![]() |
Russian bomber says hi to our carrier
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/11/rus...ber/index.html
Quote:
|
That kind of stuff happens all the time. And its by a lot of nations, not just Russia. Heck we do it too. Remember just a few years ago we flew a P-3 Orion too close to China. I'm just surprised the Navy still flies the F/A-18A model :lol: Nothing like flying outdated airframes when they've spent billions on hmmm the C model, and the E model. You know, over the last forty years since the A model was released lol
|
Quote:
From a marine pilot over on FTV6: (In reply to someone stating the obvious that Russia can't afford another arms race) Quote:
|
Things were so much better when the Russians were the enemy. They never hijacked passenger flights and flew them into our buildings like a bunch of pussies. They had honor and strength in their military, and deserved props for it. Plus they make a dayum good wodka!
|
It's the Navy's own fault. They had a cheap and effective way to extent the service life of the F-14 Tomcat and outfit them as D models, but for some reason they decided to scrap the entire fleet, and spend billions and billions on the Super Hornet Es and Fs. Sure, they're great planes, and yes, they're configurable for multiple roles, but the cost associated with the R&D to do so and the delays mean that only the F/A-18E & F planes in service now have been outfitted as high altitude presicion light bombers, interceptors, and ground support attack planes. The F/A/E-18G has yet to surface, and none of them can perform the heavy munitions role that the F-14 did. The whole idea was to have one style airframe to reduce maintenance costs, and yes that makes sense, but you have to have the airframes in service in order for that theory to work. Instead, the Navy decided to scrap its primary fighter and not provide enough in-service airframes to reduce maintenance issues. now they have to pull out old retired planes. Sounds great. Sounds like the Navy is one step above the Canadian Air Force.
|
Quote:
There has also been a lot of talk about Sukhoi getting the contract to build Russia's next air superiority fighter. I'm guessing it'll be airborne within the next three years. Here's a quick vid of the Su-37. Its a pretty sick plane. http://www.strategypage.com/military...742333043.aspx |
"Eh lieutenant, what were you doing there?"
"Communicating. Keeping up foriegn relations." |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
you mean an F-14??, but it doesn't at all....its fixed wing, and its WAY more maneuverable.
|
Quote:
|
sorry dude...SU-37s don't have moving wings, and the F-14 was in top gun, they do have the moving wings. The correct term is escaping me right now...I'm sure one of the military guys can correct me
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zxb0Q6hZgA |
Read it, trust me, some serious stuff.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...%3Den%26sa%3DN and... http://aeroweb.lucia.it/rap/RAFAQ/six5th_5.html |
Funny how the Russians have all this tech but they still can't keep their servicemen from dismantling expensive equipment to sell for food money.
|
Quote:
It is a Su-34. A Su-32, and Su-34 are essencially the same plane, they look the same, but the Su 34i s actually bigger. The Su-32 is known as the Fullback, and the Su-34 is known as the platypuss. The Su-32 you can stand up in, but does not have the stove and Toilet, that was built into the Su-34. |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:38 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.