The Republican House leader said otherwise on Monday.
Never thought I would pine for the days of Reagan’s GOP.
1 Like
Russia might not have spent well on their military but they’ve sure spent well in the U S.
4 Likes
1 Like
Bang, bang !
3 Likes
I like these type of posts, I almost get a bit disappointed when my day does not involve viewing a piece of Russian artillery being blown up.
2 Likes
@Magnus the last two weeks have seen an increase in kamikaze drone attacks on the Ukraine infrastructure. How do you go about defending against this?
1 Like
If I may, lots of people have been asking the same thing. I think Israel has the most cost effective and, well effective, systems for this but they’re not going to be supplying anything to the Ukraine. There’s a whole argument about cost and using an expensive missile to shoot down a drone that costs not even a tenth of the missile and then there is the supply situation of missile defence and how quickly that can become depleted.
I personally think that AA guns like the Gepard are the best solution but there aren’t that many around and if you’re moving those around to protect infrastructure then you’re taking away a capability from somewhere else. I’m surprised that nobody has considered a point defence system like the Phalanx. Tried and trusted and relatively inexpensive. I think it could be highly effective, personally.
5 Likes
scary!
Putin will never hit UK or else, NATO will take the chance to stick the knife into Putin directly.
They are trying, with NATO help, to disrupt them with electronic interference. NATO has promised several systems for that purpose and they are already bringing in some. Ukraine has according to reports also reverse engineered the Shahed-136, which has led to 75-88% shoot down rate. But some will get through, partly also because air defence can’t be everywhere. Russia is also trying to saturate air defence with swarms, so far with dubious succeess. The drones are hurting Ukraine, but far less so now than they did when they were first introduced. I don’t think it’s possible to shoot down all of them though.
But they are not a massive problem now. It will get a lot worse when the Iranian ballistic missiles join the fry. They are relatively precise and good weapons and it is extremely difficult to shoot down missiles on ballistic trajectory. It is the same with the Russian Iskander, although that missile has been revealed to be very imprecise and sometimes it even malfunctions. Never the less it is very dangerous.
As of now there is nothing Ukraine can do to counter ballistic missiles. Then again, not even the United States can actually counter and shoot down ballistic missiles unless they know in advance it’s trajectory and happen to have a system on full alert on that trajectory, but even then it’s difficult. Drones are far easier to counter and I think the Iranian drones will become less and less effective the more E-War systems designed to counter drones, Ukraine gets from the West.
4 Likes
The problem with that is that it is point defence, only good for defending stationary objectives and not troops in the field. They are nice on ships of course, and other strategic immovable objects I guess.
1 Like
I was thinking for exactly that. Russia isn’t attacking troops in the field with all these drones, it’s attacking civilian infrastructure and basically conducting a terror campaign. A Phalanx style point defense system around infrastructure and around cities would be relatively inexpensive and effective enough for the drones and cruise missiles that get through. Can’t do much about ballistic missiles, you’re right.
anyone wonder how much of the tactics shown by Ukraine are being influenced and advised by NATO (US and UK) forces who have such a storied history at battlefield preparation and planning?
1 Like
well, Russia. You’re looking down the barrel of a gun at this point.
you could just get the fuck out of Ukraine and not further escalate. your call, Vladdy Pootin
2 Likes
1 Like