What do you think is the baddest ass piece of military hardware?

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie


Yeah, after the defence cuts, we only have some of these and some subs. Quality instead of quantity.

It;s a pity the USCG is going with some design from Litton for it's new medium cutter.

Although I'm givng to understand the USN is interested in a Littoral Combat Ship based on the Visby.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Jack_www


First I am not talking about modern day Russia, I am talking about the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union has 233 million or so people before it broke up. So during the cold war it had close to the same population as the United States.

At the end of the Soviet Union we had about 270+ million. So you can call it close, but we still had 40 million more.

Second the Soviet Union had a massive armed force. It was huge. They also engaged in the draft even in peacetime. Yet their training was not as good as US troops training.

That is an understatement

Thrid, there was a M1 Abrams tank lost in the Gulf War, or least it was disabled. A tank was told to watch over some POWs, and their was a T-72 near by that they did not know about and was able to disable their tank. The crew survived though. Russia, unlike Iraq, can use the same depleted uranium round that the US uses. That can go through any armor know today. Like I said, the main reason why the US did not lose so many tanks was that they out ranged the Iraq tanks. Also Iraq had not air force to speak of while the Soviets had a huge air force.

If you said it happen, I will buy it. However if we did loose a tank to an T-72 why did not the new boys report the sh!t out of it.
Gulf War 1. The US Marines with our old M-60A3 take on the Republican Guard at the Kuwait Airport with T-72s, T-64s, and a few T-80s and kill every one without a lost to the Marines.

Gulf War 2. Just outside of Baghdad three or four M1A2 and about six or so M2 Bradley's take on nineteen T-72s and kill everyone without a lost. Even the Bradley kill several T-72.

Also if you think about it, none of the US modern fighters have really engaged in much air to air battles with other fighters in a long time. So since they have been tested you cant know for sure. Also why do you think they want to replace all their air superiority fighters with the F-22?

Gulf 1. Every Iraq aircraft that came up to fight was shot down without any looses to our side.
Gulf 2. None came up to fight.

Kosovo, Bosnia and area. We had a few fights and kill everything that came up to fight.

F-14 was designed in late 67/8, first flight was Dec. 70, enter service in 74. The plane will be 30 this year.

F-15 was designed in 70, first flight was in July 72, enter service Nov 74, will be 30 years old this year.

F-16 First flight, Jan. 74, enter service Aug. 78. It will be 26 years old this year.

F/A-18 Started as the F-17 and after F-16 won, was redesigned as the F/A-18 for the Navy. First flight F-17 June 74, as F/A-18 Nov. 78, enter service Nov. 80. It will be 24 years old this year.
Note. We are now producing the F/A-18E/F model now so the F-14 can be retired. The E/F model are almost a new plane.

F-19. Air Force said we did not use the number. Other said it was an area 51 plane and so we will not ever hear of it for another 100 years or so.

F-20 was a Northrop plane not produce. This was a very good aircraft and to bad they past it up. It was to cheap and the Air Force loves it big fighters.

F-21. No record of a 21. Maybe they skip the number or it was an area 51 plane that we will never hear about.

The F-14 and 15 are very old for airplanes. You can update the electronic and replace structural parts, but after a while they start to cost major money.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Serb

Nope, it's something new for Russian military.
http://www.minotor-service.com/index...age=2t&lang=en

It look kool.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Kingof the Apes
Now this is interesting:
http://www.hkpro.com/oicw.htm

I want one for whatever. Yes to defend my home from anything.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Serb


Russian MLRS Smerch (Tornado), fire 12 guided missiles under 38 seconds to a distance of 70 km, covering an area of 672 000 square meters.

BOOM!!!.

But ours will actually hit the target!!


(Don't really know anything about it, but I couldn't resist the dig!)

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Serb

Had Iraqis American equipment of 80's, the result would be the same.

Remember the Marine's at Kuwait Airport with our old M60A3s. They kill a small number of T80s

I just curious, where did you get those details?

Information here is a lot easier to come by than in the old Soviet Republic of Russia

In this case F-15 is just an update of the F-4.

No, it was a new airplane. I laugh when I read that.

SU-27 A new plane. SU-30 the Naval version, SU-34/32 a strike version and they are coming out with the SU-37 version.

Question: When the Kurks went down, how long was it before the Russian people knew about it. Here, we knew about it on the second day or third day after it when down. When I worked at my old job, I knew about almost all Soviet Subs after they sank. Serb, it pisses me off that your navy did not let us help. We would have found it a lot faster and just maybe, we could have save one or more of those sailors. Some of those guys may have lived at lease 3 to 4 days after sinking. The old Soviet Navy mentality came into play, and that is because they lost a boat, they should died for mother Russian and that is bullsh!t. Here we would have done everything possible to save them. Have you seen K-19 movie? The movie is very real and it did happen.

Serb, here before 9/11 if there was an airshow at Travis AFB, I could take you and no one would ask you any question about you. No ID was required. Since 9/11 Travis has not had an airshow. However some bases are having airshows. We are very open here, and that is why OBL could strike here and get away with it. Now airports are getting tighter on security and checking people getting on planes to fly anywhere.

[Sikander]

Serb,

Perhaps you are mistaking the F-19 for the F-15? The F-19 was a modernized F-5 which was promoted for a while as an interceptor, a cheaper substitute for the F-16. I think some were sold to Taiwan or Thailand, both of which had long experience with the F-5.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Sikander
Serb,

Perhaps you are mistaking the F-19 for the F-15? The F-19 was a modernized F-5 which was promoted for a while as an interceptor, a cheaper substitute for the F-16. I think some were sold to Taiwan or Thailand, both of which had long experience with the F-5.

Read my post above.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Joseph
Read my post above.

I did, and though it was never officially designated as the F-19 by the USAF, Northrup (or whoever) tried to sell their upgraded F-5 as the F-19 in the early 1980s. I remember the ads in Military Technology and the article in Soldier of Fortune. This might be what Serb was thinking of when he likened the F-4 to the F-15, which is of course preposterous. F-4 was originally desinged as a carrier plane.

[MrBaggins]

My vote has to go to either the SSN-21 Seawolf class or the CVN's past 68.

The Seawolf is the ultimate subhunter, utterly unparalleled. Three were built, 9 more commissioned, and a total of 26 planned. These plans were scrapped at the end of the cold war.

The Russian fleet, especially the pacific fleet, is largely falling into disrepair, with many boats sitting in dry dock and still others rusting.

The Seawolf has superior accoustics... effectively non-detectable from standard towed-arrays up to 25 knots... up from 20 for the Improved Los Angeles.

They can mix and match 50 full-size standard tube launch devices, including Mk48's, SUBROC's (some nuclear tipped) and TLAM's.

Of course, there really isn't any existing threat that isn't already met and exceeded by the Trafalgars and Improved Los Angeles classes that are NATO's front line. Of course, Russia won't be in any position, any time soon to be spending 10 billion on an improved sub platform.

===

Any of the modern CVN's I've mentioned are in a class of their own... effectively placing a small nations worth of airforce, pretty much anywhere you choose.

In combination with AEGIS class cruisers and destroyers, and a net of anti-sub resources, its the definition of power projection.

The US is the only nation to have a fleet of super carriers... well... the only nation to have ANY super carriers.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Sikander


I did, and though it was never officially designated as the F-19 by the USAF, Northrup (or whoever) tried to sell their upgraded F-5 as the F-19 in the early 1980s. I remember the ads in Military Technology and the article in Soldier of Fortune. This might be what Serb was thinking of when he likened the F-4 to the F-15, which is of course preposterous. F-4 was originally desinged as a carrier plane.

I have model of what is suppose to be the F-19. The Air Force said no, it passed over the number 19. This model look like the old computer game F-19 from guess who, Micro Prose and Sid.

Northrop did build the F-20 and yes it was new plane base on the old F-5, but the F-20 would fly circle around the F-5 and might even give the F-16 a run for it money. The F-20 was a single engine plane producting 17,000 lbs of thrust from a GE F404-GE-100 turbofan engine. Max speed 800 mph at sea level and 1320 at 36,000 ft or higher. It could go from start engine, take off and clime to 52,800 in six min after start engine. Its clime rate was with military load 52,800 fpm. This was a great plane and the Air Force had its head up its a$$ for not buying it. And the rest of the world was making money on the F-16 building parts and they did not want to loose their contract, so the plane was killed. Maybe also it was a Northrop plane and if you know the story of Northrop and the USA Goverment you would understand.
There are only 3 planes that can go that fast on the deck. The F-105 from Vietnam, F-111 from Nam, and Gulf 1 and now this plane.

The F-15 can only due about 750 or so on the deck, the F-105 could do about 850 or so, and the F-111 could cook at around 900 on the deck.
Now if they would have left the B-1 in its original configuration it would do 800 to 900 on the deck.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Joseph
I have model of what is suppose to be the F-19. The Air Force said no, it passed over the number 19. This model look like the old computer game F-19 from guess who, Micro Prose and Sid.

Northrop did build the F-20 and yes it was new plane base on the old F-5, but the F-20 would fly circle around the F-5 and might even give the F-16 a run for it money. The F-20 was a single engine plane producting 17,000 lbs of thrust from a GE F404-GE-100 turbofan engine. Max speed 800 mph at sea level and 1320 at 36,000 ft or higher. It could go from start engine, take off and clime to 52,800 in six min after start engine. Its clime rate was with military load 52,800 fpm. This was a great plane and the Air Force had its head up its a$$ for not buying it. And the rest of the world was making money on the F-16 building parts and they did not want to loose their contract, so the plane was killed. Maybe also it was a Northrop plane and if you know the story of Northrop and the USA Goverment you would understand.
There are only 3 planes that can go that fast on the deck. The F-105 from Vietnam, F-111 from Nam, and Gulf 1 and now this plane.

The F-15 can only due about 750 or so on the deck, the F-105 could do about 850 or so, and the F-111 could cook at around 900 on the deck.
Now if they would have left the B-1 in its original configuration it would do 800 to 900 on the deck.

That's the one, thanks.

[Zylka]

How dare the lack of pictures in this thread. And shame to all for not at least mentioning the M270 MLRS; about as frivelous as it gets for modern ground artillery

[Zylka]

Or the US' upcoming "Objective blabla BOOM weapon"?



Oh she's pretty. Although it indeed looks like a field disaster waiting to happen

[Zylka]

Wonder how much an m249 SAW would fetch on the black market. Seeing as how it's about the most effective status symbol weapon you could have, if involved in the US plague of gang warfare.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Serb

The Harrier is a vertical take-off fighter. It was created in 1978. First Russian VTOF (Yak-36) was created in 1963. So, who copied and who failed?

LIES!!!

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/6290/testbed.htm

First flight 1953, admittedly teathered. The question here is not who had the first operational aircraft - the question is WHO CAME UP WITH THE FIRST DESIGN AND WHO COPIED IT????

Originally posted by Serb
Su-30 isn't a VTOF. It can't can't perform a vertical take-off. It doesn't rotate entire engine to change the vector of thrust, but just small part of it (I don't know english word for this part an atomizer perhaps?). Anyhow, Su-30 and Harrier are absolutely different planes.

Agreed. Harrier is best thought of as STOL/V - vertical take offs limit payload and cost a lot of fuel.

[el freako]

Originally posted by Joseph
At the end of the Soviet Union we had about 270+ million. So you can call it close, but we still had 40 million more.

If by 'we' you mean the USA then you are wrong.

Popualtion in 1990:
United States: 255.7m
Soviet Union: 284.3m

(source: United Nations

[Verto]

Originally posted by Zylka
How dare the lack of pictures in this thread. And shame to all for not at least mentioning the M270 MLRS; about as frivelous as it gets for modern ground artillery

It WAS mentioned.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by el freako


If by 'we' you mean the USA then you are wrong.

Popualtion in 1990:
United States: 255.7m
Soviet Union: 284.3m

(source: United Nations

I trust the America census first, and screw the UN.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Joseph
If you said it happen, I will buy it. However if we did loose a tank to an T-72 why did not the new boys report the sh!t out of it.
Gulf War 1. The US Marines with our old M-60A3 take on the Republican Guard at the Kuwait Airport with T-72s, T-64s, and a few T-80s and kill every one without a lost to the Marines.

Gulf War 2. Just outside of Baghdad three or four M1A2 and about six or so M2 Bradley's take on nineteen T-72s and kill everyone without a lost. Even the Bradley kill several T-72.

This did happen. I saw the tank crew that was in the tank when they got hit while watching the POWs on the history channel when they were having yet again anther programm about the Abrams M-1 tank.

Frist I do think that the M1A2 tank is the best tank in the world. But the Russian made tanks do come close, and for a long time before the Abrams came out they were ahead when it comes to tanks.

One of the main reason is that the Iraq army was crap. They could not fight togather as a unit. They lacked the intelligence the US had. Also like I said before their tanks did not even see the Abrams tanks because they did not have night vision or thermal vision. Thus the US tanks could see the Iraq tanks even before they became vissiable to the eye. Also the US had air support. THe Iraq army did not.

That is why we crush Iraq so easily.

Gulf 1. Every Iraq aircraft that came up to fight was shot down without any looses to our side.
Gulf 2. None came up to fight.

Kosovo, Bosnia and area. We had a few fights and kill everything that came up to fight.

F-14 was designed in late 67/8, first flight was Dec. 70, enter service in 74. The plane will be 30 this year.

F-15 was designed in 70, first flight was in July 72, enter service Nov 74, will be 30 years old this year.

F-16 First flight, Jan. 74, enter service Aug. 78. It will be 26 years old this year.

F/A-18 Started as the F-17 and after F-16 won, was redesigned as the F/A-18 for the Navy. First flight F-17 June 74, as F/A-18 Nov. 78, enter service Nov. 80. It will be 24 years old this year.
Note. We are now producing the F/A-18E/F model now so the F-14 can be retired. The E/F model are almost a new plane.

Well they are good planes, but the airforces that we have faced are laughable to even compare them the US airforce. Iraq and Bosnia had for the most part no airforce to speak of. One aircraft carrier of ours could controll their entire airspace. These nations can't even afford the spare parts to keep the few jets they have in the air. Also the US airforce has Radar planes that could lock on to fighters, thus the US fighters could fire undected and not warn the other fighter they firing at.
Also if the air is field with our planes and they are stupid enough to send a couple of their own fighter planes up, I would expect them to be shot down rightaway.

In recent times we have not come face to face with a good airforce, let alone land army. The Gulf wars were one sided to begin with. If we had to go to war with a much more capible nation, we would have a much longer and harder wars to fight and see lots of dead troops.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Joseph
I trust the America census first, and screw the UN.

That sound just about right to me. The US in the 90s had a pop of 260 million, nor the 270 you claim. We have about 300 million now, and we have a slow rate of population groth, so that sound just about right.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Jack_www


That sound just about right to me. The US in the 90s had a pop of 260 million, nor the 270 you claim. We have about 300 million now, and we have a slow rate of population groth, so that sound just about right.

One year they said 267 million, but can't remember which year it was. And remember the illegal almost never fill out the form or send them in to be counted, because they feel the INS would used the form to find them. We now have between 10 to 20 million illegal. I was watching Lou Dobb on CNN 2 week ago when he was hitting the Illegal very hard.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Pekka
I'd say... me!

Beat you to it much earlier in this thread.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Serb
I know the difference, but I guess I've made a mistake. You said - "Our (USA) track record is still better in that regard" and I thought you're saying that Russia brake/withdraw from treaties more often than USA. That's why I asked you to bring an example when we broke a treaty last time.

Well, with that same ABM treaty the ABM ring around Moscow and the radar array in Siberia were thought to be technical violations back in the 80's. I suppose little was made of it because all of it had a less chance of working than anything we could come up with.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Serb
Who cares what think about themselves. They are traitors in accordance with law.

Only in Russia.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Joseph
F-21. No record of a 21. Maybe they skip the number or it was an area 51 plane that we will never hear about.

I'm not sure about an F-21 but I know there was an F-23. It was the prototype of a plane from another company competing against the F-22 during the bidding process.

[Ned]

B-52

[Ned]

Here's a pic

[Ned]

Alternatively, the 4th ID.

[Mr. President]

Australia still uses the F-111, y'know. Apparently it's still relevant after almost forty years.