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.

 

In hindsight, I see it’s a positive thing the Antonov 225 was destroyed.

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2023 @ 03:55 AM
link   
I absolutely admire the An225 and respected what its capabilities were.

I am on neither side though with Zelensky constantly badgering for equipment, and especially pallets of money from the rest of the world.

The an225 would have made it easier to get the cash into Zelenskys bank acct.

Plus more rapid distribution for his black market sales of gifted military equipment to other nations, due to its heavy lift and size load.

In saying i am glad it was destroyed us that it is slowing down mass transport of money in snd equipment, and now possibly personnel.

I know I will get flamed for this, though now from another oP ON ATS, Zelensky calling for foreign troops to Ukraine.
edit on 1-3-2023 by robsmith because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2023 @ 08:32 AM
link   
a reply to: robsmith

Yes it was an amazing aircraft.
Unfortunately not many strips have the capability of allowing such a frame to land.
And the us government isn't sending pallets of cash to ukraine. That is made up bs that users here for some reason think it's true because someone on Twitter said so.



posted on Mar, 1 2023 @ 08:48 AM
link   
a reply to: robsmith
I'm pretty sure most of that military equipment never even sees the Ukrainian border, so flying it out of Ukraine is not required.

As for the AN225, it was certainly a unique aircraft, but the fact is it was just too big & heavy for most airports.
Much like the Concorde, which was fast & cool, but could only land at about 3 or so airports. (Did you notice how they retired the remaining Concordes almost before the wreckage had stopped burning? They were a white elephant, and British Airways jumped on the chance to get rid of them.
edit on 1-3-2023 by AndyFromMichigan because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2023 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Concordes were cool...also the Valkyrie x-b with it's "wing ears"



posted on Mar, 1 2023 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: robsmith

Yes it was an amazing aircraft.
Unfortunately not many strips have the capability of allowing such a frame to land.
And the us government isn't sending pallets of cash to ukraine. That is made up bs that users here for some reason think it's true because someone on Twitter said so.



Imagine thinking that the US is sending pallets of cash to Ukraine, and that MORE pallets could have been sent with a bigger plane. Hilarious.



posted on Mar, 1 2023 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
a reply to: robsmith
I'm pretty sure most of that military equipment never even sees the Ukrainian border, so flying it out of Ukraine is not required.

As for the AN225, it was certainly a unique aircraft, but the fact is it was just too big & heavy for most airports.
Much like the Concorde, which was fast & cool, but could only land at about 3 or so airports. (Did you notice how they retired the remaining Concordes almost before the wreckage had stopped burning? They were a white elephant, and British Airways jumped on the chance to get rid of them.

it wasn't just too few fields Concords could use, especially long enough runways. but the biggest problem, limiting use and airports, was it's sonic boom at high speeds. it was pretty much banned from fling over North America at supersonic speeds (except for airshows), making it impractical. even worse they were fuel hogs, much worse of course at slower speeds. so pretty much all it was useful for in the end was for flying across the oceans. and it was so expensive to cover operating costs, compared to conventional aircraft, that it priced most people from being able to afford it. something like even basic seats (and remember it was a narrow fuselage aircraft, more resembling a commuter jet in width to a normal, long haul passenger jet), cost at least as much as first class on a normal aircraft.

the truth is, they wanted to retire them years earlier, from a financial point. but they were also country flagships, so there was the prestige thing. in fact i recall hearing about plans for their retirement before the crash['i], because of operations costs. then there was the crash, then 9-11, scaring passengers away from flying at all, cutting big time into their cash supply, and so, they got rid of them.



posted on Mar, 1 2023 @ 01:09 PM
link   
The concord was more complex flying it behind the controls than the space shuttle. Fighters couldn’t barley keep up with it before running out of fuel. That jet was amazing for what it was and the time period of steam gauges.

Boeing has one at their museum, awesome to see.



posted on Mar, 5 2023 @ 08:07 AM
link   
The Antanov was very useful, the RAF used to used it to transport fighter jets which were broken back to the manufacturer to repair them. You could fit 2 Panavia Tornado F3 fighter jets inside of it. It was also used to deliver large generators and all sorts of equipment too large to travel by road.

In relation to the OPs talk about Ukraine taking money, well Ukranians didn't ask to be invaded and it was entirely Barrack Obama's fault that it happened. As back in 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea Obama strong armed Ukraine into accepting it and the west allowed Russia to do it. This emboldened Putin and he then believed he could do pretty much anything he wanted. Had Obama have allowed the US to give Crimea the response it warranted then this war would have never happened. Obama was a terrible President at least in foreign policy, second only to Biden. As an Englishman, I hope and pray De Santis is your next president.




top topics



 
4

log in

join