Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: PanosGR on January 29, 2010, 04:19:08 AM
-
Historical day for the Russian Front Aviation. The new fifth gen aircraft PAK-FA flew today for first time (at least that is what the Russians say) and is suppose to be the new main front Russian fighter for the next two decades. In rear resembles allot with the YF-23.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YCQsN8O_Q4&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YCQsN8O_Q4&feature=player_embedded)
(http://)(http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x39/PanosGR/PAKFAfirstL7.jpg)
(http://)(http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x39/PanosGR/PAKFAfirstRealL.jpg)
-
Here is the first flight video of the sukhoi t-50.. looks like a mating between a f-35/yf-23 and the butt end of a su-35..
bbc link
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8486812.stm
russian tv link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQDPHAMC6WU
-
Looks like a modified Su27. I like it! :aok
-
Very interesting plane...of course this is just the initial developmental prototype and isn't a "full up" round (no weapon system, different engines, and probably not all of the planned stealth features).
The F22's first flight was in 1990 and it didn't reach IOC until the end of 2005. Even though the Russians claim it'll be ready earlier there will be unavoidable delays and I doubt we'll see siginficant numbers of them until 2020-2025 so we'll have to see if the Russians can keep such an expensive and difficult program going that long. Also consider that the Russians intend to develop a whole series of new weapons to equipe the plane. The program is shared with both India and Brazil unlike the F22 which is not for export so it may possibly have a better economic future but having partners can be both a blessing and a curse of course. The Eurofighter's first flight was in 1994 while its IOC wasn't until 10 years later with arguements between European partners over everything from radars to its name and the Eurofighter isn't even stealthy which adds a completely different level of requirements.
The Pak FA is intended to be produced in large numbers to replace both the Flanker and Fulcrum which is quite ambitious. Russian high technology programs have had a pretty abysmal recent history although they certainly have the capability if they can afford the setbacks. It will also be interesting to see how this is affected by existing Russian aircraft infrastructure. Typical Soviet designs focused on tough aircraft designed for relatively rough and fairly primative environmental conditions with stuff like mud flaps and the FOD doors of the MiG29 while stealth requires expensive infrastructure like environmentally controlled hangars and precision maintenance in order to maintain their stealthy characteristics. This infrastructure is also extremely expensive to develop/maintain so that adds to the overall operating costs and the Russians can't even keep their existing air fleet at decent operational readiness levels so this will be a big problem for them.
Theoretical Air-air performance is superior to the F35 but not quite up to the F22's level so common sense tells us we better build more F22s as well as reconsider its possible export. Of course that's me. Many in Washington think we should dump all our money into combatting evil CO2 vice people that may actually want to shoot at us.
The rear isn't at all like the 23 except for the use of moving slabs. This has distinct horizontal and vertical tails and conventional nozzles while the YF23 had a V-tail and engines mounted and exhausting over the upper surface. Both the Pak FA and 23 do have flying tails (i.e., a single moving slab vice fixed surface and rudder) but the essential design is very different. For you big-gun queens it's supposed to have two 30mm internal cannon :-)
Overall it will be interesting to see where this goes.
-
...so common sense tells us we better build more F22s as well as reconsider its possible export...
If the Raptor was to be cleared for export, it would be interesting to see who would buy it? Australia mght dump their F-35 program if they could get Raptors, but most of the major European air forces are committed to the Typhoon / Raphael. For them, the Lightning is mainly about replacing Harriers and other ageing Carrier based aircraft.
Who else is out there that could afford to buy and maintain it, and would be allowed by the US government to buy it?
Japan, South Korea and possibly Isreal (although that would do nothing for the Middle East peace process) are the only names that immediately spring to mind.
-
If cleared for export the biggest drawback for a F22 / PAK AF competition could be mission. Does a foreign purchaser need air-to-air, air-to-ground, or both? Since most air forces couldn't afford a high/low mix of dedicated fighters and ground attack then they'll need an airplane for both. The AF is supposed to have the F35's air-to-ground capabilities with near F22 air-to-air but the F22 has little air-to-ground capability. Just 2 1k bombs I believe. The AF would potentially be a better option but they won't really know what it'll actually cost until near the end of the development and they know what it can actually do and how many orders there could be.
-
I wounder how close their technology is from ours. Nice looking bird and also look like our F-22.
-
(at least that is what the Russians say)
Spare me the skepticism.
Theoretical Air-air performance is superior to the F35 but not quite up to the F22's level so common sense tells us we better build more F22s as well as reconsider its possible export.
This would not be the conclusion of a friend of mine who flies the F-16 for the Air Force. Radar, stealth, and weapons systems considerations are more important than dogfighting ability.
-
Video here.
http://news.yahoo.com/video/world-15749633/russia-tests-5th-generation-fighter-jet-17874356
Made in partnership with India... :noid
-
And then, they will be swatted with swarms of drones who run on a mixture of AI and AH sticks :D :noid
-
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?
-
Why are you so excited? Be a little more careful with your language and your meaning will be more clear. Your original post made it sound like you suspected the Russians of lying. I'm a child of the '80s, and so when I hear that kind of insinuation I say to myself "here we go again!"
-
Yeah I thought you were saying that the Russians were lying about it being a 5th gen fighter, not that it was her first flight.
-
I'm not excited at all. Really. I think i was clear enough about my hypothesis, thus it is very possible T-50 have already made its first flight back in summer. That is all. Afterall this aircraft is the 2cond prototype. I'm not implying that the Russians lying about anything. If that is the case then it is my mistake. My skepticism has to do only for the first flight, nothing else.
-
This would not be the conclusion of a friend of mine who flies the F-16 for the Air Force. Radar, stealth, and weapons systems considerations are more important than dogfighting ability.
LOL. First off, "theoretical air-to-air performance" doesn't mean just turn performance, it's the entire weapon system (radar, missile, airframe, pilot). The PAK AF should not only be able to out-turn the F35 but it will be faster and carry a more capable, longer range weapon system. But you do raise an interesting point about our priorities and what will matter.
Which is/are the most important factors for a fighter has always been up for debate and the debate continues even now. Your friend would be foolish to make such a blanket statement because he doesn't know where, when, and how the airplane will be used. It's like the old argument of whether the F14 was better than the F15. The F15 turns better at altitude but the worm turns at low alt. The F15 is almost as fast as the F14 was but the Tomcat carried a better missile. But, in the end, these arguments really don't matter if you're operating off an aircraft carrier then the F15 is completely blown away. So, as usual in fighter comparison the correct answer is "it depends".
Remember when speed and radar missiles were "more important" than dogfighting? Turning and burning were "so 1940's" and we ended up with the Century series of lead sleds with no guns and no ACM training and that didn't work out great. Radar IS important but then there are radar countermeasures. Stealth IS great but then there are stealth countermeasures (and we don't fly just at night). Advanced weapon systems with BVR missiles ARE great but then there are Positive ID and other very restrictive Rules of Engagement which frequently deny BVR. The real answer to which of these capabilities are more important depends on the mission, tactical environment and ROE.
Consider a future war with F22 and F35's against the PAK AF. All of their weapon systems will be extremely limited, in fact almost useless so guess what that leads to? In some ways, we could be back to WWII or Korea, fighting in an almost strictly visual arena. Wouldn't that be interesting? You can bet your little booties that maneuverability will matter.
-
LOL. First off, "theoretical air-to-air performance" doesn't mean just turn performance, it's the entire weapon system (radar, missile, airframe, pilot).
Ok, that clarifies things. You can go without the horse-laugh and communicate just as well.
Your friend would be foolish to make such a blanket statement
I have no desire to argue about his opinion with you. He is more intelligent than me, has a physics degree from Cal, and soloed on his 16th birthday. I didn't argue about it with him. What I do know is that part of the reason for his "blanket statement" was his red-flag experience in Alaska. His flight of F-16s was repeatedly wiped out by a flight of F-22s they were never able to find. In our last conversation about it he felt that either the F-22 or the F-35 would be a fine replacement, and was not bothered by the fact that the F-22 has an edge over the F-35.
-
Seeing as it is being developed in partnership with India, I assume that this would be India's planned future fighter as well. If so, what does that mean for the balance of power in that region, i.e. India vs Pakistan or India vs China?
-
Good thing we cancelled further production of the F-22, otherwise we might have accidentally maintained a capability to beat this thing in a "fair" fight.
-
Seeing as it is being developed in partnership with India, I assume that this would be India's planned future fighter as well. If so, what does that mean for the balance of power in that region, i.e. India vs Pakistan or India vs China?
Karnak, since all of them have nukes, pray to God that they never go to war. Which one has the edge in fighter technology is almost irrelevant.
-
Ok, that clarifies things. You can go without the horse-laugh and communicate just as well.
I have no desire to argue about his opinion with you. He is more intelligent than me, has a physics degree from Cal, and soloed on his 16th birthday. I didn't argue about it with him. What I do know is that part of the reason for his "blanket statement" was his red-flag experience in Alaska. His flight of F-16s was repeatedly wiped out by a flight of F-22s they were never able to find. In our last conversation about it he felt that either the F-22 or the F-35 would be a fine replacement, and was not bothered by the fact that the F-22 has an edge over the F-35.
Sorry, I wasn't laughing at you, it was more of a chuckle at hearing this type of argument which I've heard, well, it seems forever. :-)
Your friend may have participated in Red Flag but then so have I, several times. The first time I did we (F14s) were red air simulating MiG 23 Floggers but the USAF only allowed us to use AA-2 Atolls (basically old AIM 9G/H parameters which are short range rear-quarter-only IR missiles). Mind you this was well after the Soviets had deployed hundreds of MIG 23 with forward quarter AA7 Apex (basically like a Soviet Sparrow). The F15s used AMRAAM (which wasn't even operational yet). I never did figure out what scenario they were trying to demonstrate other than the AMRAAM was the best thing since sliced bread. Of course even with AIM 7 Sparrows the F15's would have still had a relatively easy time. The air battle was basicly "fights on", one potato, two potato, three potato, "All F14's are dead Eagles are RTB".
We got a bit tired of this crap and did what Red would do...adapt. We pulled the circuit breakers in the cockpit for the TACTS pods so we couldn't be tracked and headed for the dirt, turned north out of the area and swung around to the east where the F15's were tanking on KC135's. We popped up, pushed in the TACTS circuit breakers and shot all the Eagles and their tankers. Now that was friggin fun. Of course this was illegal as hell and the USAF howled but the next day they at least gave us the AA7.
What your friend is missing here though is that he's flying a fourth generation fighter against a 5th generation so the issue isn't weapon system VS turn but weapon system VS weapon system. The 5th gen fighter will always have a huge advantage and the fact he's getting swacked is no great surprise. Also, IMHO (and experience) the USAF isn't necessarily interested in a good fight or even good training, sometimes all it's after is a good demonstraton of its current "Halo" aircraft or missile.
If the scenario is 4th gen vs 5th gen than either the F22 or F35 will do but the question is 5th gen vs 5th gen. So, forget the F16, give your friend a choice of F22, F35 and PAK AF and things would change according to his mission. If you believe Russian claims as to the PAK AF's capabilities (I'm not saying they will be) and the mission is air to air the smart choices, in order, would be the F22, PAK AF then F35. If it's air-to-ground then it would be PAK AF, F35, F22.
-
Good thing we cancelled further production of the F-22, otherwise we might have accidentally maintained a capability to beat this thing in a "fair" fight.
Wouldn't want that, they might call us "hoarders".
-
Good writeup Mace. You have a legitimate point in that his perspective is colored by his circumstances. From what I understand, their F-16s are falling apart. He more or less said, "I could give a rat's bellybutton which one they give us, just hurry up and get on with it." From his perspective either the F-22 or F-35 is vastly superior to what he's stuck with now.
-
I have heard rumors of the F22 taking on 15 F15s with just 2 F22.......The F15s didn't know where they were, supposedly
-
I've always been curious, is the F-14 in your avatar just a generic shot of one or a picture of the one that you used to fly?
ack-ack
-
I've always been curious, is the F-14 in your avatar just a generic shot of one or a picture of the one that you used to fly?
That's Vandy 50, the second production F14D and first of four D's I had at VX4 (Vandy 50-53) for the F14D OPEVAL in 1990. I was the F14D Operational Test Director and took this shot from Vandy 51. This was a test flight to check out the missiles and weapon system for the next day's missile shoot where I launched four Phoenix, two Sparrows and a Sidewinder on one run against six targets. That was the biggest missile shoot the Tomcat did since the 6 Phoenix shot during developmental testing in the early 70's. It's not often you see a Tomcat fully loaded for air-to-air but, as you can see, you can still use the vertical. Strapping 5,500lbs of pure air-to-air meanness under your wings sure puts some lead in the pencil.
Here's the original:
(http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/files/mace/Clouds5a.jpg)
and on deck at NAS Pt Mugu the next day just before the big shoot:
(http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/files/mace/Missleshoot.jpg)
Vandy 52 on our way to a low-altitude combined Phonix and Sparrow shoot over the desert near China Lake
(http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/files/mace/Desert3b.jpg)
Vandy 51 and 52 on our way out to Nimitz for traps. Look how pretty those brand new puppy's are!
(http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/files/mace/Formation1.jpg)
-
Woah very cool Mace.
-
Good shtuff. :aok
-
That's Vandy 50, the second production F14D and first of four D's I had at VX4 (Vandy 50-53) for the F14D OPEVAL in 1990. I was the F14D Operational Test Director and took this shot from Vandy 51. This was a test flight to check out the missiles and weapon system for the next day's missile shoot where I launched four Phoenix, two Sparrows and a Sidewinder on one run against six targets. That was the biggest missile shoot the Tomcat did since the 6 Phoenix shot during developmental testing in the early 70's. It's not often you see a Tomcat fully loaded for air-to-air but, as you can see, you can still use the vertical. Strapping 5,500lbs of pure air-to-air meanness under your wings sure puts some lead in the pencil.
That's really cool. Did you splash all 6 targets?
ack-ack
-
:D Good to have lived my dream Mace!
-
That's Vandy 50, the second production F14D and first of four D's I had at VX4 (Vandy 50-53) for the F14D OPEVAL in 1990. I was the F14D Operational Test Director and took this shot from Vandy 51. This was a test flight to check out the missiles and weapon system for the next day's missile shoot where I launched four Phoenix, two Sparrows and a Sidewinder on one run against six targets. That was the biggest missile shoot the Tomcat did since the 6 Phoenix shot during developmental testing in the early 70's. It's not often you see a Tomcat fully loaded for air-to-air but, as you can see, you can still use the vertical. Strapping 5,500lbs of pure air-to-air meanness under your wings sure puts some lead in the pencil.
Mace, it appears that someone has put up a VX-4 page of Facebook.. 142 members.
http://www.facebook.com/search/?q=VX-4&init=quick#/group.php?v=wall&gid=101942125586 (http://www.facebook.com/search/?q=VX-4&init=quick#/group.php?v=wall&gid=101942125586)
My regards,
Widewing
-
bahh, cool but a waste of money, just like the other F22.
These planes are just clear case of over-specification. The few that will own them, who will they fight against? There are more useful technologies for delivering death that are worth researching and equipping with that money.
-
bahh, cool but a waste of money, just like the other F22.
These planes are just clear case of over-specification. The few that will own them, who will they fight against? There are more useful technologies for delivering death that are worth researching and equipping with that money.
The fact of clear superiority is exactly why they are valuable. Would you start a knife fight if the other guy has a machine gun?
-
That's really cool. Did you splash all 6 targets?
The AIM54 and AIM7 missiles had no warheads. The warheads were replaced with telemetry packages so we could analyse their performance and guidance support from the F14. The Sidewinder had a warhead but was shot against a towed flare behind one of the targets. Besides the analysis objective, targets (BQMs) are expensive so you generally want to try to recover and reuse them. The telemetry and radar tracking determined whether or not a missile guided and fused at the proper time so that's what was used to determine the probability of kill. With Sidewinders it's easy to see if they're guiding properly which it did. With the radar missiles, one Phoenix motor failed during launch but my plan was to expend only three so I just launched the spare. All three of the Phoenix and both Sparrows guided and were scored as "kills". Overall the score was 7 shots for 6 "kills". BTW, that one missile shot cost the taxpayer $7 million and I shot about $13 million dollars worth of missiles in my career. Thank you for your support! :salute
I used to have a great video taken at China Lake of our low altitude Phoenix and Sparrow shot. That picture over the desert was during this shot. The setup was for my wingman and I to enter a long valley at one end as the target approached from the other end. What was cool is that China Lake ranges have telemetry and cameras (called cinetheodolites) mounted on some of the peaks so we had video that tracked each missile and the target from launch to intercept. Neither of these missiles had warheads either but the target wasn't a little BQM, it was a QF4 Phantom so it was quite a bit bigger. Low altitude performance was always a problem for the AWG9 radar in the F14A as ground reflections from AWG9 tended to "jam" itself. The APG71 in the D was much different and worked great right down to about 40ft so we were simulating a low altitude ingrees. The planned ingress altitude was so low we had to run simulations to make sure that the Phoenix wouldn't hit the ground before the motor fired. I launched the Phoenix at long range and my wingman launched his Sparrow at about half the distance. The Sparrow is much faster than the Phoenix at low altitude so it actually passes the Phoenix, kind of crosses over the nose of the F4 and went straight down the intake taking out the port engine. A second later the buffalo flew down the starboard side just above the wing and took out the F4's horizontal stab. F4's make a wonderful fireball when they hit the ground. I wish I still had that video but it got lost during my last squadron tour.
-
The AIM54 and AIM7 missiles had no warheads. The warheads were replaced with telemetry packages so we could analyse their performance and guidance support from the F14. The Sidewinder had a warhead but was shot against a towed flare behind one of the targets. Besides the analysis objective, targets (BQMs) are expensive so you generally want to try to recover and reuse them. The telemetry and radar tracking determined whether or not a missile guided and fused at the proper time so that's what was used to determine the probability of kill. With Sidewinders it's easy to see if they're guiding properly which it did. With the radar missiles, one Phoenix motor failed during launch but my plan was to expend only three so I just launched the spare. All three of the Phoenix and both Sparrows guided and were scored as "kills". Overall the score was 7 shots for 6 "kills". BTW, that one missile shot cost the taxpayer $7 million and I shot about $13 million dollars worth of missiles in my career. Thank you for your support! :salute
I used to have a great video taken at China Lake of our low altitude Phoenix and Sparrow shot. That picture over the desert was during this shot. The setup was for my wingman and I to enter a long valley at one end as the target approached from the other end. What was cool is that China Lake ranges have telemetry and cameras (called cinetheodolites) mounted on some of the peaks so we had video that tracked each missile and the target from launch to intercept. Neither of these missiles had warheads either but the target wasn't a little BQM, it was a QF4 Phantom so it was quite a bit bigger. Low altitude performance was always a problem for the AWG9 radar in the F14A as ground reflections from AWG9 tended to "jam" itself. The APG71 in the D was much different and worked great right down to about 40ft so we were simulating a low altitude ingrees. The planned ingress altitude was so low we had to run simulations to make sure that the Phoenix wouldn't hit the ground before the motor fired. I launched the Phoenix at long range and my wingman launched his Sparrow at about half the distance. The Sparrow is much faster than the Phoenix at low altitude so it actually passes the Phoenix, kind of crosses over the nose of the F4 and went straight down the intake taking out the port engine. A second later the buffalo flew down the starboard side just above the wing and took out the F4's horizontal stab. F4's make a wonderful fireball when they hit the ground. I wish I still had that video but it got lost during my last squadron tour.
Mace,
did you work with Wade Tallman while at VX4? Shouldve been around the same time when you were in.
-
That's Vandy 50, the second production F14D and first of four D's I had at VX4 (Vandy 50-53) for the F14D OPEVAL in 1990. I was the F14D Operational Test Director and took this shot from Vandy 51. This was a test flight to check out the missiles and weapon system for the next day's missile shoot where I launched four Phoenix, two Sparrows and a Sidewinder on one run against six targets. That was the biggest missile shoot the Tomcat did since the 6 Phoenix shot during developmental testing in the early 70's. It's not often you see a Tomcat fully loaded for air-to-air but, as you can see, you can still use the vertical. Strapping 5,500lbs of pure air-to-air meanness under your wings sure puts some lead in the pencil.
Here's the original:
(http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/files/mace/Clouds5a.jpg)
and on deck at NAS Pt Mugu the next day just before the big shoot:
(http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/files/mace/Missleshoot.jpg)
Vandy 52 on our way to a low-altitude combined Phonix and Sparrow shoot over the desert near China Lake
(http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/files/mace/Desert3b.jpg)
Vandy 51 and 52 on our way out to Nimitz for traps. Look how pretty those brand new puppy's are!
(http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/files/mace/Formation1.jpg)
That's really cool mace. :aok
-
From the engines, it looks like a waste of money. Back end doesn't look stealthy at all. It may reduce the radar signature quite a bit, but from the looks of the back itself, it'll show much more dar than the F22.
-
From the engines, it looks like a waste of money. Back end doesn't look stealthy at all. It may reduce the radar signature quite a bit, but from the looks of the back itself, it'll show much more dar than the F22.
Mighty scientific analysis. :rolleyes:
Stealth is way over-rated. I doubt there is a fighter pilot out there that would give 1 degree per second instantaneous turn rate for an RCS .01% less.
Stealth is applicable to only two arenas, at least to advantageous use.
One, is a deep strike mission and only at night.
The other, at BVR on known targets.
Since BVR range attacks are pretty much completely out the window in a non-sterile, fluid combat environment where you have to worry constantly about fratricide , a fighter with stealth is pretty much damned useless. Stealth gives modern air to air combat nothing that proficient NOE flying doesn't. Even IFF transponders don't allow for the effective implementation of BVR tactics.
Hinging any fighter's effectiveness solely on its stealth is damned dangerous, when a fighter's mission is not to be invisible.
This is exactly why the AF is looking at cheap, maneuverable drones with a couple of AIM-9x's on them. If you can buy 40 of them for one F22....you can afford to lose a lot, and put them up front, with the Raptors behind.
-
kind of reminds me of an old anime where one side was deploying high tech piloted fighters and the other side was deploying cheap missile armed remote control piloted air-to-air drones.
the piloted side was winning because they always sent an ewar plane to jam the drones but in the end the drone users won the war because they developed a system where if the drone failed to receive a signal from its remote pilot it would switch to AI control and that AI was programmed to lock on to whatever target it found bigger than a drone and shoot it down then RTB (fire one missile and return).
in real life it makes you wonder with all this stealth and junk... is it really an advantage? numbers always beat superior technology (if used smartly).
-
numbers always beat superior technology (if used smartly).
umm...........Israel???????
-
like I said, if used smartly. The way Israel's neighbors tried to invade them was nowhere near smart.
-
Mighty scientific analysis. :rolleyes:
Stealth is way over-rated. I doubt there is a fighter pilot out there that would give 1 degree per second instantaneous turn rate for an RCS .01% less.
Stealth is applicable to only two arenas, at least to advantageous use.
One, is a deep strike mission and only at night.
The other, at BVR on known targets.
Since BVR range attacks are pretty much completely out the window in a non-sterile, fluid combat environment where you have to worry constantly about fratricide , a fighter with stealth is pretty much damned useless. Stealth gives modern air to air combat nothing that proficient NOE flying doesn't. Even IFF transponders don't allow for the effective implementation of BVR tactics.
Hinging any fighter's effectiveness solely on its stealth is damned dangerous, when a fighter's mission is not to be invisible.
This is exactly why the AF is looking at cheap, maneuverable drones with a couple of AIM-9x's on them. If you can buy 40 of them for one F22....you can afford to lose a lot, and put them up front, with the Raptors behind.
Sorry but your analysis is almost as bad as the one your trying to correct.....
:rolleyes:
Strip
-
Sorry but your analysis is almost as bad as the one your trying to correct.....
:rolleyes:
Strip
Ain't that the truth. :rolleyes:
But I have a question for someone who's actually been there:
Mace,
Years ago I did Carrier Suitability work on a "not so brightly lit" program. ;) The Mk 7 Mod 3 gear was state of the art back then, but it still was limited to 50,000 lb max trap weight. I was told by a Grumman engineer at the time that the F-14's couldn't get down to this max recovery weight while carrying 6 AIM-54's, so they typically only flew with four. Is this true? :salute
-
Australia mght dump their F-35 program if they could get Raptors,
geeez we only just got rid of our F-111's, going to miss their dump and burns at the big events.
-
Mace,
Years ago I did Carrier Suitability work on a "not so brightly lit" program. ;) The Mk 7 Mod 3 gear was state of the art back then, but it still was limited to 50,000 lb max trap weight. I was told by a Grumman engineer at the time that the F-14's couldn't get down to this max recovery weight while carrying 6 AIM-54's, so they typically only flew with four. Is this true? :salute
I am not Mace, but I am very confident in the accuracy of that statement...
A typical dry F-14 weighed a little over 44,000 lbs and the Aim-54 weighs around 1,025 lbs. Given six missiles on board that would put its dry weight at 50 thousand lbs. By the time you add sufficient fuel reserves your well over the maximum trap.
I am a big fan of the F-14 and have read a lot of info, I am curious to see how my opinion stacks up with Mace.
(Who most certainly would be the best source of anecdotal info I have seen in a long time....)
<S> Mace, I miss your old girl, even if it was just watching from the ground.
Strip
-
Sorry but your analysis is almost as bad as the one your trying to correct.....
:rolleyes:
Strip
Ok. Correct it then, instead of simply throwing attitude like a 14 year old girl at her freshman dinner dance.
Prove that a single fighter pilot would give up 1 degree instantaneous turn for a .01% RCS difference.
-
Ok. Correct it then, instead of simply throwing attitude like a 14 year old girl at her freshman dinner dance.
Prove that a single fighter pilot would give up 1 degree instantaneous turn for a .01% RCS difference.
In my eyes I think a fighter pilot would fly a 747 if given total stealth (including visual) but your example is extremely construed anyway.
At an exchange rate like that you could give all of the turn rate up and maybe gain what? Between 1-2 percent? No I wont even try to argue with that other than to point out its a biased question to begin with.
But regardless of that, my comment was mainly directed towards other aspects of your scientific analysis....
Strip
-
I am not Mace, but I am very confident in the accuracy of that statement...
A typical dry F-14 weighed a little over 44,000 lbs and the Aim-54 weighs around 1,025 lbs. Given six missiles on board that would put its dry weight at 50 thousand lbs. By the time you add sufficient fuel reserves your well over the maximum trap.
I am a big fan of the F-14 and have read a lot of info, I am curious to see how my opinion stacks up with Mace.
(Who most certainly would be the best source of anecdotal info I have seen in a long time....)
<S> Mace, I miss your old girl, even if it was just watching from the ground.
Strip
Thx Strip :aok
-
That's Vandy 50, the second production F14D and first of four D's I had at VX4 (Vandy 50-53) for the F14D OPEVAL in 1990. I was the F14D Operational Test Director and took this shot from Vandy 51. This was a test flight to check out the missiles and weapon system for the next day's missile shoot where I launched four Phoenix, two Sparrows and a Sidewinder on one run against six targets. That was the biggest missile shoot the Tomcat did since the 6 Phoenix shot during developmental testing in the early 70's. It's not often you see a Tomcat fully loaded for air-to-air but, as you can see, you can still use the vertical. Strapping 5,500lbs of pure air-to-air meanness under your wings sure puts some lead in the pencil.
Here's the original:
(http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/files/mace/Clouds5a.jpg)
and on deck at NAS Pt Mugu the next day just before the big shoot:
(http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/files/mace/Missleshoot.jpg)
Vandy 52 on our way to a low-altitude combined Phonix and Sparrow shoot over the desert near China Lake
(http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/files/mace/Desert3b.jpg)
Vandy 51 and 52 on our way out to Nimitz for traps. Look how pretty those brand new puppy's are!
(http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/files/mace/Formation1.jpg)
Very cool. Those Tomcat's tailmarkings look really familiar, I wonder if they're the ones the Navy had on display at the first airshows I can remember as a kid at Pt. Magu back in the early '90s (some of the best looking and conditioned Tomcats I can remember too)? Still is one of my favorite airshows to go to when they host them... even if I thought you Tomcat guys there always elbowed in on the hornet guy's spotlight =P .
-
In my eyes I think a fighter pilot would fly a 747 if given total stealth (including visual) but your example is extremely construed anyway.
No, he wouldn't. If he did he'd be a transport pilot. :D
-
Very cool. Those Tomcat's tailmarkings look really familiar, I wonder if they're the ones the Navy had on display at the first airshows I can remember as a kid at Pt. Magu back in the early '90s (some of the best looking and conditioned Tomcats I can remember too)? Still is one of my favorite airshows to go to when they host them... even if I thought you Tomcat guys there always elbowed in on the hornet guy's spotlight =P .
XF is the squadron identifier but we usually filed as Vandy X (based on our squadron callsign "Vanderbuilt"). BTW, no Tomcat guy ever elbowed in on a Hornet guy's spotlight as no Hornet guy ever had a spotlight shined on him, it was always on us :lol
You may remember this one, it was painted by Grumman for us (illegally...so shuuuuussssshhhh) when we retired our black F4U:
(http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/files/mace/n728651424_2497330_4690.jpg)
Or, if you were older perhaps this one:
(http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/files/mace/18643_1342312042994_1387013262_30942754_4709412_n.jpg)
-
Best thread ever!
Tomcats forever, baby!
Mace, you're my Hero! The Tomcat has been my favourite bird since day one.
-
Ain't that the truth. :rolleyes:
But I have a question for someone who's actually been there:
Mace,
Years ago I did Carrier Suitability work on a "not so brightly lit" program. ;) The Mk 7 Mod 3 gear was state of the art back then, but it still was limited to 50,000 lb max trap weight. I was told by a Grumman engineer at the time that the F-14's couldn't get down to this max recovery weight while carrying 6 AIM-54's, so they typically only flew with four. Is this true? :salute
F14 max trap was 54k lbs. I don't know much about the limits of the arresting gear but have to assume the Mk7 must have had a Mod4.
To figure out your max trap fuel you take the basic airframe weight of 44klbs and add the weight of ordnance and launchers (all these numbers are just rounded off for simplicity). Six AIM54C's would be 6k plus the weight of the four weapons rails in the belly which, if I remember correctly were about 300lbs each plus two sidewinders at 500lbs total and about 300 lbs of 20mm. That load out would give you a weight without fuel of about 52k lbs. With the 54k lbs max trap weight that leaves you with 2k lbs for fuel so it's theoretically possible (provided you don't have external tanks); however, while 2k lbs sounds like a lot of gas it isn't, you're basically driving with the fuel needle on E. Actually, NATOPS requires you to land with at least 2k lbs of fuel to take into account the possibility of a misrigged fuel totalizer and trapped (i.e., unusuable) fuel. If you really found yourself at the CV with six buffalos strapped on you'd have to jettison two to give you 4k lbs on the ball and that's about as low as you ever want to go. The problem with this scenario is that buffalos cost $1M each so even dropping just one is a real expensive proposition.
If you thought you needed the Phoenix (and would be able to use it given the ROE) you'd typically carry two in the forward part of the tunnel, and two Sparrows and two Sidewiders on the glove stations. That's a bit less than 4k lbs of ordnance giving you max trap fuel of 6k lbs. This is a much more comfortable amount if you can't get aboard and you are within bingo range of a divert field. If you were blue water (i.e., no divert available and you either get aboard, succesfully tank, or eject) you could plan on being on the ball with 4k lbs of fuel since a divert isn't an option anyway. Also, the extra fuel let you delta (hold) while the brand spanking new Hornet dweebs started crying that they were low on gas (which is basically the condition they launched in :lol ) and needed to land first, ahead of the real fighters.
-
My favorite Tomcat memory was during a TACP class at Camp Lejeune back in the late 90's. The instructor, an old OV-10 pilot, had lined up a couple of "Bombcats" out of Oceana. They came down and none of them could bomb worth a damn, but the panel checks were superb. Had one that blew some of the shingles off the top of the tower at OP-2 of the Golf 10 range. Nothing like watching that big hunk of metal flying inverted at tree top...
-
Mace did you ever use the "I"ll hit the brakes and he'll fly right by" maneuver?
Seriously though, I have an F14 question.
In "The Hunt for Red October" Tom Clancy writes that the F14's "rearward looking radar" light clicked on and detected AA2 Atolls inbound. Is there such a device that serves as a sort of RWR for IR missiles etc?
-
Mace did you ever use the "I"ll hit the brakes and he'll fly right by" maneuver?
Seriously though, I have an F14 question.
In "The Hunt for Red October" Tom Clancy writes that the F14's "rearward looking radar" light clicked on and detected AA2 Atolls inbound. Is there such a device that serves as a sort of RWR for IR missiles etc?
There are systems that can detect a missile plume but the F14 never had one nor did it have rearward looking radar so there would be no way to detect an IR missile like an Atoll except by eye. The A did have the ALR45/50 and the B and D had the ALR67 radar warning receivers but those only worked against radar threats.
-
The fact of clear superiority is exactly why they are valuable. Would you start a knife fight if the other guy has a machine gun?
No, but if I was the guy with the machine gun, I wouldn't bother to develop a laser rifle just to scare the others even more.
Military advantage saturates at some point. If your fighters are too good, they will not fight you in the air. It does not mean that they will not fight. If you work very hard to secure absolute superiority in every aspect, they will hijack a plane using a plastic knife and fly it into a big building. This is how it works in the real world.
numbers always beat superior technology (if used smartly).
umm...........Israel???????
This is why Israel is leading the world in drone technology and deployment. Why trade-off when you can have both technology AND numbers.
-
Mace, just curious. At $1 million a pop... did the AIM-54C ever actually down anything in combat?
-
Mace, just curious. At $1 million a pop... did the AIM-54C ever actually down anything in combat?
Nope. There is one launch during Desert Storm but no confirmed kill out of it. That's one of the problems with BVR, you're not going to have gun camera footage.
-
Indy007,
I believe there are only two confirmed launches by the U.S. in combat, neither resulting in a downed enemy aircraft. I have heard rumors of a couple of others fired but nothing concrete unfortunately. Iran has claimed to down a few using the AIM-54C but again nothing has been confirmed. Nearly 300 AIM-54's were sent to Iran, all of which were operational at one time. When the U.S. pulled its aircraft support many doubted the Iranians ability to maintain the F-14, a notoriously fickle aircraft. Some even claimed the U.S. supplied technicians sabotaged the remaining missiles and the weapons system on board the F-14. Some evidence suggests that Iran still has the capability to field operational F-14's equipped with the Phoenix missile though. Often the lack of molten salt batteries were responsible for the lack of available missiles. Iran has procured these thermal batteries clandestinely before and its presumed they continue to do so to this day.
A funny story, during the opening days of the war Iraqi pilots would consistently not operate near F-14's. When the Tomcat's activated there radar they would immediately leave the area. The odd part was they did not respect the F-15/F-18 as seriously. Presumably they learned the distinctive radar signal from the F-14's AWG-9 radar during encounters with the Iranians. The Iranians used the F-14 as a early warning aircraft, often protecting large formations of other aircraft.
I found that a bit curious and got a good chuckle, heard that from a few pilots who served in that time frame as well as various other articles.
Strip
-
No, but if I was the guy with the machine gun, I wouldn't bother to develop a laser rifle just to scare the others even more.
Military advantage saturates at some point. If your fighters are too good, they will not fight you in the air. It does not mean that they will not fight. If you work very hard to secure absolute superiority in every aspect, they will hijack a plane using a plastic knife and fly it into a big building. This is how it works in the real world.
LOL. Are you seriously heading into an argument that we're really to blame for terrorism because our military is too good? That's a pretty big stretch. Are you suggesting that al-Qiada and Hizballah and Amal and Hamas exist because we have F22s? Would terrorism be less of a problem in the "real world" if we only flew F6F's instead? How about Spads? There is no point at which absolute superiority in any area is detremental, there are just those that think that being the best just isn't "fair".
-
Nope. There is one launch during Desert Storm but no confirmed kill out of it. That's one of the problems with BVR, you're not going to have gun camera footage.
I've read about that one. I've never seen one of these fly, only played with it in simulations. It's funny, even video game players know to scatter when the F-14 RWR icon pops up. Since we don't have any missile with anything like the buffalo's range, why wouldn't they want to update it for the AN/APG-77? LPI radar & 100 mile SARH, active terminal guidance @ pitbull, HOJ.. relatively easy with modern processors. The -77 already tracks more targets, can operate more missiles than the AN/AWG-9, and it's setup for datalinks. Why just stick with the AIM-120 when the latest generation of Russian AA missiles have 10 to 20 more miles of range... which is a lot when a high pK AIM-120 shot is at what... 20 miles or less? Low pK @ 40ish? Just because it's cheaper, lighter, and more things have the software to release it?
-
ROE might be a big part of that?
Strip
-
I've read about that one. I've never seen one of these fly, only played with it in simulations. It's funny, even video game players know to scatter when the F-14 RWR icon pops up. Since we don't have any missile with anything like the buffalo's range, why wouldn't they want to update it for the AN/APG-77? LPI radar & 100 mile SARH, active terminal guidance @ pitbull, HOJ.. relatively easy with modern processors. The -77 already tracks more targets, can operate more missiles than the AN/AWG-9, and it's setup for datalinks. Why just stick with the AIM-120 when the latest generation of Russian AA missiles have 10 to 20 more miles of range... which is a lot when a high pK AIM-120 shot is at what... 20 miles or less? Low pK @ 40ish? Just because it's cheaper, lighter, and more things have the software to release it?
Well, for one reason you have to carry it. A thousand pound, 15 inch wide missile is quite a load but primarily you have to consider what it was designed to do and that was to target Badgers, and Backfires, and Bears (oh my!), not fighters. The AIM54C was much better against fighters than the A but even that was overkill for a 130lb warhead. Also, consider ROE where the chances of taking an 80nm shot is very slim and also the fact that AMRAAM is a much faster missile. The Phoenix isn't all that agile either due to it's size and weight and this agility in the end game is very important against a maneuvering fighter.
-
XF is the squadron identifier but we usually filed as Vandy X (based on our squadron callsign "Vanderbuilt"). BTW, no Tomcat guy ever elbowed in on a Hornet guy's spotlight as no Hornet guy ever had a spotlight shined on him, it was always on us :lol
You may remember this one, it was painted by Grumman for us (illegally...so shuuuuussssshhhh) when we retired our black F4U:
(http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/files/mace/n728651424_2497330_4690.jpg)
Or, if you were older perhaps this one:
(http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/files/mace/18643_1342312042994_1387013262_30942754_4709412_n.jpg)
Pffft, the entire base from gate to beach was stacked with Tomcat buffs. I could all the way here in LA hear the air escaping everyone on base as the Navy anounced dropping the F-14D program for the Super Hornet. I wouldn't be surprised if any hornet that came within range of the base for the next two months got a radar lock warning.
I remember both those navy-blue aircraft (I wish more in the Navy were painted like them), including the Phantom... does that mean I'm officialy old at the age of 26? I always wondered how the F14 got its unique paintjob though... wonder how you guys bribed Grumman into it, lol. I kinda miss the Phantoms. They were being finaly phased out when I was old enough to remember stuff. Used to see at least one or a few really shining examples of the F-4 at every airshow. Nowadays though, I honestly can't remember exactly when the last time I saw one, I know it was before I was old enough to buy my first camera though, I don't have a shot of one in my collection.
-
LOL. Are you seriously heading into an argument that we're really to blame for terrorism because our military is too good? That's a pretty big stretch. Are you suggesting that al-Qiada and Hizballah and Amal and Hamas exist because we have F22s? Would terrorism be less of a problem in the "real world" if we only flew F6F's instead? How about Spads? There is no point at which absolute superiority in any area is detremental, there are just those that think that being the best just isn't "fair".
I believe what he was getting to was that your enemy will attack you at the point he considers the weakest, not at the point he considers the strongest. By having the strongest fighter force, you virtually ensure by definition, it will not be utilized, unless you force your enemy into such an encounter.
His model wasn't flawless, but it was functional.
-
I have heard that the Star Wars program was dropped (a small part anyway) for reasons similar to this. Given the large borders of the U.S. it was realized that the Soviets could simply pre-position nuclear weapons near major installations. Thereby negating any advantage of having the system anyway, at least in some regard. I agree with Moray (gasp), you dont try to break castle walls, you go around them....
Strip
-
LOL. Are you seriously heading into an argument that we're really to blame for terrorism because our military is too good? That's a pretty big stretch. Are you suggesting that al-Qiada and Hizballah and Amal and Hamas exist because we have F22s? Would terrorism be less of a problem in the "real world" if we only flew F6F's instead? How about Spads? There is no point at which absolute superiority in any area is detremental, there are just those that think that being the best just isn't "fair".
No no. You missed it completely.
What I was saying was that once you have complete superiority, even better weapons will not make a difference - they will not be used anyway. The current status of the US is that no opposing force can challange it in anything but skirmish infantry combat. For this reason, the F22s will put out a good airshow, some calendars with pretty pictures and star in a Hollywood movie, but other wise rust. Terrorism is used against the US because military might does not come into play.
The US has such a huge advantage that the only defenses other nations can have are: 1)The bomb, 2)Terrorism. Iran is afraid of a US attack, what does it use as a counter threat? a nuclear project and big talk about a terror wave the world has never seen. The latter is a threat of the consequence AFTER they "loose the war". What do they use as a lever against Israel attacking their facilities? a threat of their Lebanese branch "Hizballa" pinching Israel northern cities. Better fighters will make zero difference. Strike planes? maybe some room for improvement. Interceptors? come on, sound more like government aid to the aircraft industries.
-
Russia, is just better in terms of aerial performance, USA has more toys, but the fact is. THey are designed to fight.
Lets face it guys, no matter how much chest thumping there is. Ground war with RUssia you will lose, airwar will be a tie. Naval will be MAD.
Nuclear war. Game over :confused:
So..... there really is an art to keeping peace.
-
Russia, is just better in terms of aerial performance, USA has more toys, but the fact is. THey are designed to fight.
Lets face it guys, no matter how much chest thumping there is. Ground war with RUssia you will lose, airwar will be a tie. Naval will be MAD.
Nuclear war. Game over :confused:
So..... there really is an art to keeping peace.
Really, we'd lose a ground war with Russia? Glad no one told that to the Afghani's during the the Soviet occupation, otherwise they would have just given up.
ack-ack
-
Naval will be MAD.
That's interesting, last I heard our navy was on par with the rest of the world COMBINED, and Russia's was rotting away in port.
-
Try trolling harder and don't get hints/tips from your grandfather this time.
That's interesting, last I heard our navy was on par with the rest of the world COMBINED, and Russia's was rotting away in port.
What he said. The only thing the Russian Navy has been on par with in the last couple of decades is the USN Mothball Fleet. To their credit though, I hear they're finally investing in their navy again recently, but it's still at least twenty to thirty-years behind in the modern race for ocean supremacy.
-
XF is the squadron identifier but we usually filed as Vandy X (based on our squadron callsign "Vanderbuilt"). BTW, no Tomcat guy ever elbowed in on a Hornet guy's spotlight as no Hornet guy ever had a spotlight shined on him, it was always on us :lol
You may remember this one, it was painted by Grumman for us (illegally...so shuuuuussssshhhh) when we retired our black F4U:
(http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/files/mace/n728651424_2497330_4690.jpg)
Or, if you were older perhaps this one:
(http://trainers.hitechcreations.com/files/mace/18643_1342312042994_1387013262_30942754_4709412_n.jpg)
Wooo VX-4!
Mace you are my hero! I love tomcats to DEATH!
Bye Bye Baby :(
Mace, I've always seen your avatar before...so you were an F14 aviator?
Russia, is just better in terms of aerial performance, USA has more toys, but the fact is. THey are designed to fight.
Lets face it guys, no matter how much chest thumping there is. Ground war with RUssia you will lose, airwar will be a tie. Naval will be MAD.
Nuclear war. Game over :confused:
So..... there really is an art to keeping peace.
I lol'd. We have the best navy in the world. Ground war we would probably win...IMO our M1A2 is better then their T90. Air...well that'd be a fun (not really) battle, but I still think we have the upper hand.
-
Really, we'd lose a ground war with Russia? Glad no one told that to the Afghani's during the the Soviet occupation, otherwise they would have just given up.
ack-ack
Are you comparing U.S forces to fanatical mountain retards jumping around with ak-47's? He's talking about conventional warfare. At the point when your troops have to live in caves and their only belief system is dying in the name of god, you have already lost.
-
That's interesting, last I heard our navy was on par with the rest of the world COMBINED, and Russia's was rotting away in port.
Time for a reality check. Russia still fields more subs than the US. Which is not to say its 'better'. Just don't underestimate.
-
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
-
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
-
Time for a reality check. Russia still fields more subs than the US. Which is not to say its 'better'. Just don't underestimate.
:rofl :lol :rofl
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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? :rofl
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? :rofl
ack-ack
With a touch of alex jones :aok
-
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.
-
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. :rofl
ack-ack
-
Hey Ack Ack, do you have 50 years experience in the USAF.
Because Dale Brown does. Read it
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :rofl
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.
-
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
-
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? :D
-
Well, some aussie or another claimed Russia could beat our ass. I beg to differ. A claim was also made that NATO would be a mouse standing in the way of a Russian cat. I beg to differ on that as well.
And an attack on a NATO member is an attack on all.
-
Well, some aussie or another claimed Russia could beat our ass. I beg to differ. A claim was also made that NATO would be a mouse standing in the way of a Russian cat. I beg to differ on that as well.
And an attack on a NATO member is an attack on all.
just for fun and to keep this going, the American and NATO ground forces holding off a Russian invasion would probably create a stalemate... Air forces also, and the Naval aspect we'd probably have the superiority and i had a feeling about all of this before reading the stats :lol
-
Are you comparing U.S forces to fanatical mountain retards jumping around with ak-47's? He's talking about conventional warfare. At the point when your troops have to live in caves and their only belief system is dying in the name of god, you have already lost.
are you serious? READ UP on HISTORY time... In the 80's Afghan conflict the Afghanis were NOT suicidal, zealots, or in anyway believing they were fighting FOR GOD... they were fighting to save their homes and their land. And in fact without our help they probably would not have won and the Soviet Union may have not collapsed so quickly... (of course the american government being what it is decided to forget about assisting the reconstruction in Afghanistan after the Russian invasion was over and the terrorists moved in and helped to gain support... THATS when the suicidal people began taking over
-
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.
What was afghanistan? The flea off some sewer rat that jumped on the Russian kitty's back and bit so many times that the poor puss had to run home?
-
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.
Really? What 5th generation fighter does Russia possess?
-
Hey Ack Ack, do you have 50 years experience in the USAF.
Because Dale Brown does. Read it
I have read and enjoyed many of Dale Brown's books but unlike you, I can tell the difference between a work of fiction and non-fiction. Let me guess, you probably think "Flight of the Old Dog" is a technical manual for the B-52 and you probably think Top Gun is the best training film for A2A combat. :rofl
ack-ack
-
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.
Please, post any thing that I claim that I have any insider knowledge of "world politics and military facts and figures?" Unlike you, I can easily tell the difference between fiction and non-fiction.
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.
You're right, I've never served in the Air Force or any othe branch of the military. While the author might have been in the Air Force for a number of years, one would be an utterly and complete moron to think a fictional book the author writes is 'factual'. Just read his book "Flight of the Old Dog", "Hammerheads", "Sky Masters" or any of his other works of fiction. Good read to be sure but also not very accurate.
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
First off, you need to grow up and mature a little bit and then hopefully that sack will drop and eventually you can be called a man. If you don't like someone disagreeing with you then you need to get a thicker skin, especially if you try to use fictional writers to back up your points.
ack-ack
-
The T-50 doesn't have engine blockers, sawtooth edges on the gear door, or some other obvious stealth features. The stealth isn't going to be very good unless they significantly improve the production model.
-
The T-50 doesn't have engine blockers, sawtooth edges on the gear door, or some other obvious stealth features. The stealth isn't going to be very good unless they significantly improve the production model.
they'll add those on... just wait for it. It's the first public flight... They'll steal those ideas just like they did the rest of the F-22
-
just for fun and to keep this going, the American and NATO ground forces holding off a Russian invasion would probably create a stalemate... Air forces also, and the Naval aspect we'd probably have the superiority and i had a feeling about all of this before reading the stats :lol
I don't think so. We're no longer in the '80s. The Euro air forces alone are a match for the Russians. Add the USAF/USN and the Russians don't stand a chance imho. As for ground forces, NATO combined outnumber Russia in tanks and troops, and considering the quality of western tanks it will be a very one sided conflict. A naval conflict with NATO would also be very one sided: 34 carriers versus 1. 392 warships versus 111. 92 nuclear subs versus 40. 68 diesel subs versus 20. Add to the overwhelming NATO numerical advantage, there is also a technological gap.
-
Alright, I was a bit POed when I wrote that, I apologize for being an arrogant little dick.
But no Ack-Ack, I do not think that. Plan of Attack is a simulated attack on the USA by the Russian Federation using aircraft. While I do not take a work of fiction as fact, this book talks about the US Air defence. Of course Dreamland and so on is fiction, but POA deals mostly with conventional warfare teqniques such as Strat and Tac bombing. The theoretical premis is that the Northern US air defence has not been maintained and that the Russians use that as a window to attack.
Now while this is fiction it illustrates the fact that since the end of the cold war the US military has not been kept up to its original standards. Flyable storage is more common among airforce aircraft and US Military man power has slipped below a World War fighting force. If Russia was to launch a huge suprise attack across Canada and the northern areas of the US its airdefences would take too long to mobilize. The Russian Military is still a large powerful force despite the end of the Cold War to keep its shattered union in a rough state of order, and now with new advances in Tech and increase in funding it is rapidly becoming a match for the US military.
It would not take much of Russia's HUGE natural and economic resources to reactivate all the old gear they have and spruce it up to combat readiness. This poses a major problem, as the Russian ground forces could overwhelm the small armies of Germany, Poland, Ukraine. The real resistance would start when France, Britain and the US enter the theatre. it is more than likely that to preserve their interests China would side with Russia and launch a pacific campaign similar to that of Japan. forcing us to fight on two fronts. This would cause a massive destabilization and we would be overrun.
Russia and China have more people and more equipment. In a conventional war this will ultimately win over prudent tactics unless of course we use WMD's. And in response Russia can deploy enough Nuclear firepower to wipe out every NATO and US, military and civillian target.
Now Naval superioritywould cetrainly be in the hand s of the Coalition, The Royal Navy and the US navy have enough ships and firepiower to stand off the rest of the world. But with Chinas entry that could be a stretch to hold.
My point is it would be a stalemate war of attrition. Which Russia and China will win over long term. Like the Allies in WW1. So Nuclear war is an inevitability.
-
I don't think so. We're no longer in the '80s. The Euro air forces alone are a match for the Russians. Add the USAF/USN and the Russians don't stand a chance imho. As for ground forces, NATO combined outnumber Russia in tanks and troops, and considering the quality of western tanks it will be a very one sided conflict. A naval conflict with NATO would also be very one sided: 34 carriers versus 1. 392 warships versus 111. 92 nuclear subs versus 40. 68 diesel subs versus 20. Add to the overwhelming NATO numerical advantage, there is also a technological gap.
So why would you be worried if there is not something to fear
-
Plaw, you live in australlia, and not meaning this to all aussies but you have no idea of what our military can do.
Btw a two front war in WWII didn't do good for us I guess.
-
I'm not worried. If all goes well Russia will, in time, become a great nation and an ally.
-
China never was a Russian ally, even when they were both commies. For most of the cold war China was in fact a US ally. That holds even more true today with America and Europe being China's money tree.
-
The are only 2 things that concern Russia: remaining "White" and being the largest energy producer in their sphere of influence.. And they would be better allies than most of you think..
-
I don't think so. We're no longer in the '80s. The Euro air forces alone are a match for the Russians. Add the USAF/USN and the Russians don't stand a chance imho. As for ground forces, NATO combined outnumber Russia in tanks and troops, and considering the quality of western tanks it will be a very one sided conflict. A naval conflict with NATO would also be very one sided: 34 carriers versus 1. 392 warships versus 111. 92 nuclear subs versus 40. 68 diesel subs versus 20. Add to the overwhelming NATO numerical advantage, there is also a technological gap.
Yes naval forces would be superior against the Russians but the fact is is that a war in Europe would have NO naval aspect at all... along with the fact that like said above by someone else the US and its allies have superior armor but the Russians outnumber us by 5,000 and along with the fact that if a conflict broke out the Russians would be the first to strike...This means the advantage of surprise, shock, and numbers... NATO is not one country and would most likely need a small amount of time to respond to this assault effectively (being that each country in NATO includes the armed forces that are in each of these countries... These countries aren't in cold war mode anymore with the main front of their forces on the Russian border. They have their National armed forces in their own countries. France, Spain, Italy, England, and even Germany would need time to deploy forces for wartime and move the bulk of their troops (with the problem of nations needing to convey information back and forth together... i dont think this would be a deciding factor here but it would most likely hinder the movement of troops and weapons to the front 500 miles away up to thousands of miles and a channel... This means the Russians would most likely be able to rush Poland in a few days at the most due to the unreadiness of forces in poland and could possibly be in Germany and Austria in a week... By then the NATO forces would finally have a defensive line set and a counteroffensive ready thereby creating the stalemate. US would need MUCH more time to respond and move the most of its forces that are actually still in country or overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan to the European front or a 2nd front that would most likely be denied by China, North Korea and Middle Eastern countries which would either be neutral or by then enemy... China... now lets not get started with that ok? I mean Russia isn't Soviet anymore but i doubt the Chinese and Russians don't have friendly ties. And if the world is mobilized by war, China has a huge chance of expansion and the possibilities they could create with more territory... There is also the problem of the Chinese having the world's largest military... 2.8 MILLION armed military members at the moment at the LEAST... When Russia could not hold the NATO/American forces off they would ask for Chinese aid... Imagine the problems this would cause for us... With its close neighbors, Japan and S. Korea could fall or be subdued VERY quickly...
-
You're missing a few points... First, China and the USSR almost went to war in the 1960s. It went so far that they started mobilizing forces on the Sino-Russian border. Second, the Russians do not outnumber NATO in tanks. Look at the numbers again: NATO: 22,977 tanks, Russia: 22,800 tanks. NATO completely dominates in air power with 7,095 warplanes versus the Russians' 2,295. Third, the Russians are unlikely to achieve a surprise attack in todays world of satellite intelligence. Fourth, There are many neutral European countries with substantial armed forces that also would resist a Russian invasion. Fifth, Russia no longer shares a border with Poland. To attack western Europe Russia would need to advance trough Belarus, the Baltic states, and/or Ukraine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_split
(http://www.geographicguide.net/europe/maps-europe/maps/europe-map.gif)
-
Best thread ever!
Tomcats forever, baby!
Mace, you're my Hero! The Tomcat has been my favourite bird since day one.
I agree, there's something in the design that says: "I'm the biggest, baddest, toughest kid on the block, just you try and mess with me"
The Hornet says: "I'm a nerd with a PDA, perpare to have your e-mail hacked!" It's really missing that machismo that a true fighter like the Tomcat or P-51D has.
-Penguin
-
You're missing a few points... First, China and the USSR almost went to war in the 1960s. It went so far that they started mobilizing forces on the Sino-Russian border. Second, the Russians do not outnumber NATO in tanks. Look at the numbers again: NATO: 22,977 tanks, Russia: 22,800 tanks. NATO completely dominates in air power with 7,095 warplanes versus the Russians' 2,295. Third, the Russians are unlikely to achieve a surprise attack in todays world of satellite intelligence. Fourth, There are many neutral European countries with substantial armed forces that also would resist a Russian invasion. Fifth, Russia no longer shares a border with Poland. To attack western Europe Russia would need to advance trough Belarus, the Baltic states, and/or Ukraine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_split
(http://www.geographicguide.net/europe/maps-europe/maps/europe-map.gif)
NATO only has 177 more tanks. :huh
-Penguin
P.S. (Don't forget to subtract the warplanes and tanks owned by the French :D)
-
My view is of the fact that Russia has still got a hold over Ukraine and Belarus like they do over Georgia, NATO will not dare twitch in their defence if Russia moves in as they are not members of NATO anyway.
China is on better terms with Russia now, they did almost go to war in 1960 but now they have signed a kind of alliance. Now any major war involving the US or Russia is inevitably bring in China sooner or later.
-
NATO only has 177 more tanks. :huh
Yes. However, the weight and technology gap is substantial. NATO tanks are both heavier and more advanced than their Russian counterparts. One NATO tank is probably worth 3-5 (if not more) Russian tanks on the battlefield. The Russian army has only 6,500 active tanks with the rest in reserve. The operational tanks are mostly T-72s and T-80s with a few T-90s. The reserves are mostly T-72s, T-64s, T-62s and even some T-55s.
-
You're missing a few points... First, China and the USSR almost went to war in the 1960s. It went so far that they started mobilizing forces on the Sino-Russian border. Second, the Russians do not outnumber NATO in tanks. Look at the numbers again: NATO: 22,977 tanks, Russia: 22,800 tanks. NATO completely dominates in air power with 7,095 warplanes versus the Russians' 2,295. Third, the Russians are unlikely to achieve a surprise attack in todays world of satellite intelligence. Fourth, There are many neutral European countries with substantial armed forces that also would resist a Russian invasion. Fifth, Russia no longer shares a border with Poland. To attack western Europe Russia would need to advance trough Belarus, the Baltic states, and/or Ukraine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_split
(http://www.geographicguide.net/europe/maps-europe/maps/europe-map.gif)
Die Hard you're including the United States in the NATO stats. 2nd, yes Belarus, the Baltics, and Ukraine border Russia but do you really think they will be able to stop a Russian invasion? 2nd: these neutral european countries would most likely not want a war with a major power, Russian/European treaties would stop them from going to war along with the fact that MANY European once Eastern Bloc countries still actually have some positive ties to Russia (albeit that there are also many negatives). Therefore Russia could easily attack Europe unopposed at the start. Yes satellite intelligence would be able to stop this but do you really think there aren't people in each country with the hacking ability to mess with these imagery satellites enough to show a false image of what is happening? If Russia had a fast battle plan to move the majority of its forces in a small time allocation they could invade with surprise effect or at least a shock effect on other countries... Do you really think China would back out of an opportunity such as world war? Yes Russia and China would not be on perfect terms but the Chinese could benefit very well on a Chinese Russian win in a world war...
Edit: If you really think Russians are actually showing their real armaments to the world then I'm the king of England... This T-95 no doubt is actually in service already. And also the only reason the NATO tanks are superior to Russia's is due to the composite armor. I doubt Russia hasn't tried to replicate this armor and have it in use at the moment... It's like saying that China has 2.8 million military members. This is only the lowest speculative amount of manpower in the chinese army... It could probably amount to 3-5million... Same with russia, they may be showing us what they want us to see... this T95 is either going to be equipped with a 135 or 155mm Main gun, This main gun could easily penetrate an M1, Chieftan, or a Leopard 2. By the way, these ARE THE ONLY countries with composite armor main battle tanks... They are not sharing these specifications with any other country...
-
1. The USA is a NATO member nation. 2. No they won't stop the Russians, but the Russian invasion will hardly be a surprise to NATO after they've invaded these countries. 3. Most of the neutral European countries likely won't have a choice but to fight. They certainly didn't in the last two wars. 4. No I don't think anyone has the capability to hack the satellite intelligence capabilities of all NATO nations, or even one of them. 5. China will do what is best for China. Exactly what that is I don't know, but going to war with its two largest markets is not it, I think.
Your edit: Yes I think the Russians are desperate to show off their new capabilities and thus remain relevant in world politics. That's why they're showing off their newest prototype fighter. That's why this thread exists.
NATO tanks are consistently heavier than Russian tanks. Russian tanks are at or around 40 tons. NATO tanks are at or around 60 tons. A 50% weight advantage.
I'm sure the Chinese can mobilize far more than 3-5 million men if they wanted to. I wouldn't think 100 million men under arms would be impossible for them if they made the effort. However, quality is again an issue, and how would 100 million men move half-way around the world to Europe? Walk across the Eurasian landmass? If China decided to support a Russian invasion the war would be over before they got there. And when they do get there they would be under constant interdiction from NATO air power, to say nothing of their supply lines.
Composite armor is used on the following NATO and European tanks:
US' M1 Abrams
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a6/M1A1.jpg/220px-M1A1.jpg)
UK's Challenger I and II
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Challenger_II.jpg/300px-Challenger_II.jpg)
Germany's Leopard II. Other NATO nations fielding the Leo II: Canada, Denmark, Greece, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and Turkey. In addition these neutral European countries operate the Leo II: Austria, Finland, Sweden, and Switzerland.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Leo2A5.JPG/300px-Leo2A5.JPG)
France's Leclerc
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fc/Leclerc-openphotonet_PICT6015.JPG/220px-Leclerc-openphotonet_PICT6015.JPG)
Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia's M-84
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/94/M84a_slovenija.jpg/180px-M84a_slovenija.jpg)
Italy's Ariete
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Ariete_lato.jpg/300px-Ariete_lato.jpg)
-
1. The USA is a NATO member nation. 2. No they won't stop the Russians, but the Russian invasion will hardly be a surprise to NATO after they've invaded these countries. 3. Most of the neutral European countries likely won't have a choice but to fight. They certainly didn't in the last two wars. 4. No I don't think anyone has the capability to hack the satellite intelligence capabilities of all NATO nations, or even one of them. 5. China will do what is best for China. Exactly what that is I don't know, but going to war with its two largest markets is not it, I think.
Your edit: Yes I think the Russians are desperate to show off their new capabilities and thus remain relevant in world politics. That's why they're showing off their newest prototype fighter. That's why this thread exists.
NATO tanks are consistently heavier than Russian tanks. Russian tanks are at or around 40 tons. NATO tanks are at or around 60 tons. A 50% weight advantage.
I'm sure the Chinese can mobilize far more than 3-5 million men if they wanted to. I wouldn't think 100 million men under arms would be impossible for them if they made the effort. However, quality is again an issue, and how would 100 million men move half-way around the world to Europe? Walk across the Eurasian landmass? If China decided to support a Russian invasion the war would be over before they got there. And when they do get there they would be under constant interdiction from NATO air power, to say nothing of their supply lines.
#1: already said US was NATO BUT, it would take weeks for us to move a sizeable force to Europe... I doubt the war would be over before China could be involved (world's largest industrial nation pumping at wartime...hmm....) they could pump out a whole new army's worth of equipment before the war was over... and it would not take them long to deploy it either. Neutral countries would be allowed to stay out due to neutrality and treaties with russia AND the NATO forces...
Your response to my edit: But don't you think the russians would show us a "prototype" jet that is actually already produced and used in mass? Seeing as how we try to do the same all the time? The F22 was leaked to the press and that is why the public knew of it, same with the F35... the US government couldnt keep the secret anymore. What if this prototype is actually literally the prototype model flown in tests say about 10 years ago?
Russian T90s and new T95s could serve as an easy match to NATO MBTS with the size of the guns and the new tech on the Russian tanks
-
............And also the only reason the NATO tanks are superior to Russia's is due to the composite armor............
Russian tanks use reactive instead of composite armor, and few other pretty cool features.
Missile Jammers, able to shoot guided missiles through main gun, don't need to be refuelled every 4 hours or so.... Battles would be very bloody:)
-
Russian tanks use reactive instead of composite armor, and few other pretty cool features.
Missile Jammers, able to shoot guided missiles through main gun, don't need to be refuelled every 4 hours or so.... Battles would be very bloody:)
:lol more info to back my argument! :aok ty
-
Again you assume the Russians can achieve complete surprise with their attack. This is all but impossible today. Only a fraction of the Russian forces are mobilized in peacetime; if the Russian mobilize their forces so will NATO. America already have forces in Europe and mobilization storage of equipment and munitions (including nukes). The USAF operate from seven main bases in Europe as we speak: RAF Lakenheath and Mildenhall in England; Ramstein and Spangdahlem Air Bases in Germany, Aviano Air Base in Italy, Lajes Air Base in the Azores, and Incirlik Air Base in Turkey. The rest of the USAF could mobilize there in days.
"But don't you think the russians would show us a "prototype" jet that is actually already produced and used in mass? Seeing as how we try to do the same all the time? The F22 was leaked to the press and that is why the public knew of it, same with the F35... the US government couldnt keep the secret anymore. What if this prototype is actually literally the prototype model flown in tests say about 10 years ago? "
No, I don't think that is at all realistic.
The T-95 tank has suffered from several delays and its status is unknown. Large scale production has certainly not commenced yet. It may even have been canceled. In any case, you cannot train a new tank army today without it being observed.
"Russian tanks use reactive instead of composite armor..."
Reactive armor is ineffective against kinetic penetrators like the APFSDS(DU) rounds used by NATO tanks. Reactive armor only works against HEAT and other explosive rounds/missiles.
-
I think alot more can be said about who has the better planes, tanks, ships, etc. by just looking at how well they have stood up in combat. Anyone can sit down and talk about how good something will be when its on the drawing board, but in real combat is were it will shine or burn.
-
Again you assume the Russians can achieve complete surprise with their attack. This is all but impossible today. Only a fraction of the Russian forces are mobilized in peacetime; if the Russian mobilize their forces so will NATO. America already have forces in Europe and mobilization storage of equipment and munitions (including nukes). The USAF operate from seven main bases in Europe as we speak: RAF Lakenheath and Mildenhall in England; Ramstein and Spangdahlem Air Bases in Germany, Aviano Air Base in Italy, Lajes Air Base in the Azores, and Incirlik Air Base in Turkey. The rest of the USAF could mobilize there in days.
"But don't you think the russians would show us a "prototype" jet that is actually already produced and used in mass? Seeing as how we try to do the same all the time? The F22 was leaked to the press and that is why the public knew of it, same with the F35... the US government couldnt keep the secret anymore. What if this prototype is actually literally the prototype model flown in tests say about 10 years ago? "
No, I don't think that is at all realistic.
The T-95 tank has suffered from several delays and it's status is unknown. Large scale production has certainly not commenced yet. It may even have been canceled. In any case, you cannot train a new tank army today without it being observed.
"Russian tanks use reactive instead of composite armor..."
Reactive armor is ineffective against kinetic penetrators like the APFSDS(DU) rounds used by NATO tanks. Reactive armor only works against HEAT and other explosive rounds/missiles.
i actually havent said anything about complete surprise, just a level of surprise to give russian advantage sir.
It is realistic though because the American armed forces have done it in the past and always will sir... they hide the big juicy stuff so other countries cant copy it.
-
I beg to differ. All our secret stealth planes were known to the world before their existence were made public. Even if we called them by the wrong designation like the F-19. The Russians have never fielded anything during the Cold War that you couldn't read about in Jane's the same year.
-
Current NATO deployment times (since the new force structure of 2006): Air Forces: 24 hours. High readiness ground forces: 48 hours. Low readiness forces (aka follow-up forces and mobilization) 7-15 days.
-
I think alot more can be said about who has the better planes, tanks, ships, etc. by just looking at how well they have stood up in combat. Anyone can sit down and talk about how good something will be when its on the drawing board, but in real combat is were it will shine or burn.
Mhhh.... i thought Nazi's had better stuff in WW2. By the way, why do you guys think that Russia needs to invade useless land with no resources?
It almost appears that USA cold war victory was a mistake. I mean, with wealthy economy Russians will produce better weapons, right?
-
Mhhh.... i thought Nazi's had better stuff in WW2.
They did.
-
They did.
You lost me, better stuff doesn't guarantee victory(i referred to Nazi's), more stuff might.
-
They did.
EW and MW they did
-
The tour guide at the tank museum near Berlin was an old Tiger driver during the war. This was in the 90s btw. He said the Tiger was a match for ten T-34s... The problem was that there was always twelve of them. And that sums up the Eastern Front as far as quality of equipment is concerned.
The problem these days is that the Russians only have one T-something for every Abrams/Leopard/Challenger/Leclerc.
-
EW and MW they did
EW they didn't (T-34 introduced at the battle of Moscow in 1941). MW and LW they did.
-
EW they didn't (T-34 introduced at the battle of Moscow in 1941). MW and LW they did.
overall they did...aircraft sir? just because the russians had the T34 that doesnt mean it was the ONLY country they were fighting. and also the I16 was the main soviet air craft until 1943...
-
We were talking tanks. In aircraft the Germans always had the better planes vs. Russia, just not enough of them to fight Russia, and the rest of the world.
-
We were talking tanks. In aircraft the Germans always had the better planes vs. Russia, just not enough of them to fight Russia, and the rest of the world.
kgb quoted a post about planes tanks etc. he also said nothing of just armor. you just took that road :aok and Russian airforce weaponry surpassed Germany in 1944
-
Don't forget, if everything goes wrong, the President of the US or the Prime Minister of Russia could always turn that little brass key and turn the world into a ball of radioactive glass.
-Penguin
-
Don't forget, if everything goes wrong, the President of the US or the Prime Minister of Russia could always turn that little brass key and turn the world into a ball of radioactive glass.
-Penguin
theres alot more to it than that :aok
-
But there isn't that much more after that!
-Penguin
-
But there isn't that much more after that!
-Penguin
true
-
Russian airforce weaponry surpassed Germany in 1944
Really? I didn't know the Russians had jet fighters and jet bombers in 1944.
-
Alot of the tank technology, planes and missiles means little at all. Robust and good Command & Control, surveilance and training means the most. The US would still have slaughtered Iraq even if the Iraqi military had the abrams, missiles planes and the US had the iraqi equipment IF the US had the same Command, control, doctrine and training as it had in real life. Iraq may have put up a better fight, but not my much. Night vision is also a big factor but as far as i know the russians have pretty good systems.
My opinion anyway.
-
Really? I didn't know the Russians had jet fighters and jet bombers in 1944.
notice that these were in limited supply and also used incorrectly mostly? Hitler used the 262 as a bomber in most models and the Ar234 became a scout plane
-
notice that these were in limited supply and also used incorrectly mostly? Hitler used the 262 as a bomber in most models and the Ar234 became a scout plane
The Arado wasn't becoming a scout plane - it was designed as being one from the start. And as a recon plane, it was a very valuable addition, being able to fly recon sorties where no other Luftwaffe could in '45. If you only have a few planes available, this can be much more valuable than a few dropped bombs.
/thread hijack off
-
The Arado wasn't becoming a scout plane - it was designed as being one from the start. And as a recon plane, it was a very valuable addition, being able to fly recon sorties where no other Luftwaffe could in '45. If you only have a few planes available, this can be much more valuable than a few dropped bombs.
/thread hijack off
ahh again lusche you hit us with your valuable information <S>
but still, the Russians had the tech advantage by the end of the war. YES the germans had the 262 but look at the numbers... the 262 was not built in a large enough group or flown by many veterans to actually be able to affect any outcome...
-
321BAR, why don't you just google some of these points you try to make. The info is out there. No, the Russians did not have better planes than the Germans at any point of the war. Some of the VVS' planes were on-par with the German rivals, like the La-5/7, but the 109 and 190 always had the advantage of better performance at altitude, better cockpit ergonomics, instrumentation and automation. The Russians were also tactically naive, and it really isn't surprising that the German aces could rack up hundreds of kills each on the east front. The 190 Dora was so much better than what the VVS had that they stared using captured Doras themselves.
(http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/LCBW5/FW190-D9-15s.jpg)
-
the 262 was not built in a large enough group or flown by many veterans to actually be able to affect any outcome...
Noting short of a nuclear bomb could affect the outcome by 1944. And more 262s were made during the war than La-7s. The Germans produced 1,430 Me 262s before the war ended and they were operational from April 1944 with the first recorded kill (a Mosquito) in July.
-
Night vision is also a big factor but as far as i know the russians have pretty good systems.
My opinion anyway.
I've used US gen 3 and russian nvg side by side. The US made gear is far superior fwiw. It's also about deploying that gear, and training troops to properly use it and care for it. Not easy on a budget army.
-
I've used US gen 3 and russian nvg side by side. The US made gear is far superior fwiw. It's also about deploying that gear, and training troops to properly use it and care for it. Not easy on a budget army.
and that was my point :aok
When people put this and that tank etc up against what the other side has on paper it is useless statistics. Its not the gear, but how you employ it and how well informed and trained the operators are.
-
they'll add those on... just wait for it. It's the first public flight... They'll steal those ideas just like they did the rest of the F-22
It doesn't quite work like that. Stealth has to be designed from the outset. It's not just some kit you can apply. This thing will likely be better than the Eurofighter, but inferior in RCS to a -35 or -22.
-
Wouldn't a Russian invasion face difficulties in that western europe becomes a natural choke point the further they'd go? The traffic jam would be a incredible, especially if there were Chinese troops/equipment as well. Sounds like a target rich environment.
63tb
-
Wouldn't a Russian invasion face difficulties in that western europe becomes a natural choke point the further they'd go? The traffic jam would be a incredible, especially if there were Chinese troops/equipment as well. Sounds like a target rich environment.
63tb
Depends on the era. In the 80s, NATO air forces were projected to last about 3 days, and the means to stop massive numbers of mechanized infantry divisions at the Fulda Gap didn't really exist.
-
Noting short of a nuclear bomb could affect the outcome by 1944. And more 262s were made during the war than La-7s. The Germans produced 1,430 Me 262s before the war ended and they were operational from April 1944 with the first recorded kill (a Mosquito) in July.
alright die hard i concede sir. sometimes i try to use brainpower over the use of websites to test my knowledge limits and to keep myself going...
-
I would suggest using your brainpower to acquire more knowledge. If I may ask a personal question; I get the impression that you are a child or a teenager, am I correct?
-
and that was my point :aok
When people put this and that tank etc up against what the other side has on paper it is useless statistics. Its not the gear, but how you employ it and how well informed and trained the operators are.
The Israelis proved that in the 6 Day War.
Yitzhak Rabin - "Our airmen, who struck the enemies' planes so accurately that no one in the world understands how it was done and people seek technological explanations or secret weapons; our armored troops who beat the enemy even when their equipment was inferior to his; our soldiers in all other branches...who overcame our enemies everywhere, despite the latter's superior numbers and fortifications-all these revealed not only coolness and courage in the battle but...an understanding that only their personal stand against the greatest dangers would achieve victory for their country and for their families, and that if victory was not theirs the alternative was annihilation."
-
I would suggest using your brainpower to acquire more knowledge. If I may ask a personal question; I get the impression that you are a child or a teenager, am I correct?
going on 20 in september sir... and dont pull the im older than you card out... because ive had 40 year olds come to me for advice and information. no offense but the older the wiser doesnt affect all people older than me (not to mean you).
-
Wasn't about to. Just got the impression that you were young from some of your comments. We were all young once. :)
-
Wasn't about to. Just got the impression that you were young from some of your comments. We were all young once. :)
as long as we're good on that point then :lol sox or yankees?
-
as long as we're good on that point then :lol sox or yankees?
Red Sox FTW!
-Penguin
-
Red Sox FTW!
-Penguin
sox all the way :aok
-
Will this start another sports team debate? That qualifies as a violation of the forum rules- don't mess with my religion! :banana:
-Penguin
-
Well, since all of you have chosen the Sox I'm just going to have to play devil's advocate and say: Yankees FTW!
-
Well, since all of you have chosen the Sox I'm just going to have to play devil's advocate and say: Yankees FTW!
:mad: :lol to tell you the truth the Sox are really bad this year so it's all good :aok