Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+70
Kimppis
Rmf
szo
Kyo
type055
kvs
tempestii
2SPOOKY4U
EKS
Mike E
navyfield
bantugbro
mutantsushi
gaurav
mig7
RTN
Morpheus Eberhardt
Indian Flanker
Zinuru
Djoka
George1
Airbornewolf
lulldapull
Hannibal Barca
Alex555
Hachimoto
Giulio
havok
eridan
etaepsilonk
magnumcromagnon
Cyberspec
ali.a.r
Werewolf
CaptainPakistan
GJ Flanker
macedonian
Arrow
zg18
BlackArrow
Vann7
flamming_python
KomissarBojanchev
a89
JPJ
Rpg type 7v
Department Of Defense
collegeboy16
quetzacol
dionis
AlfaT8
sepheronx
NickM
TheArmenian
coolieno99
nemrod
Zivo
Firebird
mack8
Mindstorm
Sujoy
Deep Throat
Stealthflanker
SOC
TR1
Flanky
medo
Viktor
Austin
GarryB
74 posters

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

    macedonian
    macedonian


    Posts : 1067
    Points : 1092
    Join date : 2013-04-29
    Location : Skopje, Macedonia - Скопје, Македонија

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #2 - Page 17 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

    Post  macedonian 01/03/14, 06:38 am

    NickM wrote:
    GarryB wrote:The two most heavily populated countries on the planet... China and India... remember the US picking Taiwan and Pakistan?

    GarryB , seriously  Razz   No Russian worth his salt would call these two wretched countries as Russia's friends . China is a communist state , India , nominally a democracy .

    Oh sh*t, right now you have to surface again!
    I'm tired of your crap...it's like shitting in water - and the shit rises to the surface only to embarrass you...
    That's how you embarrass white people!
    And YOU'RE the SHIT - if that analogy went past you!

    ------------------------------------
    edit:

    Good God, I WOULDN'T MIND meeting you in a pub when I'm feeling like I do now (coming from a pacifist, mind you)! I'd...well..I'll leave that to your imagination!
    NickM
    NickM


    Posts : 167
    Points : 108
    Join date : 2012-11-10
    Location : NYC,USA / Essex,UK

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #2 - Page 17 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

    Post  NickM 01/03/14, 06:59 am

    macedonian wrote:That's how you embarrass white people!

    Last heard you ain't the voice of WHITE people . Come to the States or to UK and ask the local White people what they think about a India or China . Most Whites think they are scum . We don't say it in as many words coz we are a civilized society.
    Werewolf
    Werewolf


    Posts : 5913
    Points : 6102
    Join date : 2012-10-25

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #2 - Page 17 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

    Post  Werewolf 01/03/14, 07:03 am

    NickM wrote:
    macedonian wrote:That's how you embarrass white people!

    Last heard you ain't the voice of WHITE people . Come to the States or to UK and ask the local White people what they think about a India or China . Most Whites think they are scum . We don't say it in as many words coz we are a civilized society.

    We really don't need to ask countries with superiority complexes what they think about china or india, history shows it you are really brutal inhumane scum completley incapable to attack any country your own size and only fight for centuries wars against tribes hundreds and thousands miles away.

    Nobody gives a shit what US or UK thinks about anyone, you are the least liked countries on earth go around in other countries and behave like you always behave and you will see your own asses beaten up and no one will give a damn.
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon


    Posts : 8138
    Points : 8273
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #2 - Page 17 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

    Post  magnumcromagnon 01/03/14, 07:04 am

    Indian Flanker wrote:F-22 is no doubt a great aircraft(sans its maintenance problems), but I think Su-T 50 is going to be better than it in :

    1) Close WVR fight( read Dogfight)

    2) Versatility( able to perform other roles than just air superiority)

    3) Maintenance

    4) Flight cost


    And hopefully, it'll as stealthy as F-22 and as good BVR fighter( if not better).


    Even as a flanker fan, I will concede that Americans have pretty much mastered the BVR fight domain.


    Hopefully our version PMF/FGFA is also ready soon Very Happy 

    Russian BVR missiles have higher kinematic performance attributes, giving them significantly greater range than Western analogues, such as Vympel R-27, R-33, R-37, R-77 and possibly Novator K-100 in the future.
    macedonian
    macedonian


    Posts : 1067
    Points : 1092
    Join date : 2013-04-29
    Location : Skopje, Macedonia - Скопје, Македонија

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #2 - Page 17 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

    Post  macedonian 01/03/14, 07:13 am

    NickM wrote:
    macedonian wrote:That's how you embarrass white people!

    Last heard you ain't the voice of WHITE people . Come to the States or to UK and ask the local White people what they think about a India or China . Most Whites think they are scum . We don't say it in as many words coz we are a civilized society.

    Maybe you should discuss with someone who hasn't lived BOTH in the US and the UK for a substantial period of time.
    And: I ain't the voice of the whites?!
    And you ARE presumably?!
    Do piss off you wanker, because I AIN'T in the mood tonight!!!

    And that's as civil as I'm gonna get tonight (which is WAAAY more than you are)!
    Now bugger off!
    BlackArrow
    BlackArrow


    Posts : 155
    Points : 133
    Join date : 2013-05-18

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #2 - Page 17 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

    Post  BlackArrow 01/03/14, 07:58 am

    magnumcromagnon wrote:

    Russian BVR missiles have higher kinematic performance attributes, giving them significantly greater range than Western analogues, such as Vympel R-27, R-33, R-37, R-77 and possibly Novator K-100 in the future.

    That's a big generalisation. There many different versions of any missile. All will have different range performances. Anyway, there are other factors of a missile's performance to take into account, such as ECM resistance, reliability, etc.
    collegeboy16
    collegeboy16


    Posts : 1135
    Points : 1134
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 27
    Location : Roanapur

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #2 - Page 17 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

    Post  collegeboy16 01/03/14, 10:13 pm

    BVR is best for nonstealthy targets and those that cant see the attacker after dodging the attack- any advantage F-22 has in BVR is nullified against Su-35S and Pak-fa. Also F-22 BVR is dependant on outside support network- AWACS. Take them out and you can fight them plane-to plane. Tho ofc. your jets have to be able to kill F-22 in the first place.
    Also, Mig-31 and upcoming Mig-41 are the best BVR platforms you can find, pure Kinematic performance wise that is.
    Indian Flanker
    Indian Flanker


    Posts : 159
    Points : 170
    Join date : 2014-02-28
    Location : India- Land of the Tiger

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #2 - Page 17 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

    Post  Indian Flanker 02/03/14, 02:59 am

    The reason I said US has a advantage in BVR was because of what it has achieved in the terms of Radar technology(AESA &stealth et al).

    Having said that now Russia is catching them fast, and who knows in the next few years they may even surpass US in every parameter of technology(stealth, Radar, EW suite, Laser technology, etc.)russia

    Or atleast we are hoping so. I would love to see the Americans getting terrorized by the capabilities of T-50 in some Cope India/Red Flag sort of exercise, just like they were of our MKI's lol1Very Happy
    avatar
    Mindstorm


    Posts : 1133
    Points : 1298
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #2 - Page 17 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

    Post  Mindstorm 02/03/14, 03:15 am

    All this agitation about the double F-117 SAM interceptions ,one of which resulted in a destroyed Aircraft, became famous and the other in one damaged beyond repair, and the creative explanations provided by US,to the public opinion, for the events   (..... after which, however, followed a much less public-opinion-oriented and much more military-efficiency-grounded ,prompt decision to retire from operational service the entire F-117's fleet with good peace of the "selective  luck" or "mission planning mistake" ridiculous excuses  Very Happy .....) often hide a fact much more simple and important : the aircraft losses cited are always referred as those of "Kosovo War air campaign" against "Serbian Air Defense" but that is FALSE and totally MISLEADING.


    The aircraft losses in question.

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #2 - Page 17 IMG_73431

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #2 - Page 17 Full-17362-39457-_b255180


    and several other highly damaged aircraft ,among which a second F-117 almost downed three day after ,previously cited, two A-10s of which one that barely managed to return home and several BGM-109s and "Predator" UAVs destroyed or damaged ) was NOT the achievements of the entire "Serbian Air Defense" in the course of the air campaign , but of a SINGLE, "strangely" deadly, SAM battery (the 3th battery of the Serbian 250rd PVO ,operating in the north western sector Belgrade ,under the command of Zoltan Dani ).

    Therefore to truly understand the lesson of those events we must simply identify what elements of difference , both under a technical and an operative employment point of view, had distincted that single battery from all  others serbian air defense missile batteries ,that instead revealed themselves to be largely ineffective against NATO air raids (how anyone expected taking into account the crushing numerical, organizative and the technological modernity's gap netween the two sides involded).

    I already provided a quick enumeration of the most important ones in the post 661 of the old PAKFA thread.

    https://www.russiadefence.net/t183p660-pak-fa-t-50-news

    and a brief description of the basis characteristics of all pasted NATO Air Campaigns in the latest 25 years  at post 675.


    The Kosovo Air Campaign not only validated, but even rendered wide underestimations, the end of '70 years VKO's models of representation of impact of masking/decoy operations and SAM's "shoot and scout" capabilities (anyhow immensely improved in the meantime) in a conflict with NATO Air forces elements.
    The 3th/250 Serbian battery ,under command of Zoltan Dani ,in facts, achieved this highly level of lethality and total resilience to NATO SEAD/DEAD attempts, merely implementing a very little fraction of the capabilities characteristics of up-to date SAM systems of those years and attempting to mimic a little part of theirs standard operative patterns.


    The 3th/250 SAM battery of Z. Dani had in facts a very high reaction time and time to target defeat from missile delivery ,in comparison to any up-to-date Russian SAM system of those years, and was therefore very often incapable to engage its intended target (or even wasted the two single missiles that its modified TEL had) because those targets often had ,in the meantime, transited outside the effective area of engagement of the battery's firing units and the single target engagement's limit prevented it to engagement of the entire strike or SEAD/DEAD groups with theirs F-16CJ escort, in spite to have achieved theirs stable coordinates for a fire solution -as in the instance of the four F-16CGs squad in the F-16 Downing).


    The real question therefore should instead be ,what would had happened in 1999 if the entire Serbian IAD was composed of SAM crew with the same or higher level of proficiency of the 3th battery of 250th Air Defense Missile Brigade and all was equipped even merely with Buk-M1 and Tor-M1........for not say with S-300, Buk-M1, TOR-M1, 2К22М1, Igla-S in a n area concetration immensely higher with support of Pelena-1 ,SPN-2/4 ,SPN-30 ECM systems and decoy and masking devices immensely more efficients , in conjuction with an Air Force with hundreds of interceptors aircraft and ground based ballistic and cruise missiles capable to cancel Aviano AB and all the aircraft it hosted ,while merely preparing for the Air Campaign, from the face of Earth in a matter of minutes.
    BlackArrow
    BlackArrow


    Posts : 155
    Points : 133
    Join date : 2013-05-18

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #2 - Page 17 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

    Post  BlackArrow 02/03/14, 04:04 am

    collegeboy16 wrote:BVR is best for nonstealthy targets and those that cant see the attacker after dodging the attack- any advantage F-22 has in BVR is nullified against Su-35S and Pak-fa. Also F-22 BVR is dependant on outside support network- AWACS...

    Are you saying that MiG-31 has a poor performance against stealthy targets? Are you saying the same for all of the Russian PVO system?
    BlackArrow
    BlackArrow


    Posts : 155
    Points : 133
    Join date : 2013-05-18

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #2 - Page 17 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

    Post  BlackArrow 02/03/14, 04:09 am

    Mindstorm wrote:
    The real question therefore should instead be ,what would had happened in 1999 if the entire Serbian IAD was composed of SAM crew with the same or higher level of proficiency of the 3th battery of 250th Air Defense Missile Brigade and all was equipped even merely with Buk-M1 and Tor-M1........for not say with S-300, Buk-M1, TOR-M1, 2К22М1, Igla-S in a n area concetration immensely higher with support of Pelena-1 ,SPN-2/4 ,SPN-30 ECM systems and decoy and masking devices immensely more efficients , in conjuction with an Air Force with hundreds of interceptors aircraft and ground based ballistic and cruise missiles capable to cancel Aviano AB and all the aircraft it hosted ,while merely preparing for the Air Campaign, from the face of Earth in a matter of minutes.

    In other words, you are saying: if Serbian air defences had better weapons and better trained operators and crews, they would have shot down more NATO aircraft? There is only one expression for such a statement: 'stating the bleeding obvious' - Kapitan Ochevidno. Shocked
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon


    Posts : 8138
    Points : 8273
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #2 - Page 17 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

    Post  magnumcromagnon 02/03/14, 06:31 am

    BlackArrow wrote:
    Mindstorm wrote:
    The real question therefore should instead be ,what would had happened in 1999 if the entire Serbian IAD was composed of SAM crew with the same or higher level of proficiency of the 3th battery of 250th Air Defense Missile Brigade and all was equipped even merely with Buk-M1 and Tor-M1........for not say with S-300, Buk-M1, TOR-M1, 2К22М1, Igla-S in a n area concetration immensely higher with support of Pelena-1 ,SPN-2/4 ,SPN-30 ECM systems and decoy and masking devices immensely more efficients , in conjuction with an Air Force with hundreds of interceptors aircraft and ground based ballistic and cruise missiles capable to cancel Aviano AB and all the aircraft it hosted ,while merely preparing for the Air Campaign, from the face of Earth in a matter of minutes.

    In other words, you are saying: if Serbian air defences had better weapons and better trained operators and crews, they would have shot down more NATO aircraft? There is only one expression for such a statement: 'stating the bleeding obvious' -  Kapitan Ochevidno. Shocked

    The most important points Mindstorm is trying to make was that the Serbians were far more capable than was expected by NATO forces, and the deciding factor would of been how up to date the air defenses systems were. Up to date export versions of Russian sams would of easily shortened the duration of the NATO air campaign by a significant margin, let alone if Boris Yeltsin actually had a spine and decided to back Serbia up with logistics and intelligence.
    avatar
    Djoka


    Posts : 13
    Points : 13
    Join date : 2013-01-21

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #2 - Page 17 Empty Serbia

    Post  Djoka 02/03/14, 07:53 am

    US generals were shoked,that the war against small Serbia which was supposed to last 5 days lasted for 78 days and nights let alone that they lost their pride and joy the famous f-117.I have to remind everybody that Serbia was under severe sanctions for 10 years before nato invasion.So they didn't have any reserve parts for many of their weapons.
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon


    Posts : 8138
    Points : 8273
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #2 - Page 17 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

    Post  magnumcromagnon 02/03/14, 08:13 am

    Djoka wrote:US generals were shoked,that the war against small Serbia which was supposed to last 5 days lasted for 78 days and nights let alone that they lost their pride and joy the famous f-117.I have to remind everybody that Serbia was under severe sanctions for 10 years before nato invasion.So they didn't have any reserve parts for many of their weapons.

    Serbia was under sanctions while the Pentagon was using proxy's to arm the opposition (cut-and-paste the same tactics everywhere they go), Pinochet armed the Croatians against Serbia, and Saudi Arabia armed the Bosnians and the Albanians while Serbians where being disarmed!!!
    BlackArrow
    BlackArrow


    Posts : 155
    Points : 133
    Join date : 2013-05-18

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #2 - Page 17 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

    Post  BlackArrow 02/03/14, 08:27 am

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    The most important points Mindstorm is trying to make was that the Serbians were far more capable than was expected by NATO forces, and the deciding factor would of been how up to date the air defenses systems were.

    Maybe, but their air defences were still crap - how many NATO aircraft did they shoot down, 1, 2?

    Up to date export versions of Russian sams would of easily shortened the duration of the NATO air campaign by a significant margin, wrote:



    But Serbia didn't have a more modern air defence system - why would they have a more modern system? It's just another pointless 'what-if', useless to speculate - if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle, etc...
    Werewolf
    Werewolf


    Posts : 5913
    Points : 6102
    Join date : 2012-10-25

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #2 - Page 17 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

    Post  Werewolf 02/03/14, 08:53 am

    BlackArrow wrote:
    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    The most important points Mindstorm is trying to make was that the Serbians were far more capable than was expected by NATO forces, and the deciding factor would of been how up to date the air defenses systems were.

    Maybe, but their air defences were still crap - how many NATO aircraft did they shoot down, 1, 2?





    But Serbia didn't have a more modern air defence system - why would they have a more modern system? It's just another pointless 'what-if', useless to speculate - if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle, etc...

    35 fixed wing and 7 rotary, more than 2 dozen UAV's and a few unidentified aicrafts and wasted several hundred millions by using cruise missiles on decoys, a complete failure of air campaign against a sanctioned,small country with very limited ADS.

    Even tho the actual losses are estimated about 70 fixed wing aicrafts and two hundred cruise missiles.
    BlackArrow
    BlackArrow


    Posts : 155
    Points : 133
    Join date : 2013-05-18

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #2 - Page 17 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

    Post  BlackArrow 02/03/14, 09:05 am

    Werewolf wrote:
    35 fixed wing and 7 rotary, more than 2 dozen UAV's and a few unidentified aicrafts and wasted several hundred millions by using cruise missiles on decoys, a complete failure of air campaign against a sanctioned,small country with very limited ADS.

    A complete failure, are you sure?

    "NATO's objectives in the Kosovo conflict were stated at the North Atlantic Council meeting held at NATO headquarters in Brussels on April 12, 1999:[42]      

    An end to all military action and the immediate termination of violence and repressive activities by the Milosevic government;    

    Withdrawal of all military, police and paramilitary forces from Kosovo;     Stationing of UN peacekeeping presence in Kosovo;    

    Unconditional and safe return of all refugees and displaced persons;    

    Establishment of a political framework agreement for Kosovo based on Rambouillet Accords, in conformity with international law and the Charter of the United Nations."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia#Goals

    Which one of these goals weren't achieved?

    35 fixed wing and 7 rotary, more than 2 dozen UAV's and a few unidentified aicrafts and wasted several hundred millions by using cruise missiles on decoys

    Well, it is Saturday night... Very Happy 
    Werewolf
    Werewolf


    Posts : 5913
    Points : 6102
    Join date : 2012-10-25

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #2 - Page 17 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

    Post  Werewolf 02/03/14, 09:24 am

    Wikishmedia is no source not for military use neither for wars.

    This entire bullshit NATO propaganda war started that Serbia having concentration camps inside a football stadium, also driven by germany with horror stories to play the idiot west for fools that they will swollow this bullocks stories and support this illegal war against a small country. The fact is OSCE reported only 37 people died, dead on both sides, NATO exaggerated the entire thing to a "Nazi Germany concentration and death camps" -like story with several thousands "gased".

    Goals was to stop this "genocide" while USA commited a genocide, killing purposely civilians after they saw they are completley incompetent to take effect on Serbian SAM's and PVO, so they targeted trains,hospitals,infrastructure,power plants and even hit with their "pin-point" accuracy the embassy of china.

    Destroying around belgrad a high percentage of its infrastructure with the so beloved and often repeated when it fits the justification of USA, their high competence and accuracy of their weapons and how valueable civilian lifes for the US are in other countries, using white phosphorus and Depleted Uranium by A-10's in the country. Chemical use that toxicates and destroyes DNA for several generations.

    Bot of course USA accomplished things, Milovic was not responbile for anything USA accused him, the only thing he was part of responsible is deportion of people from their homes, but like NATO bombing has proven, it was better that way in a very sad way, but the casualties would be much higher.

    Non were achieved within the "air campaign" such bullshit can't be achieved from air but only from ground.
    Till the very last day of the air campaign the Serbian Air Defense was not destroyed or exhausted, NATO withdrew from it.

    Peace will never be achieved by dropping bombs on countries, but brainwashed fools like you won't understand.

    But you can believe in the fairy tales and tendencous liar USA, of their alleged losses of only 2 aircrafts and after that the "super duper stealthy F-117" was completley retired just after "one" shut down. So much for US stories. Completley waste of time even considering their claims as to be true.
    BlackArrow
    BlackArrow


    Posts : 155
    Points : 133
    Join date : 2013-05-18

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #2 - Page 17 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

    Post  BlackArrow 02/03/14, 09:44 am

    Werewolf wrote:Wikishmedia is no source not for military use neither for wars.

    Wikipedia is perfectly good enough for factual, uncontroversial information.

    Is this a better link? http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/1999/p99-051e.htm
    Werewolf
    Werewolf


    Posts : 5913
    Points : 6102
    Join date : 2012-10-25

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #2 - Page 17 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

    Post  Werewolf 02/03/14, 09:57 am

    BlackArrow wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:Wikishmedia is no source not for military use neither for wars.

    Wikipedia is perfectly good enough for factual, uncontroversial information.

    Is this a better link? http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/1999/p99-051e.htm

    Wikipedia factual and uncontroversial information?

    Like you see it is not uncontroversial if people complain about this nonsense.
    Everybody can edit articles or just make them without even having proper sources just edit with "cititation needed" but still leave whatever you want in it.

    So many articles there are faked and with lot of NATO propaganda about Iraqi alledged WMD's there were enough "wikipedia" articles after the war for years before they were deleted, refering that all this lies were true.
    Same about Georgian war, since this day with lot of bullshit lies in several articles.

    Who ever uses wikipedia and calls is factual and uncontroversial has no plan where to find actual information.

    Wikipedia is great for lot of stuff but worthless in absolute majority of articles about military matters and history.
    BlackArrow
    BlackArrow


    Posts : 155
    Points : 133
    Join date : 2013-05-18

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #2 - Page 17 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

    Post  BlackArrow 02/03/14, 10:18 am

    Werewolf wrote:
    BlackArrow wrote:
    Werewolf wrote:Wikishmedia is no source not for military use neither for wars.

    Wikipedia is perfectly good enough for factual, uncontroversial information.

    Wikipedia is great for lot of stuff but worthless in absolute majority of articles about military matters and history.

    So, are you disputing NATO's official goals for launching the 1999 bombing campaign, or have you got some 'official goals' of your own?
    Werewolf
    Werewolf


    Posts : 5913
    Points : 6102
    Join date : 2012-10-25

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #2 - Page 17 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

    Post  Werewolf 02/03/14, 11:02 am

    The only real goal USA had was to divide and control.
    They wanted to isntall a pipeline from caspain sea and lay it through some countries, avoiding Armenia.

    The Transbalkan-pipeline from AMBO (Albanian Macedonian Bulgarian Oil Corporation) a company to get the caspain oil/gas reserves nothing more nothing less, no stupid humanitarian help, US doesn't gives a shit about human lifes, never have never will.

    http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/1999/06/comm-j23.html


    This was their only goal the air campaign was a complete disaster.
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon


    Posts : 8138
    Points : 8273
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #2 - Page 17 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

    Post  magnumcromagnon 02/03/14, 11:44 am

    BlackArrow wrote:
    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    The most important points Mindstorm is trying to make was that the Serbians were far more capable than was expected by NATO forces, and the deciding factor would of been how up to date the air defenses systems were.

    But Serbia didn't have a more modern air defence system - why would they have a more modern system? It's just another pointless 'what-if', useless to speculate - if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle, etc...

    Actually it's a relevant point that the Pentagon forced sanctions on Yugoslavia thus arms transactions were strictly illegal therefor it was nearly impossible to buy upgraded air defense, while at the same time the sanctimonious hypocrites in the Pentagon urged their puppet Pinochet to act as a proxy and to engage in illegal arms trafficking with the Croatians and ship tons of weapons to them:

    http://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/11/world/chilean-arms-shipment-to-croatia-stirs-tensions.html
    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/19/world/americas/19chile.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
    http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1992-01-11/news/9201020663_1_shipment-weapons-gen-augusto-pinochet

    The Pentagon used Islamists to arm the Bosnians:

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/apr/22/warcrimes.richardnortontaylor

    ...The arms trafficking would lead to wide scale conflict, and the conflict would be the context for a No-Fly-Zone and air campaign, the sanctions would insure that the Serbs would not get modern sam's and insure that they will take the heaviest losses and minimize the losses of NATO as much as possible. Like a real Mafia operation.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38764
    Points : 39260
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #2 - Page 17 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

    Post  GarryB 02/03/14, 09:11 pm

    In other words, you are saying: if Serbian air defences had better weapons and better trained operators and crews, they would have shot down more NATO aircraft? There is only one expression for such a statement: 'stating the bleeding obvious' - Kapitan Ochevidno.

    Actually there are probably three factors involved... training and equipment and motivation. I think motivation is related to training, but you can have highly motivated troops that lack training and equipment.

    I rather think the Serbs only lacked the tools to do the job they were assigned... they clearly showed they were motivated and the lack of losses showed their training was good enough too.

    Maybe, but their air defences were still crap - how many NATO aircraft did they shoot down, 1, 2?

    NATO brought their A team and had well over 2 months of total control with pretty much no outside interference and managed to destroy perhaps a dozen tanks and very little else worth talking about.

    Tiny country takes on entire western world and manages to shoot down a stealth bomber that is supposed to be invisible and an F-16... plus rather more UAVs and UCAVs than NATO cares to admit... but known to be over 60.

    But Serbia didn't have a more modern air defence system - why would they have a more modern system?

    Serbia had the air defence system NATO has been designed to take down... in fact it is a few generations behind the air defence system NATO is supposed to take down and it failed to do so miserably. The fact that the air defence network was largely totally intact from day one to the last day was a serious failure of NATO and its mobile invasion force. The fact that it did not lose many aircraft is no consolation because even systems that entered Soviet service in the 1970s would have changed that let alone a functioning air force.

    Which one of these goals weren't achieved?

    Achieved by the clinical effective use of air power, or the bludgening of the Serbian civilian infrastructure and threats to escalate to other civilian targets.

    the hostage equivalent of if you don't open the safe I will kill your family and neighbours...

    Wikipedia is perfectly good enough for factual, uncontroversial information.

    Perhaps weapon specs are sometimes accurate but a poor source in most other regards... especially for this website as most of the russian related data is inaccurate or biased. Suspect the same for data about Serbia et al.

    So, are you disputing NATO's official goals for launching the 1999 bombing campaign, or have you got some 'official goals' of your own?

    Official goals didn't spell out their attempt to divide Serbia further in the hope of breaking it up completely.

    Also don't mention the lasting effects... the declaration of independence of Kosovo led directly to similar declarations in South Osettia and Abkhazia, which as we know led to the Georgian invasion on 8 8 8 which in turn led to the Russian intervention... which as we all know led to real action to deal with the situation of the Russian military and the real start of actual funding to rebuild russias military which before then was largely talk and promises.

    In many ways the Russian resurgence is directly attributed to the NATO intervention in Kosovo.

    Werewolf
    Werewolf


    Posts : 5913
    Points : 6102
    Join date : 2012-10-25

    PAK-FA, T-50: News #2 - Page 17 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

    Post  Werewolf 03/03/14, 12:28 am

    We derailed over a dozen last posts from the topic, so i try to fix this.

    I have a question about the range performance of missiles when they are launched with the launching plattforms speed, for example a missiles are always stated with their own average speed not the additional speed of the launching plattform. It wouldn't be hard to calculate the potential range increase due the launching plattform speed to the missiles speed if we had statistics about the initial boosting phase and the decrease of the speed over range or time to the average flight speed of the missile in a straight flight trajectory.

    If remembering right GarryB and/or Mindstorm have mentioned that before, of course its quite obvious that it would have a range increase, but to calculate the factual range increase rather than the estimation based on simple factors we know.

    The point is, is there a way to calculate in general the increased range with the launching plattform's speed without having the exact data of missile performance during boost time based on what distance it manages to fly untill it reaches it average flight speed (+speed of launching plattform - deceleration).

    Example: What would be the range increase of a R-33E be launched from speed of Mach 1 compared to it's range stated by missile developer?

    http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/503/510/

    Sponsored content


    PAK-FA, T-50: News #2 - Page 17 Empty Re: PAK-FA, T-50: News #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is 29/03/24, 12:15 am