us and russia

[ahem]

Anyway, I do know quite a bit about the AN-94. I also have the benefit of discussion with someone who has more experience with the weapon than most people.......My friend in Moscow indeed has first hand experience with the AN-94. He continues to have such experience to this day in his line of work.

Would you then tell me the division and the department he serves with.

The drawings I have are technical drawings that detail the operation of the weapon

Such drawings have never been made public for AK-74, not mentioning the later weapons.

The AN-94 is a system in a sense, but I thought I made it clear in my post that it isn't yet a complete system. I meant that in the sense of some other integrated small arms systems that are being developed or deployed by other arms manufacturers at the present time.

I just don't get that paragraph.

I was suggesting that as money (sales) became available, the AN could very well rise to the top of it's class in all respects.


AN-94 is in the top of its class allready, as it's the only in its class.

If Koksharov has incorporated the two shot burst of Nikonov without adding too much complexity, then the AEK might steal the show.

Your comparison of a fork with a spoon, really does give away you great real knowledge about the matter.

By the way, I think you meant that the French don't accept it. If they didn't except it, they would agree with me, and you would have thought their opinion to be worthless.

You think that the French opinion is worthless? The flag beating in the wind was shown in one of the earlier official NASA video footages. I do not believe that there was a live human being on the Moon, to change my opinion you will have to give me some real evidence. A radio signal can be transmitted from the orbit or from a moving object on the surface of the Moon without a human being, it only says that there were american probes up there not austranauts. And I have never heard or seen any substantial and serious statements from NASA concerning the radiation barrier.

Your arguments sound like a spoiled child is making them. Many Russian concepts are used in the ISS.

ISS is a totally Russian design, that why the program commenced within weeks of signing the agreement. Your comparison with "Buran" and Tu-160 is not a very accurate one, a space station is a much more complex system than an aircraft. It took Russia more than 40 years to get the present module design. Buran was copied from the Space Shuttle, the hull form was copied, improved and refined, Tu-160 and Lancer are very different, they have as much in common as Su-27 and F-15.

It's funny to know that teams from both countries work overtime toward a common goal, and brats like you shout "it's all mine, it's all mine"! Get a grip, son.


US got more than enough, it will have a space station, and it had valuable technology transfered to it.

The reason that Russiasn aircraft have only recently begun to incorporate Fly By Wire in their aircraft is that they didn't have ready access to the production technology, and they couldn't afford it.

We didn't have access? How did we in the 60ies produce cruise missiles and Naval combat information systems that US can't produce today? Even morden Russian aircraft use as little computerised equipement as possible. Haudrallics are extensively used even in Su-47, all flight instruments are present in the analogue form. The reason? It much easier to sustain such systems, it is much easier and faster to repair, and (I mentioned this earlier) planes will not fall to the ground when a tactical nuclear warhead is detonated in the stratosphere. MFDs and FBW systems are added to make it easier to control target data (especially for ground targets) and OVT engines. Soviet Union could afford anything if it was for the military.

Sikorsky might have had some relatives leave here, but others, and his legacy remain. You should take a look at how America works. It's a different kind of culture that embraces many nationalities. There are plenty of Russians (Jews and Orthodox) that have taken up the American flag as their own. It might be true that an American could never be a Russian in the eyes of a Muscovite, but over here, it is easy for a Russian to be an American.

Do you care to detail Sikorskiy's legacy? Americans can't even pronounce his name or surname. He did not produce any exceptional designs after he moved to USA for a reason. I know perfectly well how America works, and on what it works. USA does not have a culture, culture, God and morals are substituted by money. No Russian will ever take up the american flag, no Russian will ever be American.

Did you ever notice that the US was proud of it's German rocket scientists? That Von Braun got credit for his work, became an American citizen, and a national hero?

What ever became of the German rocket scientists that the USSR grabbed? I never heard much credit being given to them. It seems to me that most credit was given only to Soviet born citizens.... Hmmm... Attitude is everything.

Von Braun was Dutch, and I have noticed that USA is proud of him and made him a hero. But unlike USA, Russia does not embrace fashism and does not honour Nazis that have been found guilty of murdering hundreds of civillians. And unlike US space programme ours was developed, though using some of the German technology, by Soviet citizens not by Germans.


Your remarks attributed to Russian designers fly in the face of televised interviews that I have personally watched.

Must be the american "free" speech.

By the way, there were over 1200 TU-4's made

So is that what you are being told? And you actually believe it? I have also told you once before, that you know nothing about the position Russia was in in the first half of the last century, you do not know the reasons for it, you do not know the consequences. You know nothing about Stalin, what he done or achieved, and it is in your interest not to state something you have no idea about.

I think you knew what I meant when I used the term strategic bomber. I meant what the TU-160 embodies. A true long range, supersonic bomber. The other post war bombers were good aircraft, but they were not what the Soviet government wanted so badly. The TU-160 delivered on the demand, and did so far later than the west accomplished the same goal. No bigotry in motion. Just fact.


This (above) is what I call baby talk, a collection of senceless sentences. What goal, when USAF does not have an alternative to Tu-160? What does Tu-160 embody? Tu-22M and Tu-95 are currently not considered to be strategic bombers because several weapons systems of these aircraft have been deinstalled according to several US-RF treaties.

current US fighters have a pretty good combat record.

Being shot down by untrained third World countries' pilots flying Russian aircraft generations older than american ones they fight against, while outnumbering those third World countries' pilots 5 to 1?

While you are comparing the ability of one aircraft to tail slide, or to do this and that better than another aircraft, keep in mind that it is the entire system that wins or loses battles. Airplane, pilot, command and control structure, stealth, and weapons systems all combine at the time of battle to decide a winner.


Are there any american pilots that perform aerobatic manuevers at altitudes of 100-300m in F-15s? I believe that Russian AA weapons are better then US ones. Radars are by a large margin. You can not change an airframe, you can change everything else.

[Edited by ahem on 15th October 2003 at 10:49]

[Voyager13b]

Ahem,

I'm impressed. You took a long time to say nothing at all. I really do mean nothing. Nationalistic babble and double talk substituted for reasonable rebuttal. Instead of discussing issues, you simply accused, demanded more proof, or simply sidestepped each point I made. It seems as though you will protect your view of Soviet accomplishments against all odds. Even reason.

By the way, who I know, and what drawings have been made available to me of the AN-94 do not in any way change the facts about the weapon. My friend is former military, and currently works in the industry as a civillian. Your demand that I provide more details about my source is little more than an attempt to focus on something other than the topic at hand. Why? The AN-94 is not a mysterious, secret weapon. Current examples are in western hands, as are late western weapons in Russian hands, and detailed operational drawings and descriptions are in the public domain. Try a google search when you are bored. Don't bother to try and claim that the weapon represented on the net is not the same one that Russia would like to buy for it's troops either. I know better.

On Sikorskiy.

Sorry to contradict you, but there are many Americans who can pronounce his name, and although he was a prolific fixed wing designer in Russia, it seems to me that his most noteworthy design breakthroughs in the field of rotary wing aircraft were made here in the US. Or do you suggest that Stalin did it all?

The production numbers I quoted for the TU-4 were provided by Russian State archives, thank you very much.

My comparison of the AEK with the AN-94 was predicated with the statement that I have only a cursory knowledge of the AEK. Without even considering that fact, your response was silly.

You can claim, through your incredibly dense hate for America that "no Russian will ever become American", but tens of thousands of real Russian born Americans have proved you to be a liar over the years.

Your hate driven fantasy about Americans not walking on the moon will be be debunked in a few years, as China has made moon exploration one of it's goals, and I expect that their photographic evidence of American footprints will silence your silly chatter about the subject. Unless, of course, you decide that the Chicoms are part of the conspiracy....

By the way, fukk the French. There is nothing that even begins to give the French judgemental authority in the field of space exploration, and it wasn't that long ago that they did their best to piss on the Russian nation, yet because they happen to agree with your point of view, you place their opinion up on a pedestal. How sweet you are....

What else... Your explanation for the lack of FBW in Russian aircraft is pure fantasy. That might have worked 30 years ago, but the arguments are no longer valid, and are made even more irrelevent by the current rush to FBW by Russian designers. Once again, blind hatred has guided you to look for pearls in a sh!t pile.

How about the awesome Russian radar that you mention? If it is so superior, why did India just sign a billion dollar deal to buy Russian AWACS style aircraft fitted with Israeli radar/electronics? Why did another recent customer in the Asian area buy Sukhoi fighters fitted with western avionics (including radar)? I wonder....

Our Germans vs your Germans. Nice try, but you danced around my comment by attempting to discredit the Hun rocket scientists as war criminals. No matter what they did, or who they were assosciated with, the German scientists that were "appropriated" by the SU provided the entire foundation for the SU space and missile effort. Like I said, Russians were given all the credit in reports to the Soviet population, and to the world. Your rebuttal was a silly justification for stolen credit.

On Stalin.
I think you mentioned something about me not knowing anything about Stalin. Once again, your bias has blinded you. I know of Stalin better than you do, and for several reasons. One, I have family members who escaped his madness before they could be propagandized into thinking that the murderer was God. Two, since the fall of the SU, thousands of documents, and a very clear and truthful picture of the reign of the madman from Georgia have come to light thanks to free Russian archivists who are eager to learn what had been hidden from them for decades.

It seems that the truth was hidden from you as well. The difference is that your hate for America will not allow you to accept the truth, as you somehow think that it makes Russians look bad in the eyes of the world. It doesn't. It just makes Stalin and his "communist" cronies look bad.

Get a grip, Ahem. As much as you would like it to be so, America is not the enemy of Russia. It was a short, beady eyed Georgian that laid the foundation for the problems that Russia is working to overcome.

Voyager

[USMC_ReCoNSnIpeR]

OMG who eer said that the US panes wree shot down by untrianed 3rd world countries is BS. in korea when ussr was giving migs to the koreans and training them and sending piolets down. The eneymy (korea) and allies had the newest and slightly better MiG agaist the Saber. the enemy had more then twice the us had station in the korea. Eventhough this was true our piolets OWNED the migs cause of much better training. so dont give me crap about3rd world coutrnies defeating our planes cause its not true. korea had the biggets advangage with there puolets anmd russian piolets and we still kicked you a$$. so go f*ck a cow PEACE

[USMC_ReCoNSnIpeR]

(im saying this in a positive way) there first nuke ever was basically built by the jews. the nuclear scienctists who were jews in germany said "this is bs this guys hate us so lets go chill in america and help them bomb these crackhors". so they came to america and built the bomb. Thank you jews. PLus i am jewish : ). not anymore i got tired of hebrew school. i belive in a higher force but you cant talk to him talk sh*t about your probelsm its just there. so um lets talk about future wars and other sh*t bout that and say where u live and from coutnry.

[Yakov_Leskov]

before you attack russia, why don't u concentrate on your English. I've had to skip your paragraphs, since i couldn't read what u have written.

[Balamut]

[USMC_ReCoNSnIpeR]

before u try and making fun of other people learn to count u idiot. how can u skip paragraphs u cant read if i only wrote one paragragh? yea stop talking u'd be funnier if you didn't people answer my questions