Caribou Gear

Ukraine / Russia

Rhcuam

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2021
Messages
335
If anybody here thinks $*)Q!#@$ Russia is still a $*)Q!#@$ neer peer adversary you’re out of your $*)Q!#@$ mind. And I’m pretty $*)Q!#@$ sure I said that exact same thing about 75 pages ago somewhere.
 

SAJ-99

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 5, 2019
Messages
2,640
Location
E Washington
*Warning: Opinion of some guy who listened to a podcast and doesn't know what he is talking about*


I can't remember the podcast I listened to, but it was some guy who seemed to really be knowledgeable about warfare, kill chains, and what folks are learning by watching Russia struggle in Ukraine. Basically, his take was that China has got to be watching what has happened to Russia and should be very hesitant to committing their large ships to a large offensive in the Straits of Taiwan, which would be necessary in an invasion. The big, expensive, and slow machines of war may be a thing of the past, because if it can be located, it can be destroyed - and cheaply at that. Taiwan should be watching the same war and investing heavily in drones and things that blow the big, expensive, and slow machines of war up. They aren't looking to go on the offensive.

It made sense to me, and it could've just been a guy talking, but bombardment and invasion are two very different things, and his take was that the latter could be very costly for China and in particular its navy.
This is a great point. Everyone kind of blew by it to complain about the $billion spent or nuclear possibilities, blah blah. There has not been a major confrontation between military powers in the modern age of computers, satellites, etc. This conflict is as close as we have come and there are analysts looking at every move, both on the battle field and in cyberspace. Every day is a learning opportunity.
 

wllm

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
15,259
Location
Boston
If anybody here thinks $*)Q!#@$ Russia is still a $*)Q!#@$ neer peer adversary you’re out of your $*)Q!#@$ mind. And I’m pretty $*)Q!#@$ sure I said that exact same thing about 75 pages ago somewhere.
Devils in the details right...

In a head to head all in air battle... no way

Trying to maintain a no fly zone over a third part country when your acceptable casualties number is 0 absolutely.

My read on that article is the latter, compared to say a nation that is still flying F-14As and Mig 29s like Iran/Syria etc.

Russia in a specific, localized encounter definitely has the ability to shoot down our very best planes.
 

TOGIE

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
2,546
Location
CO
Devils in the details right...

In a head to head all in air battle... no way

Trying to maintain a no fly zone over a third part country when your acceptable casualties number is 0 absolutely.

My read on that article is the latter, compared to say a nation that is still flying F-14As and Mig 29s like Iran/Syria etc.

Russia in a specific, localized encounter definitely has the ability to shoot down our very best planes.

yeah, i mean, considering ukraine is managing to shoot down russian planes from the surface and with their own air assets. it's the same thing, the russian air force should, actually should, dominate ukraine, but they're still losing assets, a lot of them.

imposing a no fly zone over ukraine, while we could probably ultimately dominate it, we'd lose a lot of assets and lives. not to mention kick off world war 3
 

noharleyyet

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
34,200
Location
TEXAS
yeah, i mean, considering ukraine is managing to shoot down russian planes from the surface and with their own air assets. it's the same thing, the russian air force should, actually should, dominate ukraine, but they're still losing assets, a lot of them.

imposing a no fly zone over ukraine, while we could probably ultimately dominate it, we'd lose a lot of assets and lives. not to mention kick off world war 3
Flummoxed for 172 pages we are...
 

SAJ-99

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 5, 2019
Messages
2,640
Location
E Washington
yeah, i mean, considering ukraine is managing to shoot down russian planes from the surface and with their own air assets. it's the same thing, the russian air force should, actually should, dominate ukraine, but they're still losing assets, a lot of them.

imposing a no fly zone over ukraine, while we could probably ultimately dominate it, we'd lose a lot of assets and lives. not to mention kick off world war 3
Pretty clear that a smaller, more mobile group with the right weapons can lock up a larger army. Very similar to the past “rules” where armies would group on opposite sides of a battle field and March toward each other in organized fashion. Then someone came up with the idea to strike and move, and maybe hide behind a rock or tree. 😀 It changed the “rules” of warfare. There is some saying, that I clearly don’t know, that says something like nothing can disrupt a good military plan like a well hidden sniper.
 

TwistedSage

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 19, 2018
Messages
660
Location
Eastern NM

TwistedSage

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 19, 2018
Messages
660
Location
Eastern NM

VikingsGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2017
Messages
9,324
Location
Twin Cities
If we're still playing the numbers game the US has more active aircraft carries than most all other countries combined. We have 11, the most other countries have is 2.




No doubt US is head and shoulders largest, most sophisticated military on planet. And with reasonably high moral.

My concerns for US if we get into true all out conventional war are:

1. Can we replace/build materials of war over 2-5 yr span given shortcomings in manufacturing capacity, critical raw material production and semi-conductors?

2. We really love our aircraft carriers, but my guess is in modern warfare they have a life expectancy of about 10 days. Too easy for a $100,000 missile to sink a $10billion dollar ship.

3. Our strength and Achilles heal is our “connected” “smart” combined arms. How effective will we be if satellite positioning and comms are disrupted.

Of course the other contenders have to address their own concerns (including some of these), but my guess is all out conventional war would be messier than today’s fancy systems suggest.

All that said, if we can fix #1 and remain “the arsenal of democracy”, there really isn’t a number 2 contender.
 
Last edited:

TwistedSage

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 19, 2018
Messages
660
Location
Eastern NM
Replying to VG

1. Absolutely not we rely heavily on German naval propulsion systems. The hulls are laid in shipyards that reside in America. Notice I said shipyards that reside in America because not all yards that build our ship are American owned.(example being the new LCS class ships, prime construction contracts awarded to LM and General Dynamics, who in turn subbed out the actual construction to italian and Australian owned shipyards in WI and AL respectively.)A lot of piping, valves, hvac systems are American but a lot of the more important components are foreign made. Germany has us by the balls there.

2. Carries do not go out by themselves, they will be with a carrier group made out of several ship classes intended to protect the carrier.

3. Yep bingo, this is why boots on the ground fighters will never be obsolete. Luckily I think we stack up there too.
 

Sytes

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
10,655
Location
Montana
Begins at approx 2:30... First portion is Think Tank intro.

This is a very impressive reflection and "Professional opinions" by a four star general with an extensive resume.
 

wllm

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
15,259
Location
Boston
2. We really love our aircraft carriers, but my guess is in modern warfare they have a life expectancy of about 10 days. Too easy for a $100,000 missile to sink a $10billion dollar ship.
Again this is kinda goes to context, and what is war in the modern era.

A war like Ukraine is just not going to happen between nuclear powers, that being said if you just snapped your fingers and made all the nukes disappear then every country but the US is at a massive disadvantage as they completely lack the infrastructure to deliver and deploy assets.

Carriers are just floating bases, I think your comment is a bit more applicable to capital ships which is why battle ships, heavy destroyers, and even cruisers have disappeared.

As a nuclear power it's not so much about big battles as projecting power and deploying assets. We'd likely be launching nukes before we started losing carriers is kinda the point I'm making. It's also why we have bases all over the place + lily pads. Especially when you compare our deployments to Russia.


1660243401946.png
1660243480726.png
 

Benfromalbuquerque

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 15, 2020
Messages
454
A redline has been crossed. We cannot let the crime against humanity known as Steven Seagal continue.

It is wrong for a celebrity to openly doubt what what is permissible behavior. Thereby indirectly permitting war crimes against civilians targets.

But at least this particular jerk didn't have the highest security clearance and then meet privately with Putin. Like who does that? 🤣
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
102,558
Messages
1,655,126
Members
32,036
Latest member
jackmathew
Top