Actually, it's a pretty cool ship.

>>31806216

I think it would better it if had a flat surface and was used sort of like an LHA.

File: 14666106_578502009024757_6453272718123172738_n.jpg (117KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 960x960px

>>31806216
Daily reminder that if your carrier requires a ramp, you aren't a real country.

Needs more VLS tubes for long range bombardment IMO but yea its neat.

>>31806216
Define "cool"

Is it "dude weed" cool or "shit aint got central heating" cool?

>>31806216
it was a cool concept back in the 70s and 80s to have an aircraft "battle cruiser" that could go it alone and fuck up atlantic shipping while surrounded by a ring of attack subs.

Ski jumps were never cool.

>>31806269
"only 60 minutes of hot water per day" cool

File: 1448391154803.jpg (2MB, 2359x2900px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2359x2900px

>>31806258
No ramps here tovarisch :^)))

>>31806354
the kuznetsov can launch two aircraft before a nimitz because the crew doesn't need to attach the plane to a catapult
>therefore your argument is invalid

Serious question: what is wrong with the skijump

>>31807142
Only one thing, pretty much - it cant launch heavier airplanes like Hawkeyes/Prowlers/Vikings.

>>31806977
Having planes that work is also a requirement but this is normally only brought up if the carrier doesn't have ramp.

>>31807142
Nothing. Americans have no ice-capable navy so they can't comprehend the demand for ski-jump.

>>31806977
What are those planes? Yak-38s?

>>31807699
Yeah, Yak-38s

>>31807142

Nothing, many on /k/ lack the critical thinking skills to grasp that military matters isn't just a game of Top Trumps.

>>31806216
This is now the fourth thread about the Kuznetsov I've seen today - are the vatniks doing overtime or what is happening?

>>31807151
Which is a super-huge deal if you want your aircraft carrier to actually be a legit flagship, and not something that'll just allow to bomb mudshits on the other side of the globe.

>>31807142
It severely limits the load you can put on your planes. Unless you have catapults you are reduced to a light AA load or a few token bombs with reduced fuel.
If you have tankers you can mitigate this by taking off with next to no fuel and fill up in air but you can't launch tankers from a ramp in any case.

>>31807747
>>31807247
And russians have cannot comprehend the need to take off with a heavy load?
It's all a matter of cost.

>>31807958
Yes, sure.
>>31807960
>It severely limits the load you can put on your planes.
Su-33 can take off prom position one with full load at 10m/s wind. Such cases.

Here we have the Kuznetsov. Observe the Poverty Ramp, because they cannot produce even 1950's level CATOBAR technology.
A lot of it's toilets don't work and so it has 20 toilets for 1500 crew, the turbines break regularly and it has to keep a tug with it, it's commanded (and probably crewed) by terminal alcoholics, it's caught fire several times, the fuel port bezel fell off TWICE spilling tons of fuel, It can't carry a full complement of P-700 Granit missiles and a full compliment of aricraft, pipes freeze and restrict 60% of on board water, ventilation fails a lot and cordons off whole sections of deck, 6 hours PER DAY of crew in parade formation listening to various officers rant, launched aircraft only carry 70% fuel and 50% armament, the ship has to be steaming into the wind at a minimum of 20 knots for a jet to even take off (and if it's shitty engines cut out you just flop into the ocean), and it's deck is usually cleared by a MiG engine mounted on a farm tractor except when that too has not fallen off the carrier into the ocean.
It is the Russian Navy's Flagship.

>>31807981
>ship has to be steaming into the wind at a minimum of 20 knots for a jet to even take off
It launched aircraft while being moored.
>and if it's shitty engines cut out you just flop into the ocean
102kmh at the end of the ramp = takeoff. Thats aircraft with half fuel from position 1 with its afterburner off. Actually happened.
>It is the Russian Navy's Flagship.
Its not.

>>31807936
Its moving to Syria entering the Mediterranean Sea at the moment wich is kinda rare.

>>31807971
>Su-33 can take off prom position one with full load at 10m/s wind
While the carrier is steaming full ahead and you are carrying less than half a tank of fuel.
I don't know if russia has tankers stationed in Syria but if they don't you won't see any fully loaded planes taking off.

>>31808001
I know, but no thread is about Syria or its intended mission there. It's all just ranting about how shitty or glorious it is.
I thought summer is already over - but it probably never is on /k.

A plane with no aa or bombs and 1/3rd fuel did that.

Normally loaded planes cannot do that.

Face it Ivan, the thing sucks and everyone that serves on it hates it.

>>31808023
>While the carrier is steaming full ahead
10m/s = 20knots in dead calm.
>and you are carrying less than half a tank of fuel.
While you are at max takeoff weight.
>you won't see any fully loaded planes taking off.
That is most likely correct. Takeoff weights are extremely limited due to lack of experienced pilots.

>>31808035
Simple maths tell that it can takeoff with max takeoff weight on afterburner with 10m/s wind, what the fuck?

>>31808050
>>31808040

Max takeoff weight is actual reduced loads.

File: Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1984-097-36,_Flugzeugträger_-Graf_Zeppelin-_nach_Stapellauf.jpg (37KB, 800x448px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 800x448px

>>31806258
good to know

>>31808069
Ofc not, that would imply Su-33 either never takeoffs on land or that Su-33's max real takeoff weight is enormous, since its limited max takeoff weight is two tons more than Su-27P's.

>>31807958
What if you are operating close to your coast and have AWACS and such nearby from airfields?

>>31808109
>What if you are operating close to your coast and have AWACS and such nearby from airfields?

why the fuck you need an aicraft carrier then?

>>31808109
Then you might aswell operate the other planes from the coast to.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/21/russian-carrier-plagued-by-technical-problems/

wew lad, why would russia even send the carrier out in such condition, knowing that the whole world gets to see it?

>>31808131
>>31808135
Guys, bit civilian and cargo airliners that AWACS are usually based on have, like, thousands and tens of thousands of kilometers.

>>31808144
Dunno, it is doing just fine.

>>31808145
>Guys, bit civilian and cargo airliners that AWACS are usually based on have, like, thousands and tens of thousands of kilometers.

What the actual fuck happened to this sentence? Are you on fucking meth or something?

>>31808167
I was disctracted and forgot to add "range".

so far the stupid rips and responses are
>it smokes
it also moves rather fast
>le ski jump
faster scramble
>needs a tugboat
all fleets travel with tugboats

literally this over and over. thread after fucking thread.

>>31807964
>the need to take off with a heavy load
You only need to take off with heavy load if you are operating F-18 that requires fuel tanks to go anywhere, ever. Su-33 are interceptors and have A2A load which is relatively light.

>>31808315
>You only need to take off with heavy load if you are operating F-18 that requires fuel tanks to go anywhere, ever. Su-33 are interceptors and have A2A load which is relatively light.

That might be because the F-18 sees a lot of action as a ground attack aircraft.

>>31807981
Posting from 1999 I see? How's it going? Solved Y2K problem yet?

>>31808354
Yes, that is the case.

>>31808361
The tech level of the ship hasn't surpassed 1986

>>31806216
>>31806258
But theoretically, wouldn't a large carrier (I imagine anything up to 400m long) with a ramp be able to launch a large number of aircrafts faster than with catapults? You wouldn't need to pull each aircraft to the catapult, lock it in there and give it a go, you could just launch aircraft after aircraft after aircraft within seconds if it's necessary (not that there would be any likely situation where it is desu)

>>31808509
If I fly 20 sorties with 10k pounds of weapons, it is better than 30 sorties with 8k pounds of weapons.
Plus less planes break.

>>31808144
>unironically linking British yellow press
Also, why are Brits so anally obliterated about Russia?
Is it cause they still get to play great power while UK has to ask US permission for merely existing?

>>31808566
Russia sails through the English Channel
>doesn't attack itself or sink any fishing boats
A resounding success, as far as the Russian naval track record goes.

>Also, why are Brits so anally obliterated about Russia?
They're not, it would take more than a few smoking, rusting hulks to do that.

>>31808531
Better for what? Bombing towelheads? 10000lb of weapons on Su-33 is like using its every single hardpoint for R-33.

>>31808531
Probably that's the case. Still want a modern carrier that's 400 metres long though. Or more. 6 nuclear reactors. Capacity of at least 120 modern aircraft. Able to launch and land big military cargo planes. Mfw I'm a gigantomaniac.

>>31808610
>doesn't attack itself or sink any fishing boats

Those weren't British fishing boats though, those actually were Japanese torpedo boats.

>>31808617
The point is, more weapons delivered in less sorties is always better than less weapons in more sorties, except maybe only in ELINT and SIGINT and possibly CAS.

>>31808745
If you are talking using the aircraft as a bomb truck this sure is true, but Su-33 is an interceptor.

>>31808796
Which needs, inevitably, more AA. Still a delivery issue.

>>31808839
More than what? I already said that even if you strap something really heavy like R-33 to its every hardpoint, you won't get to its maximum payload. And it is not meant to carry R-33, but rather R-73 and R-27, which are substantially lighter

>>31808920
Stip away every detail and you still have the underlying issue: more weapons for less logistics.
Couple that with all the other retardation on this boat and you have more chromosomes per tonnage than any carrier I can recall.

>>31807142
It limits you from doing just about any mission but CAP. The weight limits prevent you from launching effective strike missions, quality carrier-based AEW, or resupply at sea.

>>31808001
what is rare about it?
That there are new big players in the hood?

>>31808566
>Telegraph
>yellow press

u wot m8

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/

>>31807124
The kuznetsov can't launch any planes before a Nimitz because they can't afford to run flight ops. Seriously, when was the last thing it got to launch anything

Isn't it supposed to be like a giant cruiser or battleship?

>>31809307
The ruskys have a saying
Dont misbehave or they will out you on the Kuznetsov
That tells you what you need to know about it
I dont get it the slav invested alot in their ground and airforces but leave their navy to rust

>>31809827
They are more interested in stuff around them, not stuff over seas, I guess.

File: rn.png (3MB, 1772x997px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1772x997px

Islam strikes again

>>31809307
Some things I learned about shitposters:
1) They think that if they keep posting the same old irrelevant story in every thread someone will eventually buy it
2) They fail
http://igor113.livejournal.com/27473.html

>>31809929
Its not irrelevant when it's true, I'm glad my cousin finally got off that thing.

>>31810002
Post your cousin when he stationed on that thing, m8.

>>31810007
>get him in trouble when Lubyanka has people who post here

Yeah that's totally happening.

>>31809258
>It limits you from doing just about any mission but CAP. The weight limits prevent you from launching effective strike missions, quality carrier-based AEW, or resupply at sea.

But that's entirely wrong.

>>31809929
We went over this in the last thread.
The one you ran from like a bitch.

1) Provide proof that the issues were fixed in other repairs

That should be easy.
But its not.
Because you are a bitch

>>31810302
Bitch, please. Provide a proof that these issues exist.

>>31810367
I did.
>http://englishrussia.com/2012/03/30/ill-fame-of-the-aircraft-cruiser-admiral-kuznetsov/
First hand account.

Now prove that they were fixed.

Ill be waiting.
Bitch

>>31810402
>Now prove that they were fixed.
>Ill be waiting.
Fat chance, all we are going to get is some empty mumbling without any substance like before.

>>31810402
>>http://englishrussia.com/2012/03/30/ill-fame-of-the-aircraft-cruiser-admiral-kuznetsov/
>First hand account.

>electric heaters, including improvised, mentioned but not photographed
>ruptured pipes everywhere mentioned but not photographed
Sure thing, going into north sea without heating, makes all the sense and totally no one will fucking die.

>The personnel consist of mostly people from far away villages because those from the cities believe evading proves their high social status. This can be applied to Russians while Caucasian people think the other way round. It is a matter of honor for them to serve in the army and serving in the navy is their dream.
Holy shit, what a load of bullshit. Churkas hate army.
>As for the ship’s primary task, hardly any aircrafts can be seen here.
Is it 1995?
>Theft is another problem of the Admiral Kuznetsov. They supply the ship with pierced canned food but they still manage to sell it at a lower cost to factory workers.
Oh no, its 1993.

I wonder why he did not mention devastated lower decks with no lighting (not pictured), flooded lower decks (not pictured) and missile silos flooded with fuel oil (not pictured). Cant remember all of the bullshit, sorry.

>>31810425
>Fat Chance
Of you have even one small piece of evidence supporting that the issues were fixed?
Yeah I know.

Would you like for me to go through it all again?

>>31810485
So it's bs because you say its bs?
No real evidence?

Shocked, SHOCKED that you have nothing to back up your hopes.

>>31810489
Do you have evidence that they existed?

>>31810501
Yes.
First hand account.

Provide evidence (not what you wish was true) that its not accurate.

You won't
You will just post more stuff that you hope is true without any real evidence

>>31810499
No, i just say its not evidence just because it fits your worldview.

>>31810514
>First hand account.
A simple question - is it?

>>31810489
You misunderstood what i ment, i said that you will get no evidence of fixing from them, because they aint got a thing to begin with and just will fall back to empty discussion like before.

>>31810485
>>31810501
>>31810367

just so we can recap.

There is a first hand account from 1999 that the Kutznetsov is a hunk of slavic shit.

Moron says "B-but they fixed it"

Ok, where is the evidence that they fixed it?

Moron says "They have been though many repairs and it only makes sense that they would have fixed it."

Well the issue is that the Kutsnetsov underwent an overhaul in 1998 and these issues were not fixed, so why would you think that they would have been fixed in subsequent repairs?

Moron says "I don't have anything."

So were are still waiting on one of the following:
1) Proof that the first hand account is not what it says it is.
2) Proof that the issues addressed in the first hand account have been repaired.

The moron will not give any of these.
Because he can't.

>>31810517
So evidence and facts that support some conclusion other than what you want to believe don't count?

The mind of a Vatnik, everyone.
Not sure if I can add anything else to this moronic post.

>I just say its not evidence because it fits your position.

Wow.

>>31810556
>There is a first hand account from 1999 that the Kutznetsov is a hunk of slavic shit.
What makes you believe it is a first hand account? It is a simple question, no? Can you answer it?

>>31810581
Quote from the post.
>The editorial office received a letter from a soldier, while he served on the aircraft carrier "of the Soviet Union Fleet Admiral Kuznetsov"

That is a first hand account.

Deal the fuck with it.

>>31807142
nothing, just gives me the giggles

>>31806216
''cool'' sounds exactly like the french word "coule" which means "sink"

Coincidence?

>>31810601
>>The editorial office received a letter from a soldier, while he served on the aircraft carrier "of the Soviet Union Fleet Admiral Kuznetsov"
Editorial of what?

>>31810402
Bitch, please. That's 1999. Provide a proof that these issues exist.

>>31810622
I did.
In the letter.

Now show me that they were fixed between then and now.

>>31810631
It underwent repairs, 5 times, several years total.

>>31810615
Jesus fuck, do you want me to read the whole fucking thing to you too?

> AVL, Military Technical Almanac

>>31810635
And there was an overhaul just before the posting of the issues.
If the issues werent fixed then, why would you assume that they were fixed after that?

>>31810631
Bitch, please. First, I provided the letter, not you. You only posted a shitty clickbait with 1.5 paragraphs of text. Second, the letter is from 1999. Provide a proof that these issues exist.

>>31810638
Whats that? I do not know what it is, i just see a random site with a fucking hammer and sickle on it. How do they check credentials of their writers? Do they actually check them?

>>31810655
>Provide a proof that these issues exist.
I did.
First hand account.

Let me guess, we are back to where if the facts are against you, you don't believe them?
Truly you are an intellectual titan.

>>31810671
>Whats that? I do not know what it is, i just see a random site with a fucking hammer and sickle on it. How do they check credentials of their writers? Do they actually check them?
For fucks sake, can you not even follow the fucking thread?

The moron even posted the original letter.

>>31810651
Was it before or after the overhaul? Are you sure it was after, not before the overhaul?

>>31810678
The overhaul was in 1998
The letter is from 1999.

Did 1998 happen BEFORE 1999?
There is your answer.

>>31809697
>Isn't it supposed to be like a giant cruiser or battleship?
It's a giant cruiser. It doesn't have long range strike capabilities like a carrier with a catapult. For the US, the USN protects the carrier so the aircrafts can strike targets. In Russia, it's the opposite. The Russian carrier protects the surrounding assets via aerial patrol so that the subs or smaller ships can launch their nukes or cruise missiles or whatever.

>>31810655
>Provide a proof that these issues exist.
They clearly existed.
When were they fixed?

I'll wait.

>>31810677
>For fucks sake, can you not even follow the fucking thread?
Can you fucking answer the fucking question?
I found that AVL, it is now called pyccкaя cилa (topkek) and it is a fucking internet shop.

>>31810688
>The letter is from 1999.
The letter is from a soldier that supposedly served on the ship in the 90's. This does not mean he served there in 1999 when the letter was published, and it does not mean he wrote the letter when he was serving. Supposedly.

>>31810677
Bitch, please. It's a first had account from 1999. Provide a proof that these issues exist.
>>31810699
They clearly existed. Prove they still exist.

File: 1477369544205.jpg (2MB, 1900x1200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1900x1200px

OP is fag

Kek, still no proof the problems got fixed? Still managed to spam so many posts saying basically nothing? Gee, i wonder why this level of retardness only manages to pile up in threads about russian stuff. You can only wonder...

t. other guy

>>31810819
We try to find proofs problems existed. Unfortunately there are none.

>>31810710
>Can you fucking answer the fucking question?
Yes. I will hold your tiny hand though the thread, you poor fucking idiot.

Here, baby girl. >>31809929
I'll even copy the link in case you can't figure it out.
Do you need someone to come by and open it in your browser for you?
http://igor113.livejournal.com/27473.html

>>31810726
>This does not mean he served there in 1999 when the letter was published, and it does not mean he wrote the letter when he was serving.
So again.
You think that the guy wrote the letter before 1999, held on to it, and then decided to send it in?

>>31810748
>Provide a proof that these issues exist.
I did.

> Prove they still exist.
Thats a logical fallacy.
You want me to prove that something hasn't changes when there is no evidence that it has changed.

Why would we assume that anything has changed when there is zero evidence of it.

If you want to show that the letter is no longer accurate, then it is on YOU to provide evidence of that.
YOU need to show that it has changed.
YOU need to find an article that describes the improved living conditions on the ship.
YOU need to find a source that describes one the the repairs involving repairs to the plumbing and installation of the AUX broiler.


Going by your assumptions we would be wrong.

After all, wouldn't we assume that a ship would have working plumbing installed as it was being built?
Wouldn't it be logical to put a heating system in the ship as it was under construction?
Both of these things are logical assumptions but both were proven to be incorrect.
Given that, why should we assume anything at all?

No, we should ask for evidence that these things would have been corrected, because if we were going by what is logical, these systems would have been in the ship to begin with.

>>31810825
>Unfortunately there are none.
http://igor113.livejournal.com/27473.html

There.
What evidence do you have that it is incorrect?

>>31810859
>You think that the guy wrote the letter before 1999, held on to it, and then decided to send it in?
No, retard, i think he might serve on the ship and then write a fucking letter.
>I did.
No you did not.
>You want me to prove that something hasn't changes when there is no evidence that it has changed.
No, it changes a lot. It either gets fixed or deteriorates. Thats how stuff works.
>Why would we assume that anything has changed when there is zero evidence of it.
Because it underwent five repairs.
>After all, wouldn't we assume that a ship would have working plumbing installed as it was being built?
It did have a working plumbing system when it was built.
>Wouldn't it be logical to put a heating system in the ship as it was under construction?
There was a working heating system when it was under constrcution.
>No, we should ask for evidence that these things would have been corrected
I am still waiting for evidence they existed, your source makes ausairpower look like janes.

>>31810825
We already got, that you ignore stuff, you would accept the second it would suit your side. Nothing out of the ordinary, russboo.

>>31810874
>What evidence do you have that it is incorrect?
Thats a logical fallacy, i heard you like those. You have to prove it is correct, retard.

File: 1476687948312.jpg (12KB, 480x358px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 480x358px

Will you fags quit arguing about this?

This "yes-huh", "nuh-uh" shit is beyond retarded.

>>31810912
Comes manditory with russian related stuff.

>>31810912

Welcome to /k/.

File: carrier.jpg (848KB, 1920x1208px) Image search: [Google]

848KB, 1920x1208px

>>31810750

>>31809697
Its a carrier/missile cruiser hybrid.

>>31810899
>It either gets fixed or deteriorates.
Cool.
Show me where it got fixed.

>Because it underwent five repairs.
Show me where they fixed those issues in those repairs.

>It did have a working plumbing system when it was built.
Clearly.

>There was a working heating system when it was under constrcution.
Incorrect as the broiler for the heating system was not installed.
Perhaps you should read the source.
Might help you combat your ignorance.

>I am still waiting for evidence they existed, your source makes ausairpower look like janes.
Excellent.
Then it should be easy for you to debunk.
Right?

>>31810908
I did.
I have provided evidence that those issues existed.

Provide evidence that they were fixed.

Very simple.

>>31810912
The only issue it that there is a primary first hand account that these problems were present on board the ship.

there is however nothing that shows they were ever fixed.

>>31811096
>Then it should be easy for you to debunk.
It does not require debunking simply because it is a shitty source that is not confirmed literally anywhere.

>>31810859
Bitch, please. Logical fallacy is asking someone to prove the absence of something. In this case, the absence of issues. Prove they exist.

>>31811108
>It does not require debunking simply because it is a shitty source that is not confirmed literally anywhere.

Back to this then? >>31810517
>I say its not evidence because it agrees with you.
You don't disagree on the merits of the evidence.
You just refuse to accept it because it hurts your little fewwings.

>>31811124
>Prove they exist.
There is a primary, first hand account of the issues.

Provide evidence that the primary, first hand account is inaccurate.

Or run like a bitch again.

>>31811124
>Logical fallacy is asking someone to prove the absence of something.
Like asking someone to prove the absence of repairs to plumbing and heating systems?

>>31811151
y u bully poor slav

>>31811132
>You just refuse to accept it because it hurts your little fewwings.
Nope, i refuse to accept it for the same reason people refuse to accept letters from people who were kidnapped by aliens.
There are problems with propulsion, they are confirmed by reality and are all over specialized forums and papers.
There are problems with radar equipment and it is all over specialized forums and papers.
Somehow all of these do not mention ventilation and heating, only great and awesome internet shop managed to uncover the truth. Give them pulitzer prize.

>>31811179
>Nope, i refuse to accept it for the same reason people refuse to accept letters from people who were kidnapped by aliens.

So here we are.
We have come to the point where the poor vatnik has to grasp at the metaphor of alien abduction to defend his position.

Thats fucking funny.
Sad, but funny.

>>31811179
>, i refuse to accept it for the same reason people refuse to accept letters from people who were kidnapped by aliens.
Because you have proof that aliens don't exist?
Awsome.
Can you share it?

>>31811179
>Somehow all of these do not mention ventilation and heating, only great and awesome internet shop managed to uncover the truth

Funny that isn't it? When people talk about warships they don't talk about the extremely boring systems like ventilation or heating, but exciting things like weapons, radar or aircraft.

>>31811179
>There are problems with propulsion, they are confirmed by reality and are all over specialized forums and papers.
>There are problems with radar equipment and it is all over specialized forums and papers.
>Somehow all of these do not mention ventilation and heating, only great and awesome internet shop managed to uncover the truth. Give them pulitzer prize.
None of that says "The heating and plumbing systems are in good shape."
So why are you using them to support your assertion that the letter is fraudulent?
Do they claim the letter is fraudulent?
Do they say that the plumbing systems are in good working order?
Do they say that the AUX broiler was finally installed?

No?
Then how can you possibly construe them as supporting your position when they don't even refer to anything we are talking about here?

>>31811196
>>31811209
>>31811244

samefag

disregard everything

>>31811256
Nope.

Nice try tho.

>>31811256
>I think that there is just me and one other person on the internet
>Therefore everything in those posts is wrong

Slav logic on display everyone

>>31809827
>>31809862
This, pretty much. The Russian's couldn't afford a top notch and fully equipped navy AND ground forces, so they opted for the most immediate need with ground forces, and invested most of their navy in interdiction

>>31810750
>>31810983

True Christian nations have circumsized carriers. Bigger and badder than uncut carriers, delivering more seamen across the globe.

Nations that put poverty ramps on their carriers are jelly of our long and massive nuclear carriers.

Could this ship launch gliders that might be disassembled until needed and stored within the ship's hold and crewed by infantry delivered by a secondary escort ?

File: 1477492711895.jpg (63KB, 1200x848px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 1200x848px

CHOOT CHOOT MOTHERFUCKER!!!


Before the Vatniks get triggered too hard: it is just a shop.
Still funny tho.

>>31811248
>None of that says "The heating and plumbing systems are in good shape."
Why would they?
>So why are you using them to support your assertion that the letter is fraudulent?
I do not need to support anything, its you who have to prove that author and journal have credibility.
>Do they say that the plumbing systems are in good working order?
>Do they say that the AUX broiler was finally installed?
Why would they, only thing that says they are not is your letter. That is not published in a shitty journal.

>Then how can you possibly construe them as supporting your position when they don't even refer to anything we are talking about here?
I do because they do not mention anything we are talking about. Those are major problems, there is no reason for them to avoid those problems.

So, please, provide a credible source those problems existed.

>>31809283
That it's moving anywhere but underwater.

I kid, I kid. I've always had a soft-spot for the Kuznetsov since I used to play SU-27 Flanker 2.0 a lot as a teen and the main thing I enjoyed was fucking around aboard her.

>>31808531
Fewer planes break.

>>31811702
>Why would they?
Because you are holding them up as defense of your position that these systems are in perfect shape.
They don't even comment on them, so what information can you get from them.

> you who have to prove that author and journal have credibility.
No. It is you who needs to show that he doesn't.

> do not mention anything we are talking about.
Exactly.
So then why do you think they prove that these systems were fixed.

I think it's cute that you have retreated from
>These systems were fixed
All the way to
>These systems were never broken.

It's pretty pathetic actually.

>>31812185
Fine. "Fewer". Doesn't add to the discussion at all however.

>>31811702
>its you who have to prove that author and journal have credibility.
To add, I would say the content of the article make it clear that the author is familiar with the ship and its problems. The details contained within speak volumes.

Since you like to talk about whats not said, lets do this.
The stories about the lack of adequate plumbing and heating have been picked up and run in several mainstream media outlets.

Yet the Russians have never once come out to say they weren't true.

Going by your logic, the fact that they have never refuted them shows their veracity.

>>31812326
>They don't even comment on them, so what information can you get from them.
Thats confirms my point, not yours.
>No. It is you who needs to show that he doesn't.
You cant into basic logic.
>So then why do you think they prove that these systems were fixed.
They prove they were fine in the first place.
>These systems were fixed
Never claimed that.

So, will you finally prove those systems were broken, or you still claim that one (1) sailor out of thousands that served on the ship (also thousands of sailors from Severodvinsk squadron and workers in the harbour) throughout the years sending a letter to a shitty journal is a credible source?

>>31812365
>To add, I would say the content of the article make it clear that the author is familiar with the ship and its problems.The details contained within speak volumes.
No, not really, its common knowledge.
>The stories about the lack of adequate plumbing and heating have been picked up and run in several mainstream media outlets.
That definitely proves its true. Wait, its not.
>Yet the Russians have never once come out to say they weren't true.
Why would they bother to? They started reporting fucking missile tests to media only a couple of years ago when propaganda kicked in.

File: DoD-Leningrad-DN-SN-90-07612_50pct.jpg (501KB, 1458x1144px) Image search: [Google]

501KB, 1458x1144px

>>31806977

>Tfw no Moskva class helicopter missile cruiser

>>31812406
>Why would they bother to?
For the exact same reason you think these reports would >>31811179
>There are problems with propulsion, they are confirmed by reality and are all over specialized forums and papers.
>There are problems with radar equipment and it is all over specialized forums and papers.


>You cant into basic logic.
Indeed.

1) First hand account from an clearly knowledgeable sources explains that the ship is trash.

2) You don't believe it.
Why?
Because you have evidence to the contrary?
No.
Because you have first hand experience?
No.
Because you have proof that the writer invented the entire story?
No.

The only thing you have is your intense childlike desire that this not be true.

You can bitch about the letter.
You cant complain that its fraudulent.

But you can't prove its wrong. All you can do is hope that it is.

Thats funny.

>>31812377
Also to add on to my previous post..

>They prove they were fine in the first place.
Where do they say that?
Are you saying that these reports were exhaustive lists of every single issue with the ships?

Ok.

Prove that they are accurate.
Your move.

>>31812448
Once again: it is not a credible source and it is not confirmed anywhere else.
The only thing you have is your intense childlike desire that this is true.

>>31812484
Where is your evidence that the reports here >>31811179
are credible?

I'll wait.

>>31812466
>Are you saying that these reports were exhaustive lists of every single issue with the ships?
No, just major problems. Those are major problems.
>Prove that they are accurate.
I dont have to, you have to prove that letter is accurate.

>>31812484
>it is not a credible source
Because you don't want it to be.

>After rising to the third tier of the superstructure (residential), start inspection here. Here in single cabins live assistant commander and commander EMBCH ( "chief engineer"). Going down below, on the ladder up against the "checkpoint". This phenomenon is discussed separately, especially because this type of watch is not on any other ship. "Checkpoint" - a sailor of urgent service, which acts as a guard a certain area (deck, ladder, etc.), is in its superintendence. Watchman he was not sensitive sites, and light bulbs, fire hoses, fire extinguishers, stands, bells loud fight, etc


This is what you claim is "Common knowledge"?

>>31812496
Holy shit, i am asking for independent confirmation and you ask me to prove independent confirmation is credible? Are you on drugs?

>>31812498
>I dont have to,
Yes you do.
As much as you are demanding of me, you should be held to the same standard.

Prove that those reports (that you haven't linked to BTW) are accurate.
Prove that they aren't made up.

Don't the same standards apply to us both?

>>31812514
No.
You claim to have reports that list the major issues with the ship.
Provide a link to them, and prove that they are credible.

>>31812505
>Because you don't want it to be.
No, because it is a shitty journal and a fucking online shop, for fucks sake.
>This is what you claim is "Common knowledge"?
No, right after you prove it is actually correct.

>>31812514
For the record, there is a link to the actual letter in this thread.

Have you posted anything?

>>31812536
And your sources are just a post on this board until you provide a link to them.
Until then they don't exist, and once you DO link them, feel free to prove that they are genuine.

>>31812517
>>31812531
What reports, retard? I did not claim to have any reports, i just stated that no source but yours even mentions this. I asked you for independent confirmation, you stupid nigger.

>>31812554
Really?

Is this not your post? >>31811179
>and are all over specialized forums and papers
> and it is all over specialized forums and papers.


>i just stated that no source but yours even mentions this.
So because there is only one source it doesn't count?

Do you have any idea how fucking stupid that is?

The source is a credible source, you are a buttblasted vatnik trying to cling to the hope that your pride and joy isnt a tub of shit.

>>31812585
>>Is this not your post? >>31811179 (You)
>and are all over specialized forums and papers
> and it is all over specialized forums and papers.
Yes.
>So because there is only one source it doesn't count?
Yes, thats basics of acquiring valid information.
>The source is a credible source
No its not. Its a shitty journal with extremely ugly design and an online shop.

>>31812615
>specialized forums and papers
Link them.
Provide evidence that they are factual.

>>31812615
Where is a single link you have posted that contradicts a single thing in the letter?

Can you provide the SLIGHTEST evidence that the letter is false?

Anything?
At all?

>>31812638
See >>31812514
YOU have to find independent confirmation, not me.

>>31812646
No.
I have evidence.
The fact that there is only one account of it does not make it false, you fucking idiot.

>>31812643
Holy shit, you retarded nigger, YOU have to prove the information is correct.

>>31812656
It does, though. Thousands of people know it but only one bothered to write a letter? In a shitty journal?

>>31812657
Prove that you want to have the information proven first. Checkmate.

t. not that guy

>>31812675
I want to have the information proven first. Checkmate. Next.

>>31812657
No, you have to prove the letter is not credible.

You claiming that there is no "independent confirmation" proves only that no one else published anything about it.

It does not prove that the contents of the letter are false.

>>31812671
>Thousands of people know it but only one bothered to write a letter?
Again, does not address the contents of the letter.

>>31812671
To be fair, all that proves is that there is only one person willing to write a letter. It doesn't prove that the letter itself is false.

t. other guy as well

>>31812680
>No, you have to prove the letter is not credible.
It is published in a shitty journal. That is more than enough and not confirmed anywhere else.
>Again, does not address the contents of the letter.
It should not. Contents of the letter are fucking irrelevant, first you have to validate the information.

Man, with your logic i will have no time proving to you that the earth is flat, aliens exist and USA did not land on the moon. Because any retard can write a letter about this in a shitty journal. Thats why we have credible press.

>>31812679
Some guy writing that on the internet is not evidence enough. You could just demand it because you want to troll. Double Checkmate.

>>31812695
Thousands of people had to work in the north fucking sea without heating and only one bothered to write about it? Thousands of people had to work in the fucking boilers without ventilation for weeks and only one bothered to write about it? Seriously?

>>31812736
Fair enough, i accept my defeat. I am at your mercy.

>>31812737
Yes, why not?

t. another guy

>>31812716
>Contents of the letter are fucking irrelevant, first you have to validate the information.
The information is the content you retarded fuckstick.

>Man, with your logic i will have no time proving to you that the earth is flat, aliens exist and USA did not land on the moon. Because any retard can write a letter about this in a shitty journal. Thats why we have credible press.

No because I have factual information that can dispute everyone of those, and can provide a source for them.


See the difference?

You can write a letter talking about how the moon landing is fake and I can address the CONTENT of you letter and prove that we did.

So why don't you try to do the same and address the CONTENT of the letter.

>>31807247
>Americans have no ice-capable navy
Is this what vatniki tell themselves at night?

>>31811497
>True christian
>circumsized
Good goy

>>31812737
>Thousands of people had to work in the north fucking sea without heating and only one bothered to write about it? Thousands of people had to work in the fucking boilers without ventilation for weeks and only one bothered to write about it? Seriously?
Yes.
As far as we know.

>>31812737
>>31812767

>Not addressing the content of the letter,

>>31812760
How many US ware ships have a ice class?

>>31812760
They tell themselves all sorts of horseshit.

>Ship is fine
>Anyone who says different is making it up.

>>31812750
>The information is the content you retarded fuckstick.
Its validity is not, imbecile.
>No because I have factual information that can dispute everyone of those, and can provide a source for them.
Which can be easily disputed by another shitty paper.
>See the difference?
There is none. If i see letter about aliens in a shitty journal i wont even read it, because shitty journals have no credibility. If i read it in a respected scientific paper i would definitely think about what do with fucking aliens.
>You can write a letter talking about how the moon landing is fake and I can address the CONTENT of you letter and prove that we did.
I'll write a letter that mom is extremely fat. When you will provide a photo of your mom i will write that its fake. If you bring your mom to me i will write a letter that this is not your mom.

Credible source please.

>>31806228
>and was used sort of like an LHA
To be used as an LHA, it would need internal volume that isn't jam-packed full of crap already.
>Russian warships
>having any left-over real estate, at all
And Russia doesn't do a lot of expeditionary warfare anyway. They did have the Kievs, but they were no LHA either. More of an ASW helo destroyer with native anti-surface capability.

>>31812807
>Which can be easily disputed by another shitty paper.
Cool
Then find it.


>shitty journal i wont even read it, because shitty journals
Attacking the source.
>Logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself

>>31806228

Wouldn't change the fact that its an unreliable POS.

>>31812807
You got us mixed up, i am anohter guy, not the other guy or that guy (the one you are discussing with). Did i miss someone?

>>31809301
>Yellow journalism, or the yellow press, is a type of journalism that presents little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines to sell more newspapers.
That's all of the modern British press.

Incidentally I hate the article already because it's committed the cardigan sin of shitty writing: making a statement, then qualifying who said it instead of vice-versa. (Actually, it does another: "Experts" with no names. i.e. fucking EnglishRussia no doubt.)
>The plumbing is so bad on the 55,000 ton Admiral Kuznetsov that many of its toilets cannot be used, while it has had repeated problems with its power and a string of accidents, naval experts said.
No, get it right:
>Naval experts have said that the plumbing is so bad on the 55,000 ton Admiral Kuznetsov that many of its toilets cannot be used, while it has had repeated problems with its power and a string of accidents

Furthermore it should be relatively trivial to verify that it has plumbing issues (just source a named expert saying it!), provide sources that it's had power issues and accidents, etc, instead of saying "ooh, an expert said it" but that would take actual effort, something the press are utterly terrified of.

They even loop around to getting it right later:
>He said the Royal Navy still does not yet have any aircraft carriers of its own and Britain is a decade away from being able to carry out a similar deployment with its own warships and jets.
Yes. Thank you. (Although "he said, he said, he said" is still pretty shitty writing, at least you're starting with it instead of ending with it, instead of making an authoritative statement then qualifying it with who made the claim.)


For reference, I'm not defending the Russian navy. The article itself (further down where most people give up and stop reading) repeatedly says it shouldn't be written off and is of some value. I just hate the modern press with a passion for being lazy, gutless and badly written.

>>31812854
>cardigan sin

>>31812826
>Then find it.
Find what?
>Attacking the source.
Oh yes i am attacking the source. Because i have absolutely no reason to believe your source. It is not a respected journal that checks its information, it is not a respected author that checks its information, it is not even a source that has proven to be valid by absolutely anything.

>>31812862
>Oh yes i am attacking the source.
I know.
Because you can't address the content.

>>31812860
I drink.
I drink a lot.
I have a problem.

>>31810167

Its not wrong at all actually.

>>31812862
>Because i have absolutely no reason to believe your source. It is not a respected journal that checks its information, it is not a respected author that checks its information, it is not even a source that has proven to be valid by absolutely anything.
Also, this being the case, you should be able to find something that addresses the content, since its supposedly so false and shitty.

>>31811673

The oil leak isn't a photoshop. It spilled all of its fuel out near ireland a few years back and had to be towed home..

>>31812868
Because the content cant be adressed, since its validity is questionable. Look, m8, you simply claim that because its written its true.

>>31812890
>Because the content cant be adressed
It could be.
If there was anything to the contrary.
But there isn't.

>>31812877
>Also, this being the case, you should be able to find something that addresses the content
Like, prove you that the plumbing was fixed? I cant do that if the plumbing was fine in the first place. What am i supposed to do, find an article that says "plumbing and toilets on this ship is fine"?

>>31812890
>Look, m8, you simply claim that because its written its true.
The same applies to you as well. You can't claim its false because you don't like it. Be fair.

File: 1449953036030.jpg (565KB, 1536x1123px) Image search: [Google]

565KB, 1536x1123px

>>31808644

>>31812913
>I cant do that
I know.
Thats the point. You cant address any of the content of the letter.
So you fall into the logical fallacy of attacking the source.

>>31812914
No, i do not claim its false, retard, i am trying to find out if its true or false. You, apparently, preferred to skip that issue completely.

>>31812933
>I cant do that
Its funny how you quoted a rather small part of my post. Citations out of context much?

>>31812934
So you don't know one way or the other.

Then just say that.

>>31812948
>out of context much?
No.
It was a rhetorical device to show you keep falling into the "Attacking the source when you can't attack the substance" idiocy.

>>31812957
I just say that for half a thread.

>>31812966
I cant attack substance because substance may be right or wrong. Read this one more time:
>Like, prove you that the plumbing was fixed? I cant do that if the plumbing was fine in the first place

>>31812934
Thats fine. You are welcome to not know.
Those who find the letter credible can go with that.

Those who don't can provide their evidence that its not accurate...Oh wait.
They can't

So I guess you either accept that the letter is accurate or you accept that you don't know one way or the other.

>>31812985
>Those who find the letter credible can go with that.
Nah, they have to actually prove its credible.

>>31812984
>may be right or wrong.
Exactly.
Feel free to find evidence that it is wrong.

If you can't then admit that you don't have any idea if the letter is real, but that it is equally possible that it is real as much as it is fake.

Right?

File: Deep Water Horizon.jpg (21KB, 968x684px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 968x684px

>>31812887
>>31811673
Thats a fuckin shop niggers.

>>31812994
>Feel free to find evidence that it is wrong.
Feel free to find evidence that it is right, imbecile, you cant prove lack of something.

>>31812993
No.

You don't know. You can't know. You are free to remain undecided.
But what you can't do is claim the letter is false because you have no proof that it is.

>>31813013
So again, you admit that you don't know the letter is false, correct?

>>31813021
Yes, correct. You do not know either, unless you are an intellectually dishonest person.

>>31813044
Well, the fact that the letter even exists supports the position that the ship is a hunk of shit.

>>31813077
No, not really. Shitton of papers about its propulsion and radar equipment do, this does not.

>>31813044
So then you have to agree that the following statement is 100% accurate.

>There is an unconfirmed report that the ventilation systems and plumbing systems were in poor shape. There is no evidence at all that there was ever work done to repair these systems.

You would agree that statement is factually accurate?

>>31813104
>You would agree that statement is factually accurate?
Yes. I would say that this statement is accurate.

>>31813104
>>There is an unconfirmed report that the ventilation systems and plumbing systems were in poor shape
Just this. If you are ready to descent into intellectual dishonesty and even consider information from such a source.

>There is no evidence at all that there was ever work done to repair these systems.
Implies the information is correct. If the information is not correct such evidence cannot exist, since those systems are fine.

>>31813152
>If you are ready to descent into intellectual dishonesty and even consider information from such a source.
It is an unconfirmed report, is it not?

>Implies the information is correct.
No.
It simply states that there is no evidence that these systems were ever worked on.
That could be because they were never broken.
Could be because they never fixed them.

That is a factually correct statement.

>>31813175
>It is an unconfirmed report, is it not?
It is an unconfirmed report from a shitty source. Intellectually honest people do not consider that information.
>No.
Yes.
>That could be because they were never broken.
>Could be because they never fixed them.
Which makes it a questionable and manipulative statement. Arent you a journalist? Journalists love manipulative statements.

>>31813214
So in other words you can't find anything that is factually incorrect with this statement:


>There is an unconfirmed report that the ventilation systems and plumbing systems were in poor shape. There is no evidence at all that there was ever work done to repair these systems

All you have is an appeal to how it makes you feel. An appeal to emotion now.
Interesting.

>>31813233
>So in other words you can't find anything that is factually incorrect with this statement:
I did.

>There is no evidence at all that there was ever work done to repair these systems
This is factually incorrect.
>was ever work done to repair these systems
Specifically the word "repair". You did not prove they were broken.

>All you have is an appeal to how it makes you feel.
No, i dont.

>There is an unconfirmed report that the ventilation systems and plumbing systems were in poor shape.
That is factually correct and leaves no place for any implications that might be right or wrong.

>>31813303
>This is factually incorrect.
So there is evidence that there was repair work ordered for these systems?
Let's see it.

>>31813303
>No, i dont.
Makes you feel manipulated.

>You did not prove they were broken.
Correct.
Which would also explain why there was never any repair work done on them.

So, now we are here:
Find evidence of repair work, or accept the statement as factual.


>There is an unconfirmed report that the ventilation systems and plumbing systems were in poor shape. There is no evidence at all that there was ever work done to repair these systems

>>31813339
Is there evidence they were broken?

>>31813372
>Makes you feel manipulated.
No, i just stated that it is a manipulative statment. A simple observation.
>Find evidence of repair work, or accept the statement as factual.
Nah, we are here: find evidence of those systems being broken or accept this statement as factual:

>There is an unconfirmed report that the ventilation systems and plumbing systems were in poor shape.

>>31813375
Nope.
And none is proffered in that statement.

It makes a very plain and factual statement that there is absolutely no evidence of repair work being done.

If you would like to prove that statement incorrect, please provide evidence of the repair work.
Without it, the statement is correct.

>>31813400
>It makes a very plain and factual statement that there is absolutely no evidence of repair work being done.
Which is a manipulative statement that does not contain any relevant facts, since it implies two potential mutually exclusive facts.

>>31813395
>find evidence of those systems being broken
I'm not claiming they were.

Im claiming that there was an unconfirmed report that the plumbing and HVAC systems were in poor repair.

And that there is no evidence that there was repair work done on these systems.


Both of these statements are true.

Deal with it.

>>31813418
>not contain any relevant facts,
It does.
The fact is that there is no evidence of repair work being done.

That could be because it didn't need to be done.
Could be because they didn't do it.

You don't know and neither do I.
All we do know is that there is no evidence that there was repair work done.

>>31813418
Bottom line.
Do you have evidence of repair work being done?
Yes or No.

>>31813436
>The fact is that there is no evidence of repair work being done.
I have a simple question: why do you need that second part? Does not the first part contain all relevant information? I want a honest answer.

>>31813452
Bottom line.
Do you have evidence of those systems being broken?
Yes or No.

>>31813471
>why do you need that second part?
because it speaks to the veracity of the report.
If the report were true, surely we would see some evidence of repair work.

>Does not the first part contain all relevant information? I want a honest answer.
No, because the fact that there is no evidence of repair work speaks to the veracity of the report.

>>31813477
No.
But the statement does not claim that.
Will you answer my yes or no question now?
Will be intellectually honest?

Yes or no, do you have evidence that repair work was done? Yes or No.

>>31813490
>because it speaks to the veracity of the report.
Intellectually dishonest, as expected. It does not speak of anything, since if nothing was broken there will be no report.

>Yes or no, do you have evidence that repair work was done? Yes or No.
No, and it does not mean anything or speak to the veracity of the report.

>>31813539
>It does not speak of anything, since if nothing was broken there will be no report.
It does.
The report is that those systems were in poor repair.
The report is unconfirmed.
The next question one might ask is "Well, was there any repair work done?"
Fortunately, you have done a great job in showing that there is no evidence that repair work was done.

You just don't like facts I guess.

>No
Thank you. I agree. There is no evidence of any repair work. I'm glad you agree that the statement is factually correct.

>>31813566
>The report is that those systems were in poor repair
Which is not a fact.
>The next question one might ask
You cant ask questions based on information that can be right or wrong. Thats intellectual dishonesty.

>>31813539
>since if nothing was broken there will be no report.
And to expound, this is correct.
Thats why that part is added. It shows that it is possible that the unconfirmed report could be wrong.
There could have been nothing wrong with the systems. Thats why there is no evidence.
The statement makes that clear.
We have an unconfirmed report, and no evidence of repair.
The report remains unconfirmed.

>>31813583
>Which is not a fact.
We don't know. Thats why the report is unconfirmed.


>You cant ask questions based on information that can be right or wrong. Thats intellectual dishonesty.
Sure you can.
You can look at the first part of that statement "There is an unconfirmed report..." and wonder if there is anything that would corroborate the report or show it is false.
Evidence of repair would do that.
But, alas, there is no evidence of repair, so the report remains unconfirmed.

>>31813583
>You cant ask questions based on information that can be right or wrong.
Are you fucking serious? You think you can't ask questions about something in an attempt to verify it?

t. guy following along at home who was on your side but is now thinking you are being silly.

>>31813622
>Thats why that part is added. It shows that it is possible that the unconfirmed report could be wrong.
The word "unconfirmed" is more than enough for that.

>We don't know. Thats why the report is unconfirmed.
"We dont know" is a definition of "not a fact".
>Sure you can.
No you simply cant do absolutely anything with information that is not confirmed to be true, thats very simple. Only question you can ask is if its right or wrong.

>>31813656
No, of course not. "Based" is the key word. You cant base anything on unconfirmed information. First you confirm it, then you ask further questions.

>>31813660
>No you simply cant do absolutely anything with information that is not confirmed to be true
So you can't use that information to dig a little further?
That will come as a great shock to anyone who has ever asked a question before.

> First you confirm it,
You have to ask questions to confirm it.

>>31813682
>First you confirm it, then you ask further questions.
Ok but don't you confirm it by asking questions in the first place?
If you come home and you find your window broken and your kid tells you that it was the neighbor, how do you confirm that without asking more questions? I'm really not following your logic here.

>>31813682
Expounding on my post here >>31813686

Asking about evidence of repairs is attempting to confirm it.

>>31813686
>So you can't use that information to dig a little further?
Nope, unless you make an assumption that the report is right or wrong, that prevents you from making a factually correct statment.
>You have to ask questions to confirm it.
Statement is not a question. You wanted a factually correct statement.

>>31813682
I think you should just accept the following.

There are unconfirmed reports that the ship is a steaming pile of crap. There is no evidence that any repairs were done to the ship.

Deal
With
It.

>>31813731
>You wanted a factually correct statement.
The statement provides more factual information about the unconfirmed report.

Again, unless you can find evidence that there was repair work needed, we will just have to accept it.

You can not like it, but that's just the way it is.

>>31813721
>Asking about evidence of repairs is attempting to confirm it.
But such evidence cant confirm the report even if it did exist. Lest assume i find an article that says systems were repaired. That can mean that systems were dead, like the report says, or it cant mean that they changed the filters or it was planned maintenance. There are too many variables.

>>31813733
>There are unconfirmed reports that the ship is a steaming pile of crap. There is no evidence that any repairs were done to the ship.
There is evidence that repairs were done.

>The statement provides more factual information about the unconfirmed report.
It does not. It does not contain relevant facts.

>>31813755
Or the reports could describe the in depth overhaul of the systems.

In your assumption, we would amend the statement to say the following

There is an unconfirmed report that the HVAC and plumbing stations were in poor condition. Repair work was done on XX/XX to replace filters.

See? Thats not hard.

>>31813784
>Or the reports could describe the in depth overhaul of the systems.
Or they simply dont contain details. Which still does not prove that the report is correct.

>>31813770
>It does not contain relevant facts
You don't think that evidence of repair to the systems alleged to be in poor condition is relevant?
Really?

>>31813802
Yes, it is literally irrelevant. There are three variants: systems are broken, systems are fine, systems were repaired and are fine. Second part of your statement is a false confirmation of only one of them. You cant do that.

>>31813800
Or the repair reports might say "Yes we had to overhaul the entire system because it was junk"

Which would prove the report correct.

But the fact is we don't have those reports, so we will never know if there were any repairs done to the HVAC and plumbing systems.

So that provides context to the initial unconfirmed report.

>>31813828
>Second part of your statement is a false confirmation of only one of them.
It doesn't confirm any of them.

Systems are broken: Lack of evidence shows they were never repaired.

Systems are fine: Lack of evidence shows that the systems never needed repair

Systems Repaired and are fine: Lack of evidence means that no repair reports have been made public or are available.

You need to use your critical thinking skills

>>31813831
>It doesn't confirm any of them.
Thats why it is a false confirmation.
>You need to use your critical thinking skills
Said a person who literally, with his own words, confirmed his intellectual dishonesty.

>>31813872
>Thats why it is a false confirmation.
It a confirmation only in your own mind.

It's simply a statement that there is no evidence of repair.

Your are the one imbuing it with some level of gravitas that it simply doesnt have.


Its just a statement of fact.

If you don't think it is factual, feel free to prove it wrong. I've been asking you to do that for some time now.

>>31813872
>Thats why it is a false confirmation.
Lets try this way, since I know you are getting confused.

There is no evidence of repair work on these systems.

What is being "confirmed" in this statement?
In your "intellectually honest" opinion.

>>31813902
>Your are the one imbuing it with some level of gravitas that it simply doesnt have.
Said a person who wrote
>The next question one might ask is "Well, was there any repair work done?"
And
>>why do you need that second part?
>because it speaks to the veracity of the report.

>>31813923
>What is being "confirmed" in this statement?
You said it yourself, it speaks to the veracity of the report.

>>31813957
So what is being confirmed.
Still waiting for you to answer this.

>>31813966
Nothing that is relevant, which makes it a non-factual statement.

>>31813971
So your claim that it was a confimation of something was nothing?
Why even claim that?

And the evidence and its existence is relevant.

>>31813971
If it is non-factual, then you can disprove it?

Oh boy. Lets see it.

>>31813995
No, i claimed it is a manipulative statement.

>And the evidence and its existence is relevant.
No, ffs, this is not evidence. It is simply not. The question if they were repaired or not is irrelevant, the initial question is if it was broken at all. Only evidence it was broken is unconfirmed statement, hence the first, factually correct part of the statement.

>>31814006
Non factual is not proved or disproved, you illiterate nigger. Non factual is something that does not contain facts.

>>31814032
If there was evidence, it would help prove and disprove it.

I can tell this hurts your feelings. But that ship is a hunk of shit. Sorry man.

>>31806216
those bows always make me kek, our design sucks, so we literally need to help Ramp planes into the air like Tony hawk.

>>31814049
It is a fact that there is no evidence.

Unless you have some.

But you and I know you dont.

>>31814060
>If there was evidence, it would help prove and disprove it.
Then bring evidence that can prove or disprove it.
>But that ship is a hunk of shit. Sorry man.
Im fine, i know its a hunk of shit and stated that quite clearly several times.

>>31814070
>It is a fact that there is no evidence.
Which does not prove or disprove anything, which makes it irrelevant.

>>31814090
In your opinion.
Still a factual statement.

>>31814207
Thats not an opinion, since it literally does not prove or disprove anything. Which makes it irrelevant.

File: http-%2F%2Fcom.ft.imagepublish.prod.s3.amazonaws.jpg (34KB, 700x394px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 700x394px

Meanwhile in the USN...

>>31814223
There is no evidence of repair.

Deal with that.

File: navy stater pacl.png (371KB, 715x529px) Image search: [Google]

371KB, 715x529px

>>31806216

>>31812924
Is this what the russian people were told?

>>31806216
Does the "ship" include the tugboat it literally never leaves port without?