True, but if you're talking about technological advance, you still have that <i>huge</i> disparity between the US funding and everyone else. 'They' also need money to fund 'their' research, and for some reasons seem to be doing OK with much less of it.
I understand MonsE will eventually come in and squish us both with his knowledge on the subject, but until then, what does that tell us? That the US are indeed on the top of the world, militaric-advance-wise. Otherwise, purchasing arms from Lockheed & co. would be pretty pointless. This in turn means however that they're deciding the speed of technological advancement - there is no SU researching against the Pentagon anymore. Now, if you're setting the rate of development, but are aware that there'll never be a too big advantage because your slightly dated equipment gets sold, why should you put it all in its highest paces? You could be just as leading with a slower, but much less costly development.
Heh. Ok, so maybe I watched Errol Flynn movies too much as a kid. On to the subject at hand:
Contrary to popular belief, most of the US armed forces budget is operational and procurmental. Basically, it costs a lot of money to maintain a fighting force that strong. To quote a brief breakdown of the 2002 budget:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The budget includes $82.3 billion for personnel ($6.9 billion above current levels) to fund a 4.6% pay raise, increased health benefits and higher housing allowances. The Operations and Maintenance budget (which is most closely associated with force readiness) grows by $17.8 billion to $125.7 billion, while the research and development budget, at $47.4 billion, represents a $6.4 funding boost.
Only the procurement budget, which goes mainly towards the purchase of weapons, did not increase, dropping from $62.1 billion to $61.6 billion. <b>While this represents a reduction of only $500 million (0.8%), it seems improbable that Congress will accept such levels, and will likely increase the procurement accounts by substantial amounts.</b> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Also contrary to popular belief is that the US armed forces commanders have much to do at all with its budget; the US Congress (no, not the President, the Congress) typically causes the military budget inflation due to a simple things known as "pork barrel spending". Basically (and this is no different than any other democracy), the congressmen are influenced by defense contractors and labor unions in their district (who make strange bedfellows, but both have a vested interest in jobs and money generated by defense spending) to spend more cash on things like procurement of equipment and maintenance of existing systems. Hence that being the combined far largest sector of the budget - about 2/3rds. R&D and personnel account for the rest, with R&D being the vast minority.
While R&D is a big part of why the US armed forces have been running over everyone in the past 15 years with ease, you have to remember that all that R&D money was spent in the late 70's and early 80's (bathroommonkey - Iraqi 1970's-era gear was actually developed in the 50's and 60's for the most part). Defense R&D takes ages to come to fruition usually, and most of the equipment used in Desert Storm (and about to be used now, by the way), was developed 20-25 years ago. There really aren't many differences in the technology of today's US weapons and the first Gulf War, except that now instead of dropping 10% precision guided bombs and 90% unguided, it's been reversed in ratio by simply buying a lot more precision weapons. But the typical army mechanized task force still uses M1 tanks, M2 Bradleys, M16 rifles, and M68 Handgrenades; the exact same weapons deployed in the Fulda Gap against the soviets in 1982. Most US gear was just so far ahead of its time that there's been little reason to research better models yet.
The problem with the whole point of this whole last few rounds of threads is that it points out the US having a larger defense budget than any other country in the world, or even a combination of countries. The problem with that is that it's still only about 3% of our country's annual GDP. It's so much because America can afford so much, and we'd rather spend $100,000 on a laser-guided bomb than to spend $500 on an unguided bomb that will be much more likely to kill noncombatants, or to cause teh shooting down of the pilot of the plane dropping the bomb as he makes more passes over a target trying to hit it. The more the US spends on smarter munitions, the lower the human cost of the war is to our troops and civilians. It's not a coincidence that the more US troops in the first gulf war died in traffic accidents than in combat, and that the accidental killing of 3 dozen civilians in afghanistan was such front page news: it's because unlike in WW2 where you'd drop 100,000 tons of bombs on Schwerfort in one night to try and knock out a ball-bearing facory, now you drop 5 bombs total and do the same amount of military damage, without snuffing out thousands of factory worker's lives in the process. It's just so rare to hurt noncombatants now in even small numbers that it becomes newsworthy when it happens. This is a good thing.
The world should be glad we spend so much on defense, as when we have to go into combat we can restrict our fighting to the enemy troops, not unfortunate bystanders. Why do you think all those russians are standing trial right now for carpet bombing civilians in chechnya? They have no capacity to wage war against enemy forces, only enemy countries. But to say that we're using cutting edge weaponry? Only if you understand that most of the world uses the equivalent of a bow and arrow to our howitzer...
<!--QuoteBegin--Salty+Mar 18 2003, 09:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Salty @ Mar 18 2003, 09:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Why weren't thier protests when Clinton bombed iraq? Bush will actually liberate Iraq instead of just killing people. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> But they will still end up killing countless civilians. Especially if the have to march into Baghdad.
acording to the latest polls (how ever trust worthy they can be I don't know) 75% of americans now suport a war with Iraq, I can see why, were freeing a people from a crazy dictator and helping our economy big time because when this is all said and done only the US and Britian will get the nice juicy oil etc....and I think the people are finnaly realizeing that this can really only help the economy, and thats a good thing
<!--QuoteBegin--reasa+Mar 18 2003, 09:46 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Mar 18 2003, 09:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> acording to the latest polls (how ever trust worthy they can be I don't know) 75% of americans now suport a war with Iraq, I can see why, were freeing a people from a crazy dictator and helping our economy big time because when this is all said and done only the US and Britian will get the nice juicy oil etc....and I think the people are finnaly realizeing that this can really only help the economy, and thats a good thing <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Going to war for a couple cents off the price at the pumps, for shame. However I really don't think that Mr G.W. Bush in his infinite wisdom would want to do something as noble as goto war to remove a sadistic dictator.
<!--QuoteBegin--Maroc+Mar 18 2003, 04:44 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Maroc @ Mar 18 2003, 04:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Salty+Mar 18 2003, 09:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Salty @ Mar 18 2003, 09:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Why weren't thier protests when Clinton bombed iraq? Bush will actually liberate Iraq instead of just killing people. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> But they will still end up killing countless civilians. Especially if the have to march into Baghdad. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> doubt it, we have invested alot of money into our "psy ops" the people of Iraq know that fighting us is pointless and well more then likely surrender with out a fight once they see that saddam can't hurt them anymore, if all goes well they may even welcome us, but thats asking for too much.
<!--QuoteBegin--Maroc+Mar 18 2003, 04:44 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Maroc @ Mar 18 2003, 04:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Salty+Mar 18 2003, 09:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Salty @ Mar 18 2003, 09:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Why weren't thier protests when Clinton bombed iraq? Bush will actually liberate Iraq instead of just killing people. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> But they will still end up killing countless civilians. Especially if the have to march into Baghdad. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> So is it ok to kill a small amount of people for nothing? Compared to freedom for everybody even if a more have to sacrafice thier lives?
I think its because its "cool" to hate bush :/ He dosen't attack in the middle of nowhere and actually gives them an ultimatum.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Mar 18 2003, 04:43 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Mar 18 2003, 04:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Why do you think all those russians are standing trial right now for carpet bombing civilians in chechnya? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> A little off the subject, but the only reason they are being tried is due to an international agreement with the UN or U.S. (I do not fully recall) that if 'war criminals' are brought to justice and measures taken to prevent civilian casualties, then the U.S. and others would recognize the Chechens as terrorists and assist in our desires for a peaceful resolution. Though there isn't carpet bombing on WW2 levels there are air strikes, helo attacks, artillery bombardments, and incursions of highly populated area to destroy rebel forces, supplies, and support; and it is rather effective. The only reason Russia isn't fighting like America, is because its cheaper to use a rocket than a smart bomb. Spend a few years in Chechnya and see if you would rather send young men into a hostile village or bomb it from a distance.
Edit: Just FYI, there was a vote in the British House of Commons, and somewhere else supporting action against Iraq. One was 360ish for action 130ish against. The second vote was 400ish for action, 112ish against. I don't remember the exact numbers, but I'm searching for an article on the internet.
Or how about not invading Chechnya at all? How exactly is Chechnya a threat to the Russian Federation, other than not wanting to be a part of it? Russia is effectively doing what Iraq did to Kuwait - 'reclaiming a renegade province' against its will. Nevermind that many of the war crimes tribunals going on in Russian and international courts right now are not about bombing towns, but more about mass-rapes and attacks aimed specifically at civilians.
The Russian government and armed forces are fighting in Chechnya the same way it fought in Afghanistan, and are too clumsy or stupid to understand that the WAY they fight is why they always LOSE those fights. 25 years of continous warfare in neighboring moslem countries, and the soviet/russian armies still can't get it right.
True. I believe that we shouldn't be in Chechnya-it isn't worth a single Russian life. And we did well in Afghanistan, a 103:1 KD ratio; though ratios aren't everything. My government won't fight a war like a war, it is like Vietnam. We control a part of Chechnya, and send out patrols to seek-and-destroy missions. If a war is going to be conducted it must be conducted correctly-total victory and domination or total defeat and destruction.
Edit: We still have better equipment than the U.S. and NATO, though we need money and lots of it. You wouldn't mind petitioning your government for a little bit of aid? <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Just like in Vietnam where we won all the battles and lost the war: Russia lost in Afghanistan badly, and has been losing (certainly not winning) in Chechnya for 5 years. Russia not have learned from US mistakes in Vietnam, which is vaguely excusable, but they also failed to learn from Afghanistan, which is entirely inexcusable. The Russian Army is doing all over again exactly what caused it to lose a war against a bunch of raggamuffin mujahdeen.
As for equipment differences... ehhh, nonsense. No one buys Russian equipment anymore except poor countries that can't afford the US-style weapons that won the fights easily in the Gulf and Afghanistan (or for the israelis for the past 50 years). It's for the most part primitive trash, with a few notable exceptions.
If the Russians are supplied with AN-94 rifles, then that's definitely one advantage. That's a pretty sweet weapon <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> The AK-74 (and AKS-74U) is not superior to the M4A1 though, nor are T82 tanks superior to the M1A1 or A2 Abrams battle tanks - that was proved in the Gulf War in 1991.
What kind of gear (money allowing) do the russian regulars get now?
*Sorry to get off topic...but every thread does now & then.
The an-94 is probably the best rifle in world minus the experimental ones being developed by the U.S. with computers and other systems. It cost about 700 American dollars for an an-94; that's how poor the Russian Federation is, they can't equip large numbers of soldiers with 700 dollar rifles. And the Iraqi's used T-72s, and cheap crappy versions at that. Fully upgraded T-72's with armor packages and advanced targeting and guidance systems could have gone 1 to 1 with the M1A1, but with unmotivated and sub-par Iraqi crews wouldn't stand much of a chance. Now our T-95's will outclass every tank in the world. It has experimental armor, fires guided missles out of the canon instead of regular shells, has anti-helo anti-aircraft missles, and comes with the most advanced guidance and computer systems avaiable, and could go up against 5 M1A2s and win. The government has somehow gathered enough money to order 300 T-95s. T-80s and T-90s are good tanks and are up to par with western tanks, but only combat (or war games) can show which is better. Also our Mig-42's, which are Mach 4 heavy interceptors and ground attack aircraft are bigger, faster, better, and cheaper versions of the F-22. There are a few prototypes out that have been around for years, but production won't begin for a few years-money concerns...again. And theres the Mig-43 (I believe that's the designation) which is a Mach 5 version of the JSF. And there's our Black Shark attack helo and lots more that I don't remember. Hopefully Russian relations with Western nations will improve and we can share technology and benefit from each other etc...
As for Russian soldiers, the conscripts are um not very good. But the professional soldiers are well trained and well equiped-the government actually spend some money on them.
beat an F-22 raptor? I have an extremly hard time beleving that. Considering the mig would have a fun time finding it first.
dosent matter anyways US and Russia won't fight when we trade with each other. I think the problem is Russia exspects marines not a 12 year old tossing a grenade in the back of a truck.
Sorry to interrupt your arguments about what-is-the-sexiest-weapon but , just like in Iraq and Israel , the problems in Chechnya won't be solved by guns. Its rebellion started during the Stalin era (non-russian people abusively displaced) and continued after the fall of USSR , as there was a greater hope of building a truly independent country. You can thank Eltsin for starting the war... and wasting uncountable amounts of young russians lives. Armed terror brings fanaticism and terrorism. Now there are fundamentalists bend on taking all of the new caucasian countries... There's very little hope as we see how rampant the repression went. "Democracy" my *** ... it's just a widely accepted dictatorship , much like the previous ones.
<!--QuoteBegin--Salty+Mar 19 2003, 01:14 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Salty @ Mar 19 2003, 01:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> beat an F-22 raptor? I have an extremly hard time beleving that. Considering the mig would have a fun time finding it first.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Stealth is easily beaten by Russian tech. The Mig-42 has several types of radar. There is you standard one-which can be defeated by stealth, oh and unlike the Raptor-the Mig will have 2 radar systems-one in front and one in back. Also, the 42 will have heat detection system which will find and track most stealth planes, like the 22, 10 km. And is has a laser detection system (I might not be describing this correctly, but this is how I remember it was told to me) which send out laser beams for 8 km that WILL TRACK ALL OBJECTS in its range. If the aircraft has mass it will be found. This system also makes the American 'stealth' missile, um not so stealthy. The military is trying to set up heat and laser detection systems across Russia to track stealth planes-but money concerns pop up again. Btw-did I mention that the MIG-42 and 43 were stealth and that the Raptor and JSF don't have any radar systems to track stealth aircraft <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Enough - go make another topic about russian military equipment (that cannot defeat guys with turbans and RPG-7's, apparently). Stop posting about russian military hardware in this thread unless it somehow pertains to the topic at hand.
I'm not really in to weaponry but I do believe russia isn't quite the wealthiest country. In fact, if it can afford so much on weaponry, why the hell is it doing so and not actually helping their economy up?
Comments
That the US are indeed on the top of the world, militaric-advance-wise. Otherwise, purchasing arms from Lockheed & co. would be pretty pointless. This in turn means however that they're deciding the speed of technological advancement - there is no SU researching against the Pentagon anymore.
Now, if you're setting the rate of development, but are aware that there'll never be a too big advantage because your slightly dated equipment gets sold, why should you put it all in its highest paces? You could be just as leading with a slower, but much less costly development.
[edit]Good Night, BTW.[/edit]
<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2862273.stm' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_ea...ast/2862273.stm</a>
"Ahhhhhhhhhhh-HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!"
...
Heh. Ok, so maybe I watched Errol Flynn movies too much as a kid. On to the subject at hand:
Contrary to popular belief, most of the US armed forces budget is operational and procurmental. Basically, it costs a lot of money to maintain a fighting force that strong. To quote a brief breakdown of the 2002 budget:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The budget includes $82.3 billion for personnel ($6.9 billion above current levels) to fund a 4.6% pay raise, increased health benefits and higher housing allowances. The Operations and Maintenance budget (which is most closely associated with force readiness) grows by $17.8 billion to $125.7 billion, while the research and development budget, at $47.4 billion, represents a $6.4 funding boost.
Only the procurement budget, which goes mainly towards the purchase of weapons, did not increase, dropping from $62.1 billion to $61.6 billion. <b>While this represents a reduction of only $500 million (0.8%), it seems improbable that Congress will accept such levels, and will likely increase the procurement accounts by substantial amounts.</b> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Also contrary to popular belief is that the US armed forces commanders have much to do at all with its budget; the US Congress (no, not the President, the Congress) typically causes the military budget inflation due to a simple things known as "pork barrel spending". Basically (and this is no different than any other democracy), the congressmen are influenced by defense contractors and labor unions in their district (who make strange bedfellows, but both have a vested interest in jobs and money generated by defense spending) to spend more cash on things like procurement of equipment and maintenance of existing systems. Hence that being the combined far largest sector of the budget - about 2/3rds. R&D and personnel account for the rest, with R&D being the vast minority.
While R&D is a big part of why the US armed forces have been running over everyone in the past 15 years with ease, you have to remember that all that R&D money was spent in the late 70's and early 80's (bathroommonkey - Iraqi 1970's-era gear was actually developed in the 50's and 60's for the most part). Defense R&D takes ages to come to fruition usually, and most of the equipment used in Desert Storm (and about to be used now, by the way), was developed 20-25 years ago. There really aren't many differences in the technology of today's US weapons and the first Gulf War, except that now instead of dropping 10% precision guided bombs and 90% unguided, it's been reversed in ratio by simply buying a lot more precision weapons. But the typical army mechanized task force still uses M1 tanks, M2 Bradleys, M16 rifles, and M68 Handgrenades; the exact same weapons deployed in the Fulda Gap against the soviets in 1982. Most US gear was just so far ahead of its time that there's been little reason to research better models yet.
The problem with the whole point of this whole last few rounds of threads is that it points out the US having a larger defense budget than any other country in the world, or even a combination of countries. The problem with that is that it's still only about 3% of our country's annual GDP. It's so much because America can afford so much, and we'd rather spend $100,000 on a laser-guided bomb than to spend $500 on an unguided bomb that will be much more likely to kill noncombatants, or to cause teh shooting down of the pilot of the plane dropping the bomb as he makes more passes over a target trying to hit it. The more the US spends on smarter munitions, the lower the human cost of the war is to our troops and civilians. It's not a coincidence that the more US troops in the first gulf war died in traffic accidents than in combat, and that the accidental killing of 3 dozen civilians in afghanistan was such front page news: it's because unlike in WW2 where you'd drop 100,000 tons of bombs on Schwerfort in one night to try and knock out a ball-bearing facory, now you drop 5 bombs total and do the same amount of military damage, without snuffing out thousands of factory worker's lives in the process. It's just so rare to hurt noncombatants now in even small numbers that it becomes newsworthy when it happens. This is a good thing.
The world should be glad we spend so much on defense, as when we have to go into combat we can restrict our fighting to the enemy troops, not unfortunate bystanders. Why do you think all those russians are standing trial right now for carpet bombing civilians in chechnya? They have no capacity to wage war against enemy forces, only enemy countries. But to say that we're using cutting edge weaponry? Only if you understand that most of the world uses the equivalent of a bow and arrow to our howitzer...
But they will still end up killing countless civilians. Especially if the have to march into Baghdad.
Going to war for a couple cents off the price at the pumps, for shame. However I really don't think that Mr G.W. Bush in his infinite wisdom would want to do something as noble as goto war to remove a sadistic dictator.
But they will still end up killing countless civilians. Especially if the have to march into Baghdad. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
doubt it, we have invested alot of money into our "psy ops" the people of Iraq know that fighting us is pointless and well more then likely surrender with out a fight once they see that saddam can't hurt them anymore, if all goes well they may even welcome us, but thats asking for too much.
But they will still end up killing countless civilians. Especially if the have to march into Baghdad. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
So is it ok to kill a small amount of people for nothing? Compared to freedom for everybody even if a more have to sacrafice thier lives?
I think its because its "cool" to hate bush :/ He dosen't attack in the middle of nowhere and actually gives them an ultimatum.
Why do you think all those russians are standing trial right now for carpet bombing civilians in chechnya? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A little off the subject, but the only reason they are being tried is due to an international agreement with the UN or U.S. (I do not fully recall) that if 'war criminals' are brought to justice and measures taken to prevent civilian casualties, then the U.S. and others would recognize the Chechens as terrorists and assist in our desires for a peaceful resolution. Though there isn't carpet bombing on WW2 levels there are air strikes, helo attacks, artillery bombardments, and incursions of highly populated area to destroy rebel forces, supplies, and support; and it is rather effective. The only reason Russia isn't fighting like America, is because its cheaper to use a rocket than a smart bomb. Spend a few years in Chechnya and see if you would rather send young men into a hostile village or bomb it from a distance.
Edit: Just FYI, there was a vote in the British House of Commons, and somewhere else supporting action against Iraq. One was 360ish for action 130ish against. The second vote was 400ish for action, 112ish against. I don't remember the exact numbers, but I'm searching for an article on the internet.
The Russian government and armed forces are fighting in Chechnya the same way it fought in Afghanistan, and are too clumsy or stupid to understand that the WAY they fight is why they always LOSE those fights. 25 years of continous warfare in neighboring moslem countries, and the soviet/russian armies still can't get it right.
Edit: We still have better equipment than the U.S. and NATO, though we need money and lots of it. You wouldn't mind petitioning your government for a little bit of aid? <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
As for equipment differences... ehhh, nonsense. No one buys Russian equipment anymore except poor countries that can't afford the US-style weapons that won the fights easily in the Gulf and Afghanistan (or for the israelis for the past 50 years). It's for the most part primitive trash, with a few notable exceptions.
What kind of gear (money allowing) do the russian regulars get now?
*Sorry to get off topic...but every thread does now & then.
PS - 12 hours remaining.
As for Russian soldiers, the conscripts are um not very good. But the professional soldiers are well trained and well equiped-the government actually spend some money on them.
dosent matter anyways US and Russia won't fight when we trade with each other. I think the problem is Russia exspects marines not a 12 year old tossing a grenade in the back of a truck.
There's very little hope as we see how rampant the repression went.
"Democracy" my *** ... it's just a widely accepted dictatorship , much like the previous ones.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Stealth is easily beaten by Russian tech. The Mig-42 has several types of radar. There is you standard one-which can be defeated by stealth, oh and unlike the Raptor-the Mig will have 2 radar systems-one in front and one in back. Also, the 42 will have heat detection system which will find and track most stealth planes, like the 22, 10 km. And is has a laser detection system (I might not be describing this correctly, but this is how I remember it was told to me) which send out laser beams for 8 km that WILL TRACK ALL OBJECTS in its range. If the aircraft has mass it will be found. This system also makes the American 'stealth' missile, um not so stealthy. The military is trying to set up heat and laser detection systems across Russia to track stealth planes-but money concerns pop up again. Btw-did I mention that the MIG-42 and 43 were stealth and that the Raptor and JSF don't have any radar systems to track stealth aircraft <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
D: