MiG-29K from the Kuznetsov has crashed in the Med...

[Rhino power]

One of the MiG-29K's embarked on the Kuznetsov has crashed in the Med, pilot ok according to initial reports...

https://theaviationist.com/2016/11/14/russian-mig-29k-from-adm-kuznetsov-aircraft-carrier-has-crashed-in-mediterranean-sea/

-RP

[dead_pan]

Not exactly the most auspicious start to the carrier's combat operations in theatre...

Isn't it the first time it's been used in anger?

[Haraka]

Actually the FAA had a bit of a reputation in this regard. Glad the pilot is O.K.

[Cows getting bigger]

Fast aircraft + ships = occasional splash. As Haraka says, I'm pretty sure the Russians aren't the only ones who have form here.

[Lonewolf_50]

Yeah. One of the hazards of flying, and flying at sea, is that things can go wrong. Glad the pilot got out.

[Heathrow Harry]

yes - part & parcel of active op s - good the pil0t got out

[SpazSinbad]

Russians Blame MiG-29K Crash on Broken Arrestor Cable, Catastrophic Engine Failure 21 Nov 2016 Sam LaGrone

https://news.usni.org/2016/11/21/russians-blame-mig-29k-crash-broken-arrestor-cable-engine-shutdown

[Dan Winterland]

The aircraft flamed out while waiting for the deck to clear. No TAT (Terminal Air Tanker) it seems. The MiG29 isn't usually flush for fuel.

[Engines]

If the aircraft ran out of fuel waiting for the deck to clear, that's not one of your 'part and parcel', things go wrong at sea' occurrences. Nor is it 'part and parcel of active ops'.

If true, it would indicate a basic lack of ability to properly plan and execute a fly pro from the deck.

I'd also be interested to know what 'waiting for the deck to clear' meant. Aircraft parked in the landing area? Damaged arresting gear? Previous aircraft stuck in the landing area? Looking at the report, it appears that the first of three aircraft landed, the second ditched, and the third diverted.

However, best regards as ever to all those of whatever nation doing their bit at sea,

Engines

[sandiego89]

I found the 3-4 minute landing interval noted in the article linked by spaz interesting as well. Intervals on well oiled carriers ops are much shorter than that.


Engines if you read the article linked by spaz, the reasons are there: arresting cable snapped, aircraft directed to orbit with fouled deck, ran out of gas....Would not be surprised if he had already dumped gas to get to landing weight as he was next to land


tough business.

[Engines]

Sndie,

Thanks for pointing the details - my bad for not reading all the links. I apologise.

Snapped arresting cables are not uncommon, which is why the USN (and the RN of old) have well trained and exercised deck crews whose job is to replace broken cables as quickly as possible. (I was told the USN aim for about one and a half minutes).

However, it also raises the question of how many arresting cables the Kuznetsov normally has rigged. If one was broken on a USN carrier, day recoveries would normally continue using the remaining cables, or so I have been told.

It's also interesting that the article mentions a 'reserve arresting cable' - anyone know what that was referring to?

There '3 to 4 minutes' landing interval is also long - that means about 9 to 12 minutes to recover a 3 ship formation - a long time if the course into wind isn't where you want to be going. (like towards the shore). I am told that the USN aim for day recoveries about 45 seconds to a minute apart, as id the RN of old.

In any case, this accident shows just how demanding cat and trap aviation is.

Best Regards as ever to all those doing it,

Engines

[SpazSinbad]

HMAS Melbourne (das boot) had five arrestor wires in the A4G Skyhawk era (six in the Sea Venom / Gannet times) whilst three was the minimum strung for deck ops (LSOs would know if wot numbers from 1 to 5 were important in that three). With five set then No.4 was the target wire. I'll hunt out a photo of 2 wire ops on a 4 wire CVN??? (no name).

KUZNETZOV Video still frame here shows 3 arrestor wires only [maybe FOUR? No.1 just out of frame? - NOPE Indian Carrier has only three] at that time:

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/02/crazy-ivan-su-33-near-miss-wit.html (no workee now) :-(

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewNewAllBum/KUZNETZOVarrestorWiresFORUM.jpg~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewNewAllBum/KUZNETZOVarrestorWiresFORUM.jpg.html)

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/SpazSinbad/NewNewAllBum/2wiresSet4wireUSNcarrierFORUM.gif~original (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/SpazSinbad/media/NewNewAllBum/2wiresSet4wireUSNcarrierFORUM.gif.html)

[A_Van]

4 arresting cables there. The 2nd and 3rd are the main ones. On that day, No. 2 was torn during the previous landing and, even worse, it spinned around the 3rd one making it (and the whole deck) temporaly unavailable either.
Source in Russian: http://tehnowar.ru/52656-prichina-padeniya-mig-29k-kroetsya-v-dvigatelyah.html

[Whenurhappy]

Picked up on a Russian website as well.


23/11/2016 Russian jet crash off Syria blamed on poor decision-making
News Update 23 November

The loss of a Russian MiG-29K naval fighter n the Mediterranean Sea near Syria earlier this month has been blamed on a failure to promptly send the plane to a diversion airfield, after a problem on the ship it had taken off from.

The crash of one of the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov's jets reportedly happened on 13 November. The Russian Defence Ministry confirmed the accident the following day, saying the "air incident" occurred because of a "technical fault". (See BBC Monitoring report "Russia confirms its fighter jet crashed in Mediterranean")
However, Lenta.ru news website said today that the jet crashed because it had run out of fuel before any decision was taken to send it to a diversion airfield following equipment failure on the Admiral Kuznetsov's deck (bit.ly/2gBLHCL).
"The breaking of an arrester wire and delay in rectifying the fault were the starting point of the events. The pilot was forced to eject after using up all the fuel as! the command did not want to send the aircraft to a diversion airfield, hoping to quickly rectify the breakage on the ship's deck. Had it landed at Hmeimim [in Syria], let alone Cyprus, they would have had to report the incident and be reprimanded," Lenta quoted an unnamed source as saying.

An article published on a LiveJournal blogging platform page run by the Russian Centre for Analysis of Strategy and Technology (CAST) provided more details about the incident (bit.ly/2fROu9B).
Quoting an unnamed "informed source", it said the Admiral Kuznetsov's second arrester wire broke after the landing of the second of a group of three fighter jets that had taken off that morning. The broken wire became entangled with the third wire, rendering the system unusable and forcing the third jet to circle overhead awaiting completion of repairs.

The article described the situation on the deck after the breakage as a "mess".

The exact designation of the lost jet has variously been given as MiG-29K and MiG-29KR.

Source: Lenta.ru website, Moscow, in Russian 1215 gmt 23 Nov 16

[MPN11]

Cdr Air is in the poo, it would seem ;)

[Octane]

If his/ her fuel state was that low, it would seem unlikely it would have made it safely anywhere else anyway?

[Heathrow Harry]

one of the reasons they're out there is to learn - this was an expensive error but I'll bet it doesn't happen again......

[Kulverstukas]

Cdr Air is in the poo, it would seem ;)


At least he doesn't need to report his f***up. ;)

[Hangarshuffle]

Our own FAA lads and lasses were pretty well superb at running our own decks in their day. This crash strikes me of inexperience.

[Pontius Navigator]

The guy in the hot seat should make his own bingo decision. If the brains trust says deck will be clear, trust me, then it's their fault.

How many would trust the guy on the ground?

I know the RAF lost a Victor and a Vulcan through brains trust advice.

[megan]

The guy in the hot seat should make his own bingo decisionThey may have been in the position where they were effectively running blue water ops, as it's known in the USN ie the only destination available is the deck.

[BEagle]

If the politicians would stop bickering about Bashar al-Assad's position in Syria - and concentrate more on beating daesh back to their stone age - it might perhaps be reasonable for joint force efforts in the region to involve NATO AAR support for Russian naval operations from the Kuznetsov? Even just as an emergency option for aircraft unable to land back on...?

[AtomKraft]

megan
You mean 'the deck' and the 'bottom of the sea!';)

[TEEEJ]

http://www.janes.com/images/assets/775/65775/p1685724.jpg

Russian carrier jets flying from Syria, not Kuznetsov | IHS Jane's 360 (http://www.janes.com/article/65775/russian-carrier-jets-flying-from-syria-not-kuznetsov)

[Bigbux]

f the politicians would stop bickering about Bashar al-Assad's position in Syria - and concentrate more on beating daesh back to their stone age - it might perhaps be reasonable for joint force efforts in the region to involve NATO AAR support for Russian naval operations from the Kuznetsov? Even just as an emergency option for aircraft unable to land back on...?

Do you honestly think the Russians are in there to defeat Daesh?

While we're at it, lets all wish the nice Russian pilot a swift recovery so he can get back to bombing hospitals and flattening the city.

[recceguy]

lets all wish the nice Russian pilot a swift recovery so he can get back to bombing hospitals and flattening the city
You still celebrate the RAF and USAF crew who flattened whole cities in Europe 70 years ago, with hospitals and schools by hundred, and you would like us to cry now for what's happening in Syria with just a handful of bombs ?
Russians are here to do the job our governments are too shy to do - just be patient, wait for 2017, a couple of things might be changing sooner than you expect, and then you will change your comments for sure.

[Octane]

Assad is pure evil and the Russians are saving his arse, what are you talking about?

[A_Van]

He is talking about the real evil - Daesh and An Nusra (read Al Qaeda) who are real targets. All those "free armies" (backed by NATO and US) consist of a few hundreds combatants who are on a short rope with the Nusra and under their tactical command. Since they prevent to fight Daesh (though they were invited to join the efforts), they should be removed from the scene - obvious.


"Baby Assad" is the evil of the second division. This issued could (and should) be dealt with after the main enemy is defeated or, at least, dispersed.


"Blood and destruction because of one man" (here, Saddam, Gaddafi and now Assad) is a too simplified (or even idiotic) perception of the situation. The first two are already murdered and so what?

[Heathrow Harry]

"Assad is pure evil"

I'm pretty sure the poor sods in Syria woulsd settle for Assad any day over ISIS & friends - much the same as Saddam in Iraq

Not nice but for the average man in the street at least it was peaceable

[Bigbux]

You still celebrate the RAF and USAF crew who flattened whole cities in Europe 70 years ago,

Do I?

and you would like us to cry now for what's happening in Syria with just a handful of bombs ?

Handful or hundreds - it makes no difference. And why shouldn't you cry for them? or do you think it's all some kind of game.

Russians are here to do the job our governments are too shy to do - just be patient, wait for 2017, a couple of things might be changing sooner than you expect, and then you will change your comments for sure.

You are Vladimir Putin and I claim my £5.

[A_Van]

You may claim these sterlings (or bucks) from CNN as well, at least a half :-)
Even this propaganda tool published (yesterday) an article written by a guy who is positioning himself as a representative of "new Syria".

How President Trump could help end the Syrian civil war - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/24/opinions/trump-syria-war-opinion/index.html)


The author is clearly anti-Russian, but the baseline of his thinking is that US and RU should sit together and develop a joint plan.

Some quotes from the above article:

"The opposition failed to form coherent political and military institutions and to separate itself from the Al Nusra Front".

"Russia repeatedly urges the US to help separate the terrorist groups, as defined by the UN Security Council, from the moderate opposition."

"We have publicly stated that the moderate opposition should end completely any alliance or contact with Al Nusra Front and accept UN Syria Envoy Staffan de Mistura's plan for Nusra to leave Aleppo".


IMHO it would be incorrect to say that US supports Al Nusra (part of Al Qaeda) directly, but they keep their "eyes wide shut" when Saudis and Qatar feed them (with funds, weapons, manpower) and have a difficulty to agree that a "moderate opposition" is more controlled by Nusra than by anybody else.

[TEEEJ]

Extension of the NOTAM off Syria.

https://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Kuznetsov-area.jpg

A1416/16 NOTAMN
Q) LCCC/QWELW/IV/BO /W /000/295/3507N03501E045
A) LCCC B) 1611240500 C) 1612272100
D) NOV 24-29 0500-2100, DEC 01-06 08-13 15-20 22-27 0500-2100
E) RUSSIAN NAVY EXERCISE (TRAINING FLIGHTS AND ROCKET TEST FIRINGS)
WILL TAKE PLACE IN AREA:
342940N0343345E
343000N0350700E
343327N0351850E
343345N0353548E
354500N0352540E
354500N0345600E
350540N0344715E
F) SFC G) FL295
CREATED: 18 Nov 2016 11:49:00
SOURCE: EUECYIYN

A1417/16 NOTAMN
Q) LCCC/QARLC/IV/NBO/E /000/295/3511N03438E055
A) LCCC B) 1611240500 C) 1612272100
D) NOV 24-29 0500-2100, DEC 01-06 08-13 15-20 22-27 0500-2100
E) DUE TO RUSSIAN NAVY EXERCISE AS REFERED IN NOTAM LCCC A1416/16,
THE FOLLOWING AIRWAYS WILL BE CLOSED:
W/UW 17 (BALMA-NIKAS)
R/UR 78, M/UM978 (ALSUS-NIKAS)
B/UB15 L/UL620 (BALMA-ALSUS)
W/UW10, L/UL619 (VESAR-NIKAS)
R655 (BALMA-KOBER)
UR655 (BALMA-LCA)
M/UM601 (LCA-BALMA)
SFC-FL295
CREATED: 18 Nov 2016 13:35:00
SOURCE: EUECYIYN

Latest NOTAM Briefing | NOTAM Info (http://notaminfo.com/latest)

[Lyneham Lad]

Reported in The Times today:-
Jets can’t take off from Putin’s only aircraft carrier (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russian-jets-can-t-take-off-from-putin-s-only-aircraft-carrier-zm7frhdkd?shareToken=b8690da693f8bfd37a6d1cfcfc76409c)

[melmothtw]

Reported in The Times today:-
Jets can’t take off from Putin’s only aircraft carrier (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russian-jets-can-t-take-off-from-putin-s-only-aircraft-carrier-zm7frhdkd?shareToken=b8690da693f8bfd37a6d1cfcfc76409c)

A source said that the majority of the Russian detachment was moved to the land early on in the deployment “when they discovered they were a bit s*** at flying from sea”.

Class, thought I was reading The Onion or the Daily Mash for a second there.

[Engines]

Perhaps I can help explain this report.

I've previously posted about STOBAR take off performance limitations - even the Chinese Navy went public with their problems. Perhaps it might help to recap and explain why STOBAR has these problems.

The answer lies in how different types of aircraft can use a ski jump. A powered lift aircraft (e.g. Harrier, F-35B) has the ability to vector its engine thrust through a range of angles from right aft to vertical. That means that it can leave the end of the ramp well below wing borne flying speed by using jet thrust, and indeed just below jet borne flying speed by using a ramp - and this is the key to the performance gains.

A powered lift aircraft will leave the ramp with a positive rate of climb, and increasing speed. Rate of climb will start decreasing on exit (remember the aircraft is below flying speed), but the rate of decrease will be slowed by suitably vectored thrust, plus increasing wing lift. Note that the angle of the jet thrust can be optimised independently of the wing's angle of attack. At a point some way out from the ramp exit (around a kilometre), rate of climb will reach a minimum, (the Harrier used 400 feet per minute) and the aircraft will climb away until it can go to full wing borne lift. So, it's climbing all the way from ramp exit.

Powered lift aircraft also have very high power to weight ratios to be able to land vertically. That gives them good power to weight ratios even when fully loaded.

Finally, powered lift aircraft have flight control systems that work down to zero airspeed (e.g. Harrier reaction controls). That mean that the aircraft is fully controllable right through the launch and fly out.

All these factors mean that a powered lift aircraft can launch from a ramp with a given deck run more slowly, so with more payload and/or fuel than from a flat deck STO. It also means that ski jump launches are a very safe and low workload affair, especially at night.

STOBAR aircraft launches have a much more restricted envelope. The aircraft has to launch at a speed and weight at which wing lift (plus a component of jet thrust from high exit angles of incidence) is sufficient to keep it up and accelerate it. Of course, as the thrust can't be vectored, the only way to increase its vertical component is to pitch up - that increases drag and will at some stage reduce wing lift.

Minimum STOBAR launch speed is usually driven by the need for the flight controls to work - with a fixed deck run, that means another limit on take off weight to get the necessary end speed. The STOBAR Typhoon proposal eventually had to include an additional reaction control system to address the issue. Of course, that in turn reduced engine thrust, so.....

All these factors mean that STOBAR aircraft can't launch at anything near MTOGW. It's notable that every video I've seen of STOBAR launches appear to show light weapon loads, and I would hazard a guess that fuel loads are also restricted. I've also been told that some STOBAR launches involve allowing the aircraft to lose height (not just rate of climb, actual altitude) soon after ramp exit, and then to recover back to a climb some way off. That's got to be tasty at night.

This STOVL/ski jump stuff is, as with most aspects of naval jet aviation, harder than it looks and also amenable to damn good ideas. Us Brits have had quite a few, and the ski jump is just one of them.

Hope this helps,

Best Regards as ever to all those flying off the deck, however they do it,

Engines

[T28B]

Engines, what about using JATO in lieu of a centerline tank or a weapons station? Help, hurt, ever tried, or a bad idea from birth?

[Engines]

T28B,

It's not a bad idea, but does have some challenges.

The RN made some use of Rocket Assisted Take Off Gear (RATOG) in WW2 to get more heavily loaded aircraft off the deck. Most JATO packs (or RATOG) were designed to be jettisoned after take off, and positioning was crucial to ensure that the additional temporary thrust didn't cause large trim changes. A pack mounted under the fuselage on the centreline would cause severe pitch up.

The USN did put the concept to limited use, with JATO equipped P2V Neptunes being launched from aircraft carriers to provide the USN with a nuclear bomber capability. (However, these aircraft couldn't recover back to the ship). Later carrier aircraft (like the Savage) had a built in jet engine to give more launch power than two pistons could provide.

In the end, the British invention of the steam catapult solved the problem of launching ever heavier aircraft from ships.

As far as STOBAR goes, anything that gets the aircraft off the end of the ramp at a higher speed is good, but the safety implications of a 'one shot' rocket pack not working as expected are fairly severe. However, unlike the piston engined aircraft that used RATOG off carriers, modern jets are much heavier and would need quite some pack.

I do know of one aircraft that was fitted with a 'built in' rocket pack to assist take off, and that was the Buccaneer SMk50 for the South Africans, which had a system with two retractable BS605 rockets mounted in the lower aft fuselage. This was (I believe) designed to assist with operations at high altitude airfields.

If anyone else knows of a production aircraft with built in rocket packs, I'd be interested to know. C-130s use a system with multiple external bottles, but not a retractable system.

Hope this helps

Engines

[TheWestCoast]

Great stuff, thank you Engines.

Would any modifications need to be done to the deck and/or hull to prevent damage from JATO use, or would heat exposure time be negligible rendering this unnecessary?

[sandiego89]

The storage of JATO bottles or rocket fuel aboard the carrier would likely be prohibited by safety protocols, at least by US standards. Some nasty stuff.


I imagine the Chinese will be equally constrained with their ski jump operations.

[ORAC]

Well they always build something like these into the deck just in front of the blast deflectors........

oImq1glnOds:}:}

[noflynomore]

Thus STOBAR is a fudge that barely works at all, STOVL (powered lift) works within its considerable limitations (one being virtually unaffordable aircraft) but no matter how you package it, of the three methods cats and traps works best by a country mile...

[KenV]

but no matter how you package it, of the three methods cats and traps works best by a country mile... Indeed. And why USN has stuck to cats and traps all these decades. Of course this requires a serious investment to equip the ship with such and a serious investment in training to enable the pilots to use such equipment routinely in all weather conditions and at night.

[Heathrow Harry]

"Serious investment" is right and is why people are willing to adopt STOBAR & STOVL to save money

Not saying that's a wise decision but a full-scale carrier is vast investment for anyone - evern the USN have trouble funding new ones

[TEEEJ]

Possible design for the next-generation Russian carrier. Project 23000E Storm.

23000E Storm (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/23000.htm)

with four launching positions (two ski-jump ramps and two electromagnetic catapults)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_23000E

[Lonewolf_50]

And why USN has stuck to cats and traps all these decades. Of course this requires a serious investment to equip the ship with such and a serious investment in training to enable the pilots to use such equipment routinely in all weather conditions and at night.


Not to mention a redesign of the airframe to accept the launch and recovery loads which usually incurs a weight penalty.

[SpazSinbad]

On page 1 of this thread 'Dan Winterland' remarked:
"The aircraft flamed out while waiting for the deck to clear. No TAT (Terminal Air Tanker) it seems. The MiG29 isn't usually flush for fuel."

ADMIRAL KUZNETSOV at WAR Jan 2017 Babak Taghvaee with Thomas Newdick
"...A day before the Northern Fleet warships sailed, the Admiral Kuznetsov was seen at Severomorsk with four MiG-29KR/KUBRs and five Su-33s arranged on deck.

Equipped with new electronic countermeasures and aerial refueling pods, it was expected that the two-seat MiG-29KUBRs would perform a role similar to the US Navy’s EA-18G Growler and F/A-18F tanker. Otherwise, the main task of single- and two-seat MiGs should be participation in strike missions...."
Combat Aircraft Magazine January 2017 Volume 18 Number 1

[Engines]

Spaz,

Good spot. A little digging on the net shows that Cobham have delivered a buddy-buddy pod for the Su-30 (Type 754) and there's also a pod for the Mig-29 - actually, it looks more like a palette, I'm not sure if it's jettisonable. Link below - please ignore the title - the pictures for the Su-30 and Mig-29 are there.

Tajas FOC Updates: In-flight refueling probe testing to begin soon on LCA-Tejas (http://defence.pk/threads/tajas-foc-updates-in-flight-refueling-probe-testing-to-begin-soon-on-lca-tejas.441005/)

It looks as if the carrier may not have had its tanker airborne for the recovery. Or they just ran out of time as the deck issues happened.

Best regards as ever to all naval aviators

Engines

[SpazSinbad]

Thanks 'Engines'. Slightly off topic yet relevant - excellent archive of ARF material:


http://airrefuelingarchive.wordpress.com/
&
https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=%21AFNfHt1kh34kHBE&id=B4D5CE9900A01C54%21243664&cid=B4D5CE9900A01C54

[ORAC]

Alert 5 » A look into the arresting gear of Admiral Kuznetsov - Military Aviation News (http://alert5.com/2016/12/13/a-look-into-the-arresting-gear-of-admiral-kuznetsov/)

[SpazSinbad]

Video above has been edited with all the boring ruskie talking head bits deleted - see it before the music is probably muted - changed musick.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U2YEy4tX0o

[Lonewolf_50]

Love the video, Spaz, nice look at the recovery.

[SpazSinbad]

Well produced Ruskie fillum with good details & soothing martial musick PLUS reasons to be cheerful NOT from USNI.

https://news.usni.org/2017/01/06/russia-pulling-carrier-admiral-kuznetsov-mediterranean

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IiLArWYsLU

[ORAC]

Includes the outtakes - with the SU-33 ejection after a cable break at the start...

5CIn3SLyZXc&ebc=ANyPxKpGoLxYcM-v5xiOVxS4KHsLF01svISMpIL8bANwx2SDB2oju4hkpovMf3C-XnioqMQXcbAuhmv4h_EPNt0u_ptSravcYQ


https://www.rt.com/news/369209-admiral-kuznetsov-su-33/

[SpazSinbad]

The ejection seen at beginning of the above video was in 05 Sep 2005 (date on video).

[noflynomore]

It seems a little unwise of Cobham to be producing and selling buddy-refuelling pods for these things though no doubt they have all the legals in place to do so.

Just seems a bit risky to me. Why help their offensive capabilities when we or our allies are likely to be on the receiving end at some stage?

[SpazSinbad]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZrP8Wd_NvU

[MPN11]

When Kuznetzov finally goes into dock, where will we get our ... laughs, winces, giggles and OMGs?

I bet the pilots will be glad to be reassigned, though!

[A_Van]

Keep laughing at motionless HMS Duncan and USN Zumwalt "on a rope" being pulled by barge tugs :-)

[WhatsaLizad?]

Last time I checked, they weren't the Flagships of the Navy.

[Heathrow Harry]

What is the "flagship " of the RN? HMS Victory I guess................ and the USN? "USS Constitution" - only 220 years in service

No doubt we'll get all the Russian Naval Scare stories again when the Kutznetzov comes back up Channel......................

[MPN11]

Russian Kamikaze attacks on Walmington-on-Sea? ;)

[Heathrow Harry]

The Times - "Putin cocks snook at May"

The Torygraph - "Retired rear Admiral blasts MoD"

Daily Express "Reds sail past White Cliffs!"

Daily Mail " Our Brave Lads are watching Reds - from the dockside at Portsmouth"

Evening Standard "Tube Strike..."

[MPN11]

haha ... very good, HH

[Hangarshuffle]

Its still a peculiar British thing to laugh at other nations militaries but I think we should be careful what we laugh at. Certainly nobody is going to be laughing at our carriers flying upsets any time soon.Is it now 12 years since 899 NAS was broken up, the last of the FAAs proper Harrier squadrons so to speak?
If the QE ever is manned properly and works properly, and if we ever get the aircraft....we will see where we all are.
Its going to take years to get our carrier worked up and going properly with a credible TAG. If we can find and retain the engineers and technicians (which I currently doubt we can looking at the Ts and Cs of being in the RN.
Also, limited ship that the Russian ship possibly is, it looks to me that it actually helped win Russia's new little war.Sorry.

[Green Flash]

A question, if i may please?
What say the Kuz gets abeam Dover and the Admiral decides to launch some MiGs? Given the busy air traffic situation in this part of the world, do they have to NOTAM, flight plan, get permission, etc or can they just lob cabs into the wide grey yonder and give the Typhoons and Rafales the run around?

[MPN11]

In International waters, they would be advised to NOTAM. Coming up The Channel, there is so much Controlled and Restricted airspace that even Ivan wouldn't try anything so silly.

[serf]

Where to next for the carrier group, home port...or the Baltic?

[TEEEJ]

Admiral Kuznetsov now going through the Strait of Dover. Russian Navy Tug Nikolay Chiker position from AIS.

2017-01-25 11:36 (UTC)

51.07716° 1.641812°

https://goo.gl/maps/2n8u5Q1Cbjp

Vessel details for: NIKOLAY CHIKER (Tug) - IMO 8613334, MMSI 273531629, Call Sign RAL 48 Registered in Russia | AIS Marine Traffic (http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/shipid:4404011/mmsi:273531629/imo:8613334/vessel:NIKOLAY_CHIKER)

Russian Navy Tanker Sergei Osipov has passed through and is heading into the North Sea.

MarineTraffic: Global Ship Tracking Intelligence | AIS Marine Traffic (http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/shipid:351134/zoom:10)

[NRDK]

:D
4 RAF Typhoons escort the Russian carrier back through the channel... wow😜

Minus any weapons they must have frightened the Russians, not to mention a lowly frigate...

The best we can do after all the defence cuts to willy wave.😂

[Geordie_Expat]

:D
4 RAF Typhoons escort the Russian carrier back through the channel... wow😜

Minus any weapons they must have frightened the Russians, not to mention a lowly frigate...

The best we can do after all the defence cuts to willy wave.😂


What would you suggest then ?:confused:

[Lyneham Lad]

4 RAF Typhoons escort the Russian carrier back through the channel
Amazing that the Admiral Kuznetsov could keep up with them... :)

I know, I know - hat, coat, door

[Heathrow Harry]

Why would we want to frighten them?

We're not at war and they are going about their lawful business on the High Seas

Now, if they start building up the Goodwin Sands into a permanent island.........

[TEEEJ]

:D

Minus any weapons they must have frightened the Russians, not to mention a lowly frigate...

The best we can do after all the defence cuts to willy wave.😂

Why on earth would the Typhoons be armed? It is just mind boggling that you actually thought that they should have been live armed? It is just a training mission/photo opportunity for the Typhoons. Note that the ASRAAM is inert. Would you have preferred that the QRA was scrambled?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3BIaYsWgAAgzx0.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3BIaYsWgAAgzx0.jpg:large

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3BD6liW8AE1gnA.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3BD6liW8AE1gnA.jpg:large

https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ

[A_Van]

Frighten the Russians with these 4 jets, are you kidding? :-)

It is rather a contribution to the UK defence money cut:

The media found out how much Britain has spent on surveillance of the «Admiral Kuznetsov» | Latest world news (http://en.news-original.ru/the-media-found-out-how-much-britain-has-spent-on-surveillance-of-the-admiral-kuznetsov.html)

"The operation to support Russian warships cost the UK almost 1.4 million pounds, according to British newspaper the News."

[Satellite_Driver]

The Russians should have waited three weeks; they could have claimed they were re-enacting the Channel Dash (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_Dash) to mark its 75th anniversary...

[NRDK]

Exactly, Heathrow Harry...why piss about at all, wasting taxpayers money. We aren't at war, they are going about their lawful business.

TEEEJ..not even suggesting the crabs should be let loose with weapons!
More the fact we are engaged in a pointless, farcical display.

[Herod]

I note this time it's pushing out WHITE smoke. A better grade of oil in the Middle East?

[Hangarshuffle]

Yes it looked a little pointless. Did the French or Belgians do similar from their side of the channel? I bet not.
Who thought up this stunt and why?>that would be a good question to the SoS for Defence. I can half understand the warship....not the aircraft as such.
Purely for show and for the camera. It only encourages the Daily Mail, whose blurb was frankly embarrassing.
But with only 16 years since 9/11, perhaps RAF should be routinely armed for an immediate response, and shown to the public to be thus even in these ****ty photos - as someone once said, our aircraft generally perform better with bullets than without. Live threat could appear at any time in these crazy days. Recent use of suicide trucks in Europe proves the capability to improvise ad hoc.
Are they up to it? We have a very limited number of combat aircraft- they may as well fly armed - and be seen as such*.
Incidentally the RAF have nothing to attack a warship with. Stand to be corrected but the Sea Eagle has long gone up the Suwannee.
If God forbid action was required by anybody our side would it be bombs> Brimstone? dedicated anti ship missile? Komorant?
* and I make these comments because the public are probably ill informed, or if more knowledgeable then they are ill at ease with the UK mil. The performance of the military in recent times raises many questions about ability and more.

[BossEyed]

I note this time it's pushing out WHITE smoke. A better grade of oil in the Middle East?
Nah, it's because Putin's just chosen the next Pope.

[Wander00]

BossEyed - you just beat me to that thought

[Herod]

Nah, it's because Putin's just chosen the next Pope.

Priceless! :D

[Heathrow Harry]

best one in a long time!!!!

[A_Van]

Bravo! You've made my day with these two Ps!