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: 5
1
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 05:43 AM
link   
Russian Boy... who put a man on the moon? And who exactly is planning to go back to the moon? You fail to compare any in use units for either USA to there Russian counterparts, therefore, your arguement is invalid. It is true that the Soviets had many advances on the USA, but the US also had many advances on USA.

Some of your posts are anti-American - pro Russian drivel, not only that, but you're clearly biased because your username is 'Russian Boy' and if it wern't for my sig I thing about putting you on my ignore.

Please, proving a point with a conspiracy theory that in itself, is doubt ful, is not, and will never work. The moon landing is real, and if it wern't then there wouldn't be a reflector on the moon. Basically universities shine a laser and it and time its return, thus calculating its distance. IF Apollo was fake, then that wouldn't be there, and all that data would also be fake.

[edit on 28/9/07 by JimmyCarterIsSmarter]




posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

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.





No.. you like Mr.kilcoo, are trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Kelly johnston and ben rich were not the ones who said what came off as national pride, with a heavy chest thumping overtone.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsSmarter
Russian Boy... who put a man on the moon? And who exactly is planning to go back to the moon? You fail to compare any in use units for either USA to there Russian counterparts, therefore, your arguement is invalid. It is true that the Soviets had many advances on the USA, but the US also had many advances on USA.

Some of your posts are anti-American - pro Russian drivel, not only that, but you're clearly biased because your username is 'Russian Boy' and if it wern't for my sig I thing about putting you on my ignore.

Please, proving a point with a conspiracy theory that in itself, is doubt ful, is not, and will never work. The moon landing is real, and if it wern't then there wouldn't be a reflector on the moon. Basically universities shine a laser and it and time its return, thus calculating its distance. IF Apollo was fake, then that wouldn't be there, and all that data would also be fake.

[edit on 28/9/07 by JimmyCarterIsSmarter]


Are you even reading all of my posts or you just quoting those that are in your advance? i provided a link on were i base my opinions and then you come and ask me who put the man on moon? It's simple no one . Oh believe me there are more anti-Russian here than Anti-americans and i can choose what ever nick i desire , you can put me on ignore i dont mind do as you wish. I put a Russian nick others put an American flag in their avatar.
You can believe in what ever you want and try to convince other but not me. No matter how strong is the wind the mountain will never move.Besides this is not the topic here.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316

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


Is that it Mr.kilcoo? I beg to differ, but as the obvious still eludes you.....




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

You should really be more aware of what you say.


"made to much higher tolerances but more fragile."

Higher tolerance but more fragile? Care to explain what you meant by that Mr. kilcoo?



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.


What do you mean by ruff landing strips? And how are you so sure that it cannot? To me. the F16C block 30 (70million dollars?) is the better fighter of the two. Right?

You would have been a whole lot better off by not responding to my initial text.




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

Cheap is cheap.

Higher quality = what gets the job more efficiently.



Quantity has a quality all of its own.


Which was the mindset of mid evil generals 500AD.
Psst. *whispers* its the 21st century




Yeah dead on... like I'm gonna trust the judgement of some kid whose balls probably haven't dropped


ashame you cant be more civil. My balls should not be of any concern to you, they are not apart of this discussion.


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

Based on?




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.


I unlike you, like to see the proof before I make my final judgment. As they say, talk is cheap.


cheers.


[edit on 28-9-2007 by West Coast]



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Russian Boy
Are you even reading all of my posts or you just quoting those that are in your advance? i provided a link on were i base my opinions and then you come and ask me who put the man on moon? It's simple no one .


Then who put the reflector plate on the moon from which a laser can pinpoint its location sending it back to earth? There is an unsurmountable amount of data that shows the US successfully landed on the moon. You choose to ignore it, facts be damned.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by West Coast

Originally posted by Russian Boy
Are you even reading all of my posts or you just quoting those that are in your advance? i provided a link on were i base my opinions and then you come and ask me who put the man on moon? It's simple no one .


Then who put the reflector plate on the moon from which a laser can pinpoint its location sending it back to earth? There is an unsurmountable amount of data that shows the US successfully landed on the moon. You choose to ignore it, facts be damned.



Why i've got the feeling that you didnt even look at the link i provided , everything is explained there till the little details, have a look dont be afraid a little knowledge wont bother you.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 01:11 PM
link   

The Russians have successfully placed such reflectors on the surface of the moon, yet they have never claimed to have put a man on the moon. The reflectors were dropped there by unmanned probes. It should also be noted that the moon's surface will naturally reflect signals; communications were carried out as early as the 1950s by bouncing signals off of the moon.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by West Coast
You should really be more aware of what you say.


"made to much higher tolerances but more fragile."

Higher tolerance but more fragile? Care to explain what you meant by that Mr. kilcoo?


You really don't know much about machines do you?

Lets take an example... say... uhm, say an aileron.

On the F-16 the aileron will fit onto the wing lovely, with a gap between it and the wing of maybe 5mm.

On the MiG-29, that gap could be 20mm.


Now, the aircraft takes a little flak damage, and the wing is slightly bent out of shape. Which aileron is most likely to seize up.



Originally posted by West Coast
What do you mean by ruff landing strips? And how are you so sure that it cannot? To me. the F16C block 30 (70million dollars?) is the better fighter of the two. Right?

You would have been a whole lot better off by not responding to my initial text.


Rough strips?

They'd be fields, roads etc... basically anywhere long enough, flat enough and firm enough to put a plane down, and lift off from again. No doubt the Soviets had a definition of it, but I don't know it off-hand.

The Swedes had a similar standing capability for their fighters (I believe it may have been dropped for the Gripen).


Sure, in a 1 on 1 the F-16 is better... but how many fulcrums can you get per 1 F-16? What does the F-16 do when its runway is cratered?





Originally posted by West Coast
Cheap is cheap.

Higher quality = what gets the job more efficiently.


Depends on the job definition. Indeed, a higher quantity (say 2 aircraft) can get 2 jobs done in 2 places simultaneously, compared to the 1 high tech one, which can only be in one place at a time.




Originally posted by West Coast
Which was the mindset of mid evil generals 500AD.
Psst. *whispers* its the 21st century



Same still applies.


If the Soviets had 500 MiG-23s and 500 MiG-27s sitting around, they could devote 500 to counter air and 500 to CAS.

Meanwhile the Americans have 500 F-16s, but have to clear the air before going A2G... unless they split and go against a 2:1 numbers ratio.

[numbers hypothetical]




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

Based on?

I've already stated rough field capabilities... numerous times.

I also went through the F-16/MiG-29 comparison. That is one of many that could be made.

I also gave you some questions you should ask yourself.


Multiple examples of what its based on, yet you ignore them... again.



[edit on 28/9/07 by kilcoo316]



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Mr.Kilcoo.. I agree to disagree.

Im done responding here. There is to much ignorance going on around here. Your 'rough strips' remark is a ridiculous comparison. It does not explain Tupolevs analogy which is filled with inaccuracy's, along with a disgusting amount of patriotic overtone left over from the cold war era.

You, russian, and that other yayhoo have your stance, and are perfectly happy with it. Your not going to budge, so honestly, i am just wasting my time here. time I really do not have.

The US landed on the moon, russian. It was the first to do so. Your just a jealous nationalist who cannot stand the fact that the US did somthing russia was incapable of doing. The US was the first and only to do so. I did not look at your source, if youve seen one, youve seen them all.

I'll leave you with this. Watch it, dont watch it.



[edit on 28-9-2007 by West Coast]



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by West Coast
You, russian, and that other yayhoo have your stance, and are perfectly happy with it. Your not going to budge, so honestly, i am just wasting my time here. time I really do not have.


Listen up.

I carried on with this thread because I thought that, eventually, you might do some reading, draw some decent conclusions and maybe swallow a little bit of your arrogance in the process, but as you continue to want to come across as some meat. who really doesn't know what they are talking about and is just intent on ripping the crap out of other peoples opinons, try this on for size.

This board isn't about your sole opinion.

I quoted Tupelov in my earlier post. That quote was taken from a book written by Ben Rich. What I didn't do, and probably should have done, was type the next line in from Mr.Rich's book as well, which is this



Quoted from Skunk Works - Ben R. Rich & Leo Janos - ISBN 0-7515-1503-5

He was absolutely right. The Soviets, he explained built brute force machines that could withstand awful weather and primitive landing fields.


Now the highlighted bold section there is not Alexander Tupelovs opinion. Its Ben Rich's.

Now are you going to be a smartarse and argue with the former . of Lockheeds Skunk Works as well as trying to belitte the words of one of Russia's greatest ever aircraft designers?

Or maybe, just maybe, will you deny some ignorance, learn and little and understand that sometimes people other than yourself know what they are talking about, and don't throw quotes around without having the intelligence to back it up, and the source material that it came from to hand.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Russia has always produced well designed and well built airframes through the decades. As a matter of fact, some of the best ingenuity in Aviation came from Russia, the only problem was that Stalin killed off or imprisoned most of his aeronautical engineers because he feared them.

The only real problem I have ever had with Russian aircraft were the engines and some of the safety measures.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 05:09 PM
link   
West Coast so you did not spent even a minute looking to my link so why bother then and ask for evidence when you do not look them, COMPLETE IGNORANCE .As you said ''if you have seen one you have seen them all'' Sorry but eye for eye i wont spent a second watching that video.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 08:02 PM
link   

U still not believe me?

Source1

Source2

Well now I beleive that it's exellent aerodynamically.
However, while the Vityas looks very effective from reading that article, there is still not enough information on it to perceive how effective it is.





Kelly Johnson made poorly stealth SR-71!

The Sr-71 was one of the first aircraft with attempted stealth features and, according to Wikipedia, it has a RCS the equivelent of a door. That's a RCS of a few square metres, probably comparable to a F-16 or Mig-29.


The reason the Sr-71 could be detected at so long distances was mainly because of its exhaust stream, which was so hot that it reflected radar back to the receiver. Hardly poor stealth, and considering the sr-71 and A-12 were designed during the 50's, I'd of liked a design to do something better.


Are you even reading all of my posts or you just quoting those that are in your advance? i provided a link on were i base my opinions and then you come and ask me who put the man on moon? It's simple no one .

Sorry, I don't think I saw that one.
Oh well, thanks.


I still think it were real, I mean, there was a very very very very big rocket launch, telivision, and there is loads and loads and loads of information on it. Hopefully when they go back to the moon they take a photograph to prove it either way once and for all.



Oh believe me there are more anti-Russian here than Anti-americans

Doubtful.


and i can choose what ever nick i desire , you can put me on ignore i dont mind do as you wish. I put a Russian nick others put an American flag in their avatar.

Of course.


What I was saying, is that you seem biased because of it, and infact, if I were to register today I would consider Australian boy or something.



I still stand by the fact that the notion that Russia had better technology than US is rediculous. The US exells in stealth, tanks, submarines, and computers. Russia clearly has / had lots of leads too, but, no, Russia did not have all around better technology than USA.

[edit on 28/9/07 by JimmyCarterIsSmarter]



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsSmarter



The reason the Sr-71 could be detected at so long distances was mainly because of its exhaust stream, which was so hot that it reflected radar back to the receiver. Hardly poor stealth, and considering the sr-71 and A-12 were designed during the 50's, I'd of liked a design to do something better.


were designed during 50's? Then how about Mr. Tupolev too!?



I still stand by the fact that the notion that Russia had better technology than US is rediculous. The US exells in stealth, tanks, submarines, and computers. Russia clearly has / had lots of leads too, but, no, Russia did not have all around better technology than USA.


Better technology?

I don't think so you look at this before,
Stealth?

&channel=null]Mi G Skat
Tank?

Computers?Ship?
Look at the video that Russia also use the comparable advanced system as the US does!So do the ship system

[edit on 9/28/2007 by Eastpolar Commander]

[edit on 9/28/2007 by Eastpolar Commander]



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 12:44 AM
link   

were designed during 50's? Then how about Mr. Tupolev too!?

I don't understand. I was pointing out how the Sr-71 only has poor stealth characteristics because of the exhaust stream which couldn't be helped. Without the massive exhaust RCS it had a radar cross section of a few square metres, which I would say was impressive for 1950 technology.

As for technology, I never said they have better technology than Russia. I said they excell in some key areas such as stealth, tanks, computers and submarines. That is true, the Russians have yet to implement a full blown stealth system such as the F-117, B-2, B-1B and F-22. There is no Russian tank comparable to the M1A2 unless you compare very new types in no real numbers. Computers? The Americans now run the Internet, perfected digital fly-by-wire over 25 years ago, yet there is no Russian UCAV that is in service.

With Submarines, US Subs are way more suriviable than Russian subs for the simple fact they are quieter. Way quieter.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsSmarter

were designed during 50's? Then how about Mr. Tupolev too!?

I don't understand. I was pointing out how the Sr-71 only has poor stealth characteristics because of the exhaust stream which couldn't be helped. Without the massive exhaust RCS it had a radar cross section of a few square metres, which I would say was impressive for 1950 technology.

As for technology, I never said they have better technology than Russia. I said they excell in some key areas such as stealth, tanks, computers and submarines. That is true, the Russians have yet to implement a full blown stealth system such as the F-117, B-2, B-1B and F-22. There is no Russian tank comparable to the M1A2 unless you compare very new types in no real numbers. Computers? The Americans now run the Internet, perfected digital fly-by-wire over 25 years ago, yet there is no Russian UCAV that is in service.

With Submarines, US Subs are way more suriviable than Russian subs for the simple fact they are quieter. Way quieter.





There is no Russian tank comparable to the M1A2

the t-90 and the T-72BM 'Rogatka' and yes the HYBRID OF ALL BMP-T MEAT GRINDER , the T-72BM has relikt heavy ERA(not k-5) , to neutralise m829m3 sabot round used by m1a2 and uses signature reduction kit like nikita , also T-72BU is classified as semi-stealth tank thanks

also russian tanks can use long range ATGM ... but with MRM-CE coming in by 2010-2012 the advantage will shift in favour m1a2

BMP-T - Heavy Convoy, and Close Tank support vehicle. All new turret armed with 2 30mm 2A42 Autocannons, 4 9M133 Kornet ATGMs, AGS-17/30 30mm Grenade Launchers and a 7.62mm PKT MG. Features new fire control system with thermal sights and 3rd generation Relikt explosive reactive armour.
T-72BM (T-72B "Rogatka") - First shown at the 2006 Russian Arms Expo, it is an upgraded T-72B fitted with new fire control system including a gunner's thermal sight, "Nakidka" camouflage kit, new 125mm 2A46M-5 main gun with muzzle reference system, V-92S2 1,000hp diesel engine and new Relikt 3rd generation explosive reactive armour which is claimed to be twice as effective as Kontakt-5.


ALSO BMPT USES KORNET MISSLES WHICH DESTROYED 50 MERKAVAS IN LEBONAN IN 2006 AND MERKAVAS ARE BEST AMRMORED TANKS SO IMAGINE THE POWER OF BMPT

----
Therefore it was envisioned that such combat vehicle should be built on a tank chassis and be of the same or better protection degree as MBT:s. To some extent the protection of BMP-T is superior to most MBT:s. As active and passive protection is used it is clear that BMP-T is the most survivable vehicle on earth to date, in an urban scenario.

When used in urban terrain the bodyguard of tanks is employed on a 2 to 1 ratio meaning 2 BMP-T:s protecting one MBT. In rural operations the ratio is 1 to 2 which means that one BMP-T is protecting 2 MBT:s. This shows the complexity of fighting in urban terrain and the need for a versatile anti-human machine that can engage multiple targets at once and on different height levels. The introduction of such vehicle makes urban fighting less stressful on tanks and can relieve them of some workload to concentrate on their main objective of engaging tanks and hardened targets in support of infantry.

It is built on a T-72 tank chassis. The turret is completely unmanned and the crew of 5 is seated inside the hull. The armament includes:

two 30mm 2A42 automatic cannons
two AGS-17D 30mm grenade launchers
Kornet ATGM system (4 launchers)
one 7.62mm machine gun
additional weapons can be installed
The vehicle is protected by passive and reactive armour.


www.btvt.narod.ru...

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 05:54 AM
link   
Unreliable source:
MiG-I-2000



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 05:43 AM
link   
Hi everyone!


I had fun reading the 5 pages or so of posts which didn't really tackle the OP's request for comments/opinions regarding the hypothetical capability of the MiG-I-2000 based on artist-rendered images of its configuration (and that plane-model paper weight too)
.

...

And by the way, does every discussion in here have to be about the "Y is better than X. No! X pwns Y 'cos I says so"?



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 01:03 PM
link   
EggSCUSE me, CreeWolf... when the A-10 "was" hot??? It's still badass to the bone.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 02:34 AM
link   
reply to post by JimmyCarterIsSmarter
 



Computers? The Americans now run the Internet, perfected digital fly-by-wire over 25 years ago, yet there is no Russian UCAV that is in service.


For crying out loud, go read something. What is this impulsion that kids get these days, they see some flashy hyped out propaganda on Military channel and go out to repeat it like it was the holy grail it self.

Have you EVER seen a world wide server map? What kind of traffic those servers pump, and which sats bounce the traffic? I’ll guess no.

Fly-by-wire? Please, let us all know which all titanium aircraft was designed with a world’s first fly-by-wire system? And yes, it was fully digital, and no, it was WAY before you can even fathom, so dig around a little.

UCAV? Please name the first UCAV in the history of aviation, then list the entire generational tree, automation advancements, and the first FULLY integrated battlefield network which fully incorporated and used UCAVs as a part of tactical and strategic forces.

(here’s a hint, that was before internet).

JimmyCarter, do us all a favor, learn and get smarter.


With Submarines, US Subs are way more suriviable than Russian subs for the simple fact they are quieter. Way quieter.


Sure, and that’s why obsolete Kilo class run by the Chinese repeatedly raped Kitty Hawk and other USN naval assets.

Please remind us all, which subs can simply outrun USNs torpedoes, which are the deepest diving? Which have double hulls able to withstand a direct torpedo blast, and which subs can be out a sea for more then a year and offer their crews swimming pools, saunas, green houses for growing fresh produce, and which subs have the highest automation systems?

On that note, which subs employ a defensive measure which cuts the torpedo wire fire upon it while being able to launch a retaliatory strike wile retreating?

Shvkal II is also an interesting item, especially the type that pops out of the water in a ramjet delivery pod which delivers it to the strike zone like a sea skimming cruise missile, and then drops it back into the water so Shkval can dive go into its terminal attack phase.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join