True, but in the long run they better build more dry docks on land to spend &/ save $ inside the country instead & insure against this type of accidents in the future. If they don't, in a few decades they'll need to be replaced & this cycle will repeat!
Floating docks are much easier and cheaper and can be moved around when needed.
not at the size of PD-50
According to this article:
There is an alternative large dry dock in Russia’s far east, PD-41, which services the Pacific Fleet and was originally built by Japan. PD-41 has similar characteristics to PD-50 and may prove Kuznetsov’s only possible alternative once the ship is ready to make the journey.
There is the PD-41.
How deep is PD-50 sunk? I assume its not super deep, so I am wondering why its such a huge task to refloat it.
It is not about depth... it is a very weak unsupported structure... difficult to raise with the risk of it breaking apart.
Was this incompetence or sabotage?
Suspect it was greed... take over ownership and immediately save money by selling off the fuel reserved for the onboard power systems because the land connection will keep it powered...
Besides, how long do you think it would take Russian shipbuilding "experts" to carry out that little project? Decade at least given their track record....
Well if they can't make anything why bother... they don't do anything so they don't need anything right?