Putin announces 'military operation' in Ukraine.

[Rewulf]

3 hours ago, ordnance said:

 

Have you any good friends that can inform us on the NLAW anti tank missile also manufactured in Belfast, I bet there are a lot of Russians not laughing at the NLAW, unless of course you have a good friend that knows differently  

No, don't know any one that uses the NLAW regularly, I'm sure it's great 😂

But the Starstreak is still pants, it's that bad that hardly any countries are interested in buying it, and the ones that Ukraine got were the even more rubbish 1st gen ones. 

Never mind, I'm sure Thales greased enough palms to keep our procurement dept buying. 

[ordnance]

11 hours ago, Rewulf said:

No, don't know any one that uses the NLAW regularly, I'm sure it's great 😂

But the Starstreak is still pants, it's that bad that hardly any countries are interested in buying it, and the ones that Ukraine got were the even more rubbish 1st gen ones. 

Never mind, I'm sure Thales greased enough palms to keep our procurement dept buying. 

Is the Chlanger tank pants, few countries have bought it. You are being naive again If you think weapons sales just comes down to the quality and abilities of the weapons. I would be interested in what evidence you have that the Strarstreak is pants, other than what your good friend said 🤔

Edited August 12, 2022 by ordnance

[Rewulf]

20 minutes ago, ordnance said:

Is the Chlanger tank pants, few countries have bought it. You are being naive again If you think weapons sales just comes down to the quality and abilities of the weapons. I would be interested in what evidence you have that the Strarstreak is pants, other than what your good friend said 🤔

No Challenger isnt pants, there has been around 450 made, and no it didnt export well, why ?
Because its the same price as a Abrams A2 (10500) made, and the Yanks have a far more aggressive marketing system, something along the lines of, buy our military equipment, or we might topple your government and let someone invade you system.
Is it a better tank than a Chally 2, maybe, not by much though.

Evidence of Starstreak being pants ?
Well, the fact that my 'good friend' a Sgt in 12 RA , who has been using it for 8 years, and the similar opinion of his whole regiment? We have Thales , the French company that makes it, never having tried to sell it to the French military.
We have its woeful combat record, 1 unconfirmed kill in 20 years.
Its woeful performance record, first iterations were easily jammed, with no hope of hitting anything faster than 30 knots, as the operator had to keep line of sight with a single laser designator.
All the while exposed to enemy fire.
Useless at night, keeping line of sight in the dark , and the fact that the laser gives your position away to anyone with NV.

The 2nd gen improved the designator to a laser matrix , making it easier to keep the beam on target, this made it more usable , but its role is still limited to slow moving helos, there is virtually no chance of it hitting a jet aircraft, especially with its limited range and poor manoeuvrability (due to its excessive speed) .
They have tried to employ the system in various guises, strapping them to Apache gunships as AA and A to G roles , absolute failure.
The Stormer vehicle which it was designed for, is very rarely used, as it lacks speed and manoeuvrability to exit the area once fired and exposed.
Its a high speed , short range system that requires optical acquisition , will not work at all in fog/poor visibility.
Angle for launch must be low, high flying aircraft cannot be acquired, there has to be visible laser splash.
The 3 missile pod system is cumbersome and heavy , again high exposure.
The only real benefit is the one missile MANPAD type configuration, which is the common role.
A short range helo in clear sight, does not have much chance of avoidance, unless it has specialist laser jammers, and the missile is that fast, avoidance is limited.
But its nothing a Stinger or Igla couldnt achieve, and how many Russian helos have been downed with these, against the Starstreak ?

I rest my case M'lord. 😜

[ordnance]

Quote

No Challenger isnt pants, there has been around 450 made, and no it didnt export well, why ?
Because its the same price as a Abrams A2 (10500) made, and the Yanks have a far more aggressive marketing system, something along the lines of, buy our military equipment, or we might topple your government and let someone invade you system

You pointed to Starstreak lack of sales to other countries as a indication it wasn't any good, now you are saying that sales doesn't mean a weapon is good or bad  

Quote

We have its woeful combat record, 1 unconfirmed kill in 20 years.

That only means something if we know how many times it was fired at hostile aircraft,  how many times was it fired at hostile aircraft ?

Quote

A short range helo in clear sight, does not have much chance of avoidance, unless it has specialist laser jammers, and the missile is that fast, avoidance is limited.
But its nothing a Stinger or Igla couldnt achieve, and how many Russian helos have been downed with these, against the Starstreak ?

Stinger and other heat seeking missiles can be decoyed by flares Starstreak can't, it would be seen as complement to stinger and other MANPAD in Ukraine. As for how many Russian helos have being downed by starstreak compared to stinger etc, you tell me i assume you would know before stating one is better than the other. 

Quote

Its a high speed , short range system that requires optical acquisition , will not work at all in fog/poor visibility.
Angle for launch must be low, high flying aircraft cannot be acquired, there has to be visible laser splash.

Interesting your source ? PS other than your mate. 

Edited August 12, 2022 by ordnance

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, ordnance said:

You pointed to Starstreak lack of sales to other countries as a indication it wasn't any good, now you are saying that sales doesn't mean a weapon is good or bad

No,  you said that. 

9 hours ago, ordnance said:

Is the Chlanger tank pants, few countries have bought it. You are being naive again If you think weapons sales just comes down to the quality and abilities of the weapons

 

1 hour ago, ordnance said:

That only means something if we know how many times it was fired at hostile aircraft,  how many times was it fired at hostile aircraft ?

Very few I would imagine,  because no one bought it 😂

 

1 hour ago, ordnance said:

Stinger and other heat seeking missiles can be decoyed by flares Starstreak can't, it would be seen as complement to stinger and other MANPAD in Ukraine. As for how many Russian helos have being downed by starstreak compared to stinger etc, you tell me i assume you would know before stating one is better than the other

No dispute from me on the decoy part,  it would have been a pointless effort otherwise wouldn't it 😂

As for how many aircraft have been downed by each system,  well Starstreak claims 1,  the others,  probably high hundreds,  maybe thousands,  pointless argument. 

1 hour ago, ordnance said:

Interesting your source ? PS other than your mate

Quite simple really, it's max horizontal land range is a claimed 4.35 miles,  or 23000ft, the steeper the angle this drops off considerably,  by around a third,  so maybe 15-16000 ft with little room for manoeuvre,  if the aircraft evades hard,  the missile cannot compensate,  the darts even less. 

It is not designed to be used on high fast jets. 

Anything else? 😋

[ordnance]

Quote

 

Quite simple really, it's max horizontal land range is a claimed 4.35 miles,  or 23000ft, the steeper the angle this drops off considerably,  by around a third,  so maybe 15-16000 ft with little room for manoeuvre,  if the aircraft evades hard,  the missile cannot compensate,  the darts even less. 

It is not designed to be used on high fast jets. 

Anything else? 

 

So you are criticizing it for not doing something it was not designed to do 

Quote

No,  you said that.

Quote Rewulf ( But the Starstreak is still pants, it's that bad that hardly any countries are interested in buying it ) 

Quote

As for how many aircraft have been downed by each system,  well Starstreak claims 1,  the others,  probably high hundreds,  maybe thousands,  pointless argument. 

Yes it is pointless you posted unless you know how many times it has being fired at a hostile aircraft, missiles can't down aircraft if they have not being fired at them. 

Edited August 12, 2022 by ordnance

[Rewulf]

56 minutes ago, ordnance said:

So you are criticizing it for not doing something it was not designed to do

No,  I'm criticising  it for something they originally said it could do,  but clearly cant. 

59 minutes ago, ordnance said:

Quote Rewulf ( But the Starstreak is still pants, it's that bad that hardly any countries are interested in buying it )

No,  you're just trying to misdirect the argument about whether it's pants or not. If it was as great a system as YOU said it was,  you would have overseas buyers lining up for it, like they do for Javs and Stingers,  but they're not. 

Because it's a very niche system,  that's simply not cost effective for most armed forces needs. And it's pants 😂

Why do we use it?  Procurement,  greasy palms,  brown envelopes? 

Lets hope it never gets tested in anger. 

[ordnance]

 

 

Quote

Quote Rewulf ( No,  I'm criticising  it for something they originally said it could do,  but clearly cant. )

Make your mind up 

Quote   Rewulf ( It is not designed to be used on high fast jets )

Quote

No,  you're just trying to misdirect the argument about whether it's pants or not. If it was as great a system as YOU said it was,  you would have overseas buyers lining up for it, like they do for Javs and Stingers,  but they're not. 

Again make your mind up You said the Chlanger MBT is a good system, then why were overseas buyers not lining up to buy it if your measure of how good a system is comes down to how many other armies buy it. You are contradicting yourself, ( example bellow ) in one post you say one system is pants because of its lack of overseas sales, and in the next there is a lot more to countries buying a system than how good it is 😕 PS Quote me where i said the Starstreak was a great system ? 

Quote

Quote Rewulf (  No Challenger isnt pants, there has been around 450 made, and no it didnt export well, why ?
Because its the same price as a Abrams A2 (10500) made, and the Yanks have a far more aggressive marketing system

.

Edited August 13, 2022 by ordnance

[Rewulf]

11 hours ago, ordnance said:

Make your mind up 

Quote   Rewulf ( It is not designed to be used on high fast jets )

Poor choice of words,  they originally said it could be used on fast jets,  then realised it wasn't up to it. 

 

11 hours ago, ordnance said:

Again make your mind up You said the Chlanger MBT is a good system, then why were overseas buyers not lining up to buy it if your measure of how good a system is comes down to how many other armies buy it. You are contradicting yourself, ( example bellow ) in one post you say one system is pants because of its lack of overseas sales, and in the next there is a lot more to countries buying a system than how good it is

Waffle aimed at misdirection. 

You claimed overseas sales mean nothing when it comes to how good a system is,  it clearly does. 

Using Challenger as a yardstick is a poor argument. As I explained. 

11 hours ago, ordnance said:

PS Quote me where i said the Starstreak was a great system ? 

Apologies,  you didn't,  you said it was 'good to see a Belfast made missile being used in ukraine' 

I remembered it differently,  3 months ago. 

[Rewulf]

For over a week now , Ukraine has been blaming Russia for shelling themselves at the Zaphorizhia nuke station.
Its a fairly ludicrous claim, but one that needed to be examined and dissected.

Ukrainian claims include, Russia shelling itself , and parts of the (fully functioning, and crewed by Ukrainian staff) plant.
This they say, risks a nuclear 'accident' , making Russia a terrorist state, who has no clear regard for the rest of Europe, they must therefore relinquish control of the station back to Ukraine, withdraw from the area, and sit on the nuclear naughty step for ever.
They also said that Russian artillery there must stop firing from the 'safety' of the station, as they would never dream of doing such a thing....And most certainly wouldnt fire back at a power station that supplies Ukraine still, and its rather dangerous too...

Russian claims include, Ukraine are firing back at the station, because they are firing on positions around Nicopol ect, they are then blaming Russia for firing at themselves, to make them look bad, and irresponsible .
The running of the station is down to the Ukrainian staff.

The Ukrainians have been bleating to the UN and IAEA that Russia needs to be stopped from this terrorist act, there has been requests to examine the station, but multiple sources, scans and satellite images have shown there is no risk of radiation leak, even in the highly unlikely event of a reactor breach , the prevailing wind would send the radiation through Russian lines, into Donbass, then Russia, why would they risk this ?

Also , the UN/NATO has the ability to see shell and missile fire direction using AWACS, satellite and doppler radars fitted to some aircraft and SAMS.
They KNOW  the direction of fire , and the way the lines are drawn there, if it comes from the North , its Ukrainian, if it comes from the South , its Russian, which is probably why the UN has avoided the gnarly question of who is responsible for the shelling, if they thought Russia was remotely responsible, they would say so, the fact they do a no comment , speaks volumes.
Zelensky has now abandoned this line of propaganda, as its not working for him , and has gone on record to virtually admit it was Ukraine shelling the station, and threatened more of it.

 

[ditchman]

QUESTION 

seeing a lot of pictures of fired missiles in small holes with their fines sticking out of the ground....

• are they duds
• are they designed to do this so when you touch them they go off
• are they the disgarded rocket ends of the missile...the warhead has seperated and gone off nearby

????????

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Just now, ditchman said:

QUESTION 

seeing a lot of pictures of fired missiles in small holes with their fines sticking out of the ground....

• are they duds
• are they designed to do this so when you touch them they go off
• are they the disgarded rocket ends of the missile...the warhead has seperated and gone off nearby

????????

Used/empty Cluster bomb rockets, just the bits that fall out of the sky when the nasty bits have been ejected.

[ditchman]

Just now, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Used/empty Cluster bomb rockets, just the bits that fall out of the sky when the nasty bits have been ejected.

ahhhhhhh...............cheers

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Used/empty Cluster bomb rockets, just the bits that fall out of the sky when the nasty bits have been ejected.

Some of them are , but others , like this one are unexploded Grads.

Failure rate is around 4 %

 

[Mungler]

I see the co-founder of amnesty has resigned disgusted at the bias reporting and victim blaming of the Ukraine.

https://tvpworld.com/61761753/amnesty-international-cofounder-resigns-over-biased-ukraine-report

Indeed, it’s always worth remembering that this all started with an invasion. 

Be interesting to see how many bridges get dropped this week and who gets cut off from where.

[Rewulf]

3 hours ago, Mungler said:

I see the co-founder of amnesty has resigned disgusted at the bias reporting and victim blaming of the Ukraine.

https://tvpworld.com/61761753/amnesty-international-cofounder-resigns-over-biased-ukraine-report

To be fair , its a bit of a play on words, hes not the co founder of Amnesty per se, he co founded a branch of Amnesty in Sweden, has never held any position with the group , other than the lofty title of luminary, probably because during his long career as a fighter for justice , hes done a fair bit of terrorist supporting, al a Corbyn.
Anyway hes given his membership up , not resigned,  which , at the age of 88 , is probably for the best.

3 hours ago, Mungler said:

Be interesting to see how many bridges get dropped this week and who gets cut off from where.

I dont think theres any bridges left is there ? 

Its a strange strategy, while I can see what theyre trying to do, as in , cut the Russians off from logistical support, that would only work if the Ukrainians were in a better position regarding their own logistics.
Theyve apparently run out HIMAR rockets, they have virtually no aircraft left, few tanks, and the Bayraktar drones are either all gone , or the Russians have found a counter for them, either way (Jamming?)  , you dont hear them mentioned any more.
The Iranian drones the Russias have bought , should be seen soon , whether theyre any good or not ?

The much vaunted Ukraine  counter offensive , whether a real plan or just propaganda to get the Russians to pour men into the area, has not really happened, as they just dont have the resources to do it.

As a hobby, I studied soviet military doctrine and tactics for years (got a bit carried away with a computer game when I was younger 😄) and nothing much has changed , this was also Ukrainian doctrine , until the west started training them in their ideas and tactics.
The major differences are thus, Russian tactics are based upon defence, set piece defensive positions, with massive artillery support, they let the enemy come to them, smash themselves to pieces, then they use their own armour to finish them off, the battle of Kursk in 1943 is a classic example.
NATO doctrine is rarely defensive, it involves first removing the enemies air power and establishing air superiority by removing anti air threats, this can be achieved by cruise missiles, HARM and stand off weapons using long range air, you might wonder why they still keep those 1950s era B52s ? Thats why.
These tactics work very well against goat herders, or combatants more at home in rice paddys.
Once air superiority has been established , its just a turkey shoot, where as soon as an enemy tries to move or attack, the air just takes them out, and theres very little the enemy can do about it, Iraq is a classic example.

I digress massively.
What Im saying is there doesnt seem to be a clear game plan for Ukraine, they are just surviving, and as much as they keep saying, 'we will push them out' , there just isnt a real possibility of that.
They keep saying the Russians have few tanks , no shells, no missiles, then a tonne of them land on the Ukrainians.
They keep hitting those bridges, and yes thats a great tactic, when they are 50 miles in front of your lines, but if your real aim is to liberate your country, how are you going to advance past those bridges you destroyed ?
How are you going to advance when you have no armour, no air support and the enemy has 10 x more artillery systems than you, in prepared defences ?
This has turned into attrition, trench warfare , which suits the Russians better, and who are just waiting for winter....
Ukraine , who are solely reliant on imported western weapons now, dont have time , or the kit for this kind of war.

This doesnt work for Ukraine , and it doesnt really work for Europe, the US , might be all up for perpetual war, but they are slaves to public opinion, and that is turning , the public after all , are paying for it.
The MIC pay day will continue , as countries rearm and modernise , so the lords of war will be satisfied for a while whatever.

My prediction (you wont like it)
The weak link in all this , the bar to peace and a possible end to hostilities...Is Zelensky, and his general staff.
If he met with an unfortunate 'accident' , a more moderate leader who was willing to make some concessions might be the order of the day ?
Putin isnt going anywhere, as much as we would all like to think, hes going to be deposed , killed , die a horrible death from cancer or polonium, its much more likely that Zelensky is going to get the novichok sandwich.
The gas and oil could start flowing, share prices in petro would go orbital , making some err.. 'smart investors' billions, and WW3 could be put on the back burner for a bit.
Europe will breath a sigh of relief, and governments can hold onto power till next election.
Everyones a winner, except Zelensky of course, at least he will be a hero for his involuntary sacrifice .

 

[Mungler]

Well, let’s hope Zelensky stays alive and continues to grind this out until the Russians work out it’s not worth it - in fairness they will have worked that out by now, they just need to be motivated do something about it…. 

 

[Rewulf]

35 minutes ago, Mungler said:

Well, let’s hope Zelensky stays alive and continues to grind this out until the Russians work out it’s not worth it - in fairness they will have worked that out by now, they just need to be motivated do something about it…. 

 

Historically, the Russian (and Ukrainians) can put up with considerable punishment before throwing the towel in.
Its just not in their nature to give up, and the losses taken by both sides , simply arent remotely big enough to 'motivate' them into doing anything except slog it out for , well years really.

What is being motivated, is the desire by the west, for closure on the matter.
Its costing us money, and the feeling of insecurity within EU governments is palpable, this is seriously affecting their plans for all kind of things , showing them up for the inherent disunity within them.
How can they become a superstate if, at the first crisis , they fall apart?
Hungary blatantly refusing to tow the line , buying gas on the sly from Russia, Spain , Portugal and Italy flatly refusing VDL rationing proposal, and others still , buying and trading Russian oil out he back door.
Its thrown the whole net zero/ green agenda under the bus , exposing it for the unimportant white elephant it is...embarrassing !
The US is struggling to justify how it can not help with inflation, and rising fuel costs , but spend $50 billion on Ukraine , and thats just this year so far, its already spent billions , and is lining itself up for a money pit of epic proportions.
Voters are already fed up with Bidens senility , this, is getting beyond a joke, especially if all that money produces no positive result.
At some point , and I take no pleasure in this, theyre going to let Ukraine go, and without western money , and weapons , they will fold terribly quickly.
It would be far more sensible for the Ukrainians to try and negotiate now, before this happens.
But like I said , with Zelensky at the helm, who I am more and more convinced, is not making decisions for the benefit of Ukraine , but is taking orders from outside parties, this simply cant happen.

[Mungler]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

Historically, the Russian (and Ukrainians) can put up with considerable punishment before throwing the towel in.
Its just not in their nature to give up, and the losses taken by both sides , simply arent remotely big enough to 'motivate' them into doing anything except slog it out for , well years really.

What is being motivated, is the desire by the west, for closure on the matter.
Its costing us money, and the feeling of insecurity within EU governments is palpable, this is seriously affecting their plans for all kind of things , showing them up for the inherent disunity within them.
How can they become a superstate if, at the first crisis , they fall apart?
Hungary blatantly refusing to tow the line , buying gas on the sly from Russia, Spain , Portugal and Italy flatly refusing VDL rationing proposal, and others still , buying and trading Russian oil out he back door.
Its thrown the whole net zero/ green agenda under the bus , exposing it for the unimportant white elephant it is...embarrassing !
The US is struggling to justify how it can not help with inflation, and rising fuel costs , but spend $50 billion on Ukraine , and thats just this year so far, its already spent billions , and is lining itself up for a money pit of epic proportions.
Voters are already fed up with Bidens senility , this, is getting beyond a joke, especially if all that money produces no positive result.
At some point , and I take no pleasure in this, theyre going to let Ukraine go, and without western money , and weapons , they will fold terribly quickly.
It would be far more sensible for the Ukrainians to try and negotiate now, before this happens.
But like I said , with Zelensky at the helm, who I am more and more convinced, is not making decisions for the benefit of Ukraine , but is taking orders from outside parties, this simply cant happen.

Agree with 90% of that.

I don’t see the Yanks backing out. The cost of having Ukraine fight Russia and set Russia back 40 years is peanuts in the scheme of things. 

Afghanistan was $2-3 trillion and look where that ended, and here it’s soft cost because all those US defence contractors get the contracts, the cash from which recirculates in the US economy - and all with no election losing loss of US life.

If I was the US I would throw everything at keeping Zelensky alive and keep a plan B alive - probably the Klischkos - everyone in Ukraine loves boxing and who doesn’t love a winner?

[Gordon R]

Much as I hate to admit it, I think Rewulf's assessment of the future is probably more realistic.

I hope I am wrong.

[Rewulf]

This is a latest assessment from a pro Ukrainian analyst, it confirms much of what I surmised the last few days.
Basically , its not looking good for Ukraine , the information war they have been waging, of how Russia is on the back foot , and has terrible moral and losses, isnt working , or remotely true.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uT8woUCiKUo

[ordnance]

11 hours ago, Rewulf said:

This is a latest assessment from a pro Ukrainian analyst, it confirms much of what I surmised the last few days.
Basically , its not looking good for Ukraine , the information war they have been waging, of how Russia is on the back foot , and has terrible moral and losses, isnt working , or remotely true.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uT8woUCiKUo

What makes him a pro Ukrainian analyst ?  if i could be bothered i could find ( analysts ) that would have the opposite view, why would you me or anyone else place any credence on what he is saying.

 He looks like a real expert 😅 Maybe line up a paintballer next for their view. 

Quote

HistoryLegends Description. I analyse war movies, video games and react to other YouTube videos.

 

Edited August 17, 2022 by ordnance

[oowee]

39 minutes ago, ordnance said:

What makes him a pro Ukrainian analyst ?  if i could be bothered i could find ( analysts ) that would have the opposite view, why would you me or anyone else place any credence on what he is saying.

 He looks like a real expert 😅 Maybe line up a paintballer next for their view. 

 

👍

[Rewulf]

3 hours ago, ordnance said:

What makes him a pro Ukrainian analyst ?

He's Ukrainian,  he hates Russia,  and he analyses war data. 

If you prefer a paintballers view,  then go for it,  it's a free country. 

But why don't you just say what you feel. ' I don't agree with his opinion' 

You'll make yourself look less silly,  if you actually watch the video, then form an opinion based on what he's saying,  rather than work from the assumption that because I've posted it,  it can't be any good? 

Or you can just not bother, and crack on 😂

[Mungler]

4 hours ago, Rewulf said:

He's Ukrainian,  he hates Russia,  and he analyses war data. 

If you prefer a paintballers view,  then go for it,  it's a free country. 

But why don't you just say what you feel. ' I don't agree with his opinion' 

You'll make yourself look less silly,  if you actually watch the video, then form an opinion based on what he's saying,  rather than work from the assumption that because I've posted it,  it can't be any good? 

Or you can just not bother, and crack on 😂

Give it a rest.

It will be over when it’s over and posting videos from YouTube armchair critics is meaningless - for every one that says the Russians will win this week, there’s at least one that disagrees and says otherwise.

This is a David vs Goliath grind down; it could still be going on in some form by this time next year.