Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

U.S. Response to Russia's Invasion of Ukraine

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Then not engaging with the ones that have no restrictions.
    Then complaining that you couldn't because your big bad evil supplier refused to let you use the one with restrictions.
    I really think this is an issue of them trying to negotiate in public for stuff. I agree this is a really bad look for the Ukrainians, I just wish we had a more decisive, pro-active decision-making process on our end so that this sort of thing didn't happen so much.

    it also frankly doesn't look good on our end when after the WH caves, we provide bullshit "operational" reasons or ex-post-facto justifications. the latest one being that the limited authorization the President cleared on was just "common sense".

    I'm aware of some of the DoD processes, so I know long-range planning and pro-activity does exist in SOME part of the USG.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

    Comment


    • But the question is, Why was use of ATACMs in Russia such a pressing subject?
      They have demonstrated repeatedly that they can fire into Russia with their own weapon systems, BM-30s, OTR-21 and Neptune to name a few.
      And there is no risk of escalaition. They don't need US permission

      Same as Why do they demand F-16s? MIG-29s are more current. The MISIP/MLU packages that F-16s went through brought the fleet up to 1996 standards. The UAF updated their MIG-29s in 2014. Nad they know how to fly and fight with them

      Seems like the whole point of this is to get the US/NATO to put boots on the ground. And that should never happen
      The Ukies MiG29s are limited to obsolete SAHR R27s, are payload limited for air and ground work, and the radars suck. The F16MLU and Mirage 2000s are all around better planes to shoot back at Russian planes and conduct strikes.



      Ukrainian sources have discussed building underground bunkers to protect the planes from long-range missile and drone strikes by Russian forces.

      Modern, Nato-standard aircraft need clean runways, free from “foreign object debris” (FOD), especially the F-16, which is particularly sensitive because of its under-belly air intake.

      The Mirage 2000 is more resistant to FOD than the F-16, and capable of using rougher surfaces, but it will still be difficult to find suitable locations to house fleets of both aircraft

      ===
      But its Mica air-to-air missile, while highly capable, falls short of the Amraam fired by the F-16.

      “Mica is by no means a bad missile… it’s a fairly agile missile that can be pretty unpleasant to defend against if you’re inside what is called the no escape zone. But it is fundamentally, significantly shorter-ranged than Amraam,” Prof Bronk said.

      Mica missiles boast specifications claiming they can hit targets up to 50 miles away, compared to the Amraam’s range of 75 miles.

      To achieve such ranges, shots would have to be taken at high altitude, where the air is thinner, and with the launching aircraft travelling at supersonic speeds

      ====
      Paris is building a coalition of countries that operate the Mirage 2000, with the ultimate goal of having an unspecified number of the planes in the war-torn country by the end of the year.

      The programme mirrors the scheme by Nato allies to provide Ukraine’s air force with dozens of F-16s.

      France’s access to Mirage 2000-5 models is extremely limited – its air force only has around 26 of the dash five version in service, and they are set to be replaced entirely by 2029 – but it was an export success.

      To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

      Comment


      • Originally posted by astralis View Post

        I really think this is an issue of them trying to negotiate in public for stuff. I agree this is a really bad look for the Ukrainians, I just wish we had a more decisive, pro-active decision-making process on our end so that this sort of thing didn't happen so much.

        it also frankly doesn't look good on our end when after the WH caves, we provide bullshit "operational" reasons or ex-post-facto justifications. the latest one being that the limited authorization the President cleared on was just "common sense".

        I'm aware of some of the DoD processes, so I know long-range planning and pro-activity does exist in SOME part of the USG.

        SOME is doing some heavy lifting there!

        “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
        Mark Twain

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post

          It wasn't about where the targets are.
          It was a post about having more than one system capable of engaging the target.
          Then not engaging with the ones that have no restrictions.
          Then complaining that you couldn't because your big bad evil supplier refused to let you use the one with restrictions.

          They are doing the same thing with M-1 tanks and Excaliber/MLRS/and the new SDB MLRS round.
          Sorry, wasn't my intent to characterize your post. I was just commenting generally.

          "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

          Comment

          Working...
          X