I read a very interesting article quite recently in The Sunday Times about Russia implementing a regime of spies, once again, in the US. Apparently Russia is also implementing online 'spying' against other countries - although the country that accused Russia of this escapes me right now.
Russia tests long-range missile
- Thread starter AFA
- Start date
I read a very interesting article quite recently in The Sunday Times about Russia implementing a regime of spies, once again, in the US. Apparently Russia is also implementing online 'spying' against other countries - although the country that accused Russia of this escapes me right now.
dick van cock
Closed Account
I am aware of all the things you stated. But I am not bothered by what Putin does domestically.
In my post I was referring exclusively to Russia as an international player. Putin may be a bastard, but he's our bastard.
On the energy policy: Russia has so far used gas prices and supply as a political weapon only against Belarus, Ukraine and Georgia. It is closely cooperating (on its own conditions - granted!) with German energy companies to explore gas fields and building pipelines to Western Europe. Gazprom knows: If they want our money, they have to work with us.
Re: Doesn't impact the US one bit ...
I don't know about you, but in war - quantity is a quality of it's own.
cheers,
Not to forget the fact that the MiG-25's power plants had a ridiculously short lifespan. Notoriously fuel-inefficient, heavy, a-hog-with-wings maneuverability, useless visibility from the cockpit.... no wonder the Sovs used 'em more as recon aircraft than true air superiority or stand off fighters.
So did the Germans - look what happened to them.We vastly overrated their conventional weapons systems as well.
I don't know about you, but in war - quantity is a quality of it's own.
cheers,
F-15 was more about Vietnam and the F-4
There might have been some rhetoric using the MIG-25 that justified the F-15 production, but the F-15 development started much earlier.
The F-4 was an outstanding, engineering achievement.
It massively exceeded the engineering requirements set by all military branches.
It is the epitome of engineering requirements defining and outstanding achievement for its time (late '50s/early '60s).
And it is also the epitome of how engineering requirements are rarely the "end all, be all" of what the military needs.
The F-15 is a constant reminder to us engineers why pure engineering design on its own is useless, and input from more technicians and those who use the equipment is required.
It was an aircraft designed by pilots and mechanics for pilots and mechanics, a merger of technical and user need combined with engineering feasibility.
The F-4 was a chronic failure in the field -- both as an aircraft in the air and a support issue on the ground.
The F-4 was a flying brick took days to replace engines -- details that were at the forefront of the F-15's development.
The development and production of the F-15 actually saved operational costs, as much as readiness.
Hence why it's been adopted by many other nations, including both the Japanese and the South Koreans more recently, despite their own nation's development programs.
It was lessons learned on technical feasibility, supportability and a focus on things outside the concepts of pure engineering requirements and design.
Designed by pilots and mechanics for pilots mechanics.
And it set the standard for all, future designs.
Despite common sells that it was an answer to the MIG-25, the F-15 was more about Vietnam and the F-4.
There might have been some rhetoric using the MIG-25 that justified the F-15 production, but the F-15 development started much earlier.
The F-4 was an outstanding, engineering achievement.
It massively exceeded the engineering requirements set by all military branches.
It is the epitome of engineering requirements defining and outstanding achievement for its time (late '50s/early '60s).
And it is also the epitome of how engineering requirements are rarely the "end all, be all" of what the military needs.
The F-15 is a constant reminder to us engineers why pure engineering design on its own is useless, and input from more technicians and those who use the equipment is required.
It was an aircraft designed by pilots and mechanics for pilots and mechanics, a merger of technical and user need combined with engineering feasibility.
The F-4 was a chronic failure in the field -- both as an aircraft in the air and a support issue on the ground.
The F-4 was a flying brick took days to replace engines -- details that were at the forefront of the F-15's development.
The development and production of the F-15 actually saved operational costs, as much as readiness.
Hence why it's been adopted by many other nations, including both the Japanese and the South Koreans more recently, despite their own nation's development programs.
It was lessons learned on technical feasibility, supportability and a focus on things outside the concepts of pure engineering requirements and design.
Designed by pilots and mechanics for pilots mechanics.
And it set the standard for all, future designs.
If the F-15C/E is the interceptor/fighter-bomber ...
If the F-15C/E is the interceptor/fighter-bomber design that radically changed the aircraft design world ...
The PAC-3/THAAD theater missile defense (TMD) system designs are the direct equivalent that have radically changed the air defense world.
Changing to hit-to-kill, with the improved tracking systems, has improved air defense an order of magnitude -- from reducing size to support to just the tracking capability itself.
The F-15 did the same for everything from maneuverability and kill ratio to massively improved supportability in the field.
The justification for TMD is in what it does for air defense and battlefield management, much like what the F-15 did for air/ground attack and aircraft supportability.
If the F-15C/E is the interceptor/fighter-bomber design that radically changed the aircraft design world ...
The PAC-3/THAAD theater missile defense (TMD) system designs are the direct equivalent that have radically changed the air defense world.
Changing to hit-to-kill, with the improved tracking systems, has improved air defense an order of magnitude -- from reducing size to support to just the tracking capability itself.
The F-15 did the same for everything from maneuverability and kill ratio to massively improved supportability in the field.
The justification for TMD is in what it does for air defense and battlefield management, much like what the F-15 did for air/ground attack and aircraft supportability.
I will agree with you about the f4 because it was one of the most successful fighter attacker. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F4_Phantom. Its drawbacks was the massive amount of smoke produced by the ge jg79 engines and the fact that it was subject of adverse yaw during hard manoeuvering. However it served brilliantly in the USAF from 1964 till 1996, in USMC from 1962 till 1992 and in the Navy from 1960 till 1983.
The advantages of the f15 c/e are too numerous to quote them. Let's not forget the kill ratio of 104 kills and 0 defeats that speaks for itself.
The advantages of the f15 c/e are too numerous to quote them. Let's not forget the kill ratio of 104 kills and 0 defeats that speaks for itself.
View from Moscow:
I am not so good at rocket science, warfare or missiles, but it's a bit afflicting to realize, that people have started discussing possible ressurection of "the cold war".
Obviously, i have many friends from the US - across the whole country, moreover - my girlfriend is a pure american - and we all deal well.
So, to my mind it's all about politics and has nothing with common citizens
I am not so good at rocket science, warfare or missiles, but it's a bit afflicting to realize, that people have started discussing possible ressurection of "the cold war".
Obviously, i have many friends from the US - across the whole country, moreover - my girlfriend is a pure american - and we all deal well.
So, to my mind it's all about politics and has nothing with common citizens
It is more afflicting to see that there are apparatchicks and unhonest russian people include in those former members of the kgb, military,politicians and mafiosi who live in other countries with false identity papers, false insurance numbers and who pass themselves for good and honest law abiding citizens. All of them support Putin of course and that is more worrying.
I am suspecting that there are some very rich russians who live in Paris in the quartiers chics and I am not really sure wether they are honest or not.
I respect honest and law abiding people not crooks or mafiosi or people supporting Putin.
This is why we all need more of this: http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?t=137886
Similar threads
