http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...9342-2,00.html
Right, because going to the Arctic and stealing a ship and driving it around nowhere for month is the GOOD plan they came up with.
Home | 
http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...9342-2,00.html
Right, because going to the Arctic and stealing a ship and driving it around nowhere for month is the GOOD plan they came up with.
Israelis hitting on a Russian Ship in waters off Europe carrying "secret" cargo (apparently MiGs 31s, according to the article).... okay.....
May be it was Santa Clause?
This is better then the organ harvesting thing from Finland.
Mil - stands for the countless MILlions of reasons not to work.
SwedenOriginally Posted by Mil
"It is cheap to attack Israel. I am certainly not going to make a cheap attack on Israel by howling in the woods with the rest of the wolves." - Geert Wilders
LOL Mil has a geographic shift complex going... 3 seconds until we get the Finn posting.
Myself and Carlson, the one who lives on the roof, broke a bottle of Absolute.... the day before
Mil - stands for the countless MILlions of reasons not to work.
May be it was the Israelis who did this vessel job.... this would be a major embarrassment to the Russians.
Mil - stands for the countless MILlions of reasons not to work.
I could see it that the Russians may have agreed to the job. They couldnt try to not deliver perhaps, but it was later ascertained that it was not in their best interest. So they may have ok'd the hijack as a news ploy to cover up the fact. That is the way the KGB works. The Israelis could have made a deal.
Or not.
MiG29M/31 are so bad the Russian airforce has grounded all their own pending a broad investigation to understand why they are breaking up midair. The suffer from extreme corrosion problems as well as parts QA defects that are off the chart. Their parts subvendors are screwing up massively and this is made worse by Russia's own agreement to permit export versions to be licence built with little local QA for sublicencee contractors.
Whats the deal. joint welding? Composites? alloys?
They don't know. Russian high performance aircraft were until the later tranche MiG29 mostly stainless steel. They're new to composites, non ferrous alloys, high performance ceramics, euctectic welding. But one key problem is that 29/31 were designed for no more than 1500 flight hours and Russians haven't figured out how to extend that significantly yet. Many of their airframes are old in that sense. Adding that retrofit into the service time cycle for all these new materials, which as the US found out is greater per flight hour than older planes, just is proving too much for them .
How about the SUs same issues or different manufacturing process?
So this vessel had missiles and not timber? Any confirmation or it's mere especulation?
I think it's speculation, and then politicized from not indifferent corners:
Critics of the official Russian explanation say the public is being fed more than ice cream. The Time report quotes the European Union's rapporteur on piracy, Adm. Tarmo Kouts of Estonia, as saying that the only way to explain the events is to accept the theory that the Arctic Sea was carrying missiles.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=112515010
If it was a hit, then the Russians would have retaliated in some fashion. It's just in their nature. From their position, this is 100% piracy, and they want to sell whatever to whomever. So it was either preplanned and coordinated, or its bogus. I'm on the fence whether it was one or the other.
The problem with deconstructing Su-27s and higher is that it's hard to tell what's real and what's not. The Su-27s were designed and built to higher standards but there's a great deal of confusion about what they are, what the tranche series are supposed to be and how they are labeled. 27's -30's -34's -35's are all ostensibly supposed to originate from the same planform. But they probably don't. Similarly in the US the F-18H super Hornets really are NOT generations of F-18A/B but an entirely new aircraft. In addition there are Naval variants of the SUs that were always intended to be Naval aircraft instead of retrofits like some of the export tranche MiG-29s. So one would have to guess that they are more corrosion resistant. Overall the production numbers of all the non 37/30s is so small as to be insignificant and the production runs of the 27/30s alone is still fairly small. The single seat SU-35 is supposed to eventually replace the two-seat older SU30s but who knows.
As far as we've been able to tell SU27/30s do not suffer from the same wear and tear as older MiG-29s.
Mediocrates,
What do you think about Sukhoi PAK FA & FGFA ?
Mountain look very spectacular from distance. Prostitutes look very beautiful when they make-up. War stories are very interesting. All these three things are interesting from distance.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks