this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2023
117 points (94.0% liked)

GenZedong

8 readers
1 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.

Serious posts can be posted here and/or in /c/GenZhou.

We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information.

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SpaceDogs@lemmygrad.ml 21 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Are F16’s even good? I ask as someone that knows Jack shit about weapons.

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml 26 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] olgas_husband@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 2 years ago

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

[–] 420blazeit69@hexbear.net 23 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] Tankiedesantski@hexbear.net 19 points 2 years ago

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".

[–] muirc@hexbear.net 18 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Obviously, it's an earlier version of the superior M16 because F is before M in the alphabet.

[–] CriticalResist8@lemmygrad.ml 23 points 2 years ago (2 children)

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.

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml 15 points 2 years ago (1 children)

actually the F in F16 stands for Flight

This does not compute, explain F-35.

[–] CriticalResist8@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Flight 35, it seems pretty obvious to me

[–] Outdoor_Catgirl@hexbear.net 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Shouldn't it be c35 for crash?

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] CriticalResist8@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 2 years ago

You can see all the money you spent acquiring one of these fly away when they crash, so it technically counts

[–] Tankiedesantski@hexbear.net 12 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The "-16" denotes that they can use the same clips.

That's right, gun nerds. Clips.

[–] RedSquid@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 2 years ago

I think every part of me clenched when I read that... bravo comrade, bravo.