• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Disassociated tour for aviators on aircraft carriers/gators

Pilots and NFOs are functionally equivalent in our service, particularly at the senior pay grades. Out of uniform, you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference through social or professional interaction.
 
People,

Could you tell me, please, preferrably those who are from MPRA, was there any kind of protection that P-3 crews can get from the fighter/strike fighter carrier-based squadrons while aloft? Let me explain some: while we the Soviets were commissioning the first four VSTOL-carriers of Kiev-class (1973-85), the only fixed-wings aircraft in those airgroups was Yak-38 which was (entered service 1971, effectively grounded in 1991 and written off 1993) an attack aircraft roughly of the same tactical background that Harrier had (firstly the shore-based CAS-able VTOL, based somewhere in European landmass in liaison with the armor avalanche, then when Navy had found out this Yak's existance and tried to adopt it to the flight decks it turned out that it is very hard to improve that poor design much in respect of antishipping, let alone AAW). Indeed, the aircraft could carry just a pair of R-60 WVR missiles and had no radar. And the process of writing the tactical schemes for Yak-38 was left to the squadrons, namely the Naval Attack Air Regiments 279 and 311 in North and Pacific fleets, respectively. Then their papers, based on the evaluation of the plane, were added to Guidance for the Battle Performance of the Naval Aviation. Despite the fact that the main purpose of that Attack Regiment (up to 40 Yaks) deployed aboard of the Kiev-class ship was the secondary strikes on CVGs if they survived the co-ordinated missile strikes from SSGNs, Backfires and guided missile cruisers, there was the phrase there: " If the carrier air group possesses the [truely] fighter-equipped and trained unit, then the main aim of that unit is supposed to be the hunting on Orions/Nimrods just before the start of SSBNs mass deployment through Faroese-Icelandic ASW barrier". When it came to the fifth ship, STOBAR Kuznetsov, this additional phrase became the main one and that is why the beast Su-33, hardly able to be deployed on the ship (designed with Yak-41/141's and MiG-29's moderate dimensions in mind) and full zero in CAS, interdiction and antishipping, but much better interceptor, had been choosen to occupy this flight deck - as anti-MPRA asset it was big step forward. So the question is - could the P-3 or EP-3 operating from Iceland and Norway be defended by some means or they could be an easy prey for Soviet carrier-based fighters?
 
Last edited:
Brett327 said:
Out of uniform, you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference through social or professional interaction.
Click to expand...

This is good, indeed, and is unique, meanwhile. In any other national navy and/or air force WSO/CSO officer corps is usually much smaller and less respectable than the pilots' one
 
Are you trying to ask us to talk about tactical or strategic weaknesses of our platforms? Replace Soviet with Russian and it wouldn't be much of a different question past vs present.
 
revan1013 said:
Are you trying to ask us to talk about tactical or strategic weaknesses of our platforms? Replace Soviet with Russian and it wouldn't be much of a different question past vs present.
Click to expand...
I'm trying to say that if MPRA planes are vulnerable, it's better to defend them against similar Chinese J-15s. No Russian naval aviation will fight the USN, that danger is in past for good. Not so sure about Air Force vs USAF, but either not in dogfight, definitely
 
Gents,Ok, what is the role of medical people in the typical USN squadron? Should the flying surgeon has some flying experience? Naval Aviation Psychologist, what he/she is? No Russian aviation unit has its own medics on the squadron level, only from the regiment level. On the other side, Russian SSN crew contains two doctors and a dentist with a degree (all officers), versus USN SSN crew with the lone enlisted medic corpsman. It is common on Russian boat to make intricate surgery while on deployment, by the way.
 
By the way, are there some limits now for crewing some definite airplanes in USN from the standpoint of the human heigh or weight? In USSR the attendance to the Air Force colleges while the main fighters were MiG-17/21, the limit was 1.75 meter tall man - if taller, he could break his neck while ejecting due to the dimensions of the seat, head rest and a canopy at all. Saw the example of British Sea Venom all-weather naval fighter with tanden ejection seats in the cockpit where I (1.92 meter tall) could barely stiff myself alone. Reading the Adm James Stockdale's books where he described his last flight in an A-4B, I would rather think that its cockpit was so small, too...
 
Yet again, as I see the NA/NFO while on disassociated tour can hold standing the OOD watch, that's from here - http://www.vp47.navy.mil/co_bio.htm
Does it mean that SWOs from carrier ship's company are free from OOD watches? If so, then the routine complaints from carrier-nailed SWOs about their sad life on a "Bird Farms" seem to be a bit exaggerrated, as in my opinion the underway OOD watch is the hardest thing in all SWO tenure. At least, in Russian Navy.
 
o-KERI-RUSSELL-facebook.jpg



1.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top