F-22 (Raptor) attacked a Russian attack aircrafts Su-25

I said with regards to Syria didn’t I now. As for the others, like the US, they are in violation of international law. But including the US, nations put their own interests before IL.

 

A bit simplistic. The royal family was in an unholy alliance with radical Muslims, including some of royal family who gave them money and supported their militant programs, including sending radical imams to countries around the globe. The Muslims were, indeed are, the one independent political force Middle East regimes can't suppress.

I don't think the article you cited quite supports your spin.

You shouldn't assume I support U.S. policy in Afghanistan. I think it was necessary to do something about the militants, but Bush used it as an opportunity to win public support with regime change.

For the same reason we went after Soviet proxies while not attacking the Soviet Union. The Saudis could have created an oil crisis that would have damaged the world economy.

That doesn't mean the Saudi royal family ordered up the attack any more than the Taliban were responsible for it because the perps were operating from Afghanistan.

Spare me your "advice."

 

Why do you think that Russia isn't match for the US air superiority?

 

Because it isn't....your nukes are your only ace in the hole.

 

Where does the US have air superiority?
Answer: In the US.

In Syria? Not convinced.

 

Yavberg, in respect of the foregoing part of your post, I wonder if you ever read John Pilger's very thought provoking article about 9/11 and the US neocon desire for a "catastrophic and catalysing event" that would be like a "new Pearl Harbour" that would enable the US to engage in "total war" strategy on the world?

New Statesman

 

I Don't think it, I know it. Well where do I start, USA has strength in numbers 15,000 + military aircraft compared to Russia's 3,000 +
We have better trained pilots, superior technology, air bases worldwide perfect for tactical strikes, 11 aircraft carriers to help dominate the skies at sea, More refueling planes to keep our forces longer in the air, I could go on and on Russia is more like a ***** cat in the air all they can do is meow at us their long range bombers were developed in the 50s I could ran faster than those planes in event of a war Russia's only hope of winning is launching nuclear weapons from submarines.

Russia Long Range Bomber, Only one which has a range of reaching the USA

 

Who did tell to you that you know it? By the way what university had you graduated?

You are wrong. Russian pilots are trained better. Recall Syria, for example.

Really? Why Russians deliver your astronauts in the space in this case? It seems you have no superior technologies that Russians have.

And? Did you look at the Russian map? Tactical strikes will be very useful in the war with Russia

I am imaging all your 11 aircraft carriers in Siberia...

Do you mean this one?


Guy, say what is your education? Now you seem as a person that wants to write something smart, but can not to.

 

Fairly sure neither the us or russia can win a war on the other guy his turf.
And if you do manage it its going to be a victory not worth having (heavy damage and losses)

And a shitload of collateral for no reason other then the us wanting to brag he got the bigger **** and russia wanting to proof him wrong

 

Yes, of course! But why is it necessary to explain this to every stupid American? I did it as many times, that I believe America consist only such persons, including their presidents.

 

And yet all that air power was unable to dominate the skies in little old Serbia.

I would agree that Russia won't win an air war in America.
But airforce's alone don't win wars.

Russia certainly has the ability to project airforce's world wide just as America does.
America has a superior capability in this regard.

In Syria however, Russia dominates the skies. Their commitment to that battle space is the superior force.
They have developed counters to aircraft carrier's and mid air refueling alike.
America also use's 1950's long range bombers for the record.



PS, the plane you pictured above, it's not a bomber. It's a sub hunter.
American's use this plane for the same role.

 

I think it is not correct. Russia lost aircrafts in Syria too, but I believe we dominate there.

How do you distinguish Tu-142 and Tu-95? There is a very small difference between these planes. But the bow of the plane seems as a bow tu-95 still.

 

Radar under the nose.

A small bulge painted white in the above photograph.

 

I am not an aviation expert, but according the Internet this is tu-95

this is tu-142

 

This one has a surface scanning radar under the nose.
It's used for submarine hunting.

As such it is frequently encountered by NATO forces on it's maritime patrols.

 

Every plane has a radar. But radar for finding ships seems like big bubble under a belly. Under the nose an air radar (for other planes) is located usually.

 

Unfortunately you can't read Russian. This plane has the personal name "Dubna". It's tu-95MS, board number 20.
http://www.militaryparitet.com/perevodnie/data/ic_perevodnie/6757/

 

Call it what you like.

It's still a maritime patrol aircraft.
A sub hunter and not a bomber.

 

Air to air radar is typically forward facing in planes.




In the picture of the America maritime patrol aircraft, the radar is at the back in that pylon sticking out the rear.

 

I think you agreed with me. Can you list Russia’s long range bombers? I,e once that can reach the USA Mainland without requiring refuelling?

 

No use getting into a pissing match over something we could not possibly know the outcome until real air combat breaks out between first line aircraft. Just a few comments, the MIG-15 was a surprise and often a match for the F-86. The MIG-21 gave the F-4 a run for its money. I wouldn't want to underestimate the ability of any adversary. We use Russian rockets not because we don't have better tech, but because the space shuttle program was shut down with no replacement. Russia only has 19 Tu-160 and they are in need of modernization.

 

Really???

The best argument I ever heard!... You don't have better tech all the same
Guy, you didn't learn how to argue in your university, do you?. OK, you didn't graduated a university. But you try to argue with Russian. Don't you believe it's a nonsense?

 

And what was wrong with what I said? Your rocket tech is old, probably older than the space shuttle. We use your rockets only because it's cheaper to use old Russian rockets than use our own. Arguing with a Russian isn't much of a challenge. Moscow U barely makes the top 100, any other Russian university doesn't make the top 300, so I'm not impressed by anyone who thinks going to one of them somehow makes them smarter.

 

Nothing. You say nothing wrong as an usual American, which have no an education, which can get information from American media only, but which believe he can argue with a Russian professor. Nothing wrong, sir, you are just an American

Sex is an old tech too, but there is no a better technology for people production

You have no your own. But we have new rocket tech. S-400 for example. Did you hear about this rocket system? Your American pilots heard about it a lot in Syria.

Oh, all that American ratings... Oh, all that American media... It's an American propaganda only. Do you really believe in its? My compliment! You are a real American

 

No doubt there is a lot of propaganda in the US press and much of the news they get is from the government who isn't known for its honesty, but come on, a Russian talking about propaganda? Has much changed since the days of Pravda? Here we are talking about rockets to send people into space and you bring up SAM rockets. Do they say apples and oranges in Russia?