LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteI hope your not refering to me. Because if you are...Originally Posted by lurker
Yes I was meaning arena. However these small anti-missiles are guided by radar and have no homing.... the range is up to 5km depending on the speed of the aricraft. The idea is that they are being activated and shot automatically by aircraft's computer, then guided into the incoming missiles at 5 max. They have very little solid fuel so no chance to turn if it missed the target..... manuevrability is also limited.... in general system shoots 2-3 of these for an enemy's missile. A MiG-29 class can carry two blocks with 4 anti-missilles in each.... one box forward looking and one backward => total 8!
The time for their reaction is around 0.01 second and they are activated automatically when radar sends a warning about incomming high speed object and its trajectory. I was impressed reading about it. It is expected that a single anti-missile will protect aircraft from enemy's missille with 90% probability in combination with a sharp maneuvre and in 60% if aircraft flies same course. Combination of 3 would improve probability further! It can be used by aircrafts and possibly by helicopters which have required radar capacity. Unfortunatelly I have no links for you. Anyway it would take many years before this development of Vympel will be fielded.
I also read about high impulse laser which blinds homing devices of heat-seaking missiles. It was designed to protect civil aircraft against mobile SAMs like Igla, Stinger, Strela etc.... This one was already partially tested, and worked.
I hope your not refering to me. Because if you are...
Yes, It was about you.
p.s. As for all the russian guys on this board, I want to congratulate the winning KAMAZ team for taking the 1st prize in Paris-Dakar Rally 2006! The russian technology once more proved how much you can do with the little money and strong spirit.
Too bad I was right about the X-555 cruise "brick"
So kid, I'm sorry that you got your feelings hurt, but it's the truth. The only good things to come out of Russia is the Tu-160, Su-47 and Kirov.
Everything else is a stop-gap measure, like the land forces.
The T-72 =
The T-80=
The T-90=
three instances of crap.
The one good things Russia had going was the Chiorny Oriol, got relegated to export material and then set on the back burner, and not most certainly is a dead project. So something good never made it out of the factory, evidently the russians like having crap tanks. Of course you are free to prove me wrong
Now I'll talk about Russian hardware that is actually innovative and impressive.
Tu-160 Blackjack= Mach 2 bomber, pretty cool. Too bad it reminds me of the B-1 Lancer...but nevertheless it is impressive even if it is an over sized B-1 that happens to go faster and not even carry more payload! Unfortunately it was a decade and a half too late, the XB-70 was a Mach 3 bomber, carrying almost twice the payload and a higher altitude by far. And there aren't very many of these bombers in working condition.
Su-47 Berkut= Forward swept wings are awesome, best dog fighting capability in the world. No complaints here. Too bad it probably wouldn't last a second against a Eurofighter or Raptor.
Kirov Battlecruiser= Good naval ship, the russians managed to do something right! Too bad only 1 is in working condition!
I love the idea of the nuclear power, the SS-N-19's are impressive and I like the Ak-130-u automated gun.
Unfortunately these three things virtually don't exist since they are so few in number! And the Berkut is an experimental fighter, wonder if the Russian AF has the cohones to buy more than... TWO of them.
What do you know about it, Beavis? Want to discuss it's targeting system? How about you post a comparison?
Not really in my area of interests, but it looks like anything you know about them you got from children books eighter.So kid, I'm sorry that you got your feelings hurt, but it's the truth. The only good things to come out of Russia is the Tu-160, Su-47 and Kirov.
Everything else is a stop-gap measure, like the land forces.
The T-72 =
The T-80=
The T-90=
three instances of crap.
Oh, really? Was it ever comissioned? Or you just talking about pretty poster picture you saw?The one good things Russia had going was the Chiorny Oriol, got relegated to export material and then set on the back burner, and not most certainly is a dead project. So something good never made it out of the factory, evidently the russians like having crap tanks. Of course you are free to prove me wrong
XB-70? The one that crashed? Care to remember how many of those wunder-waffe were comissioned?Now I'll talk about Russian hardware that is actually innovative and impressive.
Tu-160 Blackjack= Mach 2 bomber, pretty cool. Too bad it reminds me of the B-1 Lancer...but nevertheless it is impressive even if it is an over sized B-1 that happens to go faster and not even carry more payload! Unfortunately it was a decade and a half too late, the XB-70 was a Mach 3 bomber, carrying almost twice the payload and a higher altitude by far. And there aren't very many of these bombers in working condition.
LOLSu-47 Berkut= Forward swept wings are awesome, best dog fighting capability in the world. No complaints here. Too bad it probably wouldn't last a second against a Eurofighter or Raptor.Care to post anything you know about the type of radar used on "Berkut"?
Oh, you like it?
Kirov Battlecruiser= Good naval ship, the russians managed to do something right! Too bad only 1 is in working condition!
I love the idea of the nuclear power, the SS-N-19's are impressive and I like the Ak-130-u automated gun.
Oh, you know even the "Berkut" offering price?Unfortunately these three things virtually don't exist since they are so few in number! And the Berkut is an experimental fighter, wonder if the Russian AF has the cohones to buy more than... TWO of them.
Go ahead and do a comparison. the gunny already did.What do you know about it, Beavis? Want to discuss it's targeting system? How about you post a comparison?
Oh good comeback. Typical russian.Not really in my area of interests, but it looks like anything you know about them you got from children books eighter.
Didn't I just say it's a dead project. The Chiorny Oriol hasn't been seen since what....1997? 1999? Dead as a doornailOh, really? Was it ever comissioned? Or you just talking about pretty poster picture you saw?
The XB-70 crashed because a T-38 chaser plane collided with it, but I'm sure the ruskies claimed to have shot it down with a super SAM! LOL.XB-70? The one that crashed? Care to remember how many of those wunder-waffe were comissioned?
Does lurker want to learn about the XB-70? Well you should since you don't have a clue.
http://www.labiker.org/xb70.html
I can't believe you said that out loud
I'm pretty sure the Tu-160 would crash if it got smashed into by another plane as well, nevertheless the XB-70 is still better
Doesn't have any. It's anLOL. But hey, if you want me to I'll say it's crap too!
Typical rusky, I say good things about the S-37 (Su-47) and you bad mouth me. LOL.
Know more about it than you do. Wanna have a go. Or will you start b.s'ing about "it was built for a soviet carrier that was never built"Oh, you like it?
It's an experimental plane bub, until it goes into production. But hey, if they are buying some then by all means post the links. I happen to like the berkut.Oh, you know even the "Berkut" offering price?
My information all comes from here-
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/s37/
It's a beautiful fighter. I'm hoping the Russia goes forward with purchasing them.
Last edited by Defcon 6; 19 Jan 06, at 03:01.
Havent seen anything posted from you? Nothing to post? Just a big mouth?
LoL. It was a "project", just like X-45A was. Remember, the one that got cancelled last week? See my point?Didn't I just say it's a dead project. The Chiorny Oriol hasn't been seen since what....1997? 1999? Dead as a doornail
When X-45 is going to be comissioned? 2027? 2099? Or just never?
It's not a bomber, it WAS an experimental plane. It's dumb to compare stuff that never going to see front lines.nevertheless the XB-70 is still better
At least you know this. Yes, it's a TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATOR.Doesn't have any. It's an
Typical rusky, I say good things about the S-37 (Su-47) and you bad mouth me. LOL.
There is never going to be a production model. It's an EXPERIMENT.
Typical ******. LOL
Know something another - post it. Dont' know - shut up.Know more about it than you do. Wanna have a go. Or will you start b.s'ing about "it was built for a soviet carrier that was never built"
Never going to happend. It was build just to test the airfame scheme.It's an experimental plane bub, until it goes into production. But hey, if they are buying some then by all means post the links. I happen to like the berkut.
My information all comes from here-
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/s37/
It's a beautiful fighter. I'm hoping the Russia goes forward with purchasing them.
Last edited by lurker; 19 Jan 06, at 03:11.
[QUOTE=lurker]Havent seen anything posted from you? Nothing to post? Just a big mouth?
And your point is? Notice that I said that it was cancelled in my first post.LoL. It was a "project", just like X-45A was. Remember, the one that got cancelled last week? See my point?
When X-45 is going to be comissioned? 2027? 2099? Or just never?
So no I don't see your point because there is no point to be made. I said the Black Eagle was highly promising and it was a, i'll quote you here "TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATOR!!!*Y*^^^$&%%$*&%*&^%*&^%*&" LOL
Too bad you ruskies didn't go through with it.
No...it was a bomber. Hence the XB designation. Slick. Experimental bomber.It's not a bomber, it WAS an experimental plane. It's dumb to compare stuff that never going to see front lines.
And to be sure, the TU-160 is going to see the front lines when? Oh excuse me, thats right, the XB-70 is still better. Nice arguement lurker.
At least you know this. Yes, it's a TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATOR.
There is never going to be a production model. It's an EXPERIMENT.
Typical ******. LOL
Your just humilating yourself. Especially since I pointed out that it was an experimental plane in the first post.
Anyway, even funnier, is that you don't have a point! Technology demonstrator, yeah I know...DUH. lol.
And lets review your post and see if this applies to you.Know something another - post it. Dont' know - shut up.
You said:
At least you know this. Yes, it's a TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATOR.
There is never going to be a production model. It's an EXPERIMENT.
Typical ******. LOL
Doesn't help ya none that I was correct in what I said.
LoL? Well I'm glad you think its funny, but Russian land forces is still sucking majorly here. Too bad for your arguement.LoL. It was a "project", just like X-45A was. Remember, the one that got cancelled last week? See my point?
When X-45 is going to be comissioned? 2027? 2099? Or just never?
It's not a bomber, it WAS an experimental plane. It's dumb to compare stuff that never going to see front lines
Too bad about that XB designation. Nevertheless it flew and accomplished all its project objectives, proving my point. It was indeed better than a Tu-160. And hey I like the Tu-160, but I just calls them the ways I see's them.
Again, your arguement fails.
So after reviewing your past post, which is mostly rhetoric, I must say yeah...its about time for you to shut up. By your own admission.
I never said otherwise, I simply said its dogfishing skills are mazing as far as agility. But hey, as I've said, Russia's failure to procure it as a fighter just leaves russia with it's current crap. lol.Never going to happend. It was build just to test the airfame scheme.
It was not cancelled, it was not accepted. It's obvious that you just don't know **** about how it works.And your point is? Notice that I said that it was cancelled in my first post.
So no I don't see your point because there is no point to be made. I said the Black Eagle was highly promising and it was a, i'll quote you here "TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATOR!!!*Y*^^^$&%%$*&%*&^%*&^%*&" LOL
Too bad you ruskies didn't go through with it.
In tanks: Several factories (i.e. "companies") create competing experimental projects. They are called "objects". They are offered to military.
If they are accepted - the machine got a "T" designation with a number, after that you can be sure that it's going into production, and factory got the money.
If they are not accepted, the factory got a choice of dragging the project to the next level, and improving it, or they cancel it.
In THIS case, "Object 640" Black Eagle from Omsk factory was not accepted in favour of "Object 95"/"T-95" from Nizhnyj Tagil.
The same thing is going on between Sukhoi and Mig and so on. Companies may experiment as they wish, the Army have nothing to do with this.
Who's humiliating himself? LOL
p.s. Are you nervious or something? Your posts getting garbled
Last edited by lurker; 19 Jan 06, at 06:03.
Its really to proove you wrong. An AT--1 ATGM fired by T-90 or even T-72 from 5 kilometers away has 700 mm penetration, thats from 100 to 200 mm more then needed to penetrate Abrams side armor (depending on the spot), meanwhile even the Abrams A3 round can't penetrate T-90 armor fielded with Kontakt-5, it can penetrate the side armor, but not from 5 km, so why does it even matter? Abrams'd be dead long before its within succesful firing range.The one good things Russia had going was the Chiorny Oriol, got relegated to export material and then set on the back burner, and not most certainly is a dead project. So something good never made it out of the factory, evidently the russians like having crap tanks. Of course you are free to prove me wrong
Thats because Russia never gets anything except ****It was not cancelled, it was not accepted. It's obvious that you just don't know **** about how it works.
You are in your attempt to rectify my statement that the russians passed up a good opportunity with the chirony oriol. Now they have nothing but crap. As I said before.Who's humiliating himself? LOL
Not any worse than yoursp.s. Are you nervious or something? Your posts getting garbled
A T-90 would be the last place I wanted to be when the rooshoo's hit the fan in a serious war. Anybody who tells you that a T-90 would survive a M1A2 hit is bs'ing. Because an Abrams wouldn't likely survive a hit from a 125mm shell. In tank warfare it's a one hit one kill war, everyone knows this. Any other ideas you have about the Rooshoo super T-90 are pointless.
LOL. Sure sure, drink some water or you explode
It was a project of a company, it was outbid. T-95 is going to be production.You are in your attempt to rectify my statement that the russians passed up a good opportunity with the chirony oriol. Now they have nothing but crap. As I said before.
HahaNot any worse than yours
Tu-160? 14 fielded (in 161 tbap, Engels) + 5 going thru acceptance tests + 2 being made.And to be sure, the TU-160 is going to see the front lines when? Oh excuse me, thats right, the XB-70 is still better. Nice arguement lurker.
XB-70 is still in a trash bin.
Yeah, that says enough about you right there.Haha
haha. ya, like the Kursk.LOL. Sure sure, drink some water or you explode
The Black Eagle was regarded as the T-95. The T-95 designation would have been applied to the Oriol had it "won" the bid. Anyways this T-95 you keep talking about doesn't exist.It was a project of a company, it was outbid. T-95 is going to be production.
Sounds like something a nationalist would say. Rooshoo's usually are blinded by their own egos.Haha
Oh boy 14? And how many of those are operational? COUGH.Tu-160? 14 fielded (in 161 tbap, Engels) + 5 going thru acceptance tests + 2 being made.
Too bad too. But it was still the better aircraft. Then again...we already knew that.XB-70 is still in a trash bin.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: