It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Zaphod58
Oh but I forgot. We're evil Americans, who are more arrogant than the rest of the world and have to pretend we're so much better than everyone else when in reality we have the worst equipment and military. Sorry, carry on. Nothing to see here. Business as usual.
According to the Serbs one did but the US has not admitted to losing any so we don't know and do not have much of a chance to prove it either way.
it's should still be able to penetrate third world air defenses if it was to have any such potential against 1980's type Soviet defenses.
It may in fact simply tell us that the ROE are hopelessly restrictive as the F-15's radar are more than capable of detecting the F-22 from the side or rear at extended ranges.
Originally posted by Daedalus3
StellarX your posts are toooooooooooo long!
Need the better part of and hour to go through them!
T/W ratios are very much payload dependant..
The Su-30 has an unloaded T/W that is >1 and a fully loaded T/W of .7 or .8
Originally posted by C0bzz
On to the F-15 versus Su-27. Sorry if I sound rude, but I think that you guys should stop argueing, and just spent a week writing an article that the Su-27 kills the F-15 (and vice versa) instead of wasting 10 times the time argueing about silly things like:
Internal fuel range
Maneuverability
Training
Vietnam
RCS (lmfao, they both have huge ones except the F-22)
In my opinion who would win entirely relies on things such as:
Range (including external tanks)
Missile tech
Radar tech
Coordination (AWACS and base defense).
[edit on 14-8-2007 by C0bzz]
Originally posted by West Coast
Mr. X, It is of my opinion that russia is several steps behind the US in military terms, however discussing possible future military contact between the two nations is, in my opinion, moot.
All in all the US will not have to worry much about russia.
Russia faces a population crisis,
an aids epidemic,
as well as the possible disintegration of russia itself.
I ask you to watch the youtube videos below. It is a well drawn out documentary of russias current state. Life is good in Moscow, but not much anywhere else in russia.
Death of a nation - Russia
Part 6
www.youtube.com...
I really do feel for the innocent people of russia who are just trying to get by.
"Q: Let me ask you specifically about last week's scare here in Washington, and what we might have learned from how prepared we are to deal with that (inaudible), at B'nai Brith.
A: Well, it points out the nature of the threat. It turned out to be a false threat under the circumstances. But as we've learned in the intelligence community, we had something called -- and we have James Woolsey here to perhaps even address this question about phantom moles. The mere fear that there is a mole within an agency can set off a chain reaction and a hunt for that particular mole which can paralyze the agency for weeks and months and years even, in a search. The same thing is true about just the false scare of a threat of using some kind of a chemical weapon or a biological one. There are some reports, for example, that some countries have been trying to construct something like an Ebola Virus, and that would be a very dangerous phenomenon, to say the least. Alvin Toeffler has written about this in terms of some scientists in their laboratories trying to devise certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic specific so that they could just eliminate certain ethnic groups and races; and others are designing some sort of engineering, some sort of insects that can destroy specific crops. Others are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves."
So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It's real, and that's the reason why we have to intensify our efforts, and that's why this is so important.
DoD News Briefing
Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen
Originally posted by C0bzz
I do not think anyone has the right to judge and aircraft based on airshow performances. It's freaken stupid to claim that Russian aircraft are unsafe because an engine flames out at an airshow leading to a crash... or an American F-16 flies into the ground. It does not matter, airshows show little about real world performance and does not speak about how safe an airplane is.
I disagree.
There is no proof that a B-2 went down apart from a Serb website, and all B-2's have been photography since 1999.
I think people need to prove that one did go down before even posting.
Which it did with insignificant losses.
Against modern hardware? Lmfao I do not know why people are argueing that a F-117 could possibly stand up to modern hardware. 70's tech verses 00' tech? I WONDER WHO COULD POSSIBLY WIN.
What?
Redflag results would certaintly disagree with you there.
On to the F-15 versus Su-27. Sorry if I sound rude, but I think that you guys should stop argueing, and just spent a week writing an article that the Su-27 kills the F-15 (and vice versa) instead of wasting 10 times the time argueing about silly things like:
Internal fuel range
Maneuverability
Training
Vietnam
RCS (lmfao, they both have huge ones except the F-22)
In my opinion who would win entirely relies on things such as:
Range (including external tanks)
Missile tech
Radar tech
Coordination (AWACS and base defense).
Of course, I am only an knowledged in actually flying planes... so I don't know about these things.
Thanks.
P.S. What's the name for the Su-27s helmut targeting system? is it SCHELM? or am I crazy?
Again thanks.
If the USAF had such a belief in the plane why are they retiring it so quickly?
Two against Serbia in 1999 and against 1960 era weaponry to boot? 2 out of 50 is not particularly good and in terms of percentage no better than other aircraft if one believes the official kill tallies.
"Winning' is not the point as the USAF can stand to lose hundreds of planes and still defeat the third world nation of choice as they did in both Korea and Vietnam. What i am trying to point out is that these platforms did not add capabilities in proportion to cost and efficiency.
As if i should care about the self serving 'results' and 'data' they manufacture at red flag exercises!
I think that qualifies you to have rather strong opinions.
For?
Stellar
Well it is my opinion that Russia is several steps ahead in most areas of significance and that that fact is playing a significant part in the decline of the US as global power.
Which must be why it's trying to encircle Russia so as to bring to bear what little conventional weaponry may still be effective...
A declining population is not a crisis unless you wish to decide it's such.
Not sure how less people or more sickly people degrades it's ability to operate it's strategy and conventional arsenal...
So you really are sucking all of this out of your thumb?
Who are these 'others' and why can the US not deal with the massive infrastructure that changing the climate probably requires? Why is it that the US needs new 2 billion dollar attack submarines and F-22 'stealth' fighters to fight the war on 'terrorism'?
Maybe it's not so obvious to you but the next time the weather seems to be behaving in ways it rightly should not you should think about the balance of power than allows those 'others' to do this to you without your nation being capable of fighting back effectively.
Wow to say that Maneuverability, Training, Vietnam(history), RCS have no part in the debate of the best fighter is to deny all events and tech that makes the fighter what it is today. In fact you touched upon the theory of my next thread and I would welcom your feed back on it in the next day or two once I have it up.
P.S. small nick picky thing is that how do you expect the pilot know how and when to fire the missile if the training is not important?
Originally posted by West Coast
Well Mr. X I thank you for your input. Now if you will be as kind to listen to mine.
Interesting tid bit there Mr. X. And what areas would these be if you dont mind me asking? Maybe we can debate that further?
As for the decline of the US, Yes and No. However, it appears as though the US is going the way rome went.
Building bases all over the world and such (starting wars) is unsustainable and we cannot afford to continue on down this current path.
We, need not get our nose into everyones business either.
As said by me earlier, The US wants to be the "New Rome". It is not just Russia who the US wants to control.
Perhaps. Theres a saying though 'Who will mind the mill' (implying when theres no one left?) At current, russia is on course to roughly lose half of its population by the year 2050.
That sounds a bit arrogant. Is what I meant by that was to show how severe the problem in russia is.
Further, the population decline might accelerate in the coming years; if current rates persist, Russia's population has been projected to fall by a quarter to a third by 2050.[99] In an effort to stem Russia’s demographic crisis, in 2006 the government doubled monthly child support payments and offered a one-time payment of US$9,200 to women who had a second child.[100] Russia is the second country in the world by the number of immigrants from abroad, mostly from the former Soviet Union, and immigration is increasingly seen as necessary to sustain the country's population.[101]
en.wikipedia.org...
Russia needs people, just as any great nation does for various reasons. Will the Russian federation last? Or will it start to dissolve?
Im not exactly sure what your trying to imply there, it makes no sense. One of the main threats to russia today is, "disintegration". I think what happened to USSR in the early 1990's could happen to russia at any time.
Well. The American in me wants to say that "Its a small price to pay to stay ahead of the pack."
Which is true. But your right. This isnt going to exactly do much to AK wielding foes hiding in mountains. You can thank the Military industrial complex for that Mr. X.
I read that interesting tid bit of info that you provided. But im not so sure how or why you seem to be so convinced in the manner that you are.
"without your nation being capable of fighting back effectively."
Very interesting thing to say, as well as very ignorant (unless proven other wise).
Im curious as to how you would truly know?
Originally posted by C0bzz
I thought they were simply because it was old, maintainence heavy, and had pretty bad performance? And as you said could be replaced by more conventional aircraft.
It did successfully infiltrate 3rd world country hardware though.
But 2 of 50 isn't so good though.
What I meant to say was, it's pointless that some people think the F-117 could stand up to modern hardware.
It would be horrible for the pilots if red flag was staged.
I thought the whole point of Red Flag was to help train pilots not give them unrealistic excercises?
I just wrote that so you guys don't think I'm some moron who pretends to know everything about airwars. I (obviously) know little.
Reading the post, lol.
Apparently not curious enough to do any research of your own.
Have you looked at any of my 2000+ posts
so far and if not when do you plan on doing so and save yourself a great deal of embarrassment?
France went the same route decades ago and all it had to do was to allow foreigners to become Russian citizens more easily. If Russia wants people there are plenty of Russian speakers around the world who may be enticed to come back and hundreds of millions who will learn the language if that enabled them a better chance in the world.
Direct energy weapons, ICBMs, ABM, air defense in general, civil defenses , conventional ground forces and even it's navy's submarine arm.
Before you try to debate this maybe you should see who have tried, what they said and how baseless their claims turned out to be.
It seems they may have decided to reverse the trend after all:
You don't in fact need very many to fight modern strategic wars with nuclear and direct energy weapons and industrialization does not require the same type of worker corps that it used to. Russia still has tens of millions of people that are unemployed or under employed so i don't believe this issue is truly serious.
The USSR simply shed excess weight in 1990 so as to better streamline operations. It did not 'disintegrate' and the lack of violence employed to keep it together speaks volumes as to what the real motives were. Why you believe that Russia will 'disintegrate' today i have no idea but maybe it will help if you actually studied Russian history and notice just how long the current borders have been in effect and how just how little reason there is for any territory to try break away. Obviously the CIA and others do their best but so far they have not been as effective as they would like to be.
Please respond to the original question of who you believe are wielding these climate altering earthquake inducing weaponry.
Well why not crush the 'terrorist' who are employing these weapons? Are the terrorist so strong or are the US armed forces not even able to deal with a few men in caves who can 'alter the climate'?
So how would i go about proving that i am not 'ignorant'? Give ma clue!
Originally posted by BlackWidow23
That is very flawed logic.
The thing is, russia doesnt know how good the F-22 actually is.
The released specs are obviously inaccurate and understated.
Russia has no idea how understated they are. Neither do americans.
Therefore, they can only build an aircraft superior to its specualted real limits.
On top of that, building something inferior is not a matter of just not bothering to build something SUPERIOR, its a matter of how good you can ACTUALLY build it.
Such as avionics, you cant just say "it will be better because they wouldnt bother building it if it wasnt" because there is a chance russian tech JUST ISNT THERE.
Russia has a general lag in computer technology.
It's possible they just dont have the tech to match the F-22. Or stealth, same thing, maybe russian stealth JUST ISNT THERE. There is a chance that the Russians CANT build something better.
You cant just...POOF...worlds best technology because we want it to be better than the F-22...its harder than that.
Analogy...its like Russia and America are climbing paralell ropes. You seem to think that when America takes the lead, russia can just climb higher. But in reality, you have to weave the rope you are about to climb a step higher on if you want to get higher.
Ok...bad analogy
Originally posted by West Coast
Oh Im curious Mr.X. Curious of what you had to say.
Forgive me for i have neither the time or inclination
But, in my honest opinion, this does not solve the biggest problem facing russia in regards to its population crisis. Of course Im talking about Russia's first world birth rate, combined with russias third world mortality rate.
You are also going out on a very small limb in assuming People will want to come to russia Mr.stellarX. Russia, where outside of moscow, life isnt much better off.
Well Mr. X, Big assumptions on your part.
But, theres a few things that need to be brought to light first, im afraid. As I have said earlier in this very thread in regards to the F22's true capabilities. No one here is qualified in expertise in neither fields (arm chair generals included).
So, can you beyond a shadow of a doubt, confirm your expertise in such fields before making such baseless claims?
Interesting to say in the least. Most of what you speak of is highly classified. So, again, how would you truly know any better?
As for conventional ground forces, I assume you are speaking of the numerical advantage Russia has in tanks etc? fair enough.
Also. I have hard time putting to much faith in an army made up mostly of a bunch of malnourished, poorly trained conscripts.
Forgive me if I seem as though im unfazed by your rhetoric. You have given me nothing of interest so far to debate. I have just heard your opinion. The only one coming off 'baseless' is you, sir.
Its a positive, however, is it significant enough? I happen to think not.
And what are the reasons for them being unemployed Mr. X?
I think that is the question that needs to be asked/answered, instead of assuming "every thing, is going to be alright" someway, somehow.
Originally posted by West Coast
Such rhetoric is as the "Pro Putin youth movement" (the governments cheerleaders if you will) would have you believe.
What is that for anyways, the "pro Russian youth movement"? It is a last ditch effort to restore nationalism and pride to a once proud nation.
( Lack of unity and nationalism are also another thing that could potentially dissolve the Russian federation, thus the pro putin youth movement.)
Putin once described the collapse of the Soviet Union as the greatest social catastrophe of the 21st century.
There is a reason he said that. Its the reason that I have eluded to, and you have ignored, or simply chosen to brush off as western propaganda.
And again, I repeat, Mr. X, this is the whole reason for the pro putin youth movement in the first place. To 'help' restore unity and pride to a miserable populous.
Well Mr. X. How about Extraterrestrials?
Please first prove the existence of such devices. And I am aware of HAARP as well as Sura....
"Q: Let me ask you specifically about last week's scare here in Washington, and what we might have learned from how prepared we are to deal with that (inaudible), at B'nai Brith.
A: Well, it points out the nature of the threat. It turned out to be a false threat under the circumstances. But as we've learned in the intelligence community, we had something called -- and we have James Woolsey here to perhaps even address this question about phantom moles. The mere fear that there is a mole within an agency can set off a chain reaction and a hunt for that particular mole which can paralyze the agency for weeks and months and years even, in a search. The same thing is true about just the false scare of a threat of using some kind of a chemical weapon or a biological one. There are some reports, for example, that some countries have been trying to construct something like an Ebola Virus, and that would be a very dangerous phenomenon, to say the least. Alvin Toeffler has written about this in terms of some scientists in their laboratories trying to devise certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic specific so that they could just eliminate certain ethnic groups and races; and others are designing some sort of engineering, some sort of insects that can destroy specific crops. Others are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves."
So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It's real, and that's the reason why we have to intensify our efforts, and that's why this is so important.
DoD News Briefing
Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen
And how do you suppose this is plausible? Or is this sarcasm?
For starters, by answering my original question.
""without your nation being capable of fighting back effectively." - stellarX
"Very interesting thing to say, as well as very ignorant (unless proven other wise). Im curious as to how you would truly know?"
If you were truly curious you would have gone back and read some of my hundreds of prior posts.
That must be why the Russian government doubled child support payments and are now paying a once of sum of almost 10 000 USD for families who has a second child. You must take into account that in the years before more than half of all pregnancy's were aborted and that this would change if Russians were confident that they government would now support families better.
Life in Russia is still orders of magnitude better than it is for the vast majority of the world's people.
As Russia has the second largest immigrant community in the world people clearly go there and will continue to go there as the economy and real wages ( 20% in the last year) expands ever faster.
While many countries manage to make up for demographic problems by attracting immigrants to buttress their populations, Russia is posting a deficit in this regard as well. Only about 70,000 immigrants enter Russia per year, while about 100,000 leave the country. www.rferl.org...
It's not nearly as classified as you might think but the problem may be that your only thinking and not researching the issues as i have.
Qualitative and numerical advantage.
If that was the truth so would i.
Why are tens of millions of American citizens underemployed? The world is not a safe place for the industrial worker and not all countries , including Russia, China and the US are handling it as effectively as they could be.
I don't like Putin....
Talk about wild speculation. Where does these ideas come from?
Well he was lying; no surprise there.
I did ignore it because the western media is doing it's best to paint Russia as a weak battered shell of nation that have no strategic clout. It's interesting then that things are going ever better in Russia while living standards and wages are still declining in the USA.
Your going to believe what you like and frankly every country has youth movements that do similar things...
If you want to involve extraterrestrials that's fine but i am not sure how you think they will be fought with submarines and F-22's..I
What do you want me to prove? Should i prove that the technologies are real or should i try to show that Russia is the primary operator?
Mostly sarcastic but the question should still be answered. Who are these 'others' and why would you rather involve aliens than consider the possibility that Russia has only built on the massive strategic superiority it had achieved by the mid 1980's?
Iraq shows that either the US armed forces are incapable of winning a conventional war against a insurgent movement or that US political establishment are not being allowed to let them win it. You can pick which suits your interests best but there are no serious alternatives.
By studying the subject matter? I may not 'truly know' everything or most of it but why do you know so very very little?