If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(IHS Jane's)   One big difference between the Mig-35 and the F-22 is that one of these has customers   (janes.com) divider line 68
    More: Interesting, Anastas Mikoyan, customers  
•       •       •

5933 clicks; posted to Business » on 30 Apr 2013 at 3:06 PM (50 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



68 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-04-30 12:28:57 PM
The F22 is so advanced that it never even needs to be deployed anywhere. It's that good.
 
2013-04-30 12:42:59 PM
The F-22 was not built for export.

On the other hand, you can buy as many F-35s as you like.

/i like zero
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-04-30 12:49:03 PM
Well, a warmed over MiG-29 is much cheaper.
 
2013-04-30 12:55:14 PM

Marcus Aurelius: The F-22 was not built for export.

On the other hand, you can buy as many F-35s as you like.

/i like zero


They can't even export it if they wanted to.  Congress passed a bill blocking the sale of F-22s to any foreign government.
 
2013-04-30 01:56:11 PM

Sgt Otter: Congress passed a bill blocking the sale of F-22s to any foreign government


It's one of the few intelligent things they've done in decades.
 
2013-04-30 02:43:59 PM
Of course, Submitter. Like the Russians, we sell all of our technology to anyone who just wants it.
 
2013-04-30 02:50:50 PM

hardinparamedic: Of course, Submitter. Like the Russians, we sell all of our technology to anyone who just wants it.


No, like the Russians, the US sells your technology to anyone you think is your ally at the moment, without considering the statistical probability of them stabbing you in the goddamn back in 10 years.  Unlike the Russians, you keep it secret, even from legislators who are supposed to know, exactly where you are proliferating your weapons, and lie about it even when outed, until it's so well-known that the lie is too ludicrous even for Republicans to swallow.
 
2013-04-30 02:56:43 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: No, like the Russians, the US sells your technology to anyone you think is your ally at the moment, without considering the statistical probability of them stabbing you in the goddamn back in 10 years.


sharkstunter.files.wordpress.com

ACTUALLY, we sell the stuff that's 20 years old, or crippled compared to the actual stuff the US uses in some form or fashion. The F-16s we export, with the exception of MAYBE Japan and Israel is a few generations behind the current model in use. We don't sell stealth aircraft to any nation, period, because we don't want them to be used against US troops. Even the M1 Abrams we sold to Iraq have been crippled by the removal of the armor system and replacement of it with standard homogenized steel armor.

Even the F-35 planned for export has been crippled with the changing of the avionics and electronics system.

Unlike the Russians, we don't dump our stuff on the market for the highest bidder. The Current T-90 being sold for export is the same T-90 that the Russian Army uses. The Mig-35 is the same one the Russian Air Force uses.

Of course, considering they stole all their ideas from us, that's not surprising.

Benevolent Misanthrope: Unlike the Russians, you keep it secret, even from legislators who are supposed to know, exactly where you are proliferating your weapons, and lie about it even when outed, until it's so well-known that the lie is too ludicrous even for Republicans to swallow.


So which situation are you talking about? Iran-Contra?
 
2013-04-30 03:08:41 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: hardinparamedic: Of course, Submitter. Like the Russians, we sell all of our technology to anyone who just wants it.

No, like the Russians, the US sells your technology to anyone you think is your ally at the moment, without considering the statistical probability of them stabbing you in the goddamn back in 10 years.  Unlike the Russians, you keep it secret, even from legislators who are supposed to know, exactly where you are proliferating your weapons, and lie about it even when outed, until it's so well-known that the lie is too ludicrous even for Republicans to swallow.


You know how I know you know nothing about ITAR?

/was an export compliance officer for a company that built fuel cells for craft like the MH-47 and F-18
 
2013-04-30 03:12:05 PM

hardinparamedic: Unlike the Russians, we don't dump our stuff on the market for the highest bidder. The Current T-90 being sold for export is the same T-90 that the Russian Army uses. The Mig-35 is the same one the Russian Air Force uses.


Fair point.
 
2013-04-30 03:13:59 PM
As there appears to be some confusion, it's the F-22 which has a buyer, not the MiG-35.

FTFA:
Russia will place an order for the Mikoyan MiG-35 'Fulcrum F' multirole fighter aircraft in the first half of 2013, the CEO of Mikoyan believes.
...
Mikoyan has long been seeking an order for its MiG-35, the latest variant of its 'Fulcrum' fighter stable, derived from the original MiG-29, which first entered service in 1983


From this article:
Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) today received an additional $5 billion from the U.S. Air Force for
 three lots of F-22 Raptor air dominance fighters. This brings the total
 multi-year contract value to $7.3 billion and extends the production of the
 aircraft through the year 2011.
 
2013-04-30 03:14:09 PM
Max Landsberger: Since the 1984 oil discovery in New Guinea, we have sold the Bu!kais hill tribesmen 20 of our S-24 fighters. At $21 million per unit, that's $252 million. This has started a local arms race between the Bu!kais, and their local neighbors the Kla!klalas. Now the Kla!klalas also happen to be sitting an a large amount of oil. And now the Kla!klalas want to buy 20 of our new Slash X-Ray Ultra Pursuit fighters for a total of $480 million.
Pete Helmes: What are the chances of war between them?
Bob Nixon: Very good sir. Our spare parts replacement contracts could be very lucrative.
Pete Helmes: Who trains their flight personnel?
Max Landsberger: Well, as near as we can assess it... well, they don't actually fly the planes. They sort of roll them down hills, crashing them into each other.
Scott Dantley: Personally, I think that it's a shameful waste of incredible kill power.
Pete Helmes: Make the deal.
Bob NixonScott Dantley: Absolutely.
 
2013-04-30 03:18:42 PM

hardinparamedic: The Mig-35 is the same one the Russian Air Force uses.


No one is using the MiG-35.  They've built a few prototypes but haven't found a buyer.  I believe you're thinking of the Su-27 and its variants.
 
2013-04-30 03:18:48 PM
The article says RUSSIA will place an order for RUSSIAN-made MiG 35s.

Which is exactly the same thing as the USA placing an order for USA-made F-22s.

Except that Mikoyan would probably happily sell their fancy new block point upgrade MiG29 to India, Pakistan, Malaysia, China, etc. while the USA won't sell the F-22 to Israel, Japan, South Korea or even Canada.

Besides, as article mentions, the Flanker family pretty much owns the Russkie tactical export market.
 
2013-04-30 03:34:38 PM
US warplanes are designed to be as expensive as possible to maintain and repair.  With parts made in as many states as possible.
 
2013-04-30 03:36:33 PM
Is this why we can't have schools or a stable domestic infrastructure?

/if we don't feed the war machine it will get angry, and try to kill us
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-04-30 03:39:11 PM

meanmutton: hardinparamedic: The Mig-35 is the same one the Russian Air Force uses.

No one is using the MiG-35.  They've built a few prototypes but haven't found a buyer.  I believe you're thinking of the Su-27 and its variants.


The MiG-35 is just a newer MiG-29.  Lots of countries use MiG-29s.
 
2013-04-30 03:54:28 PM

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: US warplanes are designed to be as expensive as possible to maintain and repair.  With parts made in as many states as possible.


There's a reason why Iran wasn't able to use those nifty F-14 Tomcats after they broke from the US.

/I'm still sad that plane is no longer used, or wasn't modernized.
//It gives me wood to see that plane in a museum. That was my childhood favorite.
 
2013-04-30 03:57:23 PM
 
2013-04-30 03:58:42 PM

hardinparamedic: There's a reason why Iran wasn't able to use those nifty F-14 Tomcats after they broke from the US.


You mean the F-14s they've been using constantly since 1979 and still use?
 
2013-04-30 04:04:11 PM

clovis69: You mean the F-14s they've been using constantly since 1979 and still use?


Yeah, about that.

There's only a dozen flying now, originally, out of about 90 sold to Iran because they don't have any way of obtaining parts for them except for scavenging them from other aircraft. In addition, the ones that DO fly are crippled - they lack the AIM-54 Phoenix which made the Tomcat so goddamn scary to people thinking of launching an air attack on the fleet.

The ones that are left are basically kept flying as a middle finger to the US. Iran has much newer, and more capable import aircraft, like the SU-27.

clovis69: hardinparamedic: We don't sell stealth aircraft to any nation, period

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II_procu re ment

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/rafs-first-operational-f-3 5- pilot-flies-first-training-sortie-383642/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#F-35I


You do realize that the export modifications for those fighters ensure we have a way of tracking them and making sure they're not on par with ours, right?

Just pointing that fact out.
 
2013-04-30 04:16:07 PM

hardinparamedic: ACTUALLY, we sell the stuff that's 20 years old, or crippled compared to the actual stuff the US uses in some form or fashion. The F-16s we export, with the exception of MAYBE Japan and Israel is a few generations behind the current model in use.


Except that Japan got mad that we wouldn't give them the most current tech on the F-16, so they contract built their own bigger, better F-16 and called it the F-2.
 
2013-04-30 04:32:49 PM
You mean the F-22 that Japan has repeatedly asked to buy and told no?  That F-22 with no customers.

/the B-2 sucks ass as well, no one else ever bought those!
 
2013-04-30 04:34:39 PM

Click Click D'oh: hardinparamedic: ACTUALLY, we sell the stuff that's 20 years old, or crippled compared to the actual stuff the US uses in some form or fashion. The F-16s we export, with the exception of MAYBE Japan and Israel is a few generations behind the current model in use.

Except that Japan got mad that we wouldn't give them the most current tech on the F-16, so they contract built their own bigger, better F-16 and called it the F-2.


Don't forget that the Japanese build their own F-15s
 
2013-04-30 04:36:49 PM

Chevello: Click Click D'oh: hardinparamedic: ACTUALLY, we sell the stuff that's 20 years old, or crippled compared to the actual stuff the US uses in some form or fashion. The F-16s we export, with the exception of MAYBE Japan and Israel is a few generations behind the current model in use.

Except that Japan got mad that we wouldn't give them the most current tech on the F-16, so they contract built their own bigger, better F-16 and called it the F-2.

Don't forget that the Japanese build their own F-15s


Well their most recent update package was built in cooperation between American and Japanese companies to be fair.  Odds are the Japanese didn't really need to involve the Americans, so much as it was a political decision to stay friendly with them in hopes of getting good deals on future toys.  Same with the ROK F-15s.
 
2013-04-30 04:37:27 PM
Now you may deal directly with me now; Colonel Nakir Nakesh.
 
2013-04-30 04:38:09 PM

Click Click D'oh: Except that Japan got mad that we wouldn't give them the most current tech on the F-16, so they contract built their own bigger, better F-16 and called it the F-2.


And it transforms into a flying robot too.
 
2013-04-30 04:48:25 PM

Chevello: Click Click D'oh: hardinparamedic: ACTUALLY, we sell the stuff that's 20 years old, or crippled compared to the actual stuff the US uses in some form or fashion. The F-16s we export, with the exception of MAYBE Japan and Israel is a few generations behind the current model in use.

Except that Japan got mad that we wouldn't give them the most current tech on the F-16, so they contract built their own bigger, better F-16 and called it the F-2.

Don't forget that the Japanese build their own F-15s


We're also building F-15s for export that are indeed superior to our own F-15Cs. The F-15SA has all kinds of new goodies; it isn't equivalent to the F-22 though. I'm wondering how one would stack up to an F-35... maybe not every bit as good, but a hell of a lot cheaper and available NOW.
 
2013-04-30 04:50:54 PM

akula: We're also building F-15s for export that are indeed superior to our own F-15Cs


The F-15C is being drummed out of service except in Air National Guard units in favor of the F-22, which was designed to replace it.

The main variant in service with the Air Force right now is the F-15E Strike Eagle, which is being proposed to be modernized to the F-15SE by the addition of RAM.
 
2013-04-30 04:53:18 PM

ha-ha-guy: Chevello: Click Click D'oh: hardinparamedic: ACTUALLY, we sell the stuff that's 20 years old, or crippled compared to the actual stuff the US uses in some form or fashion. The F-16s we export, with the exception of MAYBE Japan and Israel is a few generations behind the current model in use.

Except that Japan got mad that we wouldn't give them the most current tech on the F-16, so they contract built their own bigger, better F-16 and called it the F-2.

Don't forget that the Japanese build their own F-15s

Well their most recent update package was built in cooperation between American and Japanese companies to be fair.  Odds are the Japanese didn't really need to involve the Americans, so much as it was a political decision to stay friendly with them in hopes of getting good deals on future toys.  Same with the ROK F-15s.


makes sense, but the F-15Js are built in Japan (under license from Boeing) and the ROKAF F-15Ks were built in St Louis.
 
2013-04-30 05:02:10 PM

Chevello: makes sense, but the F-15Js are built in Japan (under license from Boeing) and the ROKAF F-15Ks were built in St Louis.


Assuming that the F-15 is the air frame selected for the third phase of the Korean Air Force modernization, the deal is going to be at least parts get built in Korea, the Koreans want to bring over technology from their KF-X program.  Korea can definitely build them since Eurofighter tried to make their Typhoon more attractive by saying they'd let Korea domestically build it.  The currently speculation is Boeing will spit out the airframes, but the Koreans will add all the bells and whistles on for Phase 3.
 
2013-04-30 05:14:23 PM
We don't sell Raptors, subby.

Maths is hard.
 
2013-04-30 05:15:52 PM

hardinparamedic: akula: We're also building F-15s for export that are indeed superior to our own F-15Cs

The F-15C is being drummed out of service except in Air National Guard units in favor of the F-22, which was designed to replace it.

The main variant in service with the Air Force right now is the F-15E Strike Eagle, which is being proposed to be modernized to the F-15SE by the addition of RAM.


I wasn't sure if the F-15E had replaced the -C model. Not surprised though.

I think they're also talking about adding AESA radar and a bunch of other avionic goodies (pretty much most of the 5th generation toys but without the all aspect stealth of the F-22).
 
2013-04-30 05:18:03 PM

ha-ha-guy: Chevello: makes sense, but the F-15Js are built in Japan (under license from Boeing) and the ROKAF F-15Ks were built in St Louis.

Assuming that the F-15 is the air frame selected for the third phase of the Korean Air Force modernization, the deal is going to be at least parts get built in Korea, the Koreans want to bring over technology from their KF-X program.  Korea can definitely build them since Eurofighter tried to make their Typhoon more attractive by saying they'd let Korea domestically build it.  The currently speculation is Boeing will spit out the airframes, but the Koreans will add all the bells and whistles on for Phase 3.


They spent an awful lot of money on simulators recently that are all F-15K and KF-16, so they are probably going to get at least a few. That isn't to say that they didn't spend a bunch on EFA sims too, but they weren't telling me about it. :)
 
2013-04-30 05:42:13 PM

Sgt Otter: Congress passed a bill blocking the sale of F-22s to any foreign government.


This.  The reason that no one is ordering it is because it's not for sale.  Period.
 
2013-04-30 05:47:38 PM
akula:

I wasn't sure if the F-15E had replaced the -C model. Not surprised though.

It hasn't.

The F-15C Eagle is a single-seat, purebred air-to-air fighter, with just a pilot.

The F-15E Strike Eagle is a two-seat, multi-role aircraft with both air-to-air and ground strike capabilities.  It basically replaced the retired F-111 Aardvark fighter-bomber.  There's a Weapons Systems Officer in the backseat who handles the ground-to-air avionics.

They have completely different roles.  They may be more F-15Es in active service, but that's because the F-22 is gradually replacing the F-15C.  The F-22 can't replace the F-15E, at least not without some serious modifications.  There was a proposed F/B-22 Strike Raptor fighter-bomber variant, but it never got past the drawing board.

files.air-attack.com
 
2013-04-30 06:30:36 PM

clovis69: hardinparamedic: We don't sell stealth aircraft to any nation, period

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II_procu re ment

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/rafs-first-operational-f-3 5- pilot-flies-first-training-sortie-383642/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II#F-35I


Selling an F-35 with some stealth capability and selling an F-35 with the US version's capability are two very different things.

However because the way the rules are applied Lockheed doesn't even have to tell them just how different their version is.

Hint: It's very different!
 
2013-04-30 06:45:17 PM

Chevello: They spent an awful lot of money on simulators recently that are all F-15K and KF-16, so they are probably going to get at least a few. That isn't to say that they didn't spend a bunch on EFA sims too, but they weren't telling me about it. :)


Yeah the Eurofighter already lost out, as did the Rafale, because neither plane could satisfactorily mount American missiles, which Korea has a massive stock of and plans on using in the future.
 
2013-04-30 07:22:19 PM
So the Russians are buying MiG's?  My head will be spinning all day with this shocking news.
 
2013-04-30 07:27:01 PM

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: US warplanes are designed to be as expensive as possible to maintain and repair.  With parts made in as many states as possible.


Actually... The F-18 was designed and built to require a fraction of the ground crew time of other airframes. Which is why it is still being shot off of aircraft carriers, and the F-14s and a-8s have been retired.

It's also why, despite having no aircraft carriers of their own, Australia and Canada fly F-18s
 
2013-04-30 07:29:51 PM
hardinparamedic: 
ACTUALLY, we sell the stuff that's 20 years old, or crippled compared to the actual stuff the US uses in some form or fashion. The F-16s we export, with the exception of MAYBE Japan and Israel is a few generations behind the current model in use. We don't sell stealth aircraft to any nation, period, because we don't want them to be used against US troops. Even the M1 Abrams we sold to Iraq have been crippled by the removal of the armor system and replacement of it with standard homogenized steel armor.

Even the F-35 planned for export has been crippled with the changing of the avionics and electronics system.


If the F-16 or F-35 were crippled in any meaningful way USA would sell zero, so it can't be.

NATO allies is already doing USA a favour by picking up the F-35, so obviously it can't be a lesser version.
 
2013-04-30 07:42:57 PM
I wish I had a dollar for every exception in this thread.

I could buy me a fleet of F-47.5 Thunderdogwildeaglefoxbatwildweasel Mark II's. With optional bazooka tubes and hot tub.
 
2013-04-30 07:45:11 PM
Just a little touch up!

/All I can think about reading this thread
//And we'll need a receipt.  For tax purposes.
 
2013-04-30 08:00:47 PM

spawn73: hardinparamedic: 
ACTUALLY, we sell the stuff that's 20 years old, or crippled compared to the actual stuff the US uses in some form or fashion. The F-16s we export, with the exception of MAYBE Japan and Israel is a few generations behind the current model in use. We don't sell stealth aircraft to any nation, period, because we don't want them to be used against US troops. Even the M1 Abrams we sold to Iraq have been crippled by the removal of the armor system and replacement of it with standard homogenized steel armor.

Even the F-35 planned for export has been crippled with the changing of the avionics and electronics system.

If the F-16 or F-35 were crippled in any meaningful way USA would sell zero, so it can't be.

NATO allies is already doing USA a favour by picking up the F-35, so obviously it can't be a lesser version.


You don't seriously belive that do you? The US versions of military platforms are so far advanced compared to the rest of the world that our lessor versions sold to allies are still far superior to anything potential enimies might have.

Take a look at the most obvious example (while not an export): compare our aircraft carriers to the rest of the world.
 
2013-04-30 08:13:12 PM
Well who wants to buy a jet designed 20 years ago anyway?
 
2013-04-30 08:19:27 PM
I was once in a 4-G inverted dive with a Mig-35.
 
2013-04-30 08:42:59 PM

spawn73: If the F-16 or F-35 were crippled in any meaningful way USA would sell zero, so it can't be.

NATO allies is already doing USA a favour by picking up the F-35, so obviously it can't be a lesser version.


You have no idea how international arms trade regarding American Tech is regulated, do you?

Certain technologies are deemed unexportable by the US State Department That means it's considered treason and espionage to sell them to another country, even an ally of the United States. Examples of this are the DepU-Infused armor systems on the M1 Tank, Generation IV Night vision technology, the the stealth and radar systems of the current F-35 used by the United States. Even technologies we DO sell to other countries are restricted. SOmething we sell to Japan might not be sold to the UK, or to Israel.

This is the reason the M1 Abrams, as we sold to Iraq, has no DepU armor on it, and the reason that the F-35s and F-16s we sell to our allies are less capable when compared with American fighters in terms of stealth and electronics/avionics.
 
2013-04-30 09:42:05 PM

ghall3: The US versions of military platforms are so far advanced compared to the rest of the world that our lessor versions sold to allies are still far superior to anything potential enimies might have.


Exactly.

That's why we triumphed in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are peaceful and prosperous today.
 
2013-04-30 09:54:04 PM

jaytkay: Exactly.

That's why we triumphed in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are peaceful and prosperous today.


No. That's why we decimatedsee definition 3b the Soviet-made T-72s the Iraqis and the soviet leftovers the Afghanis had during the initial invasion, and why we lost 0 tanks during the ensuing battles.

The T-90 was developed by the Russians as a direct challenge to the M1A2 Abraham, the Leopard 2A7, and the British Challenger II tank, because they were completely outclassed by anything the West was making at the time.
 
2013-04-30 10:02:00 PM
There is plenty of furious masturbating going on on this thread.
 
2013-04-30 10:14:46 PM

hardinparamedic: we lost 0 tanks during the ensuing battles.


I assume by "we" you mean your video game playmates.


rense.com
fc01.deviantart.net
img191.imageshack.us
www.asriran.com
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-04-30 10:22:36 PM

jaytkay: hardinparamedic: we lost 0 tanks during the ensuing battles.

I assume by "we" you mean your video game playmates.


[rense.com image 520x361]
[fc01.deviantart.net image 520x377]
[img191.imageshack.us image 520x390]
[www.asriran.com image 520x397]
[upload.wikimedia.org image 520x351]


Oh good, someone trying to move the goalposts.

Tanks lost to rolling over massive IEDs that were detonated when the tanks were right on top of them during the insurgency stage are not the same as being lost in active combat to Iraqi Armored Divisions. Of which there were none.

In fact, the "Lion of Babalon" tanks that the Iraqi armored divisions fielded, which were T-72s that had been heavily modernized and were considered the "best" of the Iraqi Army, took on an M1A2 Abrhams tank in Baghdad, and the score was 7 lost T-72s to no damage on the American side.

In reality, the rounds being used by the Iraqi T-72 tanks couldn't even penetrate the skirt and turret armor of the Abrhams. There are well documented accounts from both GWI and GWII of rounds either damaging tracks, or simply bouncing off of them.

Ironically, the pictures you listed were of tanks that were destroyed either by IEDs, or of one scuttled during the initial invasion by being shot with a HEAT round in the rear from another M1 tank.
 
2013-04-30 10:30:51 PM

hardinparamedic: Tanks lost to rolling over massive IEDs that were detonated when the tanks were right on top of them during the insurgency stage are not the same as being lost in active combat to Iraqi Armored Divisions.


No, actually, they're the same. Dead tanks.

Except it's probably an order of magnitude cheaper to kill them with IEDs.
 
2013-04-30 10:40:32 PM

jaytkay: No, actually, they're the same. Dead tanks.


Only if you're lying about it, yeah.

In terms of combat effectiveness, no, they're not. They did what they were designed to do. They bounced rounds, and then turned the other guys into heaps of slag. Even when disabled by shooting off their treads, they were still combat effective.

However, they're not particularly effective against an insurgency who's willing to blow up Achmed and His seven kids in the process of killing one. That's why the TUSK system was developed. 

They're only the same if you want to pull a number out of your ass. The fact of the matter is, until some insurgents started burying fifteen 155mm Russian Artillery shells under roads, nothing could put a scratch on the things. That's the whole reason the T-90 was built. The only thing that could kill an Abrahams in a tank battle is another Abrahams.
 
2013-04-30 10:40:46 PM

jaytkay: hardinparamedic: Tanks lost to rolling over massive IEDs that were detonated when the tanks were right on top of them during the insurgency stage are not the same as being lost in active combat to Iraqi Armored Divisions.

No, actually, they're the same. Dead tanks.

Except it's probably an order of magnitude cheaper to kill them with IEDs.


Yeah, I gotta go with jaytkay here. A combat loss is a combat loss, doesn't matter what you smoked them with.

/even video games count them that way
 
2013-04-30 10:44:19 PM

Peki: Yeah, I gotta go with jaytkay here. A combat loss is a combat loss, doesn't matter what you smoked them with.

/even video games count them that way


I'm talking about tank against tank battles. Not tank against "Little Johnny Jihad waited till the end of formal hostilities and snuck a few dozen arty shells under the road"

The fact of the matter is they slaughtered the Iraqi Army.

Even if you want to go with that as a metric, only 5 have been destroyed/scuttled on site, and 15 more deemed "too costly to repair" after the end of hostilities. That's out of thousands of tanks in action.
 
2013-04-30 11:07:04 PM

jaytkay: ghall3: The US versions of military platforms are so far advanced compared to the rest of the world that our lessor versions sold to allies are still far superior to anything potential enimies might have.

Exactly.

That's why we triumphed in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are peaceful and prosperous today.


Being able to completely destroy another country's military is not the same as occupying another country for a decade. In terms of actual combat (even guerrilla combat) the US has no equal. Attrition and the time spent in danger of attack leads to losses.

Any country the US wanted to attack or defend against would completely decimate the other military and then go back to being on usual patrol and readiness, that would be accomplished easily. The trouble starts when we try to occupy "rebuild" in our image.
 
2013-05-01 12:41:30 AM

jaytkay: hardinparamedic: Tanks lost to rolling over massive IEDs that were detonated when the tanks were right on top of them during the insurgency stage are not the same as being lost in active combat to Iraqi Armored Divisions.

No, actually, they're the same. Dead tanks.

Except it's probably an order of magnitude cheaper to kill them with IEDs.


Iraq was using $800,000 IEDs?
 
2013-05-01 01:02:33 AM
There was one Abrams in Iraq that was disabled with one small round that penetrated and caught fire inside the tank.

I think some other country was test firing their newest round on the cheap.Whomever it was, they sure saved a lot of money on combat testing.
 
2013-05-01 08:20:10 AM

TheShavingofOccam123: There was one Abrams in Iraq that was disabled with one small round that penetrated and caught fire inside the tank.

I think some other country was test firing their newest round on the cheap.Whomever it was, they sure saved a lot of money on combat testing.


I believe that was a Bradley. From what I remember hearing, there was a 30 caliber sized holed that went straight through the thing.

Also, I had no idea we 'sold' M1's to Iraq.  I remember that we sold them to Egypt though.
 
2013-05-01 09:15:48 AM

TheShavingofOccam123: There was one Abrams in Iraq that was disabled with one small round that penetrated and caught fire inside the tank.

I think some other country was test firing their newest round on the cheap.Whomever it was, they sure saved a lot of money on combat testing.


I've seen the photos of the Magic Bullet. The tank was not disabled and I believe the crew all survived. The spalling did cause a small fire.
 
2013-05-01 09:22:28 AM
It's slightly amusing to see somebody spend an entire thread talking about how US export products are heavily degraded, and then turn around and proclaim the M1 a world beater because it chewed through a bunch of export-grade T-72s - or worse, the "Lion of Babylon", which was more or less a kit-car T-72 with homemade parts.

Let's put it this way; the Soviet's term for the  best tanks the Iraqis had was "monkey models".
 
2013-05-01 09:47:39 AM

hardinparamedic: Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: US warplanes are designed to be as expensive as possible to maintain and repair.  With parts made in as many states as possible.

There's a reason why Iran wasn't able to use those nifty F-14 Tomcats after they broke from the US.

/I'm still sad that plane is no longer used, or wasn't modernized.
//It gives me wood to see that plane in a museum. That was my childhood favorite.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh wait, you're serious?!

Iran's F-14s were very successful in their war with Iraq.

Iran's F-14s were the only ones to shoot down an enemy opponent with the Phoenix missile - a decade after they took the hostages.

Iran is the only military STILL FLYING the F-14 and has created a cloned copy of the Hawk surface-to-air missile to fill the long range gap create when they expended their Phoenix supply.

Oh, and subby's comparison is dumb.  The F-16C is the proper aircraft to compare to the MiG-35.  It is still in production, will remain so until at least 2016-2017, and unlike the F-35 it has actual sales already booked.
 
2013-05-01 10:09:56 AM

Click Click D'oh: hardinparamedic: ACTUALLY, we sell the stuff that's 20 years old, or crippled compared to the actual stuff the US uses in some form or fashion. The F-16s we export, with the exception of MAYBE Japan and Israel is a few generations behind the current model in use.

Except that Japan got mad that we wouldn't give them the most current tech on the F-16, so they contract built their own bigger, better F-16 and called it the F-2.


Bullshait.

We sold them F-15 Eagles, which is the high end component to the F-15/16 mix.
We sold them the Aegis/SM-3 combination that can shoot down ballistic missiles.
We sold them AEW platforms as good as the E-3 Sentry.

They built a bigger F-16 because they wanted a bigger platform and more importantly they wanted to support the domestic aviation industry.  The entire F-2 program is based off the old General Dynamics (now Lockheed) Agile Falcon technology demonstrators and Lockheed manufactured major components of the F-2 .

Quite frankly, they should have bought F-16s of F-15E variants.  Either would have been cheaper with similar capabilities.
 
2013-05-01 10:25:23 AM

Shryke: TheShavingofOccam123: There was one Abrams in Iraq that was disabled with one small round that penetrated and caught fire inside the tank.

I think some other country was test firing their newest round on the cheap.Whomever it was, they sure saved a lot of money on combat testing.

I've seen the photos of the Magic Bullet. The tank was not disabled and I believe the crew all survived. The spalling did cause a small fire.


Shortly before dawn on Aug. 28, an M1A1 Abrams tank on routine patrol in Baghdad "was hit by something" that crippled the 69-ton behemoth.Army officials still are puzzling over what that "something" was.According to an unclassified Army report, the mystery projectile punched through the vehicle's skirt and drilled a pencil-sized hole through the hull. The hole was so small that "my little finger will not go into it," the reportís author noted.The "something" continued into the crew compartment, where it passed through the gunner's seatback, grazed the kidney area of the gunner's flak jacket and finally came to rest after boring a hole 1-1/2 to 2 inches deep in the hull on the far side of the tank.As it passed through the interior, it hit enough critical components to knock the tank out of action. That made the tank one of only two Abrams disabled by enemy fire during the Iraq war and one of only a handful of "mobility kills" since they first rumbled onto the scene 20 years ago. The other Abrams knocked out this year in Iraq was hit by an RPG-7, a rocket-propelled grenade.
 
2013-05-01 10:50:55 AM

TheShavingofOccam123: Shryke: TheShavingofOccam123: There was one Abrams in Iraq that was disabled with one small round that penetrated and caught fire inside the tank.

I think some other country was test firing their newest round on the cheap.Whomever it was, they sure saved a lot of money on combat testing.

I've seen the photos of the Magic Bullet. The tank was not disabled and I believe the crew all survived. The spalling did cause a small fire.

Shortly before dawn on Aug. 28, an M1A1 Abrams tank on routine patrol in Baghdad "was hit by something" that crippled the 69-ton behemoth.Army officials still are puzzling over what that "something" was.According to an unclassified Army report, the mystery projectile punched through the vehicle's skirt and drilled a pencil-sized hole through the hull. The hole was so small that "my little finger will not go into it," the reportís author noted.The "something" continued into the crew compartment, where it passed through the gunner's seatback, grazed the kidney area of the gunner's flak jacket and finally came to rest after boring a hole 1-1/2 to 2 inches deep in the hull on the far side of the tank.As it passed through the interior, it hit enough critical components to knock the tank out of action. That made the tank one of only two Abrams disabled by enemy fire during the Iraq war and one of only a handful of "mobility kills" since they first rumbled onto the scene 20 years ago. The other Abrams knocked out this year in Iraq was hit by an RPG-7, a rocket-propelled grenade.


So if that 'something' came to a rest after boring a hole in the other side.  What was it?

We always speculated it was some kind of DU slug.
 
2013-05-01 11:24:45 AM

TheShavingofOccam123: Shryke: TheShavingofOccam123: There was one Abrams in Iraq that was disabled with one small round that penetrated and caught fire inside the tank.

I think some other country was test firing their newest round on the cheap.Whomever it was, they sure saved a lot of money on combat testing.

I've seen the photos of the Magic Bullet. The tank was not disabled and I believe the crew all survived. The spalling did cause a small fire.

Shortly before dawn on Aug. 28, an M1A1 Abrams tank on routine patrol in Baghdad "was hit by something" that crippled the 69-ton behemoth.Army officials still are puzzling over what that "something" was.According to an unclassified Army report, the mystery projectile punched through the vehicle's skirt and drilled a pencil-sized hole through the hull. The hole was so small that "my little finger will not go into it," the reportís author noted.The "something" continued into the crew compartment, where it passed through the gunner's seatback, grazed the kidney area of the gunner's flak jacket and finally came to rest after boring a hole 1-1/2 to 2 inches deep in the hull on the far side of the tank.As it passed through the interior, it hit enough critical components to knock the tank out of action. That made the tank one of only two Abrams disabled by enemy fire during the Iraq war and one of only a handful of "mobility kills" since they first rumbled onto the scene 20 years ago. The other Abrams knocked out this year in Iraq was hit by an RPG-7, a rocket-propelled grenade.


The pictures don't show much damage. Hrm.
 
2013-05-01 08:01:54 PM

moanerific: TheShavingofOccam123: Shryke: TheShavingofOccam123: There was one Abrams in Iraq that was disabled with one small round that penetrated and caught fire inside the tank.

I think some other country was test firing their newest round on the cheap.Whomever it was, they sure saved a lot of money on combat testing.

I've seen the photos of the Magic Bullet. The tank was not disabled and I believe the crew all survived. The spalling did cause a small fire.

Shortly before dawn on Aug. 28, an M1A1 Abrams tank on routine patrol in Baghdad "was hit by something" that crippled the 69-ton behemoth.Army officials still are puzzling over what that "something" was.According to an unclassified Army report, the mystery projectile punched through the vehicle's skirt and drilled a pencil-sized hole through the hull. The hole was so small that "my little finger will not go into it," the reportís author noted.The "something" continued into the crew compartment, where it passed through the gunner's seatback, grazed the kidney area of the gunner's flak jacket and finally came to rest after boring a hole 1-1/2 to 2 inches deep in the hull on the far side of the tank.As it passed through the interior, it hit enough critical components to knock the tank out of action. That made the tank one of only two Abrams disabled by enemy fire during the Iraq war and one of only a handful of "mobility kills" since they first rumbled onto the scene 20 years ago. The other Abrams knocked out this year in Iraq was hit by an RPG-7, a rocket-propelled grenade.

So if that 'something' came to a rest after boring a hole in the other side.  What was it?

We always speculated it was some kind of DU slug.


I recall a similar (maybe the same) story and the culprit was a copper coned directed energy warhead. It has been confirmed that those types of warheads can and will penetrate the armor on an Abrams.
 
Displayed 68 of 68 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report