So 4-6 MiG-29K it is, because the days of hundred bomber raids are gone. Nice. I seem to find this as a much more unfortunate choice of logic (and words) than e.g. the truth on the Ka-25K being simply part of a dumped concept, designed for an LHD that is no more. I also said "oddly misused" which is very fitting.
Doing more with less and at a fraction of the price... the new Russia.
The LHD wasn't cancelled, the French broke the contract.
They will likely build a helicopter carrier of their own design... now that they have intimate access to the Mistral design including making half the ships themselves I am sure their new design will be even better suited to their needs... ie ice capable and probably nuke powered.
It can't offer Russia the tools that the French or Americans get out of their own equivalent assets, tools that the Russians badly want and need right now with Syria in flames.
So lets replace the K with the CDG or a Nimitz piece of shit... what exactly do you think these pieces of western crap will do that they K can't do right now?
What operates from the CDG or Nimitz class that can carry the weight of bombs the Tu-22M3 can carry? And can drop them with the precision to be useful for the cost of cheap dumb bombs?
What a disaster for France and the US... perhaps that is why they are really afraid of Russia in Syria... if the French and American people work out that the trillions spent on US and French carriers and even more so their useless bombing campaigns they might start asking questions about the enormous amounts of money being spent... who it is being spent on... and why.
I mean are Libyan civilians and Yemeni civilians worth saving just like Syrian civilians... why do Syrian incidents get so much coverage and yet other victims get ignored... Palestinians anyone?
AEW&C assets couldn't just go STOBAR.
Could operate from a Mistral or Frigate.
Those few Kuznetsovs were only meant to be a stop-gap class anyway.
Quite right... the money ran out so they could no longer afford gold plated white elephants... for the 10 billion dollars it cost for their current carrier how many Americans could get medical care for life...
Well with the US medical care system maybe 10...
If you use the aircraft to target the bomb then you you have three variable:
1. aircraft build differences
2.Enviromental differences ( fuel, weight, wind)
3.Bomb manufacturing differences.
First and third are irrelevant.
Assuming a clean release the bomb starts at a speed, an altitude, and an angle and based on its aerodynamic shape and wind effects from the altitude it is released to ground level over the target it will follow a fairly predictable flight path.
Acutally we don't knowthe magnitude of the three parameters, and if we know it then we are not allowed to discuss it on an open forum, maximum during the design/production meetings : )
What we know is the system has been tested operationally in combat and has been called successful by the users... note the users, not the designers. The Users have upgraded other aircraft with the same system, which suggests to me that it is successful enough to be worth spending money on.
So, another problem with that if you use the aircraft as targeting is you can target only one place, no more than that.
In tha tcase the spread of the bombs means opportunity to hit multiple target with one bombing run.
So, if the bombs are hanging on the top of each other, like in a strategic bomber then the situation will be a bit mroe complicated.
The Tu-22M3 would likely be used against area targets like oil storage tanks and a cluster of hits around the point of aim would be very effective for such a setup.
For the Su-24 and Su-34 they could aim in freeflight at targets of opportunity with individual or pairs of bombs.
So, if you have three bombse then all of them will be on a line.
If you have 9 bombs in 3 rows of 3 then you have three clusters of hits.
If your target is a convoy , then you have to adjust the fly path to paralel with the convoy .
Bombs don't all have to be dropped in one stick.
If they are show to be dropped together... that would suggest the target suits that sort of method of delivery.
on the videos visibly the tu-160 ejected the bombs in two phase, with 0.5 sec difference, across the bay.
AFAIK the Tu-160 has not dropped any bombs in Syria... it only carries cruise missiles.
Perhaps you are referring to the Tu-22M3?
Su-25 was a CAS plane from the begining. But on the other hand, yes, old Su-25 without radar, IRST and data link have to come very close to the target to use unguided bombs or rockets or laser guided missiles and they pay a heavy price to MANPADS for this in Chechnya and Georgia.
So troops on the ground cannot pop smoke to indicate their position and direct aircraft to enemy positions via radio?
The purpose of the G&T upgrade is to allow bombing of targets from safe altitudes with dumb cheap bombs... are you suggesting the ground forces could not radio an Su-33 with the targets coordinates and that Su-33 could not fly to that location and look for the target using a targeting pod and drop bombs on the target?
But one thing is sure, Russian military want to use their Su-33 jets fully in Syria in heavy battles in Aleppo and beyond and not to have them there just for show.
But don't you think the fact that they have spent money on this relatively cheap upgrade that allows dumb bombs to be used like guided weapons suggests they will be capable of attacking ground targets by themselves without ground mapping radar and digital datalinks?
What are the ship's engines supposed to do apart from taking the ship to destination and back?
Jump up and down? Sing the glory of the motherland? make an inverted loop?
Haven't you been watching hollywood movies... Nimitz class carriers can travel back to 1941 and shoot down Zeros and save America...
The US Navy is now down to only ten aircraft carriers. France has just one. The UK has none operational currently. etc.etc.
Russia's Kuznetsov is not essential in Syria operations. Hmeyim, Hamadan, Torzok and the Kalibers are doing just fine.
As long as they don't fall into the same trap the US has fallen into, carriers offer air power to naval forces... it adds vision range and reach, but also offers the advantage of being able to inspect threats rather than just having to decide to fire upon them.
A good example is the US shooting down of an Iranian airbus in the 1980s... a ship on its own had to either do nothing or fire a missile and murder just under 300 people... they chose the latter.
If they had not been in Iranian waters at the time and had called in the local carrier an American fighter aircraft could have flown to intercept the Airbus and found it was actually an Airbus and not an Iranian F-14 that they claim they believed it was.