Russian vs. USA Tech

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 28 2003 @ 10:24 PM
link   
Malaysia? Oh yeah, big loss there....

40 hours a year in 1993 is what?.....50 hours a year in 2003?


Subs?

Virginia class and the Seawolf class.........

BTW: 2-3 times more powerful that a Typhoon? Really?

Found these:
"Moscow, despite its economic woes, is building three new classes of submarines that will challenge the U.S.'s best."
Says enough for me.......

Link:
www.afpc.org...

And this:
"Moscow plans to build between 10 and 16 next-generation DP-955 Borei class ballistic missile submarines, according to a Russian military publication. The first sub, the Yuri Dolgoruki, is under construction at Severodvinsk. The Borei subs will carry 16 strategic ballistic missiles armed with 4 to 6 nuclear warheads each. Work on the Yuri Dolgoruki is being suspended, according to the article, because its missile launch systems need to be redesigned due to problems with the missile itself. The weekly Nezavisimoye Voyennoye Obozreniye (NVO) publishes the article.

Moscow has decided to allow its surface naval fleet to continue to deteriorate, so as to focus resources on building new nuclear submarines, NVO reports. The Russian Navy is "to redistribute funds earmarked for general-purpose naval forces in favor of nuclear powered missile submarines and on a five-year suspension of new submarine and surface ship construction."


Speaks even more volumes.........



regards
seekerof

[Edited on 28-11-2003 by Seekerof]




posted on Nov, 28 2003 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Malaysia? Oh yeah, big loss there....

40 hours a year in 1993 is what?.....50 hours a year in 2003?


Subs?

Virginia class and the Seawolf class.........


regards
seekerof

[Edited on 28-11-2003 by Seekerof]



please first of all tell me where you found the 50 hrs a year training.

second we are not debating training.

we are debating tech

also the two subs you put up are both attack subs and the typhoon is not an attack sub it a Ballistic Missile Submarine



posted on Nov, 28 2003 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Let's see a Russian laser cannon...here is the American version.




posted on Nov, 28 2003 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Russian.........question:
IF you have the best tech in the world.....are you saying that training plays no part in keeping tech the best? Are you saying that tech compensates for training?


regards
seekerof



posted on Nov, 28 2003 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Russian.........question:
IF you have the best tech in the world.....are you saying that training plays no part in keeping tech the best? Are you saying that tech compensates for training?


regards
seekerof


No i know that with out training tech is no good.

but this is not the thread to discuss training.



posted on Nov, 28 2003 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Here ya go Russian:
This article says 25 hours a year, perhaps I was being generous?
"Putin's plan to revamp a troubled military faces stiff resistance from top brass
VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV, Associated Press Writer"

Link:
www.cdi.org...

And this:
"Current State of the Russian Air Force
Assessment"

Link:
www.aeronautics.ru...

Excerpt:

"The former Air Forces and Air Defence Forces have now been merged into a single service (at a cost of some 93,000 posts), under Colonel General (Aviation) Anatoly Kornukov. Whilst still a large force, it has suffered from a decade of underfunding, which has led to a lack of modern airframes, abysmally low flight training levels and problems with repair and maintenance. It has also failed to adjust to the fragmentation of the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union and the effect that this would have on Moscow's old integrated air defence system. In 1998, the deputy Commander-in-Chief of the air force expressed his desire for the annual flying hours per pilot to average around 50 hours. In 1990, the air force accumulated two million annual flying hours, by 1999 this had dropped to 200,000-230,000. This reinforced the moribund situation vis--vis aircraft and equipment. The flying hours for 2000 averaged 20 hours for the 37th Air Army, 20 hours for Frontal Aviation and approximately 44 hours for the 61st Air Army. According to Major General Dimitry Morozov, in 2000 less than 5,000 aircraft were `serviceable' (capable of being maintained and repaired), with operational strength at approximately 4,000 aircraft and helicopters. Of all serviceable aircraft, about 35 per cent are actually used, the rest being idled to save on airframe, engine and equipment stress. Only 20 per cent of the air force is said to be 'modern'. Problems are so serious that this once formidable air force is believed to be incapable of dealing with two large-scale strategic missions simultaneously. The outlook is particularly bleak for Frontal Aviation, where only 54 per cent of the front-line fleet is serviceable, and the 61st Air Army (the transport fleet) where 50 per cent of the fleet is serviceable. The lack of flying hours and maintenance may explain the air force's deteriorating safety record. In the first six months of 2000, accident rates increased threefold from the first six months of 1999. During the 1980s, the accident rate averaged one emergency every 26,000 hours. By 1999-2000 this had risen to one accident every 12,000-13,000 hours. In addition to the funding, personnel, aircraft and maintenance crisis, the RFAF is having to cope with inadequate ground support structures. The Air Traffic Control (ATC) system is decrepit, and airfield lighting is operating in `emergency conditions' in 40 per cent of cases. Combined with the poor training of many pilots and ground crews, the lack of spare parts and the often erratic performance of ground-control systems, the state of the air force has been seriously degraded."



regards
seekerof



posted on Nov, 28 2003 @ 10:44 PM
link   














Just some pics of the beautifull typhoon

[Edited on 28-11-2003 by Russian]

[Edited on 28-11-2003 by Russian]



posted on Nov, 28 2003 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Here ya go Russian:
This article says 25 hours a year, perhaps I was being generous?
"Putin's plan to revamp a troubled military faces stiff resistance from top brass
VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV, Associated Press Writer"

Link:
www.cdi.org...

And this:
"Current State of the Russian Air Force
Assessment"

Link:
www.aeronautics.ru...

Excerpt:

"The former Air Forces and Air Defence Forces have now been merged into a single service (at a cost of some 93,000 posts), under Colonel General (Aviation) Anatoly Kornukov. Whilst still a large force, it has suffered from a decade of underfunding, which has led to a lack of modern airframes, abysmally low flight training levels and problems with repair and maintenance. It has also failed to adjust to the fragmentation of the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union and the effect that this would have on Moscow's old integrated air defence system. In 1998, the deputy Commander-in-Chief of the air force expressed his desire for the annual flying hours per pilot to average around 50 hours. In 1990, the air force accumulated two million annual flying hours, by 1999 this had dropped to 200,000-230,000. This reinforced the moribund situation vis--vis aircraft and equipment. The flying hours for 2000 averaged 20 hours for the 37th Air Army, 20 hours for Frontal Aviation and approximately 44 hours for the 61st Air Army. According to Major General Dimitry Morozov, in 2000 less than 5,000 aircraft were `serviceable' (capable of being maintained and repaired), with operational strength at approximately 4,000 aircraft and helicopters. Of all serviceable aircraft, about 35 per cent are actually used, the rest being idled to save on airframe, engine and equipment stress. Only 20 per cent of the air force is said to be 'modern'. Problems are so serious that this once formidable air force is believed to be incapable of dealing with two large-scale strategic missions simultaneously. The outlook is particularly bleak for Frontal Aviation, where only 54 per cent of the front-line fleet is serviceable, and the 61st Air Army (the transport fleet) where 50 per cent of the fleet is serviceable. The lack of flying hours and maintenance may explain the air force's deteriorating safety record. In the first six months of 2000, accident rates increased threefold from the first six months of 1999. During the 1980s, the accident rate averaged one emergency every 26,000 hours. By 1999-2000 this had risen to one accident every 12,000-13,000 hours. In addition to the funding, personnel, aircraft and maintenance crisis, the RFAF is having to cope with inadequate ground support structures. The Air Traffic Control (ATC) system is decrepit, and airfield lighting is operating in `emergency conditions' in 40 per cent of cases. Combined with the poor training of many pilots and ground crews, the lack of spare parts and the often erratic performance of ground-control systems, the state of the air force has been seriously degraded."



regards
seekerof


thats the info from 2000

and not from 2003-2004

[Edited on 28-11-2003 by Russian]



posted on Nov, 28 2003 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Excuse me Russian.....this is the latest information, despite the dating. If the Russian's were training anymore than what has been reported, they would have posted another article to the effect. There are none...I have searched and advanced searched...these are the latest articles...no updates have been made since.
Please notice that one of the links is a notorious .ru 'supporter' and they carry the latest and greatest information on the Russian equipment and information....


regards
seekerof



posted on Nov, 29 2003 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Excuse me Russian.....this is the latest information, despite the dating. If the Russian's were training anymore than what has been reported, they would have posted another article to the effect. There are none...I have searched and advanced searched...these are the latest articles...no updates have been made since.
Please notice that one of the links is a notorious .ru 'supporter' and they carry the latest and greatest information on the Russian equipment and information....


regards
seekerof


ok but please understand this is NOT a training thread it a TECH thread.

Therefore please talk tech and not training.

I understand training is a big part

But not in this thread.

Anyway what do you people think is a Mig-29 better then F-16?

The Mig is about 8 years younger.



posted on Nov, 29 2003 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hyperspace
Let's see a Russian laser cannon...here is the American version.




Starting at the end of the 1960s, the Russians also developed ground-based nuclear laser systems for combating spacecraft. Unlike the American x-ray lasers, they could be used several times over.

The mobile Pamir-SU electro-generator, with an output of 15MW and a mass of around 20t, could supply power to long-range lasers and ultra-high-frequency weapon systems. It could be used both on the Earth and also in space. In 1994/1995 this equipment was sold to the USA.


seekerof, your calling aeronautics a reliable source?
venik claims that couple of b2s were shot down in serbia



posted on Nov, 29 2003 @ 08:31 AM
link   
Hi, People are so competitive
. Why cant the the Russians face they lost the cold war? There in denial
. Well, I dont wana be mean, but who sent Russia Aid to feed your familys? Not the Germans. USA. Well, I dont want to be mean again, but Russia is a great county, but no comparison to the USA. During the 1980, we didnt reveal the Stealth Figther or the Bomber, that was a major key sucess in our history. I wonder what we have now? Well, Public we have Laser technology that would shoot down all your missles, there adding them to humvees, awacs, tankers, and fighters(Not sure about bombers). Even so, we have the new Metal Storm gun, Way more advanced mine like things( the mines are the best thing about it, check it out, LOL look at the camel in the movie how he runs). www.metalstorm.com. And USA has the money to do it. Well, I want to see all the USA haters (Cause they got owned by the USA) to seek onto google.ru and search some star treck stuff to compete to this.



posted on Nov, 29 2003 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Laxpla
Hi, People are so competitive
. Why cant the the Russians face they lost the cold war? There in denial
. Well, I dont wana be mean, but who sent Russia Aid to feed your familys? Not the Germans. USA. Well, I dont want to be mean again, but Russia is a great county, but no comparison to the USA. During the 1980, we didnt reveal the Stealth Figther or the Bomber, that was a major key sucess in our history. I wonder what we have now? Well, Public we have Laser technology that would shoot down all your missles, there adding them to humvees, awacs, tankers, and fighters(Not sure about bombers). Even so, we have the new Metal Storm gun, Way more advanced mine like things( the mines are the best thing about it, check it out, LOL look at the camel in the movie how he runs). www.metalstorm.com. And USA has the money to do it. Well, I want to see all the USA haters (Cause they got owned by the USA) to seek onto google.ru and search some star treck stuff to compete to this.



first of all, www.dictionary.com


you wouldnt have all this stealth tech without pyotr ufimtsev which made the theoretical groundwork in the 1960s for methods that later used by US engineers to design the first radar-scattering "stealth" aircraft,
,anyways you spent billions on this stealth technology which later will be rendered useless by the advancing radar technology




posted on Nov, 29 2003 @ 08:49 AM
link   



posted on Nov, 29 2003 @ 08:54 AM
link   
Hi again, www.history.com , tell ur bud to use www.dictionary.com too, Russian. Well Listen, dont be mad that you guys lost, its okay. www.teamgod.net tell them your problem.
. I never saw you guys once go for the USA in ANY topic, I mean, I wouldnt of cared if Russian didnt seem to be in denial all the time. I bet you guys were happy 9.11 happened, lowlifes.


USA OWNS RUSSIA, GOOD DAY



posted on Nov, 29 2003 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Ownage anyone? lowobservable.com...



posted on Nov, 29 2003 @ 08:59 AM
link   
whatever, stop spamming the thread with useless crap.



posted on Nov, 29 2003 @ 09:01 AM
link   
Hi, I sence anger... is there a problem?


Please, use a dictionary.

aircraft,
,anyways

[Edited on 29-11-2003 by Laxpla]



posted on Nov, 29 2003 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Wasnt the Kursk the latest Russian submarine. That was the last nail in the coffin that told the world that the Russian navy was no longer a threat. Have you seen the photos of warships rusting and sinking in docks. The Russians have to sell them the convicts for money. It is sad.



posted on Nov, 29 2003 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by SectorGaza

Originally posted by Laxpla
Hi, People are so competitive
. Why cant the the Russians face they lost the cold war? There in denial
. Well, I dont wana be mean, but who sent Russia Aid to feed your familys? Not the Germans. USA. Well, I dont want to be mean again, but Russia is a great county, but no comparison to the USA. During the 1980, we didnt reveal the Stealth Figther or the Bomber, that was a major key sucess in our history. I wonder what we have now? Well, Public we have Laser technology that would shoot down all your missles, there adding them to humvees, awacs, tankers, and fighters(Not sure about bombers). Even so, we have the new Metal Storm gun, Way more advanced mine like things( the mines are the best thing about it, check it out, LOL look at the camel in the movie how he runs). www.metalstorm.com. And USA has the money to do it. Well, I want to see all the USA haters (Cause they got owned by the USA) to seek onto google.ru and search some star treck stuff to compete to this.



first of all, www.dictionary.com


you wouldnt have all this stealth tech without pyotr ufimtsev which made the theoretical groundwork in the 1960s for methods that later used by US engineers to design the first radar-scattering "stealth" aircraft,
,anyways you spent billions on this stealth technology which later will be rendered useless by the advancing radar technology




Well the F-117 is about 20 years old. It did work but it is old. We are comparing the Russian technology to US tech that came out 20 years ago. That is how good US tech is. It takes 20 years for it to get old. Maybe we should try to compare he next generations of Russian and US tech. Anyone know what is the replacement for the Mig-29?





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join