Ukrainian Defensive War against the Russian Invasion - Mark IV: The Partitioning of Discussion

teriyakiburns said:
It only typically needs about 3k' to take off as well. 5k would be a supremely long runout.
Click to expand...
Hm. Where are you getting this from? Wiki says that 4000 feet is roughly what the A-10 needs, which is a slower aircraft with similar weight and much more wingspan.
SaidNoOneEver said:
What if the pilot only has four months of training? How much then?
Click to expand...
To be fair, it's 4 months of training after being a fighter pilot on a different plane. The USAF report didn't say they had issues with basic flying, but with Western equipment and tactics.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Exterminatus, Scout Trooper and MS Paint Gigachad
SaidNoOneEver said:
What if the pilot only has four months of training? How much then?
Click to expand...
Depends how long it takes for the the wreck to stop sliding.

Blatant hypocrite said:
Hm. Where are you getting this from? Wiki says that 4000 feet is roughly what the A-10 needs, which is a slower aircraft with similar weight and much more wingspan.
Click to expand...
A-10 isn't really comparable as it doesn't accelerate as quickly, so even with its wider wing-span and lower top speed, it still takes more distance to get airborne.

There aren't any official specs for the F16's take-off and landing requirements that I can find. Estimates I've seen online, usually based on personal observations and "unofficial" documentation, range anywhere from 1200 to 4000 for take-off distance, but these tend not to differentiate between laden and unladen, how fast the jet accelerated, or air temperature and density. Aeronerd sites similarly offer estimates ranging from 1100' to 3200' for take-off, depending on what exactly they're measuring. The lower end could be unladen with full afterburner, or just a typical CAP loadout. It isn't explained. Landing has similar numbers, where it's reported.

DCS (lol) has a pretty detailed model that puts the fully-laden F16 take-off distance at about 3500', accounting for speed and air density, while using afterburner. If it takes off with a fully stacked loadout, at full, non-AB power, in low-density air, it can require up to 4500 for take-off. Given who makes it, I'm inclined to think they're close to accurate.

Anyway, the point is, the F-16 can easily operate from a much shorter runway than the vatniggers are contending. 5000' would be the upper bound of its requirements.

e: never say absolute. it only ends with you losing your head.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Winner
  • Feels
Reactions: Vecr, The Demon Pimp of Razgriz, Green Man and 4 others
teriyakiburns said:
Anyway, the point is, the F-16 can easily operate from a much shorter runway than the vatniggers are contending. 5000' would be the absolute upper bound of its requirements.
Click to expand...
10000' is definitely the peacetime "don't lose planes to stupid accidents" amount. 5000' seems reasonable, or at least Russian SAMs would be a much bigger concern than issues with takeoff and landing. Wikipedia lists about a dozen airstrips that would be viable, after excluding the ones that are inactive or captured by Russia.

Regardless, I don't think runways are a big issue compared to the problem of supplying and maintaining a few dozen aircraft.
Article
This private information is unavailable to guests due to policies enforced by third-parties.
Click to expand...
Politico talking about plans for post-war reforms/recovery
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: FunPosting101, Exterminatus, Scout Trooper and 3 others
Blatant hypocrite said:
10000' is definitely the peacetime "don't lose planes to stupid accidents" amount. 5000' seems reasonable, or at least Russian SAMs would be a much bigger concern than issues with takeoff and landing. Wikipedia lists about a dozen airstrips that would be viable, after excluding the ones that are inactive or captured by Russia.

Regardless, I don't think runways are a big issue compared to the problem of supplying and maintaining a few dozen aircraft.
Click to expand...
There's also the question of hastily built/converted/improvised air bases/runways. Depending on the aircraft you construct a dirt runway in any field, get it to land on a straight stretch of road, maybe even rig up arresting cables similar to a carrier's flight deck (granted, this would probably only apply if grippen(?) or f-18 was being sent).

The Swedish even adopted the whole "straight section of road" solution as their backup plan if the soviets invaded
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bas_60
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bas_90
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: The Demon Pimp of Razgriz, Scout Trooper, Ghostse and 2 others
RVK(Russian Volunteer Corps) attacked checkpoint "Grayvoron" in Russia, Belgorod region (with a tank). Now the fight is happenning in Grayvoron district, past the checkpoint.


4.jpg



Translated with DeepL from Russian:

What is happening in the Belgorod region on the border with Ukraine:

- Governor Vyacheslav Gladkov admitted that a "sabotage and reconnaissance group of the AFU" had infiltrated the territory of the Graivoron district. He stated that measures were being taken to eliminate it;

- According to telegraph channels, Ukrainian tanks entered the territory of the Graivoron checkpoint, where the customs building caught fire;

- The Russian Volunteer Corps and the Freedom of Russia Legion claimed responsibility for the invasion;

- Residents of Rakitnoye settlement published video of helicopters releasing heat traps over residential buildings. An alarm siren and instructions to local residents can also be heard in the video;

- Telegram channel Shot, citing its source, reported about "a fierce fight with a Ukrainian sabotage and reconnaissance group" on the border of the Belgorod region near the village of Dronovka. Mash denied this information;

- According to Baza, the battle with the Ukrainian armed forces sabotage group is being fought near the settlements of Glotovo, Kozinka and Gora Podol;

- Local media reported that a Ukrainian DRG might be in the House of Culture in the village of Gora Podol in the Graivoron urban district. There is no confirmation of this information;

- The Russian Defense Ministry ignored the sabotage in its daily report;

- The pro-government media claim that the invasion of the Belgorod region by the Russian Armed Forces is a media attack and a fake.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
  • Informative
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Arthur_Schopenhauer, The Demon Pimp of Razgriz, Exterminatus and 12 others
Parasole said:
RVK(Russian Volunteer Corps) attacked checkpoint "Grayvoron" in Russia, Belgorod region (with a tank). Now the fight is happenning in Grayvoron district, past the checkpoint.
View attachment 5132342
View attachment 5132343
View attachment 5132346View attachment 5132347
View attachment 5132349
View attachment 5132351
Click to expand...
Humvees in Russia. What a hilarious turn of events. It would be interesting if these guys can make it to some of the bases or logistics hubs and wreck anything they find. I must say the Ukrainian backed Sep flag is a lot more kino than the faggy Russian backed sep flags.

Screenshot_20230522-133642_Twitter.jpg
 
  • Winner
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: Arthur_Schopenhauer, The Demon Pimp of Razgriz, FunPosting101 and 5 others
teriyakiburns said:
DCS (lol) has a pretty detailed model that puts the fully-laden F16 take-off distance at about 3500', accounting for speed and air density, while using afterburner. If it takes off with a fully stacked loadout, at full, non-AB power, in low-density air, it can require up to 4500 for take-off. Given who makes it, I'm inclined to think they're close to accurate.
Click to expand...
Airplanes are always intended to use AB for takeoff, IIRC. Turbines suck (or rather they don't suck) when dealing with slow-moving air, so their thrust at zero or little airspeed is a fraction compared to what it is while moving. They absolutely need the air to be moving fast since that's less work for the compression system. Keep in mind its extremely common for airplanes to not go up fully-loaded too since all that weight cuts into their range. You don't need to carry six underwing AMRAAMs and four wingtip Sidewinders on a basic CAP mission, after all.
Corporate Gigachad said:
There's also the question of hastily built/converted/improvised air bases/runways. Depending on the aircraft you construct a dirt runway in any field, get it to land on a straight stretch of road, maybe even rig up arresting cables similar to a carrier's flight deck (granted, this would probably only apply if grippen(?) or f-18 was being sent).

The Swedish even adopted the whole "straight section of road" solution as their backup plan if the soviets invaded
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bas_60
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bas_90
Click to expand...
If you think there aren't flat stretches of interstate a mile long, I've got a nice deal on a bridge in Brooklyn for you. Speaking of the Brooklyn Bridge, if you had an exceptionally crazy pilot its a mile long and more than suitable for a takeoff or landing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fanatical Pragmatist, Exterminatus, Scout Trooper and 2 others
Last edited:
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: The Demon Pimp of Razgriz, Fanatical Pragmatist, Le Pew and 6 others
CuzinEd said:
Bakhmut has no real strategic value. The role Bakhmut played is it was a meat grinder for the Russians. A place the Russians kept dumping men and vehicles into and losing. It was like a trap for the Ukrainians to sit back and destroy Russian vehicles and thin out Russia's soldiers. That's about all it is. The Russians dug themselves into a hole with the propaganda surrounding Bakhmut. We have to take Bakhmut to win. The Ukrainians spent almost a year sitting in Bakhmut making Russia look like a clown.
Click to expand...
What's amusing is that for all intents and purposes it was supposed to be a meatgrinder for Russians to grind down Ukrainians, to inflict disproportional losses. But it seems retarded because Russians were on the offensive here, which usually results in higher losses... which it did. Ukraine made use of their desire to take the town and grinded down a lot of Russian forces in turn.

All this is within my expectations, it only makes sense for Ukraine to persist while conditions are favorable. Of course it would've been nice if they regained full control there, but the value of whatever ruins remain is questionable at best.
It doesn't change much in the grand scheme of things, assuming Russian claims about capturing Bakhmut are even true. The cost was too great, while the return on investment just isn't there.
That's just one town, there's many more just like it. Does Russia have the resources and political will to repeat this multiple times, considering that Prigozhin who did the heavy lifting here aims to pull out? I doubt it.
Meanwhile Ukraine is preparing to strike with all its new toys. It's far from over, and by all means Kremlin lost long ago in many ways.

Edit: The Belgorod stuff is mental, how can stronk Russia allow this to happen on their border with the country they're at war with?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: The Demon Pimp of Razgriz, Fanatical Pragmatist, Le Pew and 8 others
Foltest said:
I was not expecting Belgorod to get invaded by the free russian legion.
The big question is what will Putin do now?
Click to expand...
Make threats about 'escalation' and then proceed to do nothing that hasn't already been done. Maybe, if we are lucky, he will make Medvedev tag Elon Musk in another schizopost about "Oinkraine" and the "Satanic" West.

muh_line.jpg
 
  • Like
  • Winner
Reactions: The Demon Pimp of Razgriz, Fanatical Pragmatist, Oxyjen and 5 others
mindlessobserver said:
He will threaten us with the absolute certainty that the consequences will never be the same again.
Click to expand...
It will be the grave we chose

But when it comes to Russian threats, the grave is a luxury villa in Tuscany
 
  • Like
Reactions: BSC
draggs said:
It will be the grave we chose

But when it comes to Russian threats, the grave is a luxury villa in Tuscany
Click to expand...
I wonder if it's really sunk in over at the Kremlin the nuclear bluff has already been called. Putin used that stick too freely and it's gotten old. nobody is taking it seriously, and even if they did allowing yourself to dictate policy through nuclear blackmail is a bad long term strategy.

besides, it's not like the west is short on nukes either. Vatniks seem to forget that part quite often.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: The Demon Pimp of Razgriz, Fanatical Pragmatist, Super Saiyan Hitler and 2 others
mindlessobserver said:
I wonder if it's really sunk in over at the Kremlin the nuclear bluff has already been called. Putin used that stick too freely and it's gotten old. nobody is taking it seriously, and even if they did allowing yourself to dictate policy through nuclear blackmail is a bad long term strategy.

besides, it's not like the west is short on nukes either. Vatniks seem to forget that part quite often.
Click to expand...
I've seen hilarious vatnigger hopium huffing elsewhere that Russia has nothing to fear from nuclear war. Because Russia has S-wunderwaffen systems that can shoot down any nuclear tipped missile, including MIRVs, ezpz :story:
 
  • Feels
  • Winner
  • DRINK!
Reactions: The Demon Pimp of Razgriz, Fanatical Pragmatist, Le Pew and 4 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back