Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar
- Thread starter areksnumbr1sxylady
- Start date
- Status
Even in Syria they've mostly flown fairly small groups - pair of SU-25s with an SU-27 in over watch, etc. they only have around a dozen bombers and a dozen mixed attack/fighter aircraft stationed there or so along with a few helis.
The proliferation of man portable and other mobile anti-air systems has made many nations leery of flying combat aircraft in low to medium level operations none the least due to the chances of friendly fire on chaotic battlefields. The US largely avoids manned missions when they can in these kind of scenarios and the RAF tend to lean towards higher level flight using smart/precision missiles to do the work.
At the height of the Cold War Russia gave up chasing the West when it came to advanced aircraft and missiles and instead leaned towards indiscriminate control of the skies via their air defence platforms like the S-200 and 300, etc. and using weight of numbers on the one hand and trained more towards counter-insurgency kind of stuff on the other leaving a big gap in the kind of complex multi-layer missions required for the likes of Ukraine, with considerations for civilian air traffic, etc. in the region, and these days their air force isn't in a state of maintenance to fly overwhelming numbers.
I'm always a bit amazed at the amount drones seem to now control the skies though - most of the smaller to medium stuff are quite possible to bring down via portable systems both hard kill and electronic warfare and the bigger stuff is within the abilities of short and medium range anti-air platforms.
Last edited:
I think the drones get away with it because they are harder to target with man portable systems but also the proliferation of them - they are cheap and it's easy enough to launch hundreds of them to saturate the skies - plenty get shot down but there are plenty more that take their place - so I also think fighter jets and bombers could do some good work in Ukraine but like the drones, they need to come in big numbers to be effective, not just half a dozen doing a sortie, you need hundreds to overwhelm the air defence. The skies in Ukraine are saturated to WW2 volumes of anti air systems and to get passed that you need to put WW2 volumes of aircraft in the sky and Russia is unwilling or incapable of doing that
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
I'm not surprised. Bellingcat has been a on their case for a long time now.
If I remember right they had to finish the women off with bayonets because their rifles couldn't penetrate their whalebone corsets.
IIRC They fared poorly in Desert Storm, many didn't even make it to the T-55s let alone the T-72s. The Chieftains on the other hand performed great, though so did the Syrian T-62Ms so there's something to be said for keeping your tank forces well maintained/equipped/trained (shocking lol).Do we have any Centurions knocking about?
One main problem Russia have is that they saw the USA going for stealth and so went for anti-stealth instead of developing stuff that would be better at bringing down drones. The only real advantage the S-400 has over the S-300 is the ability to shoot down F-22/F-35 from a much larger range.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 12,999
- Location
- La France
Are Ladbrokes taking bets on how many will defect to the West in the first week?
Only if they want to see their families in prison camps.
It's strange isn't it as some of their families would betray them in an instant.
No doubt. Still, I suppose they might get better fed in Ukraine, if they live that long!
Austria and Hungary has now entered into a pact to not supply aid to Ukraine
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 22,381
- Location
- ST4
He's most definitely losing the plot.
500 malnourished soldiers are unlikely to make much difference but Russia likes using cannon fodder. Very interesting development though.
Maybe Putin will give the order to test Belgorod sub with the poseidon nuclear torpedo in the North Sea, causing what would seem like a 8+ magnitude earthquake. A 30m high mega tsunami then wipes out the majority of the UK east coast, and the Russians will just blame it on an earthquake, knowing how soft the UK are, as they didn't do anything about the Novichok poisonings in 2018.
Within days the Russians report the Belgorod as missing, but what really happens is an Astute class nuclear attack sub, which had been shadowing it all the time and wipes it out with a torpedo.
Last edited:
Maybe Putin will give the order to test Belgorod sub with the poseidon nuclear torpedo in the North Sea, causing what would seem like a 8+ magnitude earthquake. A 30m high mega tsunami then wipes out the UK east coast, and the Russians will just blame it on an earthquake, knowing how soft the UK are, as they didn't do anything about the Novichok poisonings in 2018.
Within days the Russians report the Belgorod as missing, but what really happens is an Astute class nuclear attack sub, which had been shadowing it all the time and wipes it out with a torpedo.
I'm really trying to imagine your face is straight during these sentences.
I struggle to see how a nuke would cause the kind of damage the propagandists dream about
For reference the Japan 2011 Tsunami which ended up doing significantly less damage than Russia claims it can do to Britain, was caused by the release of 500 megatons of energy and that is 10 times larger than the biggest nuke built by the ussr/Russia and 33 times bigger than largest Nuke built by USA
For reference the Japan 2011 Tsunami which ended up doing significantly less damage than Russia claims it can do to Britain, was caused by the release of 500 megatons of energy and that is 10 times larger than the biggest nuke built by the ussr/Russia and 33 times bigger than largest Nuke built by USA
Last edited:
It depends,
The Poseidon nuclear torpedo thing, is basically theorised to be a gigantic cobalt dirty bomb. I think the idea that it would cause a huge tsunami is just nonsense, as most of the power of a nuclear detonation is attenuated by the weight of the water.
However in theory, if they detonated it in shallow water close to land, the fallout from such a dirty bomb could theoretically be horrendous. But then again - it’s pointless because a standard nuclear attack by ICBMs would cause way more damage.
So yeah, it’s basically just a load of bs.
- Status