dark light

RPG type 7v

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 233 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: mig-31 vs Su-30 in operation and maintenance costs #2448429
    RPG type 7v
    Participant

    The MiG-31 is not covering remote areas in peace-time. That is done by the radar-netting. That net will alarm the “flying SAM-sites” to deal with unknown intruders. At the moment the number of bombers or civil-airliners going over the polar-circle is limited.

    Ferry-range of the MiG-31M with two ETs of 2500 l each and subsonic is 3300 km or well below the range of the Su-30. Claims could be so easy, when all do avoid posting the related numbers.
    Under the same conditions with AAMs the endurance is 3,6 h or 1400 km AR.
    At Mach 2,35 the AR is 720 km. 😉

    First i have to say radar s net on tiksi ,lena ,is having lost of blind spots siberia is mountanious and kamchatka and open seas of arktic CANT be all covered. there is too many spaces uncovered.
    Claims could be so easy, when all do avoid posting the related numbers.
    yes and you are mistaking just a ferry range which is useles unles relocating to another base.
    Now can you give me the supersonic range of su-30!?
    with 5.600 kg fuel and 1.200 combat subsonic radius ?!?
    and add to su-30 the weight of 4 big r-33s misiles and 2 r-40. oh and there is a reason mig-31 has 2man crew.

    in reply to: mig-31 vs Su-30 in operation and maintenance costs #2448884
    RPG type 7v
    Participant

    The MiG-31 is not covering remote areas in peace-time. That is done by the radar-netting. That net will alarm the “flying SAM-sites” to deal with unknown intruders. At the moment the number of bombers or civil-airliners going over the polar-circle is limited.

    Ferry-range of the MiG-31M with two ETs of 2500 l each and subsonic is 3300 km or well below the range of the Su-30. Claims could be so easy, when all do avoid posting the related numbers.
    Under the same conditions with AAMs the endurance is 3,6 h or 1400 km AR.
    At Mach 2,35 the AR is 720 km. 😉

    First i have to say radar s net on tiksi ,lena ,is having lost of blind spots siberia is mountanious and kamchatka and open seas of arktic CANT be all covered. there is too many spaces uncovered.
    Claims could be so easy, when all do avoid posting the related numbers.
    yes and you are mistaking just a ferry range which is useles unles relocating to another base.
    Now can you give me the supersonic range of su-30!?
    with 5.600 kg fuel and 1.200 combat subsonic radius ?!?
    and add to su-30 the weight of 4 big r-33s misiles and 2 r-40. oh and there is a reason mig-31 has 2man crew.

    in reply to: mig-31 vs Su-30 in operation and maintenance costs #2448879
    RPG type 7v
    Participant

    GlobalSecurity was claiming they had about 75% of the 370 in-service examples operational in 2006, though I have no idea how they derived the figure, which adding in the 100 which are not in service would theoretically leave about 190 to be cannibalised for spares depending on version. Genuine data on the actual number of operational Russian aircraft seems remarkably hard to find…

    welll consider it takes off with with 10+ tonns of fuel and comes back with 1 tonn (15,3 tonn of fuel internal is max),it is expencive but its mobile ,and covering very very remote areas where SAMs cant be deployed effectively,su-30 could do it but with inflight refueling making it more expencive to operate ,and mig-31 is selfsufficient standalone platform. the very nature of the interceptor is to be expencive some like 2-3 times more maintanance and 2 times more expencive.http://www.avid.ru/pr/other/aviadv/IB-15A/IB-15A_20/

    perm engines is working quite solid because it makes all kinds of gas turbines ,stacionary ,airplane ,cilivilian and military.

    in reply to: mig-31 vs Su-30 in operation and maintenance costs #2449334
    RPG type 7v
    Participant

    GlobalSecurity was claiming they had about 75% of the 370 in-service examples operational in 2006, though I have no idea how they derived the figure, which adding in the 100 which are not in service would theoretically leave about 190 to be cannibalised for spares depending on version. Genuine data on the actual number of operational Russian aircraft seems remarkably hard to find…

    welll consider it takes off with with 10+ tonns of fuel and comes back with 1 tonn (15,3 tonn of fuel internal is max),it is expencive but its mobile ,and covering very very remote areas where SAMs cant be deployed effectively,su-30 could do it but with inflight refueling making it more expencive to operate ,and mig-31 is selfsufficient standalone platform. the very nature of the interceptor is to be expencive some like 2-3 times more maintanance and 2 times more expencive.http://www.avid.ru/pr/other/aviadv/IB-15A/IB-15A_20/

    perm engines is working quite solid because it makes all kinds of gas turbines ,stacionary ,airplane ,cilivilian and military.

    in reply to: Iran completes design phase of stealth aircraft #2459525
    RPG type 7v
    Participant

    Thier to busy with thier own Manhattan project to feel the need to rush through fighter jets.

    iran already has nukes delivered from north korea , the pakistan designer of atomic bomb is on freedom now,this satelite launch of safir is nothing but taepodong korean icbm. north korea will cross japan airspace if it tried on its soil to launch.

    in reply to: Iran completes design phase of stealth aircraft #2459534
    RPG type 7v
    Participant

    Probably not. Might be referring to Shafagh/Shafaq LCA a.k.a. russian Vitiazh 2000 a.k.a. Iranian M-ATF

    why doesnt mig pull its resources and get that aircraft going?
    with iraniand willing to pay development and other countries wanting this kind of stelthified grippen -it could work.
    stealthy tactical fighter- bomber-trainer seems workable.
    damn politics, again.
    if it works then i think they definately had lots of outside help ,inteligence ,expertise.

    in reply to: This is surprising. 70% of RuAF MiG-29s unable to fly #2459538
    RPG type 7v
    Participant

    That doesn’t change a fact that MiG-29 gets very low priority within the Russian AF.

    and even that was intentionaly ,they could have been conserved very well ,but now migs have been redused and soon erased from ruaf inventory,and the chief of mig has become trough a fantom united corporation ,who else but the suhoi leader-
    mr. pogostick. terible ,terible and unthinkable things ,now sukhoi makes fighters ,bombers ,civilian jets,and else things…i predict diverse rusian aircraft industryes to disapear very soon.:(

    RPG type 7v
    Participant

    The Allied Forces won the War…………including a not so little War in Pacific. Which, Russia hardly played a part in.;)

    sure ,the japanese didnt even think about invasion after we crushed their elite manchuko army at khalkin-gol in 1939.
    after that they signed non agresion act with CCCP,and focused their attention to more softer targets south.:cool:

    in reply to: Russian Space & Missile[ News/Discussion] Part-3 #1783495
    RPG type 7v
    Participant

    Anyone have any good maps of the ballistic missile launch sites at Baikonur, Plesetsk, and Kapustin Yar? I’ve seen the ones at astronautix.com and am looking to see if anyone has anything more extensive. I’m doing a piece for my blog on Russian ICBMs. It started out as an overview of current facilities but has transformed into a much larger work incorporating test facilities and historical (i.e. old and retired) missile sites as well. This is part one of a three part ICBM thing, with part 2 covering Chinese ICBMs and part 3 comparing and contrasting the two in areas such as basing and deployment strategies. Any material would be appreciated!

    http://onby.net/2008/03/01/nemnogo_poshpionim…..html

    http://www.tsenki.com/Drom1Show.asp?CosDromID=4

    in reply to: Russian Space & Missile[ News/Discussion] Part-3 #1783498
    RPG type 7v
    Participant

    Development of a 600 metric ton gross lift-off mass rocket using new chemical propellants for sending spacecraft to nearby planets. Draft project to be completed in 1962. This would become the UR-500 Proton:diablo: booster. But it was likely that the actual primary purpose of this rocket was also not mentioned in the declassified document. The Proton was originally designed for the GR-2 (Global Rocket 2) requirement. The GR-2 was to be a kind of enormous multiple-warhead FOBS (fractional orbit bombing system). The payload of the rocket was to be six independently maneuvering nuclear armed vehicles. Each vehicle had a 1,500 kg;) 2.2 MT :cool:nuclear warhead. They would separate from the final stage, and make violent maneuvers using independent guidance systems to put each warhead in a different low 160 km altitude orbit. At the end of a 10,000 to 12,000 km journey along their separate orbital paths, the warheads would appear on US radar screens at the last moment with minimal warning. The total spread of the warheads would be 1800 km from left to right; two such global rockets could devastate America’s major cities from coast to coast in an unstoppable first strike. The Kosmoplan re-entry vehicle would use aerodynamic horizontal and vertical maneuvering to penetrate enemy space defenses and be practically invulnerable. 😮

    in reply to: which design had more potential #2491852
    RPG type 7v
    Participant

    What’s makes these aircraft greater than 4+ Gen (Gripen, EF, Raf, SH, etc)?

    Did they have ANY VLO aspects?

    much more then others lets mention internal weapons bay ,twin canted vertical stabilisators instead of 1,curved intakes….

    Any integrated avionics?
    ok much bigger platform and more room for radar and other things ,that would be integrated in some time if program continued…

    Advanced Radars?
    …………..no comment.

    All Aspect FLIR and IRST (ala 360 EOTS & DAS on F-35)?
    …………..no comment.

    Supercruise?
    ,longer and faster then all you other fighters.

    America tested a forward swept wing fighter and found that the benefits did not outweigh the problems.
    yes problems that could be solved with nanotechnology but some time needed to pass to get there and actively change wing steinght.
    How was the 1.44 any better than either of the eurocards?
    -dumbest quetion of the week,:rolleyes:yes indeed,i could whipe them off face of earth…:diablo:
    but migs director is from sukhoi now not the other way around,so they got migs 1.42 project killed and sealed its fate even if was actualy very good.

    in reply to: Russian Space & Missile[ News/Discussion] Part-3 #1783542
    RPG type 7v
    Participant

    Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Weapons / Effects of EMP Attack

    November 24, 2008 – The Wall Street Journal – Analysis

    Brian T. Kennedy, president of the Claremont Institute, writes in today’s Wall Street Journal on the widespread effects a single nuclear weapon could have on the United States, if Russia, China, or Iran were to use it as electromagnetic pulse weapon. An excerpt from the piece:

    Think about this scenario: An ordinary-looking freighter ship heading toward New York or Los Angeles launches a missile from its hull or from a canister lowered into the sea. It hits a densely populated area. A million people are incinerated. The ship is then sunk. No one claims responsibility. There is no firm evidence as to who sponsored the attack, and thus no one against whom to launch a counterstrike.

    But as terrible as that scenario sounds, there is one that is worse. Let us say the freighter ship launches a nuclear-armed Shahab-3 missile off the coast of the U.S. and the missile explodes 300 miles over Chicago. The nuclear detonation in space creates an electromagnetic pulse (EMP).

    Gamma rays from the explosion, through the Compton Effect, generate three classes of disruptive electromagnetic pulses, which permanently destroy consumer electronics, the electronics in some automobiles and, most importantly, the hundreds of large transformers that distribute power throughout the U.S. All of our lights, refrigerators, water-pumping stations, TVs and radios stop running. We have no communication and no ability to provide food and water to 300 million Americans.

    This is what is referred to as an EMP attack, and such an attack would effectively throw America back technologically into the early 19th century. It would require the Iranians to be able to produce a warhead as sophisticated as we expect the Russians or the Chinese to possess. But that is certainly attainable. Common sense would suggest that, absent food and water, the number of people who could die of deprivation and as a result of social breakdown might run well into the millions.

    Let us be clear. A successful EMP attack on the U.S. would have a dramatic effect on the country, to say the least. Even one that only affected part of the country would cripple the economy for years. Dropping nuclear weapons on or retaliating against whoever caused the attack would not help. And an EMP attack is not far-fetched.

    Twice in the last eight years, in the Caspian Sea, the Iranians have tested their ability to launch ballistic missiles in a way to set off an EMP. The congressionally mandated EMP Commission, with some of America’s finest scientists, has released its findings and issued two separate reports, the most recent in April, describing the devastating effects of such an attack on the U.S.

    The only solution to this problem is a robust, multilayered missile-defense system. The most effective layer in this system is in space, using space-based interceptors that destroy an enemy warhead in its ascent phase when it is easily identifiable, slower, and has not yet deployed decoys. We know it can work from tests conducted in the early 1990s. We have the technology. What we lack is the political will to make it a reality.
    ……………
    Ok ,its about time those ras-putin come to his mind. we MUST restart energia and polius programs and go for orbital battlestations,now!:dev2:

    in reply to: FOBS – Fractional orbital Bombardment System #1783544
    RPG type 7v
    Participant

    Well, in theory yes (as anything that can put anything into orbit), in practice – no, as the trajectories and impulse therfore needed are not optimal/sufficient.

    it sure could, but without guidance to release warheads in apropriate sequence and mirv didnt have separate thrust engine,but it was posible with slight 3rd stages modification,like on bulava.

    in reply to: F-15 pilot opinion about the SU-30 MKI at Red Flag #2493217
    RPG type 7v
    Participant

    well it was interesting he said how F-15 clubs F-22 like babby seals….SU-35 will be doing that EVEN BETTER!
    even more interesting –
    , all we need to beat f-22 is a mig-21 with lets say 4 israels jamming pods just to be on the safe side,and 2 heat seeking missiles…

    —hey we have an exellent defence weapon and export product right there.
    —also it will be really cheap and sell like crazy.!
    -we could add some canards for beter manuvering and tvc for cool factor ,and call it MIG-21SK (Stealth killer).

    in reply to: Ukrainian fighter replacement #2496416
    RPG type 7v
    Participant

    reading all this posts ,amazingly only star49 has made sense.
    mig-25 and su-27 are to stay for very loooong….
    in between the powers in office will change..

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 233 total)