UK vs USA - Page 4




 
--
Boots
 
March 6th, 2004  
babaloo
 
"That's the problem though no one can take out our carriers any more without a ridiculous amount of resistence because we had to learn the hard way from WW2." (Diplomatic_means)

To answer this in recent NATO war games we (UK) took out all your carriers and specialist sub destroyers. Add to this the Royal Navy as a whole could deal with an entire carrier battle group of the Us Navy, as well as launch cruise missiles at Washington D.C. Somebody above said the stealth would take care of things, but how many do you have and how much do they cost? They are also visible to the eye and unlike most air forces the RAF would rise up and fight. The Harrier is able to out manouvre the F18 and F14, the backbown of the US Navy Air Force.

Oh yes those Navy pilots that win Top Gun then go to wales (UK) for further training. So to be fair you really would find it to be a little bit of an issue even to get air superiority.

also when was the last time the US engaged in a fight with a modern army? The UK engaged Argentina in 1982 8,000 miles from home and 20 Harriers took out over 100 modern fighters without a single loss for combat reasons. The only fighter the UK could not deal with is the F15 which is not carrier based. The EF Typhoon is cheaper and better than the F22. The F22 is not a match basically.

I rest my case for now.
March 6th, 2004  
Animal Mother
 
No offense, but yes, the Sea Harrier is great in WVR fighting, but going up against F-14's BVR they are toast. They will be slammed by AIM-54's long before they can hope to get in range with AIM-120's.

Also, total for the RN is 3 small carriers that carry 21 planes each, even combined its still less that one US supercarrier.

On the subs i agree. They would be the real threat here.
March 6th, 2004  
babaloo
 
Fair point about the Harriers.

The Royal Navy now has four small carries, HMS Ocean can be equiped with 20 fighters. This may even things up a little. I apologise my last ranting message. I believe large amounts of Vodca were responsable.
--
Boots
March 6th, 2004  
diplomatic_means
 
Ok so the UK has a decent air force, but no air force, missile, etc. can stand up to an EMP bomb on a missile. Not to mention the fact that contrary to popular belief the US does have a functioning prototype STAR WARS satellite amongst other STAR WARS type weapons. One satellite can take out 14 fighters flying in formation in under 2 seconds. No vodka invovled in this post
March 6th, 2004  
Redneck
 
 
March 6th, 2004  
Popeye
 
 
USA wins... period - as of right now, the truth is... One on One no 1 can handle us.
March 6th, 2004  
SHERMAN
 
 

Topic: lol


No way Harrier can take on F14...Or F18 for that...The Argentinians are crappy pilots. If it were IAF pilots flying those Daggers and Mirage, the Air would be theirs. The RAF is a great air force. I think that the top 3 air forces in the world are the USAF, RAF and IAF. But the first and last fly much better planes. The Harrier and Trnado are no match for F16s F15s. Acctually, i wouldent bet on the Harrier against the F4, if the pilots are equal...
March 6th, 2004  
Animal Mother
 
I would say it depends on the Harrier model, is it an RAF Harrier GR.9 or the FAA Sea Harrier FA.2?

The reason for this is that the Sea Harrier FA.2 carry AIM-120's which makes it better in the BVR department than an F-4, and equal with most others in the hands of an good pilot.
March 6th, 2004  
SHERMAN
 
 

Topic: Im sorry


Dude, its a harrier...have you seen the air intakes...its an absurd plane....geez....such a volnrable machine...so slow...
March 6th, 2004  
Animal Mother
 
Might not be supersonic, but up close and personal its deadly, as it has proven several times, and the AIM-120's will keep nosy planes at bay :P