It's there a ship afloat that could sink this monster in

>>3033040
An inflatable bath toy could. Just wait for it to break down.

>>30330407
/k/'s already had about 400 Zumwalt V Kirov Modernisation threads and the Zumwalt always wins, so too do Arleigh Burke's, so plenty of shit around can sink it.

>>30330456
>Zumwalt
>winning anything

>>30330407
Any ship armed with a few AShMs could do it.

Its unlikely that a FAC or corvette would do it but they have the weapons for it if they hit the right spot.

Same way an untrained raghead with a nugget could kill a Navy seal operator.

The attacking ship (or raghead) would probably be BTFO soon after having used their weapon however.

>>30330407
your mom, probably

>>30330407
An Ohio class.

File: Ulyanovsk.jpg (52KB, 736x449px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 736x449px

Somewhat of a derail but I wonder how the soviet aircraft carrier Ulyanovsk would have compared to the Nimitz class carriers.

File: ulyanovsk-03.jpg (307KB, 1920x1280px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 1920x1280px

>>30330587

File: ulyanovsk-05.jpg (330KB, 1920x1280px) Image search: [Google]

330KB, 1920x1280px

>>30330594
Projected to carry 44 fighter aircraft, combination of Sukhoi Su-33 (Su-27K) and Mikoyan MiG-29K fighters.

6 Yakovlev Yak-44 RLD Airborne early warning aircraft

16 Kamov Ka-27 Anti-submarine warfare helicopters

2 Ka-27PS Air-sea rescue helicopters

>>30330587
Pretty ok probably. Although their crews would be lesser trained and soviet equipment for supercarriers would be largely new and untested, meaning higher failure rates. What kind of hawkeye equivalent would they put on it though?

File: 5510200ccf41a.jpg (143KB, 600x400px)

143KB, 600x400px

>>30330611
As per usual for Soviet carriers the armament was to be 12 P-700 Granit SSMs,SA-N-12 Buk SAMs, 8 CADS-N-1 CIWS, 8 AK-630 rotary anti-aircraft cannons.

Scrapped in the early 90's at around 20% build.

File: catapult.jpg (87KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 600x400px

>>30330644
Building the catapults.

>>30330587
The ship itself? I'd reckon that it would be generally on-par. The only issue I see is that it has about half the air complement as a Nimitz, however that may be beneficial for a nation as inexperienced at naval aviation as the Soviet Union. Where the issues come in is:
1. Could the Soviets build quality naval aircraft? They have proven fighter/attack aircraft in the form of the Su-33 platform, and to a lesser extent the MiG-29k, but AEW aircraft? ECM? Tankers?
2. Would they have enough money to keep it running? If we're talking a reality where it got built, then probably, but funding has always been an issue for the Soviet Navy.
3. Can the Soviets overcome their inherent inexperience in naval aviation? The US has been using carriers since the concept has existed, while the Soviet's entries have been without exception missile cruisers with flight decks welded on. With a good 50 less years of operational experience, especially when a system has only existed for 70 years, is a big deal. Both the leadership needs to be able to properly utilize the system, and the crew needs to be able to operate it well.

>>30330587
Not well. Do we need to go over the whole ramp thing again?

In addition people overlook the biggest advantage of a nuclear powered ship - you don't need massive fuel bowsers dedicated to the engines. Meaning you can carry more supplies, equipment, munitions, aviation fuel, or as was shown off with the Nimitz; fuel for your supporting fleet.

File: 55100585699af.jpg (1004KB, 1700x1216px) Image search: [Google]

1004KB, 1700x1216px

>>30330655

russiaboos are obnoxious

Modern anti ship technology would destroy it like it would any other shit

Fuck off

>>30330666
You are mistaken. Not talking about the conventional Kuznetsov-class carriers.

The Ulyanovsk was supposed to be a nuclear powered, 90 000 ton, true blue water capable carrier.

File: 8901728bb0e9f889fe38754e8610ce96.jpg (39KB, 620x353px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 620x353px

one on one? Hope you have enough lifeboats.