|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 28, 2016 22:36:37 GMT -6
Well, the Russian's write beautiful music, books and tales, even their architecture is fascinating. However, their judgement in the area of military technology is not the best. Brave lads, but alcoholics. I even like Sergei Eisenstein's movies; Alexander Nevsky and Ivan The Terrible Parts 1 & 2, along with Battleship Potemkin. Seriously, I believe that it is a step based on two facts: The Kuznetsov is a badly designed aircraft carrier especially for sustained operations and that they have gotten the propaganda value out of the move but with the loss of the aircraft its better to cut your losses. It may also be a reality check: they have a very long way to go, to develop a serviceable, aircraft carrier that can sustain operations over long periods of time. The real problem is that they cannot in good faith, justify such a capital outlay due to their geostrategic position in the world. Again, we will have to wait and see the final results of this whole episode.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 29, 2016 8:32:42 GMT -6
Just something for us to consider about fighters. A fighter needs three basic performance factors: 1. A high thrust to weight ratio for excellent acceleration. 2. Large wings for maneuvering in its flight envelope, go for separation and then get back into the fight. 3. Enough fuel to penetrate deep into enemy territory and sustain a turning fight. An air to ground mode requires all of those characteristics but also a good avionics package with an air to ground mode for targeting. It also requires good ordnance carrying and delivering capability. So, now we have to judge aircraft by these characteristics. Does the aircraft in question have all these characteristics? Here is a site with Thrust to Weight Ratios - www.angelfire.com/falcon/fighterplanes/texts/articles/twr.html
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 29, 2016 23:00:12 GMT -6
Sometimes a review of historical events can shed light on a modern issue like the Su-33 and Mig-29K. In about 1968 the Russians unveiled two new aircraft: the Mig-23 Swing wing fighter and the Mig-25 Foxbat. These two aircraft startled NATO and the world. Here the Russians had made quantum leaps in aircraft design, the world marveled and the magazines went crazy.
However, the USAF and others in the Pentagon knew better. Especially one, Colonel John Boyd, the developer of the E-M formulas plus a key person in the development of the F-16 and F-15. Boyd and others had already shot down the F-111, showing the USAF that the plane was a real piece of crap. The Mig-23 was a copy and pilots stated that the Russians had now lost one whole generation of aircraft to bad technology.
The Mig-25 capability was inflated by the USAF. They said it could reach Mach 2.8 and had a very high ceiling. They failed to mention that if the Mig-25 reached that speed, it had to immediately land because of fuel exhaustion and the engine had to be replaced. Another generation of lost technology.
The point here is that our military uses this technique to gather funding from the Congress, although Congress is supposed to get all the important intelligence data during briefings. Well they didn't and they still don't.
So, take what we read on the internet with a grain of salt. As we have seen in the last few days, the Mig-29K isn't that good of a fighter and neither is the Su-33. I am certain the military has very good data and has done its homework on the E-M programs so its knows what those two birds can actually do.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Dec 5, 2016 20:01:40 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 5, 2016 20:11:58 GMT -6
Well, who needs the enemy... just let the Russians fly and they will take care of the losses for you. Maybe they should build aircraft that can swim underwater. Seriously, this has got to be a little embarrassing to the Russian Navy and people.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Dec 5, 2016 20:21:56 GMT -6
What's embarrassing is that it seems both accidents had the same root cause - an arrestor cable snapping. In the first case they didn't direct the MiG-29 to a bingo field and in the second the Su-33 was unable to get up enough airspeed to bolter. When was the last time a USN carrier had two cables snap over a month of relatively light operations?
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 5, 2016 20:25:42 GMT -6
What's embarrassing is that it seems both accidents had the same root cause - an arrestor cable snapping. In the first case they didn't direct the MiG-29 to a bingo field and in the second the Su-33 was unable to get up enough airspeed to bolter. When was the last time a USN carrier had two cables snap over a month of relatively light operations? I agree and I don't know when the last USN cable snapped, of course we have multiple cables along the deck so you miss one and the others are available. I would like to know why that SU-33 could get enough airspeed to bolter and stay in the air. This does not bode well for their future carrier activities.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Dec 5, 2016 22:33:40 GMT -6
What's embarrassing is that it seems both accidents had the same root cause - an arrestor cable snapping. In the first case they didn't direct the MiG-29 to a bingo field and in the second the Su-33 was unable to get up enough airspeed to bolter. When was the last time a USN carrier had two cables snap over a month of relatively light operations? I agree and I don't know when the last USN cable snapped, of course we have multiple cables along the deck so you miss one and the others are available. I would like to know why that SU-33 could get enough airspeed to bolter and stay in the air. This does not bode well for their future carrier activities. The last incident I'm aware of was on the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower during workups off the Virginia Capes on March 18 of this year; an E-2C was making a landing and the cable snapped loose from the seating at one end. Eight sailors were injured; the E-2 managed to bolter and recover at Norfolk although according to an unnamed sailor "It came back, but it had friggin' salt water on the bottom of it!" www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4346/this-has-to-be-one-of-the-most-terrifying-carrier-landing-videos-ever
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 5, 2016 23:10:25 GMT -6
I agree and I don't know when the last USN cable snapped, of course we have multiple cables along the deck so you miss one and the others are available. I would like to know why that SU-33 could get enough airspeed to bolter and stay in the air. This does not bode well for their future carrier activities. The last incident I'm aware of was on the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower during workups off the Virginia Capes on March 18 of this year; an E-2C was making a landing and the cable snapped loose from the seating at one end. Eight sailors were injured; the E-2 managed to bolter and recover at Norfolk although according to an unnamed sailor "It came back, but it had friggin' salt water on the bottom of it!" www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4346/this-has-to-be-one-of-the-most-terrifying-carrier-landing-videos-everThat has got to be the worst aircraft for that to happen to in the Navy. The poor souls in the back; ACO CICO and Flight tech have absolutely no chance to get out. The only hatch leads up to the radome and the middle tail is to your right. It's cramped stuffy with no windows. If you try to move forward, then you have to duck your head or you will bang it on the fuel tank which dips down. That is the worst aircraft to try to remove or replace hardware in because of this narrow fuselage. BTW, its also pressurized so be careful opening the hatch. I had a friend who forgot to depressurize the bird before entering and the hatch hit him so hard, he had to retire with brain damage. I was supposed to be on that trip to Okinawa, but missed it. Ich.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Dec 5, 2016 23:38:06 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 7, 2016 10:24:06 GMT -6
Well, he's lucky he was clean so he had the specific excess power to bolter and survive. They need to work on their landings and takeoffs... or put away the vodka.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Dec 22, 2016 23:10:39 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 23, 2016 8:19:51 GMT -6
You fight like you train, the old saying goes. They've already lost two fighters in carrier mishaps, I wonder what their accident record is, probably astronomical. New aircraft are nice but they need to develop the training program first, then build the new fighters.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Apr 5, 2017 18:13:39 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 5, 2017 19:13:13 GMT -6
One of the problems with flight hours, is that it is just a number calculated by higher math to determine using the stresses of flight and how they are going to affect the structure of the aircraft. Combat will overstress every aircraft. We saw this after Vietnam and Desert Storm. What is tragic about this issue of the Harrier and F-18's is that the pilots will pay the ultimate price for structural failures during flight. It's easy to make judgements about which aircraft to buy and which to just overhaul, but there is only so much work that can be accomplished on the structure of a bird before it is now a hazard. They might, now, put flight restrictions on many of these birds as to how many G's they can push which now translates to combat tactics.
|
|