Russian Fighter Book

Mike Marron wrote:

Ken Duffey wrote:

[snip]

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++
Ken Duffey - Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast
Flankers Website - http://www.flankers.co.uk/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++

I've gotta ask, what made you such a Russian aviation enthusiast?
I'm no expert on Russian A/C, but I've always thought Russian
(Soviet, then) jet aircraft were/are beautiful due to their sleek,
radical raked back wings, tails, and slabs or cranked delta wings
with canards, and graceful yet belligerent looking fuselages,
air intakes, etc. For example, parked next to an F-15, the Su-27 is by
far the more aggressive, mean-looking and "manly" of the two (IMO).
Same goes for an F-16 vis a vis MiG-29. And next to a MiG 1.42
"Raptor Killer," the F-22 looks like a flying turd! Back in their day,
the Backfire bomber and even some of their cargo jobs were also
beautiful. Of course, they've had their share of Edsels roll off the
assembly line, but for the most part ya' gotta admire the Ruskies
style when it comes to designing beautiful jet aircraft.

-Mike Marron


I couldn't have put it better myself Mike !!

Russian aircraft just look so purposeful - and especially the Flanker.

It has that 'hooded cobra' look that is so mean looking and menacing at
the same time as being graceful.

The same is true of Russian warships - with their rakish bows and squat
silhouettes they just look so menacing - and they bristle with weaponry.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++
Ken Duffey - Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast
Flankers Website - http://www.flankers.co.uk/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 20:26:11 +0100, Ken Duffey
wrote:

Mike Marron wrote:

Ken Duffey wrote:

[snip]

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++
Ken Duffey - Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast
Flankers Website - http://www.flankers.co.uk/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++

I've gotta ask, what made you such a Russian aviation enthusiast?
I'm no expert on Russian A/C, but I've always thought Russian
(Soviet, then) jet aircraft were/are beautiful due to their sleek,
radical raked back wings, tails, and slabs or cranked delta wings
with canards, and graceful yet belligerent looking fuselages,
air intakes, etc. For example, parked next to an F-15, the Su-27 is by
far the more aggressive, mean-looking and "manly" of the two (IMO).
Same goes for an F-16 vis a vis MiG-29. And next to a MiG 1.42
"Raptor Killer," the F-22 looks like a flying turd! Back in their day,
the Backfire bomber and even some of their cargo jobs were also
beautiful. Of course, they've had their share of Edsels roll off the
assembly line, but for the most part ya' gotta admire the Ruskies
style when it comes to designing beautiful jet aircraft.

-Mike Marron


I couldn't have put it better myself Mike !!

Russian aircraft just look so purposeful - and especially the Flanker.

It has that 'hooded cobra' look that is so mean looking and menacing at
the same time as being graceful.


Is it just me or could Sukhoi sell a lot more flankers if they were
painted Strike Eagle Gray? I saw picture of one painted partially
that color and thought "holy **** that looks AWESOME"






The same is true of Russian warships - with their rakish bows and squat
silhouettes they just look so menacing - and they bristle with weaponry.


Same here. Back when I was first getting interested in ships. . .well
compared to a Kara the Belknap class looked pretty sorry.

Scott Ferrin wrote:

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 20:26:11 +0100, Ken Duffey
wrote:

Mike Marron wrote:

Ken Duffey wrote:

[snip]

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++
Ken Duffey - Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast
Flankers Website - http://www.flankers.co.uk/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++

I've gotta ask, what made you such a Russian aviation enthusiast?
I'm no expert on Russian A/C, but I've always thought Russian
(Soviet, then) jet aircraft were/are beautiful due to their sleek,
radical raked back wings, tails, and slabs or cranked delta wings
with canards, and graceful yet belligerent looking fuselages,
air intakes, etc. For example, parked next to an F-15, the Su-27 is by
far the more aggressive, mean-looking and "manly" of the two (IMO).
Same goes for an F-16 vis a vis MiG-29. And next to a MiG 1.42
"Raptor Killer," the F-22 looks like a flying turd! Back in their day,
the Backfire bomber and even some of their cargo jobs were also
beautiful. Of course, they've had their share of Edsels roll off the
assembly line, but for the most part ya' gotta admire the Ruskies
style when it comes to designing beautiful jet aircraft.

-Mike Marron


I couldn't have put it better myself Mike !!

Russian aircraft just look so purposeful - and especially the Flanker.

It has that 'hooded cobra' look that is so mean looking and menacing at
the same time as being graceful.

Is it just me or could Sukhoi sell a lot more flankers if they were
painted Strike Eagle Gray? I saw picture of one painted partially
that color and thought "holy **** that looks AWESOME"

Personally, I've always liked the Su-15TM, with that green radome and cranked
wing. Beautiful from the front quarter, or in plan view.

The same is true of Russian warships - with their rakish bows and squat
silhouettes they just look so menacing - and they bristle with weaponry.

Same here. Back when I was first getting interested in ships. . .well
compared to a Kara the Belknap class looked pretty sorry.

OTOH, when you compare actual capability the scales tilt the other way, thus
showing that the old adage that an a/c (or ship) that looks right most likely
_is_ right, hasn't applied for some time, if ever.

Guy

Guy Alcala wrote:

Personally, I've always liked the Su-15TM, with that green radome
and cranked wing. Beautiful from the front quarter, or in plan view.

Same here. And with an awe-inspiring initial climb rate of 45,000
fpm, the twin-engined Su-15 definitely had the cajones to back
up its sinister silhouette. It also holds the dubious distinction of
downing a Korean Airlines 747 back in '83.

-Mike Marron

Guy Alcala wrote in message ...
The same is true of Russian warships - with their rakish bows and squat
silhouettes they just look so menacing - and they bristle with weaponry.

Same here. Back when I was first getting interested in ships. . .well
compared to a Kara the Belknap class looked pretty sorry.

OTOH, when you compare actual capability the scales tilt the other way, thus
showing that the old adage that an a/c (or ship) that looks right most likely
_is_ right, hasn't applied for some time, if ever.

You don't find yourself subconsciously changing what "looks right"?
After playing Harpoon a lot and reading various naval magazines and
such, I am definitely coming around to the "sleek and understated =
very dangerous" mindset.

Take the masts on the LPD-17, for example. There's definitely
something *right* about them, and while I can't quite enunciate my
reaction, it's something like "Uh oh. There's someting going on here
tthat I don't quite understand, and coming from the Americans that's
probably very, very bad news."

The Visby has the same sort of effect, as does the conning tower (but
not the entire hull, in drydock say) of a submarine. The DD(X) seems
to be taking the aesthetic trend a bit too far - that tumblehome looks
*weird*.

-jake

In message , Scott Ferrin
writes
Same here. Back when I was first getting interested in ships. . .well
compared to a Kara the Belknap class looked pretty sorry.

Yeah, but I know which I want to be on when the shooting starts.

One reason the USSR put so many weapons on its ships... was that it
improved the chances that _something_ would work when the war broke out.
The closer you got, the less appealing those USSR ships looked.

A colleague remembers how badly the Kuznetsov _stank_ while passing
downwind of her. Ships whose weapon mounts are fouled by lines of drying
fish, are not likely to generate great combat power.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 22:50:38 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

In message , Scott Ferrin
writes
Same here. Back when I was first getting interested in ships. . .well
compared to a Kara the Belknap class looked pretty sorry.

Yeah, but I know which I want to be on when the shooting starts.


Also you have to remember this is before they got Phalanx and Harpoon.
1 5" gun, an ASROC box, a twin arm launcher and two dinky sets of
torpedo tubes don't seem too impressive when you compare them to two
twin SA-N-3s, two twin SA-N-4s, eight LARGE ASW missiles, ten 21"
torpedo tubes, four CIWS, ASW rockets, and a helicopter. Gordon
could probably shed some light on the subject. (I know he didn't seem
to have a very high opinion of "Trashkent" (Kara class) )




One reason the USSR put so many weapons on its ships... was that it
improved the chances that _something_ would work when the war broke out.
The closer you got, the less appealing those USSR ships looked.

A colleague remembers how badly the Kuznetsov _stank_ while passing
downwind of her. Ships whose weapon mounts are fouled by lines of drying
fish, are not likely to generate great combat power.

In message , Scott Ferrin
writes
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 22:50:38 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:
Yeah, but I know which I want to be on when the shooting starts.

Also you have to remember this is before they got Phalanx and Harpoon.
1 5" gun, an ASROC box, a twin arm launcher and two dinky sets of
torpedo tubes don't seem too impressive when you compare them to two
twin SA-N-3s, two twin SA-N-4s, eight LARGE ASW missiles, ten 21"
torpedo tubes, four CIWS, ASW rockets, and a helicopter.

That's what they fitted. How much of it actually works, how well is it
tied together, and how quickly can they go from a detection to a
response?

Gordon
could probably shed some light on the subject. (I know he didn't seem
to have a very high opinion of "Trashkent" (Kara class) )

The blue suits who've got close to Soviet ships were _not_ much
impressed.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 14:01:39 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

In message , Scott Ferrin
writes
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 22:50:38 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:
Yeah, but I know which I want to be on when the shooting starts.

Also you have to remember this is before they got Phalanx and Harpoon.
1 5" gun, an ASROC box, a twin arm launcher and two dinky sets of
torpedo tubes don't seem too impressive when you compare them to two
twin SA-N-3s, two twin SA-N-4s, eight LARGE ASW missiles, ten 21"
torpedo tubes, four CIWS, ASW rockets, and a helicopter.

That's what they fitted. How much of it actually works, how well is it
tied together, and how quickly can they go from a detection to a
response?

Gordon
could probably shed some light on the subject. (I know he didn't seem
to have a very high opinion of "Trashkent" (Kara class) )

The blue suits who've got close to Soviet ships were _not_ much
impressed.


Well they sure *looked* good :-)