chrisl

So how's the air defense around Putin's dacha?

I realized earlier this year that probably half the really annoying problems I've had to deal with in 30 years in science and aerospace have been related to plastics. Cured epoxy resins (filled and unfilled) to be more accurate, but essentially plastics.  They're an enormous PITA and much more processing and history dependent than metals.  Their properties generally don't match book values/spec sheets that closely and you have to characterize them for your particular application and process, and usually control the process very carefully.  They have time dependent properties that also depend on temperature.  They can have multiple transitions in properties that depend on their history and what temp you're using them at.  They're extremely non-linear, so doing analysis to predict their behavior can be a mess.  They can be anisotropic, so their properties in one orientation are (sometimes very) different than their properties in another orientation.  They can have hidden damage that causes sudden catastrophic failure where a metal would have showed signs for a long time and not killed you.  It's really easy to screw up a design that uses plastic resins and have it be perfectly fine until it's suddenly a disaster.
They can also be extremely strong and have amazing strength to weight ratio and durability if well engineered.  I pretty much only ride carbon fiber bicycles anymore. I beat the hell out of them and the one frame failure I've had was an aluminum dropout getting bent (I've broken a couple steel frames).  We use them all the time in aerospace, often exploiting their quirky properties.  Modern jet aircraft are full of them, but are tested to extremes. 
I agree that I wouldn't count on the Shahed plastic problem getting resolved over the winter.
 
All those ships in the med would have to fire any missiles over NATO countries, which is unlikely to end well for the missiles or the Russian Mediterranean fleet.

I realized earlier this year that probably half the really annoying problems I've had to deal with in 30 years in science and aerospace have been related to plastics. Cured epoxy resins (filled and unfilled) to be more accurate, but essentially plastics.  They're an enormous PITA and much more processing and history dependent than metals.  Their properties generally don't match book values/spec sheets that closely and you have to characterize them for your particular application and process, and usually control the process very carefully.  They have time dependent properties that also depend on temperature.  They can have multiple transitions in properties that depend on their history and what temp you're using them at.  They're extremely non-linear, so doing analysis to predict their behavior can be a mess.  They can be anisotropic, so their properties in one orientation are (sometimes very) different than their properties in another orientation.  They can have hidden damage that causes sudden catastrophic failure where a metal would have showed signs for a long time and not killed you.  It's really easy to screw up a design that uses plastic resins and have it be perfectly fine until it's suddenly a disaster.
They can also be extremely strong and have amazing strength to weight ratio and durability if well engineered.  I pretty much only ride carbon fiber bicycles anymore. I beat the hell out of them and the one frame failure I've had was an aluminum dropout getting bent (I've broken a couple steel frames).  We use them all the time in aerospace, often exploiting their quirky properties.  Modern jet aircraft are full of them, but are tested to extremes. 
I agree that I wouldn't count on the Shahed plastic problem getting resolved over the winter.
 
All those ships in the med would have to fire any missiles over NATO countries, which is unlikely to end well for the missiles or the Russian Mediterranean fleet.

And even the USSR didn't have the self-contained industrial base.  They depended heavily on Lend Lease equipment that came largely from the US.  Including some ~400K trucks, 11K aircraft, millions of tons of food and enormous amounts of ordnance.  They wouldn't have had the mobility to chase Germany back across the border without enormous numbers of 2 1/2 ton trucks supplied by the US.  All that stuff from the current version of the arsenal of democracy is going to Ukraine side this time around.

I realized earlier this year that probably half the really annoying problems I've had to deal with in 30 years in science and aerospace have been related to plastics. Cured epoxy resins (filled and unfilled) to be more accurate, but essentially plastics.  They're an enormous PITA and much more processing and history dependent than metals.  Their properties generally don't match book values/spec sheets that closely and you have to characterize them for your particular application and process, and usually control the process very carefully.  They have time dependent properties that also depend on temperature.  They can have multiple transitions in properties that depend on their history and what temp you're using them at.  They're extremely non-linear, so doing analysis to predict their behavior can be a mess.  They can be anisotropic, so their properties in one orientation are (sometimes very) different than their properties in another orientation.  They can have hidden damage that causes sudden catastrophic failure where a metal would have showed signs for a long time and not killed you.  It's really easy to screw up a design that uses plastic resins and have it be perfectly fine until it's suddenly a disaster.
They can also be extremely strong and have amazing strength to weight ratio and durability if well engineered.  I pretty much only ride carbon fiber bicycles anymore. I beat the hell out of them and the one frame failure I've had was an aluminum dropout getting bent (I've broken a couple steel frames).  We use them all the time in aerospace, often exploiting their quirky properties.  Modern jet aircraft are full of them, but are tested to extremes. 
I agree that I wouldn't count on the Shahed plastic problem getting resolved over the winter.
 
All those ships in the med would have to fire any missiles over NATO countries, which is unlikely to end well for the missiles or the Russian Mediterranean fleet.

And even the USSR didn't have the self-contained industrial base.  They depended heavily on Lend Lease equipment that came largely from the US.  Including some ~400K trucks, 11K aircraft, millions of tons of food and enormous amounts of ordnance.  They wouldn't have had the mobility to chase Germany back across the border without enormous numbers of 2 1/2 ton trucks supplied by the US.  All that stuff from the current version of the arsenal of democracy is going to Ukraine side this time around.

I realized earlier this year that probably half the really annoying problems I've had to deal with in 30 years in science and aerospace have been related to plastics. Cured epoxy resins (filled and unfilled) to be more accurate, but essentially plastics.  They're an enormous PITA and much more processing and history dependent than metals.  Their properties generally don't match book values/spec sheets that closely and you have to characterize them for your particular application and process, and usually control the process very carefully.  They have time dependent properties that also depend on temperature.  They can have multiple transitions in properties that depend on their history and what temp you're using them at.  They're extremely non-linear, so doing analysis to predict their behavior can be a mess.  They can be anisotropic, so their properties in one orientation are (sometimes very) different than their properties in another orientation.  They can have hidden damage that causes sudden catastrophic failure where a metal would have showed signs for a long time and not killed you.  It's really easy to screw up a design that uses plastic resins and have it be perfectly fine until it's suddenly a disaster.
They can also be extremely strong and have amazing strength to weight ratio and durability if well engineered.  I pretty much only ride carbon fiber bicycles anymore. I beat the hell out of them and the one frame failure I've had was an aluminum dropout getting bent (I've broken a couple steel frames).  We use them all the time in aerospace, often exploiting their quirky properties.  Modern jet aircraft are full of them, but are tested to extremes. 
I agree that I wouldn't count on the Shahed plastic problem getting resolved over the winter.
 
All those ships in the med would have to fire any missiles over NATO countries, which is unlikely to end well for the missiles or the Russian Mediterranean fleet.

I realized earlier this year that probably half the really annoying problems I've had to deal with in 30 years in science and aerospace have been related to plastics. Cured epoxy resins (filled and unfilled) to be more accurate, but essentially plastics.  They're an enormous PITA and much more processing and history dependent than metals.  Their properties generally don't match book values/spec sheets that closely and you have to characterize them for your particular application and process, and usually control the process very carefully.  They have time dependent properties that also depend on temperature.  They can have multiple transitions in properties that depend on their history and what temp you're using them at.  They're extremely non-linear, so doing analysis to predict their behavior can be a mess.  They can be anisotropic, so their properties in one orientation are (sometimes very) different than their properties in another orientation.  They can have hidden damage that causes sudden catastrophic failure where a metal would have showed signs for a long time and not killed you.  It's really easy to screw up a design that uses plastic resins and have it be perfectly fine until it's suddenly a disaster.
They can also be extremely strong and have amazing strength to weight ratio and durability if well engineered.  I pretty much only ride carbon fiber bicycles anymore. I beat the hell out of them and the one frame failure I've had was an aluminum dropout getting bent (I've broken a couple steel frames).  We use them all the time in aerospace, often exploiting their quirky properties.  Modern jet aircraft are full of them, but are tested to extremes. 
I agree that I wouldn't count on the Shahed plastic problem getting resolved over the winter.
 
All those ships in the med would have to fire any missiles over NATO countries, which is unlikely to end well for the missiles or the Russian Mediterranean fleet.

And even the USSR didn't have the self-contained industrial base.  They depended heavily on Lend Lease equipment that came largely from the US.  Including some ~400K trucks, 11K aircraft, millions of tons of food and enormous amounts of ordnance.  They wouldn't have had the mobility to chase Germany back across the border without enormous numbers of 2 1/2 ton trucks supplied by the US.  All that stuff from the current version of the arsenal of democracy is going to Ukraine side this time around.

And even the USSR didn't have the self-contained industrial base.  They depended heavily on Lend Lease equipment that came largely from the US.  Including some ~400K trucks, 11K aircraft, millions of tons of food and enormous amounts of ordnance.  They wouldn't have had the mobility to chase Germany back across the border without enormous numbers of 2 1/2 ton trucks supplied by the US.  All that stuff from the current version of the arsenal of democracy is going to Ukraine side this time around.

I realized earlier this year that probably half the really annoying problems I've had to deal with in 30 years in science and aerospace have been related to plastics. Cured epoxy resins (filled and unfilled) to be more accurate, but essentially plastics.  They're an enormous PITA and much more processing and history dependent than metals.  Their properties generally don't match book values/spec sheets that closely and you have to characterize them for your particular application and process, and usually control the process very carefully.  They have time dependent properties that also depend on temperature.  They can have multiple transitions in properties that depend on their history and what temp you're using them at.  They're extremely non-linear, so doing analysis to predict their behavior can be a mess.  They can be anisotropic, so their properties in one orientation are (sometimes very) different than their properties in another orientation.  They can have hidden damage that causes sudden catastrophic failure where a metal would have showed signs for a long time and not killed you.  It's really easy to screw up a design that uses plastic resins and have it be perfectly fine until it's suddenly a disaster.
They can also be extremely strong and have amazing strength to weight ratio and durability if well engineered.  I pretty much only ride carbon fiber bicycles anymore. I beat the hell out of them and the one frame failure I've had was an aluminum dropout getting bent (I've broken a couple steel frames).  We use them all the time in aerospace, often exploiting their quirky properties.  Modern jet aircraft are full of them, but are tested to extremes. 
I agree that I wouldn't count on the Shahed plastic problem getting resolved over the winter.
 
All those ships in the med would have to fire any missiles over NATO countries, which is unlikely to end well for the missiles or the Russian Mediterranean fleet.

I realized earlier this year that probably half the really annoying problems I've had to deal with in 30 years in science and aerospace have been related to plastics. Cured epoxy resins (filled and unfilled) to be more accurate, but essentially plastics.  They're an enormous PITA and much more processing and history dependent than metals.  Their properties generally don't match book values/spec sheets that closely and you have to characterize them for your particular application and process, and usually control the process very carefully.  They have time dependent properties that also depend on temperature.  They can have multiple transitions in properties that depend on their history and what temp you're using them at.  They're extremely non-linear, so doing analysis to predict their behavior can be a mess.  They can be anisotropic, so their properties in one orientation are (sometimes very) different than their properties in another orientation.  They can have hidden damage that causes sudden catastrophic failure where a metal would have showed signs for a long time and not killed you.  It's really easy to screw up a design that uses plastic resins and have it be perfectly fine until it's suddenly a disaster.
They can also be extremely strong and have amazing strength to weight ratio and durability if well engineered.  I pretty much only ride carbon fiber bicycles anymore. I beat the hell out of them and the one frame failure I've had was an aluminum dropout getting bent (I've broken a couple steel frames).  We use them all the time in aerospace, often exploiting their quirky properties.  Modern jet aircraft are full of them, but are tested to extremes. 
I agree that I wouldn't count on the Shahed plastic problem getting resolved over the winter.
 
All those ships in the med would have to fire any missiles over NATO countries, which is unlikely to end well for the missiles or the Russian Mediterranean fleet.

And even the USSR didn't have the self-contained industrial base.  They depended heavily on Lend Lease equipment that came largely from the US.  Including some ~400K trucks, 11K aircraft, millions of tons of food and enormous amounts of ordnance.  They wouldn't have had the mobility to chase Germany back across the border without enormous numbers of 2 1/2 ton trucks supplied by the US.  All that stuff from the current version of the arsenal of democracy is going to Ukraine side this time around.

If they can hit the port in Sevastopol they can hit subs in port.

The problem is that Ukraine, even if provided with ATACMS and whatnot,  hardly has a chance to seriously affect the RU missile campaign. Engels base in Saratov is 700km from UA eastern border, and even if they got some JASSM or similar system, RU can re-base their strategic bombers to Murmansk, or even freakin' Vladivostok without serious degradation to their ability to launch the strikes.
Now striking back at RU in eye for an eye manner, while certainly appealing and in my (non-Christian) opinion morally justified, wouldn't really achieve nothing except quenching the thirst for vengeance. No way Ukraine could launch a campaign significant enough to physically destroy RU warfighting capability. And anything less than that will just rally public support for the war in the RU civilian population, as proven by multiple historical analogies. It would also feed RU propaganda and could diminish the moral highground that UA currently occupies, which int turn could have really serious impact on the Western support, at least from some countries. IMO the best course of action for Ukraine is to just take it, shoot down as many missiles and rebuild as fast as possible, while kicking Russian *** on the ground.
I really have high hopes for the GLSDB though - it seems to have just enough range and destructive power to completely wreck RU rail GLOCs leading to Ukraine, forcing them to channel all rail traffic through Volgograd and Rostov, basically strangling them. It will put entire land-brigde in range, and after it's broken allow attacking the whole Crimea including the bridge and base in Sevastopol. IMO this is as much long range firepower as UA needs to wreck RU logistics beyond the point of usefulness and push them out of it's territory.
In the meantime, let's see how mobilized Russian masses do during the winter. IMO the endgame of all of this, apart from UA physically re-taking it's territory, is creating enough instability in Russia to force it to concentrate on internal problems (meaning threatening, or even toppling the regime) as more immediate and agreeing to humiliating peace - and achieving that should be done is as non-volatile way as possible, which unfortunately means the "boiling the frog slowly" approach.
In the meantime, B21 unveiling ceremony is taking place:
https://www.northropgrumman.com/what-we-do/air/b-21-raider/
 

Tribalism in the military is assuredly a blessing and a curse  but there are practical aspects here. Pushing objects down tubes at high velocity is not great for the tube. Turning tanks into quasi-SP arty party risks compromising their ability to perform their role as direct fire platforms. That's because sustained high rates of fire will quickly ruin current platforms like the Abrams, Chally, or Leopard by shooting out the barrel and over straining all the mounting and connection. It will also compromise future designs by trying to create a weird hybrid PzH2000/Leopard or M109/Abrams or AS90/Chally - a thing that can sort-of do either role in a kind of half-arsed fashion. The hybrid platform would have compromises in muzzle velocity, calibre, range, size, armour, and max elevation. And even then it would be crewed by soldiers who're moderately well trained in both roles rather than being experts in one or the other.
Now, you can reasonably reply that this thing will be firing PGM, so the rates will be neither high nor sustained, so wear on the platform will be negligible, which, sure I accept that technological hand-wave. Except why not just give those rounds to the gunners who already have the entire system for finding and killing things they can't see down to a 't'?
Years and years ago there were several programmes to make a "universal gun" that could perform both AT and AA roles. They all failed because although the requirements were superficially similar they were in the end too dissimilar to be workable. Yes, even the 88. That was too big and bulky - and expensive - to be a really good AT gun. As soon as the British stopped futzing around with their own field artillery, and remembered that concentration is one of the principles for good reasons, the 88 was done.

Re editing rat brains,  you guys are playing with fire!
Just gonna future proof myself for after the inevitable Man/Machine Apocalypse and state for any Rodent Researcher reading this forum that I,  FOR ONE,  WELCOME OUR FUTURE CYBERNETIC RODENT OVERLORDS. 
TAKE THE OTHERS,  THEY'RE ALL ANTI-RODENTISTS! 
Call me Quisling,  I dont care. When all you numbskulls are chewing on each other's diseased toes I'll be warm and dry at the feet of the Digital Rat God, happily nibbling my Grade A Soylent Green, 700 feet under ground. 
Yep, yep, yep we'll see who's laughing then! 

The only purpose of heavy will be to transport energy for the light - it will be hosed in a fight, so it has to stay hidden, like a queen bee or ant.  But rather than the workers bringing food, they'll come to it to refuel/recharge.  It might be part of the long range transport for the light things, like an aircraft carrier for aircraft, but it won't be part of the fight.  Heavy HE will come from long range, guided all the way in by the network of gnats (or rats with cameras).  The heavy core probably won't be necessary for integration - most of the swarm will have enough compute on board to do networked coordination, like a flock of crows, with maybe a few swarm members having some extra compute on board to do some of the integration.

Russia already has one ... and its not working out well for them 🙂

And sometimes everything in the world falls into place at once.  This ad was just recently posted for an NYC rat Czar.  It's a must-read  Imagine someone creative enough to conscript the rats into minesweeping in Ukraine.

Going to be one of the first applications for unmanned ground vehicles. Since all it has to do is follow a couple of way points and not crash. 
https://mil.in.ua/en/news/germany-will-transfer-14-themis-unmanned-ground-vehicles-to-ukraine/
Better than bleeding out in a muddy trench, probably. Yet another case of this being Spain 1937.
 

Somewhat more seriously we are at the 1936, beginning of the spanish civil war stage in terms of drones, loitering munitions, and, and... As The_Capt is hinting above offensive operations against a technologically and militarily competent opponent might just not be a thing anymore, at least as theses things are currently conceived. Or maybe the Pentagon has a ray gun that isn't public yet and absolutely everything that shows it head above the horizon dies. But when the other side gets that too we are back to some version of the high tech trench warfare we see in Ukraine now. 
 
Edit: My money is still on the $100,000 ghillies suit.
 

"My bet is that the missing pieces are bound up in OPSEC that likely transcends the UA itself."
 
☝️

One of my few claims to fame is that of having seen Tom Waits live...three times. I'll show myself out.

This may be the solution to the breakdown of the INF Treaty between the US and Russia. Russia won't have any more left to eliminate, and it's not like we've resurrected or developed a substitute for Pershings since we canned the treaty. Put the treaty back in place before Russia can rebuild after this is over.
Dave
[edit] this was intended to be facetious. sorry for the confusion.