(Thread IKs:
fatherboxx)
|
That probably depends on how many missiles are being sent. If it's 20, Russia probably isn't going to change anything. If it's 2000, that's a serious threat they need to consider.
|
#
?
May 11, 2023 16:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 19:21 |
|
|
Charliegrs posted:So is Ukraine going to jury rig those storm shadow missiles to their Migs and Sukhois like they did with the HARM missiles? Who knows, but probably? This kind of missile is typically programmed on the ground anyway, so you don't have to do extensive integration work.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2023 16:16
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:That probably depends on how many missiles are being sent. If it's 20, Russia probably isn't going to change anything. If it's 2000, that's a serious threat they need to consider. 20 missiles can mean 20 command centers, ammo and fuel depots that have been relatively out of range until now. I'm going to say that 20 of those being eliminated can have more impact then the number would initially suggest.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2023 16:26
|
|
|
Would storm shadows put Russian ships docked in Crimea at risk? And if so is there any real military benefit to sinking those ships or are there better targets to use the missiles on?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2023 16:40
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:Would storm shadows put Russian ships docked in Crimea at risk? And if so is there any real military benefit to sinking those ships or are there better targets to use the missiles on? I suspect they could probably just drive them away a 100m and escape. Quite a few of the ships are high-priority targets as they're used in cruise missile strikes, though.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2023 16:42
|
|
|
Pablo Bluth posted:I'm not aware of anything ever pointing towards surface launch being an option. I suspect the turbojet engine is insufficient to give it take-of under it's own steam, and it lacks the solid booster stage of something like a tomahawk. So that map of the territory these can hit is probably bullshit. I don’t know what Russia’s effective AD envelope is but it feels safe to assume Ukraine isn’t going to be able to fly its jets right up to the front lines.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2023 16:55
|
|
|
ought ten posted:So that map of the territory these can hit is probably bullshit. I don’t know what Russia’s effective AD envelope is but it feels safe to assume Ukraine isn’t going to be able to fly its jets right up to the front lines. The cities they chose to draw the circles from aren't on the front lines. They are pretty arbitrary though.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2023 17:11
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:That probably depends on how many missiles are being sent. If it's 20, Russia probably isn't going to change anything. If it's 2000, that's a serious threat they need to consider. UK has a stock of ~700-1000 of them. Can't give away 2000, and probably not giving 500 either.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2023 17:15
|
|
|
Is it like the MBT thing where once the 'taboo' is broken other long range missiles can be supplied? As weird as that seems.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2023 17:24
|
|
|
SA never not being pieces of poo poo https://twitter.com/Faytuks/status/1656695102423678985?t=sMujCP1jsj4Gm6kWIfNY8A&s=19
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2023 17:24
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:SA never not being pieces of poo poo Africa has no fucks to give for what colonial powers want, news at 11.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2023 17:29
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:SA never not being pieces of poo poo Some Centurions to go with the rest of the 1950's era stuff? Most of the equipment of the SA armed forces is pretty unique and would be easily identifiable by a drone. It's hard to imagine anything being kept secret once used on the battlefield.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2023 17:32
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:Africa has no fucks to give for what colonial powers want, news at 11. Not sure what the reference to colonial powers is doing here, since they’re supplying a colonial power with arms to subject an erring colony. Or do you just mean to say cash is the only consideration in SA?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2023 17:40
|
|
|
I hope SA only gave Russia all of their doofy prototype guns that they flooded 80s and 90s arms shows with.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2023 17:49
|
|
|
Electric Wrigglies posted:Africa has no fucks to give for what colonial powers want, news at 11. "Africa" =/= South Africa
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2023 17:49
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:Not sure what the reference to colonial powers is doing here, since they’re supplying a colonial power with arms to subject an erring colony. Or do you just mean to say cash is the only consideration in SA? Rightly or wrongly, it is seen as US/EU versus Russia (who has seemingly inherited the good name of the Soviet Union through dint of being anti-US/France/UK). The only consideration for SA especially but Africa generally is what deal can be done while avoiding active consequences. The actual conflict is just a bit internal to Europe biffo of as much importance to Africans as what Paul Kagame or Abiy Ahmed is up to lately.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2023 17:50
|
|
|
ought ten posted:So that map of the territory these can hit is probably bullshit. I don’t know what Russia’s effective AD envelope is but it feels safe to assume Ukraine isn’t going to be able to fly its jets right up to the front lines.  Red is approximately where the frontline is. The yellow line is roughly the 300km limit line to hit anywhere in Ukraine. The far extents of Crimea might still be a challenge but everywhere shouldn't need a near the frontline launch. Usually they're seen being launched by the RAF at a high altitude then they drop down to terrain follow at low altitude. If they can be launched at a low altitude that will make it a lot easier for Ukraine as we know they already fly near the front-line at low altitude to do unguided rocket tosses.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2023 17:53
|
|
|
Pablo Bluth posted:My attempt at a map: Also the front line might be moving in the very near future, and even if it wasn't, taking out the Kerch is worth some risk. They could find an area with reduced AA coverage that gives them the range, or suppress it themselves beforehand. I imagine such a strike would involve several missiles, possibly dozens to both overwhelm the bridge defenses and make sure it's sufficiently crippled for the risk taken. Getting missiles with this much range opens up a lot more options.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2023 17:59
|
|
|
Orthanc6 posted:Also the front line might be moving in the very near future, and even if it wasn't, taking out the Kerch is worth some risk. They could find an area with reduced AA coverage that gives them the range, or suppress it themselves beforehand. I imagine such a strike would involve several missiles, possibly dozens to both overwhelm the bridge defenses and make sure it's sufficiently crippled for the risk taken. Getting missiles with this much range opens up a lot more options. But if the alternative is that you level dozens of ammo depots and HQs and therefore speed up a Russian collapse in Donbas then it's not hard to choose. Because bridges are hard to take down, and the Storm Shadow only has a warhead of 450 kg which is on the low side for bridge busting. So you will need multiple very lucky hits, or you just took one lane out of service. Taking Mariupol and cutting the land bridge is more important at this point.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2023 18:15
|
|
|
Pennsylvanian posted:I hope SA only gave Russia all of their doofy prototype guns that they flooded 80s and 90s arms shows with. 
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2023 18:24
|
|
|
A BRICS country supplying another BRICS country with assistance is not really a surprising thing though, the only thing surprising to me about this is that it didn't happen sooner
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2023 18:31
|
|
|
Oh, there is plenty of supplying of sticks with nails into other's heads.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2023 18:34
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:SA never not being pieces of poo poo Not to cast doubt on the eminence of "Faytuks News," but I looked around and this is being reported widely by a lot of legit news sources and seems to originate as an accusation from the US Ambassador to South Africa. As mentioned, it's hard to believe anyone in SA would think they could hand off the products of South Africa's homespun defense industry and get away with it. However, it does seem that SA has some substantial acknowledged stocks of old Soviet equipment (like the RPG-7 and some AAA), which appear to have been captured during the Border War. And, I'd bet that there's further stocks both captured or smuggled in during Apartheid. All of that stuff has to be 40+ years old and incompatible with the modern equipment used by SA, so it sort of makes sense that there'd be a willingness to unload it for the right price. The real question is whether the deal was an official action of the SA government (which claims to be neutral in this conflict) or the action of some corrupt officials for private gain.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2023 18:48
|
|
|
Tetraptous posted:Not to cast doubt on the eminence of "Faytuks News," but I looked around and this is being reported widely by a lot of legit news sources and seems to originate as an accusation from the US Ambassador to South Africa. My guess is it probably isn’t the government but a unconnected arms dealer trying to offload the poo poo. They probably have a shitload of ammo and parts sitting in a warehouse and someone came wanting to buy it. Likely the buyer is not directly connected to the Russians but it isn’t like arms dealers particularly care who they are selling to in the first place, especially stuff that old. Could be Russia, could be some terrorist, revolutionary or guerrilla group, could be a third world country. They don’t care as long as the money is right.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2023 18:59
|
|
|
The Associated Press has something on it that's accessible.quote:The U. S. ambassador to South Africa accused the country Thursday of providing weapons to Russia via a cargo ship that docked secretly at a naval base near the city of Cape Town for three days in December. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa said an investigation was underway.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2023 19:00
|
|
|
Something unexpected going on in the direction of Belgorod? https://twitter.com/ItsArtoir/status/1656719496969584651 https://twitter.com/markito0171/status/1656721290911252482 https://twitter.com/DefMon3/status/1656721573221367816 I assume this is misdirection and the reports of western tanks being involved are incorrect, but I bet there's some panic going on in Russia right now.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2023 19:11
|
|
|
So more ground gained in Bakhmut, skirmishes (and some "breakthroughs") in towns to the north and south of Bakhmut, and skirmishes at the Russian border north of Kharkiv. Seems this spring's activities are spinning up, I guess.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2023 19:25
|
|
|
Prigozhin affiliated Z scum on TG in panic mode which is very entertaining but I'd advise to wait for actual and more credible evidence of any significant operations
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2023 20:14
|
|
|
Invading Russia and attacking Belgorod would be crazy. Lugansk oblast north of Lugansk city is thinly populated with practically no urban terrain though. It's a large area and if Russia was expecting a push on Melitopol it might not be that well defended. Taking it would look dramatic on a map although there's not a lot of strategic value to mostly empty space. Or it's feint or something.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2023 20:23
|
|
|
It would be extremely funny though if the war ended with Russia having to trade Crimea to get Bolgorod back.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2023 20:38
|
|
|
It does seem crazy to actually invade Russia, but there is a level on which "have something to trade back to Russia so they return our territory" kind of makes sense. At the very least, the threat of it forces the Russians to defend that part of border. If they do invade Belgorod, then at that point I think I definitely believe the Kremlin drone was Ukrainians, because this is even more audacious a notion than that attack.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2023 20:54
|
|
|
I don't think Ukraine is going to take a step into Russian territory, it would be a huge line to cross as far as NATO is concerned.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2023 20:56
|
|
|
Come on you goons. Belgorod is a city of 1.5 million people. Ukraine is not going to invade it.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2023 21:01
|
|
|
Even if the counteroffense hasnt started yet, confusion and panic in russian lines can only help the defenders around bahkmut.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2023 21:07
|
|
|
It would also gift Putin a bunch of war support and the excuse to heavily mobilise. There's no way they would actually do this - but a realistic enough feint to make Russia pull some forces off the front? Seems far fetched but maybe? There must be something going on in that area since these rumours are far more dangerous to Russia than Ukraine and it's coming from multiple pro Russian sources. Might just be a small push towards the occupied territory in that area, it's not that far away so it might be easy to confuse. Chalks fucked around with this message at 21:11 on May 11, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2023 21:08
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/DefMon3/status/1656752803484692499
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2023 21:10
|
|
|
Popete posted:I don't think Ukraine is going to take a step into Russian territory, it would be a huge line to cross as far as NATO is concerned. Then NATO needs to go back to basic training. This sort of restriction is absurd.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2023 21:10
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:Then NATO needs to go back to basic training. This sort of restriction is absurd. Not really, this is a defensive war and NATOs help is contingent on it staying that way. They do not want to be seen as aiding Ukraine invading Russian territory and feeding into the narrative that this is somehow all instigated by NATO aggression in the first place as Russia has framed it. It would probably be enough for China and other countries who have sat on the sidelines to start directly sending arms to Russia. Ukraine should seek to regain only its territory, holding Russian territory even temporarily would be difficult to manage.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2023 21:18
|
|
|
How did World War II end again? There are plenty of practical problems with operating in Russian territory, yes, but saying that the defender should constrain themselves from acting in attackers territory is absurd.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2023 21:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 19:21 |
|
|
OddObserver posted:Then NATO needs to go back to basic training. This sort of restriction is absurd. Physically taking control of transport hubs in Russia proper might make tactical sense, but I have to agree with others that diplomatically / politically it's a big risk. Very likely too big a risk for the potential tactical gains. Certainly Ukraine should continue striking logistical targets within Russia proper, that is "fair game" and since they've been doing it already for a year it won't have any major political consequences. But the US, Ukraine's #1 weapons supplier, remains skittish on providing long-range strike capability even for doing more of those "acceptable" strikes. I don't think Biden would be very happy if Ukrainian boots walked over internationally recognized Russia. Biden's opposition in the US is already well over the fence on this, giving them real rhetorical ammo would not help. It is unfair to Ukraine, in other wars taking enemy territory is the norm. But the political situation for this war is awkward to say the least.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2023 21:32
|
|