Русский корабль - иди нахуй

[BamaATL 16593]

Update the list, now 30 Su25s killed

 

[atomheartbevo 89716]

1 hour ago, Rimbo said:

ACKshually...

The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is a redesign from scratch of the original, and first flew in '99. It's larger, much more powerful, and basically a completely different plane, despite sharing the same designation and name.

So the Navy wanted an F-15, without saying they wanted an F-15?

[Viper 12109]

 

 

 

[956 Worldwide 34715]

Keeping Russia off of the Human Rights Council is an important win that shows there is still enough diplomatic oomph to keep them isolated and embarrassed. I’d love to know the 83 nations that voted for them, though.

https://www.reuters.com/world/russian-bid-return-un-rights-body-fails-after-vote-2023-10-10/#:~:text=In the secret ballot%2C Russia,term beginning on Jan. 1.
 

Quote

GENEVA, Oct 10 (Reuters) - Russia failed in its bid to return to the United Nations' top human rights body on Tuesday, with rivals winning considerably more votes at the General Assembly in an election seen as a key test of Western efforts to keep Moscow isolated.

In the secret ballot, Russia won 83 votes versus 160 for Bulgaria and 123 for Albania, which had competed against it in the same eastern Europe grouping for two seats on the Geneva-based Human Rights Council for a three-year term beginning on Jan. 1.

 

[956 Worldwide 34715]

6 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

So the Navy wanted an F-15, without saying they wanted an F-15?

They wanted to keep or preferably get a better Tomcat but Dick Cheney vetoed the idea. 

[Dahobbs 17621]

7 hours ago, Rimbo said:

 

ACKshually...

The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is a redesign from scratch of the original, and first flew in '99. It's larger, much more powerful, and basically a completely different plane, despite sharing the same designation and name.

Yes, but the Marines never adopted the Super Hornet. They stuck with the old Hornet until the F-35 was available. 

[Orange&White 5528]

7 hours ago, BamaATL said:

Update the list, now 30 Su25s killed

 

That is a Russian hit on a Ukrainian jet.

[Braff Zacklin 13617]

8 hours ago, BamaATL said:

Things are looking up

So they're opening up a bunch of Starbucks in Russia?

[BamaATL 16593]

 

[Schulz2.0 28960]

 

[GabrielsHorn 2186]

 

[atomheartbevo 89716]

1 hour ago, BamaATL said:

 

They may not be able to use those for traditional close air support over land due to Russians still having some MANPADS, but they have homegrown, and have been given, anti-ship missiles.  When you look at the S-400 air defense systems taken out in Crimea, as well as that offshore oil platform the Russians were using as a radar station that they took out, Ukrainian F-16s will be able to firmly establish naval superiority over the western Black Sea.  Those smaller ships that Russia has used to cause havoc in the shipping lanes in the past will be joining the Moskva on the bottom if they leave the eastern Black Sea.  And they'll be able to use the F-16s to get to the west/southwest of Crimea and launch missiles into Russian shipping and land-based facilities.  Everybody fixates on ATACMS, but if they can legit get those F-16s around to the west/south of Crimea, they can launch cruise missiles that will be over sea and harder to take out (over land, there's a lot more anti-air, down to the MANPADS).

That would be huge, both psychologically and militarily over Russia, but also, economically for Ukraine.

[BamaATL 16593]

 

 

[Schulz2.0 28960]

 

[Rimbo 25973]

10 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

So the Navy wanted an F-15, without saying they wanted an F-15?

Can an F-15 take off from a carrier? Can it fold its wings up for under-deck stowing?

Does it come in a one-seat version?

Edited October 11, 2023 by Rimbo

[Rimbo 25973]

4 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

They wanted to keep or preferably get a better Tomcat but Dick Cheney vetoed the idea. 

 

☝️ this

 

4 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Yes, but the Marines never adopted the Super Hornet. They stuck with the old Hornet until the F-35 was available. 

 

I was wondering about that. I'm nearby to MCAS Miramar and hear/see F-35s often enough, but only ever see/hear the Super Hornet when the Blue Angels come to town every year.

[Schulz2.0 28960]

Russia trying to use attacks at Avdiivka to pull Ukrainian reserves from Bakhmut.

 

[MillerEP 30491]

 

[bolverk 29683]

[statsman 5471]

14 hours ago, dimyh said:

This is just another sign of how tenuous Putin's position is. The inability to call up a mass mobilization is going to jeopardize his entire war. Sure they have some strong positions but expecting their current roster to hold out for 6-8 months is stupifying. They may have some shadow recruiting to bolster some of their lines but they need some more meat if they can expect to hold on against the steady UA advance.

It is almost a parallel dilemma with the West...we have been risking failure by not committing all the necessary equipment up front, while Putin cannot commit the necessary bodies from the start to guarantee success.

The bad news- The Russians are conscripting like crazy from occupied Ukraine. 19th century press gangs. They grab me. Off the street, give them a uniform, rifle and theee bullets, and put them in a “meat charge”. They don’t give a damn about any Ukrainian lives and they’re happy to spend them. 

Edited October 11, 2023 by statsman

[Dahobbs 17621]

3 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

They may not be able to use those for traditional close air support over land due to Russians still having some MANPADS, but they have homegrown, and have been given, anti-ship missiles.  When you look at the S-400 air defense systems taken out in Crimea, as well as that offshore oil platform the Russians were using as a radar station that they took out, Ukrainian F-16s will be able to firmly establish naval superiority over the western Black Sea.  Those smaller ships that Russia has used to cause havoc in the shipping lanes in the past will be joining the Moskva on the bottom if they leave the eastern Black Sea.  And they'll be able to use the F-16s to get to the west/southwest of Crimea and launch missiles into Russian shipping and land-based facilities.  Everybody fixates on ATACMS, but if they can legit get those F-16s around to the west/south of Crimea, they can launch cruise missiles that will be over sea and harder to take out (over land, there's a lot more anti-air, down to the MANPADS).

That would be huge, both psychologically and militarily over Russia, but also, economically for Ukraine.

The ability to launch western cruise missiles is perhaps the biggest new capability that F-16s will bring Ukraine. 

[atomheartbevo 89716]

2 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Can an F-15 take off from a carrier?

If I'm sitting in a lawn chair and you happen to attach me to a catapult, I could take off from a carrier.

2 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Can it fold its wings up for under-deck stowing?

I'm sure they could have made it do that - they aren't much bigger than the F-4s.

2 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Does it come in a one-seat version?

She and she's beautiful (so is the two-seater)

[Rimbo 25973]

6 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

She and she's beautiful (so is the two-seater)

that IS a damn pretty plane

[TexasEd 8067]

On 10/9/2023 at 10:54 PM, bolverk said:

Isn't part of the issue with Threads (at least in the case of Ukeaine info) is that they haven't rolled out service in Europe yet?

 

On 10/10/2023 at 1:14 AM, Rimbo said:

They seem to be slowly but surely moving over to Threads. I see new journalists there more and more.

Trying a Threads embed

https://www.threads.net/@cspan/post/CyRV2jQxOFS

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin: "Make no mistake, the United States will remain able to project power and to direct resources to tackle crises in multiple theaters, so we will stand firmly with Israel as we continue to support Ukraine." bit.ly/46FIU…

[Viper 12109]

2 hours ago, MillerEP said:

 

At least they have chicken

[Viper 12109]

6 hours ago, BamaATL said:

 

 

[Parliament 14260]

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

If I'm sitting in a lawn chair and you happen to attach me to a catapult, I could take off from a carrier.

I'm sure they could have made it do that - they aren't much bigger than the F-4s.

She and she's beautiful (so is the two-seater)

Would

[Viper 12109]

 

 

[Gatorubet 30246]

10 hours ago, BamaATL said:

One more bitch not firing Kalibr missiles at Ukraine. 

[Scheiss Meister 8408]

Russia is getting better at own goals lately.  An SU-35, an SU-25, now a patrol craft.  If the trend continues, they'll self destruct a sub or destroyer next.

[dimyh 1874]

A nice graphic of the Russian airbases located in Crimea. Still a long way off but interesting to see potential targets once UA gets in range.

 

[Not that Bob 738]

Those Russian vessels look like Elon's pick up. 

[Schulz2.0 28960]

 

[Scheiss Meister 8408]

1 hour ago, Not that Bob said:

Those Russian vessels look like Elon's pick up. 

They're shaped like that to decrease their radar signatures to improve their stealth.  Doesn't appear to help with mines, though.

[Gatorubet 30246]

6 minutes ago, Scheiss Meister said:

They're shaped like that to decrease their radar signatures to improve their stealth.

For five bottles of vodka the crew would probably agree to Gorilla Glue Apple AirTags all over the ship. 

[ShaggyBevo RIP 3868]

On 10/10/2023 at 10:44 AM, Laxtonto said:

And with those guys sitting there laughing you know that little crossing is already sighted in for artillery... or they are just waiting to pop off some Javs if need be..

 

This does highlight the absolute impossibility of ground warfare in the age of drones and other avenues of mass battlefield monitoring when forced into this static battlefield concept. There are few surprises and so we are seeing many of the concepts from WW1 becoming the battlefield norm. Static lines and a massive no-man's land on the ground with now layered air defenses are going to make large-scale advances a thing of the past without complete air superiority.

 

This also gives me pause about the discussion centered on how drones have completely changed modern armored combat.  Is it really the case for the US approach to combat or is this only true when the air war component is a complete stalemate? The US doctrine of owning the skies first means most advances would be done into areas without heavy armor support (because masses of armor are a death sentence) and no artillery support (as they are a key operational target before an advance) and so then lightning advances to blow through defenses would still be valid.

Drones are effective because they are cheap and can be used to target stationary equipment and to some extent attack advancing vehicles to a static line or position. When you do not have air superiority, the heavy lifting is then being done by the boots on the ground and the artillery, which allows masses of drones to be very effective.  How would this work as a defensive force when you no longer have air superiority?  The masses of armor needed to defeat your static lines work are a liability against drones, but now the aggressor does not need to mass huge amounts of armor because you can't either. Large groups of armor is a death trap for the defending force  (A10 go brrrrrrr) and so you can't mass armor unless they are under a complete AA screen. Massive AA screens and layered air defenses just mean you are building a great target for cruise missiles to wipe out.  Your artillery is being wiped out so there is little way to dissuade larger assaults with lighter armored recon vehicles and so now your drone swarms are a nuisance but can't really be effective because now you have more limited targets quick moving targets. As the armored infantry advance quickly, then your static lines are useless, and more importantly you are losing ground and established launch points for your drones. Once your lines are breached and there is chaos in your rear, the front collapses and a full retreat is underway.

Drones are a game changer in a static war. The only way for it to be static though is to completely control the air against the US over your part of the front. If you control the airspace over your part of the front, we will begin to see this rehash of WW1 concepts. If you lose the airwar, then the modern techniques should still have value. Do drones enhance viability and therefore help battlefield capabilities, sure.  But how is that different than realtime or near realtime satellite imaging? What drones have done has made real-time reconnaissance cheap and accessible for all levels of combatants and so the overwhelming advantage in the information space held by the US has been slightly eroded. But in truth that advantage for the opposition is much more limited against the US than say fighting someone with a more comparable level of battlefield technology.

This age of armor meets this age's longbow?

[Schulz2.0 28960]

 

 

 

[Schulz2.0 28960]

 

 

[Schulz2.0 28960]

 

[NorthLoop 14215]

5 hours ago, Schulz2.0 said:

 

 

[SydneyCarton 48109]

19 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

The ability to launch western cruise missiles is perhaps the biggest new capability that F-16s will bring Ukraine. 

So how many cruise missiles do we have in stock? Please say 10s of thousands. 

[BamaATL 16593]

3 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

So how many cruise missiles do we have in stock? Please say 10s of thousands. 

Not enough, estimates of the tomahawk are somewhere are 4k.  

In all honestly, we need to ramp up munition production across the board, every weapon platform.  We've had the luxury of not having to for 30 years or so, and global conditions scream vulnerability, at least to me.  

[SydneyCarton 48109]

1 minute ago, BamaATL said:

Not enough, estimates of the tomahawk are somewhere are 4k.  

In all honestly, we need to ramp up munition production across the board, every weapon platform.  We've had the luxury of not having to for 30 years or so, and global conditions scream vulnerability, at least to me.  

Yeah. I don't think we need thousands to seriously fuck up Russia in Crimea and all the rest of mainland Ukraine. But what I do want to avoid is certain politicians whining about how low our stocks are and how we can't afford to support Israel, Ukraine, and Taiwan. Obviously we know certain groups are dying to cut Ukraine off at the legs. I'd rather not have stockpile levels as another excuse/quiver in their reserves. 

[27-25 2047]

The Olympic Committee showing a bit of backbone.  Sort of.  Still punts on whether Russians will be allowed to participate, probably under a "neutral" flag.

 

[Nivek 16944]

38 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Yeah. I don't think we need thousands to seriously fuck up Russia in Crimea and all the rest of mainland Ukraine. But what I do want to avoid is certain politicians whining about how low our stocks are and how we can't afford to support Israel, Ukraine, and Taiwan. Obviously we know certain groups are dying to cut Ukraine off at the legs. I'd rather not have stockpile levels as another excuse/quiver in their reserves. 

Not sure if this helps, but I think some of the reason the ATACMs are in short supply is that they are being replaced by the precision strike missile (PrSM).   

[Orange&White 5528]

I would think that the weapons manufacturers are pushing production to 150%, regardless of orders, because the way things are going, having some extras laying around for quick sale seems like a pretty safe bet.

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

Hopefully this doesn't trigger @SydneyCarton but I have a question and no clue where else to put it...when it comes to weapons systems, do US taxpayers essentially pay for the R&D of those systems, then if they become commercially viable, the defense contractors reap all of the profits from those systems?

[SydneyCarton 48109]

1 minute ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

Hopefully this doesn't trigger @SydneyCarton but I have a question and no clue where else to put it...when it comes to weapons systems, do US taxpayers essentially pay for the R&D of those systems, then if they become commercially viable, the defense contractors reap all of the profits from those systems?

Not sure why you think this would trigger me. But in our delightfully fucked up system, yes, I think this is approximately how it works. Other posters here are the real experts and can illuminate both of us on the topic. 

I assume the benefits the US gets for Taxpayer dollars is to dictate what can be sold, to him, and when, and what is viable for sale around the world. 

That's a good quesiton, though, I'm excited for folks who know tons more to weigh in on it. 

[BamaATL 16593]

15 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

Hopefully this doesn't trigger @SydneyCarton but I have a question and no clue where else to put it...when it comes to weapons systems, do US taxpayers essentially pay for the R&D of those systems, then if they become commercially viable, the defense contractors reap all of the profits from those systems?

Well, there is the unstated and incalculable benefit to the taxpayer, global stability and security.  I think we overall get our monies worth, despite our flaws.  

[Parliament 14260]

28 minutes ago, Orange&White said:

I would think that the weapons manufacturers are pushing production to 150%, regardless of orders, because the way things are going, having some extras laying around for quick sale at exorbitant prices seems like a pretty safe bet.

And I'm good with that.