Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25887
    Points : 26433
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1 - Page 22 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

    Post  GarryB on Tue Nov 22, 2016 10:13 am

    So MiG-29K has greater range than Su-33

    The MiG can carry external fuel tanks...

    Well, I was thinking about the fact that the Su-33 has to choose bettwen weapon and fuel for it's missions so it gives you a diagram in 3 dimensions: range (y) depending on load (x) and fuel (z), not a cercle.

    The Su-33 can get airborne with a full air to air load of weapons (its primary use) and full fuel on the long takeoff run position.

    So can the MiG.

    Going back to the K topic, I was thinking that making an improved K class before going for a big carrier could be benefic for russia. At least building 1 and improving the K. They can make 2 of them for the price of 1 big as the developpement was already done for the K and the modernisation parts can be derivated from other ships (electronics from the frigate, nuc reactors from icebreakers ..), and now with the Mig-29K they can use the aviation for attacking other ships with Kh-35/31 in big numbers.

    I disagree. They have learned a lot from the design of the K and also the new modular systems they have developed for their new ships... putting that to use in a new design that take advantage of this makes more sense than trying to rebuild the K so the K can have a sister ship.


    R-15B for an example had below 100h lifespan, you know why? Rubbish metalurgical choices, or better say lack of any, stainless steel all over the place, so its not WW2 issue. Its issue still.

    Ignorant western view... what sort of lifespan in a real war do you think it would have?

    In 50 years time the Tiger tanks will work like clocks and the T-34s will be junk... of course in war time conditions T-34s will do the job cheaply enough to be built in tens of thousands... how many of those tigers have you got left? The land mine does not care how good quality that German engineered Tiger is...

    The MiG-25 is a case in point... most so called western experts looked down their noses at the aircraft, but it is the fastest flying normal turbojet engine in the world. In comparison the engine in the SR-71 has almost no air flowing through the hot section of its turbojets... bypass air acts like ramjets... no moving parts just fuel burned.

    The MiG-25 could have done the same but the requirements were relaxed to reduce costs... stainless steel was used for the airframe because all the wielders who could wield titanium were making subs and the rest of the titanium being produced by the Soviets at the time went to making SR-71s...

    In many cases it was a choice not to spend rather more money for a modest increase in speed... at mach 3.5 the SR-71 was no safer over Soviet airspace than it it had been 1,000 times cheaper and only managed Mach 2.5.
    JohninMK
    JohninMK

    Posts : 7804
    Points : 7887
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1 - Page 22 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

    Post  JohninMK on Tue Nov 22, 2016 12:31 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    I disagree. They have learned a lot from the design of the K and also the new modular systems they have developed for their new ships... putting that to use in a new design that take advantage of this makes more sense than trying to rebuild the K so the K can have a sister ship.
    Also there would have been some lessons learnt from the Mistral construction.
    medo
    medo

    Posts : 3909
    Points : 3993
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1 - Page 22 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

    Post  medo on Tue Nov 22, 2016 5:31 pm

    Militarov wrote:
    medo wrote:

    https://www.russiadefence.net/t2897p275-russian-naval-aviation-news

    I find it quite strange, that Gefest could install SVP-24 in Su-33 in half a year without any testing before with integration of SVP-24 with any Flanker and than test it and train pilots in a month and than send them to war. In such short period of time they could install only upgrade equipment from a program, which is well operational. There are only two operational Flanker upgrade programs. Su-27SM(3) from KNAAPO and Su-30KN from Irkut, which is used by Baranovichi aviation repair plant in Belarus. Both give the same bombing capabilities as SVP-24. Pilots could aslo train with both upgrade programs with Su-30M2 for Su-27SM program and with Su-30KN in Lipetsk for Su-30KN program. Gefest could simply buy Su-30KN components from Irkut or from Belarus and install them in Su-33 as for Su-27SM program they must go to KNAAPO. There is also another point which made me sceptical regarding SVP-24 and compatibility with original fire control computer. After small modernization in KNAAPO, Su-33 pilots must use knee pads to use satellite navigation and not through FCS computer and they are equipped with L-150 Pastel RWR, but we never see them to carry or test launch any anti-radar missile, what could mean that old FCS computer is not compatible with Pastel. I doubt it is compatible with SVP-24 without integration work and testings. Too short time of period and Su-33 work effectively in Syria, what could only mean that they got operational modernization package through Gefest contract. Also pilots have to train with this complex before as one month is too short time. Su-24M with Gefest SVP-24 is not the same as Su-33. After all, Gefest promote SVP-24 program for ground attacking planes as Su-24, Su-25, Tu-22 and MiG-27 and not for air superiority fighters.

    Well i had plenty of skepticism in my bag too, but as of now we still do not have any real confirmation its SVP-24 do we. We have words of some journalists, which could also just hear someone from MOD say "new bombing equipment" and whoala they connected it with SVP-24 and it ends up on RT/Sputnik etc.

    And as of now no good cockpit photo either, just this angle.

    When its about the pilots, could it be they borrowed few "sniper" Su-34 pilots? Could explain all that landing-takeoff practice all the way down from Russia.

    No, they could not borrow Su-34 pilots. Su-33 is a single seater and air force pilots could not so quickly muster carrier landings, that they could simplym borrow them. This is why so low number if MiG-29K available for operation in Syria although they got all 24 of them. Simply they don*t have enough pilots mustering carrier operations enough for deployment. Su-33 are piloted by their Su-33 pilots, who were mostly trained for air to air combat. The time scale of this Su-33 modernization is a little to fast to install untested SVP-24 and than test it and train pilots to use it.
    franco
    franco

    Posts : 3393
    Points : 3425
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1 - Page 22 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

    Post  franco on Tue Nov 22, 2016 7:24 pm

    Read somewhere in the last day or so that the technical problem that the ditched Mik-29K had, was that the pilot was not able to land it due to rough seas, waited too long trying and ran out of fuel.
    Giulio
    Giulio

    Posts : 173
    Points : 196
    Join date : 2013-10-29
    Location : Italy

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1 - Page 22 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

    Post  Giulio on Tue Nov 22, 2016 8:05 pm

    If true, why didn't they launch an air tanker?
    medo
    medo

    Posts : 3909
    Points : 3993
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1 - Page 22 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

    Post  medo on Tue Nov 22, 2016 8:15 pm

    franco wrote:Read somewhere in the last day or so that the technical problem that the ditched Mik-29K had, was that the pilot was not able to land it due to rough seas, waited too long trying and ran out of fuel.

    In other words, luck of skills for carrier landings. Su-33 pilots are far more skilled, that is why Su-33 are the core of aviation group to strike in Syria. This is why SVP-24 modernization look so strange to me. SVP-24 was never installed in any Flanker before and you could not test it and train pilots to use it in one month. Also half a year is too short period of time to start integratring new SVP-24 with old interceptor fire control complex and serially modernize a group of planes. They have to instal something operational, that pilots could train in similar Flankers in time when their Su-33 were in process of modernization. I still think, they were upgraded by Su-30KN upgrade package.
    franco
    franco

    Posts : 3393
    Points : 3425
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1 - Page 22 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

    Post  franco on Tue Nov 22, 2016 9:47 pm

    Giulio wrote:If true, why didn't they launch an air tanker?

    They don't have any in that area basically because not needed.
    avatar
    Guest
    Guest

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1 - Page 22 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

    Post  Guest on Tue Nov 22, 2016 9:48 pm

    medo wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    medo wrote:

    https://www.russiadefence.net/t2897p275-russian-naval-aviation-news

    I find it quite strange, that Gefest could install SVP-24 in Su-33 in half a year without any testing before with integration of SVP-24 with any Flanker and than test it and train pilots in a month and than send them to war. In such short period of time they could install only upgrade equipment from a program, which is well operational. There are only two operational Flanker upgrade programs. Su-27SM(3) from KNAAPO and Su-30KN from Irkut, which is used by Baranovichi aviation repair plant in Belarus. Both give the same bombing capabilities as SVP-24. Pilots could aslo train with both upgrade programs with Su-30M2 for Su-27SM program and with Su-30KN in Lipetsk for Su-30KN program. Gefest could simply buy Su-30KN components from Irkut or from Belarus and install them in Su-33 as for Su-27SM program they must go to KNAAPO. There is also another point which made me sceptical regarding SVP-24 and compatibility with original fire control computer. After small modernization in KNAAPO, Su-33 pilots must use knee pads to use satellite navigation and not through FCS computer and they are equipped with L-150 Pastel RWR, but we never see them to carry or test launch any anti-radar missile, what could mean that old FCS computer is not compatible with Pastel. I doubt it is compatible with SVP-24 without integration work and testings. Too short time of period and Su-33 work effectively in Syria, what could only mean that they got operational modernization package through Gefest contract. Also pilots have to train with this complex before as one month is too short time. Su-24M with Gefest SVP-24 is not the same as Su-33. After all, Gefest promote SVP-24 program for ground attacking planes as Su-24, Su-25, Tu-22 and MiG-27 and not for air superiority fighters.

    Well i had plenty of skepticism in my bag too, but as of now we still do not have any real confirmation its SVP-24 do we. We have words of some journalists, which could also just hear someone from MOD say "new bombing equipment" and whoala they connected it with SVP-24 and it ends up on RT/Sputnik etc.

    And as of now no good cockpit photo either, just this angle.

    When its about the pilots, could it be they borrowed few "sniper" Su-34 pilots? Could explain all that landing-takeoff practice all the way down from Russia.

    No, they could not borrow Su-34 pilots. Su-33 is a single seater and air force pilots could not so quickly muster carrier landings, that they could simplym borrow them. This is why so low number if MiG-29K available for operation in Syria although they got all 24 of them. Simply they don*t have enough pilots mustering carrier operations enough for deployment. Su-33 are piloted by their Su-33 pilots, who were mostly trained for air to air combat. The time scale of this Su-33 modernization is a little to fast to install untested SVP-24 and than test it and train pilots to use it.

    Well you know, at certain point in 1990. USN got transfered pilots from USAF and trained them for deck operations in under 8 months, its not unheard of. Especially considering Su-34 and Su-33 are both after all based on same T-10 platform.
    avatar
    Guest
    Guest

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1 - Page 22 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

    Post  Guest on Tue Nov 22, 2016 9:49 pm

    Giulio wrote:If true, why didn't they launch an air tanker?

    There are no tankers around, except possibly some MiG-29K buddy refueling pod.
    avatar
    Guest
    Guest

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1 - Page 22 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

    Post  Guest on Tue Nov 22, 2016 9:50 pm

    JohninMK wrote:
    GarryB wrote:

    I disagree. They have learned a lot from the design of the K and also the new modular systems they have developed for their new ships... putting that to use in a new design that take advantage of this makes more sense than trying to rebuild the K so the K can have a sister ship.
    Also there would have been some lessons learnt from the Mistral construction.

    Mistral is however built by merchant marine standards not military standards.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 9367
    Points : 9449
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1 - Page 22 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

    Post  PapaDragon on Tue Nov 22, 2016 10:36 pm

    Militarov wrote:...............

    Mistral is however built by merchant marine standards not military standards.

    I am completely clueless about this so I'm just gonna ask: what is the difference?

    I always assumed it was just weapons and radars.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6160
    Points : 6152
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1 - Page 22 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

    Post  Isos on Tue Nov 22, 2016 10:39 pm

    Militarov wrote:
    Giulio wrote:If true, why didn't they launch an air tanker?

    There are no tankers around, except possibly some MiG-29K buddy refueling pod.

    Do they have small tankers in their inventory to send in Syria for their operations ? Something smaller than Il-78. At least to train their crew. The crash is more the fault of the bad planning of the mission than of the Mig. They need to come back with some fuel in their plane for situation llike this where a plane can't land and if needed go back to a Syrian Airport or stay in the air.
    franco
    franco

    Posts : 3393
    Points : 3425
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1 - Page 22 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

    Post  franco on Tue Nov 22, 2016 10:40 pm

    Here is a more detailed version. The snag cables were damaged in the previous 2 landings. The pilot was told to circle while they got fixed... took too long and he had to eject when he ran out of fuel.

    http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2273357.html
    franco
    franco

    Posts : 3393
    Points : 3425
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1 - Page 22 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

    Post  franco on Tue Nov 22, 2016 10:41 pm

    Isos wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    Giulio wrote:If true, why didn't they launch an air tanker?

    There are no tankers around, except possibly some MiG-29K buddy refueling pod.

    Do they have small tankers in their inventory to send in Syria for their operations ? Something smaller than Il-78. At least to train their crew. The crash is more the fault of the bad planning of the mission than of the Mig. They need to come back with some fuel in their plane for situation llike this where a plane can't land and if needed go back to a Syrian Airport or stay in the air.

    They only have the Il-78.
    avatar
    Guest
    Guest

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1 - Page 22 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

    Post  Guest on Tue Nov 22, 2016 10:48 pm

    Isos wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    Giulio wrote:If true, why didn't they launch an air tanker?

    There are no tankers around, except possibly some MiG-29K buddy refueling pod.

    Do they have small tankers in their inventory to send in Syria for their operations ? Something smaller than Il-78. At least to train their crew. The crash is more the fault of the bad planning of the mission than of the Mig. They need to come back with some fuel in their plane for situation llike this where a plane can't land and if needed go back to a Syrian Airport or stay in the air.

    Only tanker they currently operate is Il-78 in the Air Force. USN used for decades solution i really liked S-3 Viking for their carriers. However today they use Super Hornets with refueling probes. I somehow always wondered tho if Russians ever gets on idea (for future carrier as it has no point on current one) to develop dedicated tanker on Su-34 platform for an example.

    On other hand RuAF does not have tankers either built on any medium sized lifter, some plans were formed for AN-70 but now its...not available so to say Smile
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6160
    Points : 6152
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1 - Page 22 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

    Post  Isos on Tue Nov 22, 2016 10:59 pm

    Only tanker they currently operate is Il-78 in the Air Force. USN used for decades solution i really liked S-3 Viking for their carriers. However today they use Super Hornets with refueling probes. I somehow always wondered tho if Russians ever gets on idea (for future carrier as it has no point on current one) to develop dedicated tanker on Su-34 platform for an example.

    It's not hard to develop Su-34 tanker. Take off everything and put just fuel tanker in it. Good idea actually, It could even fit in the K.
    avatar
    Guest
    Guest

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1 - Page 22 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

    Post  Guest on Tue Nov 22, 2016 11:05 pm

    Isos wrote:
    Only tanker they currently operate is Il-78 in the Air Force. USN used for decades solution i really liked S-3 Viking for their carriers. However today they use Super Hornets with refueling probes. I somehow always wondered tho if Russians ever gets on idea (for future carrier as it has no point on current one) to develop dedicated tanker on Su-34 platform for an example.

    It's not hard to develop Su-34 tanker. Take off everything and put just fuel tanker in it. Good idea actually, It could even fit in the K.

    Other option that i personally find as cool idea is reviving Yak-44 project.
    avatar
    Guest
    Guest

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1 - Page 22 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

    Post  Guest on Tue Nov 22, 2016 11:19 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Militarov wrote:...............

    Mistral is however built by merchant marine standards not military standards.

    I am completely clueless about this so I'm just gonna ask: what is the difference?

    I always assumed it was just weapons and radars.

    That too ofc, but not only. Merchant marine ships often lack many of the redundancy systems that are normally featured on ships built by military standards, extensive hull reinforcements, multiple auxilary generators, steel grades used are also often different, damage control is far more important on military ships so there are many sealable chambers/many pumps, various types of armor are applied around important ship systems like engine rom-command center-bridge, then there is special type of fuel tanks that prevent explosions and lightning up...list is quite extensive. Military grade ships also leave alot of space for future improvements, sub systems installation etc.

    Basically almost everything is different, however though history many civilian grade built ships ended up being used for military purposes, Foklands, Desert Storm, Vietnam...
    KiloGolf
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2503
    Points : 2493
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1 - Page 22 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

    Post  KiloGolf on Tue Nov 22, 2016 11:20 pm

    franco wrote:Here is a more detailed version. The snag cables were damaged in the previous 2 landings. The pilot was told to circle while they got fixed... took too long and he had to eject when he ran out of fuel.

    http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2273357.html

    That's terrible. Planes can't carry enough fuel/payload on this carrier and it really shows with incidents like that.
    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 4711
    Points : 4689
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1 - Page 22 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

    Post  miketheterrible on Tue Nov 22, 2016 11:49 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:
    franco wrote:Here is a more detailed version. The snag cables were damaged in the previous 2 landings. The pilot was told to circle while they got fixed... took too long and he had to eject when he ran out of fuel.

    http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2273357.html

    That's terrible. Planes can't carry enough fuel/payload on this carrier and it really shows with incidents like that.

    Oh shut up already. You don't give a crap. Shed your tears for your next economic meltdown.

    Because you didn't see it, you don't even know what kind of armament the things can carry. Since you know, you nor I seen the MiG-29KR or alike with all its armament.
    OminousSpudd
    OminousSpudd

    Posts : 902
    Points : 909
    Join date : 2015-01-03
    Location : New Zealand

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1 - Page 22 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

    Post  OminousSpudd on Wed Nov 23, 2016 12:20 am

    franco wrote:Here is a more detailed version. The snag cables were damaged in the previous 2 landings. The pilot was told to circle while they got fixed... took too long and he had to eject when he ran out of fuel.

    http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2273357.html

    Hmm. This is a shame, but at least we now know it wasn't the '29K that malfunctioned.

    Funny, how many people were slamming Mikoyan a few pages back? Oh wait, we're just supposed to forget about that now. Neutral

    avatar
    Guest
    Guest

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1 - Page 22 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

    Post  Guest on Wed Nov 23, 2016 12:49 am

    OminousSpudd wrote:
    franco wrote:Here is a more detailed version. The snag cables were damaged in the previous 2 landings. The pilot was told to circle while they got fixed... took too long and he had to eject when he ran out of fuel.

    http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2273357.html

    Hmm. This is a shame, but at least we now know it wasn't the '29K that malfunctioned.

    Funny, how many people were slamming Mikoyan a few pages back? Oh wait, we're just supposed to forget about that now. Neutral


    I am not sure if this "detailed version" is legit however. Too much "are you for real" moments in whole story.
    JohninMK
    JohninMK

    Posts : 7804
    Points : 7887
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1 - Page 22 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

    Post  JohninMK on Wed Nov 23, 2016 12:58 am

    Militarov wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    Militarov wrote:...............

    Mistral is however built by merchant marine standards not military standards.

    I am completely clueless about this so I'm just gonna ask: what is the difference?

    I always assumed it was just weapons and radars.

    That too ofc, but not only. Merchant marine ships often lack many of the redundancy systems that are normally featured on ships built by military standards, extensive hull reinforcements, multiple auxilary generators, steel grades used are also often different, damage control is far more important on military ships so there are many sealable chambers/many pumps, various types of armor are applied around important ship systems like engine rom-command center-bridge, then there is special type of fuel tanks that prevent explosions and lightning up...list is quite extensive. Military grade ships also leave alot of space for future improvements, sub systems installation etc.

    Basically almost everything is different, however though history many civilian grade built ships ended up being used for military purposes, Foklands, Desert Storm, Vietnam...
    In mentioning the Mistral I was thinking more about learning from the French construction techniques rather than what was actually being constructed.
    KiloGolf
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2503
    Points : 2493
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1 - Page 22 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

    Post  KiloGolf on Wed Nov 23, 2016 12:59 am

    miketheterrible wrote:
    KiloGolf wrote:
    franco wrote:Here is a more detailed version. The snag cables were damaged in the previous 2 landings. The pilot was told to circle while they got fixed... took too long and he had to eject when he ran out of fuel.

    http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2273357.html

    That's terrible. Planes can't carry enough fuel/payload on this carrier and it really shows with incidents like that.

    Oh shut up already.  You don't give a crap.  Shed your tears for your next economic meltdown.

    Because you didn't see it, you don't even know what kind of armament the things can carry.  Since you know, you nor I seen the MiG-29KR or alike with all its armament.

    Yeah well, there's a valid point there. Sorry for being too cynic and realist for your taste.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25887
    Points : 26433
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1 - Page 22 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

    Post  GarryB on Wed Nov 23, 2016 8:44 am

    They have buddy refuelling systems to allow tactical aircraft like the MiG-29 and Su-24 and Su-34 and other types to perform inflight refuelling.

    So if he ran out of fuel I wonder how he ditched the aircraft... a hard impact with lots of little pieces or a soft landing...

    Shame they could not divert to a land airfield in time...

    Sponsored content

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1 - Page 22 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Sep 24, 2020 3:01 am