|
reply posted on 15-12-2002 @ 01:01 PM by ultra_phoenix
|
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. 
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 16-12-2002 @ 09:15 PM by necro99
|
The US lost the vietnam war.
Ass.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 16-12-2002 @ 09:35 PM by KKing123
|
but we still had air superiority, that's not what lost us the war
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 18-12-2002 @ 08:59 AM 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. 
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 18-12-2002 @ 01:27 PM by MakodFilu
|
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]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 19-12-2002 @ 04:36 AM 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 HanoÔ but NVAF was NOT flying over the Capitol ! 
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 20-12-2002 @ 08:56 AM by MakodFilu
|
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 HanoÔ 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. 
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 20-12-2002 @ 10:25 AM 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.
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 ?
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 20-12-2002 @ 10:34 AM by MakodFilu
|
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]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 20-12-2002 @ 11:43 AM by ultra_phoenix
|
We are going out of the subject I think. Could we go back to the main subject ? Mig-33 & Mig-35 ?
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 20-12-2002 @ 02:21 PM by MakodFilu
|
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.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 22-12-2002 @ 03:37 AM by ultra_phoenix
|
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 6-1-2003 @ 04:35 PM by solomon6777
|
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
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 6-1-2003 @ 07:16 PM by granQ
|
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.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 7-1-2003 @ 03:36 PM by solomon6777
|
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
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 7-1-2003 @ 03:38 PM by solomon6777
|
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
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 8-1-2003 @ 11:26 AM by Nans DESMICHELS
|
Mystifakation ?
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 8-1-2003 @ 11:28 AM by Nans DESMICHELS
|
Sorry, but
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...
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 8-1-2003 @ 11:39 AM by KKing123
|
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
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 8-1-2003 @ 01:35 PM by ultra_phoenix
|
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.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
