Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Pravda Report)   Russia starts drawing pictures to build new aircraft carrier. The new one will be smoking too, to scare enemies off   ( pravdareport.com) divider line
    More: Ironic, aircraft carrier, new aircraft carrier, prospective aircraft carrier, light aircraft carrier, multi-purpose aircraft carrier, Project aircraft carrier, aircraft carrier strike, research center  
•       •       •

5704 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Mar 2017 at 8:45 PM (30 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



71 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-03-20 08:15:15 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2017-03-20 08:51:17 PM  
 
2017-03-20 08:53:59 PM  
Can't wait to see the RFS Trumpinski sailing on the high seas.
 
2017-03-20 08:55:00 PM  
ROLL SMOKE!!!

/ $5 says that they'll just repurpose some soviet wreck
 
2017-03-20 08:55:13 PM  
I want to post pictures of mangled burned bodies of Americans and Russians, but I keep getting banned when I do things like that :[
 
2017-03-20 08:57:01 PM  
 
2017-03-20 08:57:21 PM  
I have trouble keeping up. Do we Need NATO because of the scary Russians, or does Russia have laughable equipment?
 
2017-03-20 08:58:08 PM  

Dadoody: I want to post pictures of mangled burned bodies of Americans and Russians, but I keep getting banned when I do things like that :[


Why?

...and duh.
 
2017-03-20 08:59:12 PM  
Seriously, didn't they have to drop their military budget down below $50 billion the other day. That's a lot of cash, but they're funding two decent sized wars, and have announced a new class of tank, a new generation of fighters, a huge submarine building program (and more)....  I just don't see it.
 
2017-03-20 08:59:13 PM  
It's not so much the carrier, as the planes. And the Ruskies have some nice planes, and even better ones in the oven.
 
2017-03-20 08:59:23 PM  

MugzyBrown: I have trouble keeping up. Do we Need NATO because of the scary Russians, or does Russia have laughable equipment?


The threat is overblown, but it's still a threat.
 
2017-03-20 08:59:27 PM  

MugzyBrown: I have trouble keeping up. Do we Need NATO because of the scary Russians, or does Russia have laughable equipment?


russias navy has always been laughable.  russias army is goddamn terrifying
 
2017-03-20 09:04:45 PM  
img.fark.net
But will it have consummate v's?
 
2017-03-20 09:06:49 PM  
Pravda.Ru requested an expert opinion from Victor Murakhovsky, editor-in-chief of Arsenal of the Fatherland magazine

Wait, they're asking zee Germans?
 
2017-03-20 09:08:22 PM  
They should go really old school, slave powered oars.  Just get North Koreans to do it, just tell them they're beating the sea with sticks.
 
2017-03-20 09:09:25 PM  

iheartscotch: ROLL SMOKE!!!

/ $5 says that they'll just repurpose some soviet wreck


The one soviet wreck they had (other than the Kuznetsov), they sold to China.

Of course, this proposed ship will be slower than the shiat we were building in WWII, so...
 
2017-03-20 09:12:44 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2017-03-20 09:14:43 PM  

Plant Rights Activist: MugzyBrown: I have trouble keeping up. Do we Need NATO because of the scary Russians, or does Russia have laughable equipment?

russias navy has always been laughable.  russias army is goddamn terrifying


It wont be for too long..Their population is dwindling and their available people that are
fit for military service is going to fall off of a cliff.This time period is Russia's last hurrah.
Russia is in a real demographic crisis. Their birth rate is down, and their life expectancy is
dropping. Drug use, alcoholism, TB,AIDS, pollution, lack of safety measures and a lot of other factors are killing off their own people. The rich people aren't going to send off little Segei to fight unless he's an
officer. Russia is going to run low on serfs to use for that cannon fodder strategy.
 
2017-03-20 09:18:10 PM  

MugzyBrown: I have trouble keeping up. Do we Need NATO because of the scary Russians, or does Russia have laughable equipment?


Given Russian nukes, those mostly aren't mutually exclusive positions.
 
2017-03-20 09:20:11 PM  
The Russian navy is so bad, they tried to have the French build them some boats. True story.
 
2017-03-20 09:20:50 PM  

Plant Rights Activist: MugzyBrown: I have trouble keeping up. Do we Need NATO because of the scary Russians, or does Russia have laughable equipment?

russias navy has always been laughable.  russias army nuclear submarine and bomber fleet is goddamn terrifying


We aren't going to be in a land war with Russia any time soon.
 
2017-03-20 09:23:37 PM  

MugzyBrown: I have trouble keeping up. Do we Need NATO because of the scary Russians, or does Russia have laughable equipment?


Their boat is laughable, but a lot of their equipment is effective enough for fighting on land. For example, the Russians really like artillery and have been shelling Syria and Ukraine. The US doesn't use artillery as much as we used to, but the Russians are proving how effective "simple stuff" is. Maybe America doesn't "need" NATO but the countries sharing a landmass or a border with Russia face a formidable foe if fighting starts.

"Ukraine conflict: Shelling rages on after nightfall"
the conflict... has claimed the lives of more than 9,700 people since 2014
2 February 2017
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38850375

"Russia's superior new weapons"
a single Russian artillery "fire strike" almost destroyed two Ukrainian mechanized battalions in a few minutes.
August 5, 2016
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/russias-super​i​or-new-weapons/2016/08/05/e86334ec-08c5-11e6-bdcb-0133da18418d_story.h​tml?utm_term=.4f7236279883
(try opening WP links in a private window to avoid the paywall)
 
2017-03-20 09:24:04 PM  

Mr. Shabooboo: Plant Rights Activist: MugzyBrown: I have trouble keeping up. Do we Need NATO because of the scary Russians, or does Russia have laughable equipment?

russias navy has always been laughable.  russias army is goddamn terrifying

It wont be for too long..Their population is dwindling and their available people that are
fit for military service is going to fall off of a cliff.This time period is Russia's last hurrah.
Russia is in a real demographic crisis. Their birth rate is down, and their life expectancy is
dropping. Drug use, alcoholism, TB,AIDS, pollution, lack of safety measures and a lot of other factors are killing off their own people. The rich people aren't going to send off little Segei to fight unless he's an
officer. Russia is going to run low on serfs to use for that cannon fodder strategy.


Sounds like the US in ten years
 
2017-03-20 09:25:35 PM  

Mr. Shabooboo: Plant Rights Activist: MugzyBrown: I have trouble keeping up. Do we Need NATO because of the scary Russians, or does Russia have laughable equipment?

russias navy has always been laughable.  russias army is goddamn terrifying

It wont be for too long..Their population is dwindling and their available people that are
fit for military service is going to fall off of a cliff.This time period is Russia's last hurrah.
Russia is in a real demographic crisis. Their birth rate is down, and their life expectancy is
dropping. Drug use, alcoholism, TB,AIDS, pollution, lack of safety measures and a lot of other factors are killing off their own people. The rich people aren't going to send off little Segei to fight unless he's an
officer. Russia is going to run low on serfs to use for that cannon fodder strategy.


I'm sure there's plenty of young folks in Ukraine South Russia.
 
2017-03-20 09:35:18 PM  
Trump will probably give them half of ours before his term is over
 
2017-03-20 09:39:02 PM  

cptjeff: iheartscotch: ROLL SMOKE!!!

/ $5 says that they'll just repurpose some soviet wreck

The one soviet wreck they had (other than the Kuznetsov), they sold to China.

Of course, this proposed ship will be slower than the shiat we were building in WWII, so...


I suppose that they could repurpose one of the post-Panamax big cargo ships. Reposition the bridge, slap a deck on the top there, install a launch catapult (like an actual medieval catapult), install an elevator (preferably powered exclusively by gerbils) and TA-DA! Carrier.

/ I want to say that the Japanese did something similar in WWII, only without the gerbils and the medieval catapult...
 
2017-03-20 09:41:54 PM  

offogredux: Seriously, didn't they have to drop their military budget down below $50 billion the other day. That's a lot of cash, but they're funding two decent sized wars, and have announced a new class of tank, a new generation of fighters, a huge submarine building program (and more)....  I just don't see it.


That was covered in the article. They don't want to compete with the US in the carrier dept and are looking at asymmetric warfare instead. Russia's goals are not the same as US goals. They mostly want to protect their own backyard (using submarines and some ASW surface ships) and not so much projecting power beyond their allies backyards. The US on the other hand has several treaties and obligations which is why we have so many carriers. It takes 3 carrier groups for every one area of interest. One on station, one in refit (family time and leave is included in this) and one doing training workups and then transiting to their area of interest (believe it or not the oceans are huge and it takes a lot of time (like over a month depending) to get a carrier group from point A to point B) to relieve the carrier on station. Plus one in overhaul.

Areas of interest are usually the Gulf, the Indian Ocean (or the Med) and the West Pacific. Right now the entire Atlantic and the East Pacific are just used for training and transiting because there's no threats there right now.
 
2017-03-20 09:53:22 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2017-03-20 09:56:01 PM  

iheartscotch: cptjeff: iheartscotch: ROLL SMOKE!!!

/ $5 says that they'll just repurpose some soviet wreck

The one soviet wreck they had (other than the Kuznetsov), they sold to China.

Of course, this proposed ship will be slower than the shiat we were building in WWII, so...

I suppose that they could repurpose one of the post-Panamax big cargo ships. Reposition the bridge, slap a deck on the top there, install a launch catapult (like an actual medieval catapult), install an elevator (preferably powered exclusively by gerbils) and TA-DA! Carrier.

/ I want to say that the Japanese did something similar in WWII, only without the gerbils and the medieval catapult...


We did the same thing with our first carriers.  All first carriers were repurposed cargo or warwagons with a deck slapped on top.  I play too much world of warships with my cousin who is a huge war history nerd.
 
2017-03-20 09:57:58 PM  

iheartscotch: cptjeff: iheartscotch: ROLL SMOKE!!!

/ $5 says that they'll just repurpose some soviet wreck

The one soviet wreck they had (other than the Kuznetsov), they sold to China.

Of course, this proposed ship will be slower than the shiat we were building in WWII, so...

I suppose that they could repurpose one of the post-Panamax big cargo ships. Reposition the bridge, slap a deck on the top there, install a launch catapult (like an actual medieval catapult), install an elevator (preferably powered exclusively by gerbils) and TA-DA! Carrier.

/ I want to say that the Japanese did something similar in WWII, only without the gerbils and the medieval catapult...


I suppose that we did do that with a bunch of cruiser hulls, so maybe if they have one or two of those around, but the issue with commercial ships is that they're designed for capacity, not speed, and their hulls aren't armored- it'd be pretty easy for somebody to rig up a USS Cole type attack and destroy a carrier, with all the planes and most of the crew going down with it, given the speed it would sink. And I don't think anything the size of a cruiser could handle jets- hell, they didn't do a great job handling props, they were just easy and fast to get into service. Russia's current carrier is essentially an oversized cruiser hull, and it can't even manage put planes in the air with a full load of fuel. Converting something even smaller wouldn't work so well.
 
2017-03-20 09:58:20 PM  
They're just running without containment. It's gorram reavers!
img.fark.net
 
2017-03-20 10:03:00 PM  

Markoff_Cheney: iheartscotch: cptjeff: iheartscotch: ROLL SMOKE!!!

/ $5 says that they'll just repurpose some soviet wreck

The one soviet wreck they had (other than the Kuznetsov), they sold to China.

Of course, this proposed ship will be slower than the shiat we were building in WWII, so...

I suppose that they could repurpose one of the post-Panamax big cargo ships. Reposition the bridge, slap a deck on the top there, install a launch catapult (like an actual medieval catapult), install an elevator (preferably powered exclusively by gerbils) and TA-DA! Carrier.

/ I want to say that the Japanese did something similar in WWII, only without the gerbils and the medieval catapult...

We did the same thing with our first carriers.  All first carriers were repurposed cargo or warwagons with a deck slapped on top.  I play too much world of warships with my cousin who is a huge war history nerd.


We only used cargo hulls for training on the great lakes. Coal powered paddlewheels. They wouldn't have survived two seconds in live fire though- one or two torpedoes and those hulls would have been toast, as the massive losses of merchant shipping in the Atlantic would attest.
 
2017-03-20 10:04:31 PM  

Markoff_Cheney: iheartscotch: cptjeff: iheartscotch: ROLL SMOKE!!!

/ $5 says that they'll just repurpose some soviet wreck

The one soviet wreck they had (other than the Kuznetsov), they sold to China.

Of course, this proposed ship will be slower than the shiat we were building in WWII, so...

I suppose that they could repurpose one of the post-Panamax big cargo ships. Reposition the bridge, slap a deck on the top there, install a launch catapult (like an actual medieval catapult), install an elevator (preferably powered exclusively by gerbils) and TA-DA! Carrier.

/ I want to say that the Japanese did something similar in WWII, only without the gerbils and the medieval catapult...

We did the same thing with our first carriers.  All first carriers were repurposed cargo or warwagons with a deck slapped on top.  I play too much world of warships with my cousin who is a huge war history nerd.


I too play World of Warships. I don't carrier. To be honest, I don't know how. I prefer battleships. I've got Myogi, Wyoming and Kaiser.

/ I'd really much prefer to have Yamato, Missouri and Bismarck.
 
2017-03-20 10:17:48 PM  

iheartscotch: Markoff_Cheney: iheartscotch: cptjeff: iheartscotch: ROLL SMOKE!!!

/ $5 says that they'll just repurpose some soviet wreck

The one soviet wreck they had (other than the Kuznetsov), they sold to China.

Of course, this proposed ship will be slower than the shiat we were building in WWII, so...

I suppose that they could repurpose one of the post-Panamax big cargo ships. Reposition the bridge, slap a deck on the top there, install a launch catapult (like an actual medieval catapult), install an elevator (preferably powered exclusively by gerbils) and TA-DA! Carrier.

/ I want to say that the Japanese did something similar in WWII, only without the gerbils and the medieval catapult...

We did the same thing with our first carriers.  All first carriers were repurposed cargo or warwagons with a deck slapped on top.  I play too much world of warships with my cousin who is a huge war history nerd.

I too play World of Warships. I don't carrier. To be honest, I don't know how. I prefer battleships. I've got Myogi, Wyoming and Kaiser.

/ I'd really much prefer to have Yamato, Missouri and Bismarck.


I have the American line through X on battlewagons and cruisers, working on the German line @ Bayern and Roon.  I am no good at destroyers and haven't tried CVs.  I am Markoff8585 on there, we should throw rounds!  The NorCar is my goto for fun, tier 8 isn't as cut throat as the Montana at X.  I am actually about to go grind the Bayern to get out of that thing now, from that ship on the secondaries are beast mode.
 
2017-03-20 10:24:46 PM  
Sure.  Russia has a laughable military.  But they now control the American Military.  And they will continue to do so for at least the next four years, even if Trump suffers impeachment and removal.  And it costs them nex to nothing to maintain that force.

The really scary thing.  Even scarier than the Russians controlling two of three branches through kompromat and the last through proxy, is that they have no military.  As new funds come in--and they are going to come in from sale of Russian oil--they can build a new military from the ground up.  They don't have 50 year old vehicles to maintain.  Like China, they will develop their new army to counter the aging US fleet at every turn.

Aircraft carrier?  Not a problem.  Just as the Chinese.  Jet fighters?  Also not a problem.  The Chinese have missles that can deal with those from 2,500 miles away.  It wouldn't be so bad, except it's clear that Donald Trump--perhaps under the direct advisement of Putin--is seeking to duplicate and maintain military equipment whose glory days are long behind it.

In other words, the GOP's military buildup is a step backwards.  Not a step forwards.  We need to get rid of the old and start innovating to counter China's counters or we will be resoundingly defeated should a conflict arise with China or Russia after they are allowed to establish modernized defensive and offensive capabilities.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/killer-russian-robot-can-dete​c​t-9239940
 
2017-03-20 10:27:56 PM  

Markoff_Cheney: Plant Rights Activist: MugzyBrown: I have trouble keeping up. Do we Need NATO because of the scary Russians, or does Russia have laughable equipment?

russias navy has always been laughable.  russias army nuclear submarine and bomber fleet is goddamn terrifying

We aren't going to be in a land war with Russia any time soon.


Unless they drive here across the north pole during the winter.
 
2017-03-20 10:40:27 PM  

backhand.slap.of.reason: Sure.  Russia has a laughable military.  But they now control the American Military.  And they will continue to do so for at least the next four years, even if Trump suffers impeachment and removal.  And it costs them nex to nothing to maintain that force.

The really scary thing.  Even scarier than the Russians controlling two of three branches through kompromat and the last through proxy, is that they have no military.  As new funds come in--and they are going to come in from sale of Russian oil--they can build a new military from the ground up.  They don't have 50 year old vehicles to maintain.  Like China, they will develop their new army to counter the aging US fleet at every turn.

Aircraft carrier?  Not a problem.  Just as the Chinese.  Jet fighters?  Also not a problem.  The Chinese have missles that can deal with those from 2,500 miles away.  It wouldn't be so bad, except it's clear that Donald Trump--perhaps under the direct advisement of Putin--is seeking to duplicate and maintain military equipment whose glory days are long behind it.

In other words, the GOP's military buildup is a step backwards.  Not a step forwards.  We need to get rid of the old and start innovating to counter China's counters or we will be resoundingly defeated should a conflict arise with China or Russia after they are allowed to establish modernized defensive and offensive capabilities.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/killer-russian-robot-can-detec​t-9239940


China and the US are too invested in each other to be enemies unless we do something really really really farking stupid.  For every escalation in their military that they brag about, we have had 2-4 projects under wraps to counter it since before their shiat went public.  
Call me a conspiracy old school buff, but It is documented fact that the military is 20 years ahead of what is public on our side.  For every plane that they are trying to reverse engineer with the files they have, we probably have info on everything they are capable of, and there was some sort of trade.
img.fark.net
That 10x money of all other countries combined we are blowing has to go somewhere, these black hole programs aren't exactly audited.
 
2017-03-20 10:58:03 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: The Russian navy is so bad, they tried to have the French build them some boats. True story.


Was on a French vessel once for a couple days.  They sold some to the Kuwaitis.  Approximately Coast Guard cutter sized vessel maybe 120 feet long.  Nice little ship, well appointed, virtually all automated.  Not a single person standing watch in the engine room.  Terrible slow though.  More like a yacht with a deck gun and some vicious missiles.
 
2017-03-20 11:15:48 PM  

brandent: Not a single person standing watch in the engine room.


That is a very bad idea. At least a fire and security watch that can see or hear when something is starting to go sideways. Then if you get hit who is going to combat the casualty? People that have no idea of how stuff works and what you can do about it. This is how you get ships sunk. This isn't some commercial fishing vessel or cruise ship...
 
2017-03-20 11:26:33 PM  
"Is there any sense to compete with the USA at this point?"
"I see no reason to compete. A competition like this leads to a senseless arms race. I think that Russia will spend this money much more efficiently if we look for asymmetric answers and develop systems that will give us a possibility to curtail strike groups of American aircraft carriers.


Wow! An article that is actually makes sense especially coming from pravda and a Russian.
 
2017-03-20 11:31:26 PM  
...and they're going to get Mexico to pay for it!
 
2017-03-20 11:58:41 PM  

SuperNinjaToad: Wow! An article that is actually makes sense especially coming from pravda and a Russian.



Even more amazing is that Pravda is being critical of a policy decision.
 
2017-03-21 12:02:51 AM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: MugzyBrown: I have trouble keeping up. Do we Need NATO because of the scary Russians, or does Russia have laughable equipment?

The threat is overblown, but it's still a threat.


Hitler underestimated the Russians in WWII. Sure their tanks weren't as good as the German ones, but when Stalin could just send another thousand tanks to a front, and then another thousand...

In a land war sheer numbers make a big difference. In terms of budget the Russian military is barely more then the UKs defence budget, and less according to some reports, but in terms of men they're huge.
 
2017-03-21 12:17:34 AM  

SuperNinjaToad: "Is there any sense to compete with the USA at this point?"
"I see no reason to compete. A competition like this leads to a senseless arms race. I think that Russia will spend this money much more efficiently if we look for asymmetric answers and develop systems that will give us a possibility to curtail strike groups of American aircraft carriers.

Wow! An article that is actually makes sense especially coming from pravda and a Russian.


By repeating Russia's decades-old military strategy against the U.S.? Not exactly groundbreaking thought there.
 
2017-03-21 12:27:06 AM  
That moment when you realize that eventually, the navy will have a USS Donald Trump aircraft carrier.
 
2017-03-21 12:41:37 AM  
If a country somehow manages to destroy a US carrier group, they will have killed over 8,000 American military and destroyed equipment worth over $4 Tr - you can without a doubt, expect the BIG bombs to be delivered to their front door very swiftly.
 
2017-03-21 01:06:57 AM  
Back in 1989 or 1990, several Soviet warships visited San Diego.  I took a tour of a guided missile destroyer.  I remember seeing the rubber watertight seal of a "watertight" hatch on the deck level half covered in haze gray paint, a major error in elementary damage control.  The Soviet, now, Russian, Navy is a Potemkin Navy.

//LT, USN at the time.
 
2017-03-21 01:14:58 AM  

YakiManiac: If a country somehow manages to destroy a US carrier group, they will have killed over 8,000 American military and destroyed equipment worth over $4 Tr - you can without a doubt, expect the BIG bombs to be delivered to their front door very swiftly.


Short of a nuke that's never going to happen and even then it still might not happen (yes damage for sure, but not a guaranteed sinking). These aren't fancy yacht's built for looks out of fiberglass, but warships built inside and out to withstand a hard hit and still keep on going. In WWII the ships that were sunk still had teak decks. Today they are inches thick steel in the places that matter.
 
2017-03-21 01:24:19 AM  

Radioactive Ass: YakiManiac: If a country somehow manages to destroy a US carrier group, they will have killed over 8,000 American military and destroyed equipment worth over $4 Tr - you can without a doubt, expect the BIG bombs to be delivered to their front door very swiftly.

Short of a nuke that's never going to happen and even then it still might not happen (yes damage for sure, but not a guaranteed sinking). These aren't fancy yacht's built for looks out of fiberglass, but warships built inside and out to withstand a hard hit and still keep on going. In WWII the ships that were sunk still had teak decks. Today they are inches thick steel in the places that matter.


Bloody right!

img.fark.net
 
2017-03-21 01:26:07 AM  

jackmalice: Back in 1989 or 1990, several Soviet warships visited San Diego.  I took a tour of a guided missile destroyer.  I remember seeing the rubber watertight seal of a "watertight" hatch on the deck level half covered in haze gray paint, a major error in elementary damage control.  The Soviet, now, Russian, Navy is a Potemkin Navy.

//LT, USN at the time.


I'm going to guess that that was a hasty paint job to try and pretty up the ship for visitors. Haste makes for sloppy when it comes to paint. When we were in Naples I was told to paint the AMR1 access trunk and hatches in less than 2 hours so an Italian Admiral could tour the boat at the last minute. I sort of got into trouble for a bit when I took close 3 hours to do it for just that reason. The duty chief cleared it up for the JG in port duty officer (still not qualified in submarines) about why it took that long and why it couldn't be rushed.
 
Displayed 50 of 71 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report