jamesdevice
Russia is re-inventing /revisiting both its imperial and communist pasts, and
is rewriting history to celebrate those periods as "heroic" eras.

No, it is not true. We can't start to do something that we didn't stop =)

And another one thing. All that you had write down here about the Russian Military is a bit far away from the truth =)

Rather poetic really (not that it matters in practice) - the ship sent to observe by RN cf the RFS Kuznetsov

RFS Kuznetsov
Laid down: 22 February 1983
Launched: 5 December 1985

HMS York
Laid down: 18 January 1980
Launched: 20 June 1982

Since 1:40

Was the crew room waitress a plant to make Western aircrew jealous? :ok:

I was in Moscow in the last year or two on a foreign Staff College visit. We were met with hostility by a 4* General of the Interior Ministry at the (former) Soviet Institute of Peace and Reconcilliation. I spent a Sunday morning in the Kremlin with my artists's sketch pad and was constantly questioned by all manner of police, officials and general busy-bodies. Colleagues were similarly hassled, hussled and generally pleased to see the last of Moscow. On my evening off I met with several expats for a drink in the old Arbat - we were followed and made to feel uncomfortable. My friends were full of some pretty lurid stories of life in err, free market Moscow. All reported on my return, of course.

Plus I couldn't read the menus...

I don't think so, sitigeltfel.....

Back when Gorbachev met Maggie at Brize, some of us were tasked to assist the crews of the 4 Il-62s involved. Mine was the one with the KGB security folk on board, who were whisked off to the Gateway for lunch whilst we sorted out the aircrews' requirements.

On board the jet (with excellent cabin heating, unlike the FunBus), the chief flight attendant asked whether we'd like coffee. We accepted with grateful thanks, whereupon her Rosa Klebb countenance morphed into a friendly prep school matron's smile. From the galley appeared 3 gorgeous little Russian hosties with excellent coffee and some very tasty Russian chocolates. We went out of our way to say how good they were and thanked them - they turned pink and scuttled back to the galley like naughty little schoolgirls.

There was only one rather dubious looking chap on the jet - obviously the KGB aircraft security bloke who sat brooding in the corner in his track suit. But we even got him to smile when I saw the nest of chapka hats in the overhead rack and began stroking and miaowing at them - by then the Russians thought we were completely bonkers.

Eventually the American navigator came on board (the jet was due to land in the US) - rather a petite blonde captain. When we heard excited voices from the rather ursine flight deck crew, I asked our host why the female navigator was such a surprise - "Surely you have female aircrew in your air force?"

"Da, we do - but none like her!"

It was quite a fun day - the spooks went into a fluster when 39 out of 40 KGB in matching raincoats returned from the Gateway. They obviously concluded that the missing man was either defecting or taking photos of the decadent capitalist hotel. But then he appeared all hot and flustered and out of breath. Much barracking from his colleagues, so I queried our host.

"He in lavatory - miss bus. Had to walk!"

Sometimes the obvious reasons are overlooked!

What were those visits that our lovely Russian friends used to make to our shores called? The ones that seem to require any door over a certain size to have a little yellow sticker on it which denoted the doors they were allowed to have a look inside?

I remember them visiting RAF Locking many years ago when I was fresh from the stacker farm. They must have been in awe at the knackered old radars they used for training and the every-so-impressive Gnat on a stick by the front gate.

Kuznetsov's aviation and deferce guns and rocket systems

Some accidents

0:29 Sukhoi Su-33 - taking off while brake is on

well-known video when the cable system if fail during the landing

Some cracking videos.
For those that think all is a bed of roses now and every one is/are friends now, it is worth reminding ourselves that only when we know what is normal in peacetime, do we realise when things might warming up for a conflict. First you need the capability though. Ah, I see a flaw in my plan. No matter the French will help us, perhaps, if we sign up to the Euro.:}

In my experience visiting people in a country is often met with a welcoming smile and hospitality, alas it is not they who run the country but the aspiring power brokers. That is why I think the WWW will be the best hope for the future, ordinary people can communicate and realise we all have the same goals and aspirations and its the politicians that cause us grief.

Naive, perhaps, but I'll stick with that.

Not so naive

But everybody should understand that there are a lot of people who listen not their virtual friends (these friends are normal, ordinary people from overseas), but their butt-headed governors like Putin or Bush.

I don't say for the US (or UK) but for Russia percentage of those "extra attentive-to-government" persons is not so low. Recently one russian guy published his experience in US Mariners Reserve. One third of comments were like "Hmm, interesting, but this way is not for me. Nevertheless, you did well". One sixth of the comments were "Well done, envy you".
But the rest (about half of comments) were "Fckng bastard, you are betreytor!" and "What you are going to do when Americans come to Russia with invasion? Will you shut me, my mom and my grandfa?". So, they do not understand that governments only are guilty in wars and to some extent they believe that you are some sort of traitor if you live, work, or are on the Army Duty overseas.

THS

OP REBECCA/EX HENLEY is what you were thinking of - CFE inspections.

just for completeness, this marketing video of the Su-33 seems pretty impressive
What gets me though, is how the Russians manage to launch these off a ski-jump with no catapults.. Why can't we do the same with a Typhoon? Or rather, why wasn't it designed into the Typhoon? No need for catapults, no need for expensive EMALS.
Think how much easier all the recent arguments over the recent carrier design would have been

http://youtu.be/203xKIYfsnk

1. Because its the recovery bit that Typhoon finds difficult.
2. Because it's a very space-inefficient way of operating a deck. Both launch and recovery modes require most of the deck to be clear, hence very little room for spotting a/c. Kuznetsov is bigger than QEC, yet has less sortie generation potential.

Why wasn't it designed into Typhoon? Because no-one thought that there'd be any prospect of the RN operating CTOL carriers again, the Germans, Italians and Spanish had never operated CTOL carriers and weren't planning to do so, and the only likely candidates for a future CTOL carrier aircraft were:

1. The French - who would build their own
2. The Soviets - ditto above
3. The US - ditto above.
4. The Indians - who, it was assumed, would either go down the STOVL route in future (because of their SHARs), or if they did decide upon a CTOL carrier in the future, they'd buy from the USSR or the French (or, at a considerable push, the US).

With hindsight, we (the UK) ought to have invited the Germans, Italians and Spanish to shove off/consider buying the F-16 or F/A-18, and accepted that by teaming up with the French (after explaining in words of one syllable to Marcel Dassault that 'bi-lateral collaboration' didn't mean Dassault having about 90% of the workshare and profits) and accepting a latent CTOL carrier capability we'd be keeping our options wide open, even if it seemed improbable that we'd ever go back to that sort of carrier operation.

The problem was that we didn't trust Dassault an inch after the various shenanigans with Jaguar exports; we didn't entirely trust the French (years of history and the AFVG experience) and we were used to working with the (West) Germans and Italians via Panavia. On top of that, a bi-lateral with France wasn't going to help the then-Sec of State for Defence's ambitions to become PM as well as a quadrilateral arrangement (how did that plan work out for you, Lord Hestletine?) and we weren't going to return to the days of having a CTOL carrier - and STOBAR was (at the time) the concept of a few dangerous loons who didn't understand the nuances of carrier operations.

With limited systems they are much lighter than eqivalent Western advanced A/C
Really?
F/A-18
Loaded weight: 36,970 lb (16,770 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 51,900 lb (23,500 kg)

F/A-18E/F Super Hornet
Loaded weight: 47,000 lb (21,320 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 66,000 lb (29,937 kg)

Typhoon
Loaded weight: 16,000 kg (35,000 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 23,500 kg (52,000 lb)

Su-33
Loaded weight: 29,940 kg (66,010 lb)
Max takeoff weight: 33,000 kg (72,752 lb)

So, Russians do not look "much lighter"


enormous fuel burning jets with extremely limited range,
Really?
F/A-18 Range: 1,089 nmi (1,250 miles, 2,000 km) with only two AIM-9s
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Range: 1,275 nmi (2,346 km) with only two AIM-9s
Typhoon Range: 2,900 km (1,800 mi)
Su-33 Range: 3,000 km (1,864 mi) with full armament

Here Russians do not seem "with extremely limited range"

PS the only thing is true is the fact that our a-crafts have an ancient computers

May be true of Flagon and even Fulcrum, but not Comrade Sukhoi's more recent products.....

Su33 has a MTOW equivalent to an F14, but with a lighter empty weight (unsurprisingly given single seat, no swing wing and no cat-rated nose gear).

Flagon? Something flying from the Churchill and Hitler years?

Flagon is at least better than Fishbed or Fishpot. :O

What about Mikoyan's - the last (35th) Fulcrum has the same MTOW as Super Hornet. Their ranges: 2000 km for MIG with full ammo, missils etc (9 rails with rockets and gun ammo) vs 2300 km for Super Hornet with only 2 rockets