Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5393
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post06 Nov 2018, 08:54

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:
Offline

hythelday

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 523
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:43
  • Location: Estonia

Unread post06 Nov 2018, 10:11

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.
Offline

thepointblank

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 326
  • Joined: 26 Jun 2013, 11:17
  • Location: The True North Strong and Free

Unread post06 Nov 2018, 11:11

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.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5393
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post06 Nov 2018, 11:24

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
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5393
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post06 Nov 2018, 11:41

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....
Offline

thepointblank

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 326
  • Joined: 26 Jun 2013, 11:17
  • Location: The True North Strong and Free

Unread post06 Nov 2018, 12:51

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.
Offline

hythelday

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 523
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:43
  • Location: Estonia

Unread post06 Nov 2018, 13:04

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.
Offline

boilermaker

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 58
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2015, 18:12

Unread post07 Nov 2018, 01:00

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/
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1515
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post07 Nov 2018, 01:52

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.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5393
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post07 Nov 2018, 02:15

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..........
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5393
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post07 Nov 2018, 02:25

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)
Last edited by Corsair1963 on 07 Nov 2018, 03:30, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1515
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post07 Nov 2018, 03:17

A new China "5th gen" CV fighter is right now as apparent as a midterms blue wave....*popcorn*...
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5393
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post07 Nov 2018, 03:47

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???
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1515
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post07 Nov 2018, 04:40

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*.
Offline

knowan

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 213
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2018, 10:39

Unread post07 Nov 2018, 06:39

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).
Last edited by knowan on 07 Nov 2018, 07:18, edited 1 time in total.
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 20 guests