Russian aircraft buzz USS Kitty Hawk

**Francois** · 17 Mar 06,, 01:46

Obviously, your technical background is FAR better then mine or anybody herein, so I won't discuss more.
Sorry I hurt your nationalist feelings.

**canoe** · 18 Mar 06,, 00:13

Originally Posted by Francois

I am not sure we are living on the same planet, you and me.

I have been involved with russian industry this last ten years, in engineering, and I can tell you Russia should really try another field.
They just can't built airplanes correctly.

My last experience is the RRJ in Sukhoi... And I am deadly serious here.

I've actually heard this as well, because of lack of funding and proper oversight Russian defence companies are cutting alot of corners right now to get products out the door that really shouldn't be released. Some haven't been tested properly or have safety issues that are being hushed down so they can sell them. Apparently this is especially true with some of the Russian avoinics, which is supposidly why some countries are insisting on foreign avionics being installed when they purchase Russian aircraft.

The government is aware of this but overlooks it apparently because the export sales bring in alot of cash and keep the industry alive.

That said the Russian government won't buy alot of the stuff because they know about the issues and problems with it.

**Garry** · 18 Mar 06,, 05:11

Originally Posted by Francois

First, I am not going to spread here my resume.
Are you going to do yours? I think you can understand that.
I work in engineering, in systems.

As I said I am an equity analyst covering defense stocks (and other sectors as well) now based in Moscow but before that worked in London for 3 years. Was born and raised in USSR. Age 34 (soon 35

Why I was asking. I am going to see good friend working in the Civil Aircraft of Sukhoi on RRJ project. I thought that it would be intersting to tell him over beer that he is making crap

and then to listen to how he would defend his baby. He is not a big boss there but still it would be interesting to hear his replies to your detailed critisizm.... I hear only good things about RRJ (except for that it is still on paper )..... and it is interesting to learn what is bad there as well. What is the problem with that? Can you share your views on what are basic problems of the project? Something which will not disclose you directly?

From what I understand from him.... RRJ is basically a western aircraft as most of the components (70%) there are western except for design and airframe. This decision was made to speed up design and testing. As the use of existing and proven components shortens this period significantly.....

ps. No need for CV here..... My good guess (don't reply) - a guyis pissed off with RRJ and he is French..... You are probably from Snecma or from one of its suppliers.

**Francois** · 20 Mar 06,, 01:11

Originally Posted by Garry

As I said I am an equity analyst covering defense stocks (and other sectors as well) now based in Moscow but before that worked in London for 3 years. Was born and raised in USSR. Age 34 (soon 35

Why I was asking. I am going to see good friend working in the Civil Aircraft of Sukhoi on RRJ project. I thought that it would be intersting to tell him over beer that he is making crap

and then to listen to how he would defend his baby. He is not a big boss there but still it would be interesting to hear his replies to your detailed critisizm.... I hear only good things about RRJ (except for that it is still on paper )..... and it is interesting to learn what is bad there as well. What is the problem with that? Can you share your views on what are basic problems of the project? Something which will not disclose you directly?

From what I understand from him.... RRJ is basically a western aircraft as most of the components (70%) there are western except for design and airframe. This decision was made to speed up design and testing. As the use of existing and proven components shortens this period significantly.....

ps. No need for CV here..... My good guess (don't reply) - a guyis pissed off with RRJ and he is French..... You are probably from Snecma or from one of its suppliers.

Well, I had no intention to publish my cv here anyway.
I was involved back when I lived in France with many projects, both mil and civilians. Mainly airplanes.

Now for Sukhoi, there are two things that put their ability in doubt:
1- They asked western companies for all systems of this plane.
Then, they systematically rejected the MIL and other western standards when applied. At the end, they had no choice but to comply, because else no supplier/partner would have worked with them and take such risks.
2- When they asked a supplier/partner for a propal, they just (and that was a systematical request) to sell a system "as is" in another designed aircraft, but cheaper.

These two details are just, in my eyes, a proof they have no idea how to design an airplane and its consequencies!

**Garry** · 20 Mar 06,, 16:22

Originally Posted by Francois

Well, I had no intention to publish my cv here anyway.
I was involved back when I lived in France with many projects, both mil and civilians. Mainly airplanes.

Now for Sukhoi, there are two things that put their ability in doubt:
1- They asked western companies for all systems of this plane.
Then, they systematically rejected the MIL and other western standards when applied. At the end, they had no choice but to comply, because else no supplier/partner would have worked with them and take such risks.
2- When they asked a supplier/partner for a propal, they just (and that was a systematical request) to sell a system "as is" in another designed aircraft, but cheaper.

These two details are just, in my eyes, a proof they have no idea how to design an airplane and its consequencies!

OK. Now I see what you meant. It is true. RRJ is the first civil aircraft which they are designing. Stadanrds and suppliers for these are different..... not to mention that Russian/Soviet standards are also different.

on 2..... I guess it is a normal business practice.... isn't it? I guess you do same with your suppliers if you have alternative

**Francois** · 22 Mar 06,, 00:53

Originally Posted by Garry

on 2..... I guess it is a normal business practice.... isn't it? I guess you do same with your suppliers if you have alternative

Seems logical at first sight, but you can't just copy and paste an electical or hydraulic system from an airplane to another.
It just won't work. Especially because the planes all have their specificities.

**avon1944** · 23 Jun 06,, 05:14

I just came across this old thread.

Originally Posted by The Article

Combat told him the highest alerts were Alert 30s

Part of the reason the alert status was so low was because they were in the Sea of Japan not this far away from the islands of Japan.
Part of the reason the story broke so quickly is because Japanese radars also detected the Russian aircraft shorty they left land.

Originally Posted by The Article

I'm quite sure the f-----g loser shoe boy [black shoe=ship driver/surface warfare officer] in charge of our battle group's air defense was fired.

Are you refering to "SAM Boss?" I hear he kept his job but the captain was gone in less than a year even though the Navy said they did not hold this incident against him.

Originally Posted by hello

Sending a Prowler to intercept a Flanker is rather pathetic. Didn't they have F-14s to do that?

No, none of the fighters were spotted correctly on the flight deck to launch in time.

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

I doubt a EA-6 was actually launched.

Yes, indeed it was launched because it was the first aircraft that could be hooked up to the catapult. The A-6 family of aircraft maneuver very well but, they are no fighter.

Originally Posted by Captain Drunk

A Prowler can to nothing to Flankers hardy electronics.

Su-30 is adapted for adverse weather conditions and severe jamming environment

True, other than jam its radar. The avionics of fighter aircraft are radiation hardened (RadHard). Part of the reason the EA-6 was chosen over the EF-111 was because in some test the EA-6 did a much better job of jamming an S-3 Sentry AWACS's radar! I had always been under the impression both aircraft had similar equipment but, evidently not. The Navy needed the EA-6B for protection of the fleet as well as strike aircraft.

Originally Posted by Captain Drunk

Flankers are able to perform covert "radar-silenced" approach and automatic location of the target, data exchange capability with ground/shipborne/seashore command posts for information gathering. Most probably this is what the Flankers actually did.

The IL-38 Mays (the Russian version of the P-3 Orion) would be a much better aircraft for that mission.

Adrian

**Gun Grape** · 25 Jun 06,, 23:11

Originally Posted by avon1944

Part of the reason the alert status was so low was because they were in the Sea of Japan not this far away from the islands of Japan.
.

Or that they were in a low speed restricted maneuvering state. You don't fly during RAS. Helos will be bringing cargo aboard. The ship is pretty well shut down
most of the day. Even in the old Cold war days.

Are you refering to "SAM Boss?" I hear he kept his job but the captain was gone in less than a year even though the Navy said they did not hold this incident against him.

Don't make anything out of that. Capt Myers was CO for 15 months. It was time for him to go. He left the Shitty Kitty to pick up a star and serve as Executive Assistant to the Commander in Chief, U.S. Atlantic Fleet/Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command. He is presently a rear Adm (Upper half) and the Senior Military Assistant to SecNav. Dont sound like the flyover hurt him any.

Yes, indeed it was launched because it was the first aircraft that could be hooked up to the catapult. The A-6 family of aircraft maneuver very well but, they are no fighter.

The Navy says that a F-18 launched not a Prowler. Only WND and the "pilot e-mail" claims it was a EA-6.

If anything would have gotten then Capt Myers relieved it would be launching a HDLV National Asset to "intercept" 2 planes that had just done a flyover. That part of the story just doesn't wash.

True, other than jam its radar. The avionics of fighter aircraft are radiation hardened (RadHard). Part of the reason the EA-6 was chosen over the EF-111 was because in some test the EA-6 did a much better job of jamming an S-3 Sentry AWACS's radar! I had always been under the impression both aircraft had similar equipment but, evidently not. The Navy needed the EA-6B for protection of the fleet as well as strike aircraft.

Chosen over the Sparkvark for what?

**Dreadnought** · 14 Sep 06,, 18:48

No big deal we've been playing this game a very long time.

USN P-3C over a Soviet Udaloy-class destroyer, in the late 1980s.

**Dreadnought** · 14 Sep 06,, 19:04

As you can see Subs,Destroyers and Cruisers as well.

**Dreadnought** · 14 Sep 06,, 19:11

And again...This time a Victor III the very same class that was posted after the recient fire on board.

**Gun Grape** · 15 Sep 06,, 00:51

I remember being on floats in the 80s. When a bear would start playing around the ship we would go up to the flight deck for PT.

They would have us PT for 20 min then go back below deck, change PT uniforms and do it again. So on a ship with 250 Marines embarked the Russians would have pictures of 3 different PT formations. All different sizes and all in different gear. Red shorts/Green shirt, Green shorts/Yellow shirts, Red shorts/white shorts.

It made it look like there were over 700 Marines embarked on a LPD

And from messages on the "read board" it worked.

**texasjohn** · 15 Sep 06,, 02:39

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

I remember being on floats in the 80s. When a bear would start playing around the ship we would go up to the flight deck for PT.

They would have us PT for 20 min then go back below deck, change PT uniforms and do it again. So on a ship with 250 Marines embarked the Russians would have pictures of 3 different PT formations. All different sizes and all in different gear. Red shorts/Green shirt, Green shorts/Yellow shirts, Red shorts/white shorts.

It made it look like there were over 700 Marines embarked on a LPD

And from messages on the "read board" it worked.

That's hilarious!!

My only question is where were the Aegis destroyers? I thought they also provided "air sanitation" of sorts. Or was it the overall lowered threat perception?

**Garry** · 15 Sep 06,, 14:16

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

As you can see Subs,Destroyers and Cruisers as well.

I think I have seen this picture when reading article about Victor III, which had to go up during the NATO manuevres due to surgeon operation required to one of its sailors.... It happened close to the end of the maneuvres and they managed to stay unnoticed almost through the end.

Or maybe that was official version published in newspapers.... Who knows?