LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteVery True!!! I see it, but many people I see around can not see such a simple things... they still rest on myths of the past about might of Russian army..... and Air force.Originally Posted by canoe
LOL
Russia which has one of the best planes in the world, will buy old western? (anybody to it will not sell the advanced)
Probably you have joked.
Very True!!! I see it, but many people I see around can not see such a simple things... they still rest on myths of the past about might of Russian army..... and Air force.
Hi Snipe, I did ask people who SELL this system (S-125) and who upgraded it. The thing is that TOW missiles are used not against skies..... you can not see very far into the skyies. Night vision can not be applied against the sky unless F-117 was flying REALLY low or was illuminated by projector or something. But then there was no need for a missile.... I know that probably you have used night vision during you missions. I did recently use a civil version which has same priciple as millitary - enhacing LIGHT.
There are actually two options for night vision - enhacing light or termal imaging. First has longer range but needs some LIGHT which it enhaces and it can not work against the sky it will show you a cloud but now an aircraft flying above 1km. Second is VERY limited in distance.
Last edited by Garry; 14 Mar 06, at 21:23.
lol, fair enough. The U.S does own a bunch of foreign planes to train against.The US has a ton of old Russian planes. I presume we paid SOMEBODY for them.
We no longer use them for DACT. But we like to take them apart and see what makes them tick.The U.S does own a bunch of foreign planes to train against.
We bought 21 MiG-29's from Moldova, along with 500+ AAM's. Then there are the 22 East German MiG-29's that were sold to Poland (for the princely sum of 1 Euro for the entire lot).
We have a couple SU-27's at Edwards too.
"We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008
We have a whole Sqn of Hinds i think. Down at Fort Stewart IIRC.
I would be interesting to hear oppinions of those US pilots who tried both F-16 and those outdated MiGs! Having used both they can really compare them! Which AAM's did Moldova sell?We no longer use them for DACT. But we like to take them apart and see what makes them tick.
We bought 21 MiG-29's from Moldova, along with 500+ AAM's. Then there are the 22 East German MiG-29's that were sold to Poland (for the princely sum of 1 Euro for the entire lot).
We have a couple SU-27's at Edwards too.
I am not sure we are living on the same planet, you and me.LOL
Russia which has one of the best planes in the world, will buy old western? (anybody to it will not sell the advanced)
Probably you have joked.
I have been involved with russian industry this last ten years, in engineering, and I can tell you Russia should really try another field.
They just can't built airplanes correctly.
My last experience is the RRJ in Sukhoi... And I am deadly serious here.
We got 348 AA-8 Aphids, 112 AA-11 Archers, and 51 AA-10 Alamos.
14 of the 21 MiG's were the "C" model, which was the frontline "nuclear" version with updated radar and ECM in the spine. 6 were old "A"'s and there was one Two-seater "B" model.
The Pentagon loves garage sales...
"We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008
From what I've read, those Migs were on Iran's shopping list.We got 348 AA-8 Aphids, 112 AA-11 Archers, and 51 AA-10 Alamos.
14 of the 21 MiG's were the "C" model, which was the frontline "nuclear" version with updated radar and ECM in the spine. 6 were old "A"'s and there was one Two-seater "B" model.
The Pentagon loves garage sales...
Seriously?I am not sure we are living on the same planet, you and me.
I have been involved with russian industry this last ten years, in engineering, and I can tell you Russia should really try another field.
They just can't built airplanes correctly.
My last experience is the RRJ in Sukhoi... And I am deadly serious here.
It is good, if you have been connected with the Russian industry, you know that in Russia there is such saying: " each drake praises his bog ". Therefore I shall use the western sources of the information which inspire you trust more. (though I count their prejudiced).
By their estimation Су-35 it is equal ' Rafale ', and it is better than F-15, F-16 and F-18. You consider it as bad result?
You bring RRJ as argument? But in fact requirements to military and civil planes - very different!
Last edited by Firral; 15 Mar 06, at 16:53.
yes. Very good shopping! Were those AA-10 C version? Well it is not important even if basic it is still quite good learning tool.We got 348 AA-8 Aphids, 112 AA-11 Archers, and 51 AA-10 Alamos.
14 of the 21 MiG's were the "C" model, which was the frontline "nuclear" version with updated radar and ECM in the spine. 6 were old "A"'s and there was one Two-seater "B" model.
The Pentagon loves garage sales...
In what was your particular business with RRJ, you were involved in? Can you give some details? From what country/company/organization? Very interesting!I am not sure we are living on the same planet, you and me.
I have been involved with russian industry this last ten years, in engineering, and I can tell you Russia should really try another field.
They just can't built airplanes correctly.
My last experience is the RRJ in Sukhoi... And I am deadly serious here.
First, I am not going to spread here my resume.
Are you going to do yours? I think you can understand that.
I work in engineering, in systems.
What does it mean equal to Rafale?
Confort? Turn rate? Weight? maintainability? reliability?
You have to understand that they are not the same planes.
The russians, and chinese btw, have a culture to field a lot of airplanes in a squad, in the hope that few can take off at a needed time.
By opposition, the western phylosophy is to have the biggest percentage of assets flying.
So you field 50 airframes, and wish to have four flying, versus 20 airframes with 18 flying.
You can't avoid teh repairs/overhauls anyway. The delta is a work about reliability.
Same for the boats and subs and tanks. It is phylosophal.
Yes, definitively, in the russian mind.
Even the mission is different (hence the spec is also), meaning that the requirements are higher in some domains and lower in others, the way to design a plane (def-phases) is identical for a military or civilian asset.
All are aswering MIL Standards (I know, russians are pouting at these because the sound american, chinese too, btw) or RTCA/DO-160.
Manoeuvrability and Turn rate - one of the best in the world owing to rotary reaction nozzles and excellent engines.
Reliability and maintainability - Hm. Generally Russian gears are famous for reliability, unpretentiousness and ability to be under repair in field conditions.
Confort - I do not think that this important quality for the fighting pilot. Or I am not right?
Seriously? Me makes laugh that in the West imagine Russian army a certain similarity of the big crowd or a huge tribe. On yours our main tactics - destruction of the opponent by lots? And you are not confused with that fact, what some kinds of engineering formed for actions alone? For example submarine Varshavyanka and airplane Su-34.
I have noticed at you prejudiced opinion on Russian and their philosophies that is not surprising as you judge about them on the Hollywood films.
Give again we shall recollect Confort. About it often recollect when discuss Russian fighting machines.
But if for civil airplanes it is the important factor, for fighters it on back roles. How here to judge?
For military engineering the greater role is played with unpretentiousness and ability to repair in field conditions, forces of crew (for example the tank or BMP). For civil machines it is not so important.
(Though this example not so approaches for army of the USA as it does not have experience of management of wars at bad material supplies as it was in WW2 at the USSR. Therefore the western fighting machines require maintenance is more often.)
Last edited by Firral; 16 Mar 06, at 23:41.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: