Fighters scrambled for ADIZ bust

[Witmo]

Technical superiority is proven every time to lose to overwhelming numbers of primitive technology. Even if you can manage 20:1 superiority, if they out number you 21:1, you lose to attrition. Our trillions of dollars in military investment are proving ineffective against a determined, "stone age" enemy.

The days of the Soviet Union fielding overwhelming numbers are over. Russia may be able to bully neighbors and win local conflicts but they don't have the pilots or the aircraft to challenge the US outside their borders.

 

[Witmo]

We'll unless real world numbers are significantly different than unclassified, the Foxhound has greater radar range and weapons range than a F-22. Whether or not the R-37 works as advertised is debatable.

Also, having drop tanks is only going to increase the RCS of the Raptors.

It's not a black and white comparison that you can analyze in a bubble. Real world systems don't always function as they do on paper.

F22s aren't going to wear drop tanks to the dance but unless the Mig is fighting over its own airfield, its going to have to. We've spent a lot of money on the F22 and the public doesn't know a fraction of what its real capability is. The Foxhound may be deadly going against a B-52 or maybe even a B-1 and they may be a handfull for a flight of F15s, but I'd really be surprised if any survived to get a shot off with F22s knocking down the door.

 

[nddons]

Because it would just make things worse, not better, that's what they understand and you don't. Our system is set up to harvest as much wealth as possible without bringing ourselves to complete destruction.

Negative. Our politicians only understand one thing: the need to get reelected at the next election. Everything else they know they get by reading Readers Digest while sitting on the crapper.

What I do understand is the last war that we won included the use of overwhelming, devastating firepower to hasten the end of the war. Now those two defeated countries are among our closest allies. Since then, we have only had the will to fight to a tie, and our place in the world has been diminished from a Super Power to a neighborhood bully.

I think it's time to get back to a world where we are feared, because despite being the most giving nation the planet has ever seen, we will never be respected again.

(And yes, I know this analogy is straight out of the movie "A Bronx Tale" but I think it is appropriate here.)

 

[deftone]

As someone who spends half of the year in the former soviet union...i wouldnt be alll that surprised to see them try and position themselves as a world leader by use of force in the next few years. Here in Kazakhstan the media is full of pro-russia news everyday.

Luckily i fly home to houston tomorrow for a month of r&r

 

[Velocity173]

Technical superiority is proven every time to lose to overwhelming numbers of primitive technology. Even if you can manage 20:1 superiority, if they out number you 21:1, you lose to attrition. Our trillions of dollars in military investment are proving ineffective against a determined, "stone age" enemy.

You keep saying that but the stats show our technical superiority was far more effective than their Stone Age tactics in the last two wars. Nothing you can do (absent nuclear war) when you have a never ending supply of volunteers willing to take up arms against us.

 

[Henning]

The days of the Soviet Union fielding overwhelming numbers are over. Russia may be able to bully neighbors and win local conflicts but they don't have the pilots or the aircraft to challenge the US outside their borders.

The Chinese beat the Soviets with pitch forks and shovels.

 

[Henning]

You keep saying that but the stats show our technical superiority was far more effective than their Stone Age tactics in the last two wars. Nothing you can do (absent nuclear war) when you have a never ending supply of volunteers willing to take up arms against us.

Like I said, we will lose to attrition regardless our technical superiority. No matter how much cool stuff you have, you will lose against the larger enemy. We did not win in the last two wars, we haven't been on the winning side since WWII and we made the strongest ally in that conflict our enemy directly after because they had an economic system that competed with ours. Rather than allow a true free market, we spent trillions assuring that there would be no choice available for people to see just how hard their system was screwing them.

 

[Velocity173]

Like I said, we will lose to attrition regardless our technical superiority. No matter how much cool stuff you have, you will lose against the larger enemy. We did not win in the last two wars, we haven't been on the winning side since WWII and we made the strongest ally in that conflict our enemy directly after because they had an economic system that competed with ours. Rather than allow a true free market, we spent trillions assuring that there would be no choice available for people to see just how hard their system was screwing them.

Yeah but that's not a military problem. It's a cultural issue in those areas. Who's going to surrender in Afghanistan or Iraq? No one. Just like when the Soviets went there. They weren't fighting a military force. They were fighting an entire country. Doesn't mean their hardware wasn't effective.

My aviation brigade killed over 2,500 enemy KIA during our year in Afghanistan without a single loss of our own. I'd say we adapted technology originally designed for a linear battlefield quite well.

 

[overdrive148]

Like I said, we will lose to attrition regardless our technical superiority. No matter how much cool stuff you have, you will lose against the larger enemy.

I don't know, what about training? If you have a large completely incompetent force versus a smaller but well trained one, I don't think that idea holds up well. And the technology is a force multiplier...if you wanted to, a huge army in once place could be obliterated with nuclear weapons


If all the "stone age" force has is superior manpower but no technology and inferior training, I dont' see how they could overpower the smaller force.

 

[Witmo]

The Chinese beat the Soviets with pitch forks and shovels.

When was this?

 

[Henning]

Yeah but that's not a military problem. It's a cultural issue in those areas. Who's going to surrender in Afghanistan or Iraq? No one. Just like when the Soviets went there. They weren't fighting a military force. They were fighting an entire country. Doesn't mean their hardware wasn't effective.

My aviation brigade killed over 2,500 enemy KIA during our year in Afghanistan without a single loss of our own. I'd say we adapted technology originally designed for a linear battlefield quite well.

The culture directs the military. Vietnam proved that body count of the enemy is meaningless when they have more.

 

[Velocity173]

The culture directs the military. Vietnam proved that body count of the enemy is meaningless when they have more.

You're comparison is still about technology vs "Stone Age" and Vietnam is another poor example. Our guys killed an estimated 1.1 million compared to over 58,000 of our own. Our technology and hard work had won the war. The Noth Vietnamese violated the 1973 peace accords after we had withdrawn all our forces. Nothing you can do about that. Also, if it wasn't for the fact we had strict no fly zones limiting our bombing, we would have gotten a surrender long before the 1973 peace accords.

 

[EvilEagle]

MiG31's aren't competition for us (F15's) or the Raptor. They are getting better with recent developments but they aren't used as fighters, they are HVAA killers. Flanker series (and eventually the T-50) are theoretical parity fighter threat.

And yes what Henning said about this being a normal event is true. However in the last few years it has really ramped up. Could mean nothing or something.

 

[Henning]

You're comparison is still about technology vs "Stone Age" and Vietnam is another poor example. Our guys killed an estimated 1.1 million compared to over 58,000 of our own. Our technology and hard work had won the war. The Noth Vietnamese violated the 1973 peace accords after we had withdrawn all our forces. Nothing you can do about that. Also, if it wasn't for the fact we had strict no fly zones limiting our bombing, we would have gotten a surrender long before the 1973 peace accords.

We hadn't 'won', get it yet? Winning is when people agree and cooperate with you. You cannot 'win' by a show of force anymore, all you do is make them change their tactics. We spent our entire economy for several decades building weapons which are unusable rather than creating a condition where they are unnecessary, all due to a lack of faith which radical Islam is using to our disadvantage.

 

[Velocity173]

We hadn't 'won', get it yet? Winning is when people agree and cooperate with you. You cannot 'win' by a show of force anymore, all you do is make them change their tactics. We spent our entire economy for several decades building weapons which are unusable rather than creating a condition where they are unnecessary, all due to a lack of faith which radical Islam is using to our disadvantage.

We had "won." A peace agreement was signed. Although that has nothing to do with your original argument that technology can't match "stone age" tactics. You can try and spin this into something higher about a country reneging on a peace agreement but that has nothing to do with your original argument. If we had the Taliban or Al Queda sign a peace agreement it wouldn't be worth the paper it was signed on. It would be like when Arafat agreed to cease hostilities on behalf of the PLO. Worthless.

Furthermore, we used guerrilla warfare in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Still didn't work because like I said, those regions are unwinable because of their culture. Has nothing to do with a low tech vs high tech approach. That doesn't mean you don't fight those wars either. No one knows how an indigenous people will react to an invasion. Anyone who thinks they know, has been smoking something.

 

[nauga]

And yes what Henning said about this being a normal event is true. However in the last few years it has really ramped up.

Luckily we can put up our best and most modern fighters to deal with this obviously hostile threat.

Nauga,
who knows the music is cheaper on iTunes but not nearly as interesting

 

[overdrive148]

Luckily we can put up our best and most modern fighters to deal with this obviously hostile threat.

Nauga,
who knows the music is cheaper on iTunes but not nearly as interesting

Getting intercepted by an Orion has to be painful to watch
//edit
Actually, they're about the same performance aren't they? Color me surprised

 

[nauga]

Getting intercepted by an Orion has to be painful to watch

Depends on what your mission is.

Nauga,
and his pirate radio

 

[zaitcev]

Actually, they're about the same performance aren't they? Color me surprised

Tu-95MS is noticeably faster than P-3: 510 knots versus 411. It moves pretty much like a jet, surprisingly. It is at parity with a 747 and faster than 737. However, they aren't in a hurry when on an endurance excercise.

 

[zaitcev]

MiG31's aren't competition for us (F15's) or the Raptor. They are getting better with recent developments but they aren't used as fighters, they are HVAA killers. Flanker series (and eventually the T-50) are theoretical parity fighter threat.

The T-50 is not in frontline service yet. And in any case it's being positioned as a multirole aircraft. There's a field kit for external pylons and can haul LGBs and cruise missiles (of course its stealth is violated in such case). It's more like F-15E, it seems to me.

An R&D program was opened recently to replace MiG-31. They want to up the speed above Mach 3 and put much faster hypersonic missiles on it. Personally I'm sceptical, but hey... It's their money. If they manage to shoot a missile while cruising 2.5 Mach, it's going to be something to see.

 

[Henning]

We had "won." A peace agreement was signed. Although that has nothing to do with your original argument that technology can't match "stone age" tactics. You can try and spin this into something higher about a country reneging on a peace agreement but that has nothing to do with your original argument. If we had the Taliban or Al Queda sign a peace agreement it wouldn't be worth the paper it was signed on. It would be like when Arafat agreed to cease hostilities on behalf of the PLO. Worthless.

Furthermore, we used guerrilla warfare in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Still didn't work because like I said, those regions are unwinable because of their culture. Has nothing to do with a low tech vs high tech approach. That doesn't mean you don't fight those wars either. No one knows how an indigenous people will react to an invasion. Anyone who thinks they know, has been smoking something.

That's not a win, it's a loss. The Vietnamese changed the terms of the fight from weapons to words and won. "All is fair in love and war." The final result is the only determinant, and they won. Problem we have is we are a 'one trick pony' if we can't can't buy it off, we can't win anymore, because everyone we combat is more determined than we are, so going over and bombing and killing them only makes our problem worse.

 

[cowman]

"Ivan."

-static-

"Ivan."

-static-

"IVAN!!"

"WHAT?"

"Danger zone!"

 

[EvilEagle]

The T-50 is not in frontline service yet. And in any case it's being positioned as a multirole aircraft. There's a field kit for external pylons and can haul LGBs and cruise missiles (of course its stealth is violated in such case). It's more like F-15E, it seems to me.

An R&D program was opened recently to replace MiG-31. They want to up the speed above Mach 3 and put much faster hypersonic missiles on it. Personally I'm sceptical, but hey... It's their money. If they manage to shoot a missile while cruising 2.5 Mach, it's going to be something to see.

Thus the "eventually". Sure the T-50 has options - just like the F/A-22, right?

The Foxhound is a good jet, it's just not a threat to fighters.

They've been shooting missiles above mach 2 for a while now. (so have we)