dark light

Levsha

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 421 through 435 (of 2,665 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2166270
    Levsha
    Participant

    The numbers for the Super Hornet are not the problem.. Export SBug costs that much.. We have seen it in India, Brazil and elsewhere..
    The numbers for the F-35 are a problem.. I don’t believe them for a second..

    Are you referring to prices quoted during the MMRCA competition in India? Those prices quoted for the Rafale in that tender competition didn’t turn out to be very reliable after all, did they? Is the the F/A-18E a significantly cheaper aircraft than the Rafale?

    in reply to: What tech will China farm from the Su-35 #2166893
    Levsha
    Participant

    Well the one with serious value would be AL-41F1S. Not just the turbofan itself but how the TVC is integrated to the system. So far I have not seen a single Chinese flying engine with TVC. There are hundreds of homemade WS-9, WS-10 (and variants) with thrust and quality improving, thousands of older Turbojets also flying but a not a single flying TVC prototype. The only test reported AFAIK are ground test. So I think the most valuable parts would be the AL-41F1S and the TVC implementation, FBW integration etc.

    Is China even interested in TVC, it’s not an absolute requirement for any new generation fighter. USA and western Europe, for example don’t seem to be all that interested in TVC, with the obvious exception of F-22? I could be wrong?:confused:

    in reply to: Turkish offensive in Syria #2166968
    Levsha
    Participant

    The turks really shouldn’t have shot down that Su 24.

    Nic

    That might be true – but that doesn’t mean both shootdown events are related, or does it?

    in reply to: Turkish offensive in Syria #2167024
    Levsha
    Participant

    Big question is, who supplied Turkish seperatists with MANPADS? Not old Strela or Redeye either? Igla is dangerous stuff.

    in reply to: Military Aviation News #2172213
    Levsha
    Participant

    here you go sexy

    http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i65/elite-falcon07/jf25twinseat.jpg

    Is this a new twin-canopy trainer variant – something like the MiG-25PU?;)

    in reply to: RuAF News and development Thread part 15 #2172287
    Levsha
    Participant

    Only in the last few posts – I thought everyone was sticking to the actual topic at hand – until someone decided to become a little bit personal…

    in reply to: RuAF News and development Thread part 15 #2172302
    Levsha
    Participant

    Aaaand followed up a by a rapid flurry of anti-Russian posts by Levsha.
    How utterly, utterly predictable.
    Maybe it’s time to create an anti-Russian thread of your own, where you and others of similar ilk can demonise and spread the hate to your hearts content, and not clog up this thread with your deep-seated issues?
    Why post on the Russian Airforce thread if all you do is hate? It’s extremely tedious for the rest of us who don’t suffer such personal issues.

    Like, WTF!!

    in reply to: RuAF News and development Thread part 15 #2172305
    Levsha
    Participant

    Hey, it’s “Moscow Times” Levsha.
    Has there ever been an incidence on the forum, ever, when you haven’t defaulted automatically to “The Russians are wrong” mode?
    Certainly not to my recollection in the 10 years since you joined. That takes some doing.
    Any story behind what made you so lop sided? An incident when there?

    What are you whittering on about Wilhelm, you sound like a man obsessed? And what is this obsession with some obscure Moscow based English language based newspaper, and why do you keep linking it with me?

    in reply to: RuAF News and development Thread part 15 #2172319
    Levsha
    Participant

    Russia needs to put jets back in Cuba. The US liked those Soviet flights in the Gulf about as much as Russia likes these flights in the Baltics. “International waters” my rear end. Short memories.

    RuAF Tu-95 and Tu-160 have already been flying of the coast of Alaska and California in the last few years. They dont need bases in Cuba.

    https://theaviationist.com/2015/07/07/f-22-and-f-15-intercepted-off-alaska/

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]245632[/ATTACH]

    in reply to: RuAF News and development Thread part 15 #2172470
    Levsha
    Participant

    Do you have any link to procedure ?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Soviet_Incidents_at_Sea_agreement

    Text of the agreement:
    http://www.state.gov/t/isn/4791.htm

    The Ru Mod says Rc-135 was flying with transponder off

    If it’s true – and then what?

    in reply to: RuAF News and development Thread part 15 #2172478
    Levsha
    Participant

    I don’t doubt it happend both in Baltic and black sea.
    In black sea is pretty much inside Russia.. it is very much Russia back garden if we look at the map.
    US and Nato did not show much interest in black sea back in the 90’s and early 2000.
    But now that Russia is back on their feet again, US is right in their face.
    And yet they complaining when they get response..

    You have a poor grasp of geography. Bothe the Baltic and Black seas are bordered mainly by NATO-member countries or by countries which are more closely aligned with NATO and the USA. In both seas the Russian Federation has only a minority section of the coastline.

    in reply to: RuAF News and development Thread part 15 #2172482
    Levsha
    Participant

    Levsha , it boils down to what safe manouvering is , what is safe for US may not be safe for Russian or vice versa , unless they have some documented thing on what constitutes safe manouvering for aircraft and ships.

    I saw some video in YouTube where Soviet ships are shown ramming US warship

    It has already been defined what is a safe distance and what is acceptable manouvering.

    There had already been agreements reached between the Warsaw Pact and NATO many, many decades ago defining how close intercepting aircraft (and ships) could approach their targets (we are talking about in peace time and in international airspace).

    It seems the Russian Federation is ignoring the agreement on procedures agreed to by its predecessor, the USSR, and are supposed to be still valid and legally binding today?

    in reply to: RuAF News and development Thread part 15 #2172492
    Levsha
    Participant

    Fine but where is the evidence that they barrel rolled over because the Russians are denying it , Just because the Pentagon say so ?

    And I guess there is no evidence that the USN ship Donald Cook got buzzed by Su-24s 2 weeks back? There is obviously some sort of Kremlin policy been enacted here.

    in reply to: Scarbourgh Shoal puts Chinese planes too close #2172693
    Levsha
    Participant

    It seems like things are movinf faster than realized. U.S. allowed weapons sales to Vietnam today.

    http://breakingdefense.com/2016/04/carter-yes-to-arms-sales-to-vietnam-dod-wont-elaborate/

    I wonder what toys they will get?

    Vietnam South Korea, The Philippines and Japan are more or less allied with the USA in this particular dispute with China over this issue. It’s not like the US are ‘uninvited’ in this area.

    in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2172700
    Levsha
    Participant

    That:

    According to the Radio24syv report, the total cost for 28 fighter aircraft over a 30-year lifespan including equipment and maintenance could run as high as 100 billion kroner ($15 billion) per aircraft

    Whose figures are you quoting? Where did this Danish website get this figures of 28 aircrfat costing 15billion USD over a period of 30 years – it doesn’t seem to say?

Viewing 15 posts - 421 through 435 (of 2,665 total)