• Im_old@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 days ago

        Yeah, but it’s not in use in Ukraine (like it would work or make any difference lol, pretty much like the Armata tank). Nothing either side is using was developed in 21st century. Late 20th at most.

        F-117 (which is still 20th century but more advanced than cold war era stuff they are using now) and F-35 would shred any AA, in my armchair general opinion of course.

        • taladar@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 days ago

          The ones they have been using that fly for dozens or hundreds of kilometers aren’t really just grenade or binocular levels of equipment.

            • taladar@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              21 hours ago

              I mean by the fucked up definitions in the US boats, planes and ground troops exist in all branches of the military but if you go by actual technology anything flying for more than a ballistic ground-powered throw (like artillery would have at most) should absolutely be considered part of the air forces.

      • Im_old@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        Yes BUT! The drones they are currently using aren’t really an air force. If they’d be using Reapers and the like yeah, but BabaYaga is not really an air force. I guess we are a bit splitting the hair though here, we could nitpick forever!