China's 5th generation J-20 fighter joint venture with Russia?

[Moose-Knuckle]

New Chinese stealth jet starts talk of Russian help

http://news.yahoo.com/chinese-stealth-jet-fuels-talk-russian-help-080841615.html

[variablebinary]

New Chinese stealth jet starts talk of Russian help

http://news.yahoo.com/chinese-stealth-jet-fuels-talk-russian-help-080841615.html

Neither can even build a car that can be trusted...good luck with advanced aircraft

[Timbonez]

They (Russia) actually build very good fighters. China isn't a slouch either (albeit because of reverse engineering), plus China has money.

[NinjaMedic]

Indeed, when russia wishes too it can turn out some very capable military arms, quality control has traditionally been somewhat of a problem for them but they can overcome that in specific industries such as aerospace. They have traditionally matched us very well as far as fighter aircraft are concerned and their missiles have not been that far behind. The true arms race now is in sensor technology.

[Reagans Rascals]

Russian fighters are the best in the world.... don't even try to bring up the F-22 or the F-35... they have been grounded for months with no return to service in sight.

The Sukhoi PAK-FA is the most advance fighter in the world. It has Active Plasma Masking Stealth... where in the entire fighter is encapsulated in a plasma, absorbing all radar waves.... we have nothing that will touch it.

If Russia had the money that we used to have to spend on maintenance and quality control, they could decimate us on the skies, in the sea, and on land.

If you don't believe me, look up the SU-37, TU-160 Blackjack, TU-95 Bear, and the Typhoon submarine.... I rest my case

[GermanSynergy]

Sure they could....:rolleyes:

Why didn't they do it from 1945-1989?



If Russia had the money that we used to have to spend on maintenance and quality control, they could decimate us on the skies, in the sea, and on land.

[Reagans Rascals]

Sure they could....:rolleyes:

Why didn't they do it from 1945-1989?

They did... look at most of the Aircraft I listed before making uneducated assumptions

and correct me If I'm wrong but... who was the first in Space? and who is still making regular flights to space in a 40 year old capsule design?

[GermanSynergy]

I'm sorry, I must have missed the conflict where Russia "dominated" us by virtue of their armed forces, doctrine or equipment (even the ones you listed).

How did the Iraqi military of 1990-1991 and 2003 (which employed Soviet/Russian doctrine and equipment) fare against our forces?

To think that the Russians could go toe to toe with our military and prevail shows who is making uneducated assumptions.

Ever work with the Russian military?





They did... look at most of the Aircraft I listed before making uneducated assumptions

and correct me If I'm wrong but... who was the first in Space? and who is still making regular flights to space in a 40 year old capsule design?

[Bolt_Overide]

They did... look at most of the Aircraft I listed before making uneducated assumptions

and correct me If I'm wrong but... who was the first in Space? and who is still making regular flights to space in a 40 year old capsule design?

And what pray tell are the credentials that make you an expert?

Have you flown russian aircraft? How about american aircraft?

Do you bring anything more to the discussion than parroting things youve read in books or on the internet?

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

What is the F-15's Air to Air combat record against all comers for 30 years????

Toasted Raviolis, the ice cream cone and world beating fighter aircraft... Thank you St. Louis.

Russia fully endorses China's military build-up.. as long as it mainly in the Navy...

[Reagans Rascals]

I'm sorry, I must have missed the conflict where Russia "dominated" us by virtue of their armed forces, doctrine or equipment (even the ones you listed).

How did the Iraqi military of 1990-1991 and 2003 (which employed Soviet/Russian doctrine and equipment) fare against our forces?

To think that the Russians could go toe to toe with our military and prevail shows who is making uneducated assumptions.

Ever work with the Russian military?

What was the key factor in what I said.... I said had they had the money for upkeep and maintenance they would destroy us. Lets look at the TU-160 Blackjack as compared to our B-1 or our B-52.... no contest... and now lets also examine why we even developed the F-15... might that be because of a mach 3 fighter/ interceptor known as the MIG-25 Fox bat?

and please explain to me why... if their aircraft are so lacking in design ingenuity that they are able to take off from a stand still from a carrier with no catapult ... even with the brakes locked up?

And also please explain when the US decimated the Russians by virtue of their armed forces, doctrine or equipment?

[GermanSynergy]

Again...What makes you say this? What first hand experience do you have with the Russian armed forces?

Have you worked with them directly?

Are you aware that the Russians have essentially no NCO corps of any value?




What was the key factor in what I said.... I said had they had the money for upkeep and maintenance they would destroy us.

[Reagans Rascals]

Again...What makes you say this? What first hand experience do you have with the Russian armed forces?

Have you worked with them directly?

Are you aware that the Russians have essentially no NCO corps of any value?


And your first hand knowledge of this is due to your joining their ranks and participating in their training?

For a country with inferior engineering, its awfully strange that their 30 year old, second hand weapons are causing us so much trouble over seas today...

Simply saying that the F-15 is this and that and blah blah blah because it shot down Iranian, Syrian, and Iraqi piloted MIGs, doesn't say anything about the capability of those aircraft.

That is the exact same as saying a bum off the street was driving a Ferrari and was beaten in a drag race by Mario Andretti in a Corvette... so therefore the Corvette is superior to the Ferrari..... doesn't work that way

Almost everyone here has this sense of entitlement that simply because we were born here in the US, by no action of our own mind you, that we are simply better than everyone and everything else and that's the way it is and everyone else can suck it.... well lets venture back to reality now and pull the blinders back and be a little less disillusioned by the propaganda we've been fed since we were born.

Yes the US is amazing, is it better than anyone else, no. Its fine for the US to not be the best at something... we'll get past it...

Do your research and you will learn just as I have, Russian Aircraft are superior. I love american aircraft, which is why I became a PILOT, so I think I know a little more about the subject than someone not in the aviation field. But simply because someone else is better doesn't mean its not worth liking anymore. Don't just jump up and yell BULLSHIT and blah blah blah because you feel so passionate that no one can beat the US at anything.... because at my count right now.... we're at 4 in the lose column.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFavtMOXrOE&feature=related
no catapult... with the parking break still set... I rest my case

[Belmont31R]

We don't even have the ability to send a man into space anymore.

[Thomas M-4]

We don't even have the ability to send a man into space anymore.

That's a crying shame.

I believe our aircraft are better 'for now' but it is completely unforgivable that we do not protect the technology.

[Reagans Rascals]

We don't even have the ability to send a man into space anymore.

exactly.... and so we are now forced to rely on the Russians with their Soyuz capsule to ferry us to and from the ISS.

[variablebinary]

And also please explain when the US decimated the Russians by virtue of their armed forces, doctrine or equipment?

We didn't have to, they sank themselves.

And while some of the Russian/Soviet tech sounds great on paper, their engineering capacity and quality is highly suspect, in addition to the infrastructure needed to maintain and move a fleet of advanced aircraft.

There is a reason we can park a massive mobile air force off the cost of any nation and maintain fighting capability for years, while the Russians are far more prone to having a plane fall out of the sky, or their carrier group break down while en route to mission.

So while it might seem really cool that a fighter can launch without the aid of a catapult, it's way less cool to have to do so while your carrier is being towed because it broke down, or your plane simply fell into the ocean because they can't get fuel.

Besides, if the Russians had anything that cool, we would have sent Clint Eastwood to steal it years ago

[Heavy Metal]

Russian fighters are the best in the world.... don't even try to bring up the F-22 or the F-35... they have been grounded for months with no return to service in sight.

The Sukhoi PAK-FA is the most advance fighter in the world. It has Active Plasma Masking Stealth... where in the entire fighter is encapsulated in a plasma, absorbing all radar waves.... we have nothing that will touch it.

If Russia had the money that we used to have to spend on maintenance and quality control, they could decimate us on the skies, in the sea, and on land.

If you don't believe me, look up the SU-37, TU-160 Blackjack, TU-95 Bear, and the Typhoon submarine.... I rest my case

Please put down the crack pipe......

[Heavy Metal]

Some US Pilot who was qualified on the former East German Mig-29's once said somethig like:

"The F-16 handles like a Corvette, the Mig-29 handles like a Tractor."

[Heavy Metal]

What was the key factor in what I said.... I said had they had the money for upkeep and maintenance they would destroy us. Lets look at the TU-160 Blackjack as compared to our B-1 or our B-52.... no contest... and now lets also examine why we even developed the F-15... might that be because of a mach 3 fighter/ interceptor known as the MIG-25 Fox bat?

and please explain to me why... if their aircraft are so lacking in design ingenuity that they are able to take off from a stand still from a carrier with no catapult ... even with the brakes locked up?

And also please explain when the US decimated the Russians by virtue of their armed forces, doctrine or equipment?

The Mig-25 was a joke once we got our hands on one. Yeah, it would go Mach 3....once. And then both engines had to be scrapped. Had the turning radius of a garbage scow. The F-15 was a gross overmatch for it.

[Thomas M-4]

Russian fighters are the best in the world.... don't even try to bring up the F-22 or the F-35... they have been grounded for months with no return to service in sight.
The sukhoi Pak-FA is just now on the verge of production the F-22 first flight was in 97' the pak-fa was in 2010 so yea they are behind but not by much
The Sukhoi PAK-FA is the most advance fighter in the world. It has Active Plasma Masking Stealth... where in the entire fighter is encapsulated in a plasma, absorbing all radar waves.... we have nothing that will touch it.
Russia has been claiming Plasma masking for yrs they claimed they could retro fit it to older aircraft Mig 21's .
If it was just that simple why haven't they or any body else for that matter have done it?

If Russia had the money that we used to have to spend on maintenance and quality control, they could decimate us on the skies, in the sea, and on land.
The more complex the system the more important quality control becomes
If you don't believe me, look up the SU-37, TU-160 Blackjack, TU-95 Bear, and the Typhoon submarine.... I rest my case

Russian airframe designs have always been very comparable to the west. There lacking was normally in engine designs and electronics.

[Thomas M-4]

The Mig-25 was a joke once we got our hands on one. Yeah, it would go Mach 3....once. And then both engines had to be scrapped. Had the turning radius of a garbage scow. The F-15 was a gross overmatch for it.

Yea the Mig-25 was originally designed as a interceptor for the XB-70 Valkyrie bomber wasn't meant to go toe to toe with another fighter.

[Timbonez]

How many people, who have posted in this thread, fly combat aircraft and know the actual capabilities of Russian military equipment? Most of what has been posted is historical evidence, which is fine. Everything else is speculation and opinions based off of what information is available online.

Thomas M-4 has stated the basic gist of Russian aircraft capability compared to western aircraft. I would add that human factors engineering is a huge oversight in their designs:
http://www.hindu.com/2009/06/27/stories/2009062755122000.htm

MiG-23/27 variable geometry wings are operated manually (not ideal for a fighter or attack aircraft)

Heavy Metal, you do realize that the MiG-25 is an interceptor that was designed to shoot down high flying bombers and high speed aircraft... not a fighter. So it is reasonable that the F-15 would outmatch it in a fighter type role.

Additionally, the F-15s kill ratio, although very impressive, is based on shooting down lower generation fighters. The few times that it has downed a comparable generation fighter it was because it was the experience of the pilots. Training is just as important in flying a plane as it is in shooting a firearm. Look at the final years of WWII and pilot quality for the Axis. Look at Vietnam and the MiG-15/17/21 vs. the F-4.

[Heavy Metal]

"Heavy Metal, you do realize that the MiG-25 is an interceptor that was designed to shoot down high flying bombers and high speed aircraft... not a fighter. So it is reasonable that the F-15 would outmatch it in a fighter type role."

I am perfectly aware of that fact.

[Reagans Rascals]

The Mig-25 was a joke once we got our hands on one. Yeah, it would go Mach 3....once. And then both engines had to be scrapped. Had the turning radius of a garbage scow. The F-15 was a gross overmatch for it.

Bullshit... complete bullshit... you have no idea what you are talking about. The MIG-25 was discovered to be less than what we had suspected it to be once Viktor Belenko defected in 1976 and gave us one, but less in the engineering scope we had thought, not in the performance. As in, it was not all titanium and super alloys as we had thought, which is why it astonished us because of what it could do with what it had. The MIG-25 could exceed mach 3 and 95,000 feet with a zoom climb, and no the engines did not have to be thrown away after each mach 3 flight, you have no idea what you are talking about.

this is the reason they were able to shoot down U-2s with their flying telephone pole - never underestimate your enemy

[Heavy Metal]

The U-2 Powers was flying had to drop to 45,000 feet to make it's camera run.

And yes, going over Mach Three for any length of time would slag the turbines in a MiG-25. The Russains freely admit this.

No bullshit whatsoever.

[GermanSynergy]

I've worked with their military in overseas peacekeeping ops on several occasions.

I've witnessed the shortcomings of their NCO and officer corps in action, firsthand.

I didn't look it up online, put on a Russian hat, and dream of being in the Kremlin.




And your first hand knowledge of this is due to your joining their ranks and participating in their training?

[jhs1969]

If the Mig-25 is so great why has the Eagle been knocking it out of the sky, and the Mig-29 as well?

I think history has proven that Soviet/Russian arms have nearly always been of lower quality than western arms. Whether it be handguns, longarms, artillery, armor, submarines, aircraft carriers, combat aircraft etc. etc.

Although we did not always know it at the time, I think there have been two points in time to be really worried about the strength of Russian arms when compared to ours.

First, 1945. Prior to the M26 Pershing reaching widespread deployment. It could have been big trouble to face T-34s with M4 Shermans.

Second, the near future. With our recent administrations hell bent on bankrupting this nation and gutting our defense forces I am somewhat worried about what the future could hold for us.

I do not pass this as solid fact, rather my feelings supported by a wall stocked with a small library of military history. This is my opinion and conclusions. Feel free to debate.

[usmcvet]

We don't even have the ability to send a man into space anymore.

We have the ability just not the desire to do it.

[Heavy Metal]

Actually, we are working on one government and 4 private Orbital and more capable systems right now.

1) Orion/MPCV-Locheed Martin-LEO to Deep Space-.gov.

2) Dragon-SpaceX- Elon Musk-LEO to Deep Space.

3) CST-100-Boeing-LEO.

4) SNC Corp-Dreamchaser-LEO-Based on HL-20 Lifting Body.

5) Blue Origin-Jeff Bezos(Net worth 17 Billion)-Biconic Capsule-LEO-?

[Redmanfms]

Bullshit... complete bullshit... you have no idea what you are talking about. The MIG-25 was discovered to be less than what we had suspected it to be once Viktor Belenko defected in 1976 and gave us one, but less in the engineering scope we had thought, not in the performance. As in, it was not all titanium and super alloys as we had thought, which is why it astonished us because of what it could do with what it had. The MIG-25 could exceed mach 3 and 95,000 feet with a zoom climb, and no the engines did not have to be thrown away after each mach 3 flight, you have no idea what you are talking about.

this is the reason they were able to shoot down U-2s with their flying telephone pole - never underestimate your enemy

You've been asked more than once what exactly your sources and experience are. Time to post them.

[Thomas M-4]

Russian's are experts at terrorizing the west with there new super cheap just as good as wiz bangs. Fortunately history has proven other wise.
I must say I am confused :confused: about the obsession with the Mig 25 Fox Bat. Every thing I have researched does state the engines were damaged when pushed to mach3. But even more perplexing to me is that I have read a number of accounts of Mig-25's being sent up to shoot down SR-71's only to be left behind eating dust once they came close to be with in range of the SR-71 and that is from Russian and USAF pilot accounts.

[randyman_ar]

We don't even have the ability to send a man into space anymore.
Oh for Gods sake! Quit your whining. Our tax dollars are funding much more needed projects today. Just a few off the top of my head: welfare, HUD, food stamps, paying for the birth of illegals babies once they cross the border, the first ladies African vacations, and this being a gun friendly board.....arming Mexican drug cartels. C'mon we've got to make cuts somewhere? Screw the "keeping up with the Jones's" as far as defense goes. After all we secured our own borders and that's all that matters! So gutting NASA and cutting defense (only two wars at present) is absolutely the right thing to do.:rolleyes:
Sorry if my rant was off topic.
Shitty day.

[kmrtnsn]

I don't think we have much to fear based on the info in this article.

http://news.yahoo.com/russian-stealth-fighter-aborts-takeoff-air-show-124830544.html

[variablebinary]

We don't even have the ability to send a man into space anymore.

The shuttle program had no where else to go.

NASA, should it continue to be one of the world's best engineering think tanks, needs to focus more on propulsion, energy, and deep space exploration, all of which should feed into a viable new shuttle program.

The now defunct shuttle program was not going to produce any Apollo 11 moments, which is what we need.

[Moose-Knuckle]

The shuttle program had no where else to go.

NASA, should it continue to be one of the world's best engineering think tanks, needs to focus more on propulsion, energy, and deep space exploration, all of which should feed into a viable new shuttle program.

The now defunct shuttle program was not going to produce any Apollo 11 moments, which is what we need.

DARPA Funding Interstellar Travel Study


The 100-Year Starship study, according to DARPA, will examine the business model needed to develop and mature a technology portfolio enabling long-distance manned space flight a century from now.

http://www.darkgovernment.com/news/darpa-funding-interstellar-travel-study/

[Littlelebowski]

After Ossetia, I've been wondering what new tack the Russophiles will come up with to justify their adoration.....

[jklaughrey]

Since this is a board focused primarily on the M16 variant firearm I will state that in terms of US vs. Russian military arms. We the US are the Colt, the Russians are a Vulcan-Hesse. Granted you may get the Vulcan-Hesse AR to run, but in a war of attrition...which is what we had called "The Cold War". Reliability and proven track record of success tips the hat in our favor every time.

Reagan Rascal, quit with being enamored with defunct military scrap. While there arsenal is rusting away, ours is still going strong with proper maintenance and updates.

[GermanSynergy]

After Ossetia, I've been wondering what new tack the Russophiles will come up with to justify their adoration.....

Russophiles make me laugh. I'm sure the ones here in this thread have never even seen a Russian soldier in person.

[Littlelebowski]

Russophiles make me laugh. I'm sure the ones here in this thread have never even seen a Russian soldier in person.

I also discourse upon Israeliphiles ;) They also abound on gun forums.

[mtdawg169]

Is it just me, or do the Russian & Chinese stealth fighters look eerily similar to the F22 Raptor? I've been into the plant that builds the F22 and stood next to the production line as well as seen them fly out of Panama City. The F22 is an impressive fighter to a military outsider like myself. I was sad to hear that it was being scrapped. Now I wonder if it was for more than just budgetary reasons after seeing the similarities in the Russkie / Chicom planes.

[Cobra66]

They (Russia) actually build very good fighters. China isn't a slouch either (albeit because of reverse engineering), plus China has money.

Something here tells me that this guy might know just a thing or two about flying as well as threat tactical aircraft capabilities and the like.

To quote a phrase I hear thrown about quite a bit here - "stay in your lane." This guy probably owns the lane here.

The Flanker series of aircraft have impressed the West for quite some time. Aircraft capabilities are on par if not better than Western designs, but pilot/machine interface has in typical Soviet fashion lagged far behind Western aircraft. This gap is closing with modern electronics being easily available to Russian and Chinese military industries. There has not been any direct head to head between the latest gen Soviet/Russian fighters and Western aircraft. There have been wargames between US and Indian fighters (F-15s versus SU-37s) that have shown the Flanker to be the superior aircraft, but I consider these engagements suspect as the rules of engagement were skewed towards the Indians favor. In the end though, pilot training and informational/tactical awareness will rule the day before individual aircraft superiority will and with this in mind, the US and Western nations have a decided advantage.

As has been mentioned, the Russian (as well as most conscript based Armies) do not have a professional NCO corps like we do. This is a disadvantage however many of the rolls assumed by NCOs in the US are taken by Officers in the Soviet model who are professional officers.

[Ridge_Runner_5]

I'm sure this will be just as high quality as China's last next-gen fighter...

http://i.imgur.com/1Zs9R.jpg

[kmrtnsn]

As a guy with a few hours on various types I'd be interested to read the mission available rates, expressed as a percentage, for these Russian collections of rivets.

[Cobra66]

The Su-37 was never a production aircraft. The IAF Flankers are Su-30s which are supposed to be basically equivalent to the Su-35 (of which the Russians don't even have a full squadron it's worth noting) and were developed in the mid-'90s. Comparing a legacy aircraft designed more than 20 years previously to the "front-line" is absurd. How is it at all impressive that brand-spanking-new fighters are competitive with fighters designed decades ago?


The Russians and their moneyed allies (namely the Indians and Chinese) aren't to be taken for granted for certain, especially given the proliferation of COTS electronics/avionics that is top-flight, but the Russians have a literally decades long history of massively over-touting the capabilities of their equipment.



The Russians and Western Russophiles have long advertised and the "as good as/or better for significantly less," but whenever the equipment comes up for testing it turns out the gear isn't even close to "as good as" much less "better" than Western legacy equipment. Every once in a blue moon the Russophiles get a bone, like when Kontakt-5 turned out to be able to take first-round hits from M829. Of course, the tank had severe limitations in just about every other area of relevance to a MBT, but that the frontal arc was "impenetrable" is the only important point. Or when East German Mig-29s first faced Western aircraft in combat exercises and "won." It was not (and remains not) relevant to Russophiles that almost all of the exercises in which the Migs won were engineered to eliminate the insurmountable advantage Western fighters had in BVR identification and engagement.

You are correct, I meant SU-35s and not 37s. I agree with most of what you have written, but the fact is that our 20+ year old legacy platforms are what are going to be going up against some of this equipment whether we or our allies are flying them, so comparisons are valid. Still, as I mentioned, the ROEs for the IAF/USAF wargames were slanted heavily in the IAFs favor as the use of AWACS was limited. It is my belief part of the reason for this was to justify the need of the F-22 and F-35 programs. I think we both agree that no matter individual fighter (or tank for that matter) superiority, the West's mastery of real time situational awareness in the form of AWACs and other command and control assets as well as better training will prove to be the key.


Now as far as Russophiles, I guess I need clarification of the term. Is it someone who unthinkingly considers Soviet/Russian equipment and tactics superior, or is it someone who dares to opine that they may not be as totally backwards as some claim. :confused:

[Redmanfms]

The Su-37 was never a production aircraft. The IAF Flankers are Su-30s which are supposed to be basically equivalent to the Su-35 (of which the Russians don't even have a full squadron it's worth noting) and were developed in the mid-'90s. Comparing a legacy aircraft designed more than 20 years previously to the "front-line" is absurd. How is it at all impressive that brand-spanking-new fighters are competitive with fighters designed decades ago?



The Russians and their moneyed allies (namely the Indians and Chinese) aren't to be taken for granted for certain, especially given the proliferation of COTS electronics/avionics that is top-flight, but the Russians have a literally decades long history of massively over-touting the capabilities of their equipment.



The Russians and Western Russophiles have long advertised and the "as good as/or better for significantly less," but whenever the equipment comes up for testing it turns out the gear isn't even close to "as good as" much less "better" than Western legacy equipment. Every once in a blue moon the Russophiles get a bone, like when Kontakt-5 turned out to be able to take first-round hits from M829. Of course, the tank had severe limitations in just about every other area of relevance to a MBT, but that the frontal arc was "impenetrable" is the only important point. Or when East German Mig-29s first faced Western aircraft in combat exercises and "won." It was not (and remains not) relevant to Russophiles that almost all of the exercises in which the Migs won were engineered to eliminate the insurmountable advantage Western fighters had in BVR identification and engagement.

[VooDoo6Actual]

The russian plasma cloak is neat.

I 've been reading a technical paper by Theodore Loder lll, PH.D about Ben Rich, T.L. Keller and a few DARPA projects lately & our guys are into Antigravity propulsion, zero point energy, vacum state energy, electrogravitics. Disproving Einstein's calculations etc. I was impressed.

[Moose-Knuckle]

Since this is a board focused primarily on the M16 variant firearm I will state that in terms of US vs. Russian military arms. We the US are the Colt, the Russians are a Vulcan-Hesse.

Face palm.

We the US are the Colt M4, the Russians are an Izhmash AK-103. ;)


The russian plasma cloak is neat.

I 've been reading a technical paper by Theodore Loder lll, PH.D about Ben Rich, T.L. Keller and a few DARPA projects lately & our guys are into Antigravity propulsion, zero point energy, vacum state energy, electrogravitics. Disproving Einstein's calculations etc. I was impressed.

I have always been enamored with the outcome of Operation Paperclip and the study of advanced aerospace technologies.The Kecksburg Bell was the first reported craft to allegedly utilize antigravity propulsion here in the states yet stories abound from Nazi occupied Poland.

There is a lot of American chest beating in this thread concerning how more advanced we are compared to the East, but how many realize all the advanced air frames, propulsion systems, and aeronautics that Uncle Sam really got from Nazi scientist in exchange for full immunity for their part in the WWII/Holocaust?

It's been said that America did not beat the Russians to the moon, the Nazis did. Thanks to the likes of former SS Dr. Wernher Von Braun, the father of the Saturn V Rocket. That is just one of over a hundred that where on NASA's pall-roll.

[Abraxas]

, but how many realize all the advanced air frames, propulsion systems, and aeronautics that Uncle Sam really got from Nazi scientist in exchange for full immunity for their part in the WWII/Holocaust?

It's been said that America did not beat the Russians to the moon, the Nazis did. Thanks to the likes of former SS Dr. Wernher Von Braun, the father of the Saturn V Rocket. That is just one of over a hundred that where on NASA's pall-roll.

This is true, Russia had quite a few stolen German scientist them selves. Also keep in mind that the "Nazis" you speak of were mostly simply German scientist developing technology just like what we had, not true Nazis.

[jklaughrey]

Moose,you did get my point though correct? The emphasis on cheap versus quality. I guess I could have used widgets as a vehicle for the argument. Cheers.:D

[Moose-Knuckle]

This is true, Russia had quite a few stolen German scientist them selves. Also keep in mind that the "Nazis" you speak of were mostly simply German scientist developing technology just like what we had, not true Nazis.

Yeap, the Soviets snatched some up too before it was all said and done.

Many of these "simple German scientist" however did extensive testing on unwilling human subjects via concentration camps and then later the US populace.

Dr. Erich Traub (who was in charge of the Third Reich's virological and bacteriological warfare program) stationed at Plum Island NY after the war created Lyme disease after he weaponized Lone Star ticks.

Dr. Hubertus Strughold "The Father of Space Medicine" conducted experiments by subjecting inmates of the Dachau concentration camp to torture and death by being immersed in freezing water, placed in air pressure chambers, forced to drink nothing but sea water, and exposed to freezing temperatures. His work alone is what allowed astronauts to physically survive the vacuum of space. NASA would not have pressurized space suits if it was not for his human pressure chamber data.

Our own goverment does this kind of shit too. Google; Senate Church Hearings, CIA MK-ULTRA, Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male, Guatemalan syphilis experiments, et al.


Moose,you did get my point though correct? The emphasis on cheap versus quality. I guess I could have used widgets as a vehicle for the argument. Cheers.

Ha, yes I was tracking where you were going with that. I'm just partial to Kalashnikovs. :cool: