Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Bush in London
Topic Started: Nov 14 2003, 06:13 PM (704 Views)
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
Admiralbill_gomec
Nov 25 2003, 04:20 PM
The Scud is the Soviet-era SS-1 ballistic missile. It had a relatively short range (200-odd miles) and was first deployed in the 1960s as what is known as a "theater weapon." It could fire a conventional 2000 lb warhead or a small tactical nuke.

Oh, not all Soviet aircraft could take off from dirt roads and unproven runways, although the MiG-23 and Su-25 could. They did build their aircraft more "heavy duty" than ours, simply because not all of their airfields were as developed as ours.

I guess that I knew about the MiG-23 and the Su-25 (what about the MiG-29 and the Su-27?) and also knew about the Soviet planes in WWII like the Il-2. Perhaps I should have phrased my response as that many Soviet planes could land on primative airstrips. Seeing as how Saddam had Soviet made jets, could it have been possible to have the warheads stockpiled in an underground facility, construct a makeshift airstrip that the heavier landing gear of the Russian jets could handle, land the jets there and attatch the warheads to the missiles, then send them to their targets? All this is assuming that America wasn't invading.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Attack planes have beefier airframes than pure fighters do, because they carry more ordnance and the MiG-23 Flogger (not to forget the MiG-27, which is the MiG-23 optimized for ground attack) and the Su-25 Frogfoot are not sole purpose fighters like the Flanker and the Fulcrum. One thing the later models of Fulcrum and Flanker have is heavier NOSE gear, because the MiG-29K and Su-27K (also called the Su-33) were to be used on the Kuznetov, the former Soviet Union's only real aircraft carrier (the Kiev is a helicopter carrier that could also fly the Yak-38 VTOL plane).

But, I digress... :)

I don't know if you can attach a Scud warhead to the airframe of a MiG or Su, and fly it to target. I suppose you could shackle it, but the aerodynamics would be horrible. The Scud B warhead is about 2 feet in diameter, which is huge!

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
I meant hide fighter warheads, use the Soviet planes on primative airstrips by the stockpiles then launch the fighters to launch the missiles at targets. Of course the only targets within range would be in the Middle East.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
Actually he went up to the north of England to Blairs constiuency for a 'pub lunch'. Taking account of security costs the lunch cost around £1 million. But hey, its only taxpayers money...

What got me was the report of 2 US helicopters being brought over to defend the President! If true, what the hell kind of situation would require 2 military helicopters and what is wrong with the RAF anyway?

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
This is called Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). The president uses the helos both for transportation and protection.

As for it being "only taxpayers money" think of how much the US shells out when foreign dignitaries (including Tony Blair) visit? One million pounds? Not a big deal. It fostered good will between governments. Well worth it.

P.S. Can we put this to sleep? This was two weeks ago.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus