Northern Fleet: No plans to send "Admiral Kuznetsov" to the shores of Syria

Aircraft cruiser Admiral Fleet Soviet Union Kuznetsov ”will soon enter the Barents Sea to carry out planned tasks. Information about his sending to Syria is not true, reports TASS with reference to the press service of the Federation Council.




“The long-distance march or any other measures of combat and operational training for the heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser were not planned for the near future,” the press service explained.

According to representatives of the fleet, "at present, the aircraft carrier is at its full-time parking in Murmansk, its crew is conducting planned activities on the basic preparation of the ship to go to sea."

The press service said that “in the near future the ship will leave for the Barents Sea to work out the planned tasks of the combat training course, as well as to ensure the flights of pilots of the naval fighter aviation regiment of the sea aviation Northern Fleet. "
Photos used:
Michael Metzel / TASS
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

51 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. herruvim 15 October 2015 16: 59 New
    • 15
    • 0
    +15
    And why not send, it would be symbolic, the American left, the Russian aircraft carrier came
    1. BilliBoms09 15 October 2015 17: 03 New
      • 9
      • 0
      +9
      It would be symbolic, the American left, the Russian aircraft carrier came
      Only if symbolic. And so the aviation group in Syria itself is quite coping. And for the sake of clanging as a. Measure, I think it’s not worth it.
      1. figwam 15 October 2015 17: 10 New
        • 9
        • 0
        +9
        I think Kuznetsov necessarily descends to the Mediterranean, on duty.
      2. theadenter 15 October 2015 20: 36 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Why bother with something else if the world was so dumbfounded by Caliber launches.
      3. Sterlya 15 October 2015 22: 09 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Yes, there is nothing for him to do there, the expenses are large, there will be little sense. (my opinion)
        1. shuhartred 16 October 2015 02: 20 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Sterlya
          Yes, there is nothing for him to do there, the expenses are large, there will be little sense. (my opinion)

          The demonstration of the flag, however, is also a necessary thing. And expenditures across the country are scanty, our officials steal an order of magnitude more (a mathematical term, I was not mistaken), or even two belay
    2. Pogran 15 October 2015 17: 17 New
      • 19
      • 0
      +19
      Nicaraguan President Daniel ORTEGA has agreed with the leadership of Russia and China on the construction in his country of a canal connecting the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. The water artery will become a competitor to the US-controlled Panama Canal, and deprive Washington of a strategic and economic monopoly in Central America. (this is where it may be needed))))))
      1. adept666 15 October 2015 17: 24 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Nicaraguan President Daniel ORTEGA has agreed with the leadership of Russia and China on the construction of a canal in his country
        maybe it’ll go there, they wanted to adapt the campaign for this matter to the Mistral, but it didn’t burn out, so Kuzma went on a trip ...
        1. shuhartred 16 October 2015 02: 21 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: adept666
          Mistral wanted to adapt the campaign to this matter, but did not burn out

          Egypt is pulled into a share (small) and you will be the Mistral.
          1. adept666 19 October 2015 07: 37 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Egypt is pulled into a share (small) and you will be the Mistral.

            Everything is muddy there with Egypt. Firstly, the French still have ships and can still change. The issue of our equipment and the scheme of its transfer to the Egyptians has not yet been resolved, the issue of armaments has not been resolved. In addition, I do not want to offend anyone, well, to put it mildly, our sailors are much more experienced than the Egyptians, but even they took considerable time to prepare, and the crews were made up of the best. Until they deliver it, while they master it, it’s at least a couple of years that they begin to walk at least in the Mediterranean more or less confidently, not like crossing the Atlantic. It's like in that movie: - Well, that Sherwood help the old man! - A deadly disease ... - Boring, and then a person’s health is not too big yet to introduce ourselves, forget why they wanted to kill ...
    3. avt
      avt 15 October 2015 17: 23 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: herruvim
      It would be symbolic, the American left, the Russian aircraft carrier came

      Where did you leave? Not from the Persian Gulf?
      Quote: herruvim
      And why not send

      But because only the dock repair, but it would be necessary to upgrade. He will not go far without a headache for the crew.
    4. adept666 15 October 2015 17: 23 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      And why not send, it would be symbolic, the American left, the Russian aircraft carrier came
      1: until he rearmament on the MiG-29K, he basically had nothing to do there. 2: even if it was rearmament, airborne basing on the ground is much cheaper, more efficient and therefore more expedient. 3: the only reason it could be sent there is to increase the stability of the naval group of the Navy in the air defense and this is not the best option.
      1. jjj
        jjj 15 October 2015 17: 42 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: adept666
        air-based land is much cheaper

        But sea basing is safer from an anti-terrorism point of view. Mujahideen with MANPADS to the runway will not creep and the suicide bomber will not swim unnoticed
        1. adept666 15 October 2015 21: 17 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          But sea basing is safer from an anti-terrorism point of view.

          A doubtful advantage, and even if you organize security in accordance with all the rules, then it will not creep. But what about the safety of intensive take-offs and landings with weapons, while you can take off / land on an aircraft carrier of this type only when it has a certain speed? smile
          1. shuhartred 16 October 2015 02: 22 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: adept666
            But what about the safety of intensive take-offs and landings with weapons, while you can take off / land on an aircraft carrier of this type only when it has a certain speed?

            What the hell? Fleet in bin.
            1. adept666 16 October 2015 05: 27 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              And what for?
              in this particular case there really is no need for this.
              Fleet in bin.

              I don’t understand your sarcasm, expand your thought
              1. shuhartred 17 October 2015 09: 57 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: adept666
                I don’t understand your sarcasm, expand your thought

                And what is there to deploy? The theory of Admiral Mehen and without any sarcasm. It is not necessary to take off and land intensively, just show the "trunk", well, maybe a couple of times bombed by the principle of a warning shot.
                -STAY! I will shoot !!!
                -I'm standing !?
                -FIRING !!!! laughing
                1. adept666 17 October 2015 12: 07 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  And what is there to deploy? The theory of Admiral Mehen and without any sarcasm.
                  As for the theory of Alfred Mahan, I completely share it. Aviation and the navy are my passion, and when it is combined in one whole, all the more so. However, the aircraft carrier group in terms of land efficiency is significantly inferior in capabilities to the airfield-based group. More risks, less intensity, less impact capabilities (take-off weight restrictions are especially for non-catapult aircraft carriers) Each instrument has its own place, time and purpose. Therefore, aircraft carriers are relevant in the open ocean (as air defense or PLO / PKO), off the coast, where it is not possible to work from a stationary aerodrome, with the support of landing and naval forces.
                  It is not necessary to take off and land intensively, just show the "trunk", well, maybe a couple of times bombed by the principle of a warning shot.
                  During the 16 days of the operation, the aviation of the Russian Federation made more than 700 sorties, during this time more than 500 enemy targets were destroyed, but the IS has not yet surrendered, and for the most part it is Aboriginal people, not an equal opponent (although the positions were seriously shaken, of course), which are fabulous bomb a couple of times warning now you say? Unless a couple of times with poplars of 400 ct of domaga, but these are already lines from another song ...
                  1. shuhartred 18 October 2015 11: 05 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: adept666
                    ), which are fabulous a couple of times to bomb a warning you are talking now?

                    I am talking about a demonstration campaign of an aviation group. In the light of the same theory, this is a warning that the Kuznetsov is clearly not a model of the ship. Moreover, the warning is not to terrorists, but to other "partners," the Ishilovites are no one in this situation and there is no way to call them. The Americans are not shy about chasing their aircraft carriers with or without cause, and they are not worried about considerations like
                    Quote: adept666
                    However, the aircraft carrier group in terms of land efficiency is significantly inferior in capabilities to the airfield-based group. More risks, less intensity, less impact capabilities (take-off weight restrictions, especially for non-catapult aircraft carriers) Each instrument has its own place, time and purpose. Therefore, aircraft carriers are relevant in the open ocean (as air defense or PLO / PKO), off the coast, where it is not possible to work from a stationary aerodrome, with the support of landing and naval forces.

                    Why can't we? Although in fact I'm not arguing with you. Just thinking about the topic, if such a decision is made, then how can it be justified? My version is as follows. hi
                    1. adept666 19 October 2015 07: 26 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      I am talking about a demonstration campaign of an aviation group.

                      We don’t have an attack group on Kuznetsov, therefore, in Syria, our naval aviation cannot show anything. Based on this fact, Kuzma off the coast of Syria is useless. And about the demonstrations and demonstrations, so our planes there and so shock and awe inspire both the enemy and the "partners". Little what? smile
                      Why can't we?
                      And who says you can’t? We just have nothing to alas ... We don’t even have an aircraft carrier, and the cruiser reinforced by the aviation group and its tasks were mainly anti-aircraft.
                      Just thinking about the topic, if such a decision is made, then how can it be justified?
                      In this case, only measures to enhance the stability of the naval group against enemy aircraft.
                      1. shuhartred 19 October 2015 18: 05 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: adept666
                        We don’t have a strike group on Kuznetsovo,

                        Specifically, there is no shock. But damn something I remember about the ship-based SU-25. Maybe a glitch? Also, in the SU-27 theme, in my opinion, they can perfectly work on the "ground".
                        Quote: adept666
                        In this case, only measures to enhance the stability of the naval group against enemy aircraft.

                        Well this is your opinion, which I respect. But it seems to me that the General Staff did not care about our opinion. As they say it will be so hi
                      2. adept666 20 October 2015 06: 12 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        But damn something I remember about the ship-based SU-25. Maybe a glitch?
                        No, not a glitch. Only this is a UTG, it has neither weapons nor armor, i.e. it’s not a stormtrooper from the word at all, but a full-fledged Su-25 with its thrust-weight ratio from the springboard, even without a BC, will not take off smile
                        Also, in the SU-27 theme, in my opinion, they can perfectly work on the "ground".
                        It depends on which, in general, the T-10 is a clean fighter, the first one, more or less multifunctional, is the T-10M (the first version of the Su-35 for foreign customers), but the project after building 12 prototypes and 3 production vehicles died out in the middle of 90- x The Su-27SM (and its modernization of the Su-27 SM2 / SM3) became the most efficient on the ground, and unfortunately there are no ship-based versions of them.
                        Well this is your opinion, which I respect.

                        Thank you smile
                        But it seems to me that the General Staff did not care about our opinion. As they say it will be hi
                        It is understandable, but as if our aircraft carrier, in principle, there’s nothing more to do (except to frighten other ships with granite smile ), therefore there are few fields for a wide maneuver.
                    2. shuhartred 19 October 2015 18: 07 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: shuhartred
                      Little what?

                      WILL BE LITTLE. MALOVA-A-A-A-TO (from a plasticine cartoon about a campaign for a Christmas tree) drinks
  2. dmi.pris 15 October 2015 17: 28 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Well, we won’t be asked for permission, and I think it’s worth letting the fog with plans for the Kuza ....
    Quote: herruvim
    And why not send, it would be symbolic, the American left, the Russian aircraft carrier came
  • Sars 15 October 2015 17: 01 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The Northern Fleet plans to send Admiral Kuznetsov to the shores of Cyprus.
    1. figwam 15 October 2015 18: 20 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      The Northern Fleet plans to send Admiral Kuznetsov to the shores of Cyprus.

      Yes there is good resort.
  • Nissa-on 15 October 2015 17: 01 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Will cover missile-propelled nuclear submarines. And then you never know what !!!!
    And in Syria, without “Kuzi” will cost
    1. Vladimirets 15 October 2015 17: 03 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Nissa-on
      Will cover missile-propelled nuclear submarines.

      It is still unknown which one of them is covering for whom. wink
      1. kil 31 15 October 2015 17: 10 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        “A long hike or any other combat and operational training activities for a heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser are not planned for the near future,”
        Something I can’t believe. Take the test of your repair. During this time, just the pilots will fly around the recently delivered planes on the "Thread" And then to Syria. Well, that's how my soul sings.
  • Frigate 15 October 2015 17: 05 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    From the category of fantasy. And send him as part of a group to the shores of the United States. One can say a courtesy return visit to their visit to the Black Sea.
    I already represent the headlines of world newspapers and the stupor of Western civilization. smile
  • SPIKER 15 October 2015 17: 06 New
    • -3
    • 0
    -3
    It’s a pity, of course, but the trouble of the “Admiral ...” is his power plant, boilers !!! It’s impossible to “darn” them, but the sweets will not work !!! Change them for new ones, it makes no sense; it makes no sense !!! Work out his "seniority" in the "museum" or on needles !!!
  • Raindragon 15 October 2015 17: 10 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    No, let it be. And so Europe and America are worried, and if Admiral Kuznetsov also visits Syrians, then there will be an epidemic of diarrhea. What are we going to do with the wounded West?
  • forester 15 October 2015 17: 11 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Today they do not plan, and tomorrow they will receive an order and leave - business then how can a warship in any way Why inform the "partners" once again
  • Mama_Cholli 15 October 2015 17: 14 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Many probably would like to send all warships, planes, tanks and other equipment to Syria and its shores ...

    Idiocy.
    Why, then, not offer to fly there to all the poplars, governors. yarsam etc ...
    1. Frigate 15 October 2015 17: 17 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: Mama_Cholli

      Why, then, not offer to fly there to all the poplars, governors. yarsam etc ...


      Because this dessert is for Israel, England and the USA. smile
    2. jjj
      jjj 15 October 2015 17: 45 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Mama_Cholli
      Many probably would like to send all warships, planes, tanks and other equipment to Syria and its shores ...

      Simply, when such wishes are voiced, every Russian person feels inwardly what is meant. And foreigners only see that on the surface
  • Pogran 15 October 2015 17: 16 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Nicaraguan President Daniel ORTEGA has agreed with the leadership of Russia and China on the construction in his country of a canal connecting the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. The water artery will become a competitor to the US-controlled Panama Canal, and deprive Washington of a strategic and economic monopoly in Central America. (this is where it may be needed))))))
  • WAN
    WAN 15 October 2015 17: 17 New
    • 19
    • 0
    +19
    The genesis of the relationship of individual comrades to the participation of the Russian Federation in the fighting in Syria:
    1. Putin will not be solved.
    2. Well no.
    3. No.
    4. Yes, where? ..
    5. Where is he going? !!
    6. Everything. Now everything is exactly.
    7. They began to bomb. Do they have something to bomb? Oh, do not make me laugh.
    8. Oh, do not tell "did not hit the civilians." How do we know ...
    9. They did not get into civilians? Damn, did they get into ISIS? Are they completely crazy? In ISIS - living people!
    10. Ahhhh! They bombed a kindergarten LIH !!! ..
    11. Okay, this was not a kindergarten or ISIS. It was a hospital in Afghan Kunduz and was bombed by the Yankees. But well-intentioned. Not that this Putin ...
    12. Soon they will be exhausted. Look - see how nervously the guy in the Su-25 pulls its wing? That's all cramps! Ah, was he just aiming to reset the bomb? ..
    13. We all consulted and decided - it's time to put an end to this. Therefore, as a sign of contempt, we stop writing about it, thinking and talking about it. Leave for communication only the middle fingers, hehe. And overthrow the Bloody one.
    14. Today, not one, but two Russians in Syria were immediately shot. This indicates an undoubted accumulation of forces for the obviously failed land offensive. And how does the land offensive end for the Russians - we know, yeah! .. Who said, "taking Berlin"? Where is this traitor ?!
    15. Strange, but four days have passed, and Putin did not launch a land offensive. It must have been completely exhausted, poor thing. And exhausted. All tyranny is doomed.
    16. They began to launch ISIS rockets from ships. Rockets! It turns out they have rockets! The latter, of course. It’s just that all Putin’s planes have already been beaten, and so we have to let the remnants of military weakness go into the air ... Ha ha ha, we will answer this. Right in the face of the TV. Mode - FSE. So write it down.
    17. They are launching rockets again.
    18. And throw bombs.
    19. And do not let ground troops into battle. Otherwise, they would have long been bogged down and lined everything! ..
    20. Stacks of their dead! Shta-be-la-mi!
    21. Ahhh ... They are just afraid. Yes. Therefore - that’s all. But we know! ..
    22. Bombs again, rockets again.
    23. Once upon a time it should end! Where does Soros just look? ..
    24. They hit again. Not in that sense, but in ISIS.
    25. Yes ё! ..
    26. Yes b ..! ..
    27. Yes Yeperny theater! ..
    28. Well, figs with them ... You’re worried about them, worried - and no thanks !!!
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 15 October 2015 22: 52 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: WAN
      And how do land offensives end for the Russians - we know, yeah! .. Who said, "taking Berlin"? Where is this traitor ?!

      good laughing
      Torn to pieces :)))
  • KGB WATCH YOU 15 October 2015 17: 18 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Well, yes, and everyone believed winked They said the same thing about airplanes.
  • surovts.valery 15 October 2015 17: 22 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Information about his sending to Syria does not correspond to reality, reports TASS with reference to the press service of the Federation Council.

    Why to Syria, he will go to the Caspian Sea lol Through Belorusskoe, cover the Buyans laughing .
    After the effective actions of our aviation and missile strikes from the Navy ships, “high-mindedness” expects from the RF Armed Forces: Tu-160, Tu-95, Iskander, Topol, etc. etc., well, in short, demonstrations of the power of everything and everything, including and a trip to the coast of Syria "Kuznetsova". Lord! Not all at once, not all the trump cards are removed from the sleeves, wait.
    1. ferdiperdozzz 15 October 2015 19: 18 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      And the "Death Star" at the end, yeah.
  • gav6757 15 October 2015 17: 28 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Brothers! To my great regret, one must face the truth ...
    The cruiser was stolen, launched, filthy, and from the 90s, not as combat-ready as a combat unit. I know this from the guys who served there.
    Some decks (not compartments) are not inhabited, there is no water and heating, communications require major repairs ...
    No funds were allocated to Kuzya, which rendered the ship unusable!
    Who is to blame?
    It is hard to say! You can name many, Yeltsin, Taburetkin, etc., in general, traitors to the motherland, who robbed the country in the 90s - 2000s. In a word DER R M O K R A T S !!!
    Part of the money received from the Mistral could be used to repair Kuzi, but I think the prime minister will be against it !!!
    He obviously lost something in a deal with the Mistrals, not for nothing that they were with the effective manager Serdyukov, they arranged dances with tambourines, in front of the French ...
    So, make conclusions! No offense...
    1. Mareman Vasilich 16 October 2015 11: 19 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      I do not know. My friend served on the minesweeper 92-95, and Kuznetsov was often escorted. He did not look incapacitated. I went to the sea regularly. But the fact that the ship is already old is true. Need new aviki.
  • exalex2 15 October 2015 17: 33 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    It’s not “Tsar’s” thing, paint fences (cartoon, I apologize, Vovka) And what will he do there? Scare your presence? So there the Order will take half, or maybe the whole sea .. And what's next?
  • chunga-changa 15 October 2015 17: 35 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I think they will send. Not now, a little later, after training the crew and preparing the rest of the ships of the group.
  • mitrich 15 October 2015 17: 43 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    And maybe it would not hurt to run in Kuzya and the air wing in conditions close to combat. Again, a demonstration of power and flag. True wing should be complete, and not without 2/3 of the "feathers". But if, as gav6757 writes, Kuzya is in such a deplorable state, then he should only puff no further than a few hundred miles from the base.
  • gg.na 15 October 2015 17: 50 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    It’s unfortunate that the boat will not go to the coast of Syria
    1. k174oun7 15 October 2015 17: 56 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      No one is stopping Kuza during a combat training mission to come with a courtesy visit to friendly Syria
  • APASUS 15 October 2015 19: 36 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Judging by the speed with which the repair was completed and the speed with which it is being prepared for a routine of trials, they don’t tell us something. Such emergency rifles in the Navy just do not happen, the press has probably been writing a couple of days about a trip to the coast of Syria
  • NDR-791 15 October 2015 19: 42 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    send "Admiral Kuznetsov" to the coast of Syria is not planned
    There, "Moscow" is not feeling bad. Do not put all the eggs in one basket. The time for replacement will come and will go on its own slowly ... WHERE NECESSARY !!!
  • Senior manager 15 October 2015 19: 44 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    And note, our Supreme gives orders for unexpected actions of the Armed Forces, and sending Kuzi to Syria lies on the surface, so the guys will deal with BP at home. Best wishes to the team, seven feet.
  • podgornovea 15 October 2015 21: 03 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    And do not stomp him there! Not about that. Already there is an air base, forces and means have been spent on combat protection and ground support, and air defense. BUT, in some situations, an aircraft carrier has no competitors in terms of speed of delivery of devices correcting the situation in the region, and guarantees for pilots serving security personnel.
  • Zomanus 16 October 2015 05: 45 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    There is nothing Kuzma in Syria to do since our ground airfield is there.
    And then on the hauls we will definitely destroy our last aircraft carrier, from the existing ones.
    In addition, judging by official data, the repair was carried out in those volumes
    which will allow him not to drown right at the mooring wall.
    So for now, for now, let him stand in the parking lot, getting ready for service.