dark light

TR1

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 7,666 through 7,680 (of 9,195 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: MMRCA for Malaysia #2312193
    TR1
    Participant

    Eh, gotta give the Eagle the clear radar advantage over Typhoon…it is close.

    in reply to: J-20 Black Eagle – Part 6 #2312227
    TR1
    Participant

    The thing is, the Su-47 only flew for 150 hours or so in its original flight test programme, barely enough to gain data on the basic aerodynamics. The Grumman X-29 flew 436 sorties in its programme.

    But Su-47 was later modified to aid in PAK-FA program. Surely it flew more than 150 hours in total.

    I agree that aerodynamic research was primary purpose of Su-47, but nonetheless Sukhoi did show that it could make an aircraft with a flat belly and S-ducts without a problem. Hence, the lack of those in the PAK-FA is not indicative of anything.

    And that is the last I am saying about the Su-47 in the J-20 thread ;).

    in reply to: Russian Space & Missile[ News/Discussion] Part- 4 #1796680
    TR1
    Participant

    Nope, Uran is Bal and Yakhont is Bastion. Those systems are due to be delivered in the future, they have only gone to the BSF so far.

    These guys are pretty old school, though Redut has crazy range at least.

    in reply to: Russian Navy Thread #2033753
    TR1
    Participant

    More from Twower, photos a day or so old:

    http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/5014/94845085.7a/0_6a05d_ba07c2a9_XL.jpg

    Omsk

    http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/5814/94845085.7a/0_6a047_fa6d6c4d_XL.jpg

    Tver returns to base after taking part in joint firings with the 520nd coastal brigade.

    in reply to: Russian Space & Missile[ News/Discussion] Part- 4 #1796700
    TR1
    Participant

    From Twower:

    “520nd Independent Rocket-Artillery Coastal Brigade made 3 launches today.”

    http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/5410/94845085.7a/0_69f5a_3efeeb55_XL.jpg

    4K51 Rubezh

    http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/4610/94845085.7a/0_69f59_53eb789f_XL.jpg

    Redut

    EDIT:
    And footage of the event.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEwpoVGaTUE&feature=player_embedded#!

    in reply to: Russian Aviation thread, part V #2312429
    TR1
    Participant

    Oh wow, good eye, I didn’t notice the launch warning sensor right away.

    So why the hell are they not on the Mi-28 and Mi-8 yet.

    in reply to: Russian Space & Missile[ News/Discussion] Part- 4 #1796702
    TR1
    Participant

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMipmILkC4g&feature=player_embedded#!

    Cool video of Russian ABM test conducted recently. Go to 10:27 for the actual launch. Freaking fast….

    in reply to: Indian Navy – News & Discussion – IV #2033755
    TR1
    Participant

    The only F-16s that actually had BVR (prior to the post Cold War AMRAAM) were the Air National Guard examples modified to use Sparrow (F-16 ADF). The First ADF conversions were in February 1989.

    So, for all intents and purposes, during the Cold War, the F-16 had no BVR use whatsoever.

    in reply to: MiG-29 Fulcrum #2312504
    TR1
    Participant

    You have to keep in mind production capability of Irkut and KnAAPO and the desire to keep existing factories working for future survival, hence for example the split order for Su-35 and Su-30SM…these factors are more important than actual performance of the MIG-35, and however much lower its exploitation is compared to the Flanker.

    in reply to: J-20 Black Eagle – Part 6 #2312512
    TR1
    Participant

    A human should have intelligence and realize the importance of the Su-47 to Sukhoi development, and directly, the PAK-FA. Dismissing as ” demo, nothing more, gone to history11!” is nonsensical. You do know Su-47 was modified internal bays not too long ago? So much for history.

    in reply to: Russian Aviation thread, part V #2312516
    TR1
    Participant
    in reply to: J-20 Black Eagle – Part 6 #2312528
    TR1
    Participant

    As far as the S-duct is concerned, the S-duct technology as demoed by Su47 has never led to any induced Russian fighters adopting such tech and thus never concluded the “technology is production demonstrated”.

    Lol, clutching at straws are we?

    For that matter, the J-20 having S-duct doesn’t demonstrate anything either, since we are using your “logic”.

    Calling PAK-FAs blocker legacy (despite you having zero knowledge about its actuality- none of us do) just makes your argument seem pathetic.

    in reply to: Indian Navy – News & Discussion – IV #2033765
    TR1
    Participant

    1. The lag in avionics and cockpit ergonomics meant that these fighters despite their superior aerodynamics were at times at a disadvantage against western fighters because of this. WRT PAF we are talking about early block F 16s with no BVR capability the same entered Allied air service years before the MIG 29.

    2. The Soviet concept was flawed and that is why newer Russian platforms are adopting western approach in cockpit design ergonomics, sensors etc. As Russia became a democracy it began to care about the lives of its soldiers rather than during soviet times where he was just another expendable commodity. And please I have studied History long enough to believe in your alternate theories.

    1.) Right, at times they were, at other times they were not. The point is a blanket statement like West had technological superiority is inaccurate in many ways. Fact is, F-16 did not have BVR until the cold war was over. the Mig-29, did, well before.

    2.) Ughhh, not gonna say much more here, but how many personnel who served in various Soviet armed forces branches do you know? No need to lecture a Russian on the “soviet concept” please, let alone based on Western cold war myths. Hell, during the Cold War the “Soviet system” often followed Western trend setting (and the other way around as well), this isn’t unique to post 1991 Russia.

    Oh and more thing, you have no idea how ‘Russia became a democracy and started caring for its soldiers” is utter, thorough, bull****. Look no further than Chechnya.

    in reply to: MiG-29 Fulcrum #2312539
    TR1
    Participant

    The bigger AESA has been flying for a while now. I wouldn’t take the 70 number seriously, there have been diff numbers floated for the past few years.

    in reply to: Russian Aviation thread, part V #2312543
    TR1
    Participant

    L-410 is used as special communication aircraft, not transport AFAIK.

Viewing 15 posts - 7,666 through 7,680 (of 9,195 total)