Home
You can't make this stuff up.
Skip to 55 seconds:

Still don’t care
Whatever, by now Ukraine should have driven them out with all the money, supplies and advice they are getting from the west.
over $130 Billion of hard working US tax payer money stolen by Ukraine while our banking system collapses

saliva Ukraine

It's pretty much impossible to get any accurate reports from either Russia or Ukraine. The warthog YouTube page is just propaganda. Russia had 600 T-90 tanks in inventory when the Ukraine conflict began. From what I've read they only sent 50 to Ukraine. Russia also has a large inventory of upgraded T-62 and T-72 tanks.

Russia has been producing enough tanks that they've been offering them for sale for many years. In fact, Russia is second only to the U.S.A. in arms exports.
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.
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.”
Originally Posted by ribka
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.

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.
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by ribka
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.

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.
Some of the most entertaining stuff on here is when he tries to explain to you how military aviation works. The man is an expert's expert.
Originally Posted by Bristoe
It's pretty much impossible to get any accurate reports from either Russia or Ukraine. The warthog YouTube page is just propaganda. Russia had 600 T-90 tanks in inventory when the Ukraine conflict began. From what I've read they only sent 50 to Ukraine. Russia also has a large inventory of upgraded T-62 and T-72 tanks.

Russia has been producing enough tanks that they've been offering them for sale for many years. In fact, Russia is second only to the U.S.A. in arms exports.

Per Ornx, Uke's have destroyed at least 58 T-90's for far. As for 600 T-90's in inventory, the numbers at the start of the war was closer to 360 operational.

Russia has a lot of tanks in inventory that are nothing more than rusted hulks.
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by Bristoe
It's pretty much impossible to get any accurate reports from either Russia or Ukraine. The warthog YouTube page is just propaganda. Russia had 600 T-90 tanks in inventory when the Ukraine conflict began. From what I've read they only sent 50 to Ukraine. Russia also has a large inventory of upgraded T-62 and T-72 tanks.

Russia has been producing enough tanks that they've been offering them for sale for many years. In fact, Russia is second only to the U.S.A. in arms exports.

Per Ornx, Uke's have destroyed at least 58 T-90's for far. As for 600 T-90's in inventory, the numbers at the start of the war was closer to 360 operational.

Russia has a lot of tanks in inventory that are nothing more than rusted hulks.


How many have they lost? What's maintenance like?

Those old tanks will just be coffins for the poor souls (4) they put in them.
Originally Posted by dassa
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by ribka
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.

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.
Some of the most entertaining stuff on here is when he tries to explain to you how military aviation works. The man is an expert's expert.


Would you rather be in a Mig?
AZOV NAZis terrorizing a young family

https://twitter.com/PeImeniPusha/status/1640383629095235585
Originally Posted by Jcubed
Originally Posted by dassa
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by ribka
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.

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.
Some of the most entertaining stuff on here is when he tries to explain to you how military aviation works. The man is an expert's expert.


Would you rather be in a Mig?

How is that relevant? bu since you asked, an F-22...
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by Bristoe
It's pretty much impossible to get any accurate reports from either Russia or Ukraine. The warthog YouTube page is just propaganda. Russia had 600 T-90 tanks in inventory when the Ukraine conflict began. From what I've read they only sent 50 to Ukraine. Russia also has a large inventory of upgraded T-62 and T-72 tanks.

Russia has been producing enough tanks that they've been offering them for sale for many years. In fact, Russia is second only to the U.S.A. in arms exports.

Per Ornx, Uke's have destroyed at least 58 T-90's for far. As for 600 T-90's in inventory, the numbers at the start of the war was closer to 360 operational.

Russia has a lot of tanks in inventory that are nothing more than rusted hulks.

fascinating, you appear to have a lot of combat experience

Tell us about combat tactics of Russian marines and how they assault fortifeid Uko NAZi positions

Tell us how Ukrainian jets have played a big part in this war

clown world.


lol
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by Jcubed
Originally Posted by dassa
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by ribka
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.

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.
Some of the most entertaining stuff on here is when he tries to explain to you how military aviation works. The man is an expert's expert.


Would you rather be in a Mig?

How is that relevant? bu since you asked, an F-22...


They don't land on ships...

But I get your point.
Originally Posted by ribka
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by Bristoe
It's pretty much impossible to get any accurate reports from either Russia or Ukraine. The warthog YouTube page is just propaganda. Russia had 600 T-90 tanks in inventory when the Ukraine conflict began. From what I've read they only sent 50 to Ukraine. Russia also has a large inventory of upgraded T-62 and T-72 tanks.

Russia has been producing enough tanks that they've been offering them for sale for many years. In fact, Russia is second only to the U.S.A. in arms exports.

Per Ornx, Uke's have destroyed at least 58 T-90's for far. As for 600 T-90's in inventory, the numbers at the start of the war was closer to 360 operational.

Russia has a lot of tanks in inventory that are nothing more than rusted hulks.

fascinating, you appear to have a lot of combat experience

Tell us about combat tactics of Russian marines and how they assault fortifeid Uko NAZi positions

Tell us how Ukrainian jets have played a big part in this war

clown world.


lol

Interesting. You seem to have no idea what I did in the Military.

You're not a very good bot, not ability to search previous user posts is a serious programing deficiency.
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. Big plus. While the west is scrambling to manufacture rounds for uko nazis which are dwindling very fast

Actually makes sense .. carry on military combat experts

and saliva Ukraine


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

Actually makes sense




They were fighting an invader.

Still doesn't make sense?
.
Originally Posted by ribka
Of course Americans think that billion dollar F 35's and big air craft carriers will win this war lol

Wow, the way you write, it's almost like you're not really an American!

Nice fail. Bot.
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

Actually makes sense




They were fighting an invader.

Still doesn't make sense?
.
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by ribka
Of course Americans think that billion dollar F 35's and big air craft carriers will win this war lol

Wow, the way you write, it's almost like you're not really an American!

Nice fail. Bot.
\

Moron Biden voters gonna keep destroying Merica. Especially the ones that don't even know where Ukraine is but are now instant combat eggspurts

congrats and saliva Ukraine
Originally Posted by ribka
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by ribka
Of course Americans think that billion dollar F 35's and big air craft carriers will win this war lol

Wow, the way you write, it's almost like you're not really an American!

Nice fail. Bot.
\

Moron Biden voters gonna keep destroying Merica

congrats


Does America have borders?
Seems pretty constitutional
These Biden voters selling out America


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.

The internet is the internet.
Originally Posted by ribka
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
[Linked Image from external-content.duckduckgo.com]
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.

The internet is the internet.

The Wizardly Oracle of Omaha has spoken.....
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.
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.

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.
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.
It'll be fun when the wizard shows up to school you.
Brilliant, send in old stuff to use up the Ukes anti tank weapons.
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.

The internet is the internet.
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.

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.
Burns. Being a self described combat weapons systems expert

Did you serve in the Military and what did you do? Your MOS

Were you a fighter pilot, tank commander. Under water demo expert , spec ops, sniper with the SEALS?

Were you cross trained in all of the above like James Bond?

Thanks
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.

Burns

Were you a pilot?

Navy SEAL?

Delta Force?

Tank commander?

Force recon?

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.

Originally Posted by ribka
Burns

Were you a pilot?

Navy SEAL?

Delta Force?

Tank commander?

Force recon?

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.


[Linked Image from external-content.duckduckgo.com]
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
You serve in some super secret spec ops unit Burnsie? What was your mos?


I’d love to see actually see you in a fist fight. Can you do one push up now? Lol

Originally Posted by JohnBurns
Originally Posted by ribka
Burns

Were you a pilot?

Navy SEAL?

Delta Force?

Tank commander?

Force recon?

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.


[Linked Image from external-content.duckduckgo.com]
HUH?…………



I thought Russian won months ago……


Must need em 4 a parade?
I thought Putin would march through Ukraine like Sherman through Georga.
Originally Posted by wabigoon
I thought Putin would march through Ukraine like Sherman through Georga.

A lot of people did, and I thought they might too.
Originally Posted by Angus1895
HUH?…………



I thought Russian won months ago……


Must need em 4 a parade?

Thirty one countries now against one "backward gas station" as Obama and McCain called Russia. You would think with 31 against 1 it would have ended long ago and the sanctions would have worked lol


And the banking system is collapsing now in the US Canada and Europe and inflation continues to sky rocket to prop up a corrupt regime run by NAZIS and trannies. lol


20 years and over a trillion dollars and the Afghan goat herders just kicked out the most powerful army in world history humiliating them and took biliions of their high tech weapons

clown world

saliva Ukraine!
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.


My old boss, retired USAF Col, headed up the testing program for the AF version of the F35. He's got lots of combat time and has flow something like 30 military aircraft (including a MiG). He's biased of course but he thinks the F35 is the best plane he's ever flown.


FWIW.
I would guess that's just about exactly what they will use them for. They probably have very little ammunition they could trust for the smaller guns. Give them each a round or two and send them in. When they get to PBR try the gun. If it goes off even if it doesn't work well or hit anything, it still has to draw return fire. One less 300,000 dollar missile for tanks that are more likely to work. They can probably accomplish that mission with a one or two man crew. and Russia seems to be inclined toward expendable bodies so only one or two is better than a squad or a full tank crew.
Originally Posted by viking
Brilliant, send in old stuff to use up the Ukes anti tank weapons.
LOL this ^^^
Then send in the Wagner Group human waves and use up all the Uke's small arms ammo.
Putin is a great military strategist and has many T-34's in currently in museums to be sent in for the mop up.
How did the F 35 handle modern Air defense systems in combat scenarios?



Originally Posted by Steve
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.


My old boss, retired USAF Col, headed up the testing program for the AF version of the F35. He's got lots of combat time and has flow something like 30 military aircraft (including a MiG). He's biased of course but he thinks the F35 is the best plane he's ever flown.


FWIW.
Originally Posted by MILES58
I would guess that's just about exactly what they will use them for. They probably have very little ammunition they could trust for the smaller guns. Give them each a round or two and send them in. When they get to PBR try the gun. If it goes off even if it doesn't work well or hit anything, it still has to draw return fire. One less 300,000 dollar missile for tanks that are more likely to work. They can probably accomplish that mission with a one or two man crew. and Russia seems to be inclined toward expendable bodies so only one or two is better than a squad or a full tank crew.


so that is how Russians use tanks and BMP's in their infantry and marines? Russia has no ammunition now?

Where did you read that?
Originally Posted by Direct_Drive
Originally Posted by viking
Brilliant, send in old stuff to use up the Ukes anti tank weapons.
LOL this ^^^
Then send in the Wagner Group human waves and use up all the Ulke's small arms ammo.
Putin is a great military strategist and has many T-34's in currently in museums to be sent in for the mop up.

How many millions does Russia have now serving in Wagner to employ the "human wave" strategy? How many times has Wagner units deployed the "human wave" strategy fighting most in urban areas?

I d like to see a link

Thanks

boomers should stick to reruns of murder she wrote. Maybe you'll get to see Angela Landsbury's ankle?
Originally Posted by ribka
How did the F 35 handle modern Air defense systems in combat scenarios?



Originally Posted by Steve
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.


My old boss, retired USAF Col, headed up the testing program for the AF version of the F35. He's got lots of combat time and has flow something like 30 military aircraft (including a MiG). He's biased of course but he thinks the F35 is the best plane he's ever flown.


FWIW.

Don't know. Just sharing what he told me. Not sure how much of that he could talk about.
Originally Posted by ribka
so that is how Russians use tanks and BMP's in their infantry and marines? Russia has no ammunition now?

Where did you read that?

The T34 had a 3 inch gun. The T54 had a 100mm gun Both much smaller than the T72/T82. Why would they have current ammo for either? Priming and powder from WWII was corrosive and deteriorated respectively.

Getting enough out of those old tanks to cover the cost of fuel has to come from somewhere, and the only logical place is burning off ammunition the Ukes have so they don't spend that ammo on their current tanks. The are using their T72/T82 tanks because had they started with the T90s/T14s they'd have nothing left but the T72/T82 junkers. 500 gallons of fuel at their cost is probably a worthwhile trade off for them if they can get the Ukes to shoot something expensive at the old T34/T54 tanks.
Originally Posted by ribka
Originally Posted by Angus1895
HUH?…………



I thought Russian won months ago……


Must need em 4 a parade?

Thirty one countries now against one "backward gas station" as Obama and McCain called Russia. You would think with 31 against 1 it would have ended long ago and the sanctions would have worked lol


And the banking system is collapsing now in the US Canada and Europe and inflation continues to sky rocket to prop up a corrupt regime run by NAZIS and trannies. lol


20 years and over a trillion dollars and the Afghan goat herders just kicked out the most powerful army in world history humiliating them and took biliions of their high tech weapons

clown world

saliva Ukraine!


IMO, the goat fuggers didn't kick us out. Biden turned tail and ran. Left our brothers and sisters to basically fend for themselves
Originally Posted by Joel/AK
Originally Posted by ribka
Originally Posted by Angus1895
HUH?…………



I thought Russian won months ago……


Must need em 4 a parade?

Thirty one countries now against one "backward gas station" as Obama and McCain called Russia. You would think with 31 against 1 it would have ended long ago and the sanctions would have worked lol


And the banking system is collapsing now in the US Canada and Europe and inflation continues to sky rocket to prop up a corrupt regime run by NAZIS and trannies. lol


20 years and over a trillion dollars and the Afghan goat herders just kicked out the most powerful army in world history humiliating them and took biliions of their high tech weapons

clown world

saliva Ukraine!


IMO, the goat fuggers didn't kick us out. Biden turned tail and ran. Left our brothers and sisters to basically fend for themselves
That's right ^^^
The mission was over, Bin Laden was dead and it was time to GTFO of that schitthole.
Biden and his incompetence didn't know how to do it.
Bagram Airbase should have been where the last American got airborne.
So tell us
Putins lil

Butt Buddy Bot Boy…….


31 countries want to help Ukraine?


And U know better?
Originally Posted by Joel/AK
Originally Posted by ribka
Originally Posted by Angus1895
HUH?…………



I thought Russian won months ago……


Must need em 4 a parade?

Thirty one countries now against one "backward gas station" as Obama and McCain called Russia. You would think with 31 against 1 it would have ended long ago and the sanctions would have worked lol


And the banking system is collapsing now in the US Canada and Europe and inflation continues to sky rocket to prop up a corrupt regime run by NAZIS and trannies. lol


20 years and over a trillion dollars and the Afghan goat herders just kicked out the most powerful army in world history humiliating them and took biliions of their high tech weapons

clown world

saliva Ukraine!


IMO, the goat fuggers didn't kick us out. Biden turned tail and ran. Left our brothers and sisters to basically fend for themselves

Afghanistan is not made to be forged into a cohesive nation:

[Linked Image from cdn.shopify.com]
Originally Posted by Direct_Drive
That's right ^^^
The mission was over, Bin Laden was dead and it was time to GTFO of that schitthole.
Biden and his incompetence didn't know how to do it.
Bagram Airbase should have been where the last American got airborne.

Kinda simplified for the few dummie Anti Americans here on the fire but this is pretty much right.

Trying to nation build, spending American blood, in an area that will never be a real nation was a fools errand.

Helping Ukraine become the country they want to be by sending weapons is a much better use of US assets.

Will pay handsome dividends in the future.
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
Originally Posted by Direct_Drive
That's right ^^^
The mission was over, Bin Laden was dead and it was time to GTFO of that schitthole.
Biden and his incompetence didn't know how to do it.
Bagram Airbase should have been where the last American got airborne.

Kinda simplified for the few dummie Anti Americans here on the fire but this is pretty much right.

Trying to nation build, spending American blood, in an area that will never be a real nation was a fools errand.

Helping Ukraine become the country they want to be by sending weapons is a much better use of US assets.

Will pay handsome dividends in the future.
to who, politicians. You are one dumb mf
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
Helping Ukraine become the country they want to be by sending weapons is a much better use of US assets.

Will pay handsome dividends in the future.

Ukraine has been paying handsome dividends to Democrat investments, courtesy of the American taxpayers, for the past several years. So you want that investment model to continue?? Pfft...
Originally Posted by gonehuntin
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
Helping Ukraine become the country they want to be by sending weapons is a much better use of US assets.

Will pay handsome dividends in the future.

Ukraine has been paying handsome dividends to Democrat investments, courtesy of the American taxpayers, for the past several years. So you want that investment model to continue?? Pfft...

Leakage has always been an issue. Iraq and Afganistan were worse with no return.

Destroying the Orc Army like this is pennies on the dollar for the American Taxpayer with no American Blood.

Deal of the Century for the USA.

We should have given Rhodesia the same support and the world would be a much better place.

They were willing to fight to save their country against the Horde and we left them hanging.

I don't want to see that same mistake repeated.
How exactly were Iraq and Afghanistan without return?

We didn’t kill any Taliban and terrorists ?
Originally Posted by JuanSquirms
[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]


?
Originally Posted by Jcubed
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by Jcubed
Originally Posted by dassa
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by ribka
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.

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.
Some of the most entertaining stuff on here is when he tries to explain to you how military aviation works. The man is an expert's expert.


Would you rather be in a Mig?

How is that relevant? bu since you asked, an F-22...


They don't land on ships...

But I get your point.
Neither do MiGs..
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
Originally Posted by ribka
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
[Linked Image from external-content.duckduckgo.com]

1. The 747 example was used merely to illustrate the capabilities of the F-35's weapons suite, i.e., it excels in BVR scenarios, but SUCKS after the merge
2.The Tomcat was in service for over twenty five years and suffered from inadequate engines thanks to Jimmy Carter(the root cause of the infamous Kara Hultgren mishap). The issue, STUPID has to do with engine failures, whereas even a low ASVAP scoring idiot like you is the fact that the loss of one engine in a single engine platform means GAME OVER whereas a two engine platform obviously can keep on flying. Math is hard but two is better than one

Pro-tip: stick to what you know...oh wait. never mind.
To believe that the Russians will employ T34s is about the most ridiculous assertion I have heard about this war yet! A bad joke, nyet?

The notion that the Russians are back to their Soviet WWII tactics of "human wave" attack is even more ludicrous and another example of establishment media propaganda. Their tactics are based mostly on ISR which is basically locate and identify the enemy and smash him with stand off weaponry. If human wave tactics are being employed it's by the Ukrainians.

Do you think the Russians are going to pull out all stops, use every weapon and tactic they have in Ukraine, when the specter of a NATO incursion is obviously a major consideration for them? Their stockpiles are there for a possible future conflict with NATO, That's called contingency planning.

MAGA!
This^
Woke up drank some coffee and still don’t care.
Originally Posted by TreeMutt
To believe that the Russians will employ T34s is about the most ridiculous assertion I have heard about this war yet! A bad joke, nyet?

The notion that the Russians are back to their Soviet WWII tactics of "human wave" attack is even more ludicrous and another example of establishment media propaganda. Their tactics are based mostly on ISR which is basically locate and identify the enemy and smash him with stand off weaponry. If human wave tactics are being employed it's by the Ukrainians.

Do you think the Russians are going to pull out all stops, use every weapon and tactic they have in Ukraine, when the specter of a NATO incursion is obviously a major consideration for them? Their stockpiles are there for a possible future conflict with NATO, That's called contingency planning.

MAGA!

TreeMutt,

Did you watch the video starting at 55 seconds where the Russian propogandist actually talked about pulling T-34's off war monuments and sending many thousands of them to Ukraine? If not watch the video, it's quite humorous of the current propaganda war. If the absurdity of this went over your head, there's a thread on good single malt whiskey's that might help.
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by TreeMutt
To believe that the Russians will employ T34s is about the most ridiculous assertion I have heard about this war yet! A bad joke, nyet?

The notion that the Russians are back to their Soviet WWII tactics of "human wave" attack is even more ludicrous and another example of establishment media propaganda. Their tactics are based mostly on ISR which is basically locate and identify the enemy and smash him with stand off weaponry. If human wave tactics are being employed it's by the Ukrainians.

Do you think the Russians are going to pull out all stops, use every weapon and tactic they have in Ukraine, when the specter of a NATO incursion is obviously a major consideration for them? Their stockpiles are there for a possible future conflict with NATO, That's called contingency planning.

MAGA!

TreeMutt,

Did you watch the video starting at 55 seconds where the Russian propogandist actually talked about pulling T-34's off war monuments and sending many thousands of them to Ukraine? If not watch the video, it's quite humorous of the current propaganda war. If the absurdity of this went over your head, there's a thread on good single malt whiskey's that might help.

I did watch it, but only once...."removing tanks from monument plinths"? I think the dude is being sarcastic...didn't he say "very inappropriate jokes by propagandists that we will be removing T34s from monuments" Then the other guy chimed in sarcastically, like yeah, we could do it if we wanted to.

All I saw were railcar loads of T55s moving in some direction.

But again, people believe what they want to believe.

MMAGA!
Have you flown the F 35?

How does it do in scenarios with employed air defense systems?

You can go back to your rocking chair now boomer





Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
Originally Posted by ribka
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
[Linked Image from external-content.duckduckgo.com]

1. The 747 example was used merely to illustrate the capabilities of the F-35's weapons suite, i.e., it excels in BVR scenarios, but SUCKS after the merge
2.The Tomcat was in service for over twenty five years and suffered from inadequate engines thanks to Jimmy Carter(the root cause of the infamous Kara Hultgren mishap). The issue, STUPID has to do with engine failures, whereas even a low ASVAP scoring idiot like you is the fact that the loss of one engine in a single engine platform means GAME OVER whereas a two engine platform obviously can keep on flying. Math is hard but two is better than one

Pro-tip: stick to what you know...oh wait. never mind.
Hey what was your MOS in the military?



Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by TreeMutt
To believe that the Russians will employ T34s is about the most ridiculous assertion I have heard about this war yet! A bad joke, nyet?

The notion that the Russians are back to their Soviet WWII tactics of "human wave" attack is even more ludicrous and another example of establishment media propaganda. Their tactics are based mostly on ISR which is basically locate and identify the enemy and smash him with stand off weaponry. If human wave tactics are being employed it's by the Ukrainians.

Do you think the Russians are going to pull out all stops, use every weapon and tactic they have in Ukraine, when the specter of a NATO incursion is obviously a major consideration for them? Their stockpiles are there for a possible future conflict with NATO, That's called contingency planning.

MAGA!

TreeMutt,

Did you watch the video starting at 55 seconds where the Russian propogandist actually talked about pulling T-34's off war monuments and sending many thousands of them to Ukraine? If not watch the video, it's quite humorous of the current propaganda war. If the absurdity of this went over your head, there's a thread on good single malt whiskey's that might help.
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
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
[Linked Image from external-content.duckduckgo.com]
Originally Posted by jorgeI
1. The 747 example was used merely to illustrate the capabilities of the F-35's weapons suite, i.e., it excels in BVR scenarios, but SUCKS after the merge
2.The Tomcat was in service for over twenty five years and suffered from inadequate engines thanks to Jimmy Carter(the root cause of the infamous Kara Hultgren mishap). The issue, STUPID has to do with engine failures, whereas even a low ASVAP scoring idiot like you is the fact that the loss of one engine in a single engine platform means GAME OVER whereas a two engine platform obviously can keep on flying. Math is hard but two is better than one

Pro-tip: stick to what you know...oh wait. never mind.

Obviously I know quite a bit more than you concerning the F-35.

The F-35 has a much better safety record than the Tomcat. That's simply a fact.

The F-35 excels at the merge because it can employ weapons 360 degrees and can PID at much longer range than anything else.

The world of mil aviation has gone well beyond your limited experience.

Originally Posted by HoorHay
[Linked Image from external-content.duckduckgo.com]
Wizardry, pure wizardry!
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
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
[Linked Image from external-content.duckduckgo.com]
Originally Posted by jorgeI
1. The 747 example was used merely to illustrate the capabilities of the F-35's weapons suite, i.e., it excels in BVR scenarios, but SUCKS after the merge
2.The Tomcat was in service for over twenty five years and suffered from inadequate engines thanks to Jimmy Carter(the root cause of the infamous Kara Hultgren mishap). The issue, STUPID has to do with engine failures, whereas even a low ASVAP scoring idiot like you is the fact that the loss of one engine in a single engine platform means GAME OVER whereas a two engine platform obviously can keep on flying. Math is hard but two is better than one

Pro-tip: stick to what you know...oh wait. never mind.

Obviously I know quite a bit more than you concerning the F-35.

The F-35 has a much better safety record than the Tomcat. That's simply a fact.

The F-35 excels at the merge because it can employ weapons 360 degrees and can PID at much longer range than anything else.

The world of mil aviation has gone well beyond your limited experience.

Originally Posted by HoorHay
[Linked Image from external-content.duckduckgo.com]

So how come your so freaking dumb about Putin kicking Zelenskys bum?


Russia Re-Uses Museum Tanks - When Militaries Bring Antiques Back Into Service
video posted to YouTube on Mar 16, 2023

It has emerged that Russia is quickly reconditioning hundreds of old T-62 tanks to serve in Ukraine - a tank design 60 years old! Some are being taken from museums! But Russia is not the only country to plunder museums for vehicles and spare parts, as this videos shows.

Dr. Mark Felton FRHistS, FRSA, is a well-known British historian, the author of 22 non-fiction books, including bestsellers 'Zero Night' and 'Castle of the Eagles', both currently being developed into movies in Hollywood. In addition to writing, Mark also appears regularly in television documentaries around the world, including on The History Channel, Netflix, National Geographic, Quest, American Heroes Channel and RMC Decouverte. His books have formed the background to several TV and radio documentaries.

YouTube channel: Mark Felton Productions
Bristoe said this couldn't happen.
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
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
[Linked Image from external-content.duckduckgo.com]
Originally Posted by jorgeI
1. The 747 example was used merely to illustrate the capabilities of the F-35's weapons suite, i.e., it excels in BVR scenarios, but SUCKS after the merge
2.The Tomcat was in service for over twenty five years and suffered from inadequate engines thanks to Jimmy Carter(the root cause of the infamous Kara Hultgren mishap). The issue, STUPID has to do with engine failures, whereas even a low ASVAP scoring idiot like you is the fact that the loss of one engine in a single engine platform means GAME OVER whereas a two engine platform obviously can keep on flying. Math is hard but two is better than one

Pro-tip: stick to what you know...oh wait. never mind.

Obviously I know quite a bit more than you concerning the F-35.

The F-35 has a much better safety record than the Tomcat. That's simply a fact.

The F-35 excels at the merge because it can employ weapons 360 degrees and can PID at much longer range than anything else.

The world of mil aviation has gone well beyond your limited experience.

Originally Posted by HoorHay
[Linked Image from external-content.duckduckgo.com]


Burns has to be the biggest idiot on 24 Hour, he claims to know more about fighter planes than Jorge, yet Jorge flew carrier based fighters and commanded an airwing

Jeez Loueez
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by Jcubed
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by Jcubed
Originally Posted by dassa
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by ribka
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.

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.
Some of the most entertaining stuff on here is when he tries to explain to you how military aviation works. The man is an expert's expert.


Would you rather be in a Mig?

How is that relevant? bu since you asked, an F-22...


They don't land on ships...

But I get your point.
Neither do MiGs..


Have to have a functioning carrier for Migs to land on...

Oh well.
Originally Posted by jwp475
Burns has to be the biggest idiot on 24 Hour, he claims to know more about fighter planes than Jorge, yet Jorge flew carrier based fighters and commanded an airwing

Jeez Loueez

There is a reason Ross took me seriously and you for a joke.

Just Sayin.
Originally Posted by jwp475
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
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
[Linked Image from external-content.duckduckgo.com]
Originally Posted by jorgeI
1. The 747 example was used merely to illustrate the capabilities of the F-35's weapons suite, i.e., it excels in BVR scenarios, but SUCKS after the merge
2.The Tomcat was in service for over twenty five years and suffered from inadequate engines thanks to Jimmy Carter(the root cause of the infamous Kara Hultgren mishap). The issue, STUPID has to do with engine failures, whereas even a low ASVAP scoring idiot like you is the fact that the loss of one engine in a single engine platform means GAME OVER whereas a two engine platform obviously can keep on flying. Math is hard but two is better than one

Pro-tip: stick to what you know...oh wait. never mind.

Obviously I know quite a bit more than you concerning the F-35.

The F-35 has a much better safety record than the Tomcat. That's simply a fact.

The F-35 excels at the merge because it can employ weapons 360 degrees and can PID at much longer range than anything else.

The world of mil aviation has gone well beyond your limited experience.

Originally Posted by HoorHay
[Linked Image from external-content.duckduckgo.com]


Burns has to be the biggest idiot on 24 Hour, he claims to know more about fighter planes than Jorge, yet Jorge flew carrier based fighters and commanded an airwing

Jeez Loueez

Burns has got to be joking, he can’t be this stupid can he?
Originally Posted by LBP
Originally Posted by jwp475
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
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
[Linked Image from external-content.duckduckgo.com]
Originally Posted by jorgeI
1. The 747 example was used merely to illustrate the capabilities of the F-35's weapons suite, i.e., it excels in BVR scenarios, but SUCKS after the merge
2.The Tomcat was in service for over twenty five years and suffered from inadequate engines thanks to Jimmy Carter(the root cause of the infamous Kara Hultgren mishap). The issue, STUPID has to do with engine failures, whereas even a low ASVAP scoring idiot like you is the fact that the loss of one engine in a single engine platform means GAME OVER whereas a two engine platform obviously can keep on flying. Math is hard but two is better than one

Pro-tip: stick to what you know...oh wait. never mind.

Obviously I know quite a bit more than you concerning the F-35.

The F-35 has a much better safety record than the Tomcat. That's simply a fact.

The F-35 excels at the merge because it can employ weapons 360 degrees and can PID at much longer range than anything else.

The world of mil aviation has gone well beyond your limited experience.

Originally Posted by HoorHay
[Linked Image from external-content.duckduckgo.com]


Burns has to be the biggest idiot on 24 Hour, he claims to know more about fighter planes than Jorge, yet Jorge flew carrier based fighters and commanded an airwing

Jeez Loueez

Burns has got to be joking, he can’t be this stupid can he?


Tell us about how incapable the F-35s are...

Please, be specific.
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
Originally Posted by jwp475
Burns has to be the biggest idiot on 24 Hour, he claims to know more about fighter planes than Jorge, yet Jorge flew carrier based fighters and commanded an airwing

Jeez Loueez

There is a reason Ross took me seriously and you for a joke.

Just Sayin.


You forgot to post a stupid meme.


Actually he didn't like what you were doing

video posted to YouTube on Sep 8, 2022



video posted to YouTube on Dec 30, 2022



video posted to YouTube on Feb 17, 2023


YouTube channel: Ward Carroll
Ward Carroll is a veteran F-14 Tomcat radar intercept officer, writer, and military storyteller.
Originally Posted by BFaucett

video posted to YouTube on Sep 8, 2022



video posted to YouTube on Dec 30, 2022



video posted to YouTube on Feb 17, 2023


YouTube channel: Ward Carroll
Ward Carroll is a veteran F-14 Tomcat radar intercept officer, writer, and military storyteller.


The F-14 was a plane before I was born.

Do you think it is better than a F-35?
Originally Posted by LBP
Originally Posted by jwp475
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
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
[Linked Image from external-content.duckduckgo.com]
Originally Posted by jorgeI
1. The 747 example was used merely to illustrate the capabilities of the F-35's weapons suite, i.e., it excels in BVR scenarios, but SUCKS after the merge
2.The Tomcat was in service for over twenty five years and suffered from inadequate engines thanks to Jimmy Carter(the root cause of the infamous Kara Hultgren mishap). The issue, STUPID has to do with engine failures, whereas even a low ASVAP scoring idiot like you is the fact that the loss of one engine in a single engine platform means GAME OVER whereas a two engine platform obviously can keep on flying. Math is hard but two is better than one

Pro-tip: stick to what you know...oh wait. never mind.

Obviously I know quite a bit more than you concerning the F-35.

The F-35 has a much better safety record than the Tomcat. That's simply a fact.

The F-35 excels at the merge because it can employ weapons 360 degrees and can PID at much longer range than anything else.

The world of mil aviation has gone well beyond your limited experience.

Originally Posted by HoorHay
[Linked Image from external-content.duckduckgo.com]


Burns has to be the biggest idiot on 24 Hour, he claims to know more about fighter planes than Jorge, yet Jorge flew carrier based fighters and commanded an airwing

Jeez Loueez

Burns has got to be joking, he can’t be this stupid can he?

Oh yes he can. He just spends some time on google and parrots a lot of bullshit and half truths. For example, comparing the safety record of an aircraft that served for over 25 years(Tomcat and the F-16) to a relatively new one (35) is absurd. He avoids the central issue that a single engine aircraft (35)is at a disadvantage over a twin engine (F-14) one over water for reasons that are so obvious to a moron (thus Burns) SHOULD capture and the issue of the F-35s superb weapons system with (on paper 360 engagement envelope which is has), but eventually, you get to the "merge" and in that regard the 35 is a DOG.

Overwight (hint) and underpowered. There are a lot more issues with the 35 that are carrier specific issues to list here, but why bother? listen to Burns, he "knows" his stuff!. And for the record, one does not need to have actually FLOWN a particular airframe to discuss it intelligently (thus leaving Burns and other out) . And no I wasn't a Fighter guy, just a lowly Viking driver, but I was a Top Gun graduate, fought and flew in a lot of different platforms and I am well versed in the 35, the biggest over budgeted boondoggle in aviation history. But again, listen to a guy whose experience is limited to Google and a couple of years as a gas station attendant in the Air Force. I only spent 30 years in the Navy with over five thousand hours and combat tours in several theaters.
Originally Posted by ribka
Have you flown the F 35?

How does it do in scenarios with employed air defense systems?

You can go back to your rocking chair now boomer





Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
Originally Posted by ribka
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
[Linked Image from external-content.duckduckgo.com]

1. The 747 example was used merely to illustrate the capabilities of the F-35's weapons suite, i.e., it excels in BVR scenarios, but SUCKS after the merge
2.The Tomcat was in service for over twenty five years and suffered from inadequate engines thanks to Jimmy Carter(the root cause of the infamous Kara Hultgren mishap). The issue, STUPID has to do with engine failures, whereas even a low ASVAP scoring idiot like you is the fact that the loss of one engine in a single engine platform means GAME OVER whereas a two engine platform obviously can keep on flying. Math is hard but two is better than one

Pro-tip: stick to what you know...oh wait. never mind.

To whom are you addressing this post to sir?
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by ribka
Have you flown the F 35?

How does it do in scenarios with employed air defense systems?

You can go back to your rocking chair now boomer





Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
Originally Posted by ribka
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
[Linked Image from external-content.duckduckgo.com]

1. The 747 example was used merely to illustrate the capabilities of the F-35's weapons suite, i.e., it excels in BVR scenarios, but SUCKS after the merge
2.The Tomcat was in service for over twenty five years and suffered from inadequate engines thanks to Jimmy Carter(the root cause of the infamous Kara Hultgren mishap). The issue, STUPID has to do with engine failures, whereas even a low ASVAP scoring idiot like you is the fact that the loss of one engine in a single engine platform means GAME OVER whereas a two engine platform obviously can keep on flying. Math is hard but two is better than one

Pro-tip: stick to what you know...oh wait. never mind.

To whom are you addressing this post to sir?


I'd assume Burns.

Are the sensors better on the F-35? BVR...is that a thing?
Originally Posted by Jcubed
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by ribka
Have you flown the F 35?

How does it do in scenarios with employed air defense systems?

You can go back to your rocking chair now boomer





Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
Originally Posted by ribka
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
[Linked Image from external-content.duckduckgo.com]

1. The 747 example was used merely to illustrate the capabilities of the F-35's weapons suite, i.e., it excels in BVR scenarios, but SUCKS after the merge
2.The Tomcat was in service for over twenty five years and suffered from inadequate engines thanks to Jimmy Carter(the root cause of the infamous Kara Hultgren mishap). The issue, STUPID has to do with engine failures, whereas even a low ASVAP scoring idiot like you is the fact that the loss of one engine in a single engine platform means GAME OVER whereas a two engine platform obviously can keep on flying. Math is hard but two is better than one

Pro-tip: stick to what you know...oh wait. never mind.

To whom are you addressing this post to sir?


I'd assume Burns.

Are the sensors better on the F-35? BVR...is that a thing?

IT has EXCELLENT BVR capabilities, hence my comment (and it's not mine, but from a well documented analysis of the 35) on the 747. Basically put the 35 sensors on a 747 and in a BVR scenario, it's damned good. I will say the 35 IS a tad better than a 747 in the merge though smile
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by Jcubed
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by ribka
Have you flown the F 35?

How does it do in scenarios with employed air defense systems?

You can go back to your rocking chair now boomer





Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
Originally Posted by ribka
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
[Linked Image from external-content.duckduckgo.com]

1. The 747 example was used merely to illustrate the capabilities of the F-35's weapons suite, i.e., it excels in BVR scenarios, but SUCKS after the merge
2.The Tomcat was in service for over twenty five years and suffered from inadequate engines thanks to Jimmy Carter(the root cause of the infamous Kara Hultgren mishap). The issue, STUPID has to do with engine failures, whereas even a low ASVAP scoring idiot like you is the fact that the loss of one engine in a single engine platform means GAME OVER whereas a two engine platform obviously can keep on flying. Math is hard but two is better than one

Pro-tip: stick to what you know...oh wait. never mind.

To whom are you addressing this post to sir?


I'd assume Burns.

Are the sensors better on the F-35? BVR...is that a thing?

IT has EXCELLENT BVR capabilities, hence my comment (and it's not mine, but from a well documented analysis of the 35) on the 747. Basically put the 35 sensors on a 747 and in a BVR scenario, it's damned good. I will say the 35 IS a tad better than a 747 in the merge though smile


So, today...

Would you want flying capability over sensors?
They are developing NGAD...
Originally Posted by Jcubed
Originally Posted by BFaucett
YouTube channel: Ward Carroll
Ward Carroll is a veteran F-14 Tomcat radar intercept officer, writer, and military storyteller.

The F-14 was a plane before I was born.

Do you think it is better than a F-35?


I'm not qualified to make an informed judgment on that. I do think the F-35 program has been a big boondoggle financially.
Originally Posted by BFaucett
Originally Posted by Jcubed
Originally Posted by BFaucett
YouTube channel: Ward Carroll
Ward Carroll is a veteran F-14 Tomcat radar intercept officer, writer, and military storyteller.

The F-14 was a plane before I was born.

Do you think it is better than a F-35?


I'm not qualified to make an informed judgment on that. I do think the F-35 program has been a big boondoggle financially.


So, not qualified but says it is crap...

Ok.
Originally Posted by jorgeI
IT has EXCELLENT BVR capabilities, hence my comment (and it's not mine, but from a well documented analysis of the 35) on the 747. Basically put the 35 sensors on a 747 and in a BVR scenario, it's damned good. I will say the 35 IS a tad better than a 747 in the merge though smile

Nothing flying but the F-22 has a chance with it at the merge or in any aspect.

FACT.

While the F-35 has even better HOA than the SuperBug it does not need to turn to employ missles.

F-35 can target everything 360 degrees. The adversary is no safer on it's six than right off the nose.

You're simply well beyond your understanding about modern aircraft and systems.

Originally Posted by ...Joint Strike Fighter enters the thread
[Linked Image from external-content.duckduckgo.com]
They should just scrap the F-35 right now and move to the next thing. In today’s age there is absolutely no reason to have an airframe that is a compromise in so many ways.

Take the sensors suite and electronics package of the F-35 and build airframes that do what you want. Make them modular and plug and play. The airframe is the cheap part of the package. Just add some more or less standardized software and go.

You could have a 4.5 generation non-stealthy bomb truck with F-35 sensors. You could have a stealthy tubby strike airframe with F-35 sensors. You could have a stealthy dedicated air superiority airframe with the sensors. You could have a high and very fast interceptor version with the sensors.

Standardize on the software as much as you can instead of the airframe. Airframes are relatively easy. We’ve got 75 years of building jets and we’ve reached the point where the limits of what can be done are more about the human body than technology. The engineering behind building an airframe that will do anything we want it to do isn’t too hard. But the air frame isn’t what makes the F-35 special. So why take the “special” part and force it into an inferior airframe designed to do ten different roles instead of being the best at one or two.
Originally Posted by JoeBob
They should just scrap the F-35 right now and move to the next thing. In today’s age there is absolutely no reason to have an airframe that is a compromise in so many ways.

Take the sensors suite and electronics package of the F-35 and build airframes that do what you want. Make them modular and plug and play. The airframe is the cheap part of the package. Just add some more or less standardized software and go.

You could have a 4.5 generation non-stealthy bomb truck with F-35 sensors. You could have a stealthy tubby strike airframe with F-35 sensors. You could have a stealthy dedicated air superiority airframe with the sensors. You could have a high and very fast interceptor version with the sensors.

Standardize on the software as much as you can instead of the airframe. Airframes are relatively easy. We’ve got 75 years of building jets and we’ve reached the point where the limits of what can be done are more about the human body than technology. The engineering behind building an airframe that will do anything we want it to do isn’t too hard. But the air frame isn’t what makes the F-35 special. So why take the “special” part and force it into an inferior airframe designed to do ten different roles instead of being the best at one or two.


So, the B-21?
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
[
Nothing flying but the F-22 has a chance with it at the merge or in any aspect.

FACT.

Show me the V/N diagrams on the 35 (Hint: they are classified so I know you haven't seen them. Hint #2 I have) and then maybe we can discuss. Hint# 3 there are QUITE A FEW Fourth Generation fighters with superior V?N diagrams to the 35. Both the F-16 and the 15 FAR out climb the the 35.... Choke on it gas passer.
Originally Posted by ribka
Hey what was your MOS in the military?



Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by TreeMutt
To believe that the Russians will employ T34s is about the most ridiculous assertion I have heard about this war yet! A bad joke, nyet?

The notion that the Russians are back to their Soviet WWII tactics of "human wave" attack is even more ludicrous and another example of establishment media propaganda. Their tactics are based mostly on ISR which is basically locate and identify the enemy and smash him with stand off weaponry. If human wave tactics are being employed it's by the Ukrainians.

Do you think the Russians are going to pull out all stops, use every weapon and tactic they have in Ukraine, when the specter of a NATO incursion is obviously a major consideration for them? Their stockpiles are there for a possible future conflict with NATO, That's called contingency planning.

MAGA!

TreeMutt,

Did you watch the video starting at 55 seconds where the Russian propogandist actually talked about pulling T-34's off war monuments and sending many thousands of them to Ukraine? If not watch the video, it's quite humorous of the current propaganda war. If the absurdity of this went over your head, there's a thread on good single malt whiskey's that might help.

MOS?, None but I been in my share of bar fights with military guys and I was not impressed.

Some play the "what military" thing over and over, ad nauseam, like a libtard plays the race card when they are at a loss and losing an argument.

What makes you think all military experts were in the military?

MAGA!
Originally Posted by Jcubed
So, not qualified but says it is crap...

Ok.

That's not what I stated. I said I think the F-35 program was a big boondoggle financially. That is not a comment about the actual aircraft.
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
[
Nothing flying but the F-22 has a chance with it at the merge or in any aspect.

FACT.

Show me the V/N diagrams on the 35 (Hint: they are classified so I know you haven't seen them. Hint #2 I have) and then maybe we can discuss. Hint# 3 there are QUITE A FEW Fourth Generation fighters with superior V?N diagrams to the 35. Both the F-16 and the 15 FAR out climb the the 35.... Choke on it gas passer.


But that's not what the F-35 was supposed to do.

Sensors...beyond BVR.

Etc.

It was supposed to be a node. Was it not?
Originally Posted by Jcubed
Would you want flying capability over sensors?

How about I'll take the F-22? (i'm covered)
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by Jcubed
Would you want flying capability over sensors?

How about I'll take the F-22? (i'm covered)


They are retiring the platform.
Maybe you read those classified briefings?
Originally Posted by Jcubed
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
[
Nothing flying but the F-22 has a chance with it at the merge or in any aspect.

FACT.

Show me the V/N diagrams on the 35 (Hint: they are classified so I know you haven't seen them. Hint #2 I have) and then maybe we can discuss. Hint# 3 there are QUITE A FEW Fourth Generation fighters with superior V?N diagrams to the 35. Both the F-16 and the 15 FAR out climb the the 35.... Choke on it gas passer.


But that's not what the F-35 was supposed to do.

Sensors...beyond BVR.

Etc.

It was supposed to be a node. Was it not?

No sir. it was supposed to do ALL of those things including CAS which it CAN do with modern standoff munitions like JADAM/JSOW, otherwise, it's way too expensive to expose to a CAS mission in the traditional sense. Look if you look at the original Statement of Work (SOW), pricing on the 35 and what we actually purchased, it is just not performing to standards.
Originally Posted by Jcubed
Maybe you read those classified briefings?


Mayne I did.
It doesn't do CAS.
Originally Posted by Jcubed
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by Jcubed
Would you want flying capability over sensors?

How about I'll take the F-22? (i'm covered)


They are retiring the platform.

The 22 is another example of going WAY over budget, but the biggest difference between it at the 35, is that it met IOC AND SOW expectations, whereas the 35 (look at the videos above for startters0 wasn't even close
Originally Posted by Jcubed
It doesn't do CAS.


I most certainly can with standoff weapons.
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by Jcubed
It doesn't do CAS.


I most certainly can with standoff weapons.


Yes, but not CAS.

You flew...
Dropping bombs from 35k ain't a warthog at 1k.

Sorry.
Originally Posted by Jcubed
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by Jcubed
It doesn't do CAS.


I most certainly can with standoff weapons.


Yes, but not CAS.

You flew...

Semantics, CAS CAN begone with standoff weapons... I saw it happen..

[video:youtube]https://i.imgur.com/tijZKih.mp4[/video]
Originally Posted by Jcubed
Dropping bombs from 35k ain't a warthog at 1k.

Sorry.

Sorry, but no. a three meter CEP is a 3 meter CEP no matter what altitude..
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by Jcubed
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by Jcubed
It doesn't do CAS.


I most certainly can with standoff weapons.


Yes, but not CAS.

You flew...

Semantics, CAS CAN begone with standoff weapons... I saw it happen..

[video:youtube]https://i.imgur.com/tijZKih.mp4[/video]


But that's not CAS. C being close.
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by Jcubed
Dropping bombs from 35k ain't a warthog at 1k.

Sorry.

Sorry, but no. a three meter CEP is a 3 meter CEP no matter what altitude..

PS: A Warthog at 1K in an S-300 environment is also called a GRAPE>

Thinking about the future...

This was back in 2013. Lots of advances lately in Artificial Intelligence. Think of the possibilities.



X-47B Completes First Carrier-based Arrested Landing
"The X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System (UCAS) demonstrator completed its first carrier-based arrested landing on board USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77) off the coast of Virginia July 10."
video posted to YouTube on July 10, 2013
YouTube channel: U.S. Navy
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by Jcubed
Dropping bombs from 35k ain't a warthog at 1k.

Sorry.

Sorry, but no. a three meter CEP is a 3 meter CEP no matter what altitude..

PS: A Warthog at 1K in an S-300 environment is also called a GRAPE>

PS: enjoyed the back and forth with you, but it's whisky drinking'/cigar time. AMF!
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by Jcubed
Dropping bombs from 35k ain't a warthog at 1k.

Sorry.

Sorry, but no. a three meter CEP is a 3 meter CEP no matter what altitude..

PS: A Warthog at 1K in an S-300 environment is also called a GRAPE>


I'd assume you guys would have air superiority at that point?
Something Russia forgot, if you are honest.
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by Jcubed
Dropping bombs from 35k ain't a warthog at 1k.

Sorry.

Sorry, but no. a three meter CEP is a 3 meter CEP no matter what altitude..

PS: A Warthog at 1K in an S-300 environment is also called a GRAPE>

PS: enjoyed the back and forth with you, but it's whisky drinking'/cigar time. AMF!


Enjoy, Sir!
Originally Posted by jorgeI
... And no I wasn't a Fighter guy, just a lowly Viking driver, but I was a Top Gun graduate, fought and flew in a lot of different platforms and I am well versed in the 35, the biggest over budgeted boondoggle in aviation history. ...

BTW, in case anyone here doesn't know what a Viking is.



The video's description on YouTube:

"The Lockheed S-3 Viking was a jet aircraft used by the United States Navy to identify, track, and destroy enemy submarines. In the late 1990s, the S-3B's mission focus shifted to surface warfare and aerial refueling. The Viking also provided electronic warfare and surface surveillance capabilities to the carrier battle group.

A carrier-based, subsonic, all-weather, multi-mission aircraft with long range, it carried automated weapon systems, and was capable of extended missions with in-flight refueling. Because of the engines high-pitched sound, it was nicknamed the "Hoover" after the brand of vacuum cleaner. The US Navy retired the S-3 Viking in January 2009, with its missions being assumed by other platforms."

Cheers, jorge! Bob F.
Lowly Viking driver, lol.

You did enough Jorge. Thanks.
Originally Posted by Jcubed
Originally Posted by LBP
Originally Posted by jwp475
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
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
[Linked Image from external-content.duckduckgo.com]
Originally Posted by jorgeI
1. The 747 example was used merely to illustrate the capabilities of the F-35's weapons suite, i.e., it excels in BVR scenarios, but SUCKS after the merge
2.The Tomcat was in service for over twenty five years and suffered from inadequate engines thanks to Jimmy Carter(the root cause of the infamous Kara Hultgren mishap). The issue, STUPID has to do with engine failures, whereas even a low ASVAP scoring idiot like you is the fact that the loss of one engine in a single engine platform means GAME OVER whereas a two engine platform obviously can keep on flying. Math is hard but two is better than one

Pro-tip: stick to what you know...oh wait. never mind.

Obviously I know quite a bit more than you concerning the F-35.

The F-35 has a much better safety record than the Tomcat. That's simply a fact.

The F-35 excels at the merge because it can employ weapons 360 degrees and can PID at much longer range than anything else.

The world of mil aviation has gone well beyond your limited experience.

Originally Posted by HoorHay
[Linked Image from external-content.duckduckgo.com]


Burns has to be the biggest idiot on 24 Hour, he claims to know more about fighter planes than Jorge, yet Jorge flew carrier based fighters and commanded an airwing

Jeez Loueez

Burns has got to be joking, he can’t be this stupid can he?


Tell us about how incapable the F-35s are...

Please, be specific.

I don’t know anything about the 35’s capability but clearly Jorge does. It was Burns battle of wits with Jorge I was referring to.
Originally Posted by LBP
Originally Posted by Jcubed
Originally Posted by LBP
Originally Posted by jwp475
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
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
[Linked Image from external-content.duckduckgo.com]
Originally Posted by jorgeI
1. The 747 example was used merely to illustrate the capabilities of the F-35's weapons suite, i.e., it excels in BVR scenarios, but SUCKS after the merge
2.The Tomcat was in service for over twenty five years and suffered from inadequate engines thanks to Jimmy Carter(the root cause of the infamous Kara Hultgren mishap). The issue, STUPID has to do with engine failures, whereas even a low ASVAP scoring idiot like you is the fact that the loss of one engine in a single engine platform means GAME OVER whereas a two engine platform obviously can keep on flying. Math is hard but two is better than one

Pro-tip: stick to what you know...oh wait. never mind.

Obviously I know quite a bit more than you concerning the F-35.

The F-35 has a much better safety record than the Tomcat. That's simply a fact.

The F-35 excels at the merge because it can employ weapons 360 degrees and can PID at much longer range than anything else.

The world of mil aviation has gone well beyond your limited experience.

Originally Posted by HoorHay
[Linked Image from external-content.duckduckgo.com]


Burns has to be the biggest idiot on 24 Hour, he claims to know more about fighter planes than Jorge, yet Jorge flew carrier based fighters and commanded an airwing

Jeez Loueez

Burns has got to be joking, he can’t be this stupid can he?


Tell us about how incapable the F-35s are...

Please, be specific.

I don’t know anything about the 35’s capability but clearly Jorge does. It was Burns battle of wits with Jorge I was referring to.


Copy.
I'm in favor of the Russians sending their soldiers to war in T-34/85s, T-54/55s, and T-62s for all of the obvious reasons.
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by Jcubed
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by Jcubed
Would you want flying capability over sensors?

How about I'll take the F-22? (i'm covered)
They are retiring the platform.

The 22 is another example of going WAY over budget, but the biggest difference between it at the 35, is that it met IOC AND SOW expectations, whereas the 35 (look at the videos above for startters0 wasn't even close

Damn you're a silly old man.

All 3 F-35 have met IOC years ago.

And the F-22 still does not have IRST across the fleet.

Originally Posted by ...HoorHay
[Linked Image from external-content.duckduckgo.com]
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by Jcubed
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by Jcubed
Would you want flying capability over sensors?

How about I'll take the F-22? (i'm covered)
They are retiring the platform.

The 22 is another example of going WAY over budget, but the biggest difference between it at the 35, is that it met IOC AND SOW expectations, whereas the 35 (look at the videos above for startters0 wasn't even close

Damn you're a silly old man.

All 3 F-35 have met IOC years ago.

And the F-22 still does not have IRST across the fleet.

Originally Posted by ...HoorHay
[Linked Image from external-content.duckduckgo.com]

F-22 can't even communicate with the fleet.

It can fly...
Originally Posted by Jcubed
F-22 can't even communicate with the fleet.

It can fly...

F-22 loath to emit any signals.

I do know the AF is actively working the issue of comms across all platforms.

F-35s are networked together over the MADL making a huge sensor platform with a fused view of the battlespace.

F-35 can talk to Aegis Baseline 9 in MADL. F-35 can guide SM-6s from Aegis destroyers and cruisers to intercepts.
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by Jcubed
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by Jcubed
Would you want flying capability over sensors?

How about I'll take the F-22? (i'm covered)
They are retiring the platform.

The 22 is another example of going WAY over budget, but the biggest difference between it at the 35, is that it met IOC AND SOW expectations, whereas the 35 (look at the videos above for startters0 wasn't even close

Damn you're a silly old man.

All 3 F-35 have met IOC years ago.

And the F-22 still does not have IRST across the fleet.

Originally Posted by ...HoorHay
[Linked Image from external-content.duckduckgo.com]

Maybe so, but you are plain stupid. OF COURSE the 35 was IOC years ago, otherwise it would not be deployed with the services you moron. My point, which your alcoholic/cough syrup addled brain failed to capture was the 35 DID NOT MEET OPEVAL requirements (just like for example the Hornet failed OPEVAL yet we deployed it anyway) and it still has a crapload of critical failures. Man you are truly an idiot.
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Maybe so, but you are plain stupid. OF COURSE the 35 was IOC years ago, otherwise it would not be deployed with the services you moron. My point, which your alcoholic/cough syrup addled brain failed to capture was the 35 DID NOT MEET OPEVAL requirements (just like for example the Hornet failed OPEVAL yet we deployed it anyway) and it still has a crapload of critical failures. Man you are truly an idiot.

[Linked Image from external-content.duckduckgo.com]

So we agree you didn't understand that the F-35 met IOC years ago but you still used those words in your post and now want to use different words.

Originally Posted by ... Old Man George trying to figure out how to type words
[Linked Image from external-content.duckduckgo.com]
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Maybe so, but you are plain stupid. OF COURSE the 35 was IOC years ago, otherwise it would not be deployed with the services you moron. My point, which your alcoholic/cough syrup addled brain failed to capture was the 35 DID NOT MEET OPEVAL requirements (just like for example the Hornet failed OPEVAL yet we deployed it anyway) and it still has a crapload of critical failures. Man you are truly an idiot.

[Linked Image from external-content.duckduckgo.com]

So we agree you didn't understand that the F-35 met IOC years ago but you still used those words in your post and now want to use different words.

Originally Posted by ... Old Man George trying to figure out how to type words
[Linked Image from external-content.duckduckgo.com]

Man, you are a f ucking moon. IOC and OPEVAL are two different issues. The Hornet failed OPEVAL yet it still IOC'd. two different issues. The 35 still has literally dozens of critical failure issues. Stick to what you know as obviously it isn't this
The trillion dollar plane still plagued by issues

https://breakingdefense.com/2023/03/engine-woes-dominate-f-35-hearing-but-other-issues-remain/


Originally Posted by BFaucett
Originally Posted by Jcubed
Originally Posted by BFaucett
YouTube channel: Ward Carroll
Ward Carroll is a veteran F-14 Tomcat radar intercept officer, writer, and military storyteller.

The F-14 was a plane before I was born.

Do you think it is better than a F-35?


I'm not qualified to make an informed judgment on that. I do think the F-35 program has been a big boondoggle financially.
Originally Posted by jorgeI
The 22 is another example of going WAY over budget, but the biggest difference between it at the 35, is that it met IOC AND SOW expectations, whereas the 35 (look at the videos above for startters0 wasn't even close

Originally Posted by jorgeI
OF COURSE the 35 was IOC years ago, otherwise it would not be deployed with the services you moron. .

Originally Posted by JohnBurns
So we agree you didn't understand that the F-35 met IOC years ago but you still used those words in your post and now want to use different words.

Originally Posted by jorgeI
Man, you are a f ucking moon. IOC and OPEVAL are two different issues. The Hornet failed OPEVAL yet it still IOC'd. two different issues. The 35 still has literally dozens of critical failure issues. [Linked Image from external-content.duckduckgo.com]

Well the record is pretty clear on your posts.

Maybe we can move on and you can tell the class the "literally dozens of critical failure issues" of the Block 3 F-35s.

A numbered list instead of bullets point would help everyone out.

[Linked Image from imagizer.imageshack.com]
Easier than gluing beachballs to the deck and watching retards try to kick them..

POS 35
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Easier than gluing beachballs to the deck and watching retards try to kick them..

POS 35

Yet again you are lying when you posted:


Originally Posted by Lying George yelling at clouds
The 35 still has literally dozens of critical failure issues.
[Linked Image from external-content.duckduckgo.com]
Russia owns the sky over Ukraine.

https://twitter.com/BrianJBerletic/status/1641356953514569728
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Easier than gluing beachballs to the deck and watching retards try to kick them..

POS 35

Yet again you are lying when you posted:


Originally Posted by Lying George yelling at clouds
The 35 still has literally dozens of critical failure issues.
[Linked Image from external-content.duckduckgo.com]



Yet again the Wyoming wingwiper mocks a combat vet.

#callsignholstersniffer


mike r
Originally Posted by lvmiker
Yet again the Wyoming wingwiper mocks a combat vet.

#callsignholstersniffer

mike r

I have mocked and been mocked by many combat vets.

They don't try and hide behind the staus and can discuss and bust balls without needing special care.

Funny your first thought is for OLD George to play the Vet card to keep him safe on the internet.

#SafeSpace

[Linked Image from imagizer.imageshack.com]
Originally Posted by Bristoe

Tweet says "Use of military aviation along line of contact may indicate deterioration of Ukraine's air defenses" but Bristoe reads, and subsequently declares, that "Russia owns the sky over Ukraine."

That's his idea of facts.
Originally Posted by plumbum
Originally Posted by Bristoe

Tweet says "Use of military aviation along line of contact may indicate deterioration of Ukraine's air defenses" but Bristoe reads, and subsequently declares, that "Russia owns the sky over Ukraine."

That's his idea of facts.

What Bristoe hears in his head is never what the author or poster typed.

He uses the "Bristoe Filter" to make sure it confirms his bias.

But it is funny to watch in a sad funny way.
Originally Posted by plumbum
Originally Posted by Bristoe

Tweet says "Use of military aviation along line of contact may indicate deterioration of Ukraine's air defenses" but Bristoe reads, and subsequently declares, that "Russia owns the sky over Ukraine."

That's his idea of facts.


If Russia owned the sky...this would have been a three day special operation.
Originally Posted by Jcubed
Originally Posted by plumbum
Originally Posted by Bristoe

Tweet says "Use of military aviation along line of contact may indicate deterioration of Ukraine's air defenses" but Bristoe reads, and subsequently declares, that "Russia owns the sky over Ukraine."

That's his idea of facts.


If Russia owned the sky...this would have been a three day special operation.

Ok Patton.

We completely owned the skies in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, Syria, Somalia, Yemen and bombed the schit out of civilians to establish flourishing democracies. How did that work out for the US? lol
Originally Posted by Jcubed
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by Jcubed
Would you want flying capability over sensors?

How about I'll take the F-22? (i'm covered)

They are retiring the platform.

Rumor is it's successor's coming along very nicely.

Think F-22 plus the networking etc. of the F-35 plus a few more new tricks
Originally Posted by ribka
Originally Posted by Jcubed
Originally Posted by plumbum
Originally Posted by Bristoe

Tweet says "Use of military aviation along line of contact may indicate deterioration of Ukraine's air defenses" but Bristoe reads, and subsequently declares, that "Russia owns the sky over Ukraine."

That's his idea of facts.


If Russia owned the sky...this would have been a three day special operation.

Ok Patton.

We completely owned the skies in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, Syria, Somalia, Yemen and bombed the schit out of civilians to establish flourishing democracies. How did that work out for the US? lol


Answer you own question...

100 hr war...heard of it?

Putin tried, I stress tried, to do the same thing...3 day special operation. Heard of it?

It failed...over a year later here we are.

Tell us more.
Originally Posted by Jcubed
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by Jcubed
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by Jcubed
It doesn't do CAS.


I most certainly can with standoff weapons.


Yes, but not CAS.

You flew...

Semantics, CAS CAN begone with standoff weapons... I saw it happen..

[video:youtube]https://i.imgur.com/tijZKih.mp4[/video]


But that's not CAS. C being close.

In Afghanistan we were performing CAS with B-52's.
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by Jcubed
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by Jcubed
Would you want flying capability over sensors?

How about I'll take the F-22? (i'm covered)

They are retiring the platform.

Rumor is it's successor's coming along very nicely.

Think F-22 plus the networking etc. of the F-35 plus a few more new tricks

It's fun to speculate on these things.

With the B-21 on the horizon one wonders what if any Air to Air it will sport?

It's going to have a very powerful AESA radar for sure and will network into the F-35.

How many Aim 120s can fit in the bomb bays?
Originally Posted by ribka
Originally Posted by Jcubed
If Russia owned the sky...this would have been a three day special operation.
Ok Patton.

We completely owned the skies in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, Syria, Somalia, Yemen and bombed the schit out of civilians to establish flourishing democracies. How did that work out for the US? lol

We very quickly took control of the countries and seats of Goverment except in Syria and Yemen where we never did establish air dominance.

Then we dealt with insurgencys that out lasted our will and the skill of or our political leaders.

What was your MOS?
[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]
[Linked Image from external-content.duckduckgo.com]
Originally Posted by LRoyJetson
[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]
[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]
Originally Posted by ribka
Originally Posted by Jcubed
Originally Posted by plumbum
Originally Posted by Bristoe

Tweet says "Use of military aviation along line of contact may indicate deterioration of Ukraine's air defenses" but Bristoe reads, and subsequently declares, that "Russia owns the sky over Ukraine."

That's his idea of facts.


If Russia owned the sky...this would have been a three day special operation.

Ok Patton.

We completely owned the skies in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, Syria, Somalia, Yemen and bombed the schit out of civilians to establish flourishing democracies. How did that work out for the US? lol

I won't pretend to know a damn thing about fighters or how air supremacy ties into strategic war planning, but an important distinction here is that we 'invaded' those countries as liberators, not conquerors. If we had intended to conquer, those conflicts would have been waged and ended MUCH differently.

Due to the tactics used, I am guessing Russia's real intent was to totally conquer Ukraine, and has failed to do so due to whatever conspiracy theory a guy wants to dream up.
But why would they want to?


Especially when they have told the world otherwise....over and over.
No clue Jimbo....no clue.
Maybe ask Jag or Bristoe?
Originally Posted by Jim_Conrad
But why would they want to?


Especially when they have told the world otherwise....over and over.


Originally Posted by JimmyBoi Corn learning that Murderous Orcs dont always tell the truth
[Linked Image from external-content.duckduckgo.com]
[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]
Originally Posted by LRoyJetson
[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]
LMAO
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Easier than gluing beachballs to the deck and watching retards try to kick them..

POS 35

Yet again you are lying when you posted:


Originally Posted by Lying George yelling at clouds
The 35 still has literally dozens of critical failure issues.
[Linked Image from external-content.duckduckgo.com]

Figure out the beach balls are glued down yet?
myriad

But here's a whole page full of them, CHEETO...
assload
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Easier than gluing beachballs to the deck and watching retards try to kick them..

POS 35

Yet again you are lying when you posted:


Originally Posted by Lying George yelling at clouds
The 35 still has literally dozens of critical failure issues.
[Linked Image from external-content.duckduckgo.com]
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Figure out the beach balls are glued down yet?
myriad

But here's a whole page full of them, CHEETO...
assload

Yet again you are lying when you posted:

Originally Posted by Lying George yelling at clouds
The 35 still has literally dozens of critical failure issues.
[Linked Image from external-content.duckduckgo.com]

It's getting funny that you can't post anything current to back up your continued LIES.
Hmm, using all caps, must have struck a nerve. Fugly losers are sensitive that way...
Like the typical fat kid loser, in the back of the bus whining ...

Originally Posted by jorgeI
Hmm, using all caps, must have struck a nerve. Fugly losers are sensitive that way...

Caps-lock key stuck due to buildup of CHEETO DUST
Originally Posted by JohnBurns
[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]
As for the T-34s, Russian had to purchase some T-34s from Indonesia a few years ago to use as memorials, parades, museums, ect.

They probably have more T-72s than any other. But they've been manufacturing T-90s almost exclusively recently.
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
You can't make this stuff up.
Skip to 55 seconds:


Today I read about Russia using a T-55 as a VBIED against Ukrainian forces, who appear to have stopped it short.
Russia a great place to live. crazy Navalny is facing 20 years for being an "extremist" (i.e., criticizing the gubmint). Just amazing that so many so-called "deep-state" haters here support one of most "statist" countries in the world.
Originally Posted by plumbum
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
You can't make this stuff up.
Skip to 55 seconds:


Today I read about Russia using a T-55 as a VBIED against Ukrainian forces, who appear to have stopped it short.


Kind of similar article.

T-55 Tanks in use by RU
Originally Posted by Tarquin
Russia a great place to live. crazy Navalny is facing 20 years for being an "extremist" (i.e., criticizing the gubmint). Just amazing that so many so-called "deep-state" haters here support one of most "statist" countries in the world.


After January 6th you have no business pointing the finger.
Originally Posted by Tarquin
Russia a great place to live. crazy Navalny is facing 20 years for being an "extremist" (i.e., criticizing the gubmint). Just amazing that so many so-called "deep-state" haters here support one of most "statist" countries in the world.

LOL…you are one stupid phuqe.
Originally Posted by Tarquin
Russia a great place to live. crazy Navalny is facing 20 years for being an "extremist" (i.e., criticizing the gubmint). Just amazing that so many so-called "deep-state" haters here support one of most "statist" countries in the world.
Go play in the traffic.
Originally Posted by Tarquin
Russia a great place to live. crazy Navalny is facing 20 years for being an "extremist" (i.e., criticizing the gubmint). Just amazing that so many so-called "deep-state" haters here support one of most "statist" countries in the world.

Imagine being stupid enough to crow about Russia while our government is convicting people and trying to send them to prison for ten years for memes.



https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/p...key-convicted-election-interference-2016
Originally Posted by JoeBob
Originally Posted by Tarquin
Russia a great place to live. crazy Navalny is facing 20 years for being an "extremist" (i.e., criticizing the gubmint). Just amazing that so many so-called "deep-state" haters here support one of most "statist" countries in the world.

Imagine being stupid enough to crow about Russia while our government is convicting people and trying to send them to prison for ten years for memes.



https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/p...key-convicted-election-interference-2016


Regardless of who does it, does it make it less wrong?

Ymmv
Originally Posted by Jcubed
Regardless of who does it, does it make it less wrong?

Ymmv

That's a really stupid question.
Originally Posted by deflave
Originally Posted by Jcubed
Regardless of who does it, does it make it less wrong?

Ymmv

That's a really stupid question.


Nah. Wrong is wrong.
Originally Posted by Jcubed
Nah. Wrong is wrong.

And stupid is stupid.
Originally Posted by deflave
Originally Posted by Jcubed
Nah. Wrong is wrong.

And stupid is stupid.


Don't hold back...go on...flame away!
Originally Posted by Jcubed
Don't hold back...go on...flame away!

What more need be said?
Lol... ok flave. Have a good one.
I used to ask my tank gunnery students a question, what will kill you deader a 1911 45 cal pistol or a 45 cal percussion pistol. Dead is dead if you have good crews that know how to fight their equipment beware. The old m551a1 sheridan can still kill anything that crawls on the battlefield, to include the m1 tank, it will take it apart in a second.
Cuckraine's havin ta dig up old graves, ta make room for the new fallen soldiers.
[quote=ribka]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

What makes you think that they actually were there to win a war?
Originally Posted by Tarquin
Russia a great place to live. crazy Navalny is facing 20 years for being an "extremist" (i.e., criticizing the gubmint). Just amazing that so many so-called "deep-state" haters here support one of most "statist" countries in the world.


In the US we have over a thousand innocent Americans ( many decorated military vets) facing up to 15 years in prison for peacefully protesting a rigged election in DC while BLM and Antifa burned down American cities murdered police officers and were never arrested

Trump will be indicted and arrested a third time by his political opponent and leader of the US

Sex with children has been legalized now and is celebrated for the entire month of June.

Hundreds of blacks were shot on their national holiday yesterday by other blacks

Over 6 million illegal immigrants flooded into out countries with 100's of tons of fentanyl the past 3 years and were given free healthcare while Americans go bankrupt and can't afford healthcare


We have drag queen strip shows for children on our military bases and no one wants to serve in the US military now because everyone knows what a clown show our country is now

I have to agree Russia is a terrible place tar queen.

Tarqueen You never fail show what an uninformed idiot you are
Originally Posted by Huntz
[quote=ribka]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

What makes you think that they actually were there to win a war?

How about Korea, Vietnam, Somalia twice, Iraq twice, Syria, Lebanon. we lost all of those wars against goat herders too.

Americans can never get enough wars
Originally Posted by Huntz
What makes you think that they actually were there to win a war?


That is actually an interesting question.
Originally Posted by JSTUART
Originally Posted by Huntz
What makes you think that they actually were there to win a war?


That is actually an interesting question.


Americans haven't figured that out yet. Wars make certain people a lot of money regardless of outcome. There's you answer

Gen Ike at the end of his presidency knew warned Americans and JFK jr knew the answer. JFK jr was murdered because he pushed back on endless wars
Originally Posted by JoeBob
Originally Posted by Tarquin
Russia a great place to live. crazy Navalny is facing 20 years for being an "extremist" (i.e., criticizing the gubmint). Just amazing that so many so-called "deep-state" haters here support one of most "statist" countries in the world.

Imagine being stupid enough to crow about Russia while our government is convicting people and trying to send them to prison for ten years for memes.



https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/p...key-convicted-election-interference-2016

Tarqueen brags he supports a pedophile like Biden who just had his apolitical opponent Trump indicted and arrested for a second time and complains about facism.



Tarqueen's idiocy is famous on here
[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]

[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]
© 24hourcampfire