NamEndedAllen
-
Posts
671 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by NamEndedAllen
-
-
1 hour ago, Carolus said:
That is a group the size of North America which will retire with little more than the clothes they currently wear. And which the Chinese state expects to pay exactly zero yuan to
What could possibly go wrong?
-
21 hours ago, MikeyD said:
China increased retirement age from 60 to 63. America should take note because our Social Security full retirement age is now up to... 67?
What is the life expectancy in China? Same, lower or higher than ours? Interesting topic, related more directly here in how devastatingly bad Russia’s population situation is.
Don’t forget China’s demographic pyramid is getting worse fast, with the ratio of old folks supported by working age people getting worse and worse. USA is doing much better than most or all Western nations and China as well iirc because immigration has been offsetting the universal decline in birth rate all nations have been experiencing as their standard of living increases. Life expectancy increases only worsen that ratio. Japan’s ratio is terrible, and driving their major investments in humanoid robotics that may care for their aging population. But Russia…just bad news all the way around.
In general the USA’s long cultural history supporting immigration (period, folks) has set it apart from most nations, to its economic advantage. The controversies and the level of refugee immigration legal and otherwise are changing the culture, but for the time being the USA has a far heathier percentage of younger, working people regardless of status than its competitors. Whether they are allies or not.
-
3 hours ago, Sgt Joch said:
No you are wrong. That is not what I said. I suggest you go back and read what my post actually says instead of making up what you think it says.
p.s. - Steve wants us to drop this topic.
Anyone who wishes to pursue the topic offline could do worse than to learn more about Piercing The Corporate Veil. Not uncommon in lawsuits and why we buy Directors’ Insurance to protect board members should the corporation be sued, found liable, followed by suits against individual board members. Those of us responsible for such matters already know this aspect. Way off topic afaik, so just do some basic research.
-
One hopes this is just the beginning of much more:
“Russia is withdrawing some of its troops from Ukraine in response to Ukraine's counter-invasion into Russia that started last week, the Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday, citing unnamed US officials.
Politico Europe also reported on Tuesday that an official in Kyiv said a "relatively small" number of Russian units were withdrawn to respond to the incursion in Kursk. US officials told the Journal it was still unclear how many troops Russia was pulling back from Ukraine.” https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-withdraws-some-troops-from-ukraine-after-counter-invasion-wsj-2024-8
-
7 hours ago, The_Capt said:
Unless of course the UA has a rabbit in its hate somewhere to unleash down south once the RA has to re-set its lines. I am still hoping for a shaping operation followed by a true breakthrough but not sure if the UA has the gas in the tank to pull it off.
Hey! They read my post at the top of the previous page!
-
With Russia forced to shift significant forces to the north, have their units in more southern areas been thinned much, or even at all? I’m thinking about the lines along the land bridge and Crimea? I wouldn’t think Ukraine has an large uncommitted force remaining. And the mine fields are still where they were. But a reverse of the large feint at Kherson followed by the Kharkiv Romp would be oh so satisfying.
-
8 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
The timing of the exchange most likely has some meaning. Russia has been holding onto the hostages (because that's what they were) for many years in some cases. The US has been working for their release all this time and I am sure there were good proposals put forward which Russia rejected for strategic reasons.
Put another way, Russia just decided to cash in something of value that they've not previously seen a reason to do so. That means something has changed their calculations. What that something is... no way to know, but I agree with Billbindc that hints at Russian weakness. Specifically, they need something now(ish) and/or don't think they'll get a better deal in the near future.
Steve
An interesting and quite recent event right before this exchange was announced: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us-stopped-ukraine-s-alleged-covert-plot-against-russia-after-call-from-moscow-report/ar-BB1qMRTs
i have no knowledge that there is a connection, but contact between these two Defense Chiefs is exceedingly rare. One could imagine a degree of payback being involved, breaking the longstanding logjam - for stopping what seems to have been a serious attack on a sensitive Russian target.
-
On or just before Monday, a Russian surveillance drone winged from Russian lines to the Ukrainian air force’s Mirgorod air base, 100 miles from Ukraine’s northern border with Russia.
The drone spotted at least six Ukrainian Sukhoi Su-27 supersonic fighters parked in the open at the base in broad daylight. A Russian Iskander missile barreled in, destroying two of the precious Sukhois and damaging the other four.It may have been one of the costliest single days for the battered Ukrainian air arm since Russia widened its war on Ukraine in February 2022. “There are some losses,” air force official Yuriy Ignat acknowledged.
Ukrainian bloggers rushed to blame the air force officers who ordered the Su-27 crews to park their jets out in the open at a base dangerously close to the front line. “A million years of war, sheep do not learn anything,” one blogger moaned.The raid on Mirgorod is just the latest in a series of Russian strikes on vulnerable Ukrainian air bases. In recent months, Russian Lancet drones have struck at least four Ukrainian jets at Dolgintsevo air base near Kryvyi Rih, just 45 miles from the front line in southern Ukraine.****What’s especially galling, for supporters of a sovereign Ukraine, is that Russian jets are equally vulnerable at their own bases near Ukraine. But in some cases, U.S. policy prohibits the Ukrainians from striking those jets with American-made weapons. -
A friend who by employment wishes not to post publicly sent me these notes:
*****
> Source - former Marine grunt with RF and drone experience who volunteered in Ukraine for drones >and infantry work for ?2? years - unclass/pub release talk at Connections wargaming conference, > yesterday (27 June 2024). Slides to be released eventually.
> Drones:
>
> Monthly expenditure rate across the front in excess of 14,000
> No such thing as having too many drones.
>
> Don't rely on GPS; nice but usually jammed /and can kill you/ when your drone broadcasts the GPS coordinates of your control station.
>
> Homemade are best because you can change frequencies most easily
> Scan for Russian jamming freqs and then use freqs they are not
> Can use freqs the FCC etc do not approve of
> But - smaller numbers available
>
> Modified commercial next best
> Lots and good quality
> Modify - physical and software - to
> - broaden freq range
> - set return bearings
> - *turn off GPS reporting* both sides can pick up the info and then you die
> - They struggle with DJI updates that keep turning that back on
> - DJI wins on both price and quality, US firms need to catch up (acknowledged there is a severe labor cost disparity)
>
> Military/government done not useful
> - Too expensive
> - Too many Gucci features that fail
> - Too hard to modify
> - Often not tested for a warfare environment
>
> Return on jam - Set return bearings for each leg of flight that bring it back into probable control. Do not set to own position, can be pulled out of electronics if it crashes and/or provides line of bearing back to you.
>
> Use terrain making of RF signal to mask drone and point of origin; fly at least 1 to 1.5 km at very low altitude before unmaking.
>
> Use analog signals not digital. Digital more secure but it is either up or down. Analog lets you feel your way into the jamming and plot out today's EW threat.
>
> Flying drones into EW a lot like Cold War aircraft penetrating radar nets - such and weave around coverage and use masking etc.
>
> Active jamming needs to be layered with more powerful systems rearwards overlapping with less powerful systems forward, in many layers.
>
> Active jammers get killed by home on jam drones.
>
> Better to use passive sensing EW and patch it into other defenses for the kill.
>
> Drone and EW people need to start training with a strong course on radio and how it works.
>
> Drive vs drive combat is beginning. Nets can work. Sticks can work. "Anything used violently can work ". Fancy cabins probably dumb. Remember that shotguns exist and birdshot is cheap!
>
> Drone recon - patch directly into artillery for control center (or mortar team for squad drones). Then use comms to tell them to look when you have a target, they will decide what to do.
>
> Future drones - motherships carrying recce/strike drones and providing signal repeater service
>
> If you are found you can expect a shell within 3 to 8 minutes.
>
> James comment - We are in the equivalent of 1915 with drones - clearly useful and the wrapping of stones is just beginning.
>
> Infantry stuff
>
> Ammo expenditure is like in an FPS game. "Is it is worth a bullet it is worth a mag" - shoot lots, shoot often, shoot if you suspect they are there. Carried 12 mags up front plus 6 to 8 more less ready plus 2 cans of ammo to reload mags.
>
> "Use grenades until the screaming stops"
>
> Keep moving or the artillery will get you.
>
> FPV drones are everywhere.
>
> Do not wear Gucci kit, it makes you a target.
>
> All attacks are frontal assaults because of the continuous front.
>
>
>
> Did not remember all the infantry commentary as well as the drone info. Slideshow should spark more memory.
>
>
> Most interesting talk at Connections!
>
>
> A few other notes-
>
> Yamamoto overrode the results of the wargame on Pearl Harbor in 1941 (projected losses of "160% of Zeros" - direct quote from primary source) though the wargame may have lead to not doing the land invasion of Hawaii.
>
> There are a lot of people who I know decently well, who are not alarmists, who are very seriously expecting World War 3 in the next decade at most and possibly in the next 2-3 years. Some grim speculation on not if but when and which WMD will get massive use in Ukraine. Chem & tac nukes are probable as desperation grows; bio too hard to deploy and control. Tac nukes most effective but cross a bigger red line than nerve gas. Nuke- or conventionally-pumped EMP may become a solution for drones (takes a lot of planning and coordination to avoid fratricide of own electronics). -
Shades of the Vietnam War and civilian management of target lists:
(The Washington Post) By Siobhán O'Grady, Robyn Dixon, Serhiy Morgunov and Kostiantyn Khudov June 21, 2024 at 10:12 a.m. PT KHARKIV, Ukraine — A new U.S. policy allowing Ukraine to fire certain American weapons at Russian territory has led to a reduction in some Russian attacks but still restricts the range enough that it prevents Ukraine from hitting key airfields, two Ukrainian officials said. Those airfields are used by Russian jets that drop the deadly glide bombs now inflicting the greatest damage on military positions and civilians.
-
8 hours ago, zinz said:
Excellent information. This section stuck out:
“In a recent NATO wargame centered on the Kaliningrad-Belarus area, the ground forces were waiting for the air forces to provide the sorties needed to advance without severe losses and the air forces said they couldn’t operate in that environment with fourth generation fighters without suffering severe losses. It took three days of long-ranged ground and air strikes before the air forces could operate in an environment with acceptable losses. Even then, the ground forces had to move out on a moment’s notice because that window could close in 45 minutes.
Two years ago, Russian dynamic targeting with air defenses was extremely poor. That isn’t the case now. Like the US and NATO, they hadn’t fought or been threatened by a peer or near-peer adversary in decades, and they did not maintain their cold war skill set. Meanwhile, they have remedied that shortcoming.
The only asset the US has that can operate in an enemy air defense environment is the F-35. Suppression of enemy air defenses within a certain locality could create a pocket of air superiority that would allow fourth generation aircraft to protect and support ground forces, but theater-wide air superiority against an entity such as Russia is not a reality”
-
6 hours ago, The_Capt said:
Ground vehicles are going to need to start thinking about stealth:
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.
-
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?
How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
Speaking of China and economics,