Forum: Air Power

SarkOy,

Pls get lost, Snypa777 is one of the most dynamic and interesting contributors to this forum since many years..He respects other posters opinion and always polite.

F-16.net Sponsor

duplex wrote:

SarkOy,

Pls get lost, Snypa777 is one of the most dynamic and interesting contributors to this forum since many years..He respects other posters opinion and always polite.

i think Snypa777 can say for himself w\o additional support Wink

fiskerwad
sorry very much, i don't understand your question Sad

rephrase, please. however, if you want a translation of "Do svidanya, Tovarisch!" Smile

it's russian sentence means "Farewell/Goodbye, Comrade!".

imho, might be a fair call if this thread either a) stay on topic, b) closed or c) moved to the 'Off-topic' section of the 'Miscellanesous' forums?? Respects-

to be on-topic, geogen did good point Smile

if to look at the pentagon weapon, we can get question "why those things are so useless???". answer is pretty simple: because prime target of lm-like developers is only to gain yet another penny Smile

for CCCP, prime target was the quality of weaponry Very Happy

sark0y wrote:

to be on-topic, geogen did good point Smile

if to look at the pentagon weapon, we can get question "why those things are so useless???". answer is pretty simple: because prime target of lm-like developers is only to gain yet another penny Smile

for CCCP, prime target was the quality of weaponry Very Happy

This is absolutely one of the funnier things I have read on this forum...please give me one real life example of anything produced by the USSR that was of any appreciable quality...cue the crickets. The truth is that there was little of anything of real value on the open market that the Soviets produced. For the most part their goods and products were only suitable for "export" if you define "export" as forcing an oppressed people to buy your shoddy, useless junk. Really, what possible motivation could anyone in the USSR have to produce anything of quality and value? The withholding of punishment has shown to not be an effective motivation to excel, only to do the bare minimum, and the Soviet system is a perfect example of that.
So the question is, if the USSR produced nothing but low quality, backwards and undesirable products, why would their defense industry be any different?

One and only example: AK-47

May not have been the most accurate, but it shot straight and would never quit.

Biff... please sir.

The Mig-29 + helmet cue system + HOBS missile alone, vis-a-vis the F-16 + AIM-9M, is a fair example. In fact, this same Mig-29 is still operated by at least one NATO member state today and is still patrolling, policing and defending friendly skies in it's own specialized and particular way.

And does one truly need to go back to Mig-15 vs Sabre parity or dissimilar capabilities too? Salute

Please try to contribute more applicable reasoning in fair and open discussions on such topics. imho. respects..

geogen wrote:

Biff... please sir.

The Mig-29 + helmet cue system + HOBS missile alone, vis-a-vis the F-16 + AIM-9M, is a fair example. In fact, this same Mig-29 is still operated by at least one NATO member state today and is still patrolling, policing and defending friendly skies in it's own specialized and particular way.

And does one truly need to go back to Mig-15 vs Sabre parity or dissimilar capabilities too? Salute

Please try to contribute more applicable reasoning in fair and open discussions on such topics. imho. respects..

great to see man with brain Very Happy

i just wanna add a little: if one side had absolute superiority, another would be faded away in no time Exclamation

Just simple Law of the Existence Very Happy

biffbutkus
pal, if you wanna see low quality, only look at fukushima - like scum, shuttle, f22 craptor... Wink

TenguNoHi wrote:

Pffffffffffff Rolling Eyes

Americans may be crappy engineers but for 50+ years in aviation now we brought home the bacon. So whatever they are doing I won't complain.

-Aaron

Ever read articles from IEEE or SAE. They tend to paint a different picture to me. At least American engineers take showers and use deodorant.

sarkoy,

Let's leave out the Shuttle and Fukushima in this ok? Shuttle contributed far more good to global science and space efforts and achievements in it's manned history, than it failed. And Fukushima man or technical made flaws could have been reproduced by any current modern nuke operator given such a magnitude of the Quake/Tsunami effects. Best argument is that it was placed in the wrong location.

I'll defend a fair discussion on any thread-related issue here, but I would also call for fair brains to reciprocate. respects-

geogen wrote:

sarkoy,

Let's leave out the Shuttle and Fukushima in this ok? Shuttle contributed far more good to global science and space efforts and achievements in it's manned history, than it failed. And Fukushima man or technical made flaws could have been reproduced by any current modern nuke operator given such a magnitude of the Quake/Tsunami effects. Best argument is that it was placed in the wrong location.

I'll defend a fair discussion on any thread-related issue here, but I would also call for fair brains to reciprocate. respects-

geogen,

1. shuttle price is too much, w\o it, scientific achievements would be more.

2. many nuclear plants of USA have a really bad design at very'ir roots because they cannot be shutdown with passive mode, + spent rods have been stored there for long period.
---------------------
tsunami is only way to defend fragile a$$es, but there is no excuse.

I'm more of a Saturn rocket fan myself (a living relative of mine actually flew crew on one mission) and I personally would have supported further evolution and production of that vehicle instead of the otherwise very cool landing Shuttle concept... but the Shuttle overall was a worthwhile investment for a 70s technology and design I think. If NASA wanted to put 5 man crew plus capability of putting a massive orbiting Hubble class scope in space back in the late 90s, it would have had to pay a lot more money especially for a reusable asset.

Better to pay the big per flight operational cost of the 70s design for each shot, than the $50Bn extra R&D for a 90s space shuttle development which would have done the same thing but 10 years delayed! Too bad more money wasn't invested in more Hubbles and next-gen Hubbles etc though, as that is where the true mid-term science and achievements are imho. But that is no fault to the shuttle's original capabilities.

I'm sorry, but anyone bashing the shuttle as being one's primary point-making on a post is either over-zealous in trying to be controversial, nationalistically combative, or not being sincere.

And your second point, Yes, older nuke plants need to be upgraded and new nuke designs need to be invested in and built for countries such as Japan, but man made accidents and overall bad locations for building sites will always be an issue. But I agree with you, US needs a spent-rod site location constructed in-country as a strategic national interest in the interim.

geogen
some of engineers knew, before shuttle was developed, that state-of-the-art technical level hasn't allowed to get effective solution of multiuse spacecraft. after shuttle got the life, everyone of developers has comprehended that truth, but shuttle lobby had no an idea to leave so fertile soil of $$$$$$$$$ Smile

Quote:

but the Shuttle overall was a worthwhile investment for a 70s technology and design I think. If NASA wanted to put 5 man crew plus capability of putting a massive orbiting Hubble class scope in space back in the late 90s, it would have had to pay a lot more money especially for a reusable asset.

just two questions:

1. a task that cannot be realized w\o multiuse spacecraft?

2. why nasa has no had an idea to continue shuttle, if it's so worthy?

Quote:

Yes, older nuke plants need to be upgraded

it ain't just old plants, but it are old ones with bad design. that design was chosen to gain more buckies. now, new fukushimas are only matter of coming time. Sad

Quote:

I'm more of a Saturn rocket fan myself

unfortunately, none to be fan of Sad

moon program has been only hoax.

so great achievements cannot be put to nowhere. so powerful rocket would be most helpful to run orbital stations, interplanetary automatic missions. but mothballed Shocked

moon rock can be capitalized to fund nasa projects. but has become top secret Shocked

double - dip reentry is yet another chef d'oeuvre. but not has used in practice for LEO Shocked

No matter how one wants to be a hater, shuttle was a successful space system, albeit very costly investment no doubt, and not the most cost-effective method/tech... yet, it nonetheless enabled massive global scientific achievements for mankind in it's career: e.g, ISS, Hubble, 100s of crew brought into space orbit. Monumental successes and achievements produced by old tech right there, no matter how much someone wants to piss on it or deny it for whatever motive. I would agree though, NASA shouldn't have expanded shuttle as it was obviously very expensive and would have taken too much budget, but it was a prototype technology so to speak, very clever but old tech, and better used as learning tool to better design future evolutionary systems to launch the next phase of global scientific achievements. But the raw operational performance of shuttle enabled multiple technological and scientific successes, which cannot be disputed. Very expensive, yes, not the most efficient, no, but not a failure, it proved great service for all. A system to celebrate in its old retirement. People shouldn't be hating other country's space technology, be they Soviet, Russian, Chinese, Euro, US, Japanese, etc, that's pretty childish and useless. Smarter to celebrate all global evolutionary space achievements and future successes. Thumb

cheers-

geogen

Quote:

No matter how one wants to be a hater, shuttle was a successful space system, albeit very costly investment no doubt, and not the most cost-effective method/tech... yet

hatred? i didn't & cannot say something bad of shuttle developers: they're really brainful guys. what i was only discussing about is strategy itself. CCCP had conducted shuttle-like projects, but fortunately voice of engineers stopped this wrong idea. to advance space techs is very expensive thing even for cost-effective projects and we must be very careful to choose way. at current time, most interest projects are plasmo engines like VASIMIR & SPT-290.

Forum: Air Power

Truth about Soviet technological superiority