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  
•       •       •

5723 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Mar 2017 at 8:45 PM (43 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2017-03-20 08:59:27 PM  
8 votes:

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 08:57:21 PM  
4 votes:
I have trouble keeping up. Do we Need NATO because of the scary Russians, or does Russia have laughable equipment?
2017-03-20 09:41:54 PM  
3 votes:

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 08:59:23 PM  
3 votes:

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 09:24:04 PM  
2 votes:

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 09:18:10 PM  
2 votes:

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 09:14:43 PM  
2 votes:

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 08:59:13 PM  
2 votes:
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 08:55:00 PM  
2 votes:
ROLL SMOKE!!!

/ $5 says that they'll just repurpose some soviet wreck
2017-03-21 07:08:50 AM  
1 vote:

Radioactive Ass: Ow! That was my feelings!: Pride goeth before the fall.

Nothing is unsinkable. Especially a boat.

I said probably short of a nuke. Anything is possible though. The Soviets had something like 4 different nuclear torpedoes. We had exactly one type and we got rid of it long before I went in back in 1982. They kept them until the USSR failed and beyond. We didn't need them. We could hear them long before they could hear us. We know this because we could pick up surface targets at twice the distance that they could (and we were much quieter than cargo ships), they only reacted at half of the distance after we had already heard it. They were sitting ducks without even knowing it, but we weren't at war so no shooting, just a lot of cat and mouse. And we were the cat.


Thanks to helpful folks like John Anthony Walker, that edge ended up being a lot less dramatic than it may have seemed.
2017-03-21 03:17:08 AM  
1 vote:

Radioactive Ass: Ow! That was my feelings!: Radioactive Ass: Ow! That was my feelings!: Pride goeth before the fall.

Nothing is unsinkable. Especially a boat.

I said probably short of a nuke. Anything is possible though. The Soviets had something like 4 different nuclear torpedoes. We had exactly one type and we got rid of it long before I went in back in 1982. They kept them until the USSR failed and beyond. We didn't need them. We could hear them long before they could hear us. We know this because we could pick up surface targets at twice the distance that they could (and we were much quieter than cargo ships), they only reacted at half of the distance after we had already heard it. They were sitting ducks without even knowing it, but we weren't at war so no shooting, just a lot of cat and mouse. And we were the cat.

China is not going to use just one missile. They will use dozens/hundreds.

And you don't have to sink a boat to knock it out of the fight.
[img.fark.net image 850x635]

I think that you misunderstood me. That is a ship. I was on boats (as in submarines). Getting close enough to a ship means that you had to get past us first. That's also an example of a wooden deck which made those ships vulnerable. The only wooden decked navy ship that I've ever stood on was the USS Constitution and the Historic Ship Nautilus. Neither of which will ever be at war ever again. Now everything is steel except for those surface abominations that we recently floated which are aluminum which is a colossally bad idea. Aluminum burns, steel does not.


I know it is a ship. The fact I called an aircraft carrier a 'boat' was either ignorance or...

America has a fathead. We cannot afford to be arrogant. Nobody likes us anymore. Not even our allies. We are the most vulnerable we have been since 1941.
2017-03-21 02:45:40 AM  
1 vote:

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


Both. It's a complicated world. Also, Russia is a land power.
2017-03-21 01:06:57 AM  
1 vote:
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 12:17:34 AM  
1 vote:

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.
2017-03-20 10:27:56 PM  
1 vote:

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 10:24:46 PM  
1 vote:
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 10:03:00 PM  
1 vote:

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 09:35:18 PM  
1 vote:
Trump will probably give them half of ours before his term is over
2017-03-20 09:20:11 PM  
1 vote:
The Russian navy is so bad, they tried to have the French build them some boats. True story.
2017-03-20 08:59:12 PM  
1 vote:
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 08:15:15 PM  
1 vote:
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
Displayed 21 of 21 comments

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