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
gixxxerking    RE:grunt   2/10/2005 4:01:12 PM
link
 
Quote    Reply

Old Grunt    Gixxerking   2/10/2005 4:08:31 PM
---Bad comparison for a plethora of reasons the least of which that motorcycles are at sea level. So our "fighters" are both flying at the same altitude. --Also I almost could idle my 1000cc bike to your house (~2250 RPM) if I wanted to go 15mph, where your mini bike is at 75% throttle. Remember "...more speed at a given throttle setting..." so it's the throttle setting that we are using as the constant for our performance comparison not the speed, hence we are both at 75% power. --No other engine deployed on a fighter today produces the thrust of the F119-100 in military power while it is in afterburner. No other bike in our example produces the thrust of your 1000cc bike even if I am at 110% power.
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    RE:Gixxerking   2/10/2005 4:22:36 PM
"So our "fighters" are both flying at the same altitude."---grunt "Remember "...more speed at a given throttle setting..." so it's the throttle setting that we are using as the constant for our performance comparison not the speed, hence we are both at 75% power."---grunt No we most certainly are not. The F-22 is at 36000ft +, doing almost Mach 2 without using the afterburner. And we are comparng the speed. You define the parameters of your arguements. I'll define mine.
 
Quote    Reply

Old Grunt    RE:Gixxerking   2/10/2005 4:51:37 PM
Sorry, these are your argument parmeters. The one constant to your argument with regard to the F-22 has always been: "Supercruise is so efficient because it allows you to travel at much higher speeds at a given throttle setting." So the standard of comparison that you selected was the performance at a given throttle setting. So let's say we are cruising at 36K you in your F-22 and me in my F-15C both of us at 75% (normal combat power), who's moving faster? You are of course! Why? Because 75% of 3,500 is greater than 75% of 2,700! Supercruise does not allow you to move at higher speeds for a given throttle setting, greater thrust does. Supercruise is the effect of that greater speed, not the cause of it.
 
Quote    Reply

tigertony    RE:Nuke or not?    2/10/2005 5:12:08 PM
I have one more point to all you arm chair generals!!!. If you think you can win the peace using your tanks,your guns,and your bombs you will be setting yourselves up for destruction!!!. And if you think that making a Union as long as you are all still seperate nations will do it,you again will fail!!!. Truth is that unless mankind stops making nations and fighting its races we will never win!!!. When the world finds the wisdom and understands that we are all one race,the human race!!!.Then maybe it will finally be achieved!!! tigertony PS:bluewings i wouldnt target you for harrasment if you would just understand the truth!!!
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    oldgrunt   2/10/2005 5:20:29 PM
That is the most tired attempt yet to twist what I have been saying since most of you have been wrongly questioning my range ESTIMATE of the F-22. I ALWAYS SAID THRUST IS THE KEY AND NO ONE HAS WHAT THE F-22 DOES. Thus the range WILL BE GREATLY INCREASED. BY 3x AT LEAST, no matter what you read. I cant emphasize enough that I dont do appeasement. When I'm right, I'm right. Even when I'm wrong I'm more right than most. link link link link
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    oldgrunt    2/10/2005 5:22:50 PM
link link link link Nice try oldgrunt. But I have been telling you that since this silly questioning of the F-22 range started. You are as wrong now as you were about the type of engine.
 
Quote    Reply

gixxxerking    Statement of Fact   2/10/2005 5:31:01 PM
With great ease F-22s out of KNAS could cover the ENTIRE airspace of the U.K. on high altitude fighter sweep or strike mission. At no time would they need to use tanker in U.K. airspace.
 
Quote    Reply

RM-Nod    RE:Statement of Fact   2/10/2005 5:41:24 PM
This man does not have the capacity for rational thought; what use is there arguing with someone who won't accept official sources yet expects people to be swayed because he can produce an excerpt from wikipedia or you thinks that Al Qaeda is better than the best of Europe?s special forces or that 24 F22s with just 10 missiles each can cover the entire UK airspace, all 244820km of it? Let's just let this thread die.
 
Quote    Reply

wjr    RE:Grunt and NOD   2/10/2005 5:48:03 PM
RM-Nod, I cannot tell, exactly, what GIXX has in mind but try this one on for size: The Islmao-bozos are actually much better at what needs to be done -- hiding, avoiding, skulking and looking like the local derelects. Imagine a bunch of SOF guys -- looking fit and squared away -- trying to fit in with that crowd! Seriously, though, SOF personnel are much more deadly on a tasked mission basis. However, you have to admit that the Islamic radical network -- in both the U.S. and the EU make these guys a unique threat due to local support. Look at the situation in Amsterdam as an example. Best, wjr
 
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