hopsalotA total failure. And now the only means to ISS is through Russia. Russia has by far the most private commercial rocket launch contracts.
And the US relies on Russia for the RD 180 engine in its Atlas 2 military rocket. In fact while the US dictates Russia sanction on the world, it unilaterally lifted one of the only sanctions it had against Russia.
Washington Quietly Lifts Sanctions on US Purchase of Russian RD …
http://www.globalresearch.ca/washington…lifts-sanctions…us…russian…rockets/5499813?…
For a little while…
hopsalotThat’s a philosophical question. Take Space Shuttle, for comparison. It is a piece of hardware so immensely complex that it only can be designated an engineering marvel. At the same time, it was so plagued by maintenance issues, failures and resulting readiness rates and mission cost that it could also be described as the single biggest disaster in space exploration. Which of the above mentioned is “truth”? Actually, both..
Would you, as an American, call the Space Shuttle a disaster?
The space shuttle was supposed to make space flight cheap, routine, and safe. It achieved none of those things, at great cost. (both financial and lives)
It is unquestionably a horrible failure.
hopsalotWhy are you repeating what i just said. Yes there is a difference, but that can’t possible be a Failure stamp. I suspect there are some funding issues in the picture, and not your; -“so pluaged with problems” claim.
Here are some posts in this thread you must have missed:
Nobody is defending that the Kuz’s engines are far from optimal.
Kuznetsov will be docked for the large overhual with propulsion replacement only after this Syria trip.
I am puzzled why people are calling others trolls for pointing out the issues with the Kuznetsov’s engines. The high pressure boilers are defective. Russia stated this years ago, and has looked into replacing them with gas turbines (one proposal). The Kuznetsov has engine problems, the Liaoning has had engine problems. That’s not trolling, it’s the truth.
May be you should read something, before make such statements? His propulsion system has been nearly killed during 1990’s/early 2000’s by the wrong opearation and poor maintenanse so now it can’t be fixed but only replaced.
Let me guess, everyone is a troll but you. :rolleyes:
hopsalotAfter filtering out the bull…
Proof?
You think the Soviets/Russia designed, tested, and built the Kuznetsov and the Su-33 for less than billions? Why don’t you take a moment to google what India paid for their carrier, and bear in mind that that was a refurbishment job and an update to the Mig-33 taking advantage of the original Soviet work.
hopsalotFirst of all, at great cost? How is this cost measured up against the cost of one US super Carrier class? lol
Certainly a US carrier is more expensive, but then US carriers deploy around the world on a regular basis, without tugs. There really isn’t any comparison between how the USN operates its carriers and the Kuznetsov.
The Krut, hasn’t been deployed as much, but that does not mean its a failure.
Does the Krut have to deploy and bomb someone for it to be a success..?
The Kuznetsov hasn’t been capable of deploying much, and yes, that means it is a failure. What would you call a piece of equipment so plagued by mechanical problems that it is unavailable the vast majority of the time?
Cause that sounds like a true measurement by you, which is exactly like the same bullcrap we get from the usual suspects about US/NATO jets being so da best.
you know, they have fired rockets in anger and Russian build jets has not, by definition Russian jets is a failure.
Strawman time? If you want to attribute something to me, go find a quote.
The more you post, the more nationalistic crap leaks out between your lines, even when you attempt to moderate yourself, its really pathetic to read.
Sorry I hurt your feelings, need a tissue?
hopsalotAs I showed earlier in the thread you’re wasting your time. Reposted again below…Hopsalots profile shows him to be virulently anti-Russian across quite a few threads.
It’s a waste of time conversing with someone so full of hatred.
Again… One poster accuses me of stating the obvious, the other concludes I must be “virulently anti-Russian” and “full of hatred.”
:rolleyes:
Whatever, it hasn’t stopped the Kuznetsov deploying before to the Atlantic and Med…either now or in years gone by.
It is Kuznetsovs 6th deployment to the Mediterranean, and it hasn’t always smoked when one views it’s previous deployments, which lends credence that it might be related to fuel-type, or perhaps speed.
The smoke hasn’t stopped it from deploying, but its various other engineering related failures certainly have.
hopsalotI’m really trying to see the point in your post.
Why would you feel the need to point out the obvious here..?
Every one in here knows this, about the Krutsnetsov.
Bull, read the thread before commenting. Someone posted an article that pointed out that the Kuznetsov is deploying with a tug. I pointed out that it has needed that tug in the past… and I get accused of being “anti-Russian.” (and of course fanboys tried to claim that it didn’t really need a tug, it was being towed for practice…)
If “every one” knows this then why are people denying it?
Only compare it to the US carrier fleet, can it be seen as a failure, but that is not the reality here. The RuNavy has gained lots of knowhow with their Navy Aviation assets. Through their sole Carrier.
They even export Mig-29K to India.Can England or France say the same?
The ship has barely left port its entire existence. How is that anything but a failure? Russia dumped billions and billions of dollars into the Kuznetsov itself, the Su-33s to operate from it, etc. What did they get for their money? Both the carrier and Su-33s are being retired early without having done much of anything.
I am sure they have learned a few things along the way, at great financial cost, but they aren’t anywhere near where France is with the CdG, a ship that has actually been at sea doing real world operations no small part of its service life. The UK similarly has a great deal of real world experience with carriers and will soon be back in the game.
let us see how the Carrier will perform outside Syria, shall we.
The mix of arrogance and Ignorance is stronk in this one..
I am sure it will provide the requisite photo ops and that the home crowd will lap it up as usual. If this deployment were about real world results the air wing would have deployed to Syria minus the ship.
hopsalotI am puzzled why people are calling others trolls for pointing out the issues with the Kuznetsov’s engines. The high pressure boilers are defective. Russia stated this years ago, and has looked into replacing them with gas turbines (one proposal). The Kuznetsov has engine problems, the Liaoning has had engine problems. That’s not trolling, it’s the truth. And the Kuznetsov DID just come out of refit so stating that is also true (not the planned major engine refit due next year, but still).
The current Russian state did not even make the engines, no reason to get defensive.
Because, Russia…
When Russian fanboys put up posts like the ones in the Norwegian air force thread that is fine of course, but pointing out that the Kuznetsov has crippling engine problems that have seen the ship in dock most of its existence is somehow “anti Russian.”
The Kuznetsov is a failed project… due to its crippling engineering deficiencies it has only barely operated over its life and its replacement is already being discussed despite its relatively young age. Despite all the fanfare about its deployment, it is bringing ~15 fighters to Syria, where they will be able to operate only lightly loaded due to its lack of catapults.
hopsalotYeah, just hanging out, participating in trials of Indian MIG-29K/KUB and after that Russian MIG-29KR/KUBR
There WASN’T replacement of propulsion, during that repair. Your insinuations are plain stupid.
I didn’t say replacement… only that they were trying to fix it, again.
The ship isn’t old you know. Given its handful of short deployments it can hardly claim to have worn its engines out.
hopsalotOverhauled?! Kuznetsov will be docked for the large overhual with propulsion replacement only after this Syria trip. May be you should check the facts, instead of demonstrating your ignorance and bias?
It’s last deployment ended over two years ago did it not? What has it been doing? Just hanging out?
Ah repairs… presumably to fix nothing because it wasn’t broken…
hopsalotDude, you do see that Russian Navy can’t just pull into the nearest port for repairs. And its not like they can call up some private tugs to aid them if something do happen..
Cause THAT would look truly bad.. The Frenchies tuging the Russian only carrier..
Hense they bring their own tug.
Seriously though, if you can’t sail a few weeks without fear that your newly overhauled carrier will end up dead in the water maybe seapower isn’t your thing.
hopsalotMost if not all russian deployments, regardless of ship type and its purported reliability, get a tug to tag along as they also serve as workshops and rescue ships and reduce the need of having to rely on on-shore facilities for carrying out repairs and whatnot.
But then again, you have always been a “everything russia does is ****” troll.
What is funny is that I state the obvious, and get accused of being anti-Russian. Maybe the obvious is anti-Russian?
Seriously, look at the excitement this deployment is generating and imagine if the French reacted the same way every time their carrier deployed…
hopsalotYou didn’t even bother watching the video did you?
I did, did you?
Do you honestly think navies spend their time practicing firing ropes to tugs? Is that a core skill for Russian sailors on the Kuznetsov?
“Gee, the carrier didn’t break down this deployment, let’s practice towing it anyway to get ready for next time…”
hopsalotSo in other words, there is zero evidence its engines actually had problems.
Ok then.
You mean besides being towed?
hopsalotWell given there is no video of it actually being towed back, yeah it is entirely believable.
Unless of course you have some evidence it actually was towed home.
Just because it was able to get its engines working again doesn’t mean they didn’t break…
The idea that they would be “training” to tow an aircraft carrier in high seas is just laughable.
Sign In
