dionisHmm all the talk of being 9 trillion or whatever is inconsequential, see no-one is gonna suddenly say ‘hey you ,yes you UK,we want all are money back tommorow’ and then we cough it up. It just dosnt work like that. The UK is without doubt one of the worlds leading economy’s (i don’t know the world ranking) and far more survivable then most think. IMF sourced map of world GDP from 2005 figures included for you. Edit: the source for your report, is Russian is it not? If so i’d be very sceptical of it, free press and accurate reporting are not something to common there.
What would you know about accurate reporting and free press in Russia? :rolleyes: Your ignorance, added on to the clear bias and lack of first hand experience there or with the Russian media (you don’t speak Russian) – mean you say in this have minimal weight.
Your graph also doesn’t incorporate PPP adjustment, which means a lot for comparison in real terms, and is therefore bad statistics.
With PPP incorporated into the figures, Russia has the same GDP as the UK.
2.4 trillion vs 1.2 trillion WITHOUT adjustment / 2.9 vs 7.6 % growth rates / looks like the UK won’t be ahead for that long.
The Russian defense budget quadrupled over 6 years. And it’s only going up, and a lot especially if NATO countries keep up their current expansion eastward.
dionisWhy do I need to prove I am right, I have provided a source and you have not!
No to mention the paradox of you demanding me to prove you wrong when you claim that you never said the very thing that you expect me to prove wrong.
I have provided a source and you have not so it is up to you to bring evidence to the table.
You have already destroyed your own credibility by claiming that the Kh-41 and Kh-65 are in service without providing a shred of evidence.
You have still failed to quote me. You are just making up lies and trying to discredit me completely based on something I didn’t say. Good stuff :rolleyes:
And you have no official sources from the RuAF claiming they can’t make the Kh-41 or Kh-65 on short notice.
Ohhhh, check out Rav3ns post #340…. the last photo… P-3 Orion Bomber flys over Russian carrier… how provocative… why didn’t they shoot it down… they detected it from miles away of course and it was never any threat…. blah blah blah :diablo:
I guess the Russians aren’t nearly as whiny as their NATO counterparts? 😀
dionisThis topic is not going to go anywhere to be honest.
The Soviet Air Force was made to operate with the PVO ground based forces as well, so you would have to include those in any logical argument.
dionisWho’d ever think of it?. Who’d ever prove it more like!. :rolleyes:
Simple fact is that the flight profile of the missiles is unchanged no matter what ‘upgrades’ may (or may not) have gone in on the missiles. That flight profile, aeroballistic high-alt diving, is smack bang through the engagement envelope of SM-2. P-700 may have a low-altitude profile but its 100m altitude rather than 10 – also within SM-2 capability!. While that is the case I’d say that beating US defences is a forgotten idea more than anything else!.
That doesn’t mean a thing about the missiles not being able to get through.
The SM-2 can still miss, not damage the missile enough, be jammed, etc.
A single impact of either the Kh-32 or P-500/700 spells doom for any capital ship other than a CV due to the massive warhead, and a deck hit on a carrier might completely kill flight ops.
dionisYou missed the part where I am tracking identifiable fixed SAM sites…although I have located more than a few mobile tactical systems as well. And the sheer volume of S-300P series sites I have found inside of Russia is pretty staggering…but what do I know, I’m not Russian (there you go, said it for you).
You can’t simply pull out an S-300 and park it wherever you like. If you can comprehend why, you’ll understand why it is relevant to locate fixed SAM sites, even if they are unoccupied.
I’m sure you can identify plenty of fixed sites, but there are multiple versions/types of mobile S-300 systems, not to mention there are other SAMs, like the TOR, Buk-M, Osa, etc for close in missile and aircraft defense.
There is no reason to think the Russians couldn’t mobilize even S-300s to defend an airbase, especially if many of the mobile variants are self propelled.
dionisAs delusional as thinking the “Reds” are potentially back in full force. And the people in Russia, oh there doing just great!
Could you be any more predictable?
Probably, actually. Now, why don’t you go Polish Bush’s shoes while he’s still around and help him destroy and destabilize some other country?
And in terms of poverty, the UK poverty rate is double that of Russia. And no, just because the British GDP per capita is higher doesn’t necessarily mean as much as it could when you adjust for PPP.
dionisROFL! I think if you read what’s actually being said on these boards most realize it’s just Putina pandering to the home crowd. And those like yourself are lapping it up.
In the whole three month’s since dad started letting you play on his computer?
HAHAHAHA. . . Good stuff man. Your IQ is really shining now. :rolleyes:
dionisNot really Garry there is a world of difference between a processed sequence of commands/targetting parameters and a raw radar feed. The satellite downlinked to a Legenda component and that platform processed and relayed targetting data appropriate to the missile. For the system to work as you suggest the satellite would have to be doing the processing….which it didnt. Could an updated satellite be developed to accomplish this, yes – why not, but a) its just one more piece of Russian woulda-shoulda-coulda equipment and b) it just supports the position of the inherent weakness of these fanboy-vaunted heavy supersonic missiles.
So after stating that the A-50 platform was ‘gap-filling’ between the Soviets OTH-radar you now accept that you knew the OTH sets werent really that involved in the ASuW fight anyway?. Spinny spin spin eh Garry? 😉
So despite Kh-22, KSR-5, P-500, P-700 all having performance envelopes smack bang within the capabilities of SM-2 to engage twenty years ago you would propose it being wise for those systems being nursed along into a timeframe when the advanced, and far more capable, SPY-3 and SM-6 will be deploying in USN service?. Instead of having the 90’s situation of powerful missiles and no sighting system they could have a 2020’s situation of excellent sighting system (if they can develop and deploy a suitable satellite) and vulnerable missiles???.
Does the phrase ‘flogging a dead horse’ have any meaning to you at all?.:confused:
Russians / Soviets have always upgraded their anti-ship missiles to beat the defenses that the US offers. I guess that’s a forgotten idea now. I mean, who’d ever think of it, right? :rolleyes:
The SM-2 isn’t even properly combat proven, especially against a combination of both fast missiles, ECM, chaff, and all sorts of other crap to throw the system off.
dionisHAHAHAHA.. I think I’m never going to read Jane’s again. Not that I do that often anyway. GoogleEarthExperts are too much for me.
Funny how none of them would have figured there are mobile SAM systems in Russia, including the S-300/400 variants. Like mobile in the sense that if they felt they needed SAM coverage of certain airfields, they could get it. . .
dionisIt’s awesome reading the die hard NATO followers here almost crapping themselves that the “Reds” are potentially back in full force. :rolleyes:
Also lovely how everyone gets worked up when Putin essentially tells the “great” American government “power” to f-off when things relate to Russia wanting to govern itself domestically. More people should stand up for themselves, not just the Russians. Fortunately for America, they have a lot of lapdogs. England, Israel, South Korea.. :rolleyes:
Of course, no one could ever touch the invincible carriers, ever. They are detection and damage proof, and their escorts have radars that can even smell when the enemy aircraft take off. :rolleyes:
This is some of the most delusional forum talk I have ever seen on the internet.
dionisIn peace-time even the date of port-visits, area of operation or closed airspace for manouvres are given. I hope that are not too much details for you.
A great way to get bombed one day. :rolleyes:
dionis(How did I know :rolleyes: ) They weren’t trying to hide. All you had to do was look on the net to get a general idea where they were exercising. Besides, when they were spotted over 500 miles away do you honestly believe they’d have a chance in a shooting war?
Oh yeah, sure, it’s called decoys, chaff, ECM, etc.
No one said they were trying to avoid detection.
dionisOnly Dmitri Donskoi TK-208 is still active as a missile test platform, the rest of the Typhoons have been withdrawn. There are 6 Delta IIIs and 6 Delta IVs still active, and the first Dolgorukiy-class SSBN has recently been launched but probably isn’t operational yet.
Withdrawn yes, but likely not dismantled.
dionisA carrier was found? No way! Weren’t they invisible?
dioniswoah woah calm down no-bodies going to sneak attack Russia 😉
From the way Russia has been poking around other countries airspace and waters lately its the rest of us who should be concerned about them!
I read the other day that RuAF bombers are only getting 26% mission readiness at the moment, thats like three quarters of the fleet being sat in hangers or on the airfields out of action. 😮
Where did you read that ?
There is no need for them to be mission ready every moment of every day.
Like I said, there is a difference between being ready for a big war, and being in a position to get ready.
Also directly related to what Garry said about getting more recon sats up if necessary.
Sign In
