Russian Carrier puts to Sea

[Tiger]

Russian Aircraft Carrier On Its Way to North Atlantic
By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, MOSCOW

The Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov left the port of Murmansk
on March 23 to carry out military exercises in the north Atlantic,
Russian news reports said.

For two weeks, the Admiral Kuznetsov will implement a series of
military exercises involving the airplanes on board, ITAR-TASS quoted
the Russian Navy chief-of-command as saying.

More than 40 takeoffs are scheduled to take place during the exercises.


The Admiral Kuznetsov went into active service in 1993. It is 302 meters
long, weighs 55,000 tons, can reach a speed of 30 knots and can carry up
to 36 planes, 16 helicopters and 1,960 men.

The aircraft carrier last went into the open sea in November 2004.

[Jim Carriere]

Tiger wrote:
> More than 40 takeoffs are scheduled to take place during the exercises.

Hopefully more than 40 landings are similarly scheduled.

[TOliver]

"Tiger" > wrote in message
...
> Russian Aircraft Carrier On Its Way to North Atlantic
> By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, MOSCOW
>
> The Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov left the port of Murmansk
> on March 23 to carry out military exercises in the north Atlantic, Russian
> news reports said.
>
> For two weeks, the Admiral Kuznetsov will implement a series of military
> exercises involving the airplanes on board, ITAR-TASS quoted the Russian
> Navy chief-of-command as saying.
>
> More than 40 takeoffs are scheduled to take place during the exercises.
>

Counting bolters, bingos and senior officer RONs, arrested landing will
likely be less than half that (if things go as planned).

Ahhh, give me the good old days when you could see 40 cat shots long before
being relieved for lunch. Come to think of it, by Summer's early light,
I've seen that many before being relieved (early) for the Forenoon.

Not many Centurions in Russian NAVAIR.....

TMO

[Per Nordenberg]

"Jim Carriere" > skrev i meddelandet ...
> Tiger wrote:
> > More than 40 takeoffs are scheduled to take place during the exercises.
>
> Hopefully more than 40 landings are similarly scheduled.


Not necessarily. Maybe some are scheduled to land on the ice like in the movie Firefox? :)

Per Nordenberg

[Ken Duffey]

TOliver wrote:

> "Tiger" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Russian Aircraft Carrier On Its Way to North Atlantic
>>By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, MOSCOW
>>
>>The Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov left the port of Murmansk
>>on March 23 to carry out military exercises in the north Atlantic, Russian
>>news reports said.
>>
>>For two weeks, the Admiral Kuznetsov will implement a series of military
>>exercises involving the airplanes on board, ITAR-TASS quoted the Russian
>>Navy chief-of-command as saying.
>>
>>More than 40 takeoffs are scheduled to take place during the exercises.
>>
>
>
> Counting bolters, bingos and senior officer RONs, arrested landing will
> likely be less than half that (if things go as planned).
>
> Ahhh, give me the good old days when you could see 40 cat shots long before
> being relieved for lunch. Come to think of it, by Summer's early light,
> I've seen that many before being relieved (early) for the Forenoon.
>
> Not many Centurions in Russian NAVAIR.....
>
> TMO
>
>

Nor will there ever be - as the Admiral Kuznetsov does not 'do' cat shots.

It has a ski ramp - the resident Su-33's wind up to full power and are
held back by retractable 'fingers' in front of the mainwheels.

When these retract, the a/c accelerates up over the ramp.

The Kuznetsov has four arresting wires - and is therfore a 'STOBAR' design.

They did look into - and even built - a working catapult, but rejected
it in favour of the ski jump.

Ken

See my pages at
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/flankers_pages/su-27k.htm

[Drifter Bob]

Is that named for Kuznetsov the WWII fighter ace?

DB
> Russian Aircraft Carrier On Its Way to North Atlantic
> By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, MOSCOW
>
> The Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov left the port of Murmansk
> on March 23 to carry out military exercises in the north Atlantic,
> Russian news reports said.
>

[Ken Duffey]

No - the fighter ace was I Kuznetsov -
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/kuznetsov/kuznetsov.htm

The carrier was more properly named 'Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet
Union Kuznetsov' - usually shortened to 'Admiral Kuznetsov'.

It is named after Nikolai G. Kuznetsov :-
http://admiral.centro.ru/start_e.htm

Ken


Drifter Bob wrote:
> Is that named for Kuznetsov the WWII fighter ace?
>
> DB
>
>> Russian Aircraft Carrier On Its Way to North Atlantic
>>By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, MOSCOW
>>
>>The Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov left the port of Murmansk
>>on March 23 to carry out military exercises in the north Atlantic,
>>Russian news reports said.
>>
>
>
>

[David Biddulph]

"Drifter Bob" > wrote in message
.. .
>> Russian Aircraft Carrier On Its Way to North Atlantic
>> By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, MOSCOW
>>
>> The Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov left the port of Murmansk
>> on March 23 to carry out military exercises in the north Atlantic,
>> Russian news reports said.

> Is that named for Kuznetsov the WWII fighter ace?

No.

Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Nikolai Gerasimovich Kuznetsov:
http://admiral.centro.ru/start_e.htm
--
David Biddulph

[[email protected]]

Only 40 landings and take offs? In 20 years in the USN and five
carriers most days 40 launches and traps would be a piece of cake.

Gerry Hamm USN/retired

[Fred J. McCall]

Ken Duffey > wrote:

:The Kuznetsov has four arresting wires - and is therfore a 'STOBAR' design.

You're going to have to explain where the back half of that acronym
comes from.

[Ken Duffey]

Short Take Off But Arrested Recovery

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/STOBAR

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOBAR

http://www.sciencedaily.com/encyclopedia/stobar

Ken

Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Ken Duffey > wrote:
>
> :The Kuznetsov has four arresting wires - and is therfore a 'STOBAR' design.
>
> You're going to have to explain where the back half of that acronym
> comes from.
>
>

[Guy Alcala]

Ken Duffey wrote:

> Short Take Off But Arrested Recovery
>
> http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/STOBAR
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOBAR
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/encyclopedia/stobar
>
> Ken
>
> Fred J. McCall wrote:
> > Ken Duffey > wrote:
> >
> > :The Kuznetsov has four arresting wires - and is therfore a 'STOBAR' design.
> >
> > You're going to have to explain where the back half of that acronym
> > comes from.

Whereas US, French and Brazilian CV/CVNs are described as CATOBAR, and everything
else (at the moment) is STOVL.

Guy

[Christophe Chazot]

"Guy Alcala" > a écrit dans le message
news: ...
> Ken Duffey wrote:
(snip)
> Whereas US, French and Brazilian CV/CVNs are described as CATOBAR, and
everything
> else (at the moment) is STOVL.
>
> Guy

CTOL for conventional take-off and landing seems more appropriate.
Why does one want a B in CATOBAR ? is there any catapult take-off and
vertical landing ?

Christophe

[Ken Duffey]

Christophe Chazot wrote:
> "Guy Alcala" > a écrit dans le message
> news: ...
>
>>Ken Duffey wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>>Whereas US, French and Brazilian CV/CVNs are described as CATOBAR, and
>
> everything
>
>>else (at the moment) is STOVL.
>>
>>Guy
>
>
> CTOL for conventional take-off and landing seems more appropriate.
> Why does one want a B in CATOBAR ? is there any catapult take-off and
> vertical landing ?
>
> Christophe
>
>

CTOL, STOL, VTOL, VSTOL all refer to land-based ops.

Carrier launches are anything but 'conventional' - hence the CATO bit.

I guess you have to add BAR to differentiate it from a VL - as in a Harrier.

That would be STOVL ??

So, for carrier ops you can CATO or STO to launch and BAR or VL to
recover - and mix-and-match to suit ....

CATOBAR, STOBAR, STOVL - but no CATOVL (AFAIK) ??

I agree about the B bit - why would you want to add 'But' ?? - you
don't say 'Short Take Off BUT Vertical Landing' - STOBVL do you ??

Ken

[David E. Powell]

David Biddulph wrote:
> "Drifter Bob" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >> Russian Aircraft Carrier On Its Way to North Atlantic
> >> By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, MOSCOW
> >>
> >> The Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov left the port of
Murmansk
> >> on March 23 to carry out military exercises in the north Atlantic,
> >> Russian news reports said.
>
> > Is that named for Kuznetsov the WWII fighter ace?
>
> No.
>
> Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Nikolai Gerasimovich
Kuznetsov:
> http://admiral.centro.ru/start_e.htm

Good website!
> --
> David Biddulph

[~^ beancounter ~^]

"More than 40 takeoffs are scheduled to take
place during the exercises."...

wow, they must have a budget surplus this year.....

[NoHoverstop]

Ken Duffey wrote:
<snip>
>
> CATOBAR, STOBAR, STOVL - but no CATOVL (AFAIK) ??
>
> I agree about the B bit - why would you want to add 'But' ?? - you
> don't say 'Short Take Off BUT Vertical Landing' - STOBVL do you ??
>
> Ken
>
We used to talk about CV and STOVL when it came to embarked fast-jets
and everyone knew what was meant. Don't know who came up with the term
"STOBAR" but I suspect it was already being done before BAe (as was) got
all excited at the prospect of a "Navalised" EFA. Given that combat
aircraft used to get airborne from carriers for years without catapults,
the "S" in STOBAR would appear to mean "Ski-jump" in practice (otherwise
use the term "LWUT" - Like We Used To). As for the "B", I think this
comes under the "Law of acronyms" which says you get the acronym first
and explain it later, if forced to.

As for what you term CATOVL, you perhaps may recall the P1154RN, which
the RN wanted to cat launch (hence replacing the original P1154's
bicycle gear with a tricycle layout) but presumably would VL whenever
possible for embarked ops.

[Guy Alcala]

NoHoverstop wrote:

> Ken Duffey wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> > CATOBAR, STOBAR, STOVL - but no CATOVL (AFAIK) ??
> >
> > I agree about the B bit - why would you want to add 'But' ?? - you
> > don't say 'Short Take Off BUT Vertical Landing' - STOBVL do you ??
> >
> > Ken
> >
> We used to talk about CV and STOVL when it came to embarked fast-jets
> and everyone knew what was meant. Don't know who came up with the term
> "STOBAR" but I suspect it was already being done before BAe (as was) got
> all excited at the prospect of a "Navalised" EFA. Given that combat
> aircraft used to get airborne from carriers for years without catapults,
> the "S" in STOBAR would appear to mean "Ski-jump" in practice (otherwise
> use the term "LWUT" - Like We Used To).

Right. The USN experimented with ski jumps for "conventional" carrier a/c
back in the late '80s. I don't recall seeing the term STOBAR used until the
Kuznetsov entered service, at which point someone decided to come up with an
acronym to describe how it fit in between the other two methods. I suppose
you could call flat deck conventional launches ROTOBAR, i.e. Rolling Takeoff
But etc.

> As for the "B", I think this
> comes under the "Law of acronyms" which says you get the acronym first
> and explain it later, if forced to.

'B' is necessary for STOBAR, to show that it's a hybrid of the usual
methods; but CATOBAR just looks better and has an obvious pronunciation,
compared to CATOAR or the even worse CATOAAR. CATOBAR was a retrospective
designation, once STOVL and STOBAR were in the field, it was necessary to
distinguish the types, and CTOL just didn't work (cf. the F-35A CTOL/F-35B
STOVL/F-35C 'CV' variants). CVs don't have to use cat launches, so while
using 'CV' for the F-35C works for the USN (and takes up less space than
CATOBAR), you really would prefer to describe the launch and landing
technique of the a/c rather than the ship type.

> As for what you term CATOVL, you perhaps may recall the P1154RN, which
> the RN wanted to cat launch (hence replacing the original P1154's
> bicycle gear with a tricycle layout) but presumably would VL whenever
> possible for embarked ops.

If they can get EMALS cats to work up a curved ski jump, we may yet see
CATOVL a/c.

Guy

[David E. Powell]

Ken Duffey wrote:
> Christophe Chazot wrote:
> > "Guy Alcala" > a =E9crit dans le
message
> > news: ...
> >
> >>Ken Duffey wrote:
> >
> > (snip)
> >
> >>Whereas US, French and Brazilian CV/CVNs are described as CATOBAR,
and
> >
> > everything
> >
> >>else (at the moment) is STOVL.
> >>
> >>Guy
> >
> > CTOL for conventional take-off and landing seems more appropriate.
> > Why does one want a B in CATOBAR ? is there any catapult take-off
and
> > vertical landing ?
> >
> > Christophe
> >
> >
>
> CTOL, STOL, VTOL, VSTOL all refer to land-based ops.
>
> Carrier launches are anything but 'conventional' - hence the CATO
bit.
>
> I guess you have to add BAR to differentiate it from a VL - as in a
Harrier.
>
> That would be STOVL ??
>
> So, for carrier ops you can CATO or STO to launch and BAR or VL to
> recover - and mix-and-match to suit ....
>
> CATOBAR, STOBAR, STOVL - but no CATOVL (AFAIK) ??
>
> I agree about the B bit - why would you want to add 'But' ?? - you
> don't say 'Short Take Off BUT Vertical Landing' - STOBVL do you ??
>
> Ken


What did they call the Royal Navy's Harrier Carriers? I thought it was
V/STOL. (Vertical or Short Take Off and Landing.)

[Christophe]

"Ken Duffey" > a écrit dans le message
news: ...
(snip)

> CTOL, STOL, VTOL, VSTOL all refer to land-based ops.

Arf. And Invincible is not a STOVL ship ?

(re-snip)
> I agree about the B bit - why would you want to add 'But' ?? - you
> don't say 'Short Take Off BUT Vertical Landing' - STOBVL do you ??
>
> Ken
>

I don't either, as I wrote, that's why I don't see why there is one B in
CATOBAR. Catapult take-off BUT arrested recovery ?

Christophe

[Peter Kemp]

On 5 Apr 2005 12:13:08 -0700, "David E. Powell"
> wrote:

>What did they call the Royal Navy's Harrier Carriers? I thought it was
>V/STOL. (Vertical or Short Take Off and Landing.)

Way back when Harriers were first being introduced, VTOL was used,
then they realised payloads could be increased if a rolling take off
was used so we got V/STOL, but since no vertical takeoffs are made
outside of airshows for payload reasons these days, STOVL (pronounced
sto-vull by a friend of mine who flew Sea Harriers until recently)
took over as being more accurate.

--
Peter Kemp

"Life is short...drink faster"

[Brian Sharrock]

"David E. Powell" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Ken


> What did they call the Royal Navy's Harrier Carriers? I thought it was
> V/STOL. (Vertical or Short Take Off and Landing.)

IIRC,'they' called them 'Invincible'(R05), 'Illustrious'(R06)
and 'Ark Royal'(R07).
Actually, they've been utilised for STO and VL evolutions of
the embarked Harriers; that is Short (Rolling) Take-off (that's
the purpose of the 'ski-jump') while Verical Landings are most
expeditious for the pilots and maintainers/armourers.
The Harriers, of various Mk's, from FRS1 to GR7, are VSTOL
while I believe the ships themselves are classified by the Navy
as 'CVS.

--

Brian

[Ken Duffey]

Brian Sharrock wrote:
> "David E. Powell" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>Ken
>
>
>
>>What did they call the Royal Navy's Harrier Carriers? I thought it was
>>V/STOL. (Vertical or Short Take Off and Landing.)
>
>
> IIRC,'they' called them 'Invincible'(R05), 'Illustrious'(R06)
> and 'Ark Royal'(R07).
> Actually, they've been utilised for STO and VL evolutions of
> the embarked Harriers; that is Short (Rolling) Take-off (that's
> the purpose of the 'ski-jump') while Verical Landings are most
> expeditious for the pilots and maintainers/armourers.
> The Harriers, of various Mk's, from FRS1 to GR7, are VSTOL
> while I believe the ships themselves are classified by the Navy
> as 'CVS.
>

Wasn't it John Farley? who said it is better to stop and then land than
it is to land and then stop !!

Ken

[John Gilbert]

"Christophe Chazot" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Guy Alcala" > a écrit dans le message
> news: ...
> > Ken Duffey wrote:
> (snip)
> > Whereas US, French and Brazilian CV/CVNs are described as CATOBAR, and
> everything
> > else (at the moment) is STOVL.
> >
> > Guy
>
> CTOL for conventional take-off and landing seems more appropriate.
> Why does one want a B in CATOBAR ? is there any catapult take-off and
> vertical landing ?
>

Guessing here, did it once stand for Barrier Assisted Recovery (i.e. a net).
But as the barriers became out of favor, the acronym was reworked?

Was the CATOBAR phrase used during WWI or WWII? Or is it a more modern
acronym?

John Gilbert

[Fred J. McCall]

Ken Duffey > wrote:

:Short Take Off But Arrested Recovery

And when did we start including conjunctions and such in acronyms?

Why isn't VSTOL rendered as VOSTOAL?

--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer

[Fred J. McCall]

Guy Alcala > wrote:

:Whereas US, French and Brazilian CV/CVNs are described as CATOBAR, and everything
:else (at the moment) is STOVL.

And why isn't that STOAVL, given that we're now including words like
'but' in the acronyms?

--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer

[TOliver]

"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
...
> Ken Duffey > wrote:
>
> :Short Take Off But Arrested Recovery
>
> And when did we start including conjunctions and such in acronyms?
>
> Why isn't VSTOL rendered as VOSTOAL?
>

When the sortie for training is planned to include the grand sum of forty
(40) landings and takeoffs (by whatever means including falling off the
roundown) it hardly matters what you call it.


Ruusian ADM: "We do have a couple of 'decurions' we can send down to train
those Indian avatars/aviators...."

TMO

[Ken Duffey]

Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Ken Duffey > wrote:
>
> :Short Take Off But Arrested Recovery
>
> And when did we start including conjunctions and such in acronyms?
>
> Why isn't VSTOL rendered as VOSTOAL?
>

Hey! Don't shoot the messenger!!

I don't make up these acronyms - someone asked what it meant, so I did
a search and came up with the answer.

Sheesh....... <g>

Ken