Meanwhile, Somewhere in the English Channel...

[kham]

Now, the ChEng on this boat, I would not want to be But, this is somewhat inevitable, considering the powerplant has always been a bit of a mess, and using cheapo fuel, well, any diesel engine combo doesn't like that usually. They get called champagne burners in the industry for needing fuel that is actually refined, and not closer in geneology to shit Titanic stoked

Nevertheless, feast your eyes on the Mighty Kuznetzov, a Star Destroyer it AINT
When Sal posted the first shot a couple days ago, I said something like, "Aw come on Sal, even the Yorktown looked like that... mind you, that was AFTER being bombed....."

[nachtjaeger]

I thought the Kuznetsov class had a conventional bunker-burning steam plant- 8 boilers, 4 turbines, good for 29 knots. Not to be confused with the Kirov and the Ural, which had nuke plants with steam backup.

http://www.military-today.com/navy/kuznetsov_class.htm

Oh, and did you mean "Tsar Destroyer?" (about as likely to appear in reality.)

http://www.military-today.com/navy/project_23560e_shkval.htm

[Mynock]

Rollin' coal.....God mode.

[kham]

It does, sorta. 9 Turbogenerators, and 6 Generators; got no idea what they doing cycling them like this to make it look like the thing exploding or aflame from stem to stern.....but the tug in shot 2 is not a gag, it's accompanying in case the thing breaks down. Which has happened before

[nachtjaeger]

I'm thinking she was running on less than all boilers, and the Captain rang for engines full ahead (or whatever the current Russian Navy does.) A quick start up like that is very bad for the boilers, and until you get them hot all that bunker oil is going to smoke like a smoke machine. Oil fired steam locomoitves would do that also. Also, won't a smoke screen confuse missiles with visual or IR tracking?

It does, sorta. 9 Turbogenerators, and 6 Generators; got no idea what they doing cycling them like this to make it look like the thing exploding or aflame from stem to stern.....but the tug in shot 2 is not a gag, it's accompanying in case the thing breaks down. Which has happened before

[Mynock]

It surprises me how the military (US/Russia/whatever) doesn't take more advantage of nuke piles. Surface ships that don't need tender support seem like a super awesome thing to have.

[kham]

Reason #1 is plain old money
Best example: The Virginia-class CGNs
They were all decommissioned in the early 1990s (thanks, SLICK....) for the 'peace dividend' gurgling, with all of them barely 20 years old. They try to make excuses about how they didn't have the VLS system of newer Ticos, and adding Tomahawks took away their helos, assorted bullshit. But the bottom line, was money. They were due for refueling , which on a nuke is not a cheap thing. So that was that. They were graceful, and powerful warships, able to steam with the CVNs without worrying about fuel expenditures.

[Duncan Edwards]

And part of the money issue is what you pay your people. The quality of enlisted ratings in the Soviet/Russian navy was never what you got from the Petty Officers in the west. The Russians rely heavily on their Chiefs and Warrant Officers to get things done that a lower rate would do in the USA or UK. Skilled people are more difficult to come by in a conscript force.

This is probably one of, but certainly not the only reason, that the Russians seem to have always been culturally unable to put together a Navy of any consequence. The Army being politically dominant and having no easy access to the ocean are probably parts of it as well. Still though for a people who can do technical things very well when they want they've never been able to sail with much smaller nations like the UK, France, Japan, etc. Now the Chinese are patiently besting them as well and India may do so too some day.

[kham]

Someone over at Sal's was describing the Russians more or less as you put it, but also noting that their senior enlisteds are not like those in western navies, and most things that you'd expect a chief or PO to do, is done by officers.
After some considering someone said..."so... they're the IJN circa 1940?" That, is not entirely an inaccurate statement or snark.

[Billie Bonce]

Guys, what do you want from a Russian steamer? Just look at their diesel locomotives:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zq46drYmewM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTNmrwwxwEk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmCudtX8yt8