- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why did the Russians choose a "ski ramp" for launching planes from their aircraft carrier?
Posted on 6/22/23 at 6:30 pm to Lima Whiskey
Posted on 6/22/23 at 6:30 pm to Lima Whiskey
quote:
The Soviets and now the Russians are budget conscious in a way we aren’t, they have fewer resources.
Uh, the USSR's military spending exceeded the US's during certain years. Gorbachev's 1989 announcement of spending was $128 billion which, adjusted for inflation, is around $300 billion in today's dollars. Which would account be equivalent to around 15% of the total amount of military spending around the world right now. Calling the USSR budget conscious is just a hilarious description.
Do you just make things up as you go and hope no one calls you on your complete ignorance of actual history?
2
Posted on 6/22/23 at 6:43 pm to blueridgeTiger
That ship looks awful.
Posted on 6/22/23 at 7:08 pm to RummelTiger
quote:
I'll admit, I don't know shite about carriers, but how do they counterbalance the weight of the tower? I mean, that tower has to be heavy as frick.
They offset it by putting the angled runway on the opposite side, hanging over the side of the ship.
This post was edited on 6/22/23 at 7:34 pm
Posted on 6/22/23 at 7:10 pm to Tvilletiger
You never land coming in on the bow of Carriers.
Posted on 6/23/23 at 12:04 pm to lowspark12
quote:
Military bloat is one of the key reasons for the USSRs collapse.
It was a willpower issue more than anything else.
The early Soviet leadership was almost exclusively minority based. It consisted of radical ideologues and the people who had been excluded from the Imperial Russian state, very few were ethnic Russians, and most initially were not Christian’s.
By the 80s that was no longe true, the leadership was almost exclusively Russian although officially atheist.
The Bolsheviks had tried stamp out Russian nationalism, they saw it as an existential threat to the Soviet state, but over time it had re-emerged, and by the 80s had become a force again.
The reemergence of Russian nationalism and the Russian domination of the Soviet state changed everything. Ethnic Russians began to ask, what is the point? Why should we support a state which is explicitly hostile to Russians, and which uses the wealth of the Russian SSR, to subsidize the minority SSRs. Why should Moscow fund the Balts? Why should Moscow spend money on Warsaw? The Balts and the Poles hate us, and they money just increases their resentment of us.
When the uprisings occurred, the Soviet leadership chose not to crackdown, because they no longer saw the point of it.
The ultimate dagger was Yelstin though, much of it was due to his personal ambition, but he was also a genuine Russian nationalist. And he chose to destroy the SSR and spin off the republics, and in some cases, against the wishes of the leadership in the republics who preferred to maintain the status quo.
This post was edited on 6/23/23 at 12:19 pm
Posted on 6/23/23 at 12:32 pm to blueridgeTiger
Doubles as killer skate board ramp when waves are hitting.
Posted on 6/23/23 at 1:04 pm to blueridgeTiger
Wonder if they use a (insert Cyrillic characters for 'PS3') controllers to operate that thing?
This post was edited on 6/23/23 at 10:27 pm
Posted on 6/23/23 at 3:20 pm to blueridgeTiger
Only the US Navy and French Navy use catapult launch systems. The benefits for the catapult is that it takes less space up for launching aircraft and it allows planes with heavier payloads to launch.
Also apparently that Russian carrier (Admiral Kuznetsov) is sole carrier of the Russian Navy and it is apparently a drain on its resources because the engines break down frequently enough to where it is always escorted with a tow ship.
Also apparently that Russian carrier (Admiral Kuznetsov) is sole carrier of the Russian Navy and it is apparently a drain on its resources because the engines break down frequently enough to where it is always escorted with a tow ship.
Posted on 6/23/23 at 3:58 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
Gorbachev's 1989
I hate to break it to you but that is 34 years ago
Posted on 6/23/23 at 7:29 pm to willymeaux
quote:
is apparently a drain on its resources because the engines break down frequently enough to where it is always escorted with a tow ship.
The boiler design has some inherent flaw.
Posted on 6/23/23 at 7:47 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
Uh, the USSR's military spending exceeded the US's during certain years. Gorbachev's 1989 announcement of spending was $128 billion which, adjusted for inflation, is around $300 billion in today's dollars. Which would account be equivalent to around 15% of the total amount of military spending around the world right now. Calling the USSR budget conscious is just a hilarious description.
Do you just make things up as you go and hope no one calls you on your complete ignorance of actual history?
You often write about things you don’t understand, this is another example of that.
The Soviets avoided cutting edge designs, and the corresponding expense in all but a very few areas, areas which they considered essential to their national security. Their missile programs, air defense, electronic warfare, submarines to some degree. In all other areas they focused iterative designs, that would reduce costs, and reduce the risk of project failure. Their tank programs are an excellent example of that, as is their continue use of the AK platform. They also pitted their design bureaus against each other, to ensure a competitive process, that would in turn control costs.
Posted on 6/24/23 at 11:22 am to Lima Whiskey
quote:
You often write about things you don’t understand, this is another example of that.
Lol, has anything you've written about been true?
quote:
The Soviets avoided cutting edge designs, and the corresponding expense in all but a very few areas, areas which they considered essential to their national security.
That's not being budget conscious you dipshit.
quote:
They also pitted their design bureaus against each other, to ensure a competitive process, that would in turn control costs.
Also the killed the designers of sometimes superior weaponry.
You have problems following your own arguments. The USSR wasn't budget conscious. Their military industry had a narrow focus, but they spent a lot on that narrow focus. Even you agree. Good talk.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News