This is a discussion on Admiral Kuznetzov class within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by funtz
I guess, Discussing the merits of the Kuznetzov to anything else could also be considered academic.
...
The ship is quite smokey in the close up shots, she may be been manouvering at the time.
Also noticeable is the comparatively small size of the airgroup that can be seen on the flightdeck. There may, of course, be more aircraft in the hangar but I suspect that the total airgroup that can be efficiently operated is only around 20/25, quite small considering the size of the ship. This would reinforce the comments made by several posters concerning the inefficiency of STOBAR operations.
.... and they cannot carry a full warload compared to the landbased legacy variant.
STOBAR have inherent limitations
I agree. There is a work-around for STOBAR MTOW (and even used for CATOBAR).
Your aircraft can take-off with a full weapons load, albeit with a light fuel load. Once airborne, you top-off from another aircraft with buddy stores or a land based tanker. I do not know if Russia has a buddy stores capability.
Also noticeable is the comparatively small size of the airgroup that can be seen on the flightdeck. There may, of course, be more aircraft in the hangar but I suspect that the total airgroup that can be efficiently operated is only around 20/25, quite small considering the size of the ship. This would reinforce the comments made by several posters concerning the inefficiency of STOBAR operations.
I would also suspect that Russia has very few qualified carrier pilots.
The Med cruise (even if short) was the first in many years and no doubt it was important to be in the worldwide news to make a statement. Any accidents or incidents on this cruise would have been catastrophic.
Of other importance internally, it would boost the morale of the Russian Navy which has not been the blue water force it was since the Cold War and break-up of the USSR.
Whats the status of the YAK 41M, is it operational and if so does anyone have any info re its capabilities? Some of the stuff i've read says that only a prototype was built, and then other stuff says itsoperational on the Kut.
The Yak-41 was a supersonic capable V/STOL follow-on to the Yak-38 employed on the Kiev class cruiser-carrier. Never got past RDT&E stage most likely to budget as well as eventual decomm of the Kiev class.
The Yak-41M was to be the land based version for the Air Force.
I agree. There is a work-around for STOBAR MTOW (and even used for CATOBAR).
Your aircraft can take-off with a full weapons load, albeit with a light fuel load. Once airborne, you top-off from another aircraft with buddy stores or a land based tanker. I do not know if Russia has a buddy stores capability.
The problem is that this does not improve or positively change the impact of lower volley, package form up rates and thus coherent package to target issues. It gives a better rate for the STOBAR carrier, but it does not make it any more competitive against CTOL as other mission parameters still stay in the red.
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
I agree. There is a work-around for STOBAR MTOW (and even used for CATOBAR).
Your aircraft can take-off with a full weapons load, albeit with a light fuel load. Once airborne, you top-off from another aircraft with buddy stores or a land based tanker. I do not know if Russia has a buddy stores capability.
Russia does have a buddy refueling capability, at least on the Flanker family.
Is the effort of installing-operating-maintaining catapults on a carrier that complex (technically-economically), as to justify a less effective compromise?
Last edited by funtz; February 9th, 2008 at 10:10 AM.
The buddy- buddy refueling pod, is it really that much of an effort to install it, for it to be worth talking about? The Russian pod is called UPAZ, right?
From what I've heard, carrying and using the buddy refueling pods is not a major task, involving only modifications to the aircraft's fuel management system. Modern FMS (even on smaller fighters) are capable of handling this job even without any modifications.
Quote:
Originally Posted by funtz
Is the effort of installing-operating-maintaining catapults on a carrier that complex (technically-economically), as to justify a less effective compromise?
Currently, the only catapults available are those powered by steam. This requires a large amount of the onboard volume and power to generate the steam (always done near the engine/reactor room, pump it, store it and finally blast it ). The tanks and pipes occupy a large amount of volume and require frequent maintenance.
The power of the catapult has to be manually adjusted every time a different aircraft type needs to be launched (you wouldn't use the launch power used for a light fighter like a F-8 Crusader to launch a heavy aircraft like an E-2 Hawkeye).
So, if you have a small(er) carrier to start with, skipping the catapults would look like a good idea.
However, this situation might change in the future when electromagnetic catapults enter service on the next generation of US super-carriers. Since they are all electric, all those huge steam pipes can be avoided. At the same time they can launch much heavier aircraft.
USSR missille carriers like Kuznezov designed as pure air-defence assests. Strike function is done by ship-to-ship AShM's. As such taking off with full MTOW is not quite nessesary in most cases. It was okish concept in early 80x, but now it is ofc absolote.
The main idea was to add fighter cover component to naval battle group AD and also provide cover for strategic bombers strike like Tu-22M3. For anti-ship kills such naval BG intendend to use big AShM like "Bazalt" and "Granit" with ranges 550-700km and direct satellite target acquisition, smart "swarm" mode, etc. Such ranges allowed even longer and much, much faster strike reach than comparable air-wing on f.e. USA carriers.
The problem, such aproach is quite limited first, and do not use air wing to full extent. For example, it is unsuitable against smaller vessels which do not warrant use of such expencive missiles, it cant be effectively used against land targets, etc. It is only good against big ships in big war.
Nice video, thank you for that. Clearly shows the buddy-buddy IFR.
Watching the video also comes to mind the Chinese (PLAN) have the same Kusnetsov/Su-33 system, albeit still in the works and a long way from being operational.
Perhaps it would be interesting to bring the PLAN into these Kusnetsov discussions too.
so its sort of a ship with missiles, that had aircraft carrying capability and made for the big soviet-time wars.
How many aircrafts (fixed/rotary) was it designed to carry?
However the russian naval forces have it now,
Is it planned to be used till 2030?
In what role? as the training platform for future carriers-aircraft carrying ships?
What is the offensive/defensive capability that it will offer to the russian navy till 2030 (if it serves till that time)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by vivtho
From what I've heard, carrying and using the buddy refueling pods is not a major task, involving only modifications to the aircraft's fuel management system. Modern FMS (even on smaller fighters) are capable of handling this job even without any modifications.
Currently, the only catapults available are those powered by steam. This requires a large amount of the onboard volume and power to generate the steam (always done near the engine/reactor room, pump it, store it and finally blast it ). The tanks and pipes occupy a large amount of volume and require frequent maintenance.
The power of the catapult has to be manually adjusted every time a different aircraft type needs to be launched (you wouldn't use the launch power used for a light fighter like a F-8 Crusader to launch a heavy aircraft like an E-2 Hawkeye).
So, if you have a small(er) carrier to start with, skipping the catapults would look like a good idea.
However, this situation might change in the future when electromagnetic catapults enter service on the next generation of US super-carriers. Since they are all electric, all those huge steam pipes can be avoided. At the same time they can launch much heavier aircraft.
Thank you for all of that, i thought that the Kuznetzov was a large ship, apparently the aircrafts was not the only thing they carried.
Last edited by funtz; February 9th, 2008 at 11:21 AM.
Some interesting pics, it really looks like the hull needs some TLC.
Also, as a general question to everyone, I've read that the phased arrays on the Kuzn don't work, is that still true?
). The tanks and pipes occupy a large amount of volume and require frequent maintenance.
