Military Review

Ship aviation masters MiG-29K

93
Ship pilots aviation master the multifunctional MiG-29K aircraft, reports MIC with reference to the message of the Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation Sergey Shoigu.




“The development of a new multi-purpose shipboard aircraft MiG-29K has already begun. For the training of flight personnel for its use, the construction of the ground-based training complex in Yeisk continues. There are no similar complexes in our country ",
said the minister at a conference call today.

The contract for the supply of 24 aircraft MiG-29K / KUB was concluded in 2012. The first serial MiG-29KUB took off in October 2013-th.

Help "MIC": “The MiG-29K (single) and MiG-29KUB (double) fighters have an improved glider with a high proportion of composite materials, a foldable wing with improved mechanization, a digital integrated remote control system for the aircraft with fourfold redundancy. The MiG-29K / KUB significantly reduced visibility in the radar range, increased combat load, there is a system of refueling in flight. "



The aircraft’s armament includes air-to-air and air-to-surface missiles, unguided missiles, corrected aerial bombs, aerial bombs, and a built-in 30-mm gun.
Photos used:
RSK MiG. http://www.migavia.ru
93 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. oleg-gr
    oleg-gr 1 December 2015 19: 20 New
    +8
    Studying in Yeysk, and then applying skills in Syria with Kuznetsov. Additional forces are very necessary there.
    1. Baikonur
      Baikonur 1 December 2015 19: 21 New
      27
      Look at this handsome man! A month ago on the "Star" showed:
      1. twviewer
        twviewer 1 December 2015 19: 39 New
        +9
        Quote: Baikonur
        Look at

        puts a rivet "in place" but not with a frail gap, or does the rack lever fasten with a open-end wrench, tearing off the edges, and even without a counter washer ... what is this? 4 ++ ??? Yes, with this approach, you can’t assemble two identical planes :)
        1. Zuborez
          Zuborez 1 December 2015 20: 00 New
          +3
          Quote: twviewer
          Yes, with this approach, you can’t assemble two identical planes :)

          "according to intelligence reports" (tm), in Lukhovitsy this happens sometimes crying
          1. Gaersul
            Gaersul 1 December 2015 23: 40 New
            +1
            Yeah, and also the antenna on takeoff falls.
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 2 December 2015 02: 44 New
              -5
              And from firing from a low-speed 30mm gun (from which you can’t get on an airplane) it falls apart ...

              In general, why is there a plane on the ship whose main and unique advantage over the Su-27 is that it can take off from unpaved strips, and which is inferior to it in everything else?
              1. Gaersul
                Gaersul 2 December 2015 07: 42 New
                0
                Quote: Scraptor
                And from firing from a low-speed 30mm gun (from which you can’t get on an airplane) it falls apart ...

                Something I doubt very much, here is the fact that once in the FACE young animals fixed the antenna through ... since the pilot immediately landed for landing. And MIG shoots fine, I would even say perfectly!
                1. Scraptor
                  Scraptor 2 December 2015 15: 59 New
                  0
                  From 1500 rpm? With tanks and even Su-25 aircraft with its 2200 rounds it shoots even better.
                  All American fighter jets have fast-firing 20mm guns with 6600 and much larger ammunition.
                  30mm of tactics only on A-10 with 4200.

                  In Georgia, even a drone was shot down with an MiG-29 with an expensive missile, so as not to engage an even more "expensive" gun.
                2. Scraptor
                  Scraptor 2 December 2015 16: 00 New
                  0
                  From 1500 rpm? With tanks and even Su-25 aircraft with its 2200 rounds it shoots even better.
                  All American fighter jets have fast-firing 20mm guns with 6600 and much larger ammunition.
                  30mm of tactics only on A-10 with 4200.

                  In Georgia, even a drone was shot down with an MiG-29 with an expensive missile, so as not to engage an even more "expensive" gun.
        2. not main
          not main 1 December 2015 22: 26 New
          +6
          Quote: twviewer
          Quote: Baikonur
          Look at

          puts a rivet "in place" but not with a frail gap, or does the rack lever fasten with a open-end wrench, tearing off the edges, and even without a counter washer ... what is this? 4 ++ ??? Yes, with this approach, you can’t assemble two identical planes :)

          And rivet when crimping compacts all areas! This is the beauty of rivets! Try to get a rivet from 3 or more riveted products! At the expense of tearing off the edges, it’s you who got excited, but the counter washer is redundant here. Lock wire is used here, so the grover is overweight!
          1. twviewer
            twviewer 1 December 2015 23: 10 New
            +1
            Quote: non-primary
            And rivet when crimping compacts all areas! This is the beauty of rivets! Try to get a rivet from 3 or more riveted products! At the expense of tearing off the edges, it’s you who got excited, but the counter washer is redundant here. Lock wire is used here, so the grover is overweight!

            spheres fill speak? I drilled it out of place and the key did not break, but did I determine the moment from experience? and how much time did you spend more working with a horn? and as for the use of wire, you’re probably right,
            but what about the lack of rugs on the "fuselage"? technology and culture are antediluvian from the 80s, unless a larger power tool.
      2. GSH-18
        GSH-18 1 December 2015 20: 31 New
        +2
        Quote: Baikonur
        Look at this handsome man! A month ago on the "Star" showed:

        Yes, what are the newest (Mig-29KUB) ?? Well, why write? The only thing missing is the high-pair phrases that are obligatory in such cases: “has no analogues in the world” and “knows little”! wassat
        They even a few years ago manned the Indian aircraft carrier "Vikromaditya"!
        Again, the old ones are being pushed instead of immediately developing the deck version of the T-50 (PAK FA).
        1. podpolkovnik
          podpolkovnik 1 December 2015 21: 27 New
          +2
          Quote: GSH-18
          Quote: Baikonur
          Look at this handsome man! A month ago on the "Star" showed:

          Yes, what are the newest (Mig-29KUB) ?? Well, why write? The only thing missing is the high-pair phrases that are obligatory in such cases: “has no analogues in the world” and “knows little”! wassat
          They even a few years ago manned the Indian aircraft carrier "Vikromaditya"!
          Again, the old ones are being pushed instead of immediately developing the deck version of the T-50 (PAK FA).

          Do not pay attention - Baiko-nur again under the influence technical fluids "lofty" and "pathos", his tales no one seriously takes ... belay
        2. Urals
          Urals 1 December 2015 22: 48 New
          0
          Yes, we would have to wait for the usual T-50 sad
        3. tomket
          tomket 1 December 2015 22: 48 New
          +2
          Quote: GSH-18
          Again junk vparivayut,

          Well then, let’s be indignant at the fact that both Su-34 of the 90x and Su-30 are a hundred years old at lunchtime, as they plow the sky from China and India.
          1. twviewer
            twviewer 2 December 2015 00: 00 New
            0
            Quote: tomket
            Su-30s who are a hundred years old at lunch, as they plow the skies of China and India.

            in Indian sou Israeli containers, and on our shish with oil :)
          2. ANTI.KORR.
            ANTI.KORR. 2 December 2015 00: 07 New
            +3
            Quote: tomket
            Well then, let’s be indignant at the fact that both Su-34 of the 90x and Su-30 are a hundred years old at lunchtime, as they plow the sky from China and India.

            That's right, all of these aircraft were developed in the USSR and all of the modifications you listed are just variations on the Su-27 and MiG-29.
            But propaganda is propaganda. yesterday, in general, from the highest rostrum, it was weeded out that We had raised the GDP by almost 2 times !!!
            I was ah ... very surprised. belay
          3. NEXUS
            NEXUS 2 December 2015 00: 16 New
            +5
            Quote: tomket
            Well then, let’s be indignant at the fact that both Su-34 of the 90x and Su-30 are a hundred years old at lunchtime, as they plow the sky from China and India.

            And as a result of the crisis of the 90s, we didn’t have other equipment ... and therefore we have to rejoice at what we have. In the USSR 15 republics worked for the defense industry, and here Russia alone with the Gorbachevs, the Yeltsin drunkards and fraternal friendship in the 90s with It’s clear that all of these planes are from the USSR, but on the destroyed and stolen plan to count on creating something really new, to put it mildly strange. It’s good that they began to rearm, rather than flying on the Su-27 and Mig-29 of the first series.
            Best regards hi
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. ANTI.KORR.
              ANTI.KORR. 2 December 2015 00: 46 New
              +3
              Quote: NEXUS
              It’s good that they began to rearm, and do not fly on the Su-27 and MiG-29 of the first series.

              Greetings! drinks
              Throughout this story, it infuriates the fact that the modernized developments of the USSR are given out as a breakthrough of the Eltsin-Putin economy, and the absence of an economic development plan and even hints of elementary planning and a development strategy are passed off as a good idea.
              In this regard, yesterday's news about the return of Kudrin to a senior position in the presidential administration is shocking.
              1. NEXUS
                NEXUS 2 December 2015 00: 56 New
                +3
                Quote: ANTI.KORR.
                In this regard, yesterday's news about the return of Kudrin to a senior position in the presidential administration is shocking.

                Good time of day hi .For me, all these Chubais, curly, Serdyukov and other managers with a filthy broom need to be driven not only from posts, but also from the country.
              2. varov14
                varov14 2 December 2015 04: 00 New
                +2
                So these are the companions who will push him into the pit faster, some man will mesmerize, sorry for the poor fellow, no way soon.
        4. Shmal_
          Shmal_ 1 December 2015 23: 57 New
          +4
          Well, in the coming years, why fly something? The T-50 will not be ready for several more years! And this is a modernized small fighter, which on Kuznetsovo will fit a third more than the Su-33!
        5. Andrey Yuryevich
          Andrey Yuryevich 2 December 2015 06: 00 New
          +1
          Quote: GSH-18
          Again, the old ones are being pushed instead of immediately developing the deck version of the T-50 (PAK FA).

          meaning? while doing, "kuzya" will become rotten ... request
      3. GSH-18
        GSH-18 1 December 2015 20: 41 New
        +1
        I have a legitimate question. Well, our deck pilots are preparing, this is very good! But where are our aircraft carriers, then? Rather, when these pilots will be able to take up their real combat duty as part of the Russian aircraft carrier group ?? Here is what is interesting. request
        1. Denis Skiff
          Denis Skiff 1 December 2015 20: 45 New
          +1
          We will take away the rabble behind the puddle
        2. lelikas
          lelikas 1 December 2015 21: 08 New
          +2
          Quote: GSH-18
          But where are our aircraft carriers, then?

          They are not, not at all, not even a project, respectively, the next 15-20 years they will not physically appear. Alas.
          1. GSH-18
            GSH-18 1 December 2015 21: 43 New
            -1
            Quote: lelikas
            Quote: GSH-18
            But where are our aircraft carriers, then?

            They are not, not at all, not even a project, respectively, the next 15-20 years they will not physically appear. Alas.

            The fact of the matter is that the project IS! And not one. I don’t know what the problem is there, either in money or in political brakes? ..
            BUT! If we are not going to build Aircraft carriers, then what if we need deck pilots and deck aircraft ??? request
            Or work is already underway, but in secret?
            1. Leks69Rus
              Leks69Rus 1 December 2015 22: 00 New
              0
              Dear about what nagging? In modern realities, a new aircraft carrier is not exactly the task of this 10th anniversary and possibly not the next. The real project is to modernize Kuznetsov to the maximum, taking into account the Indian aircraft carrier and equipping a full-fledged air group MiG29 cu.
              1. GSH-18
                GSH-18 1 December 2015 22: 11 New
                +1
                Quote: Leks69Rus
                The real project is to modernize Kuznetsov to the maximum, taking into account the Indian aircraft carrier and equipping a full-fledged air group MiG29 cu.

                1. To make a normal Aircraft Carrier out of galoshes is unrealistic and much more expensive than to make a new one on a new project, which will have the further possibility of modernization. Moreover, we do not need an aircraft carrier alone.
                2. The "full-fledged air group from the MIG-29KUB" sounds very strange belay
                Valuable for what?
                A normal carrier-based aircraft carrier group includes several (more than two) different aircraft. Including helicopters, AWACS and drones. An aircraft carrier aircraft group can have up to 90 different aircraft. Where can I put all this on Kuz? It needs to be doubled for this. Then, the duration of his voyage is 30 days. That is, it is not suitable for ocean crossings. Why sculpt candy from guano? It is necessary to build a normal aircraft carrier on a new project. yes
            2. lelikas
              lelikas 2 December 2015 10: 51 New
              +2
              Quote: GSH-18
              The fact of the matter is that the project IS! And not one. I don’t know what the problem is there, either in money or in political brakes? ..
              BUT! If we are not going to build Aircraft carriers, then what if we need deck pilots and deck aircraft ???
              Or work is already underway, but in secret?

              A project is not a wooden mockup, which any mocker will do in hundreds, it’s tons of drawings and kilo-hours of work of shipbuilders of KB, distinct TK from the fleet, but for now all this is not.
          2. ANTI.KORR.
            ANTI.KORR. 2 December 2015 00: 53 New
            +2
            Quote: lelikas
            They are not, not at all, not even a project, respectively, the next 15-20 years they will not physically appear. Alas.

            And yet there is no factory where aircraft carriers can be built.
            And from all of the above, that real full-fledged aircraft carriers with modern economic policy will never appear ...
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 2 December 2015 01: 00 New
              +2
              Quote: ANTI.KORR.
              And yet there is no factory where aircraft carriers can be built.

              Shipyards ... the only shipyard that was built for the construction of such ships remained in Ukraine, in Nikolaev. Yes, and the experience of building such ships was simply wasted and forgotten. To say it simply, we will "build", but how much time we build ships of much lesser displacement for decades ...
              And there are no capacities like those in the USSR. In the USSR, there were 24 defense enterprises, and in Russia there were only 000.
        3. Andrey Yuryevich
          Andrey Yuryevich 2 December 2015 06: 09 New
          +1
          Quote: GSH-18
          I have a legitimate question. Well, our deck pilots are preparing, this is very good! But where are our aircraft carriers, then? Rather, when these pilots will be able to take up their real combat duty as part of the Russian aircraft carrier group ?? Here is what is interesting. request

          with the design almost “fifty” vehicles, on the “kuz” something like a dozen, the aircraft carrier group with us, this is actually TAKR, + the Admiral Chabanenko UAV, tugboat and three tankers. In the process, the Yaroslav the Wise patrolman and the tanker from Baltiysk, and the Ladny patrol guard from Sevastopol will do. All this is called a ship’s “carrier group” ... but for me it’s to put it mildly a disgrace of a great country ... the carrier group looks something like this: (pictured). Unfortunately, we don’t have a half-year to shine ...
      4. mvg
        mvg 1 December 2015 22: 06 New
        +3
        The Zvezda channel, for our cosmodrome Marshal, already needs to think up some kind of freelance position. I am at a loss with the name. Something all offensive turn out request
        I’ll go consult with Discovery.
        And the assembly technology (with a hammer, self-tapping screws), we have always been debugged to "..yat" (I still have not understood, either "by five", or by "fucking")
      5. Duke
        Duke 2 December 2015 05: 22 New
        +3
        MiG-29K ship fighter
    2. Tor5
      Tor5 1 December 2015 19: 29 New
      -2
      By the way, little by little you can move Kuznetsov to Syria!
      1. mvg
        mvg 1 December 2015 22: 10 New
        +4
        By the way, little by little you can move Kuznetsov to Syria!

        Did you mean that to fit a couple of tugboats, put a field kitchen and move this canned food into the Mediterranean? It’s at least warm there, but the Kuzi with autonomous heat is “a bit rough”, and even in the Northern Fleet the winter is just around the corner ..
        And you won’t put a heater in the cabin (the on-board network is not 220/50 there). But there is not enough buzuyuk for everyone.
        If you are in this sense (worried about 1500 sailors), then I'm FOR and plus!
        1. Andrey Yuryevich
          Andrey Yuryevich 2 December 2015 06: 14 New
          +2
          Quote: mvg
          Did you mean that a pair of tugboats

          plus 2-3 tankers ... the strike force will be. crying
      2. PSih2097
        PSih2097 1 December 2015 22: 52 New
        +3
        Quote: Tor5
        By the way, little by little you can move Kuznetsov to Syria!

        he should go to kapitalku with modernization, you are our admiral ...
        1. mvg
          mvg 1 December 2015 23: 53 New
          +3
          What are we going to upgrade?
          The engines do not change, only with the project. (Although there was one here on the forum, grit on the "de Gaulle" diesels on YA waved under a good mood), and this is almost the most important thing.
          The hull is unsuccessful, it is necessary to put catapults and a flat deck.
          Although they removed 12 anti-ship missiles (not everyone knows the truth about this, this is a GS-18 stone in your garden), but the vacated place was used stupidly.
          The wing is unsuccessful. Su-25UTG and MiG-29K (Su-33 will be written off soon). Modernization is also not subject to.
          This canned food has long been put on needles. Not a single successful military campaign, just repairs and a ton of maintenance money. And they were built (1143) in Nikolaevka .. over the hill now.
          Price / quality - nowhere worse.
        2. Andrey Yuryevich
          Andrey Yuryevich 2 December 2015 07: 43 New
          0
          Quote: PSih2097
          for capital with modernization it’s time for him,

          and maybe it’s not worth it ... a super-expensive non-combat unit, with a dozen aircraft. who will scare them? now it would be useful in Middle Sea, a real AUG, and not this parody of an aircraft carrier, with a tug and tankers.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. aleksfill
      aleksfill 1 December 2015 19: 57 New
      0
      It would be nice if the aircraft from the cruiser "Admiral Kuznetsov" received combat
      experience in the Mediterranean off the coast of Syria striking ISIS. That would be
      invaluable experience for our sun.
      1. NDR-791
        NDR-791 1 December 2015 20: 23 New
        0
        Unfortunately, how many do not teach, but one "Kuznetsov" is not enough !!! Also, if anything, Shoigu recalled the development of funds in shipbuilding. Why are we building the unknown to the world? And such a ground-based stand for training pilots “K” since the beginning of the seventies was in Yeysk.
      2. GSH-18
        GSH-18 1 December 2015 21: 56 New
        0
        Quote: aleksfill
        It would be nice if the aircraft from the cruiser "Admiral Kuznetsov" received combat
        experience in the Mediterranean off the coast of Syria striking ISIS. That would be
        invaluable experience for our sun.

        Kuzi has a different purpose. Kuzya is not a strike aircraft carrier but TAKR. It is effective as a cover for naval formations and itself. For massive land strikes is not intended, a small air group, consisting mainly of Mig-29K fighters, the absence of AWACS aircraft.
        You can of course try to plow the field on the tank, but the result will be corresponding ... request
        And so we are with these deck pilots, like a shoemaker without boots sad
        In short, Russia needs an Aircraft Carrier. And preferably yesterday!
      3. Andrey Yuryevich
        Andrey Yuryevich 2 December 2015 07: 47 New
        +1
        Quote: aleksfill
        That would be
        invaluable experience for our sun.

        it would be an unreasonably huge and costly experience for our budget. The efficiency is extremely low.
    6. GSH-18
      GSH-18 1 December 2015 20: 25 New
      -3
      To train the flight crew in its use, the construction of a ground-based training complex in Yeysk continues. There are no similar complexes in our country.»

      And where, then, is Yeysk ??? belay In America or something ?? laughing A simulator "thread" in the Crimea ??
      The aircraft’s armament includes air-to-air and air-to-surface missiles, unguided missiles, corrected aerial bombs, aerial bombs, and a built-in 30-mm gun.

      Clearly, the main work will have to do on any Su-33. A much greater combat load and the possibility of suspension of anti-ship missiles.
      1. max702
        max702 1 December 2015 20: 49 New
        +2
        Quote: GSH-18
        Clearly, the main work will have to do on any Su-33. A much greater combat load and the possibility of suspension of anti-ship missiles.

        It’s not sad to say this, but the RCC cannot be suspended from the SU-33 .. He generally has problems with armament, someone made a mistake somewhere and sits down on the deck with ammunition; he cannot stand it ..
        1. dyksi
          dyksi 1 December 2015 20: 57 New
          +1
          Here is the information in the topic.
        2. GSH-18
          GSH-18 1 December 2015 22: 00 New
          0
          Quote: max702
          It’s not sad to say this, but RCC cannot be suspended from the SU-33 .. He has generally problems with weapons

          Quote: max702
          sits down with ammunition on the deck, he cannot but stand it ..

          So who has a problem? At the Su-33 or the "deck"? lol
        3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 1 December 2015 22: 09 New
          -1
          Quote: max702
          He generally has problems with armament. Someone made a mistake somewhere and sits down on deck with ammunition.

          In great secret - this is not one decker should not do. Carefully forbidden
          1. GSH-18
            GSH-18 1 December 2015 22: 15 New
            -2
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Quote: max702
            He generally has problems with armament. Someone made a mistake somewhere and sits down on deck with ammunition.

            In great secret - this is not one decker should not do. Carefully forbidden

            Hi Andrew!
            Naturally! RCC combat to the fighter-bomber just do not cling lol
          2. mvg
            mvg 1 December 2015 22: 36 New
            +7
            Andrei, just don’t say that all the Phoenixes with which the F-14 tomcat climbed, let’s say, were shot back .. before landing. And he took them and 6 pcs at a time. The overhead flight, however, turned out.

            And Harpoon AGM-84 - by weight, is very similar to AIM-54. Do you really think that Hornets and Harpoon Intruders fly only one way? Here are staffers - handsome, they don’t spare any attendants for training pilots.
            You also deceive marshals. Not ashamed?
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 December 2015 10: 52 New
              0
              Quote: mvg
              Andrei, just don’t say that all the Phoenixes with which the F-14 tomcat climbed, let's say, were shooting back ..

              Did a lot of them rise? Generally speaking, the Phoenix turned out to be so expensive that they were not given to combat pilots.
              Quote: mvg
              And Harpoon AGM-84 - by weight, is very similar to AIM-54. Do you really think that Hornets and Harpoon Intruders fly only one way?

              Yes, that's exactly what I think. No one will hang a military missile because you live well, it must either be disposed of during the departure, or before boarding the deck.
              Quote: mvg
              You also deceive marshals. Not ashamed?

              No, because if I’m cheating, it’s not from evil. But I really believe that decks are prohibited from landing with ammunition. I admit that I could be wrong.
              1. Mera joota
                Mera joota 2 December 2015 18: 57 New
                +1
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Yes, that's exactly what I think. No one will hang a military missile because you live well, it must either be disposed of during the departure, or before boarding the deck.

                Well, it doesn’t always work out ...
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 December 2015 21: 06 New
                  0
                  You made a convincing argument, I admit my mistake. Thank! Thanks to you, I now know more than before. hi
                  1. Mera joota
                    Mera joota 7 December 2015 07: 43 New
                    0
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    You made a convincing argument, I admit my mistake. Thank! Thanks to you, I now know more than before.

                    Why yarnichat. The fact that landing with weapons is prohibited is not a secret, but it happens. They also land with PTB and hanging equipment, so dumping into the sea whatever the POD is is very expensive ...
                    1. Scraptor
                      Scraptor 7 December 2015 21: 48 New
                      0
                      Tanks are usually dumped like warheads, especially of high power. Nobody needs to hit their own aircraft carrier with their own bomb lol
            2. The comment was deleted.
          3. tomket
            tomket 1 December 2015 22: 52 New
            +1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            In great secret - this is not one decker should not do. Carefully forbidden

            Super hornet can do. For him, the fleet itself was seized, because it was too unprofitable to sink missiles after each patrol.
        4. Mera joota
          Mera joota 2 December 2015 19: 06 New
          0
          Quote: max702
          It’s not sad to say this, but the RCC cannot be suspended from the SU-33 .. He generally has problems with armament, someone made a mistake somewhere and sits down on the deck with ammunition; he cannot stand it ..

          You didn’t quite correctly put it, giving rise to a lot of comments. The Su-33 has restrictions on landing mass, because the Kuzi deck was not designed for aircraft of such mass. After the tests and the first years of operation, a deflection of the deck was discovered. After that (and the repair), restrictions were imposed on the landing mass, which destroyed the Su-33M, which was so heavy that they even wanted to dismantle the air gun, but it still did not fit. By the way, this became the main reason why the air wing was not equipped, it did not make sense ...
          And all greed is indefatigable of one design bureau acting not for the interests of the motherland, but for the sake of its own benefit ...
          1. Scraptor
            Scraptor 2 December 2015 23: 50 New
            +1
            So after the tests or the first years of operation?
            Restrictions were imposed on the landing mass of the Su-33, and this made it heavier!

            Today is April 1st? Systemically continuous rubbish, town here, Messrs. Trolls ...
      2. mvg
        mvg 1 December 2015 22: 21 New
        +4
        GS-18 (5) RU Today, 20:25 ↑

        To train the flight crew in its use, the construction of a ground-based training complex in Yeysk continues. There are no similar complexes in our country ”

        And where, then, is Yeysk ??? belay In America or something ?? laughing A simulator "thread" in the Crimea ??
        The aircraft’s armament includes air-to-air and air-to-surface missiles, unguided missiles, corrected aerial bombs, aerial bombs, and a built-in 30-mm gun.

        Clearly, the main work will have to do on any Su-33. A much greater combat load and the possibility of suspension of anti-ship missiles.

        Admiral, a couple of questions? The title is not allowed, but in an informal setting ..
        1. Why in Syria RCC? There, it seems, there are not many rivers on which bearded people sail in boats.
        2. What kind of anti-ship missiles are you going to hang on the Su-33? (a hint for the top command staff whether they exist at all in Russia).
        3. How much does the Su-33 lift more combat load than the Mig-29K from the ramp of an aircraft carrier (by the way, it doesn’t work on the ground).
        And the last question: Is it time to sit down to do homework? Mom doesn't scream?
        1. GSH-18
          GSH-18 1 December 2015 22: 34 New
          -1
          Quote: mvg
          Admiral, a couple of questions? The title is not allowed, but in an informal setting ..
          1. Why in Syria RCC? There, it seems, there are not many rivers on which bearded people sail in boats.

          It’s free, Major.
          This is not a question for me. I did not offer to use aviation anti-ship missiles in Syria.

          Quote: mvg
          2. What kind of anti-ship missiles are you going to hang on the Su-33? (a hint for the top command staff whether they exist in Russia at all)

          I rated the joke sad There is one (at least) BraMos called. Together with the Indians, an aviation version for Su was developed.
          Quote: mvg
          3. How much does the Su-33 lift more combat load than the Mig-29K from the ramp of an aircraft carrier (by the way, it doesn’t work on the ground).

          Dear, have you ever seen these planes near? Well, at least the MiG-29 and Su-27? If so, then I do not need to explain anything further.
          1. mvg
            mvg 1 December 2015 22: 47 New
            +1
            I did not offer to use aviation anti-ship missiles in Syria.

            perform Su-33 in any way. A much greater combat load and the possibility of suspension of anti-ship missiles.
            BrahMos called. Together with the Indians, an aviation version for Su was developed.

            Imagine the aviation version even in MOST INDIA does not fly !! Oh how. A thickish bastard is obtained, and the Su-30MKI is flimsy. This is the time.
            And secondly, and that Russia was going to buy "brahmos", are you serious? Helping to develop and buy for your needs is different.
            Have you ever seen these planes near?

            Imagine a little Rafaelka (what a wonderful word) empty mass of 9 tons, drag, a bastard, more than a specially trained Su-34 bomber, empty mass of 24 tons.
            And the Su-33 also has a restriction imposed when taking off from the deck ... He would just have to raise his “carcass”.
            Yes, and about the lessons

            Just don’t say that homework is not set! The middle of the week!
      3. Scraptor
        Scraptor 2 December 2015 03: 27 New
        -2
        Quote: CERHJ
        Are you a complete "dvoeshnik"?

        everyone understood about you for a long time ... whose Rafal "according to quotes" is not just MiG-29 but even Su-27 lol
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 2 December 2015 18: 00 New
          0
          Again, deliberately left the blacklist to put a “-”, and then hid in it again? wassat
    7. Nick
      Nick 1 December 2015 21: 02 New
      0
      Quote: oleg-gr
      Studying in Yeysk, and then applying skills in Syria with Kuznetsov. Additional forces are very necessary there.

      In any case, the running-in of a new aviation complex in combat conditions would not be superfluous ...
      1. GSH-18
        GSH-18 1 December 2015 22: 25 New
        0
        Quote: Nick
        In any case, the running-in of a new aviation complex in combat conditions would not be superfluous ...

        Extra for WHAT? Judging by the words of Shoigu and all these preparations with carrier-based aircraft and pilots, the conclusion suggests itself. We will build aircraft carriers.
        1. ANTI.KORR.
          ANTI.KORR. 2 December 2015 01: 20 New
          +4
          Quote: GSH-18
          the conclusion suggests itself. We will build aircraft carriers.

          Are you serious ???!
          The bearded anecdote reminds ... about modeling a fireman from clay lol
          There is already a runoff of questions ... where will we build, who will build, what kind of chiches will we build?
          While we were trying to acquire frog "barges-M", because we ourselves cannot build ...
          Or are you going to build aircraft carriers in South Korea?
          Now the Russian Federation can not build a single ship of the 1st rank, with the current approach, it can neither tomorrow, nor after tomorrow ..
          Now we have ships of the coastal zone without dvigla that were “baked like pies” 40 years ago without any pump, and now launching a missile boat is already an event of universal scale.
  2. Denis Obukhov
    Denis Obukhov 1 December 2015 19: 26 New
    +3
    The Russian ship-based fighter MiG-29K is one of those aircraft, whose fate is somewhat reminiscent of the story of the legendary bird Phoenix. Launched back in the days of the Soviet Union, the program for creating a fundamentally new aircraft for domestic naval aviation - deck-based with a springboard takeoff and landing on an aerofinisher - almost collapsed into oblivion after the collapse of the country, but was revived at the beginning of the new millennium. First, in the interests of a foreign customer, and now with the MiG-29K they connect the future of carrier-based aviation and the Russian Navy.
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 1 December 2015 21: 06 New
      +3
      Quote: Denis Obukhov
      and now the future of carrier-based aviation and the Russian Navy is connected with the MiG-29K.

      MiG-29K is a transitional stage of naval aviation. Here we went along the path of the French, who placed Rafali's lungs on their AVU Charles Degol.
      And the future lies with the multi-functional aircraft of catapult take-off and aerofinishing landing. But it will be the wing of the new Russian aircraft carrier!
  3. newcomer
    newcomer 1 December 2015 19: 28 New
    +4
    it is very pleasing that, finally, after betting exclusively on su, they realized that this is the moment. I watched the lead pilot test kb say “for a moment 29 I’ll make any plane. By the way, according to Western pilots, Mig29 is a celestial killer.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. dyksi
      dyksi 1 December 2015 20: 15 New
      +2
      Here is some information on the car, a cool fighter.
      1. Tektor
        Tektor 2 December 2015 16: 32 New
        0
        Yes, this is the pinnacle of technical thought. Super weapon. They have no equal. With such MiGs, no NATO is afraid of us. They would be on guard for our potential partners, just in case a fireman.
  4. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 1 December 2015 19: 32 New
    +2
    construction of a ground training complex in Yeysk continues. There are no similar complexes in our country.

    Citizen Shoigu apparently doesn’t know about “Thread” in Saki, or maybe he doesn’t relate Crimea to our country?
    1. KBR109
      KBR109 1 December 2015 19: 35 New
      +3
      Since the time of T. Apakidze they’re mastering, but they won’t master everything.
    2. Wedmak
      Wedmak 1 December 2015 21: 13 New
      +1
      The complex in Yeysk is much more perfect and universal. They also wanted to build a simulator for helicopter pilots. Therefore, there are no analogues in the country.
    3. tomket
      tomket 1 December 2015 22: 56 New
      0
      Quote: chunga-changa
      Citizen Shoigu apparently doesn’t know about “Thread” in Saki, or maybe he doesn’t relate Crimea to our country?

      Actually, they began to build an analogue of "Thread" long before "Our Crimea". Still, Shoigu is not a wang, but he is obliged to conduct training.
  5. Maksus
    Maksus 1 December 2015 19: 33 New
    -2
    I don’t understand something, or do we still have a couple of aircraft carriers in ambush? Kuzya is equipped with something like that, the equipment for Sushki has been trained, where should MiG go?
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 1 December 2015 19: 49 New
      +2
      Drying is heavier, which also contributes to the durability of the deck. And the resource is also not eternal, it expires. Therefore, they are moving to the lighter and newest "29th".
      My personal opinion is that if you use an aircraft carrier in the manner in which it was supposed to be used, and these are air defense and anti-aircraft defense formations, this replacement will not affect the performance of the aircraft carrier.
      Kuznetsov will be weaker as a strike unit (of the Nimitsov type), and you can do more from land aerodromes than from an aircraft carrier. But you need to cope with your immediate responsibilities. So the change should not fundamentally change the possibilities. New it is new in Africa too.
      hi
      1. Maksus
        Maksus 1 December 2015 22: 15 New
        -1
        There was evidence that the 29 / 35 glider is weak and this is in the land version, what will happen to the sea?
  6. Reserve buildbat
    Reserve buildbat 1 December 2015 19: 36 New
    +4
    And in the photo there is a CUBE with KAB-500Kr. Training and military, but with such "toys" - class)))
  7. Dam
    Dam 1 December 2015 19: 42 New
    -9
    More planes are good and different
    1. Dam
      Dam 1 December 2015 23: 20 New
      -2
      And the banter here doesn’t seem to understand
  8. zekaze1980
    zekaze1980 1 December 2015 19: 45 New
    +3
    MiGs have forgotten to put it mildly, but in vain, someone’s interests are visible only to the design bureau dry, and apparently the financial interests are in the first place. With advice, it was not in vain that there was a competition between different design bureaus, do you think ...?
    1. dauria
      dauria 2 December 2015 00: 09 New
      0
      With advice, it was not in vain that there was a competition between different design bureaus, do you think ...?


      Not in vain, and Mig once completely lost to Sushka. General made a mistake by making him small and ... twin-engine. Single engine F-16 has the same engineas the twin-engine F-15. This brutally reduced the cost of both cars and allowed them to conquer the market. (They do the same trick with a pair of F-35 F-22) Do not worry, the Americans “laughed” with the F-18 in the same way, but they had a lot of room for it - on aircraft carriers. And the Mikoyanovtsy were just late. Now let them compete on paper, iron is too expensive even for Americans. sad
      1. mvg
        mvg 2 December 2015 02: 05 New
        +4
        Don’t tell anyone else, okay? This is a state secret.
        If you almost guessed right with F-16 and F-15 (F100, F101 aka F110), and then there are options like on Korean F104 and there are not only general speakers, but also Pratt and Vitni, and more exotic ones. And, probably, there is a lot of interchangeability (and I doubt it), then in the version with F-22 and F-35 this is complete crap (F119 and F135). Aircraft are similar in mass - this time. And I don’t want to go deep about nozzles, take-offs, modes ..
        F-18 Bumblebee, engine F404.
        PS: Do not repeat after someone, read better yourself .. before writing. The price tags for American planes are really "tasty", but for another reason .. Just look at how much F-16 was made (3 thousand only in the USA, and also in Turkey, the Netherlands, Japan, Belgium), how many F-35s are planned (thousands 3 will be, or even more). And how much will go into the T-50 series .. (200 pieces, along with export) Dance better from here. Our planes are like Rolls-Royces, piece goods, manual assembly!
  9. viktor561
    viktor561 1 December 2015 19: 51 New
    +7
    Quote: zekaze1980
    MiGs forgot to say the least
    Yes, not to put it mildly, but roughly speaking - they lobbied a Sukhoi corporation - without competition - it is a betrayal - there was great competition under the USSR and due to this our Air Force grew in quality! Where Migi, YAKi, TU, IL - one Dry - horror!
    1. excomandante
      excomandante 2 December 2015 00: 06 New
      +2
      Right. The Yak-141 was immediately remembered, it seemed to be a promising machine.
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 2 December 2015 16: 51 New
        0
        Dry to do with it.
  10. NEXUS
    NEXUS 1 December 2015 19: 56 New
    +1
    Apparently they’re doing it with an eye for export. The MIG Design Bureau has a lot of work, starting from the development of the MIG-41 (5th generation interceptor with speed characteristics of 4,5 max), and ending with the 5th generation LFI (they announced that they had raised the MIG-1.44 documentation and it is based on the initiative of making a new fighter). As well as numerous upgrades to the existing fleet, and export.
    1. zekaze1980
      zekaze1980 1 December 2015 20: 19 New
      +2
      I read an article about Mig-1.44, like the Chinese are making their own aircraft from this project, but in the union they began to develop it, I can be wrong, at 79. The bottom line is that the groundwork was such that without interrupting development, our aircraft could probably go into space now.
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 1 December 2015 20: 26 New
        +1
        Quote: zekaze1980
        I read an article about Mig-1.44, like the Chinese are making their own aircraft from this project, but in the union they began to develop it, I can be wrong, at 79. The bottom line is that the groundwork was such that without interrupting development, our aircraft could probably go into space now.

        The problem is that MIG-1.44 is already "out of date" at the prototype stage, as it did not meet the requirements of a 5th generation fighter. Yes, and it is not very correct to consider LFI, rather, MFI.
        1. tomket
          tomket 1 December 2015 22: 59 New
          +2
          Quote: NEXUS
          The problem is that the MIG-1.44 is already “out of date” at the prototype stage, as it did not meet the requirements of the 5 generation fighter

          And what is outdated? Didn't look like a raptor like t-50? The "Typhoon" with the same scheme does not seem to be out of date, and even successfully sold.
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 1 December 2015 23: 49 New
            +1
            Quote: tomket
            And what is outdated?

            Because in 1986, when the development of the new MIG-1.42 IFI (product 5.12) was in full swing, work began on the new 5th generation fighter in the USA, in the tender of which it participated
            two firms Lockheed and Northrop ... and in 1997, while our car was "gathering dust" due to underfunding, a domestic competitor to this MIG appeared, the Sukhov SU-37 "BERKUT", which was lifted into the air in 1997 . And by the 97th year, in fact, the Migov program lag behind the American ATF was about 8-10 years.
            The aircraft was shown on January 12, 1999 in the LII under the designation MIG-1.42. But it did not make much impression on the assembled people, although at the subsequent press conference they announced this aircraft as a ready-made serial fighter (although this was not so).
            Omitting all the details, they closed the program due to low funding.
            If financing would initially be in the proper volume, without failures and delays, we would think the 5th generation MFI would have appeared earlier than the Americans. But time was lost and the technologies of the future new generation fighter were already being developed on Berkut.
            The reason for the "obsolescence" of the program is banal and predictable, if you pay attention that this all happened in the 90s, the lack of proper funding.
            Best regards hi
  11. urik62
    urik62 1 December 2015 19: 57 New
    +8
    Quote: oleg-gr
    Studying in Yeysk, and then applying skills in Syria with Kuznetsov. Additional forces are very necessary there.

    HA HA Just to write something
  12. maximon2005
    maximon2005 1 December 2015 20: 04 New
    0
    Yes, soon everyone will be MiG-29k, Su-33 are dying out and they are no longer being made.
  13. Izotovp
    Izotovp 1 December 2015 20: 05 New
    +1
    With all due respect to the MIG planes, the Kuzza has too little air wing to base light fighters. Most recently, some of the experts on this site have already argued. Much more useful on it are light AWACS aircraft, hunters for submarines and Mi-14.
    1. tomket
      tomket 1 December 2015 23: 00 New
      0
      Quote: Izotovp
      AWACS aircraft,

      and what will the AWACS aircraft do there? point the Mi-14 to the Hornets?
      1. Izotovp
        Izotovp 2 December 2015 13: 29 New
        0
        What do ordinary AWACS aircraft do?
  14. Shadowcat
    Shadowcat 1 December 2015 20: 07 New
    0
    Fortunately, there is a choice (Krasnodar, Crimea). Although, unfortunately, I doubt the latter, I don’t tear it like an ass, don’t shove it with electrical tape - and the equipment needs repair.
  15. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 1 December 2015 20: 13 New
    +1
    Yes, a great plane. Poghosyan lobbied his design bureau, pushed, or better said, pushed competitors, wiped it from the feeder - and he himself went too far, a saw cutter. And Mig is really like a phoenix. Almost according to Bulgakov - "Manuscripts do not burn!"
  16. tinibar
    tinibar 1 December 2015 20: 21 New
    +1
    [quote = zekaze1980] MiGs have forgotten to put it mildly, but in vain, someone’s interests are visible only to the design bureau dry, and apparently the financial interests are in the first place. With the advice, it was not in vain that there was a competition between different design bureaus, what do you think ...? This order supported Mikoyanovites in difficult times, I really want to believe that the design bureau will survive. And competition is necessary, and in Soviet times it was well understood. Any kind of mergers, acquisitions, unions, in a word monopolization, first of all leads to the suppression of any ideas of the affiliated enterprises in order to move their own, if not the best, if only grandmothers and glory to their beloved. And as a result, we get not the best aircraft, but for fabulous money .. In the USA the same situation .. By the way, the Tu-160 was the development of a small Myasishchev design bureau, which was transferred to the Tupolev design bureau, a larger, wealthier and more famous. Those, having finalized the project, and launched it already as a Tu-160, collecting both grandmother and fame. And Myasishchev’s design bureau has since completely wilted ...
  17. Yak28
    Yak28 1 December 2015 20: 23 New
    +1
    The plane is certainly excellent, but we don’t have carrier aircraft, one small carrier “Admiral Kuznetsov” that only makes people laugh. Where will such aircraft be based? Just now, can India and China be sold
  18. viktor561
    viktor561 1 December 2015 20: 33 New
    +1
    Undoubtedly, the MiG-29 is one of the most successful fighters of the Soviet era. Its uniqueness lies in the fact that it can fly at large angles of attack. In order to hit a rocket, or abruptly go up, the pilot can pull leverage beyond the limiters, which is not available to the western counterparts of the fighter. - and the speed just allows you to fly away from any missile - the Israelis did not hit a single MIG-7 during the 29-day war - it just flies away from the rocket - Israeli pilots reported
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 1 December 2015 22: 06 New
      +4
      Quote: viktor561
      Undoubtedly, the MiG-29 is one of the most successful fighters of the Soviet era

      And there is.
      Quote: viktor561
      Its uniqueness lies in the fact that it can fly at large angles of attack.

      Can.
      Quote: viktor561
      To hit a rocket

      It’s scary to even ask what the pilot should hit her with. Or are you in the sense that the missile, having seen what a big angle the MiG-29K will be struck to the core, and will never, never fly to attack such a dude? laughing
      Quote: viktor561
      the pilot can pull leverage beyond the limiters, which is not available to the western counterparts of the fighter

      You have an extremely misconception about supercritical angles of attack.
      Quote: viktor561
      and the speed just allows you to fly away from any rocket

      wassat Google the speed of a modern air-to-air rocket. AMRAAM has 4 mach, our P-77 is about the same. Suggest the MiG-29K speed, or will you find it yourself?
      Quote: viktor561
      the Israelis during the 7 day war did not bring down a single MIG-29

      What kind of war? Seven day? Maybe six days, after all? So it actually broke out in 1967 when the MiG-29 was not in the project.
      Quote: viktor561
      he just flies away from the rocket

      Sorry, but judging by the text of your comment, if someone flew away, this is not a MiG-29 laughing
      1. viktor561
        viktor561 1 December 2015 22: 20 New
        0
        Sorry - reposted the Soviet pilot http://avia.pro/blog/samolet-mig-29-istoriya- claim there - are you a pilot or what? (if someone flew away here, then this is not MiG-29) - well, it's just rudeness
        1. ANTI.KORR.
          ANTI.KORR. 1 December 2015 23: 50 New
          0
          Quote: viktor561
          Sorry - re-post the Soviet pilot

          on the exiled signature no ... leftist? wink
    2. Urals
      Urals 1 December 2015 23: 08 New
      +1
      I might be wrong too, but you probably meant all the same 25 seconds.
      1. viktor561
        viktor561 1 December 2015 23: 33 New
        +1
        Of course! - and thank you very much for the amendment and not for the rudeness that the marshals from the couch practice here!
  19. geolive
    geolive 1 December 2015 20: 48 New
    +1
    Clear business with our finances does not pull a full-fledged aircraft carrier. Kuzya is more like an experimental site. It’s good that we’re just going forward. You look from time to time and the budget is exaggerated. You won’t buy experience and you won’t drink it.
  20. The comment was deleted.
  21. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 1 December 2015 21: 44 New
    +5
    Briefly about the main thing :)))
    The construction of the complex in Yeysk suggests that Kuznetsov is going to build a replacement sooner or later, and this, of course, is good.
    The reason for replacing the Su-33 with the MiG-29K is simple and banal - the existing Su-33 fleet is small and worn out (apparently the heavy nineties affected), and there is no one to build new such aircraft for. Theoretically, maybe the production of the Su-33 could have been reanimated, but practically this is associated with high costs, and they would have had to deal with the release of other models of Su fighters. To make such sacrifices for the sake of a small batch of generally obsolete aircraft does not make any sense, as, indeed, to refine the Su-33 project to a modern level.
    At the same time, we have a much more modern MiG-29k. The fact is that the other MiG-33K (29-9) was the analogue of the Su-31, which tried to challenge Kuznetsov’s deck at that time - at that time it was aircraft of the same technological level and the Su-33 won (you can argue about the reasons for the victory, but not about that) As a result, it was Su-33 that were built for Kuznetsov, and the MiG-29K stalled. But then the Indians came, and for them they created an improved MiG-29K (9-41), one might say, a marine analog of the MiG-29M.
    Accordingly, there is no point in reanimating the construction of the 33th generation Su-4, when we have a ready-made deck carrier "4+". As a fighter for gaining dominance in the air, it is inferior to the Su-33, but it is universal and has the ability to work on sea and land targets. In addition, an order for offshore MiGs will be supported by RSK MiG, which is again very useful.
    In general, after the re-equipment of Kuznetsov’s air wing, it will become much more universal and our only and unique aircraft carrier (especially if it is rolled up with the long-promised modernization) can finally become a full-fledged warship. A few Su-33s, which could be used for an air patrol (they can carry a lot of fuel and can stay in the air for a long time) and a couple of dozen MiG-29K station wagons are a very serious force. Against “Nimitz”, of course, no arguing, but with the same “Charlie” you can already compete.
  22. Kalmar
    Kalmar 1 December 2015 21: 44 New
    0
    All this is undoubtedly very good. But here's another question: is there a project for a carrier-based aircraft AWACS? Without it, an aircraft carrier and half of its potential will not reveal.
  23. mvg
    mvg 1 December 2015 23: 00 New
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Quote: viktor561
    Undoubtedly, the MiG-29 is one of the most successful fighters of the Soviet era

    And there is.
    Quote: viktor561
    Its uniqueness lies in the fact that it can fly at large angles of attack.

    Can.
    Quote: viktor561
    To hit a rocket

    It’s scary to even ask what the pilot should hit her with. Or are you in the sense that the missile, having seen what a big angle the MiG-29K will be struck to the core, and will never, never fly to attack such a dude? laughing
    Quote: viktor561
    the pilot can pull leverage beyond the limiters, which is not available to the western counterparts of the fighter

    You have an extremely misconception about supercritical angles of attack.
    Quote: viktor561
    and the speed just allows you to fly away from any rocket

    wassat Google the speed of a modern air-to-air rocket. AMRAAM has 4 mach, our P-77 is about the same. Suggest the MiG-29K speed, or will you find it yourself?
    Quote: viktor561
    the Israelis during the 7 day war did not bring down a single MIG-29

    What kind of war? Seven day? Maybe six days, after all? So it actually broke out in 1967 when the MiG-29 was not in the project.
    Quote: viktor561
    he just flies away from the rocket

    Sorry, but judging by the text of your comment, if someone flew away, this is not a MiG-29 laughing


    Andrei - You are just GAD with a capital letter .. wink
    So mocking is NOT !!!
    But the guy is still right. In the Arab-Israeli wars, not a single MiG-29 was shot down, just like the penguins, during the filming, were not injured.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 December 2015 10: 58 New
      -1
      Quote: mvg
      Andrei - You are just GAD with a capital letter.

      Yes, I am like this laughing
      Quote: mvg
      So mocking is NOT !!!

      But can I write such comments?
      Quote: mvg
      But the guy is still right. In the Arab-Israeli wars, not a single MiG-29 was shot down

      Did not have. And in which particular Arab-Israeli MiG-29 participated?
  24. yury.puzirev201221
    yury.puzirev201221 1 December 2015 23: 11 New
    +1
    GSH-18! If “Kuznetsov” is temporarily absent, that is, the deck of “Charles” will be made room, we are now allies!
  25. mvg
    mvg 1 December 2015 23: 13 New
    +4
    Andrey from Chelyabinsk (2) RU Today, 21:44

    Briefly about the main thing :)))


    Well, "de Gaulle", of course, "Cusie" on the shoulder ..
    And, although the frog is inferior to the Kuzza in terms of displacement (40000 versus 54000) it is clearly more interesting.
    He has a nuclear power plant (a lot of electricity and range), and Kuzi has an ancient boiler turbine, with the most unfortunate that we had in the fleet. Bricks and asbestos - quiet horror, like in my bathhouse .. negative
    The "Gaulle" catapult - as many as 2 pieces, SuperEtanders, and AWACS - a couple of pieces. Rafal-M is a very successful 4 ++ fighter, very good weapons, both air-to-air and air-to-surface. MATRA, METEOR ..
    Mig-29K is probably not bad ... But 4 tons of load, versus 9 tons of frogs.
    The French AFAR, avionics, on an aircraft carrier, on airplanes.
    And, as it were, the French AUG turns out to be noticeably more balanced. Horizons, LaFayettes, nuclear submarines .. We do not have such a class of ships that can really compete with the French.
    Destroyers 956 of the project are simply sucks at the moment, 1155 BODs are also already old, our frigates quietly rust on the stocks, waiting for German or Chinese dviglov. We do not have AWACS, Yak did not bring to mind.
    So I do not advise you to compete with the frogs in their native puddle in the Mediterranean.
    1. ANTI.KORR.
      ANTI.KORR. 1 December 2015 23: 54 New
      +1
      Quote: mvg
      So I do not advise you to compete with the frogs in their native puddle in the Mediterranean.

      well painted everything! good
      It should also be noted that frog avionics were installed on our fighters.
    2. Scraptor
      Scraptor 2 December 2015 17: 09 New
      0
      All brought to mind with the Yak-141, no need to sculpt a "hunchback" ... Rafal can not do anything against the MiG-29, and even more so against the Su-33.
    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 December 2015 17: 13 New
      0
      I answer the points :)
      Quote: mvg
      Well, "de Gaulle", of course, "Cusie" on the shoulder ..

      Just get ships of about the same weight category (not in the displacement, of course :))
      Quote: mvg
      And, although the frog is inferior to the Kuzza in terms of displacement (40000 versus 54000), it is clearly more interesting

      Yes, how to say ... formally, and on paper TTX it is of course. But in reality, it is possible that the situation is different. One of the most important indicators of an aircraft carrier is the flight deck area - this is where the air group prepared for departure is located, it will not take off more than there is on the deck from an aircraft carrier in one flight. So de Gaulle’s small size plays a trick on him. I agree that Rafal-M will be more interesting than the MiG-29K, but it is very possible that at the same time these rafals from Charlie can be raised much less than from Kuzmich. You look at the British - they have an aircraft carrier of 40 thousand tons under an air group of 65 aircraft. It’s not just that - the dimensions of the flight deck will allow for an increase in the air group larger than Kuznetsov or Charlie can.
      Of course, on the other hand, Charlie has cat remote controls, so he will probably raise the air group faster. But by and large, offhand the “aircraft performance” of ships adjusted for some superiority of rafals is still close to parity.
      Quote: mvg
      The French AFAR, avionics, on an aircraft carrier, on airplanes.

      Well, what is their AFAR? Since 2012, AFAR has been deployed on Rafali, the aircraft carriers Rafal-M seemed to have entered service much earlier. Or they were modernized, but I do not know?
      Quote: mvg
      And, as it were, the French AUG turns out to be noticeably more balanced.

      Don’t tell me.
      Quote: mvg
      Horizons, LaFayettes, nuclear submarines .. We do not have such a class of ships that can really compete with the French.

      Lord Testing with you :))) What do the French have there? Already as many as two frigate "Horizon"? So these are not British Daring with their two-in-one Sampson super radar (which has two lattices operating in the decimeter and centimeter ranges, respectively). This is just an EMPAR decimeter range - a frankly so-so combination, although PAAMS missiles are certainly good. These two ships in their air defense capabilities hardly correspond to one Peter the Great. I am generally silent about the rest of the French ships - from the Krotal air defense system in any serious naval battle you can only shoot yourself.
      At the same time, our AMG (with the inclusion of Petra and 949A pairs) will have heavy anti-ship missiles capable of hitting surface targets (like the French AUG) from the European to the African coast (the width of the Mediterranean Sea in many places is less than 1000 km), the French, with their "exosets", just nervously smoking on the sidelines. They only reached a range of 3 km on block180, and it is not known how many such missiles are in service with the French Navy.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 2 December 2015 17: 16 New
        0
        Lafayette is a coastal boat, with its RCC at 70 km range and molehill against ocean ships, not a yearzzo. As our corvettes do not suit, but the "Guardians" will probably be more serious (of course, no one is going to include them in the AMG, this is theorizing) the nuclear submarines ... well, the Ryubi are not bad, but this is the 70s of the last century - outdated a little, I do not think that they are opposite the "Pike-B" complete with several 1155 they can something.
        So for the time being exactly the opposite - if Kuznetsov were alive, then the Northern Fleet of the Russian Federation would be able to put up such an AMG that would cover the French AUG as a bull sheep
        Quote: mvg
        So I do not advise you to compete with the frogs in their native puddle in the Mediterranean.

        There they will support them from land, that's all
      2. The comment was deleted.
    4. The comment was deleted.
  26. mvg
    mvg 1 December 2015 23: 22 New
    +3
    This is not mine, from someone else's forum, but I liked it wink

    I call the phenomenon of today's Ukraine “Khokhlopadlovka”!

    Judge for yourself:

    1. Built in Yeysk Thread - Crimea returned with a simulator.

    In fact, they spent billions of dollars in vain! (Zapadlo).

    2. We reached the high pace of construction of the base in Novorossiysk -

    Sevastopol and other Crimean bases returned.

    Huge amount spent! (Zapadlo).

    Question:

    Land access to Crimea MV will be received earlier or later than construction

    bridge to the Crimea?

    *****

    Yes, and the port on Taman is needed only due to lack of access

    to the ports of today's Ukraine!

    I'm not talking about the GTS ...
  27. Mantykora
    Mantykora 1 December 2015 23: 22 New
    +1
    construction of a ground training complex in Yeysk continues. There are no similar complexes in our country ”

    Do not understand. And the thread complex in the Crimea? I thought that in Russia there are now two ground-based complexes for the training of carrier-based aviation. It is clear that the thread is older, but not as old as it is? When Crimea became part of Russia, I still thought, “now two such complexes in one country, they started to build early in Yeysk ...” Or did they dismantle the thread?
    1. ANTI.KORR.
      ANTI.KORR. 1 December 2015 23: 55 New
      +1
      Quote: Mantykora
      Or dismantled the thread?

      "Thread" is alive and well.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  28. viktor561
    viktor561 2 December 2015 02: 08 New
    0
    Quote: ANTI.KORR.
    So I do not advise you to compete with the frogs in their native puddle in the Mediterranean.
    Yes, and do not have to compete; they must be crushed - traitors through life - refute - they sold the missiles to Argentina and gave them the codes of England (Falklands) - further Mistrals - corrupt skins and that's it !!! (I am silent silently about the Second World War - they were sold to the Germans with giblets - except for rare patriots))
  29. viktor561
    viktor561 2 December 2015 03: 08 New
    0
    Name at least one country in Europe that would not fight for Hitler - there is not one! Even the Swedish and Swiss battalions were - Russia - the enemy for Europe - by the fact that everything is there - but they don’t - it always makes them angry
  30. Vovan 73
    Vovan 73 2 December 2015 05: 10 New
    0
    With all due respect to the MiG, replacing the Su-33 with the MiG is, in my opinion, the wrong move. Firstly, the functionality of Sukhar is wider, and secondly, the MiG-29 (when I served in the Air Force, in a regiment armed with Su-27) was called by the troops - “an aircraft for combat over a short-range drive”. A ship fighter, among other things, in my opinion should still have a good margin of range .....
  31. dchegrinec
    dchegrinec 2 December 2015 05: 47 New
    0
    Somehow we undeservedly moved MiG aircraft and switched to heavy SU, this is certainly justified, but MiGs went in their original direction in the developments and they need to be supported. At the exit, the 5th generation MiG aircraft is a very advanced model!
  32. Burglary
    Burglary 2 December 2015 06: 28 New
    0
    Gentlemen, Comrades, Bara!

    And to be honest, think deeply. Do we need those aircraft carriers in the current realities? More relevant vans with the inscription "Bread". One Chubais caused more damage to the country than all NATO augs could have combined!
    1. Secta
      Secta haki 2 December 2015 14: 53 New
      +1
      Both are needed.
  33. kovalev2015
    kovalev2015 2 December 2015 09: 20 New
    0
    Good luck to you guys! So that the number of takeoffs matches the number of landings !!
  34. Raven2705
    Raven2705 2 December 2015 09: 31 New
    0
    Quote: Scraptor
    And from firing from a low-speed 30mm gun (from which you can’t get on an airplane) it falls apart ...

    In general, why is there a plane on the ship whose main and unique advantage over the Su-27 is that it can take off from unpaved strips, and which is inferior to it in everything else?


    Mig-29 is a good aircraft and, by the way, surpasses the su-27 in maneuverability. The difference is that the MiG-29 is a short-range fighter (light), and the Su-27 is heavy. And on the “Kuz” 29 very much in the subject will be. In recent modifications, including the Mig-35, it has been significantly improved. Learn materiel dear. hi
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 2 December 2015 16: 37 New
      0
      The Su-27 is better and more maneuverable ... The difference is that the MiG-29 can be based on unpaved strips, and everything else is sacrificed to this.

      Teach yourself.
    2. Scraptor
      Scraptor 2 December 2015 16: 37 New
      0
      The Su-27 is better and more maneuverable ... The difference is that the MiG-29 can be based on unpaved strips, and everything else is sacrificed to this.

      Teach yourself.