Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Hmm, you are quite right, my bad. Wonder where I picked that up from. I thought they were nuclear powered with a steam plant backup like the Kirov's.

 

Perhaps, but one thing is notable how much lighter the smoke plume is. Maybe they just did a better job setting her up than the Russian navy did, or there was some improvements in construction we are not aware of.

Kuznetsov's smoking issue was a red herring - it was smoking heavily when it passed the Channel because it was probably accelerating. Other pictures of the ship, including later footage from Syria do not show any excessive smoking. Of course it's possible that the ship had some temporary boiler issue, not unexpected in 30 year old steam machinery, especially as Kuznetsov has never had a proper mid-life refit.

 

Well, you fellas are commonwealth, so if it all goes Pete Tong, we shall just have to have you Imperial Eastern Franchise owners come to our aid. Again. :)

Isn't Australia filthy rich these days? They could probably buy you another entire RN.

  • Replies 2.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Posted

Kuznetsov's smoking issue was a red herring - it was smoking heavily when it passed the Channel because it was probably accelerating. Other pictures of the ship, including

do not show any excessive smoking. Of course it's possible that the ship had some temporary boiler issue, not unexpected in 30 year old steam machinery, especially as Kuznetsov has never had a proper mid-life refit.

Smoke from the low sulphur fuel used in the North Sea MARPOL emission control area. Once they left the Channel they were free to switch to their regular fuel. ;-)

Posted

 

Kuznetsov's smoking issue was a red herring - it was smoking heavily when it passed the Channel because it was probably accelerating. Other pictures of the ship, including

do not show any excessive smoking. Of course it's possible that the ship had some temporary boiler issue, not unexpected in 30 year old steam machinery, especially as Kuznetsov has never had a proper mid-life refit.

Smoke from the low sulphur fuel used in the North Sea MARPOL emission control area. Once they left the Channel they were free to switch to their regular fuel. ;-)

 

 

It is a steam engine. At certain power output ranges they all smoke heavily.

Posted

The thing about Kutznetsov, I was reading a rather good book on the old Ark Royal, and she responded to a crisis in Belize in 1972 with a considerably faster transit time (well over 20 knots in heavy seas) than the Kutznetsov did last year. Now to put that in perspective, Kutznetsov was 30 years newer technology. She has also spent considerably fewer hours at sea. She pottered all the way to syria at 12 knots with a tug on hand in case she broke down, and seemed unable to deliver the speed necessary for sustain flight operations. Now I grant you so did the Ark from time to time, but at least she had the excuse of also having to provide steam for the CAT.

 

The Russian navy have a lot of pride in her, and I can respect that. But there seems to be several things really badly wrong with her and they ought to either lay her up as a memorial to the old Soviet navy and build a new ship (and lets fact it, its not that hard. Get South Korea to do it) or throw money at it like they have with the Kirovs and rebuild it. Deploying it in that state is pretending they have a capability when they really dont.

 

In actual fact, she is now in heavy refit, Which kind of tells its own story.

Posted

The deck is christened with a Merlin landing

 

Is that how the RN Christens a deck?

 

Posted (edited)

The thing about Kutznetsov, I was reading a rather good book on the old Ark Royal, and she responded to a crisis in Belize in 1972 with a considerably faster transit time (well over 20 knots in heavy seas) than the Kutznetsov did last year. Now to put that in perspective, Kutznetsov was 30 years newer technology. She has also spent considerably fewer hours at sea. She pottered all the way to syria at 12 knots with a tug on hand in case she broke down, and seemed unable to deliver the speed necessary for sustain flight operations. Now I grant you so did the Ark from time to time, but at least she had the excuse of also having to provide steam for the CAT.

A task force is limited to the speed of the slowest ship. In this case probably the salvage tug.

 

 

In actual fact, she is now in heavy refit, Which kind of tells its own story.

What is the Russian navy's refit cycle? When did Kuznetsov last refit?

Edited by Anixtu
Posted (edited)

 

The thing about Kutznetsov, I was reading a rather good book on the old Ark Royal, and she responded to a crisis in Belize in 1972 with a considerably faster transit time (well over 20 knots in heavy seas) than the Kutznetsov did last year. Now to put that in perspective, Kutznetsov was 30 years newer technology. She has also spent considerably fewer hours at sea. She pottered all the way to syria at 12 knots with a tug on hand in case she broke down, and seemed unable to deliver the speed necessary for sustain flight operations. Now I grant you so did the Ark from time to time, but at least she had the excuse of also having to provide steam for the CAT.

A task force is limited to the speed of the slowest ship. In this case probably the salvage tug.

 

 

In actual fact, she is now in heavy refit, Which kind of tells its own story.

What is the Russian navy's refit cycle? When did Kuznetsov last refit?

 

 

True, but you have to ask why they felt the need to have a tug along at all. I can understand it for the Sovremenny's because their engines are reportedly prone to falling to bits, but the Udaloys are reportedly fairly reliable. I know they are a long way form home but encumbering yourself with a tug if you dont really envisage needing it at some point makes no sense. Nobody else seems to do it with carrier deployments.

 

Wiki quotes the sputnik report circa 2010 that the last time she was due in fora major refit was 2012, when they were supposed to remove the granit launchers, ditch the troubled steam plant and fit a catapult.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_aircraft_carrier_Admiral_Kuznetsov

In April 2010, it was announced that by the end of 2012 the ship would enter Severodvinsk Sevmash shipyard for a major refit and modernisation,[38] reportedly to include upgrades to obsolete electronics and sensor equipment, installation of a new anti-aircraft system and increase of the air wing by the removal of the P-700 Granit anti-ship missiles; it was thought possible that the refit would also include exchanging the troublesome steam powerplant to gas-turbine or even nuclear propulsion and installation of catapults to the angled deck.[38]

https://sputniknews.com/analysis/20100406158454665/

 

 

From what they say on the Russian Military Forum, they were intended to give her last cruise in 2011 and have her back in the water in 2017. Which suggests that her last major maintenance (they put her in dry dock) would have been 2010 when they had her in dry dock, and her previous modification would have been 2006. None of these seem to have been MLU's, just basic attention to defects. I dont believe she has yet had a full refit since she was built.

 

I idly wonder if the reason why the envisaged changes didnt happen was because they didnt have enough funds to make the upgrades to Admiral Nakhimov, the former Kirov class Kalinin, and put the money into that. The timing would be about right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_battlecruiser_Admiral_Nakhimov

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Posted

What is the Russian navy's refit cycle? When did Kuznetsov last refit?

There was a power plant repair in 2008, and two short periods at drydock at 2015 and 2016. He has never had a proper refit, just periodical maintenances and patchwork repairs. Current refit is first actual MLU, long planned but delayed by Syrian war.

Posted

True, but you have to ask why they felt the need to have a tug along at all.

Accompanying salvage tug in long-distance deployments is apparently a regulation in Soviet/Russia naval practise, all Russian oceanic deployments have one regardless of which ships are present. I think its due to Russia not having a network of their own or allied bases around the world - if something goes wrong 12000km away from Severomorsk, they don't want the indignity of having to rely on American assistance...

 

I think delaying of refits is simply due to need to show the flag and deploy the ship. Kuznetsov is not only the sole Russian aircraft carrier, but only aviation ship of any kind. This is where the Mistrals would have been useful, many times you don't need a honking big aircraft carrier but a simpler and cheaper helicopter deck ship.

Nakhimov upgrade reportedly had the funding provided before there was even a modernization plan!

Posted (edited)

Have they ever explicitly said they pulled the plug on the refit due to the Syrian Civil war? The timing doesn't seem to add up, they clearly had pulled the plug on it by 2012, yet the Russian intervention in the civil war didnt even start till late 2015. I can understand keeping your options open, but that it took about a year after making the decision to commit to Syria before they decided to send her suggests that her material condition was problematic.

 

There is a claim here of a refit in 2015, but it sounds on the face of it more an effort to patch up the worst of the defective systems and hope for the best.

https://sputniknews.com/military/201508201025964223-admiral-kuznetsov-aircraft-carrier/

 

It all points to the idea there is nothing wrong with the ship, or the design of the ship, that some deep maintenance wouldn't resolve. I mean, if the Chinese can bring back Varyag from a floating scrap pile, the Russian navy doesnt really have much excuse.

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Posted (edited)

Actual intervention only began in 2015, but surely potential need for action arose long before that, right after the war began, and reflecting it the ship was deployed off Syria in 2014.
Ukrainan war and subsesquent economical crisis also brought funding shortages for the navy. Sure enough, it's not like RuN was awash in cash even before that, as witnessed by constant delays in shipbuilding projects. Gorshkovs and 2038's were many years behind schedule even prior to current wars.
Chinese rebuild of Varyag took over a decade and must have cost nearly as much as building a whole new ship. Surely it wouldn't have been worth it if not for Chinese lack of aircraft carrier expertise which precluded them building their own.

Soviet high-pressure steam plants (well, all high-pressure steam plants...) have always been troublesome and every Soviet aircraft carrier suffered a major fire or other machinery breakdown at some point of their careers. That's why many Sovremennys have been retired, and why they kept totally ancient gas turbine powered ships in commission (Smetliviy, Kerch).

Edited by Yama
Posted

That explains a lot actually, I did wonder why they retained Smetlivy. I means she was updated as a trials ship and thus still had some value, but that is the equivalent of keeping a Type 42 in service till today. And we got a LOT of use out of those ships.

 

It also explains why they have put so much effort into the Kirovs. Their nuclear plants by comparison to the steam plants, seem to have been fairly reliable.

Posted

Kuznetsov have always had problem with the boilers, which is why the transit speed was ridicuously slow. The Indians suffered similar problems with Vikramdityia but they paid to have them fixed. Liaoning has been trouble free in that regard, but probably because enough attention was given to solving the issues beforehand.

Posted

I am glad to see you Brits getting a real carrier, but my gosh that Queen Elizabeth is one ugly ship! I have heard of the supposed advantages of the split superstructure design - but did not realize how ugly it would end up. Function over form I guess.

Posted

Perhaps, but there is a noteable trend in British warship design, that the uglier the ship, the more effective it is. For example, HMS Belfast or HMS Warspite. Compare and contrast with the Hood or the ships of 6th Battlecruiser Squadron and you will see what I mean. I dont think we have built a pretty effective ship since we moved on from sail. :D

Posted

And even then, the pretty ships were copied from the French... :o

 

The Russian proposal is hilarious, 2 ski jumps?? with such a length, I guess adding a catapult is too challenging.

Posted (edited)

Perhaps, but there is a noteable trend in British warship design, that the uglier the ship, the more effective it is. For example, HMS Belfast or HMS Warspite. Compare and contrast with the Hood or the ships of 6th Battlecruiser Squadron and you will see what I mean. I dont think we have built a pretty effective ship since we moved on from sail. :D

Heresy! Belfast is pretty. And interwar destroyers were handsome and efficient design.

 

And even then, the pretty ships were copied from the French... :o

 

The Russian proposal is hilarious, 2 ski jumps?? with such a length, I guess adding a catapult is too challenging.

 

It does have catapults, in the angled deck. It's an Ulyanovsk follow-up.

Edited by Yama
Posted

Speaking of the Rus--

 

Say what you want about Russia, but they always dreamed big. Is Borey-class submarine the only new big project they have managed to build in relevant quantity after the fall of USSR? (3 SSBN is a relevant quantity, but 20 Armata tank is not)

Posted

The Russian proposal is hilarious, 2 ski jumps?? with such a length, I guess adding a catapult is too challenging.

I think that's a translation quirk. Looks like there's two jet blast deflectors & associated take off tracks converging onto the single ramp. Effectively "two ski jumps".

 

The paired take off slots, for four in total, converge, with two in the waist and two in the bow.

Posted (edited)

No, there's another ski jump in the angled deck, look closer, those are not catapults

 

The bow ski-jump has a 20º angle, the other one, only 6º, as there are a total of 4 blast deflectors, that would be the launch capacity with 2 each off each ski jump.

 

Some questions remain to be answered. Ulyanovsk was powered by 4 reactors, this looks larger... the air group looks to be T-50s, Su-33s and a Yak-44, who would pay for the R&D of all that?

 

Manning is another issue...

 

But it's a cool model.

Edited by RETAC21
Posted

 

 

Speaking of the Rus--

Say what you want about Russia, but they always dreamed big. Is Borey-class submarine the only new big project they have managed to build in relevant quantity after the fall of USSR? (3 SSBN is a relevant quantity, but 20 Armata tank is not)

Why exactly 20? Why not 12? 8? 50?
Posted

Perhaps, but there is a noteable trend in British warship design, that the uglier the ship, the more effective it is. For example, HMS Belfast or HMS Warspite. Compare and contrast with the Hood or the ships of 6th Battlecruiser Squadron and you will see what I mean. I dont think we have built a pretty effective ship since we moved on from sail. :D

 

I don't know, I think Warspite was a bit of a looker in her youth. Fast, sleek and powerful, almost like a battlecruiser.

 

f99a6ab47a41bde6008610567d67e78f.jpg

 

She definitely got a bit dumpy in her old age though.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...