franco wrote:Timid hope. Does the Russian naval aviation have a future?......
So long story short their ASW sensors and aircraft are obsolete dogshit and they are dragging their feet in rectifying it?
franco wrote:Timid hope. Does the Russian naval aviation have a future?......
GarryB, Big_Gazza and Hole like this post
GarryB likes this post
GarryB and Big_Gazza like this post
Strategic deterrence (ICBM's & SSBN's) was always going to be prioritized for upgrades and new armaments, followed by the Army, Airforce and soon enough, the Navy.franco wrote:Naval Aviation does need upgrading but so did every other area of the military. Work is ongoing and I'm sure we will see more in the future but other areas needed attention sooner.
GarryB, Big_Gazza and miketheterrible like this post
And it must be emphasized right away that now, after the change in the leadership of the Naval Aviation of the Navy, positive trends have emerged in the real solution of its problems.
... the problems of our naval aviation are not really technical, but organizational.
Let's start with the fact that the research organization of naval aviation is included not in the structure of the Navy, but in the VKS (and the relationship between "ship" and "aviation" organizations is an extremely painful issue), and ending with questions of banal funding.
The obvious priority of the Navy is submarines (in relation to which there are many questions on various kinds of problems and the effectiveness of spending). A much lower priority is surface ships, and aviation is simply in the role of a stepdaughter.
Strategic deterrence (ICBM's & SSBN's) was always going to be prioritized for upgrades and new armaments, followed by the Army, Airforce and soon enough, the Navy.
George1, lancelot and TMA1 like this post
If there is any truth in this it is beyond comprehension that countering the biggest military threat to Russia - is apparently the most neglected! That I find a bit hard to believe, but it is quite apparent that they are dragging their feet when it comes to replacing old maritime patrol aircraft. However I do agree with the author that it's not the type of aircraft that's important - it is the actual onboard systems that's the most crucial element.
GarryB, Big_Gazza, PapaDragon and lancelot like this post
GarryB and Finty like this post
GarryB, franco, flamming_python, zardof, Hole, Finty and Mir like this post
GarryB, franco and LMFS like this post
franco, LMFS and Hole like this post
GarryB and franco like this post
GarryB wrote:The english translation was not working for me, any hints about the future of naval aviation... I noticed at the end they did focus on the Yak-38 but did not mention the Yak-141 or anything newer (which I think is a good thing).
Electric drive jet engines blowing cold air and fully articulated vectored thrust engine nozzles would overcome the landing and take off issue of ingesting hot low oxygen gas from the engine exhaust that causes stalls and crashes on landing and taking off but VSTOL aircraft have too many faults to consider as anything other than a relatively weak fighter type that is too expensive to be a MiG-29KR replacement.
Equally, they showed the Kamov Helix quite a bit and the Ka-52K Katran, but did they mention Minoga at all?
Yak-141 was only a prototype, Soviet Naval Aviation only operated Yak-38
Ka-52K at least have been tested onboard a real ship, Minoga does noy exist out the papers
franco likes this post
GarryB, franco, George1 and Hole like this post
GarryB, franco, AMCXXL and LMFS like this post
George1 wrote:
Thus, after several years of absurd experiments with giving the Northern Fleet the status of an operational-strategic command (military arm) with the subordination of all units of the ground forces and air force and air defense in the North, everything has returned to normal and the “normal” Leningrad military is being restored
The Northern Fleet is “reduced” to performing its usual tasks and retains in its composition only its traditional “original” naval aviation units, which are now united by the management of the mixed aviation corps (obviously, the usual naval aviation management for the management of four scanty aviation regiments was certainly not possible get by).
According to our information, the anti-aircraft missile and radio technical regiments are not part of the mixed corps and were also assigned to the 45th Air Force and Air Defense Army.
GarryB, franco and Hole like this post
AMCXXL wrote:
yes, very absurd bring MiG-31BM to Naval Aviation
I hope the Kamchatka MiG-31BM also will be returned to VKS soon
GarryB likes this post
11E wrote:So if I read the posts correctly, this is the current summary of Russian Naval Aviation?
98th MIXED AVIATION REGIMENT, Monchegorsk
2x SQN with MiG-31BM
Su-24M & MR (operational?)
Unknown (by me) what the higher echelon or correct designation is is the 3rd Aviation group at Ostafyavo (An-12, An-26, An-72, An-140)
and the 89th Aviation link (name of the detachment of 830?) at Arkhangelsk-Talagi (An-26, Mi-
568th MIXED AVIATION REGIMENT, Sovetskaya Gavan/Kamenny Ruchey
?? Still exist?
175th SHIPBORNE ASW HELICOPTER SQN, Yelizovo
Directly under command of the Pacific Fleet?
Ka-27, Ka-29, Mi-8
71st TRANSPORT AVIATION SQN, Knevichi
Directly under command of the Pacific Fleet
859th CENTER FOR COMBAT TRAINING AND RETRAINING OF NAVAL AVIATION PERSONNEL, Yeisk
Il-38N
L-39C?
Ka-28 and Ka-29
Det from the Northern Fleet with Su-25UTG aircraft
franco, zardof, Hole, lancelot, 11E and Mir like this post