• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Modern "Russian" missile carrier encountered mechanical trouble during a demonstration

Litwin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 2, 2017
Messages
33,607
Reaction score
5,193
Location
GDL/Sweden
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
ulus juchi is not Nigeria in snow anymore, but Somalia in snow :lamo, comments?
4-960x570.jpg


https://defence-blog.com/army/moder...echanical-trouble-during-a-demonstration.html
 
Last edited:
So what? What does this even matter?

That is not even a launching platform, that is a reloading vehicle.
 
Just ignore him, he was convinced russia was nigeria in snow even though that was proven wrong, now he is doubling down by calling them somalia in snow. In reality that many steering axles is a difficult task, I remember the army hemtt's with five axles having the rear steering axles not always work right, and I especially remember the abrahms trailers with numerous steering axles sometimes steering wrong and causing the trailers to pull in directions causing the truck to stop in a convoy. If america with all it's billions in r&d could not get that system perfect, It is no surprise russia has not either, or any country for that matter.
 
Just ignore him, he was convinced russia was nigeria in snow even though that was proven wrong, now he is doubling down by calling them somalia in snow. In reality that many steering axles is a difficult task, I remember the army hemtt's with five axles having the rear steering axles not always work right, and I especially remember the abrahms trailers with numerous steering axles sometimes steering wrong and causing the trailers to pull in directions causing the truck to stop in a convoy. If america with all it's billions in r&d could not get that system perfect, It is no surprise russia has not either, or any country for that matter.

how you will call a bamboo empire which can not make even missile carrier?

"During the demonstration of Russia’s newest military equipment, foreign guests for the first time seen the modernized tanks, infantry fighting vehicle and also newest Russian-made 16×16 wheeled chassis, which is can be used to carry the mobile intercontinental ballistic missile.

According to Russia’s media, the K-7850 16×16 special wheeled platform is designed to replace the MZKT-79221 developed by the MZKT in Belarus. The new chassis with a lifting capacity of 85 t is equipped with diesel-electric drivetrain with electromotors embedded in center bosses.

But during the large-scale demonstrations, a video footage (broadcast by Zvezda TV) show the K-7850 encountering what looks like unexpected mechanical trouble.
During the demonstration, there was a failure in the onboard electronics of the new chassis, which led to the fact that a number of wheels turned in the opposite direction.

The video footage clearly shows what happens to the wheels of the 3rd and 4th axes"

4-960x570.jpg


:beatdeadhorse
 
how you will call a bamboo empire which can not make even missile carrier?

"During the demonstration of Russia’s newest military equipment, foreign guests for the first time seen the modernized tanks, infantry fighting vehicle and also newest Russian-made 16×16 wheeled chassis, which is can be used to carry the mobile intercontinental ballistic missile.

According to Russia’s media, the K-7850 16×16 special wheeled platform is designed to replace the MZKT-79221 developed by the MZKT in Belarus. The new chassis with a lifting capacity of 85 t is equipped with diesel-electric drivetrain with electromotors embedded in center bosses.

But during the large-scale demonstrations, a video footage (broadcast by Zvezda TV) show the K-7850 encountering what looks like unexpected mechanical trouble.
During the demonstration, there was a failure in the onboard electronics of the new chassis, which led to the fact that a number of wheels turned in the opposite direction.

The video footage clearly shows what happens to the wheels of the 3rd and 4th axes"

4-960x570.jpg


:beatdeadhorse

You do know american equipment still has that issue, multi steering axles are complex, and small failures can be a problem especially when the failsafe fails. Oh and can not make a missile carrier, they have seemed to be doing that since right after ww2 with no issues, you just seem to be stuck in the mindset everything must work perfectly first time every time or it is junk.

Here is one for you, the american f-22 crashed quite a few times during it's initial testing and was plagued with problems, yet no one goes around calling it junk or calling america a bamboo empire, new designs no matter who makes them will always have issues, and complex designs like independant multi steer axles have still not been trouble free for any country on earth who has operated them.
 
You do know american equipment still has that issue, multi steering axles are complex, and small failures can be a problem especially when the failsafe fails. Oh and can not make a missile carrier, they have seemed to be doing that since right after ww2 with no issues, you just seem to be stuck in the mindset everything must work perfectly first time every time or it is junk.

Here is one for you, the american f-22 crashed quite a few times during it's initial testing and was plagued with problems, yet no one goes around calling it junk or calling america a bamboo empire, new designs no matter who makes them will always have issues, and complex designs like independant multi steer axles have still not been trouble free for any country on earth who has operated them.

so you want to compere the country N1 with bamboo Afro - Asian losers ?
583190_800.jpg

u_67eb67d7adca52b0f41ea2b041063d45_800.jpg


"
Kuznetsov (other names : Brezhnev, Kuzia, swimming Dagestan, etc.)

Originally designed and built by the Soviet Union, Admiral Kuznetsov (as she was eventually called) was intended as a part of an evolutionary step to a modern fleet carrier. Her predecessors (the Kiev class) could only operate VSTOL (vertical and/or short take-off and landing) aircraft, but Kuznetsov possesses a ski-jump which enables her to launch conventional fighters. Intended primarily as a defensive carrier, Kuzentsov was supposed to give Soviet shipbuilders experience with modern carriers, while serving as a test-bed for the development of a conventional naval aviation wing.

The collapse of the Soviet Union also meant the collapse of funding for the carrier project. Laid down in 1983, she was not finally commissioned until 1995. Displacing 58,000 tons, she can theoretically make twenty-nine knots, and carry about forty aircraft. In 1996 she suffered a major breakdown, and was in repairs until 1998. Assigned to the Northern Fleet, she has periodically deployed to the Mediterranean, usually with great fanfare. In November 2016 she conducted her first active military operations, launching strikes against Syrian rebels. During the operation she lost two aircraft (one MiG-29K, and one Su-33) to accidents.

Whether because of poor construction or shoddy maintenance, Kuznetsov has struggled to remain in service, and has yet to make a meaningful military contribution to Russia’s security. Bringing her up to the standards of her half-sisters Liaoning and CVA-001 would likely require more investment than Russia is currently prepared to make to its carrier fleet."

5 Worst Aircraft Carriers Ever Put to Sea
16-1.jpg
 
so you want to compere the country N1 with bamboo Afro - Asian losers ?
583190_800.jpg

u_67eb67d7adca52b0f41ea2b041063d45_800.jpg


"
Kuznetsov (other names : Brezhnev, Kuzia, swimming Dagestan, etc.)

Originally designed and built by the Soviet Union, Admiral Kuznetsov (as she was eventually called) was intended as a part of an evolutionary step to a modern fleet carrier. Her predecessors (the Kiev class) could only operate VSTOL (vertical and/or short take-off and landing) aircraft, but Kuznetsov possesses a ski-jump which enables her to launch conventional fighters. Intended primarily as a defensive carrier, Kuzentsov was supposed to give Soviet shipbuilders experience with modern carriers, while serving as a test-bed for the development of a conventional naval aviation wing.

The collapse of the Soviet Union also meant the collapse of funding for the carrier project. Laid down in 1983, she was not finally commissioned until 1995. Displacing 58,000 tons, she can theoretically make twenty-nine knots, and carry about forty aircraft. In 1996 she suffered a major breakdown, and was in repairs until 1998. Assigned to the Northern Fleet, she has periodically deployed to the Mediterranean, usually with great fanfare. In November 2016 she conducted her first active military operations, launching strikes against Syrian rebels. During the operation she lost two aircraft (one MiG-29K, and one Su-33) to accidents.

Whether because of poor construction or shoddy maintenance, Kuznetsov has struggled to remain in service, and has yet to make a meaningful military contribution to Russia’s security. Bringing her up to the standards of her half-sisters Liaoning and CVA-001 would likely require more investment than Russia is currently prepared to make to its carrier fleet."

5 Worst Aircraft Carriers Ever Put to Sea
16-1.jpg

So now you bring up carriers which anyone anywhere knows russia and the soviet union put little care into, as their whole navy doctrine was defensive with surface ships and offensive with land launched aircraft and subs.


Bamboo afro asian losers? I always knew lithuanians were racist, kinda figured as much as your country actually honors nazis and those who participated in the holocaust, one of the very few on earth who do to be precise.
 
Originally designed and built by the Soviet Union, Admiral Kuznetsov (as she was eventually called) was intended as a part of an evolutionary step to a modern fleet carrier. Her predecessors (the Kiev class) could only operate VSTOL (vertical and/or short take-off and landing) aircraft, but Kuznetsov possesses a ski-jump which enables her to launch conventional fighters.

Wow, just your opening sentences are full of horrid errors. Is why it is hard to take any of your claims seriously.

No, the Admiral Kuznetsov was never intended to be a Fleet Carrier. The only fleet carrier the Soviets/Russians ever tried to develop was the Ulyanovsk. The keel was laid in 1988, and it was scrapped in 1991, only 20% complete. That would have been a true carrier.

The Kuznetsov was something completely different, and the name says that very clearly.

A Тяжелые авианесущие крейсера, or "Heavy Aircraft-Carrying Missile Cruiser". In short, it was a large Missile Cruiser, with a single wing of aircraft. The aircraft were not the strike arm of this ship though, it's missiles were. The purpose of the aircraft was to protect the ship from enemy attack.

Protect, not project. That is what differentiates an aircraft carrier from an aircraft cruiser, or a helicopter carrier that has VSTOL aircraft on it.

And no, it could not launch "conventional fighters". It could only launch the aircraft that had been specifically designed to operate on such a ship. Like the Su-33 or the Yak-38. "Conventional aircraft" are simply unable to operate from such a vessel.

So sorry, none of us are believing what you are throwing-up yet again. Next time, try coming with facts, not fantasy.
 
Back
Top Bottom