Live Conflict Ukraine-Russia War

RogerRanger

Contributor
Messages
602
Reactions
444
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
United Kingdom
1500+ jets are in Continental Europe already, do you know that the US had at least 2-3 carriers on patrol each year at one point on planet earth ?

USNI News Fleet and Marine Tracker: Jan. 10, 2022

FT_1_10_22-660x370.jpg


each of those supercarriers battle group could carry 90+ combat jets ready with its peacetime escorts of 3-4 destroyers and cruisers (each comes with 96-122 VLS) and could be ordered to sail in places that would increase the threat and complexity for Russia to continue for an attack.


do you know that the US has eyes and ears on every corner on earth, their spy planes are everywhere

whatever defense its enemies prepared are 99.99999999% will already been mapped out, no matter if its the AD layers in Russia or China's supposed A2/AD in the Pacific


Defeating Iraq is a gargantuan task that no modern militaries has come anywhere close.

let's do some maths, the speed of which an aircraft carrier usually run is 30 knots or 55km/hr.

If the Vinson CSG currently on patrol in the SCS are deemed necessary to intimidate Russia in Vladivostok 3500km away , it would take around 63 hours or less than 3 days. If the Truman CSG now currently on the Mediterranean are ordered to sail into the Black sea they would've popped out tomorrow morning.

The versatility, flexibility and firepower of a modern CSG (and especially that of a US CSG) are something that no modern militaries have any answer to.
I appreciate the comment and I like your name.

The power dynamic of the aircraft carrier has changed in the past 10 years. So before the US could send a CSG and a marine group anywhere in the world post the fall of the soviet union and it would dominate the area. However with the Russians/Iranians/Chinese building up their anti-CSG capabilities the Americans have had to pull back the carriers or bring more carriers. Shifting from a CSG to a carrier battle group to shift the balance of power in an area. So before the US could have confidently move their carrier and support ships and marine groups in the med to the black sea and launched operations against Russia. Now however they would have to send two-three carriers, 20 support ships and likely a couple marine groups.

So I would have totally agreed with your points 10 years ago, but now I don't. It would take the US 3 months to work up the forces to push into the black sea or the baltic or against the Russian northern fleet. With British/French/Japanese support as well, it would be 3-4 carriers, 25-30 escorts and other replenishment ships. Then they could counter and withstand the Russian counter measures. And building a fleet of 50 ships, is very different from a fleet of 7-11 in a CSG.

A CSG on its own would get sunk by the Russian pacific fleet and air force. The Americans understand this, so they wouldn't do that. They would get the Japanese to put their entire fleet to sea and send a second carrier of their own. And the other problems the Americans have is the Chinese see the Americans off balance and then attack Taiwan, so they couldn't realistically send a carrier at the Russia fleet in the Pacific.
 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
8,361
Reactions
22 12,853
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
The power dynamic of the aircraft carrier has changed in the past 10 years. So before the US could send a CSG and a marine group anywhere in the world post the fall of the soviet union and it would dominate the area. However with the Russians/Iranians/Chinese building up their anti-CSG capabilities the Americans have had to pull back the carriers or bring more carriers.
The concept of A2/AD is as old as naval warfare itself, the methods of employing weapons intended to restrict movements of an enemy fleet in one particular area are not an entirely new invention, for example the Russian empire uses their port Arthur fortress as A2/AD against Japanese fleet waiting outside Liaodong peninsula.
Just because some dude draw some circles around a map intended to give you an idea of a particular weapons domain based on specs doesn't really matter in actual combat. I give you this example.

buUsy2Y7WjyVj40RXq3QiQOwCLCDHenJ5pnWlKpu7XHFL1527145754326compressflag.jpg


using this circles as reference the Axis would have its entire shipping stopped under those circles, yet during the Africa campaign the axis uses that exact route to re-supply the Afrika korps, the same also applies to the Royal Navy carriers operating under Stuka combat radius circles put on a map. Those A2/AD circles Russia and China boasts has been again and again proven unable to prevent a well coordinated strikes.

in 1986, a lone USN carrier the 'Ranger', set sail from US West coast as part of RIMPAC 86, during a whole two weeks exercise the USS Ranger air wing repeatedly bombed Hawaii and sank most of the task force sent to find her. In actual combat, those US nuclear carrier WILL operate inside those A2/AD bubbles no problem.

Sinking an aircraft carrier is one of the most challenging ops a military could execute, not only because of limitations on the availability of sufficient ISR, we are talking about a very fast moving airfield which could at its will, change course and defend herself. How hard you might ask ? Hard enough that the Chinese built an entire dedicated test range just to sink an aircraft carrier.


Did they successfully do so ? it's anyone best guess, will it be the game changer that everyone wants to believe, who knows. but here's some hint.


As we can see, its no biggie. Not only US foes will have exorbitantly hard times finding those carriers in the middle of the sea, the other problems is to discriminate targets. Radars can't differentiate between a carrier or a VLCC tanker. Russia or even China would have to guess which one is the US carrier in the sea of commercial shipping. In fact the US could rig their own signal to mimic that of a commercial shipping.

So is sinking an aircraft carrier impossible? Not exactly, but whatever advance US foes comes with, its almost guaranteed that the US countermeasures will make those weaps dead on arrival (DOA) by the time its employed. People like to think that its only China and Russia that progresses while the US+NATO stagnate. While it's likely the reverse.

So yeah in the Ukraine context, those carriers will enter Russian A2/AD, and if they're ordered to do so, execute combat operations inside of those bubbles if need be. Its not like they need to enter those A2/AD bubbles when their Super Hornet range are sufficient and they employ stand off munitions. When it comes to conflict between NATO v Russia in Ukraine or everywhere else, air superiority is given and so does the transition from air superiority to air supremacy.
 
Last edited:

RogerRanger

Contributor
Messages
602
Reactions
444
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
United Kingdom
The concept of A2/AD is as old as naval warfare itself, the methods of employing weapons intended to restrict movements of an enemy fleet in one particular area are not an entirely new invention, for example the Russian empire uses their port Arthur fortress as A2/AD against Japanese fleet waiting outside Liaodong peninsula.
Just because some dude draw some circles around a map intended to give you an idea of a particular weapons domain based on specs doesn't really matter in actual combat. I give you this example.

buUsy2Y7WjyVj40RXq3QiQOwCLCDHenJ5pnWlKpu7XHFL1527145754326compressflag.jpg


using this circles as reference the Axis would have its entire shipping stopped under those circles, yet during the Africa campaign the axis uses that exact route to re-supply the Afrika korps, the same also applies to the Royal Navy carriers operating under Stuka combat radius circles put on a map. Those A2/AD circles Russia and China boasts has been again and again proven unable to prevent a well coordinated strikes.

in 1986, a lone USN carrier the 'Ranger', set sail from US West coast as part of RIMPAC 86, during a whole two weeks exercise the USS Ranger air wing repeatedly bombed Hawaii and sank most of the task force sent to find her. In actual combat, those US nuclear carrier WILL operate inside those A2/AD bubbles no problem.

Sinking an aircraft carrier is one of the most challenging ops a military could execute, not only because of limitations on the availability of sufficient ISR, we are talking about a very fast moving airfield which could at its will, change course and defend herself. How hard you might ask ? Hard enough that the Chinese built an entire dedicated test range just to sink an aircraft carrier.


Did they successfully do so ? it's anyone best guess, will it be the game changer that everyone wants to believe, who knows. but here's some hint.


As we can see, its no biggie. Not only US foes will have exorbitantly hard times finding those carriers in the middle of the sea, the other problems is to discriminate targets. Radars can't differentiate between a carrier or a VLCC tanker. Russia or even China would have to guess which one is the US carrier in the sea of commercial shipping. In fact the US could rig their own signal to mimic that of a commercial shipping.

So is sinking an aircraft carrier impossible? Not exactly, but whatever advance US foes comes with, its almost guaranteed that the US countermeasures will make those weaps dead on arrival (DOA) by the time its employed. People like to think that its only China and Russia that progresses while the US+NATO stagnate. While it's likely the reverse.

So yeah in the Ukraine context, those carriers will enter Russian A2/AD, and if they're ordered to do so, execute combat operations inside of those bubbles if need be. Its not like they need to enter those A2/AD bubbles when their Super Hornet range are sufficient and they employ stand off munitions. When it comes to conflict between NATO v Russia in Ukraine or everywhere else, air superiority is given and so does the transition from air superiority to air supremacy.
Thanks. A lot of great new information for me.

I am saying that it now takes two-three carriers, whereas before it took one carrier. But the carrier group is still by far the most powerful thing in the world. I personally think that a fully operational British carrier battle group could defeat the entire French air force and navy. So that's how powerful even smaller carriers, SSN's and escorts and aircraft are. My point with the Russians in the black sea and the Baltic is the choke points, which the Russians know the American ships must sail through, enabling them to fire down the alley and have a greater chance of overwhelming the defences. With subs, corvettes, air craft, heavier ships as well and missiles.

The British and I am sure the Americans too planned to hide carrier group in Norwegian fjords, with high cliffs on either side and behind them to make it so they could just defence one space in front of them and not be attacked from different directions and stop submarines as well. So the Americans could also use that again in a war with Russia and China to limit the angle of attack. Your point about finding the carriers and targeting them is good too, as the British lost all our transport helicopter in the Falklands for this reason.
 

blackjack

Contributor
Moderator
Russia Correspondent
Russia Moderator
Messages
1,398
Reactions
8 808
Nation of residence
United States of America
Nation of origin
Russia
1500+ jets are in Continental Europe already, do you know that the US had at least 2-3 carriers on patrol each year at one point on planet earth ?
This is why the U.S. and the west was acting paranoid about iskanders being above 500kms and had this treaty with Russia, destroy the air bases and nothing would be left and there are land versions of Zircons being made as well.

each of those supercarriers battle group could carry 90+ combat jets ready with its peacetime escorts of 3-4 destroyers and cruisers (each comes with 96-122 VLS) and could be ordered to sail in places that would increase the threat and complexity for Russia to continue for an attack.
A single Yasen class sub can hold 40 Zircons and for all we know those scramjets can have nuclear warheads so what costs more the carrier being sunk with 90 aircrafts or a single Zircon missile? I dont think anyone here has wishful thinking that CSGs have demonstrated any capabilities of intercepting scramjets. As of now the ship versions are being produced with these missiles while their are successful ongoing tests with zircons being fired from underwater hitting naval targets so those factors need to be included as well rather if you like it or not.

whatever defense its enemies prepared are 99.99999999% will already been mapped out, no matter if its the AD layers in Russia or China's supposed A2/AD in the Pacific

it took over 37000 NATO flights for just Serbia which they did manage to shoot down aircrafts without any long range air defenses but Russia has long range air defenses that are modern and the flights will be more limited than Serbia because all of NATOs air bases would be destroyed hence the west's paranoia that the russians are lying about their iskanders being below 500kms.

let's do some maths, the speed of which an aircraft carrier usually run is 30 knots or 55km/hr.

If the Vinson CSG currently on patrol in the SCS are deemed necessary to intimidate Russia in Vladivostok 3500km away , it would take around 63 hours or less than 3 days. If the Truman CSG now currently on the Mediterranean are ordered to sail into the Black sea they would've popped out tomorrow morning.

The versatility, flexibility and firepower of a modern CSG (and especially that of a US CSG) are something that no modern militaries have any answer to.
Besides yasen class subs targetting CSG groups, zircons can also be used for coastal systems that are to replace the Oniks missiles. So the results are all support of the U.S. giving assistance to NATO will be cut off....but before I go into any more details 1st does europe have anything equivalent to Iskander or Zircon? Because if its all just air to ground operation capabilities that is going to be alot worse on their end because the majority of Sukhois all seem to have pretty long ranges and aircrafts can be used later after Russia bombs the shit out NATOs air bases. I dont see any tank modernization programs along with artillery systems or howitzers that can outrange Russias either. Its going to be a massacre for Europe if their support is all cut off from reaching Europe and they have to go face the Russians and Chinese.
 

blackjack

Contributor
Moderator
Russia Correspondent
Russia Moderator
Messages
1,398
Reactions
8 808
Nation of residence
United States of America
Nation of origin
Russia
buzzfeednews.com/article/christopherm51/ukraine-cyberattack-russia-troops-border

Ukraine Was Hit By A Massive Cyberattack And The Hackers Warned The Country To “Be Afraid And Expect Worse”

KYIV – After days of unsuccessful negotiations between the US, NATO, and Russia, hackers took down dozens of Ukrainian government websites and posted an ominous warning on several for the country to “be afraid and expect worse.” The cyberattack occurred overnight on Thursday and Friday morning, and it took down more than a dozen official websites, disrupting government work and raising questions about whether Russia was signaling that a new offensive against Ukraine was getting underway. Oleh Nikolenko, a spokesperson for Ukraine’s foreign ministry, told BuzzFeed News that government specialists were working to restore the websites Friday morning and the Ukrainian Cyberpolice Department had opened a criminal investigation. “It’s too early to draw conclusions,” he said. "We are assessing the damage caused by the attack."
 

RogerRanger

Contributor
Messages
602
Reactions
444
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
United Kingdom
Besides yasen class subs targetting CSG groups, zircons can also be used for coastal systems that are to replace the Oniks missiles. So the results are all support of the U.S. giving assistance to NATO will be cut off....but before I go into any more details 1st does europe have anything equivalent to Iskander or Zircon? Because if its all just air to ground operation capabilities that is going to be alot worse on their end because the majority of Sukhois all seem to have pretty long ranges and aircrafts can be used later after Russia bombs the shit out NATOs air bases. I dont see any tank modernization programs along with artillery systems or howitzers that can outrange Russias either. Its going to be a massacre for Europe if their support is all cut off from reaching Europe and they have to go face the Russians and Chinese.
I can conform that the British have nothing comparing to the Russians in the area's your mentioned and won't have anything for at least 5-10 years.

Its amazing what the Russian military industry has achieved since the fall of the USSR. Britain struggles to build MBT's.
 

McCool

Contributor
Messages
685
Reactions
1,907
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
destroy the air bases and nothing would be left
this goes both way, the US alone have 4000+ Tomahawk cruise missile :LOL: , not only they could ground the VVS while taxiing , they'll also likely to destroy any supply depot that enables an invasion of Europe anyway.

A single Yasen class sub can hold 40 Zircons
  1. Ohio SSGN could hold 154 Tomahawk cruise missile
  2. as @AlphaMike has pretty much explains, targeting a moving object at sea is another different type of animal to begin with. A submarine for most of the time operate silently, that means 99.999999% of the time only their passive sonar are used, they could only listen on their surroundings while running very slow. An aircraft carrier otoh could run at 30 knots, and oh their ASW fleet would be hunting for those subs as well
  3. Respectable navies worldwide like the USN and the Royal Navy are very well versed in taking high speed guided projectiles, they have even created drones (target missile) just for that purpose. The MA-31 in particular are actually Russian KH-31 used as target drone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GQM-163_Coyote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MA-31
  4. The SM-6 deployed are confirmed to have anti-hypersonic warfare capabilities https://www.navyrecognition.com/ind...ile-able-to-shot-down-hypersonic-threats.html While at the same time be able to be used as anti ship hypersonic weapons. https://aviationweek.com/defense-sp...shows-sm-6-hypersonic-speed-anti-surface-role

A single Yasen class sub can hold 40 Zircons and for all we know those scramjets can have nuclear warheads

A Russian nuclear attack on USA WILL be responded with a nuclear attack on Russia, that goes with Zircon, Poseidon or whatever arsenal Putin have. Even at one time they protested US decision to use low yield nuclear missile, saying that any nuke attack (big or small) will result in nuclear answer too.


Beside, using your logic. It would be cheaper to stop a Russian aggression against NATO using a few hundred nuclear tipped tactical tomahawk cruise missile other than waging a full scale war in Europe.;)

I dont think anyone here has wishful thinking that CSGs have demonstrated any capabilities of intercepting scramjets. As of now the ship versions are being produced with these missiles while their are successful ongoing tests with zircons being fired from underwater hitting naval targets so those factors need to be included as well rather if you like it or not.

except they have. Not a scramjet but just as fast


it took over 37000 NATO flights for just Serbia which they did manage to shoot down aircrafts without any long range air defenses
this is a dumb arguments which results defeat the intended purpose. 37000 flight only 2 coalition jet shot down.

Iraq does operate Russian medium and long range SAM, does it help ?


the flights will be more limited than Serbia because all of NATOs air bases would be destroyed hence the west's paranoia that the russians are lying about their iskanders being below 500kms.
Here's the thing, since Serbia, Iraq , Libya defeats against US airpower in the 90s and 2000s. The US has pretty much evolved into a leaner, more muscular and deadly force. Russia for all its attempt at rebuilding are getting very far behind in terms of technology. Even China now does better. Simply put Russia had 10+ years of stagnation during that very same period.

When the Soviet Union collapses, not only their top of the line hardware from ex-Soviet states were distributed to the NATO victors, many of its professionals and experts ended up migrating to the US. Simply put, a brain drain.

Not only the military but the Soviet MIC was also smashed, sometimes beyond repair. While the US doesn't have such problems. For US foes around the world, the retirement of the highly successful F-117 could only be one thing: Prepare for an even worst outcome.

To this day, Russia and China don't even have an F-117 analogue, let alone a B-2 or the upcoming NGAD 6th gen jet and B-21 raider XLO bomber. Cheers.(y)

Besides yasen class subs targetting CSG groups, zircons can also be used for coastal systems that are to replace the Oniks missiles. So the results are all support of the U.S. giving assistance to NATO will be cut off....but before I go into any more details 1st does europe have anything equivalent to Iskander or Zircon?

I already explain in the above post. and @AlphaMike has just posted the vulnerability of the Russians against aircraft carriers. Simply put if its against NATO, not only those Sucky-27 will be going up against NATO high tech fighter jets (Rafale, Typhoon, F-35s) they'll also be spread thin by the presence of an attacking US carrier air wing. Remember Russia has less than 1/5th of NATO combat jets minus USA. And Because this thread is about Ukraine, I could already see where Russian fear stems from.

I dont see any tank modernization programs along with artillery systems or howitzers that can outrange Russias either. Its going to be a massacre for Europe if their support is all cut off from reaching Europe and they have to go face the Russians and Chinese.

PZH-2000 guns are already tested with 70km+ max range

while the Americans are testing the ERCA MK2 with even longer range than the already impressive ERCA MK1

Again, I repeat the US alone has around 4000+ Tomahawk cruise missile in it arsenal, this not yet include at the very least
  1. 50.000 GMLRS missile
  2. close to 3000+ JASSM (Baseline, ER and soon XR)
  3. Unknown number (possibly in the thousands) of SLAM-ER missile
  4. 3700+ ATACMS ballistic missile
  5. 30.000+ AGM-114 Hellfire produced since 1986
  6. 582 AGM-86 nuclear cruise missile
  7. GBU (GPS), Paveway (laser) bombs in the hundred of thousands
  8. 2000 JSOW standoff munitions (that's the numbers for 2005 btw) now could be much more than that.
and many more I've lost count.

While these projects are now en-route:
  1. Plan for 3986 PrSM
  2. LRASM
  3. LRSO stealth ALCM (replacement for the AGM-129 Advanced Cruise Missile) with excess of 2400km range
Those dreaded S-300/400 that you put your internet reputations on ? its already proven useless in Syria and Armenia. The US is investing on a very capable mass produced cruise missile intended to overwhelm those kinds of defence.


and NATO are kinda smart, they invest in what really matters in war namely realistic exercise, advanced electronics, C2 systems, EW, stealth fighters etc. Kindly want to remind you that Russia has not a single operational 5th gen jets, and no operational AESA radar on its fighters. So they start those non-sense that Su-35 are an F-35 analogue LOL.
 
Last edited:
T

Turko

Guest
Zelensky summed up Aliyev's visit to Ukraine


2701291.jpg


Presidents of Ukraine and Azerbaijan Vladimir Zelensky and Ilham Aliyev at the talks on Friday, January 14, discussed in detail plans for cooperation in trade, economic, fuel and energy, military-technical and other areas. This was announced by the Ukrainian leader in Telegram.

"I was glad to welcome a good friend in Kiev today - President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev. Our countries have historically had close and fruitful cooperation. <...> Today, Ukraine and Azerbaijan have begun a new stage of strategic and substantive partnership," Zelensky wrote.

At the same time, he noted the signing of the Joint Declaration, which recorded the readiness to implement specific projects in areas of mutual interest; intergovernmental agreement on cooperation in the field of food safety; memorandums of understanding on issues of urgent cooperation in bilateral trade, on cooperation in the agricultural sector, on expanding cooperation in the energy sector, on cooperation in the field of land relations and other documents.

The parties also agreed to double the volume of bilateral trade in the next two years, on mutual support for sovereignty and territorial integrity, ensuring peace and stability in the Black Sea-Caspian region and beyond, on intensifying cooperation in countering hybrid threats, strengthening cooperation in the defense industry.

"Ilham Aliyev and I agreed to hold a meeting of the Joint Intergovernmental Commission on Economic Cooperation in the first half of 2022. We are planning to hold a meeting of the Council of Presidents of Ukraine and Azerbaijan," the Ukrainian head of state added.
 
T

Turko

Guest

Turkey Could Lose Big in the Russia-Ukraine Standoff​

erdogan-putin-turkey-russia-meeting-GettyImages-1235573914.jpg

Conflict could topple Ankara’s delicate balancing act between NATO and Russia.​

By Jeffrey Mankoff, a distinguished research fellow at the U.S. National Defense University’s Institute for National Strategic Studies.

Russian President Vladimir Putin meets with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Sochi, Russia, on Sept. 29, 2021. VLADIMIR SMIRNOV/POOL/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES
JANUARY 13, 2022, 10:25 AM
The buildup of Russian forces on the Ukrainian border has sparked concern about possibly escalating the conflict in Ukraine’s east and prompted a flurry of diplomacy seeking to head off a renewed Russian offensive. Potential escalation between Moscow and Kyiv poses a serious challenge for NATO, which has long attempted to reassure Ukraine without provoking Russia.

Ukraine Border Crisis

How Russia, the United States, and Europe are preparing for the possibility of war.
MORE ON THIS TOPIC

This dilemma is particularly acute for Turkey, a regional power that has strained relations with many NATO allies. That’s partly a result of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s cultivation of Moscow but also because Erdogan has pursued a deeper political and military relationship with Ukraine that some allies view as highly provocative.
For now, Ankara appears to be betting that the crisis on Ukraine’s borders can be resolved diplomatically. Yet Russian officials perceive Ankara’s military-technical relationship with Kyiv and its involvement with the Crimean Tatar community as provocative gestures. And with Turkey’s economy teetering, Erdogan’s domestic popularity slipping, and standoffs between Turkish and Russian forces in theaters from North Africa to the South Caucasus, Turkey is among the current NATO members with the most to lose should the confrontation on Ukraine’s borders escalate.
Turkey’s dilemma is a consequence of its pursuit of greater strategic autonomy and influence across a wider region that encompasses the Balkans, the Arab Middle East, and the Caucasus. This pursuit has left it isolated from many NATO allies and locked in a complex pas de deux with Russia.

Mostly associated with Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party, Turkey’s aspiration to reshape the regional order emerged following the Soviet Union’s collapse, as Ankara positioned itself to be a partner and patron for its post-communist neighbors while pursuing mutually beneficial ties with Moscow. More recently, changing U.S. priorities, including reduced support for Middle East interventionism and growing attention to Asia, have further encouraged this shift.


Yet Turkey’s balancing act has become increasingly difficult as tensions between Russia and NATO have deepened. Ankara reacted strongly to Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea and invasion of eastern Ukraine’s Donbass region. Sympathy for the Muslim, Turkic-speaking Crimean Tatar community targeted by Russian occupation authorities was widespread in Turkey, home of a large Crimean Tatar diaspora. Moscow also took control of much of the Ukrainian Navy’s ships and port infrastructure when it seized Crimea, dramatically shifting the balance of power in the Black Sea, overturning the Turkish navy’s previous advantage.

In response, Turkey extended political and diplomatic support to Crimean Tatar groups, emphasizing it would not recognize the Russian annexation. It also boosted military-technical cooperation with Kyiv, notably through the sale of advanced armed drones the Ukrainians deployed against the Russian-backed separatists in Donbass.

Ukraine was not the only, or even the most significant, outlet for Ankara’s ambitions. Turkey intervened in the Syrian civil war, primarily to prevent Syrian Kurds from consolidating their authority along the border. In 2020, Turkish forces intervened in Libya to bolster the United Nations-recognized interim government (with which it also signed a controversial maritime boundary agreement in December 2019 to secure access to oil and gas in the Mediterranean Sea). Also in 2020, Turkish weapons and proxies proved instrumental in Azerbaijan’s successful offensive to regain Armenian-occupied territory in and around Nagorno-Karabakh. In each of these theaters, Turkish and Russian forces faced off, at times engaging in direct clashes.

Despite escalating regional rivalry, Turkey has also pursued a strategic rapprochement with Russia in recent years. The main drivers of this rapprochement are, first, frustration with U.S. support for the Syrian Democratic Forces, whose largest component are Kurdish fighters from an offshoot of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, and second, fallout from the Turkish military’s abortive 2016 coup attempt, which Erdogan blames on U.S.-based cleric Fethullah Gulen’s followers.

 

Bogeyman 

Experienced member
Professional
Messages
9,192
Reactions
67 31,255
Website
twitter.com
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey

Russia threatens military deployment to Cuba and Venezuela as diplomacy stalls​


Russia has refused to rule out a military deployment to Cuba and Venezuela if talks with the west on European security and Ukraine fail to go its way, while warning the latest discussions with Nato were hitting a dead end.

In an apparent attempt to up the ante with the Biden administration, Sergei Ryabkov, who led Russia’s delegation in a meeting with the US on Monday, told Russian television he could neither confirm nor exclude sending military assets to Cuba and Venezuela if talks fail. Asked about these steps, he said “it all depends on the actions by our US counterparts”.



Meanwhile another senior Russian diplomat threatened unspecified “necessary measures” if Moscow’s security demands were not met.

At the end of a week of diplomacy that appears to have produced no progress, the US national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, said US had intelligence Russia was preparing to fabricate claims of an imminent Ukrainian attack on Russian forces as a pretext for invasion.

“We saw this playbook in 2014. They are preparing this playbook again,” Sullivan said, and said that the administration would share more of the intelligence in the following 24 hours.

Sullivan said no dates had been set for any further talks but added: “We’re in communication with the Russians and we’ll see what comes next.”

Asked about Ryabkov’s suggestion of Russian deployments in Cuba or Venezuela, he would he would not respond to “bluster”.

Meanwhile the US defense secretary, Lloyd Austin, promised his Ukrainian counterpart, Oleksii Reznikov, continuing US provision of “defensive assistance” to help build the capacity of Ukraine’s armed forces.

Michael Carpenter, the US representative at the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), made clear that there had been no progress made in defusing tensions at Thursday’s meeting.

“The drumbeat of war is sounding loud, and the rhetoric has gotten rather shrill,” Carpenter told journalists afterwards.

Ukraine’s foreign minister, Dmytro Kuleba, said the OSCE talks had consolidated international support for Ukraine in the face of what he called “illegal ultimatums and military pressure from Russia”. He said the country’s western allies shared Ukraine’s position that it should be free to choose which security alliances it joined, including Nato.

“Ukraine will also continue to work actively with partners to implement a comprehensive package to deter Russia from a new wave of war in Europe, which has already begun,” he said, in a comment posted on his ministry’s website.

A volley of bleak statements from Russian senior officials emerged as Poland’s foreign minister, Zbigniew Rau, warned that Europe faced its greatest risk of war in 30 years.

Rau was addressing the 57 nations of the OSCE, an organisation that includes Russia, Ukraine, the United States and European nations. It was the third time this week Russia had discussed security with western countries.

The Polish minister, who has taken over the OSCE chair, told reporters he “cannot say a breakthrough is imminent” in discussions on European security, while pledging to launch a dialogue. “Some of the participating states believe that it’s enough to make a statement and not to participate in debate,” he said, without naming countries.

“It seems that the risk of war in the OSCE area is now greater than ever before in the last 30 years,” Rau had told delegates earlier. “For several weeks we have been faced with the prospect of a major military escalation in eastern Europe.”

Russia has mobilised 100,000 troops and placed military hardware along its border with Ukraine, while issuing a series of security demands that Nato has said are impossible to meet, such as removing troops from eastern members of the alliance and a block on any membership application from Kyiv.

Ryabkov said discussions were hitting a dead end. “I do not see any reason to sit down again in the coming days, to gather again and start these same discussions,” he was quoted as saying by the Interfax news agency.

“We propose to go step by step through the text, to work on it in order to bring it to a stage where it would be ready to sign. This is impossible today, because on the key elements of these texts, the United States and its allies say categorically ‘no’.”

Carpenter reaffirmed US readiness to continue a dialogue but added “we are not going to renegotiate core principles”, listing the 1975 Helsinki Accords, the UN Charter and the 1990 Paris Charter, which affirmed the right of sovereign states to make their own decisions about their security, free from the threat of force, and guaranteed the inviolability of borders. “Those are sacrosanct. Those are our bedrock,” Carpenter said. He said he did not know if there were plans to put the US position in writing, as the Russians were demanding.

“We’re happy to talk about conflict resolution mechanisms, happy to talk about reciprocal restraint and risk reduction and confidence building, military transparency, all of those things are on the table,” Carpenter said, welcoming a Polish initiative to establish a more regular dialogue among the OSCE’s 57 members to discuss mutual security concerns.

Russian officials focused on the agreements that Moscow drafted in December and demanded a response. The country’s mission to the OSCE threatened Moscow would take “necessary measures” if the west did not respond to Russian demands. “If we don’t hear constructive response to our proposals within reasonable timeframe & aggressive behaviour towards [Russia] continues, we’ll have to take necessary measures to ensure strategic balance and eliminate unacceptable threats to our national security,” Russia’s mission to the OSCE wrote on Twitter, citing its ambassador to the OSCE, Alexander Lukashevich.

The Russian OSCE mission also warned that “a crisis on the continent may arise with unpredictable consequences for European security”.

In Kyiv, Pavlo Klimkin, Kuleba’s predecessor as Ukrainian foreign minister, said this week’s talks with the Kremlin in Geneva, Brussels and Vienna had “eased tensions”. But he said the risk of a military or “other provocation” by Moscow remained extremely high, “especially in late winter or early spring”.

“As the talks continue, the threat of immediate escalation, at least the degree of tension, has decreased. This does not mean that the danger has become much less. It has become less, but it persists,” Klimkin told the news agency Interfax-Ukraine.

Klimkin predicted that Vladimir Putin was more likely to attack Ukraine using “hybrid methods” than stage a full-blown military invasion.

“Blitzkrieg against Ukraine is impossible. They understand that more than a third of our people are ready to hold weapons, and when there is danger for the country, I am sure there will be even more.” He said Putin wanted to turn back the clock and make central and eastern Europe a zone of Russian influence and domination again, as it was in Soviet times.

“This is by definition pure insanity … Russia’s real goal is the destruction of Ukrainian statehood. Our very existence hinders Putin’s model of vertical governance,” Klimkin said.

In Moscow, the Kremlin spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said there could be a complete rupture in US-Russian relations if proposed sanctions targeting the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, and other top civilian and military leaders were adopted. Senate Democrats have also proposed targeting leading Russian financial institutions if Moscow sends troops into Ukraine.

The EU is also drawing up possible sanctions, although has declined to reveal details.

Last month Ryabkov compared the current tensions over Ukraine with the 1962 Cuban missile crisis — when the Soviet Union deployed missiles to Cuba and the US imposed a naval blockade of the island. That crisis ended after John F Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev agreed Moscow would withdraw its missiles in exchange for Washington’s pledge not to invade Cuba and the removal of US missiles from Turkey.
 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
8,361
Reactions
22 12,853
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
I am saying that it now takes two-three carriers, whereas before it took one carrier.
When DS '91 kicked in, the US employed at least 6 aircraft carriers against an enemy that only has speed boats and land based anti-ship missile.

Is that somewhat meant that the US is so inefficient that they require to have 6 supercarriers deployed against riverine navy like that of Iraq's ?

A war against neer peer enemy such as Russia and China would not only required the presence of almost an entire US available CSG's but pretty much the entire US and allied military assets.

Could the US defeat its foe without Carriers? Prolly. But why would they do so when an increase in assets meant a more punishing blow and decrease in friendly fatalities.
 
T

Turko

Guest

The Russian Army Doesn’t Have Enough Trucks To Defeat Ukraine Fast​



0x0.jpg

The Kremlin has used trains—hundreds of them with many thousands of cars, in total—to stage along the Russia-Ukraine border weapons, vehicles and supplies for an army of around 100,000 troops.

If Russian President Vladimir Putin pulls the proverbial trigger and orders that army to roll west into Ukraine’s restive Donbas region, those same trains will haul supplies to forward depots and haul away from the war zone any damaged vehicles in need of deep repair.

That dependency comes with risk that, more than any tank-on-tank or artillery-on-artillery match-up, could define a wider war in eastern Ukraine. Trains can’t roll all the way to the front line. For that, Russia needs trucks. But it’s woefully short.

Russia is vast and its roads are poor compared to roads in Western countries. That helps to explain why the country, and its army, leans so heavily on rail for logistics. State-owned Russian Railways owns 20,000 of the country’s 21,000 locomotives. Private firms own most of the roughly 1.2 million freight cars, including 66,000 flat cars for hauling vehicles.

Those 66,000 cars, handled by unique army railway troop brigades, are “more than enough to transport the equipment of the entire Russian ground force units,” according to Konrad Muzyka, an analyst for Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.

But railheads aren’t always close to the front line. To reach battalions rolling west toward Kiev, supplies must travel scores or hundreds of miles by road.

That’s where the Russian army’s logistics are weakest. “The Russian army does not have enough trucks to meet its logistic requirement more than 90 miles beyond supply dumps,” U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Alex Vershinin wrote at War on the Rocks.

The Russian army has 10 “material-technical support” brigades. Each operates around 400 trucks. Even if every support brigade mobilized and all of their vehicles remained operational throughout a campaign, the available trucks wouldn’t stretch very far, Vershinin explained.

“Although each army is different, there are usually 56 to 90 multiple launch rocket system launchers in an army,” he noted. “Replenishing each launcher takes up the entire bed of [a] truck. If the combined arms army fired a single volley, it would require 56 to 90 trucks just to replenish rocket ammunition.”

“That is about a half of a dry cargo truck force in the material-technical support brigade just to replace one volley of rockets. There is also between six to nine tube artillery battalions, nine air-defense artillery battalions, 12 mechanized and recon battalions, three to five tank battalions, mortars, anti-tank missiles and small-arms ammunition—not to mention, food, engineering, medical supplies and so on.”

The Kremlin can supplement the army’s trucks with helicopters and civilian vehicles. But that’s just tinkering around the margins of an enormous logistical problem. All that is to say, trucks—more than tanks or artillery—could dictate the pace and extent of a deeper Russian invasion of Ukraine.

That truism should also inform the Ukrainian army’s own thinking. As Ukrainian gunners select targets for their tube artillery and rockets, they should always prioritize the seemingly most boring targets. The trucks the Russians can’t fight without.
 

blackjack

Contributor
Moderator
Russia Correspondent
Russia Moderator
Messages
1,398
Reactions
8 808
Nation of residence
United States of America
Nation of origin
Russia
this goes both way, the US alone have 4000+ Tomahawk cruise missile :LOL: , not only they could ground the VVS while taxiing , they'll also likely to destroy any supply depot that enables an invasion of Europe anyway.
but what good are those tomahawks if they cant reach being anywhere close to europe? even the latest kaliber missiles have a longer range than tomahawks where the carriers of these missiles will be the ones being targetted 1st?

  1. Ohio SSGN could hold 154 Tomahawk cruise missile
  2. as @AlphaMike has pretty much explains, targeting a moving object at sea is another different type of animal to begin with. A submarine for most of the time operate silently, that means 99.999999% of the time only their passive sonar are used, they could only listen on their surroundings while running very slow. An aircraft carrier otoh could run at 30 knots, and oh their ASW fleet would be hunting for those subs as well
  3. Respectable navies worldwide like the USN and the Royal Navy are very well versed in taking high speed guided projectiles, they have even created drones (target missile) just for that purpose. The MA-31 in particular are actually Russian KH-31 used as target drone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GQM-163_Coyote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MA-31
  4. The SM-6 deployed are confirmed to have anti-hypersonic warfare capabilities https://www.navyrecognition.com/ind...ile-able-to-shot-down-hypersonic-threats.html While at the same time be able to be used as anti ship hypersonic weapons. https://aviationweek.com/defense-sp...shows-sm-6-hypersonic-speed-anti-surface-role
1. I think we might derail this thread if i bring up the 70 out of 103 tomahawks intercepted along US claiming none arguement in syria, but if the U.S. is still reliant on tomahawks than its going to be easier interceptions with better short range air defense systems than pantsirs used in syria that will also be integrated in their long range air defense systems like s-400s which the syrians themselves dont operate.

2. in the old days this was correct but satellite footprints and the radar homing range of missiles carry host radars with a 50km range and get updated with satellite information, you can go jam the missile if you as your next arguement but dual homing is a common feature to have with modern missiles where the missile will be gladly like HARM missile towards where the ship is, https://iz.ru/1040269/anton-lavrov-...ketnye-kompleksy-zashchitiat-poberezhe-rossii
"To aim at the target, these OTRK use an inertial navigation system, as well as a signal from GLONASS satellites. In the final section of the trajectory, a smart optical homing head is activated, which provides accuracy of a few meters. The missile can be redirected already in flight, which allows it to attack even mobile targets, such as ships."

3. dont tell me your actually comparing ramjet missiles to scramjet missiles lol. But for the fun of it anyways https://www.russiadefence.net/t561p125-p-800-oniks-and-brahmos?highlight=onyx these missiles are getting their ranges increased to 800kms with mach 5 speeds. the coyote missile as what I am seeing on wiki shows 84kms as its range and I am seeing 52,000 feet for flight ceiling however if it was to just go mach 2.6 for its entire cruise phase it would have to climb 1800feet. If I was to put it in simple terms http://www.npomash.ru/activities/en/missile4.htm the coyote is still an easier target to intercept than an export yakhont missile because seeing a missile climb at 84 kilometers very close to you can easily send a missile fast enough in time to intercept it before it descends because its so fucking close. I wouldnt even try to make a bet on a 800km range mach 5 ramjet missiles being easier to deal with.

4. ironically there are different articles that say they would rather use the SM-6 as a last resort against other ships. Payloads used for interceptions are completely different than payloads that are used for the air to ship targets. For example I think Turkey would rather use the S-400 SAMs for aircrafts than rather using them against tanks or enemy fortifications. I am aware of all the SM missile variants but none have intercepted scramjets before and I already take it that it might take the U.S. navy a long time to get a scramjet missile in service and if they did than they can plan mock interception tests of how they would do against scramjets. there are ballistic missile interceptions but i have never heard of scramjet interceptions from the U.S.

A Russian nuclear attack on USA WILL be responded with a nuclear attack on Russia, that goes with Zircon, Poseidon or whatever arsenal Putin have. Even at one time they protested US decision to use low yield nuclear missile, saying that any nuke attack (big or small) will result in nuclear answer too.
Yes and vice versa I am sure the pentagon cares about their rich white kids and themselves from getting hit by zircons with subs larping on their coasts because if they attack Russia than of course Russia will attack their country next. So this comes down to who does not give a fuck the most and I know which country is proud of that the most. Thats why I dont even think they are willing to risk their lives for a 3rd world shithole, hell there will even be major protests more worse in the U.S. than some white cop suffocating a black meth addict with his knee.

Beside, using your logic. It would be cheaper to stop a Russian aggression against NATO using a few hundred nuclear tipped tactical tomahawk cruise missile other than waging a full scale war in Europe.;)

I have seen few buildings destroyed but buildings might not be used as obstructions making pantsirs see them better to offer better performance than a 70/103 record of interceptions and also the fact that they have better short range air defenses that can be integrated and slaved to long range radars. AFAIK I dont think the U.S. has any scramjets let alone ramjet missiles but subsonic tomahawks. its like a small sword trying to strike a giant shield.

except they have. Not a scramjet but just as fast
oh my god your seriously comparing the coyote now to a scramjet while I just recently explained that the missile is a shit example because of how close it was launched to make it easier to intercept than a soviet ramjet missile let along their new version of Oniks as well.
I already explain in the above post. and @AlphaMike has just posted the vulnerability of the Russians against aircraft carriers. Simply put if its against NATO, not only those Sucky-27 will be going up against NATO high tech fighter jets (Rafale, Typhoon, F-35s) they'll also be spread thin by the presence of an attacking US carrier air wing. Remember Russia has less than 1/5th of NATO combat jets minus USA. And Because this thread is about Ukraine, I could already see where Russian fear stems from.
the punchline is if Serbs all had 1000km range missiles NATO would have to have a different approach. it will take more than 37,000 flights but we will never be near this number because all of NATOs air bases would be destroyed in which europe will have to rely next on artillery and ground forces which they have no chance in hell bumping heads with Russia on this. Carriers will be wiped out before they can offer support for europe so your going to have deduct aircrafts or missiles from U.S. and focus on Euope itself.
PZH-2000 guns are already tested with 70km+ max range
while the Americans are testing the ERCA MK2 with even longer range than the already impressive ERCA MK1

New interspecific artillery complex "Coalition-SV" during the tests confirmed the possibility of firing at a greater range. This was reported by Interfax, citing an informed source.

“Goals can be hit at ranges up to 80 km,” he said.


In case you want to bring up 150km nammos ramjet shells,

http://opp.gp-media.ru/images/nomera/OPP_4-19.pdf pg8-9

"Currently, the Armed the forces of the Russian Federation have some artillery systems whose shells, when shooting at maximum range, reach great heights. Of the flight trajectory can be found in the upper layers of the stratosphere where the air is very tenuous and its resistance is minimal. This factor has a positive effect on the range. With such systems, the shells of which overlook the stratospheric heights today are Coalition-SV AND 2c7m Malka. According to domestic and foreign experts, it is planned to within three years to complete the development of long-range high-precision artillery ammunition (DVAB) with a range of up to 170 km."

I know there wont be a point for me to bother what ranges the erca mk2 has.

Again, I repeat the US alone has around 4000+ Tomahawk cruise missile in it arsenal, this not yet include at the very least
  1. 50.000 GMLRS missile
  2. close to 3000+ JASSM (Baseline, ER and soon XR)
  3. Unknown number (possibly in the thousands) of SLAM-ER missile
  4. 3700+ ATACMS ballistic missile
  5. 30.000+ AGM-114 Hellfire produced since 1986
  6. 582 AGM-86 nuclear cruise missile
  7. GBU (GPS), Paveway (laser) bombs in the hundred of thousands
  8. 2000 JSOW standoff munitions (that's the numbers for 2005 btw) now could be much more than that.
and many more I've lost count.
1. pointless Russia has longer range MRLS systems than this meaning these systems and what makes it funnier is that the howitzers i listed have a longer range than what I am seeing there such as M270. RTut-bm if worst comes to worst can make rocket shells explode before hitting troops because of Russia's EW capabilities but there is no point because their rocket shells would be hitting artillery locations before getting hit back.

2. pointless as well these have to be air launched but whats the point if all air bases are destroyed? or that they get intercepted and before aircrafts try to refill their missiles there will be no air bases left to refuel them.

3. see point 2.

4. iskanders have longer ranges than this. sort of like back to point 1.

5. helicopters have to carry and shoot these and to make matters even more funny, pantsirs have longer range SAMs than helicopters have air to ground missiles. If you find this impressive you will be even more impressed by the latest Ka-52 or mi-28s.

6. if were playing that game kalibrs can be nuclear equipped as well, there are 4,500km range versions of them which i think the U.S. tomahawk or these missiles even have. in other words NATO has to get close to the heart of russia while for russia it is not a problem striking them before they get hit.

7. bombs are short range that doing this against long range air defense systems will be retarded and we already know that NATO aircrafts will have only a one way trip and it wont be like the kosovo war they can fly multipile times.

8. refer back to point 2.

While these projects are now en-route:
  1. Plan for 3986 PrSM
  2. LRASM
  3. LRSO stealth ALCM (replacement for the AGM-129 Advanced Cruise Missile) with excess of 2400km range

wont change the disadvantage of range against Zircons or burevestnik missiles that have unlimitied range. Russia is a pretty big country and to do serious damage you would have to have artillery systems and missiles get as close to them as possible and that is going to be a pain if your missiles are getting along with your artillery systems because their systems are placed further away while they can still hit you.

Those dreaded S-300/400 that you put your internet reputations on ? its already proven useless in Syria and Armenia. The US is investing on a very capable mass produced cruise missile intended to overwhelm those kinds of defence.

Oh no not your dreaded comparisons again. Armenia used S-300 systems that were made from 1978 and are in fact the lowest in capabilities among the S-300 family tree, bravo for the pride taken of that getting destroyed. And S-400s are only used if their soldiers are targetted in Syria so this forum which of course is filled with turkish users have to ask themselves why they have to get another S-400 batch ordered if its in fact such a useless system which completeky contradicts their shit talk on Russian air defense systems

To this day, Russia and China don't even have an F-117 analogue, let alone a B-2 or the upcoming NGAD 6th gen jet and B-21 raider XLO bomber. Cheers.(y)
To this day there is no operational X-47B, neuron or bae taranis because the west is just too advanced to put them in service or give production dates, most of the stealth technology you take pride in couldnt have been done by PTD treatement which skunkworks had to achieve by using a soviet mathmatecians formula. In case you have not noticed their is a PAK-DA project which I think is pointless because of the Su-70 and there is some news source about the 2nd armement program in 2024 with regards to a 6th gen project like mig-41 but I wont get my hopes up on NGAD because it can pretty share the same shit the TFX or 2nd variant Su-57 might have.

and NATO are kinda smart, they invest in what really matters in war namely realistic exercise, advanced electronics, C2 systems, EW, stealth fighters etc. Kindly want to remind you that Russia has not a single operational 5th gen jets, and no operational AESA radar on its fighters. So they start those non-sense that Su-35 are an F-35 analogue LOL.
The F-35s to this day are still plagued with problems like the south korea incident and its always avionics related problems. they have land EW systems that are strong enough to jam aircraft radars but its too early to imply that using EW systems is all it takes to make F-35s crash or conduct emergency landings.
 

McCool

Contributor
Messages
685
Reactions
1,907
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
I'm not trying to derail this thread much further so I'll put the Ukraine equation as much as possible
but what good are those tomahawks if they cant reach being anywhere close to europe?
Pretty much most of Europe are US aligned, here are illustrations on the possible vector of attack. Tomahawk has around 2500km+ range. And those waters are NATO controlled

Screenshot (524).png

Screenshot (525).png

Screenshot (526).png


where the carriers of these missiles will be the ones being targetted 1st?

those tomahawks are carried by US Navy DDG and SSGN (a moving object at sea and below), pretty much they could hit fixed targets in Russia, while it will be hard next to impossible for Russia to find those ships underwater and in the busy marine traffic let alone hit it.
adding Ukraine into the mix would present Russia with an even larger headache, as there will be little to no time for Russia to be prepared.

Screenshot (528).png


1. I think we might derail this thread if i bring up the 70 out of 103 tomahawks intercepted

claimed by Russian MoD, the same one who uses video games as proof of combat footage.:ROFLMAO:

OTOH:

AlShayrat.png


like s-400s which the syrians themselves dont operate.
which didn't work in Syria.

in the old days this was correct but satellite footprints and the radar homing range of missiles carry host radars with a 50km range and get updated with satellite information, you can go jam the missile if you
That would be useless especially if the intended target could move.
as your next arguement but dual homing is a common feature to have with modern missiles where the missile will be gladly like HARM missile towards where the ship is,
For that to happen, the target ship would have to turn on their radars. But hey recently the USN did this.


read this:
Perhaps more interesting, these features enabled the team of manned and unmanned assets, which included space-based sensors, to spot the mock enemy vessel and then provide targeting information to the John Finn without using any active sensors.

3. dont tell me your actually comparing ramjet missiles to scramjet missiles lol. But for the fun of it anyways https://www.russiadefence.net/t561p125-p-800-oniks-and-brahmos?highlight=onyx these missiles are getting their ranges increased to 800kms with mach 5 speeds. the coyote missile as what I am seeing on wiki shows 84kms as its range and I am seeing 52,000 feet for flight ceiling however if it was to just go mach 2.6 for its entire cruise phase it would have to climb 1800feet. If I was to put it in simple terms http://www.npomash.ru/activities/en/missile4.htm the coyote is still an easier target to intercept than an export yakhont missile because seeing a missile climb at 84 kilometers very close to you can easily send a missile fast enough in time to intercept it before it descends because its so fucking close. I wouldnt even try to make a bet on a 800km range mach 5 ramjet missiles being easier to deal with.

You're taking too much time looking at propulsion methods, for an attack to be successful against a US navy CSG you will need to go bypass this.

29761493042_f518192055_b-1024x580.jpg


oh no no, this is just for PR purpose. This is how they will array their ships in actual military ops. its actually like this (credit to gambit)

YA5FKu1.jpg


we're talking about escorts as well as AWACS in the hundreds of sqm^2 defending those carriers. Those missiles will likley be detected long enough by AWACS and shot down by fighters and destroyers before even coming close. CIC capability which the USN possess will ensure the shooter projectiles (SM missile) will be guided beyond horizons by the sensors (AWACS)

The next question is what Russian assets could move so far away at sea and try its luck against a US CSG ? certainly not the Russian navy and even more so not the Russian air force. Because you'll eventually need to leave shores to go and find one at sea.

the punchline is if Serbs all had 1000km range missiles NATO would have to have a different approach. it will take more than 37,000 flights but we will never be near this number because all of NATOs air bases would be destroyed in which europe will have to rely next on artillery and ground forces which they have no chance in hell bumping heads with Russia on this. Carriers will be wiped out before they can offer support for europe so your going to have deduct aircrafts or missiles from U.S. and focus on Euope itself.

Right, here's the thing. Missiles are what we call a disposable weapons. It's basically a one way tools used by the military to hit targets. The problem with this is because you could only uses each missile ONCE, and you would have to think very careful on when, where and how much you would use those particular tools.

When it comes to ballistic missile with 99999999999999km range, the generals who decide when and where to use this will be face with 2 consideration:
  1. Missiles as tactical reserves
  2. Missiles as strategic reserves
lets say you have X numbers of ballistic missiles. You will have to spare n numbers for tactical reserve if the tactical requirements suddenly appears and N numbers of those missiles as strategic reserves just in case wars are prolonged.

Russia is bordered by China, EU, Ukraine and increasingly contesting the Arctic possession with Denmark, Canada and the US. This situation will force Russia to save it's missiles for contingency with other countries not yet at war with Russia. Which makes whatever missile Russia launched to attempt wiping out NATO airbase in Europe to be limited.

There are hundreds of NATO airbase in continental Europe, major and minor. Not to mention ones in Turkey.

The other problems is if Russia could achieve surprise with those missiles. Iskander tactical ballistic missile are truck based and has a lot of footprint. It would not escape the constant watch of NATO constant ISR flying near Russian borders everyday. Heck even some kids with tiktok could jeopardize the OPSEC of those Iskander battery deployments.

If NATO commanders see the threat are real enough based on intelligence and an attack are imminent, they could issue alert5, which means all available jets airborne within 5 minutes. There no way Iskander could hit those jets mid-air.😁(y)

On the other hand, this is what US B-2 bombers flying from CONUS could do to an airfield.

download.png


Precision attack. In April 1999, a single B-2 achieved six accurately placed GBU-31 JDAM hits against six runway-taxiway intersections at the Obvra military airfield in Serbia, precluding operations by enemy fighters until repairs could be completed. This post-strike image graphically shows the B-2’s ability with JDAM to achieve the effects of mass without having to mass, regardless of weather.

see the red bolded part, that's what a single B-2 could do. And unlike a missile battery, the intended target could only guess when those B-2s will fly and when will the payload eventually hits them.
 

500

Contributor
Moderator
Think Tank Analyst
Israel Moderator
Messages
808
Solutions
1
Reactions
11 2,974
Nation of residence
Israel
Nation of origin
Israel
I still think Russia is bluffing. There is nothing they can earn from the invasion. Plus direct invasion is not Putin's style. He likes "hybrid" warfare.
 
T

Turko

Guest
Former President of Ukraine Poroshenko- who was unfairly investigated a and whose property/assests were suddenly arrested a month ago- stated that He will turn back to Ukraine on 17th February in order not to defend himself , he will come to defend his homeland.

Poroshenko sincerely fought against agression and brought democracy into country. Putin must be liking current Mr.President much more than Poroshenko.

It seems the war is closer. I wish it not to happen.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ravenman

Contributor
Messages
759
Reactions
1 1,528
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
I dont understand why the Ukrainian Air Force doesnt bomb the shit out of the Donbass. Its not Russia's problem when a X state bombs their own insurgents and terrorists.

This is Ukraines biggest fault. They should have acted a long time ago and told Putin to mind his own business.

If Turkey bombs the PKK in east Turkey, will Russia invade Turkey?
 

blackjack

Contributor
Moderator
Russia Correspondent
Russia Moderator
Messages
1,398
Reactions
8 808
Nation of residence
United States of America
Nation of origin
Russia
I'm not trying to derail this thread much further so I'll put the Ukraine equation as much as possible
its cool bro I tend to get banned on different military forums this one is treating my alright so far.

Pretty much most of Europe are US aligned, here are illustrations on the possible vector of attack. Tomahawk has around 2500km+ range. And those waters are NATO controlled

I have no idea how many Naval ships there are in Europe how many there are in the U.S., how many there are in North Korea, how many there are near Iran or how many there are near China. The ranges of the tomahawk on google search tell me 2,400kms. but seeing the performance of syrians using soviet short range air defenses and having mountains and cities to make it easier to strike buildings, the short range air defenses slaved to long range air defense systems Russia has along a big open field will make tomahawks easier targets. The small damage done to Syria makes me giggle.

those tomahawks are carried by US Navy DDG and SSGN (a moving object at sea and below), pretty much they could hit fixed targets in Russia, while it will be hard next to impossible for Russia to find those ships underwater and in the busy marine traffic let alone hit it.
adding Ukraine into the mix would present Russia with an even larger headache, as there will be little to no time for Russia to be prepared.
impossible for Russia to find submarines you say.... You know what makes Russia really special from any country in the world? the answer is new ideas that completely change warfare from photonic radars to scramjets to this. http://www.hisutton.com/Analysis -Russia seeks submarine advantage in Arctic.html the U.S. has a SONAR array system called SOSUS but what sucks is that it needs to be powered by cables from shoreline. the Beauty of the HARMONY system states it has hundreds of kilometers in detection and can be placed anywhere out in the ocean without any coastal cables because it is attached to a nuclear reactor system. AFAIK know there are no torpedoes that outrange Russias Futlyar torpedoes like that howitzer example i provided and they have a missile to sea torpedo with a 100km ranges they can give to their ships. Belgorod is used for special covert missions like placing these things anywhere and is already in operation as we speak. They might be militarizing the Arctic but I am sure they are quite about placing these near europe and nothing sucks more if there is a element of surprise happening in war.

claimed by Russian MoD, the same one who uses video games as proof of combat footage.:ROFLMAO:

OTOH:
real life is a video game? I am assuming a bunch of users here can speak arabic and can translate

https://www.russiadefence.net/t7187p975-syrian-war-news-17 https://www.russiadefence.net/t7251-syrian-war-news-17 I know all these users are being assholes to your favorite subsonic tomahawks and would not get along with users here if they started accounts here but there are pictures of how small the damage was and that all 103 tomahawks hitting was bullshit because a certain building would have been completely leveled to the ground but that was not the case at all.

which didn't work in Syria.
unless you target russian soldiers it will;)

That would be useless especially if the intended target could move.
hate to burst your bubble but that source clearly stated they were hitting moving naval targets and believe ir or not there are even sources that the latest tomahawks or kalibers can hit mobile ships as well. I guess get with the times grandpa :ROFLMAO:?

For that to happen, the target ship would have to turn on their radars. But hey recently the USN did this.
the 50km range host radars on these missiles is enough to target huge ships what i am saying is ships using EW would not help,

read this:
Perhaps more interesting, these features enabled the team of manned and unmanned assets, which included space-based sensors, to spot the mock enemy vessel and then provide targeting information to the John Finn without using any active sensors.

thats what it can do but nothing about ships intercepting scramjets and not to be smartass the U.S. has to be atleast capable of producing and fielding scramjet missiles in order to see if there systems are capable of intercepting such missiles because not only is it a hypersonic low flying missile but speeds and altitude of cruise travel creates a plasma shield with a reduced radar cross section. making it harder on radar to track. I am still trying to take you a little bit serious because you thought a close range low speed ramjet missiles is the same as a long range scramjet.

You're taking too much time looking at propulsion methods, for an attack to be successful against a US navy CSG you will need to go bypass this.
oh no no, this is just for PR purpose. This is how they will array their ships in actual military ops. its actually like this (credit to gambit)
let me count I see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,11 and 12 ships, now there happens to be a yasen class submarine like 1000kms away from these ships as these ships are heading to Europe. that submarine launches 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 zircons to each ship and each ship sinks to the ground but that single Yasen class submarines feels lonley because it wants to fire its missiles at other 28 ships. Also I think Russia is producing more than 1 yasen class sub if I remember correctly.
we're talking about escorts as well as AWACS in the hundreds of sqm^2 defending those carriers. Those missiles will likley be detected long enough by AWACS and shot down by fighters and destroyers before even coming close. CIC capability which the USN possess will ensure the shooter projectiles (SM missile) will be guided beyond horizons by the sensors (AWACS)

The next question is what Russian assets could move so far away at sea and try its luck against a US CSG ? certainly not the Russian navy and even more so not the Russian air force. Because you'll eventually need to leave shores to go and find one at sea.
aircrafts fly and aircrafts return hard to find anything underwater and you must know where to launch those sonobouys instead of taking lucky guess out in the big sea where the submarines can be right? Even if for shits and giggles than AWACS goes find one not submerged(has the option of firing underwater) I think those zircons will get to those 12 ships 1st before those tomahawks are able to hit the submarine and that is assuming the submarines doesnt submerge itself to go disappear again. The pilot on the AWACS is going to have to find a place to go land or at sea sending a distress signal to see if there are any other ships to go pick the pilot and the punchline of that joke is that is if there are any ships available.

Right, here's the thing. Missiles are what we call a disposable weapons. It's basically a one way tools used by the military to hit targets. The problem with this is because you could only uses each missile ONCE, and you would have to think very careful on when, where and how much you would use those particular tools.

When it comes to ballistic missile with 99999999999999km range, the generals who decide when and where to use this will be face with 2 consideration:
  1. Missiles as tactical reserves
  2. Missiles as strategic reserves
lets say you have X numbers of ballistic missiles. You will have to spare n numbers for tactical reserve if the tactical requirements suddenly appears and N numbers of those missiles as strategic reserves just in case wars are prolonged.

Russia is bordered by China, EU, Ukraine and increasingly contesting the Arctic possession with Denmark, Canada and the US. This situation will force Russia to save it's missiles for contingency with other countries not yet at war with Russia. Which makes whatever missile Russia launched to attempt wiping out NATO airbase in Europe to be limited.

There are hundreds of NATO airbase in continental Europe, major and minor. Not to mention ones in Turkey.

The other problems is if Russia could achieve surprise with those missiles. Iskander tactical ballistic missile are truck based and has a lot of footprint. It would not escape the constant watch of NATO constant ISR flying near Russian borders everyday. Heck even some kids with tiktok could jeopardize the OPSEC of those Iskander battery deployments.

If NATO commanders see the threat are real enough based on intelligence and an attack are imminent, they could issue alert5, which means all available jets airborne within 5 minutes. There no way Iskander could hit those jets mid-air.😁(y)

On the other hand, this is what US B-2 bombers flying from CONUS could do to an airfield.
missiles are disposable and the ships and aircrafts being hit by them are also disposable, I am just saying that it is cheaper to mass produce long range missiles than it is to go mass produce ships or aircrafts. Air bases are not mobile meaning iskanders does not have to him them but hit them when they are on the ground with no fuel or ammunition. land zircons missiles so far are estimated to travel 1,500kms on land and that is how far most combat aircrafts travel for their combat radiuses, once they are destroyed Russia can mobilize its battalions of s-400, s-500,s-550, s-350, s-300 systems and mobilize the missiles as well to keep getting closer to europe creating a domino effect. 100s of zircons be it on land or water seem more cheaper than 100s of air bases that have a bunch of aircrafts.
 

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom