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
    More: Interesting, Anastas Mikoyan, customers  
•       •       •

6005 clicks; posted to Business » on 30 Apr 2013 at 3:06 PM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-04-30 12:42:59 PM  
3 votes:
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
2013-04-30 10:40:32 PM  
1 vote:

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 10:22:36 PM  
1 vote:

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 08:19:27 PM  
1 vote:
I was once in a 4-G inverted dive with a Mig-35.
2013-04-30 03:36:33 PM  
1 vote:
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
2013-04-30 02:56:43 PM  
1 vote:

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.comView Full Size

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 01:56:11 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:55:14 PM  
1 vote:

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.
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-04-30 12:49:03 PM  
1 vote:
Well, a warmed over MiG-29 is much cheaper.
Displayed 9 of 9 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.