The Admiral Kuznetzov is at sea and shows signs of disuse. http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnavai/articles/20140131.aspx The Chinese paid a boatload of money for the Varyag (now Shi Lang)and found it needed an enormous amount of work just to be seaworthy. Not good advertising for Russian weapons technology. The most decrepit western ships are light-years ahead.
Actually, not good advertising of your intellect. Varyag was only at 67% completion, when construction was haulted. So keep your attention to your malfunctioning turd like Zumwalts, Fords and LCS melting in a sea water. Call me, when you fix that massive embarrasment and we will discuss Kuznetsov then.
The Gerald Ford has the usual developmental problems one sees in a lead ship that pushes technology (as the USN likes to do). The Nimitz had similar problems back in the 70s, but they were worked out. The Zumwalts are simply too big for what they are asked to do. They do not represent an improvement over existing Ticonderoga and Arleigh Burke types. Much the same can be said of the two competing LCS ships. All three will be singletons for a while and used as developmental ships. It's not that they don't work. They are just too pricey. The Seawolf-class submarines were too expensive to replace the 688 boats but the three in service are considered the best fast attack boats in the world - and by a considerable margin. The Kuznetzov, on the other hand, has been around for decades and still isn't worth a hoot. The Russian navy confirms this as she isn't put to sea and used enough to wear the rust off the flight deck. If they haven't figured this ship out by now, odds are they never will. The British manage to make ski-jump carriers work. Why can't the Russians? The old USS Coral Sea was known to Vietnam-era sailors as the "African Queen" because her hull (built of low-quality World War II steel) had visible rust. But she was active enough that the important part - the flight deck - was rust-free.
Shall see. So far: not functioning arresting gear, electromagnetic catapult and radar issues. Basicaly it is a huge target right now. They are not even combat-ready and cannot be used for air defence, because SM missiles were not integrated into their arhitecture. A 7 billion dollars per ship and this ship is junk. Also it seems you've missed this article on LCS http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...ive-corrosion-on-austal-s-combat-ship-1-.html Now, still wanna go with "Rustbucket" road? Ah, ignorance strikes again. Avoid using BShiтting resources like strategypage. The only "source" for the claim are anonymous "western navy officers". That.....doesn't sound credible enough. Kusnetsov is in active service since 1991 and is fully functional. For the sake of the truth, it does require repairs but not for the reason of imaginary rust. It is not a top priority now. The only shipyard, which can do the job, is occupied by project 1144 on modernisation.
Do you think that catapults, arresting gear and radar are a big deal to the USN? New stuff always has bugs. The F-4 was held out of squadron service for three years at the peak of the Cold War while they got the system bugs worked out. The plane went on the be a mainstay of air superiority for two decades. Aluminum-hulled warships are common. Arleigh Burkes, and Ticonderogas are aluminum-hulled and they've worked out OK. That only one part of one of the two LCS ships has a corrosion problem indicates a dissimilar-metal problem. It'll get worked out although I'm not too keen on the LCS idea. Rust on the flight deck of an aircraft carrier bespeaks lack of use. Even in the last days of the Enterprise, there were enough flight ops to keep the rust rubbed off. Not so the Kuznetzov. Why so little flight ops as to allow rust buildup on the flight deck? When you think you know as much about it as James Dunnigan - who has been training staff officers since the 70s - get back with us. - - - Updated - - - Do you think that catapults, arresting gear and radar are a big deal to the USN? New stuff always has bugs. The F-4 was held out of squadron service for three years at the peak of the Cold War while they got the system bugs worked out. The plane went on the be a mainstay of air superiority for two decades. Aluminum-hulled warships are common. Arleigh Burkes, and Ticonderogas are aluminum-hulled and they've worked out OK. That only one part of one of the two LCS ships has a corrosion problem indicates a dissimilar-metal problem. It'll get worked out although I'm not too keen on the LCS idea. Rust on the flight deck of an aircraft carrier bespeaks lack of use. Even in the last days of the Enterprise, there were enough flight ops to keep the rust rubbed off. Not so the Kuznetzov. Why so little flight ops as to allow rust buildup on the flight deck? When you think you know as much about it as James Dunnigan - who has been training staff officers since the 70s - get back with us.
Yep. While mentioning succesfull F-4, don't forget to mention the complete failure of F-104 and F-105 series. So.....at the moment they are even worse, than a rustbucket, they are melting in sea. You have reading comprehension problems or smth? I said, that this claim is a complete BS until you provide a photo of rusty fly deck. Here you go a rusty US navy flight deck, for example: Training staff officers since the 70s doesn't make you credible. It makes you an old fart with dementia.
The F-104 had a long career as what it was designed to be: a point-defense interceptor. The F-105 was quite successful late in the Vietnam war when it was converted to the SEAD role. The Wild Weasels were the scourge of the SAMs in Linebacker II. F4J aircraft replaced the F-105 as SEAD bombers. The Burkes and Ticonderogas (with their aluminum hulls) have been in service for thirty years. "Dissimilar metals" are a problem common in many parts of engineering. Its usually a matter of isolation. Rust on flight decks cannot be tolerated. It flakes off and gets into engines.
Don't know about your parallel universe, but in real world both planes are known as a complete failure. More than half of F-105 build were lost in Vietnam (not exactly sophisticated in terms of AA and airforce) and F-104 were damn good in killing pilots themselves. Can't see what you are arguing with. I am not arguing that aluminum hulled ships are okay to use. It is just LCS, which is worse, than rustbucket. Got it. It seems to be another shameful episode for US navy, but I still can't see a pic with a rusty flight deck on Kuznetsov.
it's not even scheduled to be commissioned until late 2016 and is still under contruction..that's not even planned to be complete until next year.. herp derp.
Taxcutter says: F-104s served well into the 1980s. Not bad for mid-50s planes. That early jets were tricky to handle is axiomatic. A F-80 killed America's No. 1 fighter ace of World War II. Even today, flying jet fighters is risky business. In a way, part of the F-104 is still in service. The U-2 has the fuselage and empennage of the F-104. Different wings. Different engine. That's how Kelly Johnson got the U-2 into service so fast. The F-105 was a plane pressed into a role (in 1965) it was not designed for and used in a predictable fashion (always a bad idea. By 1970 it was converted to a SEAD aircraft. F-105s and A-6s were deadly SAM-site killers. Again, a mid-1950s aircraft that served into the late 70s. LCS has one component that has a dissimilar metal problem. That facet can be easily addressed with a propulsion jet module made of some other material. Rust on a flight deck isn't too tough to notice, so if Royal Navy observers see rust on a ship transiting the English Channel, I'd tend to believe them. the RN does know a thing or two about steel ships. Why don't the Russians do enough flight ops on and off of the Kuznetzov to wear off the rust?
Ugh....sorta thanks for history course, but how does that make it any less of unreliable piece of (*)(*)(*)(*)? Judjing by the losses it was more of a cannon fodder for SAM sites. Yep. Arn't your ships supposed to be immune for melting in a sea water. You are also terrible at general geometry. The only way you can see the rust on a fly deck is being over it=from the Kuznetsov itself. So where is a proofpic for that? And, more importantly, why your aircraft carriers are rusty?
The F-104 was considerably more reliable than its contemporary - the MiG-19. Most of the F-105 losses were in 1965 when the [planes were used as bombers. They were quite effective against SAM sites and radars in 1972. I suspect the Royal Navy (who else would be checking out a warship transiting the Channel) knows what rust looks like.
The F-104 (CF-104 in Canada) was a great plane when used for what it was designed for: high speed, high altitude interception. It's when countries like mine and germany who the tried to retrofit them into a more general use fighter and ground support role that thing went south. Same goes for the 105. Except in this case it was the reverse, great WW and support, bad dogfighter.
there's no pic to the article, so the story most likely is false, yet another canard on the part of your local media. but how do you know?
