US F-22s came face-to-face with Russia's top fighter near Alaska and were at a major disadvantage

Paid basically nothing.

 

That's why they have more than you for less than you.
I know you think it's smart to spend more than everyone else put together on your military. Lol.
But I'm not sure it is.

hahaha.
The sheer desperation in this opinion.

Of course. Mate. That's what happened.
I think some drunk vodka head fell backwards onto the launching switch.
i don't think they even knew they were there.

In fact he was probably just aiming at a civilian airliner and missed.

 

It's what happened. They could detect the F-117 was there but they couldn't lock on. So they salvoed missiles into its projected path set to explode at a pre-determined height. One of them got lucky. They could have done the same thing with a WW2 flak gun.

 

No. The one that gets intercepted is the maritime defence one.

Hence all the pictures of it.
It's easy to recognise. White bulb under the nose.

That's the one that is constantly out and about looking for our ships and stuff.
That's why it gets bumped.
They travel in singles. They are all along coastlines and shipping lanes.
Patrol the Baltic every day. That sort of thing.

Bombers don't approach our countries any more than B 52's approach theirs.
You get lots of newspaper articles about bombers however.
But when you see the picture it's not a bomber at all. It's a sub hunter.
Normies don't know the difference is all.

 

WW2 Radar guided flak gun, yes.

It's OK mate. I believe you.
Your story is so very believable to me.
Obvious. Don't know why I didn't think of it myself.

 

WW2 flak guns were not radar guided. They were at best radar directed, which is not the same.

 

Here is what happened when 500 Russians and their comrades encountered a force of 40 American Soldiers. Tell me again how much numbers count.




As rumors swirled online that the true number of Russian dead numbered in the hundreds, the Washington Post published a report suggesting that the attack on U.S. forces may have had official Russian backing:

A Russian oligarch believed to control the Russian mercenaries who attacked U.S. troops and their allies in Syria this month was in close touch with Kremlin and Syrian officials in the days and weeks before and after the assault, according to U.S. intelligence reports.

In intercepted communications in late January, the oligarch, Yevgeniy Prigozhin, told a senior Syrian official that he had “secured permission” from an unspecified Russian minister to move forward with a “fast and strong” initiative that would take place in early February.

This, by the way, is the same oligarch that special counsel Robert Mueller indicted for alleged criminal acts committed in the Russian effort to influence the 2016 presidential election.

published unverified transcripts of “leaked audio recordings” from Russian mercenaries on the scene. The mercenaries describe a violent hellscape, where they were sitting ducks as American artillery and aircraft killed more than 200 of their comrades.

The alleged transcripts certainly make for vivid reading. Here’s a taste:

The reports that are on TV about … well, you know, about Syria and the 25 people that are wounded there from the Syrian f*** army and — well . . . to make it short, we’ve had our asses f*** kicked. So one squadron f*** lost 200 people … right away, another one lost 10 people . . . and I don’t know about the third squadron, but it got torn up pretty badly, too. . . . So three squadrons took a beating. . . . The Yankees attacked . . . first they blasted the f*** out of us by artillery, and then they took four helicopters up and pushed us in a f*** merry-go-round with heavy caliber machine guns … They were all shelling the holy f*** out of it, and our guys didn’t have anything besides the assault rifles . . . nothing at all, not even mentioning shoulder-fired SAMs or anything like that . . . So they tore us to pieces for sure, put us through hell, and the Yankees knew for sure that the Russians were coming, that it was us, f*** Russians . . . Our guys were going to commandeer an oil refinery, and the Yankees were holding it. . . . We got our f*** asses beat rough, my men called me . . . They’re there drinking now. . . many have gone missing . . . it’s a total f*** up

The transcripts create the impression of a column of troops that were simply cannon fodder — sent to their deaths without air support of any kind and without any air defenses.

 

They have more artillery and helicopters than you too.
Do you suggest that Russian spec ops backed up with artillery and air power can't do that to a group of your mercenaries?
You aren't the only ones with heavy weapons mate.

What do you think would have happened if the Russians had got involved?
All your 40 men were in range of them.
What they did to others could have been done to them.

I take your point. You can kill a lot of people with artillery and machine guns.
But it cuts both ways and they have more of them than you.


Numbers count.

Here is why, while you are fighting one army, another army walks past you.
You can't be in two places at once, and they can be in 20 places at once.

You win a battle, you lose the war.

 

Nope the Russians were equipped with Tanks and Artillery and initiated the battle. But it was just cheap Russian junk and got annihilated when the Sh** hit the fan. By the way, mercenary units are made up of highly trained and experienced former military men. Mostly special forces types. Probably much better than an average Russian military unit.
Here is a quote for you detailing the start of the battle.
"The Conoco outpost was hit with a mixture of tank fire, large artillery and mortar rounds, the documents show. The air was filled with dust and shrapnel. The American commandos took cover, then ran behind dirt berms to fire anti-tank missiles and machine guns at the advancing column of armored vehicles."

Your analysis is exactly why Russia would be slaughtered in a major war. With modern weaponry, numbers mean little. Just like above, a small outpost with 20 to 40 men wiped out a 500 man force equipped with tanks and artillery. Russia still thinks they can fight like they did in WWII and just keep throwing more men into the fight.

 

My money's on them mate.
I don't think you have had a serious fight for a long, long time.

Shot up some tribesmen and some yahoo's with your zillion dollar weapons.
Bruce Willis was there himself, did it all on his own.
No army of locals to hide behind, no navy and airforce in support, just little old Bruce and 5 million of Russia's finest.
Putin himself!

I'll go back to my comic books while you dish out the medals.


And what did it get you?
Killed 200 men and still lost the war in Syria.
Well done. Grats. Brilliant. Fantastiche.

What a difference your army has made.
The 200 men you killed were your allies vs Jihadies. How smart you look to me now.


Made no difference. Not enough of you there to do anything.
You don't have the numbers to win.
Your enemies flow right past you. Run rings around you. You hold a hill, they hold cities.


One month after that battle, they had captured your hill.
You won nothing. Your victory was a loss.

You are gone, they are there.

 

I was not talking about you silly.

 

It seems to me that your don’t understand the value of the precision strike.
Russians can have the ability to kill 100 million, but if they can’t really decapitate the enemy this means nothing from strategic perspective. In any conflict the question number 1 is going to be the strategy. What can you achieve with what you are doing. That’s the question that every executive should be waking up with every morning. For Russians, killing 100-200 million people without the ability to decapitate the country, is a losing strategy as it will achieve nothing but getting a death sentence in a long run. Americans have the rapid strike capability, which means that Russia could be decapitated within minutes. Just think about it.
Less than 10 years ago Pootin admitted that the US can take down Russia without the use of the nuclear weapons. Just by using rapid strike abilities.
Let that settle in your brain for a few minutes.

 

It is not easy to defend against one or more surface to air missiles. The main take away is that if it is difficult to defend against these missiles from the 1970's .. how much more difficult is it to defend against the new stuff.

Given there is only a few nations we can use these planes against - did we really need go on a Trillion dollar spending spree "Like we are going to use these planes to fight a world war with Russia". The answer is no. Same with our fleet of 18 or so aircraft carriers - which are also vulnerable to modern missile technology and have been for decades. Again the question - to fight who ?

I think Spray is right when he asserts that the purpose of the F-35 program was to feed money to Lockheed Martin.

In 2000 - Total Military spending was 300 Billion. Under 8 years of Bush that total surpassed 900 Billion and under Obama surpassed a Trillion. Had we maintained 2000 spending levels (increasing with inflation) we could have diverted 500 Billion/year x 16 years = 8 Trillion dollars to infrastructure, technology, ramping up our economy to compete in the 3rd millennium.

Instead we threw this money down the toilet fighting useless wars - to pad the pockets of the international financiers that dictate our foreign policy agenda.

Annual interest on our debt is 450 Billion/year and has been roughly that much since 2000. x 16 years = 7 Trillion dollars
Again padding the pockets of the same international financiers that own the defense contractors as they also own the banks and the Fed.

Our healthcare system is double the cost of other first world nations and we offer less - no universal healthcare. Again to pad the pockets of you know who... as the same bunch own the Insurance companies, drug companies and healthcare oligopolies. You can add another 500 Billion a year x 16 years = 8 Trillion for that. It is so absurd that even the KOCH brothers are now stumping for Universal Healthcare - Go figure.

 

Patent nonsense. Russia can annihilate the US with 20% of its nuclear arsenal.

 

They have the same capabilities you have.
Intelligence networks.
Assassins.
Laser guided munitions
Rapid reaction forces.
Deployable armies.
Airforces.
Navies
Cruise missiles.
Surveillance.
Satellites.
Allies.
Drones.
Special forces.

What is it you think you could do to decapitate Russia in minutes without using a nuke?

Sounds interesting. Do tell.

Chuck Norris is going to tunnel through the earth and grab Putin from below?
Is that it?
Must be.

Let me tell you about Putin's ability to decapitate world leaders.
All he needs to be is in the same room as one of them.
And he is. Often.

No joke. Not a cheap Putin joke. If you want decapitation of your enemy, he can do it himself. On his own.

Lol at President Obama worlds most powerful man pissing in his pants.
This is real. When they talk to him, they are very, very polite. Lol.

President Putin puts his hand in his pocket and double taps the nuclear football guy in the face. The look on Donald Trumps face. Non comprehension.
Just lost WW3.

 

You are a hoot, you know that. Our Fighters intercept Russian Bombers on a daily basis not far from Anchorage Alaska. They also intercept them over the Cap. We play the same game. Neither side actually crosses the 12 mile line. But both sides gets escorted out well past the 100 mile line where the other side will intercept with their own fighters and the other sides fighters will peel off and go home. If you believe those are Maritime Bombers, you should buy my bridge.

 

Based on what evidence? Not just based on this article surely.

How is the presence of US aircraft carriers a "consolation?"

What the hell is the connection between being peaceful and not having carriers?

Aircraft carriers aren't a serious weapon? Surely you can't be serious. How?

You think that Russia will "preserve peace throughout the world?" Surely you can't be serious. Why? And what do you mean they are "forced" to have better weapons?


FROM THE ARTICLE:

So what? The pilot would have to assume that it is FULLY armed.

What is the advantage in them being seen?

Why?

What's stopping the F22 from having the Su-35 in sight?

 

Except this TU-95 which in 2015 sends suddenly and undetected greetings for the 4th July in international waters next to California ... for example? And the TU-95 is everything, but not stealthy!

http://time.com/3969349/russian-bombers-july-4th-message-to-u-s/

TU-95:

 

There is nothing really to tell here.
Look at Syria or Chechnya - Russia prefers carpet bombing over precision strikes.
Look at their nukes - bigger and heavier. Why? Because they are not precise, for which they compensate with bigger blow.
Russians are not known for accuracy. They are known for brute force.
Americans, on another hand, have proved time and again that they can assasinate someone with a missile in the middle of nowhere.

 

There are two possible conclusions that can be drawn from this article:

1) The Trump administration is just trying to raise public hysteria as part of their efforts to raise military spending despite the fact that America spends way more than Russia and in fact spends as much as the next eight highest spending countries combined.

OR

2) The hugh amounts we already spend is being wasted and our equipment is genuinly inferior that of what is basically at this point a third world country.

 

What about the law of diminishing returns, to chase a very small high end advantage
costs much more.

Plus the cost of manufacturing in the US is very high compared to other places.

Lol. Righto.

You use cruise missiles in Syria, they use cruise missiles in Syria.

If all you need is one, why are you firing them by the hundred?

You've got drones, they've got drones.

You've got smart bombs, they've got smart bombs.

They've got laser guided artillery, you've got unguided artillery.

You think you are better than them, they think they are better than you.

So what?


A precision nuke. Uh huh.

 

Maybe ... but in the end, Dead = Dead!
And even if the US can shoot a missile through the dog's hatch, there's always a lot of "collateral damage" still given as Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya have shown.

But I see a fundamentally different problem here ....

#1
Destroyer keeps coming up with such posts as if there's some kind of inferiority complex, having to prove that Russia can do something in the military

# 2
But that is completely superfluous ... even if enough US low brainer running around here, who actually think that the US weapons are all so superior and the Russians can do nothing. Only these trolls are easy to get to the bottom of the facts ...

# 3
The general issue about is the different point of view on Air Combat between the US and Russia (as well many Europeans). The US backs more on BVR, the others more on dog fight! Who is right or not, you can discuss it endlessly and without any result ...

 

I tend to lean in favour of the US, it's been a long time since the Korean War, American planes have tended to win every dogfight since then.

 

If the Tu is off the coast of California, it's not the S, it's the SM. And as soon as it got close to the 12 mile line, it was intercepted and escorted out to the 100 mile line. Standard practice. Like I said, it's been going on for more than 70 year long before the Soviets got into the maritime game.

 

The Russian Air Force is shrinking. Syria just shot down one of their planes. The good news is they shot it down with a Russian provided Anti-Aircraft system.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/17/politics/syrian-regime-shoots-down-russian-plane/index.html