Talking bollocks thread #3

Isos wrote:Russian drones have nothing more than israeli or US drones. But western AD are useless against them. Russian AD will down plenty of western drones on the other hand.

In response to China's deployment of long range rocket artillery against India, the India armed forces are also contemplating the use of Drones to counter these Chinese rocket artillery. But for drones range will become an issue. Chinese rockets like PCL-191 have a range in excess of 350 kms.

Sujoy wrote:

Isos wrote:Russian drones have nothing more than israeli or US drones. But western AD are useless against them. Russian AD will down plenty of western drones on the other hand.

In response to China's deployment of long range rocket artillery against India, the India armed forces are also contemplating the use of Drones to counter these Chinese rocket artillery. But for drones range will become an issue. Chinese rockets like PCL-191 have a range in excess of 350 kms.

Yeah, but that is a mini BM. They can fit 2 at best on one launcher and yet overall its potential is still limited (warhead). I think India could easily retaliate with similar missiles. Maybe look for cheaper cruise missiles.

There are only a couple thousand troops in the Baltics.

There isn't that many Abrams ether maybe an armored battalion at best.

If Russia attacked the Baltics they would overwhelm the small amount of US forces there easily.

Simply put the US forces there aren't meant to fight Russian forces but deter them from an attack us attacking those forces would mean war.

Isos wrote:

RTN wrote:

Isos wrote:NATO lacks the numbers.

You gotta be kidding me. There are 10 active High Mobility Artillery Rocket System battalions and a thousand plus M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System here in the U.S itself.

Isos wrote:Now it's even worse for NATO since they have to face russian drones which they can't intercept with their shitty AD systems. We saw how an obsolate AD can't protect from them.

What's so special about Russian drones. Nothing hi tech.  Russia too will have to face hundreds of NATO drones of all types.

Yeah they are in the US far away. Russia won't wait for their shipment.

Russian drones have nothing more than israeli or US drones. But western AD are useless against them. Russian AD will down plenty of western drones on the other hand.

This is a dumb remark, Russia has a lot fewer drones and inferior to the US in drones with what they currently have in service, not development.

Russia is behind us in drone tech, they have only just started it. We have been doing it for decades at this point.

An American dude thinks about invading Russia? Lol
Buddy an army that afraid to get casualties can't invade anything.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:There are only a couple thousand troops in the Baltics.

There isn't that many Abrams ether maybe an armored battalion at best.

If Russia attacked the Baltics they would overwhelm the small amount of US forces there easily.

Simply put the US forces there aren't meant to fight Russian forces but deter them from an attack us attacking those forces would mean war.

Russia is not stupid like the US/NATO/West, their is nothing for Russia in the Baltics, the EU or anywhere. The US and the EU are doing a very good job of destroying themselves, why would Russia inference?

If Russia was attacked(Russia has no incentive to attack anyone), the country that the attack was coming from and the country that attacked would cease to exist(Russia does not start wars, Russia just ends them.)

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Isos wrote:

RTN wrote:

Isos wrote:NATO lacks the numbers.

You gotta be kidding me. There are 10 active High Mobility Artillery Rocket System battalions and a thousand plus M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System here in the U.S itself.

Isos wrote:Now it's even worse for NATO since they have to face russian drones which they can't intercept with their shitty AD systems. We saw how an obsolate AD can't protect from them.

What's so special about Russian drones. Nothing hi tech.  Russia too will have to face hundreds of NATO drones of all types.

Yeah they are in the US far away. Russia won't wait for their shipment.

Russian drones have nothing more than israeli or US drones. But western AD are useless against them. Russian AD will down plenty of western drones on the other hand.

This is a dumb remark, Russia has a lot fewer drones and inferior to the US in drones with what they currently have in service, not development.

Russia is behind us in drone tech, they have only just started it. We have been doing it for decades at this point.

Russia does not need drones or any weapons to destroy the US military, the Woke ideology will destroy the US military.

flamming_python wrote:The Baltic states are an especially crappy place to invade Russia from

Word to the wise

There are no wise in the west.

par far wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:There are only a couple thousand troops in the Baltics.

There isn't that many Abrams ether maybe an armored battalion at best.

If Russia attacked the Baltics they would overwhelm the small amount of US forces there easily.

Simply put the US forces there aren't meant to fight Russian forces but deter them from an attack us attacking those forces would mean war.

Russia is not stupid like the US/NATO/West, their is nothing for Russia in the Baltics, the EU or anywhere. The US and the EU are doing a very good job of destroying themselves, why would Russia inference?

If Russia was attacked(Russia has no incentive to attack anyone), the country that the attack was coming from and the country that attacked would cease to exist(Russia does not start wars, Russia just ends them.)

Dude everything you said literally has nothing to do with what I said

RTN wrote:... You heard me. Russia will have to move heaven and earth to intercept US rocket artillery. ...

You just spelled out their Plan-A and not just for rocket artillery

franco wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Dude everything you said literally has nothing to do with what I said

It actually illustrates the West East divide very well. Troops on one side are seen as defensive by them but viewed from the other side as offensive.

The troops in the Baltics are defensive in nature, regardless of personal views. It isn't an offensive force, a couple of thousand men pose no threat to the Russians.

They are there for one reason if they are attacked by some Russian advance (not saying the Russians are planning to invade or will) that would mean going to war with US.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

par far wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:There are only a couple thousand troops in the Baltics.

There isn't that many Abrams ether maybe an armored battalion at best.

If Russia attacked the Baltics they would overwhelm the small amount of US forces there easily.

Simply put the US forces there aren't meant to fight Russian forces but deter them from an attack us attacking those forces would mean war.

Russia is not stupid like the US/NATO/West, their is nothing for Russia in the Baltics, the EU or anywhere. The US and the EU are doing a very good job of destroying themselves, why would Russia inference?

If Russia was attacked(Russia has no incentive to attack anyone), the country that the attack was coming from and the country that attacked would cease to exist(Russia does not start wars, Russia just ends them.)

Dude everything you said literally has nothing to do with what I said

You were saying that "If Russia attacked the Baltics" and I responded to that.

Paging Garry

Interesting but WTF has the last few posts got to do with this thread? Please move them.

@Par

You are thinking about RTN, My post wasn't about any invasion just the troops there aren't for offensive purposes.

This is why Russia space program is so sloowwww and dragging its feet in space , because the
government is wasting a ton of money in totally meaningless distractions to glorify the past .
Russia is a country that live in the past , that the only way it can feel proud about themselves is by looking far away in the past.


look how these 2 idiots are drooling about the idea of building a multi millionaire project ,
ANOTHER soviet era museum ,as if russia did not had enough of them.. hundreds if not thousands
in all russia.




it is incorrect to say russia have no money for space ,and "is doing what it can" , not true.
putin waste the nation budget in populism , in totally useless things ,that don't help russia in any way
to make their nation safer and more secure and neither modernize their outdated economy.

instead of building luxury orthodox churches , or incredibly expensive museums  , instead of giving away for free money to senior russians living in israel or the baltics ,in gratitute for the patriotic war ,  why not invest that money in building a better future  instead?  staying in the past is only done
by losers , people that still are unable to adapt to the present times they live and so look to the past
to feel better about their nation ,since there is not to talk about , about russia contribution to the world in present .  

this is why russia will always be a backwards nation , because they are literary living in the past ,and refuse to modernize their economy and culture , because they live in the past , not in the present times ,that they are supposed to make better . ressurrecting the past will not make russia a better nation at all , but more obsolete and outdated.

Putin rules like a north korean dictator ,in many ways , and such monumental waste of money that putin does in totally symbolic things ,will not be possible if Russia was a true democracy ,and most of the budget of russia was under control NOT just in one person that is the president, , but had to be voted and supported by the parliament first and put under debate of why russia really needs that ?
in what way that museum will help russia to become more secure and safer ? or improve the nation economy? or modernize it?

He does not mention a lot of things Roskosmos is researching but then again the video is one year old by now. I just found it interesting the things he talked about are the things they talked in that article with the interview with Rogozin like the capsule and science module. Neither of which is ready still.

The video is inaccurate in a lot of things I noticed.

From what I understand that quack of anti-gravity engine isn't being funded by Roskosmos. Although NASA Eagleworks did in fact spend resources testing the EmDrive...

Soyuz (both launcher and capsule) are NOT the same as the Soviet version even if externally they look much the same. The control avionics are totally different and the engines were redesign with higher performance versions. This is obvious for anyone who looks at the payload delivery capabilities of the older and newer rockets.

Because Russia has Soyuz it did not need to design something like Falcon 9 to begin with. Falcon 9 Heavy looks impressive on paper in terms of payload delivered but it hasn't sold in part because the payload shroud is basically the same size as in the Falcon 9. Also most payloads don't need the Falcon 9 Heavy capacity. The Falcon 9 FT has enough performance it can compete with the Proton not the Soyuz. Falcon 9 FT has around twice the payload capacity of the Falcon 9 1.0.

To be honest I agreed with a lot of what he said though.

lancelot wrote:

To be honest I agreed with a lot of what he said though.

1. Dmitry Olegovich Rogozin-comes from the family of the hereditary military Oleg Konstantinovich Rogozin, Lieutenant General, professor and Doctor of technical Sciences, whose great-grandfather was Major General Nikolai Mitkevich-Zholtok, police chief of Moscow in 1908-1915, in 1918-1920 — Chief of staff of the State Guard of the Russian Empire, one of the leaders of the Armed Forces of the South of Russia.

2. Dmitry Rogozin in August 1991 participated in the events of the "Putsch" on the side of the White House, led a group of volunteer defenders of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR. In May-June 1992, he was a volunteer soldier in the armed conflict in Transnistria.

3. Dmitry Rogozin graduated with honors from the Economics Department of the University of Marxism-Leninism under the Moscow City Committee of the CPSU in 1988. In 1996, at the Faculty of Philosophy of Moscow State University, he defended his thesis for the degree of Candidate of Philosophical Sciences on the topic "The Russian question and its impact on national and international security". In 1999, he also defended his thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy on the topic "Problems of national security of Russia at the turn of the XXI century". In 2016, he defended his thesis at the N. G. Naval Academy. Kuznetsov's dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Technical Sciences in the specialty " Theory of armament, military-technical policy, weapons system».

4. Dmitry Rogozin is known for his opposition activities, as the chairman of the regional branch of the Great Russia party. As chairman of the Rodina party until 2006.
In 2003 and 2004-Deputy Chairman of the State Duma. From January 2008 to December 2011-Representative of the Russian Federation to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in Brussels, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Russia.

5. Dmitry Rogozin from December 23, 2011 to May 18, 2018 - Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation, Chairman of the Board of the Military-Industrial Commission of the Russian Federation, the Supervisory Board of the state Corporation "Roscosmos", the Supervisory Board of the Foundation for Advanced Research, the Marine Board under the Government of the Russian Federation, the State Commission for the Development of the Arctic, the State Border Commission, the Commission for Export Control of the Russian Federation. Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Russian Military Historical Society from 2013 to 2019.

6. Dmitry Rogozin an expert in small arms, a collector, has a patent for an invention in the field of small arms. Master of Sports in Handball. Actively engaged in tennis, basketball, practical shooting. Enjoys spearfishing, motorcycle riding. Private helicopter pilot since 2015.

In general, based on these publicly available facts, I can say with complete confidence that the video is a piece of shit, and its author is a propaganda stupid asshole.

So because his father had technical expertise, Rogozin is supposed to be an expert? My father can repair the engine on his car and I can't change a tire on mine without some effort.

He's had a decade and to be honest I can't think of one thing the Russian industry has developed since other than building the spaceport. Which he bungled to a degree Putin had to get himself involved personally.
Neither Soyuz 2 nor Angara were developed under his watch. Angara still does not have a dedicated pad. Serial production of Angara and replacement of Proton still has not happened.

Except Rogozin is a failure as a manager too.

The Chinese started afterwards and have put the Long March 7 and Long March 5 into service.
They have built equatorial launch pads at Hainan island. They have built new production facilities.

The Chinese had to develop new engines. Not rehash the RD-170 into the RD-180 and RD-190.
I can't blame Rogozin for what happened in the 1990s and 2000s but the last decade is his baby.

lancelot wrote:So because his father had technical expertise, Rogozin is supposed to be an expert? My father can repair the engine on his car and I can't change a tire on mine without some effort.

You obviously don't know what it's like to grow up in a family of engineers in Russia. In addition, as I have already written, Dmitry Rogozin himself defended his dissertation and received the title of Doctor of Technical Sciences.

He's had a decade and to be honest I can't think of one thing the Russian industry has developed since other than building the spaceport. Which he bungled to a degree Putin had to get himself involved personally.
Neither Soyuz 2 nor Angara were developed under his watch. Angara still does not have a dedicated pad. Serial production of Angara and replacement of Proton still has not happened.

None of these problems are related to Rogozin. As for his personal achievements, first of all, this is the longest accident-free series of space launches in the history of modern Russia, and secondly, a lot of investigations of embezzlement of Roscosmos funds, for which criminal trials have been opened and the perpetrators have already been arrested. It was under Rogozin that the backlog in the construction schedule of the Vostochny cosmodrome was eliminated. It is with him that the Nauka module is finally being prepared to be sent into orbit. It was under him that they finally began to formulate long-term goals for Russian cosmonautics, expressed in specific programs and (most importantly) in the allocation of funds for their development.

By the way, Rogozin did not have any "decade". He was appointed head of Roscosmos only in 2018. Before that, he did not manage this organization.

lancelot wrote:Except Rogozin is a failure as a manager too.

The Chinese started afterwards and have put the Long March 7 and Long March 5 into service.
They have built equatorial launch pads at Hainan island. They have built new production facilities.

The Chinese had to develop new engines.

Tell me the amount of funding for China's space program.