dark light

TR1

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 8,551 through 8,565 (of 9,195 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: The PAK-FA Saga Episode XVI #2324880
    TR1
    Participant

    I am confused:confused:
    The engine in T-50-2 is 117S or no?
    or an improved 117S line with new fadec?

    117S was never on PAK-FA- it was izdelye 117.

    in reply to: The PAK-FA Saga Episode XVI #2324892
    TR1
    Participant

    Well even with a largely draftee force, the US never lost a major battle in Vietnam. It was the micromanagement, and lack of political will that resulted in the loss(i.e. the inability to strike the enemy wherever they may be, or to strike strategic sites, that would’ve caused the NVA to cease to be able to fight.

    Should have just stayed out from the start. US intervention was based on total misconception of the Vietnamese civil war.

    in reply to: MMRCA News And Discussion 7 #2325037
    TR1
    Participant

    I bet it will be postponed again. :rolleyes:

    in reply to: Russian Aviation News – Part the Fourth #2325375
    TR1
    Participant

    Nice photo of a workhorse.

    http://russianplanes.net/images/to39000/038546.jpg

    in reply to: J-20 Black Eagle – Part 4 #2325384
    TR1
    Participant

    It’s been a short year ;).

    in reply to: Russian Aviation News – Part the Fourth #2325519
    TR1
    Participant

    who are these destined for?

    Hard to say, could be company trial aircraft. There are a number of civilian, Russian MOD, and foreign military contracts for the new variant, as well as the potential Indian order.

    in reply to: The PAK-FA Saga Episode XVI #2325522
    TR1
    Participant

    The Soviet system was just very different from NATOs. Front line units were expected to do very little actual overhaul compared to factory/repair sites where they sent their aircraft when they exhausted their resource, and were cycled new aircraft. To dumb it down, small fixed and repairs were easier to do on site, larger ones required being sent to depots.

    We should also consider what the USSR thought of aircraft life-time if the WW3 ever broke out- it is reflected in the typically lower airframe/engine life.

    in reply to: Russian Navy News & Discussion, Part III #2009327
    TR1
    Participant

    Oops, you are correct, this is not Bal-E, but Bal, for Russian coastal defense….I think Black Sea? It was speculated Venezuela would purchase Bal-E, but the specifications mentioned have me thinking they are getting Bastion.

    in reply to: Russian Navy News & Discussion, Part III #2009331
    TR1
    Participant

    A nice photo of a Bal-E complex. Guess this thread is the right place to post it.

    http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/5329/4344728.jpg

    in reply to: The PAK-FA Saga Episode XVI #2325637
    TR1
    Participant

    That sounds very anecdotal – maybe that’s more an observation on Bulgarian AF practices, routines or whatever – the USAF officers were hardly on the host’s airfield very long were they?

    Point is, the situation is slightly more complex than just “hard and expensive to maintain”.

    in reply to: The PAK-FA Saga Episode XVI #2325649
    TR1
    Participant

    The Indian air force always found the MiG-29 very maintenance intensive.

    On the other hand that USAF pilot who flew Bulgarian MiG-29s (article about this in AF monthly) mentioned how fast and easy it was to prepare the MiG-29 for a takeoff and sortie.

    in reply to: Russian Aviation News – Part the Fourth #2325697
    TR1
    Participant

    And it took some 25 years to get meaningful numbers operational 🙁 . Better late than never though.

    in reply to: Russian Aviation News – Part the Fourth #2325810
    TR1
    Participant

    http://russianplanes.net/images/to39000/038543.jpg

    Mi-26T2 test flight.

    http://russianplanes.net/images/to39000/038522.jpg

    in reply to: Russian Navy News & Discussion, Part III #2009367
    TR1
    Participant

    Some doom and gloom

    So, is the Project 20380 really canceled? Will they only build the units they currently have under construction, and then start all over again with a new design? Is the design a “failure”?

    Same question with the Project 677 – the author appears to assume that the Project 636 is being procured for the Black Sea Fleet due to Project 677’s technical problems branding it an irredeemable “failure”.

    If true, what does this say about Russia’s shipbuilding industry, where the new designs they’ve introduced are, so far – (allegedly) rubbish?

    I think this is a bunch of rubbish. 20380 a failure? How can they know, when the first serial isn’t even in service yet. What about it is a failure? Specifics?

    The laying down of 636 as proof of failure of 677 is also silly- the 677 difficult gestation period aside. Does the laying down of 11356 frigates for the BSF also mean that 22350 is a failure? Of course not. Does the order of Su-35s mean PAK-FA is a failure?

    What needs to be guaranteed is stable state funding for construction. most of the time these projects take forever to launch is due to habitiual starving of funds by the MOD.

    in reply to: MMRCA News And Discussion 7 #2325908
    TR1
    Participant

    Wow, clever !

    Be nice if they named that Indian fighter. 😀

Viewing 15 posts - 8,551 through 8,565 (of 9,195 total)