[QUOTE=cqbcat;32397197]Wow, more crappy clones of cool American tech.[/QUOTE]
Pretty sure the Americans were not the first people to think about planes flying themselves.
[QUOTE=GunFox;32392998]US should sell them some UAV's.
Seems like an easy way to gain closer relations without giving up anything that they won't eventually make themselves anyways.[/QUOTE]
The technology and programming in predator drones is VERY top secret.
If a predator drone goes down then it is remotely destroyed. If that fails then a small team is sent in to recover or destroy the drone.
[QUOTE=GunFox;32392998]US should sell them some UAV's.
Seems like an easy way to gain closer relations without giving up anything that they won't eventually make themselves anyways.[/QUOTE]
I'm sure they're leaping at a chance to buy some US military hardware...
This is why you don't fuel a vehicle with vodka.
[QUOTE=GunFox;32392998]US should sell them some UAV's.
Seems like an easy way to gain closer relations without giving up anything that they won't eventually make themselves anyways.[/QUOTE]
This won't happen. It's a pride thing.
Same reason why the UK wastes huge amounts of money developing its own weapon systems despite the fact it'd be far better for us to buy US instead of pretending that we're still a big important world power
[QUOTE=GunFox;32392998]US should sell them some UAV's.
Seems like an easy way to gain closer relations without giving up anything that they won't eventually make themselves anyways.[/QUOTE]
Won't happen, Russia doesn't want overpriced maintenance hungry crap. I don't see why you guys automatically come to the conclusion that Russian UAV's are crap because one crashes. US UAV's crash alot and get shot down alot aswell, there are just more of them so its not a media issue.
I bet that the Russians are purposely revealing these videos, while in reality they have massive robots ready to take over the world.
[QUOTE=Kung Fu Jew;32397035]It's a technology comparison.[/QUOTE]
The thing is though, the ones you through out of your hands are much less complex. Heck I can build a UAV that I throw out of my hand.
America still has many problems with their UAV's, and had plenty more when they were in development. There is a lot less room for error when having a craft that operates over the horizon, and is designed for sustained operation (carrying lots of weight) than a aircraft that is more or less a modified over the counter, remote control airplane, with a short range and low speed.
Also, Russia does have its share of UAV's...
That's the thing. It's a technology comparison. The ones you can throw out of your hand are complex; that's why I used it, to show the technological comparison.
Yeah Russia has its share of UAVs. But no strike-capable ones. That's what this article is talking about.
[QUOTE=doonbugie2;32400713]Won't happen, Russia doesn't want overpriced maintenance hungry crap. I don't see why you guys automatically come to the conclusion that Russian UAV's are crap because one crashes. US UAV's crash alot and get shot down alot aswell, there are just more of them so its not a media issue.[/QUOTE]
I wasn't suggesting that they were incapable of producing a nice drone. In fact, I said that they would eventually make one themselves.
The US has been using drones since pretty much the dawn of the tech. We have a long chain of UAV's that have gotten progressively more advanced over the years and a massive amount of funding, research, and real world data that we could pour into the design. Rather than the Russians being forced to reinvent the wheel, it makes sense to offer them some predator or global hawk kits.
Predators (Which are in the same category as what the Russians are trying to produce here) clock in at about 4.5 million per aircraft (Extremely reasonable for a military aircraft) and have proven to be pretty easy to maintain. Turboprop aircraft are quite straightforward in terms of maintenance. So I really fail to see how your claims are justified at all.
You are generally not very good at this.
[editline]20th September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;32400538]This won't happen. It's a pride thing.
Same reason why the UK wastes huge amounts of money developing its own weapon systems despite the fact it'd be far better for us to buy US instead of pretending that we're still a big important world power[/QUOTE]
That is even better in some regards. Offering it would still generally be a kind gesture and we wouldn't wind up actually having to give away tech.
Or if it may damage their pride to offer it straight up, offer it in exchange for the tech behind the T-90 EMP upgrade that disables mines. Because that sounds awesome. Obviously other tech or resources would also be acceptable. :P
Generally speaking Russia could be an excellent ally. Why we can't get over this cold war mentality and be friends, I simply don't understand. I guess we have to phase out the old fucks in office before we ever gain traction there.
[QUOTE=GunFox;32403035]I wasn't suggesting that they were incapable of producing a nice drone. In fact, I said that they would eventually make one themselves.
The US has been using drones since pretty much the dawn of the tech. We have a long chain of UAV's that have gotten progressively more advanced over the years and a massive amount of funding, research, and real world data that we could pour into the design. Rather than the Russians being forced to reinvent the wheel, it makes sense to offer them some predator or global hawk kits.
Predators (Which are in the same category as what the Russians are trying to produce here) clock in at about 4.5 million per aircraft (Extremely reasonable for a military aircraft) and have proven to be pretty easy to maintain. Turboprop aircraft are quite straightforward in terms of maintenance. So I really fail to see how your claims are justified at all.
You are generally not very good at this.
[editline]20th September 2011[/editline]
That is even better in some regards. Offering it would still generally be a kind gesture and we wouldn't wind up actually having to give away tech.
Or if it may damage their pride to offer it straight up, offer it in exchange for the tech behind the T-90 EMP upgrade that disables mines. Because that sounds awesome. Obviously other tech or resources would also be acceptable. :P
Generally speaking Russia could be an excellent ally. Why we can't get over this cold war mentality and be friends, I simply don't understand. I guess we have to phase out the old fucks in office before we ever gain traction there.[/QUOTE]
No, you don't seem to understand... The United States is not ready to give Russia a drone, nor is Russia ready to accept arms support from the US.
This is worse then your theory that shooting Tea from a gun won't vaporize.
[QUOTE=Kung Fu Jew;32402091]
Yeah Russia has its share of UAVs. But no strike-capable ones. That's what this article is talking about.[/QUOTE]
I meant less complex, and Russia has a strike capable one in the works
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Russian_UCAV_MiG_%C2%ABScat%C2%BB.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Mr.T;32394836]What an embarrassment.[/QUOTE]
Its a prototype, not the finished product.
I am proud of my country! :v:
I like how people try to analyze why it crashed from a youtube video on page 1.
[QUOTE=doonbugie2;32404027]No, you don't seem to understand... The United States is not ready to give Russia a drone, nor is Russia ready to accept arms support from the US.
This is worse then your theory that shooting Tea from a gun won't vaporize.[/QUOTE]
Depending on the gun, shooting a firearm with a barrel full of liquid would very likely cause the gun to explode. That comment was next to a suggestion that a gun was chambered in "biscuit" and was obviously intended as a jest.
I am also aware that we are not about to actually offer them a drone. This would both be why we haven't already and why I SUGGESTED THAT WE SHOULD.
Your reading comprehension skills are terrible, bud.
[QUOTE=Killuah;32407499]I like how people try to analyze why it crashed from a youtube video on page 1.[/QUOTE]
"Steady. Steady. Steady. Steady. Ste-WE NEED MO POWER!" *crash*
Gunfox in most weapons/military/arms threads you really make yourself look like a Gun-Nut smartass.
[QUOTE=GunFox;32392998]US should sell them some UAV's.
Seems like an easy way to gain closer relations without giving up anything that they won't eventually make themselves anyways.[/QUOTE]
Why would they want to?
America already pays an excessive amount to their defense contractors, and they can just steal the technology later, free of charge.
[QUOTE=Killuah;32408865]Gunfox in most weapons/military/arms threads you really make yourself look like a Gun-Nut smartass.[/QUOTE]
Sorry for being informed about a topic.
[QUOTE=GunFox;32408149]Depending on the gun, shooting a firearm with a barrel full of liquid would very likely cause the gun to explode. That comment was next to a suggestion that a gun was chambered in "biscuit" and was obviously intended as a jest.
I am also aware that we are not about to actually offer them a drone. This would both be why we haven't already and why I SUGGESTED THAT WE SHOULD.
Your reading comprehension skills are terrible, bud.[/QUOTE]
But why would the US give Russia military tech, there is no reason to nor the need to. Chances are Russia is going to produce something similar to it and then export it to a variety of countries.
[QUOTE=doonbugie2;32410302]But why would the US give Russia military tech, there is no reason to nor the need to. Chances are Russia is going to produce something similar to it and then export it to a variety of countries.[/QUOTE]
Because giving them the tech stops them from spending insane amounts of money designing it from scratch. Again, no need to reinvent the wheel.
The US gains additional cash flow and could potentially open up an avenue of tech trading with Russia.
Both nations benefit from closer relations without sacrificing anything really important in the process.
they should have made the wing span wide/longer
They just want you to think that they don't have shit, but infact they do and they gonna COME BACK MAN IM TELLIN YOU JUST LIKE IN NAM
We shouldn't jump to conclusion and say it was poorly made. It was probably just depressed and committed suicide.
[QUOTE=GunFox;32411642]Because giving them the tech stops them from spending insane amounts of money designing it from scratch. Again, no need to reinvent the wheel.
The US gains additional cash flow and could potentially open up an avenue of tech trading with Russia.
Both nations benefit from closer relations without sacrificing anything really important in the process.[/QUOTE]
To be honest, I'd gather this to be a no fly on the US side. They essentially always attempt to be a tech generation ahead and pretty nervous already about their fifth gen aircraft meeting other fifth gens in the air.
Currently their drones are one ways to keep being a tech generation ahead in some areas and I'd garner they want to keep it as long as possible. Not to mention the rising importance of them these days.
Plus both the US and Russia are superpowers who are very much aware of this. Russia has again started exerting global political might and is once more sending it's SS into higher end projects. The last thing the US wants is to give them the same strike capability.
Gentlemen, behold - the first inebriated Automatic Drone System.
I think it would work well as a weapon of uh... enemy suppression.
Silly russians! You don't feed vodka to a UAV! :v:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.