First flight for the Russian "F-22"

[321BAR]

Spare me the skepticism????????

wtf are you talking about? The russians says that its her first flight, but the point is that is very possible the first flight is already done in summer 09 just after MAKS, and this is the first public first flight. So where is your problem?

forget that if this is the first public flight of the aircraft that means its been test flying for as long as the F22 was...aka its near combat ready

[Babalonian]

Time for a reality check. Russia still fields more subs than the US. Which is not to say its 'better'. Just don't underestimate.

    

Out of those submarines, how many are able to be deployed?

The subs that remain in commission and theoretically operational are generally unable to deploy, due to lack of trained crews and lack of funds to buy fuel and stores. In general maintenance is minimal or nonexistent, and there are no funds to conduct much-needed overhauls, even for major fleet units. Many ships have been abandoned when repairs or refits came due.

Having a large navy on paper is worthless when most of the ships aren't able to deploy in real life.


ack-ack

What he said... Yes the russian navy remains a "potential "threat" in that if threatened to the point of war Russia would start getting their fleet ready again and up to strength.  There's also the potential without war of russia selling some of their fleet off to the highest bidder during hard times.  But don't forget to take into account the USN Mothball Fleet since you've taken into account Russia's.  If we got pushed into war and started going through our mothballs and readying them for war too, then we'd be still sitting prettier.

[Plawranc]

My point is this.

A ground war is decided by the combination of technological advances in weaponry and the amount of firepower you can field.

And while the US Military is a technological marvel. The Russian military is on par with it in most areas. Now in terms of armour (Yes I spell it with a U), Russia has about 20,000 Main Battle Tanks whereas the US has about 9,000 M1's. Russia has a large navy, it may not be as powerful as the US Navy but each side is almost certain to be crippled beyond operational standards. Russia's troops are just as well trained as US troops and are fully equipped with modern firearms.

And the air war is a stalemate. Both sides have 4.5 and 5th generation aircraft in substantial quantity and both sides have high quality anti air weapons.

If you ask any US military strategist they will say the same thing. If you read the book "Plan of Attack" by Dale Brown and "The sum of all fears" by Tom Clancy. It demonstrates how much of a threat Russia is.

The fact we are having this argumet proves the point. America's only direct competition is from the Eastern Bloc which is China and Russia. And both nations have huge militaries with modern equipment and recently Vlad Putin is increasing military spending.

Also geographical location is a serious issue. The US is seperated from the main continent, While Russia has direct access to NATO and the Middle East, Oil and Food. What a combo. Whereas the US would have to field an entire military across the ocean to get its full brunt into battle. WHile I do not doubt NATO's strength. To ask NATO to stand in Russias way would be like asking a mouse to fight with a cat.

All this taken into account proves only one sequence. Russia starts a fight somewhere and deploys its MASSIVE ground force, the Russian Airforce with overwhelming numbers and effective modern aircraft achieve complete air superiority. the US Joins in and restores the balance, but in this kind of war it will become attrition warfare and Russia will evenmtually gain the upper hand. The Coalition is forced to use nuclear supression. GTNW. End of world.
At least, that is the result of every scenario put forward for WW3.

[Plawranc]

I just did some reading.

Russia totals about 40 Subs capable of Nuclear retaliation in active service.

Russias navy is I must admit powerless in comparison to US Naval forces. But this is more of a similar situation to that of Germany in WW2.

Russia depends on overwhelming numbers of ground forces and air superiority aircraft to take NATO and CHina. An invasion of a nation unreachable by land was not the intent. Russia's Naval reserve is HUGE, but would take a long time to mobilize.

[Ack-Ack]

Did you seriously use Dale Brown and Tom Clancy books as a reference to prove your point?  Hell, why didn't you throw in Larry Bond as well?   

ack-ack

[BiPoLaR]

Did you seriously use Dale Brown and Tom Clancy books as a reference to prove your point?  Hell, why didn't you throw in Larry Bond as well?   

ack-ack

With a touch of alex jones 

[stealth]

Well F-22 is a stealth fighter,that being said I do like it. Just look at its beautiful. Wait no its not beautiful new born baby's are beautiful,sunsets are beautiful this is fantastic.

[Ack-Ack]

I just did some reading.

Russia totals about 40 Subs capable of Nuclear retaliation in active service.

Russias navy is I must admit powerless in comparison to US Naval forces. But this is more of a similar situation to that of Germany in WW2.

Russia depends on overwhelming numbers of ground forces and air superiority aircraft to take NATO and CHina. An invasion of a nation unreachable by land was not the intent. Russia's Naval reserve is HUGE, but would take a long time to mobilize.

You fail to realize that Russian's naval strength is on paper only.  Most of their ships are in such a bad state that they can't leave port, just look at the what's left of the once mighty Black Sea Fleet.  But I guess Dale Brown and Tom Clancy say different. 


ack-ack

[Plawranc]

Hey Ack Ack, do you have 50 years experience in the USAF.

Because Dale Brown does. Read it

[Plawranc]

To be honest Ack Ack, you are possibly the most annoying person on this entire bulliten board. You claim to have an insider knowledge of the workings of World Politics and Military facts and figures.

But I have a suspicsion that you have not even been in the Air force nor have any experience with it. Dale Browns book is a factual examination of the US Air defence set inside a fictional scenario. This whole discussion is theoretical and so not all facts can be taken into account but it also means that the book being a theoretical eventuality can be taken as an observation which means you have no authority to dictate whether it is right or not. You have not had 50 years in the USAF dealing with its equipment and experimental weapons programs whereas Dale Brown does. He has seen all the possible scenarios come up in memo's and studies on his desk, whereas you have not. he has flown B-1's and such where you have not. And has been in situations where war with Russia may become a reality whereas you have not.

So if you have nothing positive or FRIENDLY to add to this discussion instead of putting down my and everyone elses opinions to satisfy your own overly pompous and inexplicable ego. Could you kindly please Golf Foxtrot and leave the debate to those who can keep their D**** IN their pants without having to show it off.

Thank you

[Plawranc]

P.P.S

The book itself covers all the failings and successes of the US Airforces defensive and offensive capabilities I would suggest you read it.

ALSO: The book "fighter wing" by Tom Clancy lays out the system in which US fighter forces operate and the systems and functions the Aircraft use and perform.

And again to Ack-Ack, please. If you think that these gents who combined have about 80 Years of contemporary service in the USDF. So don't even think about arguing.

[rabbidrabbit]

Hey Ack Ack, do you have 50 years experience in the USAF.

Because Dale Brown does. Read it

I'll give your write up about 40 Krusty's.

[Nilsen]

You fail to realize that Russian's naval strength is on paper only.  Most of their ships are in such a bad state that they can't leave port, just look at the what's left of the once mighty Black Sea Fleet.  But I guess Dale Brown and Tom Clancy say different. 


ack-ack

I used to, and still love Tom Clancy books but having seen him commenting on this and that he has gone from beeing someone i admire (for his books) to a total tool.

[Die Hard]

According to the CSIS: http://csis.org/

Russia
Tanks: 22,800
Warplanes: 2,295
Aircraft carriers: 1
Warships: 111
Subs: 60 (40 nuclear)
Nukes: 13,000


USA
Tanks: 7,851
Warplanes: 4,000
Aircraft carriers: 21 (including amphibious assault ships)
Warships: 153
Subs: 71 (all nuclear)
Nukes: 9,400


Rest of NATO (most of Europe + Canada)
Tanks: 15,126
Warplanes: 3,095
Aircraft carriers: 13
Warships:239
Subs: 89 (21 nuclear)
Nukes: 485

[321BAR]

According to the CSIS: http://csis.org/

Russia
Tanks: 22,800
Warplanes: 2,295
Aircraft carriers: 1
Warships: 111
Subs: 60 (40 nuclear)
Nukes: 13,000


USA
Tanks: 7,851
Warplanes: 4,000
Aircraft carriers: 21 (including amphibious assault ships)
Warships: 153
Subs: 71 (all nuclear)
Nukes: 9,400


Rest of NATO (most of Europe + Canada)
Tanks: 15,126
Warplanes: 3,095
Aircraft carriers: 13
Warships:239
Subs: 89 (21 nuclear)
Nukes: 485

exactly why are we talking russian american nato stats here? this isnt gonna turn into "World in Conflict" on us...
Also does anyone know what the only difference between 4th and 5th generation fighters?