Sarex Posted November 15, 2014 Posted November 15, 2014 http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-and-serbia-conduct-military-drill-2014-11 1 "because they filled mommy with enough mythic power to become a demi-god" - KP
Mr. Magniloquent Posted November 16, 2014 Posted November 16, 2014 Here's a question for anyone still reading this thread: If the regular Ukrainian army was losing so badly to the rebels, why did Russia smuggle in paratroopers? You mean like that phantom invasion force of tanks?
Walsingham Posted November 16, 2014 Posted November 16, 2014 Here's a question for anyone still reading this thread: If the regular Ukrainian army was losing so badly to the rebels, why did Russia smuggle in paratroopers? You mean like that phantom invasion force of tanks? More memetic jamming from Russia. The BBC has multiple confirmatory stories supporting the presence of Russian forces in Ukraine. As does Stratfor.com. I trust those two sources a significant degree more than an article by someone calling themselves "Tyler Durden" on your one random website. "It wasn't lies. It was just... bull****"." -Elwood Blues tarna's dead; processing... complete. Disappointed by Universe. RIP Hades/Sand/etc. Here's hoping your next alt has a harp.
Darkpriest Posted November 16, 2014 Posted November 16, 2014 This just in: http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Releases/2014/11/09.aspx Okay, well, it is a few days old, but anyway. So in other words real world equivalent of the protoss carrier, but with slower and less maneuvarable drones?
Lexx Posted November 16, 2014 Posted November 16, 2014 It would feel more like Protoss carrier if they would use huge Zeppelins for it. But then again it wouldn't be of much use anymore, as they are slow and rather easy to get from the sky. "only when you no-life you can exist forever, because what does not live cannot die."
Agiel Posted November 16, 2014 Posted November 16, 2014 (edited) The overall deployment concept seems to be quite similar to the MCALS system currently undergoing trials: That said, that doesn't solve the most challenging aspect of the program: Recovery. Naval aviation pilots already describe landing on a carrier as a controlled crash (or my favourite, "trying to have sex during a car accident") and the Navy is still trying to work out the kinks of a completely autonomous combat craft landing on a carrier: As for survivability issues for the aircraft, they could built it upon a C-5 Galaxy with the EC-130 Compass Call's EW system with the ALE-50 Towed Decoy and an F-15 HAVCAP. Edited November 16, 2014 by Agiel Quote “Political philosophers have often pointed out that in wartime, the citizen, the male citizen at least, loses one of his most basic rights, his right to life; and this has been true ever since the French Revolution and the invention of conscription, now an almost universally accepted principle. But these same philosophers have rarely noted that the citizen in question simultaneously loses another right, one just as basic and perhaps even more vital for his conception of himself as a civilized human being: the right not to kill.” -Jonathan Littell <<Les Bienveillantes>> Quote "The chancellor, the late chancellor, was only partly correct. He was obsolete. But so is the State, the entity he worshipped. Any state, entity, or ideology becomes obsolete when it stockpiles the wrong weapons: when it captures territories, but not minds; when it enslaves millions, but convinces nobody. When it is naked, yet puts on armor and calls it faith, while in the Eyes of God it has no faith at all. Any state, any entity, any ideology that fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of Man...that state is obsolete." -Rod Serling
Lexx Posted November 16, 2014 Posted November 16, 2014 That's why I also think that a Zeppelin would be better: You could have a big platform at the bottom or the top with more free room for landing drones than the interior of a huge plane. But still... too slow and easy to take out of the air. :> "only when you no-life you can exist forever, because what does not live cannot die."
Walsingham Posted November 16, 2014 Posted November 16, 2014 That's why I also think that a Zeppelin would be better: You could have a big platform at the bottom or the top with more free room for landing drones than the interior of a huge plane. But still... too slow and easy to take out of the air. :> What if you gave it the radar signature of an old man in a house? "It wasn't lies. It was just... bull****"." -Elwood Blues tarna's dead; processing... complete. Disappointed by Universe. RIP Hades/Sand/etc. Here's hoping your next alt has a harp.
Lexx Posted November 16, 2014 Posted November 16, 2014 That could work. After all, who would bomb an old man in a house? Good thinking! "only when you no-life you can exist forever, because what does not live cannot die."
Agiel Posted November 16, 2014 Posted November 16, 2014 (edited) Which is why I proposed basing it on something like the EC-130H Compass Call which has ECM jammers out the ass, making it extremely difficult to target with standard radar-guided air-to-air weaponry. Though the job of Offensive ECM support the Compass Call normally undertakes is very much conspicuous (it is very "loud" in terms of emissions) and the airframe itself has an RCS not much better than that of a B-52, the advesary certainly wouldn't have an exact fix in order to effectively target them. The craft could be stationed well behind the FEBA so that any enemy fighters will have to fight their way through a wall of F-15s, F-16s, and Patriot batteries (or the air-to-air ALARMs I mentioned earlier) before they had a chance to take a swing at it. Naval carriers were developed after all in part to get around the problem of "a ship's a fool to fight a fort." Edited November 16, 2014 by Agiel Quote “Political philosophers have often pointed out that in wartime, the citizen, the male citizen at least, loses one of his most basic rights, his right to life; and this has been true ever since the French Revolution and the invention of conscription, now an almost universally accepted principle. But these same philosophers have rarely noted that the citizen in question simultaneously loses another right, one just as basic and perhaps even more vital for his conception of himself as a civilized human being: the right not to kill.” -Jonathan Littell <<Les Bienveillantes>> Quote "The chancellor, the late chancellor, was only partly correct. He was obsolete. But so is the State, the entity he worshipped. Any state, entity, or ideology becomes obsolete when it stockpiles the wrong weapons: when it captures territories, but not minds; when it enslaves millions, but convinces nobody. When it is naked, yet puts on armor and calls it faith, while in the Eyes of God it has no faith at all. Any state, any entity, any ideology that fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of Man...that state is obsolete." -Rod Serling
Zoraptor Posted November 16, 2014 Posted November 16, 2014 The BBC has multiple confirmatory stories supporting the presence of Russian forces in Ukraine. Oh yeah, like that one you linked to a few months ago about a picture of a tank that was never used by anyone except Russia and was never exported. Except it was exported- under a T80 designation- and was more importantly manufactured prior to the break up of the SU- its manufacture date is carefully hidden by those sneaky Russians from those pesky IISS people as, er, part of its NATO designation- so Ukraine had plenty of them. Confirmatory stories: roflcopters. From 'experts' who don't even know the tank designations of the tank they're talking about and circle jerk repetition of each others' stories. And people will still insist it's only the Russians doing propaganda. 1
Walsingham Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 The BBC has multiple confirmatory stories supporting the presence of Russian forces in Ukraine. Oh yeah, like that one you linked to a few months ago about a picture of a tank that was never used by anyone except Russia and was never exported. Except it was exported- under a T80 designation- and was more importantly manufactured prior to the break up of the SU- its manufacture date is carefully hidden by those sneaky Russians from those pesky IISS people as, er, part of its NATO designation- so Ukraine had plenty of them. Confirmatory stories: roflcopters. From 'experts' who don't even know the tank designations of the tank they're talking about and circle jerk repetition of each others' stories. And people will still insist it's only the Russians doing propaganda. Interesting, but please confirm where you're getting the idea it's a different designation machine. I'm only an amateur tank-spotter. "It wasn't lies. It was just... bull****"." -Elwood Blues tarna's dead; processing... complete. Disappointed by Universe. RIP Hades/Sand/etc. Here's hoping your next alt has a harp.
Agiel Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 (edited) The BBC has multiple confirmatory stories supporting the presence of Russian forces in Ukraine. Oh yeah, like that one you linked to a few months ago about a picture of a tank that was never used by anyone except Russia and was never exported. Except it was exported- under a T80 designation- and was more importantly manufactured prior to the break up of the SU- its manufacture date is carefully hidden by those sneaky Russians from those pesky IISS people as, er, part of its NATO designation- so Ukraine had plenty of them. Confirmatory stories: roflcopters. From 'experts' who don't even know the tank designations of the tank they're talking about and circle jerk repetition of each others' stories. And people will still insist it's only the Russians doing propaganda. The T-72 is a *VERY* different beast from the T-80. Broad strokes: -The T-80 was an evolution of the T-64 series of tanks which were designed and produced by the Morozov design bureau (the same that had designed the war-winning T-34) in Kharkiv, Ukraine. Whereas the T-72 was designed at the Ural plant in Russia (where the Kharkiv bureau briefly moved its production to during WWII, and a new design bureau eventually taking root there). People can argue as the day is long as to who built the better tanks, but it's generally agreed that the Kharkiv plant built more radical designs that had their share of teething problems where the Ural plant designed tanks that were fairly grounded and arguably more balanced. -The T-80 was initially developed with a gas turbine engine much like its American contemporary the M1 Abrams where the T-72 used more traditional diesel engine (which could trace its lineage back to the same V-2 engine that powered the T-34). The advantage of the gas turbine engine was that it was much, much more powerful and that the high-frequency whine of the engine didn't carry as far as the low rumble of a diesel at the cost of the engine being much less fuel-efficient (a gas-turbine engine uses almost as much fuel simply running idle as it would at full pelt). Some versions of the T-80 in the Ukrainian inventory have been converted to use a diesel engine as a result and given the designation of T-80UD, and the Russian army is in the process of retiring the ones in its service due to the logistical headache. -The T-64 and the T-80 have a wider turret facilitating a faster but larger and more complex hydraulic autoloader versus the mechanical autoloader of the T-72 and its modern development, the T-90. The T-80 and the T-64 were in Soviet times also outfitted with more sophisticated fire control systems, however it stands to reason that following the breakup of the Soviet Union these electronics were eventually implemented in newer T-72s and on the T-90. -The T-80 commonly deployed by the Ukrainians is the T-80U that are often deployed with rubber flaps over the Kontakt-5 ERA bricks on the turret, giving the turret a tortoise shell-like appearance. These were (for reasons that vex me, perhaps the extra-standoff was actually counter-productive) done away with for the T-72BM and the T-90, whose turrets have a more clam-shell like appearance. In addition it is probable that the large majority of T-72s that were in Ukraine were older T-72As that are largely incapable of accommodating ERA and due to the parts being produced in a foreign country were never modernised in great numbers, where the newer T-72Bs in service with the Russian army do have those provisions. -Both the T-64 and the T-80 were never exported during Soviet times, kept only for the cream of the crop of the Soviet Guards Tank units, where the T-72 was happily exported to its Warsaw Pact allies and "brotherly Libya," "brotherly Iran," "brotherly Iraq," and so forth. However, after the fall of the Soviet Union Russia did sell some to South Korea to pay off debts, and it's widely believed, though never publicly confirmed, that the UK had acquired some examples that were lent to its allies and military partners. Sources: Vasily Fofanov's Russian Armor webpage: http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/ Steven Zaloga T-72 Main Battle Tank 1974-1993 and T-80 Standard: The Soviet Army's Last Armored Champion Edited November 17, 2014 by Agiel 1 Quote “Political philosophers have often pointed out that in wartime, the citizen, the male citizen at least, loses one of his most basic rights, his right to life; and this has been true ever since the French Revolution and the invention of conscription, now an almost universally accepted principle. But these same philosophers have rarely noted that the citizen in question simultaneously loses another right, one just as basic and perhaps even more vital for his conception of himself as a civilized human being: the right not to kill.” -Jonathan Littell <<Les Bienveillantes>> Quote "The chancellor, the late chancellor, was only partly correct. He was obsolete. But so is the State, the entity he worshipped. Any state, entity, or ideology becomes obsolete when it stockpiles the wrong weapons: when it captures territories, but not minds; when it enslaves millions, but convinces nobody. When it is naked, yet puts on armor and calls it faith, while in the Eyes of God it has no faith at all. Any state, any entity, any ideology that fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of Man...that state is obsolete." -Rod Serling
Zoraptor Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 (edited) Yeah, they sold the T72B under a T90 designation, not a T80. But still, they were exported. Short story, there are two types of T72 which are called the T72BM. One is a 1989 model with distinctive Kontact 5 ER (technically the T72B), the other is the T72B2 (technically; AKA T72BM, a 2006 upgraded model) which uses notably different in appearance Relikt ER. Here is a handy, and critically 2008 vintage so not subject to any influence, post which nicely illustrates the differences. The tank in the article quite clearly has the Kontakt 5 ER of the 1989 T72B variant and not the 2006 T72b2 (/BM) variant. To be scrupulously fair, I believe it is fairly easy to swap ER modules and that perhaps could have happened- but as any sort of proof positive of Russian tanks that article is well and truly debunked, even with that caveat. Edited November 17, 2014 by Zoraptor 1
Agiel Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 (edited) There is a ton of misleading information in that link. For instance the name for the export version of the T-90 is not "T-90E" but "T-90S," as yet only sold to India, Algeria, Azerbaijan, and Turkmenistan. Export versions of the T-72B are given the designation of "T-72S," most prominently in service with India, Venezuela, and of course Syria. And the T-72BM is a wholly separate vehicle from the T-90 in spite of some mechanical similarities, primarily with the engine and chassis (the cast turret of the T-90 takes more after the T-80 rather than the welded turret of the T-72). Relikt is not widely used by the Russian army as yet, even for the newest T-90s (the primary difference between Relikt and Kontakt-5 is the explosive compound used, which according to Fofanov has not proven as stable and reliable as the proven Kontakt-5 formula yet). Most tanks in service with the Russian army are equipped with first-generation Kontakt-1 (which provides excellent protection against HEAT warheads with negligible protection against long-rod penetrators) and Kontakt-5 (which does have a great deal more protection against KE penetrators). And I fail to see how the claim that the tank came from Russian stocks is totally debunked. As I said before there is not much reason to believe that a great deal of the T-72s that were in Ukrainian stocks were upgraded to the extent that was seen in the BBC's photos. If the T-72s the separatists were using came from Ukrainian stocks, it would likely look more like this: Edited November 17, 2014 by Agiel 1 Quote “Political philosophers have often pointed out that in wartime, the citizen, the male citizen at least, loses one of his most basic rights, his right to life; and this has been true ever since the French Revolution and the invention of conscription, now an almost universally accepted principle. But these same philosophers have rarely noted that the citizen in question simultaneously loses another right, one just as basic and perhaps even more vital for his conception of himself as a civilized human being: the right not to kill.” -Jonathan Littell <<Les Bienveillantes>> Quote "The chancellor, the late chancellor, was only partly correct. He was obsolete. But so is the State, the entity he worshipped. Any state, entity, or ideology becomes obsolete when it stockpiles the wrong weapons: when it captures territories, but not minds; when it enslaves millions, but convinces nobody. When it is naked, yet puts on armor and calls it faith, while in the Eyes of God it has no faith at all. Any state, any entity, any ideology that fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of Man...that state is obsolete." -Rod Serling
Mr. Magniloquent Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 Here's a question for anyone still reading this thread: If the regular Ukrainian army was losing so badly to the rebels, why did Russia smuggle in paratroopers? You mean like that phantom invasion force of tanks? More memetic jamming from Russia. The BBC has multiple confirmatory stories supporting the presence of Russian forces in Ukraine. As does Stratfor.com. I trust those two sources a significant degree more than an article by someone calling themselves "Tyler Durden" on your one random website. Zerohedge is the premiere website on the planet for economic news, and news that matters in general. You would do well to read it. You'll find the word is very different fro what you are spoon fed. If not, enjoy your BBC Koolaide instead. Who even cares if Russia is supporting anyone in Ukraine? NATO is all over Ukraine installing puppets and giving money and weapons to self-declared Neo-nazis. Do you think the USA would sit idly by if Russia were instigating revolutions in Mexico and implanting figureheads hostile to the USA? Get a grip.
Sarex Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-and-serbia-conduct-military-drill-2014-11 Well today Serbia started military exercises with NATO called "Platinum Wolf", I guess it was their time to play. (couldn't find any English news links) "because they filled mommy with enough mythic power to become a demi-god" - KP
Zoraptor Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 [..] I'll reply in the Ukraine thread, since it seems more appropriate there.
Malcador Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-and-serbia-conduct-military-drill-2014-11 Well today Serbia started military exercises with NATO called "Platinum Wolf", I guess it was their time to play. (couldn't find any English news links) US operation names are always pretty cool, shame they never went with Infinite Justice. Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra
Agiel Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 (edited) Video intro for the Sea Fire 500 AESA phased array radar by Thales, presumably for new FREMM frigates and future ships of the French and Italian Navies: Takes a not so subtle jab at the PAK-FA, and the concept seems to be taking after the Raytheon's AMDR for the Arleigh Burke DDGs: Edited November 19, 2014 by Agiel 1 Quote “Political philosophers have often pointed out that in wartime, the citizen, the male citizen at least, loses one of his most basic rights, his right to life; and this has been true ever since the French Revolution and the invention of conscription, now an almost universally accepted principle. But these same philosophers have rarely noted that the citizen in question simultaneously loses another right, one just as basic and perhaps even more vital for his conception of himself as a civilized human being: the right not to kill.” -Jonathan Littell <<Les Bienveillantes>> Quote "The chancellor, the late chancellor, was only partly correct. He was obsolete. But so is the State, the entity he worshipped. Any state, entity, or ideology becomes obsolete when it stockpiles the wrong weapons: when it captures territories, but not minds; when it enslaves millions, but convinces nobody. When it is naked, yet puts on armor and calls it faith, while in the Eyes of God it has no faith at all. Any state, any entity, any ideology that fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of Man...that state is obsolete." -Rod Serling
Walsingham Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 Here's a question for anyone still reading this thread: If the regular Ukrainian army was losing so badly to the rebels, why did Russia smuggle in paratroopers? You mean like that phantom invasion force of tanks? More memetic jamming from Russia. The BBC has multiple confirmatory stories supporting the presence of Russian forces in Ukraine. As does Stratfor.com. I trust those two sources a significant degree more than an article by someone calling themselves "Tyler Durden" on your one random website. Zerohedge is the premiere website on the planet for economic news, and news that matters in general. You would do well to read it. You'll find the word is very different fro what you are spoon fed. If not, enjoy your BBC Koolaide instead. Who even cares if Russia is supporting anyone in Ukraine? NATO is all over Ukraine installing puppets and giving money and weapons to self-declared Neo-nazis. Do you think the USA would sit idly by if Russia were instigating revolutions in Mexico and implanting figureheads hostile to the USA? Get a grip. Outstanding. If you think accusing the BBC of being koolaide <sic> is a rejoinder then I believe you've made my point for me. Key indicator on a website that is a premier source of financial news: it doesn't have flash ads for bitcoin sites on it. Nor does it have contributors named after film characters. "It wasn't lies. It was just... bull****"." -Elwood Blues tarna's dead; processing... complete. Disappointed by Universe. RIP Hades/Sand/etc. Here's hoping your next alt has a harp.
obyknven Posted November 24, 2014 Author Posted November 24, 2014 Western ships in wet dreams advertising. Western ships IRL (Russian ships in background). Western ship after begining of battle against Russian ship.
Gorgon Posted November 25, 2014 Posted November 25, 2014 Yeah but there are more of us than there are of you. Advantage of being able to work with others. 1 Na na na na na na ... greg358 from Darksouls 3 PVP is a CHEATER. That is all.
Gorgon Posted November 25, 2014 Posted November 25, 2014 Also, and I'm no expert, but aren't you comparing a frigate to a destroyer ? 1 Na na na na na na ... greg358 from Darksouls 3 PVP is a CHEATER. That is all.
Zoraptor Posted November 25, 2014 Posted November 25, 2014 It's a bit of a stretch calling an Ocker frigate typically 'western' in any case, they made some for us and they're pretty rubbish. Not as rubbish as the submarines they built (loud doesn't cover it adequately), but crap anyway.
Recommended Posts