Har...Plenty of Russians found the American way far more palatable than the Russian way.
There is no American way or Russian way, both are democratic countries with free market economies... the difference is that one enjoys a generally better climate and has a lot of infrastructure already in place and paid for... though both could probably do with a lot of money spent on it.
Another difference is that Russia is actually spending money on upgrading its infrastructure and military, while the US has an empire to keep properly funded and a military machine that has become insatiable.
Kool stuff that are still behind US. The PAK is still debatable whether it is 'stealth' or not.
Russia has a range of systems and equipment that is well ahead of the US.
The ADS bullpup rifle able to fire above water and underwater effectively, the Igla-S is better than Stinger the Kornet-Em and Metis-M1 is better than TOW and Javelin, the Su-35 is better than the F-15 or F-35, the Mig-35 will be rather better than the F-16 or F-35, and the PAK FA will be rather better than the F-22.
The S-400, S-350, S-500 will all be better than their American or European equivalents just like Morfei and Pantsir-S1.
And now they are upgrading their entire armour fleet with a new generation system.
Who are Russia's friends? Iran? Syria?
The two most heavily populated countries on the planet... China and India... remember the US picking Taiwan and Pakistan?
Zelko recalled his RWR did not record a lock. Back during the Vietnam War, North Vietnamese air defense often launched without acquiring locks, especially when tracking radars encountered jamming. Overall, it averaged out to 3 missiles to bring down an American aircraft. The tactic is called 'spray and pray'.
Hilarious you think that... so without a lock what guidance commands were sent to the missile?
As if YOU can give any credible technical explanation on what are those components, their integration, and how to counter them.
ABM systems require lots of very accurate radars and also IR sensors to track targets... airbursting nukes and of course jamming and decoys will degrade their performance significantly and would be pretty simple and cheap.
It would be nice if you do...
I don't own any flags.
I guess after all said and done and only one F-117 was lost that never made a ding in the air campaign, you really have no choice but to cling on to whatever little glory there is.
The effect of stealth on the Kosovo campaign was practically zero... any success could have been replicated at much lower cost using cruise missiles.
Yes, cruise missiles would not have been as effective against moving targets, but so few moving targets were actually hit that point is moot.
Trillions of dollars spent and all you have to show for it are some very expensive hangar queens that look good in glossy magazines, but in terms of operational effectiveness are pretty much white elephants.
First...The US (Roosevelt) wanted Indochina to be under UN administration towards independence.
What he wanted is clearly not that relevant. What the US government did later on is what is relevant... and that was pick sides and bomb.
The Ho-Sainteny Agreement effectively backstabbed the US regarding the UN Trusteeship plan.
Well duh... why let the UN run the country when he can get control and autonomy from the French as an independent colony.
Ho could not cement his position in North Vietnam, let alone all of Viet Nam. Too many other nationalists. So Ho enlisted France's help, as in troops and arms.
Well shock horror... Afghanistan has done that to the US twice now... even the KLA managed to do that to the EU.
Someone asked if it's possible to fire a missile "blind" like this and hope to hell you hit something. Yes, if the target is flying a stable flight path, it's all ballistics. Probably going to need to fire a few to ensure you get something close enough to proximity fuze, but it's not an impossible task and would obviously work far better on a cooperative target.
But if you can't actually see the target you might as well be launching Grads as they are cheaper and you can fire 40 per vehicle.
The idea that it was all luck is yankee BS... if it was all down to luck then the air power of the US and NATO combined on a single tiny country would have crushed in days the whole Serb war machine. The fact that 70 days after chasing their own asses NATO and the US were largely ineffectual with their application of airpower and in the end the old Soviet air force could have bombed the Serbs into submission much faster... with a lot less precision of course.
Don't be a butthole and use bad examples, SHORAD systems are far more useful for anti-helo and anti-PGM work since they can be overflown. What you should be mentioning is Gen. Jumper's published concerns that if the Serbs had managed to get an S-300P active things would've been far more dangerous.
S-300P is a huge system that is pretty mobile but hardly cheap and could not be deployed in large numbers without being noticed.
I comparison the Pantsir-S1 can hit targets at 15km altitude which is as good as BUK.
Even as a flanker fan, I will concede that Americans have pretty much mastered the BVR fight domain.
Their best WVR weapon is the AIM-9X which the F-22 doesn't carry, nor does it have helmet mounted sights to even use high off boresight missiles.
the West concentrated on BVR fighting after getting their hands on Mig-29s and R-73s from East Germany... the result was almost a shell shock that led to Black Hawks being shot down by F-15s because they were too afraid to fly close enough for a proper ID...[/quote]
[/quote]
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
Yup, no military experience whatsoever around here. 
) was total absence of ANY 
The idea of the former is damn near impossible given the airframe design, and the latter would likely rip the wings off given the additional stresses and the amount of thrust you'd need.
No Russian worth his salt would call these two wretched countries as Russia's friends . China is a communist state , India , nominally a democracy .