Русский корабль - иди нахуй

[Sbbruin 21690]

KGB chicken better than KFC chicken. Good lord. I mean I just…there aren’t any words I can think of for this…

I'm old school. KGB to me always meant "killer green bud."

[SL Xpress 7503]

12 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

As the owner of 2 DJI drones, this hits close to home.  Also, fuck DJI for allegedly crippling their product, but only for Ukrainian pilots.

It might not be true. I’m not saying this isn’t happening, but this is exactly the sort of thing that can easily be turned into something it’s not. 

If I lived in Ukraine and I owned anything Chinese with any kind of remotely war time application that receives automatic software upgrades, I would view it with a great deal of suspicion regardless of merit. 

Again, not saying whether it’s true or not, just cautioning about a rush to judgement. 

For Ukrainians, though, better to err on the side of paranoia. 

[SL Xpress 7503]

17 minutes ago, HOOKEM4 said:

It is known the only way to end this is to sanction China too. The playbook was discussed before this started. China only cares about money. If we want to regulate, we have to suffer. As it stands, we hate suffering as Ukrainians babies die. Germany CAN'T suffer because they have no forethought on energy policy. It is a wild world. China will only get in line if their cash cow forces them to but it will be painful as hell. There is a reason we wont.

No offense, but you have no understanding of economics. None. If you or someone else have questions about this, we can have a discussion. 

The consequences of something like that would be worse than 1930s level Great Depression. Worldwide. WORSE than that. 

[Nicole44 22016]

Keep blowing these fuckers up. Keep the weapons desperately needed rolling in. Hope they can capture some more operational tanks.

 

 

[tx 3 putt 75955]

Russian airborne troops make great fertilizer !!!

[Sbbruin 21690]

bolshevik jeans are made out of old ship sails so are probably sturdier than the fast fashion hecho in vietnam shit that wears out after 1 wash

They just might be a little stiff

[atomheartbevo 89303]

2 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

We're seeing a shift in military strategy on land akin the advent of the air craft carrier supplanting the mighty battleship.....

Tanks are so large and cumbersome and MADPADS and AT missiles so prevalent, they are helpless without infantry to support them.  They are also expensive and slow to make, like capital ships.  Seeing these UA infantry stalk and kill these lumbering tanks is like seeing a pack of wolves take out a giant buffalo.  They also have their place, but unless they are supported, they are helpless.....

The rise of truly awesome MANPADs and ATGM's are going to change a lot of things, but I'd toss in smaller/cheaper drones as well.

[Nicole44 22016]

Looks like the Legion of Foreign Fighters is around 40,000 strong now. That’s fucking amazing. Kick some Russian ass!

 

 

[atomheartbevo 89303]

4 minutes ago, Bravo said:

Those TB2s are the best bang for your buck aircraft on the market. Carries smart weapons and costs $1M. That's a fucking deal right there. 

And the psychological impact will be heavy both in terms of making soldiers jittery, but also making officers/NCOs do things to counter such UAVs (that may not even attack) that could slow ground forces down or create an extra workload.

For example - if I was a Russian soldier, no way in hell would I want to be anywhere near any vehicles with lots of antennas or that ware AA, and if I was in charge of such vehicles, I'd be doing everything possible to disguise the hell out of them, hide them, etc.

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

I can’t keep up with this thread with how much y’all post, how fast the news is coming out and then work, kids and my vices. Has Ukraine hired Blackwater yet?

[HOOKEM4 5007]

13 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

No offense, but you have no understanding of economics. None. If you or someone else have questions about this, we can have a discussion. 

The consequences of something like that would be worse than 1930s level Great Depression. Worldwide. WORSE than that. 

It will happen. The question is when.

[Nicole44 22016]

 

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

Kinda. They have mercs. Pay is quite good. 

Yeah I saw that. But rag tag bunch (even if eager) could always use some seasoned and disciplined soldiers and command & control.

[SL Xpress 7503]

1 minute ago, HOOKEM4 said:

It will happen. The question is when.

You’re being an idiot. It’s not gong to happen. You don’t have any idea what you’re saying. At most we’d see token sanctions easily circumvented. Or strengthen/deepen/widen current sanctions on technology deemed necessary for national security.

The economies of the West and China are tied together in a mutually assured destruction symbiotic relationship. And I can easily make the argument that while they need one another, currently the West actually needs China more. I honestly do not feel like you have any comprehension of any of that. 

[Not a cat 5601]

3 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

We're seeing a shift in military strategy on land akin the advent of the air craft carrier supplanting the mighty battleship.  While the tank will always have a place on the battlefield during WWII and after, it's luster was gone...relegated to shore bombardment primarily and interdiction of smaller ships provided they had air cover.  Smaller and obviously cheaper aircraft can harass, drive off, and destroy those large ships with ease

Tanks are so large and cumbersome and MADPADS and AT missiles so prevalent, they are helpless without infantry to support them.  They are also expensive and slow to make, like capital ships.  Seeing these UA infantry stalk and kill these lumbering tanks is like seeing a pack of wolves take out a giant buffalo.  They also have their place, but unless they are supported, they are helpless.  

Can you imagine 60's and 70's era commanders defending the Fulda Gap dismissing large mechanized columns for the most part; instead requesting thousands upon thousands of highly trained and supplied infantry and using the tanks more in a secondary manner?  They'd get laughed out of the room.  

I know nothing about military strategy, but I have to wonder if aircraft carriers are now basically floating tanks.  Between drones and javelin like missiles seems they would be sitting ducks.  It would definitely be the first thing I'd take out if my enemy had one.

I know the US used those since ww2 to project power to far away places, but what is the backup plan for that now?

[SL Xpress 7503]

4 minutes ago, Nicole44 said:

 

Finally. This is what I was saying several days ago, and the only response I got was that we can’t afford to have Patriot missile systems captured by Russian forces. Which made no sense to me as a response whatsoever. 

The MiGs never made sense to me. 

[BamaATL 16592]

1 minute ago, Not a cat said:

I know nothing about military strategy, but I have to wonder if aircraft carriers are now basically floating tanks.  Between drones and javelin like missiles seems they would be sitting ducks.  It would definitely be the first thing I'd take out if my enemy had one.

I know the US used those since ww2 to project power to far away places, but what is the backup plan for that now?

This is a great question and I have no idea as to the answer.  But given the cost of carriers, is it remotely worth while when I am sure we could launch drones from much smaller and faster ships, as well as subs for that matter?

I liked your analogy about the ships.  I've been thinking about armor (i.e. tanks) is there ever a reason to produce these anymore?  It was great when a tank's armor could withstand existing firepower, but it sure seems like they can't anymore, so what's the point?  Would our armor fair any better than theirs against this type of weaponry?

The analogy I've been pondering is this like the period where all armies relied on Napoleonic tactics?  Basically, once the advent of accurate artillery came into play, those tactics were dead, only no one figured that out for 60 or so years (Civil War to WWI ish)?  

[Francisco 2.0 32290]

7 minutes ago, Not a cat said:

I know nothing about military strategy, but I have to wonder if aircraft carriers are now basically floating tanks.  Between drones and javelin like missiles seems they would be sitting ducks.  It would definitely be the first thing I'd take out if my enemy had one.

I know the US used those since ww2 to project power to far away places, but what is the backup plan for that now?

 

A carrier is accompanied by a small fleet.  It doesn't put to sea by itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_strike_group

 

 

[HOOKEM4 5007]

3 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

You’re being an idiot. It’s not gong to happen. You don’t have any idea what you’re saying. At most we’d see token sanctions easily circumvented. Or strengthen/deepen/widen current sanctions on technology deemed necessary for national security.

The economies of the West and China are tied together in a mutually assured destruction symbiotic relationship. And I can easily make the argument that while they need one another, currently the West actually needs China more. I honestly do not feel like you have any comprehension of any of that. 

Whoosh. Expert for sure.

[Not a cat 5601]

Just now, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

A carrier is accompanied by a small fleet.  It doesn't put to sea by itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_strike_group

 

 

Sure, but how does that fleet stop a swarm of drones or modern guided missiles?  

[Handcruser 2805]

I know nothing about military strategy, but I have to wonder if aircraft carriers are now basically floating tanks.  Between drones and javelin like missiles seems they would be sitting ducks.  It would definitely be the first thing I'd take out if my enemy had one.
I know the US used those since ww2 to project power to far away places, but what is the backup plan for that now?

Space carriers!

[BamaATL 16592]

11 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

You’re being an idiot. It’s not gong to happen. You don’t have any idea what you’re saying. At most we’d see token sanctions easily circumvented. Or strengthen/deepen/widen current sanctions on technology deemed necessary for national security.

The economies of the West and China are tied together in a mutually assured destruction symbiotic relationship. And I can easily make the argument that while they need one another, currently the West actually needs China more. I honestly do not feel like you have any comprehension of any of that. 

The GDP of the US was 22 trillion last year, China's was 16 trillion.  Russia's was 1.6 trillion, and they are decimated economically for the foreseeable future (think .8 trillion).  Basically, the world could afford to see Russia go down and cut ties with them.  Like it or not, the economies of China and the USA are tied together, we both depend on each other, even though we have extreme differences.   It's not a matter of the world choosing sides between us or them, in essence, no one really has a choice.  If something along the lines were to occur that saw either a split or shut off of one or the other, the global economic melt down would make the Great Depression look it dot com boom.  The level of starvation alone would be staggering.  

[0xdeadbeef 1617]

2 minutes ago, Not a cat said:

Sure, but how does that fleet stop a swarm of drones or modern guided missiles?  

 

They keep you far away. When shit hits the fan they will have an airborne early warning plane up at all time.... they see everything within 100s of miles and they have layered defenses.

 

[Parliament 14084]

7 minutes ago, Not a cat said:

Sure, but how does that fleet stop a swarm of drones or modern guided missiles?  

Shoot them down with overmatching force.

[JerrysJheriCurl 977]

30 minutes ago, HOOKEM4 said:

It will happen. The question is when.

I need 1 of the 2 things from you my good man.

1. Make me a market for that occurring. Throw me odds kind sir. 

2. Share your plug’s contact info. I need that kind of strain in my life. Pass the Dutchie on the left hand side…
Don’t bogart that shit. Sharing is caring. 

Edited March 11, 2022 by JerrysJheriCurl

[F250 28622]

10 minutes ago, Not a cat said:

Sure, but how does that fleet stop a swarm of drones or modern guided missiles?  

[FartingMonk 3606]

13 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

This is a great question and I have no idea as to the answer.  But given the cost of carriers, is it remotely worth while when I am sure we could launch drones from much smaller and faster ships, as well as subs for that matter?

I liked your analogy about the ships.  I've been thinking about armor (i.e. tanks) is there ever a reason to produce these anymore?  It was great when a tank's armor could withstand existing firepower, but it sure seems like they can't anymore, so what's the point?  Would our armor fair any better than theirs against this type of weaponry?

The analogy I've been pondering is this like the period where all armies relied on Napoleonic tactics?  Basically, once the advent of accurate artillery came into play, those tactics were dead, only no one figured that out for 60 or so years (Civil War to WWI ish)?  

Carriers are protected by the fleet.  Drones are currently incredibly slow and let's say 1000 drones shot 1000 missiles at it.  Yes it could definitely sink the carrier but there's also a MAD doctrine with carriers.  5000 dead Americans will send a response that would be so incredible.  We would bomb them back to the stone ages.  And then make them suffer.

[BamaATL 16592]

5 minutes ago, 0xdeadbeef said:

 

They keep you far away. When shit hits the fan they will have an airborne early warning plane up at all time.... they see everything within 100s of miles and they have layered defenses.

 

I know we have amazing capabilities with these battle groups, my question is if the cost is necessary any more?  Also, I have to figure it gets a lot easier to build stealth into drones vs actual planes.

[freyguy 4243]

Ask the Ukes if they wish they had an aircraft carrier fleet.

[SL Xpress 7503]

19 minutes ago, Not a cat said:

I know nothing about military strategy, but I have to wonder if aircraft carriers are now basically floating tanks.  Between drones and javelin like missiles seems they would be sitting ducks.  It would definitely be the first thing I'd take out if my enemy had one.

I know the US used those since ww2 to project power to far away places, but what is the backup plan for that now?

You have to get close enough first. It’s easier to get closer to a tank than an aircraft carrier. 

Think about it like this. What if you had a big ass tank in a large open field - open with no trees for as far as the eye could see in every direction. And that big ass tank was capable of sending squadrons of hunter seeker drones in every direction that were themselves capable of blowing anything they came across from a 100 miles away or more. 

And anything that’s fired through the air is detected at launch, and anything in the water moves pretty slow. And your tank can move at about 60 miles an hour in anything but the choppies of seas, with the capability of firing a mind numbing amount of munitions at anything relatively close range destined to blow it up. Not to mention that tank is extremely resilient, very difficult to bring down, with 6000 people aboard trained to keep it going with a ton of redundant systems at their disposal  

They’re not invulnerable. Mostly they’re ridiculously expensive to build, ridiculously expensive to maintain, and ridiculousoy expensive to man effectively. Their primary utility is in projection of power, for which there’s no equal in the history of warfare. 

My biggest issue is we’ve severely drawn down the carrier groups we send out in an effort to cut expenses. To me it makes them way more vulnerable. An ancillary issue I have is we are fielding fewer carrier groups than ideal, and telling our sailors to go out for longer deployments.

I will say there are plenty of discussions around it. The problem everyone runs into regardless of the merit in not having such a big target being such a focal point for military strategy, is there isn’t an equivalent if you move away from them. 

More than anything else, the US carrier fleet IS the definition of being a super power. They won’t be easy to move away from when it does happen. 

[Not a cat 5601]

4 minutes ago, 0xdeadbeef said:

 

They keep you far away. When shit hits the fan they will have an airborne early warning plane up at all time.... they see everything within 100s of miles and they have layered defenses.

 

Thanks, that helps.

Still if I'm war gaming against the US, I'd simultaneously throw a few hundred kamikaze drones and/or missiles against a carrier.  All it takes is a few to slip through.  It would only cost millions to sink a carrier worth 10 billion, and you'd lose no men in the attack.  

[FartingMonk 3606]

The easiest way to sink a carrier is in dry dock.  It wasn't a real carrier but it still has planes and what not.  But Bohomme Richard got sunk in port. Our last submarine also sunk in port.  If a carrier gets sunk.  It will be in port.

 

[freyguy 4243]

3 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

You have to get close enough first. It’s easier to get closer to a tank than an aircraft carrier. 

Think about it like this. What if you had a big ass tank in a large open field - open with no trees for as far as the eye could see in every direction. And that big ass tank was capable of sending squadrons of hunter seeker drones in every direction that were themselves capable of blowing anything they came across from a 100 miles away or more. 

And anything that’s fired through the air is detected at launch, and anything in the water moves pretty slow. And your tank can move at about 60 miles an hour in anything but the choppies of seas, with the capability of firing a mind numbing amount of munitions at anything relatively close range destined to blow it up. Not to mention that tank is extremely resilient, very difficult to bring down, with 6000 people aboard trained to keep it going with a ton of redundant systems at their disposal  

They’re not invulnerable. Mostly they’re ridiculously expensive to build, ridiculously expensive to maintain, and ridiculousoy expensive to man effectively. Their primary utility is in projection of power, for which there’s no equal in the history of warfare. 

My biggest issue is we’ve severely drawn down the carrier groups we send out in an effort to cut expenses. To me it makes them way more vulnerable. An ancillary issue I have is we are fielding fewer carrier groups than ideal, and telling our sailors to go out for longer deployments.

I will say there are plenty of discussions around it. The problem everyone runs into regardless of the merit in not having such a big target being such a focal point for military strategy, is there isn’t an equivalent if you move away from them. 

More than anything else, the US carrier fleet IS the definition of being a super power. They won’t be easy to move away from when it does happen. 

or in other words

 

[CleverNickname 1286]

13 minutes ago, Not a cat said:

Thanks, that helps.

Still if I'm war gaming against the US, I'd simultaneously throw a few hundred kamikaze drones and/or missiles against a carrier.  All it takes is a few to slip through.  It would only cost millions to sink a carrier worth 10 billion, and you'd lose no men in the attack.  

This has been true since a couple "cheap" exocets sunk a British ship during the Falklands War. So 40 years or so.

[TXSG8R 3325]

19 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

I know we have amazing capabilities with these battle groups, my question is if the cost is necessary any more?  Also, I have to figure it gets a lot easier to build stealth into drones vs actual planes.

You have to get the drones to the battle space, same as manned planes. Carrier is still the best game in town for putting air superiority in someone’s backyard. UCAVs are definitely being designed around carrier operation. 

[NorthLoop 14053]

2 hours ago, Foosters said:

2019: 

 

Trust but verify.

Ooh I hated the colonel. With those wee beady eyes and that smug look on his face! OHH you're gonna buy my chicken OHH OH!

[TXSG8R 3325]

16 minutes ago, Not a cat said:

Thanks, that helps.

Still if I'm war gaming against the US, I'd simultaneously throw a few hundred kamikaze drones and/or missiles against a carrier.  All it takes is a few to slip through.  It would only cost millions to sink a carrier worth 10 billion, and you'd lose no men in the attack.  

It takes quite a bit to sink a carrier, and top down attacks aren’t ideal to sink a boat. You want waterline shots, or something bigger than a drone can carry to penetrate enough decks from the top to start it taking water. Supersonic missiles are currently the biggest carrier threat because the layered defenses aren’t designed to deal with that kind of threat. Yet. 

[FartingMonk 3606]

A retired Marine general caused a lot of controversy several years back.  The navy brought him in to do a red vs blue. He swarmed attack the carrier in the strait of Hormuz.  Overwhelmed them prettt quick.  They made him change tactics.  He swarmed attacked them again from land. They made him change tactics again so he walked out and called bullshit.  No one in the Navy thinks a carrier is sinkable until one sinks.  And when that happens I hope they put the SecNAv and every single admiral on display at the Navy yard and have the President execute them.  

 

 

 

 

[leaf 681]

44 minutes ago, Not a cat said:

Sure, but how does that fleet stop a swarm of drones or modern guided missiles?  

Check out the Spy-6 program by Raytheon.  It has just started to go into full production this past year.

https://missilethreat.csis.org/defsys/amdr/

Edited March 11, 2022 by leaf

[Dbeasy 14929]

46 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

A carrier is accompanied by a small fleet.  It doesn't put to sea by itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_strike_group

 

 

Dude, have you never played Stratego? I can slip by that whole protection entourage and get to the flag no problem. 

[FartingMonk 3606]

28 minutes ago, Not a cat said:

Thanks, that helps.

Still if I'm war gaming against the US, I'd simultaneously throw a few hundred kamikaze drones and/or missiles against a carrier.  All it takes is a few to slip through.  It would only cost millions to sink a carrier worth 10 billion, and you'd lose no men in the attack.  

How big do you think a drone is?  

[TXSG8R 3325]

8 minutes ago, FartingMonk said:

A retired Marine general caused a lot of controversy several years back.  The navy brought him in to do a red vs blue. He swarmed attack the carrier in the strait of Hormuz.  Overwhelmed them prettt quick.  They made him change tactics.  He swarmed attacked them again from land. They made him change tactics again so he walked out and called bullshit.  No one in the Navy thinks a carrier is sinkable until one sinks.  And when that happens I hope they put the SecNAv and every single admiral on display at the Navy yard and have the President execute them.  

 

 

 

 

Gonna need a link. Curious what opfor he was using, because short of China, it’s hard to imagine a player having the assets to overcome a carrier group without exposing their neck. There aren’t many choke points around China to make either of those options realistic. 

[FartingMonk 3606]

Just now, TXSG8R said:

Gonna need a link. Curious what opfor he was using, because short of China, it’s hard to imagine a player having the assets to overcome a carrier group without exposing their neck. There aren’t many choke points around China to make either of those options realistic. 

Strait of Hormuz.  Narrow shipping lanes...small fast fishing boats. Loaded with missiles.

[tx 3 putt 75955]

just saw a story of the UK sending more advance anti aircraft missiles 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/britain-send-worlds-most-advanced-164309737.html

Edited March 11, 2022 by tx 3 putt

[Rip76 4901]

Ellington Field is hot tonight, just saying.

[Not a cat 5601]

1 minute ago, FartingMonk said:

How big do you think a drone is?  

I assume they're in all shapes and sizes but I imagine ones can be built that are basically a missile loaded with explosives guided by a remote operator.  Or just do whatever the hell the retired marine did in your example.

[JerrysJheriCurl 977]

18 minutes ago, FartingMonk said:

A retired Marine general caused a lot of controversy several years back.  The navy brought him in to do a red vs blue. He swarmed attack the carrier in the strait of Hormuz.  Overwhelmed them prettt quick.  They made him change tactics.  He swarmed attacked them again from land. They made him change tactics again so he walked out and called bullshit.  No one in the Navy thinks a carrier is sinkable until one sinks.  And when that happens I hope they put the SecNAv and every single admiral on display at the Navy yard and have the President execute them.  

 

 

 

 

Was it Gen. John Murray? If it wasn’t (as that sounds like something he would do/say)… do you recall who it was?

If I recall correctly, he’s Army not a Marine. 

Edited March 11, 2022 by JerrysJheriCurl

[immamac 42385]

guys take this other random drone and carrier bullshit somewhere else.  

[Bateshorn 9853]

Yeah, I came here to get some updates and laugh at the Nicole thirst, and instead I get….carrier/drone red blue exercises.
 

Delete, ban your self Surl.

[Brisketexan 104219]

guys take this other random drone and carrier bullshit somewhere else.  

Yeah, guys….enough drone talk.