Reply With QuoteA different side of aviation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNxtfhNJcKk&feature=fvw
I wasn't trying to be an a** nor anything. just saying that there is no comfort in them things.
A different side of aviation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNxtfhNJcKk&feature=fvw
I would say wanting the PAK-FA is wanting a shiny new toy.I don't know Gaz, it sounds like you're just asking for a lot of shiny new toys.
Wanting the Su-25s to get a proper upgrade that is based on what the pilots and people on the ground could use rather than how much it will all cost is being sensible. Even if it costs so much they can only afford to upgrade 30 of them I think it would be a good start. Especially adding things that will make it more likely the Su-25s survive in real combat, like new weapons and better sensors and of course DIRCMs.
Might be a cover for the bottom of the rather large and complicated gearbox on the Kamov?Excuse me for the 'noob' question, but what's the black thing on top?
Everything that has to fit on a ship has to be smaller....I've felt that the Ka-27 is more cramped - not to mention that thing that is black on the pictures of the Ka-32 right in the middle of the ceiling - bumped my head on it's equivalent (whatever it is - I thought it's extra space for the engine or something) on the Ka-27 because it's really in the way
Pipe AND cigarette?!
new bomber
Again I agree with you, better spent money on slightly supersonic/supercruising long range stealth bomber, this is more achievable and flexible than a mach 4 bomber.Originally Posted by GazB
Dimmi, and others, please don't get me wrong. I don't have access to Russian secrets any more than anyone else here has so I really cannot say who is right and who is wrong. I look at the facts available to me and I use a bit of experience in what they have done in the past and looked from in their shoes.
Not perfect, but not always horribly wrong either.
If you look at this link you will see an interesting overview of the politics and development before the Tu-160 was developed.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread199317/pg1
In particular there is a comment in the comments section at the bottom of the page (reply posted on 17-3-2006 @ 03:51 PM by Waynos )that mentions:
The problem I of course have is that Mach 4 speed effects the design a lot and aiming for such a speed doesn't really protect from interception any more. It would make the aircraft rather expensive yet the resulting effect on performance would not be important. Flying that fast means flying high. If you are not stealthy then everyone can see you coming so the advantage of speed is largely lost. Travelling fastish (ie mach 1.2-1.6 or so) while at the same time being a stealthy design makes rather more sense if it can be done in dry thrust for range in my opnion.
Today if you want speed for a future bomber then you should be looking at faster than mach 4 if you want speed to be a factor. It would be cheaper to make a stealthy flying wing that super cruises at mach 1.6 that carries scramjet powered mach 8 cruise missiles with a range of 4,000km than it would to build a mach 6 bomber dropping nuclear bombs and evading defences with speed. In my opinion of course.
They are already upgrading the Tu-160 and Tu-95 and Tu-22M3. Saying the new bomber will be fundamentally different with new capabilities suggests to me that it will be new and designed largely from scratch.
I would expect it will be designed from the start to be multirole and may have new capabilities like communication with UAVs etc. It might be able to operate as a jammer without modification, and as an armed recon aircraft too.
There is also talk of high altitude recon aircraft which either suggests very light weight, or high speed to consider.
I am looking forward to finding out the truth... of course we still haven't seen the PAK-FA or T-95 yet...
I would say that exaggeration might be useful in other areas but the one area that does not seem to have obvious problems has been strategic military forces. Certainly in regard to funding and support.
Wonder how this will effect the Su-25SM program... Will the Army put more money into CAS or starve it?
Possibly to be developed on unmanned version too.
Yes! Ibid caption: "Terrible russian "Lesnik"..."
And what in the woods near Murom happens... only on English it is not transferred...
Photos from the cycle: "vodka-valenki-spetsnaz-pak fa"
Who in a photo - I do not know. Where the photo is made - I do not know. Not later than 1998.
And still... It from a series "a cat manul and others..."
about PAK DA
I respect and understand your point of view (about subsonic long-range bomber). But I still think that it's not the purpose of the program PAK DA... and it's not a purpose of obtaining financing...
Like or dislike... I think that it will be supersonic long-rage bomber between Tu-22M and Tu-160 based on Tu-160 construction. why? because this will be significantly easier (for KB, for industry) and it would look quite impressive for the overall image in the country...
If I am mistaken, this is very good, but I'm rarely wrong ... alas
and one more moment - subsonic - very very expensive (because new... "from zero"... and so many questions)
supersonic - no questions, no very expensive, no long time R+D....
in the current situation, what program will be implemented?
it's just SPLAV ad.
And who in the photo? Employees SPLAV?
Кошеносец?And still... It from a series "a cat manul and others..."
or 100.000 tons of Russian Cat diplomacy?
Some interesting stuff
http://russiatoday.com/About_Us/Prog...07/512716.html
As per 16ObrSpn affirmation these guys are from 22nd Gru brigade and the Hummer belonged once to BasayevPhotos from the cycle: "vodka-valenki-spetsnaz-pak fa"
Who in a photo - I do not know. Where the photo is made - I do not know. Not later than 1998.
Posting Permissions
