And yet that quantatity eventually beat the crap out of Hitler’s quality;)

You should be well aware that by 1945 soviet land forces were of exceptional quality, Quality + Quantity beats Quality on its own every time.;)

[QUOTE=Flanker_man;1226258]

No……..

AFAIK, they are upgrading existing airframes.

There may be a couple of semi-derelict ‘development’ airframes that MIGHT be recovered and upgraded and put into service – given the political will and funding.

But no ‘production’ of new airframes though…..

Ken

They claim to be building new airframes however the first ones probably use existing components with more and more parts production coming on libe as old stocks are exhausted. However with a production rate of 1 every 18 months or so production might be the wrong word. Crafted, constructed, maybe?

http://russianforces.org/blog/2008/01/russia_produced_new_tu160_bomb.shtml

Are you crasy????? go back and look at my posts.

No, you have not provided any sources. You have shown plenty that say that Russia used to have a very respectable ASAT program but you have provided absolutely nothing about current projects.

Seems like your memory isn’t too fantastic either, since the only reason we are even talking about the Maginot line is because thats someone compared the NMD to it. So in a way, America is building a 21st century version of one as we speak.

I wish people would stop saying this. NMD is not a peer rival system, it is an anti NK shield. The maginot line on the other hand was a peer rival system.

When I read things like this I am reminded why I made the switch to Mac.;)

From a person how hasn’t provided ANY proof that those sourcses are flawed, comes begging for some new sorces about Russia’s modern Space weapons, ha, you YANKS are so perdictable, no prove my sources wrong.:D

How can I prove your sources as wrong when you do not provide any?:rolleyes:

The argument today is modern aircraft can strike more targets with less aircraft. Even if the Carriers themselves can carry more! Yet, during wartime you can bet the flight desks would be full………….:rolleyes:

I dont like the lack of ASW aircraft though.

This doesn’t work this way. You don’t point me around to find crap for you. So if you want me to believe you, go prove Pavel is the #1 man on everything Russia. Along with Jane’s.

You never said it was, ok, but someone else did and I disagreed.

[QUOTE]
Oh dear god. If you have a problem with a source it is your job to disprove it not mine. You have failed to ever provide a usable source on this forum and this is why you have no credibility. You can not offer anything better. We can not just disregard source because they dont fit with your fanboy dreams.

That was not really the general purpose of an ICBM, at least not the anti ABM part, since ABM systems have been and still are pretty primitive to stop any real ICBM threat, which I’m sure you agree.

Yes it was, thats why they exist, as delivery systems that can penetrate defended airspace, it only makes sense that as the gap that they were intended to use shrinks that they will expand their penetration ability in other ways.

The whole point of the RS-24 seems to be better anti-defense capability than the Topol-M, with a clearly larger payload. :confused: Essentially what I stated at first and what Pavel says, except he’s hella confused about it being either a new missile or a Topol-M mod, and it’s really the former not the latter it seems.

So provide some evidence to support your claim that this is a new missile, because if you actually follow Pavel’s blog he does not seem confused at all on his basic conclusion.