Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
+30
Mir
higurashihougi
Svyatoslavich
starman
archangelski
nemrod
KoTeMoRe
KiloGolf
mack8
GunshipDemocracy
Giulio
DTA
AlfaT8
max steel
Morpheus Eberhardt
George1
Werewolf
medo
Cyberspec
GarryB
KomissarBojanchev
Regular
Zivo
d_taddei2
TR1
gjet1666
Viktor
Wan2345
Aramonik
milky_candy_sugar
34 posters
Soviet Armed Forces / Soviet Army (1946-1991)
archangelski- Posts : 624
Points : 641
Join date : 2015-04-25
Giulio- Posts : 181
Points : 206
Join date : 2013-10-29
Location : Italy
Impressive picture of a Typhoon class.
Could someone explain to me the the meaning and the difference between these two signs. I only know that they mean: "Soviet aviation excellence banner". Correct? And what's the difference between the first and the second with dashed lines? Thanks.
Could someone explain to me the the meaning and the difference between these two signs. I only know that they mean: "Soviet aviation excellence banner". Correct? And what's the difference between the first and the second with dashed lines? Thanks.
archangelski- Posts : 624
Points : 641
Join date : 2015-04-25
Giulio wrote:Impressive picture of a Typhoon class.
Could someone explain to me the the meaning and the difference between these two signs. I only know that they mean: "Soviet aviation excellence banner". Correct? And what's the difference between the first and the second with dashed lines? Thanks.
I only see one picture. But it's correct, the badge means "отличный самолёт", an aircraft perfectly maintained :
with stencils marks.
archangelski- Posts : 624
Points : 641
Join date : 2015-04-25
Giulio- Posts : 181
Points : 206
Join date : 2013-10-29
Location : Italy
Afaik the Yak-38 has been tested also in Afghanistan, where it was easily beaten by the Su-7/17 and Su-25, above all because of the payload. During the ground-based operations the Yak-38 computer control had to be disconnected, because of the takeoff and landing speeds on the runways, higher than those of the VTOL operations. If the Yak-38's computer did not understood very well the situation, it could eject automatically the pilot. This system saved many lives during VTOL (unlike the Harrier), but during normal takeoff and landing it had to be disconnected.
GarryB- Posts : 40557
Points : 41059
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
I would say a lack of payload was a problem for the Yak, but really in the CAS role it was actually the total lack of armour together with fragile design... a VSTOL aircraft like the Yak is full of high pressure gas piping to carry puffer jets to the wing tips, nose and tail to aide flight control at very low speeds and in the hover to allow yaw and pitch control as well as roll control when there is little or no airflow over the wing and tail mounted flight control surfaces.
The requirement to have more thrust than weight means heavy armour protection is not an option and all those vulnerable high pressure pipes also make the aircraft rather too fragile for CAS roles.
In terms of MANPADS the side mounted engine nozzles means even primitive IR seekers can get solid locks from most side and rear angles... whereas a conventional jet aircraft is best targeted from the rear 25-40 degrees the Yak had a clear IR signature from most angles including near front angles due to the engine nozzle positioning and front mounted lift engines.
Cost was also a factor... the Su-25 was much more agile, had a better payload in terms of weight and variety, was cheaper to buy and maintain, had better range, and was armoured with twin engine safety.
The Yak was tested because the british used the Harrier for CAS roles.... it was found wanting and was not used in that land role.
It was given a basic anti ship role with light air to ground missiles like Kh-25 missiles and a limited capability with R-60M AAMs.
Ironically the Yak-38M with more powerful engines actually made things worse as the more powerful engines allowed better payload but higher fuel consumption meant shorter range and less flight time on target without making the aircraft any faster.
The Yak would have been better if they accepted it would be subsonic and given it a much bigger higher lift wing... dropped the lift engines and gone for rolling takeoffs only with a big wing and thrust vectoring rear engines to allow short takeoffs from ski jump equipped carriers.
Fortunately the MiG-29 and Su-33 in slightly larger carriers have shown much better performance from much more capable aircraft that are land based designs with modest modifications.
The requirement to have more thrust than weight means heavy armour protection is not an option and all those vulnerable high pressure pipes also make the aircraft rather too fragile for CAS roles.
In terms of MANPADS the side mounted engine nozzles means even primitive IR seekers can get solid locks from most side and rear angles... whereas a conventional jet aircraft is best targeted from the rear 25-40 degrees the Yak had a clear IR signature from most angles including near front angles due to the engine nozzle positioning and front mounted lift engines.
Cost was also a factor... the Su-25 was much more agile, had a better payload in terms of weight and variety, was cheaper to buy and maintain, had better range, and was armoured with twin engine safety.
The Yak was tested because the british used the Harrier for CAS roles.... it was found wanting and was not used in that land role.
It was given a basic anti ship role with light air to ground missiles like Kh-25 missiles and a limited capability with R-60M AAMs.
Ironically the Yak-38M with more powerful engines actually made things worse as the more powerful engines allowed better payload but higher fuel consumption meant shorter range and less flight time on target without making the aircraft any faster.
The Yak would have been better if they accepted it would be subsonic and given it a much bigger higher lift wing... dropped the lift engines and gone for rolling takeoffs only with a big wing and thrust vectoring rear engines to allow short takeoffs from ski jump equipped carriers.
Fortunately the MiG-29 and Su-33 in slightly larger carriers have shown much better performance from much more capable aircraft that are land based designs with modest modifications.
Morpheus Eberhardt- Posts : 1925
Points : 2032
Join date : 2013-05-20
Ancient Russian Oplot-MO APS
GunshipDemocracy- Posts : 6172
Points : 6192
Join date : 2015-05-17
Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada
- Post n°83
Re: Soviet Armed Forces / Soviet Army (1946-1991)
GunshipDemocracy Mon Dec 07, 2015 11:00 am
Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:Ancient Russian Oplot-MO APS
anti gay-wolves weapon for Syria?
Morpheus Eberhardt- Posts : 1925
Points : 2032
Join date : 2013-05-20
- Post n°84
Re: Soviet Armed Forces / Soviet Army (1946-1991)
Morpheus Eberhardt Mon Dec 07, 2015 12:14 pm
GunshipDemocracy wrote:Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:Ancient Russian Oplot-MO APS
anti gay-wolves weapon for Syria?
Oplot-MO is probably more suitable for protecting against forces from Andromeda; no earthly threat would really require this.
Zivo- Posts : 1487
Points : 1511
Join date : 2012-04-13
Location : U.S.A.
Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:Ancient Russian Oplot-MO APS
What is this, and how does it work?
GarryB- Posts : 40557
Points : 41059
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Probably the same as the AK-630 naval gun turrets... mount this on top of a tank turret with some sort of detection system... when an incoming threat is detected turn the gun onto the threat and open fire... I suspect the gatling is chosen to enable the most rounds downrange as quickly as possible in high density bursts.
Zivo- Posts : 1487
Points : 1511
Join date : 2012-04-13
Location : U.S.A.
GarryB wrote:Probably the same as the AK-630 naval gun turrets... mount this on top of a tank turret with some sort of detection system... when an incoming threat is detected turn the gun onto the threat and open fire... I suspect the gatling is chosen to enable the most rounds downrange as quickly as possible in high density bursts.
I found it at otvaga.
http://otvaga2004.ru/na-zemle/na-zemle-1/bm-1945-1965_11/
archangelski- Posts : 624
Points : 641
Join date : 2015-04-25
Guest- Guest
https://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/cryptologic_quarterly/maybe_you_had_to_be_there.pdf
Soviets shot down 13 U.S. reconnaissance aircraft between 1950-1964. Declassified article.
Soviets shot down 13 U.S. reconnaissance aircraft between 1950-1964. Declassified article.
archangelski- Posts : 624
Points : 641
Join date : 2015-04-25
MiG-25BM :
mack8- Posts : 1039
Points : 1093
Join date : 2013-08-02
Great stuff Archalgenski, please keep it coming. Always liked to see soviet gear in service in it's heyday (especially aircraft), rather that rotting in a boneyard or museum.
archangelski- Posts : 624
Points : 641
Join date : 2015-04-25
Ka-25 :
KiloGolf- Posts : 2481
Points : 2461
Join date : 2015-09-01
Location : Macedonia, Hellas
^^ well not quite T-80, more like T-64.ROSTOCK, GERMANY- FILE PHOTO- JANUARY 26, 1991: A Soviet soldier sits atop a T-80 tank as hundreds of tanks are lining up to be shipped back to the Soviet Union, on January 26, 1991, in Rostock, Germany. The Soviet Union started pulling their forces out of Germany after Germany's re-unification in 1990. The wall that divided the two Germanys was made on August 13, 1961 and lasted 28 years. (Photo by Sven Creutzmann/Mambo photo/Getty Images
Soviet tanks in the early hours of the morning in East Berlin on 28 October 1961. After an incident at the border crossing-point Friedrichstraße "Checkpoint Charlie", tanks of the U.S. and the Soviet army drove up on both sides of the border, but withdraw after one day. From 13 August 1961, the day of the building of the Berlin Wall, to the fall of the Berlin Wall on 9 November 1989, the Federal Republic of Germany and the GDR were separated by the Iron Curtain between West and East.
KoTeMoRe- Posts : 4212
Points : 4227
Join date : 2015-04-21
Location : Krankhaus Central.
KiloGolf wrote:
^^ well not quite T-80, more like T-64.ROSTOCK, GERMANY- FILE PHOTO- JANUARY 26, 1991: A Soviet soldier sits atop a T-80 tank as hundreds of tanks are lining up to be shipped back to the Soviet Union, on January 26, 1991, in Rostock, Germany. The Soviet Union started pulling their forces out of Germany after Germany's re-unification in 1990. The wall that divided the two Germanys was made on August 13, 1961 and lasted 28 years. (Photo by Sven Creutzmann/Mambo photo/Getty Images
Soviet tanks in the early hours of the morning in East Berlin on 28 October 1961. After an incident at the border crossing-point Friedrichstraße "Checkpoint Charlie", tanks of the U.S. and the Soviet army drove up on both sides of the border, but withdraw after one day. From 13 August 1961, the day of the building of the Berlin Wall, to the fall of the Berlin Wall on 9 November 1989, the Federal Republic of Germany and the GDR were separated by the Iron Curtain between West and East.
It's a "sisty-fow", rollers and sights.
archangelski- Posts : 624
Points : 641
Join date : 2015-04-25
DTA- Posts : 201
Points : 239
Join date : 2015-04-22
Sevastopol 9 May. "Chervona Ukraina" missile cruiser (today Varyag )
Videos about Soyuz 25 mission.
Videos about Soyuz 25 mission.
DTA- Posts : 201
Points : 239
Join date : 2015-04-22
K-181 on the way to Alexandria (Egypt). 1968 Mediterranean
archangelski- Posts : 624
Points : 641
Join date : 2015-04-25
Yak-28P & U :
archangelski- Posts : 624
Points : 641
Join date : 2015-04-25
Su-15 : 
nemrod- Posts : 839
Points : 1333
Join date : 2012-09-11
Age : 59
A typical NATO propaganda against soviet hardware. It shows how US officials try to deceive their public opinion.
NATO vs Warsaw Pact -air force-.
If we stop few minutes on this image, what does it mean ? Even the Mig-25 is useless against any western hardware. What could we say about the poor Mig-21 ? It is noteworthy to say that Mig-21's success reach a such trust, it was built at least 14.000 units. It was the most successful jet supersonic fighter -I will post next about Mig-21 -.
And if you see excepted the SU-15 Flagon, all these aircraft composed the iraqi Air Force or serbian Air Force. NATO relied and had too much confidence on its radars, and air-air to missiles. Air-air missiles's success and effectiveness that were at least dubious, if not in most of the cases failures.
NATO vs Warsaw Pact -air force-.
If we stop few minutes on this image, what does it mean ? Even the Mig-25 is useless against any western hardware. What could we say about the poor Mig-21 ? It is noteworthy to say that Mig-21's success reach a such trust, it was built at least 14.000 units. It was the most successful jet supersonic fighter -I will post next about Mig-21 -.
And if you see excepted the SU-15 Flagon, all these aircraft composed the iraqi Air Force or serbian Air Force. NATO relied and had too much confidence on its radars, and air-air to missiles. Air-air missiles's success and effectiveness that were at least dubious, if not in most of the cases failures.