Kuznetsov: is this ship cursed?

Judging by all the snow on surrounding hills, it looks more like the flight deck is covered by a meter of snow.
 
Seems like they would have spared themselves a lot of trouble if they used the same propulsion setup as the Kirov class. Some of those are still operational and aren't catching fire or breaking down constantly.
 
Doesn’t someone else operate another ship in this class?
 
quellish said:
Doesn’t someone else operate another ship in this class?
Click to expand...
China, as well as one heavily derived from it. This is what awful corruption will do, as well as a white elephant prestige ship.
 
Forest Green said:
Apparently it caught fire during repair work. Someone welded too hard?
Click to expand...
If I am not mistaken-there are things called welding blankets. Birmingham-Minn. Tank became Superock Block-which had a sauna like kiln initially made of foam panels with thin metal to either side-meaning the foam could burn within with water shed off the sides. The heavy overhead crane framing kept what remained up after a worker forgot his spark catching blanket. This was likely similar. I have seen men shiver in 90 F after removing their protective garments.
 
And when I awoke I was alone
The Kuznetsov had sailed
So I lit a fire
Isn't it good Severomorsk wood?


As for curses, remember the old legend; when every ship is christened, its name goes into the Ledger of the Deep kept by Neptune. Renaming a ship means you're trying to slip something past the Gods and you will be punished for your deviousness.
 
Is this Forest Greens latest Ukraine threadjack?

The news that they have to "find" circa 1500 crew suddenly makes no sense.

The crew would have been given other tasks whilst the vessel was refitted.
Some would have been on course, others given other roles to do in the interim..etc.
Quite normal.
They didn't get abducted by aliens..

I wish people would show more discernment posting Twitter posts as gospel.
Posting a Twitter post as gospel is like posting a Facebook post as gospel.
And there seems to be an ever increasing propensity to do this..

Amongst a sea of drivel infused rubbish commentary in that link, there is one that washes the muck away:

"Dr Phil Weir
@navalhistorian
·3h
A couple of points to note here: 1) Disbanding a crew, or at least reducing it to a skeleton presence & reassigning the majority, while a ship is undergoing major, multi-year reconstructive work, is pretty much standard operating procedure as crews are not shipyard workers."

I know I'm old enough to know better..but I'm constantly disappointed in people...
 
Last edited:
True, it is quite normal practice. But after 6 years a number of the crew will have come to the end of their enlistment, been promoted, transferred to other ships or branches of the service and may not be available for redeployment within the short-term. Conscripts come and go in natural churn anyway - its the experienced officers and NCOs that matter and as long as enough of them are there to form a cadre then training can begin to get the newcomers up to scratch.

The Russian Navy has been operating ships long enough to know what they are doing.
 
I seem to recall the aviation group from Kuznetzov were relocated to the new Naval Aviation training centre in Yesk whilst the ship was being overhauled.
This is in addition to the Nitka complex in Crimea, which mimics the Kuznetzov with ski-ramp etc..

It's been a while, so I'm unsure which complex they are currently using.
 
The ship used (or at least it was intended) turbocharged steam boilers. Despite it is not totally crazy from a thermodynamic standpoint, it doesnt make sense in commercial power generation. Steam boilers are not the most efficient use of fuel, but they can burn stuff which is not suitabel for engines (coal, wood sludge...) Or turbines (e.g. bunker oil C). I believe this system was quite unique and never fullu developed to reliable operation. With higher quality marine oils, a conventiinal GUD system would surly be more efficient, so I dont understand the whole idea behind it.

I think the typical black smoke was a result of not using the turbocharging system because of failing turbochargers. Maybe they ran it on bunker C?
 
S.S. United States needed that set up—maybe it could have lasted longer?

Any seamounts it could rest upon as a base of some kind?

I know, I am a softie
 
So what happens now with Russia and Aircraft Carriers in particular after Kuznetsov is scrapped? The Kuznetsov has been plagued by fault after faul. Will Russia build another carrier? I suppose it is only a matter of time.
 
FighterJock said:
So what happens now with Russia and Aircraft Carriers in particular after Kuznetsov is scrapped? The Kuznetsov has been plagued by fault after faul. Will Russia build another carrier? I suppose it is only a matter of time.
Click to expand...
In the current situation, they might convert an oil tanker to a flattop...
 
A good idea Nicknick, after all Russia needs something pretty double quick to replace the Kuznetsov carriers take years to design and build.
 
They are currently "building" two LHDs based on their experience with the joint France-Russia project of a few years ago.

Both were laid down on 20 July 2020... at the Zaliv Shipyard in Crimea!

On 20 June 2024, it was reported that Ivan Rogov will be ready for factory and sea trials by the end of 2027, and should be delivered to the Russian Navy in Q3 2028.
Mitrofan Moskalenko is supposed to follow in 2029.

Here is a photo of a Project 23900 Ivan Rogov class amphibious assault ship under construction at Zaliv, Crimea, on Nov. 17, 2024. Satellite image ©2025 Maxar Technologies

I wonder how much work is actually being done on them, and if Ukraine has damaged them any.


The Project 23900 Ivan Rogov class amphibious assault ship is seen under construction at Zaliv...jpg
 
I had forgotten that Russia are building two LHDs, thanks BlackBat242.
 
publiusr said:
S.S. United States needed that set up—maybe it could have lasted longer?

Any seamounts it could rest upon as a base of some kind?
Click to expand...
no.
a. it would be using dry dock space
b. ships can't stay on blocks for ever
 
BlackBat242 said:
I wonder how much work is actually being done on them, and if Ukraine has damaged them any.


View attachment 777732
Click to expand...

Given previous images, work is slow but at least steadily continuing. After all Crimea is all things considered (strategic value, proximity, contested status) relatively calm. With Ukrainians generally choosing to shoot the few missiles they have elsewhere and launching their drones into European Russia.

Overall, the Rogovs have far more value than the Kuznetsov ever had. The Kuznetsov is fundamentally over it's date of expiration, no matter how much money is poured into it for modernization. While the Rogovs fulfill the same mission in peace time (moving equipment and troops, while looking big and awe inspiring), but offer more utility, are more modern and even if something goes fundamentally wrong will end up being more reliable than the Kuznetsov. The more modern part cannot be underestimated, as plenty of knowledge and people involved with the Kuznetsov construction and planning are either old and retired or dead. However I'd say that the value of the Rogov is mostly determined by the helicopters and drones it will utilize. Delivering the new helicopters falls into the responsibility of Kamov, while the drone component will most likely be an adaptation of one of many currently serving designs, they have a broad catalog to choose from for various tasks.

Generally speaking I expect the next flat top Russia will build from scratch to be drone focused, like the ship the Turkish Navy uses. That gives them the opportunity to make it smaller and especially cheaper. It also removes the need to adapt current fighters to naval standards, while the Su-33 and MiG-29K have run their course by now. So I don't expect a successor to Kuznetsov that flies manned aircraft or will rival US super carriers in size or displacement. Given their experience and fondness of UAVs I'm rather certain they'll move in that direction. Cheaper vessels also means more money for submarines in the end, the true favorite child of the Russian Navy and the actual glory of the fleet, so to speak.

If it's just about former soviet prestige, Admiral Nakhimov does it better than Kuznetsov, so I don't see why it should be kept around for that reason alone. With Admiral Nakhimov at least being able to simply launch a whole lot of missiles in an engagement and take ships with it, while I don't want to know what the chance or survival is for Kuznetsov in a modern naval environment (probably not good).

All in all, they should have scrapped it already years ago and used the funds for more useful things like submarines and frigates. If the rumors are true, good riddance. I can't think of anyone be it from the West or Russia who will shed a tear for it.
 
Nicknick said:
I think the typical black smoke was a result of not using the turbocharging system because of failing turbochargers. Maybe they ran it on bunker C?
Click to expand...
Steam boilers are a cheap and effective means of ship power. But they require high-quality preparation of fresh water.
In the Soviet Navy, personnel for the machine-boiler combat unit were traditionally recruited from Central Asia, this is one of the reasons for the failure of the boilers. On the destroyer where I served, by mistake, the fresh water tank was filled with seawater, after which the ship returned to the base at a speed of six knots and this was the end of its life.
Black smoke comes out of the chimney if there is not enough air in the boiler, white smoke comes out if there is too much air, and clear smoke comes out when the air and fuel are in the right proportions.
 

Attachments

  • 0_10efe0_16e795a1_orig.jpg
    0_10efe0_16e795a1_orig.jpg
    81.9 KB · Views: 23
BlackBat242 said:
They are currently "building" two LHDs based on their experience with the joint France-Russia project of a few years ago.

Both were laid down on 20 July 2020... at the Zaliv Shipyard in Crimea!

On 20 June 2024, it was reported that Ivan Rogov will be ready for factory and sea trials by the end of 2027, and should be delivered to the Russian Navy in Q3 2028.
Mitrofan Moskalenko is supposed to follow in 2029.

Here is a photo of a Project 23900 Ivan Rogov class amphibious assault ship under construction at Zaliv, Crimea, on Nov. 17, 2024. Satellite image ©2025 Maxar Technologies

I wonder how much work is actually being done on them, and if Ukraine has damaged them any.


View attachment 777732
Click to expand...
This was a topic in Ukraine defense discussion circles not that long ago. Long story short, they're happy to let Russia keep building them for now. For one, they're soaking up resources which otherwise might go for the war. For two, in the event of an especially large collapse in the Russian position, they might end up the flagships of Ukraine's Navy. Worst case scenario, they feel confident they could sink 'em when they're launched, which would be a worse outcome for Russia than damaging them in the dock.
 
Nicknick said:
The ship used (or at least it was intended) turbocharged steam boilers. Despite it is not totally crazy from a thermodynamic standpoint, it doesnt make sense in commercial power generation. Steam boilers are not the most efficient use of fuel, but they can burn stuff which is not suitabel for engines (coal, wood sludge...) Or turbines (e.g. bunker oil C). I believe this system was quite unique and never fullu developed to reliable operation. With higher quality marine oils, a conventiinal GUD system would surly be more efficient, so I dont understand the whole idea behind it.

I think the typical black smoke was a result of not using the turbocharging system because of failing turbochargers. Maybe they ran it on bunker C?
Click to expand...

The western term is pressure fired boilers. In the US originally developed for submarine use (as one of a number of projects initiated in the late 40's to support higher submarine speeds), and used in FF-1040 class ships. The main benefit is higher power density - important for high power in smaller hulls. Potentially some benefit in economy, but the main driver in US service was size.

Rather baffling that Soviet navy would choose it for a CV, since it's hard to see any need for power density, and the machinery is more expensive, complex and dangerous.


Byeman said:
b. ships can't stay on blocks for ever
Click to expand...

This is untrue for steel hulls, assuming dock and blocks are stable. It's true for wooden hulls, but steel doesn't work that way. Urban myth that I think derives from a few widely followed folks who don't actually know what they're talking about. Strength for docking is certainly an issue, but if the ship had the strength to dock, there's no inherent structural reason she can't stay indefinitely.
 
sdmuleman said:
This is untrue for steel hulls, assuming dock and blocks are stable. It's true for wooden hulls, but steel doesn't work that way. Urban myth that I think derives from a few widely followed folks who don't actually know what they're talking about. Strength for docking is certainly an issue, but if the ship had the strength to dock, there's no inherent structural reason she can't stay indefinitely.
Click to expand...
Then why is every large museum ship floating and not in dry berth.
 
Byeman said:
Then why is every large museum ship floating and not in dry berth.
Click to expand...

Economics. You'd need to either built what is essentially a large drydock, or find a drydock that's in condition to be usable and isn't in use or required for use. Not a whole lot of large docks around, and of those that are, the vast majority are in use. Further, a graving dock requires considerable maintenance of it's own accord, very likely more than the cost of drydocking a floating ship would be.
 
paralay said:
I thought the aircraft carriers would be buried by submarines, but they were killed by drones
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that can be comfortably determined yet. Given that as far as I am aware no aircraft carrier has been engaged by a submarine since WW2, no? And so far drones didn't sink a carrier either.

My money is always on the submarine, though.

As for drones on carriers, it's still an aircraft carrier, just unmanned aircraft.
 
Last edited:
Moose said:
This was a topic in Ukraine defense discussion circles not that long ago. Long story short, they're happy to let Russia keep building them for now. For one, they're soaking up resources which otherwise might go for the war. For two, in the event of an especially large collapse in the Russian position, they might end up the flagships of Ukraine's Navy. Worst case scenario, they feel confident they could sink 'em when they're launched, which would be a worse outcome for Russia than damaging them in the dock.
Click to expand...

Sounds like r/NonCredibleDefence, rather than any serious defence related discussion circle, lol
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom