Added: 5 years ago
From: Vodka59
Views: 145,178
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (200)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • exelente el carrier

  • Whole at the USS Nimitz best two aircraft carrier. IMHO.

  • are those su-25's?

  • @Theairplaneguy4ever 0:23 yes it is ..

  • Quit the Russia / America sucks bitching, guys! This is just a video about a carrier. It has nothing to do with erasing countries from the map.

    Russia and the U.S. will never go to war against each other because neither side would get anything out of it except a *LOT* of dead bodies.

  • @antred11

    or Ash, Mutated Zombies, Mutated Scorions, 2 headed Bears, Fallout 3, andmore dead bodies

  • first song?

    

  • @juandisimo13 a song from top gun

  • @TrooperGyuri2 this is russian son not fucking top gun hollywood movie

  • @lepricoun -.- He asked the song you ******...

  • Beautiful ship! The bow is something to behold!

  • awsome vid.

  • I don't understand all the anti-american talk on this vid. This is one medium sized aircraft carrier. The US has 11 supercarriers. Nuff said.

  • @TheGrerex So, let me sum this up:

    -> Russia has one medium sized aircraft carrier -> The US has 11 supercarriers + various LHDs -> China has ballistic missile system that can destroy all those anytime.

    >.>

  • @OnlyLifeMatters Oh, yeah that ASBM that has never been properly tested and is countered by the US placing all of its anti-BM destroyers in the Pacific. We are also building more as we speak. Besides if they launch a Ballistic Missile at us we will respond in kind.

  • @TheGrerex Yeah, but are you sure that your anti-BM system can intercept projectile traveling over 11 mach? It's still striking odds. And yes, it's not been properly tested but neither has your anti-BM system.

  • @OnlyLifeMatters The Chinese problem isn't making the missile anyway. The thing was supposed to be deployed in 2009 but they still have no idea how to make a guidance system that can pilot a projectile going mach 11. The Chinese don't have the technical know-how to make such a sophisticated system that is still usable.

  • @TheGrerex Time will tell. It's an interesting idea though.

  • This ship's real name: Fleet Admiral of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov.

    Also, regardless of differences in US and Soviet tech, this ship is not one you would want to take lightly. It has air defenses the Nimitz class can only dream off, and more fire power than most US surface ships.

    *Flame shield up*

    *edit*

    1:27 See this is why most navies ban alcohol on board.

    

  • This ship's real name: Fleet Admiral of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov.

    Also, regardless of differences in US and Soviet tech, this ship is not one you would want to take lightly. It has air defenses the Nimitz class can only dream off, and more fire power than most US surface ships.

    *Flame shield up*

  • carriers are weapons to invade a country which can't defend itself or to show military presence all over the world. russia is one of two big threats to usa (2nd is china), because both countries are able to erase not only usa but the whole world. the weapon which would be used is called a nuke. in such a world 100+ carriers are not of much importance anymore, thats the reason why the cold war was named cold, because you have to be a mentally ill person to decide when "game over" is to come.

  • @aaaaaaaandi Sorry I dont know whats written in wiki, but i can see that you have no background in military or aerospace...carriers in the USN is primarily deterrent, and nuke? wow...amateur. Let me give u an advice - get yourself a job in naval engineering or aerospace engineering...then you will know that cold war is all about deterrent - and deterrent means "money & economy". Yes, US won the cold war because people in USSR decided that they all need to eat McDonald's. Simple.

  • @looxgood thats right i have no background, same as you, my expert friend, who claims that he has an idea of whats going on in military circles. nukes were deterrent...because in my opinion a deterrent is smth which i don't have to use just to possess. thats why russia and china are not attackable at the moment, second-strike capability is the reason (american solution for that is the missile shield in europe). carriers are not deterrent because you use them as attack weapons (yugo, iraq...)

  • @aaaaaaaandi US has 16 carrier groups at anytime - only 1 was used in Yugo and 3 groups were used in Iraq. the rest? Deterrent...listen even in US Naval Academy teaches that US Carrier group / Task Force are deterrent instruments.

  • @looxgood and what should be the reason to send more carrier groups for yugo, its airforce had smth like 50 fighters, how many jets are on one US carrier? 70-90 possibly more than enough to establish air superiority after blasting the whole defence with tomahawks. same with iraq. as soon as you use a weapon, it is not a deterrent any more. the US fleet would be capable of destroying 16 foreign 3rd world armies at the same time. that gives them an instrument to dictate world policy. nothing more!

  • @looxgood You know the problem is that no other country in the world has at least 20% of american conventional firepower. You say deterrent? from what? nobody comes even close, nobody even wants, chinese and russian have other problems at the moment. The only reason why russians, chinese, indians and other countries build own big weapons is because they have to catch up to avoid being treated like iraq twice, yugo, afghanistan and soon iran.

  • why cant people just accept that the Russians have done something good for once?

  • 5 year old kids need to stop this bullcrap argument.... Just admire the feat of technology when you see these pictures. Think that both militaries are equal and adaptable so there is never truly a winner. Its silly to compare aircraft to aircraft, as they would never be alone, modern warfare is dynamic, and everything supports each other, no element can be missing. This is true for bothe Russia and USA, the difference is verry small

    Sometimes it takes a bigger man to walk away!

  • The United States was fighting basically a three front war (Europe,Asia, Africa) and Italy could be counted as its own theater as well. The soviets had long awaited the Allied invasion in France because it removed German troops off the eastern front. Russia also had major supply lines coming in from the USA and UK, so this idea that russia won by themselves is dumb. Carriers serve a far bigger role the nuke Subs because as long as the idea of mutual destruction remains no ones going to use them

  • bla bla wait how many carries does russia have  o wait one lol

  • @cadetmarine You are just a child pal, you have no idea what Russia is and what it is capable of hen they go to war. If it wasn't for the Russians you Allies would have had a lot of problems, believe me. One carrier is all they need. Why invest in something that is obsolete? Go count the nuclear subs the Russian Navy has, then we'll talk.

  • @alxcsb Youre an immature child as well, not only for starting an argument at such a stupid thing, but for thinking russia has only one carrier cause "thats all they need" and for thinking carriers are "obsolete". Oh look we may have only one chocolate cake, but we have all the pink creyons so shut up. When you can count them we'll talk... Pathetic.

  • @Baalika Well, amaze me, and show me the other CVs of the Russian Navy. Please.

  • @alxcsb Lol, look at you :D I didnt say they have more than one, i said youre stupid to think they have only one cause that is all they need and cause carriers are obsolete. I told ya.... go and play with your pink creyons dude cause you have more than me or the USA or the whole world (thus raising your epeen) obviously :D

  • @Baalika That is all they need. Please read about it, get some information and after that i'll make a nice drawing with my crayons with a simple explanation for my above statement.

  • @alxcsb one problem most of your nuclear subs were either sold or scraped after the cold war so how about you study too and ill gladly restart a month old comment for this

  • It would be nice to have a common exercice between French and Russian navy. I would like to see that one day :)

  • Why did you put sad music for this video, it's almost as if you were announcing the death of the Russia navy. As if this carrier represented what was once the mighty soviet navy. The Russian navy is not what it used to be, we know that, but things might change in the future.

  • Udaloy's add another inner ring air defense platform, and gives a very significant gain in anti-submarine warfare capabilities with SS-N-14 Silex

    Not to mention the number of Kashtan CIWS systems that are now situated on just about every ship in Russian navy. Kashtan has dual 30mm rotary barrel CIWS and dual CIWS Grison missile cartridges (quad cartridge) and no doubt beats Phalanx CIWS

    Ignorants on here, you know nothing of how naval warfare works today

  • thats why it failed to shoot down a gorgian anti ship missle in the georgian war

  • @steamingpoopfart Um what? The russians never lost a ship in that war? Georgia sent Poti class missile corvettes to attack the Russian ships and the Russians fired back on the second attack and sank one of them with no losses? Im not sure where you got your info from though maybe you thought it was the other way around and Georgia won?

  • i heard this from russia today it said they lost a frigate i looked up the class and it said it had this system so it must not be that good if it sank

  • @steamingpoopfart Really? Can you show me the source of this im very interested into learning the details of this incident, i cant seem to find anything on google.

    Hook me up with some info, im really curious man

    thanks in advance

  • But if there is a carrier in that group, Kirov would need one of its counterparts and Kuznetsov and an oscar lurking in a forward position undetected, to slaughter and still survive. not bad redundancy for 4 vessels

    A Slava and a few Sovremmeny would add additional long range saturation ability and significantly more air defence capability including more missiles and a new unique defensive ring from Sovremmeny's

  • Honestly, i want to see this ship fire its damn granits ive never seen a video of it firing any SSM's in an exercise

    Russian navy is nice, they make great looking ships, and all of just about every class is extremely heavily armed compared to NATO counterparts! Its very true

    Look a lone kirov for example, nobody can deny that ship would be able to stand up to a NATO battlegroup, strike and run while defending itself

  • I love this video!

    BTW, why the hell anything related to aircrafts end up in a stupid, useless, baseless arguing about russian vs american fighters ?

  • ESTO SI , ES UN PORTAAVIONES ....

  • This can would less likely be a serious threat in a modern war.

  • Comment removed

  • Admiral Kuznetsov

    Armament

    Anti-cruise nuclear missiles:

    • 12 × P-700 Granit (Warhead: 500 kt fission-fusion thermonuclear) Anti-submarine and anti-torpedoes rockets:

    • RBU-12000 UDAV-1 ASW rocket launchers (60 rockets, range 3000 km, depth 600 m)

    Anti-aircraft-rockets and anti-small-ships weapons:

    • 8 × CADS-N-1 Kashtan CIWS (256 rockets),

    Anti-aircraft-rockets weapons:

    • 18 × 8-cell 3K95 Kinzhal SAM VLS (192 rockets)

  • well

  • Other:

    • 8 × AK-630 AA guns (6×30 mm, 6,000 round/min/mount, 24,000 rounds)

    Aircraft carried

    15 × Su-33

    5 × Su-25UTG/UBP

    24 × helicopters

  • well, in case of heavy sea, radar officers should get up and stand up...Frogfoot/Su-25 can carry more heavy"airtogroundMissiles" than Su-33, and Su-25 is the most effective attacker airplane Russia has actually got. According to Tom Clancy A.K. carrier was built in order to impose a naval blockade across Atlantic Ocean. After the conquest of Iceland merchant ships would have attacked by Tu-22M (land based), Oscar class subs and Kirov class ships, all protected by Ad.Kutz. Su-33

  • Hey if they use rolling office chairs in the radar room, then won't they get rolled around when those waves come one?

  • During Cold war the "duty" of west Germany was to make a "wall" against advancing communist troops. So it was given funds to have tanks "leopard" and infantry and Luftwaffe Tornado (=supersonic bomber with self defence ability). A carrier would have been too expensive and...unuseful

  • well a carrier would be a good "wall"..just put it in the middle of a street and it saves you a shitload of concrete to make.

  • but the soldiers or aircrafts could also be used offensive..^^

  • talk about crappy carriers

  • Glory to the Bolivian Navy!!!!

  • wäääh... why germany has no carrier?^^

  • Because Germany is only allowed to have defensive forces, and aircraft carriers are considered offensive.

  • Glory of deck aircraft!!! Glory Admiral Kuznetsov!!!

  • 2:14 holy shit! rough seas.

  • 2:54 "Das Boot", gotta love that music!

  • gerat! more shitty music:(

  • its great... not gerat

  • check your spelling! it's gerat!

  • Yeah right, so since your weird.

    The word great has become gerat?

  • you have obviously never lived in the uk since your english is so bad.

  • And youre an moron, since u spell great as gerat.

  • how high, or should I say low, your iq must be to take this seriously! or even to correct such a typo in the first pace! goodbye

  • its place not pace.

    Learn to type idiot.

  • Comment removed

  • what a a ship!!!

  • what is this song called

    great video btw

  • Its the Theme to Das Boot

  • Don't underestimate em. The Russians have a way of making things work.

  • Wow, is this the only carrier Russia has? I like how they use manual labor to push the planes around... if this were in actual combat it would probably fall apart. Please pardon my bias, but I was raised in the Cold War era.

  • yes it is, but russia doesnt need that much air craft carriers like usa because it is about 5 times bigger than usa and has a connection with 4 waters (polar, black and caspian see and pacific) it would cost a lot of time driving these carriers across this giant land. they concentrate their might on troops, ground battle vehicles, planes, stategic bombers, and a huge sort of missiles including nuke rockets.

  • So did you completely skip 00:50?

    Didn't look very manual to me.

    Where does it say if you want a ship with planes on it, it has to be exactly like the US has?

    This ship and its battlegroup would annihilate a US carrier battle group.

    Mach 3.5 ballistic trajectory (not atmospheric re-entry vehicle) cruise missiles are difficult to shoot down, and when you see ummmm alot of them, you know you got problems comming your way until you see that Russian flag on the side and then a bright white flash

  • Man what a piece of shit that thing is. I wouldnt put stock in any warship that has to be followed by a tug everywhere it goes in case it breaks down. Seriously, what a piece of junk

  • must be hard for you to cope with the fact that russia is still the only country on the globe which is realistically able to erase america from the map...btw, mig15 was also a piece of shit for americans but only until the first sabres got downed over korea...

  • good fact:D, like it allot, same thing for slimduce from me:D...

  • This progress does not stand still! There are many options for the destruction of U.S. aircraft carriers;))

  • @silvermitriy

    Anything short of a tactical nuclear bomb or several heavy torpedoes will not destroy or sink a US carrier.

    They tested this way back.

  • @lsdtnt

    Mig-15s were good at fighting bombers, but up against Sabres, they were seriously out performed

  • @lsdtnt we still only lost 1 plane per 12 shot down so your argument isn't really valid there

  • @bdawg5415 who thought mig 15 was a piece of shit? this guy is an idiot. btw his account is closed no use arguing with him.

    russia erase america off the map... ok sure if they wish to be erased as well

  • @OlderG0ds well it was korean pilots flying the migs during that time so no argument is really valid there and yes if usa and russia went to war both countries would wipe each other out with out trying to so it would end in a stalemate the way i see it. but if you tried to get an american pilot to fly tried to get a sabre pilot to fly a mig 15 they woul refuse to because the controls are simplified to then and they wouldnt know how to bring the raw power because of them being use to controls

  • @bdawg5415 There was a lot of Russian pilots in the Mig-15 during that war, unofficially of course but its proven they pretended to be Koreans , US pilots even heard Russian language on the radios

  • @OlderG0ds true oh so true but non the less if the us and russia quit arguing who was better and help each other out the world would be a lot more peaceful and we (both countries) would have nothing to worry about

  • @bdawg5415 I agree. I don't hate or even dislike Russia I have a lot of respect for it. The tension was communism vs capitalism which I don' really care about and that's long over anyway..

    Too many ppl are brainwashed by the cold war propaganda..

  • @OlderG0ds trust me im fully american but i know a lot of russians that are friends of mine and twice as many that hate us

  • @lsdtnt Erase America? I dont think Russian military is considered major threat to the US anymore. Remember, Russia/USSR managed to build only 8 aircraft carriers in its entire history since 1921 (with only 1 under operation so far) and the US built over 100+ since 1940 inclusive of EC. So we dont really worry about Russia as a threat no more ... their military is even no match to China or that of India.

  • @looxgood its not the amount of aircraft carriers which would decide a confrontation between russia and usa. carriers are not the kind of weapons which usa would use if to attack russia. this kind of weapon only does its job in 3rd world countries with bad air defence, just to establish air superiority for further invasion.russia is able to sink the whole us fleet, as usa is cable of doing the same with the russian fleet. the vulnarability of carriers is the reason why the su didn't build any

  • @aaaaaaaandi No, actual reason why USSR did not build more aircraft carrier is because, even admitted in the ranks today, is due to design and operating cost. I dont know where you've heard your theory but Russian Navy's still has trouble in keeping funds from Moscow to get its one and only aircraft "cruiser" afloat - the reason behind that is obvious - Russia's defense budget is less than that of China or India, or even Nato alliance operating cost.

  • @looxgood tohave a big "defence"budget is nothing to be proud of. usa spends 50-60% of all military budgets in the world, but its not for defence. if you spend 700 billion $ / year for defence then you have to show the enemy who spends at least half of this insane amount of cash for weapons. china spends 10% of that. usa also consumes 50% of the oil available. pretty thirsty for 5% of worlds population.

  • @looxgood to satisfy this thirst you have to make sure that countries selling oil can't decide on their own what to do with it (= 100+ carriers). now look where afghanistan and iraq are and which country is encircled by nato forces. thats right...I think the war won't be over soon...the strange thing is that usa always finds "bad" people who accidentally are sitting on big oil/gas resources. the "bad" people killing millions of people in africa are of no interest, maybe they are not bad enough.

  • @looxgood and the source of my information is the same as yours, its called wikipedia. same as yours because your comment is very similar to what you can read if you type aircraft carrier. so if you like to inform yourself in wikipedia type soviet navy > cold war

  • @lsdtnt Actually, erasing America from the map has become more of China's job these days.

  • @slimduce - Man, I couldn't agree with you more. No catapults either - probably to sophisticated for their engineering - hence the slanted deck.

  • @bluebelly07 Which system is better, the sky ramp method or steam catapult?

  • @TogieTung

    Sky Ramp:

    + Simpler

    + does not strain the airframe

    Catapult:

    + Allows heavier loads

    Conclusion?

    If you have aircraft capable of being catapulted, then catapult is better.

    Otherwise, you Ski Ramp.

    Doing Neither will be something like taking off on a harrier from a helicopter carrier.

  • @cr9527

  • welcome in greece!

  • In Rhodos!

  • We are expecting in GREECE to see this great carrier at our AEGEAN sea for combat training very soon!!!! Russian army rules!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • We Greeks welcome the Orthodox carrier to the Aegean Sea.

  • Just a different way of achieving same result, cannot say is one is better than the other.

  • Well not to diss anyone but American Carrier Operations are more stylish and more coordinated than the Russian's. I mean seriously, these guys are moving the plane themselves and they don't wear colored shirts and stuff :[

  • Well no heavy moving equipment, equals more weapons, more food, more supplies. They get a work out moving things manually unlike strapped for time Americans. Americans are run like robots just like Chinese, and frankly the same way my country (Canada) is starting to try and run my people. You dont know what its like to actually see it. Once you see it with a clear mind, you will never go back to it. I promise

  • you suck shut the fuck up americans and the allils are the real pilots!

  • Video piuttosto drammatico....sembra una denuncia....

  • If my memory is correct, the background music is from Das Boot. Good choice.

  • su-25 is not suited for carried landing, the landing gear are too narrow unlike su-33

  • lol i know, but still they are awsome!

  • Su 33, The Ocean bird from Russian Naval Air Force. beauty of a plane.

  • pucha que chevere poes que modernos casas rusos en porta aviones que tal tecnologia!! serte..?

  • Ahhhh the Russian navy... a pleasure to watch - something different from those hardass America fucks.

  • Don't use abusive language. Stay away from online blogs. I know you guys don't like Russians, but you probably even exist today because the Russians saved you from the Nazis. Let's face it, you join NATO only to spite Russia, but Estonia, by itself, is nothing but a tiny country that one can conquer in less than 24 hours!

  • u must be a really fuckk head retarted!

    america as been overpassed by china..and one day by Russia.

    it's just a matter of time.

    ull see

  • america has been passed up by china ???? in what way???? manufacturing giant pyles of fake vomit or the worse air on the planet to breathe .. the chicoms are the weakest people on the planet .. japan led them around by their ears for decades...their plan fore any war is human waves...

  • lol the F-22 is not a bomber you dolt shit XD its a fighter... and a shitty one at that fag boy... the F-22 has been grounded because they suck so much they actually brake apart in mid-air HAHA XD i feel sorry for you, you brainwashed fuckrag

  • speaking of dumbasses the f-22 is not grounded. You are confusing that with the f-15. The f-15s were grounded but are no longer. And an f-22 is unchallenged in the sky.

  • lol... woops looks like you lose XD faggot

    not only is the F-22 grounded but its being SHUT DOWN XD bitch

    "Senior blue-suited officials have argued the air service could transition funds in its fiscal year 2009 budget plan tagged to shut down the F-22A line. John Young"

    "What we are looking at by early 2009 is shutting down F-22A production" he added.

    HHHAAAAAAAAAA so STFU you stupid little faggot becaue you blinded by propaganda and you dont know SHIT fucking little fruit cake!

  • I miss the part where that says anything about them being grounded. Or breaking up in mid flight for that matter. All it says is that we have enough planes to handle your crappy air force and we don't need more. Dont take articles out of context because I research the facts. Also please grow up and dont resort to your gay bashing insults its just childish. The F-22 is not grounded and never has been. Also please dont resort to out of context quotes.

    Thanks

  • dude, sorry but su-37 terminator is far superior than f-22 in almost every expects, f-22 as an advantage on stealth but not on speed and armament. see some videos here and see the diferences... but dont say f-22 is unchallenged in the sky. peace 

    P.S= The F-22 was suposed to be an air dominance fighter, Su-37 Terminator just toke the game back on.

  • you with your nationalistic ego are blinded by some stupid military toys + 19th century macho-attitudes. care more about russia´s internal deficits! what about human rights and the well-being of all russion people?! there are no enemies of russia, its greatest enemy is the russian "elite" misusing russia`s resources for them while many others lead a miserable life. the future of russia lies in educated people living well with all the world, not in war. usa/eu is no excuse for you to do better!

  • It's ironic that a call for the human rights & misuse of the national resources comes from a person whose former leaders conquest and racial subjugation caused the deaths of 43 million people, including the systematic genocide of an estimated six million Jews as well as various other groups of people. FYI, the budget of the Russian Federation has a slight surplus for the next fiscal year; and practically no accumulated national debts; just recurringplease mind your own naïve business.

  • thank you for "reminding" me - actually i know about the history of germany quite a lot, i learned it at school. and why is it "ironic", that from knowing and understanding i come to the conclusion that human rights are indispensable and to be defended universally!? if people think in stereotypes and clichés, its either because they are too lazy to think or because they are not able to think for various reasons. anyway, you cant silence me. think harder or just shut up! ;-)

  • Human rights is an Utopian concepta nice addition to any other similar concept within any category introduced by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, give that a little fish has a much rights as a big fish let it (Darwins theory of natural selection); a poor person has as much rights as a wealthy person let him; people with some small guns have as much right as people with some very big guns let them. Please do not shut upjust grow upbeing naïve is not a formidable defense.

  • 2 PanzonTube

    These Su25s are two-seaters intended for training purposes only.

  • I'd like to see any flattop operate in *those* rough seas!

  • where's my bodka bottle. don't drink and fly.

  • Yes, it seems that Frogfoot doesn not like CV very much...... in any case, I do not understand their presence there. they have neither the range nor the number necessary for a tremendous alpha strike. I understand that there is nothing that an SU 25 can do that a Falnker can do ten times better. Cheers.

  • dude it doesn't use catapults so it takes im guessing 10-20 min to launch 2 aircraft

  • ouch...frogfoot doesnt like the carrier much...either that or the pilot was loving the vodka the night before...

  • Wow that Su-25 had a hard landing.

  • Anyone who comparing Nimitz class to Kuznetsov is a total fucking moron. Nimitz is a dedicated supercarrier while Kuznetsov is Heavy avaiation cruiser. Kuznetsov design to take on USN carrier battle group head on, with its heavy load of AShM and its impressive array of SAM, the fighter are there just provide air superiority, not for mud moving.

  • Indeed moron, Like if you know anything About Ships and cruisers...it's not about who has and who owns, it's about who uses it, if a baby pilots an F-22 it will fall down, if a Russian pilots a mig-29 he can own everything

  • The name of the two song, please !!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • "Das Boot" soundtrack I think

  • "Bastian's Happy flight " by Klaus Doldinger from the OST of the german movie "Neverending Story"

  • @Vodka 59

    are you habe video about "Pjotr Groste"?

    sorry for m englisch,my deutsch ist not very well too,even i live in Austria already near 15 years

    thank you

  • very nice

    and....it j found my ex husband an video.../last time i kook him vor 15 years ago/..pity only 3 sek ...

    aber i think ist is already ald video ,becouse hi arleady on another schiff und long time ago my be 5 years....

  • I thin it's tinny, can't carry as much planes than occidental (americans) carrier and electronic on board is downgraded, it's not awesome in my opinion. And like i say about other posted video, American war machine got shit to the enemy in any war where they participate.

  • Absolutely awesome video! Gotta love that Russian stuff! Thanks!

  • yeah that frogfoot didnt look too carrier friendly

  • Russian aircraft carrier is the most protected (for itself) carrier. It has the most powerfull anti-ship missiles and the most advanced SAM-systems.

    US carriers is just air stations in sea.

  • You guys are such tossers. "Our carriers are bigger than your carriers.." Obviously you're really lacking in self esteem, or size. Probably both. Why not just watch the amazing film and leave it at that.

  • As the Kuznetsov does not have catapults, its Su-33 fighters cannot take off with heavy payloads or at full fuel -- they carry only light air-to-air missiles. The main reason for keeping the Admiral Kuznetsov operational is to preserve its school of deck aircraft pilots. Today's press is full of reports that Russia is re-asserting itself with this ship....I don't think so!

    In in late 2003 and February 2004 it sailed to the sea for inspection

  • Nice footage of the small boy in heavy seas.

  • small boy? That is a 157 meter long Sovremenny class destroyer. God damn i am glad i am not onboard that ship in that heavy sea.

    Remember one thing about differencies with russian/us carrier. The russian carrier actually is a cruiser with air capacity. Not a hangar ship. They were mainly built to protect SSBN submarines. It has a very impressive weaponload, forexample the SS-N-19 anti ship missile..

  • Kuznetzov is a full carriers its the Kiev's that are the cruiser-carrier.

  • Perhaps the dude in the SU-25 just needed a pee really badly but didnt have a bottle handy. Great video though, theres just something about Russian aircraft. Maybe sometimes not as advanced, they're very often nicer to look at than a lot of western planes (perhaps excluding the Blinder)

  • The russian aircraft carrier is actually the world's largest.. i love it.. too bad russia only has one.

  • its not actually, that unfortunatley goes to the nimitz class (its about 33m shorter)

  • You guys are such tossers. "Our carriers are bigger than your carriers.." Obviously you're really lacking in self esteem, or size. Probably both. Why not just watch the amazing film and leave it at that.

  • NAH..just check out the vid..'Nimitz class aircraft carrier'...and you'll see for yourself that self esteem and size speak for themselves..

  • The only place I want to see a Numbitz is at approx. 5000 meter depth, with coral reefs growing over it.

    Something that Onyzes in wolf-pack formation will take care of any day.

  • nice video! nice touch and go by the frogfoot!

  • Did he really have to approach that fast?!

  • Check out" Launch footage on US aircraft carrier" or " Triple Tomcat Launch" if you want to see what actual carrier operations are like. (and done on a daily basis.) US CARRIERS have Fighter/ Attack, AWACS, Anti-Sub, and ECM planes on board, not just fighters.