 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Chris 62
|
 |
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Serb
All your words absolutely correct, if applied to you. |
Sorry sonny, it's for you.quote:
The SU felt in 1991 and I'm not sure now that you was in Murmansk in 1991 as you said earlier. |
Murmansk is a navel station, I was at Polynarev, near it.
You sure are confused, but considering your assinine posts, it's not surprissing in the least.quote:
It is very, very strange that you was in SU in 1991 and at the same time you believe that this country felt in 1989. |
It's very strange that sometimes your posts are in broken English and in others they are not.
Conclusion is your a phoney.
quote:
Bullsh!t. None Soviet republic declared independence in 1989. The SU remained as solid country until 1991. Where did you get this? |
The Soviet enpire dissolved in 89, and we both know it.
Grow up little boy, none of the pact nations controlled their own destiny till that time.
And tell us, dear Serb, why you think you know more if you claim to be from the slum known as Serbia? 
quote:
So, you are agreed that you deny history? |
That wiould be you, pay attention.
quote:
As well as you are. |
No, I know what I'm talking about, unlike you dear boy.
I bet you run back and forth in your room screaming "I love Russia, it is so great"! while you wait for your mommy to make you lunch.
Your such a cute boy.
quote:
Argumentivness? You deny all my arguments or pretend that you didn't notice them. |
Pulling comments out of your ass aern't arguments.
The Russians agree with me, not you.
You continue to be the only one who thinks the way you do. 
quote:
You bury your head in a sand and sound like broken record: "American planes is the best, because everyone knows about that, (because we saying this to eveyone and everywhere)". You have brilliant arguments. |
That is the third time you simply wrote what I did as a reversal, yet further proof you have no original thought.
quote:
Why should I stop to waving a Russian flag? Is allowed only to Americans to wave a national flag. Everybody else has no right for this? |
If you want to continue to look like a fool, be my guest.
quote:
As for me you sounds no less funny- "No, no, you are stuipid, Americans are the greatest, all thing Americans are great, all things Russians are crap, if you deny this you are an idiot." |
The problem with you comments is I didn't say that.
Go back and look, especialy the long post I wrote that covers WWI through Korea.
The problem with a fellow like you is you just assume and jump in with silly comments.
quote:
And I laugh everytime I hear-" Russians steal everything from USA and Russians equipment is crap". |
Too bad that also happens to be 100% correct.
I had a nice laugh at that Russian "experimental plane" you posted, it is a design the USA rejected in 85.
The "latest" Russian fighter is a carbon copy of the F-15 Eagle with a slightly different nose, and it's avianoics are a joke.
But Russia never copies anything. 
quote:
A sure sign of ignorence is thinking that Mig's are decades behind F-15. |
We would say centuries but the Migs aern't that bad.
Their combat performance (the Migs) has been abysmal since the 1960s, but I'm sure you will still claim they "sweep the skys!" 
quote:
About time I showed sarcasm. |
Yes, considering all you have shown is iggnorence thus far.
Though it is fun to see that the east still produces deluded people who love to ignore the truth, same as the old days.
I bet you cried when the Berlin wall fell.
quote:
Really? What about dozens of countries who prefer to buy our planes? |
They have one advantage over Western equipment.
They are cheap.
You can buy a lot more, and many petty dictators Russia sells two love numbers, quality never plays a part.
Big money buyers like Saudi Arabia and Japan but Western planes, hurting fools like Saddam buy Russian equipment.
Your imagination must know no bounds.
Why don't you start with types?
BTW, I'm aware of the "great" raid on Berlin in 41, it was a night attack that was so laughable the Germans didn't know they had been bombed!
quote:
I've never said so, I've said exactly opposite- that Serbians didn't have a single chance to win because you have ten times more planes then they. |
Yes, and we wanted Slobo in a court room, and that is where the murdering scum is now.
Your little land will do what we want, same as always, but you can dream of a reborn Soviet Union, but remember this:
We buried the last one, and piss on it's grave, and we will do so again.
Have a nice day, so nice talking to you. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
What about the Me-109, the Me-190, and the Me-262? |
The ME-262 was a superior fighter, but it did have its own set of disadvantages.
In steep dives, allied prop planes actually were faster.
During take off and landing, the Nazi jets were terribly vulnerable. Many allied patrols focused primarily on airfields that housed me-262's.
The biggest disadvantage was Hitler's fault. He wanted the jets to be bombers instead of fighters and delayed their production by 6 months. Even when it was apparant that he made a mistake, he only allowed every 20th jet to be built as a fighter.
It's scary because if the ME-262 had been originally built as a fighter. The Nazis would have had air superiority, and would have been able to fight off the invasion at Normandy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
In terms of dominating aircraft... the F-14 wins... hands down.
No other aircraft in the history of flight has had such an advantage over its opponents in every role of an aircraft.
The F-14 is fast, can carry a huge weapon load, has the most sophisticated radar system, and is one of the most economical jets.
The F-22 might take the F-14's spot as most dominating, but it remains to be seen if it can dish it out in battle.
BTW, most of the top brass in the military and aircraft industry agree about the F14.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ming
Huh??? I'm an avid reader of Aviation Week... and that's not what the experts say  The F/A 18 Super Hornet is far better than the F14 for carrier based service. |
Maybe in Naval Operations and Air Superiority... but as an all purpose fighter, the F-14 is king.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Midshipman
|
|
Apolyton Paintball Champion
Apr 2000
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
Why you not typed 100.5 to 1 or 572.4 to 1? |
Because 9.6 to 1 is a true figure. I learned that in my Naval History course at the University of Minnesota, and it was reconfirmed during Naval Aicrew Candidate School in Pensacola, FL.
quote:
F-22 is no less a tech demonstrator then Su-47. With only differnce that SU-47 have far superior desine. The wings you are failed to do. |
I assume you are talking about the forward sweep of the wings. The Advanced Technology Demonstrator had those as well. 20 years ago.
And, how can you call the F-22 a demonstraor when it has alrady been budgeted for the fleet? (or the force, I guess it would be in air force lexicon.)
quote:
The Mig-25 was build in 1966 and it is not manufactured anymore, since 1985. But it is still the fastest fighter in the world capable to flight at Speed -3000 km/h. None fighter in the world beats its speed record.
From 1966 to 1985 the conveyor is busy producing MiG-25 - an aircraft fully composed of steel and titan. It had no analogues in the world by then and the plant is proud to have been the only manufacturer of such a plane. MiG-25 was represented in 3 versions: attack aircraft, reconnaissance aircraft and 2-seater fighter-trainer. |
Ok, so its fast. Big deal. Can it outrrun a missile. No. Is it maneuverable enough to evade one? Probably not in most cases. Is it just a frame with two big engines on it? Yes.
quote:
It is more then 1000 miles from place where I live to ocean. I'm glad that I've anger you enough if you ready to start WW3 because of me. Go ahead launch your heavy bombers, I'm waiting. Btw, our heavy bombers can easily reach any place in USA. |
First of all, it takes a lot more to get me angry. Actually, this is quite a fun discussion. Aviation in general, and naval aviation in particular are kind of a career for me, so I am having fun here.
And yes, I realize that your heavy bombers have the range to get anywhere in the world as weell. The problem is, the USN and USAF (and the ANG) are all capable of detecting and shooting down those forces. In any situation that required long range strikes by heavy bombers, both sides would take heavy losses, but I would place my money on the US bomber fleet, just because of the capabilities of the more advanced planes to destroy air defenses and allow other planes in.
quote:
I'm always remember about this and feel very safe knowing that sky under my head controlled by Russian Air Forces. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:18
|
|
Well, I am no aviation expert, but even I have heard of the Fokker VII. The Germans, as I recall, typically had better aircraft during WWI. It was a see-saw competition, with each side introducing better and better designs... but the Allies often achieved parity or superiority through greater numbers, as opposed to quality.
I think WWII is too close to call. There are many possibilities... and I can't think of one single design that dominated.
A pretty good case can be made for the F15, but it hasn't seen enough combat action against equivalent (MIG) fighters that have been properly maintained and are manned by well-trained pilots. Luckily, there has been no WWIII, so evaluating the modern jets is guesswork. However... I liked the vote for the B-52. That should get some praise, for sheer longevity alone.
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chris 62
You sure are confused, but considering your assinine posts, it's not surprissing in the least.It's very strange that sometimes your posts are in broken English and in others they are not. |
There is nothing strange in this. I've type my post when I'm on my job mostly and often from different computers, sometimes there is no 'Word' on those computers to put red lines below uncorrect words, in other cases I type my post in 'Word' then edit all mistakes in it and only after that copy it in answer's window.
quote:
The Soviet enpire dissolved in 89, and we both know it.
Grow up little boy, none of the pact nations controlled their own destiny till that time. |
So, you are continuing to think that East Germany, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Poland, Hungary etc. were the Soviet republics?
I should remind you why all this were started by you. You've said that I do know nothing about history because I've said that SU felt in 1991. You've pumped in your chest and screamed that I am an idiot, because everyone knows that SU felt in 1989. Now, I'm saying that it is you are who shows the ignorance in history, because the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact are absolutely different things. The Soviet Union was the country while Warsaw Pact was the military alliance.
quote:
And tell us, dear Serb, why you think you know more if you claim to be from the slum known as Serbia? |
Buy new glasses for yourself. Where did you get that I'm from Serbia. Do you know the difference between Serbia and Siberia? As for my nickname, it was created for Counter-Strike battles long time ago; it is a combination of first 3 letters from my real name (Sergei) and the first letter (B) of my family name. I don't see any reasons to change my nick because of you.
quote:
No, I know what I'm talking about, unlike you dear boy. I bet you run back and forth in your room screaming "I love Russia, it is so great"! while you wait for your mommy to make you lunch.
Your such a cute boy. |
Yes, I love my country and my country is great country. So what?
Call me a boy again and I'll (huy s nim s Mingapulco) retaliate to you at the same manner "Old guy". I'm almost out of patience, my self-control far from Ming's. I've tried to be chill, but you continue to insult me, does it again and I'll answer to you with the same.
quote:
Pulling comments out of your ass aern't arguments. The Russians agree with me, not you. |
Funny, when I translate our conversation to my buddies everyone laugh about your claims.
quote:
You continue to be the only one who thinks the way you do. That is the third time you simply wrote what I did as a reversal, yet further proof you have no original thought. |
And you still do not understand why I did this, yet another proof that you refuse to think logicaly.
quote:
The problem with you comments is I didn't say that. |
You've said this many times.
quote:
The "latest" Russian fighter is a carbon copy of the F-15 Eagle with a slightly different nose, and it's avianoics are a joke. |
Which one Russian fighter? Do you deny that all modern fighters have familiar design because the shape of a fighter dictates by aerodynamic laws?
quote:
Big money buyers like Saudi Arabia and Japan but Western planes, hurting fools like Saddam buy Russian equipment. |
Saddam don't by anything since long time. The last contract on sum of 1.5 billion $ was signed few weeks ago between China's government and Sukhoy corporation. You think the China is poor country?
quote:
Your imagination must know no bounds.
Why don't you start with types? |
I've already started it many post ago. The type was Il-2. The topic of this thread is - The most dominating aircraft, I've gave a quote from Janes, just notice, not quote from our experts, but a qoute from yours (western) experts who said that Il-2 was the most produced aircraft in history.
quote:
BTW, I'm aware of the "great" raid on Berlin in 41, it was a night attack that was so laughable the Germans didn't know they had been bombed! |
First, it was in August of 1941 our bombers flight 1000 km in one way, dropped bombs on Berlin and then flight another 1000Km to return on base, USA was not even in war then. Second, Georing promised that not single bomb will felt on capital of third Reich, and Germans NOT didn't know they had been bombed! They didn't know WHO bombed them, because Germans believed that their Air forces will shoot down any Brit's bomber if Brits will try to bomb Berlin. Germans were absolutely shocked after those bombings, because they thought that it is impossible for Russians to cover such distance and bomb their capital. They refused to belief in this and Brits papers even posted a rejection after this and said that it was not a Brits bombers who bombed Berlin.
Third, you are still don't give any examples of familiar operations done by USAF. I'll gave two examples how Russian bombers cover 1000Km, make bombing and return to base. Without examples your claims that American bombers were better and have greater operational range are empty words.
quote:
Your little land will do what we want, same as always, but you can dream of a reborn Soviet Union, but remember this: |
little land???
Look at map.
quote:
We buried the last one, and piss on it's grave, and we will do so again.Have a nice day, so nice talking to you. |
And you'll pay for this someday.
Come and get us suckers, will teach you how to fight.
*Raise one of my fingers out of my fist*
Last edited by Serb on 26-03-2002 at 10:07
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Midshipman
Because 9.6 to 1 is a true figure. I learned that in my Naval History course at the University of Minnesota, and it was reconfirmed during Naval Aicrew Candidate School in Pensacola, FL. |
My teacher of basic military course in school was the colonel of aviation and the veteran of Vietnam. He told to us absolutely opposite stories, but yes sometimes he told to us very funny stories about Vietnamese pilots which he trained and who was unable to fligh properly.
quote:
I assume you are talking about the forward sweep of the wings. The Advanced Technology Demonstrator had those as well. 20 years ago. |
And your demostrator showed the worse perfomance then your existed planes and was rejected. It means that you were unable to create a plane with forward sweeped wings who flight better then planes with normal wings. We was able to create such plane this is the only difference between them. Our plane with forward wings flying better then planes with normal wings, yours not.
quote:
And, how can you call the F-22 a demonstraor when it has alrady been budgeted for the fleet? (or the force, I guess it would be in air force lexicon.) |
The creation of fighter of fifth generation was made by the order of Russian Defence Department to replace exist fighters with figter of new type. It was the big competition between Mig and Su but finaly Su-47 wins.
quote:
Ok, so its fast. Big deal. Can it outrrun a missile. No. Is it maneuverable enough to evade one? Probably not in most cases. Is it just a frame with two big engines on it? Yes. |
First- because of this is the fastes figher in the world it has much greater chance to outrrun a missile then any other plane. Second-It is maneuverable enough. Third- No it is not just a frame with two big engines. Mig-25 is an interceptor. And as military guy you should know that speed is one of the major characteristic of the plane espetialy for interceptor.
quote:
And yes, I realize that your heavy bombers have the range to get anywhere in the world as weell. The problem is, the USN and USAF (and the ANG) are all capable of detecting and shooting down those forces. In any situation that required long range strikes by heavy bombers, both sides would take heavy losses, but I would place my money on the US bomber fleet, just because of the capabilities of the more advanced planes to destroy air defenses and allow other planes in. |
Your air defences while last manoeuvres of our Long range aviation detected our strategic bombers only under Atlantic ocean when their mission was already complete and educational missiles were succesfuly fired. So, your defences far from ideal. As for bets in times of full scale war between our countries, who will recieve money? Everybody will be dead in this case.
quote:
|
May be you'll explain what was so funny in that line?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Midshipman
|
|
Apolyton Paintball Champion
Apr 2000
time: 05:18
|
|
Serb, I couldn't understand that last paragraph, about the long range maneuvers of you air fleet, could you please be more specific.
The X-80, which flew in 1980, was the first with forward swept wings. And yes, it was deemed unfeasible at the time, because there was no such thing as digital flight control. A forward swept wing is inherantly unstable. At the time, it was almost impossible to create an AFCS that could control it, and expensive. That's why we didn't make more than one. Now, I'm pretty sure that we could do it.
As for the 25, you continue to just say speed. Until the MiG-25 came, the F-106 Suber Sabre was the king of speed. THat only problem was that it had a large turning radius. I believe that the 25 suffers from the same problem. Also, please explain to me how a Mach 2.5 (and I am being generous) fighter can outrun a Mach 4 missile that can turn faster and harder.
You say that the 47 was made by the order of the Defense Ministry? Ok, fine, so it was. My question remains. How is a military that cannot pay its power bill able to afford a squadron, much less a force of high technology fighters.
As for the last line, truthfully, do you believe that if the US and Russia got into a war, the Russian Air Force would not get beaten?
Sidenote for faded glory - the tomcats are in the process of being retired. Stopgap is the Superhornet, and the final replacement is the JSF
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-03-2002 17:17
|