I think what this guy is suggesting is that the first shoot-down was by an incompetent operator but someone else messed with the system so that it made it seem like a frickup of the auto-targeting software or something like that to protect the first guy from repercussions. Because it’s really weird that they mange to shoot down thier own planes at all let alone twice and both times an A-50. Russia uses friend-or-foe transponders so this shouldn’t be a common occurrence.
I mean, to be fair, it seems pretty clear to me that this is just schizoid cope to try to square the circle of how Air Defense could be so monumentally incompetent as to shoot down their own AWACS twice in...what is now, 5-6 weeks?...rather than acknowledge the mere possibility that the Ukrainians could shoot down a Russian aircraft that far behind the lines. That said, unless the translation fricked up, he's also pretty clearly saying that he thinks the shootdowns were a deliberate act by a saboteur/double agent who is being covered by another saboteur/double agent.
>Russia uses friend-or-foe transponders
That shouldn't even matter when the only thing Ukraine could possibly send that far out is a fricking suicide drone and you're picking up an airliner sized radar signature.
Shit like that doesn't just happen accident, someone is pulling the strings here.
>Russia uses friend-or-foe transponders >he thinks friend-or-foe transponders are reliable ID
Do you remember that story vatniks like to parade so much >Vietnam era >hurr duur missiles don't need canons >hurr hurr stupid burgers >Vietnam happens fighters are not allowed to launch missiles without visual ID, ie without coming into canons range >canons are back! Burgers are stupid!
Only stupid vatnikns never asked themselves why do fighters were not allowed to launch missiles without visual ID, Americans didn't have friend or foe transponders or something?
Yes, but the whole point is that they cannot admit that the enemy did it (because that would involve a loss of face), so literally anything else, no matter how improbable, is preferred.
Debatable: if the enemy can reach that far, then nobody in that range is safe, which is obviously not good for morale. If it's friendly fire, on the other hand, then they can brush it off as a single isolated accident and assure everyone that there's no threat (while quietly doing their best to reposition assets as far away as possible)
They're unironically saying that it both is and isn't FF this time. Will wonders never cease?
These moments of pure chaos before they can coordinate the official cope and it's every shill for himself are the funniest ones.
Yeah, it really is a joy to watch. That's how you know that they got absolutely blindsided.
You can smell the schizophrenia in that comment, lol. Like they're completely scrambled in the head trying to make up an excuse.
I think what this guy is suggesting is that the first shoot-down was by an incompetent operator but someone else messed with the system so that it made it seem like a frickup of the auto-targeting software or something like that to protect the first guy from repercussions. Because it’s really weird that they mange to shoot down thier own planes at all let alone twice and both times an A-50. Russia uses friend-or-foe transponders so this shouldn’t be a common occurrence.
I mean, to be fair, it seems pretty clear to me that this is just schizoid cope to try to square the circle of how Air Defense could be so monumentally incompetent as to shoot down their own AWACS twice in...what is now, 5-6 weeks?...rather than acknowledge the mere possibility that the Ukrainians could shoot down a Russian aircraft that far behind the lines. That said, unless the translation fricked up, he's also pretty clearly saying that he thinks the shootdowns were a deliberate act by a saboteur/double agent who is being covered by another saboteur/double agent.
>Russia uses friend-or-foe transponders
That shouldn't even matter when the only thing Ukraine could possibly send that far out is a fricking suicide drone and you're picking up an airliner sized radar signature.
Shit like that doesn't just happen accident, someone is pulling the strings here.
He flew?
>CRASH EET
Will there be a city on Mars named Budangrad in the future
Someone in the Army clearing the decks before /rcwg/ kicks off?
>Russia uses friend-or-foe transponders
>he thinks friend-or-foe transponders are reliable ID
Do you remember that story vatniks like to parade so much
>Vietnam era
>hurr duur missiles don't need canons
>hurr hurr stupid burgers
>Vietnam happens fighters are not allowed to launch missiles without visual ID, ie without coming into canons range
>canons are back! Burgers are stupid!
Only stupid vatnikns never asked themselves why do fighters were not allowed to launch missiles without visual ID, Americans didn't have friend or foe transponders or something?
isn't this worse than admitting the enemy did it?
Yes, but the whole point is that they cannot admit that the enemy did it (because that would involve a loss of face), so literally anything else, no matter how improbable, is preferred.
Debatable: if the enemy can reach that far, then nobody in that range is safe, which is obviously not good for morale. If it's friendly fire, on the other hand, then they can brush it off as a single isolated accident and assure everyone that there's no threat (while quietly doing their best to reposition assets as far away as possible)
>they can brush it off as a single isolated accident
*two singe isolated accidents
usually but they consider ukrainians subhuman so admitting your a tard is much better
>The crew is a separate matter. The specialists of highest class. You cannot bring them from Central Asia.
lmfao
Sweden sends its regards wink wink
>F-35
>leaving friendly airspace
>ever
ok