Question about Kuznetsov

[BalticDude]

I own Su-33 from flaming cliffs 3 and want to use the new Kuznetsov however this module adds no crew operations or anything other than the carrier itself so it's useless for someone like me who does not fly F-18, F-14 or any modern blue aircraft. Is there any way to sell the carrier separately or if possible actually work on the Soviet side to make the purchase worthwhile? I don't want to spend so much for just a model.

[Wyvern]

sadly not. 

[9thHunt]

The Kuznetsov model is more or less an afterthought addition to the supercarrier.  (in fact I thought it was also included with the FC3 pack).  They may update it at some point, but the main focus of the Supercarrier is the blue side carriers.

[Seaeagle]

6 hours ago, 9thHunt said:

The Kuznetsov model is more or less an afterthought addition to the supercarrier. 

No its not.

The initial idea with the" supercarrier" module was for the Nimitz class and Kuznetsov to be modelled to the same standard and functionality. But then for some reason ED changed their minds in regards to the latter and only an updated 3D model for the Kuznetsov.......so the afterthought was to ditch it.

6 hours ago, 9thHunt said:

(in fact I thought it was also included with the FC3 pack). 

It wasn't for the reason mentioned above.

6 hours ago, 9thHunt said:

 

They may update it at some point, but the main focus of the Supercarrier is the blue side carriers.

Heh well yes it is now.

[BalticDude]

So why not give Redfor players an option to use it without having to buy a Blufor module? 

[draconus]

15 hours ago, BalticDude said:

So why not give Redfor players an option to use it without having to buy a Blufor module? 

Because it's in a one paid product and you've already answered yourself: "I don't want to spend so much for just a model." As a customer you've made your decision, move on.

[Hammer1-1]

the boat catches fire every time it leaves port anyways, you're better off just taking off from a tugboat.

[BalticDude]

Useless responses from Blufor players

[draconus]

[Hammer1-1]

6 hours ago, BalticDude said:

Useless responses from Blufor players

no, thats not fair. I fly the russian helicopters more than anything.

[Seaeagle]

On 6/12/2023 at 4:17 PM, BalticDude said:

So why not give Redfor players an option to use it without having to buy a Blufor module? 

Well you would need to ask ED about that  .

I don't think it was a reasonable solution either - if it had come with the same level of expanded functionality as the US carrier(s) as originally planned then sure, but as this was abandonned, the updated 3D model should IMO just have replaced the old one in DCS World like any other 3D update for existing units. 

Edited June 13, 2023 by Seaeagle

[Raisuli]

On 6/10/2023 at 5:07 AM, Seaeagle said:

The initial idea with the" supercarrier" module was for the Nimitz class and Kuznetsov to be modelled to the same standard and functionality. But then for some reason ED changed their minds in regards to the latter and only an updated 3D model for the Kuznetsov.......so the afterthought was to ditch it.

 

Because to model the Kuz to full fidelity would require new fluid dynamics models to get the smoke and flames right, and an ocean going tug, and the feature creep would make the model uneconomical for a ship that self destructs regularly.  I like the one we have.

Would be cool to have deck crew in Russian uniforms and some equipment to give it a lived in look, but then I also want AF ground crew, huffers, generators...I'm pretty needy, really.

[Seaeagle]

4 hours ago, Raisuli said:

Because to model the Kuz to full fidelity would require new fluid dynamics models to get the smoke and flames right,

Yeah bollocks. As if US warships have never been torched by welders at ship yards. 

4 hours ago, Raisuli said:

...and an ocean going tug

If you are referring to the Ingull class, then Its not "an ocean going tug", but actually a multi-purpose rescue ship that can undertake all sorts of support tasks - sort of the ship equivalent to a Swiss army knife.

4 hours ago, Raisuli said:

...and the feature creep would make the model uneconomical for a ship that self destructs regularly. 

It doesn't "self destruct". Underfunding, inadequate maintenance/repairs and multiple accidents at iincompetent ship yards have plagued the ship throughout its history.

 

 

[Raisuli]

12 minutes ago, Seaeagle said:

Yeah bollocks. As if US warships have never been torched by welders at ship yards. 

If you are referring to the Ingull class, then Its not "an ocean going tug", but actually a multi-purpose rescue ship that can undertake all sorts of support tasks - sort of the ship equivalent to a Swiss army knife.

It doesn't "self destruct". Underfunding, inadequate maintenance/repairs and multiple accidents at iincompetent ship yards have plagued the ship throughout its history.

 

 

US ships generally don't spontaneously combust at sea.  Well, other than the Forest Fire.  And the Tuna Prize.  Those weren't spontaneous.  "In the shipyard" and "on deployment" are ever so subtly different, and having been in both situations I can personally attest to those subtle differences.  Fire watch while sparks happen in reactor compartments is a boatload of fun.

Modeling a Russian Swiss Army Knife would be even harder.

As for self destructing, I think you've captured the reasons very well.  I wasn't going to go there because it's not important, but thank you.  I actually don't hold the shipyard accidents against it; trivial things, like not bothering to spend the money allocated to fuel the emergency generators to buy fuel.  I'm sure there are reasonable explanations for all of it.  The Miami and Bonnie Dick were malicious and intentional, with the incompetence coming only after fires were set without first getting a hot work permit.

In a year and a half in the yards I don't remember a single real fire, just endless drills and a guy in a red hat waving his wife's vermilion panties at us.  Probably a good thing we didn't get to charge the hoses, because nobody liked him.

We did have a trim party while they were trying to calculate CB and meta-centric height after all the changes made in the yard.  That was fun, until they figured out why their measurements kept coming up bollocks.  Some people have a really deficient sense of humor.

[Seaeagle]

7 hours ago, Raisuli said:

US ships generally don't spontaneously combust at sea.  

When did the Kuznetsov "combust" at sea? - aside from the ship yard fire(s) and a single minor incident while at port in Turkey, I cannot remember any. In my opinion this is just BS  exageration by dumbass tabloid press and interweb people, that that you apparently find funny.

If you are looking for real operational failings, then its not the smokey powerplant or "spontaneous combustions", but rather the multiple occasions of failing arrestor gear with the subsequent loss of fighter jets.

7 hours ago, Raisuli said:

Some people have a really deficient sense of humor.

Indeed.

[Hammer1-1]

1 hour ago, Seaeagle said:

When did the Kuznetsov "combust" at sea? - aside from the ship yard fire(s) and a single minor incident while at port in Turkey, I cannot remember any. In my opinion this is just BS  exageration by dumbass tabloid press and interweb people, that that you apparently find funny.

If you are looking for real operational failings, then its not the smokey powerplant or "spontaneous combustions", but rather the multiple occasions of failing arrestor gear with the subsequent loss of fighter jets.

Indeed.

its not that it combusted at sea, its more or less its last deployment was marred with crippling issues where the tug did most of the work during the deployment. call it what you want, but thats the Kuz legacy whether you like it or not. It should have never been sent into service in the condition it was in. If you want to rag on US ships being on fire during port refits, lets just say that arson shouldnt really count on the "spontaneous combustion" clause.

Edited June 14, 2023 by Hammer1-1

[BalticDude]

I just want a Yak-38 

[Seaeagle]

4 hours ago, Hammer1-1 said:

its not that it combusted at sea, its more or less its last deployment was marred with crippling issues where the tug did most of the work during the deployment. call it what you want, but thats the Kuz legacy whether you like it or not.

I think I already acknowledged the troubled service history of the ship and the reasons for it. This However, does not justify the ridicule and shallow assesments by people who don't know what the hell they are talking about......not saying that you don't, but what is written about it on most press- and  private internet sites is just complete crap.

4 hours ago, Hammer1-1 said:

It should have never been sent into service in the condition it was in.

The ship was put into service with the Soviet navy in December 1990 - at this point it was not fully outfitted or in serviceable conditon. There is nothing unusual about this - its actually normal procedure that the military takes over a ship from the bulding yard and performs the remaining system's installations and testing before the ship is declared fully operational.

What was unusual were the circumstances surrounding this for the Kuznetsov with the bankruptcy and subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union, the change of ownership to  Russia and total absence of funding for it afterwards.  But I agree that it should not have been condidered operational and sent on deployments  in that condition. 

4 hours ago, Hammer1-1 said:

If you want to rag on US ships being on fire during port refits,

I don't want to rag on about anything - just saying that fires during yard repair work aren't totally unheard of outside Russia. 

4 hours ago, Hammer1-1 said:

...lets just say that arson shouldnt really count on the "spontaneous combustion" clause.

Neither should fires as a result of misguided welding work on a ship yard.

[Hammer1-1]

2 hours ago, Seaeagle said:

 

The ship was put into service with the Soviet navy in December 1990 - at this point it was not fully outfitted or in serviceable conditon. There is nothing unusual about this - its actually normal procedure that the military takes over a ship from the bulding yard and performs the remaining system's installations and testing before the ship is declared fully operational.

 

Again, shouldnt have ever been placed into service.  Much like everyone with a boat, it almost always puts the owner under the sea with debt at a minimum. It never was finished.

Edited June 14, 2023 by Hammer1-1

[Raisuli]

I go to thinking about the original question as opposed to picking on a ship Seaeagle really likes, which was probably unnecessary, and got to wondering how much we really know about carrier operations on 'red' ships.  Sure, there are some Youtube videos out there from the Kuz, and we can make a few WAGs (no not that one, Wild ...Aviation Guesses) about comms and procedures, but is it really possible to replicate the SC functionality without making that stuff up or just copying what we have on SC?

For SC we've got NATOPS and people who have been there and done that from both pilot and deck crew perspectives.  I imagine that depth of knowledge is lacking for the Kuz.  It would be way cool to have it, just not sure it's available.

And the cold hard reality is RedFor is woefully under-represented here.  Some of those reasons have been mentioned, maybe there are more, but ultimately that's a business decision.

[ricktoberfest]

38 minutes ago, Raisuli said:

I go to thinking about the original question as opposed to picking on a ship Seaeagle really likes, which was probably unnecessary, and got to wondering how much we really know about carrier operations on 'red' ships.  Sure, there are some Youtube videos out there from the Kuz, and we can make a few WAGs (no not that one, Wild ...Aviation Guesses) about comms and procedures, but is it really possible to replicate the SC functionality without making that stuff up or just copying what we have on SC?

For SC we've got NATOPS and people who have been there and done that from both pilot and deck crew perspectives.  I imagine that depth of knowledge is lacking for the Kuz.  It would be way cool to have it, just not sure it's available.

And the cold hard reality is RedFor is woefully under-represented here.  Some of those reasons have been mentioned, maybe there are more, but ultimately that's a business decision.

There are such big gaps in its deployment I’m not even sure former sailors could tell you how it’s currently done. Every time they set sail it’s like it’s a new crew. Only so much land based training you can do without a ship to work with. 
 

adding here: what do amercan crews do during long duration dockyard stays?  I’d assume they just deploy on different ships and same goes for the aircraft crews but I really don’t know if that’s true

Edited June 14, 2023 by ricktoberfest

[Raisuli]

39 minutes ago, ricktoberfest said:

There are such big gaps in its deployment I’m not even sure former sailors could tell you how it’s currently done. Every time they set sail it’s like it’s a new crew. Only so much land based training you can do without a ship to work with. 
 

adding here: what do amercan crews do during long duration dockyard stays?  I’d assume they just deploy on different ships and same goes for the aircraft crews but I really don’t know if that’s true

 

Work ups, work ups, and more workups.  Invariably there are some experienced crew, and some that 'haven't done that in a while', and quite a few newbies.  I know where I lived transferring in from somewhere else doesn't buy you much because you have to qual, and the chiefs, who are supposed to be the old experienced hands, were...not.  I suspect up on deck that's quite a bit different.

When you get back out on the water it's brutal.  Pretty much every department and division is doing their own particular things to get back into the grove; ORSE in our case, but nobody has it easy.  The first time we went out to sea after the yard it took about a day for everything to end up on the deck (nobody knew how to secure for sea) and we ran out of things on the mess decks in days (they didn't know what to stock up on).

I did notice there's not much institutional knowledge on the Kuz, and when/if it goes back out they'll have to start from scratch; and that's the whole boat.  One of the other differences is when we get back from deployment there's always a yard availability to fix anything that's broken.  After the '85 WestPac (all you Hornet drivers know about that one) we went to Hunter's Point for a few months, but all the ships got some TLC before returning to the grind.

From what I've heard, and I don't know this for a fact, the poor Kuz never really got a decent break, and certainly not the care and attention he needs.  I would be a little surprised if he deploys again.

[MicroShket]

6 часов назад, Raisuli сказал:

I imagine that depth of knowledge is lacking for the Kuz. 

Indeed. There is no official data on Russian procedures (ED claims, not me). Some recovery pattern in books is a fake based on the US Navy regulations. 

I think that it's a main problem for the full-modeled Kuznetsov asset. 

Edited June 15, 2023 by MicroShket

[draconus]

1 hour ago, MicroShket said:

Some recovery pattern in books is a fake based on the US Navy regulations.

At least what I saw on the YT was very similar to USN Case I pattern. Since they don't have cat launches I suppose they need less ground crew work.

[Seaeagle]

On 6/15/2023 at 12:58 AM, Raisuli said:

I go to thinking about the original question as opposed to picking on a ship Seaeagle really likes, which was probably unnecessary..

Well IMO it was a sound approach to what the Soviets wanted from their aircraft carriers - i.e. not a US style "force projection" super carrier, but a cruiser-carrier tailored for specific tasks of naval warfare(ASW, ASuW and air-defence).

The Kuznetsov design met those requirements in terms of balance between cost effectiveness and capability - unlike any of the other Soviet takes on aircraft carriers, which were either wholefully inadequate(Pr. 1123 "Moscow class" and Pr. 1143 "Kiev class) or much too large, complex and expensive(projected Pr. 1143.7 "Ul'Yanovsk class). With the Kuznetsov they got a practical ship of mid range size with good endurance, sophisticated onboard systems/armament and-  above all - a proper airwing that  both in terms of size and capability(performance, range and payload) justified the cost of operating it. 

So yes I like the design, but like I said, sadly let down by the circumstances surrounding its inception and service.

On 6/15/2023 at 12:58 AM, Raisuli said:

..., and got to wondering how much we really know about carrier operations on 'red' ships.  Sure, there are some Youtube videos out there from the Kuz, and we can make a few WAGs (no not that one, Wild ...Aviation Guesses) about comms and procedures, but is it really possible to replicate the SC functionality without making that stuff up or just copying what we have on SC?

Well I guess there are limitations in this regard, but at least the basics concerning launch and recovery should be achievable. Anyway, I didn't read the OP as a question about why the Kuznetsov wasn't made to "full SC level", but rather since it isn't, why he has to pay for a US carrier that is just to get an updated 3D model  .

On 6/15/2023 at 12:58 AM, Raisuli said:

For SC we've got NATOPS and people who have been there and done that from both pilot and deck crew perspectives.  I imagine that depth of knowledge is lacking for the Kuz.  It would be way cool to have it, just not sure it's available.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but you would need the proper contacts to find out. 

On 6/15/2023 at 12:58 AM, Raisuli said:

And the cold hard reality is RedFor is woefully under-represented here.

Indeed.

On 6/15/2023 at 12:58 AM, Raisuli said:

  Some of those reasons have been mentioned, may.be there are more, but ultimately that's a business decision.

Of course.