Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 2426
    Points : 2426
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 35 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Big_Gazza Sun Mar 14, 2021 1:46 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:Billions into the Kuznetsov smokestack.

    What a utterly BS article.  95B rubles????  pfftt...  Incompetent journos with a political agenda.  FFS, check out this nonsense...

    Having struck the coastal countries with black smoke poured from chimneys from unregulated power plants, he still swam to the area of ​​operation. Where, in the complete absence of air defense weapons, the enemy was able to sink two of his own aircraft.

    doGs above, this is just Banderite-level trolling.  More of the NATOesque yabbering about black smoke?? Losing two fighters due to arrestor wire failure and bad air control management is now attributable to the goat-fuckers hiding in trenches??   Suspect

    kumbor wrote:Total area of fire in Kuznetsov was some 300sq.m. No vital part of construction was touched by fire. 95 billion rubles, billion EUR... no such thing happened.

    300 m2 is an area only 17m square.  While fire is never a good thing on any ship, the idea that such small fire fuelled by construction debris and oily rags was going to cause that much damage is simply nonsense.   Suspect

    Funnest part of that article was the last sentance:

    We really need your help
    SIGN UP FOR REGULAR DONATIONS

    Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing

    Nah, fuck off you lying 5th columnist dickhead.  I hope you go broke and starve to death... Twisted Evil

    GarryB, Hole and Backman like this post

    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 3357
    Points : 3359
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 35 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  LMFS Sun Mar 14, 2021 2:07 am

    Cannot we create a quarantined area where this specimen can pour all his nonsense without swamping valuable threads on this board? Suspect

    Big_Gazza, kvs and Backman like this post

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5605
    Points : 5599
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 35 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Sun Mar 14, 2021 2:14 am

    What a utterly BS article. 95B rubles????
    his point is that the losses of the fire damage was exaggerated by the shipyard, so they could get extra $ pocketed.
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 7281
    Points : 7430
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 35 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  magnumcromagnon Sun Mar 14, 2021 2:18 am

    LMFS wrote:Cannot we create a quarantined area where this specimen can pour all his nonsense without swamping valuable threads on this board? Suspect

    The guy is a sentient pile of feces.Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 35 Face-with-open-mouth-vomiting_1f92e

    Big_Gazza and Backman like this post

    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 10477
    Points : 10551
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 35 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  PapaDragon Sun Mar 14, 2021 4:49 am

    Big_Gazza wrote:...Nah, fuck off you lying 5th columnist dickhead. I hope you go broke and starve to death... Twisted Evil

    You already paid by clicking on that crap

    Why do you click on shit that Tsavo posts? You feel for the good old hyperlink text scam

    He is a retard and you do his job for him by doing what he wants

    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 2426
    Points : 2426
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 35 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Big_Gazza Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:24 am

    PapaDragon wrote:You already paid by clicking on that crap

    Why do you click on shit that Tsavo posts? You feel for the good old hyperlink text scam

    He is a retard and you do his job for him by doing what he wants


    Yeah, you're right of course... Embarassed but the morbid curiosity got the better of me....
    Backman
    Backman

    Posts : 616
    Points : 624
    Join date : 2020-11-11

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 35 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Backman Sun Mar 14, 2021 7:00 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    What a utterly BS article.  95B rubles????
    his point is that the losses of the fire damage was exaggerated by the shipyard, so they could get extra $ pocketed.

    Did you forget which forum you were logging into ? This isn't F-16.net. You probably have an account there
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 9308
    Points : 9451
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 35 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  kvs Sun Mar 14, 2021 7:12 am

    Backman wrote:
    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    What a utterly BS article.  95B rubles????
    his point is that the losses of the fire damage was exaggerated by the shipyard, so they could get extra $ pocketed.

    Did you forget which forum you were logging into ? This isn't F-16.net. You probably have an account there

    That is why he is here. To teach anyone who does not drink the NATzO koolaid how wrong they are.

    Funny how there are no Russians spamming pro-western fora with their gospel. Tells you exactly where the
    social disfunction lies.

    GarryB, magnumcromagnon and Big_Gazza like this post

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5605
    Points : 5599
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 35 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Sun Mar 14, 2021 7:13 am

    I never heard of it until u asked.
    I post articles with different opinions/biases, but it doesn't mean I share any particular 1.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 3357
    Points : 3359
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 35 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  LMFS Sun Mar 14, 2021 12:46 pm

    kvs wrote:That is why he is here.  To teach anyone who does not drink the NATzO koolaid how wrong they are.  

    Funny how there are no Russians spamming pro-western fora with their gospel.   Tells you exactly where the
    social disfunction lies.  

    They are normally banned among a wave of outrage at the first sign of nonconformity, in contrast the level this nutcase has been allowed to bring trolling in this forum is off scale...

    Big_Gazza likes this post

    Scorpius
    Scorpius

    Posts : 207
    Points : 209
    Join date : 2020-11-06
    Age : 33

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 35 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Scorpius Sun Mar 14, 2021 1:08 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    What a utterly BS article.  95B rubles????
    his point is that the losses of the fire damage was exaggerated by the shipyard, so they could get extra $ pocketed.

    1. https://lenta.ru/news/2020/04/03/admiralkuznetsov/
    2. https://iz.ru/1051703/2020-08-23/osk-podschitala-summu-ushcherba-ot-pozhara-na-admirale-kuznetcove
    Here are the ACTUAL damage estimates. in 1, they talk about 500 million rubles, in 2 - about 350 million rubles.

    Speaking of 93 billion rubles (seriously, blyad?) all links are to the article from " Kommersant", that article:
    https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/4198544
    "An unnamed source from the Northern Fleet headquarters reported."
    Yeah, it's fucking true. The most accurate and accurate information always comes from "unnamed sources", doesn't it?

    I thought that anyone with an IQ even slightly higher than that of a seashell would be able to tell which was reliable and which was BS.

    GarryB, magnumcromagnon, Big_Gazza and kvs like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28716
    Points : 29246
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 35 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  GarryB Sun Mar 14, 2021 2:20 pm

    they r going to cooperate in naval matters as much, if not more, as with any other areas of mutual interests. Both operate similar CVs & will share "lessons learned".

    Most of their training will not be about teaching each other how to be a navy... it is more likely to be practising working together in specific operations to get the best out of each others potential assistance.

    Do I need to post this: MiG-29K fighters go on combat duty on Russian Arctic archipelago for first time
    here?

    They are sending their deck fighters to the Arctic for training... is that enough of a hint?

    if used in the open sea, it would also extend the range of AWACS/ ASW/SAR/COD helos, eliminating the need for catapults needed to operate fixed wings that may not be ready.

    There is an enormous difference between what is essentially a helicopter platform and a floating airfield in scale and size and cost and operational issues.

    A helicopter port pad is attainable and makes sense... an airfield MPAs and other large aircraft could operate from is a much more complex and expensive and difficult proposition.

    it'll be able to do fleet protection mission & few others just as well; as the earlier post mentioned, new more powerful reactors on icebreakers will allow higher speeds in ice free water.

    Wouldn't be fast enough to operate with surface ships as fleet support... for a long term engagement.... say Syria in 2016 they could have positioned a floating base in the Med for long term air operations against land targets that would be harder for ISIS to engage, but of course establishing land bases will always be simpler and cheaper.

    there is only 1 Arctic Ocean; Russia had no reason to sail W./S. Atlantic & E./S. Pacific with CBGs

    They will be a global force and exploring their new unlimited area of operations will be part of its training and workout.

    as I said many times before, that trade won't pay for CBGs. L. America to Russia is what Africa was to China in the 15 century- an exotic land whose products r not essential for well being & could only be obtained by wasting $ & time.

    All the countries of the world represent opportunities for investment and development for Russian companies and for other companies from other countries in Russia. it will be mutually beneficial in terms of growth and development.

    even if so, in an emergency they could be used to tow av. barges; alternatively, 1-2 slated for decommissioning could be kept, refueled/refitted & not used on the NSR; even if they build 1-2 extra icebreakers, it wouldn't be as cost prohibitive as 2-3 CVNs.

    Two CVNs are not cost prohibitive... their development and production will be spread across a decade of budgeting, and there is probably quite a good potential that another country might be interested in the design too.

    China will soon have her own NP icebreakers to use in the NW Passage, so Canada won't need any Russian help.

    What terms will the Chinese have for helping Canada with that... competition would be good for Canada...

    if it works as an air/sea base for the USN (see my prev. post links), a larger barge would be comparable to a CVN. They could join 3 long tanker/bulker hulls to make a trimaran & put a flight deck across them. The 1 in the center could even have diesel-electric propulsion for extra safety, flexibility & extra el. power generation.

    The bigger and more complex you keep making it the more it is going to cost.... pretty soon it will cost more than a CVN yet be less capable.

    I'm not saying it'll act as a CVN, but if they increase the # of helos on them, it refutes ur argument that there is no need for UDK in the BS.

    They will likely have Ivan Grens operating in the Black Sea, though more likely based in Tartus and operating in the Med most of the time.

    There are plenty of reasons against the kuznetsov in the BS, and those same reasons apply to not having these new 40K ton Ivan Rogov class ships in the BS either.

    Icebreakers r already there & new r being built; existing ships could be modified & joined for fraction of what a new CATOBAR CVN will cost.
    Keep on laughing.

    Ice breakers are for breaking ice... towing something the size of a real airfield.... ie 50m wide or more and 500m long or more if you want An-12 or even Il-112/114 type aircraft to operate from it it will probably need to be four times longer at over 1km long... even the most powerful nuclear ice breaker would struggle to handle such a platform and yes it would be very very expensive if you want it to actually function.

    Will a Russian CVN cost less & be as capable ?

    In every parameter Russian military equipment and systems are all dramatically cheaper than anything the US could make... being a fraction of what the US pays for weapons is a given...

    Those sources of information are dubious at best, and more realistically anti Russian propaganda...

    They are currently building two 40K ton helicopter carriers... building a 70-80K ton carrier would not be that much more difficult or expensive, though in terms of performance the bigger carrier would be more capable and effective than four smaller carriers... even assuming the smaller carriers already had a fully operational and capable 5th gen VSTOL fighter... which they don't.

    If u can't post the evidence that "it is unpractical, makes no sense at all and is more expensive", let's see it.

    Having three big tankers is no substitute for a CVN... if there was any chance it could be the british bean counters would have suggested it instead of the carriers they ended up building.

    The 1st carriers were also converted merchant ships.

    And they were useless and got replaced as soon as possible.

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28716
    Points : 29246
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 35 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  GarryB Sun Mar 14, 2021 2:21 pm

    I thought that anyone with an IQ even slightly higher than that of a seashell would be able to tell which was reliable and which was BS.

    A grain of sand gets inside and irritates an Oyster... and the result is a pearl...
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 9308
    Points : 9451
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 35 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  kvs Sun Mar 14, 2021 5:36 pm

    A real destructive ship fire is what we saw in the case of the Richard Bonhomme of the US fleet. Trying to paint some trash fire on
    the Kuznetsov as even worth thread space is beyond retarded. It is on-off switch level IQ.

    Big_Gazza and LMFS like this post

    avatar
    kumbor

    Posts : 302
    Points : 298
    Join date : 2017-06-09

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 35 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  kumbor Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:04 pm

    kvs wrote:A real destructive ship fire is what we saw in the case of the Richard Bonhomme of the US fleet.   Trying to paint some trash fire on
    the Kuznetsov as even worth thread space is beyond retarded.   It is on-off switch level IQ.


    I am glad to see normal comments on this Forum. Recently many "Russian" groups emerge on the internet which arson open hatred against their own russian motherland, no matter on what grounds. 5-10M$ damage by this fire looks quite OK and manageable for Zvezdochka! Kuznetsov won`t be first class carrier, and it never was such, but it will do as a stopgap while politics and shipbuilders decide whether carriers are an option at all, or not.

    LMFS likes this post

    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 9308
    Points : 9451
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 35 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  kvs Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:16 pm

    kumbor wrote:
    kvs wrote:A real destructive ship fire is what we saw in the case of the Richard Bonhomme of the US fleet.   Trying to paint some trash fire on
    the Kuznetsov as even worth thread space is beyond retarded.   It is on-off switch level IQ.


    I am glad to see normal comments on this Forum. Recently many "Russian" groups emerge on the internet which arson open hatred against their own russian motherland, no matter on what grounds. 5-10M$ damage by this fire looks quite OK and manageable for Zvezdochka! Kuznetsov won`t be first class carrier, and it never was such, but it will do as a stopgap while politics and shipbuilders decide whether carriers are an option at all, or not.

    I think this forum is unique. I am not aware of any other non-Russian forum that does not toe the anti-Russian line.

    As for 95 billion ruble fire costs, that is 1.3 billion US dollars. Given the PPP factor in the Russian military sector is easily
    5 (twice the 2.5 factor for the consumer-dominated overall economy), we are talking about an alleged 6.5 billion US dollar
    equivalent loss. From a fire confined to 300 square meters. You don't have to be pro-Russian or anti-west to see
    the absurdity of the 95 billion ruble claim.

    LMFS likes this post

    Backman
    Backman

    Posts : 616
    Points : 624
    Join date : 2020-11-11

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 35 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Backman Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:28 pm

    LMFS wrote:
    kvs wrote:That is why he is here.  To teach anyone who does not drink the NATzO koolaid how wrong they are.  

    Funny how there are no Russians spamming pro-western fora with their gospel.   Tells you exactly where the
    social disfunction lies.  

    They are normally banned among a wave of outrage at the first sign of nonconformity, in contrast the level this nutcase has been allowed to bring trolling in this forum is off scale...

    I joined F-16.net and all I did was politely make objective point about the su 57. They just called me a 5th columnist right away. Then I just unloaded on them. Point by point , with pics and everything , I roasted all of their ridiculous arguments. Without  breaking any rules. 2 days into that , I was banned

    By the way . China had a fire on one of their new helicopter carriers too. That's just one we know of. China keeps all of its incidents under wraps. Which is what I think Russia should do. The ones that can be covered up should be. There is no points for honesty in these propaganda wars today.

    GarryB, Big_Gazza, kvs and LMFS like this post

    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 3357
    Points : 3359
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 35 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  LMFS Sun Mar 14, 2021 11:13 pm

    kvs wrote:As for 95 billion ruble fire costs, that is 1.3 billion US dollars.   Given the PPP factor in the Russian military sector is easily
    5 (twice the 2.5 factor for the consumer-dominated overall economy), we are talking about an alleged 6.5 billion US dollar
    equivalent loss.   From a fire confined to 300 square meters.    You don't have to be pro-Russian or anti-west to see
    the absurdity of the 95 billion ruble claim.

    That is almost the cost of the development and production of a Lider icebreaker for god's sake, these retards do not even know the size of the numbers they use Laughing Laughing

    Backman wrote:I joined F-16.net and all I did was politely make objective point about the su 57. They just called me a 5th columnist right away. Then I just unloaded on them. Point by point , with pics and everything , I roasted all of their ridiculous arguments. Without  breaking any rules. 2 days into that , I was banned

    They shadow banned me, they did not even have the balls to do it straight, since I broke no rules, had nice discussions with some non-retarded members (the knowledgeable ones do not write BS about foreign planes BTW) and was rather careful not to troll the guys, but obviously I was not toeing the line, they even said that I was someone from a foreign intelligence service, which obviously was a serious compliment to me Laughing Laughing

    So yes, the claimed freedom of speech in the West is a BIIIIIG lie

    By the way . China had a fire on one of their new helicopter carriers too. That's just one we know of. China keeps all of its incidents under wraps. Which is what I think Russia should do. The ones that can be covered up should be. There is no points for honesty in these propaganda wars today.

    I suspect many gentlemen in the Russian MIC would love to be covered by the estate like in China, so they can keep doing shit without getting publicly roasted for it... they will not get that!

    kvs and Scorpius like this post

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5605
    Points : 5599
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 35 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Sun Mar 14, 2021 11:25 pm

    Do I need to post this:  MiG-29K fighters go on combat duty on Russian Arctic archipelago for first time
    here? They are sending their deck fighters to the Arctic for training... is that enough of a hint?
    since they r there, why not train for Arctic ops on their unsinkable NZ carrier?
    There is an enormous difference between what is essentially a helicopter platform and a floating airfield in scale and size and cost and operational issues. A helicopter port pad is attainable and makes sense... an airfield MPAs and other large aircraft could operate from is a much more complex and expensive and difficult proposition.
    if need be, 1-2 would be enough for Atlantic &/ Pacific/IO
    Wouldn't be fast enough to operate with surface ships as fleet support...Ice breakers are for breaking ice... towing something the size of a real airfield.... ie 50m wide or more and 500m long or more if you want An-12 or even Il-112/114 type aircraft to operate from it it will probably need to be four times longer at over 1km long...
    those big floating airfields could have their own NP/conv. propulsion; 3kts is enough to deploy them within a few weeks; in any case, they don't need high speed & could be towed by ocean tugs too.
    there is only 1 Arctic Ocean; Russia had no reason to sail W./S. Atlantic & E./S. Pacific with CBGs
    They will be a global force and exploring their new unlimited area of operations will be part of its training and workout.
    why "train and workout" in areas they most likely won't be operating?
    Russia is the biggest a land power by area & has everything it needs to survive, w/o having to pick up fights with old sea wolves in their backyards/turfs.
    Two CVNs are not cost prohibitive... their development and production will be spread across a decade of budgeting, and there is probably quite a good potential that another country might be interested in the design too.
    Sure, they can revive the Buran with An-225 for it (1 is unfinished in Ukraine) too; as with them, the CVNs r not a priority before the last ship & sub r ready for their CBGs to be formed 1st. If Russia overspends on her VMF & breaks apart like the USSR 30 years ago, her CVNs will end up sold/scrapped like those Kiev/Kuz. class TAVKRs.
    What terms will the Chinese have for helping Canada with that... competition would be good for Canada...
    it'll be to escort Chinese ships there anyway, if any. Canada would just charge transit, environmental, pilot & port fees, when applicable.
    The bigger and more complex you keep making it the more it is going to cost.... pretty soon it will cost more than a CVN yet be less capable.
    no it won't be: they could use older ships that will act as UDK/CV hybrids & modified accordingly, & they won't need as many escorts if well armed & carry more aircraft than LHAs & CVNs do. NP icebreakers will also save them fuel & provide extra el. power. If need be, they could even generate steam for their catapults to be delivered by connecting pipes. $Bs could be saved on CVN infrastructure as well, as NP icebreakers already have their own that serves them.
    They will likely have Ivan Grens operating in the Black Sea, though more likely based in Tartus and operating in the Med most of the time.
    sooner or later Ukraine &/ Georgia may need to be invaded, & they'll be needed to secure their BS coasts.
    There are plenty of reasons against the kuznetsov in the BS, and those same reasons apply to not having these new 40K ton Ivan Rogov class ships in the BS either.
    if nothing else, they may not have enough room for them in other fleets, & forces better to be dispersed across bases that r closer to their future deployment areas.
    In every parameter Russian military equipment and systems are all dramatically cheaper than anything the US could make..
    still, CVNs r way more complex & would take longer & cost more to build, test, operate & refuel than modified ships pulled by NP
    icebreakers which they operated for decades.
    They are currently building two 40K ton helicopter carriers... building a 70-80K ton carrier would not be that much more difficult or expensive, though in terms of performance the bigger carrier would be more capable and effective than four smaller carriers...
    a lot of other big ships & subs must be built, & they don't have many shipyards to do it.
    Having three big tankers is no substitute for a CVN... if there was any chance it could be the british bean counters would have suggested it instead of the carriers they ended up building.
    the Brits had better colonies, diplomacy & banking system; now they r backed by the US, so they can still afford them, esp. since they r not even CVNs. Even if 2 NP icebreakers & 6 converted ships would be needed to substitute for 1 Storm-like CVN, it'll still save a lot of $/time & be more than worth it.
    The 1st carriers were also converted merchant ships.
    And they were useless and got replaced as soon as possible.
    but modern merchant ships r bigger & stronger; the yards r more capable now than ever before to give them a new life.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28716
    Points : 29246
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 35 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  GarryB Mon Mar 15, 2021 5:43 am

    since they r there, why not train for Arctic ops on their unsinkable NZ carrier?

    What?

    those big floating airfields could have their own NP/conv. propulsion; 3kts is enough to deploy them within a few weeks; in any case, they don't need high speed & could be towed by ocean tugs too.

    If you served in the US Navy then you didn't pay much attention.... a 3knt speed wouldn't be enough to sail into a sea current in some places...

    A big (expensive) Nuclear powered (expensive) propulsion barge is not supposed to be mobile like a carrier.

    why "train and workout" in areas they most likely won't be operating?

    Training in the regions the CV will be based makes complete sense.

    has everything it needs to survive, w/o having to pick up fights with old sea wolves in their backyards/turfs.

    It wont be picking fights with anyone... you are confusing them with the US.

    Sure, they can revive the Buran with An-225 for it (1 is unfinished in Ukraine) too

    Buran is 50 year old technology, they could do much better now, and Antonov are dead... they don't need a plane with enormous weight capacity... the An-225 could carry 250 tons but the Buran was 120 tons fully loaded... empty it would probably be 50 tons or less.

    What sort of condition would that example in Ukraine be in by now...

    as with them, the CVNs r not a priority before the last ship & sub r ready for their CBGs to be formed 1st. If Russia overspends on her VMF & breaks apart like the USSR 30 years ago, her CVNs will end up sold/scrapped like those Kiev/Kuz. class TAVKRs.

    You have things arse about again as usual... the purpose of the Kuznetsov is to provide air cover and early warning... it is not there with 20 ships protecting it... it might be in a small group of perhaps the two Kirov class cruisers and a Slava or two and a few upgraded Udaloys and perhaps a Gorshkov frigate or new upgraded Gorshkov for testing... the point is that the Kuznetsov is there to protect the ships and not the other way around... it is the missiles and weapons that the ships carry that is what the group is based on.

    it'll be to escort Chinese ships there anyway, if any. Canada would just charge transit, environmental, pilot & port fees, when applicable.

    China wants the North sea route developed to carry trade to EU and from EU to Asia... not sure they want to boost trade with the US.

    If need be, they could even generate steam for their catapults to be delivered by connecting pipes.

    Why waste time with steam cats?

    That would be stupid.

    $Bs could be saved on CVN infrastructure as well, as NP icebreakers already have their own that serves them.

    Nothing would be saved... it would be chaotic and not as mobile or effective as a CVN... and probably cost a lot more.

    sooner or later Ukraine &/ Georgia may need to be invaded, & they'll be needed to secure their BS coasts.

    Russia has no reason to invade either country.

    if nothing else, they may not have enough room for them in other fleets, & forces better to be dispersed across bases that r closer to their future deployment areas.

    Yeah, there is so little space in the Pacific Fleet and Northern Fleet... house prices are higher than in Hong Kong... despite money already spent expanding and improving both bases for the purpose of basing new ships in both locations... no such expansions in the BS... which on its own would make it pretty obvious that a country that has never based aircraft carriers in the Black Sea before might want to keep them where their aircraft are currently going to train...

    still, CVNs r way more complex & would take longer & cost more to build, test, operate & refuel than modified ships pulled by NP
    icebreakers which they operated for decades.

    Saying it does not make it true. There is no conclusive proof it would even work and even if it worked perfectly and there were no problems at all it is essentially a fixed airfield at sea... it is the equivalent of China making an island and putting an airfield on it...

    a lot of other big ships & subs must be built, & they don't have many shipyards to do it.

    They already have.

    the Brits had better colonies, diplomacy & banking system; now they r backed by the US, so they can still afford them, esp. since they r not even CVNs.

    They can't afford the ships they have and now find themselves unable to afford to buy escorts, so they have two carriers but no decent escort ships... ridiculous.

    And people criticise the Russian Navy who seem to be planning and doing everything sensibly and methodically.

    Even if 2 NP icebreakers & 6 converted ships would be needed to substitute for 1 Storm-like CVN, it'll still save a lot of $/time & be more than worth it.

    If converted ships and NP icebreakers could do what a CV or CVN could do then there would be no CVNs.... the Soviets and British already experimented with mini carriers with VSTOL fighters and they were censored useless and not really cheaper at all when you include the cost of ships lost for lack of decent AWACS and fighter coverage.

    but modern merchant ships r bigger & stronger; the yards r more capable now than ever before to give them a new life.

    It wasn't their size or strength that was the problem.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5605
    Points : 5599
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 35 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Mon Mar 15, 2021 7:10 am

    since they r there, why not train for Arctic ops on their unsinkable NZ carrier?
    What?
    the island of Novaya Zemlya is where that base is.
    If you served in the US Navy then you didn't pay much attention.... a 3knt speed wouldn't be enough to sail into a sea current in some places...
    I wasn't in the QM rating to know it; 5-6kts will be fine then.
    A big (expensive) Nuclear powered (expensive) propulsion barge is not supposed to be mobile like a carrier. There is no conclusive proof it would even work and even if it worked perfectly and there were no problems at all it is essentially a fixed airfield at sea...
    we r talking about 2 different concepts: a large floating airfield & big barges/ships joined together to form a smaller airbase but as big as, or bigger than a CVN.
    Training in the regions the CV will be based makes complete sense.
    exactly, but if the basing location is wrong, training there won't be any good.
    It wont be picking fights with anyone....
    the US/UK &/ their allies may force them to fight.
    You have things arse about again as usual... the purpose of the Kuznetsov is to provide air cover and early warning... it is not there with 20 ships protecting it...
    they still need to build a lot of FFG/DDG/CGs for other tasks anyway; now there's nothing to deploy far outside of the land based aviation on regular basis, nor there's a valid reason to.
    China wants the North sea route developed to carry trade to EU and from EU to Asia... not sure they want to boost trade with the US.
    they already did send their icebreaker there, so could use that route to bring containers directly to the US/Canadian East Coast.
    Why waste time with steam cats? That would be stupid.
    if the improvised CV won't be long enough &/ the EMALS won't be ready or reliable enough.
    Nothing would be saved... it would be chaotic and not as mobile or effective as a CVN... and probably cost a lot more.
    not any more chaotic than now, with ships plugging gaps between fleets all the time. Any icebreaker can have a nose bulb added to increase its speed in ice free water & removed again before returning to NSR work. The NP cargo ship Sevmorput could also be used to tow & support converted & joined aviation ships.
    It'll most certainly cost a lot more to build & operate CVNs instead.
    Russia has no reason to invade either country.
    pretty soon she may have, time will tell!
    ..no such expansions in the BS...
    u forgot that they recently built a big new naval base at Novorossiysk (& have plans to refurbish the old sub base in Balaclava), as well as in Makhachkala on the Caspian that will free up space in Astrakhan where many corvettes  could be based, if need be.
    a lot of other big ships & subs must be built, & they don't have many shipyards to do it.
    They already have.
    even if so, it takes them a long time to refit the old & build new ships/subs. New icebreakers r the priority now as far as NP surface ships r concerned- they r needed to replace the old & add more for the increased use of the NSR.
    the Brits had better colonies, diplomacy & banking system; now they r backed by the US, so they can still afford them, esp. since they r not even CVNs.
    They can't afford the ships they have and now find themselves unable to afford to buy escorts, so they have two carriers but no decent escort ships... ridiculous.
    other navies will escort them, just like NZ C-130s that can be escorted by other AFs fighters.
    And people criticise the Russian Navy who seem to be planning and doing everything sensibly and methodically.
    no, it doesn't "seem to be" so for many. On top of everything else, the top brass order too many VIP boats to ride in.
    If converted ships and NP icebreakers could do what a CV or CVN could do then there would be no CVNs.... the Soviets and British already experimented with mini carriers with VSTOL fighters and they were censored useless and not really cheaper at all when you include the cost of ships lost for lack of decent AWACS and fighter coverage.
    Only USSR/RF had/s NP icebreakers; the USSR could afford TAVKRs, & only now they r thinking about building CVNs.
    Russia could take the US sea base idea using modified tankers a step farther & create a platform as big or bigger than the Nimitz/Ford CVN. It won't need to store heavy ordinance & a lot of fuel/spares if it's mission will be, as u say, to protect the fleet.
    It wasn't their size or strength that was the problem.
    whatever their main problem was, such a combo would eliminate it in the bud, & w/o creating other problems.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Wed Mar 17, 2021 3:44 am; edited 4 times in total (Reason for editing : add links)
    avatar
    Arrow

    Posts : 843
    Points : 841
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 35 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Arrow Sat Mar 20, 2021 8:56 pm

    https://tass.ru/proisshestviya/10952429

    Corruption in Russia is a huge problem no less than in the West.
    Backman
    Backman

    Posts : 616
    Points : 624
    Join date : 2020-11-11

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 35 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Backman Sat Mar 20, 2021 9:08 pm

    Arrow wrote:https://tass.ru/proisshestviya/10952429

    Corruption in Russia is a huge problem no less than in the West.

    Not good. The CEO of the company tried to squeeze a $60,000 tip out of the job. Sounds like it was being divvied up. Hardly big game for a CEO. That's like a shop foreman level corruption in the west.

    What is the budget of the whole refit again ?

    GarryB likes this post

    avatar
    Arrow

    Posts : 843
    Points : 841
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 35 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Arrow Sat Mar 20, 2021 9:12 pm

    This is probably the top of the corruption iceberg in Russian industry.
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 9308
    Points : 9451
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 35 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  kvs Sat Mar 20, 2021 9:14 pm

    It would be a problem if it was not being found and instead we had the pretense that everything is squeaky clean.

    Idiots are a dime a dozen and this clown naturally selected himself. These morons have not gotten the memo since the
    Vostochny Cosmodrome farce. They somehow expect to rip off the government and not have a Rogozin show up
    to clean house.

    So the key here is context. Trying to paint this incident as Russia = total fail is moronic. People are clearly doing their
    jobs here. I would not say that is true in the west. In the west this maggot would have obtained gross excess of
    taxpayer money "legally".

    GarryB, Big_Gazza, slasher and Hole like this post


    Sponsored content

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 35 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Apr 20, 2021 5:56 pm