Русский корабль - иди нахуй

[Pescado_Rojo 19192]

17 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

There was a conversion kit developed to add the M1A1 turret to the m60 hull for the export market. Only one prototype was built. But General Dynamics did submit several bids using it and marketed it until the mids 2000s I think. I would assume it could revive production of the kit if there was interest. 

But, we also have a lot of Abrams variants in storage that the Army doesn't want. I'm pretty sure the Army would love nothing more than giving Ukraine a large chunk of its Abrams. 

I wonder if they ever fiddled with putting a diesel in an Abrams hull. I'd imagine it would weigh twice what the turbine weighs and have 1/2 the power. 

[Pescado_Rojo 19192]

35 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

I wonder if they ever fiddled with putting a diesel in an Abrams hull. I'd imagine it would weigh twice what the turbine weighs and have 1/2 the power. 

I just did a little google research and the MTU Diesel in the newest Leopard 2 produces about 130 more HP than the Turbine in the Abrams at a weight increase of about 1 ton. Don't know how much that would affect the tank's high end performance or if it would even fit, but surely someone in Biz Dev at GD has looked into it. 

EuroPowerPack

Quote

The EuroPowerPack is the combination of the MTU MT883 Ka-500/501 diesel engine delivering over 1100 kW (1500 PS) shaft power with the ten-speed (five forward, five reverse) Renk HSWL 295TM automatic transmission for the use in heavy tracked vehicles like tanks.

This very compact power pack delivers as much or more power than the most powerful tank engines currently in service, but offers increased fuel efficiency and requires less space.

 

Edited January 13, 2023 by Pescado_Rojo

[Nivek 16643]

40 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

M1-A1 as the spearhead, M-60's on the flanks. Bradley's with infantry moving forward. Fuck the Russian T-model anything. Leopards can come behind and clean up the carcass. 

Their best is the T-90 and javelins are eating them up. Bring on the T-34. Whoooooo.... Gonna hit me with a JS-1? 

Fuck Russia. Their tanks suck. 

Their tanks are great at catching javelins.  

[Dahobbs 17088]

9 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

I just did a little google research and the MTU Diesel in the newest Leopard 2 produces about 130 more HP than the Turbine in the Abrams at a weight increase of about 1 ton. Don't know how much that would affect the tank's high end performance or if it would even fit, but surely someone in Biz Dev at GD has looked into it. 

The MTU Diesel is twice the weight and at least twice the volume. It does appear to have higher peak performance. 

[Parliament 13979]

2 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Can we send the tanks we used before the turbine powered Abrams?

Sure.  There's one in every city park in rural America...with their turrets and every other hole welded shut.

Quote

I wonder if they ever fiddled with putting a diesel in an Abrams hull. I'd imagine it would weigh twice what the turbine weighs and have 1/2 the power. 

I don't think they'd ever repower existing Abrams's, but they're looking at this for their hypothetical Abrams X:

Spoiler

Cummins Inc. (NYSE: CMI), a global power leader, has been awarded an $87M contract by the U.S. Army to complete the development of the Advanced Combat Engine (ACE), a modular and scalable diesel engine solution, capable of hybridization, that uses innovative opposed-piston (OP) technology to provide leap-ahead capabilities in power density and heat rejection not available in the current marketplace. 

The recently awarded Other Transaction Authority (OTA) contract builds upon a competitive multi-year effort from the U.S. Army’s Ground Vehicle Systems Center (GVSC) to develop transformational powertrain technology that is power dense, thermally efficient, modular, scalable, and affordable enough to enable the toughest mobility, survivability, and lethality vehicle requirements. Furthermore, the OTA allows for transitioning the new technology into the next generation of vehicle programs ahead of the programs’ launch dates. 

ACE’s innovative OP technology provides a 50% increase in power density, a 20% reduction in heat rejection, and 13% improved fuel efficiency when compared to today’s best in class combat engine. ACE’s flexible layout options allow the engine to be configured in 3 cylinder, 4 cylinder, and 6 cylinder arrangements to deliver power ranging from 750 to 1,500 horsepower. ACE can be integrated into hybrid architectures enabling commonality, thereby eliminating the expensive logistical burden of having multiple combat powertrains and facilitating the incorporation of new electrified technologies.

“We are excited to continue our valuable partnership with Cummins on the development of the Advanced Combat Engine (ACE); what’s under the hood of the Army Ground Vehicles is also what drives our team’s efforts at enhancing capability development,” said Alfred Grein, Executive Director for Research & Technology Integration, U.S. Army DEVCOM Ground Vehicle Systems Center. “This project is a key part of our research and development work, and we see ACE as a potential enabler for both traditional and hybrid electric powertrains applicable to current and future combat vehicles.”

“ACE offers the U.S. Army rock solid Cummins engine performance coupled with a configurable, flexible architecture to support their complete portfolio of combat vehicles,” said Norbert Nusterer, Vice President and President of Cummins Power Systems. “ACE also offers the option to integrate into hybrid architectures and leverages Cummins’ expertise from investments already made in the commercial space. We are excited to expand and deepen our longstanding relationship with the U.S. Army and contribute more cutting-edge technologies that support the current and the next generation of combat vehicles.”

Cummins engines are in more tracked combat vehicles today than any other brand. As a major supplier of diesel engines and gensets for defense purposes throughout the world, Cummins understands the needs of the U.S. military. In every mission, Cummins-powered equipment has served with distinction, earning the highest commendation for durability, dependability, and performance. Achates Power is the opposed piston technology partner of Cummins for ACE and a recognized expert in opposed-piston engine technology.

“Coupling our opposed-piston technology with Cummins’s robust engine design, manufacturing, and new product introduction capabilities allows us to create a high performing and reliable engine for military operations,” said Dave Crompton, President and CEO of Achates Power. “Achates Power is pleased to continue to support Cummins as a key technology partner in creating the next generation of engines for combat vehicles.” 

https://www.cummins.com/news/releases/2021/07/30/us-army-awards-cummins-inc-87m-contract-deliver-advanced-combat-engine

 

Edited January 13, 2023 by Parliament

[MillerEP 30232]

 

[MillerEP 30232]

 

[Gatorubet 29391]

8 hours ago, KYHorn said:

[Gatorubet 29391]

27 minutes ago, MillerEP said:

Does that include a night shift? Relatively speaking, millions to the shell manufacture to help double the output seems a good investment, especially when it’s $$ from several nations as a PR gambit showing support and cooperation.  

[MillerEP 30232]

^Lol

[AUS-97HORN 11546]

31 minutes ago, MillerEP said:

would pay good money to see that catfight.

 

[statsman 5352]

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraine-war-long-west-ready-11673571215?st=a4no5p5egpbenos&reflink=share_mobilewebshare
 

damn good WSJ article. Too much of a pita to cnp on my phone. Trofimov is a Ukrainian that is the chief foreign affairs correspondent for the WSJ. 
 
the gist is that this is set up to be a long war. Russia’s weaponry sucks, but they are ready for years of wartime production. The west isn’t. We’re already running out stores low and there’s no clear commitment for a years long weapons ramp up (maintain stores while supplying Ukraine for a real, ongoing fucking war). 
 
My opinion? The executive branch, properly, doesn’t get to decide when we are at war, and to what extent. It’s time for the legislative and executive branches to put their big boy shorts on and start working this out together, like they’re supposed to, whether they want to or not (they don’t want to). It’s also time for Europe to lean in. I hate to say it, but it might take a real threat of Russia winning, and the border moving west, to get some of those pussies to commit to this.  

[Pods 7426]

29 minutes ago, AUS-97HORN said:

would pay good money to see that catfight.

 

Miss Ukraine gets to use her sword. 

[Gatorubet 29391]

file:///var/mobile/Library/SMS/Attachments/de/14/12E88A1C-56A9-40DC-97C6-3E3F260883C1/10-1108_JDAL-05-2019-0011.pdf
Interesting report about 155 mm artillery shells, their use and evolution over time. 
tl;dr what article is about

Background: 155 mm projectile technology
The biggest issue the army is currently facing in terms of field artillery capabilities is matching, and ideally exceeding adversarial ranges. The standard 155 mm howitzer in the US arsenal has a maximum range of 14 miles, and the rocket-assisted 155 mm projectile increases the maximum range to almost 18 miles (South, 2018). Looking at one of the current near-peers, Russia’s existing mobile artillery, the 2S35, has a range of 44 miles. This gives Russia the ability to devastate US forward forces before they can even get within firing range. However, technological advances being made to the 155 mm projectile are expected to push ranges of the current artillery assets between 44 and 62 miles, putting the USA well within reach of its near-peers’ current standing.

 

[atomheartbevo 88750]

18 minutes ago, statsman said:

 the gist is that this is set up to be a long war. Russia’s weaponry sucks, but they are ready for years of wartime production. The west isn’t. We’re already running out stores low and there’s no clear commitment for a years long weapons ramp up (maintain stores while supplying Ukraine for a real, ongoing fucking war). 

They are getting basic ammo (artillery, mortar, small arms) from fucking Belarus and North Korea, and buying high-tech stuff from Iran like drones and missiles, and it's been proven that what missile production they have is slow (hence the slowdown in cruise missile salvos/attacks) and somewhat reliant upon Western hardware being smuggled in.

While it's true we are not on a wartime footing, we are ramping up production, and unlike Russia, we aren't crippled by sanctions.

And more importantly, the population of the US, Canada, the EU, Australia/NZ, South Korea, and several other countries (including Turkey) is pushing 900 million+ people, and our economies and manufacturing bases leave Russia in the fucking dust.

Russia is around 140 million people, and a shitload of them are no in condition to contribute to the military or production of military goods.

And we haven't even truly opened up the floodgates in terms of supplying Ukraine - we've just been pushing a lot of ex-Soviet stuff in there, and testing the waters to see if the Ukrainians can handle our better stuff.

[Gatorubet 29391]

32 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

They are getting basic ammo (artillery, mortar, small arms) from fucking Belarus and North Korea, and buying high-tech stuff from Iran like drones and missiles, and it's been proven that what missile production they have is slow (hence the slowdown in cruise missile salvos/attacks) and somewhat reliant upon Western hardware being smuggled in.

While it's true we are not on a wartime footing, we are ramping up production, and unlike Russia, we aren't crippled by sanctions.

And more importantly, the population of the US, Canada, the EU, Australia/NZ, South Korea, and several other countries (including Turkey) is pushing 900 million+ people, and our economies and manufacturing bases leave Russia in the fucking dust.

Russia is around 140 million people, and a shitload of them are no in condition to contribute to the military or production of military goods.

And we haven't even truly opened up the floodgates in terms of supplying Ukraine - we've just been pushing a lot of ex-Soviet stuff in there, and testing the waters to see if the Ukrainians can handle our better stuff.

This.  Also, Russia has announced to the world over and over again that it is getting the gang back together and all the Baltic states and presumably parts of Finland and Poland belong to the Russian federation.  The simple way they express it is that if you used to belong to the Soviet union or historical Russia, you are still theirs.    

Add to this, the constant demand from state sponsored television to use nuclear weapons against European NATO allies.  While this has to be bullshit saber rattling of the highest order, at minimum it gives the clear picture that there is a murderous unhinged lunatic who lives next door. Which is why Sweden and Finland want to be in NATO. It is also why they are increasing military spending, forming little mini NATO’s within their local geographies, and also discussing ways to centralize and coordinate their military responses.

Make no mistake, if the US quit supplying any equipment and munitions to Ukraine, Europe will keep funneling arms and ammunition and money into Ukraine sufficient to prolong the war.   If Ukraine falls they are next in line. 

And I do agree with AHB above that a country with an economy the size of Texas - BEFORE sanctions - won’t be able to do shit in the long haul. They will be too busy standing in line to buy cabbage that won’t arrive. 

[Dahobbs 17088]

1 hour ago, statsman said:

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraine-war-long-west-ready-11673571215?st=a4no5p5egpbenos&reflink=share_mobilewebshare
 

damn good WSJ article. Too much of a pita to cnp on my phone. Trofimov is a Ukrainian that is the chief foreign affairs correspondent for the WSJ. 
 
the gist is that this is set up to be a long war. Russia’s weaponry sucks, but they are ready for years of wartime production. The west isn’t. We’re already running out stores low and there’s no clear commitment for a years long weapons ramp up (maintain stores while supplying Ukraine for a real, ongoing fucking war). 
 
My opinion? The executive branch, properly, doesn’t get to decide when we are at war, and to what extent. It’s time for the legislative and executive branches to put their big boy shorts on and start working this out together, like they’re supposed to, whether they want to or not (they don’t want to). It’s also time for Europe to lean in. I hate to say it, but it might take a real threat of Russia winning, and the border moving west, to get some of those pussies to commit to this.  

Perun had a very good video on this recently. Basically, the west running their stores low thing is very hyperbolic. And a lot of ammunition production comes from other areas and there is plenty of supply so long as the money is available. 

[Post Oak 20068]

3 hours ago, MillerEP said:

^Lol

[troph 23963]

3 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

We can continue to ship a lot without legislative approval (see below), and we already have money in the budget for more assistance in shipping more hardware to them.

https://www.state.gov/use-of-presidential-drawdown-authority-for-military-assistance-for-ukraine/

And Europe is picking up the pace, as are we, as everybody realizes the quickest way to reduce Russia's threat to the rest of Europe/the World is to kill Putin's imperial dreams by defeating him in Ukraine.

Thats a really informative article thanks.

[Gatorubet 29391]

11 hours ago, KYHorn said:

So Russia needs $115/barrel to balance their budget and oil is currently trading around $50/barrel. Nice!

https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/russia-may-hike-taxes-military-spending-oil-price-weigh-budget-2023-01-13/?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=twitter

  Reveal hidden contents

Analysis: Russia may hike taxes as military spending, oil price weigh on budget

By Darya Korsunskaya

 

[1/3] Russian President Vladimir Putin listens to Finance Minister Anton Siluanov during a meeting of the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council in Saint Petersburg, Russia December 20, 2019. Sputnik/Mikhail Klimentyev/Kremlin via REUTERS/File Photo

• Oil price needed to balance budget has jumped - analysts
• G7 has imposed $60 price cap on Russian oil exports
• Budget strained by higher military, security spending
• Elections make spending cuts more difficult
• This content was produced in Russia, where the law restricts coverage of Russian military operations in Ukraine

MOSCOW, Jan 13 (Reuters) - Russia is becoming too dependent on oil revenues to support its budget as it ramps up military spending, economists said, warning that the government may have to raise taxes if prices of crude fail to meet expectations this year.

The price of Urals oil - Russia's main export - has plunged more than 20% since early December, when Western nations led by the Group of Seven (G7) imposed a $60 price cap on Russian oil exports to restrict Moscow's ability to finance what it calls its "special military operation" in Ukraine.

Given that the 2023 federal budget is based on a projected Urals price of just over $70 a barrel, and prices are currently trading closer to $50, this could prove problemAs the price cap, Western sanctions and EU embargo make it harder for Russia to export oil, Moscow has relied on China and India - the world's largest and third-largest importers, respectively - to fill the gap.

"The growing dependence of the budget on oil raises concerns," Alfa Bank said in a note that warned a decline in revenue from gas and oil product exports "looms on the horizon."

Analysts say that as the government increased spending by more than a quarter in 2022, in part to finance its military in Ukraine, the oil price required to balance the budget jumped from $67 to $101 a barrel.

When state-owned energy giant Gazprom's (GAZP.MM) 1.85 trillion roubles ($27.5 billion) of dividends and one-off taxes last year are factored in, the actual price of oil needed to balance the books could be as high as $115 a barrel.

Russia's budget hole last year totalled 3.3 trillion roubles ($49 billion), or 2.3% of gross domestic product, and may exceed 2% again in 2023 as the price cap curbs Russia's export revenues, Finance Minister Anton Siluanov said in December.

TAX HIKES?

"When there is a big gap between the actual price (of oil) and the balancing price, it cannot be sustainably covered by borrowing," said Natalia Orlova, chief economist at Alfa Bank.

"Some measures are needed to adjust fiscal policy, either by cutting spending or looking for additional revenues."

With President Vladimir Putin expected to seek a historic fifth term in an election due in 2024 and regional votes taking place later this year, spending cuts are out of the question, she added.

Last year's budget, which was heavily skewed towards defence spending, has raised the risk of a higher tax burden in the medium term, Renaissance Capital economists said.

Deputy Finance Minister Alexei Sazanov hinted at the possibility of another tax hike in December, suggesting that the government would continue to look at areas of tax potential in 2023.

It is not clear which sectors would face tax rises and to what extent the burden would fall on the population. VAT rates, profit taxes and income tax would not be changed, Sazanov said, but other industries may face a higher tax bill.

"Detailed, substantive analysis allows us to still find resource sectors where high margins are formed and where it is possible to increase the fiscal burden without harming the operational and investment activities of companies," he said.

The finance ministry was not immediately available to comment.

The government has already sharply increased the tax burden on the oil and gas industry for 2023-2025, the biggest such rises in its history, as Russia's 10-month military operations in Ukraine grind on. The measures are expected to net an additional 3.6 trillion roubles for the Russian budget over three years.

However, a Reuters budget analysis shows Moscow will spend a combined 9.4 trillion roubles ($140 billion) on defence and security this year alone - nearly a third of the budget - meaning less money for health, education and research.

The conflict in Ukraine and ensuing barrage of Western sanctions have upended some sectors of Russia's economy, cutting its biggest banks from the SWIFT financial network, curbing its access to technology and restricting its ability to export oil.

While the government and central bank have acknowledged "difficulties", Moscow says its economy is resilient and that sanctions have boomeranged against the West by driving up inflation and energy prices.

($1 = 67.3500 roubles)

 

Quote

However, a Reuters budget analysis shows Moscow will spend a combined 9.4 trillion roubles ($140 billion) on defense and security this year alone - nearly a third of the budget - meaning less money for health, education and research.

Almost a third of their budget went to military and security spending. it will be a far larger percentage in 2023.  Combine the gutting of spending on everything else and combine it with the one-two punch of unemployment (due to sanctions, foreign companies exodus, and the drafting of a large part of the working male population that did not already flee) and the economic shit storm will only intensify in 2023 for Russia. 

Fuck, I don’t know anything about anything. Wars never go as planned.  Maybe some new Covid variant will come along and kick over the whole checkerboard.  

[Sbbruin 21567]

I was listening to a US General talking about the battle for Soledad.  Said there is absolutely zero strategic value as it is essentially a ghost town that has been obliterated.  Russia is expending way too much effort (and bodies) to secure it for strictly PR purposes.  Ukraine is is going to dig in, and will take it when they feel they have the resources.  Zero hurry to secure it. 
 

and shoutout to @MillerEP and others for all the updates.   I get all my Ukraine war updates every night spending 10-15 mins perusing this thread.  Much appreciated.

[Scheiss Meister 8300]

10 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Can we send the tanks we used before the turbine powered Abrams?

The M-60s that we replaced with the Abrams are the same generation as the T-72s Russia is using, and certainly are less capable than the updated T-72s, since there have been no improvements to the M-60 in 30 years.  Their profile is much taller than the tanks in use in Ukraine, the armor is less capable, the main gun is inferior, and the hydraulic fluid in the M-60 is highly flammable.  Most other tanks use less flammable hydraulic fluid.  The M-60's day is very long past.  Ukraine doesn't need a step back in capability.

[Gatorubet 29391]

1 hour ago, Scheiss Meister said:

The M-60s that we replaced with the Abrams are the same generation as the T-72s Russia is using, and certainly are less capable than the updated T-72s, since there have been no improvements to the M-60 in 30 years.  Their profile is much taller than the tanks in use in Ukraine, the armor is less capable, the main gun is inferior, and the hydraulic fluid in the M-60 is highly flammable.  Most other tanks use less flammable hydraulic fluid.  The M-60's day is very long past.  Ukraine doesn't need a step back in capability.

I think it is a moot point, as I believe I read where we no longer have any Patton and progeny design tanks left in storage.  

Edit: I apparently missed Brisket’s upthread post where he had heard we had some in storage. We both agreed that neither of us knew, so chime in you ex tankers.   

Edited January 14, 2023 by Gatorubet
high possibility I’m full of crap

[Gatorubet 29391]

6 hours ago, AUS-97HORN said:

would pay good money to see that catfight.

 

Glory to Ukraine. Glory to the heroes.

[Schulz2.0 28616]

 

[956 Worldwide 33957]

9 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

This.  Also, Russia has announced to the world over and over again that it is getting the gang back together and all the Baltic states and presumably parts of Finland and Poland belong to the Russian federation.  The simple way they express it is that if you used to belong to the Soviet union or historical Russia, you are still theirs.    

Add to this, the constant demand from state sponsored television to use nuclear weapons against European NATO allies.  While this has to be bullshit saber rattling of the highest order, at minimum it gives the clear picture that there is a murderous unhinged lunatic who lives next door. Which is why Sweden and Finland want to be in NATO. It is also why they are increasing military spending, forming little mini NATO’s within their local geographies, and also discussing ways to centralize and coordinate their military responses.

Make no mistake, if the US quit supplying any equipment and munitions to Ukraine, Europe will keep funneling arms and ammunition and money into Ukraine sufficient to prolong the war.   If Ukraine falls they are next in line. 

And I do agree with AHB above that a country with an economy the size of Texas - BEFORE sanctions - won’t be able to do shit in the long haul. They will be too busy standing in line to buy cabbage that won’t arrive. 

The United States is the only nation with the leadership, existing stocks, and MIC base to make this possible in the short to medium term. 
 

EU unity will fragment if the U.S. stops. The close countries that care the most simply don’t have the capacity to keep sending stuff. For example, the Czechs announced this week that they are out of existing equipment to send without jeopardizing their own readiness, they will now help other partners purchase stuff and offer factories to refit. The Poles have more but are reliant on incoming orders to backfill. 
 

The Germans, make no mistake, would stop sending arms tomorrow and push for a settlement if the U.S. walked away from the table.  And their own military and industrial base is in a shoddy state of preparedness with DECADES of underinvestment behind them. Britain would hold on and maybe France but they just don’t have the capabilities and surplus we do or the means to replace. 
 

We are still what we were in 1940. The arsenal of democracy. There is no democratic nation in Europe that has maintained the capability to fight Russia on its own, or even as part of a coalition missing the United States. Europe certainly has the latent capacity to steamroll Russia. Or even to pick a fight with us or China if they settled on a plan and stuck to it. But the war is now. 

 

[956 Worldwide 33957]

17 hours ago, SL Xpress said:

It doesn't just jeopardize their contracts with Germany. All countries have final say so's written into the contracts over where the hardware is sent from the purchasing country. The US especially. But not exclusively. They're as ubiquitous as conduct unbecoming clauses in basketball coach employment contracts. 

Those K2 tanks they're buying from Korea? Korea has final say so if Poland wants to send them somewhere else. 

And it doesn't just jeopardize new equipment purchases. It also jeopardizes existing supply chains to repair and maintain current hardware. From everyone. It's not feasible to broach that part of the contract. It sends a bad signal when you're willing to do that. 

That said, lots of countries are sending old Soviet stock to Ukraine without getting anyone's permission. It just depends on what kind of relationship you're wanting to maintain in the future. 

The Russians have played games with export controls before. Right now, no one gives a shit because the people sending old Soviet or Russian stuff to Ukraine are never planning to purchase or use Russian stuff again.  But before the war, they caused all sorts of headaches, like threatening to void manufacturer airworthiness certificates on helicopters going to Afghanistan, unless the Russian company got contracts for maintenance and repair. 
 

Here’s a wild fact— up until AFTER February 24, 2022 there were Russian citizen employees of MiG living on a NATO Air Force base, maintaining NATO fighters. Slovakia was entirely dependent on Russia to keep its fighter fleet in the air, the same fighter fleet that performed NATO air policing. 

[Macanudo 12649]

11 hours ago, Pods said:

Miss Ukraine gets to use her sword. 

If they record it, there will be a lot of sword play.

[Schulz2.0 28616]

 

[956 Worldwide 33957]

6 minutes ago, Schulz2.0 said:

 

You know what shoots down ballistic missiles? Patriots. That are coming but not there. 
 

Russia in use it or lose it mode. 

[Chad Fuck 17259]

The Russians have played games with export controls before. Right now, no one gives a shit because the people sending old Soviet or Russian stuff to Ukraine are never planning to purchase or use Russian stuff again.  But before the war, they caused all sorts of headaches, like threatening to void manufacturer airworthiness certificates on helicopters going to Afghanistan, unless the Russian company got contracts for maintenance and repair. 
 
Here’s a wild fact— up until AFTER February 24, 2022 there were Russian citizen employees of MiG living on a NATO Air Force base, maintaining NATO fighters. Slovakia was entirely dependent on Russia to keep its fighter fleet in the air, the same fighter fleet that performed NATO air policing. 

How long until we are selling Slovakians F-16s? Maybe in the pipeline already?

I saw this morning the Greeks are getting F-35s but Bob Menéndez has blocked Turkey from getting F-16s until they get their act together.

You know what shoots down ballistic missiles? Patriots. That are coming but not there. 
 
Russia in use it or lose it mode. 

*Use it and lose it.

[956 Worldwide 33957]

Just now, Chad Fuck said:

How long until we are selling Slovakians F-16s? Maybe in the pipeline already?

I saw this morning the Greeks are getting F-35s but Bob Menéndez has blocked Turkey from getting F-16s until they get their act together.

We sold them 14 back in 2019. First delivery is maybe late this year. COVID screwed with the delivery schedule. The MiGs are gone “somewhere” and the Czechs and Poles are patrolling their airspace. 

[Parliament 13979]

1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

The United States is the only nation with the leadership, existing stocks, and MIC base to make this possible in the short to medium term. 
 

EU unity will fragment if the U.S. stops. The close countries that care the most simply don’t have the capacity to keep sending stuff. For example, the Czechs announced this week that they are out of existing equipment to send without jeopardizing their own readiness, they will now help other partners purchase stuff and offer factories to refit. The Poles have more but are reliant on incoming orders to backfill. 
 

The Germans, make no mistake, would stop sending arms tomorrow and push for a settlement if the U.S. walked away from the table.  And their own military and industrial base is in a shoddy state of preparedness with DECADES of underinvestment behind them. Britain would hold on and maybe France but they just don’t have the capabilities and surplus we do or the means to replace. 
 

We are still what we were in 1940. The arsenal of democracy. There is no democratic nation in Europe that has maintained the capability to fight Russia on its own, or even as part of a coalition missing the United States. Europe certainly has the latent capacity to steamroll Russia. Or even to pick a fight with us or China if they settled on a plan and stuck to it. But the war is now. 

 

"Europe finds its backbone when they're walking behind a Sherman (now Abrams) tank."

[Bevo 13417]

 

[Parliament 13979]

1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

We sold them 14 back in 2019. First delivery is maybe late this year. COVID screwed with the delivery schedule. The MiGs are gone “somewhere” and the Czechs and Poles are patrolling their airspace. 

Fucking Poland, Man.  Not much they won't do.

[956 Worldwide 33957]

7 minutes ago, Parliament said:

Fucking Poland, Man.  Not much they won't do.

You know what’s wild about the Slovak F-16 purchase? The party (and especially its leader) that owned the defense ministry at the time was super pro-Russia. Like, “getting awards from Putin” pro-Russia. 
 

Anyway, EVERYONE knew that they were gonna buy Gripens. This dude didn’t like us, they were cheaper, the Czechs and Hungarians flew Gripens, even the opposition touted the Gripens…done deal.  And then they start asking seriously about F-16s and the thought is “WTF.” And then they buy the damn things. 
 

The conspiracy is, he knew they couldn’t stay with MiGs and he wanted to do something for his Russian friends. The F-16 delivery schedule was known to take longer, so that means MiG gets a longer contract to maintain. And it all blows up in 2022, the former opposition controls the government and those MiGs are likely bombing Russians NOW. 

[Parliament 13979]

1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

The conspiracy is, he knew they couldn’t stay with MiGs and he wanted to do something for his Russian friends. The F-16 delivery schedule was known to take longer, so that means MiG gets a longer contract to maintain. And it all blows up in 2022, the former opposition controls the government and those MiGs are likely bombing Russians NOW. 

[MillerEP 30232]

 

[MillerEP 30232]

 

[MillerEP 30232]

 

[Viper 11918]

1 minute ago, MillerEP said:

 

In a real poll, I don't think you could get 97% of people to agree that the sky is blue. 

[Scheiss Meister 8300]

2 minutes ago, Viper said:

In a real poll, I don't think you could get 97% of people to agree that the sky is blue. 

I bet 97% of men would agree that she's quite rude.

[MillerEP 30232]

 

[KYHorn 16691]

  

3 minutes ago, MillerEP said:

Awkwarrrrrrd...

[MillerEP 30232]

 

[MillerEP 30232]

^Tragic, Russia is pure evil.

 

[InkaUtexas 24820]

Terrorism, pure and simple. 

[Parliament 13979]

1 hour ago, MillerEP said:

 

When do we kick them out of the EU?

[The Dog 42744]

 

[KYHorn 16691]

2 hours ago, MillerEP said:

^Tragic, Russia is pure evil.

 

Of course claiming they didn't do it on purpose

 

 

Edited January 14, 2023 by KYHorn