The following video shows the Mig-29K naval Fulcrum operating aboard the new Indian aircraft carrier Vikramaditya.
Actually, the “new” aircraft carrier dates back to 1987, when it operated under the name of Baku in the Soviet Navy. It was decommisioned in 1996 and the Indian Navy purchased it in 2004 at an aggregate price of $2,35 billion.
H/T to Alexander Kroll for pointing this over
The USS Dwight D. Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group (IKE CSG) supports the Great Green Fleet initiative. The USS Eisenhower and the ship of its CSG entered the Mediterranean Sea through the Strait of Gibraltar on […]
Flying a US Navy S-2 single engine to the beach while the ship was begging it to come back aboard. “Jimmy, how you doing?” Jack shook my hand. We were in the Reno, Nevada hotel […]
Designated as a utility type to disguise its primary mission, the Lockheed U-2 was born as high altitude reconnaissance aircraft. Flying for about 8 hours, at 500 mph, at altitudes in excess of 70,000 feet, […]
Comments are closed.
Copyright © 2023 | MH Magazine WordPress Theme by MH Themes
Contents of this blog/website may not be used without author's prior written permission. All rights reserved.
Seems like a poor’s man (really no pun intended) AC. That afterburner take off, and the ramp, seems that total payload weight is heavily affected by that method of launching. But I guess anything it’s better (even a half laden Mig-29K) than the disaster a F-35 is… I would like to see a re-engined, new avionics refined, new airframe built F-14 Tomcat 2K, cheaper and better than any v/stol crappo F-35 ! The F-35 is a trillion dollar XXI century F-105 THUD! What a waste! One mocks the rich parvenu Arabs with their gold plated Ferraris and Bentleys, but the F-35 it’s that same exercise in waste and bad performance in a gigantic scale…. Sorry for the rambling, but when I imagine how many good planes could be made, made better or kept flying (A-10, F-15, F-22, B-1, F-16 etc) and I see the crap and time / money spent on that shitty plane (the F-35) it gets my blood boiling every time ….
Mmmm, i think you should investigate a little bit abour the differences in concept of russian carriers and american ones. Just a hint, one is a warship with the chance of having airplanes and the other one is a floating military airfield.
And not only as a concept, but they are called “heavy aircraft carrying missile cruiser” for other reason. You should check the “Montreux Convention” regarding aircraft carriers.
Can someone please educate me as to why the russians do not use catapults on their carriers?
See Jose’s answer below. The Mig29 option is a cheap alternative.
I was wondering the same thing.
Because catapult less effective and much vulnerable.
Awww cr.p, I wanted to download this video but there’s no way. Any idea?
You don’t know squat about the f-35,Jose’ ,and I suspect even less about the F-105 THUNDERCHIEF. The name Thud is term of endearment for the men who flew them. and the mechs who kept them flying. The F-35 is not one ,but three distinct aircraft, for three different mission requirements and as such more than a little difficult. as of this writing are meeting or in some instances, exceeding many of it’s performance requirements. As for the f-14 ”Tomturkey”, that platform is a lot less capable than the F/A-18E Super Hornet, which you did not even mention. Personally, I’m glad such issues are not decided by people like. As for Bentleys and Ferraris; it’s obvious you don’t have one and resent those that do.