have you been drinkingNaughty_Om wrote:
The only other contender i see is - North Korea + Iran. combined would be impossible to defeat.
Last edited by herrr_smity (2006-11-05 13:34:35)
F-16 is probably the best jet ever made. You have the best trained pilots in the world, flying excellent quality equipment that is versatile and cheap.Aegis wrote:
I might agree they could match an F-16, and maybe an F-18. F-15 is in another class of jets - it definitely layed the smackdown on all sorts of "state of the art" jets in the desert.sheggalism wrote:
EF 2000/RAFALE/JAS 39/MIRAGE 2000 = F-15/F-16/F-18 (F-22 ? F-35 ? they use stealth technology, so...)
No way anything made at present can match an F-22.Uh, which ones? Details??sheggalism wrote:
Russian anti-naval missiles are the best
You said impossible tboth militaries with convential warfare with ease. Please explain your reasoning if you think otherwise.Naughty_Om wrote:
whats the sad face for...(if oyu made that, PROPS) think about it. 2 nuke owning nations. with militaries that are on par. Sizes are large. Funding is easy. for america alone, it would be very difficult.
Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2006-11-05 13:37:46)
ok ok ok. fine. you win. il remove it. i havent been drinking. ive been reading edgar allan poe.
awww...Naughty_Om wrote:
ok ok ok. fine. you win. il remove it. i havent been drinking. ive been reading edgar allan poe.
mhahahaha we win
i fight only winning fights. we could argue about something else. like Cubs and Sox or something (im from chi-town)Fancy_Pollux wrote:
awww...Naughty_Om wrote:
ok ok ok. fine. you win. il remove it. i havent been drinking. ive been reading edgar allan poe.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v256/ … 8188-1.jpg
G3 is an older design than the M16, quite a bit older actually. It was a prototype design from the Nazi's discovered after WW2. The Spanish picked it up and designed the Cetme rifle off of it. The rights to the gun were sold to Germany by the Spanish and thus the G3 came into being. And to be perfectly honest, the G3 was Germany's second choice. There first choice was the FN FAL, but Belgium wouldn't sell Germany the rights. And the FAL is superior to the G3, it's better balanced, and lighter. They are about equal for reliability.k30dxedle wrote:
M16 and M4 are shit. G3, G36, etc are better.
If Colt doesn't make something new...bleh.
And don't expect anything from Colt, Colt is a dying company, it's the only gun company in America that is Union run, and because of this, Colt has to ask outrageous prices for it's guns. It doesn't even make the M16 for the government anymore, that's actually been contracted to FN if I remember right. Colt does still make the M4 though. And Colt wasn't responsible for the M16 by the way, they just purchased the design from Eugene Stoner.
Oh, and as for better military equipment than the US. Just about every European tank is better than the Abrams, but then, the Abrams was the first of the new generation of tanks. Of course, the US has enough Abrams in the arsenal for it really to be a moot point, kind of like how they used the Sherman against the Tigers and Panzers in WW2. Not a great comparison since the Abrams stacks up against a Challenger 2 a hell of a lot better than a Sherman did next to a Tiger.
The L96 is a superior rifle to the M24/M40, not to mention the Brits probably have the best snipers in the world.
The Russians have a better vehicle that's comparable to the Humvee, I just can't remember what it's called.
Oh, just about any grenade launcher is better than the Mk19 that the US uses. It's antiquated and requires constant maintenance, though it does have the fastest firing rate for grenade launchers... but thats kind of a moot point considering your still launching grenades at over 200 rounds per minute.
The Ruskies have more powerful nukes than the US.
There are a lot more examples, but I can't really think of them. Of course, no country except maybe china and Russia can really field the numbers needed to take out the inferior equipment the US uses over bloated military spending FTW!
Im not looking through 8 pages to see
Pzh-2000, most advanced artillery in the world.
To the guy who said nothing could match the F-22, youre SOOOOO wrong. The f-22 and other fighters were made in part because of Russia making planes like these, of which can do fucking backflips at speeds of nearly 0 MPH w/o stalling.
In terms of manueverability, the Su-37 and Su-47
Su-37
Su-47
The Eurofighter, Mig 1.44, and other fighter programs could also easily match the F-22.
Su37 vids...
Also, German subs are kicking ass (212)
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/type_212/
Pzh-2000, most advanced artillery in the world.
To the guy who said nothing could match the F-22, youre SOOOOO wrong. The f-22 and other fighters were made in part because of Russia making planes like these, of which can do fucking backflips at speeds of nearly 0 MPH w/o stalling.
In terms of manueverability, the Su-37 and Su-47
Su-37
Su-47
The Eurofighter, Mig 1.44, and other fighter programs could also easily match the F-22.
Su37 vids...
Also, German subs are kicking ass (212)
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/type_212/
Last edited by eagles1106 (2006-11-05 13:45:58)
öhm.. dürfen wir hier jetzt deutsch reden? coole sache - da bin ich sofort dabei!B.Schuss wrote:
so we have a dutch guy living in spain talking english and german to a german moderator in an american-based forum.....*ToRRo*cT| wrote:
Ich bin holländisch, aber mein Deutsch ist sehr schlecht schriftlich
to make it clear. I,m Dutch who happens to be living in spain
I love the internet...
Zum Thema: Man braucht einen trainierten Killer zum töten. Da hilft keine noch so gute Waffe. So gut die deutsche Waffentechnik auch sein mag - der deutsche Soldat ist kein Killer.. im Gegensatz zu vielen anderen Soldaten anderer Nationen...
Klappspaten ftw!!!11
There is no fighter on earth that can match the F-22. It doesn't matter if the plane can do backflips at 0 MPH without stalling, the F-22 has the capability to destroy any of them before they are even aware of the F-22's prescence.eagles1106 wrote:
To the guy who said nothing could match the F-22, youre SOOOOO wrong. The f-22 and other fighters were made in part because of Russia making planes like these, of which can do fucking backflips at speeds of nearly 0 MPH w/o stalling.
The Eurofighter, Mig 1.44, and other fighter programs could also easily match the F-22.
Although it does not specifically address the fighters you referred to, here is an example (from Wikipedia) of what the F-22 is capable of:
In early 2006, after an exercise involving just eight F-22s in Nevada in Nov. 2005, Lieutenant Colonel Jim Hecker, commander of the 27th Fighter Squadron (FS) at Langley AFB, Virginia, commented to Jane's Defence Weekly (Jan. 18, 2006), "We killed 33 [non-modernized] F-15Cs and didn't suffer a single loss. They didn't see us at all."
Also, in June 2006 during Exercise Northern Edge (Alaska's largest joint military training exercise), the F-22A Raptor achieved a 108-to-zero kill-to-loss ratio against F-15s, F-16s and F/A-18s simulating SU-27/30 aircraft, while at times the F-22A being outnumbered 4 to 1.
I just used the backflip example to show that Russia was researching cutting edge fighter technologies...
Still wrong. Because we live in America, we don't know in depth the technologies of other countries. The Su-47 and Mig 1.44 are well incorperated with stealth technologies, etc.
Did I see anything about it simulating situations against the Eurofighter, Su37, Su47, or Mig 1.44?
The Mig 1.44 and Su47 are heavily being compared to the F/A-22.
"The MiG 1-42 MFI (Mnogofunktsionalny Frontovoi Istrebitel - Multifunctional Frontline Fighter), sometimes referred to in the West as "ATFski," is a low-observable (LO) multirole fighter. The primary mission of the 1.42 is air-superiority, which makes 1.42 a direct Russian equivalent of the USAF F-22, but, being a multi-functional fighter, it performs almost just as well in a strike mission. Two prototype have been built, called the MiG 1-44. The program has been suspended many times due to lack of funds but it has survived. It carries missiles in internal bays and on external pylons (like the F-22) and, as MiG MAPO claims, it is stealthier than the F-22. The chief designer of the 1.42 claims it will have greater agility and range than the F-22 (It has 3D TVC and it is big). If it's built, it could enter service around 2006-2008. "....from Military Planes.com
"The chief designer of MiG MAPO Mr. Belosvet stated that 1.42 would have a greater range than the F-22 and would be more versatile. While F-22 primary task is achievement of the air superiority, the 1.42 will be as capable in strike mission as in air combat. The 1.42, like the F-22, can carry weapons both internally and externally, will be capable of supercruise and powered by trust-vectored control (TVC) engines."
http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/RAFAQ/MiG1.42.html
So many other links that provide info....but until you see these planes matched up against an F-22 in a simulation, etc, you just dont know...
Still wrong. Because we live in America, we don't know in depth the technologies of other countries. The Su-47 and Mig 1.44 are well incorperated with stealth technologies, etc.
Did I see anything about it simulating situations against the Eurofighter, Su37, Su47, or Mig 1.44?
The Mig 1.44 and Su47 are heavily being compared to the F/A-22.
"The MiG 1-42 MFI (Mnogofunktsionalny Frontovoi Istrebitel - Multifunctional Frontline Fighter), sometimes referred to in the West as "ATFski," is a low-observable (LO) multirole fighter. The primary mission of the 1.42 is air-superiority, which makes 1.42 a direct Russian equivalent of the USAF F-22, but, being a multi-functional fighter, it performs almost just as well in a strike mission. Two prototype have been built, called the MiG 1-44. The program has been suspended many times due to lack of funds but it has survived. It carries missiles in internal bays and on external pylons (like the F-22) and, as MiG MAPO claims, it is stealthier than the F-22. The chief designer of the 1.42 claims it will have greater agility and range than the F-22 (It has 3D TVC and it is big). If it's built, it could enter service around 2006-2008. "....from Military Planes.com
"The chief designer of MiG MAPO Mr. Belosvet stated that 1.42 would have a greater range than the F-22 and would be more versatile. While F-22 primary task is achievement of the air superiority, the 1.42 will be as capable in strike mission as in air combat. The 1.42, like the F-22, can carry weapons both internally and externally, will be capable of supercruise and powered by trust-vectored control (TVC) engines."
http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/RAFAQ/MiG1.42.html
So many other links that provide info....but until you see these planes matched up against an F-22 in a simulation, etc, you just dont know...
Last edited by eagles1106 (2006-11-05 14:01:02)
Trust me? I know this stuff? Explain how the SU-47, for example, could possibly defeat an F-22. It has no weapons systems. It is an experimental fighter that will most likely never reach military production.eagles1106 wrote:
Still wrong. Trust me, I know this stuff. Because we live in America, we don't know in depth the technologies of other countries. The Su-47 and Mig 1.44 are well incorperated with stealth technologies, etc.
Did I see anything about it simulating situations against the Eurofighter, Su37, Su47, or Mig 1.44?
Trust me, you don't know this stuff.
Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2006-11-05 14:00:23)
Before you posted I took that line out because I typed it w/o thinking of how retarded it sounded. But yes, I do know a lot.
Did I see anything about it simulating situations against the Eurofighter, Su37, Su47, or Mig 1.44?
The Mig 1.44 and Su47 are heavily being compared to the F/A-22. I know Russia's budget makes it almost impossible to continue funding, but from what we know now...
Let's use the Mig 1.44, which has weapons systems incorporated into it, for better comparison. Not to mention Russia (if they continue investment) will try to incorporate Plasma Stealth technologies into the project
"The MiG 1-42 MFI (Mnogofunktsionalny Frontovoi Istrebitel - Multifunctional Frontline Fighter), sometimes referred to in the West as "ATFski," is a low-observable (LO) multirole fighter. The primary mission of the 1.42 is air-superiority, which makes 1.42 a direct Russian equivalent of the USAF F-22, but, being a multi-functional fighter, it performs almost just as well in a strike mission. Two prototypes have been built, called the MiG 1-44. The program has been suspended many times due to lack of funds but it has survived. It carries missiles in internal bays and on external pylons (like the F-22) and, as MiG MAPO claims, it is stealthier than the F-22. The chief designer of the 1.42 claims it will have greater agility and range than the F-22 (It has 3D TVC and it is big). If it's built, it could enter service around 2006-2008. "....from Military Planes.com
"The chief designer of MiG MAPO Mr. Belosvet stated that 1.42 would have a greater range than the F-22 and would be more versatile. While F-22 primary task is achievement of the air superiority, the 1.42 will be as capable in strike mission as in air combat. The 1.42, like the F-22, can carry weapons both internally and externally, will be capable of supercruise and powered by trust-vectored control (TVC) engines."
http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/RAFAQ/MiG1.42.html
So many other links that provide info....but until you see these planes matched up against an F-22 in a simulation, etc, you just dont know
Did I see anything about it simulating situations against the Eurofighter, Su37, Su47, or Mig 1.44?
The Mig 1.44 and Su47 are heavily being compared to the F/A-22. I know Russia's budget makes it almost impossible to continue funding, but from what we know now...
Let's use the Mig 1.44, which has weapons systems incorporated into it, for better comparison. Not to mention Russia (if they continue investment) will try to incorporate Plasma Stealth technologies into the project
"The MiG 1-42 MFI (Mnogofunktsionalny Frontovoi Istrebitel - Multifunctional Frontline Fighter), sometimes referred to in the West as "ATFski," is a low-observable (LO) multirole fighter. The primary mission of the 1.42 is air-superiority, which makes 1.42 a direct Russian equivalent of the USAF F-22, but, being a multi-functional fighter, it performs almost just as well in a strike mission. Two prototypes have been built, called the MiG 1-44. The program has been suspended many times due to lack of funds but it has survived. It carries missiles in internal bays and on external pylons (like the F-22) and, as MiG MAPO claims, it is stealthier than the F-22. The chief designer of the 1.42 claims it will have greater agility and range than the F-22 (It has 3D TVC and it is big). If it's built, it could enter service around 2006-2008. "....from Military Planes.com
"The chief designer of MiG MAPO Mr. Belosvet stated that 1.42 would have a greater range than the F-22 and would be more versatile. While F-22 primary task is achievement of the air superiority, the 1.42 will be as capable in strike mission as in air combat. The 1.42, like the F-22, can carry weapons both internally and externally, will be capable of supercruise and powered by trust-vectored control (TVC) engines."
http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/RAFAQ/MiG1.42.html
So many other links that provide info....but until you see these planes matched up against an F-22 in a simulation, etc, you just dont know
Last edited by eagles1106 (2006-11-05 14:06:55)
Pfft. Comparing Su-37 with the F-22 is like comparing F-16 with F-22. If you really want to compare F22 to something of a similar generation in Russia, check this out:
---------------------------------------------------------------
Project S-37 / Su47 Berkut
http://www.testpilot.ru/russia/sukhoi/s/37/s37_e.htm
http://www.testpilot.ru/russia/sukhoi/s/37/s37_1e.htm
http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/s37.htm
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … amp;q=Su47
---------------------------------------------------------------
The current problem with Russia isn't the technology. They have a similar level of technology as the west.
The problem is funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Project S-37 / Su47 Berkut
http://www.testpilot.ru/russia/sukhoi/s/37/s37_e.htm
http://www.testpilot.ru/russia/sukhoi/s/37/s37_1e.htm
http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/s37.htm
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … amp;q=Su47
---------------------------------------------------------------
The current problem with Russia isn't the technology. They have a similar level of technology as the west.
The problem is funding.
I just fucking said that. And I'm not comparing the Su37 anymore, do you know how to read? I used to Mig 1.44 as an example. And, the topic says "POST BETTER WARMACHINES THAN AMERICA'S", I see nothing about it stating that they have to or eventually will be in service. I dont give a shit if Russia cant fund it. The topic simply says to post better war machines. And looking at the current project, it is already comparible to the F-22. And if the Mig 1.42/1.44 isn't better, it's a pretty even match.
Saying "you just don't know" any quoting a Russian source isn't very convincing.
The 1.42, for one, isn't a true stealth aircraft. Add to this the superiority of US long-range missiles and the Raptor wins every time. Unless you're either invisible or can outrun AMRAAMs, there isn't much to be done against the F-22. So, while Russians are designing planes with better acrobatics, the US is implementing superior weapons systems. Simply put, 1 v 1 the Raptor would every time without the 1.42 even being aware of the F-22's presence. That said, Russia's economy is not even capable of putting the 1.42 into serious military production. You don't have to see them matched up in a simulation to understand the F-22's air dominance (not superiority, dominance).
The 1.42, for one, isn't a true stealth aircraft. Add to this the superiority of US long-range missiles and the Raptor wins every time. Unless you're either invisible or can outrun AMRAAMs, there isn't much to be done against the F-22. So, while Russians are designing planes with better acrobatics, the US is implementing superior weapons systems. Simply put, 1 v 1 the Raptor would every time without the 1.42 even being aware of the F-22's presence. That said, Russia's economy is not even capable of putting the 1.42 into serious military production. You don't have to see them matched up in a simulation to understand the F-22's air dominance (not superiority, dominance).
Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2006-11-05 14:21:47)
I didnt understand that first line. And while I'm not eliminating that fact that an F-22 could own these planes in an instant, I'm also not eliminating the fact that these planes could easily stand a chance. The 1.42/44 because of its size also has room for many advanced radar technologies and technologies that incorporate stealth and avoidance of detection. These planes also can be fitted with long range missiles, and (at least in the 1.44) are capable of knowing the presence of a Raptor.
I never said that an F-22 was worse or better. Imo, I do think an f-22 still has the edge and usually would win, but I think projects like the 1.44 would easily stand a chance. And, if Russia could provide future funding, I dont doubt that it could easily match the f-22 lets say 10 years down the road.
Now, I wish I could continue argueing, I have to go and will be back later, peace.
I never said that an F-22 was worse or better. Imo, I do think an f-22 still has the edge and usually would win, but I think projects like the 1.44 would easily stand a chance. And, if Russia could provide future funding, I dont doubt that it could easily match the f-22 lets say 10 years down the road.
Now, I wish I could continue argueing, I have to go and will be back later, peace.
Last edited by eagles1106 (2006-11-05 14:27:38)
and without hitting google now, what are you basing your comparisons on between the Eurofighter and the Raptor? I hope you are a test pilot or an aeronautical engineer or some shit. Or is it the Eurofighter just looks "cooler"Speed84 wrote:
Air:
The EuroFighter can hold its own against anything the US currently got in service. (including F-22/F-35B) (Coming from a USAF Major)
See:
The Quality/Quanitity. I know that most nations can field ships eqal to most US hardware. But to little to late sort of thing.
Ground:
It's no doubt that Euro armour (be it Challenger 2/Leclerc/Leopard 2) can take on american armour. APC? The Bradly is a joke! The warrior and the CV90 series wil take it apart!
But i like that the good'ol G3A3(AG-3) and MG-3 still scares the mother out of american marines every time they try it for the first time.
china seems to be putting money into the project
http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/jxx.asp
http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/jxx.asp
Quick!! Check Your Zippers!!! Your Inferiority Complex Is Showing!!!!
B-1B lancer, by the time you hear the sonic boom...... oh wait nm, you're already deadsheggalism wrote:
Aircrafts which cannot be compared to others : F-22, F-35, F-117, B-2 and B-1B : they are the best in their categories.
The F88 Swiss box-cutter is the best in class. Unsurpassed thus far in terms of performance on the battlefield.
Wow...........and on what battlefield was the Swiss in recently, to use this miracle plane??CameronPoe wrote:
The F88 Swiss box-cutter is the best in class. Unsurpassed thus far in terms of performance on the battlefield.
Do you not get the rather tasteless joke?lowing wrote:
Wow...........and on what battlefield was the Swiss in recently, to use this miracle plane??CameronPoe wrote:
The F88 Swiss box-cutter is the best in class. Unsurpassed thus far in terms of performance on the battlefield.