What the fuck did I miss?
this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2024
137 points (97.2% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
6622 readers
411 users here now
A community for your defence shitposting needs
Rules
1. Be nice
Do not make personal attacks against each other, call for violence against anyone, or intentionally antagonize people in the comment sections.
2. Explain incorrect defense articles and takes
If you want to post a non-credible take, it must be from a "credible" source (news article, politician, or military leader) and must have a comment laying out exactly why it's non-credible. Low-hanging fruit such as random Twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Matrix chat.
3. Content must be relevant
Posts must be about military hardware or international security/defense. This is not the page to fawn over Youtube personalities, simp over political leaders, or discuss other areas of international policy.
4. No racism / hatespeech
No slurs. No advocating for the killing of people or insulting them based on physical, religious, or ideological traits.
5. No politics
We don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Stalinist, Baathist, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door. This applies to comments as well.
6. No seriousposting
We don't want your uncut war footage, fundraisers, credible news articles, or other such things. The world is already serious enough as it is.
7. No classified material
Classified ‘western’ information is off limits regardless of how "open source" and "easy to find" it is.
8. Source artwork
If you use somebody's art in your post or as your post, the OP must provide a direct link to the art's source in the comment section, or a good reason why this was not possible (such as the artist deleting their account). The source should be a place that the artist themselves uploaded the art. A booru is not a source. A watermark is not a source.
9. No low-effort posts
No egregiously low effort posts. E.g. screenshots, recent reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Matrix chat instead.
10. Don't get us banned
No brigading or harassing other communities. Do not post memes with a "haha people that I hate died… haha" punchline or violating the sh.itjust.works rules (below). This includes content illegal in Canada.
11. No misinformation
NCD exists to make fun of misinformation, not to spread it. Make outlandish claims, but if your take doesn’t show signs of satire or exaggeration it will be removed. Misleading content may result in a ban. Regardless of source, don’t post obvious propaganda or fake news. Double-check facts and don't be an idiot.
Join our Matrix chatroom
Other communities you may be interested in
Banner made by u/Fertility18
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The Netherlands blames Russia for shooting down commercial flight MH17. (Rightly so) Almost 300 people died, mostly Dutch. So the Dutch giving their F16 planes including training etc. to Ukraine to shoot down Russian planes seems fitting.
Ukraine is keeping their Dutch falcons well fed with fresh Su-34 meat
Technically it's Vipers.
Is it not originally the F16 Fighting Falcon?
The -V variant gained the Viper callsign. I don't think it's correct to call anything before F-16V "viper."
Unlike many other military aircraft, Wikipedia does not have a complete accounting of every F16 in service--merely saying "4,500+". So it's a fair guess that there are still some non-Viper Falcons knocking about somewhere.
Although officially named "Fighting Falcon", the aircraft is more commonly known by the nickname "Viper".
From Wikipedia.
I stand corrected, apparently both nicknames are in use.
Never forget. I still blame Rutte for not sending over Marines immediately to secure the crash site. But indeed, revenge is best served hot.
This is so incredibly huge for Ukraine. Think about it, Ukraine now has a chance in the sky. They can actually go on the offensive instead of just shooting things down.
Proof of concept seems solid.
F-35s when?
The F16 is more useful to Ukraine at the moment. Until Ukraine is approved to engage in deep strikes on Russia, that will probably remain the case.
The F16 is faster, more maneuverable, and cheaper(including maintenance), vs the F35.
Yeah I'm just worried about Russia AA, maneuverability doesn't help as much anymore, neither does speed, it's all about staying alive and stealth is life.
No need to worry about ground-based Russian Anti-Air if you're staying away from territory under Russian control. If the Su-34's Air2Air capabilities were much good, we wouldn't be here reading/discussing OP's post.
Stealth(F-35 "stealth" anyways) ain't shit versus Russia's ground-based assets. It's use in an all-out invassion would be more down to its beyond-the-horizon capabilities, if they even served well there. Try to keep up.
Seriously though, Russia, and Russian territory, are sooo not the match-up you want for the F-35, no matter how much of the complex's Kool-Aide you've drank. This isn't the war, not even the right hemisphere, that it was designed for.
You do have to worry about russian AA, they have Buks everywhere, and even S-300s near the front lines, those have serious range.
Their Tu-22M3s fly far behind their own lines to launch missiles, as will their Su-34s from here out, so you'll have to get closer and closer to threats in order to meaningfully intercept now.
This is the exact same bs that's happened since the beginning: Ukraine gets a new toy, Russia hides behind their lines, Ukraine's toy becomes less useful.
Finally, after the russian soil authorization is given, the F-35 can bring strike capability to Russian soil, which is the best way to win this war.
Yes, invading a nuke-holding country is the best way to win a war. JFC
...
They already invaded a nuke-holding country, doesn't seem to have been too much of a problem.
We had a thunder-run make it halfway to Moscow last year, and Putin just ran: Russia might be a nuke-holding country, but they're unfortunately handicapped by being a country full of Russians.
Who in the fuck do you think developed those nukes for them anyway? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kharkiv_Institute_of_Physics_and_Technology
You think Russia could make new ones or even maintain the old without Ukrainians? https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/russian-missile-failed-during-test-researchers-imagery-indicate-2024-09-23/
All this is going to do is guarantee Ukraine is a nuclear state again by the end of 2025, which is fine with me, we promised their security in exchange for giving up the nukes they developed, might as well let them have them back considering what trash they have to live next to.
You're splitting hairs on the difference between violating a country's territory and threatening its existance, and since you need it spelled out, they aren't just any nuke-holding country. They are one of a few that has the capability to wipe all life on earth even if their targets never returned fire, but please, do go on about how going gloves-off at them "by proxy" is such a great idea.
You'll have better luck convincing Russia to back down by diplomatic means than you will convincing NATO to do what you are suggesting. That's how stupid of an idea it is.