dark light

wilhelm

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 1,634 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: How good of a fighter was the Mirage F1? #2129979
    wilhelm
    Participant

    On the topic of the thread…on the SAAF forum a while ago, there was some very interesting info (by a fellow working on some aspects of the programme) on where the Mirage F1 was ultimately to be taken to…avionics, weapons systems, and aerodynamically/motive wise.
    A real “Super” Mirage F1 if you will.

    in reply to: Chinese air power thread 18 #2129983
    wilhelm
    Participant

    Agreed Blitzo. It’s unhelpful.
    There is no official weight release re the J-20 in any event.

    in reply to: RuAF News and development Thread part 15 #2130752
    wilhelm
    Participant

    And true to form, FBW has derailed, going by the last replies and responses.
    Yawn…
    Thanks TR1 for trying to keep the thread on track in spite of what goes on.

    in reply to: RuAF News and development Thread part 15 #2130755
    wilhelm
    Participant

    FBW, no one cares about your compulsion to bring US weapons/the F-35/criticise Russia in almost every single post.
    By all means rant and pollute your other favourite threads, but why post here when your compulsive anti Russian kneejerk reaction is so predictable and so evident?
    Why derail constantly with your compulsive need to try and always discuss US weapons or defend US policy in the RUSSIAN AIRFORCE thread.
    The rest of us couldn’t care less about that kind of inadequacy from you.
    It’s why many of us avoid the cesspit F-35 threads you feel so comfortable in.
    We are here for the Russian Airforce, not your meandering opinion on US policy.

    in reply to: RuAF News and development Thread part 15 #2130921
    wilhelm
    Participant

    The usual unrelated kneejerk defensive tripe.
    This is the Russian Airforce thread.

    in reply to: Tu-160M2 White Swan (Белый лебедь) #2131780
    wilhelm
    Participant

    Thanks TR1.
    I wasn’t sure whether it was a test configuration or operational.

    in reply to: Tu-160M2 White Swan (Белый лебедь) #2131852
    wilhelm
    Participant

    Is it more correct to say this is either a “partial” M2, or at least part of the M2 process rather?
    The M2 will be new build airframes, with an entirely new electronic/ avionics suite, and new build upgraded engines.

    As such, even though this airframe took as a starting point a previously begun but incomplete “vanilla” Tu-160 hulk, it is part of the process of re-establishing skills and production facilities that will enable the new M2 to be constructed.
    This latest completion of a previously started Tu-160 might then have none/some/all of the new electronics/avionics, and will either from the start, or eventually, receive the new engines.
    Just as all the original “vanilla” Tu-160’s will.
    So, whilst not a fully reprentative M2 by any means, it can be said to be “partial M2 prototype”, or at least part of the M2 process.
    Is this basically correct?

    in reply to: Tu-160M2 White Swan (Белый лебедь) #2131854
    wilhelm
    Participant

    Been meaning to ask about the inlets actually.
    Years ago there was that picture of a Tu-160 with black RAM on the inside of the inlets.
    What is the story behind that?

    in reply to: RuAF News and development Thread part 15 #2131892
    wilhelm
    Participant

    Seems silly that Tu-160 and Tu-22M do not share a common engine lineage. And quite frankly, Su-34 should have used one engine of the same lineage, too. It’s really quite fortuitous that Russia is so wasteful.

    Fortuitous?
    Why are you here in this thread then?
    There’s so much daftness in your post it’s hard to know where to begin.
    The other mouthbreathing knuckledragger forum is that way.》》

    in reply to: RuAF News and development Thread part 15 #2133223
    wilhelm
    Participant

    Bort Red 4504 – now sitting in a museum at Ryazan – where I photographed it in 2005

    Thanks Ken.
    I knew you wouldn’t disappoint.

    in reply to: RuAF News and development Thread part 15 #2133314
    wilhelm
    Participant

    So, quite big news then that the Tu-22M will be re-engined with the the Tu-160 Blackjacks engine.
    Wasn’t there a single similarly reingined Backfire many years ago? I seem to recall seeing a picture of it.

    in reply to: Mirage 2000 #2133719
    wilhelm
    Participant

    Why?
    The UAE have already had Denels Umbani integrated recently on their Mirage 2000’s, and have bought into the programme and will produce components as the Al-Tariq.
    Denel had by mid 2017 already delivered a mix of about 600-700 full and partial systems.
    The Umbani has 3 configurations, allowing ranges of between 40km to 200km.

    in reply to: World Missiles News #1784772
    wilhelm
    Participant
    in reply to: RuAF News and development Thread part 15 #2151644
    wilhelm
    Participant

    Who cares?
    Discuss that unrelated stuff in another thread.
    This isn’t an F-22 thread.

    in reply to: RuAF News and development Thread part 15 #2152194
    wilhelm
    Participant

    Despite wilhelm’s accusations, I didn’t see anything in the PAK FA thread that would warrant closing and deleting it, so I don’t know what’s going on.

    RadDisconnect, it’s not an accusation.
    The usual suspect came into the topic and across multiple posts accused the entire Russian Government and aviation officials in Russia of all being liars.
    That is not a meaningful contribution. It’s his usual theme of corrosive trolling without contributing in the slightest to meaningful discussion about the topic or the PAK FA.
    It’s quite obvious what the result was.

    Let us stick to the topic instead of airing personal inadequacies and prejudices.

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 1,634 total)