Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: USA vs EU
gixxxerking    1/6/2005 6:13:25 PM
This is the mood in the Fighters forums so I thought I would just declare war here instead. C'mon all you armchair generals, who wins this fight?
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
wjr    RE:USA vs EU   2/6/2005 10:14:10 PM
RM, You are very likely correct -- I am probably conflating the F-35 vs Eurofighter thread with the F-22 thread. While I have been following this web site for some time I have not really taken much interest in the discussion area until lately. So, if you have have tghroughly done french stratege then I guess I have no complaints. Best, wjr
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    RE:Poll: Who thinks that Gix gave an answer to what I put to him?    2/6/2005 10:41:43 PM
NOD, until you stop manipulating the data I will not address you with an answer. The Raptor has an unrefueled combat radius on over 1500nmi. That IS NOT THE LM site for F-22. link That is. Even the most basic analysis of the Raptor will indicate a range of over 1500nmi. link That is a US Base. Stop denying reality. Also you IAD, SAMs and AAA, are substantially weaker than Iraq or Yugo Slavia. You cannot stop Massed attacks like this with what you have. Any AD officer will tell you this. And the TLAMs could terrain mask as well. More on Iceland: " This all depends on the scenario that starts all this. Keflavik is not a US base, it is a NATO base, many NATO nations have personally there as does Iceland and it is on Icelandic territory. Some scenarios would make it plausible for the US to be on the base in force but others would not. You underestimate the ability of EU lift, if needed the EU could get a few squadrons of aircraft to Iceland very fast and the RN could quickly move substantial forces; the EU?s downfall is that doesn?t have the ability to lift much but the actually speed of the lift is largely relative to the distance it?s going. So a C17 from Scotland would get to Iceland before a C17 from the US due to Scotland being closer to Iceland than the US. Obviously other factors play a part like the readiness of forces etc this all depends on the scenario you?re playing with. For example if this war starts because the US has taken over Iceland then fair enough but if it starts because of something else then we?re at a stalemate in regards to Iceland with the US having minor defences on the island (but with facilities being manned by other NATO personnel as well as Icelanders)." --NOD The war DOES start because of the US taking ICELAND. And no matter how it starts you could not get MORE men there as fast as the US. Only we have the lift to do it. And we will not have to do opposed landing. Subs: There is no way you will get 10 subs coordinated to attack a CSF within 2 to 3 days warning without losing half or more of them before you are in position. TO do this you would need to use flank speeds and that will kill you. But please develop a plan for how this would take place. I am interested in what you would do. Intel: We would not have to hit all U.K. Targets on the first night. Only key facilities to open windows of airsuperiority. Casualties: On the first night, very low because most systems are unmanned or firing from standoff. The F-22 will suffer minimal losses if any at all. In ever test scenario it has operated with impunity. As it would in this scenario. As the F-117 did over Iraq. The B-2 is the only other manned system over UK initially. After Raptor secures Air superiority it will be followed by other a/c. Who will remain above the range of your IAD. And People seem to think only 24 Raptors are used in the conflict. This is false. There will be 100 in service by Dec 2005. But 24 is enough to secure UK air space. I do not have to cover entire country. Only the areas of interest to me. Gary: I should first apologize to Gary. He was not really saying I couldnt defeat EU SSKs. What he was saying is that it is a very real threat and if its not addressed properly it WILL stop me. I agree. After I detailed a valid plan. He relented. P.S. Did you watch the Superbowl? Freakin Patriot WON...noooooooooo! Good thing I didnt bet. I knew they would win but I was hope the Eagles would pull an upset. At least the game was good til the end. An F-22 flew over the stadium! Wow! What sporting event in Europe is equivilent?
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    RM-NOD   2/6/2005 10:56:29 PM
He can be a little rough on me. But I find him respectful compared to others. And he atleast doesnt engage n the personal attacks. I try hard to extend the same courtesy. I really am not bothers by him rejecting my idea. He is a man with a right to opinion. I am based towards America. But I try to back up my claims with facts and links where possible. Where its not I state that its opinion. Some here dont do that. NOD we seem to have another miss understanding. The AMRAAM armed taker it the F/A-18 configured for refueling. And i also gave a link to a sight which claimed the F-22 with a range of 2000nmi. So please, be fair to me. I am not like FS who NEVER gives non-french, non manufacturer links and makes brpad wild claims.
 
Quote    Reply

RM-Nod    RE:Poll: Who thinks that Gix gave an answer to what I put to him?    2/6/2005 11:40:33 PM
NOD, until you stop manipulating the data I will not address you with an answer. The Raptor has an unrefueled combat radius on over 1500nmi. That IS NOT THE LM site for F-22. link No Gix, the site I posted is the LM stite for the Raptor just as the following is there official site for the F35 JSF, but LM still has a portion of there main site dedicated to the F35 like the F22 has a small portion dedicated to it. If you look at the bottom of the site I posted you'll see this "© Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company" It is there site with official data. The site you provided only gave a range of 2000nm, this is both unproven by an official source and is vague, it does not say that this is the aircraft's combat radius. The other site you provided said 1500 miles which is still wrong but even so it isn't what you claim. link That is a US Base. Stop denying reality. Well if you look at your site there, you'll also see this... "NAS Keflavik is the host Command for the NATO Base in Iceland." Also you IAD, SAMs and AAA, are substantially weaker than Iraq or Yugo Slavia. You cannot stop Massed attacks like this with what you have. Any AD officer will tell you this. And the TLAMs could terrain mask as well. Were you not just complaining (falsely) about people saying stuff like "you can't do that" without giving any reason why? It seems you've just done the same; you also haven't qualifies the statement that the EU's IAD is weaker than that of Iraq or Yugoslavia; which it most certainly is not. Since you've chosen not to reply to the bulk of what I said on this issue I'll repost it... As I said, the UK?s IAD is enough to stop an attack of 39 missiles arriving at a single target/ target group within a few seconds. You suggest that TLAMs would climb and then dive to avoid flying through there 7km range; I pointed out that this is not going to work, because that while it would reduce the intercept time, the Rapier?s radar can target an object up to 20km away. That means that if a missile reaches 5km in order to go into a steep/vertical dive Rapier would simply fire when the target is 4km out thus intercepting at between 2 and 3km altitude. Doing this it can intercept targets for as long as ammunition does not run out or more than 23 missiles arrive at exactly the same time. This does not take into account other systems from the rest of the EU that are not needed further inland; such systems could include Patriot, Hawk, Apside, Aster, Crotale, Mistral, Roland, and a variety of others. Intel: We would not have to hit all U.K. Targets on the first night. Only key facilities to open windows of airsuperiority. As I said in my post, the UK's radar network is vastly overlapping; you could destroy every radar station in Scotland and still not blind the UK in that area; you could also destroy every airbase in Scotland and still not get rid of the air threat from Harriers in Scotland or aircraft further south. You would not know what facilities were key to the UK's defencive position; that is the whole point. How could the US gain local superiority by destroying 20 bases in Scotland when all of those further away can be used to monitor and protect the airspace in the area? The war DOES start because of the US taking ICELAND. And no matter how it starts you could not get MORE men there as fast as the US. Only we have the lift to do it. And we will not have to do opposed landing. Great, so now we have a reason for war. But surely this means that the US loses all it's forces in Europe? Anyway, on a side note, why do you think the US is the only one that has the lift to reach Iceland? In terms of both air lift and sea lift the EU has enough organic shipping and aircraft to do such a task. I'll give you that the EU would have to fight to do it, presuming that hostilities are already underway. Here is the LM JSF link... link Subs: There is no way you will get 10 subs coordinated to attack a CSF within 2 to 3 days warning without losing half or more of them before you are in position. TO do this you would need to use flank speeds and that will kill you. But please develop a plan for how this would take place. I am interested in what you would do. No you don't understand, the US has to get within a certain range to pose a serious threat to the EU, that is a known. EU subs would not have to be all over the atlantic looking for them; for example the EU could have a small number of SSK/Ns lurking in certain positions around the threatening ranges; it doesn't matter if there are gaps becuase if the CVBG gets within this range it would have two groups of subs on either side; these could then simply move in slowly until either carrier is forced away or is engaged. If the CV moves closer,
 
Quote    Reply

RM-Nod    You also didn't have an answer to this...   2/6/2005 11:42:27 PM
You also say that Raptors would be flying CAP over the UK, to fly a CAP over the entire UK with the limited number of Raptors you have is geographically impossible, it?s just to big. You would also have to have them refuelled a few times since there combat radius is only about 400nm (as stated on the LM website, link table at the bottom). So any aircraft over the UK apart from carriers that are less than about 600km off the coast would have to have heavy tanker support. Also how many aircraft can Keflavik support? 100? If so (which is optimistic in my opinion) around a third would be in maintenance and you would need a squadron to provide a constant CAP, you?d need support aircraft (AWACs, tankers, transports, etc) so how many operational combat aircraft would you actually have available? 20? Of those that you do have available you?d have to keep half back in order to rotate the aircraft needed. These aircraft also only carry around 8 AAMs so if you had 12 Raptors over Scotland and the RAF sent up a few squadrons of Hawks as decoys while the real fighters went after your tankers your Raptors could hope to take out 96 aircraft at the very most before they run out of fuel and crash because there tanker has just been blown out of the sky. What?s more is the ability for these 12 aircraft to find there targets, of course they may have AWACs but these are highly visible and would have to be within hostile air. Fighters can only see a relatively limited view in front of them, so they wouldn?t automatically detect the enemy. That would force them to rely on AWACs; if you lose them then you lost much of your coverage meaning that some EU aircraft could get passed your Raptors. The EU in contrast has the benefit of the full range of static and mobile radar systems whether they?re air, surface or sea based. You also don?t take into account the success of any strikes against the Iceland base. Still you claim that US weapons and aircraft would easily get through EU defences despite them having broadly the same defences. Do you have a summary of how many aircraft you could support at Keflavik versus the number that would be available at any one time? If so could we see this backed up by something? So how many aircraft could you support at Keflavik and how many do you think would be operationally available?
 
Quote    Reply

VelocityVector    RE:Poll: french stratege   2/6/2005 11:48:19 PM
In the final analysis Gixxx has got it right, mostly. The colloquy and evidence demonstrates America _can_take Europe today, the reverse does not apply, and the developing world biomass challenges all. Europa, today including the UK (less Scotland and "Northern Ireleand" soon enough) has yet to meet its obligations toward world security given even the modest challenge of facist Islam fundamentalism. George Marshall was a hopeless optimist. Pity. v^2
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings    RE:Poll: french stratege   2/7/2005 12:10:09 AM
Quote : "Europa, today including the UK (less Scotland and "Northern Ireleand" soon enough) has yet to meet its obligations toward world security given even the modest challenge of facist Islam fundamentalism." Troll . Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

VelocityVector    RE:Poll: french stratege   2/7/2005 12:13:00 AM
Then take comfort. v^2
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings    nonsense ...   2/7/2005 12:27:21 AM
24 F-22s to secure UK Airspace . How can someone say such rubbish is beyond me ... US having 100 F-22s "Operational" by December ??? lol !! ...are you going to pay for them with your own money Gixxx ? ' better start doing overtime now ... Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings    RE:nonsense ...   2/7/2005 2:15:15 AM
You see Gentlemen , Gixxx is not surprising me at all in fact . All the USA have been up against theses recent years are Arabs boyscouts Armies with little old materials , no will to fight , poor leadership and without knowledge of Warfare . Balkans were a bit tougher but Serbs Pilots were flying planes without radars , ICM , and were rightly not very willing to fight for a cause that they knew was wrong . From those victories-huge archievements [sarcastic voice] people like Gixxx suddently think that the World is their playground and that the mighty USA can walk over Europe when it takes them 3 months + to clear 2000+ arabs fanatics from a town in ruin . Highly laughtable ... 500 Legionnaires would do it in a week . The truth is the US Navy would lost a quarter of its Ships before to be in position to strike and the rest would not withstand the hammering from Europe more than a week . UK would not even fall . IF there is ONE US General who belives the US can win against Europe , he needs to be replaced . Gixxx , you are mad . Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy