Russia's Only Aircraft Carrier Damaged by Sinking Dry Dock

[Chance]

From ArsTechnica (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/10/russias-only-aircraft-carrier-damaged-as-its-floating-dry-dock-sinks/):


Russia's one and only aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, is in the middle of a long-forestalled refit in Murmansk. But its repairs may take a bit longer now that the floating dry dock that was carrying it at Murmansk's Shipyard 82 suddenly sank—causing a giant crane to crash onto the Kuznetsov and gash a 16-foot hole in its hull. One shipyard worker is missing, and four others were hospitalized—two of them in critical condition.

The floating dry dock, the PD-50—one of the largest in the world—apparently sank as the result of a power outage following a power surge at the shipyard, possibly related to damage to power lines caused by ice.

According to the press officer of the Zvezdochka Ship Repair Center, Evgeny Gladyshev, the accident occurred while the Kuznetsov was being floated out of the dock. "When the 82nd Shipyard was launching the Admiral Kuznetsov, an emergency situation occurred," Gladyshev explained to Interfax. "Due to interruptions in the supply of electric power to the PD-50, the floating dock dived out in an off-design mode."


Given how well the Kuznetsov "works" under usual circumstances, I doubt the damage is a big deal, relatively speaking.

31866

That's how it looks when it's normally underway.

Majestic.

[BehindBlueI's]

That's how it looks when it's normally underway.

Majestic.

....is it coal fired?

[Chance]

....is it coal fired?

Something to do with how its boiler works.

1057366074449125376

1057373919487897600

[NH Shooter]

That's how it looks when it's normally underway.

Considering it was painted light gray, the boilers must run rich all the time.

[SeriousStudent]

Grey smoke means the Russian Navy gets a new Pope, or is that white smoke?

This stuff is always very confusing to me.

[Kukuforguns]

My thoughts are with the families of the missing/injured workers/crew.

[Chemsoldier]

Completely uninformed wild assed guess: The Brits just sent a message reference Novichok use within their nation.

"Make it look like an accident 007."
-M

[Drang]

....is it coal fired?

Russian.

Russian engineering.

Russian Naval engineering.

The funniest thing to me about The Hunt For Red October was where James Bond is nattering about the glorious traditions of the Russian Soviet Navy...

This, though:

"When the 82nd Shipyard was launching the Admiral Kuznetsov, an emergency situation occurred," Gladyshev explained to Interfax. "Due to interruptions in the supply of electric power to the PD-50, the floating dock dived out in an off-design mode."
This is some glorious bureaucratic doubletalk for "Oh, shit."

"Off-design mode"? Full points to you, comrade mouthpiece.

Also: Wonder if the Chicoms are having any doubts about their slightly used Russky flattops...?

[Shoresy]

Completely uninformed wild assed guess: The Brits just sent a message reference Novichok use within their nation.

"Make it look like an accident 007."
-M

Hanlon's Razor - Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

I don't think it's a far stretch to sub in "shitty maintenance" for "stupidity".

[Chemsoldier]

Hanlon's Razor - Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

I don't think it's a far stretch to sub in "shitty maintenance" for "stupidity".

Oh I know. That country has so many safety issues, it is so likely that it was simply accident or incompetance as makes no odds. It's just the kid in me that used to kill commies in the backyard with toy guns that delights in the thought of sabotage.

[HCountyGuy]

31877

“Are you sure that wasn’t just submarine mode?”

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Happened to a British battleship, the HMS Valiant in WW2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Valiant_(1914)

[Peally]

That thing is a floating embarrassment. It's OK Russia, you don't need the damn thing just come to terms with the situation and scuttle the poor floating environmental hazard. US aircraft carriers are extremely hazardous environments; combine that inherent danger with the classic Soviet style of cutting any corners possible and you have a disaster waiting to happen.

I wonder if the Chinese ship in that class has this many problems? You never hear much about it in the news but that may just be due to lack of use.

[Hambo]

Propelled by notoriously unreliable oil-burning turbo-pressurized boilers and steam turbines—the Kuznetsov had so many propulsion failures that it had to be accompanied by a seagoing tug just in case

I suppose they could have installed a Chernobyl grade reactor instead.

[Grey]

I suppose they could have installed a Chernobyl grade reactor instead.Would of been more exciting.

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

[jbrimlow]

Kuznetsov is so full of fail.

The powerplant fails so often that ocean-going tugs accompany Kuznetsov wherever it goes.

Kuznetsov has managed all of four deployments since joining the fleet in 1991. Four.

The plumbing has a tendency to freeze in the winter. So they just shut off water to 60% of the rooms and half the latrines.

[Stephanie B]

Something to do with how its boiler works.

1057366074449125376

1057373919487897600
No. The Navy had a class of pressure-fired ships (Garcia/Brooke) that did not smoke like that. The ships were maintenance hogs, primarily because of their engineering plants, but they still sailed.

[Stephanie B]

Kuznetsov is so full of fail.

The plumbing has a tendency to freeze in the winter. So they just shut off water to 60% of the rooms and half the latrines.
Good design for a ship that operates above the Arctic Circle. (Stalin would have had the design engineers shot.)

[Trooper224]

Kuznetsov is so full of fail.

The powerplant fails so often that ocean-going tugs accompany Kuznetsov wherever it goes.

Kuznetsov has managed all of four deployments since joining the fleet in 1991. Four.

The plumbing has a tendency to freeze in the winter. So they just shut off water to 60% of the rooms and half the latrines.

That's compartments and heads, wog.

[Trooper224]

At the end of the cold war we had a period called Glasnost, a Russian term loosely defined as "transparent and open". I had the opportunity to go aboard a couple of Soviet warships. That experience confirmed two things I'd long suspected: it really sucked sack being a Soviet sailor and the only reason the Soviet Navy was a threat was due entirely to numbers. Their ships were, by and large, poorly maintained and crews were poorly trained. They just had a ton of everything to throw at us.

[einherjarvalk]

Also: Wonder if the Chicoms are having any doubts about their slightly used Russky flattops...?

My first doubt would've come upon seeing that the flattop had a fucking ski jump.

[TGS]

My first doubt would've come upon seeing that the flattop had a fucking ski jump.

The ski jump is pretty common for everyone who doesn't have supercarriers....so, for everyone who isn't us. France, UK, Brazil, China, India, Italy, Spain, Thailand......they're almost exclusively ski jumps instead of using catapults which are very expensive to operate.

[TGS]

At the end of the cold war we had a period called Glasnost, a Russian term loosely defined as "transparent and open". I had the opportunity to go aboard a couple of Soviet warships. That experience confirmed two things I'd long suspected: it really sucked sack being a Soviet sailor and the only reason the Soviet Navy was a threat was due entirely to numbers. Their ships were, by and large, poorly maintained and crews were poorly trained. They just had a ton of everything to throw at us.

My brother is a Nuclear power technician on subs, and he described to me how the Soviet strategy for a few decades wasn't proper shielding from radiation, but having them drink red wine.

Great. A bunch of glowing sailors with radiation sickness who are also blitzed. Thumbs up, Ivan, great fucking plan.....

[einherjarvalk]

The ski jump is pretty common for everyone who doesn't have supercarriers....so, for everyone who isn't us. France, UK, Brazil, China, India, Italy, Spain, Thailand......they're almost exclusively ski jumps instead of using catapults which are very expensive to operate.

I'm just being an CATOBAR aircraft carrier elitist.

Additionally, it should be noted that the French have an active CATOBAR, the Charles de Gaulle.

[Trooper224]

My brother is a Nuclear power technician on subs, and he described to me how the Soviet strategy for a few decades wasn't proper shielding from radiation, but having them drink red wine.

Great. A bunch of glowing sailors with radiation sickness who are also blitzed. Thumbs up, Ivan, great fucking plan.....

When I was part of the T&E team on a prototype torpedo countermeasure system, we had a meeting wherein I mentioned that Soviet subs always launched a minimum spread of four torpedoes. One of the engineers asked why and I replied, "So they can be reasonably sure one will go off."

[Hambo]

Would of been more exciting.

Fora couple of minutes.


At the end of the cold war we had a period called Glasnost, a Russian term loosely defined as "transparent and open". I had the opportunity to go aboard a couple of Soviet warships. That experience confirmed two things I'd long suspected: it really sucked sack being a Soviet sailor and the only reason the Soviet Navy was a threat was due entirely to numbers. Their ships were, by and large, poorly maintained and crews were poorly trained. They just had a ton of everything to throw at us.

They say quantity has a quality all its own.

[Chemsoldier]

They say quantity has a quality all its own.

With large weapons systems like planes, integrated air defenses and ships, generation makes a difference as well.

There is a "good enough" factor where it's not just a Turkey shoot. No nation can afford to throw say WWII era surface groups at a modern navy till they run out of missiles, especially losing WWII ship size crews. But almost modern missile age British ships had a hard time with early missile age Argentine A4s armed with iron bombs. The generational gap was small enough that it got tense for Britain.

Similar phenomena in small arms I suppose. Ak47 is an old design, but good enough. But try to fight someone with rifles muskets and the modern small arms army is going to eat your lunch no matter how many people you bring.

[mtnbkr]

The ski jump is pretty common for everyone who doesn't have supercarriers....so, for everyone who isn't us. France, UK, Brazil, China, India, Italy, Spain, Thailand......they're almost exclusively ski jumps instead of using catapults which are very expensive to operate.

Thailand has a carrier?

Chris

[jbrimlow]

The ski jump is pretty common for everyone who doesn't have supercarriers....so, for everyone who isn't us. France, UK, Brazil, China, India, Italy, Spain, Thailand......they're almost exclusively ski jumps instead of using catapults which are very expensive to operate.

Actually, the French have a proper CATOBAR system (catapults, arrestor wires) on their carrier, the Charles de Gaulle.

[mtnbkr]

Thailand has a carrier?

Chris

Went off to the googles...

They sure do!

Though it's a bit of a joke.


Naval commentators usually consider Chakri Naruebet to be less an aircraft carrier and more the world's largest and most expensive royal yacht, while the Thai media have nicknamed the ship "Thai-tanic", and consider her to be a white elephant.

Chris

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The Brazilians didn't have a ski jump. They had an old French conventional carrier with A-4s. However, it's gone now. They bought a UK helicopter carrier, the Ocean.

The Australians have some helicopter/assault carriers with ski jumps but no fighters. The Chinese first home built ship has a ski jump. I read the Thai ship is out of action as a carrier.

[TGS]

It's quite possible that these examples are why I wrote "almost exclusively" when listing out countries besides us that have aircraft carriers and the pervasiveness of ski jumps.

[Hambo]

With large weapons systems like planes, integrated air defenses and ships, generation makes a difference as well.

There is a "good enough" factor where it's not just a Turkey shoot. No nation can afford to throw say WWII era surface groups at a modern navy till they run out of missiles, especially losing WWII ship size crews. But almost modern missile age British ships had a hard time with early missile age Argentine A4s armed with iron bombs. The generational gap was small enough that it got tense for Britain.

Similar phenomena in small arms I suppose. Ak47 is an old design, but good enough. But try to fight someone with rifles muskets and the modern small arms army is going to eat your lunch no matter how many people you bring.

Surface warfare has always been expensive in terms of lost ships and crews, and I doubt it would be much different today.

[rayrevolver]

The US of A rocks a ski jump too! Ours isn't on a carrier though.

https://cdn1.img.jp.sputniknews.com/images/322/45/3224522.jpg

[Drang]

Four pages and no mentions of the fact that the ski jump makes it possible for aircraft (especially STOL aircraft) to operate from a shorter runway without a catapult.
IIRC, the plan back in the 80s when they were recommissioning the New Jersey-class BBs, was to remove the after 16" gun rand replace it with a ski jump for a flight of Harriers. I could have the details wrong, I was just happy to think there might be 16" Naval Gunfire supporting me someday...

(Later I worked with a DA civilian who had been the beneficiary of a salvo from the New Jersey during Tet.)

[einherjarvalk]

Four pages and no mentions of the fact that the ski jump makes it possible for aircraft (especially STOL aircraft) to operate from a shorter runway without a catapult.
IIRC, the plan back in the 80s when they were recommissioning the New Jersey-class BBs, was to remove the after 16" gun rand replace it with a ski jump for a flight of Harriers. I could have the details wrong, I was just happy to think there might be 16" Naval Gunfire supporting me someday...

(Later I worked with a DA civilian who had been the beneficiary of a salvo from the New Jersey during Tet.)

The problem with a ski jump (and STOL/VTOL) is that it cuts back on the amount of ordnance/fuel the aircraft can carry. The problem is exacerbated with aircraft whose engines aren't particularly powerful or efficient (i.e. Su-33). It's great to augment your force projection by allowing more ships to launch aircraft, but you get a lot more flexibility out of your aircraft when they're launched by steam cats or EMALS. However, that's a luxury most navies can't afford.

Sucks to be them I guess.

[Drang]

...you get a lot more flexibility out of your aircraft when they're launched by steam cats or EMALS. ....

Has anyone gotten the electromagnetic cats to work? I keep reading that they seem to be nothing but a mass of glitches.

[BCG]

The funniest thing to me about The Hunt For Red October was where James Bond is nattering about the glorious traditions of the Russian Soviet Navy...

I never thought of The Hunt For Red October as a James Bond movie, but it makes sense. 007 goes undercover as a Soviet navy captain to steal one of their nuclear submarines...

[Drang]

Has anyone gotten the electromagnetic cats to work? I keep reading that they seem to be nothing but a mass of glitches.

Doesn't sound like it...
Costliest Carrier Was Delivered Without Elevators to Lift Bombs (https://www.bloombergquint.com/business/costliest-carrier-was-delivered-without-elevators-to-lift-bombs#gs.mwDP0ck)

Previously undisclosed problems with the 11 elevators for the ship built by Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc. add to long-standing reliability and technical problems with two other core systems -- the electromagnetic system to launch planes and the arresting gear to catch them when they land...
The Advanced Weapons Elevators, which are moved by magnets rather than cables, were supposed to be installed by the vessel’s original delivery date in May 2017. Instead, final installation was delayed by problems including four instances of unsafe “uncommanded movements” since 2015, according to the Navy.
While progress was being made on the carrier’s other flawed systems, the elevator is “our Achilles heel,” Navy Secretary Richard Spencer told reporters in August without providing details.
Typical misleading title, implies someone forgot to install them, or even to include them in the design, not that expecting fairly new technology to work right the first time is a good idea...

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Four pages and no mentions of the fact that the ski jump makes it possible for aircraft (especially STOL aircraft) to operate from a shorter runway without a catapult.
IIRC, the plan back in the 80s when they were recommissioning the New Jersey-class BBs, was to remove the after 16" gun rand replace it with a ski jump for a flight of Harriers. I could have the details wrong, I was just happy to think there might be 16" Naval Gunfire supporting me someday...

(Later I worked with a DA civilian who had been the beneficiary of a salvo from the New Jersey during Tet.)

I've seen pictures of that proposed conversion and probably have it in a book somewhere. There's a book on the history of mixed gun and plane ships:

Hybrid Warship: The Amalgamation of Big Guns and Aircraft Mar 1, 1991
by R. D. Layman and Stephen McLaughlin

None were very successful. The major Japanese conversions were never used as carriers. Of course, there were cruiser and battleship hulls that became 'normal' carriers. Some worked out rather well for us. The Japanese Yamato class ship that became the Shinano was easily sunk.

[HCM]

The problem with a ski jump (and STOL/VTOL) is that it cuts back on the amount of ordnance/fuel the aircraft can carry. The problem is exacerbated with aircraft whose engines aren't particularly powerful or efficient (i.e. Su-33). It's great to augment your force projection by allowing more ships to launch aircraft, but you get a lot more flexibility out of your aircraft when they're launched by steam cats or EMALS. However, that's a luxury most navies can't afford.

Sucks to be them I guess.

Go be poor somewhere else.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

In the Falklands War, the Argentinians couldn't launch an A-4 strike off their one carrier against the Brits as the wind was wrong. Then after the Belgrano was sunk, their navy hightailed it back to shore. The Harriers worked pretty well of the ski jumps.

The Argentinians couldn't get their Etendards on the carrier. Lucky for the UK, that the Argentians had a very limited supply of Exocets and the iron bombs from the A-4s didn't fuse as they would have lost many ships.

I wonder if our ships could fight off swarm attacks like we saw in WWII.

[Chemsoldier]

I wonder if our ships could fight off swarm attacks like we saw in WWII.

Swarm attacks, with planes closing to engage with guns and iron bombs? Without radar evading technology the Close In Weapons Systems (CIWS) should be able to swat them down pretty fast. Combined with surface to air missiles, it should be a pretty good defense. Note that is the calculus of manned aircraft.

If the enemy uses large numbers of less lethal individually, yet drastically cheaper unmanned systems...*shrug* Perhaps. Without significant AI, the use of EW means can interfere with enemy control links and global navigation systems drastically reducing the effectiveness of all the enemy unmanned systems. Of course, the friendly units have to identify the threat and be able to effectively jam on the right frequencies in a timely manner.

[Chance]

From ArsTechnica (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/11/russian-officials-nope-we-cant-finish-fixing-the-carrier-kuznetsov/):


32207

Russian officials have now acknowledged that the October 29 accident involving Russia’s only aircraft carrier and largest floating dry dock has made continuing the refit of the ship impossible. The dry dock, the PD-50, was the only one available capable of accommodating the 55,000 ton Admiral Kuznetsov. As a result, the completion of the refit of the ship is now delayed indefinitely.

The PD-50, built by a Swedish shipyard in 1980 for the Soviet Union, sank in an uncontrolled “launch” of the Kuznetsov and came to rest on the sloping bottom of the harbor at Murmansk. Two cranes collapsed during the sinking, with one crashing onto the Kuznetsov and leaving a large gash in its hull. And recovering and repairing the PD-50 could take as long as a year.

“We have alternatives actually for all the ships except for Admiral Kuznetsov,” United Ship-Building Corporation Chief Executive Alexei Rakhmanov told TASS. But the loss of the PD-50 dock “creates certain inconveniences” for future repairs on large capital ships, he acknowledged. "We hope that the issue of the docking of first-rank ships will be resolved in the near future. We are also preparing several alternatives, about which we will report to the Industry and Trade Ministry," Rakhmanov said.

The Kuznetsov and its sister ship—which eventually became China’s first aircraft carrier—were built at the Black Sea Shipyard in Mykolaiv, Ukraine, which also built the nuclear cruiser Kirov. (The Kuznetsov was designated as an “aircraft-carrying cruiser” as a workaround to restrictions of the Montreux Convention, which prohibits Russia from sending aircraft carriers over 15,000 tons through the Turkish Straits.) Understandably, getting help from Ukraine may not be an option for Russia. But the other options—including towing the Kuznetsov to a foreign shipyard with the capacity to dry-dock the 1,001-foot (305 meter) vessel—are equally iffy.

[SeriousStudent]

Yeah, just tow that bad boy to Bath Iron Works. I'm sure they'll fix it right up. :cool:

[einherjarvalk]

https://i.imgur.com/HMyUSA6.jpg

On the bright side, the Admiral Kuznetsov just became the first carrier to sink another carrier since WWII. Sure, the carrier the Kuznetsov sank was the Kuznetsov, but eh, details.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Australia should be a mixed case as they did operate fixed wing carriers, the last with A-4s. They sold them to NZ, which then ditched a combat airforce. IIRC, the NZ A-4s chased the Moon away from their airspace when it was reported as a UFO.

Thailland flew Harriers, so should it be just helicopter?

The Japanese and Koreans are thinking about F-35s but the Italians are starting to rethink their order.

I don't see the Netherlands colored as historic. I enlarged the image and I don't think it was. They had an old UK carrier which flew Seahawks. They sold it to Argentina where it unsuccessfully was engaged in the Falklands War. Couldn't launch its planes.

Turkey is planning to build one of the Spanish pattern heli/F-35 type ships.

In the early 60's there was a rumor that Indonesia was going to get a carrier built on a Sverdlov hull but it never happened.

There were abortive German and Italian carriers in WWII. Never finished or got to sea.

Sweden had a dedicated sea plane carrier before WWII.

[hufnagel]

At the end of the cold war we had a period called Glasnost, a Russian term loosely defined as "transparent and open". I had the opportunity to go aboard a couple of Soviet warships. That experience confirmed two things I'd long suspected: it really sucked sack being a Soviet sailor and the only reason the Soviet Navy was a threat was due entirely to numbers. Their ships were, by and large, poorly maintained and crews were poorly trained. They just had a ton of everything to throw at us.

Sounds like their solution in WW2.

[hufnagel]

I suppose they could have installed a Chernobyl grade reactor instead.


Would of been more exciting.

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

<in Russian> Scotty! Dump the core!

[Drang]

Sounds like their solution in WW2.

In WWII the Soviet Navy was moored to the dock.

Vasili Zaitsev was a Soviet Navy finance clerk...

[hufnagel]

In WWII the Soviet Navy was moored to the dock.

Vasili Zaitsev was a Soviet Navy finance clerk...

I more meant their Throw Bodies At The Problem method.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

In WWII the Soviet Navy was moored to the dock.

Vasili Zaitsev was a Soviet Navy finance clerk...

They learned their lesson the Russo-Japanese war. Interestingly Russian Pre-dreadnoughts did reasonably well in some fights with German dreadnoughts and the one 'given' to Turkey. They had a plan to synchronize the fire of the guns of several of them to match the superior number of guns on a German ship.

[Drang]

Marines: Why Russian Marines Cannot Have Nice Things ; Strategy Page (https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htamph/20181112.aspx)


Russia currently has about 9,000 naval infantry, organized into brigades assigned to the regional fleets (Northern, Pacific, Baltic Sea, Black Sea and Caspian Sea). The brigades now have 30 or so tanks and even more amphibious infantry vehicles. While considered an elite force, they are in need of new amphibious shipping to be effective. All the current amphibious ships entered service before the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991. Since then only one new class of amphibious ship was built and it was not a success. That is not a good sign for the Russian marines. As has happened the Russian naval infantry can be used as high-quality infantry but Russia would prefer to use them for the job they train to do.

How that one new amphibious ship got built and accepted by the navy Russian reveals much. Fourteen years after construction began the first of a new Russian class of amphibious ships that Gren class ships finally entered service in early 2018. There were many delays but the final one had to do with “design flaws” discovered when Gren began its sea trials in mid-2016. The main flaws where hull stability and engine reliability. It took 18 months to deal with that and sea trials resumed in late 2017. Finally, the Russian Navy declared the Gren fit for service in May 2018. However, only two of this class will be built. The second one began construction in 2014 and has had the flaws of the first one fixed before it was launched in May 2018. The second ship should be in service by 2019.

Gren was launched in 2012 and was supposed to be fitted out and delivered by 2014, a decade after construction began. But there were more delays. Called the Ivan Gren class, after its lead ship, these 120 meter (384 foot) long vessels each displace 6,500 tons, have a crew of 110, and can carry 13 tanks or 36 infantry fighting vehicles and 300 infantry. Top speed is 33 kilometers per hour and max range is 6,500 kilometers (cruising at 30 kilometers an hour) with max endurance of 30 days. Armament consists of three AK630 30mm automatic cannon for missile defense as well as against aircraft and small naval targets. The range of these weapons is 5,000 meters. One of the AK630s is the dual version (two six barrel 30mm autocannon in one turret) while the other two are single six barrel versions (similar to the American Phalanx). There are also two 14.5mm machine-guns and a helicopter pad and hanger for two KA-27/29 helicopters.

Four more Grens were to be built if the first one performed well. It didn’t. The first one cost about $200 million (including all the extra expense of fixing the flaws). The Grens appear to be updates of the Ropucha class LSTs, 28 of which were built in the 1960s and 70s. A few of these 4,100 ton Ropuchas are still in service but just barely.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The Russians were supposed to get French built helicopter carriers. But then they invaded their neighbors and France sold the ships to Egypt.

Maybe Donald can sell them some. Make a deal. I have to say that the Russians are building some nice looking smaller surface ships. Looking at the pictures in a naval magazine. They manage to play above their weight. Smaller ships with cruise missiles seem to work for them. The bigger plans like CVN types are probably fantasy. They are rebuilding two of the Kirov class.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Russians say that repairing the carrier is on schedule anyway. The damage isn't that bad. Fake news?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

It could happen to us:

https://blog.usni.org/posts/2018/11/19/in-five-minutes-be-tactical-and-victorious-or-die

The site also has some good posts on the ease of fighting China or Russia, given our posture of just fighting low intensity wars for so long. Surprise on a near peer battle.

[Drang]

Has anyone gotten the electromagnetic cats to work? I keep reading that they seem to be nothing but a mass of glitches.

EMALS Update: Strategy Page Naval Air: EMALS In The Age Of Error (https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnavai/20190216.aspx)

February 16, 2019: In early 2019 the U.S. Navy confirmed that it had major problems with the design, construction and performance of its new EMALS (Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System) catapult installed in its latest aircraft carrier; the USS Ford (CVN 78) and the three other Ford class carriers under construction. During 2017 sea trials the Ford used EMALS heavily, as would be the case in combat and training operations. EMALS proved less reliable than the older steam catapult, more labor intensive to operate, put more stress on launched aircraft than expected and due to a basic design flaw if one EMALS catapult becomes inoperable, the other three catapults could not be used in the meantime as was the case with steam catapults. This meant that the older practice of taking one or more steam catapults off line for maintenance or repairs while at sea was not practical because the design of the EMALS system did not allow for it. The navy admitted that for EMALS the plan was that in combat if one or more catapults were rendered unusable they remained that way until it was possible to shut down all four catapults for repairs.

[Alpha Sierra]

At the end of the cold war we had a period called Glasnost, a Russian term loosely defined as "transparent and open". I had the opportunity to go aboard a couple of Soviet warships. That experience confirmed two things I'd long suspected: it really sucked sack being a Soviet sailor and the only reason the Soviet Navy was a threat was due entirely to numbers. Their ships were, by and large, poorly maintained and crews were poorly trained. They just had a ton of everything to throw at us.

I went to Vladivostok aboard USS Reuben James (and in company of the USS Princeton) during one of those Glasnost visits in September of 1990. We were there for three days (I think, I was pretty drunk unless I was on watch) and one day we were invited by the officers on a nearby Sovremenny-class destroyer for lunch. I agree with your assessment of their ships' material condition and quality of construction.

[Alpha Sierra]

BTW, all you landlubbers need to pipe down on the black smoke coming out of the Kuznetsov's stacks. It's called blowing tubes, where high pressure steam is injected into the plenums to blow soot off the surface of the water tubes that traverse the firebox. The soot hinders heat transfer so the tubes need to be cleaned periodically.

The steam/soot cloud only has one place to go: up and out the stacks.

Russian ships do suck, but the few oil-fired steamships we have left still need to do the black smoke thing periodically.

A similar thing is done to blow out all the sediment out of the lower water header. you just don't see it because that stuff is piped overboard below the waterline. Sediment blowdowns get done both to oil boilers and to nuke plant steam generators.

[Drang]

BTW, all you landlubbers need to pipe down on the black smoke coming out of the Kuznetsov's stacks. It's called blowing tubes, where high pressure steam is injected into the plenums to blow soot off the surface of the water tubes that traverse the firebox. The soot hinders heat transfer so the tubes need to be cleaned periodically.

The steam/soot cloud only has one place to go: up and out the stacks.

Russian ships do suck, but the few oil-fired steamships we have left still need to do the black smoke thing periodically.

A similar thing is done to blow out all the sediment out of the lower water header. you just don't see it because that stuff is piped overboard below the waterline. Sediment blowdowns get done both to oil boilers and to nuke plant steam generators.

I really wish someone would re-release Richard McKenna's Left-Handed Monkey Wrench and Sons of Martha.

[Drang]

EMALS Update: Strategy Page Naval Air: EMALS In The Age Of Error (https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnavai/20190216.aspx)

In the meantime...:

On Costliest U.S. Warship Ever, Navy Can’t Get Munitions on Deck (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-30/flawed-elevators-on-13-billion-carrier-miss-another-deadline)
(Bloomberg News, says I have on remaining "free" article, so read it quick...)

Only two of 11 elevators needed to lift munitions to the deck of the U.S. Navy’s new $13 billion aircraft carrier have been fully installed, according to a Navy veteran who serves on a key House committee.

“I don’t see an end in sight right now” to getting all the elevators working on the USS Gerald R. Ford, the costliest warship ever, Democratic Representative Elaine Luria of Virginia said in an interview. The ship was supposed to be delivered with the Advanced Weapons Elevators, which are moved by magnets rather than cables, working in May 2017.

It’s another setback for contractor Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc. -- and for the Navy, which had said in December it planned to complete installation and testing of all 11 elevators before the Ford completed its post-delivery shakedown phase this month, with at least half certified for operation.

Instead, the shakedown phase has been extended to October and the vessel won’t have all the elevators fully installed -- much less functioning -- by then, according to Luria, a 20-year Navy surface warfare officer whose served on two aircraft carriers and as shore maintenance coordinator for a third.

[trailrunner]

Earlier this year SecNav Spencer said something like if the AWEs weren't working by this summer, he'd quit or he should be fired.

I wonder if he's going to follow through on that.

[OlongJohnson]

When threads like this that I remember from not that long ago get zombies and I see how old they are, I am alarmed at how fast time is flying.

[RevolverRob]

In the meantime...:

On Costliest U.S. Warship Ever, Navy Can’t Get Munitions on Deck (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-30/flawed-elevators-on-13-billion-carrier-miss-another-deadline)
(Bloomberg News, says I have on remaining "free" article, so read it quick...)

I mean they named it the USS Gerald Ford, what did we expect?

Okay, that's a bit unfair for Ford. He wasn't a great president, but far from the worst we've ever had. He also inherited a bunch of garbage from his predecessor.

In fact now that I think about it...a mucked up carrier that has inherited a bunch of garbage kind fits being named the USS Gerald Ford. Maybe it can get mostly working and take over for the USS Richard Nixon when it flees a battle space, after it is discovered it's conducting covert espionage. :eek: :rolleyes:

[hufnagel]

I mean they named it the USS Gerald Ford, what did we expect?

Okay, that's a bit unfair for Ford. He wasn't a great president, but far from the worst we've ever had. He also inherited a bunch of garbage from his predecessor.

In fact now that I think about it...a mucked up carrier that has inherited a bunch of garbage kind fits being named the USS Gerald Ford. Maybe it can get mostly working and take over for the USS Richard Nixon when it flees a battle space, after it is discovered it's conducting covert espionage. :eek: :rolleyes:

USS Richard Nixon, sailors, port of call in thailand, and covert activities named "deep throat"

[Stephanie B]

In the meantime...:

On Costliest U.S. Warship Ever, Navy Can’t Get Munitions on Deck (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-30/flawed-elevators-on-13-billion-carrier-miss-another-deadline)
(Bloomberg News, says I have on remaining "free" article, so read it quick...)
The Ford is a technological leap too far. A rational procurement process would have gone with installing one EMALS catapult and three steam cats.

We had an advantage with the steam cats: The Brits developed them first.

[trailrunner]

A rational procurement process would have gone with installing one EMALS catapult and three steam cats.


Actually, this is not a good way of implementing new technology. The smarter things to do are:

a) Not to believe the contractor when they tell you it's mature and low risk
b) Test before buying
c) Allow the acquisition process to buy the same, boring, but proven thing, i.e., don't force them to oversell their program in order to get it funded. Technology is fine, but DoD has to stop their obsession with the NBST (Next Big Shiny Thing)
d) Don't let them cook the books to show that EMALS will save money in the long run because it is so much more reliable and requires much less manpower
e) Stop rewarding careers on getting the NBST program funded

Of these, c) is probably the most important.

[runcible]

Actually, this is not a good way of implementing new technology. The smarter things to do are:

a) Not to believe the contractor when they tell you it's mature and low risk
b) Test before buying
c) Allow the acquisition process to buy the same, boring, but proven thing, i.e., don't force them to oversell their program in order to get it funded. Technology is fine, but DoD has to stop their obsession with the NBST (Next Big Shiny Thing)
d) Don't let them cook the books to show that EMALS will save money in the long run because it is so much more reliable and requires much less manpower
e) Stop rewarding careers on getting the NBST program funded

Of these, c) is probably the most important.

For what it's worth:

A. Healthy skepticism is good. Excessive skepticism is crippling.

B. Test before buying; but not all things can be tested fully until they are made at full scale. All theories and extrapolations must be tested in and by reality. The first aircraft carriers are excellent examples of this concern. If a carrier had been built with only one EMALS and three steam cats; then it seems less likely that they'd have recognized the issue of scale and inter-relation; which would then be more likely to be discovered another ship down the line, and potentially after the quad-EMALS has already been installed thus necessitating cost-overruns to reverse or amend that.

C. An aversion to change is understandable; but for it to be helpful, it must be rooted in a competitive baseline. The DOD bought M1 Garands, M14s, and M60s for far longer than it had to; and in the face of higher-functioning\lower-cost alternatives. That did the US Mil no favors. Iterative improvements requires a deviation from the baseline, and excessive iterative improvements allows for the procedural timecost to consume any practical use of the PIP output while simultaneously displacing the possibility of a functional or performance leap-forward replacement.

D. I don't think any of us can speculate on them cooking the books or not, this early in things. What would be a good indicator of such dishonesty?

E. Que?

[Drang]

The latest from the Strategy Page regarding the USS Gerald Ford: Naval Air: Depressing Elevators (https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnavai/20190915.aspx)

September 15, 2019: The new Ford class CVN (nuclear powered aircraft carrier) has become a major disaster rather than a more effective new ship design. Several innovative new technologies were supposed to have made the Fords more effective and cheaper to operate than the previous, and similar looking Nimitz class. Two of those new technologies, EMALS (Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System) catapults and landing equipment and high-speed electromagnetic ammunition elevators (for getting explosive items to the deck more quickly). There are lesser problems with the nuclear propulsion system, the new radars and modifications needed so that the new F-35C can operate.

The navy believes it is making steady progress in fixing the reliability problems with EMALS. Given the number of times “steady progress” has been used before and turned out to be incorrect there is not a lot of optimism about EMALS matching, much less surpassing, performance of the older steam catapult system. Time will tell and given the multiple problems with the Fords, it’s unclear which problem will take the longest to fix.

The equipment failure getting the most attention now has to do with the new elevator design. The older elevator design, used successfully for decades on existing Nimitz class carriers, moves up to 2.3 tons of ammo from the magazines to the deck at a speed of 30 meters (100 feet) a minute. The new elevators each move 10.9 tons to the deck at 45 meters a minute. The new elevators were meant to increase the number of combat sorties by 30 percent over 24 hours. Currently only two of the eleven Ford elevators are working. At the end of 2018 the navy said all the elevators would be working by July 2019. That did not happen because it turned out the elevators were not built to spec and now major repairs were underway to fix that. This takes time and it was a problem that could have been avoided if the navy had built an elevator ashore to test the design before proceeding with construction of the carrier. Many of the problems with the current errors are construction that was sloppy and not caught by quality control personnel.

[Stephanie B]

The latest from the Strategy Page regarding the USS Gerald Ford: Naval Air: Depressing Elevators (https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnavai/20190915.aspx)
USS Ford's gets a D-1 for PMS checks

(PMS = Planned Maintenance Subsystem D-1 = Fix or repair daily.)

[trailrunner]

And we've already committed to the next two in the class - CVN 79 and CVN 80.

[SiriusBlunder]

Sorry for the thread drift, but this story made me smile:


A walrus defending her cubs sank a Russian Navy boat in the Arctic Ocean (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/walrus-sinks-russian-boat-a-walrus-defending-her-cubs-sank-a-russian-navy-boat-in-the-arctic-ocean/)


The scientists were aboard a Russian Navy tugboat known as the Altai on an expedition to the Franz Josef Land archipelago in the Arctic Ocean this week right before the unusual human-animal interaction occurred. They boarded a small rubber landing craft and were en route to the shore to study its flora and fauna when a female walrus attacked, sinking the vessel.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

For those interested, here's a report on the Chinese Navy:

https://news.usni.org/2019/09/25/report-to-congress-on-china-naval-modernization

Here's China's first big LPH amphib type: https://defpost.com/china-launches-its-first-type-075-amphibious-assault-ship/

One of our seemingly departed members would probably say: So what, blah, blah.

They don't have our long experience at sea. Well, that logic didn't serve the Russians well at Tushima or the US Navy in the earlier parts of WWII.

[Inkwell 41]

USS Ford's gets a D-1 for PMS checks

(PMS = Planned Maintenance Subsystem D-1 = Fix or repair daily.)

I see what you did there....

[Dog Guy]

Looks like Kuznetsov can't catch a break: a serious fire broke out due to welding during overhaul. https://news.usni.org/2019/12/12/russias-only-aircraft-carrier-burning-after-welding-mishap-at-least-1-dead

[Drang]

Admiral Kuznetsov, Russia's only aircraft carrier, catches fire - CNN (https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/12/europe/russian-carrier-fire-intl/index.html)

Backgrounder, from 2016: Rantberg -- Russia's only aircraft carrier, the Kuznetsov, is a floating hell for the crew (https://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?D=12/17/2019&SO=&HC=3&ID=558585), which goes to

https://youtu.be/ZvrwBvNeXmc

[GardoneVT]

Admiral Kuznetsov, Russia's only aircraft carrier, catches fire - CNN (https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/12/europe/russian-carrier-fire-intl/index.html)

Backgrounder, from 2016: Rantberg -- Russia's only aircraft carrier, the Kuznetsov, is a floating hell for the crew (https://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?D=12/17/2019&SO=&HC=3&ID=558585), which goes to

https://youtu.be/ZvrwBvNeXmc


At least they didn’t collide with a civilian tanker......