quote:

Russia’s only aircraft carrier is damaged when dock sinks, crane punches huge hole in ship

MOSCOW — Russia’s only aircraft carrier was damaged in a dock accident Tuesday that left one person missing and four injured, officials said.

A floating dock sank early morning in Murmansk, dropping a crane on the deck of the Admiral Kuznetsov carrier, the United Shipbuilding Corporation said.

The corporation’s chief, Alexei Rakhmanov, said the 70-ton crane left a hole of 215 square feet, but added that it didn’t damage any of the ship’s vital systems.

The accident happened as the ship was leaving the dock following repairs. Rakhmanov said it may have been caused by a sharp power surge that led to pumps' failure.

The Russian naval grouping is led by the Northern Fleet’s guided missile cruiser Marshal Ustinov.
By: Matthew Bodner

Four workers were injured and one is still missing, Murmansk governor Marina Kovtun said on state-owned Rossiya 24 television channel on Tuesday.

Rakhmanov said that accident wouldn't lead to a significant extension of the carrier's refurbishment. Following the repairs, the carrier is to be fitted with modern control systems and new weapons.

Rakhmanov acknowledged, however, that the loss of the huge, 80,000-ton dock would disrupt the planned modernization of other Russian navy ships. The dock is the only structure of that capacity that Russia has, and it wasn't immediately clear whether it could be lifted.

The Admiral Kuznetsov carrier was launched in 1985 and has repeatedly been plagued by technical problems.

While the ship with its turbines belching black smoke looks outdated compared with the U.S. nuclear-powered carriers, it allows the Kremlin to project power far away from Russia's shores.

Two years ago, the Admiral Kuznetsov was deployed to the eastern Mediterranean as part of Russia’s campaign in Syria, launching the first carrier-mounted attacks in Russia’s navy history.

quote:

Originally posted by kz1000:


эй смотреть это

quote:

Originally posted by VMI 1991:
It is one thing to "have" an aircraft carrier. It is another subject entirely to be proficient in sustained flight operations in a combat environment, not to mention the basics of seamanship and navigation. So, while some are alarmed because country a and/or b are building CVs/CVNs, being able to employ them requires extensive training.

quote:

Originally posted by VMI 1991:
It is one thing to "have" an aircraft carrier. It is another subject entirely to be proficient in sustained flight operations in a combat environment, not to mention the basics of seamanship and navigation. So, while some are alarmed because country a and/or b are building CVs/CVNs, being able to employ them requires extensive training.

quote:

Originally posted by tacfoley:

quote:

Originally posted by VMI 1991:
It is one thing to "have" an aircraft carrier. It is another subject entirely to be proficient in sustained flight operations in a combat environment, not to mention the basics of seamanship and navigation. So, while some are alarmed because country a and/or b are building CVs/CVNs, being able to employ them requires extensive training.

I was privileged a while back to getting the chance to observe the John F Kennedy operating in a NATO exercise. Watching, and feeling the constant take-off and landing of 96 aircraft - one very few seconds or couple of minutes - for a prolonged period of time was nothing less than magical to behold. We talked among ourselves about how long it would take the Russians to get to this degree of operational achievement, and, having heard that their one aeroplane had crashed again, came to the conclusion that it might take around 80 - 100 years, providing that they had at least another ten carriers, and another 500 suitable aircraft, not having had the spur of actual war at sea to gee them on.