Some simply facts.... first of all 600 square metres of damage sounds huge... it also sound bogus because two dimensional damage in a three dimensional structure sounds odd. It is a room twenty metres wide and 30 metres long, which is a large volume for a shop or a school classroom, but for an airport or aircraft hangar it is not really that big.
Claims they could make a new one from scratch quicker or easier or cheaper are just stupid... especially when they have not even finalised a new design yet anyway.
Even if China could make one for them why would they do that?
How would Russia benefit from spending money in Chinese shipyards on Chinese ships?
I would say that there is a major problem at Russian shipyards in terms of repairing ships. Building new ones not a problem but repairing seems to be a major issue where they cause constant fires. But I agree with ISOS, at this point, cheaper and faster to buy into Shturm than it is to keep this boat going.
Well lets assume you are right and there is a huge problem with repair and maintenance... WTF?
Just give up having a navy?
Get China to build and maintain all Russian ships?
You are quick to call people idiots, but sometimes you make them look quite smart when you are upset...
If they can't repair or maintain the K then there is no point in getting any new toys if you can't look after your existing toys... now go sit on your naughty step and think about what you have said and done...
The USS Forrestal fire was a lot worse, & the USN repaired it.
Exactly... there isn't really much damage that can't be fixed on big ships... and over their lifetimes accidents and problems including battle damage happens so you need to be able to deal with it...
Maybe it was worst than this fire but as said in Tass, it was a violation in work. This is a major issue with the repair plants. And thus already damage is to the point that it may be cheaper to build a new vessel instead. Plus may be done quicker too
So they need to take a good hard look at their repair plants and how they work and what they are doing... how the fuck does buying new ships from China or even making them in Russia deal with that problem?
Fire is not a friend of metals. The structure could need mort parts to be changed by the same guys who started this fire. Idk why they didn't send this ship in China for repair. They can finish in 1 or 2 months.
I am no expert but there are obvious things on the surface of unpainted metal that will tell you if its strength has been compromised by heating and whether it needs a coat of paint or to be replaced.
$340 million has already been wasted on this refit which should have gone to that. Unless Putin is going to magically come up with billions for a CATOBAR it is not worth pursuing.
A VDV force fighting on the other side of the planet would benefit from air support and it is no different for Russian Navy surface ships...
It has always been a state welfare project and platform to promote export of MiG-29K.
It is also the only game in town at the moment for Russia for mobile air power that can follow Russian ships anywhere they go.
Well, they have over $40B in budget surplus they can use. It would end up cheaper long run for new ship.
It would be cheaper still disbanding the entire Russian military and rely on peace and love and democracy to keep Russia safe, but it makes rather more sense to build a sustainable smaller but powerful and mobile military structure... first of all to protect Russia, and then to protect Russian interests around the globe.
Aircraft carriers are not needed to defend Russia... missiles from ground launchers and aircraft and some ships already can manage that fine, but moving away from Russian territory an expanding navy becomes their only mobile force that can impose their will when needed, and it will be more effective with air support.
IMO, it should be kept to make $ spent on it already worth it. They can get all repairs faster than building a new CV or CVN.
If it gets scrapped now, they'll have no CV/N for at least ~8-10 more years.
Well they can easily secure 5-6 billion $ in one year by stoping procurment of ground and air defence systems and increasing export gaz prices during this winter.
Ground and air defences are more important than an aircraft carrier... and changing gas prices is not really possible within most of their gas sales contracts... especially not to cover military purchases... I am sure Germany wont be happy paying an extra 5 billion a year for their gas supplies when they find out it is to build a new CVN for Russia...
And let's not talk about corruption. They could buy 10 carriers with that money.
There is no point in talking about money you can't access...
They will never order a super CATOBAR. That will be suicide. They can't repaire the kuznetsov, what would happen with a CATOBAR.
And that is the amusing thing... they can order anything they like and they can repair the K WTF are you talking about?
The small shtorm would be a good replacement for kuznetsov, a better ad for mig-29k/mig-35 and allow to even find export customers like South Korea or Saudi Arabia.
It might be but they wont be able to lay it down until these two helicopter carriers they are laying down are finished so they wont be ready for service till the late 2020s. In comparison repairing the K should be much much quicker... the fire on that deep sea sub that killed 14 was much worse and they are repairing that too you know...
New build ships create more jobs. They would have saved a lot if they had send it to China for repairs and they could have even sold it them for 4 or 5 billion so that they have both ships of the class whike Russia goes with a new and modern design.
See, now I don't understand this mentality... new build ships do create more jobs, but a replacement carrier can't just be laid down right now and produced ready for use by Spring next year... you need to decide on a design to start with... you need to book a shipyard... you need to get a slot to lay it down and start making it... even if they started laying it down right this second a brand new ship is going to be both very expensive and a very long build... probably 6-8 years because it will likely be testing all sorts of new technology.
Compared with repairing a little fire damage on the K... what you are suggesting is silly.
but for political purposes, Russia can't afford to be w/o a carrier even for 1 day, & even if it spends most time in port/yards & home waters.
But that is the point... Aircraft carriers don't spend all their time at sea... look at the US Navy for fucks sake... more than half of its carrier groups couldn't put to sea right now if they wanted to, and of their 10 odd carrier groups perhaps 2-4 of them are ever at sea at any one time for most of the time. And I am not saying that to have a dig at the US Navy... I am just pointing out the reality that ships need maintenance and upgrades and they also need training... so 70% of their operational lives they are not available...
The area of fire quickly reached 600 square meters. m, he was assigned the second rank of difficulty. However, according to sources close to the emergency commission, the new equipment was not damaged, so the fire should not adversely affect the completion dates for the repair of the only Russian aircraft carrier. In fact, workers will only have to clean up the fire and redecorate them. After that, the installation of new equipment will resume.
Thank you for posting that... please re read 1,000 times for those who suggested scrapping the ship and making a new ship or getting china to make them a new one...
The fire broke out in the power supply compartment and all of the diesel generators and cables are destroyed.
Such things would burn fairly rapidly but can be replaced without problems...
USN was getting excellent results out of Forrestal and she was more than worth repairing to say nothing of how necessary she was for US military needs
Same doesn't apply for Kuznetzov
The USN was killing children and stealing peoples land in Vietnam... they didn't really need another carrier. Russia needs a carrier to train and operate from while they are in the process of developing larger ships and helicopter carriers... they have nothing to replace the Kuznetsov with currently so it is actually more valuable to them than the Forrestal was to the Americans.
Oh and another thing: every single person in that facility with access to blowtorch should be immediately fired alongside any work supervisor currently on the payroll
What... you are going to spare their children and families?
MiG-29K has been dead project for years now, another thing to move on from alongside this carrier
The MiG-29KR programme is the only one going in town at the moment.
This ship is nothing more than redundant disgrace, a floating monument to dead era and a pathetic country that died a humiliating death
Just because you post it on the internet doesn't make it true... a Russian corvette is a powerful little ship, but it would be ten times more powerful operating with larger ships and with a carrier providing fighter aircraft and AWACS support even in the form of Ka-31s.
Several aircraft squadrons and enough people to crew 10 frigates are stuck on this bathtub that never in it's entire existence demonstrated even an inkling of usefulness
You could say the same about the Akula class SSBN... it has never launched a nuclear strike on the US.... bloody useless... they could have made a much smaller and much cheaper sub...
To say nothing of the fact that there wasn't a single moment in history of modern day Russia that an aircraft carrier was ever needed for anything
And if it was never needed or used in the past then of course it will never be needed in the future... disband the Strategic rocket forces immediately...
Russia has never used a nuclear weapon so therefore I guess they will never need any...
Killing this white elephant will free up enough funds to fully equip entire Navy with all the new surface combatants that are actually required
Getting rid of air support for the Navy is like getting rid of the Air Force for Russia...
Something people are overlooking is that a demand was made for a jump jet by 2027.
No there wasn't. There was a request for a new naval fighter aircraft that might have short field operational capability that could include vertical take off, but they have been up that dead end alley way and they know where it leads.
That should hint that the Kuznetsov and any carrier with both ski jumps and catapults are not needed for future.
Actually the opposite is true... if they did intend to develop a VSTOL fighter plane then ski jumps will be critical... the cats were never needed for fighter planes, they are for AWACS and tanker and transport types that support operations.
So future carriers may end up being similar to cargo vessels for Russia which is most ideal.
Hahahahaha.... yeah that old chestnut... the british suggested that in the 1980s... just before they went to the Falklands... they figured that the Sea Harrier could take of from a helicopter spot, so they didn't need big fixed wing carriers like the Ark Royal, and even their dinky little Hermes carrier was big and expensive compared with any old container ship... luck the Falklands war didn't happen in the late 1980s instead of the early ones.
Their combat experience was that while all military ships were vulnerable to sea skimming French missiles like the Exocet they did find that countermeasures could be effective if deployed in time... the problem was that their civilian ships like the Atlantic Conveyer carrying most of their helicopters for the operation doesn't have jamming or decoy equipment so when the navy vessels it was with launched chaff and flares and decoys the Exocet lost its lock on the navy vessels and locked on to the civilian transport vessel instead.
The Amusing thing of course was that they said at the time it was OK because the Soviets didn't have any sea skimming missiles (note the designation of the SS-N-22 Sunburn was 3M80... ie 1980... a mach 2 x4.5 ton missile intended to fly under the 7m low altitude limit of the US Standard air defence SAM used on their AEGIS class cruisers).
But on topic... they went from an aircraft carrier with AWACS and fixed wing fighter aircraft (Phantoms) with good range and speed and most importantly medium range AAMs, to the Sea Harrier and the Hermes and barely squeaked through... if they had gone cheaper with Harriers on cargo ships they would have failed because VSTOL fighters having to take off vertically can carry fuel or weapons but not both...
With the Army variant of the harrier they also claimed it would be the only aircraft operating after day one in WWIII because it could operate from any supermarket car park... which was bullshit. ...any open field... bullshit...
The British reward their military every time they do a good job by cutting their funding... but even they are funding two 70K ton carriers...
Hence why they should have not canceled the Yak 141 in first place.
The Yak was cancelled because it didn't work, and they didn't know how to make it work.
If they simply dumped the Kuznetsov, and use all that money towards the jump jet, they may be able to speed up development process and get something out sooner and this building vessels for it may be done quicker as well
If they dump the K right now they need a place to tow it to and they need to spend basic maintenance to stop it sinking and causing more problems... and this is after putting a whole lot of new stuff on it that you really can't take out and use on anything else...
The money needed to develop a jump jet... particularly a modern stealthy one would be billions... a tiny fraction of that would repair the damage easily.
They wouldn't need to stop funding anywhere. They have a pile of cash they are sitting on.
They could invest that money in other things that would bring rather better returns than jump jets for internet fanboys.
Not entirely as seen in history where they did manage to use them on transport vessels. But ideally yeah, a ski jump may be helpful. In any case, it would be cheaper and better to invest in that and replace old vessel as well wait for new jump jets for Russia's case.
Ski jumps boost the takeoff performance of most fighter aircraft... not so useful for heavy aircraft though.
A ski jump is a fixed structure that has no moving parts that boosts take off performance without any risk of failure in terms of being on the wrong setting.
@Lsos... well I think it would have made sense to wait for that sort of report on the incident before passing comment about transferring future Russian carrier production to China... at the very least if they can't maintain ships properly there is no point in buying new ones...
This is because construction of a new aircraft carrier won't begin until 2030 at the earliest, and the pilots of the naval aviation's 279th and 100th Naval Aviation Fighter Regiments need to be able to practice on a real carrier to sustain that institutional knowledge. 19/
Well that is an injection of facts... so any new carrier aircraft with a deadline of 2027 will be operating from the K... if they were going to develop VTOL fighters there would be little need to construct new aircraft carriers in 2030 or later.
I still feel Russia is better off building 2-3 small aircraft carriers something that has air defence and cruise missiles a way of defending itself reducing the need for a host of other vessels although a few will still be needed and being a smaller design become less of a high pay off target compared to one super large carrier.
If they were England I would agree, but the purpose of Russian aircraft carriers is not in a strike role with all the other ships there to defend the carrier... the purpose of the Russian carrier it to protect the ships it operates with using AWACS aircraft and fighter aircraft. In that sense a bigger more capable carrier makes more sense because it will carry more aircraft and be better able to defend itself and the ships it is operating with.
They don't need it now... but in ten years time when it has solid trade ties with Africa and central and south america then carriers and global mobility and reach will become useful for Russia to support her interests.