Russian aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, is in a critical condition.

a reply to: DarthTrader

It’s not a bias. I have repeatedly given credit to Russian and Chinese systems where they’re due, and will in the future. But it’s a verifiable fact that Russian maintenance practices and production both have issues. I’ve dealt with actually Russian equipment and personnel, and some of the things they wanted to do, because “they do it all the time” in Russia had us horrified.

One of their pilots was talking about the problems they have with their engines. At the time, when the An-24 was taking off, they had to set the parking brakes and sit at the end of the runway at takeoff power for two minutes. If all four engines were in the green after two minutes they released the brakes and took off.

There have also been second hand, reliable reports, about the serious problems they initially had with the Su-34s. They had major production issues when the first batch was delivered.

So the Moskva and all her escorts had their defenses off, in an area the most likely attack was from the air, and not one of them detected a torpedo inbound?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: DarthTrader

It’s not a bias. I have repeatedly given credit to Russian and Chinese systems where they’re due, and will in the future. But it’s a verifiable fact that Russian maintenance practices and production both have issues. I’ve dealt with actually Russian equipment and personnel, and some of the things they wanted to do, because “they do it all the time” in Russia had us horrified.

One of their pilots was talking about the problems they have with their engines. At the time, when the An-24 was taking off, they had to set the parking brakes and sit at the end of the runway at takeoff power for two minutes. If all four engines were in the green after two minutes they released the brakes and took off.

There have also been second hand, reliable reports, about the serious problems they initially had with the Su-34s. They had major production issues when the first batch was delivered.

So the Moskva and all her escorts had their defenses off, in an area the most likely attack was from the air, and not one of them detected a torpedo inbound?

What I mean by bias is that you're using a lot of "anecdote" to blind yourself to the more likely reality.

Visiting pre-2015 war-time Russia and seeing some "old habits"; especially if in the run-down 90s, won't be the same after post-Syria-war Russia. Also we just can't really know if the system was off or not. The radar appears active and the system is automated so the radar fire control would have activated it.

The Su-34 may have problems but as I talk about elsewhere with the Mig-31 and Su-57, they do not; at least no where near as many and probably far fewer than the F-35 currently which has atrocious technical problems.

The problem with the bias is that it's based on a world view you can't help because you were born with it and told it your whole life.

Take the movie Top Gun for instance.

The F-14 went into a "flat spin" because of some jet wash, a relatively unavoidable accident. What isn't told to the American viewer is the F-14 had notable problems with its engines and was susceptible to flat spin and couldn't reach its full on-paper capabilities because of this problem and pilots found work arounds but you had to be very experienced or risk killing yourself.

The movie included a known real flaw, a design flaw and engineering piece of junk, but in the American mind? It doesn't exist.

An F-35 crashed in Texas just a few weeks ago because its software is vaporware junk.

But in the American mind the F-35 probably has never crashed, and if it did it was "pilot error", or doing some insane stunt at an air show.

No American can possibly think it crashed because the computer system is garbage.

It's all biases, and everyone has them in every thing.

I just don't think Russia is the "rust bucket" the West is told - especially since 2015. Rather, Russia has a lot of rust buckets, but has some great things too. Moskva was refitted, updated, and really first of her class. What happened to it is extremely unlikely to have been some dithering on the crew's part.

Unfortunately we just can't really get enough evidence to the contrary of this exact topic, so hence I am just waxing philosophically about the perception we have of it.

The Kuznetsov is, by comparison to Moskva, actually a piece of junk.

a reply to: Zaphod58

But, we are talking about a people who use literal jet engines to de-ice their planes and runways. So I mean - I get it, Russians are the Klingons of our universe...rough and apparently careless. But they also live in a fairly extreme environment.

The Kuznetsov has so many plumbing problems because it wasn't designed to operate in the Arctic.

The US carriers would fall apart and turn to garbage just as fast in the Arctic conditions. After 1991 the Kuznetsov was reassigned to the arctic basically destroying all its internal plumbing.

US did operate a carrier "above the arctic circle" but only at the warmest time of year, just after September. September 24th is the warmest time of the year in the Arctic ocean.

And then promptly got the hell out of the Arctic before winter set in. Kuznetsov wasn't so lucky.

The US navy would fall apart above the Arctic circle and the US would appear to be a rust bucket.

It's a lot more expensive to operate continuously above the arctic circle, and Russia is almost exclusively above the arctic circle.

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: DarthTrader
What I mean by bias is that you're using a lot of "anecdote" to blind yourself to the more likely reality.

To your more likely reality.

The Su-34 may have problems but as I talk about elsewhere with the Mig-31 and Su-57, they do not; at least no where near as many and probably far fewer than the F-35 currently which has atrocious technical problems.

Except that they do. They lost five MiG-31s last year alone. The Su-57 has lost two aircraft, including one to a flight control problem, out of 21 built to date. By comparison, the F-35 has flown over 600,000 hours, with over 890 aircraft delivered, with 3 fires (one due to more engine flex than expected, one due to wind up the exhaust during engine start, one due to a bracket issue and hydraulic leak), 2 nose gear collapses, and seven crashes.

Take the movie Top Gun for instance.

The F-14 went into a "flat spin" because of some jet wash, a relatively unavoidable accident. What isn't told to the American viewer is the F-14 had notable problems with its engines and was susceptible to flat spin and couldn't reach its full on-paper capabilities because of this problem and pilots found work arounds but you had to be very experienced or risk killing yourself.

The movie included a known real flaw, a design flaw and engineering piece of junk, but in the American mind? It doesn't exist.

Except that after Kara Hultgren crashed, trying to land on a carrier, the F-14 engine problems were well reported on, even to people that didn't follow aviation. Top Gun wasn't a documentary, so it's not a surprise that they didn't elaborate on the F-14 problems. It was a work of fiction designed to entertain.

An F-35 crashed in Texas just a few weeks ago because its software is vaporware junk.

Pure BS. The F-35 that crashed in Fort Worth was due to an engine problem related to a fuel line. The B model has had several problems with fuel lines over the years.

But in the American mind the F-35 probably has never crashed, and if it did it was "pilot error", or doing some insane stunt at an air show.

No American can possibly think it crashed because the computer system is garbage.

Again, BS. The computer system is one of the most complex ever developed, and was well tested in surrogate aircraft and lab setups, as well as on actual aircraft before being introduced to the fleet. Every developer, no matter where they're from develops software in a similar way.

It's all biases, and everyone has them in every thing.

You mean like your pro Russia bias?

I just don't think Russia is the "rust bucket" the West is told - especially since 2015. Rather, Russia has a lot of rust buckets, but has some great things too. Moskva was refitted, updated, and really first of her class. What happened to it is extremely unlikely to have been some dithering on the crew's part.

Unfortunately we just can't really get enough evidence to the contrary of this exact topic, so hence I am just waxing philosophically about the perception we have of it.

The Kuznetsov is, by comparison to Moskva, actually a piece of junk.

You can have the best equipment in the world, and if you don't have well trained operators, it can still fail miserably. It's thought that as many as half of the Moskva crew were conscripts. We know that conscripts were on board, because of their families speaking out after the sinking. Conscripts are not going to be as well trained as professional sailors, and they're going to hinder damage control efforts more than help. That was proven in the Forrestal fire off Vietnam. After the damage control parties were killed, a number of mistakes were made that allowed the fire to grow, and become far more damaging, due to the crew not being trained in damage control procedures.

It's always amusing that reading something online isn't good enough, because it's not first hand experience, but first hand experience isn't good enough because reasons.

originally posted by: DarthTrader
US did operate a carrier "above the arctic circle" but only at the warmest time of year, just after September. September 24th is the warmest time of the year in the Arctic ocean.

And then promptly got the hell out of the Arctic before winter set in. Kuznetsov wasn't so lucky.

The US navy would fall apart above the Arctic circle and the US would appear to be a rust bucket.

It's a lot more expensive to operate continuously above the arctic circle, and Russia is almost exclusively above the arctic circle.

en.wikipedia.org...

Trident Juncture took place in October-November 2018, and included the Harry Truman carrier group being in the Arctic.

originally posted by: DarthTrader

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: gortex

Technically a "boat" should be able to float without assistance so does anyone want to buy a rusting hunk of iron?

This is exactly why the Ukraine army easily sank the Russian flagship off of the coast. The maintenance of the Russian navy has been lacking for decades.

The Ukraine sank the Moskva with help from NATO, specifically the US. Once the Moskva lit up, it was doomed. Soviet era ships were notoriously lacking in compartmentalization and damage control due to the Soviet naval philosophy.

You can't sink a 12,000 ton cruiser with 2 or even 4 neptune (harpoon) missiles. The US proved that trying to sink a 4,000 ton ship with 8 Harpoons in 2022 RIMPAC.

For a conspiracy site you people sure believe a lot of propaganda.

RIMPAC targets are usually stripped. Moskva had loaded magazines and cluttered operating spaces. A Harpoonski in a magazine can ruin the cruise for everyone.