>>21419
Whoops.

whoops
https://theaviationist.com/2016/11/14/russian-mig-29k-from-adm-kuznetsov-aircraft-carrier-has-crashed-in-mediterranean-sea/
>As reported by Combat Aircraft a Russian Navy Mig-29KUBR embarked aboard Adm. Kuznetsov aircraft carrier has crashed on Nov. 13.

>The aircraft is one of the four naval Fulcrums operated by the 100th Independent Shipborne Fighter Aviation Regiment.

>According to our sources, the incident occurred around 14.30Z and involved a two-seater Fulcrum in a formation of three Mig-29s operating from the carrier in the eastern Mediterranean Sea off Syria: whilst one of the remaining aircraft recovered aboard the Kuznetsov the third one diverted for unknown reasons to Syria.

>The pilot of the doomed aircraft ejected safely and was rescued by a helicopter while the Russian Navy radioed all the nearby vessels to remain 5NM away from the crash point.

Probably ran out of fuel. Since the Kuznetsov is a ski jump carrier, it's aircraft have to operate with reduced payloads of either fuel or munitions, and the MiG-29 is already notoriously short legged.

Of course low-visibility from the smoke could have also been a factor.

  >>21421
>The aircraft is one of the four naval Fulcrums operated by the 100th Independent Shipborne Fighter Aviation Regiment.

Or more specifically, those four are the only ones in service. They just lost a quarter of their carrier training aircraft.

>>21422
Also despite Russian claims that their air wing has been bombing hospitals in Syria, it's Su-33s have been re-deployed to airstrips because they can't actually launch with a load of bombs from the carrier.

>lost a quarter
They have Sukhois in service as well dumbass.

>>21424
Maybe you should go and read up on the Su-33, and maybe you'll find out that it doesn't have a training variant, "dumbass."

>>21425
This is because the basic flanker has a training variant. Jesus Christ you're an idiot.

Even the fulcrum trainer is fucking useless because the ground-side fulcrum has a trainer variant.

>>21426
>they'll use the three Su-33 tandem seat prototypes built in the 90s that were never accepted for service for carrier training instead!
>carrier training aircraft are useless because they can just somehow land and launch non-carrier aircraft on the carrier!

Never mind that the MiG-29K will be replacing the Su-33 in the future.

>Jesus Christ you're an idiot.

Boilermen selfies from the Kuznetsov. It's about what you'd expect from a oil-fired ship producing more smoke than a coal fired ship.
https://forum.htka.hu/threads/admiral-kuznyecov-projekt-1143-5.101/page-8

>>21432
Eewwwww. I would not take my phone in there. That appears to be the combustion chamber of a water-tube type boiler.

I've seen some shitty boilers, but nothing ever this bad. Holy fuck. I'd be really concerned about the lagging (wrapping) on the pipes there being asbestos.

I stay the fuck away from boilers and anything that looks like asbestos, so I could be wrong... but that's turbo shitty.

>>21439
Here's a shot from the Chinese carrier Liaoning's engine room, same class as the Kuznetzov but refitted 2007-2011.

>>21440
And India's Vikramaditya, a slightly smaller Kiev class carrier.

Also it looks like the Mig did run out of fuel:
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/6121/heres-why-the-russian-mig-29kr-crashed-into-the-sea-according-to-report
>According to USNI News who quotes russian media statements, a three-ship reconnaissance and familiarity flight over Aleppo was coming to an end and the jets were in the process of landing aboard the carrier when things began to unravel. The first jet landed safely, while the second landed minutes later, when its hook snapped one of the ship’s cross-deck arresting cables. This can be a very deadly situation for naval aviators and deck hands alike, regardless of their nation of origin.

>Luckily, the second MiG still caught the next wire as it rolled across the deck. At that point a fouled deck was called and the third and final navalized Fulcrum was told to waveoff and to enter a holding pattern above the ship while the landing area was restored to operational status.

>“While in the holding area, both of the fighter’s engines shut down,” read the translation. “A preliminary explanation is that they were no longer receiving fuel. ln such situations, a fighter falls like a rock, and the pilot has only one option — to eject.”

At least it does not have severe problems with engines if some soot gets into the machine room. Not sure if it is the case for modern marine vessels.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/24/royal-navy-type-45-destroyer-towed-back-port-two-days-sailed/

>A Royal Navy Type 45 destroyer has been towed back into port just two days after it sailed following a total propulsion failure while taking part in Nato exercises.

>But the 4,500 tonne hi-tech ship limped back into Plymouth on Wednesday under tow and shadowed by three additional dockyard tugs as well as the Ministry of Defence police.

>The incident is the latest in a series of electrical failures which have plagued the Type 45 fleet and forced the Navy to admit that all six destroyers need major repairs.

>In October 2016, Duncan, escorted by the frigate HMS Richmond, was dispatched by the Ministry of Defence to intercept and "man-mark" a fleet of Russian Navy vessels, including their flagship Admiral Kuznetsov, which were passing through the English Channel on their way to Syria.

Probably a close proximity to the Kuznetsov did not remain without consequences for the ship.

>>21442
The post-WWII Royal navy is about as much of a joke as the Russian navy.

>>21444
For that matter, every other modern navy (except you know what navy) is pretty much the same.

>>21444
Eh the RN's issues are more political in nature. During the Falklands they operated against a enemy with modern ASMs and trained pilots. If they had kept their single flat deck in service until then it'd have been more one-side, or perhaps wouldn't have even happened due to the threat of F-4s and Buccaneers. And they've maintained a credible submarine fleet which has had few accidents.

Anyways, the Admiral Musora Barzha has ceased operating aircraft.

http://www.janes.com/article/65775/russian-carrier-jets-flying-from-syria-not-kuznetsov
>Many of the fast jets that were embarked on the Russia aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov have been flown to the main Russian air base in Syria, Airbus Defence and Space satellite imagery obtained by IHS Jane's shows.

>The imagery shows eight Russian Federation Navy Su-33 and one MiG-29KR jets alongside various Russian Aerospace Forces (VKS) aircraft at Humaymim Air Base in Latakia province on 20 November.

>Kuznetsov can carry around 20 fast jets and is known to have embarked at least eight Su-33s for its current deployment in the Eastern Mediterranean, and at least four of the new MiG-29KR multirole fighters for the first time. One of the new jets crashed on 14 November, an incident that a Russian Ministry of Defence (MoD) statement attributed to an unspecified "equipment fault during an approach for deck landing".

>The Russian news website Gazeta published an article on 21 November that cited a source knowledgeable about carrier operations as saying that the MiG-29KR was circling Kuznetsov due to a problem with one of the carrier's four arrestor cables when both its engines failed, forcing the pilot to eject.

>The MoD indicated that there were no problems with Kuznetsov's flight operations on 15 November, when it announced that its aircraft had carried out airstrikes against targets in Syria. It released video footage showing Su-33s loaded with unguided bombs and taking off from Kuznetsov, but the MiG-29KRs were not seen flying, hinting they may have been grounded after the crash.

>Russians are flying as many sorties off their carrier as they would want the world to think,” a senior UK military officer knowledgeable about Russian operations in Syria told IHS Jane’s. "We have seen a load of Su-33s and MiG-29s flying out of Humaymim Air Base, doing strikes all over northwest Syria.

r-r-russia strong!
https://theaviationist.com/2016/12/05/russian-su-33-crashed-in-the-mediterranean-while-attempting-to-land-on-kuznetsov-aircraft-carrier/
>Military sources close to The Aviationist report that a Russian Navy Su-33 Flanker carrier-based multirole aircraft has crashed during flight operations from Admiral Kuznetsov on Saturday, Dec. 3.

>According to the report, the combat plane crashed at its second attempt to land on the aircraft carrier in good weather conditions (visibility +10 kilometers, Sea State 4, wind at 12 knots): it seems that it missed the wires and failed to go around* falling short of the bow of the warship.

>The pilot successfully ejected and was picked up by a Russian Navy search and rescue helicopter.

>Considered that on Nov. 14 a MiG-29K crashed while recovering to the aircraft carrier, if confirmed this would be the second loss for the air wing embarked on Admiral Kuznetsov in less than three weeks and a significant blow for the Russian Naval Aviation during its combat deployment off Syria.

>*Update: the Russian MoD has confirmed the incident. According to an official release the arresting wire snapped and failed to stop the aircraft.

china number one!
russia number..... EIGHT!

  >>21468
chinese navy capable of operating carrier with better air quality than chinese city, unlike a certain barbarian country.

>>21469
There were a lot more sweaty partially naked men in that video than I expected.

>>21470
Demographic issues due to the One Child program mean that over the next few decades, around 30 million Chinese men will have to either go gay or buy wives from Africa/Russia. The PLAN knows the way things are going.

Plus it's the Navy.

>b86cd3
Reminder this is the commie from /leftypol/ that doesn't know about waveforming.

Kuznetsov upgrade/repair funds have been slashed.
https://thediplomat.com/2017/10/russia-cuts-funds-for-aircraft-carrier-modernization/
>An anonymous source told Interfax that the budget will likely be reduced by fifty percent from the proposed $800 million. “Instead of previously planned approximately 50 billion rubles for the work, it is planned to allocate about half of the previously announced amount,” the source said.

  >>21832
It is because there's a new project to create a new aircraft carier rather than fully modernize the old one.

>>21834
>a country with the GDP of Brazil is going to build a CVN the size of a Nimitz!
>it's still a ski jump carrier!
>it's not actually in the budget any more: "What was most telling about Putin’s 2025 modernization planning session was what didn’t make the cut: specifically the construction of a new aircraft carrier and the development of a nuclear-powered destroyer."

excellent joke.

>>21835
>a country with the GDP of Brazil is going to build a CVN the size of a Nimitz!
A common miscinception spread by US during and after Cold War is that war is "costly" and can "ruin your budget". Naturally, meanwhile, US military budget is larger then ever, and it's closest allies(and especially puppet governments in Europe) continue to increase military spending exponentially.

>excellent joke
The excellent joke is US foreign policies. First you call your enemy "incompetent, obsolete, underfunded, declining, barbaric", etc, etc, despite having all the same problems on bigger scale.

And then you ask to give you even more money to pour into your pockets, move your armies even closer to the sovereign borders, boast how you are going to scare "them", make them surrender and pay for everything.

>>21836
>Russian government cancels aircraft carrier because they don't have the budget for it
>"th-this is America's fault!"

>>21837
No that's the other way around you fucko.
>building an aircraft carrier requires years of development and preliminary design assesment
>therefore you can't include it into current budget right away
>RRRRREEEEEEEEE RUSSIANS CANCELLED THEIR PROJECT BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE MONEYS, MERICA STRONK

>>21838
Yes and program cut from the budget was for the development. No need to get that mad about it.

>>21839
>for the development
Since when RnD of specific project requires specific article in military budget?

>>21847

Uhh, except for blackbook projects, ALL of them. Governments don't just hand their militaries blank cheques, they're budgeted with tight cost controls. R&D is a massive cost, you can't just have a vague development budget for multiple projects or hide the costs in other parts of the budget. The money men would never allow it.

>>21848
>except for blackbook projects
>R&D is a massive cost, you can't just have a vague development budget for multiple projects or hide the costs in other parts of the budget. The money men would never allow it.
Yes you can, in fact, you must, if you want to have a space for several variants and have to change specifications during development and construction. Unless you have the bad habit to throw the money at problem until it goes away. I don't know, it might be that US project planning is entirely different and they need to invent moon landing from scratch every time they want to go to the Moon.

Let's see what you need for current specifications of aircraft carrier:
1. 100 000 tonne hull construction project (ice-capable for northern seas) - that is the main trouble, although not as much since Russia has several docks able of building such a ship. Latest series of ice breaking ships is already at 33 000 tonnes.
2. Power plant - nuclear reactors for this ship have been developed for new icebreakers already. Carrier's power plant will be designed for hybrid propulsion - which means that some modifications will be needed, naturally.
3. Air traffic management system - pretty much the reason Kuznetsov being updated. There's a lot of experience learned form operations in Syria and it will take time to learn from that.

The rest of the project will have to follow these primary goals, otherwise it will turn disastrous, of course. As I said, it will take years of preliminary development without any mentioning of final project. Compare that to the less exciting and more developed alternative which awaits decision with it's preliminary design already completed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lider-class_destroyer

>but Russkies didn't include them into their 2020-2025 budget
>"Putin’s 2025 modernization planning session was what didn’t make the cut"
>"construction of a new aircraft carrier and the development of a nuclear-powered destroyer"
Because it is not fucking finalized yet - that is why it is called "session".
And in fact, it won't be until 2020 program expires.

>but Russikes don't have money to build (incapable to build; reluctant to build) anything (everything at once) you listed
Worry not, you will be the last people to know if it is true. When the project (or any of the project listed) will be completed, mainstream media bigots will ignore it's existence entirely.