What do you think is the baddest ass piece of military hardware?

[Serb]

Originally posted by Sikander

Serb, so they have finally married the ZSU-23-4 and the SA-9 into one vehicle?

1) Tunguska is a different vehicle equipped by different weapons.
2) Marriage happened at 70s-80s. First Tunguskas appeared in Soviet army in 1982.
3) Shilka was modernized and now can be equiped with SAMs:

[Serb]

Originally posted by Lonestar



Apache Pilot: Alright Boys, ready? Just Hover behind this hill, pop up and shoot it, ready...steady....go!

If your Apache Boys run with tails between their legs from bunch of Iraqis armed with Kalashnikov assualt rifles, they would never aproach a single Tunguska closer than 10 km.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Yep and it would take like our weakest fighter wing under 4 seconds to obliterate those su-30s and helicopters

You have nothing equal to SU-30. You failed to create thrust-vectoring control system for fighters.
SU-30 is the most maneuverable fighter in the world.

[Serb]

Originally posted by GePap

The US wins becuase of its electronic edge and support craft, not becuase US ariframes are any better- in fact, a Su-27 has immense power, and as an aircraft is as good, if not better than an F-15. BUt to win a fight, it is the elctronic package and a trained pilot capable of using it) that wins fights.

Su-27 as an aircraft is better than F-15 or F-16.
The only training fight in history (iirc, in 1996 in USA) between F-15 piloted by American regular pilot vs. Su-27 piloted by Russian regular pilot ended as complete victory for Su-27.
I can check my book to find more details about this fight.

[Drake Tungsten]

I don't know why I even bother with this moron, but here goes...

The F-22 incorporates a pair of new, higher thrust-to-weight engines, the Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100, which is designed for efficient supersonic operation without afterburner (called supercruise), and with increased durability over current engines. Advanced technologies incorporated in the F119 include integrated flight-propulsion controls and two-dimensional, thrust-vectoring engine nozzles, which will give the F-22 unprecedented aircraft maneuverability.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../f-22-f119.htm

Now, let's all sit back and see what lies our little Slavic friend can cook up.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I don't know why I even bother with this moron, but here goes...

Quote:

The F-22 incorporates a pair of new, higher thrust-to-weight engines, the Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100, which is designed for efficient supersonic operation without afterburner (called supercruise), and with increased durability over current engines. Advanced technologies incorporated in the F119 include integrated flight-propulsion controls and two-dimensional, thrust-vectoring engine nozzles, which will give the F-22 unprecedented aircraft maneuverability.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../f-22-f119.htm

Now, let's all sit back and see what lies our little Slavic friend can cook up.

Read it again. It says:
which will give the F-22 unprecedented aircraft maneuverability.
In other words: blah...blah...blah...IT WILL BE a best fighter in the world.
Su-30 is already in airforces of Russia, China, India and Malaysia.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Serb


No. Our secret weapon is - Kuz'kina mat'.

Did you just something something bad about my mother?

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Serb

You have nothing equal to SU-30. You failed to create thrust-vectoring control system for fighters.

Wrong. Remember a little Brit design called the Harrier? It had vectorable thrust and was so "inferior" the Russians tried to copy it - and FAILED.

Originally posted by Serb
SU-30 is the most maneuverable fighter in the world.

Which as you know means nothing. The fighter's maneuver factor is only one amongst many; it is important, but so are considerations like a) training of the crew) and b) quality of the weapons.

In those 2 areas, your country still has much to improve upon.

EDIT: My vote in this catergory goes to Chicken Supreme Arctic rations. The aftermath of this is so bad it should be banned under the Chem weapons treaty...

[DeathByTheSword]

of course the best war machine is the aircraft so here we go:

* any plane that can do a stall-recover manauver will kick the JSF and the F-22 in dogfights so that is worth a lot...(only russian planes can do that )

* B-1 and b-2

* f 22 and f/a 18

and best defence system:

* goalkeeper defence system! (kicks phalanx system in my opinion )

[Lord Merciless]

We all know that Russia is gonna build great piece of weapons even if their people are too poor to afford a pair of pants.

[Ecthy]

battleships, anyone?

[Verto]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
battleships, anyone?

Outdated and obsolete. The use of the battleship is waning.

[Ecthy]

but they look cool when firing

I thought this thread was about cool looking military hardware

[Kuciwalker]

Immortals or Sipahi

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
You can't get your human waves to Queensland without boats and they'll all be quickly sent to the bottom in any war.

Lets also not forget the ANZUS pact. An attack on Australia is an attack on the U.S.

Originally posted by BeBro
Is that true? This site http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f22/ says the F22 Raptor is planned to be in service for 2005.

Prototypes exist. I can't say whether any missions were performed. The F117 was new when it was used in Panama.

Originally posted by Serb
If Serbs had a dozen of S-300 you would never atack them.

How about with a dozen cruise missles?

Originally posted by Serb
Iraq had shitloads of western equipment as well, so what?

Mostly French?

Originally posted by Serb
After ten years without proper maintenance this equipment became complete crap.

Long before that.

Originally posted by Serb
No. Our secret weapon is - Kuz'kina mat'.

My Russian has gotten rusty since the 80's. Translate?

Originally posted by Serb
Shkval was created 25 years ago. You still have no idea how it works and have nothing equal.

Saw it on TV a few years ago. So much for no idea.
We probably had the plans just after the Russian Navy did. To my knowledge we have nothing equal but that may be because we recognized the idea had a (ahem) fatal flaw. Guess we're still waiting on the Russians to fully develop the technology.

Originally posted by Serb
Now I get it. So, you belive I have an erection every time I see a picture of American flag and silly doll wearing colours of this flag?

You realize, of course, that your flag has the same colours?

Originally posted by Ted Striker
I got one and her name is


USA! USA! USA!

Originally posted by Serb
Then you need a doctor...
...just admit this- USA sucks, RUSSIA forever!!!

Not a Russian doctor I hope.

I'm sure you realize you were flying a Soviet flag, not Russian flag. (and they say we Americans are ignorant of the difference... )

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Serb


1) Tunguska is a different vehicle equipped by different weapons.
2) Marriage happened at 70s-80s. First Tunguskas appeared in Soviet army in 1982.
3) Shilka was modernized and now can be equiped with SAMs:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/2s6m.htm

First fielded 1990. Just in time to twiddle their thumbs in Chechnya.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Lonestar



Did you just something something bad about my mother?

No. (I doubt your real name is Kuzma. This name is rare even among Russians).

[Serb]

Originally posted by Cruddy


Wrong. Remember a little Brit design called the Harrier? It had vectorable thrust and was so "inferior" the Russians tried to copy it - and FAILED.

The Harrier is a vertical take-off fighter. It was created in 1978. First Russian VTOF (Yak-36) was created in 1963. So, who copied and who failed?

Su-30 isn't a VTOF. It can't can't perform a vertical take-off. It doesn't rotate entire engine to change the vector of thrust, but just small part of it (I don't know english word for this part an atomizer perhaps?). Anyhow, Su-30 and Harrier are absolutely different planes.

Which as you know means nothing. The fighter's maneuver factor is only one amongst many; it is important, but so are considerations like a) training of the crew) and b) quality of the weapons.

In those 2 areas, your country still has much to improve upon.

Yeah, sure.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Vince278
How about with a dozen cruise missles?

S-300 shot-down cruise missiles with probability 0.98 or so.

Mostly French?

Blame French then.

Long before that.

It was cheapest, export modifications. At 2003 Iraqis tanks were inferior in comparison with Soviet tanks of 80's. Worse gun, close to none optics and electronics, no dinamic defense or reactive armor.

My Russian has gotten rusty since the 80's. Translate?

It's impossible to translate. This is what Khrushev said when he was knocking tribune with his boot. He said we will show you a "Kuz'kina mat'" (Kuzma's mother). The most closer translation is- "we'll kick your asses". After a week or so Soviets detonated huge hydrogen bomb.

Saw it on TV a few years ago. So much for no idea.
We probably had the plans just after the Russian Navy did. To my knowledge we have nothing equal but that may be because we recognized the idea had a (ahem) fatal flaw. Guess we're still waiting on the Russians to fully develop the technology.

One of your spies- Pope, tried to steal blueprints of it recently.

You realize, of course, that your flag has the same colours?

But without stars.

Not a Russian doctor I hope.

I'm sure you realize you were flying a Soviet flag, not Russian flag. (and they say we Americans are ignorant of the difference... )

Soviet flag is better, at least for me. Some Americans waving a CSA flag time after time. Why I can't wave a Soviet flag?

[Serb]

Originally posted by Sikander


http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/2s6m.htm

First fielded 1990. Just in time to twiddle their thumbs in Chechnya.

My source said it was accepted as standard armament of Soviet army in 1982.

EDITED: I've checked your link. It's about Tunguska-M (Modernized).

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Serb
Yeah, sure.

I suppose you're standing on your country's impressive record.

You should know as well as anyone the quality of the equipment and training when you proudly served your time in the military.

[el freako]

Originally posted by Vince278

Prototypes exist. I can't say whether any missions were performed. The F117 was new when it was used in Panama.

I fail to see how you can claim that the Panama operation, which took place a decade after the first flight of the prototypes (1979) and seven years after the F117 entered service (secretly, in 1982) is equivalent to prototype F22's being 'in service' now.

You seem to be grasping at straws.

(source for dates: Jane's)

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Serb
S-300 shot-down cruise missiles with probability 0.98 or so.

We'll have to put that to the test. Who has them now?

Originally posted by Serb
Blame French then.

Don't worry. We will.

Originally posted by Serb
It's impossible to translate. This is what Khrushev said when he was knocking tribune with his boot. He said we will show you a "Kuz'kina mat'" (Kuzma's mother). The most closer translation is- "we'll kick your asses". After a week or so Soviets detonated huge hydrogen bomb.

Thanks. Khruschev was quite a character, wasn't he? He was a hair better than Stalin or Beria at least. My first thought on seeing the phrase was that it was (in Russian slang) similar to the American slang phrase " Yo Mama ".

Originally posted by Serb
One of your spies- Pope, tried to steal blueprints of it recently.

Really? I thought people in your own navy was giving it to us. I'll have to check my sources.

Originally posted by Serb
Soviet flag is better, at least for me. Some Americans waving a CSA flag time after time. Why I can't wave a Soviet flag?

Why hang on to a vestige of a sad past? Your country has much to be proud of now and will have even more in the future.

[Imran Siddiqui]

S-300 shot-down cruise missiles with probability 0.98 or so.

That seems.... off to me. Why? Because then there would be no problems having a nuclear missle defense system if there was technology with that high probability for knocking out cruise missles.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by el freako
I fail to see how you can claim that the Panama operation, which took place a decade after the first flight of the prototypes (1979) and seven years after the F117 entered service (secretly, in 1982) is equivalent to prototype F22's being 'in service' now.

You seem to be grasping at straws.

(source for dates: Jane's)

Jane's does seem to be better than most countries intellegence services.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

S-300 shot-down cruise missiles with probability 0.98 or so.

That seems.... off to me. Why? Because then there would be no problems having a nuclear missle defense system if there was technology with that high probability for knocking out cruise missles.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia...f/s-300pmu.htm

Why do you think Bush broke ABM treaty?
Some f***er in Ukraine sold fully opertional S-300 to Americans about 10 years ago. Damn this traitor. He deserves a firing squad.

S-300's and S-400's anti-ballistic capabilities are limited anyway. ICBMs are traveling at much higher speeds than cruise missiles. S-300 or S-400 should be VERY lucky to intercept ICBM.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Vince278


We'll have to put that to the test. Who has them now?

China, India, Greece, USA has at least a single S-300.

Don't worry. We will.

Poor French.

Thanks. Khruschev was quite a character, wasn't he?

He was a moron, imho.

He was a hair better than Stalin or Beria at least. My first thought on seeing the phrase was that it was (in Russian slang) similar to the American slang phrase " Yo Mama ".

Well, actually it's old Russian saying, not Khrushev's invention. It just means "Hold on smartass, I've something for you, something unusual, so your ass will be kicked soon". Or something like this.

Really? I thought people in your own navy was giving it to us. I'll have to check my sources.

Who in his straight mind will give a technology of a devastating weapon to an American?

Why hang on to a vestige of a sad past? Your country has much to be proud of now and will have even more in the future.

I just like this flag, that's all. It's piss-off some people here, I guess.

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

S-300 shot-down cruise missiles with probability 0.98 or so.

That seems.... off to me. Why? Because then there would be no problems having a nuclear missle defense system if there was technology with that high probability for knocking out cruise missles.

Serb has beaten me to it but I'll say it anyway:
AFAIK, the ICBMs or even medium range missiles (for example, the ones that can reach the US from North Korea) have terminal approach speeds tens of times the speed of sound (somebody put an exact figure ).

No existing conventional air defence system can handle that and that's why the US is now developing a missile defence system.

On the contrary, cruise missiles fly at speeds comparable to fighter jet speeds, so provided that you can track them with radar or by any other means, an air to air missile should theoretically suffice to take out a cruise missile.

[Sarxis]

My vote goes to any nuclear weapon over 5kt.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Serb
Why do you think Bush broke ABM treaty?

Withdrew, not broke. Totally legal. Our track record is still better in that regard.

Originally posted by Serb
Some f***er in Ukraine sold fully opertional S-300 to Americans about 10 years ago. Damn this traitor. He deserves a firing squad.

Probably a patriot.

(One man's traitor is another's patriot)