-
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
adiggs
Well-Known Member
Maybe I'm not reading that correctly - I see a verified account belonging to a Russian governmental agency, reporting on the swedish dockworkers causing them grief (the easy part). That puts the dockworkers in the same category as Nazi's for doing so.
Most importantly it sounds like a hint of the same language used to justify the Ukraine special operation, now being applied to Sweden.
If Russia were to be consistent, then that sounds like a prelude to invading Sweden to de-Nazify it. I don't actually believe that will happen, but I don't find it comforting.
adiggs
Well-Known Member
Which is more important - the manner and quality in which she executes the office of Prime Minister of Finland, or her looks? I believe its the former - your comment suggests the latter.
EDIT: rated informative because I found the link very much so.
If you don't do maintenance for years (or you fake it and pocket the money) you'll end up with a VLLEKW (Very Large Low Energy Kinetic Weapon) not a bomb anymore.
This kind:
That *WAS* the Kinzhal. While somehow effective it is not really a hypersonic weapon as @petit_bateau explained. It's an air-launched version of the old Iskander-M short range ballistic missile.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
If anything it shows that Russians are getting desperate enough to scrap the the cupboards for Wunderwaffen. They already used their anti-ship Bastion-P missiles in ground attack mode. They used air superiority Su-35E fighters as a ground attack planes too (and lost at least one promptly). They've used and lost unique prototypes of tanks. Amazingly no Armata T-14s or BMPT T-15s have been seen in combat (all 9 known BMPT T-15 vehicles that they have in active duty seem to have been sent towards Ukraine though).
Using a high end and expensive laptop as mosquito-swatter may work for a little time. But it will be extremely costly when you don't have the money to buy a new one. See another example of this in the current war. And the mosquito killed them. I don't think that the price of one old BMP exceeds the cost of training 3 lieutenants... Eating your next harvest's grain-seed may get you thru the next few days, but you'll certainly die of hunger later.
So no, I don't think Russia is saving their "big guns". They just don't have them ready to be used or they'll have done it. That obviously doesn't includes nukes.
Last edited:
President Zelensky: Over 500,000 Ukrainians forcibly taken to Russia
Currently, over 500,000 Ukrainians have been forcibly taken to the Russian Federation. â Ukrinform.
www.ukrinform.net
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Note on the subject of the hypersonic weapon that the media has made a big deal about (and Russia has previously hyped up also):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.
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:
"But British intelligence and even Biden's own defense secretary have downplayed Russia's use of its air-launched Kinzhal missiles.
"I would not see it as a game changer," Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin told CBS.
And the U.K. Defense Ministry said the Kinzhal missile is really just an air-launched version of the Iskander short-range ballistic missile (SRBM), which Russia has used repeatedly in its invasion of Ukraine."
The US has confirmed Russia's use of hypersonic missiles in Ukraine. Here's what to know about them
There's a long article by the The Drive from 2018 on the missles:
Putin's Air-Launched Hypersonic Weapon Appears To Be A Modified Iskander Ballistic Missile
There has been evidence presented that Israeli made air defense systems have been able to intercept iskander missiles in other conflicts despite Russian hype about hypersonic missiles being un-interceptable. Although there is some back and forth about if they have been used (given Russia was not suppose to supply them).
Iskander missiles were intercepted by Israeli-made Barak-8 air defense, says Armenia
CPC | Contrary to Previous Claims, Evidence Shows Iskander Missiles in the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War
I don't think it means we don't have our own versions yet, but rather that our intelligence community did not have such direct access to advanced Russian equipment in the past. The idea is like how we have the F-22 and and F-35 already, but you think the US would not love to capture a Russian Su-57 for analysis?
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.
This was discussed in depth further up thread, but Russia have already shown they are quite happy to do indiscriminate bombing when given the chance. The reason why they haven't done so in a larger scale is because they don't have control of the air space over Ukraine, so they can't freely drop those bombs. Given their failure to control air space against a much weaker Ukrainian air force and AA defense systems, I think there is a lot of doubt that Russia would fare any better against a NATO force.
Russia/Ukraine conflict
Last edited:
SwedishAdvocate
Active Member
--> This!
1. Any new jets the Ukrainians get need to have the ability to shoot fire-and-forget long range Air-to-Air Missiles – Missiles that don't require the Jet to keep flying towards the target and continuously 'illuminating' it with the aircrafts own radar.
2. There's a Swedish Lieutenant Colonel – Joakim Paasikivi – that has been appearing regularly in Swedish news outlets as a military commentator. He also teaches Military Strategy at the Swedish National Defense College. He was interviewed on the Swedish Public Service Radio this last Saturday. He got this question (paraphrasing): "How long do you think this war will go on for?" His answer (paraphrasing): "This war has lasted some eight years. I'm gonna guess it will last another eight years."
Now – even if he is wrong – the Ukrainians are going to keep loosing Migs (and Su-27s – if they have any of those left). And at some point those aircraft will have to be replaced if the Ukrainians are going to have any kind of Air Force left. Are The West going to accept a scenario when Ukraine no longer has a functioning Air Force?
You guys seem pretty knowledgeable, but there seems to be one super obvious aspect that you are completely missing. The Ukrainian society is now in a state of total war mobilization. And few things are more important than preventing Putin from getting total Air Dominance. The Ukrainians don't need to remove their current Mig/Sukhoi mechanics from active duty. They can create a completely new second set of mechanics and support personel. They have their entire force of civilian aircraft mechanics and the entire Antonov work force and all other individuals that would be qualified. I can't really see this being a problem.
3. The question of funding has also been 'highlighted'. This wouldn't be financed solely by the US. This would be financed by the entire Democratic World. And a large part of it could be through a zero interest loan that Ukraine could repay once they can get back to some kind of working economy. I really don't see the problem here either...
Last edited:
Ukrainian missiles struck the Russian warship Moscow, Maxim Marchenko, the head of Odesa’s military forces, said on Telegram. Russia’s Defense Ministry said hours later “a fire” on the ship had caused ammunition to explode, according to the Russian state news agency Tass. It said that the crew had evacuated from the “seriously damaged” ship and the cause of the fire was under investigation.
(NY Times live updates)
Under the Tzar, Russia built the largest tank ever made. The Tzar tank. It was too big to actually move anywhere. But if it had actually worked it would have been terrifying. We'll see how their giant bomb works unless their corrupt officers sold off the parts to fund their foreign accounts.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.
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…
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.
SwedishAdvocate
Active Member
Also: As they Ukrainians keep loosing Migs and Sukhois, their current amount of active duty Air Force mechanics are probably not going to have as much work as they were originally tasked with. When that happens – there should be more Air Force mechanics than there is need for to keep the few remaining Migs and Sukhois in the air. Those 'excess' mechanics would also be able to go on and begin to learn how to work on a new air frame...
Any technology can be duplicated eventually given enough resources thrown at it. And oil field technology is not top secret. The countries that have been completely dependent on western tech to develop their oil have been able to observe all this tech in action.
I've just never heard of any non-western country developing their own oil tech. My sister is a petroleum Geologist and has always kept her ear to the ground, but she does have her blind spots in some areas (she and I had a lively debate a year or so back about the feasibility of electric vehicle mass adoption, she was convinced it was impossible).
Historically she has been a realist about the capabilities of the oil industry though. But it sounds like most of the oil industry people who do hear about other countries developing these technologies are dismissing it as "not invented here" so many oil professionals still haven't heard about it.
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.
I strongly suggest watching this video
He spends 1/2 an hour making the case that we have seen Russia's best and they haven't held back anything except nukes and a few prototypes.
The Russians made heavy use of the Iskander in the first month of the war. There were about 700 Iskanders shot at Ukraine and they did deploy the new tech that confuses anti-missile systems, but there were only a few missiles with that tech fired and most of it was near the end. For the last 2 weeks the Iskanders have been mostly if not completely quiet. Almost all long range missile strikes have been fired from ships in the Black Sea or Sea of Asov and they have been using anti-shipping missiles on land targets.
The "hypersonic" missile they deployed was just an air launched Iksander (as others pointed out) and is not really a hypersonic missile as @petit_bateau pointed out. A true hypersonic missile travels at hypersonic speeds, but also has other characteristics to fullfill the definition and the Kinzhal doesn't fit the definition. Typical for the Russians, they claim it does, but claiming something is true doesn't make it true.
The Russian military budget is $60 billion USD a year. Western observers have scratched their heads for years how the Russians could do as much as they do on so little. Especially with the rampant corruption in the Russian military. Where they cut corners the most is in training and procurement of new weapons. They make a big deal about new wonder weapons and show them off to the world, but then they only build a handful of them for their own use. The T-14 Armata is supposed to be their new 21st century tank, but none have been deployed. A handful of the new BMP model are in their inventory. Same with the Su-35, Su-57, the TOS-1, and many other "super weapons". When they are deployed in this war, they don't live up to the hype on the tin.
It was estimated they had about 24 TOS-1s at the start of this war and documented losses or captures amount to about half their inventory. There was a lot of hype in the media about how these weapons were going to be a game changer, but their use has been unremarkable.
The leaked meeting notes from a meeting with Putin in the first days of the war highlighted that Russia was unable to make any replacement missiles because all the guidance electronics and in some cases other parts came from Europe. I think the case the Iskanders went quiet is that they used up all the Iskander missiles they had, including their latest tech handful. The launchers are quiet because they are out of ammo.
To anybody who is willing to do the deep dive into the data, the Russians are not the superpower they have told the world they are. Their military is badly broken and the war is destroying what structure is left. They are primarily using 1970s weapons because that's all they have left.
In some ways Russian rhetoric seems about on the same level as a teenager on social media circa 2000. Everything they don't like is a Nazi.
Sweden does have the advantage of not sharing a border with Russia. Russia would have to go through Norway, Finland, or mount an amphibious invasion. I think Sweden is safe.
The photo shoot she did last year was somewhat controversial. At least one picture was not what I would expect of a country's PM.
Trent Tolenko had another solution which is technically feasible, but may not be politically possible. Create something like the American Volunteer Group (aka Flying Tigers) made up of support personnel from western countries who volunteer to go into Ukraine and maintain the aircraft and weapon systems for the Ukrainians.
Training a mechanic, even an experienced one to work on a western military jet is likely going to take at least 6 months. In peacetime it's a 24 month, full time course. Engine mechanics is a 20 month course.
The Moksva is one of Russia's largest ships. That would be a major victory for the Ukrainians.
PR on this is pure gold. The name of the ship, the former name of the ship (Slava), the fact that is the "Russian warship, go f*ck yourself" ship and it is also the flagship for the Russian Black Sea Fleet. Plus another WTF. They use a high end guided missile cruiser to do shore bombardment. They actually came close enough to shore to let the Ukrainians hit them... Neptune's range is
If Ukraine gets Harpoons (~200 mi range) this will become hilarious.
Last edited:
UPDATE: Seems that Moskva sunk. Siri translation from Russian of a telegram postPR on this is pure gold. The name of the ship, the former name of the ship (Slava), the fact that is the "Russian warship, go f*ck yourself" ship and it is also the flagship for the Russian Black Sea Fleet. Plus another WTF. They use a high end guided missile cruiser to do shore bombardment. They actually came close enough to shore to let the Ukrainians hit them... Neptune's range is16 miles onlyEDIT: 100 miles; Moskva came within their 130mm gun range which is 16 miles
️According to preliminary information, the flagship of the Black Sea Fleet cruiser "Moscow" sank.Official information of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, which appeared only by 2 a.m., says that as a result of the fire there was a partial detonation of ammunition, and part of the crew was evacuated.
According to information from Ukraine, which appeared long before the statement of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, the cruiser "Moscow" was destroyed by the PKR "Neptune".
According to our preliminary information, the flagship of the Russian Black Sea Fleet cruiser "Moscow" was indeed attacked by the PKR "Neptune" from the coastline between Odessa and Nikolaev. The ship's forces were also distracted by the Bayraktar TB-2 UAV. The blow hit the port side, as a result of which the ship took a strong roll. After the threat of detonation of ammunition, the crew of about ~500 people was evacuated. The buoyancy of the cruiser was complicated by sea weather conditions. As a result of all the cumulative factors, according to preliminary information, and unfortunately, the cruiser joined the submarine satellite group Roskomos.
ROTFLMAO
A Russian source is saying the Moskva has sunk and that the explosion was from a Ukrainian Neptun missile strike. Apparently, Ukraine flew a TB2 UCAV to distract the ship while it was targeted by the Neptune. The ship rolled onto its side after the strike.
Of course, to be confirmed
Last edited:
UPDATE: Seems that Moskva sunk. Siri translation from Russian of a telegram post
Official information of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, which appeared only by 2 a.m., says that as a result of the fire there was a partial detonation of ammunition, and part of the crew was evacuated.
According to information from Ukraine, which appeared long before the statement of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, the cruiser "Moscow" was destroyed by the PKR "Neptune".
According to our preliminary information, the flagship of the Russian Black Sea Fleet cruiser "Moscow" was indeed attacked by the PKR "Neptune" from the coastline between Odessa and Nikolaev. The ship's forces were also distracted by the Bayraktar TB-2 UAV. The blow hit the port side, as a result of which the ship took a strong roll. After the threat of detonation of ammunition, the crew of about ~500 people was evacuated. The buoyancy of the cruiser was complicated by sea weather conditions. As a result of all the cumulative factors, according to preliminary information, and unfortunately, the cruiser joined the submarine satellite group Roskomos.
ROTFLMAO
A Russian source is saying the Moskva has sunk and that the explosion was from a Ukrainian Neptun missile strike. Apparently, Ukraine flew a TB2 UCAV to distract the ship while it was targeted by the Neptun. The ship rolled onto its side after the strike.
View attachment 793489
Of course, to be confirmed
If it rolled on its side, the ship is toast. It sounds like one of the missiles set off a magazine explosion. That's usually a ship killer.
Apparently this video is making the rounds of Russian social media and it's really scaring a lot of people. The Russians can be superstitious.
She is depicting an ancient Ukrainian goddess.
sundaymorning
Active Member
There has been quite a bit of chatter about Russia not being able to control the Ukrainian airspace, the reason behind this isn’t because the Russians don’t have the expertise or weapons to do it. The problem was that Russia miscalculated Ukraine, and as a result, shot less short range missiles than was required to take out vital infrastructure, which ruined their own plans to invade. For an invading army to be successful, the first 10 days of the war is most critical, within that 10-day window, the invading army still has the element of surprise, and can either hack, bomb or take down enemy infrastructure before sending in its jets to take out other units so foot soldiers don’t have to worry about being bombed on the way. Beyond 10 days your adversary will mobilize to setup defenses to deter the invading army (which is what we are seeing in Ukraine).
The root of the problem for Russia is that it planned for this war to end within 3-5 days, they did not foresee the need for using as much short range ballistic missiles when entering into Ukraine from the getgo to take down critical infrastructure/roads/airports etc., which explains why only 160 short range missiles were sent into Ukraine.
Pentagon: Russia has fired more than 160 missiles into Ukraine
The United States has assessed Russian forces to have fired more than 160 missiles into Ukraine, a senior Defense Department official said Thursday. The Kremlin has laun…
thehill.com
The 160 missiles is not nearly enough to take out the Ukrianian infrastructure and gain air superiority. It was enough, however to take out Ukraine’s first line of defense in the front lines. Once the Russians entered Ukraine, Putin predicted that either the Ukrainians would throw down their weapons, or welcome the Russian troops, neither happened.
To get a better understanding of how countries can gain air superiority we can examine the war in Iraq. Before entering Iraq, the US fired anywhere between 1,700-2,300 short range missiles (about 600 kilometers in range) which is about 10 times more missiles than Russia fired into Ukraine to commence the war. Keep in mind that Iraq was nowhere near heavily defended as Ukraine is today. And to make matters worse for the Russians, Ukraine has been stashing up Russian anti-air missiles that work exceptionally well (Russia has some of the best anti-air defenses on the planet). Ironically, the Russians couldn’t defeat its own anti-air equipment.
I suspect the reason behind Russia not firing as much short range missiles to gain air superiority (AS) also stems from lessons learned in Iraq. In order to gain AS we have to understand where those 2k missiles will go. All 2,000 shorties would have been needed to take out anti-air missile systems, airports, etc. but what our military doesn’t like to talk about is the fact that those missiles will also take out important infrastructure such as manufacturing (to prevent Iraq/Ukraine from rebuilding or refurbishing equipments), they would have to also take out the Ukrainian electrical grid, water supply, etc. This move would have been catastrophic and would likely mean millions of lives will perish in Ukraine. Some here might think the number of lives perishing from 2,000 shorties is an over-estimation, but you’ll have to ask yourself how many Iraqis actually died from our campaign in Iraq? That estimation goes as high as 1.2-1.5 million deaths. This may shock some of you but lots and I mean lots (over 500,000 women and children died in Iraq) due to our 2,000 missiles sent to take down critical infrastructure.
This is the primary reason why I think most of us here don’t understand the cost of a World War 3 scenario on human lives, especially civilians when water supplies get bombed, contaminated, and people freezing to death due to lack of electricity/power. Food supplies will be disrupted and the affects of it will be felt beyond Europe, especially in poorer countries like Africa, Egypt, etc. hence, my low ball estimate of 30-50 million lives lost. The high cost of civilian lives can also be seen in the Vietnam war, we talk a lot about the 52,000 US soldiers that perished, what we don’t talk about is the estimated 1.3-3 million Vietnamese soldier and civilians who lost their lives (those numbers will pale in comparison to a world war).
Last edited:
UK’s Harpoon anti-ship missiles are in queue. Europe not yet ready/able to wean off of Russian oil/NG, so unfortunately funding a good chunk of Putin’s war machine. However, the takedown of a large vessel such as this is probably in the billion dollar range to replace.UPDATE: Seems that Moskva sunk. Siri translation from Russian of a telegram post
Official information of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, which appeared only by 2 a.m., says that as a result of the fire there was a partial detonation of ammunition, and part of the crew was evacuated.
According to information from Ukraine, which appeared long before the statement of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, the cruiser "Moscow" was destroyed by the PKR "Neptune".
According to our preliminary information, the flagship of the Russian Black Sea Fleet cruiser "Moscow" was indeed attacked by the PKR "Neptune" from the coastline between Odessa and Nikolaev. The ship's forces were also distracted by the Bayraktar TB-2 UAV. The blow hit the port side, as a result of which the ship took a strong roll. After the threat of detonation of ammunition, the crew of about ~500 people was evacuated. The buoyancy of the cruiser was complicated by sea weather conditions. As a result of all the cumulative factors, according to preliminary information, and unfortunately, the cruiser joined the submarine satellite group Roskomos.
ROTFLMAO
A Russian source is saying the Moskva has sunk and that the explosion was from a Ukrainian Neptun missile strike. Apparently, Ukraine flew a TB2 UCAV to distract the ship while it was targeted by the Neptune. The ship rolled onto its side after the strike.
View attachment 793489
Of course, to be confirmed
MontyFloyd
Member
Even Russia confirms
On 13 April 2022, Ukrainian presidential adviser Oleksiy Arestovych, and Odesa governor Maksym Marchenko, said that Moskva had been hit by two Neptune anti-ship missiles and was on fire in rough seas. Arestovych said there were 510 crew members aboard.[2] The Russian Defense Ministry said that a fire had caused munitions to explode and the crew had been fully evacuated.[3]
For added support to claim, there was a significant armount of radio traffic calling for assistance in area.
On 13 April 2022, Ukrainian presidential adviser Oleksiy Arestovych, and Odesa governor Maksym Marchenko, said that Moskva had been hit by two Neptune anti-ship missiles and was on fire in rough seas. Arestovych said there were 510 crew members aboard.[2] The Russian Defense Ministry said that a fire had caused munitions to explode and the crew had been fully evacuated.[3]
For added support to claim, there was a significant armount of radio traffic calling for assistance in area.
Last edited:
MontyFloyd
Member
The Russian historic knowledge seems to be evaporating (maybe sublimating) by the hour. One word they need to re-learn before threatening stupid stuff like this: Talvisota
They got their collective ass given to them first time, with only a reticent Nazi Germany support for Finland. Pretty sure that this time the support would be way wider in scale...
After all this picture almost looks like the ones from Ukraine..
And Putin still doesn't understand why Easter European countries want(ed) to join NATO...
Russian stupidity is mindboggeling. They already created a Level 4 or 5 Nuclear Accident in Chernobyl, and they knew it was dangerous place!
sundaymorning
Active Member
I’m going to watch this video tonight when I have some time.
No one has much insight into the Russia’s arsenal of bombs, which makes it concerning for me to leap into the fray of individuals who want us to escalate this war.
Parts such as military chips are not accessible to Russia at this point, thanks to sanctions. However in a world war 3 scenario where things can change on a dime, I wouldn’t rule out China just yet. Right now my sense tells me China is afraid of the sanctions, but if NATO becomes the aggressor and sends Jets, China and Russian propaganda can quickly escalate and say “if the US and NATO are sending jets, then we can send chips.”
We are already seeing other countries speak out against US sanctions, their message was this is unsustainable to other nations as they have to pay higher gas fees while servicing the US debt to finance the war.
Russia has a lot of failures when it comes to offensive warfare, largely because it only fired 160 short range missiles at Ukraine during the first several days of the war (see my post above regarding how air superiority is gained/lost), for Iraq the US needed to fire 2,000 short range missiles to gain air superiority, for a country like Ukraine Russia needed much more than 2,000, instead they fired 160 missiles.
Despite Russia’s blunders on offensive warfare, I would not underestimate their capabilities especially when it comes to defensive war. Some posters here sees Russia as being weak offensively and as a result, surmise that Russia is also weak defensively, this couldn’t be further than the truth. Here is an article that talks in depth about Russian technology and its defenses:
US Officials Not Ready to Dismiss Russia’s Anti-Aircraft Missiles, Despite Shortcomings in Ukraine
The U.S. has invested heavily in expensive stealth aircraft that can evade detection from Russian interceptors.
www.defenseone.com
An important point that people miss about Ukraine’s superior air defense is that Ukraine is using Russian made air defensive weapons, which ironically is preventing Russian jets from gaining ground in its territories. According to Gen. Mark Kelly, the head of the U.S. Air Force’s Air Combat Command:
Despite Russia’s battlefield shortcomings, U.S. officials say that Russia’s missile defenses on its own soil are much more sophisticated. Russian bases are better protected by what Kelly called “layer upon layer upon layer” of sophisticated S-300 and S-400 interceptors.
“They can operate pretty [safely] from their main air bases with that layer of air defense over them,” Kelly said.
Some here think that NATO can invade Russia and take out its military in short order. I tend to disagree, the US military understands this and it’s primary reason we keep having to invest so heavily in stealth fighters:
Russia also has more than five dozen nuclear-armed interceptors, according to the Pentagon’s 2019 Missile Defense Review. It is also developing the S-500, “an even more modern and technologically advanced air and missile defense system to augment the S-300 and S-400” and has shared missile defense technology with China and Iran, the review states.
Russia’s air defenses, particularly its S-300 and S-400 surface-to-air missile batteries, have driven the U.S. military to invest heavily in expensive stealth aircraft that can evade detection for these interceptors’ radars. It’s planning to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on thousands of F-35 stealth fighters and planning to spend billions on at least 100 B-21 stealth bombers. The Pentagon has also invested in stealthy, long-range cruise missiles that can fly hundreds of miles after being fired. In recent years, Air Force officials agreed to buy new updated, but non-stealth F-15 fighters.
In the 1960s the US thought Vietnam would be a short war, it thought that “operation rolling thunder” and later “operation linebacker” would decimate the communist. They couldn’t be more wrong, and here we are again, underestimating our foes… I rather not go down this path. If Vietnam lasted for decade, I fully expect the Russians to hold their ground for at least that long with much bigger bombs being deployed at critical infrastructure on both sides. North Vietnam was nowhere near heavily fortified than Russia is fortified today.
This is why offensive warfare is tough, you only have 10 days to take advantage of “the element of surprise.” This is something the Russians won’t be able to take back, Ukraine has been steadily reinforcing its defensive lines.
There has been quite a bit of chatter about Russia not being able to control the Ukrainian airspace, the reason behind this isn’t because the Russians don’t have the expertise or weapons to do it. The problem was that Russia miscalculated Ukraine, and as a result, shot less short range missiles than was required to take out vital infrastructure, which ruined their own plans to invade. For an invading army to be successful, the first 10 days of the war is most critical, within that day window, the invading army still has the element of surprise, and can either hack, bomb or take down enemy infrastructure before sending in its jets to take out other units so foot soldiers don’t have to worry about being bombed on the way. Beyond 10 days the your adversary will mobilize to setup defenses to deter the invading army (which is what we are seeing in Ukraine).
The root of the problem for Russia is that it planned for this war to end within 3-5 days, they did not foresee the need for using as much short range ballistic missiles when entering into Ukraine from the getgo to take down critical infrastructure/roads/airports etc., which explains why only 160 short range missiles were sent into Ukraine.
Pentagon: Russia has fired more than 160 missiles into Ukraine
The United States has assessed Russian forces to have fired more than 160 missiles into Ukraine, a senior Defense Department official said Thursday. The Kremlin has laun…thehill.com
The 160 missiles is not nearly enough to take out the Ukrianian infrastructure and gain air superiority. It was enough, however to take out Ukraine’s first line of defense in the front lines. Once the Russians entered Ukraine, Putin predicted that either the Ukrainians would throw down their weapons, or welcome the Russian troops, neither happened.
To get a better understanding of how countries can gain air superiority we can examine the war in Iraq. Before entering Iraq, the US fired anywhere between 1,700-2,300 short range missiles (about 600 kilometers in range) which is about 10 times more missiles than Russia fired into Ukraine to commence the war. Keep in mind that Iraq was nowhere near heavily defended as Ukraine is today. And to make matters worse for the Russians, Ukraine has been stashing up Russian anti-air missiles that work exceptionally well (Russia has some of the best anti-air defenses on the planet. Ironically, the Russians couldn’t defeat its own anti-air equipment.
I suspect the reason behind Russia not firing as much short range missiles to gain air superiority (AS) also stems from lessons learned in Iraq. In order to gain AS we have to understand where those 2k missiles will go. All 2,000 shorties would have been needed to take out anti-air missiles, airports, etc. but what our military doesn’t like to talk about is the fact that those missiles will also take out important infrastructure such as manufacturing (to prevent Iraq/Ukraine from rebuilding or refurbishing equipments), they would have to also take out the Ukrainian electrical grid, water supply, etc. This move would have been catastrophic and would likely mean millions of lives will perish in Ukraine. Some here might think the number of lives perishing from 2,000 shorties is an over-estimation, but you’ll have to ask yourself how many Iraqis actually died from our campaign in Iraq? That estimation goes as high as 1.2-1.5 million deaths. This may shock some of you but lots and I mean lots (over 500,000 women and children died in Iraq) due to our 2,000 missiles sent to take down critical infrastructure.
This is the primary reason why I think most of us here don’t understand the cost of a World War 3 scenario on human lives, especially civilians when water supplies get bombed, contaminated, and people freezing to death due to lack of electricity/power. Food supplies will be disrupted and the affects of it will be felt beyond Europe, especially in poorer countries like Africa, Egypt, etc. hence, my low ball estimate of 20-30 million lives lost. The high cost of civilian lives can also be seen in the Vietnam war, we talk a lot about the 52,000 US soldiers that perished, what we don’t talk about is the estimated 1.3-3 million Vietnamese soldier and civilians who lost their lives (those numbers will pale in comparison to a world war).
There is no date on that article from The Hill, but it's probably from early in the war. The Russians fired around 700 Iskander missiles and they have been firing ship based missiles every day.
The Iskanders switched from infrastructure targets to civilian targets in an attempt to terrorize the populous, a very amateur move. They wasted most of their missiles on apartment buildings and only switched to back military targets in the last week when they have almost no missiles left.
Like everything else the Russian air force is not as good as they made the world believe. They do far less training than western air forces and it's showed. This is from a month ago, but it still stands
Is the Russian Air Force Actually Incapable of Complex Air Operations?
In a non-nuclear WW III scenario there have to be two sides capable of slugging it out with one another. The Russian's conventional forces turned out to be far weaker than anybody thought and they've burned them up in Ukraine. It will take them decades to get back to where they are now, if they ever will.
Russia has one of the lowest birthrates in the world. It is a country of 140 million, but only about half a million men come of age per year. By contrast France was able to conscript that many in the years before WW I with a population of 40 million. The Russians have had fewer and fewer conscripts pass the physical and other evaluations every year because of rising levels of poor health and drug addiction among the conscript pool. Draft dodging is also rampant with young men leaving the country rather than serving.
Their current conscription per year is about 260,000 now. That pool continues to drop year to year. In a few decades they will not be able to raise much of an army at all.
China can't do that, they don't make the parts the Russians need. The chips the weapons use are highly specialized and the weapons need to be redesigned for parts from another source. That would take years.
Yes, the Russians were convinced the Ukrainians would fold in a few days. The FSB spent billions US bribing Ukrainians to "protest" against the Ukrainian government about the "horrible" treatment of the Russian minority to both give the Russians and excuse to invade and to destabilize the country. The people took the bribes and did nothing.
Despite Russia’s blunders on offensive warfare, I would not underestimate their capabilities especially when it comes to defensive war. Some posters here sees Russia as being weak offensively and as a result, surmise that Russia is also weak defensively, this couldn’t be further than the truth. Here is an article that talks in depth about Russian technology and its defenses:
US Officials Not Ready to Dismiss Russia’s Anti-Aircraft Missiles, Despite Shortcomings in Ukraine
The U.S. has invested heavily in expensive stealth aircraft that can evade detection from Russian interceptors.
An important point that people miss about Ukraine’s superior air defense is that Ukraine is using Russian made air defensive weapons, which ironically is preventing Russian jets from gaining ground in its territories. According to Gen. Mark Kelly, the head of the U.S. Air Force’s Air Combat Command:
Despite Russia’s battlefield shortcomings, U.S. officials say that Russia’s missile defenses on its own soil are much more sophisticated. Russian bases are better protected by what Kelly called “layer upon layer upon layer” of sophisticated S-300 and S-400 interceptors.
“They can operate pretty [safely] from their main air bases with that layer of air defense over them,” Kelly said.
Some here think that NATO can invade Russia and take out its military in short order. I tend to disagree, the US military understands this and it’s primary reason we keep having to invest so heavily in stealth fighters:
Russia also has more than five dozen nuclear-armed interceptors, according to the Pentagon’s 2019 Missile Defense Review. It is also developing the S-500, “an even more modern and technologically advanced air and missile defense system to augment the S-300 and S-400” and has shared missile defense technology with China and Iran, the review states.
Russia’s air defenses, particularly its S-300 and S-400 surface-to-air missile batteries, have driven the U.S. military to invest heavily in expensive stealth aircraft that can evade detection for these interceptors’ radars. It’s planning to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on thousands of F-35 stealth fighters and planning to spend billions on at least 100 B-21 stealth bombers. The Pentagon has also invested in stealthy, long-range cruise missiles that can fly hundreds of miles after being fired. In recent years, Air Force officials agreed to buy new updated, but non-stealth F-15 fighters.
In the 1960s the US thought Vietnam would be a short war, it thought that “operation rolling thunder” and later “operation linebacker” would decimate the communist. They couldn’t be more wrong, and here we are again, underestimating our foes… I rather not go down this path. If Vietnam lasted for decade, I fully expect the Russians to hold their ground for at least that long with much bigger bombs being deployed at critical infrastructure on both sides. North Vietnam was nowhere near heavily fortified than Russia is fortified today.
This is why offensive warfare is tough, you only have 10 days to take advantage of “the element of surprise.” This is something the Russians won’t be able to take back, Ukraine has been steadily reinforcing its defensive lines.
Yes the Russians have AA assets. Most are situated near major Russian cities. NATO has no interest in occupying Russia. I'm sure none of the war plans include anything more than some tactical occupation of some border regions for short term.
In a near term war scenario NATO would be knocking out Russian forces on the borders of NATO territory, in Ukraine, and on the borders of Ukraine.
I'm not a warhawk with Russia. I am very concerned about any war between NATO and Russia turning nuclear because the Russians have nothing else to use.
