Posted on 03/20/2010 8:47:07 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
Right. The ferry weight of a B-52 slightly exceeds the Bear.
performance of said ‘junk’ in the hands of third-world forces (e.g. the Yugoslavs, the Afghans, the Iraqis)
And Serb SA-3 missile shot down F-117A....
[Right. The ferry weight of a B-52 slightly exceeds the Bear.]
Sorry. The ferry RANGE of the B-52 exceeds the Bear.
The Bear is amazing...
So is our B-52!
“if we look at historical combat between russian aircraft or most other russian mil equipment, the russian stuff ends up the loser, in mass.”
You talking about WWII or Vietnam?
Turns out that the trailing props use the otherwise wasted rotational energy of the leading props, giving an overall 15% or so efficiency improvement. In other words, the lead props send air outward radially and this energy is wasted, were it not for the trailing props coming along and redirecting that energy to the back.
And it is that prop slipstream being tossed back and forth that causes so much noise.
How about Gulf War and Iraqi Freedom????? That ruski mil junk really was impressive then, RIGHT?
Unless I mis-read history, the ruskis had to beg us for war machinery in WW2.
The Bear is amazing...amazingly LOUD.
How about crappy armies? The Iraqis could have had American arms and still would have folded.
The point of my post was to highlight the folks here who think all Russian stuff is crap. It will still kill you as dead as if it were made in America.
Spatzez’s point is right on the money. The TU Bear doesn’t have to get to within engagement range of American planes to accomplish it’s mission. The fact that it’s expendable doesn’t diminish it’s threat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.