Ukraine / Russia
- Thread starter Cheesehead
- Start date
Irrelevant
Well-known member
No. Because the Europeans aren't even in school yet.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Where is the “ignore Russsian bot” button on HT? Asking for a friend. 
SAJ-99
Well-known member
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.
KB_
Well-known member
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
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
R
rwc101
Guest
In Russia SAM shoot you.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Flummoxed for 172 pages we are...
SAJ-99
Well-known member
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
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.
en.m.wikipedia.org
worldpopulationreview.com
List of aircraft carriers - Wikipedia
Aircraft Carrier Fleet Strength by Country (2024)
Ranking total number of aircraft carrier warships by country, from highest to lowest.
www.globalfirepower.com
Aircraft Carriers by Country 2024
TwistedSage
Well-known member
Nothing new
Russian weapons in Ukraine ‘powered’ by Western parts: Report
Russian weapons recovered in Ukraine contained more than 450 foreign-made components, think-tank says.www.aljazeera.com
Love that our beloved Capitalism allows for us to "profit" by providing our enemies weapons, so that we can go into debt shooting them down. Sweet.
War Is a Racket - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
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.
List of aircraft carriers - Wikipedia
Aircraft Carrier Fleet Strength by Country (2024)
Ranking total number of aircraft carrier warships by country, from highest to lowest.www.globalfirepower.com
Aircraft Carriers by Country 2024
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
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.
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.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Russia struggles to replenish its troops in Ukraine
if they agreed to fight alongside the Russian army in Ukraine.
www.startribune.com
R
rwc101
Guest
A redline has been crossed. We cannot let the crime against humanity known as Steven Seagal continue.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
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.
Benfromalbuquerque
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2020
- Messages
- 1,621
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?
Similar threads
