• Shrike502@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      They’ll still find a way to cope. Just like Iraq (Saddam was ebil dictatoor!), Vietnam (nuh-uh didn’t lose!), fuckin Finnish War (muh hwyte deaff!), and many many more

      • DefinitelyNotAPhone [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        No no, you see, having your weapon systems cost 5 times as much money as the opposing side’s is a good thing actually. Clearly it means it’s 150 times more effective, according to this marketing presentation I found from the for-profit corporation that makes it and then sells it to the military and this press release from the general whose entire career is intrinsically tied to it, both of whom couldn’t possibly be biased in any way!

      • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year 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

        • Tankiedesantski [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          1 year 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”.

    • bookmeat
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, they’ve tried to set expectations, but people aren’t listening and are inventing their own timelines and outcomes. That’s why officials in UA are upset, because it affects perception and therefore, support from allies in their defense.

  • Shrike502@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Tbf those “critics” are the same “some of you may die” filth, no? The same bastards who started the slaughter to begin with

  • Drstrange2love@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    1 year ago

    Friend your critics are your biggest suppliers, they want you to die taking as many Russians as possible, it was never to win the war it’s to make Russia bleed.

  • GenEcon
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The problem of democracies: you can’t just force media to shut up like in China or Russia.