Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

Anyone know anything about them? How man? How big? How many aircraft operate from them?

Ive seen some pictures of Mig-29's and Su-27's landing on the carriers....

F-16.net Sponsor

Is that the Kuznetsov? Or some other one.

ACSheva

ACSheva wrote:

Is that the Kuznetsov? Or some other one.

ACSheva

I think theres a carrier called the minsk or something like that too...

I'm guessin because you're Russian, that the Su-27 to you is the Su-33 to the rest of the world, right? Isn't it called Su-27K in Russia?
Check the topic on Sukhoi on aircraft carrier

Loking at the picture of that Mig-29K I can see why they didnt hold up to the strains of carrier ops. His hook is gonna grap the wire long before his gear touch.... thats a big no-no, not that it hasnt been done, but I wouldnt want to put my faith in it.

Wait?

So in flight engagements are standard operating procedure on russican cv's?

That can't be right...

Ouch

! That's gotta hurt the gear and the airframe!

I've heard from many reputable sources that you can't just stick a hook on the back of a jet and call it "carrier capable" for lots of reasons. I don't think the MiG had the engineering designed into it from the outset that's needed for successful long term ops at sea.

Something else that came to mind - I wonder what measures were taken on the Russian jets to combat corrosion? I know corrosion control is a big issue for the US Navy.

Person wrote:

Wait?

So in flight engagements are standard operating procedure on russican cv's?

That can't be right...

I doubt it, but seeing as how theyve only been playing this game for a few years I can imagine they occur more frequently.

Forum Veteran Joined: Nov 07, 2003 - 09:12 PM Posts: 901

parrothead wrote:

I've heard from many reputable sources that you can't just stick a hook on the back of a jet and call it "carrier capable" for lots of reasons. I don't think the MiG had the engineering designed into it from the outset that's needed for successful long term ops at sea.

parrothead, I hope you did not judge the book just by its cover back there. I stand to be corrected. The above posted picture was just a demonstrator, perhaps the -29KVP.

It might not have the best design during the trial, but I'm sure the full intended navalized Fulcrum has more than the arrester hook. Perhaps you would like to extend your research on the 9-31 or the Indian 9-41/47 MiG-29K program.

Quote:

parrothead, I hope you were not judging the book just by its cover back there. I stand to be corrected. The above posted picture was just a demonstrator, perhaps the -29KVP.

It might not have the best design during the trial, but I'm sure the full intended navalized Fulcrum has more than the arrester hook. Perhaps you would like to extend your research on the 9-31 or the Indian 9-41/47 MiG-29K program.

Pumpkin, I apologize if I came across as flippant Embarassed

. I realize that they must have done more than just stuck a hook on the jet Wink

. I probably should do a bit more research on the jet, but the way I understand it, a naval aircraft should really be designed for at-sea operation from the very beginning. Flying off ships at sea puts tremendous stress on an airframe and I'm just a bit suspicious of a land based aircraft that's been "converted" or "navalized." It's like taking a Viper and trying to make it carrier capable, I'd say the same thing in that case. See what I mean?

They could always make the hook line smaller, but that will make the tail hit the ground.

Forum Veteran Joined: Nov 07, 2003 - 09:12 PM Posts: 901

parrothead wrote:

I probably should do a bit more research on the jet, but the way I understand it, a naval aircraft should really be designed for at-sea operation from the very beginning. Flying off ships at sea puts tremendous stress on an airframe and I'm just a bit suspicious of a land based aircraft that's been "converted" or "navalized." It's like taking a Viper and trying to make it carrier capable, I'd say the same thing in that case. See what I mean?

well, F/A-18A inherited most of the general specification from the "navalized" YF-17 which was designed upon the requirement for the (land based) LWF. I see they have served the Navy well. Though the sucessor, E/F abilities are much debatable, even as we speak.

cheers,

Pumpkin wrote:

Well, F/A-18A inherited most of the general specification from the "navalized" YF-17 which was designed upon the requirement for the (land based) LWF. I see they have served the Navy well. Though the sucessor, E/F abilities are much debatable, even as we speak.

The F-17 and F/A-18 have about as much in common as the F-5 does with the F-20. The landing gear for example is a complete redesign that had to fit in the same space as the original aircraft had. Yes the F-17 was a starting point but Northrop was the primary designer of the Cobra, when it became the Hornet McD was made prime contractor because of its experiance with carrier aviation (Northrop had none).

As far as I have heard the only large Russian carrier has been unused and for sale for quite a few years. At one time there were rumors that the Indian Navy could be interested but nothing ever became of it.

Russia found it very difficuly to do any Naval Aviation training as their only land based catapults and arresing gear was in Ukraine after the Soviet breakup and the Ukrainians were not very interested in allowing the Russians to use it ($$$).

Mike

Does the Russian Navy still operate the Yak-38 Forger? It was supposed to be some competitor with the Harrier, but never really proved itself as a viable combat weapon (had a cool paint scheme though).

Forger...Hmmm. I always liked that NATO code name. Very symbolic of Soviet military aviation. Rolling Eyes

P.S. It's much easier to make a Navy plane into an Air Force plane, than the other way around. Case in point:

F-4
A-1
A-7
CF-18 (note: already discussed was the fact that the Hornet was developed from the Cobra, however, the Canadians took the Navalized Hornet and made it a land based RCAF fighter).

Beers and MiGs were made to be pounded!

Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

Russian Carriers