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.
Originally posted by waynos
You make a good point by being practical again longbow Actually I'm not sure how much space the water requirement takes up in the Harrier but if it is quite a lot then you would obviously be right. Doesn't the F-35 engine require the same sort of cooling in the vertical?
Originally posted by longbow
And Migs were certainly not better (if they were)
Originally posted by Manincloak
Do you watch documentories? History channel? Read Books?
Because I don't know how it's possible not to know that Migs were better than US planes during the cold war - significantly better.
As for the engines, I think you are seriously underestimating them.
Originally posted by American Mad Man
Better? Yes, they may have had some advantages, but they were hardly "significantly better".
Originally posted by American Mad Man
On the whole, they were more manueverable,
Originally posted by American Mad Man
You mention the history Channell, but every doc on there I have seen emphatically states that US aircraft were better.
Originally posted by American Mad Man
The numbers don't lie. If Russian aircraft were "significantly better" then US aircraft, we wouldn't have "significantly dominated" them in every war they were matched up against each other.
Originally posted by American Mad Man
Russian aircraft were very cost effective, but their quality was well below that of US aircraft.
Originally posted by American Mad Man
In any case, Russia never had the high end stuff the US had, from the B-17, to the U-2, to the SR-71, to the F-117, to the B-2.
Originally posted by American Mad Man
In fact, they haven't equaled the SR-71's achievements in half a century
Originally posted by American Mad Man
, and they still haven't put out a first gen stealth aircraft - much less a third.
"The MiGs were always much better"
"Also faster, higher altidute, higher payload. "
"They could also take off and land off rugged surfaces, whereas US fighters couldn't (and still can't I believe?) "
"Those planes were engineered from Nazi technology.
The reason US can even compete today is because they stole over a hundred nazi scientists and everything they could get their hands on."
Originally posted by American Mad Man
In fact, they haven't equaled the SR-71's achievements in half a century
Foxbat.
Originally posted by Manincloak
Originally posted by American Mad Man
, and they still haven't put out a first gen stealth aircraft - much less a third.
Plasma Stealth - they invented it first, before anyone else.
And even right now - MIG 35. best plane.
Why? It's the only plane with 3d thrust vectoring and multi axis nozzles. Much more manueverable than anything else. ...
Flight International - 20 Dec 2005
The US Air Force is celebrating the F-22 Raptors service entry, but US troops on the ground in Iraq are unlikely to feel as joyous
Theres something discomfiting about spending tens of billions of dollars more on a weapon that virtually everyone realises is useless in the ongoing war against faceless insurgents and terrorists. [snip]
USAF Chief of Staff Gen Michael Mosely agrees "In the role that we're in now with F-15E's carrying 2,000 pounders and F-16's carrying 500 and 2000 pounders, does the F-22 bring us something significantly different to this fight this afternoon? The answer is no."
[snip]
Calling it the F/A-22 for three years might have been a shrewd marketing gimmick by the air force brass but it cannot overcome the reality that the Raptors being delivered today are not optimised for ground attack missions............the first multi role capability will not arrive until at least the end of this decade.