Russia’s newest Su-30 multirole jets and Su-24 bombers practiced attack runs on NATO

Russia is the biggest country of the world in area.
And it wants more. What a shame!

 

If you believe that - You believe an Absurdity - What a shame !

I suggest "robertts12" listen to, & take Voltaire's admonition the Heart

Because the US will NOT get away with the kind of Atrocities they committed
..against Iraq, Libya, Syria etc - If they try using the same sort of Absurdities
............................................................& Lies against a Nuclear Armed Russia

.



.

 

F-35 Specs and Cost
--------------------------------------

Program cost - $59.2B for development, $261B for procurement, $590B for operations & sustainment in 2012

Unit cost -
●F-35A: US$114M
●F-35B: US$142M
●F-35C: US$132M

General characteristics -
●Max. takeoff weight: 70,000 lb
●Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney F135 afterburning turbofan
●Dry thrust: 28,000 lbf
●Thrust with afterburner: 43,000 lbf
●Internal fuel capacity: 18,498 lb

Performance
//////////////
Maximum speed -
●Mach 1.6+(1,200 mph)
●Range: 1,200 nmi (2,220 km) on internal fuel
●Combat radius: 613 nmi (1,135 km) on internal fuel
●Wing loading: 107.7 lb/ft² (526 kg/m²; 745 kg/m² max loaded)


Thrust/weight:
●With full fuel: 0.87
●With 50% fuel: 1.07
●Maximum g-load: 9 g

《《《《《《《《《《《》》》》》》》》


SU - PAK T - 50
--------------------------

Program cost
US$8–10 billion

Unit cost
US$50+ million

●Max. takeoff weight: 77,160 lb
●Powerplant: 2 × NPO Saturn izdeliye (AL-41F1) for initial production, izdeliye 30 for later production thrust vectoring turbofan
●Dry thrust: 93.1 kN / 110 kN (21,000 lbf / 24,300 lbf) each
●Thrust with afterburner: 147 kN / 176 kN (33,067 lbf / 39,600 lbf) each
●Fuel capacity: 10,300 kg (22,700 lb)[133]


Performance
//////////////
Maximum speed -
●At altitude: Mach 2.3 (1,520 mph)
●Supercruise: Mach 1.6 (1,060 mph)
●Range: 2,175 mi subsonic
●Ferry range: 3,420 mi with one in-flight refueling
●Service ceiling: 65,000 ft
●Wing loading: 317–444 kg/m2 (65–91 lb/ft2)

Thrust/weight -
●Saturn 117: 1.06 (1.19 at typical mission weight)
●izdeliye 30: 1.24 (1.41 at typical mission weight)
Maximum g-load: +9.0 g

 

A little history lesson: Whenever the Russians wanted land they moved East. Whenever the Europeans wanted land they moved East and came face to face with the Russian people. Russia has been attacked by the West every fifty years for centuries, and they're doing it again...but Russia always wins.

Today Russia's wealth is being coveted by Washington, and so they wants to break it up that way it can be bought up by the American corporations. It's what they're doing in Ukraine. This is why Poroshenko is killing his people. If there are no men to work the land it can be bought up nice and cheaply. It's the best land in the world.

Putin though is telling Washington nice and politely, if you want Russia's wealth, then come and get it...if you can.

 

Alpha it was never put in writing, but there are plenty of witnesses that can attest to it. Pres. Bush Told Gorbachev Nato would not move even one inch into former Warsaw nations. As for the former Soviet nations, some have a legitimate fear because of their large Russian population such as Estonia. Others though such as Poland feel culturally allied with Europe because they had the same civilizational foundation. It was based on the Frank/Latin Rome in Italy, while Russia's civilizational foundation was based on the Greek/Latin Rome of Constantinople. So there was always distrust.

What annoys me and why I call those who control Washington sociopaths, is that they manipulate these historical differences between people in order to create chaos for their own self interests. What these bastard neo cons are doing would make the Founding Fathers turn in their graves. They don't even have the decency to tell the American people, instead they hide behind lies and propaganda.

 

Nah, that's just taking a point of view, not the point of view which represents the capabilities of the jet. The USMC just lost a chunk of fuel to get the vertical lift assembly - not the other way around. If they wanted an F22 they'd have built one. Modern battlespaces need large internal fuel loads, internal weapons, sensor fusion and stealth.... things the F22 do, but a multirole is meant to be more numerous and the cheapest way is to have one platform for commonality of logistics and training, which is able to meet future demands and have room for alterations to suit each service.

 

Have the brave Russians buzzed a carrier group yet? The answer is yes they have. Personally I think its just stupid putin pounding his putin. Its a juvenile peeing contest. Its not EVEN a game of chicken. Obama is so weak that I would not be surprised if putin landed a Su on the deck of the kitty hawk.

reva

 

.

Have not you heard ! - The F22 has been canceled - It's DEAD
& the ones you have, dissolve in the rain, for Christ's Sake !
Even with than rather severe limitation it is arguably better the F35


& friend “axialturban” –
Can you or any of our best engineering minds design a multirole vehicle platform that
will be able to be EFFECTIVELY adapted to a Sports Car, a Tank & a Dump Truck ?

& NO it cannot carry a lot of Fuel !

The F35 is stubby and chubby NOT for extra fuel – It’s range in fact is severely limited.
It is stubby chubby awkward & short ranged, because of its Vertical take off capability,

As far as it’s ground support cannon – years before it becomes operable –
It carries ONLY from 180 to 220 rounds & fires at a rate of 3,300 RPM – 31/2 sec
Pretty much as functional in a ground support role, as a hood ornament on a Ford
Too fast, too vulnerable, cannot loiter – Pretty much useless for ground support

But it can takeoff Vertically !

What in Hell were your Military Industrial Minds thinking ? –

I’ll tell you what they were thinking – They were thinking - PROFIT$ !
"The impossible, after all, just takes a little longer, and costs a little more"

Same sort of STUPID thinking we get from your War Mongering Senate & Congress

Quote: Senator Tom Cotton –
“We have to stop Iran ! – They are already in control of Tehran !“

WTF is the matter with you people !.

 

well thats a pure show of power and expertise by the russian aerospace design bureaus. they have come up with a nice jet that does that amazing thing. thing is how much stealth it is. can it go out in the wild and not being discovered??? i guess this is very very alarming for the american govt. because they have been wasting too much money on hollywood and the armor iron man suit which is a possibility yet a complete waste of funds... so the russians rather do with the regular military.. upgradation.. it has regular foreign markets to sell these, and certainly this is a good product for this time if not 2030...

 

F22 got canceled due to a reoccuring problem with oxygen deprivation and it being outmatched in close conbat

It's cost is $66.7 billion to develop and $150 million per unit.

F35 has a problem on a fundamental level. Its a problem with design

It cost almost 400 billion to develop and cost about 160 million per unit.

The russian PAK T 50 program cost is only 10 billion and the cost per unit is a measly $50 million

Yet it far surpasses both the f22 and f35 in virtually every category

 

Only 2 Air to Air Missiles carried internally of WHAT TYPE??

See...there's the rub!!

The F-22 and the F-35 will be the last Manned Air Combat/Attack fighter aircrafts the United States will ever build.

Yet they are expensive....yes they both have some issues.....but THERE DOES NOT EXIST A FOREIGN MADE FIGHTER AIRCRAFT THAN CAN SHOOT DOWN AN F-22 OR F-35 WHEN BOTH ARE OPERATING IN FULL STEALTH MODE....PERIOD!!!!

The German's....who are very good pilots....found this out when they sent up as many as 12 Eurofighter Typhoons up against 2 F-22's during the ALASKA RED FLAG EXERCISES!!!

And as well.....all 12 Typhoon's would have been just as easily shot down and destroyed if they were up against 2 F-35's as well.

The Eurofighter Typhoon IS A MUCH BETTER FIGHTER AIRCRAFT THAN ANYTHING THE RUSSIAN'S OR CHINESE HAVE....OR ARE EVEN BUILDING INCLUDING BOTH THE RUSSIAN AND CHINESE STEALTH FIGHTER PROGRAMS as both the Russian and Chinese Stealth Fighters are neither stealthy or effective using outdated Fire Control Systems and in some cases late 1980's Avionics!!!

The U.S. is developing a much more effective and lethal Stealth Fighter/Attack and Bomber Aircraft.....as all will be ROBOTIC.....SELF AUTONOMOUS.....CAPABLE OF FLYING ON STATION CONTINUOUSLY FOR UP TO 24 TO 48 HOURS OR IN SOME CASES LONGER......CAPABLE OF FLYING AT HYPERSONIC VELOCITIES.....HAVING THE IR-LIGHT SIGNATURE OF A FARTING BAT.....AND THE RADAR SIGNATURES OF A DRAGONFLY!!!

So....you and others keep on complaining about the F-22's and F-35's.....two U.S. Military Aircraft that not one single nation except the U.S. has even the capablity to shoot down!!!!

Yeah....your so right!!! What pieces of JUNK! LOL!!!

AboveAlpha

 

The rub is your nose, scrapping against the muddy reality of your claims “Alpha”


WHAT TYPE ?
Two count em ! – 2 One Shot wonders - The AIM-120C air-to-air missile - Same as are used on the F15 F16 etc
Now how in Hell are they suppose to take out 30/40 (as per your last claim) enemy Top of the Line ? that's just silly - “Alpha”
........................................................................................................................................................
Glad to see you've moderated some of your more ridiculous claims in this regard
- Now our 4 single shot missiles only have to take out 12 Top of the Line enemy to be up to your ever changing specs
............................................................................................................................................ BTW hows your MATH score ?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Damed Right !
It will be the Last one you ever build “Alphy” – It’s going to be the Last one you’ll ever be able to afford !

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OH Come ON Do you mind if we find all this nonsense just a tad disingenuous ?
I bring you dozens of documents & quotes from various respected authorities & you bring me THIS !
Your above is just so much Absurd American Military BlowHardism - Where do you get all this Crap - “Alphy” ?
........................................................................................................................................... A Lockheed Martin Sales Broacher ? -
...........................................................................................................................................STEALTH isn't even Relevant anymore

Review my posts -
These & your other ridiculous claims have all been Debunked - Even Britain now is considering Opting Out of the F35 program



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re the F35

Well Yah Got That One Right Bros.

.

 

This would all be so F#@%ing Hilarious if it didn’t cost 11/2 trillion Dollars

Pentagon: F-35 Gun Will Fire in 2017
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/01/08/pentagon-f-35-gun-will-fire-in-2017/
The GAU-22/A, a four-barrel version of the 25mm GAU-12/U Equalizer five-barrel cannon
found on the Marine Corps’ AV-8B Harrier II jump set, is designed to be internally mounted
on the Air Force’s F-35A conventional model of the aircraft and hold 182 rounds. It’s slated
to be externally mounted on the Marine Corps’ F-35B jump-jet variant and the Navy’s F-35C
aircraft carrier version and hold 220 rounds.
Firing at a rate of 3,300 rounds a minute – That gives it about 3.5 second of Fire


Gunless in the Wild Blue Yonder
http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/01/11/gunless-in-the-wild-blue-yonder/

.
Is The F-35 A “Great National Scandal”?
http://www.ecnmag.com/blogs/2013/10/f-35-“great-national-scandal”
“The stealthy PAK-FA, albeit in an early phase of development, is showing naked air
combat power in the form of extreme plus agility and persistence that … will likely
soundly defeat the Raptor but will certainly annihilate the F-35 and the Super Hornet.”


The F-35 Just Hit Another Snag
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-f-35-just-hit-another-snag-2015-1
Pentagon's director of combat testing, reportedly said in the congressional report that
the F-35 "will finish with deficiencies remaining that will affect operational units."


Britain 'Should Consider Scrapping F-35 Stealth Fighter'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-consider-scrapping-F-35-stealth-fighter.html

Specifically, its performance has not met initial requirements, its payload is low,
its range is short, and espionage efforts by the People’s Republic of China may
have compromised the aircraft long in advance of its introduction.”

Advances in Russian and Chinese radar defences mean it is not clear
the stealth technology will still work, the analysis warns.

These facts make the risk calculation involved with prioritizing stealth over
performance, range, and weapons load out inherently suspect - and the F-35 might well
be the first modern fighter to have substantially less performance than its predecessors.”



F-35 Fighter Falls Short In Flying Range, Pentagon Report Says
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2...ort_in_flying_range_pentagon_report_says.html

Even as the F-35A’s combat range may be shrinking, the costs for F-35
early-production models have been creeping up, straining a program for which affordability
is meant to be
a hallmark.

Range estimates have been cut for all three F-35 versions because of a growing
expectation that they will need to “suck a little bit more power out of the engine” to run
internal systems, including cooling, said Dave Majumdar, a pilot who is air warfare
correspondent for Defense News, a trade publication. He said the “A” model had been
affected the most.


F-35's Range Falls Short of Predictions
http://archive.defensenews.com/arti...05120304/F-35-s-Range-Falls-Short-Predictions


The F35 was Built To Fight ISIS
http://ciceromagazine.com/features/the-f-35-was-built-to-fight-isis/

Does the author know anything at all about the deeply troubled history of this albatross of
a plane? There is still no certainty that the software will work, test pilots report that they
can’t see out of the cockpit, it has poor range and weapons carrying capacity, the F-35B
can’t land on ‘normal’ runways….I could list a whole lot more, but the key issues are that
this so-called 5th generation aircraft is out-performed by those built 25-30 years ago and
it is no longer stealthy, because radar technology has also moved on since the JSF
development contract was signed in 1996


Oops: US Close-Air Support Bomb Doesn't Fit on the F-35
http://thediplomat.com/2015/03/oops-us-close-air-support-bomb-doesnt-fit-on-the-f35/

Plus, the F-35 won’t receive the necessary software for full close-air support until 2022.

-----------------------------------------------------.

.

 

F-22 Raptor Weapons


For its primary air-to-air role, the F-22 will carry six AIM-120C and two AIM-9 missiles. For its air-to-ground role, the F-22 can internally carry two 1,000 pound-class Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM), two AIM-120C, and two AIM-9 missiles. With the Global Positioning System-guided JDAM, the F-22 will have an adverse weather capability to supplement the F-117 (and later the Joint Strike Fighter) for air-to-ground missions after achieving air dominance.


AboveAlpha

- - - Updated - - -

There is not one single Pilot in the WORLD that would want to be flying against an F-22 or F-35.

NOT ONE!!!

AboveAlpha

 

It's a vicious little self-feeding system, really.

 

It is without a doubt.

AboveAlpha

 

I grant you – The F22 is a more credible machine.
When it’s not being cancelled & actually dissolving in the Rain

But the thrust of my opprobrium is against the F35 and its disastrous Conceptual Design Flaws
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plus me finding your rebuttals just a mite Disingenuous
& it was you who said this FICTION:

After saying this FANTASY:

-----------------------------------------------------------
Australia Dumps On The F35 Program as of Jun 7 2014
- check out the charts at the bottom of the page -
http://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html
From the Article:
"Air Power Australia declared that the Joint Strike Fighter is not designed to perform
air superiority roles and also is not adapted to performing the long-range penetration strike role

&
"The F-35 JSF aircraft designs will not meet specification nor the operational requirements laid
down in the JSF JORD (Joint Operational Requirements Document) by significant degrees,
noting that these operational requirements and resulting specifications, themselves, were
predicated on the capabilities of reference threats from an era past and subsequently subjected
to the illogical and deeply flawed process known as CAIV (Cost As and Independent Variable).

-----------------------------------------------------------

No There Are Dozens

F22 Pilots Discuss Why They Won't Fly The Jet
http://defensetech.org/2012/05/04/f-22-pilots-to-discuss-why-they-wont-fly-the-jet/

Prices Soar, Enthusiasm Dives for F-35 Lightning;
Pilots Worry About Visibility Problem
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...enthusiasm-dives-for-f-35-lightning/?page=all

Air Force Pilots Balk at Flying the World’s Most Expensive Fighter Jet
http://www.propublica.org/article/a...-flying-the-worlds-most-expensive-fighter-jet

F-35 Stealth Fighter: Reports Identify Safety, Reliability, Combat Risks
http://www.news.com.au/technology/i...ity-combat-risks/story-fnpjxnlk-1227269104114




.

 

The Rise of the Missile Carriers
232 144
40Print Proceedings Magazine - May 2013 Vol. 139/5/1,323
By Commander Phillip E. Pournelle, U.S. Navy
Autonomous attack systems may be heralding the twilight of the aircraft-carrier era, but the venerable platform will remain important by returning to its pre–World War II operational roots.
More than two decades into the missile age a new breed of weapons has emerged that will greatly change the way we fight. Just as technology caused the battleship to be eclipsed by the aircraft carrier, soon the aircraft carrier will be eclipsed by the missile carrier. This is not to say the aircraft carrier will not exist in the future, but it won’t retain the central position in power projection it holds today.

The reason the aircraft carrier rose to predominance above the battleship was the ability of the carrier air wing to effectively deliver force at far greater distances. While the battleship could generate much more firepower (by a factor of ten) in a short period of time, its effective range was too short compared with the airplane. A plane could find and deliver firepower at great distances, because the pilot onboard could navigate accurately to 200 nautical miles or more, locate enemy forces, identify and prioritize the targets, and guide the weapons to hit the target with reasonable accuracy. 1

For decades, the U.S. Navy based its naval strategy on the perfection of high sortie rates, exerting power by the carrier air wing. Today a new generation of weapons is coming on line that removes the need for the pilot to execute the tasks that make the airplane an effective force-projection platform. While some would argue the unmanned combat aerial system (UCAS) has removed the centrality of manned aircraft, these systems are only a step in evolution from the missile age to the robotics age. With the UCAS, the pilot has been moved to a remote operating station requiring satellite and other communications for the same tasks pilots formerly would have performed in the aircraft. But technology is driving us to a point where even these connections to our combat systems will no longer be required.

AboveAlpha

 

This is interesting. Seems Russia is preparing for any eventuality in any part of the world:




According to a new design specification from the Military-Industrial Commission in Moscow, a transport aircraft, dubbed PAK TA, will fly at supersonic speeds (up to 2,000 km/h) and will boast an impressively high payload of up to 200 tons. It will also have a range of at least 7,000 kilometers.

The PAK TA program envisages 80 new cargo aircraft to be built by 2024. This means in a decade Russia’s Central Command will be able to place a battle-ready armored army anywhere, Expert Online reports, citing a source in the military who attended the closed meeting.

“With the development of a network of military bases in the Middle East, Latin America and Southeast Asia, which is expected to be completed during the same time period (by 2024), it’s obvious that Russia is preparing for a full-scale military confrontation of transcontinental scale,” Expert Online says.

A source who attended the closed meeting of the Military-Industrial Commission told the media outlet on condition of anonymity that he was “shocked” by the demands of the military..

“It means for the first time we have the objective of creating an operational capability to airlift a full-fledged army to any desired place on the planet,” the source said. This means delivering a task force the size of the former NATO and the US troops in Iraq, in a matter of hours to any continent. “In the context of the current military doctrine that defies comprehension,” the source said.

 

B-1R
The B-1R is a proposed upgrade of existing B-1B aircraft.[143] The B-1R (R for "regional") would be fitted with advanced radars, air-to-air missiles, and new Pratt & Whitney F119 engines. This variant would have a top speed of Mach 2.2, but with 20% less range.[144]

Existing external hardpoints would be modified to allow multiple conventional weapons to be carried, increasing overall loadout. For air-to-air defense, an Active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar would be added and some existing hardpoints modified to carry air-to-air missiles. If needed the B-1R could escape from unfavorable air-to-air encounters with its Mach 2+ speed. Few aircraft are currently capable of sustained speeds over Mach 2.[143]

LINK....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-1_Lancer

AboveAlpha

 

New (still quite secret) Hit-to-Kill missile for the F-35 unveiled: the Lockheed Martin “Cuda”
Nov 30 2012 - 16 Comments
By David Cenciotti
Until a photo with an interesting caption appeared on the November 2012 issue of Air Force Magazine, few people had noticed that an F-35 display model at the Air Force Association Technology Expo 2012, had its weapon bays loaded with a brand new type of air-to-air missile: the Lockheed Martin “Cuda”.



Image credit: Air Force Magazine

“A Lockheed Martin model shows how its “’Cuda” concept for a small AMRAAM-class radar guided dogfight missile could triple the air-to-air internal loadout on an F-35. The missile is about the size of a Small Diameter Bomb and fits on an SDB-style rack.”

Photo caption aside, almost nothing is known about the “Cuda” missile.

“We are having some challenges getting information on Cuda cleared for public release,” Cheryl Amerine, Cuda POC at the Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, told The Aviationist.

“Cuda is a Lockheed Martin multi-role Hit-to-Kill (HTK) missile concept. Lockheed Martin has discussed the missile concept with the United States Air Force. The Cuda concept significantly increases the internal carriage capacity for 5th generation fighters (provides 2X to 3X capacity). Combat proven HTK technology has been in the US Army for over a decade. Bringing this proven HTK technology to the USAF will provide potentially transformational new capabilities and options for new CONOPS.”

The Hit-to-Kill missile technology Lockheed is designing for the USAF is still classified and some of the capabilities of the Cuda missile are being reviewed for public release. Still, something can be said based on the few details available.

First of all, the F-35 will carry kinetic energy interceptors: “hit-to-kill” weapons rely on the kinetic energy of the impact to destroy their target. That’s why some HTK missiles don’t carry any warhead (others use a lethality enhancer warhead).

LINK....http://theaviationist.com/2012/11/30/cuda/

AboveAlpha

 

The B-1R has already demonstrated it's ability to have the F-35 launch from it Anti-Ship Missiles and the B-1R will be designated another name as an AIR TO AIR MISSILE CARRIER for the F-35's and other aircraft such as Modified 747MR can do the job as well...that JOB being a MISSILE CARRIER.....as the United States Military and Navy has devised a way for large Bomber sized Aircraft to carry HUNDREDS of SUPER ADVANCED LONG RANGE AIR TO AIR MISSILES as well as DOZENS of Highly Advanced Long Range Anti-Ship Missiles.

This way 6 B-1R's or 747MR's could be flying thousands of miles away from each other providing coverage of massive ocean areas and not only will the F-35's be able to launch these missiles from these MISSILE CARRIER AIRCRAFT....but as well all F-18 SUPERHORNETS will be upgraded to do the same.

AboveAlpha

- - - Updated - - -

It will no longer be about how many Fighter Aircraft we have......as 6 to 12 Aussie F-35's will be able to launch HUNDREDS of Advanced Long Range Air to Air Missiles from MISSILE CARRIERS flying constantly over entire REGIONS OF THE GLOBE!!!

AboveAlpha

 

They stopped making the F22 because it's better then anything else, and they are working on its replacement. Unlike Russia, the US tries to improve its air power over time, not just reinvent the same old things using other peoples ideas to try and bridge the capability gap where the US has the lead.

The F35 A and C carries heaps of fuel. Your focus on the F35B is I guess because it carries less fuel as a result of its lift fan, but that is acceptable to the USMC because it's primary role is ground support and defensive counter-air. You might need to read up on USMC strategy if you don't understand why less fuel is not so much an issue for the USMC as it is for the USAF and USN.

 

There has never been a doubt about the fact that Russia is or at least in the past...HAS been home to some of the best and most intelligent and innovative Scientist's, Physicists, Chemists and Weapon's Designers that ever lived.

As example....the Russian T-90 Tank...is a GREAT TANK!!!

The problem is that often POLITICIAN'S GET INVOLVED and force Russian Designers to add in things that are not necessary of smart to the original design driving up costs DRAMATICALLY.....and this is why the T-90 only exists in HUNDFULLS that are actually BATTLE READY as a much larger number of T-90's have some problems that were caused by adding in unnecessary design modifications that caused the T-90's to fail in simulated battle.

The issue is this.....Russia...yes....they can make some great weapons systems....but they can't make them in large numbers nor do they have the MONEY to keep them properly serviced.

Russia reports that it has 2000 Improved T-72's BATTLE READY.....the T-72 being the Russian Tank that they have in the greatest number as all other T-80's and T-90's exist but in HANDFULLS.

Of those 2000 T-72 reported Battle Ready....in reality only about 1500 are actually battle ready and their crews are inexperienced and NOT BATTLE HARDENED...like U.S. Tank Crews.

By comparison....the U.S. has an estimated....THE ACTUAL NUMBER IS CLASSIFIED.....of about 6000 M1A2 and M1A3 Abrams Tanks PREPOSITIONED IN EUROPE AND THE MIDDLE EAST.

THEY ARE ALL BATTLE READY!!

1000 Older M1A1 Abrams Tanks could be made Battle Ready within 1 to 2 weeks.

An estimated number of M1A3 Abrams Tanks in NORTH AMERICA.....is HIGHLY CLASSIFIED....but the number is considered to be enormous!!!

An M1A2 or M1A3 Abrams Tank can cut through a number of even the most IMPROVED RUSSIAN T-72'S like a Hot Knife through Warm Butter.

But the thing is....by the time the U.S. Arbram's Tanks even got within firing distance....which by the way is CONSIDERABLY FURTHER AWAT than an T-72 could fire at an Abrams Tank....before they even got close enough....U.S. Army Apache Longbow Choppers, A-10's, F-15E's, F-16's...etc...etc....will have already destroyed over 95% of all Russian Tanks.

THIS IS WHY EVEN TALKING ABOUT A WAR BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND RUSSIA IS STUPID!!!

AboveAlpha

 

Phenomenally well stated AboveAlpha!

I just got back an interesting comment that might tempt you over into another thread..... where you have already been quoted a great deal.

It looks to me like a guy named Axialturban..... has actually answered all this guy's questions though....... so he resorts to sarcasm!


http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=380300&page=6&p=1064847799#post1064847799

Is this analysis of the F-35 accurate?