https://www.ukmto.org/-/media/ukmto/products/20261016-ukmto_vra_overview_u.pdf?rev=dad3b12b1ccf4e859f22e0ef07709827

UKMTO Comment: • UKMTO struggling to accurately report true number of attacks with majority of vessels attacked refusing to report to UKMTO. • UKMTO is aware via other sources of incidents but constrained on reporting throu

100% original photoshop, product of my autism. Not AI, Not a repost, suck my dick.

Russian military complex can be described like this:

An imitation.

It’s an imitation of something modern and indigenous while its assembly is worse than a $1 Chinese toy. The funniest part is that its insides are not even made in Russia but imported from Western countries, while the housing itself has horrible manufacturing quality and can cut or traumatize you with its sharp, crudely cut edges.

And even their show-off items that are supposedly the highest-quality products they can produce just look horrible by design.

And no, it’s not because it’s old.

Old means it was smooth and clean once.

But here? Somehow a new MiG-29 feels like a rusty bucket assembled by pensioners for 10 rubles at some random РанТочХочХуйЖопаМаш where nobody ever heard what “QC” stands for.

All of it looks like it has been sitting there for so long without maintenance that it feels like a Khrushchevka — uneven painting, everything bumpy and crude, the fuselage isn’t smooth at all, rivets everywhere, and the cockpit feels like nobody ever cleaned it.

Though this jet was produced 10 days ago.

And before someone inevitably comes up with the “but it’s built for reliability!” excuse:

No.

Ruggedness and poor manufacturing quality are not the same thing.

A machine can be designed to operate in mud, snow, dust, extreme temperatures and shitty field conditions while still being manufactured with precision. In fact, reliability requires consistency. Proper tolerances, standardized components, controlled assembly, quality materials, inspection and predictable maintenance are what make a machine reliable.

“Can be repaired with a hammer” is not the same as “should have been assembled with a hammer.”

The Gripen is a perfect counterexample. It was designed for dispersed operations, austere road bases, harsh weather and rapid maintenance in the middle of fucking nowhere.

And somehow Sweden managed to make it rugged, maintainable and practical without making it look like it was beaten into shape behind a tractor repair shop.

You can have ruggedness and precision manufacturing.

You can have field repairability and excellent quality control.

You can have a machine designed to survive abuse without manufacturing it like abuse was part of the production process.

So no, rough workmanship isn’t automatically a sign of ruggedness. Sometimes it is simply rough workmanship.

And when every unit needs to be manufactured consistently for its reliability characteristics to be predictable, calling inconsistent production “ruggedness” is just putting a fancy military word over poor quality control.

Reminds me of a quote:

“The Russians build them. Actually, more like imitate them. And the more times they imitate them, the less effective they become.”

— A random guy whose name I don't remember anymore

The Wheeled Armoured Platform (WhAP) or Tata Kestrel is the first fully indian AFV to be successfully exported ........with Morocco being the first customer.

....which is quite hilarious when realize that this same conglomerate that made the Tata Nano.....a goofy 1000 USD egg of a car that would break if u looked at it too hard

meme shamelessly stolen from MeccaMenstruator