Last page… wow! How desperate attempts to show that Russia doesn’t have yards or facility to build large carriers. Little do the experts understand that the only stuff in the way of building carriers is Finance!
Btw, people never really try to understand stuffs…..and goes not repeating what some “expert” pulled out his backside.
Precisely, JangBoGo.
Let’s look at FBW’s posts again:
The largest yards with 300 meter dry-docks are Sevmash and Admiralty yard. Both are limited to 70,000 tons DWT (not even 70,000 tons displacement).
He wasn’t even aware of Baltic Zavod shipyard.
TR1 and I corrected him, and informed him of it’s existence and facilities:
Baltisky Zavod has a slipway that can accommodate a vessel 350 meters in length and 100K tons displacement IIRC. That is there the new big nuclear icebreakers are being built currently.
There is a lot wrong here….
2. No. Baltic Shipyard. Slipway A is 350m long, with a capacity for 100 000t. Also, Zvezda in the far east is in the process of being expanded with the aim of constructing vessels up to around 300 000t.
This made FBW very angry. No thank you…he just posted the following:
I love it when people start stating a post is wrong and then refute said post with incorrect information…. see below.
The last large warship built at Baltic Shipyard (Pyotr Velikiy) had a beam of 94 feet, the Kutznetsov has twice the beam (edit- this is o.a. beam, the Kutznetsov has a w.l. beam of 35 m so it still could not have been built at Baltiysky Zavod slipway “A” ). There is a reason that it was built at Nikolayev (look at the length and width of the slipway no.0). Baltic shipyard has one slipway long enough, but it cannot built a 100,000 ton displacement ship (several posters keep confusing DWT with displacement) Yes, ships aren’t launched at full load displacement, but a dry dock still has to be able to support the equipped hull weight sans stores, aircraft, fuel, etc, for maintenance. Here are the specs from their website:
Currently no slipway in Russia is wider that 35 meters.
To try and save face, he did some quick googling, and made the bold statement about “no slipway in Russia is wider than 35m”. Remember this.
He also actually thought the Kuznetsov had a beam twice that of Pyotr Velikiy. That would make it 188 feet, or 16,5m wider than the largest carrier in history, the Gerald Ford.:stupid:
Not so good with measurements, clearly.
He tried to recover before anybody posted that silly error. It is also instructive to see he posts in feet ( and some in meters, no wonder he is confused)…guess where he is getting his info from.;)
Of course, I corrected him that Baltic had also launched the SSV-33 Ural, which had a wider beam than the Kirov Class. I even tried to give him a heads up that he might be able to discern for himself that 35m for the Baltic slipway is incorrect by looking at the Arktika launch. I was still trying to help him at this stage:
You are mixing feet now with meters…no surprise you are getting confused with the Kuznetsovs beam. I will stick to modern measurements like meters.
You must be forgetting the SSV-33 Ural. It had a wider waterline beam than the Kirovs.
You must also have forgotten the recently launched Arktika nuclear icebreaker, with a wider beam again. At just over 34 meters waterline beam, it is very close to the Kuznetsovs beam.
The slipway when Arktika launched had about 3 meters either side still free. When the Russian Mistrals stern was launched, this gap was even larger. A basic eyeball would have shown you this. This also, just by the way, tallies nicely with the official width of 40,5m for the slipway.
You keep making definitive statements, which turn out to be incorrect.
He gets even angrier:
Wilhelm, there are people you can b.s. and people you can’t because they actually research information. I’m one of the latter..
lol:rolleyes:
I ask him to stop trolling, to which he replies:
[U]I repeat as of now there are no drydocks, no slipways in Russia with a width capable of building a Carrier.[/U]
The Kirov class has a w.l. beam of 28.5m (94 feet), the Kutzetsov has a w.l. beam of 35m (115 feet). Do you get it now? Btw, the SSV-33 used a modified Kirov hull with a waterline beam of 29.9 meters. So? It would easily fit on the Baltic shipyards slipway. Arktika has a w.l. beam of 34 meters, so it could obviously fit. I won’t even comment on the “eyeball measurement” of 3 meters space.
I used the information from the yard. Baltic shipyards slipway “A” is 350m long with an official width of 35 meters.
Baltic is capable of building a ship with a light displacement of roughly 40,000 tons (give or take a few thousand).
Note how he still making definitive statements. I’ve told him the slipway width is 40,5m. He insists it is “officially 35m. Take note of his claim “officially”. No slipway in Russia wider than 35m, remember? He also says there are no slipways in Russia capable of building a carrier. Another definitive. He’s getting really angry now.;)
Again he replies:
So, I ask you. I can post the width of the slipways and drydocks in Russia capable of building large ships, none exceed 35 meters.
I’d already gave him the official width of 40,5m, from a copy of an official Baltiskiy Zavod brochure, backed up by a US government report. I even gave him a clue as to how he could view the Arktika launch which would make complete rubbish of his 35m claim that he’s pulled from his backside.
He get’s really angry and starts with the insults again:
Ah, so. When asked to defend your crap, you cant and fall back on insults. Everything I posted was accurate. Please, please post your link on Baltic slipway- you can’t cause your lying. I have the dimensions right from them. You couldn’t present any factual information to refute what I said about width of slipway or DWT limit. So sad, the typical Sputnik poster, prone to chest puffing, short on knowledge.
Btw, I am far from a Russia hater. You and JSR can live in your dream world without those nasty little details like the truth bother you.
I almost posted the two sites listing baltiysky zavod’s slipway dimensions, but i’ll let you flounder along in your obvious discomfort of being caught lying.
Edit- addition- Wilhelm still waiting for you to post one single piece of factual information showing I am wrong about none of the yards having a slipway or drockdock capable of building a ship wider that 35m.
Note the 35m claim again. Note the difference between “official” Baltic figures, but later he “almost posted two sites listing dimensions”. So…not official Baltic figures then…but we knew this was coming.;)
Keep an eye on the ” not a Russia hater” claim thing, btw. Yet “Sputnik” type insults. More of that in a mo…
Now you chime in, JangBoGo, asking what the hell is going on with his “expert” analysis.:applause:
He replies:
Hopefully you have more sense than Wilhelm. First off, Russia could theoretically build a carrier roughly the size of Kuznetsov in Russian ports
The other poster starting blabbering nonsense about various shipyards, he was wrong. I was correct about the dimensions of Baltiysky Zavod, not to mention it is a slipway with 80 ton cranes and (Russian officials have stated) 60,000 ton displacement limit {I said 40,000-45,0000 tons I will cop to being off on that}.
WHOA!!
Hang on a minute!
He said that:
FBW
The Kutznetsov has a w.l. beam of 35 m so it still could not have been built at Baltiysky Zavod slipway “A”.
I repeat as of now there are no drydocks, no slipways in Russia with a width capable of building a Carrier.
Baltic is capable of building a ship with a light displacement of roughly 40,000 tons.
No slipway in Russia is wider that 35 meters
Now he says they can build Kuznetsov, and he has revised his “figure” of the Baltic Slipway by a whopping 50%, from 40 000t to 60 000t.
Note how he doesn’t apologise, or even says he was wrong. No….he “copped to being off” on that. No biggie, clearly.:highly_amused:
On the naval subforum, I posted the US governments figure of 40,5m, one that tallies with the actual official figure I have, and which can be verified by simply opening your eyes.
He posted links from 3 sites on the internet. None of them official, each one using the exact same sentence structure they have copied from each other. One was a “thesis” from the Brookings Institute (I kid you not:highly_amused:) that copied the same incorrect source materials, from an EU organisation report dealing mainly with “prospective” EU members in the East, including Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine..etc.
The only site remotely to do with actual shipping of the 3 was a Greek site.
Remember that 35m he was insistent upon? While erroneous by 4m, the Greek site he using to back his claims says it is wider than his “35m”.:applause:
No apologies, just like no apologies with his definitive statement about the weight capability of the slipway.
As to why he is doing this?
Before I get screamed down as a “Russia hating ignoramus” let’s look at the reality:
This is not a knock on Russia, it is the reality.
Btw, I am far from a Russia hater.
So sad, the typical Sputnik poster, prone to chest puffing, short on knowledge.
None of this was to criticize Russia.
From the inimitable Shakespeare quote: The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Yet a brief perusal of his posting history, available on the search function top right, shows that almost all his posts when he does a hit-and-run on Russian topics is negative.
Holodomor on the Ukraine/Russian thread? Tick.
Derailing/deriding the PAK/FA thread with F-35/F-22/F-15 super duper comparisons? Tick.
etc..etc..
Very little positive to say, and this is thread is simply the latest.
I gave up after a while for my sanity.
Perhaps it’s time to return to fairy tales at Russia defense.net
Starting off his entire post with these words:
Before I get screamed down as a “Russia hating ignoramus” let’s look at the reality:
Guilty much? Should tell you the mindset.
Sign In
