Аубакиров-лётчик без человеческой совести...Отдельный "привет" от Тимура Апакидзе. Мы помним что Токтар поставил подножку и не допустил Апакидзе к посадке на МиГ-29 ....
I am very pro-American (seeing as I am an American :D ), but this is a neat sight. To any of you who laugh at the Kuznetsov--she may have her problems, and she may not be as powerful as American carriers, but she doesn't need to be. She's not built for the same mission. And those Su-33s would be no joke to meet in combat.
Kudos to you my friend. Few people realize that the lack of carriers in Russian Navy is because there was never a real need for them (given Russia's territory span) . And the Kuznetsov will also be carrying the MIG-29Ks when it's deployed in Syria over the next months. That's some significant (and advanced technology) firepower to end the terrorist scum.
It is not aircraft carrier, but missile battlecruiser with flight deck.. designed to kill aircraft carriers with 7ton P-700 Granit missiles and provide anti aircraft missile coverage. Planes are for patrols, anti-sub detection and target detection.
And after "Kuznetzov" comes back from Syria, in 2017-2018 it gets the P-800 Onyx/Yahont missiles(this missiles can also be used like "ship-to-ship" so and "ship-to-surface")instead P-700 Granite,in addition when finally appeared,on the deck of this great ship,after a many years of waiting MiG-29KR model9-41(it not mod.9-31,which flew for the first time at June 1988,it's new aircraft, made on unique platform with MiG-35)and MiG-29KUBR model 9-47 air wing of MiGs can perform strike missions,while Su-33( Su-33 can use only unguided weapons,but after the last modernization,thanks to sight system made on the basis of SVP-24 from Su-24M2,accuracy has improved in 2-2,5 times)will be engaged in long range air defense and air superiority. Su-33 can cover Kuznetzov's group of ships and MiGs,while they can use for strike missions, for this MiG-29KR/KUBR can use X/Kha-31A(AS-17Krypton) and X/Kha-35(AS-20Kayak)antiship missiles,X/Kha-31P(antiradar version),tactical missiles, such as AS-10 Karen,AS-12Kegler(X/Kha-25/25ML/MP),X/Kha-29T/L(AS-14 Kedge),TV and laserguided bombs(500kg,1500kg),and unguided weapons: bombs (250kg,500kg,1500kg),rockets(57mm,80mm,120mm,240mm),napalm tanks,etc. Soon MiG-29KR/KUBR will has Zhuk-AE,radar with active phased-array antenna.
you will also notice the lack of catapult, the ramp idea, certainly as far no Russian carriers, had been in use with the British Royal Navy since the late 70,s
The su 33 flanker d variant which is getting replaced by the mig 29 k variant can launch with ski jump as the ski jump when flaps are deployed on take off changes the angle of attack so that the aircraft can sort of Float in the air and slowly gain speed
@@alexlaverick6111 is that true even if it takes off from position 3 the longest run up to the ski jump. I know 100 percent fuel is a no go but curious if it is possible with a position 3 takeoff
And here we have the Kuzenetsov, the carrier so awful it has a permanent tug boat assigned to it when it inevitably breaks down. If that wasn’t enough, being assigned to the carrier is a prison sentence in itself due to being submitted to intense diesel smog that rises above the horizon, allowing it to be seen much further out. Now imagine what that would do to a humans lungs.
@@2005Crazer If I was in a compartment filled with black diesel smog and it belonged to a boat being kept in service, yes I think it would be a prison sentence. Fortunately, I work on a boat with a diesel that isn't burning 500 gallons of oil a minute because it's actually maintained.
@@meowmur302 Seriously, where does your info comes from? There are lots of pictures or videos of ships emitting smoke, that doesn't mean they arent maintained.
It was stated that she was going to have catapults installed when she was scheduled for refit in drydock in 2012 as well as many other upgrades then come out in 2015 moderised. However, she currently is still at sea with rumors of being deployed near Syria.
Both OKBa Mikoyana-Gurjevnogo and Sukhogo provided their MiG-29K and Su-33K, respectively, with plenty of power reserves. The USN/Grumman F-14 would probably have needed dual General Electric F120-GE-400's to accelerate hard enough for a ski-jump launch in 200m distance.
That comment is hilarious. Both the MiG-29 and the Su-33 take off with minimal fuel and half the weapon weight. If these planes were fully fueled and armed, they would fall into the sea. The F-14 always took off fully fueled and fully armed. Kuznetsov is scrap on the level of the 19th century.
Why is everyone comparing the Admiral Kuznetsov to American aircraft carriers? They aren't even designed for the same role, and they aren't the same class of ship. The Kuznetsov is a heavy aircraft carrying cruiser, not an aircraft carrier. Before they starting modernizing the ship recently, it carried anti-ship missiles and the air defense abilities of it are better than that of any American carrier due to the existence of on board surface to air missiles.
Here is a valid question, without a catapult, how much fuel and armament can a mig29 carry? Having a handful of aircraft taking off with a partial combat load kind of defeats the point. A very expensive yet inefficient ship that wouldn't last against a third world navy.
If Russia wasn’t run by corrupt tyrants maybe we could’ve seen more of these beautiful machines at work. Without worrying about which sovereign country the jets would be bombing civilians in.
@zoidberg2005 Yeah, and so does the US Marines on our small through deck carriers (USN has 21 carriers if you add them in, and we should). But that is because they are STOVL aircraft. They use their hover jets on takeoff. A MiG or SU-33 are good at low speed handling, but they're not better than a Harrier. The main thing is that if you want more bombs and missiles further inland where they can do some good, you need big planes, with a catapult to get them airborn.
With a catapult, they could also carry a wider variety of aircraft. From what I've read, the only planes carried are the Su-33, Su-25, and the Mig-29. Does anyone know what they do for an airborne early warning aircraft?
The USSR built a limited number of Kamov Ka-31 helicopters. which are helicopters based on the Ka-27 designed to exclusively carry an early warning radar. Simple solution but not the most effective one.
They simply can launch faster, they have more room to do so. They can carry more, Go further ( unlimmited range) , faster and more modern. Not being able to take off with a decent amount of fuel limits time sensitive strikes too. I have nothing against russian tech, in fact im a big fan of russian aviation but in this particular case, the Yanks hold the better cards when it comes to carriers.
Это Заслуженный летчик - испытатель ,Герой Советского Союза, Народный Герой Казахстана Токтар Аубакиров, занесён в Книгу рекордов Гиннеса, поднял более50 типов военных истребителей, дважды горел, но сумел посадить самолёт,умница!!!❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉
I love Russian weapons technology arms fighter jets and Russia is freaking awesome Sukhios and migs I miss soviet Union our best friend and respect to Russia love from India hands down 🇮🇳🇷🇺🇮🇳🇷🇺🇮🇳🇷🇺🇮🇳🇷🇺🇮🇳🇷🇺🇮🇳🇷🇺🇮🇳🇷🇺🇮🇳🇷🇺🇮🇳🇷🇺🇮🇳🇷🇺🇮🇳🇷🇺 always be close to our hearts
Not better, just different. The Soviet 'carriers' have a smaller aerial complement so don't need the ability to rapidly deploy aircraft like the US Nimitz class. In addition the Nimitz utilise their nuclear reactor to provide steam power, the Soviet Heavy Aviation Cruiser does not have a nuclear powerplant.
Karthagus Yeah...the same air defense systems that the west has been beating consistently for decades, and the same missiles that we have defensive systems for on every ship. They'd need to launch salvos of hundreds of missiles to defeat our anti ship missile defenses, whereas we only need 1 aircraft to defeat they're defensive systems. They know this.
NATO has an advanced air defense system? Such as "Patriot"? Do you know, what happened in Iraq 25 February 1991?Iraq has a Soviet SS-1 Scud-B,Iraqis launched their missiles and several of them goes directly in to the barracks of the US army. Patriot could not intersept these missiles! No one! According to official data 28 died,about 200 injured. George Bush telling the tales about the fact that out of 42 Iraqis launched missiles was intersepted 41!!! But he lied! 45 missiles was intersepted! But also about the number of missiles launched he also lied! Despite the complete lack of decoys and radio, patriot efficiency was very low. 91 missiles launched from only 45 were intersepted, at a rate of 158 missiles! Yes of course in 2003, Patriot was upgraded and at 2014 was intersepted Syrian Su-24,at 2015 two Patriot's missiles intersepted one Scud-B,of course thats not all,there were several cases of successful interseption,but even then Patriot can't be compared with S-300 Favorite and S-400 Triumph. And "Admiral Kuznetzov",not so harmless as it may seem at first glance,it has on board "sea variant" of S-300 as a long range air defense,SA-N-9 Gauntlet as a medium range defense, CADS-N-1 Kashtan as a short range defense and 6 AK-630 6 barrel 30mm Gatling gun(rate of fire 4000-5000 shots/minute) , also on board there is a powerful sonar and electronic countermeasures systems,anti-submarine rocket system RBU-12000, and 18 anti-submarine helicopters Helix-A,. targeting helicopters,miniAWACS helicopters Helix-B,rescue helicopters,and ECM helicopters,total 10-18 helicopters. About aircrafts,I think you know everything better than I. Yes? So. Do think that ship is old, harmless and weak?
I must add, as you say, that, this ship is very powerful as it is not a real aircraft carrier, but a battlecruiser with an aircraft runway. However, these fuel engines don't look good...the need to be replaced....this black smoke gives a very bad impression...this kind of ship should be given a nuclear plant, like Kirov's.
Rußland hat nur140Millionen Einwohner, eine schlechte Infastruktur, eine Bevölkerung die nicht im Wohlstand lebt. Natürlich können die nicht mit dem Rest der Welt mithalten. Alles nur Propaganda. Rußland ist ein Rohstofflieferant genau so wie Afrika, Südamerika. Nichts mit Heitech und Bedrohung.
Oh ok. And I guess its probably cheaper to just buy the Mig rather than pay to upgrade all the Su-33's. :( ill be sad to see them go out of service they are amazingly beautiful planes.
+piotr st The Russians have done - just no videos available for public yet. This carrier was built back in the late 80's and hardly seen use for over a decade. It was reinstituted back in naval service in mid 2000's - along with upgraded Su-33, new pilots, upgraded systems and computers on board as well as tons of sophisticated radar equipment never seen before. Here's what one full ladden Su-33 would look like: cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/6/0/2/0810206.jpg With its powerful jet engines its more then capable of taking off with all of these on board. Here's one taking off on a non windy day - its called NITKA: - (it doesn't even move windy or non windy day) battlemachines.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/su-33ub.jpg?w=720&h=413 This one is even larger then your typical Su-33 and still able to take off under own power, slanted deck - oh and by the way NON WINDY DAY! Hope that help....
But you need full afterburners on with huge consumption of gas and can be' spotted during the night. US modern engine Aircrafts doesnt need AB anymore to take flight with catapult
@@giampieroflaminio8172 what the f..k u talking about ?..ALL murican navy planes r being launch with after burners on fully day or night ...smart comment
Plus, if a carrier's air group are entirely dependent on catapults, then damage to the catapults effectively cripples said carrier's ability to conduct flight ops.
The bomb that will damage a catapult will also crater this ship's flight deck, crippling it just as well. American carriers have four catapults, further, in 2001, flight test showed that these planes could not lift off with a combat load or full fuel tanks and they lacked the ability to re-fuel in mid-air. This ship is NOT combat effective.
Steam catapults are becoming a thing of the past. The new Ford aircraft carrier uses electromagnetic catapults, which almost completely nullifies damage to any systems, is smaller because it doesn't need the compression chambers and it can launch aircraft more frequently.
How come Russia wants to replace the Su-33 with the Mig-29k? Last I saw and heard was that the Migs range and performance where grossly inferior to the Su-33.
Wow, if only our US Navy F-18s and other jets could take off the carrier deck without a catapult launch like the MiGs and Sukhois do. Now that's brute jet power!!!
Severely limits the loadout and range tho, due to weight of fuel. The ski jump system is impressive and I massively respect it and the crew that operate on it, but the catapult system is just better.
Re. "Im not thrashing the Russians i like the simplistic approach its good just not as good in a combat situation." - how is a carrier whose flight ops could NOT be crippled by damage to catapult systems not good in a combat situation? And, "the f-18 could to that if not better" - wrong, the F/A-18 cannot take-off from a carrier unassisted even WITHOUT any ordnance. This is all test and development - they're not carrying ordnance simply because there's no reason to, and flying lighter reduces expensive fuel consumption (throughout the flight, not just take-off).
Re. "Not even Russian airforce want it." ...naturally, the design is now over thirty, nearing forty years old and they, as the U.S. is doing with the F16, are moving on to production of more sophisticated platforms.
Those jets have cool lines. Don't diss the design, simplicity has it's perks. Catapults require very special and expensive aircraft but not so much for this. America spent tons of money to make a pressurized ink pen that could write in zero gravity for the space program ...Russia used pencils.
Sorry buddy..you are wrong..i work as aviation boatswains mate on carriers before...catapults do add the the process of speed..why the hell do you think modern carriers would use it..only a low budget carrier uses ramps..thats why the russian carrier is not nuclear powered..try again
What do you mean "not as good in a combat situation" ? The simple approach is often BETTER in a combat situation on account of its reliability and resistance to damage. Compare the AK47 & M16. The latter rifle had absolutely HORRENDOUS issues with jamming if so much as a grain of sand entered the chamber, often resulting in entire platoons being wiped out when they realized, too late, that not a single one of their rifles was working. The AK47, built for simplicity, reliability, and long service life, suffered from no such fatal sensitivity to less than 'ideal' conditions.
I'm here to tell you that, after spending four years in Iraq and fighting a lot of guys who used AK-47's, they are just as prone to malfunction as the M4. I would say MORESO. None of my guys died because of a weapons malfunction, but I know dead Iraqis whose weapons failed them. I also worked with MITT's, training IA, IP and SOA. We had lots of trouble with AK's malfunctioning. The AK-47 is made in lots of places in the world to varying degrees of quality. They fail in combat quite often.
Actually, the only reason you believe the stories about the jamming issue with the M16, is because the soldiers who used them back in the day never cleaned the barrels or lubricated the chamber. In other words, they complained because they were too lazy to do basic maintenance.
The aircraft take-off well loaded for combat, instead, they sacrifice fuel load, requiring air to air refuelling after take-off. Both the 29 and the 33 have higher thrust:weight ratios than the rhino (although it does perform better at high alpha; the legacy models especially), the Russian a/c would therefore perform better without a catapult. Regarding it causing damage to the engines, the rhino will always use maximum power at weights above 58k lbs. (NATOPS NP 3-8-4), rendering that point moot
@zoidberg2005 In theory. However, the carrier is going into dry dock for 2012 and one of the upgrades is.....wait for it....a catapult. Nobody wants a carrier that cannot launch fully loaded combat aircraft.
thats cold war relic facts..true carrier defense involves the carrier battkle group it travels with..destroyer/ submarine/cruiser/ ect to protect it..Russian navy doesnt have a battle group for carriers like American Navy..what does it matter of what was better back then? Its now what matters..and realisticaly, russian naval budget is chump change
Big target for NATO If she ever gets out to sea. Just can't see Russia using an aircraft carrier. Nowhere near enough experienced sailors or fleet commanders in the Russian navy to be battle ready. They should stick with small naval craft and subs. Sorry. Just my thoughts.
well if i had wings i would be a bird,why would they use icbms? icbms won't be used,maybe,but most likely not,if they didn't use it in vietnam,where they did loose,why would they use it here,when iran doesn't have a icbm on its own? but even if they do get used,iran will use the s-300,s-300 are made against missiles also,not only aircrafts,so there is a chance that even a icbm can be stopped
we have money to waste. Just like Europeans stick with tiny little cars and we ride in big comfortable trucks. You do the best you can with what you got.
