bias. He did not get any sort of abuse on this forum. He was just a whiny little b*tch who staged a drama queen exit. Goodbye
and good riddance.
kvs wrote:TR1 was rabid in his denial of the refurbishment of the Nahimov. All of this alleged knowledge is worth sh*t if it is encrusted with
bias. He did not get any sort of abuse on this forum. He was just a whiny little b*tch who staged a drama queen exit. Goodbye
and good riddance.
GarryB, franco, kvs and Hole like this post
LMFS and Hole like this post
GarryB, kvs, LMFS and Scorpius like this post
marcellogo wrote:butIsos wrote:It is. For the US, their is the mainland US and the rest of the world.
US bombed the former Yugoslavia it was part of.
They bombed the french back in 1945.
They are trying to get friendly with Vietnam which they bombed using more bombs than during WW2.
They bombed most of the south american countries during their CIA sponsored coups.
They are less trustworthy than a prostitute. They would bomb their moms for their own profit.
Yes, that's because Croatia trusted France for the supply of fighters, Germany for their howitzers, produce by licence their high end wheeleed APC from Finland and for a lot of the rest, beginning from the Navy, do it for itself.
From USA has got helicopters and mine resistant vehicles at the price of a penny after their withdrawal fror Iraq but, when cannot do it at home, it trust the important things to other Eu members.
About the Rafale deal: it's certanly an ambitious one but it is not something they cannot afford themselves as with this they will reach the sought goal of 2% of GDP in defence spending, get the best plane around, allowing them not just to balance Serbian purchase of MiG-29 but also to have the most capable one of all the former Hapsbourg countries.
And doesn't bother with mainteinance or proficency into using them, as they say: Mali smo al'nas ima, srushit' cemo snovi svima. (We are small and we well know it but we definitively ARE, and born to defy the dreams of the bigger ones).
Don't forget they are Slavs also and of the toughest kin .
Isos wrote:Yeah bravery has nothing to do with economy.
Rafale is very good but expensive and sensitive like most high tech stuff.
Let's see how they use them but I don't think they will be able to have ready all the time. Most likely 4 jets will survive and the rest will be kept in storage.
Against Serbia that won't be enough. Even if they are better than the old mig-29, its advanced technology can be negated :
- Fight in moutainous areas where the rafale has no advantage over the mig.
- Rafale are juicy targets that can be targeted by suicide drones from inside Croatia by special ops teams.
- They are based on only two airports. Destroy the runways and they can't take off.
- expensive guided munitions available in low quantity.
- Use of low altitude for dumb bombing makes it an easy target for AAA or manpads.
They will be based in Zadar and Zagreb which are at less than 350km away from serbian borders. 24 kh-35 or kh-59mk2 can be bought and integrated into the mig-29 to destroy them in their hangars.
Serbia has also the Sumadija guided rockets with 285km range that can target Zagreb airport from within Serbia or Zadar from serbian areas of Bosnia.
They can also buy russian Iskander with 300km range (could even be 400-500km for serbia). Flight time would be 5 minutes. With russian real time sat images they can coordinate an attack and destroy all of them at once with 12 missiles.
Croatia doesn't have an air defence to protect them. Serbia has on the opposite buk and pantsir to destroy any croatian missile or guided bombs.
For that mater Rafale isn't a game changer for them. They could have bought a cheaper plane they would ve in the same situation.
Odin of Ossetia wrote:
Spartans of the Balkans are cowards?
Are you even serious?
At least they have much longer history of independence than the Croats. I guess that counts for a lot.
I know Croats are industrious and that they excel at some sports, but I wonder where their eternal subservience to foreign powers comes from?
Perhaps from Poland, where either all or most of their R1a y-dna lineages come from? We had tribes in south-eastern Poland like Vislans and Lendzians who some historians think were Northern Croats.
And the siege of Dubrovnik was lifted due to the international pressure, sanctions, embargoes, coupled with diplomatic efforts, not really due to some "heroic defense."
Historically Dubrovnik is not even genuine Croatia.
kvs likes this post
The problem they found was that its fire power was negated by having to land.
To operate from a helicopter carrier then it would have to be either a Ka-31 or a Ka-52K... the latter has a modern capable AESA radar
The requirement for air power is being able to see out to a much greater radar horizon...
to launch 9M96 ARH SAMs of the 60km range or 150km range variety... they fly at about mach 5... how is that for dash speed?
the four pylons could carry four Iglas each for a total of 16 AAMs
The American Searam is a mishmash of a range of weapons but ultimately its performance isn't much different from the Igla-S...
They wont operate their helicopter carriers without a fixed wing carrier like Kuznetsov.
I am comparing it with the Ka-52K because it is being made and they are going to have them..
In comparison the Kamov has a modern AESA radar and the capacity to carry a range of weapons.
There is no evidence the main engine of the Yak-141 could be used in flight to improve maneuver performance while its IR signature would be enormous.
No I am not... I am talking about the single seat MiG-29K that was developed from the MiG-29M in competition for the Su-27K for use on their new carrier... it was tested and the Flanker was chosen.
No, Garry, not 12 more new Boreis but 12 Boreis in total. I wrote about the fact that it is good that Russia has a fleet of 12 strategic submarines because without them and without ICBM's and nuclear weapons, even if there were 10 or 12 aircraft carriers in Russian Navy - The NATO pact would then immediately attack Russia.
Russia needs modern nuclear weapons. RS-24, RS-28 and Avangrad are much more important.
Yes, Gorshkov had began with the development of the ocean fleet, but in the meantime the USSR disintegrated. And some leftovers of that fleet are still in service; 2 1144 class cruisers (they called them "expensive toys of Admiral Gorshkov"), 3 1164 cruisers and Kuznetsov aircraft carrier. Why would Russians spend money in these conditions on something on which their survival does not depend ?
I will not even think about ships such as aircraft carriers until I see the mass construction of frigates. Is the construction of 22350 frigates as it should be ? No, not yet. Also, the modernization of multi-purpose submarines is very slow in Zvezdochka and Zvezda.
Its ponitless to thing about carriers right now and there will be no new aircraft carriers in Russian Navy in the next 8 to 10 years. Could we agree on that ? it may even start building an aircraft carrier but those ship or ships will not be in service untill early/late 30's. I think that Russian shipyards are not yet capable of building aircraft carriers.
So is it more important to continue with the production of multi-purpose submarines, ssbn's, to speed up construction of frigates, corvettes, than to to write about something that is not yet in sight (aircraft carrier/s) ?
I don't think that the Su-57 is bad at all, but I think that the Russian Air Force needs it more.
This primarily means that the Russian Air Force needs far more of those planes.
if they build even 4 realtively large aircraft carriers and each aircraft carrier has even 48 (192 fighter jets in total) aircraft, maybe Su-75, that is not enough to fight against USA, UK, France, and others in some conventional war in Atlantic.
Therefore, it is better to rearm Monchegorsk airport, Krymsk, Khotilovo, Besovets airport, Kursk Vostochny airport, Belbek airport, Morozovsk airport, Baltimor airport, Chkalovsk, etc with Su-57 and other new types in the future.
Is it better for Russia to have 400 or 500 Su-57's in VVS or 192 in MA VMF (Naval aviation) and far less of those in VVS ?
I have nothing against the fact that the Russian Ministry of Defense is currently ONLY building a defensive fleet.
Of course, that number will be questioned by the nay sayers, but we have clear data about the air purifying system of the type - it is rated at 500h effectiveness.
It is a commercial system, a part of HVAC installation, that is presented at world salons for a while.
The catch is that in reality, those are no longer ranged - both 212 and 636 are rated at 8-9knm with their own fuel supply.
The general idea is definitely not for the helicopter to stick around on the ground! The Mi-24 can just drop it's load and scoot away behind cover and deliver it's firepower at standoff range
The troop's first priority is to secure the helicopter by spreading around it ready for action - a very common practice.
AESA radar is great and all that but the Ka-52K's radar is limited in area of coverage and it's range is said to be around 200 kms.
For proper AEW you need 360 degrees coverage and the radar of such an asset is much more powerful with far greater range.
You will probably now suggest 6-8 Ka-52K's in the air but one dedicated AEW asset in the air is really good enough and it could direct those 8 Ka-52K's to do their actual job properly.
That's exactly why a dedicated AEW unit is just so much better for this purpose. No point in looking in one direction and finding your arse literally being kicked from the other side!
Great! However the problem is you can't just just fire missiles at everything each time you want to intercept something - esp in peace time! Laughing
Even with the crappy F-35 the Ka-52 would have a hard time intercepting it! In fact that is actually one of the big issues with the F-35. It can't intercept anything that flies faster that the Tu-95!
Pitting it's Iglas against SSM's could work I guess but by then most sailors would have probably abandoned ship already!
Exactly my point - it's pretty close to useless in this scenario. If you want a popper CIWS rather use a Pantsir-M.
That may not be a given and highly unlikely as it is - and that is probably why they are thinking VTOL again.
Yes and that's great but they will use them as attack and recce helicopters - not some super interceptor to fend off incoming missiles and attack aircraft.
...and what makes you think any possible future VTOL fighter may not have all that and even more!
The Soviets called the aircraft the Mig-29M and it was presented for export in the post Soviet era as the Mig-29ME. The name "Mig-33" was very briefly used at Farnborough for marketing purposes instead of "Mig-29M".
The original single seat Mig-29K was also present at shows but was always presented as the Mig-29K and never associated with the name "Mig-33". There is ample evidence to support this. I don't think you have any to support your claim. Since then the name "Mig-33" hasn't been used officially - the Mig-33 doesn't exist.
This ship would give a advantage against any navy but the one operating real carriers. VTOL are still better than the single helicopters operated on normal ships like frigates or destroyers.
And against such navies 8-12 jets is more than enough since it can hunt enemy helicopters and launch kh-31/35 all day long.
As long as the radar horizon exists or Russia develops interceptors, drones and AWACS aircraft with effectively unlimited range, carriers will be useful for it as an offshore air defence and early warning bubble.
Podlodka77 likes this post
The point is not that it is super powerful... the point is that it is in the air shifting the radar horizon back a hundred kilometres or so compared with ship mounted radar...
Obviously 360 degree radar coverage would be better but enormous range is not...
the point is that it is in the air shifting the radar horizon back a hundred kilometres or so compared with ship mounted radar.
A pedal turn in a helicopter would take less time than most conventional radar antennas on the top of ships spin...
You are not paying attention... I am not saying replace all carrier based fighters with Ka-52s... I am saying VSTOL fighters cost billions of dollars to get designed and developed and in to service while these helicopter ships will already have Ka-52K helicopters on them.
Why? Do you think a Harpoon or a Tomahawk would be invulnerable to Iglas?
Except the Ka-52K might be 15km away from the ship it is operating from, which means it can be shooting down threats at much greater distances[
Agree totally... because they will have fixed wing fighters from carriers for that job.
Vapourware can have anything and everything... but what it does need is billions of dollars and 10-15 years to make it actually work... assuming it ever actually does.
The design bureaus don't decide the numbers, they can only suggest.... it is the customer that decides.
If there is no customer then the name... no matter what it is remains unofficial.
Can you not read? The MiG-33 identifies the aircraft that was competing to be the aircraft on the Kuznetsov... its designation was MiG-29K.
No - the point is we're not talking about the ships radar - we're talking about AEW radar on aircraft and UAV's vs the Ka-52K.
..and just ONE sentence ago you say this!
Modern day electronic radars scans in split seconds...but yeah you can paddle turn all day long if you want!
Looks like I've missed that bit where you said "I am saying VSTOL fighters cost billions of dollars to get designed and developed and in to service while these helicopter ships will already have Ka-52K helicopters on them". Please refer me back to where you've actually said that in our previous conversation as I can't seem to find it?
Not at all, but knowing the capabilities of the Russians I would think their first line of defense would be long range air-to-air missiles, together with long range surface-to-air missiles.
If that fails they would start using medium range AAM's and SAM's and if that fails they would use short range AAM's and SAM's and CIWS like the Pantsir. AND if that fails they would likely use Igla MANPADS.
The Syrians air defense is rather more limited in this regard but when they shot down all those US cruise missiles they did mention the Pantsir and other SAM systems, but I don't seem to recall anything about Iglas downing cruise missiles - but perhaps they did?
Now we're cumming back to my point exactly! "15km away from the ship it is operating from" is a looong way for a helicopter to travel back in order to attack a threat detected from the opposite side - esp when armed with VERY short range Iglas! Now those Pantsir-M's would eat swarm attacks for breakfast without even breaking into a sweat!
Yet you want the Ka-52's to do exactly that job!?
We're talking about "what if's" here and again my point is that the Ka-52 would suck at replacing the role of a VTOL fighter. Period.
Feel free to provide me with any evidence that the original single seat Mig-29K would have been named Mig-33 when it entered service.
Just because the Navy changed the Su-27K to Su-33 does not mean the Mig-29K would automatically be Mig-33.
Did you read the subtitle on the first black and white scan I provided!? It says clearly "Mig-33 that was previously known as the Mig-29M".
The picture was taken during the said Farnborough show.
Google is freely available but perhaps you can read better in Russian?
Once again discussing something with you becomes one huge retarded argument where you keep on making stupid and unfounded claims.
It's really a pointless exercise and a huge waist of time.
Have a look on MiGs website:
http://migavia.ru/index.php/en/production/newest-fighter-mig-35
Go to the Products and services menu item and down to MiG-29 family and the drop down box shows the models and their designations.
The MiG website shows it in English.
The MiG-29M that they are referring to is the single seat one that first flew in 1988 and never entered service either so it is not MiG-33 either.
WOW and the retardness continues unabated!
Do you see any Mig-33 in there? Let me answer that for you. NO
Next question: Do you see a Mig-29KR listed there? Let me answer that for you. YES
Next question: Why haven't they renamed it to the Mig-33 when it entered service? Let me answer that for you. Dunno
Guess what? There is no such thing as a Mig-33 What a Face
Google Mig-33. Guess what? The Mig-29M was briefly known as the Mig-33 cheers
Here is a FAR more comprehensive list of Mig-29 variants and modifications from Russian sources.
You should contact Migavia and inform them that they missed a few!
Migavia's list of Mig-29 variants >>
MiG-29M, or "9-15", or MiG-33, according to NATO codification - Fulcrum-E, Superfulcrum - is a multifunctional 4+ generation fighter aircraft manufactured in Russia and the USSR. It is the result of the development of the MiG-29.
Great you've got! NATO gave it the name "Fulcrum E".
ARYGER dislikes this post
Keep up with the innuendo that I am retarded and I can assure you it will stop.
So the MiG-29M (original single seat model) and the MiG-29K (original single seat model based on the original single seat model MiG-29M) were briefly known as MiG-33.
The only sources I have seen that list the MiG-29M as being the MiG-33 are western sources
I have seen that image... I was the one who told you how to find it... what makes you think that is important information?
Have a look on MiGs website:
http://migavia.ru/index.php/en/production/newest-fighter-mig-35
Go to the Products and services menu item and down to MiG-29 family and the drop down box shows the models and their designations.
The MiG website shows it in English.
ARYGER likes this post
What I am saying is that if the argument becomes an endless stream of empty words not based on any facts at all, then the whole discussion becomes retarded.
For example you keep on insisting that the original Mig-29K was known as the Mig-33
There is absolutely no evidence to back your claim but you insist that it is. Not only that, you insist that the Mig-29M was ever known as the Mig-33, despite overwhelming evidence that it was briefly known as the Mig-33.
AND now you've come around to finally! admitting the fact that the Mig-29M was known as Mig-33 BUT now you try to claim the Mig-29K was also dubbed the Mig-33!
There is not ONE shred of evidence that the Mig-29K was ever known as the Mig-33. Now in anticipation of your response I can just say the Su-27 and Su-27K was never collectively known as the Su-33.
I have given you plenty of Russian sources including the list on all the variants.
I would sincerely like to suggest in order to have a fruitful and a decent conversation, you should refrain from making statements that are completely baseless. It is a sure recipe for a toxic environment - which is something a Moderator should guard against.
Backman likes this post
ARYGER dislikes this post
Retarded is a mental condition.
ARYGER likes this post
Mir wrote:You are 100% correct.
Retarded is a mental condition.
Mir likes this post
|
|