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

Yes. Russian weaponry is so awesome.

For example, the Admiral Kuznetsov is so reliable that it constantly belches smoke and needs to be towed by a tugboat:

 

Who is your doctor?

 

Strangelove Jr..

 

You do not have to look at the old Russian ship. You better look at the new American ship.

 

The Kursk is another fine example of awesome weaponry. It had a hole blown in it while preparing to fire a dummy missile, and sunk:

 

Is this the name of your doctor? I hope he's a psychiatrist.

 

Why, you need one?

 

But, at least Putin can fire miniature missiles from his face:

 

On March 19, 1998, "Kentucky" and "San Juan" collided near the island of Long Island, New York. Why do not you talk about it?
Or about it. On February 9, 2001, the multipurpose nuclear powered US Navy "Greenville" rammed the Japanese fishing schooner "Ehime Maru". Killed nine Japanese fishermen, the US Navy submarine disappeared from the scene, without having rendered any help to the disaster.

 

In order for the doctor to explain to me the comments of some crazy people. I do not understand the nonsense that they write.

 

Hmm. I can see that could be a problem. Perhaps it's genetic, and a doctor could do little to help with your perception problems.

Or, maybe it's just the system you operate under, and at this point, you're unable to waiver from the objective.

But I have sympathy for your pain.

 

You the main thing do not be nervous. All is well. Everything is quiet. You are the strongest, you are the most beautiful. You are an "exceptional nation". The main thing do not be nervous. To be nervous, it is dangerous for your health.

 

Thanks.

I'm curious, what page from the response book did that come from?

The reason I ask, is that you might want to get the translators to work on it. It's a bit choppy, so it doesn't come off with sincerity I think it was designed to project.

As it is, it comes off kind of creepy, and makes me think it would be something that sword guy in the video I posted would say.

 

Your super sophisticated hovercraft very successfully terrorized sunbathers on Russia's Baltic coast.

 

The T-14 Armata tank was billed as the "world's first post-war, third-generation tank." So you can imagine the disappointment when the new, high-tech piece of military hardware broke down during May's rehearsal for the Victory Day parade in Moscow and had to be towed with ropes by another vehicle. But it was still a very scary and awesome piece of equipment.

 

Then there's the Buran, which was a cheap knock off of the space shuttle. It made one flight, and then a hangar fell on it. It was never seen again.

Good work, Russia!

 

Below is the casualty list for the Russian Civil War. Russia 500,000 casualties, everyone else 2,225 casualties. That was quite a victory.

The Russian Civil War
Country
# of Battle Deaths
Russia
500,000
UK
350
France
50
US
275
Japan
1500
Finland
50
Source: The Correlates of War Project

 

You own space shuttle blew up.
And no one uses them.
You catch rides into space with the Russians.
.

 

In other words, do you mean that all the rest are cowardly nations? It is clear that the civil war is a war between Russians and Russians. Therefore, there were many victims among the Russians. By the way, the number of victims of the civil war in Russia is estimated at about 8 million people. But the interventionists do you think were cowards? Was it enough for the Russians to shoot several people so that the interventionists fled from fear? And why on your list there are no Americans, Italians, Australians. Canadians and others? Were they even more cowardly? And fled to the first shots?

 

Not anymore. 30 years of effective service vs. 0. I think we win.

The shuttle is the only winged manned spacecraft to have achieved orbit and landing, and the only reusable manned space vehicle that has ever made multiple flights into orbit (the Russian shuttle Buran was similar, but crappy and made only one unmanned spaceflight before it was cancelled). It involved carrying large payloads to various orbits (including segments to be added to the ISS, providing crew rotation for the space station, and performing service missions. The orbiter also recovered satellites and other payloads (e.g., from the ISS) from orbit and returned them to Earth, though its use in this capacity was rare. Each vehicle was designed with a projected lifespan of 100 launches, or 10 years' operational life, though original selling points on the shuttles were over 150 launches and over a 15-year operational span with a 'launch per month' expected at the peak of the program, but extensive delays in the development of the International Space Station never created such a peak demand for frequent flights

 

My list only lists military casualties. Murdered women and children do not fall in that category. Russia has always been a country that punishes civilians during war time. It is not surprising that they would slaughter 8 million civilians. What is ridiculous is your claim that Russia defeated armies from all those countries. If they had, where are the casualties. In fact, other than Japan who successfully protected their border none of the other countries had more than a few thousand troops involved. Those troops were used to protect Czechoslovak. In truth after WWI, none of those countries wanted to be involved in another war. Especially in a sewer like Russia.

 

That sounds like Trump thinking, where size is everything. Actually, it isn't. Pinpointing the right targets, sending in the right weapons, at the right time, and with precision accuracy, can be far more important. Those are more in the intelligence, planning, and technological arenas than simply large size. Russia is economically smaller than the U.S., but they are technologically our equal. We are more susceptible to precise attack because we are more dependent on electric power than Russia, and if they hit our electric grid and disable it, our whole society would be dysfunctional in an instant. No so in Russia. Comparisons like these are extremely complex, and don't do well under superficial scrutiny.

 

When I think of Russia and America fighting, I see it as taking place in Europe or Asia.

Any attack on the USA is just nuke.

Outside of nukes I don't think you have enough weapons. I think you need more bombs and bullets.

Can you defeat a Russian army, I sort of think you can (although it's not a certainty), can you defeat all of them all at the same time, no chance whatsoever.

If we picture the equivalent of a technology war, Romans vs Barbarians, massed infantry vs Maxim gun, we can see that vast numbers can be defeated by small numbers.


But you still need boots on the ground. Because all 35 million aren't going to form an orderly queue. They will split up into forces of 1/2 a million. And then you need to be in 70 places all at the same time and you don't have that capability.

Numbers count.

 

They were defeated.
They lost, the socialists won.

Wars aren't decided by the number of men killed.
Those armies deployed to prevent the socialist taking control of Russia. They failed.
They lost that war.

 

One of the successful tactics a F-15 uses is going vertical. The Thrust to weight of a F-15E is staggering. (btw,there is even a more powerful engine available that would place it in the 31,600lb thrust rate range but the AF isn't buying it) One of the comments from Red Flags about dog fighting a F-15 is that you are on his six and he just goes up and vanishes. He mysteriously reappears 10 miles away and the fight starts all over again. The F-22 is capable of doing the same thing.

The ONLY time either the F-22 or the SU-35 are going to be able to use their vectoring is going to be if they slow down. The F-22 will want to keep the fight at near high subsonic so the su can't use the vectoring. The F-15 will do the same. If the SU slows down to use it, the US fighter will just swat it out of the sky because the US fighter will have the advantage. So the entire fight will be done at high subsonic speed all the way. And it will be a missile fight and not a gun fight. There has only been one recorded supersonic or near subsonic gun victory ever and that was done by a F-100 on a Mig-19 and we have to admit that was one very lucky shot that will probably never be done again in anyone's lifetime.

For dog fighting in Jets, both the SU-27 and the F-15 reached the pinnacle. As long as there is a human onboard, you can't get any better. It's not the bird that limits the performance,it's the pilots limits. And until the pilot can take the initial shock of more than 9.5+, a sustained 7.5+ and X number of negative Gees then it doesn't matter anymore. Using your vectoring thrust to exceed the pilots limits pretty well turns your pilots brains into jelly.