|
Speaking of Russian fuckery, I stated reading The Wages of Destruction, a book all about the Third Reich's economy. In it they talk about Hitler's world view, saying that Germany had two roads to take: 1) international engagement and wealth via trade, or 2) unitary action and military force. Hitler thought that the second option was the only real option, as the first route would lead to Germany's destruction if it challenged the United States. Hitler was very conscious that the United States was becoming a superpower, with an economy that would dwarf all of Europe's soon. Hitler obviously didn't like the idea of Germany being a lesser nation to any other. In addition, he also thought that in the case Germany was a big stinkin' success, it would lead to sinister Jewish cabals destroying Germany through war instead of trade. So 2) was the only intelligible option. Anyway, it seems to me Russia is taking a similar path. For whatever reason, they've decided international engagement is bullshit. If Russia is to be "great" again (I suspect it's some rose-tinted-glasses version of the USSR*, like aging white people today look back on the 1950s as a golden era) the way to do that is through force of arms and belligerence.~ *Which of course is more or less what the USSR tried to do until they bankrupted themselves, but ignore that ~Of course, this is perfectly in sync with thread opinions that Putin realizes if he ever leaves office he will be shot for treason for being the head man in the world's biggest kleptocracy, therefore he has to manufacture an endless national emergency to keep himself permanently in power; it could be both these things All these thoughts might also be my mind just riffing on this delicious piece of Trump shade.
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 15:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 14:16 |
|
|
Mr Crustacean posted:If you're willing to have those ghost type dudes covertly inserted, attempt to infiltrate through hundreds of kilometres of regime/ISIS held territory and face the probable outcome of getting overrun and wiped out by the mechanised battalion stationed at Tartus, and then having to send the secretary of state to Damascus to negotiate the bodies back, then sure, give it a go. guys, it was a joke
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
ninjahedgehog posted:Random question: is there a reason the PAK FA doesn't have a NATO reporting name yet? The Su-47 and MiG-1.44 each had one and they flew maybe a dozen times between them. Do we just not give those out anymore? It seems like Russophiles have succeeded in making the now-not-secret Russian names for things the popular terminology. I for one wish for the days when everything had a simple NATO number and name. AT-5 is a hell of a lot easier to deal with than 9M113, IMO.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 15:43
|
|
ninjahedgehog posted:Random question: is there a reason the PAK FA doesn't have a NATO reporting name yet? The Su-47 and MiG-1.44 each had one and they flew maybe a dozen times between them. Do we just not give those out anymore? Flanker R-type 
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
The PAK FA T-50 still doesn't have an official Russian name either. PAK FA is the project name (like, say, LWF for the F-16 or JSF for the F-35) and T-50 is just Sukhoi's internal name (like the Flanker was internally called T-10, no Su-27).
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
Why give a name to a plane that may never actually enter service?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
Beats calling it Objekt [random number]
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:The PAK FA T-50 still doesn't have an official Russian name either. PAK FA is the project name (like, say, LWF for the F-16 or JSF for the F-35) and T-50 is just Sukhoi's internal name (like the Flanker was internally called T-10, no Su-27). Yeah, but isn't it pretty common for Russian/Soviet models to just never have their own nicknames? As I recall though, some pilots liked the NATO name so much they started using it themselves (Bear, Fulcrum, maybe even Flanker). Plus the T-50 is just the prototype model name, in all likelihood it'll be called the Su-something if/when it enters service. Mortabis posted:Why give a name to a plane that may never actually enter service? NATO gave names to the Flatpack and Firkin though. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 16:23
|
|
Mortabis posted:Why give a name to a plane that may never actually enter service? Cuz the Tigershark was rad ok
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
They say never meet your heroes, but that should also apply to never following them on Twitter. Why does Chuck Yeager have to be such a prick? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
drgitlin posted:They say never meet your heroes, but that should also apply to never following them on Twitter. Why does Chuck Yeager have to be such a prick? An Air Force fighter/test pilot is an alpha male prick? You don't say?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
hes a god drat treasure
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
serious props to whoever got him on twitter
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
drgitlin posted:They say never meet your heroes, but that should also apply to never following them on Twitter. Why does Chuck Yeager have to be such a prick? He's Chuck Motherfucking Yeager, you think he's gonna give a poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
grumpy Chuck, best Chuck how chipper would you be if you had to sit on ginormous brass balls for nine decades?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
PAK-FA is probably written as Flanker G or H somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
ninjahedgehog posted:Random question: is there a reason the PAK FA doesn't have a NATO reporting name yet? The Su-47 and MiG-1.44 each had one and they flew maybe a dozen times between them. Do we just not give those out anymore? I think everyone just started calling it PAK FA. But it's never going to be an operational platform, so whoever decides these things probably just shrugged at it. Chuck Yeager is the highlight of twitter. Godholio fucked around with this message at 17:41 on Oct 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
There's a nice plane in there if they'd just mix the VLTO requirement.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
X-32 Monica
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 17:57
|
|
Mortabis posted:X-32 Monica you just can't help yourself can you
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
I didn't come up with the name.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/this-is-a-real-tweet-from-the-russian-embassy-in-the-un-1787437075 If the Russians put a Pantsir-S1 to guard the launchers, any SEAD operation against them will be dicey. What is more crazy is the people who think that a no fly zone can be easily accomplished without provoking a super power stand-off. They're the crazy ones. I wonder why the choice of S-300 vs a S-400. Maybe Russia doesn't have confidence in the new system or want to lose it in any skirmish? Also, lol at the X-32.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
I more of the opinion that Russia doesn't want to expose the S-400 to American and Israelii SigInt and Ewar in the region. We're kinda known for scraping early intel to have good detection and countermeasures. The Russians won't want to give us a good peak over a puppet war.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:I didn't come up with the name. Yet 20 years later you are the one using it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
If the PAK-FA was all about just getting cool aerospace photos, mission accomplished
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
I find it amusing to remember that Russia has about the same total GDP as Spain. And probably a more corrupt and inefficient tax collection system, its a wonder to me that anything in their arsenal works.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
As an oil and gas exporting country, Russia gets a ton of money through trade -- this is what is currently hurt by the low price of oil, but they've got a lot of reserves anyway. I mean, Russia's economy is really lovely, but that doesn't stop them from being able to afford stuff that by-the-number richer countries like Spain cannot possibly afford, and that's largely thanks to the resource extraction they do. It's like GDP is kind of a lovely indicator that is useless at telling you the real capabilities of a country!
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
But on the other hand since the end of the cold war we have seen an awful lot of bad maintainance, accidents and general poor performance from the russian military, a lot of that has to come from just straight not having much cash, the observation was slightly silly. Im not saying that the military capability of Spain is near the same page as that of Russia, because yes there is a lot of complexity to both military capabilities and to a countries economy, but to be honest no single figure will tell you about the military capabilities of a country (Or anything, every figure has context), but lack of money has got to hurt them somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
Not gonna lie it's pretty funny/sad to watch putin transform Russia into a plus sized north korea
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:Not gonna lie it's pretty funny/sad to watch putin transform Russia into a plus sized north korea No, it's alarming, because he's the type of demagogue whom when things finally cave in on him, it's not unrealistic to imagine him pulling a Greg Stilson if he feels he's looking at real consequences for his actions, and he has principal control over the Russian strategic forces. And he's only getting older.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
North Korea also hasn't fed conscripts to a conflict zone three times in 15 years, either. e- four times, my bad
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 03:53
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:North Korea also hasn't fed conscripts to a conflict zone three times in 15 years, either. That implies North Korea can feed its conscripts at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 04:04
|
|
Hub Cat posted:That implies North Korea can feed its conscripts at all. 
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
I'm more worried about his successor, whom he is apparently on the lookout for these days. We got sorta lucky with him, inasmuch as he is not clinically insane, a drunk, a religious fanatic or a common criminal, or all of the above.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 05:53
|
|
|
Force de Fappe posted:I'm more worried about his successor, whom he is apparently on the lookout for these days. We got sorta lucky with him, inasmuch as he is not clinically insane, a drunk, a religious fanatic or a common criminal, or all of the above. Hey Yeltsin wasnt that bad, especially compared to Putin. Also I bet Yeltsin is the only Russian leader known as a drunk because he got drunk publically.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 08:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 14:16 |
|
|
Force de Fappe posted:I'm more worried about his successor, whom he is apparently on the lookout for these days. We got sorta lucky with him, inasmuch as he is not clinically insane, a drunk, a religious fanatic or a common criminal, or all of the above. He's a uncommon criminal, though
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2016 11:32
|
|