The entire world interested in military affairs is watching with interest as Russia loses its last aircraft carrier. Well, maybe he doesn't, but somehow it turns out that soon everything will come to the cruiser.
Meanwhile, many rightly note that the end of "Admiral Kuznetsov" is the end of the history of the entire naval aviation of Russia. The ship is on fire - so is the aircraft. The only question is what color is the flame.
But let's look at it in order.
The whole year "Kuznetsov" was under planned repairs. They say that after the trip to Syria, I rested. In general, it is logical that 20 thousand kilometers back and forth is not to drive for beer.
And after the planned repair of Kuznetsov in 2020, a dry dock at the plant and a major overhaul awaited.
In general, everything is logical, the reliability of the Kuznetsov propulsion system has become the talk of the town, so such plans are not at all surprising.
But alas, the plans seemed to have burned out.
On December 12, 2019, while welding on the ship, sparks and scale set fire to some oil products on the deck below. Perfectly.
In general, in principle, a fire on a ship / vessel during repair work is a common thing. If something is cooked, then there are always sparks and dross. The larger the ship, the more there is the possibility of stalling and the presence in the dark corners of something that can easily catch fire.
Here on "Kuznetsov" and caught fire.
Another question is why they were not ready for the fire, this is the million dollar question. How did it happen that the fire from an area of 20 square meters grew to more than a thousand and no one could either localize or extinguish it. And meanwhile, if hot work is being carried out, then it is simply necessary to have fire extinguishers, fire hoses, and instructions …
Here are the instructions. Instructions, especially in the navy, were written in blood at all times. Why today they openly spit on them, I do not understand.
As a result, two people died, two are missing, more than ten in varying degrees of difficulty in the hospital.
More than luxurious for a spark from welding, isn't it?
Many have begun to reason today in terms of “let go,” and so on. We will deal with the well-deserved pension a little later, but for now I am simply amazed at the number of "sources" who rushed to talk about what kind of floating scrap "Kuznetsov" is.
And the pipes are in poor condition, and the water freezes in cold weather, because water is simply not supplied to the cabins, and the latrines do not work, and there are only 50 of them per 1900 people, and half of them are constantly closed and do not work.
In short, horror, not a ship.
We are already silent about the GEM, it is already known to everyone that it is possible to raise the Kuznetsov in such a way that the Greenpeace's ears are wrapped in a tube by themselves.
And okay GEM, problems were thrown in here last year when PD-50 was drowned in Roslyakovo. Yes, today everyone writes so nicely "sank". Almost himself, he took it and sank out of harm.
Himself … The dock himself could not turn off the power supply, drain and sell fuel from emergency diesel power plants, sell cables and the like. Left without electricity, the dock could only obey the laws of physics, that is, drown.
And, if the chain looks like this (and it looks like that), sorry, Doc DROWNED.
The same, forgive me, who did not read the instructions, as well as those who set fire to "Kuznetsov". And he could not put out the fire, which now does not know what damage it caused.
And - I will note - in both cases, there were human casualties. This also speaks of the simply excellent service qualities of the command of the Northern Fleet in general and "Admiral Kuznetsov" in particular. And dock PD-50.
By the way, I'll digress. More than a year has passed, and, as I understand it, no one is going to lift the dock. Let's check the box, right? And let's go further.
We will definitely not raise the dock ourselves. Could - for a year snot would not have chewed at the headquarters of the Northern Fleet. A year has passed since the disaster - everyone is silent, everyone is happy with everything. This means that we cannot raise it.
Kowalski, options?
And there are really no options.
We cannot raise ourselves, but we also don’t call for help. Why? Probably because we have no allies with such equipment for lifting such huge structures (and the dock is still more of a structure than a ship). And to name our potential partners in Roslyakovo …
I am afraid that if the same Norwegian specialists find out some terrible secret, it is only the size of the mess that reigns in the Northern Fleet. But - also in its own way a military secret, yes … And a state secret.
So for a whole year there were some vague statements that, they say, PD-50 sank inconveniently, lies on the edge of the pit, and can slide at any moment, in short, it's easier to buy a new one.
Build - buy a new one? Same problems. We can't do it ourselves, this one was built in Sweden in those times, today the Swedes are unlikely to build such a structure, given the number of sanctions imposed.
To drive the PD-41 twin from the Pacific Ocean? Well, he is in such a state that it is unlikely that he will come by himself. It will also get tired and self-flooded.
It turns out that the renovation is not very good. But back to the cruiser itself.
Kuznetsov rarely goes to sea. And there are excuses for this, there are enough stories about the GEM, collected from the world on a string, I will not repeat myself. Kuznetsov has problems with the main power plant, in contrast to their brethren, who for some reason calmly perform their duties in the fleets of India and China.
We're out of luck. By the leftover principle, we probably got the very one … which no one wanted to take.
Therefore, the development of the resource at "Kuznetsov", let's say, is small. It takes a long time from hike to hike. In the period from 1991 to 2015, the cruiser went on patrol only six times.
How effective these campaigns were, we also keep silent. Especially the last one, to Syria.
In general, having embarked on a long-term repair, "Kuznetsov" during the repair was so damaged in the incident with the PD-50 that another repair was required.
Actually, with such a beautifully staged business with repairs, it is not particularly necessary to destroy it. You can simply repair any ship to death.
Which, in fact, happened the other day.
In general, up to this point, many media outlets openly said that the Kremlin was seriously considering the issue of writing off Kuznetsov. This would save you from many problems, such as buying a new dock, moving either PD-41 to Kuznetsov, or Kuznetsov to PD-41 to the Far East in case of anything, or consider absolutely fantastic projects like take on 35- m shipyard in Murmansk two docks 200 meters long and cut one of them through an adapter.
In any case, it will require so much money … Indeed, it is easier to build a pair of Boreys or Ash trees.
In general, "build" - doubts immediately arise. And even if they do not arise, there will always be someone who will drown even the germ of hope.
Just the other day, the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, Admiral Nikolai Evmenov, burst into a bravura speech that
"In the coming years, in addition to frigates, new universal amphibious assault ships of the Priboy type, destroyers of the Leader project and at least one aircraft carrier will be laid."
No, we definitely have democracy and freedom of speech, so any citizen of Russia has the right to say whatever he wants.
But in this case, the argumentation of the possibility of building a nuclear aircraft carrier for 100,000 tons and a nuclear destroyer for 30,000 tons. that this year we have completed ONE corvette with a capacity of 2,000 tons - sorry, it looks rather weak.
It's like arguing with the construction of a GAZelle of a new regular bus with all the bells and whistles. That is, you can say something, but you can do it …
Someone may believe in the creation of a nuclear aircraft carrier with a displacement of 100,000 tons, but so far we are not able to raise the sunken dock and further down the list.
As for "Kuznetsov", the fire that has taken place complicates the repair plan. Now, I'm afraid, someone in the Kremlin will have to choose between some symbol of national prestige (well, a developed country is obliged to have an aircraft carrier!) And the danger for repairmen and crew that Kuznetsov now clearly presents. And give some recommendations to the naval command.
And I'm afraid now the recommendations will not be happy.
The operational-tactical value of the cruiser is decreasing every day. The Kuznetsov did not become the core of the strike group because of the elementary lack of ships in our country to create such a group, similar to the American AUGs. No, you can gather in all fleets, but this is a laughing matter for the chickens, they will only crawl to the gathering place for six months.
And there is absolutely no point in this grouping.
10 American aircraft carriers, each of which has 3-4 times more aircraft than Kuznetsov, and they carry more weapons, plus two dozen Ticonderogs, plus almost a hundred destroyers …
Lord, what kind of confrontation can we talk about? Well, well, especially for strongly patriotic people: against the Sudanese Navy - just right. We'll bend down, we'll win, we'll blow it to shreds. Japan is no longer likely.
In general, such a dubious combat platform, moreover, with problems. And the problems of "Kuznetsov" are above the roof: the power plant (from birth), the hull, the launch and (especially) the return of aircraft, electronics, weapons control …
In short, many sober heads today believe that a couple of IRA divisions with "Caliber" or several "Ash" will be much more effective. And it is very difficult to argue with them.
Now that, on top of all the problems, the ship was on fire, it became even less likely to return to service on time.
Here it would probably be appropriate to put an end to it and say in a firm voice the conclusion: on pins and needles!
I will surprise you. Probably everyone who has already read (and more than once) my opinion on the topic of aircraft carriers.
Yes, I consider myself one of those who believe that we will not build an aircraft carrier ourselves. Simply because we have nothing for that. No shipyards, no experienced staff, no technology. All these bravura statements of officials from the fleet are, excuse me, idle talk, not supported by anything. Today, ships of smaller classes are idle, because we are not able to produce a diesel engine for them. Alas.
Our "newest" ships are trying to sail on Chinese snorts.
What other aircraft carrier are you talking about? Destroyer? Cruiser? Do not make me laugh. The frigate is already a reason for joy and shouts of "hurray".
And for something more, excuse me, we have, I repeat, nothing at all. Why else is Kuznetsov in such a state of disrepair, why can't the Eagles be restored? Namely, because no. Money, shipyards, factories, people.
Take it as a fact.
However, it is not worth sending Kuznetsov to the cut. For now, at least. To write off this ship means to destroy the naval aviation. It is, however, looks like some kind of poor rabble today, with ancient airplanes and helicopters, but suddenly …
No, well, there are miracles, right? What if from somewhere we have a person who can really put things in order in the country? Remove the nightmare that is happening everywhere and everywhere today?
Do I have the right to dream? Mr. Admiral Evmenov dreams of an aircraft carrier, why shouldn't I dream? Unlike the admiral, I understand perfectly well that after 2030 nothing will be laid or built there. There is no need to wait even until 2030, everything will be formed in 2024.
However, I think it is not worth writing off the only training base for naval pilots in a non-simulator way. It is necessary to repair, it is necessary to teach the pilots to take off and land not on the THREAD shield, but on the real deck.
As Syria has shown, we may have problems with this too.
Yes, everything today says that the ship should be written off wisely. And many are already really saying out loud about this, that "Kuznetsov" is a "black hole" for money and so on.
However, it may well be a training base for training naval pilots. And they will be needed if we really need a distant sea zone. Without aviation there is nothing to do there, just waving a flag, demonstrating.
Should the old ship be decommissioned? Hmm … Yes, it took a long time to build. But in operation and in terms of resource, it is not so stupid. They haven't exploited it so much …
Problems … Yes, there are a lot of problems. However, is it the ship's fault that someone thrifty regretted clean water? Did the cruiser not secure the crane itself? Did the cruiser transfer power to shore, leaked and sold diesel fuel from standby diesel generators? Is the ship to blame for the fact that safety measures are not followed and its premises are not cleaned?
Human factor. Oh yes, that's the answer to the question. People are to blame for the fact that Kuznetsov is such a wretchedness today. People.
Incidentally, the brothers of "Kuznetsov" who serve in India and China, for some reason, do not enjoy such a reputation. Strange, isn't it? Maybe, really, the approach to the ship should be human? And then it will not be dangerous to go out to sea on it, and it will not be a deadly attraction to take off and land?
Maybe it's not the ship after all, but the attitude towards it?
And do we really need to destroy naval aviation? Maybe not? And then, perhaps, a base for training pilots will be needed? And, maybe, if in 20 years the aircraft carrier is nevertheless washed down, will there be where to get pilots for it?
Many questions, few answers. What do you think, dear readers?
