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

    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

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

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  magnumcromagnon Sat Mar 20, 2021 9:54 pm

    Arrow wrote:This is probably the top of the corruption iceberg in Russian industry.

    Alright then, show me something comparable to the F-35 fiasco in the Russian Federation. I'll wait.

    Big_Gazza and Scorpius like this post

    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 3358
    Points : 3360
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  LMFS Sun Mar 21, 2021 2:35 am

    As said before, the differences are:

    1) The amount is peanuts compared to the scales of corruption the West handles
    2) It was caught, unlike in the West

    So it is the same, but different...

    GarryB and magnumcromagnon like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB

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

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  GarryB Sun Mar 21, 2021 7:49 am

    the island of Novaya Zemlya is where that base is.

    A land base is a land base... there is only so much they can do from a land base... operating from a carrier at sea is what they need.

    I wasn't in the QM rating to know it; 5-6kts will be fine then.

    Well that is the advantage of making up BS solutions... who is to say a barge a kilometre long and 100m wide can't be pushed around at 6 knots easily enough...

    The problem is that until it is proven to work it is not a realistic option and certainly not a solution to protecting Russian military ships around the world.

    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.

    The two different concepts are an idea of a floating airfield that could be used in a stationary capacity mid ocean to support operations in some location like Guam or other islands are currently used by the countries that stole them, and a CVN which is a mobile airfield that can roam around the place operating with the ships it will be tasked with defending from enemy air attack.

    They are not the same and not compatible.

    exactly, but if the basing location is wrong, training there won't be any good.

    Not true at all... Russia will really have no idea what location they will end up being needed in so a variety of training conditions would be useful to develop tactics and rules to cope with different situations in different locations and different weather conditions.

    the US/UK &/ their allies may force them to fight.

    Their response sinking a few western ships or allies ships should temper their enthusiasm for fighting pretty fast.

    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.

    The ex cold war destroyers Udaloy they are upgrading should be fine for long endurance missions... they redesignate them as frigates but their size should allow long trips overseas, and of course the upgraded Kirovs and Slavas would be fine for longer trips around the place.

    A few Frigates would allow them to test on longer ranged trips to test radar and sonar equipment as well as communication equipment.

    Production should now focus on Frigates and Corvettes to boost numbers freeing the upgraded older models for show the flag visits around the world too.

    they already did send their icebreaker there, so could use that route to bring containers directly to the US/Canadian East Coast.

    They could but all the bullshit and sanctions from the US they might decide to focus trading with other countries instead.

    if the improvised CV won't be long enough &/ the EMALS won't be ready or reliable enough.

    What makes you think they could get steam cats up and working without any problems faster than they could EMALS cats?

    Any icebreaker can have a nose bulb added to increase its speed in ice free water & removed again before returning to NSR work.

    A nose bulb wont effect the speed of the boat towing an airfield sized barge...

    It'll most certainly cost a lot more to build & operate CVNs instead.

    Just saying something does not make it true.

    pretty soon she may have, time will tell!

    No reason to invade by sea. Both are hostile countries, there would be no benefit at all to invading them and lots of problems with the invasions.

    Crimea made sense because most of the Crimean people identified as Russians and didn't hate Russians and blame them for all their problems.

    The Ukraine and Georgia hate Russians and blame Russians for all their problems... there is nothing in Georgia or Ukraine worth risking a single Russian soldiers life over, let alone invading for.

    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.

    Expansions for corvettes and subs is not the same as expansions for aircraft carriers and cruiser escorts.

    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.

    That is right, they are a priority because they free the way for commercial transport ships carrying cargo and gas and oil to markets around the world... they make lots of money doing this. They wont make any money at all towing a huge barge in non frozen waters.

    other navies will escort them, just like NZ C-130s that can be escorted by other AFs fighters.

    Which means the Royal Navy can only operate in the interests of the US because if it is only UK interests there wont be enough support ships and escorts to send their carriers... really quite a come down...



    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.

    VIP boats will be useful for potential trade partners transport needs... when Shmusing...

    Only USSR/RF had/s NP icebreakers; the USSR could afford TAVKRs, & only now they r thinking about building CVNs.

    The US never even considering nuclear powered ice breakers and instead spend money on CVNs... are they idiots?

    They have islands around the world like Guam etc according to your theory they shouldn't even need CVNs...

    Russia could take the US sea base idea using modified tankers a step farther

    But the US does not use modified tankers instead of CVNs... that is just a suggestion.

    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.

    Wouldn't it be much cheaper just to make a CVN smaller than the Ford class and get rid of all the shit planes and just have Hawkeyes and Su-57s and get rid of all the bombers and other useless planes and replace them with drones.

    whatever their main problem was, such a combo would eliminate it in the bud, & w/o creating other problems.

    It is Americas idea... let them try and we will see how it pans out.

    My money would be they screw it up and it costs 50 billion dollars and they end up with nothing useful... but the CEOs at Boeing and Lockheed Martin make a small fortune... cause that is what it is all about... institutionalised corruption.

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

    Corruption in Russia is identified and prosecuted... in the west it is institutionalised and even celebrated...

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

    60K is peanuts... that is less that one hour operating costs for an F-35 for goodness sake... a drop in the bucket.

    The Americans are superior to the Russians in a couple of areas.... advertising (ie bullshit) and grift (corruption).

    And for Russia that is a good thing.

    Scorpius likes 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 36 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Thu Mar 25, 2021 12:36 am

    [quote="GarryB"]
    the island of Novaya Zemlya is where that base is.
    A land base is a land base... there is only so much they can do from a land base... operating from a carrier at sea is what they need.
    barring that, they'll train there & could train over the Black & Azov Seas if the Adm K. changed its homeport.
    I wasn't in the QM rating to know it; 5-6kts will be fine then.
    Well that is the advantage of making up BS solutions... who is to say a barge a kilometre long and 100m wide can't be pushed around at 6 knots easily enough...The problem is that until it is proven to work it is not a realistic option and certainly not a solution to protecting Russian military ships around the world.
    they could try it on a smaller scale barge. NP subs & ships & their weapon systems were tried on conv. powered subs & ships; NP icebreaker hulls were 1st tried on conv. powered hulls.
    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.
    The two different concepts are an idea of a floating airfield that could be used in a stationary capacity mid ocean to support operations in some location like Guam or other islands are currently used by the countries that stole them, and a CVN which is a mobile airfield that can roam around the place operating with the ships it will be tasked with defending from enemy air attack. They are not the same and not compatible.
    but they could still be used by the MPA, tankers & AWACSes to assist ships; in the Cold War, MPA, tankers &/ AWACSes were using such bases by the USN & the VMF for decades. If need be, Russia could get both floating airfields & improvised CVNs.
    if the improvised CV won't be long enough &/ the EMALS won't be ready or reliable enough.
    What makes you think they could get steam cats up and working without any problems faster than they could EMALS cats?
    China been testing both, so could share their kno-how.
    Any icebreaker can have a nose bulb added to increase its speed in ice free water & removed again before returning to NSR work.
    A nose bulb wont effect the speed of the boat towing an airfield sized barge...
    it'll be CVN or 1.5-2x sized barge; the bulb would decrease water resistance & save on energy needed to sail faster. Or they could just convert 3 existing tankers/bulk ships into 1 trimaran that will be 1.5-2x larger than the Adm. K, perhaps putting 2 nuclear reactors on 1 of them.
    It'll most certainly cost a lot more to build & operate CVNs instead.
    Just saying something does not make it true.
    if it was worth it to the USN, instead of keeping an older sea base, it will be even more so to the VMF.
    pretty soon she may have, time will tell!
    No reason to invade by sea. Both are hostile countries, there would be no benefit at all to invading them and lots of problems with the invasions.
    Crimea made sense because most of the Crimean people identified as Russians and didn't hate Russians and blame them for all their problems.
    The Ukraine and Georgia hate Russians and blame Russians for all their problems... there is nothing in Georgia or Ukraine worth risking a single Russian soldiers life over, let alone invading for.
    they already used regular army at Debaltsevo & SF elsewhere in the Donbass, with many tanks destroyed & their crews killed.
    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.
    Expansions for corvettes and subs is not the same as expansions for aircraft carriers and cruiser escorts.
    if 2 adjacent drydocks can be merged into 1, a few pairs of adjacent berthing spaces can be merged into 1 each.
    The new base has enough room for at least the Adm. K &/ it's few escorts.
    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.
    That is right, they are a priority because they free the way for commercial transport ships carrying cargo and gas and oil to markets around the world... they make lots of money doing this. They wont make any money at all towing a huge barge in non frozen waters.
    they will, if big amount of trade needs their participation to ensure that it's protected. The USN & VMF protected tankers in the PG & many navies do anti-piracy missions in the IO for years now.
    other navies will escort them, just like NZ C-130s that can be escorted by other AFs fighters.
    [quote]Which means the Royal Navy can only operate in the interests of the US because if it is only UK interests there wont be enough support ships and escorts to send their carriers...   really quite a come down...
    [quote] they think it's now in the Western interests in general, vs. China & Russia. The US & Japan could care less if Argentina got the Falklands, but not if Sri Lanka, Taiwan & Philippines were lost to the PRC.
    Only USSR/RF had/s NP icebreakers; the USSR could afford TAVKRs, & only now they r thinking about building CVNs.
    The US never even considering nuclear powered ice breakers and instead spend money on CVNs... are they idiots? They have islands around the world like Guam etc according to your theory they shouldn't even need CVNs...
    since they didn't need NP icebreakers, there was no need to build & convert them later. The original post 1945 CBGs purpose was to keep the SLOCs open so troops, etc. reinforcements could be protected in case of war in Europe or NE. Asia. All N. American seaborn trade is carried on the Atlantic & the Pacific, with railroads & Panama Canal (which paid for itself many time over) connecting both coasts; wider CV/Ns could always go around the Cape Horn, & a few did, if not deployed overseas before completing around the world cruise on interfleet transfers. Also, using the ice clogged NW Passage would've depended on the USSR's good behavior in the Bering Strait.
    Russia could take the US sea base idea using modified tankers a step farther
    But the US does not use modified tankers instead of CVNs... that is just a suggestion.
    they use them to augment LHAs, but Russia has none & may never get CVNs.
    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.
    Wouldn't it be much cheaper just to make a CVN smaller than the Ford class and get rid of all the shit planes and just have Hawkeyes and Su-57s and get rid of all the bombers and other useless planes and replace them with drones.
    but a smaller CATOBAR CVN would be more costly than a bigger, NP icebreaker assisted, improvised STOBAR TAVKR that could still launch AWACS, CODs & tankers, besides its own SA/ASW/AshMs. A bigger platform will have bigger living/storage/working room for people, aircraft, fuel, food, parts, etc., requiring less frequent unreps.
    whatever their main problem was, such a combo would eliminate it in the bud, & w/o creating other problems.
    It is Americas idea... let them try and we will see how it pans out.
    they just left the PG & there r no complaints that I know of.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Thu Mar 25, 2021 12:48 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : add links)
    GarryB
    GarryB

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

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  GarryB Thu Mar 25, 2021 7:24 am

    barring that, they'll train there & could train over the Black & Azov Seas if the Adm K. changed its homeport.

    It makes more sense for them to train on an operational carrier... right now there isn't one so they operate from land, but when the K is back in service it makes no sense not training to operate from the ship they are supposed to operate from.

    If the weather is not good in the northern fleet port where they are based then they can sail to where the weather is good enough for training and train there.

    There is no need to sail to the Black Sea.

    they could try it on a smaller scale barge.

    A small scale barge is a helicopter port, not an airfield... they might find for what they want it for it is good enough but I rather doubt they will ever think making a barge half a kilometre long is going to be worth the effort.

    It is an idea but pretty soon the problems become apparent so it becomes a bad idea.

    NP subs & ships & their weapon systems were tried on conv. powered subs & ships

    Scale models were designed and built and tested but the real test is the first full sized ship or sub, which is why testing the first in a class takes so long and is so complex because it is really the only sensible way to be sure all the design ideas worked or not.

    [qutoe]NP icebreaker hulls were 1st tried on conv. powered hulls.[/quote]

    Not true. They built scale models and tested them in water tanks to check water flow and hydrodynamics, and then they built a full scale first of class design ship and tested that.

    Taking an existing boat design and putting it in a new shape would be horrendously expensive and a hull shape designed for a nuclear powered ship will have different weights and balances and different levels of available power... it would be too much of a risk because the nuclear powered version would be different enough for the conventional test model to potentially make you think it wont work when in actual fact it will or vice versa.

    At the end of the day you have to eliminate all potential problems with computer and scaled water tank models but at the end of the day only creating a 1 to 1 scale ship will you actually know if it works or not.

    The Fords problem was they were trying too many new technologies at once and many of which were not ready... problem solving on one system or piece of equipment is hard enough but when it is interlinked with dozens of hundreds of other related systems then finding problems and interactions becomes a nightmare.

    They should have put a EMALS cat on a Nimitz ship that was otherwise working properly and once it was working properly they could transfer it to the Ford class.


    but they could still be used by the MPA, tankers & AWACSes to assist ships;

    Floating airfields are a concept that is currently unproven... the only thing that comes close would be the man made islands the Chinese have built and they were not cheaper than a CVN, but considering their purpose they make sense because they come with territorial waters.

    For Russia, they need something mobile that can support operations anywhere they might need it... something that can keep up with their ships.

    In some places a fixed barge based system might be useful... they had a mobile pier system where support ships could dock together and at sea ships could dock and refuel and rearm and take on fresh water and subs could take on fresh crews etc for further operations, but they never attempted to operate MPAs or AWACS aircraft from them.

    If need be, Russia could get both floating airfields & improvised CVNs.

    CVNs make more sense... any floating airfield I would expect would be more like a heli pad... a bit like that scientific research station vessel posted in another thread.

    China been testing both, so could share their kno-how.

    Makes rather more sense for Russia to develop the EMALS technology herself, and the steam cat is obsolete now.

    it'll be CVN or 1.5-2x sized barge; the bulb would decrease water resistance & save on energy needed to sail faster. Or they could just convert 3 existing tankers/bulk ships into 1 trimaran that will be 1.5-2x larger than the Adm. K, perhaps putting 2 nuclear reactors on 1 of them.

    Which is just essentially trying to make a CVN out of cargo ships or tankers... wonder why no one else does this?

    if it was worth it to the USN, instead of keeping an older sea base, it will be even more so to the VMF.

    The USN realising it can't afford two dozen aircraft carriers (including the Marine carriers) is no great revelation to the VMF or Russia... they were never intending to build anything like that number.

    They will likely end up with eight to a dozen Ivan Grens to replace the smaller landing ships of all types, four Ivan Rogov type helicopter carriers with two pairs of two variants with one carrying naval infantry and their armour and helicopters and the other carrying more helicopters and drones of all types to support the other ships landing forces... and perhaps two new CVNs looking a bit like the Ulyanovsk with Su-57 fighters and their new generation high speed helicopters and some form of AWACS with a large radar built into the structure of the aircraft for low drag design.

    they already used regular army at Debaltsevo & SF elsewhere in the Donbass, with many tanks destroyed & their crews killed.

    As I said before... making claims does not make it true.

    If the west could simply track down all these many tank crews and their mothers I am sure they could prove that inservice Russian soldiers killed in the Ukraine would be something fairly easy to track and trace and prove... and yet...

    if 2 adjacent drydocks can be merged into 1, a few pairs of adjacent berthing spaces can be merged into 1 each.

    And if they are not being merged then they are probably not going to use them for ships bigger than Kilo class subs and corvette sized ships.

    The new base has enough room for at least the Adm. K &/ it's few escorts.

    But not enough space for anything else, which suggests they are not going to base any there.

    they will, if big amount of trade needs their participation to ensure that it's protected. The USN & VMF protected tankers in the PG & many navies do anti-piracy missions in the IO for years now.

    Protecting shipping from pirates is a job for a corvette with a support ship.... not a carrier group.

    they think it's now in the Western interests in general, vs. China & Russia. The US & Japan could care less if Argentina got the Falklands, but not if Sri Lanka, Taiwan & Philippines were lost to the PRC.

    The US thinks it owns countries... why should Russia care if the US gets upset about Sri Lanka or the Phillipines or Taiwan? If those countries would prefer to trade with China that is their business isn't it?

    The point I am making is that Russia needs carriers and global reach with its navy because it will never be able to count on US or HATO support when their interests are at stake.

    Also, using the ice clogged NW Passage would've depended on the USSR's good behavior in the Bering Strait.

    Yeah, because the Soviets were always a problem with international trade... oops... no... it is the west that uses blockades and sanctions as weapons.

    Russia needs carriers and decent navy because the west are censored and cannot be trusted not to interfere in legitimate Russian sea based trade links.

    they use them to augment LHAs, but Russia has none & may never get CVNs .

    The west does not want them to get CVNs, just like they don't want improved trade links from Asia to europe because it does not improve Americas situation.

    Which is a good reason not to listen to the US.

    but a smaller CATOBAR CVN would be more costly than a bigger,

    Only if made by greedy American companies whose only purpose is to bleed taxpayers of hard earned money.

    Get a dozen built in South Korea...

    NP icebreaker assisted, improvised STOBAR TAVKR that could still launch AWACS, CODs & tankers, besides its own SA/ASW/AshMs. A bigger platform will have bigger living/storage/working room for people, aircraft, fuel, food, parts, etc., requiring less frequent unreps.

    There is no evidence that the US MIC could provide any alternative that could do the job and cost less. Making a complex nuclear propelled icebreaker towed barge system just adds lots of failure points and lots of expensive nodes that could make it even more expensive and less capable than a CVN.

    The plan in developing an F-16 was because F-15s had become too big an too expensive to be affordable in useful numbers but the late model F-16s ended up being just as expensive as the F-15s they were supposed to be replacing.

    When the F-35 proved too expensive to be affordable you would think they would put the cheap light single engined F-16 back into production but instead they put the F-15 back into production for 50 million dollars more than they were paying for the F-35 that was too expensive.

    120 million for an F-35 is replaced in production by 150 million F-15EX to save money...

    it seems the concept of cheap does not compute in America land... why listen to them for advice?

    they just left the PG & there r no complaints that I know of.

    The US has totally different needs and requirements to the Russian Navy... there is no reason for Russia to follow the US in terms of its future development programme.

    Big_Gazza likes 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 36 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Thu Mar 25, 2021 6:59 pm

    If the weather is not good in the northern fleet port where they are based then they can sail to where the weather is good enough for training and train there.
    those areas r too far in the Mid-Atlantic, with no friendly airfields to divert to.
    There is no need to sail to the Black Sea.
    but if it's homeported there, no need to sail too far of the coast.
    [qutoe]NP icebreaker hulls were 1st tried on conv. powered hulls.[/quote]
    Not true.
    the concept was proven in the years they operated them before the Lenin was built, & it's hull is similar to their large conv. icebreakers that preceded it.
    If need be, Russia could get both floating airfields & improvised CVNs.
    CVNs make more sense... any floating airfield I would expect would be more like a heli pad... a bit like that scientific research station vessel posted in another thread.
    Or they could just convert 3 existing tankers/bulk ships into 1 trimaran that will be 1.5-2x larger than the Adm. K, perhaps putting 2 nuclear reactors on 1 of them.
    Which is just essentially trying to make a CVN out of cargo ships or tankers... wonder why no one else does this?
    Russia did/does many things that no1 else does; if they decide to have it sooner & for le$$, that's what they could do.
    they already used regular army at Debaltsevo & SF elsewhere in the Donbass, with many tanks destroyed & their crews killed.
    As I said before... making claims does not make it true.
    If the west could simply track down all these many tank crews and their mothers I am sure they could prove that inservice Russian soldiers killed in the Ukraine would be something fairly easy to track and trace and prove... and yet...
    it was done already by Russian groups & the Western journalists; I posted that on the relevant thread. But being biased & not trusting all those sources doesn't make it any less valid.
    The new base has enough room for at least the Adm. K &/ it's few escorts.
    But not enough space for anything else, which suggests they are not going to base any there.
    if they decide to have them there, they'll make room for them. Training in the BS can do w/o full CBG; in the Med. Sea/IO/Atlantic, ships & subs of other fleets will join.
    they will, if big amount of trade needs their participation to ensure that it's protected. The USN & VMF protected tankers in the PG & many navies do anti-piracy missions in the IO for years now.
    Protecting shipping from pirates is a job for a corvette with a support ship.... not a carrier group.
    their CGN also participated in it, & my point is that ships r flexile can be sent & used whenever & however needed.  
    Also, using the ice clogged NW Passage would've depended on the USSR's good behavior in the Bering Strait.
    Yeah, because the Soviets were always a problem with international trade... oops... no... it is the west that uses blockades and sanctions as weapons.
    in the CW reality, it was an issue. The CW could turn hot at anytime. The USCG & Canadians had icebreakers for Arctic & Great Lakes work, but there was no need for NP icebreakers then.
    Making a complex nuclear propelled icebreaker towed barge system just adds lots of failure points and lots of expensive nodes that could make it even more expensive and less capable than a CVN.
    A Russian CVN doesn't need to be as capable as the USN CVN.

    they just left the PG & there r no complaints that I know of.
    The US has totally different needs and requirements to the Russian Navy... there is no reason for Russia to follow the US in terms of its future development programme.
    the USSR & RF did/does follow with CGNs, SSNs, SSGNs, SSBNs, MPA, helos of all types, strategic bombers, ICBMs, space shuttle, LHAs & now mulling CVNs.
    So, they could convert ships into air bases & CVs like the others did before any CVs were built from the keel up. Time will tell!


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Thu Mar 25, 2021 11:38 pm; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : add text)
    GarryB
    GarryB

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

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  GarryB Fri Mar 26, 2021 10:04 am

    those areas r too far in the Mid-Atlantic, with no friendly airfields to divert to.

    Don't need friendly airfields to divert to.

    Are you suggesting they should sail ships to places where there are no friendly ports to divert to in case of an emergency either?

    Maybe you think they should just stop making ships and just stay in Russia and trade with the world through hostile third parties in the EU making their products less competitive because of EU companies skimming profits for sales to the rest of the world?

    but if it's homeported there, no need to sail too far of the coast.

    Its job is to provide air defence for Russian shipping away from Russia. In that sense there is no value in basing it in the Black Sea where it is not allowed anyway.

    the concept was proven in the years they operated them before the Lenin was built, & it's hull is similar to their large conv. icebreakers that preceded it.

    There is a huge difference between proven possible and proven useful or even sensible.

    Russia did/does many things that no1 else does; if they decide to have it sooner & for le$$, that's what they could do.

    It does not matter if they can do it for less money... if it cannot do the job doing nothing saves them even more money and also does not do the job.

    The simple fact is that a CVN wont be cheap to buy or cheap to operate but it will save billions of dollars in accidents and lost ships because commanders wont need to guess what is around his ships... he can send aircraft to find out exactly what is happening.

    If the commander of the AEGIS cruiser that shot down an Iranian Airbus in the 1980s had contacted a nearby carrier group and asked for an F-14 to escort them while the illegally fired upon Iranian navy ships in Iranian waters then that F-14 could have reported that the F-14 the cruiser thought it was tracking flying in to attack them was actually a civilian airbus flying normally and that unless you wanted to start a war you should leave Iranian waters and stop firing on Iranian ships then the almost 300 people that American murdered that day would have survived and the name of the AEGIS system would be held in higher regard perhaps...

    Certainly the US giving the captain and first officer medals for murdering civilians was a low point for the US Navy.

    it was done already by Russian groups & the Western journalists; I posted that on the relevant thread. But being biased & not trusting all those sources doesn't make it any less valid.

    If that were true then why does the west not trot this conclusive information out and prove their claims?

    Maybe it does not hold up to critical examination...

    if they decide to have them there, they'll make room for them.

    But they have not so there is no reason to think they will.

    Training in the BS can do w/o full CBG; in the Med. Sea/IO/Atlantic, ships & subs of other fleets will join.

    Easier to train in the far north because the K will be based in the Northern Fleet to start with... though its first fitting out trip will likely be down and round to the Med to test upgrades and improvements... perhaps in Syria if it is still going off there... bomb a few head choppers and woman burners.

    their CGN also participated in it, & my point is that ships r flexile can be sent & used whenever & however needed.  

    A carrier group would be massive over kill... all they need is a helicopter and a few speed boats and a corvette with a decent calibre gun.

    A Russian CVN doesn't need to be as capable as the USN CVN.

    It does not need the strike capacity as a primary focus, but its air defence capacity needs to be rather better than the very ordinary AA capacity of US carriers (excluding their aircraft of course).

    the USSR & RF did/does follow with CGNs, SSNs, SSGNs, SSBNs, MPA, helos of all types, strategic bombers, ICBMs, space shuttle, LHAs & now mulling CVNs.

    Yes... the home owner is always behind in murder technology compared to the serial home invader, but the home owner does not need rope to tie up victims or petrol to burn their bodies and the house to hide the evidence... often a good dog and a shotgun will get the job done.

    In fact that is a great analogy... a good dog is an AWACS platform... who wakes up at 3am because they hear someone stepping on to their property?

    A naval group without a carrier and AWACS is like a homeowner without a dog... you might not wake up until the home invader opens your bedroom door... which is too late to properly protect yourself. Window and door alarms are good but a dog is always better even if you have to feed it and vets bills are expensive, but the warning you get is invaluable.

    A mini carrier with VSTOL fighters and no AWACS is like a shitsu or small barking dog that barks all the time that you want to kill but your wife thinks it is cute... the sort of dog that would bark at the intruder after they open your bedroom door and fire two shots into you while you are in bed...
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 2372
    Points : 2354
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  SeigSoloyvov Fri Mar 26, 2021 2:00 pm

    Are people still going on about that retarded ass CVN without propulsion thing?.

    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 3358
    Points : 3360
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  LMFS Fri Mar 26, 2021 2:10 pm

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:Are people still going on about that retarded ass CVN without propulsion thing?.

    Till the end of time Rolling Eyes
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

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

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Fri Mar 26, 2021 7:36 pm

    ]those areas r too far in the Mid-Atlantic, with no friendly airfields to divert to.
    Don't need friendly airfields to divert to.
    why risk losing planes & crews during training & carrier flight ops qualifications?
    Are you suggesting they should sail ships to places where there are no friendly ports to divert to in case of an emergency either?
    no, it's a lot harder to sink a ship than a plane.
    but if it's homeported there, no need to sail too far off the coast.
    Its job is to provide air defence for Russian shipping away from Russia. In that sense there is no value in basing it in the Black Sea where it is not allowed anyway.
    since it'll be their CV, I doubt they'll risk sending it overseas. Besides, there will be no need to send the Adm. K to defend "Russian shipping away from Russia", as there won't be much of it, if any, in its remaining lifetime.
    If Kiev TAVKR could go there for repairs, so can the Adm. K; Turkey been flexible & is wise enough to stay on Russia's good side, & they will agree on its movements in/out of the BS.  
    it was done already by Russian groups & the Western journalists; I posted that on the relevant thread. But being biased & not trusting all those sources doesn't make it any less valid.
    If that were true then why does the west not trot this conclusive information out and prove their claims?
    what can they do besides imposing economic sanctions of all kinds, giving/selling Ukraine lethal weaponry, sending AF bombers/UAVs there & warships into the Black & Baltic Seas?
    if they decide to have them there, they'll make room for them.
    But they have not so there is no reason to think they will.
    in the last few years, the USN transferred many ships & subs into Pacific, which wasn't planned before. The VMF is no exception, esp. since it swapped ships & subs between fleets in all of its history.
    the USSR & RF did/does follow with CGNs, SSNs, SSGNs, SSBNs, MPA, helos of all types, strategic bombers, ICBMs, space shuttle, LHAs & now mulling CVNs.
    Yes... the home owner is always behind in murder technology compared to the serial home invader, but the home owner does not need rope to tie up victims or petrol to burn their bodies and the house to hide the evidence... often a good dog and a shotgun will get the job done.
    motion detectors, cameras & lights could be an alternative to a dog. I've seen many signs on US fences/doors saying: "never mind the dog, beware of the owner!" who has lethal means to drop intruders.
    A naval group without a carrier and AWACS is like a homeowner without a dog...
    the USS Stark was still attacked with AWACS in the area, so don't idealize fixed wing AWACSs. The VMF can have Kamov helos,tilt-rotors, & UAVs to detect & investigate threats; TAVKR, CG/Ns & any future CV/Ns r/will be armed to the teeth with defensive weapons to shoot down incoming missiles & UAVs.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Fri Mar 26, 2021 11:25 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : add link)
    GarryB
    GarryB

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

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  GarryB Sat Mar 27, 2021 5:41 am

    why risk losing planes & crews during training & carrier flight ops qualifications?

    These ships by definition are used to allow air protection of Russian ships and subs in locations beyond land based support, that is the specific purpose of the fixed wing aircraft carrier in the Russian fleet.

    Losing two planes in Syria was embarrassing, but the knowledge and experience gained made it worth it.

    If you think carriers are going to war and never lose a single aircraft then you are dreaming.

    These days obviously it would be better to take risks with drones, but if the alternatives are sending a group of fighter aircraft to investigate enemy forces or sending a destroyer, the group of aircraft are more expendable in terms of springing traps and potentially surviving.

    A ship can't leave an area at supersonic speed...

    no, it's a lot harder to sink a ship than a plane.

    That is a change of heart.... I thought all carriers are useless because they are big easy targets that can't be protected...

    The fact is that aircraft and ships are part of an IADS that is harder to defeat when aircraft and ships are included.

    since it'll be their CV, I doubt they'll risk sending it overseas. Besides, there will be no need to send the Adm. K to defend "Russian shipping away from Russia", as there won't be much of it, if any, in its remaining lifetime.

    I rather suspect when the ship is back to operational status the first thing they will do is sail about the place to check all the upgrades and changes worked as planned and provide the capabilities they were supposed to.

    They will likely then go to Syria and retest things to make sure everything works as it should, from receiving intel and planning missions and launching missions and recovering missions and then damage assessment and follow up attacks etc etc, which is always more useful when you are killing terrorists in the process.

    If Kiev TAVKR could go there for repairs , so can the Adm. K;

    Did you check the dates in that link? 1961 to 1990... so no reason to send any carriers to the Black Sea for repairs because Russia does not have a repair base big enough to handle a carrier in the Black Sea.

    Turkey been flexible & is wise enough to stay on Russia's good side, & they will agree on its movements in/out of the BS.

    They don't need to because Russia has no reason to send its last remaining aircraft carrier into the Black Sea for any reason at all.

    what can they do besides imposing economic sanctions of all kinds, giving/selling Ukraine lethal weaponry, sending AF bombers/UAVs there & warships into the Black & Baltic Seas?

    If they had actual solid concrete evidence they would show it. There is none... like the pathetic situation with Skripal and Navalny fictions...

    motion detectors, cameras & lights could be an alternative to a dog.

    In a power cut?

    Besides, the point is that with no AWACS you are more vulnerable to surprise attack, making billions of dollars in ships easier to sink.

    I've seen many signs on US fences/doors saying: "never mind the dog, beware of the owner!" who has lethal means to drop intruders.

    I am sure a home invader will use this as evidence as to why he had to murder the entire family while robbing the place... the guy was a gun nut so it was all just self defence... such signs when serious and not for humour can be very counter productive... but then sometimes they can be enough to make the criminal look for an easier target... in which case it works well.

    the USS Stark was still attacked with AWACS in the area , so don't idealize fixed wing AWACSs

    Having a dog and cameras and a gun wont stop you getting attacked. The USS Stark had Phalanx and Standard SAMs and should have been able to defend itself, but it did not because its radar did not detect the missiles.

    That is why AWACS is so important as it can detect missiles and threats without giving away the location of ships.

    The Israeli attack on the Liberty only stopped when they intercepted a message from a nearby US carrier stating F-14s were inbound... so they are magical items that improve identification capabilities of US allies too.

    The VMF can have Kamov helos,tilt-rotors ,

    The helicopters carried by the Vincennes created the situation in the first place.... and they don't have any tiltrotors and even if they did they are not fast enough to cover the sort of airspace needed to be useful for CAP.

    The Vincennes sent its helicopter to harrass Iranian naval boats who were essentially doing what navy ships do near their own territorial waters.

    When the American helicopter approached the Iranian ships fired warning shots to basically tell it to piss off.... the American commander of the ship took this as an act of war... recalled his helo and accelerated into Iranian waters to exact revenge and try to sink some Iranian boats who dared fire warning shots at his helicopter. The American commander dithered and let him do it and withdrew his aircraft from nearby carriers because he said the Vincennes commander sounded unstable and he didn't want his planes shot down...

    The rest is history.

    TAVKR, CG/Ns & any future CV/Ns r/will be armed to the teeth with defensive weapons to shoot down incoming missiles & UAVs.

    And CVNs will also have Su-57 and S-70 type platforms that can fly significant distances and use onboard sensors to identify targets and threats and start dealing with them well away from where the ships are located... obviously better for the ships to start identifying threats and targets and start dealing with them at extreme range...
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

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

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Sat Mar 27, 2021 7:00 am

    If you think carriers are going to war and never lose a single aircraft then you are dreaming.
    empty ur mind for a few minutes, then read:
    pilots undergoing training/quals r less experienced, plus mishaps happen all the time- therefore, lest they lose planes/lives before a deployment, a CV must stay in certain area close to divert airfields.
    no, it's a lot harder to sink a ship than a plane.
    That is a change of heart.... I thought all carriers are useless because they are big easy targets that can't be protected...
    everything is relative; don't mix 2 different levels of analysis/issues.
    If Kiev TAVKR could go there for repairs , so can the Adm. K;
    Did you check the dates in that link?   1961 to 1990... so no reason to send any carriers to the Black Sea for repairs because Russia does not have a repair base big enough to handle a carrier in the Black Sea.
    u failed to read between my lines again: the VMF may use an excuse of repairs -& they can be done at both Zaliv/Kola yards to go in/out of the BS, which won't happen often anyway as, if based in the BS, it will be used there for training, instead of going overseas; those blue water missions will be taken by CVNs, should they ever get them.
    ..Russia has no reason to send its last remaining aircraft carrier into the Black Sea for any reason at all.
    Russia has no reason to send its only TAVKR overseas, esp. while facing more immediate threats from hostile navies.
    what can they do besides imposing economic sanctions of all kinds, giving/selling Ukraine lethal weaponry, sending AF bombers/UAVs there & warships into the Black & Baltic Seas?
    If they had actual solid concrete evidence they would show it.
    burial records/headstone pics of those soldiers killed & their social media accounts + their family members' interviews r solid proofs enough.
    motion detectors, cameras & lights could be an alternative to a dog.
    In a power cut?
    they can all be battery/generator powered.
    Besides, the point is that with no AWACS you are more vulnerable to surprise attack, making billions of dollars in ships easier to sink.
    as u suggested, more helos could be used for better coverage.

    I've seen many signs on US fences/doors saying: "never mind the dog, beware of the owner!" who has lethal means to drop intruders.
    I am sure a home invader will use this as evidence as to why he had to murder the entire family while robbing the place...
    if the owner knows that he has something worth killing his entire family for, he'll turn his dwelling into a ninja house to slaughter any1 that doesn't belong there. Besides, cell phones r beacons for police even if nothing is being said after emergency # is dialed. I know it 1st hand- after checking my defective phone by dialing it & saying that I was just checking it before hanging up, they still came to check on me.
    Having a dog and cameras and a gun wont stop you getting attacked.
    true, but those who dare to do it run the risk of not being able to do anything else after that.
    That is why AWACS is so important as it can detect missiles and threats without giving away the location of ships.
    the big land based AWACS didn't detect the 2 AshMs either.
    The VMF can have Kamov helos,tilt-rotors ,
    ..they don't have any tiltrotors and even if they did they are not fast enough to cover the sort of airspace needed to be useful for CAP.
    use more of them+UAVs for better coverage; ur favorite An-2s or their derivatives could also be used as AWACSs. CGN/DDGs can be up to 20-30-40 miles away & would have powerful detection/fire control radars to detect/track aerial targets from 100s of km away from them & relay their threats info to the CVN's CIC & to its interceptors on alert/CAP.
    And CVNs will also have Su-57 and S-70 type platforms that can fly significant distances and use onboard sensors to identify targets and threats and start dealing with them well away from where the ships are located...
    amen.
    d_taddei2
    d_taddei2

    Posts : 1799
    Points : 1979
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  d_taddei2 Sun Apr 11, 2021 1:34 am

    Just for info, Balaklava is/was a hardened submarine base built into a cave system, and wouldn't be suitable for corvettes as mentioned earlier. I went to the base back in 2009 and again two weeks after becoming part of Russia. (I have pics) I believe there was talk of returning the anti ship missile systems stationed there, but there was no talk of the sub base which is a museum now.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

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

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Sun Apr 11, 2021 2:07 am

    They could move more small ships to Azov Sea bases to make room for big ships in Crimea & Novorossisk, if need be.
    I'm afraid pretty soon Ukraine will loose Mariupol, Odessa, Nikolaev, Kherson, & Ismail, as well as other smaller ports, so the BSF could have 2-3x as many ships & still have enough room to base them.
    avatar
    UZB-76

    Posts : 28
    Points : 30
    Join date : 2020-09-13

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  UZB-76 Sun Apr 11, 2021 4:07 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:They could move more small ships to Azov Sea bases to make room for big ships in Crimea & Novorossisk, if need be.
    I'm afraid pretty soon Ukraine will loose Mariupol, Odessa, Nikolaev, Kherson, & Ismail, as well as other smaller ports, so the BSF could have 2-3x as many ships & still have enough room to base them.
    Not necessarily, because after a certain number of ships it only increases costs of maintaining with very little gain in firepower
    GarryB
    GarryB

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

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  GarryB Sun Apr 11, 2021 7:50 am

    pilots undergoing training/quals r less experienced, plus mishaps happen all the time- therefore, lest they lose planes/lives before a deployment, a CV must stay in certain area close to divert airfields.

    Divert airfields save planes... ejection seats save pilots.

    The lost two naval planes in Syria but no pilots.

    Divert airfields make sense but its primary mission is to allow the operations of Russian surface ships where no land airbases for support exist.

    u failed to read between my lines again: the VMF may use an excuse of repairs -& they can be done at both Zaliv/Kola yards to go in/out of the BS, which won't happen often anyway as, if based in the BS, it will be used there for training, instead of going overseas; those blue water missions will be taken by CVNs, should they ever get them.

    But they wont because they have no interest in taking the Kuznetsov into the Black Sea... it would be useless in there because any Russian ships in the Black Sea could already be protected by land based air power and air defence systems.

    The K would be redundant there... they already have land based carrier training facilitates there so they could train pretending Nitka is the Kuznetsov and operate from there and plan missions from there... the K does not need to be anywhere near there.

    Russia has no reason to send its only TAVKR overseas, esp. while facing more immediate threats from hostile navies .

    Hostile Navies in close proximity to Russia can more easily and much more quickly be dealt with using MiG-31Ks and Kinzhal missiles, or indeed Tu-22M3s with Kh-32s.

    burial records/headstone pics of those soldiers killed & their social media accounts + their family members' interviews r solid proofs enough.

    Military records showing they are currently Russian soldiers and their orders from the Russian military to be there would be what you would need for proof.

    There are plenty of westerners there fighting on the side of the rebels too... does that implicate their governments in that situation?

    I remember Americans signing up to go to Kosovo to fight on the side of Albanian terrorists... no accusations there...

    they can all be battery/generator powered.

    And that would never fail...

    as u suggested, more helos could be used for better coverage.

    They could... that is what the British used in the Falklands... but speed and endurance and range issues of the helicopters and the radars they used meant the carriers had to sit back away from the islands and the ships they were supposed to be supporting and the Argentinians noticed that and sent aircraft in via the radar shadow created by the islands at attacked British ships by surprise... if they had a decent carrier with decent AWACS that would not have happened.

    Helicopters are certainly better than nothing, but proper AWACS platforms are what you have if you can afford them...

    if the owner knows that he has something worth killing his entire family for, he'll turn his dwelling into a ninja house to slaughter any1 that doesn't belong there.

    The owner has the problem that the person breaking into his house might not be a robber... he might be a serial killer not interested in valuables.

    Gun owners have shot their own children sneaking in late at night... they didn't know they weren't already tucked up and asleep in bed...

    Besides, cell phones r beacons for police even if nothing is being said after emergency # is dialed. I know it 1st hand- after checking my defective phone by dialing it & saying that I was just checking it before hanging up, they still came to check on me.

    What sort of time frame are we talking about? Ten seconds after you hung up... or half an hour?

    Half an hour your family could already be dead... even 5 minutes... hell even thirty seconds... the point is that police arriving to a crime scene with a dead family doesn't matter to the family.


    true, but those who dare to do it run the risk of not being able to do anything else after that.

    And that is the point. No size of aircraft carrier will make Russia safe, but there is a sweet spot between still expensive but useless in a real situation, expensive but a really useful support platform that makes situational awareness much better, to far too big and too expensive, but a money pit that does more harm than good.

    Having a carrier will be vastly more useful than none at all or too small to be useful but still not cheap.

    the big land based AWACS didn't detect the 2 AshMs either.

    Saudi Arabian air defences seem not optimised to detect cruise missiles or drones... the Russians have done a lot of work in that regard so I would expect their AWACS will do better in that regard.

    use more of them+UAVs for better coverage; ur favorite An-2s or their derivatives could also be used as AWACSs.

    An-2s might do the job but a better designed aircraft just makes more sense and will have better performance and endurance.

    CGN/DDGs can be up to 20-30-40 miles away & would have powerful detection/fire control radars to detect/track aerial targets from 100s of km away from them & relay their threats info to the CVN's CIC & to its interceptors on alert/CAP.

    New Russian platforms will be linked as will Russian fighters and AWACS platforms... Russian air defence on land is second to none and a decent AWACS and fighters on an aircraft carrier is a missing piece to create the same at sea...

    amen.

    When the plan for attack is a swarm attack then the key is to detect the attack as soon as possible, and to start whittling away the components of the attack as soon as possible.

    If the threat is a cloud of a billion insects 200km from your ship and closing at 20km/h... an obvious solution is a nuclear detonation in the middle of the swarm... by the time the first drone are attacking your ships that option is lost and dealing with the threat will be much harder.

    They could move more small ships to Azov Sea bases to make room for big ships in Crimea & Novorossisk, if need be.

    But they wont because it does not make sense to do so.

    I'm afraid pretty soon Ukraine will loose Mariupol, Odessa, Nikolaev, Kherson, & Ismail, as well as other smaller ports, so the BSF could have 2-3x as many ships & still have enough room to base them.

    It is up to Kiev... when playing a grand master at chess... my personal best defence is simply not make any moves.

    I keep all my pieces and he keeps his.

    Lots of old and obsolete ships and subs can be removed from the Black Sea fleet and even replacing just half of them with brand new ships and subs would transform the force into a modern capable fleet with nothing bigger than a frigate, corvettes and SSK.

    GarryB
    GarryB

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

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  GarryB Sun Apr 11, 2021 7:52 am

    Not necessarily, because after a certain number of ships it only increases costs of maintaining with very little gain in firepower

    Exactly... an enormous force to sink the entire HATO fleet makes no sense bottled up in the Black Sea...  it is not necessary to begin with... just a waste of money.

    Let HATO piss away its money... their Sheeple don't seem to care...


    Last edited by GarryB on Thu Apr 15, 2021 2:18 am; edited 1 time in total
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 3358
    Points : 3360
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  LMFS Tue Apr 13, 2021 8:42 pm

    Shoigu demanded to speed up the reconstruction of the dock, where the Admiral Kuznetsov should be repaired."

    The Defense Minister pointed out that it is necessary to increase the number of people and equipment to work at the facility

    MURMANSK, April 13. /TASS/. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu demanded to increase the pace and quality of work during the reconstruction and technical re-equipment of the dry dock of the 35th Ship Repair Plant located in Murmansk, the project is implemented by the Zvezdochka Ship Repair Center (part of the USC Group of Companies).

    Shoigu noted that a clear schedule for building up forces and resources during the project implementation is needed as new areas of work are opened. In particular, he pointed out that it is necessary to increase the number of people and equipment to work at the facility.

    The Minister was informed that about 400 people and several dozen pieces of equipment are currently involved here. According to Shoigu, these forces are clearly not enough to ensure the proper pace of such large-scale work, which must be carried out around the clock. Moreover, as the minister noted, when there is a backlog from the schedule.

    At the same time, Shoigu did not accept the explanation of the USC management that the first contractor was unscrupulous, the work was carried out poorly and had to be replaced. "All these explanations are not accepted. We need a dock, we need to repair and modernize the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier, " Shoigu said.

    The project implemented by the Zvezdochka Ship Repair Center provides for the transformation of the existing two-chamber dry dock into a single-chamber one with a significant increase in the area and depth of dock structures. The reconstruction of the dock will significantly expand the capabilities of the 35th ship repair plant in terms of dock operations.

    After the reconstruction is completed, the Zvezdochki Murmansk branch dock will become the largest dock facility in the Russian Arctic zone and will be able to accept large-displacement vessels and ships, such as nuclear-powered icebreakers, heavy missile and aircraft-carrying cruisers, for dock operations.

    The reconstruction of the dry dock of the 35th Ship Repair Plant is a key factor in the timely completion of factory repairs and modernization of the heavy aircraft carrier Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov.

    https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/11136173
    GarryB
    GarryB

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

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  GarryB Wed Apr 14, 2021 2:30 am

    As mentioned this dock will be useful for a wide range of very large ships so getting it up and running is important.

    Big_Gazza likes this post

    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza

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

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Big_Gazza Wed Apr 14, 2021 2:34 am

    Shoigu needs to wield the club and the hob-nailed boot. Take no prisoners. If USC executives aren't waking in the middle of the night in a cold sweat from nightmares then he isn't being tough enough....

    flamming_python and LMFS like this post

    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 4016
    Points : 4012
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 44
    Location : Merkelland

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Hole Wed Apr 14, 2021 11:44 am

    Send the construction troops there and do it yourself.
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

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

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  magnumcromagnon Wed Apr 14, 2021 3:00 pm

    Big_Gazza wrote:Shoigu needs to wield the club and the hob-nailed boot.  Take no prisoners.  If USC executives aren't waking in the middle of the night in a cold sweat from nightmares then he isn't being tough enough....

    Putin supported the idea of ​​nationalizing defense enterprises that do not fulfill state defense orders

    I expect the incompetent exec's would not only be fired, but likely blacklisted from having any managerial position in the Russian Federation, and no doubt some might run to the West to be paid shills and propagandists, but that's to be expected.

    Big_Gazza, LMFS and Hole like this post

    George1
    George1

    Posts : 15980
    Points : 16477
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  George1 Thu Apr 15, 2021 2:17 am



    LMFS and Backman like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB

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

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  GarryB Thu Apr 15, 2021 2:26 am

    I would be more cautious... putting enormous amounts of pressure on people can create diamonds... but it can also create an explosion and a great big mess.

    People under pressure to get things done that simply can't be done in the available time no matter who is demanding it get done can accept their fate and lose their job because there are no practical measures that can make things go faster... say like creating a vaccine for a new virus... it takes as long as it takes... the only way to make it faster is to skip steps... you know... like on the F-35... we can fix it later after it has killed someone.

    Rather than threaten and scare... how about talking to them and asking if extra resources or money could make things go faster... if something needs to be redone or needs to become available before everything else can start then there might not actually be anything that can be done to make it go faster.

    Sometimes adding extra workers makes things harder and more complex to manage and coordinate and things need to be done in a specific order so you can't just hire more people and get them up to speed on what is happening and get them to do everything at the same time... you can't paint a deck till it is made...

    If this floating dock is so damn critical and will be so damn useful for all sorts of ships... why are they only making one?
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

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

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  PapaDragon Thu Apr 15, 2021 4:48 am

    GarryB wrote:I would be more cautious... putting enormous amounts of pressure on people can create diamonds... but it can also create an explosion and a great big mess....

    Absence of pressure is the reason for the current mess

    As for explosion they already had plenty as a result of low pressure and shitty attitude

    Sponsored content

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Apr 20, 2021 7:23 pm