NamEndedAllen
-
Posts
659 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by NamEndedAllen
-
-
Poignant, graphic and horrific at the same time. Apologies if already posted.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/06/03/world/europe/ukraine-destruction.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare(may be pay-walled)
-
10 hours ago, paxromana said:
Seems to be an Urban Myth ...
... though treatment was not great, they weren't actually euthanised.
Barrier troops were real though.
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/army-cccp-barrage.htm
-
-
-
3 hours ago, JonS said:
Keep in mind that every time you argue for comprehensive and sudden re-equipping. Either you're arguing for a fantasy, or you're arguing for a Russian victory
Indeed! Except “sudden” was never a credible possibility and certainly not my point.
3 hours ago, JonS said:there always is, and always will be, debate about whether the process is proceeding too quickly or to slowly. However the answer is never at either end of the spectrum.
I think everyone serious here agrees with your conclusion - the feasible and effective pace wasn’t at either extreme. I’m not aware anyone is arguing that the pace has been too fast over the past two years. But there are reasonable arguments that politics have slowed the process more than military realities.
The point I made is that I don’t believe there are or were any singular “silver bullets”. Or wooden stakes. The F-16 will help Ukraine. A version equivalent to the Block 50/52 Viper is a damn fine strike fighter! (I wouldn’t expect much ATA engagements in the current environment). But as capable and plentiful as the F-16 is, I’m pretty sure most here aren’t expecting it to single-handedly freeze the Russian force in Ukraine. Let alone win the war. If there were a decisive advantage permitting Ukraine to push the invaders back at least to their starting lines, it surely would have been that combination of integrated Western systems we have seen to be so deadly in other conflicts. Not any one of them, alone. But even that time may have passed, and who knows what political realities the USA elections will bring. The newer systems employed by Russia and Ukraine - omnipresent drones, improved ISR, etc have significantly strengthened the defense over the offense. Pages and pages of posts here argue strongly that the new battlefield reality is making most countries’ war-fighting apparatus and methods obsolete or nearly so. That, who is wearing down faster, and what this all means for Ukraine’s future is much of the discussion on the forum these days.
-
3 hours ago, danfrodo said:
actually my post was bait for the learned air force-types to explain how the F16s would be used and make a diff. I used to think 'so what' on F16s but there's been talk here before of them doing some nice things. Was hoping to draw out some comments on that.
So y'all, what do you think the F16s will do?
The specific block versions supplied to Ukraine, their avionics capabilities, and the strike weapons supplied will determine an awfully lot of their effectiveness. Those who fly Falcon BMS should have a fair idea of the extensive variety of mission profiles and the families of strike weapons the various blocks of Vipers can employ. The GBU class and especially the GPS enabled versions are excellent standoff threat. When accompanied by Shoot The Archers” HARM carrying Vipers I would expect more Russian air defenses go boom. I’m not clear on what Russian platforms have been delivering those glide bombs (Russian GBU version kits?), but if they are fighters they should need greater and greater separation from their targets, and therefore greater and greater altitudes for launch. Meaning higher radar visibility and interception risks. The AIM-120B and Cs on their native platform should make the ATA quite interesting considering historical matchups in air combat seen elsewhere.
Regarding “silver bullets”, I don’t believe there are any. It’s the combination of the full array of newer, modern Western platforms, sensors, munitions, and training that could have and still might have a more powerful impact when employed together. Dribbling in small numbers of each platform periodically and consecutively over the years dissipates much of the advantages of each. The enemy focuses on and adjusts to each one in isolation, with plenty of time before the next platform arrives. Reasons why it happened this way have been discussed here over the years of the war. But the dissipation effect is what is.
-
10 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
Now that is something. 85 F-16s would put Ukraine's inventory at about 1/10th of Russia's fighters of various capabilities.
For the love of…WHEN?
-
6 hours ago, The_Capt said:
They are willing to sell
As long as the Spice flows!
-
On 3/14/2024 at 5:02 AM, Warts 'n' all said:
No. Listening to Lester Young would be cooler
BadaBOOM!
Gold star, Best of 2024.
-
49 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
Agreed. China's best long term gain would be to have an economically dependent Russia stable enough to stay together, weak enough to not challenge expanding Chinese influence.
Steve
Important to keep in mind the role of the third leg of the dynamic. The Joker here is the odd polarity reversal from the Nixon-China-Soviet triangle, where Nixon undercut the Soviets by opening up to China. Today, we have Trump-Russia-China where Trump embraces Putin and the Russian criminal state model, while at least verbally jumping all over China in his usual mouthy manner. The former case seemed rather a brilliant coup. It favorably altered the Cold War dynamic for Team USA. If Trump returns to the Presidency, the current case seems at best ominous.
-
21 minutes ago, Ts4EVER said:
if it calls the reason for the war in question publically.
A prelude to some sort of pause in the war? Especially as Putin could conceivably make the case that they, the Russian army, are currently “winning”, on the march, etc. Yes, quite a long stretch, but so much of this terrible war had been bizarre. Adding to this extreme speculation, the time frame for such a series of moves towards a cessation of hostilities lies within the outcome of the USA’s fraught Presidential election. Where once upon a time we did see an “October Surprise”.
Rather a rickety conspiracy-type speculation, but I got tired of reading the massive number of recent opinions about a Ukrainian kid in Canada….
-
1 minute ago, Ultradave said:
In war, yes, it's banned.
Thanks for the background. So, does this add another war crime to the Russian list? Or are the reports insufficient for further legal investigation?
-
16 minutes ago, danfrodo said:
Oh, are we gay bashing? Definitely the root of all our problems! I thought it was jews but the insightful & informative views here have convinced me it's actually the gays. Or is it the muslims? I can't keep up on who is currently destroying western culture/society so thanks for all this information on things that really matter. Why, in the US 20 years ago we were told how gay marriage would destroy america, and it certainly has!
No! It’s THE OIL CANS!
-
59 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
A reminder that I shouldn't have to make... this is a thread about Ukraine, not Israel, Gaza, Iran, or conflicts elsewhere. Of course there are some topics over overlap, but in such cases the link should be directly established when making a post.
At the moment the only thing I see that is directly relevant is that the House GOP might make an excuse to not bring up Ukraine aid this week. Or it could be the exact opposite. Cryptic statements are all we have tonight:
Steve
Steve, apologies. I wasn’t clear enough at the top to say the connection in my opinion is the impact on Ukraine’s hard-pressed airdefenses. Shortages are already an issue of course, and the heavy expenditures in both the Houti/USN engagements and now this much larger sequence represent a significant expenditure of missiles in the region. Patriot launchers and missiles are in short supply in Ukraine and I doubt this event will make expanding Ukraine’s supply any easier. I hope I am wrong, and this proves to be a case of (twisted?) honor restored and the situation simmers down a bit.
-
Mark Hertling CNN talking about the potential for a well-coordinated attack stretching the stocks of ABMs to take out the missile attack, then followed by the drone attack soon after, making that effort more difficult. His concern is whether other bad actors like Hamas and the Hutis and Hezbollah (?) also launching attacks timed to add to and try to overwhelm Israeli air defenses. USA naval assets are likely to augment those air defenses.
Realizing that this may be off topic, I am thinking that the need to restock ALL combatant nations is ramping up the free world’s scarce resource of all the various missiles necessary for air defenses. Ukraine of course already facing a daily drain on its stocks.
edit - would seem highly likely that a ton of money could be made investing in the several companies that produce the various components of these missiles.
-
Waiting for the first ballistic missile strikes and the wave of 100 drones launched earlier at Israel, from Iran. Missiles announced moments ago, after this link.
https://www.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news-04-13-24/index.html
-
House Democrats are continuing to suggest they’ll have Speaker Johnson’s back if he will put a vote on aid to Ukraine on the Floor. The bill has already been passed by the Senate.
“The head of the House Democratic Caucus suggested Wednesday that Democratic lawmakers stand ready to rescue Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) from a potential GOP coup — if he ushers Ukraine aid through the lower chamber and on to President Biden’s desk.
Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) stopped short of saying he would vote personally to save Johnson from a motion to vacate resolution. But echoing an earlier message from House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), Aguilar noted a number of Democrats are already on record saying they’d help keep Johnson in power if he stages a vote on the Ukraine package that passed through the Senate in February.
That willingness by Democrats to cross the aisle, Aguilar suggested, should be enough to overcome the number of Republicans who might try to topple Johnson.
“The Speaker needs to put that bill on the floor,” Aguilar said during a press briefing in the Capitol. “You have also heard me say, you have also heard Leader Jeffries say — and he has pointed out that it was an observation, not a declaration — that we feel that if the Speaker does the right thing that he is in a good position.
“But look, we’ve got to do the right thing. We’ve got to pass these bills. We’ve got to have some sanity under this dome. And that means putting bills on the floor that have 300 votes.” “
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4585578-aguilar-johnson-speaker-ukraine/
-
2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
Option 2 = put forward a weak Ukraine bill, have a wingnut call for leadership change, and have 100% of the Democrats vote for for Jeffries. There is a fairly good chance this might mean the next Speaker is a Democrat.
Not really in play:
Several Dems, including Jamie Rankin, and several others have publicly pledged to support Johnson and NOT vote for their own Jeffries. This is extraordinary only in these times when Party and self interest practically always “trump” the Oath, the Constitution and the best interests of the USA https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-house-democrats-offer-protect-republican-johnson-ukraine-aid-2024-03-22/
Similar but more general declarations from moderate Democrats go back to January of this year.
-
17 hours ago, G.I. Joe said:
All fair points. I certainly agree that an army in an existential conflict cannot afford to be as picky as its peacetime counterpart. We can probably largely reconcile the two viewpoints by saying that in wartime the goalposts don't go away, but they may be moved quite a bit. I wouldn't set those concerns aside completely, but the bar for "as long as they don't cause trouble within the ranks" might look a bit different for the duration.
To draw a non-political comparison / example: Flight safety doesn't go out the window in wartime, it is as important as ever, but operating minima and procedures have to be adjusted for operational necessity. Much of the extreme low flying by the Ukrainian Air Force we've seen videos of in this thread would be unacceptable in peacetime even on an approved low level practice route. Down the side of a highway with oncoming civilian vehicle traffic, it would be a court martial waiting to happen. But right now it's presumably preventing more losses from enemy fire than it's causing from controlled flight into terrain, so the tradeoff is acceptable.
Facing death has a way of changing a person.
-
1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:
The thing I hate most about people flaming out after so many years is that I don't want them to go out that way.
Sometimes these events may be only the tip of the iceberg. We don’t know whether or not things in a personal life have piled up or exploded. One contributing factor can be enormous loss and grief. And/Or substance abuse stemming from other problems. Or just bad acid! And a person turns to the familiar confines of this forum. What follows is not much more than a stream of consciousness series of rants. Regardless, it’s pretty clear after the first few posts that he isn’t in Kansas any longer. I may be wrong, but feeding these sorts of posts after that never seems to serve either the forum or the person in whatever form of distress or bad humor. Instead, we have to plough through a heap of turgid nonsense for pages. Perhaps wiser use of everyone’s time and lives to cut them loose from further replies after the obvious is clear.
-
2 hours ago, sross112 said:
Ok, so looking at the actual poll, this is typical media/political spinning.
Any evidence that sfhand and MTG are NOT the same person?
-
8 hours ago, Tux said:
War has a funny way of punishing equivocal responses and that cannot be the fault of those who are attacked.
This!
-
5 hours ago, The_Capt said:
Ok, so what? In '99 Putin used terror as a mechanism to take power. In 2024...he is already in power. Major terror attacks in Moscow are now his problem because he is supposed to be the new czar and lead Russians to a glorious new empire. Having a terror group poop all over that is not good news anyway he spins this...he is the state.
Putin just sent 100k+ countrymen to die in a useless war he started. No one is doubting his capacity to "do dirty". What is in doubt is the utility and practicality of another staged terror attack in the current context.
Simply - because you were sure it would be too difficult for Putin/FSB to carry out this as a false flag. Pretty clear that yes, he was able to do such a thing, possibly multiple times in the past. Period. A factual reference. Not claimed as evidence of guilt but clearly as evidence that such acts are in his modus operandi, his experience and his ruthlessness. That is all.
BTW, our understanding of his actions and rationales is obviously incomplete and speculative.
-
2 hours ago, Aragorn2002 said:
Am I correct when I say this rock band isn't a big fan of Vlad? If so, his audience won't be either...
Yes, the young audience may well be apathetic at best? Pretty sure Putin cares very little for young Moscow partying liberals and their rock band(s). Expendables. Like the mobiks. Doesn’t prove any guilt of Putin, FSB only that those attacked are of lttle consequence emotionally and politically to his government. Yet their violent deaths certainly serve the purpose of propping up increased “security” laws and calls for enlarging the security forces. So there are upsides for the government’s social controls. Even if they had nothing to do with the attack.
How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
This is just me trying to process these many pages of excellent theorizing and intense debate, thinking out loud about trying to make sense of it all. To see a bigger, emerging picture. Feels like time and space are changing. I apologize if I am simply restating the obvious! At my age, information takes longer to travel between neurons than it did in my youth.
Several members have pointed out how naval tactics and history can be applicable to the current land war in Europe. And beyond. Most recently was an intriguing idea that land platforms should mirror the evolution of naval vessels, from platforms for guns to platforms for missiles and advanced sensors. This made me in turn think about time and space. As the lethality of weapons and the range of sensors grew, so did the ranges of engagements. In WWII, engagements gravitated towards BVR as the norm. In the ocean of the atmosphere, we see a similar evolution Dogfighting is nearly a thing of the past while the range of missiles and sensors a key factor in distance dominance. “Loyal wingman” drones may eventually push the larger, human-piloted jets farther into the distance as they begin to assume a similar role to that of AWACS; stretching space just as modern navies dramatically stretched their engagement areas.
Combat on the planet’s land surfaces has lagged behind this evolution at least partially due to the vast variety of terrains and the masking of visibility by hills and valleys, day and night. Compared to this the oceans and atmosphere space are deserts. And the exception to this has been of course, desert warfare, notably in WWII North Africa. But is the advent of massive integrated ISR combined with precision munitions remorselessly leveling the terrain features of land surfaces? Will land combat theory and doctrine begin to converge with that of naval? Naval platforms tend to be far fewer but significantly larger and more powerful than land platforms. Air power seems more of a middle ground with larger numbers of platforms than navies, but smaller than mechanized land forces. While airpower can cover much of the planet, naval power combines airpower as subsidiary platforms. Naval assets employing conventional cruise missiles further blur the lines between the air and sea forces.
Re-perceiving the distance scale and spacing of land combat and the scale and numbers of platforms and their munitions is already happening in Ukraine. The thinning out of numbers on the offense, the magnification of visibility via all-seeing eyes both electronic and visual, in all realms: from space-based, to drones close to the surface. Fewer and fewer places to hide. Logistics, bases, concentrations all pushed farther and farther from the front. Air forces’ platforms also forced away from the front lines - like naval ships have been from one another. All this has been discussed at great length and sophistication that I try to keep up with. Most days. The land is being effectively stretched and flattened. Is land combat space being simplified, as if the surface of the ocean, the transparency of the air? As a result, shrinking the size of mechanized land assets seems a given.
The tricky thing is that naval warfare doctrine is also forced to evolve in response to the onslaught of compact drone assets in large numbers. C5ISR AI, automation, and cheap drone tech is transforming the nature of survivable naval platforms. How will the aircraft carriers survive, the massive floating metal islands of the major navies? While the space of land combat is stretching out, is the scale of survivable naval assets inevitably shrinking? Are we seeing a dramatic leveling of land, sea, and air theory and doctrine? Are the differences of these three realms becoming simplified? Local variations will always be present, but the vast historic differences in air, land and sea platforms could be declining if a seamless integrated viewpoint and armory of abilities envelopes Earth. With the accelerating militarization of near-earth orbit space, the struggle for total domination of all realms, in real time doesn’t seem like an unachievable pipe dream, at least for the current and emerging superpowers. But how does asymmetric warfare fit into this picture?
Lots of questions, lots of speculations. Makes me curious whether historically there are recurring patterns in the relationships of space and platforms among the three basic domains. Or if there is a trend toward the convergence of scale and platforms and the five “C”s. Tension? More capabilities are being pushed down to individual units, while more finely tuned command and control ability is gained at higher and higher levels of command. While autonomous armed drone units of all sorts, adding a potentially unpredictable third player (Red, Blue, and ?).
Having further exposed my ignorance, I retreat to playing the superb new CMBN Battlepack 2. And honor D-Day once again.