Jump to content

Русский корабль - иди нахуй


Eastwood

Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Carriers are not allowed in the Black Sea in any case (rather, they aren’t allowed through the Dardanelles or Bosporus). The Kuznetsov is mostly a loss simply because it’s not trying down any NATO assets to watch it. 

Kuznetsov probably couldn't make it over there without help anyway.  It's more of an observation with this one.  I really kind of wonder why they didn't do this years ago and get the drydock evolution completed asap.  Once the floating dock sank, that is.  I guess this may be "asap" with them...

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

2 minutes ago, Hefeweizen said:

Man, fuck the NYT with a rusty butter knife for pushing that cede territory narrative.  Has no one learned how to deal with expansionist autocrats yet?  Fucking appeasers.

It’s like your school teacher making the school bully give you your lunch money back,  but you still have to give him your tater tots. 
 CHIEF 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

The A10 entered service in 1977...but the A10s have been maintained and updated. 

True dat! They were stationed in Belle Chasse, and flew over my neighborhood on the reg.   Updated is the operative verb.  

Warthogs are forbidden to leave the US.  Bummer.  They are bad ass, and can take a lickin’ and still keep flying. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

True dat! They were stationed in Belle Chasse, and flew over my neighborhood on the reg.   Updated is the operative verb.  

Warthogs are forbidden to leave the US.  Bummer.  They are bad ass, and can take a lickin’ and still keep flying. 

Wut? no they are not. We used the hell out of them in Afghanistan and Iraq. I know, saw quite a few hits in Helmand. Ugly bastards are gorgeous. 

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

44 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

The A10 entered service in 1977...but the A10s have been maintained and updated. 

F-16s and F-15s also entered service in the 1970s.  The airframe is of less importance than the avionics, radar, and weapons systems on anything that isn’t 5th generation. The A-10 is closest to the Su-25, and also wouldn’t survive well in contested airspace on a modern battlefield. The losses of Su-25s are in large part due to a lack of precision guided missiles— they have to fly low to deliver their dumb bomb payload with anything approaching accuracy and are putting themselves at risk. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Wut? no they are not. We used the hell out of them in Afghanistan and Iraq. I know, saw quite a few hits in Helmand. Ugly bastards are gorgeous. 

Yeah, the A-10s have been in lots of combat in our recent wars. Congress loves them because of the close air support role that fast jets just can’t provide against ISIS or the Taliban. 

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

Those Su-25s are tougher than a boot sole.  The Mujahedeen had a hard time bringing them down, even with Stingers.  I read about an incident in the 90s where a Su-25 pilot forgot to lower his landing  gear and landed at a grass airfield.  Both engines ingested grass and dirt, causing  them to flame out.  They supposedly jacked the plane up, lowered the gear, set the plane down, and sent an airman crawling into the intakes to clean out what he could reach.  When he was done, the started the engines to blow the rest of the crap out, then taxied it to its stand.  True or not, some western aviation experts seemed to believe it.  The Frogfoot isn't as good as the Warthog, but it is a capable plane.

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

1 minute ago, Scheiss Meister said:

The Frogfoot isn't as good as the Warthog, but it is a capable plane.

Both are Gen 4 and highly susceptible to MANPADS. If they try going for air superiority, it will not play out well.

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

56 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Wut? no they are not. We used the hell out of them in Afghanistan and Iraq. I know, saw quite a few hits in Helmand. Ugly bastards are gorgeous. 

I was talking currently. I thought I read a couple months ago that Congress had prevented the sale or lend lease of A-10s outside of the US. 

Could be wrong. In my defense, Congress passes stupid laws with the same frequency that Aggy claims championships

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

43 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

The A-10 is closest to the Su-25, and also wouldn’t survive well in contested airspace on a modern battlefield. The losses of Su-25s are in large part due to a lack of precision guided missiles— they have to fly low to deliver their dumb bomb payload with anything approaching accuracy and are putting themselves at risk. 

It is indeed a scary new MANPAD world. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gatorubet said:

I was talking currently. I thought I read a couple months ago that Congress had prevented the sale or lend lease of A-10s outside of the US. 

Could be wrong. In my defense, Congress passes stupid laws with the same frequency that Aggy claims championships

Congress is more trustworthy than aggy. 

We won't sell A-10's, but we deploy them. A lot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Scheiss Meister said:

Those Su-25s are tougher than a boot sole.  The Mujahedeen had a hard time bringing them down, even with Stingers.  I read about an incident in the 90s where a Su-25 pilot forgot to lower his landing  gear and landed at a grass airfield.  Both engines ingested grass and dirt, causing  them to flame out.  They supposedly jacked the plane up, lowered the gear, set the plane down, and sent an airman crawling into the intakes to clean out what he could reach.  When he was done, the started the engines to blow the rest of the crap out, then taxied it to its stand.  True or not, some western aviation experts seemed to believe it.  The Frogfoot isn't as good as the Warthog, but it is a capable plane.

As long as the Ukrainians keep shooting them down I am good. 

 

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

On the one hand, creepy and scary as fuck for Ukrainians.

On the other hand, they are dropping the charade that it was about Naziism, threats to Russia, etc, and because they are acting like everything is going well, it's going to be really fucking hard for them to try and mobilize/conscript the civilian Russian population.

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

1 hour ago, InkaUtexas said:

Congress is more trustworthy than aggy. 

We won't sell A-10's, but we deploy them. A lot. 

Yup.  Again, I was not referencing “we” using them.   I read (I think) some convo about warthog aid to Ukraine and it was a no-go per some law.     Admit it may be dementia/excess old fashioneds/medical thc related b.s.  

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

Didn’t congress try to shut down the entire platform as obsolete not long ago, until the services fought them over it?
No, the service (AF) wants to divest the older models (non-C models) as the flying hour cost is now on par with newer aircraft. Combined with the need to divest old aircraft to keep R&D on track for the NGAD fighter you can see its days are numbered.

What we learned in Afghanistan and Iraq was other platforms could perform close air support missions with longer loiter times than the A-10. However, the Army is in love w/the aircraft, and combined with political winds it's been an uphill battle to retire any jets
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mother mopar said:

What we learned in Afghanistan and Iraq was other platforms could perform close air support missions with longer loiter times than the A-10. However, the Army is in love w/the aircraft, and combined with political winds it's been an uphill battle to retire any jets

The infantry really love it.   One of the few things they love (but not Cav Scouts).

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Didn’t congress try to shut down the entire platform as obsolete not long ago, until the services fought them over it?

Congress has kept the platform alive.

I love the A-10, but it also would not show well in this setting against MANPADS.

Standoff fire and forget is the future of air support, probably unmanned, not BRRRRRRRRP style gun runs.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

I bet there's some smart dudes in the pentagon rethinking CAS with a clean whiteboard. 

You just drop a 2,000lb LGB directly on the target from a B-1 at 30,000 feet.

E:  For CAS while easily avoiding MANPADs, that is.

Edited by MadBurgerMaker
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.



×
×
  • Create New...