have a look at this , i donβt know if this has been posted before , but you can see a Su-34 taking a high resolution shot of the su-35 at 20 km then later at 40 km with no visible loss in resolution.
20 and 40 km? Funny.
reading the soviet plan for war in western europe you posted it seems like that the liberal use of IRBM and cruise missiles on both sides made any advantage in conventional fighter superority almost baseless
we worry so much about the mig-29/su27 vs f-16/18/15 matchup but in reality any war before the IRBM treaty i.e before 1988 was almostly certainly use tactical nukes and in that case it is all about IRBM and tactical nukes
there would be no time for the fighters to play red baron
That plan was from 1964, apparently. If the Soviet side still planned on going with nukes exclusively throughout the ’70s and ’80s, they wouldn’t have bothered developing and spending all that money on tactical aviation after that (e.g. MiG-23/27/29, Su-17/24/25/27, Mi-24/28, Ka-50).
From what I have read, there are claims from Israeli sources that the US initially gave a green light for selling a squadron of the Israeli aircraft with Israeli mods to Croatia (turning a blind eye of sorts), but when Israel afterwards started offering the same aircraft to other countries as well (Romania, Bulgaria, Columbia are mentioned, 6 squadrons in total), the US changed their stance as this would jeopardize their F-16V sales (of which Croatia couldn’t afford a squadron anyway).
It was a cheap way for Croatia to get modernized F-16’s, but then they would depend on Israeli spares and weapons and it’s questionable in which condition these airplanes really are (i.e. any potential savings might be relatively quickly negated over the planned 20 years of use).
Supposedly a s-300pmu2 is going to be deployed in Syria in 2 weeks. http://tass.com/defense/1022844
They already have an S-400 system deployed. What the article actually says is that they will deliver the S-300 system to the Syrian Air Defense (which ordered it in 2013, but Israel put pressure on Russia not to deliver it).
End of the road for the IS bunch in Idlib finally (I guess they are from the IS pocket south of the Hama-Aleppo road who the regime gave a corridor to Idlib a second time already). They look so ragtag, one almost feels sorry for them.
https://mideast.liveuamap.com/en/2018/13-february-at-dahar-alghozat-fsa-free-syrian-army-arrested
https://mideast.liveuamap.com/en/2018/13-february-340-isis-members-including-80-woman-and-childrens
Wonder if some of them can rejoin the HTS or perhaps the Turkish brand of FSA is still hiring? After a few strict reprogramming courses, of course. π
Lol! Do you claim the Kurds are now part of Russian mercenaries or what?
It’s pretty obvious he was talking about these guys.
https://mideast.liveuamap.com/en/2018/12-february-names-emerge-of-russian-mercenaries-killed-in
https://mideast.liveuamap.com/en/2018/13-february-kremlin-spokesman-peskov-responds-to-reports
They should have used a Su-24 or Su-34 instead then, to avoid getting shot down.
They haven’t had expected a MANPADS threat apparently as they seem to be flying rather casually over the enemy-held territory. They really should speed up that SM3 upgrade.
I wonder what the mission was; I’d expect a CAS mission with those rocket pods, but the crash site is not really on the frontlines so perhaps it was an interdiction mission on the cheap.
The teething problems with the hull might get patched up, but the lack of a mid-range SAM missiles on a vessel of such size will still remain. A baffling design choice.
I’d understand it as a cost-cutting measure if they left the space and provisions for adding a VLS module later on if needed, but they apparently have not. Can they perhaps fit some ESSM module in front of the bow RAM launcher? Or perhaps move the RAM launcher there and put a VLS module in its original place? Not sure what’s inside that front hull, but according to another article on the same page, there doesn’t seem to be enough vertical space for the classic VLS module so their logical option is to open up the modular bays area, but that would kill the whole design concept of these ships.
Perhaps they can add some boosters and launch them sideways, but I don’t see the German Navy paying the development of such a variant.
The MiG-29M2 did not retain the wing fold mechanism from the MiG-29K/KUB. Neither did the MiG-35.
His question was whether they had kept the same 2-part wing instead of tooling a new one-part one, not the wing fold mechanism. Some photos do seem to indicate a split and some strengthening parts which hold the 2 parts together.
Maybe. But i doubt the US would haved blocked the sale of Sparrows to the Germans if they had requested it. Hard to believe the US would be OK to sell them to Iran, South Korea or Japan but not to a close NATO ally. The only reason Germany didnt get AIM-7s-capable F-4s was due to financial reasons and by the early 80s they were already trying to rectify that shortcoming when the ICE upgrade program was launched. Note that the US didnt seem to mind that the Germans were adding an advanced BVR capability (AMRAAM) to their Phantoms despite those so-called “restrictions”…
IIRC, they weren’t bought for the air defense role (which was apparently handled by other NATO powers over the Germany at the time so there might have been some political limitations involved as well, perhaps even German ones), but to replace the F-104G’s.
http://www.bild.de/politik/ausland/s…5144.bild.html
With Google Translator you can learn about that in English. For example:
Trad: “Yes, it is very clear to our analysts that Russia’s daily bombardments on rebels and (the radical Islamist militia, d.Red.) Use HTS ISIS.” Even if the Kremlin’s attacks are not directly coordinated with ISIS, be clear: “The Russian air strikes act as de facto air support.”
There seems to be an IS pocket south-east from the Idlib province which is apparently fighting against HTS. Apparently, these are the IS units evacuated as part of a deal with the government forces from one of the ex-IS held pockets in the area.
True, the total Syrian production before the war seems to have been at somewhat under 400,000 barrels per day which is about 1/6th of what Iraq produced at the same time (including at the KRG areas I guess).
But, I don’t see why would the US companies waste money in rebuilding these oilfields, especially since they’re not really in the Kurdish area. Once IS is destroyed, the US interest in the Syrian Kurds affairs will more or less vanish as in Iraq so the Syrian Kurds will have to make some deal with the Syrian government and that will probably include losing control of much of the territory they took over from IS, especially including the Deir ez-Zor area.
The Kurds in general seem to be simply too disorganized and disunited as a nation for the Kurdistan to be anything more than a pipe dream.
FalconDude: Don’t be naieve.. This has never been bout Kurdish people and their strive for independence.. It was all about installing Barzani, a multibillion dollar bank tycoon to power to control a 2-mil-barrel-daily worth of Iraqi oil from Kirkuk and Hassan fields and then pass it over for rock bottom prices, mostly to Israel.. no one has ever cared about Kurds in this chess game, the less Barzani himself, for him they are just tools to get to the big money..
Iraqi PM has made a short process there and retaken Kirkuk in one swift blow, a move which has caught Netanyahu rather unprepared.. Peshmerga forces were left alone in this.. and Barzani? He refused to candidate in the next elections.. suddenly, without Iraqi oil, the noble “Kurdish fight for independence” doesn’t look that much appealing to him, anymore..
He’s a very patient man then, since he must have planned this even before 1979 when he replaced his father as a head of the KDP. Of course, he must have known that the US will intervene in Iraq twice to form KRG and install him in power finally and that ISIS will give him a chance to add Kirkuk to the KRG so he can finally get some of that oil money. Sneaky Barzani!
Yes, of course, billions, sorry. It’s been quite a while since I was in Russia so I don’t remember the exchange rate anymore π
Speaking of the Kuznetsov refit, an article in the Air International mentions that the modernization of Kuznetsov (40-50 mil rubles, which would have apparently included the replacement of the Shipwreck missiles) was canceled just last month and a standard refit was chosen (25 mil rubles).
I must have missed such a news piece last month or was this perhaps already published way before?