dark light

Scar

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 316 through 330 (of 615 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: RuAF News and development Thread part 15 #2147267
    Scar
    Participant

    Buk-M3 at Army-2016
    http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/bmpd/38024980/3508733/3508733_original.jpg
    http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/bmpd/38024980/3508418/3508418_original.jpg

    in reply to: Russian Navy Thread 2. #2012387
    Scar
    Participant

    Hull plating’s probably like 20 to 25mm at max., high-tensile steel. Not meant to be an armour, nor would it deflect shells except from extreme ranges.

    pr.1144
    – Compartment PU ASM P-700 “Granit” – walls above the water line – 100 mm, a wall below the overhead line – 70 mm, the roof is 70 mm
    – cellar Plourac’h 85R – wall above the overhead line of 100 mm, a wall below the overhead line of 70 mm, the roof 70 mm
    – PCG and BIP – the side walls 100 mm, beams 75 mm, roof 75 mm
    – helicopter hangar kerosinohranilische, cellar aircraft ammunition – side wall 70 mm, 50 mm roof

    pr.11442
    – Compartment PU ASM P-700 “Granit” – the wall above the overhead line of 100 mm, a wall below the overhead line of 70 mm, the roof 70 mm
    – PCG and BIP – the side walls 100 mm, beams 75 mm, roof 75 mm
    – Helicopter hangar kerosinohranilische, cellar aircraft ammunition – side wall 70 mm, 50 mm roof

    http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-701.html

    in reply to: RuAF News and development Thread part 15 #2149669
    Scar
    Participant

    Photos by Nikolay Enin / http://www.wizarden.ru
    https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/26439/26380060.2c/0_ad32a_1ef3c03c_orig.jpg
    https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/41743/26380060.2a/0_ad033_c6e55b1f_orig.jpg
    https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/101212/26380060.2a/0_ad030_860ae9e0_orig.jpg
    https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/142592/26380060.2a/0_ad02e_56e86346_orig.jpg
    https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/98050/26380060.2a/0_ad031_e8ed5ed0_orig.jpg
    https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/143188/26380060.2b/0_ad039_e01ea923_orig.jpg
    https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/47284/26380060.2b/0_ad037_6856b562_orig.jpg
    https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/41743/26380060.2b/0_ad036_df959c79_orig.jpg
    https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/106693/26380060.2b/0_ad038_75d376d_orig.jpg
    https://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/150569/26380060.2b/0_ad035_81ea98dd_orig.jpg

    in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2151250
    Scar
    Participant

    Use the latest actually observed combat radius from the most recent SAR report- 620+ nmi on the USAF mission profile.

    https://fas.org/man/eprint/F35-sar-2016.pdf

    I’m talking about termynology. LM clearly describes Range as ~2*Radius, not Range = Radius.

    in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2151294
    Scar
    Participant

    Range = radius
    Ferry range = maximum one way distance without having to fly back to base

    Airplane range are in Nautical Miles (nm). 1 nm =~1.8 km

    And again, LM thinks otherwise: https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa819a63ddcc0c289f9457bc3ebab.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/13537/f35a_2.pdf

    Combat radius (internal fuel) ….. >590 n.mi / 1,093 km
    Range (internal fuel)……….. >1,200 n.mi / 2,200 km

    in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2151298
    Scar
    Participant

    2200 km * 0.35 = 770 km

    2200 это ПЕРЕГОНОЧНАЯ ДАЛЬНОСТЬ – FERRY RANGE! =) Эх, Саша, Саша. Это ничего, что перегоночная конфигурация отличается от боевой полным отсутствием вооружений и максимальным запасом топлива, в том числе в ПТБ? Тебя там две с лишним тысячи галлонов(>8000л) топлива в конфигурации Ferry Range – не смутили, не?

    Ну ты, блин, даешь.

    in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2151450
    Scar
    Participant

    F-35A range of flight 1850 – 2100 km, radius 35% range 650 – 735 km
    Su-30MKM range of flight 3000 km, radius 1050 km

    Шурик, хватит сосать палец.)) https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa819a63ddcc0c289f9457bc3ebab.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/13537/f35a_2.pdf

    in reply to: Russia receives another batch of Sukhoi-34 bombers #2152265
    Scar
    Participant
    in reply to: RuAF News and development Thread part 15 #2152306
    Scar
    Participant

    Documentary about Pantsir SAM. Some interesting footage but you better to not to know Russian coz reporter is telling too much of bull****.

    in reply to: RuAF News and development Thread part 15 #2152338
    Scar
    Participant

    Ka-52’s public demo-flight at Aviadarts-2016 with a…live-fire, LOL. :stupid:

    in reply to: RuAF News and development Thread part 15 #2152410
    Scar
    Participant

    Unpaved airfield built in the South Military District, during the last readiness check. That rare moment when you recall what’s the real purpose of this huge landing gear.

    in reply to: Russia moving tac air troops to Syria #2152442
    Scar
    Participant

    You say the radar is not part of any SAM system – the manufacturer says that it is one of its roles. I choose to believe the manufacturer, and see no point in playing verbal games with phrases like “It may be complexed”.

    Manufacturer of WHAT??? Coz Iskra, the company developer and producer of 36D6 is NOT a developer and producer of S-300. Surprise! Its like LM will declare AN/TPS-77 as a part of Raytheon’s Patriot SAM.

    in reply to: Russia moving tac air troops to Syria #2152490
    Scar
    Participant

    The manufacturer of the radar does not seem to agree with you. As you can see below, the wording in the radar’s publicity material says that one the radar’s roles is to be used “as part of” SAM systems. Later it acknowledges that the radar can also operate “as a stand-alone control post”.

    Just to make sure than this was not a slip of the keyboard by the manufacturer, I checked two other documents they have released, and all use similar wording.

    This info was taken from a brochure describing the current 36D6-M version, but I do not think that the radar’s role changed with the ‘M’ upgrade.

    May be you should read what developer of S-300 thinks? Coz during Soviet times 36D6 never was a part of S-300 or any other SAM and now it’s(36D6-M) even a foreign system(Ukrainian) and only due to this fact it can’t be a part of S-300 or any other Russian SAM. It may be complexed with them, in one AD-network, yes. But it’s NOT a part of any SAM. And never was.

    in reply to: Russia moving tac air troops to Syria #2152597
    Scar
    Participant

    LOL! It is still an associated S-300 radar

    “Obstinacy is a virtue of donkeys.” (c)

    It’s as “associated” with S-300 as with any other Soviet/Russian SAM. And even with foreign ones.

    Oh, look at this! Georgians had S-300! Coz this is part of S-300, rrrright???
    http://s49.radikal.ru/i123/0811/e4/7c38644ed26a.jpg

    in reply to: The PAK-FA News, Pics & Debate Thread XXV #2152661
    Scar
    Participant

    Actually, they’re posting good stuff during their dispute. Let them continue doing this here.

Viewing 15 posts - 316 through 330 (of 615 total)