ASL Veteran
-
Posts
5,889 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
9
Posts posted by ASL Veteran
-
-
Just to lighten things up a bit
-
-
Without the commentary and a bit extended
-
5 hours ago, A Canadian Cat said:
Mike's boss has not approved this message.
-
-
Quote
According to several reports, the Ukrainian Air Force has begun flying Wild Weasel missions to suppress Russian air defense radar.
UKRAINE IS LEARNING VIETNAM WAR TACTICS
The Air Force of the Armed Forces of Ukraine adopted the tactics of the U.S. Air Force during the Vietnam War to destroy air defense systems on the front line. A tactic called “wild weasel” is when pilots allow enemy air defense… Show more
QuoteThe tactic requires a pilot to tease the surface-to-air missile site into unlocking its fire control radar. As the radar illuminates the aircraft, it is engaged with an AGM-88 HARM missile that locks onto the radar signal. If the radar site shuts down emissions, the HARM still flies to the last known location of the emitter. This is the kind of "grab them by the 'nads, stab them in the face" combat that requires nerves of steel.
This is an inside-the-cockpit view.
QuoteTo effectively use the F-16s they will receive in the next two to three months, the Ukrainians must master the SEAD/DEAD mission to open maneuver space. To do that, you must eliminate enemy surveillance radar and air defense systems. The Russians never bothered to develop a doctrine like SEAD/DEAD, and as a result, they never managed to establish air superiority over the battlespace. In fact, they have lost several high-value aircraft deep over Russian territory. If this report is accurate, it is an excellent sign that another link to Ukraine's Soviet past has been broken.
Here is an excellent brief history of the Wild Weasels.
-
12 hours ago, dan/california said:
The question is can air supremacy be achieved by anybody, ever again. All of the issues that tanks are having have direct correlates with the challenges facing manned aircraft. And the whole world has watched Ukraines air defense system essentially stop the Russian Air Force cold, and Israel's system knock down essentially the entirety of a big missile strike. I think a LOT of countries are going to draw the lesson that a many layered integrated air defense system is a LOT more useful than actual aircraft. And those integrated air defense systems are going impose denial, or at least REALLY heavy casualties on even first tier air forces.
We will certainly learn more when Ukraine finally gets F-16s into the fight. But I am not expecting them to change the game all that much. I would love to be wrong.
-
Everyone said the tank was dead after the ATGM was first brought onto the battlefield. Both sides in Ukraine still seem to want tanks in their inventory so they must think they are valuable for something. To me, the main thing is that if you want your offensive to move at a pace that's quicker than the speed a man can walk, then you will need to have something to transport your infantry in. If your infantry is riding in something, then there will be some incentive to have something that's more powerful than an IFV that you can either use against IFVs or to support an infantry assault.
We all know the old saying about your military preparing to fight the last war only to find out that it doesn't apply anymore, but at the same time I'm not certain how much of what's going on in Ukraine would be applicable to a US force in a peer to peer conflict. Iran and Iraq fought for years and that was basically trench warfare - when the US fought Iraq the first time it looked nothing like Iran Iraq even though many military analysts thought it would. How effective would drones be if the battlefield is fluid with mechanized forces advancing rapidly with an Airforce that has air supremacy? I have to assume that the best military minds are working through the drone problem - if we assume that some sort of a technological or tactical counter can be created, then it seems like the tank is right back in business if you don't want your armies to advance at a walking pace.
I would assume that the Russian and Ukrainian armies operated in a similar way - at least when this whole thing started. Perhaps that's a contributing factor in how things are playing out?
-
Bunch of random stuff I ran across
QuoteThe Russians prepare to destroy a lot of artillery shells using DKRP-4 line charge, and many blocks of TNT. I wonder what is wrong with them.
This was from a post on X, but I'm having technical difficulties getting it into my post
Russian motorcycle troops in action
-
QuoteRheinmetall supplying a 100 km-range 155mm artillery shell is interesting. Longer range than your typical rocket-propelled artillery shell (70-85 km). Nammo is working on a ramjet-propelled 155 mm shell with a range of 150 km. I don't think it's something similar though.
-
QuoteThe ubiquity of FPV drones has complicated the life of frontline infantry. I've half-joked that it may be time to give each squad a semi-automatic shotgun. The Russians have taken this in a slightly different direction. They've developed a subcaliber insert for a grenade launcher letting it shoot what looks like 12-gauge (or whatever the Euros use) shotgun rounds.
Perhaps it's time to bring back the buckshot round for our 40mm grenade launcher?
-
Just hit the CC button to get English subtitles if you don't already know that. Possibly already posted, but it's new to me.
-
-
-
-
5 hours ago, The_Capt said:
I am kinda skeptical on this point to be honest. I think we could definitely see a draw back and cold shouldering but NATO is the largest military markets on the planet. If the US pulls out completely then NATO STANAGs die then and there. This could see nations go elsewhere for military spending because they are no longer locked into a US driven NATO standard.
Of course given the levels of rhetoric over good sense we saw last time, I could also very well be totally wrong.
I mean, really Canada has already basically withdrawn from NATO hasn't it? Can you be considered a serious NATO member when your government says that not only will they not spend 2% on defense but they will never spend 2%.
-
18 hours ago, Ultradave said:
3) A large number of Republican House members demand US border control legislation along with it (ignoring the fact they ALSO refused to vote on a Senate passed bill, which was negotiated by both parties - why? because it would make Biden look good - really, that's the reason).
DaveThis is a bad take my friend. I don't really want to go 'there', but the simple fact is that the open US border is a feature not a bug and the Senate version of border security had several poison pills in it that would make things worse. The issue I have is that House demands for border security is an exercise in tilting at windmills. It doesn't matter how many 'extra' border patrol agents you have if all you are doing is catching and releasing people into the US after they swim over the Rio Grande. It doesn't matter how many laws are on the books if the enforcement agency chooses to look the other way.
Oh, but why would the current administration want an open border you might ask? That's tinfoil hat wingnut stuff right there. ASL is gong completely off the rails. Let's just count the reasons.
1. The number of seats in the House is determined by population. Guess what? It's not determined by population of US citizens because citizenship is not determined by the census. Therefore if someone from China crosses the border between California and Mexico that Chinese citizen counts towards the population of California in terms of Congressional apportionment. As of the 2020 census, there are 761,169 people per congressional district. If you let 10 million 'migrants' into the US that's approximately 13 seats in congress. Guess where the 'migrants' tend to go? Sanctuary cities. Guess where the sanctuary cities are? Democratic strongholds.
2. Why just stop at counting non citizens in the census? Why not just let them vote even if they aren't citizens? In California non citizens are issued driver's licenses. Various local Democratic strongholds have passed laws allowing non citizens to vote. The example in the video from DC below is just one example, but there are others. Oh, but those are just for local elections - yeah, and guess what else is on the ballot when the local elections are being held. One would think that the citizens of Washington DC wouldn't want the Russian ambassador voting who becomes the mayor, but here we are.
3. If you can't pass a law allowing non citizens to vote though - how about just making it difficult to sort out who is a citizen and who isn't a citizen? Use voter registration laws that don't require full social security numbers (some states only require the last four digits or they decide not to verify a social security number) and use the US attorney general's office to sue states trying to pass voter ID laws. Who is the least likely person to have an ID in the United States? A non citizen of course.
4. If you are someone who is of a mind to swim the Rio Grande and you know which political party is handing you cash then who are you going to vote for in the next election (even though you shouldn't be able to vote, but if you are a non citizen and you want to vote in an election where the democratic party is in control - well we should be welcoming to our 'migrant' friends). New York City is giving every 'migrant' a government debit card with a 1000 bucks a month on it, along with other benefits totaling somewhere around 2400 bucks a month I think - I'm going from memory here.
5. I'm posting against my better judgement because I know how this forum tilts. How someone reacts to this post will probably be determined by whether or not you like Republicans. However, if a political party in your country - wherever you may be from - is willing to try and cement a permanent hold on political power through the use of non citizens I think most would object to that if you were on the receiving end of that political strategy. Even traditional Democrat voting blocks are starting to shift.
-
-
Not trying to move the thread off topic any more than it already has, but apparently US, UK, and French forces (ships I suppose) as well as Saudi and Jordanian forces are assisting in intercepting Iranian drones and missiles. I just thought that was interesting. I also saw something about 'stuff' happening inside Iran, but I haven't watched or read enough about it to know what's going on exactly.
-
7 hours ago, dan/california said:
Bleep me I hope he is wrong.
A few days ago I read somewhere that Speaker Johnson intends to bring the Ukraine / Israel / Taiwan aide package to a vote when congress returns. I haven't heard that any of the Republicans that supported removing the previous speaker would support MTG's move to vacate the current speaker. However, the main reason the previous Speaker was ousted was because Democrats supported the Republicans who voted to vacate. In theory MTG's out on an island and irrelevant so she wouldn't matter if Speaker Johnson could rely on Democrats not supporting MTG because she doesn't have enough (or maybe any) support from other Republicans. However, one can't really expect that Democrats wouldn't vote in favor of vacating the position since - well why not? Also, maybe Hakeem Jefferies can become the Speaker?
So the bottom line seems to be - if one Republican (MTG) moves to vacate the Speaker position and every Democrat votes in favor of that then Johnson would not survive and there is absolutely no incentive for Democrats to support Johnson. The only way the aid package can move forward is if Johnson can convince MTG that bringing the package to a vote would either be in her best interests or that Republicans would benefit in general. Without Democrats though MTG would be irrelevant. There should be some special elections coming up for all the Republicans who essentially quit (angry about the removal of the previous Speaker) and reduced the size of the majority. If they retain those seats (I don't think any of those seats are projected to flip for any reason) then maybe the majority can be restored sufficiently such that MTG can't vacate the Speaker position with just herself and Democrats, but that wouldn't be until June I think.
I haven't been paying super close attention to political maneuvering though so I might not be 100% accurate on this.
-
6 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
Thanks for this post and suffering through the messiness that is democratic discourse. Although I was 95% sure where this was headed after sfhand's first post, I am obligated to let it play out if this is to be a truly open conversation where people don't fear the "ban stick" for voicing a contrary position. As painful as it might be to work through, it's an acceptable price to the alternative.
(on a side note... 25 years of managing this Forum has given me some "mad skilz" in pattern recognition. The conspiracy theorists like to think of themselves as special, but in reality they are common and mundane. Which is why they are so easily spotted)
Well summed up and definitely depressing how easily people are duped. It's not just the extremes (Flat Earth, Q-Anon, Stolen Election, etc), but very much everyday experiences. There's a reason why so many YouTube ads start out with phrases like:
1. One simple trick/hack...
2. This crazy idea...
3. Throw out all of you X and buy this...
4. You aren't ready to handle this...
5. You can earn millions by...
etc.
I see things like this and feel a little vomit in my throat, yet there's plenty of people that think "wow, this sounds great!". The same people that believe conspiracy theories are the same ones who jump on pretty much any manipulation train someone invites them onto. Politics being an obvious one that constantly derails otherwise good people into tracks that go nowhere good.
I feel bad for these people because it's all self inflicted. They spend their money they rarely can afford on scams. They spend their time angry at things that don't exist. They become less social, losing friends, family, and better balanced communities. This makes them angrier and more depressed. That's not a great way to go through life on this planet.
And this is the other reason I allow conspiracy theory/alternate reality discussions to run amok for a short period of time. The rest of the world needs to wake up to how dangerous these people are to themselves and others. The Tuckerfication of the world will bring about nothing by misery. The more we are exposed to the danger, the clearer it becomes and the easier it is to spot it. There might not be much we can do to combat it, but not recognizing or understanding the danger certainly isn't going to help.
Steve
People tend to believe in things that reinforce their worldviews and disbelieve things that don't fit within that worldview. Everyone has a weakness that can be exploited by someone else.
-
I think it might be time for some drone footage straight from the front lines:
-
1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:
You missed the point of my post and went way off track into deep, dark, shark infested waters. I'll try to pull you back into the boat
My point was that terrorist acts are committed with a specific reaction in mind. The purpose of the attack, therefore, is to get the desired response. What we don't know about ISIS-K is what they wanted the Russian government to do. For example, massive security sweeps and detentions, 24/7 anti-Islamic tirades on Russian TV, widespread vigilante actions, etc. If that is what they wanted, it doesn't look like they're going to get it. Compare to Hamas' attacks which were met with exactly the response Hamas was looking for.
Steve
Except that terrorist acts aren't committed with a specific reaction in mind. Terrorist acts are committed with a specific goal in mind. The goals of Hamas are not comparable to the goals of ISIS and there is no possible reconciliation between Israel and Hamas. Hamas doesn't need to create acts of terrorism in order to gain Palestinian recruits. Polls, for what they are worth, show that Hamas has somewhere upwards of 70 percent favorability to the citizens of Gaza so they don't need to convince anyone. Everyone in their neighborhood is already signed up. No, the only people Hamas needs to recruit are non Palestinians to buy what they are selling so that they can continue to attack Israel and convince the international community to condemn Israel for defending itself. Therefore the goal of Hamas is to attack Israel, claim that Israel is filled with genocidal Nazi colonizers who rape and pillage for entertainment, and hope that eventually either they can remove Israel from the face of the earth themselves, or that the international community will do it for them. The only way Israel can end the cycle is to completely destroy Hamas and replace them with a government structure that's more amenable to compromise, because if they don't Hamas will just attack again as soon as they are able and we'll be right back where we are again today. ISIS isn't concerned so much with Israel. Their goals are more comprehensive. How does an attack inside Russia advance the goal of the restoration of the caliphate I'm not really sure, but they have launched attacks in Iran recently too and Russia has / had troops in Syria so maybe it's not all that complicated. I don't want to get this thread sidetracked though and I know how badly this topic can spin out of control so I think I'll just leave it there.
3. What are Hamas’ aims?
What Hamas plainly seeks is the establishment of a Palestinian state. Where there is doubt is over the territory in which it envisages the establishment of the state, since it initially called for a Palestinian state occupying the West Bank, Gaza and the space now occupied by the state of Israel. In fact, they violently opposed the 1993 Oslo peace accords between the Palestine National Liberation Organisation and the State of Israel. Accordingly, they initially refused to form part of the Palestinian National Authority, which was beginning to gain international –though not unanimous– recognition as the legitimate Palestinian authority and the blueprint for the future Palestinian state.
4. Does Hamas recognise Israel?
Although public statements by Hamas leaders vary, its denial of the legitimacy of the state of Israel has been a constant point of friction in the region.
Important doctrines of ISIL include its belief that it represents the restoration of the caliphate of early Islam, and that all Muslims are required to pledge allegiance to it;[9] that a "defiled" Islam must be purged of apostasy, often with bloody sectarian killings,[10] that the final Day of Judgment by God is near and will follow the defeat of the army of "Rome" by IS;[2] that a strict adherence to following the precepts "established by the Prophet Muhammad and his earliest followers" is necessary, surpassing even that of other Salafi-Jihadi groups.[2]
-
52 minutes ago, Sgt Joch said:
https://www.politico.eu/article/energy-infrastructure-target-attack-ukraine-russia-war/
Another article that apparently the Biden Admin is asking Ukraine to stop targeting Russian Oil infrastructure.
Since the whole focus now is on the election, the cynic in me thinks Biden is worried that if this causes Oil prices to go up, it will increase the chances Trump gets elected.
Whether oil prices are / will be affected or not isn't really known at this time. Even the activity of the Houthis could be having an impact and / or it's also possible that this type of activity is already baked into the price (commodities traders are going to anticipate stuff and price it into the Bid Ask spread if oil has a spread - I'm pretty confident that it does, but it's not exactly easy to pull up an actual trading price online). I can't imagine that the current administration would go this route for that reason unless it was already having a discernable impact and that impact was having an obvious effect on the electorate. No, I actually don't think you are being cynical enough! I think I'll leave it there though cause we really don't want to be having that discussion I think lol.
How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
Here's an expert