Admiral Kuznetzov class

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Webmaster said that the russian doesn't have an Aircraft Carrier that equal with USA AC, but how about The Admiral Kuznetzov class? Is it also scrapped by the Russian ? I've once read an article that she can launch Su-27 not only Yak, it's a pity if she was scrapped,
 

highsea

New Member
The Kuznetsov is still in service with the Northern Fleet. She has recently returned from excersizes in the Barents Sea. The air wing consists of Yak-41M's and Su-33's. At ~60k tons, the Kuznetsov is smaller than Nimitz class carriers, and is considered a heavy cruiser by US measure.

The second ship of the Kuznetsov class was the Varyag, which was sold to China in an unfinished condition. Varyag is now in drydock in Dalian shipyard undergoing some work that has led to a great deal of speculation.
 

doggychow14

New Member
The krutznev cannot hold any where near the amount of aircraft as a nimitz. It lacks a catapalt system and funding. Nothing in the world at the moment can match a US nuclear powered carrier armed with a 50 + airwing of f18s, prowlers, and awacs.
 

ajay_ijn

New Member
Soviets did try to make a Carrier that Could match US Carriers.
It was to be Nuke Powered and weighed about 80000 tons.
It was to carry as many as 70 aircraft.
But bad luck soviet union became russia when 45% work on the carrier was
completed.
Russia had no money so Scrap.
Soviet Collapse was much of disappioinment to many thrid world countries (I mean Soviet Allies) including india.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
pasukangeraktjepat said:
The Webmaster said that the russian doesn't have an Aircraft Carrier that equal with USA AC, but how about The Admiral Kuznetzov class? Is it also scrapped by the Russian ? I've once read an article that she can launch Su-27 not only Yak, it's a pity if she was scrapped,
The Kuznetsov was a ramp only launch. That means a few things:

  • Lower sortie rate for all of her aircraft
  • she only had space for one ramp launch at a time, whereas the US can do a minimum of 2 at a time and at a faster launch rate due to catapults
  • her aircrafts performance was limited due to the ramp issues. They were unable to take a full weapons or fuel load so are less than satisfactory for issues such as strike or cap
  • she had no organic AAR for the carriers aircraft
she never used Su-27's. They're too heavy and are not designed anyway for carrier work. The Mig-29's used were heavily modified for robustness issues.

all in all, Russian aircraft carriers were no better than the UK Invincibles. In real terms the Invincibles were better as they carried more combat aircraft, were able to refuel from buddies, had organic AEW and her combat aircraft were VSTOL. They could sortie more aircraft faster and with better warloads.

The only advantage that the K's had over Invincibles was in organic weapons. They are not even remotely competitive against a smaller conventional nuke carrier like the Charles de Gaulle.

addendum:

Highsea has just pointed out to me that she used Su-33's, which are in essence and Su-27k. So adjust accordingly. ;)
 
Last edited:
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #6
Thanks for the information, Highsea and Gf.Sorry that i make two same thread, the connection in internet cafe where i on-line was down when i send the first thread so i send the thread again.
You say that the Admiral Kuznetzov is an heavy aviation cruiser, is that mean he posses the weaponry of cruiser? I mean like the weaponry of US Navy cruiser, like an Air to Land Missile, Anti Submarine rocket, or Torpedo.
 

Salty Dog

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
she never used Su-27's. They're too heavy and are not designed anyway for carrier work. The Mig-29's used were heavily modified for robustness issues.
The Admiral Kusnetzov operates the Su-33 which is the carrier version of the Su-27 with more robust under carriage and folding wings. STOBAR only.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The Admiral Kusnetzov operates the Su-33 which is the carrier version of the Su-27 with more robust under carriage and folding wings. STOBAR only.
.... and they cannot carry a full warload compared to the landbased legacy variant.

STOBAR have inherent limitations
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
.... and they cannot carry a full warload compared to the landbased legacy variant.

STOBAR have inherent limitations
Correct me if i'm wrong, but IWUTI that there are 3 take off runs on the Kut's, 2 short and 1 long (whcich extends into the landing area). When takeing off on the short the SU 33's payload is limited, but on the long one they can indeed get airborne with MTOW. This may be smaller that an SU 30 but its a hell of alot more than a harrier.

BTW a couple of questions aboyt the Kuts, stuff that i cant really answer through google (conflicting reports):

  • 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.
  • Whats the average CAG taken on a Kut? I've read a short squadron of SU-33's (12) and annother short squadron of KA 27's (~12), but thats not 50 AC? Is ther 2 squadrons usually deployed and how large are they ect ect ect.
  • Is there an AEW version of KA 27 operational? If so what type of radar system is installed and any word on its capabilities?
 

funtz

New Member
Is there an AEW version of KA 27 operational? If so what type of radar system is installed and any word on its capabilities?
This is the Ka-31 in service with the IN
KAMOV KA-31 HELIX-B
The Ka-31 is fitted with the E-801M Oko (Eye) airborne electronic warfare radar
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Ka-31.html

The flight deck of the Ka-31 Naval Helicopter is wider than that of the Ka-27 and accommodates two crew, the pilot and the navigator. The cockpit is armour protected.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/ka31/
about the radar
The L-band E-801M Oko (Eye) AEW and surface surveillance radar is described as being a pulse-Doppler equipment that makes use of a rectangular passive phased array antenna that is scanned mechanically in azimuth and electronically in elevation. As such, the assembly incorporates an array of 96 individual antenna elements (arranged in four rows with 24 units in each row) and has a rotation rate of 6 rpm.

E-801M is further noted as being optimised for the detection of low-flying air targets in heavy land or sea clutter and as offering air-to-air, air-to-surface and combined operating modes. Here, the combined mode sees the system observing sea surface targets for five azimuth scans, with the sixth switching to air-to-air surveillance.

Functionally, the system acquires, locates and tracks targets and only requires human intervention in terms of switching the radar on, deploying its antenna and selecting the required operating mode. In the Ka-31 application, the E-801M radar is understood to be fully integrated with the platform's onboard avionics and is described as simultaneously displaying a synthetic radar image, target markers/information and 'historic traces' to the helicopter's navigator/system observer (via the CABRIS-31 display sub-system on Indian aircraft - see Status) and handing-off information (via data link) to an associated ground or shipboard control centre.

Designated as E-801ME in its export version, the E-801M is further noted as being supported by a built-in test routine and dedicated test equipment. Janeʼs sources also report NIIRT as having developed ground-mobile (featuring a deployable 12 to 16 m high antenna mast) and airborne ground surveillance (with a 5.5 m long by 0.8 m deep antenna array) variants of the baseline Oko architecture.
http://www.janes.com/extracts/extract/jrew/jrew2316.html

his may be smaller that an SU 30 but its a hell of alot more than a harrier.
What is the difference in terms of weight with which aircrafts can land? ( in comparative terms of vertical landing and assister recovery).

Could the Sea Harriers actually take-off and land with 2 sea eagle missiles on a carrier?
 
Last edited:

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Discussing the merits of the Su33 to the Harrier is academic.

The issues with any STOBAR (and they're inseperable) are

volley rate and numbers of aircraft for strike and CAP
form up rate as it effects package coherence
delays due to volley rate
load out and impediments
organic ewarfare relevant to the strike package.
organic support relevant to the strike package

STOBAR is a compromise.

Its more relevant to compare Kuznetzov with CdeGaulle as you can at least look at relative strike package similarities (and the french win on the ewarfare element as well as "other" organic support issues)


Galrahn can provide some additional input here (if he's lurking)
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
Discussing the merits of the Su33 to the Harrier is academic.

The issues with any STOBAR (and they're inseperable) are

volley rate and numbers of aircraft for strike and CAP
form up rate as it effects package coherence
delays due to volley rate
load out and impediments
organic ewarfare relevant to the strike package.
organic support relevant to the strike package

STOBAR is a compromise.

Its more relevant to compare Kuznetzov with CdeGaulle as you can at least look at relative strike package similarities (and the french win on the ewarfare element as well as "other" organic support issues)


Galrahn can provide some additional input here (if he's lurking)

A comparison between STOBAR & CATOBAR clearly indicates how much more effecteive CATOBAR is, as stated above. However a comparison between STOBAR and STOVL should be much more interesting (which is what i thought we were discussing). Both are usefull for smaller "teir 2/3" navies, and i'm wodering what the difference in sortie rates is between these two systems. Currently the biggest difference i can see is Harrier vs SU-33 or MiG-29K, and the performace and payload advantages that go with those platforms.

fruntz: much appreciated.
 

funtz

New Member
I guess, Discussing the merits of the Kuznetzov to anything else could also be considered academic.

STOBAR is obviously a compromise (economical/technical?), what else could it be.

Even so, it is seems that this platform has not been utilized as much as it could have (for reasons frequently stated), some information seems to suggest that this ship is to serve in the Russian navy till 2030,
In what role will it do This?
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I guess, Discussing the merits of the Kuznetzov to anything else could also be considered academic.

STOBAR is obviously a compromise (economical/technical?), what else could it be.

Even so, it is seems that this platform has not been utilized as much as it could have (for reasons frequently stated), some information seems to suggest that this ship is to serve in the Russian navy till 2030,
In what role will it do This?
I had some recent traffic on what was forseen for Kuznetsov, I'll see if I am allowed to release it as it was sent internally.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I guess, Discussing the merits of the Kuznetzov to anything else could also be considered academic.

STOBAR is obviously a compromise (economical/technical?), what else could it be.
I'd be more inclined to compare it to a vessel of similar displacement and mass due to a number of issues.

As such I think a comparison with CdG is the closest current operational fit.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
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.

Tas
 

Salty Dog

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
.... 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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top