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 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.
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]
Originally posted by kilcoo316
Because the analogy is beyond your comprehension does not mean it is bad.
I'm sure you'll be happy to point out the contradiction...
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.
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.
Yeah dead on... like I'm gonna trust the judgement of some kid whose balls probably haven't dropped
[Especially when doctrine, designs, operating conditions & historical records ALL point towards Tupolev being 100% correct].
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.
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 .
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.
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.
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?
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.
Originally posted by West Coast
Cheap is cheap.
Higher quality = what gets the job more efficiently.
Originally posted by West Coast
Which was the mindset of mid evil generals 500AD. Psst. *whispers* its the 21st century
[Especially when doctrine, designs, operating conditions & historical records ALL point towards Tupolev being 100% correct].
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.
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.
U still not believe me?
Source1
Source2
Kelly Johnson made poorly stealth SR-71!
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.
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]
were designed during 50's? Then how about Mr. Tupolev too!?
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
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.