Yes are getting, dont have yet , arent impacting the battlefield yet, aren't impacting tactical or strategic decision making yet.
Yes are getting, dont have yet , arent impacting the battlefield yet, aren't impacting tactical or strategic decision making yet.Huh? AGM-88 and AIM-120 are both integrated on the F-16 MLUs they are getting. The only real question I have is if the frames being transferred are getting radar upgrades that will let them take advantage of the full range of AIM-120C. Even if not the upgrade over their Mig-29s is quite substantial which have much more limited capabilities.
They dont have integration on the AGM-88 and they dont have AIM-120 on an aircraft with a radar that can engage at long distance.
/We are not the same meme
A couple of tidbits in regards to Moldova. Russia won't be happy. Good.
View attachment 95585
View attachment 95586
Bonus round, Russia wants to blow things up in space. Tried of being on the backfoot of satellite communications and imagery.
Russia warns United States: use of SpaceX for spying makes its satellites a target
MOSCOW, March 20 (Reuters) - Russia said on Wednesday that it knew about U.S. intelligence efforts to use commercial satellite operators such as SpaceX and cautioned that such moves made their satellites legitimate targets.Reuters reported this month that SpaceX is building a network of hundreds of spy satellites under a classified contract with a U.S. intelligence agency, demonstrating deepening ties between Elon Musk's space company and national security agencies.
Not really an obstacle. Even if it was, they got HARM working on Su-27s in pretty short order. Basic mode, but it got the job done. But there's no need, the USAF has been using Navy missiles for awhile now. I wouldn't worry about it.
As was mentioned, it's all about the radar. We have to hope those F-16s will be packing something better than APG-68s, in addition to HTS pods. They need AESA, that would allow them to get the most of out AMRAAM and HARM both. I've been hoping Russia's penchant for EW and blanket jamming everything would push the powers that be to acquiesce on sending modern radar with those F-16s. AESA has much better resistance to jamming. 90s era APG-68 not so much, it would be useless against cruise missiles and drones in addition to being too anemic to deal with Russian fighters, packing R-77s.
I hope White House and Pentagon just bite the bullet. Focus on how long AESA has been around, give Ukrainian pilots the best chance they can get to finish the mission and return home safely.
Disagree with what?
I am telling you Russia will proceed to attacking more countries, including NATO, if Russia achieves victory in Ukraine.
Estonia’s foreign minister says the Baltics have 3 or 4 years to prepare for Russian ‘test’ of NATO
Russia May Attack a NATO Country in Two Years: German Intel
Alarm bells are ringing’: Poland’s president says NATO must urgently ramp up defense spending
Polish President Andrzej Duda said Monday that NATO must urgently ramp up its defense spending to ensure it does not become the next target of Russian aggression.
I think its because of Russia's usage of glide bombs. They are not very accurate, but they make 15m craters and they have been using them heavily. Ukraine can't counter them effectively atm, but that should change when they receive the F16's.I'm curious if some of russia's recent success is because they have access to phony stark's equipment. It sure seems like things have picked up for them since it was mentioned earlier in this topic.
You sold that same lie before you attacked Ukraine. You vowed nothing would happen. You are worth less than shit.I suggest you read that Wiki page bud. You’d think with the invention of the internet this Red Scare type stuff wouldn’t be as effective anymore but apparently it still works wonders considering how fearful you all are of Putin. Guess this propaganda still works in this modern era we live in today.
Realistically speaking, I don't think Russia cares about a Kessler syndrome. It'll affect every first world nation on the planet far more than it would them. Frankly that's one of the more strategically sound things they could do, presuming it wouldn't trigger a response from NATO (it should).The amount of carnage that Russia would need to cause in LEO in order to degrade SpaceX's satellite network would basically make LEO off-limits to everyone including them. Another empty threat by the Russians.
I think SABR is too much to hope for especially as our own F-16 fleet is still getting it. The MLUs have AN/APG-66s so if now surplus AN/APG-68s could be swapped in it would be a nice upgrade.
Realistically speaking, I don't think Russia cares about a Kessler syndrome. It'll affect every first world nation on the planet far more than it would them. Frankly that's one of the more strategically sound things they could do, presuming it wouldn't trigger a response from NATO (it should).
And what if it wasn't a direct attack on a US satellite? What if it was a direct attack on a Spacex one? Or a Russian one? "Our cyber analysts determined an enemy force had taken control of one of our satellites and was using it against us on the battlefield. We chose to destroy our own satellite rather than have it used against us. Not our fault if you're in the nearby orbital path."Direct attacks on US satellite assets would trigger a response from the US and the US would invoke article 5.
Starlink orbits are way to low to be a problem other then very short term.they require ion engines just to keep themselves in orbit.Realistically speaking, I don't think Russia cares about a Kessler syndrome. It'll affect every first world nation on the planet far more than it would them. Frankly that's one of the more strategically sound things they could do, presuming it wouldn't trigger a response from NATO (it should).
Moldova applied for EU and it will be an ongoing process for a few years. NATO is more difficult because they have no army.Great news. They should also reach out to NATO about membership. Keep that "war against NATO expansion" failure train rolling.
And what if it wasn't a direct attack on a US satellite? What if it was a direct attack on a Spacex one? Or a Russian one? "Our cyber analysts determined an enemy force had taken control of one of our satellites and was using it against us on the battlefield. We chose to destroy our own satellite rather than have it used against us. Not our fault if you're in the nearby orbital path."
Starlink orbits are way to low to be a problem other then very short term.they require ion engines just to keep themselves in orbit.
It's a commercial satellite. Do you think the US should go to war over the destruction of commercial assets?A SpaceX satellite is a US satellite. SpaceX has 5,000+ satellites in LEO. If Russia takes out a couple it would probably only result in words of warning from the US. However in order to seriously degrade Starlink, that would required hundreds or thousands to be taken out. There would be no mistaken what was going if Russia tried that.
It would still be a mess because the active satellites are in 340-350 mi orbits which is above the ISS. The destruction of satellites would cause debris to be scattered above and below these orbital planes. Even at these lower orbits they could still take 5+ years to decay.
I know, but it'd be a plausible enough 'Russian excuse' to destroy their own infrastructure and ruin everything for everyone else.Starlink orbits are way to low to be a problem other then very short term.they require ion engines just to keep themselves in orbit.
It's a commercial satellite. Do you think the US should go to war over the destruction of commercial assets?
My hat's off to Elon for making these not to be permanent space junk. All future satellites should have some capability to deorbit.Starlink orbits are way to low to be a problem other then very short term.they require ion engines just to keep themselves in orbit.
It's a commercial satellite. Do you think the US should go to war over the destruction of commercial assets?
I know, but it'd be a plausible enough 'Russian excuse' to destroy their own infrastructure and ruin everything for everyone else.
They've spent the last two years blowing up playgrounds and shit, just seems like right up their alley.
Lest you forget - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_RMS_LusitaniaIt's a commercial satellite. Do you think the US should go to war over the destruction of commercial assets?
I know, but it'd be a plausible enough 'Russian excuse' to destroy their own infrastructure and ruin everything for everyone else.
They've spent the last two years blowing up playgrounds and shit, just seems like right up their alley.
The World Trade Center towers were commercial assets. That would've triggered a war even without the Pentagon being hit.
Each of those resulted in the loss of American lives. One was on our soil, the other was even arguable given that it didn't result in a war declaration for two years.Lest you forget - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_RMS_Lusitania
Each of those resulted in the loss of American lives. One was on our soil, the other was even arguable given that it didn't result in a war declaration for two years.
Would either of you be willing to go die in Ukraine because of a loss of some satellites?