War in Ukraine

#77,027
#77,027
#77,030
#77,030
BeardedVol said:
You didn't research him, but you're propping him up as a reputable source of information?

There's been plenty of discussion of his antics.
taskandpurpose.com

How a former US Navy sailor became a Putin propagandist

"He has a long track record of biased reporting when it comes to pro-Russian separatists and Russia itself."
taskandpurpose.com taskandpurpose.com
Click to expand...
No I didn't, I just said he is a reporter that talks to Russian soldiers about the war. He is at any more or less objective than the other news outlets
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol
#77,033
#77,033
BeardedVol said:
What does cleaning up a mess that should have already been cleaned up, have to do with surrendering to an invader during an invasion or not?
Click to expand...
I'd say you're hard of hearing, but you're clearly hard of reading.

What is being projected? The streets of San Fran were only cleaned out because the Chinese were coming.
 
#77,034
#77,034
just bob said:
I'd say you're hard of hearing, but you're clearly hard of reading.

What is being projected? The streets of San Fran were only cleaned out because the Chinese were coming.
Click to expand...

You seem to be struggling with following the conversation that you tried to interject yourself into.

Maybe go back and read the relevant posts before you respond next time.
 
#77,035
#77,035
BeardedVol said:
You seem to be struggling with following the conversation that you tried to interject yourself into.

Maybe go back and read the relevant posts before you respond next time.
Click to expand...
You have nothing to the original reply and you can't explain yourself. Try harder next time.
 
#77,037
#77,037
dalton_vol said:
If America put boots on the ground then we would have to commit 100%. That would be the only way to beat Russia. We could not do some Vietnam type strategy
Click to expand...
If America puts boots on the ground, we will not be in a conventional war. Russia would ramp up directly to a nuclear escalation.

So, are you ready for life as we know it to be placed in jeopardy over what side of a line Kramatorsk and Robotyne are on?

Also, to address the highlighted quote, exactly what would the US need to do that would suffice? At the peak of the Vietnam War, the US had over half a million men on the ground. How many more will we need in Ukraine? How long will it take to mobilize them? Where are they going to stage the men and equipment? Poland? Romania? And supply lines... how are we going to get equipment to our forces in Eastern Europe from America?
 
#77,038
#77,038
Rasputin_Vol said:
If America puts boots on the ground, we will not be in a conventional war. Russia would ramp up directly to a nuclear escalation.

So, are you ready for life as we know it to be placed in jeopardy over what side of a line Kramatorsk and Robotyne are on?

Also, to address the highlighted quote, exactly what would the US need to do that would suffice? At the peak of the Vietnam War, the US had over half a million men on the ground. How many more will we need in Ukraine? How long will it take to mobilize them? Where are they going to stage the men and equipment? Poland? Romania? And supply lines... how are we going to get equipment to our forces in Eastern Europe from America?
Click to expand...

Im not supporting any troops at all, im just stating what would need to be done if troops went over there. You're exactly right what would happen if we sent our troops.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol
#77,039
#77,039
PKT_VOL said:
It doesn't effect our readiness.

The equipment sent is mostly leftovers for a war decades ago which (thankfully) never came. Would the Pentagon and the various factions of the MIC love to make that case to get more taxpayer funded contracts? Absolutely.

If anything, the invasion has increased our allies appetite for our newer technology platforms above what we can realistically provide. It also illuminated our military supply chain weaknesses; both internationally (think chips from Taiwan) and domestic industrial might (think artillery shell, ammunition, bombs, missiles, tanks, airframes). While the Pentagon certainly didn't count on/plan for a prolonged, intense conflict of attrition with dumb artillery which has resulted in an unexpected demand for old systems and old artillery, such is not a reflection of readiness as much as a candid admission that we are not built for that kind of fight. Russia is.

If we were to get into a conflict with Russia, we would be using entirely different platforms, technologies, and strategies than what Ukraine is forced to use now. Russia is not remotely built for the fight we are built for; a combined arms campaign lead by devastating air and sea power. Their only hope was that their heavy investment in air defense platforms and technology could counteract our air superiority platforms. Based on the War in Ukraine thus far, that was a false hope. Add in their nonexistent logistical capabilities past the railway system, we are talking an apples to oranges mismatch of military assets/technology and future military needs.

In short, Ukraine is fighting a war that was supposed to be fought decades ago. Sending mostly our mothballed platforms designed for that war in no way leaves us vulnerable to our future military needs.
Click to expand...
what makes you think that us being unprepared to fight the old way with our stockpiles that were prepared to fight that old way, means that we are prepared to fight the new way? at best you are hoping we have better stockpiles for the new way despite the evidence against it.

we haven't fought a near peer in a LONG time. even when we fought Iraq we had to build up for months to get enough supplies in the area to blitz Iraq. Russia is how ever many times bigger.

to me this war is showing that modern wars between near peers are some strange combination of an old school slog, and new tech that we don't have a current answer for. Are we going to shoot down $1000 drones with $1,000,000 dollar missiles? We going to count on having enough power sources to use lasers or some other type of disruption tech on the front lines to combat those drones? We are 100% not set up for that. that is not a sustainable fight. that is how our MIC is set up though.

what happens to our front line units when they are engaged in a fight for 2 years against a major enemy like Russia or China? They are going to blow through our modern equipment very fast, and we aren't going to have enough, due to expenses, to get them reequipped with the same. but instead of having the next best thing in the stock pile, you think its a winning recipe to have nothing? What rate can our MIC repair our Abrams, F22s and F35s? We are having trouble keeping some of those air assets in the air during peace. its why you are still seeing older planes around. we simply can not produce enough to fight a modern war on a large scale. we can't even produce enough for a modern war during peace.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dalton_vol
#77,040
#77,040
Rasputin_Vol said:
The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous. Hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. This new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or East Asia, but to keep the very structure of society intact.

George Orwell
Click to expand...
I am pretty sure Putin is well versed in 1984. He has several frozen conflicts he has maintained for pretty much his entire rule. he knows he constantly has to feed the fear and mania he has built up with new wars and threats of wars. he has to make the west his enemy or he loses power.
 
#77,041
#77,041
LouderVol said:
what makes you think that us being unprepared to fight the old way with our stockpiles that were prepared to fight that old way, means that we are prepared to fight the new way? at best you are hoping we have better stockpiles for the new way despite the evidence against it.

we haven't fought a near peer in a LONG time. even when we fought Iraq we had to build up for months to get enough supplies in the area to blitz Iraq. Russia is how ever many times bigger.

to me this war is showing that modern wars between near peers are some strange combination of an old school slog, and new tech that we don't have a current answer for. Are we going to shoot down $1000 drones with $1,000,000 dollar missiles? We going to count on having enough power sources to use lasers or some other type of disruption tech on the front lines to combat those drones? We are 100% not set up for that. that is not a sustainable fight. that is how our MIC is set up though.

what happens to our front line units when they are engaged in a fight for 2 years against a major enemy like Russia or China? They are going to blow through our modern equipment very fast, and we aren't going to have enough, due to expenses, to get them reequipped with the same. but instead of having the next best thing in the stock pile, you think its a winning recipe to have nothing? What rate can our MIC repair our Abrams, F22s and F35s? We are having trouble keeping some of those air assets in the air during peace. its why you are still seeing older planes around. we simply can not produce enough to fight a modern war on a large scale. we can't even produce enough for a modern war during peace.
Click to expand...
Actually we would shoot down $1000-$25000 drones with a $5,000,000 directed energy weapon that utilizes minimal cost reloads (the cost of energy or some minimal projectile in like a railgun or land CIWS). The US conceived this type of warfare and was also in the forefront of defending against it. The primary concern for the US is attacking drone saturation in a focused attack with very large numbers of drones. The quantities being used today in Ukraine should likely be manageable by our CUAS point defense systems.
 
#77,042
#77,042
LouderVol said:
what makes you think that us being unprepared to fight the old way with our stockpiles that were prepared to fight that old way, means that we are prepared to fight the new way? at best you are hoping we have better stockpiles for the new way despite the evidence against it.

we haven't fought a near peer in a LONG time. even when we fought Iraq we had to build up for months to get enough supplies in the area to blitz Iraq. Russia is how ever many times bigger.

to me this war is showing that modern wars between near peers are some strange combination of an old school slog, and new tech that we don't have a current answer for. Are we going to shoot down $1000 drones with $1,000,000 dollar missiles? We going to count on having enough power sources to use lasers or some other type of disruption tech on the front lines to combat those drones? We are 100% not set up for that. that is not a sustainable fight. that is how our MIC is set up though.

what happens to our front line units when they are engaged in a fight for 2 years against a major enemy like Russia or China? They are going to blow through our modern equipment very fast, and we aren't going to have enough, due to expenses, to get them reequipped with the same. but instead of having the next best thing in the stock pile, you think its a winning recipe to have nothing? What rate can our MIC repair our Abrams, F22s and F35s? We are having trouble keeping some of those air assets in the air during peace. its why you are still seeing older planes around. we simply can not produce enough to fight a modern war on a large scale. we can't even produce enough for a modern war during peace.
Click to expand...

Yeah, replacing and repairing takes more time than breaking. This why giving our weapons away to ukraine, (just to protect biden and his son) is fool hardy.
 
#77,043
#77,043
NorthDallas40 said:
Actually we would shoot down $1000-$25000 drones with a $5,000,000 directed energy weapon that utilizes minimal cost reloads (the cost of energy or some minimal projectile in like a railgun or land CIWS). The US conceived this type of warfare and was also in the forefront of defending against it. The primary concern for the US is attacking drone saturation in a focused attack with very large numbers of drones. The quantities being used today in Ukraine should likely be manageable by our CUAS point defense systems.
Click to expand...
how/where are you going to get those recharges though? You dragging around a solar panel? maybe some diesel generator that has to be refueled every hour? That wouldn't be something you could stick on the rear lines, that would have to be upfront wherever the fight is.

a land CIWS is short ranged, requires support modules, which will likely be at risk on the front line.

I imagine the next great shift in military fighting will be a combined arm approach that integrates drones. you are going to have to be able to counter the drones up front, and back behind the lines. I seriously doubt we have the capability of projecting that much AD capability across the type of front line a war with Russia would include.

I will also be interested to see how these cheap drones get adapted to deal with an airforce. that will be coming too. I can conceive of drones that would essentially act as flying mines. hundreds of cheap drones, loitering, too small to really pick up on air based radars, and too high for the ground based radars designed to hunt drones. or even just as a platform with a one off missile.
 
#77,045
#77,045
All the War Hawks wanting to fight Russia need to watch this movie:

Edit: Movie won't post but it is a British movie called "Threads". Below isn't the movie but a video about it:



I agree that we shouldn't let Russia walk all over us but sending troops to Ukraine is just a disaster waiting to happen.
 
#77,046
#77,046
LouderVol said:
how/where are you going to get those recharges though? You dragging around a solar panel? maybe some diesel generator that has to be refueled every hour? That wouldn't be something you could stick on the rear lines, that would have to be upfront wherever the fight is.

a land CIWS is short ranged, requires support modules, which will likely be at risk on the front line.

I imagine the next great shift in military fighting will be a combined arm approach that integrates drones. you are going to have to be able to counter the drones up front, and back behind the lines. I seriously doubt we have the capability of projecting that much AD capability across the type of front line a war with Russia would include.

I will also be interested to see how these cheap drones get adapted to deal with an airforce. that will be coming too. I can conceive of drones that would essentially act as flying mines. hundreds of cheap drones, loitering, too small to really pick up on air based radars, and too high for the ground based radars designed to hunt drones. or even just as a platform with a one off missile.
Click to expand...
The same way they refuel trucks and tanks today louder 🤷‍♂️. And the refuel interval is in many hours maybe ten.

We conceived “swarm” drone attacks both air and sea based over a decade ago. And it also dawned on us we’d have to defend against them too

We conceived a smart self healing mine network close to two decades ago I think too

ETA I’d guess we aren’t fully stocked with the CUAS assets needed to support a theater wide conflict. But we aren’t giving up what we got that I’m aware of and based on the info we’re getting out of Ukraine I’d guess those systems get moved up the procurement chain too
 
#77,047
#77,047
NorthDallas40 said:
The same way they refuel trucks and tanks today louder 🤷‍♂️. And the refuel interval is in many hours maybe ten.

We conceived “swarm” drone attacks both air and sea based over a decade ago. And it also dawned on us we’d have to defend against them too

We conceived a smart self healing mine network close to two decades ago I think too

ETA I’d guess we aren’t fully stocked with the CUAS assets needed to support a theater wide conflict. But we aren’t giving up what we got that I’m aware of and based on the info we’re getting out of Ukraine I’d guess those systems get moved up the procurement chain too
Click to expand...
In a combat setting? I don't have anything to argue against that and you would definitely know far better than me, but I am shocked with that much time if it is having to pop off shots against some drones. even in a non-swarm scenario.

i am extremely hesitant to trust a system I haven't seen put into use. especially with the current state of procurement and all the pet projects in the military. I have to worry if its an F35 situation, where the platform is around, but it takes a decade plus to get a full production run going.
 
#77,048
#77,048
LouderVol said:
In a combat setting? I don't have anything to argue against that and you would definitely know far better than me, but I am shocked with that much time if it is having to pop off shots against some drones. even in a non-swarm scenario.

i am extremely hesitant to trust a system I haven't seen put into use. especially with the current state of procurement and all the pet projects in the military. I have to worry if its an F35 situation, where the platform is around, but it takes a decade plus to get a full production run going.
Click to expand...
We have fielded CUAS systems today. They are combat proven. Like I said we just don’t have a lot of them and I’d guess that’s going to change. As far as sustained energy consumption level you have to remember the usage of these systems can be characterized as hours of sheer boredom with an occasional 20 or 30 minutes of white knuckled terror.
 
#77,049
#77,049
Russia is "losing" a war, yet held "sham" elections in March 2024 = Dictatorship

Ukraine is "winning" a war, yet elections will NOT be held in March 2024 = Democracy
 
#77,050
#77,050
This is "democracy"... threatening international observers.

And they have to stay on script ("sham elections")...

Department Press Briefing – March 14, 2024

"Finally, the United States condemns Russia’s continuing efforts to undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence through sham elections held in occupied Ukrainian territories. The United States does not and will never recognize the legitimacy or outcome of these sham elections held in sovereign Ukraine as part of Russia’s presidential elections. To be clear, Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhya, Kherson, and Crimea are Ukraine. The results of these Potemkin-style exercises will be dictated by Moscow and cannot reflect the free will of the citizens of Ukraine who are being compelled to vote in them.

This spectacle only further demonstrates Russia’s blatant disregard for its obligations under international law. The United States will continue to use all available tools to hold accountable those individuals responsible for actions that undermine the sovereignty, territorial integrity, or political independence of free countries, including those who serve as election observers for the Kremlin’s sham elections in occupied parts of Ukraine."
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top