OT: Admiral Kuznutsov smoking more than usual

[Chickenboy]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/majo ... r-n1100541

[Encircled]

My twitter feed was full (well, those that like this sort of stuff) with variations of "well, she's always on fire!"

[Jorge_Stanbury]

thanks god it is not nuclear powered

[fcooke]

Russians almost never throw any military hardware away until it is 70 years old. But they could likely have built three new carriers for the cost of all the repairs on this one. Better to start on a couple of new ones and see if they sell this thing (with her small airgroup) to China or India. I could see one of the small Spanish or Italian carriers taking her out in a one on one battle.

[GetAssista]

ORIGINAL: fcooke
But they could likely have built three new carriers for the cost of all the repairs on this one.

They cannot. USSR already struggled with building this one, and experience/tech necessary for the very large ships only got worse after that. Russia haven't built a single large Navy ship in the post-Soviet times, only completed some Soviet-made hulls. Not to mention there are no shipyards of the necessary size.

This might be a good thing for Russia in some sense because the amount of theft and embezzlement in that kind of project would've been staggering, and current regime cannot fight the corruption

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

ORIGINAL: fcooke
But they could likely have built three new carriers for the cost of all the repairs on this one.

They cannot. USSR already struggled with building this one, and experience/tech necessary for the very large ships only got worse after that. Russia haven't built a single large Navy ship in the post-Soviet times, only completed some Soviet-made hulls. Not to mention there are no shipyards of the necessary size.

This might be a good thing for Russia in some sense because the amount of theft and embezzlement in that kind of project would've been staggering, and current regime cannot fight the corruption

That might have something to do with politicians and oligarchs enriching themselves from state coffers, so pilfering at the shipyard level is peanuts!

[Jorge_Stanbury]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

ORIGINAL: fcooke
But they could likely have built three new carriers for the cost of all the repairs on this one.

They cannot. USSR already struggled with building this one, and experience/tech necessary for the very large ships only got worse after that. Russia haven't built a single large Navy ship in the post-Soviet times, only completed some Soviet-made hulls. Not to mention there are no shipyards of the necessary size.

This might be a good thing for Russia in some sense because the amount of theft and embezzlement in that kind of project would've been staggering, and current regime cannot fight the corruption

That might have something to do with politicians and oligarchs enriching themselves from state coffers, so pilfering at the shipyard level is peanuts!

Yes, but they also lost their biggest shipyards in Nikolaev, which now belongs to Ukraine

I know it is politically impossible, but they should buy a carrier from China; as they are already building 2 new ships of a new design, in addition to the Varyag's copy they just completed (and Varyag itself with was reconstructed). I think they would gladly build a carrier for Russia, and by now they had mostly surpassed them in naval "surface" technology (not submarine)

They might even make a deal of Russia providing the aircraft for China and data transfer so that they learn from each other

[Chickenboy]

Not sure either one of them trust one another (and rightly so) that much. The Soviets got burned by the Chinese copying and reverse engineering their Su-27 to make the "J-15". Same with a goodly chunk of their small arms, mines, etc. Of course, the Soviets' engine for their MiG-15 sure looked a lot like the Rolls Royce engine that they never paid for the manufacturing rights. So they don't exactly have clean hands. I'm not sure they want to be sending any more data to the Chinese as they know it would be a one-time transaction and then the Chinese would mystically, magically be fielding copies that were suspiciously familiar.

[geofflambert]

California's economy is more than twice that of Russia. Maybe California should have two carriers. They can get them cheaper from China.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

California's economy is more than twice that of Russia. Maybe California should have two carriers. They can get them cheaper from China.

After WWI, the Canadian Province of British Columbia acquires two subs to defend the west coast. But the Feds pointed to some technicality about defence being a Federal realm and just took the subs from BC. So unfair to private armies and navies ... [:D]

[dr.hal]

This illustrates rather well just how much Russian is a paper tiger. It is a "want-a-be superpower" that is in fact a third rate power that has a navy of rust buckets. Putin and the gang would like the West to think of Russian as "re-emerging" in terms of military power, but the truth is that it doesn't have the funds to make, sustain or buy good equipment or train troops/crew. What IS very dangerous about Russia today is it's strategic threat and the fact that such a threat might be high-jacked by less than nice folk..... Russia DOES have NUCLEAR weapons, lots of them. That's the real danger. Of all the naval vessels to operate, a CV is by far and away the most complicated. Getting it right takes decades of practice and such work doesn't come cheap (remember it's not just the CV, it's the air-wing AND the escorts that must surround the CV as well). I spent years on a big deck CV and can attest to the fact that such an operation is an incredibly intricate dance that IF it goes wrong, people die. There is a reason that there is only one navy in the world successfully operating large deck CVs, it ain't easy.

[tolsdorff]

.... There is a reason that there is only one navy in the world successfully operating large deck CVs,... ...

Yep, the willingness of the U.S. government to lend more and more money. 22.6 trillion now, an unimaginable amount of debt.


The Royal Navy has the ability, personnel, technical expertise and know-how to build and operate these things, as do the French. They just do not have the money

[fcooke]

Tolsdorff,

The British have a longstanding history with big deck CVs (WW2 - not recent) but have not operated one since the 70s, and having problems with the new ship itself (though I am glad they now have a new ship). The French have experience with midsize CVs. Not large deck. And the US, with the most experience with these (and the only when it comes to 100,000 ton ships), is having a tough time with the Ford. So, it is not just about the money (though that helps). Russia cannot compete. China wants to compete, but we will all be dead and buried/cremated/whatever before that happens.

[dr.hal]

fcooke,

The difference between a big deck CV and an Invincible/Ark Royal Class jump jet carrier is light night and day. In short there is no comparison. It's about the same as comparing a Long Island class CVE to and Essex class CV. A number of countries around the world have smaller types of aircraft capable ships (including Spain!), but there is nothing even remotely compatible to our modern CV.

[fcooke]

Dr - that's what I was trying to say. Sorry it did not come across clearly.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

Russia would likely keep the Kutnetzov and the big cruisers (Kirov, Slava) for as long as they can, because they are good for "showing the flag" even if their combat capabilities are outdated. You can't show the flag effectively in a submarine, corvette or a frigate; too stealthy or too small/ insignificant, even if these are more combat effective for a cash strapped land power like Russia

I even bet that was the real reason for trying to buy the French Mistral class assault ships a few years ago. I mean they won't be terribly useful in a shooting war, as all Russian potential foes can be invaded by land much easier/ safer

[dr.hal]

ORIGINAL: fcooke

Dr - that's what I was trying to say. Sorry it did not come across clearly.

No need to apologize fcooke, as we're all friends here!

But in truth you are right in a certain respect, in that for MOST people, including (especially?) politicians, a gunboat is a gunboat is a gunboat! As Jorge suggests in his follow-on post to yours, most folks don't know or care about the difference between a CV and a CVE, because in gunboat diplomacy it is about the show, not the substance. And clearly Putin is all about the show! It's the illusion of power, not actual power. Actual power requires money, effort and time to create. An illusion of power can be acquired on the cheap (until the bluff is called, then problems arise BIG TIME!).

[geofflambert]

Perhaps the Admiral lit the fire kuz he's worried he might freeze his nuts off.

[rockmedic109]

The smoking light was lit?

[tolsdorff]

ORIGINAL: fcooke

Tolsdorff,

The British have a longstanding history with big deck CVs (WW2 - not recent) but have not operated one since the 70s, and having problems with the new ship itself (though I am glad they now have a new ship). The French have experience with midsize CVs. Not large deck. And the US, with the most experience with these (and the only when it comes to 100,000 ton ships), is having a tough time with the Ford. So, it is not just about the money (though that helps). Russia cannot compete. China wants to compete, but we will all be dead and buried/cremated/whatever before that happens.

Happy to see the new UK carriers as well! They will be operational at almost 70.000 tons. A tad larger than a CVE!

China has a projected launch date around 2030 of a 85.000 nuclear powered carrier. Add another 10 years for setbacks. A long way off, but they are getting there, and they have a ton of money to spend.