Stock up your air to air defense

[denoir 0]

You think the U.S.S.R fell just because the U.S. scared the pants out of them, no it took a multirole deterent to end the cold war standoff.  That meant having a better economy, better subs, better tanks, better infantry weapons, better nukes, and definately better aircraft.

You don't need a world war to prove the capabilities of something that has no other equal now, it is the only hunter, the perfect bird of prey.  

No, the U.S. hasn't killed off the F/A-22, cutting production numbers doesn't mean anything except the U.S. is currently in a lot of debt because of poor current fiscial policy of the current presidential administration.

Why do you think the Russians never really wanted to provoke a conventional war, they'd have lost it because their equipment was designed badly, constantly breaking down, and ineffective weapons systems.  

Any fool that argues that war is the only way to get a good understanding of a tank, aircraft, ship, or sub is a ignorant person who refuses to do their research before posting about such matters.  You can't simulate everything, but blood is too costly to use for someone wanting statistics.

The Soviet Union's fall had nothing to do with USA. It had to do with the unsustainable planar-economy model that their economy was built around.

The US didn't have better subs, tanks, infantry weapons, nukes nor tanks. The overall sum of things was roughly equal. USA had an edge in some areas (computerization for instance) while the Soviets had an edge in others (materials for instance).

Saying things like this:

Quote[/b] ]Why do you think the Russians never really wanted to provoke a conventional war, they'd have lost it because their equipment was designed badly, constantly breaking down, and ineffective weapons systems.  

is apart from being entirely incorrect just plain silly. Russian weapons systems are generally much more reliable than their western counterparts. And it's a general pardigm in their weapons design, everything from basic infantry weapons to aircraft and missiles.

Either you are joking or you have grave misconceptions about Russian military hardware.

[da_ofp_man 0]

hmmm....for my an SU-37 please with a lot of vodka

but now really an F-22,Typhoon cost too much F-15 is to old and X-31 is an experimental plane. and in the newest version an SU-37 can shot down all of this planes and ts cheepr

sorry for my bad english

[drewb99 0]

JAS 39.

[havocsquad 0]

I know the primary reason for it was they couldn't afford to keep the level of military spending and run their country too, it eventually banrupted them.

Now I will listen to some substaniated proof you might list saying otherwise about my defense claims, but until then don't try to play authority on Cold War military matters.  I'm tired of people pretending to understand Cold War matters but bring no proof to the table.

I can keep up this debate for forever, and I will win it too but I'd rather not become too much of a problem for the moderators.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

I know the primary reason for it was they couldn't afford to keep the level of military spending and run their country too, it eventually banrupted them.

Now I will listen to some substaniated proof you might list saying otherwise about my defense claims, but until then don't try to play authority on Cold War military matters.  I'm tired of people pretending to understand Cold War matters but bring no proof to the table.

I can keep up this debate for forever, and I will win it too but I'd rather not become too much of a problem for the moderators.

As long as you keep it civil, there is no problem

Incidentally, what is your background Havoc, as denoir was in the Swedish military and therefore had to have briefings on Soviet material. What is your background then in the military?

As for Soviet material, I can not remember where I read it, but I am sure I read that the Soviet airplanes are the only modern ones in the world that can fly through an EMP. It has been said more than often enough that an Ak is a lot more robust than an M16 and needs less maintenance to work.

[Tovarish 0]

Why do you think the Russians never really wanted to provoke a conventional war, they'd have lost it because their equipment was designed badly, constantly breaking down, and ineffective weapons systems.  

That's the same way the German's felt in WW2

Anyways I'd personally have a flyoff and select a heavy fighter in small numbers and a light fighter in large numbers to complement it. My contenders in no particular order (Oh, and I second the "WTF?" reaction at having the X-31 on that list ):

Heavy Fighter:

F-15T

Su-35

Su-30MK (Mix up the two Sukhoi variants if that's what I went with)

F-22 only if I had a really big budget/was planning a really small air force

Light Fighter:

F-16 Block 60 (bit iffy on the single engine, but it's been an extreemely successful design)

Mitsubishi F-2 (IF only Japan was allowed to export it)

Eurofighter

J-10

F-35

Mirage 2000

Rafale

MiG-29M-2

MiG-29OVT (If I went with the MiG, I'd get a mix of the two variants)

[Tovarish 0]

hmmm....for my an SU-37 please with a lot of vodka

but now really an F-22,Typhoon cost too much F-15 is to old and X-31 is an experimental plane. and in the newest version an SU-37 can shot down all of this planes and ts cheepr        

sorry  for my bad english

Lol bit of pot and kettle here...the X-31 is experimental, sure, but so was the Su-37. There was only one (tail code 711), and it had since been converted to Su-35 standard (Which are now entering active service), and later sadly crashed during testing.

[denoir 0]

Now I will listen to some substaniated proof you might list saying otherwise about my defense claims, but until then don't try to play authority on Cold War military matters.  I'm tired of people pretending to understand Cold War matters but bring no proof to the table.

I can keep up this debate for forever, and I will win it too but I'd rather not become too much of a problem for the moderators.

Well, while having done military service in a country that's neighbour with Russia and while I've worked with Russians in Kosovo it does not make me an authority on Cold War matters - it makes me more qualified then some teenager who thinks that everything with "made in the USA" on it must be the best thing in the world.

But, OK, I'll give you three examples:

1) Infantry weapons

AK design vs AR design. One is the most used design in the world, known for its reliability while the other one is a plastic toy known for it's maintenance problems.

2) Tanks

The M1 Abrams is a great tank, no doubt about it. However due to the head start that the Russians have in materials sciences a T80 or 90 with the latest ERA is superior to it. Even older ERA such as the Kontakt-5 provides full defence against 120 mm DU penetrators. And a T-80 costs much less than an Abrams. The Soviet Union also had due to its size a considerable advantage in numbers.

Quote[/b] ]

Jane's International Defence Review 7/1997, pg. 15:

"IMPENETRABLE RUSSIAN TANK ARMOUR STANDS UP TO EXAMINATION

"Claims that the armour of Russian tanks is effectively impenetrable, made on the basis of test carried out in Germany (see IDR 7/1996, p.15), have been supported by comments made following tests in the US.

"Speaking at a conference on Future Armoured Warfare in London in May, IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness explained that US tests involved firing trials of Russian-built T-72 tanks fitted with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour (ERA). In contrast to the original, or 'light', type of ERA which is effective only against shaped charge jets, the 'heavy' Kontakt-5 ERA is also effective against the long-rod penetrators of APFSDS tank gun projectiles.

"When fitted to T-72 tanks, the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU penetrators of M829 APFSDS, fired by the 120 mm guns of the US M1 Abrams tanks, which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles.

"Richard M. Ogorkiewicz"

3) Airplanes

Again, reliability. Have you ever taken a closer look at a NATO airfield? You'd be surprised to see that the runways are constantly beeing sweeped and cleaned. That's because even a small amount of dirt or small pebbles could fly into the air intakes and ruin the engine of the fighters that are landing. Soviet designs, such as the Mig-29 use top-side intakes on landings/takeoffs. You could land and take off pretty much in a muddy field and let the rain wash of the aircraft. It would still function.

Reliability is the Russian specialty. American military hardware has much more assorted features and gadgets, but is far less reliable.

[iNeo 0]

Saab JAS 39 Gripen

This is a special Gripen version developed for extreme high climbing rates, if I didn't misunderstand it completely.

---

JAS 39.

http://www.flygplan.info/images/SAAB_gripen04.jpg

Strange, I was gonna post the exact same picture from the exact same site (flygplan.info)

[Frisbee 0]

When the west finally got their mitts on a MiG-25 they all roleld around because it's instruments were so old.

But in the case of a nuclear strike,and the following emp blast,the western planes avionics would be fried,and the MiG would be flying around happily.

Have you read the capabilities of the MiG 23/27?

It can take off from the simplest of runways,an F16 might not require lots of tarmac,but it still needs it.

The russian and western military were more or less equal,with an edge in different area's.

Can you take of from highways with the Gripen,just like with the Viggen?

The Gripen would seem like a good addition,modern,agile and not a money sucking sponge like the Raptor.

[Baron von Beer 0]

Um, maybee need to update your AR knowledge by about 30 years. It still is no AK-47, but it sure as hell isn't the jammomatic it was in '67. I have had constant access to both a CAR-15, and Hungarian build AK-47 for 4 years now. So can say this out of first hand knowledge. I have no doubt that AK build would fire untill it melted, but that CAR has not once jammed, be it muddy, or not cleaned for a month, after seeing consistant use. The most it ever did was snagged the side of a shell casing, but that was due to poor quality ammo (Could see the imperfections on the shells. They were promptly returned.). (On the flip side, there are videos available of "genious" types here in the US firing their full auto AK-47s untill the wood grips actually caught fire!

As for use? Consider that the USSR sold these by the dumptruck full for bargain basement price to everyone willing to hold one. (This when they weren't given away outright). ARs by comparison, are more pricey, and the US is more restrictive about who the makers can sell arms too. Haven't seen production numbers, but imagine the AK wins exponentialy, many times over. Does this make widespread use a question of quality, or availability?

Aircraft ruggedness is without question. USSR always made the requirement that it's fighters be able to operate from unsurfaced fields. Thus, their planes were like monster trucks compared to most Western models. (And their "high end" models (SU-27, Mig 29) top notch taboot.)

[da_ofp_man 0]

Lol bit of pot and kettle here...the X-31 is experimental, sure, but so was the Su-37. There was only one (tail code 711), and it had since been converted to Su-35 standard (Which are now entering active service), and later sadly crashed during testing.

what?... hmm in mine military book it says that SU-37 is an separate class then SU-35 it haves better avionics, radar,and flight controll system etc.

[denoir 0]

Baron von Beer:

I'm sure the AR design has improved a lot over the years, but that's kind of the point too. They had to improve it while the AK is a design that's over 50 years old and still unbeatable in terms of reliability. And as you say, AR is still today not equal to the AK.

My reaction was on his claim that:

Quote[/b] ]

Why do you think the Russians never really wanted to provoke a conventional war, they'd have lost it because their equipment was designed badly, constantly breaking down, and ineffective weapons systems.  

Which could not be more wrong as reliability in the field is the strongest benefit of Russian military hardware. If he had said "primitive, featureless weapon systems", I would have accepted it for the sake of argument, but every part of his statement was completely wrong. The Russians would have had an advantage in a conventional war (most of all due to their superiority in numbers), their equipment was ingeniously designed for real usage in the field, it was never breaking down and the weapons systems are the most effective (cost/effect/unit) in the world.

[iNeo 0]

Can you take of from highways with the Gripen,just like with the Viggen?

Yeah:

Quote[/b] ]Air Power Wherever It’s Needed - Deploy Anywhere

[*] Able to use short runways, or even road strips

<span style='font-size:7.01pt;line-height:100%'>From http://www.gripen.com/gripen_the_best_solution.asp </span>

Road base: http://www.gripen.at/images/01/17.jpg

[Milkman 1]

As for Soviet material, I can not remember where I read it, but I am sure I read that the Soviet airplanes are the only modern ones in the world that can fly through an EMP. It has been said more than often enough that an Ak is a lot more robust than an M16 and needs less maintenance to work.

Russian planes can't survive EMP, didn't you see Goldeneye?

Seriously, russian planes were electronically inferior to contemperary western counterparts until very recently. They might have improved, or a little something called "Spying" might have been involved.

EDIT: Oh yeah, Kontak 5 ERA might be able to neutralize a DU round, but once the ERA is used, the space beneth it is exposed. Since the M1A1/A2 Abrams have triple the effective range on their cannons to the T-72, they can sit back and fire a HEAT to blow off the ERA then have Bradleys take them out with TOW2 and 25mm cannon, or they can then fire their Sabot round and take out the T-72. This ERA system also doesn't protect against problems they will actually face against Chechen rebels. The rebels will fire a RPG-7 at the ERA, then fire another one in the now exposed area and disable all but the T80/90 series tank.

[Tovarish 0]

Lol bit of pot and kettle here...the X-31 is experimental, sure, but so was the Su-37. There was only one (tail code 711), and it had since been converted to Su-35 standard (Which are now entering active service), and later sadly crashed during testing.

what?... hmm in mine military book it says that SU-37 is an separate class then SU-35 it haves better avionics, radar,and flight controll system etc.  

What book? you have old information. The Su-37 was just a prototype. Like I said, 711, the only Su-37, was modified to the Su-35 standard after Sukhoi decided they had learned enough from it and chosen what to incorporate into the production models (Su-35), and later crashed

[Supah 0]

They might have improved, or a little something called "Spying" might have been involved.

The russians preffer the word "inspired by" Seriously, russian military hardware has always been good. Their MiG-15 for example gave the Sabre some serious headaches over korea. It was the incompetency of the North korean pilots that tipped the balance. Over Vietnam the US Airforce and Navy did a meager 1 to 2/1,5 LER against MiG-17's. Certain types like the F-105, designed to hold its own against Fighters, did far worse and got their asses handed back to them. The part where russia has lagged behind a bit has been engine design. They have always built engines that were horrible fuel consumption wise, but recently they have made marked improvements in that if i should believe some of my airforce contacts

[NurEinMensch 0]

Stealth is overrated.

My two cents.

[denoir 0]

Stealth is overrated.

My two cents.

It is actually. Already about 10 years ago the Swedish military demonstrated radar software that could zero in on an F-117 without any problems. All you need is a dense radar grid and some software.

Stealth technology works on the principle of deflecting the radar signal in a direction away from the radar transmitter. If you have good radar coverage, another radar reciever will pick it up. If you network the radar stations and do some calculations you can get the precise location of the stealth aircraft.

For instance against Sweden, stealth aircraft would be fairly useless as the radar guidance to fighter comes from a shore-line and land grid of radar stations rather than airborne radars. And these are far more powerful radars than what an AWACS carries with it, so radar-absorbing material won't help you much either.

Stealth technoligy is more useful on ships which can effectively conceal their existance against the water line.

[Acecombat 0]

Has the Raptor been tested against the soviet machinry i suggest america do a macho act like they did in the 60's with the U2 , we'll see how long it stays up in the air

[Consigliere 0]

Their MiG-15 for example gave the Sabre some serious headaches over korea

*Cough*

Rolls Royce

*Cough*

Nene

[blackdog~ 0]

I would personally prefer a weasel, spoon, and can of baked beans over all of these.

Otherwise I would take the X-31, because thats the VTOL one isn't it?

[Consigliere 0]

Quote[/b] ]I would personally prefer a weasel, spoon, and can of baked beans over all of these.

Pffft...Clearly that goes without saying    

[Baron von Beer 0]

Seriously, russian military hardware has always been good.

Well, Ground and Airforce at least.

Recently finnished a book on the Soviet Submarine fleet from the end of WW2 to the modern day. It is like a history of how NOT to manage your sub force. Mostly focused on the Nuclear fleet, (was K19 companion... nothing to do with the movie, but the sub itself. Included a bunch out of K19 Captain's memoirs as well.) and it's many, many accidents. In most years, they were averaging a mishap a month, most producing fatalities of one sort or another, many loosing the entire sub, and often most/all of the crew. Got quite angry just reading it, as most of it was caused by the leadership. A few inept people in high places, and no one at any level wanted to "Rock the Boat" (no pun intended) for fear of punishment. Guess they figured loosing a multi-billion dollar boat now and again, and many sailors, was cheaper than developing safe reactors, and installing them properly.

The book was in line with other books I've read, but had much better details on recently declassified material, and also accidents that had been covered up throughout the cold war. It portrays a true horror story.

[Baron von Beer 0]

If you provide the spoon and beans, I'll provide the Weasel that lives in my back yard. (I will expect him back safely, after he completes his tour.) Imagine he helps keep rodents away, and at any rate, it is quite amusing watching him run about out of the woods into tall grass by the pond.