General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: artik on October 24, 2016, 05:35:17 AM
Title: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: artik on October 24, 2016, 05:35:17 AM
There are many reports regarding deployment of Russian carrier "Admiral Kuznetsov" to Syria. [1][2]
Also the reports tend to mock it a lot as barely functional carrier that travels with its own ocean going tug boat "just in case"... but they also report it is the force to be considered. It isn't the first time Kuznetsov deployed to Syria, it is actually frequent visitor there.
It is clear the due to large Russian air force presence in Syria with its state of the art technologies, its purpose isn't to provide a naval based air force but rather show the flag...
However
There is a very good chance that Kuznetsov deployed first time with MiG-29K - but probably with only small numbers.
Now this is changes the picture, because:
1. MiG-29K is state of the art 4+ generation aircraft with all latest technologies in (Indians actually first bought it...) 2. It is very capable of air-to-ground/sea operations unlike Su-33 3. Syria in its current (sad) situation provides excellent testing ground for the new tech - similarly to the way Russians test all the rest of its systems there...
So IMHO, getting Kuznetsov to Syria even with few MiG-29Ks is very valuable for Russians beyond showing the flag, as probably it would be the first time STOBAR carrier would see the action and show its real abilities. It would allow to somewhat validate entire concept and check the latest procurement of Russian navy.
Title: Re: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: Serenity on October 24, 2016, 10:48:30 AM
Honestly, and this is just me speaking as an individual here, no expertise on this particular subject (as I haven't been in to work since she headed there lol), but I think it's a win/win for both sides.
The Kuz is a joke. She's a jeep carrier in the world of big boats. (Yes, I know she's long, but her compliment is fairly small, and as a carrier, she's not ideal. She DOES have some shiney weapons systems, but if your carrier is fighting surface contacts, something is wrong...) That being said, she's most definitely testing their new aircraft assets. For them, yeah, they get to test their MiGs, but for us, we get to watch. We can sit back and evaluate the -29K from a safe distance and see just what they can do.
Title: Re: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: GScholz on October 24, 2016, 11:01:27 AM
I don't know Serenity... They plan on having about 40 fixed wing and 20 rotary wing aircraft on the Kuznetsov when they get around to finding the cash for those 29Ks. That's not bad.
Title: Re: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: Zimme83 on October 24, 2016, 11:06:21 AM
Title: Re: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: BoilerDown on October 24, 2016, 11:12:06 AM
If Russia and China want to be anything close to superpowers, they need to have experience using their weapon systems. Russia doing this is very much in their self-interests. China needs to stop dropping the ball whenever a UN military coalition is formed and actually join it next time, just to train their people and gain confidence in their gear.
Of course, as a US citizen, its generally in my interests if they don't have confidence in their own militaries. But I don't expect potential rivals to continue to be irrational forever.
Title: Re: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: GScholz on October 24, 2016, 11:34:30 AM
I don't know Serenity... They plan on having about 40 fixed wing and 20 rotary wing aircraft on the Kuznetsov when they get around to finding the cash for those 29Ks. That's not bad.
Oh, it's a great start, and honestly for their needs it's more than sufficient, (and this is probably some REALLY heavy bias here) but she's no Nimitz :)
Title: Re: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: Zimme83 on October 24, 2016, 11:42:59 AM
They also seems to lack the support ships needed for long oversea deployments, bringing it to Syria, were they have a port and airbases, is just a propaganda stunt, the Carrier will not add anything that couldn't have been done easier with land based planes.
Title: Re: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: zack1234 on October 24, 2016, 12:08:53 PM
If Russia and China want to be anything close to superpowers, they need to have experience using their weapon systems. Russia doing this is very much in their self-interests. China needs to stop dropping the ball whenever a UN military coalition is formed and actually join it next time, just to train their people and gain confidence in their gear.
Of course, as a US citizen, its generally in my interests if they don't have confidence in their own militaries. But I don't expect potential rivals to continue to be irrational forever.
Russia and China are the enemy then :old:
Better?
Title: Re: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: Serenity on October 24, 2016, 12:13:18 PM
Oh, it's a great start, and honestly for their needs it's more than sufficient, (and this is probably some REALLY heavy bias here) but she's no Nimitz :)
Sure, but that goes without saying. There are no non-US carriers that can match a USN supercarrier. However the Kuznetsov is a match for most if not all other carriers out there like the French Charles de Gaulle which also can take about 40 fixed wing aircraft. The Kuznetsov's greatest weakness IMHO is that it's conventionally powered.
To me at least the Russians seem to use the Kuznetsov just for training and gaining experience in carrier operations. The Russians are planning on starting a new carrier building program in the 2020s. Designated as Project 23000E Shtorm, they're planning on a 100,000-ton supercarrier class.
Sure, but that goes without saying. There are no non-US carriers that can match a USN supercarrier. However the Kuznetsov is a match for most if not all other carriers out there like the French Charles de Gaulle which also can take about 40 fixed wing aircraft. The Kuznetsov's greatest weakness IMHO is that it's conventionally powered.
To me at least the Russians seem to use the Kuznetsov just for training and gaining experience in carrier operations. The Russians are planning on starting a new carrier building program in the 2020s. Designated as Project 23000E Shtorm, they're planning on a 100,000-ton supercarrier class.
I don't understand why they're still using skijumps rather than catapults...
Title: Re: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: Zimme83 on October 24, 2016, 12:56:14 PM
That is their least problem, Russa of today isnt even close to capable of building a full size aircraft carrier... Kuznetsov is planned to start a major overhaul in early -17 and will probably be out of action for 2 years.
Title: Re: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: Ack-Ack on October 24, 2016, 01:24:25 PM
The Admiral Kuznetsov is actually a floating POS. There is a reason why a tug has to sortie out with the Admiral Kuznetsov when it goes on its cruises as the ship is prone to breaking down and needing to be towed back to port.
Title: Re: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: Zimme83 on October 24, 2016, 01:29:15 PM
Pretty much yes. It has pretty close to zero capability of any longer deployment involving combat. Sailing to the Mediterranean, circle around outside their port and launching a few sorties is what it can do. A pure propaganda stunt..
Title: Re: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: artik on October 24, 2016, 02:37:28 PM
Yeah, they really need to put a reactor in it. It's not like they don't have plenty of naval reactors available.
Not really. Virtually all non US carriers are conventional (with only exception of Charles de Gaulle) It has serious cost and does not really solve the task force dependency on fossil fuel. You still need to put stuff into jets. IIRC Nimitz class carrier during intensive operations require refueling every 2 days... So do you really need reactor in it?
Oh, it's a great start, and honestly for their needs it's more than sufficient, (and this is probably some REALLY heavy bias here) but she's no Nimitz :)
Also Foch, HMS Invincible and many others. Not being Nimitz didn't stop HMS Invincible to go to another end of the world and give a successful fight. And Invincible was much less capable (for its time) in comparison to Kuznetsov today. MiG-29K and Su-33 aren't Harriers...
I don't understand why they're still using skijumps rather than catapults...
Why virtually no WW2 carriers used catapults in day to day operations up to end of the war? Because it wasn't needed - it was helpful but not critical. It is just makes it comeback with a ski-jump twist. See this: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,357838.0.html Today 3 navies operate STOBAR carriers: Russia, China and India, it is also building a totally new carrier in same STOBAR configuration. The naval HAL Tejas is designed for ski-jump operation.
The major advantages of STOBAR:
1. Much simple aircraft design because it does not need to sustain 4G accelerations using its nose gear while weighting 68,000lb - i.e. superbug tanker. Virtually any aircraft can takeoff from ski-jump - USAF tested F-18A/B, F-15, F-16 and even E-2C - successfully. So it is much easier to modify aircraft for STOBAR operation rather than CATOBAR - Su-33, MiG-29 and Su-25 started as land aircraft. Same probably true for HAL Tejas.
2. It simplifies aircraft carrier design as and maintenance as catapult is heavy machinery...
Disadvantages are
1. Higher wind over deck requirements for takeoff for fully loaded planes: http://cppcms.com/files/skijump/ 2. Less deck space to park your planes. 3. Requirement to operate aircraft with either high T/W ratio or with low stall speed.
Title: Re: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: artik on November 02, 2016, 04:23:51 AM
Now the latest video of Mig and su training
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=x0Ytm4R0jrI
Note there are at least 4 migs. And note some of them parked with wing tanks... According to the various reports there were some upgrades of various systems on the carrier to support latest mig 29s Ins.
It seems to me that it is one of the most important upgrades that this carrier had totally new and latest migs
Title: Re: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: Shuffler on November 02, 2016, 06:54:56 AM
I understand the cv is not carrying a full compliment of aircraft. This outing is to test the new bilge pumps to see if they can keep up with the leaks. The tug is on hand to videotape the waterline to see how the draft changes. Thus knowing the test success or failure before the ship sinks.
Title: Re: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: ghi on November 02, 2016, 08:43:11 AM
I understand the cv is not carrying a full compliment of aircraft. This outing is to test the new bilge pumps to see if they can keep up with the leaks. The tug is on hand to videotape the waterline to see how the draft changes. Thus knowing the test success or failure before the ship sinks.
:rofl
This smoking ships moving slowly around Europe are like a fishing lure, trolling armies for the battle of Dabiq and Meggido .
Title: Re: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: Rich46yo on November 02, 2016, 12:53:52 PM
The worst thing for ANY kind of CV is confined waters. I would call a CV close to shore "confined" as well. Land based aircraft and weapons have just become deadlier and deadlier at longer ranges over the last 30 years. Im starting to wonder if the day of CVs, at least large ones, will be over one day. What with hypersonic, stealth, advanced precision weaponry, better and more Intel assets. Is the day of building 50 to 100 k ton CVs approaching its end?
The answer might be with the new stealthy drone sub hunter we will shortly be deploying. There is no unreachable tech in building stealth 10,000 ton sized semi-submersibles capable of carrying 20 airframes all of which are drones and with a minimal crew to operate it. If the enemy cant track it then its like a Missile boat cause nobody knows its there. These 100,000 ton super CVs with their escort leave such large signatures and even wheeling around in the open ocean they are potentially vulnerable and we leave a lot of eggs in very few baskets.
And now with missiles like the Kh-32 and the Chinese IRBM a threat for CVs its going to become more and more difficult to protect them. I know the USN isnt sitting on its heels but it appears to me the platform itself, like the BB before it, is being surpassed by technological innovation.
Title: Re: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: shermanjr on November 02, 2016, 03:36:19 PM
The Admiral Kuznetsov is actually a floating POS. There is a reason why a tug has to sortie out with the Admiral Kuznetsov when it goes on its cruises as the ship is prone to breaking down and needing to be towed back to port.
so its like a ford...
Title: Re: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: Shuffler on November 02, 2016, 04:49:24 PM
typical knights, always takeoff without ords. :angel:
Title: Re: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: Bodhi on November 04, 2016, 10:00:31 AM
This is nothing more than a PR stunt and an attempt by Putin to show the world that Russia is still "powerful". The Kuznetsov is mechanically unreliable and it's airwing is hampered by short combat radius and inability to carry full ord load outs. The Russians are not capable of defending this ship should just about anyone choose to confront them.
Title: Re: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: Chalenge on November 04, 2016, 12:07:33 PM
It would be awesome if pirates sortied out and took the carrier hostage. :devil
Title: Re: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: Ack-Ack on November 04, 2016, 01:29:10 PM
it's airwing is hampered by short combat radius and inability to carry full ord load outs.
You are most likely wrong about it. There is common misconception that STOBAR is way limited. I wrote about it before, you can search. In fact you can find pictures of MiG-29K on a board of a carrier with 3 tanks and 2 anti-ship missiles... In the video linked in this discussion there are MiGs with 3 tanks...
I think it is mostly due to misunderstanding how ski-jump works and helps: http://cppcms.com/files/skijump/
Quote
This is nothing more than a PR stunt and an attempt by Putin to show the world that Russia is still "powerful"
I think additionally it is to combat test their latest MiG-29Ks... And these are state of the art gen 4+ planes...
Title: Re: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: Zimme83 on November 04, 2016, 03:16:02 PM
They are very limited in range due to no air-to-air refueling capability.
Overall the endurance seems very limited, its not just the carrier and the planes but escort and supply ships. Im not convinced about their capability to conduct combat operations far from a friendly port. As for syria it would have been easier to just fly the planes from Russia and land them on one of their bases in Syria...
Title: Re: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: artik on November 04, 2016, 03:42:22 PM
That boom sure looks like it has been Photoshopped into the picture. The lighting on it does not match the angle of lighting on the plane. I could be wrong, but it is suspect to me.
Title: Re: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: artik on November 04, 2016, 04:19:28 PM
That boom sure looks like it has been Photoshopped into the picture. The lighting on it does not match the angle of lighting on the plane. I could be wrong, but it is suspect to me.
This one is photoshoped too?
https://youtu.be/1hliedgk01k?t=87 (Official video by UAC)
The buddy refueling system is one of the package options for MiG-29K.
Title: Re: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: Skuzzy on November 04, 2016, 04:38:14 PM
Title: Re: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: Gman on November 04, 2016, 05:21:19 PM
The Kirov class ship is a far greater threat than the carrier is. I'd wager it's S300 class SAM systems have greater range than the SU33s, maybe even the new Mig29ks do, in terms of point defense missions for the aircraft. Even if they don't, it's probably close. Striking power wise, the Kirov class ship has more offensive firepower than I think every aircraft on that carrier would have since even the Mig29ks are limited in terms of payload due to the nature of the non catobar ski jump deal. Anyhow, if I was the blue team commander/SSN captain fighting that fleet, the Peter the not so Great Kirov battlecruiser would be my priority target, then the Kuznetsov.
It is kinda neat to see a Russia fleet at sea in force like the good old cold war days. Looks like a couple Udaloys are along as escort as well. At least the paint job is nice on the Kirov ship, ahah. I wonder how much longer it can sail before having a major mechanical casualty, it's really a tradition for that ship to have a major issue and need to be towed to port. I guess that's why Russia wants that Syrian port to stay in existence for them so badly, so they can tow that POS carrier there if need be while operating in the Med. Long, long way home to Severomorsk or Ployarny by comparison. Speaking of tug boats, the tug with the Russian fleet has its beacon on, so you can track the entire fleet on those sea going ATC like sights like flightradar but for ships. Hah, GG Russia on the intelligence coup there.
I do agree that the Mig29k is a pretty advanced gen 4/+ fighter, especially by Russian/Chinese standards. They really, really rushed to get the ones on board ready for this deployment. The SU33s are still a beautiful looking aircraft, it's hard not to like it just based on the great lines and huge size. Those Sukoi 27 class fighters are very, very large, and are really the first Russian/Soviet fighters not made for PVO that have/had decent range, at least when land based, heh. Pretty incredible how the Su35 moves around the sky with all that size and weight, seeing that little pilot in the little cockpit with that huge airframe attached to him/it is a sight to see in real life (Abby international air show back in the 90s).
Regarding refueling, I've posted often before regarding this achilles heel of the USN - having little tanker support other than relying on the USAF land based - which sort of negates the advantages of having a CVN force in the first place, relying on land based stuff - or buddy SuperHornet tankers, which strip the squadrons of planes that should be strikers/air defense instead of hauling fuel. It's a major item on the USN's radar, they have tossed around making the new UCAV a tanker (not sure about having a pilotless tanker, no matter how good it works..), or, the idea I like, building a dedicated tanker aircraft and basing them on the ships. They have room, the current CVNs have air wings that always are far under the max what the carrier can haul, so why not a small detachment of 4 or 6 tankers, sort of the size of the AWACS detachments. I've seen stuff about turning the V22 into a tanker, and the tanker variant of that would be OK for the Marines and their F35B, barely, but the SuperHornets slowest controlable/stable speed for refueling is near the max that the V22 tanker idea could fly, so I still think a dedicated twin jet or fast turbo prop tanker bird would be the way to go. The Superhornet has pretty poor range compared to the past attack aircraft the USN had (A6, F14 even), and the legacy Hornet is far, far worse. Need range, and since the USN is stuck with the SH, and not getting the F14 back, and the new F35C is no long range bird either...tankers are a must IMO, as relying on land based tankers, especially far out in the Pacific, South China sea, etc, will be a poor idea.
Even the old S3 Viking had a proposed tanker variant that would have held 6x what a single SuperHornet could using 3 of the largest drop tanks they carried, so I think building a dedicated tanker, even that size, but hopefully larger than the S3 should be able to carry 15k+ gallons of fuel for offloading to strikers and fighters. Even the new E2D Hawkeye AWACS has refueling capability, so having a tanker to help keep these very advanced now and extremely important aircraft airborne and on station longer, is a critical issue IMO.
Title: Re: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: ghi on November 04, 2016, 08:36:59 PM
Better fear him; from what i read, the outcome of this war is to be decided by "flying scrolls"/missiles not boats. Back in 90s during his first term, the orthodox communities identified him as the "the King of the North ", "the one who was ,won't be but will come again ", and wrotte about his 2nd term. There are churches in Russia worshipping him as a reincarnated saint. He is immortal, :noid chosen for a mission to stand against the Antichrist and destroy the Babylon.
2nd I don't think buddy system is actually needed in the Mediterranean...
Without a doubt... But how would you train/test new procurement :bolt:
Oh, had missed that. But nevertheless: the ability to conduct long range strikes is very limited and it will be very hard to perform long range operations over any longer period of time. Plus that they have no AWACS and that is a very big limitation for Russian fighters, bigger than for ex American.
As said above: the cruisers w SAM:s and cruise missiles etc is prob a much bigger threat.
Title: Re: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: zack1234 on November 05, 2016, 04:08:17 AM
I would own him in a fist fight!
Title: Re: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: artik on November 05, 2016, 05:30:11 AM
Plus that they have no AWACS and that is a very big limitation for Russian fighters, bigger than for ex American.
Actually they have: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-31 it serves in 3 Navies: Russian, Indian and Chinese
In fact Indian Navy are very enthusiastic users of Ka-31.
I agree that helicopter is less efficient than classic plane based AWACS due to range/speed/loiter time limitations. On the other hand they can operate from any ship.
In any case not every carrier need to be Nimitz... When Invinsible sailed to south Atlantic, it hadn't even comparable capabilities to Kuznetsov or even smaller recent INS Vikramaditya.
Title: Re: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: artik on November 05, 2016, 05:41:16 AM
I think building a dedicated tanker, even that size, but hopefully larger than the S3 should be able to carry 15k+ gallons of fuel for offloading to strikers and fighters.
The problem with dedicated tankers is that they are big and when not in use do not provide any added value. US Navy in and airforces general move to multi-role aircraft so figher can do strikes and do refueling. No need for A-6 or special tanker when same aircraft can do all the jobs - it significantly simplifies logistics and makes the force much more flexible.
Consider - you need to bomb targets that do not have proper air-defences/air-forces so you need mostly striking capabilities with limiter air-to-air force. You can also come closer to the target and not needing air to air refueling in first place, on the other hand you can have strong air defenses with more limited striking capability fighting against capable opponent.
Finally - on of the most important uses of buddy refueling system ins't only to increase the range but also help planes in need that due to various reasons may run out of fueling before landing.
So... it isn't that simple. You always need to consider logistics and price you need to pay. Also any naval task group is dependent on a fleet of sea tankers to pump jet fuel to Nimitz class carriers that can't sustain long combat without refueling...
Title: Re: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: Zimme83 on November 05, 2016, 06:41:03 AM
Actually they have: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-31 it serves in 3 Navies: Russian, Indian and Chinese
In fact Indian Navy are very enthusiastic users of Ka-31.
I agree that helicopter is less efficient than classic plane based AWACS due to range/speed/loiter time limitations. On the other hand they can operate from any ship.
In any case not every carrier need to be Nimitz... When Invinsible sailed to south Atlantic, it hadn't even comparable capabilities to Kuznetsov or even smaller recent INS Vikramaditya.
Ka-31 is very limited in its capabilities and it will be hard to use them to provide radar coverage over a combat zone, if Awacs are vulnerable to enemy fighters then the Ka-31...
Kuznetsov might work in a Falkland style conflict - if they can get the support ships it need. But Russias problem is that they need a Nimitz... They wants to be a superpower and then they need a full size carrier (or a few). Kuznetsov will not be enough against a more qualified enemy.
Title: Re: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: Shuffler on November 05, 2016, 06:58:18 AM
Ka-31 is very limited in its capabilities and it will be hard to use them to provide radar coverage over a combat zone, if Awacs are vulnerable to enemy fighters then the Ka-31...
Kuznetsov might work in a Falkland style conflict - if they can get the support ships it need. But Russias problem is that they need a Nimitz... They wants to be a superpower and then they need a full size carrier (or a few). Kuznetsov will not be enough against a more qualified enemy.
Wow.... How many tugs does it take to get it to the Falklands? Can the tugs refuel off the carrier?
Title: Re: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: NatCigg on November 05, 2016, 12:06:15 PM
Better fear him; from what i read, the outcome of this war is to be decided by "flying scrolls"/missiles not boats. Back in 90s during his first term, the orthodox communities identified him as the "the King of the North ", "the one who was ,won't be but will come again ", and wrotte about his 2nd term. There are churches in Russia worshipping him as a reincarnated saint. He is immortal, :noid chosen for a mission to stand against the Antichrist and destroy the Babylon.
Title: Re: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: Meatwad on November 05, 2016, 12:09:45 PM
Paper aeroplanes
Title: Re: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: Gman on November 05, 2016, 01:00:26 PM
Artik most of that makes no sense. If it did, why does the USN rely on land based tankers so much still?
Quote
The problem with dedicated tankers is that they are big and when not in use do not provide any added value
No added value? Considering that now the USN has to use UP strikers to perform tank duties, where as with a dedicated tanker force, those aircraft are now added to the strikers and fighters column. There is a reason creating a CVN based tanker is a priority with the USN right now, even gone so far as to test the new UCAV as a dedicated tanker to free up strikers. A single dedicated tanker would be able to do the job of a 4 ship or even 8 ship of buddy tankers. A dedicated tanker isn't THAT big, no larger a deck footprint than what the AWACS birds would take up, plus as already stated, the current force structure of a carrier air wing is FAR smaller than what the ships can handle in the first place.
Your point that the strikers/tankers can do both jobs - actually, no they can't, not simultaneously, when they are set up for buddy refueling, they are doing THAT job, not striking, the USN doesn't task their SH set up with the buddy refuel tank to do strikes as well, THEN become a tanker - it's tasked as just a tanker, again, removing it from the strike capable aircraft at that time. Yes, it can be used as a striker instead of a tanker just by configuring it so on deck, but then there wouldn't be ANY tankers available if that was done, and the entire point is that the SH/Hornet's range is pretty short for a striker, thus the need for tankers in the first place.
The SH is a fantastic strike fighter, however it IS very range limited. Considering the range of land based anti ship weapons, and the range of anti ship fighters and strikers potential threats have, this is not very far, hence the huge use of buddy tankers. Buddy tankers have NO advantage, it's all in the minus column, again, those SH aren't part of the strike force and then somehow magically become tankers to tank everyone on the way home. It's one mission or the other. Since there IS so much free space left in the air wing, why not use a dedicated fuel bird and free all those strikers up, as the range issue isn't going away for the SH unless some magic new propulsion system comes along.
Range is of major importance - what makes the Russian carrier so poor - aside from the constant breakdowns, but in terms of theory - is that it's aircraft and strikers have such limited range due to the non-catobar ski jump deal. The SU33 has to be downloaded in fuel and/or weapons just to get off the deck, the Mig29k is an improvement, but still has a range and payload that's even worse than the Superhornet.
Title: Re: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: Serenity on November 05, 2016, 01:47:16 PM
Artik most of that makes no sense. If it did, why does the USN rely on land based tankers so much still? No added value? Considering that now the USN has to use UP strikers to perform tank duties, where as with a dedicated tanker force, those aircraft are now added to the strikers and fighters column. There is a reason creating a CVN based tanker is a priority with the USN right now, even gone so far as to test the new UCAV as a dedicated tanker to free up strikers. A single dedicated tanker would be able to do the job of a 4 ship or even 8 ship of buddy tankers. A dedicated tanker isn't THAT big, no larger a deck footprint than what the AWACS birds would take up, plus as already stated, the current force structure of a carrier air wing is FAR smaller than what the ships can handle in the first place.
Your point that the strikers/tankers can do both jobs - actually, no they can't, not simultaneously, when they are set up for buddy refueling, they are doing THAT job, not striking, the USN doesn't task their SH set up with the buddy refuel tank to do strikes as well, THEN become a tanker - it's tasked as just a tanker, again, removing it from the strike capable aircraft at that time. Yes, it can be used as a striker instead of a tanker just by configuring it so on deck, but then there wouldn't be ANY tankers available if that was done, and the entire point is that the SH/Hornet's range is pretty short for a striker, thus the need for tankers in the first place.
The SH is a fantastic strike fighter, however it IS very range limited. Considering the range of land based anti ship weapons, and the range of anti ship fighters and strikers potential threats have, this is not very far, hence the huge use of buddy tankers. Buddy tankers have NO advantage, it's all in the minus column, again, those SH aren't part of the strike force and then somehow magically become tankers to tank everyone on the way home. It's one mission or the other. Since there IS so much free space left in the air wing, why not use a dedicated fuel bird and free all those strikers up, as the range issue isn't going away for the SH unless some magic new propulsion system comes along.
Range is of major importance - what makes the Russian carrier so poor - aside from the constant breakdowns, but in terms of theory - is that it's aircraft and strikers have such limited range due to the non-catobar ski jump deal. The SU33 has to be downloaded in fuel and/or weapons just to get off the deck, the Mig29k is an improvement, but still has a range and payload that's even worse than the Superhornet.
Beat me to it!
Title: Re: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: GScholz on November 05, 2016, 01:50:16 PM
Or you could use that extra space to ad even more strike aircraft...
Title: Re: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: Serenity on November 05, 2016, 01:51:43 PM
Or you could use that extra space to ad even more strike aircraft...
We don't necessarily need MORE strike craft, what we need is fewer cycle hours on the pilots, airframes, and equipment. The UCAV is actually a GREAT option for our tanker.
Title: Re: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: GScholz on November 05, 2016, 02:09:15 PM
The Su-33 is being phased out in favor of the MiG-29K since the Su-33 production line closed with the collapse of the USSR and never reopened. Only about 35 were produced. It was more cost effective to just piggy back on the Indian order since they had already paid for opening the production line.
The SU-33 cannot take off with a full war load from the two forward launch positions. It can launch with full load from the aft launch position that uses the maximum amount of deck space. It can however launch from the forward two positions with enough fuel and weapons for scrambling fleet defense ops.
Title: Re: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: Gman on November 06, 2016, 12:01:40 AM
The Mig29k is a much better aircraft for a naval strike fighter on paper, no doubt, lots to read about the Indian navy and how they have used theirs. If they ever build a catobar carrier they'll really be able to load that thing up too, even with the stobar method now they are much improved, yet still not able to lift what they can from land based or catobar systems.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwDqlAmJjsg
I'd not realized how much fuel that X47 UTanker (haha) UCAV can carry. Empty weight is under 15k for that thing, and it can be launched off the deck at 47k - depending on how the internal bays are configured with tanks instead of weapons, that means a potential for a LOT of gas, easily 20k, but probably far more, no info out there on exactly how much, but it'll be a lot. The tests worked out well too, I suppose with the basket method it's easier for the AI to do tanking than a probe method ever would be for the USAF. Stealth tanker would be good for defense similar to what Artik pointed out too, that the SH buddy tankers could at least defend themselves/jettison/run, unlike a dedicated tanker. Hard to find that X47 probably if it went L/O if it needed to. I wonder if it'll happen, USN doing a limited run on X47 UTanks...
Title: Re: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: artik on November 06, 2016, 06:54:17 AM
@Gman
Several notes a6 and f18 tanker carry similar amount of fuel but 1/2 of old a3. So it isn't small tanker, also not the huge a3.
Now the flexibility isn't in same mission. Technically you can take a tanker for every strike aircraft or even do something crazy like Brits did on Falklands with Vulcan.
So you can create have either small or huge carrier fleet depending on needs and tradeoff the difference.
Now regarding limitations of STOBAR you are wrong it does allow high load takeoff. BTW stressing the airframe much less in comparison to tanker takeoff from catapult.
Look at this point in video you linked
https://youtu.be/rwDqlAmJjsg?t=253
Title: Re: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: GScholz on November 06, 2016, 09:08:55 AM
Yes, with the MiG's tremendous power to weight ratio, I would be very surprised if it couldn't take off with max load from the aft launch position.
A thing thats pretty stressful to engines and airframes even under normal conditions without having to stress them further with maximum loads. Its not like the Russians need more hard flying on their engines in the first place. Isnt that one of the main reasons for the ski jump?
Title: Re: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: artik on November 06, 2016, 01:45:00 PM
A thing thats pretty stressful to engines and airframes even under normal conditions without having to stress them further with maximum loads. Its not like the Russians need more hard flying on their engines in the first place. Isnt that one of the main reasons for the ski jump?
Actually ski jump is way more gentle on the airframe during the takeoff than catapult. Catapult uses single point to accelerate an aircraft on full load during very short distance of +-100m. Giving up to 4g acceleration.
It is one of the heaviest duty on the airframe especially for tankers. It is actually more stressful than landing.
The ski jump is much more gentle. In fact virtually all land based fighters even with fragile gear like f16 are capable of ski jump. USAF actually tested it as an approach to handle takeoff from damaged airbase.
If you take a look on the simulation I posted before you'll see that the acceleration is quite low.
Title: Re: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: GScholz on November 06, 2016, 01:57:18 PM
Rich, it's no more stressful for the engines than a normal take off on a normal runway. I don't understand how you would think otherwise?
Title: Re: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: artik on November 07, 2016, 01:46:41 AM
I looked once again on the data and mig 29k has +-0.73 thrust to weight ratio at Max takeoff weight su 33 has 0.78 in comparison to 0.67 of super hornet.
Indeed according to my simulation with such a T/W ratio it is not problem at all to takeoff from long 180m strip at full takeoff weight having only 25 knots of WOD
Title: Re: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: Serenity on November 08, 2016, 04:35:41 AM
Title: Re: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: ghi on November 14, 2016, 03:05:59 PM
Raqqa Syria Offensive , crazy video uploaded today, YPG misses Islamic State SVBIED with wire-guided ATGM; France Spec Ops save the day using #Javelin .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8CNWbqmhDw
Title: Re: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: artik on November 16, 2016, 07:40:19 AM
Interesting what was the reason of the crash...
To be honest it seems like they pushed barely trained pilots to the service. I've read recently that only few month ago MiG-29 pilots were doing training at Nitka ground test facility at Crimea before the got to actual flying. I have strong suspicions, that it was some issues with training or pilots were pushed to harsh conditions too early. I'm not sure that few month from initial training on land based facilities to combat deployment enough ;-)
Finally India flies these migs for much longer period from Vikramaditya and even longer from shores - also Indian Navy have way more experience with carrier operations than Russia - they do it since 1961...
Title: Re: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: Gman on November 16, 2016, 11:24:24 AM
USNI Navy website has reported that the 6 SU33s that were embarked on Kuznetsov are now being used as land based attack aircraft, and no longer on the carrier. That leaves 3 Mig29ks single seaters, as the 2 seater is the one that crashed.
Title: Re: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: Ack-Ack on November 16, 2016, 08:04:46 PM
USNI Navy website has reported that the 6 SU33s that were embarked on Kuznetsov are now being used as land based attack aircraft, and no longer on the carrier. That leaves 3 Mig29ks single seaters, as the 2 seater is the one that crashed.
As I said in another board, "Admiral Kuznetsov" is is more of an inter-coastal ferry than an aircraft carrier.
Title: Re: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: zack1234 on November 17, 2016, 11:16:49 AM
It's the best carrier in the world
The UK has a new carrier but no planes to put onit
Title: Re: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: Zimme83 on November 23, 2016, 07:40:50 AM
Seems like the arrestor gear on the Kuznetzov failed and the MiG-29KR simply ran out of fuel... https://www.gazeta.ru/army/2016/11/21/10354847.shtml
Title: Re: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: zack1234 on November 23, 2016, 04:14:01 PM
Very interesting read :old:
Title: Re: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: Plawranc on November 25, 2016, 01:39:17 AM
Considering the Russians have nothing like the budget that the USDF has its unlikely that they will be able to compete on anything less than a strategic/nuclear level.
Title: Re: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: zack1234 on November 26, 2016, 04:21:26 AM
:rofl
The fact that this threat is so long is a topic on its own
:rofl
Title: Re: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: Bodhi on December 03, 2016, 03:08:19 PM
Great aircraft carrier.... so great that it offloaded the majority of it's strikers to Syria.... :rolleyes:
It is clear, Russian naval aviation is in deep trouble
It looks like the crews are horribly trained
Title: Re: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: Zimme83 on December 05, 2016, 04:54:36 AM
http://www.interfax.ru/world/539925
Here they talk about some kind of "failure of a cable arresting gear". But nevertheless, 2 lost aircrafts in a few weeks is a huge failure. They had 10 Su-33 and 4 MiG-29 onboard to start with. Now they have the 3 MiG:s that are capable of conducting ground attack missions (with any advanced weapons, the Flankers can carry dumb bombs but are still very limited in the ground attack role) and no planes that can fly as a tanker (the only one was the lost MiG-29)..
Also loosing the MiG due to fuel starvation because they didn't divert it in time...
Title: Re: Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...
Post by: Shuffler on December 05, 2016, 08:01:45 PM