Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Warplane Weapons Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Mil-28 versus AH-64 Apache
red star    5/25/2003 6:09:00 PM
I will go for good old Mil.
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   NEXT
Soylent Green    RE:Mi Mil 28 vs Apache   5/25/2003 6:10:35 PM
Why am I not surprised?
Quote    Reply

red star    RE:Mi Mil 28 vs Apache   5/25/2003 6:19:34 PM
I suppose But someone has to defend the Ruskies-in these times ever1 is going for American this American that, and the ruskies are seen as a bunch of screw up lames who cant bolt two pieces of metal together.
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:Mi Mil 28 vs Apache   5/26/2003 4:34:07 AM
Red star: Of course there is a winner effect. But there are areas where the US performance is less than sparkling: 1. Littoral warfare: The yanks can't build coastal submarines for instance. 2. Fixation with high technology, not that it isn't usefull, but low quality of opponent is more than a contributing factor.
Quote    Reply

red star    RE:Mi Mil 28 vs Apache   5/26/2003 1:34:08 PM
Yes, but even in some areas in which US spends a lot of money they are not the best-close air combat (MIG 29 is a bit beter than F 16), or tanks (i would say that teh leopard 2a6 is betr than the Abrams)
Quote    Reply

Soylent Green    RE:Mi Mil 28 vs Apache   5/26/2003 1:37:52 PM
There seems to be a hell of a lot of "Why Russia is better than everybody else including America at X, Y and/or Z, honest" threads cropping up recently.
Quote    Reply

red star    RE:Mi Mil 28 vs Apache   5/26/2003 1:47:58 PM
Guess why? Coz for the past 12 years it has been "Why USA is beter than everybody else including Russia at X,Y and/or Z honest" (i changed some of hte words so u cant do me for copyrighting)
Quote    Reply

Final Historian    RE:Mi Mil 28 vs Apache   5/26/2003 2:45:45 PM
Thomas, you are correct about the high-tech fixation. I think it is perhaps the biggest weakness of the US. As for the littoral warfare, the US never had the need of coastal subs and surface vessels that other countries needed. Most of the action the Navy would see would be blue water action. However, the Navy is currently working on this, and hopefully before the decade is over will get some decent brown water boats. We don't really need brown water subs as much, as they won't be needed.
Quote    Reply

Soylent Green    RE:Mi Mil 28 vs Apache   5/26/2003 2:47:17 PM
There's been a lot of writing about littoral warfare recently and I would be very surprised if the US doesn't get it's act together sooner rather than later.
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:Mi Mil 28 vs Apache   5/27/2003 3:35:26 AM
To FH Won't need brown water subs?? For Your information the Danish Sub "Sælen" was a part of (if not the entire contribution) the Danish contribution to the war with Iraq. The object was, if I'm not wrong, to keep the Iranians from getting any ideas. As long as the US has to land forces abroad, you need coastal submarines to protect the cargoships and keep potential bad guys in their ports. Why do you think a preliminary order for 6 new Viking subs has been placed at Lindø-shipyard? It's a swedish design with minimal swedish participation. And who owns Lindø? RIGHT: The babyblue banner with the seven-pointed star. The yanks have tried to purchase Howaldt-Werke in Kiel (about the only yard apart from Kockums, that can build small subs) - the germans refused. No! The us does not have littoral warfare technology. Denmark has. We've splashed around in the Baltic for close to a thousand years.
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:Mi Mil 28 vs Apache   5/27/2003 3:37:20 AM
To SG: Why do YOU think Bush had breakfast with the primeminister of an obscure allied country like Denmark.
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   NEXT