|
Post by steel selachian on Nov 14, 2016 21:24:04 GMT -6
Russian Naval Aviation has 19 Su-33s and 24 ... whoops, 23 MiG-29KR/KUBR. The MiG-29KUBR is the two-seat version; they bought four and just lost one. Aside from those three remaining two-seater MiGs they have perhaps 10 Su-25UTG trainers to train nuggets in carrier ops. The MiGs are new, but the Sukhois are getting long in the tooth even with a few of them having undergone a recent overhaul. Given that only between eight and 14 birds were deployed, the readiness is a fraction of that (although this could be due to a shortage of carrier-qualified aircrews). The only consolation is that with the lack of regular carrier deployments the Su-33s have probably a fraction of the wear and tear on them that the legacy Hornets do.
That said, my guess is that the Russians wish they had the Marines' problems right now; 60% availability still leaves the USMC with 87 Hornets available for training or deployment, and while they're Marines I'd say the rawest nugget is probably more qualified to launch and trap than the Russian pilots in the Med right now.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 14, 2016 22:37:47 GMT -6
Russian Naval Aviation has 19 Su-33s and 24 ... whoops, 23 MiG-29KR/KUBR. The MiG-29KUBR is the two-seat version; they bought four and just lost one. Aside from those three remaining two-seater MiGs they have perhaps 10 Su-25UTG trainers to train nuggets in carrier ops. The MiGs are new, but the Sukhois are getting long in the tooth even with a few of them having undergone a recent overhaul. Given that only between eight and 14 birds were deployed, the readiness is a fraction of that (although this could be due to a shortage of carrier-qualified aircrews). The only consolation is that with the lack of regular carrier deployments the Su-33s have probably a fraction of the wear and tear on them that the legacy Hornets do. That said, my guess is that the Russians wish they had the Marines' problems right now; 60% availability still leaves the USMC with 87 Hornets available for training or deployment, and while they're Marines I'd say the rawest nugget is probably more qualified to launch and trap than the Russian pilots in the Med right now. Well, its only 85 as of now... remember we lost two off of San Diego the other day. We have three squadrons of twelve currently deployed. One on the Harry Truman, One on the Theodore Roosevelt, and one on board the Nimitz. However not all those three are on deployment overseas, but they are currently assigned to those carriers. This leaves the US Marines with forty nine aircraft for training. That isn't many, and some VMFA's are in training with F-35's. There are three F-18 squadrons at Miramar, four at Beaufort, one at Fort Worth and one F-35 squadron at Yuma. Remember, that some of those squadrons don't have enough aircraft. That's it, mate.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Nov 15, 2016 0:37:30 GMT -6
85, correct ... and due to the shortfalls, the Navy and Marines are only deploying 10-plane legacy Hornet squadrons. That makes 30 aircraft deployed and 55 stateside with the USMC. The USN has a separate pool of legacy Hornets, although they've replaced a number of them with Super Hornets and sent hand-me-downs to the Marines - looking at Wikipedia's listing, it appears the Navy only has five frontline squadrons flying the legacy Hornet, with one (VFA-15) scheduled to be inactivated in 2017. There's also an aggressor squadron (VFC-12) and a nominal reserve squadron (VFA-204), which are equipped with older birds that are pretty much only good for adversary training.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 15, 2016 8:51:12 GMT -6
85, correct ... and due to the shortfalls, the Navy and Marines are only deploying 10-plane legacy Hornet squadrons. That makes 30 aircraft deployed and 55 stateside with the USMC. The USN has a separate pool of legacy Hornets, although they've replaced a number of them with Super Hornets and sent hand-me-downs to the Marines - looking at Wikipedia's listing, it appears the Navy only has five frontline squadrons flying the legacy Hornet, with one (VFA-15) scheduled to be inactivated in 2017. There's also an aggressor squadron (VFC-12) and a nominal reserve squadron (VFA-204), which are equipped with older birds that are pretty much only good for adversary training. Oops, we missed three; One crashed at Lakenheath in October of 2015, and one crashed near Twenty-nine Palms, California in July and one crashed at Fallon in August. Let's see, that's 82. With twelve aircraft in three squadrons deployed; you have to have spares, BTW, that's 36. Now that's 46 still available, if they don't have engine problems or corrosion and centerbarrel cracks. With such few aircraft, flight hours for training are being reduced and this means less proficiency in new pilots and older pilots who need to maintain skills. This is when accidents happen and this is what happened off of San Diego, if my guess is correct. So, 46 aircraft in various conditions is not really enough aircraft. It seems as though we might be in the same condition as the Russians, I am sorry to say. At least in the Marine Corps aviation. Those aircraft have a lot of flight hours on them, much of it in operational missions which puts far more stress on the birds than non-operational carrier qualification, ACM training and just normal flights to Yuma to turn money into noise. This is what happens when you fight too many wars in too short of a time, I've been there and seen it.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 15, 2016 12:31:25 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Nov 15, 2016 19:14:21 GMT -6
85, correct ... and due to the shortfalls, the Navy and Marines are only deploying 10-plane legacy Hornet squadrons. That makes 30 aircraft deployed and 55 stateside with the USMC. The USN has a separate pool of legacy Hornets, although they've replaced a number of them with Super Hornets and sent hand-me-downs to the Marines - looking at Wikipedia's listing, it appears the Navy only has five frontline squadrons flying the legacy Hornet, with one (VFA-15) scheduled to be inactivated in 2017. There's also an aggressor squadron (VFC-12) and a nominal reserve squadron (VFA-204), which are equipped with older birds that are pretty much only good for adversary training. Oops, we missed three; One crashed at Lakenheath in October of 2015, and one crashed near Twenty-nine Palms, California in July and one crashed at Fallon in August. Let's see, that's 82. With twelve aircraft in three squadrons deployed; you have to have spares, BTW, that's 36. Now that's 46 still available, if they don't have engine problems or corrosion and centerbarrel cracks. With such few aircraft, flight hours for training are being reduced and this means less proficiency in new pilots and older pilots who need to maintain skills. This is when accidents happen and this is what happened off of San Diego, if my guess is correct. So, 46 aircraft in various conditions is not really enough aircraft. It seems as though we might be in the same condition as the Russians, I am sorry to say. At least in the Marine Corps aviation. Those aircraft have a lot of flight hours on them, much of it in operational missions which puts far more stress on the birds than non-operational carrier qualification, ACM training and just normal flights to Yuma to turn money into noise. This is what happens when you fight too many wars in too short of a time, I've been there and seen it. As stated, the issues have caused the USN and USMC to pare their legacy Hornet squadrons down from 12 aircraft to 10 ... which appears to also be the size of most of the F-35B/C squadrons in the planning phase (the USMC will have some squadrons assigned 16 F-35Bs and some assigned only 10). So that's only 30 deployed rather than 36. Back to the Russkies ... whoopie, they can fly those Su-33s off the deck with weapons! Well, two R-27s (not sure whether they're the basic or extended-range series), two R-73s, and a pair of wingtip ECM pods. www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQVCyF8P-l4
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 15, 2016 22:29:52 GMT -6
Oops, we missed three; One crashed at Lakenheath in October of 2015, and one crashed near Twenty-nine Palms, California in July and one crashed at Fallon in August. Let's see, that's 82. With twelve aircraft in three squadrons deployed; you have to have spares, BTW, that's 36. Now that's 46 still available, if they don't have engine problems or corrosion and centerbarrel cracks. With such few aircraft, flight hours for training are being reduced and this means less proficiency in new pilots and older pilots who need to maintain skills. This is when accidents happen and this is what happened off of San Diego, if my guess is correct. So, 46 aircraft in various conditions is not really enough aircraft. It seems as though we might be in the same condition as the Russians, I am sorry to say. At least in the Marine Corps aviation. Those aircraft have a lot of flight hours on them, much of it in operational missions which puts far more stress on the birds than non-operational carrier qualification, ACM training and just normal flights to Yuma to turn money into noise. This is what happens when you fight too many wars in too short of a time, I've been there and seen it. As stated, the issues have caused the USN and USMC to pare their legacy Hornet squadrons down from 12 aircraft to 10 ... which appears to also be the size of most of the F-35B/C squadrons in the planning phase (the USMC will have some squadrons assigned 16 F-35Bs and some assigned only 10). So that's only 30 deployed rather than 36. Back to the Russkies ... whoopie, they can fly those Su-33s off the deck with weapons! Well, two R-27s (not sure whether they're the basic or extended-range series), two R-73s, and a pair of wingtip ECM pods. www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQVCyF8P-l4Well, it's good for propaganda purposes and a little practice. I can't see much use other than to show the flag. You know of course, there are 44 F-18's on board the carriers.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Nov 15, 2016 23:04:20 GMT -6
As stated, the issues have caused the USN and USMC to pare their legacy Hornet squadrons down from 12 aircraft to 10 ... which appears to also be the size of most of the F-35B/C squadrons in the planning phase (the USMC will have some squadrons assigned 16 F-35Bs and some assigned only 10). So that's only 30 deployed rather than 36. Back to the Russkies ... whoopie, they can fly those Su-33s off the deck with weapons! Well, two R-27s (not sure whether they're the basic or extended-range series), two R-73s, and a pair of wingtip ECM pods. www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQVCyF8P-l4Well, it's good for propaganda purposes and a little practice. I can't see much use other than to show the flag. You know of course, there are 44 F-18's on board the carriers. Well, the 87 ... 85 ... 82 birds we've been discussing are just the USMC's stable of F/A-18A/B/C/D airframes. That's not counting the Navy's stable of legacy and Super Hornets. As the Supers are newer birds and the production line hasn't closed down yet, those squadrons typically have a full complement of 12-14 aircraft as opposed to 10 with the legacy Hornet squadrons.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 16, 2016 8:06:07 GMT -6
Well, it's good for propaganda purposes and a little practice. I can't see much use other than to show the flag. You know of course, there are 44 F-18's on board the carriers. Well, the 87 ... 85 ... 82 birds we've been discussing are just the USMC's stable of F/A-18A/B/C/D airframes. That's not counting the Navy's stable of legacy and Super Hornets. As the Supers are newer birds and the production line hasn't closed down yet, those squadrons typically have a full complement of 12-14 aircraft as opposed to 10 with the legacy Hornet squadrons. Well, with a whole air wing being decommissioned next year, this whole issue of how many birds are in a deployed squadron is moot. It will change and is changing with each deployment. Believe me, the US Navy is not going to reveal how many birds are actually on that carrier at any one time during the deployment. Many times, aircraft... not personnel are sent to a relieving carrier as spares so there maybe more on that carrier than you and I actually know. Have you seen this article on the Russian Carrier Deployment by US Naval Institute? news.usni.org/2016/10/26/analysis-russias-carrier-deployment-syria-propaganda-not-practicalsmokeandstir.org/2015/10/14/russias-carrier-is-unlikely-to-make-a-difference-in-the-syrian-war/It echoes what we have said, that the Kuznetsov is not a carrier for air strikes but for CAP, and its whole purpose is propaganda, which is what we both agreed.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Nov 21, 2016 19:29:43 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 21, 2016 22:15:55 GMT -6
Well, my first comment is "C'mon Man". When you file a flight plan, you are supposed to have alternate landing fields. Oops!. Now, my second comment is that all aircraft, are supposed to have some sort of Bingo fuel indicator or voice. Ours is an old lady saying "Bingo Fuel, Bingo Fuel". You are supposed to pay attention to this, that's why you are the best of the best. Apparently they either don't have such a device, or no one was paying attention to it. Either way, this loss is as the article says "unnecessary". In fact, it is embarrassing. So, what's the fix. Well you could scrap the carrier and forget the whole idea. Carrier aviation might just be beyond your capability. A better solution is to build more carriers and aircraft, then PRACTICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICE; develop SOP's that take into account this possibility and use simulators to drill the procedures into your pilots... and oh by the way, take the damn vodka away from them. You might also develop airborne tanker support for your carriers. You could also develop centerline fuel tanks, that always helps. This incident just proves my old axiom: common sense isn't so bloody common.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Nov 24, 2016 19:42:37 GMT -6
Well, my first comment is "C'mon Man". When you file a flight plan, you are supposed to have alternate landing fields. Oops!. Now, my second comment is that all aircraft, are supposed to have some sort of Bingo fuel indicator or voice. Ours is an old lady saying "Bingo Fuel, Bingo Fuel". You are supposed to pay attention to this, that's why you are the best of the best. Apparently they either don't have such a device, or no one was paying attention to it. Either way, this loss is as the article says "unnecessary". In fact, it is embarrassing. So, what's the fix. Well you could scrap the carrier and forget the whole idea. Carrier aviation might just be beyond your capability. A better solution is to build more carriers and aircraft, then PRACTICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICE; develop SOP's that take into account this possibility and use simulators to drill the procedures into your pilots... and oh by the way, take the damn vodka away from them. You might also develop airborne tanker support for your carriers. You could also develop centerline fuel tanks, that always helps. This incident just proves my old axiom: common sense isn't so bloody common. It also begs the question of how suitable the MiG-29K is for carrier ops. The original MiG-29B "Fulcrum-A" production version was notoriously short-legged; it carried 7,716 lbs of internal fuel and based on evaluations of the MiG-29s in NATO service after the wall came down it was really only good for a combat radius of about 150 miles with a centerline external tank (assuming high subsonic cruise in and out and 2 minutes of afterburner on station - foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how-to-win-in-a-dogfight-stories-from-a-pilot-who-flew-1682723379 ). It was originally intended as a Frontal Aviation support fighter, hopping to forward airbases as the front line advanced. Now, for the MiG-29K they increased the internal fuel load to just over 10,000 lbs; however the maximum weight of the aircraft is also about 6,000 lbs heavier. If the Su-33's limitations are any indication, the MiG-29K probably can't launch with a full load of internal fuel, let alone external or buddy tanks. If the initial reports that this was a MiG-29KUBR tandem-seater are correct, then some of that fuel capacity may be sacrificed to cram in that second seat. Long legs have been a plus factor for carrier birds since the early days of aviation; it does not seem like the MiG-29 is a good fit for the job.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 25, 2016 9:26:15 GMT -6
Well, my first comment is "C'mon Man". When you file a flight plan, you are supposed to have alternate landing fields. Oops!. Now, my second comment is that all aircraft, are supposed to have some sort of Bingo fuel indicator or voice. Ours is an old lady saying "Bingo Fuel, Bingo Fuel". You are supposed to pay attention to this, that's why you are the best of the best. Apparently they either don't have such a device, or no one was paying attention to it. Either way, this loss is as the article says "unnecessary". In fact, it is embarrassing. So, what's the fix. Well you could scrap the carrier and forget the whole idea. Carrier aviation might just be beyond your capability. A better solution is to build more carriers and aircraft, then PRACTICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICE; develop SOP's that take into account this possibility and use simulators to drill the procedures into your pilots... and oh by the way, take the damn vodka away from them. You might also develop airborne tanker support for your carriers. You could also develop centerline fuel tanks, that always helps. This incident just proves my old axiom: common sense isn't so bloody common. It also begs the question of how suitable the MiG-29K is for carrier ops. The original MiG-29B "Fulcrum-A" production version was notoriously short-legged; it carried 7,716 lbs of internal fuel and based on evaluations of the MiG-29s in NATO service after the wall came down it was really only good for a combat radius of about 150 miles with a centerline external tank (assuming high subsonic cruise in and out and 2 minutes of afterburner on station - foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how-to-win-in-a-dogfight-stories-from-a-pilot-who-flew-1682723379 ). It was originally intended as a Frontal Aviation support fighter, hopping to forward airbases as the front line advanced. Now, for the MiG-29K they increased the internal fuel load to just over 10,000 lbs; however the maximum weight of the aircraft is also about 6,000 lbs heavier. If the Su-33's limitations are any indication, the MiG-29K probably can't launch with a full load of internal fuel, let alone external or buddy tanks. If the initial reports that this was a MiG-29KUBR tandem-seater are correct, then some of that fuel capacity may be sacrificed to cram in that second seat. Long legs have been a plus factor for carrier birds since the early days of aviation; it does not seem like the MiG-29 is a good fit for the job. Clearly, based on my experience and the article, the Mig-29K and other fighters the Russians have built are not good carrier based fighters. They are simply the only fighters they currently have so they have tried to adapt them. The problem with that is they might not get the good feedback on what is necessary for carrier based fighter. The next problem is the carrier itself. It needs to be a little bigger and have catapults not a ski jump. As we have said, that reduces combat loads. The real issue and I believe we have discussed this, is that the Russians are not trying to develop large attack carriers simply smaller carriers for surface force combat air patrols and BARCAP. If that is valid, which apparently it is, they will still have to improve in at least three areas. 1. Better and more fuel efficient engines 2. Better and more effective airborne intercept radar and fire controls on board their aircraft. 3. Develop an airborne early warning radar plane 4. Develop an air tanker system to increase the range of their aircraft 5. Possibly develop an ASW aircraft. Just my take
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Nov 25, 2016 19:41:33 GMT -6
The Su-33 might have potential as a carrier bird, but the plane needs a catapult, a bigger carrier, and better avionics to be useful. It has double the internal fuel, 80% more range, more payload, and a slightly lower landing speed than the MiG-29K. On the flip side, it's a larger and more expensive aircraft that can currently only drop dumb bombs. I believe at one point in the 1990s some US Navy officers who were opposed to the Super Hornet program floated the idea of buying Su-33 airframes from Russia and fitting them with US avionics and engines; interesting idea but I still wouldn't trust the workmanship on the airframe.
The Russians might have invested in an updated model had the PRC and India bought the Su-33, but the PRC chose to pursue its own unlicensed copy (J-15) and the Indians felt they needed a smaller airframe to put aboard their refitted Kiev-class carrier. As a result, the Russians piggybacked another 24 MiG-29Ks onto the Indian Navy's order rather than spend the money on a small batch of upgraded Su-33s. Given they're still cranking out Su-30/35 airframes though, you'd think it wouldn't be that much harder to produce more Su-33s.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Nov 28, 2016 21:28:23 GMT -6
|
|