# Russian Dry Dock sinks, with Aircraft Carrier inside. **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [November 6, 2018, 11:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russian-dry-dock-sinks-with-aircraft-carrier-inside/824064 "2018-11-06T11:24:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2019, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russian-dry-dock-sinks-with-aircraft-carrier-inside/824064/61 "2019-12-12T22:00:23Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > **UPDATE** > And now [its caught fire.](https://tass.com/emergencies/1098601) And it sank into the swamp. ---
**Author:** ![Declan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecae2f/32.png) [@Declan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Declan)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2019, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russian-dry-dock-sinks-with-aircraft-carrier-inside/824064/62 "2019-12-12T22:19:06Z")
> [@bump](#): > > They went straight from F-4s to F-18s? I didn’t realize that there was so much overlap in the interceptor role between F-14s and F-4s in the fleet. > > At any rate, it’s not like the F-4s were small planes either- all 3 (Su-33, F-4 and F-14) are all of a size, so there’s got to be something unusual about the Kuznetsov class design that precludes a larger air wing that the US carriers don’t have. From what i can remember reading, it was an expiremental design that was supposed to get the soviet feet wet in carrier ops. Then the wall fell and the soviet union disolved, and now all surviving copies of legacy soviet fleet units are reaching an age where they should be scrapped and Russia should be like every other pissant power operating a frigate fleet. ---
**Author:** ![lazybratsche](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ba8739/32.png) [@lazybratsche](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lazybratsche)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russian-dry-dock-sinks-with-aircraft-carrier-inside/824064/63 "2019-12-13T04:26:14Z")
> [@bump](#): > > They went straight from F-4s to F-18s? I didn’t realize that there was so much overlap in the interceptor role between F-14s and F-4s in the fleet. > > At any rate, it’s not like the F-4s were small planes either- all 3 (Su-33, F-4 and F-14) are all of a size, so there’s got to be something unusual about the Kuznetsov class design that precludes a larger air wing that the US carriers don’t have. Biggest difference, by far, is that US carriers are all powered by nuclear reactors. That means that the Kuznetsov has to carry all its own fuel, which cuts the available storage for aircraft, aircraft fuel and stores by a huge amount. A slightly more direct comparison to the Kuznetsov can be made to the nuclear powered Charles de Gaulle. Despite being about 2/3 the displacement, the Charles de Gaulle can carry a larger air wing. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russian-dry-dock-sinks-with-aircraft-carrier-inside/824064/64 "2019-12-13T05:13:14Z")
Or the US LHD’s, like the _Hornets_ & _Americas_. Can carry max 25 or so A/C. ---
**Author:** ![drachillix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/48db29/32.png) [@drachillix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drachillix)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 7:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russian-dry-dock-sinks-with-aircraft-carrier-inside/824064/65 "2019-12-13T07:49:12Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > Hey, Putin is basically a Bond villain, and a submersible dry dock is \*totally \*something a Bond villain would have. Much water, very Thunderball, wow. ---
**Author:** ![dba\_Fred](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c37758/32.png) [@dba\_Fred](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dba_Fred)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2019, 8:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russian-dry-dock-sinks-with-aircraft-carrier-inside/824064/66 "2019-12-14T08:30:55Z")
“Comrade Accountant, now make entry in **Sunk Costs** column.” ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2019, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russian-dry-dock-sinks-with-aircraft-carrier-inside/824064/67 "2019-12-14T17:59:41Z")
they’re taking 2 dry docks nearby in Murmansk and making 1 larger dry dock out of them. I would think a floating dry dock is something used for emergency rescue and not extended overhauls. ---
**Author:** ![Sunny\_Daze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunny_daze/32/438_2.png) [@Sunny\_Daze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunny_Daze)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2019, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russian-dry-dock-sinks-with-aircraft-carrier-inside/824064/68 "2019-12-14T18:55:58Z")
This whole thing amuses me greatly. Of course, when I shared this I got a snarky reply about why the US needed aircraft carriers if this is the opposition. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2019, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russian-dry-dock-sinks-with-aircraft-carrier-inside/824064/69 "2019-12-15T14:24:42Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > they’re taking 2 dry docks nearby in Murmansk and making 1 larger dry dock out of them. > > I would think a floating dry dock is something used for emergency rescue and not extended overhauls. Didn’t the US Navy use [floating dry docks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auxiliary_floating_drydock) in the Pacific Theater to repair ships? ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2019, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russian-dry-dock-sinks-with-aircraft-carrier-inside/824064/70 "2019-12-15T14:58:02Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > In Soviet Russia, dry dock sinks YOU. You’re missing a semicolon and the word “watch.” Like so: _In Soviet Russia, dry dock sinks; YOU watch._ ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2019, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russian-dry-dock-sinks-with-aircraft-carrier-inside/824064/71 "2019-12-15T20:17:36Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > Didn’t the US Navy use [floating dry docks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auxiliary_floating_drydock) in the Pacific Theater to repair ships? Yes. the advantage of having them supplement a land dry dock system was the ability to tow it to locations that don’t have one or needed more of them as was the case of WW-II where they towed them to Pearl Harbor prior to the start of the war. In the case of USSR/Russia they didn’t build their aircraft carrier or the floating dry dock needed for extended overhaul. They apparently don’t have a land based dry dock system capable of supporting their fleet in peace time maintenance. Or they let the fleet deteriorate to the point it clogged up their dry docks. In this case the Russians decided to convert 2 smaller dry docks nearby to one larger one rather than tow an aircraft carrier a long distance. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2019, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russian-dry-dock-sinks-with-aircraft-carrier-inside/824064/72 "2019-12-16T15:29:15Z")
> [@lazybratsche](#): > > Biggest difference, by far, is that US carriers are all powered by nuclear reactors. That means that the Kuznetsov has to carry all its own fuel, which cuts the available storage for aircraft, aircraft fuel and stores by a huge amount. > > A slightly more direct comparison to the Kuznetsov can be made to the nuclear powered Charles de Gaulle. Despite being about 2/3 the displacement, the Charles de Gaulle can carry a larger air wing. Sure, but the Midway class carriers were conventionally powered, and were of similar tonnage and size as the Kuznetsov class, yet carried a 65-70 aircraft wing AND all the catapult hardware required to fly them. There has to have been some kind of odd design- I’m wondering if the 12 SS-N-19 Shipwreck launchers and the pretty robust CIWS and defensive weaponry installations are what’s taking up the extra room. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/russian-dry-dock-sinks-with-aircraft-carrier-inside/824064.md?page=3)