LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteJust like we did with the F-111B. And a fine aircraft that wasOriginally Posted by zraver
TH covered the rest.
With the exception of the MiG-29K, they were all built by aviation companies with many many decades of experience building CATOBAR naval aircraft.
And several of them have been used with distinction by non-naval air forces. At the same time, the reverse cannot be said about 99% of ground based aircraft. Because an aircraft designed for CTOL is almost without exception inherently wrong for naval CATOBAR and STOBAR use.
And what design ever is? C'mon, that's a rather pathetic statement to support your case.
The Indians can "accept" all they want. When the rubber meets the road - or the flight deck - repeatedly is when a design is proven.
The Indians are newcomers to the business of operating high-performance STOBAR aircraft. Until the MiG-29K has been wrung out, bounced around and slammed on the deck over the course of multiple deployments, it's still a question mark as to it's suitability as an effective carrier aircraft.
Put bluntly, the Indians are in a position with the MiG-29K to get as badly screwed by the Russians as they've been continuously screwed by the Admiral Gorshkov debacle.
No argument from me on that score...except again, they're not naval aircraft designers, certainly not on par with the United States...although I freely admit that's a rather unfair comparison.
Which sounds impressive, until you factor in the number of actual honest-to-god deployments with flight ops that Kuznetsov has made in those 15 years.
I'm pretty sure that it can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
We'll have to agree to disagree on the definition of "successful" when it comes to the Su-33's suitability for carrier ops. Because I for one am not convinced by the last 15 years of non-action by the Russians.
And if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon!
Just like we did with the F-111B. And a fine aircraft that was
TH covered the rest.
Does anyone know how many Su-33's were built, and of that number, how many have been lost to accidents?
24+ according to Wiki
Lost to accidents, I believe one rolled off the flight deck, still trying to find the reference.
As for in-flight accidents, probably not very many, given it's low use.
Last edited by NUS; 27 Jul 09, at 15:02.
and of those aircraft, how many were designed from the begining for carrier use, and the ones that werent, what structural and other changes were required to make them suitable for that use?
Was there any explanation as too what happened before take off? It appears the Su 33 was lacking an awful lot of thrust to hop off the carrier in such a short distance.
Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.
Definately heavy reinforced landing gear,airframe and tail hook for starters.
Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.
Nothing; it wasn't a takeoff, it was supposed to be a touch-and-go, but unfortunately the guy must have deployed (or forgot to retract at the last minute) his hook, and where he thought he should be taking off again, he dragged the cable and didn't come off the throttle, going over the carrier at less-than-min-speed.
The Su-33 has a LOT of thrust. That ski-jump at the front though is the main reason it can safely get off that little carrier.
Was there any explanation as too what happened before take off? It appears the Su 33 was lacking an awful lot of thrust to hop off the carrier in such a short distance.
All the American ones mentioned. The F-14, F/A-18, A-4, F-4, F-8, A-7, A-6.
Designed from day 1 as carrier aircraft.
The Kuznetsov is hardly little...but without catapults it might as well be.
The ski-jump is to allow it to allow it carry a larger warload...which is still smaller than a catapulted aircraft.
Yea, It can carry ASMs or AAMs. But not both if she launches from the russian baby carrier.
This might be semantics or splitting hairs, but what the heck.
I really don't think that Kuznetsov can be considered a "baby" carrier.
Dimensionally she's only slightly smaller than a Nimitz-class, although granted her airwing is far smaller. But in comparison to practically every other carrier in the world, it's about on par.
And at the same time, this is compensated for, somewhat, with her complement of twelve SS-N-19 Shipwrecks ASM's.
There are other carriers? Except for the 1 that France has I thought those were called LHD/LHAsThis might be semantics or splitting hairs, but what the heck.
I really don't think that Kuznetsov can be considered a "baby" carrier.
Dimensionally she's only slightly smaller than a Nimitz-class, although granted her airwing is far smaller. But in comparison to practically every other carrier in the world, it's about on par.
At least in the US Navy
But I guess she (He) is long enough to be called a real aircraft carrier. But what a waste. Less planes than a Wasp or Tarawa class in the "Harrier Carrier" /SCS roll.
Last edited by Gun Grape; 28 Jul 09, at 04:34.
Negative on the F/A-18. The F/A-18 is a modified and more developed variant of the YF-17 which was loser of the competition that led to the F-16 in the USAF.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: