Do Russian Pilots drink too much Vodka before flying?

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-04-15 12:24:56

So do all Russian pilots have drinking problems? Are they all drunkards and winos? Why else would they do this?
http://video.foxnews.com/v/484585590900 … show-clips
Seems like Russian pilots have been abusing alcohol more and more while Putin has been President of Russia. So has he been encouraging public drunkenness of his pilots, for them to be behaving this way?
I think the Navy should hire a baseball player to pitch a baseball in front of the Russian fighter next time it flies 30 feet above the destroyer, then after it crashes, we could say they shouldn't have been flying so low in the first place while we were playing an innocent baseball game! Bet you a baseball would do a lot of damage to the canopy!

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2016-04-15 12:29:20)

SpaceNut · 2016-04-15 19:17:59

Y a there is that but Russia denies reckless behaviour in US warship flyby in international waters in the Baltic Sea. The destroyer's commanding officer Charles Hampton told journalists in Lithuania that "very low, very fast" flybys were "inconsistent with the professional norms of militaries in international waters or international airspace".

"It's very important to understand that the objection from the US navy about the Russians' military activity and the conduct is not about fear, but about safe and professional behaviour at sea,"

This is just the normal war show of power and gamesmonship.....

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-04-15 21:24:14

SpaceNut wrote:

Y a there is that but Russia denies reckless behaviour in US warship flyby in international waters in the Baltic Sea. The destroyer's commanding officer Charles Hampton told journalists in Lithuania that "very low, very fast" flybys were "inconsistent with the professional norms of militaries in international waters or international airspace".
"It's very important to understand that the objection from the US navy about the Russians' military activity and the conduct is not about fear, but about safe and professional behaviour at sea,"
This is just the normal war show of power and gamesmonship.....

But just think, some of these reckless airmen may become Russian astronauts, now what happens if a Cosmonaut decides to buzz the ISS in a Soyuz capsule with a clearance of less that 30 feet at orbital velocity relative to the station? What if the Cosmonaut brings his reckless habits into space, that he learned in the air by buzzing American destroyers?

Russian airmen didn't used to behave this way. We don't have German aviators doing this to our destroyers. And also consider this, the captains of the destroyers have no way to tell whether the Russian pilot doing this is not on a suicide Kamikaze mission to crash into the destroyer with his plane and him inside it. You know there are some Muslims living in Russia, remember the Boston Bomber.

What if someone like him decides to join the Russian Air Force, and the Russian commander gives him orders to buzz an American Destroyer with his Fighter plane? What if the Russian-Muslim Pilot decides to go on his own mission in the name of Allah against the Great Satan? So instead of missing the Destroyer by 30 feet, he deliberately crashes his MIG fighter right into it! How would the United States Navy respond to an apparent Russian suicide attack on one of its ships? A mission to buzz an American or NATO ship would be the perfect opportunity for a Muslim radical residing in Russia, so instead of a stupid Cold War game, he have a Jihad using Russian equipment. That is my concern Russia should be uniting with us to fight terrorism, not playing Cold War games and practicing for World War III with the United States. Maybe some Muslims will see this as an opportunity to get two Christian Nations to destroy each other, so Radical Islam can take over the World - kind of like Spectre from James Bond in fact!

RobertDyck · 2016-04-16 07:40:50

Give it up Tom. This isn't "reckless", it's deliberate. Russia feels sending a US navy warship to their part of the world, and parking that warship in their waters, to be a threat. So they decided to counter the threat by buzzing that ship with fighter jets. It's deliberate. And if the captain of that ship feels threatened, then they did their job.

Of course the Baltic countries are now members of NATO, but they were part of the Soviet Union. US president Bill Clinton tried to get former Soviet republic Georgia to join NATO. Putin pulled some stunt to justify invading Georgia. Then Ukraine. The only all weather navy ports Russia has are in Crimea, and the Donbas is part of east Ukraine. A major part of the military industrial complex of Russia is there, Putin feels losing that to be a military action against Russia. He had to defend it, by any means necessary.

This isn't as bad as the Kursk incident. 12 August 2000, the Russians had guests from China interested in buying Russian torpedoes. Specifically supercavitating torpedoes. America didn't want Russia to sell those, because American ships have no defence against them. America demanded that Russia not proceed with the demonstration to Chinese. Russia ignored the demands. A US attack submarine shadowed the Kursk. Russia ignored them. It sank. The wreck was raised, carried by barge to a ship breaking yard in Siberia. Photographs show the wreck had a perfectly round, smooth, hole in the nose, with metal push inward. This wasn't an explosion, that would push metal outward. The smooth round inward hole was exactly the same diameter as an American heavy weight torpedo. The American attack submarine shot the Kursk, it sunk and all hands died. This was a major asset, if Putin admitted an American submarine shot and sunk the flagship of the Russian nuclear missile submarine fleet, it would have been all-out war. Putin tried to cover this up in order to avoid nuclear war. Do you think that's ever been forgotten?

The US sends navy ships to intimidate Russia? Don't be surprised when they respond by buzzing those ships with fighter jets. Tit for tat. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2016-04-16 11:37:14)

Terraformer · 2016-04-16 09:01:59

This guy was a member of the US Army:

He killed American soldiers on their own military base. The US allows people like him to join the military. Now what happens if there's a Russian ship, and they have a pilot like him, and he decides to crash into it? After all the Russians aren't as friendly with the Islamic State as the US is. How would Russia respond to an apparent US suicide attack on one of their vessels? The US should stop playing Cold War games, and should accept Russia as an ally!

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-04-16 10:51:49

Terraformer wrote:

This guy was a member of the US Army:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ … _nidal.jpg
He killed American soldiers on their own military base. The US allows people like him to join the military.

Don't you think there could be a Russian counterpart to him in the Russian Air Force? Maybe instead of attacking his fellow Russian soldiers, he'll just try to start World War III by making it look like Russia attacked the United States, the Islamic State he works for will then stay out of it while the two superpowers battle, and when the dust settles they take over the World! Remember to Movie "You Only Live Twice?" There was a Spectre plot to get the two superpowers to destroy each other so Spectre could take over the World!

Now what happens if there's a Russian ship, and they have a pilot like him, and he decides to crash into it? After all the Russians aren't as friendly with the Islamic State as the US is. How would Russia respond to an apparent US suicide attack on one of their vessels? The US should stop playing Cold War games, and should accept Russia as an ally!

This "mirror talk" don't work, as we haven't taken over part or all of Cuba.One thing I have to say about Putin, he made Russia larger, so someone can legitimately accuse it of aggression and starting the next Cold War. The United States did not, there is no added territory to the United States during Obama's administration the United States does not buzz other ships with its fighter planes, it doesn't have to. the United States is a defender of the status quo, Russia is the one that's trying to build an empire, it sees territory that it wants control of. Such as Poland!

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2016-04-16 11:35:38)

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-04-16 11:15:13

RobertDyck wrote:

Give it up Tom. This isn't "reckless", it's deliberate. Russia feels sending a US navy warship to their part of the world, and parking that warship in their waters, to be a threat. So they decided to counter the threat by buzzing that ship with fighter jets. It's deliberate. And if the captain of that ship feels threatened, then they did their job.

Okay, the captain sees a Russian MIG heading right towards his ship, the MIG is not armed, but that does not mean the MIG itself couldn't be used as a weapon. The Japanese crashed a lot of their warplanes deliberately into US ships during World War II, how do we know the Russians aren't going to try that? I'd say if a Russian MIG comes within 30 feet of this ship, only a slight deviation in its path, would cause it to crash. We know their are some Muslims living in Russia, and our radar can't tell the religion of the Russian pilot flying that MIG!

Of course the Baltic countries are now members of NATO, but they were part of the Soviet Union.

So that would give the Baltic Republics legitimate excuse to invade Russia, since Russia was once part of the Soviet Union, then the Baltic Republics could annex Russia and make Russia a part of the Baltic Republics. Does that make any sense to you?

US president Bill Clinton tried to get former Soviet republic Georgia to join NATO. Putin pulled some stunt to justify invading Georgia. Then Ukraine. The only all weather navy ports Russia has are in Crimea, and the Donbas is part of east Ukraine. A major part of the military industrial complex of Russia is there, Putin feels losing that to be a military action against Russia. He had to defend it, but any means necessary.

Well actually Russia has some all weather ports on the Caspian Sea, and that is just as land-locked as the Black Sea. In the case of the Black Sea, Turkey is the "stopper" preventing Russia from moving into the Mediterranean. Also don't the Russians have a base in Syria? Isn't that why they are fighting to keep Assad in power?
Russia had an arrangement to use that port with Ukraine. How about its arrangement with Kazakhstan to use its space port there?
How long will it be before Putin decide to annex Kazakhstan and make it part of Russia

This isn't as bad as the Kursk incident. 12 August 2000, the Russians had guests from China interested in buying Russian torpedoes. Specifically supercavitating torpedoes. America didn't want Russia to sell those, because American ships have no defence against them. America demanded that Russia not proceed with the demonstration to Chinese. Russia ignored the demands. A US attack submarine shadowed the Kursk. Russia ignored them. It sank. The wreck was raised, carried by barge to a ship breaking yard in Siberia. Photographs show the wreck had a perfectly round, smooth, hole in the nose, with metal push inward. This wasn't an explosion, that would push metal outward. The smooth round inward hole was exactly the same diameter as an American heavy weight torpedo.

Funny it wasn't in the news at the time, and I'm learning this from you. How do we know the Russians didn't drill this hole in the wreck themselves so they could accuse the United States of making this attack? Also why aren't we all dead? Because if the United States attacked a Russian Sub, the Russians would respond in kind, and a few of those would be missile subs, they would launch their missiles at their targets, and we would launch ours, and we'd have a nuclear war on our hands. So tell me why this hasn't happened if you are correct. Sides if we can do this to one Russian sub, how about sinking the entire Russian fleet all with one torpedo each? Since the Kursk was unable to defend itself then none of the Other ships would be able to defend themselves either. it would be one moment Russia has a Navy, the next it doesn't, and Russia wouldn't be able to tell until it has raised one of those ships to determine what sunk them. I didn't know the US had such a perfect secret weapons that it can sink any Russian ship with one torpedo each. Poor helpless Russian ships, they can't even radio that they've been attacked, our secret weapon is that good!

The American attack submarine shot the Kursk, it sunk and all hands died. This was a major asset, if Putin admitted an American submarine shot and sunk the flagship of the Russian nuclear missile submarine fleet, with would have been all-out war. Putin tried to cover this up in order to avoid nuclear war. Do you think that's ever been forgotten?

I wasn't even aware of it, so how could I forget something I never heard about until you told me? I knew the Kursk sank, I assumed it was because of a nuclear reactor accident. So you tell me, why would Bill Clinton do such a thing? And why didn't he follow up on it with a first strike on all of Russia's missile silos, before they could get even one missile launched, and where was the invading US Army to take over Russia! I'm just playing to Russia's paranoid fantasies about us here, you tell me how realistic that scenario is! In August 2000, Bill Clinton was President, does he seem like a Warmonger to you with plans to take over Russia?

The US sends navy ships to intimidate Russia? Don't be surprised when they respond by buzzing those ships with fighter jets. Tit for tat. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

That destroyer was off the coast of Poland, not Russia! Stop twisting facts! Look at that map of Russia above, you see where Poland is, is that anywhere near Russia?
Kalingrad was part of the war booty Russia got during World War II after invading Poland in September 17, and speaking of that so were the Baltic Republics as well, they became part of the Soviet Union after the Soviets invaded them during World War II. Since World War II was partly their idea as well as the Nazis, that booty is illegitimate, the United States did not gain territory from World War II, so Russia doesn't have any rights to it either. If anything they should hand Kalingrad to Poland as compensation for their invading Poland on September 17, 1939! Poland didn't provoke this conflict, Russia only invaded because it wanted land!

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2016-04-16 11:29:48)

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-10-04 10:56:48

The Mig 31 maybe comparable to the F-14 Tomcat or joint Italian German British 'Tornado'.

Russian MiG-31 Crashes On Takeoff In Crimea
https://funker530.com/video/russian-mig … in-crimea/

The footage appears to show the aircraft unable to gain any lift and essentially drives off the end of the runway and tumbles down a cliff, resulting in a fiery blast as it was likely full of fuel.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-08-12 08:53:42

Russia's new Tank the T90 falls of a cliff and is targeted by Ukrainian FPV drone

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAewgZE8g6Y

kbd512 · 2023-08-12 14:52:28

Mars_B4_Moon,

The F-14 was an oversized naval tactical fighter with a long range AWG-9 radar that worked quite well, but it was created for using long range AIM-54 Phoenix missiles that basically didn't work as advertised. IIRC, they were testing various incarnations of what eventually became the AIM-54 in the mid-1970s, from about the early 1950s onwards. The missile was known as GAR-9, then AIM-47, and finally the AIM-54, over no less than 20 years of successive radar and electronics technology development programs- from vacuum tubes to early microchips. Thankfully, Phoenix missiles were infrequently used, and never for their original intended purpose of shooting down nuclear-tipped supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles carried by Russian bombers. Phoenix missiles were very costly to procure and maintain, with their electronics cooling requirements causing them to be highly impractical to use in combat due to the limitations of early 1970s active radar electronics technology miniaturized to the point of fitting inside the nosecone of large air-to-air missiles.

It's taken about 70 years of continuous development, starting from the 1950s until basically the present day, for radars / electronics / solid rocket motor technology to reach the point of development whereby the performance of the equipment mostly matches up with the manufacturer's claims about their ability to reliably detect and hit distant targets under realistic combat scenarios, all but negating the possibility of the numerous close-range dogfights associated with the WWI to Viet Nam War period of military history.

The Iranians shot down a small number of the faster MiG-25 high altitude recon jets, the MiG-31's direct predecessor, during high-altitude intercepts involving the use of AWG-9 / AIM-54 combination from various Iranian F-14s flown from their land bases, but success against slower but highly maneuverable tactical fighters was almost as bad as the early AIM-7 Sparrow missiles.

The MiG-25 and MiG-31 have maneuverability limits on-par with the F-111 medium-weight tactical fighter-bomber of the same era, 4.5g and 5g for those two MiGs, respectively. Both of those now-ancient jets greatly resembled the other large 1960s to 1970s era interceptors or fighter-bombers, which are in no way comparable with more modern tactical fighters. Those MiGs are high-altitude / high-speed F-111 analogs in terms of size and weight, whereas the F-111 was optimized for low-altitude / high-speed terrain-following flying. All three of those jets could actually sustain very high cruising speeds relative to other jets, to include modern tactical fighters, but they were also relegated to specialist roles because they could never provide the "complete package" achievable with true tactical fighters. The MiG-31 is dedicated to long range / high-speed air intercept or launching medium range ballistic missiles, for example.

The MiG-25 interceptors found second lives as photo recon birds, until air defenses improved to the point of necessitating the hand-off of that role to increasingly capable drones. The F-111 has been retired for some time now. The Air Force and Navy attempted to use the F-111 for all manner roles for which it was ill-suited, but in the end its primary reason to exist was superseded by stealth technology allowing jets to operate at much higher altitudes, out of range of AAA and MANPADS, or long-range cruise missiles which could strike without endangering the crew of an expensive fighter-bomber flying just above the treetops.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2016-04-15 12:24:56

Do Russian Pilots drink too much Vodka before flying?

#2 2016-04-15 19:17:59

Re: Do Russian Pilots drink too much Vodka before flying?

#3 2016-04-15 21:24:14

Re: Do Russian Pilots drink too much Vodka before flying?

#4 2016-04-16 07:40:50

Re: Do Russian Pilots drink too much Vodka before flying?

#5 2016-04-16 09:01:59

Re: Do Russian Pilots drink too much Vodka before flying?

#6 2016-04-16 10:51:49

Re: Do Russian Pilots drink too much Vodka before flying?

#7 2016-04-16 11:15:13

Re: Do Russian Pilots drink too much Vodka before flying?

#8 2022-10-04 10:56:48

Re: Do Russian Pilots drink too much Vodka before flying?

#9 2023-08-12 08:53:42

Re: Do Russian Pilots drink too much Vodka before flying?

#10 2023-08-12 14:52:28

Re: Do Russian Pilots drink too much Vodka before flying?

Board footer