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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Freddie1980 said:
When Putin said he was going to make Europe freeze did he also mean to include Russia?


What an own goal, your own surfs are freezing to death!
Click to expand...

I did see that, not sure of the scale of the problem yet, as twitter will always try and make a problem appear larger than it is.

The bigger issue for them is that the pipes freeze and break, so even if the supply is restored, they will need to gut the heating system and re-do the pipes which are usually in the walls/floors etc.

I don't have much sympathy for them either though because Russia was only too willing to destroy the energy grid of Ukraine and put their citizens in the same situation. It's a little bit of a taste of their own medicine here.
 
Donald Trump in leaked meeting when he was president

"You need to understand that if Europe is under attack we will never come to help you and to support you! By the way, NATO is dead, and we will leave, we will quit NATO, ‘and by the way, you owe me $400 billion, because you didn’t pay, you Germans, what you had to pay for defense"
 
Last edited:
Russian media reports that the Crimea Voronezh-M station will not be built. A Voronezh-M is a very large early warning long range radar station that costs approximately $4 billion and Russia planned to build one in Sevastopol; however Russian media says this will no longer happen as the ministry of defence has decided the radar would be at high risk of doing unscheduled intercepts of Ukrainian missiles
 
Last edited:
Mugen_fd2 said:
To be honest I agree with him. This war is evolving really fast - from dropping vog’s(syrian war trick) to flying thousands of fpv up to 20km deep.
If certain system not proven in Ukraine nowadays it’s only good on paper. Germans know.
Nato countries have massive advantage over folks wearing flip-flops, but without air superiority I would like to see their counter-offensive in the south.

Yeah, forgot to add the cost. Western countries tend to make everything high quality, complicated and expensive, but with both sides possessing nukes modern war became a mix of ww1 and ww2. Need cheap, effective solutions in enormous quantities.
Click to expand...

He said the west is very far behind in "drone technology". Not that the west don't make enough cheap drones.

The US and Europe are not "very far behind" in making a technologically advanced drone. In fact your post above alludes to this when you have said "western countries tend to make everything high quality, complicated and expensive"
 
Grim5 said:
Donald Trump in leaked meeting when he was president

"You need to understand that if Europe is under attack we will never come to help you and to support you! By the way, NATO is dead, and we will leave, we will quit NATO, ‘and by the way, you owe me $400 billion, because you didn’t pay, you Germans, what you had to pay for defense"
Click to expand...

Link? Source I'm curious.

Nvm googled what he said and I see it on google now.
 
Last edited:
Efour said:
Doesn't matter what Trump says to cause kerfuffles, that's his unorthodox unprofessional, chaotic style

thehill.com

Congress approves bill barring any president from unilaterally withdrawing from NATO

Congress has approved legislation that would prevent any president from withdrawing the United States from NATO without approval from the Senate or an Act of Congress. The measure, spearheade…
thehill.com thehill.com

I assume this got signed?
Click to expand...

Yes and the fact a Republican House pushed this through tells us they knew Trump would take the US out of NATO given the chance. This legislation wasn't even considered a requirement until he became president. But the likes of Roar would tell us he had no such intention :rolleyes:
 
Efour said:
Doesn't matter what Trump says to cause kerfuffles, that's his unorthodox unprofessional, chaotic style

thehill.com

Congress approves bill barring any president from unilaterally withdrawing from NATO

Congress has approved legislation that would prevent any president from withdrawing the United States from NATO without approval from the Senate or an Act of Congress. The measure, spearheade…
thehill.com thehill.com

I assume this got signed?
Click to expand...

NATO is effectively done. The US clearly cannot be trusted on anything. Not much point having an alliance with a country that could turn on you everytime an election occurs.
Europe needs to protect itself, but even within Europe there are too many divisions for that to happen effectively.
 
Jono8 said:
Lol, what?
Click to expand...
We currently shoot down £400 drones with million pound rockets.

The most cost effective weapon against drones we have is the gerphard which went out of production in the 90s.

We need a vehicle mounted cannon capable of destroying drones, otherwise a wise enemy could wreck anti air defence munitions stocks by flooding a target area with lightweight drones, then send a couple of cruise missiles once the air defence is depleted increasing its chances of getting through.

The polish have a 50 cal mounted on a trailer with tracking capabilities.
bulgarianmilitary.com

Poland has own anti-UAV system - 12.7mm MG, radar, laser rangefinder

At the end of 2021, the Polish Air Force tested an air defense system at its Central Range, designed specifically to counter small enemy UAVs and micro-drones.
bulgarianmilitary.com bulgarianmilitary.com

Something a bit smaller in 7.62mm mounted on the back of a armoured vehicle or a 6 wheeler to act as convoy protection or deployable off a trailer similar to the old rapier system

Or we start producing gephards again
 
Whilst I don't think the US is doing itself any favours with it's current constitutional nightmares - Trump did have a point (despite his ham fisted attempt to convey a message clearly).

I'm very glad he's not in power now. But NATO members need to all be contibuting their agreed share towards defence spending - not just to rely on USA as their security blanket.

Just looking at this - can't say he wasn't right about Germany. 1.3%.

Germany Military Spending/Defense Budget 1960-2024

Military expenditures data from SIPRI are derived from the NATO definition, which includes all current and capital expenditures on the armed forces, including peacekeeping forces; defense ministries and other government agencies engaged in defense projects; paramilitary forces, if these are...
www.macrotrends.net www.macrotrends.net
 
Bug One said:
Trump did have a point (despite his ham fisted attempt to convey a message clearly).
Click to expand...

No, he didn't. The main effect of NATO is to amplify US power globally, and enable the US to project its enormous military power anywhere in the globe.

I'm very glad he's not in power now. But NATO members need to all be contibuting their agreed share towards defence spending - not just to rely on USA as their security blanket.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Just looking at this - can't say he wasn't right about Germany. 1.3%.
Click to expand...

Which didn't result in a single penny of extra US spending so, no, he wasn't right, he was hosing forth utter ignorance. (Oh, and btw: the 2% target was set for 2024 anyway).
 
Bug One said:
Whilst I don't think the US is doing itself any favours with it's current constitutional nightmares - Trump did have a point (despite his ham fisted attempt to convey a message clearly).

I'm very glad he's not in power now. But NATO members need to all be contibuting their agreed share towards defence spending - not just to rely on USA as their security blanket.

Just looking at this - can't say he wasn't right about Germany. 1.3%.

Germany Military Spending/Defense Budget 1960-2024

Military expenditures data from SIPRI are derived from the NATO definition, which includes all current and capital expenditures on the armed forces, including peacekeeping forces; defense ministries and other government agencies engaged in defense projects; paramilitary forces, if these are...
www.macrotrends.net www.macrotrends.net
Click to expand...

Yea, the 2% thing gets bandied around a lot. It was first set as a commitment by NATO nations in 2006 (can't seem to confirm if there was a target date for it) but then the 2008 financial crash knocked that off course and overall spending in NATO decreased. It wasn't until Russia invaded Crimea in 2014 that gave the jolt to put it back on the table and in the 2014 summit it was decided again for all members to hit 2% by 2024. So when all the Trumpists were banging on about what he said, technically at that point the Countries didn't need to be at 2%. Now, would everyone have reached that by 2024 if Russia hadn't invaded Ukraine in 2022, who knows...probably not :p

But as a lot of the reports say, the 2% is more a headline political figure showing commitment than a strategic military one, since Countries have military commitments outside of NATO as well.

not just to rely on USA as their security blanket.
Click to expand...

To be fair, 2% spending or not wouldn't change the fact that NATO is totally reliant on the USA. They provide about 2/3 of the total NATO budget, no little tinkering around the edges of 0.x% is going to replace that.
 
Abraxaz1 said:
We currently shoot down £400 drones with million pound rockets.

The most cost effective weapon against drones we have is the gerphard which went out of production in the 90s.

We need a vehicle mounted cannon capable of destroying drones, otherwise a wise enemy could wreck anti air defence munitions stocks by flooding a target area with lightweight drones, then send a couple of cruise missiles once the air defence is depleted increasing its chances of getting through.

The polish have a 50 cal mounted on a trailer with tracking capabilities.
bulgarianmilitary.com

Poland has own anti-UAV system - 12.7mm MG, radar, laser rangefinder

At the end of 2021, the Polish Air Force tested an air defense system at its Central Range, designed specifically to counter small enemy UAVs and micro-drones.
bulgarianmilitary.com bulgarianmilitary.com

Something a bit smaller in 7.62mm mounted on the back of a armoured vehicle or a 6 wheeler to act as convoy protection or deployable off a trailer similar to the old rapier system

Or we start producing gephards again
Click to expand...
Alternatively, you dont need hardkill capability to neutralise drones. Its always going to be an uphill battle to stay ahead of the curve. However, we already have ways and means to neutralise the threat, and we are in constant development of new and emerging anti-drone and EW capabilities, we are not blind to whats happening and the way warfare is going. Trust me when I say we are not "very far behind" in the Technology. In fact we (And the West) are probably at the forefront. We may not have production to scale for immediate deployment, however the capability exists to deal with/neutralise the threat. The issue is, as always, when do you stop developing and start producing? Its something I have seen SOOOO much in the trials and development side of things. We spend so much time chasing the new and emerging technologies and capabilities and it takes so much damn time to just settle on an end product to get it over the line and put it into production.

If you are referencing the houthi drones, you have to remember they are firing at LONG distances to eliminate these drones to protect other vessels. They are not locally defending their own ship. They have point defence weapons like the Phalanx CWIS for that. Much cheaper than firing missiles.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom