Forum: Air Power

sark0y wrote:

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.

Awesome, I've heard a few things about plasma drives. I'd be very happy if we could use them for orbital propulsion over long distances, like a manned mission to Mars. The higher speed would be a huge advantage.

F-16.net Sponsor

Definitely, cost-effective plasmo drives would have been a sweet way to go in the 70s-80s, Sarkoy. Maybe as a joint friendship US-CCCP booster projekt? But I guess given the available 70s tech at the time, the US decision was made, right or wrong (perhaps more romance, aspiration and big contract pay-offs than sensible planning) - to go ahead with the big reusable shuttle concept instead.

Hate or not hate, I probably read it wrong so I apologize... understand please, I was only responding to this debate given the comment by someone that Shuttle was "low quality and SCUM". Wink

Indeed, it was pretty successful for the time in history and operated to the mutual benefit of numerous world scientific achievements... but true, very expensive too. Miru-mir.

southernphantom
first & foremost, we must colonize Moon. one moment there is propulsion, another task is to get power sources. one of possible ways is SOPL (solar orbital power lines), it's system of mirrors, put upon the orbits, to concentrate electromagnetic waves from the Sun into chosen point. and you're right plasma drives are hella useful thing Very Happy

thanks to'em we shall be able to've velocity of entry into atmosphere 2-3 km/s Exclamation

Why did it take so long for me to find this thread? I had to walk away after the second page, but had to come back. The tears! HA HA HA. WOW! Wish I had something better to say but am at a loss for words. Funniest thing ever. Thanks for the laugh. TSFG

Last edited by biffbutkus on Feb 11, 2012 - 11:56 PM; edited 1 time in total

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..

Geogen....it's funny that you fault my reasoning, and then post this curious response. In case you missed it, the title of this thread is "Truth about Soviet Technological superiority" and the original poster reasoned that the Soviet system was inherently superior in fielding technology as compared to the "corrupt capitalist" system. I tend to disagree with that assessment, hence my post. Seems to me throwing out two examples doesn't really prove that my reasoning is faulty.

Anyway, since you mentioned the Mig-29.... I recently read an interview published in one of the various aerospace rags with a USAF pilot who has extensive experience flying the Fulcrum. While the Fulcrum's (crude) helmet cue system is one example of some innovation in that aircraft, the same cannot be said about the weapon system as a whole. In short, it was a one-trick pony with severe shortcomings (useless IRST, and bingos the fuel tanks quickly). I will try to dig up a reference to that interview so you can read it yourself. It was quite informative Very Happy

As for the Sabre vs Mig15...that was 60 years ago. Let's talk about the combat record of USAF/IDF fighters vs Soviet fighters in the 70's, 80's and 90's.

sark0y wrote:

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

The fact that you would even mention Fukushima in this debate says quite a bit about your (lack) of credibility . Ever heard of Chernobyl? What a waste of time this is... Rolling Eyes

Forum: Air Power

Truth about Soviet technological superiority