It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"The American ‘stealth' planes are a publicity stunt" - Russian General

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: PredatorCrackling

Do you only post Pro Russian, Anti US stuff?

ATS is becoming more like RT everyday.




posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Flipper35

That's the only way to track subs anymore too. Look for small patches where the background noise is blocked by the boat.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 12:53 PM
link   
It 's THEIR math WE stole it and used it ,get off our backs. you practically CLONED the B1.
SORRY about the "FREE THINKING" thing biting you in the ass everytime.
We think it's a better way to do things,



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Except look at the Soviet swing-wing bomber concepts of the 1960s, some of them were the B-1 before the B-1 ever flew! It's been just as much the case that we've copied them as it has been them copying us.

Look at the F-15, which was more or less a copy of what the US THOUGHT the Mig-25 was. And look at the F-16, a lightweight, cheap, single-engine fighter interceptor that started development in the 1970s right after the USAF got their asses kicked by the Mig-21...



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Barnalby

As I've repeated many times in these discussions, form follows function. Start out with the idea for a supersonic bomber, capable of low altitude penetration, and send it to three different design teams, and you're going to get the same basic design back from all three.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: Zaphod58

Aren't Russians still pretty afraid of the 117?


No. They're afraid of the aircraft we, (and they,) don't know about.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: imod02
a reply to: Zaphod58

When all else fails blame the person say that he is trolling, you were taken for a walk , learn from it. As it takes a adult to end something like this and since it so important for you to have the last word please contune , im off to do other things.
PS I do find your posts to be very interesting and I do look forward to them, and that is not sarcasm


Dude, point blank, you haven't proven your arguement. In fact you didn't even try. We don't believe people here solely on what they say, you have to back it up with proof to be even considered. Keep trying to pick on Zaphod on aircraft matters. You should also get in some disputes with Phage here as well. Maybe then you'd start to figure out that claims means zip here with evidence to back them up. Go back to your Russian Bridge or put up something to really debate. Thank You!



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 04:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58

And I'm not being cocky. It's an easily researched fact that the Russians have had production problems in recent years. Out of the first 16 Su-34s that were delivered to the Russian air force, all 16 had serious problems, including two that couldn't even fly out of safety fears. You could take the same board from three different aircraft, and they were built three different ways, sometimes the parts weren't even on the same side of the board.


Back many years ago, my father worked with counterparts in the Soviet civilian space program. The scientists were brilliant and very clever, but there were always problems with the 'engineering', the quality of the production, QC, and reliability of operations. Remember, this society could make nuclear ICBMs but it couldn't keep toilet paper in the stalls.

In the long run, it's the Chinese, not Russians, which will be peers to Western tech. They know how to manufacture, and if motivated, can do quality.
edit on 9-7-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

I was talking to a Russian pilot who told me that every time a Condor takes off, it requires two minutes at full power on the end of the runway, because so many engines have failed during takeoff and climb. If they all last two minutes with no issues, they go.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

I suspect JAXA will stand beside NASA before the Chinese space program will.

They have the technology and know-how. And god dang are they sticklers for quality control.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Speaking of Japan, we may see the F-3 fly this summer. There's another stealth fighter to add to the list of countries developing a useless technology.
edit on 7/9/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Flipper35

That's the only way to track subs anymore too. Look for small patches where the background noise is blocked by the boat.


And what if your boat can make its own background noise?



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 06:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Flipper35

That's the only way to track subs anymore too. Look for small patches where the background noise is blocked by the boat.

I have the idea our subs could make the noise or frequency of Whales breaching/dolphins communicating/clicking years ago. What do you think they are up to now years later (submarine has no screw/propeller ) like a jet boat; just pushes water: nuclear fashion.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 06:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Flipper35

That's the only way to track subs anymore too. Look for small patches where the background noise is blocked by the boat.


And what if your boat can make its own background noise?

My preference would be seagull cries or the barking of seals; an alternative would be the cursing of deck hands on any of the "Deadliest Catch" Discovery Channel crabbing boats (what are these submarine vessels doing here)?
edit on 9-7-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 06:37 PM
link   
I remember on the news at a air show when stelth first came out.
a british ground to air unit at the show
said that they got a lock on the airplane
with no problem.
has stelth just been to get money out of the people?



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 06:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: Zaphod58




There's no way to make it truly invisible,


Yet .

YES. Convince them what exists DOES NOT ACTUALLY EXIST [its impossible]; this argument is happening before my eyes with intelligent people debating a given fact. Change the profile, kill the specie; its all the same and human ingenuity can accomplish this.


Speaking from a strictly science point of view we have the ability to do a lot with 'EM radiation. In fact we can make things invisible at night by preventing scattering. We can make things that can't be seen by specific apectrums. And moving forward with carbon nanotubes we may be able to make a truly invisible plane. The technology is here now it's a matter of inplimenting it. To do this on something that can fly requires comprimises. But I see not to far in the future this won't be the case.

We can do this with sound waves blasted below the 40 HZ level of the heatbeat; you can kill people with sound waves. EM radiation; is it fair (in a time of war sure; as if ricin is fair play .0006 parts per million lethal dose/the applicators would most likely kill themselves accidently). I don't see Iran compromising; I see them roasting some hotdogs on a grill.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 06:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: buddha
I remember on the news at a air show when stelth first came out.
a british ground to air unit at the show
said that they got a lock on the airplane
with no problem.
has stelth just been to get money out of the people?

Its the geometry; the shape of the vehicle that disallows a radio wave (ECHO) to 'see' it and is tricked to curve around that shape.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 07:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: imod02
a reply to: Zaphod58

When all else fails blame the person say that he is trolling, you were taken for a walk , learn from it. As it takes a adult to end something like this and since it so important for you to have the last word please contune , im off to do other things.
PS I do find your posts to be very interesting and I do look forward to them, and that is not sarcasm


Dude, point blank, you haven't proven your arguement. In fact you didn't even try. We don't believe people here solely on what they say, you have to back it up with proof to be even considered. Keep trying to pick on Zaphod on aircraft matters. You should also get in some disputes with Phage here as well. Maybe then you'd start to figure out that claims means zip here with evidence to back them up. Go back to your Russian Bridge or put up something to really debate. Thank You!


I personally think that guy has watched Star Trek too much and was thinking he could see the smudged image of the cloaked Klingons on the screen.........seeing what can't be seen.......

edit on 9-7-2015 by wdkirk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Speaking of Japan, we may see the F-3 fly this summer. There's another stealth fighter to add to the list of countries developing a useless technology.


Yes and it looks a lot like the f35 again function defines shape.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 08:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: Zaphod58




There's no way to make it truly invisible,


Yet .

YES. Convince them what exists DOES NOT ACTUALLY EXIST [its impossible]; this argument is happening before my eyes with intelligent people debating a given fact. Change the profile, kill the specie; its all the same and human ingenuity can accomplish this.


Speaking from a strictly science point of view we have the ability to do a lot with 'EM radiation. In fact we can make things invisible at night by preventing scattering. We can make things that can't be seen by specific apectrums. And moving forward with carbon nanotubes we may be able to make a truly invisible plane. The technology is here now it's a matter of inplimenting it. To do this on something that can fly requires comprimises. But I see not to far in the future this won't be the case.

We can do this with sound waves blasted below the 40 HZ level of the heatbeat; you can kill people with sound waves. EM radiation; is it fair (in a time of war sure; as if ricin is fair play .0006 parts per million lethal dose/the applicators would most likely kill themselves accidently). I don't see Iran compromising; I see them roasting some hotdogs on a grill.


Sound waves are vibrations of air. You can kill with things like percussion blasts literally air pounding into you. But your not going to make a speaker that can kill someone sorry.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join