franco wrote:Timid hope. Does the Russian naval aviation have a future?......
So long story short their ASW sensors and aircraft are obsolete dogshit and they are dragging their feet in rectifying it?
franco wrote:Timid hope. Does the Russian naval aviation have a future?......
GarryB, Big_Gazza and Hole like this post
GarryB likes this post
GarryB and Big_Gazza like this post
Strategic deterrence (ICBM's & SSBN's) was always going to be prioritized for upgrades and new armaments, followed by the Army, Airforce and soon enough, the Navy.franco wrote:Naval Aviation does need upgrading but so did every other area of the military. Work is ongoing and I'm sure we will see more in the future but other areas needed attention sooner.
GarryB, Big_Gazza and miketheterrible like this post
And it must be emphasized right away that now, after the change in the leadership of the Naval Aviation of the Navy, positive trends have emerged in the real solution of its problems.
... the problems of our naval aviation are not really technical, but organizational.
Let's start with the fact that the research organization of naval aviation is included not in the structure of the Navy, but in the VKS (and the relationship between "ship" and "aviation" organizations is an extremely painful issue), and ending with questions of banal funding.
The obvious priority of the Navy is submarines (in relation to which there are many questions on various kinds of problems and the effectiveness of spending). A much lower priority is surface ships, and aviation is simply in the role of a stepdaughter.
Strategic deterrence (ICBM's & SSBN's) was always going to be prioritized for upgrades and new armaments, followed by the Army, Airforce and soon enough, the Navy.
George1, lancelot and TMA1 like this post
If there is any truth in this it is beyond comprehension that countering the biggest military threat to Russia - is apparently the most neglected! That I find a bit hard to believe, but it is quite apparent that they are dragging their feet when it comes to replacing old maritime patrol aircraft. However I do agree with the author that it's not the type of aircraft that's important - it is the actual onboard systems that's the most crucial element.
GarryB, Big_Gazza, PapaDragon and lancelot like this post
GarryB and Finty like this post
GarryB, franco, flamming_python, zardof, Hole, Finty and Mir like this post
GarryB, franco and LMFS like this post
franco, LMFS and Hole like this post
GarryB and franco like this post
GarryB wrote:The english translation was not working for me, any hints about the future of naval aviation... I noticed at the end they did focus on the Yak-38 but did not mention the Yak-141 or anything newer (which I think is a good thing).
Electric drive jet engines blowing cold air and fully articulated vectored thrust engine nozzles would overcome the landing and take off issue of ingesting hot low oxygen gas from the engine exhaust that causes stalls and crashes on landing and taking off but VSTOL aircraft have too many faults to consider as anything other than a relatively weak fighter type that is too expensive to be a MiG-29KR replacement.
Equally, they showed the Kamov Helix quite a bit and the Ka-52K Katran, but did they mention Minoga at all?
Yak-141 was only a prototype, Soviet Naval Aviation only operated Yak-38
Ka-52K at least have been tested onboard a real ship, Minoga does noy exist out the papers
franco likes this post
GarryB, franco, George1 and Hole like this post
|
|