Talking bollocks thread

Werewolf wrote:Can someone explain to me what this story is about?
Have not heared anything so far.

Mike E wrote:

Werewolf wrote:Can someone explain to me what this story is about?
Have not heared anything so far.

Supposedly a Russian submarine drifted into Swedish waters and sent a distress signal. So far no good evidence of anything has shown up, and Russia's government is denying any responsibility. This in turn created a propaganda frenzy in the West, and now the entire story has blown way up.

Go to any large (and therefore unreliable) media source, they should have news on it.

Werewolf wrote:

Mike E wrote:

Werewolf wrote:Can someone explain to me what this story is about?
Have not heared anything so far.

Supposedly a Russian submarine drifted into Swedish waters and sent a distress signal. So far no good evidence of anything has shown up, and Russia's government is denying any responsibility. This in turn created a propaganda frenzy in the West, and now the entire story has blown way up.

Go to any large (and therefore unreliable) media source, they should have news on it.

And when does this supposedly accident happened?

GarryB wrote:The amusing thing is that during the 1980s the Swedish constantly complained their waters were being penetrated and it was only after the cold war that it was revealed that it was western subs looking for paths in and out.

Subs sending distress calls should be fairly straight forward to find... except if they don't exist.

nemrod wrote:

TR1 wrote:Yeah this is a BS article.

However, admit it, we would all laugh if Tu-160s cruise missiled the Saudi Royal family, and Russia justified it as per-emptive anti terror strikes.

Indeed, I doubt this is true, however, it is said that, Bandar threatened President Putin to disturb Socchi games. Do not mistake, the attack of Beslam, was not comming from nowhere.
The main responsible is USA. Before, Bandar, Russia, should strike air base F-22 in Qatar, and US air base in Egypt, and Turkey. Russia today is not what it was during Yeltsin's era.
US understands only the language of weapon.
We would see weapon tomorow, or in next future in Syria, this time, US air force will face with good adversary.

USA is in bankrupcy, oligarchy has nowhere where to come, only a new war in order to divert US people from the true problem. This method is not new, it is old, for example -among thousand-when France in 1870 has greats economic, social, politic problems, in order to divert frencheese people's mind, french high responsible Thiers, Jules Ferry declare the  war against what it was believed against weak Germany.
However, on contrary to what french high responsibles thought, well prepared -Moetke, Biskmark- Germany erased frencheese army. France in that time was humiliated.

I think it could be the same thing this time with US and Israel, because Putin as Iran are really decided to help Syria.
It was said also, that Saudis are preparing the war against Syria too, I think this time, Russia, or at least some russians paratroopers will be involved, Iam near sure.
The S-300 are handled by russian soldiers.
But the warmongers fed up with US soldiers lives, security, health, and US economy, they thought just one thing Israel. Israel is above the americans.

RTN wrote:

Werewolf wrote:

India's intentions maybe good, I am not denying it. But frankly, India does not have anything to offer to Russia.

Which is why I had stated in my earlier post that Putin spends just 30 mins in India  but 3-4 days in EU or US.  

India has a lot to offer to Russia as well as to other countries.  But it depends on Russia.  India has the land, perfect weather for manufacturing, low cost of living, vast well trained manpower particularly Science, Engineering, and Software.  It is a democratic country where all countries are welcome.  With a man like Modi in power, there is no country in the world that can provide such a complete array of resources.  Lately, India has been the destination for Russians; 160,000 Russian tourists in Goa in 2013.  Last December, a lot of Goans told me that Russian Mafia is already there to make it smooth for Russian tourists.  Goa could be a great destination also for opening Indo-russian collaborative projects like fighter jet FGFA research and manufacturing.  With half the funding coming from India it will be an ideal site in contrast to a place like Siberia.  Think about that.

Ken Bradshawvor

Put one foot on top of another and ask someone to push you over. Then spread your legs and ask them to try again. Notice the increased stability of the spread legs. That is the benefit of a tail rotor over a dual rotor. I read literature that a dual rotor is more stable, but the Ka-52 has to use fly-by-wire. I can't explain it.

I have read a lot of hype about the Ka-52 being more acrobatic, but the only test I found was a 2009 air show where it did one loop that was called ham fisted and it lost its avionics. The Apache can easily loop.

Yes, the Ka-52 is faster.

Some of the hype in the Ka-52 literature talks of the problem with the Apache losing a tail rotor as catastrophic - but it is not. An Apache within certain speeds will act like a plane, while damage to either rotor on a dual rotor is catastrophic - they must stay in sync.

The articles tout the drain on the engine of a tail rotor. Now, how is a tail rotor more of a drain than an entire other rotor? The truth is that a tail rotor takes 10% of the engine. The Apache was two engines; the Ka-52 has two engines. The Ka-52 uses an engine for each rotor. The Apache keeps an engine as a redundancy. So the Apache main rotor has 90% of the efficiency of the Ka-52, plus a spare

The mechanics for a dual rotor are complex. I am going to just assume that the more complex the mechanics are - the more chance of failure. You may disagree.

I have read articles claiming that the Apache has better weapons and avionics than the Ka-52. I am going to assume that is just as much hype as the Ka-52 articles. The truth is that like a new suit - either aircraft can change its clothing.

That is my reasoning. I will agree that there is literature that supports your views, but as I examine them, their logic does not stand up. Ken

TR1 wrote:Wow. So much fail in that. So many technical mistakes.

Werewolf wrote:So since i got my work out for by stomach from this i am going to share this because it will cheer anyone up, that is pure gold of stupidity which some appear never to deplete of such.

Ken Bradshawvor

Put one foot on top of another and ask someone to push you over.  Then spread your legs and ask them to try again.  Notice the increased stability of the spread legs.  That is the benefit of a tail rotor over a dual rotor.  I read literature that a dual rotor is more stable, but the Ka-52 has to use fly-by-wire.  I can't explain it.

I have read a lot of hype about the Ka-52 being more acrobatic, but the only test I found was a 2009 air show where it did one loop that was called ham fisted and it lost its avionics.  The Apache can easily loop.

Yes, the Ka-52 is faster.

Some of the hype in the Ka-52 literature talks of the problem with the Apache losing a tail rotor as catastrophic - but it is not.  An Apache within certain speeds will act like a plane, while damage to either rotor on a dual rotor is catastrophic - they must stay in sync.

The articles tout the drain on the engine of a tail rotor.  Now, how is a tail rotor more of a drain than an entire other rotor?  The truth is that a tail rotor takes 10% of the engine.  The Apache was two engines; the Ka-52 has two engines.  The Ka-52 uses an engine for each rotor.  The Apache keeps an engine as a redundancy.  So the Apache main rotor has 90% of the efficiency of the Ka-52, plus a spare

The mechanics for a dual rotor are complex.  I am going to just assume that the more complex the mechanics are - the more chance of failure.  You may disagree.

I have read articles claiming that the Apache has better weapons and avionics than the Ka-52.  I am going to assume that is just as much hype as the Ka-52 articles.  The truth is that like a new suit - either aircraft can change its clothing.

That is my reasoning.  I will agree that there is literature that supports your views, but as I examine them, their logic does not stand up.  Ken

VladimirSahin wrote:Just read a Pakistani post on the T-90 saying that in the brochure the T-90s FCS is made to work at day and night conditions, That is why they will attack India at dusk, Just like in a earlier war they did.  I think there is a American internet word for a statement like this called LMFAO

VladimirSahin wrote:Just read a Pakistani post on the T-90 saying that in the brochure the T-90s FCS is made to work at day and night conditions, That is why they will attack India at dusk, Just like in a earlier war they did.  I think there is a American internet word for a statement like this called LMFAO