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


+56
Werewolf
GunshipDemocracy
Firebird
OminousSpudd
mnztr
ucmvulcan
ATLASCUB
sundoesntrise
Mig-31BM2 Super Irbis-E
Backman
calripson
littlerabbit
Tolstoy
andalusia
par far
ArgentinaGuard
bandit6
caveat emptor
Lennox
Atmosphere
bitcointrader70
lancelot
magnumcromagnon
ARYGER
Podlodka77
marcellogo
Odin of Ossetia
LMFS
JohninMK
nomadski
kvs
Singular_Transform
lyle6
x_54_u43
Arrow
Hole
jhelb
Sujoy
Rodion_Romanovic
miketheterrible
Tsavo Lion
Broski
George1
SeigSoloyvov
thegopnik
limb
Big_Gazza
TMA1
flamming_python
PapaDragon
Scorpius
ALAMO
GarryB
Isos
Mir
RTN
60 posters

    Talking bollocks thread #4

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 33570
    Points : 34084
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Talking bollocks thread #4 - Page 12 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #4

    Post  GarryB Wed Feb 09, 2022 1:18 am

    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!

    Perhaps you could use your brain.

    MiG design and make aircraft, and they have names for their various prototypes, but the official designations for aircraft are given by the VVS or RuAF.

    The original single seat MiG-29K with the single seat canopy would logically be called MiG-33 only if the MiG-29K based on that design was not accepted for service... when the MiG-29K was not accepted for service then the MiG-29M was the aircraft they wanted the Russian Air Force to adopt and so they promoted it as the MiG-33 too.

    They were still hopeful of selling MiGs to the Navy and when India ordered some upgraded MiG-29Ks they got their chance... the MiG-29K was not going to be sold to the Air Force, which already operates MiG-29s, it was sold to the Russian Navy which does not operate MiG-29s so the MiG-29K and MiG-29KUB designation for the new upgraded 1/2 seat designs was fine, but for the Russian Air Force they wanted a new light fighter and it was different enough from the MiG-29 to warrant more than just an M, so they called it the next available number which was MiG-35, where the MiG-29K/UB could be the MiG-33 if they wished to make it so... they didn't.

    This means that the MiG-29K and MiG-29KUB are current in service 1/2 seat variants of the new MiG-29M which is also a 1/2 seat capable aircraft and the MiG-35 1/2 seat fighter... MiG-33 is not going to be used for any of these aircraft, which means my use of MiG-33 to define the previous prototype versions of the MiG-29M and MiG-29K with single seat canopies and designs is just fine.... if you have a problem with that make a complaint to the forum Admin. Twisted Evil

    Btw - Concord publication is a Western source which you should frown upon - as you've objected to me siting any Western sources.

    In this case the Concord publication was just relating what the MiG design bureau was telling them at the time trying desperately to promote their aircraft to international customers in the 1990s when it was clear there was no money for local orders.

    There were also other designs and suggestions for MiG-33s and MiG-35s that included enlarged designs to make them closer in capability to the Su-27 and also with canard foreplanes and other changes... none of which were official because none made it to prototype form let alone service.

    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.

    This is not an argument. I am just stating what I know from the time period we are talking about.

    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!

    It is talking about export products... MiG-29B and MiG-29UB and MiG-29SE... MiG-29S are not for export sale and now they are pushing the new models so why bother with the SMT that no one seems to be interested in any more?

    The SMT is included in the photos at the top of the main page as it cycles through their aircraft range.

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

    The MiG-25RB is an important aircraft, why would they not include it on their website?

    HATO codename was Foxbat B.

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

    We were discussing the use of the Mig-33 designation... what relevance does the recon bomber variant of the MiG-25 have with that?

    *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

    You have not introduced any facts or statements or reasons to make me change my views in this instance so it is not an argument, it is a discussion... I am stating my reasoning and view... not really sure what you are doing except being annoying.

    discussion noun
    Save Word

    To save this word, you'll need to log in.
    Log In
    dis·​cus·​sion | \ di-ˈskə-shən
    \
    Definition of discussion

    1 : consideration of a question in open and usually informal debate a heated political discussion
    2 : a formal treatment of a topic in speech or writing A discussion on the topic is included in the first chapter.

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

    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.

    The core of the problem is that we don't know specificially where the technology comes from.... if they are just buying it and replicating it then they haven't really mastered it yet.

    There is no question they have good production capacities... they have been the workshop for much of the western world for a few decades now so their capacity to produce things is not in question, and they certainly have areas where they have talent, but I really don't think it is that easy to say which areas they are obviously ahead except for a few.

    They certainly make excellent roads and their high speed trains seem to be very good as well and they have good experience with both... but how does that translate to whether they are better than any other country or not is another question.

    I am very please with this partnership with Russia and I think both sides will benefit massively from this arrangement, and I don't think China just brings money and Russia brings everything else.... this is a proper partnership. I didn't think India and Russia was Russia providing the brains and India providing the money either... no country has exclusive ownership of talent.

    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.

    They have had aircraft engines for a while too, but how do they stack up compared with those made in other places.

    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.

    Comparing the best they have with a numbers tank upgrade is hardly a useful comparison... I didn't follow it closely... did they win everything with their amazing tank?

    They have the J-20 which came out into service before the Su-57.

    Kinda looks like they bought the MiG MFI prototype to me... and the contents are rather unknown...

    They cannot do something like a Tu-160 because they do not have the jet engines to do one.

    The thing is that the Tu-160 has been in service for quite a number of decades and the new models are likely so vastly upgraded from the previous models they should probably have different designations.

    Would say the same about the Su-34, and lets just say the Su-35s they sold to China wont be the same as the ones the Russian AF uses either...

    Scorpius likes this post

    Mir
    Mir


    Posts : 1931
    Points : 1935
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    Talking bollocks thread #4 - Page 12 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #4

    Post  Mir Wed Feb 09, 2022 9:05 am

    GarryB wrote:Perhaps you could use your brain.

    I am afraid you are the one seriously lacking in that department Laughing
    This following statement clearly confirms it - but there is more to follow Wink  >>

    GarryB wrote:when the MiG-29K was not accepted for service then the MiG-29M was the aircraft they wanted the Russian Air Force to adopt and so they promoted it as the MiG-33 too.

    But please - once again - feel free to provide clear evidence of your above statement where the Mig-29K was ever promoted as the Mig-33. See my post below before you start rambling on what you may have seen in a Concord publication...and try to post some real evidence.

    GarryB wrote:We were discussing the use of the Mig-33 designation... what relevance does the recon bomber variant of the MiG-25 have with that?

    Anyone with even a little bit of real knowledge on Soviet/Russian combat aircraft would have realized that the aircraft in the picture is not a recon bomber variant of the Mig-25. It is a picture of a Mig-25P interceptor (the 6th development aircraft to be more specific). Even Migavia - and now even you missed that bit!  Shocked
    Now that is quite telling isn't it?! Laughing
    Talking bollocks thread #4 - Page 12 Mig-ca11

    GarryB wrote:It is talking about export products... MiG-29B and MiG-29UB and MiG-29SE... MiG-29S are not for export sale and now they are pushing the new models so why bother with the SMT that no one seems to be interested in any more?

    Glad you FINALLY realized that because according to you those were ALL the production variants of the Mig-29 - because Migavia said so! I posted a comprehensive list of all known Mig-29 variants (from Russian sources) but no that was not good enough as it was not on the Migavia list.Laughing

    GarryB wrote:Perhaps you could use your brain.

    Apologies for the double quote but I'm about to illustrate just how retarded your posts can be. The amazing thing is you start to spew so much bollox that you even confuse yourself in the process. In many of our "discussions" I have told you that you keep on contradicting and embarrassing yourself and this is once again no exception! Laughing

    GarryB wrote:The only sources I have seen that list the MiG-29M as being the MiG-33 are western sources and in particular a Concord publication series of books dedicated to model makers that was basically photo books about things in a range of topics. One such book was about future Russian aircraft that was published in the 1990s and described the MiG-29M as being the MiG-33. (post 246)

    GarryB wrote:I personally at the time only ever saw one example of the MiG-29M being called MiG-33 and it was in a Concord book on future Russian planes. (post 248)

    And then... Laughing
    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.(post 264)

    Now how about that!  pale  What a Face

    Anyway here is some good advice you yourself gave in a recent post and I quote >>

    GarryB wrote:Everyone can be wrong but when we make it an argument instead of a discussion it gets harder to admit when we are mistaken.
    https://www.russiadefence.net/t5541p550-russian-naval-construction-plans-and-statistics-update?nid=15#355506 (post 563)
    Hole
    Hole


    Posts : 6751
    Points : 6739
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 46
    Location : Scholzistan

    Talking bollocks thread #4 - Page 12 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #4

    Post  Hole Wed Feb 09, 2022 1:46 pm

    As far as I know during the tank biathlon no FCS is used.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 33570
    Points : 34084
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Talking bollocks thread #4 - Page 12 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #4

    Post  GarryB Thu Feb 10, 2022 4:53 am

    I am afraid you are the one seriously lacking in that department

    Hmmm... I am telling you to think about it and you reply that I am not thinking?


    But please - once again - feel free to provide clear evidence of your above statement where the Mig-29K was ever promoted as the Mig-33.

    At the time it was described as the MiG-33 more than as the MiG-29K, because they were trying to promote it as being new and different... which it actually was... the MiG-29K used the MiG-29M airframe which is totally different and not compatible with older model MiG-29 aircraft, just like the new further upgraded MiG-29M and MiG-29K and MiG-35 are totally different from current in service MiG-29 models.

    But bleat all you like. Burn the books and just go with revised and updated sources.

    See my post below before you start rambling on what you may have seen in a Concord publication...and try to post some real evidence.

    This is the talking bollocks thread... I am beyond caring what you might think about this.


    Anyone with even a little bit of real knowledge on Soviet/Russian combat aircraft would have realized that the aircraft in the picture is not a recon bomber variant of the Mig-25. It is a picture of a Mig-25P interceptor (the 6th development aircraft to be more specific). Even Migavia - and now even you missed that bit!]

    You arrogant censored .

    I have no knowledge of Soviet and Russian combat aircraft?

    I guess it is fantastic when you are never wrong and you never make mistakes...you are even more knowledgeable than the people making MiGs website... what a fucking genius you are.

    I posted a comprehensive list of all known Mig-29 variants (from Russian sources) but no that was not good enough as it was not on the Migavia list.I posted a comprehensive list of all known Mig-29 variants (from Russian sources) but no that was not good enough as it was not on the Migavia list.

    Your list was from a fan site that was no more authoritative than this one... FP care to make a list... because you are Russian so it will therefore be comprehensive... obviously...

    Now how about that!  pale  What a Face

    Wow... how anal of you. I made a minor mistake and you took the time to gather all the evidence to convict mean of making a minor mistake in our discussion.... but a total Soviet/Russian expert like yourself should have mentioned it at the time rather than waiting so long, because obviously a genius like you would have noticed the inconsistency straight away.

    Anyway here is some good advice you yourself gave in a recent post and I quote >>

    But I am the lowly idiot, you are the expert on Russian and Soviet equipment, you are the one claiming to not be wrong about anything at all.

    Do tell me though, what were your thoughts during the late 1980s and early to mid 1990s about the situation with Soviet and then Russian aircraft carriers?

    Before the Su-57 was the Su-57 there was lots of speculation about what it might actually be called... I mean Su-37 was already taken for the TVC model MiG-35 and the Su-39 was reserved for the Su-25TM or anything that developed from it, so really the Su-57 should have been the Su-41... but of course politics got in the way and ended up being called Su-57... have read they officially mentioned that this was 22 plus 35, but I don't have any evidence to back that up right now so I look forward to 20 pages of discussion about that.

    BTW I took the time to have a look and the book I was referring to did in fact call the MiG-29K the MiG-29K and said it was not likely to be adopted for service... it also has a MiG-25RBK in it which is amusing, but it also has errors as well like calling the MiG-29M the MiG-33, and even calling the Su-25T the Su-34... because at the time the Su-34 was the Su-27IB... it even includes speculation as to whether there is actually a radar in the flat nose of the Su-27IB or not...

    It shows the Su-27M and calls it Su-35 but that is a different aircraft to the type currently operating as the Su-35 of course...

    But lets demand books printed in the mid 1990s to obviously predict what was going to be happening in 2022... there can be no speculation about aircraft designations because they might end up being wrong... it is all decided by the great and powerful Oz.... also known as Peace....  ☮

    The funniest thing is I give some very good advice about it being a discussion and not an argument because of course arguments on the internet are pointless, and just like the west... you try to use it as a weapon... you user name is obviously therefore sarcasm...
    Mir
    Mir


    Posts : 1931
    Points : 1935
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    Talking bollocks thread #4 - Page 12 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #4

    Post  Mir Thu Feb 10, 2022 7:53 am

    GarryB wrote:Wow... how anal of you. I made a minor mistake and you took the time to gather all the evidence to convict mean of making a minor mistake in our discussion.... but a total Soviet/Russian expert like yourself should have mentioned it at the time rather than waiting so long, because obviously a genius like you would have noticed the inconsistency straight away.

    "Give a man enough rope and he will hang himself" as the saying goes  Laughing

    GarryB wrote:At the time it was described as the MiG-33 more than as the MiG-29K yada yada yada...But bleat all you like. Burn the books and just go with revised and updated sources.

    Still not any evidence at all to substantiate your claim that the Mig-29K was referred to as the Mig-33 - because there is NONE! Laughing

    But if you dig into the archives at airforce.ru you will find a lot of interesting history on the Soviet VKS/PVO and the Russian Air Forces. >>
    Here is an extract of the comprehensive list of variants I posted:

    * MiG-29K (9-31, 9-41) — carrier-based fighter
    * MiG-29KUB (9-47) is a carrier-based combat training fighter.
    * MiG-29KVP is an experimental aircraft for practicing springboard takeoff and aerial landing.
    * MiG-29UB (9-51) - combat training fighter, has no radar.
    * MiG-29UBT (9-52) - the design is close to the MiG-29SMT, but it is still a modification of the MiG-29UB combat training aircraft.
    * MiG-29M/MiG-29M1 is a single-seat multi-purpose fighter of the "4++" generation with an increased flight range, increased combat load and an expanded range of onboard weapons.
    * MiG-29M2 is a two-seat multi-purpose fighter of the "4++" generation with an increased flight range, increased combat load and an expanded range of onboard weapons.
    * MiG-29OVT - an experimental variant with a deflected thrust vector created on the basis of the MiG-29M fighter
    * MiG-29M (MiG-33) (9-15) is a multi-purpose fighter, compared with the early modifications of the MiG-29, significant changes have been made to the design and composition of the avionics, the range of weapons has been expanded and fuel tanks have been increased.
    * MiG-35 (9-61) - deep modernization of the MiG-29M


    In Russian:
    * МиГ-29К (9-31, 9-41) — палубный истребитель
    * MиГ-29КУБ (9-47) — палубный учебно-боевой истребитель.
    * МиГ-29КВП — опытный самолёт для отработки трамплинного взлета и аэрофинишерной посадки.
    * МиГ-29УБ (9-51) — учебно-боевой истребитель, не имеет РЛС.
    * МиГ-29УБТ (9-52) — конструкция близка к МиГ-29СМТ, но все же является модификацией учебно-боевого самолёта МиГ-29УБ.
    * МиГ-29М/МиГ-29М1 — одноместный многоцелевой истребитель поколения «4++» с повышенной дальностью полета, увеличенной боевой нагрузкой и расширенной номенклатурой бортового вооружения.
    * МиГ-29М2 — двухместный многоцелевой истребитель поколения «4++» с повышенной дальностью полета, увеличенной боевой нагрузкой и расширенной номенклатурой бортового вооружения.
    * МиГ-29ОВТ — опытный вариант с отклоняемым вектором тяги создан на базе истребителя МиГ-29М
    * МиГ-29M (МиГ-33) (9-15) — многоцелевой истребитель, по сравнению с ранними модификациями МиГ-29 в конструкцию и состав БРЭО внесены значительные изменения, расширена номенклатура вооружения и увеличены топливные баки.
    * МиГ-35 (9-61) — глубокая модернизация МиГ-29М


    GarryB wrote:You arrogant  censored
    I have no knowledge of Soviet and Russian combat aircraft?
    I guess it is fantastic when you are never wrong and you never make mistakes...you are even more knowledgeable than the people making MiGs website... what a fucking genius you are.

    No sir you are the arrogant censored
    And yes you have clearly demonstrated your lack of knowledge here >>

    GarryB wrote:The MiG-25RB is an important aircraft, why would they not include it on their website? HATO codename was Foxbat B.
    GarryB wrote:We were discussing the use of the Mig-33 designation... what relevance does the recon bomber variant of the MiG-25 have with that?
    Laughing Laughing Laughing
    Talking bollocks thread #4 - Page 12 Mig-ca12

    In fact in most of our "discussions" you have clearly demonstrated your lack of knowledge. For example stating that the BMPT is a SPAAG and the Yak-38 was an experimental aircraft. Well they made history by producing over 200 experimental samples of the Yak-38! Laughing
    Not to mention the Mig-29M...

    GarryB wrote:This is the talking bollocks thread... I am beyond caring what you might think about this.

    Yes this is the place where you go and hide your "little mistakes" and your lack of knowledge.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 33570
    Points : 34084
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Talking bollocks thread #4 - Page 12 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #4

    Post  GarryB Fri Feb 11, 2022 2:25 am

    "Give a man enough rope and he will hang himself" as the saying goes

    Or teach himself to weave and make baskets.


    Still not any evidence at all to substantiate your claim that the Mig-29K was referred to as the Mig-33 - because there is NONE!

    It was speculation at the time... we had no access to Russian sources at the time.

    MiG was suggesting all sorts of potential service names for the aircraft they were putting forward for the job.

    BTW didn't you suggest there was no such thing as an Su-33?

    Its designation was changed to Su-33 because they actually had Su-27s in service in the Navy at the time so the carrier based Flanker needed a different name to distinguish it from the other models that were not carrier capable.

    The Russian Navy didn't have any MiG-29s in operational service so the need for the MiG-33 designation was not there.

    Interesting that the further evolution of the MiG-29M wasn't called MiG-33 like your Russian sources were predicting but ended up being called MiG-35 in service... almost like they expected the MiG-29KR to be called MiG-33 and used the next available number for the version adopted later.


    But if you dig into the archives at airforce.ru you will find a lot of interesting history on the Soviet VKS/PVO and the Russian Air Forces. >>
    Here is an extract of the comprehensive list of variants I posted:

    You do understand that this is not the official website of the Russian AF and is basically a fan site...

    [quote]
    GarryB wrote:
    The MiG-25RB is an important aircraft, why would they not include it on their website? HATO codename was Foxbat B.

    GarryB wrote:
    We were discussing the use of the Mig-33 designation... what relevance does the recon bomber variant of the MiG-25 have with that?

    Laughing Laughing Laughing{/quote]

    You brought up the damn plane in the first place... it makes sense to have a photo of that plane on their website because it was a product they made and is relevant to their company. It is not relevant to bring it up here like YOU did because it is not relevant to our discussion.

    And then you post the photo again... genius.

    For example stating that the BMPT is a SPAAG and the Yak-38 was an experimental aircraft.

    The BMPT replaces SPAAG in the ground to ground fire support role for which its better armour makes it more suitable. It also has the dedicated role of dealing with drones, which means it is a type of SPAAG.

    The Yak-38 was tested in Afghanistan in the role of CAS, for which it was found to be totally useless.

    Well they made history by producing over 200 experimental samples of the Yak-38!

    It was a dog of an aircraft, if they had left it as being experimental only they might have saved a lot of money and quite a few pilots and crew.

    Pilots of the time described it as being a moral support aircraft... it was totally useless.

    Yes this is the place where you go and hide your "little mistakes" and your lack of knowledge.

    Hide in plain sight?

    Shame my memory isn't perfect, but I am sure most members will be able to sleep at night despite that serious character flaw I have.
    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 1227
    Points : 1227
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    Talking bollocks thread #4 - Page 12 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #4

    Post  lyle6 Fri Feb 11, 2022 2:30 am

    Swgman_BK wrote:Where do people get the SU57 RCS figures from?

    Talking bollocks thread #4 - Page 12 Bidencrackpipe

    Hole, Mir and Swgman_BK like this post

    avatar
    bitcointrader70


    Posts : 271
    Points : 273
    Join date : 2021-04-15

    Talking bollocks thread #4 - Page 12 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #4

    Post  bitcointrader70 Fri Feb 11, 2022 2:38 am

    Because the design is worse. And you can clearly see with IR sensor sticking out over its nose. It’s not rocket science to figure out a lot of people in Russia are лохи и пиздаболы.

    I’ve lost all hope for this plane honestly. I’m at least hoping their will be at least 100 of them after everything is said and done with stealth good enough so the Russians don’t get embarrassed when a export block f16 manages to shoot it down with amraam.

    dino00 dislikes this post

    Atmosphere
    Atmosphere


    Posts : 223
    Points : 225
    Join date : 2021-01-31

    Talking bollocks thread #4 - Page 12 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #4

    Post  Atmosphere Fri Feb 11, 2022 3:07 am

    bitcointrader70 wrote:Because the design is worse. And you can clearly see with IR sensor sticking out over its nose. It’s not rocket science to figure out a lot of people in Russia are лохи и пиздаболы.

    I’ve lost all hope for this plane honestly. I’m at least hoping their will be at least 100 of them after everything is said and done with stealth good enough so the Russians don’t get embarrassed when a export block f16 manages to shoot it down with amraam.

    "Because the design is worse"

    Completely wrong and unfounded

    " And you can clearly see with IR sensor sticking out over its nose. "

    There are several ways of making a small round shape stealthy. Faceted Optics are easier to make than round ones, so if they were necessary, they'd be applied.
    Look at LTS, one of its optics, the big one, is faceted, the smaller one is round, meaning that there's a solution for smaller objects to be round yet stealthy.

    "It’s not rocket science to figure out a lot of people in Russia are лохи и пиздаболы."
    Characteristics of "people of russia" have nothing to do with someting as specific as an engineering and design bureau.

    "I’ve lost all hope for this plane honestly."
    It changes absolutely nothing.

    " I’m at least hoping their will be at least 100 of them after everything is said "
    There are specific teams tasked with studying how to manage budget and how much of which aircraft to procure, this doesn't come out of thin air.

    " so the Russians don’t get embarrassed "
    There is no buying multi million dollar aircraft for the sake of non-embarassment.

    "when a export block f16 manages to shoot it down with amraam."
    Talking bollocks thread #4 - Page 12 1f62c Talking bollocks thread #4 - Page 12 1f62c Talking bollocks thread #4 - Page 12 1f62c

    Hole and Mir like this post

    avatar
    Lennox


    Posts : 67
    Points : 69
    Join date : 2021-07-30

    Talking bollocks thread #4 - Page 12 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #4

    Post  Lennox Fri Feb 11, 2022 3:12 am

    Right, because a team of scientists with all their actual radars and receivers and analysis tools- including supercomputers- just isnt as good as your eyes that can "clearly see".

    Dude is so deluded he forgot the J-20' canards pose a much greater threat to stealth, while the F-22's original design and planned update included a freaking IRST, the design of which is close to the round IRST here.

    Hole likes this post

    avatar
    bitcointrader70


    Posts : 271
    Points : 273
    Join date : 2021-04-15

    Talking bollocks thread #4 - Page 12 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #4

    Post  bitcointrader70 Fri Feb 11, 2022 3:15 am

    Lennox wrote:Right, because a team of scientists with all their actual radars and receivers and analysis tools- including supercomputers- just isnt as good as your eyes that can "clearly see".

    Dude is so deluded he forgot the J-20' canards pose a much greater threat to stealth, while the F-22's original design and planned update included a freaking IRST, the design of which is close to the round IRST here.  

    You mean how people can on this very forum deny the work of skunk works and Lockheed Martin egg heads with trillions of dollars at there disposal and than go on to claim that stealth doesn’t work. Amraam doesn’t work. F35 is garbage. F22 is garbage. AESA LPI isn’t real tech

    You mean like that?
    avatar
    Lennox


    Posts : 67
    Points : 69
    Join date : 2021-07-30

    Talking bollocks thread #4 - Page 12 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #4

    Post  Lennox Fri Feb 11, 2022 3:32 am

    and how's that any difference from you saying that the Su-57 is a bad design. For your reference, my point of view and many people here' povs are that stealth isnt a game changer. It certainly helps a lot, sure, but it's far from being winning condition, ie. it doesn't work as people's hype. In fact no one from LM ever said stealth is a game changer (source: Wink ). Same thing with AESA, it may be newer, but certainly not a game changer. Lol imagine knowing some planes still use pre 2000 tech CRT tubes tech instead of LCD for their HUDS. And no one, as far as I'm aware, ever said F-22 is garbage. The F-35, however, is close. It's more of an effective data integration platform. Aim-120 being garbage is just some people's opinion.

    Big_Gazza, Mir and Broski like this post

    TMA1
    TMA1


    Posts : 524
    Points : 528
    Join date : 2020-11-30

    Talking bollocks thread #4 - Page 12 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #4

    Post  TMA1 Fri Feb 11, 2022 4:49 am

    bitcointrader70 wrote:Because the design is worse. And you can clearly see with IR sensor sticking out over its nose. It’s not rocket science to figure out a lot of people in Russia are лохи и пиздаболы.

    I’ve lost all hope for this plane honestly. I’m at least hoping their will be at least 100 of them after everything is said and done with stealth good enough so the Russians don’t get embarrassed when a export block f16 manages to shoot it down with amraam.

    Whoa bro you must have got your amazing info from "insiders" at f-16.net

    Big_Gazza, miketheterrible and Hole like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 33570
    Points : 34084
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Talking bollocks thread #4 - Page 12 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #4

    Post  GarryB Fri Feb 11, 2022 7:25 am

    Because the design is worse. And you can clearly see with IR sensor sticking out over its nose. It’s not rocket science to figure out a lot of people in Russia are лохи и пиздаболы.

    The Russians tracked American F-35s flying along Iranian border with Iraq from their own territory... so exactly what value is there in going hard core retard making a plane 120 million dollars per airframe to buy and 90 thousand british pounds per hour to operate when you can be detected 3-4,000km away from Russian radars?

    Honestly, they have made it a stealthy design and it is stealthy enough to probably be rather difficult for western fighters to deal with, but not so stealthy it is too expensive to buy in any numbers.

    This is an F-22 level weapon so the US equivalent is a 250 million dollar aircraft...

    I’ve lost all hope for this plane honestly. I’m at least hoping their will be at least 100 of them after everything is said and done with stealth good enough so the Russians don’t get embarrassed when a export block f16 manages to shoot it down with amraam.

    Hope is how the west builds planes... hope we don't need to use it in real combat... hope if we do it will be the Taliban again because they only beat us on the ground... we totally dominated them in the air... Rolling Eyes

    Trillions well spent I guess.

    while the F-22's original design and planned update included a freaking IRST, the design of which is close to the round IRST here.

    The F-22 lost its IRST so the 250million dollar plane didn't become the 300 million dollar plane...

    You mean how people can on this very forum deny the work of skunk works and Lockheed Martin egg heads with trillions of dollars at there disposal and than go on to claim that stealth doesn’t work. Amraam doesn’t work. F35 is garbage. F22 is garbage. AESA LPI isn’t real tech

    You mean like that?

    Of course it works to a degree, but you don't need a 100 million dollar watch to tell you the time... after you get past the first million the remaining 99 million is window dressing and corruption, so a 1 million dollar watch will tell you the time and the difference in the accuracy of the 100 million dollar watch is not enough to be relevant to anybody... the difference in precision would not be detectable by the human brain.

    Stealth can delay detection and make things hard for some weapons, but for Russian weapon designers stealth isn't new... they have been designing radar and aircraft and missiles to deal with such things for quite some time and they never put all their eggs in one basket.... so BVR IR guided missiles continue to be carried, IRST are fitted to all their fighters... and were also standard on their MiG-23s and MiG-25s and MiG-31s... and their radar coverage around their country is extensive... and being added to all the time.... as is their missile air defence network with new types being added all the time.

    Even their ATGMs can be used against air targets so they can be used against drones or used to simulate drones so air defence units can practise against them.

    and how's that any difference from you saying that the Su-57 is a bad design. For your reference, my point of view and many people here' povs are that stealth isnt a game changer. It certainly helps a lot, sure, but it's far from being winning condition, ie. it doesn't work as people's hype. In fact no one from LM ever said stealth is a game changer

    They used to talk about invisible stealth aircraft, but after the Serbs shot down their F-117 they started saying it was not invisible just hard to see and track.

    They also claimed the B-2 bomber was a bomber because its stealth would allow it to roam freely in Russian airspace dropping conventional and nuclear bombs on various targets to allow other platforms like B-52s get through too.

    They also said the B-1B would be ideal for destroying truck mounted ICBMs, but when both aircraft failed to destroy even just one Scud missile launcher in Iraq during Desert Storm despite total air superiority and a much smaller area and no interference of satellites or recon aircraft and of course the range of the Scuds restricting where they could be launched from they quietly stopped talking about the potential of either aircraft as being Scud busters...

    I'm aware, ever said F-22 is garbage. The F-35, however, is close

    Both are incredibly expensive platforms optimised to take down the air power of third world countries with no real air defence networks to speak of... the F-35 is incomplete and has been rushed in to service without actually being a fighter.... the microsoft method of selling to you full price, software that needs to be beta tested... by you... at your cost... so they can work out how to fix their design...

    Aim-120 being garbage is just some people's opinion.

    BVR missiles are not going to be the amazing plane killers everyone seems to expect them to be... especially against targets with modern EW equipment and know they are under attack.

    This thread is about to disappear because I am going to merge it into the Su-57 thread.

    If you can't find it find a post you have posted and click on the username and in the drop down menu click on the option to see all posts and it should show you where you posts have been moved to.

    magnumcromagnon and Big_Gazza like this post

    Mir
    Mir


    Posts : 1931
    Points : 1935
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    Talking bollocks thread #4 - Page 12 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #4

    Post  Mir Fri Feb 11, 2022 7:36 am

    GarryB wrote:You brought up the damn plane in the first place... it makes sense to have a photo of that plane on their website because it was a product they made and is relevant to their company. It is not relevant to bring it up here like YOU did because it is not relevant to our discussion.

    And then you post the photo again... genius.

    Their own product (Ye-155P-6) is not relevant to their own post - it is not a Mig-25RB it is a Mig-25P and as YOU also failed to recognize the aircraft as such it becomes appropriate in our "discussion".
    Firstly because you sited Migavia as the be all and know all of ALL Mig-29 variants but as it turns out they don't list all their variants and they even made a big mistake on their own website by posting the Mig-25P as a Mig-25RB.
    Secondly because it clearly illustrated your lack of knowledge when it comes to Soviet/Russian combat aircraft. Your ramblings on the Mig-33 as the Mig-29K is another prime example!

    GarryB wrote:The BMPT replaces SPAAG in the ground to ground fire support role for which its better armour makes it more suitable. It also has the dedicated role of dealing with drones, which means it is a type of SPAAG.

    The Yak-38 was tested in Afghanistan in the role of CAS, for which it was found to be totally useless.

    You see here you go again - spewing absolute bollox - once again clearly demonstrating your lack of basic knowledge. A SPAAG is a Self Propelled Anti-Aircraft Gun. It's main purpose is to engage enemy air units and can perform secondary ground support duties.
    The BMPT on the other hand - and I quote from Rosoboronexport  - is  a "Fire Support Combat Vehicle is designed to provide fire support to tank and infantry units, detect and destroy concealed and dispersed targets on the battlefield. BMPT has weapon systems capable of engaging heavy armoured ground and aerial targets, and fortifications. However, its main mission (and advantage) is to detect and destroy highly concealed targets before they can inflict damage on your forces."

    And here again is another such demostration >>
    GarryB wrote:Its designation was changed to Su-33 because they actually had Su-27s in service in the Navy at the time so the carrier based Flanker needed a different name to distinguish it from the other models that were not carrier capable.

    The carrier based Su-27 already had a name way back in Soviet times - it was designated as the Su-27K. The Russian decided to change the designation to Su-33. Same with the Mig-29M - that was changed to Mig-33 for a short period. Same goes for the Soviet era Su-27M that formed the basis of the Su-35. 

    Here is some more evidence of the Mig-29M (Mig-33) heritage >> this time from Vympel-V.com Wink
    Talking bollocks thread #4 - Page 12 Mig-2912

    And some more lack of knowledge displayed here! >>
    GarryB wrote:Interesting that the further evolution of the MiG-29M wasn't called MiG-33 like your Russian sources were predicting but ended up being called MiG-35 in service

    The Mig-29M was never put into production but it's 6 prototypes formed the basis of a number of further Mig-29 developments (as also illustrated by Vympel above). It formed the basis of the Mig-35's development. Aircraft 156 (mig-29M) is the actual prototype for the first Mig-35. That same aircraft is now the Mig-29OVT! The Mig-29K and the Mig-29SMT was also developed from the Mig-29M. That makes the Mig-29M (Mig-33) a very important aircraft in the history of the development of the modern Mig-29.

    In fact another Russian site - techno-story.ru has some interesting history on the Mig-29M (Mig-33) that I will post in a more appropriate thread in the near future. The same goes for the Yak-38/41.

    GarryB wrote:And then you post the photo again... genius

    It's a great picture isn't it?!
    Definitely one of my favorites! Smile
    Talking bollocks thread #4 - Page 12 Mig-ca13
    avatar
    bitcointrader70


    Posts : 271
    Points : 273
    Join date : 2021-04-15

    Talking bollocks thread #4 - Page 12 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #4

    Post  bitcointrader70 Fri Feb 11, 2022 1:29 pm

    TMA1 wrote:
    bitcointrader70 wrote:Because the design is worse. And you can clearly see with IR sensor sticking out over its nose. It’s not rocket science to figure out a lot of people in Russia are лохи и пиздаболы.

    I’ve lost all hope for this plane honestly. I’m at least hoping their will be at least 100 of them after everything is said and done with stealth good enough so the Russians don’t get embarrassed when a export block f16 manages to shoot it down with amraam.

    Whoa bro you must have got your amazing info from "insiders" at f-16.net
    Some people on f16.net are former pilots. Meanwhile a lot of people here have never even been to Russia or seen any of the equipment discussed in person.
    Mir
    Mir


    Posts : 1931
    Points : 1935
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    Talking bollocks thread #4 - Page 12 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #4

    Post  Mir Fri Feb 11, 2022 1:59 pm

    bitcointrader70 wrote:
    Some people on f16.net are former pilots.

    I'm sure there are some very knowledgeable people over there - and even some real pilots as well. Me myself - yeah I am a helicopter pilot Wink Laughing
    It's quite amazing what BS people can spew on the internet!

    bitcointrader70 wrote:Meanwhile a lot of people here have never even been to Russia or seen any of the equipment discussed in person.

    "Paying a visit to Russia" doesn't automatically qualify you as an expert on all things Russian.
    I personally have seen a lot of Soviet/Russian weapons in my life as my country was involved in a border war where most of the weapons supplied to the "enemy" came from the Soviet Union. Our special forces used mainly Soviet weapons as well. I've handled and fired a good couple of rounds from various AK's, but even that doesn't automatically qualify anybody as a Soviet weapons expert.

    miketheterrible likes this post

    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible


    Posts : 7403
    Points : 7377
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Talking bollocks thread #4 - Page 12 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #4

    Post  miketheterrible Fri Feb 11, 2022 2:17 pm

    bitcointrader70 wrote:
    TMA1 wrote:
    bitcointrader70 wrote:Because the design is worse. And you can clearly see with IR sensor sticking out over its nose. It’s not rocket science to figure out a lot of people in Russia are лохи и пиздаболы.

    I’ve lost all hope for this plane honestly. I’m at least hoping their will be at least 100 of them after everything is said and done with stealth good enough so the Russians don’t get embarrassed when a export block f16 manages to shoot it down with amraam.

    Whoa bro you must have got your amazing info from "insiders" at f-16.net
    Some people on f16.net are former pilots. Meanwhile a lot of people here have never even been to Russia or seen any of the equipment discussed in person.

    Neither have you
    avatar
    bitcointrader70


    Posts : 271
    Points : 273
    Join date : 2021-04-15

    Talking bollocks thread #4 - Page 12 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #4

    Post  bitcointrader70 Fri Feb 11, 2022 2:21 pm

    miketheterrible wrote:
    bitcointrader70 wrote:
    TMA1 wrote:
    bitcointrader70 wrote:Because the design is worse. And you can clearly see with IR sensor sticking out over its nose. It’s not rocket science to figure out a lot of people in Russia are лохи и пиздаболы.

    I’ve lost all hope for this plane honestly. I’m at least hoping their will be at least 100 of them after everything is said and done with stealth good enough so the Russians don’t get embarrassed when a export block f16 manages to shoot it down with amraam.

    Whoa bro you must have got your amazing info from "insiders" at f-16.net
    Some people on f16.net are former pilots. Meanwhile a lot of people here have never even been to Russia or seen any of the equipment discussed in person.

    Neither have you
    That’s where you are wrong. Seen several in person. Been to several military museums in Russia.
    Mir
    Mir


    Posts : 1931
    Points : 1935
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    Talking bollocks thread #4 - Page 12 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #4

    Post  Mir Fri Feb 11, 2022 2:26 pm

    bitcointrader70 wrote:Been to several military museums in Russia.

    Ok so now you're an expert. Amazing!
    Name one of those military museums.
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon


    Posts : 8159
    Points : 8304
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Talking bollocks thread #4 - Page 12 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #4

    Post  magnumcromagnon Fri Feb 11, 2022 2:33 pm

    Mir wrote:
    bitcointrader70 wrote:Been to several military museums in Russia.

    Ok so now you're an expert!? Amazing!
    Name one of those military museums.

    He's not an expert but he spent the night at a holiday inn express last night! Wink Razz

    Mir likes this post

    avatar
    bitcointrader70


    Posts : 271
    Points : 273
    Join date : 2021-04-15

    Talking bollocks thread #4 - Page 12 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #4

    Post  bitcointrader70 Fri Feb 11, 2022 2:41 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    Mir wrote:
    bitcointrader70 wrote:Been to several military museums in Russia.

    Ok so now you're an expert!? Amazing!
    Name one of those military museums.

    He's not an expert but he spent the night at a holiday inn express last night! Wink Razz


    Not an expert by any means but when there are former fighter jet pilots and old crows on f16.net as opposed to here where the average poster hasn’t been to Russia…..
    Mir
    Mir


    Posts : 1931
    Points : 1935
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    Talking bollocks thread #4 - Page 12 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #4

    Post  Mir Fri Feb 11, 2022 2:51 pm

    bitcointrader70 wrote:
    Not an expert by any means but when there are former fighter jet pilots and old crows on f16.net as opposed to here where the average poster hasn’t been to Russia…..

    Well at least you now admit you're not an expert...but again visiting Russia surely doesn't make you an expert?
    Americans are well known as "tourists" and "travelers" but most Americans see the world like this >>  Laughing
    Talking bollocks thread #4 - Page 12 Americ10

    GarryB, George1, magnumcromagnon, Big_Gazza, kvs, tanino, galicije83 and like this post

    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza


    Posts : 3518
    Points : 3516
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Talking bollocks thread #4 - Page 12 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #4

    Post  Big_Gazza Fri Feb 11, 2022 11:25 pm

    bitcointrader70 wrote:Some people on f16.net are former pilots. Meanwhile a lot of people here have never even been to Russia or seen any of the equipment discussed in person.

    Get the feck outta here troll. f16.net is chock full of Russophobe wankers and Atlantacist circle-jerking morons. The ex-military big mouths are just regurgitating the nonsense propaganda they were programmed with, but you chose to see lumps of gold instead of turds.

    Blocked. Life is just too short to bother with idiots and fools. Razz

    kvs, Isos, miketheterrible, LMFS, gmsmith1985, Mir and Belisarius like this post

    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 9579
    Points : 9565
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Talking bollocks thread #4 - Page 12 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #4

    Post  Isos Fri Feb 11, 2022 11:51 pm

    Mir you forgot HonG Kong in Brazil on your map lol1 .

    Sponsored content


    Talking bollocks thread #4 - Page 12 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #4

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Jul 03, 2022 4:24 am