Especially when Ukraine remove Russia from their naval base there.
Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar
- Thread starter areksnumbr1sxylady
- Start date
- Status
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,718
I would imagine any defence we do have in place, it could be easily saturated by a large enough strike, seems our largest defence is the threat of striking back, but that defence only works if the people wanting to strike us first are not insane
It’s not something we can really find answers for. No information is going to be available about this beyond speculation.
I would imagine any defence we do have in place, it could be easily saturated by a large enough strike, seems our largest defence is the threat of striking back, but that defence only works if the people wanting to strike us first are not insane
HMS Lancaster and HMS Dragon trialled software/sensor upgrades which can track and provide firing solutions against these kind of targets but AFAIK the missile hardware isn't implemented yet. The Type 45s have limited ability to do it as is but only in specific circumstances.
The UK has very limited ability to do it, at least based on any information public, while the US does have some capability but only enough against a limited strike. The actual state of Russia's ABM capabilities is anyone's guess but their most recent developments on that front are not widely rolled out and by all reports struggle with scaling up meaning they'd use a lot of defensive missiles against the same target - they are also highly dependant on Western sourced electronics which have been cut off so probably can't produce many more of the platform.
According to those who've been tracking Russian missile use in this war so far they have about a 65-70% probability of working as intended and that likely extends to their nuclear weapons as well.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,718
The only really effective defence we could possibly have to avoid the issue of units needing to reload before shooting again would be laser based systems, but I would imagine they're either too few or still too much in development to be widely used
I'm not sure what either side would get from negotiations right now. Ukraine won't stop until it's reclaimed all it's territory, especially right now while it's on a roll. That's the end of the discussion really and it's not their fault. Russia invaded them.
Had it not been for the nuclear element then things might be different. Ukraine could push beyond their borders in certain areas and capture Russian land. Now you've got something to discuss.
I think the pucker factor goes up exponentially when Ukraine manage to get within sight of Crimea.
Had it not been for the nuclear element then things might be different. Ukraine could push beyond their borders in certain areas and capture Russian land. Now you've got something to discuss.
I think the pucker factor goes up exponentially when Ukraine manage to get within sight of Crimea.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 22,432
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
Even lasers have a "reload" time since they need a large amount of energy
Pure energy need to pull significant power from some source either massive batteries on site or some grid. So there is some limit there
Chemical based potentially have a larger reserve but even they will need the chemicals refreshed so its a balance of storage vs how many times you would need to refill them. Chemical tended to be the older method of being able to provide enough energy
It's not just the sensors, AFAIK it's the new Aster Block 1 NT missiles that they'll need to counter *some* ballistic missiles. I'm not sure they're going to be effective at all against ICBMs though. I'm not sure the UK has any ability to defend against an ICBM.
Last edited:
I'd question whether Putin would go for any deal anyhow or has even sanctioned them reaching out. Won't be the first time someone in Russia has tried to bring a negotiation with Ukraine to the table with Putin only for it to be brushed aside without consideration.
They've been trialling the ability to track and calculate solutions against so called hypersonics and ICBMs - able even to track and provide solutions against plunging re-entry vehicles - but the missile side AFAIK has not been upgraded to match those capabilities (the last public information was the contract for upgrading to block 1 not even the NT variant).
The Type 45s have limited ability as is to provide point defence against such targets, but can not provide area defence.
Last edited:
Not just that but these are designed for ballistic missiles with a range of up to
*the ones in development extend that to 3000km but the UK is only just looking at fitting the existing ones AFAIK.
(For the sake of clarity, ICBMs are those with a range > 5,500km.)
Essentially I don't think we have anything that could intercept them currently or in the near future.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 22,432
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
Ukraine may stop before then, I mean its possible. Like any negotiation its down to relative strength, how much each party needs to negotiate etc etc
I mean I suspect Ukraine will focus on the whole of the occupied land bar Crimea initially. Crimea will be a harder nut to crack. But they could take time on it and probably stand a much better chance over a medium period.
But during that medium period who knows what else could happen.
As such its not completely impossible to see them being willing to give up crimea. Say the west scales down the support, say the west offers NATO membership, say Russia gives in and "allows" Ukraine to get NATO membership. I mean in those circumstances I could see Ukraine having a difficult decision to make.
Give up Crimea for potentially a guaranteed future vs a very uncertain one should it start to go against them in future. If I was Ukraine I would seriously consider that as a good outcome.
Crimea is a hugely complicated one - removing Russia from it significantly erodes their ability to invade Ukraine again in the future and denying them the port facilities would be a huge blow. On the other hand if Russia dig in it would be vastly costly to attack and conversely once taken it would be hard to defend against Russia.
Stuff like HIMARS does change the equation somewhat compared to earlier in the war - but it is likely Western support would start to wane once the main territory of Ukraine was retaken making an assault on Crimea even more costly if defended.
Stuff like HIMARS does change the equation somewhat compared to earlier in the war - but it is likely Western support would start to wane once the main territory of Ukraine was retaken making an assault on Crimea even more costly if defended.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,718
The old potato laser beam!
Things aren't going well for Russia at all, they are probably deluded enough to think the nuclear threat is enough to maybe make Ukraine cede territory, even though Ukraine set a line on the annexations which Russia has crossed so there's going to be zero negotiation from Ukraine apart telling Russia they need to GTFO the entirity of Ukraine including Crimea
In some ways Crimea would be hard to take, but it's also very vulnerable - if Ukraine blew the bridge up and just kept up harassing attacks on Russian supply ships, and long range missile attacks on any Russian military concentrations defending it would be absolutely miserable.
Yup, I think Crimea is very much dependent on Western support. It's certainly quite plausible Ukraine could take it back with continued support, but with Putin still in power and throwing resources into this war then it would be very hard otherwise and there could be pressure for a peace deal at some point before then.
I guess one scenario that could make it more likely would be Ukraine getting further big wins in the south; Russian forces in Kherson and Zaporoska oblast collapsing and that prompts serious unrest in Russia or even Putin being deposed. IF Russia has a change of leadership or serious unrest or even a civil war/breakup to contend with then Ukraine can very plausibly keep pushing and drive Russians out of Crimea.
I'm in two minds about the bridge, on one hand it would be great to see and would really really upset Putin and cause Crimeans to panic, on the other hand, depending on the progress made, that might be their main escape route, you perhaps want hundreds of thousands of Russians to flee over that thing.
One half-way solution might be to blow up the rail bridge only, which achieves the goal of making resupply far more difficult (Russians relying on trains), they're then forced to stretch out their already difficult logistics via trucks.
I guess one scenario that could make it more likely would be Ukraine getting further big wins in the south; Russian forces in Kherson and Zaporoska oblast collapsing and that prompts serious unrest in Russia or even Putin being deposed. IF Russia has a change of leadership or serious unrest or even a civil war/breakup to contend with then Ukraine can very plausibly keep pushing and drive Russians out of Crimea.
I'm in two minds about the bridge, on one hand it would be great to see and would really really upset Putin and cause Crimeans to panic, on the other hand, depending on the progress made, that might be their main escape route, you perhaps want hundreds of thousands of Russians to flee over that thing.
One half-way solution might be to blow up the rail bridge only, which achieves the goal of making resupply far more difficult (Russians relying on trains), they're then forced to stretch out their already difficult logistics via trucks.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 22,432
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
Yep thats my read as well
I think getting the rest of the landmass is relatively achievable and in sight, however despite some of the lols in equipment on the Russian side if they decided to really defend Crimea thats a very hard target to take.
And yep the HIMARS etc is why I think it would have to be a medium term goal since eventually it could be degraded so much that Russia would have to pull out, but by then it would be in such a state. And all the while with them technically at war it would be very easy for Russia to push in from some other front.
And again I agree I think I could see the West losing some will to keep a long war running if its just down to Crimea by then. IF and its a very big one, Ukraine could formally accede to NATO in return for giving up Crimea they would basically guarantee themselves more than they started with early 2022 and a future that would be hard to see getting anything but better. EU membership and NATO would transform their prospects.
- Status