Tell us about you and Johnny Burns " military Kits" lol
Originally Posted by Jcubed
Originally Posted by ribka
So it was a great Idea and applauded when Ukraine was given upgraded T 55's a few months ago lol. But now its a horrible idea.
Upgrade them with modern fire control systems, reactive armor and place with infantry platoons when clearing out trenches, fortified positions. The tanks act as cover for moving infantry units , and 100 mm is great for clearing out embedded troops. Of course Americans think that billion dollar F 35's and big air craft carriers will win this war lol
Plus Russia has millions of 100 mm rounds already produced. While the west is scrambling to manufacture rounds which are dwindling very fast
If you’re infantry without anti-armor weapons, it doesn’t really matter if you are facing a T-34 or an M-1, you’re phuqed. If you have Javelins, it doesn’t really matter which you are facing, you can kill it.
I guess the question is, why would Russia waste its best tanks on infantry support? Particularly when a lot of these are going to be crewed by militias and separatists anyway? And I would suspect that a lot of them are going to be used as glorified APCs anyway.
Plus it’s pretty stupid. When NATO sends fifty year old Leopards and T-55s instead of its best stuff, it’s a way of getting something into the fight and “Slava Ukraine”. When Russia pulls some crap out of a depo and sends it instead of its best stuff, it’s “Look how desperate those slaps are.”
What those like you don't understand is there are many different Anti Tank Missles (ATMs) of which the Jav is the best but most expensive.
T-55s are vulnerable to many more varied ATMs than a T-64 variant or a T-90. An old school RPG-7 would probably go through both side and the cheap old AT-4 will kill it with a single shot from any angle.
The T-55 has very old dated optics, no thermal sight, old fire control and a unstabilized gun smaller than any of the other Orc tanks that have been deployed and destroyed.
It's sad that anyone with so little knowledge of tanks and thinks a T-55 is the equivalent of a M1 feels free to spout off.
The internet is the internet.
John Burns
I have all the sources. They can't stop the signal.
The US wastes trillions of dollars on failed air craft and weapons systems yet we still cant even win a war against a Stone Age third world country like Afghanistan
The F-35
One of the biggest boondoggles in the US DoD budget—and the focus of this article—is the F-35, the most expensive weapons system in history. And of course, the costs continue to go up, according to a recent DoD report. The Pentagon first put out the project for bids in 1996, and the first F-35s were manufactured and flown in 2006. However, it wasn’t until 2018 that they saw combat for the first time when Israel deployed them. Since then, the USMC, USAF, and RAF have used them in combat only rarely. For a plane that is supposed to be sufficiently versatile and modular to replace virtually all other combat aircraft, the F-35 has been used very little.
The F-35 program will cost about $1.5 trillion, or approximately what the US government spent on the entire Iraq war. Perhaps you’re wondering if this is a typical timeframe for a high-tech military project. Well, in 2001, the DoD expected to have its first combat-capable F-35s in 2010. That did not happen—not by a long shot. At least as late as 2013, these fifth-generation fighter jets could not fly in bad weather or at night. Despite all this, the F-35 program will cost about $1.5 trillion, or approximately what the US government spent on the entire Iraq war.
Last year, Defense News identified 13 significant deficiencies in one or more F-35 models, including the possibility of a blown tire destroying the entire aircraft, inadequate vision and sensor systems, and not being to fly too high, too fast, or in certain maneuvers without either apparent or actual major problems. Other issues included logistical and security concerns. Many of these have solutions in progress, although several additional issues with the weapons systems have been identified since then.
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Beware you are about to incur the wrath of the USAF gas station attendant. The F-35 does have some pretty state of the art gizmos, then again you can put them on a 747 and get the same results. As a fighter, it's a DOG, particularly in multi-bandit environments AFTER the merge, not to mention the idiocy of a single engine platform for Naval Aviation.
F-35s have been supplying very good ISR on this conflict. Being able to open a 50 mile AESA aperture is ground breaking, pun intended.
Not going to do that with the Radar Cross Section (RCS) of a 747.
The 2 engined Tomcat has a much worse safety record than the F-35.
It's fun to correct old cogers who can't keep up with current millitary aviation.
Originally Posted by ...HorHay69 yelling at clouds
John Burns
I have all the sources. They can't stop the signal.
If you’re infantry without anti-armor weapons, it doesn’t really matter if you are facing a T-34 or an M-1, you’re phuqed. If you have Javelins, it doesn’t really matter which you are facing, you can kill it.
I guess the question is, why would Russia waste its best tanks on infantry support? Particularly when a lot of these are going to be crewed by militias and separatists anyway? And I would suspect that a lot of them are going to be used as glorified APCs anyway.
Plus it’s pretty stupid. When NATO sends fifty year old Leopards and T-55s instead of its best stuff, it’s a way of getting something into the fight and “Slava Ukraine”. When Russia pulls some crap out of a depo and sends it instead of its best stuff, it’s “Look how desperate those slaps are.”
What those like you don't understand is there are many different Anti Tank Missles (ATMs) of which the Jav is the best but most expensive.
T-55s are vulnerable to many more varied ATMs than a T-64 variant or a T-90. An old school RPG-7 would probably go through both side and the cheap old AT-4 will kill it with a single shot from any angle.
The T-55 has very old dated optics, no thermal sight, old fire control and a unstabilized gun smaller than any of the other Orc tanks that have been deployed and destroyed.
It's sad that anyone with so little knowledge of tanks and thinks a T-55 is the equivalent of a M1 feels free to spout off.
The internet is the internet.
The Wizardly Oracle of Omaha has spoken.....
"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."-- Thomas Jefferson
John, how long was the Tomcat in service? How long has the F-35 been operationally deployed? Comparing their safety record is a little apples and oranges.
The F-35 has a lot of capabilities that can’t be discussed here. A friend of mine, a Marine colonel has deployed with the F-35 and he told me that once the pilot gets the hang of using everything, it’s an incredible platform. Personally, I’d much rather fight in a two engine platform with the redundant electrical and hydraulic systems.
NRA Life,Endowment,Patron or Benefactor since '72.
If you’re infantry without anti-armor weapons, it doesn’t really matter if you are facing a T-34 or an M-1, you’re phuqed. If you have Javelins, it doesn’t really matter which you are facing, you can kill it.
I guess the question is, why would Russia waste its best tanks on infantry support? Particularly when a lot of these are going to be crewed by militias and separatists anyway? And I would suspect that a lot of them are going to be used as glorified APCs anyway.
Plus it’s pretty stupid. When NATO sends fifty year old Leopards and T-55s instead of its best stuff, it’s a way of getting something into the fight and “Slava Ukraine”. When Russia pulls some crap out of a depo and sends it instead of its best stuff, it’s “Look how desperate those slaps are.”
What those like you don't understand is there are many different Anti Tank Missles (ATMs) of which the Jav is the best but most expensive.
T-55s are vulnerable to many more varied ATMs than a T-64 variant or a T-90. An old school RPG-7 would probably go through both side and the cheap old AT-4 will kill it with a single shot from any angle.
The T-55 has very old dated optics, no thermal sight, old fire control and a unstabilized gun smaller than any of the other Orc tanks that have been deployed and destroyed.
It's sad that anyone with so little knowledge of tanks and thinks a T-55 is the equivalent of a M1 feels free to spout off.
The internet is the internet.
Amazing how a guy who makes really schitty rifles thinks he is an expert on tanks or whatever the phuq else one can be an expert at by sucking off some dudes who claim to be operators.
John, how long was the Tomcat in service? How long has the F-35 been operationally deployed? Comparing their safety record is a little apples and oranges.
The F-35 has a lot of capabilities that can’t be discussed here. A friend of mine, a Marine colonel has deployed with the F-35 and he told me that once the pilot gets the hang of using everything, it’s an incredible platform. Personally, I’d much rather fight in a two engine platform with the redundant electrical and hydraulic systems.
It'll be fun when the wizard shows up to school you.
Johhnie vodka. What was your mos in the military and what did you do?
How many times were in combat pumping gas in the US in the airforce? Lmao
Originally Posted by navlav8r
John, how long was the Tomcat in service? How long has the F-35 been operationally deployed? Comparing their safety record is a little apples and oranges.
The F-35 has a lot of capabilities that can’t be discussed here. A friend of mine, a Marine colonel has deployed with the F-35 and he told me that once the pilot gets the hang of using everything, it’s an incredible platform. Personally, I’d much rather fight in a two engine platform with the redundant electrical and hydraulic systems.
Can a f35 land on a dirt river road in a a combat area like a SU
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
Originally Posted by JoeBob
If you’re infantry without anti-armor weapons, it doesn’t really matter if you are facing a T-34 or an M-1, you’re phuqed. If you have Javelins, it doesn’t really matter which you are facing, you can kill it.
I guess the question is, why would Russia waste its best tanks on infantry support? Particularly when a lot of these are going to be crewed by militias and separatists anyway? And I would suspect that a lot of them are going to be used as glorified APCs anyway.
Plus it’s pretty stupid. When NATO sends fifty year old Leopards and T-55s instead of its best stuff, it’s a way of getting something into the fight and “Slava Ukraine”. When Russia pulls some crap out of a depo and sends it instead of its best stuff, it’s “Look how desperate those slaps are.”
What those like you don't understand is there are many different Anti Tank Missles (ATMs) of which the Jav is the best but most expensive.
T-55s are vulnerable to many more varied ATMs than a T-64 variant or a T-90. An old school RPG-7 would probably go through both side and the cheap old AT-4 will kill it with a single shot from any angle.
The T-55 has very old dated optics, no thermal sight, old fire control and a unstabilized gun smaller than any of the other Orc tanks that have been deployed and destroyed.
It's sad that anyone with so little knowledge of tanks and thinks a T-55 is the equivalent of a M1 feels free to spout off.
John, how long was the Tomcat in service? How long has the F-35 been operationally deployed? Comparing their safety record is a little apples and oranges.
The F-35 has a lot of capabilities that can’t be discussed here. A friend of mine, a Marine colonel has deployed with the F-35 and he told me that once the pilot gets the hang of using everything, it’s an incredible platform. Personally, I’d much rather fight in a two engine platform with the redundant electrical and hydraulic systems.
I am going on developement/IOC and Hour for Hour up to this point.
The F-35 has the best safety record in history at this point.
It is open source that the F-35 can use the MADL to open a large AESA SAR aperture between 2 jets.
Block 4 jets will be even better.
I can understand how 2 engines would preferred but the F-35 so far has proven very safe for a combat jet.
John Burns
I have all the sources. They can't stop the signal.
John, how long was the Tomcat in service? How long has the F-35 been operationally deployed? Comparing their safety record is a little apples and oranges.
The F-35 has a lot of capabilities that can’t be discussed here. A friend of mine, a Marine colonel has deployed with the F-35 and he told me that once the pilot gets the hang of using everything, it’s an incredible platform. Personally, I’d much rather fight in a two engine platform with the redundant electrical and hydraulic systems.
Can a f35 land on a dirt river road in a a combat area like a SU
Damn you are a stupid one.
John Burns
I have all the sources. They can't stop the signal.
You seem to be an accomplished subject matter experts in all of these area
Just curious
Thanks!!!
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
Originally Posted by ribka
Originally Posted by navlav8r
John, how long was the Tomcat in service? How long has the F-35 been operationally deployed? Comparing their safety record is a little apples and oranges.
The F-35 has a lot of capabilities that can’t be discussed here. A friend of mine, a Marine colonel has deployed with the F-35 and he told me that once the pilot gets the hang of using everything, it’s an incredible platform. Personally, I’d much rather fight in a two engine platform with the redundant electrical and hydraulic systems.
Can a f35 land on a dirt river road in a a combat area like a SU
You seem to be an accomplished subject matter experts in all of these area
Just curious
Thanks!!!
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
Originally Posted by ribka
Originally Posted by navlav8r
John, how long was the Tomcat in service? How long has the F-35 been operationally deployed? Comparing their safety record is a little apples and oranges.
The F-35 has a lot of capabilities that can’t be discussed here. A friend of mine, a Marine colonel has deployed with the F-35 and he told me that once the pilot gets the hang of using everything, it’s an incredible platform. Personally, I’d much rather fight in a two engine platform with the redundant electrical and hydraulic systems.
Can a f35 land on a dirt river road in a a combat area like a SU
Damn you are a stupid one.
WIZARD.
John Burns
I have all the sources. They can't stop the signal.
So one of biggest concern now with Ukraine is lack of armored vehicles , tanks arty, and lack of artillery ammo
At least Zelenskiy keeps begging for this
Russia has 100’s of ready t 55 ‘s , millions of rounds of 100 mm rounds .
An upgrade to the fire control systems , night vision, throw reactive armor. All done cheaply and quickly while Ukraine waits months or even years for rearming and the main battle starting in end of April
I can see why Biden voters with no military experience hate this. Lol