Russia runs away from American planes, terrified

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher

You don't see how those two concepts are very closely related and ultimately the same thing?

They aren't the same thing. A Porsche is a higher performing car than a Kia Sedona. If I have a ****load of money, I can keep the Porsche without problems. If I am suddely cashpoor, I can't maintain the Porsche. That inability to cover the cost doesn't all of a sudden make the Porsche a lower performing car.

statements about the ability to someone to handle a tool are not statement on the tools effectiveness.

This is your unsubstantiated opinion as to why the plane was ineffective, but the fact remains it was ineffective.

For the very last time, the WAY the plane was used was ineffective.

The fact that they have a 30-40% combat readiness rate has no bearing on the plane itself?

HAD low combat readiness, due to lack of spare part. And no, that has no bearing on an argument about the performance capabilities of said plane.

The fact that it's uneconomical to maintain has no bearing on the plane itself?

On the plane's capabilities? No.

See, unlike you, the utilitarian, if I am going to argue about the capabilities of a plane, I will judge based on the specs of the plane, and its performace record. For example, no single Tu-22M has ever been lost in combat, as far as I can tell from all the sources. No source mentions any reputation for unreliability in flight, or dangerous or bad flying characteristics.

The fact that using them to drop lots of dumb bombs on the Mujahadeen didn;t win the Soviets thew war has no real bearing on judging how capable the aircraft is.

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
They aren't the same thing. A Porsche is a higher performing car than a Kia Sedona. If I have a ****load of money, I can keep the Porsche without problems. If I am suddely cashpoor, I can't maintain the Porsche. That inability to cover the cost doesn't all of a sudden make the Porsche a lower performing car.

statements about the ability to someone to handle a tool are not statement on the tools effectiveness.

What?

If I buy a car and I can't afford the gas for it, it's ultimately the same thing as not having a car.

For the very last time, the WAY the plane was used was ineffective.

Again, same ****ing thing. How else could it have been used. If the military cannot find an effective use for the plane, it can be said the plane was ineffective.

On the plane's capabilities? No.

See, unlike you, the utilitarian, if I am going to argue about the capabilities of a plane, I will judge based on the specs of the plane, and its performace record.

Except what we're arguing here -- as anyone with any reading comprehension skill can attest to -- is how effective and successful the plane has been. Considering they are more often than not inoperable and in the few cases it's actually been used, it was ineffective, one cannot say this was a successful plane.

[FrostyBoy]

"He who talks more than he listens, knows less than he says".

Another one

"Mistakes are not failures - Mistakes prune the mind to a stronger understanding" or something like that

So, while you bash Russians many mistakes, - which I am not really aware of, you underestimate their capabilities and knowledge power. The Russians have contributed to progress for the entire planet in leaps and bounds, yet you question their actions, as if you know better. I don't like that kind of attitude in you Asher.

[Kuciwalker]

A plane that's too expensive/complicated for your economy to maintain was poorly designed. Period.

[notyoueither]

That's extremely humourous coming from you, LondonBoy.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Whoha


That would be why the Airforce is starting to build coal liquefaction plants.

Sounds interesting. you got a link for that?

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Verto
I love to bash the Russians as much as the next guy, but this thread is giving me a headache

Really? It amuses me to no end.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
A plane that's too expensive/complicated for your economy to maintain was poorly designed. Period.

No, it means you probably built too many of them.

[onodera]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


Really? It amuses me to no end.

Yeah, who needs Serb when you capitalists can fight among themselves about Russia? :P

[Asher]

Originally posted by FrostyBoy
"He who talks more than he listens, knows less than he says".

Another one

"Mistakes are not failures - Mistakes prune the mind to a stronger understanding" or something like that

FrostyBoy figures out teh google...

So, while you bash Russians many mistakes, - which I am not really aware of, you underestimate their capabilities and knowledge power. The Russians have contributed to progress for the entire planet in leaps and bounds, yet you question their actions, as if you know better. I don't like that kind of attitude in you Asher.

Yes, hate the attitude of a person who questions the actions of Soviets and Russians.

[Asher]

Originally posted by onodera
Yeah, who needs Serb when you capitalists can fight among themselves about Russia? :P

I wouldn't call GePap a capitalist. He works for the government, hates companies, and loves Soviet Russia.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
A plane that's too expensive/complicated for your economy to maintain was poorly designed. Period.

I would figure you would fall in line

Saying that is like saying all pieces of high end soviet military equipment was "poorly designed" since post-Soviet Russia could not maintain them. Its a stupid argument because that in the end has nothing to do with whether those pieces of equipment could do the job they were designed for well.

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
I would figure you would fall in line

Saying that is like saying all pieces of high end soviet military equipment was "poorly designed" since post-Soviet Russia could not maintain them.

Except post-Soviet Russia can maintain much of their equipment...just not the most needlessly extravagant.

Its a stupid argument because that in the end has nothing to do with whether those pieces of equipment could do the job they were designed for well.

But I thought the attacks the plane was used in were ineffective? To me, it's not doing a very good job if its use was ineffective. But what do I know.

Using your logic, any plane that both moves (even if it works just 1% of the time) and drops things that go boom is a successful plane since it "does its job well". Some of us have this concept of "standards", which is clearly a foreign concept to you.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher

Except post-Soviet Russia can maintain much of their equipment...just not the most needlessly extravagant.

NO, Post-Soviet Russia, specially early on, could not maintain most of their equipment. Now that they are flush with oil money they can. They still have over 140 of these in service, more than the around 90 B-1B's the US has in service. They could also export if they wanted, and have, with India.

But I thought the attacks the plane was used in were ineffective? To me, it's not doing a very good job if its use was ineffective. But what do I know.

First, on this subject, not much, Second, the Tu-22M was not designed with dropping large amounts of dumb bombs on gun wielding mountain men any more than the B-52 was designed to drop large numbers of bombs on guys in rice paddies or conscripts in the desert. They both were designed with nuclear war with another superpower. But if you can carry big payloads, you can varry what you drop, so both were used in the wars that their respective countries ended up fighting.

Dropping large amounts of conventional bombs on the Mujahadeen did nothing more for the Soviets to "win" in Afghanistan than all the bombs the US dropped o South Vietnam did to win that was for the US. I am sorry if your inability to inderstand a single pareagraph from Wiki continues to cloud your ability to understand a simple point.

Using your logic, any plane that both moves (even if it works just 1% of the time) and drops things that go boom is a successful plane since it "does its job well". Some of us have this concept of "standards", which is clearly a foreign concept to you.

A plane that has good specs, can carry out a wide array of combat operation by carrying different advanced weapons systems and be a significant threat at a strategic theater level is a good warplane.

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
NO, Post-Soviet Russia, specially early on, could not maintain most of their equipment. Now that they are flush with oil money they can. They still have over 140 of these in service, more than the around 90 B-1B's the US has in service. They could also export if they wanted, and have, with India.

The B-1Bs are significantly more expensive to maintain and build. The US also has a far more diverse fleet that they use as well.

US. I am sorry if your inability to inderstand a single pareagraph from Wiki continues to cloud your ability to understand a simple point.

How can you get on me for reading comprehension when you repeatedly fail at it, then can't type simple words in response? You're possibly the most illiterate person on all of Apolyton.

And to be "successful", you need to do something. The Tu-22M has done nothing but be "marginal", ergo it is not successful. The B-52, on the other hand, is one of the most successful aircraft in history in many, many facets.

A plane that has good specs, can carry out a wide array of combat operation by carrying different advanced weapons systems and be a significant threat at a strategic theater level is a good warplane.

Its specs aren't that great if it's unavailable more often than its available. That's kind of a major statistic.

Its specs aren't that great. The payload is mediocre, the range is terrible, the reliability was brutal.