This is Russia's only aircraft carrier.
If Putin gives it up, the Russian Black Sea Fleet won't have any carriers left.

they don't aircraft carriers, they have tigers.

They basically don't have one now.
It needs tugs to move around.
Essentially in permanent dry dock

>>510612474 (OP)
>ramp

>>510612474 (OP)
Kuznetsov isn't part if the black sea fleet.

>a fucking ramp

>>510612474 (OP)
yes, it's a huge win for oinkraine

>>510612677
It's a loss because they won't waste more money on trying to repair it

>>510612474 (OP)
>Black Sea Fleet
Idiot.

Regardless, this carrier is more trouble than it's worth. I don't know why they've bothered with it for this long. A single carrier isn't a sign of exceptional strength, especially when it's not even nukular. Better off putting those defense funds elsewhere.

>>510612474 (OP)
They are scrapping it just to finally unveil the next generation, the game changer
Not one, but TWO ramps!

>>510613145
Is it really that much cheaper to use ramps? Why hasn't the US ever used them? What do we know that no one else does. Or what does everyone else know that we don't?

>>510613145
carriers are obsolete, bimbo, they ran away from Ansarallah

>>510612474 (OP)
carriers don’t make sense if your mainland spans half the globe, the US needs them because their bases are so far from everything relevant (middle east, China, eastern Europe). Maybe if Russia had military ambitions in Africa or South America they could use them? But even then they have friendly nations in those regions to host them.

carriers are only useful for bombing third world nations that can barely fight back.

>>510612474 (OP)
>AIRcraft
>has to be carried
What's the fucking point?

>>510613275
ramps allow you to launch without catapults, catapults are harder to maintain than ramps

>>510612474 (OP)
Russia is a land power so their navy was always a meme, other than the ballistic submarines. The Army is the core of Russian state power.

>>510613275
Ramps mean they're poorfags and can't launch fully loaded bomb trucks

>>510612474 (OP)
Hopefully they rebuild it like they're doing with the remaining kirovs. Most people don't realize what an interesting and unique ship the kuzentzov is, they call it an aircraft carrier but it's extremely heavily armed more like a large missile cruiser.
Hatches in the flight deck open up and it can vertically launch 12 gigantic anti-ship missiles.

>>510613489
>other than the ballistic submarines
And attack subs.

>>510613323
how is the oxcarts taste today?

>>510613489
pretty much

tbf it would serve russia many times better scrapped, and harvested for drone construction materials

and carrier is for "power projection" aka dick waving anyway but nobody buys it after the black sea shenanigans

>>510613275
Jets can only land into the wind on a carrier with a ramp, due to obvious reasons. Meaning if the boat can't turn around for tactical reasons you risk losing the jet if there's an emergency. The Chinese see potential loss of aircraft and pilot to be cheaper than designing and maintaining steam catapults that would allow a flat deck. It's that simple.

>>510613551
>fully loaded bomb trucks
Thanks for reminding me I have this.

>>510613489
>Russia is a land power so their navy was always a meme
Russia spent the last 200 trying to unfuck this meme.
This entire thread reeks of vatnik cope.
Its obvious they just couldnt make it work properly.

However: Carriers are probably phasing out.

>>510613275
>Why hasn't the US ever used them?
The US is full in on wunderwaffe doctrine.
Cheap and practical aren't what they want.
Also something something sunk cost fallacy. Some of their aircraft require the catapult, so they don't want to get rid of it.

>>510613275
>Is it really that much cheaper to use ramps?
Ramps usually also imply nuclear powered.

>>510613692
I mean catapult ofc

>>510613623
The ramp on carriers has nothing to do with landing, Rajesh. They all use arresting wires except for the "carriers" that use VTOL/VSTOL aircraft.

>>510612474 (OP)
A fucking ramp.

>>510613641
>Russia spent the last 200 trying to unfuck this meme.
Its not cope its the practical realities of why they're a land power standing in the way of their wants.

>>510613692
>>510613719
Good point. Steam generation and all.

>>510613754
>We have spent 200 years trying to unfuck this
>we couldnt manage to do so
>we didnt NEED it, we were a land power all along
lol

>>510612474 (OP)
That thing is more an embarrassment than a military tool.

>>510612474 (OP)
The ziggers will be by with an explanation, chang, and it will be a doozy.

>>510612677
How's that three day operation, Vitaly? In Kiev yet?

>>510613370
Being able to bomb a country on the other side of the globe, something the "2nd army in the world" should be able to do.

>>510613275
Because defense contractors can charge way more to install catapults.

>>510612474 (OP)
Russia always does this
>see western innovation
>steal tech and try to copy it
>"See? We can do it too!"
>it barely works and costs a fortune to maintain
>quietly retire it after a few years
>"That stuff was outdated anyway! Our own native tech
is much better than any western junk!"
>rinse and repeat

>>510614120
>is much better than any western junk!"
in this case, its the
>we didnt need it
cope. See several posters here.
metodichka word of the day: land power

>>510613275
Cheaper than catapults but you can only land in one direction.

>>510612474 (OP)
Without at least three aircraft carriers, it is impossible to maintain a rotation of maintenance, rest, and missions/training. With only one ship, it is little more than a decoration.
For the Russians, it would be far wiser to invest in nuclear submarines, which still have the facilities for construction and maintenance.

>>510614120
Buran Energia was an interesting scenario because it was indeed better on all fronts compared to the Space Shuttle, problem is the shuttle was a terrible idea in the first place.

>>510614120
There's some merit to what you're saying (especially with the tu-144) and to a layman the buran looks like a copy of the shuttle but in rocketry terms the buran operate a lot differently.

>>510612474 (OP)
>the Russian Black Sea Fleet won't have any carriers left.
Even glossing over the usefulness of carriers in 2025 (yhypersonic missile frigates are the future) carriers are only useful for force projection, which Russia doesn't, do. Just put that malformed thing out of its misery

>>510614181
>>510613813
You really should go back to the ukraine.

>>510614210
Show me a carrier where you can land in more than one direction.

>>510614585
I accept your concession.

>>510612474 (OP)
And it hasn't moved in the past 5 years or something. Russia isn't going to be starting any operations where they'd need a carrier anytime soon.

>>510612474 (OP)
>Russian Black Sea Fleet won't have any carriers left.
Does the Russian Black Sea Fleet need a carrier? Their jets and air defence systems can reach all Black Sea countries anyway. And the only other country bordering the Black Sea with a proper navy is Turkey which although a NATO country is not keen on agitating Russia.

>>510612930
I want to follow Gretta in that thing until she sucks my dick.

It's not the 40s anymore, carriers are obsolete, we can hardly even bomb yemen with good ones

>>510614886
kek

>>510613836
I recall a /k/ thread with a Russian recruit that served on that ship.
it sounded like a prison.
new guys get there shit stolen and beat by salty crew.
The guys getting out also get robbed too, since they don't need it.

>>510612474 (OP)
The Houthis revealed that aircraft carriers are obsolete in 2025. For China it makes sense because they want to project power in the South China Sea. For Russia? Nope.

FInd. Strelok.

>>510615593
Reminds me of the inside of their last Typhoon class SSBN. Even conscripts should have enough of a self-preservation instinct to maintain their ship/sub.

>>510612474 (OP)
Aircraft carriers are as obsolete as battleships. They're only useful for attacking distant weak regimes that don't have any air defence and even then they don't always work - the Houthis haven't been stopped.

>>510613275
>Is it really that much cheaper to use ramps?
When you look at the Russian approach to all weapon systems you will see two particular areas of focus:
> Maintainability
> Ease of use
These two are usually even preferred over cutting edge capabilities or performance.

The whole concept of aircraft carriers in general violate this, but if they are going to make it then it will be with ramps since they will work even without maintenance and to operate it you also need less staff. Contrast this to how many staffers you need to maintain a catapult and then to operate it in every launch, and the added complexity it all brings.

They do lose some of the capabilities, in particular launching heavily loaded jets and certain aircrafts. But in relative terms, it will be a platform that is easier to maintain and requires less people to operate.

IMO, the US should think about that more. If the costs of running foreign wars and air campaigns is lower, then they can be affordable for longer or at a higher intensity.

>>510612474 (OP)
aircraft carriers are as useful as 17th century spanish galleons in a real war but way more ugly

>>510612474 (OP)
>Russian Black Sea Fleet won't have any carriers left.
why would you need carriers in the Black Sea if your home country has Black Sea shoreline? Seems a bit pointless.

COMRADS, WE NEED MORE 1PBTIDs SAYING >we didnt need it
THICKEN THE ARROWS

>>510616003
>the Houthis haven't been stopped.
yeah it turns out dropping bombs into a non-Newtonian fluid, is just a waste of bombs. who knew?

>>510615104
>The Houthis revealed that aircraft carriers are obsolete in 2025. For China it makes sense because they want to project power in the South China Sea. For Russia? Nope.
I think Iran has the right approach.

Aircraft carriers are made for two purposes.
> Force projection
> Alternate (and moving) airstrip

If force projection is less important and you just need an additional airstrip for the first days of a war or to supplement land based airfields, then a low tech alternative like converted oil tankers work just fine.
Pic rel is similar to a tiny airstrip with a control tower, and it would be enough for a squadron of jets if the runway is long enough.

For most operations, this is more than enough (like operations in Syria, Iraq, Africa, LATAM and so on).
But it is not enough if you want to operate an entire air force outside the coast of the US for instance.

Considering that most of our deployments are the low intensity type, cheap carriers like this one would do just fine (for instance the operation in Libya would have been much easier if they existed).

As for the force projection purpose, that whole concept is dead in the water given the advances in Russian and Chinese missile tech.