Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| half-genius, half-wit |
Whilst on the subject of Soviet-era-build Russian submarines, a gentleman of my acquaintance, at that time nuclear engineering officer on board a RN nuclear boat, had the chance to pay a three-hour-long visit to one of their nuclear boats. Needless to say, he was briefed beforehand, and fitted with both visible and non-visible radiation dosimeters. Getting back to his own vessel for the debrief, he found to his horror that his hidden dosimeter was black all over. In the short time he'd been onboard the former Soviet Navy - now called a Russian navy vessel, he had received, and exceeded an entire three-month dose of radiation. He was off sea duty for almost six months, and went on to develop some serious nastiness that eventually caused his early death at around 45. | |||
|
| Member |
Safety....Russians Not exactly synonymous | |||
|
Member |
That's why I had to chuckle a couple years ago when people were running around with their hair on fire about the Russian shipbuilding program and Trump stoking the fire with, "We have now the lowest number of ships that we've had since World War I," (apples to oranges comparison BTW). | |||
|
| My only apparent accomplishment in life is being banned from an ancient forum |
The Admiral Kuznetsov has been a piece of shit ever since it was launched. Somewhere, some Russian Admiral is thrilled he'll never have to deal with it again. | |||
|
| Go ahead punk, make my day |
The Russian and Chinese carriers look similar, because the Russians sold the "Varyag" to China and they finished it as the "Liaoning".  | |||
|
| Member |
What did his visible dosimeters indicate?? Wasn't it the same readings? | |||
|
| Conveniently located directly above the center of the Earth  |
I've never seen the actual reason Russia has almost zero carriers. Smarmy cutesy reasons of course, but real tactical/strategic reason, no. So far perhaps the 'best' yet unverified real reason, is the Russian economy simply can not afford such expense. Does any of those with significant Naval Insight, have a short commentary on this question? **************~~~~~~~~~~ "I've been on this rock too long to bother with these liars any more." ~SIGforum advisor~ "When the pain of staying the same outweighs the pain of change, then change will come."~~sigmonkey | |||
|
| Freethinker |
Many people believe that in a “real” war with the most advanced weapons of the day, aircraft carriers would be destroyed very quickly. Further, aircraft carriers are most useful for “projecting” force far from home. At the present time Russia’s targets and threats are pretty much on their borders. ► 6.4/93.6 | |||
|
| Just because you can, doesn't mean you should |
Our defense industries and politicians have kept themselves well funded by claiming the Soviet Union/Russians are about to beat us in some area of technology. They had to steal our secrets to develop nukes in the first place, never could really compete in space once we got serious, and have a shrinking economy based on mostly fossil fuels for any outside income. They are surrounded now by mostly adversarial countries and are now mostly a third world country. We mostly pay attention to them because of past reputation plus they do have nukes of some capability. ___________________________ Avoid buying ChiCom/CCP products whenever possible. | |||
|
| Go ahead punk, make my day |
In addition to money (buying and operating carriers is EXPENSIVE), I think a lot of it is driven by the fact Russia doesn't really have any ports which are really conducive to creating, training, and maintaining such a carrier fleet. Look at the US in comparison, with large coasts with favorable weather to allow for training carrier fleets, ships company, and aircrew. US Carriers / Aircrew spend a lot of time training, which is costly and requires generally favorable weather to get everyone up to speed. Carrier aviation is unlike anything you have ever seen and takes a lot of time to do safely, much less effectively - The numbers of sorties a US carrier can generate absolutely crushes what any of the others can do. And the reason is lots and lots of expensive training and preparation - and having multiple good weather ports, which allow for many training events to take place to train pilots, maintainers, and ships is essential. | |||
|
| Member |
Oh yea, Beat Army! | |||
|
| Member |
Since it was more likely that the U.S. would come to them the Soviets/Russians put more stock in dealing with U.S. CVBG's by using landbased Naval air support and submarines. | |||
|
Official Space Nerd |
From the article posted by lkdr1989:
I assume this means the fire spread to an area of 600 square meters. It may read like 600 meters in length (the carrier itself is only about 350 meters long). 600 square meters equates to an area about 25x25 meters. A lot larger fire than anybody wants on any ship, but not as catastrophic as some here seem to think. . . Fear God and Dread Nought Admiral of the Fleet Sir Jacky Fisher | |||
|
| Official Space Nerd |
The US wanted to project power across oceans; the Soviets were never really able to do this outside of token efforts. They also didn't have to. Most of their dangerous stuff for a war against NATO was land-based (tanks, infantry, close support aircraft). Their navy was always second rate (or worse), and as much as they tried to create a real 'blue-water navy,' they came up short. And that was when they were the USSR with a much better (by comparison) defense budget. I recall reading once that they sent the Kuznetsov on a training exercise, and conducted 'flight operations.' Only thing was, they had to empty out their flight schools for the handful of carrier-qualified instructor pilots to do it (in other words, this capability was not sustainable). They never had a real air group that was able to deploy with the carrier. It was too little, too late. China is now trying to develop their own carrier capabilities (in that diagram above, you can see the Chinese Kuznetsov-class carrier (ex-Varyag). Just like Russia, China will need a couple generations and a LOT of money to get a 'real' carrier capability. Right now, all they have is a photo op platform. Only time will tell if they stick with it and produce a meaningful capability. Fear God and Dread Nought Admiral of the Fleet Sir Jacky Fisher | |||
|
Frangas non Flectes |
Lol. I'm not mad about it.
If nobody else got it, I did. 
As a complete layman who has wondered about this, I appreciate this explanation. Thank you. ______________________________________________ “There are plenty of good reasons for fighting, but no good reason ever to hate without reservation, to imagine that God Almighty Himself hates with you, too.” | |||
|
| Go ahead punk, make my day |
 | |||
|
| Go ahead punk, make my day |
One other Carrier Aviation 'tidbit' for everyone interest to chew on. Every, and I mean EVERY US Carrier pilot is Night Carrier Landing Qualified coming out of training. And when they finally show up to a deploying fleet squadron, they spend a TON of time practicing and getting better at operating around the carrier at night. They all maintain night carrier landing currency while deployed, or in the rare case the go a day or 2 too long, they regain currency at the first opportunity. The US Carrier flight flies at night a lot. And I mean AT NIGHT. Moon, no moon, flying WAAAY late into the night. Black nights where you can only see lights from the stars with zero visible horizon. From the most junior pilot to the air wing commander, they all fly. You can either hack it or you can't. And if you can't land, you are history. The French and Italian Carriers we operated with only did day time operations, with a handful of senior pilots 'night qualified'. But they only flew those guys at night to keep currency - meaning they started up the planes, waited for the sun to go down, then launch and landed immediately. In the US Navy we call that a 'pinky recovery', because they are easy with the glow from the sun having just set when compared to a 'real' night landing. Why do I mention this? To US Navy pilots, daytime carrier ops are "fun" and "easy". Even as demanding and dangerous as they are in the day, we have it down to a science from 100 years of doing it. Night ops are not 'fun', but they are done over and over and over to the point that its what they do, without question. It's deadly serious but it's what you do. I'm sure the UK will ramp up again once they get their F-35Bs operating from their new carrier and the stuff they did in the Falklands was the stuff of legends, but even with that bravery VSTOL carrier ops pale in comparison to angled, big deck US Carriers. | |||
|
Mistake Not... |
Thailand has an aircraft carrier? WTAF?! And the "600 meters" spread is square meters, not the length of the ship, which is about 300 meters. ___________________________________________ Life Member NRA & Washington Arms Collectors Mistake not my current state of joshing gentle peevishness for the awesome and terrible majesty of the towering seas of ire that are themselves the milquetoast shallows fringing my vast oceans of wrath. Velocitas Incursio Vis - Gandhi | |||
|
| Do No Harm, Do Know Harm |
God Bless America. Knowing what one is talking about is widely admired but not strictly required here. Although sometimes distracting, there is often a certain entertainment value to this easy standard. -JALLEN "All I need is a WAR ON DRUGS reference and I got myself a police thread BINGO." -jljones | |||
|
Fighting the good fight |
Yes, they do technically have one. But it hasn't had any planes for over a decade, after they retired the last of their Harriers in 2006. And it rarely ever leaves port, only seeing very occasional use during humanitarian/disaster response operations. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 4 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
© SIGforum 2024