Russian Kuznetsov aircraft carrier has major incident in dock

a reply to: thebozeian

Well if you aren't even going to pass comment om this post then why are you here talking about a totally unrelated story?

"Flanker" is the NATO designation for the SU-27. A Russian aircraft.

Comrade.

The farm has its own agenda.

Well two things first the damage done to the aircraft carrier is nothing compared to the fact the major dry dick for the northern fleet was damaged. Russia tried to use these floating dicks to build carrier's etc frankly it was a stupid idea mist countries build a dry dock to build large ships. Much better to build it on land than move it into water.

The damage here is they lost capabilities to repair their larger ships. And other dry docks were lost with the fall of the soviet Union. Ironically floating dey docks are built in Ukraine by the Khersen shipyard. Replacement will not be easy for the Russians. And raising it from the sea floor would be difficult and lets face it Russians dont have a lot of money to build a new dry dock like they did in india and china.

where's the damage ? to the dry dock, or floating submersible dock or to the ship ? where's the ship ? ... who knows ?

a reply to: Flanker86

Well its not a floating Dock anymore that's the point...

a reply to: Woody510

There's also a gash in the hull of the Kuznetsov. The Russians stated it was 5m wide. The rest may be trivial. I am surprised the crane did that much, but those cranes can be huge.

a reply to: anzha


Floating dock sinking


Floating dock now gone

Crane on the deck of The Kuznetsov

a reply to: Zaphod58

I agree its funny sure but US shipyards are in no better shape. The War Zone did an article a year ago about them the state they are in it just as bad as the Russian navy's Its only a matter of time before this happens here.

If the ship was flooded thats potentially alot of damage and it may take them years if at all to get it back to sea

a reply to: anzha

Sorry anzha the post with the pics was for flanker not that he ever replies like.

originally posted by: FredT
a reply to: Zaphod58

I agree its funny sure but US shipyards are in no better shape. The War Zone did an article a year ago about them the state they are in it just as bad as the Russian navy's Its only a matter of time before this happens here.

If the ship was flooded thats potentially alot of damage and it may take them years if at all to get it back to sea

US ships are built in dry dock so it can't happen at all. Only Russians try to build a ship on the sea not one of their better decisions. As we can see their dock can sink and then they cant build anything. Even India realized a dry dock is the best option so they built one they want to build an aircraft carrier something the Russians cant do right now.

Here you can see them flooding the dry dock on an aircraft carrier.

wtkr.com...

a reply to: Zaphod58

This. We've had plenty of similar issues, like the kid who nearly hull-lossed the Flight II Los Angeles at Kittery by starting an electrical fire with a vacuum. As you said, the only thing we have going for us is that we have a bigger fleet to soak up the losses that we inevitably suffer do to our Navy also being a hot F'ing mess.

For all the drunken Vatnik jokes, Russia still has one hell of an armed forces and are the only other nation that has even come close to achieving all that we have in the aeronautical sector, and it's all the more amazing when you realize just how meager their resources are in the 1st place.

a reply to: dragonridr

We build them in docks like that, but repairs can take place in mobile docks like this one. We used to have one that was moved to Pearl Harbor that could take anything short of an LHA/LHD. Kuznetsov has been undergoing refit, so probably should have been in a better yard and dock, but they've gotten away with it for decades.

a reply to: Woody510

No worries.

I've made the same mistake and I'm delighted the photos were put up. I'd not yet had a chance to go find them.

So, in the spirit of the thread, spasebo bolshoi.

a reply to: dragonridr

Only Russians try to build a ship on the sea not one of their better decisions.

Stop.

The USN used floating dry docks for years. I'm pretty sure the last were only released to the USCG as a cost saving measure sometime in the last decade. There are several advantages to a floating dry dock, excepting cost. Stop being ridiculous.


ETA: here is just one of the dozens of corporately owned floating dry docks that service the USN now that they retired their own fleet. Brand new...

a reply to: RadioRobert

Bath Ironworks has a floating drydock that they use for final assembly and launching of the Burke's/Zumwalts. Ingalls has one too, and NASSCO has multiple ones. They're extremely common in large-scale shipbuilding and maintenance work.

a reply to: anzha

I'm actually thinking the dock itself harmed Hull and the crane has damaged the flight deck.

a reply to: Barnalby

I was wrong: The USS Miami wasn't "almost" a hull loss, it WAS a hull loss, after damage estimates climbed north of $700 million in estimated repairs and they decided to decommission her rather than throw good money after bad.

a reply to: dragonridr

The exact scneario? I agree unlikly but some other kind of shiphard disaster seems just as likely here

www.thedrive.com...

Highlights or lowlights as the case may be

At one time the Navy had 13 shipyards, but now it has just four.
None of these facilities were built to sustain a modern Navy.
There is nearly a $5B maintenance backlog alone and this estimate is likely far less than the actual cost.
Uses old inadequate equipment on high-tech vessels.
Drydocks are on average 89 years old and are in poor condition.
Due to the lack of dry dock capacity, the Navy won't be able to perform a third of its scheduled aircraft carrier and submarine maintenance projects over the next two decades.
Rising sea levels pose a threat to old dry docks.
The Navy says it will take nearly two decades to address these issues, but GAO says it will take longer. By that time the fleet will have ballooned putting more pressure on these tired facilities.
As of now the Navy is only funding roughly half the cost just to keep up maintenance on their own naval shipyards.
www.thedrive.com...

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: dragonridr

We build them in docks like that, but repairs can take place in mobile docks like this one. We used to have one that was moved to Pearl Harbor that could take anything short of an LHA/LHD. Kuznetsov has been undergoing refit, so probably should have been in a better yard and dock, but they've gotten away with it for decades.

No we don't anything intermediate repairs and above are done in dry dock. Floating docks are used for minor repairs. Now the problem the US has is there is only 4 facilities currently active. And one of those is almost exclusively used for new ships namely newport news. Meaning new facilities are needed.

a reply to: dragonridr

Floating dry docks are used for upgrades and maintenance. Exactly what Russia was doing with the Kuznetsov.

Maybe they can rent one off someone to continue repairs.Lot of deep water ports in Europe.