Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

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

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1733
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post09 Nov 2018, 11:51

madrat wrote:China is the one country operating a carrier that makes the Russian operational safety record look brilliant in direct comparison.


Of course Russian safety record is exceptional. If one doesn't fly, one doesn't crash. China also hasn't broken the record of putting a 70 ton crane thru their carriers/warships........yet. They only do that when the ships are not around. US does it differently, only drop baskets carrying people off cranes onto a navy ship deck e.g. USS Sacramento in 1987. The record for trying to put a crane thru a vessel belongs to India with 250 ton crane onto the uncompleted frigate.

Decided to look at F-14A for comparison. 1st prototype crashed on the maiden flight. 141 losses out of 478 built or ~30%. 5 crashed in 1 month. Realised that its not exactly fair since the F-14A is not exactly US' first carrier fighter.
http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-serial-loss-st.htm

So what exactly is the definition of a brilliant carrier safety record? India's AV-8?
Offline

alex_f

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 67
  • Joined: 05 Nov 2014, 08:25

Unread post09 Nov 2018, 15:42

Must be the times where powerful jets in big numbers on small carriers and "analogue" systems led to high losses? Over 50% of the supermarine Scimitars were lost in accidents, too. It was some years earlier, but still. What would be the loss ratio of newer aircrafts like the (Super) Hornet?
Offline

knowan

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 246
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2018, 10:39

Unread post09 Nov 2018, 15:49

Some new articles:
https://thediplomat.com/2018/11/russia- ... -accident/
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/24 ... r-accident


alex_f wrote:What would be the loss ratio of newer aircrafts like the (Super) Hornet?


Pretty low: Image
Offline

alex_f

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 67
  • Joined: 05 Nov 2014, 08:25

Unread post09 Nov 2018, 16:08

Thanks, if we consider an airframe lifetime of roughly 5000hr, a loss rate of 2/100'000hr (like the super hornet) would be 2 losses out of 20 aircraft, so 10%.
Offline

knowan

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 246
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2018, 10:39

Unread post10 Nov 2018, 11:21

Post accident photo of the Admiral Kuznetsov:
k5RhiZp.jpg

Note the dark section in the rear hull at the waterline. Looks to be an opening, so the reports of the ship not being ready to leave the dock at the time of the accident and taking on several thousand tons of water are likely true.
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1266
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post10 Nov 2018, 12:53

Probably be out of commission for at least a year. Make a MLU out of it.
Offline

awsome

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 177
  • Joined: 17 Dec 2008, 03:11
  • Location: vancouver
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post13 Nov 2018, 03:18

vilters wrote:Ach, those Ruskies are so friendly.
Sinking their own ships, wo that we don't have to.

And by the time their sole carrier is ready again? ? Does smoking rust float?
Because that's all it is. It is rust, and it smokes like hell.

Hey? The Brits might even put it on sale in one of their antique or flea market TV shows.


bed2cc82675978d50962ce9ecab19e49.jpg


Yes because the evil Russians are the only ones to ever have an accident... http://www.dcourier.com/news/2017/jun/1 ... ound-dead/ and the steady smoke from the Russian carrier is to CLEARLY mark its' position so it is not rammed by NATO warships...
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5715
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post13 Nov 2018, 03:41

hythelday wrote:
babybat{}.net wrote:because type 001 and 001A are a just training ships.


Tsss... don't tell @Corsair1963 that. He thinks China built them to "close the gap with USN".


The PLAN clearly didn't build a second large Aircraft Carrier purely for training.... :doh:

Also, while Ski Jump Aircraft Carriers aren't as efficient as Conventional Aircraft Carriers equipped with both Catapults and Arresting Gear. That hardly means they aren't useful.....just ask the Russians, Indians, and Chinese. Which, operate said types of Aircraft Carriers.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5715
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post13 Nov 2018, 03:51

babybat{}.net wrote:
Yes, you are right. It's for type 003. But I think, tests will begin on a 002 type.
It's not so far perspective.

I think, NAVY version of J-31 is not a good idea, because type 001 and 001A are a just training ships. First one is for conceptual researchers, second one also for manufacturing training. Type 002 will also used for testing a new technologies for China - such as EMALS and nuclear propulsion. Developing a special aircraft for them does not look as an optimal resources investment. And on later type 003 and 004, the tasks of J-31 will be taken over by the stealth UAVs.


The J-31 is clearly being funded as a Naval Strike Fighter.

QUOTE: Avic’s J-31 Fighter Is a Winner After All

Nov 9, 2018 Bradley Perrett and Steve Trimble | Aviation Week & Space Technology

Not long after the J-31 fighter prototype from Avic’s Shenyang Aircraft Corp. appeared in 2012, analysts realized that it was not, after all, a new combat aircraft for the Chinese military. It was just a technology demonstrator from a well-resourced but frustrated state company that had lost two air force fighter competitions in a row. Now the J-31 has indeed become a "government-funded project", apparently rescued by the shortcomings of the J-15, a naval Flanker derivative also built ...http://aviationweek.com/defense/avic-s- ... -after-all


That said, I personally don't see the J-31 as funded because of any real shortcomings with the J-15. Just a natural progression to 5th Generation Types for both the PLAN and PLAAF.
Offline

nefory

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 12
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2018, 04:59

Unread post14 Nov 2018, 07:39

Corsair1963 wrote:
babybat{}.net wrote:
Yes, you are right. It's for type 003. But I think, tests will begin on a 002 type.
It's not so far perspective.

I think, NAVY version of J-31 is not a good idea, because type 001 and 001A are a just training ships. First one is for conceptual researchers, second one also for manufacturing training. Type 002 will also used for testing a new technologies for China - such as EMALS and nuclear propulsion. Developing a special aircraft for them does not look as an optimal resources investment. And on later type 003 and 004, the tasks of J-31 will be taken over by the stealth UAVs.


The J-31 is clearly being funded as a Naval Strike Fighter.

QUOTE: Avic’s J-31 Fighter Is a Winner After All

Nov 9, 2018 Bradley Perrett and Steve Trimble | Aviation Week & Space Technology

Not long after the J-31 fighter prototype from Avic’s Shenyang Aircraft Corp. appeared in 2012, analysts realized that it was not, after all, a new combat aircraft for the Chinese military. It was just a technology demonstrator from a well-resourced but frustrated state company that had lost two air force fighter competitions in a row. Now the J-31 has indeed become a "government-funded project", apparently rescued by the shortcomings of the J-15, a naval Flanker derivative also built ...http://aviationweek.com/defense/avic-s- ... -after-all


That said, I personally don't see the J-31 as funded because of any real shortcomings with the J-15. Just a natural progression to 5th Generation Types for both the PLAN and PLAAF.


CAC also has a 5th gen aircraft carrier fighter jet program ongoing.
There will likely to be, not by any time soon, a competition between SAC's FC-31 or its derivative and CAC's naval 5th gen.

The thing is the PLAN haven't really figure out what carrier-based fighter is ideal to them.
Considering they have just managed to taken off from a refurnished 80's Soviet STOBAR CV for so long, it's no strange they lack understanding of modern naval airborne warfare.

Until they made up their mind on what a naval 5th gen should be like, there won't be any solid program of it.

So they are pretty much stuck with floppy fish, at least for 10-15 years.

The Chinese testing catapult version of J15 with their EMALS on land.
Image
Offline
User avatar

white_lightning35

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 401
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2016, 03:07
  • Location: Home of nuclear submarines, engines, and that's about it.

Unread post17 Nov 2018, 20:35

Thought this might be appropriate. The glorious battles waged by MIGHTY STRONK RUSLAND NAVY!
Attachments
Screenshot_20181116-215045_iFunny .jpg
Offline

juretrn

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 417
  • Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 01:09
  • Location: Slovenia

Unread post19 Nov 2018, 22:25

project458 wrote:If the NATO navy can't dodge Cargo Ships and oil tankers, how are they going to stop Mach 8 Zircon :mrgreen:

Can't crash ships into tankers if your ships are safely rotting away pierside.
Image

Anyway, the reply is this:
This bad boy
Image

guided by this bad boy
Image

And then your Zircon launcher gets a friendly visit by something that is NOT a flying bullseye unlike the Russian propaganda Wundermissile.

Image
Russia stronk
Offline

knowan

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 246
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2018, 10:39

Unread post19 Nov 2018, 23:27

project458 wrote:If the NATO navy can't dodge Cargo Ships and oil tankers, how are they going to stop Mach 8 Zircon :mrgreen:


Lol at anyone that believes the nonsense about a "Mach 8" Zircon missile.
Offline

babybat{}.net

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 86
  • Joined: 08 Sep 2017, 19:16

Unread post20 Nov 2018, 00:03

project458 wrote:If the NATO navy can't dodge Cargo Ships and oil tankers, how are they going to stop Mach 8 Zircon :mrgreen:


3M-22 is a Mach 6 - class missle. Source - developers of the project..
Offline

knowan

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 246
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2018, 10:39

Unread post20 Nov 2018, 00:20

babybat{}.net wrote:
project458 wrote:If the NATO navy can't dodge Cargo Ships and oil tankers, how are they going to stop Mach 8 Zircon :mrgreen:


3M-22 is a Mach 6 - class missle. Source - developers of the project..


Mach 5-6, which is about the limit for a ramjet. I seriously doubt Russia has an operational scramjet yet, given the difficulties everyone else has ran into with those engines.

The missile, if it even exists, is likely just a P-800 that trades range for speed.
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests