Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: spetznaz
What has the T-95 done in battle? Or the Mig-29 or the SU-33 or SU-37?

Face it, the Russian stuff is unproven. It may look great on paper but the T-72/T-80 was supposed to be unbeatable in the 80's when the M-1 was produced and the Iraqis were battle-tested troops.

Russian planes make great acrobats but that doesn't win battles.

18 posted on 05/14/2002 4:44:58 AM PDT by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]


To: AppyPappy
You seem to question the efficacy of these weapons. Well, let me start with the T-95. This MBT has not yet been proven in battle, however in tests against other tanks (including live fire tests) it has been proven to be unstoppable....literally. This is because its reactive armor is better than the Abrams chobam, it also has radar on top of a laser range finder, its main gun fires shells, as well as missiles (that can be used against attack copters), it has a system designed to fire a slew of projectiles at incoming missiles, further negating the effectiveness of the apache, etc etc. Those are strong advantageous i have to say. And as for it not being tested in real combat you should also remmeber the vaunted M1a1 was also 'not tested in combat' until the Iraqi war, and it still worked perfectly there.

Now to the jets. If plasma stealth technology was a sham then why are the russians pouring cash into it in droves? And as for the su-33 and its derivatives being 'just airshow planes,' then why did they win against american F-15s in a play dogfight everytime? And why did some of the american pilots who got a chance to try out the flanker say it surpassed their own equipment?

As for the Mig-29 the main reasons we whooped them in Iraq is because our pilots had better training than the Iraqis, we had better information integration, plus we had destroyed their radar grids. Also we had more planes, and the F-15 is significantly better than the mig-29. Now take the same scenario and imagine well trained russian pilots flying su-37 super-flankers with plasma stealth suites and having the R-77 long range missile (which could only be matched by the F-14s phoenix, which is sadly being retired in favor of the f-18), and our brave valiant f-15 pilots will be in a bad situation. And while the F-22 would boost our assets we still have to cope with the new planes coming up (eg Mig MAPO and the Berkrut), as well as anti-radar targeting.

And comparing the T-95 with a T-72 is tantamount to comparing an F-15 with a WW2 Mustang fighter. They are both planes, but one is light years beyond the other.

And by the way let me ask a question. If the super-manoeuvrability of the sukhois is just a bunch of 'air show theatrics' then why did the US airforce incorporate thrust vector manouevring into the F-22 Raptor? Strange decision if such tech is good 'only for airshows?'

19 posted on 05/14/2002 8:24:13 AM PDT by spetznaz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: AppyPappy
I always say it is nice to be a patriot, actually any american who does not love this country is quite truly a strange creature since being born in the States is such a great blessing you have no idea. Trust me, i know.

However while being patriotic it is important at the same time to look at what the 'other guy' has, and if it is better admit it and take steps to make your stuff better that his.

I think it is a mistake to continue assuming that the only nations the US military will be facing are 3rd World banana republics or corrupt desert fiefdoms. This mode of thinking is risky because if the US has to do something big like defend Taiwan from Russia, oops, i meant China, but trust me there will be a LOT of Russia in that conflict even if it will be hidden. Just like in 'Nam when some of the 'Vietnamese' pilots turned out to have blue eyes blond hair and speak only russian. Must have been some long lost vietnamese tribe huh!

Just pretending our only enemy is armed with T-60s and T-72s is not knowing our enemy, and that is when hair-brained projects like the Crusader get put forward. Actually come think of it....the crusader is the one that looks great on paper but would be in reality a logistical disaster. And while we are saying the sukhois are just for show, and while congress is shoving the crusader to the US military (when the military doesn't want it because they would rather have satellite guided munitions), at that same time the Ruskies will be selling high tech stuff to the Balkans and China, as well as any nation that has money and a point to prove.

And then some years down the line more F-117s start getting shot down, and the public will then no longer believe the crap that was shoved to us during the Yugoslav incident when a F117 was brought down but the officials said it was probably a 'malfunction.' The only issue is that it had weapon damage from a missile???!!!!

20 posted on 05/14/2002 8:47:30 AM PDT by spetznaz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: AppyPappy
"Russian planes make great acrobats but that doesn't win battles."

True, but with the right training, even a bad designed plane with a highly skilled pilot can wreak havoc on an ill-prepared foe - and to survive for another day is the goal. Airman Osborne and Airman Wang proved that last year, as Airman Osborne's hours in the left seat dwarfed the hours Airman Wang spent off the ground....

21 posted on 05/14/2002 10:51:28 AM PDT by azhenfud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson