View Full Version : Russians have "air superiority" in Afghanistan
Skybird
08-12-09, 05:08 AM
Ironic.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h8I_cKz6vVdes8GGlvOgben87CPAD99V4QR00
(found at simHQ).
Lessons learned by Western nations? So far: none.
Onkel Neal
08-12-09, 08:39 AM
I doubt the Russians have air superiority in Moscow :haha:
Kapitan
08-12-09, 12:26 PM
Last time i checked neal aeropflot used boeing 777's insted of thier Ilushin and tupolev aircraft it does look wierd looking down at an airport and seeing boeing aircraft strewen accross a country that would never have allowed the use of such aircraft 15 years ago.
There is a vast difference between air superiority and air supremacy. We have the latter...
Jimbuna
08-12-09, 02:36 PM
Let the civilians fly in em if they're that stupid :hmmm:
http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/8/7278873.jpg (http://img405.imageshack.us/i/7278873.jpg/)
Let the civilians fly in em if they're that stupid :hmmm:
http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/8/7278873.jpg (http://img405.imageshack.us/i/7278873.jpg/)
Is that a couple of tank chassis underneath that thing?
Tribesman
08-12-09, 03:34 PM
There is a vast difference between air superiority and air supremacy. We have the latter...
Ireland has air supremacy over the Taliban, it don't mean bugger all as the Taliban don't have an air-force. Iceland on the other hand does not have air supremcy over the Taliban so those banana growers had better get very worried about a fundamentalist Islamic invasion aiming to take over their geo-themal greenhouses and converting them to opium production to buy the latest AA missiles and targetting systems on the open/black/grey market.
Though as an aside, Britain had air superiority and air supremacy in the 6.....yet every operation in bandit country had to be carried out by air , from the simplest pizza delivery to the most complicated troop movent. It does get rather expensive.
In an insurgency it is control of the ground that matters not control of the air.
Come to think of it certain countries had complete air superiority and air supremacy over Cambodia, Laos and S. Vietnam....that turned out well didn't it
Next step will be renting old SU MiGs. May be in three years as soon as last operable F-22's antiradar skin will fade away.:rotfl:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/09/AR2009070903020_2.html
Jimbuna
08-12-09, 03:58 PM
Is that a couple of tank chassis underneath that thing?
It certainly looks like it :DL
It certainly looks like it :DL
I harldy believe tank chassis belongs to the airplane herself, rather were used to remove damaged body from the run-way.
Ireland has air supremacy over the Taliban
No it doesn't. Obviously you don't have any military experience...
I harldy believe tank chassis belongs to the airplane herself, rather were used to remove damaged body from the run-way.
Well yeah, but it would be really cool to see tooling around the field... :DL
Tribesman
08-13-09, 01:16 PM
No it doesn't. Obviously you don't have any military experience...
Yes it does, this is a global war on terror and the aircorps has absolute dominance and control of its skies, since the Taliban and Al-Qaida doesn't have an airforce it cannot challenge the air supremacy of the Air Corps.
We don't call it-them-they terror or terrorist anymore. :)
TLAM Strike
08-13-09, 04:13 PM
Yes it does, this is a global war on terror and the aircorps has absolute dominance and control of its skies, since the Taliban and Al-Qaida doesn't have an airforce it cannot challenge the air supremacy of the Air Corps.
:timeout:
I seem to recall AQ having a few planes at one point... :hmmm:
Yes it does, this is a global war on terror and the aircorps has absolute dominance and control of its skies, since the Taliban and Al-Qaida doesn't have an airforce it cannot challenge the air supremacy of the Air Corps.
You don't need an air force to challenge an enemies command of the air. Anti-aircraft fire and surface to air missiles are quite effective.
bookworm_020
08-13-09, 09:33 PM
Is that a couple of tank chassis underneath that thing?
Well at least they give the aircraft some motion, unlike the engines!
Tribesman
08-14-09, 09:27 AM
You don't need an air force to challenge an enemies command of the air. Anti-aircraft fire and surface to air missiles are quite effective.
Really ? thats amazing.
So if Taliban decided to deploy AA weaponry to contest the air corps air supremacy then the air corps would only have air superiority, unless they deployed enough AA so that no side had an advantage in which case they would have air parity.
So I have to ask , since you wrote....
Obviously you don't have any military experience...
....did your military experience not educate you to the meaning of the terms used?
Really ? thats amazing.
So if Taliban decided to deploy AA weaponry to contest the air corps air supremacy then the air corps would only have air superiority, unless they deployed enough AA so that no side had an advantage in which case they would have air parity.
No Troll, AA is a defensive weapon only You cannot achieve parity in anything when all you can do is defend and react.
Tribesman
08-14-09, 06:34 PM
You cannot achieve parity in anything when all you can do is defend and react.
You really don't understand the terms at all do you
Skybird
08-14-09, 07:08 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIpIAX78gig
You really don't understand the terms at all do you
I know what you think they mean but since I have heard them used by professionals to describe real world situations it's my definition we'll be going by.
Tribesman
08-15-09, 02:26 AM
I know what you think they mean
So you do know the definition of the phrases.
but since I have heard them used by professionals to describe real world situations it's my definition we'll be going by.
Ah so someone is wrong because you want to only use your own definitions of the phrases .
OK the real world, what stages of the Russian occupation of Afghanistan would you label with your personal definitions of the three terms?
Or you could do the same with French operations in Vietnam .
Perhaps if you do both examples then the world can see what your definition is and try and match it with the usual definition.
I'd rather the Russians have air supremacy then the lolwaffles.:rotfl:
Jimbuna
08-15-09, 07:02 AM
No Troll, AA is a defensive weapon only You cannot achieve parity in anything when all you can do is defend and react.
You may have need of this
http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/5074/trollsprayxj41.jpg (http://img40.imageshack.us/i/trollsprayxj41.jpg/)
Tribesman
08-15-09, 10:12 AM
You may have need of this
Is that the ad hominen version in the can, recomended for use by those who are unable to debate.
If you don't understand just think for a moment . Can you think of any rational examination of either of the campaigns I mentioned in response to augusts claim that would remotely support his claim?
Jimbuna
08-16-09, 03:34 PM
Is that the ad hominen version in the can, recomended for use by those who are unable to debate.
If you don't understand just think for a moment . Can you think of any rational examination of either of the campaigns I mentioned in response to augusts claim that would remotely support his claim?
Nope, that's the ad nauseam version in the can. The type used for those who are repetitive in their attempts to be subjective and dismissive of other peoples viewpoints on numerous threads.
Personally, I enjoy a good debate.....but only when mutual respect is a fundamentally accepted part of the process.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.