Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov

Name: Admiral Flota Sovetskogo Soyuza N.G. Kuznetsov (Russian: Адмира́л Фло́та Сове́тского Сою́за Н.Г. Кузнецо́в)
Namesake: Nikolay Kuznetsov
Ordered: 3 March 1981
Builder: Nikolayev South
Designer: Nevskoye Planning and Design Bureau
Laid down: 1 April 1982
Launched: 6 December 1985
Commissioned: 25 December 1990 (Fully operational in 1995)
Refit: May - August 2015
Status: in active service
General characteristics
Class and type: Kuznetsov-class aircraft carrier
Displacement:
43,000 tons (Standard-load)
55,200 tons (Full-load)
61,390 tons (Max-load)
Length:
305 m (1,001 ft)
270 m (890 ft)
Beam:
72 m (236 ft)
35 m (115 ft)
Draft: 10 m (33 ft)
Propulsion:
Steam turbines, 8 turbo-pressurised boilers, 4 shafts, 200,000 hp (150 MW)
2 × 50,000 hp (37 MW) turbines
9 × 2,011 hp (1,500 kW) turbogenerators
6 × 2,011 hp (1,500 kW) diesel generators
4 × fixed pitch propellers
Speed: 29 knots (33 mph; 54 km/h)
Range: 8,500 nmi (15,700 km) at 18 kn (21 mph; 33 km/h)
Endurance: 45 days
Complement:
1,690 (total); 1,690 ship's crew
626 air group
40 flag staff
3,857 rooms
Armament:
6 × AK-630 AA guns (6×30 mm, 6,000 round/min/mount, 24,000 rounds)
8 × CADS-N-1 Kashtan CIWS (each 2 × 30 mm Gatling AA plus 32 3K87 Kortik SAM)
12 × P-700 Granit SSM
24 × 8-cell 3K95 Kinzhal SAM VLS (192 missiles; 1 missile per 3 seconds)
RBU-12000 UDAV-1 ASW rocket launchers (60 rockets)
Aircraft carried:
Approx. 41 aircraft
Fixed Wing;
12 × Su-33 fighters (current)
20 × MiG-29K/KUB fighters (future)
4 × Sukhoi Su-25UTG/UBP trainers
Rotary Wing;
4 × Kamov Ka-27LD32 helicopters
18 × Kamov Ka-27PL helicopters
2 × Kamov Ka-27PS helicopters

[@johncannon9607]

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

[@k.suthproductions8611]

Memtoo :)

[@canislupis3129]

Pretty cool looking planes

[@brianobrien4900]

art ... beauty ... what a stunning looking aircraft

[@AviationEditza]

The ship is not a junk it is a masterpiece

[@jesseraposo1065]

Que essas Bela Embarcação com essas lindas Aeronaves voltem a Ativa

[@Wottan007]

Any chef will tell you : it's in old pans that the best cooking is done ! Do not underestimate this aircraft carrier...

[@rjl727]

Well said bro

[@alfredozertuche784]

Yes that may be or is true with cooking not all things are created equal. Just a thought

[@t.r.d.z.1630]

Well now its docked from a fire so they may have overestimated

[@themoodiestsmoothie]

I know right? It's almost like this carrier is so reliable it doesn't need an ocean going tug permanently assigned to its strike group. Oh wait

[@robertszallavarysullivan9570]

Very interesting video. Thank you for sharing it with us!!

[@monoplan1]

Bravo!!!

[@1joshjosh1]

I don't see any black smoke.

[@nicholaswhatts1380]

0:41

[@just_violet]

Just one yet with style.

[@HaY-fe8hv]

Nice

[@geraldkocijowsky6301]

there is always a few tugboats following this ship as it has a propensity of engine failures-happens all the time

[@ITmage]

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.

[@geraldkocijowsky6301]

not what my miitary buddies are saying-the kuznetzov is a piece of poop

[@ITmage]

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.

[@AlexanderTch]

Show me tugboat on any video, pls. and maybe type of it.

[@geraldkocijowsky6301]

www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a18141/towing-admiral-kuznetsov-video-tugboat/ there you go Alex

[@billb7876]

Fantastic, and what fabulous aircraft as well. Best wishes from the UK

[@jcalhoun7501]

Wow. The flame from the afteburner actually touches the JBL. It won't last for long like that.

[@xmeda]

That is pannel designed to work like that.

[@saifulmartadipura619]

Flanker....😍😍.....🇷🇺 - 🇲🇨.....

[@baytcelu]

Why is only one? Because they do not do wars outside of their country.

[@sadikzogaj604]

Because they cost to much

[@uninspired3681]

They on welfare

[@alfredozertuche784]

@@uninspired3681 🤣🤣🤣🤣 welfare for warfare

[@gabenewell3955]

Sadik Zogaj the don’t they cost like 8 billion a piece Russian gdp ppp is 4.5 trillion they can afford it but it’s not in there interest

[@dennisschreiber7663]

@@gabenewell3955 Bullshit. This is a big piece of shit! They can't afford to make more POS carriers

[@XiaoLong1977]

Awww...that's cute. Russia's sole diesel-powered aircraft carrier.

[@AlexanderTch]

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.

[@XiaoLong1977]

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.

[@AlexanderTch]

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 .

[@丌丫丁讠升-义丫兴几]

Hey, it's not diesel powered. It's ocean tug-powered for the most part.

[@valeremkin5188]

Александр Чернов Beautifule reply!

[@themjpaul]

This shhh bout to get sunk!!!

[@karnukabiyu2909]

Surprised it's not burning again

[@billb7876]

Moron

[@Zombie1981.]

it doesnt need a slingshot to take off, cool

[@maximinodeleon5694]

Excelente video.

[@polsta-polsta-dva]

Дело жизни Тимура будет жить! Слава летчикам морской авиации!!!🇷🇺🤘

[@aysesonmez1009]

Old technology, not for a conventional war, may be for training.

[@quymaitv7755]

Ồ tầu sân bay.hỏa pháo của Nga cũng mạnh hầy Ypa

[@oliverempleo9430]

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.

[@ITmage]

Its actually not vintage, its younger than majority of USN carrier fleet.

[@coolwitme1]

Isn't that where this ship is from?

[@xmeda]

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.

[@coolwitme1]

xmeda So, that makes a difference? It's still a rusted hulk that is way past it's prime!

[@ITmage]

xmeda Actually exact designation would be "heavy aircraft-carrying missile cruiser".

[@TrongNguyen-os9eb]

May bay cua cac ban nga đep nhat the gio

[@mearcat74]

The shear cost of keeping that ship in operation is what Isis wants.

[@TYW-be8zo]

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?

[@danielhope8577]

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.

[@TYW-be8zo]

@@danielhope8577 thanks bro

[@pagliaorba9958]

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.

[@demosfrancisco2425]

A Rússia vai colocar seu porta avião para ativa novamente

[@pagliaorba9958]

🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@ChAnGo_PRIME]

Such an old landing mechanism

[@nailbirth4581]

now i know that catapault is not necessarily needed.

[@abduljakoolsalsalani6509]

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!!

[@nailbirth4581]

@@abduljakoolsalsalani6509 u too idiot my point is aricraft can still take off with out that i am not mentioning those bombs you said

[@abduljakoolsalsalani6509]

Nail Birth excuses excuses dumb ass idiot fart!!

[@gabenewell3955]

AbdulJakool SalSalani shill

[@AngelRodriguez-qy8mz]

Yeah , it is , unless you wanna take off with half empty fuel tank and 50% less munition..

[@metalstalin]

Love the look of Russian aircraft.

[@TaiwanFinance]

Straight edge faith in Jesus Christ , God Bless Pacifists , Anti War

[@BG_Low]

they have a little amount of deck crews compared to Chinese or American Aircraft carrier...

[@sahir313]

Old and wounded still deadly.

[@Sandhushah-qw2pq]

Only one ??? Why

[@joshhanklon]

Because there economy is terrible so there using a soviet one stolen from Ukraine

[@albertopacheco5013]

80s Technology, I feel sorry for Russia.

[@stomper_shrimp]

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

[@AnonymousSandwich]

@@stomper_shrimp every aspect of this comment has aged poorly.

[@billb7876]

I feel sorry for all the people killed by American war machines trying to take over the world

[@ShitboxFlyer]

@@stomper_shrimp Yeah turns out they were not that effective

[@jasonharvey778]

Russian jet are strong enough for take off no catapult needed

[@chichopepelopez]

The russians just don't have the knowledge to built a deck catapult.That's the only reason they "don't need it"

[@lomis99]

Less fuel, less payload, no AEW aircraft.. STOBAR is much less capable than CATOBAR

[@ahcat3285]

ល្អ...

[@Эльф-с3р]

Кузнецов древний как мой 100 -летний дедушка! Когда нибудь на плаву рассыпится! 😅😆😅😆😅😅😆😆😆😅😆

[@austins.3313]

LOL these planes take off like lemmings jump off cliffs

[@Gsmooth10455]

You can launch five F-18's in the time that it takes just one of these. Heck the F-35B VSTOL can launch quicker than that.

[@anvutrong6870]

@@Gsmooth10455 how come?

[@McRocket]

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.

[@lomis99]

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.

[@lomis99]

Also, STOBAR carriers can't operate a proper airborne early warning aircraft. Helicopters are much less capable for the AEW role.

[@lomis99]

And why do you think China is obsessively developing a CATOBAR carrier if STOBAR was "good enough"?

[@user-hu8fn2jp5v]

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

[@McRocket]

@@lomis99 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. ☮

[@mattcuddy814]

Shit floats.

[@billb7876]

So do stupid fat yanks

[@jitendrapatil3276]

Does USA has fold-able wings jets ?

[@brandonarnold1302]

Yes, we do.

[@jitendrapatil3276]

@@brandonarnold1302 Wow. I was not knowing. Thanks a lot.

[@jackadams3176]

Can't see any ordinance

[@dariuszkonferowicz3330]

is he still swimming?

[@MotralCombat]

nope

[@Utopiaa887]

@@MotralCombat yes but soon in 2023

[@MauricioGarcesGrrrrr]

davai davai udari popu Obami i NATO .......v Mehika podderdzaem Putin , nadeyus vi eto znaete )))

[@devendraprajapati52312]

Shark of rasian modi power given bagdadi:bush weldone punit:happy new year wish :"yudhdh"

[@nikokuliev3972]

👍👍👍👍👍💪💪💪💪💪😎😎

[@seswantowanto8520]

Iya ini rusia kayak lagi ganyang AS terkutuk

[@theouegoudemycoulenavoure527]

☝🌐🌹 HONOUROULE THEOUE GOGORGEOUS NATOUW SAOUEMAROUNE AIOURECROUFT SHOUPE MOVIOUE☝NOW IOUE GOGORGEOUS FLYEIOUNG MOVIOUE ACTIOUEIOUNE PLEOUSE☝THE DEOUTE-02/11/2022.

[@ShriyaDamayanthi]

🤗🤗🦋💃👀👁️🇷🇺

[@pianist00315]

2019 still no catapult

[@TheRocknrolla12]

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

[@eyeofthetiger6002]

@@TheRocknrolla12 wrong, the whole point of a carrier is for offensive power projection, no such thing as a defensive power projection.

[@ibnu_8809]

Take off is slower than us aircraft

[@IgorLozovskiyUSAUA]

Быстренько состряпали "ответочку" ))

[@Kochevrjazhitsja]

можно было выложить и посовременней видео, хотя у военных свои секреты

[@まいちゅん-h3b]

ロシアトップガン

[@seswantowanto8520]

Mudah2an TNI AU latihAn pesawat tempur dikapal induk Rusia.

[@tobiaspramono378]

Ni kapal aja gabener, jet kita jg ga ada yang Carrier Capable aokwaokw

[@samklm8367]

💪💪💪💪💪💪💪

[@ROBERT-hz3nb]

GO PUTIN ! ! !

[@johannesnicolaas]

the carrier that does not need an Ukrainian missile: it will sink itself

[@maddogroam]

It was built in Ukraine. That's why it's crap to begin with.

[@eyeofthetiger6002]

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.

[@_Epsilon_]

_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.

[@eyeofthetiger6002]

@@_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!

[@PsytranceLove]

Why is it not used in Ukraine?

[@SonOfAB_tch2ndClass]

Burned down in port a few years ago. The only people with the expertise to fix it IS Ukraine.

[@AZNXXXful14]

During the desolution of the SSR Russians took this ship from Ukraine before it could be turned over. Sad really...

[@joshhanklon]

Its a port queen, Russian maintenance practices always shot its military in the foot

[@shahidshah2453]

Not of the standard of US carriers

[@alanpercival6428]

And US carriers are better ???? Yeah right wot ever..

[@alfredozertuche784]

@@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

[@shahidshah2453]

@@alanpercival6428 of course . They are far more Superior than Russian and European counterparts

[@kingsxfan99]

@@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.

[@anonymous-zw6ff]

Lol old school ass Russia of course..

[@mrasoolshirzad6944]

دوست

[@rajeevratnalikar5142]

Fail in landing was american.....

[@aarontheguy3613]

braaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[@devendraprajapati52312]

Modi meeting win of UN a trump &Obama dost of modi power with punit

[@fabiomachado3723]

Sera Alexander chatarra esa cosa

[@xanderejby]

y

[@paveldukov]

жескач

[@xanderejby]

Jeg

[@abduljakoolsalsalani6509]

USA! USA! USA! 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

[@abduljakoolsalsalani6509]

Ja no are you talking about your neighborhood prostitutes?! 😂😂😂

[@esalalomani7618]

USA has 21 Aircraft carriers (including Amphibious assault carriers) that actually work and function smoothly

[@abduljakoolsalsalani6509]

Esala Lomani tell that to the russian idiots that think russia is more powerful and advanced than the United States

[@esalalomani7618]

Russia is nothing without carriers, their aircraft have to travel long distances to get to the West

[@gabenewell3955]

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

[@antonz1977]

Древний да.

[@IgorLozovskiyUSAUA]

В 70-е построен

[@jaronlee4936]

And they invaded Ukraine

[@jamesmandahl444]

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?

[@josedourado3747]

lol this crap is already kaput