The gun controller might have been out of service. Russians are not renown for their high level of maintenance.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Russia/Ukraine conflict
- Thread starter amolina
- Start date
The gun controller might have been out of service. Russians are not renown for their high level of maintenance.
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
You wouldn't use a 5" (127mm) gun for local defence against small nimble targets. That'd be for your 12.7mm crew-served MGs, or possibly up to 23mm autocannon. Given the wildly inaccuate spray of fire, I'd suspect the crew-served 12.7mm (w. minimal crew training)
Since we know the class of Russian ship involved, it should be straightforward to find this ship's weapons loadout on a public resource like Jane's.
Tiger
Active Member
It has always puzzled me why war itself is not declared a crime. Any party engaging in war should be declared a terrorist. /s
Beginning a few years ago, Putin repeatedly claimed to the West and the world at large that Russia had developed hypersonic missiles that were invincible to all missile defense systems. Patriot missiles systems, however, refuted those claims.
So now Putin orders at least 12 hypersonic technology developers jailed for treason:
So now Putin orders at least 12 hypersonic technology developers jailed for treason:
Not going to click...but the center piece of the picture is the Admiral Kuznetsov.They are Ruzzian. Getting drunk is the national sport.
We've had so many instances of the Ruzzian military acting like they are run by a complete idiocracy but this YouTube video from the other day states their Navy is "unmatched". Thankfully the US Navy doesn't match them. My advice is don't click it as it is pure Ruzzian propaganda. But the comments are helpful.
Last I heard it was on sale on eBay...with no bidders.
All right. The words, "Small, nimble targets".You wouldn't use a 5" (127mm) gun for local defence against small nimble targets. That'd be for your 12.7mm crew-served MGs, or possibly up to 23mm autocannon. Given the wildly inaccuate spray of fire, I'd suspect the crew-served 12.7mm (w. minimal crew training)
Since we know the class of Russian ship involved, it should be straightforward to find this ship's weapons loadout on a public resource like Jane's.
So, my job on my ship was fixing airborne electronics. So, somewhere near the bow, main deck, was this shop full of Standard Electronic Test Equipment (and some very non-standard, as well) with me and the guys I led prodding away at pieces of gear, soldering old parts off, soldering new parts on, and all that jazz. Yes, I'm a fair hand at fixing $RANDOM electronics these days as a result.
But, watching that video.. The water looks like medium chop, 1' to 3' waves, no particular rollers. In that kind of water, it's not just aircraft carriers that motor on with nary a roll or pitch; destroyers and other ships with displacement hulls are like that, too. (Mind you, in serious, North Sea weather, it's not unusual to see destroyers play submarine with solid grey water over the bow, splitting at the bridge, in 30' rollers.)
I've seen actual speedboats.. not the racers, but the ones owned by private parties and have a deck or two who take them out for buzzing up and down the coast for fishing expeditions and maybe a picnic on an island somewhere. They go 20, or maybe 30 mph if they're fast. Notably, when doing this, they rise up out of the water on, typically, a "V" shaped hull, and, in a chop like that described above, tend to sort of bounce from the top of one wave to the top of another. It's not a rough ride, mind you; the "V" shape of the hull absorbs the crashes. Note that one doesn't see that kind of action on, say, a lake, because, unless one is talking about the Great Lakes or something, the waves simply don't get that high.
So, what are we seeing? The boat is wallowing left, right, up, down, and looks barely under control. Clearly, the operators are dodging bullets a bit when a couple hundred yards from the target. But bouncing from wave to wave? Nope.
If I had to guess, the drones were doing on the order of 10 mph. Or less than that. Um. I guess if one wants to call that, 'nimble', one can, I guess, it's faster than a cargo ship. But not that much faster.
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
I'd wager that most of those drones were doing 25 knots or better.
Brovane
Member
Which specific money did the US government allocate to SpaceX to subsidize the creation of Starlink? No, a US government launch contract isn't a subsidy.
I thought I read it somewhere but I looked into it more, turns out I was mistaken on that part. My bad.
glhs272
Unnamed plug faced villian
Boy this makes my blood boil if there is any truth to this.
news.yahoo.com
Talk about punching the gift horse in the mouth. Whoever this senior Ukrainian air for official is should be demoted to private and sent to man a trench on the front lines.
There may be reasons in certain circumstances to not want to take the donation. I will explain more in a further post. But respond by saying "We don't need your flying trash" is beyond the pale.
‘We don’t need your flying trash’: Misunderstanding scuttles transfer of 41 Australian Hornets to UA
A senior Ukrainian Air Force official refused an offer from two Australians to receive 41 of the country’s decommissioned F/A-18 Hornet fighters, bluntly stating that "we do not need your flying trash," reported the Australian Financial Review on Jan. 30.
Talk about punching the gift horse in the mouth. Whoever this senior Ukrainian air for official is should be demoted to private and sent to man a trench on the front lines.
There may be reasons in certain circumstances to not want to take the donation. I will explain more in a further post. But respond by saying "We don't need your flying trash" is beyond the pale.
glhs272
Unnamed plug faced villian
I have wanted to discuss the Ukrainian Airforce and what may be helpful to them for a while. First off, although I am a licensed FAA pilot... I am not former military nor do I know any classified information. The closest I know of first hand experience with F/A-18s is my DPE (designated pilot examiner) is a former F/A-18 fighter pilot or rather "Naval Aviator" to be more correct. But I am highly interested in aviation both civil and military and both modern & historical. So I feel compelled to offer my un-solicited opinion to you folks. As such take with grain of salt.
Ukraine made the right choice in going after the F-16. That doesn't mean it's the most superior aircraft in the sky, but under the current circumstances it makes a lot of sense. In particular, if you know you were only able to get a small handful of aircraft and your budget is limited (which it is) then the F-16 is a good all around choice for the many roles it can accomplish. The F-16 has a wide user base across NATO and the west. This makes institutional knowledge to support the aircraft more available across a wide variety of sources. It makes them not beholden to just one country. In fact Ukraine may never get a single aircraft of any type from the US, but because so many Ukrainian allies have them, the US may not need to. The US has a very limited budget of defense articles to give out to Ukraine (because of congress and the way our current government works). If the US had an unlimited budget to fund Ukraine's military, then sure other options may present themselves. But today, there are zero funds going to Ukraine from the US and in 2023 it would have made no sense to spend those limited dollars they were getting on aircraft (except pilot training) when Ukraine desperately needed basics such as artillery and AFVs, as well as expensive air defense missiles. Military aircraft are very expensive to purchase, fly, and maintain. The only way to fix limited dollars situation is to fix congress, and well... good luck with that. That's a problem only the citizens of the US can fix. Let's hope we do come November of this year.
The F-16 is an excellent ground pounder. Even the earlier versions of the aircraft are great for dropping dumbs with their inertial guided bombing system. It's jam proof, provides a simple way for the pilot to accurately hit the target, and uses simple, cheap, unguided bombs. In the first gulf war, the vast majority of ordinance that was delivered from the air from F-16s was unguided dumb bombs. The USAF absolutely relied on the F-16 for this. In comparison to the A-10, which mostly used precision strike stand-off munitions in the conflict. I can credit my source for this if requested. So the F-16s ability to accurately place warheads-on-foreheads using only cheap unguided munitions has been thoroughly demonstrated. And it makes sense to do this with the F-16 vs. the A-10. I will discuss the A-10 later. The F-16 can fly fast and is very maneuverable to help avoid getting shot down while bombing in a contested airspace like Ukraine. Unguided dumb bombs are cheap compared to precision strike weapons which cost a lot and are of limited quantities. Again, bang for your buck is in the F-16s favor. Have lots of dumb bombs? The F-16 can get them where they need to be.
The F-16 can hold it's own in a dog fight. The Russian VKS has some very capable aircraft such as the Su-35. Those aircraft are very deadly in a dog fight as well. But close range engagements are very rare. Moreover, it's not just the plane, it's the pilot. A great pilot in an moderately inferior aircraft can still shoot down a mediocre pilot in a superior aircraft.
Modern F-16s can do reasonable BVR (Beyond Visual Range) combat. This is where the "modernity" of the particular flavor of F-16 becomes more important. In particular the radar it is equipped with. Modern AESA radar equipped F-16s will fare much better than the older variants. Whoever is able to engage a missile lock soonest has a critical advantage. Even the most modern F-16 might not outrange a Su-35 running high altitude CAP (combat air patrol). But F-16s can still be "good enough" with proper tactics and situational advantages. Leveraging air defense networks is helpful in pushing back Russian fighters when operating near the front line. But the F-16 is unlikely to be useful in deep strike missions. But it may not have to be used this way. Ukraine's has proven drones are good for this role.
I can go on, but the F-16 is still a great choice if its the only one you can get. Most importantly it unlocks a plethora a NATO standard munitions. AIM-120 AMRAAM air to air missiles, AGM-65 Maverick Air to ground missiles, AIM-7 Sparrow, AIM-9 Sidewinder, GBU-31 JDAMs, AGM-88 HARMs, Mark-80 series general purpose bombs just to name a few. And that gets me to the next point... F/A-18.
The F/A-18 Hornet is a legacy fighter. But it still capable. It is still in front line service in the US Marine corp. It was VERY STUPID to reject the Australians offer for them. The Australian F/A-18s are not worn out and still have some life left in them. Just unlocking the NATO weapons catalog is reason enough alone to use it. It was designed to be comparable to the F-16, but for Naval use. It is not as capable as the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet, but is still useful in a many of critical roles Ukraine needs airframes for. Ukraine is still flying hopelessly dated and limited SU-25s. The earliest of F/A-18 is superior to the SU-25 in almost every way. Frankly, because it carries NATO munitions it is superior to anything the Ukrainians are currently flying. It can use fire and forget AIM-120C missiles. No Ukrainian aircraft flying today currently can. But if forced to choose between F-16 and the legacy F/A-18 C/D Hornet, then the F-16 is the better choice. However, it seems like it didn't have to be that way. Australia was offering to donate them. Those donations would not have come at the expense of what the US Budget was allowing. A different budget "pie", if you will. These aircraft could have and still can, augment the F-16s. Rather, the Ukrainians should have asked the Australians, "yes we will take them, but can you also train our pilots on them?". That would have been the correct response.
And now we get to the A-10. I know everyone wants to see it in Ukraine blowing up Russian tanks. So do I. Any aircraft could be useful to Ukraine, so that goes for the A-10 too. However, what are the downsides? Well there are many. First off, the limited budget of dollars that congress has appropriated for the defense of Ukraine. Currently there are no dollars. But, even if there were it's still going to be a limited budget. A-10s can only come from the USA. You have to weigh dollars going to A-10s versus a dollar for an F-16s and all the other things A-10 dollars would be taking away from. The F-16s are just a better platform for the type of warfare Ukraine is facing. The A-10 is relatively slow. It can do good ground pounding, but is not much use in air to air combat as it lacks radar. Although it may be surprisingly competent after the merge in a dog fight, it is unlikely to ever see the Russian fighter shooting long range missiles at it. And it can't fire radar guided missiles such as AIM 120C back at one either. It would need to be supported by a larger Airforce providing fighter cover and ground defense network providing additional support. It does have stand-off capability if armed with the correct munitions. That would be helpful. But again you are trading dollars for fancy precision strike munitions of limited quantities versus good-ole cheap and plentiful dumb bombs that the F-16 has a better chance of getting on target. Another huge issue with A-10 is it is long out of production and they are old. Even the USAF is struggling to keep A-10 airframes airworthy. It is getting more and more expensive for them to do so. Most of the existing A-10s have had to be or need to be re-winged. The wing spars have finite life. Metal fatigue is making them unsafe to fly over a certain amount of flight hours. If the US was going to dump all of their existing A-10s, where Ukraine could use the good airframes for combat and using the rest for spare parts to keep a small fleet going, that would work. But the USAF appears to not be doing that, even though they would probably like to do so. Congress won't let them.
So what else.. F-15s would be great. But again they are very expensive compared to F-16. F-18 E/F Super Hornets are going out of production soon if no one buys them. Boeing will close the production lines soon as they are almost done with the last of the Navy's order. Ukraine should be allowed to buy them, as they are highly capable and highly modern. But again $$$. In reality, Ukraine needs not just a handful of F-16s. Really, they need to rebuild their entire Airforce with NATO standard equipment. It's a long term situation. They should not be limited to just one airframe type. It takes a range of equipment from aircraft to ground support for various roles. They need Helicopters. Ukraine needs to be able to achieve at least a limited air dominance over the font line to succeed. The west should be helping Ukraine achieve this. Ukraine's security is our security. Ukraine looses, we loose. Simple as that. Let's start acting like it.
OK, sorry for the wall of text, I will get off my soap box now.
Ukraine made the right choice in going after the F-16. That doesn't mean it's the most superior aircraft in the sky, but under the current circumstances it makes a lot of sense. In particular, if you know you were only able to get a small handful of aircraft and your budget is limited (which it is) then the F-16 is a good all around choice for the many roles it can accomplish. The F-16 has a wide user base across NATO and the west. This makes institutional knowledge to support the aircraft more available across a wide variety of sources. It makes them not beholden to just one country. In fact Ukraine may never get a single aircraft of any type from the US, but because so many Ukrainian allies have them, the US may not need to. The US has a very limited budget of defense articles to give out to Ukraine (because of congress and the way our current government works). If the US had an unlimited budget to fund Ukraine's military, then sure other options may present themselves. But today, there are zero funds going to Ukraine from the US and in 2023 it would have made no sense to spend those limited dollars they were getting on aircraft (except pilot training) when Ukraine desperately needed basics such as artillery and AFVs, as well as expensive air defense missiles. Military aircraft are very expensive to purchase, fly, and maintain. The only way to fix limited dollars situation is to fix congress, and well... good luck with that. That's a problem only the citizens of the US can fix. Let's hope we do come November of this year.
The F-16 is an excellent ground pounder. Even the earlier versions of the aircraft are great for dropping dumbs with their inertial guided bombing system. It's jam proof, provides a simple way for the pilot to accurately hit the target, and uses simple, cheap, unguided bombs. In the first gulf war, the vast majority of ordinance that was delivered from the air from F-16s was unguided dumb bombs. The USAF absolutely relied on the F-16 for this. In comparison to the A-10, which mostly used precision strike stand-off munitions in the conflict. I can credit my source for this if requested. So the F-16s ability to accurately place warheads-on-foreheads using only cheap unguided munitions has been thoroughly demonstrated. And it makes sense to do this with the F-16 vs. the A-10. I will discuss the A-10 later. The F-16 can fly fast and is very maneuverable to help avoid getting shot down while bombing in a contested airspace like Ukraine. Unguided dumb bombs are cheap compared to precision strike weapons which cost a lot and are of limited quantities. Again, bang for your buck is in the F-16s favor. Have lots of dumb bombs? The F-16 can get them where they need to be.
The F-16 can hold it's own in a dog fight. The Russian VKS has some very capable aircraft such as the Su-35. Those aircraft are very deadly in a dog fight as well. But close range engagements are very rare. Moreover, it's not just the plane, it's the pilot. A great pilot in an moderately inferior aircraft can still shoot down a mediocre pilot in a superior aircraft.
Modern F-16s can do reasonable BVR (Beyond Visual Range) combat. This is where the "modernity" of the particular flavor of F-16 becomes more important. In particular the radar it is equipped with. Modern AESA radar equipped F-16s will fare much better than the older variants. Whoever is able to engage a missile lock soonest has a critical advantage. Even the most modern F-16 might not outrange a Su-35 running high altitude CAP (combat air patrol). But F-16s can still be "good enough" with proper tactics and situational advantages. Leveraging air defense networks is helpful in pushing back Russian fighters when operating near the front line. But the F-16 is unlikely to be useful in deep strike missions. But it may not have to be used this way. Ukraine's has proven drones are good for this role.
I can go on, but the F-16 is still a great choice if its the only one you can get. Most importantly it unlocks a plethora a NATO standard munitions. AIM-120 AMRAAM air to air missiles, AGM-65 Maverick Air to ground missiles, AIM-7 Sparrow, AIM-9 Sidewinder, GBU-31 JDAMs, AGM-88 HARMs, Mark-80 series general purpose bombs just to name a few. And that gets me to the next point... F/A-18.
The F/A-18 Hornet is a legacy fighter. But it still capable. It is still in front line service in the US Marine corp. It was VERY STUPID to reject the Australians offer for them. The Australian F/A-18s are not worn out and still have some life left in them. Just unlocking the NATO weapons catalog is reason enough alone to use it. It was designed to be comparable to the F-16, but for Naval use. It is not as capable as the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet, but is still useful in a many of critical roles Ukraine needs airframes for. Ukraine is still flying hopelessly dated and limited SU-25s. The earliest of F/A-18 is superior to the SU-25 in almost every way. Frankly, because it carries NATO munitions it is superior to anything the Ukrainians are currently flying. It can use fire and forget AIM-120C missiles. No Ukrainian aircraft flying today currently can. But if forced to choose between F-16 and the legacy F/A-18 C/D Hornet, then the F-16 is the better choice. However, it seems like it didn't have to be that way. Australia was offering to donate them. Those donations would not have come at the expense of what the US Budget was allowing. A different budget "pie", if you will. These aircraft could have and still can, augment the F-16s. Rather, the Ukrainians should have asked the Australians, "yes we will take them, but can you also train our pilots on them?". That would have been the correct response.
And now we get to the A-10. I know everyone wants to see it in Ukraine blowing up Russian tanks. So do I. Any aircraft could be useful to Ukraine, so that goes for the A-10 too. However, what are the downsides? Well there are many. First off, the limited budget of dollars that congress has appropriated for the defense of Ukraine. Currently there are no dollars. But, even if there were it's still going to be a limited budget. A-10s can only come from the USA. You have to weigh dollars going to A-10s versus a dollar for an F-16s and all the other things A-10 dollars would be taking away from. The F-16s are just a better platform for the type of warfare Ukraine is facing. The A-10 is relatively slow. It can do good ground pounding, but is not much use in air to air combat as it lacks radar. Although it may be surprisingly competent after the merge in a dog fight, it is unlikely to ever see the Russian fighter shooting long range missiles at it. And it can't fire radar guided missiles such as AIM 120C back at one either. It would need to be supported by a larger Airforce providing fighter cover and ground defense network providing additional support. It does have stand-off capability if armed with the correct munitions. That would be helpful. But again you are trading dollars for fancy precision strike munitions of limited quantities versus good-ole cheap and plentiful dumb bombs that the F-16 has a better chance of getting on target. Another huge issue with A-10 is it is long out of production and they are old. Even the USAF is struggling to keep A-10 airframes airworthy. It is getting more and more expensive for them to do so. Most of the existing A-10s have had to be or need to be re-winged. The wing spars have finite life. Metal fatigue is making them unsafe to fly over a certain amount of flight hours. If the US was going to dump all of their existing A-10s, where Ukraine could use the good airframes for combat and using the rest for spare parts to keep a small fleet going, that would work. But the USAF appears to not be doing that, even though they would probably like to do so. Congress won't let them.
So what else.. F-15s would be great. But again they are very expensive compared to F-16. F-18 E/F Super Hornets are going out of production soon if no one buys them. Boeing will close the production lines soon as they are almost done with the last of the Navy's order. Ukraine should be allowed to buy them, as they are highly capable and highly modern. But again $$$. In reality, Ukraine needs not just a handful of F-16s. Really, they need to rebuild their entire Airforce with NATO standard equipment. It's a long term situation. They should not be limited to just one airframe type. It takes a range of equipment from aircraft to ground support for various roles. They need Helicopters. Ukraine needs to be able to achieve at least a limited air dominance over the font line to succeed. The west should be helping Ukraine achieve this. Ukraine's security is our security. Ukraine looses, we loose. Simple as that. Let's start acting like it.
OK, sorry for the wall of text, I will get off my soap box now.
Last edited:
This f-18 news. Maybe it's true as it's been presented. Maybe it's a misunderstanding, translation and whatnot. It could also just be made up. Remember, Russia is still trying to spread disinfo wherever it can. So I take news like this with a grain of salt.
Denise Davydov also thinks this story is likely disinformation from the Russian side. He mentions :No identity given for really anyone, no real details on the actual offer, no location for the conversation...
(I find Denys's daily Ukraine video updates on YouTube pretty helpful, and he often gives info about Ukrainian political situation, EU happenings related to the war, etc.)
Need to see confirmation on this, but if so Ukraine just keeps lighting-up Russian fossil fuel infrastructure:
You wouldn't use a 5" (127mm) gun for local defence against small nimble targets. That'd be for your 12.7mm crew-served MGs, or possibly up to 23mm autocannon. Given the wildly inaccuate spray of fire, I'd suspect the crew-served 12.7mm (w. minimal crew training)
Since we know the class of Russian ship involved, it should be straightforward to find this ship's weapons loadout on a public resource like Jane's.
The Tarantul class corvettes have one 76mm and two 30mm guns. The 30mm are behind the bridge.
Tarantul-class corvette - Wikipedia
Boy this makes my blood boil if there is any truth to this.
‘We don’t need your flying trash’: Misunderstanding scuttles transfer of 41 Australian Hornets to UA
A senior Ukrainian Air Force official refused an offer from two Australians to receive 41 of the country’s decommissioned F/A-18 Hornet fighters, bluntly stating that "we do not need your flying trash," reported the Australian Financial Review on Jan. 30.
Talk about punching the gift horse in the mouth. Whoever this senior Ukrainian air for official is should be demoted to private and sent to man a trench on the front lines.
There may be reasons in certain circumstances to not want to take the donation. I will explain more in a further post. But respond by saying "We don't need your flying trash" is beyond the pale.
The Australian F/A-18s have been sitting since 2021. They would probably require some rehab to become operational again. The F-16s Ukraine are getting have the advantage of being freshly retired and are in first rate condition.
The A-10 can only operate in its intended role in an environment where air defense has been dramatically degraded which is not the case in Ukraine. The A-10 does have the advantage of being capable of carrying pretty much any NATO air launched munition (maybe not air to air missiles, but pretty much anything else). It would be a very good replacement for the shrinking Su-24 and Su-25 fleet in the Ukrainian air force serving in the same role they are serving now. The A-10 has the capability of carrying huge loads of ordinance.
There is a little know law in the US that allows the president to declare any military hardware surplus and donate it to an ally. Biden did this with some gear given to Greece this week with a handshake deal that Greece would be passing on some equipment they no longer need to Ukraine. In 2023 Congress passed a bill that allows the first 42 A-10s to be retired this year. The plan is to upgrade two A-10 squadrons to F-35As by 2029.
The US could donate A-10s to NATO allies and then after an "evaluation" those allies could pass them on to Ukraine. But it wouldn't get the Ukrainian pilots the training they need to fly the aircraft.
Seems weird. Why wouldn't Ukraine take them and stick them in a shed somewhere. Even if they didn't need them right now it's better to have them and not need them than vice versa. Zelensky has also been very politically savvy, and turning their noses up at free weapons is not that. I could be wrong but it doesn't pass the sniff test as presented IMO.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
A Ukraine Air Force spokes person seemed to have denied it on Facebook, although it's hard to parse through the exact meaning/nuance of the source statements (unless perhaps someone understands Ukrainian).Boy this makes my blood boil if there is any truth to this.
‘We don’t need your flying trash’: Misunderstanding scuttles transfer of 41 Australian Hornets to UA
A senior Ukrainian Air Force official refused an offer from two Australians to receive 41 of the country’s decommissioned F/A-18 Hornet fighters, bluntly stating that "we do not need your flying trash," reported the Australian Financial Review on Jan. 30.
Talk about punching the gift horse in the mouth. Whoever this senior Ukrainian air for official is should be demoted to private and sent to man a trench on the front lines.
There may be reasons in certain circumstances to not want to take the donation. I will explain more in a further post. But respond by saying "We don't need your flying trash" is beyond the pale.
https://english.nv.ua/nation/ukrain...-f-a-18-fighter-jet-acquisition-50389361.html
Came across this. Zeihan's conclusions are not great, but he does a good job in the first half describing the geographic realities of Asia and why Russia is nervous. Telling Russia that nobody is really interested in invading them falls on deaf ears. They look at history and see that somebody has invaded over and over again throughout history.
The ethnic Russian population is also in freefall leaving Russia in a situation where maintaining their empire is going to get more and more difficult as this century grinds on.
I'm skeptical that things will play out as he predicts, but to be in leadership in Russia and being paranoid about the borders goes hand in hand. It's always been that way.
The ethnic Russian population is also in freefall leaving Russia in a situation where maintaining their empire is going to get more and more difficult as this century grinds on.
I'm skeptical that things will play out as he predicts, but to be in leadership in Russia and being paranoid about the borders goes hand in hand. It's always been that way.
