Uhhh yes Russian aircraft need to airway brushed. I assume their landing gear is made of the same steel and rubber that American planes are made of.

The perfect example of russian military equipment is the venerable UAZ-469 jeep. There are rumors in the finnish army that once when a bunch of mechanics took it totally apart, they said that according to every law of mechanics the bloody thing should even be able to start, plus that they found three extra parts for which there was not any use for. Nevertheless it's quite warm in wintertime, ridiculously easy to fix, and you can get it run on low-grade fuel. I've even heard that you can get it to run on lampoil. Can you say the same thing for your Hummers & Land Rovers?

Russian weapons are rugged and extremely durable and reliable. I'd take an AK74 anytime over some ultra-modern american assault-rifle made of plastic.

as for russian vehicles, i garantee that they are made for use in hardest terrains possible,since i happen to own 2 russian(lada niva,GAZ-63) vehicles,i am aware of their offroad capabilities.And as for UAZ,i know it pulled out rovers from mud in kosovo

the SUNBURN is very much up to date with NATO standards.

Originally Posted by devilwasp

the SUNBURN is very much up to date with NATO standards.

Is it this what you mean?

http://www.rense.com/general59/theSu...ansawesome.htm

Sounds impressive indeed.

yes it is, although there is a defense for it now but its still rather iffy if it is going to hit.

*Snort*...I think by now the Navy has had plenty of time to develop a counter for this weapon. That article does not mention the Phalanx I block II and Phalanx IIs that have been installed on Navy vessels, nor the F-14s with Phoenix missile capability that are intended for use against missiles and aircraft from a range of over 100 miles. If that doesn't get em, well, I'm sure there's something aboard those ships that we don't know about that'll catch a Sunburn...

Originally Posted by Kozzy Mozzy

Uhhh yes Russian aircraft need to airway brushed. I assume their landing gear is made of the same steel and rubber that American planes are made of.

Yes they probably are but that is not the point the air intake on some of the migs are closed and the air is suck in from the top of the aircraft during landings and takeoff so that they can take of from un swept runways. And id also want to point out that al swedish aircraft descent need that mutch sweeping ither just pick up the big nuts and bolts and your in business thats because we youse plain roads to land on if necessary

Originally Posted by c/LtCdr

*Snort*...I think by now the Navy has had plenty of time to develop a counter for this weapon. That article does not mention the Phalanx I block II and Phalanx IIs that have been installed on Navy vessels, nor the F-14s with Phoenix missile capability that are intended for use against missiles and aircraft from a range of over 100 miles. If that doesn't get em, well, I'm sure there's something aboard those ships that we don't know about that'll catch a Sunburn...

they have its an aurstralian , i believe, company called metal storm. very interesting company.
actually the goalkeeper seems to have a better record and is better overall. i mean 20mm vs 30mm? 3000 vs 4200 RPM?
another point is that those weapons are the ships "last defence".
to point out a tiny detail , i love the F14 BTW, the F14 is not on any aircraft carriers and they dont have aircraft carriers with every ship in the fleet.
this thing flies low over the sea at super sonic speeds.

Depends.
They're definately good enough.
South Korea got some Russian equipment because they were dirt cheap and there was some other story to it... like some kind of compensation for something so instead of paying in cash they paid in some hardware.
The Mil Hip helicopter and the Russian jeep are the obvious Russian equipment in South Korea's posession.
They weren't picked for quality but the fact they could be gotten cheaper than its own weight in dirt.