Russia runs away from American planes, terrified

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher
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.

Only second to you.

And to be "successful", you need to do something. The Tu-22M has done nothing but be "marginal", ergo it is not successful.

I get why you keep claiming to win arguments, because you never have the same argument. You just twist with the wind. After you made your bomber speed argument and I pointed out the Tu-22M, you claimed was that the plane's range was very poor (since you did not understand the difference between range and combat radius) and then quoted "not particularly successful", which is where your whole 'sucessful' argument began, but I already pointed out in post #62 how your faulty reading comprehension led to that statement.

then we get this gem:

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

Of course, an argument based on the fact that 16 years ago according to sources, post-Soviet Russia could not maintain the planes well due to their exonomic struggles. Do you have a single piece of data to show that this is currently the case? You have shown none, but this is a good way of knowing how disingenously you treat sources.

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
I get why you keep claiming to win arguments, because you never have the same argument.

The fact that your lack of reading comprehension causes you to read things differently (even the exact same words), doesn't mean the person is saying anything different.

I thought you, just a few posts ago, were getting on my case about how I constantly just keep saying the same things. Now I'm constantly changing my argument. Make up your mind, because your Kerry-esque flipflopping is making me dizzy.

You just twist with the wind. After you made your bomber speed argument and I pointed out the Tu-22M

And I could point out the F-111, what's the point?
Tu-22M: Mach 2.3
F-111: Mach 2.5

You made another claim that was just silly, since the US did have a more-than-comparable aircraft, so I ignored it and moved onto something more juicy.

you claimed was that the plane's range was very poor (since you did not understand the difference between range and combat radius)

Uhh, the range is very poor. The combat radius is very poor. The range and combat radius is very poor. Not sure what the problem is here.

and then quoted "not particularly successful", which is where your whole 'sucessful' argument began
but I already pointed out in post #62 how your faulty reading comprehension led to that statement.

And I tried to explain to you that I think the plane was not successful. Whether or not the Wiki article uses the same word in a different, unrelated part of the article doesn't matter. I said the plane was unsuccessful then I listed very clear reasons why. Then you started throwing a tantrum about how Wiki used the word and I failed at reading comprehension, which is amazing.

Of course, an argument based on the fact that 16 years ago according to sources, post-Soviet Russia could not maintain the planes well due to their exonomic struggles. Do you have a single piece of data to show that this is currently the case? You have shown none, but this is a good way of knowing how disingenously you treat sources.

We have evidence that it was the case, we have no evidence that it is currently not the case. The burden of proof is on you, ace.

If a war plane is designed such that it is only remotely serviceable in economically prosperous times, to me that indicates a major failing. Wars are not typically economically prosperous times...you might even say such a plane with no historic situations where it was genuinely successful and is only operational when the economy is strong and Russia is not at war is an "unsuccessful plane".

[Kuciwalker]

Uhh, the range is very poor. The combat radius is very poor. The range and combat radius is very poor. Not sure what the problem is here.

Improper conjugation.

[Asher]

Stylistic parallel structure, *****.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher

The fact that your lack of reading comprehension causes you to read things differently (even the exact same words), doesn't mean the person is saying anything different.

I thought you, just a few posts ago, were getting on my case about how I constantly just keep saying the same things. Now I'm constantly changing my argument. Make up your mind, because your Kerry-esque flipflopping is making me dizzy.

As opposed to your Bush-like determination? Actually, that is exactly what you are like. The argument behind the troll keeps changing, but you remain stedfastly resolute to the troll.

And I could point out the F-111, what's the point?
Tu-22M: Mach 2.3
F-111: Mach 2.5

The F-111 is comparable to the Su-24, not the Tu-22M and certainly not the Tu-95. But you probably didn't know that.

Uhh, the range is very poor. The combat radius is very poor. The range and combat radius is very poor. Not sure what the problem is here.

As compared to what exactly?

We have evidence that it was the case, we have no evidence that it is currently not the case. The burden of proof is on you, ace.

Actually, it burden of proof lies with anyone making the case, not the person asked refuting it. You have now made the claim that TODAY this plane is mainly non-operation becuase of lack of spare parts. The only evidence you have is statements about the plane's conditon well over a decade ago. Only an idiot would take information over 15 years old and say that we should presume the case remains the same today. Just the time span would invalidate the argument. But add to that the completely different economic situation Russia is in now (gone from debtor nation to creditor nation) and the argument only looks more vapid and childish.

If a war plane is designed such that it is only remotely serviceable in economically prosperous times, to me that indicates a major failing.

JESUS ****ING H. CHRIST....

This will be my last post because this last part more than anything shows me how ****ing stupid arguing with you on this issue is because the situation is hopeless.

NO ONE designs a plane thinking about whether if their country breaks apart and goes into a huge economic depression where GDP drops by at least 30%, they will be able to maintain it. Usually, if that is the situation, whatever the plane was built to protect, or whatever power the plane was designed to project is no longer an issue.

Wars are not typically economically prosperous times...

That depends on whether you are winning or not, and how far away the war is. There are plenty of times in which foreign war did nothing to harm a local economy.

As I said, this is it. I have made my point, and third parties are free to read and decide, but I will not waste more of my time arguing with someone who makes unsubstantiated claims and then has the gaul to demand that the other person show evidence against their unsubstantiated claims.

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
The F-111 is comparable to the Su-24, not the Tu-22M and certainly not the Tu-95. But you probably didn't know that.

Actually, the F-111 had a bomber variant that is very much comparable to the Tu-22M. If you look under the section in the wiki covertly labeled "Comparable aircraft", you will see this mentioned as well.

As compared to what exactly?

Say, the B-1B.

Actually, it burden of proof lies with anyone making the case, not the person asked refuting it.

Actually, all evidence we have points to the Tu-22M as having a low combat readiness rate for a variety of reasons. If you are claiming this is not an issue anymore, you need to prove it.

NO ONE designs a plane thinking about whether if their country breaks apart and goes into a huge economic depression where GDP drops by at least 30%, they will be able to maintain it.

Actually, economic feasibility is a major component of aircraft design. All competent militaries look at how these aircraft will be maintained over X many years and have contracts that exist to ensure this. Even in the case of massive economic downturn, they ought to be able to be sustained. Do you also have any idea why so MANY planes needed maintenance and new parts? Perhaps it's the excessive complexity and/or poor reliability?

[Serb]

I read the whole thread and must say that you Asher is really, really (and when I say "really" I really mean REALLY) silly .
No offence, please.

Have a nice day.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Asher

Actually, the F-111 had a bomber variant that is very much comparable to the Tu-22M. If you look under the section in the wiki covertly labeled "Comparable aircraft", you will see this mentioned as well.


Say, the B-1B.

Only such stupid persons like you compare a fighter-bomber with a long-range bomber.

This thread is a perfect evidence of how silly you are, boy.

Any intelligent person would compare aples with aples, not oranges.
Compare Tu-95 with B-52; Tu-160 with B-1B, F-111 with Su-24, etc.

[Serb]

Just one more thing, Asher. We have a saying: the dogs are barking, but the caravan is keep going.

So, no matter how loud you are barking here, we still own your pathetic arses in skies.

[Heraclitus]

You still have red stars on your planes?

[Serb]

Sure

Not only that, this flag is one of the official symbols of our armed forces.

[dannubis]

Originally posted by Serb
Just one more thing, Asher. We have a saying: the dogs are barking, but the caravan is keep going.

So, no matter how loud you are barking here, we still own your pathetic arses in skies.

Is that a US missile fired at your plane ?

[Heraclitus]

Odd, I tought you would have more red, white and blue stuff.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Serb
Just one more thing, Asher. We have a saying: the dogs are barking, but the caravan is keep going.

So, no matter how loud you are barking here, we still own your pathetic arses in skies.

You might want to use a picture not obviously photoshopped by a drunken Russian next time.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Serb


Only such stupid persons like you compare a fighter-bomber with a long-range bomber.

This thread is a perfect evidence of how silly you are, boy.

Any intelligent person would compare aples with aples, not oranges.
Compare Tu-95 with B-52; Tu-160 with B-1B, F-111 with Su-24, etc.

B-52 > Tu-95
B-1B > Tu-160
F-111 > Su-24 (Mach 2.5 vs 1.35, 2140km vs 615km, 31500 lbs of bombs vs 17640 lbs)