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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 01:02 AM
link   
The first post was sarcasm.

The second one is true.

The J10 is inferior to the F/A-22 - not nearly on the same level of stealth, the Raptors Radar is clearly better....etc




posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 04:52 AM
link   
Nobody's disputing that..not evn the chinese..
The bravado is not called for..
distasteful..



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 01:06 PM
link   
But the implication is that China made the aircraft on their own, and we all know that not to be the case see the Lavi comments.

And just so you know they can not even properly maintain the Flankers that they have and you expect me not o laugh at the opening statement in this thread?


Arrogant maybe a little, realist a lot.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 01:16 PM
link   



Don't you think the picture with the F-18 and Airforce one being shot is a little bit offensive for our American brothers?




That one was my favorite.

It is next in line for my desktop wallpaper.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 01:50 PM
link   
OK emile I'll try to spell out my understanding of the whole thing;

Tu-64, = all-indegenous long range heavy bomber.
Tu-4 = 'back engineered' version of captured B-29. This was given go ahead and Tu-64 abandoned because Tu-4 involved a low risk programme aimed at obtaining a strategic bomber force for the USSR quickly when the Tu-64 would require more time in development as it was all new.

Tupolev then began to evolve his heavy bomber design, rather than start all over again, through much bigger Tu-80 based around same design and engineering principles and then taken a stage further with even bigger Tu-85 however it was felt impractical to deploy Tu-85 due to high performance of jet interceptors then coming into service in the west.

The Tu-16 (developed as Tu-88) was an all new twin jet, swept wing medium bomber of high performance in which a *similar* but not identical fuselage structure and shape to the Tu-80 was used.

Design study instigated to apply Tu-88 style swept wings and (4 or 6) jet engines to Tu-85 fuselage in order to create a high performance long range strategic bomber finds that jet engines provide insufficient range for requirement to reach US Eastern seaboard unrefuelled. Greater range is afforded by use of turbo-props with contra rotating propellers and this basic scheme is then refined into the definitive Tu-95 which enters service as the Tu-20. This, in the way that I interpreted the history I have read, is thus the final product of a design strand that began with copying the B-29.

What in that do you disagree with? Bear in mind I am not saying that the Tu-95 is converted from a B-29, just that it was the end product of a design and development programme to find a strategic bomber for the USSR that began with that aircraft.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowHasNoSource
Does anyone believe that the U.S. could not take out Kim Jong?


Yes, the US CAN'T take out Kim Jong-Il and hasn't ever done so. Go read up on the Korean War before telling me otherwise.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blackout

Originally posted by ShadowHasNoSource
Does anyone believe that the U.S. could not take out Kim Jong?


Yes, the US CAN'T take out Kim Jong-Il and hasn't ever done so. Go read up on the Korean War before telling me otherwise.


I would be willing to bet that with only a few well placed Minuteman III ICBM's Kim Jong Il could be dead in about 45 minutes ....



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Starwars51

Originally posted by Blackout

Originally posted by ShadowHasNoSource
Does anyone believe that the U.S. could not take out Kim Jong?


Yes, the US CAN'T take out Kim Jong-Il and hasn't ever done so. Go read up on the Korean War before telling me otherwise.


I would be willing to bet that with only a few well placed Minuteman III ICBM's Kim Jong Il could be dead in about 45 minutes ....


And we had nuclear capability during the Korean War as well. Your statement just shows that you have no knowledge of the current political/nuclear environment. Do you even think George Bush is dumb enough to nuke North Korea in this day and age?



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blackout


And we had nuclear capability during the Korean War as well. Your statement just shows that you have no knowledge of the current political/nuclear environment. Do you even think George Bush is dumb enough to nuke North Korea in this day and age?


There is a difference between "CAN'T" and "WON'T". Before you start questioning the knowledge of others, I would suggest you look at your own choice of words.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Starwars51

Originally posted by Blackout


And we had nuclear capability during the Korean War as well. Your statement just shows that you have no knowledge of the current political/nuclear environment. Do you even think George Bush is dumb enough to nuke North Korea in this day and age?


There is a difference between "CAN'T" and "WON'T". Before you start questioning the knowledge of others, I would suggest you look at your own choice of words.


Well excuse me for not examining your wording closely as if I had the time...

Anyhow, I was remarking more on your bizarre idea that you stated just to prove me wrong more than anything.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
But the implication is that China made the aircraft on their own, and we all know that not to be the case see the Lavi comments.

And just so you know they can not even properly maintain the Flankers that they have and you expect me not o laugh at the opening statement in this thread?


Arrogant maybe a little, realist a lot.


Of course the chinese can maintain their Flankers... arguably they do a better job than the russians.

I heard that the Chinese sent a bunch back because they were put together so badly... tyres torn up etc



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Chill Chillins, getting a little hot here. M'kay?



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucretius

Of course the chinese can maintain their Flankers... arguably they do a better job than the russians.

I heard that the Chinese sent a bunch back because they were put together so badly... tyres torn up etc



Not what I heard, I heard that Russian contractors actually do the maintenance, now maybe that has changed in the last 3 years and maybe the Flanker is maintenance intensive but either way, the Chinese had problems with this generation of aircraft..



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 07:02 PM
link   
The J-10 is a copy no doubt about it, a knock off of a knock off I have yet to see in reality besides concepts a truly indeginous Chinese fighter, I am also not concerned that it will have 3d thrust vectoring because it has the RCS of the broadside of a barn and a raptor would kill 8 of them (the number of missiles it carries) before they even have a chance to see it.



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 09:15 PM
link   
why is every yank hell bent on comparing the F-22 with the raptor?? Are you actually scared of the chinese? Is that why you keep reminding yourselves that you have the F-22 trump?
F-22 better than J-10



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 09:26 PM
link   
Um. It's all for show. It's called posturing. It's called instilling fear and division between humans. I see it's working. As usual. *shrug*



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 03:08 PM
link   
All right, waynos I offer a bet..

I show that you get 4(!!) errors , and you openly say that you agry with whole my words of tu 95 .. .





[edit on 24-2-2005 by Fenix F 308]



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 05:02 PM
link   
I can't possibly agree with your viewpoint until I know what it is, surely you realise that. However if you have spotted four errors in my last post please correct them, I don't claim to know it all even if it looks like I think I do.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 01:57 AM
link   
Wayonse I am just intrested, can you changed your mind if I was right - Becourse you post had to much Inveracious informations.
Say the true that you saw only discavery channe about this aircraft .
Of cours I dont be hiding information, reply me, and I tell you all, that need.
- I Please ...




[edit on 25-2-2005 by Fenix F 308]



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 03:47 AM
link   
I can honestly say that I have never seen anything about this on the Discovery channel. I don't even glean that much information from the Internet overall, except for really new stuff which is coming out. I get my info from Aviation books and Flight International etc which I have been reading for about thirty years, my Aviation book collection dates back to volumes published as far back as 1941 and comparing modern volumes with earlier published work on a given subject allows you to build up a perspective not always apparent in recent publications.

An example of this would be the books I have that recount how a single M-50 Bounder was built and flown in the '50's and brought out of mothballs to be revealed to the west in 1961 which can be compared to accounts from 1961 that really feared the type and believed it to be a standard Soviet bomber in widespread service. I find such comparisons useful and this is largely how I build up my knowledge. I would never accept a discovery channel source as definitive on its own as they invariably feature people with a vested interest in whatever subject they are covering, naturally.

Of course my opinion can be changed by the presentation of facts that I am unaware of, only a fool would say otherwise, we are all, always, learning, are we not?

Why do you feel the need to adopt this tone rather than just spelling out your point? Its a very strange attitude to take and quite belittling if I may say so.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join