MiG-29K : Landing and Taking Off of Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov

[@Zatracenec]

Very nice video. Mig-29 is such a beauty! I must admit, I didnt know, there is a carrier variant of this jet.

[@sandeepsreehari4687]

Absolutely. The MiG 29 is the first Gen IV war plane. Even till this day it remains one of the most maneuverable fighter planes.

[@acadodettes]

: there's the variant capable of aircraft carrier of Russia 🇷🇺 SU-33 Flanker-D MIG-29K Fulcrum-D MIG-29KR Fulcrum-D

[@xiny8847]

@@acadodettes plus the su-25UTG

[@takeshaketano2497]

Это же наш летчик космонавт Тохтар Аубакиров!!!! Казахский парень - красавчик! После испытательных полетов стал летчиком-космонавтом

[@NTSB]

Точно...Пишдец всей NATE

[@polsta-polsta-dva]

Аубакиров-лётчик без человеческой совести...Отдельный "привет" от Тимура Апакидзе. Мы помним что Токтар поставил подножку и не допустил Апакидзе к посадке на МиГ-29 ....

[@dei4tube]

Хорошо было казахам при СССР. Космодром построили, можно было в космос чаще летать, в разных военных движухах участвовали. А теперь свобода и тишина.

[@one621]

Svaka cast ovim pilotima.jedna greska i ode u more

[@fubaralakbar6800]

I am very pro-American (seeing as I am an American :D ), but this is a neat sight. To any of you who laugh at the Kuznetsov--she may have her problems, and she may not be as powerful as American carriers, but she doesn't need to be. She's not built for the same mission. And those Su-33s would be no joke to meet in combat.

[@mbrazile1]

+Fubar AlAkbar too many people dont take seriously what a badass plane the su-33 really is.

[@georgemavrides3434]

Kudos to you my friend. Few people realize that the lack of carriers in Russian Navy is because there was never a real need for them (given Russia's territory span) . And the Kuznetsov will also be carrying the MIG-29Ks when it's deployed in Syria over the next months. That's some significant (and advanced technology) firepower to end the terrorist scum.

[@xmeda]

It is not aircraft carrier, but missile battlecruiser with flight deck.. designed to kill aircraft carriers with 7ton P-700 Granit missiles and provide anti aircraft missile coverage. Planes are for patrols, anti-sub detection and target detection.

[@fubaralakbar6800]

xmeda Posh. If it launches and recovers fixed wing aircraft, it's a carrier. A light carrier, maybe, but no doubt a carrier.

[@Степан-й7й8ц]

And after "Kuznetzov" comes back from Syria, in 2017-2018 it gets the P-800 Onyx/Yahont missiles(this missiles can also be used like "ship-to-ship" so and "ship-to-surface")instead P-700 Granite,in addition when finally appeared,on the deck of this great ship,after a many years of waiting MiG-29KR model9-41(it not mod.9-31,which flew for the first time at June 1988,it's new aircraft, made on unique platform with MiG-35)and MiG-29KUBR model 9-47 air wing of MiGs can perform strike missions,while Su-33( Su-33 can use only unguided weapons,but after the last modernization,thanks to sight system made on the basis of SVP-24 from Su-24M2,accuracy has improved in 2-2,5 times)will be engaged in long range air defense and air superiority. Su-33 can cover Kuznetzov's group of ships and MiGs,while they can use for strike missions, for this MiG-29KR/KUBR can use X/Kha-31A(AS-17Krypton) and X/Kha-35(AS-20Kayak)antiship missiles,X/Kha-31P(antiradar version),tactical missiles, such as AS-10 Karen,AS-12Kegler(X/Kha-25/25ML/MP),X/Kha-29T/L(AS-14 Kedge),TV and laserguided bombs(500kg,1500kg),and unguided weapons: bombs (250kg,500kg,1500kg),rockets(57mm,80mm,120mm,240mm),napalm tanks,etc. Soon MiG-29KR/KUBR will has Zhuk-AE,radar with active phased-array antenna.

[@lucatoni4509]

1989 USSR, pilot is ethnic kazakh

[@dam2724]

Tokhtar Aubakirov his Name

[@averagepainter]

so?

[@crimsonfury7811]

@@averagepainter when Soviet Union existed

[@cekcdicktator7814]

Гугли самый мощный пилот там казах будет

[@dei4tube]

oiboi zhumaisynba

[@93militaryreloaded]

does anyone know what this documentary is called or can it be uploaded in full. Thanks

[@codyh0886]

it was interesting to see how they launch with the ramp though you have to admit!

[@pvb1608]

you will also notice the lack of catapult, the ramp idea, certainly as far no Russian carriers, had been in use with the British Royal Navy since the late 70,s

[@avionLeti]

there is no need for catapult, russian jets use very powerful engines so its more logic and way more cheaper to use ramp instead of catapult@@pvb1608

[@TheCraigHudson]

The su 33 flanker d variant which is getting replaced by the mig 29 k variant can launch with ski jump as the ski jump when flaps are deployed on take off changes the angle of attack so that the aircraft can sort of Float in the air and slowly gain speed

[@alexlaverick6111]

not with a full weapons load it can't

[@TheCraigHudson]

@@alexlaverick6111 is that true even if it takes off from position 3 the longest run up to the ski jump. I know 100 percent fuel is a no go but curious if it is possible with a position 3 takeoff

[@Joshua_N-A]

Didn't know the 29K was developed a long time ago. I thought it was just a recent variant.

[@ВадимЗвездин]

Эх, советская мощь!

[@CrossTheUniverseNOW]

МиГули такие красивые - я просто в восторге.

[@brinjoness3386]

:Alpha foxtrot clear to take off. Just turn hard starboard before you hit the tug boat."

[@davidbowerman6433]

Now that we know the real state of their hardware and planes… makes you realize how brave their pilots are.

[@tonymanero5544]

In a large sense, Russia and China avoided the millions of unnecesary hours of good and bad experience of prop and early jet periods. But, the 21st century of Gen 4 and 5 aircraft is still evolving, and it is increasingly expensive to develop and deploy ship and aircraft assets. The Ford cost $12 billion to build over about 8 years while Nimitz carriers cost $2 to $4 billion and 4 years. The first Nimitz was deemed unaffordable and that’s why there was about a 8 year gap between the JFK and Nimitz, meaning no new carrier was commissioned for 8 years due to cost and the Vietnam war wind down. Carriers are national power projection, but hugely costly.

[@А.Мамай]

Это еще времена СССР Черное море 2 ноября 1989 года и назывался тогда еще не" Адмирал Кузнецов", а "Тбилиси"

[@TheVargr]

It was stated that she was going to have catapults installed when she was scheduled for refit in drydock in 2012 as well as many other upgrades then come out in 2015 moderised. However, she currently is still at sea with rumors of being deployed near Syria.

[@markdaniel5355]

Mig 29 k single pilot ? I mean mig 29 k is double pilot right can mig 29 from the air force can land in aircraft carrier?

[@DaiReith]

I love Mig's....such awesome aircraft.....

[@BCSchmerker]

Both OKBa Mikoyana-Gurjevnogo and Sukhogo provided their MiG-29K and Su-33K, respectively, with plenty of power reserves. The USN/Grumman F-14 would probably have needed dual General Electric F120-GE-400's to accelerate hard enough for a ski-jump launch in 200m distance.

[@pagliaorba9958]

That comment is hilarious. Both the MiG-29 and the Su-33 take off with minimal fuel and half the weapon weight. If these planes were fully fueled and armed, they would fall into the sea. The F-14 always took off fully fueled and fully armed. Kuznetsov is scrap on the level of the 19th century.

[@meowmur302]

And here we have the Kuzenetsov, the carrier so awful it has a permanent tug boat assigned to it when it inevitably breaks down. If that wasn’t enough, being assigned to the carrier is a prison sentence in itself due to being submitted to intense diesel smog that rises above the horizon, allowing it to be seen much further out. Now imagine what that would do to a humans lungs.

[@2005Crazer]

So, according to you serving or working any vessel running on diesel is a prison sentence?

[@meowmur302]

@@2005Crazer If I was in a compartment filled with black diesel smog and it belonged to a boat being kept in service, yes I think it would be a prison sentence. Fortunately, I work on a boat with a diesel that isn't burning 500 gallons of oil a minute because it's actually maintained.

[@2005Crazer]

@@meowmur302 Seriously, where does your info comes from? There are lots of pictures or videos of ships emitting smoke, that doesn't mean they arent maintained.

[@nurburgringkid]

the inner radar rooms and ambience reminds me of Klingon ships interior... awesome.

[@LosDionysos-AdiShirsha]

3:40-3:45 Старт на "ЧР". Спасибо, впервые с 1989 вживую вижу, как это бывало!

[@-Muhammad_Ali-]

That last take off is impressive

[@zoidberg2005]

@weirdguy564 The Brits did it with the Harrier and the carriers, but now they are both out of commission. At least in the British navy.

[@rsmoove2000]

With a catapult, they could also carry a wider variety of aircraft. From what I've read, the only planes carried are the Su-33, Su-25, and the Mig-29. Does anyone know what they do for an airborne early warning aircraft?

[@launchattempt6664]

The USSR built a limited number of Kamov Ka-31 helicopters. which are helicopters based on the Ka-27 designed to exclusively carry an early warning radar. Simple solution but not the most effective one.

[@DonSteverr]

this is so BOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

[@whidbeyhiker4364]

They use the sky jump bow so the planes can take off while the ship is being towed.

[@DonSteverr]

this is boss

[@araizachristian3920]

Why you here

[@qirtu]

why are you here

[@capespring]

@0croaker0 my bad. without steam catapult, jet may not carry heavier load thus project no serious naval air power.

[@rileykoczera8530]

Why is everyone comparing the Admiral Kuznetsov to American aircraft carriers? They aren't even designed for the same role, and they aren't the same class of ship. The Kuznetsov is a heavy aircraft carrying cruiser, not an aircraft carrier. Before they starting modernizing the ship recently, it carried anti-ship missiles and the air defense abilities of it are better than that of any American carrier due to the existence of on board surface to air missiles.

[@aspiringwackjob7089]

Guess again. The Kuznetsov is still using technology from the 1960s, when it was originally built. They're just now beginning to update it.

[@King_Cola]

Anbu4312, Su 33 has a lot older electronic systems compared to the new Mig 29 K. This is not the same Mig tested in the 90's.

[@HybOj]

3:40 That was short Oo

[@jerrylima1]

They are so Strong....No catapult ....

[@noco7243]

Well of course, that's why they have a ramp. Any carrier with a ramp is most likely not going to have a catapult. Only carriers with a flat deck such as the Chinese Type-003, the American Gerald Ford, Enterprise, and Nimitz class carriers (as well as basically every carrier made by the Americans) use the catapult.

[@allgood6760]

Awesome 👍✈️

[@weirdguy564]

@zoidberg2005 Yeah, and so does the US Marines on our small through deck carriers (USN has 21 carriers if you add them in, and we should). But that is because they are STOVL aircraft. They use their hover jets on takeoff. A MiG or SU-33 are good at low speed handling, but they're not better than a Harrier. The main thing is that if you want more bombs and missiles further inland where they can do some good, you need big planes, with a catapult to get them airborn.

[@chakraborty1989]

Mig 29k : lost competition against Su 33, then reborn with Indias help and now it's going to replace Su 33s.

[@QueenDaenerysTargaryen]

Amazing.

[@zoidberg2005]

@capespring That launch ramp negates the need for steam catapult, and there for lower weight and less crew is needed for the carrier.

[@giampieroflaminio8172]

But you need full afterburners on with huge consumption of gas and can be' spotted during the night. US modern engine Aircrafts doesnt need AB anymore to take flight with catapult

[@gbbggb12]

@@giampieroflaminio8172 what the f..k u talking about ?..ALL murican navy planes r being launch with after burners on fully day or night ...smart comment

[@ThroteCHOP]

I lied. His last name is definitely Abakarov, but his first name isn't Murad. He still isn't Japanese though.

[@Fullaut0]

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toktar_Aubakirov

[@Kulsym]

Это Заслуженный летчик - испытатель ,Герой Советского Союза, Народный Герой Казахстана Токтар Аубакиров, занесён в Книгу рекордов Гиннеса, поднял более50 типов военных истребителей, дважды горел, но сумел посадить самолёт,умница!!!❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉

[@zpirateko2129]

how is this thing still afloat

[@anbu4312]

How come Russia wants to replace the Su-33 with the Mig-29k? Last I saw and heard was that the Migs range and performance where grossly inferior to the Su-33.

[@Greenteac]

The left take off run seems to be much longer than the right one, I guess they can have heavier payload when taking off from the left?

[@capespring]

@0croaker0 Admiral Kuznetsov usually sails the Black Sea, I believe.

[@MlLKMAN]

Here is a valid question, without a catapult, how much fuel and armament can a mig29 carry? Having a handful of aircraft taking off with a partial combat load kind of defeats the point. A very expensive yet inefficient ship that wouldn't last against a third world navy.

[@dAMatlhoko1935]

Awesome!

[@marcusdanizel9816]

I love Russian weapons technology arms fighter jets and Russia is freaking awesome Sukhios and migs I miss soviet Union our best friend and respect to Russia love from India hands down 🇮🇳🇷🇺🇮🇳🇷🇺🇮🇳🇷🇺🇮🇳🇷🇺🇮🇳🇷🇺🇮🇳🇷🇺🇮🇳🇷🇺🇮🇳🇷🇺🇮🇳🇷🇺🇮🇳🇷🇺🇮🇳🇷🇺 always be close to our hearts

[@MrDrossel81]

Super

[@GeorgeWBush-im9ll]

Plus, if a carrier's air group are entirely dependent on catapults, then damage to the catapults effectively cripples said carrier's ability to conduct flight ops.

[@azimuth361]

The bomb that will damage a catapult will also crater this ship's flight deck, crippling it just as well. American carriers have four catapults, further, in 2001, flight test showed that these planes could not lift off with a combat load or full fuel tanks and they lacked the ability to re-fuel in mid-air. This ship is NOT combat effective.

[@jonathanball5837]

azimuth361 ... I saw a photo once of one taking off with a full load. (don't know about the fuel level) Two other guys were arguing about this.

[@itsdimitriymedvedyev]

Also, that is why The new Russian storm carrier will have 2 catapults, and 2 ramps.

[@aspiringwackjob7089]

Steam catapults are becoming a thing of the past. The new Ford aircraft carrier uses electromagnetic catapults, which almost completely nullifies damage to any systems, is smaller because it doesn't need the compression chambers and it can launch aircraft more frequently.

[@becauseiwasinverted5222]

...but damage to the ramp won't do the same to a STOBAR carrier?

[@anbu4312]

Oh ok. And I guess its probably cheaper to just buy the Mig rather than pay to upgrade all the Su-33's. :( ill be sad to see them go out of service they are amazingly beautiful planes.

[@Mugdorna]

Not better, just different. The Soviet 'carriers' have a smaller aerial complement so don't need the ability to rapidly deploy aircraft like the US Nimitz class. In addition the Nimitz utilise their nuclear reactor to provide steam power, the Soviet Heavy Aviation Cruiser does not have a nuclear powerplant.

[@dvdfrnzwbr]

The ramp gives a much nicer takeoff, but they have to burn more fuel without a catapult system

[@Antifaith29]

Same reason the F14 was dropped in favor of the F18? Mantainence cost/time? Just a guess, but it sounds reasonable. I dunno.

[@123Injuneer]

They don't have to specify which aircraft carrier, I don't think. There is only one.

[@spritezeroxxx66]

The USSR used to own around 5 aircraft carriers.

[@Chevette924]

Is that a... ramp?!? O.o

[@mgbandit751]

Any one know what the test pilot was saying? Just curious.

[@viller473]

wat was his name?

[@mgbandit751]

His specific words not the general idea of his complaint

[@viniciomicheletti4571]

Over the top mig 29!👍cccp 🇷🇺

[@ThroteCHOP]

His name is Murad Abakarov. He's not Japanese.

[@dam2724]

his name is Tokhtar Aubakirov

[@thebuzzcjc]

It's interesting, I didn't know they did it that way. The first time I saw one I was reading about the unfinished vessel China bought from Ukraine.

[@ColdstreamGds]

What about Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Afghanistan, Georgia, Chechnya?

[@mattmatt115]

What bread lines? From the early 90's?! It's 2012 my friend, it's about time you step into the present

[@turkishman4202]

Its 2020 and its time YOU step into the present my friend!

[@AbdulAli-ku9he]

3:49 MIG 29. Тохтар Аубакиров!!!! Казахский парень - красавчик

[@jaredmcfadden7793]

If Russia wasn’t run by corrupt tyrants maybe we could’ve seen more of these beautiful machines at work. Without worrying about which sovereign country the jets would be bombing civilians in.

[@Antifaith29]

They simply can launch faster, they have more room to do so. They can carry more, Go further ( unlimmited range) , faster and more modern. Not being able to take off with a decent amount of fuel limits time sensitive strikes too. I have nothing against russian tech, in fact im a big fan of russian aviation but in this particular case, the Yanks hold the better cards when it comes to carriers.

[@kkachi95]

Losing over 200 MBTs (including T-80) in less than a day? That is 'getting owned' in my book.

[@ToonandBBfan]

The MiG-29K is more mission capable and has better avionics and because they are smaller than an SU-33, more can be carried.

[@FuNmX]

best job in the world

[@edgwertiussnertius4168]

Re. "Im not thrashing the Russians i like the simplistic approach its good just not as good in a combat situation." - how is a carrier whose flight ops could NOT be crippled by damage to catapult systems not good in a combat situation? And, "the f-18 could to that if not better" - wrong, the F/A-18 cannot take-off from a carrier unassisted even WITHOUT any ordnance. This is all test and development - they're not carrying ordnance simply because there's no reason to, and flying lighter reduces expensive fuel consumption (throughout the flight, not just take-off).

[@azimuth361]

Flying without missiles or bombs makes its aircraft worthless. They're not carrying ordnance because they CAN'T launch with it.

[@mrjpb23]

+azimuth361 Lol, yes they can. They were flying ground attack missions just this year.

[@piotrek1982x]

i would like to see the take offs on non windy day and fully loaded . .

[@strizhi]

+piotr st The Russians have done - just no videos available for public yet. This carrier was built back in the late 80's and hardly seen use for over a decade. It was reinstituted back in naval service in mid 2000's - along with upgraded Su-33, new pilots, upgraded systems and computers on board as well as tons of sophisticated radar equipment never seen before. Here's what one full ladden Su-33 would look like: cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/6/0/2/0810206.jpg With its powerful jet engines its more then capable of taking off with all of these on board. Here's one taking off on a non windy day - its called NITKA: - (it doesn't even move windy or non windy day) battlemachines.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/su-33ub.jpg?w=720&h=413 This one is even larger then your typical Su-33 and still able to take off under own power, slanted deck - oh and by the way NON WINDY DAY! Hope that help....

[@durandil]

Mig-29K don't land on the AK, they just crash into the sea :-D

[@Szarko32c]

How much bomb load they can carry compare to what super hornets can take off with?

[@Karthagus]

they don't need aircraft carriers, as they have the best and most advanced rockets, missiles and air defence systems in the world...

[@widg3tswidgets416]

Karthagus Yeah...the same air defense systems that the west has been beating consistently for decades, and the same missiles that we have defensive systems for on every ship. They'd need to launch salvos of hundreds of missiles to defeat our anti ship missile defenses, whereas we only need 1 aircraft to defeat they're defensive systems. They know this.

[@Степан-й7й8ц]

Blessed are those who believe........

[@Степан-й7й8ц]

NATO has an advanced air defense system? Such as "Patriot"? Do you know, what happened in Iraq 25 February 1991?Iraq has a Soviet SS-1 Scud-B,Iraqis launched their missiles and several of them goes directly in to the barracks of the US army. Patriot could not intersept these missiles! No one! According to official data 28 died,about 200 injured. George Bush telling the tales about the fact that out of 42 Iraqis launched missiles was intersepted 41!!! But he lied! 45 missiles was intersepted! But also about the number of missiles launched he also lied! Despite the complete lack of decoys and radio, patriot efficiency was very low. 91 missiles launched from only 45 were intersepted, at a rate of 158 missiles! Yes of course in 2003, Patriot was upgraded and at 2014 was intersepted Syrian Su-24,at 2015 two Patriot's missiles intersepted one Scud-B,of course thats not all,there were several cases of successful interseption,but even then Patriot can't be compared with S-300 Favorite and S-400 Triumph. And "Admiral Kuznetzov",not so harmless as it may seem at first glance,it has on board "sea variant" of S-300 as a long range air defense,SA-N-9 Gauntlet as a medium range defense, CADS-N-1 Kashtan as a short range defense and 6 AK-630 6 barrel 30mm Gatling gun(rate of fire 4000-5000 shots/minute) , also on board there is a powerful sonar and electronic countermeasures systems,anti-submarine rocket system RBU-12000, and 18 anti-submarine helicopters Helix-A,. targeting helicopters,miniAWACS helicopters Helix-B,rescue helicopters,and ECM helicopters,total 10-18 helicopters. About aircrafts,I think you know everything better than I. Yes? So. Do think that ship is old, harmless and weak?

[@Karthagus]

I must add, as you say, that, this ship is very powerful as it is not a real aircraft carrier, but a battlecruiser with an aircraft runway. However, these fuel engines don't look good...the need to be replaced....this black smoke gives a very bad impression...this kind of ship should be given a nuclear plant, like Kirov's.

[@novilon391]

Rußland hat nur140Millionen Einwohner, eine schlechte Infastruktur, eine Bevölkerung die nicht im Wohlstand lebt. Natürlich können die nicht mit dem Rest der Welt mithalten. Alles nur Propaganda. Rußland ist ein Rohstofflieferant genau so wie Afrika, Südamerika. Nichts mit Heitech und Bedrohung.

[@RustedCroaker]

@capespring steam freezes in the arctic region

[@Nastafar]

Wow, if only our US Navy F-18s and other jets could take off the carrier deck without a catapult launch like the MiGs and Sukhois do. Now that's brute jet power!!!

[@gillhewerfamily6550]

Severely limits the loadout and range tho, due to weight of fuel. The ski jump system is impressive and I massively respect it and the crew that operate on it, but the catapult system is just better.

[@aaronsimon_co]

Actually F-18s can be launched from a ski jump, Boeing recently tested that out in India

[@edvartiussmartius9764]

What do you mean "not as good in a combat situation" ? The simple approach is often BETTER in a combat situation on account of its reliability and resistance to damage. Compare the AK47 & M16. The latter rifle had absolutely HORRENDOUS issues with jamming if so much as a grain of sand entered the chamber, often resulting in entire platoons being wiped out when they realized, too late, that not a single one of their rifles was working. The AK47, built for simplicity, reliability, and long service life, suffered from no such fatal sensitivity to less than 'ideal' conditions.

[@azimuth361]

I'm here to tell you that, after spending four years in Iraq and fighting a lot of guys who used AK-47's, they are just as prone to malfunction as the M4. I would say MORESO. None of my guys died because of a weapons malfunction, but I know dead Iraqis whose weapons failed them. I also worked with MITT's, training IA, IP and SOA. We had lots of trouble with AK's malfunctioning. The AK-47 is made in lots of places in the world to varying degrees of quality. They fail in combat quite often.

[@blackhatch46]

azimuth361 Thats funny, it wasnt like that the five times i deployed. Thats also counter to the three ak variants i own.

[@aspiringwackjob7089]

Actually, the only reason you believe the stories about the jamming issue with the M16, is because the soldiers who used them back in the day never cleaned the barrels or lubricated the chamber. In other words, they complained because they were too lazy to do basic maintenance.

[@edgwertiussnertius4168]

Re. "Not even Russian airforce want it." ...naturally, the design is now over thirty, nearing forty years old and they, as the U.S. is doing with the F16, are moving on to production of more sophisticated platforms.

[@TonyHerstal]

WHAT THE NAME OF JAPANESE PILOT?

[@hoangpilot]

Test pilot of CCCP Kazhak national Toktar Aubakirov.

[@NarooluCA]

yup, they havent perfected an airplane catapult yet

[@RustedCroaker]

@capespring The Admiral Kuznetsov, part of the Northern Fleet, Severomorsk base. It's arctic for sure.

[@avnregt]

actually..the catapault is a significant combat enhancer..how would you know about the self defense? The carrier battle group that its travels with is surely world class..plus how many carriers does russia have?... uno

[@gbbggb12]

how many KINZAL do Russia need 4 AK? UNO...lol

[@angelavitacca7390]

molto obsoleta, per far alzare in volo i caccia ha bisogno di troppo tempo, figuratevi per operazioni di cambio veloce.

[@Erik29437]

I thought the US lost more than 5? are you counting panama?

[@sanjayraju988]

Russian engineering is underrated.

[@rsmoove2000]

@nikola281 Thanks!

[@ieee754]

1:13 Warning: nothing to output bframe decoder lag

[@itsdimitriymedvedyev]

The Russians need like 8 more :D there so cool :D

[@avnregt]

Sorry buddy..you are wrong..i work as aviation boatswains mate on carriers before...catapults do add the the process of speed..why the hell do you think modern carriers would use it..only a low budget carrier uses ramps..thats why the russian carrier is not nuclear powered..try again

[@contemplateurgalactique3451]

C'est bizarre ! En Russie les avions de combat décollent toujours sans armement. Ça sert à quoi ?

[@anonymous10011]

The aircraft take-off well loaded for combat, instead, they sacrifice fuel load, requiring air to air refuelling after take-off. Both the 29 and the 33 have higher thrust:weight ratios than the rhino (although it does perform better at high alpha; the legacy models especially), the Russian a/c would therefore perform better without a catapult. Regarding it causing damage to the engines, the rhino will always use maximum power at weights above 58k lbs. (NATOPS NP 3-8-4), rendering that point moot

[@MrVitek57]

Минус 2 уже))

[@sehzademuhammadtousif9520]

1:51

[@AnilKumar-jg5bn]

Mig. 29k

[@Roddy229]

Pilot says there's a problem, Soviet command disagrees, and sends him to the Gulag

[@capespring]

take off too slow! why don't they make some steam catapult?

[@danthedewman1]

Admiral Smokey...LOL

[@jobu88]

If you look in the dictionary under "floating pile of shit" you will find a picture of the Kuznetsov.

[@weirdguy564]

@zoidberg2005 In theory. However, the carrier is going into dry dock for 2012 and one of the upgrades is.....wait for it....a catapult. Nobody wants a carrier that cannot launch fully loaded combat aircraft.

[@zeljkothegreekserb]

well if i had wings i would be a bird,why would they use icbms? icbms won't be used,maybe,but most likely not,if they didn't use it in vietnam,where they did loose,why would they use it here,when iran doesn't have a icbm on its own? but even if they do get used,iran will use the s-300,s-300 are made against missiles also,not only aircrafts,so there is a chance that even a icbm can be stopped

[@avnregt]

thats cold war relic facts..true carrier defense involves the carrier battkle group it travels with..destroyer/ submarine/cruiser/ ect to protect it..Russian navy doesnt have a battle group for carriers like American Navy..what does it matter of what was better back then? Its now what matters..and realisticaly, russian naval budget is chump change

[@johnnynapalm2001]

Cracks me up how people are talking big about Russia. Have fun in your bread lines.

[@RED_STAR_89]

TEST PILOT IS ANGRY .