MikeyD

APS radar automatically detecting and tracking a missile flying directly at you at 900 kph seems more straightforward than detecting and tracking something circling around you at 90 kph. The latter seems like it would be subject to more false signals, like a car driving past for example.

APS radar automatically detecting and tracking a missile flying directly at you at 900 kph seems more straightforward than detecting and tracking something circling around you at 90 kph. The latter seems like it would be subject to more false signals, like a car driving past for example.

Not so much unpleasant as nonsensical.

Not so much unpleasant as nonsensical.

Not so much unpleasant as nonsensical.

So instead of all this secondary stuff you post, how about you address the elephant in the room?  RU has advanced a very short distance in two areas over a period of 3 weeks and sustained enormous losses in the process.  How is that a success?  And the amount of RU offensive actions on the other fronts has reduced from before the Kharkiv offensive.  So how is this in any way a success for RU?  
WTF point are you even trying to make?  

You know, you kinda show your true colours by referring to Kharkiv as Kharkov. Also interesting take on an offensive that very quickly bogged down and is now resulting in considerable Russian losses.

M1E3 (formerly Abrams-X) is basically Armata. Autoloader, unmanned turret, the crew side-by-side in hull front, festooned with remote this-and-that. And Armata was basically the US TTB test program from 1980.

It appears the game changer in the war was the US Switchblade kamakazi drone, but not in the way it was intended. I recall a report that the Ukrainians considered $600+ a shot to be much too expensive to deliver what was ostensibly a 40mm grenade round on-target. So they threw themselves into reproducing Switchblade's benefits at a fraction of the cost. That gave birth to 'drone warfare on the cheap', which is quite different from the TB2s and Orlans which had started the war.

It appears the game changer in the war was the US Switchblade kamakazi drone, but not in the way it was intended. I recall a report that the Ukrainians considered $600+ a shot to be much too expensive to deliver what was ostensibly a 40mm grenade round on-target. So they threw themselves into reproducing Switchblade's benefits at a fraction of the cost. That gave birth to 'drone warfare on the cheap', which is quite different from the TB2s and Orlans which had started the war.

It appears the game changer in the war was the US Switchblade kamakazi drone, but not in the way it was intended. I recall a report that the Ukrainians considered $600+ a shot to be much too expensive to deliver what was ostensibly a 40mm grenade round on-target. So they threw themselves into reproducing Switchblade's benefits at a fraction of the cost. That gave birth to 'drone warfare on the cheap', which is quite different from the TB2s and Orlans which had started the war.

It appears the game changer in the war was the US Switchblade kamakazi drone, but not in the way it was intended. I recall a report that the Ukrainians considered $600+ a shot to be much too expensive to deliver what was ostensibly a 40mm grenade round on-target. So they threw themselves into reproducing Switchblade's benefits at a fraction of the cost. That gave birth to 'drone warfare on the cheap', which is quite different from the TB2s and Orlans which had started the war.

It appears the game changer in the war was the US Switchblade kamakazi drone, but not in the way it was intended. I recall a report that the Ukrainians considered $600+ a shot to be much too expensive to deliver what was ostensibly a 40mm grenade round on-target. So they threw themselves into reproducing Switchblade's benefits at a fraction of the cost. That gave birth to 'drone warfare on the cheap', which is quite different from the TB2s and Orlans which had started the war.

You are shocked when someone turns up spouting utter nonsense and gets the appropriate treatment for doing so? 

 

So how long we gonna let this jerk derail the thread w nonsense?  
Can he just be banned from this thread?  And then he can start his own thread of "murder is always murder victims' fault"

Ukraine's been systematically going after long range radar for awhile. My opinion is they're 'shaping the battlefield' in anticipation of the imminent arrival of F16. In Ukraine's eyes if it can peer deep into Ukrainian airspace its a legitimate target.

Ukraine's been systematically going after long range radar for awhile. My opinion is they're 'shaping the battlefield' in anticipation of the imminent arrival of F16. In Ukraine's eyes if it can peer deep into Ukrainian airspace its a legitimate target.

Ukraine's been systematically going after long range radar for awhile. My opinion is they're 'shaping the battlefield' in anticipation of the imminent arrival of F16. In Ukraine's eyes if it can peer deep into Ukrainian airspace its a legitimate target.

Ukraine's been systematically going after long range radar for awhile. My opinion is they're 'shaping the battlefield' in anticipation of the imminent arrival of F16. In Ukraine's eyes if it can peer deep into Ukrainian airspace its a legitimate target.

Ukraine's been systematically going after long range radar for awhile. My opinion is they're 'shaping the battlefield' in anticipation of the imminent arrival of F16. In Ukraine's eyes if it can peer deep into Ukrainian airspace its a legitimate target.

Ukraine's been systematically going after long range radar for awhile. My opinion is they're 'shaping the battlefield' in anticipation of the imminent arrival of F16. In Ukraine's eyes if it can peer deep into Ukrainian airspace its a legitimate target.

I am sticking to my theory that this is all just Putin saying "attack, attack, attack".  Then getting mad because it fails.  So someone says "maybe we attack somewhere else" and they go do it.  And it fails.  So then he gets mad and starts firing everyone.  And now he'll have even less militarily-savvy folks running the military, who will probably lean toward the same things as before but with even less skill.  Attack attack attack and launch even more terrorism strikes on civilians.  
My ongoing question is whether Putin will burn up enough resources such that UKR can actually do something offensively, somewhere.  Will a RU artillery & soldier shortage lead to weakened sections of the front?  Could weak areas be exploited, considering mines & drones?  
On the earlier discussion about RU breaking up, I am pretty sure China wants a nice peaceful breakup that leaves all those eastern provinces independent but also quite reliant on China for trade & arms & loans.  Those eastern provinces have yummy fossil fuels.  So china would get RU threat off its border and get cheap energy.  

A historical question. What prompted Russia to withdraw from Afghanistan, and can we draw any conclusions from it in regard to the future of Ukraine? How is it similar? How is it dissimilar? We've had plenty of similar debates circling around why the US withdrew from (Vietnam, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, the Philippines, etc etc etc).

This may be the easiest of easy outs for Ukraine. Vlad Putin is 71 in a country where male life expectancy is 69 and falling, and a year ago Putin was looking very shaky, health-wise. A successor, whatever his stripes, is less likely to have his ego tied up in prosecuting the war. Unfortunately, the waiting game can seem like an exercise in futility. I can produce a laundry list of geriatric politicians, jurists and world leaders that I want to say 'Just die already!' But they never do.

"How reliable was the swingfire and striker?"
Swingfire, if I recall correctly, had a quite long minimum range. It was fired upward then had  to be gathered into the LOS. So a Swingfire missile could be halfway down a standard CM map before the gunner got proper control of the missile. Wiki says minimum distance is 150m. That would be arming distance, it could be 700m or more downrange before the gunner got the missile in the crosshairs.