International Military Discussion

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Post Reply
Drevin
BRFite
Posts: 408
Joined: 21 Sep 2006 12:27

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Drevin »

Essentially in a F22 versus PAKFA confrontation there are some basics,

- both planes have lot of tech that is classified; whichever plane has the better classified tech will gain upper hand :D
- Also the pilots skills/training involved in the engagement may have some influence. Not completely because I am assuming this is a BVR scenario. The guy who has the fastest intellect is better placed to outthink his opponent
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Philip »

China's military machine launches website

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 734786.ece
narayana
BRFite
Posts: 366
Joined: 27 Jun 2008 12:01

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by narayana »

USA's superbomb to be ready by 2010
It is a 6 meter-device of a project called Massive Artillery and explode only after penetrating over 60 meters in the place of the impact. The Defense Department speak of All Bombs Mother or (Conventional) and argued the missile will be charged with 2,400 kilo of explosives, twice more than previous BLU-109 prototype tested in 2003.
is this different to the MOAB that was used in afghan war extensively ?,MOAB's feature was to explode in air few meters above surface and suckout all oxygen.
KiranM
BRFite
Posts: 588
Joined: 17 Dec 2006 16:48
Location: Bangalore

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by KiranM »

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/my- ... #more-3644

I would like to bring to your notice the programmable fuse of Paveway 4. Interesting contraption with a wide ranging effect. (Perhaps one directions needed to be charted by DRDO?)

Regards,
Kiran
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Gerard »

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Singha »

yes, MOAB and its russian equivalent (Tu160 tested it) are FAE. this puppy is the
next-gen of GBU-28 5000lb...a lot heavier. GBU-28 capability was around 10m of concrete imo
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Singha »

Russian general shrugs off U.S. submarine worries
Wed Aug 5, 2009 8:18am EDT

By Dmitry Solovyov

MOSCOW (Reuters) - A senior Russian general on Wednesday shrugged off Washington's concern about Cold War-style patrols of Russian nuclear submarines off the U.S. coast, saying it was business as usual for Moscow to keep its navy in shape.

"I don't know if it's news to anyone," Anatoly Nogovitsyn, Russia's deputy chief of general staff, told a news conference. "The navy should not stay idle at its moorings."

He was commenting on a report in the New York Times on Tuesday which said two nuclear-powered Russian attack submarines had been patrolling off the Eastern seaboard of the United States in a mission that was rare for post-Cold War times.

The newspaper said the submarines had not taken any provocative action beyond their presence outside U.S. territorial waters, but Pentagon officials voiced wariness over Russia's motivation for ordering such an unusual mission.

Nogovitsyn said: "As for their statements, we can also talk about them (U.S. submarines), where they occur from time to time.

"So this (Russian patrols) is a normal process, and those making such statements understand this pretty well."

Russia, keen to play a more assertive role on the world stage, relies heavily on its still formidable nuclear triad of land-based missiles, nuclear submarines and strategic bombers.

In 2007 it resumed Cold War-style flights of nuclear-capable bombers across the Atlantic.

"This is our right -- we felt bored making circles along our internal routes," Nogovitsyn, a military pilot, said of the decision to resume flights of strategic bombers along NATO borders.

"And you remember how much clamor this caused at the time -- just because we started going out on combat patrols," he said. "But I must tell you that the battle potential of our strategic aviation has only seriously risen since then."

(Reporting by Dmitry Solovyov; Editing by Patrick Graham)
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Gerard »

Gulf country seeks U.S. Hellfire missiles
A release from DSCA said the United Arab Emirates was seeking 362 Hellfire missiles, common missile warning systems, radar-warning receivers along with equipment and services those devices demand. The estimated cost of the deal is $526 million.
b_patel
BRFite
Posts: 150
Joined: 22 Feb 2009 04:08

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by b_patel »

Gulf country seeks U.S. Hellfire missiles
Quote:
A release from DSCA said the United Arab Emirates was seeking 362 Hellfire missiles, common missile warning systems, radar-warning receivers along with equipment and services those devices demand. The estimated cost of the deal is $526 million.
Wasn't india interested in puchasing Hellfire II missiles from the US? Or were those just offered for the Attack Helicopter Tender. Also, anyone have any updates on that tender?
Drevin
BRFite
Posts: 408
Joined: 21 Sep 2006 12:27

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Drevin »

New bunker buster bomb happens to be US army's most destructive non-nuclear bomb. Will be standard ordinance dropped from B52 and B2 by next year.

Excerpts:
The MOP is 20 feet long and can penetrate bunkers up to 200 feet before exploding. At 15 tons, the MOP is a third heavier than the previous "mother of all bombs", the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb, which was only 10.5 tons. The MOP also packs a whopping 5,300 lbs of explosives, which is 10 times the amount its predecessor bunker-buster, the BLU-109, carried. Basically, it's massive.
Click here for complete article
Nihat
BRFite
Posts: 1330
Joined: 10 Dec 2008 13:35

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Nihat »

President Dmitry Medvedev has submitted to the State Duma a bill seeking to authorize Russia's armed forces to defend another country from aggression or protect Russian citizens abroad, the president's press service said Monday.

The State Duma is the Russian parliament's lower house.

The law also permits the armed forces to fight piracy.

Under current law, the country's military can only be used to repel an invasion of Russia or comply with international agreements.

The bill comes amid an escalation of tensions between Russia and Georgia over the status of South Ossetia, a Georgian breakaway republic with a large number of Russian citizens.

In August 2008, Russian troops entered Georgian territory following a conflict between Georgia and South Ossetia. Russia described its actions as a peacekeeping mission, while Georgia said it was an illegal invasion. Subsequently, Russia recognized the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, another Georgian breakaway republic.
http://www.prime-tass.com/news/show....id=0&id=462059
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by NRao »

APC.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Singha »

isnt that the AAAV us marine amphibious vehicle?
Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Sanjay M »

NYT:
Care to Write Army Doctrine? If You Have ID, Log On

By NOAM COHEN
Published: August 13, 2009

Join the Army, where you can edit all that you can edit.

In July, in a sharp break from tradition, the Army began encouraging its personnel — from the privates to the generals — to go online and collaboratively rewrite seven of the field manuals that give instructions on all aspects of Army life.

The program uses the same software behind the online encyclopedia Wikipedia and could potentially lead to hundreds of Army guides being “wikified.” The goal, say the officers behind the effort, is to tap more experience and advice from battle-tested soldiers rather than relying on the specialists within the Army’s array of colleges and research centers who have traditionally written the manuals.

...
PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by PratikDas »

Singha wrote:isnt that the AAAV us marine amphibious vehicle?
Quite right, thank you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_Assault_Vehicle
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by NRao »

Russian MiG-31 aircraft hulls sold at $5 each, probe ordered
The sale came to light after an anti-corruption check was carried out to see whether regulations were followed during the sale of items from the Sokol Aircraft Construction plant located in the Russian Volga city of Nizhny Novgorod.
Sokol, the same place proposed to build the potential MRCA applicant MiG-35?
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Philip »

The glorious British armed forces and their political bosses today.
By jingo, we’re short of ships, men and money

Over there and underfunded: young soldiers are paying a heavy price for the Government’s neglect of the Armed ForcesWilliam Rees-Mogg

Now that Bernard Gray’s report on defence procurement has been leaked to The Sunday Times, I suppose that it will be published. That will certainly be embarrassing for Bob Ainsworth, the Secretary of State for Defence, and for Gordon Brown. Those parts of the report that were reported were absolutely damning, yet every word of Mr Gray’s criticism seems to be completely justified.

Mr Gray is an experienced businessman, and has been a special adviser to Labour defence ministers; he knows what he’s talking about; his report was originally commissioned by John Hutton, who resigned as Defence Secretary only in June.

It is, therefore, a report by a well-informed insider, competent to make defence judgments.

The Prime Minister, and the current Defence Secretary, hoped to stop the report being published; that, if anything, gives further weight to its criticisms. The Ministry of Defence has a glib explanation for preferring secrecy: “This report is currently in draft format and we are working hard with him on the issues he has identified.” However, even that apology confirms that the MoD itself regards Bernard Gray as a significant authority.

Mr Gray has made a dry comment on this attempt to avoid publication. “The vested interests will not welcome these changes and may seek to undermine them.” He might well have added that vested ministers may seek to protect their own skins.

When one reads the essence of the report, it contains a devastating critique of the management of defence planning and procurement, extending over several ministers and the 11-year period since the last defence review was published in 1998.

In that year, soon after Labour had come to power, people still expected there to be a peace dividend that would follow the end of the Cold War and the break-up of the Soviet Union. They did not expect British troops to be involved in two major wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, with rising casualties. It is the job of defence planners to prepare for unforeseen events; the plans of 1998 have indeed been overtaken, but not replaced by any strategic response to what has actually occurred.

Mr Gray observes that the MoD has “a substantially overheated equipment programme, with too many types of equipment being ordered for too large a range of tasks at too high a specification”. He states that present projects are over budget by £35 billion and will arrive five years later than expected. He asks: “How can it be that it takes 20 years to buy a ship, or aircraft, or tank? Why does it always seem to cost at least twice what was thought? Even worse, at the end of the wait, why does it never quite seem to do what it is supposed to?”

I do not doubt that Mr Gray is speaking the truth, however inconvenient that may be for the Labour Government. There seem to be three collisions in the core debate over defence planning. The first is the collision between the wars started in the Blair-Brown regime and Mr Brown’s refusal as Chancellor to spend money on fighting them. That has already cost solders’ lives in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Soldiers have been killed because their equipment is inadequate or out-of-date. In particular, our Forces have had to rely on too few helicopters and on inadequately protected armoured vehicles, including the Snatch Land Rovers. That was true of the soldiers exposed in moving to and from the Basra Palace three years ago, and it is still true of soldiers patrolling in Helmand province now. Many good soldiers have been killed or injured because Mr Blair as Prime Minister sent them to war, then Mr Brown as Chancellor refused the cash to buy the best equipment.

The second collision is also financial. The Opposition accepts that defence will need more money, but, as Liam Fox, the Shadow Defence Secretary, has observed: “Labour has created a defence black hole which is not only impacting on current operations in Afghanistan but threatens to provide an ongoing defence crisis for years to come.”

This is jingoism in reverse: “We don’t want to fight but by jingo, if we do, we’re short of ships, and short of men, and short of money too.” An incoming opposition may well cope with the immediate funding crisis, or with the longer-term procurement costs; it will be very hard to cope with both at once.

The third collision is the traditional issue of inter-Service rivalry. We are at present fighting a tough infantry war of mobile patrolling against insurgents. In this war, more and better helicopters and armoured vehicles are the key to rapid response and reduction in casualties. Yet the MoD seems more concerned to find huge funds for two aircraft carriers and a replacement for Trident. This would give priority for expenditure on weapons systems we are unlikely to use rather than the weapon systems we are actually using in combat in Afghanistan.

In 1838 the great Duke of Wellington opposed intervention in Afghanistan that was to lead to the first Afghan War and the appalling catastrophe of the 1842 retreat from Kabul. He warned that: “When the military successes end the political difficulties will begin.” More often than not Britain’s historic losses in Afghanistan have occurred when we were trying to withdraw, not when we were trying to intervene.

There does not seem to be any exit plan for Afghanistan, except that we may stay for 20-40 years. There can, therefore, be no strategic plan based on the Afghan commitment, since there is no coherent strategy for staying or leaving in the Afghan theatre of war. This is not a Government that knows what it wants to do in defence matters. Bob Ainsworth has no idea; Gordon Brown is in a fog of indecision.

This is less than fair to Britain’s brave soldiers and their families. It is also incompetent. We have had to wait far too long for the Government to get a grip on the strategy and supply of the Afghan War.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 807145.ece
dorai
BRFite
Posts: 136
Joined: 10 Feb 2009 07:24

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by dorai »

Another SU-27 crash at an airshow. This time in Radom, Poland.

SU-27 from the Belaussian Air force. Pilot killed :(

babelfish
Disaster at the Radom Air Show - Pilot dead

A cloud of smoke at the collapse of the SU-27, photo: Isabella Procyk-Lewandowska, Onet.pl
During the air show in Radom Air Show crashed into Belarusian plane SU-27 - told the Onet.pl portal Pilot and passenger are unlikely to live.
- The plane crashed away from the airport, away from the area for guests - he learned Onet.pl. According to the current relationship on the spot reporter Joanna Budz Onet.pl have found the body of the pilot. Second pilot's body is still sought.
http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/2033657,11,item.html

Still not much info...
Ajay K
BRFite
Posts: 109
Joined: 04 Aug 2001 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Ajay K »

Folks, Burmese Nuclear (weapons?) program is thriving and here is some info about the second reactor being build with Russian (?) aid.

http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/2412/oconnor-on-the-bob
Dmurphy
BRFite
Posts: 1543
Joined: 03 Jun 2008 11:20
Location: India

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Dmurphy »

Saudis eyeing more than Russian choppers
http://www.upi.com/Security_Industry/20 ... 251905120/
...
the major deal with Rosoboronexport State Corp., Russia's state-owned arms export monopoly, is said to include up to 30 Mi-35 attack helicopters and up to 120 Mi-171B, the export take of the popular Mi-17 Hip multipurpose helicopter.
...
Defense analysts say the deal also consists of some 150 T-90s main battle tanks and about 250 BMP-3 infantry fighting vehicles. Russia's state-of-the-art S-400 triumph missile system was also on the Riyadh's charts.
...
It said the BMP-3 infantry combat vehicle was also on Saudi Arabia's Russian arms shopping list.

Although first built in 1987, the BMP-3 -- nicknamed Troika -- has gained fresh prominence in the market with nations seeking a state-of-the-art system in combination with heavy armor and protection, Defense Professionals said on its Web site.

Saudi Arabia's neighbors Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates have already integrated the BMP-3 into their armed forces.
VijayKumarSinha
BRFite
Posts: 185
Joined: 16 Aug 2009 21:22

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by VijayKumarSinha »

Dmurphy wrote:Saudis eyeing more than Russian choppers
http://www.upi.com/Security_Industry/20 ... 251905120/
...
the major deal with Rosoboronexport State Corp., Russia's state-owned arms export monopoly, is said to include up to 30 Mi-35 attack helicopters and up to 120 Mi-171B, the export take of the popular Mi-17 Hip multipurpose helicopter.
...
Defense analysts say the deal also consists of some 150 T-90s main battle tanks and about 250 BMP-3 infantry fighting vehicles. Russia's state-of-the-art S-400 triumph missile system was also on the Riyadh's charts.
...
It said the BMP-3 infantry combat vehicle was also on Saudi Arabia's Russian arms shopping list.

Although first built in 1987, the BMP-3 -- nicknamed Troika -- has gained fresh prominence in the market with nations seeking a state-of-the-art system in combination with heavy armor and protection, Defense Professionals said on its Web site.

Saudi Arabia's neighbors Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates have already integrated the BMP-3 into their armed forces.
Who are the Saudis arming themselves for? It can't all be for the love of Israel, could it?
VijayKumarSinha
BRFite
Posts: 185
Joined: 16 Aug 2009 21:22

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by VijayKumarSinha »

Ajay K wrote:Folks, Burmese Nuclear (weapons?) program is thriving and here is some info about the second reactor being build with Russian (?) aid.

http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/2412/oconnor-on-the-bob
I think a N-weapon would have to be built while keeping in mind a delivery system for it. If we have any hints that Myanmmar is working towards that too, that would be the real warning bell for us.
Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Shankar »

Who are the Saudis arming themselves for? It can't all be for the love of Israel, could it?
getting ready for us pull out from iraq and the region once the oil starts running out

also they must have got tired of super expensive us hardware -and looking for cheaper Russian option -like T-90 instead of M1A2 and mI 35 instead of AH-64
VijayKumarSinha
BRFite
Posts: 185
Joined: 16 Aug 2009 21:22

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by VijayKumarSinha »

I agree with you, but I think they have mostly other goals in mind. Like wresting back the control of the place where the prophet(PBUH) ascended to heaven.

I think the arabs don't get enough credit for what they do with so little.

Write now they are one of the most technologically backward people in the world in terms of realizing the importance of science and technology in the world. They realize this only too well and are prepared to wait, until such time that this gap is appreciably closed. Inspite of all this they are still prospering. Their populations are doubling every few years and the real middle east(Iraqis are mostly of persian descent and not arabic) is by and large the land of plenty.


They look upon the deeds of Saladin as an example to follow. They keep in mind that the first time that Jerusalem was won from the crusaders was after 93 years. They are prepared to wait that long again.
Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Shankar »

problem is Jerusalem today is defended by nuke and arrows and the defender will use it for sure - so it a no win situation for every one
VijayKumarSinha
BRFite
Posts: 185
Joined: 16 Aug 2009 21:22

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by VijayKumarSinha »

Unless, all the nukes are located in a narrow strip of land called Israel, I really don't think
it is a no-win situation for a country that has vast expenses of desert in it.

In any case, there is not always a need to have a full scale war. Just enough war. The Birth rate of Jews in Israel is 1.7 thats lower than that of some european countries it takes 2.1 to keep the population at the same level the arab growth rate is 2.5

20% of the Israel is already arab.....
JaiS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2190
Joined: 01 Mar 2003 12:31
Location: JPEG-jingostan
Contact:

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by JaiS »

JaiS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2190
Joined: 01 Mar 2003 12:31
Location: JPEG-jingostan
Contact:

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by JaiS »

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Philip »

More mystery about the Arctic Sea's "hijack" and the cargo carried,allegedly S-300 missiles for Iran which Israeli agents intercepted.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... gests.html
Arctic Sea was carrying missiles to Iran, new report suggests
The saga of the missing Arctic Sea cargo ship took a fresh twist on Thursday after a Russian newspaper reported that Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, made a secret visit to Moscow last Monday to discuss Russian arms shipments to Iran and Syria.

By Andrew Osborn in Moscow
Published: 6:00AM BST 11 Sep 2009

The vessel, which vanished for several days after being boarded by "pirates" in the Baltic, is currently at the centre of the greatest Cold War riddle since the killing of Alexander Litvinkenko, with theories abounding that it was carrying an illicit cargo

Eight 'pirates' of Russian, Latvian and Estonian nationality have been arrested for the hijacking of the cargo ship Arctic Sea. Photo: AP

An alleged hijacker (C) that was involved in the Arctic Sea freighter disapearence is escorted by Russian military forces at the port of Palmeira Photo: EPA
Russia's Kommersant daily cited a senior Kremlin source. The revelation appeared to support maritime and military experts who have claimed the ship was carrying S-300 anti-aircraft missiles for Iran, that Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, found out, and that the Kremlin was given time and space to stop the delivery and cover it up in order to save face.

Russia's foreign minister has publicly and fiercely denied those allegations, pledging a full investigation into the affair, while Russian investigators say they have found nothing on board the ship except the official cargo of timber worth just over one million pounds.

The vessel went missing for almost three weeks in July and August and, according to the official Kremlin version of events, was the victim of what would be the first case of piracy in European waters in the modern era.

But the Kremlin's storyline has failed to convince a European piracy official, an outspoken Russian journalist, and a growing number of so far anonymous political, military and intelligence sources in both Russia and Israel.

Meanwhile, Mr Netanyahu's whereabouts on Monday have become front page news in Israel, sparking an angry backlash against the premier. The Israeli press frantically tried to find out where he had spent the day after he disappeared from public view for up to 14 hours.

Mr Netanyahu's office initially claimed he was visiting a secret military installation inside Israel. But on Thursday it backtracked, saying in a statement that he was "busy with (some other) confidential and classified activity." It did not deny media reports that he had flown to Moscow.

The Russian foreign ministry also appeared to soften its position. Russian officials initially said that no such visit had taken place but on Thursday Andrei Nesterenko, a foreign ministry spokesman, chose his words more carefully.

"I am not saying yes or no," he told reporters. "I am just saying I don't have any information." Israeli President Shimon Peres held talks with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in the Black Sea resort of Sochi the day after the Arctic Sea was "rescued." The subject of those talks was also Russian arms shipments to the Middle East.

Israel opposes Russian arms deliveries to Iran on the grounds that such weapons would destabilise the Middle East and sharply increase Israeli casualties in the event of an Israeli air strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Austin »

Well if the Russian really want to transfer S-300 to Iran , then they would have just air lifted to Iran or would have provided escort to the ship.

Most certainly the S-300 are huge system and cannot remain hidden or secret once deployed , so no point in hiding it.

So the fairy tale story of Israel agent intercepting and boarding it seems far fetched to me.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Austin »

What has the world come to , Church says nuclear weapons are needed :cry: :cry:

Russia needs nuclear weapons - Patriarch Kirill
while the Church was in favor of "a world without weapons," Russia required nuclear arms to ensure that it was able to "remain a sovereign state."
"You can have excellently developed systems of international law, international organizations, but fall into the abyss of war," he added.
Lisa
BRFite
Posts: 1718
Joined: 04 May 2008 11:25

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Lisa »

From an RAF colleague of mine. Apologies if already posted.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z0QcXIjfi7
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Singha »

the eastern church (greece, balkans, ukraine, russia) is not the lapdog of western interests. the pope in rome who has a much wider flock and vaticans vast financial interests to protect needs to be more cautious.

I havent heard of EJs from the eastern orthodox denominations as yet. they seem to have had lot of ancient and respected monsteries in turkey, greece, palestine and so on.

the Victor bomber looks surprisingly stealthy and B2ish for its era. internal bomb bays, engines blended into wing roots, narrow and deep air inlets. masha-allah with
some modern analysis and RCS reduction mods this could be a decent airframe to unleash smart long range munitions.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Austin »

It does not matter if the church is of East or West or the kind of interest they have , The are suppose to follow the teaching of Jesus , Nuclear Weapons and Teaching of Christ are fundamentally apart , hence the patriarch comment that a particular country needs nuclear weapons to protect is in a very bad taste to put it very mildly.

Nuclear weapons and church do not mix and match , no matter if its Roman or Orthodox.

If Medvedev or Putin made that comment it would have been understood.
###

Here is Chavez hinting to what I believe is Iskander-M Chavez says Venezuela to get Russian missiles
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by NRao »

Post Reply