F-16s to Iran or Cuba

[niDe]

Originally posted by Oerdin
the F-22 (which is far and away the best fighter in the world)

how can you possibly say that about something that hasn't ever been combat tested?

[Serb]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I beleive the Russian planes are really good (perhaps better than the F-22), however, they don't have enough money to build any..

JM

The situation is improving slowly.

http://www.armypress.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1028

About Su-34:

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/su34/

Beauty

[Serb]

Originally posted by Joseph
Knowing the KGB, they probably stole one somewhere's. I mean the F-15. If you have follow the Soviet Union military, you find that they get something and then they used the tech, but produce something else. They got the B-29 in WW 2, then built the TU-4 Bull that was a Russian built B-29, and then when on to built the Tu-95 from the Tu-4. In the 30s Mr Cristie built a small tank that the US Army did not want, he than was allowed to give it to Russia, and later they had the T-34. If you look at Cristie tank and the T-34, you would notice how close they look.

Yeah, this thing looks exactly like Soviet T-34:

[Serb]

This is the Christie tank delivered to USSR:

[Serb]

And this is the T-34:

[Serb]

So, you are correct as always. Anyone can easily notice that they are twin brothers.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by GePap


And when do you think the MIG-25 was designed? For it to be operational in the mid-70's, it must have been in design in the mid-60's at least, if not early 60's. Hence Joseph is about right..

No. Jimmy Carter was president about 10 years after the B-70 program was started. I imagine it would have been difficult for a peanut farmer campaigning for Governor of Georgia to have convinced the United States Government to cancel its advanced bomber program.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by niDe

how can you possibly say that about something that hasn't ever been combat tested?

He can't. Even the only person who has flown both aircraft says that it is too difficult to compare them, since they are designed to do different things.

The Typhoon is a lot cheaper than the F-22, and that probably matters more than anything.

Remember many Americans still think that the M-16 is a better combat rifle than the AK-47.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Agathon


He can't. Even the only person who has flown both aircraft says that it is too difficult to compare them, since they are designed to do different things.

The Typhoon is a lot cheaper than the F-22, and that probably matters more than anything.

Remember many Americans still think that the M-16 is a better combat rifle than the AK-47.

As someone with a fair amount of experience with both the M-16 and the AK-47, I'd rather have the M-16 than the AK in most situations. The AK can operate adequately in abysmal conditions that the M-16 would have more trouble with, but soldiers in an army capable of basic support would tend to prefer the M-16 over the AK except in hand to hand fighting where the weight and strength of the AK are superior. Just the greater ammunition load you can carry for the M-16 makes it worthwhile. If you are a good shot you will also appreciate the finer sights and much greater accuracy at range.

[Agathon]

Cheaper. Low maintenance. Point and shoot. Wars do not go to plan.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Agathon
Cheaper. Low maintenance. Point and shoot. Wars do not go to plan.

It's difficult to say that the AK47 is cheaper than the M-16. If it were produced in the U.S. it would likely be as expensive due to the wooden stock and the chromed barrel. Both weapons are "point and shoot", neither are difficult to use. As for warfare being difficult to anticipate, sometimes it's better to have a weapon that can be abused and sometimes it's better to have (a lot) more ammunition in your basic load.

[Vince278]

The M16, particularly the early models, did not take abuse very well.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Serb
So, you are correct as always. Anyone can easily notice that they are twin brothers.

I didn't believe it before. But Serb has made it clear. Damn those Soviet thieves! Make your own tanks!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
Cheaper. Low maintenance. Point and shoot. Wars do not go to plan.

Logistics is something we're good at.

[Q Classic]

AK-74 > AK-47. (It has a higher number, therefore it MUST be better. Which is why the T-50 is better than the M1A1, or the Su-37 is better than the F-22.)

As far as "cheaper" meaning more than anything, that's not always the case. Quantity does not always trump quality, and quality in this case doesn't necessarily only refer to hardware.