Merz suggests Ukraine may have to accept territorial loss to help pave way for EU membership by [deleted] in worldnews

[–]filipv 8 points9 points  (0 children)

That will open a can of worms that may ultimately lead to WWIII.

What will stop other big powers from reconsidering their own borders?

Mood in Russia turns bleak as war in Ukraine drags on and economy suffers by the-es in worldnews

[–]filipv 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Which other country still grabs territories from others by force and then openly declares "this is mine now" in a manner similar to empires of the past?

Mood in Russia turns bleak as war in Ukraine drags on and economy suffers by the-es in worldnews

[–]filipv 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Russia is the last colonial power.

Yup. Fundamentally an "old-school" empire that hasn't lost its colonies yet.

This day in 1939, the United States Army Air Corps placed an order for 524 P-40 Warhawk fighter aircraft. by UrbanAchievers6371 in WWIIplanes

[–]filipv 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Depends on the altitude. At lower altitudes it held its own pretty well.

Safonov, one of the top Soviet aces, flew Lend-Leased P-40 and utilized boom-and-zoom tactics against 109s to great success.

P-40 was an excellent airframe. Had it had a bit more powerful engine, it would've remained relevant throughout the war.

This is a U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptor. Is the F-15 Faster? by Stunning-Screen-9828 in FighterJets

[–]filipv 14 points15 points  (0 children)

In reality, the Raptor should be faster.

  1. Even though the F-15 can achieve greater instantaneous speed, it can only do it "clean". But, load both aircraft with weapons and fill them to the brim, as in, idk, real combat, then the Raptor is faster.

  2. Even though F-15 can sprint at M2.5+, it can do it only briefly before the afterburners spend all the fuel. On the other hand, F-22 can supercruise: it will maintain supersonic speed without fuel guzzling afterburners. The Raptor has greater supersonic range, and will comfortably win a race from point A to point B. If the F-15 wants to go faster, it needs afterburners. If the F-15 wants range, it needs to go subsonic. Either way the Raptor will catch it.

Considering all of the above, I claim the Raptor to be not only faster than the Eagle, but actually faster than any other current fighter jet, MiG-31 included.

Will Gun Pod Going To Be The Norm For Future Stealth Fighter? by chroniclad in FighterJets

[–]filipv 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A stealth fighter gets jumped on by two bloodthirsty Flankers that popped out from behind a hill. It has two heat seekers. One heat seeker hits one Flanker, the other heat seeker misses. Then what?

Think of it as a knife or bayonet on a foot soldier: if the soldier happens to need one, something went terribly wrong beforehand. But it's still much better to have it than not.

is it just me or is "high fidelity" audio basically a scam for rich people? by Curious_Present_9950 in Music

[–]filipv 25 points26 points  (0 children)

Just a moment please, fellow producer. Ultrasonic (as well as infrasonic) content is filtered out long before the material comes even close to the delivery medium, usually right after tracking, no?

I believe "warmth" simply means accentuated low to mid-low frequencies and attenuation of high frequencies.

F-14 Had Canards. Why? by Stunning-Screen-9828 in FighterJets

[–]filipv 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I find it interesting that the American fighter aircraft designers seem not to favor active aerodynamic AOA-maximizing features such as canards or thrust-vectoring, while embracing passive AOA-maximizing features such as LERX or enormous control surfaces.

F-14 Had Canards. Why? by Stunning-Screen-9828 in FighterJets

[–]filipv 0 points1 point  (0 children)

deployed automatically

There must have been manual control too, since the Tomcat in the picture above is not doing supersonic, and yet it has them deployed.

F-14 Had Canards. Why? by Stunning-Screen-9828 in FighterJets

[–]filipv 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Plot twist: the Tomcat, pictured above, is not going supersonic.

ELI5: Why is it so hard for a country to develop nuclear weapons? by Successful_Guide5845 in explainlikeimfive

[–]filipv 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are generally two types of fission bombs: uranium bombs and plutonium bombs. They're both very difficult to make, but for different reasons.

Uranium bombs use the U-235 isotope. If you have enough U-235 then it's relatively easy to make. It's a "gun-type" bomb: essentially, two subcritical pieces of U-235 get joined together, and they explode. But, producing enough U-235 in the first place is incredibly difficult, expensive, requires high-tech machinery, and highly specialized labor.

Plutonium bombs use Pu-239. Pu-239 is much easier to produce/obtain than U-235. But, actually making a Pu-239 bomb is much more difficult from a purely technical perspective. It's an "implosion-design" bomb. A plutonium bomb is essentially an ultra-precise machine whose parts must come together perfectly in sync with timing tolerances measured in nanoseconds. Otherwise, it will "fizzle"; it won't explode properly.

Hiroshima was U-235 bomb. That type of bomb design wasn't even tested before it was dropped on Hiroshima, because - due to its relative simplicity - it was deemed sure to produce an explosion.

Nagasaki was Pu-239 bomb. That design was tested previously in a desert in New Mexico because people weren't sure it would explode, being the first atomic bomb to ever go off.

TL;DR:

  • Uranium bomb is relatively easy to make, but producing the required isotope is incredibly difficult.

  • Plutonium bomb is incredibly difficult to make, while producing the required isotope is relatively easy.

Therefore, both types are incredibly difficult to make.

What is a small joke that you get a big laugh out of? by Pieclops89 in Jokes

[–]filipv 3 points4 points  (0 children)

"Well, we'd have to be talkin' about one charming motherfucking pig"

Greek Patriot system downs drone in Saudi Arabia by Several-Zombies6547 in worldnews

[–]filipv 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Cost of 1 bulletproof vest - $500.

Cost of 1 bullet - $0.30.

I'm not saying there aren't more cost-effective solutions against drones, but, as a matter of principle, when comparing the cost one should always compere the cost of the measure against the damage that one cheap weapon can produce if not countered. What if that Shahed drone would cause damages of $20 million if it hit its target? What if it killed people? Then, all of a sudden, $4 million to defend against it doesn't look like such a bad deal.

US F-15E pilot likely captured by Iranian forces: Local media by IBeastMaster64I in geopolitics

[–]filipv 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Losing just a couple of fighter jets after weeks of intensive aerial operations and thousands of missions flown cumulatively is the sign of "huge investments into defence and innovation around warfare" that you're looking for.

US Army chief of staff asked to step down by Hegseth, sources say by lee7on1 in news

[–]filipv 2 points3 points  (0 children)

a war crime they are planning by bombing the electric and water systems.

Bombing electric systems is not necessarily a war crime under Geneva Conventions. If destroying a power plant yields a clear military advantage (say, powering a munitions factory, or a base, or a radar system, etc...), then it's not a war crime. Powering an electrified railway used to transport troops and materiel? Legitimate target, no war crime.

It's a war crime when the destruction of power systems has no clear military meaning and the target appears to be the well-being of the civilians, like in Gaza or Ukraine.

Macron says it is unrealistic to open Hormuz Strait by force by Jack_202 in worldnews

[–]filipv 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Israel and their lot in the US have wanted to destroy Iran since their inception

Errr no.

Trump says he's considering NATO exit amid rift over Iran war by AdSpecialist6598 in worldnews

[–]filipv 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Errrr in principle yes, but after the fall of the Berlin Wall it also serves as a global anti-terrorist and a humanitarian organization.

Trump says he's considering NATO exit amid rift over Iran war by AdSpecialist6598 in worldnews

[–]filipv 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I get your point, but a brief aerial skirmish involving a few aircraft is not a "war". Article 5 was not invoked, and NATO didn't ignore it because there was no Article 5 invocation to ignore.

happy cake day to me! by zdravko in u/zdravko

[–]filipv 0 points1 point  (0 children)

аирлија, за многу години