Indus
Lifer
- May 11, 2002
- 15,571
- 10,851
- 136
Fortunately the cruise missiles weren't reliant on the whim of Musk and still hit their targets. But he most likely did cripple the effectiveness of the accompanying drones, as Musk once again helps protect the Russian fleet with that purely coincidental total outage of Starlink during yet another Sevastopol attack.Once is happenstance.
Twice is coincidence.
Three times is enemy action!
I'm not discounting what you claim. It sounds right in line with what that dumbass says. It's the fucking gall that twat has to say it.Saw it earlier today while scanning news sites. Can't find it at the momemt and don't want his name in my search history.
Basically, he supports China's position and thinks the US is wrong for 'interfering in reunification.
Oh that may be because Tesla wants to expand in China and he's kissing China's arse, thought as you say it's him being a twat.Found it a different way .....
Musk calls Taiwan a 'part of China' and blames US for blocking 'reunification effort'
Washington Examiner on MSN.com|48 minutes ago![]()
Elon Musk appeared to pick a side in the China-Taiwan controversy, stating that the island is "part of China" despite its push for economic and political independence from the country.
It was probably on AP which is why that rag picked it up ...
Understand, if Russia needs more shells... beyond the 2 million / year Russia is producing....
We need to step the hell up.
"Russia's current ammunition production is seven times greater than that of the West."
Well, Russia has had sufficient artillery that landing exactly where they are supposed to wasn't a big deal, they just use massed blanket coverage with multiple artillery batteries. And if only ~80% explode, oh well. As long as they had a 10:1 (or far more) advantage in artillery, and comparable range they could get away with it and come out ahead ~ but this is mostly no longer the case.How many of them land where they are supposed to and actually explode?
?
Care to share a link?
Russian and to an extent soviet doctrine relies on artillery more than western doctrine does. Artillery shells don't need a direct hit to cause injury. Blast radius or even the constant drumming of artillery exploding near or around you will mess with your psychey and disorient you over time. I'm not an expert on this stuff but I was told by a vietnam vet once that enough artillery near or around you will slowly damage your vestibular system and the tiny hairs in your inner ear. One helps oyu with balance and not wanting to feel nauseous and the other is essential for hearing. The Ukrainians hiding from those bombardments will be scarred for years to come given enough time.Well, Russia has had sufficient artillery that landing exactly where they are supposed to wasn't a big deal, they just use massed blanket coverage with multiple artillery batteries. And if only ~80% explode, oh well. As long as they had a 10:1 (or far more) advantage in artillery, and comparable range they could get away with it and come out ahead ~ but this is mostly no longer the case.
Satellite image from a bit back of artillery coverage near front lines of Bakhmut I believe... with thousands of artillery craters on just one intersection and surrounding fields.
View attachment 85800
Funny how the ‘free speech absolutist’ keeps bending over for the world’s worst regimes while attacking western countries for their illiberalism.![]()
Taiwan calls out Elon Musk after he calls it ‘integral part of China’
Tesla co-founder previously suggested Taiwan should become a ‘special administrative zone’ in Chinawww.independent.co.uk
Military jets tend not to have airfoils for their wings, it's just flat plate so the lift you get it low speeds is very small. Add to that their smaller wing areas and they are good at gliding. They count on their massive engines to keep them flying.My guess is he ran out of fuel or engine flamed out and couldn't restart given the glide he was on. I can't make out any landing gear. I don't know how well military jets can turn and glide because I presume they're not as graceful as a prop plane.
Mafia state gonna mafia. Sanctions only slow them down.![]()
Russia Overcomes Sanctions to Expand Missile Production, Officials Say (Published 2023)
Moscow’s missile production now exceeds prewar levels, officials say, leaving Ukraine especially vulnerable this coming winter.www.nytimes.com
looks like smuggling is working
What type tanks would be more interesting for me to know.
Wait what? military planes still have air foils, but the wing loading (depending on the role/design) is optimized for different things. A straight line interceptor like the F-104 is optimized for straight line speed to intercept and has thin wings for correspondingly lower drag and better speed. As a result it also has dogshit low speed performance. Thinner wings mean smaller fuel storage and shorter range (hence the need for external tanks).Military jets tend not to have airfoils for their wings, it's just flat plate so the lift you get it low speeds is very small. Add to that their smaller wing areas and they are good at gliding. They count on their massive engines to keep them flying.
If Russia helps NK with rocket/ballistic missile technology, that would be very bad for SK/Japan and China as well. It might push SK to do something to show its displeasure.We are not sure that NK will supply arms to Russia. Apparently while China likes Russia for sticking it to the West, they really don't like this war. They just want it to go away. They may be very unhappy with NK if they decide to help out in a massive way.
Russia seems to have offered to help NK with launching satellites. And a NK person will go into space at some point on a Russia rocket. We don't know what NK have offered in return.
If Russia helps NK with rocket/ballistic missile technology, that would be very bad for SK/Japan and China as well. It might push SK to do something to show its displeasure.
If Russia helps NK with rocket/ballistic missile technology, that would be very bad for SK/Japan and China as well. It might push SK to do something to show its displeasure.
Yes, I guess they are do have a variation in thickness but it's basically a plate.Wait what? military planes still have air foils, but the wing loading (depending on the role/design) is optimized for different things. A straight line interceptor like the F-104 is optimized for straight line speed to intercept and has thin wings for correspondingly lower drag and better speed. As a result it also has dogshit low speed performance. Thinner wings mean smaller fuel storage and shorter range (hence the need for external tanks).
A multirole fighter/ground attack plane needs better low speed performance and speed isnt quite as imperative so the wing loadings are lower and the foil provides more lift, facilitating higher combat loadings and (depending on the design) increasing maneuverability.