More issues plague Russian Aircraft Carrier

a reply to: Zaphod58

That, my friend is why you land at full throttle.

a reply to: CT_Flyboy

Which inexperienced pilots, such as the Russian pilots, don't realize until they've gotten that experience.

a reply to: LordOfDestruction

Haven't heard of that one, but I've been to Pula and flew the Croatian Mig-21. Great guys in that air force of yours. Beautiful country too.

a reply to: cosmania Thank you, the country is beautiful. If it was a MiG 21 it is likely that it was at that base before the base got demolished. This year 5 of 8 of the MiG 21's that we have are going back into service.

I guess they'll learn that the U.S. idea of going with CATOBAR was a much better idea going into the jet age. Kind of solves the problem of the either-or proposition of munitions or fuel when launching aircraft. I wonder if they send up planes carrying refueling tanks first before flying sorties?

The other advantage is when you have enough reserve steam for the cat-risers to do successive launches, you have enough steam to go fast. So basically a ship that's approaching the size of a big freighter or tanker can outrun the cruisers and destroyers. Something to see in order to believe it. (And I'm sure they know when trying to chase 'em with their subs.)

Kind of a shame their carrier can't really move under its own power. They've done ships, so it really shouldn't be a design problem. Seems like they never did the workups or sea trials they should have to iron out the powerplant issues. Russia still has a lot of work ahead of 'em if they want to do more than just subs and missile boats. (Which they are good at.)

Regardless, carriers are stupidly expensive as hell and one of the most dangerous industrial environments... As somebody who did one enlistment as ship's company, anything on the flight deck was a big NOPE during flight ops. (Although sometimes it's neat to watch through the CCTV system.) Even dealing with some of the sponsons near the catwalks or the area around the fantail could seem sketchy. Also despite being a big target as a flagship, after a while you feel that somebody screwing up a landing or having hung ordinance is a bigger threat to your safety. (Can't complain too much though, given the entire point of that ship.) I suppose that's all part of the package and the smaller carriers still see much of that anyways.

a reply to: pauljs75

Soviet, now Russian ship design philosophy will drive any same person to drink. On the one hand, they put one of the worst power plants known to man in their one and only aircraft carrier, resulting in God only knows how much extra maintenance and costs.

Then on the other, they build icebreakers with nuclear power plants.

a reply to: Zaphod58
I say take it out and scuttle it.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Arnie123

You don't have a large margin of error if the cable breaks. If you don't react almost immediately, you're going in the water. It's a good idea to make sure your cables are in very good shape. In addition to possibly losing an aircraft, those cables, when they snap, are capable of cutting a person in half as they shoot back across the deck.

This was off the coast of Virginia in March.

Holy christ...if his trousers weren't brown when he put them on, they sure as hell were after THAT recovery...

Skil.

There is one important thing to learn from this. If we ever go to war with Russia, don't worry about their aircraft carriers, sink their tugboats.

This is the funniest thing I've read all day thank you