Posted on 12/03/2016 11:44:21 PM PST by Berlin_Freeper
Not even impressive.
We've had those things since the Summer of 1965. Hell, we had those things long before Nick Fury was even black fer cryin' out loud:
Now THAT is a quad-rotor!
I’ll bet someone has built a flying scale model.
I’ll step out of the box here, why not send them one of our older ones on a rental agreement? You know like a Ryder truck.
They use (at least) 12 (upgraded) SU-25s in Syria - a very similar plane with a similar mission to the (not upgraded A-10) - and, BTW, the Russians pioneered CAS in WWII with the Il-2 Sturmovik.
Russia’s A-10 Warthog: Why the Su-25 Frogfoot Is a Flying Tank
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/russias-10-warthog-why-the-su-25-frogfoot-flying-tank-17499
Sukhoi Su-25
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-25
No I caught that also. Idiot reporters that don’t have a clue that it is called “arresting gear”.
Author probably meant arresting gear vs landing gear.
Since the Kuznetzov is a CTOL aircraft carrier (without catapults), failure of the arresting gear would be a huge ... or, as some here at FR like to say, a YUGE problem. Carrier operators plan for routine replacement of cables and they are usually triple redundant so that the loss of one does not prevent bringing aircraft aboard.
ASSUMING this problem led to the decision to send the CAG ashore, it probably involves some critical, single point of failure component in the system that cannot be easily repaired or replaced using on-board resources. ???????? Sort of surprising since arresting gear technology is well developed and even the Russians have decades of experience operating it aboard carriers.
Considered under these circumstances, sending the CAG ashore makes sense. It stays involved in ongoing air operations until the problem aboard the carrier is sorted out. CAG aircraft are all derivatives of standard land based designs and there is a logistics air bridge back to Mother Russia, so the aircraft can be maintained while ashore.
However, the decision to send the CAG ashore is still a big deal. Shore basing the CAG while the ship is deployed means the ship has been stripped of its principal offensive weapon system.
Loved Slim Pickens in that role.
You're are not the only one. This is more proof of the complete purposeful idiocy of liberal propagandists. Someone with photoshop skills should post an aircraft carrier gif with a flat tire.
You don’t still believe we are bombing the same people, do you?
Why would we want to?
First upgrade would be to double the hull size and propulsion system. Other than that they would have to junk their catapults, arresters, avionics, revamp their logistics, training, doctrine, and support. Really no big deal. Russian aircraft carriers are a joke, a prestige talisman, not worthy of tangling with the big boys.
We’ve been building aircraft carriers that work since before WWII. Yes, there’s just gobs of technology to deal with, but if Russia can finally figure out how to get people in space, you’d think they could come up with a basic low tech aircraft carrier that’s fairly reliable.
That said, Russia is getting combat ops training out of this.
They misread Putin. He’s not a nationalist. He was a communist. When that gig wasn’t working out, he needed a new one. As Milosevic had done, Putin traded in his commie ideology for chauvinism under the guise of nationalism. Like Napoleon and other tyrants to include Hitler, he even pays some symbolic homage to the Christian Church, while making sure it doesn’t oppose his kleptocracy.
I’m guessing they are referring to the arresting cables on the ship.
This thing was belching smoke all the way to the middle east and had tugs following close behind.
Putin has one task. Save Mother Russia from dying.
At this point his degree of actual success is not at all clear.
Really? There’s nothing in the Wiki to show plans were stolen.
However, the Ilyushin Il-2 (and later the Ilyushin 10) pioneered almost all of the characteristics of the YA-9 and YA-10. Other than the jet engines and inability to carry heavy bomb loads, the thievery could almost be said to be in the other direction - or that similar missions require similar designs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-2
Does not seem to me that there was any need to steal anything; the Russians are really good at designing planes - manufacture is an other story.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.