Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Quoting Scipio (Thread starter): June 8: a Tu-95 overran the runway after an engine fire. Five crew members were injured. The Tu-95 fleet was grounded after the incident. |
Quoting Scipio (Thread starter): July 14: a Tu-95MS crashed near Khabarovsk after a reported engine failure. The crew of seven parachuted out, but 2 perished. The Tu-95 fleet was grounded after the crash. |
Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 2): That must be the reason why we haven't had any reports this summer about those antique scrapheaps flying blindly around western Baltic Sea and North Sea endangering airliners. Nothing is so bad that it isn't good for something. |
Quoting csturdiv (Reply 3): Must not have been a long grounding after the June 8th incident, wasn't there a report of some Tu-95s flying close to the USA around July 4th and gave a special holiday greeting? |
Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 6): Every day with those scrapheaps grounded is a better day than otherwise. |
Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 6): Every day with those scrapheaps grounded is a better day than otherwise |
Quoting HaveBlue (Reply 4): I disagree wholeheartedly. If you read our USAF AIB reports you will see tons of crashes/accidents/incidents that don't make the news, and that's just the Air Force, never mind the Navy, Army and Marines or Coast Guard. Those accidents don't mean squat without context. |
Quoting Scipio (Reply 12): One more Mig-31 down. The pilots ejected safely. |
TheSonntag wrote:How many crashes are normal in such case of operations? How many planes does the US regularly lose a year with their Navy ops?
ThePointblank wrote:Two accidents where aircraft are lost in the period of one operation is considered very abnormal for the USN.
And from what I've read, the earlier MiG-29K loss was blamed on the arrestor wire breaking, leading to a halt in air ops that caused one MiG-29K that was still in the air to have a double 'flame out'. This time, we have a Su-33 go over the front after another broken arrestor wire...
LMP737 wrote:ThePointblank wrote:Two accidents where aircraft are lost in the period of one operation is considered very abnormal for the USN.
And from what I've read, the earlier MiG-29K loss was blamed on the arrestor wire breaking, leading to a halt in air ops that caused one MiG-29K that was still in the air to have a double 'flame out'. This time, we have a Su-33 go over the front after another broken arrestor wire...
Sounds like they have serious problems with the arresting system. I have to wonder if they have some kind of single point failure with it. On USN carriers one wire goes OTS you still have three more. Or maybe it's an efficiency issue. I remember watching from vultures row on the Nimitz the ABE's change out a wire rather quickly. Didn't slow down operations that much.
Probably the best thing for the Russian Navy would be to decommission the Kuznetsov. The money saved could be used on systems that may be of actual use. Not that it would happen since it would a political decision. A decision that I doubt Putin would make.
LMP737 wrote:Interesting article regarding the trials and tribulations of the Kuznetsov.
https://warisboring.com/two-big-reasons ... .s1zefud44
I'm not sure the MIG-29 that went in the drink had the option to divert back to Syria. It's fuel state might have prevented this. Maybe they can call the USN to send some Super Hornets their way next time.
ThePointblank wrote:More like serious problems with the Kuznetsov, period. This deployment has been fraught with problems. This latest incident are cause for alarm about the repair state of the Kuznetsov itself along with deck crew training/responsibilities. Coupled to what is obviously the poor state of her engines (when she deployed, the Kuznetsov was seen belching black smoke through the English Channel), it should be alarming for anyone watching what's going on. It's clear that the Kuznetsov has not been well maintained and kept in good repair, and the inability of her crew to clear and fix problems quickly shows a complete lack of training and procedures in naval aviation. It's only going to be a matter of time before there's another serious incident with the Kuznetsov at this rate.
ThePointblank wrote:The USN has been doing carrier aviation for over 70 years
VSMUT wrote:
It's called concurrency, from all the F-35 threads I know that you are a fan of that method There has been talk of a major refit of the Kuznetsov for several years, including possibly fitting her with nuclear propulsion, removing the vertical launchers and increasing the size of the hangars. Obviously, testing it out in an operational environment is the best way to find and isolate design flaws and defects, and decide what needs to be fixed or improved and how before sending her to the shipyard. It is supposedly going to start in the first quarter of 2017.
LMP737 wrote:Best thing would be to cut her up and incorporate lessons leaned in a new class of carriers. When funds are available of course.
Balerit wrote:As a comparison here is a summary of US crashes in 2016:
WIederling wrote:The Russians don't have the use case the US has: Bullying Power on the High Seas.
( Most of the stuff they have is defensive or plausible second strike capability.)
But Maybe they need that ... just to give a counter to US expansionism.
ramair wrote:Or at least look at the amount of flight hours vs. accident rate
ThePointblank wrote:Or, a complete lack of experience and knowledge on the part of the Russian commanders in safe carrier operations had a direct impact on the situation; the USN usually makes sure that if a carrier is recovering aircraft and is close to shore, the aircraft that are landing have enough fuel to make it to the closest land base for an emergency landing.
With the Russian Navy operating close to Syria, the Russian commander had the option of diverting aircraft to land in Syria (or, even Cyprus for that matter) if the carrier could not recover aircraft if they made sure that the aircraft returning did have enough fuel for a divert and made the decision early enough to direct aircraft to divert.
The USN has been doing carrier aviation for over 70 years, and has made safe carrier operations a top operational priority for the fleet. Many of the safety policies, procedures and systems are there as a result of lives lost, and the high value the USN has placed on the lives of the sailors and airmen on their ships. I can't say that the Russians have placed such an emphasis on safety compared to the USN.
LMP737 wrote:
Another problem the Russian Navy has is a lack of career/experienced NCO's. NCO's are the backbone of the US Navy and their experience is invaluable. The Russian Navy does not have that.