That one was directed more towards the military side of aviation, I should’ve mentioned that.
That one was directed more towards the military side of aviation, I should’ve mentioned that.
As to the “who would win in the air” debate, until the mid-1980’s the point was irrelevant. Not until the mid-1980s did the West have a large enough quantity of quality armor to be able to act as little more than a bump in the road in the Fulda Gap. After the mid-80s, the advantage shifted to the West. But before then, yes, sheer numbers would’ve resulted in Soviet tank generals sitting in Paris cafes joking about who won the air war.
Riiight..
Tu-22M3 – no parallel
SS-N-12/19 – no parallels
SS-N-22/26 – no parallels
Kirov Battlecruiser – no parallels
S-300/400 – no parallels
Oscar II Class sub – no parallels
SS-18 ICBM – no parallels
A lot of those were not going to be mirrored in the USA because the doctrines were different. A lot of them had to do with defeating US carrier battle groups. The West didn’t have to be concerned about countering a similar Soviet threat as Kuznetsov was barely afloat by the time the Wall came down due to the Soviet Navy taking its sweet time in deciding to actually field a carrier.
That being said, there are numerous examples of the Soviets developing something in response to the existance of a Western weapon system, so anyone who says that is not the case is flat out wrong:
MiG-25P: counter to the Lockheed A-12 (and that one isn’t even a “Western propaganda myth”, it comes directly from Rostislav Belyakov)
MiG-31: counter to the ALCM threat
S-300P: in part a counter to the ALCM threat
Most of the systems you listed above: counters to the Western CVBGs
And yeah, the F-117 has no parallels, yet one got shot down by people who has an SA-3! Pretty terrible if you ask me.
I’d love to know why people keep thinking the F-117A is actually invisible to radar.
And the Aegis, grand and all, seems to be great for shooting down civilian airliners – or making Standards miss their targets. . . but hey – maybe those were flukes. . .
Then the SA-5 is equally ineffective for exactly the same reason, right? As was the Su-15? Good to know! Now we can overfly most of Iran with impunity.
I can also guarantee you, that in 15 years the Russian armed forces will be expanding not only in numbers, but more into quality weaponry, more than enough to deter anyone both conventionally and in terms of nuclear weapons also.
They already have a credible enough nuclear deterrent to eliminate both the US and China, but yes, they are modernizing the Strategic Rocket Forces and the SSBN fleet at any rate. And yes, they are going to be getting a lot of quality systems, such as the S-400, which IMO is the gold standard for SAM systems at the moment, replacing the S-300PM-1/2 series. Whether they get enough new systems into service to be able to defeat the US in a paper exercise remains to be seen, but that is pretty much irrelevant as the prospects of a US-Russia conflict are so infinitesimally small that it’s laughable.
But the more worrisome prospect for any die hard US or British patriot – will be China. With over 1.6 billion people and an economy growing as fast as it is, I’d be far more worried about what the Chinese will do in the next 20 – 30 years.
Only misguided Western politicians need to trump up China as a serious threat. Not because they lack military power, but because economics would make the prospect of a US-China conflict almost impossible. US politicians will say whatever they want to get X weapon system bought and put jobs into their state or to make themselves sound good in the media, but any sane person knows that the US and China aren’t going to square off.
http://www.nti.org/db/nisprofs/russia/weapons/bombers/bombers.htm Another source, holy lord! This time not from some site you guys have a grudge about.
The ignorance here is of cosmic proportions.
The relevant sources from that section dealing with ALCMs are from no earlier than 2000, when everyone was busy speculating about the thing (note that they use the word “probably”, inferring that they aren’t even 100% sure either). The BOAS article from 2007 doesn’t mention the guidance system, I downloaded it from here:
I also did a query of Russian-language news sources from the past few years and the ones I read through didn’t mention the guidance system used specifically. A lot of them were sure that some sort of precision-level guidance had to be used in the conventional version to achieve the quoted CEP of 6 meters, but that’s as far as they went in the open press. I think it would be safe to say that we can speculate about TV guidance for the terminal phase, but that nobody knows for sure, despite what Globalsecurity, FAS, BOAS, NTI, and the like are reporting. I do like the Russian allegation of precision guidance for the conventional weapon, as it does make sense for the nuclear armed version to not require that level of precision.
And in that case it is a much better idea to quote the source used by the Wiki author than the actual Wiki article itself, given the aforementioned problems with Wikipedia. Hell, even I use Wikipedia to look for sources from time to time. I even used it today because I couldn’t remember if it was “Strait of Taiwan” or “Taiwan Strait”. Then I discovered the alternate name “Formosa Strait” and decided to go with that instead 😀
I have a few theories.
The difference between Wikipedia and something like Jane’s Online is that you and I can’t log into Jane’s and actively edit the content to display whatever we like. Wikipedia doesn’t even delete unsourced comments, and they are way too broad in scope to deal with fact checking every article. Jane’s, again, are professional researchers and analysts. That’s the difference between the two online sources, and as I pointed out before, not even Jane’s is free from errors. But they do have a great deal more credibility than anything on Wikipedia.
That’s the current iteration of LOAN technology applied to an operational design for you.
Which is precisely why Wikipedia is pretty much useless as a serious, credible source.
Wikipedia is sourced from other sources, obviously, so the credibility of the articles varies according to where they were sourced from.
The problem is that unless you have access to every single source the author claims to be using, you can’t be sure that they aren’t just pulling your leg and typing whatever the hell they want to.
It was Yakovlev’s design input that aided LockMart and P&W, so they can take the credit as far as I’m concerned.
Is it Discovery’s Deadliest Catch? That’s a great show, really puts your crab dinner into perspective!
Is it Discovery’s Deadliest Catch? That’s a great show, really puts your crab dinner into perspective!
Pretty neat. Whoever actually came up with that nozzle design in Russia for the Yak-141 was a freaking genius. And I gotta say, I kinda like the grey paintjob with green highlights 😀
This one is still technically a hand-built prototype, right? I’m assuming that a production model will dispense with all the exposed rivets seen on the inner vertical tail-body junction.