MiG-29K from Kuznetsov crashed in Mediterranean sea

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1294
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post16 Nov 2016, 01:01

Looks like they are, as usual, deploying ancient WW2 relics from these planes.

Image

Image
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7665
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post16 Nov 2016, 02:59

arian wrote:Looks like they are, as usual, deploying ancient WW2 relics from these planes.

Which makes it even more amazing they've come this far without admitting to a single civilian casualty. How DO they do it? :devil:
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1294
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post16 Nov 2016, 03:35

popcorn wrote:
arian wrote:Looks like they are, as usual, deploying ancient WW2 relics from these planes.

Which makes it even more amazing they've come this far without admitting to a single civilian casualty. How DO they do it? :devil:


Haven't you heard? Their targeting of dumb bombs is even more accurate than US GPS guided bombs. True story.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5310
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post17 Nov 2016, 03:59

Honestly, the Kuznetsov and her Air Wing is a good example of the poor condition of the Russian Military. First, the ship itself is a Rusting Hulk that can't go anywhere without a tug. Then with only 4 Brand New Mig-29K's aboard. One crashes before she can take part in any combat operations. Then besides the Su-33's using Dumb Bombs instead of PGM's. The same fighters in the Air to Air Role are still using Semi-Active Radar Homing (SARH) R-27's (Sparrow equivalent) Instead of a Modern Day Amraam Type Missiles like the R-77.


Remember, the whole point of the Kuznetsov recent deployment. Was to show the flag..... :shock:
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1294
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post17 Nov 2016, 06:13

Corsair1963 wrote:Honestly, the Kuznetsov and her Air Wing is a good example of the poor condition of the Russian Military. First, the ship itself is a Rusting Hulk that can't go anywhere without a tug. Then with only 4 Brand New Mig-29K's aboard. One crashes before she can take part in any combat operations. Then besides the Su-33's using Dumb Bombs instead of PGM's. The same fighters in the Air to Air Role are still using Semi-Active Radar Homing (SARH) R-27's (Sparrow equivalent) Instead of a Modern Day Amraam Type Missiles like the R-77.


Remember, the whole point of the Kuznetsov recent deployment. Was to show the flag..... :shock:


You can see the flag from space
Image

But seriously, it did its job of creating cheap propaganda. The masses in Russia eat it up, the idiots all over twitter and youtube eat it up. You're dealing with people who live in a different universe from the rest of the world.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3110
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post18 Nov 2016, 19:55

Corsair1963 wrote:Honestly, the Kuznetsov and her Air Wing is a good example of the poor condition of the Russian Military. First, the ship itself is a Rusting Hulk that can't go anywhere without a tug. Then with only 4 Brand New Mig-29K's aboard. One crashes before she can take part in any combat operations. Then besides the Su-33's using Dumb Bombs instead of PGM's. The same fighters in the Air to Air Role are still using Semi-Active Radar Homing (SARH) R-27's (Sparrow equivalent) Instead of a Modern Day Amraam Type Missiles like the R-77.


Remember, the whole point of the Kuznetsov recent deployment. Was to show the flag..... :shock:


Wow, that really is disappointing. I don't fear/loathe the Russians, and am REALLY hopeful they'll team up with The Donald to crush ISIS.

I love their fighter jets. Incredibly practical, innovative if falling short on engines/avionics/weapons. This will be a great opportunity for Sukhoi IMO, for the SU-33 to pick up the Mig-29K slack... unless, they're flying a new one in? I dunno. With respect to the innovation, witness those split vein doors after the intakes are closed up on landing. Pretty ingenious IMO. They also learned the value of that wide centroplane ala the F-14 and how much extra fuel, lower drag ammo and lifting body effect it provides. From the Mig-29 right up to the PAK-FA, they're leveraging it for all its worth.

I often wondered why after producing the F-14.... we gave up on it? OR were better solutions put forth??
Offline

arian

Banned

  • Posts: 1294
  • Joined: 23 Dec 2014, 09:25

Unread post19 Nov 2016, 01:28

mixelflick wrote:Wow, that really is disappointing. I don't fear/loathe the Russians, and am REALLY hopeful they'll team up with The Donald to crush ISIS.


Russia is too busy bombing hospitals and civilians to be fighting ISIS. Russia's AF has shown itself to be nothing more than completely useless in Syria. (while US air support has led the Kurds and Iraqis in making 10,000x greater territorial gains than Assad has)

his will be a great opportunity for Sukhoi IMO, for the SU-33 to pick up the Mig-29K slack


So far every video they have shown of Su-33s taking off nearby Syria have shown empty planes. Looks like the Su-33s are just for show and are incapable of doing much of anything practical. I doubt Kuznetsov has even launched 10 sorties on Syria thus far in total.
Offline
User avatar

cosmicdwarf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 677
  • Joined: 11 Feb 2015, 21:20

Unread post19 Nov 2016, 04:37

popcorn wrote:
arian wrote:Looks like they are, as usual, deploying ancient WW2 relics from these planes.

Which makes it even more amazing they've come this far without admitting to a single civilian casualty. How DO they do it? :devil:

Because civilians don't exist, obviously everyone is a terrorist.

arian wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Wow, that really is disappointing. I don't fear/loathe the Russians, and am REALLY hopeful they'll team up with The Donald to crush ISIS.


Russia is too busy bombing hospitals and civilians to be fighting ISIS. Russia's AF has shown itself to be nothing more than completely useless in Syria. (while US air support has led the Kurds and Iraqis in making 10,000x greater territorial gains than Assad has)

Russia is more interested in keeping the Assad regime alive than destroying ISIS (and by all accounts, they are doing that well). They are just using ISIS as a excuse to do so, and people believe them. Assad doesn't actually care about the civilians he's killing while trying to take out the rebel groups, so neither does Russia. And because Russia has veto power on the only UN body with real power, the UN can't do anything but waggle fingers angrily at them. The US could do something, but that would mean dragging the US into another war, which no one is interested in actually doing.
Offline

johnwill

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2095
  • Joined: 24 Mar 2007, 21:06
  • Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Unread post19 Nov 2016, 08:14

mixelflick wrote:
They also learned the value of that wide centroplane ala the F-14 and how much extra fuel, lower drag ammo and lifting body effect it provides. From the Mig-29 right up to the PAK-FA, they're leveraging it for all its worth.

I often wondered why after producing the F-14.... we gave up on it? OR were better solutions put forth??


If you really know how much extra fuel, lower drag ammo, and lifting body effect the Russian airplanes have, why not share it with us. Otherwise, you are simply guessing. Consider drag for example. The tunnel area has a significant increase in surface area compared to, say, an F-15. More surface area = more friction drag. Putting external stores in the tunnel area results in choking the airflow around the stores, increasing its velocity and, right, interference drag compared to free airflow around stores.

Wide spread engines have their own yaw control difficulties with an engine failure. Thrust vectoring might help, but I don't think any of the Flanker series has pure yaw vectoring with one engine out.

Body lift? Certainly, but flatter bottom fuselages provide lots of lift also. How much? The F-16 fuselage provides 45% of total lift at the structural design condition. Can MiG/Su beat that? You are right about the F-14 being the only western fighter with similar design. But look at the PAK-FA. It has a much shallower tunnel than the SU-27/30/33/34/35/37 and it does not hang external stores in the tunnel. Maybe Sukhoi found a better way too.

Obviously MiG/Su have designed excellent airplanes, but I'm not sure the tunnel is the key element in that excellence.
Offline

35_aoa

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 506
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2015, 04:03
  • Location: Virginia Beach, VA

Unread post19 Nov 2016, 10:06

So much Soviet bashing here. I'm legitimately 6 to midnight right now. They can go f*** themselves.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3110
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post19 Nov 2016, 19:22

johnwill wrote:
mixelflick wrote:
They also learned the value of that wide centroplane ala the F-14 and how much extra fuel, lower drag ammo and lifting body effect it provides. From the Mig-29 right up to the PAK-FA, they're leveraging it for all its worth.

I often wondered why after producing the F-14.... we gave up on it? OR were better solutions put forth??


If you really know how much extra fuel, lower drag ammo, and lifting body effect the Russian airplanes have, why not share it with us. Otherwise, you are simply guessing. Consider drag for example. The tunnel area has a significant increase in surface area compared to, say, an F-15. More surface area = more friction drag. Putting external stores in the tunnel area results in choking the airflow around the stores, increasing its velocity and, right, interference drag compared to free airflow around stores.

Wide spread engines have their own yaw control difficulties with an engine failure. Thrust vectoring might help, but I don't think any of the Flanker series has pure yaw vectoring with one engine out.

Body lift? Certainly, but flatter bottom fuselages provide lots of lift also. How much? The F-16 fuselage provides 45% of total lift at the structural design condition. Can MiG/Su beat that? You are right about the F-14 being the only western fighter with similar design. But look at the PAK-FA. It has a much shallower tunnel than the SU-27/30/33/34/35/37 and it does not hang external stores in the tunnel. Maybe Sukhoi found a better way too.

Obviously MiG/Su have designed excellent airplanes, but I'm not sure the tunnel is the key element in that excellence.


I'm not an engineer, so can't offer those figures to you. It's true that was an assumption on my part, so I'm not sure. It must have afforded them some advantages though, given they've stuck with it for the Mig-29, SU-27/30/33/35, PAK-FA etc..
Offline

milosh

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 703
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post21 Nov 2016, 12:25

johnwill wrote:But look at the PAK-FA. It has a much shallower tunnel than the SU-27/30/33/34/35/37 and it does not hang external stores in the tunnel. Maybe Sukhoi found a better way too.


PAK-FA also have angled engine axis which helps if one engine fails.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 22654
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post22 Nov 2016, 04:47

Russians Blame MiG-29K Crash on Broken Arrestor Cable, Catastrophic Engine Failure
21 Nov 2016 Sam LaGrone

"...“Upon completion of their flight missions, the fighters were returning to the aircraft carrier. In this situation, landings were to occur with an interval of three-to-four minutes,” read the translation “The first fighter landed without incident.”

However, the second fighter snapped one of the arresting wires during landing with the hook eventually catching on reserve arresting cable, the report said.

With the deck fouled from the cable break, the third MiG – which was on approach closely behind the second fighter – was told to circle back into a holding pattern while the crew of Admiral Kuznetsov cleared the deck for the next landing.

“While in the holding area, both of the fighter’s engines shut down,” read the translation. “A preliminary explanation is that they were no longer receiving fuel. ln such situations, a fighter falls like a rock, and the pilot has only one option — to eject.”..."

Source: https://news.usni.org/2016/11/21/russia ... e-shutdown
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7665
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post22 Nov 2016, 07:03

Both engines running out of fuel at the same time? Apparently a single point of failure somewhere in the system...

https://news.usni.org/2016/11/21/russia ... e-shutdown
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

gideonic

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 277
  • Joined: 06 Sep 2015, 13:54

Unread post22 Nov 2016, 07:44

Very loosely related (but didn't want to create a new thread):

A cockpit video of the Su-34 that overshot and rolled over in Buturlinovka 06/04/2015:
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests