One hit from an MK-84 and this piece of shit gets reduced to

>>34288001
Yeah, why field anything except bombs? Just drop bombs literally everywhere and you win the war.

>>34288014
>anything except bombs
>just drop bombs
>drop
>only field bombs

So where would we drop them from you fucking cuck, the clouds? You would need to field planes too.

>>34288041
Nah, cause you see, bombs are so amazing that you can just drop a MK-84 on anything to destroy it, so there's really no need to field anything else. Just have bombs and nobody will fight wars anymore because they know they'll get bombed if they try to.

>>34288060
bombs can't fly smart one, except for the little ones with the wings, but they have to be dropped

>>34288041
>>34288099
>what are ballistic missiles

>>34288099

And apparently some aircraft in the US inventory can't deploy those bombs in question...

http://warisboring.com/the-f-35-is-a-terrible-fighter-bomber-and-attacker-and-unfit-for-aircraft-carriers/


"For example, the F-35 can currently only carry a few models of large guided direct attack bombs. None of these can be launched from a distance like a power guided missile. Rather they fall on a ballistic trajectory from the aircraft to the target, which means they can only be released at relatively short ranges in view of the target."

>>34288156
>currently

>>34288109
>what are ballistic missles
>ballistic
>missile
>not a bomb

Summer is here

>>34288167
>implying ballistic missiles do not have bombs attached to them
Yeah, summer kids are definitely here, and you're one of them

>>34288208
It's called a warhead mouthbreather.

>>34288208
Your whole argument was about bombs fielding themselves, and yet here you are sticking them on missiles regardless. Go play in traffic.

>>34288001
one hit from a bird and the aircraft carrying the mk-84 goes down
Besides, no tank on earth can survive a direct hit from above.
Actually, a tunguska could wreck anything that can have a predictable trajectory, and they do go in a scattered convoy together with tanks and scouts, i think

>>34288156
>warisboring

fuck off

Just build a swarm of cheap UCAVs instead.

>>34288001
>retards don't know military planes related logistics, maintenance issues, duration of flight or even pilot fatigue, and think those planes are always 24/7 ready for endless operations.
>"militaries around the world including US are so retarded that they operate tanks and armored vehicles"
>and can't understand why DOD emphasize multi domain battle doctrine which requires Army to operate in air operation or even naval/shore to shore operation.
>and why did US deployed ground force and tanks when they already bombed the shit out of germany, japan, north korea, vietnam and middle east
>>even in pacific war, bombed numerous small islands real hard, but enemies were still alive and US army/marines KIA.

/k/ retards should stop pushing "muh just bomb the shits" memes.

>>34288109
>implying that ballistic missiles can identify and hit small moving targets

>>34288001
>Gaining air superiority against Russia allowing free use of bombers
Good luck

>>34288001 (OP)
Good luck hitting moving tank with unguided bomb. For guided weapons Armata has all around APS.

>>34290669
lol

Russia has already ceded the hope of air parity vs the USA; as shown by their investment in IADS.

IADS are a fundamentally reactionary weapon. They're what you get They deter, discourage, when you give up on air superiority. IADS can inflict losses over time, but they can't mass or maneuver like aircraft, so versus equal technological levels, they'll always eventually lose in a maneuver war.

They're used to buy enough time (and save enough units) that some survivors can live to zerg the enemy's airbases.

>>34290711
>allowing free use of bombers
enjoy your vietnam tier aviation losses x 10

>>34290711
IADS is the mean of securing air superiority, not giving it up knucklehead.

>Russia has already ceded the hope of air parity vs the USA
Global parity, that is. Russia and it's near abroad is the only place in the world where the US doesn't enjoy anything remotely resembling air superiority. Not my words, listen to any USAF 4-star or defense analyst instead of jerking off at namibian rock throwing forum.

>IADS can inflict losses over time, but they can't mass or maneuver like aircraft
Aircraft don't exist in a vaccum by themselves idiot. Airpower needs airbases, fuel, maintenance and time to be deployed into specific theater operations. Once you look at the map of active US airbases in Europe and Asia, and overlap it with the ranges of Kh-55 and Kalibr cruise missiles you'll start to realize that even preparation of air offensive against A2/AD bubble the size of Pluto is an idea bordering insanity.

> IADS can inflict losses over time, but they can't mass or maneuver like aircraft
Doesn't make any sense. IADS is a network, including both ground and air radars, long and short range SAMs, fighter jets and interceptors. Almost all of it is mobile and being rotinely redeployed across thousands of kilometers on exercises.

>They're used to buy enough time
Until attacker ceases to have any functional air power. Because this is the mathematical outcome of US air attack on Russia.

>>34288156

as someone who flies a different fighter and has flown against the F-35 in an exercise, he's full of shit and doesn't understand how the AF certifies jets to do shit.

>>34290837

defensive weapons inherently cannot be massed except around point targets, and they cannot maneuver around the battlefield to attack from a different axis like an aircraft can.

>>34290837
good job
guaranteed "vatnik" replies from assmad trump fans

>>34290852
>fighters are always offensive weapon
have you heard about "interceptors"?

>>34288001
And what tank can hold hit from a MK-84?

>>34288001
What if the Russians are just trolling us again and this is really a T-90 with a bunch of painted plastic bolted to the sides.