dark light

google

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,651 through 1,665 (of 2,193 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Rah-66 Comanche Cancelled #2682444
    google
    Participant

    Originally posted by Srbin
    omg I can’t believe you guys are even thinking US will get something foreign, if it’s not made in US then forget it, some exceptions were the Harrier but hey that was something US didn’t even have at that time and could not build, this time they can field a scout helicopter, it’s kind of good they cancelled the Commanche, but it’s a little late, they spent tons of money on it, they should’ve just fielded it in very small numbers.

    Remember the previous discussion on the US purchasing Indian ALH helos? So no, for certain contracts, the US does not always buy domestic, but those are probably much smaller and less national security related contracts.

    in reply to: Use of Mach speeds in combat #2683118
    google
    Participant

    It seems to me that in more recent times, there is less emphasis on WVR combat, and more on BVR, where maneuverability might be of less importance than speed..?

    in reply to: These wreckages were once…..? #2683451
    google
    Participant

    Oops, my $$’s on the Mig-29 too.

    in reply to: These wreckages were once…..? #2683455
    google
    Participant

    That’s Australian SAS right?

    in reply to: Russian Hypersonic Missile? #2683501
    google
    Participant

    However, note that only 1 test was successful. Well, could be 2 succcess if the prototype worked according to theory.
    —————————————————————————
    Date Posted: 20-Feb-2004

    JANE’S DEFENCE WEEKLY – FEBRUARY 25, 2004

    ——————————————————————————–

    Russian missile capabilities under scrutiny
    James O’Halloran Editor, Jane’s Land-Based Air Defence
    London

    Russia’s ballistic missile capabilities experienced mixed fortunes earlier this month, when, of six reported test firings between 17-19 February, one was successful, three appear to have failed, one was destroyed in flight and a new prototype missile was tested.

    The Deputy Chief of the Russian General Staff Col Gen Yuri Baluyevsky was reported as saying, during large-scale military manoeuvres, that the Russian Army is developing new ballistic missile technology that will defeat any other country’s anti-missile defence systems.

    The planned system is understood to be hypersonic, acquired in response to the new ballistic-missile defence systems currently being developed by the US.

    President Vladimir Putin has recently spoken about the development of a new generation of strategic arms to maintain Russia’s status as a nuclear power. He reiterated that the new intercontinental missile will be hypersonic and have a high precision of strike to the target.

    The new weapons should be available from 2010-15, in accordance with the long-term strategic plan to re-equip the entire Russian armed forces with new weapons from 2010. Until this time, weapons systems will be upgraded and modernised.

    On 17 February Putin was meant to witness live firings from a ballistic missile submarine of the Russian Northern Fleet but it was reported that the three ballistic missile tests all failed.

    The government reported it had successfully test-fired a SS-19 (RS-18) on 18 February from Baikonur in Kazakhstan but a test firing from a submarine in the Barents Sea on the same day was aborted 98 seconds after launch.

    *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance their understanding of arms trade activities, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. I believe that this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
    For more information go to:
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

    in reply to: J-10 MASS Production Starts. #2683523
    google
    Participant

    Originally posted by crobato
    Are you talking about no. 16 per so or 1016?

    If you have “16” not “1016” post it as surely I like to have it please.

    It’s possible that there is a 1017-1019, but I doubt there is any aircraft numbered 1020 and beyond.

    From that point on, the numbers were rolled back to 01. Of this new batch, I got numbers up to “10”, mainly “02”, “05” and “10”. I believe these to be the start of the serial production line, with the “10-” removed. “01” and “05” were featured in the J-10 handover ceremony to the PLAAF dated March 30, 2003.

    I cannot be certain of the pics with “21” and “32”. I suspect the first numbers were photo manipulated, and the numbers were really “01” and “02”.

    J-10 twin seater also sports the “01” number. This tells you that the bort numbers are repeated.

    Too bad no one has a Kanwa subscription. His article entitled, ‘J-10 production at peak’ sure sounds juicy.

    in reply to: J-10 MASS Production Starts. #2683527
    google
    Participant

    Please don’t post HT’s entire blurb on the J-10 here; just post the link next time.

    in reply to: Which IL-38 variant? #2683913
    google
    Participant

    A question about the ESM antenna placement Pibu. How does placing the antenna on the top of the plane guarantee greater detection of signals than if it were placed on the bottom?

    in reply to: Which IL-38 variant? #2683949
    google
    Participant

    Butowski, yes.

    in reply to: General Discussion #392201
    google
    Participant

    Huh? I don’t get it. What are you saying Flood?

    in reply to: WW2: computer games and movies #1973677
    google
    Participant

    Huh? I don’t get it. What are you saying Flood?

    in reply to: Which IL-38 variant? #2683999
    google
    Participant

    Why mount the ESM pod above the cockpit? Why not below the fuselage somewhere?

    in reply to: General Discussion #392220
    google
    Participant

    Originally posted by mixtec
    No its not a heavy water plant in Norway, its a hydo electric Dam in the Ruhr region of Germany where you knock out flak guns and generating equipment. The spectacular part of the Call of Duty Russian campaingn is definately the T-38 tank battle part. Absolutely gorgeous. They should really make an entire tank battle game from that. The Battleship part was impressive also. I spent time clearing that ship out in parts that didnt needed clearing just to see what it looked like. If they were to model the entire interior of that ship, you would have another good game in itself. The infantry combat in Call of Duty really isnt that much better than MOH. And the overall Call of Duty was a much shorter game than MOH which is a disapointment considering the price of Call of Duty.

    That wasn’t a T-38 tank; it was a T-34 tank.:) I think the best part of the Russian campaign was grabbing my Mosin-Nagant and sniping some pesky Nazis.

    in reply to: WW2: computer games and movies #1973699
    google
    Participant

    Originally posted by mixtec
    No its not a heavy water plant in Norway, its a hydo electric Dam in the Ruhr region of Germany where you knock out flak guns and generating equipment. The spectacular part of the Call of Duty Russian campaingn is definately the T-38 tank battle part. Absolutely gorgeous. They should really make an entire tank battle game from that. The Battleship part was impressive also. I spent time clearing that ship out in parts that didnt needed clearing just to see what it looked like. If they were to model the entire interior of that ship, you would have another good game in itself. The infantry combat in Call of Duty really isnt that much better than MOH. And the overall Call of Duty was a much shorter game than MOH which is a disapointment considering the price of Call of Duty.

    That wasn’t a T-38 tank; it was a T-34 tank.:) I think the best part of the Russian campaign was grabbing my Mosin-Nagant and sniping some pesky Nazis.

    in reply to: IDF's Star Wars program? #2684582
    google
    Participant

    Interesting- certainly very different from the Jane’s Foreign Report article.

    Carthage must be destroyed! 🙂 Are you Italian?

Viewing 15 posts - 1,651 through 1,665 (of 2,193 total)