Russian MiG 29K and Russian Aircraft Carrier Kuznetsov operations video (1 Viewer)

[Beaudreaux]

Thought the lurkers and posters in this sub-forum may like to watch the video in the link. One day, we will be on the business end of these aircraft, and they are awesome.

LiveLeak.com - MiG-29K

 

[StillBallin75]

The Mig-29 is a beautiful aircraft. It looks like the 29K isn't an insane smokewagon like the original aircraft was.

 

[Jredbaron96]

I still prefer the Rafale.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Thought the lurkers and posters in this sub-forum may like to watch the video in the link. One day, we will be on the business end of these aircraft, and they are awesome.

LiveLeak.com - MiG-29K

Would you be impressed if I told you that I own a MiG-29?

Well, OK, not the whole aircraft, but a clock that I found in a thrift store, that later research indicated has a fairly high chance of having come from a MiG-29. On my budget, that's probably as close as I'll ever get.



Do a Google Images search on mig 29 clock and you'll find pictures of clocks like mine.

 

[Thoreau72]

It must have been 10 years ago or more that a MiG29 was going to tour the US, offering back seat rides to anyone willing to pony up $10,000. That was too rich for my blood, but I was sure tempted. Cannot remember if the tour ever did actually happen.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Thought the lurkers and posters in this sub-forum may like to watch the video in the link. One day, we will be on the business end of these aircraft, and they are awesome.

The MiG-29K is mighty nice, but the Kuznetsov is an old piece of crap. US ships used to tail her just in case she experienced an emergency at sea. Anticipating breakdowns, large ocean-going Russian tugs accompany Admiral Kuznetsov whenever she deploys (there have been only four 2 month deployments in 30 years).

 

[Capster78]

Certainly looks like it would be a tough competator for the F-15, the only problem I see is that I think the engines are underpowered. Imagine if the pilot had an engine failure coming off that aircraft carrier.

 

[Thoreau72]

Certainly looks like it would be a tough competator for the F-15, the only problem I see is that I think the engines are underpowered. Imagine if the pilot had an engine failure coming off that aircraft carrier.

As all the guys who flew single engine aircraft off the first boats.

 

[StillBallin75]

I still prefer the Rafale.

Nah, Typhoon.

 

[Capster78]

I prefer the F-22, but I am bias as I work on them. I can make the educated statement of saying that IT IS the greatest aircraft ever produced up to this point in history.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Nah, Typhoon.

I'll admit the Typhoon's got the advantage in radar and air-to-air, but the Rafale's down time and required maintenance is better, and it can be flown off a carrier. That's versatility that's hard to come by.

 

[Jredbaron96]

I prefer the F-22, but I am bias as I work on them. I can make the educated statement of saying that IT IS the greatest aircraft ever produced up to this point in history.

Um, no.

 

[braindrain]

Um, no.

Very convincing argument.

 

[PoS]

Thought the lurkers and posters in this sub-forum may like to watch the video in the link. One day, we will be on the business end of these aircraft, and they are awesome.

LiveLeak.com - MiG-29K

No way its gonna beat ours! We got the most expensive, most advanced do it all stealth fighter that can whup anybody: the F-35!!! :2razz:

 

[Jredbaron96]

Very convincing argument.

Thanks.

What did you expect as a reply to a blatantly wrong statement like that? There's nothing to suggest the F-22 is the best fighter in history. It's a stealth fighter, of boy! The only thing it's really exceptional at is SEAD. Little else. You can't stick it on a carrier, and the required down time for it is ridiculous, especially when you consider that the insane cost means that it's a very limited fighter in usage, which is not helping it's case considering it's already very limited in it's capabilities.

The only thing the F-22 can do effectively is shoot down other fighters and take out SAM sites. You don't need a stealth fighter to do either, and in fact you can do the same thing using a lot cheaper aircraft.

 

[braindrain]

Thanks.

What did you expect as a reply to a blatantly wrong statement like that? There's nothing to suggest the F-22 is the best fighter in history. It's a stealth fighter, of boy! The only thing it's really exceptional at is SEAD. Little else. You can't stick it on a carrier, and the required down time for it is ridiculous, especially when you consider that the insane cost means that it's a very limited fighter in usage, which is not helping it's case considering it's already very limited in it's capabilities.

The only thing the F-22 can do effectively is shoot down other fighters and take out SAM sites. You don't need a stealth fighter to do either, and in fact you can do the same thing using a lot cheaper aircraft.

A ton of great fighters can't be used off of carriers. I hardly see that as big deal.
And yes you can shoot down other aircraft and take out SAM sites with cheaper non stealth planes. You just need lots more of them and lots more pilots because they are going to be blown out of the sky at a much higher rate. I guess if that doesn't matter to you than yeah some of the best attributes of the F22 are not that big a deal. The F22 has pretty much dominated the majority of simulated combat exercises it has been in. Often times when put a a disadvantage to start with. Not saying it is unbeatable because no plane is but it is without a doubt one of if not the greatest fighters ever built.

 

[Jredbaron96]

A ton of great fighters can't be used off of carriers. I hardly see that as big deal.

It's a very big deal when talking about force projection. I can't put F-22's on a carrier, which means the only way to transport them across the ocean is to fly them thousands of miles, requiring a crap ton of fuel, or put them in specially designed containers on a transport, which also costs a lot of money.

And yes you can shoot down other aircraft and take out SAM sites with cheaper non stealth planes. You just need lots more of them and lots more pilots because they are going to be blown out of the sky at a much higher rate.

Except no. Dedicated jamming aircraft, whether just pods on a fighter or a converted bomber, do the job even better.

The F22 has pretty much dominated the majority of simulated combat exercises it has been in. Often times when put a a disadvantage to start with. Not saying it is unbeatable because no plane is but it is without a doubt one of if not the greatest fighters ever built.

Except it hasn't, but that's besides the point. Exercise for planes are almost always unrealistic, pre-planned, and designed to show off the plane's advantages. And even in those fights, the Raptor has lost before.

 

[braindrain]

It's a very big deal when talking about force projection. I can't put F-22's on a carrier, which means the only way to transport them across the ocean is to fly them thousands of miles, requiring a crap ton of fuel, or put them in specially designed containers on a transport, which also costs a lot of money.



Except no. Dedicated jamming aircraft, whether just pods on a fighter or a converted bomber, do the job even better.



Except it hasn't, but that's besides the point. Exercise for planes are almost always unrealistic, pre-planned, and designed to show off the plane's advantages. And even in those fights, the Raptor has lost before.

Yes it can be a big deal but it also creates the need for comprimises to the design. The F15 was not carrier capable and has long been considered one of the best fighters of its generation. And while yes having planes on a carrier is great if that carrier happens to be in the right area otherwise it is very slow to get where its needed.

Is that why the planes that went into Iraq first to take out radar and C2 sights and at the most risk were stealth planes. And those dedicated jamming planes can be used with the F22 as well with even better results.

FoF excersises are not perfect but are the best we have short of actual war. And the F22 does have a very good record even wjen it's put in Situations that play to its weakness or at uneven odds. That's why it is such a big deal when one loses. And like I said no fighter or pilot is perfect.

Probably the biggest indicator that your wrong about the usefulness of stealth is that pretty much all the countries that can afford it are trying to build or buy some type of stealth fighter. Sorry if I take the combined consenses of most of the first world militaries. Doesn't mean it's without faults.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Yes it can be a big deal but it also creates the need for comprimises to the design. The F15 was not carrier capable and has long been considered one of the best fighters of its generation. And while yes having planes on a carrier is great if that carrier happens to be in the right area otherwise it is very slow to get where its needed.

The F15 was one of the greatest fighters of it's time, until the Air Force spent millions trying to make it a next gen upgrade and now the F-15SE is $150 million dollar aircraft who's role can be fulfilled by much more affordable aircraft.

Is that why the planes that went into Iraq first to take out radar and C2 sights and at the most risk were stealth planes. And those dedicated jamming planes can be used with the F22 as well with even better results.

Yes, stealth planes are good at SEAD. I've mentioned that before. However they are not necessary. The Coalition send in stealth planes first in the hopes of avoiding too many casualties, it could easily have been accomplished by non-stealth aircraft. That being said, I don't like using the Gulf War as an example, because the Iraqi military was so incompetent it's not really a good comparison.

FoF excersises are not perfect but are the best we have short of actual war. And the F22 does have a very good record even wjen it's put in Situations that play to its weakness or at uneven odds. That's why it is such a big deal when one loses. And like I said no fighter or pilot is perfect.

They are certainly not perfect. In fact a lot of times they're terrible. Like that one where the Indian Air Force bested some American pilots, even though the odds were clearly stacked against the USAF. But even so, at Red Flag Alaska, despite being designed to play to the F-22s strengths, a group of Typhoons won.

Probably the biggest indicator that your wrong about the usefulness of stealth is that pretty much all the countries that can afford it are trying to build or buy some type of stealth fighter. Sorry if I take the combined consensus of most of the first world militaries. Doesn't mean it's without faults.

Only seven nations are actively producing or designing stealth fighters, one of which, Sweden, might not be even doing so any more, and three others, Russia, China, and Iran, are only doing it to counter American stealth. And India is co-producing one with Russian assistance.

So really, the only nation really going out of it's way to make a new stealth fighter is Turkey.

Secondly, the only way other nations, mainly Western Europe, are acquiring stealth fighters is because the US and Lockheed Martin are putting pressure on them to but the F-35, so they can try to hide what a gigantic failure that whole program is.

 

[braindrain]

The F15 was one of the greatest fighters of it's time, until the Air Force spent millions trying to make it a next gen upgrade and now the F-15SE is $150 million dollar aircraft who's role can be fulfilled by much more affordable aircraft.



Yes, stealth planes are good at SEAD. I've mentioned that before. However they are not necessary. The Coalition send in stealth planes first in the hopes of avoiding too many casualties, it could easily have been accomplished by non-stealth aircraft. That being said, I don't like using the Gulf War as an example, because the Iraqi military was so incompetent it's not really a good comparison.



They are certainly not perfect. In fact a lot of times they're terrible. Like that one where the Indian Air Force bested some American pilots, even though the odds were clearly stacked against the USAF. But even so, at Red Flag Alaska, despite being designed to play to the F-22s strengths, a group of Typhoons won.



Only seven nations are actively producing or designing stealth fighters, one of which, Sweden, might not be even doing so any more, and three others, Russia, China, and Iran, are only doing it to counter American stealth. And India is co-producing one with Russian assistance.

So really, the only nation really going out of it's way to make a new stealth fighter is Turkey.

Secondly, the only way other nations, mainly Western Europe, are acquiring stealth fighters is because the US and Lockheed Martin are putting pressure on them to but the F-35, so they can try to hide what a gigantic failure that whole program is.

So you admit the F15 was a great fighter despite the fact that is not carrier capable but you state that one of the reasons the F22 is not great is because it is not carrier capable. Do you not see the issue with that.

And yes one of the great features of stealth is that it makes an aircraft much more survivable. Maybe that is not a big deal to you but it is to me. And it is not just SEAD. It also makes it much better for taking creating air supiriority which is what the F22 is designed for. If the F22 can get middle lock on enemy fighters before they can get lock on them that is a giant advantage for the F22s. Even more so if they have AWACS directing them. Not sure this is even arguable. And designing planes to fight incompetent enemies is a great way to lose a future war. If you don't think non stealth aircraft would have much higher casualty rate as well as mission failure rate than the F22 in a war with say Russia than I don't know what to tell you.

Tell me why are Russia China and Iran trying to counter our stealth if is such a useless feature. That doesn't even make sense. And how is turkey the only country going out of its way to create a stealth fighter if atleast 3 other countries are spending tons of money and effort to build their own stealth fighter.

And no the US pressuring other countries to buy the 35 is not the reason they want it. No country is going to spend that much money for something they see as useless. Unless you can prove otherwise.

I get it that you are not a fan of the F22 but a lot of your arguments either contradict themselves or don't make sense. I think your dislike for this plane are overriding your common sense.

And one last thing. If that red flag you are talking about was the one in 2012 that most certainly did not play to the Raptors strength. It is my understanding that it was a primarily a WVR fight. That is not what makes the F22 so dominate. The are best at BVR range and it is what the are designed for. It is what they will spend most of their time doing in a war with a real enemy.

 

[Jredbaron96]

So you admit the F15 was a great fighter despite the fact that is not carrier capable but you state that one of the reasons the F22 is not great is because it is not carrier capable. Do you not see the issue with that.

You're missing the point entirely. If we wanted to, we could put an F-15 on a carrier. In fact, there were two variants developed. The only reason it didn't go through was because the Navy was already committed to the Tomcat. But you can't put a Raptor on a carrier. It's physically impossible. The F-22 can't go slow enough to land on a carrier, it'd rip the cabling and probably crash into the sea. Furthermore, carrier planes are designed to be more rugged and require less maintenance, the exact opposite of what the F-22 is.

And yes one of the great features of stealth is that it makes an aircraft much more survivable. Maybe that is not a big deal to you but it is to me. And it is not just SEAD. It also makes it much better for taking creating air supiriority which is what the F22 is designed for. If the F22 can get middle lock on enemy fighters before they can get lock on them that is a giant advantage for the F22s. Even more so if they have AWACS directing them. Not sure this is even arguable. And designing planes to fight incompetent enemies is a great way to lose a future war. If you don't think non stealth aircraft would have much higher casualty rate as well as mission failure rate than the F22 in a war with say Russia than I don't know what to tell you.

What wins in dogfights is superior situational awareness. Superior situational awareness requires not only having good situational awareness yourself, but denying it to the opponent. What this means is that aircraft must be capable of detecting and identifying the enemy completely passively. Currently, IRST and optical sensors are only types of sensors, except for Mk 1 eyeball, to posses such capability. F-22 lacks both, and as such has to either have an uplink to another platform – and such uplink can be detected and jammed – or to carry out both tasks World War II style, with pilot doing detection and identification visually. While F-22 was supposed to have FLIR, it was deleted as the cost-saving measure, and there are no plans to fit it.

Moreover, while some measures have been taken to reduce F-22s thermal signature, no major reduction was (or could have been) achieved, especially from the front. F-22 is also very large, increasing its detectability by the IRST. Thus, F-22 will be easily detected at ranges exceeding 80 kilometers by opponent using QWIP IRST.

Modern heat-seeking missiles also do not have to rely on engine exhaust for locking on the enemy aircraft, but can rather lock on to aircraft itself.

F-22 also isn’t undetectable to the modern radar, despite what some accounts say. While F-22s RCS of 0,0001 and 0,0014 m2 reduces detection range considerably, Typhoon’s radar (which has detection range of 185 km against 1m2 target) can detect it from distance of 18 to 35 kilometers. On the other hand, modern RWRs can detect LPI radars from ranges two or three times greater than such radars can detect target with RCS of 1 m2 at, thus making any use of radar an unwise course of action for F-22 (and any other fighter aircraft).

Tell me why are Russia China and Iran trying to counter our stealth if is such a useless feature. That doesn't even make sense. And how is turkey the only country going out of its way to create a stealth fighter if atleast 3 other countries are spending tons of money and effort to build their own stealth fighter.

The difference is that neither Russia, China, nor Iran have made any indication they want a full stealth air fleet as far as I know, whereas the USAF has indicated that's exactly what they want.

And no the US pressuring other countries to buy the 35 is not the reason they want it. No country is going to spend that much money for something they see as useless. Unless you can prove otherwise.

Lol wat http://www.therecord.com/news-story...ales-pitch-to-sell-f-35-fighter-memos-reveal/

I get it that you are not a fan of the F22 but a lot of your arguments either contradict themselves or don't make sense. I think your dislike for this plane are overriding your common sense.

Except no.

And one last thing. If that red flag you are talking about was the one in 2012 that most certainly did not play to the Raptors strength. It is my understanding that it was a primarily a WVR fight. That is not what makes the F22 so dominate. The are best at BVR range and it is what the are designed for. It is what they will spend most of their time doing in a war with a real enemy.

BVR combat is a pipe dream.

 

[braindrain]

You're missing the point entirely. If we wanted to, we could put an F-15 on a carrier. In fact, there were two variants developed. The only reason it didn't go through was because the Navy was already committed to the Tomcat. But you can't put a Raptor on a carrier. It's physically impossible. The F-22 can't go slow enough to land on a carrier, it'd rip the cabling and probably crash into the sea. Furthermore, carrier planes are designed to be more rugged and require less maintenance, the exact opposite of what the F-22 is.



What wins in dogfights is superior situational awareness. Superior situational awareness requires not only having good situational awareness yourself, but denying it to the opponent. What this means is that aircraft must be capable of detecting and identifying the enemy completely passively. Currently, IRST and optical sensors are only types of sensors, except for Mk 1 eyeball, to posses such capability. F-22 lacks both, and as such has to either have an uplink to another platform – and such uplink can be detected and jammed – or to carry out both tasks World War II style, with pilot doing detection and identification visually. While F-22 was supposed to have FLIR, it was deleted as the cost-saving measure, and there are no plans to fit it.

Moreover, while some measures have been taken to reduce F-22s thermal signature, no major reduction was (or could have been) achieved, especially from the front. F-22 is also very large, increasing its detectability by the IRST. Thus, F-22 will be easily detected at ranges exceeding 80 kilometers by opponent using QWIP IRST.

Modern heat-seeking missiles also do not have to rely on engine exhaust for locking on the enemy aircraft, but can rather lock on to aircraft itself.

F-22 also isn’t undetectable to the modern radar, despite what some accounts say. While F-22s RCS of 0,0001 and 0,0014 m2 reduces detection range considerably, Typhoon’s radar (which has detection range of 185 km against 1m2 target) can detect it from distance of 18 to 35 kilometers. On the other hand, modern RWRs can detect LPI radars from ranges two or three times greater than such radars can detect target with RCS of 1 m2 at, thus making any use of radar an unwise course of action for F-22 (and any other fighter aircraft).




The difference is that neither Russia, China, nor Iran have made any indication they want a full stealth air fleet as far as I know, whereas the USAF has indicated that's exactly what they want.


Lol wat Washington used aggressive sales pitch to sell F-35 fighter, memos reveal



Except no.



BVR combat is a pipe dream.

Look man it's pretty obvious that we are not going to agree on this. You are welcome to your opinion. I will side with the vast majority of the experts on the topic.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Look man it's pretty obvious that we are not going to agree on this. You are welcome to your opinion. I will side with the vast majority of the experts on the topic.

lolokay. Have fun with your "experts".