Date: January 5th, 2018 7:12 AM Author: milky area
HAHAHA! And you want to fight Russia when you only have 94 deployable F-18 Hornets and it took you 3 months just to get those 94 ready to sail! HAHAHA. No wonder Vlad feels he can just shit on any part of the globe he likes. The Kuz may not have 9 brothers but he has a fully deployable airwing that doesn't take 3 months to cobble together from pieces.
To get Carl Vinson, Nimitz and Theodore Roosevelt ready to deploy in January, June and October of this year, and equip their embarked air wings with the required number of mission-capable jets, 94 strike fighters had to be transferred to and from the maintenance depots or between F-18 squadrons on both coasts,"
"This included pulling aircraft from the fleet replacement squadrons, where our focus should be on training new aviators," Shoemaker added.
The massive reshuffling of jets leaves non-deployed squadrons without planes to practice on, which will have "detrimental impacts to both retention and future experience levels" of those pilots, according to Shoemaker.
These deployments, Shoemaker said, caused "several hundred" parts to be "cannibalized," or taken from other jets to fix the F-18s going on the carriers. The task decimated the "readiness of squadrons" and added "significantly and unnecessarily to the workload of our maintainers," according to Shoemaker.
In total, Shoemaker reported that 300 sailors had to be reassigned to complete the task, and he expects it to affect the Navy's ability to retain talent.
Date: January 5th, 2018 7:25 AM Author: milky area
TBF the commie jets have better engines thus mitigating the need for catapults. An F-18E could never take off a ski jump and not crash into the ocean.
The only reason the Chicoms are going with catapults in follow on designs is their new J-20 fighter has a shitty Chinese made engine and is too damn heavy like the F-18. The Russkies who are 10-15 years ahead in engine development dont have this problem.
Date: January 5th, 2018 7:35 AM Author: milky area
War is their purpose comrade and the Izd 30 engine is a generational leap over the F119 and F135. Dry thrust is nearly 25% higher per kilo and fuel consumption is 13-18% lower depending on altitude and its cheaper too.
Date: January 5th, 2018 10:13 AM Author: self-centered cracking bbw
Actually, if there's anything Russia does well it is having a unifying purpose. They're Russian and the nation is under siege from a bunch of foreign powers.
And substance abuse is awful in the US too.
All that said, US carriers are unmatched in the world. This is one of those cases where if we put what everyone else had against what the US has the US would easily win.
Date: January 5th, 2018 7:29 AM Author: wonderful fantasy-prone new version
Even based on the OP’s tortured logic this completely falls apart.
If the Russians had three air craft carriers, this would be a sick burn, but the OP isn’t contending that the US had difficulty mobilizing a single carrier.
So the fact that Russia only has one shitty carrier means that it is embarrassing that kitting out three carriers proved to be a logistical challenge?
Ha! Stupid Yankee, only three times as strong as Russia on short notice. Putin genius triumph again! Once Kurz is towed back into place, sea will be dyed red with Yankee blood!
Date: January 5th, 2018 7:32 AM Author: milky area
94 jets in an air war over Russia is basically a rounding error. Whether its 30 or 90 makes like no difference. When you are down to numbers this low carriers lose any semblance of a strategic capability.
Date: January 5th, 2018 7:36 AM Author: wonderful fantasy-prone new version
“The last time Russia’s sole aircraft carrier sailed into the Mediterranean Sea, five years ago, the U.S. Navy’s 6th Fleet kept a close eye on its progress. The concern among American officers wasn’t the ship’s contingent of fighter planes; instead, it was the very real worry it would sink and necessitate a potentially risky rescue operation.” Thus, the ship is more of a symbol of embarrassment to Russia.”
Date: January 5th, 2018 7:39 AM Author: wonderful fantasy-prone new version
Although the ship was commissioned in 1990, its first combat mission wasn’t until last year when Russia deployed it off the coast of Syria to participate in Moscow’s campaign to prop up the Bashar al-Assad regime. It did not go well. In a one month period two planes flying from the aircraft carrier crashed. As Russian and other naval analysts noted at the time, these mishaps occurred in part because the carrier wasn’t meant to participate in prolonged campaigns. “It’s a very old ship with very old technologies. It is not prepared for intensive flights,” is how one Russian analyst explained it to the Washington Post.
Date: January 5th, 2018 7:42 AM Author: milky area
The crashes stem from shitty piloting. But Yankees lose 1 Hornet basically every other month so its not really an exclusively Russian problem. Carrier ops are hard. Had nothing to do with the carrier itself. Bigger problem was actually not running out of bombs on the carrier. At one point they literally ran out of bombs to drop and had to wait for like 3 days to resupply. That was embarrassing.
Date: January 5th, 2018 8:26 AM Author: Ultramarine turdskin
This is a budget battle piece. Naval aviation wants more F18s, but the CNO and Congress dont want to give them because they would rather spend it on F35s and other big ticket items.
After a few cruise missile launches and bombing raids on targets on the Syrian rebel-held province of Idlib in mid-November, the Russian navy task force in the northeastern Mediterranean remains largely inactive, contrary to expectations. Just before the strikes, the task force suffered the embarrassing loss of a MiG-29K on November 13. Then on December 3 one of its Su-33s overshot the carrier and crashed into the sea.
The pilots of both aircraft ejected and were subsequently rescued, but both aircraft sank to the bottom of the sea. These are painful losses for the Russian navy, especially the MiG-29K single-seater multirole fighter, only 20 of which were procured, along with four MiG-29KUB two-seat operational trainers, with deliveries in 2013-2015.
The MiG accident was initially attributed to unspecified technical malfunctions. But it emerged later that the MiG-29K was lost after it exhausted all its fuel while awaiting clearance to land on the carrier Admiral Kuznetsov. The permission was never issued because the carrier’s crew had not managed to repair the Svetlana-2M arresting equipment in time, after one of its four wires broke. The MiG could have been saved, if the carrier's commander had instructed the pilot to divert to an airbase in Syria or Cyprus. But he hesitated to approve such an alternative, in the hope that the ship's arrestor gear would be repaired quickly.
Date: January 5th, 2018 10:12 AM Author: Exhilarant Demanding Trailer Park
"The MiG could have been saved, if the carrier's commander had instructed the pilot to divert to an airbase in Syria or Cyprus. But he hesitated to approve such an alternative, in the hope that the ship's arrestor gear would be repaired quickly."
That right there just illustrates how fucked up the Russian military is. In an american jet the aircraft commander (pilot) would have had final say on whether to divert or ditch, not some faggot Admiral in a starched shirt.
That's just bad pre-flight planning ad poor situational awareness.
Date: January 5th, 2018 4:23 PM Author: Mind-boggling indian lodge genital piercing
Yeah. Experienced pilots are more important than superior hardware and the US has both. Our military is on a peacetime footing and absolutely not where it could or should be, but it's not up against any hypothetical super military; compared to everybody else's peacetime military, we have massively better training and more experience.
ARE Reptile alludes to "10" carriers but the reality is that the USA has 20 (the 10 "amphibious assault" ships would be carriers in literally any other navy), i.e., more carriers and more experienced pilots than the rest of the world combined. Chortling over some supply hiccups on outfitting 3 of those 20 carriers is, of course, absurd.