>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
My dad would always reference this kinda idea about the strength of the migs. You could land them without the gear and just take off again. You might be able to land it safely without the gear, but it is clear you can't take off without it. With that said, it stood up to the test pretty well otherwise...engines didn't seem to be phased by the tarmac going into the intake!


nitpick:

MiG-29s have FOD shields that cover the intakes during takeoff and landing. Louvres on the top of the LERXs open to provide air to the engines.

Admittedly, this sort of incident is probably not what the designers planned for.

My dad would always reference this kinda idea about the strength of the migs. You could land them without the gear and just take off again. You might be able to land it safely without the gear, but it is clear you can't take off without it. With that said, it stood up to the test pretty well otherwise...engines didn't seem to be phased by the tarmac going into the intake!

That's just the new Mig 69, codenamed "Deranged Penguin". When the engines get tired, it slides along on it's belly.

I don't think it's about the dollar amount, it's about there being no other country that would sell them jets etc.
...
I don't think even Russia would sell them MIGs. Soooo.... they really couldn't invade Gaza without US support.


Bullshit. Israel's first purchase of jet fighters where a Messerschmitt variation from Czechoslovakia. Saddam had no troubles buying any and every piece of hardware he wanted from tanks and jets from the Soviets all the way up to VX gas and a nuclear reactor from the French. Rwanda's RGF had a study supply of every form of military hardware they could use while they were busily executing the worst genocide seen for generations. Even the video itself declares that 1/4 of the American aid is spent on ISRAELI made weapons!

Arms dealers are loyal to money and nothing else. You don't seem to have a clue what your talking about on this.

>> ^bcglorf:

Bennis, who ever she is, said There is no question that the Israeli military attack could not have happened without US support and that aid amounted to $3 billion a year.
I don't really think I'm stretching anything by what I described. I also think it very accurate to say that if $3 billion a year less would mean Israel couldn't even launch this offensive then Israel is the biggest under dog in the middle east. Knowing that Israel is in fact probably one of the strongest militaries in the middle east, I think Bennis is dead wrong to say that this offensive couldn't happen without US support.
I'd also say that quantity of US support is a quibbling point, but it does speak heavily to the quality of Bennis representation of the situation.



I don't think it's about the dollar amount, it's about there being no other country that would sell them jets etc.

There's a tendency for the rest of the world to vote against Isreal on this stuff in the UN with the US vetoing it all alone as a member of the security council. I don't think even Russia would sell them MIGs. Soooo.... they really couldn't invade Gaza without US support. As of today there have been 10 Isreali's killed / 60 injured vs 660 palestinians dead / 2800 injured - most of the Israeli casualties were after ground troops were sent in. If they didn't have jets allot more Israelis would die and the political support for this kind of thing in their country would die off and it wouldn't have happened. I think she's clearly "dead right".

Here's the casualty stats up to today

This CAN'T be the Falcon 4.0 of rape simulators: it actually works and I don't see some MIG with hacks blowing me out of the air the second I clear the runway!

For heavens sake She has a point. There are all kinds of military installations in Alaska, including NORAD. There are miltary bases there that have to contend with constant fly bys from MIGS. Not to mention the nuclear weapons in Alaska and long range bombers there. What about the nuclear submarines docked there. Certainly much more russian interaction there then say kansas.

She has a point.

Life is chess not checkers. Missiles are in fact a bad thing to hit you. If anything, a missile shield is exactly the kind of passive stuff we should do more of instead of invading places. I am all for defencive implacements. It is always best to have a shield and not need it than the other way around.

The fact is, Iran is developing medium ranged ship based missile technology. So that missile shield better span the globe if it is to be effective. I would actually think more people would be down with this kind of passive protection? Is this more to do with you dislike of this administration than any logical grounds to not want to have missile defence abilities at our disposal? Cause im not fan of this administration either, but I can see a strong defence being a good thing more than a bad thing.

Russia getting mad about seems like they are still stuck in a cold war kind of mode of resisting any attempt the US makes to make itself a little safer from threats, no matter how hypathatical they are. I don't think we shouldn't consider them because russia isn't comforatble with it. One thing we can't alow to happen in the big world cooperation is to undermind our own security to oblige someone else. Above all, the government should look to our defence more than cooperating with the world at large.

Anyone that has dealings in millitary intelegence would of told you that pre-war iraq had MWDs. Even the people that are against the war now were very very for having the weapons inspectors get at the weapons that we KNEW they had...hell, we still had some on file what we gave Sadam when we financed him.

Intelegence isn't fool proof, and more over, its a big ass desert out there to hide things in. If anyone remembers, Iraq had about a dozen and a half migs in the first gulf war. Iraq flew them out ASAP to iran who wasn't anally (Iraq and Iran are bitty enimies) and iran happily took them for their own. The same was most likely done with anything Iraq did have, and we did end up finding lots of gas that he was using on the curds after the media had already come to the conclution that there were absoulutly no WMDs found, even though we did find them, just not the nuclear and biological ones we thought were there. Most likely, he never had them, but we will never really know, the point is he didn't submit to UN weapons inspections like he should of. And the US decided (imo in error) to enforce UN laws without UN concent (bad idea).

Anway, this is off topic. Word is Iran may indeed have medium ranged balistic missile tech from a energy deal with China. This isn't in any means ironclad as intel never is, but it looks to be true.

I always try and stress, don't like administrations blow your consideration of the big picture. The world is a messed up place with messed up people that want to do messed up things for their own messed up agendas...and sometimes, they get a hold of power and weapons which is a bad thing. Don't let hate of one person cloud your minds of the things that still should happen for our best interest.

/rant

btw, a Medium-range ballistic missile is right around 1km to 3km in range. An intercontinental ballistic missile is anything north of 5.5km. Iran is belived to have more of medium and Intermediate-ranged missiles. None able to hit US via a ground lauch. But well able to hit via a sea launch which doesn't require to much adaptation.

Zelzal-3,Shahab-3D range 1,000-1,350-1,500 1999
IRSL-X-2 range 2,200-2,672
IRIS 2,3 range 3,500-3,750(2 stage, farily advanced missile)

(all ranges in KMs)

I don't think this is the thrust vectoring MiG 29, it appears (according to Wikipedia) that there is only one and it has a bright red and white aerobatic paint job, not the military camouflage look.

i don't like the fins on the mig 29, but doing that backflip bizness is well cool.

also recommended: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaHVKoNiPWo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq4uv7NV-0g
http://www.videosift.com/video/Swiss-FA-18-Hornet-vs-German-MiG-29-Fulcrum

i fell in love with the sound of jet fighters breaking the sound barrier. also check this beautiful F-18 vs. MiG-29 dogfight

^http://www.videosift.com/video/Swiss-FA-18-Hornet-vs-German-MiG-29-Fulcrum

Although, I'm sure the U.S. has bigger dicks in government, the Russian's have always surpassed our helicopter technology.

(BTW, if you just look at the photo (rather than the video), the tall goofy-looking guy in the middle appears to be wearing a propeller dick hat.)

Back in the 70s, the Russians regularly flew squadrons of their giant Swinging Cod bombers, as well as their supersonic fighter penises, the Mig 10.5, nicknamed the Rammer, at our borders. Fighter jets from bases in Freebeaver, Alaska would intercept the intruders at the border, preventing penetration of our airspace.

The Russians, in headlong and ill-advised fiscal irresponsibility, also developed some flops, such as the Mig 2.2, nicknamed the Flaccid, and the superfast and super-unreliable two-man deep penetration bomber, nicknamed The Clap because anyone who flew it suffered from painful urination for many days after the flight.

In an ever-advancing thrust for technological supremacy over the Rooskies, as did Spurtnik in its day, Americans have excelled in its miniaturization efforts and lead most developments in the field. Our "Peckinator" surveillance device, made by the Lockheed Teledildonics Division, is slightly larger than a housefly and emits a barely audible buzzing noise when in operation. The Russian's best effort so far is demonstrated in the video above.

Larger is not always better.

Although, I'm sure the U.S. has bigger dicks in government, the Russian's have always surpassed our helicopter technology.

(BTW, if you just look at the photo (rather than the video), the tall goofy-looking guy in the middle appears to be wearing a propeller dick hat.)

Back in the 70s, the Russians regularly flew squadrons of their giant Swinging Cod bombers, as well as their supersonic fighter penises, the Mig 10.5, nicknamed the Rammer, at our borders. Fighter jets from bases in Freebeaver, Alaska would intercept the intruders at the border, preventing penetration of our airspace.

The Russians, in headlong and ill-advised fiscal irresponsibility, also developed some flops, such as the Mig 2.2, nicknamed the Flaccid, and the superfast and super-unreliable two-man deep penetration bomber, nicknamed The Clap because anyone who flew it suffered from painful urination for many days after the flight.

In an ever-advancing thrust for technological supremacy over the Rooskies, as did Spurtnik in its day, Americans have excelled in its miniaturization efforts and lead most developments in the field. Our "Peckinator" surveillance device, made by the Lockheed Teledildonics Division, is slightly larger than a housefly and emits a barely audible buzzing noise when in operation. The Russian's best effort so far is demonstrated in the video above.

Larger is not always better.