And the pilot didn't even jettison his bombs. He engaged fully loaded... splashed two MIGs and dropped bombs on his pals after.
Lot's of haters like to forget that one.
Do Americans care about Canada?
- Thread starter Tyler
- Start date
And the pilot didn't even jettison his bombs. He engaged fully loaded... splashed two MIGs and dropped bombs on his pals after.
Lot's of haters like to forget that one.
Good. You watched a TEE VEE show....
I doubt that they were F-18's and the MIG 21 was introduced in 1956
If you knew anything about the actual aircraft they wereF-18 C/D's introduced in 1987
As for taking on China, Russia and India. The US would take a sh-t kickin' in a week. Do the math
How many Canadians know anything about Bangladesh versus people in Bangladesh who know about Canada?
Canadians know about America because America is THE world government, that isn't just Canada. EVERYONE knows about the USA.
And Canada is a middle power, a normal amount of people in Bangladesh would know about Canada, and few Canadians would know as much about them (being lower down the scale)
Canadians know about America because America is THE world government, that isn't just Canada. EVERYONE knows about the USA.
And Canada is a middle power, a normal amount of people in Bangladesh would know about Canada, and few Canadians would know as much about them (being lower down the scale)
When they were introduced doesn't matter if they are still in use. The USA has worldwide Air superiority, that is not nor has it ever been in question since the later days of the cold war. There is a reason nuclear anti-aircraft weapons are used by Soviet and Chinese forces.
The US airpower is so far ahead of the competition that no one even seriously considers competing other than the EU, and they are way behind. The Unique geography of the USA lets it focus on airpower above all other branches of the military and 60 years of that shows.
You've got to love this picture though. I am not sure why Harper needed security at all.
Yeah those friendly fire incidents are a bitch when it comes to PR.
Weren't most of the valuable planes flown out of the area, not saying that something dating back to the mid-'50's didn't have some value.
Why does Harper need the Security that he does? Well...Someone
had to hold the camera to take that picture. 8O
In the context quoted it does matter. 2 F-18C/D's taking on 2 Mig-21's is a waste of one F-18C/D. 1 should have sufficed against a vastly inferior aircraft
There is no question that the US has the best airforce in the world. Some would even argue they have the best navy also (some also wouldn't), but that wasn't the issue.
The comment regarding the US could take on "the next 3 largest militaries at the same time" is the context I replied to and it's still delusional. Militaries consist of Army, Navy, Airforce, etc.. I replied to that - read the original post again
US military doctorine allows for it to fight one minor engagement and one major engagement simultaneously or two medium engagements at the same time. It doesn't have the resources for any 3 engagements
Dassault Rafale C
Sukhoi Su-30MKI
Sukhoi Su-30MKK
JAS 39C
Typhoon Tranche 2
F-2A
j-IIB
All could all give a F-18 Hornet a "run for it's money"
The only "nuclear anti-aircraft missle" that I know of used to be NIM-14. It's mothballed
The Unique geography of the USA lets it focus on airpower above all other branches of the military and 60 years of that shows
The "unique" geography of the USA would favour an Army over an Air Force or a Navy, so possibly you could explain your version of "unique" to justify your statement
Please explain how being cut off from any landborne invasion favours the Army?
And the navy is just a way to springboard aircraft and has been since WWII, the exception being as a means to deploy strategic weapons (subs)
A powerful army is really just boots on the ground with an extended range and ability to cause devestation before occupation.
And that instance airpower wins again, with ranges far longer than any artillery system. Provided you have the money of course.
And the USA does. Perhaps someday it won't, until then, it can dominate other forces the planet over.
And the navy is just a way to springboard aircraft and has been since WWII, the exception being as a means to deploy strategic weapons (subs)
A powerful army is really just boots on the ground with an extended range and ability to cause devestation before occupation.
And that instance airpower wins again, with ranges far longer than any artillery system. Provided you have the money of course.
And the USA does. Perhaps someday it won't, until then, it can dominate other forces the planet over.
Please explain how being cut off from any landborne invasion favours the Army?
1. Military forces are by definition for "defence". That is what the purpose of the army is, to defend one's territory
2. Why are they cut off from an invasion? The USA is not an island and even if it was, that doesn't preclude the vulnerability to invasion
And the navy is just a way to springboard aircraft and has been since WWII, the exception being as a means to deploy strategic weapons (subs)
1. The main purpose of the Navy to defend the shores and move troops/supplies/equipment. It comprises far more than aircraft carriers
A powerful army is really just boots on the ground with an extended range and ability to cause devestation before occupation.
1. A powerful army is a massive deterent to invasion. You can control the air and the sea, but without controlling the ground, you have a "stalemate". Any and every military commander will lie and die by that credo
And that instance airpower wins again, with ranges far longer than any artillery system. Provided you have the money of course.
1. A full up Navy has a far longer range than any of the branches of a military service
Before you reply, I'll give you some background.
I work or have worked for the military (USA, Can and EU) for 24 yrs in all of the arms of the services.
I tend to pick up alot of "theory" and practical experience
To get back to the topic. Does the USA care about Canada,
Depends
For a strategic planner, definitely. Canada has four huge commodities that the USA needs and wants.
Petroleum resources
Mineral Resources
Water (as in potable)
Land and sea routes
For "Joe six pack". He doesn't even know where Canada is. He might possible think it's "up there" somewhere. Hell, he can't even find Iowa even if he lives in the next state
Depends
For a strategic planner, definitely. Canada has four huge commodities that the USA needs and wants.
Petroleum resources
Mineral Resources
Water (as in potable)
Land and sea routes
For "Joe six pack". He doesn't even know where Canada is. He might possible think it's "up there" somewhere. Hell, he can't even find Iowa even if he lives in the next state
Tyr:
"I doubt that they were F-18's and the MIG 21 was introduced in 1956"
F-14 Tom Cats as well as F-18' were used in 1st Gulf War. Yes Iraq still flew a few Mig 21's as well as Mig 29's (the best Russia exported).
"If you knew anything about the actual aircraft they were F-18 C/D's introduced in 1987." The F-18 Super Hornet of today is a completely new plane, larger, faster than when it was 1st introduced.
YouTube - F-18 Super Hornet
"As for taking on China, Russia and India. The US would take a sh-t kickin' in a week. Do the math"
No country in the world is flying aircraft as advanced as the what the U.S. has. The best they have are generation 4 fighters, while we have generation 6 and maybe some other surprises.
MHz: "Weren't most of the valuable planes flown out of the area, not saying that something dating back to the mid-'50's didn't have some value."
Some aircraft were flown to Iran, but it had nothing to do with trying to save the Iraq airforce, the pilots were fleeing. Iraq lost over 29 Mig 29 aircraft to the F-15 alone. (no F-15 was lost) Older planes were either buried in the sand or destroyed.
"I doubt that they were F-18's and the MIG 21 was introduced in 1956"
F-14 Tom Cats as well as F-18' were used in 1st Gulf War. Yes Iraq still flew a few Mig 21's as well as Mig 29's (the best Russia exported).
"If you knew anything about the actual aircraft they were F-18 C/D's introduced in 1987." The F-18 Super Hornet of today is a completely new plane, larger, faster than when it was 1st introduced.
YouTube - F-18 Super Hornet
"As for taking on China, Russia and India. The US would take a sh-t kickin' in a week. Do the math"
No country in the world is flying aircraft as advanced as the what the U.S. has. The best they have are generation 4 fighters, while we have generation 6 and maybe some other surprises.
MHz: "Weren't most of the valuable planes flown out of the area, not saying that something dating back to the mid-'50's didn't have some value."
Some aircraft were flown to Iran, but it had nothing to do with trying to save the Iraq airforce, the pilots were fleeing. Iraq lost over 29 Mig 29 aircraft to the F-15 alone. (no F-15 was lost) Older planes were either buried in the sand or destroyed.
Yep.
And the Mig 21 is a fast, versatile fighter.......handicapped more by its short range than anything else.
and yes, he was a navy flyer, flying an F-18
So, exactly how would Russia and China and India fight the USA?
How many large nuclear aircraft carriers do they have? Between them?
Three?
How many aircraft do they have that are the equal of even the old, obsolete F-14.
None.
How about the F-15, or F-16, or F-18 or the F-22? The raptor? Or the Stealth. Or the B-1 bomber. Or the.....well, you get the picture.
How many tanks the equal of the Abrams? Only the Israeli one could hold a candle.....and I don't think we're going to war with them anytime soon.
In the first Gulf war, I saw an interview with a tank commander........he said yes, his tanks encountered several T-74s........and yes, three of his Abrams were hit and damaged in the course of the war. They all required a new paint job.
How many cruise missiles?
Or platforms to bring that type of power to bear anywhere in the world, be it by air, or sea?
Yes, the USA could take on all three.......and win.
If you want to see how much good lots of poorly armed soldiers do you, I refer you once more to the first Gulf War.
150 Allied dead
150,000 enemy dead.
Says it all.
Or the.....well, you get the picture.
I do. Your knowledge of military hardware is at best.... underwhelming and actually a waste of my time.
When you actually know what you are talking about, try again
One surprise Marine Corps F-35
YouTube - F-35 JSF Lightning II
You want to add new aircraft, how about the F-15, F-16, F-22 there is no airforce in the world that can compete. To stay with topic a little, yes Canada will and does get updated aircraft from us. So yes we care. Have to be realistic, we won't be fighting European countries, who would the 3 biggies be? Russia, China there are only 2 , pick anybody else and you still won't have enough. Keep in mind that over 1/2 of the Russian airforce has fallen in disrepair. Again in answer to the subject. Yes
YouTube - F-35 JSF Lightning II
You want to add new aircraft, how about the F-15, F-16, F-22 there is no airforce in the world that can compete. To stay with topic a little, yes Canada will and does get updated aircraft from us. So yes we care. Have to be realistic, we won't be fighting European countries, who would the 3 biggies be? Russia, China there are only 2 , pick anybody else and you still won't have enough. Keep in mind that over 1/2 of the Russian airforce has fallen in disrepair. Again in answer to the subject. Yes