Tiger
Active Member
Follow the money, maybe it was such a bluff all along, and arms race
Seems awfully real to the Ukrainians, though. How to stop madness?
-
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
Follow the money, maybe it was such a bluff all along, and arms race
Seems awfully real to the Ukrainians, though. How to stop madness?This is ridiculous, those Bastion missiles that are in those videos have been there for over 30 years..
Also russians violate our airspace often, the corridor between finnish and estonian airspaces over baltic sea is very thin.
Practically Finland is already in Nato - public support for joining is so huge now, that it's impossible not to join.
And I'm convinced Russia will do anything they can to prevent it - short of an armed conflict.
sundaymorning
Active Member
It’s easy to feel some form of hubris watching Russia struggle with its offensive war on Ukraine due to supply chains, this doesn’t mean Russian’s defensive system is as bad, on the contrary, they have very capable defensive systems that’ll give us problems. The issue at hand is once you start a world war, how do you know China isn’t going to feel threatened and side with Russia? Right now the Chinese are staying out, in an event of a World War, China likely isn’t going to stay neutral. Here’s some hard numbers for you:
World War 1 Deaths: 15-20 million
World War 2 Deaths: 70-85 million
Somehow World War 3 is going to have less causalities?
You do realize Russia is holding back a lot of its bigger guns right? And one last point, a world war is never quick.
sundaymorning
Active Member
World War 1 casualties: 15-20 million. Zero nukes dropped.
World War 2 casualties: 70-85 million. Only 2 nukes were dropped on Japan killing approximately 120,000-210,000. The rest were non nuke causalities.
You cannot discount China’s involvement from the equation when talking about a World War 3 scenario. My guess is that China will not stay neutral.
The Ukrainians have the advantage of being able to move their troops along inside lines while the Russians are forced to move them via outside lines. The Russians literally have farther to travel to get to the same point when moving troops from the north to the east.
The only "bigger" guns the Russians are holding back are nuclear. What we have seen so far is their A team. There was an essay from a very credible source a few weeks ago. I posted it here, but I can't find it now. It lays out a very solid case that the Russians have held back virtually nothing, only a few pieces of equipment they only have a tiny handful of.
I haven't finished reading this one, but it's from today. It outlines how Russia is headed for a major personnel crisis and other problems even worse than they have now
Thread by @TrentTelenko on Thread Reader App
If Russia gets into a war with NATO, the only thing they have available is nukes. The larder is otherwise empty. Even with the heavy recruitment efforts they are doing now, it will be months before even poorly trained, green troops can be thrown into battle. Just rounding them up and sending them into battle with no training will take weeks.
A conventional war between NATO and Russia would be very one sided and very short. The high commands of western militaries plan for everything. Before WW II the US military had a war plan for what they would do if the UK tried to take back their wayward colonies in North America (the US). A highly unlikely scenario by the 20th century.
Each plan had a color. War Plan Orange was the plan to fight Japan. The broad outlines of the original plan were executed in the war.
NATO has a plan in place for what they would do if Russia starts a war with NATO while fighting Ukraine. If I was planning it, I would first neutralize all Russian assets anywhere within strike range of NATO territory, then move into Ukraine (they have probably already gotten the green light from the Ukrainians for this) and knock out every Russian war asset 100 miles or more from Ukrainian territory, including all the rail lines. Once that is done, the Russian units in Ukraine and on Ukraine's borders will be isolated and cut off from all supply. Then send NATO ground forces to either destroy them or accept their surrender. Stop at the 2013 Ukraine border, but keep knocking out anything that moves in Russia or Belarus anywhere near Ukraine of NATO territory.
At the same time NATO is reducing Russian land forces, sink every Russian military ship or sub at sea anywhere in the world.
If the nukes don't fly, it will be over in a few weeks with Russia's ability to fight a conventional war reduced to almost nothing. China is not that big a fan of Russia. They will likely let Putin destroy himself and look for opportunities in the aftermath.
China is not in a position to get into a shooting war with the US. If anything Russia's poor performance in this war has shown them that a force just partially trained up by the US is much better than the entire Russian army. And countering any US led force would be a tough fight for China right now.
sundaymorning
Active Member
You may want to look up Russia’s “Father of all bombs.”
The bomb is reportedly four times more powerful than the US military's GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb (whose official military acronym "MOAB" is often colloquially said as the "Mother of All Bombs"). This makes it the most powerful conventional (non-nuclear) weapon in the world. The veracity of Russia's claims concerning the weapon's size and power have been questioned by US defense analysts.
The bomb was successfully field-tested in the late evening of September 11, 2007. According to the Russian military, the new weapon will replace several smaller types of nuclear bombs in its arsenal.”
The bomb works by detonating in mid-air. Most damage is inflicted by a supersonic shockwave and extremely high temperatures.[5][7] Thermobaric weapons differ from conventional explosive weapons in that they generate a longer, more sustained blast wave with greater temperatures. In doing so, they produce more damage over a larger area than a conventional weapon of similar mass.[2]
Compared with MOAB
According to General Alexander Rushkin, the Russian deputy chief of staff, the new bomb is smaller than the MOAB but much deadlier because the temperature at the centre of the blast is twice as high.[4][8][9] He says the bomb's capabilities are comparable to nuclear weapons, but unlike a nuclear weapon known for its radioactive fallout, use of the weapon does not damage or pollute the environment beyond the blast radius.[5]In comparison, the MOAB produces the equivalent of 11 tons of TNT from 8 tons of high explosive. The claimed blast radius of the FOAB is 300 meters, almost double that of the MOAB, and the temperature produced is twice as high.[7]
The thermobaric device yields the equivalent of 44 tons of TNT using 7.8 tons of a new type of high explosive. Because of this, the bomb's blast and pressure wave have a similar effect to a small tactical nuclear weapon, though on a smaller scale
Just how many of these non nuclear bombs the Russians have is anyone’s guess. Are you willing to roll the dice and start a war with Russia knowing they have these in their arsenal? Just because I said “no nukes” doesn’t mean the Russians don’t have an ace up their sleeves. Right now the Russians are trying to use conventional warfare to prove they can still do this without dropping non nuclear bombs that’s capable of flattening Ukraine, and for everyone’s interest, I would rather not want to see Ukraine go on the offensive to give the Russians the excuse to drop a few dozen of these.
Father of All Bombs
Aviation Thermobaric Bomb of Increased Power (ATBIP) (Russian: Авиационная вакуумная бомба повышенной мощности (АВБПМ)), nicknamed "Father of All Bombs" (FOAB) (Отец всех бомб), is a Russian-made air-delivered/land-activated thermobaric weapon. In describing the bomb's destructive power, Russian...
As far as what China does, no one has a crystal ball. Logic gets thrown out the window when we talk about World War scenarios
Last edited:
You may want to look up Russia’s “Father of all bombs.”
The bomb is reportedly four times more powerful than the US military's GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb (whose official military acronym "MOAB" is often colloquially said as the "Mother of All Bombs"). This makes it the most powerful conventional (non-nuclear) weapon in the world. The veracity of Russia's claims concerning the weapon's size and power have been questioned by US defense analysts.
The bomb was successfully field-tested in the late evening of September 11, 2007. According to the Russian military, the new weapon will replace several smaller types of nuclear bombs in its arsenal.”
The bomb works by detonating in mid-air. Most damage is inflicted by a supersonic shockwave and extremely high temperatures.[5][7] Thermobaric weapons differ from conventional explosive weapons in that they generate a longer, more sustained blast wave with greater temperatures. In doing so, they produce more damage over a larger area than a conventional weapon of similar mass.[2]
Compared with MOAB
According to General Alexander Rushkin, the Russian deputy chief of staff, the new bomb is smaller than the MOAB but much deadlier because the temperature at the centre of the blast is twice as high.[4][8][9] He says the bomb's capabilities are comparable to nuclear weapons, but unlike a nuclear weapon known for its radioactive fallout, use of the weapon does not damage or pollute the environment beyond the blast radius.[5]
In comparison, the MOAB produces the equivalent of 11 tons of TNT from 8 tons of high explosive. The claimed blast radius of the FOAB is 300 meters, almost double that of the MOAB, and the temperature produced is twice as high.[7]
The thermobaric device yields the equivalent of 44 tons of TNT using 7.8 tons of a new type of high explosive. Because of this, the bomb's blast and pressure wave have a similar effect to a small tactical nuclear weapon, though on a smaller scale
Just how many of these non nuclear bombs the Russians have is anyone’s guess. Are you willing to roll the dice and start a war with Russia knowing they have these in their arsenal? Just because I said “no nukes” doesn’t mean the Russians don’t have an ace up their sleeves. Right now the Russians are trying to use conventional warfare to prove they can still do this without dropping non nuclear bombs that’s capable of flattening Ukraine, and for everyone’s interest, I would rather not want to see Ukraine go on the offensive to give the Russians the excuse to drop a few dozen of these.
Father of All Bombs
Aviation Thermobaric Bomb of Increased Power (ATBIP) (Russian: Авиационная вакуумная бомба повышенной мощности (АВБПМ)), nicknamed "Father of All Bombs" (FOAB) (Отец всех бомб), is a Russian-made air-delivered/land-activated thermobaric weapon. In describing the bomb's destructive power, Russian...military-history.fandom.com
As far as what China does, no one has a crystal ball. Logic gets thrown out the window when we talk about World War scenarios
The Russians are very good at smoke and mirrors to convince the world they are more sophisticated than they are. According to the Wikipedia article the bomb is probably only capable of being dropped out the back of a transport plane
Father of All Bombs - Wikipedia
Something they could deploy if they had air supremacy, but the delivery plane would likely be shot down before it got over the target vs NATO. Even if they have adapted it for use on the Tu-160 (of which they only have 27 operational), they would have to fly into one of the most dangerous air threat zones in the world to drop anything.
The fact the Russians never showed the thing dropped, only the result tells me they have been fronting about its capabilities.
The filling of the bomb appears to be Torpex with ethylene oxide added. Torpex is a WW II explosive (first used by US submarine torpedoes) that was used in the largest bomb deployed in WW II the Grand Slam which was 22,000 pounds.
There was a lot of hand wringing about Russia deploying their handful of TOS-1s in this war.
TOS-1 - Wikipedia
Also a thermobaric weapon. The Ukrainians have captured some and used them against the Russians. They have apparently been used by the Russians too, but neither side is saying anything about any damage inflicted.
If the Russians do have deployable FOABs (which is not really known, they have a history of fronting), they might use them, but they probably don't have that many. Everything I've seen thus far shows the Russians have lots and lots of old stuff with small quantities of newer hardware. I would expect the same for this.
This pretty much show’s how much control Putin has over the media in Russia.
Grieving Russians can't believe talk of war crimes in Ukraine
"They'll accuse Russia of anything," says the widow of a Russian soldier killed in Ukraine.
www.bbc.co.uk
UkNorthampton
TSLA - 12+ startups in 1
Swedish and Finnish farmers should service and prep their tractors ahead of time. Pure Russian bluster, it's time to make the bullies lie quiet. Every ramp up by Russia, another Nato member, state of readiness increased somewhere.
This a great new article in Atlantic from Eliot Cohen at CSIS
www.theatlantic.com
Preview:
"this is the most consequential war of our lifetime. Upon its outcome rests the future of European stability and prosperity. If Ukraine succeeds in preserving its freedom and territorial integrity, a diminished Russia will be contained; if it fails, the chances of war between NATO and Russia go up, as does the prospect of Russian intervention in other areas on its western and southern peripheries. A Russian win would encourage a China coolly observing and assessing Western mettle and military capacity; a Russian defeat would induce a salutary caution in Beijing. Russia’s sheer brutality and utterly unwarranted aggression, compounded by lies at once sinister and ludicrous, have endangered what remains of the global order and the norms of interstate conduct. If such behavior leads to humiliation on the battlefield and economic chaos at home, those norms may be rebuilt to some degree; if Vladimir Putin’s government gets away with it, restoring them will take a generation or longer."
This Is the War’s Decisive Moment
The United States and its allies can tip the balance between a costly success and a calamity.
www.theatlantic.com
Preview:
"this is the most consequential war of our lifetime. Upon its outcome rests the future of European stability and prosperity. If Ukraine succeeds in preserving its freedom and territorial integrity, a diminished Russia will be contained; if it fails, the chances of war between NATO and Russia go up, as does the prospect of Russian intervention in other areas on its western and southern peripheries. A Russian win would encourage a China coolly observing and assessing Western mettle and military capacity; a Russian defeat would induce a salutary caution in Beijing. Russia’s sheer brutality and utterly unwarranted aggression, compounded by lies at once sinister and ludicrous, have endangered what remains of the global order and the norms of interstate conduct. If such behavior leads to humiliation on the battlefield and economic chaos at home, those norms may be rebuilt to some degree; if Vladimir Putin’s government gets away with it, restoring them will take a generation or longer."
Answering myself now...
I found the "essay" making the case Russia brought their best. It wasn't an essay, it was on Youtube
petit_bateau
Active Member
I realise I will be unpopular in saying this, but back in the day I and a few colleagues did some analysis of non-Western upstream O&G explorers, developers and operators, (surface & subsurface) and we came to the conclusion that there were some companies, in some countries, where the teams were beating the best Western efforts by about 10%. Furthermore we suspected that our (company) efforts were short of the best Western company efforts by a further 10%.
(We were extremely unpopular internally when we pointed this out at the time. We were very close to some significant evidence that supported our view. As you can imagine we got given a good ignoring. That didn't mean we were wrong though.)
Things are complicated, and will doubtless have evolved since, but one can reach into places like Brazil, Malaysia, Argentina, China, and put together surprisingly good teams of people and companies, in all the disciplines and at all the levels. Certainly sufficient to get places like Venezuela and Iran on the move again.
In many areas one has to be cautious about drinking too much Kool-Aid. It is too easy to be fooled by one's own marketing efforts coming full circle.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
sundaymorning
Active Member
I would disagree that the Russians are fronting on this, making a less powerful bomb than nukes isn’t all that difficult, the one we were able to drop weights about 30,000 pounds from what I remember. But I do agree that deploying it is the challenge. However that challenge is negated by their development of hypersonic missiles, which has the capability to evade radar:
The Russians have been working on this weapon for years, and the US was very late in getting involved with hypersonic weapons. It wasn’t until the US confrimed Russia’s use of hypersonic missiles that the we came out and said wr successful tested this missile (this is the first time I would question US capability, I just don’t think we have the Mach 6 weapon as we say we do). Every report I’ve read about hypersonic bombs in the past several years tells me we’re behind and that we don’t have it (I’m calling the US bluff on this).
As for the captured thermabaric bombs, so far the ones capture are deployed with ground military vehicles (much smaller with less TNT less barbaric), the one I am talking about gets deployed by warplanes and has a mass radius of 1 mile. With bombs that can evade radar, we have to ask, why the Russians haven’t used them in large quantities? There are 2 assumptions:
1 Russians don’t have them in large quantities.
2 Russians are holding back from using large bombs that would be a public relations nightmare as the one the USA used saw large public backlash.
The other missile that Russia hasn’t deployed in large quantities that can also evades radar is the Iskander-M, only 36 has been deployed in this war so far, and also has the ability to evade radar (again why haven’t the Russians used these in large quantities, perhaps they don’t want the US to capture and then reverse engineer?). This is the type of weapon that even the US doesn’t have and are trying to reverse engineer:
Russia's 'Radar-Evading' Missile Bamboozles The US As Nuclear-Capable Iskander Hits Targets With Pinpoint Accuracy
Russian Iskander-M short-range ballistic missiles (SRBM) are releasing a previously unknown decoy, designed to evade air-defense systems, The New York Times reported quoting US intelligence officials. Russian Navy Joins Invasion! Images Of Amphibious Warship Arriving In Seized Ukrainian Port...
eurasiantimes.com
In short, I think the Russians are holding back their big guns (and when I say big guns I mean bombs, missiles), etc. We’ve overestimated their military capability in traditional combat but I would not underestimate their bombs, which the Russians are experts in building.
Last edited:
petit_bateau
Active Member
For info a typical nuclear warhead has a total mass of 100 - 300 kg with all the gubbins.. The very large conventional warheads some of you are talking about have a mass of 15,000 kg. You simply cannot package these very large conventional warheads to fit onto a missile such as an Iskander which can only carry a warhead of approx 500k-700g. The sort of aircraft required to deliver these very large conventional warheads would ordinarily only venture into a permissive air environment. I'm not saying the Russians might not try it in (say) Mariopol steelworks, but it would be quite adventurous to fly that mission.
On the subject of hypersonics there is a lot of nonsense talked in the ra-ra media. (imho) The real issues are twofold: first the sustained manoevrability in-atmosphere (much more so than exo-atmosphere) at hypersonic speeds; and secondly the ability to do targetting on-the-fly at those speeds (by a variety of means). Almost everything you read about that is hyped up as being 'hypersonic' fails one or both of those tests (and probably a third one as well :reliability, but that is true of any weapon system as otherwise it also fails the cost-effectiveness test). That is why only the Chinese and Russians claim to have fielded them, because they are passing off conventional missiles as meeting these tests for other reasons. Yes, they go at hypersonic speeds, but that does not mean they are viable hypersonic manoeuvring weapon systems that can exploit the hypersonic regime to overcome anti-missile defences. In contrast the West is (imho) ahead in this area, but does not need to play the bragging game, and knows how much more work needs to be done to field effective hypersonic systems. Bottom line: this is not at all relevant to Ukraine.
On the subject of hypersonics there is a lot of nonsense talked in the ra-ra media. (imho) The real issues are twofold: first the sustained manoevrability in-atmosphere (much more so than exo-atmosphere) at hypersonic speeds; and secondly the ability to do targetting on-the-fly at those speeds (by a variety of means). Almost everything you read about that is hyped up as being 'hypersonic' fails one or both of those tests (and probably a third one as well :reliability, but that is true of any weapon system as otherwise it also fails the cost-effectiveness test). That is why only the Chinese and Russians claim to have fielded them, because they are passing off conventional missiles as meeting these tests for other reasons. Yes, they go at hypersonic speeds, but that does not mean they are viable hypersonic manoeuvring weapon systems that can exploit the hypersonic regime to overcome anti-missile defences. In contrast the West is (imho) ahead in this area, but does not need to play the bragging game, and knows how much more work needs to be done to field effective hypersonic systems. Bottom line: this is not at all relevant to Ukraine.
Occam's razor application here: Why do you think that the Russians responsible for the "big guns" development and procurement are any more reliable and less corrupt than the ones in charge of the aspects of Russian military that we've seen? Plus Soviet/Russian propaganda of their achievements is comical at times.
I remember an old joke from Soviet era. Went something like this. "On Monday, Radio Yerevan reports that Ivan Vasilyevich has received a new car because of his exceptional results at work promoting the cause of communism revolution. On Tuesday an errata to the previous story on Radio Yerevan is read. Ivan Vasilyevich has not received a new car but a new bicycle. On Wednesday a further correction to the news story: it was not a new bicycle but an used one. On Friday the final correction is announced. Actually Ivan Vasilyevich did not received anything. He has been arrested as the bike he was riding to work was stolen public property"
While I am firmly on the side of "let's not make this into a nuclear war", I wouldn't trust too much Russian stories. There was recently an article about the different words russian language uses for the English word "truth"; there were at least 4 different shades, all the way to bald-faced lie. Let's remember their hypersonic Kinzhal. Ended up being an air launched version of their old Iskander ballistic missile
How about Putin's famous nuclear-powered cruise missile, that would likely self destroy soon after launch (again I mean, the prototype tested did just that ) if physics don't change... This feels awfully familiar for whomever reads history. That was a long list too and all fantastical and ready to change the war course. Until it didn't...For a tad more fun, here are few classic examples of great (no sarcasm here, cross my heart) russian engineering feats that never been used. Quoting Voltaire:
"Kremlin's two greatest items are a bell which was never rung and a cannon that was never fired"
Last edited:
US is sending some heavier weapons now, and helicopters.
Wonder what's an "unmanned coastal defense vessel"?
Wonder what's an "unmanned coastal defense vessel"?
sundaymorning
Active Member
This question runs through my mind often, I don’t have an answer for this. And I don’t think our state department and defense has an inkling of an answer for us neither. Just how many of these large bombs (short of nuclear) do the Russians really have? In short, we really don’t know how many of these bombs the Russians have in their arsenal. As the war drags on we’ll get a better assessment of large bomb capabilities (IF the Russians decide to resort to using them). Logic tells me that they have them in large quantities as they’ve had about 2 decades of work behind these bombs. What’s different about bombs is that once you make it, it could be stored, whereas mechanical ground vehicles need routine maintenance and upkeep (things like tires).
Yes I get can agree that hypersonic missiles are hard to control due to speed, but let me interject that hypersonic has everything to do with Ukraine and WW3 capabilities, I’ll address this later. Before I do, I have this question to ask. Did the Russians use and hit their target with hypersonic missile in Ukraine? If the answer is yes, then this weapon is relevant:
Every article I’ve read indicates that the Russians were able to hit their target, including this one:
After Pentagon demurs, Biden confirms Russia fired hypersonic missile: Ukraine Day 26
A defense official earlier said use of the missile couldn't be verified.
abcnews.go.com
President Joe Biden confirmed Monday night that Russia has used a hypersonic missile in Ukraine, saying it’s “the only thing that they can get through with absolute certainty.”
"It doesn't make that much difference, except it's almost impossible to stop it. There's a reason they’re using it," Biden said
A few days after hypersonic was launched in Russia, the US could not confirm its usage and the media ran off with stories as well as interviews with military experts who were later proven wrong by President Biden’s confirmation that Russia did in fact use and hit their target.
The Russians firing this weapon tells me 2 things:
1 Their ground campaign isn’t going as planed, so they’re resorting to higher military capabilities which costs more money. It’s evident that Putin is emptying their less expensive bombs/artillery first, then escalating as he realizes the traditional smaller bombs and missiles aren’t yielding the effect he wanted.
2 the hypersonic missile is a warning shot to NATO and the US that Russia isn’t bluffing, that they have the capability and aren’t afraid to us it under the right conditions. Keep in mind that it only takes one successful launch of this weapon for Russia to replicate hundreds/thousands more launches.
Ironically, the side I think that is bluffing when it comes to hypersonic weapon isn’t Russia, but in fact the US… if anyone here can find video confirmation of US successfully hitting its target of hypersonic weapons, please put it in this thread so we can assess US capabilities.
The reason this hypersonic weapon is relevant to war is that it pretty much renders any defensive weapons against hypersonic speeds useless. Much of what you’ve read about hypersonic being inaccurate in hitting target comes from the US side, which is why I think the US is bluffing. We’re still unable to hit military targets at Mach 6 speed whereas the Russians have been able to hit their targets in Ukraine, as it is confirmed by President Biden. When playing poker, just because your adversary bluffed the first time doesn’t mean they’re bluffing now.. as is shown by field usage of these weapons. Again, the US is still learning from Russian capabilities, weapons that we don’t yet have in our arsenal but Russians seem to be firing:
Seized Russian weapons systems could be ‘goldmine’ for Western intelligence
A WIDE ARRAY OF Russian military equipment, which has been falling in the hands of the Ukrainian forces since February 24, could prove a “goldmine” for American and other Western spy agencies, expe…
intelnews.org
Form my earlier posts, you can see some radar evading missiles used in Ukraine that the US is trying to figure out, which means we don’t yet have them.
Despite the Russian blunders and high death tolls we see today, it will pale in comparison to large bombs (short of Nukes) being deployed in a WW3 scenario. The point I’m making here is that before any nukes are dropped, we will see escalation in bigger guns, bigger bombs, as well as higher frequency of those bombs being dropped. My assessment is that Russia is choosing NOT to using those bigger bombs or larger scale chemical weapons (which we know Russia has) because of the PR issue and the war crimes ramification it’ll have to deal with afterwards. However, if Ukraine attacks Russia with more frequency, it will give Russia justification for resorting to these “big guns” or “big bombs”. This is something NATO and the US doesn’t want to give Russia-justification.
What we are seeing in Ukraine is plain and simple: Russian brutality. I think the Russians can be even more brutal, with deadlier bombs, they just don’t have a justification for using them, yet… they can end this war tomorrow if they wanted to. But I think Putin is hell bent on proving he can take over Ukraine with ground forces.
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
ROFL at the people committing mass murder calling someone Nazis . . .
