Talking bollocks thread #4

PapaDragon wrote:

PhSt wrote:Is Roscosmos faring better before Rogozin took over?

Constant delays, cancellations and crashes

Such as?
Also define constant.

Gotta say PD

I had my money on you, but he got you pretty badly there. A nice verbal jab to the ribs to provoke you followed by a haymaker that took you outta the battle as soon as you lifted your head



..

Anyway Rogozin is a retard, pass it on.
The Kremlin's hitman and a blabbermouth extraordinaire that makes a mockery of the all the hard work people put in before him to construct relations with NASA, fix issues and everything else. He may be the public face, and the one who goes around confronting mid-managers for the cameras - but it's the silent, working, humble types who keep Roscosmos afloat and patch up its problems

Just the same with this Nauka saga. His decision to send it up. Then all the professionals both in Russia and in NASA started hurriedly collaborating to establish contact and try to resolve the problems with it, while Rogozin himself was busy receiving an award from the PM of Kazakhstan.

flamming_python wrote:
The Kremlin's hitman .... He may be the public face, and the one who goes around confronting mid-managers for the cameras - but it's the silent, working, humble types who keep Roscosmos afloat and patch up its problems

Agreed with this part, and that is what his position is all about, and should be all about. Rogozin is there to beat Roskosmos management into shape, and tear them a new one if they screw up and/or fail to meet expectations. From my POV, he is doing that, and the rate of fails have greatly diminished since he took charge.

We don't need to like him. We can even hate his guts if we so choose (as some clearly do). We should however admit that he is doing his job, and definite progress has been made. As long as Roskosmos continues on an upward path, I think he should keep his job. If there is a major fail that can be definitively pinned on him or his decisions/actions, then his position should be re-assessed (that's how senior management positions work) but design/technical failures are the responsibility of that projects PM layer, not the corporate managers.

RTN wrote:

Isos wrote:Sell it to a poor country like Venezuela or Argentina (that would piss off UK) for low price.

In any case, Russian export models are among the worst in the world, probably even worse than China's. Western governments do not export top of the line models. Diminished versions of local models are exported. Even then Western export models of military hardware are in orders of magnitude better than Russian export models.

To be fair no country exports top of the line gear, anything exported is very watered down on purpose.

In this case it's not really fair to compare export SU-30's to domestic US F-15's.

Export SU-30's can hold their own against export F-15's.

This is a tired cliche I see all the time from people, they do not understand the difference between export and domestic gear.

Like dessert storm T-72's those were all trash tier exports that lacked modern tech on purpose because thats how the Soviets did it. If you compared one of those T72's to one in the Soviet Center at that time, you'd see just how big and wide the performance gaps are., same goes for aircraft.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

RTN wrote:

Isos wrote:Sell it to a poor country like Venezuela or Argentina (that would piss off UK) for low price.

In any case, Russian export models are among the worst in the world, probably even worse than China's. Western governments do not export top of the line models. Diminished versions of local models are exported. Even then Western export models of military hardware are in orders of magnitude better than Russian export models.

To be fair no country exports top of the line gear, anything exported is very watered down on purpose.

In this case it's not really fair to compare export SU-30's to domestic US F-15's.

Export SU-30's can hold their own against export F-15's.

This is a tired cliche I see all the time from people, they do not understand the difference between export and domestic gear.

Like dessert storm T-72's those were all trash tier exports that lacked modern tech on purpose because thats how the Soviets did it. If you compared one of those T72's to one in the Soviet Center at that time, you'd see just how big and wide the performance gaps are., same goes for aircraft.

Depend also what you pay for.

The APFSDS iraqi bought were the shittiest possible. They coyld have had something better if they really wanted to. They also could have bought better optics but they didn't.

Export models are inferior to russian versions but are not shitty at all. If you buy the best possible and train soldier very well, they can be very good.

Egypt did very good with its stuff against israrli until bad decisions happened. SA-6 downed a lot of israeli planes and their atgm anhilated israeli tank divisions.

Most of the time russian clients lack training. Last time Venezuela needed russian help to use its s-300...

Hmm no they literally used training ammo against Abrams.

Also, the export versions did not come with sights and there were no options for them. Your knowledge on this subject is lacking, I suggest you do some research.

Last time when reality check was made, your brave eagles were skilled enough, to make a kill of M1A2 using M1002 practice shot from 2600m.






So I would not have been so sarcastic about Iraqis shooting at you with training round.

The bulk of Iraq's 125 mm ammo was 3WBM3 with 3BM-9 projectile, fielded in 1962.
And the best they had used to be a 3WBM-8 with 3BM-17 projectile from the early 70s, being monkey model of 3BM-15, lacking hardened slug, and serving as practice ammo indeed, for WarPac militaries.
Sure they shoot at you with training rounds, considering from this perspective.
Plus the Iraqi army in 2003 lacked everything but sand. Soldiers were hardly trained and keen on any action.

And what is the mastermind behind "lacking sights" would remain a mystery to everyone but you I guess.

The T-72's in DS did not have Thermal Sights they even lacked modern range finders

Oh, that incident you are taking that way out of context lol, Don't be one of those guys. Why do people gotta be so salty on this sight lol.

The Abrams wasn't targeting the other Abrams, that was a lie on your part. It's unknown what happened has the pentagon never said but its assumed the round bounced and hit the sides or rear of the other abrams.

The 120mm M1002 TPMP-T is capable of penetrating the sides of an abrams, the crew wasn't killed.

The ammo Iraq's had was training ammo incapable of penetrating the front armor of abrams.

None of this has anything to do with Kilos tho, So Imma end it here.

Of course, they lacked, and of course, they didn't.
Still, they had sights.
Monkey models 72Ms delivered from Poland, and Assad Babil with armor plates half the hardness of the WarPac standard should ring a bell, but hardly believe it does.
Going to discover the Murica again?
You will be 4th in a row.
Get used to it

George1 wrote:Τhis thread is for Kilo submarines, how we got to tanks discussion?  

Everything went to shit at Post n°615

Very easy to confuse the two

Is it a plane?
Is it a bird?
Is it a submarine?

I used to watch the commission debate of Australian parliament I guess when a committee member was asking an admiral about the project
She could not get the fact, that the way you move the sub has nothing to do with its overall capabilities
The only thing someone wrote her, was that the project pushed by the Australian Navy lacks "thruster", so cant sail
And those people are making decisions, imagine

Edit : reminded, the lady's name is Pauline Hanson, and it was "pump jet" agenda



Pure gold, lads

The ammo was described as training ammo by the Russians who were asked to comment about the poor performance of Iraqi troops against US forces.

They didn't mean they were actually using training ammo but that at the time (1990s) that their training ammo had better performance than the ammo the Iraqis had bought and were using.

Shifting to talking bollocks thread now...

I had a gut feeling that the crash would happen.
And I hope that those who planned forum presentation before the prototype testing was 100% complete would pay dearly for it.

https://aviationweek.com/air-transport/aircraft-propulsion/il-112-crash-affects-other-russian-aircraft-programs

Even if they won't get An-26 replacements in time, Mi-38/26s could be substituted, if need be.

Hopefully whatever court case comes out of it, many of the Navalny crew will get sued so hard that it wouldn't be worth doing what they do. And also block their ability to obtain funds from donations.

"The plane was designed with mistakes"

It's development been delayed for years & I suspect they lately rushed it, resulting in the crash.

Since some here can't read Russian, I translate the titles before posting them, not to hide anything. So stop insinuating anything.
Ur opinions may or may not be shared by others, so u better stop pushing it.