Military Debate (Otmo this is a must for you)

[bamthedoc]

There really is no such thing as "best" either. I like how a plane rounds off a forces capabilities. The US is one of the best, if not the best, at using its assets to round itself off nearly perfectly.

My personal favorite planes of all time include the F-4 Phantom, B-52 Super Fortess, and A-10 Warthog. That's a fighter, bomber, and tank-killer for you. They were perfect additions for the time, and they rounded the forces perfectly. The F-22 was designed to take over for the F-15, which is the work-horse of the Air Force. It fits the roll well, and it will be rounded off by the F-16's replacement in the coming years.

The F-22 excels at long range and invisibility. The Typhoon excels at manuverability and invisibilty. The Suhkoi excells at speed and manuverabilty. Which is best? I have to go with the Raptor because of its ability to round off the USAF. The Typhoon and Suhkoi are excellent. They fit well into their rolls, but they are completely different from the Raptor in their countries given roll. The F-22 Raptor was built for all out air-superiority, taking over the F-15 Eagle's roll.

There is not best, period. In stating my opinion, I was stating how each craft impressed me in how they fit into their assigned roll and designed armed force.

 

[Kamikaze]

since we're all pushing planes made by our own countries, i've decided to jump in and say that the only serious attempt at building a plane by Canada was the best plane ever built.



The CF-105 Avro Arrow was:

1) First a/c designed with digital computers being used for both aerodynamic analysis and designing the structural matrix (and a whole lot more).
2) First a/c design to have major components machined by CNC (computer numeric control); i.e., from electronic data which controlled the machine.
3) First a/c to be developed using an early form of "computational fluid dynamics" with an integrated "lifting body" type of theory rather than the typical (and obsolete) "blade element" theory.
4) First a/c to have marginal stability designed into the pitch axis for better maneuverability, speed and altitude performance.
5) First a/c to have negative stability designed into the yaw axis to save weight and cut drag, also boosting performance.
6) First a/c to fly on an electronic signal from the stick and pedals. i.e., first fly-by-wire a/c.
7) First a/c to fly with fly by wire AND artificial feedback (feel). Not even the first F-16's had this.
8) First a/c designed to be data-link flyable from the ground.
9) First a/c designed with integrated navigation, weapons release, automatic search and track radar, datalink inputs, home-on-jamming, infrared detection, electronic countermeasures and counter-countermeasures operating through a DIGITAL brain.
10) First high wing jet fighter that made the entire upper surface a lifting body. The F-15, F-22, Su-27 etc., MiG-29, MiG 25 and others certainly used that idea.
11) First sophisticated bleed-bypass system for both intake AND engine/exhaust. Everybody uses that now.
12) First by-pass engine design. (all current fighters have by-pass engines).
13) First combination of the last two points with an "ejector" nozzle that used the bypass air to create thrust at the exhaust nozzle while also improving intake flow. The F-106 didn't even have a nozzle, just a pipe.
14) Use of Titanium for significant portions of the aircraft structure and engine.
15) Use of composites (not the first, but they made thoughtful use of them and were researching and engineering new ones).
16) Use of a drooped leading edge and aerodynamic "twist" on the wing.
17) Use of engines at the rear to allow both a lighter structure and significant payload at the centre of gravity. Everybody copied that.
18) Use of a LONG internal weapons bay to allow carriage of specialized, long-range standoff and cruise missiles. (not copied yet really)
19) Integration of ground-mapping radar and the radar altimeter plus flight control system to allow a seriousstrike/reconnaissance role. The first to propose an aircraft be equally adept at those roles while being THE air-superiority fighter at the same time. (Few have even tried to copy that, although the F-15E is an interesting exception.)
20) First missile armed a/c to have a combat weight thrust to weight ratio approaching 1 to 1. Few have been able to copy that.
21) First flying 4,000 psi hydraulic system to allow lighter and smaller components.
22) First oxygen-injection re-light system.
23) First engine to have only two main bearing assemblies on a two-shaft design.
24) First to use a variable stator on a two-shaft engine.
25) First use of a trans-sonic first compressor stage on a turbojet engine.
26) First "hot-streak" type of afterburner ignition.
27) First engine to use only 10 compressor sections in a two-shaft design. (The competition was using 17!!)


the few that were actually constructed were made in 1957-1958 and could still be in use today.

 

[ORC-r0x0r-ROC]

It was a hell of the plane for back then. It's a real shame that canada stopped making planes like that. If they didn't they probally would've had one of the worlds best planes right now but I like canada now, it's nice and friendly country it cares more about it's people than petty wars else where. Even though we're talking about modern planes, thanks for making me look it up a bit. Again, unless someone comes up with a new plane to debate I think we'll move onto the tanks, the best contenders are: t-90, Challenger II, M1A2, Leclerc and Leopard II. If theres anything else you think is the best go ahead and tell us why. I'm not really sure which is the best, yet. I will do some research and get back to you on that.

 

[bamthedoc]

I like the US's M1 the best, but, as I've said, there really is no absolute best. Those are definately nice tanks, just don't get them on the wrong end of an A-10 Warthog

 

[Ciphus]

Ahh, the A-10 Warthog. That'll tear vehicles a new one. My paps served and said he saw one of those fly and shoot down and it was just amazing. The bullets they fire are huge. It's artillery from the sky.

 

[ORC-r0x0r-ROC]

I don't think there is anyone here that knows much about tanks, I mean even bam the doc failed to give a reason for why he liked the M1a2. I think we'll leave this untill later in the the thread. I have searched for any info on tanks and there is barely anything on them.

I think we should move onto submarines. This is another aspect of military I know almost nothing. Well, I'm guessing Otmo will brag about the russian shark which can carry 250 nukes.

 

[bamthedoc]

The Shark is outdated, however. It's hull really isn't much to the latest torpedoes. My favorite sub is from Canada. Yes, you heard me correct. I don't recall the name, but it is the latest in submarinous technology, included a "self-automated" fire detection and elimination system -- if I'm not mistaken. It carries no nukes, whatsoever, either

As for my choice for the A1, I'd say it's because of the immense firepower and auto-load system. It also has the latest armor created to defend against anti-tank technologies. It's one mean tank

 

[Guru]

As for why the F-22 pwns the MiGs, I already told you:
http://www.battleforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=52549&perpage=30&pagenumber=5

Also, as for the A10, its a nice A2G plane. If I don't recall it was one of the first planes (maybe the first) to be designed completely around it's weapons, instead of the weapons designed around the body. And it's has the most powerful and automatic gattling gun there is.

Tank wise, I agree with ORC about how they are all basically the same. Isn't much to those.

Sub wise - who cares how many nukes a submarine can hold? It's not like it's going to shoot any of them. Honestly, when is the last time a nuclear missle has been launched for other than testing purposes? Uh, never? I'm skipping subs, i dont know much about them and don't really care. Like the tank, they are basically all the same.

Lets talk helicopter. Can any country compete with the Commanche's? Didn't think so.

 

[amrtin77]

attack choppers are nice for taking out ground targets true, but they are worthless air to air and you must not forget about helicopters built to transport or rescue. we got the blackhawk, but im sure its not that hard to build. just a helicopter that carries troops with two big guns on the side.. our coast gaurd has some good rescue helicopters i forget the exact models but were replacing the old dolphin with a newer one...

subs must have very good stealth abilities and a good crew... the battles between subs or ships and suspected subs are all based on skill. these sub crews have to know their capabilities completely and be able to stay stealth, knock out whatever target they are going for and get away. they have to be able to dodge sonar and all that shit. once they are found they are screwed by other subs/ helicopters.

 

[ORC-r0x0r-ROC]

This thread should've of lasted longer. Anyone got suggestions on what military device we should talk about? Which troops are the best trained? Best rifle in the world? Worst tank/plane now/ever?I guess the reason why people liked to talk about the aircraft is because they are the dominant over everything else since the first world war.

 

[Plumpamania]

Best trained troos. . .look no further than the USA. Take a look around? Who's the one doing the UN's work?

 

[ORC-r0x0r-ROC]

Rofl, U.S.A has admitted letting the training on troops slide.

 

[Plumpamania]

And its still better, your point?

Russia doesn't train troops. They just draft about 1.5 million men. Give them used uniforms and tell them to get out there and do their country proud. If they don't and try to come back they shoot themselves.

Britain is the only country near the quality training of our troops.

 

[amrtin77]

we have the best trained regular infantry in the world as far as i know.... but not special forces. the brittish have the best trained special forces and the aussies have second best (they are brittish trained) then third is the united states.

 

[Plumpamania]

^^w00t

 

[ORC-r0x0r-ROC]

Originally posted by Plumpamania
And its still better, your point?

Russia doesn't train troops. They just draft about 1.5 million men. Give them used uniforms and tell them to get out there and do their country proud. If they don't and try to come back they shoot themselves.

Britain is the only country near the quality training of our troops.

I'm British you dolt and British training is better. Just because I like some of Russia's military doesn't mean I'm a Russian. I didn't know the aussies had the second best amrtin77. You are gravely mistaken about Russia's infantry.

 

[Plumpamania]

Russia's infantry blows. British only have special forces. And Britains tanks/planes suck even more. Consentrate on your Navy since you are an island country.

 

[Guru]

Originally posted by Plumpamania
Russia's infantry blows. British only have special forces. And Britains tanks/planes suck even more. Consentrate on your Navy since you are an island country.

FYI, the United States has the greatest navy in the world.

Originally posted by ORC-r0x0r-ROC
I guess the reason why people liked to talk about the aircraft is because they are the dominant over everything else since the first world war.

Isn't that a lie?

As far as training goes, it doesn't matter as much as technology. For example, even if British troops have better training, the US land warrior system and ACVCH will still make US soldiers more effective.

That clears that up, now lets talk field weapons (rifles, pistols, etc.).

Does any country have anything on the US military's OICW that is most likely going to replace the M16 in the future? Didn't think so.

 

[ORC-r0x0r-ROC]

Russia's infantry blows. British only have special forces. And Britains tanks/planes suck even more. Consentrate on your Navy since you are an island country.

The only thing here that was correct was the fact that Britain is a island. Ever heard of the euro fighter? It is faster, more manuverable and 3 times cheaper than the f-22 that isn't even properly out yet, yes our planes suck? Do you know where the word "tank" came from? Who invented the catapilar tracks in the crimean war?

Isn't that a lie?

Ok, then which military vehicle is better than the plane? Go back to chit-chat.

As far as training goes, it doesn't matter as much as technology. For example, even if British troops have better training, the US land warrior system and ACVCH will still make US soldiers more effective.

Even if? It's a fact. We have stuff just as good, the yanks have horrible acronyms.

 

[Plumpamania]

Crossing ways, you said before the Russians had the best tanks and now you're saying the British do?

who cares who invented what? We whooped Britain's ass twice. Now you're OUR little brother.