kotey Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 I'm surprising why MiG-29KR wern't redirect to land airfield in this case - positin wasn't so far from land. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 4 hours ago, kotey said: I'm surprising why MiG-29KR wern't redirect to land airfield in this case - positin wasn't so far from land. Pure speculation but it's possible by the time they realized the arresting gear was out of service, the MiG didn't have sufficient fuel to divert to a land base. These aircraft aren't renowned for their fuel capacity to begin with. What I am surprised is, assuming this story is correct, why didn't they rig a crash barrier similar to what the US CVN's have and just land the MiG? Unless the Russian ship doesn't have one? I know it's completely impossible (both for political and technological reasons), but it would have been way cool if the MiG was able to divert to a nearby US carrier. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 And now, a Su-33 was lost at landing because a cable broke. This is getting borderline retarded. MiG-29K was lost because it ran out of fuel while it was waiting for the deck to be repaired... after a cable breakage. Now a Su-33 was lost, because a cable broke... Back in 2005 they lost a Su-33 and nearly lost another because, drumroll; cable broke. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
boom175 Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 Carrier aviation is extremely dangerous business. Useless speculation from keyboard jockeys thousands of miles away isn't going to change that fact. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 I am well aware, and nothing in my post was speculation. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
boom175 Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 1 hour ago, Berkut said: I am well aware, and nothing in my post was speculation. Nothing directed at you Sir, just people in general tend to speculate. Please I meant no offense! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 Okei, it is my bad really, as i assumed it was in my direction since it was right after my post. :) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
marcinko Posted December 5, 2016 Share Posted December 5, 2016 4 hours ago, Berkut said: And now, a Su-33 was lost at landing because a cable broke. This is getting borderline retarded. MiG-29K was lost because it ran out of fuel while it was waiting for the deck to be repaired... after a cable breakage. Now a Su-33 was lost, because a cable broke... Back in 2005 they lost a Su-33 and nearly lost another because, drumroll; cable broke. Americans wrote the manual for aircraft carriers and even their well oiled and finely tuned operation suffers from arrestor cables broken and so on. The fact that Kuznetsow it`s a hybrid carrier - part cruiser, I think doesn't help either Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.