Shanghai Cooperation Organization

[Гражданин СССР]

Originally Posted by TheJanitor

Ok laddy I see the confusion you made so I'm not going to bash you for it. "A total of 2,090,000 personnel are under arms in China." Ok so, only 2 million out of 200 million (that are fit to fight) are actually in the army thus have army training the rest of them aren't likely to have sufficient army training. I never said they're army sucked, I meant that not all the men in the whole of china that could possibly fight have the actually army training from the chinese military, which I have no doubt is very good. Of course they have more momentum, there making radical changes for the better, this will slow down in a few years time.

Well, lets see they have mandatory conscript training, that means that a large portion of that 200 million has at some point been in the army.

Another common mistake, I may have missed this myself. Exchange rate has nothing to do with the GDP per capita.

The exhange rate is how much a certain currency is valued compared to another. Like the chinese equilivant of a american dollar is 0.123913 of a American, this means you need about 10 yuan for every dollar. Now I know this can have benefits but is nothing to do with the GDP.

Now the GDP is the 'gross domestic product (basically all their money) and GDP per capita is if all the money was shared out equally amongst all the people how much they would each get (this is usually measured anually how much they would make per year).

The Chinese GDP per capita is 5600 dollars while luxemburg GDP per capita (is ranked no.1) is 58,900 dollars. China is ranbked about 121 richest by this method. That means they're gonna have a hard time dishing out enough cash if they were to include ever 200 million of the chinese fighting fit (remember only 2 million are in the army already equiped.

The thing is their labor is so cheap they might actually be able to pull it off.

Yes, and the E.U are extremely close, it's more than 'cooperation' it's almost complete reliance on eachother to make each part. The numbers may not be as high as Russias but they have highly trained and advanced compact militaries. The quality of E.U products I'm looking at, they can easily match or better most of the russian stuff. The AK 47 was a truly reliable gun. America is extremely wasteful but the EU is not, the eurofighter cost 3 times less than there equilivant the raptor and I'd still put my money on the typhoon. Without export or importing most countries would collaspe including Russia, that's what I meant.

Well a Eurofighter is a 4+ generation aircraft, F-22 Raptor is a 5th generation aircraft, what that means is Raptor is a technological level up from Typhoon. Typhoon is more likely to be compared to Mig-29E or SU-35, or SU-30MKI, or SU-37 they all are also 4+ generation fighters.

You see this is a much better comparison, but please remember there are more tanks than the Abraham. Now I don't know much about tanks but I do know that russian gun crews are poorly trained, it's not just the tank but also the level of training to crew have.

Actually the majority of tank divisions in Russia are already operated by professional contractors.

The germans and the french make good tanks, hell the challenger would be a good fight. Now, i've seen t-90's (or was it the object 640) in action, they are speedy little ****ers I'ver seen one take off. With with automatic gunning systems speed doesn't do too much in a battle but really helps with the deployment and how fast a regiment could get somewhere.

There exactly have you seen one in action?

The chally (challenger) has far better armour than the yanks equivilant because we haven't told them how to make chobham or Dorchester armour is it?

Eh actually you did (assuming by you, you mean the Brits), yanks have actually modified it.

Now we all know how the russians discovered the sloped armour so simple but it works. Although the British did invent the tank and came up with the name (code word in ww1) I wouldn't know if they could take on the russian t-90's but we must agree both are better than the American equilivant. With the smoothbore barrel the challenger can out shoot the Abraham about 40km. It's one of the only main battle tanks with a smothbore barrel.

Actually all modern battle tanks and all not so modern battle tanks have a smooth bore barrel. What smooth bore means is that unlike a rifled barrel (kind used on BMP-3 IFV and pretty much every modern hand held gun), the walls of the barrel are smooth, in stead of engraved with a spiral pattern. What this does is give better range but impacts the accuracy in a negative way, however with invention of new fire controll systems those problems have been almost nulified. Also 40 km, i doubt that, Challenger's firing range is probably more like 2 or 3 km, same for Abrams and T-90 (unless firing a rocket assisted projectile which puts it at 5 km)

The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards fought the largest British tank battle since World War II on Op. Telic. 14 Challenger 2s took on 14 T55s. I'm not claiming it was a fair fight, but the overwhelming superiority of the Challenger 2 made it a short fight, won 14-0. I doubt the Americans would of done that well, most likely would of shot eachother, and the t-90 would of probably not lost a tank either but I am not sure as the tank and armour is a little light.

You can't expect a tank designed in the 50s put up against a tank designed in the 80s. The better comparison would be between Challenger and later modifications of T-72 (since its first production in the 70s through continuous modificaitons this tank's armor values have increased 3 times) . Also T-90s armor is light, however it compensates by the use of External Reactive Armor, which is basically a box filled with explosives, the projectile hits the box and the explosive explodes outwards towards the projectile thus either damaging it or changing its trajectory so it would meet the armor at an awkward angle. This helps greatly, Russia is the only nation to field 2 nd generation ERA, unlike the 1st generation ERA which consisted of a number of very light boxes that would fall of the armor once hit and could only stop HE (High Explosive, Chemical) rounds, Kontakt-5 2nd generation ERA is much heavier, does not fall off after use and can effectively stop Kinetic Projectiles such as American depleted uranium round.

I'm gonna end that there, I need to do more research but I would love a good tank discussion with you otmo.

Likewise. I think i can help you out. Here is a good link that lists RHA values for most tanks against both KE and Chemical projectiles. Not much on T-90 though, only values for the turret and thats for the T-90M not the T-90S modification.

http://members.tripod.com/collinsj/protect.htm

Let me help you out even more.

There are two types of rounds commonly used by modern tanks. There is your sabot round and your High Explosive round.

A high explosive round uses the force of a chemical reaction going inside it. Basically it creates a very hot mixture and once it contacts the armor that mixture is driven forward by the compressing force of the impact and melts a hole inside the armor killing everyone who is inside. Light ERA is able to stop this, because then the box explodes its front panel flies towards the HE projectile and impacts it prematurely which severly reduces the effects of the round.

The sabot round uses Kinetic force. It is basically a very small, arrow type projectile encased in a larger shall to fit the caliber of the gun its fired from. The projectile is usually 1/10th the side of its casing. The gun fires the projectile and in mid flight the casing falls off. The rest of the projectile impacts the armor to the devastating results. In order for this round to be effective it has to be built out of a tough material, most commonly used is depleted uranium, which is still slightly radioactive, however during its flight its particles fall from it and light on fire, thus usually then it impacts a tank it causes a fire and a fuel tank or ammunition explosion (T-90 is the only Russian tank to have a protective wall between the ammunition storage compartment and the crew compartment)

[TheJanitor]

Well a Eurofighter is a 4+ generation aircraft, F-22 Raptor is a 5th generation aircraft, what that means is Raptor is a technological level up from Typhoon. Typhoon is more likely to be compared to Mig-29E or SU-35, or SU-30MKI, or SU-37 they all are also 4+ generation fighters.

What makes the raptor 5 gen?

Eh actually you did (assuming by you, you mean the Brits), yanks have actually modified it.

Nope, they use a similar armour but the exact formular the british use is a secret, the yanks don't know it.

Also 40 km, i doubt that, Challenger's firing range is probably more like 2 or 3 km, same for Abrams and T-90 (unless firing a rocket assisted projectile which puts it at 5 km)

I know, that was stupid I don't know where I got the number 40 from.

You can't expect a tank designed in the 50s put up against a tank designed in the 80s. The better comparison would be between Challenger and later modifications of T-72 (since its first production in the 70s through continuous modificaitons this tank's armor values have increased 3 times) .

True, but 14-0 is a good score against almost any kind of tank.

I'm gonna look into things a bit more though for curiousity's sake.

[Гражданин СССР]

Originally Posted by TheJanitor

What makes the raptor 5 gen?

Its avionics, its stealth and its ability to defeat other airplanes including the Eurofighter. Don't worry UK is working with US on the JSF 5th generation fighter, you'll catch up, although JSF is not as good as F-22, its cheaper and you can make much more of them (interesting thing about this fighter is that for a while Russian Yak company was working with US and UK on the design of the VTOL thruster system that the naval version of JSF is going to employ). Russia has its own project called PAK-FA or Sukhoi T-50 its supposed to be a plane with capabilities of F-22 but with a price tag of JSF.

[TheJanitor]

Its avionics, its stealth and its ability to defeat other airplanes including the Eurofighter.

Can it? I've never seen them fight (because they haven't), I don't even the the raptor is in service yet. The eurofighter may be cheaper but it's not proven the raptor would win, the eurofighter is faster, more manuverable (not too sure on that with the addition of vector thrust I don't know) and even though the f-22 is supposed to be the stealthier one the Euro-fighter has better passive detecting capability, and a bunch of other things I'm not gonna go to deep into.

The main thing is, the Raptor is far too specalised, Air to Air... what actual decent aircraft you gonna fight? There's no planes in Iraq to shoot down, nor any other countries they're likely to face. They aint gonna be fighting Euro-fighters or SU-47s anytime soon. Very weak on multirole.

[Гражданин СССР]

There are about 70 or 80 Raptors currently in service with more then 200 getting in during the next few years. Dude, Raptor is better then Eurofighter, thats a given, they use the same missiles, but Raptor's AESA radar is infinetly better, plus Typhoon is not a stealth plane, Raptor is, and of course the vector thrust as you mentioned. Actually Raptor can drop cruise missiles and air to ground missiles as well as some light ordinance, its okay on air to ground.

Su-47 will never be put into service. It and Mig-1.44 are used as research prototypes for development of a Russian 5th generation fighter, the Sukhoi T-50.

[TheJanitor]

There are about 70 or 80 Raptors currently in service with more then 200 getting in during the next few years. Dude, Raptor is better then Eurofighter, thats a given, they use the same missiles, but Raptor's AESA radar is infinetly better, plus Typhoon is not a stealth plane, Raptor is, and of course the vector thrust as you mentioned. Actually Raptor can drop cruise missiles and air to ground missiles as well as some light ordinance, its okay on air to ground.

Really? That many? Ahh well... Don't you sound like a lockheed advertisment now. After so long of contesting the raptors superiority. Did you know they were originally going to order 600 of them? Then it was cut in half and reduced again. You see, the American way of doing things is to throw plenty of money at it. To be honest, the eurofighter and the f-22 were designed to be on different levels but despite this I can say the eurofighter has many pros that the f-22 doesn't and I have mentioned them and will mention more. The thing is, it's a stealth plane which kicks it in the teeth right away, it cannot carry as much because using any of it's external hardpoints it into a very expensive and visble stealth plane, hell every time this thing lauches a missle by opening one of it's internal bays it risks the chances of being detected. I really think it's silly to replace a good alround fighter with a stealth plane, a shitty one at that(in it's 'stealth' aspects). It's thrust to weight ratio is about the same as the f-15. It has a low fuel weight ratio, making it's supercruise not so great in actual practice.

Originally Posted by wilki

Poor stealth - although the aircraft has a very low frontal radar cross-section, it presents a large aspect to ground based radars. It also has a high audio and thermal signatures, and being the largest fighter in service, is easy to spot visually.

The cross section is only really small if it's comming head on. So... who needs radar to pick this thing up? If a plane triangulated with ground radar I recon they could pick this up. For what Europe and Russia could of done with that amount of money, it's a bag of expensive shit. It can only carry one or two 1,000lb bombs, while other of their stealth planes can carry 2,000lb bombs. They use the same misiles? How about the Meteor? It's better than the A

In June 2005, The Scotsman reported that, in a mock confrontation with two American F-15C Eagle fighter aircraft, a Eurofighter pilot was able to avoid his pursuers and outmaneuver them to get into shooting position. Unattributed statements indicate that the success of the craft came as a surprise to both the Americans and the RAF.

The eurofighter can out maneuver them, I don't see a stealth plane that showed very little improvement on thrust ratio compared to the f-15 being too much more maneuvorable than the f-15s. The eurfighter isn't a stealth plane but has undertaken a lot of detail refinement to reduce the radar cross section. Like I said earlier the 'pirate' system is a lot better than the american equivilant. The radar as you said on the f-22 is a lot more sophesticated, but may I add that upgrading such avionics require no change in the airframe.

I'm not trying to prove that the Eurofighter is a better aircraft, but a much better aircraft for it's money. The Engines will be improved aswell as the avionics and the addition of 3D thrust vectoring systems (the raptor has 2D) aswell as various other additions.

Su-47 will never be put into service. It and Mig-1.44 are used as research prototypes for development of a Russian 5th generation fighter, the Sukhoi T-50.

How very silly, the russians have changed their minds after seeing the raptor I suppose. The reason that the name was change from S-37 is because that they were going to put it into production, if wha1t you said is true they have obviously changed their minds.

[Гражданин СССР]

Originally Posted by TheJanitor

Really? That many? Ahh well... Don't you sound like a lockheed advertisment now. After so long of contesting the raptors superiority. Did you know they were originally going to order 600 of them? Then it was cut in half and reduced again.

Its their congress, they want to look like the good guys infront of the voters by cutting on defense and increasing education and healthcare.

You see, the American way of doing things is to throw plenty of money at it. To be honest, the eurofighter and the f-22 were designed to be on different levels but despite this I can say the eurofighter has many pros that the f-22 doesn't and I have mentioned them and will mention more. The thing is, it's a stealth plane which kicks it in the teeth right away, it cannot carry as much because using any of it's external hardpoints it into a very expensive and visble stealth plane, hell every time this thing lauches a missle by opening one of it's internal bays it risks the chances of being detected.

The thing is that it won't need many missiles for a air superiority, they will usually will fly in formations, they will have plenty enough missiles to shoot anyone down and go home. Also it has a low probability of intercept radar, which means that you will probably not know that you are targeted.

I really think it's silly to replace a good alround fighter with a stealth plane, a shitty one at that(in it's 'stealth' aspects). It's thrust to weight ratio is about the same as the f-15. It has a low fuel weight ratio, making it's supercruise not so great in actual practice. The cross section is only really small if it's comming head on. So... who needs radar to pick this thing up? If a plane triangulated with ground radar I recon they could pick this up.

If it was shitty, it wouldn't be a 5th generation plane and Russia and UK wouldn't want to build one with the same stealth capabilities.

For what Europe and Russia could of done with that amount of money, it's a bag of expensive shit. It can only carry one or two 1,000lb bombs, while other of their stealth planes can carry 2,000lb bombs. They use the same misiles? How about the Meteor? It's better than the A The eurofighter can out maneuver them, I don't see a stealth plane that showed very little improvement on thrust ratio compared to the f-15 being too much more maneuvorable than the f-15s. The eurfighter isn't a stealth plane but has undertaken a lot of detail refinement to reduce the radar cross section. Like I said earlier the 'pirate' system is a lot better than the american equivilant. The radar as you said on the f-22 is a lot more sophesticated, but may I add that upgrading such avionics require no change in the airframe.

Actually its ability to outmanuever the eurofighter is almost guaranteed by the vector thrust, the thing is though that most air battles are BVR now a days, meaning beyond the visual range, so if you can't detect it with your radar, can't see it, and don't know if its targeting you or not chances are you will get shot down.

I'm not trying to prove that the Eurofighter is a better aircraft, but a much better aircraft for it's money. The Engines will be improved aswell as the avionics and the addition of 3D thrust vectoring systems (the raptor has 2D) aswell as various other additions.

Eurofighter is getting thrust vector engines? When?

How very silly, the russians have changed their minds after seeing the raptor I suppose. The reason that the name was change from S-37 is because that they were going to put it into production, if wha1t you said is true they have obviously changed their minds.

Actually no, Su-47 was never going to be put into production, it was designed specifically for the research purposes, Mig-1.44 might have entered production had the project not been cancelled due to funding problems because of the break up of USSR and then T-50 winning the government funds then Russia finally had enough money.

[TheJanitor]

Its their congress, they want to look like the good guys infront of the voters by cutting on defense and increasing education and healthcare.

It's still costing them the same, the f-22 costs spiralled out of control.

The thing is that it won't need many missiles for a air superiority, they will usually will fly in formations, they will have plenty enough missiles to shoot anyone down and go home. Also it has a low probability of intercept radar, which means that you will probably not know that you are targeted.

Depend on the enemy really, but if you have to send out 2 planes to do the job of one it's highly unecconmical.

The thing is that it won't need many missiles for a air superiority, they will usually will fly in formations, they will have plenty enough missiles to shoot anyone down and go home. Also it has a low probability of intercept radar, which means that you will probably not know that you are targeted.

Hmmm, that's what the said about the nighthawk 117.... British radar can detect that. With certain sacrafices they made to the stealth, I don't think it will be that stealthy.

If it was shitty, it wouldn't be a 5th generation plane and Russia and UK wouldn't want to build one with the same stealth capabilities.

Who say's it's 5th generation, it's mostly the avionics that make it 5th generation. Russia and the UK could build a fighter with the same capabilities, but when you can manufacture planes that do just as good of a job for a lot cheaper so what's the point?

Actually its ability to outmanuever the eurofighter is almost guaranteed by the vector thrust

Lightings have out manuvered f-15s, It may because the technology is new (to them) and the facts it's only 2-D vector thrust.

the thing is though that most air battles are BVR now a days, meaning beyond the visual range, so if you can't detect it with your radar, can't see it, and don't know if its targeting you or not chances are you will get shot down.

I know this already mate, the eurofighter will be arming with meteor missiles which are going to be better than the AA missiles the f-22 carry, the f-22 would have to travel a long way inside the eurofighters range, who says that their radar or PIRATE systems won't pick them up, the f-22 would probably have to use active radar to detect the typhoon.

Eurofighter is getting thrust vector engines? When?

Don;t know Germanys trying to fight it but spain has already worked out a system that will work out with EJ2000, just look it up.

Actually no, Su-47 was never going to be put into production, it was designed specifically for the research purposes, Mig-1.44 might have entered production had the project not been cancelled due to funding problems because of the break up of USSR and then T-50 winning the government funds then Russia finally had enough money.

I meant SU-37, the point stays the same though America wont be fighting anything that has anyway near half decent radar anytime soon.

[usedname]

Why can't everyone just do like the europeans, and forget about this realpolitik game, and sink into oblivion? Realpolitik is so much pre-1990, its old, its irrelevant, and it doesn't matter. A country's performance and overall worth isn't mesured by power anymore. Certainly not in this nifty little interdependant and integrated world the West has weaved for itself.

Or power wouldn't be important anymore, if everyone would just shut the f.uck up and leave each other alone. Comparing power between countries, it is nothing but intellectual masturbation, and its only a small fraction of what the international system is really about. Its like, when Staline asked how many divisions does the Pope have, wasn't it hilarious how freaking wrong he was?
This whole thread is trying to reduce international relations to income, units production and unit performance. Well, this has never been so wrong than today. Nobody is playing Starcraft anymore.

But hey, lets pretend this whole conversation isn't bankrupt, lets pretend this topic wasn't discussed to death, and let me trow in something. If you really want to compare the East versus the West, check that up. Nothing works better than an image.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...d/carriers.htm

Now this prove the West has the unmatched ability to bring war to anyone, anywhere in the world. Which reduce the argument to a single question: does the West has better airplanes than the russians?

And a worthy question would be, what are the chance of a carrier group to be the target of a nuclear strike? Aren't carrier groups just that, gigantic floating targets? But then again, is it possible to bring nuclear capabilities in the equation, without getting yourselfe nuked?

[Гражданин СССР]

Originally Posted by TheJanitor

Depend on the enemy really, but if you have to send out 2 planes to do the job of one it's highly unecconmical.

Well if you can send out two planes to shoot down 10, then i'd say its economical.

Hmmm, that's what the said about the nighthawk 117.... British radar can detect that. With certain sacrafices they made to the stealth, I don't think it will be that stealthy.

Eh F-117 is old, it was one of first steps in stealth technology, hell even an old Soviet radar detected it and because of that one was shot down over Serbia. F-22 is on the whole different playing field stealth wise.

Who say's it's 5th generation, it's mostly the avionics that make it 5th generation. Russia and the UK could build a fighter with the same capabilities, but when you can manufacture planes that do just as good of a job for a lot cheaper so what's the point?

But the thing is it has better avionics, it is stealither, it has supercruise, it is maneuvarable, it is a better plane then 4th generation fighters thats why its a 5th generation fighter. Also Britain is working with US on creation of their own 5th generation fighter the JSF. Now if they were completely satisfied with Typhoon why would the do that?

I know this already mate, the eurofighter will be arming with meteor missiles which are going to be better than the AA missiles the f-22 carry, the f-22 would have to travel a long way inside the eurofighters range, who says that their radar or PIRATE systems won't pick them up, the f-22 would probably have to use active radar to detect the typhoon.

I highly doubt that they will have any problem detecting typhoon since its not made to be stealth. Also AIM-120D seems like a pretty good missile, thats why Brits buy them from yanks.

I meant SU-37, the point stays the same though America wont be fighting anything that has anyway near half decent radar anytime soon.

Well, they made test flights and the yanks claim that a F-15 radar can't detect F-22 at all at any range. Of course i don't know if that certain F-15 was using new AESA or an older radar.

[Гражданин СССР]

Originally Posted by usedname

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...d/carriers.htm

Now this prove the West has the unmatched ability to bring war to anyone, anywhere in the world. Which reduce the argument to a single question: does the West has better airplanes than the russians?

And a worthy question would be, what are the chance of a carrier group to be the target of a nuclear strike? Aren't carrier groups just that, gigantic floating targets? But then again, is it possible to bring nuclear capabilities in the equation, without getting yourselfe nuked?

Hmm, well the thing of it is that having carriers doesn't guarantee your victory in war. Russia has some very potent anti-ship missiles such as BrohMas for example. Either way Russia doesn't have to have power to transport its troops over the ocean to win a war against US on Russian soil or conquer all of Europe aside from Britain.

[TheJanitor]

Eh F-117 is old, it was one of first steps in stealth technology, hell even an old Soviet radar detected it and because of that one was shot down over Serbia. F-22 is on the whole different playing field stealth wise.

Didn't they shoot one of their own down aswell? It's a compromised stealth plane, which means they'res not that much improvement in how the shape makes it stealthy, it's got a large heat signature ect ect. It's what I'd call a 'stealthy' fighter but not a stealth plane. The difference is the jamming which can be fitted to almost any aircraft.

Also Britain is working with US on creation of their own 5th generation fighter the JSF.

The JSF is a different class, it's a strike aircraft, not an air superioty. It's the yankes attempt at making a cheap plane but yet again costs are not going as planned. The sea version is too heavy, their trying to get a harrier effectively but it's not quite working. The JSF is going to be a diaster, I think it's got more to do with streghtening ties than anything else, and we did let them down by choosing europe over them to make the typhoons missiles.

The avionics in the typhoon have a lot of room for improvement, that's the main advantage the f-22 has.

I highly doubt that they will have any problem detecting typhoon since its not made to be stealth. Also AIM-120D seems like a pretty good missile, thats why Brits buy them from yanks.

Yes, and the meteor seems like a pretty good missile, that's why we turned the yanks down for europe, the yanks haven't even started a ramjet missile program.

They wont have much of a problem no, but the typhoon may not have to use active radar to find them their PIRATE system may give them a chance of spotting it, and if it does before the f-22 is in missle range then it could easily take them out.

If a f-22 was on the run from a typhoon, or if one was behind the f-22 then it could detect it quite easily either using the glaring heat signature or the poor stealth of the rear end to spot it.

Well, they made test flights and the yanks claim that a F-15 radar can't detect F-22 at all at any range. Of course i don't know if that certain F-15 was using new AESA or an older radar.

Oh I'd bet the f-22 can be tracked it'd be hard but I bet it can, and chances are it was using an older radar.

[Гражданин СССР]

Originally Posted by TheJanitor

Didn't they shoot one of their own down aswell? It's a compromised stealth plane, which means they'res not that much improvement in how the shape makes it stealthy, it's got a large heat signature ect ect. It's what I'd call a 'stealthy' fighter but not a stealth plane. The difference is the jamming which can be fitted to almost any aircraft.

Well, the thing is that F-22 uses more composite radar absorbing materials plus other advanced stealth solutions like iron ball paint.

The JSF is a different class, it's a strike aircraft, not an air superioty. It's the yankes attempt at making a cheap plane but yet again costs are not going as planned. The sea version is too heavy, their trying to get a harrier effectively but it's not quite working. The JSF is going to be a diaster, I think it's got more to do with streghtening ties than anything else, and we did let them down by choosing europe over them to make the typhoons missiles.

Yes i know that JSF is different class but its still a multipurpose aircraft and if UK ever goes to war with the Yanks (say the yankie government officially called football (eurpean) a silly game. Russia would probably pitch into that yankie ass wooping in that case) the UK JSF will face off against the F-22.

They wont have much of a problem no, but the typhoon may not have to use active radar to find them their PIRATE system may give them a chance of spotting it, and if it does before the f-22 is in missle range then it could easily take them out.

If a f-22 was on the run from a typhoon, or if one was behind the f-22 then it could detect it quite easily either using the glaring heat signature or the poor stealth of the rear end to spot it.

Aight i highly doubt that the F-22 pilot would put himself in a position to be threatened by the Typhoon, i mean all he really has to do is let out a missile from 20-40 km away, change position, and if Typhoon dodges the first missile then it will have to slow down and be unable to dodge the next one. During all this Typhoon pilot will not know where the hell the F-22 is.

Oh I'd bet the f-22 can be tracked it'd be hard but I bet it can, and chances are it was using an older radar.

I don't know, yanks are known for boasting about how mighty clever they are. In the end it turns out that the VTOL engine for JSF was designed due in large part to cooperation with Russian Yakovlev, the missile shooting laser was designed by Israel and is powered by the derivative of mobile nuclear powermodule technologies Russia sold to US in 1994 and the Patriot missile has 3.5 times less range then the Russian S-400 plus almost never works right.

[usedname]

Originally Posted by Гражданин СССР

Eh...no...not really...Russia can take on the whole NATO minues US just by itself, EU is not militaristic at all, numbers of their military equipment are misery exept for say UK and Germany, but even combined they are nothing compared to the nearly a douzen thousand tanks Russia has.

He's right. The military weight of the EU is close to nothing. Without the United States, Europe would be nothing but an inconsequencial and insignificant peninsula of the Eurasia continent. Not because they dont have the manpower, not because they dont have the technology, nor the economy. Simply because the europeans willingly chose not to. I'm not certain how I stand on the issue, but the idea of an economical powerhouse like the EU without a military seems to be working so far, and as long as the statu quo is maintained, it will continue to work.

Since mister CCCP seems abnormaly knowledgable of the military domaine, let me ask him a question: from an european point of view, would it make sense to unify all the military branches of all member states of the EU? Meaning, insteed of having 25 air force, 25 navy and 25 armies, would it be worth the trouble, would it change anything, to unify all of this into one coherant fighting force? Not to increase whats already there, but simply to unify it. Europeans seem to think it wouldnt be worth it.

[TheJanitor]

plus other advanced stealth solutions like iron ball paint.

The eurofighter uses radar absorbing paint aswell.

the UK JSF will face off against the F-22.

I wouldn't use the JSF, it's not going to be that good to be honest. Probably not even as good as the f-22. I'd try to find some kind of way of picking up the f-22 and sticking in the eurofighter. The JSF will be probably too weak on air to air. It's the stealth that seperates the two, mainly. If there was a leap in radar tech that made the f-22's stealth useless that would be great .

Aight i highly doubt that the F-22 pilot would put himself in a position to be threatened by the Typhoon, i mean all he really has to do is let out a missile from 20-40 km away, change position, and if Typhoon dodges the first missile then it will have to slow down and be unable to dodge the next one. During all this Typhoon pilot will not know where the hell the F-22 is.

I don't know what the range is myself. If a f-22 tried to come in British territory, we'd just use ground radar (f-22 does very poor unless engaged head to head) and triangulate a f-22's position and send a metoer missile after it before it even comes in range.

Simply because the europeans willingly chose not to. I'm not certain how I stand on the issue, but the idea of an economical powerhouse like the EU without a military seems to be working so far, and as long as the statu quo is maintained, it will continue to work.

kind of, europe has a compact advanced and well trained army. It's maintains a ability to expand but there's absolutely no point maintaining and paying for a large army if they're not at war. They'd rather spend money developing advanced equipment and hardware and train the soilders they do have professionally than pay for a load of people to sit on their asses and produce a lot of tanks that will be sat around all the time. There definitely not without a military but I believe they've gone for the smart way around it. And the united states is in north America, not europe. But if you want to put it that way, without europe indians would still be killing buffalo.

Since mister CCCP seems abnormaly knowledgable of the military domaine, let me ask him a question: from an european point of view, would it make sense to unify all the military branches of all member states of the EU? Meaning, insteed of having 25 air force, 25 navy and 25 armies, would it be worth the trouble, would it change anything, to unify all of this into one coherant fighting force? Not to increase whats already there, but simply to unify it. Europeans seem to think it wouldnt be worth it.

Because every time another country throws a spat the unified army would get split or messed up. There are language barriers, culture barriers you wouldn't want the English with the french or the portugeese with the spanish, you'd have to split them into regiments anyway to cover all of europe. The way all the armies are funded ect could cause a lot of problems ect ect. It's a lot better this way, believe me.

[Гражданин СССР]

Originally Posted by usedname

Since mister CCCP seems abnormaly knowledgable of the military domaine, let me ask him a question: from an european point of view, would it make sense to unify all the military branches of all member states of the EU? Meaning, insteed of having 25 air force, 25 navy and 25 armies, would it be worth the trouble, would it change anything, to unify all of this into one coherant fighting force? Not to increase whats already there, but simply to unify it. Europeans seem to think it wouldnt be worth it.

Minding what the Janitor said about this i still have to say that unifiying the army would be a better move. It can be organized like a UN peacekeaping force just with a premise of it being a costant entity and not just a temporary unification for the purpose of resolving a particular issue. Europe can also kind of do something similar to what Russia and Kazahstan and someother CIS countries are trying to do, they are working on a unified air defense network. If thought out well enough unified European army could work, either way putting all those resources together is a smart move atleast in theory.

[TheJanitor]

Otmo, what would the EU benefit from a 'unified' army, would there be changes or more of just a 'status'?

[Гражданин СССР]

It all depends on what EU will call a unified army. Either way with current world politics EU doesn't need a unified army, i am simply saying that if EU wanted to become a military force then its best bet would be to create a unified army.