Shows the Silver Award... and that's it.

For an especially amazing showing.


Shows the Silver Award... and that's it.

Thank you stranger. Shows the award.

C'est magnifique

Prayers up for the blessed. Gives %{coin_symbol}100 Coins to both the author and the community.

  1. "rumors about new ghost planes from NATO" - good, let the fear flow through you! :-)

  2. Its not impossible that they mught be.. they've been fired from boats and box vans. Part of the original marketing emphasised that they weren't NATO specific. They're probably keeping it quiet. It's advantageous to let your enemy know about HARM as its reputation suppresses their use of radar by just existing. It's better to keep them guessing about Brimstones.

  3. They can be salvo fired and can be fired blind, locate anf prioritise targets and decide between themselves which targets to hit. An entire convoy can be destroyed in seconds. It could be very useful as a counter battery weapon with the extended range, and the dual mode seeker means it can utilise the laser designating drones. It might even be compact enough to fit on a TB-2.

  4. Both of these countries have secret nuclear programs. With the country with the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons approaching them for help on their knees, it doesn't take much imagination to guess what's on the negotiation table. Japan, South Korea and Israel should be paying attention, this isn't a European conflict that they can ignore.

  5. For how many time russian can sustain such heavy loss before russian army colapse or public opinion go against war? Theirs loss are just insane

  6. It must not be far from the minds of the Russian military leadership that getting rid of Putin and blaming him for everything is probably the only "off ramp" that offers them a dignified out.

  7. Contrary to popular belief; Most modern tanks still have the majority of their ammo in the crew compartment. Challengers and Leopards would also very likely blow their turret if hit by an ATGM.

  8. A challenger in iraq was hit by a Milan anti tank missile and 14 RPGs. Crew were protected, and the tank was repaired and back in action the same day. Another was hit by 70 RPGs and drove home.

  9. That must have been supremely frustrating / demoralizing for the Iraqis.

  10. Yeah, there are better tanks in some ways, but the Challengers Dorchester armour is essentially god mode. The M1 uses the older, still good, Chobham. The perfect tank has a German gun, British armour and an American budget.

  11. Orc/armour ratio has shot up, is this a sign that they're giving up on offensive actions and are digging in? Seems like they're hoping to draw out the war though winter and test the resolve of supporters

  12. UK doesn't have a large military but they pack a punch. A direct conflict wouldn't just be troops on the ground, it would be NATO doctrine air dominance warfare. For all their posturing, we know exactly how a NATO vs Russia war would go - it happened in 1990-1. Saddam Hussein had one of the most powerful armies in World, with over 5000 tanks plus thousands of IFVs, diciplined troops blooded and experienced from their decade long war with Iran. He was convinced, like Putin, he was going to give the coalition the "Mother of all Battles" what actually happened was was one of the most spectacular and rapid defeats in military history. In addition to the complete dismantling of the Iraqi air force, and command and control systems, over 3300 tanks were destroyed - in less than 100 hours. British tanks alone Challenger 1s - destroyed 300 Iraqi tanks without a single loss. Since then, NATO has moved on 2 or 2 weapons generation but Russia is fielding the very same cold war tank models. Britain now has Challenger 2 and 3. Its doubtful the guns on the Russian tanks could penetrate the classified Dorchester armour. A single Typhoon in "Beast Mode" can carry 14 Meteor AA Missiles and 2 Iris-Ts. Meteor has 200+ km range and an 70km wide no-escape zone. That's potentially 14 dead Russian aircraft per sortie. An alternative load out is 28 brimstone missiles, which can be salvo fired, the missiles communicating in flight to choose separate targets. They have an over 98% effective combat record. A single Typhoon strike can destroy an entire Russian BTG. The British armed forces are smaller but the their tactics and technologies were developed to halt the Soviet Union in its prime. More than capable or halting the rag tag militia that calls itself the Russian army.

  13. I wonder how many conscripts actually aim vs how many just spray and pray. Sure, it kinda works as supressive fire, but I don’t know.

  14. After Vietnam, American research showed that 70% of conscripts shot high, not for lack of accuracy but because subconsciously it's difficult for most to kill another human being. That's why professional regulars are drilled so hard, you need to be able to shoot accurately through muscle memory without thinking about it too much. That's part of the reason the defenders have an advantage, they have more drive to shoot to kill. Less so if you're in a foreign land being asked to murder for abstract reasons you don't understand.

  15. He does not develop any of those ideas, he is not an engineer even on any of those ventures.

  16. He's chief engineer at SpaceX. He should keep out of politics but saying he doesn't know anything about rockets is just sour grapes. It's ok to say you just don't like him. I get it. But the engineer who designed the engines for the Falcon rockets has put that argument to bed. He knows his stuff.

  17. I thought he was Chief Twit. He gave himself that title, ok he sits on meetings with engineers and rocket scientists, he doesn't strike me as an engineer, you also need to check your facts, about this working on bleeding edge stuff. He's good at hyping stuff and then not deliver on things, where is that mars travel promised years ago? or semi? or truck? or robotaxi? or hyperloop?.. he's as engineer as Elizabeth Holmes. but this is going offtopic

  18. He's often over optimistic on timelines, but generally delivers. Tesla went from a tiny niche brand to one of the best selling cars in the world in 5 years, the first mass market car brand for 50 years. SpaceX were the first private company to launch I to orbit, 10 years later, they have 70% of the global launch market. Competing with boeing to launch asronauts to the space station, and beating them by years (Boeing still haven't launched astronauts to date)"and at a fraction of the price. These were huge industries with near monopolies which laughed at him for a long time. There are far safer and profitable ways of investing than taking on the MIC, oil and auto industries, and pretty much taking down the Russian launch industry. It took 10 years for other automakers to make an EV with the range an performance of Tesla, up until 2017 Ford were insisting that EVs could never be a mass market product.

  19. Outstanding missile, the best short range AA missile in the world. It's the only one that can be used defensively - it can pull 60G+ turns and shoot down incoming missiles even behind you.

  20. The VMS systems cope admirably (Vertically Mounted Screwdrivers).

  21. I’m assuming it’ll break down within a few months or it’s parts will freeze in the winter

  22. No, no one thought of actually working it out. These companies don't employ engineers or accountants. They just make it up as they go along, and rely on social media comments for finger-in-the-air assessments.

  23. Why not do both? Wind power is the cheapest power, and reduces the amount of fuel, including nuclear, that needs to be imported. Right now, on a calm day, 25% of the UKs powe is from wind.

  24. Someone needs to make a modern take on a punt gun. They were banned because they could shoot down dozens of birds with a single shot, to the detriment of wildlife populations.

  25. I think that Israel actually kind of benefits from this. Sending Iranian missiles to Ruzzia means that they won’t be used against Israel.

  26. Not if they're being paid in nuclear technology.

  27. Iran and Russia share a maritime border. They'll just ship it over the Caspian Sea. Ukraine needs cruise missiles.

  28. If I were a western intelligence agency and a company in my country were selling guidance chips to Russian arms manufacturers, would I make them stop, ensuring more business for Chinese chipmakers outside my control, or would I persuade them to put a kill switch in there? Nothing too obvious, but enough to make them convincingly fail or miss on demand. Conjecture, bus Israel did something similar to Iranian air defence systems, and the Stuxnet virus. That's why the USA only uses domestic chips even at 10x the cost.

  29. The World is turning away from Russian gas and oil and many are looking at nuclear as a replacement. Kazakhstan is by far the world's biggest producer of uranium. Draw your own conclusions from that fact.

  30. China may have calculated in Zelensky's personality and the possibility of him naming and shaming the countries that voted against. China is even more ashamed of being humiliated than Russia is.

  31. China is pragmatic in it's allegiances, and Russia has been useful to China as a military power that divided the attention and potentially the military resources of the USA. A weak Russia, with a massive land border with China, is worse than no Russia from their perspective. Historically, they are old enemies. China will not sacrifice any of its geopolitical status to assist a weak, unpredictable Russia. The Chinese statement in th UN was also interesting. "We support the territorial integrity of Ukraine " sounds superficially like a diplomatic platitude, but it's the same language they use to justify their claim on Taiwan. They were telling Russia that supporting them would undermines their own claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. It also hasn't escaped their attention that poor Central Asians are being used first as expendable cannon fodder in a European war of colonial conquest.

  32. They say they been completely clear with the Russians what the response would be, and a general has said unofficially that they would sink the Black Sea fleet. This seems likely, it's a credible threat, proportional, limited, no civilian casualties and still very visible and humiliating for Russia. It also offers a "tell". Russia is going to telegraph even the most covert attempt at a tactical nuclear strike by maneuvering the Black Sea Fleet, unless it is prepared to sacrifice its status as a naval power for a strike that would not be that effective on the battlefield.

  33. It's worth remembering that it's not just about training crews - experienced tankers aren't going to need much - but the maintenance is a different ball game. Techs have to trained to be able to understand, maintain and fix all the various systems until they could build an tank from spare parts if need be. Even more so with the F-16s everyone wants to just hand over. A pilot can transfer with 100 hours training but just to keep one F-16 in working order you need 6 techs qith over 1000 hours of training each. NATO kit is much more effective, but usually that means complex, mechanically and logistically, too.

  34. Fellow armchair general chiming in - maybe they need to supplement this system with a gun based

  35. Unit cost is high though, and the short range means that you are just drawing attention to high value targets. Just the presence of a $15 million C-RAM system means there's something worth it under a mile away.

  36. Apparently few drones use simple aiming devices. Just a few sticks mounted 90 degrees to the frame would work far better than guessing.

  37. Way easier to just mark the screen on the controller.

  38. I do wonder how they think they'll get them there. They're already running short of BTRs. With HARMs suppressing air defence and other advanced weapons ramping up, a convoy like the one that moved on Kiev at the start of the war would be ripped to shreds very quickly. Their logistics are already a shambles and they don't adapt, any supplies that get there are quickly going to be taken out.

  39. The Russian leadership are desperate for victories that they can sell to their population, and their top down driven approach means that they can't make any sort of tactical retreat, even when it's the sensible thing to do. Their generals keep ordering them into half hearted assaults, trying to fight an offensive war without the manpower and materiel advantage needed to do so. Everyone is wondering what the real Russian strategy is, but they don't have one for this situation. The mobilisation was just a political escalation, we're going to see more breakthroughs and routs, because the sensible defensiv military options are unthinkable to them. This is what happens when you let gangsters run a military.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *