Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sundowner on June 24, 2004, 03:13:48 PM
-
U.S. warned it could lose air supremacy
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- United States must modernize its fighter jets to maintain air supremacy, a top Air Force general said Wednesday citing the success of advanced Russian-made jets against American planes in a recent exercise as signaling an erosion of its overwhelming advantage.
Gen. Hal Hornburg, head of U.S. Air Combat Command, said a U.S. air-to-air exercise with the Indian Air Force in February, in which India used Russian jets to defeat aging American F-15Cs, revealed "that we may not be as far ahead of the rest of the world as we once thought we were."........
Full Article:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/23/airforce.supremacy.reut/index.html
Sun
-
Translation: the USAF wants more $$.
-
Originally posted by ra
Translation: the USAF wants more $$.
I agree 100%.. They want their f22..
What do you guys think the odds are that we went to these mock fights with India will the sole purpose of loosing? If this is the same article I have already read, we lost like 90% of the engagments? In my mind that would be very hard to do..
-
The F-15 first went into production when I was 19. I am now 50.
Thirty-one years as our front-line fighter is enough. It no longer represents cutting-edge technology. The design of the F-14 is even older.
It is time for an upgrade. From what I have read of it's capabilities, the F-18 "Super Hornet" is not an upgrade.
We cannot maintain our supremacy without spending the money.
-
Too much ego involved for a "fix", I think.
-
Quote:
"We cannot maintain our supremacy without spending the money."
==============================================
I concur.
Sun
-
If you want to dominate the Su27 series the way that the F15 dominated the Mig 23-Su15 you need something like an F22.
They had no need to "throw the match" the Indians know what they are doing and the best of the SU series is at least equivilent to a late model F15.
do you want that level of supperiority again? Its going to cost. Did the airforce go out of their way to demonstrate the obvios. Yes. But no one was listening to anything else.
-
Sounds like the Generals want their $$$ and new toys. Or maybe their worried that not only will China be the worlds biggest economy and military in the world in 20 years time but also the best equipped.
Any votes on China being the worlds next super power?
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Any votes on China being the worlds next super power?
yes, historically the worlds "super-powers" have traversed from china westward and back again.
What do you guys think the odds are that we went to these mock fights with India will the sole purpose of loosing? If this is the same article I have already read, we lost like 90% of the engagments? In my mind that would be very hard to do..
so what, it displays the obvious, that your fighter planes are antiquated and the equivalent to a spitfire v in 1945...
-
Originally posted by vorticon
it displays the obvious, that your fighter planes are antiquated and the equivalent to a spitfire v in 1945...
Really? Then how do the MiG-21's add up in the equation?
-
It's not just about the aircraft though, is it? it's about the guidance systems and the avionics, the jamming etc. the aircraft now is just a delivery platform...isn't it?
Ravs
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Sounds like the Generals want their $$$ and new toys. Or maybe their worried that not only will China be the worlds biggest economy and military in the world in 20 years time but also the best equipped.
Any votes on China being the worlds next super power?
...-Gixer
You can hardly fault the generals for wanting the best weapons money can buy. It is their job to wage and win wars afterall.
-
What do you guys think of the some of the Air Force projections speculating that with more and more modifications, the b-52 might see another 25-30 years of service?
-
Originally posted by Capt. Pork
What do you guys think of the some of the Air Force projections speculating that with more and more modifications, the b-52 might see another 25-30 years of service?
Ever read "Flight of the Old Dog"?
-
B-52 program has rendered a lot of valuable service to the U.S. Air Force. But it can no longer operate over any battlefield where the U.S. does not have TOTAL air supremacy.
Can't believe that there would be any possible use for them 25 years from now. Attempting to stretch this 50 year old design for that long would demonstrate a callous disregard for the safety of the men forced to fly it.
-
True. I think the current logic is that if they are unable to maintain air supremecy in a combat theatre, then the B-52's ambitious cousin the ICBM would be employed.
:D
-
Originally posted by ravells
It's not just about the aircraft though, is it? it's about the guidance systems and the avionics, the jamming etc. the aircraft now is just a delivery platform...isn't it?
Ravs
yeah pretty much.
-
I think you guys are all wrong about the B-52....(I was actually crawling around in one today :) ) But seriously it's not just a line up over target and drop bombs weapons system. Additionally, its also not a stand alone weapons platform. It is a total air/space concept for the future.
Just because you cant operate it in a tactical sense w/o air supremacy doesnt mean it is not a VALUABLE strategic asset.
I think with upgrades the 52 will in fact fly another 50 years. Its funny to think they the USAF is doing a "mid-life" upgrade on planes built in the 60s but the frames are solid and proven.
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
yeah pretty much.
And THAT's why AH2 is so much fun!
Ravs
-
Money is the major issue here. Raptor has been in design for alot of years now. Had they spent the same time and money in just upgrades they may not have had a Raptor per say but the packages on the 30+ year old platforms would have been highly advanced. The major issue isn't the airframes avionics as they can be upgraded with some time and effort it's the airframes themselves that are an issue.
Look at the F-15 Active for example. Fly by wire system with canards and direct link to thrust vectoring for the flight controls and a full glass cockpit. This is an old F-15B we are talking about here. Add Avionics upgrades and you've got yourself a fighter to contend with. But Stealth is the big issue these days and so is the extreme maneuverability. Stealth you can't gain by using this old of a design but maneuverability is there and it's got a missing avionics package which could very easily be upgraded.
ECM is a major player when using older less stealth aircraft too. With upgraded ECM you could probably fix the whole stealth issue to an extent. You have to be able to track what you wanna kill. If you can't track it then there is no reason it can't be used even with less than total air superiority. Onboard lasers that have the ability to do what the ABL is trying to do now could also help. Granted that technology would most likely not be able to fit in a fighter in todays day and age. But over time the older larger birds could use them as an Electronic Warfar package. No need for chaff and flare, just a wicked ECM package. I doubt will see that in our lifetime though. Still a good ECM package could help less stealthy aircraft to survive long enough to get the kills they need and return home safely.
The military is looking at doing more with less and less possibility of taking casualties while doing it. I think this is why using the Raptor is such a big deal. The F-15 isn't going anywhere soon, it just wont' be the best of the best as it's been labeled in the past. Plus I doubt the military will acknowledge that the last 12 years of developement/costs were a waste of time because we can do new stuff with older airframes to make them better. In the end they would have to justify the steep price tag on the Raptor and the price tag that they've spent over the years to develop it. I'm not saying the Raptor isn't light years ahead of the F-15 in technology in many ways but if they want it they have to justify why they want it and something has to be the scapegoat and the Eagle is in the position to fill that request.
It's no different than what many of us tell our wives or girlfriends when we want a computer upgrade. Honey it won't work now because I need this or it's broke. Guess what...we get it most of the time do we not?
-
Just a clarification:
The B-52 could NEVER operate over a battlefield unless we held air supremacy. The nuclear, low level, Doctor Strangelove scenario would have worked only if we had already taken out air defense networks, thus providing AS.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
The F-15 first went into production when I was 19. I am now 50.
Thirty-one years as our front-line fighter is enough. It no longer represents cutting-edge technology. The design of the F-14 is even older.
It is time for an upgrade. From what I have read of it's capabilities, the F-18 "Super Hornet" is not an upgrade.
We cannot maintain our supremacy without spending the money.
That is 100% correct
-
I'm actually curious but exactly how do you know it doesn't having cutting edge technology? Ever even worked one? Or do you only go by internet data and civilian published books? Not being a jerked but asking a legit question when it comes to the F-15 and it's capabilities.
-
Even the latest Sukhoi's are gonna be pwned by RPVs piloted by AH2 trained La7-HO-Dweebs :D
(how do you say "GD HO Dweeb rammed me!" in Indian?)
-
Here ya go:
"YAAARRRRGH!"
-
I myself haven't kept up with the armed forces air power since I left the navy in 88, but last I recall a F-14 was still the fastest fighter jet, and had the capability of locking on to 7+ simultaneous targets by way of the Hawkeye radar, I don't think of this as being out dated. but then again I haven't kept up with technology in this field. I btw have worked on Military aircraft, Navy, was taught on A-4s A-7's and F4J's and then worked on F14's S3A's and F18's Jetmech/ AD except some metalsmithing/airframe/corrosion control while TAD.
Also got the proud joy of being on the first S3-A/S3-B nuclear weapons team when they was testing capabilitys and then later started the S3A to S3B conversion
I spent to sea tours on the Nimitz and 1 on the Roosevelt. The Roosevelt sucked btw peace of junk
-
Not the fastest. The F-15 can do Mach 2.5, F-14 can do Mach 1.88.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-14.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-15.htm
-
DISARM AS A TOKEN OF GOODWILL TO THE WORLD!!!!
maybe then they will stop being mean to us........
-
Originally posted by Lizking
Just a clarification:
The B-52 could NEVER operate over a battlefield unless we held air supremacy. The nuclear, low level, Doctor Strangelove scenario would have worked only if we had already taken out air defense networks, thus providing AS.
not as a stand alone weapon.
But when you include the "total package" it isnt even close to being outdated.
by "total package" I mean fighter sweeps, anti RADAR patrols, hawkeyes, ect.
you cant just look at one weapon system without looking at it's integration w/ the bigger picture.
the B2 can drop 80 JDAMS on 80 independently GPS targets simultaniously. That is FIREPOWER and its stealth. It is far superior to the 52. BUT, we have far more 52s AND they have a greater payload....again the AIRFRAME is sound and YES it is upgradable.
mix a couple of strike eagels w/ some F16s and a hawkeye and an elint bird and a couple of B2/F117 strikes followed with some 52s/B-1Bs with a ground package and you have a formidable force.
I dont think any other airforce in the world can match that
add the F22 for Fighter cover and you cant beat it.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
DISARM AS A TOKEN OF GOODWILL TO THE WORLD!!!!
maybe then they will stop being mean to us........
no.. then they will go "HEY.. NOWS OUR CHANCE! IF THE WHOLE WORLD COMES TOGETHER NOW WE ACTUALLY HAVE A CHANCE AGAINST THE US!"
-
Originally posted by Toad
Too much ego involved for a "fix", I think.
No doubt. Toad, the procurement/acquisition system is seriously hosed. Too many snouts in the trough. Have you heard anything about a different approach to design and implementation?
OTOH, I know so little about the process (only what I read,) maybe the military industrial complex has been cleaned up a bit. You think?
curly
-
The F-15 is the fastest, F-14 can break the sound barrier going straight up because weight to thrust ratio.
BTW what were the Indians flying? Su-37's? If so I wouldn't doubt that they beat the F-15's... Su-37 would probably out do anything, though I am not clear on the F-22's performance peaks. Keep hearing different things, maybe they are keeping its manouverability classified. I know an F-22 will be able to out perform the EF-2000 Eurofighter because the F-22 is more manouverable than F-15, plus gotta take in thrust vectoring and all that.
What about the F-35? I havent heard anything about how manouverable it is? Would be great to see one with VTOL capabilites just go into a hover during the fight and make other fighter overshoot.
Also air superiority wouldnt be determined on just fighters vs fighters. US says "we will declare war at 0100". Well by 0030 the stealth fighters with bomb payload are already over enemy territory. When 0100 comes around next thing they know airfields throughout the country are down.
-
Originally posted by Raptor01
no.. then they will go "HEY.. NOWS OUR CHANCE! IF THE WHOLE WORLD COMES TOGETHER NOW WE ACTUALLY HAVE A CHANCE AGAINST THE US!"
Aint never gonna happen.
A comedian I saw once put it best. Went somethign like this.
"USA could never be invaded cause we have something here called rednecks. and these guys have been prepairing for this since 1776.
If they tried to invade florida. All of Georgia and alabama would empty out. by the time the military showed up there would be nothing around but rednecks,pickup trucks and alot of empty shotgun shells and beercans"
Then can you imagine them trying to get into our inner cities??
LMAO the people in this country are nuts.
We'd make the rag heads and gooks look like kindergarden schoolchildren
-
Originally posted by ra
Translation: the USAF wants more $$.
lol what I was thinking, the USN alone could probably take on the rest of the world's air forces and probably win....
-
"Any votes on China being the worlds next super power?"
You can bank on it.
And they're essentially doing it in some ways that the US did. By cornering global manufacturing. Made doable by the use of an essentially unlimited supply of super cheap labor, unencumbered by unions, labor laws or human rights, and with a total disregard for any environmental impact by said manufacturing processes.
And soon China will start to "protect" thier international "interests." They'll have to secure sources for steady, reliable natural resources (oil) while subjugating competative threats (Taiwan) and to do so they wil need to be sure they have the means to do it against an old superpower such as the US. A "superpower" who's stretched to the max trying to fight a war in Iraq against just guerrillas and terrorists.
( you can bet that China does not want the US and UK to control the Middle East oil spiggot as China right now, I believe, is the largest consumer of petroleum products. They want access to it and they want it cheap. Fr sure they they've got a hungry eye on the fields in Siberia....)
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Any votes on China being the worlds next super power?
...-Gixer
Zhong gou zhui hao, zhong gou zhui hao :D :D :D
-
Originally posted by Westy
A "superpower" who's stretched to the max trying to fight a war in Iraq against just guerrillas and terrorists.
This country is nowhere near "stretched to the max" because of the Iraq war...
And dnot give me any crap about the longer deployments and extensions, those are just measures taken because - for whatever reason - the military/politicans dond want to increse the size of the military and not because we can't.
The US military is the only force in the world capable of any sort of large scale global operations now and into the foresseable future.
You must be crazy not to see that.
However I do agree that China will likely try be the next superpower and even agree with your assesement as to how they are going to try to do it.
-
Originally posted by lada
Zhong gou zhui haoi, zhong gou zhui hao :D :D :D
Ahh yes lada... USA hater #1!
I do hope that China becomes the #1 superpower in the world just to see them squezze ungreatful eastern european watermelon countries like yours...
You're gonna be crying lke a little baby for mommies titty and whishing for the good old days of the evil USA...
But yea, be happy. Europe uses a hell of a lot more mid east oil than the USA for their overall oil supply... You will simply love it when china dominates mid east oil...
20 euros per liter? 30?
Yea gung ho zhui gou hou bing bang up ur ***
You really are that stupid, aren't you lada?
-
"You must be crazy not to see that."
Not in the least. Better read up more on it Grunherz.
-
More on what westey, yiur answer is very vague.
-
Not vague just short. I'm off for a 3 day weekend so I'll follow up on it more Monday...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Ahh yes lada... USA hater #1!
I do hope that China becomes the #1 superpower in the world just to see them squezze ungreatful eastern european watermelon countries like yours...
You're gonna be crying lke a little baby for mommies titty and whishing for the good old days of the evil USA...
But yea, be happy. Europe uses a hell of a lot more mid east oil than the USA for their overall oil supply... You will simply love it when china dominates mid east oil...
20 euros per liter? 30?
Yea gung ho zhui gou hou bing bang up ur ***
You really are that stupid, aren't you lada?
well nothing personal, but you seems to be Euro hater no.1 w/o sense for humour
and whats worst w/o any knowledge of Eastern europe.
We are happy to have good relationships with ME, we dont have to vulch them to make bussines with them
and about price of oil ... IMAO in past year price of oil product has been raised by 3-5% here ..... what about your country ? ;)
-
A "superpower" who's stretched to the max trying to fight a war in Iraq against just guerrillas and terrorists.
Pull that out of your ass?
-
Originally posted by Cobra412
I'm actually curious but exactly how do you know it doesn't having cutting edge technology? Ever even worked one? Or do you only go by internet data and civilian published books? Not being a jerked but asking a legit question when it comes to the F-15 and it's capabilities.
Ahem.... not that I mind a discussion on the future of China, but to get back to the original thread for just a moment....
I've been lucky enough to ride along in an F-15 during 1v1, 2v2, and 4v4 engagements, so while I may not know a lot of the numbers or anything, I've got some idea of how it flies in a fight. I have also talked to F-15 pilots at Tyndall who have flown against the F-22. To hear them talk, they'd go home with their tail between their legs and their jaw still on the floor of the cockpit every time because the 22 can do things that the 15 can't even dream of. One guy said that he started off 9k behind a 22 and within 270º of turn the 22 had a shot on him and there was nothing he could do to get away from it. It's an awesome capability that the AF needs if they want to stay ahead of the rest of the world. If there's one thing we despise, it's a fair fight.
-
Simple.
Stop funding the United Nations and
build the jets.
Oh, and while we're at it, pull all of
our troops out of Europe. Sure, it will
damage certain economies over there
and will cause them to start ponying
up more for their own defense but hey,
we need 'em elsewhere.
:D
-
Originally posted by mjolnir
One guy said that he started off 9k behind a 22 and within 270º of turn the 22 had a shot on him and there was nothing he could do to get away from it. It's an awesome capability that the AF needs if they want to stay ahead of the rest of the world. If there's one thing we despise, it's a fair fight.
Don't forget the stealth aspect. While I'll admit that there's a chance that we'll get in a conflict where planes engage each other, it's MUCH more likely that our planes will engage ground targets. Aircraft detection has progressed WELL beyond the countermeasures that we can put on the F-15. As long as we desire a capability of having the person see the target before he selects and bombs it, we'll need aircraft that can successfully navigate the enemy defenses to and from the area.
-
Originally posted by StracCop
Simple.
Stop funding the United Nations and
build the jets.
Oh, and while we're at it, pull all of
our troops out of Europe. Sure, it will
damage certain economies over there
and will cause them to start ponying
up more for their own defense but hey,
we need 'em elsewhere.
:D
I wouldn't like to fly a F117 from the USA to the Middle East!
-
Can't We load up b-52's with Phoenix missles just a few 5? for Air To Air?, And have a support b-52 with those chemical lazer swivel nose to shoot down Incoming SAMS?
I mean we could go back to the old days of formation flying, a few of them together. That is of course if they aren't flying in formation already. (Always figured they were flying independently of each other for more flexibility when giving support over a large field of battle)
Always thought aswell that pheonix was one bad prettythang missle, range of 90+ NM
-BM
-
Don't know about Phoenix's but the B52 can certainly be loaded up with cruise missiles. If ya haven't read "Flight of the Old Dog" by Dale Brown ya oughta, very entertaining. Wish somebody would redo the game 360 did based on the book. Was a lotta fun.
-
The Phoenix is a BIG missile. It's good against the less maneuverable targets but it's not necessarily the weapon of choice against top-line fighters unless they have no idea it's coming.
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Any votes on China being the worlds next super power?
...-Gixer
I bet India before China.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Not the fastest. The F-15 can do Mach 2.5, F-14 can do Mach 1.88.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-14.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-15.htm
You right, F15 fastest but in the following 2 links says F15 max speed around Mach2.5 with the F14 around Mach 2.34
http://www.boeing.com/history/mdc/eagle.htm (http://www.boeing.com/history/mdc/eagle.htm)
http://www.is.northropgrumman.com/products/navy_products/f14/f14.html (http://www.is.northropgrumman.com/products/navy_products/f14/f14.html)
Internet is such a diverse source of differing information don't you think.
and that stupid program on modern marvels( history channel) flat out lied when they said the F 14 was the fastest Fighter, unless they was talking fastest Navy fighter but failed to mention the latter.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
The US military is the only force in the world capable of any sort of large scale global operations now and into the foresseable future.
It might be capable of it, but can the US afford it? The US had to go even further into debt to pay for the Iraq invasion.
-
Could the Allies "afford" WW2?
I believe they all went heavily into debt.
-
Originally posted by Krusher
I bet India before China.
Dosn't India still have over 60% of it's population earning less the a 1$ a day? Hency in poverty. India's economy is doing well, but not on the scale and size of China's. Plus there's China's population,resources and military.
Think China is along way ahead of India.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Toad
Could the Allies "afford" WW2?
I believe they all went heavily into debt.
I'm not sure. I know Britain was still making payments decades later to alot of the allies, and they did have wealth accumulated from the worlds largest empire to draw upon.
-
Thrawn, I doubt there's any country out there that as enough money in their budget in the "contingency fund" to fight a major war without going into debt.
Grun's point stands, I think. What other country can deploy across the globe with enough ground/air/naval power to fight a major war?
Would it cost a huge amount of money? I'm sure it would. AFAIK historically, EVERY time that has happened it has cost a huge amount of money and led to debt no matter what nation attempted it.
But that wasn't Grun's point, was it?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Could the Allies "afford" WW2?
I believe they all went heavily into debt.
I once heard that Finland was the only Allied Country to ever pay back it's war debt to the US in full. Is this true?
-
Originally posted by lada
well nothing personal, but you seems to be Euro hater no.1 w/o sense for humour
and whats worst w/o any knowledge of Eastern europe.
We are happy to have good relationships with ME, we dont have to vulch them to make bussines with them
and about price of oil ... IMAO in past year price of oil product has been raised by 3-5% here ..... what about your country ? ;)
Lada,
All I'm trying to point out is that I think yiu are rather short sighted in your celebration of china's upcoming surge in power. I think that your apparen dislike of the USA has clouded you to the fcat that china's ascendance will hurt Europe just as much and in many cases more than the USA. Fuel costs will be just one, it's simply a fact that Europe relies on much greater % of mid east oil than the USA. When china gets after that oil you will feel it.
Second lets not forget who china is. Chila is an opressive communist dictatorship. Now I may be wrong in saying this, but perhaps that has some nostaligic appeal to you - especillly considering your repeated staements againmst the USA. But the cold war is over. Now you really have to reaximine vlaues and culture.
China does not nearly share the same cultural and political values and priorities with Europe and the EU as does the USA, yes, even with the various differences. Europe and the USA benefit tremendously from the USA superpower status in most every way from political to economic to social power. Why do you seem happy to see the end of this?
Put quite simply, you seem to not have your priorities and intrests quite though trough at this time.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Why do you seem happy to see the end of this?
Because US has become pretty arogant on national level. It were probably clear that it could happen, since reputation of normal people of US went strait down few years ago.
Arogance of US is not less dangerous that arogance from any other regime regardless if they are commies or total theocratic fanatics.
China is very diferent from Europe. But China grow pretty fast and way, how to have good relations with them is not in isolation or hostility. More open we are to china, more open is china to us. Some of my friends has gone to china for few years. I have many chinese friends around me and i see how they are changeing. More they know about us, more they understand us and vice versa. Everybody know that in the world of educated people totalist regime can not survive.
Im wondering whats your attitude toward China ?
btw What did you mean that they do not share same Cultural values ?
-
Mjolnir I don't want to start a flame fest here at all but there are many things that need to be considered in such an engagement.
For starters, how many F-15 crews have the background knowledge to know what the Raptor is capable of and how to exploit in an engagement? How many F-15s are capable of detecting the Raptors signatures? What I mean by that is how many are actual equipped with enabled with up to date threat warning data. Going along with the first question how much training time and effort has been put into dealing with a threat such as the Raptor?
Also I have no clue as to what your security background is and what systems were authorized for use during these 1vs1, 2vs2 and 4vs4 engagements you rode on but with my background and hands on experiences I highly doubt certain systems capabilities were used in your presence for these mock engagements. And even if they were it's the operator and not the plane that uses them effectively. This isn't something we can discuss though for obvious reasons.
Much of the data and capabilities on the Raptor are highly secret and won't be known for many years to come. Like I said before though I don't doubt the Raptor is far ahead of the F-15 in many ways but it's still no slouch. Who do you think helps test their capabilities in the first place? I know the answer to that question due to the fact I'm part of that whole process.
-
China is not an open free western democracy.. Its a totalitarian communist regime.. If for some reason you think the USA is arrogant or pushy or narrow minded with its power, just wait until China's Central Comitee begins flexing its muscles..
-
I took a few moments to gather several, well written articles that explain and talk about the US military being overstretched.
http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2004/0625nj1.htm
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/media/eisenstadt/meria.htm
http://www.g2mil.com/Oct2002.htm
http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/em895.cfm
http://www.user.dccnet.com/welcomewoods/sunshinecoastpeacegroup/gallipoli.html
http://globalsecurity.com/us_politics/the_us/the_us.htm
http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Norman/sup/Projects1.S04/Military/Military-CF.htm
http://www.iht.com/articles/112469.html
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/article.cfm?Id=1188
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=522404
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,304097,00.html
As for "Gash" and his comment "Pull that out of your ass?"
Simply too stupid for words. I can only imagine Gash's outlook has been painted by a constant diet of AMC John Wayne reruns.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I once heard that Finland was the only Allied Country to ever pay back it's war debt to the US in full. Is this true?
Could be true, US made a pretty good profit from the War. Don't think Russia paid a cent and just send F*** Off at the end of the war to paying back for the lend lease. LOL
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Could be true, US made a pretty good profit from the War. Don't think Russia paid a cent and just send F*** Off at the end of the war to paying back for the lend lease. LOL
...-Gixer
US made a profit on WWII? Care to elaborate?
-
There will be alot of "emerging" befor anyone is a superpower to contend with the US. Maybe china could make a mess of the Eurasian land mass.
-
US incurred heavy debt over both WWI and WWII. Don't know where you get the idea that WWII was profitable for the US. Here's some numbers: http://www.the-privateer.com/usdebt/comment.html
-
Originally posted by lada
Because US has become pretty arogant on national level. It were probably clear that it could happen, since reputation of normal people of US went strait down few years ago.
Arogance of US is not less dangerous that arogance from any other regime regardless if they are commies or total theocratic fanatics.
China is very diferent from Europe. But China grow pretty fast and way, how to have good relations with them is not in isolation or hostility. More open we are to china, more open is china to us. Some of my friends has gone to china for few years. I have many chinese friends around me and i see how they are changeing. More they know about us, more they understand us and vice versa. Everybody know that in the world of educated people totalist regime can not survive.
Im wondering whats your attitude toward China ?
btw What did you mean that they do not share same Cultural values ?
Everytime I think I see the prize nitwit of all time, someone
comes along to prove me wrong. Yeah, China is a great
benevolent power that the evil capitalists have subjugated for
hundreds of years. Tiamemen Square was obviously a western ploy to discredit the PRoC.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
US made a profit on WWII? Care to elaborate?
Economically the US industry and hence the economy did very well financially out of the war. While other countries like Britain were left with a depression, rationing and debts to pay off for lend lease. The US was in a Boom buying houses,appliances and new Chevy's.
...-Gixer
-
I'll agree that building the war machine needed to subdue Germany and Japan produced a large industry but at a cost which indebted many future generations. It wasn't profitable in human life either.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I'll agree that building the war machine needed to subdue Germany and Japan produced a large industry but at a cost which indebted many future generations. It wasn't profitable in human life either.
I never mentioned or made a point regarding humanity and proift. The point I was making was purely economical and the econimical benifits to the US from WW2.
Of course you could try and calculate the effect of US casulaties and wounded during the war and it's impact to the US economy at the time and years after but that's way beyond my economics 101. Though might actually make quite an interesting Thesis.
...-Gixer
-
Finland fought against russia in WW2 so it probably couldn't have any debt to US whatsoever. Or did the US fund both sides of the conflict?
Finland had to make huge payments to russia which was part of the allies but not because of war debt. It was a condition for peace. It was a silly amount, almost 50% of the gross income at the time if I recall right.
The soviet agression was widely condemned within the rest of the allies, United Kingdom and the US, but they couldn't even pressure the soviets untill the common enemy was fallen.
-
GRUN, I Know this much, WWII's reserves were used in Korea, Korea's in Nam, Nam's in Gulf War. A buddy of mine worked in the Air Force, fastening weapons to Fighter/bombers. He stated "What will hurt the US in the future, will NOT be a large single war, but several wars spread over the globe". That was said back in 95. Looking back on it now, he was right. We're in Bosnia, Afghan, Iraq. Thank god the North Koreans have been calming down. India/Pakistan, now that is gonna be a humdinger in about 10 years.
By god I'm an American and fuggin proud of it, but I'm not blind (I believe this country was started after a Tax Revolt of sorts?) The 10th Mountain is still in Afghanistan right (or did they go onto Iraq)?
Isn't the Sukhoi Su-37 the one that can do the "Cobra manuever"?
<> all
God Bless America
Karaya