Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine

[chrisp65]

1 minute ago, Delphinho123 said:

Question. If Russia launched a nuke at us, would we be able to shoot it out of the sky before it kills us all? Or do they drop them from planes? 

From what I’ve seen over the last 12 days I believe they are delivered by tractor.

So we’d have no more than a week or so to engage and intercept.

[osmark86]

38 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

The USA is looking at lifting their range of sanctions on Venezuela after fifteen years of trying to starve the population.

So at least some good has come from this war as we make friends with other people with oil.

 

oh how sweet of them...

[foreveryoung]

7 minutes ago, Delphinho123 said:

Question. If Russia launched a nuke at us, would we be able to shoot it out of the sky before it kills us all? Or do they drop them from planes? 

We wouldn't, as we have no missile defense and the US are all aimed at over China way I believe, so we will have to rely on someone else to do it for us. Although there is no proof these systems can actually shoot down a nuke while detonating it, they would have about 20 minutes to decide.

[hippo]

17 minutes ago, Delphinho123 said:

Question. If Russia launched a nuke at us, would we be able to shoot it out of the sky before it kills us all? Or do they drop them from planes? 

The first nukes to be used probably wouldn't be against cities. Strategic nukes I believe they are now called.

[OutByEaster?]

11 minutes ago, hippo said:

The first nukes to be used probably wouldn't be against cities. Strategic nukes I believe they are now called.

Yep, Obama I think green lighted these and the Russian's have followed suit - smaller nuclear weapons designed for battlefield use and with the possibility of actually being used as they might be small enough not to trigger armageddon. A blurred line between starting a nuclear war and not was exactly what the world needed.

[magnkarl]

1 hour ago, Genie said:

They have about 3,000 nukes don’t they? 

As I’ve been trying to say across many days in this thread, Russias capability is likely not even half this. Not that it matters, one is enough to ruin the planet for 200 years.

Russian tanks are essentially refitted t30s, Russian planes are refitted Soviet MiGs, Russia’s armoured personnel carriers are mobility scooters and Russia’s helicopters are big Siberian mosquitos.

In all seriousness Russia’s biggest issue is their planes being damn bad at close air support outside stinger range. They shot down yet another SU fighter over Kharkiv last night due to the pilot trying to hit his target up close.

[Awol]

26 minutes ago, Delphinho123 said:

Question. If Russia launched a nuke at us, would we be able to shoot it out of the sky before it kills us all? Or do they drop them from planes? 

Assuming it came via an ICBM then no, we couldn’t stop it. Anti-Ballistic Missile systems are a bit of a blag.

If there’s any nuclear nonsense I’d expect it to be the Russians staging some kind of an event in Ukraine, either to justify their idiocy to date or further madness to come. 

Seen some interesting analysis today about the relative no-show of their large airforce. There’s a view that he’s holding most of that back, along with considerable stocks of precision guided munitions and various types of unmanned systems, in case of escalation and a direct clash with NATO. 

[magnkarl]

4 minutes ago, Awol said:

Assuming it came via an ICBM then no, we couldn’t stop it. Anti-Ballistic Missile systems are a bit of a blag.

If there’s any nuclear nonsense I’d expect it to be the Russians staging some kind of an event in Ukraine, either to justify their idiocy to date or further madness to come. 

Seen some interesting analysis today about the relative no-show of their large airforce. There’s a view that he’s holding most of that back, along with considerable stocks of precision guided munitions and various types of unmanned systems, in case of escalation and a direct clash with NATO. 

Personally I’m leaning more towards Putin and his cronies draining the military or much needed maintenance (I.e missile launchers getting stuck because of their wheels not being overturned for ages) rather than him withholding anything. The amount of corruption in Russia likely also hit its army.

[TheAuthority]

2 hours ago, Talldarkandransome said:

Oh know he doesn't 

Should be "Oh no he doesn't"

I know there's a war on, but if we lose all sense of proper grammar then what is anyone really fighting for? 

[Talldarkandransome]

2 minutes ago, TheAuthority said:

Should be "Oh no he doesn't"

I know there's a war on, but if we lose all sense of proper grammar then what is anyone really fighting for? 

Bloody gramma police, im awear of my misteak 

[a-k]

54 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

So they say. If their other equipment is anything to go by, their nukes are probably sticks of dynamite with "ultimate nuclear missile 9000" spray painted on the side.

 

[fruitvilla]

9 minutes ago, Talldarkandransome said:

Bloody gramma police, im awear of my misteak 

I read Oh know he doesn't in the voice of Yoda.

Edited March 7, 2022 by fruitvilla

[Cizzler]

15 minutes ago, Awol said:

Assuming it came via an ICBM then no, we couldn’t stop it. Anti-Ballistic Missile systems are a bit of a blag.

If there’s any nuclear nonsense I’d expect it to be the Russians staging some kind of an event in Ukraine, either to justify their idiocy to date or further madness to come. 

Seen some interesting analysis today about the relative no-show of their large airforce. There’s a view that he’s holding most of that back, along with considerable stocks of precision guided munitions and various types of unmanned systems, in case of escalation and a direct clash with NATO. 

The Russian Air Force doesn’t have a cat in hell’s chance vs. the USAF.

The only way Russia will ever invade a NATO country is if they are 100% certain the USA won’t respond. It’s a complete mis-match.

[DCJonah]

3 minutes ago, Cizzler said:

The Russian Air Force doesn’t have a cat in hell’s chance vs. the USAF.

The only way Russia will ever invade a NATO country is if they are 100% certain the USA won’t respond. It’s a complete mis-match.

Which I think was the plan if Trump had won again. 

[sidcow]

Russia has nuclear bombs dropped from Aeroplanes and ballistic missile nukes. 

We could obviously shoot down the bombers but we've reduced the RAF to such an extent we'd probably be swamped by bombers and accompanying fighters. 

We used to have squadrons of Eurofighters and Tornados.  We've retired Tranch 1 Eurofighters now and retired all Tornados a couple of years ago.  We were supposed to replace them with the new F-35's eventually at some point and with some unspecified numbers.  And now they're to be shared with the Navy so the Navy can operate them from the Aircraft Carriers.   So far we've only had 24 delivered, which is less than one carrier should carry, and one crashed and was destroyed leaving 23.  Essentially the RAF have none, or barely any F-35s.

We've basically got 100 Euro fighters, and God only knows how many of them are actually airworthy at any one time. Probably about 10 knowing us.

So we used to have 350 + Tornados supported by Lord knows how many Harriers and Jaguars during their service period. 

Rather like The Royal Navy, The RAF has been run down to bare bones. Hopefully this has been a wake up call and they'll reverse some of the reductions in Aircraft numbers and increase the numbers of F-35s so we can at least properly equip the aircraft carriers AND have a few RAF squadrons as well. 

The Sea Viper system on the Type 42 Destroyers HAS successfully intercepted a Ballistic missile in flight in a test.  How reliable this would be after one success though is unknown. But as per my post a few weeks ago we've currently only got 1 Destroyer fit to put to sea and only 2 in active service.  Assuming the one in port can actually launch interceptor missiles I'm not sure how many ballistic missiles they could take out in the event of a massed attack.  Maybe some of the remaining 4 could at least have their weapons systems activated, who knows.   Not that a bunch of static ships in Portsmouth are going to help Glasgow much. 

They were looking at a land based version of Sea Viper but I think that's still years away (obviously with the Russians so friendly, why would you need to invest in it anyway?) 

Finally the most common (I think) and most difficult problem is Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, these are ones that actually enter space then descend on targets from greater height at massive speed.  I don't think we have any protection against that, they are notoriously difficult to destroy. 

I believe there is an American system based in Europe that can intercept them so you would hope that they take them out  before they get here. 

Basically you really don't want Nukes coming at us because there are way way to many ifs, buts and maybes to feel any kind of confidence. 

Hopefully they mostly just splutter out on the decaying Russion launchpad though. 

[OutByEaster?]

Do Russia have the fancy-dan super quick new missiles - the wotsit things - hypersonic?

 

[foreveryoung]

3 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Do Russia have the fancy-dan super quick new missiles - the wotsit things - hypersonic?

 

They have tested them yes. 

But more over, do the US have hypersonic steath aircraft?

[TheAuthority]

4 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Do Russia have the fancy-dan super quick new missiles - the wotsit things - hypersonic?

 

They claimed to have flown one a couple of years ago. Whether or not it could actually carry a payload and hit an intended target is probably anybody's guess.

[sidcow]

8 minutes ago, Cizzler said:

The Russian Air Force doesn’t have a cat in hell’s chance vs. the USAF.

The only way Russia will ever invade a NATO country is if they are 100% certain the USA won’t respond. It’s a complete mis-match.

There has been comparisons in recent years about if the combined armies of the EU (I think when we were still in) could defeat Russia without USA in a conventional war. 

The general consensus was that it would be a close run thing, probably stalemate. However I'm now of the opinion it would be pretty easy for Europe to win. 

It appears our tech is just way ahead now. 

Obviously if USA was involved too it would be total devastation for Russia. 

I don't buy any theories about them holding back the best weapons or best soldiers.  They would have wanted this whole campaign over with as soon as possible. Total blitzkrieg, the longer it goes on the worse it is all round in terms of PR at home and abroad, it's given The World time to respond, equip Ukraine to inflict even more damage. 

He may have wanted to hold serious stuff back to keep infrastructure intact but he's very clearly given that idea up now too. 

If Russia goes to war with NATO it's going to be nuclear,  nothing else.  I don't see him holding back top weapons to be inevitably crushed by NATO conventional forces. 

 

[TheAuthority]

Along the same lines, I became friends with an eccentric retired rocket scientist a few years back. I was at a festival in Santa Barbara CA and he was a huge classical music fan who lived in a double wide trailer (although a double wide in Santa Barbara is probably the finest on the planet!)

I asked about his time working on ICBM's for the US and although he didn't reveal much, one thing he said stuck with me. I asked how accurate missiles were when fired from the US to targets in Russia. He said "See that car down the street - we can hit either that license plate or the one on the car on the other side of the street."

There seemed absolutely no doubt in his mind of the accuracy of these things (and bear in mind he worked on this stuff in the 70's and 80's so it's probably much better now.)

 

Edited March 7, 2022 by TheAuthority