Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

Status
Not open for further replies.
ubersonic said:
In fairness, we only know how many missiles are making it to Ukraine. Maybe they are going for 100+ shock and awe launches but the damn things keep just dropping off the pylons into the sea when they try to fire them :p
Click to expand...

In all fairness - we don't maintain the capacity to replenish at scale either though initial strikes would be far larger than anything Russia has done so far. Worries me a bit really the West has really switched off lately and will be scrambling against any serious threat.

EDIT: On another note though - Storm Shadow/SCALP, some issues the French had aside, seem to be way more effective in reality compared to almost anything out there - while granted the Tomahawks were probably effectively, if not intentionally, acting as a distraction/soaking up AD in the Syrian strikes it was the Storm Shadow/SCALP missiles which were accurately hitting targets the most.
 
Last edited:
SupraWez said:
There was some US military guy on LBC at the weekend who said it’s likely he will, he’s placed three generals who control the nuclear arsenal in charge of three divisions who now directly report to him, the guy explained this effectively gives him direct access to order the strikes, would they initiate the order is another question.
Click to expand...
It's worth noting that unlike the president of the USA, the president of the Russian federation doesn't actually have the authority to order a nuclear first strike. He has autonomy to initiate a response to an incoming nuclear attack, but that's it.

It's a holdover from Soviet times. If he wanted to use a tactical nuke in response to a conventional attack (I.E invasion of Crimea) he would have to assemble the required ministers (or at least a quorum) and put it to a vote.
 
ubersonic said:
It's worth noting that unlike the president of the USA, the president of the Russian federation doesn't actually have the authority to order a nuclear first strike. He has autonomy to initiate a response to an incoming nuclear attack, but that's it.

It's a holdover from Soviet times. If he wanted to use a tactical nuke in response to a conventional attack (I.E invasion of Crimea) he would have to assemble the required ministers (or at least a quorum) and put it to a vote.
Click to expand...

I'd be very surprised if in reality that was anything more than a formality, though how that works for tactical vs strategic use I dunno as well.
 
Rroff said:
In all fairness - we don't maintain the capacity to replenish at scale either though initial strikes would be far larger than anything Russia has done so far. Worries me a bit really the West has really switched off lately and will be scrambling against any serious threat.

EDIT: On another note though - Storm Shadow/SCALP, some issues the French had aside, seem to be way more effective in reality compared to almost anything out there - while granted the Tomahawks were probably effectively, if not intentionally, acting as a distraction/soaking up AD in the Syrian strikes it was the Storm Shadow/SCALP missiles which were accurately hitting targets the most.
Click to expand...


The US has a decent stock pile of air launched missiles, but not really enough for a drawn out engagement or enough for ground troops. Their main missles is the jassm and jassm-er which is produced at 500 missiles a year.

The US lacks ground launched options as they stopped developing them when they switched to focus on air dominance, the air force doesn't want the army stepping on its toes and hitting long range targets without asking for air support.
But the sooner they realise having a multi layer system the better as air dominance is never guaranteed.

It will take a while but they are now working towards it; in current development is the US army is working on:

* a new self propelled howitzer with 70km range unguided shells and 110km range guided smart shells
* PRSM phase 1 missiles for HIMARS, 500km range
* PRSM phase 2 missiles for HIMARS, 700km range and capable of hitting moving targets and targets at sea
* 2 new self propelled missile launchers, one for targets up to 1500km away and one for targets up to 3000km away
 
Last edited:
Grim5 said:
The US has a decent stock pile of air launched missiles, but not really enough for a drawn out engagement or enough for ground troops. Their main missles is the jassm and jassm-er which is produced at 500 missiles a year.

The US lacks ground launched options as they stopped developing them when they switched to focus on air dominance, the air force doesn't want the army stepping on its toes and hitting long range targets without asking for air support.
But the sooner they realise having a multi layer system the better as air dominance is never guaranteed.

It will take a while but they are now working towards it; in current development is the US army is working on:

* a new self propelled howitzer with 70km range unguided shells and 110km range guided smart shells
* PRSM phase 1 missiles for HIMARS, 500km range
* PRSM phase 2 missiles for HIMARS, 700km range and capable of hitting moving targets and targets at sea
* 2 new self propelled missile launchers, one for targets up to 1500km away and one for targets up to 3000km away
Click to expand...
It don't matter Russia will let of a tac nuke, a small one.
 
Yeah they don't care about Russia, much of the new self propelled equipment is designed to operate at ranges where they can be placed on islands in SEA and then fired at the Chinese mainland. And because the focus is on mobility, equipment is spread out and more easily hidden
 
Last edited:
SupraWez said:
If Putin thought, sod it and tach nuked all the supplied kit, how would the west respond?

With the line crossed would anyone really risk escalating to all out nuclear war, if he used a tach weapon then surely if backed into a corner he’d go scorched earth.

Didnt Biden already take a nuclear response off the table, as did Macron and boots in Ukraine is also a no no.
Click to expand...

Rroff said:
It is an interesting question.

IMO there is a fairly high chance in that situation the US would attempt to headshot the Russian government but that is rolling the dice on WW3/MAD if it doesn't succeed. The US has given Russia some fairly blunt reminders as to the consequences of the use of nuclear weapons but how much is bite vs bark and/or what they'd actually do in that situation is another question.
Click to expand...
I think it’s more likely that the US would tomahawk every Russian position, facility and ammo storage in Ukrainian territory
 
Grim5 said:
Yeah they don't care about Russia, much of the new self propelled equipment is designed to operate at ranges where they can be placed on islands in SEA and then fired at the Chinese mainland. And because the focus is on mobility, equipment is spread out and more easily hidden
Click to expand...

Indeed, i suspect there’s more r&d in sea based stealth and cheap suicide drones that can be mass produced to overcome sonar and fire response from said ships - making ships as bad and more costly than tanks in ukraine.
 
ubersonic said:
So the guys who can't keep their own tanks running have captured a highly complex high maintenance tank they have no ammunition or parts for, I wonder how this will work out for them :p
Click to expand...

I think the worry is about reverse engineering rather than them getting it running again. The tank itself, not a worry surely, but if they had some more up to date bits of kit on it..
 
redeye said:
I think the worry is about reverse engineering rather than them getting it running again. The tank itself, not a worry surely, but if they had some more up to date bits of kit on it..
Click to expand...

I'm assuming those tanks have the latest and greatest tech stripped out, to reduce the risk of this?

Anyone know?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom