@Elliotvisualeffects Really, what fun would it be if the humans lost? There is no message of hope and humanity can overcome anything in a movie like that,
Probably due to complexity, the americans had many years of perfecting their setup. Of the things the soviets would need to do are putting slots in deck, hydraulics to run the cats, and the equipment to support it. also the aircraft would need to be reinforce for the pull hook, wouldnt want the front gear pulling off!
@pakurangaguy: Some Sukhoi's and MiG's are STOL (short take-off and landing) capable and do not need catapults.
Catapults require stronger frames and wear the frame down because of the added torsion and thus saves weight to increase performance or use for extra weapons. It's a design choice.
The British have VSTOL (vertical and short take-off and landing) capable Harriers which do not require catapults either. The new "cancelled?" naval F-35 would be capable of VSTOL aswell.
@pakurangaguy: Some Sukhoi's and MiG's are STOL (short take-off and landing) capable and do not need catapults.
Catapults require stronger frames and wear the frame down because of the added torsion and thus saves weight to increase performance or use for extra weapons. It's a design choice.
The British have VSTOL (vertical and short take-off and landing) capable Harriers which do not require catapults either. The new "cancelled?" naval F-35 would be capable of VSTOL aswell.
@pakurangaguy: Some Sukhoi's and MiG's are STOL (short take-off and landing) capable and do not need catapults.
Catapults require stronger frames and wear the frame down because of the added torsion and thus saves weight to increase performance or use for extra weapons. It's a design choice.
The British have VSTOL (vertical and short take-off and landing) capable Harriers which do not require catapults either. The new "cancelled?" naval F-35 would be capable of VSTOL aswell.
The only war between 5 security council members would be exclusively nuclear, with global destruction. conventional weapons are only used in conflicts against military weaker states.
if usa or russia detonate their nuclear arsenal on THEIR soil, whole Earth will be wiped out.
@gulag1979 nuclear weapons will never be used because of the cost/benefit analysis of nuclear war. It is ridiculous both sides lose. If any war breaks out now days it is for control of resources or land. If you guarantee your demise by launching nuclear weapons then there is no reason to have gone to war in the first place. Nuclear weapons have been the greatest peace maker of the 20th century (all close calls aside). I am by no means saying I support Nuclear weapons, get rid of them all!
These Flanker pilots have got some balls flying such a big plane off of that little boat. I've read they plan to switch to the MIG-29K soon because it's smaller and India is planning to use it as well on their carriers.
I believe they're planning to switch to the MiG-29K because it's a smaller aircraft. The Su-33 is much larger. Right not, the Kuznetzov can only carry 16 planes. That's a very small air group compared to the 40 planes carried by the Charles de Gaulle (France) and much smaller than a U.S. Nimitz class carrier (90 planes). With the MiG 29, they can carry more.
@ShinyHagge I think the Ramp helps them with the launch without the catapults....think about it American carriers use catapults and the don't have the ramp at the end while Russian Carriers don't have catapults yet they have those ramps at the end.
@jdmifsud14 You are right but anyway! Look at the speed when they take off. Gotta have some serious thrust to keep it flying at that speed! Russia really got great planes in aerodyamic and power. Usa and europe got hi-tech planes but not that powerful! In my opinion!
@ShinyHagge true it does and should take more thrust/speed to take off for a carrier that has no catapults. but then again I am not familiar with Russian Aircraft so there is an opinion for both sides I guess.
The main disadvantage to launching without a catapult is that you can't launch with a full weapons load. Also, you can't launch as many planes in the same span of time and the planes have to use full afterburner to take off, which wastes fuel. The advantages are easier maintenance, less stress on the planes and better ability to launch in choppy seas if a ski-jump is used.
@bwana31 All carrier planes, even in the U.S. Navy, takeoff on full-afterburner; the only hope of potentially saving the aircraft in the event of a catapult failure. The main difference on the Nimitz is that the catapults allow you to launch further forward on deck from where you would have to otherwise; allowing more space to prepare follow-up aircraft for launch.
@l2ealllllyyy This is not correct. U.S. Navy procedures call for planes to rev up to military thrust prior to takeoff. Military thrust is full thrust without afterburner. However, I have seen planes take off from U.S. carriers with afterburner, while I have seen others take off without. Afterburner, as you point out, adds an additional margin of safety.
If there were a catapult failure, I do not believe a fully-loaded plane could get off the deck, even with afterburner.
@bwana31 As per loadout, the Su-33 is capable of carrying a much heavier payload than its typical BVR air-to-air ordnance; So, given that and its high flight endurance, I doubt whether its performance on account of the lack of catapults is compromised. The Su-25K might be another matter, perhaps explaining why it has rarely been seen since early trials.
@l2ealllllyyy It doesn't matter how much payload the Su-33 is capable of carrying, only how much it can take off with from a carrier deck without a catapult. While maximizing deck space is a secondary advantage of using catapults, the main advantage is payload.
Everything I have read indicates that this is not a design flaw of the Kuznetzov. The ship was designed to provide fleet defense. Its "ski-jump" configuration facilitates that role.
@bwana31 Yes, and aircraft laden with bombs would no doubt be compromised it terms of the armaments they could carry; hence my reference to the Su-25K. The "total" payload of the Su-33 may be compromised, but the extent to which it is compromised still leaves its "available" payload in "excess" of the weight of its air-to-air loadout. Thus, in the fleet-defence role, the Su-33 is not compromised by the lack of a catapult; having enough "net" payload to launch appropriately armed for that role.
@l2ealllllyyy I think we're arguing over something in which we're really in agreement. I agree with you that the Su-33 is not compromised in a fleet defense role by the lack of a catapult. That's what I was trying to say by my comment that the lack of a catapult is not a design flaw of the Kuznetzov. My original comments were intended for other commentators who seem to think that it is.
Russia's military don't suck, the Ak even out performed the m16 during the Vietnam and the US Marines and the Special Forces even adapted the Ak and the Mig 15 even matched the Sabre by the USAF during the Korean war and had a bigger punch and maneuverability than the Sabre...
@Greatnemo that`s another part of the USA game. Every movie in US which story is based on US military is censored ny the Pentagon. Top Gun passed the censorship but Full Metal Jacket didn`t, who knows why? :)
@1STACCS What a fuck could you ,Yale boy, know about Star City? You know nothing. Take shit out of your ears and eyes. Turn out CNN shit and talk to people you're talking about. It might help you to know how the things realy are, puppy
@corwin557 Everything the Russians have is rusting away or severely outdated. Russia can't even afford to feed it's people. The USA, during the Cold War, had to send food over their. Russia should be tried for Crimes against humanity.
@1STACCS Crimes against humanity? What are u talking about ? Look at the mirror, yankee. We didn't burn out villages with people in Vietnam, we didn't destroy statehood in Iraq starting endless civil war, we didn't bomb any country with nuclear weapon. We didn't start economic crisis in the world. And so on.
@1STACCS How many indians did you killed? And what about 9/11? Or you're still think that that was some Usama shit ? WE didn't killed our own people, motherfucker. Communists did that. But there's no more communists in my country. By the way it's our own business. So get out your head out of your ass and eat shit, stupid yankee.You're not the masters of the world never 've been and will never be. It's not your part to teach us or anyone else how to live. Burn in hell, yankee.
@corwin557 Your good friend Stalin killed 70 million Russians. Your govenment can't feed it's own people. And, your rockets blew up on the lauch pad and blew up a whole city. We have to save you from yourselves! You kill yourselves
@1STACCS Stalin was a fellow countryman of your's good friend Saakashvilli - georgian. So continue to lick his ass and to make laugh people all over the world, yankee's shit. And by the way - you're too stupid to study in Yale, according to your posts and knowledge of subject you're trying to talk about. Stop dishonouring the name of Yale University and shut your fuck up
@1STACCS According to your posts - that's a lie. Stop thinking that you can teach someone to live. It's my country and my life. To me it's already boring to continue this conversation.
@corwin557 Why doesn't your country design a submarine that doesn't blow up when it launches a single torpedo? How about a rocket that doesn't blow up a whole city when it launches.
The Russian military is not a world power. It is outdated, rusting away, and underfunded. Get real.
@1STACCS What are fuck are you talking about ? We have a lot of submarines that does not blow up when nuclear rocket targeted to your cities will start even underwater even underice (watch "K19" with H.Ford). If you're talking about "Kursk" shut your fuck up, you don't know that story. And what a fucking blowing up city you're talking about, little shit?
@corwin557 First off, the missiles on your submarines would not even launch, the wires are corroded away, the controls too old too work, and even if one missile lauched, they would be shot down from space by space based chemical lasers or airborn lasers. Or, it might even blow up in the submarine itself. This is all assuming you even have a submarine at see with missiles. You can't afford to pay the crew to operate one! If
@1STACCS Just FUCK OFF motherfucking pendos!!! You're realy annoying me. Study your fucking lessons at your fucking school,. grow fucking up and then come back to talk, little puppy shit
@corwin557 Just make something that doesn't blow up your country. American scientists have to go over there to make sure you don't blow yourselves up!
@corwin557 Oh, yes, a new experimental torpedo that was already old technology for the USA. It blew the whole Kursk up. We even tried to help with Norway, but the Russians let their own crew die! That is why, Russia should be invaded and tried for high crimes against humanity and crimes against the environment. You shut your fuckin' pie hole and take it good.
@1STACCS Save yourself and all other nations from yourselves. By the way "yankee" is to much for you - you just another stupid PENDOS admiring the globe of America.
@corwin557 We are teaching the people of Russia how to live. It is nice to enjoy American pleasures such as internet and computers and nice cars, right? How would you like to go back to old Soviet style living, not that you are too far from it.
@1STACCS You're not teaching us, you're just think that you do, little shit. Internet and computers (mostly made in China) is not only pendoses pleasures any more.Your cars is big peace of shit that no one buy (even in United States of Pendosia) any more. Your car factories is owned by Japanese and Chinese. Go check your abstracts and then come back to chat
@1STACCS And by the way, yankee, Cold war is over, if you haven't noticed yet. But we still can kick your ass, and you're still afraid of that. If you want normal conversation you're have to reject stereotypes. If don't - Continue to shiver with fear
@1STACCS Grow up yourself, puppy. India is our friends,you know,puppy. To burn you in hell we don't need any aircraft carrier, we have enough of "Topol-M" rockets, puppy. And you ARE full fears, that's why so many talks about antimissile defence, or you're realy think that's because of Iran or N.Corea. Ha-ha-ha.Shake your ass to the next bombproof shelter Yale boy. By the way - It's not 80s and not 90s and you're not feeding us. But we're own your debts, as China do. Scared?
@corwin557 We are not scared of you. We KNOW Russia's capabilities. Your country is in ruin. You cannot even launch a single torpedo without blowing up an entire OSCAR II Submarine-the Kursk.
@1STACCS Eat shit pendos. You know only things we let you and some anti Russia propaganda shit from CNN. You know Nothing else. And you're NOT FEEDING us dumbass. Notice it into you fucking yankee's brain, if you have it.
@1STACCS Of cause,puppy. Try us and you will know how the thing realy are. But you won't, cause you scared to fight even Iran. You totaly fucked up in Afghanistan and Iraq. All that you will get from there - flag covered coffins - stupid waste of human material.
@1STACCS Homo? Yes I'm a homo sapiens if you mean that. But if you looking for a gay company - it's not me. Puppy - cause you to young and naive in you reasonings.
They don't need the ramp, they use it as a back-up and for practicing as you see here. There are two runways and one has a catapult. I guess it's a fail safe that if the catapult where to break the planes could still take off using the ramp. The more modern variants don't have a ramp as they incorporate multiple back-up systems to ensure the catapult doesn't fail.
101andrewj, Google Image Search american aircraft carriers. Once jets started being used, ALL carriers since have two runways. One straight ahead, one at an angle for aircraft recovery.
I have great respect for the skill of these pilots! They must do everything themselves, not many electronics involved here!
As a merchant seaman I can´t help but finding the bridge somewhat oldfashioned.. It does its job, obviously, but why does East-Block equipment always have to look so ..unsexy?
this russian carriers actually have 2 runways on them.... one has a catipult and a ramp for takeoffs.... and the other is behind it for landings....... american carriers only have 1 runway and they use it for both
That answers my question of if Russia has its carrier on duty agin now out at sea. I noticed it looks like the catapult launch speed is slower than on American carriers. Thats probably the reason for the ramp at the end of the deck. Kinda reminds me of a stunt on a Jackass video. lol. Just kidding.
You americans are clueless If you think the Sukhoi Flanker is obsolete think again. It has always had superior guns, engine and airframe to anything in the west especially carrier based.
Only thing it lagged behind in was electronics and avionics, now with the latest versions having israeli/ french assistance in those areas, it is superior to anything currently in the air bar probably the f-22 raptor.
Dont think the western powers have ever faced a Flanker as only certain air forces have had it, best thing the USAF faced in the Gulf Wars was the Mig-29 flown by poorly trained Iraqi pilots. Russian pilots in a Flanker would be a different scenario.
Watch dogfights on Discovery, even the top American pilots from the 48th TFW said they would be in trouble if the Iraqis new how to fly the Mig-29
Guns< Missiles. Engines as compared to what? F-15's have been downing migs and SU's for YEARS. Airframe.. I'll give it that, but when an ANYTHING Eastern Block can fly with 3/4 of its wing gone, like an F-15 (30 years old now) THEN tell me about Eastern Block "supremacy." P.S.- Israeli's and the French BOTH get THEIR electronics AND Avionics from who? *scratches chin* hmm.. yes, America.. So.. what were ya saying?
@madaboutdeltics yeah the flanker is nothing to sneeze at especially the ones being flown by these guys... Thier navy pilots have to be good just like american carrier pilots.. landing on a bouncing plank of metal separates the men from the boys
Since it lacks a catapult, the Flankers only carry limited fuel and a few missiles. Su-33 hasn't been modernised so its systems are rather anitquated. MiG-29K will be more potent.
Well if you launch from those front two positions, yeah, it can only do air-superiority missions. But there is a third launch spot admidship where you can launch a fully loaded Su-33.
Our engines have super cruise capability and are more reliable than the Russian engines. Our micro processors are way more advanced too. Airframe design is where the Russians are masters. You guys a more mechanical where as we are more computer orientated. If the MP's went down on our jets then they would quite simply fall out of the sky although it's these which giev out jets the capability os care free handling.
The advantage of our technology is that you can put a kid in a EF for example and he could fly it. You have to be ace pilots to be able to master Russian jets though. Flanker is obselete now when it comes to BVR combat. I have data showing the tests of updated Flankers vs EF, F22, Rafael, F15. F18, F16. Putin has promised new engines for the T-50 for the reasons I have given..namely reliability.
The Russians are phasing out the plane. So, in that sense it is outdated - not in the sense that it has outlived its usefulness, but in the sense that the Russians have re-evaluated their priorities. My guess is that the Flanker is very expensive - The entire Russian Air Force operates only 38 of the upgraded versions (Su-30 thru 35. They still operate over 400 of the older, less advanced, Su-27's). The Russians may have decided to go with greater numbers of a less expensive plane.
@samy3310 Yeah, but they are no good if they can't even lauch. Even if the missiles lauch, they get shot down before they even come close to US ships. Such poor low technology the Russians have. Remember when the Japs defeated them in 1905 during the Russo Japanese War? lol
the Reds always have the ugliest helo's and all the fighter jets that they didn't copy from the US are ugly too, their aircraft are too stubby looking they obviously get the job done even though one of our WWII trainers shot down the first Mig in Vietnam and then Afghanistan when our shoulder missiles shot down 300+ of their aircraft
yea big ups to the Russians but those ships look pretty low tech. Good on them for trying tho. but im sure they've got some better hardware out there than that.. surely?
Not really, the Russian army is in desperate need of modernisation. Its only carrier was built in 1982 and no new ones are currently being built. Most Russian military tech is pre-1990, it main strength lies in the sheer force of manpower it holds.
Awesome video, so well put together, respect for the Russian forces. They may not have the budget of the US military, but they sure know how to get the most out of their hardware.
All that shit looks like a bunch of tugboats, USA would spank that ass......... The Capitan looks like, "shit I hate this ship, it really sucks"...........
I wont be last all these guys and talk shit...I dont see any smack talking about them being better than western carriers cause we know that would be stupid...
all i gotta say is" Russia stop selling your carriers to china!!!"
But yeah for some reason i always like the colors and looks of the flankers! lol
but seriously you guys should think about doing a paint job on all your carriers...you pay alot for it so you should take care of it!
Just think about the following: not so long time ago (march of 2009) by results of inspection the HALF of all russians mig-29 were recognized as unusable. they became rusty
BTW, Su-27 and Mig-29 are "yanger" than F-15 F-16. And what about such pensioners, like B-52 and others?)) USA warfare is much more older than russian one.
@NeshRRR Everything the Russians have is junk. Even the wires to ICBM's missiles are corroded away! 75% of the Missiles would not even lauch and probably explode in the silos! And the soldier pressing the button hasn't eaten, nor has he been paid yet! lol
It would be unfairly to show this ship and not to say that there is only one aircraft carrier in russia. its not a joke. you can see this video and video about su-47 and others. but it is just deceptive appearance that russia has good fighters/bombers/warships/tanks and etc.
Russian planes have superior aerodynamics and engines (unlike that other unimportant nation I won't mention), they can take off easily without catapults.
And Kuznetsov is a REAL battle unit, able to fend for himself, not just a rediculous floating barge with a flight deck painted on top.
The Kuznetsov is more likely to shut down due to maintenance issues in the next few years than to succumb to enemy attack... There are jokes that the best way to find the ship is just follow the oil slick..
As long as its not an actual dogfight The F-18 doesnt need superior aerodynamics, it just needs to recognize and shoot down the enemy first. And its electronics give it a pretty good lead in that regard.
Su-35 has a better radar than f-18 anyway and R-27 rockets are proven to be better than ammrams and sidewinders so well see who would win in this situatuation. if u like american technology so much why do u even bother typing in russian planes in the search window.
Granted R-77 has longer range and speed but Ammram has just as good terminal mode radar, it also has intelligent anti-jamming and jammer source attack mode.
The new D version is said to have the same range as R-77. Plus The new E-18 Growler is said to be able to jam ANY surface to air or air to air missle made. If russians encounter one of these in a fight, they might as well throw rocks.
From what I understand if the EA-18 is outfitted with 5 jamming pods, it can track and jam 5 different incoming radar missiles all at the same time.... and also jam enemy communications in the area.. And shoot its own missiles at threats while doing that... Growler is a bad dog :-)
wow youtube destroyed my video... first they muted my music so then I selected for them to do audioswap, now, vid looks like crap... total waste of time i went thru getting video made and uploaded.
@Elliotvisualeffects Really, what fun would it be if the humans lost? There is no message of hope and humanity can overcome anything in a movie like that,
javakris 6 months ago
Probably due to complexity, the americans had many years of perfecting their setup. Of the things the soviets would need to do are putting slots in deck, hydraulics to run the cats, and the equipment to support it. also the aircraft would need to be reinforce for the pull hook, wouldnt want the front gear pulling off!
fairlanejay 8 months ago
Why didnt the soviet navy choose 'catapult' to launch the fighters airborne?
pakurangaguy 8 months ago
@pakurangaguy: Some Sukhoi's and MiG's are STOL (short take-off and landing) capable and do not need catapults.
Catapults require stronger frames and wear the frame down because of the added torsion and thus saves weight to increase performance or use for extra weapons. It's a design choice.
The British have VSTOL (vertical and short take-off and landing) capable Harriers which do not require catapults either. The new "cancelled?" naval F-35 would be capable of VSTOL aswell.
SgtH3nry3 5 months ago
@pakurangaguy: Some Sukhoi's and MiG's are STOL (short take-off and landing) capable and do not need catapults.
Catapults require stronger frames and wear the frame down because of the added torsion and thus saves weight to increase performance or use for extra weapons. It's a design choice.
The British have VSTOL (vertical and short take-off and landing) capable Harriers which do not require catapults either. The new "cancelled?" naval F-35 would be capable of VSTOL aswell.
SgtH3nry3 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pakurangaguy: Some Sukhoi's and MiG's are STOL (short take-off and landing) capable and do not need catapults.
Catapults require stronger frames and wear the frame down because of the added torsion and thus saves weight to increase performance or use for extra weapons. It's a design choice.
The British have VSTOL (vertical and short take-off and landing) capable Harriers which do not require catapults either. The new "cancelled?" naval F-35 would be capable of VSTOL aswell.
SgtH3nry3 5 months ago
хахахха у Россие только один авианосец!А у Америки их 113!!
hahahah Russia have only 1 aircraft but Usa have 13 or more aircrafts
UsaIceman100 10 months ago
Плавающие вёдра одни !
rkmit1 11 months ago
Russia need Ulyanovsk class super carries
xsf908 1 year ago
The only war between 5 security council members would be exclusively nuclear, with global destruction. conventional weapons are only used in conflicts against military weaker states.
if usa or russia detonate their nuclear arsenal on THEIR soil, whole Earth will be wiped out.
gulag1979 1 year ago
@gulag1979 nuclear weapons will never be used because of the cost/benefit analysis of nuclear war. It is ridiculous both sides lose. If any war breaks out now days it is for control of resources or land. If you guarantee your demise by launching nuclear weapons then there is no reason to have gone to war in the first place. Nuclear weapons have been the greatest peace maker of the 20th century (all close calls aside). I am by no means saying I support Nuclear weapons, get rid of them all!
zpressley 11 months ago
this type of carrier dont need a catapult...only USN CV Needs :P
nicktk 1 year ago
catapults are a childrens toy! no place on a russian carrier.
megabigjetfreak 1 year ago
Americans always win in the movies,can't say that in real life.
Iraq you say ? Against which army ? Peasants with AK's is not an army.
Afghanistan you say ? Soldiers fighting against goat herders on mountains.
Stop watching to much Hollywood movies,try Russia or China for an instance,whole another story there i tell you. :)
VohnKarWarrior 1 year ago
Comment removed
zpressley 1 year ago
@zpressley, The "ski-jump" was copied from the British Invincible class light carriers.
TheCharlie359 1 year ago
@TheCharlie359 wow some idiot is using my youtube channel. Stop making comments and sign out.
zpressley 1 year ago
@zpressley, How bout fuck off cunt! facts are facts, get over it1
TheCharlie359 1 year ago
@TheCharlie359 REMOVE YOUR COMMENT OR GET REPORTED ;)
dpapaioannow 11 months ago
@dpapaioannow, Remove yours!
TheCharlie359 11 months ago
@TheCharlie359 REPORTED ;)
dpapaioannow 11 months ago
@zpressley you should report him...i did
dpapaioannow 11 months ago
These Flanker pilots have got some balls flying such a big plane off of that little boat. I've read they plan to switch to the MIG-29K soon because it's smaller and India is planning to use it as well on their carriers.
1st503rdSGT 1 year ago
I believe they're planning to switch to the MiG-29K because it's a smaller aircraft. The Su-33 is much larger. Right not, the Kuznetzov can only carry 16 planes. That's a very small air group compared to the 40 planes carried by the Charles de Gaulle (France) and much smaller than a U.S. Nimitz class carrier (90 planes). With the MiG 29, they can carry more.
bwana31 1 year ago
what is this?a tug boat?:)
cowboylionzden 1 year ago
That is real power! The migs are launching without catapults!
ShinyHagge 1 year ago
@ShinyHagge I think the Ramp helps them with the launch without the catapults....think about it American carriers use catapults and the don't have the ramp at the end while Russian Carriers don't have catapults yet they have those ramps at the end.
jdmifsud14 1 year ago
@jdmifsud14 You are right but anyway! Look at the speed when they take off. Gotta have some serious thrust to keep it flying at that speed! Russia really got great planes in aerodyamic and power. Usa and europe got hi-tech planes but not that powerful! In my opinion!
ShinyHagge 1 year ago
@ShinyHagge true it does and should take more thrust/speed to take off for a carrier that has no catapults. but then again I am not familiar with Russian Aircraft so there is an opinion for both sides I guess.
jdmifsud14 1 year ago
@ShinyHagge the ramp helps too. :)
zpressley 1 year ago
@ShinyHagge Meant the su:s!
ShinyHagge 1 year ago
The main disadvantage to launching without a catapult is that you can't launch with a full weapons load. Also, you can't launch as many planes in the same span of time and the planes have to use full afterburner to take off, which wastes fuel. The advantages are easier maintenance, less stress on the planes and better ability to launch in choppy seas if a ski-jump is used.
bwana31 1 year ago
@bwana31 All carrier planes, even in the U.S. Navy, takeoff on full-afterburner; the only hope of potentially saving the aircraft in the event of a catapult failure. The main difference on the Nimitz is that the catapults allow you to launch further forward on deck from where you would have to otherwise; allowing more space to prepare follow-up aircraft for launch.
l2ealllllyyy 1 year ago
@l2ealllllyyy This is not correct. U.S. Navy procedures call for planes to rev up to military thrust prior to takeoff. Military thrust is full thrust without afterburner. However, I have seen planes take off from U.S. carriers with afterburner, while I have seen others take off without. Afterburner, as you point out, adds an additional margin of safety.
If there were a catapult failure, I do not believe a fully-loaded plane could get off the deck, even with afterburner.
bwana31 1 year ago
@bwana31 As per loadout, the Su-33 is capable of carrying a much heavier payload than its typical BVR air-to-air ordnance; So, given that and its high flight endurance, I doubt whether its performance on account of the lack of catapults is compromised. The Su-25K might be another matter, perhaps explaining why it has rarely been seen since early trials.
l2ealllllyyy 1 year ago
@l2ealllllyyy It doesn't matter how much payload the Su-33 is capable of carrying, only how much it can take off with from a carrier deck without a catapult. While maximizing deck space is a secondary advantage of using catapults, the main advantage is payload.
Everything I have read indicates that this is not a design flaw of the Kuznetzov. The ship was designed to provide fleet defense. Its "ski-jump" configuration facilitates that role.
bwana31 1 year ago
@bwana31 Yes, and aircraft laden with bombs would no doubt be compromised it terms of the armaments they could carry; hence my reference to the Su-25K. The "total" payload of the Su-33 may be compromised, but the extent to which it is compromised still leaves its "available" payload in "excess" of the weight of its air-to-air loadout. Thus, in the fleet-defence role, the Su-33 is not compromised by the lack of a catapult; having enough "net" payload to launch appropriately armed for that role.
l2ealllllyyy 1 year ago
@l2ealllllyyy I think we're arguing over something in which we're really in agreement. I agree with you that the Su-33 is not compromised in a fleet defense role by the lack of a catapult. That's what I was trying to say by my comment that the lack of a catapult is not a design flaw of the Kuznetzov. My original comments were intended for other commentators who seem to think that it is.
bwana31 1 year ago
@bwana31 Yeah; at any-rate, taking off with full after-burner and a ramp must be a hell of a lot more fun >8-D
l2ealllllyyy 1 year ago
Russians doesn't look professional. I looks like the sailors had no clue what they are doing and they look bored.
BrainstormerXV 1 year ago
Russia's military don't suck, the Ak even out performed the m16 during the Vietnam and the US Marines and the Special Forces even adapted the Ak and the Mig 15 even matched the Sabre by the USAF during the Korean war and had a bigger punch and maneuverability than the Sabre...
but Hollywood makes the Russians look bad
Greatnemo 1 year ago 10
@Greatnemo u are right maybe i should screw hollywood =) I keed i keed
CMDai1 1 year ago
@Greatnemo that`s another part of the USA game. Every movie in US which story is based on US military is censored ny the Pentagon. Top Gun passed the censorship but Full Metal Jacket didn`t, who knows why? :)
gulag1979 11 months ago
@Greatnemo Nobody cares about holywood.
tehatemachine 3 months ago
americantsi talkin shit bout russkis.... funny as hell! gotta love it. as a russki, i always make fun of them too.... evwrywhwre i go!
beliy1987 1 year ago
@beliy1987 Well, hey, the whole country is filled with rusted old war machines, falling apart.
Need I remind you about Star City?
1STACCS 1 year ago
@1STACCS What a fuck could you ,Yale boy, know about Star City? You know nothing. Take shit out of your ears and eyes. Turn out CNN shit and talk to people you're talking about. It might help you to know how the things realy are, puppy
corwin557 1 year ago
russia should buy a new CVN, this one is so old...
bingofioul 1 year ago
that carrier looks so outdated its laughable nobody has 2 fear the russians they use out of date equipment
SuperTrippen 1 year ago
@SuperTrippen check your fears, mate...it might happen that you're outdated
corwin557 1 year ago
@corwin557 Everything the Russians have is rusting away or severely outdated. Russia can't even afford to feed it's people. The USA, during the Cold War, had to send food over their. Russia should be tried for Crimes against humanity.
1STACCS 1 year ago
Comment removed
corwin557 1 year ago
Comment removed
corwin557 1 year ago
@1STACCS Crimes against humanity? What are u talking about ? Look at the mirror, yankee. We didn't burn out villages with people in Vietnam, we didn't destroy statehood in Iraq starting endless civil war, we didn't bomb any country with nuclear weapon. We didn't start economic crisis in the world. And so on.
USA is number one criminal against Humanity.
corwin557 1 year ago
@corwin557 Oh, hello there. You only killed 70 million of your OWN people.
1STACCS 1 year ago
@1STACCS How many indians did you killed? And what about 9/11? Or you're still think that that was some Usama shit ? WE didn't killed our own people, motherfucker. Communists did that. But there's no more communists in my country. By the way it's our own business. So get out your head out of your ass and eat shit, stupid yankee.You're not the masters of the world never 've been and will never be. It's not your part to teach us or anyone else how to live. Burn in hell, yankee.
corwin557 1 year ago
@corwin557 Your good friend Stalin killed 70 million Russians. Your govenment can't feed it's own people. And, your rockets blew up on the lauch pad and blew up a whole city. We have to save you from yourselves! You kill yourselves
1STACCS 1 year ago
@1STACCS Stalin was a fellow countryman of your's good friend Saakashvilli - georgian. So continue to lick his ass and to make laugh people all over the world, yankee's shit. And by the way - you're too stupid to study in Yale, according to your posts and knowledge of subject you're trying to talk about. Stop dishonouring the name of Yale University and shut your fuck up
corwin557 1 year ago
@corwin557 I am one of its smartest students.
Look, your country is broke, your military is rusted out. Stop making your people suffer and giving them a bad name.
Why don't you volunteer to clean up all the nuclear waste in Russia.
1STACCS 1 year ago
@1STACCS According to your posts - that's a lie. Stop thinking that you can teach someone to live. It's my country and my life. To me it's already boring to continue this conversation.
corwin557 1 year ago
@corwin557 Why doesn't your country design a submarine that doesn't blow up when it launches a single torpedo? How about a rocket that doesn't blow up a whole city when it launches.
The Russian military is not a world power. It is outdated, rusting away, and underfunded. Get real.
1STACCS 1 year ago
@1STACCS What are fuck are you talking about ? We have a lot of submarines that does not blow up when nuclear rocket targeted to your cities will start even underwater even underice (watch "K19" with H.Ford). If you're talking about "Kursk" shut your fuck up, you don't know that story. And what a fucking blowing up city you're talking about, little shit?
corwin557 1 year ago
@corwin557 First off, the missiles on your submarines would not even launch, the wires are corroded away, the controls too old too work, and even if one missile lauched, they would be shot down from space by space based chemical lasers or airborn lasers. Or, it might even blow up in the submarine itself. This is all assuming you even have a submarine at see with missiles. You can't afford to pay the crew to operate one! If
1STACCS 1 year ago
@1STACCS Just FUCK OFF motherfucking pendos!!! You're realy annoying me. Study your fucking lessons at your fucking school,. grow fucking up and then come back to talk, little puppy shit
corwin557 1 year ago
@corwin557 Just make something that doesn't blow up your country. American scientists have to go over there to make sure you don't blow yourselves up!
1STACCS 1 year ago
@corwin557 Oh, yes, a new experimental torpedo that was already old technology for the USA. It blew the whole Kursk up. We even tried to help with Norway, but the Russians let their own crew die! That is why, Russia should be invaded and tried for high crimes against humanity and crimes against the environment. You shut your fuckin' pie hole and take it good.
1STACCS 1 year ago
@1STACCS You know shit, your post is pathetic and prove that you don't fucking know the subject. Fuck off
corwin557 1 year ago
@corwin557 I only told you the truth. We have to save you from yourselves!
1STACCS 1 year ago
@1STACCS Save yourself and all other nations from yourselves. By the way "yankee" is to much for you - you just another stupid PENDOS admiring the globe of America.
corwin557 1 year ago
@corwin557 Go clean up your country.
1STACCS 1 year ago
@corwin557 We are teaching the people of Russia how to live. It is nice to enjoy American pleasures such as internet and computers and nice cars, right? How would you like to go back to old Soviet style living, not that you are too far from it.
1STACCS 1 year ago
@1STACCS You're not teaching us, you're just think that you do, little shit. Internet and computers (mostly made in China) is not only pendoses pleasures any more.Your cars is big peace of shit that no one buy (even in United States of Pendosia) any more. Your car factories is owned by Japanese and Chinese. Go check your abstracts and then come back to chat
corwin557 1 year ago
@1STACCS And by the way, yankee, Cold war is over, if you haven't noticed yet. But we still can kick your ass, and you're still afraid of that. If you want normal conversation you're have to reject stereotypes. If don't - Continue to shiver with fear
corwin557 1 year ago
@corwin557 Grow up. No one fears you anymore. India could take Russia down by itself. In fact, we have to FEED you.
1STACCS 1 year ago
@1STACCS Grow up yourself, puppy. India is our friends,you know,puppy. To burn you in hell we don't need any aircraft carrier, we have enough of "Topol-M" rockets, puppy. And you ARE full fears, that's why so many talks about antimissile defence, or you're realy think that's because of Iran or N.Corea. Ha-ha-ha.Shake your ass to the next bombproof shelter Yale boy. By the way - It's not 80s and not 90s and you're not feeding us. But we're own your debts, as China do. Scared?
corwin557 1 year ago
@corwin557 We are not scared of you. We KNOW Russia's capabilities. Your country is in ruin. You cannot even launch a single torpedo without blowing up an entire OSCAR II Submarine-the Kursk.
1STACCS 1 year ago
@1STACCS Eat shit pendos. You know only things we let you and some anti Russia propaganda shit from CNN. You know Nothing else. And you're NOT FEEDING us dumbass. Notice it into you fucking yankee's brain, if you have it.
corwin557 1 year ago
@corwin557 Every weapon system you have in Russia is falling apart. Period.
1STACCS 1 year ago
@1STACCS Of cause,puppy. Try us and you will know how the thing realy are. But you won't, cause you scared to fight even Iran. You totaly fucked up in Afghanistan and Iraq. All that you will get from there - flag covered coffins - stupid waste of human material.
corwin557 1 year ago
@corwin557 We already won in Iraq, Saddam is dead, and the Republican Guard is defeated. What else, oh, we got the oil! lol
Idiot. Go get an education. Maybe you glow in the dark! And build a submarine that doesn't blow up when you lauch a torpedo.
1STACCS 1 year ago
@corwin557 Why are you so obsessed with puppies? Are you a homo?
1STACCS 1 year ago
@1STACCS Homo? Yes I'm a homo sapiens if you mean that. But if you looking for a gay company - it's not me. Puppy - cause you to young and naive in you reasonings.
corwin557 1 year ago
GR8 russians.. Luv russia forevr...
from India
SabertoothEversoris 1 year ago
pretty sucks agains nimitz class carrier....
williamss666 2 years ago
the russian aircraft carriers needs ramps but not the amercian one can someone please tell me y.
SANDLotfan112 2 years ago
They don't need the ramp, they use it as a back-up and for practicing as you see here. There are two runways and one has a catapult. I guess it's a fail safe that if the catapult where to break the planes could still take off using the ramp. The more modern variants don't have a ramp as they incorporate multiple back-up systems to ensure the catapult doesn't fail.
IngazZagni 2 years ago
Kuzentsov doesn't have a catapult.
stalkingalizee 2 years ago
101andrewj, Google Image Search american aircraft carriers. Once jets started being used, ALL carriers since have two runways. One straight ahead, one at an angle for aircraft recovery.
fjellt 2 years ago
dig the jam
xqb215 2 years ago
I have great respect for the skill of these pilots! They must do everything themselves, not many electronics involved here!
As a merchant seaman I can´t help but finding the bridge somewhat oldfashioned.. It does its job, obviously, but why does East-Block equipment always have to look so ..unsexy?
Twistlock19 2 years ago
this russian carriers actually have 2 runways on them.... one has a catipult and a ramp for takeoffs.... and the other is behind it for landings....... american carriers only have 1 runway and they use it for both
101andrewj 2 years ago
catapult ??? nop, the aircrafts take off with their own power.
leonelp51 2 years ago
That answers my question of if Russia has its carrier on duty agin now out at sea. I noticed it looks like the catapult launch speed is slower than on American carriers. Thats probably the reason for the ramp at the end of the deck. Kinda reminds me of a stunt on a Jackass video. lol. Just kidding.
rwhendrix 2 years ago
@rwhendrix Umm? What catapult launch?
the planes are taking off on there own power..
really look again
TheRealRacerXIsBack 2 years ago
All a bunch of obsolete weapons that r more of a threat to themselves than anybody else :))
05973021 2 years ago
You americans are clueless If you think the Sukhoi Flanker is obsolete think again. It has always had superior guns, engine and airframe to anything in the west especially carrier based.
Only thing it lagged behind in was electronics and avionics, now with the latest versions having israeli/ french assistance in those areas, it is superior to anything currently in the air bar probably the f-22 raptor.
madaboutdeltics 2 years ago
ohh yeh? name one incident in the last 30 years where a russian plane downed a non russian one :))
05973021 2 years ago
Dont think the western powers have ever faced a Flanker as only certain air forces have had it, best thing the USAF faced in the Gulf Wars was the Mig-29 flown by poorly trained Iraqi pilots. Russian pilots in a Flanker would be a different scenario.
Watch dogfights on Discovery, even the top American pilots from the 48th TFW said they would be in trouble if the Iraqis new how to fly the Mig-29
madaboutdeltics 2 years ago 9
@madaboutdeltics The Americans would have to worry-about the Mig falling apart from rust! LOL
1STACCS 1 year ago
Guns< Missiles. Engines as compared to what? F-15's have been downing migs and SU's for YEARS. Airframe.. I'll give it that, but when an ANYTHING Eastern Block can fly with 3/4 of its wing gone, like an F-15 (30 years old now) THEN tell me about Eastern Block "supremacy." P.S.- Israeli's and the French BOTH get THEIR electronics AND Avionics from who? *scratches chin* hmm.. yes, America.. So.. what were ya saying?
bmwslider 2 years ago
@madaboutdeltics yeah the flanker is nothing to sneeze at especially the ones being flown by these guys... Thier navy pilots have to be good just like american carrier pilots.. landing on a bouncing plank of metal separates the men from the boys
fairlanejay 2 years ago
Since it lacks a catapult, the Flankers only carry limited fuel and a few missiles. Su-33 hasn't been modernised so its systems are rather anitquated. MiG-29K will be more potent.
stalkingalizee 2 years ago
Well if you launch from those front two positions, yeah, it can only do air-superiority missions. But there is a third launch spot admidship where you can launch a fully loaded Su-33.
Sunburn2007 1 year ago
@madaboutdeltics
Our engines have super cruise capability and are more reliable than the Russian engines. Our micro processors are way more advanced too. Airframe design is where the Russians are masters. You guys a more mechanical where as we are more computer orientated. If the MP's went down on our jets then they would quite simply fall out of the sky although it's these which giev out jets the capability os care free handling.
29Gixxer 1 year ago
The advantage of our technology is that you can put a kid in a EF for example and he could fly it. You have to be ace pilots to be able to master Russian jets though. Flanker is obselete now when it comes to BVR combat. I have data showing the tests of updated Flankers vs EF, F22, Rafael, F15. F18, F16. Putin has promised new engines for the T-50 for the reasons I have given..namely reliability.
29Gixxer 1 year ago
The Russians are phasing out the plane. So, in that sense it is outdated - not in the sense that it has outlived its usefulness, but in the sense that the Russians have re-evaluated their priorities. My guess is that the Flanker is very expensive - The entire Russian Air Force operates only 38 of the upgraded versions (Su-30 thru 35. They still operate over 400 of the older, less advanced, Su-27's). The Russians may have decided to go with greater numbers of a less expensive plane.
bwana31 1 year ago
@bwana31 thanks for the posts, Do the new migs have vectored thrust? Was thinking that would be a big help on takeoff, might not need a ramp at all!
fairlanejay 1 year ago
you've gotta respect these guys....they r awesome
Louisthefish23 2 years ago 2
one of our destroyers could destroy that fleet easy......
i like the russians, they keep making shit equipment like these ships and planes, easy to destroy
Wabitfan 2 years ago
In Soviet Russia aircraft carrier lands on plan.
Xtragicfever 2 years ago
I thought I was watching Deadliest Catch for some reason. (Sarcasm)
Seriously though, I met some Russians in Santa Monica, CA. Nice people, nice attitude. Hollywood makes them look bad.
RebelSoldier68 2 years ago 14
Да нам побарабану на американские авианосцы - против них у нас есть "ШКВАЛ" от которого у америкосов коленки дрожжат
russkievpered 2 years ago
Low tech is good in war... easy to repair :)
tvaroh77sk 2 years ago 4
easy to destroy as well
Wabitfan 2 years ago
usa have more aircraft carrier
but russia have missles to destroy any fucking
us air craft carrier
that is a russian strategy
samy3310 2 years ago 3
@samy3310 Yeah, but they are no good if they can't even lauch. Even if the missiles lauch, they get shot down before they even come close to US ships. Such poor low technology the Russians have. Remember when the Japs defeated them in 1905 during the Russo Japanese War? lol
1STACCS 1 year ago
the Reds always have the ugliest helo's and all the fighter jets that they didn't copy from the US are ugly too, their aircraft are too stubby looking they obviously get the job done even though one of our WWII trainers shot down the first Mig in Vietnam and then Afghanistan when our shoulder missiles shot down 300+ of their aircraft
cool vid
fallbrookchris 2 years ago
yea big ups to the Russians but those ships look pretty low tech. Good on them for trying tho. but im sure they've got some better hardware out there than that.. surely?
RoninNZL 2 years ago
And what dick you are to say thing like that? ha?
Mtk711s 2 years ago
what?
RoninNZL 2 years ago
Not really, the Russian army is in desperate need of modernisation. Its only carrier was built in 1982 and no new ones are currently being built. Most Russian military tech is pre-1990, it main strength lies in the sheer force of manpower it holds.
kaosobsidian 2 years ago
Awesome video, so well put together, respect for the Russian forces. They may not have the budget of the US military, but they sure know how to get the most out of their hardware.
Texan83 2 years ago 6
Russian ships look like many salvage ships welded together. What's up with that?..
Umaxen 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
russia sucks thats whats up.
DangerousMusicProd 2 years ago
grow up dangerousfag.
the best militaries are from usa and russia,the only country that sucks with military is china cuz they copy everything.
vatossan 2 years ago
All that shit looks like a bunch of tugboats, USA would spank that ass......... The Capitan looks like, "shit I hate this ship, it really sucks"...........
YoAmoPan8 2 years ago
But U.S.A. failed in social systems
SFFjanni1308 2 years ago 4
The bridge is looking kinda low-tech.
PrivateSlacker 2 years ago
What is the name of the song?
1than 2 years ago
beautiful su 33s
Kombat451 2 years ago
Возрождение русского флота
KORECCHH 2 years ago
No catapult Wow. Less Crew Deck. Smaller Size. Less Budget. Prototype Other Nation Copy.
MatAlfRoadShow 2 years ago
this thing would benefit sooooo much from a catapult.
thegrandemperor 2 years ago 2
agreed
puttz2 2 years ago
where is the rust? I don't see it on the carrier.
lordazn 2 years ago
vintage porn
K0322348 2 years ago
why are they not using catapults? Better engines, lower plane weight?
iBiryukov 2 years ago 4
@iBiryukov ...and expensively, of cause
corwin557 1 year ago
Russia makes junk they can't even maintain, so they sell their crap to the Chinks...Your all fags & Peter puffers.
CVAN687478 2 years ago
I wont be last all these guys and talk shit...I dont see any smack talking about them being better than western carriers cause we know that would be stupid...
all i gotta say is" Russia stop selling your carriers to china!!!"
But yeah for some reason i always like the colors and looks of the flankers! lol
but seriously you guys should think about doing a paint job on all your carriers...you pay alot for it so you should take care of it!
TheLightningKing 2 years ago
Don't u get it?
Everybody knows these ships are rusty and aged, but they never talk about the experience and training they provided the Russian Navy with.
A new class of Russian carriers is already on the way, and those won't be rusty...
rau397 2 years ago
zvast! The Russian aircrafts are so powerful that they no need a long launching ramp and catapult for take-off
stefo1000 2 years ago
russians take-off tech is fairly old
amyslover001 2 years ago
But yet effective. It gets the job done.
lordazn 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
but it works..
QRWASUPER 2 years ago
Obsolete, before they finished.
Primitive launching ramp.
zvast 2 years ago
My god that carrier is horribly covered in rust, do they not clean it O_o?
Helldogz509 2 years ago
Russian Junkyard
CVAN687478 2 years ago
mouth shut, ape
skyraptor 2 years ago
Just think about the following: not so long time ago (march of 2009) by results of inspection the HALF of all russians mig-29 were recognized as unusable. they became rusty
talkain 2 years ago
It also happened wigh F-15 couple years before.
BTW, Su-27 and Mig-29 are "yanger" than F-15 F-16. And what about such pensioners, like B-52 and others?)) USA warfare is much more older than russian one.
NeshRRR 2 years ago
@NeshRRR Everything the Russians have is junk. Even the wires to ICBM's missiles are corroded away! 75% of the Missiles would not even lauch and probably explode in the silos! And the soldier pressing the button hasn't eaten, nor has he been paid yet! lol
Nice bread lines.
1STACCS 1 year ago
@1STACCS
The oldest nuclear missles in service belongs to USA. Sorry =)
USA are far behind for 2 generations already, and still don`t have ANY new projects.
NeshRRR 1 year ago
You must have the USA confused with Russia! lol. That's ok. Russia is so outdated, India could defeat it.
1STACCS 1 year ago
Comment removed
talkain 2 years ago
It would be unfairly to show this ship and not to say that there is only one aircraft carrier in russia. its not a joke. you can see this video and video about su-47 and others. but it is just deceptive appearance that russia has good fighters/bombers/warships/tanks and etc.
talkain 2 years ago
humm, this is not bad but i think any of the us nimitz class owns it
cybercow222 2 years ago 2
Russians Suck and so does their broken down Navy.....
CVAN687478 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
and u are gay
cookiemonster0626 2 years ago
you suck man
ete0 2 years ago
Russian planes have superior aerodynamics and engines (unlike that other unimportant nation I won't mention), they can take off easily without catapults.
And Kuznetsov is a REAL battle unit, able to fend for himself, not just a rediculous floating barge with a flight deck painted on top.
SovietWarrior 2 years ago
The Kuznetsov is more likely to shut down due to maintenance issues in the next few years than to succumb to enemy attack... There are jokes that the best way to find the ship is just follow the oil slick..
As long as its not an actual dogfight The F-18 doesnt need superior aerodynamics, it just needs to recognize and shoot down the enemy first. And its electronics give it a pretty good lead in that regard.
fairlanejay 2 years ago
Su-35 has a better radar than f-18 anyway and R-27 rockets are proven to be better than ammrams and sidewinders so well see who would win in this situatuation. if u like american technology so much why do u even bother typing in russian planes in the search window.
just go away . . .
cookiemonster0626 2 years ago
Granted R-77 has longer range and speed but Ammram has just as good terminal mode radar, it also has intelligent anti-jamming and jammer source attack mode.
The new D version is said to have the same range as R-77. Plus The new E-18 Growler is said to be able to jam ANY surface to air or air to air missle made. If russians encounter one of these in a fight, they might as well throw rocks.
fairlanejay 2 years ago
From what I understand if the EA-18 is outfitted with 5 jamming pods, it can track and jam 5 different incoming radar missiles all at the same time.... and also jam enemy communications in the area.. And shoot its own missiles at threats while doing that... Growler is a bad dog :-)
fairlanejay 2 years ago
ur mother
cookiemonster0626 2 years ago
Hey,nice video,can someone tell me who's that song is?
Mir4el 3 years ago
Thanx, the song is southbound by DC Slater
fairlanejay 3 years ago
wow youtube destroyed my video... first they muted my music so then I selected for them to do audioswap, now, vid looks like crap... total waste of time i went thru getting video made and uploaded.
fairlanejay 3 years ago