As a little kid in the US and to this day I have always loved the paint schemes the Russian put on their fighter jets. Some of my favorite models to build were MIGs
That is actually more of a myth than reality, sure it has problems with propulstion but it never ended up using tugboats on any of its major deployments.
Gerald Kocijowsky Well your military buddies obviously are not educated in engineering, arent they now? Also fyi i am also "your military buddy", and i actually attended real military school i did not finish 2 month course in Fort Irwin. Kuz was never pulled with a tug on any deployment, that is a fact, it never happened. Kuz as design overall has some shortages compared to flat decks however it was not desiegned to compete with flat deck 100.000t displ. supercarriers, and i am not sure why everyone keeps comparing them. Its heavily armed missile cruiser with ability to carry aircraft which are to provide air defence to battlecruisers and cruisers like Kirov and Slava class, as Soviets formed battlegroups around them rather than Kiev or Kuz class. Kuz propulsion issues are actually more related to its TBO (time between overhauls) which is fairly short compared to more modern and also simplier solutions, like one installed on Indian INS Vikramaditya for an example. Kuz also saw shortages of maintenance investments during few years period as other parts of the Navy were far more urgent so certain systems became outdated or fell into disrepair. However atm everything is working as close to intended as it can before major overhauls scheduled for 2017.
It's not diesel powered. It has 4 steam turbines , 50,000 horsepowers each. Steam is created in 8 boilers. Same steam turbines are used on nuclear powered ships. Difference is getting energy for boilers. Nuclear ships use nuclear reactors to produce heat while ships like Kuznetsov and others use fuel products, fuel oil to generate heat for boilers. Additionally she also has some gas-turbine generators and a few diesel generators, but normally for supporting purposes, like light for hospital , etc. Total amount of energy she can produce is 340,000 horsepowers. that is similar to american nuclear powered carriers of Nimitz class.
Александр Чернов Diesel-powered boilers; ergo DIESEL-POWERED aircraft carriers. The Kuznetsov needs to be refueled with diesel fuel often. The boilers and steam turbines powering the Kuznetsov have been proven to be severely unreliable. Plus that nice consistant plume of diesel exhaust makes it a nice, juicy target on the horizon.
Technica Impendi Vitae I repeat to morons again. BOILERS WORK NOT ON DIESEL FUEL. BOILERS WORK ON SO CALLED "FUEL OIL" - THE CHEAPEST, HEAVIEST AND THE MOST ENERGETIC FRACTION OF NATURAL OILS. Boilers produce steam for 4 steam turbines like in nuclear powered ships or powerstations. So. summary power of her steam turbines is 200,000 horsepowers (approx. 150 Megawatts). It has additional power generators for additional purposes - kitchen, hospital. sauna etc. So, she has additionally 9 gas-turbines each has 1500 kilowatts of power. Gas - turbines can work from any type of fuel - gasoline, kerosene, diesel, natural gas, fuel oil. Fuel oil is the cheapest and the most energetic. And she also has 6 diesel generators, 1500 kilowatts each. That's very very small part of ship's energy production. and yes. Fuel Oil normally produce generous amount of smoke sometimes, especially when temperature of burning is low for some reason. In naval code that message is called "smoke hat" and means "look , am going", or "be aware, I am here" and navy ships sometimes generate that deliberately .
soviet vintage aircraft carrier, twenty first century hi-tech weaponry! do not under estimate this warship,looks can be deceiving.try to hit them and prepare to go back to the stone age.
It is not aircraft carrier but heavy missile cruiser with flight deck. Main armament are P-700 shipwreck missiles and anti aircraft missiles. Planes and choppers are just support.
Nail Birth it is need! Without catapault the aircraft take off weight is limited! It can only carry 4 missles max! With a catapault the plane can carry more missles plus bombs and an external fuel tank! Idiot!!
However, all equipment is combat-ready and effective. The Russians do not plan to conquer the world domination of weapons, it is only a technique for the defense of the country
can anyone answer why J-15 take off from very near to the front deck of Chinese carrier while Mig-29k take off from the mid deck just beside the tower? Both carriers are ski-jump type but wouldn't taking off from a point that is further from the ski provide the jet more space to accelerate thus able to load more fuel and missiles? And I am also curious why mig-29k doesn't take off from the very beginning of the runway? In this video there was no aircraft parking at the threshold but the mig-29k took off from the mid runway. Explain?
I may not be correct but for the chinese carrier it has a different ski jump angle that allows the J 15 to take off from the runway just above the island. Also although taking off from the full runway like in this video does allow it to load more fuel and armament, this is only good for take off only scenarios. In combat they would likely be launching and landing planes at the same time so they would need to to take off using the front section. 3 years late but I thought i should try to answer.
This is not a MiG-29, but a Su-33. And it mainly depends on how the plane is fueled and how much armament it carries. Anyway, no catapult, it's a handicap. The plane cannot fully use its capabilities at the ski jump. If they loaded it, like at a land-based airport, it would fall from the ship into the sea on takeoff.
I prefer STOBAR to CATOBAR carriers. A LOT less complicated and seem to require a TON less crew to launch/recover aircraft. And you can save the old 'aircraft cannot carry much if not launched by catapult' argument. Apparently, an Su-33 can launch with MTOW from the longest, launch point on the Kuznetsov with 25 knots of headwind.
STOBAR is completely shit compared to CATOBAR. Yeah it's simpler and less expensive for countries that can't afford / don't have the technology to build CATOBAR. In addition STOBAR carriers look absolutely stupid with that ridiculously large ski jump.
Catapults is better in every way except speed and money. They allow multiple launches and retrieval while launch. Also you can store more aircrafts on the deck
@@tommiterava5955 Wrong. The Yak-44 AEW aircraft (virtually identical to a Hawkeye) was going to launch from both catapult and ski jump. Confirm your data before you open your mouth and you will make fewer mistakes. We are done here. ☮
Steam Catapults need extensive piping to bring steam from the boilers, also steam catapults put considerable stress causing airframe fatigue.... Only Two countries operate CATOBR carriers because all the other countries use carriers mainly as a defensive power projection tools....so are not focused on strike operations carrying air to air, anti ship and Anti- submarine ordinance
@@alanpercival6428 exactly what he meant. There is a reason why United States have several. Any flaws of the previous generation have been used to make a better and more efficient machine. Think as how aircraft have progressed thru the years. Just a thought
@@alanpercival6428 being no insult, but US carriers don't have to travel with a dedicated ship for towing them because they break down frequently enough to need it. It's still a fine ship with an adorable little compliment of aircraft.
This aircraft carrier is too small for conventional aircrafts! I noticed that the takeoff is not via a catapult launch like US carriers but via a ski ramp with the jets employing full afterburner!.But ski ramp take off are really meant for VTOL Jets like the F-35B, hence the much shorter runway,but the F-35B also employ the lift fan during takeoff to maximize payloads, something which the Russian jets cannot do! Hence those aircrafts can't be carrying a full load of fuel plus armaments, otherwise, they won't be able to take off since it lacks the speed of a catapult launch! Russia badly needs a proper new aircraft carrier! Lol.
_Russia badly needs a proper new aircraft carrier! Lol._ Not sure about this one. Aircraft carriers are for projecting power. Not sure where Russia needs to project its power to, certainly not US coast. It is US that feels the need to control the other part of the world like an octopus so they built tons of them. Against top nations I think aircraft carriers are really sitting ducks (even American ones with its carrier groups). They are way too expensive to build and maintain, and of course you need tens of aircrafts for each of them, and they are easy to lose against a major military power. UK built one and another one to be finished soon and I have no idea what they need them for, just for the pride, for the past glory but they are really burning money on these extremely expensive toys, and big chunk of those payments goes to US (F-35), not domestic producers. Russia got its bases in Syria and I think it is enough for them.
@@_Epsilon_ agree with you that the US has too many carriers! I think 4-5 carriers should be more than sufficient for any realistic threat scenarios! Carriers are only sitting ducks if they are sailing alone;in reality they are very well protected by the carrier group and any whiff of a threat within a few hundred miles out will be dealt with by the missiles and the fighter jets on board the carriers, with submarines protecting them against any underwater threat!
Complex geopolitical issues behind it. Russia will never allow Crimea to be lost. Thry also do not want NATO near the black sea. They also do not take kindly to regime change operations on their border. As an American I would not stand for this behavior done against us. Why should the russians feel differently?
Esala Lomani 10 learn to count helicopter carriers aren’t actually aircraft carriers and all those can be sunk by a cheap anti ship missle russia is if anything equal to the us military Tanks 20000 Fighter/multi role 3000 us 3500 Not to mention Russia having far superior missle technology and even have drone subs now get off your high horse it’s not 1993 anymore
