What went wrong?

Economy

File: Vladimir_287e1e_2641635.jpg (59KB, 700x424px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 700x424px

>>31786253
Communism.

>>31786253
Gasoturbines with mazut

File: 1337990542_map1.png (518KB, 1280x781px) Image search: [Google]

518KB, 1280x781px

>>31786253
Soviet Union.
If only they build Ulyanovsk earlier.

>>31786346
It would probably go Chernobyl.

In my opinion, nothing.

Its a destroyer, cruiser, and carrier all in one.

The Union couldn't support a large navy so they designed for flexibility and multirole.

The Kuznetsov is a bit extreme but I'd say its a proof of concept.

>>31786253
Soviet/Russian maintenance

File: 1143.2 minsk (3).jpg (201KB, 1212x1297px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 1212x1297px

>>31788378
>The Union couldn't support a large navy
You best be baiting. Their navy was as large as it was sanely possible for a land superpower.
>so they designed for flexibility and multirole
Except it was the opposite. Their navy had one task - search and destroy the USN. They had two types of destroyers, one for anti-ship, another for anti-submarine warfare. Their cruisers, including Kiev, Kirov and Kuznetsov, and SSGNs had a sole task - to attack American CBGs. Even the Ulyanovsk mentioned above retained the same role of an aircraft cruiser, albeit being a generally larger nuclear powered ship. The development of Granat (not to be confused with Granit, although these can hit land-based targets too) cruise missiles in the 80s was the first sign that Soviets started to consider giving their navy land attack role.

>>31788587
>Their navy had one task - search and destroy the USN
Nope. 1143 doctrine was basically air defence of a squadron that protects submarine deployment areas. They pretty much evolved from earlier pure ASW 1123.

>>31788614
The Doctrine of the Soviet Navy was to search and destroy US carrier groups and ballistic missile submarines.

>>31788587

Nope. It was laid down in 82 but not commissioned until the official collapse of the Soviet Union. It wasn't fully complete until 1995.

Bet your ass it went through major design changes as the mission changed during the end of the Soviet Union.

Probably why it took so long to build.

>>31788626
Sure, thats why they evolved (and early ships pretty much were) purely ASW ships. You cant search and destroy in hostile airspace, and russians could not contest Atlantic.

>>31788350
Naaah, to that times their reactors were pretty reliable. It's not fucking 60th with first-gen VM and VM-A.
>>31788587
>Their navy had one task - search and destroy the USN.
It was true when US submarines had Polaris missiles. Then all that mighty Soviet fleet fight their way into location of that subs and blow them up. After Trident missiles came to service, all that anti-submarine capabilities turned into worthless pile of garbage. Soviet fleet was not able to catch new US boats with new US missiles. So, old ships continue worthless existence and new ships were build to protect Soviet nuclear submarines. Swimming air-defence. In general, late-USSR had idiotic fleet, you should not search for logic there.

File: 1143.3 novorossiysk (2).jpg (1018KB, 3000x1821px) Image search: [Google]

1018KB, 3000x1821px

>>31788614
1143 doctrine was to diversify air defense capabilities of a naval strike group hunting a CBG, which is evident from it carrying interceptors instead of multi-role aircraft, while retaining ASW capabilities of 1123. Other than that it had the same role as Slava and Kirov. One can say that it makes Kiev/Kuznetsov multi-role, but in reality it's just the same cruiser in role, just with more emphasized ASW component.
>>31788641
>It wasn't fully complete until 1995
It was fully complete in December 1990 and commissioned in January 1992.
>Bet your ass it went through major design changes
It did not. Design alterations were considered between 1978 and 1981, and all of them but one involved essentially the same armament and role only differing in size, propulsion and the aircraft launch system. By 1982 it was absolutely clear what kind of a ship was to be built.
>Probably why it took so long to build.
It took relatively long to build because it was a new project and because it suffered some fund shortages due to the country slipping into an economical crisis year by year.

>>31788700
The task of the Soviet Navy was not to hunt American boomers, but to hunt American CBGs and the SSNs escorting it.

File: 956 boyevoy in san diego.jpg (283KB, 1686x1086px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 1686x1086px

>>31788644
>Sure, thats why they evolved (and early ships pretty much were) purely ASW ships
1143 is anything but a purely ASW ship.
>You cant search and destroy in hostile airspace
Which is why 1143.5 and 1143.7 were developed.
>and russians could not contest Atlantic
Is what why Soviet Navy kept cruising all across the world till the dissolution of the country?

>>31788902

>it did not

Because technical details like that are totally publicly available, right?

Get the the detailed schematics for a Typhoon sub, then

>>31789007
Port calls and visits are common even back then, anon

>>31789015
Right. This is history of ship's development, not extremely detailed information about its construction.
http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/ria.ru/arms/20130829/topic-5.html

>>31789007
You are now aware that "Freedom of Navigation" doesn't just apply to the United States.

>>31789084

If I'm wrong I'm wrong.

I can just imagine the design changing during construction because people in charge of the project saw the collapse around them and knew they weren't going to build any new ships for awhile so they tried making one ship that can do everything.

>>31788902
>1143 doctrine was to diversify air defense capabilities of a naval strike group hunting a CBG
"Hunting" CBG in north sea = protecting submarine deployment area. They could not hunt CBG anywhere else.
>>31789007
>1143 is anything but a purely ASW ship.
It is. Kiev had the same amount of helicopters as aircraft.
>Which is why 1143.5 and 1143.7 were developed.
You cant contest it with that amount of aircraft. Aircraft were purely for air defense.
>Is what why Soviet Navy kept cruising all across the world till the dissolution of the country?
Power projection in peacetime =/= war strategy, and soviets built ships optimal for anything but power projection. You do not need heavy ASW component for that.

File: 1143.5 admiral kuznetsov (11).jpg (1MB, 3164x1751px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3164x1751px

>>31789110
You are imagining wrong. 1143.6 (future Liaoning) was laid down 20 minutes after 1143.5 launch in December 1985 and nuclear powered 1143.7 was laid down in the same manner right after 1143.6 launch in November 1988. In reality both 1143.5 and 1143.6 that Americans call Kuznetsov-class were an intermediate stage never meant to serve as a backbone of Soviet strike groups for too long.

File: 1143.4 baku (2).jpg (3MB, 1900x2490px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1900x2490px

>>31789144
>"Hunting" CBG in north sea = protecting submarine deployment area
Which is why this is not what they were doing or were ever supposed to do, which is evident from 1143 ships constantly cruising Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans, Mediterranean and Japan seas.
>It is
It is not, which is evident from it carrying the strike and air defense armament of a cruiser. And the further the more and better.
>You cant contest it with that amount of aircraft.
You can diversify your strike group's air defense with that amount of aircraft and gain important experience in deploying carrier based fixer wing aviation on your way to a larger nuclear powered aircraft cruiser. Which is what they were doing.
>Aircraft were purely for air defense.
Su-33 are pure interceptors, and extremely impressive ones for carrier baser aviation.
>soviets built ships optimal for anything but power projection
That is because their navy did not serve the purpose of power projection, but the purpose of hunter-killer.
>You do not need heavy ASW component for that.
Which is why with the introduction of Project 1155 ASW destroyers 1143 aircraft cruisers evolved into 1143.5-.6 that carried fixed wing interceptors, not more ASW helicopters. Which is why it subsequently evolved into 1143.7, that had even more emphasized air superiority component. Seriously, educate yourself outside of /k shitposting threads before commenting on the subject. You are clearly on the top of mount stupid right now.

>>31789415
>"Hunting" CBG in north sea = protecting submarine deployment area
>1143 ships constantly cruising Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans, Mediterranean and Japan seas.
3 of 4 Kirov class cruisers were assigned to Northern fleet. They were armed with huge-ass hydroacoustic station, btw.

File: liaoning.jpg (114KB, 777x437px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 777x437px

>>31786253

Doesn't China have a replica carrier?

>>31791928
Replica? They BOUGHT the varyag from Ukraine

File: 1144 pyotr velikiy & 1143.5 admiral kuznetsov & 1164 marshal ustinov.jpg (135KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 1024x768px

>>31791740
>Confusing 1143 for 1144
Your reading comprehension, anon.

File: Ukrainian cruiser Ukrayina.jpg (1MB, 2816x2112px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2816x2112px

>>31792002
Is there something actually left in Ukraine that isn't bought by someone? Oh, right. The "Ukraine".

File: kuznetsov-granit.jpg (100KB, 960x651px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 960x651px

>>31786346
> Current year
> Still putting VLS tubes in the fucking flight deck.

Goddammit, Russia.

>>31786346
>8x Kaztans

Welp, no AShM's were touching that thing.

>>31792418

I like it. It doesn't interfere with the hangar size and its multirole as fuck.

>oh, you think its only a flight deck?
>mwahahaha

>>31792571
Not Harpoons. Those things are way overdue for replacement.

>>31792418
why cant those be side mounted like the old ship of the lines?

>>31792418
>> Current year
It is 1988 project.

>>31792133
Nuclear Kirovs on North are fit into "hunt for CSG \ subs" role perfectly fine. While 1143 were in more warn waters.

>>31792172
Id love to see that thing modernized

>>31792921
Or most other currently in service NATO aligned nations AShM's (like KEPD and SeaSkua and others).

With China & Russia updating their boats, and India joining the SCO.. NATO may want to up its boat killing game.

>>31792981
You'd think they would, 6 on each side of the ramp or something..

>>31792981
>Sir an american carrier appeared out of the fog!
>Bring us on full broadside! Man the grappling hooks! Prepare to board her!
>Raise the black flag!

File: rpk-6m vodopad mute.webm (1MB, 328x240px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 328x240px

>>31792981

http://englishrussia.com/2012/03/30/ill-fame-of-the-aircraft-cruiser-admiral-kuznetsov/

Pictures are from 4 years ago. Highlights include majority of the cabins not having water and more than 25 out of 50 toilets (and only 50 toilets, for a crew of 1,500) being out of order at any time, and the heating doesnt fucking work.

>>31796046
>Pictures are from 4 years ago.
Pictures are from 90's, man. Gerogy Kononovich, the red tanker in the background, stopped havin this name in 2002 and it was scrapped in 2007 in Bangladesh.

>>31796046
The pictures are from 7-8 years ago during a refit actually (englighrussia.com just steal photos from bloggers btw) and the stories that go with from 1999/2000 when Kuznetsov was almost sold as scrap metal.

>>31796085
>Pictures are from 90's, man.
Photographer credits them to 2007-2009

>>31796046
The pictures are from 2009. And the text is composed of thin quotes from a letter of one of its crewmen sent to a military periodical in fucking 1999. Here's an LJ post with the full text and all pictures in a row, not on 11 pages.
http://igor113.livejournal.com/27473.html

>>31796103
Then its really weird because there is definitely a tanker that was scrapped in 2007 on them. Can ships appear as ghosts on photographs?

>>31796113
Decommissioned and scrapped is not the same thing.
http://fleetphoto.ru/ship/11851/

File: 1477381001223.gif (2MB, 374x254px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 374x254px

>>31792418

>Play Warship Gunner
>VLS missles are Carrier's primary DPS.

>>31796134
>Decommissioned and scrapped is not the same thing.
It is. When a ship recieves a different name for transfer and scrapping it is transferred and scrapped.

>>31794895
This reminds me of a whatif/drawthread from long ago (2010?).
>sudden portal
>lone Nimitz appears in 1944
>Yamato cruising alone 1nm away
>wat
>rushes to activate main guns
>no time to launch planes
>Nimitz revs engines
>Yamato AAA fires
>CIWS fires back
>Yamato fires turret 1
>shreds hangar deck, elevator, bow
>fuck this
>Nimitz rams Yamato
>too close for main guns
>marines rappel off flight deck
>IJN fix bayonets
>hot Arisaka on M4 action

>>31796018
wtf

>>31796928
This is the boner I never knew I needed

File: How to into VLS.webm (2MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x720px

>>31792981

You mean like this?

>>31792981
Personally, I'd just bolt them on to a plate rigged to the side of the carrier. Like, using the kind of missile canisters on the Kiev Class.

>>31786253
Nuclear powered battleship, gas turbine carrier

>>31789007

This idiot is seriously arguing that because Russian ships sailed across the ocean in peacetime, they could not possibly have been stopped from doing so in wartime.

What a fucking idiot. Everyone look at him and laugh.

Russia decided to put missiles in it for some fucking reason.

A carrier has one job, to launch and retrieve jets. Missiles are for the destroyers around it.

>>31786253
Why do we keep having this thread?

>>31797704

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize we're only allowed to discuss something once.

Next time I'll email you personally to ask for your permission.

Dumbfuck.

>>31797460
these animes with ships are mega gay

>>31797751
I 100% agree with you.

Anime is 99% garbage these days. Lots of old good ones. When they started with the moe shit and GuP, all this other shit turning boats and planes into little grills. Its vomit worthy.

>>31797740
It's because these threads always end up being vatnik wank fests as the RIDF swarms to defend their shitty "heavy aviation cruiser."

>>31797812

Do you not read the news?

This thing has been all over the news for the past week. People talk about shit that's current. Sometimes people don't see the first thread about that topic and then make their own. It's not a big deal. You're going to be OK.

I can't believe this actually has to be explained to you.

>>31797670
This idiot is seriously arguing that Soviet Navy did not have the only role it was ever meant to fulfill because he feels like it. Look at him. Look at him and laugh.

>>31793055
Both 1144 and 1143 were built as components of the same doctrine and were to operate together in a strike group.

>>31792172
Chernobyl

>>31798428
Tell that to an Ukrainian and he will explode in madness, screaming something about evil Russians and their evil power plants. I'm pretty sure the sarcophagus built over the power plant is not Ukrainian. IIRC it is French.

>>31798285

Nope.

Never said anything like that.

>>31798828
Then your response doesn't make any sense, since the Soviet Navy had a sole task which was hunting and killing American CBGs.

>>31798893

Let me let you in on a little secret: We agree about this.

You've just misunderstood what my post was about, and now you're attacking me...for something we both explicitly agree on. Nice work.

>>31796928
Reminds me of the movie The Final Countdown.
>Nimitz time travels to Dec 6, 1941
>Launched planes to shoot down slanteyes
>Time warp shows back up
>Planes land and they go back home
>That guy we saw in the beginning gets the girl we saw in the beginning.

>>31792981
Watch the backblast, you idiot
-Sun Tzu

>>31789092
>Is anyone trying to stop it?

Everyone is just worried about who will have pay to have it towed back?