An article regarding the resent Russian naval exercises.
 

http://www.cdi.org/russia/329-9.cfm

What do you make of this article from the ‘Moscow Times’ written by Pavel Felgenhauer? Seems to me he gets a lot of his facts wrong for a defence analyst! Since when has the Kuznetsov been a Kiev class? And I’m no expert but S-300’s on the Kuznetsov? :huh: The list off wrong facts goes on and on.

"The Kuznetsov is a modernized version of a Kiev-class aircraft carrier with an extended fly deck and other improvements."

Perhaps the author is trying to say theKuznetsov is a follow-on to the Kiev-class carriers?

In any case, it's a trivial point that doesn't affect the author's main point:

"The Navy put all it had into a show of strength to try to show the West, the Kremlin and our public it is still capable of action. The result, like other high-profile naval exercises in recent years, is a public embarrassment that could easily have turned into a major disaster. Someone should authoritatively tell our admirals to stop playing games with a nuclear fleet in disarray before they have another Kursk-size accident."

want me to rip it apart of should i not bother and save my time?

Please, rip it apart. I am curious what was wrong with the article. The only thing I found questionable was the mention of using aircraft to protect submarines from NATO air attack. That's a pointless exercise.

The article is a fascinating glimpse into the state of the Russian navy. It is amazing how far the much heralded Red Banner Northern Fleet has fallen. I remember when Russia wanted to protest Clinton attacking Serbia---the best they could manage was three warships sailing through the Bosphorus Straits IIRC.

Amazing how the times change....

Put me on the rip it apart list.

What I find Russia to be is to be the perfect demonstration of how important confidence and attitude is in an economy. I still find it really amazing how fast the GNP fell to nearly nothing as they switched to capitalism. The factories (albeit aging) are there, the resources are there, so why did it collapse just like that and seems to look like it'd never come back up. Most of the others seemed to have more or less recovered...

limped back ... but what mechanicaly was wrong with it ....nothing

peter the great is nearing 25 years old hardley new, and the guy cant even spell the dam name petr viliky.

7 years this guy realy getting on my wick 7 months maybe but definatly not 7 years russian navy has two exercises a year and both times this unit is present, carrier take offs and landings are normaly done in calm waters of the white sea.

big diffrence between and air show and carrier dont you think.

plenty of people have taken off and landed on kuznetsov why wernt they awarded?

take on water erm yes but these units are built for worse conditions.

and the norwiegens kinda of missed this entirely ? if one member of kuznetsov sneezed over the side norway would be onto russia straight away

if that was the case kuznetsov would not have gone to sea it needs trained persons and also trainee's cant run a ship with out the mix dont happen not even in the russian navy.

once again a load of Bull**** ive seen kuznetsov in the far distance (outline) aircraft flying off her then and that was in 2004

Kuznetsov is a follow on from the kievs, the kiev class is no more than a smallish aircraft capible cruiser, kievs displace 45,000 tonnes kuznetsov 65,000 and kuznetsov is larger and doesnt carry the forward clutter.

kuznetsov had sisters one is in china one in the ukrain heading to india and one that was scrapped, the names he states are those of the kiev class a totaly diffrent unit.

serving a few years dont think so most were nearing 20 years old youngish for a carrier but some thing better had come along and also some thing of more power they were simply not needed.

from 2000 the kuznetsov has been to sea in total of about 30 times fair enough many forrays were into the white sea but still went to sea.

so why do they load 2000lb and 1000lb bombs in the magasines to put on the planes

fighting NATO yes it still is a big issue for russia and so is america but its definatly not just purely designed for that russia learnt after korea and vietnam that always be prepared because you dont know what else some one might throw at you, the udaloys are designed to intercept submarines of any type nuclear or conventional so that is just a load of bo***cks

some one should tell this guy to get it right, admirals need to train they have to train thier fleet, as for dissoray its becoming more structured its not quite there yet but getting there.

another kursk sized tragerdy can happen to any navy any where any time why limit it only to russia i seem to remember the thresher being the worst ever sub disaster.



all in all its a load of b***acks half the stuff thier is wrong ive never even heard of this guy and to call himself an analyst pfft quite frankly my stuffed monkey could write a better article

In fact, the Russian Navy places great importance on defending their subs against aircraft (Gorshkov learned that lesson from the WW2 U-boat war). A major point of the Soviet (now, Russian) SSBN bastion concept is to put their high-value subs (SSBNs) in areas that can be defended against Western ASW assets. The Soviets learned (thanks to Johnny Walker :x ) how easy it was for our ASW aircraft to snap-up their Yankee and early Delta boomers in mid-ocean, given a cue from SOSUS. The Delta IV and Typhoons were designed with very-long-range missiles, able to hit US targets from launch points just off their homeports. No P-3 or Nimrod pilot would dare go subhunting within range of Russian Fulcrums or Flankers! :nope:

Peter the Great is 25 years old? It was the last of the Kirovs, and even if the Soviet Union did not collapse, I don't see how it could have been operational before around 1990.

IIRC I've seen the Pyotr Velikiy spelling used in English, and supposedly there is no universal Russian-Engish transliteration mapping.

Well, you can't award everyone, don't you think?

What? There were three of them and not just two?

You mean 500 and 1000 kilogram bombs?

I'd agree.

Why is the Thresher the "worst ever sub disaster" in your book? The Oscar was several times as large, carried at least as many people, and both sank and everyone aboard died.

Yes there was three, one is currently in china as CHINLUCK which
now as i understand is looking like a nimitz class as they tried to make a cheap rip off LMAO.

The second is in the ukraine, waiting for shipment to india and russia has as kuznetsov.


first kirov saw service in 1980 1981 thats what i was refering to the class not the single unit but the peter the great is only around 17 years old in fact im a year older than the peter the great.

soviets managed it well enough :D



As for bombs not sure on kilogramme to LBS conversions thats over my head id trust your calculation to be right be cause i simple dont know about wieght conversions.


129 men died on thresher , 118 on kursk when i said worst disaster i ment in human cost not economicaly just an expression.

ding dong just come to me ..... admiral gorshkov is going to india and its not a kuznetsov, but there were three origionaly built one was broken up just after the keel was laid was never named and forgoten like the rest of the things.

Kirov 12 planned 5 built (one later became kuznetsov)

Kuznetsov 8 planned 2 built (one scrapped before completion one now in china)

Typhoon 24 planned to counter america's 24 ohios 7 buillt (one broken up before completion, and three remain)

When is the 12th one going to be built even if the Union didn't collapse? They were commissioning about 1 every 4 years. At this rate the last Kirov would come out about the year 2028.

i know dont think they would have built more than 6 personaly just what was on the books

The Peter The Great isn't 25 years old.

Commisioned in 1998 Sea Trials in 1995.

Laid down 1986. I'd go from commisioning date not laydown date.

How do you guys know all this stuff (if you guys answer USNI PROCEEDINGS, I'm re-subscribing tomorrow!)?? :D Fascinating discussion so far!

I stand corrected then. But doesn't the Russian strategy of using aircraft to protect subs really limit their usefulness? It's sort of like putting a leash on an attack dog, no? Why even invest in SSBNs if they are going to be kept close to home waters? Wouldn't mobile land launchers be more cost effective and easier to hide?

You can seal off the Sea of Okhostk below and on the surface pretty damn well, and it's well within range of air cover to prevent marauding maritime patrol aircraft. And it's pretty big, and subs are difficult to find by satellite, whereas land based launchers are not particularly. SSBNs carry a payload to match what, a dozen or more mobile launchers? They also have very long loiter times so can launch whenever it suits their missions.

Keep in mind there are a number of former and serving submariners and ASW guys here who know quite a bit of stuff.