– it was a rhetorical question

You have a strange way of making a rhetorical question then. You give the appearance of taking the position that is wrong, but then only changing your position after being pointed out by many that you’re wrong and then trying to spin it as if it was just a rhetorical question.

I am very skeptical of your rhetorical question claim because after you were challenged you did not say it was a rhetorical, instead it seems you try to spin your response as damage control and try to belittle djcross. The info that djcross, seemed to be threatening to you because not only did you seemingly try to belittle, you flaunted your alleged credentials.

If you’re are as knowledgeable of aviation then why don’t you support it with your posts instead of flaunting alleged credentials. I find (and am suspicious of) people that are often eager to flaunt credentials are frauds/posers. It’s like they can’t prove their claims so they try to bluff, distract and filibuster their way out.

– just as what i said

The way you posted it was as if it was a big new revelation to you. No one here is claiming the stealth is invisibility, on the contrary many here including myself have a history of debunking such claims. It seems only the PR reps and fanatics make that type of claim.

– never said it was useless.. it is in fact big advantage…. what i simply stated is that its not way of becoming invincible…

Again no one here said it was invincible or invisible. First shot first kill capability can often tip the balance dramatically. That largely comes down to stealth and first detect capability.

Now can stealth ac get lock on first and at greater distance, hence coming on top.. probably…but other guy will know he is there.. somewhere.. approximately 😉

Not necessarily. In simulation many opponents didn’t even know that they were shot at. And many didn’t even know there were shot at until it was too late for countermeasures or a counter attack.

You are now repeating exactly the same point i was trying to make… to use stealth you have fly silent, no leaking of any kind.. let alone radar.

He is repeating himself because you seem to talk in circles and don’t seem to know what you’re talking about. I think you may be talking in circles because you’re too proud to admit your mistakes, so you try to spin it, and partly because I suspect you’re a troll.

But the F-35 would never engage the Su-35 directly. In every scenario that the F-35 is likely to face the Su-35, the latter will likely be an export model. And if somehow this was direct combat between first run models than how likely is the F-35 going to face the Su-35 without F-22 intervention? The ‘Su-35 clubs F-35’ article is merely a distraction away from Russia’s real problems in the future; they simply have not been able to keep pace with the atf programs in the west.

Correct. I doubt a JSF pilot would engage a SU-35/flanker on the enemies terms. I suspect the JSF pilot would either delegate the job to an F-22 or attack a SU-35/flanker at a more vulnerable aspect outside of their strong detect cones.

If possible don’t engage an enemy on their terms, engage them on yours.

I think this is a quote from the Blue Max.
“Tactics, tactics, tactics”

My condolences Canberra man. Let this be a lesson to us all.

If you have old photos, documents, books (old enough that the copyright or security laws do not apply); that are of significant historical or sentimental value suggest getting them copied/scanned to preserve them and to back them up.

I was sick when my family divided up my fathers estate, so I was not present. I was very upset that my family threw away or sold at a yard sale much of my fathers war memorabilia, and work artifacts and documentation (much of it was even marked secret etc…, though it was so old I doubt there was any security issues). I was infuriated historical aviation and aviation (R&D) manufacturing and documentation and artifacts were trashed and sold at a yard sale.

Fortunately my father gave me some of that before he passed away; but the vast majority is gone.

My parents also had my great grandfathers logbook and photographs when he worked and died building the Panama Canal. I had hoped that I could scan it and preserve it, regrettably my family members divided up between them without me and now it is scattered across the country with them and they’ve lost track of much of it and it’s out of order what little they can find.

The last letter that my great grandfather sent home said the doctor said he was good enough to release from the hospital after an appendix surgery and he was looking forward to going back to work. The last thing that was in his book was his death certificate that stated he died of infection just a day or two after being released from the hospital “in good health“. (in those days our knowledge of cleanliness, surgery and related germs was poor) I was always told he died of malaria, but the evidence seems to imply that he died of something like a staph infection.

Check Ebay! I hope you catch the scum:mad:

I would also be tempted to check military collectors sales at conventions (or the UK equivalent).

Crew member ‘tampered with temperature sensor on Nerpa sub’

MOSCOW, November 17 (RIA Novosti) – The deaths of 20 people on board the Russian nuclear submarine the Nerpa were caused by a crew member entering the wrong data into a temperature sensor, the Kommersant paper said on Monday. (INFOgraphics)

The business daily said, quoting a source close to the investigation, that sailor Dmitry Grobov is suspected of having entered the wrong temperature data for the submarine’s living quarters, which caused the fire safety system to release Freon gas.

The source said that according to information obtained from the sub’s Rotor data block, similar to an aircraft’s black-box, “the temperature…increased sharply all of sudden and the fire safety system reacted as programmed.”

The daily said that at the time of the incident Grobov was on a scheduled watch and the access code to the fire safety system was written in pencil on the surface of the equipment.

The tragedy occurred late on November 8 while the Nerpa was undergoing sea trials in the Sea of Japan. Three submariners and 17 shipyard workers died in the accident. There were 208 people, 81 of them submariners, on board the vessel at the time.

However, former Navy officers have told the paper they doubt that Grobov was solely to blame as it is impossible for one person to activate the system, which is protected from unauthorized activation by multiple levels of confirmation.

The submarine’s reactor was not affected by the accident, which took place in the nose of the submarine, and radiation levels on board remained normal.

Investigators earlier announced that they had brought criminal charges against the crew member, and that he faced up to seven years in jail.

“Military investigators have determined the person who activated, without permission or any particular reason, a fire safety system on board the submarine. He is a sailor from the crew, and he has already confessed,” Vladimir Markin, a spokesman for the Investigation Committee of the Prosecutor General’s Office, said on November 13.

The incident is the worst for the Russian Navy since the sinking of the Kursk nuclear submarine in 2000 when all 118 sailors died.

The construction of the Akula II class Nerpa nuclear attack submarine started in 1991, but was suspended for over a decade due to a lack of funding. Akula II class vessels are considered the quietest and deadliest of all Russian nuclear-powered attack submarines.

Based in the Russian Far Eastern city of Komsomolsk-on-Amur, the Amur Shipbuilding Plant has built 270 vessels, including the Nerpa and another 55 nuclear submarines since it was established in 1936.

Smells like that some of the previous stories and some of the officials and media seem to be trying to use the sailor that admitted guilt as a scapegoat and a lightning rod.

I not saying that the sailor shouldn’t face disciplinary action, I’m saying that people shouldn’t let their attention be diverted from the rest of the causations that led up to this mishap. I also feel that some degree of mercy should be given to the sailor for being honest and volunteering information that came forward and admitted fault.

I’m afraid that some of the previous articles seem to be using the sailor as a lightning rod, and it might be used for the authorities to divert attention away from themselves with public which hunt of the sailor; , Thusly diverting a attention away from their own dereliction of duty (a systematic breakdown of crew resource management).

The word “tampering” seems to be somewhat of a lightning rod (sensationalistic, biased and inflammatory). It seems like the sailor just made a stupid mistake of transcribing or a typo; that led to or contributed to this mishap. I would consider posting access codes on the surface of the equipment to be a more significant violation, though at this point it doesn’t seem to have anything to do with this mishap directly. Though indirectly allowing access codes to be written down on the surface of equipment I would think would be a breach of the intent/purpose of having the system require access codes; I feel this is a working environment that is tolerant of lax unprofessional behavior; a crew resource management failure. I feel that the evidence suggests that not just one sailor is at fault, but the entire system.

This reminds me of the crew resource management breakdown that allowed continued reckless behavior and rule violations that led up to a B-52 crash practicing for an air show.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQa4PpIkOZU

I cite.

Darker Shades of Blue:
A Case Study of Failed Leadership
http://s92270093.onlinehome.us/CRM-Devel/resources/paper/darkblue/darkblue.htm

I feel the sailor, the crew and brass/command should all shoulder some of the burden of responsibility/fault.

There are two differing versions – 80mdown and periscope depth.

Pardon my ignorance; in meters what is the periscope depth of this submarine? Just so I can no how much difference is there between periscope depth and 80 m. It doesn’t seem like that much of a difference to me (Unless we’re talking about physics/pressure), but if I was a submariner I might have a different opinion.

First off , I feel I must express condolences.

Come on, sealord, calm down.
Freon-based firefighting systems were on all Russian subs since the 2nd generation, and there has been only 3 serious incidents involving them till now (one lethal – the last one)
All in all, it’s better to have such a system than to fight severe fires by yourselves.
The system is quite foolproof – it requires manual activation and allows for 10 seconds delay between the activation and evacuation procedures.
Insufficient breathing apparatus is utter BS – every crew member carries his PDU all times – there are however reasons to believe civvies disregarded this requirement. If your PDU is malfunctioning, there are enough breath intakers in every section.
Freon release is normally accompanied by a continuous horn signal.

What we have is a totally improbable chain of events:

1) Automatic freon gas release without any fire on board (due to a new full-auto system requested by the Indian side, for example)
2) A cramped sub, which is ABSOLUTELY normal for factory sea trials
3) the vast majority of hand is civilian, i.e. less trained
4) an accident at 20:30 pm moscow time, i.e. they were probably sleeping in the Far East
5) no audio emergency signal.

I would wait and see the conclusion of the enquiry.

While Freon is an excellent fire retardant, it can be very dangerous. I’m not sure if it applies to all types of Freon, but some Freon’s under heat can become a deadly gas used in chemical warfare called phosgene. Freon and phosgene can be odorless under the right circumstances, so perhaps there was a slow leak of Freon that got near a heat source and broke down to phosgene? While I’m probably wrong about the phosgene theory, it is a remote possibility.

Freon in a confined area can be dangerous because it displaces oxygen. However if it becomes phosgene, it becomes much more deadly. They are both deadly because they are hard for a human to detect because they are usually odorless.

A case of alleged phosgene poisoning from an air conditioner unit.
http://www.interfire.org/features/legalview.asp?date=08132001

another
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200406/s1140299.htm

You say it requires manual activation, but then you seem to contradict yourself by saying automatic release. Perhaps that’s just your way of saying a release that was not commanded/controlled/input?

As far as the system being foolproof, this obviously proves otherwise. Perhaps because it was under test runs that some systems were bypassed and not functioning normally. Perhaps the alarms didn’t sound because it wasn’t a commanded release; instead it was an un-commanded unintentional leak, so perhaps an alarm didn’t sound because it wasn’t detected (if the alarm is sounded by a mechanical switch).

If there was a fire and a Freon did extinguish the fire; the heat from the fire combined with the Freon may have produced phosgene which might have poisoned the crew members. While Freon can be very effective at fighting fires and saving lives, it also can be very dangerous.

(please note the phosgene angle is speculation, as I don’t know what type of Freon this system uses, or if it really is Freon. It could something in a similar family)

You need to search with the right keywords.
Enter “Briefing on the SU-30 MKI, Part 1.” into your search box, the very first hit you will get is the link to YouTube, click on cached and scroll all the way down you will find the following:

I searched for the username he provided. He apparently provided bad info and you blame me for not being able to read minds?

Send me a search link that has the alleged quote you posted.

If that doesn’t work send me a link to the quote you posted.

The only videos IC listed under that name doesn’t seem to have a username. 😉

From: FighterFlight62
Added: October 05, 2008
(more info)
(less info)
Want to Subscribe?
Sign in to YouTube now!
Sign in with your Google Account!
Briefing on the SU-30 MKI, Part 1.
Briefing on the SU-30 MKI, Part 1.
Category: Science & Technology
Tags:
Daedalian Daedalians SU-30 MKI F-22 Raptor Nellis AFB Red Flag Mountain Home

kams seems to have dyslexia.

He said the username was flightfighter62 it turns out that the user was FighterFlight62

The original video was posted almost 3 weeks ago. The username is flightfighter62. Google it and you will get list of all videos he had posted, including those on J10, Predator, reapor and…on Dadelians..that’s were the briefings took place!

He said
http://www.youtube.com/user/flightfighter62

The apparent real poster which you posted the correct username but you didn’t notice the difference because you were too busy blaming me apparently for not being a mind reader.
http://www.youtube.com/user/FighterFlight62

The original video was posted almost 3 weeks ago. The username is flightfighter62. Google it and you will get list of all videos he had posted, including those on J10, Predator, reapor and…on Dadelians..that’s were the briefings took place!

There is no such user name and apparently never was at YouTube. I searched Google, Altavista, Yahoo and didn’t turn up a single hit. So either no user existed on a searchable base ( or not listed long enough to be registered in the search engines) , or men in black suits have erased all reference, the search engines (are down/limited at the moment) or filtered; or perhaps you’re simply using the wrong username, or perhaps no user ever existed. 😉

http://www.youtube.com/user/flightfighter62

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=flightfighter62&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

http://www.altavista.com/web/results?itag=ody&q=flightfighter62&kgs=0&kls=0

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0geu.aN4hRJ9gEA66Sl87UF?p=flightfighter62&ei=UTF-8&iscqry=&fr=sfp

While that might be true and useful against an F-15 or F-16; it’s definitely not the case against the F-22 and is probably not true for the JSF. Myopically thinking the Su-27 having more missiles might be an advantage; however more realistically, more missiles means more weight, a larger RCS, a larger infrared signature, higher drag; that will make you a big easy lumbering target. It also means that not only will you lose your aircraft but you will lose more missiles.

The alleged advantage of having more missiles, can turn out to be a disadvantage when fighting against stealth. You can’t shoot down what you can’t detect, track or lock onto; so all them extra missiles would likely go to waste and actually end up being a disadvantage against an opponent like the F-22.

Well that is not accurate why?

The Su-27 carries all its max fuel internally, it does not need external fuel tanks or FAST packs like the F-15.

Having more BVR missiles means you stay more time farther away, it can carry 6 AA-10s and 4 AA-11s, two missiles more than a F-15

Did you even read my post or try to comprehend it, or are you just deliberately trying to filibuster by making mindless flanker fanatic posts?

Obviously my point wasn’t so much against an opponent like a legacy F-15, my point was that the Su-27 is also a legacy aircraft, and against an advanced opponent like an F-22, carrying more missiles can be a weakness rather than the strength. The Su-27 already is a huge lumbering target, adding more missiles to it just makes it easier to shoot down. Odds are an F-22 will spot you and shoot you down before you can detect it or return fire.;)

—–

This ridiculous flanker fanatic myopic obsession with long-range weapons, suggests that you haven’t learned from history. With a history of the Soviets misidentifying aircraft shooting down airliners and other civilian aircraft I would think that they would pay more attention to identification rather than long-range where misidentification is much more likely. It seems that you prefer to repeat the same stupid mistakes rather than to learn from stupid mistakes and become more intelligent.

Sure it’s nice to have a long-range weapon, but it would be nice if the range of the weapon was in correlation with our ability to identify.

Long-range weapons generally have more of an initial and maintenance cost, and more of a penalty in maintenance, endurance, top speed, RCS, IRS, etc… Don’t you think that’s part of the reason that the AIM-54 Phoenix was retired?

In an all-out war long-range weapons might give an advantage, however during peace time they actually endanger peace by increasing the likelihood of mistaken identity such as an airliner being shot down, which could escalate into a full blown war.

I was under the impression that the ROE in most cases visual identification is required; in order to prevent (reduce the odds) friendly fire and accidental/reckless international conflicts.