Greatest Military Hardware

^^Gord^^ · 15 Dec 2007 at 02:31

Gonzo0 said:
I dunno coz the F 22 would last for much longer whereas the typhhon is already getting outdated so would need replacing as time goes on.

I guess you haven't heard about the F-22s rust problem then?

setter · 15 Dec 2007 at 02:53

in the first gulf war iraqs primary radar defences were taken down by apache helicopters, and 3 divisions of iraqui troops were diverted from frontline duty in kuwait all because a 4 man navy seal team was able to land on a beach in kuwait and plant demo charges therefore convincing the iraquis that a full blown naval and marine assault would follow, part of the beauty of spec ops, convince your enemy that a larger force may be present then exploit the weak areas with conventional troops and armour

Duke · 15 Dec 2007 at 14:17

helpimcrap · 15 Dec 2007 at 16:19

KennyBhoy said:
Frightening the manoeuvres the Su-27 "Flanker" can pull off

i'd have to agree with this. Russians are the best in the world at designing agile and usable planes. if they had american or british electronics then we would have been in real trouble. Same goes for the mig 29.

helpimcrap · 15 Dec 2007 at 16:29

Amp34 said:
But as I pointed out in my previous post it is almost as good as the F22, infact less than a lot of people like to admit.

So you have the choice 50 F22's or 250 Typhoons for your money. I know which one I would choose...

$137m for an F22
$122m for a Typhoon

i don't think i'd go for the Typhoon in this instance....

Indy500 · 15 Dec 2007 at 16:33

setter said:
in the first gulf war iraqs primary radar defences were taken down by apache helicopters, and 3 divisions of iraqui troops were diverted from frontline duty in kuwait all because a 4 man navy seal team was able to land on a beach in kuwait and plant demo charges therefore convincing the iraquis that a full blown naval and marine assault would follow, part of the beauty of spec ops, convince your enemy that a larger force may be present then exploit the weak areas with conventional troops and armour

Having said that, the Iraqis shot down 45 fixed-wing aircraft, and 17 helicopters according to official coalition figures. 47 further aircraft were damaged.

helpimcrap · 15 Dec 2007 at 16:43

sr4470 said:
Having said that, the Iraqis shot down 45 fixed-wing aircraft, and 17 helicopters according to official coalition figures. 47 further aircraft were damaged.

how many did america shoot down?

Indy500 · 15 Dec 2007 at 16:47

helpimcrap said:
how many did america shoot down?

"the Iraqi air force lost 33 aircraft in the air and approximately 140 perished in hardened aircraft shelters"

helpimcrap · 15 Dec 2007 at 16:50

sr4470 said:
"the Iraqi air force lost 33 aircraft in the air and approximately 140 perished in hardened aircraft shelters"

i meant of the friendly ones officially lost in action, how many did america shoot down? i.e. friendly fire.

XPE · 15 Dec 2007 at 16:57

helpimcrap said:
$137m for an F22
$122m for a Typhoon

i don't think i'd go for the Typhoon in this instance....

Depending on configuration the Eurofighter Typhoon costs between £40-£50 million. (well that what I seen)

Indy500 · 15 Dec 2007 at 16:59

helpimcrap said:
i meant of the friendly ones officially lost in action, how many did america shoot down? i.e. friendly fire.

Oh. Well, 4 were "unknown" under cause of loss. The rest were shot down by MiG-25s, AAA or SAM sites.

Tefal · 15 Dec 2007 at 17:13

sr4470 said:
I'm not disputing that the Serbians had good equipment, but something must have been hindering their effectiveness if out of hundreds of craft overflying, only a few were destroyed.

Well it wasn't great equipment my running radar on very unusual frequencies they could see the f-117's for short periods of time and by watching they could plan where to ambush them.

but lack of equipment and pre emptive massive missile strikes against them did screw them over.

against a more advanced country with more experience in moderen war even stealth planes are at risk, if cruise missiles haven't taken out the enemy's ability to retaliate.

Indy500 · 15 Dec 2007 at 17:14

Tefal said:
against a more advanced country with more experience in moderen war even stealth planes are at risk, if cruise missiles haven't taken out the enemy's ability to retaliate.

Helicopters weren't used because of the perceived risk from Serbian SAMs, so I don't think they were all that weak...

Bar · 15 Dec 2007 at 18:16

In terms of its ability against its enemies at the time I would put a vote in for the longbow.

And no not the apache varient but the English Longbow.

RoboCod · 15 Dec 2007 at 19:00

daz said:
A10 Thunderbolt with it's gatling gun <3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger

Goes through armour like it's not even there

Yes it has a big gun... and that's about it. Apart from that it's very dated, very slow and pretty naff.

Raymond Lin said:
The F-22 can shoot down planes when they are beyond the curvature of the Earth, planes can basically be shot down before it's shown on the radar, hows the Euro Fighter do against that ?

Same for the Typhoon. Comparing aircraft is silly. It is like comparing a van to a lorry or a fast bike to a fast car. They have different roles and requirements. The Typhoon is better than the F-22 for the role it fulfills. The F-22 is better than the Typhoon for the role that it fulfills. Both frames are awesome though and from a maneuverability perspective the typhoon owns, I think it is due thrust vectoring soon also.

In my opinion one of the greatest military pieces of kit today is the Stormshadow . At £1m each they're damned expensive. Think the UK have bought something like 1000 of them :cool:

EDIT: Video

RoboCod · 15 Dec 2007 at 19:04

sr4470 said:
Ok, I have another nomination:

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

The S-300PMU. 200km range, 145kg of high explosive, 2km\sec missile speed, maximum altitude of 30km. If that isn't a serious threat to anything in the sky, I don't know what is.

Indeed, if an SA-10 is in theater then aircraft simply won't fly, it's awesome.

Tefal · 15 Dec 2007 at 19:42

sr4470 said:
Helicopters weren't used because of the perceived risk from Serbian SAMs, so I don't think they were all that weak...

yeah if 40 year old tech can stop natos chopper fleet imagine what Britain's military would be able to stop, let alone America.

Grimley · 15 Dec 2007 at 19:46

daz said:
A10 Thunderbolt with it's gatling gun <3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger

Goes through armour like it's not even there

I've seen these fly around the central Suffolk skies when I was younger - slow but pretty mean looking.

Inquisitor · 15 Dec 2007 at 19:48

Grimley said:
I've seen these fly around the central Suffolk skies when I was younger - slow but pretty mean looking.

Well they have to be slow really; they're ground attack planes. If they were too fast the pilot would have a tough job hitting anything with the gun.

Indy500 · 15 Dec 2007 at 19:57

Inquisitor said:
Well they have to be slow really; they're ground attack planes. If they were too fast the pilot would have a tough job hitting anything with the gun.

Actually, the armour weighs it down, as does the extra weapon capacity compared to a typical jet. A-10s were hit the most in Iraq, along with GR1 Tornadoes. Of course, technology has moved on since 1977...