The world must successful attack aircraft to of ever been

Westoids can't accept this.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    "to OF ever been"? are you lobotomized or just american? do you genuinely not think about what the frick the words you are typing mean?

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Aw, that's cute.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      youre gay

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That would be the A-10, which killed at least 2,000 tanks, vehicles and artillery pieces in Desert Storm using 4,800 Maverick missiles

        >F-111
        >deletes at least 500 Iraqi armored vehicles in Desert Storm
        you're ignorant

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >you're ignorant
          your boring a10 sad fat slow and heavy slug thrower
          f111 bad
          su25 great
          its simple

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          lame.
          pic related did killed more with dumb bombs and mg / autocannons.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >pic related did killed more
            died more too

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              oh really sherlock, constantly hovering above an active battle zone exposes one to enemy fire, does it?
              can one get hurt in this thing called a war?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                ahh, so you don't like it when others make unfair comparisons eh

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                nope. but in absolute numbers of k/d any world war participiant wins over whack-a-mole snow/sandBlack person edition fighters. esp. if on the outnumbered side.

                but, shouldnt you be in school right now? or are you little brat phoneposting during class?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                pajeet opinion ignored

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                shut up shitskin, dont projekt your Black personism onto the masterrace

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Slick improvised tow method. Maintainers be like that.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >killed at least 2,000 tanks, vehicles and artillery pieces in Desert Storm using 4,800 Maverick missiles
          From the people that lost the video of the highway of death and the MSF hospital attack in Afghanistan.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >That would be the A-10, which killed at least 2,000 tanks, vehicles and artillery pieces in Desert Storm using 4,800 Maverick missiles

          Source?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The F16 and F15E can carry the exact armament, further faster and better, the A10 only works when you have total air dominance

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            but are those really "attack" aircraft?
            the F16 is multi-role
            the F15E is theoretically a bomber, or what is called "interdiction" or "strike" in Cold War terms

            New Bradley /k/ino dropped. Lighting up a treeline full of infantry at close range.
            https://x.com/ukrainenewslive/status/1788119097923809390?s=46&t=vNUOI7d7yJFqHoqKrRS_XQ

            Someone will Webm this and start a thread. Not me though

            are you THIS desperate for attention, warriortard?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      GET IN THE FRIDGE GET IN THE FRIDGE GET IN GET IN GET IN

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      God I love Aardvark
      Why did they have to go? Why did they have to make Jesus weep by pulling F-111 from service?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Something something swing wings expensive something something asbestos

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I flight mechanic somewhere in the world just wished you were dieing from herpes.

          https://i.imgur.com/jllw3Es.jpeg

          Simplest answer is, it was built to fly a mission that is no longer part of the US's and most NATO partners' strategic & tactical doctrine. The main driving purpose of planes like the Vark and Tornado where to bomb low & fast because air defenses and SAMS were getting too good and too numerous in the 60s and 70s, and it would be unreasonably costly to try and fight through them. The only real way around this problem was to fly in places that radar had trouble seeing. As technology developed, ECM and jamming became much more effective, decoy drones became a significant part of large air packages, ways to destroy or suppress anti-air ground systems got a lot better. Combine that with anti-air radar getting better too, with better look-down ability and data-linking for stuff like AWACS to peer down into valleys, the better answer for "AA systems, what do" became to confuse and suppress the shit out of them rather than try to hide from them.

          It's the Vark's luck that it turned out to be a really good strike bomber thanks to the payload capacity, unfortunately the parts of the design that allowed it to go low and fast well meant it had to compromise on other things. It's also a plane from the 60's, it was due for retirement. Ironically, I feel like the conversion of EF-111's paved the way for its own demise, showing that a fast ewar jet was good, so why not make them out of existing F-18's and save cost, training, maint, etc.

          ^This and the support footprint was hyooge. While every airframe has a few turbo-autists who love working on it (because working on aircraft is fun for the right humans) the Air Force has to consider resources, deployment footprints and pallet positions (every bit of airlift space used for one purpose is unavailable for others including more of same), and other stuff uninteresting to teenbois of all ages.

          US air power is expeditionary while non-expeditionary users can fly such systems much longer. A more famous example is Phantom which were always maintenance hogs. Avionics and comms in the tube and tuning motor era (I was a 328X0 on Bronco and Phantom) were a major support burden. That meant deploying more people, parts, test equipment etc than for much more reliable modern systems. The stuff was fun to work on especially in back shop but also prone to intermittent malfunctions. Some bench checks included a drop check (raise radio or whatever X inches above bench while connected and powered on then drop and verify all is well and in tune). I and many others were mildly gobsmacked those systems worked as well as they did.

          Tip for any tech (USAF example here) with a component that's intermittent despite group best efforts: Find a part not available, not listed in tech data etc then keep it for the scrounge (hidden supplementary parts stash every unit has somewhere) foot locker. Write it up wisely then NRTS (Not Repairable This Station, pronounced "nertz") it so it goes away and you get a fresh unit so the aircraft can do what it was bought to do, generate effective sorties.

          I know, I know, I understand, but why does it still hurt so much?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I flight mechanic somewhere in the world just wished you were dieing from herpes.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Simplest answer is, it was built to fly a mission that is no longer part of the US's and most NATO partners' strategic & tactical doctrine. The main driving purpose of planes like the Vark and Tornado where to bomb low & fast because air defenses and SAMS were getting too good and too numerous in the 60s and 70s, and it would be unreasonably costly to try and fight through them. The only real way around this problem was to fly in places that radar had trouble seeing. As technology developed, ECM and jamming became much more effective, decoy drones became a significant part of large air packages, ways to destroy or suppress anti-air ground systems got a lot better. Combine that with anti-air radar getting better too, with better look-down ability and data-linking for stuff like AWACS to peer down into valleys, the better answer for "AA systems, what do" became to confuse and suppress the shit out of them rather than try to hide from them.

        It's the Vark's luck that it turned out to be a really good strike bomber thanks to the payload capacity, unfortunately the parts of the design that allowed it to go low and fast well meant it had to compromise on other things. It's also a plane from the 60's, it was due for retirement. Ironically, I feel like the conversion of EF-111's paved the way for its own demise, showing that a fast ewar jet was good, so why not make them out of existing F-18's and save cost, training, maint, etc.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          ^This and the support footprint was hyooge. While every airframe has a few turbo-autists who love working on it (because working on aircraft is fun for the right humans) the Air Force has to consider resources, deployment footprints and pallet positions (every bit of airlift space used for one purpose is unavailable for others including more of same), and other stuff uninteresting to teenbois of all ages.

          US air power is expeditionary while non-expeditionary users can fly such systems much longer. A more famous example is Phantom which were always maintenance hogs. Avionics and comms in the tube and tuning motor era (I was a 328X0 on Bronco and Phantom) were a major support burden. That meant deploying more people, parts, test equipment etc than for much more reliable modern systems. The stuff was fun to work on especially in back shop but also prone to intermittent malfunctions. Some bench checks included a drop check (raise radio or whatever X inches above bench while connected and powered on then drop and verify all is well and in tune). I and many others were mildly gobsmacked those systems worked as well as they did.

          Tip for any tech (USAF example here) with a component that's intermittent despite group best efforts: Find a part not available, not listed in tech data etc then keep it for the scrounge (hidden supplementary parts stash every unit has somewhere) foot locker. Write it up wisely then NRTS (Not Repairable This Station, pronounced "nertz") it so it goes away and you get a fresh unit so the aircraft can do what it was bought to do, generate effective sorties.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/jllw3Es.jpeg

            Simplest answer is, it was built to fly a mission that is no longer part of the US's and most NATO partners' strategic & tactical doctrine. The main driving purpose of planes like the Vark and Tornado where to bomb low & fast because air defenses and SAMS were getting too good and too numerous in the 60s and 70s, and it would be unreasonably costly to try and fight through them. The only real way around this problem was to fly in places that radar had trouble seeing. As technology developed, ECM and jamming became much more effective, decoy drones became a significant part of large air packages, ways to destroy or suppress anti-air ground systems got a lot better. Combine that with anti-air radar getting better too, with better look-down ability and data-linking for stuff like AWACS to peer down into valleys, the better answer for "AA systems, what do" became to confuse and suppress the shit out of them rather than try to hide from them.

            It's the Vark's luck that it turned out to be a really good strike bomber thanks to the payload capacity, unfortunately the parts of the design that allowed it to go low and fast well meant it had to compromise on other things. It's also a plane from the 60's, it was due for retirement. Ironically, I feel like the conversion of EF-111's paved the way for its own demise, showing that a fast ewar jet was good, so why not make them out of existing F-18's and save cost, training, maint, etc.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Thank you for your informative post, anon.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        because it's an ancient airframe, swing wings are maintenance heavy, and F-15Es with targeting pods are cheaper

        ^This and the support footprint was hyooge. While every airframe has a few turbo-autists who love working on it (because working on aircraft is fun for the right humans) the Air Force has to consider resources, deployment footprints and pallet positions (every bit of airlift space used for one purpose is unavailable for others including more of same), and other stuff uninteresting to teenbois of all ages.

        US air power is expeditionary while non-expeditionary users can fly such systems much longer. A more famous example is Phantom which were always maintenance hogs. Avionics and comms in the tube and tuning motor era (I was a 328X0 on Bronco and Phantom) were a major support burden. That meant deploying more people, parts, test equipment etc than for much more reliable modern systems. The stuff was fun to work on especially in back shop but also prone to intermittent malfunctions. Some bench checks included a drop check (raise radio or whatever X inches above bench while connected and powered on then drop and verify all is well and in tune). I and many others were mildly gobsmacked those systems worked as well as they did.

        Tip for any tech (USAF example here) with a component that's intermittent despite group best efforts: Find a part not available, not listed in tech data etc then keep it for the scrounge (hidden supplementary parts stash every unit has somewhere) foot locker. Write it up wisely then NRTS (Not Repairable This Station, pronounced "nertz") it so it goes away and you get a fresh unit so the aircraft can do what it was bought to do, generate effective sorties.

        >hidden supplementary parts stash
        and then they wonder why there's so much wastage and why the Pentagon is unable to complete an audit of a trillion dollars of untraceable equipment

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Sir, that's clearly are fighter. Why else would it's name start with F?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >a fighter is a better attack aircraft than your attack aircraft

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >F for Fighter
        >Su for Suckhoi
        F-111 wins

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          SuckХУЙ

          look it up

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Any plane is a fighter, if used in a war

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous
  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Get your bespoke shit out of here we need room for 30000 of a REAL man's attack aircraft

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      what did these things do except get shot down?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        their main purpose was stafing or rocket bombing forward positions
        they also had a pair of autocannons that could deal more damage than their relatively weak rockets (4x 2lb rockets)

        it was definitely worse than the P-47 in the ground attack role, the 10x 7.5lb rockets of the P-47 could offset the poor accuracy of the rockets through sheer weight and the P-47 could actually fly fast enough to hold its own against enemy aircraft
        but the 30,000 Il-2s produced meant they could mass a truly large swarm to offset their individually weak load

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Looked cool

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          debatable

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        cheap to produce

        much like the T-34 which was a shit tank, it was able to be cranked out in such numbers that losses didn't matter much

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Read “The Forgotten Soldier” by Guy Sajer. He was a German in logistics on the eastern front and there’s some detailed accounts of convoys getting shredded

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Love the IL10’s armoured radiator. I wonder if such armouring would increase survivability of a water cooled engine to that of a radial air cooled in a naval carrier setting.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No, because one (other than tiny) hole in a liquid cooling system and it's fricked. OTOH radial engines have had whole cylinders blown off and still RTB so long as the master rod is intact. Radials use roller bearings which merely need lube. Most inlines use shell bearings like cars which rely on oil pump pressure to hold the crankshaft off the bearings and the connecting rods off the journals making inlines far less tolerant of damage.

        Turbines and jet engines also use roller bearings and use internal air blankets for cooling making them robust too.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >one tiny hole and it’s fricked
          Wouldn’t the amour cladding increase the size of shrapnel required to cause such a hole to a point such that even a radial wouldn’t surivive?
          >Radials use roller bearings which merely need lube. Most inlines use shell bearings
          Couldn’t rollers be used to avoid that issue? I can’t imagine it’s a requirement as the wasp major stacks cylinders behind each other.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Ah yes, the Easy Mode, WWII German Ace Generator.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous
  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I really like it in Project: Wingman. I think it looks neat.
    That's the best I can do.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    buccaneer moggs

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >to of ever been

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >sorties you're thread

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Me109 mogs everyone
    in kills
    in production numbers
    in active service time
    in style
    these pretty planes are just like little babies to her

    and for fricks sake ukraine, get an easier to paint camo pattern. no modelist wants to spent a lifetime masking this shit with tamiya tape.
    thank you and godspeed bombing the russkies

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      no one cares for ur c**tcraft

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        c**tcraft? how dare u talk like that about your mother!

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    bitch

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >door on the side like some fricking sky truck

      how much internet space did it have and whats the fricking point anyway

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I don't think they had Internet back then mate.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Learn to internet. Skyraider history is worth it.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Built in cuckshed for equipment operators / passengers depending on the variant

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I had no frickin clue this is what was inside those things.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >You get a door AND a window
          Canberra navs absolutely seething rn

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        > how much internet space did it have and whats the fricking point anyway
        This anon never heard of a hind and he is probably eating beans

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >how much internet space did it have
        'bout three fiddy megabytes

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    even in ukie camo it's ugly as sin. Frog foot really is an adequate name for the lumpy monstrosity. Also Russia has lost 31 and Ukraine 17. That's 48 of these bastards lost over a few years in a tiny area. Truly a successful design yeah

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      name a better design

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/Jh13q1U.jpeg

        Aw, that's cute.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      A "tiny area" where the biggest conflict after WWII is taking place. Seek help now

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Vietnam's still bigger, but on the other hand, given Russia's overall incompetence and stubbornness, this shit likely will outlast that eventually. Even worse eventual outcome for Russia than Vietnam was for the US too.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        giga moron. The entire front line could fit within NY state. Or south vietnam. And it's not even nearly the largest conflict since WWII. That would be Vietnam, Korea, even the Gulf War if we just consider # of vehicles and materiel and not casualties (where they are more similar). To put it another way, there's a LOT of room for it to get worse for Russia

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The wars you mentioned weren't peer conflict

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            And neither is this. It's the world's second strongest military against the poorest country per capita in the whole of Europe. Calling it a peer conflict is unfathomable levels of cope

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    In video games like DCS and CMO the Su-25 has an extensive loadout. All sorts of PGMs. Bit in real-world Su-25 operations in Syria and Ukraine it’s ONLY dumb-rocket pod. Literally nothing else. Why is there such a discrepancy?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Because IRL the guided munitions it uses Kh-25 and Kh-29 are only used as anti-ship and anti-structure missiles. It has no ATGM capability
      The Su-25SM3 can use TV-guided munitions, but again they're not ATGMs

      Su-25T/Su-39 had ATGM capability with Vikhrs but they're beam-riding, and exposed the plane to immense risk of being shot down compared to pop-up strikes using them from helicopters.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I mean, tbf you only needed barrel bombs to bomb ISIS and other moderate headchoppers.

      In Ukraine no side can fly theirs without getting immediately shot down.

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    That's why it's the most shot down aircraft of the war right ?
    On both sides.
    Because of it's sucess.

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    That's a funny looking Tornado.

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I like ww2 aviation because it was the peak performance of soul — just lightweight frames and simple controls carrying a big engine and big guns. It all came down to which guy had the biggest engine and most guns. Once we enter the jet engine era the rules of physics start determining aircraft design to a greater extent. Now it’s who has the best stealth, most sophisticated sensors and longest-range, highest-performance missiles, areal refueling and AWACS.

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Do pilots just piss themselves if they have to go while on a flight mission

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Best possible execution of an utterly shit concept (CAS)
    What do you call this?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Su-25 is absolutely shit as a CAS plane. In fact it doesn't even do CAS. It merely does ground attack. It comes in quick, unloads dumb rockets into the predetermined area and swiftly fricks off. It doesn't loiter to pick up and confirm targets with a targeting pod. It doesn't do precision strikes. CAS means close, precise targeting of enemies near friendlies. Su-25 doesn't do that. It doesn't have the tech. It's too fast to do it by eye. It's more like artillery but in the old sense, without today's drone correction and software maps. As an actual CAS plane A-10 mogs it. Hell, any American multirole fighter mogs it at CAS. Targeting pod and precision munitions makes this true. Su-25 has neither in practice.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You will never be a real close air support aircraft. You have no targeting pod, you have no precision-guided munitions, you have no wienerpit visibility. You are a mere attack plane twisted by Communist cargo cult copying into a crude mockery of the original American perfection.

      All the "validation" you get is two-faced and half-hearted. Behind your back people mock you. The troops on the ground are disgusted and ashamed of you, your Western contrarian simps laugh at your Soviet clanker wienerpit in their Discord servers.

      Ground troops are utterly repulsed by you. Thousands years of warfare have allowed soldiers to sniff out frauds with incredible efficiency. Even attack runs that "pass" look uncanny and unnatural to the soldier. Your fast speed is a dead giveaway. And even if you manage to hit close to the the general vicinity of the enemy, you'll turn tail and dash back to base the without even talking to the troops you're meant to close support about a follow on attack.

      You will never hit anything near your friendlies to relieve them. You wrench out a rocket volley every single sortie and tell yourself they're going to be ok, but deep inside you feel the casualties creeping up like a weed, ready to crush you under the unbearable weight of retirement into a museum.

      Eventually it'll be too much to bear - you'll come in screaming low and fast, pull up, and unload your dumb rockets in the general direction of the enemy, only to get shot down by a MANPAD before you could cowardly get away. Ground troops will gaze up to the sky, heartbroken but relieved that that they no longer have to live with the unbearable shame and disappointment. They'll write in their memoirs that no close air support took place during that mission, and that what you did was more akin to a glorified MLRS artillery job.

      This is your fate. This is what your designers chose. There is no turning back, only a quick dash back to base.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        good one

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The A-7 was a good attack plane.

  19. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    For me, it’s the Skyhawk.

  20. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >to of ever been

  21. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This plane will always have a special place in my heart because of the 2007 Ivoirian strike on French aoldiers blowing up these motherfrickers, sending them to hell.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      kys

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Assblasted Frenchie

  22. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >The world must successful attack aircraft to of ever been
    I know o/p is trying to tell us something, guys, but I just don't know what it is. :-/

    Anyone have a fix on him? He either overdosed on curry or he might be strokin' out at his computer.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I think it was probably bait to get us to post pictures of various attack aircraft

  23. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Su25 is a shit which must retired from zsu already. This garbage cost to many lives of our pilots

  24. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    STUKAVERBAND IM ANGRIFF AUF BOLSCHEWISTISCHE PANZER- UND TRUPPENANSAMMLUNGEN

  25. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You don't have to like it, but this is peak strike craft performance

  26. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Correct, but only if it's a ukrainian-operated one like in your pic.

  27. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    New Bradley /k/ino dropped. Lighting up a treeline full of infantry at close range.
    https://x.com/ukrainenewslive/status/1788119097923809390?s=46&t=vNUOI7d7yJFqHoqKrRS_XQ

    Someone will Webm this and start a thread. Not me though

  28. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Can someone explain to me what these do better than a multi role fighter aircraft oh yeah right nothing so who fricking cares.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Payload, range, loiter time, cost. Same reasons why a crop duster actually makes a great CAS platform.

  29. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I like Tornados

  30. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The A-4 Skyhawk mogs them all.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *