Русский корабль - иди нахуй

[Gatorubet 30825]

9 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

Well, you could use the HIMARS  ATACMS platform in Taiwan to degrade Chinese ports.  So yeah, those would be in play.  

I guess if they were stationed prior to the war some of our better ammo certainly has the range.  If not deployed till the scrape, you are still talking navy and air resources to get them there safely.  Most of the fight should be over before we have time to haul them to Taiwan.  

They have their own HF-2E cruise missiles for hitting China. A bunch apparently.  They fired one a few days ago as a FAFO message to the mainland.  

[Pescado_Rojo 19593]

Looking closely at the picture of the burning bomber, and it appears to be a TU 160. That would be like someone destroying one of our B1s. It's their answer to the supersonic strategic bomber, and they have less than 30 of them flying. That's a big loss. 

[InkaUtexas 27056]

7 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

Looking closely at the picture of the burning bomber, and it appears to be a TU 160. That would be like someone destroying one of our B1s. It's their answer to the supersonic strategic bomber, and they have less than 30 of them flying. That's a big loss. 

And no way to make more. 

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

15 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

they have less than 29 of them flying.

 

[InkaUtexas 27056]

Please make this real. 

 

[YGIFS 19460]

17 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Please make this real. 

 

Skip Tyler is already modifying his previous design of a mini sub with universal docking collar to this type of design.  Interesting fact about Skip, when he was 12 years old...he helped his Daddy build a bunker in his backyard.  

In all seriousness, this technology us fascinating.  There's a group in Austin we've done some work with who is complimenting efforts like this (not this one in particular) with subsurface imaging and naval activity without the need for man-powered sonar having to go all the way out there at great expense and risk.  It's being done under the guise of tracking marine life during extreme weather events.  And no, NOT WHALES HUMPING! 

[MissingInAction 25622]

2 hours ago, YGIFS said:

That sounds serious.  

I'll post this again as the date approaches, but Clements Center/LBJ School putting on a very interesting panel of military and diplomacy experts on the situation.  Register today before it fills up:  https://www.clementscenter.org/event/the-war-in-ukraine-on-the-battlefield-in-the-kremlin-and-in-the-courtroom/

Just registered for both sessions. See ya there!

[Brisketexan 107065]

1 hour ago, Nivek said:

They have subs too, and they would be willing to park it off the coast of Florida and torpedo grandma on her cruise shit. 

.....so what you're saying is that full-fledged war with Russia could yield multiple benefits?

[YGIFS 19460]

Well of course grandma's cruise Shit was an issue. Y'all let her keep going back to the buffet to eat all that iodine-heavy cocktail shrimp.  Poor woman's bowels never stood a chance against the Russian Navy.  Insensitive asshats.  

[Schulz2.0 29314]

 

[Nathan Jessep 147]

Looks like Pringles resurfaced 

 

 

[Pato del Muerto 53631]

1 hour ago, InkaUtexas said:

And no way to make more. 

And even if that particular one wasn’t airworthy as they claim, they can’t scavenge parts from it any longer. 

[InkaUtexas 27056]

5 minutes ago, Schulz2.0 said:

 

Sanction each one of the companies. Fuck that. 

[Telegraph_it 3389]

7 minutes ago, Nathan Jessep said:

Looks like Pringles resurfaced 

 

 

For a billionaire he sure goes to shitty places. 

[SquishMitten 10498]

2 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

I will not rule anything out. But I have to say I always thought any Taiwan-China war (as it involves the US in the event we went at it w/ China militarily) would be an air and naval resource event, rather than a Bradleys and HIMARS and Abrams ground pounding in China or Taiwan thing. 

That's my understanding as well. The battle would be fought over the sea with naval and air assets, as well as ground launched weapons. If it became a true land-war, meaning that China amassed a huge number of soldiers on the ground, then Taipei has presumably already fallen (the Presidential Office is only ~10 miles from the ocean). By the time we could even get our full ground forces mobilized and in the area, I'd imagine the entire island would already be occupied. And if China pulled that off, it would mean we'd suffered a horrendous amount of casualties. Honestly not sure if we'd be willing to keep at it by committing tens or hundreds of thousands more to try and retake it. 

[Schulz2.0 29314]

 

 

[Gatorubet 30825]

1 hour ago, Telegraph_it said:

For a billionaire he sure goes to shitty places. 

Lots of people to kill, valuable mines to extort and dictators to bribe.

Busy, busy, busy…

[atomheartbevo 90706]

4 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

I will not rule anything out. But I have to say I always thought any Taiwan-China war (as it involves the US in the event we went at it w/ China militarily) would be an air and naval resource event, rather than a Bradleys and HIMARS and Abrams ground pounding in China or Taiwan thing. 

1 hour ago, SquishMitten said:

That's my understanding as well. The battle would be fought over the sea with naval and air assets, as well as ground launched weapons. If it became a true land-war, meaning that China amassed a huge number of soldiers on the ground, then Taipei has presumably already fallen (the Presidential Office is only ~10 miles from the ocean). 

Yeah, it's never going to be much of a land war unless China gets enough troops on the island.  Even then, China wouldn't have much heavy equipment on the ground, so the Taiwanese ground forces would have an advantage.

And China would have a huge timer ticking down - if they don't get troops on the ground quickly, then they won't be able to conquer Taiwan, because that means they've lost their military sealift and airlift capacity and their ability to move a large enough mass of troops to survive on the group in Taiwan proper.  At that point, they can't simply throw Chinese troops on a civilian freighter or airliner and expect it to survive in that environment. It's not Ukraine where Russia can keep sending troops in small batches in Scooby Doo vans to reinforce already conquered areas. 

That's Russia's only saving grace with Ukraine - they share a land border with them, and can just keep grabbing civilian vehicles and sending troops in (or on trains). I can't imagine Russia doing this a few countries over, or even trying to occupy an outlying region that rebelled.

[atomheartbevo 90706]

4 hours ago, Nivek said:

I doubt this is true.  This is not a traditional US ally, and this is not a NATO member.  We are helping but the trickle, while frustrating from an emotional standpoint, is by my guess, being done for several reasons.   1) Just sending equipment doesn't do anything unless people are trained for it.  It is probably why our allies were quick to send soviet crap and slow to send US/NATO stuff.   

Yeah, we can't throw our more complex equipment in the mix and expect them to quickly transition. Hell, when we do something that seems simple, like move to a new rifle platform (which the US Army is doing), we still take our time, make sure the training is in place, and make sure that it's not fully deployed until we have the supply/manufacturing chain to back it up. We take years to do this.  With that said, Ukraine is doing amazingly well at implementing newer/different equipment on the fly, but we still have to be wary of what they can actually handle, and we have to have the resources to keep them supplied.

There are exceptions - things like the HIMARS were immediate game changers, even in small numbers, but Ukraine had very experienced artillery folks who were already trained on older MLRS systems.

We are also backfilling a lot of inventories in NATO where they've sent the Soviet-era stuff to Ukraine, which is putting added pressure on the supplies available to send - as it is, American contractors are getting a lot of new contracts to backfill the inventories.

Which is another example of Putin's success - he's hastening the move to have all of NATO truly standardized and has helped move the Eastern European countries off of existing Soviet-era equipment. He's helping simplify NATO manufacturing for ammo, etc. and there is definite modernization taking place in some countries.

The good news is, there is clearly no red line that we can't cross short of sending actual troops in to fight Russia.  All the people worried about escalation with Russia and worried about nukes should just shut up at this point.  At this point, if Russia were to have more missiles enter NATO airspace (Romania), we could probably say we are extending an aerial protected zone 20 or 30 miles into Ukraine and will shoot down any Russian missiles or aircraft that violate it, and nothing would happen.  I think Russia is actually worried about NATO/EU (or individual member states) navies protecting the grain ships, which is why they are letting the foreign-flagged vessels pass.

[Pescado_Rojo 19593]

33 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Yeah, it's never going to be much of a land war unless China gets enough troops on the island.  Even then, China wouldn't have much heavy equipment on the ground, so the Taiwanese ground forces would have an advantage.

And China would have a huge timer ticking down - if they don't get troops on the ground quickly, then they won't be able to conquer Taiwan, because that means they've lost their military sealift and airlift capacity and their ability to move a large enough mass of troops to survive on the group in Taiwan proper.  At that point, they can't simply throw Chinese troops on a civilian freighter or airliner and expect it to survive in that environment. It's not Ukraine where Russia can keep sending troops in small batches in Scooby Doo vans to reinforce already conquered areas. 

That's Russia's only saving grace with Ukraine - they share a land border with them, and can just keep grabbing civilian vehicles and sending troops in (or on trains). I can't imagine Russia doing this a few countries over, or even trying to occupy an outlying region that rebelled.

You have to wonder in a worst case scenario for China in a Taiwan invasion attempt if India might start feeling froggy on China's Western frontier. 

[atomheartbevo 90706]

4 hours ago, Nivek said:

2) The part not talked about is what Ukraine's resolve look like without Zelensky.  If he and his family are killed in a missile strike does the next in line have the will and ability to hold the country together, continue to rally support, and carry on?  Or will that person make concessions to end the war, ease the suffering of their populace, and appease Russia?  

3-4 months into the war, sure.

Now, no, Russia has been kicked out of too many areas it conquered last year giving the Ukrainians hope and experience, and they've killed too many civilians, and too many Ukrainians hate Russia.

It's funny - if Russia had not invaded in 2014, had not invaded again last year, and had just kept up their political interference with Ukraine, I could easily see Ukraine resembling Belarus's relationship with Russia and Russian companies would have their hands in all of the major Ukrainian resources.

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

11 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

I could easily see Ukraine resembling Belarus's relationship with Russia and Russian companies would have their hands in all of the major Ukrainian resources.

That's a bad take, brother. They walked head first into bullets when their leadership turned their backs on the West and towards Moscow.

[956 Worldwide 35616]

5 hours ago, BamaATL said:

It would be fun to see Lukashenko shit his pants if we pulled our embassy and started burning documents.  Personally, I'd be fine if we did it in Russia as well, what's the point in talking to these assholes under status quo (I do realize the implications if we did it in Russia, but we can fuck with Belarus, even with all that break dance fighting they do).  

Would barely register. I think we have like five people there. For context, we had about 8 for most of this century and then in 2014 Lukashenko got nervous about Putin and there was a full-on thaw. We thought we were gonna divide those two. 
 

Then the 2020 elections happened, and the crackdowns and mass arrests and Putin swooped in as the savior and backer of his regime. And they took us down to like five people. 

[atomheartbevo 90706]

18 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

That's a bad take, brother. They walked head first into bullets when their leadership turned their backs on the West and towards Moscow.

Maybe, but I think given 10 years, and if Russia had not invaded and taken Crimea/DPR/LPR, I think we would be looking at a far different picture - they may not be sitting in circles around the fire singing Kumbaya with the Russians, but I think Russian oligarchs/companies could have had their hands deep in the pockets/resources of Ukraine.

Hell, in 2022, there was still Russian oil & gas flowing through pipelines on Ukrainian territory.

[Handcruser 2817]

Yeah, it's never going to be much of a land war unless China gets enough troops on the island.  Even then, China wouldn't have much heavy equipment on the ground, so the Taiwanese ground forces would have an advantage.
And China would have a huge timer ticking down - if they don't get troops on the ground quickly, then they won't be able to conquer Taiwan, because that means they've lost their military sealift and airlift capacity and their ability to move a large enough mass of troops to survive on the group in Taiwan proper.  At that point, they can't simply throw Chinese troops on a civilian freighter or airliner and expect it to survive in that environment. It's not Ukraine where Russia can keep sending troops in small batches in Scooby Doo vans to reinforce already conquered areas. 
That's Russia's only saving grace with Ukraine - they share a land border with them, and can just keep grabbing civilian vehicles and sending troops in (or on trains). I can't imagine Russia doing this a few countries over, or even trying to occupy an outlying region that rebelled.

I am of the opinion that China is slowly working an infil of troops in Taiwan - people that don’t register militarily. If China decides to attack the troops will already be there and sabotage elements in place.

[Schulz2.0 29314]

9 hours ago, AUS-97HORN said:

 

unfortunately, the solution to that problem is to not allow American Journalists to report in Ukraine anymore.  our fucking journalists are more concerned about getting a scoop 2 mins before anyone else and will fire off a story without any fucking thought to operational security, or what that report can mean in regards to the safety of the topic of the report.

we are too fucking stupid as a journalistic society to understand the concept of Loose Lips.

 

[Schulz2.0 29314]

 

 

 

[B00M 6741]

annoying thumbnail but good daily content from this guy

[KYHorn 17682]

 

 

 

[atomheartbevo 90706]

19 minutes ago, KYHorn said:

[Gatorubet 30825]

50 minutes ago, B00M said:

annoying thumbnail but good daily content from this guy

[The Dog 44888]

 

[B00M 6741]

6 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

Yeah I think that’s the longest winded, most meandering vid I’ve seen him do. Usually it’s a quick war/control map update and news brief. 

[Schulz2.0 29314]

 

 

 

 

[Schulz2.0 29314]

 

 

[statsman 5710]

Ever wonder what the US plans to do to counter swarms of drones? In future wars?

The new issue of AvWeek has an article on that. The army is developing “Direct Energy” weapons (you can call them “lasers”; Imma call them “death rays”), because they admit you just can’t deploy enough missiles. 

[KYHorn 17682]

 

 

 

[BamaATL 16593]

3 minutes ago, KYHorn said:

 

 

 

Anyone familiar with seizing assets and intellectual property from deported individuals under the auspicious of national security?  Asking for a friend.  

[KYHorn 17682]

 

 

 https://twitter.com/ChrisO_wiki/status/1693910513342660609?s=20 

[atomheartbevo 90706]

15 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

Anyone familiar with seizing assets and intellectual property from deported individuals under the auspicious of national security?  Asking for a friend.  

He will probably change his tune if Boeing's launch next March is successful and another launch platform is available for NASA to use.

If this were 1812, he'd be telling everybody that the US should just give up some states to the Brits so that there would be peace.  And he'd be British.

[BamaATL 16593]

The headline is a real grabber, "At least 8 feared dead after sewer tour goes awry"

https://www.thedailybeast.com/at-least-8-feared-dead-in-moscow-sewers-after-tour-goes-awry

They must be souring on the state TV programming for entertainment.  Well, 8 less mobliks to worry about anyway. 

[Schulz2.0 29314]

 

 

 

[Macanudo 13360]

19 hours ago, Telegraph_it said:

For a billionaire he sure goes to shitty places. 

They can't all vacation in south Florida.

[RPM 26689]

On 8/21/2023 at 7:48 AM, WhatTheBuck said:

Do you have a better answer?

Putin falls out of a window while a close friend yells "Oh no! That's a shame!" then withdraws from Ukraine and Crimea.

[Dahobbs 18438]

1 hour ago, Schulz2.0 said:

 

 

 

JASSM would provide a deeper pool of cruise missiles compared to Storm Shadow/SCALP. If Ukraine were to get the extended range variant (~600 miles range) or the newest extreme range variant (1,200 miles), those would be game changers. It isn't clear to me how many of the ER variants we actually have. 

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

JASSM would provide a deeper pool of cruise missiles compared to Storm Shadow/SCALP. If Ukraine were to get the extended range variant (~600 miles range) or the newest extreme range variant (1,200 miles), those would be game changers. It isn't clear to me how many of the ER variants we actually have. 

You said the F-16 wouldn't materially impact UKR's ability to win this war?

[BabaYaga 15632]

1 hour ago, RPM said:

Putin falls out of a window while a close friend yells "Oh no! That's a shame!" then withdraws from Ukraine and Crimea.

[BabaYaga 15632]

51 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

JASSM would provide a deeper pool of cruise missiles compared to Storm Shadow/SCALP. If Ukraine were to get the extended range variant (~600 miles range) or the newest extreme range variant (1,200 miles), those would be game changers. It isn't clear to me how many of the ER variants we actually have. 

Hasn't the hesitation been that with those extended ranges, the fear that they can hit targets deep in Russia that could create a significant escalation?

[BabaYaga 15632]

50 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

You said the F-16 wouldn't materially impact UKR's ability to win this war?

Depends upon how many are utilized and how effective the newly trained pilots are?  Even with modern tech, it's still the Indian, not the arrow.  

[Dahobbs 18438]

37 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

You said the F-16 wouldn't materially impact UKR's ability to win this war?

Why are you the way you are? That isn't what I said. I said the F-16, in and of itself, isn't a "game changer" in that it doesn't change the dynamics of the fight. It is important they get them, because without replacements to Ukraine's existing fighters and ground attack craft, Russia will be able to assert more air control over the front lines. But getting them is more about keeping the status quo rather than materially shifting the nature of the fight. Very long range cruise missiles are different because they would provide a capability to service targets that right now Ukraine cannot effectively hit.

Below are my prior posts on the subject so you can see the full context. The whole original point is that there has been this idea that if only we provided "x" super weapon system earlier, Ukraine wouldn't have to be doing the hard attritional fighting it is doing now. I don't think that sort of thinking ever reflected the realities of the fighting and capabilities of Russia and Ukraine.

Separately, I also think there is some confusion on the use of the term "game changing." In my opinion, for a weapon system to be considered "game changing," it must provide some novel capability that Ukraine can't replicate with its current assets. That's why HIMARs and GMLRs were originally game changing. It is why Storm Shadow was game changing. F-16s aren't significantly different enough from Ukraine's currently aircraft to be "game changing." Better? Sure. Important? Absolutely, in the same way that continued replacement of tanks and IFVs are important. However, the provision of F-16s does open up the possibility of the provision of certain game changing assets like very long range cruise missiles. 

On 8/17/2023 at 7:40 AM, 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. 

 

On 8/17/2023 at 8:31 AM, 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. 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. 

 

On 8/17/2023 at 10:08 AM, Dahobbs said:

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. 

 

On 8/20/2023 at 6:09 PM, Dahobbs said:

To be absolutely clear, that isn't at all what I was saying. Getting F-16s (or really, any aircraft) to Ukraine is important. But it isn't in a game changer in the sense that it doesn't, in and of itself, drastically change Ukraine's capabilities or the overall battlefield picture. The original supply of HIMARs and GMLRs was a game changer because it allowed Ukraine to accurately hit greater depths of targets, largely outside of the effective range of Russian artillery/rocket response. The arrival of Storm Shadow and SCALP was similarly game-changing. A handful of F-16s don't present that sort of dynamic, even if they are absolutely vital to Ukraine's long-term prospects.  They replace capabilities that have been attrited over time, but don't by themselves give Ukraine a new capability it didn't have before.