"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (2 Viewers)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Glider said:
I certainly agree that the F35 would pretty much destroy the Soviet aircraft I think its a bit strong to say that an F16 could progress to an F35 but a Mig 29 pilot couldn't
Click to expand...
I can see where he he's coming from. Understand, he's flown all the aircraft in question, and to an extent you and I can only dream of.
I was in the Navy fighter training world when the F8 was being phased out and pilots were being retreaded in the F4. The younger guys adapted readily, senior LTs and LCDRs, not so much. These were aircraft that came from the same military operational tradition and philosophy, but differed in their flight characteristics, tactical operations, armament and the biggie: CREW COORDINATION. Billy Flynn mentions reflexes and muscle memory, items to be taken seriously where higher time pilots are concerned. Sharing your flight (and fight) with a "back seat driver" is a huge cultural shift for a lone wolf gunslinger.
Now take someone who's become proficient and habitual with a Tonka Toy rocketship like a MiG29, with it's big heavy stick and put him in an electronic whizbang pinball machine with a zero-feedback Atari joystick, like an F16, and you have to rewire his entire nervous system. Its menu of electronic options with all of their ramifications that require split- second decisions easily leads to task saturation. The no-feel joystick leaves a "bank & yank" pilot prone to GLOC. Ask any IP who's had to transition T38 grads into the F16.
Now going a step further, into the F35, and you're asking your "victim" to be a fighter pilot, an attack pilot, a CAS pilot, a wild weasel, a nuclear deterrent delivery system, an intercept director, a battlespace manager, an intelligence gatherer, and a drone pilot. Not your basic MiG29!
 

The RAF encountered similar problems with the navigators who transitioned from Phantoms to Tornado F3. The 'toom was a mandraulic beast and all that switchography was more than enough to keep the nav busy. Put that same man in the F3, which had a better radar, greater SA due to JTIDS, and all of a sudden the little world of flipping switches just to make the radar work got a whole lot bigger. Now the nav needed to maintain much broader SA and be more of a quarterback than a watchmaker. Not every 'toom nav made the transition.
 

To follow up on this. A poster on another forum and I were discussing this and digging into the details, the Kilo-class sub used in this attack is one of seven in the Black Fleet. With four missiles per sub, they have 24 more of these PGMs. Everything else (another 27 subs with anywhere from 10 to 50 missiles aboard) is outside the Black Sea and cannot enter during wartime under the Convention.
 
Admiral Beez said:
What is a modern day grenade launcher? Is it a MANPATS? Or something like Mk 19 grenade launcher - Wikipedia.

I'd love to see some ex-Spain CASA C-101 Aviojet in UAF colours.
Click to expand...
I still haven't seen a list of what was sent, other than Spain sent (via warship to Poland) 200 tons of weapons and equipment, loaded into several military vehicles and transports (which are also part of the shipment).
 
ON the one had, I hope Putler does declare War on the Ukraine - as least if he does not plan to de-escalate soon. The options for the countries supporting Ukraine go up significantly by international law when a military acton becomes a War. International laws of war also require behavior that is not necessarily required under 'police actions' and 'Special Operations' by the parties involved in the War, ie Russia and Ukraine. The treaty that Turkey is operating under relative to the Black Sea also has different rules (I think) in event of a declared War.
 
wlewisiii said:
Looks like Putler is planning on doubling down on his mistake:

Click to expand...

Hmmm...methinks the western nations need to tread carefully with this one. If war is officially declared, then it may change some of the legal aspects of arms shipments that we're providing. It may also limit our freedom of manoeuvre in the Black Sea.

Then there's the whole issue of Putin's perception of countries that supply arms to his enemy when they're in a declared war. Russia defining the invasion as a "special operation" gave the west some wriggle-room and it also pushed Putin into a corner because he came to realise that the west was exploiting the very legal loophole that he'd created. I'm wondering if, by officially declaring war, Putin is seeking to take more active measures against arms shipments into Ukraine, for example before they even get into Ukraine itself. If that's what he's seeking to do, then escalation is inevitable.

I'm just shooting from the hip on this but there has to be some reason for Putin to suddenly declare war. I know we've all scoffed at the whole "special operation" thing...but there are some dark undertones to this development.
 
The international community by and large, has deemed Russia's invasion as an act of war.

Putler's intention to declare war is him trying to save face to the handful of people who still buy his bullshit.

As far as providing munitions and equipment to a belligerent during the time of a declared war, here is an excellent read on the existing laws and points regarding them, from West point Academy:

 
If Putler declares War, or not?:

The International Criminal Court in The Hague defines war crimes as "grave breaches" of the post-World War Two Geneva Conventions, agreements which lay out the international humanitarian laws to be followed in war time. Breaches include deliberately targeting civilians and attacking legitimate military targets where civilian casualties would be "excessive," legal experts said.

The USSR ratified the Geneva Convention of 1954, which is still the main international agreement governing behavior in war.

However, in 2019 Putin revoked Russia's agreement relative to Additional Protocol 1 to the 1949 Geneva Convention, which was ratified by the Soviet Union's Supreme Council in 1989. This Additional Protocol 1 relates to the establishment of an international commission which would be set up in order to investigate war crimes against civilians. Putin explained his action in a letter to the Russian Parliament stating that the commission "has effectively failed to carry out its functions since 1991. . ." and "In the current international environment, the risks of the commission's power abuse by the states, which are acting in bad faith, are increasing significantly, . . ."

Russia is still signatory to the 4 Geneva Convention treaties and the other 3 Protocols.

NOTE: I changed the Roman numeral "I" in "Additional Protocol I" to the European numeral "1" for clarity.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

  • Total: 3 (members: 2, guests: 1)

    Similar threads

    A
    The coming $26 billion windfall for the Canadian Armed Forces. What to buy?
    2
    Replies
    37
    Views
    1K
    Sisu
    S
    M
    All V-22's Grounded
    Replies
    2
    Views
    1K
    GTX
    M
    All This For The Low, Low Price of .....
    Replies
    19
    Views
    2K
    MIflyer
    M
    M
    The Wrath of KAAN?
    Replies
    3
    Views
    835
    Snautzer01
    M
    The USAF V-22 Mishap of 2023
    Replies
    2
    Views
    491
    Thumpalumpacus
    Menu
    Log in
    Register