Over 100,000 Movies ❤ 420,00 Scenes with Previews ❤ Try it for $2.99

Here's why NATO hates the Kaliningrad SU-27SM3 Flankers

Nzinga

Lover of Africa
BGOL Investor
You're attempting to put words in my mouth.

You can press the back button and see what I said, and I will say again.

The US isn't worried about this plane and Russians being Russians doesn't equate to air superiority or better engineering.

I will say again, the US isn't worried about this plane.
I am not putting words in your mouth. You specifically invoked the F22 and
F35, asking why the Russians are not challenging those planes. I provided
you the evidence showing that the Russians are challenging those planes..

As for the engineering, you do realise that stealth is one of the many things
the Russians invented, right?




You do realise that the F35 is 2/3 a Russian plane, don't you? The 1/3
that is not Russian is the electronics



The article does not tell the whole story. The US paid Yakovlev $400 million
for 2 prototypes of the the YAK141
 
Last edited:

thismybgolname

Rising Star
OG Investor
I am not putting words in your mouth. You specifically invoked the F22 and
F35, asking why the Russians are not challenging those planes. I provided
you the evidence showing that the Russians are challenging those planes..

As for the engineering, you do realise that stealth is one of the many things
the Russians derived right?

You do realise that the F35 is 2/3 a Russian plane, don't you?

You do realise that both F119 and F135 were concepturally built up from
the Russian RD79-300 engine, don't you???????


This article does not tell the whole story. The US paid Yakovlev $400 million
for 2 prototypes of the the YAK141
You do realize you've yet to post anything that refutes what I said in my original statement, don't you?

Amazing how quickly you're able to post Russian sources to try to prove your point.

The US military isn't worried about this plane, or any plane in the Russian fleet.
 

Nzinga

Lover of Africa
BGOL Investor
.The US military isn't worried about this plane, or any plane in the Russian fleet.
You are the one who alluded to the engineering, and so I had to destroy that
argument.

Why would the US want to pay $1.5 billion for 15 outdated and retired Su27s?
Neither you nor I can get in the head of the US military? That is $100million
per plane. The cost of a brand new F35 is $80 million off the floor of Lockheed
Martin, although this does not tell the true story




I have explained to you how in Syria, every time an Su35 comes into the area,
all the other planes run away

 
Last edited:

thismybgolname

Rising Star
OG Investor
You are the one who alluded to the engineering, and so I had to destroy that
argument.

Why would the US want to pay $1.5 billion for 15 outdated and retired Su27s?
Neither you nor I can get in the head of the US military? That is $100million
per plane. The cost of a brand new F35 is $80 million off the floor of Lockheed
Martin, although this does not tell the true story




I have explained to you how in Syria, every time an Su35 comes into the area,
all the other planes run away

You haven't destroyed any argument and you continue to show your true colors comrade.

You haven't refuted my point that the US military is concerned about this plane.

Also where in the article that you posted does it say the US paid 1.5 for the outdated Su27?

The issues of the F22/F35 have nothing to do with the concern about this plane out performing, or out dueling the US in an armed conflict.

Once again, show me where the US military is concerned about this plane.

Not NATO, the US.
 

Nzinga

Lover of Africa
BGOL Investor
You haven't destroyed any argument and you continue to show your true colors comrade.

You haven't refuted my point that the US military is concerned about this plane.

Also where in the article that you posted does it say the US paid 1.5 for the outdated Su27?

The issues of the F22/F35 have nothing to do with the concern about this plane out performing, or out dueling the US in an armed conflict.

Once again, show me where the US military is concerned about this plane.

Not NATO, the US.
You keep denying what you have been shown. All your questions are already answered
 

thismybgolname

Rising Star
OG Investor
You keep denying what you have been shown. All your questions are already answered
You keep attempting to play 3 card Monte.

Russian have always harassed planes and will continue to because they're Russians.

That doesn't equate to the US being fearful of the military capabilities of this plane.

You've yet to refute my original point and you can't because the US military isn't concerned about this plane.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BKF

ORIGINAL NATION

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Starting early this century, Australia began talking about upgrading its
submarine fleet. It put out tenders that attracted the interest of the usual
suspects. The final 3 contenders were Japan, Germany and France. Australia
chose France, which offered to transfer the technology for Australia to build
12 diesel powered subs at a cost of about $90 billion. The issue came to the
attention of this forum 2 weeks ago, when a thread was posted, depicting
an Australian senator questioning an arrogant Australian admiral why the
navy was choosing diesel powered submarines. The woman had clearly done
her homework, but was unable to articulate the technical matters or answer
the sophistic and haughty contentions of the far more technically competent
admiral. BGOL at the time was of the opinion that the educated admiral was
taking an uninformed politician to school. I pointed out then that the woman
had actually done her homework, and was asking the man pertinent questions.

I explained that diesel submarines are archaic and do not belong in any serious
navy. I pointed out then that the geographical isolation of Australia left it no option
but to go with nuclear submarine which have unlimited endurance and can stay under
water for months, limited only by the amount of food on board. I explained then
that a diesel submarine can only dive so far, since it cannot use its airbreathing
diesel engines under water, and has to depend on batteries for all its power
requirements when submerged. It then has to come up, almost always every night,
to turn on the diesel engines and recharge its batteries. It also needs to rendezvous
with surface oiling ships in order to refuel.

Of course I was met with the usual derision from the usual characters. But as is
always the case in matters where I condescend to opine, I was subsequently
vindicated, when last week, it was announced that Australia was cancelling that
stupid contract with France, and replacing it with one in which the US and the UK
will transfer technology to enable that country build the more appropriate nuclear
powered submarines. The same announcement also discovered the fact that the
US, the UK and Australia had formed a security organisation call AUKUS, that was
allegedly intended to counter China.

On a side note, the French are livid, and demanding that the US pay them money
for the lost contract with Australia. I will have more to say on that bullshit another
day; suffice it to say the US is not paying, and should not pay, France a single dime.
So that is subs with nuclear power. Did they think that maybe diesel power was more safer?
 

mrcmd187

Controversy Creates Cash
BGOL Investor
OK not to hurt anyone's feelings with what I'm about to say but the Sukhoi Su-35 was classified as a headache when brought during multiple briefs when I was in, the F-22 Raptor was suppose to be the answer to the Su-27M but when the Sukhoi Su-35 came out we where playing catch up for a minute. The concern was that there was no why to gauge which was superior due to them never having one on one combat and that also applies to the current generation of pilots.
 
Over 100,000 Movies ❤ 420,00 Scenes with Previews ❤ Try it for $2.99
Top