As usual Stellar brings common sense and "denies ignorance". Good job my friend! Keep it up.
I'll still do my bit though, as I always do.
Souljah, thanks for the WATS and for the great remark;
"We use Graphite pencils."
I'll contribute. When Reagan announced "Space Wars" orbital laser defense system, Soviet engineers were ordered to come up with a cheap
countermeasure from already available technologies.
This is what they came up with. Load up every type of rocket capable of delivering a payload into orbit with fine aluminum powder, which is packed
into dispensing canisters.
Upon release of the canisters they begin "seeding" the aluminum powder, thus creating a cloud which initiates a chain reaction and literally wipes
clean everything on its path to do extreme orbital speeds.
A chain reaction has a dual effect, not only it destroys all orbital satellites, but it also "blankets" the orbit with metal particles and jams long
range communications, which NATO so heavily relies upon.
Now to issue at hand.
Cruizer, we can do this all day, you're going to repeat the same old propaganda of the "poor little Russians" verses America as the richest nation
in the world, and all I have to do is to repeatedly ask you to educate your self on the issue.
Then all I have to ask you is what bases did the Soviet economy operate on during WWII. Then you will say that the only reason Soviets managed to
pull through was do to US aid.
Then I'll post links to very boring web sites with factual data, with out all flashy menus, pictures and flash animations.
Then you will get bored and that will be it, while the lesson here is that fundamental struggles are not won by money, but by resolve and willingness
Well, let's get to it then.
It all comes down to $$$ and Russia doesn't have any relative to the old USSR or the USA. How long is any gee-whiz hypersonic aircraft program
going to have long-term funding when their space shuttle sits in a park decaying?
Facts please. I'm not in need of the them personally, it's for your own educational needs.
It is a fact that Buran is a museum piece, so please do all of us a favor and find out why it is so. Then feel free to look into the total tonnage
Russia regularly halls into orbit verses what own space shuttles have been doing, the ones that are still operational and do not explode.
Russian had their own "shuttle" concept back in the 1930s, look into Kalinin K-15. Any similarities that you can see there?
Then jump straight to German Lippisch P.12 of 1942, so believe me, there is absolutely nothing revolutionary or unique about the shuttle concept,
other then the cost of manufacture and operation.
Famed XF-92 (Convair) by the way, is a direct design by Lippisch, so it's just more of good old Nazi/American cooperation here.
As for the US's ability to spend on the military budget, there is no doubt that we can sustain 100 million dollar F-22s and billion dollar
B-2s far better that the new Russia can.
Really? Man, it the situation wasn't so tragic, I would laugh.
When done, let me know, as usual there's more.
A billion dollar B-2 is a brilliant and modern concept, not in terms of aeronautical engineering, it's all about the fleecing of American
Let me lay it out how it actually went down;
1924 - Worlds first flying wing: BICh-1 and 2 by Boris Ivanovich Cheranovsky
1926 - Worlds first powered flying wing: BICs-03 by Boris Ivanovich Cheranovsky.
1933 - Worlds first Supersonic delta: rocket powered SAM-3 by Moskalyev.
1942 - Antipodal Orbital Bomber by Sänger
1943 - all-wing (low RCS) Horten 229 (not to mention BMWs flying saucer Flugelrad I of the same year.)
1944 - "Rocket Wing" MX.324 by Northrop
On that note, if you really want to venture out into the world of true aviation innovation and excellence, you'll quickly find out that it's all
about the Russians and WWII Germans. There are also some ingenious Italian designs, but as always with Italians, while their designs are truly
outstanding they are to exotic and delicate for effective military use.
On our side of the pond, the true innovators were the guys from Canadian AVRO company (like 606 A/B, 707A, Arrow, etc), the company which was
sabotaged by American corporate interests. Naturally the overwhelming majority of innovative American projects were conceived and created by
German/Canadian engineers which had no choice but to work for Americans.
Let me bring some examples for you to explore;
near space research rocket plane - RP 218
Moskalev "Strela" - pre WWII
G-38 "Light Cruiser" - Grokhovsky
Gu-VRD - Gudkov
Bisnovat Samolyot 5-2
Messerschmitt P. "Schwalbe"
Colani C-309 Racer
BMW Flugelrad III
Messerschmitt P.1110E "Ente"
Messerschmitt 262 HG.III/3
Mizuno Shinryu II
Blohm und Voss Ae.607
That is where the true world of innovation is, and when our Military Industrial Complex tries to dazzle us with yet another multi-billion dollar super
tech project, all one has to do is to flip a page of history and see where it all comes from.
Everybody seems to still believe the 10 foot tall Sov soldier propaganda from the Cold War. Even the USSR didn't have the capability to
produce superior weapon systems in sufficient numbers.
Were you conscious during the cold war years? 60s, 70s. 80s, three decades of numerical/technological domination on all fronts, especially space.
The bombers we were so terrified of at the beginning of the Cold War have been found to have been severely lacking in performance and numbers.
The propaganda was mostly all alluding to a paper tiger force of far fewer numbers than the Soviets BSed about. That's what overflights of U-2s and
later SR-71s found.
Which bombers were those? You mean the Siberian B-29 which Tupolev reverse engendered to the last bolt and even a wing patch do to express orders
from Stalin? The project which Tupolev was absolutely against, precisely because it would have been much cheaper and quicker to build one of his own
next generation designs?
The project of such enormity and complexity that Boeing engineers openly stated that they them selves could not have tackled such a challenge
especially given the dead lines Russians managed to pull of?
Must be that one, right?
Keep it coming.
U-2 flights? You mean the ones that were shot and with resulting shame and embarrassment to our country, given that we previously singed an agreement
specifically prohibiting such spying?
SR-71? You mean a high speed YF-12 "Blackbird" bomber/interceptor concept TURNED into a temporary recon platform do to its inability to perform its
Here's a time line for that particular project;
* 24 December 1957: First J58 engine run.
* 30 July 1962: J58 completes pre-flight testing.
* October 1962: Letter of intent for $1 million for YF-12 delivered to Lockheed.
* 7 August 1963: First flight of YF-12 (#06934) with Lockheed test pilot James Eastham.
* 29 February 1964: President Johnson announces existence of A-11 (actually the YF-12).
* 16 April 1964: First XAIM-47 ejected from YF-12 in flight.
* 18 March 1965: First firing of YAIM-47 from YF-12A.
* 1 May 1965: Two YF-12A (#06934 & #06936) set speed and altitude records.
* 28 September 1965: GAR-9 fired from YF-12A at Mach 3.2 at 75,000 feet.
* 5 January 1968: Skunk Works receives official notice closing down YF-12 operations.
* 5 February 1968: Lockheed ordered to destroy A-12, YF-12, and SR-71 tooling.
* 11 December 1969: NASA's first YF-12 (#06935) flight.
* 7 November 1979: Last YF-12A (#06935) flown to the Air Force Museum at Wright-Patterson AFB.
While there have been stand out aircraft designs like the MiG 29 we must realize they were never produced in great numbers anywhere near enough
to fill out all the spearhead squadrons. And American philosophy in combat is to fight your fight, use your planes' advantages and not fight the
Cruizer, you really did made me smile there. What are production numbers for MiG-29/SU-27? What are the classic roles of MiG-21/23/25/29/31 and
Su-27/30/33/34 in VVS?
What are our air combat tactics again? "Fight our fight" what? Man, I love a good chuckle, especially considering that since WWII USAF keeps to a
traditional strategy of fighting in the enemy airspace, while Soviet doctrine was always a combination of front line fighters supported by fast/high
alt interceptors and long range cap.
This is where you find out which VVS fighter does what.
The MiG 25 is another great example of hype. Whoa this baby is a monster, huh? When Victor Belenko delivered us on we found out that though it
was imbued with innovative details it was crude and ancient by our standards.
That just shows how little you know on the topic. What was MiG-25s role? Why did it in fact use vacuum tubes instead of solid state? There's a
very specific reason there, look into that. How was it build and why? Where was titanium used and where was steel used and for what reasons?
All good questions, don't be lazy, do some reading.
It couldn't sustain high mach without ruining the engines and was designed for a mission role of interception of the B-70 at high altitude.
It missiles were lousy and it had no range. Another paper tiger.
Where do you get such nonsense? Some comic books or something? Do you even know the basics of what you're talking about?
In Iraq a lone and unsupported Foxbat downed an F-18 which had an ECM package, precisely because Foxbats radar was specifically designed to reliably
operate in conditions of extreme ECM and EMP. After a successful attack it simply outran everybody to reach safety.
That "paper tiger" from 1950s chumped down on a modern design of 1980s, and then outran all of its pursuers. That's some paper tiger, with some
real teeth and real legs.
Read up, come back and tell me all about Fulcrum losses, and I'll tell you exactly why such losses occurred and why all such encounters were
No doubt that you'll bring up the Tomcat, and I'll respond by explaining why exactly it was designed around the Phoenix, and its rots in AVRO Arrow
Then I'll move right to MiG-31 Foxhound and its phased array radar, which allows the much cheaper semi-active R-33 to outperform the much more
expensive active radar AIM-54, and why Zaslon/R-33 is a much better and effective combination, especially with the use of Foxhounds secure-data link
which allows for precise and coordinated strikes while staying out of AIM-54s reach.
The reality is that even at the height of the Cold War the Soviets with all their resources didn't have the invincible force they pretended
to. And now Russia is but a fraction of that conglomerate without the national tax base or national product income of the US.
You never underestimate your enemies or potential enemies but they simply can't compare to the wealth base of the old combination of
Good God, you have a long way to go and a lot of reading to do my friend. My advice, try to have fun with it and enjoy your self, but remember, even
in movies, when a villain who has all the money in the world is under the gun of his foe, he always tries to bargain for his life by offering all of
the money he has because he still believes that money is power, and that's precisely when his head gets blow off.
Money is a concept, an icon, an ideal, engineered as means for social control, but as soon as its a matter of life and death, it quickly turns in to
what it really is, printed paper, something to burn in a fire or wipe you fanny with.
When things turn ugly, only commodity and resolve is of any value. On the global scale it's all about the natural resources, and that's where
Russians feel really comfortable. All the bank accounts, digital ones and zeros, and all the printed paper in the world is not going to help when
"what goes around comes around".
That's how it is, how it always was, and will be.