The Russian carrier Kuznetsov is burning....

[callipygoustp]

That's no accident, that's their new stealth system.

[breadisfunny]

That's no accident, that's their new stealth system.

its their new smokescreen.

[Ihavewaffles]

...Because Dear Leader said so?

No, because they are on the assembly line for mass production


- - - Updated - - -

600m2 of fire will most definitely impact the planned repair times, no matter what they are saying.
If they want to keep carrier capability in Russia, they HAVE TO keep the Kuznetsov alive no matter the cost. Failing to do that will lead to the death of their carrier aviation - because realistically they can build the next carrier, fastest, towards ~2040.
Why? Because the current 10 year military budget has no carriers planned in it and it expires in 2027. They currently have no dry docks capable of building them (IIRC new slipways are being built with the required capacity) and there is nothing more than paper projects (pr. 2300, for example).
Building one from laying keel to actually commisioning it takes around 10 years. They, somehow, have to keep this pile of rust floating until then. Trainers cannot compare to the real landing on a ship.

Unless... China can build them one? o.O

Don't need foreign shipyards for that.

[Kellhound]

No, because they are on the assembly line for mass production


- - - Updated - - -



Don't need foreign shipyards for that.

Serial production, yes. Mass production, no.

That new drydock is for civilian ships, like tankers. Tankers and carriers have very little in common. With the loss of Nikolayev South, Russia lost most of its carrier building know-how and infrastructure.

[Ihavewaffles]

Uhm no, zvezda shipyard is fr both naval n comercial vessels, the latter is what finances the whole thing.

[Easo]

No, because they are on the assembly line for mass production

Don't need foreign shipyards for that.

If would not have reversed the decision to not purchase more than the initial batch of, what was it, 12 planes? Then Russia would have been left behind in the race for the next generation planes and totally out of 5th one. These things take some 10+ years to develop, even more to build up in any sufficient number. You cannot decide to not actually have 5th gen, and then attempt to catch up to when others will have the 6th in manufacturing. Its decades!
They have to keep building them.

Actually, existing ones are overloaded and could not take a carrier any time soon. Not to mention MONEY. Not to mention planning and building...
So, hello ~2040, assuming it actually will ever be planned.
Right now, Russia cannot build carrier and there won't be a replacement for Kuznetsov for close to two decades. It has to float, even if only as a trainer ship as not to loose the know-how.

[Thekri]

No, because they are on the assembly line for mass production

Sure, but in this case "Mass" Production means 75 aircraft over 9 years. Which is... well it is some, but it isn't exactly the foundation for a world class air force. The SU-57 was supposed to replace the Mig-29 and the SU-27 series aircraft. But Russia is currently operating about 250 MIG-29s, and 350+ SU-27s. So 75 aircraft is not going to replace 600+ aircraft. This is what always happens to Russian tech. The new stuff is too expensive, so they wind up using multiple generations of equipment to fill the exact same purpose, with the later stuff being better, but more rare. Meanwhile the US tends to replace the entire fleet with the latest stuff.

So YouTube videos love talking about "F-35 vs. SU-57", but the truth is it would be "F-35 vs. MiG-29" about 80% of the time, and the remaining 20% or so against actual current gen aircraft. Same issue in the ground war. If you are fighting American tanks, you will be fighting an M1A2. If you are fighting Russians, it could be a T-72, a T-80, or a T-90. It won't be a T-14, because there are only 20 of them.

Uhm no, zvezda shipyard is fr both naval n comercial vessels, the latter is what finances the whole thing.

Sure. But that isn't really the point. "Military Shipyard" does not imply the capability to build a 100,000+ ton warship. It doesn't even imply the ability to build a 50,000 ton warship. A Gerald Ford Class or Nimitz class ship displaces right at 100,000 tons. The US navies second biggest ships are the America-Class Assault Ships, which are 44,000 tons (Which are the realistic peers of Russian carriers). So there is a huge distance between those two.

For Russian Ships, the Admiral Kuznetsov is 43,000 tons, so slightly smaller then America-Class ships, and she is by far the largest in the Russian Navy. The runner ups are the Kirov-Class cruisers at 24,000 tons, and the Typhoon class submarines at about the same. The shipyard you are referring to builds ships in the 10,000 ton range. It isn't even close to being able to build carriers. It takes a huge amount of infrastructure to build the slipways, cranes, and assembly structures to build something even as big as the Kuznetsov, and Russia doesn't have that. The Soviet Union built the Kuznetsov and the Varyag (Now Chinese Loyang), the Russian Federation didn't have the cash or shipbuilding capability to even finish the Varyag.

None of this is a knock on Russia per se. The UK took 3 decades to build the capability to build Carriers again. China is still working on it. It isn't a common thing to have, warships of that size just aren't a normal thing.

[Kellhound]

Uhm no, zvezda shipyard is fr both naval n comercial vessels, the latter is what finances the whole thing.

I didn't say they didn't make a few token tin cans for the Russian Navy, I said the new dry dock is for civilian ships. They are also very unlikely to have the specialized knowledge needed to build a carrier.

[breadisfunny]

@Kangodo. @Shalcker
what do you have to say about this interesting development?

[Shalcker]

@Kangodo. @Shalcker
what do you have to say about this interesting development?

You got to be more specific in your question.

[caervek]

Seriously, why doesn't Russia scrap this thing before it kills some more people.

You know they can't afford to replace it, Hell like you said they had to sell one of it's sister ships to the Chinese so they could convert it into an aircraft carrier because they couldn't afford to run more than one (and saying they can run one is a bit dubious ^^).

- - - Updated - - -

At least in WW2 they had the good sense to invest their limited steel supply into tanks, and not battleships that would have done nothing

In fairness that's only because their navy was sunk early on, hence them re-purposing their naval cannons for tanks xD

- - - Updated - - -

Unless... China can build them one? o.O

It sounds comical but their best best currently would be to give China the Ulyanovsk plans and ask them if they could make them one too, considering how much trouble Russia are having keeping one aviation cruiser running it's unlikely they have the resources to build a dock capable of constructing an aircraft carrier plus said carrier :P

[Easo]

You got to be more specific in your question.

Well, we would like to know how you two will spin this in a positive light or downplay the fact that Russia is trying to be world power while being unable to keep their only carrier afloat. Especially considering that the fire should not have started due to some fuel oil ignating - that shit is supposed to be fully cleaned before starting repairs, so basically stereotypical Russia being stereotypical.
That floating dock which sank last year (PD-50) while also damaging Kuznetsov still hasn't been rised, you know. The only other one which could actually service ship of that size (PD-41) is... In Vladivostok. So basically if they need dry dock for Kuznetsov, they don't have it.

[Thekri]

Well, we would like to know how you two will spin this in a positive light or downplay the fact that Russia is trying to be world power while being unable to keep their only carrier afloat. Especially considering that the fire should not have started due to some fuel oil ignating - that shit is supposed to be fully cleaned before starting repairs, so basically stereotypical Russia being stereotypical.
That floating dock which sank last year (PD-50) while also damaging Kuznetsov still hasn't been rised, you know. The only other one which could actually service ship of that size (PD-41) is... In Vladivostok. So basically if they need dry dock for Kuznetsov, they don't have it.

Ok, we all know the Russian Navy is not in great shape, but you are making a lot more out of this then is actually there.

This was a tragic accident. Like all accidents, I am sure there are a million ways you can point your fingers, but it was just an accident. And people got seriously hurt and at least a couple died. This isn't a cause for gloating. Those sailors didn't do anything to deserve people jeering the circumstances of their deaths. Every nation that operates this sort of high tech equipment suffers serious accidents. I have had this misfortune to experience the loss of several US Soldiers in deaths involving malfunctioning equipment as well, that isn't necessarily a referendum on US Equipment, but merely the reality of working with complex weapons of war.

Yes, their only carrier is out of action for a long time. It wasn't going to be in active service for at least 3 years anyway, and any further delay is a result of an accident, not an institutional failure like @Skroe and others are making it out to be.

[cubby]

Ok, we all know the Russian Navy is not in great shape, but you are making a lot more out of this then is actually there.

This was a tragic accident. Like all accidents, I am sure there are a million ways you can point your fingers, but it was just an accident. And people got seriously hurt and at least a couple died. This isn't a cause for gloating. Those sailors didn't do anything to deserve people jeering the circumstances of their deaths. Every nation that operates this sort of high tech equipment suffers serious accidents. I have had this misfortune to experience the loss of several US Soldiers in deaths involving malfunctioning equipment as well, that isn't necessarily a referendum on US Equipment, but merely the reality of working with complex weapons of war.

Yes, their only carrier is out of action for a long time. It wasn't going to be in active service for at least 3 years anyway, and any further delay is a result of an accident, not an institutional failure like @Skroe and others are making it out to be.

I don't think anyone is gloating over any individual injuries - especially the OP. I think they are pointing out several areas of failure that point to something more systematic than just random accidents.

What are you seeing out of Russia that's pointing to renewed production and military build up, outside of Putin's verbal claims?

[Thekri]

I don't think anyone is gloating over any individual injuries - especially the OP. I think they are pointing out several areas of failure that point to something more systematic than just random accidents.

What are you seeing out of Russia that's pointing to renewed production and military build up, outside of Putin's verbal claims?

I am not taking any sort of Pro-Russian stance. You should know me better then that. Russia's military buildup is real, but it is deeply flawed and massively under resourced. However, Russian Naval accidents have been a constant thing for the last 150 years or so. The fire on the Admiral Kuznetsov is indicative of nothing. These sort of things just happen.

Ever heard of the Battleship Mutsu? She was a Nagato Class Battleship, the second most powerful class of Battleships the Japanese ever built, and one of the most powerful warships in the world. In June 1943 she exploded and killed 1,200 people. It wasn't the US Navy that sank her though, it was an accident in port. It is the nature of warships to have these sort of accidents, they aren't built to the same safety standards as civilian ships, and they are stuffed full of dangerous explosives and volatile chemicals.

So yes, I slap down ridiculous claims of super weapons every time a resident Russian starts spouting that nonsense. Because the most powerful part of their military is their propaganda wings, Russia's military is built to bark, not to bite. But there is no reason to take an accident like this and use it for propaganda of our own. Now there last major accident, that ghastly nuclear powered missile, that I consider fair game, because that was doing something massively stupid just to scare the US (Which didn't work, and got a lot of Russians killed for nothing). But this is the cost of having a Navy, nothing more.

[cubby]

I am not taking any sort of Pro-Russian stance. You should know me better then that.

Of course, I never meant to imply otherwise.

Russia's military buildup is real, but it is deeply flawed and massively under resourced. However, Russian Naval accidents have been a constant thing for the last 150 years or so. The fire on the Admiral Kuznetsov is indicative of nothing. These sort of things just happen.

Ever heard of the Battleship Mutsu? She was a Nagato Class Battleship, the second most powerful class of Battleships the Japanese ever built, and one of the most powerful warships in the world. In June 1943 she exploded and killed 1,200 people. It wasn't the US Navy that sank her though, it was an accident in port. It is the nature of warships to have these sort of accidents, they aren't built to the same safety standards as civilian ships, and they are stuffed full of dangerous explosives and volatile chemicals.

So yes, I slap down ridiculous claims of super weapons every time a resident Russian starts spouting that nonsense. Because the most powerful part of their military is their propaganda wings, Russia's military is built to bark, not to bite. But there is no reason to take an accident like this and use it for propaganda of our own. Now there last major accident, that ghastly nuclear powered missile, that I consider fair game, because that was doing something massively stupid just to scare the US (Which didn't work, and got a lot of Russians killed for nothing). But this is the cost of having a Navy, nothing more.

And of course not just Russian but all nations naval military's suffer accidents and mishaps. It just seems that Russia is having more of these across all aspects of their claimed military build up.

[Easo]

Ok, we all know the Russian Navy is not in great shape, but you are making a lot more out of this then is actually there.

This was a tragic accident. Like all accidents, I am sure there are a million ways you can point your fingers, but it was just an accident. And people got seriously hurt and at least a couple died. This isn't a cause for gloating. Those sailors didn't do anything to deserve people jeering the circumstances of their deaths. Every nation that operates this sort of high tech equipment suffers serious accidents. I have had this misfortune to experience the loss of several US Soldiers in deaths involving malfunctioning equipment as well, that isn't necessarily a referendum on US Equipment, but merely the reality of working with complex weapons of war.

Yes, their only carrier is out of action for a long time. It wasn't going to be in active service for at least 3 years anyway, and any further delay is a result of an accident, not an institutional failure like @Skroe and others are making it out to be.

As cubby said - it is systematic and it has been a "legendary" issue in Russian armed forces and, well, Russia itself. This is not some army base in the middle of nowhere in Siberia with some privates from Caucasus who don't care. This is their flagship, pride of the fleet, standarts by default should have been higher. Look into the reason PD-50 sank - someone did not give a fuck and people died.
The word is похуизм/распиздайство.
And to put an emphasis on the repairs - the flammable substances have to be cleaned by safety rules BEFORE repair works, which includes the fuel oil (mazut). They obviously did not and people again died just a year later. Because wires by themselves would not have massively ignated by some sparks.
My 2 cents...

[Kellhound]

I am not taking any sort of Pro-Russian stance. You should know me better then that. Russia's military buildup is real, but it is deeply flawed and massively under resourced. However, Russian Naval accidents have been a constant thing for the last 150 years or so. The fire on the Admiral Kuznetsov is indicative of nothing. These sort of things just happen.

Ever heard of the Battleship Mutsu? She was a Nagato Class Battleship, the second most powerful class of Battleships the Japanese ever built, and one of the most powerful warships in the world. In June 1943 she exploded and killed 1,200 people. It wasn't the US Navy that sank her though, it was an accident in port. It is the nature of warships to have these sort of accidents, they aren't built to the same safety standards as civilian ships, and they are stuffed full of dangerous explosives and volatile chemicals.

So yes, I slap down ridiculous claims of super weapons every time a resident Russian starts spouting that nonsense. Because the most powerful part of their military is their propaganda wings, Russia's military is built to bark, not to bite. But there is no reason to take an accident like this and use it for propaganda of our own. Now there last major accident, that ghastly nuclear powered missile, that I consider fair game, because that was doing something massively stupid just to scare the US (Which didn't work, and got a lot of Russians killed for nothing). But this is the cost of having a Navy, nothing more.

Actually, Western style warships are built to a much higher safety standard than civilian ships, one reason the bare hull of a warship is so much more expensive per ton. They also have much greater damage control equipment present and better trained crews for DC.

[kaid]

Ok, we all know the Russian Navy is not in great shape, but you are making a lot more out of this then is actually there.

This was a tragic accident. Like all accidents, I am sure there are a million ways you can point your fingers, but it was just an accident. And people got seriously hurt and at least a couple died. This isn't a cause for gloating. Those sailors didn't do anything to deserve people jeering the circumstances of their deaths. Every nation that operates this sort of high tech equipment suffers serious accidents. I have had this misfortune to experience the loss of several US Soldiers in deaths involving malfunctioning equipment as well, that isn't necessarily a referendum on US Equipment, but merely the reality of working with complex weapons of war.

Yes, their only carrier is out of action for a long time. It wasn't going to be in active service for at least 3 years anyway, and any further delay is a result of an accident, not an institutional failure like @Skroe and others are making it out to be.

The institutional failure is the only repair facility for their carrier and large battle cruiser was built in the 1970s and now has failed. So they are pretty much stuck either making a dry dock facility from scratch or do some massive modifications of a smaller existing facility to expand it to even start the refit. If this happened in the US it would suck but they would just tow it to another facility and work would continue in russia there are no other facilities capable of doing the work at this time.

[breadisfunny]

You got to be more specific in your question.

i would like to know what you think of this development.