using NATOID hardware to demonstrate the superiority of mass over quality in modern warfare goes crazy, imagine being this willfully clueless

  • ultraviolet [she/her]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    conveniently ignoring all of the Russian mass produced stuff and reserve Soviet tech they could pull out before touching their most modern equipment

    • SpiderFarmer [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      9 months ago

      I was really confused by this Skyfork. Like, Russia is specifically known for having military hardware that’s the equivalent of a Honda. Cheap, reliable, and far from flashy.

      • Saeculum [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Sure, but most of it is 50+ years old. NATO has a much larger stock of aircraft manufactured in the past 20 years.

        The Russian “equivalent of a honda” aircraft have seen their NATO equivalents like the F-14 and Harrier sold off to developing nations or retired.

        Upgraded gen 3 fighters are not comparable to upgraded gen 4 or gen 5 fighters, and NATO has massively more gen 4s in service than Russia does.

        • Tunnelvision [they/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          9 months ago

          Russian aircraft doesn’t need to be that good to be completely honest. Russian doctrine has put much more effort into its ANTI-air capabilities, which is being shown to be much more important.

        • TechnoUnionTypeBeat [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          9 months ago

          The Russian “equivalent of a honda” aircraft have seen their NATO equivalents like the F-14 and Harrier sold off to developing nations or retired.

          Su-35, Mig-35, Mig-29, and Su-27 don’t real I guess

          Like what the fuck are you even talking about? The vast majority of Russian aircraft are equivalent to the vast majority of NATOid aircraft in service, calling them upgraded 3rd generation fighters is absurd

            • TechnoUnionTypeBeat [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              9 months ago

              The three most commonly fielded aircraft in the US are the F-15, F-16, and F-18, and all of them are contemporaries of the Mig-29 and Su-27

              One of the only near new 4th gen fighters in service is the Eurofighter Typhoon. Everyone fields predominately 80s era aircraft kept updated, with slow movement towards 5th gen

              But yeah go off on how the F-16 could wack an Su-35 in combat

        • lorty
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          9 months ago

          Air superiority in a modern war has very little to do with air to air and much more about your ground based air defenses, of which Russian ones are known to be the best in the world.