Rail logistics have been critical in European wars since at least the Germans launched WW1, if not the original "Crimean War." There's no avoiding it, really, for either side.aggiehawg said:
Question: Does the Russian massive reliance on rail systems ultimately cause them more logistic problems than it solves? Pretty easy target it seems to me.
***Russian - Ukraine War Tactical and Strategic Updates*** [Warning on OP]
8,063,380 Views |
48710 Replies |
Last: 8 hrs ago by lb3
Very interesting thanks for posting.74OA said:
The entire world is watching the lessons from Putin's war. For example, here's China's take on Russia's use of hypersonic missiles.
DAGGERS
Only 6-9 A-50s believed to be in existence with a cost of around $330 million
ttu_85 said:Very interesting thanks for posting.74OA said:
The entire world is watching the lessons from Putin's war. For example, here's China's take on Russia's use of hypersonic missiles.
DAGGERS
The Chinese analyst concludes: "In addition, the West has an overwhelming information technology advantage over Russia, so it is possible to detect and determine the attack intentions of the Platypus' in advance and use integrated [air defense] systems to intercept them."
I wonder how this is done.
Thank you for sharing.
UPDATEP.U.T.U said:
Only 6-9 A-50s believed to be in existence with a cost of around $330 million
74OA said:UPDATEP.U.T.U said:
Only 6-9 A-50s believed to be in existence with a cost of around $330 million
Hello A-50, I've been waiting for you https://t.co/sjdWcYladG pic.twitter.com/owYZO2OILb
— William "Balloon Guy" Kim (@TheKimulation) January 15, 2024
Ukraine is trying to make Russia Blind in the skys prior to the F-16 flying. Making a push for air superiority.
I wonder if Ukraine knows that Russia only gets "stronger" when you destroy their military assets?
Il-22👀 pic.twitter.com/U0vUUYlfM9
— IgorGirkin (@GirkinGirkin) January 15, 2024
Probably some soiled flight suits from that sortie
This is why Russia is so big on having nuclear weapons. If Ukrainians flying 30 or 40 year old aircraft are able to do this to some of the most technologically advanced Russian craft then what would high-end NATO forces be capable of doing to the Russian military?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my amateur non-military analysis indicates that may have been hit by some sort of proximity missile. Had to have been, right? Any idea of what that might have been? I'm looking up ranges of air-to-air and ground to air systems systems we have been supplying to Ukraine and I'm struggling to think of what was on display here.
The A-50 was first built in the late 70s and Russia has the A-100 that is supposed to have a lot more capabilities but only has 1-2 of them. Think this shows how bad their technology is
Pretty much all surface to air and air to air missiles have fragmentation warheads designed to do exactly this. They don't necessarily try to hit the target and explode. They get close and pepper it with shrapnel.
This is essentially an E-3 AWACS (which we are retiring) but with inferior technology/integration, and comparatively poor training/doctrine. There's a reason an E-3 has never been shot at, let alone shot down…P.U.T.U said:
The A-50 was first built in the late 70s and Russia has the A-100 that is supposed to have a lot more capabilities but only has 1-2 of them. Think this shows how bad their technology is
It has some utility for 'over the horizon' cruise missile (storm shadow) tracking etc. but that is not applicable really to himars etc. The A-50U is functionally not a great asset, and the A-100 is…well, marginally better. Russian ISR capabilities, both space-based and via surveillance platforms like this, is and will remain quantitatively and qualitatively inferior.
Here are the losses I could find yesterday, not counting the Magyar video that I didn't watch because its like 19 minutes long and it takes me like 10 minutes per minute to watch his videos. https://t.co/lZLivxUud6 pic.twitter.com/dGNVQrCWhr
— Andrew Perpetua (@AndrewPerpetua) January 15, 2024
They beat the hell out of the outside of that tank with the chain gun and probably exploded a lot of the ERA, damaged the optics and anything else on the outside of the tank, and appeared to have caused an electric/hydraulic failure that sent the turret out of control.
We still have AWACS flying on 707 airframes, but the sensor systems have all been upgraded. Same with A-50's.
That said, there's not a lot of these available to the Russians with the capabilities they need. The upgraded versions are expensive and rare, so taking one down is a huge win.
That said, there's not a lot of these available to the Russians with the capabilities they need. The upgraded versions are expensive and rare, so taking one down is a huge win.
nortex97 said:This is essentially an E-3 AWACS (which we are retiring) but with inferior technology/integration, and comparatively poor training/doctrine. There's a reason an E-3 has never been shot at, let alone shot down…P.U.T.U said:
The A-50 was first built in the late 70s and Russia has the A-100 that is supposed to have a lot more capabilities but only has 1-2 of them. Think this shows how bad their technology is
It has some utility for 'over the horizon' cruise missile (storm shadow) tracking etc. but that is not applicable really to himars etc. The A-50U is functionally not a great asset, and the A-100 is…well, marginally better. Russian ISR capabilities, both space-based and via surveillance platforms like this, is and will remain quantitatively and qualitatively inferior.
So the big question is did those analysts on board see the incoming? How long did they have, and what do you think they conversed about?
AtticusMatlock said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my amateur non-military analysis indicates that may have been hit by some sort of proximity missile. Had to have been, right? Any idea of what that might have been? I'm looking up ranges of air-to-air and ground to air systems systems we have been supplying to Ukraine and I'm struggling to think of what was on display here.
Looks like this...
Depends on what killed them. If a Patriot, then probably not and even if they had managed to detect the missile, they would have had at best 30 secs or so to detect, analyze, and react based on an assumed 12sec radar sweep.JFABNRGR said:nortex97 said:This is essentially an E-3 AWACS (which we are retiring) but with inferior technology/integration, and comparatively poor training/doctrine. There's a reason an E-3 has never been shot at, let alone shot down…P.U.T.U said:
The A-50 was first built in the late 70s and Russia has the A-100 that is supposed to have a lot more capabilities but only has 1-2 of them. Think this shows how bad their technology is
It has some utility for 'over the horizon' cruise missile (storm shadow) tracking etc. but that is not applicable really to himars etc. The A-50U is functionally not a great asset, and the A-100 is…well, marginally better. Russian ISR capabilities, both space-based and via surveillance platforms like this, is and will remain quantitatively and qualitatively inferior.
So the big question is did those analysts on board see the incoming? How long did they have, and what do you think they conversed about?
Don't know the capabilities of the Il-22 Coot flying with them, but it may have provided some advanced warning that they were targeted either through COMMINT or EMINT.
12thFan/Websider Since 2003
I'm not sure how the PAC-2 works, but the PAC-3 has an onboard radar for final stage maneuvering. And it was designed to be able to maneuver quick enough to deal with incoming ballistic missiles that are moving Mach 5+. There's nothing an aircraft could do to move quick enough to avoid impact.USA*** said:Depends on what killed them. If a Patriot, then probably not and even if they had managed to detect the missile, they would have had at best 30 secs or so to detect, analyze, and react based on an assumed 12sec radar sweep.JFABNRGR said:nortex97 said:This is essentially an E-3 AWACS (which we are retiring) but with inferior technology/integration, and comparatively poor training/doctrine. There's a reason an E-3 has never been shot at, let alone shot down…P.U.T.U said:
The A-50 was first built in the late 70s and Russia has the A-100 that is supposed to have a lot more capabilities but only has 1-2 of them. Think this shows how bad their technology is
It has some utility for 'over the horizon' cruise missile (storm shadow) tracking etc. but that is not applicable really to himars etc. The A-50U is functionally not a great asset, and the A-100 is…well, marginally better. Russian ISR capabilities, both space-based and via surveillance platforms like this, is and will remain quantitatively and qualitatively inferior.
So the big question is did those analysts on board see the incoming? How long did they have, and what do you think they conversed about?
Don't know the capabilities of the Il-22 Coot flying with them, but it may have provided some advanced warning that they were targeted either through COMMINT or EMINT.
That was not a PAC-3 impact on that aircraft though. I assume the PAC-2 has some of the same capability, though.
Question: Since these Russian version of AWACs are so small in number, losing experienced crew members could be the bigger loss? How easy to replace them?
A LOT harder.aggiehawg said:
Question: Since these Russian version of AWACs are so small in number, losing experienced crew members could be the bigger loss? How easy to replace them?
It's not like how Russia replaces front line soldiers by just tossing more bullet catchers in the trench. Those jobs require specialized training that probably is in very low supply.
Thanks for the response.
Right. The PAC 3 is a "hit to kill" missile, while PAC 2 is a "blast/frag" missile. The Coot shows clear evidence of "blast/frag" warhead damage. Additionally, the PAC 2 missile has greater range than the PAC 3, but even in its PAC 2 GEM variant, it does not have the active seeker of the PAC 3.Ag with kids said:I'm not sure how the PAC-2 works, but the PAC-3 has an onboard radar for final stage maneuvering. And it was designed to be able to maneuver quick enough to deal with incoming ballistic missiles that are moving Mach 5+. There's nothing an aircraft could do to move quick enough to avoid impact.USA*** said:Depends on what killed them. If a Patriot, then probably not and even if they had managed to detect the missile, they would have had at best 30 secs or so to detect, analyze, and react based on an assumed 12sec radar sweep.JFABNRGR said:nortex97 said:This is essentially an E-3 AWACS (which we are retiring) but with inferior technology/integration, and comparatively poor training/doctrine. There's a reason an E-3 has never been shot at, let alone shot down…P.U.T.U said:
The A-50 was first built in the late 70s and Russia has the A-100 that is supposed to have a lot more capabilities but only has 1-2 of them. Think this shows how bad their technology is
It has some utility for 'over the horizon' cruise missile (storm shadow) tracking etc. but that is not applicable really to himars etc. The A-50U is functionally not a great asset, and the A-100 is…well, marginally better. Russian ISR capabilities, both space-based and via surveillance platforms like this, is and will remain quantitatively and qualitatively inferior.
So the big question is did those analysts on board see the incoming? How long did they have, and what do you think they conversed about?
Don't know the capabilities of the Il-22 Coot flying with them, but it may have provided some advanced warning that they were targeted either through COMMINT or EMINT.
That was not a PAC-3 impact on that aircraft though. I assume the PAC-2 has some of the same capability, though.
Both targets were big, slow and marginally maneuverable (at best) in evasion. Just guessing, but I suspect the Mainstay got hit first and that gave the Coot the chance to turn and run and get lucky.
But, both a/c had to get pretty close...say 100-110nm (slant range). Why get so close when the Mainstay. while not as good as our AWACS, can still see out to at least 200nm?? Another dumb mistake, probably due to (as noted earlier) weak training and poor doctrine.
12thFan/Websider Since 2003
USA*** said:Right. The PAC 3 is a "hit to kill" missile, while PAC 2 is a "blast/frag" missile. The Coot shows clear evidence of "blast/frag" warhead damage. Additionally, the PAC 2 missile has greater range than the PAC 3, but even in its PAC 2 GEM variant, it does not have the active seeker of the PAC 3.Ag with kids said:I'm not sure how the PAC-2 works, but the PAC-3 has an onboard radar for final stage maneuvering. And it was designed to be able to maneuver quick enough to deal with incoming ballistic missiles that are moving Mach 5+. There's nothing an aircraft could do to move quick enough to avoid impact.USA*** said:Depends on what killed them. If a Patriot, then probably not and even if they had managed to detect the missile, they would have had at best 30 secs or so to detect, analyze, and react based on an assumed 12sec radar sweep.JFABNRGR said:nortex97 said:This is essentially an E-3 AWACS (which we are retiring) but with inferior technology/integration, and comparatively poor training/doctrine. There's a reason an E-3 has never been shot at, let alone shot down…P.U.T.U said:
The A-50 was first built in the late 70s and Russia has the A-100 that is supposed to have a lot more capabilities but only has 1-2 of them. Think this shows how bad their technology is
It has some utility for 'over the horizon' cruise missile (storm shadow) tracking etc. but that is not applicable really to himars etc. The A-50U is functionally not a great asset, and the A-100 is…well, marginally better. Russian ISR capabilities, both space-based and via surveillance platforms like this, is and will remain quantitatively and qualitatively inferior.
So the big question is did those analysts on board see the incoming? How long did they have, and what do you think they conversed about?
Don't know the capabilities of the Il-22 Coot flying with them, but it may have provided some advanced warning that they were targeted either through COMMINT or EMINT.
That was not a PAC-3 impact on that aircraft though. I assume the PAC-2 has some of the same capability, though.
Both targets were big, slow and marginally maneuverable (at best) in evasion. Just guessing, but I suspect the Mainstay got hit first and that gave the Coot the chance to turn and run and get lucky.
But, both a/c had to get pretty close...say 100-110nm (slant range). Why get so close when the Mainstay. while not as good as our AWACS, can still see out to at least 200nm?? Another dumb mistake, probably due to (as noted earlier) weak training and poor doctrine.
So a case of "nonsense , from that distance they couldn't shoot an elepha….."
Lol...either that or continuing to over estimate their own capabilities and under estimating the UAF capabilities.deddog said:USA*** said:Right. The PAC 3 is a "hit to kill" missile, while PAC 2 is a "blast/frag" missile. The Coot shows clear evidence of "blast/frag" warhead damage. Additionally, the PAC 2 missile has greater range than the PAC 3, but even in its PAC 2 GEM variant, it does not have the active seeker of the PAC 3.Ag with kids said:I'm not sure how the PAC-2 works, but the PAC-3 has an onboard radar for final stage maneuvering. And it was designed to be able to maneuver quick enough to deal with incoming ballistic missiles that are moving Mach 5+. There's nothing an aircraft could do to move quick enough to avoid impact.USA*** said:Depends on what killed them. If a Patriot, then probably not and even if they had managed to detect the missile, they would have had at best 30 secs or so to detect, analyze, and react based on an assumed 12sec radar sweep.JFABNRGR said:nortex97 said:This is essentially an E-3 AWACS (which we are retiring) but with inferior technology/integration, and comparatively poor training/doctrine. There's a reason an E-3 has never been shot at, let alone shot down…P.U.T.U said:
The A-50 was first built in the late 70s and Russia has the A-100 that is supposed to have a lot more capabilities but only has 1-2 of them. Think this shows how bad their technology is
It has some utility for 'over the horizon' cruise missile (storm shadow) tracking etc. but that is not applicable really to himars etc. The A-50U is functionally not a great asset, and the A-100 is…well, marginally better. Russian ISR capabilities, both space-based and via surveillance platforms like this, is and will remain quantitatively and qualitatively inferior.
So the big question is did those analysts on board see the incoming? How long did they have, and what do you think they conversed about?
Don't know the capabilities of the Il-22 Coot flying with them, but it may have provided some advanced warning that they were targeted either through COMMINT or EMINT.
That was not a PAC-3 impact on that aircraft though. I assume the PAC-2 has some of the same capability, though.
Both targets were big, slow and marginally maneuverable (at best) in evasion. Just guessing, but I suspect the Mainstay got hit first and that gave the Coot the chance to turn and run and get lucky.
But, both a/c had to get pretty close...say 100-110nm (slant range). Why get so close when the Mainstay. while not as good as our AWACS, can still see out to at least 200nm?? Another dumb mistake, probably due to (as noted earlier) weak training and poor doctrine.
So a case of "nonsense , from that distance they couldn't shoot an elepha….."
12thFan/Websider Since 2003
Yeah. The fact there was frag damage was key. Plus, if the PAC-3 hit the plane, it wouldn't be there since the HTK would have put LOTS of KE on target and probably blown the entire back end of the plane off.USA*** said:Right. The PAC 3 is a "hit to kill" missile, while PAC 2 is a "blast/frag" missile. The Coot shows clear evidence of "blast/frag" warhead damage. Additionally, the PAC 2 missile has greater range than the PAC 3, but even in its PAC 2 GEM variant, it does not have the active seeker of the PAC 3.Ag with kids said:I'm not sure how the PAC-2 works, but the PAC-3 has an onboard radar for final stage maneuvering. And it was designed to be able to maneuver quick enough to deal with incoming ballistic missiles that are moving Mach 5+. There's nothing an aircraft could do to move quick enough to avoid impact.USA*** said:Depends on what killed them. If a Patriot, then probably not and even if they had managed to detect the missile, they would have had at best 30 secs or so to detect, analyze, and react based on an assumed 12sec radar sweep.JFABNRGR said:nortex97 said:This is essentially an E-3 AWACS (which we are retiring) but with inferior technology/integration, and comparatively poor training/doctrine. There's a reason an E-3 has never been shot at, let alone shot down…P.U.T.U said:
The A-50 was first built in the late 70s and Russia has the A-100 that is supposed to have a lot more capabilities but only has 1-2 of them. Think this shows how bad their technology is
It has some utility for 'over the horizon' cruise missile (storm shadow) tracking etc. but that is not applicable really to himars etc. The A-50U is functionally not a great asset, and the A-100 is…well, marginally better. Russian ISR capabilities, both space-based and via surveillance platforms like this, is and will remain quantitatively and qualitatively inferior.
So the big question is did those analysts on board see the incoming? How long did they have, and what do you think they conversed about?
Don't know the capabilities of the Il-22 Coot flying with them, but it may have provided some advanced warning that they were targeted either through COMMINT or EMINT.
That was not a PAC-3 impact on that aircraft though. I assume the PAC-2 has some of the same capability, though.
Both targets were big, slow and marginally maneuverable (at best) in evasion. Just guessing, but I suspect the Mainstay got hit first and that gave the Coot the chance to turn and run and get lucky.
But, both a/c had to get pretty close...say 100-110nm (slant range). Why get so close when the Mainstay. while not as good as our AWACS, can still see out to at least 200nm?? Another dumb mistake, probably due to (as noted earlier) weak training and poor doctrine.
USA*** said:Right. The PAC 3 is a "hit to kill" missile, while PAC 2 is a "blast/frag" missile. The Coot shows clear evidence of "blast/frag" warhead damage. Additionally, the PAC 2 missile has greater range than the PAC 3, but even in its PAC 2 GEM variant, it does not have the active seeker of the PAC 3.Ag with kids said:I'm not sure how the PAC-2 works, but the PAC-3 has an onboard radar for final stage maneuvering. And it was designed to be able to maneuver quick enough to deal with incoming ballistic missiles that are moving Mach 5+. There's nothing an aircraft could do to move quick enough to avoid impact.USA*** said:Depends on what killed them. If a Patriot, then probably not and even if they had managed to detect the missile, they would have had at best 30 secs or so to detect, analyze, and react based on an assumed 12sec radar sweep.JFABNRGR said:nortex97 said:This is essentially an E-3 AWACS (which we are retiring) but with inferior technology/integration, and comparatively poor training/doctrine. There's a reason an E-3 has never been shot at, let alone shot down…P.U.T.U said:
The A-50 was first built in the late 70s and Russia has the A-100 that is supposed to have a lot more capabilities but only has 1-2 of them. Think this shows how bad their technology is
It has some utility for 'over the horizon' cruise missile (storm shadow) tracking etc. but that is not applicable really to himars etc. The A-50U is functionally not a great asset, and the A-100 is…well, marginally better. Russian ISR capabilities, both space-based and via surveillance platforms like this, is and will remain quantitatively and qualitatively inferior.
So the big question is did those analysts on board see the incoming? How long did they have, and what do you think they conversed about?
Don't know the capabilities of the Il-22 Coot flying with them, but it may have provided some advanced warning that they were targeted either through COMMINT or EMINT.
That was not a PAC-3 impact on that aircraft though. I assume the PAC-2 has some of the same capability, though.
Both targets were big, slow and marginally maneuverable (at best) in evasion. Just guessing, but I suspect the Mainstay got hit first and that gave the Coot the chance to turn and run and get lucky.
But, both a/c had to get pretty close...say 100-110nm (slant range). Why get so close when the Mainstay. while not as good as our AWACS, can still see out to at least 200nm?? Another dumb mistake, probably due to (as noted earlier) weak training and poor doctrine.
TLDR Degradation of surface based air defenses. They need the Mainstays closer to help their surface based air defenses see targets and not die. The IL-22 helps facilitate sharing their data.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/breakingdefense.com/2023/12/why-russia-now-has-to-use-its-a-50u-closer-to-the-fight-in-ukraine/%3famp=1
I'm going to guess they have figured out a way to remote link a launcher to the radar and guidance system such that they can position a launcher much closer to the target then the radar appears to be. That would increase the effective maximum range at altitude and explain why recent Russian air crews have seemed so complacent, believing themselves out of range based on the radar signal strength and calculated distance.
I don't know if that is true but it sure seems to explain recent results.
I don't know if that is true but it sure seems to explain recent results.
"That Russia would be willing to move the planes forward is a tacit acknowledgement of the ongoing issues with the VKS, but there are three specific reasons for the move now: Russian air losses, the need to maximize the S-400 air defense system, and preparing for an influx of Western-made fighter jets in 2024."ABATTBQ11 said:USA*** said:Right. The PAC 3 is a "hit to kill" missile, while PAC 2 is a "blast/frag" missile. The Coot shows clear evidence of "blast/frag" warhead damage. Additionally, the PAC 2 missile has greater range than the PAC 3, but even in its PAC 2 GEM variant, it does not have the active seeker of the PAC 3.Ag with kids said:I'm not sure how the PAC-2 works, but the PAC-3 has an onboard radar for final stage maneuvering. And it was designed to be able to maneuver quick enough to deal with incoming ballistic missiles that are moving Mach 5+. There's nothing an aircraft could do to move quick enough to avoid impact.USA*** said:Depends on what killed them. If a Patriot, then probably not and even if they had managed to detect the missile, they would have had at best 30 secs or so to detect, analyze, and react based on an assumed 12sec radar sweep.JFABNRGR said:nortex97 said:This is essentially an E-3 AWACS (which we are retiring) but with inferior technology/integration, and comparatively poor training/doctrine. There's a reason an E-3 has never been shot at, let alone shot down…P.U.T.U said:
The A-50 was first built in the late 70s and Russia has the A-100 that is supposed to have a lot more capabilities but only has 1-2 of them. Think this shows how bad their technology is
It has some utility for 'over the horizon' cruise missile (storm shadow) tracking etc. but that is not applicable really to himars etc. The A-50U is functionally not a great asset, and the A-100 is…well, marginally better. Russian ISR capabilities, both space-based and via surveillance platforms like this, is and will remain quantitatively and qualitatively inferior.
So the big question is did those analysts on board see the incoming? How long did they have, and what do you think they conversed about?
Don't know the capabilities of the Il-22 Coot flying with them, but it may have provided some advanced warning that they were targeted either through COMMINT or EMINT.
That was not a PAC-3 impact on that aircraft though. I assume the PAC-2 has some of the same capability, though.
Both targets were big, slow and marginally maneuverable (at best) in evasion. Just guessing, but I suspect the Mainstay got hit first and that gave the Coot the chance to turn and run and get lucky.
But, both a/c had to get pretty close...say 100-110nm (slant range). Why get so close when the Mainstay. while not as good as our AWACS, can still see out to at least 200nm?? Another dumb mistake, probably due to (as noted earlier) weak training and poor doctrine.
TLDR Degradation of surface based air defenses. They need the Mainstays closer to help their surface based air defenses see targets and not die. The IL-22 helps facilitate sharing their data.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/breakingdefense.com/2023/12/why-russia-now-has-to-use-its-a-50u-closer-to-the-fight-in-ukraine/%3famp=1
Not clear, but didn't think the RUAF was concerned with the UKAF air-to-air at this point. Mainstay cannot track ground targets. Still not clear why they would risk a Mainstay and a E-Coot in a SAM engagement zone if they weren't concerned with UKAF air assets?? Western fighters aren't there yet. Would be different if they were.
Have they been prevaricating? Is UKAF air intercept more effective than suspected? Or have they mistaken SAM kills for air-to-air? Do they think there are Western fighters in theater now?
IMO, I don't think the RUAF knows what they are doing beyond the most basic of operational measures. It's clear both their kit isn't as good as our older stuff and their operational intelligence isn't either, but they are still operating like it is.
They aren't even second team, they are third team at best.
Americans have always *****ed at the cost of our military, but fortunately, military leadership has always planned for that our peer competitors are at least as good as us. This is a good thing to assume. If you want only less than 1% of your population to defend you, you must give them things as good as or better than the people who can destroy you. To do less is to find yourself in the same position as the Russians are now...both in equipment and manpower.
So far, the lessons of the Ukraine are that we have been doing the right thing regarding National Defense. Can we get better and be more efficient in spending our money? Absolutely! But we don't do that by gutting our military.
12thFan/Websider Since 2003
Have they been prevaricating? Is UKAF air intercept more effective than suspected? Or have they mistaken SAM kills for air-to-air? Do they think there are Western fighters in theater now?
IMO, I don't think the RUAF knows what they are doing beyond the most basic of operational measures. It's clear both their kit isn't as good as our older stuff and their operational intelligence isn't either, but they are still operating like it is.
They aren't even second team, they are third team at best.
Americans have always *****ed at the cost of our military, but fortunately, military leadership has always planned for that our peer competitors are at least as good as us. This is a good thing to assume. If you want only less than 1% of your population to defend you, you must give them things as good as or better than the people who can destroy you. To do less is to find yourself in the same position as the Russians are now...both in equipment and manpower.
So far, the lessons of the Ukraine are that we have been doing the right thing regarding National Defense. Can we get better and be more efficient in spending our money? Absolutely! But we don't do that by gutting our military.
12thFan/Websider Since 2003
Often debated but undeniable ... the financial consequence of allowing Russia to take Ukraine would be huge..
RUSSIAN OFFENSIVE CAMPAIGN ASSESSMENT, JANUARY 15, 2024
RUSSIAN OFFENSIVE CAMPAIGN ASSESSMENT, JANUARY 15, 2024
Quote:
ISW continues to assess that Western aid to Ukraine remains crucial as Ukraine's inability to hold off the Russian military could allow Russian forces to push all the way to western Ukraine along the border with NATO states, which would very likely present NATO with challenging and expensive new defense requirements.[34]
That, and losing access to the titanium and other metals found in Ukraine.
At the risk of de-railing this conversation...USA*** said:
Not clear, but didn't think the RUAF was concerned with the UKAF air-to-air at this point. Mainstay cannot track ground targets. Still not clear why they would risk a Mainstay and a E-Coot in a SAM engagement zone if they weren't concerned with UKAF air assets?? Western fighters aren't there yet. Would be different if they were.
Have they been prevaricating? Is UKAF air intercept more effective than suspected? Or have they mistaken SAM kills for air-to-air? Do they think there are Western fighters in theater now?
IMO, I don't think the RUAF knows what they are doing beyond the most basic of operational measures. It's clear both their kit isn't as good as our older stuff and their operational intelligence isn't either, but they are still operating like it is.
They aren't even second team, they are third team at best.
Americans have always *****ed at the cost of our military, but fortunately, military leadership has always planned for that our peer competitors are at least as good as us. This is a good thing to assume. If you want only less than 1% of your population to defend you, you must give them things as good as or better than the people who can destroy you. To do less is to find yourself in the same position as the Russians are now...both in equipment and manpower.
So far, the lessons of the Ukraine are that we have been doing the right thing regarding National Defense. Can we get better and be more efficient in spending our money? Absolutely! But we don't do that by gutting our military.
The biggest challenge facing us today is that the military we have is great for basically every situation but one.
China.
Featured Stories
See All
No. 7 A&M seeks to respond vs. No. 6 Tennessee on Saturday morning
by Olin Buchanan
13:35
7h ago
2.3k
10:35
10h ago
917
Keys to the Game: No. 7 Texas A&M vs. No. 6 Tennessee
by Luke Evangelist
40:51
16h ago
2.7k