Russian special military operation in Ukraine #19

caveat emptor wrote:
Hopefully, Moskva sinking will show to Russian command that keeping huge outdated ships that don't have any place in modern battle is wrong. Not to mention how much money is wasted to just keep them floating.

I believe that Kuznetsov ate few billion $ in last 20 years with very little to show for. It was maybe operational for 4 or 5 in all that time. They are just vanity projects, not battle worth ships.

kvs wrote:The US carrier tubs were rendered obsolete by Russian supersonic anti-ship missiles years ago.   That none of them has been sunk
means exactly nothing since the US has not engaged in any conflict where they would be used.   This basically sums up the US
"invincibility".   It has not been tested since WWII by any peer level opponent.   This is why pundit-tards in the US have been
spouting off about Russia as if it was in the same category as Saddam's Iraq.

Big_Gazza wrote:

When the first US CVN gets deposited to the bottom of an oceanic trench after being perforated by Zircons, lets see if you hold true to this idea.  Your Monkey Empire spends a colossal pit of fiat dollars each year on parading these 100kT floating phallic symbols around the worlds oceans in an effort to intimidate the planets populations.
Russia was in peacetime mostly, and what hostilities there were didn't require the services of an air-superiority carrier designed to protect SSBN bastions.  A few billion over 20 years?  Sounds like a bargain to me, given that the K is about to get a 2nd life after modernisation and repair.

sepheronx wrote:
I agree to a certain degree.  The purpose of the Kuznetsov I believe is to upkeep Russia's ability to keep training pilots to take off and land from an actual carrier, along with trying to modernize or get a shipyard experience with a Carrier for the future.  The idea behind it is eventually Russia wants to get carriers.  And getting rid of the carrier they got, may cost significantly more in the future when building a new one.

I do agree, its a waste of money.  But I can see where they may be coming from keeping it alive.

I would figure Frigates and Submarines are the best cost efficient method of having a navy.

sepheronx wrote:...Circumstances change. Maybe Russia decided it was better to hand them over to get their people back.

Plus, that isn't exactly what Russian POW's were saying:

https://t.me/DonbassDevushka/13163

Maybe you don't care for Russians or their people but the government does.

Russia is starting to exibit the familiar symptoms of pussying out:

caveat emptor wrote:
Bro, here's a novel idea for you. Not everyone that lives in US is American or Western idiot, as you put it.
Btw, last time i checked your own Australia was one of the Five Eyes and in the contest of sucking US dick.
Kuznetsov had pretty dismal record, so far, and billions were spent while she was sitting in the drydock for years on end.
For money they've spent to keep that floating tub and few other vanity projects,  they could get dozen new corvettes and frigates.

PapaDragon wrote:
You start executing theirs in that case

Russia has more of them in storage, go proportionate, 20 dead Ukrainians for every Russian, see how long they can keep up

And then you go hard and heavy and kill fuckload of extra Ukrainians in Kiev control zone on top

War is about killing them before they kill you

Russia is starting to exibit the familiar symptoms of pussying out: abandoning positions, freeing prisoners, obsessing over PR, pretending everything is fine and pussyfooting in general

Seen this all before first hand

kvs wrote:Russia "retreated" from around Kharkov too.   Everybody and his dog knows more about the plans of the Russian general staff
than the general staff itself.   The island became an obsession for Elensky.   He has not succeeded in his theater just yet
and I expect Russia to hit at any Kiev attempt to stage theater over the capture of the island.

kvs wrote:The exchange of around 40 Azov POWs as part of a larger group has triggered the usual Russian chicken little hysteria.
This is one thing that really gets under my skin.   All the sanctimonious, dogmatic BS over irrelevant issues.   "We were
promised that no Azov POWs would be exchanged, how dare they go back on their word".   GTFO, morons.   There is
something called pragmatism and situational flexibility.    Take your zealot "purist" philosophy of life and shove it up your
asses.  

Big_Gazza wrote:
K isn't ever going to be a strike carrier as a Nimitz or the White Elephant-class  (err... Ford) but she is definitely useful and the navy is better having her than not.  She isn't going to be broken up simply to satisfy the Russophobic fetishes of the Clown Empire or its legions of snarky hater-drones, so deal with it.

Mir wrote:
I am actually hoping that the Russians would refit the Kuznetsov with Tsirkon missiles. In my opinion that would give the K far better strike capabilities than any of the US carriers. (F-16 fanboys club horror screams are coming in loud and clear right now! )  

Mir wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:
K isn't ever going to be a strike carrier as a Nimitz or the White Elephant-class  (err... Ford) but she is definitely useful and the navy is better having her than not.  She isn't going to be broken up simply to satisfy the Russophobic fetishes of the Clown Empire or its legions of snarky hater-drones, so deal with it.

I am actually hoping that the Russians would refit the Kuznetsov with Tsirkon missiles. In my opinion that would give the K far better strike capabilities than any of the US carriers. (F-16 fanboys club horror screams are coming in loud and clear right now! )