Dead US seaman?
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/us-military-makes-pla…
The A-10 pilots especially would probably love the opportunity to continue making the point that F-35s are a stupid choice for loitering/ground attack roles.
Good grief are those old things still flying!!!?
They were developing a rep for Blue on Blue attacks due to an overworked single pilot crammed into a small cockpit with too many bells and warnings going off.
Anymouse <Friendly Fire ain’t Friendly>
4 Likes
ajaskey: Russia sends 50,000 to 60,000 artillery rounds per day against Ukraine. They have been doing this for months. (Russia has been building up rounds/systems for 10 years and have plenty of resources to continue for a long time.) Except an occasional HIMARS round, nothing slows the supply chains from Russia.
Battlefield reports from Ukrainian Air Force state Russia Su-xx aircraft launch air-to-air missiles from over 100 miles. Ukrainian pilots destroyed without seeing Russian counterpart. Not sure F-35 missiles can counter this? If the Su-XX jets have some stealth then air battle is already over. (F-35s have no stealth.)
Do you happen to have credible source for this nonsense or just babble? Ploink
Anymouse
12 Likes
Most of the “war following” sites are quoting these numbers. The pentagon has never disputed these numbers.
Not all are super big rounds. Many are mortars. But the US/NATO can’t keep up this rate for more than a few weeks.
Here is one site. Many more if you look.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/06/19/why-russia-keeps-turnin…
B52s are still flying.
The Captain
For every fighter plane that Russia can sortie, the U.S. and NATO can put up 1500 fighters.
…Well, that is not true.
No, that is absolutely true. Not only can the US put up sorties 100 to one versus the Russian Air Military, the United States has a vast Naval Air Program, something like twelve active carriers fleets. And thousands of the best naval air fighter planes and a few thousand of the best pilots in the world. Even Italy has a very powerful naval-air arsenal, with two of the most modern aircraft carriers. Italy has probably the most advanced fighter / trainer in the world: Aermacchi M-346 “Master” . Italian Pilots can climb into any cockpit fighter in the world. How many naval aircraft does Russia have? About 350, four times the number of Italian naval fighter forces, only problem is that Russia doesn’t have an active aircraft carrier, and they haven’t trained for naval combat since the 1990s. Meaning? That Russia doesn’t even have the fighter capabilities when compared to Italy.
Russia has one of the most advanced designed fighters, the Su-57 and the Su-35S, but they haven’t actually produced more than a handful of the Su-35S, and the Su-57 is more of a pipe dream; i.e., they don’t have a single operational Su-57.
Don’t forget Belarus. Plus taking the south of Finland will be easy.
First of all, taking Finland wasn’t even easy during WWII for the Soviet Union. And second, the United States Military and Finland have been conducting bilateral training for two decades; in Finland. And the United States and the UK have a standing military base in Finland where currently 12,000 multinational troops are deployed; I should add, the most highly trained combat forces from NATO and the United States.
So, let’s talk about supplying a military force across a 700+ mile supply line. Remember when the Russian Army tried to deploy a 50,000 troop advance to Kyiv? Remember that disaster? Thousands and thousands of troops without gas to move vehicles, stranded with no food and water, for over three weeks.
Now, multiply that by 15. And in the Kyiv advance, Ukraine didn’t have complete air superiority. Imagine moving 150,000 troops across over 700 miles with no air support. The Russian Military couldn’t even move 50,000 troops 50 miles against the Ukrainian Army . And… what’s waiting for them at the Polish border? 80,000 highly trained, operational troops from NATO and the United States with no supply line, fully armed, fed and ready.
simulations of Soviet attack through the Fulda Gap in the 80s,
So this is all 1960s and 1970s propaganda promoting the Commie Soviet Union threat.
31 Likes
I hope you are right.
If you are right on day one, will you be right on day 30?
1 Like
Not really. It is personal DoD experience working with WWWII simulations in the 80s. And personal experience working with US and threat Air Defense systems in the 90s and 2000s. And personal experience working with F-16s and F-22 and threats in the 2000. It is an understanding of the effort required to move and employ logistics systems from the US to Europe. It is the understanding of current Russia (and China) systems.
US is well equip to defend the continent. We no longer have experience or equipment to defend Europe.
Nukes have been our “big stick” since the 90s. Do you want to play a game?
1 Like
Good grief are those old things still flying!!!?
A’yup… because no matter how much the brass wants their shiny new toys, nothing has been able to beat putting a couple hundred rounds of BRRRRRT into your enemy.
2 Likes
Who will clean up the depleted uranium rounds the A-10s shoot all over Ukraine?
B52s are still flying.
The Captain
So is the Soviet era Tupolev Tu-95 Bear bomber that first flew within weeks of the BUFF’s first flight.
Both basically carry bombs to target, drop them from very high altitude and return to home base. They can also use standoff missiles.
The A-10 is down and dirty on the deck to do their job with people shooting back at them.
Oh the A-10 design was assisted by the top NAZI tank busters of WWII.
Tim
https://ca.video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=mcafee&…
“The Tank Killer” - The True Story of Ju-87 Stuka Pilot Hans-Ulrich Rudel - Historical Cinematic
Hans-Ulrich Rudel was the most decorated German serviceman of the second World War and the most famous Ju-87 Stuka pilot in history. He was an expert dive bomber and also was one of the first to use the 37mm cannons on the German Stuka to take out armor and tanks.
2 Likes
OK, goodbye to you, you are a pure troll, a Russian bot, posting while on smoked toad skins, or purely classically delusional.
Totally agree. This thread has so much unsupported BS about the Russian conventional military capabilities that it defies belief.
Russia is desperately seeking a "Revolution in Military Affairs (RMD) - see Andrew Marshall in The Last Warrior - because it knows it can’t no longer compete in conventional warfare anymore.
So they’re pouring their resources into “super weapons” - the same tactic Hitler took when he realized he could not no longer win in conventional warfare. Hypersonic weapons. Poseidon autonomous nuclear torpedoes that will cause tsunamis that will leave coastal cities radioactive for decades, nuclear cruise missiles, etc. His sole remaining defense of Russia is nuclear terror weapons. And he’s talking them up - even though most are still more R&D than weapons.
That’s the real danger - that another madman will do desperate things to survive. Thank goodness Hitler didn’t have nuclear weapons. Putin does.
That’s where the Russian people will have to act to defend themselves from the consequences. That’s our best hope. And they must act soon before threats become realities. These already exist in “conventional” nuclear weapons.
21 Likes
The beauty of the universe is it doesn’t care what you believe and even bother to ask what you believe.
A’yup… because no matter how much the brass wants their shiny new toys, nothing has been able to beat putting a couple hundred rounds of BRRRRRT into your enemy.
How about one or a couple of these?
It carries a number of anti-armor weapons like the AGM-65 Maverick, Hydra 70 rockets and cluster bombs in 11 external hardpoints with a maximum load of 7200 kgs. The 'typical' operational layout of aircraft depends on the mission. For example, the image below shows one configuration.
In theory an old DC-3 can carry bombs … but of course they were mostly used as transports.
My first aircrew training flight was in a DC-3 that was built five years before I was born. Many years later I saw some of them with the RCAF markings barely covered over with white wash used to ferry supplies between Caribbean Islands. I also saw one crash (from our Hotel window) into the side of a hill in the Arctic when an engine failed at liftoff with five tons of frozen fish in the back. The lone pilot survived but lost a leg.
Anymouse
2 Likes
Who will clean up the depleted uranium rounds the A-10s shoot all over Ukraine?
They have essentially the same toxicity as lead rounds.
DB2
2 Likes
US is well equip to defend the continent.
Russia’s New ‘Poseidon’ Super-Weapon: What You Need To Know
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/03/russias-new-pos…
Although it is restricted to at-sea or coastal targets, such as New York, Los Angeles. It can be launched from under the protection of the ice cap, or from coastal waters.
Or is this merely propaganda?
ralph
My first aircrew training flight was in a DC-3 that was built five years before I was born.
My first commercial flying experience was in a DC-3 flying from Jackson MS to Baton Rouge in 1955 to interview for a job with what is now Exxon. Got the job, but there’s more to the story.
In later years, flew many times in DC-3’s. Recall once when they picked me up in a small Kansas rural airport. Landed - stopped the engine on the “loading” side but not the other. I scrambled aboard with my luggage and off we went.
Most humbling experience was in Abilene Texas. We flew there in back but the luggage was loaded in a front compartment. I was there on a trouble shooting job with a waterflood, and had packed a lab in a Halliburton aluminum suitcase. So, when the plane landed, I picked it up. A lady told me she thought I had her suitcase. “No Mam” I responded, this contains a lab. And I opened it to show her. Her undies promptly blew down the runway in the West Texas wind with me chasing them. Fortunately, she laughed. Took me a long time to live that one down with my salesman. Never really did.
DC-3 was a hard working plane in the '50s and early '60s. Solid, reliable, nothing fancy.
3 Likes
Russia’s New ‘Poseidon’ Super-Weapon: What You Need To Know
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/03/russias-new-pos……
Although it is restricted to at-sea or coastal targets, such as New York, Los Angeles. It can be launched from under the protection of the ice cap, or from coastal waters.
Or is this merely propaganda?
ralph
Hard to tell … however sometimes the darn things escape? }};-@
https://brobible.com/culture/article/russia-lost-nuclear-pow….
A Russian Secret Nuclear-Powered Missile Was Lost At Sea (Oopsie Daisy)
#MILITARY
BY PAUL SACCA AUGUST 22, 2018
You might misplace your keys or lose your wallet and that totally messes up your day and even week. But imagine how much it sucks to lose a nuclear-powered missile?
A report from CNBC states that Russia lost a secret nuclear-powered missile in the Barents Sea, north of Scandanvia. The eye-opening information was shared by anonymous U.S. intelligence sources who said that Russia is preparing to try to recover the secretive nuclear-powered cruise missile.
At other times things (lots of things) just blow up!!!
Tim
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severomorsk_Disaster
The Severomorsk Disaster was a deadly series of munitions fires that resulted in the detonation and destruction of large amounts of munitions that lasted from May 13 to 17, 1984, within the Okolnaya naval munitions depot, near the Severomorsk Naval Base (headquarters of the Northern Fleet of the Soviet Navy). The detonation occurred in the Northern Russian “closed” town of Severomorsk (Russian: ???´???), over 900 miles (1,448.4 kilometers) from the Russian capital Moscow.[6][7]
Munitions had reportedly detonated after a fire started on May 13, which thus caused a massive chain of explosions on May 17, and resulted in the deaths of at least 200–300 people, and the destruction of at least 900 of the Northern Fleet’s missiles and torpedoes.[4]
Most of the dead were allegedly ordnance technicians “sent into the fire in a desperate but unsuccessful effort to defuse or disassemble munitions before they exploded”,
I recall in my early operational flying days when a Soviet Krivak (large fast destroyer with turbine engines caught fire south of Iceland). We were told to stay clear. They initially abandoned ship but then put the fire fighters back on board and managed to get the fires out.
Later Norwegian Intel briefed us that the engine exhaust pipe ran up through the spare torpedo room and the heat started the fire. Another Krivak blew up in the Black Sea with video captured by a Turkish Navy ship, probably same cause but no survivors of the ~ 300 man crew.
Poop happens.
We all I’m sure recall the Sub that sunk due to one of their live torpedoes warheads exploded? The cause was highly corrosive torpedo fuel dripping on the warhead below from the exercise torpedo in the upper tube.
Tim
Too many to tell.
3 Likes
Thank you for recommending this post to our Best of feature.
…
Her undies promptly blew down the runway in the West Texas wind with me chasing them. Fortunately, she laughed. Took me a long time to live that one down with my salesman. Never really did.
DC-3 was a hard working plane in the '50s and early '60s. Solid, reliable, nothing fancy.
Chuckle I won’t even try to top that one.
The DC-3’s and Twin Otter’s opened our Arctic due to their ability to land and take off from gravel strips. Only a couple places (Yellow Knife and Frobisher Bay) had paved strips where we could land an Argus.
We got a call to head for Thule as a huge fog had settled over the north and three Twin Otters had “disappeared” (not responding to radio calls). We got there, settle in for rest and fuel before our planned launch. We took off heading for the last known positions … the fog cleared and all three popped up on UHF. They just found a flat place to land and wait for the weather to clear.
Some funny stories as well but running out of working fingers and eyeballs here.
Tim
2 Likes