Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Talking bollocks thread #2

    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 8237
    Points : 8321
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 6 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  PapaDragon on Tue Mar 13, 2018 8:44 pm

    Peŕrier wrote:.........
    And if are sending a SSGN loaded with over 100 cruise missiles, maybe even nuclear tipped, to target USA and Europe, you will be better being very very quiet.........

    I specifically said ''Middle East''

    That's the segment Russian Navy is currently short on

    They already have everything they need for nuclear war (it's common knowledge), this OTOH is for conventional low priority stuff



    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21769
    Points : 22315
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 6 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Wed Mar 14, 2018 1:37 am

    Did I say russia designed the Mistral? I said no such thing All I said was it didn't have certain weapons when you brought it up.

    Weapons it didn't have because it was a frog designed ship and not a Russian designed ship... all new Russian ships are multirole and have air defence missiles and land attack missiles and anti ship missiles and anti sub missiles... as I said but you seem to want to ignore.

    16 missiles no it had 12 you don't even know the specs but you are arguing with me priceless, Soviet missiles of that era were also inaccurate really.

    Hilarious... you finally actually look up figures and then come with the Soviet missiles were inaccurate really... really?

    12 missiles means twelve sunk US ships... they had nothing that could even look like stopping such missiles... except denial.

    They relied upon Salvo's from many ships to penetrate an AC Group and hit, 12 missiles alone would have done jack shit.

    Actually four of them would have been hiroshima power weapons and on their own obliterated the entire carrier group.

    you can pretend soviet Anti-ship missiles had the precision of lasers but they didn't back then no country US and Russia included had a missile that had a high hit rate.

    HAhahahaha... yeah... lets compare anti ship missiles with long range air to air missiles... ask the jews about the ship they lost from a subsonic rocket powered Soviet missile... I am sure they had to have guys on deck with flags waving it in to get a hit.

    1. Some will miss.
    2. Some will be intercepted.
    3. Some will manage to penetrate the AA defenses of the group and strike their target.

    The US had nothing in service that could intercept those missiles...


    The kuz more built to be a proper AC the planes were made especially so it could carry out carrier ops albeit limited. Yes it's main job was to protect surface groups with it's aircraft but if needed it would perform in a strike situation.

    Yeah... those missiles were so useless they still put 12 on the Kuznetsov to attack US ships with... the Su-33s were never fitted with any long range anti ship weapon and carried only air to air weapons and dumb bombs and rockets.

    they clearly knew they only needed 12... Granits instead of course. Nothing like an inaccurate mach 2, 7 ton missile.

    the kuz was also meant to serve as a stop gap until they finished their first true carrier.

    So they can't afford new carriers but that can afford not true carriers... you are funny...

    You do realize....that's what the French built them for right? wut......? that is literally the entire point of those ships and that's not what you said do not like. You stated Russia should buil da mistral with all those weapons but hey that's okay pretend you didn't.


    The Russians wont build Mistrals... they will build a version of the Mistral that suits them better... it will at the very least have Panstir on it and also UKSK launchers... at least one, probably 2 but just to make it more useful in different mixes of vessels.

    Delta IV are the last iteration of a project born in the 60ies, I would not compare it to the Ohio.

    It is going to be an arsenal sub... it does not matter if it is not brand new... if it was an arsenal ship they could use a container ship for all it matters.

    And if are sending a SSGN loaded with over 100 cruise missiles, maybe even nuclear tipped, to target USA and Europe, you will be better being very very quiet.

    If you are using the arsenal ship against the west for WWIII they will be using unlimited range cruise missiles that can be launched from under the arctic ice or from the south pole... they don't need to be quiet at all because there wont be anyone there to hear them...

    Or if there are it will be NATO ASW groups... which are expensive and will be taken away from SSBNs and SSGNs on more important and more urgent missions...

    So ticks both boxes.

    Even commiting only 50% of those to counter russian SSBNs and SSGNs, it would make 2 SSNs chasing any single russian SSBN or SSGN.

    that will keep them nice and busy wont it... that will cost the west a lot of money and resources to keep those forces at sea chasing their tails on the off chance they might be needed... good.

    For the conversion cost that is real value for money.

    For the very same reason, I doubt Russia will stop to 8 SSBNs, it will be better and safer to have some additional boomer on patrol, even with single nuclear warhead missiles, for the sake of resiliency against enemy's hunt for them.

    They don't need to leave Russian waters to launch their missiles... they will be safe enough... certainly long enough to launch their missiles... didn't a Soviet sub scare NATO by salvo launching all its missiles in less time than it would take to attack them with torpedoes and sink them...

    A Delta IV is today barely enough as a SSBN, in a decade it will become useless, and there is no point to further SLEP a small fleet of Delta IVs to convert them in SSGNs.

    A Delta IV is obsolete as an SSBN today and upgrading it to be an SSBN in the future is a total waste of resources.

    Modifying a mature design to greatly complicate Americas and NATOs global domination planes for a modest cost that could be useful in foreign interventions around the world in a responsive package is just good use of available resources... recycling at its best... I know you don't approve... much better to build from scratch a multi billion dollar SSBN and then modify it for the role... I disagree.

    BTW they have already modified a Delta III for the mother sub role... I guess that was pretty dumb too?


    They already have everything they need for nuclear war (it's common knowledge), this OTOH is for conventional low priority stuff

    But the potential to cause alarm in the west and demands for new ASW aircraft and ships would be fun... not to mention it is probably the most expensive thing you can spend money on in the military... to properly deal with the problem would cost them more than their ABM games... and all for the cost of a few modified old boomers.

    I remember in the 1980s they were using Yankee class boomers still... very unsafe but what they had at short notice...
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 1475
    Points : 1467
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 6 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Wed Mar 14, 2018 2:02 am

    12 missiles don't mean 12 sunk carriers that is fanboy logic talking, and that comment alone is beyond stupid. Seriously, all you are doing is showing me how much you Bs for Russia at this point you are incapable of accepting reality it seems. That's how fanboys are really....so it doesn't shock me.

    No they won't not all russian ships will have all of that it's cute you think so, you and Enhiee would get along really it seems your both utterly delusional.
    s
    Hm no they would not have the missiles could not destroy an entire carrier group with only four missiles like my head hurts reading this sentence are you batshit insane?.

    Show me the data that Soviet missiles of that era had pinpoint accuracy, I will not accept statements from the Russian that claim so, just like I would not accept word of mouth from my own country.

    Um wut? I was talking about the Soviets.......ugh you are omg seriously....ugh your are destroying any ounce of credit I thought you once had at this point. The Soviets could afford new carriers, and since it seems you need to go back to school. Russia could afford a carrier I never said they couldn't...just that it will take them AGEs to build it. AGAIN putting words in my mouth.

    A missile got lucky big deal, also Jews?........ahuh so you are like that. Ah......you need to be removed from your position at this point.

    Those 12 missiles alone were useless yes, with a group of other ships no they weren't the kuz would never have been alone, it would have been in a strike group. So shut up again your lack of understanding is amazing and the SU-33's, I said strike missiles meaning air to ground, not attacking other ships.

    So congrats Garry you just confirmed to me you don't know wtf you are talking about, just another fanboy who reads shit on the web and thinks he has a dam clue.


    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21769
    Points : 22315
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 6 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Wed Mar 14, 2018 3:01 am

    12 missiles don't mean 12 sunk carriers that is fanboy logic talking, and that comment alone is beyond stupid. Seriously, all you are doing is showing me how much you Bs for Russia at this point you are incapable of accepting reality it seems. That's how fanboys are really....so it doesn't shock me.

    I said 12 missiles means 12 sunk US ships... are all US ships aircraft carriers? Or are you a person that thinks a huge supersonic missile designed to destroy ships would not sink the Pacific Princess with one shot...

    No they won't not all russian ships will have all of that it's cute you think so, you and Enhiee would get along really it seems your both utterly delusional.
    s

    OK then expert... list all the new combat ships over 2,000 tons Russia is building or planning with no UKSK launcher... shouldn't take long, because combat precludes research ships and Elint/recon platforms... and speed boats... but I will give you a hint that the U in UKSK is universal... perhaps you could look up the definition of that word first.

    Hm no they would not have the missiles could not destroy an entire carrier group with only four missiles like my head hurts reading this sentence are you batshit insane?.

    Yeah... of course... the invincible US Navy... even four hits with 20Kt nuclear warheads wont sink a single vessel... who was the fanatic again?

    A missile got lucky big deal, also Jews?........ahuh so you are like that. Ah......you need to be removed from your position at this point.

    It was Israeli... which makes it a Zionist Jew platform... that is relevant because generally they knew what they were doing when they started their terrorist campaign to create israel and then after israel was created they showed great skill in murdering anyone who questioned their right to create a new country that never existed in the past but was somehow their by right now.

    To further clarify, I mention the success with an inaccurate old Soviet missile against a respectable navy, to show luck and skill and a certain technological level was needed for the kill... if they launched thousands in one attack and one hit then I agree that would just be luck or simply overwhelming formidible defences... but it was not... they didn't even launch 12.

    You really going to suggest these inaccurate soviet missiles could get lucky like that?

    I am sure it was the same luck that the Serbs shot down an F-117... or was that engine trouble?

    Those 12 missiles alone were useless yes, with a group of other ships no they weren't the kuz would never have been alone,

    Amazing that even today there is no evidence any individual or group of ships could shoot down 12 supersonic missiles coming at them at one time... let alone selectively shoot down the four armed with nuclear warheads before they detonated... if 12 were useless how many would they actually need... millions I am sure for your US strong fanboi imagination and even then most will fail to launch because their design is flawed by being really copies of WWII German V-2 rockets... just like all Soviet weapons...

    So shut up again your lack of understanding is amazing and the SU-33's, I said strike missiles meaning air to ground, not attacking other ships.

    You said shut up... you said strike missiles meaning air to ground, but not for attacking ships...

    Well first of all I wont shut up.

    Second as I stated, the Su-33 was cleared for Air to Air missiles, Dumb bombs and Unguided rockets... the only missile ever shown with the Su-33 that was cleared for use was the Kh-31 in the form of the anti ship missile... it didn't have and was never cleared for any guided air to ground as in solid ground missiles.

    The only air to ground guided missiles it could use were anti ship models of the Kh-31.

    The new upgraded aircraft might be able to carry R-77s a new AAMs but as far as I know it has not added any air to ground weapon.

    They planned two aircraft with rather more extensive air to ground performance with all sorts of guided missiles and bombs... one was called MiG-29KR, and the other was the Su-33KUB... and only one of those entered service after about 2015 or so... when the Indians ordered theirs.

    Do you understand?

    BTW I have been through this reply a couple of times to take the swear words and the personal insults out... I hope you appreciate that.


    So congrats Garry you just confirmed to me you don't know wtf you are talking about, just another fanboy who reads shit on the web and thinks he has a dam clue.

    I would suggest you take the time to do the same to your own posts, or you might get a time out.

    Perhaps you might take a look at yourself and think perhaps first of all I am interested in Russian and Soviet equipment and don't really give a shit about american and western weapons, but you clearly don't know as much as you seem to think you do about the Russians and Soviets.

    Don't take that too hard, most western intel agencies seem to be even more clueless... at least you are still talking...
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 4701
    Points : 4820
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 6 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  kvs on Wed Mar 14, 2018 3:44 am

    BTW, the so-called "inaccurate" old Soviet missiles are only so because they were not designed for the electronic warfare of later
    decades. Be sure that modern Russian missiles have the latest counter EW technology. One that Yankistanis are not even aware
    of. Science does not happen on Wall Street.
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 1475
    Points : 1467
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 6 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Wed Mar 14, 2018 4:12 am

    kvs wrote:BTW, the so-called "inaccurate" old Soviet missiles are only so because they were not designed for the electronic warfare of later
    decades.   Be sure that modern Russian missiles have the latest counter EW technology.   One that Yankistanis are not even aware
    of.   Science does not happen on Wall Street.

    Sure russian missiles these days modern ones are very accurate, indeed. My statement was the older ones Garry was going on about where inaccurate like most missiles of that era where
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 1475
    Points : 1467
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 6 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Wed Mar 14, 2018 4:31 am

    Yeah... of course... the invincible US Navy... even four hits with 20Kt nuclear warheads wont sink a single vessel... who was the fanatic again?

    1. You said carrier GROUP meaning all the ships with it, learn English my god.

    I misread the 12 part alias 12 missiles still will not sink 12 us ships, unless the ships they are firing at ARE. unarmed, not all the missiles will get past the AA defenses.

    "i would suggest you take the time to do the same to your own posts, or you might get a time out.

    Perhaps you might take a look at yourself and think perhaps first of all I am interested in Russian and Soviet equipment and don't really give a shit about american and western weapons, but you clearly don't know as much as you seem to think you do about the Russians and Soviets.

    Don't take that too hard, most western intel agencies seem to be even more clueless... at least you are still talking..."


    Ah right there "Russian and Soviet equipment and don't really give a shit about american and western weapons" you realize you just proved my entire point, I know this garry you never used a gun in combat, never fought in an actual battle, you never served, you never did anything but read shit on the internet and you only read one side....your opinion at that point is biased and isn't worth a rat's ass of time...You see Garry when you are biased it makes you blind, it makes you stupid. By your own admission, you told me you don't know about western equipment. Now Garry thank you for confirming what I said. Which is you are a fanboy who "expert" opinion comes from internet articles.

    Western agencies btw? hahaha buddy you dn't know shit about western agencies you just some guy behind his computer screen and you think you know how intelligence agencies function or what they know. Wow, geez arm chair experts never fail to amaze me.



    OKAY THAT'S IT. I was going to reply to the rest until I see this

    "It was Israeli... which makes it a Zionist Jew platform".

    After the Faggot remark, now this. Look asshole. You can call the Israeli's whatever the hell you want, HOWEVER they are NOT the only jewish people in the world. When you say jews you are sluring an entire people, I've killed a fuck ton of muslims in my days, do you see me going around saying shit to innocent muslims hell no and sluring their race because of a few fanatics

    You can say ISREALI there is literally no reason why you have to say "Jew". I am done with you.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 8237
    Points : 8321
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 6 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  PapaDragon on Wed Mar 14, 2018 11:46 am


    I hate to play mod here but looks like this place has gone way off topic again.

    Can we go back to talking about Boreis?

    I really like those subs and I hate when I click on comment links on this tread only to find poop flinging about AShM and Navy size...
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 1475
    Points : 1467
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 6 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Wed Mar 14, 2018 4:04 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    I hate to play mod here but looks like this place has gone way off topic again.

    Can we go back to talking about Boreis?

    I really like those subs and I hate when I click on comment links on this tread only to find poop flinging about AShM and Navy size...

    In regards to the sub the concept is iffy. Because if you have no intention of hiding the submarines and don't care who knows where they are you can honestly just use ships to do that.

    While I don't agree with some of what Peri said, economically speaking it does make little sense to keep those old subs running to have a job you could merely have ships do in it's place if honestly, you do not care about detection

    The point of turning a sub into an arsenal ship would be you want it to sneak it's way close and fire a surprise salvo, for this, the Delta's are to old, they are easily found.

    I think russia could benefit from some Arenal subs but they need to be able to hide if they plan to do that with subs.

    Another thing papa you need to realize the Oscar's that are undergoing modernization. Can fire their missiles at land target and they have around 80, so I mean technically you do have your arsenal ships.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3771
    Points : 3759
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 6 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  Isos on Wed Mar 14, 2018 4:34 pm

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    I hate to play mod here but looks like this place has gone way off topic again.

    Can we go back to talking about Boreis?

    I really like those subs and I hate when I click on comment links on this tread only to find poop flinging about AShM and Navy size...

    In regards to the sub the concept is iffy. Because if you have no intention of hiding the submarines and don't care who knows where they are you can honestly just use ships to do that.

    While I don't agree with some of what Peri said, economically speaking it does make little sense to keep those old subs running to have a job you could merely have ships do in it's place if honestly, you do not care about detection

    The point of turning a sub into an arsenal ship would be you want it to sneak it's way close and fire a surprise salvo, for this, the Delta's are to old, they are easily found.

    I think russia could benefit from some Arenal subs but they need to be able to hide if they plan to do that with subs.

    Another thing papa you need to realize the Oscar's that are undergoing modernization. Can fire their missiles at land target and they have around 80, so I mean technically you do have your arsenal ships.

    I agree on your first part about but not about Oscars. If this scenario happens which basically means US/Russia war, Oscars would be used to send massive attacks on carriers, that's what they where build for and the crews is trained for that. Same for Yasens.

    An arsenal ship should be a ship designed for this role. Not a ship that was designed for something else.
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 1475
    Points : 1467
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 6 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Wed Mar 14, 2018 4:37 pm

    Isos wrote:
    SeigSoloyvov wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    I hate to play mod here but looks like this place has gone way off topic again.

    Can we go back to talking about Boreis?

    I really like those subs and I hate when I click on comment links on this tread only to find poop flinging about AShM and Navy size...

    In regards to the sub the concept is iffy. Because if you have no intention of hiding the submarines and don't care who knows where they are you can honestly just use ships to do that.

    While I don't agree with some of what Peri said, economically speaking it does make little sense to keep those old subs running to have a job you could merely have ships do in it's place if honestly, you do not care about detection

    The point of turning a sub into an arsenal ship would be you want it to sneak it's way close and fire a surprise salvo, for this, the Delta's are to old, they are easily found.

    I think russia could benefit from some Arenal subs but they need to be able to hide if they plan to do that with subs.

    Another thing papa you need to realize the Oscar's that are undergoing modernization. Can fire their missiles at land target and they have around 80, so I mean technically you do have your arsenal ships.

    I  agree on your first part about but not about Oscars. If this scenario happens which basically means US/Russia war, Oscars would be used to send massive attacks on carriers, that's what they where build for and the crews is trained for that. Same for Yasens.

    An arsenal ship should be a ship designed for this role. Not a ship that was designed for something else.

    It was stated these arsenal ships would be attacking third world countries, not the US.....so I responded with that mentality in mind.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3771
    Points : 3759
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 6 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  Isos on Wed Mar 14, 2018 4:39 pm

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:
    kvs wrote:BTW, the so-called "inaccurate" old Soviet missiles are only so because they were not designed for the electronic warfare of later
    decades.   Be sure that modern Russian missiles have the latest counter EW technology.   One that Yankistanis are not even aware
    of.   Science does not happen on Wall Street.

    Sure russian missiles these days modern ones are very accurate, indeed. My statement was the older ones Garry was going on about where inaccurate like most missiles of that era where

    They were nuclear armed missile, idem for the torpedos. 1 of them could actually destroy a carrier group if the ships were near the carrier.
    Kimppis
    Kimppis

    Posts : 603
    Points : 603
    Join date : 2014-12-23

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 6 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  Kimppis on Wed Mar 14, 2018 4:39 pm

    Anatoly Karlin: Russia's Technological Backwardness

    As much as I hate to admit it, Vann is probably onto something lol.

    So yeah, trigger warning and all that. But the author is not a Russophobe, quite the opposite and the article is overall pretty nuanced and fair.

    So which of these stories best reflects the real state of Russian science and technology?

    The one in which a technologically adept elite are seriously driving the development of things like strong AI and pondering on its world-historical consequences – or the one in which a clique of kleptocrats pay lip service to innovation while skimming off even the modest resources they bother investing into science and technology?

    Scientific papers:
    The Soviet Union in 1986 produced around 7.6% of the world’s scientific articles. In the wake of the brain drain and financial collapse in the wake of the USSR’s dissolution, this figure plummeted to below 3% by the mid-1990s and below 2% by the mid-2000s. It was only in 2014 that Russia’s relative standing began to recover.

    However, with 73,000 articles published in 2016, Russia remains far below the United States (602,000) and China (471,000), as well the bigger European countries like the UK (183,000), Germany (166,000), and France (113,000). As the 13th most scientifically productive country in the world, it is wedged in between South Korea and Brazil. This is true across the board. For instance, even in the sphere where Russia does best, in the Soviet mainstay of “Physics and Astronomy”, it is still only fourth in the world with 23,000 articles, well behind both China (79,000) and the United States (59,000).

    Despite modest improvements since 2012, Russia remains a complete minnow, accounting for well less than 1% of elite global scientific research. It is worth noting that it lags China not only absolutely, but in per capita terms as well. In total, Russia produces as much elite level science as does Singapore, Belgium… and the University of Cambridge.

    R&D, Personnel and Equipment:
    Russia spends a relatively low but far from catastrophic 1.1% of its GDP on R&D, which is similar to the Mediterranean and Visegrad countries.

    Many explanations have been proposed as to why Russian science has been in an unending death spiral. Some of the more ideological works cite factors such as the lack of democracy and human rights, and its estrangement from the West – as if Yeltsin’s Russia was a fount of innovation (or democracy, for that matter), while the scientific explosion in modern day China is a mirage (not to mention countless historical counterexamples, e.g. the most scientifically dynamic country in the world prior to World War I was authoritarian Wilhelmine Germany).

    No, the real reasons are much more banal: Money, or rather the lack thereof.

    Russia’s performance is… rather underwhelming – its measly 0.6% global share of the world’s top 500 supercomputers is equivalent to Switzerland, and lower than that of Sweden, Ireland, and Saudi Arabia.

    Nor are the trends anything encouraging. While there was an uptick in Russia’s numbers of top 500 supercomputers to around 2% of the world total around 2010-2011, those figures have been dwindling ever since.


    And this next one is just ridiculous. WTF RUSSIA!?!?
    According to an exhaustive study of global academic salaries published in 2012, the average Russian academic received 2-4x less money than his equivalents in Visegrad, the Baltics, and even Kazakhstan, and an order of magnitude less than in the developed world.

    Finally, it would be amiss not to mention the astounding prevalence of corruption in Russian academia.

    The Russian plagiarism detection project Dissernet has found improper borrowing in around 4% of all the dissertations defended in Russia.

    However, consider the case of the Ingush. They produced six times fewer scientists per capita than Russians during the less corrupt Soviet period; today, their homeland is the highest unemployment, most subsidized region in Russia. And yet today, they somehow manage to have the highest concentration of postgrads per capita in all of Russia, around 50% more than in second-place Moscow.

    Commercialization:
    Russia’s performance in patent applications isn’t too bad by global standards – comparable in per capita terms to the UK and France, much higher than in the BRICS minus China.

    But you can’t realize ideas without money, and despite growing by leaps and bounds in the past decade, the Russian venture capital industry remains tiny from a global perspective.

    In 2016, VC funding in Russia (€295 million) was at the level of Ireland (€367 million) and Finland (€324 million) in absolute terms, though a bit above sluggish and overly bureaucratic Italy (€162 million).

    This expresses itself across the entire range of the hi-tech sphere, but we will just focus on one of the most important and “hip” applications.

    It accounts for 13 of Europe’s estimated 409 AI startups as of mid-2017…… or just 0.7% of the world’s 1951 total. Russia is once again in the company of countries like Sweden, Finland, and Switzerland, who have less than 10% of its population.

    Robotics and Machine Tools:
    Russia’s (total!) figures are slightly higher than in Slovenia, but lower than in Slovakia. In per capita terms, the rate of robotization per worker in Russia in Russia hovers between that of India and Iran, and is far behind middle-income industrial countries like Turkey, Brazil, and Mexico, to say nothing of a China fast gallivanting its way up to the levels of its super-automated East Asian peers.

    Although they diverge somewhat in their assessments, the underlying picture is clear – only around 500 industrial robots are introduced into Russian industry per year as of 2014, accounting for a dismal 0.25% of the global total. This is about thrice less even than Brazil’s 1,300, and two orders of magnitude lower than in China, where 57,000 were sold in the same year. It is likewise highly unlikely that Russia saw any improvements since 2014, considering that this was when it fell into a two year recession.

    As you might expect, the lists of countries that dominate industrial robots and machine tools production – Japan, Korea, the Germanic lands, Italy, and increasingly, China – are highly similar. Russia is not an exception, accounting for just 0.6% of world machine tool production.

    The Russian Federation also massively lags even the late USSR. As an autarkic military-industrial empire, the USSR understood the necessity of being able to make the machines that make all the other machines, bequeathing the Russian Federation with 2.8 million machine tools in 1992 upon its dissolution. Since then, that machine tool stock has inexorably depreciated, and as of 2013 constituted just 760,000 pieces, with the average age almost doubling from 12 years to 21 years.

    Conclusion, Some Positives and Reasons for Optimism:
    Since the end of the USSR, it has become clear that a chasm has opened up in in terms of scientific and technological output between Russia and the developed West.

    This video juxtaposing the lumbering Robot Fedor versus the agile Atlas built by Boston Dynamics seems like a good metaphor for what is perhaps the single biggest failure of Putinism in the past 18 years. [Won't even bother linking it, the point is clear enough, and I think many here remember Fedor.]

    In comparison, any successes or failures in the Middle Eastern military adventures that pundits and commenters obsess over are basically irrelevant.

    The government has a strategic goal to get five of its universities into the global top 100 by 2020, to which end it has lavished significantly greater funding on its 21 most prospective universities. Consequently, academic salaries have greatly improved since 2013, at least in the elite institutions.

    There’s no very obvious reasons why Russia can’t succeed more at science. The average IQ relative to British norms is around 97, which might fall significantly short of Germanic and Anglo-Saxon (native!) averages, but isn’t really out of place relative to Mediterranean or East-Central European standards. Moreover, there are signs that Russia continues to enjoy a Flynn Effect, and besides, surely any minor disadvantage with respect to raw IQs is cancelled out by Russia’s traditionally very strong performance in international programming and mathematics contests.

    Meanwhile, as regards industry, it is worth pointing out that Russia does consume around 2.7% of the world’s machine tools – it is, after all, the world’s eighth (or so) manufacturing power, not the gas station masquerading as a country of John McCain’s imagination. Infrastructure – roads, rail, airports – has genuinely gotten much better in the past decade, and with post-Soviet inflation finally tamed, Russia looks set for fairly vigorous growth.

    But the problems holding Russia back are severe, and possibly intractable.

    There remain strong financial and ultimately institutional barriers to unlocking Russia’s scientific potential. Putin and his clique seem to prefer lavishing resources on status-signalling sporting events and white elephants as opposed to serious science and supercomputers. The former burnishes his prestige amongst simple people and provides endless opportunities to siphon away money to his Ozero chums – the latest lunatic project is to built a bridge for $10 billion to Sakhalin and its 500,000 people (a contract won by Arkady Rotenberg – who else?), which is about what the federal government spends on the Ministry of Education in a year – while the latter will only cause political trouble.

    Ending corruption within academia would likewise seem a quixotic endeavor. While one can say much more on this topic, consider that PhD’s are no less a status symbol for the Russian elites than Mercedes cars and English boarding schools for their children. High-flyers found to have plagiarized their doctoral dissertations include no less than one in every nine members of the State Duma, and for that matter, Vladimir Putin himself. Waiting for these people to solve the problem of academic fraud is about as realistic as expecting them to solve corruption, or training foxes to guard hen houses. Nor is it possible to imagine a serious response to ethnic nepotism in academia in the land of Article 282, where you can be prosecuted just for arguing that the Caucasian republics should get fewer federal subsidies.

    Finally, the absurdly low levels of robotization in industry raise serious questions about Russia’s political economy and its economic future. Why are Russian businesses loth to make serious moves towards automation in industry, even though Russia is, despite everything, a reasonably high IQ and well educated country? Is it because these require big capital investments that they are not willing to risk because of what they perceive as Russia’s environment of legal nihilism? It is correlated with Russian elites being the most apatride of any major civilization?

    Now this is not to say that the problem is with the Putin regime and that its removal will improve things. The pro-Western liberal elites are at least as rapacious as the kremlins, no less authoritarian in spirit, and far less patriotic to boot. Although this post was primarily about Russia, feel free to go back through the hyperlinks and study the case of the Ukraine, where liberal “lustrators” have repeatedly won; it might as well be Sub-Saharan Africa so far as advanced science, native hi-tech (as opposed to offshored work), and any sort of capital-intensive manufacturing that wasn’t bequeathed to it by the USSR is concerned. Even the Visegrad and Baltic nations don’t have much to write home about. While most of them – especially, Czechia, Estonia, and Poland – do substantially better than Russia on most of these metrics, they still hugely lag the developed West and have been left behind in the dust by the Chinese juggernaut.

    I don’t propose any great over-arching solution to these problems. “More money for RAN, less money for the Rotenbergs” might be a nice slogan, but as they say, the devil is in the details.

    However, a solid start would be to look at the statistics and acknowledge that a very big problem exists, which, unresolved, will continue to degrade Russia’s economic, industrial, and eventually military competitiveness.

    This isn't the full article, some interesting charts there as well. And I have to add that some of those trends are quite clearly positive, which was a positive surprise for me, it's just that things have began to improve only recently. As an example, Russia's share of the Nature Index was 0.6% as recently as in 2012, and despite all the... events since 2014 (or maybe because of them?), the share had incresed to above 0.8% by the end of 2017.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3771
    Points : 3759
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 6 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  Isos on Wed Mar 14, 2018 4:41 pm


    It was stated these arsenal ships would be attacking third world countries, not the US.....so I responded with that mentality in mind.

    Well, Russian army doesn't accept ships that are made to fight some guys with Ak in the desert ...
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 1475
    Points : 1467
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 6 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Wed Mar 14, 2018 5:01 pm

    Isos wrote:
    SeigSoloyvov wrote:
    kvs wrote:BTW, the so-called "inaccurate" old Soviet missiles are only so because they were not designed for the electronic warfare of later
    decades.   Be sure that modern Russian missiles have the latest counter EW technology.   One that Yankistanis are not even aware
    of.   Science does not happen on Wall Street.

    Sure russian missiles these days modern ones are very accurate, indeed. My statement was the older ones Garry was going on about where inaccurate like most missiles of that era where

    They were nuclear armed missile, idem for the torpedos. 1 of them could actually destroy a carrier group if the ships were near the carrier.

    the intensity of nuclear weapons is greatly reduced at sea, if you would like a crash course on this. At some point, I can go over the science with you.
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 4701
    Points : 4820
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 6 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  kvs on Wed Mar 14, 2018 5:41 pm

    I publish scientific papers for a living and Karlin is a blowhard. Most publications are superficial junk. In all science fields.
    This is due to the fact that number of publications counts for more than quality of publications for funding. Until Karlin
    applies a quality weighting to his "quantification" it means precisely f*ck all.

    This paper BS is consistent with Karlin's eugenics style beliefs about IQ characterization of whole societies. So he ranks
    Asians 1st, western Europeans 2nd and Russians 3rd for intelligence based on some dubious IQ data (I will not get into
    how country wide IQ could even be determined given all the different sampling biases). Asians are all obsessed with
    education and this makes them look real smart. But this is nothing than a cultural pathology. For hundreds of years
    the most accessible way to prosper in China was to join the bureaucracy. There were very difficult exams to get into
    it given the millions trying. So Chinese get pushed into education early on by their parents and the pressure to get a
    degree is vastly higher than for Caucasians.

    In spite of all the throngs of Chinese going into research in all fields, the per capita quality of these researchers is not
    top of the world. A lot of these researchers are not doing research because they love it. Like in the case of Caucasians.
    They got their through family and cultural pressure and are often mediocre researchers. I am not saying Chinese are
    inferior, I am saying that the sort of self-filtering that occurs with Caucasians is missing. Pulling all nighters to barely
    pass exams is not world class academic achievement. Karlin does not grasp these details because he is not in academia
    and is some random blogger who puts out a lot of dubious analysis couched in a faux rigorous academic style. His analysis
    of ballot fraud during the 2011 elections is a case in point. Some liberast wankers used vote distribution "anomalies" to
    argue for large scale fraud. But their analysis was mathematical BS. There are vote distribution variations from station
    to station. Only in the national aggregate do you get numbers consistent with polling (polling is a national scale sampling
    to start with).

    The yapping about Russian academic salaries is just inane. It was an issue during the 1990s and early 2000s, but researchers
    made money well above their salaries by using contracts. (In Canada and the USA principal investigators cannot draw pay
    from their grants/contracts, in Russia they can). Today, there is much more money in Russian research but the nominal
    salaries have not gone up that much. So once again, Karlin is cherry picking to prove his bogus claims. Karlin also thinks
    like the typical westerner (he is one). He believes that Russians put out only for money. If that was true then the whole
    Russian defense industry would have disappeared during the 1990s. Instead rocket development, for example, proceeded
    through work of people who barely got paid. These engineers and technicians put out for patriotic reasons and not selfish
    ones. A lot of Russian researchers ran off to the west during the 1990s but not all of them. This brain drain stopped under
    Putin and actually even partly reversed during the 2000s. So Karlin is blowing smoke out of his a**.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3771
    Points : 3759
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 6 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  Isos on Wed Mar 14, 2018 8:54 pm

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:
    Isos wrote:
    SeigSoloyvov wrote:
    kvs wrote:BTW, the so-called "inaccurate" old Soviet missiles are only so because they were not designed for the electronic warfare of later
    decades.   Be sure that modern Russian missiles have the latest counter EW technology.   One that Yankistanis are not even aware
    of.   Science does not happen on Wall Street.

    Sure russian missiles these days modern ones are very accurate, indeed. My statement was the older ones Garry was going on about where inaccurate like most missiles of that era where

    They were nuclear armed missile, idem for the torpedos. 1 of them could actually destroy a carrier group if the ships were near the carrier.

    the intensity of nuclear weapons is greatly reduced at sea, if you would like a crash course on this. At some point, I can go over the science with you.

    If the ships are 2 or 3 km around the carrier the blast will probably kill the crew. Once the crew is no more the ship can be considered as destroyed. It would be contaminated by the nuclear blast and nno more usable.

    If it is fired above the sea the explosion will be normal. Why would it be reduced ? You mean maybe for torpedo and Under sea explosion ?
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21769
    Points : 22315
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 6 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Wed Mar 14, 2018 10:58 pm

    I would say if they are underfunding R&D they must have some of the most capable engineers in the world... how many baltic states are making 5th gen stealth fighters and new generation stealth bombers and hypersonic missiles of all types?

    And all things being equal I suspect his logic is therefore flawed because it fails a simple common sense test...
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4913
    Points : 4943
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 6 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed Mar 14, 2018 11:07 pm

    Kimppis wrote:Anatoly Karlin: Russia's Technological Backwardness


    http://www.unz.com/masthead/#mission-statement
    For decades I have spent a couple of hours every morning carefully reading The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and several other major newspapers. But although such a detailed study of the American mainstream media is a necessary condition for remaining informed about our world, it is not sufficient. With the rise of the Internet and the alternative media, every thinking individual has increasingly recognized that there exist enormous lacunae in what our media tells us and disturbing patterns in what is regularly ignored or concealed.


    [u]About Anatoly Karlin
    te]]I am a blogger, thinker, and businessman in the SF Bay Area. I’m originally from Russia, spent many years in Britain, and studied at U.C. Berkeley.

    One of my tenets is that ideologies tend to suck. As such, I hesitate about attaching labels to myself. That said, if it’s really necessary, I suppose “liberal-conservative neoreactionary” would be close enough.

    Though I consider myself part of the Orthodox Church, my philosophy and spiritual views are more influenced by digital physics, Gnosticism, and Russian cosmism than anything specifically Judeo-Christian.


    Somebody who lives by choice in USA writes "articles like that: Anatoly Karlin: Punishing Putler, seems to be a liberal scum having little ot say about current Russia and his knowledge is based on US media and Russian in 90s. When there was "democratic" governance Smile

    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4913
    Points : 4943
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 6 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed Mar 14, 2018 11:30 pm

    GarryB wrote:I would say if they are underfunding R&D they must have some of the most capable engineers in the world... how many baltic states are making 5th gen stealth fighters and new generation stealth bombers and hypersonic missiles of all types?

    And all things being equal I suspect his logic is therefore flawed because it fails a simple common sense test...

    Well Russia is spending fairly little for funding applied research to "civil" industry. Military part since Putin's get to power was really sufficiently focused and funded judging by results.


    Russia seems to lack so called venture capital (VC). Not because is baad but there was not enough push form top in terms of taxes, financial instruments and sources of financing. All those legla, personal changes for Putin's team IMHO are about to make it run in medium term.



    Second - markets: you can have best product in the world but you can still bankrupt if you cannot sell it then somebody does same thing on scale, with bigger bigger market. Economy of scale makes product cheaper and seller can invest more in development. Look on microelectronics to have example.


    Third increasing % of civilian products in military hi tech companies are to IMHO increase transfer of hi tech to industry.



    Why VC and stock exchanges are needed? Generally companies need money to grow. Fast. Borrowing from banks is more efficient then waiting to accumulate on your own. But most effective to scale up your company is VC/Stock exchange. Time is very important factor here. You get late somebody else will take niche for your product. And without strong help for technology companies it wont start. I am no oligarch but as I can see oligarchs form 90s have no idea how to make any technological companies. They stick to whet they've stolen. No risky movements.

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21769
    Points : 22315
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 6 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Thu Mar 15, 2018 1:07 am

    BTW, the so-called "inaccurate" old Soviet missiles are only so because they were not designed for the electronic warfare of later
    decades.

    Accuracy is not related to countermeasures... a sniper rifle does not become inaccurate because the target is wearing body armour.

    And the Soviet missiles tended to be used by third parties usually rather a long period after being obsolete in Russian service...

    Sure russian missiles these days modern ones are very accurate, indeed. My statement was the older ones Garry was going on about where inaccurate like most missiles of that era where

    Hahahaha... nice... I am not biased... all Americans during WWII were cowards, but I am not biased because some new Americans are OK...

    So why did the US Navy bother with AEGIS... I mean after all the best Soviet missile at the time on their only aircraft carriers of the time... enormous supersonic monsters... they were inaccurate...  because someone on the internet says they were.

    1. You said carrier GROUP meaning all the ships with it, learn English my god.

    No I didn't... I can requote what I said here:

    You said they had 12 and not 16 missiles and I replied:

    Hilarious... you finally actually look up figures and then come with the Soviet missiles were inaccurate really... really?

    12 missiles means twelve sunk US ships... they had nothing that could even look like stopping such missiles... except denial.

    12 missiles means twelve sunk US ships... go up to the post and read it again... and everything around it... so there is no misunderstanding...

    Ah right there "Russian and Soviet equipment and don't really give a shit about american and western weapons" you realize you just proved my entire point,

    What entire point?

    Russia is bad?

    I am not anti Russian but Russians are bad genetically and don't know how to be good or make good things.... etc etc.

    I am here because I am interested in Soviet and Russian weapons and military... perhaps we can agree I am in the right place and you really need to think about why you are even here...

    I know this garry you never used a gun in combat, never fought in an actual battle, you never served,

    Yes, I never murdered anyone for my government, you are right in this case... but the fact that you have gone to third world countries and murdered people whose main crime was defending their own country does that make you an expert on Russian and Soviet weapons?

    you never did anything but read shit on the internet and you only read one side...

    Actually not being able to read Russian the only side I have read for most of my life was the wrong side... but I learned to pick their deceptions and spin and realised I was being lied to very early on... which is why I don't listen to CNN or the BBC anymore.

    your opinion at that point is biased and isn't worth a rat's ass of time...You see Garry when you are biased it makes you blind, it makes you stupid. By your own admission, you told me you don't know about western equipment.

    There you go again son... didn't they teach you to read proper on the front line killing all dem gooks... I didn't say I didn't know anything about western shit... I said I wasn't interested in it... the difference would get you killed on the front line if you ever served...   clown

    Now Garry thank you for confirming what I said. Which is you are a fanboy who "expert" opinion comes from internet articles.

    I predate the internet... son.  pirat

    Western agencies btw? hahaha buddy you dn't know shit about western agencies you just some guy behind his computer screen and you think you know how intelligence agencies function or what they know. Wow, geez arm chair experts never fail to amaze me.

    But it was Russian hackers that did it and aren't they fanbois that are arm chair experts sitting behind a computer screen...

    After the Faggot remark, now this. Look asshole. You can call the Israeli's whatever the hell you want, HOWEVER they are NOT the only jewish people in the world. When you say jews you are sluring an entire people, I've killed a fuck ton of muslims in my days, do you see me going around saying shit to innocent muslims hell no and sluring their race because of a few fanatics

    You can say ISREALI there is literally no reason why you have to say "Jew". I am done with you.

    Again western ignorance... there are a shit ton of jews who think the whole idea of Israel is bad and only creates more problems for Jews around the world... are they wrong?

    Israel is supposed to be a safe haven... a place where jews are safe from persecution for being jews... and in a sense it is, but in practical terms is a source of a lot of hate directed at all jews and is certainly by no measure safe... more so for non jews actually.

    Therefore when I mention jews I prefer to specify the zionist sect, as opposed to the non zionists who actually want peace. again to be clear zionist jews want peace too, but only with all opposition dead... which of course can never happen but they are not smart jews... just good at using force to get what they want.

    The amusing thing is that you could be a zionist jew... they have killed a fuck ton of muslims too... they are very good at it... very practised... the west even think it is the muslims fault the zionist jews are killing them... hahaha... Hitler would be jealous... he should have fired Gobbels and hired some jews... if the money was right they probably would have done it...

    I hate to play mod here but looks like this place has gone way off topic again.

    Good point... will be pruning away the crap shortly.

    While I don't agree with some of what Peri said, economically speaking it does make little sense to keep those old subs running to have a job you could merely have ships do in it's place if honestly, you do not care about detection

    There are degrees of detection... for Syria or any african or central or south american and most asian countries a sub is a very very difficult target... even a WWII sub...

    The point of turning a sub into an arsenal ship would be you want it to sneak it's way close and fire a surprise salvo, for this, the Delta's are to old, they are easily found.

    By whom?

    Make a list of all the countries able to easily detect a Delta IV class sub 1,000km off their coast... now cross off that list all the countries Russia is not likely going to attack with an arsenal ship... ie UK, US, France, NATO countries, China, Japan, etc and you will find all the countries you wrote down are crossed off...


    Another thing papa you need to realize the Oscar's that are undergoing modernization. Can fire their missiles at land target and they have around 80, so I mean technically you do have your arsenal ships.

    they aren't arsenal ships... they are anti carrier group ships.

    the intensity of nuclear weapons is greatly reduced at sea, if you would like a crash course on this. At some point, I can go over the science with you.

    IN the US the likelyhood of a nuclear exchange is low because they don't generally need to resort to nuclear weapons and most nuclear armed missiles have been withdrawn from US navy ships with the obvious exception of SLBMs.

    In the Russian Navy a nuclear exchange was expected early... even major SAMs like the SA-N-1 and SA-N-3 had nuclear armed missiles as a standard load out. the classic way to stop a swarm attack BTW... and of course all large surface to surface missiles also had about a quarter of the load with nuke warheads...

    The flash burns from an airburst 20Kt warhead would render most vessels nearby rather useless... radar antenna alone don't stand up well to being flash heated to several thousand degrees.
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 4701
    Points : 4820
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 6 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  kvs on Thu Mar 15, 2018 5:05 am

    No you are wrong. The intrinsic accuracy of ballistic missiles is very high. It is a NATO propaganda myth that Soviet missiles would
    miss the target by miles. This is unphysical BS. The gyroscopes and the rest of the guidance system produced during the 1960s were
    of the class that could put a space craft into a specific orbit. If you think this is trivial and requires no accuracy, then you are clueless.
    The primary error contributor to target impact is atmospheric effects. The guidance system tries to adjust for real time nonlinear interaction
    with error inducing atmospheric flow. It is impossible to avoid steering lag and the total flight time of the missile is short. So there are
    cumulative errors. American missiles were and are subject to the same physics.

    And EW does have a direct role here. Just as with aircraft, EM interference in the guidance system of missiles, which does involve more
    than just mechanical or laser gyros and has circuits (IC or not is irrelevant), is real.

    It is sad to see all the CEP propaganda parroting. Every parrot just repeats the propaganda without any clue of its intrinsic BS.
    Kimppis
    Kimppis

    Posts : 603
    Points : 603
    Join date : 2014-12-23

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 6 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  Kimppis on Thu Mar 15, 2018 1:42 pm

    First of all, he does apply it for quality weighting: "But if Russia’s raw research output is nothing to write home about, it diminishes to near irrelevance when adjusted for quality." The language barrier/cultural barries/NATO propaganda arguments also might work to some small extent, but the fact is that China is alrady number 2 and rapidly catching up.

    When it comes to IQ, I think Karlin worded it quite weirdly in the article. I guess he just presented it as a potential explanation for Russia's current limitations in technology. I think his general view is that Russia actually has high average IQs and it's a strength for Russia. So really, the difference between China (around 105), Western Europe (around 100) and Russia (97, so really: around 100) is actually quite small and they all have high, first world level IQs. I quote: "There’s no very obvious reasons why Russia can’t succeed more at science." Btw, he has also pointed out quite a few times that it's possible that the "real" Chinese IQs are closer to 100 than 105 because East Asians (Japan, Korea...) seem to be "less curious" or whatever, but it doesn't matter too much, they're high either way. So he's aware of that argument.

    And I think he actually agrees that there has not been a lot brain drain since the early to mid-2000s. He obviously doesn't want these problems to be true, so I'll just quote this again:

    However, a solid start would be to look at the statistics and acknowledge that a very big problem exists, which, unresolved, will continue to degrade Russia’s economic, industrial, and eventually military competitiveness.

    =========================

    Garry, he actually mentions that Baltic states are not doing much better. It's interesting actually. Western Europe, Canada, Australia, the US and East Asia seem to be positive outliers. So while countries like Czechia, Spain and Italy have high to very high living standards, they are clearly doing worse in science, for whatever reason.

    Naturally the Russian MIC is one of its biggest strengths, while Baltic states and really other Eastern European countries are too small to develop 5th generation fighters. As I also pointed out on the Su-57 thread, the delays, especially if those reports about "two squadrons by mid-20s" turn out to be true, might in all honesty be an indication of those problems that Karlin is talking about.

    Russia's total R&D spending in PPP is quite high (like 5th or 6th largest in the world), but its GDP share (slightly above 1%), while actually above the global average, is still lower than in the "West" and East Asia (2%+), and again: that is weirdly the case I think basically everywhere in Southern and Eastern Europe, including Spain and Italy. Why?

    =========================

    GunshipDemocracy, I think Karlin is actually kind of criticizing The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal there. Smile

    He lives in Moscow currently: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/go-back-to-russia/
    The only reason he ever lived in the West was the the Soviet collapse and the ensuing brain drain. His parents had to move, because the Russian state couldn't afford to pay them high enough salaries.

    That Putler thing is an obvious joke as well, a meme, if you will. "Putler" just basically describes the Western image of Putin. The article itself is really good, IMO, it shows that there's not a lot that the UK (or even the West as a whole) can realistically do to hurt Russia. He's also writing a book called "The Dark Lord of the Kremlin", IIRC, and the whole purpose of the book is to criticize Western elite's and MSM's narrative on Russia. I recommend you read this: http://akarlin.com/2009/07/top-50-russophobe-myths/ (Admittedly the article is a little outdated.)

    So Karlin is no Russophobe, very much the opposite in fact. But his views are pretty nuanced and I guess kind of surprising to certain audiences. He describes himself as a "Russian nationalist", and he is going to vote for Zhironovsky. Karlin is no fan of Navalny or Sobchak, don't worry about that. Also liberal in the Russian and especially Russian historical context is not the same thing as in today's West. I think Putin is also quite liberal by Russian and older Western (even going back only 20-30 years) standards.

    Also people: no ad hominems, don't shoot the messenger and all that. There are also positives in that article, some quite encouraging trends and reasons for optimism.
    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 3783
    Points : 3763
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 6 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  miketheterrible on Thu Mar 15, 2018 4:07 pm

    Kimppis wrote:First of all, he does apply it for quality weighting: "But if Russia’s raw research output is nothing to write home about, it diminishes to near irrelevance when adjusted for quality." The language barrier/cultural barries/NATO propaganda arguments also might work to some small extent, but the fact is that China is alrady number 2 and rapidly catching up.

    When it comes to IQ, I think Karlin worded it quite weirdly in the article. I guess he just presented it as a potential explanation for Russia's current limitations in technology. I think his general view is that Russia actually has high average IQs and it's a strength for Russia. So really, the difference between China (around 105), Western Europe (around 100) and Russia (97, so really: around 100) is actually quite small and they all have high, first world level IQs. I quote: "There’s no very obvious reasons why Russia can’t succeed more at science." Btw, he has also pointed out quite a few times that it's possible that the "real" Chinese IQs are closer to 100 than 105 because East Asians (Japan, Korea...) seem to be "less curious" or whatever, but it doesn't matter too much, they're high either way. So he's aware of that argument.

    And I think he actually agrees that there has not been a lot brain drain since the early to mid-2000s. He obviously doesn't want these problems to be true, so I'll just quote this again:

    However, a solid start would be to look at the statistics and acknowledge that a very big problem exists, which, unresolved, will continue to degrade Russia’s economic, industrial, and eventually military competitiveness.

    =========================

    Garry, he actually mentions that Baltic states are not doing much better. It's interesting actually. Western Europe, Canada, Australia, the US and East Asia seem to be positive outliers. So while countries like Czechia, Spain and Italy have high to very high living standards, they are clearly doing worse in science, for whatever reason.

    Naturally the Russian MIC is one of its biggest strengths, while Baltic states and really other Eastern European countries are too small to develop 5th generation fighters. As I also pointed out on the Su-57 thread, the delays, especially if those reports about "two squadrons by mid-20s" turn out to be true, might in all honesty be an indication of those problems that Karlin is talking about.

    Russia's total R&D spending in PPP is quite high (like 5th or 6th largest in the world), but its GDP share (slightly above 1%), while actually above the global average, is still lower than in the "West" and East Asia (2%+), and again: that is weirdly the case I think basically everywhere in Southern and Eastern Europe, including Spain and Italy. Why?

    =========================

    GunshipDemocracy, I think Karlin is actually kind of criticizing The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal there. Smile

    He lives in Moscow currently: http://www.unz.com/akarlin/go-back-to-russia/
    The only reason he ever lived in the West was the the Soviet collapse and the ensuing brain drain. His parents had to move, because the Russian state couldn't afford to pay them high enough salaries.

    That Putler thing is an obvious joke as well, a meme, if you will. "Putler" just basically describes the Western image of Putin. The article itself is really good, IMO, it shows that there's not a lot that the UK (or even the West as a whole) can realistically do to hurt Russia. He's also writing a book called "The Dark Lord of the Kremlin", IIRC, and the whole purpose of the book is to criticize Western elite's and MSM's narrative on Russia. I recommend you read this: http://akarlin.com/2009/07/top-50-russophobe-myths/ (Admittedly the article is a little outdated.)

    So Karlin is no Russophobe, very much the opposite in fact. But his views are pretty nuanced and I guess kind of surprising to certain audiences. He describes himself as a "Russian nationalist", and he is going to vote for Zhironovsky. Karlin is no fan of Navalny or Sobchak, don't worry about that. Also liberal in the Russian and especially Russian historical context is not the same thing as in today's West. I think Putin is also quite liberal by Russian and older Western (even going back only 20-30 years) standards.

    Also people: no ad hominems, don't shoot the messenger and all that. There are also positives in that article, some quite encouraging trends and reasons for optimism.

    You are once again making false equialenvences.

    Let me ask you a question, one we know you won't be able to answer correctly: how is it, that with the supposed "low R&D", have any connection to the production of Su-57? Especially when, the R&D is already completed?

    So where is exactly, is it that is holding Russia back on it's procurement of the Su-57 that ties to the funding of R&D?

    And if Russian IQ is less? Then how come Russia has more higher educated people and much more awards in international scientific and mathematic competitions than most other nations?

    It seems that Karlin is stating nothing but hot air, and only people with an IQ lower than that of Russians are buying into it. And since he is an LDPR fan if what you say is true (sorry, I don't take your word), I wouldnt take his word for much.

    Also, not saying your IQ is low. But let's be real here, KVS is spot on.
    Kimppis
    Kimppis

    Posts : 603
    Points : 603
    Join date : 2014-12-23

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 6 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  Kimppis on Thu Mar 15, 2018 4:28 pm

    I think I said that neither of those are low. Especially IQ. Russia IQs are high, as I said. Su-57 delays potentially indicate some problems: subsystems not being fully ready, problems with mass production. Again: just a possibility, would explain the delays and low production numbers, but who knows... It's the same situation with Armata.

    Sponsored content

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 6 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Sep 20, 2019 3:12 pm