this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2023
119 points (93.4% liked)
GenZedong
4243 readers
167 users here now
This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.
This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.
We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.
Rules:
- No bigotry, anti-communism, pro-imperialism or ultra-leftism (anti-AES)
- We support indigenous liberation as the primary contradiction in settler colonies like the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel
- If you post an archived link (excluding archive.org), include the URL of the original article as well
- Unless it's an obvious shitpost, include relevant sources
- For articles behind paywalls, try to include the text in the post
- Mark all posts containing NSFW images as NSFW (including things like Nazi imagery)
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Are F16’s even good? I ask as someone that knows Jack shit about weapons.
They seems average. They do have at least one significant flaw, that large air intake apparently suck up things from runway during take off, which is why the plane need clean airstrip and it could be hard to get when Russians can just strike wherever they want with missiles. And of course the enemy air superiority also make them abot as useful as every other plane, that is not very much after getting bombed while on land.
plus, another thing to put on the table is how well it operates with the other hardware, the country's tactics and war discipline.
all modern armies work with the combined arms concept, meaning the air force for example it is not a separated entity, it needs the ground forces and the ground need them and so on, not as simples as 1 + 1 = 2.
this is one of the major flaws in ukrainian army, they received a bunch of hardware from different countries and different times, nato and warsaw, nothing combines with each other
The first F-16 flew in 1974
I was going to say that F-16s have been steadily upgraded since then but then realized that they'll probably be given the oldest, shittiest, machines that could charitably fit a loose definition of "airworthy".
Obviously, it's an earlier version of the superior M16 because F is before M in the alphabet.
This is a common misconception, actually the F in F16 stands for Flight, denoting it is an aircraft or other craft capable of sustained flight, and the M in M16 stands for Meapon.
This does not compute, explain F-35.
Flight 35, it seems pretty obvious to me
Shouldn't it be c35 for crash?
Crash-130
"Flight"
You can see all the money you spent acquiring one of these fly away when they crash, so it technically counts
The "-16" denotes that they can use the same clips.
That's right, gun nerds. Clips.
I think every part of me clenched when I read that... bravo comrade, bravo.