As Russia's only aircraft carrier falls apart

[Guno צְבִי]

Russia's sole aircraft carrier has been sidelined for years and may not see action again.
A Russian lawmaker has proposed trying buying China's Liaoning aircraft carrier as a replacement.
Liaoning began life as a Soviet carrier, but China acquired it in a shady sale in the late 1990s.
Russia's only aircraft carrier, Admiral Kuznetsov, is in such bad shape that it may easier to buy a replacement than to fix it.

In a sign of how low Russia's military has sunk, a Russian politician has suggested doing so by buying a Soviet-designed carrier that was sold to China 25 years ago.

Admiral Kuznetsov has never been lucky. Launched in 1985, the 60,000-ton vessel has suffered engine breakdowns, multiple fires, and bizarre shipyard accidents. In 2012, it had to be towed to port by a tugboat after losing propulsion off the French coast.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...A16pHbU?cvid=cfc97eea3d1649778c18cb5adf5f4192

 

[Hawkeye10]

Russia's sole aircraft carrier has been sidelined for years and may not see action again.
A Russian lawmaker has proposed trying buying China's Liaoning aircraft carrier as a replacement.
Liaoning began life as a Soviet carrier, but China acquired it in a shady sale in the late 1990s.
Russia's only aircraft carrier, Admiral Kuznetsov, is in such bad shape that it may easier to buy a replacement than to fix it.

In a sign of how low Russia's military has sunk, a Russian politician has suggested doing so by buying a Soviet-designed carrier that was sold to China 25 years ago.

Admiral Kuznetsov has never been lucky. Launched in 1985, the 60,000-ton vessel has suffered engine breakdowns, multiple fires, and bizarre shipyard accidents. In 2012, it had to be towed to port by a tugboat after losing propulsion off the French coast.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...A16pHbU?cvid=cfc97eea3d1649778c18cb5adf5f4192

It would have been nice to have to fly the flag in military maneuvers with China, but militarily Russia does not have a need for an aircraft carrier.

 

[Guno צְבִי]

It would have been nice to have to fly the flag in military maneuvers with China, but militarily Russia does not have a need for an aircraft carrier.

Do tell
A Russian lawmaker has proposed trying buying China's Liaoning aircraft carrier as a replacement.
Liaoning began life as a Soviet carrier, but China acquired it in a shady sale in the late 1990s.
Russia's only aircraft carrier, Admiral Kuznetsov, is in such bad shape that it may easier to buy a replacement than to fix it

 

[Hawkeye10]

Do tell
A Russian lawmaker has proposed trying buying China's Liaoning aircraft carrier as a replacement.
Liaoning began life as a Soviet carrier, but China acquired it in a shady sale in the late 1990s.
Russia's only aircraft carrier, Admiral Kuznetsov, is in such bad shape that it may easier to buy a replacement than to fix it

We could talk about all of the idiotic never going to go anywhere things that American elected officials propose.

 

[Guno צְבִי]

We could talk about all of the idiotic never going to go anywhere things that American elected officials propose.

So a rube living in the NW knows!!

 

[Hawkeye10]

So a rube living in the NW knows!!

A hyper educated thus right a high percentage of the time person gifts you with what reality looks like to me.

Do with this gift what you will, I did my part to make the world a better place.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

You know, it's not like Russia's navy(s) have ever been particularly successful. In WW 2 the Red Navy lost more submarines than they sank ships. Look at Tsushima.

Worth watching because you can't make shit like that up. It's maybe a case of Hold my vodka and watch this shit!

 

[Walt]

It would have been nice to have to fly the flag in military maneuvers with China, but militarily Russia does not have a need for an aircraft carrier.

Aircraft carriers allow a country to project military power to most of the world. Without a working aircraft carrier, can Russia really be called a world superpower? Or are they more of a regional superpower, like Brazil or Nigeria?

 

[Walt]

We could talk about all of the idiotic never going to go anywhere things that American elected officials propose.

The USA has 11 aircraft carriers in full working order, with 3 more currently under construction, and more in planning. Our carrier fleets seem to be going real places.

 

[Nordberg]

It would have been nice to have to fly the flag in military maneuvers with China, but militarily Russia does not have a need for an aircraft carrier.

You missed the point entirely.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Aircraft carriers allow a country to project military power to most of the world. Without a working aircraft carrier, can Russia really be called a world superpower? Or are they more of a regional superpower, like Brazil or Nigeria?

A regional power with a global annihilating supply of nukes.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Aircraft carriers allow a country to project military power to most of the world. Without a working aircraft carrier, can Russia really be called a world superpower? Or are they more of a regional superpower, like Brazil or Nigeria?

Brazil limited their carrier, when they had one, to ASW operations assisting their fleet. Argentina's carrier doesn't have the ships to support it in a naval war where the enemy is a serious naval power. We saw that in the Falklands War.
Russia's single carrier is a pretty limited ship, that is when it's not broke dick POS being towed to port because the crew can't keep it working.
China is moving to having a real carrier and the ones they have are really more for show and practice at carrier operations than serious offensive ships.
France has a carrier but theirs rarely leaves port meaning it's more a prestige item than a threat. Navies that don't sail regularly and often are not prepared to go to war against one that does.

 

[Walt]

Brazil limited their carrier, when they had one, to ASW operations assisting their fleet. Argentina's carrier doesn't have the ships to support it in a naval war where the enemy is a serious naval power. We saw that in the Falklands War.
Russia's single carrier is a pretty limited ship, that is when it's not broke dick POS being towed to port because the crew can't keep it working.
China is moving to having a real carrier and the ones they have are really more for show and practice at carrier operations than serious offensive ships.
France has a carrier but theirs rarely leaves port meaning it's more a prestige item than a threat. Navies that don't sail regularly and often are not prepared to go to war against one that does.

Russia and the rest are definitely regional superpowers, or at least regional powers, but they are not world superpowers. China is definitely moving in the direction of being a world superpower. Russia is moving in the opposite direction. France might be able to create a European alliance that is a world superpower, and honestly I would not be that upset if they did.

The USA is the sole world superpower, at least right now. I doubt we will directly give that away, but indirectly we might.

 

[Walt]

A regional power with a global annihilating supply of nukes.

Yes, that is the one thing they still have. Nuclear war is the one threat Putin can still make.

 

[Nordberg]

Yes, that is the one thing they still have. Nuclear war is the one threat Putin can still make.

Will he use them? That is the question. He would get Russia annihilated if he did it. Is he that crazy? Some world leaders think nuclear war is not an option. Putin may not be one of them.

 

[Walt]

Will he use them? That is the question. He would get Russia annihilated if he did it. Is he that crazy? Some world leaders think nuclear war is not an option. Putin may not be one of them.

It is an open question. Biden has slice the salami perfectly up to now, giving Putin nothing major to latch on to, but also allowing a huge amount of aid to Ukraine.

Biden is helped by Putin's weakness. He has few options between ignoring actions and nuclear war. Nuclear war seems like an overreaction to most actions, so Putin is stuck ignoring many of Biden's moves.

Before the invasion, Ukraine was tied to the Russian electrical grid. It was going to take at least two years to switch Ukraine to the European grid, so Ukraine was at the mercy of Russia when it came to electricity. Biden and NATO was able to drop that time down to two weeks. There were some brief outages, and certainly are more outages since, but they are manageable. If Putin had a modern air force capable of air supremacy he could eliminate the entire electrical network, but Putin does not have the power to do that.

Putin could launch a nuclear war over Ukraine having electricity... But that would be an extreme overreaction. So he is stuck just accepting defeat.

 

[Nordberg]

Putin is deliberately blowing up the grid and the infrastructure to harm as many Ukrainians as possible. Winter is here and he is making them suffer. When it ends, he has created millions of people who will hate Russians forever. They are on his border and many will want to get even. If he won he cannot afford to fix what he destroyed. He will never know peace again.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Putin is deliberately blowing up the grid and the infrastructure to harm as many Ukrainians as possible. Winter is here and he is making them suffer. When it ends, he has created millions of people who will hate Russians forever. They are on his border and many will want to get even. If he won he cannot afford to fix what he destroyed. He will never know peace again.

Wrong. In a total war destruction of the enemy's means of production, to include energy, is something a warring party does. We did it in WW 2, and we did it in the Gulf wars.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Wrong. In a total war destruction of the enemy's means of production, to include energy, is something a warring party does. We did it in WW 2, and we did it in the Gulf wars.

You're missing the point, Terry. There's a difference between destroying means of production and attacking civilians, as the Germans did in both WWI and WWII when began losing. Putin is following suit.

The Allied bombing of Dresden in February 1945 was controversial because it firebombed a city along with the strategic railroad hub. The US firebombing of Tokyo was more justified since the Japanese practiced cottage industrial production. Regardless, after WWII, the civilized nations agreed that such attacks were war crimes.

 

[anonymoose]

Regardless, after WWII, the civilized nations agreed that such attacks were war crimes.

And still we bombed Hanoi.