us and russia

[ahem]

Originally posted by eyeradi8

Eyeradi8 is Jewish?

You are too stupid to be Jewish. That is a common trait in mongrels.

[ahem]

Originally posted by Yakov_Leskov


could u pplz write that in phonetics at least

Writing in translit is debasing. What OS/Browser are you running?

[Arkasha]

Someone tell Ahem what a metaphor is.

Is it any coincidence that "ahem" doesn't rhyme with "ignorance"? It's astounding, since they are practically one in the same.

[Balamut]

Ok it's too rough.
He's just a kid who is proud of his contry and army.
Better?

[USMC_ReCoNSnIpeR]

OMFG ahem its a fact the USA pays 25% of UN money. so shut up also. US money use to be backed up with gold but its changed to silver (no real differnce) JUst that silver is safer. Also Russia is the most corrupt country in the world (100% true) what about that event that happened in like a theater and a bunch of guy took everyone hostage in moscow. My dad doesnt really care about the Iraqi war. He's neutrul. I think it's ok to go to war with iraq when you see thousands and millions of iraqis eating food for like the first time in days and people being freed and people having a good time being released from SAddams dicatorship how can u say its the wrong thing to do. B*tch don't talk. OUCH.


PS start talking about the room subjet thing ahem is just a waste of time and typing disses to him.

[Voyager13b]

Originally posted by ahem
Your friend had a first hand expirience with AN-94? You have a friend who is a Russian special operative, or knows one very well? Don't make me laugh.

Ahem (is that better?),

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. Laugh if you feel the need, but it doesn't change much. The drawings I have are technical drawings that detail the operation of the weapon, and describe system attachment hardpoints and the operational interface of the attachments. What does the FSB have to do with it? Such details have been public for years. Or do suppose that there is a "trick" AN-94 that is shown to the public, and a "secret" version that is being produced for spec ops guys in Russia?

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. It wasn't a knock against the AN-94 anyway. 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.

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. I only have a casual understanding of the AEK-971, and did not pursue it because (unless things have changed), it didn't offer as much as the AN-94. The AES was designed with a clever impulse balancing system, but the AN-94 has a reputation of being controllable during auto firing, and most important, can put 2 bullets nose to tail on the first pull of the trigger with one recoil impulse. The tactical advantages of such a feature seem to be far more valuable to a soldier (urban or otherwise) than somewhat easier full auto handling. If Koksharov has incorporated the two shot burst of Nikonov without adding too much complexity, then the AEK might steal the show.


Radio Moscow/Voice of Russia were/are the official line of Soviet/Russian government opinion.

We have many programs here that suggest that everything is a lie. Some say Elvis was abducted by Martians. Some say that Hitler is alive and well in Miami. What's your point? What the French think doesn't concern me. They are pretty much a whacky group of people that nobody pays much attention to unless French opinion suits their argument. 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.

The flag didn't beat in the wind (in a vacuum). Nor were there studio lights casting unexplainable shadows on "the set". Some people just like to hear conspiracy bull sh!t and buy it all hook, line, and sinker. Just like you did. I do research what I remark about. Sometimes I'm wrong, but it's an honest effort. You listen to Oliver Stone.

Baby talk? OK, rocket scientist. If you read what I wrote, instead of applying a canned answer to what you thought I might write, you would have seen that I agreed that a transmitting probe could have been sent to the Moon. Take, as you said, the patches off of your own eyes here, Ahem. Given the distance involved, such a probe would be discovered for a number of reasons. Propagation delay due to the signal originating on earth, travelling to the moon, and then back to earth would be measurable. Doppler shift of the real signal vs one sent from a Moon probe would be very easy to detect. Even if the signal was amplitude modulated (which does not suffer from doppler shift), the carrier frequency of the signal would shift enough to determine if the transmitter was moving, how fast, and in which direction at any given time. It would also be easy to tell if the signal was transmitted from an orbiting craft, or from a fixed location on the surface.

Just a few things for you to research, Einstien. By the way, the Soviets made an incredible number of space firsts. I'm proud of them. Hell, Russia is part of my heritage. I have a number of both Soviet and NASA posters adorning the wall here in my computer room. I try to give credit where credit is due.

The Soviet Union abandoned it's Moon program because the US got there first by as little as a few months. To make an attempt at something that they were satisfied had already been done, and to risk public failure was out of the question. Not only was the program abandoned, but it's very existence was denied for years after. Radiation? Hmmm... that subject has been discussed by NASA to the point of boredom. As with any urban legend, your version of Oliver Stone says that it has not been discussed, or that they lied about the levels of radiation out there, and you buy the line, and repeat it every chance you get.

And you call me a bigot?

Re read what I said about Mir. I think your nationalist defense device is working overtime. As for the shuttles, they are old and tired technology, and compared to what can be built now, are pretty sh!tty. It's time for something new. What does Russia have in the works? I though so.... By the way, Mir only had to return to earth once. It wasn't about to go back after that .

Yes, Mir fell out of the sky. The remote control thing you mentioned was done to make sure that it didn't fall on your apartment. It was coming down one way or the other.

Re read what I said about Cold War remarks. It was a simple comment. I didn't excuse or deny any particular comments made by the US. Read it this time. What does Japan have to do with my comment/question?

The US has been using Energiya stuff for a while. Why not? Some of it is very, very good. I understand that the US is using Russian rocket motors on launch vehicles used to orbit satellites. In fact, NASA has claimed that the updated version of a Russian rocket motor (I don't recall the model) is the most reliable and efficient ever developed. I think there was even a joint effort on updating the design. Why reinvent the wheel? Cooperation might be an alien concept to you, but I like it.

Now you wander off into the fantasy land of "it looks like, therefore it must be" with the design of the ISS. Just like Tupolev said about the SST, and the SU said about Buran, "independent arrival at similar looking designs only prove that the design is logical". Now, to suit your needs, you turn the table. Get over it. Your arguments sound like a spoiled child is making them. Many Russian concepts are used in the ISS. Many US concepts are used there as well. 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.

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. Period. That song you sang about building planes for war is silly.

Russia builds great helicopters, no doubt. 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. Maybe that's why so many bright people come here to work and raise a family. It's a different attitude.

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.

Your remarks attributed to Russian designers fly in the face of televised interviews that I have personally watched. I think you might too selective about what you accept.

Russia built the largest and best bombers of the aviation stone age. Russia would have probably gone on to continue that trend if the beast from Georgia didn't interfere. But then again, he did interfere, and the rest is history.

The TU-4 was copied because Stalin didn't trust his own designers to "get it right", while he knew that the B-29 was already "right". If the Ú×ÅÒØ from Georgia wasn't the paranoid psychopath that he was, he would have SAVED time by trusting his own designers with plans they already had in the works. Or, at least, that's what Tupolev's surviving colleagues have stated.

By the way, there were over 1200 TU-4's made, and they were the backbone of the Soviet nuclear capable air fleet until sometime in the 50's (even though they were obsolete long before they were replaced).

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.

As for fighter aircraft, we will see. I am a big fan of Russian fighters, and rate them as peers to the best of the west. Who has the very best right now is subject to armchair quarterback style debate, but as it stands, current US fighters have a pretty good combat record.

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.


Voyager

[Yakov_Leskov]

Originally posted by ahem
Your friend had a first hand expirience with AN-94? You have a friend who is a Russian special operative, or knows one very well? Don't make me laugh. You've studied detailed technocal drawings of AN-94? Will you tell me next that you work for FSB? I never accussed you of not "being qulified" to rate it, I said that you know nothing about it. Information on it that is available on it is very much misleading, and as a matter of fact, AN-94 has been a complete system since 1994, and has been accepted and used by the army since then. Why don't you rate AEK-971?

What are Radio Moscow and Voice of Russia? There are quite a few programs about space on Russian television, some of which deal on american moon landings. You really should take the patch off your eyes, the debate of american moon landings has been on for quite a while. France officially does not except it. This is not a rumor, nor an opinion.
Wh don't you try to research something before stating it?
And by the way could you explain to me how can a flag beat in the wind in vaccum? And, please stop the baby talk about intercepted signals,a probe can land on the Moon without humans, in fact our probe was thee first. Russian man landing operation was terminated because Russia did not have the technology to land a live human being on to the Moon and bring him home agin alive. A major cause for it was radiation, NASA never disclosed how it overcame that problem, I wonder why. Your attitude towards other ideas shows you to be a bigot.

So, Mir was a piece of sh1t, was it? I wonder what it makes Space Shuttles. Yes, most people did want to leave it in space, but any museum requires money to be kept. Mir did not fall down, it was brought down remotly, you surely should know that.

"Your revelation about the Cold War.... "
And of course, it was USSR that bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and, of course, it was USSR that said that USA and all capitalists would be next.


"On the ISS... "

Why, oh, why doesn't the site say anything about the beggining of ISS. You obviously never heard of NASA buying a prototype of "Energiya" after "Challenger" either.

"It's just a start, but it does point out that the ISS is not quite an old Soviet blueprint that was dusted off and built in a Russian factory with American Greenbacks. "

Well, the station reminds me of Mir rather than of Skylab. Hm, actually the blocks look very much like those that made up Mir.

"The U.S. elements include three connecting modules, or nodes; a laboratory module; truss segments; four solar arrays; a habitation module; three mating adapters; a cupola; an unpressurized logistics carrier and a centrifuge module. The various systems being developed by the U.S. include thermal control; life support; guidance, navigation and control; data handling; power systems; communications and tracking; ground operations facilities and launch-site processing facilities."

Well, the american developed systems have been ditched since 1999. Have you asked yourself the site says "U.S. elements iclude" and not "U.S. developed elements include"?

"Aircraft.... "

I never said that a CPU was a negative element of a modern fighter, I said that an aircraft that can't fly without a CPU is not a very good aircraft. The reason why Russian aircraft did not incorporate FBW systems before, was that the aircraft was build for real war, something USA never expirienced. You never answered my question about one fighter.

Sikorskiy, became an american? Was Rahmaninov an american too? You really do not understand what a nationality and culture are, only Russian heeled Jewish half-breeds like eyradi8 become americans. Sikorskiy said that Soviets use their helicopter as tractors, something unimaginable for US helicopters to achieve. You should research his life in USA a bit more, as many of his decendants left USA.

Tupolev swore when anybody mentioned B-52, he said that no real aircraft designer would design such a thing, so ugly it was. What does Stlin making aircraft designers copy planes have to do with the subject? Tu-4 was never realy produced because it was not a very good plane, and was copied because of lack of time, just like Space Shuttle was copied because of lack of time.

Russian designers do respect the final product of american designers potent military assets ( I've said this before) but as aircraft, no. And most designers do think that our aircraft are better.

"Many more years than it took the capitalists do get there. "
Once again you are mistaken. The concept of a stratigic bomber was entirely Russian (Sikorskiy's), and the first strategic bomber was Russian - Iliya Muromets.

"By the way, the TU-160 is the only real strategic bomber that Russia currently has in it's fleet. "

Do you know what "strategic bomber" means. it means a bomber that can hit stratigic targets, which both Tu-22M3 and Tu-95 are capable of.

"Your remark about current Russian fighters having no equal " I never said that Russian fighters have no equals, I said that Russian aircraft have no equals, and they don't. Care to mention any western plane that can perform a kulbit?

"No matter how badly the idea burns in your gut, both Russia and the US have a great deal of talent, and much in common. The two countries are well on the road to becoming economic and scientific partners. "

Yes, and the recent talks in camp David proved that...


P.S. to: Arkasha.

Your metaphoras are striking! Could you not come up with anything else? I guess that it is not a coinsidence that Arkasha rymes with "parasha".

I agree with everything u have said so far, Ahem. Don't listen to those other simple minded twits, who are probably are the off spring peasants.