Umm... no. Would you rather take ideas on naval aviation from Brazil, or from the U.S. Navy?
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Q'ns about retired airframe
- Thread starter Max the Mad Russian
- Start date
Max the Mad Russian
Hands off Ukraine! Feet too
To me, for myself - of course it'd be USN experience as the best in the world. But those you suppose are here to use this experience for Russian Navy hardly interested in, they rather want to get some from the navy with one or two carriers and small amount of carrier pilots, a few carrier-based airplanes as well. I think they know all they need about French carrier, for example. No one here hopes to build the navair similar to USN's, and traditional concern of "how to fight the carrier navy without own carrier navy" has very little in common with my questions. Would I work for gov, I'd be rather interested in CSG's ASW, since what remains of Soviet anticarrier doctrine becomes based on torpedo warfare rather than sub-launched missiles. But I don't work for gov and quite happy with it.
You can lie to yourself and you can lie to us but you still haven’t explained why you need to know these odd specifics about aircraft and ship engineering design, operating processes, human capital practices, organizational setups, etc. -- all the exact DOTMLPFP things a nation state would need in order to take its navy from poor to mediocre, or from mediocre to good, or from good to great.
I’ll tell you why. If scrounging open source info prevents a single jet from splashing behind the Kuznetsov/ Liaoning/ Vikrant (by avoiding a mishap that the U.S. Navy has learned the hard way how to avoid at the cost of U.S. blood and treasure), then that small intel effort has paid for itself a million times over.
No museum curator needs this info for an exhibit. No fiction author needs this info for a novel. No curious retired sailor needs this info out of sheer curiosity. Why do you?
I’ll tell you why. If scrounging open source info prevents a single jet from splashing behind the Kuznetsov/ Liaoning/ Vikrant (by avoiding a mishap that the U.S. Navy has learned the hard way how to avoid at the cost of U.S. blood and treasure), then that small intel effort has paid for itself a million times over.
No museum curator needs this info for an exhibit. No fiction author needs this info for a novel. No curious retired sailor needs this info out of sheer curiosity. Why do you?
Relax
Like was just said - relax. Max asks some fucked up off the wall questions but you’re having some fucked up off the wall paranoia.
Yeah...those radar blips are probably just that flight of B-17s coming in from the west coast.
Max the Mad Russian
Hands off Ukraine! Feet too
Yeah...those radar blips are probably just that flight of B-17s coming in from the west coast.
Poor trained Army is the root cause of everything (c) Otto von Bismarck
That was the Army, right? Had that radar watch off Honolulu been naval, they'd not only warn the HQ, they'd count Kates separately from Vals for sure
Max the Mad Russian
Hands off Ukraine! Feet too
Totally understood. Right, from American standpoint, to know something one can neither apply nor use on daily basis is like to collect some fucking trash. Eurasia is different - here the tailor or carpenter could be expert in opera singing, by the way
Last edited:
Max the Mad Russian
Hands off Ukraine! Feet too
Hi again,
What about crewed retired platforms, say S-3 or A-6 - was the carrier quals a matter of pilots or crews? In other words, were the NFOs "carrier qualified" or was it purely pilots' evaluation? If latter, had the NFOs had to be in airplanes during quals?
Just interesting, nothing more. There will never be the carrier-borne aircraft with NFOs in Russian Navy. Just because there will never be the new carrier in that navy.
What about crewed retired platforms, say S-3 or A-6 - was the carrier quals a matter of pilots or crews? In other words, were the NFOs "carrier qualified" or was it purely pilots' evaluation? If latter, had the NFOs had to be in airplanes during quals?
Just interesting, nothing more. There will never be the carrier-borne aircraft with NFOs in Russian Navy. Just because there will never be the new carrier in that navy.
Max the Mad Russian
Hands off Ukraine! Feet too
And another one, for Vigilante. Having the same J79 engines that Phantom II had (attach J79 to a brick and the brick will fly, kinda proverb?) the heavier and bigger airplane was able to M>2 and often did. Why? Due to the usually slick conf?
Horse shit. Ain’t no OpSec in the question.
The same engine can be set up to provide different power for different versions. Plus aerodynamics, weight, etc. all come into play.
Jesus Hal...........it was a joke. Magic ins't an OpSec concern...........well not yet. Stop going fangs out, and keep the FAs in line.
Max the Mad Russian
Hands off Ukraine! Feet too
I know, I know, Vigies are magic. Thank you very much. Next time when I'd find out that RA-5C had really made some snaps of the ashtray on the Brezhnev's working table in Kremlin, I'll consider it's a magic
BTW, why F-14's TARPS was surely less effective than Vigies' apparatus? Same lenses, AFAIK...
BTW, why F-14's TARPS was surely less effective than Vigies' apparatus? Same lenses, AFAIK...