>slav engineering

>sailing backwards

for what purpose?

>>31793641
Stop making these threads you cunt

File: 436px-Gop_vrubel.jpg (50KB, 436x600px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 436x600px

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin_(1957_icebreaker)

>In February 1965, there was a loss-of-coolant accident. After being shut down for refueling, the coolant was removed from the number two reactor before the spent fuel had been removed. As a result, some of the fuel elements melted and deformed inside the reactor. This was discovered when the spent elements were being unloaded for storage and disposal. 124 fuel assemblies (about 60% of the total) were stuck in the reactor core. It was decided to remove the fuel, control grid, and control rods as a unit for disposal; they were placed in a special cask, solidified, stored for two years, and dumped in Tsivolki Bay (near the Novaya Zemlya archipelago) in 1967.

>The second accident was a cooling system leak which occurred in 1967, shortly after refueling. Finding the leak required breaking through the concrete and metal biological shield with sledgehammers. Once the leak was found, it became apparent that the sledgehammer damage could not be repaired; subsequently, all three reactors were removed, and replaced by two OK-900 reactors. This was completed in early 1970.

File: 1460074466678.jpg (24KB, 521x397px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 521x397px

>a fucking ramp

>>31793641
Fuck, look like something out of WW1

Is that thing diesel powered?

File: 1418782142.jpg (13KB, 336x280px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 336x280px

>>31793676

>breaking through the concrete and metal biological shield with sledgehammers
>sledgehammers

Jesus fucking Christ.

>>31793658
Because the ramp makes hella downforce like a formula drift car bro

File: image.jpg (22KB, 280x261px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 280x261px

>>31793676
>Finding the leak required breaking through the concrete and metal biological shield with sledgehammers
>Once the leak was found, it became apparent that the sledgehammer damage could not be repaired
fucking slavs

File: HallMonitor2.jpg (176KB, 682x508px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 682x508px

>>31793724
If they wanted to go faster why didn't they just paint it red? Dumb ruskies

File: THREEskyJumpers.gif (427KB, 1678x1080px) Image search: [Google]

427KB, 1678x1080px

>>31793641
>slav engineering
>Build in totalitarian Union
>No maintenance
>No competent crew
>Wintering on North while not being design to.
>Gets new planes and new strike helicopters
>Operational

>Brit engineering
>Build in free country
>2 years of delay
>2.3bln overspend
>Ramp being added with ductape and glue
>Cost more than USS George H.W. Bush nuclear supercarrier
>No planes
>Not operational

File: Park Royal.jpg (1MB, 3400x2249px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3400x2249px

>>31793801
>Cost more than USS George H.W. Bush nuclear supercarrier
[citation needed]

>QE is basically just a really big LHA
hue

>>31793681

I call them "poverty ramps" because they can't afford catapults or a big enough ship.

>>31793676
Looking at Russia's history with nuclear reactors I'm extremely grateful for Rickover being as anal as he was about nuclear safety.

>>31794387
>Looking at Russia's history with nuclear reactors I'm extremely grateful for Rickover being as anal as he was about nuclear safety.
There is two ways. "Through hardships to the stars" or "through Greenpeace to ass". Russia chose the course of consistent curbing of nuclear processes, and solving problems related to radioactive production. US and Germany have chosen the way of an ostrich.

>>31794076
It's actually 1 billion cheaper(5B vs 6.2B). But still that's a lot of money to spend on something that's going to be half as effective as an American carrier.

>>31793801
>Build in free country
Britfag here, I would laugh but it's not funny.

>>31794559
Russian reactors are much, much worse then American reactors and American nuclear navy has always ignored NIMBY cowards.

Good work being retarded though.

>>31793658
thats the way the wind is blowing u acoustic nigger

File: george_orwell_cctv[1].jpg (53KB, 425x422px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 425x422px

>>31794715
What's wrong, buddy? You have all thing that dirty slavs have not - homo marriages, democratic elections, lack of central heating.

File: 3083382_original.jpg (1MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2448px

>>31793641
Those slavs cannot into shipbuilding

>>31794747
>acoustic nigger

>>31794735
>Russian reactors are much, much worse then American reactors
Welp, show me American liquid metal cooled reactor on submarine. Or not a submarine, just serial reactor ready to be used in nuclear station.

>>31794749
hearty kek

>>31794776
No submarine in the world today uses liquid metal cooling. IFR reactors use liquid metal cooling and are, obviously, in service.

Liquid metal cooling proved to be quite dangerous and all soviet submarines that used it are long gone.

>>31795032
Not "dangerous". LMC reactors are in fact safer than classic ones. Bothersome is more correct word. If, in any ocasion, reactor heat falls below metal`s melting point, you got it - whole heat exchange system is stuck, and you get he hellish task of re-animating it. You can`t just easily "turn off" than "turn on" such reactor. Other than that, liquid metal cooling reactors are awesome.

>>31793641
That piece of shit frigate is British though

>>31795032

See

>>31795344

Molten lead frequently seals leaks as it cools, too. And having the coolant double as radiation protection is just smart. Its extra protection.

>>31795512
There was lithium, not lead, IIRC, but other than that, you are correct.

>>31794749
You forgot the proper HIV treatment Ivan.
https://news.vice.com/article/russias-aids-epidemic-reaches-crisis-levels

>>31795537
If I were him, I`d cite the RT. Same level of "plausible info". Well, maybe RT is even better.

>>31795580
Actually, Vice isn't even that smart enough. Or maybe blinded with politcal corectness.

e.g. Since the anal intercourse is the Russian way of contraconception, there is abnormally high number of hetero women diagnosed with HIV in Russia
Really makes you think twice before ordering the mail bride.

>>31793641
>our carriers will blot out the sun

File: Sir_Humpty_Dumpty.gif (2MB, 225x249px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 225x249px

>>31793724
>>31793795
>>31794747

>>31793641
>rolling coal

>>31795344

There's some possibility it might be safer in the future. No current design is. They are a giant pain in the ass to maintain and inspect.

And cooling systems leak, always. A water leak is annoying. Radioactive molten metal alloy leaks are bad. Molten lithium leaks are a giant goddamn explosion.

Given a lot of these use hybrid systems with molten salts it's less a reactor then a gigantic bomb that happens to sometimes generate and direct useful heat.

In any case, anyone claiming Russian reactors are safer then US reactors is just wrong. The serious accident list of either country pretty much tells you all you need to know.

>>31794632
>half as effective
[Citation needed]

>>31794632

You're seriously retarded. That £6.2bn figure includes unit cost for both carriers, program cost and facility upgrades for the construction dock and navy dock.

>>31795618

What about anal drip babies where mom gets fucked in the ass and falls asleep on her stomach?

>>31795705
Molten lithium alloy won`t cause an explosion. And, unlike water, even in worst case scenario, it will just cool down and lay in one place, instead of water, contaminating the whole fucking region of the sea.
>>In any case, anyone claiming Russian reactors are safer then US reactors is just wrong.
Hardly the case, considering amount of reactors used, conditions they are used in, etc. But I won`t try to shake your beliefs.

>>31795707
>Nimitz-class aircraft carrier
>85–90 fixed wing and helicopters

>Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier
>carried:
Tailored air group of up to 40 aircraft
(50 full load)

Not to mention it can't carry any non-VTOL capable aircraft, meaning no AEW, tanker, long range ASW, etc at all, and that it's only anti-air defense is three phalanx mounts. It's really only a "supercarrier" to justify it's cost.
For comparison, the last American carrier (Excluding LPHs, LPDs, etc) to ever go to sea with such a meager capacity were the Essexs in their CVA configuration in the late '70s.

>>31795688
>being a coalburner
>2016

>>31795982
>meaning no AEW

File: r-r-rule br-britannia2.png (41KB, 855x717px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 855x717px

>British Navy

File: r-r-rule br-britannia1.jpg (146KB, 851x630px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 851x630px

>HMS Queen Elizabeth
>Commissioned: May 2017 (planned)
>70,600 tonnes
>Tailored air group of up to 40 aircraft
>2 x Phalanx CIWS, 4 x 30mm calibre gun, 30 mm guns and mini-guns to counter asymmetric threats

>Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov
>Commissioned: 25 December 1990
>61,390 tons (Max-load)
>Approx. 41 aircraft
>6 × AK-630 AA guns (6×30 mm, 6,000 round/min/mount, 24,000 rounds), 8 × CADS-N-1 Kashtan CIWS (each 2 × 30 mm Gatling AA plus 32 3K87 Kortik SAM), 12 × P-700 Granit SSM, 24 × 8-cell 3K95 Kinzhal SAM VLS (192 missiles; 1 missile per 3 seconds), RBU-12000 UDAV-1 ASW rocket launchers (60 rockets)

>British Navy

>>31794749
>lack of central heating
Jokes aside, is it true that westerners lack central heating? I heard some still heat with wood.

>>31796278
Central heating is the only good thing that come out of communism

File: horizontal vs vertical.jpg (708KB, 1912x660px) Image search: [Google]

708KB, 1912x660px

>>31796283
Efficient housing too.

>>31796278
i do

>>31796315
i meant i have central heating

>>31796289
>commiehives
>good

>>31794747
The average global wind speed over the ocean is around 12 knots

Smoke will trail behind a ship moving at any kind of reasonable speed. You cant fool me, that ship is going in reverse.

File: blocks.jpg (552KB, 1300x867px) Image search: [Google]

552KB, 1300x867px

>>31796333
>Commiehives
>Bad
Private houses belong to the countryside.

File: 1468244939417.gif (3MB, 640x266px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x266px

>>31793676
>it became apparent that the sledgehammer damage could not be repaired

File: enhanced-1427-1396251572-2.jpg (485KB, 625x719px)

485KB, 625x719px

>>31794749

It's a photoshop.

>>31795982

That still doesn't prove the "half as effective" point, given that effective is an extremely relative term, especially if you want to quantify it.

>meaning no AEW, tanker, long range ASW

But that's wrong, all that can be done by Ospreys.

>It's really only a "supercarrier" to justify it's cost.

Supercarrier isn't a real term and it generally refers to its tonnage.

>For comparison, the last American carrier (Excluding LPHs, LPDs, etc) to ever go to sea with such a meager capacity were the Essexs in their CVA configuration in the late '70s.

There's nothing meager about being able to deploy advanced aircraft in that number with QE class's pricetag.

>>31796230

Different doctrines, different roles. Kuznetsov did not have the expectation of having significant escort support, QE does.

>>31796389
>Kuznetsov did not have the expectation of having significant escort support
Kuztetsov itself is an escort support.
>QE does
Is that why it carries the same amount of aircraft while being heavier and at the same time lacking any strike or air defense capabilities apart from two shitty gun CIWS in the year of our lord 2017?

File: ndgeve.jpg (132KB, 400x533px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 400x533px

>>31796361
>giant towers but still low density
literally why

what is the point

literally the worst of both the suburban and deep urban. you live in a postage stamp and still have to travel 90 years by car to get to work. who would enjoy this

pic related is TRUE urban development. actual tight streets and mixed-use zoning

>>31793641

> able to still function after EMP bursts
> sneaky ruskies

>>31796406
>Kuztetsov itself is an escort support.

That's my exact point. Kuztetsov is not expected to rely on its escorts to the extend that QE is.

>Is that why it carries the same amount of aircraft while being heavier and at the same time lacking any strike or air defense capabilities apart from two shitty gun CIWS in the year of our lord 2017?

Don't be retarded. The capability of modern aircraft in smaller numbers are still far more capable than aircraft in larger numbers from a bygone age.

>>31796468
If QE is expected to rely on its escorts then why does it carry the same amount of aircraft as Kuznetsov? "Modern aircraft is better" does not explain that either. In fact, if you compare the sizes, Kuznetsov would probably be able to carry more F-35 than QE, while retaining its strike and air defense capabilities and being generally lighter.

It's irritating to see so many picking fun at this. Russia has more balls nowadays than any western nation. They're able to do so much with the little they have.

>>31796509
The QE carries more aircraft.

>>31796523
>Largest country on earth by land area
>huge mineral reserves
>can only produce and maintain a smoke-spewing 1980s carrier equipped with near-obsolete aircraft
>economy is smaller than Canada's

>>31796230
>Kuznetsov
>12x Su-33, 4x Ka-27

>QE
>36x F-35B, 4x Merlin

Don't know where the fuck you're getting "41 aircraft" from.

>>31796509
>If QE is expected to rely on its escorts then why does it carry the same amount of aircraft as Kuznetsov?

what

>"Modern aircraft is better" does not explain that either.

It certainly does. You can do far more with less.

>In fact, if you compare the sizes, Kuznetsov would probably be able to carry more F-35 than QE

Maybe. Maybe not. The question should actually be how many F-35s could the Kuznetsov support vs QE. You're doing an insane level of simplification.

>while retaining its strike and air defense capabilities and being generally lighter.

Not really, given they've had to remove the Granits to be able to fit a (theoretical) air wing of 50, that's not even a question of whether they can actually support that number since this is the first time they've run combat sorties from the Kuznetsov.

>>31793658
fpbp

>>31794632
>But still that's a lot of money to spend on something that's going to be half as effective as an American carrier.
An obsession with matching the Americans is part of what killed CVA-01. You have to buy something within your actual budget.

>>31796509

Number of aircraft carried is one factor, but then you also need to consider how many sorties can be flown per day. Both on a peak basis, and a sustained basis (including maintenance at sea).

If it is carrying a similar number of aircraft, but has a bigger displacement, smaller crew, and smaller armament, logically that extra space is used for something.

File: Evil.jpg (18KB, 294x294px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 294x294px

>tfw we're not going to see an operational QE deployment until 2020 at the earliest
>tfw we're going to be having these fucking threads for the next 4 years

>>31796278
I don't know about yurup, but here in murica everyone has central heating, except maybe some poorfags out in the countryside

File: Boiler room.jpg (141KB, 840x570px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 840x570px

>>31793697
>Is that thing diesel powered?
No.

>>31793697
No, it is mazut powered

>>31796432
Russia isn`t Japan. "Tower" flats have enough living space. Urban planning like on your pick can work in a countries with hotter climate. Compacting people into one "tower" ease the process of heating the building space a lot. Making it significantly cheaper too.

File: BN-800.png (140KB, 1277x830px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 1277x830px

>>31795705
>No current design is.
Welp, no current US desigh. Because they (probably) do not exist. After fucks up with naval reactors on K-27 (really bad), and Alfa-class (7 extremely complicated boats, 20 years of service, only 1 accident), they created BN-600 and BN-800 reactors. Last one is commercial.
>Russian reactors are safer then US reactors is just wrong
Soviet 1st gen reactors were bad. A lot of power, light construction. They created most of accidents in statistics. Today's Russian reactors are world's most advanced (and cost-effective).
>>31796432
>what is the point
Point is to not spend money for heating atmosphere. (And in case of nuclear war crushed building should not collide with each other and this is not a joke)

>>31796337
>average

keyword here.

...You acoustic nigger

>>31796891
There is a difference between reactors on vessels and reactors for powering citys and whatnot.

The bn-800 is based on the bn-600 and requires acres of support.

Meanwhile the A1B fits on a ship, and two does 3/4 the power of the bn-800.

Calling it the "most advanced" is a misnomer.

>>31796800
Where is my goddamn central heating then? I live in Manhattan.

File: image.jpg (349KB, 677x677px) Image search: [Google]

349KB, 677x677px

>>31793676
Hahaha that's awesome

>>31796717
Yes, but for what is it used exactly?

>>31794754

"Is that thing burning coal? Is it steam powered?"
Typical questions by non diesel idiots.

>>31796532
They both can carry about 40.
>>31796542
And I don't know why the fuck you are comparing some obsolete mission layout to the actual ship's capacity. Its hangar can fit 16 MiG-29, 8 Su-33 and 8 Ka-27. 12 fighters can be carried on the deck with another 2 on launch positions. That gives a total of 38 fixed wing aircraft and 8 helicopters.
>>31796564
>You can do far more with less.
You can do even more with more. And it does not explain its size relative to the size of its airwing and the complete absence of armament.
>The question should actually be how many F-35s could the Kuznetsov support vs QE
That's a good question. The answer is about the amount they are designed to carry. I'm gonna make a wild guess and bet that these two figures are somehow related.
>Not really, given they've had to remove the Granits
No one has ever removed Granits from it. Where do you even get this shit from? Expanding its hangar at the expense of Granit missile tubes would require a complete change of the entire frontal internal structure.

File: 1429679439218.jpg (11KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 640x360px

at least she is moving without the help of her tug Altay

>>31794776

the Alfa was cool(but not very useful overall) but its reactors weren't great

they couldn't even be shutdown or refueled because the coolant would harden and brick the reactor(this happen to K-64 and K-123)


having 1/3 of a single submarine class suffer boat destroying reactor accidents doesn't say much for soviet engineering

>>31798687
>2 on launch positions
>at all times

And to a lesser extent
>using the deck as storage for airframes

Spot the retard.

I mean, the nimtiz can carry over 100 F-18s in such a fashion, does not mean it ever happens.

>>31796389
>But that's wrong, all that can be done by Ospreys.
If we had any.

>>31793676
>"comrade Stepanov, what do you think you are doing?"
>"Comrade commissar, captain tell "find leak", Vasily do."
>"Do you have no idea how dangerous that is?"
>"Party say Soviet reaktor always safe, Vasily believe, if Vasily not believe Vasily go to Siberia"
>"Point taken, carry on then!"

>>31794632
The Bush was the 10th Nimitz to get built, at that point you know how to get manufacturing costs down.

If you compare the QE to the first ships of the Ford class (CV78 at $12.9B and CV79 at $11.5B) it becomes much more reasonable.

File: 1434517755186.jpg (86KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 640x480px

>>31799008
They can carry them on deck, because it was designed with shit conditions and lack of proper maintenance in mind.

>>31793641
What the fuck were Russia thinking, sending that rusty piece of shit destroyer out to intercept the HMS Queen Elizabeth?

>>31799794
>Send trash to meet trash
Whats the problem here?

>>31799726
>ignoreing the full retard part

Yes, they *can*. Does not mean they do.

File: 1449577386613.png (179KB, 2300x1600px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 2300x1600px

>>31799853
Trash fusion.

>>31799870
What the fuck is this cancer you present to me?

File: 1464563804535.jpg (51KB, 800x573px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 800x573px

>>31799904
British 1970s carrier design, intended to replace Ark Royal (the proper one in pic related, not the harrier carrier) but cancelled for budget reasons.

And thus Britain was condemned to the ramps forevermore. (I just posted the picture as replies without images are statistically 55% less popular than the leading brand.)

File: HMS-Queen-Elizabeth-deck-plan.jpg (190KB, 1274x870px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 1274x870px

>>31798687
>You can do even more with more. And it does not explain its size relative to the size of its airwing and the complete absence of armament.

It's already been explained numbnuts, that space or tonnage is allocated to other things. What those things, we just don't know.

>That's a good question. The answer is about the amount they are designed to carry. I'm gonna make a wild guess and bet that these two figures are somehow related.

Wonderful sarcasm and presenting a total lack of understanding reality vs theoretical. Followed by also not understanding that different aircraft require different levels of support.

>No one has ever removed Granits from it. Where do you even get this shit from? Expanding its hangar at the expense of Granit missile tubes would require a complete change of the entire frontal internal structure.

>The Kuznetsov was due to enter the dry dock in Sevmash in 2012, for an upgrade that would take five years, in which its 3M45 P-700 Granit (SS-N-19 Shipwreck) anti-ship cruise-missile launchers would be removed, clearing more hangar space for fixed wing aircraft.

http://defense-update.com/20161016_kuznetsov.html

>>31799960
I think that refit kept getting pushed back. It's "major" refit is supposed to happen after this deployment I believe. They'll probably remove the Granits then, but I think they still have them as of now.

>>31799794

That image is an old image from a different time that Kuznetsov went through the English Channel, that class has been retired.

>>31796538
>economy is smaller than Canada's
And military far more impressive. (Not that it's hard to best Canada.)

>>31793658

wind is blowing faster than the ship is sailing

>welcome to physics

>>31799987
Because Canada doesn't try.

>>31799967

Now or then is besides the point. They've clearly decided that the space it takes up isn't worth keeping.

>>31799995
And will never try. Because they're Canada.

Not even a slavaboo. My position on Russian equipment is "Not particularity great, overhyped, but looks cool and stimulates the imagination" which as a civilian in a pacifist non-country is far more important than actual combat capability with something that isn't as cool looking but far more effective.

t-b-h I think that's probably the root of slavabooism for westerners, seeing how cool Russian shit is and not wanted to accept that the primary utility is to pour more smoke into Europe than a Dutch coffee shop.

File: 1413723348403.webm (2MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x720px

>>31799868
If they know that they shouldn't do it, doesn't mean that they not gonna do it.
There's saying "Umom Rossiu ne ponyat", idk how it's in English, but it describes how some things work in Russia

>>31799960
>clearing more hangar space for fixed wing aircraft.
Even if they do end up removing the Granits, its will not increase hangar size (if the Chinese didn't why would the Russians), its simply to difficult.
If Kuznetsov does go in for a refit it will be like Ustinovs: electronics, crew quarters, basic weapon upgrades, 'new' radars, machinery overhaul, coat of paint. To change the internal structure would be a 10+ year refit judging by Sevmash past standards.

>>31800061
That does not mean theoretical max is a relevent metric.

>>31800078
>Even if they do end up removing the Granits, its will not increase hangar size
Oh it will, and pretty significantly.
>(if the Chinese didn't why would the Russians),
Is that even an argument?
>its simply to difficult.
No, its not. If you remove the missile bay and stuff around it anyway you can easily relocate three command posts between the hangar bay and the missile bay and horay you have 1/3 larger hangar.

>>31800078

I'm simply stating on what's been reported and I'll take the reports over your own word.

>>31793697
It's powered by Putin's hopes and tears

File: rZOaHhx.png (56KB, 192x154px)

56KB, 192x154px

>>31800146
>what's been reported
You;ll be waiting on those catapults and nuclear conversion for some time then.

>>31798490

Storage of; marine fuel, aviation fuel, ordnance, engineering supplies and food.

Automation of ordnance handling. robotic system goes through the decks of the ship to carry supplies to where they are needed, the magazine is usually unmanned.

Redundant systems to make the ship resistant to localised damage and malfunctions. For example distributed electricity generation throughout the ship (to power the ship and its electric propulsion), and two control towers.

Routes through the ship are widened where necessary to make rapid scrambling of jets, or helicopter embarkation of an entire Royal Marine company as fast as possible.

Hangars are very large and spacious to accommodate jets without folded wings and helicopters without folded blades.

Lots of room for growth and upgrades. The planned service life of the carriers is ~50 years. Room for growth over this length of time is essential. Possibilities include short range air and AShM defence missiles, and anti-torpedo hard-kill defence.

Quality of life for crew. Living space and facilities for long deployment. Fresh water generation and medical facilities can support other ships / land deployment.

>>31793801
>operational

okay

>>31794366
Can't afford or no clue how?

>>31800184
>Lots of room for growth and upgrades
>Built for but not with bullshit

Fuck, have the type 45s even got their harpoons yet? Unless the Tories decide to up the defense budget (because I dont see labour doing anything like that), I find it hard to think they will upgrade the carriers when they should or even at all if they can get away with it.

>>31800225
At least with the QE, it was a choice of have one carrier with cats, or two with ramps

>>31794754
Cold start

>>31800251

First, if you're conflating "fitted for, but not with" as "growth margin" you're retarded.

The four Type 45s who were due to receive Harpoon have all been fitted, however the Type 45s don't need harpoons as they're primary role is carrier AAW/BMD defence.

>>31800225
Reminder it was the British that invented
> The Carrier itself
> The steam catapult
> The STOVL
> The Skiramp
> The HMWHS (although unrelated to this discussion)
So in the Royal Navy, ignorance is no excuse for not having a nice flattop with cats!

>>31796523
I'll admit that the crew of that smoke spewing, backward spinning top of an"aircraft carrier" has balls. What a piece of shit that thing is.

Shamelessly stolen from another forum:

https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/russia’s-flagship-in-‘innocent-passage’-through-the-channel.259548/page-8#post-7512577

>Anyway, the ship was a pile of junk. They'd freshly painted it for our benefit, but anything that rotated was also painted, showing that nothing moved. Grease nipples were painted over etc.

>Some of the lighting below decks was provided by strings of bulbs running off generators, i.e fucked electrics.

>Frankly the whole thing stank of poverty and neglect. Our mighty batch 2 T42 (Exeter) seemed state of the art in comparison, despite being 25 plus years old.

TL;dr Commie peasants aren't anything to be scared off.

>>31800251

>Fuck, have the type 45s even got their harpoons yet?

Some do, they were cannibalised from the retiring Type-22 frigates, so it's reasonably cheap. I'm more worried about them ever getting proper strike length VLS.

> I find it hard to think they will upgrade the carriers when they should or even at all if they can get away with it.

Most will get refits over their life, and upgrades will be budgeted as part of their refits. QE will probably get a refit in the early to mid 2020s. Proper upgrades won't happen soon, but will happen at some point when it is having an overhaul anyway.

>>31800356
>brits upset that they don't have a carrier

>>31800366
>QE will probably get a refit in the early to mid 2020s.
She's not due to for her first assignment until 2020, any refit would be around 2035.

>>31800376
>Brits upset our carriers will be fitted for but not with whizz-bang-fly-highs due to American delays

>>31800356
Hello fello arrsehole !

File: 140618093314-08-iconic-vietnam-war-restricted-horizontal-large-gallery.jpg (145KB, 980x552px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 980x552px

>>31800356
Who won again?
I'm sorry but I have terrible memory of who won the conflict in vietnam.

>>31800356
>https://www.arrse.co.uk
Surely it is a good place to have information on the russian carrier. Those guys visit it every week and go below decks right inbetween first and second cup of tea.

>>31800415
We all know that was a war lost by politics.

Had the gloves been off and the NVA been prevented from acquiring SAMs I'm sure things would have gone differently.
Then again as we've seen in Afghanistan, war mongering peasants will always be war mongering peasants.

>>31800366
>I'm more worried about them ever getting proper strike length VLS.

I want the VLS space, but not for TacToms. We're fair better off using that space for Aster 15/30/CAMM-Quad

>QE will probably get a refit in the early to mid 2020s

Not a refit, but just upgrades and maintenance. Refit implies major work.

>>31800429
More like they down for some fresh air

>>31800429
My post was referring to the general state of the Russian navy, coming from a first hand account.

Given the Admiral Kuznetsov is accompanied by an ocean going tug and belches black smoke, I doubt it's a beacon of precision engineering and fastidious maintenance.

>>31799995
This.. Canada spends 0.97% GDP on military.

Romania and the UK spend ~2%

USA is 4%+


If Canada went "AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH MAPLELAND!!!" and bumped it to just 2%, the RCN would have it's nukes & catapult carriers back.

>>31800504
>coming from a first hand account.
Sure.
>Given the Admiral Kuznetsov is accompanied by an ocean going tug
Which accompanies every russian and soviet fleet since forever. Its like saying all americans are fat because CBG is always accompanied with a supply ship.
>and belches black smoke
Yet it got from Severomorsk to Gibraltar with a nice 12 knots average. Belching or not it works.

>>31796891
>(And in case of nuclear war crushed building should not collide with each other and this is not a joke)
What a complete waste of time and space.

>>31800530
Not quite. If they bumped it up that much they'd be spending about as much as Germany or Worst Korea. Still better then what they've got.

>>31800537
...Isn't that incredibly slow?

>>31800530
**** the RCAF would have its nukes and the RCN would have its catapult carriers back.

>>31800559
14 average is considered fine in USN. Also they spent some time in the north sea playing with their planes and went through traffic in the Channel and Gibraltar.

>>31800569
Built by who, exactly? Canada's shipbuilding industry rotted away years ago.

>>31800559
No, thats faster than most laden commercial ships.

Also remember its in convoy with a tugboat, don't want to outpace the little guy.

>>31796127
Radar taped to the bottom of a helicopter doesn't count.

>>31800415
>I'm sorry but I have terrible memory of who won the conflict in vietnam.
Not the people of Vietnam, that's for sure.

>>31800579
Buy a pair of Nimitz as the USN mothballs them?

Hire USA shipyards to build them?

Hire South Korea to build them if we want it cheap but will take the chance of random fires.

>>31800576
>14 is considered fine
Don't Americans here give the Brits shit about QE "only" making 25kts?

>>31800611
And where is canada going to find 5000 sailors for each Nimitz, not to mention the extra security for her when she is in a port or the facilities to support a nuclear carrier.

> A floating nuclear reactor is for life, not just for christmas

>>31800591
The rescue tug (wouldn't exactly call it a 'little guy') makes 18knts. The supply ship Sergey Osipov makes 16knts, is probably more of a limiting factor.

>>31800616
Thats average speed in peacetime when you are not in a terrible hurry. Obviously CBG can go much, much faster than 14 average if it needs to.

>>31800611
Buying elderly USN castoffs is a losing proposition, just on maintenance costs.

And even if you do have the hulls, is there a port in Canada that can actually handle them?

>>31800616
Average vs maximum, and 25kts max is slow for a carrier.

>>31800470

>I want the VLS space, but not for TacToms.

Right, more VLS in general is desirable, but a couple of blocks of A-70 VLS would give it the flexibility of a lot more Aster-30 or cruise missiles depending on what it is being asked to do. Though more A-50 is much better than nothing.

>Not a refit, but just upgrades and maintenance. Refit implies major work.

Who knows, something necessitating major work, like the Type-45 powerplant issues may crop up. Though yes, I probably used the wrong word. I simple meant that upgrades will be budgeted for times when the carrier is docked for work anyway.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/25/nato-fears-russian-battle-group-may-be-used-for-indiscriminate-t/
>Spain is facing international anger as it apparently prepares to refuel a flotilla of Russian warships due to step up strikes against the beleaguered city of Aleppo

This is just bullshit. Countries like Estonia pray on NATO, because Russians can invade them in a second.
And in the same time other NATO members assisting to aggressors and war criminals.
Good alliance you have here, it's totally worth 1,5% of GDP.

>>31800666
>1.5%
It's supposed to be 2%

>>31800666
>>Spain is facing international anger as it apparently prepares to refuel a flotilla of Russian warships due to step up strikes against the beleaguered city of Aleppo
Kek.
>Spain helps fight Al Qaeda
>HATO shits outraged

>>31800666
Its business, m8, dont be so butthurt.

>>31800682
Russia are bombing kurds, hospitals and civilians, not ISIS or AQ.

>>31800537
>First hand

That poster is genuine, well known throughout the site and doesn't need to bullshit.

Anyone interested in tales of drinking, whoring and gash tattooes in the Royal Navy should read his thead here:

https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/pull-up-a-bollard-memoirs-of-a-matelot.198097/

Alright, I'll get my cock out of his arse now.

>>31800666
Spaniards is permanently butthurt about Gibraltar. So they never wasting opportunity to piss off UK.
Park Russian junk on the opposite side from Gibraltar seems to be good way to do it.

>>31800666

Fuck you, we were tricked into NATO.

>>31800712
You forgot pet shops. And yes, they just captured ISIS capital by accident.

>>31800715
>That poster is genuine
Hes as genuine as i am.

File: angry_pepe.jpg (40KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 900x900px

FUCK YOU ALL FAGGOTS IM SLAV AND I DONT ASSOCIATE WITH THESE FUCKING DRUNKEN ASS RUSSIAN FUCKING RETARDED ASSWIPES.

>>31800666

These Ceuta and Melilla cities aren't going to pay themselves.

>>31800750
Polan, plz.

>>31800738
Sergey pls go

>>31800666
Franco must be rolling in his grave.

>>31794559
His is a very great biography to read.

File: swordfish-22.jpg (50KB, 600x416px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 600x416px

>>31800342
Oh yeah they made carriers what they are today, there is no denying that. It's just a shame that they are too focused on paying for Mohammad's house and little Jill's mulatto children to keep their old standards.

>>31800738
You're going to have to source that claim, ivan.

>>31800798
What claim?

>>31800804
That russia have captured raqqa, the isis capital.

>>31800810
Shit, my brain is full of fuck. I somehow thought Palmyra was their capital.
Anyway, they bomb AQ and ISIS on regular basis. And i am not an ivan or sergey, i am not russian.

>>31800738
>Genuine

I doubt he'd be able to lie about his career for several years without being outed by another member.

An extract from the thread:

>A few days later some great news arrived, we were to have an unexpected stop in Montevideo. Having watched the battle of the river plate I knew all about Montyvid and felt really chuffed to be going. We only had Cinderella leave but it was better than nothing. I made the most of my few hours ashore by eating a steak the size of toilet seat, buying a cowboy hat and banging two whores, both of whom took it up the ricker, a first for me.

File: 639860.jpg (37KB, 297x322px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 297x322px

>>31800856

>>31800786
The old standards died in 1966 (ironically since the English jerk off over 1966 all the time) with the defence cuts from their liberal but popular labour government.
It was then that the plans to match the nimitz class was scrapped in favour of nothing and eventually the three invincible class "carriers".

What we see now with Queen Elizabeth class is merely the UK going back and correcting a mistake made 50 years ago.
Hopefully they will catch up in the next 50.

>>31793801
>Ramp being added with ductape and glue
[citation needed]

>>31800856
>I doubt he'd be able to lie about his career for several years without being outed by another member.
Maybe he is, maybe he is not. Ive seen too much outright bullshit to believe people who just post stories.

>>31796906
Exactly, its got a great chance of being even less than 12. Meanwhile any military ship is going to traveling at 30 knots minimum, military ships burn the full way, 1.7 gs the entire trip. Delta V is less important than speed in military matters you know.

>>31794749
>Implying that slavs had central heating in poor ass communist countries.

>>31800905
>Exactly, its got a great chance of being even less than 12.
Or it has an exactly the same chance of being bigger than 12, retard.

>>31793801
>Liaoning and Admiral 65,000 tonnes
yea, no, not even close. Try 45-50.
>Queen Elizabeth, 65,000 tonnes
Yea, no. Even using British measurements she is 70,000 and using the American system she is almost 80k.

As for length the russian/chinese carriers are around 850ft at the water.

>>31800936
fairly certain Soviets would have used the coolant water as a form of central heating had they had the budged for all that plumbing...

>>31800988
>Yea, no

Please don't.

File: q9Hczer4j2U.jpg (165KB, 1098x777px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 1098x777px

>>31800936
>poor ass communist countries.
Dude, all poor ass (implying we're talking about not about USSR) communist countries are in South.

>>31800882
>It was then that the plans to match the nimitz class was scrapped
They never planned to match the Nimitz. CVA-01 was barely half the size.

>>31800882
>Hopefully they will catch up in the next 50.
Go fuck yourself.

>>31797284
>new york

>>31800666
This is pretty disturbing. Bulgaria, for example, completely close its airspace to russians after they start bombing in Syria. Solidarity is a key part of NATO and EU.
Russia want us to fall apart. Spain is clearly playing for Russia here.

>>31800984
Then only half the smoke would be going in the wrong direction.

File: 121.png (331KB, 600x1081px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 600x1081px

>>31801283

File: BattleOfMidway.jpg (43KB, 575x333px)

43KB, 575x333px

>>31800342
But it was the US and Japanese that made them what they are today. And it was the US that put nukes into carriers first, so I wouldn't be surprised if the British couldn't figure out how to combine nukes and catapults.

>>31800616
>>31800645

QE can do 32 knots, it's "25+", but the Assembly Director has confirmed 32.

>>31801306
You do know that the British handed over every technological advancement they had made to the US during WW2 as part of the lend lease program ?

File: 14771658992503.jpg (74KB, 879x545px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 879x545px

>>31799008
>using the deck as storage for airframes
>Spot the retard.
You realize this is how it is counted, right? That "90 fixed wing and helicopters" of Nimitz includes using deck as storage? Hell, even 70 is pushing it to the extent that it can either launch or receive aircraft, not both. Don't count 2 on launch positions on Kuznetsov and you will still still end up with 36 fighters and a relatively clear deck that can both launch and receive aircraft. In fact, if you think "40 aircraft" of either Kuznetsov and QE does not include storing some on the deck, you are the retard here.
>>31799960
>that space or tonnage is allocated to other things. What those things, we just don't know
It was clear right away from its sheer size relative to the amount of aircraft it carries and a complete lack or attack and defense armament. The question is what are those things that were so important, both aircraft capacity and armament fell victims of it?
>Wonderful sarcasm and presenting a total lack of understanding reality vs theoretical.
Mist be the reason I pointed out the amount of aircraft it operationally carries or carried doesn't represent the actual operational capacity just a couple of lines above.
>Followed by also not understanding that different aircraft require different levels of support.
Of course you can enlighten me on the subject of space consumption differences between supporting Su-33/MiG-29K and Ka-27 as opposed to supporting F-35B and Merlin?
>The Kuznetsov was due to enter the dry dock in Sevmash in 2012
>was due to
Not only it did not, but the information about Granit removal for more hangar space was along the lines of installing catapults and nuclear propulsion. Although there are 3 (three) command posts between Granit tubes and the hangar, so this is about the same level of upgrade as stuffing it with reactor and catapults.
>>31800028
"They've clearly decided" is a bit too bold for an upgrade that keeps getting pushed back.

File: Enterprise_(April_1939).jpg (3MB, 2933x1973px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2933x1973px

>>31801332
Yes, but like I just fucking said, the US and Japanese made the carriers popular because they showed the striking capability of the carrier.

>people feeding the nitpicking vatnik
>again
Will you faggots quit feeding it? You're not proving anything other than your own autism. Anyone worth talking to already knows Russia's shit at everything.

>>31801387
>they showed the striking capability of the carrier.
That was the Brits again, Raid on Taranto, one full year before Pearl Habor.

File: ka-52k & kh-35 (2).jpg (2MB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1600x1067px

>>31800184
So what you are saying is that QE is essentially as much hybrid as Kuznetsov, only that its internal space and displacement is consumed by amphibious assets instead of armament? Well, it sort of makes sense.
>helicopters without folded blades
This is outright retarded. why.jpg

>>31800251
>At least with the QE, it was a choice
It was a choice with Kuznetsov too, the initial project was CATOBAR.

>>31801370
>It was clear right away from its sheer size relative to the amount of aircraft it carries and a complete lack or attack and defense armament. The question is what are those things that were so important, both aircraft capacity and armament fell victims of it?

It's already been explained it. Repeating it does nothing to further the argument.

>Mist be the reason I pointed out the amount of aircraft it operationally carries or carried doesn't represent the actual operational capacity just a couple of lines above.

You we're been facetious, don't be so disingenuous.

>Of course you can enlighten me on the subject of space consumption differences between supporting Su-33/MiG-29K and Ka-27 as opposed to supporting F-35B and Merlin?

It's a self-demonstrating point. There's clearly a difference between the carriers.

>Not only it did not, but the information about Granit removal for more hangar space was along the lines of installing catapults and nuclear propulsion. Although there are 3 (three) command posts between Granit tubes and the hangar, so this is about the same level of upgrade as stuffing it with reactor and catapults.
>They've clearly decided" is a bit too bold for an upgrade that keeps getting pushed back.

Again, that doesn't dispute the point that they've deceived to remove them. Unless, you're suggesting that the upgrades won't happen because underfunding?

Also proofs?

>>31801410

No, because I'm a petty autist who enjoys arguing for the sake of arguing.

File: Enterprise_(CV-6)_in_Puget_Sound,_September_1945.jpg (3MB, 3157x2337px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3157x2337px

>>31801445
>Several raids
vs
>Massive battles, numerous raids and night raids

>>31800666
>Spain is facing international anger as it apparently prepares to refuel a flotilla of Russian warships
Don't the get that like every time Russian ships pass Gibraltar? Do they even care about this "international anger"? It's either deja vu or I've read the exact same thing a couple of years ago.

>>31801534
>Massive battles, numerous raids
Yes, that is a good description of the RN FAA in the Mediterranean.
>and night raids
Again, Brtis did it first, and most reliably.

File: US_fleet_at_Majuro_Atoll_1944.jpg (3MB, 2957x1995px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2957x1995px

>>31801609
>Doing it first
>Doing it over and over and over again
By 1945 the Americans had surpassed the British navy in almost every regard (German submarines were rough to the British).

File: IMG_0071.jpg (190KB, 1169x867px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 1169x867px

>>31801637
>Doing it first then doing it over and over again
>Doing it over and over and over again

>By 1945 the Americans had surpassed the British navy in almost every regard
Size, mainly.

The Brits pioneered carrier warfare, deal with it.

>>31801490
>It's already been explained
It was explained after the post I was answering to.
>It's a self-demonstrating point
It isn't for me. What, Merlins require a special separate polishing deck? Or do F-35B fly on Earl Grey and hence require twice the fuel storage?
>Unless, you're suggesting that the upgrades won't happen because underfunding?
I'm suggesting that the upgrade you are talking about had installing catapults and nuclear propulsion on Kuznetsov along the lines, so take it with a grain of salt.
>Also proofs?
Assuming I understood you right:
>First of all, the defective propulsion unit comprising steam turbines and turbo-pressurized boilers will be replaced either with a gas-turbine or nuclear propulsion unit.
>The ship's 3M45 P-700 Granit (SS-N-19 Shipwreck) anti-ship cruise-missile launchers will be dismantled, and her internal layout changed. Consequently, the hangar area will be expanded to 4,500-5,000 sq. m. for storing additional fixed-wing aircraft.
>The carrier will also receive aircraft catapults, a logical option. Considering the fact that her ski-jump will remain intact, one or two catapults can be located on the angled flight deck.
https://sputniknews.com/analysis/20100406158454665/

File: f0f8dde694b589142f93f7bffab64403.jpg (200KB, 1800x1190px)

200KB, 1800x1190px

>>31801694
>The Brits pioneered carrier warfare, deal with it.
The british did no Carrier - Carrier battles the British did few Carrier - Battleship battles, most of their raids were against the Italians or the Kriegsmarine which had terrible anti-air armarment. After Task Force Z was caught with their dicks in their hands the british laid back and let the US win the naval war... Deal with it.

>>31801756
>>31801756
Why do you seem to be personally invested in this?
The carrier is a British invention just like the tank, we're not discussing anything else.
Simmer down

>>31801756
>The british did no Carrier - Carrier battles the British did few Carrier

is this even anglish

>>31801996
Yes but just because they invented it doesn't mean nobody else can be experts with said invention, like the German and Russian revisions to the tank or the American revisions and enhancements to the carrier.

>>31802020
What the fuck are you talking about?
Nobody is saying the perfected carrier warfare you dick.
Scroll up the chain and we're talking about ignorance in catapults.

There is no way the British don't know the value of cats since they invented the things.

Jesus stop with role playing your countries military, this isn't /pol/

File: 37.jpg (38KB, 604x404px)

38KB, 604x404px

>>31802049
>>31802020
>>31801996
>>31801756
>>31801694
>>31801637
>>31801609
>>31801534
>>31801445
>>31801387
>>31801332
>>31801306
>>31800342
???
have you guys lost the plot

>>31796333
Those commie hives are cozy as fuck dude

>>31801996
>The carrier is a British invention

The french invented the concept of the flat decked carrier. The british made the first one but it was a conversion, the japanese built the first one from the ground up. The first aircraft takeoff from and landing onto a ship was by the US

The main three naval powers all equally contributed to the carrier in different ways, though it was a french invention.

The british do have the distinction of the first landing on a moving ship, as well as the first landing of a jet aircraft onto a carrier.

Calling the carrier a 'british invention' is a little much though.

>>31802154
Didn't the US preform the first simulated dive bomb attack in the late 20s?

>>31799407
kekd

>>31801741
>It isn't for me. What, Merlins require a special separate polishing deck? Or do F-35B fly on Earl Grey and hence require twice the fuel storage?

Epic appeal to ridicule dude.

How are brit carriers suppose to work if they dont have AWACS ?
They are allowed out only when operating with dady ?

>>31802373

>How are brit carriers suppose to work if they dont have AWACS ?

With US carriers nearby.

>>31802373

They do.

AEW is done by helicopters.

>>31802440
The F-35 has also recently shown the capability to direct OTH SM-6 shots. It may have similar capability with Aster 30.

>>31802294
Epic continuous evading of giving a direct answer, dude.

>>31794776
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Seawolf_(SSN-575)

Literally the second US nuclear submarine ever. And it existed before the first Soviet nuclear submarine, period. The US realized quickly there was no promise in liquid metal reactors.

File: F35BRIEFRP.png (150KB, 775x579px)

150KB, 775x579px

>>31802508

Exactly.

>>31802609

You've already had your answer.

>>31793676
Nuclear Engineering is very different in Russia.

>>31802631
Sweet. A century live, a century learn

File: vatnik.jpg (9KB, 199x253px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 199x253px

>>31794559

>though hardship to the stars

Pic Related

>>31799992
Fuck if they can't even make a ship go faster then the wind why don't they just go back to sailing ships?

>>31802980
Are you saying a powered vessel is pointless if it can't break the speed of occasional wind? So you're saying all modes of transportation should be able to exceed speeds of 176 km/h..? Or 400+ if we're being absolute?
You do understand that a sailing ship has way more downsides than just it's speed, which by the way does not equal wind speed... Right?

>>31803068
I'm saying a Slav engineered powered vessel can break the speed of the occasional wind

File: USSR_T-62_rocket-power.gif (2MB, 240x171px)

2MB, 240x171px

>>31803068
>all modes of transportation should be able to exceed speeds of 176 km/h..?
Yes.
Yes they should.

>>31802736
It doesn't have anything to do with the answer I got. You are specifically claiming that there are space consumption differences between supporting Su-33/MiG-29K and Ka-27 as opposed to supporting F-35B and Merlin. I wonder what are these.

>>31803341
see
>>31800184

I couldn't possible know, likely very few know. However, it is certainly reasonable to say they aren't the same.

File: le laughing bun.png (294KB, 392x352px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 392x352px

> The carrier is accompanied by an ocean-going tugboat as it is plagued by technical problems.[45]

Vatniks BTFO

>>31793658
even if you didn't ask such an autistic question, navigating large vessels can be easier in reverse.
>>t. Harbor Master/200 Tonne Capt.

>>31794754
it's called diesel you dumb shit

>>31800061
>Umom Rossiu ne ponyat
Does this directly translate as "Mind can't understand Russia" (Perhaps "Russia cannot be understood with the mind alone") or similar? That's what I got when googling it, and while I don't really understand the wikipedia article it appears in, it would seem a good description of... err.. Russia.

>>31800905
>Exactly, its got a great chance of being even less than 12.
Anon. Watch Op's pic.
You never saw the sea didn't you ?
This isn't the kind of sea you get with a 12 knots wind...

>Meanwhile any military ship is going to traveling at 30 knots minimum
No it wont. Actually 30 knots is pretty much the top speed of many many first rank ships.

>>31801283
>Then only half the smoke would be going in the wrong direction.
Ok I got trolled hard.
Grats anon.

>>31796278
Amerifag 'ere.
I've got central heating, but when the wind isn't too bad, and the temp isn't colder than Stalin's Ballsack, we run a fireplace. Thing... is so massive for such a small house.

>>31796278
No, central heating has been the standard in new construction for decades, at least in areas with a temperate climate or colder.

>>31796333
sprawl hasn't been a good thing since the 1950s.

>>31794632
It's 3B bongs for each of them you fucking mouthbreather.

>>31796389
AEW V-22's are a pipe dream, Helicopter AEW already won the competition how fucking sad

what the fuck were the British thinking, catobar or nothing pls

File: 1476894880815.jpg (380KB, 1403x992px)

380KB, 1403x992px

>>31802928
post more filthy russian mattress

>>31801544

Spain routinely lets the Russian Navy dock in Ceuta and Melilla. Apparently, Russian sailors are quite good tourists. Good for the economy.

>>31805466
>mattress

>>31800591
No 18 knots is average for commercial shipping. And that's down from 22 a decade ago.

File: fatnik.jpg (52KB, 575x421px)

52KB, 575x421px

>>31805466

>>31798615
>>31800255
>>31803890
Vatniks, please...

File: russian navy.webm (3MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x360px

IN THE NAVY

File: american navy.png (2MB, 1280x855px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x855px

>>31807535
IN THE NAVY

>>31807543
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_36_SRBOC

>>31807535
>>31807543
Shit happens

>>31807551
https://news.usni.org/2015/07/22/destroyer-uss-the-sullivans-damaged-after-missile-explodes-after-launch-no-injuries-reported
I bet CNN didn't report that.

>>31807592
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/23/politics/uss-the-sullivans-missile-explosion/index.html

>>31796278
Everyone here in Bongland has central heating by now unless you're talking about holiday homes or luddites

>>31800225
We can't afford two catobar carriers with the current defence budget, but we can afford (and we are getting) two ramp carriers. It's less of a poverty ramp and more of a Buy One Get One Free ramp

>>31793801
>build in a free country
>Britain
Choose one

>>31803175
Them rockets appear to do they little in propelling that tank forward.

>>31793641
It's old Anon. And I thought it was more of a maintainence issue that slavs suck at.

Some things I learned about the Russian carrier.

1) The heaters don't work. The crew has to bring their own.
2) The ventilators dont work
3) 60% of the cabins dont have water
4) over half of the toilets don't work
5) The crew sucks.

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

>>31808702
Nice 1999 flashback.
http://igor113.livejournal.com/27473.html

>>31796538
Even Slavs hate the cold.

File: russian_bridge.jpg (184KB, 933x700px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 933x700px

>>31808741
The fabric cover of the seats is killing me, where is the carpet on the wall?

>>31808741
So you have evidence that those have been corrected?
No?

>>31808770
Considering it udnerwent 5 repairs since then i have no reason to believe they were not.

>>31808778
So all you have is hope, and what you would like to believe.

Got it.

>>31807535
It's no different than turret explosions.

>>31808791
Exactly like you. I have facts on my side, though.

File: SSGNinsiderest.jpg (60KB, 650x435px)

60KB, 650x435px

>>31808762
>where is the carpet on the wall
The carpet is abstract.

>>31808835
No, you don't.
I have facts presented that show its a piece of shit.
Do you have anything, anything at all, that shows that the issues shown have been repaired?
No?

Well then....

>>31808899
It was in Severomorsk. Ten days later it is in Mediterranean. Thats 12 knots average without counting in traffic and time spent training in the north sea. 14 knots cruise is considered ok in USN. Any more questions?

>>31793676
And this is why my nuclear engineering degree was 90% "MAKE IT FUCKING SAFE, DICKHEAD."

>>31808909
Yeah.
What does that have to do with the lack of plumbing, ventilation, heating, toilets?

I'll wait.

>>31808926
Why not? Fixing propulsion while not having a drydock the ship can fit in is a much more difficult task than fix the fucking plumbing.

>>31808956
Why not? Installing adequate ventilation and plumbing while the ship is being built is a much easier task than fixing it a decade later.

See how assuming things that you have no evidence of can be silly?

>>31808956
For example, the ship was overhauled in 1998.
You would think that they would have fixed these issues then.

But they didn't.

>>31808979
Thats what you do. My points: underwent five repairs, cruises fine. Your points: it was this way 17 years ago, therefore it remained the same.

>>31808994
Maybe they were. That stuff was posted in 1999, does not mean author was on the ship in 1999. And most likely he was not, the ship went to sea several times in the 90's, and the autor of the original post mentioned flooded stern compartments. Ships do not and cant go to sea with flooded compartments.

>>31808999
And while they had a major overhaul in 98 and didnt fix it, you are assuming that they did fix it later?
I have more evidence that they didnt fix it than you do that they did.
Simply because they had a chance to fix it already during an overhaul and they didnt.

>>31809025
>Maybe
Thats all you have.
Maybe.


I'll let you try again.

Provide one thing, anything, that shows those issues were fixed.
Other than your hopes, dreams, maybes and assumptions.

>>31809025
>>31808999
Thats the sound of you frantically googling.

>>31809074
Googling what? You dont have anything, i have two valid points. Go away or bring more arguments.

>>31808999
>My points: underwent five repairs

Maybe you should read something about the changing fire supression system in cargo bay on Polnocny-B vessels. It was changed and repaired four times, one boat almost burned down during failed tests, three people killed by bromotrifluoromethane fumes, costs of all this farce exceeded the cost of extra vessel and in the end, after five years and four repairs they returned to original sprinkler and foam system...

In Russian navy very often "repaired" != "working any better"

>>31809093
>Maybe you should read something about the changing fire supression system in cargo bay on Polnocny-B vessels.
When did it happen and how is that related?

>>31809080
>You dont have anything,
I have a first had description of the crapiness of the ship.

I have proof that the ship has undergone repair before without the issues being fixed.

> i have two valid points.
You have "hope" that the issues were fixed by now.
You have "maybe" the timing on the first hand account is incorrect.
You have "Assuming" that issues were fixed.

You have nothing.

>Go away or bring more arguments.
How about you go away until you bring your first factual argument.

>>31809118
>I have a first had description of the crapiness of the ship.
17 years ago.
>I have proof that the ship has undergone repair before without the issues being fixed.
No you dont, time that guy was on the ship is not specified.
>You have "hope" that the issues were fixed by now.
No, but its logical to fix them.
>You have "maybe" the timing on the first hand account is incorrect.
Its not maybe, its a fact. Russian sailors did not have smartphones with internet in 1999, and there is definitely no internet on Kuznetsov. He most definitely was not on Kuznetsov when he posted it.
>You have "Assuming" that issues were fixed.
Considering other things he mentioned a shitton of issues were fixed.

>How about you go away until you bring your first factual argument.
Your only argument is that it was that way 17 years ago. Which is not even an argument.

>>31809142
>17 years ago.
And still no evidence it has been corrected.

>No you dont, time that guy was on the ship is not specified.
I have the original posting and unless you have some evidence that the timing is incorrect, thats what we will use.
Or we can assume that the guy took the pics today and then traveled back in time and posted them in the past.
Because that theory has exactly as much evidence as yours that the pics were taken before the overhaul.

>No, but its logical to fix them.
Just like it was logical to put them in correctly in the first place?
Or for them to have been fixed prior to 99?

>Russian sailors did not have smartphones with internet in 1999, and there is definitely no internet on Kuznetsov. He most definitely was not on Kuznetsov when he posted it
Talk about grasping at straws.
You think that the guy takes the pics before the 98 overhaul, waits around about two years and then publishes them?

Do you have any proof of this silly theory of yours?

>Considering other things he mentioned a shitton of issues were fixed.
Again.
Hope.

>Your only argument is that it was that way 17 years ago. Which is not even an argument.
I have first hand descriptions of the crapiness of that ship, and evidence that shows that the ship was overhauled and those issues were not fixed.

Again, Ill ask you the following, and watch you run from these:
1) Provide proof that these issues were fixed in subsequent repairs
2) Provide proof that the first hand account was taken two years prior to its posting

That should be easy, right?

>>31809212
>My imaginary """evidence""" is the truth
okay champ

>>31809254
>My hopes and dreams are the truth

Sure thing.

I would like to say I'm shocked you ran from my two questions.
But I'm not.

>>31809291
I'm not even that guy you were arguing with.
But all you parrot is "I know! I just know! I have evidence!".

>>31798687
>They both can carry about 40.

>QE is easily capable of carrying 72 aircraft. MoD states it'll carry 46 max. Normally carry 34 and day to day peacetime operations it'll carry 22-28.
>Peter Roberts, Defence and Security RUSI.

>>31809323
>"I know! I just know! I have evidence!".
No.
I have a first hand account.
Can you find it in the thread or do you need me to link it for you?

He doesn't actually have anything other than hopes and assumptions.

File: s-l300.jpg (9KB, 300x234px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 300x234px

>>31794754

>>31809340
>QE is easily capable of carrying 72 aircraft

wtf

Well, that changes everything.

>>31799870
are those F-4 Phantoms?

>>31812223

>are those F-4 Phantoms?

Yes.

File: 1464454765967.jpg (49KB, 736x491px)

49KB, 736x491px

>>31812223
Yeah. They operated them from Ark Royal for a while. To make it safe, they gave it a cool (if somewhat funny looking) nose gear with a big strut that jammed the nose up to accommodate for the short deck.

Typical Brits, always looking down their nose at someone.

>>31793801
>Free country

>>31809591
Not really, claiming the QE can carry 72 is like claiming the Nimitz can carry 90. While technically true, that figure requires storing aircraft on the deck, which, while a bad idea in general, also means at any one time you can either launch aircraft or land them, not both. The 46 figure is probably the hangar at capacity, with the crews having to play Rush Hour every time they need to move an aircraft, and the 34 figure is the realistic combat load.

>>31813001

I'm fully aware, however listen to his wording of 'easily', now I'm not sure exactly what basis he's saying and what caveats are attached, *but* there must be some for using that word.