Well, just trying to start a lighthearted conversation on Russian aeronautic design aesthetic.
If you were only joking then you should have highlighted it as such using emojis.
Claiming Russian stuff does not sell well because it is not as pretty and they don't spend enough time and money making their stuff pretty is the sort of thing I would expect from a 16 or 17 year old girl... and that is not me trying to insult you.
Girls are obsessed with looks... the makeup industry makes enormous amounts of money on that, but I don't understand why you think reshaping the Mi-8 or Mi-17 to make it more aesthetically pleasing is worth the extra money and time... especially when there is no guarantee you will make it look better.
You might spend time and money only to find your traditional customers don't like the changes because now it just looks western... which is a total waste of time because western countries are not interested in buying Russian products so pandering to western markets by dressing the systems up to look more western is just pissing money down the drain and worse risking alienating your actual customers who would have bought western designs if that was what they wanted.
Obviously this too is an untouchable sensitive topic.
Why obviously... have you been banned and your posts deleted?
Have you been given a warning by a mod to stop?
You expressed an opinion, and you got some responses... now I think you are over reacting... but that is my opinion too.
In general human beings have a shared sense of the visually appealing
That is why everyone wears exactly the same thing and fashion and design are not things because everyone has exactly the same taste. Everyone hates this and loves that.
In the echo chamber that is the west at the moment you are either with us or with the terrorists, but in the rest of the world there are still choices.
It matters less from where you are. This is because most artificial design is subconsciously inspired by nature itself, and eventually tends to mimic it as technology and function permits.
Have never seen an animal or insect that flys that looks like an Mi-8. Spinning rotary blades is the most unnatural form of flight there is...
The lifting body and blended wing concept of aircraft is a good example.
But so far only fighters have such designs in numbers.
Good design philosophy and aesthetic form plays a great deal in healthy attachment of the user to the machine.
There is a huge gap between looking nice and being a good design... surface shape often is dictated by aerodynamics alone and with a helicopter the flight speed range means any old shape will do.
That would be a great asset in any military.
Lots of WWII reinactors I know like to get dressed up in old uniforms and the most popular tend to be the German uniforms... but when "playing" on cold days the Germans suffered while the scruffy Soviet troops seem very comfortable and happy. Perhaps looking good is not the most important thing when you are freezing your ass off because the metal hob nails through the soles of your boots freeze the bottom of your feet if you don't put felt or something to separate them from your skin.
The more the airmen like their craft, the more they are likely to succeed in its use.
Airmen like planes that are easy to fly and will protect them in combat... you can learn to love the ugliest woman if she is great fun to be around and can cook. Over time beauty fades, so falling in love on looks is shallow and can only lead to disappointment. Beauty is also in the eye of the beholder.
Yes, extra careful trimming can make an aircraft more expensive. But most western systems are so expensive because of the corrupt industry/politics and bloated labor wages.
Very true, but there is no incentive to make F-35s cheaper or better because the customers are politically bound to buy them.
If Australia wants a new gunship with a side hatch, the strings will come from Washington, not Moscow.
Mil cannot make a helicopter that Australia would be allowed to buy. Look at what is happening with Turkey and India buying S-400s. Turkey is in HATO, and is being bullied by the US.
Aesthetics have nothing to do with arms purchases.
Take the Boeing AH-64 and let's imagine it roughly compares to the Mi-28, which costs something like 3x less. If Russia produced the Apache with all the added armoure, what would be the cost for an export customer? Maybe more than the Havoc but not by a lot. And no pinocchio nose
The Mi-28 is already better armoured than the AH-64. The side cockpit canopy on the Apache is plexiglass... AK47s fired from the ground... ie 200-300m away can penetrate the side glass easily. Around the outside of the nose of the Apache is the Avionics boxes which are placed there to act like spaced armour to try to protect the crew compartment. The Mi-28 avionics are between the engines... there is a small door and crawl space... you could fit 2-3 people in there if you wanted... all protected by ceramic and metal armour from ground fire.
There is video footage of a 14.5mm heavy machine gun placed 5m away from the door of an Mi-28 and fired directly into the side window panel. The glass cracks but the inside surface is smooth. No penetration at all. 14.5mm HMG rounds have twice the muzzle energy of a 50 cal HMG round.
The Mi-28 is much better protected from ground fire than the Apache.
Russia can't produce Apaches because Apaches are made up of western systems and equipment... all of which make up the high cost of the Apache.
Russian engines are more powerful than the Apaches engines, the Russian radar mounting on the new Mi-28 has longer range than the Apaches radar, the Mi-28NM seems to have all the best things the Apache has except its maintenance does not seem to be such a problem.
You mean of course hearty sized bear vs wimpy insect
Reminds me of this:
Try saying something bad about everyone's favorite Russian Elon Musk groupie AKA Dmitry Rogozin and see fanboys going psycho
And you are not banned either.... go figure.
You can say any dumb shit you like and you wont get banned for it, but don't expect everyone to shower you in glory like you just noticed the emperor is not wearing any clothes and were teh first to point that out.
You can say the US moon landings were faked... the people saying it happened have cried wolf so many times and there is so many other clear cases where they have lied that they can't demand to be trusted any more on anything.
Look at them shifting the defeat of the nazis away from the Soviets and towards lend lease and winter and d day and any other crap they can think of...
They have no credibility.
I think you solved the riddle! That's it! I'm sure that's what was seen on the zvezda doc.
Deleted your double post...
Haha you HATE that bastard!
It is true... he does.... and that is fine... but if he wants anyone else to take him seriously in that regard he needs to come up with rock solid reasons if he wants anyone to agree with him (who does not hate Rogozin of course).
However to someone who have familiarised themself with Russian military equipment and is not under the influence of western propaganda induced delusions Russian military equipment generally appears to them as stylish and elegant (if sometimes only in function) while many of the things westerners view as attractive are considered simplistic and inelegant at best.
A good example would be the Bear bomber. Most western observers who are not interested in military equipment might think it was a WWII bomber like a B-29.
In fact many in the west insist that a Tu-95 is actually an upgraded B-29.
They immediately assume the Tu-95 is inferior to the B-52 because the B-52 is a jet.
The irony is that because the Soviets were smart and designed constant speed propellers whose tips are not supersonic, the Tu-95 is actually about 150km per hour faster than the west calculated it was.
The Bear is the worlds only propeller driven aircraft that requires a swept wing, it is also still the worlds fastest propeller driven aircraft.
Because of the state of air defence systems modern strategic bombers will actually try to get close to their launch positions at low altitudes and in such flight regimes the Bear is actually faster than the B-52.
Most importantly the B-52 was designed and built in the 1950s and 1960s, while the currently in service Bears were actually produced in the late 1980s and early 1990s and use a new wing design developed for the Tu-142.
I'm of the other opinion. I don't really see ugly copters Besides that South African Hind upgrade. Apache, Commanche, Hind, Havok and Alligator are all nice choppers. I like the Mi-28, even the latest variant makes it look even better.
Not really sure what ugly means in this context...
I think an aesthetic improvement for the Havoc would be to replace the 30mm cannon with a twin barrel 23mm cannon and revise the entire belly of the aircraft as a belt feed mechanism for a few thousand 23mm cannon shells.
The smaller calibre gun has much smaller rounds but a nice potent HE round... but then now they have air burst 30mm cannon shells I think they should improve the current turret arrangement with a belly magazine for large numbers of ready to fire rounds.
The lack of bulletproof glass means that 'longrods' won't have trouble penetrating it's 'cockpit'. Wink
Pistol bullets wont have trouble penetrating the plexiglass...