Talk:Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Maintenance This article has a deprecated, subst'ed or incorrect infobox and needs a new one.
Please replace with {{Infobox Ship Begin/doc}}

Contents

[edit] Article name

Isn't there a better way to name this article? The article for the USS John C. Stennis is not called 'American aircraft carrier John C. Stennis'.

No, the Stennis is at "United States Ship John C. Stennis," just as the Ark Royal is at "Her Majesty's Ship Ark Royal" -- there just happens to be common abbreviations for United States Ship and Her Majesty's Ship which we are using.

Other articles on ships use only the ships name for a title.

And when I find them, I correct them. Is "George Washington" a person or a ship? Is "Constitution" a piece of paper or a ship?

If there is no common designation for Soviet ships equivalent to HMS or USS, then we could just put this article at Kuznetsov.

How do we disambiguate the ship from the human being?
A disambig page?

Besides, if we are going to be precise on this, the exact name is "Admiral of the fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov" (Admiral flota Sovetskogo sojuza Kuznetsov). So please, correct it.

[edit] Cruiser?

I vaguely remember reading somewhere that the Kuzenetsov was designated a heavy aircraft crusier rather than an aircraft carrier to get around treaty limits which forbade aircraft carriers from transiting the Bosphorus. I didn't add this to the main text because I can't find the exact treaty so this might be an urban legend.

[edit] Disposition

When was this ship sold to China?

  • The Admrial Kuznetsov wasn't sold to China, the hull of the Varyag was

--Mtnerd 02:12, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

    • "The Admrial Kuznetsov wasn't sold to China, the hull of the Varyag was"

we should take out the section saying that it was sold if this is true. Dudtz 8/20/05 3:24 PM EST


[edit] Speed

The article lists a maximum speed of 29kts in the text body, then 32kts in the summary. Which is correct? Also, is this ship operated normally as part of the Black Sea fleet? Or (since Russia has only one) is it rotated between fleets?--KBrown 20:27, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As far as I know, she never sailed at full speed until recently. I've been told yesterday in private conversation, that on January 27, 2008, Kuznetsov with fully refurbished boilers was finally given permission to go at full speed and posted 28.5 knots at 6 degree waves. So I believe that 29 knots is more accurate figure, but who knows... --Khathi (talk) 12:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aircraft complement

Everything I've seen in Western Sources gives the Kuznetsov as carrying the Flanker variant rather than the Yak-41 Freestyle. Could we have some information on that? --Mtnerd 02:12, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The article from Japanese Wikipedia gives its aircrafts as folows; 18 Su-33UB (=Su-27KUB), 2 Su-25UTG (trainer crafts), 16 Ka-27, 2 Ka-31 (modified Ka-27). In addition, 18 MIG-29K was planned, but cancelled due to the financial reason. Also, Yak-44E (air-borne radar craft) was designed but cancelled for the same reason. Since this ship only needs STOL crafts because of its long flight deck, it doesn't make sense to carry Yak-141. -- Revth 12:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Yak 41 never entered the production stage. There are several prototypes but no serial plane. Thus is impossible for the Kuznetsov to carry them.

There is a contradiction in the article : "Fixed-wing aircraft on Admiral Kuznetsovs are essentially constrained to air superiority operations." However aircrafts which he carry include Su-25 ground attack plane. Serg3d2 08:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, in addition, the SU-33 has been certified in the Air to Ground role as well, so saying the complement is only Air to Air is flat out wrong. 142.161.29.94 00:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
WIthout seeing the actual reference the statement is based on, it's hard to know what is actually meant by that statement. I beleive it may be reffering to the limited take-off weights of the FLankers using the ski-jumps which may limit their useful air-to-ground role, but this is just conjecture based on other info. Also, I don't think Su-25s were ever officially assigned as part of the air group, so that backs up the idea it may refer to a limitation on the Su-33s.
As to the Yak-41/141, just because the carrier is capable of launching CATOBAR aircraft does not mean STOVL planes would not be advantageous to have. The Yaks would not use the arresting gear, which would save wear-and-tear on the wires and systems, and also mean they could land elsewhere on the ship, allowing the CATOBAR planes to land more quickly if necessary. In addtition, the Yaks would not have been affected by problems with the arresting gear. If they were needed in the air quickly, they could takeoff vertically, and not have to wait on the ship to stear into the wind for ramp takeoffs. - BillCJ 01:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
If noone provides proper citation for the "Role"-section in say a week, I'll remove the claims about A2G. The current wording doesn't do justice to the Su-33 and makes STOBAR sound inferior to CATOBAR. - Dammit 11:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Names

I've removed: "The vessel was briefly named Kremlin" - unless somebody finds a reliable source. Instead, I've added information about names Wrom: KVFVWRKJVZCMHVIBGDADRZFS Тяжелый авианесущий крейсер «Адмирал Кузнецов» Pibwl ←« 18:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Admiral Kuznetsov class aircraft carrier still carries this information. Is it correct she was once called Riga? Her sister was also launched as Riga. Drutt (talk) 18:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


Someone else wrote: The opening of the article says the ship was originally named something else. Then later it says it was originally named Riga. The other article the Vargus or whatever, also contains Riga. I assume that this boat was never named Riga. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.143.141 (talk) 09:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Maximum number of aircrafts allowed?

Hi, I am asking this just for curiosity. In the instruction manual of a 1/700 model of this ship, it says that she is allowed to support around 60 aircrafts. I wonder if that is really true? http://www.1999.co.jp/dbimages/user/hobby/itbig/10046391ek.jpg

I'll look around. By the way, I believe when referring to Russian ships the proper term is "he." Something about ships being masculine in Russian rather than feminine.LWF 15:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It's more complex, actually. Ship is only "he" if it's not named, as the word "ship" is masculine in Russian. Bit if the ship is named, then one refers by the gender of the name -- as Kusnetsov was a man, then the ship would also be "he". --Khathi (talk) 10:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

"I'll look around. By the way, I believe when referring to Russian ships the proper term is "he." Something about ships being masculine in Russian rather than feminine."

I believe you are correct (at least this is how it is my language and it is quite close to Russian). However since the article is in english and not in Russian the correct form would be she.

[edit] Requested move

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

[edit] Career

She raised the Soviet Navy Ensign on January 20 1991 and since then entered service in the Red Banner Northern Fleet [1]. So, please don't remove this info under "fully operational since 1995" pretext. 86.100.231.115 (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)