Talk:Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov/Archive 1

Archive 1

December 2001

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

If there is no common designation for Soviet ships equivalent to HMS or USS, then we could just put this article at Kuznetsov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimShell (talk • contribs) 11:16, 21 December 2001 (UTC)

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.

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?

How do we disambiguate the ship from the human being? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Epopt (talk • contribs) 20:01, 21 December 2001 (UTC)

A disambig page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.194.36.16 (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2004 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Efialtes (talk • contribs) 09:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding correct nomenclature for Russian Federation naval ships, it is Russian Federation Ship(RFS). The usage is similar to USS or HMS and is current in my experience as of last month when I was at sea aboard a Russian naval ship. I also agreee with the comments made above regarding the oddity of the name formats used per the 'Amercian aircraft carrier' example.Федоров (talk) 05:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:NC-SHIPS#Military_ships for why RFS is not used, per established policy (the MOS). To change it requires a discussion at WT:SHIPS. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conversion script (talk • contribs) 15:51, 25 February 2002 (UTC)

I don't know about the treaty, but Admiral Kuznetsov IS aircraft cruiser, not a carrier. Should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.252.168.29 (talk) 12:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The article mentions that the Russians say designating the Admiral Kuznetsov as a cruiser rather than an aircraft carrier allows them to circumvent the Montreux Convention and sail it through the Bosphorus. What I want to know is, what does Turkey have to say about that claim? 75.76.213.106 (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The Montreux Convention has no bearing on the nature or specific typing of the Soviet/Russian KUZNETSOV Class heavy aircraft carrying cruiser. The Convention places no restrictions by type or tonnage on the transit of the warships of the Black Sea littoral powers. The KUZNETSOV design carried forward the characteristics previously incorporated in the KIEV Class, also aircraft=carrying cruisers, which were equipped with both significant anti-ship strike capability (SS-N-12 long-range cruise missiles) and fixed wing strike aircraft.Федоров (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Disposition

When was this ship sold to China? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kent Wang (talk • contribs) 23:45, 27 December 2003 (UTC)

The Admrial Kuznetsov wasn't sold to China, the hull of the Varyag was --Mtnerd 02:12, 11 October 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 19:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

The above statements are correct. While the carrier hulk sold to China is the second hull of the Kuznetsov class, it should never be referenced as Varyag but as ex-Varyag. Technically, since it was never completed and commissioned it never was officially named.Федоров (talk) 05:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it's accurate to say that a "Kuznetsov-class aircraft carrier" hull was sold. KarmaKangaroo (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

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)

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 October 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Efialtes (talk • contribs) 09:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

A pity that most of the discussants on this page appear to be not able to read the Russian language entries on the Russian Navy. Were they to do so they would find that the Russian language write-ups are, on the whole, far more accurate and use correct terminology.Федоров (talk) 06:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.231.51.241 (talk) 15:20, 11 August 2006 (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.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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.190.218.213 (talk) 08:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

The previous comment is correct. In the Russian Navy a ship is considered operational when it is commissioned, i.e. when the naval ensign is raised on it. This occurs after the ship/submarine successfully completes both builder's trials and state acceptance trials. At commissioning the Navy formally accepts the ship from the manufacturer. In US usage this would be Initial Operating Capability (IOC). When delivered to a fleet and fully certified for deployment a ship can be considered to have achieved Full Operating Capability (FOC).Федоров (talk) 06:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Oil Spill

On 16th February 2009, the Irish Department of Transport reported an oil spill in the vicinity of Russian Vessels off the Irish coast. See West Cork Oil Spill. RTE News reported that a Russian aircraft carrier was in this location. Photos released by Irish Dept. of Transport identify an aircraft carrier with the Admiral Kuznetsov's '063' marking on the port side. Should this incident be noted within this article? Trustcited (talk) 15:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I would say that the suspected accidental release of 1000 tons of fuel would be notable, especially as it may impact on Ireland and Wales. I think it should be noted in the article (with a link to West Cork Oil Spill) and vice versa - Dumelow (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It was just reported by the Times as being the Admiral Kuznetsov so I have included it under History and Current Status though because of denials by the Russian Naval attache I have marked it as suspected as you suggested. Thanks Trustcited (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, this is quite an interesting story and I hope to expand the main spill article sometime this afternoon. Thanks for bringing it up - Dumelow (talk) 16:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Why are there cood on this page, even if it leads to a photo of the ship, if we know it was off the coast of Wales ? and what happened to renaming the article Russian aircraft cruiser Admiral Kuznetsov ? Peace, rkmlai (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Of note is that the entire hulabaloo about the oil spill managed to quietly go away since the sea broke it up and it never went ashore. This also calls into question just how large/bad it really was. It doesn't take a lot of petroleum product to cause an irridescent patch atop the sea and it is this patch that is observed, not measured or sampled, by aircraft - the main reporting agents.Федоров (talk) 06:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

She?

How can a cruiser named after a male admiral be reffered to as 'she'?--Dojarca (talk) 11:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

In the English language, feminine pronouns are generally used when reffering to ships, though neutral pronouns may be used in more formal settings. The USN ships USS Nimitz, USS Reagan, USS Kennedy, and USS Zumwalt are all named for men, but the ships are still called "she". English WP uses either "she" or "it" in its articles about ships, though only one type (feminine or neutral) should be used in each article. Since some languages, including Russian, use masculine pronouns for ships, WP allows neuter pronouns to be used in such cases, as feminine pronouns may sound too weird. The pronouns should not be changed without a consensus to do so for each such article. Hope that helps. :) - BillCJ (talk) 12:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

In Russian this depends on the context. For example, ship "Queen Victoria"' would be 'he' because 'ship' is musculine in Russian, but yacht "Queen Victoria" would be 'she' because 'yacht' is feminine. In the case if simply reffered to as Queen Victoria it would be 'she' because named after female person.--Dojarca (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Mid-Life Upgrade

unconfirmed but nevertheless, the length of the refit indicates considerable re-modelling.

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20100406/158454665.html

Koxinga CDF (talk) 11:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The carrier can be seen on google earth ( 64°34'34.86"N 39°49'2.55"E) dated June 2 2013 on a dry dock in Severodvinsk, so it was probably undergoing major repair/refit at that time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.180.215.122 (talk) 20:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Article name revisited

This article has been recently renamed with unnecessary precision. I do not doubt that the full name of the ship in Russian is Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov however this is not in accordance with the WP naming standards which states that articles should be named with no more precision than is necessary. The lead of the article could and probably should state something to the effect that the full name of the ship in Russian is as stated, but the article title - which is not the ship's name but the name of article itself - is sufficiently unambiguous as just "Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov". - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

If I do not see any arguments to the contrary in the next five days, I will move the article back to the original name. - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. This is a hell of a mouthful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.198.197 (talk) 05:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the "mouthful", I would agree with removing the "Russian". For those who don't like the "mouthful", an abbreviation to "FADMSU" would suffice to still reflect the ship's actual name.Федоров (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The title is way too long, and I see no previous discussion, which is the norm when attempting to make changes this big, suggesting that it was done unilaterally. In any case, Admiral Kuznetsov is quite enough. I suggest immediately reverting the move, notifying whoever did it, and engaging in a debate on this to decide.--RM (Be my friend) 02:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I concur with moving the article back to Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov. Note tha tthe user who made the moves is well-known for making undiscussed moves, often to several titles, which prevents non-admins from reverting the moves. He has been asked not to do this on many occasions, butr continues the practice. Sigh. - BilCat (talk) 02:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

In that case, I would suggest a warning. If he/she has already been warned, give them a final warning and threaten a block. I would suggest explaining to them that a change of this magnitude cannot be done without full community consent.--RM (Be my friend) 02:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

In my defence, What is/was the ACTUAL name of the ship and mores to the point', plain Admiral is NOT the same as Admiral of the Fleet, they are completely different ranks. Where the title of an article is incorrect there should be no need for discussion, maybe just format, but not content.Petebutt (talk) 12:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The actual name of the ship is a Russan expression which may or may not be as you state its English translation to be - I have no idea, not being a Russian speaker. However, this is the English Wiki and here it is in the MOS to use as the name of the article what an item is usually referred to in English. In this case the ship is almost exclusively known in English as the Admiral Kuznetsov. Reliable sources such as Jane's Fighting Ships use that name and Jane's is about as reliable as it gets for warship names. In addition if someone wants to use something else it is encumbant upon the proponent to show that such a change is supported by more sources than the existing title, preferably before making the change. Note, that Admiral of the Fleet is a rank, yet the holder of that rank is still called just "Admiral" in usual day to day circumstances, even within the Navy, except when calling him "Sir". In addition the WP naming standard for ships states that we should include the nationality and type in the title, thus we get Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov. Nothing stated above is a reason to depart from these well established practices. However, because of the method, perhaps deliberately, used to perform the renaming it is impossible for an ordinary editor to undo this "work". This makes it very hard to assume that the "work" was done in good faith, but I will give the benefit of the doubt this time. Consequently I will be asking for admin assistance to put the name back to its original state and will refrain from taking the matter any further on this occasion. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I can confirm that the name of the carrier in the Russian language (Адмирал флота Советского Союза Кузнецов) translates to 'Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov' (note the string of genitives in 'флота Советского Союза'), and this is the actual name of the ship. Zoom in on the thumb to the right and you'll see it on her bows. Agreed it's a long name, and the 'of the Fleet of the Soviet Union' is often left out to create a more convenient shorthand that still leaves it clear which ship you are talking about. Similarly you might say 'Stennis' or 'Kennedy' rather than USS John C. Stennis or USS John F. Kennedy. But that is what those articles are titled at, i.e. the proper name of the ship, rather than an abbreviated version. I think the user who originally moved it acted in good faith, assuming that the full name would be preferred. The difficulties involved with the method of moving it I think just came down to not really understanding the move process. The Russian wikipedia uses 'Адмирал флота Советского Союза Кузнецов' as the title. I'm not particularly bothered which title it goes at, but this is a dispute over 'common use' and a long name versus the actual factual official name, and it would actually be the exception rather than the rule to have this article titled at something that was not the complete name of the ship in question. The Spanish ship Nuestra Señora de la Santísima Trinidad (more commonly the Santísima Trinidad) would be a similar case. Benea (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved by Nick-D (talk · contribs) per the above discussion (non-admin housekeeping closure). Jenks24 (talk) 11:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Russian aircraft carrier Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov → Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov – For the second time in as many weeks, a Russian Navy article was moved without going through the Requested Moves process, which under the circumstances could be construed as a type of vandalism. Since the move was clearly controversial, and the move clearly not done with WP:CONSENSUS in mind, I hereby petition for the return of the article to its previous name. Additionally, to stem what I perceive to be a growing shift in this naming of Russian ships and ship classes as of late, I hereby petition that the move feature be locked once the move request time limit expires to prevent unilateral moving of this nature from taking place without first going through the requested moves process. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion of this above seems to have clearly endorsed Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov, so I'm going to boldly move it back to avoid this discussion being repeated. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lack of an escort

Why does the Kuznetsov rarely have an escort? Cold War is over but even today American carriers NEVER sail unescorted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.67.162.18 (talk) 18:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I think thats why. Sheepdog85 (talk) 00:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Precisely because Kuznetsov is not an American carrier. "Kuznetsov was not designed to be an attack/strike carrier as were/are U.S. carriers. The wartime role of the Kuznetsov is to provide air cover for deployed defensive forces in the Norwegian Sea and not to deliver ground strikes against enemy territory as do U.S. carriers.Федоров (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Too much about Ukraine

Ladies and gentlemen, the article is overloaded with hardly-relevant references to independent Ukraine, it's wharfs in Mykolaiv and the Liaoning. The ship in question was built before independence. Please) I know that Ukraine is a bleedingly-sore topic for every real Russian, but not to this extent). Let's stay on topic. Happy edits, Ukrained2012 (talk) 05:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Article is outdated

This article is seriously outdated, most notably in the "MiG-29K for the Admiral Kuznetsov" part. It references a deal potentially being made in 2011. It's 2015 now. That section alone is at least 4 years out of date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utahwriter14 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Bad ISBN

Because it is causing a Checkwiki error #73: "ISBN-13 with wrong checksum", I am deleting the ISBN from this entry:

Sovetskii Avianostsy, S.Balakin & V.Zablotskiy, Moscow 2007, ISBN 9755699209545

I cannot find the correct ISBN on the Internet. Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 02:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

9 x Turbogenerators ??

Hi,

what is the function of the 9 turbogenerators (running on diesel?!) with 1,500 kW each. I mean 9 x 1,500 kW is only 13,500 kW or around ~18,104 horsepower. For a normal much smaller vessel these 18,104 horsepower would of course have some power. But for the Admiral Kuznetsov it is like a 25 kW gasoline engine in a luxury Mercedes-Benz... it maybe boosts the by 0.1 or 0.2 knots I would guess?! The main power comes from the 150 MW steam turbines, but here also 2 engines are available with only 50,000 horsepower each, but the 8 steam turbines are producing 200,000 horsepower.

Are they using only a quite small amount of the turbines? Since I have heard that engines are much more efficient if they are running low, using them at a very high level causes high fuel consumption and since it is not nuclear driven the "bill" for the diesel/jet fuel or whatever they use for the steam turbines a nice one, of course the Russian Navy is getting the fuel for free from the state-controlled Rosneft and other state-owned oil companies, but it is not in their interest to waste oil/fuel since they can sell every barrel they do not use themself?!

Someone maybe got an explanation?! Greetings and sorry for horrible English^^ Kilon22 (talk) 11:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The propulsion is listed as follows now.

Steam turbines, 8 turbo-pressurised boilers,

4 shafts, 200,000 hp (150 MW)

4 × 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 KarmaKangaroo (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Convert code...

Yea it is me again, the young guy from Berlin, Germany with bad English^^ The english wiki writes 37,000 kw but:

The automatic convert-codes for the propulsion are not very exact. I mean they say 37,000 kW, in fact it is 36,775 kW and in motor power we are not rounding up or down, especially not if the difference is 225 kW, enough propulsion power for a highend car or at least 3 small or even up to 5 very small/light weighted low budget 2 seat-cars^^ Greetings Kilon22 (talk) 11:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure if the error was 225kW from say 500kW, I might agree, but alas, that power would barely turn the prop of a 60T vessel. Relatively, a ship is not a car, that difference equates to a only 0.6%. Less than 1%. Which is so low as to be a rounding error. KarmaKangaroo (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

article should have more details about the mechanical problems that have been happening

This is one "accident-prone" ship. Some neutral articles should be cited to reflect this. 68.19.2.115 (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

For a huge ship that has not had a serious major overhaul during its entire lifetime it is in remarkably good shape.Moryak (talk) 21:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Deployment to Syria autumn 2016

As reported in many media, here from the second largest norwegian paper, "Verdens Gang" "Admiral Kuznetsov" is now (17.10.2016) on her way down the norwegian coast, accompanied by 7 other russian warships, including battle cruiser "Pjotr Velikiye." Picture from article taken by the Royal Norwegian Air Force west of Andøya,Norway the 17th of october clearly shows 3 new Mig 29Ks at her flydeck and two old Su-33s.

http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/russland/her-seiler-russlands-krigsmaskin-utenfor-nordlandskysten/a/23822819/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by BentHestad (talk • contribs) 22:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

fire

Article needs future update as to status of ship. X1\ (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

The fire is already in the article, under the subsection "Accident and fire". If there are new reliable sources giving updates as to the status of the ship after the fire, feel free to add them here or to the article yourself. Bellowhead678 (talk) 07:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Roslyakovo dry dock?

according to the Barrents observer article used as a source, the new dry dock for the ship is going to be in Roslyakovo urban settlement, and that is what the article lists as the dry dock's location.

Problem is, Roslyakovo is 6km east of Severomorsk, and doesn't appear to have any dry docks, or dry docks being worked on. Meanwhile, the SRZ-35 dry docks located 1 km south of the Kuznetsov's current location in Murmansk, are clearly being worked on for an expansion in google sat view. this is obviously original research, but it seems to me that Barrents Observer was mistaken with the locations repairs will be carried out in, and the Kuznetsov will remain the the 35th ship repair factory in Murmansk for repair and refit. Wyattr55123 (talk) 03:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)