Could that not be applied to NMD? The Cold War that was supposed to lead to a hot war with ICBMs flying all round the place has gone… it is the warfare of yesterday that fortunately never happened. The NMD is still trying to fight that war by anticipating that what merica calls rogue nations will try to fight it the same way the Soviet Union was going to fight it.
Merica has tasted guerilla warfare and it doesn’t like it much (it of course isn’t supposed to… that is its point) and wants to roll back the clock to the cold war and pretend rogue states are going to do what the Soviets did… ie design and build ICBMs and nukes. You see now that pandora is out of the box it has become a crime to want nuclear weapons without the US’s permission…

Yes and no. NMD was intended to defeat a threat that almost manifested itself. The NK bomb and missile combo. Fortunately/unfortunately both elements of that combination failed. The fact is that rogue states do try and do what the Soviet Union did, for the very simple reason that it seemed to work, the US never invaded the Soviet Union (whether they wanted to or not is disputable). Sure insurgency is happening but be in no doubt if Saddam had a WMD/Missile combo that could target the US he would have used it before we got to the insurgency point. The motive is very real and it has been tried. However with that said there is really no country with that capability on the horizon, Iran could at best put Europe within range and thats about it. Pakistan might fall to the Islamist’s but it is also a very long way from the US.

At the same times, regret should be expressed for the cover-up that followed the loss of the HMAS Sydney – and apologies should be made by the Australian government for failing to release the crew of the HSK Kormoran until January 1947!

The needless loss of all 645 crew aboard HMAS Sydney should have taught the RAN the lesson that complacency, and even outright incompetence, had become institutionalized into the fleet. If the accounts of the German survivors had been heeded, leadership changes might have save lives in future engagements in early 1942 against the Japanese where the RAN failed miserably.

Mourn for the 645 men who perished aboard the HMAS, but remember that their sacrifice was unnecessary to begin with, and rendered meaningless by a wartime cover-up. The real lesson here is that competent leadership is more important military superiority – and that public accountability should never be sacrificed to wartime censorship.

The real lesson is that this is a time for mourning……………not petty finger pointing.

You post garbage as bad as the likes of Jon James and fanboylaurence.

The demographic situation in Russia can change easily depending on how the governments handles it policies towards this.

With this being said, I congratulate you on finding images of 50+ year old submarines rusting in port. Clearly, the 3 Boreis (or more) are all fictional, the Yasen/Severodvinsk is actually a myth, and the 50+ billion $$ re-armament plan for the Navy alone till 2015 is a hoax. :rolleyes:

At this rate, I might as well be like: Oh wow, look, the navy is in amazing shape, just look at these great subs!

So you have finally decided to scurry back after your last flirtation with absurdity.:rolleyes:

The loss of the HMAS Sydney is no more an “enduring….mystery” than “Custer’s Last Stand.” It was a complete failure of leadership that apparently lead to the loss of the HMAS Sydney with all hands and German accounts would seem to be largely accurate. That HSK Kormoran was lost in return had far more to do with the engine room design defects of German motorships, which were prone to engine room fires, than the relatively light return fire from Sydney. The loss of the HMAS Sydney was no doubt viewed as a national tragedy at the time, but prevailing bigotry and wartime censorship prevented the Australian public, and the RAN, from accepting the true cause of the loss for far too long.

Furthering Wanshan’s excellent statement, with that out of the way it seems appropriate to show some respect to those brave men who sacrificed their lives on that vessel and for whose families were never given the opportunity to properly bury their fallen heroes.

what part of 90% unification u dont understand?. There is brochure from AERO India right on this form.

I understand 90% perfectly, it means that 10% of the plane is different, and it has still not flown.:rolleyes:

Gripen with AESA/F-18E land based/F-16Blk70-IN hasnt flown yet. so ?

So this discussion is about the Mig-35.:rolleyes:

RD-33 equiped fighter has advantage as the engine went to hot climate of India for almost two decades. u cant say that about M-88/EJ-200 engine to that climate. so does it mean M-88/EJ-200 for IAF does not exist.

No those engines do exist, they are in existence, unlike the Mig-35.:rolleyes:

So do you think EF/Rafale exist in definite form? Everything changes with time. If MIG-35 was produced in year 2008 it will closely look like MIG-29K because thats what MIG is producing new. But you look at some future date it may look different. Just look at time line of Dassualt for RDY-2 from RDY. it took so long. I bet this AESA will take another 10 years.

BS, The converted Mig-29M2 is nothing but a sub-systems demonstrator/prototype. The real Mig-35 is the MAKS-2007 model and it has yet to fly.:rolleyes:

As if to reinforce the differences there are two versions of the Zhuk-A, one for the Mig-29 and one for the Mig-35.

Dannish Soloeven class. Next:D

Close but not quite.;)

Edit: On second thought you could be right, I had it listed as a Brave but the torpedo tubes tell a different story.