Post every Russian/Soviet military stuff you fing out.

LOL hahaha, i cant believe it, is that a Halo on top carrying a chinook on the bottom??

Pic was taken in Afghanistan IIRC, showing a Halo giving a grounded Chinook a lift.

oh the irony hahaha

Someone, on 10 Nov 2008, 9:22, said:

None taken; none of our opinions will ever be truly educated, as we do not have access to the experience or restricted knowledge that such individuals do. However, I would argue that a 722km interdiction mission radius, and most importantly the ability to 'buddy-buddy' tank, give it the range it needs for almost all imaginable combat missions. It's not like the F-14 had a vastly longer range; only 200km longer in fact, which while significant is not the sort of capability gap we might be led to expect, especially as they did not have the ability to buddy-buddy tank. Not to mention the F/A-18 is far smaller, enabling a better number to be carried aboard ship, and allowing them to be launched with a great weapon load; and said weapon load is significantly better than the aircraft it replaces, with 11 rails to 8. While it might not be as capable as a Sukhoi in all areas I don't imagine the capability gap is vast, and they are economically far better for the US to produce, and they are also likely much more suited to the USA's carrier missions tasking. As I said, I'm not as knowledgeable as a US rear admiral but there are many good reasons why the F/A-18E/F was selected as their most modern carrier fighter.

Someone, on 10 Nov 2008, 9:22, said:

Who? I've been unable to find a list of nations using Izhmash's (admittedly impressive) Krasnopol or Kitolov-2M projectiles. Would you care to provide one? As I have never heard of them outside of Russian use.

Someone, on 10 Nov 2008, 9:22, said:

Their T-80Us (of which there are only 35) were sold in exchange for debt relief, and I would hardly consider half a dozen Ilyushin trainers and Kamov rescue helicopters a significant defence purchase on the order of equipping the US Navy with Su-33s.

Someone, on 10 Nov 2008, 9:22, said:

Who went out of business two years ago. Nevertheless I accept the point that Russian civil aviation, with huge emphasis on Antonov (which is Ukrainian at any rate) cargo lifters, are in wide demand for oversize load transport as no competitive Western products exist. Again though this is not the point I was trying to make.

Someone, on 10 Nov 2008, 9:22, said:

I haven't been able to find anything here - would you care to elaborate? The only helicopters I've found are nearly all NH90s.

To put it simply, while there are numerous cases of Russian equipment being used by Western companies and armies, they almost never form a key part of their force structure, save perhaps in Greece. The difference between these peripheral purchases and equipping the United States, with the largest and most powerful military-industrial complex in the world, in addition to enormous political opposition to treating Russia as friends, with a Russian design of aircraft as the premier unit for international force projection is all but unassailable. It just won't happen, not in the US, and most certainly not on that scale in any strongly Western army for some years yet. Again, perhaps what I said was wrongly worded in that there are cases of Western forces taking the odd purchase of Russian goods, but to say that this is a case study for such a dramatic change as the original proposed would be simply false.

Edited by CommanderJB, 10 November 2008 - 01:22.

Quote

Ok, I understand your point(s).

Quote

Quote

France uses Russian Krasnopol shells (as well as China, India, South Africa, Ukraine and (according to some sources) Venezuela).

I should probably also mention here that I read that France is considering working with Russia on developing next-generation aircraft.

Quote

Quote

In addition to the purchases you mentioned I believe S. Korea chose to buy Russian Mi-28 attack helicopters as well. Would you consider that a major purchase? I guess that all depends on what you define as major.

Thinking of the top of my head, other examples of western countries using Russian vehicles/aircraft include Greece (as I mentioned in my previous post and as you yourself admit) which utilizes amongst (other things) BMP-1 and 9K33 Osa/SA-8 Gecko systems and Finland which until recently used T-72 tanks. I am sure there are others of which I do not know about or can not remember right now.

(I could mention Germany and Israel, but I will not since one could argue that they did not “purchase” their Russian equipment)

Quote

Quote

Perhaps using Air Foyle as an example was not my best choice . I am glad though that you acknowledge my point.
By the way, in addition to Ukrainian Antonov aircraft I believe Russian Tupolev aircraft are in demand as well

Quote

Quote

Future Transport Helicopter (FTH) project is a joint French-German venture to develop a helicopter capable of lifting more than current NH90 helicopter but less than a A400M cargo planes. Rater than design a completely new helicopter FTH project aims to take an existing helicopter and modify it to fulfill predetermined requirements.

Three helicopters were evaluated as potential candidates for FTH program: (American) Boeing CH-47F, (American) Sikorsky CH-53K and (Russian) Mil Mi-26T. A 2007 defense-aerospace.com article mentioned that out of the 3, Mi-26T looked most promising.

Whether or not Mil was chosen to develop the FTH, I am not sure. Yet you can not deny that the Mi-26 was seriously considered for the FTH project by two western governments or that the FTH is not just a small, “peripheral” venture with no significant impact.

In conclusion:
1) Is Russian equipment present in the west? Yes.
2) Do western militaries use Russian equipment? Yes.
3) Does Russian equipment play a significant role in western militaries? That depends on what country you look at and what you call “significant” (e.g.: Are tanks and attack helicopters that engage the enemy “significant”? Are artillery shells that are used to bombard the enemy “significant”? Are training aircraft that turn a civilian into a military pilot “significant”? Are rescue helicopters that save dieing soldiers or sailors “significant”? How many ‘units’ of equipment does the military have to have for that equipment to be considered “significant”? and so forth).
4) Does political climate affect western nations decisions to purchase Russian equipment? As CommanderJB pointed out – yes (this applies to purchases by non-western nations too).
5) Would I be surprised by future purchase of Russian equipment by western nations? No (though I admit CommanderJB has a point about potential political implications of American purchase of Russian fighters).

Someone, on 10 Nov 2008, 15:08, said:

Most interesting, my thanks for the link. Now why do I get the feeling we'll see a Krasnopol built by Thales in the near future...

Waris, on 10 Nov 2008, 6:44, said:

I know this is out of topic, but I just can't help myself smiling at this one.

Note: The Halos were used during the China quake.

dude go to this web site its got some awesome stuff in it if you can find it lol

http://englishrussia...=1642#more-1642

I wanted to mention this in my last post, but could not find the article. Well, I found it now:
http://www.charleston.net/news/2008/jan/05...sian_jets26735/

That's pretty interesting, I'm sure that we could use something of such size. However, I must point out one of the main reasons for the USN/USAF purchasing Sukoi and Mig Designs... Training.

While we do have aircraft which do a good job playing the roles of say the Mig-29 and SU-27, when you pit two Hornets, two Falcons, or two Eagles against one another, it's like shadow boxing. Pit one of those planes against a Flanker or Fulcrum, and it's a whole 'nother ballpark as far as the quality of training is concerned. This way, if our pilots ever face either of those planes, we'll likely know what to do, and counter the moves made by the adversary before the adversary even completes a maneuver. Like the Okuton Zero did for American Hellcat/Wildcat Pilots in World War 2.

This can be interest. This is from very old Russian movie. This movie about Ka-50 and war in Afghanistan.
Because this movie was released in 1980's don't wait computer graphics and effects. And do not pay attention that pilot of helicopter is old man.
First. Ka-50 in special operations
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=jzkO1OTlAbs
And video clip. Where Ka-50 fight against Mi-24 Hind
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WERTtI_u3xA...feature=related

Black_Drakon, on 28 Nov 2008, 2:35, said:

Soundtrack =

no offense but these sucked... xD

Waris. In many Soviet/Russian movies crazy soundtrack like this

@Someone: I don't think the F-15 must be replaced. I saw an idea of giving the F-15 Thrust vectoring, Canards and a stronger but also lighter hull.

Or you could just build an F-22?

To soundtracks: Man, it's from pretty old film, 1993. In those times there was also some American serial with some super-helicopter, by the way.
1993, year when soviet union collapsed. I guess it was made before this collapse, but they haven't much money anyway, so that's why it looks like from a decade before.
And in those times, Knight Rider or MASH has been broadcasted here, so probably in Russia, too. I know there is some Russian thriller about Su-27 (airfield on Siberia, musufundamentalists, there was something like attempt lone attack or just demonstration of power on Air Force One (I am not sure how it was exactly, it looked like some spy game where one pilot had die; one pilot catapulted, 2nd died in fireball hit by one of the F-15)).

Quote

I thought this world most expensive fighter has been scrapped in early 1990's before someone wrote "these fighters will remain till replacement by F-35 and F-22".
It's some 20 years of development then. American revolutionary army development (it's paradox because soviet and then russian tech is developed evolutionary, even when I count modernizations to compare, copying like F-14 ->MiG-23, MiG-25 ->F-15 isn't involved).

Edited by partyzanpaulzy, 28 November 2008 - 13:18.

No-one's denying the F-22's expensive. But hopefully no-one will deny it's supremely survivable in comparison to all other aircraft both flying today and projected as well. It certainly isn't cancelled! They're flying several squadrons already and plan up to almost 400 (individual fighters that is), though Congress is only giving them money for less than 200 at the moment.

partyzanpaulzy, on 28 Nov 2008, 21:11, said:

Are you trying to say that the F-14 is a in someway a copy of the MiG-23 and the F-15 is a copy of the MiG-25? Becuase last time I checked, none of the technology used on both sides seems to be a copy of each other, asides from the fact they they're planes, they fire missiles and they have guns.

The F-14 and the F-15 were developed as a counter the Foxbat (and later the Foxhound). Both aircraft where designed with the ability to not only MATCH the Foxbat in it's territory (long range BVR Combat), but to close in and take it on in an old fashioned dogfight, where both the Tomcat and the Eagle would excel being far more maneuverable. Seeing as both aircraft were designed with the lessons of Vietnam still very fresh in the mind of the designers, and the fact that they are both still in service (F-15 = name your country, and the F-14 = Iran), says allot about how well they were designed. And both aircraft had proven themselves capable of engaging the Foxbat, since in the Gulf War, and numerous others, F-15s closed the distance on the Foxbats and shot them down while in close, with some gun-kills going to some Israeli pilots (being the first to bloody the Eagles talons). Iranian F-14s however, beat out Iraqi Foxbats even at long range, and it got to the point that when American F-14s locked onto them in the Gulf War, the Mig pilots simply turned tail and ran. (the best move for a Foxbat since it is faster then both the Tomcat and the Eagle).

In conclusion, I can say that neither aircraft were copies, but just responses to a critical threat.

It's not really that surprising when you consider just how they were designed compared to how they were being used. The Foxhound and Foxbat were designed to live and breathe Siberia as their operating environment. All they were meant to do was get high, get fast, and carry long-range missiles to destroy American B-52s attacking Russia from the continental US. They were buckets manoeuvrability-wise and their radar wasn't exactly advanced but its power was genuinely gargantuan. They were basically designed to take a slice of the huge amount of airspace above the Steppes, have the PVO's radars direct them to the general area of a target, flood the area with electrons to pick it up at extreme range, launch the giant BVR missiles it carried and then run for home before fighter escorts could respond. Both the Foxbat and Foxhound are still beautifully adapted for their chosen role, despite the little fact that it doesn't really exist any more. The reason they've fared so poorly in combat is because the foreign operators rarely if ever use the BVR weapons systems developed for the aircraft and/or don't operate them with the support of an IADS radar network. Putting R-73s on a Foxbat is just asking for trouble.
The MiG-25R/RB/RBK still remains one of the best photo-reconnaissance aircraft ever built, however.

however, it isn't the fastest, The Blackbird takes that honor. too bad it's withdrawn from service though. Must have something to do with the Aur [gets hit with a neurolizer by some feds] what was I saying again?

With that F-14->MiG-23 I meant MiG-23 has been copying from F-14 (changeable geometry of the wings), it's similar to case Concorde x Tu-144.
With that MiG-25 -> F-15 I have read there were rewards for pilots of MiG-25 if they will desert with this plane, they will be greatly rewarded.
I have read one pilot did this (flew to Japan or South Korea, I don't know exactly). US military engineers studied MiG-25 and used their new knowledge to create F-15.

Compare blueprints of these planes on wikipedia.
Well Blackbird is faster than these planes, but it's just spy plane.
MiG-25 2.5 Mach, 3.2 M with forsage and bad damage of the motors,
MiG-31 the "Supersonic Box" (nick from mechanicals) 2.83 M,
F-15 - 2.5 M,
MiG-35 (modernized MiG-29) - 2.4 M
Su-27 - 2.35 M

The speed means sacrifice to manouverability, MiG-25 and MiG-31 are just carriers of the missiles. MiG-29 has better manouverability, but I remember what I have heard that pilots said when they started from Žatec airport (it was in northern Bohemia) and went to supersonic speed, they were turning back in Germany air space, they also needed runway 1.5 km long. These things changed on modern Sukhois and MiG-35. It's said PAK-FA will need just some 200-400 long runway, thanks to thrust vectoring engines.
I have read one version of F-15 and F-22 use such systems, too. And off-course VTOL (today probably only F-35, Yak bankrupted and Harrier is outdated).

@tank50us: As one book writer said: "All is clear: Aurora never existed and Tu-2000 has been cancelled... unless some bastard lies."

I simply could not believe it when I read on Sukhoi's website that the Su-35BM needs a runway only 450 metres long to take off (and 600m long to land, which is actually readily overlooked by some people but actually kinda important). It's such a giant, heavy monster of a fighter you'd automatically think it'd need a huge runway. For comparison, the Eurofighter needs about 700m to take off, and almost certainly longer to land.

But I do get a little confused when people say how one Cold War military design copied off another. Concorde vs. Tu-144 is a classic example. The Tu-144 actually flew before Concorde! If there was any copying going on - and there wasn't - it was BAe filching Tupolev's plans, not the other way around. All such design information was extremely closely guarded by both sides, and any similarities are almost always the result of the fact that often there's only one solution to a given problem, nothing more.

Quote

Both the US Army and US Air Force operated Soviet/Russian equipment for training purposes since the Cold War.

Quote

@ Sgt. Rho: I simply posted the Flight Journal article. I did not say I agree or disagree with its conclusions.

About MiG-25 and MiG-31: I will no are that these aircraft are designed primarily as interceptors rather than fighters. But they are probably not as helpless in fighter role either.
Although Israeli and Iranian Air Forces claim to have scored victories over Syrian and Iraqi MiG-25s (respectively), Syrians and Iraqis claim that the encounters were not one sided and that their MiG-25 achieved air-to-air victories over Israeli and Iranian aircraft as well. Interestingly, the only aircraft the USA admitted to loosing to an enemy jet during the Gulf War was a F-18 shot down by an Iraqi MiG-25.
Since MiG-31 was made to replace MiG-25 I would assume that it is better in a fighter than its predecessor (though probably not as good as a dedicated fighter). Despite outward resemblance, they are not that closely related. Amongst MiG-31’s many advantages over the MiG-25 is its a radar (it is able to track both high flying and low flying targets unlike that of MiG-25 that can only track high flying targets).