Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Silat on December 02, 2005, 06:56:52 PM
-
Hmmm only one letter wrong got us into war with Iraq:)
N is the letter for today........................ .........
December 2, 2005
Russia Reportedly to Sell Missiles to Iran
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 6:37 p.m. ET
MOSCOW (AP) -- Russia has agreed to sell more than $1 billion worth of missiles and other defense systems to Iran, Russian news media reported Friday, a move expected to draw a heated reaction from the United States.
The Interfax and ITAR-Tass news agencies cited unidentified sources in the Russian military-industrial complex as saying that Russian and Iranian officials had signed contracts in November that would send up to 30 Tor-M1 missile systems to Iran over the next two years.
Interfax said the Tor-M1 system could identify up to 48 targets and fire at two targets simultaneously at a height of up to 20,000 feet.
The news agency quoted its source as saying the two countries had reached a deal on modernizing Iran's air force inventory, as well.
The deal was also reported in the Vedomosti newspaper, which cited an unidentified manager at a military-industrial enterprise as saying Russia would provide Iran with 29 Tor missile systems that had originally been manufactured on orders from Greece.
The state arms export agency, Rosoboronexport, said it had no information on the reported deal.
No Iranian officials were immediately available for comment Friday, a weekly holiday in the country. There were no reports in the Iranian media about the deal.
While the conventional weapons deal would not violate international agreements, it was likely to elicit an adverse reaction from the United States.
''I expect that Russia's decision to supply the complexes to Iran will meet a negative reaction from the West, but this criticism will be of a political rather than legal character,'' Konstantin Kosachev, the head of the parliamentary foreign affairs committee, was quoted by Vedomosti as saying.
In Washington, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the United States had not yet validated the news reports.
Russia, a key Iranian ally, has resisted U.S.-led efforts to bring Tehran before the U.N. Security Council over its alleged nuclear weapons program, insisting that the disputes be resolved through the U.N. nuclear watchdog.
Russia is also building a nuclear reactor in the Iranian city of Bushehr.
Israel considers Iran to be its biggest threat, and doesn't believe Tehran's claims that its nuclear program is peaceful. Israeli concerns were heightened recently after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad urged that Israel be ''wiped off the map.''
Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said he was unaware of the reported deal between Russia and Iran, but said it would harm regional security.
''When a country hopes to strengthen the military potential of Iran, they are serving to strengthen the most negative elements in the region,'' Regev told The Associated Press in Jerusalem.
On Friday, Israel carried out a successful test of its Arrow missile defense system, intercepting and destroying a missile similar to Iran's long-range Shahab-3.
-
Is there someone who thinks an independent nation shouldn't be able to defend its airspace from hostile intruders?
It's just like getting a gun to protect your home if you get my point... ;)
-
Eh, same ****. Different week.
-
everyone does it. the US backs corrupt governments. give weapons to islamic extremists. GIVE ISREAL A FRIGGIN NUKE!! WTF!?!?!
-
No big deal. If the US decided to attack Iran, all that money they spent on air defense will be wasted in about 3 days anyway.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
No big deal. If the US decided to attack Iran, all that money they spent on air defense will be wasted in about 3 days anyway.
Very good point! Besides, no anti-aircraft defence can protect your capital from the B-2/F-117! Just my 2 cents!
-
the F-117 isnt quite invisible to radar. in fact, durring the first gulf war, brit radar frequently spotted nighthawk squadrons. also, if the B-2 is invisible to radar, how can the F-22 be LESS visible to radar? makes no sence.
carefull where you step, folks. you dont wanna step in the bull sh**.:aok
-
AFAIK B-2 is supposed to work from outside of air-defence range, or when air-defence is suppressed.
F-117 was already shot down by Yugoslavs.
Smart echeloned air-defence is almost impossible to destroy. So far all American "achievements" were against third-world countries, exausted by decades of siege.
BTW, read an interesting story about Vietnamese countermeasures against first SHRIKEs. They simply hanged worn thin mats around the antenna at some distance :D Maybe it's why we captured an undamaged HARM in Lybia 1986 - it made a hole in a target-illuminating antenna and softly landed in the sand :D
I think Russia should make a serious discount on SAMs for Iran. Even if it will not bring huge profits - it will keep our weapon factories and R&D institutes working.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
AFAIK B-2 is supposed to work from outside of air-defence range, or when air-defence is suppressed.
No.
The main limitation on B-2 and F-117 is that they work at night, because they don't have performance to escape an interceptor that makes visual contact.
-
Well the latest and greatest (I don't believe they're beyond prototype however... SA-16?) Soviet SAM systems constitute a very high threat level. They can engage up to 8 targets simultaneously, including shooting at incoming anti-radiation missles.
As for stealth, the fact is even in an F-117, the pilot's head has a radar signature several thousand times larger than the aircraft (leading to special coatings on the windows). The only time it's truly vulnerable is either from bad maintenance (a bolt head wasn't perfectly flush, destroying the stealth characteristics) or when the weapon bay doors open for deployment. The F-22 is nothing to sneeze at either. They're sending them up 2 vs 8 against F-15s in exercises and the pilots claim it's like clubbing baby seals... against an aircraft with the best KDR in history (250+ kills for 0 losses).
All that aside, it's still training and experience that are the determining factor.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
No.
The main limitation on B-2 and F-117 is that they work at night, because they don't have performance to escape an interceptor that makes visual contact.
Projectors and anti-aircraft baloons?... And people on the roofs with sand-buckets and tongs?... Oh, they probably fly too high for baloons...
-
Originally posted by indy007
against an aircraft with the best KDR in history (250+ kills for 0 losses).
Exaggerating? Syrian MiG-23MLs shot down several F-15s, it's a fact.
-
I give the sams and other defense systems 3 days before Israel trashes it all.
-
I think Isreal should just build up enough rocket launchers and saturate Iran with IPBM's. After the D is gone they could send in the BB's and large cargos to take all the res that the Iranians have. A heavey enough strike however, will end up putting the Iranians into noob status and the Isreali's won't be able to probe of hit them for a while........
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Exaggerating? Syrian MiG-23MLs shot down several F-15s, it's a fact.
Best I've found so far is a pair of F-15s being hit in the 1982 conflict. One by an IR SAM while egressing, damaged, landed at a forward base. The other was hit by an R-3S from a Mig-21F, and landed on one engine at a nearbye base.
I won't discount the fact one could have been shot down, but can you find a link to confirm it?
-
So Russia is selling its old missile systems....How old is Tor-M1? 10? 20? 30 years?
And why can't Iran defend its own airspace again?...... :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Exaggerating? Syrian MiG-23MLs shot down several F-15s, it's a fact.
It's absolutely true what he says and he has the screen shots from the game to prove it.......
-
Originally posted by Maverick
It's absolutely true what he says and he has the screen shots from the game to prove it.......
Sorry, I've read detailed reports in Russian. Israelis got into an ambush with MiG-21s as a bait, AFAIR 23s shot down 2-3 F-15s, trading them for 2-3 21s before "blue" side got reinforcement. Should I look for a source in Russian?
I also absolutely love the Western way of counting losses, in this case noone ever mentiones "blue" side planes shot down by Syrian SAMs. Soviet "advisors" there were complete PVO units that got high awards back home. Even old S-75s, being mobile with a few launchers and a control truck working on manual tracking shot down many enemy planes, being too "agile" to be hit. AFAIK Serbs used same tactics in 1999, "launch and run". BTW, how comes that NATO losses in Yugoslavia were lower then on training flights? :lol
-
Originally posted by Boroda
So far all American "achievements" were against third-world countries, exausted by decades of siege.
Shoot down any SR71s? Those were a good 30 years old when retired.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Sorry, I've read detailed reports in Russian. Israelis got into an ambush with MiG-21s as a bait, AFAIR 23s shot down 2-3 F-15s, trading them for 2-3 21s before "blue" side got reinforcement. Should I look for a source in Russian?
That'd be cool. I've been googling it for awhile now, still haven't come up with anything other than what I already posted.
During the Six-Day War, the Israeli Air Force achieved absolute air superiority by eliminating the entire opposing Arab air forces on the first day of fighting. On June 5, 1967, in a massive coordinated raid employing special Durandal and conventional bombs, rockets and strafing, the IAF destroyed the entire Egyptian air-force while most of the Egyptian planes were still on the ground. By the end of the day the Syrian and Jordanian air forces were wiped out as well. The IAF shoot-down record at the end of the war was a claimed record of 451 enemy aircraft downed versus 10 downed of its own. While this operation was taking place, only a handful of aircraft were left to guard Israeli skies.
September 11, 1969: IAF planes shot down 11 Egyptian jet fighters in dogfights.
September 26, 1969: IAF Super Frelon and CH-53 Sikorski helicopters carry paratroopers in a raid to "hijack" and airlift back an advanced Soviet P-12 radar deployed in Egypt near Suez. A Ch-53 Helicopter carried the 4 ton radar back, tethered under it.
January 7, 1970: the IAF start performing deep strikes on Egyptian targets, in order to force them to cease artillery and commando attacks on Israeli forces arrayed along the east side of the Suez Canal.
July 30, 1970: the IAF shot down 5 Egyptian MiG 21 (Mikoyan-Gurevich) fighters, flown by Soviet pilots sent by Moscow to "show the Egyptians how to deal with the IAF".
In the Yom Kippur War the IAF suffered heavy casualties from Soviet anti-aircraft surface-to-air missiles but managed to regroup and assist IDF's ground forces and later bomb infrastructure targets in Syria and Egypt. IAF helicopters proved to be highly useful in logistics and rescue efforts (MedEvac). During that war, the IAF lost 102 planes while the Egyptian Air Force lost 235 and the Syrian Air Force lost 135.
June 8, 1982 - the Peace for Galilee operation: The destruction of the entire Soviet-Syrian air-defence system in Lebanon within few hours without a single warplane lost; Syria with the U.S.S.R built up an overlapping network of surface-to-air missiles, and the density of SAM site locations was unmatched anywhere in the world including the U.S.S.R. itself. Also the IAF achieved in dogfights a total of 80 Syrian planes shoot-downs, without a single Israeli plane being shot down.
That's all from answers.com
Sounds like a highlight reel for the IAF... but I'm sure it's a conspiracy :)
-
Originally posted by Dago
Shoot down any SR71s? Those were a good 30 years old when retired.
Well, shot down some U-2s, that SR-71s never entered areas covered by main PVO structures. I wonder how long an SR-71 could last over Sverdlovsk in 1980. In fact - noone cared about Blackbirds making hi-res photos of empty tundra. Otherwise - it could be quite simple to make a missile ambush for them. I mean - deploying a basic S-200 complex in the above-mentioned tundra with Mi-10 helicopters. On paper S-200 could be ready to shoot in 14 hours after delivery. But, again - noone cared. PVO was simply watching USAF wasting millions on counting reindeers.
-
Originally posted by indy007
That's all from answers.com
Should I quote something like udaff.com? :lol
I love this one: July 30, 1970: the IAF shot down 5 Egyptian MiG 21 (Mikoyan-Gurevich) fighters, flown by Soviet pilots sent by Moscow to "show the Egyptians how to deal with the IAF".
Did they catch any Soviet pilots? No? Then maybe noone was shot down?
I love it. Especially after I saw some wrecks from Israely planes in PVO museum.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Projectors and anti-aircraft baloons?... And people on the roofs with sand-buckets and tongs?... Oh, they probably fly too high for baloons...
Those weapons have as good a chance as a SAM against the B-2.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Should I quote something like udaff.com? :lol
I love this one: July 30, 1970: the IAF shot down 5 Egyptian MiG 21 (Mikoyan-Gurevich) fighters, flown by Soviet pilots sent by Moscow to "show the Egyptians how to deal with the IAF".
Did they catch any Soviet pilots? No? Then maybe noone was shot down?
I love it. Especially after I saw some wrecks from Israely planes in PVO museum.
So do I, but to the original question... were they F-15 wrecks? :)
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Well, shot down some U-2s, that SR-71s never entered areas covered by main PVO structures.
How would you know they never entered areas? Do you think the Commies are actually going to print in Pravda, "SR71s flew over but we couldnt hit them"?
Russias technical ability is limited to the technology that Russia has stolen.
After reading enough of your posts, like most of the others I have to believe you are either one huge troll king, or one of the most deluded propagana filled suckers the world has ever seen. Hard to believe you are dumb enough to believe the nonsense you type.
-
hi
What is PVO?
Well, shot down some U-2s, that SR-71s never entered areas covered by main PVO structures. I wonder how long an SR-71 could last over Sverdlovsk in 1980. In fact - noone cared about Blackbirds making hi-res photos of empty tundra. Otherwise - it could be quite simple to make a missile ambush for them. I mean - deploying a basic S-200 complex in the above-mentioned tundra with Mi-10 helicopters. On paper S-200 could be ready to shoot in 14 hours after delivery. But, again - noone cared. PVO was simply watching USAF wasting millions on counting reindeers.
SR 71s never really covered all Soviet airspace?
-
Russias technical ability is limited to the technology that Russia has stolen.
gotta think twice before saying that...
-
I think what we have here, from both U.S. and Russian governments is an attempt to possibly cover up losses or inabilities.
I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong just be careful what you say and don't believe everything you read on the internet, Boroda, Indy...
-
never understimate russian military engineering. Their manufacturing methods may seem a bit crude but they are capable of tremendous work. Best in the world in many cases.
-
http://www.au.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwroot/short_studies/USAFMannedAircraftCombatLosses1990_2002.pdf
Im not sure about the authenticity or reliability of the linked PDF but it makes for interesting reading.
-
I'd rate Russian Engineering as the most reliable. While the work might not be as amazing, you can't forget the fact that the item is going to work every single time.
-
Originally posted by 1K3
hi
What is PVO?
?
It is a service branch with a main goal of defending airspace by employing aviation, SAMs and AAAs. Direct translation of PVO = anti-air defense.
-
I wouldnt go so far as to say that russian engineering never fails its minimum desing requirements. I dont know the numbers here but Im certain it aint perfect.
-
I don't see what all the fuss is about. Both sides of the fence produce top rate weapons systems.
But the decisive difference in how they are implemented is the training implemented.
On the F-117 Shootdown, enclosed is an article from Journal of Electronic Defense from 2 weeks ago.
Secrets of 1999 F-117 Shootdown Revealed
by Zord Gabor Laszlo
Nov. 9, 2005
With his early retirement last year from the former Yugoslav (now Serbia and Montenegro) military, one of the most successful surface-to-air-missile (SAM) battery comanders of recent times can finally tell his story on how he and his men shot down two US Air Force (USAF) tactical aircraft – an F-117 and an F-16 – during Operation Allied Force in 1999. Minor modifications to existing obsolete air-defense missile systems, survivability through mobility, and radio-frequency (RF) discipline led to those kills, he said.
The 3rd battery of the Yugoslav 250th Missile Brigade was responsible for the air defense of the Beograd area, together with other batteries of the same brigade. The 3rd battery employed the S-125 (SA-3) SAM system to shoot down a US Air Force F-117 and F-16.
Photo by Zord Gabor Laszlo
Although the name of Col. Dani Zoltan emerged earlier in some interviews with local media since 1999, it wasn't until October of this year that he was revealed to be the commander of the unit responsible for both manned aircraft kills by the former Yugoslav air-defense force during the NATO bombing campaign in 1999. The Serbian alias Gvozden Djukic had been used, instead, to describe the ethnic Hungarian commander in some propaganda articles, apparently in an effort to hide his ethnicity. With his retirement, however, he chose to reveal his true identity and the role he played in 1999 to the public.
His unit, the 3rd battery of the 250th Missile Brigade, was responsible for the air defense of the Beograd area, together with other batteries of the same brigade. Equipped with the S-125M Neva (NATO: SA-3 Goa) command-guided SAM system (for more information on the Neva and other Soviet-made SAM systems, see "Castles in the Sky"), Dani's battery, however, had some key advantages over its sister units. According to Dani, this advantage was based on their previous research into the field of the detection, acquisition, and destruction of targets with low radar cross-sections (RCSs) or those employing low-observable technologies. He said he and his subordinate officers followed articles written about the F-117 since its emergence from secrecy, calculating at the same time how systems in service with the Yugoslav air-defense forces could possibly cope with such a threat. Finally, during the NATO power demonstrations in 1998 (held to ward off Serbia from its actions in Kosovo), he proposed minor, in-field technical modifications to the SAM system: one to the UNV antenna unit and the UNK-M control cabin responsible for missile control (NATO: Low Blow), with another modification to the P-18 (NATO: Dry Rack or Spoon Rest D) radar that provides target acquisition for each battery. His superiors declied to approved the modifications, though, saying instead that "this system simply cannot handle the stealth."
Tough challenges to the Yugoslavian integrated air-defense system were on the horizon, but individiual initiatives were still not encouraged, even though they promised a chance to improve inferior systems. Just a few weeks before the air war started, Dani tried once more, but to no avail. At this time, however, he finally went ahead and implemented his proposed modifications within his own unit without higher approval, taking full responsibility. Altough he still declines to discuss particulars, it seems the alterations required little materiel, and the maintenance and servicing capabilities attached to his battery were up to the task of the "quick fix." The only specific Col. Dani would provide was that the modifications did not involve the use of the auxilliary Karat TV target-tracking system.
In addition to technical modifications to increase the probability of successful engagement of low-RCS targets, Col. Dani also trained his unit to fight against the NATO air armada. Engagements using the shortest possible radiation of the fire-control radar were practiced over and over, and Col. Dani indicated that they focused on engaging targets well within the possible launch zone to reduce the time of flight of the missiles and, therefore, the reaction time available to the target aircraft. Dani's unit also received reservists who boosted his unit's manpower to approximately 200 personnel – in accordance with the standard wartime employment plan of a Neva battery. They also received two extra quad (4) missile launchers beyond the original four, and their stocks of V-601P missiles were boosted as well, in anticipation of a low kill probability and high missile consumption.
Col. Dani Zoltan suggested that his battery used primarily its own resources – mostly the P-18 radar (like the one seen here) and visual observation – to build a faint picture of situational awareness and to understand NATO operations for later use.
Photo by Zord Gabor Laszlo
On the first night of Operation Allied Force, March 24, 1999, the task of stopping the attackers fell to Yugoslav interceptors, and SAM activity was held back. Later on, however, when the clear beyond-visual-range (BVR) superiority of the NATO fighters became evident, the Yugoslav SAM and anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) units took on sole responsibility for air defense. With a low kill probability projected, due to their admittedly inferior technology, the realistic aim of the Yugoslav SAM and AAA units was to stay alive as long as possible to distract the NATO strike packages from their objective. Forcing the NATO aircraft into evasive maneuvers that required them to jettison stores and tanks seemed more likely than actually shooting down aircraft. However, on day four, the 3rd battery of the 250th brigade succeeded in downing an F-117 – an act that clearly helped the Serbs in escalating the propaganda war to win public support, while at the same time, dealing a blow to the West. Dani said his unit shot two missiles with the target flying head-on at the battery at an altitude of 8 km at a range of 13 km. The whole engagement took only 18 seconds. Following standard operating procedure, he was sitting in the UNK-M cabin in front of the remote display of the P-18 radar, supervising his crew's combat work.
Although Dani acknowledged that they received information updates from the central command and control (always through landlines – no radio and no cellular communications), he said they wandered almost randomly around the sector they were assigned to protect. While on the move, Col. Dani's unit had to avoid detection by NATO forces and the attacks that would be sure to follow, then find places from which they had the highest probability of disrupting enemy air operations. Most of the time the actual firing unit, held closely together by Dani, included only those elements required for a short engagement: the missile-guidance radar, two (instead of four) quad launchers, acquisition radar, and generators. Setting up in just 60 minutes from transport configuration to firing position (preferably near vegetation offering natural concealment), this "core" of the battery usually stayed in one place no longer than a few hours. According to Dani, his battery covered approximately 100,000 km during the 78 days of the war, mostly at night in blackout conditions and without a single road accident.
Beyond frequent relocation, RF discipline contributed to the 3rd battery's eventual survival, and the unit suffered no human or materiel losses at all. Radiation time of the fire-control radar was kept to a minimum, although with the P-18 they could be more liberal, as this VHF radar – according to their experiences – could not be targeted by NATO's High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missiles (HARMs). Even with this precaution, though, they were forced to cease radiation and/or missile control 23 times when it became evident from the target-return fluctuations or other indications that a HARM had been launched at them. False transmitters in the vicinity of the battery's location were also used to spoof the anti-radiation missiles. Dani added that the survivability of the VHF P-18 is the single biggest reason for the command-guided Neva system's success compared to the semi-active Kub (SA-6) system. The Kub's radar complex, the SURN (NATO: Straight Flush), which operates on a different wavelength from the P-18, was more vulnerable to NATO HARMs. While the Neva battery was not vulnerable to HARMs during the detection/acquisition phase of the engagement, the Kub exposed itself from the beginning of its search for targets. (For more on the SAM threat faced by NATO during Operation Allied Force, see "The Evolving SAM Threat: Kosovo and Beyond.")
The retired colonel also suggested that his battery used primarily its own resources (mostly the P-18 radar and visual observation) to build a faint picture of situational awareness and to understand NATO operations for later use. However, this is not entirely true, as it is now known that the US didn't vary the flight paths of its F-117s, so their locations could be predicted to a certain extent. Serb forces also often received phone calls from just outside Aviano Air Base in Italy, alerting them when a NATO aircraft had taken off. Combining these two pieces of intelligence, it would not be too difficult to determine where an F-117 was at any given time (see "Shrewd Tactics May Have Downed Stealth Fighter").
Dani declined to say how many missiles they launched during the war beyond the four fired at the F-117 and the F-16, although he did confirm that "several" missiles fired by his unit missed their targets.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Those weapons have as good a chance as a SAM against the B-2.
Don't underestimate simple solutions.
Vietnamese shot down several American planes by simply shooting in the air, several hundreed peasants at one place on the known route of attack aircrafts.
Some planes were downed by simply spanning the wire between two hills.
There was a story about Soviet PVO advisor in Egypt who drank with an artillery officer, and they put a BM-21 Grad launcher on the route of Israeli F-4s, that they followed daily. Poor Israelis didn't understand that smoke trails were from unguided rockets, all crews bailed out. I have heard this baika many times, my cousins from Volgograd said that it's about my Uncle, he spent some time in Egypt too, and his Father (my Grandfather) was a Guards Mortar corps officer, so he had some things to talk about with that artillerist....
Disclaimer: I "sell it for the same price I bought it". I mean - it's "baikas", in PVO it's a popular genre. There must be some amount of truth there, it's hard to guess, but I have heard this things from too many people, including my military training officers in MSTU and officers from Pushkin PVO college.
-
Originally posted by SMIDSY
everyone does it. the US backs corrupt governments. give weapons to islamic extremists. GIVE ISREAL A FRIGGIN NUKE!! WTF!?!?!
Israel allready have nukes.
BTW. It's an interesting way to tighten up Air Defence systems by using an old, but very efficient system. Tor is a short-range, object-defending system. If to compare TOR-M1 (entered to service in 1991) to TOR (in service from 1986) it wasn't improved too much. The destruction probability was raised from 0,45-0,95 up to 0,56-0,99 against ALCM type targets. And from 0,26-0,75 up to 0,45-0,80 against F-15 type targets. Also, reaction time was reduced from 8,7 down to 7,4 seconds in static position and from 10,7 down to 9,7 seconds in "short stop" position. Deployment time for both modifications is 3 minutes.
The main thing is that TOR can see F-117 and similiar targets made with "stealth" technology.
Pray for Russia that we have not sold our S-300 to Iran. Otherwise, your air war will became a slaughter of the innocents for Iran Air Defence.
-
Originally posted by Estel
Otherwise, your air war will became a slaughter of the innocents for Iran Air Defence.
errr... say again?
-
Originally posted by Staga
errr... say again?
Russian idiomatic expression, like "clubbing baby-seals".
BTW, did Greece finally deploy S-300s they bought in the 90s?
-
Originally posted by Yeager
I wouldnt go so far as to say that russian engineering never fails its minimum desing requirements. I dont know the numbers here but Im certain it aint perfect.
Good point, you really dont need aircraft to attack Russia...we just let them steal some hacked software for their oil pipelines...largest explosion ever seen from space.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
BTW, did Greece finally deploy S-300s they bought in the 90s?
Yes.
-
What happend to our deal with you guys to trade you NHL players for nukes?
Regards,
HH
-
Originally posted by HugeHead
What happend to our deal with you guys to trade you NHL players for nukes?
Regards,
HH
What the Hell would we do with Hockey Players???
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
What the Hell would we do with Hockey Players???
Lose to Canadian teams;).
Regards,
HH
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
What the Hell would we do with Hockey Players???
And what the hell would we do with your nukes?! Trade them to Iran?
-
Iran has a hockey team?!?
Regards,
HH
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I'd rate Russian Engineering as the most reliable. While the work might not be as amazing, you can't forget the fact that the item is going to work every single time.
Every single time huh? A few russian submariners might disagree. Their
aircraft egress systems are fabulous though, just the thing for livening up
an airshow.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I'd rate Russian Engineering as the most reliable. While the work might not be as amazing, you can't forget the fact that the item is going to work every single time.
Tell that to the Egyptians when they contracted the Soviets to build a damn for them a few decades ago.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Estel
The main thing is that TOR can see F-117 and similiar targets made with "stealth" technology.
It may see it, but it can't reach it.... IIRC F117 flies higher than 8Km.