Jump to content

Русский корабль - иди нахуй

Eastwood

By Eastwood
in Daily Texan

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 86.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • atomheartbevo

    8634

  • MillerEP

    7300

  • Schulz2.0

    3650

  • InkaUtexas

    3017

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

AUS-97HORN
AUS-97HORN

For the love of Christ woman,  stop posting the same fucking thing every 20 mins just to make your neurotic self feel better.     Bring something useful to the thread other than your inane babbli

closetohumping
closetohumping
InkaUtexas
InkaUtexas

I volunteered today. Log/Admin role to replace people for 30-60 days. The operation is in the west, or should the Orcs win will be pulled back behind the NATO wall. Either way the humanitarian effort

Posted Images

SydneyCarton

SydneyCarton 48244

Posted
Posted

So if things are going to stalemate through the winter, and we have mud season(s), what does that look like in regards to the timeline of training and the ability to deploy F-16's? Are we looking at late 2023, spring 2024, or later? I realize Russia has air defense systems all over the place, but Ukraine has been pretty good about targeting those lately. Is it possible we could have Uke's running sorties in F-16's by February, and blowing the fuck out of entrenched russian defenses? Or is that going to be impossible with Russia's air defense systems, even if they're weakned? I'm thinking/hoping for Russian entrenched defenses all the way to the coast getting this treatment:

Napalm GIFs - Get the best gif on GIFER

Napalm is legal as long as it's not used against civilians, right?

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Felix

Felix 607

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

i do like that we're trying to find excuses to remind everyone over there we have carriers.

 

"i'm directing the gerald ford over to the eastern mediterranean to help israel"

"sir, what can a carrier do for close combat support?"

"quite literally nothing."

It can do a bunch.  Tactical reconnaissance, delivery of supplies both humanitarian and military, supplemental air defense, etc.  That's before even considering offensive combat operations.

  • Hook 'Em 8
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Scheiss Meister

Scheiss Meister 8416

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
27 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

i do like that we're trying to find excuses to remind everyone over there we have carriers.

 

"i'm directing the gerald ford over to the eastern mediterranean to help israel"

"sir, what can a carrier do for close combat support?"

"quite literally nothing."

Every single F/A 18 on those carriers with MARINES painted on the side is flown by a crew well trained and dedicated to putting bombs, rockets, missiles, and hot lead on close air support targets called in by personnel on the ground.  Any Marine squadron, and most Navy squadrons, on those carriers can provide an enormous amount of close combat fire support in addition to the roles Felix mentioned.

  • Hook 'Em 17
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89897

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, MillerEP said:

 

So they are going to clear those routes, meanwhile Ukraine is almost done working out a route to move grain from Ukraine to Romania through Moldova, meaning that freighters don't have to go into Odesa/Ukrainian waters and will be docking at Romanian ports.

Very nice.  That grain will be loaded at a NATO member's port, and will be traveling through NATO waters.  

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17720

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Scheiss Meister said:

Every single F/A 18 on those carriers with MARINES painted on the side is flown by a crew well trained and dedicated to putting bombs, rockets, missiles, and hot lead on close air support targets called in by personnel on the ground.  Any Marine squadron, and most Navy squadrons, on those carriers can provide an enormous amount of close combat fire support in addition to the roles Felix mentioned.

Aren't all the squadrons on both those ships Navy rather than Marines? (I know it doesn't change the general answer). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Schulz2.0

Schulz2.0 29024

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Aren't all the squadrons on both those ships Navy rather than Marines? (I know it doesn't change the general answer). 

Nope. There are Marines aircraft/airdales stationed on deployed aircraft carriers.

Edited by Schulz2.0
  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BamaATL

BamaATL 16593

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

So if things are going to stalemate through the winter, and we have mud season(s), what does that look like in regards to the timeline of training and the ability to deploy F-16's? Are we looking at late 2023, spring 2024, or later? I realize Russia has air defense systems all over the place, but Ukraine has been pretty good about targeting those lately. Is it possible we could have Uke's running sorties in F-16's by February, and blowing the fuck out of entrenched russian defenses? Or is that going to be impossible with Russia's air defense systems, even if they're weakned? I'm thinking/hoping for Russian entrenched defenses all the way to the coast getting this treatment:

Napalm GIFs - Get the best gif on GIFER

Napalm is legal as long as it's not used against civilians, right?

My understanding is that its not illegal unless used against civilians.  Generally frowned upon, though.  

The Mark 77 bomb is what we have, and I'm surprised we haven't seen it mentioned/requested.  I don't know if it can be used with the jdam system, which might be why it hasn't been.  Without air superiority, no bueno.  

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17720

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, Schulz2.0 said:

Nope. There are Marines aircraft/airdales stationed on deployed aircraft carriers.

Right, I know they can be deployed with our carriers. I just meant for these particular carriers, I didn't think they had any at the moment. The USMC retired its Hornets a couple of years ago, waiting to replace them with F-35s rather than the Super Hornet. My understanding is that the vast majority of F-35s purchased by the USMC are the B model that only operates from our amphibious assault ships rather than our super carriers. As far as I know, right now there is only one USMC squadron with the F-35C that would be flown off our super carriers, and it goes with the Abraham Lincoln. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Schulz2.0

Schulz2.0 29024

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

Right, I know they can be deployed with our carriers. I just meant for these particular carriers, I didn't think they had any at the moment. The USMC retired its Hornets a couple of years ago, waiting to replace them with F-35s rather than the Super Hornet. My understanding is that the vast majority of F-35s purchased by the USMC are the B model that only operates from our amphibious assault ships rather than our super carriers. As far as I know, right now there is only one USMC squadron with the F-35C that would be flown off our super carriers, and it goes with the Abraham Lincoln. 

Gotcha. I just knew we always had a couple Marines squadrons onboard for deployments when I was on a carrier 10+ years ago.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
YGIFS

YGIFS 19453

Posted
Posted

On top of all of that, (2) CSG's and their full array of surface vessels/flotillas can provide a quality of care for wounded Israeli/Allied ground combat medical evacuees than all but the very top Israeli hospitals, which are much farther away.  You can do this with secure beachheads where small boats can ferry back to the Destroyers and even SC's for treatment.  Or used rotary wing evacs if air lanes are secured.  A number of options that beat the hell outta Israeli's driving their wounded out north of Gaza behind the lines with Hamas assholes just waiting for to take out 6 wounded and a security team in a APV.  They won't do that to a clearly labeled U.S. Navy/USMC med-evac team.  Well, one dumbass will.  And that's how it all really begins...

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ABSR

ABSR 5327

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Schulz2.0 said:

Gotcha. I just knew we always had a couple Marines squadrons onboard for deployments when I was on a carrier 10+ years ago.

Marines on the carrier are only for ship security and security of the nuclear plant/ship.  Marines have their own amphibious ships when they want to deploy or transport larger marine contingents and their supplies/weapons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Schulz2.0

Schulz2.0 29024

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, ABSR said:

Marines on the carrier are only for ship security and security of the nuclear plant/ship.  Marines have their own amphibious ships when they want to deploy or transport larger marine contingents and their supplies/weapons.

I was in from 2007 to 2013. It was Marines pilots, airdales, and planes. It wasn't just security.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Scheiss Meister

Scheiss Meister 8416

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, ABSR said:

Marines on the carrier are only for ship security and security of the nuclear plant/ship.  Marines have their own amphibious ships when they want to deploy or transport larger marine contingents and their supplies/weapons.

Ok, a little searching seems to show that this is correct.  I haven't kept up.  In my day (many years ago) every Carrier Air Group included Marine attack squadrons for air strikes as needed.  It looks like the aging of the F/A-18 fleet and the delay in getting the F-35 into service has led to no or few Marine squadrons aboard full carriers, at least for now.  Still, Navy F/A-18 squadrons still have strike capabilities and can provide close air support.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BamaATL

BamaATL 16593

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

 

 

So if the count is accurate, that makes 27 losses of the SU 25.  Prior to the conflict, it was estimated they had a total amount of 192 of these, but not much in the way of intel as to how many were actually operational.  Assuming they were all operational 12% loss, more likely somewhere around 25% loss.  There are also exhausting these via overuse.  These are their close combat support craft.  

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
YGIFS

YGIFS 19453

Posted
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Scheiss Meister said:

Ok, a little searching seems to show that this is correct.  I haven't kept up.  In my day (many years ago) every Carrier Air Group included Marine attack squadrons for air strikes as needed.  It looks like the aging of the F/A-18 fleet and the delay in getting the F-35 into service has led to no or few Marine squadrons aboard full carriers, at least for now.  Still, Navy F/A-18 squadrons still have strike capabilities and can provide close air support.

There's only a handful of squadrons left spread across a few CSGs.  I am pretty sure the Nimitz still has 1 or 2, which may be headed that way now.  Closest USMC air assets are grounded in Romania.  Not even sure what's there. 

I guess we'll know shit's getting real with RUssia if either the Eisenhower or the Nimitz suddenly turns left at the Aegean Sea to "use the head and ask for directions.  Maybe get a quart of beer for Brisket"  

Edited by YGIFS
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BamaATL

BamaATL 16593

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, YGIFS said:

There's only a handful of squadrons left spread across a few CSGs.  I am pretty sure the Nimitz still has 1 or 2, which may be headed that way now.  Closest USMC air assets are grounded in Romania.  Not even sure what's there.  I guess we'll know shit's getting real if either the Eisenhower or the Nimitz suddenly turns left at the Aegean Sea to "use the head and ask for directions."  

Captain Ron's at the helm?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ABSR

ABSR 5327

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Schulz2.0 said:

I was in from 2007 to 2013. It was Marines pilots, airdales, and planes. It wasn't just security.

Marines have Amphibous Ready Groups (ARG) which have ships and marines to force project.  This is separate from carrier battle groups.   Carriers do have some marine aviation detachments which function as normal air groups, and could possibly be sent to operate from land based locations in support of the ARG's activities.  But Navy (or Air Force) aviators could also fly missions supporting Marines. 

But my point is that the marines on a carrier are not being used to project power as part of marine deployments or amphibious landings etc.  They are not taking those marines and putting them on the ground as force projection.  They are in support of the ship and ship activities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89897

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, BamaATL said:

So if the count is accurate, that makes 27 losses of the SU 25.  Prior to the conflict, it was estimated they had a total amount of 192 of these, but not much in the way of intel as to how many were actually operational.  Assuming they were all operational 12% loss, more likely somewhere around 25% loss.  There are also exhausting these via overuse.  These are their close combat support craft.  

I'd imagine that half of their 192 from the start were hangar queens to begin with.  The amount of corruption concerning their military, from the million+ missing winter uniforms to the missing medical equipment to missing batteries, cabling, etc..

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89897

Posted
Posted
44 minutes ago, Schulz2.0 said:

 

 

If a US Army or Marine Corps NCO or officer walked up on that, they'd probably be in trouble for beating the fuck out of those guys or in the hospital from having a heart attack.

You could get away with an army of dumbass peasants in 1943, but you can't do that in 2023.  I'd imagine that they will wreck that MLRS when they fire those things.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MissingInAction

MissingInAction 25246

Posted
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

If a US Army or Marine Corps NCO or officer walked up on that, they'd probably be in trouble for beating the fuck out of those guys or in the hospital from having a heart attack.

You could get away with an army of dumbass peasants in 1943, but you can't do that in 2023.  I'd imagine that they will wreck that MLRS when they fire those things.

That fucker is going to detonate and kill everything within 50 yards the second they press the shiney red button.

That's even if the missiles are armed correctly.

Edited by MissingInAction
  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Viper

Viper 12112

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, MissingInAction said:

That fucker is going to detonate and kill everything within 50 yards the second they press the shiney red button.

That's even if the missiles are armed correctly.

Am I understanding correctly that they stuck the banana in their own tailpipe? 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dimyh

dimyh 1874

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, Schulz2.0 said:

 

 

This is just another sign of how tenuous Putin's position is. The inability to call up a mass mobilization is going to jeopardize his entire war. Sure they have some strong positions but expecting their current roster to hold out for 6-8 months is stupifying. They may have some shadow recruiting to bolster some of their lines but they need some more meat if they can expect to hold on against the steady UA advance.

It is almost a parallel dilemma with the West...we have been risking failure by not committing all the necessary equipment up front, while Putin cannot commit the necessary bodies from the start to guarantee success.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rimbo

Rimbo 26174

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Either way, it's all F/A-18s, and the "F" is for fighter while the "A" is for (ground) attack.

 

5 hours ago, Scheiss Meister said:

Ok, a little searching seems to show that this is correct.  I haven't kept up.  In my day (many years ago) every Carrier Air Group included Marine attack squadrons for air strikes as needed.  It looks like the aging of the F/A-18 fleet and the delay in getting the F-35 into service has led to no or few Marine squadrons aboard full carriers, at least for now.  Still, Navy F/A-18 squadrons still have strike capabilities and can provide close air support.

ACKshually...

spacer.png

The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is a redesign from scratch of the original, and first flew in '99. It's larger, much more powerful, and basically a completely different plane, despite sharing the same designation and name.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...