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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2003 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted 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

The MiG-35 *is not* the MiG 1.42 (the former 1.44). See my post above.




posted on Jan, 9 2003 @ 02:37 PM
link   
I said that the 1.42 was known as the 35 sometime, i dind't say that was official



posted on Jan, 9 2003 @ 04:54 PM
link   
I found these new mig 1.42 pics. They are comming from a russians website.

www.cockpits.pp.ru...

The real Russian codename for the Mig 1.42 is Mig 39.


Check this link : www.aviation.ru...

On the Mig33, I found this link : www.aviation.ru...

And for the Mig 35, I found this pic : www.aviation.ru...


[Edited on 9-1-2003 by ultra_phoenix]



posted on Jan, 11 2003 @ 02:49 PM
link   
When looking at those photos, I noticed a few design similarities right away. Here are some pics to illustrate what I mean:

From the front, intake looks like Eurofighter:



From behind, like a Rockwell HiMAT:




Any further thoughts?

-deadtech



posted on Jan, 12 2003 @ 01:50 AM
link   
Where did you see a resemblance between the Himat and the Typhoon ?


Pic01 ( Himat )

Pic02 ( Himat )

Pic03 ( Typhoon )

Anyway, this is a Mig's topic.



posted on Jan, 12 2003 @ 11:07 PM
link   
Ultra_Phoenix, I mean this:

I think the air intake on the new MiG looks like it may have been "inspired" by the Typhoon. And The similarity I saw with a HiMAT was with the new MiG, not the Typhoon. I think the twin, split vertical tails, on the new MiG look like they may have been influenced by the similar tail design of the HiMAT. Sorry if there is any confusion. I know this is the MiG thread after all.


(P.S. Ultra_Phoenix, I am new here. and I REALLY enjoy your posts on this board. Thank you!)

-deadtech1



posted on Jan, 13 2003 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by deadtech1
Ultra_Phoenix, I mean this:

I think the air intake on the new MiG looks like it may have been "inspired" by the Typhoon. And The similarity I saw with a HiMAT was with the new MiG, not the Typhoon. I think the twin, split vertical tails, on the new MiG look like they may have been influenced by the similar tail design of the HiMAT. Sorry if there is any confusion. I know this is the MiG thread after all.


(P.S. Ultra_Phoenix, I am new here. and I REALLY enjoy your posts on this board. Thank you!)

-deadtech1


That's better. I was a little bit confused.


Gee, " El Presidente " has a new fan.

I think that I have to join my local political party, I'll do a good score on the next elections.



posted on Jan, 21 2003 @ 09:01 PM
link   



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



Correction. Latest they have is the S-37 Berkut, its the reverse wing flanker. Very bad ass.



posted on Jan, 21 2003 @ 09:03 PM
link   
Guys I went to the Paris Airshow in '97 (or was it '98?). They had the Eurofighter there doing its performance, very cool plane. They also had the Eurocopter, the helicopter from James Bond Goldeneye. That was cool too. If yall want the cream of the crop airshow, go to the Paris Airshow. Its every couple of years. Very amazing. Might have to know a little french though
.



posted on Jan, 22 2003 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Knuckles
Might have to know a little french though
.



Don't worry, if you want to buy an eurcopter or a eurofighter, I'll do the translation for you. Of course, don't forget my little %.



posted on Jan, 22 2003 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Well ultra. which you want? Eurofighter, por favor. Oh wait thats spanish.



posted on Jan, 23 2003 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Knuckles

Oh wait thats spanish.




No es serio.



posted on Apr, 25 2003 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ultra_phoenix


Viet-Nam war, the USA had the superiority.



Sky battles began in august, 1964. American capitalists thrown 330 aircrafts (F-105s, "Thunderchiefs", "Supersabers", "Voodoos", "Skyhawks", "Crusaders") against Vietnam people. At first Soviets used outdated MiG-17, which is slower than sonic. But it was MiG-17 which opened deathcount in this war, destroying 2 (two) F-105 (4 of April, 1965). Later, Americans lost 7 (SEVEN!!!) aircrafts, destroying ONLY 4 (FOUR!!!) MiG-17s. Now all saw what "advanced" American Air Force really worth! MiG-17s were a SCOURGE of American army, but real NIGHTMARE began when MiG-21s appeared on the battlefield. From May to December of 1966, MiG-21s destroyed 47 (FOURTY SEVEN!!!) American "advanced" aircrafts, losing ONLY 12 (TWELVE!!!) MiGs. That was a disaster for pathetic capitalist army. In 1967, Soviet pilots destroyed TWO TIMES more aircrafts, then American pilots. Another great victory of the Red Army! Americans thrown their new F-4s ("Phantoms") in combat. The strong side of F-4 is its speed, not maneurability (maneurability of F-4 was extremely bad), because originately F-4 was created to intercept super-fast Soviet bombers. Americans removed cannons from F-4, turning aircraft into bulky missile carrier and breaking connection between maneur and attack, in other words, turning pilot of F-4 into part of computer, into mindless machine (quite in Western style). Also, Americans continued to develop their favourite tactic ("air terror"), building superheavy fighters, made to approach, attack and then run away. They called it "tactical fighter concept". In other words, Americans made clumsy "Phantom" even more clumsy. Neither Nazis or Soviets build such coward, such backstabbing (and uneffecive) aircrafts. Americans laughed at Soviet aircrafts: "Ha-ha! Stalin's concept! Flying engine! Ha-ha!". Stupid capitalists: maneurable and fast MiG-21s blasted smile from faces of American pilots. MiG-21s easily destroyed American air squadrons (often turning radars off to prevent detection). Eventhough Americans had SIX TIME MORE AIRCRAFTS, they were LOSING war for skies. Americans tried to re-organise assaults, to block Vietnameese aerodromes, to use radiojammers. WITH NO RESULT! Then they gave their "Phantoms" cannons, tried to teach American "aces" (who already degraded into mindless machines for pushing right buttons) an art of close combat (ever seen laughable capitalist propaganda movie "Top Gun"?). WITH NO RESULT! In this war capitalists lost 3495 aircrafts (THREE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED NINETY FIVE!!!), destroying ONLY 76 (SEVENTY SIX!!!) communist aircrafts!



posted on Apr, 25 2003 @ 08:09 AM
link   
The problem was that N Vietnam had more than a few SAM's and Hanoi was the most heavily defended city in the world.

All these losses to Migs occured in North Vietnam and most of the times very close to their air bases. They never dared challenge the US Airforce in the open.

As for the F-105's being lost to the Mig-17, that's not surprising. The F-105 were used for deep penetration bombing missions and were never used primarily in the fighter role. Therefore they would be very easy targets especially if the Mig got them during bomb release.

So the North Vietnamese were just able to occasionally ambush a US flight, cnsideraing that there were several thousand sorties a day sometimes, the US was bound to take a few losses.

Also don't forget the US military was hamstrung as to what targets it could attack by politicians.



posted on Apr, 25 2003 @ 08:24 AM
link   
Vietnam air to air losses :

Mig-17 had 32 kills but lost 100 to the US
Mig-19 had 8 kills but lost 10 to the US
Mig-21 had 36 kills but lost 86 to the US

TOTAL 76................196

UH-1 Huey helicopters also shot down 2 An-2's



posted on Apr, 25 2003 @ 09:18 AM
link   
i was going to point out that the Mig-19 did better then either aircraft you mentioned stranger, but mad already did

damnit mad for stealing my posts



posted on Apr, 25 2003 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist
Vietnam air to air losses :

Mig-17 had 32 kills but lost 100 to the US
Mig-19 had 8 kills but lost 10 to the US
Mig-21 had 36 kills but lost 86 to the US

TOTAL 76................196

UH-1 Huey helicopters also shot down 2 An-2's


Mig are not good against western airfighters. I remember 1982, when Israelian Air Force was fighting against the Syrians, over the Bekaa Valley ( Liban ). Ten & ten of Syrians airfighters have been shot down by Israel. Israelians lost ? ZERO !!!


As like with the previous Israelian-Arabs wars. Israel Air Force has allways won all the dogfights and did a real slaughter in her ennemies ranks.



posted on Apr, 25 2003 @ 11:49 AM
link   
during Israel agression in Lyban (Syria, 1982 year) already outdated MiGs matched newest capitalist aircrafts! In 1973 year MiG-21 fought not with clumsy American machines, but with maneurable French "Mirage-3S", which Israel were using. But even "Mirages" didn't survived maneurable combat with Soviet aircrafts - their aerodynamics was inferior to advanced communist technology.
In 1982, during battle for Lyban, Syrian forces destroyed 6 (six) F-16, 5 (five) of which were destroyed by already outdated MiG-23MFs. During that war Israel F-16As (newest, state-of-the-art capitalist technology!) and other machines destroyed ONLY 7 (SEVEN!!!) outdated Su-22M storm bombers and several absolutely outdated Mi-8 helicopters (as far as I know, these Su-22Ms and Mi-8s didn't even had ANY anti-aircraft weaponry). Most effective Israel fighter was F-15 "Eagle" During war with Iraq (January of 1991), which was armed only with completely outdated Soviet junk, F-16 didn't destroyed ANY arabian aircrafts, F-15S destroyed 34 completely outdated aircrafts, F/A-18 destoyed only 2 (TWO) MiG-21s, losing 1 (ONE) aircraft (was done by MiG-25P). F-14 "Tomcat" killed only 1 (ONE) outdated helicopter. That's all. NOTHING MORE. Arabians were outnumbered 1 (ONE!!!) against 7-14 (SEVEN-FOURTEEN!!!), they didn't have ANY coordination centers or long-range detection aircrafts ,they didn't have training In other words, Americans "fought" with outdated MiG-21 (date of first flight of MiG-21 - 1958!), which still were powerfull enemies!



posted on Apr, 25 2003 @ 11:59 AM
link   
$tranger, without you, this board would be boring.


Sometimes, you the commies, you're so funny.



posted on Apr, 25 2003 @ 12:14 PM
link   
You're right UP, you can't not laugh at these bizarre posts of $trangers.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join