Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

RUSSIANS BUILD FAR-BETTER -WARBIRDS than the USA! Why it is so hard to understand, ?


  • Please log in to reply
593 replies to this topic

#201 Simon666

Simon666

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1739 posts

Posted 16 May 2003 - 06:10 PM

<< I can see why the Russias like them though. How many choppers did they lose in Afghanistan? >>

And how many Apaches, Chinooks and Blackhawks went down already in Afghanistan and Iraq? Consider yourself lucky those Stingers you supplied yourselves to Al Qaeda don't work so well any more. American crap...
  • 0

#202 Rich

Rich

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts

Posted 16 May 2003 - 06:24 PM

You tell me Simon. How many have we lost? And those stingers seemed to work fine against the Russians. Hahaha.
  • 0

#203 Simon666

Simon666

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1739 posts

Posted 16 May 2003 - 06:54 PM

<<You tell me Simon. How many have we lost?>>

Pick out the choppers for yourself. For Afghanistan alone:

5 'Predator' unmanned reconnaissance planes lost
1 "Blackhawk" special ops helicotper crashed during landing
1 CH-47 transport helicopter damaged during a combat mission
1 unidentified helicopter was "severely damaged" during a crash-landing in Afghanistan
1 "Blackhawk" SAR helicopter crashed due to bad weather
1UH-1N "Huey" assault / transport helicopter crashed possibly due to enemy action
1 B-1B strategic bomber crashed near the Diego Garcia base in the Indian Ocean
1 Global Hawk UAV crashed during a recon mission over Afghanistan
1 CH-53 transport helicopter made a crash landing in Afghanistan
1 KC-130 transport plane crashed in Pakistan
1 S-3B plane made a crash landing aboard an aircraft carrier
1 CH-53 helicopter crashed killing two
1 Predator UAV crashed while returning from a mission
1 Predator UAV crashed during landing
1 MC-130 crashed
1 MH-47 helicopter crashed
1 P-3 Orion plane damaged in emergency landing
1 CH-47 heavily damaged after a crash landing, 16 people injured
1 CH-47 helicopter damaged after a hard landing
1 MH-47 shot down and one damaged by enemy fire
2 F-14 Tomcats crashed
4 AH-64 Apaches grounded after sustaining extensive combat damage
1 SH-60B helicopter crashed, three killed
1 MH-53 crash-landed in Afghanistan
1 Gnat UAV crashed
1 MH-53 crashed,
1 AH-64 crash-landed
1 Predator UAV crashed in Pakistan
1 Predator UAV crashed in Kuwait
1 unidentified UAV crash-landed in northern Iraq
1 MC-130H transport plane crashed in Afghanistan
1 Global Hawk UAV crashed
1 CH-47 damaged in crash-landing
1 HH-60 crashed during take-off
1 AH-64 crashed during a combat mission
1 Predator UAV crashed
1 MH-47 damaged
1 CH-47 destroyed
1 HH-60 damaged
1 F-16 damaged
1 CH-53 crashed
1 Predator UAV shot down
1 Predator UAV crashed as of January 17, 2003
  • 0

#204 Rich

Rich

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts

Posted 16 May 2003 - 07:11 PM

Well that's quite an impressive list. Now lets sift through it and see how many were actually shot down.

Maybe 1 UH1N
1 MH47
1 CH47 (maybe, because you don't mention how it was destroyed)

Hmm. Doesn't look to bad. 3 lost to enemy fire. 1 that we're sure of. That's from your list.

Ding dong
  • 0

#205 Simon666

Simon666

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1739 posts

Posted 16 May 2003 - 07:16 PM

<<Hmm. Doesn't look to bad. 3 lost to enemy fire. 1 that we're sure of. That's from your list. Ding dong>>

We're discussing the need for ejection seats, rings a bell? Ding-dong. Do I need to remind you of yourself:

<<We've researched ejector seats for copters and rejected them. I can see why the Russias like them though. How many choppers did they lose in Afghanistan?>>

You said "how many choppers did they lose in Afghanistan" NOT how many choppers did they lose in Afghanistan due to shooting them down by enemy fire". So we have:

1 "Blackhawk" special ops helicotper crashed during landing
1 CH-47 transport helicopter damaged during a combat mission
1 unidentified helicopter was "severely damaged" during a crash-landing in Afghanistan
1 "Blackhawk" SAR helicopter crashed due to bad weather
1 UH-1N "Huey" assault / transport helicopter crashed possibly due to enemy action
1 CH-53 transport helicopter made a crash landing in Afghanistan
1 CH-53 helicopter crashed killing two
1 MH-47 helicopter crashed
1 CH-47 heavily damaged after a crash landing, 16 people injured
1 CH-47 helicopter damaged after a hard landing
1 MH-47 shot down and one damaged by enemy fire
4 AH-64 Apaches grounded after sustaining extensive combat damage
1 SH-60B helicopter crashed, three killed
1 MH-53 crash-landed in Afghanistan
1 MH-53 crashed,
1 AH-64 crash-landed
1 CH-47 damaged in crash-landing
1 HH-60 crashed during take-off
1 AH-64 crashed during a combat mission
1 MH-47 damaged
1 CH-47 destroyed
1 CH-53 crashed

Seems a lot.

=============================================

And if you really feel the need to compare that with Russias track record:
  • How many choppers did the Russians have there (as they didn't use the Northern Alliance to fight their war, who by the way let Al Qaeda escape) and how many does the United States have there so you can compare.
  • How many combat missions do they fly versus the Russians?
  • How many years is America there yet compared with the Russian decade long presence?
  • How many Al Qaeda members are equiped with the latest in shoulder launched missiles versus the Mujaheddin back then with Stingers?

I bet you would talk different afterwards.
  • 0

#206 Rich

Rich

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts

Posted 16 May 2003 - 07:24 PM

wow, you're pretty stupid. How high do you have to be for a parachute to be effective? Any idea?
  • 0

#207 Guest_PTBalloon_*

Guest_PTBalloon_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 May 2003 - 09:49 PM

It's not the plane, it's the pilot.
  • 0

#208 Simon666

Simon666

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1739 posts

Posted 17 May 2003 - 08:45 AM

<<wow, you're pretty stupid. How high do you have to be for a parachute to be effective? Any idea?>>

You said "how many choppers did they lose in Afghanistan" so I enumerated the number the US lost. I don't know how many could have made an effective use of a parachute provided such a system existed as I don't have data on their height, stupid. It is to indicate their might be a need after all.

As to answer your question: I don't know, but as the Russians consider it for their choppers apparently not high and if you've ever seen the impressive crash of the Su-30 MK at Le Bourget on video you would be able to confirm that with me.
  • 0

#209 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests

Posted 18 May 2003 - 03:03 AM

AN EFFECTIVE WAY TO COMBAT ENEMY PLANES

Russia's latest S-400 "Triumph" air defence system is capable of hitting AWACS early warning planes.
S-400 is unique for fighting enemy planes. It is designed to hit both present-day and future means for air
attack: tactical and strategic aircraft, cruise missiles of the "Tomahawk" type and other missiles at a distance of
400 kilometers.
S-400 is capable of fighting successful battles with air targets made according to "Stealth" technology at all
altitudes of its combat use and at a maximum distance. The new system employs the latest technologies in
radiolocation and electronics. It is the first in the world to be able to work selectively with the use of several kinds
of missiles.
The long-range missile, currently in use by the "Triumph", is unique. It is about twice as effective as the
American one used for "Patriot-3" and the French one used for "Aster". And the "Triumph" is 2.5 times as
cost-effective. Experts in the world's weapons market believe that supplies of Russia's new air defence system to
other countries will introduce drastic changes in the concept of using air assault means and defence systems .

STRATEGIC AVIATION

The TU-160 supersonic missile-carrier known as "blackjack" in the West is capable of operating far from
its bases and hedge-hopping through the enemy's air defences.
The designers have created a special weapon for planes of this kind - a cruise missile capable of
hedge-hopping 5 thousand kilometres and hitting a target the size of a goal-post.
In the foreseeable future none of the world's air defence systems will be able to effectively combat
low-flying cruise missiles .


HELLO RUSSIA HATERS,


Russians can NUKE your a+s+s at will, any time any place. Do not piss the Russians off!

down with the ameri-zionist fascists! kill them now!
  • 0

#210 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests

Posted 19 May 2003 - 12:26 AM

Russian warships have carried out live-fire exercises in the Indian
Ocean. According to the deputy naval commander Admiral Igor Drygalo, a
frigate successfully fired cruise missiles and two destroyers hit air and surface targets
with rockets and shells.
  • 0

#211 AIRFORCE1

AIRFORCE1

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 511 posts

Posted 19 May 2003 - 02:38 AM

Quote from Cossack:
>>>>Russian warships have carried out live-fire exercises in the Indian
Ocean. According to the deputy naval commander Admiral Igor Drygalo, a
frigate successfully fired cruise missiles and two destroyers hit air and surface targets
with rockets and shells.<<<<

Live fire exercises, woppie frickin dooo! The us does that shit all the time.
  • 0

#212 Rich

Rich

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts

Posted 19 May 2003 - 03:07 AM

Simon, the height our helicopters operate at precludes the US of ejector seats. This is precisely the reason the US does not use them. Even you should understand that an ejector seat requires space and weighs a significant amount. This space and weight can be better utilized in other ways. I won't ennumerate them, there are too many.

I suspect the real reason the Russians use ejector seats is because their maintanence is so poor it's probably the only way a pilot can leave the helicopter safely.

DeRob whatever the hell your name is: We already pissed off the Russians and look where it got them. Remember a place called the USSR? You dumb@$$. I seem to recall one of their leaders pounding his shoe on the tqable in the UN. Yeah, the Russians are reaaaal scary.:rolleyes:

Russian equipment is barely operational. If they launched one of their nukes it would most likely break apart in it's boost phase. As for their bombers, you think any military aricraft can penetrate the US? Shotting those suckers down is exactly what we designed the F-14 for. You're softer than a sneaker full of puppy poo.

Yeah, I'm sure the "Triumph" is theoretically capable of hitting all the stuff you listed. Just like the MIG-25 is theoretically capable of going mach 3. Any idea what happens to the MIG at that speed? It blows it's engines. Until you see the triumph actually shoot down one of the things you listed I wouldn't go touting it as the latest Russian super weapon.
  • 0

#213 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests

Posted 19 May 2003 - 03:20 AM

FAMILY OF SPACE CARRIER-ROCKETS "ANGARA"

The "Angara" carrier-rocket, has told the deputy head of the strategic
planning department at the Khrunichev Space Centre Oleg Roskin, is a
basically new and the most up-to-date brainchild of Russian rocket
designers. The rockets operate on liquid propellant, a mixture of kerosene
and oxygen, and we see them as ecologically secure.
There are three types of rockets in the "Angara" family. The first
one is a light rocket with a payload capacity of up to 2 tonnes, a rocket
meant for putting into orbit small telecommunications satellites. The second
rocket is capable of taking off with twice payload that is 4 tonnes. And the
third rocket with a payload of 20 tonnes is expected to replace the
"Proton" carrier that's normally launched from the Baikonour cosmodrome
in Kazakhstan .


http://www.vor.ru/science/Raketa.JPG

WOW! Russians did it again! roll over USA, Russ beat ya! hands down!

ha ha ha ha ha ha
  • 0

#214 AIRFORCE1

AIRFORCE1

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 511 posts

Posted 19 May 2003 - 05:13 PM

Quote from Cocksack:
>>>. The rockets operate on liquid propellant, a mixture of kerosene
and oxygen, and we see them as ecologically secure. <<<

That is just another example of old technology. :D

The US is already using the following:
Liquid methane or liquid hydrogen is ejected onto the fuselage, where the fuel mist is ignited, possibly by surface heating. The PDWE works by creating a liquid hydrogen detonation inside a specially designed chamber when the aircraft is traveling beyond the speed of sound. When traveling at such speeds, a thrust wall (the aircraft is traveling so fast that molecules in the air are rapidly pushed aside near the nose of the aircraft which in essence becomes a wall) is created in front of the aircraft. When the detonation takes place, the airplane's thrust wall is pushed forward. This process is continually repeated to propel the aircraft. From the ground the jet stream looks like "donuts-on-a-rope."

We also developed missle fuel to do basically the same thing as stated above.

Source: www.abovetopsecret.com
  • 0

#215 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests

Posted 19 May 2003 - 11:45 PM

Something from Alllllgemeinnnne,



Malaysia is buying 180 Russian-made SUKHOI-30 fighter bombers.
Defence Ministers Najib Razak and Sergei Ivanov, who is in Kuala Lumpur on a three-day visit, initiated a 9000-million-dollar contract about this on Monday.
Mr Ivanov said Russia is prepared to sell more and more high-tech arms to Malaysia.

So why Malasia is not buying US made fighters? Because american warplanes are piece of crap, also US planes are expensive but this does not make them any better they are still CRAP!
CRAP which can be used only to bomb defensless women and children!

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
  • 0

#216 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests

Posted 20 May 2003 - 12:02 AM

Su-30 specs
Crew: 2
Length, m: 21,94
Height, m: 6,23
Wing span, m: 14,7
Wing area, m?: 62,0
Weight empty, kg: 17500
Weight normal, kg: 34140
Weight max, kg: 43500
Max fuel, kg: 15500
Service ceiling, m: 19500
Take-off speed, km/h: 270
Landing speed, km/h: 234
Max mach at sea level: 1,3
Max mach at height: 2,75
G limit: 10
Max wing loading, kg/m?: 540,3
Max power loading, kg/kN: 136,6
Max rate of climb at sea level, m/s: 375
Range with max internal fuel, km: 5000
Armament: GSh-301 gun, 12 000 kg on 10 external pylons

Show me any US made junk with this performance and I rest my case!
  • 0

#217 AIRFORCE1

AIRFORCE1

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 511 posts

Posted 20 May 2003 - 01:48 AM

Ok, Cocksack here ya go. Mach 3 performance. F/A 22 Raptor


The Lockheed-Martin F-22 Raptor represents the greatest advance in fighter-aircraft capability in 50 years. It brings the largest increase in sustained speed since the advent of the jet, flying most of its missions at speeds other fighters can only attain for short periods. The F-22 Raptor can also, using its advanced thrust-vectoring system and supercruise capability, accelerate and maneuver at speeds today's fighter jets struggle to maintain in a straight line.
The F-22 equals, and probably surpasses, the agility of any other fighter. Its stealth characteristics which descend from the success of the F-117 stealth fighter and B-2 stealth bomber provide invisibility against most radars and sensors. Its integrated avionics, equal in power to seven Cray supercomputers, and sensor-fused displays are a generation ahead of anything under test elsewhere.

The F-22's primary mission is air superiority, defined by the USAF as "the ability to achieve local air control at a time and place of our own choosing." The odds are in favor of the side with the faster aircraft with greater range, operating under the fewest artificial constraints. The Raptor's secondary goal is to destroy as many of the enemy's front-line fighters as possible for the smallest possible number of losses.

The F-22 is designed to be immune to deep stalls - stalls from which the aircraft can't recover from with normal control outputs - and to recover from high-alpha, post-stall conditions with both engines flamed out. The F-22 is also the first fighter to be designed from the outset to use vectored thrust for control. While thrust-vectoring isn't used to expand the flight envelope, it does help the aircraft get from one maneuver state to another more quickly.


Description
Manufacturer: Lockheed-Martin
Designation: F-22 Raptor
Type: Advanced Tactical, Air-Superiority Fighter
Specifications
Length: 62' 1" 18.92 M
Height: 16' 7" 5.05 M
Wingspan: 44' 6" 13.56 M
Wing Area: 840 ft
  • 0

#218 Glucklich

Glucklich

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 34 posts

Posted 20 May 2003 - 02:19 AM

F/A 22 Raptor, can not fly mach 3!what are you talking about?
  • 0

#219 AIRFORCE1

AIRFORCE1

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 511 posts

Posted 20 May 2003 - 11:11 AM

Quote from Gluelicker:
>>F/A 22 Raptor, can not fly mach 3!what are you talking about?<<

Gluelicker, the Raptor can do Mach 3 with full afterburners. The Raptor can utilize supercruise and do what the SU-30 does at full speed. When the Raptor comes out of supercruise and hits the burners the SU-30 would be history.

The Raptor is the best plane ever bulit period.
  • 0

#220 Simon666

Simon666

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1739 posts

Posted 20 May 2003 - 11:54 AM

<<Gluelicker, the Raptor can do Mach 3 with full afterburners.>>

Could you paste a credible link to that one?
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2016 Pravda.Ru