FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Now that you mention it, very true!
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Now that you mention it, very true!Nice advert for the ejector seat but your right, it shouldn't have gone into the water.
Thinking about it, on this video and the previous one I didn't see any guard helicopter. For the pilots sake I hope I am wrong !!
Hi Flyboyj,
>This shows what I believe is the inexperience that is probably typical in the Russian Navy. A broke wire shouldn't necessarily result in an aircraft going into the drink!
How could it have been prevented? If the wire had broken at the inital impact, I'd guess the pilot could have boltered, but as it broke when most of his speed was killed already, that would seem impossible to me. (Of course, I have no clue when it comes to modern-day carrier operations, so I apologize if I'm missing the obvious.)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Hi Flyboyj,
>This shows what I believe is the inexperience that is probably typical in the Russian Navy. A broke wire shouldn't necessarily result in an aircraft going into the drink!
How could it have been prevented? If the wire had broken at the inital impact, I'd guess the pilot could have boltered, but as it broke when most of his speed was killed already, that would seem impossible to me. (Of course, I have no clue when it comes to modern-day carrier operations, so I apologize if I'm missing the obvious.)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Great vid, sunny! I'd heard that the Kuznetsov didn't have a catapult system. It seems like such a waste of an aircraft carrier- now the planes can't carry as much ordinance and fuel.
No Yak-38s were ever deployed on "Admiral Kuznezov".Actually , they're long retired. The ramp is used for Su-33 takeoffs with a normal payload.Its for the first line Yak-38s.
That's right, thats Su-25UTG - mainly for a training purposes.By the way, did anyone catch the Su-25 on the flightdeck? That things carrier qualified? Now I've seen it all.
Done some digging and found that she has been sold to the Indian Navy and is expected to enter service in 2008/9. That ski jump should be useful as the Indian navy has the Sea Harrier.
They bought her for the price of the refit, which sounds like a pretty good deal to me.
Are the Russkies getting a new one or did they just not want to bother with the one they've got?
Here's something...
This shows what I believe is the inexperience that is probably typical in the Russian Navy. A broke wire shouldn't necessarily result in an aircraft going into the drink!
don't worry, he was rescued by the Ka-27 helicopter (Yes, my Lord, do you really think that on beast with at least 70000 t displacement there isn't a single helicopter on board? Actually ,there is not only a single, but 24 of them on boardNice advert for the ejector seat but your right, it shouldn't have gone into the water.
Thinking about it, on this video and the previous one I didn't see any guard helicopter. For the pilots sake I hope I am wrong !!
No Yak-38s were ever deployed on "Admiral Kuznezov".Actually , they're long retired. .
That was my sarcastic point that apparently didn't make the translation. I'm sticking with the "big toy" position. 24 helicopters and two deck crew.
I'm not going to compare apples to oranges here but a broke wire on a US carrier would not mean an aircraft going off the deck, but then again I could respect the short ramp deck of the Russian carrier, just the nature of the beast. All in all I still feel the Russian Navy has a long way to go before its carrier capability matures into a force to be reckoned with.....The pilot ( BTW Russian Navy Colonel) couldn't prevent it from falling off the flight deck, he already applied the full power at the flare - the wire broke just a little bit too late. Then he recieved the order from the Flight Operations Officer to eject.
AFAIK there nobody was shot or sent to Siberia to a labour camp after investigation 8)
That's what I'm talking about - if the supposed wire brake occured earlier, the aircraft could achieve the t/o speed before falling off the deck . Here you have something completely different, we have cable overextended and its break which followed which followed immediately thereafter - no aircraft in the world could made it under such circumstances.From a standing start the aircraft US or Russian wouldn't have time to acclerate to take off speed. If it had been a simple cable break, it would have happened when the plane first touched down as its then, that the stresses are at their maximum.
In this case it looks as if the cable took the load, slowed the plane down and then something broke. It looks to me as if the arrester had been set for a slightly lighter aircraft weight, not enought to break the cable so the aircraft slowed, but enough so that the extra weight of the aircraft extended the cable past its maximum limit and then something broke.
The same happens in the army and in the AF - the number of the officers per soldier is greater then in other armed forces. I don't know why - maybe because of a draft ,but then again ,Germans have draft and don't have so many officers in their army.On the old Ark Royal we once had some Russian officers on board and the one thing that struck then was the trust put in the Petty Officers and other senior ratings. On Russian ships officers would undertake these tasks.
I think that depends which doctrine you persuade - for the russian a/c the main task remains the air defence of the fleet and subs operations and the anti-surface missions. You can use fighters and helicopters for that purposes without overloading them - you can see this as a limitation, and maybe it is , but if it fits in your strategy,then why not?What I find interesting is that the vessel doesn't use a catapult. Without one you are severely limited in how you can operate your carrier, a limitation that they will want to overcome
She sure is an odd bird, thats for sure and a new one on me.
Re the benefits of a catapult, the main and most obvious one is that you can launch and recover aircraft at the same time, without one you cannot. Thats a benefit that would apply to any mission be it ASW, Air Defence or strike.
I would expect the Soviet Navy to develop one before too long, its all part of the learning curve.
you're absolutely right ,and the development of an-71 begun just after Falkland War - the Soviets realized, that without AVACS the carrier would be no more than an expensive toy. But then again ,the an-71 proved itself to be too heavy and too big - it didn't fit into the flight deck elevator and it could start from the ramp of "Kuznezov" only with more powerful enginges (so HERE you have another real drawback when you're using the a/c without catapultHi Ramirezzz,
>Another interesting fact about "Kuznezov" is that there was an AWACS aircraft developed for the deployment on it:
Highly interesting, thanks! I had wondered about the AWACS ... RAF test pilot Mike Crosley mentioned that the worst limitation the British faced in the Falklands was that their carriers (and emergency Harrier platforms) was the lack of a genuine AWACS aircraft, giving them very little advance warning of strikes against their fleet. What they had instead were Sea King helicopters carrying a small radome that was more of a stopgap than of a solution. The lack of AWACS capability was a crippling defect of the "jump jet" carriers in Crosley's opinion.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
yes, indeed,that was a competitor of the An-71 but its development was cancelled due to lack of funding in early 90sAs was the Yak-44E?
Hi Ramirezzz,
>Highly interesting, thanks! I had wondered about the AWACS ... RAF test pilot Mike Crosley mentioned that the worst limitation the British faced in the Falklands was that their carriers (and emergency Harrier platforms) was the lack of a genuine AWACS aircraft, giving them very little advance warning of strikes against their fleet. What they had instead were Sea King helicopters carrying a small radome that was more of a stopgap than of a solution. The lack of AWACS capability was a crippling defect of the "jump jet" carriers in Crosley's opinion.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
The same happens in the army and in the AF - the number of the officers per soldier is greater then in other armed forces. I don't know why - maybe because of a draft ,but then again ,Germans have draft and don't have so many officers in their army.