MiG-29K from the Kuznetsov has crashed in the Med...
The guy in the hot seat should make his own bingo decision
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...?
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...?
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.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Clipperton island
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bigbux
lets all wish the nice Russian pilot a swift recovery so he can get back to bombing hospitals and flattening the city
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.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
"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?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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
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
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You still celebrate the RAF and USAF crew who flattened whole cities in Europe 70 years ago,
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.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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.
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
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.
Extension of the NOTAM off Syria.
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
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
Reported in The Times today:-
Jets can’t take off from Putin’s only aircraft carrier
Jets can’t take off from Putin’s only aircraft carrier
Class, thought I was reading The Onion or the Daily Mash for a second there.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Last edited by Engines; 30th Nov 2016 at 19:02.
Administrator
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?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: California
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
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.
I imagine the Chinese will be equally constrained with their ski jump operations.
