dark light

KGB

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 781 through 795 (of 1,157 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Russia moving tac air troops to Syria #2203478
    KGB
    Participant

    Congrats? Welcome to 1990!

    Russia -is- an oil economy. That is a simple fact no matter how much you beat your chest.

    Russia is the world leader in the commercial rocket industry. Fact.

    Russia is the world leader in nuclear power generation. Fact.

    Russia is the worlds biggest exporter of wheat. Fact.

    Russia is the 2nd biggest mfg’er of arms. Fact

    Russia is NOT an oil economy. That is a simple fact no matter how much you beat your chest.

    in reply to: Russia moving tac air troops to Syria #2203494
    KGB
    Participant

    latin America is not an effective place to use resources. yy own estimation is that within 2 years Russia will get diversified transport access infrastructure independent of EU and add that procurement of new systems. than EU will start thinking about disarming itself.

    countering space systems.

    The backward low tech “oil economy” otherwise known as Russia has other business in Latin America.

    Russia Installs Glonass Satellite Station in Brazil – Via Satellite –
    http://www.satellitetoday.com/regional/…/russia-installs-glonass-satellite-station-in-brazil/
    Jul 17, 2014 – … Latin America; Russia Installs Glonass Satellite Station in Brazil … new station is expected to improve the quality of Russia’s Glonass GNSS …

    Obama signed a law banning GLONASS place in the U.S.
    americanews.ru/en/h05/24513.html
    Dec 31, 2013 – A new law on the U.S. defense budget actually prohibits construction in the U.S. territory of the Russian system GLONASS stations. Despite the …

    in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2203499
    KGB
    Participant

    http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/6839/the-navys-f-35c-has-a-major-nose-gear-problem

    http://d254andzyoxz3f.cloudfront.net/insta003.gif

    More than a decade after the Lockheed Martin F-35 began flight testing, the Navy’s catapult launch and barrier recovery (CATOBAR) variant, the F-35C, remains mired with teething issues. Now, one problem appears to be more debilitating than previously realized, and it’s rearing its head at a critical phase of flight for any Navy fighter—the catapult launch.

    http://d254andzyoxz3f.cloudfront.net/insta_0.gif

    The issue occurs when a lightly loaded F-35C’s landing gear nose strut is compressed while the jet throttles up, right before launch. As the catapult fires and the hold back bar is released, the jet is rapidly pulled forward, during which time the strut oscillates violently up and down. The bouncing continues as the aircraft proceeds down the catapult track at increasing speed.

    The problem was vividly demonstrated among a group of F-35C’s participating in the type’s third set of sea trials aboard the USS George Washington last summer, giving pilots a wild and potentially dangerous ride down the deck.

    The airplane seems to be able to take the hammering, but the pilot sitting over the strut can be severely affected by the ordeal. The movement sends their already-heavy advanced helmet mounted display and oxygen mask flopping up and down, applying pressure to the pilot’s jaw. The erratic oscillations also keep the pilot from being able to read critical info on their helmet-mounted display, an anomaly that can persist sometime after the jet has departed the deck and entered smooth air.

    in reply to: Russia moving tac air troops to Syria #2203515
    KGB
    Participant

    Wow, so I guess we can conclude that you think bolding random words is the same thing as an argument?

    You do realize the full text of the NATO-Russia Found Act is online. Here are the relevant sections without the nuance stripped away:

    and

    As you can plainly see, there is not now nor was there ever a ban on NATO expanding east, nor stationing forces on the territory of new members. All it says was that there were no plans to do so at that time.

    Great. Why don’t we just skip a few steps and have Cuban Missile Crisis 2.0 right now ? It would be cheaper for everyone.

    Russia never said it had any intentions of not moving its border west. What is a border anyway ? If treaties mean nothing. Intl law means nothing then borders mean nothing.

    in reply to: Russia moving tac air troops to Syria #2203519
    KGB
    Participant

    I think KGB is refering to the lose agreement of NATO not exspanding into former NATO country. But i don’t see what this has got to do with who or where a radar Station is being build. So you are correct.

    None of these treaties and agreements were “lose” (loose). But sure he’s correct. Line the border with nuclear missile silos. Just don’t complain when Russia is back in South America. With missiles pointed directly at Florida. And then don’t be surprised when we are talking about a new naval blockade sometime in the future. And let me guess. These posts will be followed by more bunk about the Russian economy. The cold war mongers will say that things won’t escalate because Russia cant afford to. How’d that work out in Syria and Crimea ?

    It’s time to start worrying about what Russia’s been up to in Latin America

    http://www.businessinsider.com/its-time-to-start-worrying-about-what-russias-been-up-to-in-latin-america-2015-3

    This week, Russia Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov is visiting Cuba, Nicaragua, Colombia, and Guatemala. According to reports, rumors are flying that Russia plans to sell fighter jets to Nicaragua’s Sandinista government.

    Last year and again this year, a Russian intelligence ship docked in Havana multiple times while conducting operations in the Gulf of Mexico and along the east coast of the United States.

    Russia has courted Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua to gain access to air bases and ports for resupply of Russian naval assets and strategic bombers operating in the Western Hemisphere. Russian media also announced Russia would begin sending long-range strategic bombers to patrol the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico, in an effort to ‘monitor foreign powers’ military activities and maritime communications.

    in reply to: Russia moving tac air troops to Syria #2203526
    KGB
    Participant

    It doesn’t matter a bit who is paying or even who is manning the systems. The fact is that the host country gets to decide who does what within its borders.

    There is no treaty or international law that prevents Poland from having a missile defense system or any kind of SAM system within its borders.

    Malarkey. It does matter and it is all covered in treaty.

    Mikhail Gorbachev dissolved the Soviet Union partly contingent on the US’s pledge not to expand Nato east at all. The only thing you are right about is that nothing on paper even matters if one party wants to play dirty enough which by default escalates war. We see this with the US’s expansion of Nato which flies in the face of their goodwill pledge. The argument never was “nothing is on paper so we can march Nato right up to Russia’s border.” The argument was that both sides want peace so why not put things in place that would prevent the very war creep that we have today ?

    But hey. Go ahead. Put 25 Raptors and a half dozen loaded and ready B1 bombers in Poland. Nothing is really stopping you. Is that the world you really want to live in ?

    On May 27 in Paris, Russian President Boris Yeltsin joined President Bill Clinton and the leaders of the 15 other NATO member states in signing the “Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation.

    The Act contains NATO’s qualified pledge not to deploy nuclear weapons or station troops in the new member states and refines the basic “scope and parameters” for an adapted Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty.

    Of more specific interest among the areas listed for potential consultation, cooperation and increased transparency are theater missile defence, exchanges of “information in relation to air defence and related aspects of airspace management/control,” and “reciprocal exchanges… on nuclear weapons issues, including doctrines and strategy of NATO and Russia.

    In the final section of the Act, which deals with political-military matters, NATO restates that it has “no intention, no plan and no reason,” to deploy or store nuclear weapons on the territory of new members.

    Yeltsin described the Act as containing “an obligation not to deploy NATO combat forces on a permanent basis near Russia,” and as “a firm and absolute commitment for all signatory states.”

    But again. Line the Polish border with nuclear missile silos if that is the world you want to live in.

    in reply to: Russia moving tac air troops to Syria #2203572
    KGB
    Participant

    Not so fast.. US claim Russia also broke that treaty with their new medium rocket platform, which has the capability to carry a lot more fuel, thus a lot more range that was agreed upon on the original treaty for shot/medium ICBM’s

    You are admitting fully now, that the US is in these countries, weaponizing Russia’s border regions. This is why treaties and international law matters.

    in reply to: Russia moving tac air troops to Syria #2203575
    KGB
    Participant

    I don’t see how even ballistic missiles would be a problem. Certainly Russia isn’t asking the Poles for permission to base missiles along Poland’s borders.

    They are either a sovereign state or they aren’t. If they are then they can base whatever SAM or SRBM system they want within their own territory.

    It is not Poland or Romania that is paying for these systems. It is not Poland or Romania that is paying the maintenance and operation of these systems. Clearly it is the US. And everyone knows that.

    These countries sovereignty have nothing to do with the US’s treaty obligations and international law. The Polish government doesn’t have the legal right to supersede international law and treaty at the behest of the US.

    in reply to: Official List of Aircraft Price thread #2203837
    KGB
    Participant

    That is an interesting theory, with one major problem…..inflation. If a Mig-35 cost 1 billion roubles in 2013, with inflation (which was running 11-12% in Russia during the fall of the Rouble), it will cost the equivalent of a billion roubles in 2013 (or more) due to inflation.

    He wasn’t tabling a theory. Those were the numbers. Those were the exchange rates. Inflation is priced into the exchange rate. The central bank fought off that inflation and stabilized the Ruble.

    Russian central bank raises interest rate to 17% to prevent rouble’s …
    https://www.theguardian.com › World › Russia

    in reply to: Russia moving tac air troops to Syria #2203854
    KGB
    Participant

    Surely anyone on this forum can see that the proposed interceptors could not have impacted the Russian nuclear deterrent? Surely here of all places, it is ridiculously obvious that the system in question could have done nothing to materially impact the Russian ICBM force?

    However, it did upset Putin and at the time it is conceivable that the Bush administration did not care too much about that? It forced him (or gave him the excuse)to stand up to “the Americans” because of high profile NATO encroachment into Russia’s old sphere of influence.

    The Romania missile shield is a violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) of 1987.

    So it is simply illegal.

    in reply to: Russia moving tac air troops to Syria #2203860
    KGB
    Participant

    In other words, the US installation in Poland was aimed at protecting the US from missiles launched from the Middle east.
    .

    This is the actual reaction, in GIF form , that Putin had to the statement that you just made. Probably the most famous of the Putin Gifs
    http://gifsec.com/wp-content/uploads/GIF/2014/04/Vladimir-Putin-laugh-gif.gif

    It is not up to you, the US or Poland or Europe to decide if Russia should view these installations as a threat. The fact is that they DO. So when you put up the installation, you are knowingly making a provocation.

    in reply to: Russia moving tac air troops to Syria #2203866
    KGB
    Participant

    JSR, be realistic. Russia, apart from oil gas and nukes, has become a dwarf power. Be it economically or military.

    OneWeb launch deal called largest commercial rocket buy in history …
    https://spaceflightnow.com/…/oneweb-launch-deal-called-largest-commercial-rocket-b
    Jul 1, 2015 – Arianespace’s agreement with OneWeb also includes options for five more … of the high competitiveness of the Russian rocket and space technology.

    Russia Is World Leader In Nuclear Power Generation Technology, Says World Nuclear …
    http://www.ibtimes.com.au/russia-world-leader-nuclear-technology-says-world-nuclear-asso
    Apr 9, 2015 – Russia is “moving steadily forward with plans for much expanded role of nuclear energy, including development of new reactor technology,” the …

    NASA to Pay $70 Million a Seat to Fly Astronauts on … – Space.com
    http://www.space.com › Spaceflight › Human Spaceflight
    Apr 30, 2013 – NASA has signed a new deal that will keep American astronauts flying on Russian spacecraft through early … NASA to Pay $70 Million a Seat to Fly Astronauts on Russian Spacecraft

    in reply to: Official List of Aircraft Price thread #2203878
    KGB
    Participant

    Sorry, I have completely missed the eight F/A-18Fs written there ! Now it all makes sense, thanks.

    Well, for Russian VKS the planes are actually denominated in Rubles. The flyaway price for one MiG-35 is ~1 billion RUB. In 2013 it was around $32 mil, today it’s around $17 mil.

    The US dollar is in a speculative bubble right now so it is putting dollar prices out of kilter. The UK pound sterling is “at 31 year lows” compared to the USD too. So if we took a basket of the worlds currencies (Yuan Pound Euro) and priced the VKS in that now, it probably wouldn’t be any different than 32 million dollars in 2013.

    When this USD bubble ends the way all bubbles do, the dollar price of a VKS will likely be 42-52 million USD.

    in reply to: Official List of Aircraft Price thread #2204415
    KGB
    Participant

    No it wasn’t. Go to the orginial article and point out where it states that NATO made any comparison about the Su-35

    Not about the su 35 BUT about the serviceability and effectiveness of the Russian airforce in Syria.

    Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, the commander of the US army in Europe, has described Russian advances in electronic warfare in Syria and Ukraine – a field in which they were typically supposed to be backward – as “eye watering”

    The chief of US Air Force operations in Europe and Africa, Lieutenant General Frank Gorenc, has disclosed that Moscow is now deploying anti-aircraft systems in Crimea, which the Kremlin annexed from Ukraine last year, and in Kaliningrad, an enclave between Lithuania and Poland. It is doing so, he says, in a way that makes it “very, very difficult” for Nato planes to gain access safely to areas including parts of Poland.

    in reply to: The PAK-FA News, Pics & Debate Thread XXV #2204563
    KGB
    Participant

    Well up until now China hasn’t had much an export program. But its already transformed itself from depending on Russian imports to depending lock stock & barrel on competitive indigenous products. .

    That’s a massive over-statement. The FC 31 is basically a technology demonstrator at this point. And they need to learn how to build an engine still.

Viewing 15 posts - 781 through 795 (of 1,157 total)