Russian Aircraft Carrier 2008

Loading...

Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon
Upgrade to the latest Flash Player for improved playback performance. Upgrade now or more info.
35,658
Loading...
Alert icon
Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon

Uploaded by on May 10, 2008

Russian Aircraft Carrier Ops N. Atlantic 2008. This is first large blue water ops for russians since 2000. Flankers

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

License:

Standard YouTube License

Link to this comment:

Share to:

Uploader Comments (fairlanejay)

  • 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!

Top Comments

  • 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 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? :)

see all

All Comments (172)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • @Greatnemo Nobody cares about holywood.

  • @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.

  • @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,

  • Why didnt the soviet navy choose 'catapult' to launch the fighters airborne?

  • хахахха у Россие только один авианосец!А у Америки их 113!!

    hahahah Russia have only 1 aircraft but Usa have 13 or more aircrafts

  • Плавающие вёдра одни !

Loading...

Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more