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.

 

Mig 33 Super-Fulcrum and Mig 35 Flashback

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2002 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Ok Necro99. He won some air fights. But just a few.

Viet-Nam war, the USA had the superiority.

Arabs-Israel wars ? ha ha ha, the Israelians are still laughing from the Arabs air-forces.


For these wars, just look the loss rates, and you will understand who had the air-superiority.




posted on Dec, 16 2002 @ 09:15 PM
link   
The US lost the vietnam war.
Ass.



posted on Dec, 16 2002 @ 09:35 PM
link   
but we still had air superiority, that's not what lost us the war



posted on Dec, 18 2002 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by necro99
The US lost the vietnam war.
Ass.


USA didn't lost the Vietnam war. Or may be you that you saw NVA soldiers walking proudly in Washington ?


Or may be some North-Vietnameses Mig-21 Fishbed over the Capitol ?


If you have these pics, just post them.



posted on Dec, 18 2002 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ultra_phoenix

Originally posted by necro99
The US lost the vietnam war.
Ass.


USA didn't lost the Vietnam war. Or may be you that you saw NVA soldiers walking proudly in Washington ?


Or may be some North-Vietnameses Mig-21 Fishbed over the Capitol ?


If you have these pics, just post them.


Interesting points:
I don't see USA soldiers walking proudly in Hanoi.


...nor i saw any F-16 flying over Ho Chi Minh's Mausoleum either


[Edited on 2002-12-18 by MakodFilu]



posted on Dec, 19 2002 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by MakodFilu

Interesting points:
I don't see USA soldiers walking proudly in Hanoi.


...nor i saw any F-16 flying over Ho Chi Minh's Mausoleum either




I agree, but USA didn't lost the Viet War. We can see this war like an ex-aqueo betwwen the USA and the NV. Of course, for the former SV, it's different. They losed.


P.S : During this war, USAF was flying over Hano but NVAF was NOT flying over the Capitol !



posted on Dec, 20 2002 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by ultra_phoenix

Originally posted by MakodFilu

Interesting points:
I don't see USA soldiers walking proudly in Hanoi.


...nor i saw any F-16 flying over Ho Chi Minh's Mausoleum either




I agree, but USA didn't lost the Viet War. We can see this war like an ex-aqueo betwwen the USA and the NV. Of course, for the former SV, it's different. They losed.


P.S : During this war, USAF was flying over Hano but NVAF was NOT flying over the Capitol !


You sure? You really sure no NV spy flyed on a commercial route?


P.S.: Be fair, the Vietnamese were fighting a civil war in its own country, don't had the budget to buy a carrier to be able to bomb the Capitol...


Oh, you could say the won't have the chance, but since they couldn't prove you could be wrong: no one will know ever if they could reach the Capitol.



posted on Dec, 20 2002 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Interesting POV MakodFilu.


But you have half-right. It was a civil war in the South, not in the North. And the North was supporting the VC.

Oh yeah, I forgot. Do you know who killed the more VC's ?

The NVA ! After the South has falled to their hands, they started to eliminate their former VC friends.


These commies are really weirds peoples.


P.S : Nice new avatar. That's a Gripen JA-39 right ?



posted on Dec, 20 2002 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by ultra_phoenix
Interesting POV MakodFilu.


But you have half-right. It was a civil war in the South, not in the North. And the North was supporting the VC.

And the South was supporting the government, as in any civil war there are two factions. Humm, North vs South remembers me of something



Oh yeah, I forgot. Do you know who killed the more VC's ?

The NVA ! After the South has falled to their hands, they started to eliminate their former VC friends.


Again, as in any civil war. Or didn't the Federated killed lots of Confederated in USA Secession War?


These commies are really weirds peoples.


All war commited acts are weird!



P.S : Nice new avatar. That's a Gripen JA-39 right ?

A JAS-39, right
(Jakt/ Attack/ Spaning - Fighter/Attack/Reconnaissance)

[Edited on 2002-12-20 by MakodFilu]



posted on Dec, 20 2002 @ 11:43 AM
link   
We are going out of the subject I think. Could we go back to the main subject ? Mig-33 & Mig-35 ?



posted on Dec, 20 2002 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Ok, see this link:

www.airforce-technology.com...

quote: 'The MiG-29, -30 and -33 are known by the NATO code name Fulcrum'

So it seems that these are at least Fulcrums.

About MiG-35, I think it's probably the SuperFulcrum, another variant of the Fulcrum, cause I reed somewhere MiG 1.42 (former MiG 1.44) would have the codename MiG-39. The problem is many web paged messed the names, so there are ones who claim MiG-35 is the MiG-1.42 designation, which is not.



posted on Dec, 22 2002 @ 03:37 AM
link   
Hey Mako, what do you think ? A little flight ?


xmb.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 6 2003 @ 04:35 PM
link   
hey ppl, i'm newb here n e ways, i heard about that the jet was designed 2 b remote controled but the project was scrubbed because of it's low performence in dog-fights and still mayb testing. it was also called MiG-33 FulcrumSS



posted on Jan, 6 2003 @ 07:16 PM
link   
you can loose a war even without not loosing any grounds... and just accept that US lost vietnam, you can't win them all, but claming you not lost is just bad sportmanship. And often people refer east planes (mig29) to be better in dofight but it lost in a "game" recently against some plane from the SU serie. Not sure if it was the su25 or something else. There is never a "best of the best" plane.



posted on Jan, 7 2003 @ 03:36 PM
link   
yes there is the "best of the best", it is XFA-36 Game, i kno the X-36 prototype has been made like years ago and i bet they tested to b an attacker and a fighter and designed 2 b the most agile jet with stability. it also proved that jets do not need a tail wing. the prototype mayb small but can carry loads of ammo u kno



posted on Jan, 7 2003 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrbunnyman
This is not a Fulcrum. The Mig 29 Fulcrum is the Nato designation for the aircraft not the russians.

This aircraft is the 1.42 it's a technology demostrator and nothing else. The russian military right now does not have the money to build the new fighter.

Their latest is the SU-37 Flanker and that's the best I got.

The MIG series is as follows
MIG-15 Fagot
MIG-17
MIG-19
MIG-21 Fishbed
MIG-23/27 Flogger
MIG-25 Foxbat
MIG-29 Fulcrum
MIG-31 Foxhound

i also heard that there is Su-37 Super Flanker
www.fas.org is a good resource



posted on Jan, 8 2003 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Question ?

WHat is doin'g this plane at this altitude with landcraft out ?

wmilitary.neurok.ru...



posted on Jan, 8 2003 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Your plane looks like a photo tirck or a model...
Russia don't have money necessary to devellop such of plane.
It seem like a bad EF2000 imitation...



posted on Jan, 8 2003 @ 11:39 AM
link   
uh, they did develop it, they just dont have the money to put it into production, but it's been fully developed, proto-type built, under Mig project 1.42, also known as 1.44 and the MiG-35



posted on Jan, 8 2003 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nans DESMICHELS
Question ?

1) WHat is doin'g this plane at this altitude with landcraft out ?

2) It seem like a bad EF2000 imitation



1) I don't know. May be taht you can ask to the Russians.


2) Where did you see a Typhoon copy ????? I just saw a new plane( who's really sexy, the little bast%$d
) nothing more. But planes are like cars. That's why almost all of the commons cars are looking equals to each others. Aircrafts engineers have to respect some physical laws. That's why some planes are looking almost the same.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join