dark light

mack8

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,261 through 1,275 (of 2,087 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: RuAF aviation, news and development thread #2324927
    mack8
    Participant

    Conclusion?
    That pic from mack8 is an Mig-29K.

    Well niet really imo, where’s the IFR, where’s the hook etc. But yeah , it’s pretty confusing ( but then the russians were always good at maskirovka innit ?), maybe it’s not for Syria afterall. Maybe it’s not even a MiG-29M2, but a…ummm… MiG-35S2(?). Just saying.

    in reply to: RuAF aviation, news and development thread #2324952
    mack8
    Participant

    …and after Super Fulcrum, now it’s Super Flanker.:p

    http://russianplanes.net/images/to74000/073783.jpg

    in reply to: Algerian Air Force-pictures and discussion #2324955
    mack8
    Participant

    Su-30MKA eye candy @forcesdz.com.:)

    http://i44.servimg.com/u/f44/17/44/91/30/photo_16.jpg

    in reply to: RuAF aviation, news and development thread #2325029
    mack8
    Participant

    My favourite MiG-29(M2)!:p

    This must be 747. All grey. No bort yet.
    http://russianplanes.net/images/to74000/073773.jpg

    in reply to: Chinese Air Power Thread 16 #2325472
    mack8
    Participant

    Russian arms industry is dying ? lol. Curiously there was some chap who wrote an article about MAKS-2009 for AFM or CA i can’t recall , who was saying the same thing about the russian aviation industry. He was going about the show being a sign of weakness not strenght , oh the 64 Sukhois ordered is nothing , oh that illusory PAK-FA etc etc.

    You think that guy should come here nicely and eat his article in front of everyone?:D

    in reply to: Chinese Air Power Thread 16 #2325574
    mack8
    Participant

    I for one, would welcome China getting a few Su-35S for “study”, and seeing the resulting J-11C 😀

    However imo, there should be some strategic partnership between the two countries that clearly define their obligations in regards to latest technology transfers. In other words , if China wants just a few Su-35S (and say S-400 f.e.) so that they can study it and built it in a locally adapted version , there should be some restrictions, i.e. China should pay afterall some worthwile money to Russia , and shouldn’t export these indigenized items , or if it does , some money to go back to Russia in that case.

    If things are done right by both sides, then Russia will benefit from a strong China, while China will benefit from cutting numerous technological corners on the path to complete self-reliance, while a strategical partnership, leaving behind whatever disputes they have (or some say they have), will benefit greatly both.

    Alas the way things are going , it’s unlikley China will still need any outside technological help for it’s military beyond the next 10 years or so imo.

    in reply to: Pak-Fa news thread part 20 #2326021
    mack8
    Participant

    That dark “PAK-FA” like silhouette is the CGI shown in the russian Popular Mechanics magazine before the real PAK-FA was unveiled (CGI was based on the Salyut image from 2007).

    in reply to: Military Aviation News-2012 #2326960
    mack8
    Participant

    Boeing latest 6th generation F/A-XX concept. ( aka Boeing PAK-FA :p)
    http://defensetech.org/2012/04/16/concept-plane-eye-candy-boeings-fa-xx/

    in reply to: Impressive Weapons Load 2 (again) #2327760
    mack8
    Participant

    I believe it’s an Elta EL/L-8222 jammer.

    in reply to: North Korean Satellite launch #1793695
    mack8
    Participant

    What in the name of god almighty is THAT?!:eek: First time i find out about this thing.

    Well hopefully you wont be having some MIBs knocking on your door now Spudman. You just put even more credibility on my conspiracy theory.:D

    in reply to: RuAF aviation, news and development thread #2329112
    mack8
    Participant

    …Old Flanker.

    New Flanker!:p

    http://russianplanes.net/images/to74000/073287.jpg

    in reply to: North Korean Satellite launch #1793751
    mack8
    Participant

    Aparently the news is the rocket exploded shortly after take-off.
    http://www.gizmag.com/north-korea-rocket-fails/22148/

    3 fails in 3 launches huh. Mark my words, sometime in the future ( maybe not us , but our kids, for whoever will have any) , we’ll read about a heavy sabotage programme against the NK space ambitions. That’s what i believe it is. Just my own personal opinion, don’t you start…:)

    in reply to: Future AFM article? #2329408
    mack8
    Participant

    A humble suggestion if i may.

    If Key pubs now owns both AFM and CA plus AI , since your “target audience” at least for AFM was US/UK, you can leave it tailored to that specific market ( maybe leaning more to there now ), while you “tailor” CA as a more “rest-of-the world-itized” aviation magazine. That way you make everybody happy! ( imho at least)
    Why have them compete when they can complement eachother? 😉

    in reply to: Future AFM article? #2332949
    mack8
    Participant

    Key Pubs own CA too now ? I had no idea …:eek:

    It seemed to me that CA was slighly less “americanized” than AFM and that was a plus, at least for me.

    in reply to: Future AFM article? #2333201
    mack8
    Participant

    If i’m to say anything here, is the fact that after purchasing the magazine for a while, i’ve got absolutely fed up with the bloody F-15, F-16, F-18, F-22, F-35 filling up almost every issue. It’s like they were taking turn with each damn US unit to let them say how great and unsurpasable they are! US Air Forces Monthly i used to call it .:p

    Still have a gag reflex whenever i see an F-16 or F-15 picture. 😮

    If i’d have enough money , i’ll probably buy it and CA and AI again ( just for that tiny bit of interesting and unique one hopes to find ), but so far i’m good with the net. At least everything is up to date here.:D

Viewing 15 posts - 1,261 through 1,275 (of 2,087 total)