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-I-2000 aerodynamic

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 11:20 PM
link   
Well, the argument went back and forth...

about my opinion about Russian technology in cold war...

Who launched the satellite first?, who found the plasma stealth first?, which is better in spy world that time?, which is better? MiG-21 or Phantom?

Russia has her own idea to make their own weapon!

Look at this!

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Some of u guys think Russia is second best, but as a matter of fact that Russia is the best that time!and i think they're back again now...

In result, for example AK-47 claimed as the one of the ten best weapon on earth! so do the MiG-21, and some others...

How is it, the I-2000 is unconventional design, small but effective machine!
Russian scientists are scientists! not idiot!

What for they was born, live, learn and become scientists if they coudn't so...!?

[edit on 9/25/2007 by Eastpolar Commander]




posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by West Coast
No, I dont think he is more qualified since he was voicing and opinion and not a actual fact ( a biased one at that), he lost alot of credibility with his analogy.
Quite frankly, it made no since and he listed no examples. That might be enough for you to make your mind up about, not me.


Which would be what Mr.Tupelov did, made an arrogant assumption with no details backing up why he thought what he thought. Making Mr.Tupelov come off as a nationalistic, chest thumping, idiot.



You just lost all credibility you had with me.



Do you really think that the Soviet designers didn't have very good knowledge of the American (and other OTAN) aircraft?

Do you really think the Soviets design an aircraft for rough field capability but make it delicate (as if the two can go together)?

Do you really think the Soviets design intricate maintenance intensive systems for use by a conscript force?


Get a grip, reality is passing you by.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 04:59 AM
link   
Or look at this~!

www.youtube.com...


How is it?

Or you guys need to check out the modern city of moscow!? right kilcoo316!

All great scientific stuff first based on kids idea!

~ Eastpolar Commander ~
!!!



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 08:09 AM
link   

about my opinion about Russian technology in cold war...

Who launched the satellite first?, who found the plasma stealth first?, which is better in spy world that time?, which is better? MiG-21 or Phantom?

*Yawn*.

I could come up with a list twice as big for the USA, however that's not the point. Coming up with a few select instances then implying Russia has better technology than the USA is rediculous. How about looking at in-service unit technology and strengths? Logistics? Support? So on and so forth?

I'm sorry but if you look at the facts, Russia is not the all, be all. USA actually had many strengths on the USSR (and vice versa), though I am not going to go into them.


How is it, the I-2000 is unconventional design, small but effective machine!
Russian scientists are scientists! not idiot!

How can one possibly judge an aircraft based on an artists impression and some PAKFA information? There are no public photos of the aircraft, nor any definate specifications.



Actually, the Russians were realists and developed simpler, more easier to repair systems that could keep going in the rather dehabilitating weather conditions they encounter. They relied less on solid state because they realised some of its vulnerabilities.

Not nessesarily.

There have been a number of soviet aircraft which were maintainence heavy. Mig-29 needed an engine overhaul every 300 hours or so, yet the F-16 could do a few thousand before it needed one. It became so much of a problem that the Germans had to derate there Mig-29s to extent there engine life to an amazing 700 hours (
).

TU-22, SU-24 also come to mind.



Originally posted by Eastpolar Commander
Or look at this~!

www.youtube.com...


How is it?

Or you guys need to check out the modern city of moscow!? right kilcoo316!

All great scientific stuff first based on kids idea!

~ Eastpolar Commander ~
!!!

Read and comment on Plasma stealth here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 26/9/07 by JimmyCarterIsSmarter]



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsSmarter
There have been a number of soviet aircraft which were maintainence heavy. Mig-29 needed an engine overhaul every 300 hours or so, yet the F-16 could do a few thousand before it needed one. It became so much of a problem that the Germans had to derate there Mig-29s to extent there engine life to an amazing 700 hours (:@@
.


There was a difference in definition between overhaul between the US and the USSR.

The F-16 would require much more day to day maintenance, while the MiG would forgo this in place of a shorter time between big maintenance stops in the factory.


This was due to the training (or lack of) for the personnel actually operating the aircraft, and the equipment they had. They were ill-suited to regularly maintaining anything remotely complicated.

[edit on 26/9/07 by kilcoo316]



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
You just lost all credibility you had with me.


Dont worry, You didnt have any to start out with...

And I will not lose sleep over that.





Do you really think that the Soviet designers didn't have very good knowledge of the American (and other OTAN) aircraft?


Mr.Tuplev compared the US war fighting machine, to a top of the line watch, (Rolex watch) while he basically called what the russians had, as second rate (alarm clock)

And yes, the soviets were/are well known for there over bloated egos that often get the best of them. Mr.Tuplev is just that. and over bloated bafoon who is making no sense. It is just his biased opinion.

thats not to say that everything america has is great, just trying to deny ignorance where it stands..

Get a grip, reality is passing you by.


"Get a grip, reality is passing me by?" I didnt agree with you, so reality "must" be passing me by? Get over yourself. Your not making very much sense. I said Mr.Tuplev is a chest thumping, nationalistic idiot. As were/are many russian generals. His analogy is dead in the water, because it makes no sense, other then him calling russian equipment second rate to the american equipment. (Rolex watch>Alarm clock)

Now I understand this might be enough in your bigoted anti american mind. However, that is not the case with me.




[edit on 26-9-2007 by West Coast]



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimmyBlonde

Originally posted by West Coast


Does it get the job done better then anything else out there?


It would seem that you can actually do just as well with a civilian Boeing 737..


Maybe you missed the "stealth" slogan?

The rest of your comment didnt make very much sense im afraid.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eastpolar Commander
Who launched the satellite first?, who found the plasma stealth first?,


Who made the internet? Who put a man on the moon? I could go on... but i dont see you topping that. As for plasma stealth, proof please.



which is better in spy world that time?


Why did they need to be 'better' in the spy world at that time?



which is better? MiG-21 or Phantom?


How about the F-22 Raptor!


About the phantom. It was not an air superiority fighter like the MiG-21 was designed for. The phantom was designed with a bomber mentality.


Russia has her own idea to make their own weapon!

Yes, they are content with there "alarm clocks".



Some of u guys think Russia is second best,


Russia was second best, however that isnt even the case today...


but as a matter of fact that Russia is the best that time!


And your proof?



In result, for example AK-47 claimed as the one of the ten best weapon on earth! so do the MiG-21, and some others...


Mediocrity abounds.....




[edit on 26-9-2007 by West Coast]



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by West Coast

Originally posted by JimmyBlonde

Originally posted by West Coast


Does it get the job done better then anything else out there?


It would seem that you can actually do just as well with a civilian Boeing 737..


Maybe you missed the "stealth" slogan?

The rest of your comment didnt make very much sense im afraid.


Stealth, means getting about undetected doesn't it? Why didn't my comment make sense?



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by West Coast
About the phantom. It was not an air superiority fighter like the MiG-21 was designed for. The phantom was designed with a bomber mentality.


Really?

Just to point out a little something. I'm trying not to get involved in this.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 12:10 AM
link   
F-4 was a good fighter, when they remembered to put a gun on it....

Here's the F-4 link

It was designed as a fleet defense fighter and adapted by the USAF as a fighter bomber.

[edit on 27-9-2007 by JimmyBlonde]



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by West Coast
I said Mr.Tuplev is a chest thumping, nationalistic idiot.


Pot. Kettle. Black.

Theres a simple analogy for you.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 04:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by West Coast
Mr.Tuplev compared the US war fighting machine, to a top of the line watch, (Rolex watch) while he basically called what the russians had, as second rate (alarm clock)


He compared the complexity of the systems, not the performance.




Originally posted by West Coast
And yes, the soviets were/are well known for there over bloated egos that often get the best of them. Mr.Tuplev is just that. and over bloated bafoon who is making no sense. It is just his biased opinion.


He (Tupolev) knows infinitely more than me, you or anyone else on this forum about aircraft design.

I'll trust his judgment (especially given facts back it up) over yours thank you very much.







Originally posted by West Coast
"Get a grip, reality is passing me by?" I didnt agree with you, so reality "must" be passing me by? Get over yourself. Your not making very much sense. I said Mr.Tuplev is a chest thumping, nationalistic idiot. As were/are many russian generals. His analogy is dead in the water, because it makes no sense, other then him calling russian equipment second rate to the american equipment. (Rolex watch>Alarm clock)


You dismissed the comments of one of the greatest aircraft designers of the last century out of hand - and you do all this on the basis of a superiority complex, nothing more.

Everything about the Soviet designs in comparison to the NATO ones backs up his statement - yet of course you know better.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 06:22 AM
link   
ooooooooooo


WOW!

[edit on 9/27/2007 by Eastpolar Commander]



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 06:45 AM
link   
reply to post by West Coast
 



Who made the internet? Who put a man on the moon? I could go on... but i dont see you topping that. As for plasma stealth, proof please.


Proof?


Despite the apparent technical difficulty of designing a plasma stealth device for combat aircraft, there are claims that a system was offered for export by Russia in 1999. In January of 1999, the Russian ITAR-TASS news agency published an interview with Doctor Anatoliy Koroteyev, the director of the Keldysh Research Center (FKA Scientific Research Institute for Thermal Processes), who talked about the plasma stealth device developed by his organization. The claim was particularly interesting in light of the solid scientific reputation of Dr. Koroteyev and the Institute for Thermal Processes, which is one of the top scientific research organizations in the world in the field of fundamental physics. [see "Russian scientists created revolutionary technologies for reducing radar visibility of aircraft", by Nikolay Novichkov, ITAR-TASS, January 20, 1999].


Internet?okay! man on moon FIRST? what for? no matter who's land on there first! the point is to invite a planet! what's the big deal?popularity? no experts care....!!!maybe kids does!


Why did they need to be 'better' in the spy world at that time?


Oh really? US proof it's prophecy about Iraqs WMD!!!!Good optimsm!


About the phantom. It was not an air superiority fighter like the MiG-21 was designed for. The phantom was designed with a bomber mentality.


How about PAK FA? just wait man!

and people always compare the Phantom with MiG-21! the performance, maintainance cost, and armament! It's still better! F-16 made coz Mig-21!


Yes, they are content with there "alarm clocks".


Even the history why Raptor was made is cause by Su-27! that's the proof that 27 is better than F-15 so the US should made far-far expansive Raptor!how scary is the "alarm clocks". Anyway Raptor is not combat proof, even F-22 placed in just number 10 of top ten fighter of all time!(Discovery channel version)!

Russia was second best, however that isnt even the case today...


Let's say US smart enough to destroy others economy! But they're back


And your proof?


about their superiority proofment, 1/3 of the world was communist! Everyone liked Russian weapons and machines!

U never watch TV??? Discovery channel claim that AK-47 is number 2 of ten best weapon on earth! Anyway almost anyone prefer Ak than M4!

[edit on 9/27/2007 by Eastpolar Commander]



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 07:04 AM
link   
reply to post by JimmyCarterIsSmarter
 


What for artist impresion if it's not reliable?

look at the Emiles post in page one! or look at this!



If u still think this picture is unreliable, emile said (of cousre he know better)


In my view, this layout of Shafaq certainly from Russia.
you can see all of new aircraft flew recently just is an improvement out of F-5 Freedom, the situation is really similar to China's J-7 series, although their shape has a little change.
I believe if there is no new concept overseas, there is no such advanced layout would appeared in Iran. I've seen the layout I taken from globalsecurity web has a red star painted on wing, as I had known before this is a concept aliminated by Ruusia.


[edit on 9/27/2007 by Eastpolar Commander]



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by JimmyCarterIsSmarter
 


As Harlequin said


As far as i know Iran purchased the design for the I-2000 and have built it as the Shafaq
according to online sources it is now ready for flight testing and is a light attack/adv trainer class of aircraft with LO properties (think armed hawk/teja class iirc)

oh and that woman in the picture is one of the lead engineers apparantly


The picture
Source



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by West Coast
I said Mr.Tuplev is a chest thumping, nationalistic idiot.


Pot. Kettle. Black.

Theres a simple analogy for you.



I am german.. not american.

Im simply dismissing claims that do not add up to nothing more then a biased view.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eastpolar CommanderProof?


Claims Mr. eastpolar.. that is all you have.. is claims. do you really want to get into claims? The US is 'claimed' to have secretly reverse engineered fallen alien spacecraft.



Internet?okay!


Yes, the thing you are typing on right now, on this very site, is controlled by the ones who engineered it, The americans..If they so wanted to, they could shut off the internet to the rest of the entire world.


man on moon FIRST? what for?


Part of the space race, something the soviets could not do..



Oh really? US proof it's prophecy about Iraqs WMD!!!!Good optimsm!


No, you missed the point. WHY DID THE SOVIETS NEED TO BE BETTER "SPY'S"?


How about PAK FA? just wait man!


Great... an aircraft that is still on the drawing board.... I will believe it when I see it go into mass production. That should be 12-15 years from now... By then, the US will have been working on the F22s predecessor, a 6th gen unmanned fighter. Meanwhile, the F22 will only get better with upgrades, making it more then a match for the "PAK FA".


and people always compare the Phantom with MiG-21! the performance, maintainance cost, and armament! It's still better! F-16 made coz Mig-21!


Again, people have missed this, the USAF at that time favored a bomber type platform, rather then an air superiority fighter. The phantom vs the MiG was a much needed wake up call for the USAF. F16 and F15 were the apparent results of that wake up call. the USAF has not looked back since.




Even the history why Raptor was made is cause by Su-27!


The Raptor was made as to keep the superior arms advantage that the US has always enjoyed. A superpower does not simply stop making aircraft after another superpower has died.


that's the proof that 27 is better than F-15


No, no its not....


so the US should made far-far expansive Raptor!how scary is the "alarm clocks". Anyway Raptor is not combat proof, even F-22 placed in just number 10 of top ten fighter of all time!(Discovery channel version)!


The F15 as of right now, is the best fighter of all time. Its combat record speaks for itself. The F15C eagle holds all kinds of avionic records that are expected to be shattered by the F22.


But they're back


Only to a few who are to ignorant to see the bigger picture.


about their superiority proofment, 1/3 of the world was communist! Everyone liked Russian weapons and machines!


That has got to be one of the dumbest things Ive ever heard. That does not prove superiority. That proves that the USSR was an irresponsible power that did not look after its weapons inventory better.

Meanwhile, the US arms and sells its weapons systems, to other industrialized countrys who are considered to have some of the best militarys in the world. Ask the brits which weapons platform they prefer, the french, the japanese, the australians, germans, the saudis, isrealis, etc.


U never watch TV??? Discovery channel claim that AK-47 is number 2 of ten best weapon on earth! Anyway almost anyone prefer Ak than M4!


you are naive to believe everything you see on TV. It is an opinion. Never mind debating your argument. Its moot.




[edit on 27-9-2007 by West Coast]



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316

He compared the complexity of the systems, not the performance.


No he didnt. He compared a rolex watch to an alarm clock. There is nothing complex about that.







He (Tupolev) knows infinitely more than me, you or anyone else on this forum about aircraft design.



And yet, he cant come up with a suitable analogy. Give me a break.



I'll trust his judgment (especially given facts back it up) over yours thank you very much.


I wouldnt expect anything less, from a naive person like you.




You dismissed the comments of one of the greatest aircraft designers of the last century out of hand


Alright, lets get a few things straight, if he would have gone into greater detail and depth, provided comparative illustrations and so on and so forth as to why he thought what he though, that would have been helped his credibility out. But he did not do that. He simply compared a top of the line watch, to a crappy alarm clock.



Everything about the Soviet designs in comparison to the NATO ones backs up his statement - yet of course you know better.


What?


[edit on 27-9-2007 by West Coast]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join