|
What is the most powerful flying bug? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| 🦋 |
|
15 | 3.71% |
| 🦇 |
|
115 | 28.47% |
| 🪰 |
|
12 | 2.97% |
| 🐦 |
|
67 | 16.58% |
| dragonfly |
|
94 | 23.27% |
| 🦟 |
|
14 | 3.47% |
| 🐝 |
|
87 | 21.53% |
| Total: | 404 votes | ||
|
GoLambo posted:https://www.moonofalabama.org/2022/12/us-to-send-more-wunderwaffen-to-ukraine.html#more I mean, if you turn on any SAM radar, there are a half dozen ways it is going to be immediately geolocated.
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2022 01:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 09:08 |
|
|
did somebody just say we need more pylons
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2022 01:17
|
|
|
Morbus posted:I mean, if you turn on any SAM radar, there are a half dozen ways it is going to be immediately geolocated. The devil is in target mensuration. a giant X that’s as wide as a whole base is better than nothing but not grids. And the example correlated commercial images is from 2018, so you’d be hard pressed to rely on correlations with old commercial imagery and simply assume no one ever moves radars.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2022 01:22
|
|
|
They're sending cruise missiles into mobile phone operators, I think finding an active radar that can't move should be a given. Man I hope the operator is at the end of a 500m cable run.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2022 01:31
|
|
|
paul_soccer12 posted:all the pro-ukrainian twitter accounts im seeing today are posting uncensored corpses of people they claim are Wagner and celebrating/jerking off. the ones that arent, are posting rape jokes about "collaborators" 🇺🇸
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2022 01:40
|
|
|
good
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2022 01:40
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:The devil is in target mensuration. a giant X that’s as wide as a whole base is better than nothing but not grids. And the example correlated commercial images is from 2018, so you’d be hard pressed to rely on correlations with old commercial imagery and simply assume no one ever moves radars. Yeah my point is in an actual military context (like this one), if you turn on a SAM radar, you are giving its position away, for reasons that have nothing to do with looking for interference in satellite SAR imagery. There are two ways to address this. One is to integrate many SAM batteries, radars, and aircraft into an air defense network, ideally supported by short-range air defense. This requires more than a token number of patriot batteries. The second way is to have mobile systems that don't turn their radar on very often and frequently move. Patriot is not a suitable system for this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2022 01:41
|
|
|
DancingShade posted:I think finding an active radar that can't move should be a given. If we were discussing immobile radars, you’d have a point. Russia and the US both had the bright idea to put tactical radars on wheels and then move them around when needed, which is rather often in a peer fight.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2022 01:42
|
|
|
Morbus posted:Patriot is not a suitable system for this. Patriot is as mobile as S-300 and S-400. Russia and Ukraine have both jumped their SAMs to alternate battle positions frequently as a passive defense measure. I see no reason why the plan wouldn’t be to do the same with the western analogue.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2022 01:44
|
|
|
DancingShade posted:They're sending cruise missiles into mobile phone operators, I think finding an active radar that can't move should be a given. i dont think blowing up radars and sams is very easy, given that both russia and ukraine are still needing to flying their tactical fighters at like 20 feet above the ground for risk of being blown up by the other sides' s-300s / buks / osas / whatevers sending cruise missiles into mobile phone operators is presumably also a little easier than sending a cruise missile into a literal anti-cruise missiles air defense system
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2022 01:45
|
|
|
There are all sorts of neat things you do with GSR and CB radars to prevent the problems you're describing. The basics are "turn it off and on again", "move it", "target DF gear", and "use separate surveillance and engagement radars". It's a really cool subject. I think one of my reference books on radars somewhere around here is cleared for public release.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2022 02:03
|
|
|
The treaty of Trianon will be avenged to the last Huzsar
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2022 02:03
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/CTVNews/status/1602715045556797442?s=20&t=GmU6vkZrr47ZwXECPxL9Rg
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2022 02:22
|
|
|
It really is the perfect expression too, but I don't think it was a wink from the editor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2022 02:32
|
|
|
A priest? Heh, guess he should've yelled "sanctuary!" 
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2022 02:39
|
|
|
fits my needs posted:https://twitter.com/CTVNews/status/1602715045556797442?s=20&t=GmU6vkZrr47ZwXECPxL9Rg Such a generous nation. Do they do this for every war-torn country in the world? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2022 02:41
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/McFaul/status/1603095137197826048?s=20&t=GmU6vkZrr47ZwXECPxL9Rg
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2022 02:50
|
|
|
fits my needs posted:https://twitter.com/McFaul/status/1603095137197826048?s=20&t=GmU6vkZrr47ZwXECPxL9Rg Michael mcfail
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2022 02:55
|
|
|
fits my needs posted:https://twitter.com/McFaul/status/1603095137197826048?s=20&t=GmU6vkZrr47ZwXECPxL9Rg it’s a bit in questionable taste but he’s allowed to make as many jokes about Jewish people as he desires imo. “own voice”
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2022 02:56
|
|
|
fits my needs posted:https://twitter.com/McFaul/status/1603095137197826048?s=20&t=GmU6vkZrr47ZwXECPxL9Rg lol this is the guy that went on maddow to say Hitler didn't kill ethnic Germans.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2022 03:05
|
|
|
OctaMurk posted:i dont think blowing up radars and sams is very easy, given that both russia and ukraine are still needing to flying their tactical fighters at like 20 feet above the ground for risk of being blown up by the other sides' s-300s / buks / osas / whatevers It may come down to who has more ammo. Patriots driven in on trucks vs whatever Russia feels like lobbing overhead. Odds are Ukraine may get the systems and missiles previously earmarked for supply to other clients.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2022 03:07
|
|
|
DancingShade posted:It may come down to who has more ammo. Patriots driven in on trucks vs whatever Russia feels like lobbing overhead. They have some pretty innovative and long range ARMs, having developed them from ASMs, still intending to shoot them at warships. That will keep you on your toes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2022 03:11
|
|
|
fits my needs posted:https://twitter.com/CTVNews/status/1602715045556797442?s=20&t=GmU6vkZrr47ZwXECPxL9Rg Funds already allocated for relief, paying ourselves to send Canadian utility workers and supplies to repair infrastructure that will get bombed over and over again. Libs love it
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2022 03:23
|
|
|
crepeface posted:if you're going to dump pages on us without a summary at least highlight the main points like graednko Text 1 says that NATO/The West is approaching the conflict in Ukraine from the perspective of inflicting so many casualties on Russia that eventually Russia will have to sue for peace, but they don't actually know if Russian "national psychology" operates in a way that would make this a feasible approach, or even if Russia is actually taking enough losses for this approach to be bearing results. Text 2 says that NATO/The West offered up a lot of their armaments to Ukraine in the expectation of winning the war per Text 1, even though neoliberalism had cannibalized their militaries to the point where the arms they were supplying were not in-excess and would take a significant amount of time to replenish. This is a problem if Ukraine isn't winning as quickly as NATO expects they might, especially since on the opposite side of the table, not only has Russia managed to maintain a sizable domestic arms production industry, but that they've also mobilized. Text 3 says that "lend-lease" did not happen because there isn't much of anything [more] to give. NATO doesn't want to increase their production of war materiel due to ideological reasons, and neither is their present levels of production sufficient to provide enough arms to Ukraine to allow them to achieve a decisive advantage in weaponry (again, due to ideology). Text 4 says that the legacy of arms production in some European countries, as handed down from the turn of the 20th century and maintained through the rest of it during the Warsaw Pact-era, specifically the former Czechoslovakia, could make it possible to ramp up deliveries of materiel if they wanted to, they just really don't want to. Text 5 says that Ukraine doesn't have enough capacity for training troops.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2022 03:35
|
|
|
The final, hidden text naturally says, "im gay." So you know that thread's legit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2022 03:39
|
|
|
And who built the Czech heavy and arms industry, Škoda Works and the rest...? Who passed the torch to the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic..? One country, two systems, dual monarchy. (Still working on this one) Frosted Flake has issued a correction as of 03:49 on Dec 15, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2022 03:46
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Patriot is as mobile as S-300 and S-400. Russia and Ukraine have both jumped their SAMs to alternate battle positions frequently as a passive defense measure. I see no reason why the plan wouldn’t be to do the same with the western analogue. Repositioning a patriot or S-300 takes on the order of hours, not minutes, though. And during that time they are not effective. These systems are better described as semi-mobile. They are intended to be deployed as part of an IADS. Compared to something like Tor, which has a lower engagement range but is not a short-range system, can operate its radar while moving, and can simply stop when it needs to shoot then immediately move again. Also, Tor (and Buk) are on tracked vehicles, not wheels like S-300 or Patriot. Anyway, it is very difficult in a modern context to prevent an active ground based radar from being geolocated, especially from the air. Such systems have remained somewhat effective in Ukraine not because Russia has a hard time detecting or locating them, but because the VKS is just poorly equipped for destroying them, and Russian ground forces have been stuck along more or less fixed lines for months Doctrinally, Russia hasn't placed (and arguably doesn't need to place) the same emphasis on airborne SEAD as the US does, because it is generally assumed that ground forces are capable of advancing without needing air superiority, and they are more than capable of destroying ground based air defenses within their range. Finding themselves in an under-manned, attritional ground war where they haven't been able to execute their own doctrine, it's not a huge surprise that the air force has had limited success in picking up the slack.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2022 03:56
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:And who built the Czech heavy and arms industry, Škoda Works and the rest...? Who passed the torch to the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic..? triple monarchy because you have the king, the dictator trudeau, and that one crazy cultist lady
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2022 03:59
|
|
|
Morbus posted:Repositioning a patriot or S-300 takes on the order of hours, not minutes, though. And during that time they are not effective. Part of being effective is not sitting still for weeks and dying. The emitter moves while it’s silent partner unit waits to go active, on order. For the infrastructure strikes, these are not ‘round the clock Russian bomber strike operations. Russia is usually prepping ships and bombers for a day or several beforehand, does the strike, then does maintenance, assessment, etc. Given that, Ukraine can keep SAMs moving in between (even if a very short hop of a km or something) and only radiate once they have indicators of bomber takeoff or cruise missile launch. An hour to pack up, 20 minutes to drive, and an hour to emplace is very fast in comparison with the enemy having to detect emissions, turn that into eyes on target, get proper grids to a bomber or cruise missile launcher or Iskander unit, and then plan the mission and fly the ordnance to target. quote:Compared to something like Tor, which has a lower engagement range but is not a short-range system, can operate it's radar while moving, and can simply stop when it needs to shoot then immediately move again. Also, Tor (and Buk) are on tracked vehicles, not wheels like S-300 or Patriot. Tor is a short-range system by every metric. It’s a fine system, but it’s got a rather small engagement envelope. Buk is really good, I’ll give the designers that. Nice mobility, range, capability mix. quote:Anyway, it is very difficult in a modern context to prevent a ground based radar from being geolocated, especially from the air. Such systems have remained somewhat effective in Ukraine not because Russia has a hard time detecting or locating them, but because the VKS is just poorly equipped for destroying them, and Russian ground forces have been stuck along more or less fixed lines for months Eh, this is not convincing. You argue Russia knows where the enemy SAMs are but doesn’t target them because the Russians lack the ammo and equipment to hit static grids? I don’t think so. If Russian dynamic targeting could figure out where these SAM sites were rapidly enough to target them effectively, why wouldn’t they just hit the requisite number of them with Iskanders and/or cruise missiles to assist their air arm and infrastructure strikes? That is precisely what Russia did early on to more static sites like SA-3s and HQs and the like. That would save them ordnance, because you’d need to fire less cruise missiles at infrastructure to get the desired effect. Seems foolish to keep firing cruise missiles through the air defense gauntlet if Russia knows where the SAMs are. I think it’s just hard to keep a firm Find/Fix/Track/Target on these systems which relocate and selectively radiate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2022 04:12
|
|
|
mlmp08 may disagree, but the launchers probably just need to be a threat-in-being. If they are not destroyed, they may still be out there, and you have to plan accordingly, which limits your freedom of action almost as much. Even if they are only able to engage periodically, they're still on the table and can't be dismissed, that's much better than nothing. It ties up a lot of resources to constantly search for and monitor these systems, let alone DF, jam and engage them. Tying up those resources has value in and of itself. The effort expended in SCUD hunts outweighed the damage the SCUDs themselves did, including an entire SAS patrol. That's pretty significant.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2022 04:15
|
|
|
Morbus posted:Repositioning a patriot or S-300 takes on the order of hours, not minutes, though. And during that time they are not effective. These systems are better described as semi-mobile. the context here is that Russia is not conducting operations on a time-scale where "repositioning a Patriot system takes hours" is going to mean it'll be "easily" knocked-out. If moving it takes them hours, but it also takes hours for the cycle of "Patriot gets geolocated, Russia organizes a strike, the strike-force gets to within weapons range of the geolocated site", then it's still as mobile as it needs to be
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2022 04:16
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:the context here is that Russia is not conducting operations on a time-scale where "repositioning a Patriot system takes hours" is going to mean it'll be "easily" knocked-out. Yeah. From a standpoint of only personnel and time, that's time spent by air staff, the squadron operations and intelligence people, weapons officer etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2022 04:18
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:mlmp08 may disagree, but the launchers probably just need to be a threat-in-being. If they are not destroyed, they may still be out there, and you have to plan accordingly, which limits your freedom of action almost as much. Even if they are only able to engage periodically, they're still on the table and can't be dismissed, that's much better than nothing. I think that’s accurate as well. It’s part of what’s so good about the Buk. While a full battery is more capable, individual TELARS might well be anywhere based on mobility and physical size, and they can reach out far enough to really punish aircraft in a way that the shorter range systems going active may not be able to before the aircraft goes defensive and aborts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2022 04:19
|
|
|
That's all true of course, but the KS-30 and KM-52 provide the best value by having triple use.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2022 04:24
|
|
|
Much like the himars debacle it seems weird to me that Russia has no real answer to yet another main weapon system of their biggest threat Then I remember it took them a while to acknowledge drones
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2022 04:24
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:Much like the himars debacle it seems weird to me that Russia has no real answer to yet another main weapon system of their biggest threat Russia has had ASMs in their inventory, including very long range ones intended to engage US carrier groups, forever. They have ELINT platforms, EW support aircraft and SEAD aircraft. The problem is that there is no perfect solution to competent, or even potentially competent, air defence. Nobody is going to be able to recreate Mole Cricket 19, even though that's held up as the case study. I also don't think HIMARS was a debacle, other than they couldn't contest the propaganda narrative around it. It's rocket artillery. That's a threat you'd expect to face, and all you can do is what they did: target launchers, fire CB, install point defence at key targets. There's no perfect response, only competent ones. Frosted Flake has issued a correction as of 04:30 on Dec 15, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2022 04:27
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:I also don't think HIMARS was a debacle, other than they couldn't contest the propaganda narrative around it. It's rocket artillery. That's a threat you'd expect to face, and all you can do is what they did: target launchers, fire CB, install point defence at key targets. There's no perfect response, only competent ones. It does seem like Russia has had a real challenge with the fact that GMLRS don’t fly pure ballistic. CB is a lot harder as a result.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2022 04:32
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:Much like the himars debacle it seems weird to me that Russia has no real answer to yet another main weapon system of their biggest threat I think the conversation is around the Moon of Alabama article depicting the Patriot systems as especially vulnerable, and the posting in here is about saying that that's not exactly the case. This is different from the extreme end of the Patriots being invulnerable - it is possible to organize an operation to take out a Patriot, particularly in an environment where they might not be part of a well-integrated, multi-layered air defense network, but neither is it as easy as the MoA article is making it out to be.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2022 04:34
|
|
|
It makes using radar harder, both in terms of how Doppler radars calculate trajectory and firing points, and also in that you want to minimize use by taking a snapshot of the flight rather than leaving it on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2022 04:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 09:08 |
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Eh, this is not convincing. You argue Russia knows where the enemy SAMs are but doesn’t target them because the Russians lack the ammo and equipment to hit static grids? I don’t think so. If Russian dynamic targeting could figure out where these SAM sites were rapidly enough to target them effectively, why wouldn’t they just hit the requisite number of them with Iskanders and/or cruise missiles to assist their air arm and infrastructure strikes? That is precisely what Russia did early on to more static sites like SA-3s and HQs and the like. That would save them ordnance, because you’d need to fire less cruise missiles at infrastructure to get the desired effect. Seems foolish to keep firing cruise missiles through the air defense gauntlet if Russia knows where the SAMs are. I think it’s just hard to keep a firm Find/Fix/Track/Target on these systems which relocate and selectively radiate. No, I'm mainly just saying an actively emitting ground based radar can be located fairly easily and promptly, that's it. That's why it's important to relocate units, to turn-on radars sparingly, to have multiple radars in different locations, separate surveillance and tracking radars, etc. The original comment I made is just that radar interference showing up on satellite SAR images isn't anything special or useful, there are dedicated ELINT platforms that are looking for these things, and they find them pretty easily. A hypothetical patriot radiating all day in one spot so that it shows up on SENTINEL was spotted by Russian ELINT way before that, lol. As far as Russia's ability to destroy Ukrainian air defenses go, there are several issues: 1.) Just because you can quickly geolocate an emitter, doesn't mean it's still going to be there. The person operating it knows they are giving their position away, after all 2.) Knowing where an emitter is, and knowing where it is accurately enough to kill it aren't the same thing. Just lobbing cruise missiles at SAMs without some additional, appropriate terminal guidance at isn't very efficient, SEAD with stand-off munitions generally requires some combination of anti-radiation, imaging, or laser terminal guidance, and most Russian cruise missiles don't tick these boxes. In terms of aircraft launched munitions, the situation is better but not great, and the VKS, for a variety of reasons, doesn't have the means or the inclination to task aircraft to do this. The way it's *supposed* to work, most of the time, is they kill them with artillery, but they can't do that for systems they can't reach, and they aren't advancing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2022 04:40
|
|