Russian aircraft carrier towed in Mediterranian

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: jrod
The Kitty Hawk had to be towed back from Japan to the US.....

It happens, even to US carriers.

True but in Russia's case an ocean tug accompanies / is included in the battle fleet because of how unreliable their engines are (the russian carrier).

Is that a bad move to have tug boat With you?

I think it is a very good move. Because if one of the ships in the fleet does break Down or have a problem. You wouldnt have to wait for a tug boat to Reach Your location. And the other ships can still do their job.

I think its brilant.

Given the history of the USSR era aircraft carrier, including an ocean tug is appropriate as the engines arent reliable. Ideally though you would want your flagship to be able to go from point A to point B under its own power.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: jrod
The Kitty Hawk had to be towed back from Japan to the US.....

It happens, even to US carriers.

True but in Russia's case an ocean tug accompanies / is included in the battle fleet because of how unreliable their engines are (the russian carrier).

Is that a bad move to have tug boat With you?

I think it is a very good move. Because if one of the ships in the fleet does break Down or have a problem. You wouldnt have to wait for a tug boat to Reach Your location. And the other ships can still do their job.

I think its brilant.

Given the history of the USSR era aircraft carrier, including an ocean tug is appropriate as the engines arent reliable. Ideally though you would want your flagship to be able to go from point A to point B under its own power.

well it broke down last year off the coast of france I think it was. Problem is Russia's navy is in desperate need of an overhaul. They are decades old and have suffered from lack of maintenance. Parts are near impossible to find since the factories that built them no longer exist or are in Ukraine. Parts have to be salvaged off other ships or even worse repaired think bailing wire here. They don't have the money to throw this thing in dry dock and renovate it remember this is all tech from 1980s and earlier. And lets just say I actual combat this carrier is more likely to sink on its own than be a threat to anyone. They even have several ships still in docks they cant complete because Ukraine suspended there shipments of gas turbine engines to Russia much less parts they cant get. Throw in the fact the navy is mostly conscripts that don't know how to adequately care for there vessels and well we end up with an aircraft carrier that has to get towed back to port every time it leaves dock on an extended voyage. Ibelieve last time it broke down on the return trip from the med.

a reply to: princeofpeace

It is. Its just worse when its your only carrier.

Yes but there could be good reasons why Russia and China don't put a huge emphasis on aircraft carriers. If a 100 milion dollar missile can destroy a 10 Billion dollar aircraft carrier they could already be obsolete in a real war.

Long range Hypersonic DF-21....

United States Naval Institute in 2009 stated that such a warhead would be large enough to destroy an aircraft carrier in one hit and that there was "currently ... no defense against it"

link

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: princeofpeace

It is. Its just worse when its your only carrier.

Yes but there could be good reasons why Russia and China don't put a huge emphasis on aircraft carriers. If a 100 milion dollar missile can destroy a 10 Billion dollar aircraft carrier they could already be obsolete in a real war.

Long range Hypersonic DF-21....

United States Naval Institute in 2009 stated that such a warhead would be large enough to destroy an aircraft carrier in one hit and that there was "currently ... no defense against it"

link

A ballistic missile can take out entire cities not sure of your point. Countries shouldn't have militaries because they can be destroyed with a ballistic missile??? but that aside the odds of actually hitting a carrier and destroying it even is slim unless you know its in port. Aircraft carriers can move and aiming where they were does you no good however since the 50s there has always been the option of using a nuclear war head.

a reply to: dragonridr

not to be nit picky but he said missile, not ballistic missile.

here is a little tid bit from the wiki on cruise missile which can pack a pretty big punch.

Cruise missiles generally consist of a guidance system, payload, and aircraft propulsion system, housed in an airframe with small wings and empennage for flight control. Payloads usually consist of a conventional warhead or a nuclear warhead. Cruise missiles tend to be propelled by a jet engine, turbofan engines being preferred due to their greater efficiency at low altitude and subsonic speed.

Guidance systems Main article: Missile guidance Guidance systems also vary greatly. Low-cost systems use a radar altimeter, barometric altimeter and clock to navigate a digital strip map. More advanced systems use inertial guidance, satellite guidance and terrain contour matching (TERCOM). Use of an automatic target recognition (ATR) algorithm/device in the guidance system increases accuracy of the missile. The Standoff Land Attack Missile features an ATR unit from General Electric. Categories
Cruise missile

also a little on tomahawk missiles,

A major improvement to the Tomahawk is network-centric warfare-capabilities, using data from multiple sensors (aircraft, UAVs, satellites, foot soldiers, tanks, ships) to find its target. It will also be able to send data from its sensors to these platforms. It will be a part of the networked force being implemented by the Pentagon.

The "Tactical Tomahawk" takes advantage of a loitering feature in the missile's flight path and allows commanders to redirect the missile to an alternative target, if required. It can be reprogrammed in-flight to attack predesignated targets with GPS coordinates stored in its memory or to any other GPS coordinates. Also, the missile can send data about its status back to the commander. It entered service with the US Navy in late 2004. The Tactical Tomahawk Weapons Control System (TTWCS) added the capability for limited mission planning on board the firing unit (FRU).

Tomahawk (missile)

The tug in question, the Nikolay Chiker, can be tracked apparently via MarineTraffic, which is sort of a Flightaware for ships.

www.marinetraffic.com...:26/centery:35/zoom:9

Just for fun. Its not moving right now and of course the Russian Navy is not broadcasting a transponder

a reply to: FredT



the Carrier might very well be in tip-top shape.... the smoke and tow lines might just be a ploy to fool the NATO Intel.


in college football I seen what was termed a PUNT- RUSKI which was a faked 4th down punt that went for a First-down and kept the drive alive
The Russians are famous for pulling stunts... just like the Greeks did with the Trojan Horse gambit

a reply to: St Udio

It could be but its a pretty involved con LOL. Remember that the Chinese had to basically install a whole new propulsion plant in theirs and the Indians may have done the same as well.

Another article about crappy carriers War is boring

a reply to: dragonridr

I know Russia was looking again at modernizing their carriers (brand new designs / builds) to modern standard (100k ton, CATOBAR, etc). its been pushed back due to their financial issues but eventually they (or China) will come into the 21st century. With the 2 new British carriers coming into operation Russia will be at a disadvantage. India is looking at a new carrier as is France.

a reply to: Xcathdra

India like China is in the process of building a carrier from the ground up. Part of the reason they bought the second hand used carriers is to spend time learning the ins and outs of them.

The new carrier China is building is basically a clone of the one they got from the Soviets but will give them and the industrial base the skills needed to build the follow on which will be more capable

Kuznetsov power plant refit will most probably include 1 or 2 new nuclear reactors and probably even 2-3 catapults to render the carrier effectiveness similar to the Nimitz class. This will be done by 2019, maybe earlier.

a reply to: Flanker86

Bull. The current refit plans are to replace and rebuild the boilers that are on board. There is no plan to add catapults, which would take a massive rebuild.

But, besides the Kuznetsov rebuild for the purpose of experimenting and evaluating new capabilities, the focus will be more oriented towards Lider-class destroyers and future 6th gen. Submarines rather than on additional carriers ... at least for the short-medium term.

Catapults can be added without removing the ski-jump, as those catapults would end before the ski-jump begins.

politrussia.com...

a reply to: Flanker86

They have no plans to add catapults. They're upgrading systems, and reliability. They've already said they're doing work on the boilers, and aren't adding cats.

I read an article about a Russian spy ship sinking in the Med a couple of days ago. It collided with a freighter hauling sheep.
The accident was blamed on FOG.
Sounds like the Russians might wabt to equip their spy ships with radar.

I am going to guess that it was equipped with radar and there was a bit of human error involved.

a reply to: butcherguy

Ships collide all the time, even with the best equipment they can get on board. It happens.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: butcherguy

Ships collide all the time, even with the best equipment they can get on board. It happens.

Ships collide.
Not all the time.
Captains that have collisions often lose their command.

a reply to: butcherguy

It's more common than people think. The Maritime Herald has an average of 3 collisions per page in their accidents section. And yes, they do lose their certification, as they should.