Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

The fact the AF is procuring more F-15s is pretty negative for the F-35. I saw a F-35 at an airshow last year. The plane can fly. I have concerns that is too fragile for CAS compared to the A-10.

This is symptomatic of the kind of one-dimensional thinking that Alfred pointed out earlier in the thread with his "orchestra" comparison.

You're not using the F-35 for CAS, you're using the F-35 to co-ordinate the drones that provide the CAS. See the XQ-58 for an example.

Well thank you for calling me one dimensional. And not addressing the additional F-15 procurement. You think that came out of nowhere? If you want to control more drones get a dedicated bird, not a one pilot fighter.

As pointed out previously, having specialised aircraft may not by default be a cheaper solution as now you've a larger air force and the costs that come with it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

I think the low readiness states reported above might be exagerated.. perhaps even a ruse for potentiell enemies...

Just per coincidence I found this article on a German aviation site, reporting problems with F-35 "OBIGGS (On Board Inert Gas Generation System)":

https://aerobuzz.de/militar/f-35-lightning-ii-muessen-sich-von-gewittern-fernhalten/

But I also have read F-35 was good in A2A combat in "red flags exercises" I guess vs. F15/16(?)
That it´s weapons are inside gives F-35 of course an advantage compared to planes having all payload on pylons.. these add of course weight and drag. Also eg. the outboard fuel tanks need to be jettisoned in A2A. Or potentially bombs/ground attack missiles too. F-35 has an advantage carrying everything inside.
Downside is low payload, for my taste TOO low. Also would weapons bay opening perhaps screw with stealth?

Depends how you define A2A. Dogfighting? Nope, it is "meat on the table" for even Gen II Russian planes.

When was the last time air-to-air combat occurred where dogfighting actively occurred?

The characteristics key in dogfighting, while still desirable in an airframe, have much less importance now than previously.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

The fact the AF is procuring more F-15s is pretty negative for the F-35. I saw a F-35 at an airshow last year. The plane can fly. I have concerns that is too fragile for CAS compared to the A-10.

This is symptomatic of the kind of one-dimensional thinking that Alfred pointed out earlier in the thread with his "orchestra" comparison.

You're not using the F-35 for CAS, you're using the F-35 to co-ordinate the drones that provide the CAS. See the XQ-58 for an example.

You don't need a $100,000,000.00 plane to guide drones to target. A larger drone can do that-but there is no profit in that, is there.

Perhaps so, but if you've got all your drone pilots in the same place (let's say a control room on a CV) then a single missile hit and they might be out of action.

If you've got ten F-35's up, there's ten F-35s, each with a semi-autonomous mini-air wing of drones.

That's the kind of war the F-35 is aimed at fighting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

The fact the AF is procuring more F-15s is pretty negative for the F-35. I saw a F-35 at an airshow last year. The plane can fly. I have concerns that is too fragile for CAS compared to the A-10.

This is symptomatic of the kind of one-dimensional thinking that Alfred pointed out earlier in the thread with his "orchestra" comparison.

You're not using the F-35 for CAS, you're using the F-35 to co-ordinate the drones that provide the CAS. See the XQ-58 for an example.

Well thank you for calling me one dimensional. And not addressing the additional F-15 procurement. You think that came out of nowhere? If you want to control more drones get a dedicated bird, not a one pilot fighter.

As pointed out previously, having specialised aircraft may not by default be a cheaper solution as now you've a larger air force and the costs that come with it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

I think the low readiness states reported above might be exagerated.. perhaps even a ruse for potentiell enemies...

Just per coincidence I found this article on a German aviation site, reporting problems with F-35 "OBIGGS (On Board Inert Gas Generation System)":

https://aerobuzz.de/militar/f-35-lightning-ii-muessen-sich-von-gewittern-fernhalten/

But I also have read F-35 was good in A2A combat in "red flags exercises" I guess vs. F15/16(?)
That it´s weapons are inside gives F-35 of course an advantage compared to planes having all payload on pylons.. these add of course weight and drag. Also eg. the outboard fuel tanks need to be jettisoned in A2A. Or potentially bombs/ground attack missiles too. F-35 has an advantage carrying everything inside.
Downside is low payload, for my taste TOO low. Also would weapons bay opening perhaps screw with stealth?

Depends how you define A2A. Dogfighting? Nope, it is "meat on the table" for even Gen II Russian planes.

When was the last time air-to-air combat occurred where dogfighting actively occurred?

The characteristics key in dogfighting, while still desirable in an airframe, have much less importance now than previously.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

The fact the AF is procuring more F-15s is pretty negative for the F-35. I saw a F-35 at an airshow last year. The plane can fly. I have concerns that is too fragile for CAS compared to the A-10.

This is symptomatic of the kind of one-dimensional thinking that Alfred pointed out earlier in the thread with his "orchestra" comparison.

You're not using the F-35 for CAS, you're using the F-35 to co-ordinate the drones that provide the CAS. See the XQ-58 for an example.

You don't need a $100,000,000.00 plane to guide drones to target. A larger drone can do that-but there is no profit in that, is there.

Perhaps so, but if you've got all your drone pilots in the same place (let's say a control room on a CV) then a single missile hit and they might be out of action.

If you've got ten F-35's up, there's ten F-35s, each with a semi-autonomous mini-air wing of drones.

That's the kind of war the F-35 is aimed at fighting.

Ah yes, the US learned the hard way in Vietnam that going all missile and no cannons didn't work out too well. Just like all computer and not enough humans will likely not work out in the future. As for the bigger airforce argument, procure a few less F-35s and get some next gen AWACS. Air Force brass has ALWAYS been drawn to fighters. If keeping things cost effective is important then why are the 100 odd F-22s still in operation? There's almost no way that makes fiscal sense.

And the single pilot is going to fly the plane and manage the drones.....ok.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

The fact the AF is procuring more F-15s is pretty negative for the F-35. I saw a F-35 at an airshow last year. The plane can fly. I have concerns that is too fragile for CAS compared to the A-10.

This is symptomatic of the kind of one-dimensional thinking that Alfred pointed out earlier in the thread with his "orchestra" comparison.

You're not using the F-35 for CAS, you're using the F-35 to co-ordinate the drones that provide the CAS. See the XQ-58 for an example.

Well thank you for calling me one dimensional. And not addressing the additional F-15 procurement. You think that came out of nowhere? If you want to control more drones get a dedicated bird, not a one pilot fighter.

As pointed out previously, having specialised aircraft may not by default be a cheaper solution as now you've a larger air force and the costs that come with it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

I think the low readiness states reported above might be exagerated.. perhaps even a ruse for potentiell enemies...

Just per coincidence I found this article on a German aviation site, reporting problems with F-35 "OBIGGS (On Board Inert Gas Generation System)":

https://aerobuzz.de/militar/f-35-lightning-ii-muessen-sich-von-gewittern-fernhalten/

But I also have read F-35 was good in A2A combat in "red flags exercises" I guess vs. F15/16(?)
That it´s weapons are inside gives F-35 of course an advantage compared to planes having all payload on pylons.. these add of course weight and drag. Also eg. the outboard fuel tanks need to be jettisoned in A2A. Or potentially bombs/ground attack missiles too. F-35 has an advantage carrying everything inside.
Downside is low payload, for my taste TOO low. Also would weapons bay opening perhaps screw with stealth?

Depends how you define A2A. Dogfighting? Nope, it is "meat on the table" for even Gen II Russian planes.

When was the last time air-to-air combat occurred where dogfighting actively occurred?

The characteristics key in dogfighting, while still desirable in an airframe, have much less importance now than previously.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

The fact the AF is procuring more F-15s is pretty negative for the F-35. I saw a F-35 at an airshow last year. The plane can fly. I have concerns that is too fragile for CAS compared to the A-10.

This is symptomatic of the kind of one-dimensional thinking that Alfred pointed out earlier in the thread with his "orchestra" comparison.

You're not using the F-35 for CAS, you're using the F-35 to co-ordinate the drones that provide the CAS. See the XQ-58 for an example.

You don't need a $100,000,000.00 plane to guide drones to target. A larger drone can do that-but there is no profit in that, is there.

Perhaps so, but if you've got all your drone pilots in the same place (let's say a control room on a CV) then a single missile hit and they might be out of action.

If you've got ten F-35's up, there's ten F-35s, each with a semi-autonomous mini-air wing of drones.

That's the kind of war the F-35 is aimed at fighting.

Ah yes, the US learned the hard way in Vietnam that going all missile and no cannons didn't work out too well. Just like all computer and not enough humans will likely not work out in the future. As for the bigger airforce argument, procure a few less F-35s and get some next gen AWACS. Air Force brass has ALWAYS been drawn to fighters. If keeping things cost effective is important then why are the 100 odd F-22s still in operation? There's almost no way that makes fiscal sense.

And the single pilot is going to fly the plane and manage the drones.....ok.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

Some people are funny, bringing up Awacs and saying "you don´t need cannons anymore"

Awacs can detect even smaller targets at huge ranges and serve as a command post in the air, it directs air assets to counter threats.

quote:

The Vietnam thing was already brought up, here another example, the Royal Navy had almost no "close in defense" anymore in the Falklands war era. They relied on missiles, however the Argentine airforce proved to be a brave foe and came close enough to severall ships to drop oldstyle ironbombs on them. Plus managed some Exocet hits - as most of you know they lost some ships there. As first meassure (until more expensive and capable CIWS systems could be installedd) they used oldschool 20mm cannons and perhaps also a bunch of HMGs. Which clearly is better than nothing, pumping lead in the air instead sitting duck.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-in_weapon_system

Also what are you gonna do, if all missiles in your plane are expended? You need to rtb, but if their are still enemies airborne closing in? Then you need to run or fight the oldschool way. Luckily the F-35 has a gun, as it is not fast enough to run from most fighters, all Russian types plus Eurofighter/Rafale are faster. Also what if you encounter some lumbering transports, helis etc. You spend missiles for such targets instead using a gun? You shot down 2 helis with your missiles now most of them gone than enemy fighters appear still having full load of missiles..

But seriously this is a WW2 forum, so I am not blaming people having not much clue about "modern" combat, instead repeating phrases put out like "guns are obsolete" or "only aircraft with stealth are the future". Tbh honest I have not myself at least after 2000 or so. Therefore I know cold war weapons quite well and guess most lessons still apply

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

I've said it before but will repeat again. You cannot fully rely on computers to get the job done. Software is written for specific use cases. When the software does not understand the use case it fails. And treating a f-35 as a mission control bird, is frankly stupid.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

Interview with Tony "Pax" Paxton on the Tornado GR1 & F2/F3:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPCa1wsnjBM

This guy also flew Lightnings, which had no guns for a while, which was then corrected. This channel is very interesting he interviews with pilots (or ex) of MANY coldwar + still actual planes.

Here a 2 comments under the vid:
"'ve never ever understood this concept in the 60s that dog fighting was over so remove the guns.

Even if they were right and you are only to intercept bombers 20mm cannons would still work on bombers after you fired your missiles. It then gives the fighter the ability to bring down one or two more bombers far cheaper than missiles!

I've never understood why they believed cannons wouldn't have any effect on bombers and not just for fighters.

And they were wrong about dog fighting."

"Also : You can't dodge or jam a 20/30mm shell."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

I copy these cause they mirror my opinion, so I safe also time writing it out myself :)
You disagree fine, but the issue is not relevant for the topic anyway: The F-35 has a cannon

Btw, I wonder where is your gospel coming from when every major airforce disagrees with you (they have guns in almost all of their fighters)

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

MM - like I said before, I know a little bit about software. There really is no such thing as AI YET. There are scripted bits of of code (much like AE). But no computer on the planet can actually 'think'. The IBM chess monster was designed to play chess. Do you really think software can sort out everything going on in air combat situation?

If so, I can suggest some stock purchases. But I am not registered, so your mileage may vary.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

If you think AI is ready to go then my understanding of software might be a bit better than yours.

quote:

And it is scripted. Machines don't learn yet. They recognize patterns - not the same thing as learning. And Tesla tech has resulted in more than one death. And I will put up my understanding of software against yours any day or time.

quote:

And in general you may want to learn to be less condescending. It might help you in life overall.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

And btw. I think the F-35 is better than some make it to be...when the main faults are ironed out, the software bugs corrected etc. in perhaps 2-3 years it should be very capable. Just not for all the roles it is meant to be...

For many roles right now I prefer these:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijs6csP5UbY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woCSL6yLy4k

Btw, I find such videos quite relaxing :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Two can play this stupikd game.

1. No Russian or Chinese fighter comes anywhere near close to matching the speed of the slowest ICBM (about 18 Mach). All are to slow to can't catch up to and get into position to destroy an incoming ICBM. Ergo all Russian and Chinese fighters are useless.

2. No Russian or Chinese fighter can match the maneuverability of a Fokker Triplane, or even the less maneuverable Sopwith Camel or the more advanced CR.42. Ergo in a dogfight all Russian and Chinese fighters are useless.

3. No Russian or Chinese fighter has a payload close to matching that of a B-52. Not even that of the much more limited B-29. Ergo, all Russian and Chinese fighters are useless and a waste of money and resources.


Some Americans should thank their lucky stars they don't live and express their amateur military opinions in a country governed by a Stalin clone. The original got fed up with Polikarpov who was reluctant to embrace modern aeronautical developmnents and ultimately paid the price of being sent to the gulag.

Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Two can play this stupikd game.

1. No Russian or Chinese fighter comes anywhere near close to matching the speed of the slowest ICBM (about 18 Mach). All are to slow to can't catch up to and get into position to destroy an incoming ICBM. Ergo all Russian and Chinese fighters are useless.

2. No Russian or Chinese fighter can match the maneuverability of a Fokker Triplane, or even the less maneuverable Sopwith Camel or the more advanced CR.42. Ergo in a dogfight all Russian and Chinese fighters are useless.

3. No Russian or Chinese fighter has a payload close to matching that of a B-52. Not even that of the much more limited B-29. Ergo, all Russian and Chinese fighters are useless and a waste of money and resources.


Some Americans should thank their lucky stars they don't live and express their amateur military opinions in a country governed by a Stalin clone. The original got fed up with Polikarpov who was reluctant to embrace modern aeronautical developmnents and ultimately paid the price of being sent to the gulag.

Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Two can play this stupikd game.

1. No Russian or Chinese fighter comes anywhere near close to matching the speed of the slowest ICBM (about 18 Mach). All are to slow to can't catch up to and get into position to destroy an incoming ICBM. Ergo all Russian and Chinese fighters are useless.

2. No Russian or Chinese fighter can match the maneuverability of a Fokker Triplane, or even the less maneuverable Sopwith Camel or the more advanced CR.42. Ergo in a dogfight all Russian and Chinese fighters are useless.

3. No Russian or Chinese fighter has a payload close to matching that of a B-52. Not even that of the much more limited B-29. Ergo, all Russian and Chinese fighters are useless and a waste of money and resources.


Some Americans should thank their lucky stars they don't live and express their amateur military opinions in a country governed by a Stalin clone. The original got fed up with Polikarpov who was reluctant to embrace modern aeronautical developmnents and ultimately paid the price of being sent to the gulag.

Alfred

And hundreds of thousands Americans should curse the day they were born having died for the Monarchy, Comrade Stalin and Mao.

Your thinking is so archaic is it sad, but I bet even you, with your myopic thinking (more like emotions) would trade all those American lives back for on drop of Europeon blood.

Tell me at least that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Two can play this stupikd game.

1. No Russian or Chinese fighter comes anywhere near close to matching the speed of the slowest ICBM (about 18 Mach). All are to slow to can't catch up to and get into position to destroy an incoming ICBM. Ergo all Russian and Chinese fighters are useless.

2. No Russian or Chinese fighter can match the maneuverability of a Fokker Triplane, or even the less maneuverable Sopwith Camel or the more advanced CR.42. Ergo in a dogfight all Russian and Chinese fighters are useless.

3. No Russian or Chinese fighter has a payload close to matching that of a B-52. Not even that of the much more limited B-29. Ergo, all Russian and Chinese fighters are useless and a waste of money and resources.


Some Americans should thank their lucky stars they don't live and express their amateur military opinions in a country governed by a Stalin clone. The original got fed up with Polikarpov who was reluctant to embrace modern aeronautical developmnents and ultimately paid the price of being sent to the gulag.

Alfred

And hundreds of thousands Americans should curse the day they were born having died for the Monarchy, Comrade Stalin and Mao.

Your thinking is so archaic is it sad, but I bet even you, with your myopic thinking (more like emotions) would trade all those American lives back for on drop of Europeon blood.

Tell me at least that.

I understand, you prefer Adolf Hitler.

quote:


RangerJoe
Matrix Legion of Merit




Posts: 7763
Joined: 11/16/2015
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Two can play this stupikd game.

1. No Russian or Chinese fighter comes anywhere near close to matching the speed of the slowest ICBM (about 18 Mach). All are to slow to can't catch up to and get into position to destroy an incoming ICBM. Ergo all Russian and Chinese fighters are useless.

2. No Russian or Chinese fighter can match the maneuverability of a Fokker Triplane, or even the less maneuverable Sopwith Camel or the more advanced CR.42. Ergo in a dogfight all Russian and Chinese fighters are useless.

3. No Russian or Chinese fighter has a payload close to matching that of a B-52. Not even that of the much more limited B-29. Ergo, all Russian and Chinese fighters are useless and a waste of money and resources.


Some Americans should thank their lucky stars they don't live and express their amateur military opinions in a country governed by a Stalin clone. The original got fed up with Polikarpov who was reluctant to embrace modern aeronautical developmnents and ultimately paid the price of being sent to the gulag.

Alfred

And hundreds of thousands Americans should curse the day they were born having died for the Monarchy, Comrade Stalin and Mao.

Your thinking is so archaic is it sad, but I bet even you, with your myopic thinking (more like emotions) would trade all those American lives back for on drop of Europeon blood.

Tell me at least that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Two can play this stupikd game.

1. No Russian or Chinese fighter comes anywhere near close to matching the speed of the slowest ICBM (about 18 Mach). All are to slow to can't catch up to and get into position to destroy an incoming ICBM. Ergo all Russian and Chinese fighters are useless.

2. No Russian or Chinese fighter can match the maneuverability of a Fokker Triplane, or even the less maneuverable Sopwith Camel or the more advanced CR.42. Ergo in a dogfight all Russian and Chinese fighters are useless.

3. No Russian or Chinese fighter has a payload close to matching that of a B-52. Not even that of the much more limited B-29. Ergo, all Russian and Chinese fighters are useless and a waste of money and resources.


Some Americans should thank their lucky stars they don't live and express their amateur military opinions in a country governed by a Stalin clone. The original got fed up with Polikarpov who was reluctant to embrace modern aeronautical developmnents and ultimately paid the price of being sent to the gulag.

Alfred

And hundreds of thousands Americans should curse the day they were born having died for the Monarchy, Comrade Stalin and Mao.

Your thinking is so archaic is it sad, but I bet even you, with your myopic thinking (more like emotions) would trade all those American lives back for on drop of Europeon blood.

Tell me at least that.

Not for the first time, more non sequiturs from Rusty1961.

Over the years I've met in person some very bright, well educated Americans. Americans who were well informed on international issues, even issues which did not revolve around America. Yankees or Southerners, mid-West or Pacific coast, Republican or Democrat, the best of them had sharp intellects and could, in conducting a debate, construct a logical argument based on facts. Americans who understood that when debating, some issues are black and white but for most issues, it is the degree of grey which is brought into focus by debate. These are Americans who understand the operation of nuance. They, much like Copernicus who argued that the Earth revolved around the Sun rather than the heavens revolved around the Earth, understand that in a multipolar world all roads do not lead to Washington DC. To be well informed, one simply must attempt to understand other positions.

You are not one of those Americans.

Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Two can play this stupikd game.

1. No Russian or Chinese fighter comes anywhere near close to matching the speed of the slowest ICBM (about 18 Mach). All are to slow to can't catch up to and get into position to destroy an incoming ICBM. Ergo all Russian and Chinese fighters are useless.

2. No Russian or Chinese fighter can match the maneuverability of a Fokker Triplane, or even the less maneuverable Sopwith Camel or the more advanced CR.42. Ergo in a dogfight all Russian and Chinese fighters are useless.

3. No Russian or Chinese fighter has a payload close to matching that of a B-52. Not even that of the much more limited B-29. Ergo, all Russian and Chinese fighters are useless and a waste of money and resources.


Some Americans should thank their lucky stars they don't live and express their amateur military opinions in a country governed by a Stalin clone. The original got fed up with Polikarpov who was reluctant to embrace modern aeronautical developmnents and ultimately paid the price of being sent to the gulag.

Alfred

And hundreds of thousands Americans should curse the day they were born having died for the Monarchy, Comrade Stalin and Mao.

Your thinking is so archaic is it sad, but I bet even you, with your myopic thinking (more like emotions) would trade all those American lives back for on drop of Europeon blood.

Tell me at least that.

I understand, you prefer Adolf Hitler.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Two can play this stupikd game.

1. No Russian or Chinese fighter comes anywhere near close to matching the speed of the slowest ICBM (about 18 Mach). All are to slow to can't catch up to and get into position to destroy an incoming ICBM. Ergo all Russian and Chinese fighters are useless.

2. No Russian or Chinese fighter can match the maneuverability of a Fokker Triplane, or even the less maneuverable Sopwith Camel or the more advanced CR.42. Ergo in a dogfight all Russian and Chinese fighters are useless.

3. No Russian or Chinese fighter has a payload close to matching that of a B-52. Not even that of the much more limited B-29. Ergo, all Russian and Chinese fighters are useless and a waste of money and resources.


Some Americans should thank their lucky stars they don't live and express their amateur military opinions in a country governed by a Stalin clone. The original got fed up with Polikarpov who was reluctant to embrace modern aeronautical developmnents and ultimately paid the price of being sent to the gulag.

Alfred

And hundreds of thousands Americans should curse the day they were born having died for the Monarchy, Comrade Stalin and Mao.

Your thinking is so archaic is it sad, but I bet even you, with your myopic thinking (more like emotions) would trade all those American lives back for on drop of Europeon blood.

Tell me at least that.

Not for the first time, more non sequiturs from Rusty1961.

Over the years I've met in person some very bright, well educated Americans. Americans who were well informed on international issues, even issues which did not revolve around America. Yankees or Southerners, mid-West or Pacific coast, Republican or Democrat, the best of them had sharp intellects and could, in conducting a debate, construct a logical argument based on facts. Americans who understood that when debating, some issues are black and white but for most issues, it is the degree of grey which is brought into focus by debate. These are Americans who understand the operation of nuance. They, much like Copernicus who argued that the Earth revolved around the Sun rather than the heavens revolved around the Earth, understand that in a multipolar world all roads do not lead to Washington DC. To be well informed, one simply must attempt to understand other positions.

You are not one of those Americans.

Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Two can play this stupikd game.

1. No Russian or Chinese fighter comes anywhere near close to matching the speed of the slowest ICBM (about 18 Mach). All are to slow to can't catch up to and get into position to destroy an incoming ICBM. Ergo all Russian and Chinese fighters are useless.

2. No Russian or Chinese fighter can match the maneuverability of a Fokker Triplane, or even the less maneuverable Sopwith Camel or the more advanced CR.42. Ergo in a dogfight all Russian and Chinese fighters are useless.

3. No Russian or Chinese fighter has a payload close to matching that of a B-52. Not even that of the much more limited B-29. Ergo, all Russian and Chinese fighters are useless and a waste of money and resources.


Some Americans should thank their lucky stars they don't live and express their amateur military opinions in a country governed by a Stalin clone. The original got fed up with Polikarpov who was reluctant to embrace modern aeronautical developmnents and ultimately paid the price of being sent to the gulag.

Alfred

+1

Thank you, Alfred.

Joe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rusty1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Two can play this stupikd game.

1. No Russian or Chinese fighter comes anywhere near close to matching the speed of the slowest ICBM (about 18 Mach). All are to slow to can't catch up to and get into position to destroy an incoming ICBM. Ergo all Russian and Chinese fighters are useless.

2. No Russian or Chinese fighter can match the maneuverability of a Fokker Triplane, or even the less maneuverable Sopwith Camel or the more advanced CR.42. Ergo in a dogfight all Russian and Chinese fighters are useless.

3. No Russian or Chinese fighter has a payload close to matching that of a B-52. Not even that of the much more limited B-29. Ergo, all Russian and Chinese fighters are useless and a waste of money and resources.


Some Americans should thank their lucky stars they don't live and express their amateur military opinions in a country governed by a Stalin clone. The original got fed up with Polikarpov who was reluctant to embrace modern aeronautical developmnents and ultimately paid the price of being sent to the gulag.

Alfred

And hundreds of thousands Americans should curse the day they were born having died for the Monarchy, Comrade Stalin and Mao.

Your thinking is so archaic is it sad, but I bet even you, with your myopic thinking (more like emotions) would trade all those American lives back for on drop of Europeon blood.

Tell me at least that.

I understand, you prefer Adolf Hitler.

Wrong, that would be you with your Nazi-salute.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

Folks - please take it down a couple of notches. Nobody on this thread is going to change anyone else's mind on this one. But we should all be civil and let it go at that. If life you meet people who can be debated/educated/communicated with, but on some topics people are just not going to budge. So unless your ultimate goal is to get this thread shut down, go take a cold shower, hit the punching bag for a while, or whatever takes your fancy. My preference is Irish whiskey. Working on one now.

Regards,
Frank