Page 37 – Key Publishing

quadbike

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 541 through 555 (of 3,473 total)

← 1 2 3 … 36 37 38 … 230 231 232 →

Author

Posts
November 6, 2011 at 8:23 am in reply to: MiG-29KUB vs Su-33/J-15 #2372203

quadbike
Participant

well, I personally like bigger is better

Why? I am assuming you are not a girl.

November 6, 2011 at 8:21 am in reply to: Nice MMRCA News and Discussion 9 #2372205

quadbike
Participant

America has more resolve. China can aid them as much as they want but they won’t budge for any kind of pressure that way. The European resolve is iffy.

November 6, 2011 at 8:19 am in reply to: Russian Aviation thread, part V #2372208

quadbike
Participant

quad, you are quoting prasun chorgupta as your source for that silly information ?

TR1, sengupta is as reliable as a drunk on weekend, no wonder quad carefully avoided mentioning the source. 😉

the tender is for 15, not 6+4+16=26 as prasun claims, nor has there been a break-up.

btw, funny comment in the above video. 🙂

Sengupta while being a chor, is right about a lot of things.

That article for instance is true. If you can disprove it please give a source.

I believe some one who is writing on a reputed defence mag than Mr. Boom on the internet.

Its from Force April issue. More reliable than Boom anyday.

November 6, 2011 at 6:37 am in reply to: Nice MMRCA News and Discussion 9 #2372236

quadbike
Participant

Investing in European Platforms may not be a good idea. China may demand lifting of European Arms Embargo for helping the EU.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-15590623

But what’s clear is that China wants more than that. Much of the comment focuses on how Beijing should demand concessions for any investment, like market economy status that would make it harder to bring WTO cases against China, the lifting of restrictions on high-tech exports to China, and an end to the EU arms embargo in place since the Tiananmen massacre

November 6, 2011 at 4:52 am in reply to: Russian Aviation thread, part V #2372251

quadbike
Participant

That is true but apparently it don’t make sense buying just six of one type and eighteen of another.

November 6, 2011 at 4:38 am in reply to: Russian Aviation thread, part V #2372263

quadbike
Participant

Another Ch-47 can do it as well.

November 6, 2011 at 4:30 am in reply to: Russian Aviation thread, part V #2372278

quadbike
Participant

Would it make any sense acquiring just six of a type for heavy lifting ? In theory one can win the Heavy Lift and the other the Heavy Utility/CSAR ! However that is unlikely to happen.

November 6, 2011 at 4:16 am in reply to: Russian Aviation thread, part V #2372283

quadbike
Participant

Its you who are wrong, the Heavy Lift tender is actually two tenders in one, one for heavy lift and other for transport, csar, special ops etc. Its combined because the numbers taken individually would be too low to warrant to separate types.

November 6, 2011 at 4:04 am in reply to: Russian Aviation thread, part V #2372314

quadbike
Participant

quad, read my post. google sumdorong chu.
IAF moved one full infantry brigade to a high altitude area almost overnight using the monster.

Why are you not getting me ! Its not about putting troops on a flat terrain….

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_o_no4M2xEPY/SYIR2SEGvJI/AAAAAAAAFys/NxEO1XBb9Bo/s1600/8-717050.jpg

The second image in this is what I am talking about. No other helicopter can do it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ficet6hqlJY&feature=related

November 6, 2011 at 3:54 am in reply to: MiG-29KUB vs Su-33/J-15 #2372317

quadbike
Participant

Hotdawg stop picking on peoples spellings.

You may disagree with i.e and he can be biased in certain things, but he is one of the most knowledgeable posters here especially when it comes to anything Chinese.

November 6, 2011 at 3:43 am in reply to: Nice MMRCA News and Discussion 9 #2372324

quadbike
Participant

is that the same as sura-k ? sorry, I always confuse the russian helmets.

MKI uses the Sura K.

November 5, 2011 at 7:43 pm in reply to: Russian Aviation thread, part V #2372570

quadbike
Participant

Mi-17 has no problem in mountains. Weird about Hangar times, RuAF hasn’t had such issues with its Mi-26s. Oc you can expect more hangar time from such a larger helo.

Keep in mind Mi-26T2 is an improved machine.

You are not getting me can it extract a group of soldiers stuck on a narrow mountain cliff like the Chinook can with its rear door open and backed up all the way, it cannot because of the tail rotor. 🙂

November 5, 2011 at 7:42 pm in reply to: Nice MMRCA News and Discussion 9 #2372573

quadbike
Participant

The next quesiton is whether the MRCA will come with the MIDS/LINK 16 onboard, if not will it be using IAFs ODL when it becomes operational etc. Or will it be using both.

November 5, 2011 at 7:36 pm in reply to: Russian Aviation thread, part V #2372583

quadbike
Participant

Can any of these ‘other helos’ do what the Chinook can do and is doing in Afghanistan ? ie getting people in and out of mountain tops and all that. There’s tons of such videos on the internet.

November 5, 2011 at 7:24 pm in reply to: Russian Aviation thread, part V #2372589

quadbike
Participant

Why would you want Chinook, Mi-26 smashes it in capability.

Well depends on what capability you are talking about, it certainly does in some while lags behind in others.

The Chinook can extract or insert troops from difficult terrain like mountain tops etc. Has a higher operating altitude and so on.

This is not a comparison with the Mi 26 (may be it is some say its the ch 53 some slides say Mi 26), but shows the inherent advantages of a tandem rotor helicopter.

http://livefist.blogspot.com/2009/01/boeing-presentation-to-iaf-comparing.html
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 541 through 555 (of 3,473 total)

← 1 2 3 … 36 37 38 … 230 231 232 →