The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - December 2, 2008

Dunnigan's and Bay's Latest
Advertisement
New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Squad Battles: Winter War
2.Silent War
3.Manoeuvre
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

Online Giving

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
Warplane Weapons Discussion Board
Sign In   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
 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   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

Kodiak    RE:Mi Mil 28 vs Apache   6/4/2003 2:41:11 PM
The APache is the better combat helicopter, no question. And redstar, how do you figure that a mig-29 is better for close air support than an f-16?
 
Quote    Reply

Kodiak    RE:Mi Mil 28 vs Apache   6/4/2003 2:43:21 PM
and the leopard has proven nothing in actual combat, where the abrams has, against a battle hardened and experienced eenemy. now, I know the iraqi tanks are old russian t-72's, and the iraqi crews were not the best, but they wern't the wors,either, and the germans have had 0 combat experience, so I want to know what it is about the leopard that makes it significantly better than the abrams in your estimation
 
Quote    Reply

red star    RE:Mi Mil 28 vs Apache   6/7/2003 10:50:58 AM
MIG-29 is better IMO because of the HMS + R-73 combination. The helmet mounted sight gives it launch capabilities which are better than the F-16. That said, the MIG has a short combat radius. About the leopard: abrams wins because of the superb training. Thats the major factor why american hardware wins wars-they fly F-15Cs with superb training against MiG-21s and SU-15s flown by **** pilots, same with tanks.
 
Quote    Reply

Shaka of Carthage    RE:Mi Mil 28 vs Apache ... red star   6/7/2003 12:29:16 PM
I agree that many people have over emphasized the importance of the equipment. Just look at how many "what is the best" topics there are. Training is always the key in being able to gain combat effectivness from the equipment you have in a heads up fight.
 
Quote    Reply

FreeTaiwan    RE:Mi Mil 28 vs Apache ... red star   6/9/2003 11:53:10 PM
MiG-29 better than F-16? WHAT VERSION OF MiG-29 vs. what kind of F-16? If redstar is talking about the latest, top of the line MiG-29, he is right. All MiG-29s are better in knif-fights than F-16s, but in BvR (happens about 75% in modern air to air fighting)most versions really sucked. For convience sake, all F-16 here are presumed to have AMRAAM and Sidewinder L/M. As a Dogfighter, though, MiG-29 is much better. The original MiG-29 can only engage one target at a time and has no range. It cannot fire active-radar seeking AAMs. It's avionics is poor, especially the pit, a maze of dials and gauges. It will get slaughtered by an F-16 in BvR, even if the Viper is carrying Sparrows due to defects of its radar and pit. The best MiG-29, however, has a "modernized" digital pit and can fire AA-12 and AA-11. I do not believe the radar's lack of search angle and range is addressed, giving the F-16 some margin of superiority in BvR, but not too much. In dogfights it is superior due to HMS. This version can bring up a respectable fight with the Viper in BvR and can outfight it in CQB. If the F-16 is equipped w/ Sidewinder-X, which is not in service yet, they will be virtual equals.It would be interesting to see a fight of the titans, although anything short of an international Armagadon will this happen. Most MiG-29 users in the world, such as Iraq, has early MiG-29s. These countries have no AA-12, bad pit, and no fly-by-wire, which explains the horrible performance of Iraqi and Serbian MiG-29s. I would much prefer to say that each corresponding generation of MiG-29 and F-16 are equals. Again, all MiGs engaged by USAF are inferior models with down-right stupid pilots, which explains why pilots are the most powerful weapon system in a fighter.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2008StrategyWorld.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