With report two AWACs downed and along with production allegedly needing to be restarted.

With report two AWACs downed and along with production allegedly needing to be restarted. Why didn't the soviets invest more in AWACs? Wouldn't of been the perfect solution for the massive borders. You could keep them relatively safe they would be inside your own borders. While flying them to hot spots around your massive country.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Look up Soviet Air Force doctrine on your preferred search engine

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The Soviets gave up on competing with the west as far as aircraft, and focused on ground-based air defense. The west focused almost entirely on aircraft and gave up on air defense.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >gave up on air defense.
      Except for the fact that Western SAMS actually work.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    We had this thread, the picture is shopped. Look at compression levels.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      In case anyone missed it
      https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/61068979

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Maybe, maybe not. If you compare the two pictures they are definitely similar but not the same. For example look at the part of the tail which is visible between the wing and raydome —there is clearly more tail visible in the “new” picture, and the angle of the shot is a little different, ie, look at the position of the ladder. That’s not something you can just fake. So it’s more likely IMO that the “new” imagine is in fact showing a new A-50U on the same runway and a photo taken by someone in a similar but not identical position as the “old”.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Hmmmmmm

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      are you implying russia is not telling the truth and has magically built a new plane that took it 7 years to build 5 examples of during peace time?!

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Rather an old paint job for a "new" airframe if that be asserted as such. Zoomed on a non-potato display tells the tale.

      Trying to fool Anons who spent decades maintaining military aircraft is a fool's errand, especially those jerking off continuously as we see the sons of our old opponents (and more than a few of our old opponents to judge by their apparent age) die in the mud.

      When USAREUR was downsized and the BAOR disbanded we knew it wasn't over. Now the machines we loved and caressed live again killing Commies and it is glorious. I wish there were machine spirits because they'd be cooming with the force of a thousand /b/s, but I shall cum for them.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >the Ukrainians shot down a A50? Build another two
    how do you respond without sounding mad?

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    This plane looks weird as frick. It sits in this uncanny valley of realistic but wrong, like all those "AI" images.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The Soviet's response to border patrol was the MiG-25/31. With that they had an aircraft that could both scan and engage if need be. Needed something that could immediately respond if needed, versus phoning in for backup that would be a long time calling (the classic police are minutes away when seconds matter). Unlike the USA, the USSR didn't have airbases everywhere in country; some areas (ex. parts of far north) were a distance from the nearest airfield. Given the expense and maintenance requirements of the A-50, odds are they could manufacture multiple MiG-31 for the cost of a single A-50 and thus be able to cover more area than a single A-50 could, even if one ignores the scramble time needed for back up from the closest airfield.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Then why did dnt they just build more airbases

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Because that wasn't viable. We're talking about areas which are virtually uninhabitable, lack roads/railroads (how will you get supplies/equipment there?), and/or horrible weather (introducing all sorts of complications). It was much more cost-effective to instead build a purpose built patrol/interceptor craft instead.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >How will you get suppliers/equipment there
          Idk, I thought maybe the fricking aircraft. Lol.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            How do you make the airfield for aircraft to land there to begin with when there is no good way to get equipment out there period?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Airlift is an absurd cost center even for the US at peak early Cold War. For peacetime every major combat base not supplied by ships (the most efficient way to move cargo by far) needs a pipeline and/or a rail spur for tank cars. Aircraft are amazingly thirsty.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Every stage of dealing with a Russian involves dealing with lies.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Does that include dead russians

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Dealing with a dead russian involves living russians lying about his death so yes

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Since they've lost over 1/3rd of their total AWACS does that mean they won't be able to operate 3 A-50s for the entirety of Russia at the same time? Right now they would be able to operate 1 continuously surging to 2 if things are important. 1 more lost and its down to a single AWACS.

      Also I assume "restarting production" is code for "using IL-76 parts to make the old rotting un-midlifed ones airworthy again and giving them a new bort number so we can claim they are new"

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Soviets preferred ground controlled intercept.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Why didn't the soviets invest more in AWACs?
    They did. Then 1991 happened. No money and shit, loss of industry, experience and know-how. The total number built was about 40 or so. Some got sold, some just withered away. A small chunk got upgraded to the recent modification.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    what's also funny is that supposedly all A-50s have been grounded. funny if true
    >https://www.newsweek.com/russia-a50-grounds-russia-attacks-1875311

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Pidorashkas yesterday announced the resumption of A-50 production, the main reason for which is... export demand.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They also have the A-100 they are working on producing.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Why didn't the soviets invest more in AWACs?
    soviets did, Russia let it rot away

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Russia does not have the industrial might of soviet union they lost a large chunk of industrial sites and skilled labor with the collapse.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      They just need to build a couple of planes! They aren't making 100 of them!

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    All that about planes being worse is complete bullshit. Soviet aviation was perfectly fine and planes were pretty competitive with what west had AT THE TIME(I swear to God, if single moronic points out that "akshully modern western planes"...). What was actually the problem is that soviets were desperately behind in electronics. By the 80's they just couldn't even compete anymore and gap only kept on increasing until union fell, and then some more until russians simply didn't bought western electronics for their stuff. Respectively, soviet awacs was complete shit, to the point of being fricking worthless, so there was little point in building them. What russians use now is actually a heavily modernized version, one that doesn't require operator to manually report the data from a dozen murky oscilographs by phone.

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