They have 3 or 4 wires. If it was just one that broke then they could have recover the mig-29 that was hovering around with the other wires.
It seems to me that the entire system broke down.
You are clearly not reading what I am posting.
The cables were fine, but when the arrester gear they are attached to is not working they will break every time.
If the cables just stopped the aircraft they they would not have lost any aircraft but cables able to stop an aircraft that is landing on their own have not been invented yet.
When a plane lands it hooks the cables but the cable is not bolted to the deck it is attached to other cables that is attached to arrester gear that feeds out metres of cable. If it was an unending spool of more cable then the aircraft landing would just pull out more and more cable and drop off the end of the deck into the water, but this cable is fed out under increasing tension so the plane is slowed down over the distance of several metres and eventually is stopped.
All of the cables are attached to this mechanism that slows the plane down over several metres, but if the mechanism that releases the cable is faulty or broken all the cables will just snap immediately and the plane will have to go to full AB and take off again and come around and try again.
The first cable it snaps it is OK... cables snap some times. The second approach there are now only three cables, and one cable snaps. While the plane is going around for its third attempt to land the ground crew might go out and re attach two of the cables so there are four to catch again, so the plane comes around and the cable snaps again... well they know there is a problem now because statistically three cables snapping is impossible... it is clearly not the cables, it must be the arrester gear that tensions the cables to help the plane stop in the available space.
Now that they know it is the arrester gear that is the problem they know they can't land planes so any planes in the air at the time will have to divert to a land base.
The fact that they lost two aircraft suggests that two were wanting to land and needed to land and by the time they worked out it was not a cable problem but actually an arrester gear problem they did not have enough fuel to recover to a land based airfield.
One obvious lesson from this would be to have a plane fuelled up and ready for take off with a buddy refuelling pod and external fuel tanks fitted and loaded with extra fuel that could have taken off and refuelled both aircraft trying to land and escorted them both to a land base where all three aircraft could have been recovered safely. Or perhaps a land based inflight refuelling aircraft brought to near the carrier to simultaneously refuel both aircraft trying to land and then flown with them to a nearby airfield to recover them.
Do you understand the concept of "usefullness" and the concept of "aircraft carrier" and the concept of a "barge" ?
For Russia bombing terrorists in Syria is a secondary backup feature of the Kuznetsov... its primary role will always be air defence and air support of naval surface operations away from Russian airspace.
France used its aircraft carrier to beautiful effect destroying the lives of the Libyan people and resulting in the murder and barbarity that can only be found in a civil war... money well spent... you must be proud.
Something is useful if you can use it as planed.
An aircraft carrier is meant to carry, launch and recover fighters.
The Kuznetsov is meant to provide protection from enemy aircraft... which in this case meant 360 degree coverage of air space using Ka-31 helicopters.... don't remember hearing or reading about any attacks made on Russian ships in the region while the K was there...
If you have hard time conceptualizing all this go check a doctor for brain damages.
The Kuznestov managed air attacks against terrorist targets in Syria, it gathered intel and managed attacks and monitored the results... most of the air launches were moved to ground based air fields, but the attacks were planned from the carrier, which were successful in bringing peace to a country... sort of the opposite of what the CdG did in Libya.
If the K is a barge it would be the best defended barge in HATO.
But lets take your analogy... Barges are not self propelled.
When it comes to surface fleet. They lost everything. Even had hard time with corvettes and missile boats.
Their current fleets are in need of new ships, but for a third world gas station that does not make anything the corvettes and frigates they are in the process of producing are amazing. The only reason they had a hard time with Corvettes and missile boats is because they are brand new state of the art... and honestly better than many western ships of much larger displacement which they honestly put to shame.
It is clear they have lost nothing.
Well i am curious to know what would happen to the US if because of secession of states they would lose one third of their industries from one day to the other.
The US has lost nothing but look at their latest corvettes and frigates... The US Navy has better funding than the rest of HATO combined, but please tell us about French corvettes and French Frigates that put these Russian boats to shame?
What you don't seem to understand or are being too stubborn to admit is that the main reason for the deployment in Syria was not to defeat the terrorists, since they already had an air group in Hmeimim that was taking care of them, but to test the carrier operations. And that was done, in fact in absence of failures and problems they would have learned less than what they did. So that when they really need the carrier on a deployment where the Russian military capabilities and security interests actually depend on it, everything is operational and tested.
More than that, the operation in Syria was about testing the Kuznetsovs ability to operate as a flagship and direct operations... in this case in the very secondary role of ground attack which is not even a secondary backup role... it is not that important in the scheme of things at all, but there were no air threats to the Russian surface ships in the area so that is all they could test.
@LSOS The fact that they had to operate from land is completely unimportant because that can be fixed overnight in a Russian shipyard, it was the rest of the stuff they had to do to get the job done that was the real test... which you plainly want to ignore.
And it failed the tests miserably.
The test was not being able to recover aircraft.
The test was to deploy aircraft and execute missions based on C4IR information... which they did from land bases.
It would be a valuable vessel if they used it correctly.
They did use it correctly. Land based aircraft substituted sea based air power when it was clear operations from the carrier could not be executed till work had been done to repair a problem.
Breadowns on a maintained vessels are breakdowns.
Breakdowns on a non maintained vessels aren't.
So breakdowns are not breakdowns... right... the Kuznetsov was taken out of drydock to perform this test... do you think expecting perfection is reasonable?
Sending a non maintained carrier in deployement is beyond stupidity.
They didn't have to test whether it could launch and recover aircraft... they already know how to do that, it is not hard... as you say even China and India can do it... are you saying the instant there was a problem with landing aircraft they should have sailed to the fucking Pacific fleet to fix it so they could then sail back and perform the tests they wanted to perform?
Are you a fucking idiot?
Flying from land bases changes nothing, all the tests they wanted to do they got done... or are you suggesting flexibility and getting the job done means nothing.
The only valuable thing they learned is that they shouldn't have sent it.
If that was the lesson they learned they would have scrapped it.
You can't learn anything about using a carrier against a group like ISIS.
Of course... hitting hidden targets amongst civilians is easy, and requires no sophistication... just fly in and drop bombs at random and declare all the people you kill to be terrorists and then head home as heroes.... like the CdG does.
Russian shipyard could have repaieed and replace many thing before the Syrian fiasco.
Recovering fighters is irrelevant to the main mission of killing terrorists, but of course your countries policy of welcoming them and letting them murder your teachers is obviously much better... you want to compare fiascos... how much of your taxpayers money goes into white helmets...
We aren't talking about building a new carrier but about the poor maintenance of this one.
What poor maintenance... the arrester gear failed.... fucken get over it.
geopolitically Russia had little choice. so far they have done well with what little they have in comparison with the other great powers.
I disagree, Russia could have saved billions by doing exactly nothing and let these arseholes take over Syria and invade Europe... I am sure Europe under Sharia Law will be a much more civilised and orderly place... and anyone who disagrees gets their heads cut off... you know... real justice.
The amusing thing is that in the chaos and murder the plans for gas lines to Europe probably would have failed anyway because it would be easy to fund a few nutter groups to periodically sabotage them... much cheaper and much less risk for Russia...