Kusnetzov carrier.

Foo Fighter

Cum adolescunt hominem verum esse volo.
Senior Member
Joined
19 July 2016
Messages
3,727
Reaction score
2,689
This ship has been in the news quite a bit lately and while steaming she has a large plume of black smoke from her funnel. I have not seen this from any other ship underway, why is this? Poor fuel quality?
 
Maybe didn't get Winston's memo about coal?

Chris
 
https://www.reddit.com/r/syriancivilwar/comments/596dfu/kuznetsovs_smoke_is_a_sign_of_his_sick_heart/
Experts suggest that "the crew of the ship just made a few mistakes," commenting on the thick smoke over the Russian aircraft carrier

October 24, 2016 Text by Andrey Rezchikov

"Vzglyad.ru" business newspaper

Photo: Gareth Fuller / FA Bobo / PIXSELL / PA Images / TASS

For several days the mission of our country’s only air carrier to the shores of Syria is the subject of discussion in Europe and Russia. One of her most notable features, in the literal and figurative sense, has become the thick smoke the ship spews, through which the movement of the cruiser "Admiral Kuznetsov" can be easily tracked even from space. Why this modern aircraft carrier smokes like the old steamers? Throughout the weekend the Russian blogosphere discussed the passage of the flotilla led by the aircraft carrier "Admiral Kuznetsov" across the English Channel, which took place on Friday evening. The most heated debate in the network was caused by the thick smoke - both dark and light in color, which the aircraft carrier churned near the British coast. The [Russian] Navy News Service is yet to offer an explanation of the reasons for this, possibly abnormal, situation on board. As reported recently by "Lenta.ru", many web users laughed at the aircraft carrier. "Users noticed that the ship was leaving behind streams of thick black smoke, and compared it with the eruption of the Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajökull in 2010", the portal noted. Blogger Sergey Sigachyov wrote the day before, how much puzzled by this smoke the English were, having seen in this action a violation of local ecological balance. "Social networks, too, are in full panic mode. Some particularly sensitive Anglophile-minded citizens of Russia even started a petition on the authoritative portal change.org, demanding to change the color of the smoke. The petition will be delivered to the head of Battle Unit-5 TAVKR with a demand for immediate execution," the blogger reported sarcastically. And the "Constantinople" TV channel, based on the opinion of the chief military adviser to the Ministry of Defence Admiral Ivan Vasiliev, on Monday unveiled a completely original version. "The column of smoke over the" Admiral Kuznetsov" which stirred up many people, is not associated with any malfunction, but with a tribute to the traditions of the sea." The admiral made it clear that the ship’s engineers consciously emitted the smoke - to let the British know about their arrival: "We assume that these are elements of tradition, as understood by the sailors."

What happened with the Russian aircraft carrier really? There is no consensus on this point, but experts agree on some things.

"My heart is sinking"

The 1992-1997 Chief of Staff of the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Navy, Vice-Admiral Peter Svyatashov said the thick column of smoke was the result of several factors. "It may be a poor performance of the crew in the boiler room which is still getting its act together after sailing away following a long stay of the ship in the yard. This is leaving its imprint. There shouldn’t be a permanent smoke. Yes, heavy smoke is possible when a ship changes speed, making the maneuver, which means it can temporarily smoke up, but not all the time," Svyatash said before the VZGLYAD (GLANCE) newspaper. In addition, the Vice-Admiral did not rule out that flaws were introduced at the design or production stage of the ship’s power plant that still affect her. Perhaps, some equipment was not adjusted properly before going out to sea. "As a result, the Vice-Admiral said, the fuel oil does not fully ignite and the fans throw out unburned air-fuel mixture so there is such a thick smoke. And the third factor - the equipment is already outdated. But she should not smoke all the time. My heart sinks, this should not be so. I have served on an older ship, and there was nothing like this. It's ugly,” Svyatashov admitted. According to the first vice-president of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems Captain I Rank (Commander) Konstantin Sivkov, it seems that "the personnel of the ship just made mistakes" in tending to the boiler-engine installation of the, which led to reinforced fuel injection – and oil could not make a complete burn. "I do not think the smoke is associated with equipment breakdown," Sivkov told the VZGLYAD newspaper, noting that the appearance of smoke could result from the long pause in using the ship.

As Sivkov put it, sending a ship to see with a faulty engine and boiler system for such a long march "can only be done by an idiot." "Our Naval Command consists of intelligent and balanced people. They are well aware that if the ship goes out with a faulty installation, then trouble may happen in the course of the mission - it will fail. Then towing a ship having such displacement and sail area will be very problematic. So no, it's not a problem with the power plant", he said.

"Charles de Gaulle" has been moored for ten years now"

However, 12 years ago, the commander of the Mediterranean fleet, Admiral Valentin Selivanov, told the “Zavtra” ("Tomorrow") newspaper that "Kuznetsov” was built on the cusp of eras, in 1989, at the sunset of the Soviet Union. And "Kuznetsov", so to speak, from its birth, had "a sick heart." From the very outset substandard tubes were installed in its boilers.’ Selivanov recalled how he personally sent a team to the Ural plants, to manufacture the tube there. "Then with great problems, in newly sovereign Ukraine, in Nikolaev the tubes were bent to specs. Still, they continued to leak. Therefore, we could not fire the boilers to full power, the Admiral lamented, adding: ‘During the campaign of 1996 I have often worked on only two boilers, and quite a few times it was only one boiler, and this means the speed is not more than four knots. At such a speed the carrier does not answer the helm, the wind blows it off course." Physicist Alexei Anpilogov, Head of the Historical Research Fund "The Base", seconds the Commander in Chief: "Admiral Nikolai Kuznetsov" is a vessel with unhappy fate from the outset. We can say that "Kuzya" was miraculously saved from independent Ukraine at the last moment, with the efforts of enthusiasts who sailed the unfinished ship from the Nikolaev Shipyard berthing wall to her current home base near Murmansk.’

‘Gray smoke - this is oil, white – water’

‘When I worked on ships, marine engineers taught me a simple rule of ship smoke classification "Gray smoke means [lubrication] oil, white means water, black smoke - this is fuel’, says the blogger on his LiveJournal site. You ask “Grandpa” to run at full steam "Grandpa" tried. Well, as best as he could’, Anpilogov suggests. ‘With smoke and burning into the atmosphere of huge amounts of excess fuel. But it got to the speed needed and did not fall behind "Peter the Great". That is, of course, good news." Other variants of "Kuzya’s" fate could be a lot worse than his present predicament, he thinks. ‘She could rot away at the harbor wall in Nikolaev like the "Ukraine” missile cruiser.’ Anpilogov also believes that before setting out to sea the engineers did not put in order the ship’s Main Power Plant, or did not repair the GTZA (main turbo transmission unit) and the boilers during planned maintenance. ‘But I am not the Northern Fleet Admiral and Russia’s Minister of Defense. So ask them why the pride of the Russian navy is still belching smoke from the chimney and an emergency fire brigade stands ready on the deck’ Anpilogov sums up. "I have served on the" Admiral Kuznetsov ". In 1990, she was also called "Tbilisi", it passed sea trials the Black Sea. And now she is sailing across the Channel "- says the author of the Dozhd (Rain) TV channel Alex Dubas on Monday in his Facebook account, admitting that, ‘in contrast to the armchair experts’ he does not know why there is so much smoke over it. ‘When we had sea tests no such thing happened, although the fire engines were on the deck from the very beginning of the history of the aircraft carrier. Of course, different engines. But, probably, so it is necessary as per procedure." It is noteworthy that the author of this liberal TV channel gives emotional rebuke to anyone who mocks the aircraft carrier. ‘Imagine the most uncomfortable house you have lived for a long time. I do not know what it could be: a boarding school, barracks, a hospital, a maternity hospital in a small town... But it is your home. Part of you, like it or not, of your history, of your destiny. Imagine, it is now shown on all channels, and everyone laughs at it,’- the publicist says, admitting that he is experiencing mixed feelings. ‘They photoshop her, paste burlaks (groups of humans (slaves) towing boats upstream)... And it is still possible to understand this, but ... when they "soot" the captain’s face, when they publish pics of grubby freaks and caption them as Russian sailors, warriors ... Suddenly you get hurt. What do they have to do with it?’ Dubas asks rhetorically. "I am writing this with only one goal. To express my respect for the crew: for the captain, pilots, officers, warrant officers and sailors, who in spite of everything, to the laughter of "enlightened" world, perform their duty,’ Dubas sums it up.
One of the comments on that page:
[–]MrHanckey

I'm not an expert on this but I think this was likely just sootblowing, which is needed for when the boiler fill the chimney with soot and it risks a fire after some time, every ships does it but obviously old ships do it more. In military ships, this is usually done by night to conceal the smoke however they might have needed to do it in daylight. Also, soot and oil falls over quickly so it's better to do it with aircraft on the hangar. But they might not care for that.

Maybe the veterans were talking under the impression the ship was smoking like this the entire time but Kuznetsov was only heavy smoking in the English Channel, on the Norway coast the ship wasn't smoking much more than usual, which standard it's high for western ships, explained by different requirementes and regulations in fuel used by russians, even jet fuel does that.

That being said, before leaving, there were pictures of the crew working on what I think it's one of the boilers, so they might be having problems with it.
 
An article in the Guardian a couple of months back noted, "The carrier has had persistent problems with its propulsion system, based on turbo-pressurised boilers, which belch out black smoke due to an excess of fuel over air in its engines."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/04/russia-further-bolsters-naval-presence-in-mediterranean

Also, I wonder what was the reason for repainting the flight deck as highlighted in the article, other than perhaps keep the crew from getting bored?
Losing one of the few MiG-29KUB didn't enhance the reputation of the capabilities of the airgroup, though I was impressed the Russian's detected the shadowing Dutch submarine back in November. Given the low detectability of SSKs highlighted by various Western navies and the threat they posed it seems to show that they aren't immune to detection, though I suspect NATO wanted the Russians to know they were being followed and that might well account for it.
 
They should call China and get some replacements. Their carrier doesn't seem to have that problem.
 
Why not? The Chinese make just about everything else. Good to know it is not just western governments that are unable to procure/retain military kit properly.
 
Russia starting to withdraw forces from Syria, with aircraft carrier group first to leave, says military chief

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-38528654?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_breaking&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central

https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/817296895898951681
 
Foo Fighter said:
Why not? The Chinese make just about everything else. Good to know it is not just western governments that are unable to procure/retain military kit properly.

I don't recall Nimitz class carrier billowing smoke. Is there some other class you're referring to that does?
 
sferrin said:
Foo Fighter said:
Why not? The Chinese make just about everything else. Good to know it is not just western governments that are unable to procure/retain military kit properly.

I don't recall Nimitz class carrier billowing smoke. Is there some other class you're referring to that does?

To Foo's point...He's specified procure/retain kit, not just carriers.

How many carriers does the US have operational when 11 are required by law?
How many Jets was Germany able to send to Syria?
How many US Marine Heavy helicopters were operational last year?

The list goes on and on.
 
NeilChapman said:
sferrin said:
Foo Fighter said:
Why not? The Chinese make just about everything else. Good to know it is not just western governments that are unable to procure/retain military kit properly.

I don't recall Nimitz class carrier billowing smoke. Is there some other class you're referring to that does?

To Foo's point...He's specified procure/retain kit, not just carriers.

How many carriers does the US have operational when 11 are required by law?
How many Jets was Germany able to send to Syria?
How many US Marine Heavy helicopters were operational last year?

The list goes on and on.
Under Section 1023 of the FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 2647/P.L.
111-84 of October 28, 2009) the USN is permitted to have 10 operational carriers until CVN-78 enters the fleet. 10 U.S. Code § 5062(b) states: "...an operational aircraft carrier includes an aircraft carrier that is temporarily unavailable for worldwide deployment due to routine or scheduled maintenance or repair." The USN has a legal number of carriers.
 
Moose said:
NeilChapman said:
To Foo's point...He's specified procure/retain kit, not just carriers.

How many carriers does the US have operational when 11 are required by law?
How many Jets was Germany able to send to Syria?
How many US Marine Heavy helicopters were operational last year?

The list goes on and on.
Under Section 1023 of the FY2010 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 2647/P.L.
111-84 of October 28, 2009) the USN is permitted to have 10 operational carriers until CVN-78 enters the fleet. 10 U.S. Code § 5062(b) states: "...an operational aircraft carrier includes an aircraft carrier that is temporarily unavailable for worldwide deployment due to routine or scheduled maintenance or repair." The USN has a legal number of carriers.

Ok - were required by law.

;)
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom