Talking bollocks thread #4

Yes, what a total bastard I am... except if that were true then this would be a blog and all the members would be banned because obviously they don't know as much as I do.

Good of you to finally speak up after following this forum for 10 years.

Still no introduction from you yet but you MiG-29 pilots are notorious for not doing the paperwork...

I have read widely for quite a number of years, if I have broad interests then I think that is to my credit rather than something to be criticised.

This is polluting a thread that is supposed to be about future Russian carriers and not what should or should not be called a MiG-33 so I will be doing a bit of weeding in the next few days... most of the weeds will go to the talking bollocks thread where they belong.

Who cares about the name seriously ? You are polluting the thread.

It's a mig-29 made for carrier use. It got improved and now they will probably go for Checkmate as their new carrier jet.

Mig should also stop with the 29 serie. Just design a anew plane.

Now you have computer and you can do all the design digitaly. It cost nothing. Then when it's ready build a real flying prototype. That's what sukhoi did and they taking all the contracts.

ARYGER wrote:Just forget it. He (the mighty GarryB) knows everything, no matter what subject; even in microbiology, aerodynamics, quantum physics; he has flown airplanes, has commanded, built and maintained ships and submarines, has driven tanks while he has loaded the gun, radioed and operated the gunner optics, baked cookies and cleaned his G36; Chuck Norris would turn green with envy; he is knowledgeable everywhere, he does not have to prove anything. It's HIS forum, no one is allowed to disagree (even if they can prove it) or argue against him. Good advice: Just enjoy the posts with news and pictures and let him have his playground.

Goodbye. Don't let the door hit your whiney little arse on the way out.

The way he talks for his first post makes me feel he is an old member that got banned by GarryB. Ehniee maybe ? Remember that guy hahah

Well I guess the truth is absolutely irrelevant!

Mig should also stop with the 29 serie. Just design a anew plane.

They have designed a new plane.

The way he talks for his first post makes me feel he is an old member that got banned by GarryB. Ehniee maybe ? Remember that guy hahah

I didn't ban Eehnie, and considering the enormous discussions we have had I can't see this person being an alternative account... only 3 posts?

Well I guess the truth is absolutely irrelevant!

With such an attitude it becomes self fulfilling...

If the truth stands against an opinion, it is very bad for the truth

The discussion can be continued here, I deleted nothing, and am hiding nothing... just removing off topic posts from a thread.

The truth doesn't change but its interpretation can change... what you are accusing me of is an opinion that never changes and assumes it is always right, but if that were true I would be deleting any alternative opinion and anything that goes against my views.

But I appreciate your frustration.

I guess even guys like these knows absolutely squat and belongs in the talking bollox thread when it comes to " the real facts".

What you don't seem to understand is that the names of such designs change when they enter service... the MiG-29M was a radical upgrade of the MiG-29.... with the M meaning modernisation of course, but in this case it was a radical upgrade so that if it had been accepted for service it probably would have been called MiG-33 or MiG-35.

It wasn't accepted for service so it remained the MiG-29M within the MiG bureau... the Russian AF don't care what it is called because they don't operate any.

If the MiG-29K had been accepted for service... the MiG-29K that was based on the MiG-29M where these are single seat only aircraft, it would likely have been called MiG-33. It was no accepted for service so they didn't call it MiG-33 but I refer to it occasionally as MiG-33 because that is a specific aircraft that is not the current MiG-29KR called MiG-29K in Naval service.

The Navy don't use MiG-29s AFAIK, so there was no need to change its designation to make it distinct. They did have half a dozen odd Su-27s in service so the Su-27K was called Su-33 in service.

The further upgraded MiG-29M which has a new cockpit having a two seat canopy on the single and twin seat models is different enough from all previous models in Russian AF service to be given a different name so they are called MiG-35s in Russian AF service.

Quite to the contrary I understand completely!

GarryB wrote:
The Navy don't use MiG-29s AFAIK, so there was no need to change its designation to make it distinct.

MiG-29K/KUB participated in a combat operation in Syria:

MiG-29K/KUB participated in a combat operation in Syria:

No, I mean they don't use land based previous version MiG-29s, so when they introduce the MiG-29K and MiG-29KUB they don't need to rename it so that it is clear they are different types.

The Navy did have a small number of Su-27s operational when they adopted the Su-27K so they called the Su-27K Su-33 to make it clear it is a carrier based fighter and not just a land based interceptor. They have also since adopted Su-30s, but didn't need to change their designations because they had no other aircraft already designated Su-30.

If they had introduced the original single seat MiG-29Ks that were based on the original single seat MiG-29M, like they had planned then if they just called them MiG-29Ks then these new MiG-29Ks and MiG-29KUBs would need to be redesignated as MiG-33 so they knew which version they were talking about.

If the original MiGs were called MiG-33s, then the new MiGs would probably be called MiG-37s or something.

At the moment we have problems talking about the MiG-29M and the MiG-29M because the designation is the same for two different aircraft, but for the Russian Navy it is fine because they don't need to mention the old MiG-29Ms because they don't have any, so when you talk about MiG-29M it means the current in service aircraft.

To make it easier to understand what I was talking about I referred to the old single seat MiG-29K as the MiG-33 because I assumed everyone would know what I meant, but some people... well...

How about I call the first single seat MiG-29M the prototype MiG-29M and the current model MiG-29M the service model MiG-29M/2...

GarryB wrote:
To make it easier to understand what I was talking about I referred to the old single seat MiG-29M as the MiG-33 because I assumed everyone would know what I meant, but some people... well...

Now how about that!

Mir wrote:

GarryB wrote:
To make it easier to understand what I was talking about I referred to the old single seat MiG-29M as the MiG-33 because I assumed everyone would know what I meant, but some people... well...

Now how about that!

I have fixed that... you were the one claiming the MiG-29M single seat model was called MiG-33, and when you mentioned it I pointed out I had seen in a Concord publication photo book on future Russian aircraft released in the 1990s called it MiG-33 but at the time the only reference to MiG-33 was the MiG-29K.

I have since corrected that mistake in my post above.

It was a thread about future Russian aircraft carriers... I was talking about the MiG-29K when I mentioned MiG-33, I would only mention MiG-29M because the MiG-29K is based on it.

And again I called it MiG-33 because that defines it as being the first MiG-29K not the current in service MiG-29K which is different.... obviously different as one is single seat only and the other has a twin seat canopy that can be fitted for one seat (MiG-29K) and two seats (MiG-29KUB).

GarryB wrote: you were the one claiming the MiG-29M single seat model was called MiG-33...

Not only me but the rest of the aviation world - even from RAF's own airforce.ru

МиГ-29М, он же 9.15 или МиГ-33, был первой попыткой провести глубокую модернизацию МиГ-29. Программа заглохла в 1993, последние несколько лет микояновцы делают МиГ-29М2 (9.25/МиГ-29MRCA/МиГ-35) вместо нее.
Прототипов МиГ-29М было 6 (б/н с 151 по 156), из них 154 переделан в прототип МиГ-29М2, а 156 - в МиГ-29ОВТ.

The MiG-29M, aka 9.15 or MiG-33, was the first attempt to carry out a deep modernization of the MiG-29. The program stalled in 1993, the last few years the Mikoyan people have been making MiG-29M2 (9.25/MiG-29MRCA/MiG-35) instead of it.
There were 6 MiG-29M prototypes (used from 151 to 156), of which 154 were converted into the MiG-29M2 prototype, and 156 into the MiG-29OVT.

Not to mention various other Russian sources that I've mentioned that apparently means absolutely nothing compared to GarryB.net.
You on the other hand has not produce a single shred of evidence to support your claim - nadda!  
Btw - Concord publication is a Western source which you should frown upon - as you've objected to me siting any Western sources.
Your entire argument* is based on something you may have seen in a Concord publication but you fail to produce any evidence of that claim at all!?
I would still like to see that "evidence" though.

GarryB wrote:I pointed out I had seen in a Concord publication photo book on future Russian aircraft released in the 1990s called it MiG-33 but at the time the only reference to MiG-33 was the MiG-29K.

You even used Migavia as the be all and know all of all the Mig-29 production variants. Well if you look closely you will see that they have missed a couple of major production variants - including the Mig-29S and the Mig-29SMT!  

GarryB wrote:Look at the MiG website... under the MiG-29 designation they show the MiG-29s they produced... the MiG-29M single seat plane that first flew in the late 1980s is NOT LISTED... and nor is the MiG-29K single seat carrier plane that is based on it... they were prototypes that never entered service so any designation they might use for it is either speculation in the west (ie calling the first MiG-29K the MiG-33) or proposed names by MiG, neither of which is not official till it is serial produced and they weren't.

Her is some more "facts" from the Migavia website >>  


PS: Important historical facts should not swept under the carpet (The Talking Bollox thread) just because it doesn't sit well with GarryB.net.

*Meaning of argument in this context:
1.: a statement or series of statements for or against something
2.: a discussion in which people express different opinions about something
a coherent series of reasons, statements, or facts intended to support or establish a point of view

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/argument

You seemed to have a problem with that?

GarryB wrote:No, this is not an argument, this is a discussion.

kvs wrote:

Arrow wrote:

kvs wrote:
Russia, has contrasted Washington's behaviour with respect to China and Iran.   It acts like it is more afraid of them than it is of Russia.
This is because ebil tyrant Putler behaves with decorum and we all know that nice guys finish last.   But it is not just Putin, it is the
Russian government in general.  

Yes, it's true that the US respects China or even Iran more.  Iran showed in January 2021 what it can do.  Putin is recognized in the US as a leader seeking a compromise by force in order to reach an agreement with the West. A This Russia is still a greater military power than China?

Yes.   Russia has way more nuclear missiles and much more advanced than China.   I always hear talk about China being ahead of Russia in military
tech.   This is fanboi masturbation.   All the gloating about some ASAT test a decade ago is absurd.

Especially considering the Russkies were the first to engage in ASAT tests '5' decades ago lol! Speaking about '5' decades, part of the reason why there's less respect for Russia's military capability is that there's been a multi-decades long psyops through TV/movies/videogames to demonize the Russian military, just look at the laughably idiotic Call of Duty franchise. So the mere idea of the flea-ridden verminous Western media not reporting the monumental fact that Russian ICBM's are no less than '5' decades more advanced than the US ICBM counterparts is just par for the course.

kvs wrote:Yes. Russia has way more nuclear missiles and much more advanced than China. I always hear talk about China being ahead of Russia in military tech. This is fanboi masturbation. All the gloating about some ASAT test a decade ago is absurd.

China is ahead in some fields and behind in others. They are ahead in naval surface ship construction for example. They used to be behind in ballistic missiles but with the DF-31A and DF-41 missiles they aren't behind anymore and their technology is probably roughly equivalent. China is behind in nuclear submarines, transport aircraft, aircraft jet engines in general. China is roughly equivalent in terms of rocket engines. China is ahead in electronics like fire control systems in tanks, or avionics in aircraft including radars. China is behind in tank technology like APS, ERA, tank engines, etc.

lancelot wrote:

kvs wrote:Yes. Russia has way more nuclear missiles and much more advanced than China. I always hear talk about China being ahead of Russia in military tech. This is fanboi masturbation. All the gloating about some ASAT test a decade ago is absurd.

China is ahead in some fields and behind in others. They are ahead in naval surface ship construction for example. They used to be behind in ballistic missiles but with the DF-31A and DF-41 missiles they aren't behind anymore and their technology is probably roughly equivalent. China is behind in nuclear submarines, large transport aircraft, aircraft jet engines in general. China is roughly equivalent in terms of rocket engines. China is ahead in electronics like fire control systems in tanks, or avionics in aircraft including radars. China is behind in tank technology like APS, ERA, tank engines, etc.

They definitely are not ahead in avionics.

Just because they say AESA, it's questionable at best.  Add in their quantum radar wasn't well received in Syria.

You can say it has 3000000000 tr modules and epic quantum magnum whatever, but reality is: what is the TR modules? How are they cooled? What is general fail rate? Are they quad packs or singular modules? Add in, what is total power output and how much is it sustained?

China is still behind on that as well. But not far behind the competition.

And fire control systems? Based on....?

miketheterrible wrote:They definitely are not ahead in avionics.
Just because they say AESA, it's questionable at best.  Add in their quantum radar wasn't well received in Syria.

The Chinese have had AESA technology on naval ships for a long time already. All their latest 052, 055 destroyers have AESA radars as do the aircraft carriers. They have had AESA radars on aircraft for at least a decade and they are exporting this technology to Pakistan right now.

miketheterrible wrote:You can say it has 3000000000 tr modules and epic quantum magnum whatever, but reality is: what is the TR modules? How are they cooled? What is general fail rate? Are they quad packs or singular modules?  Add in, what is total power output and how much is it sustained?

China is still behind on that as well. But not far behind the competition.

And fire control systems? Based on....?

Try looking at their souped up Type 96B performance in the Tank Biathlon for example. I think only a biased person would think the T-72B3Ms in there have better FCS or gun stabilization.

They are exporting radar based from Italy. For navy ships may be easier only because cooling for them is much easier than an aircraft. You said avionics and I questioned that heavily.  Russia also has GaAS modules based radar on ships and apparent GaN modules tested on Navy ships that do upwards to 35-50W per modules. So what?  user TR1 posted about it on keypublishing forums a few years ago.  Reason why they can do it on ships more so than jets till recently was that cooling was always an issue that was recently resolved. Previously they would see a 10% performance failure in the TR modules.  This was what rostec said in their 2010 or so issue in take-off magazine in regards to Zhuk A as example.

Pakistan gets what they can get from China since no one else sells to them, not even Russia.

As for the tank baithalon, we are talking about same one where the tracks fell off, right?  An idle tank aim and shot isn't a good indication. It's also where russias older rounds failed pretty bad too.

I mean, Peru and Thailand weren't too pleased with Chinese tanks either.

Like I said, they are close but no cigar.  Call me biased, I don't really care. I just know how this stuff works thanks to having family who works on this equipment.  It's up to you to believe whatever.

Edit: sorry for OT. Mods can move to where they see necessary.

China is ahead in some fields and behind in others.

Most areas they are doing well is because of western investment to make them a production hub for the world... a good example is ships... they can mass produce ships, but the ships they make are not innovative top of the line stuff... most of it looks Russian designed with western design tweaks and in terms of armament is it not superior across the board to anyone.

They used to be behind in ballistic missiles but with the DF-31A and DF-41 missiles they aren't behind anymore and their technology is probably roughly equivalent.

What hypersonic glide warheads do they use to evade ABM defences... and how many ICBMs and SLBMs do they have?

How good are their decoys?

China is roughly equivalent in terms of rocket engines.

Because they bought Russian rocket engines...

China is ahead in electronics like fire control systems in tanks, or avionics in aircraft including radars.

They certainly have a production advantage for AESA radars, but comparing the latest Chinese FCS with the systems Russia fits to its upgraded T-72s is entertaining but not really definitive.

China seems a generation behind and has nothing comparable to the Su-57 or Tu-160 or Su-34 for that matter, despite buying and copying new Russian products like Su-35s and S-400s.

The Chinese have had AESA technology on naval ships for a long time already.

Russia put PESA radars in its interceptors in the late 1970s, and most of its SAMs use AESA radars in some form or other these days.

The cost of AESA radars mean existing radars are not being rapidly replaced because in terms of performance a new immature AESA is not better than what they are using at the moment.

Try looking at their souped up Type 96B performance in the Tank Biathlon for example. I think only a biased person would think the T-72B3Ms in there have better FCS or gun stabilization.

In an episode of Combat Approved they had tanks firing at target tanks from 5km both from a stationary position and while moving with all shots hits within about 1m of the centre of mass... I would say it is good enough...

When the target is moving the accuracy becomes less important than prediction, which is where a guided rounds excels... and they have those too.

Will now move this posts and the related posts above to a new thread.

GarryB wrote:What hypersonic glide warheads do they use to evade ABM defences... and how many ICBMs and SLBMs do they have?

How good are their decoys?

They have the DF-17. It is an MRBM with an hypersonic glide warhead. There is also evidence they are testing some sort of long range intercontinental glide vehicle. They should have about as many ICBMs as the UK and France combined.

The DF-41 is supposed to be large enough to carry multiple warheads including decoys but that is classified.

GarryB wrote:Because they bought Russian rocket engines...

They bought Soviet expertise after the breakup of the Union and designed their own engines. If you look at the performance parameters of the YF-100 it isn't an exact match to any Russian engine but uses similar technology. It is a LOX rich Kerolox staged combustion engine. They also have the YF-77 Hydrolox engine which is something not available to Russia yet. They have more advanced Hydrolox engines in use on the Long March 5 than what is currently available in Russia on something like the Angara. Which still does not have its Hydrolox upper stage.

GarryB wrote:China seems a generation behind and has nothing comparable to the Su-57 or Tu-160 or Su-34 for that matter, despite buying and copying new Russian products like Su-35s and S-400s.

They have the J-20 which came out into service before the Su-57. They cannot do something like a Tu-160 because they do not have the jet engines to do one. Nor probably the airframe technology. Their planned heavy bomber is the H-20 which should be a quad engine flying wing similar to the B-2 or PAK DA. They have had flying wing drones in service for years. Four of the J-20's engines should be enough to power a flying wing.

Their equivalent of the Su-34 is the tandem seat J-16. It is not exactly the same thing since it is not as good for long range missions in terms of crew comfort and it lacks the electronics warfare functionality. Instead they have the J-16D electronics warfare specific variant. But yeah it is a Flanker still. There is also the new tandem twin seat J-20 which might be a fighter bomber or not.

Ex Indian Ambassador: Britain refused to extradite Indian criminals hiding in Britain because India refused to cancel defence deals with France and Russia.