Pretty good video clip of the Kuznetsov
D. Scott Ferrin
http://www.xmission.com/~sferrin/kuznetsov.avi
I stumbled across this video the other day. Check out that Sovremenny
bobbing around like a cork in a bathtub. Are seas this rough common.
Weather aside how do the conditions on a Nimitz class compare to what
you see here?
David E. Powell
D. Scott Ferrin wrote:
> http://www.xmission.com/~sferrin/kuznetsov.avi
>
>
> I stumbled across this video the other day. Check out that
Sovremenny
> bobbing around like a cork in a bathtub. Are seas this rough common.
Would they be in the North Sea or the Baltic Sea? The North Sea, it
gets rough a lot.
> Weather aside how do the conditions on a Nimitz class compare to what
> you see here?
Don't know, but those waves would be a problem for operations on any
ship. I don't know about how flight operations go on a Nimitz compared
to the Kunetsov, but I hand it to the crew for putting so much into
what they have.
Was the first plane in the video an Su-25? The Suknoi fighters looked
very impressive.
Also, good taste in music by whoever put it together.
David
D. Scott Ferrin
<David_Po...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>D. Scott Ferrin wrote:
>> http://www.xmission.com/~sferrin/kuznetsov.avi
>>
>>
>> I stumbled across this video the other day. Check out that
>Sovremenny
>> bobbing around like a cork in a bathtub. Are seas this rough common.
>
>Would they be in the North Sea or the Baltic Sea? The North Sea, it
>gets rough a lot.
>
>> Weather aside how do the conditions on a Nimitz class compare to what
>> you see here?
>
>Don't know, but those waves would be a problem for operations on any
>ship. I don't know about how flight operations go on a Nimitz compared
>to the Kunetsov, but I hand it to the crew for putting so much into
>what they have.
The part that surprised me was them manhandling the aircraft around on
the hanger deck. That and those elevators are SLOW. I was
comparing it to a video I have of operations on an American carrier
and it appeared to be a well-oiled machine by comparison to the
Russian one. Then again where the USN has so much experience
operating carriers and the HUGE difference in training I guess I
shouldn't be surprised.
>
>Was the first plane in the video an Su-25? The Suknoi fighters looked
>very impressive.
Yep. So much for the thought that you can't make a land-based
aircraft into a carrier aircraft. Su-25s, Flankers, and Mig-29s.
Mark Test
news:g9ch511ksl65uatju...@4ax.com...
>
> Yep. So much for the thought that you can't make a land-based
> aircraft into a carrier aircraft. Su-25s, Flankers, and Mig-29s.
>
and Su-33
(sea version Flanker), but was there a Fulcrum onboard? I was
under the impression the MiG-29K was a variant to be
sold to the Indian Navy if they decided to buy
a carrier from Russia.
My recco may not be the greatest, but all the (modern) fighters in the
video have the "extra" wing forward and the "tail" section that
protrudes between and well aft of both engines, indicative of
Flankers.
Also you'll recall that the Frogfoot's starboard landing gear broke on one
landing...so not that easy to put land based aircraft on carriers.
The negatives that stood out to me were, pilots who couldn't
fit into their flight suits, flight suits that are older than me,
RADAR counsels that are older than me, and slow responsive
DC teams (this thing was edited and they were still slow).
(I was born in 1966 BTW). This should be expected if all of your
naval training is conducted pier-side, vice underway.
Mark
D. Scott Ferrin
>> Yep. So much for the thought that you can't make a land-based
>> aircraft into a carrier aircraft. Su-25s, Flankers, and Mig-29s.
>>
>I believe the actual aircraft shown were the Su-39 (Su-25 trainer version)
>and Su-33
>(sea version Flanker), but was there a Fulcrum onboard?
I didn't see any Fulcrums but they did make a few that were carrier
capable. AFAIK the Flanker beat it out and they didn't put the
carrier version of the Fulrum into production
> I was
>under the impression the MiG-29K was a variant to be
>sold to the Indian Navy if they decided to buy
>a carrier from Russia.
And the reason it's available? Because they've already designed a
carrier capable Fulcrum.
>
>My recco may not be the greatest, but all the (modern) fighters in the
>video have the "extra" wing forward and the "tail" section that
>protrudes between and well aft of both engines, indicative of
>Flankers.
Yep.
>
>Also you'll recall that the Frogfoot's starboard landing gear broke on one
>landing...so not that easy to put land based aircraft on carriers.
There isn't a type of naval aircraft in existance that hasn't broken a
landing gear I'd wager. I can think of a Hornet, Tomcat, and Crusader
off the top of my head. A broken landing gear means nothing unless
it's a frequent thing.
>
>The negatives that stood out to me were, pilots who couldn't
>fit into their flight suits, flight suits that are older than me,
>RADAR counsels that are older than me, and slow responsive
>DC teams (this thing was edited and they were still slow).
>(I was born in 1966 BTW). This should be expected if all of your
>naval training is conducted pier-side, vice underway.
>
>Mark
The thought that came to me was "it's a good thing the ship has all
those built-in weapons because the sortie generation rate must suck".