In the stories I've read about the war in Ukraine, I see no mention of Russia trying to establish control of air space. Most of their offense lately seems to be shooting missiles from beyond the borders of Ukraine, hitting targets inside Ukraine.
Odd.
My understanding is that Russia quickly established aerial superiority but the good guys supplied Ukraine with anti-aircraft missiles and Russia was losing too many aircraft.
Are you writing a story on the subject?
AJ
Are you writing a story on the subject?
I think his working title is "How quickly can I get a thread locked by Lazeez because I like poking the bear"
I think his working title is "How quickly can I get a thread locked by Lazeez because I like poking the bear"
Par the course for him. Insert outboard motor industrial shit stirrer, and stand back with a "Who me?" Look.
I notice he's started a very large number of threads in 'Author Hangout' recently titled as a question. If they're not for story research purposes, then is 'Author Hangout' really a suitable place for them?
AJ
If they're not for story research purposes, then is 'Author Hangout' really a suitable place for them?
Why is general shooting the shit between authors not suitable for the "Author Hangout"?
Because I believe the forum was set up for authorial purposes. If someone, author or not, is 'shooting the shit' for non-authorial purposes, it dilutes the value of the forum.
If you think SOL needs a general 'shooting the shit' forum, perhaps you should suggest it to Lazeez, then 'Authors Hangout' could revert to what I believe was its intended purpose.
AJ
Because I believe the forum was set up for authorial purposes.
You have a right to believe that. Other's have a right to disagree with you.
I think there's a bit of a clue in the name. Just as in the 'Editors/Reviewers' Hangout.
AJ
I think there's a bit of a clue in the name.
The name is "Author's Hangout", not "Author Research".
What do you do in meat space when you hang out with your friends?
The real world as opposed to an on-line virtual space.
In focussed meetings like writers' and writing groups, I can't recall any instances when bored teenagers (of all ages) tried to change the agenda with irrelevant topics.
AJ
In focussed meetings like writers' and writing groups, I can't recall any instances when bored teenagers (of all ages) tried to change the agenda with irrelevant topics.
If you go out to a bar after work to hang out with your co-workers, do you have an agenda? Do you limit discussion to work related topics?
Author's Hangout has no agenda and it has no list of "approved" topics.
Author's Hangout has no agenda and it has no list of "approved" topics.
'Meet and interact with authors and discuss author issues'.
Note the lack of commas. I don't believe it was Lazeez's intention to set up a social media site.
AJ
'Meet and interact with authors and discuss author issues'.
Note the and, it's broader than just "discuss author issues"
If someone, author or not, is 'shooting the shit' for non-authorial purposes, it dilutes the value of the forum.
Cue gun porn discussion on best firearm/calibre for shooting shit.
Also, adding squidgy brown lumps isn't actually diluting the forum.
Of course "Authors tools" could be a typo when "author stools" was intended.
Why is general shooting the shit between authors not suitable for the "Author Hangout"?
I don't have a problem with shooting the shit with everyone, once the initial thread gets derailed - like they always do. My problem is when someone acts as an agent provocateur by starting a thread that's politically charged in the first place.
once the initial thread gets derailed
I've done the derailing myself on occasion, but I try to hold off until it looks as the the OP is unlikely to derive any more benefit from the discussions.
AJ
the OP is unlikely to derive any more benefit
Considering who the OP of this thread is, the only one who gains benefit from it is DS and his enjoyment of arguing just because he can.
Relatively on topic, what we are seeing - when people aren't posting video game footage and claiming it's real combat footage - is that drones and SAMs are the way to go when you're dealing with close combat, where enemy airfields are all within easy reach of each other. It doesn't do a lot of good to send aircraft up against other aircraft when neither side has pilots trained up in ACM.
We're also seeing the cost effectiveness of firing three or four missiles that cost $120,000 each take out a $36 million helicopter, or using drones to drop weapons through the weak top armor of tanks, APCs, and other fighting vehicles, or two land based cruise missiles for one guided missile cruiser.
the only one who gains benefit from it is DS and his enjoyment of arguing just because he can.
It takes two to tango.
It takes two to tango.
Not necessarily, there is a Spanish (Andalusian) version danced by single women.
http://www.dancefacts.net/tango/history-of-tango/#:~:text=Tango%20History%20%2D%20Origin%20and%20Characteristics%20of%20Tango
It takes two to tango.
And you definitely don't miss any opportunity to do so. You post on subjects you have no direct knowledge of, just to poke the bear. Yet complain if anyone dares question you. It's like you have a pathological need to stir hate and discontent. At times your the embodiment of the word "schadenfreude."
We're also seeing the cost effectiveness of firing three or four missiles that cost $120,000 each take out a $36 million helicopter, or using drones to drop weapons through the weak top armor of tanks, APCs, and other fighting vehicles, or two land based cruise missiles for one guided missile cruiser.
Something everyone should have learned from the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Expensive equipment is at grave risk to 'a man with a launcher' (be it anti-aircraft of anti-tank).
Considering who the OP of this thread is, the only one who gains benefit from it is
If the 'Author Hangout' is used for its intended purpose, there's a chance Lazeez will get a return on his investment by way of a larger number of better quality, more readable stories for SOL.
If it's used for spurious discussions, the investment goes straight down the drain.
In DS's analogy, it's equivalent to the work colleagues having their discussion down the pub without buying anything - the pub loses out.
SOL is a commercial site and has to invest its money wisely to stay viable.
AJ
And, if authors are having a fun discussion, and someone comes in and says the equivalent of 'No fun allowed! Back to writing!' and locks the thread, there's a chance Lazeez will get less of a return on his investment as authors get disgruntled.
In DS's analogy, it's equivalent to the work colleagues having their discussion down at the pub while only half of them buy something - if the pub chases them out all, the pub loses out even more.
Yes, there's a level of devil's advocate in that - never said I don't like to argue! - but the point in things like this is: what is the cost of annoying people just to annoy them? Does having non-writing discussions in 'Author Hangout' create a tangible cost? Is that cost higher than the potential cost of some authors saying, 'Gee, SoL's kind of a downer; maybe I'll go somewhere else?'
And, if authors are having a fun discussion, and someone comes in and says the equivalent of 'No fun allowed! Back to writing!' and locks the thread, there's a chance Lazeez will get less of a return on his investment as authors get disgruntled.
There's nothing anyone can do about thread drift and I appreciate some of the directions it takes, but why is 'Author Hangout' the only forum where threads start with non-writing topics from the very beginning?
Perhaps Lazeez could implement a general chit-chat forum and subject posters to Bookapy ads as 'payment'. After all, 'free' social media elsewhere is powered by adverts.
AJ
but why is 'Author Hangout' the only forum where threads start with non-writing topics from the very beginning?
Except it's not. there are non "shop talk" threads in "Editors/Reviewers Hangout" as well.
Perhaps Lazeez could implement a general chit-chat forum
Perhaps you should make that suggestion directly to Lazeez or submit it under "Bug Report and Feature Requests"
The other areas are much more single purpose than either "Author Hangout" or "Editors/Reviewers Hangout" so those two areas get the more general chit-chat.
subject posters to Bookapy ads as 'payment'. After all, 'free' social media elsewhere is powered by adverts.
So are plenty of 'free' sites that have nothing to do with social media. Lazeez would have more to gain from putting adds on the main SOL pages and story pages for non-paying users than he would from a new general chit-chat forum area.
So are plenty of 'free' sites that have nothing to do with social media. Lazeez would have more to gain from putting adds on the main SOL pages and story pages for non-paying users than he would from a new general chit-chat forum area.
Authors may, at their discretion, insert a Bookapy ad at the end of their stories. I think that's a good compromise on Lazeez part, as he's avoided adverts on the site (a very good thing).
I'm happy for him to take his percentage from Bookapy sales to help support WLPC!
Except it's not. there are non "shop talk" threads in "Editors/Reviewers Hangout" as well.
But the all seem to be started by richardshagrin so they don't count ;-)
AJ
My understanding is that Russia quickly established aerial superiority but the good guys supplied Ukraine with anti-aircraft missiles and Russia was losing too many aircraft.
It's a bit more mixed than that from what I understood.
The Russians did manage to get the Ukrainian Air Force to abandon the skies for the most part, but not completely. That also didn't mean the Russians had establish aerial superiority in the sense that "they controlled the skies."
The Russians also failed to completely remove the (older) Soviet Era Air Defense systems that Ukraine still has. Evidently Russia cannot easily overcome even older versions of their own systems.
Much of Russia's much vaunted "precision weaponry" has also been shown to not be very precise by western standards. (anecdotally, I have second hand accounts of some (prior service) Americans helping to extract civilians from Russian controlled territory where they spent a night getting bombarded with limited artillery and even cruise missiles from the Russian Navy, with the fire being directed by a Russian Drone flying over head. The closest Russian attack landed 200 yards away from where they were. One of the attacks even left a crater 7 feet deep)
That lack of precision weapons leads to the next item.
Because they're lacking in precision weaponry for use by the Russian Air Forces so that they could attack from range(like NATO/the US would do), they've been using jets as "dumb bomb" delivery platforms.
The problem with using dumb bombs for close air support is it means you have to fly "low and slow" to minimize variables that could screw with the targeting... Which puts them inside the range of Surface to Air Missiles. And as such, the Russians have been getting a bunch of jets shot down over Ukraine.
But getting back to the matter that Russia can't seem to disable all of those Cold War Era S-300 batteries the Ukranians have that the allied forces handily destroyed in Desert Storm back in 1991?
Because they know several of those are "out in the wild" and under Ukranian Control, they have to operate "below the horizon" for the S-300 Radar Control systems of risk being shot down by those. Which limits how high they can fly before risking detection from a considerable range.
Too high, and a S-300 shoots you. Too low, and a SAM shoots you. But since you can't be certain where either a S-300 or SAM is likely to turn up, knowing exactly where those "grey zones" are at is problematic at best. As they can never be certain as to where the remaining S-300 systems are.
Ukraine has a comparable problem on their end, between Russian S-300, S-400, S-500 and other associated systems as well as their Airforce, any surviving aircraft of the Ukrainian's have to also be careful of where and when they go flying around the place.
Basically so far as the air war goes, it's a Mexican standoff where neither side can make effective use of large scale air warfare capabilities. Except Russia has been more willing to take risks as the nation with the larger equipment/manpower pool at the onset. NATO flooding Ukraine with assorted SAM platforms just further perpetuates the problem for the Russians.
From what I've read about it, most of the Russian pilots were relatively old, 30s and 40s, slightly overweight (jobs for the boys) and have not had any serious opponents to fight against since the Korean war. Afghanistan in the 80s and 90s had no airforce but surface to air missiles only.
Then again there is the evolution of warfare with the ways weapons are used and developed. Large battleships in the first and second world wars gave way to aircraft carriers when it was realised that a few airplanes held together with string and canvas could fly up to them and sink really expensive ships cheaply. Now it is the turn of relatively cheap missiles to shoot down extremely expensive aircraft. Warfare keeps evolving.
I think cost to some degree should be considered in this scenario.
Currently the war i think is far enough along that Russia would be unlikely to want to field any of their current generation aircraft.
Second shooting missiles from beyond Ukraine borders is arguably cheaper than writing off a loss from a shot down aircraft.
Not to mention there are other monetary costs to. Try talking to any small private aircraft owner or anyone who works maintenance on them and multiply the numbers they give you by a factor of about 10 to 20 i figure.
That final number might actually come close to what it costs for jet aircraft.
I think cost to some degree should be considered in this scenario.
It most definitely is the cost. The cost of the aircraft themselves and the cost of the pilots themselves. It takes a lot of money and time to train a combat capable pilot for current and last generation aircraft.
The pool of candidates capable of doing so, is remarkably small and one of the downsides of the intelligence requirement, is that many also have the intelligence to see how it's not a great profession in which to fund ones retirement.
In order to stand any chance of survival, you have to ground hog like a maniac in order to deny any SAM the distance in which to lock on, arm and potentially make your day very unpleasant. Also, explosives and technology has ensured that many SAM strikes are not the type that you can safely eject from- or even be aware of the strike in order to know to eject. One minute you are flying, the next you are in bits being dispersed over a wide area of atmosphere.
Meanwhile, your barely trained and stupidly cheap ground-pounder, just has to remember to take the safety off and aim in the general direction of the aircraft.
3 Major Reasons we aren't seeing much application of piloted aircraft over the last few months of Putin's War Against Ukraine.
I): Ukraine has learned the lesson of the US and Coalition air forces against the Iraqi Air Force in 1991. "Use It or Lose it Anyway!" From 1930 to 1990 it was considered prudent, if you had a weaker but viable air force, to hold most of your aircraft in reserve and only commit them when you could achieve at least temporary local Air Parity (such as Nort Viet Nam, and North Korea, both who managed to inflict disproportionate losses on US/Allied aircraft, at times).
Desert Storm in 1991 the Iraqis (mostly) kept grounded their powerful air force (top 15 in size, and performed well in the 1979-1988 Iraq vs. Iran War. The USA and Friends destroyed much of the Iraqi air force even those in HAAS (HArdened Aircraft Shelters).
Ukraine committed the majority of their Air Force, and like most defenders enjoyed some advantages, and inflicted disproportionate losses upon the Russians. Also, Ukrainian Pilots who ejected did so over friendly territory, many Russians became POWs.
II): Since at least the 1960's (when aircraft technology became increasingly complex) it has been estimated that the USSR/Russia could only maintain an intense air war for 4 to 6 weeks.
Russia has never really believed in CAS (Close Air Support), preferring "Deep Strikes" roughly 10 to 100 km behind the front lines. In 2022 Russian pilots have not been any more precise than Russian rockets and missiles. So, Russia is going with the cheaper alternatives.
III): Drones. There are no RPA (Remotely Piloted Aircraft) comparable to the USAF A-10 or B-52. However, neither do the Russians have any such aircraft. RPAs/Drones are adequate for the purposes of both Russia and Ukraine.
