOBAR over CATOBAR. I was making a case for both to boost numbers.
4.) Most the refit doesn't require the ship to be in a dry dock for the whole period...
5.) I don't have estimated price. (nor do you) Yet, it's nonetheless obvious refitting the Kuznetsov is far cheaper than building a new carrier. It's also obvious that China could do and afford both....

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2018, 12:51
by thepointblank
Corsair1963 wrote:
thepointblank wrote:
I would imagine the Liaoning is in better mechanical condition than the Kuznetsov; I saw someone once post a side by side image of the engine room on both vessels:
https://twitter.com/makhnytskyy/status/ ... 5487746048

It looks like the Chinese is taking better care of the internals; for one, the Liaoning was much cleaner, especially in the engine room, with everything looking clean, not covered in grim and soot.

Considering that the Chinese took a lot of effort to rebuild and refurbish the Liaoning, while the Kuznetsov up until very recently missed a major overhaul (which the Russians cut the budget for the refit, reducing the scope of work) and through the very lean times, was severely under-maintained, I would argue the opposite; the Liaoning is in better shape by virtue of the Chinese actually taking better care of the ship.

You see it when both ships are underway; the Liaoning doesn't belch black smoke from the funnels unlike the Kuznetsov despite the same type of propulsion system; turbo-pressurized steam boilers. The Liaoning also doesn't run around with an ocean-going tug trailing her everywhere unlike the Kuznetsov.

Furthermore, it was reported that at the time of sale, the Ukrainians left the original engines onboard the ex-Varyag intact, and they were extremely well preserved in grease seals. Furthermore, when a delegation of Chinese Naval officers originally visited Varyag 6 years before the purchase in 1992, it was reported that at the time, the ship was in excellent shape on the inside.

It is also readily apparent that the Chinese also made significant upgrades as well to the engines; the Liaoning is about 6,000 tons heavier than the Kuznetsov was, and she still managed to easily make 32 knots, or the same design speed of the Kuznetsov.



I was stating the condition of the ex-Varyag at the time she was acquired from Ukraine. In addition she was in such poor shape and neglect. I have my doubts her internals were "like new". As a matter of fact many sources state the contrary...

They spend nearly a decade to totally rebuild her....


https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... t-it-32897

Per what was reported in the SCMP, the engines were definitely sealed in grease and well preserved:


https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article ... ft-carrier

Xu Zengping disclosed that the militarily sensitive original engines of the carrier were intact when Ukraine sold the vessel in 1998. This is contrary to what Beijing told the world at the time.

The "four intact engines had been perfectly grease-sealed" after work stopped on the vessel in 1992, presenting an enticing engineering package for a country seeking a leg up for its military.

It is the first time anyone linked to the deal has confirmed publicly the engines were in place at the time of purchase. Earlier reports said the vessel's power generation system was removed at Ukraine's Nikolayev South Shipyard on the Black Sea along with its electronics and weaponry before Xu bought it in 1998 for US$20 million.

"When I was taken to the carrier's engine room by the shipyard's chief engineer, I found all four engines were brand new and carefully grease-sealed, each of them originally costing US$20 million," Xu said. He said a refit finished in 2011 restored the four engines to operating condition.


Part of the reason why the refit took so long was likely because the Chinese were studying the hulk and the engines very carefully and absorbing as much technical details as possible, making upgrades where necessary, while trying to bring her into an operational state secretly.

It wasn't until a month before she went on sea trials did the Chinese ever admit they were making the ship operational again.

Also, there is a difference between 'operational, but highly neglected for years', and 'preserved, with minimal maintenance'. Varyag was the latter; it is clear that most of her key systems that were installed were carefully preserved.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2018, 13:04
by hythelday
Corsair1963 wrote:
hythelday wrote:
1) Explain why Liaoning is in "far worse" shape than Kuznetsov?
2) Why do you think PLAN wants a third STOBAR project 1143 at all?
3) Why are they building a CATOBAR carrier instead of another Type 001A?
4) What facilities would they use to refurbish Kuznetsov if they "can only afford to build one at a time"?
5) Please give estimate of time and money spent refurbishing Kuznetsov vs building a new Type 001, Type 002 or Type 003.



1.) The Liaoning was left totally abandoned and neglected. The Kuznetsov always had a crew to at least keep her up to a basic level....
2.) The PLAN will be operating two STOBAR Carriers for the foreseeable future. Why not have the benefits of a third that will share everything. At least until you can replace them with Conventional Carriers. That will take decades to build....
3.) Never said or was making a case of STOBAR over CATOBAR. I was making a case for both to boost numbers.
4.) Most the refit doesn't require the ship to be in a dry dock for the whole period...
5.) I don't have estimated price. (nor do you) Yet, it's nonetheless obvious refitting the Kuznetsov is far cheaper than building a new carrier. It's also obvious that China could do and afford both....


1) Varyag indeed was in worse condition, I misread you on this one. Kuznetsov indeed would need less effort, but it is still FAR from being quick, cheap and easy. In addition to whatever "regular" work a 30 year old vessel that hasn't been kept up that well either Chinese would have to remove P-700 launchers, expand hangar, remove Russian C&C equipment and replace them with own and do something about those boilers that the Kuznetsov is known for. This just off the top of my head. Who knows what else problems are hidden by a thick coat of paint and a stiff upper lip attitude of Russian mariners.

2) and 3) Yes you are making a case for STOBAR carriers by implying PLAN wants an additional STOBAR project 1143 ship, in order to "close the gap with US". They don't, and an additional Kuznetsov sure as hell won't make a gap noticeably smaller. They want CVN with electro-magnetic cats, they are building a CATOBAR CV right now. If they wanted to close the gap (which is out of their scope right now), they'd build more Type 001As which according to you "China has considerable experience with the design now", instead of designing and building a Type 002.

4) And yet Russians put it in a dry dock. Really doubt modifications I listed in 1) can be made afloat.

5) You can't say that refurbishing Kuznetsov would be "much quicker, cheaper and easier" if you don't know the numbers. Steel is cheap, but most of the mission systems of Kuznetsov will have to go either because they are obsolete, incompatible with PLAN gear or export-restricted. I don't have the numbers but I am entirely convinced that work that needs to be done on Kuznetsov in order to make it a Liaoning 2 is way too much for what PLAN would get. China knows this too, as you said yourself "what it would take to refit her" - a butt-load of ungrateful toil. Liaoning 2 is neither the ship they need, nor the ship they want. Kuznetsov is not worth the trouble - it's a derelict ship of a design that did not prove it's worth even when in best condition.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2018, 01:00
by boilermaker
CHina rushing to replace deffective J-15 with stealth aircraft, possibly FC31

https://www.news.com.au/technology/inno ... b022c6fe42

https://taskandpurpose.com/china-j-15-fighter-jets/

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2018, 01:52
by weasel1962
Ignore the media hype. 20 years from now, the flopping fish will still be flying off the 2 CVs, probably off the 3rd CV as well. To date, there have been no CATOBAR fighter noted other than the J-15. A CATOBAR version of the J-31 has not been sighted. When there is a new CATOBAR fighter being tested, it will still take a few years to crash a few before it operationalizes. Too early to even speculate.

Kuz has been sailing for ~3 decades. Like aircraft, there is a limited ship lifespan. I doubt the Chinese will take on the Kuz just to sail it for just a decade or less. If anything, Putin's pride will see the Kuz fixed, even if it leaves some twisted metal in between.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2018, 02:15
by Corsair1963
hythelday wrote:
1) Varyag indeed was in worse condition, I misread you on this one. Kuznetsov indeed would need less effort, but it is still FAR from being quick, cheap and easy. In addition to whatever "regular" work a 30 year old vessel that hasn't been kept up that well either Chinese would have to remove P-700 launchers, expand hangar, remove Russian C&C equipment and replace them with own and do something about those boilers that the Kuznetsov is known for. This just off the top of my head. Who knows what else problems are hidden by a thick coat of paint and a stiff upper lip attitude of Russian mariners.

2) and 3) Yes you are making a case for STOBAR carriers by implying PLAN wants an additional STOBAR project 1143 ship, in order to "close the gap with US". They don't, and an additional Kuznetsov sure as hell won't make a gap noticeably smaller. They want CVN with electro-magnetic cats, they are building a CATOBAR CV right now. If they wanted to close the gap (which is out of their scope right now), they'd build more Type 001As which according to you "China has considerable experience with the design now", instead of designing and building a Type 002.

4) And yet Russians put it in a dry dock. Really doubt modifications I listed in 1) can be made afloat.

5) You can't say that refurbishing Kuznetsov would be "much quicker, cheaper and easier" if you don't know the numbers. Steel is cheap, but most of the mission systems of Kuznetsov will have to go either because they are obsolete, incompatible with PLAN gear or export-restricted. I don't have the numbers but I am entirely convinced that work that needs to be done on Kuznetsov in order to make it a Liaoning 2 is way too much for what PLAN would get. China knows this too, as you said yourself "what it would take to refit her" - a butt-load of ungrateful toil. Liaoning 2 is neither the ship they need, nor the ship they want. Kuznetsov is not worth the trouble - it's a derelict ship of a design that did not prove it's worth even when in best condition.



1.) Never said acquiring and refitting the Kuznetsov would be either cheap or easy. Just pointing out the benefits for Chinese Carrier ambitions....

2.) I am making a case for China to get a third STOBAR Aircraft Carrier. That would be near identical to her current fleet. Which, would be a stop gap until China can replace them with future CATOBAR Carriers. Which, will take a good 20 years to do so...

3.) What source do you have that states China would not be interested in the Kuznetsov. If, Russia would offer to sell it to the PLAN???

4.) If, China acquired the Kuznetsov they would likely upgrade and refit her to the same standard as the Liaoning.

5.) Your making assumptions based on your beliefs. I've seen nothing that suggests the Chinese hold the same views. If, they did why acquire the Liaoning in the first place? (or build a second i.e. Type 001A) They could have waited and just built a Conventional Aircraft Carrier..........

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2018, 02:25
by Corsair1963
boilermaker wrote:CHina rushing to replace deffective J-15 with stealth aircraft, possibly FC31

https://www.news.com.au/technology/inno ... b022c6fe42

https://taskandpurpose.com/china-j-15-fighter-jets/


As usual the Media and the Critics jump to a number of conclusion that aren't based in fact. First, a handful of J-15's have crashed. So, then the design must be a failure! While, discounting that fact that Carrier Operations are inherently dangerous. This is compounded by the fact that the PLAN has little experience in such operations. Second, China is developing a future 5th Generation Naval Fighter. So, again it must be because of shortcomings in the J-15. Not that other competitors will have 5th Generation Fighters in the coming years. (both Land and Carrier Based)

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2018, 03:17
by weasel1962
A new China "5th gen" CV fighter is right now as apparent as a midterms blue wave....*popcorn*...

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2018, 03:47
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:A new China "5th gen" CV fighter is right now as apparent as a midterms blue wave....*popcorn*...



How is that??? You think China isn't going to develop a 5th Generation Naval Fighter for her very ambitious Aircraft Carrier Program???

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2018, 04:40
by weasel1962
Corsair1963 wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:A new China "5th gen" CV fighter is right now as apparent as a midterms blue wave....*popcorn*...


How is that??? You think China isn't going to develop a 5th Generation Naval Fighter for her very ambitious Aircraft Carrier Program???


lol. A blue wave will "eventually" happen, just like a blue moon. Its like saying US will eventually build an F-22 replacement. How that would look is anybody's guess right now. Not even sure whether I'd be alive to see either happen.

P.s. In the real world in 2018... Dems takes house *barely*, Reps to hold senate. Now for my *hot dog*.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2018, 06:39
by knowan
weasel1962 wrote:P.s. In the real world in 2018... Dems takes house *barely*, Reps to hold senate. Now for my *hot dog*.


Democrats taking House with around a 10 seat majority, and losing a few seats in the Senate, was exactly as predicted under a realistic blue wave scenario.
Due to voter concentration and gerrymandering, it requires a larger number of votes for the Democrats to gain control of the House than it does for the Republicans, so a large majority was unrealistic unless the US economy tanked. And the Senate was just a nightmare scenario for the Democrats; avoiding being almost entirely wiped out there is a win for them.

As for China having a carrier capable 5th Gen aircraft, Chinese plans for their naval buildup are long-term, they have 20-30 years to develop one yet (assuming their economy doesn't tank in the mean time).

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2018, 06:41
by babybat{}.net
boilermaker wrote:CHina rushing to replace deffective J-15 with stealth aircraft, possibly FC31


possibly J-20 :wink:

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2018, 06:47
by Corsair1963
babybat{}.net wrote:
possibly J-20 :wink:



I honestly doubt it....As the J-31 is far better suited to the mission.

"IMHO"

J31N.jpg

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2018, 06:50
by knowan
J-20 is a bit on the heavy side for carrier ops.

I mean, they can probably get it working, but given their lack of experience with carriers, and with their two in service being STOBAR instead of CATOBAR, it seems going with a lighter weight design would be less problematic and the wiser choice.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2018, 07:53
by babybat{}.net
Corsair1963 wrote:I honestly doubt it....As the J-31 is far better suited to the mission.


J-20 have much better characteristics then J-31 (excluding RCS). Some of them, for example combat radius are very important for navy fighter. That's why I think J-20 is the best choice.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 07 Nov 2018, 08:10
by weasel1962
Considering the USN design the F-35C with an expanded wing area, would the J-31 with its puny wing area be really "better" suited* for super fast carrier crashes..*oops, I meant landings...or end up much like how the flopping fish lands. I wonder how they did it with the scooter but that was a much lighter fighter. How much fuel would the J-31 need to carry to achieve 1250km combat radius with 2 fuel-guzzling RD-93s...

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2018, 06:24
by Corsair1963
babybat{}.net wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:I honestly doubt it....As the J-31 is far better suited to the mission.


J-20 have much better characteristics then J-31 (excluding RCS). Some of them, for example combat radius are very important for navy fighter. That's why I think J-20 is the best choice.



The J-20 is way to big for Chinese Aircraft Carriers. While, I question any real performance advantage. As a matter of fact the J-31 is close in size to the F-35C. Which, is considered nearly ideal for carrier operations.

Asiaeye_Hensler_Chinas-Fifth-Generation-Air-Power-Development_071515.png



F35SU57J20.png

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2018, 06:43
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:Considering the USN design the F-35C with an expanded wing area, would the J-31 with its puny wing area be really "better" suited* for super fast carrier crashes..*oops, I meant landings...or end up much like how the flopping fish lands. I wonder how they did it with the scooter but that was a much lighter fighter. How much fuel would the J-31 need to carry to achieve 1250km combat radius with 2 fuel-guzzling RD-93s...



The Second Generation J-31's (V1/V2) are larger and more Stealthy than the original.....Which, likely put's is close in size to the F-35C.


J31VX.jpg



BTW Those fuel guzzling RD-93's are going be replaced with Chinese WS-13E's and/or WS-19's.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2018, 09:46
by linkomart
Corsair1963 wrote:The J-20 is way to big for Chinese Aircraft Carriers. While, I question any real performance advantage. As a matter of fact the J-31 is close in size to the F-35C. Which, is considered nearly ideal for carrier operations.

Image


Picky picky picky... but in my Eyes that is a F-35A.

Someone else mentioned that the landingspeed will be high for J-31, I'll just say that I'm not able to pick that out without any weight numers.

my 5 cent.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2018, 10:04
by Corsair1963
linkomart wrote:
Picky picky picky... but in my Eyes that is a F-35A.

Someone else mentioned that the landing speed will be high for J-31, I'll just say that I'm not able to pick that out without any weight numers.

my 5 cent.


It does look like an F-35A not a F-35C. Yet, the size between the two isn't that much in the scope of things. As for Wing Area of the J-31 it's still early in development. Plus, the last J-31 that we saw (V2) maybe the landbased version. So, we could see a Naval Version with a bigger wing. Think F-35A vs F-35C....

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2018, 12:01
by babybat{}.net
Corsair1963 wrote:The J-20 is way to big for Chinese Aircraft Carriers. While, I question any real performance advantage. As a matter of fact the J-31 is close in size to the F-35C. Which, is considered nearly ideal for carrier operations.


Yes, you are right. It's for type 003. But I think, tests will begin on a 002 type.
It's not so far perspective.
I think, NAVY version of J-31 is not a good idea, because type 001 and 001A are a just training ships. First one is for conceptual researchers, second one also for manufacturing training. Type 002 will also used for testing a new technologies for China - such as EMALS and nuclear propulsion. Developing a special aircraft for them does not look as an optimal resources investment. And on later type 003 and 004, the tasks of J-31 will be taken over by the stealth UAVs.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2018, 12:37
by weasel1962
Last I heard 002 isn't going nuclear. Also, most people would try not to test on a CV, especially when they already have such nice replicas in a couple of land bases for actual testing. Would normal people build a CV just for testing? Don't think shipyards "train" for manufacturing especially by building CV either.

The J-31 (both prototypes) has(have) similar wingspan to the F-35A, not C but longer than both (with the 2nd prototype about 40cm longer than the 1st, but similar wingspans). Sure there will always be the possibility of a navalised J-20 or J-31 but there will need to be a substantial redesign of existing designs before that happens. That should take a few years, if indeed there is an intent to build small quantities of such aircraft just for that purpose. They only took a decade to develop the J-15, that was with Ukrainian blueprints. The current nomenclature for such future project is the J-XY.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2018, 13:02
by babybat{}.net
weasel1962 wrote:Last I heard 002 isn't going nuclear. Also, most people would try not to test on a CV, especially when they already have such nice replicas in a couple of land bases for actual testing.


The experience of ground tests is quite different from the real sea operations.
BTW this is the reason why Russia uses Kuznetsov. This is not propaganda, as some write here.

weasel1962 wrote:Would normal people build a CV just for testing? Don't think shipyards "train" for manufacturing especially by building CV either.


Why not?
I think, only USA have enough experience to build supercarriers.
Chinese way is a system. Step by step.
They bought first 2 ships only for researching.
Third ship they have rebuilded.
Fourth ship will build by good known project.
Fifth ship - for researching a new technologies.
Later ships will be really usefull supercarriers.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 08 Nov 2018, 21:30
by hythelday
babybat{}.net wrote:because type 001 and 001A are a just training ships.


Tsss... don't tell @Corsair1963 that. He thinks China built them to "close the gap with USN".

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2018, 01:01
by weasel1962
China perspective: PLAN CVs are research, testing and training vessels. Nothing to see, move along...
US perspective: PLAN CVs are pieces of junk. Nothing to see, move along....

Examples of how agreements are reached.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2018, 03:15
by madrat
China is the one country operating a carrier that makes the Russian operational safety record look brilliant in direct comparison.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2018, 11:51
by weasel1962
madrat wrote:China is the one country operating a carrier that makes the Russian operational safety record look brilliant in direct comparison.


Of course Russian safety record is exceptional. If one doesn't fly, one doesn't crash. China also hasn't broken the record of putting a 70 ton crane thru their carriers/warships........yet. They only do that when the ships are not around. US does it differently, only drop baskets carrying people off cranes onto a navy ship deck e.g. USS Sacramento in 1987. The record for trying to put a crane thru a vessel belongs to India with 250 ton crane onto the uncompleted frigate.

Decided to look at F-14A for comparison. 1st prototype crashed on the maiden flight. 141 losses out of 478 built or ~30%. 5 crashed in 1 month. Realised that its not exactly fair since the F-14A is not exactly US' first carrier fighter.
http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-serial-loss-st.htm

So what exactly is the definition of a brilliant carrier safety record? India's AV-8?

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2018, 15:42
by alex_f
Must be the times where powerful jets in big numbers on small carriers and "analogue" systems led to high losses? Over 50% of the supermarine Scimitars were lost in accidents, too. It was some years earlier, but still. What would be the loss ratio of newer aircrafts like the (Super) Hornet?

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2018, 15:49
by knowan
Some new articles:
https://thediplomat.com/2018/11/russia- ... -accident/
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/24 ... r-accident


alex_f wrote:What would be the loss ratio of newer aircrafts like the (Super) Hornet?


Pretty low: Image

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2018, 16:08
by alex_f
Thanks, if we consider an airframe lifetime of roughly 5000hr, a loss rate of 2/100'000hr (like the super hornet) would be 2 losses out of 20 aircraft, so 10%.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 10 Nov 2018, 11:21
by knowan
Post accident photo of the Admiral Kuznetsov:
k5RhiZp.jpg

Note the dark section in the rear hull at the waterline. Looks to be an opening, so the reports of the ship not being ready to leave the dock at the time of the accident and taking on several thousand tons of water are likely true.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 10 Nov 2018, 12:53
by marsavian
Probably be out of commission for at least a year. Make a MLU out of it.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2018, 03:18
by awsome
vilters wrote:Ach, those Ruskies are so friendly.
Sinking their own ships, wo that we don't have to.

And by the time their sole carrier is ready again? ? Does smoking rust float?
Because that's all it is. It is rust, and it smokes like hell.

Hey? The Brits might even put it on sale in one of their antique or flea market TV shows.


bed2cc82675978d50962ce9ecab19e49.jpg


Yes because the evil Russians are the only ones to ever have an accident... http://www.dcourier.com/news/2017/jun/1 ... ound-dead/ and the steady smoke from the Russian carrier is to CLEARLY mark its' position so it is not rammed by NATO warships...

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2018, 03:41
by Corsair1963
hythelday wrote:
babybat{}.net wrote:because type 001 and 001A are a just training ships.


Tsss... don't tell @Corsair1963 that. He thinks China built them to "close the gap with USN".


The PLAN clearly didn't build a second large Aircraft Carrier purely for training.... :doh:

Also, while Ski Jump Aircraft Carriers aren't as efficient as Conventional Aircraft Carriers equipped with both Catapults and Arresting Gear. That hardly means they aren't useful.....just ask the Russians, Indians, and Chinese. Which, operate said types of Aircraft Carriers.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2018, 03:51
by Corsair1963
babybat{}.net wrote:
Yes, you are right. It's for type 003. But I think, tests will begin on a 002 type.
It's not so far perspective.

I think, NAVY version of J-31 is not a good idea, because type 001 and 001A are a just training ships. First one is for conceptual researchers, second one also for manufacturing training. Type 002 will also used for testing a new technologies for China - such as EMALS and nuclear propulsion. Developing a special aircraft for them does not look as an optimal resources investment. And on later type 003 and 004, the tasks of J-31 will be taken over by the stealth UAVs.


The J-31 is clearly being funded as a Naval Strike Fighter.

QUOTE: Avic’s J-31 Fighter Is a Winner After All

Nov 9, 2018 Bradley Perrett and Steve Trimble | Aviation Week & Space Technology

Not long after the J-31 fighter prototype from Avic’s Shenyang Aircraft Corp. appeared in 2012, analysts realized that it was not, after all, a new combat aircraft for the Chinese military. It was just a technology demonstrator from a well-resourced but frustrated state company that had lost two air force fighter competitions in a row. Now the J-31 has indeed become a "government-funded project", apparently rescued by the shortcomings of the J-15, a naval Flanker derivative also built ...http://aviationweek.com/defense/avic-s- ... -after-all


That said, I personally don't see the J-31 as funded because of any real shortcomings with the J-15. Just a natural progression to 5th Generation Types for both the PLAN and PLAAF.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2018, 07:39
by nefory
Corsair1963 wrote:
babybat{}.net wrote:
Yes, you are right. It's for type 003. But I think, tests will begin on a 002 type.
It's not so far perspective.

I think, NAVY version of J-31 is not a good idea, because type 001 and 001A are a just training ships. First one is for conceptual researchers, second one also for manufacturing training. Type 002 will also used for testing a new technologies for China - such as EMALS and nuclear propulsion. Developing a special aircraft for them does not look as an optimal resources investment. And on later type 003 and 004, the tasks of J-31 will be taken over by the stealth UAVs.


The J-31 is clearly being funded as a Naval Strike Fighter.

QUOTE: Avic’s J-31 Fighter Is a Winner After All

Nov 9, 2018 Bradley Perrett and Steve Trimble | Aviation Week & Space Technology

Not long after the J-31 fighter prototype from Avic’s Shenyang Aircraft Corp. appeared in 2012, analysts realized that it was not, after all, a new combat aircraft for the Chinese military. It was just a technology demonstrator from a well-resourced but frustrated state company that had lost two air force fighter competitions in a row. Now the J-31 has indeed become a "government-funded project", apparently rescued by the shortcomings of the J-15, a naval Flanker derivative also built ...http://aviationweek.com/defense/avic-s- ... -after-all


That said, I personally don't see the J-31 as funded because of any real shortcomings with the J-15. Just a natural progression to 5th Generation Types for both the PLAN and PLAAF.


CAC also has a 5th gen aircraft carrier fighter jet program ongoing.
There will likely to be, not by any time soon, a competition between SAC's FC-31 or its derivative and CAC's naval 5th gen.

The thing is the PLAN haven't really figure out what carrier-based fighter is ideal to them.
Considering they have just managed to taken off from a refurnished 80's Soviet STOBAR CV for so long, it's no strange they lack understanding of modern naval airborne warfare.

Until they made up their mind on what a naval 5th gen should be like, there won't be any solid program of it.

So they are pretty much stuck with floppy fish, at least for 10-15 years.

The Chinese testing catapult version of J15 with their EMALS on land.
Image

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2018, 20:35
by white_lightning35
Thought this might be appropriate. The glorious battles waged by MIGHTY STRONK RUSLAND NAVY!

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2018, 22:25
by juretrn
project458 wrote:If the NATO navy can't dodge Cargo Ships and oil tankers, how are they going to stop Mach 8 Zircon :mrgreen:

Can't crash ships into tankers if your ships are safely rotting away pierside.
Image

Anyway, the reply is this:
This bad boy
Image

guided by this bad boy
Image

And then your Zircon launcher gets a friendly visit by something that is NOT a flying bullseye unlike the Russian propaganda Wundermissile.

Image

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2018, 23:27
by knowan
project458 wrote:If the NATO navy can't dodge Cargo Ships and oil tankers, how are they going to stop Mach 8 Zircon :mrgreen:


Lol at anyone that believes the nonsense about a "Mach 8" Zircon missile.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2018, 00:03
by babybat{}.net
project458 wrote:If the NATO navy can't dodge Cargo Ships and oil tankers, how are they going to stop Mach 8 Zircon :mrgreen:


3M-22 is a Mach 6 - class missle. Source - developers of the project..

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2018, 00:20
by knowan
babybat{}.net wrote:
project458 wrote:If the NATO navy can't dodge Cargo Ships and oil tankers, how are they going to stop Mach 8 Zircon :mrgreen:


3M-22 is a Mach 6 - class missle. Source - developers of the project..


Mach 5-6, which is about the limit for a ramjet. I seriously doubt Russia has an operational scramjet yet, given the difficulties everyone else has ran into with those engines.

The missile, if it even exists, is likely just a P-800 that trades range for speed.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2018, 00:45
by babybat{}.net
knowan wrote:Mach 5-6, which is about the limit for a ramjet. I seriously doubt Russia has a working scramjet yet, given the difficulties everyone else has ran into with those engines.

The missile, if it even exists, is likely just a P-800 that trades range for speed.


The layout of the export version of 3M22 (Brahmos-II) was introduced back in 2013. As you can see, this missile has nothing to do with 3M55..

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2018, 00:55
by knowan
babybat{}.net wrote:
knowan wrote:Mach 5-6, which is about the limit for a ramjet. I seriously doubt Russia has a working scramjet yet, given the difficulties everyone else has ran into with those engines.

The missile, if it even exists, is likely just a P-800 that trades range for speed.


The layout of the export version of 3M22 (Brahmos-II) was introduced back in 2013. As you can see, this missile has nothing to do with 3M55..


So why hasn't Russia released any images of the supposedly operational missile? Or shown footage of any of the supposed test launches?

Russia is absurdly insecure about their military weapons, which is why they put so much effort into propaganda to boast about them. Such lack of any verifiable images of the Zircon suggests either images of the weapon will disprove Russian boasts about its performance, or they have nothing to show.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2018, 05:41
by babybat{}.net
knowan wrote:So why hasn't Russia released any images of the supposedly operational missile? Or shown footage of any of the supposed test launches?

Russia is absurdly insecure about their military weapons, which is why they put so much effort into propaganda to boast about them. Such lack of any verifiable images of the Zircon suggests either images of the weapon will disprove Russian boasts about its performance, or they have nothing to show.


The regime of secrecy in Russia is slightly different from that in Western countries. As a similar example-you could not see any test launches of such missiles as K-77M, K-37M, Kh-101, Kh-47M2, 40N6E before their have went to operational.

No official statements about test launches of 3M22 were received from the Russian side. All we have is information from sources in the US and the UK military that Russia is really testing hypersonic weapons.

As an example:
Air Force Gen. John Hyten, commander of U.S. Strategic Command:
"We don't have any defense that could deny the employment of such a weapon against us"
"Both Russia and China are aggressively pursuing hypersonic capabilities"
"We've watched them test those capabilities."

Please don't tell that commander of USSTRATCOM bought by Russia and is engaged in propaganda. Humanity is really entering the hypersonic era.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2018, 06:30
by knowan
babybat{}.net wrote:The regime of secrecy in Russia is slightly different from that in Western countries. As a similar example-you could not see any test launches of such missiles as K-77M, K-37M, Kh-101, Kh-47M2, 40N6E before their have went to operational.


Nonsense; the Bulava was pictured in test launch videos way back in 2009, long before it entered service.

And when the Kh-47 was first revealed, only a few MiG-31 testbeds were capable of launching it, a far cry from 'operational'.



babybat{}.net wrote:No official statements about test launches of 3M22 were received from the Russian side. All we have is information from sources in the US and the UK military that Russia is really testing hypersonic weapons.

As an example:
Air Force Gen. John Hyten, commander of U.S. Strategic Command:
"We don't have any defense that could deny the employment of such a weapon against us"
"Both Russia and China are aggressively pursuing hypersonic capabilities"
"We've watched them test those capabilities."

Please don't tell that commander of USSTRATCOM bought by Russia and is engaged in propaganda. Humanity is really entering the hypersonic era.


Your bias is showing by interpreting that statement in the most optimistic way possible; 'we watched them test hypersonic capabilities' does not mean 'we saw Zircon tested', but that Russia and China were observed testing some form of hypersonic flight.
For Russia, that could be Zircon but is more likely to be a HGV or some other high speed test vehicle, or it could simply mean ballistic missile tests.

Russia does not have operational scramjets, or anything close to operational; the most recent semi-reliable info on Russian scramjet development is from 2015, about another experimental testbed equivalent to the X-43 and X-51 being expected to fly in 2019.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... by-416192/

For Russia to go from 'still struggling to fly a scramjet experiment' in 2015, to 'Zircon hypersonic scramjet missile is already tested and operational' in 2017 smells just a tiny bit like bullshit.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2018, 16:03
by babybat{}.net
knowan wrote:Nonsense; the Bulava was pictured in test launch videos way back in 2009, long before it entered service.


SLBM and ICBM is a completely different story. You understand that the American side is informed in advance about the conduct of each of their tests.

knowan wrote:And when the Kh-47 was first revealed, only a few MiG-31 testbeds were capable of launching it, a far cry from 'operational'.


The complex is officially accepted for trial combat duty.

knowan wrote:Your bias is showing by interpreting that statement in the most optimistic way possible; 'we watched them test hypersonic capabilities' does not mean 'we saw Zircon tested', but that Russia and China were observed testing some form of hypersonic flight.
For Russia, that could be Zircon but is more likely to be a HGV or some other high speed test vehicle, or it could simply mean ballistic missile tests.


You're right. Several hypersonic systems are being tested in Russia. We can't say for sure which one the commander was talking about. It was just an example of where we can get some information.

knowan wrote:Russia does not have operational scramjets, or anything close to operational; the most recent semi-reliable info on Russian scramjet development is from 2015, about another experimental testbed equivalent to the X-43 and X-51 being expected to fly in 2019.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... by-416192/


No one said that it was entered service. There is only information about the tests from the carrier in 2017.

knowan wrote:For Russia to go from 'still struggling to fly a scramjet experiment' in 2015, to 'Zircon hypersonic scramjet missile is already tested and operational' in 2017 smells just a tiny bit like bullshit.


According to official information, the missile will be operational only by 2020. I am sure after taking into operation, the secrecy will be removed and you'll be able to see the product.

I understand your skepticism. You believe that Russia is a backward country and is not capable of creating new technologies. But you don't have any information about the Russian hypersonic works because of their secrecy.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2018, 23:56
by knowan
babybat{}.net wrote:You believe that Russia is a backward country and is not capable of creating new technologies. But you don't have any information about the Russian hypersonic works because of their secrecy.


Oh, I don't believe it; I know Russia is decades behind in electronics technology and materials sciences, and I don't accept propaganda at face value like you are doing, when it so obviously contradicts that fact.

I understand why you have to believe the propaganda; it gives you pride in your failing nation, and makes you blindly support dictators like Putin as he drives your country into the ground.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatnik_(slang)

If Zircon even exists, then best case scenario is a re-production of the ramjet powered Mach 5.5 ASALM from 1979. Literally 40 years old technology Western technology, hardly 'new technologies'.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 21 Nov 2018, 16:10
by gideonic
babybat{}.net wrote:SLBM and ICBM is a completely different story. You understand that the American side is informed in advance about the conduct of each of their tests.

That's a red herring. Informing in advance has nothing to do with actually taking pictures of said launches. There have been plenty ballistic (and anti- ballistic) missile launches from both sides, that have not been taken pictures of. This is just intentional misleading.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 22 Nov 2018, 00:10
by milosh
knowan wrote:Russia does not have operational scramjets, or anything close to operational; the most recent semi-reliable info on Russian scramjet development is from 2015, about another experimental testbed equivalent to the X-43 and X-51 being expected to fly in 2019.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... by-416192/

For Russia to go from 'still struggling to fly a scramjet experiment' in 2015, to 'Zircon hypersonic scramjet missile is already tested and operational' in 2017 smells just a tiny bit like bullshit.


Roudakov, Alexander S.; Schickhmann, Y.; Semenov, Vyacheslav L.; Novelli, Ph.; Fourt, O. (1993). "Flight Testing an Axisymmetric Scramjet - Recent Russian Advances". 44th Congress of the International Astronautical Federation


and later:
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf ... H-2243.pdf

More about Kholod project:
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/kholod.html

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 22 Nov 2018, 00:29
by knowan
gideonic wrote:That's a red herring. Informing in advance has nothing to do with actually taking pictures of said launches. There have been plenty ballistic (and anti- ballistic) missile launches from both sides, that have not been taken pictures of. This is just intentional misleading.


Exactly. I didn't even bother trying to refute it because I knew it was just bullshit.


milosh wrote:
Roudakov, Alexander S.; Schickhmann, Y.; Semenov, Vyacheslav L.; Novelli, Ph.; Fourt, O. (1993). "Flight Testing an Axisymmetric Scramjet - Recent Russian Advances". 44th Congress of the International Astronautical Federation


and later:
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf ... H-2243.pdf

More about Kholod project:
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/kholod.html


I said operational as in the military sense; a scramjet engine that can be affordably mass produced and works reliably enough to be used for military purposes.

As it stands, Russia is still at the experimental stage like the USA was with the X-43 and X-51, which is a long way from producing a militarily operational scramjet.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 22 Nov 2018, 01:28
by sferrin
milosh wrote:
knowan wrote:Russia does not have operational scramjets, or anything close to operational; the most recent semi-reliable info on Russian scramjet development is from 2015, about another experimental testbed equivalent to the X-43 and X-51 being expected to fly in 2019.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... by-416192/

For Russia to go from 'still struggling to fly a scramjet experiment' in 2015, to 'Zircon hypersonic scramjet missile is already tested and operational' in 2017 smells just a tiny bit like bullshit.


Roudakov, Alexander S.; Schickhmann, Y.; Semenov, Vyacheslav L.; Novelli, Ph.; Fourt, O. (1993). "Flight Testing an Axisymmetric Scramjet - Recent Russian Advances". 44th Congress of the International Astronautical Federation


and later:
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf ... H-2243.pdf

More about Kholod project:
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/kholod.html


That thing barely produced net thrust and was fluttering between supersonic and subsonic combustion most of the time.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 28 Nov 2018, 17:43
by zerion
Repairs to Admiral Kuznetsov Aircraft Carrier to Cost 1 Million USD

"The commission has counted 52 damages. The aggregate cost of restoration works is about 70 million rubles. They can be classified as minor damages within the framework of a budget allocated for the modernization of the Admiral Kuznetsov," he explained. "We have not discovered anything which could extend the deadline for repairs or cannot be restored. The repair works are due to be over by late 2020. Accordingly, the trials will begin in 2021. We plan to hand the ship over to the Navy in mid-2021," the head of the United Shipbuilding Corporation said.

https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.p ... n-usd.html

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 29 Nov 2018, 04:18
by Corsair1963
zerion wrote:Repairs to Admiral Kuznetsov Aircraft Carrier to Cost 1 Million USD

"The commission has counted 52 damages. The aggregate cost of restoration works is about 70 million rubles. They can be classified as minor damages within the framework of a budget allocated for the modernization of the Admiral Kuznetsov," he explained. "We have not discovered anything which could extend the deadline for repairs or cannot be restored. The repair works are due to be over by late 2020. Accordingly, the trials will begin in 2021. We plan to hand the ship over to the Navy in mid-2021," the head of the United Shipbuilding Corporation said.

https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.p ... n-usd.html



:lmao:

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 29 Nov 2018, 09:01
by knowan
zerion wrote:Repairs to Admiral Kuznetsov Aircraft Carrier to Cost 1 Million USD

"The commission has counted 52 damages. The aggregate cost of restoration works is about 70 million rubles. They can be classified as minor damages within the framework of a budget allocated for the modernization of the Admiral Kuznetsov," he explained. "We have not discovered anything which could extend the deadline for repairs or cannot be restored. The repair works are due to be over by late 2020. Accordingly, the trials will begin in 2021. We plan to hand the ship over to the Navy in mid-2021," the head of the United Shipbuilding Corporation said.

https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.p ... n-usd.html


Gee, that is just so realistic.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 29 Nov 2018, 11:02
by weasel1962
A $1+m refit for a cruise ship tends to take 1 week with a nice paint job. 2 years at dock, $1m is probably either just downpayment or the shipyard is liable for the damages / warranty. Probably the latter. Either the shipyard bears the cost or someone ends up in the gulag. Maybe both.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 29 Nov 2018, 15:21
by mixelflick
If I was Russia, I'd shelve any aircraft carrier plans and pocket the million, LOL.

I mean c'mon. The Kustenov has been an absolute disaster. To build a credible carrier fleet capable of white water operations they'd need at least 5, and as it is they can't afford to build one big one. Their carrier aircraft are long in the took (both SU-33 and Mig-29K) and they'd need to develop special mission aircraft (like AWACS) from scratch.

Just invest the $ instead in submarines and weapons to fire from said submarines. A sub full of cruise missiles is going to be able to attack a lot more targets a lot more effectively than any number of Mig-29K's they can muster and not crash while returning to the ship..

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 29 Nov 2018, 16:43
by fidgetspinner
@knowan

What makes the Zircon a more special case than your average hypersonic maneuverable Kinzhal or Iskander missile is that it claims to have some plasma cloud surrounding it( I am not joking). I heard putting plasma technology in a certain aircraft has failed horribly but it seems they are keen in still playing with this technology. How it navigates like using INS or whatever I don't know(comms you need RF waves which will be absorbed by the plasma cloud) but they think its invisible to radar. Timeline for a operational Zircon missile would be in the mid 2020s and that is by just being very optimistic.


https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/ ... ology.html

"According to recent Russian media reports, the Avangard hypersonic boost-glide system, one of the new super weapons that President Putin mentioned in his address to the Federal Assembly in March, went into production last summer and will be operational with the 13th Strategic Missile Forces division by the end of 2019. It will be deployed near Yasny, a town 502 kilometers (312 mi) southeast of Orenburg in the southern Urals, by the end of 2019.
Normally it takes two systems for a regiment to be combat ready by that time, but in this case that number will be increased to six. At least two regiments with six systems each are expected to be battle-ready by 2027. According to the state armaments program (GPV2027), twelve UR-100UTTKh (NATO: SS-19 Stiletto) missiles will be integrated into the Avangard hypersonic glide vehicles (HGVs). The deployment of the HGV might begin without additional flight tests. Eventually, the Sarmat RS-28 ICBM could be used to deliver the Avangard, potentially carrying a single, massive thermonuclear warhead with a yield exceeding two megatons.
The boost-glide weapon can fly at speeds of over Mach 20 or about 15,300 miles per hour (four miles per second). It could reach Washington in 15 minutes even if launched from Russia. There is no way to intercept it, as it moves in a cloud of plasma "like a meteorite." The weapon is distinctive for its ability to withstand extreme heat during the final phase of its trajectory thanks to its heat-resistant titanium casing. Its in-flight temperature reaches 1,600-2,000° Celsius."

DARPA tested a HGV 5 years ago reaching mach 20 but the results were not to their satisfaction. I don't know if the HTV-2 is still having tests conducted. https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... -warplane/

Easy with the vatnik insults. People on 4chan /k/ are saying that their board is an extension of F-16.net.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 29 Nov 2018, 20:37
by botsing
fidgetspinner wrote:What makes the Zircon a more special case than your average hypersonic maneuverable Kinzhal or Iskander missile is that it claims to have some plasma cloud surrounding it( I am not joking).

Pure propaganda for internal Russian consumption.

It falls into the same boat as the "Raptor killing Su-57 Zoomski's that are too advanced so they are not needed yet" BS.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 30 Nov 2018, 07:19
by knowan
Plasma stealth is a complete myth; Russia has been talking about it since the 1990s, and still have nothing to show for it. There's been various American research projects on the topic, and they've all come up with nothing to show for their efforts, so it is likely a dead-end.
The Zircon appears to be more of a propaganda program than an actual weapon, because so much of it is such obvious bullshit only fanboys would believe.

Avangard is more realistic, being just an extension of 1970-80s MaRVs. It is much more likely to actually exist, even though Russia has been shy about showing images of the actual weapon (all they've shown so far is a video of a cased item being loaded into a silo).
The claim it is scramjet powered is definitely bullshit though; being launched on top of an ICBM, it doesn't need an engine to achieve Mach 20 speeds.
The program is very expensive and likely to be delayed significantly because Russia is struggling to produce sufficient good quality carbon fibre the weapon needs.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2019, 21:06
by zerion
Russia is talking about scrapping its only aircraft carrier, putting the troubled ship out of its misery

Russia may "write off" the troubled Admiral Kuznetsov, the country's only aircraft carrier, if it can't find a way to replace a sunken dry dock and repair the damaged hull of the ship, Russian media reported recently.

https://www.businessinsider.com/russia- ... ier-2019-4


Sad day. Don’t worry they’ll get that super carrier built real soon to replace it.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2019, 22:24
by hythelday
zerion wrote:
Russia is talking about scrapping its only aircraft carrier, putting the troubled ship out of its misery

Russia may "write off" the troubled Admiral Kuznetsov, the country's only aircraft carrier, if it can't find a way to replace a sunken dry dock and repair the damaged hull of the ship, Russian media reported recently.

https://www.businessinsider.com/russia- ... ier-2019-4


Sad day. Don’t worry they’ll get that super carrier built real soon to replace it.


They recently decided to scrap two out of four Kirovs instead of refueling those too. The other two won't last too long either, the last of Gorshkov's mammoths.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2019, 14:23
by mixelflick
hythelday wrote:
zerion wrote:
Russia is talking about scrapping its only aircraft carrier, putting the troubled ship out of its misery

Russia may "write off" the troubled Admiral Kuznetsov, the country's only aircraft carrier, if it can't find a way to replace a sunken dry dock and repair the damaged hull of the ship, Russian media reported recently.

https://www.businessinsider.com/russia- ... ier-2019-4


Sad day. Don’t worry they’ll get that super carrier built real soon to replace it.


They recently decided to scrap two out of four Kirovs instead of refueling those too. The other two won't last too long either, the last of Gorshkov's mammoths.


So their carrier aspirations appear to be going the way of the Kursk. I've read where those 2 refurbished Kirovs are fearsome weapons though, being re-fitted with the S-400 along with various hypersonic missiles. Scary to think about what these Russian/Chinese hypersonics could do to a carrier. We only have what, 12?

Those missiles might not be operational or had the bugs worked out (yet), but assuming just 1-2 got through it could totally change naval warfare. I.E. the aircraft carrier would no longer be survivable enough to be our big stick. Then again, Russia would build them if they could and the Chinese are so..

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2019, 15:21
by krieger22
Carriers tend to be really hard to sink (mission kill is another thing). If they actually work the way the ads claim they do (one hit sinks and all that), the response will probably be fairly terminal as a result. It's a bit hard to make a hypersonic warhead say "hi, I'm not a nuke".

Anyways, it seems that they aren't throwing in the towel on the Kuznetsov just yet. https://iz.ru/858009/2019-03-19/avianos ... um=ios_app

Google Translate gets this:

Repair and modernization of the Russian aircraft carrier "Admiral Kuznetsov" should be completed by 2021. About this on Tuesday, March 19, said the president of the United Shipbuilding Corporation, Alexei Rakhmanov, writes RIA Novosti.

“Perhaps we will go to the right for two to four months. The plan is that the ship repair plant number 35 in Murmansk will be upgraded capacity. The first part of this process is the dry docks of the plant, ”he noted.

In November 2018, the Defense Ministry reported that the aircraft carrier would be commissioned in 2022.

At the end of October last year, it became known about the incident that occurred in Murmansk. The floating dock PD-50 of the 82nd shipbuilding plant in Murmansk completely sank when the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov left it. At the same time, the tower cranes fell on the deck, as a result of which several people and ship structures were damaged.

In August 2017, Vice-Admiral Viktor Bursuk, Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy for armaments, announced the start of repair of the Admiral Kuznetsov cruiser in 2018 “Repair will last 2.5–3 years. A cruise to Syria is not planned before that, ”said Bursuk.

The aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov was launched in 1987. In recent years, the Russian Navy used the ship when performing operations in Syria.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2019, 18:59
by milosh
mixelflick wrote:So their carrier aspirations appear to be going the way of the Kursk. I've read where those 2 refurbished Kirovs are fearsome weapons though, being re-fitted with the S-400 along with various hypersonic missiles. Scary to think about what these Russian/Chinese hypersonics could do to a carrier. We only have what, 12?


Nope, carrier will not be scraped as it look like they will modify dry dock so it can fit inside, which they could do much earlier but those are Russians you can't understand them if you aren't Slav and even then you still will have problems to understand their logic.

Carrier have big missiles too, 12, Kirovs 20. So if they decide to upgrade carrier with new missiles, it would carry 48 cruise missiles, not bad at all.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2019, 00:13
by awsome
knowan wrote:Plasma stealth is a complete myth; Russia has been talking about it since the 1990s, and still have nothing to show for it.


Exactly... because it's invisible... :D

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2019, 02:38
by marauder2048
Were the Russians just talking about achieving frequency selective surfaces using active techniques like plasma?

The power required for say a radome isn't ridiculous.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2019, 17:56
by mixelflick
milosh wrote:
mixelflick wrote:So their carrier aspirations appear to be going the way of the Kursk. I've read where those 2 refurbished Kirovs are fearsome weapons though, being re-fitted with the S-400 along with various hypersonic missiles. Scary to think about what these Russian/Chinese hypersonics could do to a carrier. We only have what, 12?


Nope, carrier will not be scraped as it look like they will modify dry dock so it can fit inside, which they could do much earlier but those are Russians you can't understand them if you aren't Slav and even then you still will have problems to understand their logic.

Carrier have big missiles too, 12, Kirovs 20. So if they decide to upgrade carrier with new missiles, it would carry 48 cruise missiles, not bad at all.


To me, a carrier with 48 cruise missiles is an admission that its air wing is a failure. They know they can't launch/recover and sustain to any great degree, so they backstop it with 48 suicide drones to make sure the job gets done. If they had fully functioning combat jets with an respectable sortie rate, those cruise missiles wouldn't be needed. Better to have them on separate surface ships for less concentration risk...

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2019, 19:22
by marsavian
The Russians are forced to build these aircraft/missile carrier hybrids so they can get full access to the Turkish straits under the 1936 Montreux Convention allowing them access to the Mediterranean from the Black Sea.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreu ... he_Straits

Aircraft carriers

Although the Montreux Convention is cited by the Turkish government as prohibiting aircraft carriers in the straits, the treaty actually contains no explicit prohibition on aircraft carriers. However, modern aircraft carriers are heavier than the 15,000 ton limit imposed on warships, making it impossible for non-Black Sea powers to transit modern aircraft carriers through the Straits.

Under Article 11, Black Sea states are permitted to transit capital ships of any tonnage through the straits, but Annex II specifically excludes aircraft carriers from the definition of capital ship. In 1936, it was common for battleships to carry observation aircraft. Therefore, aircraft carriers were defined as ships that were "designed or adapted primarily for the purpose of carrying and operating aircraft at sea." The inclusion of aircraft on any other ship does not classify it as an aircraft carrier.

To take advantage of this exception, the Soviet Union designated its Kiev-class and Kuznetsov-class aircraft carriers as "aircraft carrying cruisers." These ships were armed with P-500 and P-700 cruise missiles, which form the main armament of the Slava-class cruiser and the Kirov-class battlecruiser. The result was that that the Soviet Navy could send its aircraft carrying cruisers through the Straits in compliance with the Convention, but at the same time the Convention denied access to NATO aircraft carriers, which exceeded the 15,000 ton limit.

Turkey chose to accept the designation of the Soviet aircraft carrying cruisers as aircraft cruisers, as any revision of the Convention could leave Turkey with less control over the Turkish Straits, and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea had already established more liberal passage through other straits. By allowing the Soviet aircraft carrying cruisers to transit the Straits, Turkey could leave the more restrictive Montreux Convention in place.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2019, 23:44
by h-bomb
marsavian wrote:The Russians are forced to build these aircraft/missile carrier hybrids so they can get full access to the Turkish straits under the 1936 Montreux Convention allowing them access to the Mediterranean from the Black Sea.

Turkey chose to accept the designation of the Soviet aircraft carrying cruisers as aircraft cruisers, as any revision of the Convention could leave Turkey with less control over the Turkish Straits, and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea had already established more liberal passage through other straits. By allowing the Soviet aircraft carrying cruisers to transit the Straits, Turkey could leave the more restrictive Montreux Convention in place.


Well FYI CVN = Cruiser aViation Nuclear-powered since "A" was used for Armored as in the CA-xx ships.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 22 Jun 2019, 00:00
by knowan
mixelflick wrote:To me, a carrier with 48 cruise missiles is an admission that its air wing is a failure. They know they can't launch/recover and sustain to any great degree, so they backstop it with 48 suicide drones to make sure the job gets done. If they had fully functioning combat jets with an respectable sortie rate, those cruise missiles wouldn't be needed. Better to have them on separate surface ships for less concentration risk...


Kuznetsov's air wing only achieved 420 sorties in 60 days over Syria (a pathetic 7 sorties/day), so that air wing is definitely a failure.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 22 Jun 2019, 18:24
by milosh
knowan wrote:
mixelflick wrote:To me, a carrier with 48 cruise missiles is an admission that its air wing is a failure. They know they can't launch/recover and sustain to any great degree, so they backstop it with 48 suicide drones to make sure the job gets done. If they had fully functioning combat jets with an respectable sortie rate, those cruise missiles wouldn't be needed. Better to have them on separate surface ships for less concentration risk...


Kuznetsov's air wing only achieved 420 sorties in 60 days over Syria (a pathetic 7 sorties/day), so that air wing is definitely a failure.


This.

Plus they lost two aircrafts becuase Su-33 is simple too big for Kuzne.

48 Zircons are lot more dangerous then Kuzne air wing. If I am Vlad I would remove fighters at all, increase number of missiles, and put couple of advanced AEW on deck. For example some kind of UAV, Hunter UCAV/UAV could be that especially if it have afterburner, demonstrator have one but final will not have. For carrier operation AB would be must have because they don't have catapult on Kuzne.

But because of PR they will not do that. They are so fond to have carrier even though it doesn't work, in fact Chinese one which is lot better (new modern variant) has similar problems becuase it use Su-33 clone. You can't fix physics, Su-33 is excellent for super carrier but smaller carrier nope. And USSR didn't consider Kuzne as capable carrier that is why they put missiles on it as they did on earlier carriers (helicopter nad Jak-38 ones), they build Su-33 for first soviet super carrier which had same fate as USSR.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 22 Jun 2019, 23:24
by juretrn
milosh wrote:This.

Plus they lost two aircrafts becuase Su-33 is simple too big for Kuzne.

48 Zircons are lot more dangerous then Kuzne air wing. If I am Vlad I would remove fighters at all, increase number of missiles, and put couple of advanced AEW on deck. For example some kind of UAV, Hunter UCAV/UAV could be that especially if it have afterburner, demonstrator have one but final will not have. For carrier operation AB would be must have because they don't have catapult on Kuzne.

But because of PR they will not do that. They are so fond to have carrier even though it doesn't work, in fact Chinese one which is lot better (new modern variant) has similar problems becuase it use Su-33 clone. You can't fix physics, Su-33 is excellent for super carrier but smaller carrier nope. And USSR didn't consider Kuzne as capable carrier that is why they put missiles on it as they did on earlier carriers (helicopter nad Jak-38 ones), they build Su-33 for first soviet super carrier which had same fate as USSR.

Wasn't one of the aircraft lost a MiG-29(K?)

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 23 Jun 2019, 02:03
by knowan
milosh wrote:This.

Plus they lost two aircrafts becuase Su-33 is simple too big for Kuzne.

48 Zircons are lot more dangerous then Kuzne air wing. If I am Vlad I would remove fighters at all, increase number of missiles, and put couple of advanced AEW on deck. For example some kind of UAV, Hunter UCAV/UAV could be that especially if it have afterburner, demonstrator have one but final will not have. For carrier operation AB would be must have because they don't have catapult on Kuzne.

But because of PR they will not do that. They are so fond to have carrier even though it doesn't work, in fact Chinese one which is lot better (new modern variant) has similar problems becuase it use Su-33 clone. You can't fix physics, Su-33 is excellent for super carrier but smaller carrier nope. And USSR didn't consider Kuzne as capable carrier that is why they put missiles on it as they did on earlier carriers (helicopter nad Jak-38 ones), they build Su-33 for first soviet super carrier which had same fate as USSR.


Without the ability to project a combat air patrol, the ship, missiles and it's AEW are limited to the protection provided by ground based air cover.
That prevents most offensive deployments for the ship, as it will be too vulnerable to enemy aircraft attack even if it has long range SAMs.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 23 Jun 2019, 07:45
by milosh
juretrn wrote:Wasn't one of the aircraft lost a MiG-29(K?)


They lost one Su-33 after MiG-29K.

@knowan


Yes but Kuzne air wing is very problematic (combination of Su-33 and Kuzne design) so I don't see point of air cover. Something like arsenal ship would be lot more useful role for Kuzne. Problem is lack of decent AEW. UAV AEW would allow them to have AEW in air non stop during missions and if it is based on Hunter its RCS would be lot smaller then E-2 or JAK-44.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 23 Jun 2019, 10:27
by knowan
milosh wrote:They lost one Su-33 after MiG-29K.

@knowan


Yes but Kuzne air wing is very problematic (combination of Su-33 and Kuzne design) so I don't see point of air cover. Something like arsenal ship would be lot more useful role for Kuzne. Problem is lack of decent AEW. UAV AEW would allow them to have AEW in air non stop during missions and if it is based on Hunter its RCS would be lot smaller then E-2 or JAK-44.


RCS isn't an important consideration for AEW, as they'll be emitting so much radiation they'll be detected by RWR at long range even if they have an advanced AESA radar.

The question is if even a UAV AEW will be able to provide both sufficient radar capabilities and loiter time at altitude when launched from the Kuznetsov.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 23 Jun 2019, 21:00
by SpudmanWP
RCS is important in EW for several reasons.
1. In combination with AESA based EW, it ensures that only the target can get a clue of what direction you are coming from.
2. Turning off the EW lets you go dark.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 24 Jun 2019, 01:05
by Corsair1963
Another reason why Russia may have to adopt the J-31. As what will equip the Admiral Kuznetsov post 2030??? (or possible replacement)

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 24 Jun 2019, 09:43
by milosh
Corsair1963 wrote:Another reason why Russia may have to adopt the J-31. As what will equip the Admiral Kuznetsov post 2030??? (or possible replacement)


Naval J-31 will be heavier then MiG-29K and use similar (right now less powerful engines) so without catapult it would be pointless.

Best option for Kuzne is Hunter AEW with Type-30 engine. Battle group armed with Zircons and LO Klubs support by such AEW would have much higher efficiency then with J-31 on deck.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 24 Jun 2019, 09:59
by Corsair1963
milosh wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Another reason why Russia may have to adopt the J-31. As what will equip the Admiral Kuznetsov post 2030??? (or possible replacement)


Naval J-31 will be heavier then MiG-29K and use similar (right now less powerful engines) so without catapult it would be pointless.

Best option for Kuzne is Hunter AEW with Type-30 engine. Battle group armed with Zircons and LO Klubs support by such AEW would have much higher efficiency then with J-31 on deck.



Absurd the RD-93's would be "adequate". Yet, production J-31's are planned for the more powerful WS-13's. (22,000 lbs vs 19,000 lbs) Which, would provide more thrust than the F135 in the F-35A/B/C.

Clearly, the J-31 would be a better option than a Naval J-20. Nonetheless, both are the only option available to the PLAN Carrier Fleet.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 24 Jun 2019, 10:16
by knowan
milosh wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Another reason why Russia may have to adopt the J-31. As what will equip the Admiral Kuznetsov post 2030??? (or possible replacement)


Naval J-31 will be heavier then MiG-29K and use similar (right now less powerful engines) so without catapult it would be pointless.

Best option for Kuzne is Hunter AEW with Type-30 engine. Battle group armed with Zircons and LO Klubs support by such AEW would have much higher efficiency then with J-31 on deck.


The Hunter UAV likely has a similar or greater empty weight to the Su-33, which combined with only having a single engine (even if it it's something in the 180 kN thrust range) it would have far inferior T/W ratio and struggle to have any sort of decent fuel load when taking off from the Kuznetsov.

Best option for the Russian Navy would be to retire the Kuznetsov, saving money they could eventually put towards a CATOBAR carrier.
I don't think Russia will do that though, because of pride.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 24 Jun 2019, 12:48
by mixelflick
So if they do build this super-carrier, it gets equipped with... Mig-29K's?

I don't see them continuing on with the SU-33, and I've heard nothing of a navalised SU-35. I have heard about plans for a carrier capable SU-57, and while that's not impossible - It'll be for sure very difficult. Asking more of that program than what it currently is could tank it.

I really think they should get out of the carrier business altogether, and focus instead on battle cruisers and subs. They'd need at least 3 super-carriers to make a credible force, and just building one is proving to be a struggle. But they are nothing if not persistent. Look how they refined the T-10 over decades into the SU-35. One super-carrier might actually happen, although I still don't see a credible air wing to compliment it...

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 24 Jun 2019, 21:19
by milosh
knowan wrote:The Hunter UAV likely has a similar or greater empty weight to the Su-33, which combined with only having a single engine (even if it it's something in the 180 kN thrust range) it would have far inferior T/W ratio and struggle to have any sort of decent fuel load when taking off from the Kuznetsov.


Empty weight of S-70 Hunter is unknown but if you look its dimensions it is similar to X-47B. It is little wider and longer (engine with afterburner) two weapon bays, 2tons of weapons.

X-47B empty weight is 6.3tons (if wiki data is right) how S-70 could be more then 3times heavier then? Simply, 20tons is take off weight of S-70 probable maximum take off weight, and that data is used as empty weight.

If we compare it with MiG-29K, it have ~176kN thrust so pretty similar to AL-51, and its take off weight is 18.5tons from carrier without catapult.

So Hunter without 2tons of bombs/missiles is 18tons and with similar thrust as MiG-29K have (afterburners) I don't see reason why it can take off from Kuzne.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2019, 00:19
by Corsair1963
mixelflick wrote:So if they do build this super-carrier, it gets equipped with... Mig-29K's?

I don't see them continuing on with the SU-33, and I've heard nothing of a navalised SU-35. I have heard about plans for a carrier capable SU-57, and while that's not impossible - It'll be for sure very difficult. Asking more of that program than what it currently is could tank it.

I really think they should get out of the carrier business altogether, and focus instead on battle cruisers and subs. They'd need at least 3 super-carriers to make a credible force, and just building one is proving to be a struggle. But they are nothing if not persistent. Look how they refined the T-10 over decades into the SU-35. One super-carrier might actually happen, although I still don't see a credible air wing to compliment it...


This is why the J-31 is the only option. If, Russia keeps her lone Aircraft Carrier.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2019, 00:21
by Corsair1963
knowan wrote:
milosh wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Another reason why Russia may have to adopt the J-31. As what will equip the Admiral Kuznetsov post 2030??? (or possible replacement)


Naval J-31 will be heavier then MiG-29K and use similar (right now less powerful engines) so without catapult it would be pointless.

Best option for Kuzne is Hunter AEW with Type-30 engine. Battle group armed with Zircons and LO Klubs support by such AEW would have much higher efficiency then with J-31 on deck.


The Hunter UAV likely has a similar or greater empty weight to the Su-33, which combined with only having a single engine (even if it it's something in the 180 kN thrust range) it would have far inferior T/W ratio and struggle to have any sort of decent fuel load when taking off from the Kuznetsov.

Best option for the Russian Navy would be to retire the Kuznetsov, saving money they could eventually put towards a CATOBAR carrier.
I don't think Russia will do that though, because of pride.


I am surprised China hasn't tried to acquire the Admiral Kuznetsov??? (at least that we know of)

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2019, 00:52
by knowan
milosh wrote:
knowan wrote:The Hunter UAV likely has a similar or greater empty weight to the Su-33, which combined with only having a single engine (even if it it's something in the 180 kN thrust range) it would have far inferior T/W ratio and struggle to have any sort of decent fuel load when taking off from the Kuznetsov.


Empty weight of S-70 Hunter is unknown but if you look its dimensions it is similar to X-47B. It is little wider and longer (engine with afterburner) two weapon bays, 2tons of weapons.

X-47B empty weight is 6.3tons (if wiki data is right) how S-70 could be more then 3times heavier then? Simply, 20tons is take off weight of S-70 probable maximum take off weight, and that data is used as empty weight.

If we compare it with MiG-29K, it have ~176kN thrust so pretty similar to AL-51, and its take off weight is 18.5tons from carrier without catapult.

So Hunter without 2tons of bombs/missiles is 18tons and with similar thrust as MiG-29K have (afterburners) I don't see reason why it can take off from Kuzne.


S-70 is considerably larger than the X-47B.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... /su-70.htm
Compare the whole, the "Hunter-B" drone in overall size is not inferior to Sukhoi's "Flanker" family, It can be seen that the "Hunter-B" drone wingspan is significantly wider than the Su-57, but the length of the fuselage is shorter than the Su-57. The comprehensive landmark line and the size of the Su-57 (19.8 meters in length and 13.95 meters in wingspan) concluded that the "Hunter-B" drone should have a wingspan of 17.6 meters and a fuselage length of 13.6 meters. The satellite image is a two-dimensional plan, the height of the fuselage can not be seen, but before the aircraft test flight at Novosibirsk airport, a lot of ground taxiing photos were exposed. It can be speculated from the size of the same trailer that the height of the aircraft should be 2.8 meters. (no tail layout), height between Su-57 and Su-34. According to previous Russian media speculation, the "hunter-B" drone should have an empty weight of about 20 tons, while the Su-57 has an empty weight of 18 tons.


And if were as small and lightweight as the X-47B, then they wouldn't be able to fit a decent AEW suit to it with sufficient fuel for adequate loiter time.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2019, 03:22
by weasel1962
Article by Jamestown on the Russian CV.

https://jamestown.org/program/russia-wi ... ybe-never/

I think it heavily discounts the possibility that China can build and maintain a carrier for Russia. Since Russia contracted with DCNS for the mistrals, an external shipyard contract is not impossible. It doesn't take long for the Chinese yards to build one.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2019, 03:27
by rheonomic
Corsair1963 wrote:I am surprised China hasn't tried to acquire the Admiral Kuznetsov??? (at least that we know of)


Why would they even want it? It's (partially) self-transporting salvage.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2019, 04:08
by Corsair1963
rheonomic wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:I am surprised China hasn't tried to acquire the Admiral Kuznetsov??? (at least that we know of)


Why would they even want it? It's (partially) self-transporting salvage.



She is in far better condition than the ex-Varyag. That China acquired from Ukraine and rebuilt as the Liaoning.

Plus, the added benefit is both are of the same class and closely related to the New Type-001A Aircraft Carrier. Which, is just about ready to enter service.


So, by acquiring the Admiral Kuznetsov from Russia. The PLAN could have three large Ski Jump Carriers in service in the next few years. Which, will be added by a forth conventional carrier with both Catapults and Arresting Gear. Which, would enter service about the same time.

This would greatly help the PLAN close the Carrier Gap with the USN.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2019, 12:48
by mixelflick
Kustenov is in much better condition than the Liaong? That's a scary proposition!

Even assuming 3 ski jump carriers plus a conventional boat, that still only brings them to 4 vs. what, 11 or so American? 7 more carriers is no small amount, and that doesn't take into account our amphibious assault ships. They can now carry F-35's, so are some of the most capable carriers in the world.

China is no doubt making great strides in naval operations, but in terms of carriers is still well behind the US IMO..

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2019, 13:45
by hornetfinn
A single US Navy carrier is likely more capable than several of those STOBAR carriers in Chinese Navy. Simply because they can launch and recover aircraft far more often and keep up much higher operational tempo. Also aircraft can take off with a lot of weapons, fuel and equipment. AFAIK, J-15s can take only take off with light weapons and fuel load.

So I'd say that there will be pretty significant Carrier Gap between USA and China for decades to come, but Chinese Navy is definitely quite powerful compared to any other navy in the world and having those carriers give them nice capabilities and flexibility against all other potential adversaries.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2019, 14:21
by sferrin
Corsair1963 wrote:
rheonomic wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:I am surprised China hasn't tried to acquire the Admiral Kuznetsov??? (at least that we know of)


Why would they even want it? It's (partially) self-transporting salvage.



She is in far better condition than the ex-Varyag. That China acquired from Ukraine and rebuilt as the Liaoning.


Where'd you hear that?

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2019, 14:22
by sferrin
hornetfinn wrote:A single US Navy carrier is likely more capable than several of those STOBAR carriers in Chinese Navy. Simply because they can launch and recover aircraft far more often and keep up much higher operational tempo. Also aircraft can take off with a lot of weapons, fuel and equipment. AFAIK, J-15s can take only take off with light weapons and fuel load.

So I'd say that there will be pretty significant Carrier Gap between USA and China for decades to come, but Chinese Navy is definitely quite powerful compared to any other navy in the world and having those carriers give them nice capabilities and flexibility against all other potential adversaries.


China is already building carrier #3 in a new shipyard built specifically for carrier building. (And they still have the yard the first two carriers were built in.)

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2019, 15:34
by weasel1962
hornetfinn wrote:AFAIK, J-15s can take only take off with light weapons and fuel load.


That's if the J-15 takes off from the front 2 spots. "Light" weapons generally refers to A2A load out.

For higher TOW, the J-15 can launch from further back.

As to sortie rates, there is no empirical evidence suggesting a significant difference based on aircraft ratios. The cvn carries double the aircraft but is the sortie generation much more than double?

The cvn limit eg surge of 270-300 sorties a day is limited more by fuel. I don't see why the j-15s can't do 3 sorties a day from a Liaoning.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2019, 17:24
by geforcerfx
sferrin wrote:
China is already building carrier #3 in a new shipyard built specifically for carrier building. (And they still have the yard the first two carriers were built in.)


I believe they are using that yard for there LHAs they are building.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2019, 17:49
by sferrin
geforcerfx wrote:
sferrin wrote:
China is already building carrier #3 in a new shipyard built specifically for carrier building. (And they still have the yard the first two carriers were built in.)


I believe they are using that yard for there LHAs they are building.


Any info on those?

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2019, 21:17
by geforcerfx
scratch that type 075 is being built by Hudong–Zhonghua, so prob being built in southern china, i think the carriers are built up north.

Info on type 075 is scarce and changes a good amount, seems similar to wasp class with more amphibious focus and less aviation focus.
Image

Image

seems like they want to fit 3 LCACs in there's not just 2. A bunch of concept art also shows up to 12 fighters of a stealthy look, so maybe ambitions to make a light stovl stealth fighter some day(good luck).

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 26 Jun 2019, 00:41
by weasel1962
Current CV 002 modules are being built at a new yard at Changxing island, near Shanghai located at 31°20'42"N 121°45'22"E.

The 075 is being built in Shanghai at a facility along the Huangpu river located at 31°16'50"N 121°34'07"E.

The 001A was built at a dry dock in Dalian located at 38°56'09"N 121°36'47"E. That dock is smaller than the ones in Shanghai.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 26 Jun 2019, 02:46
by Corsair1963
sferrin wrote:

She is in far better condition than the ex-Varyag. That China acquired from Ukraine and rebuilt as the Liaoning.


Where'd you hear that?[/quote]


Really??? The Varyag was totally neglected for over a decade and was in extremely poor condition when she finally arrived in China. The Admiral Kuznetsov was in active service during the same period. While, not in excellent condition or refitted to Western Standards. She clearly was in far better shape than the ex-Varyag.

Honestly, to suggest otherwise is absurd.... :doh:

QUOTE:

China’s Dalian Shipyard refitted the 65,000t ex-Soviet Navy aircraft carrier Varyag (previously Riga), which the “Chong Lot Travel Agency” acquired from the Ukraine in 1998 for $20 million. She was in in extremely poor condition, as one might expect of any ship after a decade or more of serious neglect.

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ch ... sia-02806/


V1A.jpg


V1B.jpg


V1C.png

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 26 Jun 2019, 13:11
by sferrin
Corsair1963 wrote:Really??? The Varyag was totally neglected for over a decade and was in extremely poor condition when she finally arrived in China. The Admiral Kuznetsov was in active service during the same period. While, not in excellent condition or refitted to Western Standards. She clearly was in far better shape than the ex-Varyag.

Honestly, to suggest otherwise is absurd.... :doh:


So you don't actually know anything, you're just assuming. They stripped it back to the bare metal and rebuilt from there. That's why it's as sea far more often than the Kuznetsov.

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News ... 561460566/

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 26 Jun 2019, 13:48
by pmi
sferrin wrote:So you don't actually know anything, you're just assuming. They stripped it back to the bare metal and rebuilt from there. That's why it's as sea far more often than the Kuznetsov.


He is saying that the Kuznetsov is currently in better condition than the Varyag was when she was acquired by the Chinese.

That being said I think the odds of the Chinese being interested in her is slim to none at this point.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 26 Jun 2019, 15:30
by sferrin
pmi wrote:
sferrin wrote:So you don't actually know anything, you're just assuming. They stripped it back to the bare metal and rebuilt from there. That's why it's as sea far more often than the Kuznetsov.


He is saying that the Kuznetsov is currently in better condition than the Varyag was when she was acquired by the Chinese.


Okay, THAT makes sense. :thanks:

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2019, 01:55
by Corsair1963
sferrin wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Really??? The Varyag was totally neglected for over a decade and was in extremely poor condition when she finally arrived in China. The Admiral Kuznetsov was in active service during the same period. While, not in excellent condition or refitted to Western Standards. She clearly was in far better shape than the ex-Varyag.

Honestly, to suggest otherwise is absurd.... :doh:


So you don't actually know anything, you're just assuming. They stripped it back to the bare metal and rebuilt from there. That's why it's as sea far more often than the Kuznetsov.

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News ... 561460566/



Sorry, your source doesn't support your claims at all. In addition my "point" was the condition of the Varyag at the time China acquired it. Was in far poorer condition. Than the Admiral Kuznetsov is today. Again that is "easily" supportable.

Unless you think you can leave a ship half completed and open to the environment* for over a decade. Is in better shape than a ship that is manned and maintained over the same period....


* A satellite image taken by the U.S. in 1995 showed that the ship's ammunition elevator was open to the elements, which may have further damaged the interior.

http://www.varyagworld.com/mystery.php

"ABSURD" :doh:

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2019, 02:01
by Corsair1963
mixelflick wrote:Kustenov is in much better condition than the Liaong? That's a scary proposition!

Even assuming 3 ski jump carriers plus a conventional boat, that still only brings them to 4 vs. what, 11 or so American? 7 more carriers is no small amount, and that doesn't take into account our amphibious assault ships. They can now carry F-35's, so are some of the most capable carriers in the world.

China is no doubt making great strides in naval operations, but in terms of carriers is still well behind the US IMO..



I said acquiring the Admiral Kuznetsov would help close the gap! Never said it would match the USN Carrier Fleet. In addition while the USN would have 10-11 Carriers. It has global commitments. While, the PLAN would likely be focused solely on SE Asia.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2019, 02:05
by Corsair1963
hornetfinn wrote:A single US Navy carrier is likely more capable than several of those STOBAR carriers in Chinese Navy. Simply because they can launch and recover aircraft far more often and keep up much higher operational tempo. Also aircraft can take off with a lot of weapons, fuel and equipment. AFAIK, J-15s can take only take off with light weapons and fuel load.

So I'd say that there will be pretty significant Carrier Gap between USA and China for decades to come, but Chinese Navy is definitely quite powerful compared to any other navy in the world and having those carriers give them nice capabilities and flexibility against all other potential adversaries.


I wasn't comparing the capabilities between PLAN and USN Carriers. Just stating China could acquire an additional carrier from Russia. In order to close the gap....

Also, Germany only had two modern Battleships at the early stages of the Second World War. So, they weren't a threat to the Royal Navy that had many more....

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2019, 02:12
by Corsair1963
pmi wrote:
sferrin wrote:So you don't actually know anything, you're just assuming. They stripped it back to the bare metal and rebuilt from there. That's why it's as sea far more often than the Kuznetsov.


He is saying that the Kuznetsov is currently in better condition than the Varyag was when she was acquired by the Chinese.

That being said I think the odds of the Chinese being interested in her is slim to none at this point.



Only to Chinese know the true extent of the work that was needed to rebuild the Varyag. (i.e. Liaoning) So, they may determine the Admiral Kuznetsov isn't worth the effort. Who knows.....

Just pointing out Chinese "ambitions" and the Admiral Kuznetsov as an option.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2019, 06:08
by hornetfinn
Corsair1963 wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:A single US Navy carrier is likely more capable than several of those STOBAR carriers in Chinese Navy. Simply because they can launch and recover aircraft far more often and keep up much higher operational tempo. Also aircraft can take off with a lot of weapons, fuel and equipment. AFAIK, J-15s can take only take off with light weapons and fuel load.

So I'd say that there will be pretty significant Carrier Gap between USA and China for decades to come, but Chinese Navy is definitely quite powerful compared to any other navy in the world and having those carriers give them nice capabilities and flexibility against all other potential adversaries.


I wasn't comparing the capabilities between PLAN and USN Carriers. Just stating China could acquire an additional carrier from Russia. In order to close the gap....

Also, Germany only had two modern Battleships at the early stages of the Second World War. So, they weren't a threat to the Royal Navy that had many more....


Ok, I somewhat misunderstood your point. Also my point was that China is likely not that interested in closing any carrier gap between US and Chinese Navies, but their ambition is to be more effective against other navies and countries. And I'd say that they now have pretty impressive navy with a lot of capabilties and would be highly dangerous to any navy in the world. In the future (2030+) they will likely get close to US Navy in most areas, although I think carriers will take more time to get close to US Navy.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2019, 06:38
by weasel1962
When I was studying the old Soviet aircraft carrier doctrines back in the 80s, it wasn't about offensive carrier airpower like how the US does it. The Soviets developed aircraft carriers to defend their naval fleets. That's the complement comprising fighters & ASW helos and that's why VSTOL yaks came first followed by ski-jumps which were acceptable compromises.

If the Chinese adopts the same doctrine, that means defending their fleets is a priority. An amphibious assault fleet would otherwise be pretty dead meat in the face of US/Allied airpower. China is developing larger amphibs which are much more easily defended in a convoy.

A couple of carriers aren't going to be useful against the USN but against a much smaller ROCN/ROCAF, that's a different story.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2019, 06:42
by Corsair1963
hornetfinn wrote:
Ok, I somewhat misunderstood your point. Also my point was that China is likely not that interested in closing any carrier gap between US and Chinese Navies, but their ambition is to be more effective against other navies and countries. And I'd say that they now have pretty impressive navy with a lot of capabilties and would be highly dangerous to any navy in the world. In the future (2030+) they will likely get close to US Navy in most areas, although I think carriers will take more time to get close to US Navy.



In the case of China hard to predict what course they will take. Many didn't believe the ex-Varyag would ever be rebuilt and returned to service....

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2019, 06:45
by Corsair1963
weasel1962 wrote:When I was studying the old Soviet aircraft carrier doctrines back in the 80s, it wasn't about offensive carrier airpower like how the US does it. The Soviets developed aircraft carriers to defend their naval fleets. That's the complement comprising fighters & ASW helos and that's why VSTOL yaks came first followed by ski-jumps which were acceptable compromises.

If the Chinese adopts the same doctrine, that means defending their fleets is a priority. An amphibious assault fleet would otherwise be pretty dead meat in the face of US/Allied airpower. China is developing larger amphibs which are much more easily defended in a convoy.

A couple of carriers aren't going to be useful against the USN but against a much smaller ROCN/ROCAF, that's a different story.


Remember is take 3-4 carriers to just keep 2-3 at sea.....In short numbers "matter".

Respectfully 8)

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2019, 10:04
by hornetfinn
Corsair1963 wrote:Remember is take 3-4 carriers to just keep 2-3 at sea.....In short numbers "matter".

Respectfully 8)


Definitely so. Currently only US Navy has enough carriers for sustained and full time presense and combat capability. All the rest would likely need quite a lot of preparations and planning before getting a carrier to real combat operation. Depending of course what the status of carrier(s) is. Like for Falklands War the British managed to get their carriers moving within few days. If they are under repair or refit, it would likely take quite a bit more time to get them underway.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2019, 10:22
by weasel1962
Yup, the Brits got all 3 CVLs into the fight and that was based on Argie timing.

In a Taiwan scenario, China is likely to control the timing i.e they can ensure the CVs are operational on D-day.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2019, 11:21
by hornetfinn
Besides Taiwan, I can see several other scenarios where Chinese carriers might be useful. There are quite many potential reasons to fight near China (like South China Sea) and one interesting would be Africa where China has been rather active. There could well be some armed conflict where aviation might be needed and carriers would be perfect for that. Even current STOBAR carriers could be very useful there.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2019, 11:48
by pmi
Corsair1963 wrote:Remember is take 3-4 carriers to just keep 2-3 at sea.....In short numbers "matter".

Respectfully 8)


To put things in perspective in 1990 there were 15 commissioned carriers. Six of them participated in Desert Storm.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2019, 13:44
by mixelflick
pmi wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Remember is take 3-4 carriers to just keep 2-3 at sea.....In short numbers "matter".

Respectfully 8)


To put things in perspective in 1990 there were 15 commissioned carriers. Six of them participated in Desert Storm.


15 big flat tops, or say 11 and 4 amphibious assault ships? I suppose you can call all of them "aircraft carriers", but I don't remember us having 15 CVN's, or even 15 large ones, with a few of those being (non) nuclear powered ???

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2019, 14:11
by weasel1962
Hornetfinn is right. USN had 6 cvn and 9 CV during desert storm deploying cvn-71 and 5 CV (cv-41, 60, 61, 66 and 67) for the fight. There were 2-3 more Cv/cvn that could in theory deploy but did not.

The CV that did not deploy were cv-59, 62, 63, 64. Cvn back then were 65, 68, 69, 70 and 72.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2019, 14:19
by Tiger05
mixelflick wrote:
pmi wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Remember is take 3-4 carriers to just keep 2-3 at sea.....In short numbers "matter".

Respectfully 8)


To put things in perspective in 1990 there were 15 commissioned carriers. Six of them participated in Desert Storm.


15 big flat tops, or say 11 and 4 amphibious assault ships? I suppose you can call all of them "aircraft carriers", but I don't remember us having 15 CVN's, or even 15 large ones, with a few of those being (non) nuclear powered ???


He is correct. 9x CVs and 6x CVNs in service in 1990.

And technically, there were even 16 carriers in the fleet at that time if you count the training carrier CVT-16 USS Lexington (decommissioned in 1991).

EDIT: Weasel1962 beat me to it. :P

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2019, 14:30
by zhangmdev
Those non-nuclear "super-carriers", USS Forrestal (CV-59), USS Saratoga (CV-60), USS Ranger (CV-61), USS Independence (CV-62), USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63), USS Constellation (CV-64), The USS America (CV-66) , USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67). It is remarkable how quickly they are forgotten. Forrestal was somewhere close to 80,000 ton, way bigger than anything Russian and Chinese are having now, or will have, if ever, in the near future.

http://militaryvetshop.com/History/airc ... riers.html

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2019, 14:38
by weasel1962
The current cv-16/17 are comparable to cv-41. Cv-18 will likely be about forrestal class size. Forrestal was launched in the 50s, almost 70 years ago. Thats a long time.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2019, 14:45
by weasel1962
weasel1962 wrote:Hornetfinn is right. USN had 6 cvn and 9 CV during desert storm deploying cvn-71 and 5 CV (cv-41, 60, 61, 66 and 67) for the fight. There were 2-3 more Cv/cvn that could in theory deploy but did not.

The CV that did not deploy were cv-59, 62, 63, 64. Cvn back then were 65, 68, 69, 70 and 72.


Should be PMI not hornetfinn.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2019, 14:48
by weasel1962
hornetfinn wrote:Besides Taiwan, I can see several other scenarios where Chinese carriers might be useful. There are quite many potential reasons to fight near China (like South China Sea) and one interesting would be Africa where China has been rather active. There could well be some armed conflict where aviation might be needed and carriers would be perfect for that. Even current STOBAR carriers could be very useful there.


The other Soviet role for their cvbg was boomer escort. Back then and today, ssbns would be aggressively stalked. A cvbg can sanitise a fairly big area allowing access for boomers.

Consider the current PLAN CV bases are vis their boomer bases.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2019, 14:53
by pmi
mixelflick wrote:15 big flat tops, or say 11 and 4 amphibious assault ships? I suppose you can call all of them "aircraft carriers", but I don't remember us having 15 CVN's, or even 15 large ones, with a few of those being (non) nuclear powered ???


There were 13 flat top gators active at the time; all 7 LPHs, the 5 LHAs & Wasp (LHD1) was commissioned in 89.

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2019, 00:54
by weasel1962

Re: Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Unread postPosted: 12 Sep 2019, 19:35
by marsavian
The sad story of Admiral Kuznetsov which makes you appreciate what a well suited combination are the QE carriers with F-35B using similar ski ramps.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... uilt-80026