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
Ehran    RE:Tigertony   2/9/2005 12:27:47 PM
oh heck i guess the british and french ssbn's would uncork and i guess the french have some landbased stuff as well they might well get off. bad day all around i'm thinking.
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    Old Grunt   2/9/2005 1:01:25 PM
Still Short for supercruise at high altitude(36000ft) ;) Actually way short.
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    RE:US Industry is not, repeat not untouchable ---Alexis   2/9/2005 1:04:29 PM
Yes you are right. Not quite untouchable. You do have SOF and SLBMs. Let me rephrase. Our industry is not as vulnerable. SOF is able to, but very unlikely to, cause the kind of damage a/c bombs will. And any use of nuclear weapons by the EU is not very likely and is actually of benefit to the US becasue we have NMD systems and many more retaliation options.
 
Quote    Reply

Old Grunt    RE:Old Grunt   2/9/2005 1:20:45 PM
Basic physics my friend. Turbojet engines are designed for max efficiency at moderate altitudes. As you increase in altitude you see a corresponding decrease in preassure density. This reduction requires the engine to work harder in order to achieve the compression necessary for operation. For the simple this means fly higher, work harder, burn more fuel in a given period of time, reduce range. Fly lower and you have a corresponding increase in preassure density. This increases drag on the airframe and requires the engines to work harder to achieve the same airspeed. Again, work harder, burn more fuel in a given period of time, reduce range. We won't even get into the effects of operating over water on basic flight physics. Supercruise is just a fancy name for going faster than the speed of sound without the use of afterburners. P-47's would "supercruise" in dives during WWII. Unless you are somehow able to suspend the natural laws that govern our universe going faster burns more fuel. Flying higher burns more fuel. The physics of flight is one area where you definitely cannot disregard reality.
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    RE:Old Grunt   2/9/2005 1:31:32 PM
Old Grunt, are you sure? High altitude flight is far more fuel efficient. I fly Cesna 152 out of Long Beach Air Port and OH-58 and they always get better range with altitude because of less drag. Now I admit these a/c are slugs and I have never flown a high performance jet but I'm sure the basics are similar.
 
Quote    Reply

Alexis    RE:US Industry is not, repeat not untouchable ---Alexis   2/9/2005 1:46:04 PM
"Let me rephrase. Our industry is not as vulnerable. SOF is able to, but very unlikely to, cause the kind of damage a/c bombs will. And any use of nuclear weapons by the EU is not very likely and is actually of benefit to the US becasue we have NMD systems and many more retaliation options" You're right about SOF. About nuclear use, that could not be by the EU but only by the governments either of France or of Britain. Nuclear use by France is most unlikely in any "normal" situation, that is when classical weaponry suffice to protect the nation. Your contention is that in the hypothetical scenario when the US would attempt taming of all European nations, US forces would succeed in puting Europe the back to the wall. This contention is disputed, but assuming that you're right, it follows that nuclear use by France would be more than a probability, rather a near-certainty. The French deterrent is minimal in numbers, but it is diverse enough to allow strike options other than "Armageddon". The EMP option would be especially attracting if France was the back to the wall economically rather than militarily. That is, if the French economy was suffocating because of a prolonged naval blockade, without the territory being invaded. Present and even near future plans for NMD are far too little to stop advanced warheads like M45's TN75. As for retaliation options, the little fact about them is that when your opponent is increasing the stakes WHILE retaining the option to go for full Armageddon, a retaliation that would go far beyond what you've just suffered would only pave the way ... to said Armageddon. That is, US reprisal could be EMP, which would be more economic agression compounding naval blockade, but no more, or the nuclear ladder would continue be climbed until the end. The bottom line is that no aggressor can put a nuclear power with global second strike ability in a corner, no matter how powerful that aggressor is. If your scenario includes puting France in a corner, you have to first explain your President how you will destroy preventively French second strike ability with near-absolute success probability (or you will be rapidly replaced as a National Security advisor), or you have to put other European countries in a corner, without puting France in the same. I can't see how you could do any. The same argument goes for Britain, of course.
 
Quote    Reply

G3    sam   2/9/2005 1:48:04 PM
I don't think that US a/c can get through the EU's air defence without having at least some losses. If the airforce lost 60 a/c(read it here somewhere) in 91 how many would they loose against the EU? And if its clear that the main attack directions come from the south and the north the amount of SAMs in this aereas can be concentrated there to cover these aereas. Germany alone has 36 Patriot firing units each consisting of 8 launchers all PAC2 standard and I think some are already PAC3. We lend them to Israel to protect themselves from Iraqi missiles. These patriots are also produced in Germany. During my time in the Luftwaffe(conscript,truck driver) I often went to a bunkered facility where they are built. During the 91 gulf war this factory produced missiles for US. An older employee told me that they where literally picked up right at the end of the assembly line.
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    RE:Old Grunt   2/9/2005 1:57:08 PM
"Since there seems to be great dispute among internet sites on the range of the F-22, I put in a call to Pratt and Whitney (amazing what a Pentagon phone number can accomplish!) and requested the performance data on the F119-100 engine. At optimal cruise (defined as unloaded aircraft at 600kts at 18,000ft), the F119-100 engine has a fuel consumption rate of 102.58lbs/min. The F22 has a total fuel capacity of 41,035lbs (25,000lbs internal, 16,035 in external tanks). 102.58 X 2engines = 205.16lbs/minute consumption; 41,035lbs / 205.16lbs/min = 200 minutes 200 minutes/60 = 3.33 hours 3.33 hrs X 600 Kts = 1998 Nautical Miles. This would reflect the 2000NM range given on some websites, however this is the unrefueled ferry range of the aircraft. An aircraft in ferry configuration contains only a pilot, life support systems, and fuel. It has no offensive or defensive capability and is not expected to perform anything other than an optimal flight profile." --Old Grunt F-22 has 25000lbs of fuel. It takes off and climbs to 36000ft and conducts in flight refueling to top off. At the fuel consumtion rate you listed thats roughly 45 to 60 minutes of flight before time to RTB. If the aircraft is at 36000ft and has a velocity of Mach 1.5, Thats approximately 1000 nm of range. Drop tanks could extend this even futher. Because the F-22 carries weapons internally most of the time, there is no drag penalty. Weight is offset by fuel consumtion and 6 AMRAAM andd 2 AIM-9 is not much. And a/c in ferry configuration CAN be equipped to fight if mission requirements dictate a necessity for self defence weapons. With external tanks this range increases 1300nm to 1600nm at least. And even in this configuration the F-22 can carry 8 additional AMRAAM and still has RCS an order of magnitude better than contemporary design such as the F/A-18E. And thats using your figures Old Grunt which I can assure you are deliberately understated. And BTW, the F-22 uses Turbo Fan engine IIRC.
 
Quote    Reply

Old Grunt    RE:Old Grunt   2/9/2005 2:24:31 PM
Positive. Your talking apples and oranges. How can I make this simple? First, disregard rotary wing flight, the mechanics are too different and if you have a couple of hours free I'll be happy to explain it. Second your Cessna operates on a recipricating internal combustion engine, a horizontally opposed six I believe. Turbojets are reaction engines. ICE's use a totally different ratio of air to fuel. As you learned in flight school (remember the whiz wheel?) preassure density at altitude changes and affects lift, drag, and fuel consumption. If I remember correctly the 152 uses a Clark Y airfoil which is pretty efficient, stunningly so compared to the foil on the F-22, so you won't see any real loss of lift until you reach service ceiling. This allows the lighter aircraft to take advantage of the reduced drag at altitude without really seeing a major increase in fuel consumption. Get close to your service ceiling and you now get to experience some of what the F-22 does above 25,000 ft. You now have such low density that you have to make the air flow faster over the wing to generate the same amount of lift. As speed increases, so does drag. As drag increases you have to apply more power to maintain airspeed. As you apply more power, you use more fuel. Try flying at or near your service ceiling for about ten minutes and see how much fuel you use. Now imagine if not only do you need to worry about lift and drag, but you have to worry about compression as well. As altitude increases, preassure density decreases. This means that there is less air in a given volume. In order to get enough air to operate you have to increase compression, to increase compression you have to increase RPM's, to increase RPM's you have to make the engine run faster which requires more fuel. How did you make it through civilian flight school much less Ft.Rucker without a thorough understanding of the basic physics of flight?
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    Alexix and G3   2/9/2005 2:32:08 PM
"Let me rephrase. Our industry is not as vulnerable. SOF is able to, but very unlikely to, cause the kind of damage a/c bombs will. And any use of nuclear weapons by the EU is not very likely and is actually of benefit to the US becasue we have NMD systems and many more retaliation options" You're right about SOF. About nuclear use, that could not be by the EU but only by the governments either of France or of Britain. Nuclear use by France is most unlikely in any "normal" situation, that is when classical weaponry suffice to protect the nation. Your contention is that in the hypothetical scenario when the US would attempt taming of all European nations, US forces would succeed in puting Europe the back to the wall. This contention is disputed, but assuming that you're right, it follows that nuclear use by France would be more than a probability, rather a near-certainty. The French deterrent is minimal in numbers, but it is diverse enough to allow strike options other than "Armageddon". The EMP option would be especially attracting if France was the back to the wall economically rather than militarily. That is, if the French economy was suffocating because of a prolonged naval blockade, without the territory being invaded. Present and even near future plans for NMD are far too little to stop advanced warheads like M45's TN75. As for retaliation options, the little fact about them is that when your opponent is increasing the stakes WHILE retaining the option to go for full Armageddon, a retaliation that would go far beyond what you've just suffered would only pave the way ... to said Armageddon. That is, US reprisal could be EMP, which would be more economic agression compounding naval blockade, but no more, or the nuclear ladder would continue be climbed until the end. The bottom line is that no aggressor can put a nuclear power with global second strike ability in a corner, no matter how powerful that aggressor is. If your scenario includes puting France in a corner, you have to first explain your President how you will destroy preventively French second strike ability with near-absolute success probability (or you will be rapidly replaced as a National Security advisor), or you have to put other European countries in a corner, without puting France in the same. I can't see how you could do any. The same argument goes for Britain, of course." --Alexis --Alexis, consider this. One of the reasons I chose a minimal use of US military and limiting myself in the short term to Air and Naval blockade is that I dont want the EU to remember Hitlers rapid land grab. That could force a nuclear war which the US would certainly win but at great cost. So instead I am doing three active things to eliminate the SLBM forces: 1. Destroying non deployed SSBNs, you cant have them all out at once, in port as well as there support facilities. 2. Using USN SSNs to mine and block access to the SSBN facilities. These boats cant just go anywhere to replinish. 3. Using combined pre war intel and SSNs to locate and destroy SSBNs at sea whenever they are encountered. Now method 3 is the least likely to succeed without good intel because of the ability of the SSBN to hide, but an attempt has to be made. Also considering the close relationship between the EU and US, details about some EU SSBNs may be in the hands of US intelligence prior to the war. But methods 1 and 2 will be extremely likely to succeed. The SSBNs out on patrol will have to RTB at some point within a year to replinish food and conduct maitenance. When they do this they will either be destroyed or unable to replinish our have repars due to destroyed facilities. The Passive measures are: 1. Destroying COMSAT 2. Jamming VHF/UHF/ELF as well as physical destruction 3. NMD. I do realise that the NMD is not a total and complete sheild. But even stopping one warhead is worth it. And the US has been aware of NMD counter measures and has developed counter counter measures. Just as France isnt going to be very specifc about the methods an M45 may use, niether is the US going to announce the full capabilities of the defense. But it is logical reason to say that it does exist. But again the US can do damage far greater than the EU could dish out and I think Nuclear weapons would be used only in retaliation. --G3, the directons of attack will not be revealed until 3 to 5 days prior. Time for you to redeploy SAMs, possibly. But the US has so many options for eliminating them. The 36 firing units have key nodes that if taken out render the launchers inert. Many systems could be brought to bear on them. And Germany doesnt have the same proprietary knowledge of the Patriot as Raytheon. So unique opportunities exist for anti-patriot ECM. There is not a single nation today that has stopped the US due to SAMs. It does cause attrition but has never stopped the bombing. And the Current U.K. SAMs leave a very Serb like vulnerabilty to
 
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