Posted on 10/22/2016 4:23:38 AM PDT by Strategy
THE RUSSIAN aircraft carrier floating through the Channel in a show of Putin's naval might is a Soviet antique plagued by technical problems, it has been revealed.
The Admiral Kuznetsov, part of a fleet destined for Syria, was seen belching black smoke off the coast of Dover.
But while it looks daunting, the vast vessel is a relic of the Soviet era -- with the port side still bearing it's communist name - "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov".
The ship even has a tow boat running alongside waiting for it to grind to a stuttering halt.
Ex-Royal Navy officer Peter Roberts said: "There's nothing more depressing for a naval captain when he leaves home waters than to be escorted by a tug because even your commander in chief thinks you are going to break down."
The ship frequently has to return to port so its steam turbines can be repaired, and its piping system often freezes in colder waters.
The chance of pipes bursting is so high that the majority of cabins for the 1,690 strong crew are reportedly not supplied with running water.
(Excerpt) Read more at express.co.uk ...
Explain the picture in post 72. A frigate basically intact after 2 mk48 hits. 1 hit was directly under the keel.
Russians don’t worry so much about collateral damage. They just blow shit up and kill people.
___________________________________________________________
Russia still has a WWII mindset regarding warfare. In that war there was no great effort made to minimize civilian casualties. From both sides’ point of view it was a war to win at any cost. Maximizing civilian deaths is very demoralizing to an adversary, and many times it was done intentionally to put the most pressure possible on the enemy’s government. The Germans bombing London and other British cities, the allies bombing Dresden and other cities with minimal military interest, and the most demoralizing of all the US bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those last two were destroyed PURELY for the terror effect on the enemy’s government and civilian population.
The Russians fight to win, and when they find they can’t win they don’t hesitate to bug out and cut their losses (Afghanistan). Also, they are not hampered by nonsensical “rules of engagement” that are designed for defeat. Unlike the US, Russia has the backing and moral support of the vast majority of it populace, and for all these reasons it would be a very grave mistake for some idiot like Obama or Hillary to think they could win a “limited” or conventional war with Russia. The two countries play by very different rules.
USN still having problems getting torpedoes to explode.
Well, that was a bit snarky. But for someone like me who’s addicted to British naval history perhaps understandable? Last week, the Brits saying they’ll shoot down Russian jets (who are attacking sunni terrorists) over Syria. This week, Brit media sniggering at a smoky exhaust on a Russian aircraft carrier - when they can’t project naval power, east of the Thames. And if they could, it would be on the enemy’s side. I invite you to reflect on what a Jellicoe, Collingwood or Lord Barham would have thought of this sorry nadir for the Royal Navy.
Just the name ‘Barham’ gave me an unexpected chill. As in ‘HMS’.
One of the true greats. He accumulated more sea time than Nelson, which is downright scary when you think about it. From memory the fast packet or sloop sent by Collingwood with the news of Trafalgar was addressed to Barham?
I have a fondness for the RN of old, but your knowledge of it exceeds mine.
I was thinking of the poor tars that were massed on HMS Barham’s capsized hull when her magazines exploded. Pathe has video of that, and I have read a number of survivor accounts. Horrifying.
Thanks for the intel but I will NOT be googling that one. Cheers, B
Can’t say I blame you, Byron.
I suppose that the Russian hardware steaming down the channel is on it’s way to support the Syria mission.
Unless of course, they want a re-match at Tsushima with the Japanese. The last time they did that it was a tragic comedy.
Just speculation. Running a steam railroad locomotive you would fuel (fire) the boiler at a rate close to the speed or tractive effort required at any given time. Running the boiler hotter would not only mean venting excess steam (a waste of power), but you would also likely have inefficient combustion -excess smoke being a tell tail sign.
The carrier is likely traveling at far less than maximum speed, but with potential enemy ships with just thousands of yards away they would need to ability to meanuver quickly -not waiting to build a full “head of steam”.
So, you might assume that the boilers at running at full capacity, grossly inefficient given the speed required, but excess capacity is lending the ability to go to full speed quickly -without lag time to build more steam. Again, running in that inefficient state it is expelling unburnt gases (inefficient combustion) and likely venting excess steam.
This may well be why the smoke plume looks rediculous.
No modern steam driven warship should smoke black like that. The reason it is smoking black is poor training and /or old boilers. It could be bad fuel but I doubt it.
I would agree, there are means to capture and burn unburnt gases, means to condense excess steam back to water (covertly) without venting it. They are probably making power at 300-400% of the current demand so they can bring it into action at full power instantaneously, but the ability to store that steam is finite.
Is it the KISS principle (Rusdian doxy), the Russian low bidder or worse of all the Russian politically connected bidder -who know?
Rusdian = Russian
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.