ajaybhutani

I think that will damage the chineese more as their production will stop while US will be able to procure at a higher price from other places( there will shortage and inflation but better than most industries shutting down.)

Dima

"the Russian army lost every battle"

oh, when? what war are you talking about?

"like the B-29, and fighters we sold them like the P-39,"

yes, well what about the scalar electromagnetic technology you bought from Russia in 1993/1994, or the R-300(?) rocket that you are using for the Atlas?(i think it's the Atlas)

and you say that Russia has been behind the entire time, that's why the Buran shuttle was the first shuttle to have an automated landing, and had the highest payload of any shuttle, that's why Russia has had more space stations than America has ever had

"here are no Russian Flags flying on the moon,"

you obviously haven't sen the truth, many people say that America never landed on the Moon, you should watch a documentary, on Discovery Channel or History channel, forgot which one i watched it on, they showed extensive amounts of proff that shows America's so called moon landing, might have been a hoax, i don't know what to believe

"and is still catching up to the US from where it dropped out of the race after the Cold War"

more like America's 750 satellite force is catching up to the 2100 satellite force of Russia, also, Russia ahs for the past two years had the highest launch rate of any country, almost half of global launches<44-46% if i remember correctly)

"Akula is not superior to the western equivelants"

wow, where did you get that comment from? you should really learn how to read, and why isn't it, it's an advanced submarine, how can you say that the Seawolf(exp.) is better than the akula?

"I laugh at you!!!!! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!"
don't worry, i laugh at you to, LOLOLLOLLOLO

"It's no wonder we crushed you utterly without firing a shot."

?what?

ajay, i'm afraid you don't understand, the reason why the American's economy's external debt isn't doubling(well, almost doubling, about 85% growth per year if this were to happen) trade between America and the China is extensive, but, to addd to this, America's debt to China through trade is extensive, lol, it is something about $500 billion, now, what happens with this money gained by China, they reinvest it back into the American economy, so, in the end, America loses very little if anything at all, but if China(which has no obligation of investing it back into the American economy) were to spend this $500 billion, on other things, such as improving infrastructure, agriculture, the military, health care, education etc. , there would be no magic money getting put into the American economy

now, when China reinvests this money, most of it goes directly into purchasing stocks from American companies, but, if American stock market were to get into slump, as it has been recently, China wouldn't want to risk investing this money into the stock market , not only China has the power to do this, but many other nations that America has large trade defecits with, such as Canada, Mexico, Japan, Germany etc. and even Russia(in fact, their trade defecit with Russia amounts to only $1.84 billion, but will more than double this year, can't find the actual number)

__________________
for MOTHER MOLDOVA

Terran empire

The Russian Shuttle only Launched Once, and then was moth balled. They only built one and six mock ups (one of which could Fly under jet power the rest were for training) the original was destroyed when it's storage hanger roof collapsed. of the Mock ups One is a tourist attraction in Russia and the other got a fresh coat of paint and was last seen @ the Sidney Olympics it was later Tried too be auctioned off by a LA radio station but never got a bid $6 million was the Asking price

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...ft/q0153.shtml

And America Did land on the moon. All the Proof as you called it Can used be Prove that some people are Morons.

__________________
"Finger never touches Trigger unless some one is going too need a grave digger" (Me)[

sw55

You are insane.

The US economy is doing quiet well from what I can see. Russian capitalism has a long way to go.

What is left of the Soviet Navy amounts to a hand full of 1990's Soviet technology, not bad but not the best either, and definately not 21st century world class naval power. It seems getting underway is a formadable challenge to any Russian combattant these days... Taking on the US Navy would be a sad mistake.

I would bet Seawolf is twice the submarine, and capability of the Akula, which only came close to the Los Angelas Class.

Dima, You are very informed for your age, although it is very one sided. Blind patriotism is a dangerous thing, and you are blinded by yours. Warfare is an art perfected and practiced by people much more informed than you or I, and frankly Russia is still broke, although it may be able to buy some new aircraft and upgrades this year, for the first time in a decade. The majority of the Soviet navy is gone, dismanteled on an Indian beach for scrap metal, or rusting pierside. Russia is still a great country, but it is definately more of a land power these days. Wake up man, you are living in your Soviet past... (which ironically you were not even alive during.)

highsea

Dima, I just wish that ONCE you would get your facts straight. The US has more than twice as many OPERATIONAL military satellites than Russsia has. Russia can't even get Glonass running for pete's sake. Get a freaking clue. The US Navy has more DECLASSIFIED satellites than most of the rest of the world combined.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/...tables2004.htm

Understand something. US Space Command tracks about 8500 objects in near earth orbits. About 7% of those are active satellites. That's about 600 TOTAL. Commercial AND military combined.

__________________
My baby called me up. She said- Why don't you ever take me out? Pick me up in your brand new car....You shake the short change from the old fruit jar...

sw55

This is true. The major concern was that the Russians had NO early warning satelites operational, and for many years after the cold war. The problem is that then Russia is on a hair trigger with thier nuclear weapons, however I seem to think that A.W.A.S.T. said within the last year some early warning satellites were launched by Russia. Saellites have very limited lives, especially the majority of Soviet era recon birds. The US's "KeyHole" series had somewhat longer lives, with extensive fuel for altering their orbits and "real time" pics/video, and were suppose to last several years on average. The Russians liked the disposable types, with larger numbers. After the cold war, the Russians didn't launch hardly any, if any, and were unstable as a result. Any country with more than 500 nuclear warheads should never be "unstable"... I know this is starting to turn into a Navy thread, but this is really cool, copied from another thread...

"We have the Vandal and we our developing a new super-sonic drone.

The ESSM has engaged a drone going Mach 5 pulling 10 G's.


http://www.natoseasparrow.org/

then go to 'graphics and videos'.

MIKEMUN

Oh,and Dima,your precious Russia wants to slap sanctions on Moldavia because it has started looking west......

__________________
"They want to test our feelings.They want to know whether Muslims are extremists or not. Death to them and their newspapers."

Protester

sw55

Dima,
Russia had the first shuttle, well yea it did, but as mentioned above it didn't fly but once, and even then I think it was unmanned. If it isn't usable, which it evidently isn't, then is what credit is it worth? Using the same logic, I have converted my pickup into the first time travel machine in my garage, I just haven't fixed all the bugs out of it yet. Call it what you want, but you are kidding yourself if you think the US shuttle and Russian version are comparable. One of them works, and has worked, albiet with two tragic accidents, for almost 20 years now. And if you really believe the US didn't land on the moon, you are not just kidding yourself, you are gullible. I have some cheap ocean front property in Colorado for you... Now, please excuse me, but my UFO ride is here, I am hitching a ride to Alpha Centuri to get away from some gullible morons that seem to attract to me...

Dima

yes, so, your point Terran?

it at least did it

well, what would you define as qiute well? is 4% good enough for you?

"I would bet Seawolf is twice the submarine, and capability of the Akula, which only came close to the Los Angelas Class. "

well, how can you say that though? you only bet, well, to put it into equal terms, i bet that the Akula is twice the submarine the Seawolf is? lol, but it means nothing

actually, i was born in 1989, so two years before the Soviet Union collapsed, and i'm proud to be a Soviet citizen

just to clear up some misunderstandings, on how Russian navy is all rfom the 80's and early 90's

Russia received a brand new Amur 1650 submarine in 2004, 2 project 877 submarines in 1996 and 1998, and 1 project 949A submarine in 1997

they have received 4 new submarines from 1996-2005

in comparison, even though America garaunteed inducted more

2 SSBN 726 Ohio submarines, 4 SSGN's, 2 SSN 21 Seawolf's, 1 SSN 23 Jimmy Carter, 2 SSN 688I submarines, and 1 SSN 774 Virginia, totalling 10 submarines in the same period of time

now surface ships, excluding aircraft carriers, 8 DDG 51 Flight 1's, 7 DDG 51 Flight 2's, and 18 DDG Flight 2A's for a total of 33

Russia inducted 1 Project 1144.2, 1 Project 1155, 1 project 1164, and 2 Project 956 destroyers, for a total of only 5 surface ships in the same period

just wanted to show you that not everything of Russia's is old

"military satellites"

military satellites, perhaps, but overall, Russia has more, let me try to locate that link again, no such lukc, oh well

anyways, you mentioned the GLONASS system, currently, they only have 12 out of the 24 satellites needed, and this year alone, they will launch 3 satellites intended to join the GLONASS navigation system

also, my facts are accurate, especially the one stating that Russia is the world-wide leader in space launches

yes, Russian satellites, have small "life expectancies" some satellites have lives as low as 3-4 years

yea the ESSM is really fast, Mach 5, pretty incredible, but 10G's, for a missile, not really

"lOh,and Dima,your precious Russia wants to slap sanctions on Moldavia because it has started looking west......"

lol, i know, because we deported 46 belarussians and 100 russians, they thought they were spying on the Moldavian president because the elections are in March, and the Communist government is said to be elected once again, they're looking towards the west, as in west, it means the EU, they are looking to join the EU, as their relations with the US are questionable, i am not knowledgeable enough to know about them, but if moldova eventually does join the EU, i will immediately we a western supporter as well as a supporter of Russia, but i will lessen my support of ALL Russian military hardware as i am doing right now

"Russia had the first shuttle"

no they didn't? the Americans had the first shuttle

what credit, lol, it could land unmanned, what do you mean? what credit, it takes some considerable skill to do that, especially with the computing power that was available in 1988

"I have converted my pickup into the first time travel machine in my garage, I just haven't fixed all the bugs out of it yet."

that analogy is irrelevant, as the landing was successful

okay, believe what the media has shown you, i don't care, i like looking at it at a different perspective, and until you understand that, it's hopeless , i like conspiracies and such

have a nice day

Terran empire

My point is that you stated That the Russian Buran orbiter System was the reason the russians had more Space stations, Yet how can that be if the Buran only flew once and that was a test not a mission? and there was no follow up? the answer. it can not be responsible. there for your statement is in error and your information is faulty. In other words you Don't know what you are talking about. The Buran will go down in history as a Waste of Rubles and foot note that lead no where other than its booster system.

Dima

lol, you don't need a resuable aircraft such as a Space Shuttle to carry parts to form a space station lol, you can use rockets such as the Soyuz disposable rocket, or others, that's how the ISS is being maintinaed currently

waste of rubles, it was that project that helped Russia make the Proton, and the Kuiper(?) i don't have much information on it, but the Proton was rateda s the world's second best means of transportation into europe according to its efficiency, while the Atlas ranked first

highsea

You don't know what you are talking about.
At the rate they are launching, they will keep up with attrition, nothing more. It is only with India's money that Glonass will get back up and running, and even then it won't be 100%, with something like 18 sats by 2007. BTW there are only 11 currently operating sats right now.
Big deal. The US landed a spaceship on Mars in 1976. It picked it's own landing site and carried out multiple scientific experiments and sent the data back to earth.

The Buran only made two orbits, carried out no experiments, it didn't even open the cargo bay doors. Not exactly an amazing feat for a shuttle that was a direct copy of the US shuttle, and 5 years behind schedule when it did it. US airliners have been making autolandings for years.

Anon

"actually, i was born in 1989, so two years before the Soviet Union collapsed, and i'm proud to be a Soviet citizen"

Dismissing for a moment the utter stupidity of being proud to be a communist heathen, i feel a need to remind you that there is no longer any such thing as a 'soviet citizen'.

Sorry bud.

Anon

"yea the ESSM is really fast, Mach 5, pretty incredible, but 10G's, for a missile, not really"

You misunderstand Dima. ESSM achieves Mach 4.0+ and 60Gs.

The TARGET it engaged was going Mach 5 and manuevering at 10Gs.

"what credit, lol, it could land unmanned, what do you mean? what credit, it takes some considerable skill to do that, especially with the computing power that was available in 1988"

Sorry, but that technology has been around in the west since the 60s...at least.

Terran empire

Dima what the hell are you on about now? are you saying we (the US) should buy the russian Shuttle too replace Ours? Or pay for the Russians to Build them and use them?
Yes We do need a Reusable system better then the current space shuttle ( which judging by your post you dont seem to know it we still have 3 in our active fleet the Discovery, the Atlantis & the Endeavour, They are still under going Refit and new safety systems are being added. But at the Same time these Craft are getting old a new system is going too be needed sooner rather then later, but the russian shuttle is not the answer,
One if it were we might as well keep the Current Shuttles why you ask? first it would be a hell of a lot cheaper, The Boosters used for the Russian Shuttle Are more expensive then the Us ones.
two then we would have to Build them and re-gear them to US spec and The Kennedy space center to Russian. unless we wanted too pay for the whole russian Program but that makes no logical sense and the russians have shown no interest in paying there way of late.
three both systems still use Boosters the most expensive part of both systems are the boosters. Don't get me Wrong the US Shuttle is a very good system but it suffers the same problems as The Concorde, B52's, A 10's and Iowa-class Battle ships. That problem is that so few were Built and they were built so long ago that no one makes the Parts any more when new ones are built there parts are not compatible with the Older versions. What is needed is a whole new system Not a revamped old one. But to do that a Real real commitment by NASA not just Artists Impressions. But solid Research and Funds spent on Research, Development and testing of a fully Reusable system that does not use Boosters to Go in too extreme High atmospheric flight. the Venture Star was at one time Meant too Be that but NASA's budget is so often cut, and it seems too have died out.

And as for the boosters they were not Originally meant for the Buran there designer meant them for a mars mission, that never was.