Berkut Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Nice..... Hope they can bring it to the market rapidly. I on the other hand, hope not. I get this feeling that the words rapid and Hobby Boss doesn't mix too well. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
foxmulder_ms Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 (edited) I on the other hand, hope not. I get this feeling that the words rapid and Hobby Boss doesn't mix too well. You shocked me! Edited December 3, 2015 by foxmulder_ms Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 I assume from that you clearly think that a fast HB release of Su-34 = quality. :) Alright then... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Aigore Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 I assume from that you clearly think that a fast HB release of Su-34 = quality. :)/> Alright then... LoL HB and quality in the same sentence without a negation in between? Aaaah Irony :P Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Grey Ghost 531 Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 LoL HB and quality in the same sentence without a negation in between? Aaaah Irony :P/> Joyless Grammar Nazi here: saying something has "quality" means nothing. You have to quantify and qualify "quality" before it means something. Something can have good "qualities" or bad "qualities". It's like saying outside has "temperature" or your car has "color", you don't really know anything yet. Whenever I see the teacher's union spouting "we need more pay so the kids can get a 'quality education'", I think, yeah, right. Why don't you get yourself a HIGH quality education first. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MacStingy Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 1449249304[/url]' post='2763172']Joyless Grammar Nazi here: saying something has "quality" means nothing. You have to quantify and qualify "quality" before it means something. Something can have good "qualities" or bad "qualities". It's like saying outside has "temperature" or your car has "color", you don't really know anything yet. Whenever I see the teacher's union spouting "we need more pay so the kids can get a 'quality education'", I think, yeah, right. Why don't you get yourself a HIGH quality education first. +1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
spejic Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 Joyless Grammar Nazi here: saying something has "quality" means nothing. You have to quantify and qualify "quality" before it means something. Something can have good "qualities" or bad "qualities". It's like saying outside has "temperature" or your car has "color", you don't really know anything yet. You are actually wrong - "quality" isn't just a noun meaning a property, it is also an adjective meaning the state of being excellent and without flaws. The three dictionaries I checked all say so. So did my school teacher. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mingwin Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 You are actually wrong - "quality" isn't just a noun meaning a property, it is also an adjective meaning the state of being excellent and without flaws. The three dictionaries I checked all say so. So did my school teacher. indeed for example "quality time" don't have to specify "good" quality time... and i know that this concept also apply in french language... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Grey Ghost 531 Posted December 7, 2015 Share Posted December 7, 2015 (edited) You are actually wrong - "quality" isn't just a noun meaning a property, it is also an adjective meaning the state of being excellent and without flaws. The three dictionaries I checked all say so. Okay. You're right, but it still sounds wrong to me, I'll go back to my cave now. And to mitigate the thread-jacking: I saw something posted on FB about Russia dropping what the article described as "mini-nukes". The video showed what looked like an FAE explosion. That's some pretty good precision guided munitions right there. Edited December 7, 2015 by Grey Ghost 531 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
stalal Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 The article talks about SVP-24. The equipment Russia uses to drop bombs with accuracy. http://thesaker.is/technology-sitrep-how-russian-engineering-made-the-current-operation-in-syria-possible/ Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TomCooper Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 ...and that article is quite a cheap piece of PRBS. The author of that article wants to convince us that the SVP-24 is what: 'blotting out' (?) all the effects of winds in a country that is as windy as Syria (20km/h average wind speed, all the time, any time of the day, really 24/7) and when dumb bombs are released from 2,000-5,000 metres altitude - like Russians are doing most of the time: In reality: yes, the SVP-24 is a 'major improvement' for the nav/attack system of the Su-24M. This is so because its old nav/attack system was actually designed with deployment of nukes in mind, where it didn't matter if the CEP was anywhere between 300 and 500 metres. But, even the SVP-24 is nowhere near to bringing that type's CEP down to 4-5 metres. That cannot even be described as 'science fiction'. Under ideal - read: windless - conditions and low-altitude release, the CEP of Su-24M-SVP-24 might be down to 25-50 metres (also provided the crew has a good day). Keep in mind: USAF's F-111F-crews were concerned about effects of minimal wind while striking Q (aka 'Qaddaffi') back in 1986, with LGBs and from minimal altitude... and overall, there might be a reason why are Western air forces so much 'insisting' on PGMs, or at least 'wind-corrected' ammo. But Russo-fans want us to believe they have solved all the wind-related problems by installing a meanwhile obsolete computer into an even older nav/attack system...? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
stalal Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 ...and that article is quite a cheap piece of PRBS. The author of that article wants to convince us that the SVP-24 is what: 'blotting out' (?) all the effects of winds in a country that is as windy as Syria (20km/h average wind speed, all the time, any time of the day, really 24/7) and when dumb bombs are released from 2,000-5,000 metres altitude - like Russians are doing most of the time: In reality: yes, the SVP-24 is a 'major improvement' for the nav/attack system of the Su-24M. This is so because its old nav/attack system was actually designed with deployment of nukes in mind, where it didn't matter if the CEP was anywhere between 300 and 500 metres. But, even the SVP-24 is nowhere near to bringing that type's CEP down to 4-5 metres. That cannot even be described as 'science fiction'. Under ideal - read: windless - conditions and low-altitude release, the CEP of Su-24M-SVP-24 might be down to 25-50 metres (also provided the crew has a good day). Keep in mind: USAF's F-111F-crews were concerned about effects of minimal wind while striking Q (aka 'Qaddaffi') back in 1986, with LGBs and from minimal altitude... and overall, there might be a reason why are Western air forces so much 'insisting' on PGMs, or at least 'wind-corrected' ammo. But Russo-fans want us to believe they have solved all the wind-related problems by installing a meanwhile obsolete computer into an even older nav/attack system...? Does wind temperature also have any effect on direction of a falling bomb? By the way, I m no fan of Russian or American propaganda. I m just interested in science behind it and how things work. Russian and Americans have different way of doing things. Not necessarily one better than the other but different approach. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TomCooper Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 I know too little about influence of temperatures upon winds and free-fall bombs. Can only say: warm air usually creates so called 'thermic', and thermic is warm wind that is moving uphill. ...and any wind is disturbing aiming of free-fall bombs, i.e. 'blowing them away' from their trajectory. That's a basic 'physical law' of bombing ever since that Italian lieutenat dropped a few hand-grenades on Senussi insurgents while flying a Bleriot in Libya, in... was it 1909 or 1911... That said, and no matter what some people think of me: I don't care about propaganda, or nationalities. Like you, I only want to understand how things work. That's the very essence and core reason for all of my research. Therefore, I consider everybody equal and treat everybody the same way. For me, it doesn't matter if it's the US-, British-, Zimbabwean-, Syrian-, or military of Andora or Vanuatu that's as inprecise as Russians are in Syria. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TomCooper Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 'PS' I also know that, if 'pilot/crew' knows there's a wind and he/they are deploying free-fall bombs, they try to attack 'into' the wind. Supposedly, that's making some things easier. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Raceaddict Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 I'm surprised nobody posted about this, but there was another Russian incursion into Turkish airspace yesterday (01/29/16). This time an Su-34. While it didn't escalate like the last instance, there are still some very unhappy Turkish people on the ground giving Russian diplomats hell about it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
kotey Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 (edited) Now one side speaks that and was, another that it wasn't at all - need 100% of the proof. But there is other news in same time: probably 4 Su-35Ss were deployed to Syria photos Edited January 31, 2016 by kotey Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Berkut Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 I am absolutely shocked they are actually deploying Su-35S' considering the mountains of problems they have had. They literally had to complete the whole first contact (48 frames) before a single frame even was cleared to do combat patrol/QRA. Now, the frames sent to Syria are third, forth, fifth and sixth production aircraft of 2015 but even the first 2 of 2015 had to be reconfigured up to "combat" standard. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
kotey Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 I say "probably", will see TV news from Latakia, as soon as were deployed S-400 - wery soon were shown at all TVs all around the world. However i didn't saw any pictires Su-27SMs from Latakia, but Russin MoD confirm its operation in Syria. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ElectroSoldier Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 I am absolutely shocked they are actually deploying Su-35S' considering the mountains of problems they have had. They literally had to complete the whole first contact (48 frames) before a single frame even was cleared to do combat patrol/QRA. Now, the frames sent to Syria are third, forth, fifth and sixth production aircraft of 2015 but even the first 2 of 2015 had to be reconfigured up to "combat" standard. Maybe they did the upgrades already, no? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
beingthehero Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 Why send the Su-35Ss, though? The Su-30SMs already there seem to be doing the job as it is. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
kotey Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 What reason send all new technics to conflict zone - tests in conditions which are most approached to the fight. Who said that Su-35s will use in combat mission from first days? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
fulcrum1 Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 Why send the Su-35Ss, though? The Su-30SMs already there seem to be doing the job as it is. Best place to test your combat junk is in combat. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
foxmulder_ms Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Su-35s are in Syria, now, a video is released showing them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Andre Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Best place to test your combat junk is in combat. The F-22 has been flown as well over the area - this would seem like similar overkill, considering the expected opposition. However - if I was a military pilot or planner, I would prefer to have as much overkill as humanly possible. Cheers, Andre Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mario krijan Posted February 2, 2016 Share Posted February 2, 2016 Maybe they said whole world looking at us, need to send new hardware, just to show... They don't have real enemy (with capabilities like Russians in Syria) there, no electronic countermeasures, so for bombing missions there you don't need full capabilities (there is video of dropping bombs from Mi-24...). Everything else is good PR. Real work there doing by Su-24 an d 25, Su-30SM is for fighter cover, and now Su-35 for same. Probably Su-35 can fire R-73 and R-27, and can drop bombs without AESA radar :-) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.