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

Status
Not open for further replies.
SupraWez said:
Our useless PM is hosting a meeting to discuss the rebuilding of Ukraine today, the war isn't even over yet.
Click to expand...
Gotta figure out what needs rebuilding and what projects to help with before politicians invest in companies that will win the contracts! :cry:

No but on a serious note, it makes sense to have an action plan in place for when the conflict does come to end, whatever the outcome.
 
Grim5 said:
No point putting NASAMs on the front line they will get destroyed

If putting anti air systems on the front line was a viable way to remove the Russian Air Force from the battlefield the ukranians would have done it already
Click to expand...
Sure, but they are being used in point defence against cruise missiles and drones.
 
Watching Litvinenko on telly last night I was reminded that Salisbury was not the only outrage perpetrated by Putin on UK soil and what **** the man is.
 
Dunno if any meaning to it but a load of transport planes took off in quick succession from Rzeszów and US Black Hawks started moving in that direction along a similar but reversed timeline as well as an unknown aircraft (drone or heli) moving to the Ukraine border.
 
Last edited:
potatolord said:
Some poor bugger in finance is furiously re-designing his depreciation spreadsheet as we speak.
Click to expand...
From what I understand you're not far off it.

IIRC they didn't used to "depreciate" the cost of things like aircraft, so if an aircraft cost 100 million new then if it was given to another country it was a 100 million asset removed from the books, however that ignored the fact that a 30 year old airframe that cost that much new is going to be worth a fraction of that now (yes the replacement from the production line might still be 100 million, but an airframe that's got hundreds/thousands of hours of flight hours and carrier landings certainly isn't).
Apparently the order went through a few years back that they were to take depreciation of an assets worth into account when they were sold off, disposed of, or lost due to an accident but this may be the first time it's been applied to a lot of the stuff. Basically bringing the accounting for the DOD in regards to aircraft, tanks and ships etc into line with more routine assets like computers, trucks etc.
 
Werewolf said:
From what I understand you're not far off it.

IIRC they didn't used to "depreciate" the cost of things like aircraft, so if an aircraft cost 100 million new then if it was given to another country it was a 100 million asset removed from the books, however that ignored the fact that a 30 year old airframe that cost that much new is going to be worth a fraction of that now (yes the replacement from the production line might still be 100 million, but an airframe that's got hundreds/thousands of hours of flight hours and carrier landings certainly isn't).
Apparently the order went through a few years back that they were to take depreciation of an assets worth into account when they were sold off, disposed of, or lost due to an accident but this may be the first time it's been applied to a lot of the stuff. Basically bringing the accounting for the DOD in regards to aircraft, tanks and ships etc into line with more routine assets like computers, trucks etc.
Click to expand...

It's nice to know finance team is the same everywhere
 
To be honest my understanding of military balance sheets is that once spent its really not accounted for as such.
A normal company adds the asset to their balance sheet and depreciates it in order to put forwards a more balanced profit.
Charging the P&L in effect for the utilisation of the asset (very broadly)

Typically they also receive income which is treated as spent even if not actually spent.
As such anything they spend is also taken out of that budget when spent, not simply the "P&L charge" which is how a company would when grossly simplified work.

There is probably some strange thing in the appropriations that triggered this writing down.
Like for example a guaranteed 5% of asset value for maintenance. Keeping everything at "original" cost would hence trigger far more guaranteed money than reflecting that for many assets the allocated maintenance value could exceed the real value.

potatolord said:
It's nice to know finance team is the same everywhere
Click to expand...

Oddly I believe the military would be one of the very few places where the international accounting rules would not be followed.
But maybe they have been brought into scope! (would be a political decision)
 
Something quite bad for the Ukraine situation happened this week :(

Screenshot-2023-06-21-174233.png


Now many will probably be wondering why Biden's son being convicted of something is bad for Ukraine, well simply put it means Trump was right about something big. He may have got the math completely wrong and come up with the answer to a different question, but all many US voters will remember is that when Trump was banging on about Biden's son being involved in corrupt/criminal activity blah blah blah he was right and when Biden defended him he was wrong. Obviously the facts are not that straight cut but the vast majority of US voters have zero interest in facts they care about headlines.

This will have simultaneously boosted Trumps 2024 chances and damaged Biden's 2024 chances, and if Trump gets back in then US military/financial support to Ukraine is going to suffer heavily :(

Obviously saying that Ukraine could possibly have problems with US support in a year and a half may sound alarmist, but you have to remember that Russia spent a decade losing in Afghanistan, the USA spent two decades losing in Vietnam, large militaries can drag conflicts out a long time :(
 
Last edited:
ubersonic said:
Something quite bad for the Ukraine situation happened this week :(

Screenshot-2023-06-21-174233.png


Now many will probably be wondering why Biden's son being convicted of something is bad for Ukraine, well simply put it means Trump was right about something big. He may have got the math completely wrong and come up with the answer to a different question, but all many US voters will remember is that when Trump was banging on about Biden's son being involved in corrupt/criminal activity blah blah blah he was right and when Biden defended him he was wrong. Obviously the facts are not that straight cut but the vast majority of US voters have zero interest in facts they care about headlines.

This will have simultaneously boosted Trumps 2024 chances and damaged Biden's 2024 chances, and if Trump gets back in then US military/financial support to Ukraine is going to suffer heavily :(

Obviously saying that Ukraine could possibly have problems with US support in a year and a half may sound alarmist, but you have to remember that Russia spent a decade losing in Afghanistan, the USA spent two decades losing in Vietnam, large militaries can drag conflicts out a long time :(
Click to expand...

He plead guilty to cheating on his taxes in the US in 2018/9. That has zero to do with Ukraine. It doesn't matter anyway as the MAGA lot have been convinced he and his father have secret accounts in tax haven and have been taking money from all kinds of shady countries including China. No lack of evidence of this is going to convince them otherwise. They are in a cult and you don't question it when you are in a cult.
 
bingham67 said:
Click to expand...

The fact that Russia are still operationally deploying a helicopter that the Afghans were massacring with $25k MANPADS 40 years ago shows how little regard they have for their airmen.

On a comical note those $25k missiles now costs $400k each, because US arms dealers sure as hell aren't above price gouging their own government during a war :P
 
Last edited:
Grim5 said:
Ukranian pilots say currently their biggest problem that stops them from providing support for the counter offensive is the Russian SU-35. Russia has a dozen SU-35s in the air at all times using their radar to scan for Ukranian mig-29s and when they spot them they fire their air to air missiles which destroy the mig-29. Because of this the Ukranians can't get anywhere near the front line.

So they ask for F16 so they can fire long range air to air missiles back at those SU-35s as well be able to properly use harm and other US missiles that don't work well on a mig-29.
Click to expand...
To put what Grim is saying into visual perspective, here's a video by a top DCS (a combat flight simulator) channel.

TLDR: They modelled a clash between the legacy F/A-18 Hornets that Australia have offered Ukraine against some Su-35's and the Hornets got massacred because by the time they got in radar range to fire on the Su's they were already having to dodge incoming missiles (and they sucked at dodging). Then they modelled the same clash using new Super Hornets and they massacred the Su's because the advantage was reversed.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom