Русский корабль - иди нахуй

[Deej 77,900]

8 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Is the US working on any smaller drones like Ukraine has? But maybe instead of dropping grenades, they have targeting weapons?

They have partnered with Steve Patterson to equip jet pack guy with precision guided munitions..

[Schulz2.0 29,307]

 

 

[KYHorn 17,666]

Double kill

Kremlin media report the death of former Deputy Defense Minister and head of the Defense Ministry's Main Military and Political Directorate Gennady Zhitko. The occupier was acting commander of the Eastern Military District in 2022. He was 58 years old.

Also today it became known that Lieutenant General of the Federal security service Gennady Lopyryov died in prison from the disease. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison in the case of receiving a bribe of 6 million rubles in November 2017.

 

The disease known as defenestration.

 

 

Edited August 17, 2023 by KYHorn

[Parliament 14,626]

48 minutes ago, Schulz2.0 said:

 

 

Is this a wise move?  I can't decide.  Probably good? 

[Bevo 13,935]

54 minutes ago, Schulz2.0 said:

 

 

 

 

what a terrible idea.

[BamaATL 16,593]

1 minute ago, Parliament said:

Is this a wise move?  I can't decide.  Probably good? 

If it prevents them from giving more weapons to the Russians, I guess so.  I guess the logic is, keep your drones, get more money, and give the Russians nothing?  If they are going to get the money one way or the other I suppose its preferable, though I still can't say I'm thrilled about.

I suppose the other aspect is that if Iranian oil is on the market if further erodes the value of Russian oil, though by how much I have no idea.  I'm sure there is an oil and gas person here who knows the commodity side of this, assuming that is even on the table.  

[KYHorn 17,666]

Commander Syrskyi on the situation near Kupyansk:

"Due to the complication of the situation in the Kupyansk direction, most of the day I worked in the units that lead the defense on the approaches to the city. The enemy is trying to break through the defenses of our troops every day, in different directions, with assault squads consisting mainly of prisoners, with the aim of blocking and later capturing Kupiansk. A number of important decisions were made.”

 

 Deputy Prime Minister of #Ukraine Irina #Vereshchuk urged fellow citizens to prepare for a protracted war
 
She stated that Ukraine still has many trials to overcome, and one must be prepared for the fact that the fight against Russian aggression will take longer than previously mentioned.

[KYHorn 17,666]

 

 

[Genco 3,058]

53 minutes ago, Parliament said:

Is this a wise move?  I can't decide.  Probably good? 

A little context on the broader agreement.

 

[Schulz2.0 29,307]

 

[Schulz2.0 29,307]

Russia rounding up more immigrants for cannon fodder.

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-forces-migrant-workers-military-after-warehouse-raid-1820364?amp=1

[Gatorubet 30,799]

6 hours ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

pretty damning in terms of his belief that this administration is not committed to the outcome of Ukraine winning this war.

Military people only have to worry about military solutions. Presidents have to worry about international relations, the economy, the political situation that might result in somebody else taking over the reigns - and a variety of things other than “Fuck the Ruskies…give them everything they want!”

I also put more store in military people who are currently active duty getting daily updated intelligence then I do people who used to do that seven years ago. 

[BamaATL 16,593]

13 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Military people only have to worry about military solutions. Presidents have to worry about international relations, the economy, the political situation that might result in somebody else taking over the reigns - and a variety of things other than “Fuck the Ruskies…give them everything they want!”

I also put more store in military people who are currently active duty getting daily updated intelligence then I do people who used to do that seven years ago. 

I really like Hodges, his viewpoint is insightful to me, and his push to get more weapons which will help Ukraine win this is something I agree with.  At the same time, I have to concede his focus is pretty narrow when it come right down to it.  Like it or not, there are other considerations to take into account in a broader sense that our leaders have to consider, and frankly they are privy to a lot more intel than we will ever see.  It doesn't mean it makes it any less shitty for the Ukrainians having to deal with this.  I really am of the belief that Russia placing themselves in this horrific long-term quagmire of their own creation may well have deterred Xi from invading Taiwan.  Additionally, not showing our full arsenal to the Chinese also saves not only the element of further surprise should we need it, but also serves as a deterrent.  That's one of the big examples I can see of the bigger picture.  Combine that with the big nuclear elephant in the room, and well, yeah.  I'm sure there is way more to it than that.  

[MillerEP 30,913]

https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1691930816757039419?s=46&t=Altn5hw2AaEec_pK2C0Fww

https://x.com/casualartyfan/status/1691835906640973847?s=46&t=Altn5hw2AaEec_pK2C0Fww

[Schulz2.0 29,307]

 

 

 

[Schulz2.0 29,307]

 

 

 

[Schulz2.0 29,307]

 

 

[MagicSoccerSpray 1,736]

 

6 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

Military people only have to worry about military solutions. Presidents have to worry about international relations, the economy, the political situation that might result in somebody else taking over the reigns - and a variety of things other than “Fuck the Ruskies…give them everything they want!”

I also put more store in military people who are currently active duty getting daily updated intelligence then I do people who used to do that seven years ago. 

 

6 hours ago, BamaATL said:

I really like Hodges, his viewpoint is insightful to me, and his push to get more weapons which will help Ukraine win this is something I agree with.  At the same time, I have to concede his focus is pretty narrow when it come right down to it.  Like it or not, there are other considerations to take into account in a broader sense that our leaders have to consider, and frankly they are privy to a lot more intel than we will ever see.  It doesn't mean it makes it any less shitty for the Ukrainians having to deal with this.  I really am of the belief that Russia placing themselves in this horrific long-term quagmire of their own creation may well have deterred Xi from invading Taiwan.  Additionally, not showing our full arsenal to the Chinese also saves not only the element of further surprise should we need it, but also serves as a deterrent.  That's one of the big examples I can see of the bigger picture.  Combine that with the big nuclear elephant in the room, and well, yeah.  I'm sure there is way more to it than that.  

This administration doesn't get the benefit of the doubt. They hesitated to send Javelins and Stingers, then did. Hesitated to send shells and drones, then did. Hesitated to send HIMARS and JDAMS, than did. Hesitated to send Bradleys, M113s, and MRAPs, than did. All they do is self-deter worrying about EsCaLaTiOn! and what others will think. They hesitated to send cluster bombs/shells, when the Turks already sent them a year ago, and both sides have been using their own stocks the entire war. How can they credibly worry about the consequences of sending long range weapons, when the French and British have already sent hundreds of cruise missiles? Bullshit. This administration is going to fuck around weekending at Bernie's thinking they can micromanage the situation till the Russian inevitably get their shit together. It's fucking pathetic.

Edited August 17, 2023 by MagicSoccerSpray

[Dahobbs 18,424]

1 hour ago, MagicSoccerSpray said:

 

 

This administration doesn't get the benefit of the doubt. They hesitated to send Javelins and Stingers, then did. Hesitated to send shells and drones, then did. Hesitated to send HIMARS and JDAMS, than did. Hesitated to send Bradleys, M113s, and MRAPs, than did. All they do is self-deter worrying about EsCaLaTiOn! and what others will think. They hesitated to send cluster bombs/shells, when the Turks already sent them a year ago, and both sides have been using their own stocks the entire war. How can they credibly worry about the consequences of sending long range weapons, when the French and British have already sent hundreds of cruise missiles? Bullshit. This administration is going to fuck around weekending at Bernie's thinking they can micromanage the situation till the Russian inevitably get their shit together. It's fucking pathetic.

Yeah, damn that administration that warned everyone of the invasion in the first place and lead the way in getting everyone to provide material assistance. Fucking slackers. Also, hardy har har after your melt down earlier in the thread. 

P.s. Zeihan stills plays very loose withe the facts and throws out a lot of bullshit to fit his narrow world view. 

Edited August 17, 2023 by Dahobbs

[MagicSoccerSpray 1,736]

12 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Yeah, damn that administration that warned everyone of the invasion in the first place and lead the way in getting everyone to provide material assistance. Fucking slackers. Also, hardy har har after your melt down earlier in the thread. 

P.s. Zeihan stills plays very loose withe the facts and throws out a lot of bullshit to fit his narrow world view. 

 

Always just enough to bleed the Russians, but not enough to win. They could have pressed the Ukrainians advantage last fall before the Russian mobilization and fortifications. How many lives could have been saved?

[Dahobbs 18,424]

5 minutes ago, MagicSoccerSpray said:

 

Always just enough to bleed the Russians, but not enough to win. They could have pressed the Ukrainians advantage last fall before the Russian mobilization and fortifications. How many lives could have been saved?

I don't know, how much easier would it be to send more equipment if Congress readily agreed to new funding requests rather than trying to shut down the government over aid to Ukraine? 

Here is another hint: just like Bradley's and Western tanks, ATACMS and F-16s aren't going to cause the Russians to suddenly lose. While it would definitely have been nice to have these weapons in Ukrainian hands earlier, they aren't magic bullets. Nothing short of direct NATO intervention would provide the sort of firepower necessary to cause a quick Ukrainian victory. Anything short of that, and Ukraine would still have to go through the type of heavy attritional fighting it is doing now. 

[KYHorn 17,666]

 

Spoiler

Interesting, a bit long, post here from Russian Colonel Shuvalov discussing the effect of the Ukrainian cluster munitions and how the Russian equivalents are not nearly as good if exist at all, showing how Shoygu's threats are empty. (source: https://t.me/shouvalov/45): "And again about cluster munitions. It's hard for me to understand why we need to manipulate statistics if the response we’re getting for showing off results in collossal, real difficulites. I already wrote about cluster munitions before - https://t.me/shouvalov/20. Basically, nothing has changed, but a lot needs to be added. Information, now in full measure, reached the authorities that everything was not as it seemed in the initial reports. It is impossible not to take into account the factor of modern Western cluster munitions - they shamelessly mow down both fighters at the front (not only at the front) and civilian infrastructure in the rear. Civil infrastructure is a separate topic. Recently, there was an arrival in Tokmak, which terribly slashed trucks and drivers. The Defense Ministry decided not to focus on this, because there was a risk of reciprocal publication of data from the enemy with arguments that the civilian targets were not quite simple and not very civilian. But there were comrades in the camp of military correspondents who unleashed their anger towards the vile NATO members on the heads of readers, and attached videos as proof. This is something the enemy might not have had. And now the enemy can quite boldly show that the goals were legal from a military point of view. And all by our hands... We had to throw all our efforts into blocking the supply of cluster munitions to Ukraine: to declare that we would not use such munitions, to tear apart the Europeans, who have cluster munitions banned. There was a chance. But they played us, we happily fell for it and declared that we had these clusters munitions, whole landfills of them, not just stockpiles. Yes, we have many. You can search for photos. For the most part, it’s an illiquid asset killed by time, the rest - is morally and technically obsolete. And things are not very good with carriers either. Now you can’t roll back the situation, and when you are caught being weak, it’s silly to try and scare them. The General Staff already understands this, but they cannot bring the situation even higher, there is no solution. The guys on the front line are taking the beating, and it's not easy at all. In the context of problems with medicine, wounds from cluster munitions often result in death, and this is a very painful and terrible death. The enemy has learned (yes, imagine, they are also learning!) to cut off the path of reinforcements or withdrawal of forces with artillery, and trenches do not save from cluster munitions. You can’t save yourself with a bandage or a tourniquet, after being hit with cluster munitions you need solid medical care, if you managed to survive. In the trenches, a terrible mess is formed from the living and the dying, who are sometimes completely impossible to help. In such cases, the enemy methodically waits for those of our forces that rush to help their comrades. I saw all this in Chechnya, when a sniper left a wounded man to pull other guys to him. This happened in single occasions, but with cluster munitions, everything is the same, but scaled tens and hundreds of times. We need counter-battery fire, but it is not there. We need a lot of things, but first of all, need to finally admit the problem exists and start solving it, and not throw around the words like “we’re going to smash you!”. It is not some colonel in a hospital bed that is yelling about the cluster munitioins - the voices of hundreds of guys dying in terrible agony in the trenches and the widows of hundreds killed by them in just these couple of weeks are shouting to you about these problems. And I specifically do not specify whether there are really hundreds, or already thousands - we will not please the enemy with statistics. The army needs a solution. The cluster situation is terrible, and worst of all, we try to silence the problem when we need a solution. And this is already beyond the capabilities of individual generals and commanders. We made threats with words, now let's get down to business.

Full text above, but clearer summary here:

Key points in English:

1. The issue of cluster munitions being used against Russian forces in Ukraine is still a major problem, despite previous discussions. More details have emerged showing the severity of the situation.

2. Cluster munitions are causing devastating casualties among frontline soldiers as well as damaging civilian infrastructure in the rear.

3. An incident in Tokmak resulted in heavy losses of vehicles and drivers. The military decided not to publicize this to avoid giving justification to the enemy. But some war correspondents published videos that may have revealed more than they should have.

4. Russia should have tried harder to block the supply of cluster munitions to Ukraine by declaring they wouldn't be used by Russia and pressuring European countries where they are banned. But instead Russia boasted about having huge stockpiles.

5. Much of Russia's cluster munition stocks are obsolete and degraded. Reversing the rhetoric now is difficult.

6. Cluster munitions are especially deadly and gruesome. Without proper medical care, survival is unlikely. The enemy has learned to cut off routes for reinforcements and retreat, leaving soldiers trapped and dying in horrific ways.

7. Counter-battery warfare is lacking. The problem needs to be acknowledged and solved at the highest levels. Bold rhetoric about striking back hard is not helping soldiers dying in the field.

8. The scale of casualties from cluster munitions is likely already in the hundreds or thousands over the past couple weeks. Precise figures should not be publicized to avoid aiding the enemy.

9. Solutions require decisions above the level of individual generals. The problem of cluster munitions needs to be addressed through action, not bluster.

 

 

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12,301]

33 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Here is another hint: just like Bradley's and Western tanks, ATACMS and F-16s aren't going to cause the Russians to suddenly lose. While it would definitely have been nice to have these weapons in Ukrainian hands earlier, they aren't magic bullets. Nothing short of direct NATO intervention would provide the sort of firepower necessary to cause a quick Ukrainian victory. Anything short of that, and Ukraine would still have to go through the type of heavy attritional fighting it is doing now. 

eh, that's a pretty weak statement. Nobody is saying there's a magic bullet or there would be a quick victory. But those things you've mentioned would absolutely change the game in terms of Russia's ability to wage war, would save UKR lives and end this war more quickly. 

[Bevo 13,935]

8 minutes ago, KYHorn said:

8. The scale of casualties from cluster munitions is likely already in the hundreds or thousands over the past couple weeks. Precise figures should not be publicized to avoid aiding the enemy.

Exaggeration?

[Dahobbs 18,424]

2 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

eh, that's a pretty weak statement. Nobody is saying there's a magic bullet or there would be a quick victory. But those things you've mentioned would absolutely change the game in terms of Russia's ability to wage war, would save UKR lives and end this war more quickly. 

F-16s aren't game changers. ATACMs isn't a game changer. Neither of those platforms would allow Ukraine to service targets that it can't service already. F-16s allow them to replace lost air assets and potentially allow them access to more varied Western weapons (e.g., more cruise missiles). ATACMs is an expensive strategic level weapon with less range than Storm Shadow. More is good. But it definitely isn't a game changer. Even something like providing Ukraine F-35s wouldn't be a game changer because it doesn't have a safe spot to house them.

The reality is that even going as far back as Korea, we haven't had to fight a war where our important naval and air resources are vulnerable to attack. We are to accustomed to firing away from distance with impunity. Ukraine, no matter what we do, isn't going to have that luxury. It can't mass expensive assets. It was always going to have to do a lot of hard fighting no matter what. 

[Orange&White 5,573]

5 minutes ago, Bevo said:

Exaggeration?

It says "hundreds OR thousands in the past couple of weeks", not hundreds OF thousands. Hundreds or thousands in a couple of weeks is really not that much difference from the regular casualty rate of the entire war.

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12,301]

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

F-16s aren't game changers. ATACMs isn't a game changer. Neither of those platforms would allow Ukraine to service targets that it can't service already.

that's wrong. we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Bevo 13,935]

10 minutes ago, Orange&White said:

It says "hundreds OR thousands in the past couple of weeks", not hundreds OF thousands. Hundreds or thousands in a couple of weeks is really not that much difference from the regular casualty rate of the entire war.

Damn, that's the second time this week where I missed or misread a word on Surly. Thanks for clarifying.

[Dahobbs 18,424]

8 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

that's wrong. we'll have to agree to disagree.

What is it that you think ATACMs could do that GMLRs and Storm Shadow can't? What is it that an f-16 can do that Ukraine's existing assets cannot? 

[BamaATL 16,593]

8 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

that's wrong. we'll have to agree to disagree.

To me there are two sides of this coin as I see it anyway.  Right now, the F-16 wouldn't do all that much because the Russians still have a shit load of S-300s and to lesser extent but even more dangerous S-400s.  That doesn't mean that can't change, and it's clear the Ukrainians are targeting them as much as possible, but that's a very real problem.  However, should the Ukrainians continue to destroy these systems then it could be a game changer.  Basically, I think the F-16 would do quite well in air to air engagements against the Migs in stand alone combat, but at current, that simply isn't the world we live in.  

Honestly, I've been of the belief that if we were to give them a different air platform that makes far more sense, it should be the Predator drones with Hellfire missiles.  Like the F-16, this platform is being phased out by us.  Further, the Ukrainians have consistently shown to be extremely adapt at drone warfare.  Lastly, on the human side, if you lose a pilot that's and incredibly shitty day for lots of reasons (training time, money, and of course the human loss).  Lose a drone, it's just money.  We have nearly a 1000 of the drones sitting in storage, and the a shit load of the hellfires.  

And to be clear, if it were up to me we'd have them training on the F35 right now.

[kevwun 16,450]

ATACMs can't be shot down so that makes them more effective than Storm Shadows that have to be launched from a jet and then make it to their target.  They would absolutely help.  There are also the easiest for the Ukrainians to implement since minimal training would be required to use them.

Edited August 17, 2023 by kevwun

[Gatorubet 30,799]

3 hours ago, MagicSoccerSpray said:

 This administration is going to fuck around weekending at Bernie's thinking they can micromanage the situation till the Russian inevitably get their shit together. It's fucking pathetic.

[MagicSoccerSpray 1,736]

 

[atomheartbevo 90,689]

46 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

What is it that an f-16 can do that Ukraine's existing assets cannot? 

The big thing it can do is easily handle most of the NATO aerial weapons, rather than making the Ukrainians Jerry rig stuff to their MiGs.  

[Armybrat 41,454]

4 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

The big thing it can do is easily handle most of the NATO aerial weapons, rather than making the Ukrainians Jerry rig stuff to their MiGs.  

Yeah, and the Ukrainian air force might be running very short of their old Migs.

[Bevo 13,935]

Mom and dad can't produce that daughter, can they?

 

[Pescado_Rojo 19,593]

6 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

The big thing it can do is easily handle most of the NATO aerial weapons, rather than making the Ukrainians Jerry rig stuff to their MiGs.  

That, plus they have a finite supply of Mig 29s. Some of the newer NATO countries have donated or are donating their legacy Mig airframes, but that's a finite supply as well, and they won't be able to get new ones. They're also running out of SU 25s with the same challenges. The F16 could fill both of those roles, though it's not ideal in ground attack. Western precision munitions can solve some of that, though. 

[Bevo 13,935]

17 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

That, plus they have a finite supply of Mig 29s. Some of the newer NATO countries have donated or are donating their legacy Mig airframes, but that's a finite supply as well, and they won't be able to get new ones. They're also running out of SU 25s with the same challenges. The F16 could fill both of those roles, though it's not ideal in ground attack. Western precision munitions can solve some of that, though. 

If Ukraine is short on Migs and Ukraine isn't getting ATCAMs, won't they have problems using long range weapons against Russia?

[Dahobbs 18,424]

29 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

To me there are two sides of this coin as I see it anyway.  Right now, the F-16 wouldn't do all that much because the Russians still have a shit load of S-300s and to lesser extent but even more dangerous S-400s.  That doesn't mean that can't change, and it's clear the Ukrainians are targeting them as much as possible, but that's a very real problem.  However, should the Ukrainians continue to destroy these systems then it could be a game changer.  Basically, I think the F-16 would do quite well in air to air engagements against the Migs in stand alone combat, but at current, that simply isn't the world we live in.  

Honestly, I've been of the belief that if we were to give them a different air platform that makes far more sense, it should be the Predator drones with Hellfire missiles.  Like the F-16, this platform is being phased out by us.  Further, the Ukrainians have consistently shown to be extremely adapt at drone warfare.  Lastly, on the human side, if you lose a pilot that's and incredibly shitty day for lots of reasons (training time, money, and of course the human loss).  Lose a drone, it's just money.  We have nearly a 1000 of the drones sitting in storage, and the a shit load of the hellfires.  

And to be clear, if it were up to me we'd have them training on the F35 right now.

I largely agree with this. F-16s aren't going to be any more survivable in the current environment than Ukraine's legacy aircraft. And Ukraine is still going to be limited in its deployment of new aircraft due to lack of pilots and safe airfields. F-16s would be important, don't get me wrong. Ukraine needs those to continue running interference to keep Russian aircraft as far back as possible. But they aren't game changers. What would be a game changer is the severe depletion of Russia's air defense assets. But that is going to take a long time and a lot of attrition. As to F-35s, training sounds great. But there is still no way Ukraine could deploy them in theater without having them launch from airbases in NATO countries. They'd be too vulnerable on the ground in Ukraine. 

28 minutes ago, kevwun said:

ATACMs can't be shot down so that makes them more effective than Storm Shadows that have to be launched from a jet and then make it to their target.  They would absolutely help.  There are also the easiest for the Ukrainians to implement since minimal training would be required to use them.

What makes you think ATACMs can't be shot down? It has a different flight profile than low flying cruise missiles like Storm Shadow, but nothing about it should be outside the capability of something like S-300, S-400 or even shorter range Russian air defenses to engage. Storm Shadow and ATACMs present different challenges for air defenses, but those challenges can be overcome. And, the reality is that Ukraine has been deploying its own short range ballistic missiles since the war started. Again, ATACMs would help. But it isn't offering new capabilities or the ability to service new targets.

[Dahobbs 18,424]

35 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

The big thing it can do is easily handle most of the NATO aerial weapons, rather than making the Ukrainians Jerry rig stuff to their MiGs.  

Yup, and I mentioned that. The most important new potential capability it opens up is the ability to use a variety of Western cruise missiles (pretty much everything we have is designed to be air or sea launched). But that is more of an additive capability, not a "game changer." 

23 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

That, plus they have a finite supply of Mig 29s. Some of the newer NATO countries have donated or are donating their legacy Mig airframes, but that's a finite supply as well, and they won't be able to get new ones. They're also running out of SU 25s with the same challenges. The F16 could fill both of those roles, though it's not ideal in ground attack. Western precision munitions can solve some of that, though. 

Yes, that is the primary role F-16s would serve, replacing legacy aircraft. F-16s are going to be more capable than most of Ukraine's legacy assets, but ultimately their function and deployment would be essentially the same. It is more about keeping the status quo and preventing Russia from draining Ukrainian capabilities rather than deploying a "game changing" platform. 

[kevwun 16,450]

There are only 2 systems that can reliably shoot down an ATACMs.  They are the Patriot and the SAMP/T.  Russia has neither.  If you were to fire two of them at a high value Russian target to account for a lucky shot, the odds of the target being taken out are extremely high.  They are also a lot cheaper than Storm Shadows.

Edited August 17, 2023 by kevwun

[Dahobbs 18,424]

2 minutes ago, kevwun said:

There are only 2 systems that can reliably shoot down an ATACMs.  They are the Patriot and the SAMP/T.  Russia has neither.  If you were to fire two of them at a high value Russian target to account for a lucky shot, the odds of the target being taken out are extremely high. 

Again, what do you base this on? I think you're making the mistake of severely underestimating Russian air defenses. Their military is dysfunctional. They often overstate their capabilities. But, Russia legitimately has some of the best air defense assets in the world because its primary rival relied extensively on airpower that Russia/Soviet Union knew it couldn't match one to one. Russia has a poured a lot more of its resources into air defense systems than the US has. Intercepting a Mach 3 or 4 tactical ballistic missile is well within the capabilities of their defense systems if they are deployed correctly. That is of course a big if, as we saw earlier in the war expense air defense systems getting taken out by TB-2 drones that had no right being able to engage them. However, it does appear that Russia resolved that deployment issue relatively early in 2022. 

Quote

They are also a lot cheaper than Storm Shadows.

They aren't manufactured anymore. They are quite literally irreplaceable. In adjusted dollars, before accounting for the money we've spent on modernizing and extending the life of existing systems, they'd cost $1.5 million each. With the upgrades and service life extensions we've done, I'd guess that they are pretty close to the same cost as a Storm Shadow. 

[Neonmoon 38,130]

FAFO

 

 

[The Dog 44,872]

the quoted tweet:

 

[atomheartbevo 90,689]

14 minutes ago, The Dog said:

 

 

So Tokmak is going to enter the chat soon?

[Schulz2.0 29,307]

 

This was by Robotyne. It's in addition to the Ka-52 shot down near Bakhmut this morning.

 

Edited August 17, 2023 by Schulz2.0

[Schulz2.0 29,307]

 

 

[Schulz2.0 29,307]

 

 

 

[BamaATL 16,593]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

Again, what do you base this on? I think you're making the mistake of severely underestimating Russian air defenses. Their military is dysfunctional. They often overstate their capabilities. But, Russia legitimately has some of the best air defense assets in the world because its primary rival relied extensively on airpower that Russia/Soviet Union knew it couldn't match one to one. Russia has a poured a lot more of its resources into air defense systems than the US has. Intercepting a Mach 3 or 4 tactical ballistic missile is well within the capabilities of their defense systems if they are deployed correctly. That is of course a big if, as we saw earlier in the war expense air defense systems getting taken out by TB-2 drones that had no right being able to engage them. However, it does appear that Russia resolved that deployment issue relatively early in 2022. 

They aren't manufactured anymore. They are quite literally irreplaceable. In adjusted dollars, before accounting for the money we've spent on modernizing and extending the life of existing systems, they'd cost $1.5 million each. With the upgrades and service life extensions we've done, I'd guess that they are pretty close to the same cost as a Storm Shadow. 

This is the larger problem with the ATACMs, there simply isn't much of a store of them.  The program was cancelled almost 20 years ago and our stocks are estimated to be around 1k.  This part is entirely a guess, but I'm betting most of our stores are deployed in 2 places, Poland and Taiwan.  So in order to use these you have 2 shitty choices, take them away from Poland and Taiwan and leave either of them potentially vulnerable (I would guess Poland given the situation) or recommence their manufacture; which will take considerable lead time and expense.  Neither of these options really appear to be in play at the moment.  

[NotActuallyALonghorn 5,005]

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

FAFO

 

 

I just wanted to quote this so y'all can watch it again.