Silverbolt 104 Posted November 20, 2007 (edited) Not this kind of Bear http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=rPaARRAyHX4&...feature=related pretty cool ,han? recently was published a article in a magazine,( i guess with Tom Cooper finger on it) about the new Russian VVS, 18 years after Berlin wall down. what you guys guess about the new russian Weapons? they can be comparated wth latest wester weapons like Frenchs and Americans? i sair really new! the new S-400 Triumph is really impressive to me! Edited November 21, 2007 by Silverbolt Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest CW2. Wells Posted November 20, 2007 The Bear awakening is not a good thing. The Cold war is not something we want to return to. I find it odd that you are really enthusiastic about Russia re-arming the hell out of themselves. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Silverbolt 104 Posted November 20, 2007 (edited) The Bear awakening is not a good thing. The Cold war is not something we want to return to. I find it odd that you are really enthusiastic about Russian re-arming the hell out of themselves. xD take easy , i just fly with high this video... sunday i have a Russian Overdose here, so stay a bit red these days weapons arent good to nowone, but this is a ambicious plane Edited November 20, 2007 by Silverbolt Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SayethWhaaaa 245 Posted November 21, 2007 Ignoring the politics of it for a sec, I think it highlights the fact that Russians do make good toys and that they're just as deadly as any other nation that produces advanced weapons systems. I'd take a long hard the specs of those toys before I towed the "Aww, Russian can't make sh*t" line. I think the REALLY scary thing here is how freely some of these systems are being sold and to whom... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sparkomatic 7 Posted November 21, 2007 The resurgence of Mother Russia is the best news the American Military can have...you just can not have a Batman without a Joker. Oooo....20 fighter wings, 600 ship navy, 1,000,000 man army...more heavy bombers than we have total inventory now...wait what was the bad thing? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Dave 2,322 Posted November 21, 2007 The resurgence of Mother Russia is the best news the American Military can have...you just can not have a Batman without a Joker. Oooo....20 fighter wings, 600 ship navy, 1,000,000 man army...more heavy bombers than we have total inventory now...wait what was the bad thing? Totally agree with you Sparky. At least in the Cold War he had clear objectives, lots of hardware and the money to maintain it to boot. It's a hell of a lot better than this cat and mouse BS we are doing now, with a lot less too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MiGMasher 0 Posted November 21, 2007 I'd be worried if they produce some more aircraft carriers than the only one they have now. Hell, we all know the Chinese want that kind of blue-water capability. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wolf65 0 Posted November 21, 2007 I'd be worried if they produce some more aircraft carriers than the only one they have now. Their carriers would also be far more useful if they used catapults to launch aircraft. Asfar as I know aircraft on the Kuzenstov can't carry bombs becouse they wouldn't be able to take off. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MiGMasher 0 Posted November 21, 2007 Their carriers would also be far more useful if they used catapults to launch aircraft. Asfar as I know aircraft on the Kuzenstov can't carry bombs becouse they wouldn't be able to take off. I think you're right, mate. Hell, the Kuzenstov to Russia is like the Langley was to the United States. They'll get the hint, soon. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest CW2. Wells Posted November 21, 2007 Totally agree with you Sparky. At least in the Cold War he had clear objectives, lots of hardware and the money to maintain it to boot. It's a hell of a lot better than this cat and mouse BS we are doing now, with a lot less too. With what money? Where are we going to get the money to buy all of these new toys? Hell we are still paying on the toys we bought in the 70s and 80s. We beat the Russians out because we could out spend them. We bankrupted them. At the same time we really hurt ourselves. This was a justifiable tactic at the time, since nuclear weapons were pointed at us. However, todays economical climate does not lend it's self to that tactic. The main difference between us and Russia is that we will not starve our people out in order to build tanks, planes, bombs and bullets. We have never been that desperate for power/survival. Give us another Cold war, with the way things are now. That might all change. Ignoring the politics of it all, yes Russia does make some interesting devices. It is interesting to see how they answer the same battlefield problems as we do. So what you end up with are aircraft, tanks and ships that do the same job as the US, they just approach the problem with a different set of solutions. That being said, I am far from enthusiastic about what Russia is building. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TX3RN0BILL 3 Posted November 21, 2007 I must say, one can't blame them... I mean, they still are a superpower, they regained economic strength, and the West isn't respecting agreements (what was the name of the Treaty again) limiting armaments... plus, I don't understand why the U.S. won't go with Russia to build that joint missile shield the russians are proposing... It's not like they care more for the muslims than the americans do... just my 50 cents... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Silverbolt 104 Posted November 21, 2007 (edited) you just can not have a Batman without a Joker. well, you said all but in this particular case , the Batman is a bit more strongger than Joker. i guess the USA number are bigger than this.... .....and to put more wood on fire VVS inventary(september,2007):the number is followed by the name. ->Strategic and long range bombers: Tu-160 __15 Tu-95MS __64 Tu-22M3 __100 ->Tatical Bombers Su-24M __300 ->CAS and tatical strike planes Su-25 __260 -> Fighters MiG-29 __380 MiG-31 __230 Su-27 __370 ->Recconanance planes Su-24MR __100 MiG-25RB __40 An-30 __6 ->Awacs Beriev A-50 __16 ->Air command aircrafts Il-22 __20 Il-80 __4 ->Radio re-transmition aircrafts Il-82 __3 ->Eletronic War Helicopters Mi-8 __40 ->Tankers Il-78 __20 ->Trainers L-39C __300 Tu-134UBL __20 ->combat helicopters Mi-24 __450 ->Transport Helicopters Mi-8 __500 Mi-26 __45 ->Transport planes An-12 __60 An-22 __10 An-124 __19 Il-76M/MD __220 -> VIP transport airplanes An-24, An-26 __70 Il-18/Il-22 __30 Tu-134 __50 ___________________________________________________________ Some notes: *some aircrafts follow by new designation MiG-31(BM) ,Su-27(SM),MiG-29(SM/SMT) Su-24(M4), Tu-160, Tu-95Ms,Su-25(T) ,Il-76 ,Mi-28(N) and Mi-24(N) are in Modernization Process. *Yak-130 was selected to be the New advanced trainer. *A considerated part of MiG-31 are stocated, becaus arent necessary now(The MiG-31 was created to intercept bombers carry nukes, but now is just a fantasy) *Russia has recived 12 Ka-50 and 30 Mi-28N, but it want mentionated. Resource :ASAS magazine, year 7, number 39, November 2007(www.revistaasas.com.br) Edited November 21, 2007 by Silverbolt Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TX3RN0BILL 3 Posted November 21, 2007 Talking about the Bear, a curious question came to mind: which one do you think will be retired first - the Bear or the Stratofortress? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest CW2. Wells Posted November 21, 2007 The B-52 is not going to be retired anytime soon. The Bear on the other hand...who knows. Who knows if Russia even has enough parts to keep their fleet operating. The Russian bombers and cargo planes don't worry me. Russia let that fleet go to hell in a hand basket. It is Russia's ability to upgrade their fighters and attack planes with ease that worries me. At this stage, Russia, while a notable threat if their politics change, is not a major threat. Countries like China are still far more frightening. Russia's equipment is still circa 1993 at best. As long as we don't go spend happy on projects that are pointless, we should still stay way ahead of them in the technology department. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Silverbolt 104 Posted November 21, 2007 Talking about the Bear, a curious question came to mind: which one do you think will be retired first - the Bear or the Stratofortress? in the magazine said:"the Russian Governents wants retire 20 Tu-95 units until 2010, to stay operating the modern bears. The B-52 is not going to be retired anytime soon. The Bear on the other hand...who knows. Who knows if Russia even has enough parts to keep their fleet operating. The Russian bombers and cargo planes don't worry me. Russia let that fleet go to hell in a hand basket. It is Russia's ability to upgrade their fighters and attack planes with ease that worries me. At this stage, Russia, while a notable threat if their politics change, is not a major threat. Countries like China are still far more frightening. Russia's equipment is still circa 1993 at best. As long as we don't go spend happy on projects that are pointless, we should still stay way ahead of them in the technology department. Need more raptors! the china combat aircrafts still have a LOT of MiG-19 and 21! but they are investing in new technologies, like the Jian J-XX. i think the DoD politics of just focus on anti-Terrorist , and forgeting the conventional forces isnt the way to follow,maybe in a secondary goal, not a primary Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Julhelm 266 Posted November 21, 2007 Considering the reputation of chinese QA I wouldn't call them frightening. Canada is more frightening than china, honestly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Silverbolt 104 Posted November 21, 2007 China have nukes and ballistic missiles, this worry evrywone. i dont know how is the USA anti ballistic missile system, but the russians are running very good with S-400 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Typhoid 231 Posted November 21, 2007 some misconceptions raging above. The Kuznetsov absolutely can launch aircraft with bombs. but their original mission was to provide fighter cover for their surface fleet and SSBN operating areas. Not go toe to toe with the USN carrier fleet. The Su-27K is a pretty sweet aircraft and does operate quite nicely from their deck. The Kuz has been active of late working up their airwing. The Russian bomber fleet does not worry someone above, it does worry some of us! They have been active with upgraded electronics and cruise missiles. They have been flying northern operational patrols regularly all summer and we have had fun in the Arctic playing tag with them. Those handful of bombers with cruise missiles does have the capabilty to incinerate North America and once the cruise missiles are in the air, not a whole lot we can do to stop it. Just hit back...... They do build good stuff and have been operating what they have a lot more. They are becoming once again a force to be reckoned with. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Atreides 144 Posted November 21, 2007 I'd rather have the BEAR awaken from it's slumber than the dragon. Good for Russia that they're slowly coming back and to hell with those who have the audacity to criticise the Russian's while their own country does pretty much the same. Do as I say NOT as I do seem's to be the current attitude. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest CW2. Wells Posted November 21, 2007 I'd rather have the BEAR awaken from it's slumber than the dragon. Good for Russia that they're slowly coming back and to hell with those who have the audacity to criticise the Russian's while their own country does pretty much the same. Do as I say NOT as I do seem's to be the current attitude. To hell with me then? Alrighty, and by "their own country" you mean the United States? I have yet to see the United States stave out it's people to by taxing the public to the point of starvation. By the way it is spelled "c-r-i-t-i-c-i-z-e" I have never "criticise" anything in my life. That sounds like an exercise machine gone wrong. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Silverbolt 104 Posted November 22, 2007 Russia have 17,075,400 km² to protect ;) its require a big forces. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BUFF 8 Posted November 22, 2007 By the way it is spelled "c-r-i-t-i-c-i-z-e" I have never "criticise" anything in my life. That sounds like an exercise machine gone wrong. The original English spelling is "criticise". Although you do bring up a good point - with the US prevalence for replacing the "s" with a "z" (that's a zed btw not a zee ) why isn't it exercize in the US? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Atreides 144 Posted November 22, 2007 (edited) To hell with me then? Alrighty, and by "their own country" you mean the United States? I have yet to see the United States stave out it's people to by taxing the public to the point of starvation. By the way it is spelled "c-r-i-t-i-c-i-z-e" I have never "criticise" anything in my life. That sounds like an exercise machine gone wrong. Holy **** dude relax ! Pop a Tylenol 3 and chill. Why is it that you assume I'm referring to the U.S when I say "their" . STOP assuming that the WORLD revolve's around the U.S.A...it does'nt. Am I anti-American for saying that....NO, but you certainly are welcome to thinking that. The U.S isn't the only country that is opposed to a stronger Russia you know and if you're quick to jump to that conclusion based on what I've said then I'm sorry, maybe I should have been more clear seeing how some individual's are just so quick to pass snap judgement's. BTW, thank's for the spell check (Guess PROPER ENGLISH SUCKS !). Didn't catch it. PEACE ! Edited November 22, 2007 by Atreides Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest CW2. Wells Posted November 22, 2007 I thought I was relaxed, thanks for the advice though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Atreides 144 Posted November 22, 2007 You're welcome. :yes: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
