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: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 02:25 PM
link   
How about the India air force beating the Usaf F15 on the red flag 2 months ago ? As for the moon
now get real do you really believe that you put man on the moon the whole world is questioning this , even americans. You either blind or just do not wanna see the point in Tupolev's example stop embarrassing yourself with stupid comments and come to reality

[edit on 27-9-2007 by Russian Boy]




posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by West Coast
No he didnt. He compared a rolex watch to an alarm clock. There is nothing complex about that.



It seems too difficult to grasp the context then?





Originally posted by West Coast
And yet, he cant come up with a suitable analogy. Give me a break.



The analogy is ok - actually, its quite good.


American equipment - smaller, fancier/ more complex, more expensive, made to much higher tolerances but more fragile.

Soviet equipment - bulker, simpler, cheap, rough round the edges but rugged.



Originally posted by West Coast
I wouldnt expect anything less, from a naive person like you.



Yeap... I'm the naive one





Originally posted by West Coast
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.



Yeap - sure while he is at it, he could have written an extensive 1000 page dossier on the ins and outs of various Soviet and NATO aircraft, and stuck it on the torrents



Considering he made the comments in a discussion with Kelly Johnson & Ben Rich, he is not going to have to pull out reams of data to explain to them what they already know.





Originally posted by West Coast
What?


A few questions you should ask yourself:

Who maintained Soviet aircraft - what was the resulting in-field maintenance schedules?

What was the typical Soviet climate like?

What was the typical Soviet airfield like?

What was the Soviet doctrine regarding rugged-field capabilities?

Now go forth and educate yourself



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Russian Boy
As for the moon
now get real do you really believe that you put man on the moon the whole world is questioning this , even americans.


Not agreeing with that.


If the Soviets even had the slightest inkling the US didn't actually go to the moon, they would have produced the proof of it - the PR value would have been far too great to do otherwise.


They didn't - indeed, they even sent NASA a congratulations message.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316

Originally posted by Russian Boy
As for the moon
now get real do you really believe that you put man on the moon the whole world is questioning this , even americans.


Not agreeing with that.


If the Soviets even had the slightest inkling the US didn't actually go to the moon, they would have produced the proof of it - the PR value would have been far too great to do otherwise.


They didn't - indeed, they even sent NASA a congratulations message.


Nope still not convinced they never went there the proof they presented is highly questionable . They lost the race to space and they just couldnt take it so they had to think of something better and they did , it still fools the world , one thing the US is very famous is for McDonalds and Hollywood
The Usa keep their secrets for 50 years i think i wonder if they going to unlock this one , oh well we will have to wait 11 years and see. By the way why they planing to ''return'' to the moon ? so they replace the old flag with a Titanium one


[edit on 27-9-2007 by Russian Boy]



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Russian Boy
How about the India air force beating the Usaf F15 on the red flag 2 months ago ?


I believe under questionable circumstances.

As for the moon now get real do you really believe that you put man on the moon
I believe the US put a man on the moon (Im german, born in germany, currently living in the US for the moment) The evidence of a moon landing is overwhelming. Ive heard the arguments, and they just dont hold much water im afraid. The fact that you question this just goes to show how biased you are in your views, in that, you cannot stand that the US did something the russians were/are incapable of doing themselves.


the whole world is questioning this , even americans.


With no solid proof that validates that argument. More like, opinion.





You either blind or just do not wanna see the point in Tupolev's example stop embarrassing yourself with stupid comments and come to reality

Ahh yes.. the last line of defense for the defenseless.. immature comments.
I am not embarrassing myself. But i am getting to you . Im that itch in the middle of your back that you cannot reach.

Mr.Tupolev is an idiot, he very well maybe book smart, but he lacks common sense. He, like many other over bloated egotistical russian generals, cannot stand the fact that they lost to a superior US in the cold war. So they bash the US the best they can, when ever they can.

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



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
It seems too difficult to grasp the context then?


No... its just not very complex.


And yes the analogy sucks..


American equipment - smaller, fancier/ more complex, more expensive, made to much higher tolerances but more fragile.


That, Mr.kilcoo, is a statement, within a statement, that contradicts itself.

However, please feel free to list examples.



Soviet equipment - bulker, simpler, cheap, rough round the edges but rugged.


Cheap=lower quality in my book.




Yeap... I'm the naive one


Because of your infatuation with everything "Mr.tupolev", What else am I to think? It seems in your eyes, this character who just so happens to be a mortal human, who is subject to biased, nationalistic chest thumping rhetoric like the next person, is never wrong. Im not even going to argue over that anymore. Its worthless diatribe I could care a less repeating over and over again.




Yeap - sure while he is at it, he could have written an extensive 1000 page dossier on the ins and outs of various Soviet and NATO aircraft, and stuck it on the torrents


No, not even that. One example, would have been much better then comparing watches (cant believe im still arguing about this). Im done.



Considering he made the comments in a discussion with Kelly Johnson & Ben Rich, he is not going to have to pull out reams of data to explain to them what they already know.


Even then... Rolex watch>alarm clock.







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



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Russian Boy
Nope still not convinced they never went there the proof they presented is highly questionable .


What questionable proof is this. Lets see if you really know what your talking about.


They lost the race to space


The US was behind, until they put a man on the moon, something the soviets could not do themselves.

I fixed your text.


Russia lost the race to space, and I just couldnt take the fact that the americans did somthing we russians could not do. Im really jealous of this too. So because I am so jealous, I had to think of something better and I did, the americans faked the moon landing! Brilliant!




By the way why they planing to ''return'' to the moon ? so they replace the old flag with a Titanium one



Nasa has plans to return to the moon by the year 2020. The americans also have plans to develop a lunar base on the moon. The Russians? *crickets chirp*

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

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



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 10:24 PM
link   
It's getting hot huh?


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



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eastpolar Commander
reply to post by West Coast
 




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.


Claims? read this! Wikipedia

U mean Wiki have to responsible for what they did? They are reliable, and famous, you? Try to find yourself in Google Earth and find nothing! Why should i listen to you?


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.


U think only american can do this? Anyone could make such website like this!


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


Space race? put a flag then claim it's yours? Then why US complained when Russia put flag at North Pole?


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


There is top secret, and spy job to reveal it! Remember when CIA sold the secret document to Soviet? U think it's not shook the world?


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".


Drawing board?
PAK FA
UCAV?
DialyTech
MiG Skat


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.


Oh ya, 40-second Boydwas on F-105, not Phantom.


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.


Really?


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.


How Russia rise again? By democracy? Irresponsible? How $ is now? $ popularity gets down and everyone knows that!


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


Experts, appear in TV, one of them is Tom Clancy, and u say his opinion is nothing?

~ Stupid people replies to 7 who aswers wisely~

King Solomon

...


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



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eastpolar Commander

Claims? read this!
U mean Wiki have to responsible for what they did? They are reliable, and famous, you?

You are aware that wikipedia can be edited by anyone, correct? Why do you think the communist government of china prohibits wiki?


Why should i listen to you?

Uhhh well captian obvious.. Why are you responding to me then if you are not listening/reading me?




U think only american can do this? Anyone could make such website like this!


Wow. Its not the website captain obvious. Its the internet IN GENERAL. The United States Controls the Internet, the machines that run it, are in the US. The Internet was brought to you, via american taxpayer. So, the computer (also an american invention thanks to Mr.Bill Gates) you type on, is all thanks to america, the internet, you currently enjoy, is because of the US. Not Russia.



Space race? put a flag then claim it's yours? Then why US complained when Russia put flag at North Pole?


You just made an argument...with yourself... That is quite funny!


Again. The US was the first and only to ever step foot on the moon. That is quite an achievement, landing on another planet, would you not agree?


There is top secret, and spy job to reveal it! Remember when CIA sold the secret document to Soviet? U think it's not shook the world?


Good god you are making this more difficult then it should be. Just answer the question. I am not trying to get into a 'pissing contest' here. Let me paraphrase it for you. Why did the soviets NEED to be better in regards to spying? Well heres my answer. Its an analogy (better then Tupolevs
) The US, was the dominant alpha male, russia was the scroungy weak link who wold often scavenge off of the US kills. Now, that is why Russia was better at spying. Because it was survival for them. The US was the stronger of the two, instead of the US focusing much of its resources in espionage, it rather focused on staying ahead, while russia, had a hard time competing, thus the reason why they were/had to be 'better' at spying. Its because they had to be.





Drawing board?


Its still in its conceptual stage is it not? (design faze)

UCAV?

What?

I am talking about a 6th Gen unmanned fighter, not some clunky looking UCAV that has a limited role


Really?


You did not just qoute wiki again. It is not a legitimate source.

It is an opinion source. Do you see the edit button on the wiki page? You can go in there and write whatever biased crap you want. IT doesnt mean its the truth. The F15 was getting long in the tooth. It was time for a new aircraft.


How Russia rise again? By democracy? Irresponsible? How $ is now? $ popularity gets down and everyone knows that!


You were talking about russia selling weapons abroad correct? Weapons that have performed rather poorly against US made weaponry.
You somehow thought that this meant russia 'made' better weapons. I dont know why. but you did.



Experts, appear in TV, one of them is Tom Clancy, and u say his opinion is nothing?

~ Stupid people replies to 7 who aswers wisely~

King Solomon

...


that smiley just doesnt do it enough justice!

I am not going to respond to you anymore Mr.king solomon. Your not making much sense.. Must be that russian edgimuhcation!



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



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by West Coast

Originally posted by Eastpolar Commander


You are aware that wikipedia can be edited by anyone, correct? Why do you think the communist government of china prohibits wiki?


Who think the communist goverment of china prohicits wiki? Want other source? F-22A Raptor


Uhhh well captian obvious.. Why are you responding to me then if you are not listening/reading me?


U're an expert aren't you! May i call u grandpa!


Wow. Its not the website captain obvious. Its the internet IN GENERAL. The United States Controls the Internet, the machines that run it, are in the US. The Internet was brought to you, via american taxpayer. So, the computer (also an american invention thanks to Mr.Bill Gates) you type on, is all thanks to america, the internet, you currently enjoy, is because of the US. Not Russia.



Yeah, and then they will turn it off as soon as they want idiot! It doesn't matter about who controls the internet, just need some experts to answer all questions you want!



You just made an argument...with yourself... That is quite funny!


Again. The US was the first and only to ever step foot on the moon. That is quite an achievement, landing on another planet, would you not agree?


Argument? that was news grand pa!

Russia also landed on Moon!that's the point!what advantage of step foot first?answer that!!!


Good god you are making this more difficult then it should be. Just answer the question. I am not trying to get into a 'pissing contest' here. Let me paraphrase it for you. Why did the soviets NEED to be better in regards to spying? Well heres my answer. Its an analogy (better then Tupolevs
) The US, was the dominant alpha male, russia was the scroungy weak link who wold often scavenge off of the US kills. Now, that is why Russia was better at spying. Because it was survival for them. The US was the stronger of the two, instead of the US focusing much of its resources in espionage, it rather focused on staying ahead, while russia, had a hard time competing, thus the reason why they were/had to be 'better' at spying. Its because they had to be.


US kills? the data please! as i know that Russia has greater Nuke warlord at that time! dominant alpha male? there was two super power and you can't deny it!


Its still in its conceptual stage is it not? (design faze)


U not read it carefully huh, It's ready to flight NOW.


I am talking about a 6th Gen unmanned fighter, not some clunky looking UCAV that has a limited role


6th Gen unmanned fighter? why not just put Stavatti name on there? Really? Is there any proof of unmanned "fighter" in US? It's your own opinion isn't it?


You did not just qoute wiki again. It is not a legitimate source.


back upstairs on the link i put there, It's not Wiki grand pa!


It is an opinion source. Do you see the edit button on the wiki page? You can go in there and write whatever you want. IT doesnt mean its the truth. The F15 was getting long in the tooth. It was time for a new aircraft.


Opininon source? You mean idiot who was write down there?


You were talking about russia selling weapons abroad correct? Weapons that have performed rather poorly against US made weaponry.
You somehow thought that this meant russia 'made' better weapons. I dont know why. but you did.


It's proven that M-16 cannot stand on extreme environment, AK does! and still fave until now!


I am not going to respond to you anymore Mr.king solomon. Your not making much sense.. Must be that russian edgimuhcation!


King Solomon was King of Israel fool! I really think that u know nothing!

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



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 11:42 PM
link   
Oh yea! And here is one another unreliable source:

globalsecurity



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 11:54 PM
link   

How about the India air force beating the Usaf F15 on the red flag 2 months ago ?

WHAT? 25 year old fighters versing brand new Russian aircraft? I wonder who could possibly win!? I tell you what, you go grab a few Su-30s, and put it up against a single F-22.


Or better yet, an equal number of Su-30s against an equal number of F-35s?


What for artist impresion if it's not reliable?

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

Ehrm.

We're talking about LFI not the Shafaq. You said it yourself in the original post, and there's no information on the actual LFI. As for as I know, a prototype has not been built nor has any specs on the actual LFI been released.





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!

What's your point?

In real life situations the Mig-21 has been dominated by the F-4.


now get real do you really believe that you put man on the moon the whole world is questioning this , even americans.

If you beleive the moon landing was fake, you may as well question how the reflector that astromomers use to measure the distance to the moon got there?



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 12:07 AM
link   


WHAT? 25 year old fighters versing brand new Russian aircraft? I wonder who could possibly win!? I tell you what, you go grab a few Su-30s, and put it up against a single F-22.


Or better yet, an equal number of Su-30s against an equal number of F-35s?


You compare the 4th with the 5th, let's compare the 5th with the 5th gentleman!


We're talking about LFI not the Shafaq. You said it yourself in the original post, and there's no information on the actual LFI. As for as I know, a prototype has not been built nor has any specs on the actual LFI been released.


Yes, why it's clear now why i can't see the stealthiness of it, coz the LO construction design concept was outdated.

BUT STILL! the design is from Russia
Source1
Source2



If you beleive the moon landing was fake, you may as well question how the reflector that astromomers use to measure the distance to the moon got there?


By ruler! Is the reflector was placed precise enough! Are you sure!



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by West Coast
Because of your infatuation with everything "Mr.tupolev", What else am I to think? It seems in your eyes, this character who just so happens to be a mortal human, who is subject to biased, nationalistic chest thumping rhetoric like the next person, is never wrong. Im not even going to argue over that anymore. Its worthless diatribe I could care a less repeating over and over again.


So applying your standards, Kelly Johnston and Ben Rich were biased nationalistic chest thumping idiots then?

I'm curious to know.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 03:13 AM
link   
reply to post by JimmyCarterIsSmarter
 


U still not believe me?

Source1

Source2

Kelly Johnson made poorly stealth SR-71!



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by West Coast


Lets see if you really know what your talking about.


Ahh ok here is a little something of what i am talking about
Apollo reality


Nasa has plans to return to the moon by the year 2020. The americans also have plans to develop a lunar base on the moon. The Russians? *crickets chirp*


Your Shuttle barely get to fly, you pay the Russians 22 millions per seat to get to ISS and you call that Superior USA.
And you still havent got Mr Tupolevs point



[edit on 28-9-2007 by Russian Boy]



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 04:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by West Coast

I fixed your text.


Russia lost the race to space, and I just couldnt take the fact that the americans did somthing we russians could not do. Im really jealous of this too. So because I am so jealous, I had to think of something better and I did, the americans faked the moon landing! Brilliant!




Admittedly Russia has had the occasional problem/failure, however their problem/failure rate is substantially lower than that of the USA. Russia was of course the first in space with sputnik, an animal, a man, a woman, a space walk, and finally a space station. They were the first in everything to do with space. The USA were paranoid at the Soviet successes in space, as it could not be seen that a Communist country was leading the world in this new found technology.




[edit on 28-9-2007 by Russian Boy]



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 05:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by West Coast
Mr.Tupolev is an idiot, he very well maybe book smart, but he lacks common sense. He, like many other over bloated egotistical russian generals, cannot stand the fact that they lost to a superior US in the cold war. So they bash the US the best they can, when ever they can.


Thats the 2nd time (maybe the third) you've implicated that Tupolev was a Russian general.


Do you actually have a clue what your taking about?

Ever hear of the Tu-160 blackjack? Or the Tu-22M Backfire? Or the Tu-144 SST?


You know what the Tu stands for?



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by West Coast
No... its just not very complex.


And yes the analogy sucks..


Because the analogy is beyond your comprehension does not mean it is bad.



Originally posted by West Coast
That, Mr.kilcoo, is a statement, within a statement, that contradicts itself.


I'm sure you'll be happy to point out the contradiction...



Originally posted by West Coast
However, please feel free to list examples.



Here is an example, compare the Viper to the Fulcrum.

T/W ratios of any engine from the US will be better than from the Soviets in a comparable time frame. Hence the F-16 can make do with one engine, but the MiG-29 needed two - smaller.

The US places a heavy reliance on flexibility, which requires more adaptive electronics, avionics and associated systems. The F-16 can do A2G and A2A, even the MiG-29M has very limited A2G capabilities - greater complexity.
(especially considering the F-16 does more in a smaller interior volume)

How much does a MiG-29M1 cost compared to an F-16C (say block 30)? - cost

Look at the surface finish (particularly panel gaps) of any F-16 compared to the MiG-29 - higher tolerances.

Can the F-16 on rough landing strips? No, it can't. Can the MiG-29? Yes it can. - more rugged.



Originally posted by West Coast
Cheap=lower quality in my book.


Cheaper does not always equal lower quality - indeed, it can often mean better reliability as there is less to go wrong.


Quantity has a quality all of its own.


Originally posted by West Coast
Because of your infatuation with everything "Mr.tupolev", What else am I to think? It seems in your eyes, this character who just so happens to be a mortal human, who is subject to biased, nationalistic chest thumping rhetoric like the next person, is never wrong. Im not even going to argue over that anymore. Its worthless diatribe I could care a less repeating over and over again.



Yeah dead on... like I'm gonna trust the judgement of some kid whose balls probably haven't dropped over one of the greatest aircraft designers of the last century.

[Especially when doctrine, designs, operating conditions & historical records ALL point towards Tupolev being 100% correct].




Originally posted by West Coast
No, not even that. One example, would have been much better then comparing watches (cant believe im still arguing about this). Im done.


He was in a conversation (no doubt some time ago)... I think he didn't anticipate some small child needing proof that fire is hot sometime in the future.




top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join