Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ike 2K# on January 13, 2003, 11:43:53 PM
-
study shows that the Buran shuttle is supperior to the US space shutte because.........
1. it can carry more payload (since it doesnt have main engines like the shuttle
2. throttle settings can be change with the Energia booster (once the US shuttle's booster is on, it cannot be turned off)
3. The buran can be flown unmanned and she can land by herself (she can land with wind speeds up to 30 mph)
-
LOL!!!
-
That's great. Guess how many Burans they have?
-
studies show that the space shuttle has been in service for many years. How long has Buran shuttle been operating?
-
The first and only orbital launch of the shuttle Buran was at 3:00 GMT on November 15, 1988. The flight was unmanned, as the life support system had not been checked out and the CRT displays had no software installed. The vehicle was launched on the powerful Energiya booster into an 247 by 256 km orbit at 51.6 degrees inclination. The Buran orbited the Earth twice before firing its thrusters for reentry. The flight ended at 6:25 GMT when the vehicle touched down at Tyuratum. The Buran 1 mission was limited to 2 orbits due to computer memory limitations.
Sounds like they maybe 20 years behind US as usual :)
-
on a lighter note: I wonder why the Russian shuttle seems to look kinda like the US shuttle? Coincidence I guess.
-
Someone was selling Buran on eBay for a bottle of vodka.
-
NASA says it looks like the shuttle because the shuttle plans can be baught from them. As can be for all publicly funded programs. Saw it on Discovery chennel.
-
LOL, the Trabant of space shuttles
-
What made u think the space shuttle couldn't fly unmanned ?
-
The 'Concordeski' aircraft was also superior to its rival. The crash at the Paris air show is now thought to be due to a French Mirage taking pictures and shadowing it from above. The Russian pilot pushed the nose forward to avoid a collision and stalled the engines. He got most of them restarted during the dive, but by this time, he exceeded the stress limitation of the airframe pulling out and it broke up.
In terms of aerodynamics the Russians have always been up there. Anyone see that program on the 'Caspian Sea Dragon'?
-
i get so tired of people always saying russia is always better than the USA (b-29) some people seem to want to put down the USA because we are so good, if the russians did not have stolen plans of USA stuff they would have nothing.
-
Generally speaking Russains tend to be better at aerodynmics and mechanical things, the USA tends to be better in electronics and overall sophistication and refinement.
-
yeah? where is the russian blackbird? oh , they didn't steal the plans yet or they don't have the titanium or (insert excuse)
-
That's why they'd make a good team Grunherz.
Of course, the real Concorde is the only aircraft that does super-sonic passenger flight economically, and has done so for the last 30+ years. I believe that is the true achievement.
if the russians did not have stolen plans of USA stuff they would have nothing.
And by that logic, if the US et al hadn't stolen plans from the Nazis, they would have nothing.
The Cold War has been over for some time.
-
Anyway they both suk compared to the dutch.
We invented the cd to copy all ur toejam.
:o
-
the concord has never made money , it is subsidized by the french and english govts
-
the concord has never made money , it is subsidized by the french and english govts
1) The US aviation industry is subsidized heavily by the US government, in terms of insurance
2) There hasn't been an English government for several hundred years.
-
Mig25 was very snsitive to running at anywhere near Mach 3, for example I read that the engines were often only good for one mach 3 flight and had to be replaced on landing. This in fact happend during the israel recon flights. Plus its engines were very sensitive too throttle changes because they were designed intially for an enormous cruise missle which naturally ran on a constant power setting.
-
2) There hasn't been an English government for several hundred years.
Some people are just too damn anal.. ;)
-
S'ok Dowding...at least ya still got the Queen.
-
But the problem is when people describe the Mig-25 as a mach 3 plane. It wasnt, except for short bursts after which the engines were pretty much destroyed in one flight. That was not the case with SR71.
I'm saying the plane is no miracle that got a supposed Mach 3 sprint capability for nothing - there were serious drawbacks and compromises in the design.
-
Originally posted by john9001
i get so tired of people always saying russia is always better than the USA (b-29) some people seem to want to put down the USA because we are so good, if the russians did not have stolen plans of USA stuff they would have nothing.
Now lets see, how did the US get into the space race in the first place...hmmm...
Lots of Nazis on the NASA Payroll pal, I bet you didnt know that, or maybe you were just avoiding that pesky little fact. But Oopps, they were not nazis at all, because von Braun and his merry bunch of rocket scientists were all USA democrats deep inside.
You should try to think before you talk mr "USA is so good and everyone steals our technology", because when you dont, you are just displaying your ignorance in an arrogant manner that tends to piss people off.
-
I wouldnt say it was versitale, just fast enough and prolly cheap enough if you ignore the new engines after every mach 3 flight. :D
-
The Russians have made seeral very good aircraft. Where the US relies on technology and software to get performance, the Russians like to play around with physics. Aerodyamically they've produced very sound planes.
Also their plaes are created to operate under quite harsh conditions. I've seen the runway sweeps in the US - to make sure something isn't sucked into the engie. The Russians build planes that can land and take off on very primitive runways.
I think that the US approach is preferrable when you want to minimize loss of human life. It works great as long as all the complex pieces are in place. However they have relatively long turnaround times and if the background technology isn't in place, their effectiveness goes down dramatically.
Of course the US ensures that the tech is in place. I've often wondered whether this reliance on hi tech and everything being just OK was good. I guess it is, as long as you have economical dominance and can control when how and why.
-
.
-
You gonna elaborate or be mysterous Toad... :)
-
The Buran is superior to the Shuttle ... it should be, considering it was designed a decade later, and with the all the benefits of the US' experience with the Shuttle. That the Russians have no funding to finalize its development and use it, is another matter entirely.
How do you figure that the Buran is superior to the shuttle when it only ever made one test flight? The shuttle has a long list of susessful missions. What has the Buran proven? It was never even completed.
As for the Mig 25, read "Mig Pilot" and you will learn that the only times it was clocked at mach 3 on a mission were when it's engine was throttled and out of control.
Now the SR-71 and Valkerie ( mach 3+ bomber) were both designed in the late 1950's and went into service by 1964. They both are far beyond anything the Russians have built, even till now.
Russians are better at aerodynamics and mechanical things????
I could give a long list of US built aircraft that are superior in aerodynamics and design to what the Russians have built.
-
Originally posted by john9001
yeah? where is the russian blackbird? oh , they didn't steal the plans yet or they don't have the titanium or (insert excuse)
No titanium?
To build them, The US govt had to use dummy companies to buy the titanium from the russians. :eek:
When it comes to technology, the cold war was russia's german scientists vs america's german scientists. :D
Originally posted by NUKE
Now the SR-71 and Valkerie ( mach 3+ bomber) were both designed in the late 1950's and went into service by 1964. They both are far beyond anything the Russians have built, even till now.
Russians are better at aerodynamics and mechanical things????
I could give a long list of US built aircraft that are superior in aerodynamics and design to what the Russians have built.
The Xb-70 Valkyrie never entered service. Only two were built, both as research aircraft, not bombers. One was lost in a mid-air collision, the remaining one is at the USAF museum.
As for aerodynamics, modern russian fighters have a huge edge over anything american when it comes to the dogfight. The US(Probably correctly) has focused mainly on long-range weapons, and less on the close in fight.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
No argument there Grun. The Mig-25 and the SR-71 was not designed to do the same missions. The SR-71 was an all-expenses-paid reece plane.
Nah, it was a high altitude, high speed interceptor. Unfortunately (fortunately?) it wasn't that good at the job it was designed for, so they turned it in to a spy plane.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Russians are better at aerodynamics and mechanical things????
I could give a long list of US built aircraft that are superior in aerodynamics and design to what the Russians have built.
I'm listening :)
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Nah, it was a high altitude, high speed interceptor. Unfortunately (fortunately?) it wasn't that good at the job it was designed for, so they turned it in to a spy plane.
The YF-12 interceptor was built to counter the percieved threat of high speed Russian nuclear equiped Bombers. None went into service. It wasnt that it "wasn't good at the job" so much as it wasn't needed.
-
Originally posted by Russian
I'm listening :)
OK Russian, I will present a list and you can counter the list using Russian equivilents that flew close to the same time. This will be fun:)
I'm off to work so check back tonight .
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Now lets see, how did the US get into the space race in the first place...hmmm...
Lots of Nazis on the NASA Payroll pal, I bet you didnt know that, or maybe you were just avoiding that pesky little fact. But Oopps, they were not nazis at all, because von Braun and his merry bunch of rocket scientists were all USA democrats deep inside.
You should try to think before you talk mr "USA is so good and everyone steals our technology", because when you dont, you are just displaying your ignorance in an arrogant manner that tends to piss people off.
German science played a very large roll in our technlogical growth for sure...the pisser for many of you I'm certain, is that we had the ability as a nation to not only sustain it, but to improve it and implement it as well.
When you boys across the pond start your pissy little insults, it only brings a smile to an American.
Jealousy and envy are not desirable traits.
-
Originally posted by hawk220
LOL, the Trabant of space shuttles
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
the buran CAN FLY BY ITSELF AND SAVE $$$ BY NOT PUTTING 6 CREWS IN IT IF THEY GONNA CARRY SOME STUFF TO THE MIR. they reported that only 2 or 5 tiles were missing during the 1st flight compare to shuttle's 10-15
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Generally speaking Russains tend to be better at aerodynmics and mechanical things, the USA tends to be better in electronics and overall sophistication and refinement.
it like saying they are (the russians) building toyota (toyota has a reputaion of being reliable) cars and we (usa) built planes like ferrari.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The YF-12 did have problems, but they were mostly related to its weapon systems. The plane itself was sound, as seen by the remarkable SR-71.
IIRC it had very little problem. It had to slow down to drop its bombs. Not very smart move when SAM are flying toward you. (Was that the reason only 3 converded?)
The only thing that I can think is similar is Cy-100.
How about M-7. IMO that’s aerodynamical and revolutionized.
(And no one else had anything that comes near)
-
Originally posted by Ike 2K#
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
the buran CAN FLY BY ITSELF AND SAVE $$$ BY NOT PUTTING 6 CREWS IN IT IF THEY GONNA CARRY SOME STUFF TO THE MIR. they reported that only 2 or 5 tiles were missing during the 1st flight compare to shuttle's 10-15
Um... I thought the Buran was a monument to past glories? I don't think it can fly anything, including itself lol.
[edit] Ooops I stand corrected
http://k26.com/buran/Future/OK-TVA/ok-tva.html
[/edit]
My opinion: The Russians make em prettier. Especially ships.
-Sik
-
Never underestimate the Russians! Jeez, they were winning the space-race handily until the US put a man on the moon. Any country that can do that deserves our greatest repect.
-
the SR-71 BlackBird was designed by a CANADIAN engineer working for the US:p
-
I was always rather impressed that the Chinese used oak planks as reentry heatshields.
The close grained resinous wood would carbonize and wick up resins to the surface where they would vaporise creating a plasma layer. The planks would gradually burn down, partially protected by the carbonized top layer.
A nameless nasa scientist remarked that it was 'an elegant solution'.
Sometimes low tech works better than high...
As for american miltary hardware, when it works it's the best: but what would you expect from a country that spends trillions of dollars on defence?
A trillion is more than you think it is.
Imagine you were immortal and fabulously wealthy. Imagine that on the day Christ was born you put twenty seven million US dollars into a 0% savings account. Now imagine that you saved another $27,000,000 every day without fail until today, you'd have a whole shedload of money right?
Well, yes you would, but you still wouldn't have as much money as the USA has spent on defence since 1945
(source: Bremner, Bird and Fortune)
-
Stridr417: Never underestimate the Russians! Jeez, they were winning the space-race handily until the US put a man on the moon. Any country that can do that deserves our greatest repect.
They had obvious advantages of a collectivist system. They could mobilise scientific, labor and material resources in a very short term and on a massive scale even if that caused massive disruptions to the economy and famine, deprivation, even deaths to the population.
They had disposable people - actually willing to risk their lives in experiments/attempts rather than come up with safer ways to do things. Imagine how much fruitfull your development can be if you can use people like mice and monkeys. Also makes equipment simpler - no need for triple safety if 85% will do.
They had total secrecy, so they could repeat attempts untill successfull and then declare it to their population.
They did not have commercial and business opportunities, all salaries were the same, so an intelligent person was much more likely to end up in research in Soviet Union that an american. It did make the difference, despite low technical equipment of research facilities. When one computer costs 10 times more than an engineer's salary (I sold a PC-XT in 1989 for ~14,000 roubles with engineer salary around 140 roubles/month), you have plenty of qualified people (M.S.) standing around with soldering irons ensuring the precious computer is running or manually drafting the plans (no CAD). Someone is bound to come up with a good idea or two.
miko
-
The US has much better secret alien Centaurian technology than the obsolescent Luytentian technology of the Russians. :rolleyes:
-
The Buran may be more capable in general terms than the Space Shuttle, but one thing that has to be taken into account when you talk space is "cost effective".
The Ariane 4 launcher, for example, was (no longer manufactured) a very fine launcher, and considered the safest in the world together with the Soyuz, but capable of putting in a GTO much heavier payloads.
As I said, it's no longer manufactured, as it has been replaced by the more powerful yet less reliable Ariane 5. Why? It is MUCH cheaper.
The Ariane 5 can carry up to 10 Tons now and has about 50% less parts than the Ariane 4, making it very cost-effective. True it has had some accidents, but the possibility of making dual launches makes it the preferred launcher in the world right now, with more than 40% of the commercial market.
From what I know, the Buran was a very fine piece of engineering, but it was very expensive as well... and having the Soyuz safely transporting people to space, it was more a political investment than a truly necessary one.
Even the space shuttle is barely cost effective in industrial terms, but its main "raison d'être" is the publicity of being an unique spaceship. You can do what the shuttle does with conventional launchers much cheaper, but it wouldn't be as spectacular.
Daniel
-
Originally posted by AKIron
The US has much better secret alien Centaurian technology than the obsolescent Luytentian technology of the Russians. :rolleyes:
No diggity man. People are forever discounting that.
-Sik
-
The shuttle can do a wheelie on landing, therefore it's better than the Buran.
-
CyranoAH: From what I know, the Buran was a very fine piece of engineering, but it was very expensive as well...
No sh#t - being hand assembled. Actually, money was not an issue, soviet workers being paid nominal wages - but the time it would have taken to assemble a new one, starting with sorting the millions of lousy components for ones actually within acceptable tolerances.
Even the space shuttle is barely cost effective in industrial terms,
It's not - the Shutle and Space Station only made sence in terms of assembling a manned mission to Mars - which got scrapped. So NASA is trying to sneak that project on us and keep the component programs going by coming up with inane reasons for their separate existence - trying not to mention a word "Mars" in the process.
miko
-
If only the two countries had worked together during the cold war/space race... we may actually be able to get past our moon... but to do the programs individually... what a fukin waste of money, time and resources.
-SW
-
That would negate the whole driving force of the rival space programs SW, to beat the other side. Look how it all went down the tubes as far as a Mars mission after the Soviets proved incapable of building a workable moon rocket.
-
this is how the buran looks like
(http://www.conceptdraw.com/samples/samplestour/Buran/Buran.gif)
(http://home.c2i.net/jonass/gif-jpg/buran/small/buran-ready.jpg)
(http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/space/11/14/downlinks/link.buran.jpg)
-
Russians are better at copying.
-
Originally posted by Tommy
NASA says it looks like the shuttle because the shuttle plans can be baught from them. As can be for all publicly funded programs. Saw it on Discovery chennel.
Anyone ever see Tommy and HiTech at the same party? Hmmmmmmmm?
-
Boroda moved to LA and changed his name to Ike? :confused:
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Nah, it was a high altitude, high speed interceptor. Unfortunately (fortunately?) it wasn't that good at the job it was designed for, so they turned it in to a spy plane.
25s flew over Israel in 1970 BEFORE 25 officialy entered service. It was armed after successfull recon service.
-
(http://www.videocosmos.com/images/burya/buran.jpg) (http://www.eventshq.com/GENERAL/BURAN-US.JPG)
buran cockpit
(http://jcboulay.free.fr/astro/sommaire/astronautique/russes/bourane/images/bourane_cockpit.jpg)
piggyback with the an-124(http://www.royfc.com/htmlz/graphics/buran.jpg)
-
Ok.
Buran will never fly again.
In 1992 when USSR felt apart, Kazakhstan stated that Baikonur is now their property. Russian military literaly hacked everything they could ant carried it to Russia on cargo planes...
There were square kilometers of cryogenic equipment... It's impossible to restore it now.
BTW, Energiya was capable to bring 200 metric ton payload to orbit. AFAIK noone was ever able to beat it. Saturn-V (what a great rocket!!!) brought 145 tons IIRC.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
That would negate the whole driving force of the rival space programs SW, to beat the other side. Look how it all went down the tubes as far as a Mars mission after the Soviets proved incapable of building a workable moon rocket.
Ever heard of "Zond" returnable moon orbiters? We had unmanned spacecrafts on Moon orbit before we could launch manned flights.
Moon programm was a horrible waste of resources. No use to repeat American mistakes, and no glory to be second.
-
I got the day off!
I'm not gonna post a list of US planes V. Russian because it is pointless.
The Russians built some fine aircraft.
I just think US stuff is a little ahead of them.
These I consider pretty advanced and/or amazing aircraft
47 StatoFortress
B-58 Hustler
A-5 Vigilante
F-4 PhantomII
SR-71 Blackbird
XB-70 Valkyerie
A-7 CoursairII
F-111 Aardvark
F-14 Tomcat
F-15 Eagle
F-16 Fighting Falcon
A-10 Warthog
B-1 ( ?)
B-2 Spirit
F-117 Nighthawk
F-22 Raptor
-
Heh reminds me of that (urban myth) story.
NASA spends 1 million dollar developing a pen that works in zero gravity.
The Russian bring pencils :D
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I got the day off!
I'm not gonna post a list of US planes V. Russian because it is pointless.
The Russians built some fine aircraft.
I just think US stuff is a little ahead of them.
These I consider pretty advanced and/or amazing aircraft
47 StatoFortress
B-58 Hustler
A-5 Vigilante
F-4 PhantomII
SR-71 Blackbird
XB-70 Valkyerie
A-7 CoursairII
F-111 Aardvark
F-14 Tomcat
F-15 Eagle
F-16 Fighting Falcon
A-10 Warthog
B-1 ( ?)
B-2 Spirit
F-117 Nighthawk
F-22 Raptor
oooops, you forgot SU-27 Flanker and SU-37 duper flanker on that list;)
-
Originally posted by StSanta
NASA spends 1 million dollar developing a pen that works in zero gravity.
The Russian bring pencils :D
and why use the shuttle (discovery, endeaveur, ect) if its more expensive to built and maintain than sending Soyuz and other modules to space:D
-
It funny how the manned moon missions became a wasteful mistake to the USSR only after the USA beat them to it and they just couldnt design a workable MANNED moon landing rocket... Hey Boroda? :D
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
It funny how the manned moon missions became a wasteful mistake to the USSR only after the USA beat them to it and they just couldnt design a workable MANNED moon landing rocket... Hey Boroda? :D
thats another reason why the USSR collapsed to it's knees:p
-
Hmmmm...
I'm curious as to how something can be better than the space shuttle at a job its never really done before. And... if it had done it before... what would actually make it better?
When it comes to space... did it get you there and back? If so, it was a success... if no, it was a failure. So far the Space Shuttle has a good record, while the buran is suffering from a divide by zero error.
Some people seem to love the hypothetical.
AKDejaVu
-
Jeez, they were winning the space-race handily until the US put a man on the moon.
"I was winning the dogfight handily until the bandit shot me down."
-
Deja,
The WW2 ACM sim I thought about designing and building was the best in the world.
I just never did it.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Well, they DID build the Buran, and they DID fly it.
yeah they flew it one time, unmanned because life support system was not operational and it was limited to 2 orbits due to computer memory limits.
They didn't even have software to run instruments...... real marvel.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
F-15 or F-22, which is best?
lol, its like you are comparing a spitfire over the spad
lol, f-15 and f-22 have different era's. F-15 was the best fighter of the 20th century and the f-22 will be the best fighter for the 21st century.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
F-15 or F-22, which is best?
Best at what?
F-22 is not operational but it appears it has more promise than f-15 at this time :)
-
I think the F-15 has an undefeated combat record of around 103/0
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Yupp, but don't you think the F-22 will prove to be the superior? If not ... why develop it?
F-15 1st flew around 1974, of course f-22 is superior
-
correction........f-15 flew in 1972
F-15 is over 30 years old
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Exactly. Same with the Buran. The design is superior. That the state that developed it went bankrupt and couldn't finalize it does not change that fact.
Change what fact?
-
The Space shuttle has been operating since early 80's, what has the Russian Shuttle done?
The F-15 has been flying since 1972.
The Russian Shuttle was never even close to operational.
The F-22 will be operational soon.
What is your point?
-
Originally posted by funkedup
"I was winning the dogfight handily until the bandit shot me down."
Funked wins :D Thanks for the laugh bro :)
-
The Russians failed miserably at landing on the moon. IIRC, they *crashed* 3 robotic landers onto the moon. One actually crashed while Apollo 11 was there.
As for the Buran, did it actually carry 120-130 tons on its one flight? If not, then that payload is THEORETICAL. Russians are notorious for exaggerating.
-
Our space monkeys would kick their space dogs tulips !
-
USA (my home)
:D :p
USSR (our ideal enemy)
;) :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Toad
Deja,
The WW2 ACM sim I thought about designing and building was the best in the world.
I just never did it.
Lame...
I designed AND built the best WW2 ACM sim ever. I even tried it once, but then deleted it because I couldn't afford a CD-ROM to save it on and I had to free up space on my hard drive for SimAnt.
AKDejaVu
-
a blank cd is only worth a dollar or 30 cents;)
-
""I designed AND built the best WW2 ACM sim ever. I even tried it once, but then deleted it because I couldn't afford a CD-ROM to save it on and I had to free up space on my hard drive for SimAnt.""
good one AK, i actualy started to code a race car sim, after about 2 -3 months work i found i could buy one for $20 , but of course mine would have been better
:D
-
The F-15 is probably better than the F-22 for our current needs. It's cheaper than the F-22 to keep operational (this may change as the F-15's age) and it carries more ordnance. The F-22 was designed for a battle we may never have to fight.
J_A_B
-
Yupp, but don't you think the F-22 will prove to be the superior? If not ... why develop it?
The Buran doesn't look like the next generation space craft
and it won't be .
USA is probably coming with a new craft in the future wich make the buran look like old school.
New space craft will be cost effective and the space shuttle and buran ain't
further development of the buran would be waste of money.
Hey and the space shulte for now is further developed and already so much used , that it is first choice to get things in space why would we do that with the buran wich isn't full operational?
The Buran just looks like a copy of the space shutle wich could highly alitle bit better.
It probably is.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
The F-22 will be operational in 2005 (if they don't get more problems).
the condition of US economy would dictate the year of the operational service
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Are you dim? Do you know how close to complete a spacecraft must be to actually fly in space? They hadn't installed the life-support yet, and the computers needed a few extra chips of RAM. They launched the thing into SPACE and it flew on its OWN.
The F-22 will be operational in 2005 (if they don't get more problems).
If you don't get my point by now, then yes you are dim.
Call me DIM I guess.
You claim the Buran "IS" superiour to the Space Shuttle, then try to use the F-22 v. F-15 as a comparison between the Space shuttle and Buran?
The Buran was an attempt at a copy of the space shuttle, right down to the ceramic tiles and piggy back rides on an airplane. The thing looks almost exactly like the space shuttle. Wow, the Russians really went out on a limb with that design concept.
You say the Buran "IS" superior to the Space shuttle? The space shuttles have years of service behind them and the lowely Buran has 2 unmanned orbits behind it. The reason the Buran was unmanned? No life support, only enough computer memory for 2 orbits, and no software to drive the instrument displays. Sounds superior to me.
-
Oh yeah I forgot to mention:
I have an incomplete car in my back yard that I designed to exceed 200 miles an hour. So far I have done a test drive around my block ( that was 10 years ago) but it is superior to any Corvette on the road today.
-
Originally posted by Ike 2K#
it like saying they are (the russians) building toyota (toyota has a reputaion of being reliable) cars and we (usa) built planes like ferrari.
Nice pissing contest.
As usual our nationalistic US posters are very sensitive about their complete, total, overwhelming, absolute, indiscussed, superiority in every single aspect of the world.
In fact the world did'nt existed before the US, when God created the universe, FIRST created the USA, then the rest.
(there are voices that God copied from a US design, but no one confirmed this theory)
And US invented Kurt Tank!!!!!
:D
Back to this thread pissing game, look at that quote above.
You are talking of reliability and low cost vs. technology and hi tech.
Ferrari it's STYLE more than anything else, and nor URSS neither USA have it :p :D
;)