Follow TV Tropes

Following

History Headscratchers / Victoria

Go To



* Why is the Azanian Air Force lining its planes up "wingtip to wingtip" in wartime? Rumsford claims this is something all Air Forces do "war after war," but even at Camp Bastion - the USMC airfield where six AV-8 Harriers were lost to a Taliban raid in 2012 - there were basic revetments protecting the flight line from mortar fire.[[note]]The fact that the Taliban had to physically penetrate Camp Bastion's perimeter and destroy the jets with direct fire should cause perceptive readers to wonder why Lind thinks mortars are so devastatingly effective against the average flight line...[[/note]] USAF Airbases which are expected to come under aerial bombardment have more extensive fortifications - Misawa AB in Japan, or Osan AB in Korea, are liable to be targeted by ballistic missiles from China or Korea, and accordingly have hardened hangars to accomodate the wings stationed there. We are told explicitly that the Azanians "think symmetrically" about warfare, and build their facilities on the assumption that their enemy will be attacking them with long-range precision fires. Why does this doctrine not apply to their airbases?

to:

* Why is the Azanian Air Force lining its planes up "wingtip to wingtip" in wartime? Rumsford claims this is something all Air Forces do "war after war," but even at Camp Bastion - the USMC airfield where six AV-8 Harriers were lost to a Taliban raid in 2012 - there were basic revetments protecting the flight line from mortar fire.[[note]]The fact that the Taliban had to physically penetrate Camp Bastion's perimeter and destroy the jets with direct fire should cause perceptive readers to wonder why Lind thinks mortars are so devastatingly effective against the average flight line...[[/note]] USAF Airbases which are expected to come under aerial bombardment have more extensive fortifications - Misawa AB in Japan, or Osan AB in Korea, are liable to be targeted by ballistic missiles from China or Korea, and accordingly have hardened hangars to accomodate accommodate the wings stationed there. We are told explicitly that the Azanians "think symmetrically" about warfare, and build their facilities on the assumption that their enemy will be attacking them with long-range precision fires. Why does this doctrine not apply to their airbases?


Added DiffLines:

[[/folder]]

[[folder: The TV Series About Queen Victoria]]
*'''Who was in charge during the Christmas special?'''
The second season concludes with the resignation of Sir Robert Peel, which in real life occurred in June 1846. The third season picks up with the overthrow of Louis Philippe I, in February 1848. The latter introduces Peel's successor Lord John Russell to the cast and has the Queen celebrating the return of her Whig ladies. The impression given to the viewer is that Russell's government has come to power only quite recently, rather than nineteen months ago. This leaves some [[AmbiguousSituation ambiguity]] over who was supposed to have been in power during the Christmas episode, logically set in either 1846 or 1847, which omits the political side of things.

Added DiffLines:

*** The impression Rumford gives is that whereas most NC pilots are still USAF veterans, Azania needs to train new ones in a hurry. This would also make sense in a semi-realistic scenario, assuming military demographics in the alternate history ''Victoria'' timeline are similar to real life, since even in the Air Force (the most "gender-equal" service IRL) women make up something like 20 percent of the officer corps as a whole at most as of today, and considerably less than that when it comes to combat-qualified pilots. So Azania's initial trained manpower base is likely much smaller, even assuming that close to 100% of the former female officers want to get behind their "Feminazi" politics (which is not necessarily a given, either), and quite inadequate if they "inherited" USAF equipment and personnel in roughly equal proportions before phasing the men out of the service. (Even more so, of course, if they keep building new planes themselves.) They will have a cadre of former regime personnel, but most of their pilots will still be new, and so less experienced (and most likely also less well trained) than Rumford's people. Also, his force's doctrine heavily emphasizes dogfighting along with other old-school things, which high-tech Azania probably doesn't to the same degree.


Added DiffLines:

*** As Rumford explains it in theory, the missile is supposed to pass through the center of the formation without detonating. I don't think we ever actually see it in action, though. More generally, the comment the previous one was responding to concerned the overall NC air strategy, not the specific incident in view here. Most of the attritional air battles, at least the ones described in any sort of detail, are low and slow affairs where tight flying about the mountains is required and most losses are apparently inflicted by cannon fire.


Added DiffLines:

*** Rereading, that does seem mostly accurate, yes. Perhaps the explanation then lies in internal Islamic Alliance politics. They are mostly a black box as far as Rumford is concerned, but what we see of them from the outside (what with crucifying people and their other atrocities) strongly implies that they are ruled by religious fanatics. That in turn suggests that some sort of violent revolution took place in their recent history that toppled the more or less secular dictatorships these states had before and replaced them with the new pan-Islamic theocratic coalition. If this worked out as such things usually do, the respective officer corps were presumably purged of their senior establishments... which would, in the short term, at least, have an impact on operations that could be anything from very significant to completely crippling, depending on how zealous the purgers were (and who was drafted in to replace the old generals and colonels).


Added DiffLines:

** Perhaps it was a backup/emergency field they had switched to recently, with insufficient time to prepare better protection.


*** They certainly are not flying AWACs, even over their own frontier airspace - otherwise the whole "ambush an F-22 and replace it with an F-4" operation would have been impossible,[[note]of course it ''is'' bafflingly implausible on multiple levels to start with[[/note]] since the F-16 ambushers and the F-4s all would have been visible setting up the attack.

to:

*** They certainly are not flying AWACs, even over their own frontier airspace - otherwise the whole "ambush an F-22 and replace it with an F-4" operation would have been impossible,[[note]of impossible,[[note]]of course it ''is'' bafflingly implausible on multiple levels to start with[[/note]] since the F-16 ambushers and the F-4s all would have been visible setting up the attack.

Added DiffLines:

*** They certainly are not flying AWACs, even over their own frontier airspace - otherwise the whole "ambush an F-22 and replace it with an F-4" operation would have been impossible,[[note]of course it ''is'' bafflingly implausible on multiple levels to start with[[/note]] since the F-16 ambushers and the F-4s all would have been visible setting up the attack.


*** Actually, the NCAF has no more real dogfighting experience than the AZAF. We are never told about any NCAF air-to-air engagements before Azania; the closest they get is running away from the Royal Saudi Air Force over Boston. The USAF has only shot down one enemy jet in combat since 1999, so they can't be relying any veteran dogfighters from the old days either. We're even told the F-16 NY Air Guard wing which forms the core of the NCAF is trained for ground support, not as air superiority specialists. The Boys from Utica should at best have the same level of experience as Azania's cadres of ex-USAF female pilots. They suck simply because Lind believes girls cannot think in three dimensions.

to:

*** Actually, the NCAF has no more real dogfighting experience than the AZAF. We are never told about any NCAF air-to-air engagements before Azania; the closest they get is running away from the Royal Saudi Air Force over Boston. The USAF has only shot down one enemy jet in combat since 1999, so they can't be relying any veteran dogfighters from the old days either. We're even told the F-16 NY Air Guard wing which forms the core of the NCAF is trained for ground support, not as air superiority specialists. The Boys from Utica should at best have the same level of experience as Azania's cadres of ex-USAF female pilots. They suck The AZAF sucks simply because Lind believes girls cannot think in three dimensions.dimensions.

Added DiffLines:

*** Actually, the NCAF has no more real dogfighting experience than the AZAF. We are never told about any NCAF air-to-air engagements before Azania; the closest they get is running away from the Royal Saudi Air Force over Boston. The USAF has only shot down one enemy jet in combat since 1999, so they can't be relying any veteran dogfighters from the old days either. We're even told the F-16 NY Air Guard wing which forms the core of the NCAF is trained for ground support, not as air superiority specialists. The Boys from Utica should at best have the same level of experience as Azania's cadres of ex-USAF female pilots. They suck simply because Lind believes girls cannot think in three dimensions.

Added DiffLines:

* The precipitous Federal retreat from D.C. makes no sense. The entire point of the plan outlined by SGT Danielov is that blowing the bridges would buy time for the CSA to invade Virginia. But the NCSOF attack on the bridges fails to destroy all its targets - one truck broke down and they forgot about the railroad bridge, so at least two out of six were left open. Even if successful, the operational effect of blowing the D.C. bridges is unclear. The Loyalists would lose the southern end of Virginia, of course, but Rumsford does not explain why losing the bridges would prevent the Loyalists from holding the Rebels back from the Potomac itself for at least a few days with their forces in the area. There are at least three other major bridges over the Potomac within an hour's drive of D.C., including the I-81 at Williamsport, which is traversable by armor, and is probably the easiest axis of advance for any units coming from Pennsylvania. We are not told where the loyalist maneuver units are stationed, but we know that they exist, because they feature in the Joint Chiefs' plan to crush the NC later in the same chapter. There is no major Army base on the north bank of the Potomac, but Fort Belvoir, on the south bank, is a Division HQ - so any garrison in the area is likely to be stationed on the Virginian side of the river to start with. This doesn't even matter, because two bridges survived the attack, so there is nothing stopping any loyalist units in Maryland and Southern Pennsylvania rapidly redeploying to reinforce the defense.[[note]]especially not if any airmobile units are still loyal[[/note]] The approaches to the Potomac in the DMV area are dense, heavily urbanized terrain. It is a military impossibility that any Confederate flying column could capture this ground without intense fighting, even against an inferior force. Given the enormous cost of withdrawing from D.C., which Rumsford acknowledges, why would DOD under any circumstances choose to abandon its command center and the national capital instead of staging a defense of Arlington with all available forces?
* Why is the Azanian Air Force lining its planes up "wingtip to wingtip" in wartime? Rumsford claims this is something all Air Forces do "war after war," but even at Camp Bastion - the USMC airfield where six AV-8 Harriers were lost to a Taliban raid in 2012 - there were basic revetments protecting the flight line from mortar fire.[[note]]The fact that the Taliban had to physically penetrate Camp Bastion's perimeter and destroy the jets with direct fire should cause perceptive readers to wonder why Lind thinks mortars are so devastatingly effective against the average flight line...[[/note]] USAF Airbases which are expected to come under aerial bombardment have more extensive fortifications - Misawa AB in Japan, or Osan AB in Korea, are liable to be targeted by ballistic missiles from China or Korea, and accordingly have hardened hangars to accomodate the wings stationed there. We are told explicitly that the Azanians "think symmetrically" about warfare, and build their facilities on the assumption that their enemy will be attacking them with long-range precision fires. Why does this doctrine not apply to their airbases?


* Did the Muslim UN peacekeeping force which deployed to Boston forget to bring anti-aircraft artillery? Otherwise, how did the NC's handful of F-16s manage to penetrate an IADS comprising both surface warships and land-based SAM sites? We know their radar could pick up the inbound fighters with ample time to scramble the entire airbase, and we know that the mortars were targeting port facilities and runways, not air defense batteries. Did Rumsford - adoring fan of Van Crevald that he is - forget what Arab SAM batteries did to the IAF in Yom Kippur? Did the author forget that most Arab armies take their doctrine from the USSR, and tend to rely on ground-based IADS over air superiority fighters? The F-16s are described ''strafing'' targets on the ground; how is this possible without a preparatory SEAD campaign, or without significant losses from ground fire?

to:

*** It doesn't reduce the danger from missiles. An AIM-120 detonating in the centroid of a tight formation will damage, if not destroy, the entire group. Rumsford also isn't forcing the action at low altitude or at low speed - the text explicitly says both F-16s are flying in trace "high and behind" the F-35s (granted one of them actually is there to draw off the escorts, so it is true that there at least were escorts involved), so they're actually running a high-altitude pursuit. And this still does not explain how these interceptors, which are flying with "a couple miles separation" are not engaged by the escorts' AIM-120s at standoff distance, since obviously they are not holding a diamond formation here. Are we meant to assume that every NCAF pilot successfully evaded every AZAF radar-guided missile and still managed to close the distance and engage on favorable terms?
* Did the Muslim UN peacekeeping force which deployed to Boston forget to bring anti-aircraft artillery? Otherwise, how did the NC's handful of F-16s manage to penetrate an IADS comprising both surface warships and land-based SAM sites? We know their radar could pick up the inbound fighters with ample time to scramble the entire airbase, and we know that the mortars were targeting port facilities and runways, not air defense batteries. Did Rumsford - adoring fan of Van Crevald Creveld that he is - forget what Arab SAM batteries did to the IAF in Yom Kippur? Did the author forget that most Arab armies take their doctrine from the USSR, and tend to rely on ground-based IADS over air superiority fighters? The F-16s are described ''strafing'' targets on the ground; how is this possible without a preparatory SEAD campaign, or without significant losses from ground fire?


Added DiffLines:

*** The Limited Interoperability explanation doesn't hold up because we are told in detail which Muslim nations are doing what in Boston. Although the Muslim fleet is a polyglot mishmash of Indonesian, Iranian and Arab warships, the air and ground elements are relatively uniform: the fighter wings basing out of Logan are two Egyptian squadrons and one Saudi squadron. The 20,000 combat troops are Egyptian and Iraqi divisions. All of these troops speak Arabic natively, so language would be less of a barrier than it is for NATO. Their command interoperability may be significantly worse than NATO's, but the Saudis have held multinational joint exercises including Egyptian and Iraqi forces since 2016, so they should not be totally incompatible by the time the story takes place. The Iraqis, admittedly, may have very poor air defenses (as of 2018 they operate only a handful of SAM systems), but Egypt has a robust air defense corps down to the brigade and battalion level, and we have no reason to believe that the Egyptian Air Force would fail to notify the Egyptian division HQ of an inbound air attack.


[[folder: The Alternative History Novel]]

to:

[[folder: The Alternative Alternate History Novel]]


Added DiffLines:

** To take the last first, acquire from whom? The significant high-tech powers (Japan, Russia, perhaps Germany and such other Euros as survive and remain somewhat functional) are all more or less on board the Retrofuturist train by then, and so friendly to the NC (and likely hostile to Azania; certainly they don't protest the war against them). Maybe China, but they are strongly implied to stay out of the Americas after their fiasco in Cascadia. As for building... Well, that may actually be more probable; we aren't specifically told if they can put together military-grade aircraft from scratch, but this should be at least somewhat likely if they can maintain their large air force and throw around cruise missiles like candy (as well as given the state of their economy in general). Leaving the original question. It might be that they ''do'' have airborne radar platforms offscreen, but aren't willing to risk them to support their air raids on the frontline states in the Rockies, and then they end up not mattering much anyway when the NC ground invasion blitz snowballs and Azanian command and control starts breaking down. True, O'Hearn doesn't mention them in his briefing, but the tally of planes he gives in that scene probably isn't meant to be comprehensive, since he lists only fighters and bombers by type.
** More generally, while Azania is high-tech and at least relatively successful economically, the one resource they ''are'' indisputably short on is (no pun intended) military manpower. At the time of the war, they've been scrambling to build up their forces as fast as they can for some time, and so a lot of their personnel are newly (and given the emergency rushing things even more, very likely inadequately) trained; presumably, this will be that much worse with technical specialists and higher-ranking officers. Such shortages explain a lot of their displayed examples of tactical ineptitude (which Rumford's biased POV otherwise tends to ascribe to intrinsic female inferiority).
** On mission-specific force composition specifically, it's also worth noting that at least most of the F-35 sorties in the early phases of the war ''were'' air supremacy missions with combat configurations, sometimes escorting recon or insertion flights. Most of the cruise missiles were either drone-launched, or else longer-range ground-based stuff stationed outside the AO.


Added DiffLines:

** The radar stations are mobile and kept activated only in brief spurts to make identification and targeting more difficult. Moreover, Rumford's SIGINT unit has access to at least a lot of the Azanians' internal military communications more or less in real time--how realistic ''that'' is is another question, with Azania said to have good computer and commo systems by in-setting standards, but it's there--and so he and his staff know in advance where their strike forces are going, and use radar only to supplement that intelligence when they coordinate the interception flights. Conversely, they can presumably also use that advance warning to avoid SEAD strikes, or at least render them less effective.


Added DiffLines:

** Technical specifics aside (which as noted will depend both on classified information about RL systems, and/or how those stack up to the fictional upgraded future versions the Azanians use), the tactic doesn't have to be foolproof to be worthwhile if it still ''reduces'' the danger from missiles. Though picking the battlefield is more important; Rumford is at least smart enough to try to force most of the air battles at low speeds and altitudes in the mountains, where long-range weapons and sensors are less useful and his force's advantages (experience and pilot skills) are maximized.


Added DiffLines:

** Friction between the different elements of the expedition is probably the best bet, with awful coordination and liaison work between those who command the fighters and the ground-based air defenses. It's often legitimately hard to make multi-nation coalition war work well between even "Western" forces (where most people involved will have reasonably shared assumptions, doctrine and NATO-standard commo protocols, and officers at least will probably speak passable English); here, it's Saudis, Iraqis and Iranians (and a smattering of others) working together and contributing separate component units each under their own leaders and staffs. Even with a joint overall command supplied by the Islamic Alliance, realistically that won't be very good at all for their [=C3I=]. So it's not too implausible that you could have the Saudi fighters (who'd be using USAF-derived doctrine, or at least they do IRL) react reasonably quickly on first radar contact and launch, while the relevant AAA unit that was handled by someone else (Syria?) was left out of the loop for a little while and so left the field open for a surprise attack.


* Why doesn't Azania operate any form of AWACS in 2040? Airborne radar is a hard counter to the nearly 100-year-old Vietnamese interceptor tactics which Rumsford's F-16s use against the Azanian Air Force's F-35 raids (why were these strike packages flying unescorted in the first place...? why do the enemy immediately revert to ALCM fires instead of trying again with an escort to pick off the lone trailer F-16s with AMRAAMs...? how to the F-16s even maneuver up behind the strike without being engaged at BVR...?). A JSTARS or Sentry would inevitably detect the F-16s trying to position themselves high behind the strike force (especially high, considering this strike is flying over the Rockies) - far more efficiently than the ramshackle GCI Rumsford describes coordinating the defense. The Azanians are otherwise described as an extremely high-tech force which was able (somehow) to preserve a large fleet of F-35s, F-22s and even B-2s. Why were they somehow unable to preserve, acquire or build an AWACS platform, the linchpin of the USAF for fifty years?

to:

* Why doesn't Azania operate any form of AWACS in 2040? Airborne radar is a hard counter to the nearly 100-year-old Vietnamese interceptor tactics which Rumsford's F-16s use against the Azanian Air Force's F-35 raids (why were these strike packages flying unescorted in the first place...? why do the enemy immediately revert to ALCM fires instead of trying again with an escort to pick off the lone trailer F-16s with AMRAAMs...AMRAAMS...? how to the F-16s even maneuver up behind the strike without being engaged at BVR...?). A JSTARS or Sentry would inevitably detect the F-16s trying to position themselves high behind the strike force (especially high, considering this strike is flying over the Rockies) - far more efficiently than the ramshackle GCI Rumsford describes coordinating the defense. The Azanians are otherwise described as an extremely high-tech force which was able (somehow) to preserve a large fleet of F-35s, F-22s and even B-2s. Why were they somehow unable to preserve, acquire or build an AWACS platform, the linchpin of the USAF for fifty years?

Added DiffLines:

* Why doesn't Azania operate any form of AWACS in 2040? Airborne radar is a hard counter to the nearly 100-year-old Vietnamese interceptor tactics which Rumsford's F-16s use against the Azanian Air Force's F-35 raids (why were these strike packages flying unescorted in the first place...? why do the enemy immediately revert to ALCM fires instead of trying again with an escort to pick off the lone trailer F-16s with AMRAAMs...? how to the F-16s even maneuver up behind the strike without being engaged at BVR...?). A JSTARS or Sentry would inevitably detect the F-16s trying to position themselves high behind the strike force (especially high, considering this strike is flying over the Rockies) - far more efficiently than the ramshackle GCI Rumsford describes coordinating the defense. The Azanians are otherwise described as an extremely high-tech force which was able (somehow) to preserve a large fleet of F-35s, F-22s and even B-2s. Why were they somehow unable to preserve, acquire or build an AWACS platform, the linchpin of the USAF for fifty years?
* Why do the Azanians never conduct SEAD missions to destroy NC radar sites? If for some reason they don't have antiradar missiles, why don't they ever use their extensive EW capabilities to jam the NC's radar? Rumsford's low-tech early warning system depends on only a few radars, all imported from the other side of the planet, which makes it laughably fragile. He had ''just read'' about the Vietnam War to prepare himself for this campaign - what led him to assume an air force following the doctrinal tradition of the USAF would not conduct Iron Hand runs to suppress enemy IADS? Did he forget that the USAF learned its SEAD doctrine from operations against exactly the kind of Soviet air defense radar he just bought?
* How exactly do "Formation Effects" defeat Azanian AIM-120s? In order for this to work as described, the F-16s would have to hold a formation tighter than the fire control radar's target resolution - so that it confuses the group for a single object - but also loose enough that the formation centroid is further away from the F-16s than the proximity fuse of the missile. Otherwise, the missile will explode in the center of the formation, damaging everyone at once. Specific figures for the target resolution of the F-35's AESA radar the AIM-120's active seeker and the lethal radius of the AIM-120's warhead are not publicly available, but we know target resolution for terminal guidance must be at least high enough to put the missile ''somewhere'' near that radius of the target before the proxmity fuse triggers. Even if the formation works as advertised, there will be a dozen 40kg warheads passing through in close proximity to the F-16s - and they aren't going to pass exactly through the centroid, but within a circular error probable around it, which means the formation must loosen up further to avoid detonating the proximity fuses - at what point are they going to be looser than the target resolution of the seekers? What if the F-35s launch from closer than BVR range, where their AESA radars can provide more precise targeting? What if the formation is engaged from any position other than dead ahead or dead behind, or from multiple directions at once?
* Did the Muslim UN peacekeeping force which deployed to Boston forget to bring anti-aircraft artillery? Otherwise, how did the NC's handful of F-16s manage to penetrate an IADS comprising both surface warships and land-based SAM sites? We know their radar could pick up the inbound fighters with ample time to scramble the entire airbase, and we know that the mortars were targeting port facilities and runways, not air defense batteries. Did Rumsford - adoring fan of Van Crevald that he is - forget what Arab SAM batteries did to the IAF in Yom Kippur? Did the author forget that most Arab armies take their doctrine from the USSR, and tend to rely on ground-based IADS over air superiority fighters? The F-16s are described ''strafing'' targets on the ground; how is this possible without a preparatory SEAD campaign, or without significant losses from ground fire?

Added DiffLines:

** Much or most of the US population (and certainly in the secessionist states) no longer identifies with the Federal military by that point in the story, but views it simply as the mercenaries of the regime. So to them, Imperial Russia sinking the ''Gonzalez'' is less murder of servicemen and more an ally landing a blow against the hated enemy and making sure the reverse Lend-Lease gets through. Meanwhile, the international grand politics as presented are somewhat muddled (the POV has only limited intelligence on the Federal Government's privileged diplomacy), but the implication is that the Czar ''is'' willing to play for keeps, or at least bluffing convincingly to that effect, and so the Japanese are leaning hard on the Old US remnant not to call his threat (because nuclear war will mean bad things for them, too). Also, with the Feds having lost effective control of most of the CONUS, along with the relevant bases and most of their more capital-intensive military capabilities, they might not even have enough intact delivery systems left to be a credible "MAD" threat to Russia in a hot nuclear showdown scenario.
** As for naval stuff, we never get an OOB for the Imperial Russian Navy, but in roughly the same timespan, Japan has several operational [=CSGs=] (with US-style fleet carriers, not the helicopter carriers the present-day JMSDF uses), and even the Islamic coalition has the logistics to launch intercontinental expeditions. The details are vague, but clearly something (possibly connected to the crises that brought the Czar to power in the first place) happened to massively increase naval building across the board in the setting's recent backstory. So it's very probable that the Russians, too, are much more powerful at sea than in real life, at least in absolute terms.


Added DiffLines:

** The issue basically just never comes up. Rumford and the other rebel leaders simply have such confidence in Kraft that they trust him to do what is best for the Confederation. Though realistically, Kraft's close relations with the Russians and Prussians could arguably be part of his ''appeal'' as a prospective Governor, at least within the rebel leadership, since he can use those high-level connections to increase support for the NC (and has done so already, at that). Sort of like how, say, if you're a pragmatic elder statesman in real-life Great Britain, you'll probably want a Prime Minister who sees eye to eye with the POTUS of the day, even if the "Special Relationship" isn't very popular with the masses.


Added DiffLines:

** To be pedantic, it was an Igla (SA-18 "Grouse"), not a Strela. As for the plane... possibly trying to dodge radar and more serious Northern Confederation anti-air by flying low? Rumford, of course, knows they have precious little of that, and none in that area, but Fed intelligence might not. Or it might be technical issues forcing it due to decaying maintenance, or even pilot error. Rumford acknowledges the whole incident is basically a fluke; downing an F-35 with a single SA-18 is somewhat unlikely at best, no matter how low it flew.

Added DiffLines:

** Even in that context, it makes no sense for the United States to simply bend over and accept the deliberate sinking of a U.S. Navy warship in U.S. waters. Unless Russia was willing to escalate to nuclear war over the United States exercising sovereignty over ''its own waters'', how much could Russia possibly do to threaten the United States militarily? Did the Tsar somehow build a Navy to surpass the wildest dreams of the Red Fleet in just a few years, one not only capable of controlling the transatlantic/transpacific SLOCs but with the sealift necessary to attack the mainland United States? Why would Japan withdraw its support - do they ''want'' Russia to succeed in their competition for global power? Would not the murder of hundreds of Navy servicemen right off the coast of Maine be a powerful tool to unify the nation against a foreign power and its New Englander proxies?


* Early in the war, a loyalist F-35 is shot down by a Russian "advisor" armed with a Strela MANPADS. A few paragraphs earlier, it was explicitly stated that the F-35s were conducting their bombing runs at high altitude in order to avoid the rebel MANPADS - indeed, this is the reason their bombing runs kept missing their targets. This particular F-35, however, ''after'' its failed bombing run, zooms straight over the advisor and is promptly shot down. Why did the pilot decide to descend to inside the enemy's air defense envelope when he was trying to RTB?

to:

* Early in the war, a loyalist F-35 is shot down by a Russian "advisor" armed with a Strela MANPADS. A few paragraphs earlier, it was explicitly stated that the F-35s were conducting their bombing runs at high altitude in order to avoid the rebel MANPADS - indeed, this is the reason their bombing runs kept missing their targets.targets (Lind does not believe in the concept of precision-guided munitions). This particular F-35, however, ''after'' its failed bombing run, zooms straight over the advisor and is promptly shot down. Why did the pilot decide to descend to inside the enemy's air defense envelope when he was trying to RTB?

Added DiffLines:

* Early in the war, a loyalist F-35 is shot down by a Russian "advisor" armed with a Strela MANPADS. A few paragraphs earlier, it was explicitly stated that the F-35s were conducting their bombing runs at high altitude in order to avoid the rebel MANPADS - indeed, this is the reason their bombing runs kept missing their targets. This particular F-35, however, ''after'' its failed bombing run, zooms straight over the advisor and is promptly shot down. Why did the pilot decide to descend to inside the enemy's air defense envelope when he was trying to RTB?

Showing 15 edit(s) of 23

Top

How well does it match the trope?

Example of:

/

Media sources:

/

Report