Fallout Studios Forums

Yo buddy are ya ready for eat my tank's shields!?

Off topic, About the PAK-FA being superior to the F-22: When has Russian equipment or training ever been superior to American equipment or training? Never, and it certainly is not now. Pouring a lot of money into military recruitment and training? Cool, so are we, and we've got a helluva lot more to pour into it than you.

Bad news pilots, they moved in more artillery and guarded then with proper AA, looks like we need to request stealth comanche upgrade. [/color]

Off topic, About the PAK-FA being superior to the F-22: When has Russian equipment or training ever been superior to American equipment or training? Never, and it certainly is not now. Pouring a lot of money into military recruitment and training? Cool, so are we, and we've got a helluva lot more to pour into it than you.

Off topic, About the PAK-FA being superior to the F-22: When has Russian equipment or training ever been superior to American equipment or training? Never, and it certainly is not now. Pouring a lot of money into military recruitment and training? Cool, so are we, and we've got a helluva lot more to pour into it than you.

To be entirely honest it really ticks me off when people downplay Russian engineering as 'just playing catch-up to the U.S.' or 'just copies of American technology' or 'they're nowhere near as good, never were and never will be'. It's wrong. Blatantly, plainly and simply wrong. In fact, at least half the time it was the Russians who made the biggest advances in the Cold War and it was NATO who was scrambling to catch up. If the Cold War had gone hot in 1985 then the Americans had virtually nothing which could pierce the Kontakt-5 ERA deployed on Russian armour at the time, which was more numerous if not superior one-on-one (though it was close - Russian tank designs tend to be faster, longer ranged and more economical than Western ones but with thinner armour and often slightly worse fire control) and they seriously underestimated the R-27 Vympel which was about twice as capable as the equivalent AIM-9 Sidewinder, combined with the Su-27 and MiG-29 virtually ensuring USSR air superiority in dogfight scenarios, never mind the air defence side of the coin. NATO has nothing (and never has) to match Russia's expertise in air defence; there is simply no equivalent to the SA-10/12 Grumble/Gladiator, and these and the sheer number of SA-6, SA-11, SA-13, ZSU-23-4 (which was first built in the '60s and is still considered a serious threat to helicopters and low-flying jets even today) and the dozens of other systems they fielded would have made NATO CAS missions virtually suicide. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, obviously R&D and production efforts slowed to a craw, but then so would any nations' when unemployment gets to 40% as it was in 1998. But then by 2003 it was at 12%, and these days the Russian economy, particularly the domestic sector, is booming, and so they're back in the technology game, as their recent ballooning spending and array of new projects have highlighted.

Russian tech isn't worse. But it's not necessarily better, either. It's simply different. Instead of pouring all their resources into a brand-new, absolutely top-of-the line design, they tend to spread out their advantages; they can for example produce 10 Su-35BMs, a 4++ generation fighter outranking everything else in the sky, for every one F-22A Raptor America builds. Same with their tanks - they didn't actually replace their entire armoured division with a new T-95 a la Abrams, they do evolutionary updates to the whole fleet, ensuring that the older designs often get the better upgrades in order to ensure they can operate everything on a level, while fielding enough new models (T-90) to bridge any foreseeable gap. It's not revolutionary thinking, like America approaches a new tank/plane/helicopter/ship/whatever, where they go to the drawing board and start from scratch, Russian design philosophy is strongly evolutionary, developing designs constantly and only rarely starting afresh.

My apologies for the spiel, but you have to understand that different nations and different ways of thinking approach the same problem or requirement in vastly different ways, and come up with end results that you can't really always directly compare, because the thinking on how to use them varies just as much as the thinking on how to build them.

Why would I be talking about the United States? I think it's pretty obvious that I meant Russia.

And the U.S. doesn't have vast oil and natural gas reserves. So that's probably where their money is coming from.

"Coordinates received and confirmed!"

"All artillery units fire at these coordinates"

*boom boom boom boom*

"Enemy targets destroyed, sir!"

"Good job, men!"

"General FCS, units destroyed, its up to you now!"

His name is just General FCS