Potentially kicking off in Russia

Rroff said:
Going back to the comments about hypersonic missiles - a successful test from Russia - nearly Mach 7 - a long way short of the hysterical claims of like 60,000km/h, etc.

https://www.scmp.com/news/world/rus...sia-test-fires-zircon-hypersonic-missile-ship
Click to expand...
thats not the fast one. the big one is called avangard.

which kinda goes into space and then comes back (probably not real space but richard branson space)

obviously anything launched from a ship has limitations in size, fuel capacity etc. also it has pretty low range 350km, to burn enough fuel to hit higher machs it's range would probably be almost nothing.

USA did hypersonic missile tests years and years ago anyway, it's not like it's something new, just seems no one else wanted to waste the money on it.
russia has the american missile shield to worry about though, so they needed the speed to overcome that.

no point having missiles if your natural enemy can just shoot them down, it's the only reason russia chases speed
 
Last edited:
arknor said:
thats not the fast one. the big one is called avangard.

which kinda goes into space and then comes back (probably not real space but richard branson space)

obviously anything launched from a ship has limitations in size, fuel capacity etc. also it has pretty low range 350km, to burn enough fuel to hit higher machs it's range would probably be almost nothing.

USA did hypersonic missile tests years and years ago anyway, it's not like it's something new, just seems no one else wanted to waste the money on it.
russia has the american missile shield to worry about though, so they needed the speed to overcome that.

no point having missiles if your natural enemy can just shoot them down, it's the only reason russia chases speed
Click to expand...

Zircon is the hyped anti-ship missile however, which is often hyped up at speed 2 or more times anything they've actually managed so far. Not to say Zircon is useless, far from it, but in its current operational profile it is within the realms of mitigable.
 
You know USA have been dying to have a pop at China and Russiia for years and it's all about USA, China and Russia settling old scores instead of moving on and nodoubt the USA'll want to sort of some 'unfinished business' with North Korea.

I can't believe that the presidents of USA, RUSSIA AND CHINA're prepared to murder billions of innocent people and bring about nuclear armageddon just to settle their lovers' tiff instead of letting sleeping dogs lie.

If Germany and Britain can let World War 2 go, why can't Biden, Jinping and Putin let the cold war go?
 
Last edited:
Rroff said:
of.

EDIT: As things stand higher speeds aren't really that useful anyhow - the current profile is very hard to intercept (or jam) unless you know the target ahead of time - which means that an ABM shield, etc. will struggle to deal with it unless the ABM installation itself was at or the target.
Click to expand...


Which surely is the case for most things you're defending?


I mean it's unlikely you won't know where your own bases and silos are
 
alchal said:
What bias?

The waters are Ukrainian.
End of story.

Going by your logic we should have let Hitler have Europe because he planted his flag and said all this land/water is now mine.

Yeah.
Click to expand...


Surely by this logic the UK belongs to the EU as a vote by the residents to leave doesn't count to you?
 
Tefal said:
Surely by this logic the UK belongs to the EU as a vote by the residents to leave doesn't count to you?
Click to expand...


That's some leap, wasn't aware they had a vote to leave the Ukraine, or for that matter were allowed a vote legally etc.
Oh wait ..they had a vote after the little green men aka Russian troops had basically annexed the place.

But yeah Brexit is obviously the same as Russia annexing Crimea, so many parallels...soooo many.
 
Last edited:
It's just simple power play, nuclear armageddon isn't ever likely to happen. The world has watched the west storm across the globe these last few decades in the name of war against terrorism, whilst shoring up resources.

Meanwhile, Russia and China have been pretty much shocked by the technological advances and impunity with which the west have operated during that time. Unsurprising really since neither adversary has been anywhere near peer. However, whilst this has gone on, Russia have been able to focus on their own military development and then even test them successfully against the west in Syria. The developments in weaponry means near peer/peer competition now, whereas after the cold War it wasn't. This is an understandable position for Putin who, as an aggressive expansionist leader, sees adversaries encroaching on all fronts: NATO to the west, US in the ME, and now the soon to be non-existent Arctic ice opening shipping lanes across their North.

China, in my opinion, are the nation with something to prove. They've all but destroyed their own history and 'reset'. They're on a mission to expand and truly see themselves as taking over the world as one world China. They've got beef and don't seem afraid to show that.
 
Tefal said:
Which surely is the case for most things you're defending?


I mean it's unlikely you won't know where your own bases and silos are
Click to expand...

Problem with hypersonics is unlike conventional ballistic missiles their speed and relative manoeuvrability means you have a hard time deducing their intended target and actual flight path a long way out - making traditional ABM shields of less usefulness. Which makes it harder to have your kill vehicle(s) in the right place to intercept them and you can't play catch up so unless you happen to have an advanced anti-air installation in exactly the right place you just run out of time to actually implement it by the time you've calculated a solution.

With a bunch of them in the air that is a nightmare scenario and even defended bases might not be getting the data timely enough to do anything about it.

With an air-defence destroyer the job is a bit easier as you can assume the target is you, or the ships near you and have a bit more time to come up with solutions (along as you can detect the launch and track the missile responsively and accurately enough).
 
Rroff said:
Problem with hypersonics is unlike conventional ballistic missiles their speed and relative manoeuvrability means you have a hard time deducing their intended target and actual flight path a long way out - making traditional ABM shields of less usefulness. Which makes it harder to have your kill vehicle(s) in the right place to intercept them and you can't play catch up so unless you happen to have an advanced anti-air installation in exactly the right place you just run out of time to actually implement it by the time you've calculated a solution.

With a bunch of them in the air that is a nightmare scenario and even defended bases might not be getting the data timely enough to do anything about it.

With an air-defence destroyer the job is a bit easier as you can assume the target is you, or the ships near you and have a bit more time to come up with solutions.
Click to expand...

Well yeah but you know exactly where your nuclear silos are and thats pretty much the first strike target.

If Russia and the US go to war the first phase is trying desperately to use nukes to kill other nukes with neutron flux. (Blowing a nukes up near another one turns it into a dud/just a dirty bomb by causing partial fission)
 
Tefal said:
Well yeah but you know exactly where your nuclear silos are and thats pretty much the first strike target.

If Russia and the US go to war the first phase is trying desperately to use nukes to kill other nukes with neutron flux. (Blowing a nukes up near another one turns it into a dud/just a dirty bomb by causing partial fission)
Click to expand...
Everyone has to jump to the total nuke war scenario and this just isn't the case. I can see us fighting with remotely piloted vehicles if I'm honest and I see that as a threshold to not step over that red line, in that, if it were manned assets then sure, I accept a nuclear apocalypse scenario. However, I just don't see that happening and neither nation wants that.

Also, remember that all interested parties have submarine launched nukes. Your silo reference isn't relevant.
 
pmsl you lot in here make me giggle, this has being going on for decades, a nuc war will never happen, firstly theres no money to be made in war for the big businesses that run the world, and secondly, any coutrry who strikes will be obliterated by what the other pact sends back, the whole point of a nuc war is no one wins, only everyone loses
 
MCFC_ANDY said:
pmsl you lot in here make me giggle, this has being going on for decades, a nuc war will never happen, firstly theres no money to be made in war for the big businesses that run the world, and secondly, any coutrry who strikes will be obliterated by what the other pact sends back, the whole point of a nuc war is no one wins, only everyone loses
Click to expand...
Indeed, but some people like to fantasise.
 
RoboCod said:
Everyone has to jump to the total nuke war scenario and this just isn't the case. I can see us fighting with remotely piloted vehicles if I'm honest and I see that as a threshold to not step over that red line, in that, if it were manned assets then sure, I accept a nuclear apocalypse scenario. However, I just don't see that happening and neither nation wants that.

Also, remember that all interested parties have submarine launched nukes. Your silo reference isn't relevant.
Click to expand...

It's all about cyber now and that war is already going on. Governments can attack companies to steal data, then use it for their own projects or sell it. There are no real consequences.

North Korea is making money to feed the fat man through online fraud. They are also going to China and ripping off Casinos along with a load of other antics (or were, they may have got wise to this).

All out war is really a thing of the past. Why bother, it's too expensive.
 
Last edited:
At what level do you say enough is enough though when it comes to cyber warfare, what are the goal posts that would trigger actual armed conflict.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom