War in Ukraine

#79,326
#79,326
norrislakevol said:
It's called mutually assured economical destruction. It's why we are trying to decouple from China.
Click to expand...

Correct. And China has been trying to decouple from the Federal Reserve system. If China withdraws the whole global system will collapse. They (China) admitted in 2008 during the financial crisis there is no backup system and they couldn't decouple or the whole system collapses. Through brics they are trying to create a backup system but that is kind of meaningless, all of it still eventually goes back to US dollars ie world reserve currency.

Life as we know it today would end without one nuclear weapon going off. Billions would have to go, as this is all a function of a global credit system.

Asia and Africa would probably lose the most i.e. liquidation of the unfunded liabilities initially, probably followed by Europe. My guess. The rest would be hard to calculate meaning war and regional war, plus starvation.

Reset.
 
Last edited:
#79,327
#79,327
LSU-SIU said:
Huh, you are saying the U.S. or the West? Your exercise is kind of moronic in nature. Yes, you would need a greater force than WW2 as Russia would begin mobilizing their whole country. What you think you're going to just do that with 100,000 troops, exactly does all the meat come from. Oh, magically stealth planes operating from the United States. That is moronic in a real war son. You're going to need millions of troops to just have an impact in the Ukraine, plus all the equipment you don't have.... and somehow magically get it all over there.

What you are talking about is unrealistic in nature. The United States doesn't have any wonder weapons, never did. Its fiction. The West can't even produce shells. Your military is nothing in a large war, its basically a reserve force. The force is fine, if the goal is to fight goat herders for 20 years and it actually might be okay for a thermonuclear war. It has no ability to rapidly mobilize for a real war with a real opponent.

Jesus. What you are talking about is thermonuclear war.

All of this stuff burns.
Click to expand...
you are the only one talking about nuclear war.

I would argue that we are still more set up for a conventional war than a guerilla war. its just one of those basic truths as someone else pointed out. large standing armies aren't good at dealing with guerilla fighters.

all our fancy tech is expensive and made to take out high value targets while keeping our troops safe. none of that applied to the guerilla wars we were fighting in asia. but that is exactly what we would be facing in near peer combat.

and our system of war is more akin to the Blitz than Rattenkrieg. our whole doctrine is centered around creating a weak point and manipulating the enemy from there. we aren't going to try and push meter by meter across the whole front, or destroy the entire countryside. just like the Maginot in WW2, instead of trying to go through it, we are just going to go around it. allowing the enemy to tie up a lot of its own resources holding something that doesn't matter while we operating with freedom behind their lines.

Russia's current method of war would be rendered inconsequential with the first breakthru we achieved. likely thru air power. all that artillery and glider bombs aren't going to do very much against a mobile force who is able to punch thru the rear points of your lines with relative ease. We would cut their supply lines, so it wouldn't matter how much they had manufactured if it isn't getting where its needed.

its one of the things we have been talking about ITT that our tactics would never work for Ukraine because they don't have the air superiority that we are used to. without that dimension the attacks didn't go anywhere. we wouldn't have that same issue. and you also wouldn't only have the few elite units trained by the west to operate those attacks. you would have entire armies, who do that stuff everyday, with all the tools necessary.
 
#79,328
#79,328
LouderVol said:
you are the only one talking about nuclear war.

I would argue that we are still more set up for a conventional war than a guerilla war. its just one of those basic truths as someone else pointed out. large standing armies aren't good at dealing with guerilla fighters.

all our fancy tech is expensive and made to take out high value targets while keeping our troops safe. none of that applied to the guerilla wars we were fighting in asia. but that is exactly what we would be facing in near peer combat.

and our system of war is more akin to the Blitz than Rattenkrieg. our whole doctrine is centered around creating a weak point and manipulating the enemy from there. we aren't going to try and push meter by meter across the whole front, or destroy the entire countryside. just like the Maginot in WW2, instead of trying to go through it, we are just going to go around it. allowing the enemy to tie up a lot of its own resources holding something that doesn't matter while we operating with freedom behind their lines.

Russia's current method of war would be rendered inconsequential with the first breakthru we achieved. likely thru air power. all that artillery and glider bombs aren't going to do very much against a mobile force who is able to punch thru the rear points of your lines with relative ease. We would cut their supply lines, so it wouldn't matter how much they had manufactured if it isn't getting where its needed.

its one of the things we have been talking about ITT that our tactics would never work for Ukraine because they don't have the air superiority that we are used to. without that dimension the attacks didn't go anywhere. we wouldn't have that same issue. and you also wouldn't only have the few elite units trained by the west to operate those attacks. you would have entire armies, who do that stuff everyday, with all the tools necessary.
Click to expand...

Any attack to russia or russia assets outside of the Ukraine by the West eventually leads to tactical nuclear warfare than to thermonuclear war.

The United States could send troops into the ukraine but it would take 10s of thousands a month to have any real impact plus all the equipment to be transport to the theater of operation I guess across Europe? (I don't even understand what you are saying or implying) If the United States somehow got their whole army into the Ukraine than Russia will mobilize their whole army and reserve plus start mobilization of the rest of Russia for war.

You are not going to have air superiority, even if you did... you run out of everything. The United States doesn't have what you think they have and can magically just get it there. It doesn't work like that.

Even if magic existed, Russia just increases their own production and mobilization. The west can't even compete right now in production nor does the meat to have any real impact in the Ukraine let alone take on the whole country. It simple doesn't exist.

Russia doesn't care if some country sends troops or equipment to the Ukraine, why? Because its all going to burn.

Any real push into Russia will be met with tactical nuclear weapons. There is no winning this.

To have any real impact in the Ukraine by streaming equipment and personal there, you need to be thinking 10s of trillions and millions of piece of meat.... which will just result in Russia increasing production and mobilization plus probably China and North Korea coming into the fray. The United States isn't going to be throwing millions into the grinder to try and save a place they don't care about. The Ukraine is simply a place for the world to take a piss in.

You are grossly oversimplifying how this works i.e. production, inventory, logistics, planning, resources, politically, economically, etc.

Your country can't even produce shells, and the shells they do produce cost 4-5 times what the other side can produce them for.
 
Last edited:
#79,329
#79,329
GPNmnZrW8AAVgdp
 
#79,330
#79,330
With western countries giving the go on using their weapons inside Russian these F16's could potentially play a more significant roll than first thought IMO. It's obvious there is a plan in place of course what anyone is being told halfway across the world.
 
#79,331
#79,331
TVOLS said:
With western countries giving the go on using their weapons inside Russian these F16's could potentially play a more significant roll than first thought IMO. It's obvious there is a plan in place of course what anyone is being told halfway across the world.
Click to expand...

We'll have to see, but I'm having a hard time figuring it out. Sure, they can strike further into Russia with missiles and such but its all about tonnage. Missiles are very expensive. F-16s will not really change the front too much, meaning neither side has air superiority and probably won't have it for quite some time. Russia produces their own AA. The F-16s could be useful but in the big scheme of the war how does it significantly change the course of the war. This further ignores that it will take years for proficiency in these systems including logistics and support. They could be helpful in air defense as the Ukraine is running out of AA.

They could eventually use them limited in close air support and maybe do some things similar to Russia as to firing missiles beyond the range of AA, I seriously doubt there will be a big impact and if there is.... probably take years. This further leaves out that Russia can hit the bases where they are sitting as well and need more support than most of the Migs. I am not even sure they have intact runways for them, the requirements for the F-16s are going to be significantly higher than the Migs they are replacing.

It would be better if they could actually produce shells.
 
#79,332
#79,332
LSU-SIU said:
We'll have to see, but I'm having a hard time figuring it out. Sure, they can strike further into Russia with missiles and such but its all about tonnage. Missiles are very expensive. F-16s will not really change the front too much, meaning neither side has air superiority and probably won't have it for quite some time. Russia produces their own AA. The F-16s could be useful but in the big scheme of the war how does it significantly change the course of the war. This further ignores that it will take years for proficiency in these systems including logistics and support. They could be helpful in air defense as the Ukraine is running out of AA.

They could eventually use them limited in close air support and maybe do some things similar to Russia as to firing missiles beyond the range of AA, I seriously doubt there will be a big impact and if there is.... probably take years. This further leaves out that Russia can hit the bases where they are sitting as well and need more support than most of the Migs. I am not even sure they have intact runways for them, the requirements for the F-16s are going to be significantly higher than the Migs they are replacing.

It would be better if they could actually produce shells.
Click to expand...

If an Ukraine has success knocking out radar sites on Russia’s side like they are currently doing. The F16’s range could be extended. Also these Russian jets dropping these glide bombs from a safe distance will no longer be able to with impunity.
 
#79,333
#79,333
LSU-SIU said:
We'll have to see, but I'm having a hard time figuring it out. Sure, they can strike further into Russia with missiles and such but its all about tonnage. Missiles are very expensive. F-16s will not really change the front too much, meaning neither side has air superiority and probably won't have it for quite some time. Russia produces their own AA. The F-16s could be useful but in the big scheme of the war how does it significantly change the course of the war. This further ignores that it will take years for proficiency in these systems including logistics and support. They could be helpful in air defense as the Ukraine is running out of AA.

They could eventually use them limited in close air support and maybe do some things similar to Russia as to firing missiles beyond the range of AA, I seriously doubt there will be a big impact and if there is.... probably take years. This further leaves out that Russia can hit the bases where they are sitting as well and need more support than most of the Migs. I am not even sure they have intact runways for them, the requirements for the F-16s are going to be significantly higher than the Migs they are replacing.

It would be better if they could actually produce shells.
Click to expand...

Double post
 
#79,334
#79,334
TVOLS said:
If an Ukraine has success knocking out radar sites on Russia’s side like they are currently doing. The F16’s range could be extended. Also these Russian jets dropping these glide bombs from a safe distance will no longer be able to with impunity.
Click to expand...

You're talking years to take out Russia's AA and that is if they can't produce replacement units, if that is what you are getting at. I don't see how F-16s really help with the FABs as those are very far away, and the new kits are even greater distance from the front line. It doesn't necessarily hurt, it might have some impact on the edges, but generally speaking best case years from now.

Its taken the Russians years to take out the Ukraine AA (well, they're getting there) and its Russia's system mostly. Beating AA is no easy task in today's world. Time, energy, resources, etc. Russia is also starting to roll out the
S-400 which is better and longer range. Russia produces its own AA.

I'm actually interested in how long they last sitting on known flight lines. ??????

To me the best way of slowing the time table, produce more shells and more meat.

I'm still trying to figure out what they actually believe the endgame is and the plan to get there. Everything up to now has been very unrealistic.
 
Last edited:
#79,335
#79,335
LSU-SIU said:
We'll have to see, but I'm having a hard time figuring it out. Sure, they can strike further into Russia with missiles and such but its all about tonnage. Missiles are very expensive. F-16s will not really change the front too much, meaning neither side has air superiority and probably won't have it for quite some time. Russia produces their own AA. The F-16s could be useful but in the big scheme of the war how does it significantly change the course of the war. This further ignores that it will take years for proficiency in these systems including logistics and support. They could be helpful in air defense as the Ukraine is running out of AA.

They could eventually use them limited in close air support and maybe do some things similar to Russia as to firing missiles beyond the range of AA, I seriously doubt there will be a big impact and if there is.... probably take years. This further leaves out that Russia can hit the bases where they are sitting as well and need more support than most of the Migs. I am not even sure they have intact runways for them, the requirements for the F-16s are going to be significantly higher than the Migs they are replacing.

It would be better if they could actually produce shells.
Click to expand...

You never miss a chance to display your abject ignorance of a topic you try to discuss.

Why are F-16s and AGM-88 Harm missiles crucial for Ukraine?

Watch Why are F-16s and AGM-88 Harm missiles crucial for Ukraine? on Interesting Engineering. Explore the latest in technology, science, and engineering videos. Informative and inspiring content awaits!
interestingengineering.com interestingengineering.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#79,336
#79,336
LSU-SIU said:
You're talking years to take out Russia's AA and that is if they can't produce replacement units, if that is what you are getting at. I don't see how F-16s really help with the FABs as those are very far away, and the new kits are even greater distance from the front line. It doesn't necessarily hurt, it might have some impact on the edges, but generally speaking best case years from now.

Its taken the Russians years to take out the Ukraine AA (well, they're getting there) and its Russia's system mostly. Beating AA is no easy task in today's world. Time, energy, resources, etc. Russia is also starting to roll out the
S-400 which is better and longer range. Russia produces its own AA.

I'm actually interested in how long they last sitting on known flight lines. ??????

To me the best way of slowing the time table, produce more shells and more meat.

I'm still trying to figure out what they actually believe the endgame is and the plan to get there. Everything up to now has been very unrealistic.
Click to expand...
Russia has 56 S-400 systems. assuming they haven't lost, or at least replaced any losses, any from this war, which we know they have.
they have had to renegotiate with India several times on the delivery of the S-400s India has already paid for and were supposed to be delivered a year or two ago.

their manufacturing isn't as up to snuff as you think they are. and that is with them fighting an enemy who has practically no air power to speak of.

each of those 56 systems has a MAX range of 400kms. meaning if they were spread out to cover the max amount of linear distance of 22,400kms with a single s-400 system deep. Their shared land borders amount to 22,187 kms. granted not all of that is going to be accessible to allied air craft, but it is similarly not counting the airspace over water.

they have about triple that number in S-300s, with a max range of about 40kms, probably enough to cover the entire western border. again only a single layer deep. maybe they have more around key areas in land, but there is no way for Russia to protect itself with its current armaments.

they would also have any interceptors, AA-drones, AA gun systems, and the like. but that isn't nearly enough to be considered impenetrable.

Ukraine, little ole Ukraine has been able to strike pretty deep into Russia. Not sure how you are thinking Russian AA performance is suddenly going to get better because they are fighting a more advanced and numerous foe than Ukraine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: norrislakevol
#79,338
#79,338
LouderVol said:
Russia has 56 S-400 systems. assuming they haven't lost, or at least replaced any losses, any from this war, which we know they have.
they have had to renegotiate with India several times on the delivery of the S-400s India has already paid for and were supposed to be delivered a year or two ago.

their manufacturing isn't as up to snuff as you think they are. and that is with them fighting an enemy who has practically no air power to speak of.

each of those 56 systems has a MAX range of 400kms. meaning if they were spread out to cover the max amount of linear distance of 22,400kms with a single s-400 system deep. Their shared land borders amount to 22,187 kms. granted not all of that is going to be accessible to allied air craft, but it is similarly not counting the airspace over water.

they have about triple that number in S-300s, with a max range of about 40kms, probably enough to cover the entire western border. again only a single layer deep. maybe they have more around key areas in land, but there is no way for Russia to protect itself with its current armaments.

they would also have any interceptors, AA-drones, AA gun systems, and the like. but that isn't nearly enough to be considered impenetrable.

Ukraine, little ole Ukraine has been able to strike pretty deep into Russia. Not sure how you are thinking Russian AA performance is suddenly going to get better because they are fighting a more advanced and numerous foe than Ukraine.
Click to expand...

The grind will continue until its just all gone. Its called a war. Losses will continue for all that enter the fray. It doesn't have to get better, the grinding will continue.

Keep playing fantasy football and see how it turns out.

but that isn't nearly enough to be considered impenetrable.
Click to expand...

Who said that, there is no such thing. The grind will continue.

their manufacturing isn't as up to snuff as you think they are. and that is with them fighting an enemy who has practically no air power to speak of.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Its not a matter of whether something can get through, its that you only have so many chances when you are talking about expensive systems with live crew. Russian planes can get through, until they finally can't i.e. get hit. I never said or implied Russian AA is a wonder weapon, matter of fact the opposite... its a weapon system(s) that will just take years to destroy even if one has the resources. Its not magic. Its no different than the Ukrainians really, the issue is time, resources, production, etc.

I have neither implied or said the things you are saying.

78385e05-f1f8-4bed-a8f2-aa2ce73e7de0_text.gif
 
Last edited:
#79,339
#79,339
LSU-SIU said:
The grind will continue until its just all gone. Its called a war. Losses will continue for all that enter the fray. It doesn't have to get better, the grinding will continue.

Keep playing fantasy football and see how it turns out.
Click to expand...
right, and Russia despite ALL their vaunted prowess on the field and in manufacturing is showing signs that the current scope of the war stresses their system to the point where it is less capable than it was outside of the war. Which is why we are questioning if Russia is actually any more capable of maintaining a large war than the west would.
 
#79,340
#79,340
LouderVol said:
right, and Russia despite ALL their vaunted prowess on the field and in manufacturing is showing signs that the current scope of the war stresses their system to the point where it is less capable than it was outside of the war. Which is why we are questioning if Russia is actually any more capable of maintaining a large war than the west would.
Click to expand...

Well, anyone can question anything I guess. But the narrative has been a kind of wrong for quite a while now. The war machine is only getting warmed up.

Someone better come up with some shells and meat is all I'm saying.
 
#79,341
#79,341
NorthDallas40 said:
There is an entire cadre of intel and ops analysis people trying to convince everyone they are not clueless and incompetent at their jobs these days.
Click to expand...

In fairness, it is much better to overestimate your adversary than to underestimate them.

The real ironic dynamic is our adversaries' inability to not boast of their military prowess (whether real or not). This, in turn, spurns the US to advance their military technology even faster thinking they either might be behind or that the gap is too close for comfort.

From the outside looking in, it appears as a conundrum via the pure stupidity which leads to their countries falling further and further behind the US. However, as we learn more about the domestic dynamics of our adversaries, it becomes increasingly clear that the boasting is purely for domestic stability reasons. These leaders know the US is too far ahead to realistically catch up (barring the collapse of the US). The problem, as in Putin's case, is when these leaders build, over the course of many years, an information funnel echo chamber which results in a vastly distorted self-reflection. Putin didn't go from being the 21st century's best geopolitical mind to a moron overnight. He inadvertently, over decades, created a terrible intelligence apparatus which lead to a horrendous geopolitical decision based on bad information.
 
  • Like
Reactions: norrislakevol, tvolsfan, USF grad in TN and 2 others
#79,342
#79,342
PKT_VOL said:
In fairness, it is much better to overestimate your adversary than to underestimate them.

The real ironic dynamic is our adversaries' inability to not boast of their military prowess (whether real or not). This, in turn, spurns the US to advance their military technology even faster thinking they either might be behind or that the gap is too close for comfort.

From the outside looking in, it appears as a conundrum via the pure stupidity which leads to their countries falling further and further behind the US. However, as we learn more about the domestic dynamics of our adversaries, it becomes increasingly clear that the boasting is purely for domestic stability reasons. These leaders know the US is too far ahead to realistically catch up (barring the collapse of the US). The problem, as in Putin's case, is when these leaders build, over the course of many years, an information funnel echo chamber which results in a vastly distorted self-reflection. Putin didn't go from being the 21st century's best geopolitical mind to a moron overnight. He inadvertently, over decades, created a terrible intelligence apparatus which lead to a horrendous geopolitical decision based on bad information.
Click to expand...
No one wants to be the one who tells the emperor he has no clothes
 
  • Like
Reactions: PKT_VOL, norrislakevol and NorthDallas40
#79,350
#79,350
Imagine living in 2024, and worrying that a foreign power is going to spark a revolution in your country by offering paved roads, indoor toilets, and palm oil mixed with cocoa powder to the masses.

Russkiy Mir...
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top