Talk:Kuznetsov-class aircraft carrier

Needs Improvement

The Kuznetsov and Varyag are two very unique vessels, and compared to the US supercarriers most people know very little about them. This is our chance to change that mates. I'd like to see a subsection on it's complement of aircraft (one regiment of Su-33 Flankers, Kamov Helix helicopters. It should be noted, before anyone goes off and says anything about the Yak-141, that the Freestyle never entered service.

Your time and effort is much appreciated, and good luck! (USMA2010 05:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC))

Requested move 2007

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Kuznetsov class aircraft carrier → Admiral Kuznetsov class aircraft carrier — Nobody calls it "Kuznetsov"—it's always referred to as "Admiral Kuznetsov." —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Survey - Support votes

1. Support: Reason outlined above.

Survey - Oppose votes

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

Please hold the discussion at the related page: Talk:Soviet aircraft carrier Kuznetsov#Discussion

Hmm...I dont know that much about russian carriers but dosent the 72 meters beam sound a little oversized? The Nimitz-class is only 40 meters. Walle83 16:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Isn't this statement illogical?

"Admiral Kuznetsov precludes launching strike aircraft with heavy loads, which makes it essentially impossible for aircraft with large payloads to attack land or naval targets, although Su-33 'Flanker-D' fighters with maximum payload are able to take off through the landing deck."

Practically, Flankers(Su-33 included) are the biggest of "heavy fighters" and can carry larger payload than any other carrier based fighter in the world excluding F-18E.(but including F-14, F-18C). Now, if it can(i dont comment about it can or it cant) launch from the carrier with full payload(which is 6500kg according to wikipedia), how it is "impossible for aircraft with large payloads to attack land or naval targets"??? 85.99.33.56 (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The statement is uncited, so we should tag it, and remove it if we cannot find a reliable source to clear it up. Such statements are usually the result of several editors attempting to "clarify" a statement to fit what they (think they) know about something. This is made worse if the eidtors do not know fluent English. In the end, it ends up the mess we have, as you've pointed out.

What I think it's saying is that the ship cannot launch heaviliy loaded strikefighters from the main launch positions (a 200-300 ft run, if I recall correctly). However, Su-33s could launch with a full load if they started at further back in the landing zone, giving a longer takeoff run. However, that would make landing operations difficult, and might also interfere with deck spotting of other aircraft preparing to launch. So just becasue it is possible to launch Su-33s with a full load doesn't mean it's practical in all circumstances, due to the limitations of using the ski jump. This is where catapult carriers have an advantage, in that they can reguulary launch aircraft at full loads. That's my interpretation of the statement, combined with what little I know of carrier operations. - BillCJ (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Just as a data point, US Navy carrier aircraft can (and routinely do) launch from the carrier at the same maximum gross weight as they can launch from land. Example: the max takeoff weight for an FA-18E is 66,000lbs, regardless of whether from shore or ship. Max landing weight, on the other hand, varies significantly from ship (44,000lbs) to shore (50,600lbs). Believe the statement should be rewriten along the lines of BillCJ E2a2j (talk) 18:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

True, but I dont see that a real disadvantage about that, excluding US carriers. Unless I am mistaken, French 'Charles De Gaulle' and Brazil's 'Sao Paulo' are the only catapult carriers out of US. They both carry 40 aircraft and ~20 fighters, and both have 2 catapults(again unless i am mistaken) and 1 of their catapults are located in the landing area. Have to mention, they both carry light fighters, like F-16, Kuznetsov carries 20 aircraft and 12 heavy fighters, equivalent to F-15. Then, IMO, it is logical to say Kuznetsovs performance is roughly equivalent to any carrier catapult equipped carrier other than US ones. When compared to any STOVL carrier, its strike ability is definately superior. I think it is not fair to say something like "it cant conduct strike missions" or "it can but with many difficulties". B/C if it is true, its also true for any non-US carriers. In the practice, launching strike missions are always harder than launching CAPs, for any carrier.

I think the article should mention that strike craft cant use standard launch positions and has to use the launch position located on the landing zone. If something about difficulty is to be mentioned, it should also be mentioned for all VSTOL and STOBAR carriers, and the carriers which position their catapults in landing zones85.99.33.56 (talk) 18:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Article contains copyrighted text.

Much of the text in this article has been copied from http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/kuznetsov/

The reference is acknowledged, but cut-and-pasting the text is not justified.

I am rewriting to eliminate all this copied text. --Rich Rostrom (Talk) 06:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

File:Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier bridge.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier bridge.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Amend article name to "Kuznetsov class aircraft carrier"

Article name should be amended (reverted) to read "Kuznetsov class aircraft carrier". Justification ofr change is that the class name should be simple and succinct. Also "Admiral Kuznetsov" is not the ship's actual name. The actual name is: "Fleet Admiral of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov". Clearly this is too long for a class name. Let's keep it simple and just go with "Kuznetsov". There are no ambiguity issues in using this name.Федоров (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Fuel

Not to ask anything too arcane, but what does it use for fuel? Thanks. CountMacula (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

We could use much more detail on the boilers in general. I understand that they're both somewhat unusual, and a problem in service. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Photo

There's a nice photo of the Kuznetsov being escorted by HMS Liverpool earlier this year available under the OGL if someone wants to do the honours - search http://www.defenceimagery.mod.uk/ for 45153590.jpg. Shows the skijump particularly well. 86.25.7.71 (talk) 22:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Liaoning

The Liaoning is listed here as a Admiral Kuznetsov-class aircraft carrier. It is not. The Hull was originally destened to be a Admiral Kuznetsov-class aircraft carrier but it never was. The Chinese carrier, the Liaoning, is not a Admiral Kuznetsov-class aircraft carrier. The current wording in the article makes out that the PLA has an Admiral Kuznetsov-class aircraft carriers where as the Liaoning's has be extensively modified and now bears little reselbelence to the original Soviet class design. Rincewind42 (talk) 13:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC) But, in my opinion, this kind of difference between the Liaoning and kuznetsov is just like the difference the battleship North Carolina and the South Dakota. You can say that they are from different classes, but origenally they are all North Carolina class. The change is not fondamentally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hao341202 (talk • contribs) 11:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/kuznetsov/

  Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 11:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect Information About Reliability

The section about the ship's boiler reliability is incorrect. The boilers is actually one of the ship's advantages. The boilers is of very robust manufacture that allows the ship to burn a variety of fuel types in case of fuel shortage, including waste.

This is also used to tactical advantage, in which case oiled fibre is burned to create a heated smokescreen to disrupt IR detection and tracking accuracy. This can be easily observed when the ship passes close to nations displaying hostile intent and/or rhetoric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.182.9.198 (talk) 14:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Type justification

Any comment purporting to ascribe Soviet motives for the typing of the KUZNETSOV as an aircraft-carrying cruiser and such comment made without the citation of any sources should not be included in the Wiki article. On this basis I continue to delete unsourced comments until there is: 1) a source cited and/or 2) the comment is worded as conjecture.Moryak (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Remove Shandong 002 from article.

It makes sense to include Liaoning, or Type 001 class, because the vessel was technically built as a Kuznetsov class vessel, the Varyag. Shandong Type 002 class, while derived from the Kuznetsov, is not formally part of the class and should not be treated as one. For example in Wikipedia the Japanese missile destroyer classes Maya and Atago are acknowledged to be derived from the Kongou class, but each occupy their own article. Chokoladesu (talk) 13:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Istanbul bridges

Have a look at the photos, Wikipedia article on Istanbul , The ship looks to tall to go under some of the bridges, I don't think you will see it in the Black sea supporting the attack against Ukraine Sudzydoogiedawg (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Add "former" to soviet navy in operators

The Soviet Navy does not exist anymore so should we add "former" to it in "Operators" in the infobox? Or "historical" or something else? Poopykibble (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)