ADVERTISEMENT

This might be a little tougher than Putin thought...

Russia has lost roughly 3 times the planes / helicopters in combat these last 12 days than US has total since end of Vietnam War...

Planes, yes, but helicopters is a little different:

According to media reports, 129 helicopters and 24 fixed-wing aircraft were lost in Iraq between the 2003 invasion and February 2009. Of these incidents, 46 have been attributed to hostile fire, such as anti-aircraft artillery and surface-to-air missiles. In March 2007, Brig. Gen. Stephen Mundt said that 130 helicopters had been lost in both Iraq and Afghanistan, about a third to hostile fire, and he was concerned that they were not being replaced fast enough. A report published in Aircraft Survivability in Summer 2010 gave a total of 375 U.S. helicopters lost in Iraq and Afghanistan up to 2009. Of these, 70 were downed by hostile fire, while the other 305 losses have been classified as non-hostile or non-combat events


I'm sure we lots a few more after 2009.
 
Illia Ponomarenko is hero. HIs twitter feed is amazing.


Sting: «I’ve only rarely sung this song in the many years since it was written, because I never thought it would be relevant again. But, in the light of one man’s bloody and woefully misguided decision to invade a peaceful, unthreatening neighbor, the song is, once again, a plea for our common humanity. For the brave Ukrainians fighting against this brutal tyranny and also the many Russians who are protesting this outrage despite the threat of arrest and imprisonment - We, all of us, love our children. Stop the war.

Supplies shipped to this warehouse in Poland are delivered in coordination with the Armed Forces of Ukraine and are guaranteed to go to people most in need».

Warehouse address:
Pol-Cel
Ramos Breska 63, 22-100 Chelm, Poland

Every box should be labeled “HELP UKRAINE” and indicate the contents: “Medicines,” “Clothes,” “Food,” “Humanitarian Aid.”

For more info, contact:
UK +44 1353 885152
USA +1 855 725 1152
helpukraine.center [link in bio]
Thanks to @szumowska.m for helping us connect to this organization.

 
Planes, yes, but helicopters is a little different:

According to media reports, 129 helicopters and 24 fixed-wing aircraft were lost in Iraq between the 2003 invasion and February 2009. Of these incidents, 46 have been attributed to hostile fire, such as anti-aircraft artillery and surface-to-air missiles. In March 2007, Brig. Gen. Stephen Mundt said that 130 helicopters had been lost in both Iraq and Afghanistan, about a third to hostile fire, and he was concerned that they were not being replaced fast enough. A report published in Aircraft Survivability in Summer 2010 gave a total of 375 U.S. helicopters lost in Iraq and Afghanistan up to 2009. Of these, 70 were downed by hostile fire, while the other 305 losses have been classified as non-hostile or non-combat events

I'm sure we lots a few more after 2009.
You just can't help yourself
 
So-let's talk about the great equalizer on the last row. The only thing holding Russia back from being ****ing ass kicked back to the stone age.


The estimated cost for the US to maintain OUR arsenal of bombs and missiles (not all of NATO) is 634 BILLION for 2021-2030. Remember, these are majorly complicated weapons that need new fuel and new fissile material to function.

When you look at it and the linked Brookings Institute Report from 24 years ago (https://www.brookings.edu/the-hidden-costs-of-our-nuclear-arsenal-overview-of-project-findings/) you will see that the US and NATO have spent trillions of dollars to maintain it's arsenal. So the question you have to ask now, after watching Russia get humiliated with outdated and poorly maintained weapons in large part due to corruption, do you really think Russia spent Trillions of dollars to maintain their arsenal as fire ready? How many of those warheads and bombs are still functioning and capable of being launched accurately? They won't find success with bombers. It would have been easy money to skim because they corrupt officials likely viewed them as never needed. I'm thinking 5-10%. .
So not to quibble, but the article you linked states that the DoD will have $405B in spending, not $634 (the rest is within the department of energy). That's $40B per year when we spent $766B in 2020. Russia spends about $65B per year on their military, from what I read. Based on what we are seeing in Urkaine with their non-nuke assets, it wouldn't surprise me if a good chunk of their spending is on nukes.

 
Yeah, I correct other people's mistakes a lot.
Sorry, I'm not sorry.

Just think, if they're losing this many to enemy fire, how many are they losing to their logistical nightmare?
The point still stands they have lost more planes in 12 days than US has lost in last 48 years. But you could not wait to rush in and downplay what is going on in this war by trying to spin the US losses....over 48 years. Of course now you want to back step and add your supportive line. Like I said-you can't help yourself. You are who you are and always were. A Putin Stooge. You have been rooting for Russia for years and nobody believes your Avatar now. Sorry not sorry.
 



FNLLMnuWQAkWyf0




FNLMx24XsAcMoSm



 
So not to quibble, but the article you linked states that the DoD will have $405B in spending, not $634 (the rest is within the department of energy). That's $40B per year when we spent $766B in 2020. Russia spends about $65B per year on their military, from what I read. Based on what we are seeing in Urkaine with their non-nuke assets, it wouldn't surprise me if a good chunk of their spending is on nukes.

Maybe, but I would bet a lot went to castles on the black sea, yachts, and miniature giraffes. Let's hope we never find out who is right!
 
The point still stands they have lost more planes in 12 days than US has lost in last 48 years.
And I agreed with that point.

But you could not wait to rush in and downplay what is going on in this war by trying to spin the US losses....over 48 years.

For the US the losses are really concentrated in the last 20.
Did you know we'd lost hundreds of helicopters in warzones the last two decades?
I didn't realize it until I came across a page detailing every single loss and cause. I was actually taken aback, because they way they're almost never reported makes the losses sort of invisible.
If you'd asked me a month ago to bet whether or not we had lost 300+ helicopters in warzones since 2000 I would have lost the bet.

Of course now you want to back step and add your supportive line. Like I said-you can't help yourself. You are who you are and always were. A Putin Stooge. You have been rooting for Russia for years and nobody believes your Avatar now. Sorry not sorry.
You can't quote anything I've said that could be mistaken for 'rootin for Putin'.
It has simply never happened.

I reject elective war as an instrument of policy.
Whether it is Russia doing it, or Saudi Arabia.
What about you?
 
Planes, yes, but helicopters is a little different:

According to media reports, 129 helicopters and 24 fixed-wing aircraft were lost in Iraq between the 2003 invasion and February 2009. Of these incidents, 46 have been attributed to hostile fire, such as anti-aircraft artillery and surface-to-air missiles. In March 2007, Brig. Gen. Stephen Mundt said that 130 helicopters had been lost in both Iraq and Afghanistan, about a third to hostile fire, and he was concerned that they were not being replaced fast enough. A report published in Aircraft Survivability in Summer 2010 gave a total of 375 U.S. helicopters lost in Iraq and Afghanistan up to 2009. Of these, 70 were downed by hostile fire, while the other 305 losses have been classified as non-hostile or non-combat events

I'm sure we lots a few more after 2009.
helicopters are inherently dangerous because they operate against physics to obtain lift and stability. Needs main rotor for lift (vs. gravity) and tail rotor for anti-torque (Newton's Third Law). When something breaks it all goes bad in a hurry. Planes work with physics, Bernoulli's principle....at least that is what a helicopter pilot told me before i was getting into one.
 
helicopters are inherently dangerous because they operate against physics to obtain lift and stability. Needs main rotor for lift (vs. gravity) and tail rotor for anti-torque (Newton's Third Law). When something breaks it all goes bad in a hurry. Planes work with physics, Bernoulli's principle....at least that is what a helicopter pilot told me before i was getting into one.
I was told helicopters beat the sky into submission in order to fly.
 
helicopters are inherently dangerous because they operate against physics to obtain lift and stability. Needs main rotor for lift (vs. gravity) and tail rotor for anti-torque (Newton's Third Law). When something breaks it all goes bad in a hurry. Planes work with physics, Bernoulli's principle....at least that is what a helicopter pilot told me before i was getting into one.
I wouldn't say they "operate against physics"

They operate under more complex physics, and will be inherently unstable if one of the rotors quits working. In contrast, a plane can still glide under control with the loss of an engine (inherent stability).

You lose one rotor on a copter and it's going to start spinning out of control quickly.
 
I wouldn't say they "operate against physics"

They operate under more complex physics, and will be inherently unstable if one of the rotors quits working. In contrast, a plane can still glide under control with the loss of an engine (inherent stability).

You lose one rotor on a copter and it's going to start spinning out of control quickly.
Planes want to stay in the air, helicopters do not
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT