Poll

Are the "Oldest Pyramids of the world" that were found in Crimea, the real reason for the War?

Yes! Putin only took Crimea because of the alien pyramids.
13 (61.9%)
Yes! I don't believe that the pyramids were made by aliens, but I do believe that Russia took Crimea because of the incredible cultural treasures hidden inside them.
8 (38.1%)

Total Members Voted: 21

Author Topic: Ukraine  (Read 365467 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Riddlez

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4845
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Riddlez
  • Side: Neutral
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #4635 on: May 07, 2015, 12:39:01 am »

"Germany, France or the UK would not be able to stand in a 1v1 with Russia"

Irrelevant. Those countries are united and share responsibilities over fields and geographical region. They each have their roles and together form something that could be called a "western" bloc.


Wat? Did you even read what I wrote?
I wrote that they do not have to, because as soon as someone attacks one of them, it is like attacking all of them...

Aircraft carriers are useless in a modern war with modern armies. They are a way to large target and can be easily hit by any properly guided missile.
However, they prove to be extremely useful against countries who can not use this kind of technology.

That's why in nation-to-nation warfare, carriers never sail alone. They would usually be guarded by two or three frigates, with AA and anti-missile capabilities.
Probably one of the very few old-timers here who hasn't been a regimental leader.

Offline MarshalKim

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2213
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #4636 on: May 07, 2015, 02:04:01 am »

"Germany, France or the UK would not be able to stand in a 1v1 with Russia"

Irrelevant. Those countries are united and share responsibilities over fields and geographical region. They each have their roles and together form something that could be called a "western" bloc.


Wat? Did you even read what I wrote?
I wrote that they do not have to, because as soon as someone attacks one of them, it is like attacking all of them...

Aircraft carriers are useless in a modern war with modern armies. They are a way to large target and can be easily hit by any properly guided missile.
However, they prove to be extremely useful against countries who can not use this kind of technology.

That's why in nation-to-nation warfare, carriers never sail alone. They would usually be guarded by two or three frigates, with AA and anti-missile capabilities.

+1000000


Carriers also carry these things called AIRCRAFTS :D
Massive job loss will take place, but if left allowed to, the market will adapt. I just don't want my job to be taken away from me, tbh.

Offline Rejenorst

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 2348
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #4637 on: May 07, 2015, 04:29:07 am »
Russian military products are not excellent lol. Holy shit how much propaganda have you been eating? Aside from their small arms industry their military hardware is largely trash. They have some decently tough equipment but most of it is at least a generation behind, even at the point of first being designed. Their aircraft are hardy but lack critical equipment on board and are prone to failure and malfunction. Russia is not prepared for war against another western power. They may be improving, but they're still far behind most other powers in almost every way.

I would be inclined to believe that our propaganda or over-confidence has been just as effective in downplaying Russian capabilities. For the most part we had barely even paid attention to Russian air-force capabilities until recently. The SU-35 alone is more capable than the F35 which is not surprising given the F35's role to enter airspace and mop up after the F22 has sanitized the airspace.
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-05072010-1.html
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/158684/russia-touts-su_35s-before-zhuhai-presentation.html

While the F22 may or may not outperform the SU-35, at 40 - 60 million dollars a pop vs the F22's 150 million dollar cost I would assume its a good performance vs cost production tradeoff. At the moment we know little about the PAK aircraft the Russians are producing but in terms of aerodynamics the Russians have made some excellent quality products that are suited to the varied conditions of Russia.

But effectively your capabilities are nothing unless they are complimented by a sound strategy which aims to cover your own weaknesses while exploiting that of your enemy's so depending on how you use those products/aircraft vs what their design and function entails will determine whether or not their excellent for the role that theiy're designed role.

In terms of repairs the F22 and F35 are high maintenance aircraft that constantly require repairs:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/09/AR2009070903020.html

Additionally the ability to learn from past mistakes and the privileged of actually being able to make mistakes to learn from are equally important. Necessity is the mother of invention.

Mainly the lack of UAVs for recon operations, the inability of Russian ECMs to jam incoming SAMs (Su25?), a lack of CAS for armored groups and a lack of combat control systems. It was after the Georgian war that Russia announced it would modernize its military after I assume it realized that there were serious weaknesses in its military's operational capabilities. 
http://sputniknews.com/analysis/20080909/116657490.html

Whether or not they applied the lessons in their new designs I don't know but Russia is certainly attempting to modernize on all fronts be it its submarines which can move undetected into US waters or its tanks or its planes.

As far as AT is concerned even a 90's Kornet can disable an M1 or Merkava tank especially if their not complimented with CAS or infantry support:
http://www.janes.com/article/39550/iraqi-abrams-losses-revealed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M133_Kornet

Basically what I am saying is that whether or not modern Russian equipment is excellent; it certainly isn't shit but actual combat performance is the real test which is unlikely to happen anytime soon for the more modern systems.
Spoiler

[close]

Offline Harrier

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 77
    • View Profile
  • Nick: 77y_Pvt_Harrier
  • Side: Neutral
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #4638 on: May 07, 2015, 06:25:47 am »
Aircraft carriers are useless in a modern war with modern armies. They are a way to large target and can be easily hit by any properly guided missile.
However, they prove to be extremely useful against countries who can not use this kind of technology.

Then somebody should tell the US Navy immediately, they seem to think they're still worth investing tens of billions of dollars into!

Having the weapons to sink a carrier is one thing. Reliably finding a carrier at sea and getting a fix so that those weapons can actually hit the carrier is another thing entirely. A carrier is a very small speck in a very large ocean and if it knows what it's doing and doesn't want to be found, it holds all of the cards.

Offline Duuring

  • Duuring
  • ***
  • Posts: 12357
  • Free at last
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #4639 on: May 07, 2015, 10:31:42 am »
I had to study the Russian black sea fleet for a project, and one of the things I noted was that 'We are going to modernize'-messages really made up more then half the news on the Black Sea Fleet. No news about them actually modernizing though.

Offline Rejenorst

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 2348
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #4640 on: May 07, 2015, 02:05:00 pm »
Afaik Russia has been somewhat handicapped in the Black Sea while Sevastopol was under Ukrainian control. Of all its fleets, the BSF seems to be the smallest and I am guessing that part of the reason is that they only had one military port that doesn't freeze over in the winter (ie: Sevastapol) while maintenance and upgrades would have had to be done in Ukrainian docks with their permission. This resulted in the Ukraine attempting to leverage this in favor of better gas deals. No such handicaps now I guess.
http://www.ukrinform.ua/eng/news/ukraine_tries_to_link_gas_price_to_modernization_of_russias_black_sea_fleet_233828

 
They have added a few diesel electric subs over the years and I believe the mistral ships were intended to complement the BSF iirc but France will likely scuttle the deal...
Spoiler

[close]

Offline Archduke Sven

  • Brigadier General
  • *
  • Posts: 6012
  • I have over 1000 warning points, be careful.
    • View Profile
  • Nick: regimentless sven
  • Side: Union
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #4641 on: May 07, 2015, 02:53:47 pm »
I had to study the Russian black sea fleet for a project, and one of the things I noted was that 'We are going to modernize'-messages really made up more then half the news on the Black Sea Fleet. No news about them actually modernizing though.

what do you know, they could be hiding a completly modern fleet in one of the caucasian ports, deceiving everyone

i don't think it worth having this argument because realistically we don't know more than half the truth, none of us work in military intel, we dont have up to date information on many things because usually that type of info is withheld for a while


told that bih don't @ me

Offline Rejenorst

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 2348
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #4642 on: May 07, 2015, 03:10:01 pm »
^ + 1 additionally its difficult to tell whether any internal systems have been upgraded/modernized in any tanks, ships or planes and just how effective these are.
Spoiler

[close]

Offline Riddlez

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4845
    • View Profile
  • Nick: Riddlez
  • Side: Neutral
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #4643 on: May 07, 2015, 04:18:01 pm »
Plus you usually only get the message that they are planning to modernise/upgrade. It happened in the Netherlands. Just the announcement the military would upgrade. But because it's phased and it spans over years, it isn't news when the military gets new boots, which is what happened in the Netherlands. New weapons, new boots. These two happened over the last years, but on themselves not news. Because it isn't.
Probably one of the very few old-timers here who hasn't been a regimental leader.

Offline MarshalKim

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2213
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #4644 on: May 07, 2015, 05:37:53 pm »
Russian military products are not excellent lol. Holy shit how much propaganda have you been eating? Aside from their small arms industry their military hardware is largely trash. They have some decently tough equipment but most of it is at least a generation behind, even at the point of first being designed. Their aircraft are hardy but lack critical equipment on board and are prone to failure and malfunction. Russia is not prepared for war against another western power. They may be improving, but they're still far behind most other powers in almost every way.

I would be inclined to believe that our propaganda or over-confidence has been just as effective in downplaying Russian capabilities. For the most part we had barely even paid attention to Russian air-force capabilities until recently. The SU-35 alone is more capable than the F35 which is not surprising given the F35's role to enter airspace and mop up after the F22 has sanitized the airspace.
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-05072010-1.html
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/158684/russia-touts-su_35s-before-zhuhai-presentation.html

While the F22 may or may not outperform the SU-35, at 40 - 60 million dollars a pop vs the F22's 150 million dollar cost I would assume its a good performance vs cost production tradeoff. At the moment we know little about the PAK aircraft the Russians are producing but in terms of aerodynamics the Russians have made some excellent quality products that are suited to the varied conditions of Russia.

But effectively your capabilities are nothing unless they are complimented by a sound strategy which aims to cover your own weaknesses while exploiting that of your enemy's so depending on how you use those products/aircraft vs what their design and function entails will determine whether or not their excellent for the role that theiy're designed role.

In terms of repairs the F22 and F35 are high maintenance aircraft that constantly require repairs:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/09/AR2009070903020.html

Additionally the ability to learn from past mistakes and the privileged of actually being able to make mistakes to learn from are equally important. Necessity is the mother of invention.

Mainly the lack of UAVs for recon operations, the inability of Russian ECMs to jam incoming SAMs (Su25?), a lack of CAS for armored groups and a lack of combat control systems. It was after the Georgian war that Russia announced it would modernize its military after I assume it realized that there were serious weaknesses in its military's operational capabilities. 
http://sputniknews.com/analysis/20080909/116657490.html

Whether or not they applied the lessons in their new designs I don't know but Russia is certainly attempting to modernize on all fronts be it its submarines which can move undetected into US waters or its tanks or its planes.

As far as AT is concerned even a 90's Kornet can disable an M1 or Merkava tank especially if their not complimented with CAS or infantry support:
http://www.janes.com/article/39550/iraqi-abrams-losses-revealed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M133_Kornet

Basically what I am saying is that whether or not modern Russian equipment is excellent; it certainly isn't shit but actual combat performance is the real test which is unlikely to happen anytime soon for the more modern systems.

PAK FA is going to swarm the F-22 and take advantage of it's limited payload capability. One of the reasons the F-22 has limited payload is well because it's internal bay is average and external payloads would compromise it's stealth.

Also the F-22 cannot operate off a carrier. I believe that it could take off from a carrier like a F-35 or F-18 but the carrier cannot maintain these aircraft or provide it with it's complex needs. Hence why the F-22 operates from military bases.

That being said the F-35 has small range and is a rather slow aircraft. Which would mean that an aircraft carrier would have to be closer to the region which they want to send those F-35. This could put that carrier at risk and also slow down it's operations.

Finally I dislike the breaking of tradition in using a single engine aircraft for carrier jet fighters. Such as in the F-35.


They are supposed to produce much more PAK FA's then F-22's and I personally think the F-35 isn't very good.

I've heard that the Russians have good radars or anti air but I cannot confirm.
Massive job loss will take place, but if left allowed to, the market will adapt. I just don't want my job to be taken away from me, tbh.

Offline Augy

  • Major General
  • **
  • Posts: 2970
  • Anarchist. Absurdist. Existentialist. Man. Human.
    • View Profile
    • The Royal Recruits
  • Nick: -[TRR]- Cpt. Augy
  • Side: Neutral
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #4645 on: May 07, 2015, 05:48:27 pm »
The USA will yield to the superior technology developed by the Korean people under the guidance of the Eternal leader.
“Ego is a structure that is erected by a neurotic individual who is a member of a neurotic culture against the facts of the matter. And culture, which we put on like an overcoat, is the collectivized consensus about what sort of neurotic behaviors are acceptable.” -Terence McKenna

Offline MarshalKim

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2213
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #4646 on: May 07, 2015, 06:02:37 pm »


Spoiler
[close]

Spoiler
[close]
« Last Edit: May 07, 2015, 06:05:55 pm by MarshalKim »
Massive job loss will take place, but if left allowed to, the market will adapt. I just don't want my job to be taken away from me, tbh.

Offline Suede

  • First Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 210
    • View Profile
  • Side: Confederacy
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #4647 on: May 22, 2015, 03:13:07 am »
Hey :)
meanwhile, I've been mobilized 3 weeks ago
now in army training center, training to become an operator of ПЗРК 'ІГЛА' (MPADS SA-18 Grouse) :P
at least it should be like this, but maybe just a regular inf

Offline Gunther AV

  • Second Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 352
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #4648 on: May 22, 2015, 06:12:40 am »
Hi,
For my final project i am researching the Ukraine conflict, I have a few questions, was hoping your input would contribute to my research

Who is a world leader or local leader that could bring positive change to the conflict?
How is Ukraine going to be affected in the long run by this crisis? (I know on a global scale how it will, but i'm unsure about the local scale)
What were some past events/ideas/documents that affected the current crisis before it came to happen? (When i say the past, i mean way before, at least to postclassical to industrialized, to early modern to contemporary)

Offline MarshalKim

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2213
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: Ukraine
« Reply #4649 on: May 22, 2015, 06:13:51 am »
Hi,
For my final project i am researching the Ukraine conflict, I have a few questions, was hoping your input would contribute to my research

Who is a world leader or local leader that could bring positive change to the conflict?

Putin and Kim Jong-un.
Massive job loss will take place, but if left allowed to, the market will adapt. I just don't want my job to be taken away from me, tbh.