The Russian Ministry of Information video thread


#21


#22

Does this count as self propelled artillery?


#23

Awww…how cute…it wants to be a tank…


#24

DPRK airshow…I love the Su-25…


#25

Nice paintscheme…


#26

That takeoff at 5:12…wow…


#27

#28

#29

#30

That seems kinda… unnecessary?


#31

Isn’t it the same way some of our missiles launch?


#32

Not exactly. We launch them vertically, differently. The booster propels them out of the Mk-41 tube, then then the winglets and control surfaces extend, and the missile rights itself, noses over, and continues on it’s path. Once it has achieved cruise speed, the booster discards and inlet ramp for the missile’s jet engine opens.

That Russian cruise missile is… funky. The Russians generally like “cold” launch systems, where a small booster, or a charge of some sort pops the missile out of it’s container, and then a small maneuvering charge orients the missiles attitude away from the launch vehicle, before the main booster ignites. Examples would be the SA-15 and SA-10 (et al)

like this:

This system has a couple of advantages, as it allows for “safe” jettisoning of malfunctioning ordinance away from the vehicle, as opposed to having to try and finagle a hot piece of ordinance out of a tube. The disadvantage is complexity and cost, but the russians make it work.

That cruise missile though… it’s like some weird combination of both. I fail to see the utility of the near 1:1 TWR rocket booster, with the smaller attitude jets for what is a “hot” launch. Why not just let the missile fly itself once free of the tube?

I’m sure there’s a reason, the person who designed than missile did it for a reason, and they’re more in the know that me :smile:


#33

Seems like the Kuz puts out enough smoke from its stacks to make the last bit of the approach IMC…!


#34

#35

Do Russian naval aircraft have a buddy tanking/refueling option available to them?

Another observation - obviously the temp of Russian carrier operations is way, way slower than the US Navy operations…but it’s also pretty amazing to see how few people are on deck compared to a very complex and active US Navy carrier…


#36

Both the MiG-29K and Su-33 have refueling probes. I’m not sure if the Su-33 has a buddy drogue available, I doubt there’d be much point on the -29K with it’s small fuel fraction, which would leave strategic assets like the IL-78, etc.

Russian CV ops have always been weird. Their compromised STOBAR inherently limits the amount of aircraft you can get over the bow, and the weight of ordinance those aircraft can carry. The Kuznetsov was never designed to have the large of a carrier wing anyhow. It was closer aligned to the Kiev class in that it has an aircraft detachment, but it is very much considered a surface combatant. It carries/carried a full magazine of SS-N-19s that would fire through the flight deck aft of the ramp. This sort of limits hangar space.

I’m moderately curious how the Ulyanovsk would have turned out.

The Russians apparently planned a viable CVW for her, as well as more traditional supporting aircraft, including dedicated AEW aircraft and tankers.


#37

So I wonder - do Russian carriers ever do true blue water ops where divert fields are not available? Seems to me if I were in a MiG or Su, I’d still like the ability for another plane from the carrier to bring me up some fuel if I’m having a bad night…

One of my favorite episodes of “Carrier” covered that…


#38

I’m not a expert on the matter, but if I whip out the SWAG stick, I’d say very rarely.

Russia has never had a very large compliment of naval fighters to pull from, and economically they can’t afford to build new ones. I don’t know if Sukhoi has even new manufactured an Su-33 since the 90s: taking into account the complete lack of upgrades afforded the naval flanker, I’d wager not. The MiG-29K is slightly different, as the development of the aircraft was shouldered by the Indians. The Russian Navy then paid for an additional run of the type after the Indian contract. The point I’m making is where the US can afford to lose some hornets because we have active assembly lines and a fleet of hundreds of them, any loss of a MiG-29K is almost a strategic loss due to the limited pool and difficulty in funding new builds.

I’m actually extremely curious what sort of hours the Russian naval pilots get a year. The USN is extremely anal about retaining currency when it comes to carrier operations. So many landings have to be made within a recurring time frame to maintain certifications. Russia has had issues getting the VVS their allotted hours as of recent, and the VAMF has always been a red headed step child when it comes to funding, personal, and prestige. In fact the entire Russian Naval Aviation force consists of those Su-33s (the Tu-22s and MiG-31s were given back to the VVS-DO in an organizational shuffling a few years back). Historically the navy doesn’t really like naval aviation, and naval aviation doesn’t like the navy. They’re trained and handled by the VVS, and there’s no path of promotion in the navy, which is dominated by surface and submarine officers. Most, given the choice, return to the VVS.

All this to say I can’t imagine it’s easy keeping pilots current with one carrier, limited numbers of aircraft, and a doctrinal bias against them.

Also the Kuz is by accounts a cantankerous ship that may or may not have horrible power train problems.

So all that to say operating in a manner recognizable to our navy would probably be pretty difficult for the Russians.

EDIT: according to the wikipedias you can load up a MiG-29K with all the externals and give it a buddy pod.


#39

#40

So this article seems to imply that the MiG-29 lost recently might have run out of fuel due to a fouled deck…