comorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4671 posts, RR: 17 Posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1350 times:
OK, I am the OP before anyone else and I laud this aesthetic choice.
I think most countries should buy French equipment becuase they look really beautiful. Seriously, in this day and nuclear age no one is going to be deploying any of this stuff, so you might have the best-looking equipment.
So UAE, India, Brazil, get your act together and buy Rafael! Indian Navy, what is with the Admiral Gorshkov?? Looks like something Gen. Grievous would own!
For those of you interested in irrelevant details, here's the link:
L410Turbolet From Czech Republic, joined May 2004, 5393 posts, RR: 19 Reply 1, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1288 times:
Quoting comorin (Thread starter): Seriously, in this day and nuclear age no one is going to be deploying any of this stuff
Quite a few countries in the Baltics and on the Caucasus too close to Russia to feel comfortable would probably disagree on that assertion.
comorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4671 posts, RR: 17 Reply 2, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1279 times:
Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 1): Quite a few countries in the Baltics and on the Caucasus too close to Russia to feel comfortable would probably disagree on that assertion.
What, mon ami, worried by an invading army of Citroens?
Quokka From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1252 times:
Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 1): Quite a few countries in the Baltics and on the Caucasus too close to Russia to feel comfortable would probably disagree on that assertion.
Absolutely, which is why those missiles that were to be based in Poland and the Czech Republic were aimed at Iran and not Russia. At least this is what we were told. The missiles are "not provocative", they are "not a threat to Russia", they are there to protect us all "from rogue states" (read Iran), or words to that effect.
As the Russians obviously accept the assurances of gentlemen in Washington, Warsaw and Prague, no doubt the gentlemen in those cities will equally accept Russian assurances. Not sure about the aesthetic qualities though - it looks to much like "functionalism".
Not sure about the UAE Rafale deal going through either. Hasn't that been linked to landing rights? With France giving a qualified "non", the UAE may be doing likewise. There was some discussion of this in the military aviation forum: UAE Demands Landing Rights For Rafale Sale (by Lumberton Nov 17 2010 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)
TU204 From Russia, joined Mar 2006, 904 posts, RR: 19 Reply 4, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1146 times:
Quoting Quokka (Reply 3): Absolutely, which is why those missiles that were to be based in Poland and the Czech Republic were aimed at Iran and not Russia. At least this is what we were told. The missiles are "not provocative", they are "not a threat to Russia", they are there to protect us all "from rogue states" (read Iran), or words to that effect.
As the Russians obviously accept the assurances of gentlemen in Washington, Warsaw and Prague, no doubt the gentlemen in those cities will equally accept Russian assurances. Not sure about the aesthetic qualities though - it looks to much like "functionalism".
You know, anyone that is not a complete moron understands that those anti-missile systems are aimed at us, and not at "rogue states". Seriously now. My father served in the Strategic Rocket Forces in the 80's, he knows atleast a little, and so do I. Basically, when a ballistic missile is launched, you have about 3 minutes to shoot it down while it is the acceleration stage of flight (разгонная фаза) after which the thing seperates into MIRV warheads and then you have a small chance of taking out the individual warheads. So a missile shield in Poland is not going to do much to Iranian ICBMs (when they finally learn how to make what he have been making for half a century).
I fully support the deployment of Russian Nuclear Short range ballistik missiles (Iskander-M) near the Polish borders.
You want to play ball, well, we can too.
I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov
Quokka From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1069 times:
Quoting TU204 (Reply 4): You know, anyone that is not a complete moron understands that those anti-missile systems are aimed at us, and not at "rogue states".
Completely agree. A simple look at the map shows that the US already has plenty of troops and ships deployed in and near to countries adjacent to Iran. So if the missile shield was meant to contain "rogue states" placing it Poland or the Czech Republic simply doesn't make sense - unless the US and NATO now regard Russia as a "rogue state". Starngely enough, those same US and NATO states described Russia's placement of missiles on its own soil as provocative. Go figure. Russia responds and is described as provactive.
Pyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3537 posts, RR: 28 Reply 6, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 935 times:
Quoting TU204 (Reply 4): You know, anyone that is not a complete moron understands that those anti-missile systems are aimed at us, and not at "rogue states".
If I was Polish or Czech, given recent history, I probably would consider Russia a rogue state...
Quoting TU204 (Reply 4): I fully support the deployment of Russian Nuclear Short range ballistik missiles (Iskander-M) near the Polish borders.
Totally pointless. Tactical nukes are like being a little bit pregnant. Plus, if as you say a ballistic missile needs to be shot down in the first three minutes of flight then you would want your nukes as far away from the border as possible. It is not like you have a lack of space in Russia...
Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
TU204 From Russia, joined Mar 2006, 904 posts, RR: 19 Reply 7, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 908 times:
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 6):
Totally pointless. Tactical nukes are like being a little bit pregnant. Plus, if as you say a ballistic missile needs to be shot down in the first three minutes of flight then you would want your nukes as far away from the border as possible. It is not like you have a lack of space in Russia...
Tactical nukes are not "Hiroshima". They are designed to take out an installation, or a base. Not a city. They are pretty low yield.
And theater ballistic missiles are pretty low range too, so they are not like ICBMs that have a range of 10,000 miles, these guys have a range of maybe 500km. So even though they are ballistic missiles, they do not travel at the edge of space, their max height during the flight is like 20-50km and the speed is not Mach 20, but more like Mach 4. So these suckers can be intercepted during any phase of flight. Think of it as a Scud missile.
I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4671 posts, 
From Czech Republic, joined May 2004, 5393 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Russia, joined Mar 2006, 904 posts, 
From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3537 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
