Poll. Germany or USA - Which country has the more advanced technology

How would an air battle pan out between say 20 Typhoons or Eurofighters versus 20 F-15s using the full spectrum of each Air Force's supporting arms(AWACS and w/e)?

For example, a Leopord II may be an equal match for an M1A2 in a small engagement, but once you turn it into a brigade sized engagement the U.S. superiority in supporting arms and large-unit operations experience would heavily weigh the battle in favor of the U.S. No one ever fights in a vaccum. I'd be interested in hearing (if OPSEC allows) how things would match up in real world type scenario in the air. I once heard a Canadian Colonel explain how the single most powerful ground unit on earth was a U.S. Heavy Infantry/Armored division. He said that even though some other NATO countries had comparable training, experience, and competency at the company/BN level, they weren't anywhere near as capable at the Regiment/Division/Brigade level......and that's without the whole air thing.

 

It would be extremely close and given that we have never run an exercise quite like that, I can only assume. I think the Typhoon would have the advantage. The Typhoon has a jump on the F-15C/E in BVR engagements. Only within visual range do I think we would beat the Eurofighter, but if we get to a merge, we have (*)(*)(*)(*)ed something up.

As much as it pains me to say it, the Viper would have a much better chance. They continue to upgrade it while the Albino is phased out and the Mudhen is steered more towards A/G operations (while still maintaining the ability to engage in A/A combat).

 

What's a merge?

 

Most assuredley the f-22 is superior to any other known airframe in existence today. However, the Typhoon is no slouch. It is vastly superior to the f-16 as well as the f-15. While not a stealth aircraft it does have a reduced RCS and has a sensor and countermeasure suite that will make engaging it BVR difficult for any aircraft. What really differentiates the US from other countries is the USAFs data management capabilities. unless the f-15 is upgraded with an AESA radar and modern EW capabilities it will be outmatched by SU-30s and atleast vulnerable to Mig-21 Bison's.

As for US vs Deutsch technology, its really a very difficult question to answer. I believe that the germans are capable of producing technologies that are just as advanced as the US's if they had the financial resources and where withall to do it.

 

It is the moment we cross each other's 3/9 line (which is just an imaginary line that runs left to right, from wingtip to wingtip).

 

Yeah America is the best !1^

Who said that America is better in medical ... ? Much stars came to germany for a operation.
Germany is also leading in chemie and physik.

Maybe the USA has a great aircraft but do u mean the Eurofighter is bad ?

Germany has also a new radar developed

Oh what do i read ? http://nachrichten.t-online.de/kuer...spart-am-supermacht-status-/id_48560590/index

 

It depends. It is all about missile guidance type and addisional equipment. Like infrared search and tracking systems, for one.

You forgot to mention, that you had total quantity,quality and informational superiority there.

Who could predict you are all about "lack of evidence"? Everyone.

Sort of saying "F-22 is F-105 in 5-th gen shape". This statement is useless.

Then why they have said sort of "PAK FA HAVE NO supercruise engines and advanced radar" and not "it is unknown"? Obvious lie is obvious =) Surely it won't be even close to F-22...it is going to be way superior

Seems to be a good way to commit suicide for ya =)

That was my point. Since external wapons kills stealth....

Sure it will be capable of it. The point is that CAS means plane will be in danger of close range AA engagement. But that is pretty dumb to do that sort of things with single-engine unarmored 130 million $ plane.

I don't know much about locking on, but some missiles have sort of "fire and forget" thing. S-200 missile definitelly have this regime, for one. I mean it capable of detecting and aiming with it's own systems. The only thing you have to do is to launch it to the enemy potential location.

At least 4 times less then you in Vietnam =) Or, just btw, how much did you guys lose in Afghanistan? I mean including all not-US-citizens US army servicemen, all civilian contractors, all private security agencies, huh? =)

I guess one stinger or igla missile right into F-35 is going to be even more devastating.

 

In East Germany they said, if the East German military is able to hold the country like 2 days against a Western attack, this would be good. I was in Air Force, we were prepared for 2 1/2 landings in case of a full fledged war. 2 1/2 landings is less than a day. From this point on we would have run short of ammunition and runways. A possible Western attack was planned to be stopped much more to the East.

The military of unified Germany has more modern equipment, but it's only like two times as big as the East German military was. If you add the Soviet troops which have been in East Germany the difference would be close to zero.

 

Industry is not worth a lot, too, if it can be destroyed by missile attacks within hours. Most important plants in Germany probably would have stopped producing before American soldiers would start to land in Germany. At this time I even doubt one single German submarine would reach America starting from Germany before the war was over.

 

Stealth technology includes defenses against infrared tracking.

This is not limited to American stealth technology... Russian stealth technology includes infrared counters as well.

Um...so? The same would be true with Germany as well.

Yeah, how dare I not just take your word for it. Isnt the word of an anonymous person on an internet political forum good enough for me?

LOL

 

Of course not. The Eurofighter kicks ass...for a non-stealth aircraft. Its lack of stealth is it's Achilles heel though. In BVR combat it will be at a serious disadvantage against opponents that have stealth tech.

I have seen no evidence that this radar will allow them to lock weapons on a stealth target. It might allow them to detect stealth targets better, but as I have already shown, "detection" and "locking" are not the same thing.

 

Can you give me an example of such counters that the Typhoon would have that the F-22 would not also have?

From what I can see the F-22 has everything the Typhoon has, but the reverse is not true.

 

All aircraft are vulnerable to stingers. F-35s, as all aircraft, have defensive counter-measures. A fast moving fighter jet is probably less vulnerable to Stingers than most attack choppers and slow moving CAS aircraft like the A-10.

 

Think about it. There is no way you can reduce the amount of heat from the engine significantly. You can't reduce case temperature due to friction too.
There is nothing about stealth effectiveness in infrared, except for Locheed own leaflets.

Still can't see something about it effectiveness. Of cource F-22 and B-2 have flat nozzeles...and that is all I can see so far.

True. I am not arguing with "US military is superior to Germany military" so far.

Yeah, how dare I to advise you educate yourself. I should be killed for that, definitelly. LOL.

It is simply a lie. A-10 is armored. Even if it will be hit into it's engine, the other one wil be still functional. A-10 have far more chances to survive, you know.
Here you go. Su-25, which have succesfully survived Igla hit and landed.

A-10 have even better engines layout. F-35 will not survive THAT.

O, just btw, if F-35 is "fast moving" it would have less time to aim and attack, right?

 

So why does Russia bother? Are you smarter than Russian aircraft engineers? LOL

Obviously the experts, on both sides, disagree with you. The Russians appear to believe that heat tracking technology will not nullify the benefits of stealth.

That doesnt stop you from drawing your own conclusions, heh heh.

Yes, that statement is absolutely true. it is completely unreasonable for you to demand that other people research your own claims. How dare you.

You wouldnt be in the US. We allow dissenting opinions over here.

Against ground targets or in a dog fight that might be an issue. In BVR combat? Not so much.

 

Silly attempt. Can you see smth like flat nozzles in PAK FA? No. Woops. There is no in F-35 either.

Lie. Provide evidence. I mean you should also provide staistics, saying that MOST experts disagree with me. You also should provide evidence, that these "experts" are experts. Moreover you should provide evidence that they are not biased.

I mean, that that claim is really unbased.
I didn't say that heat tracking will nullify the benefits of stealth. You should re-read the original statement. All I mean critising stealth here is that there is no fact-based evidence, that stealth is effective at all, also there is no evidence, that it's benifits is superior to aerodynamics and layout wastage.

We are similar at this point =)

That was sarcasm. Don't you have sarcasm there in the US?

*facepalm.jpg*
The original statement was sort of "if F-35 creators didn't supposed dogfight-when why did they manage to put canon into it?"

 

U only speak about the aircraft !

Speak about tanks and we are better !
Speak about rifles and we are better !
Speak about submarines and we are better !
Speak about helicopters and we are better/equal !
Speak about cruise missile and we are equal !
Speak about aircraft and u are maybe better but http://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/index.php?fid=5284&lang=2

Of course is it possible to discover a stealth-jet in the sky !
I watched some days ago a documentation about that on TV.

 

You have failed to prove that "flat nozzels" are required to reduce IR signature. I do not accept you as an expert.

Am I correct in assuming you have no evidence at all to back up your retarded assumption?

I already did in post #340.

Please pay attention this time. Having to repeat myself wastes both our time.

Have you posted any evidence yet?

Oh good, so glad you agree that it will not.

Well, the Russian and Chinese and American governments appear to disagree with you. I think I will take their word over yours.

Yes it was. You recognized sarcasm correctly.

As a backup. Just because the weapon exists does not mean it is intended to be used often.

That is like saying "if the aircraft can fly reliably why do you need a parachute". Its a retarded statement because the answer is obvious.

 

Because everything begins with air superiority. Especially in this invasion scenario.

LOL, according to who?

And even if you were, we outnumber you 4 to 1 anyway. We have more resources than you as well.

Of course it is. But "detection" and "locking weapons" are not the same thing. Just because you know it is there does not mean you can hit it with weapons.

 

You're just making stuff up.

The Leopard II and M1A2 are generally considered to be about equal.

The M-4 is used much more widely than the G-36. Special Forces units around the world with plenty of discretionary funding gravitate to the M-4, not the G-36.

Helicopters...Germany actually uses the CH-53, which is pretty funny. As for attack aircraft, the Apache is favored by A LOT more countries than the Eurocopter Tiger. Funny that the U.K., Netherlands and various other European countries chose an American design over a European one. I think that's rather telling.

Submarines: The U.S. Virginia class submarine is generally considered to be the best attack Submarine in the world, though the Brits have a solid sub too. The German/Itaian Type 212 isn't even nuclear powered OR armed.

My point here is that you need to substantiate your statements. You can't just say "German has better X" and leave it like that.

 

The Apaches Long Bow fire control radar sets it leauges ahead of the Tiger alone.

 

It is no wonder why so many foreigners on here think American claims are exaggerated...look at how unfamiliar they are with their own hardware.

(Not talking about you Glücksritter, but you are the exception to the rule, at least on this forum)

 

You have failed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22#Stealth
"The F-22 was designed to disguise its infrared emissions, reducing the threat of infrared homing ("heat seeking") surface-to-air or air-to-air missiles, including its flat thrust vectoring nozzles."
You are so unfamiliar with your own hardware.
I guess I am expert now.

I fear to say, but you have failed at this point. PAK FA have no flat nozzles
---> this is the same thing with PAK FA's X-band and L-band stealth-->we are not sacrificing aerodynamics as you--->it is not that important for us.

Yep, just 1 (one) statement ago. I am waiting for your statistics now =)))

Thanks, Captain Obvious. It is going to be F-117 story again. Some super-duper-invisible aircraft will be build, they will fail, they will be retired. History use to repeat.

You have no evidence. So you have failed to prove stealth effeciveness. Excellent.

No, it does. Mass destruction weapons are the only exception. Since F-35 canon isn't mass destruction weapon, it is:
a)supposed to be used in dogfidht
b)supossed to be used in CAS--->US generals and engineers are dumbass
c)is extra---->US generals and engineers are dumbass

You see, there is no additional options. I prefer to belive a).
What do you believe in?

They can't. That is why everyone have parachute.

 

LOL, no evidence. Again.

You have failed to provide evidence that flat nozzels are required to reduce IR signature. All you have shown is that this is one way the F-22 (specifically) does it. The fact that the F-22 does it this way is NOT evidence that it is the only way.

Am I correct in assuming you have no evidence for your retarded claim?

And yet, it has reduced IR signature. Gee, how did that do that if flat nozzels are such a big deal?

If quoting things I say makes you an expert, then yeah.

Thousands of sorties + 1 lucky shot = fail? LOL

So you are saying that you do not believe that Russia and China are not developing stealth aircraft?

I've already posted my evidence...you are the one lacking evidence.

The answer is "a"...that does not mean it is intended to be used all the time. Just like a parachute is not intended to be used all the time.

You really needed someone to explain this to you? I thought it was obvious.

So now you think no aircraft can fly reliably?

 

You are demagogue, my dear. I accept your surrender on this one.

Yep, dear demagogue. Having nearly the same mission/deaths ratio is equal to "fail" for so-called "stealth aircraft".

Demagogue exposed again. I guess our discussion is over.