Russia / Iran / China - The New Axis Megathread (Page 2023 of 2027)
|
Alabuga is building underground production facilities for Shahed drones. Around 42,000 m² of underground space has already been constructed for future production capacity. Apparently, the idea of moving production underground emerged after the first Ukrainian strikes on Alabuga. We can now see just how quickly Russia is expanding this underground infrastructure. Unfortunately, over time, the entire Russian Geran ecosystem is becoming increasingly difficult and costly to strike: production is being moved underground, infrastructure is being dispersed, and additional protection is being added. Simply put — this is gonna be a pain in the ass. Coordinates: 55.808719° 52.026664° 
That’s a fact. Alabuga is absolutely not economically viable to attack. A realistic option right now is to target the production chain: gunpowder plants manufacture the warheads, chemical plants produce key components, and VNIIR Progress makes the antennas that allow Shaheds to operate largely unaffected by our electronic warfare. But apart from that, Alabuga does almost everything in-house. And honestly, I don’t see us being able to destroy a facility of this scale with our current capabilities. Unfortunately, the Russians built it smart.
 
|
“If by chance you were to ask me which ornaments I would desire above all others in my house, I would reply, without much pause for reflection, arms and books.”
Baldassare Castiglione
https://t.me/arfcom_ukebros
Baldassare Castiglione
https://t.me/arfcom_ukebros
|
Originally Posted By GBTX01:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HSh84e9aAAA5vuz?format=jpg&name=900x900
This is your reminder of the great circle routes that ICBM would take to hit the center of the USA from: Iran (Red); Purple (Pakistani) [NB: these are also the routes from most of the Russian ICBM fields]; Russia (Yellow); PRC (Orange); NORK (White). Adjust actual launch sites and actual targets as needed. You can do this yourself on GoogleEarth. Greenland is the shield for North America from most of the worst places in the world. To have it under utilized as such has always been a threat to the USA since the invention of intercontinental bombers and missiles. This is by far an exceptional net good. Well meaning people can argue about how we got here, but we got here. No one else made it happen. 
If there is one hallmark of this administration, it's good ideas being executed by incompetent people wholly incapable of executing them properly. Dealing with Venezuela, dealing with Iran, reinforcing Greenland, getting NATO to arm up... The list goes on. All laudable goals. All being accomplished at net losses across the board in ancillary areas from trade wars with allies, to leaving repressive regimes in power over fear of "regime change" and boots on the ground. As they say, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
|
“If by chance you were to ask me which ornaments I would desire above all others in my house, I would reply, without much pause for reflection, arms and books.”
Baldassare Castiglione
https://t.me/arfcom_ukebros
Baldassare Castiglione
https://t.me/arfcom_ukebros
|
🇺🇦🇯🇵 Specialists from GUR showed the Japanese delegation components of a missile made in DPRK Among the delegation members the speaker of House of Representatives of Japanese parliament. The review of the components makes it possible to assess the capabilities of the North Korean military industry, which is critically important for neighboring Japan.    
|
“If by chance you were to ask me which ornaments I would desire above all others in my house, I would reply, without much pause for reflection, arms and books.”
Baldassare Castiglione
https://t.me/arfcom_ukebros
Baldassare Castiglione
https://t.me/arfcom_ukebros
|
The former Zelensky loyalist who now wants Ukraine to surrender She was once President Zelensky’s fiercely loyal press secretary, standing by his side as he injected what she described as a “breath of fresh air” into Ukrainian politics. Today, Iuliia Mendel is one of the Ukrainian leader’s most prominent critics. Her social media accounts and interviews are full of unsubstantiated allegations of money laundering and drug use, while she has also criticised what she calls Zelensky’s failure to “make peace” with Russia, even though President Putin has said the war in Ukraine will only end on Moscow’s terms. This week, Zelensky imposed sweeping sanctions on Mendel over her promotion of “disinformation and Russian propaganda” and supporting “Russia’s aggressive policy against Ukraine”. Mendel described the sanctions, which include the blocking of her social media accounts inside Ukraine and asset freezes, as an unconstitutional attempt to muzzle her. Although she wrote in her book, The Fight of Our Lives, which was published in 2022, about Russia’s plans to “exterminate” Ukrainians, Mendel now claims that further resistance is a form of “national suicide” that will only lead to additional misery for ordinary Ukrainians and transform it into a failed state like Afghanistan. “My country is dying … if we choose a bad peace over a bad war, we can try to preserve our independence and restore our economy and democracy,” she told The Times. “We always blame only Putin. We never see the log in our own eyes.” In the event of a peace deal in Ukraine, Mendel said, Russia could be prevented from future military aggression by appeals to “reason, diplomacy and humanity”. Her comments came on the same day that Putin praised Russian soldiers who have been accused of atrocities in Ukraine as “true patriots”. Her shift on the war has sparked suspicions in Ukraine that she is a Russian agent who has been tasked with undermining western support for Kyiv. Mendel denies such allegations. “I have no contacts with Kremlin,” she said. “You can check my telephone.” Born in southern Ukraine’s Kherson region, parts of which are now occupied by Russia, Mendel worked for US media, including The New York Times, before being appointed as Zelensky’s press secretary shortly after his election victory in 2019. She was widely criticised for physically pushing aside Ukrainian and western journalists who tried to ask Zelensky questions. She left her post a few months before the start of Russia’s invasion in 2022 and now lives in the United States with her husband, Pavlo Kukhta, a former Ukrainian deputy economics minister. She has not been to Ukraine since last year. On Wednesday, Mendel was due to speak at the European parliament in Strasbourg at an event called Dare to Make Peace — Diplomacy, Not Escalation. Her appearance was organised by the Alternative for Germany (AfD), the hard-right German political party that wants Berlin to cut all financial and military aid to Ukraine and to end sanctions against Moscow. However, Mendel was barred from entering parliament by security guards, a decision that she linked to Kyiv’s sanctions against her. When asked if she supported the AfD’s stance on severing all aid for Kyiv, she declined to give a direct answer. “I hope to influence the position of the AfD and I hope that they will find a way to end this war,” she said. “You in the West often think that the war is a Hollywood movie and that we have unbreakable spirit. But this is ridiculous.” In her speech, a copy of which she provided to The Times, Mendel planned to tell the European parliament that hopes that Putin could be forced to end his invasion by western sanctions or other pressure were mistaken. “Wishful thinking is a trap, and in my home that trap is measured in thousands of lives,” it read. The US Congress voted on Wednesday to approve a bill that allows President Trump to impose tariffs of 100 per cent on countries like China that purchase Russian oil and gas, as well as target its shadow fleet of oil tankers. Although she does not deny that Putin launched the war, Mendel accused western leaders of caring more about “destroying Russia than saving Ukraine”. She also accused Zelensky of turning Ukraine into a “milder version” of Nazi Germany through forced mobilisation and martial law that was introduced at the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion. Such rhetoric is also a staple of Kremlin propaganda. In a lengthy tirade, she also said that Zelensky had once told her in private that he was an admirer of Joseph Stalin, the Soviet dictator responsible for a famine that killed millions of Ukrainians in the 1930s. She had not previously mentioned the alleged comment. The claim is one of several outlandish allegations that Mendel has made in recent months. In May, during an interview with Tucker Carlson, the former Fox News presenter, she alleged without evidence that Andriy Yermak, Zelensky’s chief aide until November, practised black magic. She also said in the same interview, citing unnamed sources, that Zelensky had told Moscow in 2022 that he would be willing to surrender the Donbas region. Zelensky’s office denied the claim, saying “she hasn’t been herself for a long time”. Mendel’s planned speech in Strasbourg also included praise for Trump, whose administration frequently sides with Moscow over Kyiv. It read: “Only a strong leader can end this war. The hearts of millions are filled with gratitude to Donald Trump for the courage to question a status quo under which the Ukrainian people are condemned.” Like Trump, Mendel has also described Zelensky as a dictator. Such comments have led to suggestions that she may be working with figures within Trump’s Maga movement, rather than directly with Moscow. She has not spoken to Zelensky, she said, since the second month of the war. “Why would I speak to him?” she said. “He just finds any argument to say that this war cannot be over.” Zelensky has said that Ukraine would agree to a ceasefire, a reciprocal withdrawal from the frontline by Russian and Ukrainian troops and the creation of a buffer zone. He has also said that Kyiv would be willing to drop its ambitions to join Nato in return for meaningful security guarantees from western countries. Putin says that Ukraine must surrender the entirety of its Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia regions and that it will target any western troops deployed to the country. Moscow also vowed in August that it would not agree to a ceasefire in Ukraine that would leave the current government in Kyiv in place. The Kremlin has also rejected offers by Zelensky of face-to-face talks with Putin in a third country. Mendel did not say what territories Ukraine should surrender in exchange for peace, citing the threat of treason charges, or outline any other steps to ensure that Moscow does not invade again. Her critics say that giving up land would abandon millions of Ukrainians to a life under a brutal Russian occupation, including in her home region of Kherson. Oleksandr Tolokonnikov, the deputy head of the Kherson region’s military administration, said: “She should understand better than many people what Russian occupation means and what Russia has done to our region. It is very easy to speak about concessions to Russia from a safe place.” An opinion poll released on Tuesday by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology found that 77 per cent of Ukrainians would refuse to surrender to Moscow even if Russian attacks left people without electricity, heat and sewage this winter. Mendel alleged without evidence that the results of the poll had been falsified. A Gallup poll in June said that 66 per cent of Ukrainians wanted to see peace talks to end the war as soon as possible, but did not ask what territories, if any, they would be prepared to cede to Moscow. https://www.thetimes.com/world/russia-ukraine-war/article/iuliia-mendel-zelensky-critic-european-parliament-strasbourg-speech-mgrg5kdhx
Hi Owen, happy to engage on the merits of her statement here. Yes, there is corruption in Ukraine. I’ve actually disagreed with the government’s decision to sanction her, and I’ve been critical of the Zelenskyy government in the past. There are legitimate concerns about silencing critics, and I know people who have been sent to the front because of believed or perceived actions against the government. That is bad. It erodes trust and confidence and should be called out. But acting as though she is some lone, brave truth-teller exposing corruption no one else will discuss is deeply disingenuous. Western media has covered corruption in Ukraine extensively, across the ideological spectrum. Ukrainian journalists and independent outlets do the same every day. A simple search makes that obvious. Of course defense companies profit from war and lobby for defense spending. That is not evidence of some grand conspiracy keeping Ukraine at war. The war continues because Russia invaded Ukraine and continues fighting while demanding additional Ukrainian territory it has not been able to conquer militarily. If Yulia is advocating for Ukraine to give up territory Russia has been unable to take by force, then she needs to say that plainly. Don’t hide behind vague appeals to “peace.” Say what the proposed peace actually requires: Putin retains control of roughly one-fifth of Ukraine, and Ukraine is then expected to hand over additional territory in Donetsk that Russia could not seize on the battlefield. That is not peace as some abstract moral good. That is a specific territorial concession to an aggressor, and it has consequences far beyond Ukraine. If your principle is that a sovereign nation should be compelled to surrender its territory because another country invaded it and the war became costly, then you are hollowing out the very concept of sovereignty. By that same logic, it becomes difficult to explain why borders should be sacrosanct anywhere. You cannot spend years arguing that borders define nations and then suddenly decide that another country’s borders are negotiable because defending them has become inconvenient. And we should be very careful about the precedent that creates. There are striking historical similarities here. History does not repeat itself exactly, but it certainly rhymes. Chamberlain also believed territorial concessions could satisfy an aggressor and purchase peace. The lesson of Munich is not that every negotiation is appeasement. It is that concessions made without changing the aggressor’s underlying calculation can simply buy time for the next act of aggression. And frankly, I would rather hear a serious argument for that position than endless boo-hooing about “world peace” like we are answering a question in a beauty pageant. Everyone wants peace. That tells us nothing. Tell me what you are actually advocating. Are you arguing that Putin should retain the Ukrainian territory Russia currently occupies? Say so. Are you arguing that Ukraine should surrender the remainder of Donetsk that Russia has failed to conquer? Say so. Are you arguing that Ukrainians who fought and died defending those communities should now watch them handed to the country that invaded them? Say so. Then defend that argument on its merits. And conservatives should be especially careful here. We cannot profess belief in national sovereignty, secure borders, deterrence, territorial integrity, and the nation-state and then abandon every one of those principles the moment they become inconvenient overseas. Those values either mean something or they do not. Peace may ultimately require painful compromises chosen by Ukrainians themselves. But advocating a sovereign country surrender land to an invading power is not some morally superior position simply because you attach the word “peace” to it. Surrender is not peace. And we will have become profoundly morally confused if we start pretending those two things are synonymous.
|
“If by chance you were to ask me which ornaments I would desire above all others in my house, I would reply, without much pause for reflection, arms and books.”
Baldassare Castiglione
https://t.me/arfcom_ukebros
Baldassare Castiglione
https://t.me/arfcom_ukebros
|
Originally Posted By fadedsun: They have trouble stopping Flamingo missiles which are the size of a city block  Originally Posted By fadedsun: Originally Posted By nomansland: @Citadel-SC Google suggests that NATO without the US already has ~200 F35, and more on order. Do you really think Russia could defend their airspace against 5th gen fighters? They have trouble stopping Flamingo missiles which are the size of a city block  I think you've got that backwards. Ukraine can barely get a single flamingo through out of a dozen they launch. |
|
NEW: 🇲🇩 During overnight Russian attacks on Ukrainian territory, once again drones violated Moldovan airspace near the border with Ukraine. Around 04:00, Moldovan border patrols reported several unidentified aircraft near Căplani. Two were observed flying through Moldovan airspace toward Olănești–Cistovodnoe, while another entered from the direction of Crocmaz before leaving Moldova toward Căplani–Crutoiarovca. At 05:19, Ukraine informed Moldova that an object had fallen and caught fire around 1.5–2 km from the border near Troițcoe. Following a joint search, Moldova confirmed that no fragments or explosion site were found on Moldovan territory. Ukrainian authorities reported finding an explosion site and unidentified fragments approximately 1.2 km inside Ukrainian territory. 
A Russian cruise missile, likely S8000 Banderol, crashed in Moldova. 47.029202, 28.953095 Chișinău, Moldova @GeoConfirmed @UAControlMap @AndrewPerpetua    
|
“If by chance you were to ask me which ornaments I would desire above all others in my house, I would reply, without much pause for reflection, arms and books.”
Baldassare Castiglione
https://t.me/arfcom_ukebros
Baldassare Castiglione
https://t.me/arfcom_ukebros
|
From August Since everyone and their mother is saying the missile that hit Moldova is a Banderol (based on what exactly ?) here's why it's not. And this isn't the first time, Ukraine keeps calling S-71K (potentially M as well, do not know for certainty what engine that uses), Banderol strikes. The engine shown matches the one from a week ago, that matches debris from Ukraine that Ukraine has described as S-71K, with motor model R-500, seen below in an expo. The easiest match are the screws used and the overall shape and attaching method of the body. S8000 Banderol on the other hand reportedly uses a SW800Pro-A95, which we can partially confirm from debris, there's a possibility it's a cheaper version for mass production since it lacks some of the screws in the commercial version found online.    
|
“If by chance you were to ask me which ornaments I would desire above all others in my house, I would reply, without much pause for reflection, arms and books.”
Baldassare Castiglione
https://t.me/arfcom_ukebros
Baldassare Castiglione
https://t.me/arfcom_ukebros
Large-scale Russian attack on the Mayaky Bridge in Odesa Oblast. Approximately 15 S8000 Banderol cruise missiles and 5 KAB glide-bombs targeted the bridge. I was only able to confirm one Banderol interception over northern Odesa city, but there may have been more. The Mayaky Bridge is one of two land bridges connecting southern Odesa Oblast with the rest of Ukraine, although it connects a route that goes partially through Moldova. 
|
“If by chance you were to ask me which ornaments I would desire above all others in my house, I would reply, without much pause for reflection, arms and books.”
Baldassare Castiglione
https://t.me/arfcom_ukebros
Baldassare Castiglione
https://t.me/arfcom_ukebros
Joined:
Feb 2025
Posts:
4523
EE: 0% (0)
USA
|
Originally Posted By Citadel-SC: Yea because we used 155 aircraft during that operation. A F35 being clipped and the loss of an F15 encouraged a tactical change to mixed packages and F35s as high altitude quarter backs for stand off weapons. Even the Houthis came close to getting one. The F35 is not invincible and Russian ADA is a lot better than Irans. If you haven’t learned the dangers of hubris after Iran then I don’t know what to tell you. Iran and the houthis by proxy actually have a pretty effective counter stealth system and that is all the IR based SAMs they've developed, some of them have decent range (compared to MANPADs). I don't even know about russian systems that are equivalent, most/all of russia's newer systems I can think of are radar based such as the BUK and S-300/400. Iran was actually pretty smart in that regard. You can't really suppress or attack IR based SAMs and stealth doesn't matter since they don't use radar. But those systems are pretty short range so you still have to get unlucky to be hit by one afaik. Fact is we were flying over downtown Tehran during the daylight. The fact they only took one plane down (2 if you include the A-10 during the rescue mission) is amazing. Contrast that to russia who hasn't had a single day of air superiority in their almost 5 year long war, in which the first couple of years they were going up systems THEY designed and operate, they failed to be able to suppress or destroy them anywhere close to as effectively as we're able to. And thank god, because if they were able to do even 1/10th as well as we do then there is zero chance ukraine would be a country right now... Kyiv would look like Bakhmut. |
|
Guerre d'Ukraine | 18/09/26 Secteurs : 🌐 Novodmytrivka (Sud-Est Sumy)🔹U260918-1045  🌐 Dvorichna-Kalynove🔹U260918-1048  🌐 Kostiantynivka🔹U260918-1055  🌐 Udachne-Kotlyne🔹U260918-1007  #UkraineRussianWar #GuerreEnUkraine
|
“If by chance you were to ask me which ornaments I would desire above all others in my house, I would reply, without much pause for reflection, arms and books.”
Baldassare Castiglione
https://t.me/arfcom_ukebros
Baldassare Castiglione
https://t.me/arfcom_ukebros
Joined:
Feb 2025
Posts:
4524
EE: 0% (0)
USA
The famous Russian pro-Z blogger, "Angry Patriot," Maksim Kalachnikov, has accused the Kremlin of war crimes. He described himself as "horrified" by the brutality displayed by the Russian army in this conflict. Kalachnikov noted that, in the war against Ukraine, the Kremlin had chosen to rely on terror inflicted on the civilian population. And, according to him, this brutality is utterly absurd, since it does nothing to help Russia achieve victory. "You remember the images of the strikes on Kyiv? Everything screams, the missiles fall straight down - boom, boom, boom! And where did you strike in Kyiv, Russian leaders? Neither the SBU nor the HUR were hit! I'm certain the Ukrainian government isn't holed up in a bunker… And the general staff, the headquarters of the National Guard, everything keeps running. So, where did you hit with all those fires and those spectacular strikes? On half-shuttered factories, while also hitting residential areas. We've all seen those parents weeping because their children were left under the rubble, ordinary residents of Kyiv. You strike hangars, commercial warehouses, truck parking lots, logistics centers… With victims and massive destruction! (…) Look at what the 'liberated' cities have become! (…) In Kyiv, one in three high-rises has been damaged. Real people were actually hurt there. Instead of striking decision-making centers, you're now trying to make ordinary Ukrainian residents endure the cold, depriving them of heat and electricity. You struck Odessa, my hometown… Do you really think that if the people of Odessa or the ordinary folks of Kharkiv are shivering from the cold this winter, it will change anything? I have no illusions about how this war is being waged on our side, on the side of the leaders," Kalachnikov declared. » Relax, Kalachnikov, you should’ve had this flash of clarity 4 and a half years ago!!! Tea? Window? Or just "not even scared"?
|
|
Originally Posted By nomansland: @Citadel-SC Google suggests that NATO without the US already has ~200 F35, and more on order. Do you really think Russia could defend their airspace against 5th gen fighters? NATO without the USA has maybe 2 days of ordinance for those F35s. And that is assuming Russia doesnt hit NATO bases with asymmetric attacks or outright kinetic attacks as an opening salvo. |
|
Originally Posted By absael: Even if we aren't anticipating a huge move, I can't help thinking that Russia's naked aggression over the last few years played a part here. But it could very well be that something has changed, because IMO Trump was doing everything he could to piss off Denmark and scupper any potential deal, and now it's happening anyway. Yes. Id still like to see the actual details of the agreement. Not that I dont trust Trump's statements but... 
|
|
Originally Posted By Citadel-SC: It doesn’t sound like we are really getting much more than we already had, something we almost certainly could’ve achieved by just asking. I’m no fan of the Europeans clearly but this could’ve been handled better. The USA "asked" to use airspace and bases for Epic Fury and Europe said NO. I think the Greenland deal is about NOT HAVING TO ASK. |
|
Originally Posted By Citadel-SC: Yea because we used 155 aircraft during that operation. A F35 being clipped and the loss of an F15 encouraged a tactical change to mixed packages and F35s as high altitude quarter backs for stand off weapons. Even the Houthis came close to getting one. The F35 is not invincible and Russian ADA is a lot better than Irans. If you haven’t learned the dangers of hubris after Iran then I don’t know what to tell you. And Im sure everyone has been closely studying US tactics (and emissions) over Iran and I would bet Russia may have fine tuned some systems against US. They would still get clobbered but I think against Russia NATO F35's would take some losses. My bigger concern is how long NATO could sustain a campaign against Russia. The USA didn't have the magazine depth against the Houthis and Iran. Something tells me that Europe is in worse shape. What happens if NATO retaliatory strikes, no matter how effective, dont stop the bear. 1000 casualties in a day is just a slow Tuesday for Russia. How would a European country feel about 100 casualties? 1000? |
|
Originally Posted By Prime: 🔥 During the first two weeks of September, Fire Point drones and missiles struck at least 50 Russian targets. 💥 FP-1 / FP-2: Logistics hubs — 1 Oil refineries and fuel depots — 6 Industrial facilities — 4 Military-industrial complex facilities — 2 Vessels — 16 Radar systems — 5 Surface-to-air missile systems — 4 Energy infrastructure — 11 🦩 FP-5: "Volgogradpromproekt" — 1 The results of the Defense Forces' operations are growing more impressive with every passing month. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HSg9mq8XcAAV8DQ?format=jpg&name=medium
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HShd3yxXIAAXRVA?format=jpg&name=large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HShep2zW0AANeaB?format=jpg&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HSherXSXkAAIYnF?format=png&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HShes73WcAA9cJR?format=jpg&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HShevSwXQAAv5zl?format=jpg&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HShewzpWsAAw7p9?format=png&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HSheyNLWAAAYBUJ?format=jpg&name=large OK but probably 87 GRU assholes just got jobs working in construction at the build site...This should be kept quiet as long as possible. |
|
Originally Posted By absael: I can't say that any of this surprises me. But it seems that they might try to make up for the quality with quantity. Originally Posted By absael: Originally Posted By AlmightyTallest: Originally Posted By Lieh-tzu: Originally Posted By AlmightyTallest: It's better if we just launch first if we know they are thinking about it. Satellite Failures: Russia’s space-based missile detection relies on a small constellation of "Tundra" satellites. Tracking data reveals frequent technical failures, leaving Moscow with barely enough operational satellites to provide continuous, 24/7 global coverage of US missile silos Radar Vulnerabilities: Because their space layer is weak, Russia relies heavily on ground-based Voronezh over-the-horizon radars. However, these radars only see missiles once they rise above the horizon, slashing Russia's decision-making window to a mere 15 to 30 minutes. Furthermore, some of these critical radars have been damaged or degraded by long-range drone strikes The US holds a massive technological edge in space-based surveillance, tracking, and early warning. If Russia were to launch first, the US would know almost instantly. If the US launches first, Russia's technical degradation means its leadership might not realize an attack is underway until minutes later US first-strike capability is off-the-chart scary good. Not just the above, but our accuracy is WAY better than theirs, our reliability is way better than theirs. Does Sarmat even work? I hope that since old treaties are no longer in force, we've restored full MIRV capability in the Tridents. Of course, we aren't going to launch a first strike, so it's a moot point.  Well, the failure rate of Russian nukes is pretty bad, so I wouldn't want to be launching them from my home soil if they have a good chance of comimg back down on me. The Bulava Test Failures: During its initial development and flight testing phase, the Bulava became infamous for spectacular failures. Out of its first 12 to 20 official test launches from submarines like the Dmitry Donskoi and Yuri Dolgorukiy, about 40% to 50% failed. Missiles regularly veered off course, suffered booster malfunctions, or had to be remotely self-destroyed. Independent military analysts at the time estimated the true early failure rate was even higher Manufacturing Defects: Even after being fast-tracked into official service, failures continued. For instance, a submerged salvo test from the Vladimir Monomakh resulted in one missile self-destructing during its boost phase and the other completely missing its target due to factory production defects The pattern of testing failures is even worse for Russia's newest silo-based heavy intercontinental ballistic missile, the RS-28 Sarmat (commonly referred to by NATO as "Satan II"). The Sarmat Test Record: The Sarmat has suffered an abysmal 80% failure rate in known flight tests. Catastrophic Disasters: Out of 5 attempted test flights, 4 ended in total failure. The most high-profile disaster occurred during a test when the missile suffered a catastrophic mechanical failure or failed to ignite properly upon ejection. It fell back directly into its silo at the Plesetsk Cosmodrome, exploding and leaving a massive 60-meter-wide crater that completely destroyed the launchpad, as verified by commercial satellite imagery Western intelligence and independent defense analysts attribute these extreme failure rates to several systemic problems within the Russian military-industrial complex: Corruption and Lack of Quality Control: Systemic corruption often leads to the siphoning of military budgets and the use of substandard, counterfeit, or un-audited components in highly sensitive rocket engines. Rushed Production Timelines: Political pressure from the Kremlin to showcase "invincible" weapons has forced engineers to bypass standard, incremental testing procedures—such as skipping land-based pop-up tests before loading experimental missiles directly onto submarines I can't say that any of this surprises me. But it seems that they might try to make up for the quality with quantity. True, but if we know they are getting them ready, it sort of helps even the playing field if we start hitting their launch sites before they launch them. The whole reason we made Super-Fuze, think about the possibilities this system provides the US if we have to launch. Also remember if the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists is worried about a U.S. capability, it's actually a good thing. Very interesting reading, and look at the dates this was introduced. Anyone thinking we will wait to be fired on with what is at stake just doesn't have the information to know that we actually might fire first in some situations. https://thebulletin.org/2017/03/how-us-nuclear-force-modernization-is-undermining-strategic-stability-the-burst-height-compensating-super-fuze/ https://fas.org/publication/super-fuze/ Under the cover of an otherwise legitimate life-extension of the W76 warhead, the Navy has quietly added a new super-fuze to the warhead that dramatically increases the ability of the Navy to destroy hard targets in Russia and other adversaries. In a new article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Matthew McKinzie from NRDC, Theodore A. Postol from MIT, and I describe the impact of the super-fuze on the targeting capability of the US SSBN force and how it might effect strategic stability. The new super-fuze dramatically increases the capability of the W76 warhead to destroy hard targets, such as Russian ICBM silos. We estimate that the super-fuze capability is now operational on all nuclear warheads deployed on the Navy’s Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines. The new fuze has also been installed on warheads on British SSBN. “As a consequence, the US submarine force today is much more capable than it was previously against hardened targets such as Russian ICBM silos. A decade ago, only about 20 percent of US submarine warheads had hard-target kill capability; today they all do.” The new article builds on previous work by Ted Postol and myself but with new analysis explaining how the super-fuze works. In the article we conclude that the SSBN force, rather than simply being a stable retaliatory capability, with the new super-fuze increasingly will be seen as a front-line, first-strike weapon that is likely to further fuel trigger-happy, worst-case planning in other nuclear-armed states.       |
It's not stupid, it's advanced!!
|
Originally Posted By Prime:
This is your reminder of the great circle routes that ICBM would take to hit the center of the USA from: Iran (Red); Purple (Pakistani) [NB: these are also the routes from most of the Russian ICBM fields]; Russia (Yellow); PRC (Orange); NORK (White). Adjust actual launch sites and actual targets as needed. You can do this yourself on GoogleEarth. Greenland is the shield for North America from most of the worst places in the world. To have it under utilized as such has always been a threat to the USA since the invention of intercontinental bombers and missiles. This is by far an exceptional net good. Well meaning people can argue about how we got here, but we got here. No one else made it happen. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HSjG8JFX0AA7Krl?format=jpg&name=large
If there is one hallmark of this administration, it's good ideas being executed by incompetent people wholly incapable of executing them properly. Dealing with Venezuela, dealing with Iran, reinforcing Greenland, getting NATO to arm up... The list goes on. All laudable goals. All being accomplished at net losses across the board in ancillary areas from trade wars with allies, to leaving repressive regimes in power over fear of "regime change" and boots on the ground. As they say, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
The Trump "method" to accomplish such things certainly appears rough but I would not call them "incompetent". All the previous Administrations didn't even try. Probably because they knew it would take too much unpleasantness for their weak and timid hands. Iran has been a sad standout for Trump's methods. It looks like a total failure so far. BUT something obviously happened with Epic Fury (Iran proved too tough for what we were willing to invest)and Trump was able to change direction on a dime. I think most Administrations would have followed the sunken costs and doubled down. Maybe, if in a few months a Russia-NATO conflict opens and/or China-Taiwan, it will look totally brilliant. We shall see... |
|
Originally Posted By ITCHY-FINGER: The Trump "method" to accomplish such things certainly appears rough but I would not call them "incompetent". All the previous Administrations didn't even try. Probably because they knew it would take too much unpleasantness for their weak and timid hands. Iran has been a sad standout for Trump's methods. It looks like a total failure so far. BUT something obviously happened with Epic Fury (Iran proved too tough for what we were willing to invest)and Trump was able to chance direction on a dime. I think most Administrations would have followed the sunken costs and doubled down. Maybe, if in a few months a Russia-NATO conflict opens and/or China-Taiwan, it will look totally brilliant. We shall see... Originally Posted By ITCHY-FINGER: Originally Posted By Prime:
This is your reminder of the great circle routes that ICBM would take to hit the center of the USA from: Iran (Red); Purple (Pakistani) [NB: these are also the routes from most of the Russian ICBM fields]; Russia (Yellow); PRC (Orange); NORK (White). Adjust actual launch sites and actual targets as needed. You can do this yourself on GoogleEarth. Greenland is the shield for North America from most of the worst places in the world. To have it under utilized as such has always been a threat to the USA since the invention of intercontinental bombers and missiles. This is by far an exceptional net good. Well meaning people can argue about how we got here, but we got here. No one else made it happen. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HSjG8JFX0AA7Krl?format=jpg&name=large
If there is one hallmark of this administration, it's good ideas being executed by incompetent people wholly incapable of executing them properly. Dealing with Venezuela, dealing with Iran, reinforcing Greenland, getting NATO to arm up... The list goes on. All laudable goals. All being accomplished at net losses across the board in ancillary areas from trade wars with allies, to leaving repressive regimes in power over fear of "regime change" and boots on the ground. As they say, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
The Trump "method" to accomplish such things certainly appears rough but I would not call them "incompetent". All the previous Administrations didn't even try. Probably because they knew it would take too much unpleasantness for their weak and timid hands. Iran has been a sad standout for Trump's methods. It looks like a total failure so far. BUT something obviously happened with Epic Fury (Iran proved too tough for what we were willing to invest)and Trump was able to chance direction on a dime. I think most Administrations would have followed the sunken costs and doubled down. Maybe, if in a few months a Russia-NATO conflict opens and/or China-Taiwan, it will look totally brilliant. We shall see... Taking Iran off the board prior to those conflicts would look brilliant. |
China delenda est
|
Originally Posted By Prime: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HSi4sYqWoAATaif?format=jpg&name=medium
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HSi4stxXoAASW0K?format=jpg&name=large
Originally Posted By Prime: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HSi4sYqWoAATaif?format=jpg&name=medium
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HSi4stxXoAASW0K?format=jpg&name=large
S-300 Clone missiles. The US defense industry will be making them, so we get to keep our Patriot lines humming, and now we supply a specific replacement to help the Ukrainians.  Despite the designation, the S-300 Clone is a newly engineered missile rather than a direct copy of the Soviet 5V55 interceptor. Enhanced performance: It features improved flight performance and a modern target-guidance system System compatibility: It is designed to work with existing Soviet-era S-300 launchers currently used by the Armed Forces of Ukraine GAM-67 missiles: New medium-range surface-to-air interceptors. The GAM-67 is a 1950s U.S. turbojet-powered anti-radar missile design whose designation has been reused for a new, modern weapon system in military aid packages for Ukraine The GAM-67 Crossbow was an American anti-radar cruise missile developed in 1953 by Radioplane (later part of Northrop's Ventura Division). Intended Use: The U.S. Air Force designed it to be launched from bombers like the B-47 to destroy enemy ground radar networks Current Purpose: Unlike the Cold War relic, this modern GAM-67 is a newly developed missile intended for medium-range air defense systems It is built to integrate with existing Soviet-designed air defense systems used by Ukraine, helping reduce dependence on Russian supplies |
It's not stupid, it's advanced!!
|
Originally Posted By Prime: The former Zelensky loyalist who now wants Ukraine to surrender In the event of a peace deal in Ukraine, Mendel said, Russia could be prevented from future military aggression by appeals to “reason, diplomacy and humanity”. She left her post a few months before the start of Russia’s invasion in 2022 and now lives in the United States with her husband, Pavlo Kukhta, a former Ukrainian deputy economics minister. She has not been to Ukraine since last year. On Wednesday, Mendel was due to speak at the European parliament in Strasbourg at an event called Dare to Make Peace — Diplomacy, Not Escalation. Her appearance was organised by the Alternative for Germany (AfD), the hard-right German political party that wants Berlin to cut all financial and military aid to Ukraine and to end sanctions against Moscow. Mendel did not say what territories Ukraine should surrender in exchange for peace ... or outline any other steps to ensure that Moscow does not invade again. https://www.thetimes.com/world/russia-ukraine-war/article/iuliia-mendel-zelensky-critic-european-parliament-strasbourg-speech-mgrg5kdhx I think I've distilled out the relevant key points. It's interesting to note that she fails on the same questions I asked here for years when people say 'must negotiate peace!' - no answer for how to induce Putin to accept anything other than unconditional surrender and leave Ukraine open to further attacks in the future. As a Ukrainian former presidential official, one would think she would have some insight. Russian assets among Ukrainian government/military posts will continue to be discovered for probably forever. |
Good times, loved seeing our ATACMS in real action. And old warhead too with cluster munitions.
The S-400 was never invincible, it was just expensive. Six interceptors fired, zero hits, and ten seconds later the ATACMS arrives almost vertically, inside the radar’s dead zone. The launcher still had missiles. It just had no way to use them. Moscovian air defense looks impressive on parade and fails the moment a trajectory turns inconvenient. And their own experts knew it back in 2021. The 48N6 missile needs constant radar illumination. Lose the lock, lose the target. Now they are talking about the 9M96 as the fix, but they barely have any S-350 launchers to fire it. Twelve divisions by 2027, and eight are already earmarked for Putin’s dacha. Priorities. Ukraine needs to outfight moscovia. to keep exploiting the gap between what moscovia claims and what it can actually defend. |
It's not stupid, it's advanced!!
|
I'll just leave this here... Sexual Violence in the Context of the Russian Federation Full-Scale Armed Attack against Ukraine Sexual Violence in the Context of the Russian Federation Full-Scale Armed Attack against Ukraine Summary 1. This thematic report by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) provides an analysis of data, trends and patterns of conflict-related sexual violence1 perpetrated in the context of the Russian Federation's full-scale armed attack against Ukraine. It is based on the findings of OHCHR's Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine 2 (HRMMU), during the period from 24 February 2022 through 31 July 2026. 3 It builds upon OHCHR's monitoring, documentation and public reporting of sexual violence in Ukraine since 2014. 4 Its findings are assessed against the applicable international human rights law framework.5 2. During the reporting period, OHCHR documented 1004 6 cases 7 of sexual violence perpetrated in both detention and non-detention contexts. These findings, while representative, are not intended as a comprehensive account of sexual violence, which in Ukraine, as in other contexts, is underreported. The patterns observed indicate that sexual violence has been used as a method of torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment against prisoners of war (POWs) and civilians. 3. The majority of these cases verified by OHCHR - 89 per cent - are attributed to Russian Federation authorities, including members of the Russian armed forces, the Federal Penitentiary Service (FSIN), and the Federal Security Service (FSB). Eleven per cent of the verified cases are attributed to Ukrainian authorities, including members of the Ukrainian armed forces, the State Penitentiary Service, and the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU). 4. In occupied territory of Ukraine and in the Russian Federation, Russian Federation authorities perpetrated acts of sexual violence against Ukrainian POWs and retained medical personnel and detained Ukrainian civilians, including men and women, on a widespread basis. Violations occurred across the full cycle of internment or detention, respectively: upon capture or arrest, during transfer, during admission to internment and detention facilities or places, during interrogation, throughout internment or detention, including during cell searches and showers, and immediately prior to exchange or release. Violations included gang rape, rape, attempted rape, genital mutilation, sexual assault, electric shocks to genitals, beating of genitals, forced nudity, electric shocks or beatings to the body while nude, degrading treatment of a sexual nature, threats of sexual violence, and other forms of sexual violence. Outside the context of detention, in areas under Russian occupation, primarily women and girls were subjected to rape, including gang rape, attempted rape, and sexual assault. They also endured forced nudity, threats of sexual violence, and other forms of sexual violence, mainly in residential settings. 5. The Russian Federation has failed to take any discernible steps to prevent, investigate, or prosecute sexual violence committed by its personnel. It has enacted legal provisions that provide broad impunity for crimes, including sexual violence, committed during military service and has not engaged with OHCHR on the matter of sexual violence. 6. In Government-controlled territory, almost half of the violations by Ukrainian authorities against Russian and third-country national POWs and conflict-related detainees 8 comprised exclusively threats of sexual violence. Violations also included attempted rape, sexual assault, electric shocks to genitals, beating of genitals, forced nudity, electric shocks or beatings to the body while nude, and degrading treatment of a sexual nature, largely perpetrated during the initial stages of captivity. 7. OHCHR notes that the Government of Ukraine has taken a number of concrete steps to prevent and address such violations by its personnel, including through legal reforms, command-level directives, and regular cooperation with OHCHR and other monitoring mechanisms. However, steps toward accountability remain limited: OHCHR is not aware of any cases moving beyond the investigative stage. 8. This document aims to support national and international efforts to ensure truth, justice, and reparation for survivors, and to prevent recurrence. It sets out concrete recommendations to the parties to the conflict, competent national authorities, and international partners to strengthen prevention, protection, accountability, and survivor-centred support. 
|
Daddy loves you. Now go away.
Ruthless ruler of cubicle B300.2C.983
Ruthless ruler of cubicle B300.2C.983
|
Originally Posted By Prime: The former Zelensky loyalist who now wants Ukraine to surrender She was once President Zelensky’s fiercely loyal press secretary, standing by his side as he injected what she described as a “breath of fresh air” into Ukrainian politics. Today, Iuliia Mendel is one of the Ukrainian leader’s most prominent critics. Her social media accounts and interviews are full of unsubstantiated allegations of money laundering and drug use, while she has also criticised what she calls Zelensky’s failure to “make peace” with Russia, even though President Putin has said the war in Ukraine will only end on Moscow’s terms. This week, Zelensky imposed sweeping sanctions on Mendel over her promotion of “disinformation and Russian propaganda” and supporting “Russia’s aggressive policy against Ukraine”. Mendel described the sanctions, which include the blocking of her social media accounts inside Ukraine and asset freezes, as an unconstitutional attempt to muzzle her. Although she wrote in her book, The Fight of Our Lives, which was published in 2022, about Russia’s plans to “exterminate” Ukrainians, Mendel now claims that further resistance is a form of “national suicide” that will only lead to additional misery for ordinary Ukrainians and transform it into a failed state like Afghanistan. “My country is dying … if we choose a bad peace over a bad war, we can try to preserve our independence and restore our economy and democracy,” she told The Times. “We always blame only Putin. We never see the log in our own eyes.” In the event of a peace deal in Ukraine, Mendel said, Russia could be prevented from future military aggression by appeals to “reason, diplomacy and humanity”. Her comments came on the same day that Putin praised Russian soldiers who have been accused of atrocities in Ukraine as “true patriots”. Her shift on the war has sparked suspicions in Ukraine that she is a Russian agent who has been tasked with undermining western support for Kyiv. Mendel denies such allegations. “I have no contacts with Kremlin,” she said. “You can check my telephone.” Born in southern Ukraine’s Kherson region, parts of which are now occupied by Russia, Mendel worked for US media, including The New York Times, before being appointed as Zelensky’s press secretary shortly after his election victory in 2019. She was widely criticised for physically pushing aside Ukrainian and western journalists who tried to ask Zelensky questions. She left her post a few months before the start of Russia’s invasion in 2022 and now lives in the United States with her husband, Pavlo Kukhta, a former Ukrainian deputy economics minister. She has not been to Ukraine since last year. On Wednesday, Mendel was due to speak at the European parliament in Strasbourg at an event called Dare to Make Peace — Diplomacy, Not Escalation. Her appearance was organised by the Alternative for Germany (AfD), the hard-right German political party that wants Berlin to cut all financial and military aid to Ukraine and to end sanctions against Moscow. However, Mendel was barred from entering parliament by security guards, a decision that she linked to Kyiv’s sanctions against her. When asked if she supported the AfD’s stance on severing all aid for Kyiv, she declined to give a direct answer. “I hope to influence the position of the AfD and I hope that they will find a way to end this war,” she said. “You in the West often think that the war is a Hollywood movie and that we have unbreakable spirit. But this is ridiculous.” In her speech, a copy of which she provided to The Times, Mendel planned to tell the European parliament that hopes that Putin could be forced to end his invasion by western sanctions or other pressure were mistaken. “Wishful thinking is a trap, and in my home that trap is measured in thousands of lives,” it read. The US Congress voted on Wednesday to approve a bill that allows President Trump to impose tariffs of 100 per cent on countries like China that purchase Russian oil and gas, as well as target its shadow fleet of oil tankers. Although she does not deny that Putin launched the war, Mendel accused western leaders of caring more about “destroying Russia than saving Ukraine”. She also accused Zelensky of turning Ukraine into a “milder version” of Nazi Germany through forced mobilisation and martial law that was introduced at the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion. Such rhetoric is also a staple of Kremlin propaganda. In a lengthy tirade, she also said that Zelensky had once told her in private that he was an admirer of Joseph Stalin, the Soviet dictator responsible for a famine that killed millions of Ukrainians in the 1930s. She had not previously mentioned the alleged comment. The claim is one of several outlandish allegations that Mendel has made in recent months. In May, during an interview with Tucker Carlson, the former Fox News presenter, she alleged without evidence that Andriy Yermak, Zelensky’s chief aide until November, practised black magic. She also said in the same interview, citing unnamed sources, that Zelensky had told Moscow in 2022 that he would be willing to surrender the Donbas region. Zelensky’s office denied the claim, saying “she hasn’t been herself for a long time”. Mendel’s planned speech in Strasbourg also included praise for Trump, whose administration frequently sides with Moscow over Kyiv. It read: “Only a strong leader can end this war. The hearts of millions are filled with gratitude to Donald Trump for the courage to question a status quo under which the Ukrainian people are condemned.” Like Trump, Mendel has also described Zelensky as a dictator. Such comments have led to suggestions that she may be working with figures within Trump’s Maga movement, rather than directly with Moscow. She has not spoken to Zelensky, she said, since the second month of the war. “Why would I speak to him?” she said. “He just finds any argument to say that this war cannot be over.” Zelensky has said that Ukraine would agree to a ceasefire, a reciprocal withdrawal from the frontline by Russian and Ukrainian troops and the creation of a buffer zone. He has also said that Kyiv would be willing to drop its ambitions to join Nato in return for meaningful security guarantees from western countries. Putin says that Ukraine must surrender the entirety of its Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia regions and that it will target any western troops deployed to the country. Moscow also vowed in August that it would not agree to a ceasefire in Ukraine that would leave the current government in Kyiv in place. The Kremlin has also rejected offers by Zelensky of face-to-face talks with Putin in a third country. Mendel did not say what territories Ukraine should surrender in exchange for peace, citing the threat of treason charges, or outline any other steps to ensure that Moscow does not invade again. Her critics say that giving up land would abandon millions of Ukrainians to a life under a brutal Russian occupation, including in her home region of Kherson. Oleksandr Tolokonnikov, the deputy head of the Kherson region’s military administration, said: “She should understand better than many people what Russian occupation means and what Russia has done to our region. It is very easy to speak about concessions to Russia from a safe place.” An opinion poll released on Tuesday by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology found that 77 per cent of Ukrainians would refuse to surrender to Moscow even if Russian attacks left people without electricity, heat and sewage this winter. Mendel alleged without evidence that the results of the poll had been falsified. A Gallup poll in June said that 66 per cent of Ukrainians wanted to see peace talks to end the war as soon as possible, but did not ask what territories, if any, they would be prepared to cede to Moscow. https://www.thetimes.com/world/russia-ukraine-war/article/iuliia-mendel-zelensky-critic-european-parliament-strasbourg-speech-mgrg5kdhx
Hi Owen, happy to engage on the merits of her statement here. Yes, there is corruption in Ukraine. I’ve actually disagreed with the government’s decision to sanction her, and I’ve been critical of the Zelenskyy government in the past. There are legitimate concerns about silencing critics, and I know people who have been sent to the front because of believed or perceived actions against the government. That is bad. It erodes trust and confidence and should be called out. But acting as though she is some lone, brave truth-teller exposing corruption no one else will discuss is deeply disingenuous. Western media has covered corruption in Ukraine extensively, across the ideological spectrum. Ukrainian journalists and independent outlets do the same every day. A simple search makes that obvious. Of course defense companies profit from war and lobby for defense spending. That is not evidence of some grand conspiracy keeping Ukraine at war. The war continues because Russia invaded Ukraine and continues fighting while demanding additional Ukrainian territory it has not been able to conquer militarily. If Yulia is advocating for Ukraine to give up territory Russia has been unable to take by force, then she needs to say that plainly. Don’t hide behind vague appeals to “peace.” Say what the proposed peace actually requires: Putin retains control of roughly one-fifth of Ukraine, and Ukraine is then expected to hand over additional territory in Donetsk that Russia could not seize on the battlefield. That is not peace as some abstract moral good. That is a specific territorial concession to an aggressor, and it has consequences far beyond Ukraine. If your principle is that a sovereign nation should be compelled to surrender its territory because another country invaded it and the war became costly, then you are hollowing out the very concept of sovereignty. By that same logic, it becomes difficult to explain why borders should be sacrosanct anywhere. You cannot spend years arguing that borders define nations and then suddenly decide that another country’s borders are negotiable because defending them has become inconvenient. And we should be very careful about the precedent that creates. There are striking historical similarities here. History does not repeat itself exactly, but it certainly rhymes. Chamberlain also believed territorial concessions could satisfy an aggressor and purchase peace. The lesson of Munich is not that every negotiation is appeasement. It is that concessions made without changing the aggressor’s underlying calculation can simply buy time for the next act of aggression. And frankly, I would rather hear a serious argument for that position than endless boo-hooing about “world peace” like we are answering a question in a beauty pageant. Everyone wants peace. That tells us nothing. Tell me what you are actually advocating. Are you arguing that Putin should retain the Ukrainian territory Russia currently occupies? Say so. Are you arguing that Ukraine should surrender the remainder of Donetsk that Russia has failed to conquer? Say so. Are you arguing that Ukrainians who fought and died defending those communities should now watch them handed to the country that invaded them? Say so. Then defend that argument on its merits. And conservatives should be especially careful here. We cannot profess belief in national sovereignty, secure borders, deterrence, territorial integrity, and the nation-state and then abandon every one of those principles the moment they become inconvenient overseas. Those values either mean something or they do not. Peace may ultimately require painful compromises chosen by Ukrainians themselves. But advocating a sovereign country surrender land to an invading power is not some morally superior position simply because you attach the word “peace” to it. Surrender is not peace. And we will have become profoundly morally confused if we start pretending those two things are synonymous.
Women should not be making decisions on security vs freedom. They instinctively always choose safety at the cost of freedom which leads to slavery. |
... in which thousands of Russians could be drafted.
|
|
Originally Posted By mooreshawnm: Taking Iran off the board prior to those conflicts would look brilliant. We tried. Something got fucked up. Bad Intel on Iranian capabilities vs what it would take (ordinance) to get a capitulation? Or the intel was ignored due to bad political ambitions? Probably an "all of the above" fuck-up. I think the real window of opportunity was summer of 2025 when Israel achieved air-superiority over Iran and all we contributed were the 12 MOP holes followed by threats against Israel to stop attacking Iran, then Trump bragging about "saving the mullahs". The 30-40,000 Iranian protesters murdered a few months later could have come in handy in 2025. Instead, with Trump's idiotic stop-and-go, restrained attack strategy, Iran had the chance to regroup, learn, adapt, and reorganize after every US strike campaign. Similar mistake that Putin made going in against Ukraine piecemeal since 2014 hardened and militarized Ukraine. I guess similar to japan's attack on Pearl Harbor mobilized the USA. |
|
Originally Posted By AlmightyTallest: S-300 Clone missiles. The US defense industry will be making them, so we get to keep our Patriot lines humming, and now we supply a specific replacement to help the Ukrainians. This "S-300 clone" sounds great. Why havnt we heard of it before? How does it compare to the Patriot? In cost and capability? Is this S-300 clone strictly anti-aircraft and anti-cruise missile missile? Or can it have some ballistic missile capabilities? Where does this US made S-300 come in compared with existing systems like IRIS-T etc? |
|
Originally Posted By ITCHY-FINGER: We tried. Something got fucked up. Bad Intel on Iranian capabilities vs what it would take (ordinance) to get a capitulation? Or the intel was ignored due to bad political ambitions? Probably an "all of the above" fuck-up. I think the real window of opportunity was summer of 2025 when Israel achieved air-superiority over Iran and all we contributed were the 12 MOP holes followed by threats against Israel to stop attacking Iran, then Trump bragging about "saving the mullahs". The 30-40,000 Iranian protesters murdered a few months later could have come in handy in 2025. Instead, with Trump's idiotic stop-and-go, restrained attack strategy, Iran had the chance to regroup, learn, adapt, and reorganize after every US strike campaign. Similar mistake that Putin made going in against Ukraine piecemeal since 2014 hardened and militarized Ukraine. I guess similar to japan's attack on Pearl Harbor mobilized the USA. Originally Posted By ITCHY-FINGER: Originally Posted By mooreshawnm: Taking Iran off the board prior to those conflicts would look brilliant. We tried. Something got fucked up. Bad Intel on Iranian capabilities vs what it would take (ordinance) to get a capitulation? Or the intel was ignored due to bad political ambitions? Probably an "all of the above" fuck-up. I think the real window of opportunity was summer of 2025 when Israel achieved air-superiority over Iran and all we contributed were the 12 MOP holes followed by threats against Israel to stop attacking Iran, then Trump bragging about "saving the mullahs". The 30-40,000 Iranian protesters murdered a few months later could have come in handy in 2025. Instead, with Trump's idiotic stop-and-go, restrained attack strategy, Iran had the chance to regroup, learn, adapt, and reorganize after every US strike campaign. Similar mistake that Putin made going in against Ukraine piecemeal since 2014 hardened and militarized Ukraine. I guess similar to japan's attack on Pearl Harbor mobilized the USA. It isn't over (and I'm one that went ballistic over the MOU). |
China delenda est
|
Originally Posted By Zhukov: I'll just leave this here... Sexual Violence in the Context of the Russian Federation Full-Scale Armed Attack against Ukraine What a nice bunch of boys. Im surprised the UN declared this. Seems like they are describing a typical UN peacekeeper deployment... |
|
Originally Posted By ITCHY-FINGER: Maybe there IS something looming from Russia and Trump used the pressure to secure a big deal. "Greenland or you fight Russia alone"...? Originally Posted By ITCHY-FINGER: Originally Posted By GBTX01:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HSh84e9aAAA5vuz?format=jpg&name=900x900
Maybe there IS something looming from Russia and Trump used the pressure to secure a big deal. "Greenland or you fight Russia alone"...? Defense of Greenland |
|
Originally Posted By nomansland: @Citadel-SC Google suggests that NATO without the US already has ~200 F35, and more on order. Do you really think Russia could defend their airspace against 5th gen fighters? Originally Posted By nomansland: Originally Posted By Citadel-SC: Originally Posted By Longshore87: Originally Posted By 15fanatic: Yep. A year ago I would have said 'no way', but I've got a bad feeling Putin is going to do it. I really wonder if its true about Putin being lied to about the war and believing a completely alternate version of reality. If certain people convince him he can end NATO with an attack, then who knows. Of course we have some very stupid leaders who encourage that line of thinking:
It's unlikely that Putin lacks a solid understanding of the overall situation, he spent his career as an intelligence officer. Mark Rutte has been warning for more than a year about what may come next: Russia engages NATO while coordinating with China, then makes its move. In my view, Russia would target the infrastructure that sustains Ukraine's war effort and Europe's critical infrastructure. It would avoid a ground invasion of NATO territory, since that would expose Russian forces to rapid defeat. Instead, it would rely on drones and missiles. This would place NATO in a difficult position: respond in kind, or launch ground forces into Russia itself? If that unfolds, the next moves would rest largely with China. Color me highly skeptical, I just don't see it happening. Sounds like more European fear mongering as potential election defeats in Germany and France loom on the horizon. With that said, if Russia wants to restablish deterrence, I don't see any other way. And quite frankly, it would probably work especially if the U.S. sits it out and tries to play peacemaker. No better time than when the U.S. is distracted and you have a president with nothing but contempt for the European establishment. I agree, it would not be a ground campaign from either side but a trading of strategic strikes. But Europe can't do much more than what Ukraine is already doing as most of their capabilities are already being funneled there. And if Putin can convince the Chinese to turn off the drone component faucet to Europe, then they, and by extension Ukraine, will have issues building out to scale. I still don't get all the Putin must go hate as he's been very restrained on this issue, and many would argue weak. Like I said in another post, if we were in this position, we'd have shut it down already. Seems like the pro Ukraine crowd should want him to stay. Or one can also argue he's just incredibly patient and this is his natural and planned conclusion to a clever attritional campaign. I gave up trying to figure all this out. @Citadel-SC Google suggests that NATO without the US already has ~200 F35, and more on order. Do you really think Russia could defend their airspace against 5th gen fighters? "On order" is the key phrase. |
|
Originally Posted By AlmightyTallest: True, but if we know they are getting them ready, it sort of helps even the playing field if we start hitting their launch sites before they launch them. The whole reason we made Super-Fuze, think about the possibilities this system provides the US if we have to launch. Also remember if the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists is worried about a U.S. capability, it's actually a good thing. Very interesting reading, and look at the dates this was introduced. Anyone thinking we will wait to be fired on with what is at stake just doesn't have the information to know that we actually might fire first in some situations. https://thebulletin.org/2017/03/how-us-nuclear-force-modernization-is-undermining-strategic-stability-the-burst-height-compensating-super-fuze/ https://fas.org/publication/super-fuze/ https://thebulletin.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Figure-1-Postol-new_4.jpg.optimal.jpg https://thebulletin.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Figure-3-Postol-new_1.jpg.optimal.jpg https://thebulletin.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Figure-4-Postol-2.jpg.optimal.jpg https://thebulletin.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Figure-5-Postol-2_1.jpg.optimal.jpg https://thebulletin.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Figure-7-Postol-last-correx-II_0.jpg.optimal.jpg Originally Posted By AlmightyTallest: Originally Posted By absael: Originally Posted By AlmightyTallest: Originally Posted By Lieh-tzu: Originally Posted By AlmightyTallest: It's better if we just launch first if we know they are thinking about it. Satellite Failures: Russia’s space-based missile detection relies on a small constellation of "Tundra" satellites. Tracking data reveals frequent technical failures, leaving Moscow with barely enough operational satellites to provide continuous, 24/7 global coverage of US missile silos Radar Vulnerabilities: Because their space layer is weak, Russia relies heavily on ground-based Voronezh over-the-horizon radars. However, these radars only see missiles once they rise above the horizon, slashing Russia's decision-making window to a mere 15 to 30 minutes. Furthermore, some of these critical radars have been damaged or degraded by long-range drone strikes The US holds a massive technological edge in space-based surveillance, tracking, and early warning. If Russia were to launch first, the US would know almost instantly. If the US launches first, Russia's technical degradation means its leadership might not realize an attack is underway until minutes later US first-strike capability is off-the-chart scary good. Not just the above, but our accuracy is WAY better than theirs, our reliability is way better than theirs. Does Sarmat even work? I hope that since old treaties are no longer in force, we've restored full MIRV capability in the Tridents. Of course, we aren't going to launch a first strike, so it's a moot point. Well, the failure rate of Russian nukes is pretty bad, so I wouldn't want to be launching them from my home soil if they have a good chance of comimg back down on me. The Bulava Test Failures: During its initial development and flight testing phase, the Bulava became infamous for spectacular failures. Out of its first 12 to 20 official test launches from submarines like the Dmitry Donskoi and Yuri Dolgorukiy, about 40% to 50% failed. Missiles regularly veered off course, suffered booster malfunctions, or had to be remotely self-destroyed. Independent military analysts at the time estimated the true early failure rate was even higher Manufacturing Defects: Even after being fast-tracked into official service, failures continued. For instance, a submerged salvo test from the Vladimir Monomakh resulted in one missile self-destructing during its boost phase and the other completely missing its target due to factory production defects The pattern of testing failures is even worse for Russia's newest silo-based heavy intercontinental ballistic missile, the RS-28 Sarmat (commonly referred to by NATO as "Satan II"). The Sarmat Test Record: The Sarmat has suffered an abysmal 80% failure rate in known flight tests. Catastrophic Disasters: Out of 5 attempted test flights, 4 ended in total failure. The most high-profile disaster occurred during a test when the missile suffered a catastrophic mechanical failure or failed to ignite properly upon ejection. It fell back directly into its silo at the Plesetsk Cosmodrome, exploding and leaving a massive 60-meter-wide crater that completely destroyed the launchpad, as verified by commercial satellite imagery Western intelligence and independent defense analysts attribute these extreme failure rates to several systemic problems within the Russian military-industrial complex: Corruption and Lack of Quality Control: Systemic corruption often leads to the siphoning of military budgets and the use of substandard, counterfeit, or un-audited components in highly sensitive rocket engines. Rushed Production Timelines: Political pressure from the Kremlin to showcase "invincible" weapons has forced engineers to bypass standard, incremental testing procedures—such as skipping land-based pop-up tests before loading experimental missiles directly onto submarines I can't say that any of this surprises me. But it seems that they might try to make up for the quality with quantity. True, but if we know they are getting them ready, it sort of helps even the playing field if we start hitting their launch sites before they launch them. The whole reason we made Super-Fuze, think about the possibilities this system provides the US if we have to launch. Also remember if the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists is worried about a U.S. capability, it's actually a good thing. Very interesting reading, and look at the dates this was introduced. Anyone thinking we will wait to be fired on with what is at stake just doesn't have the information to know that we actually might fire first in some situations. https://thebulletin.org/2017/03/how-us-nuclear-force-modernization-is-undermining-strategic-stability-the-burst-height-compensating-super-fuze/ https://fas.org/publication/super-fuze/ Under the cover of an otherwise legitimate life-extension of the W76 warhead, the Navy has quietly added a new super-fuze to the warhead that dramatically increases the ability of the Navy to destroy hard targets in Russia and other adversaries. In a new article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Matthew McKinzie from NRDC, Theodore A. Postol from MIT, and I describe the impact of the super-fuze on the targeting capability of the US SSBN force and how it might effect strategic stability. The new super-fuze dramatically increases the capability of the W76 warhead to destroy hard targets, such as Russian ICBM silos. We estimate that the super-fuze capability is now operational on all nuclear warheads deployed on the Navy’s Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines. The new fuze has also been installed on warheads on British SSBN. “As a consequence, the US submarine force today is much more capable than it was previously against hardened targets such as Russian ICBM silos. A decade ago, only about 20 percent of US submarine warheads had hard-target kill capability; today they all do.” The new article builds on previous work by Ted Postol and myself but with new analysis explaining how the super-fuze works. In the article we conclude that the SSBN force, rather than simply being a stable retaliatory capability, with the new super-fuze increasingly will be seen as a front-line, first-strike weapon that is likely to further fuel trigger-happy, worst-case planning in other nuclear-armed states. https://thebulletin.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Figure-1-Postol-new_4.jpg.optimal.jpg https://thebulletin.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Figure-3-Postol-new_1.jpg.optimal.jpg https://thebulletin.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Figure-4-Postol-2.jpg.optimal.jpg https://thebulletin.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Figure-5-Postol-2_1.jpg.optimal.jpg https://thebulletin.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Figure-7-Postol-last-correx-II_0.jpg.optimal.jpg The article on thebulletin was very good. While we’re on the topic of sub-launched nukes, here’s an article on SLCM-N. It was just published yesterday, so it’s possible that more info may be forthcoming. https://defence-blog.com/u-s-navy-advances-first-new-nuke-since-cold-war/ Another article providing a bit more context https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12084 |
Send lawyers, guns, and money.
Arfcom's favorite midnight DG shelf stocker
Joined:
Apr 2004
Posts:
77535
EE: 100% (26)
UKR
|
Originally Posted By Haub: ... in which thousands of Russians could be drafted.
The Russians are going to attack Europe. Again. Believe nothing until the kremlin denies it |
connoisseur of fine Soviet and European armored vehicles since 2007.
Thank you to the unknown person who bought me a membership.
Thank you to the unknown person who bought me a membership.
Arfcom's favorite midnight DG shelf stocker
Joined:
Apr 2004
Posts:
77537
EE: 100% (26)
UKR
|
Originally Posted By ITCHY-FINGER: Women should not be making decisions on security vs freedom. They instinctively always choose safety at the cost of freedom which leads to slavery. I have no problems with women in positions of leadership. I do have a problem with her surrender ideology. It’s not limited to women but men also. Attached File |
connoisseur of fine Soviet and European armored vehicles since 2007.
Thank you to the unknown person who bought me a membership.
Thank you to the unknown person who bought me a membership.
Arfcom's favorite midnight DG shelf stocker
Joined:
Apr 2004
Posts:
77538
EE: 100% (26)
UKR
|
Originally Posted By AlmightyTallest: S-300 Clone missiles. The US defense industry will be making them, so we get to keep our Patriot lines humming, and now we supply a specific replacement to help the Ukrainians. That’s cool as hell. Thanks for sharing AT  The USA is now making s300 missiles, basically
|
connoisseur of fine Soviet and European armored vehicles since 2007.
Thank you to the unknown person who bought me a membership.
Thank you to the unknown person who bought me a membership.
Arfcom's favorite midnight DG shelf stocker
Joined:
Apr 2004
Posts:
77539
EE: 100% (26)
UKR
|
Originally Posted By ITCHY-FINGER: This "S-300 clone" sounds great. Why havnt we heard of it before? How does it compare to the Patriot? In cost and capability? Is this S-300 clone strictly anti-aircraft and anti-cruise missile missile? Or can it have some ballistic missile capabilities? Where does this US made S-300 come in compared with existing systems like IRIS-T etc? Some s300 systems such as the V are capable of ABM interception. |
connoisseur of fine Soviet and European armored vehicles since 2007.
Thank you to the unknown person who bought me a membership.
Thank you to the unknown person who bought me a membership.
Arfcom's favorite midnight DG shelf stocker
Joined:
Apr 2004
Posts:
77540
EE: 100% (26)
UKR
| https://en.defence-ua.com/news/what_is_known_about_s_300_clone_gam_67_missiles_in_268_billion_us_aid_package_for_ukraine-19832.html |
connoisseur of fine Soviet and European armored vehicles since 2007.
Thank you to the unknown person who bought me a membership.
Thank you to the unknown person who bought me a membership.
Joined:
Sep 2022
Posts:
3439
EE: 0% (0)
USA
|
Originally Posted By ITCHY-FINGER: This "S-300 clone" sounds great. Why havnt we heard of it before? How does it compare to the Patriot? In cost and capability? Is this S-300 clone strictly anti-aircraft and anti-cruise missile missile? Or can it have some ballistic missile capabilities? Where does this US made S-300 come in compared with existing systems like IRIS-T etc? It probably 'comes in' the launchers Ukraine has in quantity from its Soviet days. |
|
Originally Posted By ITCHY-FINGER: This "S-300 clone" sounds great. Why havnt we heard of it before? How does it compare to the Patriot? In cost and capability? Is this S-300 clone strictly anti-aircraft and anti-cruise missile missile? Or can it have some ballistic missile capabilities? Where does this US made S-300 come in compared with existing systems like IRIS-T etc? Originally Posted By ITCHY-FINGER: Originally Posted By AlmightyTallest: S-300 Clone missiles. The US defense industry will be making them, so we get to keep our Patriot lines humming, and now we supply a specific replacement to help the Ukrainians. This "S-300 clone" sounds great. Why havnt we heard of it before? How does it compare to the Patriot? In cost and capability? Is this S-300 clone strictly anti-aircraft and anti-cruise missile missile? Or can it have some ballistic missile capabilities? Where does this US made S-300 come in compared with existing systems like IRIS-T etc? We can't tell you guys everyting we are cooking up, this is just one thing that got declassified. The surprises are part of the fun! You haven't heard of it because it was a highly classified joint U.S.-Ukrainian development project (under the "FrankenSAM" umbrella) that only began in late 2024 and was officially designated in public foreign military sale papers on September 18, 2026. Ukraine owns dozens of legacy Soviet-era S-300 launchers, but they ran completely out of interceptor missiles, which are only manufactured in Russia. To prevent these massive launcher fleets from becoming useless junk, the U.S. and its European partners secretly engineered a brand new, American-made missile designed to fit into and fire out of old Ukrainian S-300 batteries. Significantly Cheaper. Uses legacy infrastructure; designed for affordable mass production. Modern U.S. guidance fitted to a generic frame to utilize Soviet radar/launch networks. It is a "workhorse" designed to take the burden off the Patriot by shooting down cheaper threats like Kalibr cruise missiles and Shahed drones, saving elite Patriot missiles for fast ballistic threats. Compared to IRIS-T? The S-300 Clone skips the logistical line entirely. It uses Western technology for the missile itself (rumored to use a modern active-radar seeker rather than a perfect replica of the old Soviet 5V55 tracking system) but plugs directly into a country's pre-existing, widespread S-300 hardware footprint. In short, systems like IRIS-T require importing a whole new tactical ecosystem; the S-300 Clone simply puts deadly new "arrows" into old, empty quivers that troops already know how to use |
It's not stupid, it's advanced!!
|
Originally Posted By absael: The article on thebulletin was very good. While we’re on the topic of sub-launched nukes, here’s an article on SLCM-N. It was just published yesterday, so it’s possible that more info may be forthcoming. https://defence-blog.com/u-s-navy-advances-first-new-nuke-since-cold-war/ Another article providing a bit more context https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12084 Originally Posted By absael: Originally Posted By AlmightyTallest: Originally Posted By absael: Originally Posted By AlmightyTallest: Originally Posted By Lieh-tzu: Originally Posted By AlmightyTallest: It's better if we just launch first if we know they are thinking about it. Satellite Failures: Russia’s space-based missile detection relies on a small constellation of "Tundra" satellites. Tracking data reveals frequent technical failures, leaving Moscow with barely enough operational satellites to provide continuous, 24/7 global coverage of US missile silos Radar Vulnerabilities: Because their space layer is weak, Russia relies heavily on ground-based Voronezh over-the-horizon radars. However, these radars only see missiles once they rise above the horizon, slashing Russia's decision-making window to a mere 15 to 30 minutes. Furthermore, some of these critical radars have been damaged or degraded by long-range drone strikes The US holds a massive technological edge in space-based surveillance, tracking, and early warning. If Russia were to launch first, the US would know almost instantly. If the US launches first, Russia's technical degradation means its leadership might not realize an attack is underway until minutes later US first-strike capability is off-the-chart scary good. Not just the above, but our accuracy is WAY better than theirs, our reliability is way better than theirs. Does Sarmat even work? I hope that since old treaties are no longer in force, we've restored full MIRV capability in the Tridents. Of course, we aren't going to launch a first strike, so it's a moot point. Well, the failure rate of Russian nukes is pretty bad, so I wouldn't want to be launching them from my home soil if they have a good chance of comimg back down on me. The Bulava Test Failures: During its initial development and flight testing phase, the Bulava became infamous for spectacular failures. Out of its first 12 to 20 official test launches from submarines like the Dmitry Donskoi and Yuri Dolgorukiy, about 40% to 50% failed. Missiles regularly veered off course, suffered booster malfunctions, or had to be remotely self-destroyed. Independent military analysts at the time estimated the true early failure rate was even higher Manufacturing Defects: Even after being fast-tracked into official service, failures continued. For instance, a submerged salvo test from the Vladimir Monomakh resulted in one missile self-destructing during its boost phase and the other completely missing its target due to factory production defects The pattern of testing failures is even worse for Russia's newest silo-based heavy intercontinental ballistic missile, the RS-28 Sarmat (commonly referred to by NATO as "Satan II"). The Sarmat Test Record: The Sarmat has suffered an abysmal 80% failure rate in known flight tests. Catastrophic Disasters: Out of 5 attempted test flights, 4 ended in total failure. The most high-profile disaster occurred during a test when the missile suffered a catastrophic mechanical failure or failed to ignite properly upon ejection. It fell back directly into its silo at the Plesetsk Cosmodrome, exploding and leaving a massive 60-meter-wide crater that completely destroyed the launchpad, as verified by commercial satellite imagery Western intelligence and independent defense analysts attribute these extreme failure rates to several systemic problems within the Russian military-industrial complex: Corruption and Lack of Quality Control: Systemic corruption often leads to the siphoning of military budgets and the use of substandard, counterfeit, or un-audited components in highly sensitive rocket engines. Rushed Production Timelines: Political pressure from the Kremlin to showcase "invincible" weapons has forced engineers to bypass standard, incremental testing procedures—such as skipping land-based pop-up tests before loading experimental missiles directly onto submarines I can't say that any of this surprises me. But it seems that they might try to make up for the quality with quantity. True, but if we know they are getting them ready, it sort of helps even the playing field if we start hitting their launch sites before they launch them. The whole reason we made Super-Fuze, think about the possibilities this system provides the US if we have to launch. Also remember if the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists is worried about a U.S. capability, it's actually a good thing. Very interesting reading, and look at the dates this was introduced. Anyone thinking we will wait to be fired on with what is at stake just doesn't have the information to know that we actually might fire first in some situations. https://thebulletin.org/2017/03/how-us-nuclear-force-modernization-is-undermining-strategic-stability-the-burst-height-compensating-super-fuze/ https://fas.org/publication/super-fuze/ Under the cover of an otherwise legitimate life-extension of the W76 warhead, the Navy has quietly added a new super-fuze to the warhead that dramatically increases the ability of the Navy to destroy hard targets in Russia and other adversaries. In a new article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Matthew McKinzie from NRDC, Theodore A. Postol from MIT, and I describe the impact of the super-fuze on the targeting capability of the US SSBN force and how it might effect strategic stability. The new super-fuze dramatically increases the capability of the W76 warhead to destroy hard targets, such as Russian ICBM silos. We estimate that the super-fuze capability is now operational on all nuclear warheads deployed on the Navy’s Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines. The new fuze has also been installed on warheads on British SSBN. “As a consequence, the US submarine force today is much more capable than it was previously against hardened targets such as Russian ICBM silos. A decade ago, only about 20 percent of US submarine warheads had hard-target kill capability; today they all do.” The new article builds on previous work by Ted Postol and myself but with new analysis explaining how the super-fuze works. In the article we conclude that the SSBN force, rather than simply being a stable retaliatory capability, with the new super-fuze increasingly will be seen as a front-line, first-strike weapon that is likely to further fuel trigger-happy, worst-case planning in other nuclear-armed states. https://thebulletin.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Figure-1-Postol-new_4.jpg.optimal.jpg https://thebulletin.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Figure-3-Postol-new_1.jpg.optimal.jpg https://thebulletin.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Figure-4-Postol-2.jpg.optimal.jpg https://thebulletin.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Figure-5-Postol-2_1.jpg.optimal.jpg https://thebulletin.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Figure-7-Postol-last-correx-II_0.jpg.optimal.jpg The article on thebulletin was very good. While we’re on the topic of sub-launched nukes, here’s an article on SLCM-N. It was just published yesterday, so it’s possible that more info may be forthcoming. https://defence-blog.com/u-s-navy-advances-first-new-nuke-since-cold-war/ Another article providing a bit more context https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12084 Greatly appreciated man, thanks for the links. 
|
It's not stupid, it's advanced!!
|
Originally Posted By fadedsun: That’s cool as hell. Thanks for sharing AT The USA is now making s300 missiles, basically Originally Posted By fadedsun: Originally Posted By AlmightyTallest: S-300 Clone missiles. The US defense industry will be making them, so we get to keep our Patriot lines humming, and now we supply a specific replacement to help the Ukrainians. That’s cool as hell. Thanks for sharing AT The USA is now making s300 missiles, basically Yes, but again still better than the origional, a budget option. |
It's not stupid, it's advanced!!
|
Surprise! The development of these missiles has been underway for some time. Despite fears that the Trump administration would cut off funding, the opposite has happened, with funding actually increasing. This may reflect U.S. efforts to develop mass-produced, inexpensive, and versatile anti-aircraft missiles that can be integrated into different air defense systems. |
It's not stupid, it's advanced!!
|
Russia's elections start Sunday. All over the world. I don't know what's going on with this page, I can't seem to copy text to paste into a quote box, so just take the link. If I wanted to protest at the Russian election sites, looks like I'd have to go to the consulate in NY. We should have closed their consulates and expelled all non-essential staff. |
Joined:
Apr 2026
Posts:
181
EE: 0% (0)
MN, USA
|
Originally Posted By WoodHeat: It doesn't really seem like a "big deal". It seems to be merely a clarification of the Defense of Greenland Agreement of 1951. Defense of Greenland It is vastly different agreement than the one that use to be in place. Literally a night and day difference. |
Joined:
Apr 2026
Posts:
182
EE: 0% (0)
MN, USA
Lol
All EU sanctions linked to Russia's war may expire as France, Slovakia seek to delist oligarchs |
|
Originally Posted By fadedsun: Some s300 systems such as the V are capable of ABM interception. According to the Russians...I hope some Ukrainian ballistic missiles put it to the test SOON! I guess any new missile for Ukraine (and the free world) is a good thing. I just want the price vs capability vs production rate to make sense. If all it can do is shoot down a WWI biplane BUT costs only $200 and churns out 100K per month, I'll happily take it... I dont want to see $2 million Patriots downing $30K Shaheeds anymore. |
|
So very little is actually known. Anyway, thanks for posting. It will be hilarious if the US makes a better S-300 and shuts out Russian foreign sales
|
|
Originally Posted By AlmightyTallest: We can't tell you guys everyting we are cooking up, this is just one thing that got declassified. The surprises are part of the fun! You haven't heard of it because it was a highly classified joint U.S.-Ukrainian development project (under the "FrankenSAM" umbrella) that only began in late 2024 and was officially designated in public foreign military sale papers on September 18, 2026. Ukraine owns dozens of legacy Soviet-era S-300 launchers, but they ran completely out of interceptor missiles, which are only manufactured in Russia. To prevent these massive launcher fleets from becoming useless junk, the U.S. and its European partners secretly engineered a brand new, American-made missile designed to fit into and fire out of old Ukrainian S-300 batteries. Significantly Cheaper. Uses legacy infrastructure; designed for affordable mass production. Modern U.S. guidance fitted to a generic frame to utilize Soviet radar/launch networks. It is a "workhorse" designed to take the burden off the Patriot by shooting down cheaper threats like Kalibr cruise missiles and Shahed drones, saving elite Patriot missiles for fast ballistic threats. Compared to IRIS-T? The S-300 Clone skips the logistical line entirely. It uses Western technology for the missile itself (rumored to use a modern active-radar seeker rather than a perfect replica of the old Soviet 5V55 tracking system) but plugs directly into a country's pre-existing, widespread S-300 hardware footprint. In short, systems like IRIS-T require importing a whole new tactical ecosystem; the S-300 Clone simply puts deadly new "arrows" into old, empty quivers that troops already know how to use Sounds fantastic! Thanks for the details. Basically like PSA making cheap 7.62X39 and 5.45X39 match ammo... |
|
Originally Posted By ITCHY-FINGER: So very little is actually known. Anyway, thanks for posting. It will be hilarious if the US makes a better S-300 and shuts out Russian foreign sales Nonsense, we WANT inferior Russian defense tech in world arsenals.  Excepting only our allies. |