A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Russian Carrier Plans Part One



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old December 10th 07, 09:20 PM posted to sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
tankfixer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17
Default Russian Carrier Plans Part One

In article ,
says...
tankfixer wrote:

:In article ,
says...
: tankfixer wrote:
:
: :In article ,
: says...
: : tankfixer wrote:
: :
: : :In article ,
: : says...
: : : tankfixer wrote:
: : :
: : : :In article ,
: : : says...
: : : : tankfixer wrote:
: : : :
: : : : :In article ,
: : : : says...
: : : : :
: : : : : You do realize that the Sea of Okhotsk is surrounded by RUSSIAN land,
: : : : : right? No sane US admiral would take a force up there during active
: : : : : hostilities.
: : : : :
: : : : :You don't have to enter it. just deny a couple of exit's and Vladivostok
: : : : :is worthless.
: : : : :
: : : :
: : : : And positioning to deny those exits leaves you in a fixed position and
: : : : vulnerable to huge land-based air assets.
: : : :
: : : :Maybe in the old days it did, but now ?
: : : :
: : :
: : : Making up more ignorance while you scurry about trying to move the
: : : goalposts?
: : :
: : :
: : :What huge fleet of aircraft do the Russians operate nowdays ?
: : :
: :
: : There are (at least) 4 aviation regiments attached directly to the
: : Russian Pacific Fleet.
: :
: : Or are you one of those silly people who think all the hardware just
: : magically evaporated with the fall of the Soviet Union?
: :
: idn't evaporate, it just corroded away.
: :
:
: Not so much. You know airplanes are made out of aluminum, right?
:
:Yes, which is why i used the word "corroded" instead of "rusted".
:
:They also contain significant amounts of magnisium, steel and even a
:good bit of copper.
:

And you presumably think that Russians are too stupid to maintain
their military assets or what?


I presume you know about the fleet of submarines left to rot ?
Yes, I think the Russians had to let thier military rot. How long did it
take them to complete the newest submarine ?
11 years or so ? Or was it longer



:
:
: One more time. There are (at least) 4 aviation regiments attached
: directly to the Russian Pacific Fleet.
:
:With an assigned operational strength of what ?
:25 aircraft ?
:

Pull some more numbers out of your ass. Perhaps you'll get closer to
reality.


Lets see, 4 aviation regiments.
1) 568th Independent Composite Aviation Regiment -
HQ at Mongokhto - Tu-22M3, Tu-142MR/MZ
2) 865th Interceptor Aviation Regiment -
HQ at Yelizovo-Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky Airport) - MiG-31;
3) 317th Composite Air Regiment -
HQ at Yelizovo - Tu-142;
4) 71st Independent MIlitary Transport Air Squadron -
HQ at Nikolayevka, Primorskaya - An-12, An-24, An-26;
5) 175th Independent Shipborne Anti-submarine Helicopter Squadron -
HQ at Yelizovo - Ka-27
6) 289th Independent Anti-submarine Air Regiment -
HQ at Nikolayevka - Il-38, Ka-27, Ka-29;

Looks like it's 6, maybe more. But two are not terribly useful at
locating things.

What we don't have is operational rates.


You think submarines have AA systems on them, do you? Or are you back
to assuming a surface blocking force? Or are you whirling back to
mines?


Some are reported to have some AA, but you knew that.
I'm curious why you think the Russians would be presented with a one
dimensional threat....




:
:
: :
: :
: : :
: : :
: : : :
: : : :And why would I be on the surface in the first place ?
: : : :
: : :
: : : Who said you were? Why do you think that makes a difference? Do you
: : : stupidly believe that submarines are invulnerable to aircraft?
: : :
: : : [Keep moving those goalposts.]
: : :
: : :
: : :They have to find em first..
: : :
: :
: : When you're sitting in one place to block a choke point that gets a
: : lot easier to do. It pretty well limits the volume of ocean you can
: : be sitting in, which makes finding you (or sanitizing that volume of
: : ocean) much easier.
: :
: : :
: : : : : : I'm not sure precisely what you have in mind, but the size of Russia's
: : : : : : Navy has nothing to do with it. You're close enough inshore so that
: : : : : : airplanes will blow your ass off if you try to sit in there.
: : : : : :
: : : : : :
: : : : : :Yes, that is the problem the Russian face in trying to get out of
: : : : : :Vladivostok....
: : : : : :
: : : : :
: : : : : Except most of it is RUSSIAN land...
: : : : :
: : : : :That will be news to Japan and Korea(north and south)
: : : : :
: : : :
: : : : Might I suggest you look up the meaning of 'most' and realize that it
: : : : doesn't equate to 'all'?
: : : :
: : : :"most" of that land is just a hinderance to navigation.
: : : :Even the Russian bits.
: : : :
: : : :The important parts are NOT Russian.
: : : :
: : :
: : : The important parts to whom and for what?
: : :
: : :The parts the Russians would have to pass by
: : :
: :
: : Check a map. Look north.
: :
: :Nice place for a some mines....
: :
:
: So we see it go from a surface force to subs to mines. Nothing like
: shifting those claims, is there?
:
:Actually you assumed it would be surface forces my friend. I never
:stated they would be.
:

So they're going to block them by magic?


Could be. who knows what the current code word for Ivy Bell's is.



:
:If you can't deal with a varied threat perhaps you might stick to
:something safe like checkers.
:

I'd suggest that checkers is too intellectually demanding for you.

:
:
: You think the Russians don't have minesweepers?
:
:
:I'm sure they have some hull's with minesweeping gear.
:Can they leave port and actually sweep mines ?
:

Better than the few we have probably can, even if you assume that we
have the minelayers to try to close the place off and that they just
let us.


You don't like closed spaces, do you Fred. Why would I mine those
straits from the surface when submarines and aircraft can do it ?




:
:
: :
: :
: : :
: : :
: : : [Shift some more...]
: : :
: : : :
: : : :
: : : : No, it won't be news to either Japan or Korea. They can read maps,
: : : : you see...
: : : :
: : : :
: : : :I'm not the one who keeps discounting them..
: : : :
: : :
: : : Gee, neither am I. You are, however, the one that is unable to read
: : : either a Usenet article, a map, or anything written on naval tactics.
: : :
: : : And the change from shifting the goalposts to outright lying was a
: : : nice change on your part.
: : :
: : :I guess since you can't win you resort to name calling. Oh well
: : :
: :
: : If you don't like people pointing out you're shifting your claims all
: : over the place and lying, stop shifting your claims all over the place
: : and stop lying.
: :
: :I see you like to use old tactic of calling someone a liar when they
: :refuse to accept your claims and the all mighty truth.
: :
:
: I'm not responsible for your myopia. I'm also not responsible for
: your lack of veracity. I'm REALLY not responsible for your lack of
: intellectual integrity.
:
: I called you a liar because you lied.
:
: Just what did I 'discount', you lying little sack of turds?
:
: Keep shifting and lying. I'll keep calling you a shifty liar.
:
: It only seems appropriate...
:
:I can see why so many folks ignore you around here Fred.
:

Only the idiots, Tanky. It's because they don't like having their
lies, idiocy, and squirming pointed out.

Is any of this sounding familiar to you?


Are those titles to the chapters of your autobiography ?
  #72  
Old December 18th 07, 06:24 AM posted to sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
Fred J. McCall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 107
Default Russian Carrier Plans Part One

Bill Kambic wrote:

:On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 01:19:44 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
:
:snipped for brevity because I appreciate not having to read 1000
:lines of repeat to get one line of comment
:
:: Not so much. You know airplanes are made out of aluminum, right?
::
::Yes, which is why i used the word "corroded" instead of "rusted".
::
::They also contain significant amounts of magnisium, steel and even a
::good bit of copper.
::
:And you presumably think that Russians are too stupid to maintain
:their military assets or what?
:
:It's not a question of stupidity but money. For three lustrums former
:Soviet assets have been rotting away. Now they've got the money (and
:the will at the top) to start a "resurgence" of sorts. Time will tell
:how long the money and the will last.
:
:It's also worth noting that during the Soviet era readiness rates were
:not all that "red hot" even in some elite units. That's one reason
:why they always built fairly simply and in large quantities. I don't
:know if this will change or not.
:

And those 'large quantities just evaporated with the fall of the
Soviet Union...

:: One more time. There are (at least) 4 aviation regiments attached
:: directly to the Russian Pacific Fleet.
::
::With an assigned operational strength of what ?
::25 aircraft ?
::
:Pull some more numbers out of your ass. Perhaps you'll get closer to
:reality.
:
:Why don't you tell us about internal organization of those regiments?
:

Why don't you (or Tanky) tell us about just what forces you think
they'll oppose and eliminate all this 'changing the story'?

Your belief seems to be that the US can fight at 4,000 miles more
effectively than the Russians can at 40.

Sorry, but I just don't believe it.

:: You think the Russians don't have minesweepers?
::
::I'm sure they have some hull's with minesweeping gear.
::Can they leave port and actually sweep mines ?
::
:Better than the few we have probably can, even if you assume that we
:have the minelayers to try to close the place off and that they just
:let us.
:
:SSNs make great minelayers. So do some long range aircraft (but with
:some pretty obvious limitations).
:

And when the other guy notices you mining international waters?

::I can see why so many folks ignore you around here Fred.
::
:Only the idiots, Tanky. It's because they don't like having their
:lies, idiocy, and squirming pointed out.
:
:I always thought it was a sign of natural intelligence when people
:snipped the needless redundancies from their posts.
:

So you don't read any of Tankfixer's maunderings?

:
:Clearly the Russian Republic under Putin aspires to a greater world
:role, not unlike the Tsars of old. Can they do it? They've got the
:money and it looks like they've got the will. Putin is the Collosus
f Russian politics (at least for now) and system is clearly dancing
:to his tune. But politicians come and go (even dictators). Building
:a navy is very different from building an army or airforce. They
:certainly CAN do it; whether or not there is a national (as opposed to
:a person) long term agenda to do it is an open question.
:

Not the issue under discussion. Tanky thinks a navy is useless to
Russia because we can bottle it up. Geography seems to disagree, so
he keeps changing his story.


--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates
  #73  
Old December 18th 07, 02:03 PM posted to sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
Bill Kambic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 57
Default Russian Carrier Plans Part One

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:24:32 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

:It's also worth noting that during the Soviet era readiness rates were
:not all that "red hot" even in some elite units. That's one reason
:why they always built fairly simply and in large quantities. I don't
:know if this will change or not.
:

And those 'large quantities just evaporated with the fall of the
Soviet Union...


Pish posh. They're sitting around, rusting. That's make them
"unavailable presently." It does not equal "evaporation." At least
not 'till they are beyond reclamation.

:Why don't you tell us about internal organization of those regiments?
:

Why don't you (or Tanky) tell us about just what forces you think
they'll oppose and eliminate all this 'changing the story'?


You made a claim, you get to substantiate it. I don't have the
interest or the time to do your research for you.

Your belief seems to be that the US can fight at 4,000 miles more
effectively than the Russians can at 40.

Sorry, but I just don't believe it.


Put that way, neither do I.

:SSNs make great minelayers. So do some long range aircraft (but with
:some pretty obvious limitations).
:

And when the other guy notices you mining international waters?


With aircraft he likely will (buy maybe not). With SSNs he likely
won't (but maybe will).

:I always thought it was a sign of natural intelligence when people
:snipped the needless redundancies from their posts.
:

So you don't read any of Tankfixer's maunderings?


Yes...once.

:Clearly the Russian Republic under Putin aspires to a greater world
:role, not unlike the Tsars of old. Can they do it? They've got the
:money and it looks like they've got the will. Putin is the Collosus
f Russian politics (at least for now) and system is clearly dancing
:to his tune. But politicians come and go (even dictators). Building
:a navy is very different from building an army or airforce. They
:certainly CAN do it; whether or not there is a national (as opposed to
:a person) long term agenda to do it is an open question.
:

Not the issue under discussion. Tanky thinks a navy is useless to
Russia because we can bottle it up. Geography seems to disagree, so
he keeps changing his story.


History is on his side; the Russian Navy has never been a substantial
factor for them (except maybe the battleship POTEMPKIN (SP) or some
units during Russian Revolution). The one time they did try a big op
they got whupped at Tsushima (sp). During the Cold War ADM Gorshakov
had enough "juice" to get the state to spring for a real, blue water
navy but I don't see anybody playing that role at present (although
someone could emerge).

They could go back to a big sub fleet again and that would have some
intersting consequences for us (S-4A, anyone?).

The Russians right now are sitting on a mountain of petro dollars.
They look like they're willing to spend a bunch on re-establishing a
naval presence beyond the littoral waters. How much or for how long
is open to question. Geography does not favor them as a naval power,
but it may be less of an issue that it used to be (given higher sea
temps and less ice in ports).

Only Putin knows for sure what he'll likely do in this arena.


  #74  
Old December 18th 07, 04:42 PM posted to sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
Fred J. McCall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 107
Default Russian Carrier Plans Part One

Bill Kambic wrote:

:On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:24:32 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
:
::It's also worth noting that during the Soviet era readiness rates were
::not all that "red hot" even in some elite units. That's one reason
::why they always built fairly simply and in large quantities. I don't
::know if this will change or not.
::
:
:And those 'large quantities just evaporated with the fall of the
:Soviet Union...
:
:Pish posh. They're sitting around, rusting. That's make them
:"unavailable presently." It does not equal "evaporation." At least
:not 'till they are beyond reclamation.
:

One more time. Airplanes don't 'rust'.

::Why don't you tell us about internal organization of those regiments?
::
:
:Why don't you (or Tanky) tell us about just what forces you think
:they'll oppose and eliminate all this 'changing the story'?
:
:You made a claim, you get to substantiate it. I don't have the
:interest or the time to do your research for you.
:

No, dear boy. I'm asking you and Tanky to substantiate YOUR claims. I
suspect I know more about this than either of you and certainly have
no interest or time to do your research for you.

:Your belief seems to be that the US can fight at 4,000 miles more
:effectively than the Russians can at 40.
:
:Sorry, but I just don't believe it.
:
:Put that way, neither do I.
:

But that's the claim being made, so you appear to be somewhat
confused.

::SSNs make great minelayers. So do some long range aircraft (but with
::some pretty obvious limitations).
::
:
:And when the other guy notices you mining international waters?
:
:With aircraft he likely will (buy maybe not). With SSNs he likely
:won't (but maybe will).
:

Which still doesn't address the question.

::I always thought it was a sign of natural intelligence when people
::snipped the needless redundancies from their posts.
::
:
:So you don't read any of Tankfixer's maunderings?
:
:Yes...once.
:

Perhaps you should read them again and figure out just what it is that
you're supporting here.

::Clearly the Russian Republic under Putin aspires to a greater world
::role, not unlike the Tsars of old. Can they do it? They've got the
::money and it looks like they've got the will. Putin is the Collosus
:f Russian politics (at least for now) and system is clearly dancing
::to his tune. But politicians come and go (even dictators). Building
::a navy is very different from building an army or airforce. They
::certainly CAN do it; whether or not there is a national (as opposed to
::a person) long term agenda to do it is an open question.
::
:
:Not the issue under discussion. Tanky thinks a navy is useless to
:Russia because we can bottle it up. Geography seems to disagree, so
:he keeps changing his story.
:
:History is on his side; the Russian Navy has never been a substantial
:factor for them (except maybe the battleship POTEMPKIN (SP) or some
:units during Russian Revolution). The one time they did try a big op
:they got whupped at Tsushima (sp). During the Cold War ADM Gorshakov
:had enough "juice" to get the state to spring for a real, blue water
:navy but I don't see anybody playing that role at present (although
:someone could emerge).
:

History has nothing to do with capability. There is a big difference
between not doing something and not being able to do something. Tanky
is arguing the latter.

:They could go back to a big sub fleet again and that would have some
:intersting consequences for us (S-4A, anyone?).

Already going to have P-8s.

:
:The Russians right now are sitting on a mountain of petro dollars.
:They look like they're willing to spend a bunch on re-establishing a
:naval presence beyond the littoral waters. How much or for how long
:is open to question. Geography does not favor them as a naval power,
:but it may be less of an issue that it used to be (given higher sea
:temps and less ice in ports).

It's not even an issue of geography. Do they have any NEED to be a
naval power? Wanting a carrier force (where this started) indicates a
desire for power projection (which would be a Russian interest). It
doesn't necessarily indicate a desire or a need for a balanced navy.

:
:Only Putin knows for sure what he'll likely do in this arena.
:

He probably doesn't know, either.


--
"We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night
to visit violence on those who would do us harm.
-- George Orwell
  #75  
Old December 18th 07, 08:02 PM posted to sci.military.naval, rec.aviation.military.naval
mike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Russian Carrier Plans Part One

On Dec 18, 9:42 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:

One more time. Airplanes don't 'rust'.


http://www.answers.com/rust&r=67
____
v.intr.

1. To become corroded.
2. To deteriorate or degenerate through inactivity or neglect.
____

http://www.aviationarchaeology.com/s...cts/site1a.jpg

give a little time, some salt air, and you can see 1&2 in action,
with a lot of time, you get something not worth the remaining
value as scrap.

Myself now, would have used rotted rather than rusted

When the USSR fell apart, they sat, they didn't have a mothball
program like Davis-Monthan AFB

**
mike
**
  #76  
Old December 18th 07, 08:51 PM posted to sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
Mike Kanze
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 114
Default Russian Carrier Plans Part One

Fred,

One more time. Airplanes don't 'rust'.


mike has answered this one very well.

Already going to have P-8s.


Be careful about relying upon weapons platforms not yet introduced, much less in use.

--
Mike Kanze

"Teenagers are God's punishment for enjoying sex."

- Maxine

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message ...
Bill Kambic wrote:

:On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:24:32 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
:
::It's also worth noting that during the Soviet era readiness rates were
::not all that "red hot" even in some elite units. That's one reason
::why they always built fairly simply and in large quantities. I don't
::know if this will change or not.
::
:
:And those 'large quantities just evaporated with the fall of the
:Soviet Union...
:
:Pish posh. They're sitting around, rusting. That's make them
:"unavailable presently." It does not equal "evaporation." At least
:not 'till they are beyond reclamation.
:

One more time. Airplanes don't 'rust'.

::Why don't you tell us about internal organization of those regiments?
::
:
:Why don't you (or Tanky) tell us about just what forces you think
:they'll oppose and eliminate all this 'changing the story'?
:
:You made a claim, you get to substantiate it. I don't have the
:interest or the time to do your research for you.
:

No, dear boy. I'm asking you and Tanky to substantiate YOUR claims. I
suspect I know more about this than either of you and certainly have
no interest or time to do your research for you.

:Your belief seems to be that the US can fight at 4,000 miles more
:effectively than the Russians can at 40.
:
:Sorry, but I just don't believe it.
:
:Put that way, neither do I.
:

But that's the claim being made, so you appear to be somewhat
confused.

::SSNs make great minelayers. So do some long range aircraft (but with
::some pretty obvious limitations).
::
:
:And when the other guy notices you mining international waters?
:
:With aircraft he likely will (buy maybe not). With SSNs he likely
:won't (but maybe will).
:

Which still doesn't address the question.

::I always thought it was a sign of natural intelligence when people
::snipped the needless redundancies from their posts.
::
:
:So you don't read any of Tankfixer's maunderings?
:
:Yes...once.
:

Perhaps you should read them again and figure out just what it is that
you're supporting here.

::Clearly the Russian Republic under Putin aspires to a greater world
::role, not unlike the Tsars of old. Can they do it? They've got the
::money and it looks like they've got the will. Putin is the Collosus
:f Russian politics (at least for now) and system is clearly dancing
::to his tune. But politicians come and go (even dictators). Building
::a navy is very different from building an army or airforce. They
::certainly CAN do it; whether or not there is a national (as opposed to
::a person) long term agenda to do it is an open question.
::
:
:Not the issue under discussion. Tanky thinks a navy is useless to
:Russia because we can bottle it up. Geography seems to disagree, so
:he keeps changing his story.
:
:History is on his side; the Russian Navy has never been a substantial
:factor for them (except maybe the battleship POTEMPKIN (SP) or some
:units during Russian Revolution). The one time they did try a big op
:they got whupped at Tsushima (sp). During the Cold War ADM Gorshakov
:had enough "juice" to get the state to spring for a real, blue water
:navy but I don't see anybody playing that role at present (although
:someone could emerge).
:

History has nothing to do with capability. There is a big difference
between not doing something and not being able to do something. Tanky
is arguing the latter.

:They could go back to a big sub fleet again and that would have some
:intersting consequences for us (S-4A, anyone?).

Already going to have P-8s.

:
:The Russians right now are sitting on a mountain of petro dollars.
:They look like they're willing to spend a bunch on re-establishing a
:naval presence beyond the littoral waters. How much or for how long
:is open to question. Geography does not favor them as a naval power,
:but it may be less of an issue that it used to be (given higher sea
:temps and less ice in ports).

It's not even an issue of geography. Do they have any NEED to be a
naval power? Wanting a carrier force (where this started) indicates a
desire for power projection (which would be a Russian interest). It
doesn't necessarily indicate a desire or a need for a balanced navy.

:
:Only Putin knows for sure what he'll likely do in this arena.
:

He probably doesn't know, either.


--
"We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night
to visit violence on those who would do us harm.
-- George Orwell
  #77  
Old December 18th 07, 09:34 PM posted to sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
Bill Kambic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 57
Default Russian Carrier Plans Part One

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 08:42:11 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

One more time. Airplanes don't 'rust'.


Indeed? They they were lying to me in Corrosion Control School about
what we had to do to maintain the steel parts of the venerable S-2E/G?


::SSNs make great minelayers. So do some long range aircraft (but with
::some pretty obvious limitations).
::
:
:And when the other guy notices you mining international waters?
:
:With aircraft he likely will (buy maybe not). With SSNs he likely
:won't (but maybe will).
:

Which still doesn't address the question.


Sure it does. Maybe the minelayer will be noticed and maybe not. THAT
IS an answer, if not a definitive one.


Perhaps you should read them again and figure out just what it is that
you're supporting here.


I support nothing, just add my own comments. Reat that any way you
like.

:History is on his side; the Russian Navy has never been a substantial
:factor for them (except maybe the battleship POTEMPKIN (SP) or some
:units during Russian Revolution). The one time they did try a big op
:they got whupped at Tsushima (sp). During the Cold War ADM Gorshakov
:had enough "juice" to get the state to spring for a real, blue water
:navy but I don't see anybody playing that role at present (although
:someone could emerge).


History has nothing to do with capability. There is a big difference
between not doing something and not being able to do something. Tanky
is arguing the latter.


Go back and re-read your Mahan. It has a LOT to do with capability.

:They could go back to a big sub fleet again and that would have some
:intersting consequences for us (S-4A, anyone?).

Already going to have P-8s.


Indeed.

:The Russians right now are sitting on a mountain of petro dollars.
:They look like they're willing to spend a bunch on re-establishing a
:naval presence beyond the littoral waters. How much or for how long
:is open to question. Geography does not favor them as a naval power,
:but it may be less of an issue that it used to be (given higher sea
:temps and less ice in ports).

It's not even an issue of geography. Do they have any NEED to be a
naval power?


I dunno. Ask Putin.

Wanting a carrier force (where this started) indicates a
desire for power projection (which would be a Russian interest). It
doesn't necessarily indicate a desire or a need for a balanced navy.


The issue of balance, again, is one that lies with Putin. Maybe he'll
spend the time and money and lives and maybe he won't.

:Only Putin knows for sure what he'll likely do in this arena.
:

He probably doesn't know, either.


I suspect he knows what he wants.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Long EZ plans, Mini IMP plans, F4U Corsair plans, materials, instruments for sale reader Home Built 1 January 26th 11 02:40 AM
Duster Plans For Sale - BJ-1b fullsize sailplane plans WoodHawk Soaring 0 April 25th 05 04:37 AM
Russian Carrier puts to Sea Tiger Naval Aviation 27 April 9th 05 10:02 AM
Russian Airlines Prefer Used Boeings to New Russian Aircraf NewsBOT Simulators 0 February 18th 05 10:46 PM
Old Plans, New Part Numbers [email protected] Home Built 3 December 16th 04 11:25 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.