Zoraptor Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 42 broken arrows to 1982, from a non wikipedia book source I had handy. So, 32 officially acknowledged according to wikipedia Collisions do happen, certainly. Meh, it's all just one of those things where if it's the Russians doing stuff it is "grossly irresponsible aggression!" but if we do it it's "legitimate flights in international airspace being harassed!". Difference being this is through among the world's busiest airspace, not responding to civilian ATC, transponders off so they wouldn't have shown up on TCAS, with aircraft probably equipped with nuclear warheads, flown by pilots and aircrew who meet the bare minimum flight hours to qualified aviators, and the airframes not being the most well-maintained in the world. A recipe for a disaster with casualties potentially in the thousands. I'd be interested to know if any of the US/ West's equivalent flights have transponders on since that rather defeats the purpose of them- certainly in the 2001 incident the claim was that they should be visible on radar 'because of all their dishes and antennae', not because they had their transponder on. Cannot say I'm particularly impressed by the rest as setting a case for Russian behaviour being exceptional either. At least two 'western' fighters have crashed recently due to mechanical issues (albeit the Jordanian one may actually have been shot down but the official story is mechanical trouble) and anything involving nukes has a potential for casualties in the thousands. Mainly though, suggesting that someone else shouldn't do what we do because, basically, they cannot be trusted and their equipment is crap is not going to be taken very seriously by them and may actually encourage more incidents.
Malcador Posted February 4, 2015 Posted February 4, 2015 Empty Quiver would have been a better title 1 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
Zoraptor Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 To be honest I've always found it rather odd that the term for a lesser accident is 'bent spear'. A broken arrow isn't really a big deal since your bow is still fine and you probably have lots of other arrows and can recycle the fletching and arrowhead- but with a bent spear you're a lot less likely to be carrying spares and the consequences are likely to be a lot more serious. Should really be the other way around.
obyknven Posted February 5, 2015 Author Posted February 5, 2015 Photos from livejournal of Russian military pilot (Baltic fleet). Polish pilots has a balls. Best pilots of NATO, they fly at closest distances to target, though this is can be a just superb avionics of their old Soviet MIg's. http://sharabana.livejournal.com/24490.html Swedes. Can't fly at low speed and avoid close distances, bad maneuverability. It's photo of most brave Swedish pilot evar. http://sharabana.livejournal.com/25518.html typical Swedish pilots fly at much bigger distances. Britt's are pussies. http://sharabana.livejournal.com/11477.html
Agiel Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 (edited) The flight path of the bombers were even in cases of live exercises, unlike reconnaissance flights that have the potential to yield useful intelligence, totally unnecessary for the purpose of practicing nuclear bombing runs given that the Russian Air Force already has a myriad of ways of delivering "instant sunshine" from well outside of the area they had flown through (to say nothing of the Delta SSBNs holed up in strategic bastions in Kola and the Sea of Japan or the land-based missiles in silos and on mobile TELs hidden from satellites in "the Lungs of Europe"). It was a flight merely for the purpose of strutting their stuff, and in doing so for the reasons I mentioned put themselves, their country, and thousands of people who are likely totally disinterested or even ignorant to the travails in Ukraine. Edited February 5, 2015 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 February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 Oh, I have no doubt the Russians were primarily trolling (though no doubt they'd see it as point making) and I'm perfectly aware that each side can flatten the other pretty quick. But it's the equivalent of 8chan trolling 4chan, it's all in the game and they ain't no poor innocent shrinking violets who just blundered into the geopolitical equivalent of Compton. The US/ west frequently decides to send fleets or planes places to 'make a point'- though, no doubt, the people they make said point to see it as trolling. If we're going to play whose brinkmanship is more stupid then an intruder run is still just an intruder run, even if done for moronic lulz- but I think something like launching cruise missiles at the embassy of a nuclear armed country trumps that comprehensively in terms of potential for unpleasant consequences, as does that abject moron Wesley Clark ordering British troops to attack Russians troops at Pristina airport in a fit of pique. Ain't no shrinking violets.
Malcador Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 Military pilots involved in more **** waving, really. Ho hum. 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
Gfted1 Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 The MiG's have to get that close just to hit anything. This is how American pilots do it: 1 "I'm your biggest fan, Ill follow you until you love me, Papa"
Gorgon Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMsSY8SZ4jk 4 Na na na na na na ... greg358 from Darksouls 3 PVP is a CHEATER. That is all.
Malcador Posted February 5, 2015 Posted February 5, 2015 Have to feel an F-5 would beat an F-14, at least in a dogfight. 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
Rostere Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 http://uk.businessinsider.com/russia-ballistic-missile-defence-system-tundra-delayed-2015-2?r=US http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/russian-nuclear-missile-detection-capability-limited-by-satellite-launch-delays/515748.html Okay, so as of now Russia does no longer have any satellite early warning system, effectively regressing to a 1960s/1970s level of nuclear preparedness. Might be interesting for anyone who thinks there's a new Cold War going on. "Well, overkill is my middle name. And my last name. And all of my other names as well!"
obyknven Posted February 12, 2015 Author Posted February 12, 2015 Murican soldiers can't into field fortification. Sending such troops into Ukraine is sending them to certain death. http://youtu.be/zWRhPpVZk8k
Malcador Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 http://uk.businessinsider.com/russia-ballistic-missile-defence-system-tundra-delayed-2015-2?r=US http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/russian-nuclear-missile-detection-capability-limited-by-satellite-launch-delays/515748.html Okay, so as of now Russia does no longer have any satellite early warning system, effectively regressing to a 1960s/1970s level of nuclear preparedness. Might be interesting for anyone who thinks there's a new Cold War going on. Well until July, anyway. 5 months of 'regression', I guess. 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
Gorth Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 This is how American pilots do it: I know I posted these a long time ago, but for me this will always be the craziest flyby by some Argentinian madman. http://youtu.be/UntN_cZUQg8 Exact same flyby (slightly longer video) from the planes view: http://youtu.be/z1G-RrZbTL4 2 “He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.” - Albert Einstein
Gfted1 Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 In the second video its funny watching everyone scatter at 1:04. "I'm your biggest fan, Ill follow you until you love me, Papa"
Rostere Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 http://uk.businessinsider.com/russia-ballistic-missile-defence-system-tundra-delayed-2015-2?r=US http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/russian-nuclear-missile-detection-capability-limited-by-satellite-launch-delays/515748.html Okay, so as of now Russia does no longer have any satellite early warning system, effectively regressing to a 1960s/1970s level of nuclear preparedness. Might be interesting for anyone who thinks there's a new Cold War going on. Well until July, anyway. 5 months of 'regression', I guess. You wouldn't shut off your modern early warning systems for five months if you seriously thought somebody would attack you, that was my point. "Well, overkill is my middle name. And my last name. And all of my other names as well!"
Malcador Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 Well, doesn't seem they have much choice if technical problems arise, and their fallback isn't that terrible. So perhaps they still will fear an assault by the US or UK as much as before, anyway. 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 February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 I suspect Hollande hopes the recent truce gives him the excuse to complete the Mistral-carrier delivery, even if it doesn't hold. A Russian military watcher (meaning, someone who is both actually Russian and is an enthusiast of military affairs) confided in me he half hoped the Russian navy never got the Mistral. Reasons being two-fold: 1. Lack of BVR-capable, fixed wing complement means against a peer or near-peer adversary makes it, what US naval aviators like to call "a Navy Cross waiting to happen". 2. The Russian Navy had plans of constructing their own license built versions of the vessel upon delivery. If the Mistral never comes, then the funds and rather limited dry-dock space would (hopefully) go towards the proposed "Leader-class" destroyers, which would be among the first surface combatants of that tonnage to be produced since the Cold War and would actually be useful against the aforementioned peer or near-pear adversary. 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
Rostere Posted February 23, 2015 Posted February 23, 2015 Russia about to supply Iran with modern AA This further underlines Obama's effort to normalize relations with Iran must succeed, as the situation is turning from isolating Iran into a tug-of-war for Iran, which is the region's third largest country, economically speaking (after Turkey and Saudi Arabia). When you think about how easily North Korea and Pakistan (if you take their humble means into consideration) obtained nuclear weapons you realize how counterproductive the US strategy of isolation is at this point. Iran is already operating one light water nuclear power plant commercially, with one more under construction. They have one heavy water reactor possibly in operation which can produce enough weapons-grade plutonium for 1-2 nukes per year (although this would require facilities for separating plutonium from the spent fuel, which does not exist to our knowledge), with 3 more under construction. Under a deal, you could have the heavy water reactors and enrichment facilities under surveillance so that you would know if/when Iran is making plutonium for nukes, or obtaining HEU in the case of the enrichment facilities. Some US politicians have insisted that Iran abandons the nuclear programme entirely, which at this point is frankly bizarre - even more than before, that is. The US has failed to secure a deal before Iran actually can produce what they need for a nuclear bomb, and so now we're in a limbo where we don't know anything about what is going on. Pretty much any deal is better than this. Considering that it's not within the realm of the possible that Iran attacks the US militarily, it's very odd that the US pushes Iran right into the arms of the Russians, who are desperate for friends/customers at this point. It seems there is nothing to win by further sanctions. "Well, overkill is my middle name. And my last name. And all of my other names as well!"
Woldan Posted February 23, 2015 Posted February 23, 2015 Why should the US have all the nukes in the world but not Iran? I gazed at the dead, and for one dark moment I saw a banquet.
Gfted1 Posted February 23, 2015 Posted February 23, 2015 Why should the US have all the nukes in the world but not Iran? Actually, there are 9 countries that have nukes. "I'm your biggest fan, Ill follow you until you love me, Papa"
Malcador Posted February 23, 2015 Posted February 23, 2015 It is a bit hypocritical for the nuclear armed ones to try to police others that want it, but it is largely in the good of everyone that not everyone ends up with nuclear weapons - if only just due to increased risk of them being lost or stolen. 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
Zoraptor Posted February 23, 2015 Posted February 23, 2015 Russia about to supply Iran with modern AA Unsurprising, to the max. Annoy the west, remove litigation and get extra cash, why wouldn't they- especially after cancelling the last deal solely due to western pressure. The US has failed to secure a deal before Iran actually can produce what they need for a nuclear bomb Heh. Both Mossad's and the USNI assessments are that they haven't even been trying for a bomb, in the US case that's their belief from 2003 to present. There's a massive disparity between what is reported, what politicians say and what the actual analysis is. The isolation campaign is pretty stupid though. If they want Saudi to moderate some of their stuff (massive support for all the scenery chewing loony tunes Salafi nutbars currently asterisking the ME and radicalising Islam with their crap) having a counter weight is actually good, plus the policy hands Iran to Russia on a plate- and if Russia ends up wanting Iran to have nukes there ain't anything anyone can do to stop it.
Rostere Posted February 23, 2015 Posted February 23, 2015 I believe in restricting the access to nuclear weaponry, but I also believe in that there is no reason to restrict access to nuclear energy, as long as it is internationally supervised and kept to safe standards. 1 "Well, overkill is my middle name. And my last name. And all of my other names as well!"
Woldan Posted February 23, 2015 Posted February 23, 2015 It is a bit hypocritical for the nuclear armed ones to try to police others that want it, but it is largely in the good of everyone that not everyone ends up with nuclear weapons.Since nuclear weapons have been used defensively for the past 70 years they're simply nothing else than means for self protection and balance. Of course the US on its crusade for world domination despises the idea of non-US compliant countries being able to have some form of passive defense. As for nuclear weaponry getting into the wrong hands, I think we've already crossed that point a long time ago. 1 I gazed at the dead, and for one dark moment I saw a banquet.
Recommended Posts