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.

 

Who Dare Say Our China Be Able To Copy Only ?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowHasNoSource
You can't very well have an enemy if they are still fighting with sticks and you have gunpowder. You have to allow your technology to be given so that you can have an actual war. Israel is the friend of the U.S. and is doing everything exactly as they should. Saddam was/is a friend of the U.S. and he did exactly what he was asked to do. Order through Choas. Total control through War. Problem - Reaction - Solution. Populus Vult Decipi. Does anyone seriously believe that the U.S. could not have taken out Saddam without bombing the hell out of the civilians? Does anyone believe that the U.S. could not take out Kim Jong? They need him just like the needed Saddam. Just like the new game show on Comedy Central. It's all just Distraction. While all the masses are fighting over their sense of nationalistic pride the leaders are molding the world to the way they want. There is a resolution somewhere that states you can't take out heads of state. They need them protected. Against popular belief, there are not a large amount of evil people willing to sell-out whole populations of their countrymen for money. These people are a valuable resource and must be protected. Of course, such a resolution cannot stop the CIA from taking out democratically elected officials and replacing them with tyrannical regimes. At this point, you would think they would change up the game plan a bit. It's just so passe. Divide and Conquer. Problem - Reaction - Solution. It's getting old. But hey, if it ain't broke don't fix it right. If these ancient techniques didn't work for thousands of years they would be forced to change it up. If anything I wish people would wake up just so they change their techniques. I'm getting bored out of my mind watching this mickey mouse parade.


i do can understand what you want to say, although some word is esp. and your grammar is not the same thing i have learnt in china yet. the topic your given is more serious problem which has already existed in china over 2500 years.
now I glad to see the people in Taiwan have been election their president
already. Being different from some of people in our country I don't agree the government which is controled by communiste party to invade Taiwan.
So the question at top is will the countries in west world protect the democracy in taiwan from mainland of china? there is no joking.




posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Why protect Taiwan, we just give them enough nukes to destroy all of China and they protect themselves, that should be enough to end China's hostility. After all China is doing nothing to stop North Korea from proliferating SE Asia with Nukes... We might as well Loan South Korea and Japan some Nukes.



[edit on 16-2-2005 by Kinja]



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 10:04 AM
link   
yes maybe nuke will protect taiwan from communist but how long we need to see this to be true? what about democracy in china? what would you say



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 10:16 AM
link   
Originally posted by emile
ok,if so, why don't you say the Janese F-2 copies from Jaguar, the soviet Tu-4 copies from B-29, the Tu-160 copies from B-1 Lancer. and Su-27 is only mix the F-14 & F-16? what do you think a couple of below. this type of aircraft came forth 15 years ago.

Um... probably because the F-2 is derived from the F-16, and neither the -160 or the -27 are derived from the aircraft you mentioned



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 03:30 PM
link   
akh akgh kha
who do you think you are..? Emile .



[edit on 16-2-2005 by Fenix F 308]



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by emile
ok,if so, why don't you say the Janese F-2 copies from Jaguar, the soviet Tu-4 copies from B-29,



Ill say it the TU-4 was pretty much a exact bolt for bolt copy of the B-29. They had plans for their own bomber at the time but Stalin like the B-29.

And what Stalin wanted he got

[edit on 16-2-2005 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 03:56 PM
link   
I don't know how many of you realise this but the Tu-95 Bear is even related to the B-29.

Starting with the Tu-4, as you say a bolt for bolt copy, Tupolev gradually evolved the design in a way that Boeing never found necessary (they were already working on the B-47 & B-52). The Tu-80 was a scaled up Tu-4 with a separate stepped canopy, in the Tu-85 it was further scaled up and when fitted with swept flying surfaces and turboprop engines the Tu-85 became the Tu-95, look at the lines of the fuselage, especially the versions with a rear turret, and you will see a direct lineage back to the Boeing B-29!



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 04:56 PM
link   
the tu have at this time new bomber "64" but you god understand that it was 1945y. the (USSR) needed the bomber that have America so don't you think that with mind of Stalin hee want the bomber now (nuclear bomb was using at this time) with not the "technical Risk".



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 05:47 PM
link   
The 'aircraft 64' which was to be known in service as the Tu-10, was abandoned when it was clear that the Tu-4 programme was working to schedule at a lower risk as you say.

The competing design from this time from Myasischev was extremely competent but the 'gift' of damaged B-29's, the worlds most advanced bomber, landing in the USSR was too good to pass up and I don't blame them for copying it. The fact that the Tu-95 Bear which the west feared for so long ultimately only existed because some USAF B-29's landed in the 'wrong' place is just extremely ironic. Of course without the B-29 back engineering programme the Myasischev 202/302 might well have been just as good, no-one will ever know.



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Tu 64 - morre correctly, Tu 10 is real boomber named "68" Tu-2 with other engine...
Myasischev at this time have Pr 202/302 only Breadboard model. Tu with 64 at this time have some more it include much=> (Technical decisions ) + expireance. But you mast kow that Myasishev don't have at this time nothin manufacture (absolutly nothin) of corse this project can't have nothin'g chance. Tu at this time have evrything , and he can star to made some detail of it. So you not wright on this sugestions, about Me 202/302.
Ok tu 85 has absolutly new wing (they made wing looks like 64).
Tu 85 was shot down aircraft (it dont using). And tu 95 have again new wing (and modernized fuselage), but I must said that on this aircraft was using more experians from tu 16.. and other progect. Tu 95 has no attitude to tu 4. it's look like compare the Boeing 707 and the Boeing 777



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 08:09 PM
link   
(About the Chinese) Why waste the money researching new aircraft when you can go off an existing platform? It'll leave you with slightly outdated craft, which you can upgrade, but at a much cheaper overall price.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fenix F 308
Tu 64 - morre correctly, Tu 10 is real boomber named "68" Tu-2 with other engine...

The 'aircraft 64' strategic bomber was to have been called Tu-10 in service, when it was abandoned the designation was re-allocated to a Tu-2 variant. This sort of thing happended fairly often in the USSR, the Su-17 is a case in point

Myasischev at this time have Pr 202/302 only Breadboard model. Tu with 64 at this time have some more it include much=> (Technical decisions ) + expireance. But you mast kow that Myasishev don't have at this time nothin manufacture (absolutly nothin) of corse this project can't have nothin'g chance. Tu at this time have evrything , and he can star to made some detail of it. So you not wright on this sugestions, about Me 202/302.

Tupolev was the master and Myasischev the student, after a while Myasischev was given his own design bureau. All they did was design and engineer the projects, building them was the job of the state aircraft factories, any factory could build any design whether it be from Tupolev, Myasischev, Sukhoi, Mikoyan or anybody.

Ok tu 85 has absolutly new wing (they made wing looks like 64).
Tu 85 was shot down aircraft (it dont using). And tu 95 have again new wing (and modernized fuselage), but I must said that on this aircraft was using more experians from tu 16.. and other progect. Tu 95 has no attitude to tu 4. it's look like compare the Boeing 707 and the Boeing 777

Just because the Tu-95 has swept wings doesn't mean it was closer to the 707 than the Tu-4. Aerodynamically and technologically, yes, but I am speaking of the evolutionary design process applied by Tupolev to his Tu-4 to make it ever bigger, longer ranged and faster. Remove the wings from a Tu-95 and replace them with the wings of a Tu-85 and you have a Tu-85, make it smaller and a bit more old-fashioned and you have a Tu-80, smaller still and back you go eventually to the Tu-4, its an unbroken lineage. The fuselage section of the Tu-95 is still today closer to the B-29 than any other type, the last vestiges of its design that remain.




posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 08:00 AM
link   
Okay I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that china does copy a bit here and there, but if one was to grade aircraft according to its orignality..then the J-10 would top the chinese list..its the least copied chinese fighter..the others I must admit are wholesome copies..
Not necessarily a bad thing, but copies nonethless



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 06:36 PM
link   
All this speacking Look like , (yah) you know there made new wings for this aircraft, (yah) but it just a new wings and all.., (yu) but you know tere use many month in work in aerodinamic pipe to made them... ____ ... .. (but) yeah but they jast to work at thes wing, but the steel a-c is the same. (what but) Strange, but the tu range' s 10000m. (yeh) this just a scaled bomber that tu 4 (*2) and, have these technikals data.. . (the fleing 50 yer. and nowone dont think, that is just scaled copy bomber of W2....)
Think that about your scalled copy you most know that tu 95 has turbo-fan(proppeller) engine and not the tu 85 tu 4 .
(I saw about Tu 4 vs Tu 95
is boeing-707 vs boeing-777
sorry a sad not much
eyes was to red and after I read thes, so I will write you some about what working constuction in U2U if you don't min'd,So bye

[edit on 19-2-2005 by Fenix F 308]



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 06:45 PM
link   
I think you misinterpreted my point, and there is also a good chance that I am misinterpreting yours.


The Tu-80 was a scaled up Tu-4 with a separate stepped canopy, in the Tu-85 it was further scaled up and when fitted with swept flying surfaces and turboprop engines the Tu-85 became the Tu-95,


That was intended merely as a much simplified summary of the complex design process, of course I don't think they just scaled up the Tu-4 and bolted swept wings onto it.

As I said before, the Tu-95 was the end product of an evolutionary design process that began with the Tu-4. What is it about that statement that is so unbelievable? It was just a continuation of the low risk policy that led to the Tu-4 being chosen over the Tu-64 in the first place.

The Tu-95 was and is a remarkable aircraft, unique in many ways and a triumph for Tupolev, all I was commenting on was the design process that led to its creation. I find this impressive given the end result.

[edit on 19-2-2005 by waynos]



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Waynos I don't have nothing trouble come to your atitude come to this aircraft. I am not agree with your history of this aircraft .
I will write you a history.
(sorry for bad logic.



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 08:56 PM
link   
waynos Tu4 => Tu85, Tu 16 => Tu 95 -It was order, befor this all was much more .... So what about tu-64

isn't it look like Tu-4 .... and all other this bomber .
were did you get that thins that Tu 95 is evolutionary design process from Tu4, Becourse Tu4 go to seria without the technikal work Tupolev.... ,
I will not give you the History that i want do. It's unreal for me in english .
All paper made in factorys for tu 4 and modified in factory ..... So why don't you think Tu 16 is evolytionay process of tu 4

becours i think that. My mined that Tu 16 had some component of Tu 4.and tu 95 have small small percent of component , technikal thinks the tu 4.

[edit on 21-2-2005 by Fenix F 308]



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 09:04 PM
link   
any american jet or airplane could and will be able to take out any of the chines crappy ass airplanes, i bet if we put a P-51and this piece of @#$@ to dog fight the P-51 would win



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Looks like a Lavi/Typhoon/Rafale to me.......wonder what electronics it is in it?



PS ..... it still couldnt hold the smell of a fart in the same airspace as an F-22 and you know it.




[edit on 21-2-2005 by edsinger]



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 11:51 PM
link   
The last two posts just highlight why I love ATS sooooo much..
Whether its a yank on 444 points or a yank on 85000 points...
some of them are sooo blindly patriotic (beyond stupidity/deny ignorance etc. etc.) that its absolutely hilarious to read their knowledge devoid posts..
Initially I used to think the chinese are one of the most ignorant and self-centered bunch of people on this planet..
I apologise to them now..becasue a certain strata of americans just take the cake!! and who better to represent this strata than Bush himself..


What a bunch of jokers..




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join