The opposition is the problem and neo liberalism isn't like it's something inevitable. It's a plague. And no, United Russia isn't going anywhere. And neo liberalism will thankfully be prevented thanks to constitutional change.
Dumbass.
miketheterrible wrote:You're a retard.
The opposition is the problem and neo liberalism isn't like it's something inevitable. It's a plague. And no, United Russia isn't going anywhere. And neo liberalism will thankfully be prevented thanks to constitutional change.
Dumbass.
flamming_python wrote:miketheterrible wrote:You're a retard.
The opposition is the problem and neo liberalism isn't like it's something inevitable. It's a plague. And no, United Russia isn't going anywhere. And neo liberalism will thankfully be prevented thanks to constitutional change.
Dumbass.
It will only be neo-liberalism if Putin does something exceptionally stupid.
But it will be an uprising of one form or another and could well lead to the fate of the USSR, the country disintegrating or decentralizing beyond effective governance. The West will win without a shot fired, and none of these new toys will matter.
The constitutional change pretty much makes it inevitable that rising social contradictions and new demands will be fought in a rather non-constitutional way. Because there is no other avenue left.
You're a retard.
miketheterrible wrote:
What?
That makes zero sense and backed with nothing.
First off, the constitutional change prevents uprising.
All uprisings in the last 50 years have been foreign funded and controlled.
There hasn't been a legit protest to overthrow a government in my lifetime. Constitutional change prevents that from happening. Second, it cements the idea that only a Russian can rule Russia. Not an outsider. Not someone who has dual citizenship. There was a reason why it was voted upon democratically. You see, Russia is a real democracy where the means of the many outweigh the means of the few by the concept of voting. USSR failed cause it couldn't adjust itself and corruption was rife.
Constitutional change doesn't make it illegal for people to protest. It allows people to protest. It allows people to speak their minds. It also brings forth that other party members have to do their jobs rather than it being completely centrally controlled.
You clearly have not read the constitutional change.
As a note, the "uprising" in Belarus (which has failed) is clearly cemented from outside around the Baltics/Poland. Anyone with half a brain can see that. It is already tapering out.
Russia already went through a "revolution" and everyone remembers how that happened. You clearly werent there when it happened.
I suggest you get yourself a tea and sit down and read this.
https://www.stalkerzone.org/constitutional-reform-will-strangle-russias-internal-saboteurs/
Russias constitution was written by Americans. Russia was doomed to fail unless they fixed it which they did.
Facebook tanks.being.tanks wrote:Danish Leopard 1A5DK as part of the SFOR (Stabilization Force) deployed in Bosnia and Hezergovina, with its rubber sideskirt lifted up.
The Danish Leopard 1A5DK combat experience during its time deployed as part of the Peacekeeper force marks the first actual engagement faced by the Leopard 1 tank since its introduction in the mid-1950s. Not only it was the first Leopard 1 to see combat, the Danish Leopards were also the only Leopard 1 used by any army to have knocked out a tank in combat so far.
The incident happened during Operation Bøllebank (April 29th 1994), when the Bosnian-Serbs were attacking UN outpost (NORDBAT 2) in Tuzla, prompting the Danes to roll their tank to support the Norwegian and Swedish troop stationed in this outpost.
En-route to the Outpost, the tank group were ambushed by the Bosnian-Serb forces using mortars and anti-tank rockets. As a response to this, the Leopards immediately counter-attacked the enemy force, firing 72 main gun rounds (19 Sabot rounds, 44 brisance rounds, and 19 phosphorus rounds.)
Of the Three T-55 used by the Bosnian-Serbs present engaging the Leopards, all of them were reported disabled (some said they retreated), while the Leopards also hit their ammunition dump and bunker, with 150 estimated casualties while the Peacekeeper force didn't even suffer from any loss.
5 months and 26 days later, the Leopards were again involved in active combat during Operation Amanda, when the Danish Leopards were part of the force tasked to recapture an outpost (S01) occupied by the Bosnian-Serb forces.
Just like the previous engagement, the Leopard got itself ambushed; this time near Gradačac, Bosnia by a T-55 tank and recoilless gun emplacement. Of course the Danes retaliated back, and they knocked out that single T-55 and a recoilless gun emplacement while only suffering minor damage on one of their Leopard 1 tank.
#Gatto_Nero
has anyone found anything to indicate if the TU-160 can supercruise?
GarryB wrote:has anyone found anything to indicate if the TU-160 can supercruise?
I don't think it can...
Perhaps with new upgraded engines, but probably not at full weight...
I seem to remember the F-14A having flaky engines but the F-14D got new engines that generated as much thrust in dry power as the old engines generated in full AB so the F-14D could take off from an aircraft carrier without AB.... with its swing wing I think supercruising could be an option perhaps... a modern version with lightweight composite materials and lighter avionics would be rather impressive even today.
mnztr likes this post
Tsavo Lion wrote:Today, F-14s would be useless against Tu-22M3/95MS/160M2s armed with Kinzhals or other LR AShMs.
GarryB wrote:has anyone found anything to indicate if the TU-160 can supercruise?
I don't think it can...
Perhaps with new upgraded engines, but probably not at full weight...
I seem to remember the F-14A having flaky engines but the F-14D got new engines that generated as much thrust in dry power as the old engines generated in full AB so the F-14D could take off from an aircraft carrier without AB.... with its swing wing I think supercruising could be an option perhaps... a modern version with lightweight composite materials and lighter avionics would be rather impressive even today.
Today, F-14s would be useless against Tu-22M3 /95MS/160M2s armed with Kinzhals or other LR AShMs.
How far can it travel at supersonic.
GarryB wrote:Today, F-14s would be useless against Tu-22M3 /95MS/160M2s armed with Kinzhals or other LR AShMs.
It could fly further and faster with more weapons than either of its replacements, and can use long range AAMs.
How far can it travel at supersonic.
My understanding is that with a strategic payload (ie about 28 tons) it has a flight radius of about 10,000km with 1,000km each way at high speed... ie it flys 4,000km to approach enemy airspace and then accelerates to supersonic for 1,000km in and 1,000km out and then subsonic for the 4,000km back.
I doubt that a nuclear warhead would fit on this size missile:GarryB wrote:- they can be mid-air refueled to give longer range.Backfires have a mission radius of about 4,000km, which becomes a mission radius of about 2,000km at supersonic speeds.
-MiG-31s escorting them could shoot down AWACS & interceptors with their LR AAMs.These aircraft flying fast can be detected from 5,000km away or more...
launch a ballistic Standard 6 missile with a high energy nuclear warhead in the path of any Chinese anti ship ballistic missile, ....
I doubt that a nuclear warhead would fit on this size missile
What tracking radar can detect bombers at 5000 KM? OTH? If so how do you discern intent at 5000 km.
Also the opposition can launch attack waves so your planes are on fumes, approach, turn back when the defence is launched, pick up fuel from tankers and then supersonic dash back in to the 1000 KM radius to launch.
If the F18E is gonna do an intercept at 1000KM its going to be loaded with fuel and still relying on buddy tankers to get it home. We are talking about the very edge of operational capability.
It will have no time on station at all.
Also at that range they will have very limited use of afterburners.
the TU-22 can be accompanied by tankers out to about 1500 km to target. They top up tanks, full afterburner approach, once in launch radius burners off, weapons release, burners on and dash back to tankers for gas.
Its well nigh impossible to defend against such an attack with the current and proposed fighters on US carriers.
They didn't want to spend $ on modernizing & operating F-14s even with ground attack capability when more F-18E/F could be procured instead, which r capable of self-escorting missions. With CFTs their unrefueled range will be increased. Besides, the USN works closely with the USAF, esp. in power projection ashore.They are dumbing down their fighters for no obvious reason...
TU-22s are getting refuelling probes.
Even if the carrier has 50-60 fighters maintaining a patrol 1000 KM distant is a massive strain on their resources about 2/3 of the planes will be hauling fuel.
The TU-22 can also approach low, they will be difficult to spot even with OTH radar in some areas, and their intentions will not be clear until they get within about 2000 KM.
If the carriers are within 2000 KM if a Russian base in a conflict they are playing with fire for sure. The F-14 is dead and even its combat radius is listed at around 890km.
Sure a carrier is hard to sink, but I doubt it would be operational after a single KH-32 hit...maybe I am wrong, but I doubt it.
Air fields can be made operational much, much more quickly then a carrier. Comparing the 2 is not reasonable. Airfields really need a runway to launch and recover planes, and fuel and weapons. Even if those are hit they can be replaced much more easily then a carriers systems. Days vs months.
They traded the capability of the F-14 for more F-18s because the premise of the F-14 was no longer viable.
Some F-14Ds were upgraded in 2005 with a ROVER III Full Motion Video (FMV) downlink, a system that transmits real-time images from the aircraft's sensors to the laptop of Forward air controller (FAC) on the ground...
F-14 with phoenix missiles cannot stop an attack with reasonable certainty to justify the cost.
And only Russia is really capable of launching the type of attack that invalidates them. Ergo, carriers still great, but useless against Russia and now Chinese. Other then that STILL GREAT for beating up on the weaklings. Plus great for the MIC welfare system.
What if the Russian send decoy drones, they shoot those down and the TU-22 exploit a short gap and come screaming in at Mach 1.8 and launch? so many options. The USN decided it could not be done, they know their stuff better then any of us.
I don't agree a modern cruiser is easier to sink then a dozen corvettes. It really depends on the disposition and arming of the corvettes. Fact is you will have to get 12 hits vs 1 hit and with the cruiser its much easier to concentrate your attacking force on one objective vs 12 well dispositioned targets.
Based on what we saw in the Falklands, one hit will render any modern destroyer or cruiser inoperative. Based on how the USS Bonhomme burned I don't think carriers will do much better. Even deck accidents have rendered US carriers inoperative let alone being struck by a large explosive projectile.
I always wonder if the end of the F-14 was related to the USSR collapse.
Maybe they might try and come up with a new interceptor concept, but I doubt it. Simply because missile tech has come too far.
They didn't want to spend $ on modernizing & operating F-14s even with ground attack capability when more F-18E/F could be procured instead, which r capable of self-escorting missions.
With CFTs their unrefueled range will be increased. Besides, the USN works closely with the USAF, esp. in power projection ashore.
Btw, Su-30/34 s can also be used against NATO CSGs:
They can use ARMs in the 1st wave to blind all ships' & AWACS radars before Tu-22M3M/95MSs unleash their AShM s.
For added range & speed, Tu-160s could be pressed as well- the USN would likely have 2-3 CVNs + the AF working together.
what if the VMF is sent to help Cuba, Venezuela, Argentina or China in & around the Caribbean, S. Atlantic & the SC Seas? The VKS planes will be there anyway as well, & both service branches will then complement each other.There will be no Bears of Blackjacks involved... they will not go hunting for US ships. MiG-31s will launch Kinzhal missiles at US ships that get within range, so US carriers will be fine as long as they don't approach Russian defences.
|
|