Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran are here to talk about a frustrating 2 points dropped at Crystal Palace. They then discuss the regeneration of Old Trafford. Finally, Nik is joined by special guest Michael Statham from the Football Oranje podcast - who gives us a more in depth look at our EL opposition FC Twente, and then runs through the (many) Dutch connections currently at United.
I guess someone never told him that the Soviets backed North Vietnam with some of the most advanced hardware at the time for at least 10 years as it allowed the commies to damage American prestige and US military forces. I'm sure the Soviet military-industrial complex made their own share of money back then. So why would the US not be allowed to do the same here?
Notice that I don't count the Soviet-Afghan War as the kind of US support to the Afghan resistance was not the same in type and quantity of hardware.
Serious question, as someone who views this as a major problem, how exactly do you go about combatting it?
I've got no idea myself. I guess you could have an EU twitter account that fact-checks disinfo for the public as a start.
I think the chances of discharge petition have just gone up after tonight’s crushing win at NY03 for democratic candidate. Sends a clear signal to many moderate GOPs that they’ll be unelectable come November if they continue to fall in line with MAGA extremists.
Another Black sea landing ship bites the dust:
This graphic puts it in perspective. Extremely impressive work by the Ukrainian NotNavy.
Drone warfare is nothing short of revolutionary and paradigm shifting. How do naval ships combat hordes of cheap (relatively) drones? From a US perspective, if something were to go down on the straights of Taiwan, how do you protect the American fleet from 1000s of drones launched from the Chinese mainland?
There must be some serious thinking going on in military tech circles about how to negate this deadly threat.
CIWS like Phalanx should easily deal with them.
Pardon my ignorance but soviet/russian warships have such installations mounted on them too, it doesn’t seem to be working for them though? These are like naval anti aircraft guns, you can actually see on most videos they’re firing recklessly but unable to take them out.
Believe me I am surprised about that as well. Considering that we see short range anti-aircraft guns from western production (like the Gepard) perform very well against Russian drone and even cruise missile attacks on land, we know that drones with similar flight profiles can be easily destroyed. By such systems. However it appears that the Russians have real trouble doing that themselves on a convincing level, but that is more a question about what is wrong with Russian guns and less about the possibility to use guns as drone defence in general
I think these drones will eventually evolve to being underwater drones making it even more challenging to down them.
Do they though? There's this giant question mark around any Russian equipment. Like S-400 were previously compared to Patriot, they've proven lacklustre whereas Patriot has outperformed expectations. I don't think a Russian system failure can be used as a fair comparison to other 'similar' systems.
I agree that underwater operations are a bit of a different story... Considering that I personally know someone who was part of a submarine crew who successfully attacked a US aircraft carrier during an exercise I would not claim that defending against such threats is as simple as against aerial or surface-level sea drones.
Actually saw a naval warfare expert tweet on this very subject (sea drones destroying Russian ships).
Her conclusion was basically...there isn't really anything to learn for Western navies because there's just no way a Western navy would be so incompetent in protecting their ships (layered defense).
You do with that information what you want.
Her conclusion was basically...there isn't really anything to learn for Western navies because there's just no way a Western navy would be so incompetent in protecting their ships (layered defense).
You do with that information what you want.
Look at the aim of that gun, no wonder they can’t hit them for shit.
Also, very funny propaganda video overall when you keep in mind that it was destroyed by small surface drone. To be fair, it is easy to claim you don't have to do anything to counter a threat if you've never really faced it.
One of the common ways to overcome a layered defence, is saturation. Sure, a CIWS could probably shoot down 4-5 drones, arriving simultaneously, in time. Could it should down 100 drones fast enough though, before one gets through or before the CIWS overheats and malfunctions? Can its radar recognise and pick up, smaller and slow-flying loitering munitions? What happens if a drone gets through and hits the CIWS, is the ship now unprotected to drone attacks?
I doubt these scenarios have been adequately tested, it probably wasn't even possible to conduct such tests 10 years ago.
The Russian army was never really effective. They won due to sheer numbers. No other nation could afford/accept such of equipment and humans.
How many western navy ships has the Houthi rebels been able to hit so far with their drones and missiles?
One was very close to hit a warship, apparently. And I wonder if they are still getting supplies from the likes of Iran nowadays to test the U.S. ships defense with an overwhelming number. I also think Ukraine may be a bit ahead in how to use them. In fact, they might be the first to use them so effectively?
Last edited:
The Houthi disaster is the result of another master stroke of the greatest of all presidents by withdrawing unilateral from the Iran nuclear treaty.
White House to brief lawmakers on 'serious national security threat' related to Russia
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/na...onal-security-threat-ahead-planned-rcna138848
^
Apparently Russia wants to put a nuclear weapon into space for possible use against satellites. Would be a violation of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty according to some account I follow.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/whi...akers-house-chairman-warns/story?id=107232293
Last edited:
Russian state media TASS reporting negatively on the Tucker interview. Interesting...
https://t.me/tass_agency/231727
Tucker , the silent assasinSo, Tuckers should be worried of windows and his drinks now?
Well, I think a lot of Western navies will actually (they better do) take notes about the new reality of naval drones because this is arguably as revolutionary as the impact from anti-ship missiles fired by planes back during in the Falklands War. Most navies started equipping their ships with the very best in CIWS after they saw what happened to HMS Sheffield.
Last edited:
The gist was more that the Russian ships aren't protected like Western ships so it's unclear what lessons Western navies can learn. If Russian ships are as protected as Western ones and Ukraine still got their drones through those defenses, that'd be more alarming.
Isn't a nuclear weapon overkill? wouldn't a grenade be enough to just to put a satellite out of commission?
If you get Rory Delap to throw it, perhaps.
Likely that other allies have been briefed too.
From reading a couple of articles it seems that Low Earth Orbiting satellites don't have to transgress the Van Allen belts and so are not, as a rule, protected against radiation. Any nuclear explosion in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) would increase radiation at that level which would then swiftly spread round the planet, degrading and ultimately destroying the vast majority of satellite networks orbiting at that level.
Apparently it's not a new consideration. Here's a letter from a space systems analyst way back in 1998 that succinctly describes the threat:
Glen Kweder said:
Oh, i see the purpose now. Thanka a lot.
Bonus question. Could that low orbit nuclear radition spread down land?
That's not quite the right claim.
Last edited:
It would. While the explosion would blow part of the debris further into space, some will be blown down to earth or on a trajectory slowly dropping down to earth (everything in low earth orbits will drop down at some point due to the resistance of the extremely faint atmosphere in that height. For satellites we are talking about 10-100 years of lifetime until they fall back to earth). But I would not really worry about that - it would be so widespread that it probably is measurable, but not really affecting anyone or increasing the existing background radiation to a meaningful degree.
Thanks for the explanation!