yee ha top trumps. - The adult version. The best looking is the SU 35. The Eurofighter and Rafael are nearly the same plane. Next time the French won't throw their toys about and go and build their own. Then we will see planes as innovative as Concorde, the Jaguar and A380, hopefully again. Anyway they won't be able to afford to.
@smilo996 please, RAFALE ,not rafael. you're right about the future, it is possible together, but not France alone. there are differences between the Typhoon and Rafale, the Typhoon is not yet quite multirole, it was designed for the interception. the Rafale did that very well too, but it is omnirole,
@ctulluh50 Rafale is good ,but their are better ones.Sorry to say that.But my personal opinion that their is no better than Rafale built in EU.eurofighter has flaws and too fucking expensive.Those damn chinese are starting to have now good fighters -_- copies of others and integrated into one,usual shit.Russians have insanely good ones too.They made a copy of F-22 only made it better.Also mig-35 is good&cheap.Plus it seems they kept silent about su-47 and lied.It seems to be a good fighter
@HateYouYousickWhore the Chinese have not technology advances: F22, (pak fa), Rafale, Typhoon, and even Grippen (American avionics). they fail to copy everything. they are young in the running. russia has some delay in avionics, measures against electronic flight control, they have the art of good aerodynamics and engines. waiting to see the work has PakFa ...
the facts show that the Rafale has won Indian lengthy trials, the best grades in Switzerland, the accession of all those who have tried it. almost equal in dogfight against the F22
@samados969 SU-35 does not have the characteristics of omniroles Rafale. It flies faster at a higher altitude, and is useful in this area, the Rafale do ALL the rest, and even interception.
You must work for the Pentagon. The F 35 is a total design failure. A decacde behind and its performance envelope is more American illusions.Keep on waisting BILLIONS on gunless Combat Aircraft. Keep on starving your people destroying our currency and committing War Crimes arroumd the world for profit.
F 22 never seen an air war as of now, facing periodical operational hazards cost of maintenance very high production officially stopped flight training hours cut by 1/3 In 2012, will only perform in air shows and yet no. 1 :D ..while PAK FA will be put at no. 3 or no. 2 when introduced ,..according to uploader just saying :) + F 35 not in operational service yet , facing problems that are being rectified , will take another 3-4 years ,still placed at no. 2
Nicolas Sarkozy said Indian selection of Dassault's Rafale multi-role fighter "goes far beyond the company that makes them, far beyond aerospace -- it is a vote of confidence in the entire French economy." Consider these: Indian deals for the C-130J Hercules and the P-8I maritime reconnaissance aircraft have sustained about 35,000 jobs in the US alone; the Hawk AJTs, along with the latest follow-on orders, will sustain some 27,000 jobs in the UK; Russia and Israel are increasing their share..
haha this guy already knows tht the f22 is better eventought he didnt see the final stats on plane.....pure subversed kid, thinking tht USA is the only part of the world.
I love ppl making rankings of jetfighters with their ''nobody'' status. But I even love people making comments and arguing with one another regarding these meaningless rankings. What a comedy...
Your logic is invalid . Research skunkworks . Funny that back in 1950's we created ox cart . The pre Sr71 plane then it was faster and stealthier than any thing your peon countries can still produce today . So if you think we haven't improved on technology in 50 years you need to put your helmet back on your head and stop drooling on the keyboard
LOL!!!! F-35! Even America has admitted it's a bucket of shit! No top speed, was designed stealth but isn't! And crappy payload abilities.... SU-35 is heaps better, and based on statistics, would be better than F-22, it also has thrust vectoring but can do things in turns that the F-22 can only dream of, remember f-22 is not invisible to radar, just smaller, but the SU-35 can seek it out! And being more maneuverable would win in a dog fight!
@CockatooDude i Agree with you completely, however what they have in technology the lack in practicallity, the U.S can create awesome shit, but they prioritise on lesser things and when they do produce the good stuff it is often when the technology has become world knowledge, would be good if the U.S put its technology to use as soon as they develop it, rather than wait 15-20 years
@Blandy086 F-35 is rated at 1200 MPH, it payload is over 18,000 lbs, and has the AESA radar. The SU-35 has a top speed of 1300MPH, 17,000 payload and PESA radar.The F-35 has an internal payload as well as external making it very difficult to locate when running in a clean configuration. The SU does not and becomes very unstealthy and will be spotted, locked on, and fired upon, before the SU can figure where the F-35 is located if ever. Sorry, fights over before it began for the SU-35.
@gerry301 dude, wake up, yeah on paper it looks good, but the JSF is a bucket of shit, its price is way too high based on its abilities and as i said, the SU-35 has the F-22 worried confirmed by F-22 pilots, are you now going to tell me the JSF is better than F-22? Australia trialled the JSF against SU-35 and superhornet, as Australia was going to buy it, Australia went with Superhornet!!! in the simulated combat scenarios JSF had worse scores than F18 E/F and superhornet is cheaper..
@Blandy086 I believe the simulated scenerio you are talking about was a 2008 study done by the RAND corp. Rumors were that the SU-35 beat the F-35. Austrailia became concerned because of the reports and did an investigation. The rumors turned out to be false and the F-35 was never simulated in a combat scenerio against the SU35. The pentagon later stated the F-35 was more than capable of taking on any 4th generation fighter with a very high tradeoff ratio in combat.
@gerry301 Australian Airforce were given the JSF to test and we had a F18 superhornet, the Australian Air Force organised war games against the chinese airforce, the superhornet and JSF went up against Migs, Sukhoi's and other chinese Airforce fighters, the wargames demonstrated major flaws in the JSF, stealth? it was locked onto at the same time it locked onto the SU-35, meaning its stealth didnt even delay the SU-35, AAF found the Superhornet scored better overall in the wargames.
@Blandy086 I don't believe I've read anywhere that the F-35 has participated in any wargames anywhere. Could you be more specific as to when and where these games happened. Or the report you are refering to?
@gerry301 which is why Australia is no longer taking delivery of the JSF, we cannot justify paying through the nose for a fighter that will not benefit us.
@Blandy086 If Austrailia doesn't buy them itys fine with me. I'm guessing you are getting your info from APA (Air Power Austrailia), its a blog thats been around for awhile and has some interesting articles. It is also very anti F-35 and has written numerous articles on why the F-35 doesn't make the grade. It is also very pro PAK FA as well as SU-35. You might enjoy the site.
@gerry301 Tend to be so, everyone else is biased.....they write negative and are generally stupid if you do not agree that American equipment is God's gift to humanity, excuses are plentiful when independent analysts and experts believe American equipment does not hold.
Only American equitment which is the best, acording to the americans.
Dosent mather wath proof you hawe, its better anyway.
Always Russians military that are lying about their equiptment
@MrCastodian The Russians tend to overstate the capabilities of their military equipment while telling everyone that it is almost the same but so much cheaper. The US tends to understate capabilities while telling buyers you won't get a better deal.
@gerry301 Propaganda BS, all the info that comes from one's own nation is distorted propaganda, the US as well as Russia, the information shall be obtained from independent sources and from the pure facts thats been analyze with logic and common sense.
95% here have no idea what they're talking about, they just buy the propaganda as in the for example F-35.
Can give you 25 Exampels of the American myth about Tanks, Stelth, SAM and Missiles.
@MrCastodian LOL, No, I do not agree with you. Most of the information I use does come from independant as well as knowlegable sources. Not "everything ever reported is a lie" nor is "everything ever reported" the truth. I do trust the sources I have used. The final test of truth will be in the combat arena. US weapons have held up well.
@MrCastodian Lets start with the F-22, I'm sure it will be an interesting discussion. Where are you from? Your profile gives very little information. And Merry Christmas to you and yours.
@gerry301 I am from Sweden, fairly neutral in terms of equipment i think, even if I dislike some American attitudes on the web :)
F-22 is not mutch to talk about, only thing is that it is a terribly expensive and maintenance intensive plan and that its Stelth not give them the benefits it was meant to do when Russia has developed its radar technology.
It is the best plan in my opinion until the PAK FA T-50 come in service.
@MrCastodian F-22 stealth is more than its paint. It is designed throughout the aircraft from the radar to the engine inlets and exhaust. The other systems including its avionics Electronic warfare, and communications are far more advanced than anything the PAK FA has or ever will have. The F-22 is using a third generation AESA radar, the PAK FA has yet to get its 1st. The PAK FA will be using a powerfull PESA radar like a blinding fashlight in the dark seen from miles away.
@MrCastodian No the F-22 is not invisable and can be seen within certain ranges, however by then the F-22 has long ago locked on and fired. The radar you speak of is a low band ground radar that can detect glimpses of the F-22 but from what I have read cannot determine the range or lock on. The radar is very large and would not fit on any currant aircraft including the PAK FA. Even if detected on the ground the pilot would have little ability to use the info.
@gerry301 Of course it's ground radar I'm talking about, there is no existing air radar yet, and range as the F-22 is detected on depends on several things, but if you read this link( ausairpower . net ) you will see that the F-22 not have time to shoot before being detected.
And radar systems are linked with AWACS and fighter so they have much information to go on.
But would also like to point out that the F-22 is the best Stelth planet today, many times better than the F-35
@MrCastodian Yes I read AusAir power, I mentioned it above to someone else previously. I have read most if not all of their articles on the F-22 and F-35. The two primary writers for the forum are very anti F-22 and F-35 and paint both aircraft in a bad light. I do not agree with their assessments. What will a ground radar pass to a pilot whose radar in incapable of seeing as well as the missle that will be of use?
@MrCastodian Russian technology is studied and reported on constantly. While secrets remain so do those in US aircraft. Flights of surveillance aircraft find radar frequencies as well as power output, range etc. While "combat mode" may use higher power, its gives analysts a model to work from. Another is intell sources in other countries who own or use Russian aircraft. Egypt, Lybia, Iraq. Ukraine, etc. US paid $400 mill for modern Russian aircraft in 1992-1995 from the Ukraine.
@gerry301 Yes, of course, it is so, and it goes both ways, but what governments knows is not the same as what is released to the public or to the the soldiers on ground.
For you surely do not believe that they info you get from the U.S. government are all facts that exist, that it is the prevailing truth?
U.S. is a country that uses propaganda as much as North Korea and Russia, to believe otherwise is to play ostrich o bury our heads in the sand.
@MrCastodian The US propaganda often contains the truth and that has always been the best propaganda. (Yes, I know you're laughing). And what does Sweden say about the Gripen that is propaganda. Often whats known about a US fighter is true but not everything it is capable of. Thats not propaganda. If you remember Russias little foray into Georgia four of its aircraft were shot down by Russian missles and the aircraft had not been updated since the 1980's.
@gerry301 Yep, I laugh:) The info about Gripen is like all other, propaganda mixed with some facts, in order to scare and sell.
And what is the loss of four aircraft of things to do?
In war you lose plane, no matter how good they are and how bad your opponents are, and that they have not been uppgarderade since the 80's does not mean a thing, the majority of US planes isent upgraded either.
Nor has it argued that Russias air force is as strong as it once was, claim that their air defenses are.
@MrCastodian US aircraft are updated with the latest on a regular basis. F-15s, 16s, and 18s are being retrofited with the AESA radar as well as other modifications. So is the B-1, B-2, B-52, A-10, C-5, etc. I get a monthly magazine called "Air Force', its a trade publication that tells all about the Depots that do the upgrades , upgrades in progress as well as planned upgrades and those returned to service with the upgrades. Its not propaganda (deciept).
@gerry301 Although the aircraft are updated they are old many of them, A-10, B-52, F-15 and F-16 is all old constructions, can not upgrade the basic structure of the aircraft, their running costs are astronomical and they fall together off age.
Just as with B-1 and B-2, cost astronomical sums to maintain.
The same applies in Russia, but they have scrapped large amounts, but they upgraded their remaining aircraft, an SU-27 thats was build 25 years ago is not what it was today.
@MrCastodian Yes they are old and newer aircraft need to replace them. But I disagree that they are falling apart. The B-52 and KC135 (tanker) are two good examples. Engines are replaced with more powerful models, avionics, radar, communications, are all modernized, and yes even some basic structure is replaced if it cannot pass inspection. It is very expensive, but they too are not what they were when 1st purchased. We spend alot on our military to keep it relevent and modern.
@gerry301 I know what you spend, and of course they do not fall a part, it is an expression only.
In fact, American.'s Plain is as old as the Russian, the share of modern planes are equal, may be that the Russians even have a few more% modern aircraft then the US has.
The strength of the U.S. Air Force is the amount of planes, an pilot training.
@MrCastodian Disagree again, the strength of the US airforce today is in its avionics, ECM, radar, and missles. (its not just the platform, but what it carries), bombs and so many front line precision weapons. The F-22 and F-35 are not just 5th generation in name only but truely a generation above any other aircraft flying today or in the next 20 years. When I said the Russion fighters had not been updated since the 1980s it was unheard of in the US and a shock.
@gerry301 The weakness of the F-22 is that they will cost time and money to maintain and that there are no more than 200 and the weakness of the F-35 is that you do not know how it is because there is not one in service.
The plan can not withstand weather and war-like conditions.
And if you should say that Russia does not update their plan, I will have a source.
@MrCastodian I agree that the US should have purchased more F-22s, the current number is not enough. The F-35 is being field with 10-15? signed over to the Airforce for testing and training of pilots. They are still in continuing developement. I believe the 1st combat coded sqadron will be fielded in 2016. The weather is not so much an issue as it was for the B-2 and much improvement on repairing stealth coating has been made significantly reducing turnaround time.
@MrCastodian The loss of four Russian aircraft to Russian missles tells most people that they could not defend against their own missles with any sort of effective Electronic Warfare System. Considering Russia would know the frequencies, range, capabilities, they went in with their best recon jets and were shot down by their own weapons. Not a good thing. No jamming, no EWO, etc.
@MrCastodian Only 1 incident I can think of during the 1st gulf war, by a patriot missle. However the F-18 and a British Tornado(I think) were returning to base and not using ECM for that reason. I would think the Russians would use their ECM when entering the battle area. The gulf war saw over 100,000 sorties flown. I only counted 23 USD fighters downed during the Iraq war;p That includes a C-130 two OV10 broncos and a number of A10s. Only two in Serbia, a F-117, and an F-16.
@gerry301 I can give you a list of all the planes that has been shoot down if you want, and what weapons systems that were used?
Roland shot down 1 plane, Patriot 2, then it was SA-2, SA-6, etc., but it's dosent mather,In war plane is shoot down, dont mather how good they are, so please respond like a little more concrete to the question, is an aircraft bad because it is shot down?
You lost 3000 planes in Vietnamn, whas it bad planes, or bad pilots?
@MrCastodian Yes, I saw the same list. Yes aircraft are shot down. I don't understand what you are looking for. The 1st precision bomb ever was used at the end of the Vietnam war. The Mig 21 at the begining of the war was better than our F-104. Times have changed dramatically since then. The major reason for the US was high technology. The Russians do not have the very high technology base that the US currently enjoys. Can or will F-22s or F35 be shot down? Of coarse. What ratio?
@MrCastodian I learned of the Russian ECM, drones, fighters aqnd bombers downed on the internet, and also by Russia today news channel as well as a speech given by Medyev, where he conceded there were some problems that needed to be fixed. You must remember in 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed and for over 10 years their military fell apart along with its military industrial base. It is only recently that they have begun to reinvest and rebuild.
@MrCastodian I get 'Airforce' magazine (I'm retired Airforce. Military history and military weapons are my hobby. (no, Im not the brightest around, many people are much smarter than me) I read 'militaryphotosdot com' , 'Aviation weakly', RT (Russian Tv) on occasion, and am a particulair reader of the Vietnam war books as I spent a year there during that time. I didn't do anything but some of my friends were in the worst of it. I enjoy the subject and discussions.
@gerry301 I enjoy 'Airpower Austrailia' for its information on the SU Aircraft as well as the latest SAM missles and its challenging arguments. I do not agree with much of the opinion, but enjoy the technical information and insite they give. Good reason to compare against my own thoughts and compare. As well as reason for further research on my own to prove or disprove what I have read. Some comes from my own experience and my brother in the military and knowing how they think.
@gerry301 Tend to be so, Americans do not agree with independent analysis, despite the fact that they know more and have better sources.
Why would their analysis of the SU-27 to be wrong or a lie?
What do you know that they dont know about the SU-27, is better in every aspect than most American plan, except F-22 and F-15?
What do you know that they dont know about Russian air defense, when they say that Russian air defense is the best in the world, what do you have to argue against it.
@MrCastodian Well, at the time I was in I knew we had all the IFF codes to the Russian as well as Irainian fighters. That was a top secret during the 70s 80s. It was revieled only after the Soviet Union broke up. Why would their analysis be misguided? Could be personal or political, I don't know. Members of the US congress say many things against both aircraft for political reasons citing different reports. Its nothing new.
@gerry301 "Americans do not agree with independent analysis". LOL, I'm sorry, we have people who believe the government is hiding flying saucers. You can find anything you want to believe in the US. We are a very diverse group of people. Why would we know that the SU-27 is better or worse than an F-15 or F16? Perhaps because we bought two of them in 2009 for study.
@MrCastodian When I was at the USNCO Academy I had to write a term paper on the Mig-25 and its capabilities. It was very interesting as a Russian pilot had defected to Japan with the Mig-25 and the aircraft had been thouroughly inspected by the US as to its capabilities etc. It was surprising as to how poorly it was made and how limited its capabilities were. (just a note)
@gerry301 But what was the Mig-25 for a plan? how would the same term paper look today if you wrote about the SU-27 family, or SU-25?
Mig-25 was not built as an air-combat fighter that the U.S. belived before they got hold of a plane in Japan, but as a strategic fighter in order to Defend the Airspace against U.S. reconnaissance aircraft and Strategic Bombers
And in that task, it was a plan that was effective
It could fly very fast and on a very high altitude against unarmed planes in that time.
@MrCastodian And it had a very powerful radar that could burn through most ECM at that time. It was an interceptor as you said and was very powerful and fast and could fly well in a straight line. The US aircraft it was meant to defend against was never built. But the Soviets made hundreds of them anyway. Not so sure my report would be much out of date today if they haven't modified or updated their aircraft since 1980s;p
@gerry301 Yes, they built the nearly 1100 of them i think, in different versions. And the main goal for them was the XB-70 that only flew a few test rides, but the need was still there with that kind of interceptor when the B-58 was in active service, but even plane U-2, B-52 and B-47 belonged to the Mig-25 targets.
The last MiG-25 was taken out of service 91, your reports are only a part of history now:)
@gerry301 All due respect to your service or your brother's service, but that does not in any way do that you have insight or knowledge of how different weapons systems is working.
That you served in Vietnam, or have friends who have served there gives no automatic insight into how the SA-2 or MIG-21 work.
The same applies to Iraq or other conflicts, an American soldier who is on You Tube and claim that Russian tanks are useless because he shot out T-72 in Iraq speaks of pure ignorance.
@MrCastodian You're correct my service gives me no particulair knowledge of or automatic insight of a weapons system. But yes , I do know how the system works and have some insight as to information being correct or BS. The media are the worst offenders of BS as are 'independent research papers". Usually after the fact or with few relevent facts to go on. My service in Vietnam only gave me a window of the war from where I was at. And it was a very small window.
@MrCastodian There was also a major study done on the Russian tanks during the Chechnian war and much discussion on the military blogs about it. So Some of my opinions are based on that study and information. No, I do not rely on a soldier who told me a war story. (however some of the war stories I have heard are pretty good. Both frightening and funny).
@MrCastodian And the last I read was the conscipts were no better than the ones prior to them(except they get paid more) as leadership still does not trust an NCO to make decisions. And the hazing and bullying continue. More like thugs than professional military.
@gerry301 Can count up 100's case regarding the U.S. Army where the same thing is said and happends, but do not do it for it does not aplay to the entire U.S. Army, only in some case.
Changes are coming in Russia,it still a problem, but things has changed, but it is in the media's interest to inflate the problem, the same way that American media is blowing up similar things in the U.S. Army's, its happening on a regularly basis in US to.
@MrCastodian Perhaps, but the overall quality of the US troops and their training is excellent. Their overall education level is higher than the norm in the US. It would be difficult at this time to find a better trained, led, or experienced military.
@gerry301 Do not say that it is "excellent", the problem of soldiers who come from them lower classes as they largely do in the U.S. Army is that they do not have an haigh education level, that way they only become "good" soldiers, poorer logic, worse initiative, less critical thinking and thinking outside the box.
And the American army is very experience, and good Comanders, but it is not better trained than professional soldiers from other parts of the world.
@MrCastodian Disagree. Many soldiers come from lower classes as well as middle and higher classes. Which is why I stated that their education level currently on average is higher than the average in the US. Training is tough with advancement only upon completion of advanced courses and recommendation. Advancement requires skill knowledge, military knowledge, profomance reports as well as time in service and decorations. Skill knowledge and military knowledge are the most important.
@gerry301 The US military is trying to downsize while we have a poor economy. The competition to stay in is very high. Only the best get to stay in. I might add that the force is all voluntary.
@MrCastodian It was a big issue with some Congressmen/women a few years back and they visited the Army posts to learn "the truth". It was a big deal for the senators etc, however when the returned from their quest to find the "truth". apparently it was missed by the media as they had nothing to say except for one female senator who said, " you have to understand where some of these people come from". Yes the media can make mountains out of mole hills.
@gerry301 Yes, they find errors that are not there, blowing up small things, now I do not mean that there is not problems in Russia, for it is there, but there are clear changes for the better.
@gerry301 The majority of modern Russian weapons systems, you or analyst nothing about, they are not tested in battle, only a few cases that can not give an idea how they work, you can only asume.
Its only in Korea and Vietnam you faced modern equiptment and then got a shock in U.S. in both wars.
What you bomb or planes shoot down in Iraq, Afghanistan or Serbia was equipment that was abandoned 25 years ago in Russia.
@MrCastodian After the Israeli bombing of the nuclear facility in Syria a few years back there was a lot of discussion as to how they did it. The Russians had just shipped Syria several new Pansir anti aircraft systems with the latest radar and missle systems and had Russian technitions along with Syrians operating them, yet the Israelis completely nutralized these systems without firing a shot. Several ECM systems were suspected of doing the job. Interesting?
@gerry301 If you google that case, you'll find articles from both the West and Russia on Pantisyr which all claim that they were not in active service when the attacks came.
according to army-technology they sent them the first of 50 Pantisyr system to Syria in June 2008 and Operation Orchard was conducted September 6, 2007.
@gerry301 And look up "suter". Its a ECM system you may want to read about. It ties in with what I said earlier about the US buying drones equiped with microwave technology. I suspect the technology used is much further advanced today.
@gerry301 Do not know much about American microwave technology, but Russia has two active systems, one "Anti-Air" and one projektil to jam and "burn out" like an small EMP. and they are working with India on the completion of airborne microwave weapons.
@MrCastodian Meanwhile the US is putting them in drones, using many years worth of experience, as well as upgrades. I don't know but I suspect they were used during the Osama Bin Laden raid. Appaently Pakistan said the did spot incoming aircraft and scrambled their alert force, but there were no intruders to be found. Perhaps because they appeared on radar 100s of miles away? Just a thought.
@MrCastodian I buy the US version that they lost control of the UAV. I don't like that answer, but I believe the US military before I believe the Russians or Iranians.
@gerry301 The information comes from many independent sources, including from Western-oriented security analysts, the plane is completely intact, it has not received any damage from being crashed, to believe in the American version, without critically examine all the evidence logically is pretty weird, and very dangerous.
@gerry301 I am aware that it flourishes some blogs with that information, but Tor-M1 did not exist in Syria when the assault occurred
The information comes from Aviation Week, which in turn got it from a Kuwatisk newspaper...
SA-2, SA-3, SA-5 and SA-6 SAM system was in Syria during the assault, none of them watched the alleged nuclear facility, shortly after the attack began talks started on the purchase of pantisyr, Tor-M1 and S-300.
@MrCastodian Chechnya and the incursion into Georgia have been much analysed for how they were fought, how the equipment did etc. There was much criticism over russian tactics, failure to communicate and operate, as well as the weapons used. It is only a small look at Russias capabilities I know, but it cannot be overlooked.
@gerry301 But it was not the equipment that fails in Chechnya, it has been, and are their education, their system! and it started as I said a reconstruction of the Russian armed forces sinse the first Chechnya war, the transformation of units, new educational reforms, halved staff, reduced bureaucracy, the Russian army is not today as fore 15 years ago, or five years ago, and will be diferent in10 years with the transformation they do on the organization
@MrCastodian Of coarse Russia with Putin will be like Rome with Ceaser, how could I be so stupid. Georgia information from RT, and Medvev, biased? How stupid of me.
@MrCastodian Yes, I read FAS (Globel security) , but they changed over the last year and you must now be a paying member, (except for a couple brief reviews. Same as Janes. I'm not a paying subscriber. (I'm cheap). I used to read Global security for a long time. They have great information. What lies about the Vietnam war? I think Ive heard them all, but most (created by the media or war protesters) have been investigated and refuted.
@MrCastodian North Vietnam won the war. (I think thats what you want to hear me say). Any particulair operations or strategy you would care to discuss? The war was serious business and very bloody. The military did quite well in my estimation.
Unfortunately, so do 99% of all the idiots who write here that the U.S. won a crushing victory because of that they won the battles.
And there is not much to talk about, obviously you are very well aware of how the war happened, a terrible bloody war that the U.S. fought well through, but North Vietnam fought so much harder and more self-sacrificing.
An extremely costly war for the U.S. in terms of equipment, soldiers and political strength.
@MrCastodian I find "peoples" armies around the world are so much more willing to sacrifice their troops for their cause. Korea, Vietnam. I don't think they fought harder. I believe the war was lost due to poor strategy and mismanagement by the Johnson administration and MacNamera. I believe the "tuesday luncheons" where they decided what targets to bomb were a prime example. The antiwar advocates fueled very much by draft resisters changed popular opinion.
@gerry301 Yes, you're right, maybe not harder but more self-sacrificing, more willingness, higher morale.
There were many reasons why it happened as it happened, most of them political, but even neglect of military command, underestimation of the eanemy.
A great US faith in technology (as now), which turned out wrong in many different occasions, It was a need for good old-fashioned mechanics and individual act of soldiers rather than missiles o technical Inovations.
@MrCastodian Military technology and precision weapons did not become an issue until the end of the vietnam war. The 1st gulf war was the 1st war fought with precision weapons to any degree and it was less than 10% of weapons used at that time. Since then the US has invested greatly in high tech weapons for other military uses. These new systems are being used, expanded upon, and upgraded significantly at a rapid rate during our wars in Iraq and Afganistan.
@gerry301 It was trusted too much in the American superiority with their various weapons systems, ranging from helicopters to aircraft and small arms, that's what I meant.
@gerry301 Did not literally mean Precision weapons, rather the military way of thinking with modern weapons, such a simple thing as the modern American aircraft did not have a gun, it cost many pilots their lives before the corrective.
M-16 entrance with its modern features that proved to be a costly to acquire in the middle of a war.
@MrCastodian And I was talking about weapons developed after Vietnam. The air mobile concept is now used by most countries and worked very well in Vietnam. The lost alot of helocopters but carried off some very fast moving operations. To include medivac.
The M-16 fiaso started with a good weapon, but a decision to change to black powder in the ammunition caused the chamber to become rapidly fouled. Once that was understood the weapon became reliable again. (1966-67)
@gerry301 .Air Mobile concep Worked well in Vietnam and Other Conflicts, The Russian ADOPTED the Same tactics in Afghanistan, with Perhaps Greater Success When the Mi-24 and SU-25 as support was somthing That the U.S. HAD note in the Same Way in Vietnamn.
In today's tactics, it is a war-winning Concept That Americans are very good at, Particularly Against a defense without good SAM cover.
@MrCastodian Any success that the Russias had in Afganistan was the use of Spetznaz. Who hurt the Mujahadeen the most. Not so sure their Mi-24s or Su 25s were any more effective than the US in Vietnam. They did pull out with their tail between their legs.
@gerry301 The tactic was to fly into Spetznaz and paratroopers with transport helicopters and give them support with MI-24 groups, and given the casualty figures, it was a well-functioning tactics.
333 helicopters were lost in Afghanistan as opposed to about 6000 in Vietnam.
Yes, They did pull out with Their tail between Their legs, just like the U.S. in Vietnam ...
@gerry301 Was also the cleaning mechanism in M-16 which was a fiasco, and especially the belief that the soldiers did not have to learn to clean their weapons, M-16 was launched almost maintenance free and come without weapon care equipment or proper training in gun care. Magazines were also inadequate and often not fully charged to avoid fire breaks.
@MrCastodian Thats the first time I have ever heard that. In fact the opposite was true. While soldiers complained about the weapon jamming the higher ups kept saying it was because the weapons weren't cleaned. Soldiers were perhaps cleaning their weapons more than any previous war with poor results. Magazines were often believed to be part of the jamming problem so only 18 rounds were loaded instead of 20.
@MrCastodian I do not think you understand the American psycy when it comes to Vietnam. Most Americans realize the military fought with their hands tied. Political mismanagement and loss of public opinion called for withdrawel and an eventual cutoff of support for South Vietnam causing its downfall. The troops were treated like dirt at that time. The troops and those who supported them and many others over time feel cheated and betrayed in the war being lost. Therefore defensive.
@gerry301 I know how you look at the war, and understand why too.
It was a war that was doomed in advance when it was a political war, there was no public support, just as the Soviet war in Afghanistan, could never be won during those conditions.
The current American war in Iraq, for example is suported by 99% of the American people when it started, and the entire free world, Vietnam War was supported by no one, not easy to be a soldier then
@MrCastodian Disagree. The Vietnam war started as a quest to help the South Vietnam defend against communism. It was only doomed when it became mismanaged by Johnson and MacNamera. They played a game of politics with the war by using the military as a chess piece." If we do this I think they may change. Oops, they didn't. Lets try this and see if they understand what we are trying to do. No, by all means don't offend China or Russia.".
this is a bullshit
MAKOHANDREW 12 hours ago
yee ha top trumps. - The adult version. The best looking is the SU 35. The Eurofighter and Rafael are nearly the same plane. Next time the French won't throw their toys about and go and build their own. Then we will see planes as innovative as Concorde, the Jaguar and A380, hopefully again. Anyway they won't be able to afford to.
smilo996 1 week ago
@smilo996 please, RAFALE ,not rafael. you're right about the future, it is possible together, but not France alone. there are differences between the Typhoon and Rafale, the Typhoon is not yet quite multirole, it was designed for the interception. the Rafale did that very well too, but it is omnirole,
ctulluh50 1 week ago
RAFALE number 1 or 1,5
ctulluh50 1 week ago
@ctulluh50 Rafale is good ,but their are better ones.Sorry to say that.But my personal opinion that their is no better than Rafale built in EU.eurofighter has flaws and too fucking expensive.Those damn chinese are starting to have now good fighters -_- copies of others and integrated into one,usual shit.Russians have insanely good ones too.They made a copy of F-22 only made it better.Also mig-35 is good&cheap.Plus it seems they kept silent about su-47 and lied.It seems to be a good fighter
HateYouYousickWhore 1 week ago
@HateYouYousickWhore the Chinese have not technology advances: F22, (pak fa), Rafale, Typhoon, and even Grippen (American avionics). they fail to copy everything. they are young in the running. russia has some delay in avionics, measures against electronic flight control, they have the art of good aerodynamics and engines. waiting to see the work has PakFa ...
ctulluh50 1 week ago
@ctulluh50 measure against électronic = électronic against-measures ( contre-mesures électronique) i don't know how write it
ctulluh50 1 week ago
@ctulluh50 and yes...when it comes to type of figters like mig-35 US has better ones...BUT far more expensive ones
US held the crown for 20 or so years when it came to fighters..when we take all into an account
HateYouYousickWhore 1 week ago
@HateYouYousickWhore but europe has now make up the advance.
ctulluh50 1 week ago
the facts show that the Rafale has won Indian lengthy trials, the best grades in Switzerland, the accession of all those who have tried it. almost equal in dogfight against the F22
ctulluh50 1 week ago
@ctulluh50 lol, on. the rafale is nowhere near the f22 in a dogfight
ps3bandit8 1 day ago
#1 Sukhoi T-50
#2 ?
#3 Sukhoi Su-35 and Dassault Rafale
#5 Eurofighter Typhoon
#6 F-18
#7 Dassault Mirage 2000
#8 F-15
#9 Jas-39 Gripen
#10 F-16
I have to put the Mig inside an another time.
samados969 1 week ago
@samados969 SU-35 does not have the characteristics of omniroles Rafale. It flies faster at a higher altitude, and is useful in this area, the Rafale do ALL the rest, and even interception.
ctulluh50 1 week ago
JAS 39 Nowhere to be seen? its a world class fighterjet
insignia76 1 week ago
f35 and f22 have got no real time combat experiences so far . why much hype?
mahen43 2 weeks ago
lol Eurofighter better than Su-30. Go Die!
aman2426 2 weeks ago
You must work for the Pentagon. The F 35 is a total design failure. A decacde behind and its performance envelope is more American illusions.Keep on waisting BILLIONS on gunless Combat Aircraft. Keep on starving your people destroying our currency and committing War Crimes arroumd the world for profit.
Empire of illusion.
conantdog 2 weeks ago
MrKasperabhay 2 weeks ago
@MrKasperabhay Just wait if its a stealth fighter its bound to face problems T-50 is a semi stealth fighter anyways it can be seen.
ESC8781 1 week ago
the su 35 is the flanker not the sukohi
bassbeast117 3 weeks ago
Nicolas Sarkozy said Indian selection of Dassault's Rafale multi-role fighter "goes far beyond the company that makes them, far beyond aerospace -- it is a vote of confidence in the entire French economy." Consider these: Indian deals for the C-130J Hercules and the P-8I maritime reconnaissance aircraft have sustained about 35,000 jobs in the US alone; the Hawk AJTs, along with the latest follow-on orders, will sustain some 27,000 jobs in the UK; Russia and Israel are increasing their share..
Dambis0 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
, India decided last month to buy 42 more Su-35 and then a few days ago finally rejected the Typhoon.
Zbyszkoz 3 weeks ago
haha this guy already knows tht the f22 is better eventought he didnt see the final stats on plane.....pure subversed kid, thinking tht USA is the only part of the world.
mrvishal1000 3 weeks ago 4
F14 Tom cat best fighter ever
ennispep 3 weeks ago
на видео Су-30МКИ а не Су-30
Moscow3goist 4 weeks ago
f-22 Raptor - the Useless expensive junk.
DjVenta 4 weeks ago
JAS 39 C?
Wiromax3 1 month ago
lame video... nothing special
Exuro1337 1 month ago
Are you serious ??
F35 and F22 can't carry more than 4 missiles or bombs ...
asxefv 1 month ago
@asxefv 4 air-to-air missiles is enough to take out 4 aircraft in an air superioity fighter
capefear56 1 month ago
@capefear56
Yes,but Su34 for example,carries 6 ch29 or bombs + 4 AA +40 S8
And has a decent maneuvrability.
asxefv 1 month ago
@asxefv the su-34 was mean't to play more of a role as presition strike bomber.
capefear56 1 month ago
@asxefv Don't get me wrong - I love the SUs' My favorite fighter is the SU-37
capefear56 1 month ago
Mig 29 not on the list ?????
MegaPurpleTV 1 month ago
why would the pak fa be 2 or 3rd it has stealth hunting radar and 360 TV the f22 has up and down TV and no stealth hunting radar.
starknight97 1 month ago
if there was a magazine for crappy jets the f22 and f35 would be fighting it out for the front cover.
hsvenforcer 1 month ago
Tactical mute incoming!!!
Vuvus210596 1 month ago
please the f-35 should be 15th place .
TheKifinas 1 month ago 13
@TheKifinas how do you know?
ahgoon69er 1 week ago
@ahgoon69er WELL SOMETIMES PEOPLE JUST KNOW ..
TheKifinas 1 week ago
haven't seen the video but ifyou are american you putted the f-22 first the f-15 and f-16 somewhere in the 8 first and the Russian planes nowhere .
TheKifinas 1 month ago
))) Where the MIG?
red0358 1 month ago 14
hhaha the F-15E better than the Rafale ? ... Joke
SIDwinDER67 1 month ago
@SIDwinDER67 What's the Rafale's combat record ?
Prolocater 1 month ago
(1)F 22 raptor (2) Euro fighter Typhoon and Rafale Dassault (3) Sukhoi SU 35 (4) JAS 39 Gripen (5) F 15e strike eagle (6) SU 3O MKI (7) Mitsubishi F-2 (8) Dassault Mirage (9)Tornado GR4 (10) Chengdu J 10
Phuzekhemisi 1 month ago
It is proved that Russian fighter jets - the best in the world.
It takes into account the ratio, the price of quality.
KNOWSCORE 2 months ago
WRONG , top 3 , 3ºsu-47 2ºsu-33 flanker 1ºt-50 pak fa , your top , is wrong , noob
rfurlani 2 months ago
Это видео - полный бред любителя.
Pravilnost 2 months ago
Jas GripeN?
FoodGuideTV 2 months ago
I love ppl making rankings of jetfighters with their ''nobody'' status. But I even love people making comments and arguing with one another regarding these meaningless rankings. What a comedy...
NYhercules 2 months ago
is this dude serious a mirage is in these pics? why is it there?
rafwarrior 2 months ago
lol where is SU37 one of the best fighter planes
DERKEISER95 2 months ago
@DERKEISER95 su-30mki=su-35=su-37
iamgig9876 2 months ago
at this time the americans show only aircrafts with good looks, costing too much for the things they can do.
And this video is absolutly unrealistic.
nikibasss 2 months ago
Your logic is invalid . Research skunkworks . Funny that back in 1950's we created ox cart . The pre Sr71 plane then it was faster and stealthier than any thing your peon countries can still produce today . So if you think we haven't improved on technology in 50 years you need to put your helmet back on your head and stop drooling on the keyboard
sgtsbros 2 months ago
why doas the eurofighter always needs to be at spot 4 I mean it can go over the speed of sound without an afterburner c`mon yall
Lrenx 2 months ago
USucks
jgthjxtr 2 months ago 4
not a good list....
niko8768 2 months ago
bool shit
sobakaru0 2 months ago
Русские самолеты лучше. Где в этом списке МИГ? наверно тот кто составлял этот рейтинг плохо разбирается в данной теме
momo3495 2 months ago
@momo3495 SU>MIG
mrkv39 2 months ago
LOL!!!! F-35! Even America has admitted it's a bucket of shit! No top speed, was designed stealth but isn't! And crappy payload abilities.... SU-35 is heaps better, and based on statistics, would be better than F-22, it also has thrust vectoring but can do things in turns that the F-22 can only dream of, remember f-22 is not invisible to radar, just smaller, but the SU-35 can seek it out! And being more maneuverable would win in a dog fight!
Blandy086 2 months ago 12
@Blandy086 i agree with u
yashwanth277 2 months ago
@Blandy086 Keep in mind though, that the US has the world's most advanced aircraft (including drones) technologically.
CockatooDude 2 months ago
@CockatooDude i Agree with you completely, however what they have in technology the lack in practicallity, the U.S can create awesome shit, but they prioritise on lesser things and when they do produce the good stuff it is often when the technology has become world knowledge, would be good if the U.S put its technology to use as soon as they develop it, rather than wait 15-20 years
Blandy086 2 months ago
@Blandy086 F-35 is rated at 1200 MPH, it payload is over 18,000 lbs, and has the AESA radar. The SU-35 has a top speed of 1300MPH, 17,000 payload and PESA radar.The F-35 has an internal payload as well as external making it very difficult to locate when running in a clean configuration. The SU does not and becomes very unstealthy and will be spotted, locked on, and fired upon, before the SU can figure where the F-35 is located if ever. Sorry, fights over before it began for the SU-35.
gerry301 2 months ago
@gerry301 dude, wake up, yeah on paper it looks good, but the JSF is a bucket of shit, its price is way too high based on its abilities and as i said, the SU-35 has the F-22 worried confirmed by F-22 pilots, are you now going to tell me the JSF is better than F-22? Australia trialled the JSF against SU-35 and superhornet, as Australia was going to buy it, Australia went with Superhornet!!! in the simulated combat scenarios JSF had worse scores than F18 E/F and superhornet is cheaper..
Blandy086 2 months ago
@Blandy086 I believe the simulated scenerio you are talking about was a 2008 study done by the RAND corp. Rumors were that the SU-35 beat the F-35. Austrailia became concerned because of the reports and did an investigation. The rumors turned out to be false and the F-35 was never simulated in a combat scenerio against the SU35. The pentagon later stated the F-35 was more than capable of taking on any 4th generation fighter with a very high tradeoff ratio in combat.
gerry301 2 months ago
@gerry301 Australian Airforce were given the JSF to test and we had a F18 superhornet, the Australian Air Force organised war games against the chinese airforce, the superhornet and JSF went up against Migs, Sukhoi's and other chinese Airforce fighters, the wargames demonstrated major flaws in the JSF, stealth? it was locked onto at the same time it locked onto the SU-35, meaning its stealth didnt even delay the SU-35, AAF found the Superhornet scored better overall in the wargames.
Blandy086 2 months ago
@Blandy086 I don't believe I've read anywhere that the F-35 has participated in any wargames anywhere. Could you be more specific as to when and where these games happened. Or the report you are refering to?
gerry301 2 months ago
@gerry301 which is why Australia is no longer taking delivery of the JSF, we cannot justify paying through the nose for a fighter that will not benefit us.
Blandy086 2 months ago
@Blandy086 If Austrailia doesn't buy them itys fine with me. I'm guessing you are getting your info from APA (Air Power Austrailia), its a blog thats been around for awhile and has some interesting articles. It is also very anti F-35 and has written numerous articles on why the F-35 doesn't make the grade. It is also very pro PAK FA as well as SU-35. You might enjoy the site.
gerry301 2 months ago
@gerry301 Tend to be so, everyone else is biased.....they write negative and are generally stupid if you do not agree that American equipment is God's gift to humanity, excuses are plentiful when independent analysts and experts believe American equipment does not hold.
Only American equitment which is the best, acording to the americans.
Dosent mather wath proof you hawe, its better anyway.
Always Russians military that are lying about their equiptment
American Military is telling the trouth...
MrCastodian 2 months ago
@MrCastodian The Russians tend to overstate the capabilities of their military equipment while telling everyone that it is almost the same but so much cheaper. The US tends to understate capabilities while telling buyers you won't get a better deal.
gerry301 2 months ago
@gerry301 Propaganda BS, all the info that comes from one's own nation is distorted propaganda, the US as well as Russia, the information shall be obtained from independent sources and from the pure facts thats been analyze with logic and common sense.
95% here have no idea what they're talking about, they just buy the propaganda as in the for example F-35.
Can give you 25 Exampels of the American myth about Tanks, Stelth, SAM and Missiles.
MrCastodian 2 months ago
@MrCastodian LOL, No, I do not agree with you. Most of the information I use does come from independant as well as knowlegable sources. Not "everything ever reported is a lie" nor is "everything ever reported" the truth. I do trust the sources I have used. The final test of truth will be in the combat arena. US weapons have held up well.
gerry301 2 months ago
@gerry301 The majority of your weapons systems are not tested for a serious battle arena but you often use it as an example
"they worked in Iraq and in an exemplary manner, therefore, are the best."
But the fact is that US tanks have not met his Russian counterpart, your aircraft has not flown into Russian airspace.
Can take many examples, better you mention any of your superior system I can try to explain the opposite if its applies to the system you mention.
If you are interest of course.
.
MrCastodian 2 months ago
@MrCastodian Lets start with the F-22, I'm sure it will be an interesting discussion. Where are you from? Your profile gives very little information. And Merry Christmas to you and yours.
gerry301 2 months ago
@gerry301 I am from Sweden, fairly neutral in terms of equipment i think, even if I dislike some American attitudes on the web :)
F-22 is not mutch to talk about, only thing is that it is a terribly expensive and maintenance intensive plan and that its Stelth not give them the benefits it was meant to do when Russia has developed its radar technology.
It is the best plan in my opinion until the PAK FA T-50 come in service.
And Merry Christmas to your to.
MrCastodian 2 months ago
@MrCastodian F-22 stealth is more than its paint. It is designed throughout the aircraft from the radar to the engine inlets and exhaust. The other systems including its avionics Electronic warfare, and communications are far more advanced than anything the PAK FA has or ever will have. The F-22 is using a third generation AESA radar, the PAK FA has yet to get its 1st. The PAK FA will be using a powerfull PESA radar like a blinding fashlight in the dark seen from miles away.
gerry301 2 months ago
@gerry301 I know, but F-22 is still far from invisible, with the right wavelength, you'll find the plane.
And once you've discovered it, it's not that hard to lock missiles o then shoot it down like everyone else.
And in spite of their equipment they cant stand bad weather, and it is the most accident-prone plane in the U.S.
And besides, you know nothing about how the Russian technology is, you can only guess.
MrCastodian 2 months ago
@MrCastodian No the F-22 is not invisable and can be seen within certain ranges, however by then the F-22 has long ago locked on and fired. The radar you speak of is a low band ground radar that can detect glimpses of the F-22 but from what I have read cannot determine the range or lock on. The radar is very large and would not fit on any currant aircraft including the PAK FA. Even if detected on the ground the pilot would have little ability to use the info.
gerry301 2 months ago
@gerry301 Of course it's ground radar I'm talking about, there is no existing air radar yet, and range as the F-22 is detected on depends on several things, but if you read this link( ausairpower . net ) you will see that the F-22 not have time to shoot before being detected.
And radar systems are linked with AWACS and fighter so they have much information to go on.
But would also like to point out that the F-22 is the best Stelth planet today, many times better than the F-35
MrCastodian 2 months ago
@MrCastodian Yes I read AusAir power, I mentioned it above to someone else previously. I have read most if not all of their articles on the F-22 and F-35. The two primary writers for the forum are very anti F-22 and F-35 and paint both aircraft in a bad light. I do not agree with their assessments. What will a ground radar pass to a pilot whose radar in incapable of seeing as well as the missle that will be of use?
gerry301 2 months ago
@MrCastodian Russian technology is studied and reported on constantly. While secrets remain so do those in US aircraft. Flights of surveillance aircraft find radar frequencies as well as power output, range etc. While "combat mode" may use higher power, its gives analysts a model to work from. Another is intell sources in other countries who own or use Russian aircraft. Egypt, Lybia, Iraq. Ukraine, etc. US paid $400 mill for modern Russian aircraft in 1992-1995 from the Ukraine.
gerry301 2 months ago
@gerry301 Yes, of course, it is so, and it goes both ways, but what governments knows is not the same as what is released to the public or to the the soldiers on ground.
For you surely do not believe that they info you get from the U.S. government are all facts that exist, that it is the prevailing truth?
U.S. is a country that uses propaganda as much as North Korea and Russia, to believe otherwise is to play ostrich o bury our heads in the sand.
MrCastodian 2 months ago
@MrCastodian The US propaganda often contains the truth and that has always been the best propaganda. (Yes, I know you're laughing). And what does Sweden say about the Gripen that is propaganda. Often whats known about a US fighter is true but not everything it is capable of. Thats not propaganda. If you remember Russias little foray into Georgia four of its aircraft were shot down by Russian missles and the aircraft had not been updated since the 1980's.
gerry301 2 months ago
@gerry301 Yep, I laugh:) The info about Gripen is like all other, propaganda mixed with some facts, in order to scare and sell.
And what is the loss of four aircraft of things to do?
In war you lose plane, no matter how good they are and how bad your opponents are, and that they have not been uppgarderade since the 80's does not mean a thing, the majority of US planes isent upgraded either.
Nor has it argued that Russias air force is as strong as it once was, claim that their air defenses are.
MrCastodian 2 months ago
@MrCastodian US aircraft are updated with the latest on a regular basis. F-15s, 16s, and 18s are being retrofited with the AESA radar as well as other modifications. So is the B-1, B-2, B-52, A-10, C-5, etc. I get a monthly magazine called "Air Force', its a trade publication that tells all about the Depots that do the upgrades , upgrades in progress as well as planned upgrades and those returned to service with the upgrades. Its not propaganda (deciept).
gerry301 2 months ago
@gerry301 Although the aircraft are updated they are old many of them, A-10, B-52, F-15 and F-16 is all old constructions, can not upgrade the basic structure of the aircraft, their running costs are astronomical and they fall together off age.
Just as with B-1 and B-2, cost astronomical sums to maintain.
The same applies in Russia, but they have scrapped large amounts, but they upgraded their remaining aircraft, an SU-27 thats was build 25 years ago is not what it was today.
MrCastodian 2 months ago
@MrCastodian Yes they are old and newer aircraft need to replace them. But I disagree that they are falling apart. The B-52 and KC135 (tanker) are two good examples. Engines are replaced with more powerful models, avionics, radar, communications, are all modernized, and yes even some basic structure is replaced if it cannot pass inspection. It is very expensive, but they too are not what they were when 1st purchased. We spend alot on our military to keep it relevent and modern.
gerry301 2 months ago
@gerry301 I know what you spend, and of course they do not fall a part, it is an expression only.
In fact, American.'s Plain is as old as the Russian, the share of modern planes are equal, may be that the Russians even have a few more% modern aircraft then the US has.
The strength of the U.S. Air Force is the amount of planes, an pilot training.
MrCastodian 2 months ago
@MrCastodian Disagree again, the strength of the US airforce today is in its avionics, ECM, radar, and missles. (its not just the platform, but what it carries), bombs and so many front line precision weapons. The F-22 and F-35 are not just 5th generation in name only but truely a generation above any other aircraft flying today or in the next 20 years. When I said the Russion fighters had not been updated since the 1980s it was unheard of in the US and a shock.
gerry301 2 months ago
@gerry301 The weakness of the F-22 is that they will cost time and money to maintain and that there are no more than 200 and the weakness of the F-35 is that you do not know how it is because there is not one in service.
The plan can not withstand weather and war-like conditions.
And if you should say that Russia does not update their plan, I will have a source.
MrCastodian 2 months ago
@MrCastodian I agree that the US should have purchased more F-22s, the current number is not enough. The F-35 is being field with 10-15? signed over to the Airforce for testing and training of pilots. They are still in continuing developement. I believe the 1st combat coded sqadron will be fielded in 2016. The weather is not so much an issue as it was for the B-2 and much improvement on repairing stealth coating has been made significantly reducing turnaround time.
gerry301 2 months ago
@MrCastodian The loss of four Russian aircraft to Russian missles tells most people that they could not defend against their own missles with any sort of effective Electronic Warfare System. Considering Russia would know the frequencies, range, capabilities, they went in with their best recon jets and were shot down by their own weapons. Not a good thing. No jamming, no EWO, etc.
gerry301 2 months ago
@gerry301 Hope you were not serious there ..
How many American planes have been shot down by its own air defense in the hands of the enemy in war or in war games?
Do you really think four downed plane in a small war is something strange?
12 AH-64 Apache and 27 fighter jets shot down in the Iraq war
3 against Serbia
moreover by much older air defense.
Does it mean that American planes are bad, what does this tell peopel?
And what do you know about Russian ECM during the Georgian campaign?
MrCastodian 2 months ago
@MrCastodian Only 1 incident I can think of during the 1st gulf war, by a patriot missle. However the F-18 and a British Tornado(I think) were returning to base and not using ECM for that reason. I would think the Russians would use their ECM when entering the battle area. The gulf war saw over 100,000 sorties flown. I only counted 23 USD fighters downed during the Iraq war;p That includes a C-130 two OV10 broncos and a number of A10s. Only two in Serbia, a F-117, and an F-16.
gerry301 2 months ago
@gerry301 I can give you a list of all the planes that has been shoot down if you want, and what weapons systems that were used?
Roland shot down 1 plane, Patriot 2, then it was SA-2, SA-6, etc., but it's dosent mather,In war plane is shoot down, dont mather how good they are, so please respond like a little more concrete to the question, is an aircraft bad because it is shot down?
You lost 3000 planes in Vietnamn, whas it bad planes, or bad pilots?
I
MrCastodian 2 months ago
@MrCastodian Yes, I saw the same list. Yes aircraft are shot down. I don't understand what you are looking for. The 1st precision bomb ever was used at the end of the Vietnam war. The Mig 21 at the begining of the war was better than our F-104. Times have changed dramatically since then. The major reason for the US was high technology. The Russians do not have the very high technology base that the US currently enjoys. Can or will F-22s or F35 be shot down? Of coarse. What ratio?
gerry301 2 months ago
@gerry301 They have basically the same technology in Russia, and no one knows how the F-22 or F-35 performs or will perform, one can only assume.
Is just 1 war where the U.S. faced modern Russian weapons systems, and they lost 3000 aircraft then.
U.S. has evolved since the Vietnam War, but it has the enemy to, they have no Mig-21 or SA-2 anymore.
The wars the U.S. is and has been in has not existed with Russian modern equipment.
MrCastodian 2 months ago
@MrCastodian I learned of the Russian ECM, drones, fighters aqnd bombers downed on the internet, and also by Russia today news channel as well as a speech given by Medyev, where he conceded there were some problems that needed to be fixed. You must remember in 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed and for over 10 years their military fell apart along with its military industrial base. It is only recently that they have begun to reinvest and rebuild.
gerry301 2 months ago
@gerry301 From what source hawe you learned, any specific sites?
MrCastodian 2 months ago
@MrCastodian I get 'Airforce' magazine (I'm retired Airforce. Military history and military weapons are my hobby. (no, Im not the brightest around, many people are much smarter than me) I read 'militaryphotosdot com' , 'Aviation weakly', RT (Russian Tv) on occasion, and am a particulair reader of the Vietnam war books as I spent a year there during that time. I didn't do anything but some of my friends were in the worst of it. I enjoy the subject and discussions.
gerry301 2 months ago
@gerry301 I enjoy 'Airpower Austrailia' for its information on the SU Aircraft as well as the latest SAM missles and its challenging arguments. I do not agree with much of the opinion, but enjoy the technical information and insite they give. Good reason to compare against my own thoughts and compare. As well as reason for further research on my own to prove or disprove what I have read. Some comes from my own experience and my brother in the military and knowing how they think.
gerry301 2 months ago
@gerry301 Tend to be so, Americans do not agree with independent analysis, despite the fact that they know more and have better sources.
Why would their analysis of the SU-27 to be wrong or a lie?
What do you know that they dont know about the SU-27, is better in every aspect than most American plan, except F-22 and F-15?
What do you know that they dont know about Russian air defense, when they say that Russian air defense is the best in the world, what do you have to argue against it.
MrCastodian 2 months ago
@MrCastodian Well, at the time I was in I knew we had all the IFF codes to the Russian as well as Irainian fighters. That was a top secret during the 70s 80s. It was revieled only after the Soviet Union broke up. Why would their analysis be misguided? Could be personal or political, I don't know. Members of the US congress say many things against both aircraft for political reasons citing different reports. Its nothing new.
gerry301 2 months ago
@gerry301 "Americans do not agree with independent analysis". LOL, I'm sorry, we have people who believe the government is hiding flying saucers. You can find anything you want to believe in the US. We are a very diverse group of people. Why would we know that the SU-27 is better or worse than an F-15 or F16? Perhaps because we bought two of them in 2009 for study.
gerry301 2 months ago
@MrCastodian When I was at the USNCO Academy I had to write a term paper on the Mig-25 and its capabilities. It was very interesting as a Russian pilot had defected to Japan with the Mig-25 and the aircraft had been thouroughly inspected by the US as to its capabilities etc. It was surprising as to how poorly it was made and how limited its capabilities were. (just a note)
gerry301 2 months ago
@gerry301 But what was the Mig-25 for a plan? how would the same term paper look today if you wrote about the SU-27 family, or SU-25?
Mig-25 was not built as an air-combat fighter that the U.S. belived before they got hold of a plane in Japan, but as a strategic fighter in order to Defend the Airspace against U.S. reconnaissance aircraft and Strategic Bombers
And in that task, it was a plan that was effective
It could fly very fast and on a very high altitude against unarmed planes in that time.
MrCastodian 2 months ago
@MrCastodian And it had a very powerful radar that could burn through most ECM at that time. It was an interceptor as you said and was very powerful and fast and could fly well in a straight line. The US aircraft it was meant to defend against was never built. But the Soviets made hundreds of them anyway. Not so sure my report would be much out of date today if they haven't modified or updated their aircraft since 1980s;p
gerry301 2 months ago
@gerry301 Yes, they built the nearly 1100 of them i think, in different versions. And the main goal for them was the XB-70 that only flew a few test rides, but the need was still there with that kind of interceptor when the B-58 was in active service, but even plane U-2, B-52 and B-47 belonged to the Mig-25 targets.
The last MiG-25 was taken out of service 91, your reports are only a part of history now:)
MrCastodian 2 months ago
@MrCastodian Would have been nice if we ever had 1100 B-52s.
gerry301 2 months ago
@gerry301 All due respect to your service or your brother's service, but that does not in any way do that you have insight or knowledge of how different weapons systems is working.
That you served in Vietnam, or have friends who have served there gives no automatic insight into how the SA-2 or MIG-21 work.
The same applies to Iraq or other conflicts, an American soldier who is on You Tube and claim that Russian tanks are useless because he shot out T-72 in Iraq speaks of pure ignorance.
MrCastodian 2 months ago
@MrCastodian You're correct my service gives me no particulair knowledge of or automatic insight of a weapons system. But yes , I do know how the system works and have some insight as to information being correct or BS. The media are the worst offenders of BS as are 'independent research papers". Usually after the fact or with few relevent facts to go on. My service in Vietnam only gave me a window of the war from where I was at. And it was a very small window.
gerry301 2 months ago
@MrCastodian There was also a major study done on the Russian tanks during the Chechnian war and much discussion on the military blogs about it. So Some of my opinions are based on that study and information. No, I do not rely on a soldier who told me a war story. (however some of the war stories I have heard are pretty good. Both frightening and funny).
gerry301 2 months ago
@gerry301 Regarding Chechnya, there is only one thing to say, bad behavior of the commander and underestimation of the rebels.
Roll in tanks in a city are like walking animal for slaughter, whether it's M1A2 or T-80.
Chechnya conflict does not indicate that there is a lack of quality of weapons, but a lack of leadership.
The Chechnian war started the reorganization of the Russian Armed Forces, from the higest comander to the conscript service.
MrCastodian 2 months ago
@MrCastodian And the last I read was the conscipts were no better than the ones prior to them(except they get paid more) as leadership still does not trust an NCO to make decisions. And the hazing and bullying continue. More like thugs than professional military.
gerry301 2 months ago
@gerry301 Can count up 100's case regarding the U.S. Army where the same thing is said and happends, but do not do it for it does not aplay to the entire U.S. Army, only in some case.
Changes are coming in Russia,it still a problem, but things has changed, but it is in the media's interest to inflate the problem, the same way that American media is blowing up similar things in the U.S. Army's, its happening on a regularly basis in US to.
MrCastodian 2 months ago
@MrCastodian Perhaps, but the overall quality of the US troops and their training is excellent. Their overall education level is higher than the norm in the US. It would be difficult at this time to find a better trained, led, or experienced military.
gerry301 2 months ago
@gerry301 Do not say that it is "excellent", the problem of soldiers who come from them lower classes as they largely do in the U.S. Army is that they do not have an haigh education level, that way they only become "good" soldiers, poorer logic, worse initiative, less critical thinking and thinking outside the box.
And the American army is very experience, and good Comanders, but it is not better trained than professional soldiers from other parts of the world.
MrCastodian 2 months ago
@MrCastodian Disagree. Many soldiers come from lower classes as well as middle and higher classes. Which is why I stated that their education level currently on average is higher than the average in the US. Training is tough with advancement only upon completion of advanced courses and recommendation. Advancement requires skill knowledge, military knowledge, profomance reports as well as time in service and decorations. Skill knowledge and military knowledge are the most important.
gerry301 2 months ago
@gerry301 The US military is trying to downsize while we have a poor economy. The competition to stay in is very high. Only the best get to stay in. I might add that the force is all voluntary.
gerry301 2 months ago
@MrCastodian It was a big issue with some Congressmen/women a few years back and they visited the Army posts to learn "the truth". It was a big deal for the senators etc, however when the returned from their quest to find the "truth". apparently it was missed by the media as they had nothing to say except for one female senator who said, " you have to understand where some of these people come from". Yes the media can make mountains out of mole hills.
gerry301 2 months ago
@gerry301 Yes, they find errors that are not there, blowing up small things, now I do not mean that there is not problems in Russia, for it is there, but there are clear changes for the better.
MrCastodian 2 months ago
@gerry301 The majority of modern Russian weapons systems, you or analyst nothing about, they are not tested in battle, only a few cases that can not give an idea how they work, you can only asume.
Its only in Korea and Vietnam you faced modern equiptment and then got a shock in U.S. in both wars.
What you bomb or planes shoot down in Iraq, Afghanistan or Serbia was equipment that was abandoned 25 years ago in Russia.
MrCastodian 2 months ago
@MrCastodian After the Israeli bombing of the nuclear facility in Syria a few years back there was a lot of discussion as to how they did it. The Russians had just shipped Syria several new Pansir anti aircraft systems with the latest radar and missle systems and had Russian technitions along with Syrians operating them, yet the Israelis completely nutralized these systems without firing a shot. Several ECM systems were suspected of doing the job. Interesting?
gerry301 2 months ago
@gerry301 If you google that case, you'll find articles from both the West and Russia on Pantisyr which all claim that they were not in active service when the attacks came.
according to army-technology they sent them the first of 50 Pantisyr system to Syria in June 2008 and Operation Orchard was conducted September 6, 2007.
MrCastodian 2 months ago
@MrCastodian I take that back, How about the TOR-1 missle system.
gerry301 2 months ago
@gerry301 And look up "suter". Its a ECM system you may want to read about. It ties in with what I said earlier about the US buying drones equiped with microwave technology. I suspect the technology used is much further advanced today.
gerry301 2 months ago
@gerry301 Do not know much about American microwave technology, but Russia has two active systems, one "Anti-Air" and one projektil to jam and "burn out" like an small EMP. and they are working with India on the completion of airborne microwave weapons.
MrCastodian 2 months ago
@MrCastodian Meanwhile the US is putting them in drones, using many years worth of experience, as well as upgrades. I don't know but I suspect they were used during the Osama Bin Laden raid. Appaently Pakistan said the did spot incoming aircraft and scrambled their alert force, but there were no intruders to be found. Perhaps because they appeared on radar 100s of miles away? Just a thought.
gerry301 2 months ago
@gerry301 Yes, they flew an RQ-170 Sentinel when Bin Laden got a bullet in the neck, the same type that disappeared over Iran.
And how it disappeared?
Independent sources believe that the most likely reason was that it was hacked by the Russian ELINT system Avtobaza sold to Iran three months before.
Just a thought...
MrCastodian 2 months ago
@MrCastodian I buy the US version that they lost control of the UAV. I don't like that answer, but I believe the US military before I believe the Russians or Iranians.
gerry301 2 months ago
@gerry301 The information comes from many independent sources, including from Western-oriented security analysts, the plane is completely intact, it has not received any damage from being crashed, to believe in the American version, without critically examine all the evidence logically is pretty weird, and very dangerous.
MrCastodian 2 months ago
@MrCastodian Perhaps. I'll wait until all the evidence is collected.
gerry301 2 months ago
@gerry301 I am aware that it flourishes some blogs with that information, but Tor-M1 did not exist in Syria when the assault occurred
The information comes from Aviation Week, which in turn got it from a Kuwatisk newspaper...
SA-2, SA-3, SA-5 and SA-6 SAM system was in Syria during the assault, none of them watched the alleged nuclear facility, shortly after the attack began talks started on the purchase of pantisyr, Tor-M1 and S-300.
MrCastodian 2 months ago
@MrCastodian We may have to agree to disagree on that.
gerry301 2 months ago
@gerry301 That we can do :)
MrCastodian 2 months ago
@MrCastodian Chechnya and the incursion into Georgia have been much analysed for how they were fought, how the equipment did etc. There was much criticism over russian tactics, failure to communicate and operate, as well as the weapons used. It is only a small look at Russias capabilities I know, but it cannot be overlooked.
gerry301 2 months ago
@gerry301 But it was not the equipment that fails in Chechnya, it has been, and are their education, their system! and it started as I said a reconstruction of the Russian armed forces sinse the first Chechnya war, the transformation of units, new educational reforms, halved staff, reduced bureaucracy, the Russian army is not today as fore 15 years ago, or five years ago, and will be diferent in10 years with the transformation they do on the organization
And Georgia we only hawe biased info from
MrCastodian 2 months ago
@MrCastodian Of coarse Russia with Putin will be like Rome with Ceaser, how could I be so stupid. Georgia information from RT, and Medvev, biased? How stupid of me.
gerry301 2 months ago
@gerry301
The problem is that you do not read non-partisan military analysis.
ausairpower, Janes, FAS, and all those non U.S. based sources, U.S. sources which in most cases are very biased o patriotic.
In many cases, they spread outright lies, for example about the Vietnam War, or about smart bomb or Russian ECM and Russian missile technology.
MrCastodian 2 months ago
@MrCastodian Yes, I read FAS (Globel security) , but they changed over the last year and you must now be a paying member, (except for a couple brief reviews. Same as Janes. I'm not a paying subscriber. (I'm cheap). I used to read Global security for a long time. They have great information. What lies about the Vietnam war? I think Ive heard them all, but most (created by the media or war protesters) have been investigated and refuted.
gerry301 2 months ago
@gerry301 Regarding Vietnam, you can take a thing like this.
Who won the war?
Since there are many hilarious claim about that war.
And yes, you have to pay now days, to bad, but they provide analysis, not just the facts, thatswhat I want to get to.
MrCastodian 2 months ago
@MrCastodian North Vietnam won the war. (I think thats what you want to hear me say). Any particulair operations or strategy you would care to discuss? The war was serious business and very bloody. The military did quite well in my estimation.
gerry301 2 months ago
@gerry301 Yes, that I wanted to hear:)
Unfortunately, so do 99% of all the idiots who write here that the U.S. won a crushing victory because of that they won the battles.
And there is not much to talk about, obviously you are very well aware of how the war happened, a terrible bloody war that the U.S. fought well through, but North Vietnam fought so much harder and more self-sacrificing.
An extremely costly war for the U.S. in terms of equipment, soldiers and political strength.
MrCastodian 2 months ago
@MrCastodian I find "peoples" armies around the world are so much more willing to sacrifice their troops for their cause. Korea, Vietnam. I don't think they fought harder. I believe the war was lost due to poor strategy and mismanagement by the Johnson administration and MacNamera. I believe the "tuesday luncheons" where they decided what targets to bomb were a prime example. The antiwar advocates fueled very much by draft resisters changed popular opinion.
gerry301 2 months ago
@gerry301 Yes, you're right, maybe not harder but more self-sacrificing, more willingness, higher morale.
There were many reasons why it happened as it happened, most of them political, but even neglect of military command, underestimation of the eanemy.
A great US faith in technology (as now), which turned out wrong in many different occasions, It was a need for good old-fashioned mechanics and individual act of soldiers rather than missiles o technical Inovations.
MrCastodian 2 months ago
@MrCastodian Military technology and precision weapons did not become an issue until the end of the vietnam war. The 1st gulf war was the 1st war fought with precision weapons to any degree and it was less than 10% of weapons used at that time. Since then the US has invested greatly in high tech weapons for other military uses. These new systems are being used, expanded upon, and upgraded significantly at a rapid rate during our wars in Iraq and Afganistan.
gerry301 2 months ago
@gerry301 And where did the technology turn out 'wrong'?
gerry301 2 months ago
@gerry301 It was trusted too much in the American superiority with their various weapons systems, ranging from helicopters to aircraft and small arms, that's what I meant.
MrCastodian 2 months ago
@gerry301 Did not literally mean Precision weapons, rather the military way of thinking with modern weapons, such a simple thing as the modern American aircraft did not have a gun, it cost many pilots their lives before the corrective.
M-16 entrance with its modern features that proved to be a costly to acquire in the middle of a war.
MrCastodian 2 months ago
@MrCastodian And I was talking about weapons developed after Vietnam. The air mobile concept is now used by most countries and worked very well in Vietnam. The lost alot of helocopters but carried off some very fast moving operations. To include medivac.
The M-16 fiaso started with a good weapon, but a decision to change to black powder in the ammunition caused the chamber to become rapidly fouled. Once that was understood the weapon became reliable again. (1966-67)
gerry301 2 months ago
@gerry301 .Air Mobile concep Worked well in Vietnam and Other Conflicts, The Russian ADOPTED the Same tactics in Afghanistan, with Perhaps Greater Success When the Mi-24 and SU-25 as support was somthing That the U.S. HAD note in the Same Way in Vietnamn.
In today's tactics, it is a war-winning Concept That Americans are very good at, Particularly Against a defense without good SAM cover.
MrCastodian 2 months ago
@MrCastodian Any success that the Russias had in Afganistan was the use of Spetznaz. Who hurt the Mujahadeen the most. Not so sure their Mi-24s or Su 25s were any more effective than the US in Vietnam. They did pull out with their tail between their legs.
gerry301 2 months ago
@gerry301 The tactic was to fly into Spetznaz and paratroopers with transport helicopters and give them support with MI-24 groups, and given the casualty figures, it was a well-functioning tactics.
333 helicopters were lost in Afghanistan as opposed to about 6000 in Vietnam.
Yes, They did pull out with Their tail between Their legs, just like the U.S. in Vietnam ...
MrCastodian 2 months ago
@gerry301 Was also the cleaning mechanism in M-16 which was a fiasco, and especially the belief that the soldiers did not have to learn to clean their weapons, M-16 was launched almost maintenance free and come without weapon care equipment or proper training in gun care. Magazines were also inadequate and often not fully charged to avoid fire breaks.
Was a lot of fragile plastic parts in the gun to.
MrCastodian 2 months ago
@MrCastodian Thats the first time I have ever heard that. In fact the opposite was true. While soldiers complained about the weapon jamming the higher ups kept saying it was because the weapons weren't cleaned. Soldiers were perhaps cleaning their weapons more than any previous war with poor results. Magazines were often believed to be part of the jamming problem so only 18 rounds were loaded instead of 20.
gerry301 2 months ago
@gerry301 I read this in an article in the NY Times where they compared the problems with M-16 and they problems encountered with the M-4.
There were some references to their sources.
MrCastodian 2 months ago
@MrCastodian I do not think you understand the American psycy when it comes to Vietnam. Most Americans realize the military fought with their hands tied. Political mismanagement and loss of public opinion called for withdrawel and an eventual cutoff of support for South Vietnam causing its downfall. The troops were treated like dirt at that time. The troops and those who supported them and many others over time feel cheated and betrayed in the war being lost. Therefore defensive.
gerry301 2 months ago
@gerry301 I know how you look at the war, and understand why too.
It was a war that was doomed in advance when it was a political war, there was no public support, just as the Soviet war in Afghanistan, could never be won during those conditions.
The current American war in Iraq, for example is suported by 99% of the American people when it started, and the entire free world, Vietnam War was supported by no one, not easy to be a soldier then
MrCastodian 2 months ago
@MrCastodian Disagree. The Vietnam war started as a quest to help the South Vietnam defend against communism. It was only doomed when it became mismanaged by Johnson and MacNamera. They played a game of politics with the war by using the military as a chess piece." If we do this I think they may change. Oops, they didn't. Lets try this and see if they understand what we are trying to do. No, by all means don't offend China or Russia.".
gerry301 2 months ago