PDA

View Full Version : Realistically



Toxin
5 Mar 2010, 05:49pm
Who would, if ever, win a war between the United States of America or the Russian Federation? Attempt to reason please.

Delirium
5 Mar 2010, 05:58pm
No one, depending if nukes got involved, combined we have enough nuclear weapons to kill the human race like 30 times over.

Prez
5 Mar 2010, 07:12pm
No one, depending if nukes got involved, combined we have enough nuclear weapons to kill the human race like 30 times over.

This.

If, by chance, nukes aren't involved (which would be smart on both sides, since they'd kill themselves really, if they used them...), it's hard to tell. The USA spends the most annually on military of any country (2008 est. $780 billion I think?). Also, since the end of the Cold War, I think Russia has "died down" in terms of military superiority (again, I may be wrong on this, and this post is just on personal reflection; not all may be fact).

Really, it's hard to tell at this point, but the US bolsters a significantly large armed forces, with top-of-the-line equipment and technology. The Russians do as well, but I'm not sure on what their stance is on technology.

Delirium
5 Mar 2010, 07:25pm
At this current moment, I would have to go with Russia, due to us being in a war already. I think the U.S. would have Air and Naval superiority though, no clue about ground forces.

Bad Dog
5 Mar 2010, 08:18pm
At this current moment, I would have to go with Russia, due to us being in a war already. I think the U.S. would have Air and Naval superiority though, no clue about ground forces.

Well it all depends on the scenario. If its a Call of Duty/Red Dawn Russian invasion of US soil then I guarantee a draft would be set in place, everyone would have to become the "ground forces." Troop withdrawls from foregin soil would happen though Im not sure how many would be withdrawn from Iraq/Afghanistan.

Movement
5 Mar 2010, 09:43pm
It would depend who's invading who.

ScubaToaster
5 Mar 2010, 09:48pm
At this current moment, I would have to go with Russia, due to us being in a war already. I think the U.S. would have Air and Naval superiority though, no clue about ground forces.

Aye we would have Naval superiority I would be called out of the reserve to fight my countrymen..... :angry:

Farmer Mick
5 Mar 2010, 11:48pm
i think it depends on who if any allies get involved i.e. russia allying with the chinese if they do

GG

Lux
6 Mar 2010, 04:58am
i think it depends on who if any allies get involved i.e. russia allying with the chinese if they do

GG

You'd probably have the EU rushing in to suck USA's dick though :twitch:

But yeah if it was a bayonet war China would win easy.

Killer
6 Mar 2010, 05:41am
If Nuclear weapons were involved, no one would win. It will just be a massive shit storm. But Guinness world record 2010 claims China is the strongest atm.

Ultramarine
6 Mar 2010, 06:04am
No nukes involved, then the US would win, Russia lacks the naval capabilities to launch a naval invasion of North America, And Modern Warfare's Scenario is so fucked up and full of holes it aint even funny. In no way would an air borne invasion, like the one used in that game, would work.

Lordcrazy
6 Mar 2010, 09:49am
Well apparently none of you have read Tom Clancy's book the Bear and the Dragon. Russia's military is not well trained and they do not have the technological advances of the United States Military. The United States would win unless the Chinese or nukes got involved.

Desum
6 Mar 2010, 10:37am
If Nuclear weapons were involved, no one would win. It will just be a massive shit storm. But Guinness world record 2010 claims China is the strongest atm.

...You get your facts about political and military standings from Guinness?

Delirium
6 Mar 2010, 10:50am
Well apparently none of you have read Tom Clancy's book the Bear and the Dragon. Russia's military is not well trained and they do not have the technological advances of the United States Military. The United States would win unless the Chinese or nukes got involved.

Well apparently you haven't read the post in this thread, only a couple of people have hinted towards Russia even remotely winning.

As for those of you saying China would win, this is USA vs Russia, not USA and allies vs Russia and allies.

Farmer Mick
6 Mar 2010, 11:07am
Well apparently you haven't read the post in this thread, only a couple of people have hinted towards Russia even remotely winning.

As for those of you saying China would win, this is USA vs Russia, not USA and allies vs Russia and allies.

so your telling me that if Russia and USA went to war it would remain Russia vs USA??

i doubt that there is always allies

Delirium
6 Mar 2010, 11:22am
so your telling me that if Russia and USA went to war it would remain Russia vs USA??

i doubt that there is always allies

I'm not saying that, but there would be to many possibilities to think of if that happened. Say China does get involved on Russia's side, Which European countries will come to our aid? And which side will the UN take? All of these would be major factors in a war between the US and Russia, just like who invades who, or if nuclear weapons are used.

To be completely honest, I think we should be worrying less about Russia and more about the rouge nations that have nuclear weapons, like North Korea, and Iran.

Bad Dog
6 Mar 2010, 03:03pm
Well apparently none of you have read Tom Clancy's book the Bear and the Dragon. Russia's military is not well trained and they do not have the technological advances of the United States Military. The United States would win unless the Chinese or nukes got involved.

Because Tom Clancy is the go to place for military information, I totally forgot it was just a bunch of crappy books made for 40 year old dads.

Desum
6 Mar 2010, 03:26pm
I'm not saying that, but there would be to many possibilities to think of if that happened. Say China does get involved on Russia's side, Which European countries will come to our aid? And which side will the UN take? All of these would be major factors in a war between the US and Russia, just like who invades who, or if nuclear weapons are used.

To be completely honest, I think we should be worrying less about Russia and more about the rouge nations that have nuclear weapons, like North Korea, and Iran.

Iran's space program is still focusing on sending classroom pets into space. I think we'll be a'ight for awhile.


And on a side-note, no matter what happens in World War 3, I think we can all agree Canada won't do shit.

trakaill
6 Mar 2010, 03:26pm
why is chinas army so powerful?? They put one out of 3 babies in the armed forces or something?
The US has by far the most advanced technology in warfare! The f22 by it self would kick some serious ass.. the f15 and fa18 were already the best planes in the world and the f22 has like 8 to 10 times their killing power according to some stuff Ive read/seen..

That and other things would lead me to believe that russia has no chance..
China, I dont know about them but they seem they would have a huge amount of people making it quite advantageous to them

Remember though the US spends on defense more than 128 countries together or something close to that... thats a lot of money!!!

Prez
6 Mar 2010, 03:32pm
Wikipedia for the win?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

Shows that the USA spends a ton-load more than the 2nd most, which is China. Mind you, this is 2008..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_troops

Apparently Iran has the most, then China, although Iran has 11 million people classified as Paramilitary... If you class it by active troops, China is first, US second.

Bad Dog
6 Mar 2010, 03:49pm
Wikipedia for the win?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

Shows that the USA spends a ton-load more than the 2nd most, which is China. Mind you, this is 2008..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_troops

Apparently Iran has the most, then China, although Iran has 11 million people classified as Paramilitary... If you class it by active troops, China is first, US second.

There have been a lot of really stupid places people have gotten information for this thread from, places like Guiness book of world records ect..but Wikipedia? And, mind you, the first one was from 08.

Great sources people.

Delirium
6 Mar 2010, 04:57pm
All my info comes from a very reliable place:

My local dealer, very knowledgeable.

Flick
6 Mar 2010, 06:55pm
If Russia invaded the U.S. you would also have to take into account the fact that there are very many Americans who have firearms and are adequate in their uses. Here in Chesapeake there is not one family that doesn't own a firearm. I have a .380 in my sock drawer and a 20 gauge at my bedside. If anyone invaded here, fuck they military, we be kicken redneck style bitches.

Frostbyte
6 Mar 2010, 07:08pm
If the Floridians took up driving tanks, we'd win by sheer roadkill alone.

Ultramarine
6 Mar 2010, 07:08pm
why is chinas army so powerful?? They put one out of 3 babies in the armed forces or something?
The US has by far the most advanced technology in warfare! The f22 by it self would kick some serious ass.. the f15 and fa18 were already the best planes in the world and the f22 has like 8 to 10 times their killing power according to some stuff Ive read/seen..


The Germans where the most advanced at the time during WWII, yet they still lost to the Russians. Reason? The Russians out numbered the Germans, plain and simple. Quantity is its own Quality.

Now, this doesn't mean that China would beat us like the Russian beat the Germans, at the time, Russia and Germany where Neighbors on the same landmass. China and the US are separated by the Pacific Ocean, and China, like Russia, lacks the naval capabilities to invade the USA. NO NATION, besides the United States, has the Naval capabilities to successfully launch a Sea invasion, and continue to send troops and supplies.

Russia has the material capability to create such a surface fleet, but they lack year round ice free harbors to create it.

China has both the materials and the harbors to create a surface fleet capable of launching and supporting an invasion against another landmass. However, if China started to create such a fleet, Every damn US attack sub would be on high alert in the Pacific.

Desum
6 Mar 2010, 07:53pm
As others have stated, population truly only has a powerful effect over technology and training when you're within an arms reach of each other. The US has both superior naval and aerial technology, and so any overseas war would be dominated by us. Of course, allies play a huge part as well, and most likely America would have a good chunk of the UK and UN with us, and since the UKs in our hat would probably be all for it as well(Though we don't really need our hat...)

Movement
6 Mar 2010, 08:53pm
The Germans where the most advanced at the time during WWII, yet they still lost to the Russians. Reason? The Russians out numbered the Germans, plain and simple. Quantity is its own Quality.

Wrong, during the Battle of Stalingrad the Germans didn't take to account of the weather OR the number or civilians with weapons and their loyalty to their country. After that the Red Army had a boosted morale from beating the "invincible army." That just goes to show both American and Russian civilians are willing to fight back. Then there are the Jews, they actually helped out the Red Army.

Bad Dog
6 Mar 2010, 11:41pm
Wrong, during the Battle of Stalingrad the Germans didn't take to account of the weather OR the number or civilians with weapons and their loyalty to their country. After that the Red Army had a boosted morale from beating the "invincible army." That just goes to show both American and Russian civilians are willing to fight back. Then there are the Jews, they actually helped out the Red Army.

If the Russians invade US soil, particularly the south, then a shitstorm of angry Nascar fans wielding shotguns will descend upon them.

Delirium
6 Mar 2010, 11:48pm
If the Russians invade US soil, particularly the south, then a shitstorm of angry Nascar fans wielding shotguns will descend upon them.

Hey now, you leave me outa this..

Frostbyte
7 Mar 2010, 12:10am
If the Russians invade US soil, particularly the south, then a shitstorm of angry Nascar fans wielding shotguns will descend upon them.

If they go far enough south, they might run into the Cuban Navy.

Killer
7 Mar 2010, 12:54am
...You get your facts about political and military standings from Guinness?

I did get my facts from that book.... So?

Ultramarine
7 Mar 2010, 09:00am
Wrong, during the Battle of Stalingrad the Germans didn't take to account of the weather OR the number or civilians with weapons and their loyalty to their country. After that the Red Army had a boosted morale from beating the "invincible army." That just goes to show both American and Russian civilians are willing to fight back. Then there are the Jews, they actually helped out the Red Army.

The Germans lost that battle because Hitler was an idiot and ordered Army Group A to continue south towards the Caucasian Oil fields, while Army Group B fought at Stalingrad (Army Group A / B was Army Group South before being separated). Army Group B's flanks where defended by poorly equipped / trained Italian and Romanian troops (Most of them used captured French equipment, such as Artillery and light tanks).

The Russian's, under the Command of Chuikov, launched a pincer attack, Operation Uranus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Uranus), punching through the weak Italian and Romanian troops, and encircling the Army Group B at Stalingrad. With Army Group B surrounded, it was simply a matter of time before they fell. Paulus, the commander of Army Group B, had requested permission from Hitler to break out from the Encirclement, so his forces could return to German supply lines. Hitler ordered Paulus to stay at Stalingrad, and that Supplies would reach them via the Luftwaffe, But a Modern Army needs 100s of thousands of tons of supplies a DAY. the Luftwaffe could only manage a few thousand on a good day.

Had Army Group B gotten the OK to break out of the encirclement, they could have recovered, got fresh troops and supplies, and launch an attack against the Russians in the Spring, preferably with Army Group A coming back to the Stalingrad front.

Had Hitler not divided his forces, and kept Army Group A near Group B to cover it's flanks, then the Russians would never have won at Stalingrad, so lets thank our lucky stars that Hitler had the strategic mind of a 5 year old.

Also, you're wrong about the weather part, The Germans where not prepared for the Russian Winter when they were nearing Moscow in 1941, They were prepared for the winter of 1942-43, which is when the Battle of Stalingrad takes place.

Lordcrazy
7 Mar 2010, 09:09am
As others have stated, population truly only has a powerful effect over technology and training when you're within an arms reach of each other. The US has both superior naval and aerial technology, and so any overseas war would be dominated by us. Of course, allies play a huge part as well, and most likely America would have a good chunk of the UK and UN with us, and since the UKs in our hat would probably be all for it as well(Though we don't really need our hat...)

Yes I agree but you do know you could have just said UN since England is in it...

P.S. UltraMarine you know you could have just watched the Twentieth Century battlefields episode Stalingrad on the Military Channel to learn this?

Drox
7 Mar 2010, 06:40pm
Wow, after reading most of this thread there is alot of "Your info site sucks" "wikipedia...gtfo with that". lol Dont diss peoples web sources unless you have a better one to back up your dumbass assumptions of wrong or right info on the facts.

Now back to the topic at hand, USA Vs Russia? A more real problem would probably be N. Korea Vs USA, then China jumps in then so on and so on. A war between USA and any other large nation is unlikely since the world operates very differently then it did during the Cold war where war between 2 large military nations is something most dont want. However, if we did somehow how got into a war with Russia it will be like this.

Air: In dog fights Russia has the USA beat, however most of the USA Jets arent used for dogfights but are power jets that use long range missiles. So it would be a USA Air win unless Russia beats USA radar.

Ground: Hard to say, the Russians shouldnt be underestimated since they would probably put up a good fight but then again like it has been stated before in this thread it really depends on who's home is being invaded. If it would be American soil, it's almost impossible since then you would rally Americans to fight for their homeland which we feed on that and would make them pay block by block. For russia, it is cold and rough. So it would be hard to have a long term campaign in both nation homelands.

Naval: Im not to sure on the russians navy as far as technology and numbers go but for a war like this they would be used mostly for invasion force, blockades, and air bases (aka carrier's). Since both nations are mostly land and not islands.

So really a war between any nations like these 2 would most likely result in a world war and is something everyone tries to avoid and really now in this day and age. Where nukes lurk in nations arsenal. Lets hope it never happens ;)

trakaill
7 Mar 2010, 08:47pm
Wow, after reading most of this thread there is alot of "Your info site sucks" "wikipedia...gtfo with that". lol Dont diss peoples web sources unless you have a better one to back up your dumbass assumptions of wrong or right info on the facts.



Especially that wikipedia often has cited sources that you can check yourself and are often reliable..
and guiness book record verifies all their facts before entering it in..
They dont just pull shit out of no where..

So really people saying are funny!

Ultramarine
8 Mar 2010, 12:52am
Naval: Im not to sure on the russians navy as far as technology and numbers go but for a war like this they would be used mostly for invasion force, blockades, and air bases (aka carrier's). Since both nations are mostly land and not islands.


The Russian Navy has been in steady decline since the fall of the Soviet Union. It's surface fleet is extremely small, with a single VTOL aircraft carrier (Vertical Take Off / Landing), which, to my knowledge, only carries Helicopters for Anti Submarine Warfare.

Their Submarine fleet has fared better, but a lot of subs have been scrapped.

Bullet Wound
8 Mar 2010, 02:35pm
The Germans where the most advanced at the time during WWII, yet they still lost to the Russians. Reason? The Russians out numbered the Germans, plain and simple. Quantity is its own Quality.

Now, this doesn't mean that China would beat us like the Russian beat the Germans, at the time, Russia and Germany where Neighbors on the same landmass. China and the US are separated by the Pacific Ocean, and China, like Russia, lacks the naval capabilities to invade the USA. NO NATION, besides the United States, has the Naval capabilities to successfully launch a Sea invasion, and continue to send troops and supplies.

Russia has the material capability to create such a surface fleet, but they lack year round ice free harbors to create it.

China has both the materials and the harbors to create a surface fleet capable of launching and supporting an invasion against another landmass. However, if China started to create such a fleet, Every damn US attack sub would be on high alert in the Pacific.

Germany lost because of poor communication, underestimation of Russian winters and Hitler just generally biting off more than he could chew. Numbers had very little to do with it, most of Germany's troops died from the cold/starvation, not from the Russians.

Anyways, in USA vs Russia : USA would have all of NATO on its side (or at least they probably would) and Russia would have...well...China.

NATO vs China & Russia = NATO win.

Even just straight up USA vs Russia, Russia would not win.

I would hope the world would be smart enough not to use mass nukes.

Italian Jew
8 Mar 2010, 02:59pm
Why are people still trying to argue over a VERY unlikely war using highly irrelevant data?

Russia wouldn't go to war with the US because they would be at odds with the EU and NATO. They would lose most of their trade to those European nations. Even if you completely disregard the effects from the US, it is by no means in their favor to do so. Now if you add the US involvement (our military strength + economic power and ties), it would even be highly unlikely that a video game version of Russia would do anything that stupid.

China won't side with Russia because it would mean losing a HUGE chunk of their trade with the US. It isn't worth it to destroy your economy outright to wage a war that is likely to last for years with conventional means. It's sort of the same reason North Korea won't do shit against the US (if they even had close to the technology they would need to do so). By doing so, NK would piss off the US. China can either help out NK (piss off the US) or continue to play nice with the US (and would rather lose out on NK than with the US). NK without the aid and support it REQUIRES from China would last slightly longer than the snack cakes in TCP's cabinet.




For fuck's sake, the plot of the C&C Red Alert games seems more plausible. The "expertise" of gamers in regards to military matters is astounding as well. It was cute at first, but please stop dumbing down the politics section with fantasy "what if" circle jerks.

FlyAwayNow
8 Mar 2010, 03:02pm
We are just saying man, It has been a while since we, America, have fought an enemy that does'nt live in caves throwing rocks at us and has worldwide constant media coverage.

Slavic
8 Mar 2010, 03:07pm
If you want to compare military efficiency and might between the US and Russia then the most realistic (hardly) conflict would be a minor conflict in a third nation. More or less a proxy war.

As if the US sent troops into Georgia during the Georgian-Russian conflict. Closest realistic situation that would have the two nations throwing muscle at one another.

@FlyAwayNow

The Iraq war was a conventional war. During the early months of the war there was heated urban fighting that produced many casualties both US and Iraqi. The Iraqi military had tanks, SAM sites, mechanized ground troops, SCUDs, and many other conventional military equipment. We weren't romping through caves and desert.

Iraq =/= Afghanistan

Daze
8 Mar 2010, 03:10pm
Slightly off topic but do you really expect the UK to willingly rush to your aid when you keep sticking 'your' nose in to our business? (In regards to the Fawkland Island talks with Argentina)

Italian Jew
8 Mar 2010, 03:16pm
Slightly off topic but do you really expect the UK to willingly rush to your aid when you keep sticking 'your' nose in to our business? (In regards to the Fawkland Island talks with Argentina)

If they know what's good for them, then yes.


That's how the cookie crumbles, gov'na.

Toxin
8 Mar 2010, 04:07pm
In complete disregard to any trade alliances or international organizations, and based on millitary power only, who would win a war?

Drox
8 Mar 2010, 06:42pm
In complete disregard to any trade alliances or international organizations, and based on millitary power only, who would win a war?

Nukes would be used if they completely disregard international organizations, so who would win? Whatever survives I suppose lol

Lordcrazy
8 Mar 2010, 07:15pm
Alright Drox it's time to jump into our lead refrigerators!

Drox
8 Mar 2010, 07:17pm
Alright Drox it's time to jump into our lead refrigerators!

If the nuke doesnt kill you, then the lack of air would in one of those. ;)

Lucid
8 Mar 2010, 08:11pm
According to this film. If you cover your head with a paper, you'll survive the blast. Bert the turtle knows best.

C0K_LZDXp0I

Italian Jew
8 Mar 2010, 08:30pm
In complete disregard to any trade alliances or international organizations, and based on millitary power only, who would win a war?

Go play C&C Red Alert 1-3 and that will be your answer. That is as "real" of an answer that you can get under the circumstances.

Drox
8 Mar 2010, 08:32pm
According to this film. If you cover your head with a paper, you'll survive the blast. Bert the turtle knows best.

C0K_LZDXp0I

oh cold war, how we miss thy.

Metal
9 Mar 2010, 10:11am
Star Ocean anyone?

Delirium
9 Mar 2010, 05:10pm
@ Drox in the air, an F-22 would tear apart the Su-24.

USA Air force > Russian Air force

Ultramarine
9 Mar 2010, 06:43pm
@ Drox in the air, an F-22 would tear apart the Su-24.

USA Air force > Russian Air force

Su-24? Isn't that thing old as sin? im quiet certain the Russians have that new Su-37, and a joint venture with India on a Stealth Fighter that seems to look a lot like our F-35.

ReGIONALS
9 Mar 2010, 10:22pm
Wrong, during the Battle of Stalingrad the Germans didn't take to account of the weather OR the number or civilians with weapons and their loyalty to their country. After that the Red Army had a boosted morale from beating the "invincible army." That just goes to show both American and Russian civilians are willing to fight back. Then there are the Jews, they actually helped out the Red Army.

Wasn't there something similar to that during the ruling of Otto Von Bismarck and the 2nd Reich.

Germany invading Russia, Russians retreated and put scorched earth into action (scorched earth is a tactic where they destroy everything of use as they retreat, for those of you that don't know this) they burned fields, crops, factories, everything that has a a strategic purpose and the Germans lacked winter clothing.



We are just saying man, It has been a while since we, America, have fought an enemy that does'nt live in caves throwing rocks at us and has worldwide constant media coverage.


What??!?!

Are you an idiot the war we are fighting is on their turf with their rules the insurgents don't throw rock or live in caves or any of that rambling you posted, insurgents are using civilians for body armor the shoot at some soldiers drop their gun and throw away into a crowd of people. Look up guerrilla warfare.

- to add to what slavic said

Drox
9 Mar 2010, 10:27pm
@ Drox in the air, an F-22 would tear apart the Su-24.

USA Air force > Russian Air force

As far as dog fighting goes, USA would get fucked in the A. But like I said, alot of the USA Fighter Jets are power jets not dog fighters. Which means they wouldnt try to get into dog fights but shoot them from long ranges and disengage if they happen to get closer then they would want to.

Bad Dog
10 Mar 2010, 04:34pm
As far as dog fighting goes, USA would get fucked in the A. But like I said, alot of the USA Fighter Jets are power jets not dog fighters. Which means they wouldnt try to get into dog fights but shoot them from long ranges and disengage if they happen to get closer then they would want to.

Dont they have a predator made for dog fighting? Thought I read somthing about that a while ago, could be wrong though.

Drox
10 Mar 2010, 04:38pm
Dont they have a predator made for dog fighting? Thought I read somthing about that a while ago, could be wrong though.

We do have a few Jets made for dog fighting, but the Russians make all their jets for dogfighting. They happen to be really good at it aswell. :P

Mephisto
10 Mar 2010, 05:01pm
Depend on your definition of ''wining''. Does a genocide of hundreds of million of people a win if your the last one to survive?

ReGIONALS
10 Mar 2010, 08:27pm
Depend on your definition of ''wining''. Does a genocide of hundreds of million of people a win if your the last one to survive?

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

Drox
10 Mar 2010, 08:36pm
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

What? lol

Bad Dog
10 Mar 2010, 10:27pm
We do have a few Jets made for dog fighting, but the Russians make all their jets for dogfighting. They happen to be really good at it aswell. :P

No predators, as in unmanned. I know we have them as air support but I thought I read somewhere that there were predators designed for air combat.

ReGIONALS
10 Mar 2010, 10:34pm
What? lol

it was posted on 4chan and i use it to reply to posts that is so mangled its like they typed it using their forehead.

Drox
10 Mar 2010, 11:57pm
No predators, as in unmanned. I know we have them as air support but I thought I read somewhere that there were predators designed for air combat.

Oh UAV's, lol they wouldnt stand a chance. But I stand by my comment, we do have some dogfighters but nothing like the Russians dogfighters.

Silentfaith
11 Mar 2010, 08:41am
I dont see why we would go to war with each other. But, it would be really hard to say who would win. It wouldn't be smart for the USA to battle Russia, and it wouldn't be smart for Russia to battle the USA.

Dracula
11 Mar 2010, 01:57pm
USA.

Bad Dog
11 Mar 2010, 04:37pm
Oh UAV's, lol they wouldnt stand a chance. But I stand by my comment, we do have some dogfighters but nothing like the Russians dogfighters.

No I know the UAVs that we use as air support dont stand a chance, but what I am saying is that are there any UAVs specifically designed to combat other planes?

Would you kindly™
11 Mar 2010, 05:34pm
Id have to put my money on the U.S. because of the amount of money we spend on the armed forces they must be doing something with that money. But say we traveled back to the late 70s i think the USSR would kick our asses do to there power back then. With the help of allies I think the UK UN would ass fuck Russia.

Drox
11 Mar 2010, 05:52pm
No I know the UAVs that we use as air support dont stand a chance, but what I am saying is that are there any UAVs specifically designed to combat other planes?

wWUR3sgKUV8

They can can barely even take on MiG-25's.

SgtJoo
11 Mar 2010, 06:00pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor

vs

???

When's the last time the Russians came out with a fighter that can match the F22?

Drox
11 Mar 2010, 07:40pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor

vs

???

When's the last time the Russians came out with a fighter that can match the F22?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAK_FA newest jet they are working on

Dracula
11 Mar 2010, 08:19pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAK_FA newest jet they are working on

Too bad its not done.

SgtJoo
11 Mar 2010, 08:20pm
Operative word is working on. If we went to war right now, we'd sweep them in air superiority. Not to mention the fact that we have practically double the amount of planes they do. "These aircraft are, as of 2010, the current state of the art. Many are still in the design stage and only the F-22 Raptor is currently in service." And don't forget the F-35 Lightning II, which is part of the JSF program. We're developing that.

Delirium
11 Mar 2010, 08:23pm
So, all in all, this war would not happen in the near future, unless special circumstances popped up. So stop you're little kiddie arguing.

Can't you tell Mercy is getting mad?

Drox
11 Mar 2010, 08:51pm
Too bad its not done.

This jet is to compete with the F-22, the Russians other Jets can outfly mostly all of the US Jets in a dogfight, thus why the US made the F-22.

Dracula
11 Mar 2010, 08:54pm
This jet is to compete with the F-22, the Russians other Jets can outfly mostly all of the US Jets in a dogfight, thus why the US made the F-22.

Any war that has pitted Soviet block fighters against our own has showed them getting annihilated, good try. Also that changes nothing we have the F22 they have nothing currently in production to match it.

SgtJoo
11 Mar 2010, 08:58pm
You do realize we have 187 F-22s produced or being produced right now, right? The aircraft you linked is still A PROTOTYPE. We already have F-22s integrated into our fighter wing. If the supposed war happened now, Russia would be demolished by our superior technological advantage. Check out how the F-22 has done in red flag exercises... Russia hasn't even put one of these planes into production, let alone budgeted for them. You know how expensive they are?

Delirium
11 Mar 2010, 09:07pm
This jet is to compete with the F-22, the Russians other Jets can outfly mostly all of the US Jets in a dogfight, thus why the US made the F-22.

Okay Drox,

At this time, the only Fighters employed by the Russian Air Force is the Su-47 or the S-37 Berkut, and the MiG-29.

The United states Air Force Currently uses the F-22 Raptor and the F-35 Lightning II, Both are outfitted with Air-Air Missiles and Machine Guns, The F-22 & the F-35 both outmaneuver the Su-47 AND the MiG-29, thus close range combat it going to be dominated by the United states AND long range Air-air Missiles, Even though Dog fighting would not be an issue seeing that we do have radar.

Not only that, Both planes can be outfitted with Air-Ground Missiles, thus increasing our efficiency.

Why is this argument focused on Air Force, there is much more to war than that. If the united states went to war with Russia, the Russians would starve to death seeing that the United States provides the world with most of its food.

Can't fly planes with no men.

Drox
11 Mar 2010, 11:07pm
lol I wish my buddy was in this convo since he knows alot more about Russian jets then I do. Also im not arguing about the 2 air forces, its just my opinion on the dogfighting of both. Personally both nations having had to really dogfight another good pilot in a very long time so its not only the jet but the pilots in them that matter.

This convo is kinda pointless tho since this "what if" crap is dumb. lol

Slavic
12 Mar 2010, 06:31am
Realistically. Who's ever capitol becomes surrounded will be the first to nuke their opponent.

Game over

SgtJoo
12 Mar 2010, 09:27am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

Toxin
12 Mar 2010, 03:04pm
Realistically. Who's ever capitol becomes surrounded will be the first to nuke their opponent.

Game over

Very very true.

Prez
12 Mar 2010, 06:30pm
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/nuclearwar1.html

Just a little thing I found out about a 'simulated' thermonuclear war between the US and USSR. Timeline starts in 1988 though.

SgtJoo
12 Mar 2010, 07:04pm
Good thing the USSR doesn't exist anymore :D

edit: This would happen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcW_Ygs6hm0&feature=related

Harpr33t
17 Mar 2010, 11:04am
Operative word is working on. If we went to war right now, we'd sweep them in air superiority. Not to mention the fact that we have practically double the amount of planes they do. "These aircraft are, as of 2010, the current state of the art. Many are still in the design stage and only the F-22 Raptor is currently in service." And don't forget the F-35 Lightning II, which is part of the JSF program. We're developing that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22fN4fVoFdY

SgtJoo
17 Mar 2010, 12:47pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22fN4fVoFdY

The info... "the first T-50s which is now at its final stage of testing will enter service in three years."

Slavic
17 Mar 2010, 04:19pm
The info... "the first T-50s which is now at its final stage of testing will enter service in three years."

and your point being?

Harpr33t
17 Mar 2010, 06:04pm
The info... "the first T-50s which is now at its final stage of testing will enter service in three years."

The reason I put the video up was b/c Russia has an equivalent of the F22. Plus the U.S. capped on how many F22 they are gonna make. Meanwhile theres gonna be 2000 of these flying around.

SgtJoo
17 Mar 2010, 06:28pm
If the US can only afford a limited number of F-22s and we constitute something like 41 percent of military expenditures in the world, what makes you think Russia is going to pump out 2000 superior or equal to F-22 capable fighters when they constitute 4 percent?

Resistance
17 Mar 2010, 07:55pm
You know...what most people don't take into account is that most of the statistics on the F/22 Raptor are classified or are predicted into a projected area in which they think it is. Because I seriously doubt the U.S. would give out it's most prized aircraft's top-speed.

Though the russians publicize all of their planes, U.S. always classifies all statistics until a later date; though I seriously doubt that the U.S. government would be giving out that information for a long time.

Harpr33t
18 Mar 2010, 10:45am
Heres some pics

http://i48.tinypic.com/2e5od4z.jpg

http://www.aviapedia.com/files/fighters/PAK_FA/PAK-FA-1.jpg

Plus: I'd like to correct myself, they are making around 1000 of them. Atleast 200 for Russia and 200 for India. But the rest either are going to be sold or just continue production for these 2 countries

SilentGuns
18 Mar 2010, 12:19pm
Whoever invents a antimatter bomb. Too bad building one would bankrupt the earth. You wouldn't want to fuck with someone with a bomb that powerful.

Toxin
18 Mar 2010, 04:37pm
Whoever invents a antimatter bomb. Too bad building one would bankrupt the earth. You wouldn't want to fuck with someone with a bomb that powerful.

Anti-matter already exists. It is only super fucking expensive, highly concentrated excellent quality uranium is much more affordable than anti-matter. 1 gram of anti matter runs around $150 million, and 1 g of anti matter only exterminates 1 gram of matter... big waste of money.

Mutiny
18 Mar 2010, 07:15pm
Who would, if ever, win a war between the United States of America or the Russian Federation? Attempt to reason please.

With current technology that both countries have invested into nuclear bombs i'm sure we'd all end up dead:blink:

Toxin
18 Mar 2010, 07:46pm
With current technology that both countries have invested into nuclear bombs i'm sure we'd all end up dead:blink:

Good job restating what basically ever single user in the last 10 pages has mentioned.

trakaill
18 Mar 2010, 10:12pm
meh not gonna argue...http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/07/airforce_raptor_070730/

and one that was shot down at this point the plane was fighting against many f15s...

144-0 kdr beat that!!

SilentGuns
18 Mar 2010, 11:38pm
Anti-matter already exists. It is only super fucking expensive, highly concentrated excellent quality uranium is much more affordable than anti-matter. 1 gram of anti matter runs around $150 million, and 1 g of anti matter only exterminates 1 gram of matter... big waste of money.

yea , I know. But the bomb need a containment field so it wont touch with matter untill needed. Thats the key.
I also think that anti-matter costs around 60 trillion per gram and its actaully much more effetive I think. Not 1:1.

Toxin
19 Mar 2010, 02:42pm
Anti-matter is currently contained in a special container. A magnetive field keeps the anti-matter flowing in a vacuum-sealed container. And no, the effectiveness is 1:1. The density is what determines how heavy a material is. Unless we can create anti-matter from much denser materials, the price of anti-matter will not drop anytime soon.