Trail above the wave: the departure of the F-35C below the plane of the deck of the aircraft carrier hit the video


Noteworthy videos were posted on social networks. They depicted the F-35C fighter of the US Navy taking off from an American aircraft carrier. In this case, the catapult operates with the minimum power that is necessary for the successful launch of the aircraft into the air.


In the first video, the fighter, passing the ship's track at extremely low speed, “falls through” the deck. In other words, the plane descends below the plane of the deck. After a moment, the plane appears again, gradually gaining altitude.

In the second video, against the background of the ship's bow, the F-35C, taking off from the deck, decreases to a critical height, literally gliding over the waves. It even leaves an inversion trail on the water before rising into the air.

According to the author of the materials RCAF_Pilot, who posted them on Instagram, these maneuvers were part of the F-35C testing, in which the minimum catapult power needed to safely launch aircraft was estimated.

Good thing we have test pilots for this!

- writes RCAF_Pilot.

According to The War Zone, these were indeed tests, since the pilots did not transfer the machines to afterburning flight, which was logical in an emergency of this kind.

It must have been a hell of a workout!

- indicates The War Zone.

The network noted the composure of the pilot.



Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

94 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. K-612-O 27 May 2020 09: 21 New
    • 22
    • 3
    +19
    Risky guys, but I'm afraid the Hornets will be the basis of carrier-based aviation for a long time, they are too good and reliable, but there is a separate version of the electronic warfare
    1. vkl.47 27 May 2020 10: 11 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      Maniacs they are. For the time being such tricks
      1. loki565 27 May 2020 10: 19 New
        • 12
        • 5
        +7
        Rather, this is a mistake, there is clearly not enough engine thrust and the plane is very sagging. We then too, are training to sweep the deck)))
        1. Ciklop 27 May 2020 10: 38 New
          • 5
          • 15
          -10
          Quote: loki565
          Rather, this is a mistake, there is clearly not enough engine thrust and the plane is very sinking.

          Maybe the F-35 pilots should take off in diving suits ..? wink
        2. Pete mitchell 27 May 2020 13: 21 New
          • 15
          • 3
          +12
          There, in the article, everything is written and translated - the guys have strong nerves.
          But the clip from the Su-33 is certainly cool, but a mistake
          1. AlexVas44 27 May 2020 15: 41 New
            • 6
            • 1
            +5
            Good thing we have test pilots for this!
            - writes RCAF_Pilot.

            Probably a large supply of such guys with strong nerves. laughing
        3. opus 27 May 2020 23: 34 New
          • 4
          • 7
          -3
          Quote: loki565
          We then too, are training to sweep the deck)))

          we have a landing (empty and screwed up)
          they take off (fuel, ammunition) on a pitching ...
          Ps / for this "incident" it is clear that the aircraft carrier "pecked" .. The deck "went" down when La took off and it was not 0 degrees on the horizon
          1. loki565 28 May 2020 00: 08 New
            • 2
            • 4
            -2
            they take off (fuel, ammunition)

            Here you can’t determine whether there is BC or not and how much fuel, but it is clear that the engine thrust is not enough, even taking into account the acceleration by catapult. Obviously an error with the choice of engine mode. Ours happened that even on the "handbrake" took off without a drawdown
            1. opus 28 May 2020 00: 47 New
              • 6
              • 3
              +3
              Quote: loki565
              Here you can’t determine if there is BC or not and how much fuel

              the brain in his head is what to think ...
              These were the "F-35C Low Energy Catapult Launch Testing"

              who in their right mind would be on a test without afterburning to load BC and fuel in full?
              Quote: loki565
              Ours happened that even on the "handbrake" took off without a drawdown

              1. what a "handbrake"
              2. he is landing, dry, the mass is minimal. fast and furious landing always. took advantage
              It’s just a pitching and the launch team laughed

              hundreds of meters pecking deck for a flat surface — substantially
              1. loki565 28 May 2020 01: 41 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                who in their right mind would be on a test without afterburning to load BC and fuel in full?

                uh, your words)))
                we have a landing (empty and screwed up)
                they take off (fuel, ammunition) on a pitching ...

                1. what a "handbrake"

                Take off with fully locked rear landing gear.
                2. he is landing, dry, the mass is minimal. fast and furious landing always. took advantage

                Who?
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Simargl 27 May 2020 20: 40 New
        • 0
        • 3
        -3
        Quote: vkl.47
        Maniacs they are. For the time being such tricks
        More like a cable break or slip. They sit down from the throttle to full.
        1. loki565 27 May 2020 23: 56 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          No, this is a regular take-off, it’s obvious that the catapult is “floating”
          1. Simargl 28 May 2020 05: 40 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            Quote: loki565
            it’s clear that the catapult is “floating”
            Only the boot is not visible. A catapult steamиt in standby mode.
  2. Reserve buildbat 27 May 2020 09: 21 New
    • 9
    • 2
    +7
    They have interesting tests ... Without turning on afterburner, take off like that. I suspect that during take-off uranium scrap can be bitten.
    1. vvvjak 27 May 2020 09: 33 New
      • 4
      • 9
      -5
      Quote: stock buildbat
      Without turning on afterburner so take off.

      So because they introduced restrictions on the use of afterburner, and now they are trying to work out the take-off techniques without it.
      1. abrakadabre 27 May 2020 10: 11 New
        • 6
        • 1
        +5
        So because they introduced restrictions on the use of afterburner, and now they are trying to work out the take-off techniques without it.
        Restrictions on afterburner after all seemed to concern only supersonic? At lower speeds, they can fly afterburner as much as they like. At least from take-off to landing.
        1. vvvjak 27 May 2020 10: 38 New
          • 5
          • 6
          -1
          Quote: abrakadabre
          Restrictions on afterburner after all seemed to concern only supersonic?

          Not at all a fact. For example from yesterday's article:
          During a long flight at maximum supersonic mode, fuel is burned especially intensely. This not only affects the stealth coverage, but also by itself reduces the parameters of stealth aircraft.
          . https://topwar.ru/171575-amerikanskij-letchik-ispytatel-rasskazal-o-prichinah-puzyrenija-stels-pokrytija-v-hvostovoj-chasti-f-35.
          those. the torch itself on the afterburner damages the stealth coating even in flight, and here it also rests on the deck.
          1. abrakadabre 27 May 2020 18: 06 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Not at all a fact. For example from yesterday's article:
            With long flight at maximum supersonic mode especially intensively burned fuel.
            At maximum supersonic mode. Less than about 1 Mach can not be afraid and afterburner. Maybe they want to lift their nose in pitch, so that the plane almost gets on its tail (but before losing stability), and compensate for this with the afterburner mode of the engine. And so fly at a speed of 200-300-400 km / h the whole flight. wassat
            1. Eugene-Eugene 27 May 2020 20: 32 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              buckling


              it’s like a corkscrew, it’s always on the subject of “figure skating”, not to mention individual techniques of combat aerobatics. And on the bell, "loss of stability" is generally part of the maneuver.

              This, in theory, should chew MO, but in the minds of their "analysts" a complete mess: https://structure.mil.ru/structure/forces/air/media/photo/[email protected]
        2. opus 27 May 2020 23: 44 New
          • 1
          • 3
          -2
          Quote: vvvjak
          So because they introduced restrictions on the use of afterburner,

          1. tested the catapult. It was "empty". and without afterburner
          2.
          Greg Ulmer, Lockheed Martin F-35 Program Manager, said there was not a single instance of this problem. / bubble coating / in the operational fleet and that the incidents were limited to "the highest extremes of flight test conditions, which are unlikely to be reproduced in everyday operation."


          According to a new document, a new coating, which was introduced in Lot 8, can withstand higher temperatures caused by afterburner. AtInter characterized the material as capable of withstanding “what we call a heat-shock wave”, but refused to indicate how the coating works or what protection it provides.

          F-35C can fly on Max 1.3 in afterburner mode tonly for 50 "cumulative" (probably meaning "total" without pauses less than 3 minutes) seconds, which means that the pilot cannot count 50 seconds at this speed, slow down for a couple of seconds and then pick up speed again. However, the time requirements are reset after the pilot operates at rated power - for three minutes.

          enough for take-off on afterburner.
          Quote: abrakadabre
          At lower speeds, they can fly afterburner as much as they like.

          belay
          Does supersonic bubble paint or temperature?
          Threat. on the afterburner, the heat is faster “carried away” from the dangerous keel zone. But the impact of the flow on SZ is certainly greater
          Although they “felt” it at
          Both flaws were first discovered at the end of 2011. after flutter tests, when the F-35B and F-35C both flew at Mach 1.3 and Mach 1.4. During a post-flight inspection in November 2011, it was discovered that the F-35B stealth coating steadily “bubbles [and] swells” on the right and left sides of the horizontal tail and tail boom.
    2. Simargl 28 May 2020 05: 41 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: stock buildbat
      Uranium scrap can be snacked.
      Not very strong uranium. That would be able to cope with tungsten ...
    3. Archon 28 May 2020 22: 23 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      uranium is softer than steel. let them chew cast iron!
  3. Vladimir_2U 27 May 2020 09: 25 New
    • 20
    • 2
    +18
    US-sheep flyers are not the last, to say the least.
    It even leaves an inversion trail on the water before rising into the air.
    Rather, a trace from jet and satellite jets.
    1. novel66 27 May 2020 09: 52 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      and when, it does include afterburner
      1. hydrox 27 May 2020 12: 10 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        EMNIP, inversion is the condensation of water vapor under the conditions of heat exchange processes that occur when air volumes of different densities are mixed, flowing around the aircraft’s surface during flight.
        There was no inversion in the video (at low flow velocities there are no conditions for the formation of inversion), but there was evaporation of water by hot exhaust.
      2. Pete mitchell 27 May 2020 13: 23 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        Roma hi shh, if afterburner was not included, then it is no longer included in such situations,
        1. novel66 27 May 2020 13: 39 New
          • 2
          • 2
          0
          with fear ?? what do you want to include !! hi
          1. Pete mitchell 27 May 2020 13: 59 New
            • 8
            • 0
            +8
            Quote: novel xnumx
            with fear ?? what do you want to include !! hi

            Rum, in the situation as in the clip - this cannot be done ..., simply impossible
            1. novel66 27 May 2020 14: 01 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              traction will sag?
              1. Pete mitchell 27 May 2020 14: 07 New
                • 7
                • 0
                +7
                Quote: novel xnumx
                traction will sag?

                Well, you yourself know everything ...
                Although my classmate drove LSI at such angles at sunset that even afterburner did not help, thank God it did not crash when turned on. From the neighbor I went to the strip with the tail forward, it really just fell. Over the end, I decided to see where he was and slightly bent the handle away from himself - he successfully plopped down on concrete, lucky ..
                1. novel66 27 May 2020 14: 11 New
                  • 3
                  • 0
                  +3
                  in our aisle one pilot came in with a roll of 30 degrees, we already closed our eyes - but pulled out. with touching one of the racks of the strip ...
        2. novel66 27 May 2020 13: 43 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          However, V. Gordienko on the pages of the magazine “Wings of the Fatherland” recalled that Bezhevets nevertheless jumped out for three M, after which, pinned up by objective control data, he was justified for a long time: “... and on this Mach she would have driven her (car, MiG-25) when they’re launching a rocket at you "
    2. MMX
      MMX 27 May 2020 15: 53 New
      • 5
      • 1
      +4
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      US-sheep flyers are not the last, to say the least.


      Given the fact that carrier-based aviation is almost the most difficult, it will not be a strong exaggeration to call them the best.
  4. prior 27 May 2020 09: 26 New
    • 11
    • 22
    -11
    A "penguin" rushed to its native element, but the pilot did not allow ....
    It is significant: how to make a spectacular trick out of gouging, such as this is a test.
    1. Greenwood 27 May 2020 10: 18 New
      • 11
      • 4
      +7
      Quote: prior
      like from gouging
      And what is "gouging" here?
      1. prior 27 May 2020 10: 21 New
        • 10
        • 11
        -1
        Did you really believe that such a "drawdown" is a planned test?
        Me not.
        1. Greenwood 27 May 2020 10: 23 New
          • 13
          • 3
          +10
          Quote from the article.
          These maneuvers were part of the F-35C testing, which evaluated the minimum catapult power needed to safely launch aircraft.

          What exactly do you find to be inappropriate for the truth ?!
          1. prior 27 May 2020 10: 39 New
            • 7
            • 11
            -4
            Smart phrase after an unsuccessful take-off. It is impossible to double-check.
            1. hydrox 27 May 2020 12: 27 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              The pilot is not to blame: he honestly fulfilled the condition of takeoff after low-power catapult.
              On the contrary, he was well done that he was not at a loss and at the last moment the afterburner nevertheless stuck it and saved the car. And the failure to take off (and the real possibility of a catastrophe) must be assigned to the RP (or higher command) - he is responsible for everything that can happen to an aircraft on deck during flights.
          2. Lynx-z 27 May 2020 10: 55 New
            • 8
            • 4
            +4
            I, too, when I stumble, I say that it was part of the teachings
  5. KVU-NSVD 27 May 2020 09: 27 New
    • 9
    • 4
    +5
    The pilot’s nerves are like ropes, here we must pay tribute. Here, on a motorcycle, one had to jump off the meter parapet and then adrenaline, and here on the plane “fall” from the bow of the ship, albeit in a controlled situation ... I hope the ship was at least not on the move, otherwise it’s some kind of stunt
    1. demo 27 May 2020 09: 34 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      It seems to me or I'm wrong - planes take off from a moving aircraft carrier.
      And on the deck, the deck swayed, despite the almost absent excitement.
      1. Avior 27 May 2020 10: 29 New
        • 5
        • 1
        +4
        Correctly
        So it is necessary, the movement against the wind.
        More stable take-off
        1. Liam 27 May 2020 13: 25 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          Quote: Avior
          Correctly
          So it is necessary, the movement against the wind.
          More stable take-off

          Wind speed + aircraft carrier speed is an additional stream of air on the planes. If the conditionally necessary take-off speed of the aircraft is 300 km, then 30 nodes of the aircraft carrier + 10 winds and the aircraft itself must be accelerated with a catapult only to 220 km. These are lesser airframe loads and increased combat load. In the same way, these speeds when landing
    2. Prisoner 27 May 2020 09: 36 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      What else can he do? After all, you will not say: “Stop, I will leave.” Only pull and hope that it will carry. winked
    3. Phoenix 27 May 2020 09: 37 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Operations on an aircraft carrier need to be carried out on the go. If I am not mistaken optimally - 4 knots. The ship in drift is not controlled, more prone to rolling.
    4. novel66 27 May 2020 09: 54 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      on the go and to the wind with your nose, a small increase in take-off power
      1. KVU-NSVD 27 May 2020 10: 01 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: novel xnumx
        on the go and to the wind with your nose, a small increase in take-off power

        Yes, that’s understandable. I mean, if this is a test, as stated in the note, then on the go, if there wasn’t enough thrust, then the crashed plane gets directly under the going ship. Dangerous for testing. And if not tests, then it is not clear why the afterburner did not turn it on.
        1. novel66 27 May 2020 10: 08 New
          • 6
          • 0
          +6
          I’ll tell you a secret - if it gurgles in the water, the Avik will not have time to catch it, will dive that it’s your dolphin .. here are the catapults they have there, you need to take a look
      2. Avior 27 May 2020 10: 30 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Not so small
        Even if there is no wind.
        1. novel66 27 May 2020 10: 36 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Well, 30 knots, it seems, gives 55 km / h, not so little .. the sixth part, somewhere
          1. Avior 27 May 2020 11: 07 New
            • 4
            • 1
            +3
            Even the fifth
            Plus headwind
            1. novel66 27 May 2020 13: 14 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              sin not to use!
    5. knn54 27 May 2020 10: 37 New
      • 5
      • 2
      +3
      Naval aviation is the elite of the US Air Force. And "amateurs" can hardly be found there.
      The main thing that carried. Not a pilot, of course.
  6. Krasnodar 27 May 2020 09: 30 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    Military pilots around the world - crazy extremes
  7. Vasyan1971 27 May 2020 09: 33 New
    • 9
    • 4
    +5
    The network noted the composure of the pilot.

    Supposed composure. Nobody checked his diapers after the flight. And the bench press there is concrete, of course! Respect, without a market!
    1. Nyrobsky 27 May 2020 10: 22 New
      • 9
      • 3
      +6
      Quote: Vasyan1971
      The network noted the composure of the pilot.

      Supposed composure. Nobody checked his diapers after the flight. And the bench press there is concrete, of course! Respect, without a market!

      No, the pilot is certainly well done, but given that the United States is hostile towards Russia and these "exercises" are training the flight crew to participate in external b / operations, including against Russia, it would be better if this penguin buried itself in water.
      1. Vasyan1971 27 May 2020 12: 04 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Quote: Nyrobsky
        it would be better if this penguin buried itself in the water.

        Well, you can’t seriously count on this ... request
        Unfortunately.
        1. Nyrobsky 27 May 2020 12: 09 New
          • 4
          • 6
          -2
          Quote: Vasyan1971
          Quote: Nyrobsky
          it would be better if this penguin buried itself in the water.

          Well, you can’t seriously count on this ... request
          Unfortunately.

          Sorry hi I look here some "compassionate" drown for mattresses and sculpt minuses for the fact that their idols were "dressed in diapers" and wished the plane to become a "bathyscaphe". Fight on the side of the enemy, so to speak laughing
          1. Vasyan1971 27 May 2020 12: 13 New
            • 7
            • 0
            +7
            Quote: Nyrobsky
            Fight on the side of the enemy, so to speak

            Well I do not know what . Here it is rather a question of the personal qualities and professionalism of the pilot, because they cannot be taken away, and we must admit. request
            1. Nyrobsky 27 May 2020 12: 21 New
              • 6
              • 0
              +6
              Well, the personal qualities of the pilot approval was expressed
              Quote: Vasyan1971
              Respect, without a market!

              Quote: Nyrobsky
              the pilot is certainly well done,
              It’s just that I don’t feel love or awe for mattresses, for the reason that they openly call Russia an enemy and do not hide their actions against Russia both on the information-ideological field and economically in order to cause damage, and therefore, in no way I can not wish them success. yes
              1. Vasyan1971 27 May 2020 12: 29 New
                • 4
                • 0
                +4
                Quote: Nyrobsky
                I just don’t feel love or awe for mattresses

                Similarly!
              2. val43 28 May 2020 09: 10 New
                • 2
                • 2
                0
                And what, does Russia treat them differently?
                1. Nyrobsky 28 May 2020 09: 40 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: val43
                  And what, does Russia treat them differently?

                  I don’t presume to speak for all of Russia, but I only voice my position.
          2. IL-64 27 May 2020 12: 37 New
            • 10
            • 4
            +6
            And what, it would be necessary to rejoice in the death of the pilot in case of an unsuccessful outcome? Catch my minus
            1. Nyrobsky 27 May 2020 12: 41 New
              • 7
              • 7
              0
              Quote: IL-64
              And what, it would be necessary to rejoice in the death of the pilot in case of an unsuccessful outcome? Catch my minus

              Well, the pilot would most likely be saved, and minus one unit in the fleet of the probable enemy would undoubtedly please. And yes, minus return hi
  8. Mountain shooter 27 May 2020 09: 38 New
    • 7
    • 6
    +1
    Very risky. The chassis barely caught water. I do not believe in such trials. The probability of "gurgling" is too high.
    1. forpost 27 May 2020 13: 00 New
      • 3
      • 4
      -1
      To each fu 35 on a big wave.
  9. GMM
    GMM 27 May 2020 09: 43 New
    • 7
    • 4
    +3
    To develop this element, an aircraft carrier and carrier-based aircraft are needed.
    At training grounds (NITKA) in Saki and Yeysk this is not to be done.
    1. Avior 27 May 2020 10: 34 New
      • 4
      • 2
      +2
      And the catapult too, do not forget
  10. rocket757 27 May 2020 09: 44 New
    • 4
    • 4
    0
    Such a job, nothing unusual in general.
    1. novel66 27 May 2020 09: 56 New
      • 6
      • 1
      +5
      I looked here - the height of the flight deck above the waterline is 12 meters. no, Vit, you can’t call such an ordinary job hi
      1. rocket757 27 May 2020 10: 31 New
        • 8
        • 0
        +8
        We are talking about test pilots, and there are no ACCIDENTS. Just crazy there is nothing to do. This is an ELITE that performs very complex, but just for them, familiar work.
        If the pilot was offered to disperse and smack into the ground ... try to survive while doing this, then yes, that would be extremely extreme for them !!!
  11. Free wind 27 May 2020 11: 01 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    At least not sickly.
    1. Sklendarka 27 May 2020 11: 21 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: Free Wind
      At least not sickly.

      The pilot has a job, he flies the plane ...
  12. voyaka uh 27 May 2020 11: 13 New
    • 11
    • 2
    +9
    To date, two aircraft carriers operate one training squadron F-35C. The third is being formed on another aircraft carrier. First, each will have one, then two. The rest is F-18.
    1. Vadim Zhivov 27 May 2020 15: 11 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      That's interesting for what minus then? Just for the information ... Well, where are we going ???? hi
      1. MMX
        MMX 27 May 2020 15: 59 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        Quote: VadimLives
        That's interesting for what minus then? Just for the information ... Well, where are we going ???? hi


        He wrote the information, but he thought it was quite possible something bad. Or maybe even then what kind of trouble he will write ... so they decided in advance and put a bolt in order bully
  13. Kunica 27 May 2020 11: 29 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    It’s good when you know that the catapult is at a minimum and you are ready to act. Another thing is a sudden failure. Will this training really help?
    1. Avior 27 May 2020 11: 43 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      Perhaps it will help.
      In any case, they hold gas during landing to take off when the cable breaks
      Yes, and the catapult has not been canceled
    2. hydrox 27 May 2020 12: 43 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      And already helped ...
      The PILOT of the spinal cord felt what might have happened, he was late for a second or two with the afterburner on.
  14. Pavel57 27 May 2020 13: 23 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    Sea pilots are something. No wonder the Americans drove in the 60s ground pilots through aircraft carriers.
  15. mmaxx 27 May 2020 14: 11 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Yes, and in ancient times there were enough such shots when the plane was landing below the deck. Our television loved these footage in order to strip down the American threat.
  16. Gennady Fomkin 27 May 2020 14: 22 New
    • 1
    • 5
    -4
    laughing About the embarrassment of NATO ships told the publication Sohu. At the Russian border in the Barents Sea, exercises were held. The destroyers of the United States literally turned into a popsicle, writes the Chinese media.

    Of course, the ships could not complete the combat mission. On-board equipment failed due to icing. Armament also failed. The harsh climate of the Arctic turned out to be stronger than all attempts by US and NATO troops to solve technical problems.

    The publication notes that the ships of Russia are pre-treated with a special compound that protects against extreme temperatures. For this reason, the Russian Navy in the Arctic has no problems.

    The US military admitted that their ships often freeze in ice or they experience various breakdowns. Sohu concluded that the embarrassment in the exercises demonstrated the apparent inability of the United States and NATO to compete in any way with the Russian Navy in the Arctic. laughing The destroyer Donald Cook froze in the Barents Sea, failing NATO exercises near the borders of Russia laughing
    1. Vadim Zhivov 27 May 2020 15: 16 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      I do not mind, let them freeze ,,, Do not hr..na climb to our borders !!! But the Chinese somehow do not really believe it ... It's like about the Internet and the fence .... hi
    2. Kushka 27 May 2020 17: 01 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Maybe now. I served in the 70s - there were no staffs -
      crowbar in hands and chipping forward. The Arctic is everything. North
      not better - icing of everything and everything. Novorossiysk bora -
      google see.
    3. val43 28 May 2020 09: 27 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      God forbid the Chinese about Russia that they will write bad - you will spread them on the wall: jaundice, etc. (I judge by VO). And then the joys are full of pants. He served in the Federation Council - the ships were not processed by any crew and nothing, they went to the seas, already the shirt pulled up! So hello Sohu.
  17. Maks1995 27 May 2020 15: 43 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Forgotten already, before there were many many videos with the usual take-off from aircraft carriers with a "dip". Nothing unusual.
  18. Kushka 27 May 2020 15: 59 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Joke. Two classmates - one pilot, the other on the lawn on the farm.
    Drive yes, ride. Well, the pilot took a friend into the cockpit - flew:
    Add 200! there are 200 !, I add 100! Accepted! Cloud-visibility 0,
    I’m going through the instruments! Accepted!. Had a friend, sat down, says very
    dangerous profession. The pilot arrived in the village - well, will you ride me?
    Easy !. Let's go - full throttle, third, again full throttle fourth
    and "5th extra" (there was such a stick on the 51st, with cutouts like
    for fishing line, knocked out 4 of them). Opens the glove compartment, picks up
    bottle, glass- Add 200 !. Pours the remainder -Add 100!
    Fuck-bang on the bump - the hood opens - Visibility 0 - I go on the instruments!
    In short, the pilot got out, doesn’t say, friend, your profession is more dangerous for you.
  19. Nikolai Redko 27 May 2020 17: 37 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    If these were tests, then they are very risky. Imagine the pilot’s “experiences” at these moments.
  20. Vladimir SHajkin 27 May 2020 20: 33 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Well done experienced, now we must test without a catapult, on their own.
  21. ZaDedov 28 May 2020 13: 53 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Great job pilots
  22. Interlocutor 28 May 2020 17: 51 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I also got the impression that the camera captured the frame. The aircraft carrier at the time of detachment pecked his nose, and then lifted it. Not so sickly lifted. Well, and accordingly the picture ....
  23. Maestro 28 May 2020 18: 41 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    everyone knows that near the surface of the earth / water at the wing of the plane there is a “screen” effect and its lifting force increases significantly. So nothing “critical” could have happened in that situation.