dark light

Wanderlei

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 166 through 180 (of 444 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: RuAF News and Development Thread part 12 #2239290
    Wanderlei
    Participant

    Russian does not need a supersonic bomber. Russia does not need to attack aircraft, but need a plane for the defense: the interceptor, anti-submarine aircraft, tanker, flying anti-aircraft missile system. These tasks are successfully solving subsonic, stealth, long-range aircraft.
    My opinion of these tasks should instruct civil aircraft, but the military thinks otherwise.

    Ideally I agree,

    However, if you plan on possibly needing a long range bomber, and decision is made to build it, why would you plan on slow flying wing being a long term replacement solution for Tu-160/95.

    U.S. is surely working on high speed long range bomber to replace B-2. Looking at how they wage wars on small scale using best weapons they have, it does make a lot more sense to deliver an attach with long range stealth strike than with long range missile.

    in reply to: RuAF News and Development Thread part 12 #2239663
    Wanderlei
    Participant

    So did i miss something?

    PAK-DA is pretty much subsonic flying wing.??? Reinvention of B-2 in 2013?

    http://en.rian.ru/military_news/2013…Commander.html

    I refuse to believe this.

    This was rumoured some time ago. Is a bit disappointing from enthusiast perspective, but if it’s good enough for the Americans with NGB/LRS-B…

    I hope China’s bomber doesn’t turn out to be yet another flying wing. Coupled with all UCAVs looking alike it really will be time to find a new interest. Gardening, perhaps. :p

    yeh,
    If i don’t get some news word on supersonic inventive modern design PAK-DA soon, I’ll be looking for gardening forums myself too 🙂

    PARALAY HELP!! what’s the good word ??!!!

    I don’t understand why Russia would want to spend money and efforts on a subsonic flying wing after so many decades. Might as well build a stealthy Zeppelin blimp, and call it long range / extra slow response / high altitude bomber. It would cost a lot less 🙂

    geeshh

    in reply to: RuAF News and Development Thread part 12 #2239996
    Wanderlei
    Participant

    So did i miss something?

    PAK-DA is pretty much subsonic flying wing.??? Reinvention of B-2 in 2013?

    http://en.rian.ru/military_news/2013…Commander.html

    I refuse to believe this.

    ………….

    MACK8 your last link above lead s to PAK-FA image.

    in reply to: RuAF News and Development Thread part 12 #2241232
    Wanderlei
    Participant

    Same source, but news on PAK-DA today:

    This unconfirmed part is very disappointing imo. Any thoughts?

    who needs to spend money and time on reinventing B-2 in 2013? My guess, this news sources are bs!

    According to recent reports in the Russian media, citing defense ministry sources, the Tupolev design bureau has won the PAK-DA development tender with its concept for a subsonic aircraft with a “flying wing” shape which provides superior “stealth capabilities.””

    http://en.rian.ru/military_news/20130411/180586959/Russian-Air-Force-Approves-New-Bomber-Design–Commander.html

    in reply to: how could North Korea use its air power in an attack? #2291158
    Wanderlei
    Participant

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wanderlei
    hmm, you sound too confident on all matters. How do you know their only means of communication?

    -Defected North Korean officers and soldiers said so. There are hundreds of former North Korean officers who have defected.

    Quote:Wanderlei
    What makes you, or anyone be sure that China’s radar, and satellite surveillance is not being fed to NK military constantly, or per need.

    -Defected North Korean officers said so.

    Quote:Wanderlei
    This is hard to prove, and blame China for, while really easy to integrate in my opinion.

    -China doesn’t trust North Korea.

    China supplying weapons to North Korea is like the US supplying weapons to Taiwan; there is always the risk that North Korea would turn around and become US ally leading the China-containment effort, so supplying arms to North Korea is both politically risky and is against the UN arms embargo.

    Quote:Wanderlei
    Do you think China was not scanning for those B-52s and even B-2s ?

    -Obviously the PLA is not telling if they picked up B-2 or not.

    Quote Wanderlei:
    I see no reason China and North Korea would not have similar setup.

    – Because NK and China are not military allies, only political allies that could sour at any moment, such as Kim Jong Il’s secret 2009 offer to the US to become a US ally against China if the US signed a non-aggression treaty, normalized diplomatic relations, and lifted economic sanctions.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jbritchford

    You also don’t seem to understand the structure of logical arguments – you don’t accept a proposition as true until it is disproved, it’s the other way around. You only accept a proposition once you have a good reason to.

    Is there any evidence or motivation for China passing such information to NK?

    Well, it’s obvious that Wanderlei is a Chinese poster and his view represents the typical Chinese views, which is obviously very different from everybody else’s. Chinese actually believe they are a significant factor in the current situation, when China is being ignored by both North and South Korea in this context, and the only thing China can bring onto the table is a possible military intervention in the event of the ROK invasion of North Korea as per the previously described automatic triggers.

    @ SlowMan and jbritchford

    Everything is so OBVIOUS to you.
    Its pretty obvious to me that it is the other way around! Both of you guys are fixed only you being right, and all your info paints the only true picture of situation. Thats called preaching. Preachers don’y learn much.

    “defected officers said” when? This year?, last year, any links? Not that I don’t trust you that they said so. I don’t trust that its that way just because they say so.

    If you go back to where i first posted about Chinas radars assisting NK’s air defenses, I was asking for opinions, and looking for information. Definitely not trying to preach to anyone. I don’t trust anyone, so I question your statement specially because you answered very short without any explanation.

    Also, am not Chinese poster, as it was so OBVIOUS to you. I am Serbian, and am looking to learn more about military strategic cooperation and relationships in asia. Specially about less obvious things. Your responses were short and direct about things that cannot be confirmed. Such as how much China would communicate with NK during all out war.

    enjoy your wisdom.

    in reply to: how could North Korea use its air power in an attack? #2296242
    Wanderlei
    Participant

    1. There is no connection between Chinese and North Korean air defense systems.
    2. Beidu is a GPS system, not a surveillance system. Its signal will be jammed during the war time.

    North Korean military and PLA operate separately with only phone calls and faxes as means of communication.

    hmm, you sound too confident on all matters. How do you know their only means of communication?

    What makes you, or anyone be sure that China’s radar, and satellite surveillance is not being fed to NK military constantly, or per need. This is hard to prove, and blame China for, while really easy to integrate in my opinion. Not necessary direct integration with missile systems, but warning/timing wise, and detailed coordinates wise.

    Do you think China was not scanning for those B-52s and even B-2s ?

    I can only imagine how helpful would it be if lets say Russia bordered Serbia in 1999, and they scanned skies safely for Serbian early warning and SAM stations.

    Serbian radar operators had to risk life every day only to turn them ON for few moments. Just for few seconds to scan the sky, and maybe get to target and fire a SAM before anti-radiation missile locks on from from above. If they bordered each other geographically, and had help from radars that are outside of war engagement borders, the situation awareness would be safe and continuous, even if all they had was just a phone line communication.

    Obviously, way better would be to have robust underground data link between two countries as a secret integrated radar system. That way long range radars, or other long range surveillance from country not involved in conflict can be used without direct involvement.

    I see no reason China and North Korea would not have similar setup.

    in reply to: how could North Korea use its air power in an attack? #2297011
    Wanderlei
    Participant

    @ Slowman,

    I think you completely misunderstood me. I might have not been clear.

    I meant for NK to use Chinese long range radars and “COMPASS” satelite systems as “eyes over entire peninsula and wider” in order to track, and target any incoming air campaign by South/USA.

    It would be “untouchable” because they are stationed in China and in space, so they cannot be targets by US weapons during war with North Korea.

    in reply to: how could North Korea use its air power in an attack? #2297040
    Wanderlei
    Participant

    Is it possible that Nk would use China’s radars as their own untouchable AWACS?

    That would be pure inteligence/guidance assistance, by china, and not direct involvement. It can also be done quietly, and China could forever deny it.

    Is that not technically possible?

    That would mean North would never be blind, and would know every incoming aircraft (probably stealth too), and get tracking ahead of times to fire SAM.

    They could also use Chinese GPS “COMPASS” to attack targets?

    in reply to: RuAF News and Development Thread part 11 #2317994
    Wanderlei
    Participant

    Ain’t that a PS job? While the tips of the white R-77s on the port wing are nicely in-line with the leading edge, the red R-77 with tan-colored radome on the starboard wing seems to be completely off.

    look very real even when zoomed in (a lot). Also, all the missiles have different crappy paint, and are at slightly different angle in relation to camera. I’m no expert though.

    can anyone comment on versions and range of these R-77s? There is definitely at least two versions distinguishable.

    thanks in advance.

    in reply to: Iran to Unveil New Fighter Tomorrow – Qaher 313 ??? #2247197
    Wanderlei
    Participant

    Haven’t seen the video yet, but i don’t think this can fly well.

    in reply to: Most beautiful aircraft #2264703
    Wanderlei
    Participant

    Image-1, Image-2, Image-3, Image-4, Image-5, Image-6, Image-7, Image-8, Image-9, Image-10

    http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i65/elite-falcon07/northrop-yf23-blackwidow2_3.jpg

    How could we let that happen!!! How could we let YF-22 win over this beauty!!?/
    Imagine full production model, and lots of them !!!

    If i could travel through time, this would be one of the things on my list to get adjusted 🙂

    in reply to: pelikan tail.. why no es bueno? #2268952
    Wanderlei
    Participant

    Would F-23 have had to change to conventional tail as well, if it had won the competition against F-22?

    does it reduce maneuverability?

    in reply to: Military Aviation News-2012 #2281967
    Wanderlei
    Participant

    No Israeli F-16 was shot down in Gaza. A rocket most certainly did not land 200 meters from the American embassy – no rockets have actually hit Tel Aviv. Three missed, one was intercepted. No Israelis were injured when rockets landed in an open field near Jerusalem. The “the Iron Dome missile shield has only intercepted one-fifth of the rockets fired from the Gaza Strip” line is true, but only if you discount the fact that Iron Dome only attempts to intercept missiles calculated to be headed into populated areas. It’s success rate actually stands at about 90%.
    Press TV is run and funded by the Iranian government. Don’t get your news from it.

    Thanks. I’ll keep that in mind.

    in reply to: Military Aviation News-2012 #2282085
    Wanderlei
    Participant

    Israeli F-16 shot down over Gaza

    any confirmations on this. More details about pilot and how it got hit?
    http://www.defencetalk.com/palestinians-shoot-down-israeli-f-16-fighter-jet-in-gaza-45539/

    in reply to: RuAF News and Development Thread part 10 #2282258
    Wanderlei
    Participant

    The WTF of today:

    http://russianplanes.net/id91359

    It is UB 9-53A, but no idea about its origin. Guessed it is b/n 39 but repainted.

    the nicest plane ever built imo.

Viewing 15 posts - 166 through 180 (of 444 total)