Military Review

The actions of the group "Admiral Kuznetsov": what went wrong according to plan?

166
It can be said that the conclusions are somewhat premature, because only the first week has passed, as a group of our ships led by the TAVKR “Admiral Kuznetsov” operates in Syria. However, it can already be said that everything went somewhat differently as planned.




As I understand it, “Admiral Kuznetsov” was sent to the shores of Syria not at all because the air group in Khmeynim without its wing was unable to carry out its tasks. This is logical and understandable.

It is also clear that the Su-24M and Su-34 in combat capabilities are an order of magnitude superior to the Su-33 fighters and MiG-29K fighter-bombers. Su-34 capable of carrying up to 8 tons of bombs, Su-24M - 7,5 tons. Decked-wing aircraft have lower rates; Su-33 can maximize 6,5 tons, MiG-29K - 4,5 tons. And at Su-33 it will be exclusively unguided bombs. In addition, despite the apparent superiority of the load at the Su-33, the figure in 6,5 tons - this is in the form of overload. The combat equipment of the air-to-air fighter is more modest - 3,2 tons.

It is also clear that the composition of the air group in Syria can be quickly and cheaply increased by transferring additional bombers there. And for that, it is not at all necessary to drive an aircraft carrier with a cover group through half the world.

Undoubtedly, I believe that the main objective of the campaign was to accumulate experience in using the Russian deck aviation in a real war. Indeed, by and large, this campaign is really the first battle on the account of "Admiral Kuznetsov." “Demonstrations of presence” with several fighters on deck that took place earlier cannot be called serious.

Here we have precisely combat experience, in the conditions of military operations.

It is quite possible that this experience will be invaluable not only for deck aviation pilots, but also for those who are developing plans to build a Russian aircraft carrier of a new generation. The fact that work in this direction goes, we all know. The only question is the need to draw full conclusions about the advisability of using such ships.

It seems to me that it was precisely this that dictated the emergency situation, under the conditions of which the Kuznetsov campaign was being prepared. The facts confirm this.

From January to mid-June 2016, the cruiser was under repair in the 35-m ship repair plant in Murmansk.

From June to August, work was carried out in the 82 dock of the shipyard in Roslyakov.

How well and successfully the work was carried out, I will not comment, the “smoking aircraft carrier” became the talk of the town. But It is worth noting that the merit of the Russian shipbuilders in this is very significant, since to force a ship to move in accordance with the TTX, the power plant of which is a certain designer from parts of different ships, is a feat in our time.

This, by the way, testifies to the proper level of crew training.

And only in September, the pilots of the 279-2 OKIAP on the Su-33 and the 100-1 OKIAP on the MiG-29KR / KUBR began to work out takeoffs and landings on it.

Under normal conditions, this should be allotted at least two to three months. But this time at the disposal of the pilots was not. And in Soviet times, according to the instructions and instructions, the pilot was given up to three years to fully master the course of combat training.

None of the pilots of the 100 OKIAP had such an opportunity for training. But I already wrote about this. The 100 th OKIAP was formed a year ago, in December 2015.

It can be argued that the NITKA simulator in the Crimea was at the disposal of the pilots of the 276 of the OKIAP, and its pilots of the 100 of the OKIAP had its analog in Yeisk.

I agree. But I will ask only one question: is there a difference in the development of a take-off / landing between ground concrete with a lifting squiggle and the deck of an aircraft carrier that is in motion in the open sea?

Something tells me that the difference is not just there, but very significant.

Apparently, time is running out. And already October 15 "Admiral Kuznetsov" with a group of ships went on his first combat campaign ...

And quite naturally, a MiG-29KR disaster occurred.

Naturally for many reasons. The main one of which is the MiG-29KR / KUBR, which did not complete the state tests complex. Today they are not even officially adopted yet.

6 September 2016, Major General Kozhin, commander of naval aviation, said: “While the tests are underway, therefore, we cannot say about the future. So far, everything is positive. We have already carried out a large part of the tests, but in general they are calculated up to the 2018 year. Aircraft will still be used to a certain extent. Testing is a long process, but the lion's part of the tests concerning the ship, we will do this year. ”

That is, conducting state tests in combat use. And here there are a lot of pitfalls, one of which is the low quality of components that has already become a reality.

It is no secret that this catastrophe is not the first for the MiG-29KR. During the tests, the MiG-29KUBR was lost in June 2011 of the year in the Astrakhan region. Both pilots died. And in June, 2014, another aircraft crashed in the Moscow region. The pilot also failed to save.

The blatant inadequacy of the MiG tests obviously had to turn a blind eye in order to either really need to test the aircraft in combat conditions, or for the sake of triumphant reports.

Naturally, after the crash in the Mediterranean Sea, a MiG-29KR flight was banned. And here a very sharp question arises: how quickly and is it even possible to determine what caused the catastrophe?

According to the pilot's report, both engines suddenly stopped. Preliminary findings - the failure of the fuel supply system. But without decoding the data of the “black boxes” to answer all the questions is unrealistic. Again the question: can they even raise a sunken plane, and how quickly?

As a result, MiGs were chained to the deck, and Su-33 crews began to make sortie flights. On bezrybe, as they say ...

By the way, 15 and 18 November sorties are the first in stories cases of combat use of deck fighters Su-33. And at the same time - the first use of these aircraft for ground targets.

The value of these sorties is more than doubtful, since the Su-33 was originally created exclusively as fighters for air cover of our ship connections far from its shores.

None of the developers had ever planned to destroy objects on land using Su-33. This became possible only in recent years, after the additional equipping of such combat vehicles with the special computational navigation subsystem SVP-24-33 Hephaestus, which allows the use of unguided 500-kilogram and 250-kilogram free-falling bombs with an accuracy characteristic of controlled ammunition. According to the developers, "Hephaestus" in 3-4 times increases the efficiency of the use of aircraft weapons for ground targets.

But still it is rather an option.

The main advantage of the MiG-29KR / KUBR over the Su-33 is not in the number of means of destruction of ground targets, but in quality. Su-33 - first and foremost a fighter. MiG-29KR - fighter-bomber.

The main difference between the MiG and Su is in the multipurpose 010 “Beetle-M” radar, which makes it possible to detect objects of impact at a distance of up to 110 kilometers against the background of the earth’s surface and at the same time to map the terrain.

Su-33 can not do this. It has the only airborne radar "Sword", working, as it should be for an interceptor fighter, only in the "air-to-air" mode. Low-contrast targets on earth can not distinguish between the "Sword".

The appearance of Su-33 sighting systems SVP-24-33 "Hephaestus" located on the "Admiral Kuznetsov" Su-XNUMX partially offset this lack of them, but did not reduce it to zero. Alas, but so far only “drying” takes part in combat missions. With all the consequences.

In general, the operation with the use of TAVKR "Admiral Kuznetsov" still causes a slight surprise. Hastily repaired (and not brought to mind initially) ship, aircraft that did not complete the test, and pilots who did not undergo proper training.

Did all this have to be neglected in order to gain experience in the combat use of Russian carrier-based aviation in a real war?

But sorry, what are the costs, so will the result! There is such an old Russian proverb: "Hurry up - make people laugh." Well, the world has already mocked enough of the "smoking aircraft carrier." Glory to the crew, coped with the problem. Do not smoke.

Now the second item is on the agenda. MiGs. The ban on flights (absolutely fair) threatens that the planned combat experience in the use of these aircraft will be greatly underestimated, if at all.

The question arises: was it necessary to drag such a grouping of ships across half of the world in order to work out the use of fighters for ground targets? I emphasize fighters, not very intended for this?

Maybe it was not worth it to hurry?
Author:
166 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Andrey Yuryevich
    Andrey Yuryevich 25 November 2016 05: 51
    +14
    I agree with Roman, and have already written about it, but the people yelled out loud about the "flag demonstration", the "strengthening" of the group, the necessary presence of our "AUG" there, and they let the smoke go on purpose, and in general, hurray! Yesterday there was a very interesting transmission on aircraft carriers, I recommend:

    1. 210ox
      210ox 25 November 2016 07: 42
      +7
      Another argument in favor of the need, and the priority, is the construction of aircraft carriers with us.
      1. kuz363
        kuz363 25 November 2016 08: 04
        +27
        Another argument against the construction of these costly troughs.
        1. Cat
          Cat 25 November 2016 19: 11
          +12
          And still, experience is priceless! Only by stuffing cones can we learn what we don’t know how to do.
          1. mav1971
            mav1971 25 November 2016 20: 03
            +4
            Quote: Kotischa
            And still, experience is priceless! Only by stuffing cones can we learn what we don’t know how to do.


            Foreign experience can not be used?
            Others have 80 years of experience!
            Or we just have to step on the same rake on which the Americans. the British and others fooled 30-40-50-60 years ago ???
            1. tracker
              tracker 28 November 2016 07: 05
              +5
              Isn't it funny - "someone else's experience ...", someone promised to share their experience with you? stupid stupidity!
          2. In100gram
            In100gram 26 November 2016 07: 50
            +5
            Quote: Kotischa
            And still, experience is priceless!

            This experience has shown that we do not need an aircraft carrier, but yes, there is a combat unit, we must use it. It's better than the "garage" will stand
        2. Karaul73
          Karaul73 26 November 2016 12: 23
          0
          The main ability to use these ships, and not a political necessity.
        3. Simfy
          Simfy 1 December 2016 21: 42
          0
          And if there were no airfield in Syria, aircraft carriers are needed and experience in their use is needed
    2. Finches
      Finches 25 November 2016 08: 54
      +10
      This is absolutely in Russian, unfortunately, another operation under the traditional name "Avos" ...
      1. sandroart
        sandroart 25 November 2016 12: 40
        +9
        And in cases of war, it will also be necessary to prepare the aircraft carrier for a hundred years for the campaign ?, to tell the enemy: “Stop, wait, we can’t without“ maybe. ”This is the approach of the RF Armed Forces. Sudden checks are there. And right. There is nothing worse than sitting on a dusty mattress in a barracks, better in a field.
        1. Finches
          Finches 25 November 2016 12: 44
          +5
          We very often prepare to carry out even sudden checks at random ... I know from myself! laughing
        2. dorz
          dorz 25 November 2016 13: 45
          +7
          Undoubtedly, I believe that the main task of the campaign was to accumulate experience in using Russian carrier-based aircraft in a real war.

          The main task is to demonstrate force and cover the group in Syria from the sea in order to discourage the "partners" from making a podliane.
          1. Monarchist
            Monarchist 25 November 2016 18: 18
            +5
            dorz, ​​and yet, you are right: Kuzya and Petya, even with a rattle, but you checked the brains of some people.
            Here kuz363 states that the aircraft carrier is not needed, etc., but for some reason other countries do not think so. It seems to me that not a desire to admit the need for an aircraft carrier is the belch of a "cornman": he wanted to drive the entire fleet under water, all the guns into scrap, and then change the planes for corn
        3. Yars
          Yars 25 November 2016 19: 34
          +12
          Quote: sandroart
          And in cases of war, it will also be necessary to prepare the aircraft carrier for a hundred years for the campaign ?, to tell the enemy: “Stop, wait, we can’t without“ maybe. ”This is the approach of the RF Armed Forces. Sudden checks are there. And right. There is nothing worse than sitting on a dusty mattress in a barracks, better in a field.

          Sandroart, do not be surprised at such comments and articles, these are all local disappeared people gathered here, Skomorokhov with his sad articles and his support group, everyone is trying to convince us how bad and worthless in Russia ... People in large shoulder straps secretly told Skomorokhov how badly a military educational institution was organized in Russia, then an aircraft carrier with worthless aircraft was sent to Syria, it is not clear why! in a word, sofa experts ... and Zyablitsev keeps running after him and claps his hands. I think not who have beguiled the Military Review with the "echo of Moscow"!
          PS and epaulets, they have collected their patriotic comments!
    3. Sagittarius2
      Sagittarius2 25 November 2016 10: 05
      +7
      not everything went according to plan, starting from sending an old problem ship with ineffective aircraft to Syria, where bombers are needed. And how much can the very same su33 lift bombs from an aircraft carrier without a catapult, the question is because in no frame from Kuznetsov they never show the takeoff of airplanes with combat load?
      A large modernization of the ship is necessary to lengthen the deck, put up a nuclear reactor, put up new weapons. Otherwise, this smoke above the water will just be smoke.
      1. 73bor
        73bor 25 November 2016 12: 20
        +5
        There are bombers in Syria anyway, and conducting a full-fledged combat training in the conditions of the Polar Night and storms is practically impossible, everything will turn into a struggle for survivability and it is not known how many aircraft we would have lost, I think much more! And to lengthen the deck and insert a nuclear reactor, excuse me, not in this life for this ship, this is not a penny engine for you.
        1. Sagittarius2
          Sagittarius2 25 November 2016 15: 23
          +4
          Quote: 73bor
          And to lengthen the deck and insert a nuclear reactor, excuse me, not in this life for this ship, this is not a penny engine for you to transfer.


          The Sevmorzavod has already done such work with Wikramodody and the deck was changed and the propulsion system too, and everything worked out, so don’t know, don’t talk.
          1. Wened
            Wened 29 November 2016 14: 10
            0
            Did you put a nuclear reactor there?
            Do not talk nonsense! (with)
      2. Sevastiec
        Sevastiec 25 November 2016 13: 09
        +21
        Oh well, nafik. Nobody is already going to remake Kuzyu into a nuclear strike carrier. It’s just a waste of money. It’s easier to build new ships from scratch. Here I have a shy hope that they started to fight corruption seriously, although this is not about trivial corruption, but the whole established, terrible clumsy economic system that works only for officials and exclusively large business. Our state simply does not know how to make money like other countries do. They account for up to 60% of GDP (in some up to 80%) for small and medium-sized businesses, and we have less than 10%, if I remember correctly. Damn, they keep money in the American economy as a dead weight, but here you take a loan for development. And according to statistics, each conditional monetary unit invested by the state in small business brings this state an income of 6-8 cu That's where you can make money on squadrons of aircraft carriers. But we are all led by semi-oligarch half-officers who are like dogs in the manger. If they have a drop in oil revenue, all they have the brains to do is shake out the last of the people with taxes. Principle: slaughter a cow, which gives milk so that there is enough meat for a month, and then ... and then they do not personally care
        1. Cat man null
          Cat man null 25 November 2016 13: 23
          +4
          Quote: Sevastiec
          ... according to statistics, each conventional monetary unit invested by the state in small business, brings this state an income of 6-8 cu

          - for how many years? If over 100, then "it will not be enough"
          - what kind of "state" is this, and what kind of "small business" is it that makes the state (not itself !!!) 500 - 700% of the profit? And myself, of course, more, otherwise I would have died overnight ... This is definitely not any crime? wink
          - about business - this is a question if ... a pampering link to the source of information, if not difficult yes
      3. tracker
        tracker 28 November 2016 07: 08
        0
        modernization in the style of a nuclear installation is unrealistic in principle. development of a dual-core installation made on a nuclear icebreaker
    4. Nekarmadlen
      Nekarmadlen 25 November 2016 11: 48
      0
      A very interesting video, only an expert inserts "means" through the word, and Satanovsky plays solitaire all the time on the monoblock screen)))))
    5. Sevastiec
      Sevastiec 25 November 2016 12: 55
      +1
      Yeah, we listen all the time. Although Khodorenok got it with his "means" (joke), it is sinful not to listen to him. And Armageddonich and even more so. Specifically, the topic of the program, where a lot was said about the tyranny of some marshals, immediately prompts thought after reading the article. What is happening to Kuzya strongly resembles just the Soviet times, when, without research, without preparation, they said "must" and go ahead at random.
    6. vanek77
      vanek77 25 November 2016 13: 23
      +13
      Roman writes correctly, only the crash of the MiG-29KUB in 2014 was not due to a malfunction. There was no failure, the Ancient One seemed to write, and the MiG-29 group also confirmed this, some equipment was turned off (this was done according to the flight plan, these were tests of the ship, the board number 204, which was lost then, dragged through almost all the tests the shipbuilder on himself, and the commander of the crew, Sergei Rybnikov, the Kingdom of Heaven, in naval aviation was even called the god of deck aviation, so he knew everything in his business and felt instinctively). Their height was then small and there was only enough time to take the car away from the school, like (I don't remember), But again, there was no failure, although of course it doesn't get any easier, the pilot died. The condition of our surface fleet in the far sea zone is simply depressing, "Kuzya" is a confirmation of this. We need programs for the construction of both destroyers and aircraft carriers, and if someone thinks that it is possible to fight off boats with calibers installed on them, then he is greatly mistaken. We do not build ships of this class now, not because they are not needed, but because the development strategy of our fleet did not imply the construction of such ships at all. And now, when we realized what we need, oil is already cheap, our financial eggs are over the hill in a vice, and for what we have we are building boats, having previously again reduced the mass of the frigate and adjusted it no longer to the size of the patrol boat, which was still tolerable, but already boats or MRK. If things go further in this direction, then we will see our promising ships only through a microscope. "Kuzya" "gobbled up" almost all the boilers from a project like 956, these ships are certainly not the coolest, but they were, now there are no ships, and this did not help Kuza at all. Really (throwing away the reign of Borka) for fifteen years it was impossible to bring it to mind. After all, "Vikru" was brought and the boilers there are cool and the aircraft carrier has a good move and they do not lose their deck aircraft (there are unsuccessful landings, break racks), although they fly much more often. And RSK MiG needs its own techies in management, who will root for their cars and their people, and not people from a competitor's company, who are more involved in translating documentation about promising MiG developments from the MiG Design Bureau into their design bureau and who, when asked about an accident, send people away to the military, like, we have nothing to do with it. Moreover, some wives signed papers, flight missions, sending completely new cars to the DB theater. The order needs to be restored. We need people, professionals at the top of all design bureaus, and not managers who value money much more than business.
    7. A jacket
      A jacket 26 November 2016 09: 39
      +2
      Maybe it was not worth it to hurry?

      Skomorokhov then ask you forgot !!! Well, now everything is definitely gone! belay
  2. Delink
    Delink 25 November 2016 05: 54
    +1
    We will find out about this in five years, not earlier. And that claims to the quality of import-substituting parts and that the control system has not been finalized. And that someone wanted to attach a medal to himself for reporting on the commissioning of MiG aircraft, despite the costs.
    In general, all this will not be soon.
    1. atalef
      atalef 25 November 2016 07: 48
      +7
      Quote: Delink
      We will find out about this in five years, not earlier.

      According to the pilot's report, both engines suddenly stopped. Preliminary findings - failure of the fuel supply system. But without decoding the data of the "black boxes" to answer all questions is unrealistic

      when suddenly two engines are turned off (as stated in the official reason) - the first thing that comes into play is a ban on flights of all the same type of aircraft - until the reasons for what happened are clarified. This practice is unambiguous and ironic.
      Taking into account the fact that already a day later photos of flying MIGs appeared on the network - the reason was different or 100% was known to the Air Force command.
      Engine failure (as stated) is not the reason, this is the consequence - but the reason?
      1. Andrey Yuryevich
        Andrey Yuryevich 25 November 2016 08: 00
        +3
        Quote: atalef
        already a day later, photos of soaring MIGs appeared on the network - the reason was different or 100% known to the Air Force command.

        Hi San, the "ancient" has already said that it is impossible (after engine failure to continue flying) his opinion: a working machine was drowned. you can find it yourself to read the other day "rubbed" ...
        1. Bloodsucker
          Bloodsucker 25 November 2016 11: 57
          +4
          Quote: Andrey Yurievich
          impossible (after engine failure, continue flying

          Three days ago, the reason was named in the air arrestor, a break in the cables. The deck crew was unable to eliminate the malfunction, which is why the MIG, having run out of fuel, "sat down" in the water ..
          True, the question is not clear, why would not the plane be sent to the Syrian air base?
      2. Titsen
        Titsen 25 November 2016 08: 43
        +9
        Quote: atalef
        Engine failure (as stated) is not the reason, this is the consequence - but the reason?


        There was simply not enough fuel while the landing cables were being repaired and the fuel ran out.

        All managers knew about it right away.

        And about the article ...

        She’s nasty and smells bad.
        1. mav1971
          mav1971 25 November 2016 15: 08
          +4
          Quote: Titsen
          Quote: atalef
          Engine failure (as stated) is not the reason, this is the consequence - but the reason?


          There was simply not enough fuel while the landing cables were being repaired and the fuel ran out.

          All managers knew about it right away.

          And about the article ...

          She’s nasty and smells bad.


          The article is not bravura but critical, and nevertheless critical, without praising the West?

          and if you don’t notice it, and it smells to you - look at your feet ...
          ... or take out the old garbage from your head ...
          1. Victorio
            Victorio 27 November 2016 16: 45
            0
            Quote: mav1971
            Quote: Titsen
            Quote: atalef
            Engine failure (as stated) is not the reason, this is the consequence - but the reason?


            There was simply not enough fuel while the landing cables were being repaired and the fuel ran out.

            All managers knew about it right away.

            And about the article ...

            She’s nasty and smells bad.


            The article is not bravura but critical, and nevertheless critical, without praise of the west?

            and if you don’t notice it, and it smells to you - look at your feet ...
            ... or take out the old garbage from your head ...

            ====
            I would add - a populist article, nothing is really known, but the "guilty" are designated
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion 25 November 2016 09: 38
      +2
      For some reason, everything works for Su-27 derivatives. At least until the Indians begin to exploit them.
  3. arkadack
    arkadack 25 November 2016 05: 59
    +12
    It is even difficult to concentrate in the chaos of the information given out, at least half dubious. I have nothing against it. If everything is true, then I take off my hat. But this is not even the main thing. The title of the article presupposes (especially in my opinion, of course) that now a certain supposed, and perhaps judging by the author's alleged competence, is precisely known, a plan will be announced. Then came the arguments in favor of what was at odds with the plan. But, again, I think, the author himself insists that "Kuznetsov" went on such a long campaign purely for training purposes. And the author's only complaint is that the polygon is not too far from the base.
    Following this logic, and it is followed by all our home-grown and alien liberals, one might say, like "... how many kindergartens could be built on those bombs and how many pensioners to feed." Boring, honestly ...
  4. Dyatko Nebatko
    Dyatko Nebatko 25 November 2016 06: 07
    +4
    Standing at home port will not bring experience. By the way, as it turns out, Mig fell due to running out of fuel, without waiting for the replacement of the bursting cable of the aerofinisher. Therefore, I don’t understand what the author is so worried about, the pilot is alive, the ship will now be more serious about cables ...
    1. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 25 November 2016 06: 20
      +8
      Quote: Dyatko Nebatko
      Therefore, I don’t understand what the author is worried about,

      what is not clear? - "Kuznetsov" hastily repaired, very "tired", requiring capital ship, + MiGs that were not accepted for service, did not complete state tests, + dubious benefits from combat use - was it worth it? what for? result: we lost a new MiG, bombed about 30 militants ... very controversial achievements.
      1. PSih2097
        PSih2097 25 November 2016 06: 45
        +5
        Quote: Andrey Yurievich
        dubious use of combat use, was it worth it? what for?

        Well, there’s no experience in combat use, but where they still have to train, about the MiG, and what difference does it make where they lose it, that on a thread, that at sea, Thread does not give the full effect of the TAVKR landing strip at sea.
        as an option, the air wing can be strengthened by the remaining Dryers located in Severomorsk, and MiGs can be relocated to shore.
        1. Andrey Yuryevich
          Andrey Yuryevich 25 November 2016 07: 41
          +1
          Quote: PSih2097
          what's the difference wherever he is lost, on a thread, on the sea,

          to produce kerosene on the "thread"? well yes..
          Quote: PSih2097
          The thread does not give the full effect of the TAVKR landing strip at sea.
          for this you need to go half the world ... yes
        2. yehat
          yehat 25 November 2016 10: 52
          +6
          not only flights experience is being gained, experience of the operation of the AUG group itself is needed. Tirpitz at one time drove ships constantly on exercises, so that the squadron could at least slightly maneuver in real combat situations
      2. uskrabut
        uskrabut 25 November 2016 09: 14
        +3
        It was necessary to start with this: "We have built huge cruisers, and one is actually an aircraft carrier, they were standing and were being repaired, but they were not refurbished ..."

        What's this? So you don't need to build ships, and if you built them to put them at the berth and no, no, and you don't lift the planes into the sky, otherwise "WHETHER WHAT DOES NOT GET OUT"
    2. kuz363
      kuz363 25 November 2016 08: 07
      +4
      A bursting cable turns an aircraft carrier into a useless pile of metal. Aircraft that are in the air will crash into the sea after running out of fuel. And those on the deck will not take off, because then they will not land for the same reason.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 25 November 2016 09: 40
        +8
        In the United States, during WWII, bursting cables of aerofinisher, and bursting were not so rarely replaced in a minute. Everything was worked out as a replacement for wheels on pit stops in racing cars.
      2. arkadack
        arkadack 25 November 2016 09: 59
        +1
        This suggests that each material, structure, device, product generally has its own resource. And our, what would they, "partners" clearly observe this issue. And with us, as usual? Broken - you need to change. Until it breaks - who needs it?
    3. mav1971
      mav1971 25 November 2016 15: 17
      +5
      Quote: Dyatko Nebatko
      Therefore, I don’t understand what the author is so worried about, the pilot is alive, the ship will now be more serious about cables ...


      The cables have been breaking for 70 years ...
      And the planes fall from the end of the fuel - so much.
      On foreign aircraft carriers.
      This is an experience. Let it be a stranger - but it has already been discussed a million times, etc.
      Accordingly, a normal person was obliged even when designing an aircraft carrier, when writing the regulations for carrying out work - to take into account the experience.
      And do not create the experience yourself.

      Or, what do you want for us, like the Americans, to dozens of aircraft on decks exploded in the 50-60-70?
      Do we need such experience, or can we take into account the experience of those who have experienced this?

      The person (s) responsible for this accident must be punished for the cost of this aircraft.
      Whether the designers (if still alive - with the deprivation of pensions and to the nursing home)
      Are they technologists - who have not written regulations, according to which aerofisher cables are reliably and quickly changed.
      Whether techies - who does not know how to change the cables according to the regulations.
      Need real personal responsibility ...

      Each jamb - must be paid in full.
      Whatever happens - "experience is a real deal."
      There is no need to acquire "your experience" - where there is an opportunity to take someone else's experience.
  5. Michael
    Michael 25 November 2016 06: 21
    +9
    Kind people!!! our lazy just does not consider himself smarter than Putin, Shoigu and others like them. We do not know ANYTHING, we see only a picture, "Kuznetsov" went on a campaign - that means it must be so! An ordinary person at home would figure it out.
    1. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 25 November 2016 06: 24
      +3
      Quote: Michael
      We do not know ANYTHING, we see only a picture, "Kuznetsov" went on a campaign - that means it must be!

      in the world a darkness of stupidities is being done, which means it must be so ...
    2. Deniska999
      Deniska999 25 November 2016 06: 32
      +3
      Are they a priori always right?
  6. Aleksey_K
    Aleksey_K 25 November 2016 06: 37
    +7
    And who is stopping the author from writing a letter to President Putin and Secretary of Defense Shoig. Why scratch your tongue on a site that they don’t read. Displeased - write a complaint. This applies to all readers, it is useless to write comments, write to the president and they will answer you, be sure. Maybe in this way the opinion of liberoids will be heard at the very top.
    I liked Chuvakin's phrase very much: "According to the developers," Hephaestus "increases the efficiency of the use of aircraft weapons against ground targets by 3-4 times.
    But nevertheless, it is rather an option. "O. Chuvakin, do you at least understand what you wrote? What is an" option "in your opinion? Something that is difficult to apply or something harmful for our aircraft?
    Malicious article, it is a pity that the Military Review of such authors prints.
    1. Mart
      Mart 25 November 2016 06: 49
      +9
      Quote: Алексей_К
      I liked Chuvakin's phrase very much: "According to the developers," Hephaestus "increases the efficiency of the use of aircraft weapons against ground targets by 3-4 times.
      But still, it's more of an option. "O. Chuvakin, did you even understand what you wrote? What is an" option "in your opinion? Something that is difficult to apply or something harmful for our aircraft?
      Malicious article, it is a pity that the Military Review of such authors prints.


      You should have read the name of the author of the article. To start.
    2. Smirnov Vadim
      Smirnov Vadim 25 November 2016 06: 49
      +3
      Quote: Алексей_К
      Chuvakin phrase

      Quote: Алексей_К
      O. Chuvakin


      Did you read the article? Across? And here Chuvakin?
      1. Andrey Yuryevich
        Andrey Yuryevich 25 November 2016 07: 44
        +2
        Quote: Vadim Smirnov
        Quote: Алексей_К
        Chuvakin phrase

        Quote: Алексей_К
        O. Chuvakin


        Did you read the article? Across? And here Chuvakin?

        Vadim! the article is not read "across", but "diagonally"!
    3. Vladimir Basov
      Vladimir Basov 25 November 2016 06: 59
      +4
      Yeah, how did you try to write to them yourself? I tried, but not on this topic, the answer is still waiting !!
      1. patsak
        patsak 25 November 2016 10: 20
        +3
        I also sent letters to both addresses (regarding the provision of the apartment). The answer came within two weeks. The issue was resolved six months later. During this time, the Administration phoned three times about the progress in resolving the problem. As a result, he changed the Far North in the suburbs. So I’m lucky, but not so much for you. Sorry.
    4. kuz363
      kuz363 25 November 2016 08: 09
      +6
      Many wrote letters to Putin, which first hit Peskov. And then he replies that he is not aware of the problem and is footballing in another department, for example, in the Moscow Region.
      1. bandabas
        bandabas 25 November 2016 09: 04
        +6
        It's like in Chekhov's story "Roly" - "To the village for grandfather." It won't work.
  7. The comment was deleted.
  8. cariperpaint
    cariperpaint 25 November 2016 07: 18
    +2
    who said they don’t fly ??? 15 they have already taken off.
  9. sergeyzzz
    sergeyzzz 25 November 2016 07: 21
    +6
    The author wrote an article completely divorced from the political realities of the present. Do you even know that the United States is literally on the verge of starting a war with Russia, that in Syria the United States and Russia have mutually and purposefully destroyed groups of military advisers to each other (and high-ranking ones)? What did the US really want to cover with tomahawks Syria? Therefore, the main task of an aircraft carrier and an escort with it is to cool the too hot heads of Pentagon employees. Well, since it has come, it’s not a sin to teach the pilots in a real combat situation. Yes, he is not ready, but he has already completed his task.
    1. 100502
      100502 25 November 2016 07: 58
      +5
      There are other options for deterrence, but in fact it turned out a miserable rattling of weapons.
    2. kuz363
      kuz363 25 November 2016 08: 10
      0
      Do you propose in WWII with a saber on tanks?
    3. 2 – 0
      2 – 0 25 November 2016 09: 23
      +9
      sergeyzzz! The United States will never start a war with the Russian Federation unless it is sure of the absence or minimization of a "response". They would have started it long ago, back in the 40s, but the tanks that "reached the English Channel" stopped.
      And why is our AUG going to cool the 6th fleet if it wants to start up with "tomahawks"? How will it look in your opinion? In my opinion, the United States, in general, affairs in Syria are slightly purple, they of course put their hand to cooking porridge, but they don't even think about going there with their heads. Hai local flounder, they will cut out each other there themselves.

      Who to teach, what pilots? 20 units (+ -) ... Of course you need to learn, but where did you see the combat situation? Maximum heavy machine guns, anti-aircraft guns with a caliber of 100 and even not. Fly at the training ground. So on the range of electronic warfare works, disguise, then ...

      The author of the article, why did the MiG become istr bombs.? A light fighter has always been. WAS! Like Poghosyan in the furnace, so STEEL.

      About the combat load ... Yeah, from the springboard. Delhi by 2.
      We just need to write, we deduced what could walk, to show ... That's just the question: WHAT to show and WHO? If the 6th fleet nearby passes at a speed, our AUG will rock for a couple of days more ...
    4. EvilLion
      EvilLion 25 November 2016 09: 57
      +3
      Indeed, only you know who destroyed whom in Syria. Are you Minister of Defense? And then there was one ekperdishka in aviation, he knew everything, even more than people who are directly involved in projects.
  10. Professor
    Professor 25 November 2016 07: 39
    +4
    However, we can already say that everything went a little differently than planned.

    Does the author have operational plans in his hands? So what are we talking about? request

    SVP-24-33 "Hephaestus", which allows the use of unguided 500-kilogram and 250-kilogram free-fall bombs with the accuracy typical of guided munitions.

    Characteristic of missed guided ammunition.
    1. uskrabut
      uskrabut 25 November 2016 09: 20
      +3
      If a 500 kg bomb detonates 5 meters from you, you won’t even have time to note that it didn’t hit you. wassat
      1. Professor
        Professor 25 November 2016 09: 29
        +5
        Quote: uskrabut
        If a 500 kg bomb detonates 5 meters from you, you won’t even have time to note that it didn’t hit you. wassat

        5 meters is the prerogative of high-precision weapons, and not having no equivalent in the world of Hephaestus. Even in his ad there are no such numbers.
        1. Andrey Yuryevich
          Andrey Yuryevich 25 November 2016 10: 05
          +3
          Quote: Professor
          . Even in his ad there are no such numbers.

          Oleg, an advertisement for suckers ...
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion 25 November 2016 09: 58
      +4
      There is such a science, physics is called. Allows you to calculate the flight of the bomb with pretty good accuracy.
      1. Andrey Yuryevich
        Andrey Yuryevich 25 November 2016 10: 04
        +3
        Quote: EvilLion
        There is such a science, physics is called.

        here physics + mathematics work, -wind, humidity, speed, height ...
      2. Professor
        Professor 25 November 2016 10: 05
        +3
        Quote: EvilLion
        There is such a science, physics is called. Allows you to calculate the flight of the bomb with pretty good accuracy.

        Yeah. Only in this equation there are a lot of unknowns. For example, a wind gradient.
        1. Andrey Yuryevich
          Andrey Yuryevich 25 November 2016 10: 11
          0
          Quote: Professor
          Yeah. Only in this equation there are a lot of unknowns. For example, a wind gradient.

          here Comrade Sokolov, it all depends on the place of application ...
          1. Professor
            Professor 25 November 2016 10: 20
            +1
            Quote: Andrey Yurievich
            here Comrade Sokolov, it all depends on the place of application ...

            Of course, there are ideal conditions with a calm or constant wind. Real conditions are different from them. For example, the wind today at an altitude of 500 meters above sea level (the installation location of the sensor). What is the wind at an altitude of 600m? And 1000 m?
            1. Andrey Yuryevich
              Andrey Yuryevich 25 November 2016 10: 55
              +3
              Quote: Professor
              Of course, there are ideal conditions with a calm or constant wind. Real conditions are different from them.

              nothing to cover ... sadwinds, especially in the vicinity of the sea, live their own lives, many factors, evaporation, flows-descending and ascending, and from here, the gradient is unknown ... yes.
              1. Gray brother
                Gray brother 25 November 2016 12: 27
                +2
                Quote: Andrey Yurievich
                there is nothing to cover ... the winds, especially in the vicinity of the sea, live their own lives,

                Another question is what kind of influence will they be able to exert on an accelerated bomb. At a lower altitude, the wind may have a different direction or strength, but the kinetic energy of the bomb will increase - it will be more difficult to shift it.
        2. Victorio
          Victorio 27 November 2016 17: 17
          0
          Quote: Professor
          Quote: EvilLion
          There is such a science, physics is called. Allows you to calculate the flight of the bomb with pretty good accuracy.

          Yeah. Only in this equation there are a lot of unknowns. for instance wind gradient.

          ===
          your own value?
          1. Professor
            Professor 27 November 2016 18: 55
            0
            Quote: Victorio
            your own value?

            The gradient of wind is the difference in wind speed on a small scale, most often in the direction perpendicular to its movement.
            1. Victorio
              Victorio 30 November 2016 19: 07
              +2
              Quote: Professor
              Quote: Victorio
              your own value?

              The gradient of wind is the difference in wind speed on a small scale, most often in the direction perpendicular to its movement.

              -----
              speed is speed, direction is direction, and the difference in speed is called acceleration
      3. V.ic
        V.ic 25 November 2016 12: 02
        +1
        Quote: EvilLion
        There is such a science, physics is called.

        Indeed, there is a Maxwell-Boltzmann curve ...
        Quote: EvilLion
        Allows you to calculate the flight of the bomb with pretty good accuracy.

        What criterion of probability distribution do you use? Will you take Coriolis power into account?
  11. Andrey Yuryevich
    Andrey Yuryevich 25 November 2016 07: 44
    +1
    Quote: Vladimir Basov
    Yeah, how did you try to write to them yourself? I tried, but not on this topic, the answer is still waiting !!

    SMS did not try? lol
  12. ism_ek
    ism_ek 25 November 2016 07: 49
    +1
    The fallen MiG was taken out of the water right away. Here is a link to the Americans http://www.combataircraft.net/2016/11/14/russian-
    navy-mig-29-in-mediterranean /
    Wreckage of the aircraft has been recovered, and the pilot was picked up by a Russian Navy search and rescue helicopter.

    Since the time of the super-reliable Yak-38, all Soviet (Russian) ship planes have been equipped with special buoys.
    1. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 25 November 2016 08: 03
      +1
      Quote: ism_ek
      The fallen MiG was taken out of the water right away. Here is a link to the Americans http://www.combataircraft.net/2016/11/14/russian-
      navy-mig-29-in-mediterranean /
      Wreckage of the aircraft has been recovered, and the pilot was picked up by a Russian Navy search and rescue helicopter.

      Since the time of the super-reliable Yak-38, all Soviet (Russian) ship planes have been equipped with special buoys.

      404 - Fancy meeting you here! -Thank you for the link ... informative ...
      1. Two handed
        Two handed 25 November 2016 08: 15
        +1
        strange, for example, I opened this link, they write like the wreckage picked up
  13. xtur
    xtur 25 November 2016 08: 27
    +5
    > Hastily renovated (and not finished initially)

    http://ak-12.livejournal.com/61695.html

    http://www.nationaldefense.ru/includes/periodics/
    navy / 2011/0607/12236491 / detail.shtml

    firstly, boiler turbine plants, apparently, because of their extreme complexity of setting, nobody ever did not know how to properly operate.
    Secondly, now, using microprocessor control, they seem to have learned, above is a link to an article about this. And the efficiency of the installation increases to the level of gas turbine
    So the ship’s propulsion system has prospects if they don’t spare money and if different lobbyists don’t intervene
    such a modernized system was installed on the Vikramadidya, and it seems that the Indians do not complain about it yet, although they complain a lot
    1. ism_ek
      ism_ek 25 November 2016 08: 50
      +4
      Interesting links. It turns out that a gas turbine must operate on the "exhaust" gases of the boiler, afterburning unburned fuel residues. Something like a catalytic converter in a car. It is apparently inoperative, which is why the ship smokes so much.
      Quote: xtur
      plant efficiency increases to the level of gas turbine
      It is fantastic. The efficiency of gas turbines is much higher. Their problem is a small resource and high complexity. Offshore gas turbines are produced by only three companies (GE, Rolls-Royce and Zarya).
      Quote: xtur
      such a modernized system was installed on the Vikramadidya, and it seems that the Indians do not complain about it yet, although they complain a lot

      Hindus redid everything. Their ships are refueling with diesel fuel.
      1. Andrey Yuryevich
        Andrey Yuryevich 25 November 2016 09: 57
        0
        Quote: ism_ek
        Hindus redid everything. Their ships are refueling with diesel fuel.
        .
        yah? laughing don't be silly! I work on diesel auxiliary engines (for generators) and not undercarriage! "Kuzya" also runs a solarium with him.
        1. ism_ek
          ism_ek 25 November 2016 10: 41
          +1
          https://topwar.ru/19274-v-problemah-avianosca-vik
          ramaditya-okazalis-vinovaty-inostrancy.html
          Returning to the topic of failed boilers, Dyachkov clarified that Chinese materials were used to assemble the Vikramadity power plant. “The boilers were made on the request of the Indian side. In the Russian fleet used boilers that use fuel oil as fuel. The Indian side made a request to use boilers that run on diesel fuel, ”said Dyachkov, Interfax reports.
          1. Andrey Yuryevich
            Andrey Yuryevich 25 November 2016 11: 59
            0
            Quote: ism_ek
            . In the Russian fleet, boilers are used that use fuel oil as fuel. The Indian side has made a request to use boilers that run on diesel fuel, ”said Dyachkov, Interfax reports.

            something is wrong here, boilers are initially a multi-fuel system, they need at least fuel oil, at least oil (in theory)
    2. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 25 November 2016 09: 45
      0
      Quote: xtur
      firstly, boiler-turbine plants, apparently, because of their extreme complexity of setting, no one ever knew how to properly operate.

      A vivid example of this is the destroyers "sarych" of the 956th project - beautiful ships, handsome men, at one time NATO members were even indignant about its "excess" weapons, but the "boilers" were ruined ... for example, there was only one left in the Baltic - "conditionally"! materiel for an emergency) I don't remember in the north, it seems like there is also one ... and "Restless" in the Baltic Sea decided to make a museum, happiness that they did not let it go ...
    3. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 25 November 2016 10: 13
      0
      Quote: xtur
      > Hastily renovated (and not finished initially)

      http://ak-12.livejournal.com/61695.html

      http://www.nationaldefense.ru/includes/periodics/
      navy / 2011/0607/12236491 / detail.shtml

      firstly, boiler turbine plants, apparently, because of their extreme complexity of setting, nobody ever did not know how to properly operate.
      Secondly, now, using microprocessor control, they seem to have learned, above is a link to an article about this. And the efficiency of the installation increases to the level of gas turbine
      So the ship’s propulsion system has prospects if they don’t spare money and if different lobbyists don’t intervene
      such a modernized system was installed on the Vikramadidya, and it seems that the Indians do not complain about it yet, although they complain a lot

      processors, one, and when the boilers "colonize" - another. the point is not in the management of the process, but in the antiquity of the system itself.
      1. xtur
        xtur 25 November 2016 17: 20
        0
        Quote: Andrew Y.
        processors, one, and when the boilers "colonize" - another. the point is not in the management of the process, but in the antiquity of the system itself.
        I understand that each technology has its own limit, but it is really too late to install a nuclear installation at Kuznetsov, to modernize boilers as much as possible.

        So we must hope that at least the optimal maximum will be achieved
  14. Gray brother
    Gray brother 25 November 2016 09: 07
    +5
    According to the pilot's report, both engines suddenly stopped. Preliminary findings - the failure of the fuel supply system. But without decoding the data of the “black boxes” to answer all the questions is unrealistic. Again the question: can they even raise a sunken plane, and how quickly?

    Engines stalled patamushta ran out of fuel. The fuel ran out due to the fact that the landing cable burst and at the same time flashed with the neighboring one - they could not unravel quickly, it was necessary to cut it apparently.
    Pilot training has nothing to do with it, the technical condition of the aircraft, too.
    MiGs. Flight ban

    Yasen stump banned - MiG cable and broke, now until they figure out what’s the matter, will not be allowed.
    I emphasize, fighters, not much intended for this?

    The purpose of the TAVKR is the air cover of the strike group. And they work on the earth, because they can.
    The question arises: was it worth dragging such a group of ships across half the world

    It was worth it, if only for the sake of someone else not wanting to drag their own grouping of ships there and begin to set their conditions.
  15. LVMI1980
    LVMI1980 25 November 2016 09: 15
    0
    There is other information about the loss of MIG29

    Having taken off from the aircraft carrying cruiser on the morning of November 13, a group of three MiG-29KR / KUBR aircraft, upon completion of the assigned task, began landing on the ship. The landing of the first aircraft was successful, but when landing the second fighter, the second brake cable (aerofinisher) was torn, while the torn second cable was confused with the third cable, making it impossible to use it. Although the second MiG-29KR successfully braked on the deck, catching on the fourth cable, however, due to the fact that the use of the aerofinisher became impossible, the third fighter was ordered to be in the air in the waiting area until the aerofinisher was fixed.

    Due to insufficiently high level of control, the deck crew of "Admiral Kuznetsov" could not fix the air finisher in a short time (what happened on the deck of the cruiser after the accident of the air finisher is described as a "mess"). As a result, the third fighter, hovering in the air in the waiting area, ran out of fuel, and its pilot was forced to eject, "the authors of the entry in LiveJournal say.

    Link: http://novosti-n.org/news/read/113755.html
  16. Bongo
    Bongo 25 November 2016 09: 17
    +4
    For decked aircraft, this figure is lower, Su-33 can raise as many 6,5 tons,

    No, Roman can’t. No. This is the maximum combat load when taking off from a land airport, but not from the deck of an aircraft carrier on which there is no catapult. And the very idea of ​​using is not the newest heavy carrier-based fighter to perform strike missions is very controversial. Many aviation experts are skeptical of the idea of ​​installing SVP-24 equipment on the Su-33.
    1. Professor
      Professor 25 November 2016 09: 23
      +4
      Quote: Bongo
      This is the maximum combat load when taking off from a land airport, but not from the deck of an aircraft carrier on which there is no catapult.

      The point is not only in the catapult giving horizontal acceleration (or rather its absence), but also in the springboard that increases the load on the aircraft nodes. In particular the chassis. This explains the meager combat load observed by us on the Kuznetsova aircraft. hi
      1. Bongo
        Bongo 25 November 2016 09: 29
        +4
        Quote: Professor
        Quote: Bongo
        This is the maximum combat load when taking off from a land airport, but not from the deck of an aircraft carrier on which there is no catapult.

        The point is not only in the catapult giving horizontal acceleration (or rather its absence), but also in the springboard that increases the load on the aircraft nodes. In particular the chassis. This explains the meager combat load observed by us on the Kuznetsova aircraft. hi

        Oleg, hello! It's a pity the minuses were canceled, it would be funny to see how many "patriots" would stick to you for a "meager combat load." lol
        1. Professor
          Professor 25 November 2016 09: 37
          +4
          Quote: Bongo
          Oleg, hello! It's a pity the minuses were canceled, it would be funny to see how many "patriots" would stick to you for a "meager combat load."

          Cons article really canceled in vain. Now every author is at least Tolstoy.

          And the load is really meager. sad
          1. Andrey Yuryevich
            Andrey Yuryevich 25 November 2016 09: 50
            +2
            Quote: Professor
            And the load is really meager.

            and the fuel supply too ... springboard pop ...
          2. Bongo
            Bongo 25 November 2016 10: 32
            +3
            Quote: Professor
            And the load is really meager.

            A beautiful video for ordinary people ... but it absolutely does not match the name. On the Su-33 in this video, only air combat missiles are suspended.
          3. patsak
            patsak 25 November 2016 10: 45
            +5
            The load is standard for performing combat duty tasks in peacetime. With such a combat suspension, aircraft are on alert and on the ground. The aircraft structure and in particular the landing gear assembly are specially reinforced for flights from the ship. The experience of operating the Su-33 has shown that an increase in the safety margin insignificantly affects the flight characteristics of the aircraft. As for the "meager combat load" - I watched in the North a takeoff from a ship with a full ammunition load (option "B" - "B"), allowed for takeoff from a TAVKR, UR practically at all points of the suspension, the plane was in the air for about 2,5 hours, he landed at a ground airfield (this means limited refueling when taking off from a ship).
          4. HAPA
            HAPA 25 November 2016 12: 09
            +3
            Quote: Professor
            And the load is really meager.

            Kuznetsov's meager workload. Drag across half the world Avionets with 12 aircraft ....
            https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5451/31050595381_2e
            9233e657_o.png
            You can certainly eat a lot of extra money.
            When AB has an aviation group like UDC in the amount of 12 planes + helicopters ...
            1. 2 – 0
              2 – 0 25 November 2016 15: 10
              0
              Yeah, b, beautiful, b! Lords of the seas, you will not yap here ...
              1. saturn.mmm
                saturn.mmm 25 November 2016 17: 49
                0
                Quote: 2-0
                Yeah, b, beautiful, b! Lords of the seas, you will not yap here ...

                Yes, the British turbines failed the Americans, it was necessary to buy at the dawn.
                1. 2 – 0
                  2 – 0 25 November 2016 21: 45
                  +2
                  Ahhh, for THEM it's the little things of life, broke and broke. 69th Burke under construction ...
                  1. saturn.mmm
                    saturn.mmm 26 November 2016 01: 47
                    0
                    Quote: 2-0
                    Ahhh, for THEM it's the little things of life, broke and broke. 69th Burke under construction ...

                    I would not say that the little things but not critical, that recently they have not been lucky in the Panama Canal.
                    Burke, yes, a workhorse.
          5. The comment was deleted.
        2. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 25 November 2016 17: 40
          +1
          Quote: Bongo
          Oleg, hello! It's a pity the minuses were canceled, it would be funny to see how many "patriots" would stick to you for a "meager combat load."

          You position yourself as a person versed in aviation, but it looks like you are far from it. The designers did not understand that the Su-33 would take off from an aircraft carrier, with a springboard and in terms of simplicity of mind, two suspension points were added.
      2. ism_ek
        ism_ek 25 November 2016 12: 08
        +7
        Scanty load during take-off from the first and second starting position, from the third position there are no special restrictions. The third starting position slows the take-off of a group of aircraft, as a substantial portion of the deck is required.
        The landing gear load is much greater. There is still a blow going on.
        There are restrictions when landing on the deck. Extra fuel, bombs and missiles are not taken.

        Catapult necessary for take-off turboprop aircraft
      3. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 25 November 2016 15: 50
        0
        Quote: Professor
        The point is not only in the catapult giving horizontal acceleration (or rather its absence), but also in the springboard that increases the load on the aircraft nodes. In particular the chassis. This explains the meager combat load observed by us on the Kuznetsova aircraft.

        When landing, the load is much higher.
        There is no ban on landing with missiles. Video where the MiG-29K sits down with missiles for 2.25 min
        1. ism_ek
          ism_ek 29 November 2016 08: 25
          0
          Firstly, this is not Kuznetsov. Secondly, not the fact that the missiles are real.
    2. ism_ek
      ism_ek 25 November 2016 09: 40
      0
      Quote: Bongo
      Many experts in the field of aviation weapons are skeptical of the idea of ​​installing SVP-24 equipment on the Su-33.

      But the American media are closely watching our experiments.
  17. The comment was deleted.
  18. Alexzora
    Alexzora 25 November 2016 09: 59
    0
    Everything is correct with regards to the air grouping and this is really an "option". The main task is to test the aircraft carrier itself, because we have little or the slightest experience in the combat use of aviation, but we have no experience at all in the operation of aircraft carriers. in addition, the aircraft carrier must return to the Black Sea, and this will be the main hint to the "partners", since we have closed the Black Sea for foreign ships, but anyone can fly and scan us as he wants, and after the appearance of "Kuznetsov" with his link the interceptor will make it harder
    1. Locomotive
      Locomotive 25 November 2016 11: 58
      +3
      Quote: AlexZora
      since we closed the Black Sea to other people's ships

      How is this? belay
  19. vik669
    vik669 25 November 2016 10: 04
    0
    what didn’t go according to plan and according to some plan
    1. Dekabrist
      Dekabrist 25 November 2016 10: 42
      +2
      Apparently, there was a plan. But no one knows what this plan was. So it makes sense to stop drawing arrows around the globe and wait for the completion of this epic.
  20. forcecom
    forcecom 25 November 2016 10: 32
    +8
    I apologize, but I would like to clarify, Roman You have used the term "catastrophe" several times in the text, as far as I remember the terminology, an accident is an incident without the death of people, a catastrophe is an incident with the death of people. But if I'm not mistaken, the Ministry of Defense reported that the pilot ejected and is alive and well, or did I hear wrong?

    And by the way, on the rights of military humor (I have an idea of ​​irony for 10 years) in the army EVERYTHING ALWAYS GOES ON A PLAN, just if plan A did not work, plan B comes into effect, then B, well, and if necessary, plans with vultures of the remaining letters of the alphabet and numerals. soldier
  21. patsak
    patsak 25 November 2016 10: 49
    +3
    The dumbest article, with the dumbest, long ago "grubby" questions from a not very logical thinking, but very highly positioning author.
    1. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 25 November 2016 11: 02
      +4
      Quote: patsak
      The dumbest article, with the dumbest, long ago "grubby" questions from a not very logical thinking, but very highly positioning author.

      it rather refers to your comment ....
    2. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 25 November 2016 17: 52
      +1
      Quote: patsak
      but a very highly self-positioning author.

      What, Donbas did well.
  22. The comment was deleted.
  23. Rostislav
    Rostislav 25 November 2016 10: 59
    +2
    So it’s too late to talk about whether or not it was worth it in such a hurry. The event has already occurred.
    "Debriefing" is needed not in order to find the "extreme", but in order to understand where the mistake was made, and not to repeat it in the future.
    The novel correctly speaks about the reasons:
    Hastily repaired (and not brought to mind initially) ship, aircraft that did not complete the tests, pilots that did not receive proper training

    At the helm of the Russian Armed Forces are smart people. Let's hope the lesson passes for the future.
    "And experience, son of difficult mistakes ..."
  24. Toptygin
    Toptygin 25 November 2016 11: 00
    0
    With MiG, everything was in order. He fell due to running out of fuel and the inability to sit on deck due to the breakdown of the air finishers while boarding cars in front of him. There were no problems with the materiel of the fighter. It’s just that combat service experience needs to be gained including deck and repair teams.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. HAPA
      HAPA 25 November 2016 11: 52
      +2
      Quote: Toptygin
      With MiG, everything was in order. He fell due to running out of fuel and the inability to sit on deck due to the breakdown of the air finishers while boarding cars in front of him. There were no problems with the materiel of the fighter. It’s just that combat service experience needs to be gained including deck and repair teams.

      There, to the air base, we hakeim 4-5 minutes of summer. What you need to think about in order to wait until the fuel runs out and not fly to the ground airport which is 4 minutes away (40-50km) ....
      There is of course the option that there are many planes. and it was too lazy to fly to the airport.
      1. 2 – 0
        2 – 0 25 November 2016 15: 14
        +1
        And he (MiG-K) does not know how to concrete, current to the deck ...
  25. Andrey Yuryevich
    Andrey Yuryevich 25 November 2016 11: 03
    +1
    Quote: rudolff
    rudolff

    and I'm talking about ... hi
  26. ksv36
    ksv36 25 November 2016 11: 10
    +4
    Quote: 210ox
    Another argument in favor of the need, and the priority, is the construction of aircraft carriers with us.

    We are a peaceful country. We are not going to capture the planet, like some. The bases of the USSR are almost all lost. Cuba - America - peace, friendship, bubblegum! Why do we need additional "Kuznetsovs"? One to the Black Sea. One or two to the Pacific Fleet. And that's it! The rest of the money is for the missile defense system, air defense, ground troops. Or am I wrong? Well, this is IMHO.
    1. Operator
      Operator 25 November 2016 21: 31
      +1
      Even better - zero Kuznetsovs, and money for the production of the Su-35S MFI with the Hunter on board.
  27. koshmarik
    koshmarik 25 November 2016 11: 47
    +3
    The article is definitely neatly biased. I think the point is that, firstly, it became finally clear - in the era of endless local wars, aircraft carriers are needed; secondly, the Americans have 12 aircraft carrier groups (of which 6 are active) and many years of experience in their combat use, and we have one scanty "Admiral Kuznetsov" without combat experience. Hence the quite justified haste - to see the ship and aircraft in combat conditions, which is extremely important for the creation of a Russian, in addition to a modern nuclear aircraft carrier and the training of specialists.
  28. Black Colonel
    Black Colonel 25 November 2016 12: 19
    0
    Su-24M and Su-34 in combat capabilities are an order of magnitude superior to Su-33 fighters and MiG-29K fighter-bombers. Su-34 is capable of carrying up to 8 tons of bombs, Su-24M - 7,5 tons. For decked aircraft this figure is lower, the Su-33 can raise a maximum of 6,5 tons, the MiG-29K - 4,5 tons. And the Su-33 will have exclusively unguided bombs. In addition, despite the apparent superiority in load on the Su-33, the figure of 6,5 tons is a variant of overloading. The combat equipment of an air-to-air fighter is more modest - 3,2 tons.
    An argument in favor of a catapult device for optimal combat loading of aircraft
    1. the same doctor
      the same doctor 25 November 2016 12: 45
      +1
      Or take-off with a minimum fuel reserve with refueling in the air. The tanker can be based on the Be-200 tanker.
    2. Operator
      Operator 25 November 2016 21: 34
      0
      Su-34 lifts 12,5 tons of combat load into the air.
  29. Black Colonel
    Black Colonel 25 November 2016 12: 23
    0
    Quote: Toptygin
    With MiG, everything was in order. He fell due to running out of fuel and the inability to sit on deck due to the breakdown of the air finishers while boarding cars in front of him. There were no problems with the materiel of the fighter. It’s just that combat service experience needs to be gained including deck and repair teams.

    Have reliable information?
  30. the same doctor
    the same doctor 25 November 2016 12: 43
    +1
    "In general, the operation with the use of the TAVKR" Admiral Kuznetsov "is still a slight surprise. Hastily repaired (and not brought to mind initially) ship, not completed testing aircraft, not properly trained pilots." __________ So this is the natural state of Russia - to be unprepared. With what it was - with that and came, say thank you for this. And waiting for an ideal state is to do nothing.
    .
    There is one more aspect. What conclusions can be drawn from unavailability? if in Medvedev's way, the "broken leg" should be whipped with lashes of fines and penalties and deprived of food by cutting off funding for "sins". And if according to the mind, then allocate funds to eliminate the identified problems.
  31. Torins
    Torins 25 November 2016 12: 54
    +3
    Quote: sandroart
    And in cases of war, it will also be necessary to prepare the aircraft carrier for a hundred years for the campaign ?, to tell the enemy: “Stop, wait, we can’t without“ maybe. ”This is the approach of the RF Armed Forces. Sudden checks are there. And right. There is nothing worse than sitting on a dusty mattress in a barracks, better in a field.

    In case of war, Russia will not need an aircraft carrier nafig. There’s still nothing to land on enemy territory, the fleet can only objectively defend its home registry bases, with the exception of nuclear submarines, but the aircraft carrier is all the more unnecessary for them.
  32. Bobxnumx
    Bobxnumx 25 November 2016 13: 23
    0
    It is correctly written, all the emphasis is placed correctly, which raises a bunch of questions.
  33. 1536
    1536 25 November 2016 14: 38
    0
    We have the Northern Sea Route, as they say, "in our hands". Icebreaker aircraft carriers are needed there. Moreover, with the widest range of carrier-based aircraft from fighter-interceptors to patrol and even passenger aircraft. Such aircraft carriers should have a nuclear power plant, air defense systems and means, electronic warfare, rescue services. And to go to the Mediterranean Sea, where there is nowhere to turn around, so as not to run into some NATO pirate or American slave trader, I agree with the author, it is not productive. It is better to launch there a dozen frigates, missile cruisers, submarines, so that the Europeans and everyone else know that they are not alone there. And if no smoke is visible, this does not mean that there will be no fire from Russia.
    1. 2 – 0
      2 – 0 25 November 2016 15: 18
      +2
      And on? Aircraft carriers, icebreakers ... Build a couple of lanes along the length of the coast, you don't even need concrete, with overhead plates, the permafrost does not melt, and a couple of hangars for maintenance, keep them in constant readiness and the problem is solved. Plant Buran at least. Only from whom to defend by planes beyond the Arctic Circle? Catching "Tomahawks" - the navel will be untied ...
  34. tomket
    tomket 25 November 2016 15: 13
    +3
    I would like to know, but the author knows for sure what was planned there when they sent Kuzyu? Once he claims that everything did not go according to plan, and rushes into discussions about the laws of the accident. Maybe the main goal was to determine the suitability of the command staff of the fleet.
  35. Operator
    Operator 25 November 2016 15: 30
    +1
    Most likely, it was a demonstration for the main command of the Navy of the complete uselessness of "Kuznetsov" (before its decommissioning) for solving any problems at sea and on land.
    1. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 25 November 2016 18: 09
      +1
      Quote: Operator
      Most likely, it was a demonstration for the main command of the Navy of the complete uselessness of "Kuznetsov"

      And what is the complete futility of Kuznetsov?
      1. Operator
        Operator 25 November 2016 21: 48
        +4
        Kuzya sailed already after the deployment of the air force base of the Russian Air Force on the coast, protected by the most varied air defense systems again ground-based.

        Mig-29K and Su-33 in terms of their combat capabilities did not stand next to the Su-35С and Su-34.

        And what for a goat bayan - the Russian Federation does not plan to invade foreign territory from the sea from the word at all, does not plan naval convoys across the oceans, is not going to butt surface fleets with potential opponents.

        All admirals who are still preparing for WWII must be dismissed for garden plots and close the topic with AB, as themes with battleships, sailing ships and galleys were previously closed.
        1. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 26 November 2016 01: 39
          +1
          Quote: Operator
          Kuzya sailed already after the deployment of the air force base of the Russian Air Force on the coast, protected by the most varied air defense systems again ground-based.
          Mig-29K and Su-33 in terms of their combat capabilities did not stand next to the Su-35С and Su-34.

          Almost every year he goes to the Mediterranean Sea, this coincided with the actions of the videoconferencing system in Syria, it’s a sin not to practice, run around Migi (the accident showed that something needs to be improved). It is good that there are Russian bases in Syria, and if there weren’t, then what were your interests? Fish, and not so meager load on the Su-33, as some commentators allegedly with knowledge of the issue, allegedly they are far from the truth, are fishless and cancerless.
          1. Odysseus
            Odysseus 26 November 2016 03: 14
            0
            Quote: saturn.mmm
            and not so meager load on the Su-33 as some commentators allegedly stated with knowledge of the issue, I think they are far from the truth.

            I also have an open secret. The maximum load for the Su-33 is 2 x P-27 + 2 x P-73 + 2 FAB-500.
            And this is for the boards already modified for Hephaestus.
            1. saturn.mmm
              saturn.mmm 26 November 2016 09: 18
              0
              Quote: Odyssey
              I also have an open secret. The maximum load for the Su-33 is 2 x P-27 + 2 x P-73 + 2 FAB-500.

              Did you determine this by how they take off from Kuznetsov or personally conducted the tests? Maybe this is a standard load?
              1. Odysseus
                Odysseus 27 November 2016 16: 02
                +1
                Quote: saturn.mmm
                Did you determine this by how they take off from Kuznetsov or personally conducted the tests?

                Sorry that I did not reply for a while.
                I determined by how they take off from Kuznetsov and based on information from people who are there. I have not personally tested it.
                .
                Quote: saturn.mmm
                Maybe this is a standard load?

                We can also call it so, the fact is that they take off either with such a load, or with less, including only V-V rockets.
                By the way, now the Su-33 is generally on Hmeimim.
                1. saturn.mmm
                  saturn.mmm 27 November 2016 21: 39
                  0
                  Quote: Odyssey
                  I determined by how they take off from Kuznetsov and based on information from people who are there. I have not personally tested it.

                  One of the members of the forum issued such information.
                  As for the "meager combat load" - I watched in the North a takeoff from a ship with a full ammunition load (option "B" - "B"), allowed for takeoff from a TAVKR, UR practically at all points of the suspension, the plane was in the air for about 2,5 hours, he landed at a ground airfield (this means limited refueling when taking off from a ship).

                  Somehow the other person answered me like that.
                  ... At 279, the kiap was p / p-k - a craftsman who took off without incl. afterburner from the 2nd position, with the control of the PRP - "on the brakes" in the face of the captain. So, what a fool you can ...

                  Quote: Odyssey
                  By the way, now the Su-33 is generally on Hmeimim.

                  I can assume that the report on the top of the fallen Migu was perceived as untrue and probably disassembly begins, and Sushi seems to be out of place.
                  I don’t think that Kuznetsov in Syria will feel special weather, but they knew in the Navy’s commander’s office, but it’s cold in the North and it’s storming, and in the Mediterranean you can calmly engage in combat training, it is unlikely that anyone would have imagined that Mig will fall, by the way, on the last videos , it can be assumed that the equipment of the boilers was mastered and repaired.
                  1. Odysseus
                    Odysseus 27 November 2016 23: 52
                    +1
                    Quote: saturn.mmm
                    One of the members of the forum issued such information.

                    I have not heard about this, but I think it’s true. But this is purely with V-V rockets and in the case of a training flight of a single craftsman.
                    Actually, even from Kuznetsov, the Su-33 is flying with a heavy load; 4 VV and 2 OFAB missiles for take-off from a springboard is a lot.
                    But the bottom line is that, like a Su-33 fighter, it wasn’t standing next to a Su-35, like a drummer, it’s even worse. The simplest question is, why is it there?
                    Quote: saturn.mmm
                    hardly anyone imagined that the MiG would fall, by the way in the latest videos it no longer smokes, it can be assumed that the equipment of the boilers was mastered and repaired.

                    In general, I don’t see a big problem with the accident. Miga is a working process, all planes are fighting. And I agree with your logic about wintering in the Mediterranean.
                    The problem is, in principle, you need to decide "you checkers or go." If we want this war to at least "draw" (and even more so to win), we must intensify the attacks on the militants, especially now that the opportunity has appeared to negotiate with Turkey. 34, Su-25, but Kuznetsov is not needed at all. His campaign has no military significance, therefore, from my point of view, this is just a senseless waste of very scarce resources and money.
                    1. saturn.mmm
                      saturn.mmm 28 November 2016 11: 39
                      0
                      Quote: Odyssey
                      For this we need Su-34, Su-25, but Kuznetsov is not needed at all.

                      Yes, it was the journalists who promoted the topic that Kuznetsov was there to solve all the problems in Syria, and so he was sent to winter in the warm sea to engage in combat training, he was there in 2007,10,11,14, XNUMX, XNUMX, XNUMX. They flew a couple of times to Syria, worked off bombing in another geography, I don’t see anything bad, in the North in winter its maintenance can be even more expensive and the conditions for personnel are harsh, it is better to splash around in the Mediterranean Sea.
    2. Odysseus
      Odysseus 25 November 2016 22: 57
      +2
      Quote: Operator
      complete uselessness of "Kuznetsov"

      A rare case when I completely and unconditionally agree with you, dear Operator. And I am happy to put you a plus.
      Quote: Operator
      demonstration for the navy commander

      Ah, if the Navy Commander-in-Chief is well aware of Kuznetsov’s capabilities, unfortunately it was decided that Kuznetsov would be left in the fleet, which means modernization, and it will be carried out starting from 2017-2018. Accordingly, either Kuzya will stand before repair at the 35th plant, or go to winter in the Mediterranean — they decided to send to the Mediterranean because the aircraft carrier looks impressive, and the naval forces are now actively fighting for the budget.
      The ground forces, as usual, fight everywhere, the airborne forces in Syria, and the fleet, as usual, is out of work (except for the BDKs that were adapted for transports), and they also need orders.
  36. VadimSt
    VadimSt 25 November 2016 15: 30
    +3
    As I understand it ... As I understand ... It is undeniable, I suppose ... It is possible ... It seems to me ... Something tells me ... The question arises ... Maybe you shouldn't be in such a hurry?
    Maybe our Commander-in-Chief and strategists in the General Staff have the wrong level of training and the lack of necessary information?
    I wonder what academy the author graduated from, what kind of experience he has in military planning and control, and what, besides the media, is his source for such a deep "debriefing" ?!
  37. VadimSt
    VadimSt 25 November 2016 16: 48
    +2
    Well, the world has already enough mocked at the “smoking aircraft carrier”. Glory to the crew, coped with the problem. Do not smoke.
    Kuznetsov was commissioned in 1991 (for water in 1987), and this USS Freedom (LCS-1) was put into operation in 2008 (for water in 2006).Yes, and the latest, most technological and pride of the United States Navy Zumwalt, is increasingly being towed!
  38. Monarchist
    Monarchist 25 November 2016 18: 21
    0
    Quote: Sagittarius2
    Quote: 73bor
    And to lengthen the deck and insert a nuclear reactor, excuse me, not in this life for this ship, this is not a penny engine for you to transfer.


    The Sevmorzavod has already done such work with Wikramodody and the deck was changed and the propulsion system too, and everything worked out, so don’t know, don’t talk.

    But the engine was then delivered to a non-atomic Indian and the ship was fresher
    1. 2 – 0
      2 – 0 25 November 2016 21: 41
      +1
      XTO (what)? BAKU fresher, b? Here he gave Mach ....
  39. Captain Pushkin
    Captain Pushkin 25 November 2016 18: 27
    +3
    Quote: uskrabut
    What's this? So you don't need to build ships, and if you built them to put them at the berth and no, no, and you don't lift the planes into the sky, otherwise "WHETHER WHAT DOES NOT GET OUT"

    The Japanese lost 29 aircraft in an attack on Pearl Harbor. And during training flights to prepare for this raid - twice as much. ..
    If you do not conduct exercises on the combat use of the Kuznetsov aviation group in, in fact, the range conditions of Syria, then it is simply stupid to consider it as a combat unit. Then it would be more logical to simply send the Kuzya for scrapping, and use the money saved to introduce some real combat units into the fleet.
  40. sailor52
    sailor52 25 November 2016 20: 20
    +5
    The question arises: was it necessary to drag such a grouping of ships across half of the world in order to work out the use of fighters for ground targets? I emphasize fighters, not very intended for this?

    In addition to demonstrating the flag, practical use for air defense and attacks on land, the Admiral Kuznetsov should be viewed as an experimental unit that exists more for testing both weapon systems and testing the general concept of an aircraft carrier for the Russian Navy. Unlike the United States with its dozen aircraft carriers, the big question for us is whether we need it at all, and if so, which one?

    In addition, shipboard MiG-29K and Ka-52K themselves are unique goods on the arms market, and testing them and the systems (navigation, etc.) involved in their use, participation in hostilities will favorably affect their attractiveness to buyers. Remember the surge of interest in our new aircraft Su-34, Su-30, etc. during their use in Syria. So the money will be beaten off, and soon enough.
    Not to mention the richest material for the design bureau (and the General Staff!) And subsequent structural changes, which, quite possibly, will be made as soon as possible following the results of the use of vehicles in combat conditions.
  41. Mainbeam
    Mainbeam 26 November 2016 14: 50
    +3
    And quite naturally, a MiG-29KR disaster occurred.

    Is the pilot dead? A catastrophe is when people die. And here is the accident. From the wrong wording, the essence of what is happening is distorted. Either the author does not understand what he is writing about, or deliberately exaggerates, or is illiterate. I consider the arguments of an illiterate analyst to be just inadequate speculation of a civilian. Minus article.
  42. Scharnhorst
    Scharnhorst 26 November 2016 19: 59
    +1
    Right now they will draw conclusions in the General Staff and the Main Command of the Navy, which is more profitable according to the criterion "Cost - Efficiency", or a full-fledged AUG, or RTOs and submarines with "Calibers"!
    1. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 27 November 2016 00: 37
      0
      Quote: Scharnhorst
      Right now they will draw conclusions in the General Staff and the Main Command of the Navy, which is more profitable according to the criterion "Cost - Efficiency", or a full-fledged AUG, or RTOs and submarines with "Calibers"!

      More profitable Yalik.
  43. witch
    witch 29 November 2016 14: 44
    0
    Quote: dorz
    Undoubtedly, I believe that the main task of the campaign was to accumulate experience in using Russian carrier-based aircraft in a real war.

    The main task is to demonstrate force and cover the group in Syria from the sea in order to discourage the "partners" from making a podliane.


    I agree. all the more so since Kuzi’s weapons are healthy, and there may be calibers in the mines, so Kuzya is dangerous in itself even without aviation.
  44. Siberian1965
    Siberian1965 29 November 2016 16: 03
    0
    Quote: mav1971
    Quote: Kotischa
    And still, experience is priceless! Only by stuffing cones can we learn what we don’t know how to do.


    Foreign experience can not be used?
    Others have 80 years of experience!
    Or we just have to step on the same rake on which the Americans. the British and others fooled 30-40-50-60 years ago ???

    Show me someone who has learned from someone else's experience. You can start any child.
  45. runway
    runway 30 November 2016 12: 05
    0
    Small people always have high ambitions.
    The desire to show that you are the leader of a superpower is not consistent with common sense. Not only the budget is bursting from this and performers are tormented, but they are laughing all over the world. Indeed, literally drag on your hands the only aircraft-carrying cruiser, breathing into the incense through half the world, to demonstrate the flag! Aviation is necessary when the enemy has it. In this operation to liberate Aleppo, it is entirely possible to dispense with an air group in Khmeimim and artillery.
    As regards the need for the presence of aircraft carriers in the fleet, no one but them will fulfill the tasks assigned to them. The fleet cannot complete the whole range of tasks assigned to it! The impossibility of building such ships with us is replaced by hanging noodles on the ears of the townsfolk with explanations of the lack of funds in the budget! If Obeshchalkin asks his friends to chip in on aircraft carriers, there will be enough money for more than a dozen.
  46. klm-57
    klm-57 30 November 2016 12: 41
    0
    The experience of combat use, in any case, is necessary.
  47. Krabik
    Krabik 1 December 2016 15: 39
    0
    In my opinion, everything is going according to plan for the fleet.

    Actually, how many planes will fall and whether Kuzya will even go somewhere and was the main task;)

    If there is a ship, then it must sail!
  48. Forever so
    Forever so 1 December 2016 19: 19
    0
    Roman, you’re wrong)) It is a crude imperfection that will allow us to direct design and production thought to where modern warfare requires. And if you listen, then first you need to build in accordance with the past war, and then design for the future. And what to do with the built ?? So my friend do rocket engines, well, or listen to VALENKI,
  49. kig
    kig 13 February 2017 12: 35
    0
    Military Review, 13/02/2017: The Syrian operation will go down in history and strategy textbooks.
    Especially, perhaps, they inserted into one number different in content. articles?
  50. Cossack 471
    Cossack 471 11 March 2017 18: 39
    0
    when I served in the Soviets. that I knew WHAT and WHO I protect. and now if God forbid war then what should I fight for? for Lukoil’s "proven reserves" or for the Rotnberg Plato? in my country I do not own ANYTHING. even 2 sq. m. in the cemetery and they need to buy