Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Blind Rasputin
Nov 25, 2002

Farewell, good Hunter. May you find your worth in the waking world.

As a side (maybe poignant) note, I’d like to someday understand why the SU-27 farts when it starts up? Is it a fan blade vibration or an APU thing? It’s a loud and characteristic fart for an airplane.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

lightpole
Jun 4, 2004
I think that MBAs are useful, in case you are looking for an answer to the question of "Is lightpole a total fucking idiot".
Vibration is a hum, only the pitch changes on that. You can hear it roll over the critical speed when the pitch changes and it sounds like there's multiple frequencies to it.

Its not the starter? I don't know if they use air or electric on that but heres an air start, I think its around 610?

https://youtu.be/G28OlUqpUfE

IPCRESS
May 27, 2012

Blind Rasputin posted:

As a side (maybe poignant) note, I’d like to someday understand why the SU-27 farts when it starts up? Is it a fan blade vibration or an APU thing? It’s a loud and characteristic fart for an airplane.

First introduction of fuel and the spreading flame front would be my guess.

psydude
Apr 1, 2008

ASAPI posted:

The world would know that a Russian train was derailed heading towards one of their depots. Ukraine wouldn't be able to claim it wasn't them.

As for escalation, Russia can certainly escalate this situation more. They have used chemical weapons previously in similar situations. They haven't started carpet bombing everything yet, so there is that as well. They totally pinky sweared not to use a nuke, so I am sure that is off the table...

Also don't forget, there has been much talk about false flag attacks on Russian soil that would be used as justification of greater force being used.

They've launched a couple of attacks on Russian territory, though - at the beginning of the war they used SRBMs on a Russian airbase close to the border. There's also been reports of teams of special forces sabotaging rail bridges around the border; presumably some of those are just over the Russian side.

Now, sabotaging bridges in the middle of Russia would be a whole different matter entirely. Attacking military targets that are directly supporting the war would probably be "justified" (in the same way that Russia has made similar threats), but anything else would probably be used by Russia and its enablers as justification for further escalation.

psydude fucked around with this message at 12:52 on Mar 30, 2022

Bored As Fuck
Jan 1, 2006
Fun Shoe
New War on the Rocks pod up

https://twitter.com/WarOnTheRocks/status/1509163542376812544?s=20&t=PUZPanSKiB_A4gHj3Iledw

Worthleast
Nov 25, 2012

Possibly the only speedboat jumps I've planned

Vincent Van Goatse posted:

The F-14 is way cooler than either of those Air Force tryhards.



Bill Watterson gets it.

Cimber
Feb 3, 2014

Vincent Van Goatse posted:

The F-14 is way cooler than either of those Air Force tryhards.

Was, it since been retired as the f-14's primary job is no longer in existance. Originally the F-14 was designed to be a platform for the Phoenix missile, a 100+ mile ranged weapon designed to shoot down Soviet bombers before they could get close enough to lob anti-ship missiles at US carrier battlegroups.

With the fall of the USSR the F-14 lacked a major job, and the FA-18 was more versatile and cheaper to operate.

M_Gargantua
Oct 16, 2006

STOMP'N ON INTO THE POWERLINES

Exciting Lemon
The F-14 isn't actually that great

Wingnut Ninja
Jan 11, 2003

Mostly Harmless

Cimber posted:

Was, it since been retired as the f-14's primary job is no longer in existance. Originally the F-14 was designed to be a platform for the Phoenix missile, a 100+ mile ranged weapon designed to shoot down Soviet bombers before they could get close enough to lob anti-ship missiles at US carrier battlegroups.

With the fall of the USSR the F-14 lacked a major job, and the FA-18 was more versatile and cheaper to operate.

At least Soviet bombers actually existed, the F-15 was designed to defeat a completely fictitious conception of what the MiG-25 was.

MA-Horus
Dec 3, 2006

I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of how awesome I am.

M_Gargantua posted:

The F-14 isn't actually that great

Great? No.

Cool as hell? Well, what other fighter has taken down 4 MiG-28s in a single engagement?

And it's making a cameo in the new Top Gun fighting a SU-57 apparently

MrYenko
Jun 18, 2012

#2 isn't ALWAYS bad...

The best part of the F-106/F-16 story is this line:

quote:

With him captured solidly at my six…

The fuckin BALLS on that guy. It gets me every time.

MA-Horus
Dec 3, 2006

I'm sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of how awesome I am.

MrYenko posted:

The best part of the F-106/F-16 story is this line:

The fuckin BALLS on that guy. It gets me every time.

Some solid "they've got us surrounded, the poor bastards" energy

Proud Christian Mom
Dec 20, 2006
READING COMPREHENSION IS HARD
i hate to contribute to the derail but im really fascinated by some of the upgrade concepts that both he F-15 and F-16 saw that never went forward because the F-35 has to exist since we kneecapped F-22 production so early

mlmp08
Jul 11, 2004

Prepare for my priapic projectile's exalted penetration
Nap Ghost
I suggest everyone who wants to do F-14 and non-Ukraine plane chat go over here and check it out: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3910801

Or skip to the hot takes in that thread: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3910801&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=653#post522247480

BIG HEADLINE
Jun 13, 2006

"Stand back, Ottawan ruffian, or face my lumens!"

Radical 90s Wizard posted:

I can't believe Iron Eagle was about an F-16 and not an F-15 what the hell

My guess is they *wanted* to use the F-15 in the movie but given what IAI had probably done to them by that point the Israeli answer was probably :fuckoff:.

The F-16As they used (in both movies) weren't terribly classified in any way.

Marshal Prolapse
Jun 23, 2012

by Jeffrey of YOSPOS
Banger

https://twitter.com/ralee85/status/1509208676736946186?s=21&t=9Wfr9-3AfjGcpPkTXoR42g

Nuclear Tourist
Apr 7, 2005

Swedish news now reporting that Russian Su-24's that briefly violated Swedish airspace on March 4 were, in fact, armed with nuclear weapons.

CainFortea
Oct 15, 2004


M_Gargantua posted:

The F-14 isn't actually that great

We can't be friends.

ASAPI
Apr 20, 2007
I invented the line.

Nuclear Tourist posted:

Swedish news now reporting that Russian Su-24's that briefly violated Swedish airspace on March 4 were, in fact, armed with nuclear weapons.

:dafuq:

I really wish I was in the room when this information came out. How crazy would it be? I cannot imagine what this would be like.

shame on an IGA
Apr 8, 2005

the only english language sources I'm seeing for that are the absolute dregs of UK tabloids like Daily Mail and Sun

zoux
Apr 28, 2006

Yeah, how would they even know that?


https://twitter.com/PeterAlexander/status/1509151957247832073

My man should get a twitter account

BIG HEADLINE
Jun 13, 2006

"Stand back, Ottawan ruffian, or face my lumens!"
I've a feeling it's an "oopsie" clickbait headline in the same vein of the ones they'd publish whenever the Russians did FON flights of Bears and Blackjacks over the North Sea.

"Russian Nuclear Bomber Provokes Armed Response" :supaburn:

(Eurofighter escorts it like always, without incident)

CommieGIR
Aug 22, 2006

The blue glow is a feature, not a bug


Pillbug

BIG HEADLINE posted:

I've a feeling it's an "oopsie" clickbait headline in the same vein of the ones they'd publish whenever the Russians did FON flights of Bears and Blackjacks over the North Sea.

"Russian Nuclear Bomber Provokes Armed Response" :supaburn:

(Eurofighter escorts it like always, without incident)

Yeah, poking/prodding/harassing is a common tactic by nearly all militaries. Usually to test response times or if there is a response at all.

Cimber
Feb 3, 2014

Nuclear Tourist posted:

Swedish news now reporting that Russian Su-24's that briefly violated Swedish airspace on March 4 were, in fact, armed with nuclear weapons.

Uhh, what?

1) How did Russian planes get over Swedish airspace? Did they also violate norway or Finish airspace, or did they thread the needle down the baltics and turn north to go over Sweden? Because thats a rather long flight for Su-24s. Per wiki, the Fencer has a combat range of about 380 miles. Going by a back of the envelope plotting on google maps to get from the Russian/Estonian border to the coast of mainland of Sweden its 330 miles. So yeah, theoretically possible, but theyh would basically have to turn around right then and fly home.

Other option is that they were coming from Kaliningrad, which is more possible, but then you have the issue of nukes being stationed there.

2) How did they exactly identify that the Russians were carrying nukes?

DekeThornton
Sep 2, 2011

Be friends!

Cimber posted:

Uhh, what?

1) How did Russian planes get over Swedish airspace? Did they also violate norway or Finish airspace, or did they thread the needle down the baltics and turn north to go over Sweden? Because thats a rather long flight for Su-24s. Per wiki, the Fencer has a combat range of about 380 miles. Going by a back of the envelope plotting on google maps to get from the Russian/Estonian border to the coast of mainland of Sweden its 330 miles. So yeah, theoretically possible, but theyh would basically have to turn around right then and fly home.

Other option is that they were coming from Kaliningrad, which is more possible, but then you have the issue of nukes being stationed there.

2) How did they exactly identify that the Russians were carrying nukes?

Kaliningrad is right there on the Baltic. If it's true that they carried nukes they where identified by the Swedish pilots intercepting identifying the missiles they carried as potential nuke carriers, presumably.

zoux
Apr 28, 2006

https://twitter.com/CorporalFrisk/status/1509227127455072257

They weren't.

""Exactly how the Russian aircraft were armed is not something we will comment upon right now. I would like to emphasise that if we had seen an increased threat directed against Sweden we would have informed the public about that""

Ajaxify
May 6, 2009

zoux posted:

Yeah, how would they even know that?


https://twitter.com/PeterAlexander/status/1509151957247832073

My man should get a twitter account

This made it to the times just now:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/30/world/europe/putin-advisers-ukraine.html

Coquito Ergo Sum
Feb 9, 2021

mlmp08 posted:

Clearly the champion is this twin-seat fighter, famous for its fat back, broad spine, questionable thrust to weight ratio, nose blobs, and reduced maneuverability in favor of ability to loiter over neighborhoods.

The Bill Wyman of tactical fighters.

Dance Officer
May 4, 2017

It would be awesome if we could dance!

zoux posted:

https://twitter.com/CorporalFrisk/status/1509227127455072257

They weren't.

""Exactly how the Russian aircraft were armed is not something we will comment upon right now. I would like to emphasise that if we had seen an increased threat directed against Sweden we would have informed the public about that""

I'm not going to be too surprised if Russian jets fly into Swedish airspace while loaded with nukes with some regularity, and it's kind of an open secret that they do.

Hyrax Attack!
Jan 13, 2009

We demand to be taken seriously

Dance Officer posted:

I'm not going to be too surprised if Russian jets fly into Swedish airspace while loaded with nukes with some regularity, and it's kind of an open secret that they do.

I’m unclear on what the point of that would be. If the only goal is intimidation wouldn’t it make more sense to have dummy nukes rather than risk a crash on hostile soil, or misfire when they don’t intend to go to war? If there were a scenario where Russia did want to fire nukes at Sweden on short notice seems like it would barely matter if jets were close or not as the world would likely be ending.

zoux
Apr 28, 2006

Dance Officer posted:

I'm not going to be too surprised if Russian jets fly into Swedish airspace while loaded with nukes with some regularity, and it's kind of an open secret that they do.

https://twitter.com/nktpnd/status/1509235220351959048

Dance Officer
May 4, 2017

It would be awesome if we could dance!

Hyrax Attack! posted:

I’m unclear on what the point of that would be. If the only goal is intimidation wouldn’t it make more sense to have dummy nukes rather than risk a crash on hostile soil, or misfire when they don’t intend to go to war? If there were a scenario where Russia did want to fire nukes at Sweden on short notice seems like it would barely matter if jets were close or not as the world would likely be ending.

I get your point but consider that at the height of the cold war both sides sent submarines into eachother's waters while armed with nuclear missiles. And got caught doing it.

What I'm saying is that yes, the world is this stupid.

A.o.D.
Jan 15, 2006

Hyrax Attack! posted:

I’m unclear on what the point of that would be. If the only goal is intimidation wouldn’t it make more sense to have dummy nukes rather than risk a crash on hostile soil, or misfire when they don’t intend to go to war? If there were a scenario where Russia did want to fire nukes at Sweden on short notice seems like it would barely matter if jets were close or not as the world would likely be ending.

Sweden isn't even a NATO member. Why would you pick that fight? Why would you demonstrate a first strike policy against them?

zoux
Apr 28, 2006

A.o.D. posted:

Sweden isn't even a NATO member. Why would you pick that fight? Why would you demonstrate a first strike policy against them?

Well, Putin seems hell bent on strengthening NATO and adding to its membership, and such an action would help.

Comrade Blyatlov
Aug 4, 2007


should have picked four fingers





A.o.D. posted:

Sweden isn't even a NATO member. Why would you pick that fight? Why would you demonstrate a first strike policy against them?

Why would you invade Ukraine?

Nostalgia4Infinity
Feb 27, 2007

10,000 YEARS WASN'T ENOUGH LURKING

Cimber posted:

F-15s are dual seated, with a pilot and a wizzo, while the f-16 are single seated. Easier to steal two of 'em that way.

Single seat F-15s exist and the -D is a training model.
:goonsay:

A.o.D.
Jan 15, 2006

Comrade Blyatlov posted:

Why would you invade Ukraine?

I have this answer: because you envision yourself as a modern day czar and you want to Make Russia Great Again.

Comrade Blyatlov
Aug 4, 2007


should have picked four fingers





A.o.D. posted:

I have this answer: because you envision yourself as a modern day czar and you want to Make Russia Great Again.

there's your answer

Nick Soapdish
Apr 27, 2008


https://twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1509278005469847574?t=MPLXcYVUQzkv29C05xzJPw&s=19

https://twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1509284041115279373?t=srpiZyfDZrS09p9XLUx5VQ&s=19

I'm no land guy but that seems like a real real real bad idea

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Alan Smithee
Jan 4, 2005


A man becomes preeminent, he's expected to have enthusiasms.

Enthusiasms, enthusiasms...

Comrade Blyatlov posted:

Why would you invade Ukraine?

Putin: “I will teach them a lesson. A lesson about friendship and coming together!”

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply