PAC-3 (or whatever he'll give them) doesn't come as a standalone system. It's designed to function as an integrated networked air defence system.
Which means it's going to be easier to flow battlefield information into it from external sources, since they all talk that specific set of protocols (though interconnected defence systems rarely work, even under perfect conditions).
And, correspondingly, easier to extract that information to external parties as well.
With the F-16s, HIMARS, and variety of other systems deployed or soon to be deployed in the theatre, you can already see the ghost of what other systems are being given - to connect them. It would go someway to also explain why the Ukrainians threw their toys out of the cot when they were offered Mirage-2000s.
Personally, if those systems ARE being deployed and integrated, I'd love to see some unbiased feedback about how they operate in an actually hostile EW environment. Which they've never really faced since their development. And the concerns from EW gurus were always handwaved away.
Just like people who kept advocating for fallback procedures to maintain ops in a GPS-denied environment. They kept getting told that would never happen...
What is Ukraine and the US going to do now with air-defense, which it hasn't tried already?
Has Ukraine been operating this entire time without an integrated system? Has the US not tried to provide one? Does the US not really have that capability? Did the US suddenly invent one now (and would it even work if it did)?
If there was a game-changing weapon the US could provide, the question would be why hasn't it been provided, given how all-in the US regime is in this "proxy" war.
At the moment, the US provides guided missiles, ISR, and coordinates. How is that any different from the US just launching cruise missiles themselves? The US provides drones, which could be controlled from anywhere, and are probably being controlled by US soldiers (although we don't see those anymore, because they've all been shot down). Going down the list of ways the US directly contributes and participates in this war would be a long one.
Russia does play to the fiction that it's not a direct war, probably because they don't want to start WW3, but one of the reasons I don't think the US will actually do a full-scale boots on the ground operation and openly participate is because they know Russia would win that, and also because we wouldn't have the arms to supply to our own troops. For example, if we sent Ukraine a couple brigades of US troops to conduct artillery operations, what artillery pieces or ammunition would we send with those troops?
What is Ukraine and the US going to do now with air-defense, which it hasn't tried already?
Has Ukraine been operating this entire time without an integrated system? Has the US not tried to provide one? Does the US not really have that capability? Did the US suddenly invent one now (and would it even work if it did)?
Nothing they haven't already tried, tbh. The difference is how easy it is going to be for the US and co. to be able to extract / feed data into the integrated system. The S-300s and other systems that Ukraine have been using were kinda working (note that Russia isn't actually flying fixed or rotary wing missions over territory they don't have boots on ground for - they fire missiles from standoff ranges).
And, no, the Ukrainians haven't really been operating an IADS of any note. Footage and reporting (that Ukrainians have released themselves) seem to show a system that operates at the unit level by drunk potato farmers. There are elements to show that such a networked system is MEANT to exist, comprised of the systems and hardware they had pre-2020, but it seems cronyism and sheer incompetence (I mean, Air Defence is a nice safe spot far from the front lines) is the order of the day. Dropping missiles on Serbia, Poland, using self-propelled systems to run over civilians in Kiev, parking TELs under civilian shopping centres, or in the middle of kindergartens, shooting their own apartment blocks with badly aimed SAMs. I mean, the list goes on and on.
In fact, with what we've seen of the Ukrainians doing since 2022, I'm beginning to believe that they DID have a hand in shooting down MH17. They did have the same systems available to them, and the Russians claim to know the stockpile from which the missile used came from.
If there was a game-changing weapon the US could provide, the question would be why hasn't it been provided, given how all-in the US regime is in this "proxy" war.
Easy. It's the deceit of "limited neutrality" (I think that's the term the US used to justify supplying military hardware while technically staying out of WWII at the time). If the overt help goes too far, then Russia gets Casus Belli (which I think they already have) to declare a lot of Western nations as belligerents and have the right to go after ANY of the Western units in the immediate area. And materiel shipments. Most rational observers have thought that Russia is fighting a very limited campaign, compared to what they could field (for example extremely limited use of heavy bombers and application of overwhelming air power and otherwise rolling out a fairly traditional ground and urban combat campaign).
It was clear from the opening phase of the invasion that Russia could easily reach Kiev, and subsequently has shown that it can reach any part of Ukraine with missiles whenever it wants. What the picture on the ground seems to show is that the Russians have achieved pretty much the territorial gains they wanted, and have bedded in. Reversing your question, I'd ask why the Russians haven't moved to take Odessa and thus make a land bridge to Transnistria. I suspect that if they completely made Ukraine a landlocked country, that might be too much for some Western support.
At the moment, the US provides guided missiles, ISR, and coordinates. How is that any different from the US just launching cruise missiles themselves? The US provides drones, which could be controlled from anywhere, and are probably being controlled by US soldiers (although we don't see those anymore, because they've all been shot down). Going down the list of ways the US directly contributes and participates in this war would be a long one.
Again, the deceit of "Limited Neutrality". You'd note, though, that you're NOT seeing Ukraine field things like SDBs, JASM, TLAM (though Storm Shadow is in use), SLAM, SLAM-ER. You are seeing HIMARS, and exotic artillery rounds, and mostly ground-based hardware and smaller drones being supplied. It was the sinking of the "Moskva" that I think told the Russians just how much ISR and targeting support the Ukrainians were receiving.
Russia does play to the fiction that it's not a direct war, probably because they don't want to start WW3, but one of the reasons I don't think the US will actually do a full-scale boots on the ground operation and openly participate is because they know Russia would win that, and also because we wouldn't have the arms to supply to our own troops. For example, if we sent Ukraine a couple brigades of US troops to conduct artillery operations, what artillery pieces or ammunition would we send with those troops?
Yep, Russia is pretending the same fiction that the US is, but it is giving them Casus Belli to go after the US. I can't see what legitimacy the US has for going after Russia (though that hasn't stopped the US in the past).
I agree that the bleeding of the ammunition and equipment stocks of NATO has probably been one of Russia's real wins from this, and I doubt it was one that they ever considered realistic at the outset. It has effectively neutralised NATO's ability to mount a sustained ground combat response (I mean Libya showed how much of a paper tiger NATO without the US is). Plus, despite Ukraine not being in NATO (hence no Article 5), a formalised military action by NATO is just going to show the legitimacy of WHY Russia began the campaign in the first place.
Boots on ground is going to have the same issues as Ukraine currently faces. The front is only so long, and the Russians have demonstrated a willingness to dig in and hold their territorial gains quite happily without going for a complete eradication of Ukraine. So, that front is now defended in massive depth with multiple heavily defended and fortified lines, pre-sighted heavy artillery, and heavily mined. And, any effort to create a new front is going to highlight even greater that Russia set out with defined goals and has met pretty much all of them. And still has the reserves to defend itself on a more general front.
Nothing they haven't already tried, tbh. The difference is how easy it is going to be for the US and co. to be able to extract / feed data into the integrated system.
Right. Realistically, the best I could see happening is warning operators that a missile or jet is on it's way, and to prepare, which is what they've already been doing. Beyond that, getting these kinds of systems to work together, if they weren't designed to work together is an astronomical task.
As a software engineer, some of my least favorite work is actually integrating with some 3rd party API or system. On the surface, it may appears straightforward. The people who built the 3rd party system may be geniuses, and put a lot of time and effort into quality. But there are always quirks, hidden assumptions,
And then we add that these kinds of systems probably don't have "APIs" and are often not open-source, or even if you have the source code, you're dealing with different software-languages and human-languages.
In fact, with what we've seen of the Ukrainians doing since 2022, I'm beginning to believe that they DID have a hand in shooting down MH17.
Ukraine has been shelling the Donbas region since the 2014 coup. The people who did the Trade Center massacre in Odessa are known, and yet Ukraine never charged or arrested any of them. Shooting down an airline and blaming the Russians is practically a Tuesday for Kiev.
It was the sinking of the "Moskva" that I think told the Russians just how much ISR and targeting support the Ukrainians were receiving.
Pretty much all of Ukraine's successful drone and missile attacks into Russian territory are only possible because of the US mapping out Russian air-defense and targets.
I can't see what legitimacy the US has for going after Russia (though that hasn't stopped the US in the past)
It's about a 99% overlap with the lawfare against Trump, Trump's attorneys, Michael Flynn, $1.5 billion judgement against Alex Jones, 22 years for Enrice Tarrio, and so on. If you look for a logical, ethical, morally consistent explanation you will naturally have to engage in extreme mental gymnastics. However, if you go with the simpler explanation, that the people who currently are in power have no qualms about engaging in some of the most unethical behavior in order to suppress their ideological opponents, or opponents to their power, it's a lit easier to understand. It's classic consequentialism.
Did Russia do anything to the US? Doesn't matter. They're the bad guys.
Did Trump hurt anyone? Doesn't matter, he's an orange evil racist!
(I mean Libya showed how much of a paper tiger NATO without the US is)
I didn't follow Libya or politics at the time. However, since the Ukraine war, I've learned that most of Europe doesn't have a military at all. Ukraine and Turkey have a military, but the rest is a joke. Apparently, the UK couldn't even fill a football stadium with their troops.
However, I will admit that I was pretty surprised at how much the US military under-performs it's astronomical budget. Sure, it's big, capable, has lots of toys, but Russia with a much smaller budget is able to out-produce the US and allies in practically every way.
Russia set out with defined goals and has met pretty much all of them
What's "funny" is that if you believed Russia, and planned a war around what Russia said they were going to do, you'd have a LOT more success than what we see today. Instead, the west fights against a factitious Russian army with ficticious objectives, and therefore keeps fighting the wrong war.
Seriously. Fighting Iraq who was crippled by the war against Iran and later sanctions and fighting against goatfuckers in Afghanistan doesn't count as a real gauge in describing if those weapons can fight in parity conditions with powerful armies like Russia's.
I actually think our conventional weapons are the same quality as Russia's. They have been exposed badly just like the new weapon deliveries will. The British and German tanks suck ass for example. They haven't proven themselves to be any better than T-72s and T-64s. It is because everything from the DOD is propaganda and lies.
Have a relative who works for a defense contractor - pretty common knowledge that it will take 7 years to rebuild our current military with how much it has been depleted. And I was told this a year ago.
That's the fundamental problem, you can't fix the US military with money. You'd have to essentially blacklist ever US defense contractor (Boeing, Lockheed, Ratheon) and start from scratch .... but then also ensure you're not merely sending money to rebranded Lockheed, etc.
China is funding both Ukraine and Russia yet you try to act like this whole thing wasn't done by them 🤣🤣🤣
China is paying for weapons for Zelensky and Putin! They are the ones weakening us via that war, not us doing it to ourselves.
China's army sucks ass btw. They are a paper tiger and can't even invade Kinmen and Matsu because their navy sucks. Japan has a better navy than China's.
7 years, if it was a concerted effort. However, there's also a major problem of the fact that the US already spends nearly a trillion per year on the US military and we're in the current state. So, the problem to be solved is NOT FUNDING.
Russia, being a much smaller economy, with a much smaller population, and much smaller defense budget is out-producing the US and EU by a mile.
This whole conflict is to use the Ukraine to test the fences of each super power’s defense. Each side slowly escalates what is being used to draw out each others “toys” and tactics. Ukraine is more of a war-games proving ground than an actual conflict.
At this point, dollar for dollar, pound for pound, Russia is on top of this game of attrition. Besides what funding isn’t being laundered, the resources provided already probably dwarf anything that Russia has expended.
That being said. Russia is in desperate need of a military equipment refresh, and wouldn’t be effective if a WW3 kicked off right now, save for their nuclear arsenal. They are a bit of a one trick pony at this point, their strength will ramp up with their alliances and churning of the war machine, if allowed to.
There’s a consistent pattern of giving away our military secrets, disarming our nukes, gutting our military personnel, and sending our defense equipment to Ukraine.
And the Air Defense systems we provide to Ukraine will end up sold on the Black Market to Terrorists and Nations hostile to the US, Russia will likely capture one, we will give adversaries and potential adversaries a chance to reverse engineer and learn how to defeat our Air Missile Defense systems.
Russia needs to step up and exterminate these fucks in ukraine .. and shove it to our country ... fuck joe biden ... our tax dollars is for America not prolong a war that promote death
No something like that is going to Ukraine. That 'mysterious' crash is the result of something terribly wrong with the F-35s that they need to keep secret. It crashed. It didn't go to Chyna or anywhere else, but the DoD is likely covered a fatal flaw.
All sorts of military aircraft have training exercise crashes. It may be mechanical or software related, or it could be pilot related, but nothing is unusual about that crash. The Soviets had a Mig-23 continue on for 600 miles before it crashed after the pilot ejected.
Shhhhhh, nothing ever needs tested. It works first time every time. Especially when the controls are designed to make the plane fall out of the sky intentionally and relies on the computers to keep it in line.
There have been many well documented instances of military aircraft flying long distances after the crew ejected. The Cornfield Bomber is the most famous, and the aircraft was returned to service.
People forget that 80 miles for a fighter is about 10 minutes flying time. A trimmed jet descending slowly at 3000 fpm from 30000 fett would take that long to descend.
The unofficial 'anonymous' Marine Corps statement...
The pilot “experienced a malfunction and was forced to eject” on Sunday at an altitude of about 1,000 feet just 1 mile north of Charleston International Airport, according to a situation report given to AP by the Marine Corps official.
That would be a very likely altitude of a plane that had just taken off and from an airport just 1 mile away and wasn't trying to climb rapidly, especially if it was experiencing a malfunction serious enough for the pilot to bail...
Agreed. Software froze up or something, or bugged out and caused the plane to do the opposite of what was helpful in bad weather. It had to be a major issue to make a pilot bail 80 miles form base.
Uh.... These modern jets are hangar queens to the MAX. They need daily maintenance and hours and hours of repairs and refurbishment between sorties. The USAF couldn't even fly their F-22s away from a hurricane because they werent' in flyable condition
It will at least appear that Russia has taken the bait before the election. If Russia won't do it, the US will do it for them. It would hardly be the first time. Russia knows this, they've done it, too. I think Russia's play is to have plans prepared and strategically leaked to go further than the US wants to go.
Something like shutting down the Panama canal divides the US naval fleet, shuts down the East Coast and pushes the Chinese into the fray. A ton of their food comes down the Mississippi through the Panama canal.
Putin, Xi Jinping, and Kim Jong Un are all laughing their asses off at us. We keep depleting our own military supplies and robbing ourselves blind to try to win a war that can’t be won, in defense of one of the most corrupt countries in the world, whose leader is an ungrateful Nazi cunt.
Significant air defense capabilities are on the way. Great news for Ukraine considering everything up until now by definition has been insignificant.
Russia has been accumulating missiles to bring about a crisis in Ukraine this winter. Maybe they'll get serious and sanction natural gas and oil via Ukraine and altogether to the EU as well.
5 bucks that midget zelensky is in cahoots with enemies to the US and has no loyalty to anyone except the wef type crowd. zelenky and anyone arguing in support of defending or funding ukraine is reason enough to be completely against any funding or support towards ukraine.
this will backfire on all those supporting him or ukraine (and everyone else) tremendously.
Ukraine has very, very, very little right now. What little they have, they keep well behind the front lines.
The US is also extremely low on air-defense. The Patriot missile is extremely expensive (roughly $3m per missile) and stocks/production of that were low before the war. So, what are they going to provide?
So, what is the US going to provide? Keep in mind the Patriot missile has zero hope (it's basic physics) of intercepting a hypersonic missile. Furthermore , it's not mobile, meaning that Russia could potentially even take out an entire complex with a number of $15k drones. Or they could simply attrit the system using those drones as decoys.
The US perhaps has a few other "systems" like Stinger missiles, but then you have to ask what has the US actually held back that they could provide now, which they haven't provided before?
the US has none
I was going to say. I have good knowledge in this area and ... well good luck to them with this.
Patriot missle go durrrrrr
Or, rather, goes 'oops'
sniff, sniff...
Hmm...
PAC-3 (or whatever he'll give them) doesn't come as a standalone system. It's designed to function as an integrated networked air defence system.
Which means it's going to be easier to flow battlefield information into it from external sources, since they all talk that specific set of protocols (though interconnected defence systems rarely work, even under perfect conditions).
And, correspondingly, easier to extract that information to external parties as well.
With the F-16s, HIMARS, and variety of other systems deployed or soon to be deployed in the theatre, you can already see the ghost of what other systems are being given - to connect them. It would go someway to also explain why the Ukrainians threw their toys out of the cot when they were offered Mirage-2000s.
Personally, if those systems ARE being deployed and integrated, I'd love to see some unbiased feedback about how they operate in an actually hostile EW environment. Which they've never really faced since their development. And the concerns from EW gurus were always handwaved away.
Just like people who kept advocating for fallback procedures to maintain ops in a GPS-denied environment. They kept getting told that would never happen...
What is Ukraine and the US going to do now with air-defense, which it hasn't tried already?
Has Ukraine been operating this entire time without an integrated system? Has the US not tried to provide one? Does the US not really have that capability? Did the US suddenly invent one now (and would it even work if it did)?
If there was a game-changing weapon the US could provide, the question would be why hasn't it been provided, given how all-in the US regime is in this "proxy" war.
At the moment, the US provides guided missiles, ISR, and coordinates. How is that any different from the US just launching cruise missiles themselves? The US provides drones, which could be controlled from anywhere, and are probably being controlled by US soldiers (although we don't see those anymore, because they've all been shot down). Going down the list of ways the US directly contributes and participates in this war would be a long one.
Russia does play to the fiction that it's not a direct war, probably because they don't want to start WW3, but one of the reasons I don't think the US will actually do a full-scale boots on the ground operation and openly participate is because they know Russia would win that, and also because we wouldn't have the arms to supply to our own troops. For example, if we sent Ukraine a couple brigades of US troops to conduct artillery operations, what artillery pieces or ammunition would we send with those troops?
Nothing they haven't already tried, tbh. The difference is how easy it is going to be for the US and co. to be able to extract / feed data into the integrated system. The S-300s and other systems that Ukraine have been using were kinda working (note that Russia isn't actually flying fixed or rotary wing missions over territory they don't have boots on ground for - they fire missiles from standoff ranges).
And, no, the Ukrainians haven't really been operating an IADS of any note. Footage and reporting (that Ukrainians have released themselves) seem to show a system that operates at the unit level by drunk potato farmers. There are elements to show that such a networked system is MEANT to exist, comprised of the systems and hardware they had pre-2020, but it seems cronyism and sheer incompetence (I mean, Air Defence is a nice safe spot far from the front lines) is the order of the day. Dropping missiles on Serbia, Poland, using self-propelled systems to run over civilians in Kiev, parking TELs under civilian shopping centres, or in the middle of kindergartens, shooting their own apartment blocks with badly aimed SAMs. I mean, the list goes on and on.
In fact, with what we've seen of the Ukrainians doing since 2022, I'm beginning to believe that they DID have a hand in shooting down MH17. They did have the same systems available to them, and the Russians claim to know the stockpile from which the missile used came from.
Easy. It's the deceit of "limited neutrality" (I think that's the term the US used to justify supplying military hardware while technically staying out of WWII at the time). If the overt help goes too far, then Russia gets Casus Belli (which I think they already have) to declare a lot of Western nations as belligerents and have the right to go after ANY of the Western units in the immediate area. And materiel shipments. Most rational observers have thought that Russia is fighting a very limited campaign, compared to what they could field (for example extremely limited use of heavy bombers and application of overwhelming air power and otherwise rolling out a fairly traditional ground and urban combat campaign).
It was clear from the opening phase of the invasion that Russia could easily reach Kiev, and subsequently has shown that it can reach any part of Ukraine with missiles whenever it wants. What the picture on the ground seems to show is that the Russians have achieved pretty much the territorial gains they wanted, and have bedded in. Reversing your question, I'd ask why the Russians haven't moved to take Odessa and thus make a land bridge to Transnistria. I suspect that if they completely made Ukraine a landlocked country, that might be too much for some Western support.
Again, the deceit of "Limited Neutrality". You'd note, though, that you're NOT seeing Ukraine field things like SDBs, JASM, TLAM (though Storm Shadow is in use), SLAM, SLAM-ER. You are seeing HIMARS, and exotic artillery rounds, and mostly ground-based hardware and smaller drones being supplied. It was the sinking of the "Moskva" that I think told the Russians just how much ISR and targeting support the Ukrainians were receiving.
Yep, Russia is pretending the same fiction that the US is, but it is giving them Casus Belli to go after the US. I can't see what legitimacy the US has for going after Russia (though that hasn't stopped the US in the past).
I agree that the bleeding of the ammunition and equipment stocks of NATO has probably been one of Russia's real wins from this, and I doubt it was one that they ever considered realistic at the outset. It has effectively neutralised NATO's ability to mount a sustained ground combat response (I mean Libya showed how much of a paper tiger NATO without the US is). Plus, despite Ukraine not being in NATO (hence no Article 5), a formalised military action by NATO is just going to show the legitimacy of WHY Russia began the campaign in the first place.
Boots on ground is going to have the same issues as Ukraine currently faces. The front is only so long, and the Russians have demonstrated a willingness to dig in and hold their territorial gains quite happily without going for a complete eradication of Ukraine. So, that front is now defended in massive depth with multiple heavily defended and fortified lines, pre-sighted heavy artillery, and heavily mined. And, any effort to create a new front is going to highlight even greater that Russia set out with defined goals and has met pretty much all of them. And still has the reserves to defend itself on a more general front.
Right. Realistically, the best I could see happening is warning operators that a missile or jet is on it's way, and to prepare, which is what they've already been doing. Beyond that, getting these kinds of systems to work together, if they weren't designed to work together is an astronomical task.
As a software engineer, some of my least favorite work is actually integrating with some 3rd party API or system. On the surface, it may appears straightforward. The people who built the 3rd party system may be geniuses, and put a lot of time and effort into quality. But there are always quirks, hidden assumptions,
And then we add that these kinds of systems probably don't have "APIs" and are often not open-source, or even if you have the source code, you're dealing with different software-languages and human-languages.
Ukraine has been shelling the Donbas region since the 2014 coup. The people who did the Trade Center massacre in Odessa are known, and yet Ukraine never charged or arrested any of them. Shooting down an airline and blaming the Russians is practically a Tuesday for Kiev.
Pretty much all of Ukraine's successful drone and missile attacks into Russian territory are only possible because of the US mapping out Russian air-defense and targets.
It's about a 99% overlap with the lawfare against Trump, Trump's attorneys, Michael Flynn, $1.5 billion judgement against Alex Jones, 22 years for Enrice Tarrio, and so on. If you look for a logical, ethical, morally consistent explanation you will naturally have to engage in extreme mental gymnastics. However, if you go with the simpler explanation, that the people who currently are in power have no qualms about engaging in some of the most unethical behavior in order to suppress their ideological opponents, or opponents to their power, it's a lit easier to understand. It's classic consequentialism.
Did Russia do anything to the US? Doesn't matter. They're the bad guys.
Did Trump hurt anyone? Doesn't matter, he's an orange evil racist!
I didn't follow Libya or politics at the time. However, since the Ukraine war, I've learned that most of Europe doesn't have a military at all. Ukraine and Turkey have a military, but the rest is a joke. Apparently, the UK couldn't even fill a football stadium with their troops.
However, I will admit that I was pretty surprised at how much the US military under-performs it's astronomical budget. Sure, it's big, capable, has lots of toys, but Russia with a much smaller budget is able to out-produce the US and allies in practically every way.
What's "funny" is that if you believed Russia, and planned a war around what Russia said they were going to do, you'd have a LOT more success than what we see today. Instead, the west fights against a factitious Russian army with ficticious objectives, and therefore keeps fighting the wrong war.
Great points.
Seriously. Fighting Iraq who was crippled by the war against Iran and later sanctions and fighting against goatfuckers in Afghanistan doesn't count as a real gauge in describing if those weapons can fight in parity conditions with powerful armies like Russia's.
I actually think our conventional weapons are the same quality as Russia's. They have been exposed badly just like the new weapon deliveries will. The British and German tanks suck ass for example. They haven't proven themselves to be any better than T-72s and T-64s. It is because everything from the DOD is propaganda and lies.
What a moron.
...and then there were no missiles left.
Have a relative who works for a defense contractor - pretty common knowledge that it will take 7 years to rebuild our current military with how much it has been depleted. And I was told this a year ago.
Yikes, so like 12-15 years now
Yep, it's going to take decades to rebuild assuming we cut off the faucet right now...
China is going to laugh their assess off when they decide to take Taiwan and we can't do shit because Ukraine drained our military readiness...
Poland has already said they gave Ukraine 1/3 of their crap!
Defense contractors and the cronies that work for them are getting rich!
That's the fundamental problem, you can't fix the US military with money. You'd have to essentially blacklist ever US defense contractor (Boeing, Lockheed, Ratheon) and start from scratch .... but then also ensure you're not merely sending money to rebranded Lockheed, etc.
China is funding both Ukraine and Russia yet you try to act like this whole thing wasn't done by them 🤣🤣🤣
China is paying for weapons for Zelensky and Putin! They are the ones weakening us via that war, not us doing it to ourselves.
China's army sucks ass btw. They are a paper tiger and can't even invade Kinmen and Matsu because their navy sucks. Japan has a better navy than China's.
Who acts like China isn't involved? Where did I say that? Oh wait, I never did you literally just made that shit up so you can talk shit...
And you severely underestimate China, even if they dont have the best of the best they have plenty to fuck up the entire planet!
7 years, if it was a concerted effort. However, there's also a major problem of the fact that the US already spends nearly a trillion per year on the US military and we're in the current state. So, the problem to be solved is NOT FUNDING.
Russia, being a much smaller economy, with a much smaller population, and much smaller defense budget is out-producing the US and EU by a mile.
Not just Biden but his MIC benefactors need to be charged with the highest of treason.
This whole conflict is to use the Ukraine to test the fences of each super power’s defense. Each side slowly escalates what is being used to draw out each others “toys” and tactics. Ukraine is more of a war-games proving ground than an actual conflict.
At this point, dollar for dollar, pound for pound, Russia is on top of this game of attrition. Besides what funding isn’t being laundered, the resources provided already probably dwarf anything that Russia has expended.
That being said. Russia is in desperate need of a military equipment refresh, and wouldn’t be effective if a WW3 kicked off right now, save for their nuclear arsenal. They are a bit of a one trick pony at this point, their strength will ramp up with their alliances and churning of the war machine, if allowed to.
I hope every last civilian burns to death in the ukraine
NASA buys rockets from Russia
Russia dominates in rockets, missiles air defense and counter ad
Traditionally new tech has come from us universities through huge DARPA grants and programs
Now our schools are filled with low IQ blacks and trannies who were placed to fill quotas
Think we'll catch up?
Trying to pull us into WWIII before we even reach the 2024 election.
swamp state department stole election for him, war is what he promised them in exchange. quid pro quo joe
that's so they can cancel the election.
It’s all part of the plan
I thought we were already for like a year? This site's consensus seems to change daily.
more destruction of our own inventory and military preparedness
FJB is setting our country up for total annihilation.
There’s a consistent pattern of giving away our military secrets, disarming our nukes, gutting our military personnel, and sending our defense equipment to Ukraine.
But remember Trump joked about a document to a reporter once, and that's way worse.
And the Air Defense systems we provide to Ukraine will end up sold on the Black Market to Terrorists and Nations hostile to the US, Russia will likely capture one, we will give adversaries and potential adversaries a chance to reverse engineer and learn how to defeat our Air Missile Defense systems.
Well then how are we going to force sodomy I mean freedom on the rest of the world?!
It'll be up to the citizens to protect our country.
Russia needs to step up and exterminate these fucks in ukraine .. and shove it to our country ... fuck joe biden ... our tax dollars is for America not prolong a war that promote death
Never thought I'd be rooting for Russia... Damn.
Different side same coin.
Russia and NATO, two peas in a pod?
Found the fed
u/ThomasPainintheAss
IOW, The F35 was actually sent to Ukraine as a trainer jet and the “crash” was something else
No something like that is going to Ukraine. That 'mysterious' crash is the result of something terribly wrong with the F-35s that they need to keep secret. It crashed. It didn't go to Chyna or anywhere else, but the DoD is likely covered a fatal flaw.
Women drivers?
I bet the wheels are scratched to hell.
I like the one where a militia in the area shot it down with 50cals while it was practicing hovering maneuvers.
Oh those dastardly militias and their 50 cals shootin' down helicopters/aircraft/spy-balloons.
All sorts of military aircraft have training exercise crashes. It may be mechanical or software related, or it could be pilot related, but nothing is unusual about that crash. The Soviets had a Mig-23 continue on for 600 miles before it crashed after the pilot ejected.
Shhhhhh, nothing ever needs tested. It works first time every time. Especially when the controls are designed to make the plane fall out of the sky intentionally and relies on the computers to keep it in line.
There's no shortage of planes with fly-by-wire, but they almost always have some software issues that cause problems that need to be ironed out.
This is one example that might get sorted out with better software or better procedures. https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/aircraft-propulsion/wake-turbulence-caused-2022-f-35-crash-investigation-shows
There have been many well documented instances of military aircraft flying long distances after the crew ejected. The Cornfield Bomber is the most famous, and the aircraft was returned to service.
People forget that 80 miles for a fighter is about 10 minutes flying time. A trimmed jet descending slowly at 3000 fpm from 30000 fett would take that long to descend.
The pilot in this case ejected at only 1000ft...
Is that right? I have to find out more from a good source
The unofficial 'anonymous' Marine Corps statement...
https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2023/09/19/pilot-of-downed-f-35-parachuted-into-residential-backyard/
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2023/09/20/what-we-know-about-marine-corps-f-35-crash-backyard-ejection-and-what-went-wrong.html
That would be a very likely altitude of a plane that had just taken off and from an airport just 1 mile away and wasn't trying to climb rapidly, especially if it was experiencing a malfunction serious enough for the pilot to bail...
Agreed. Software froze up or something, or bugged out and caused the plane to do the opposite of what was helpful in bad weather. It had to be a major issue to make a pilot bail 80 miles form base.
Lmao probably ejected him on its own and tried to run away.
The aircraft was from MCAS Beaufort (near Parris Island), but they keep mentioning JB Charleston. I'm confused about which airfield it departed from.
This. That's why the two day stand-down of all our military aircraft.
Indeed. Marine Aviation is having a real bad run of class A mishaps.
Uh.... These modern jets are hangar queens to the MAX. They need daily maintenance and hours and hours of repairs and refurbishment between sorties. The USAF couldn't even fly their F-22s away from a hurricane because they werent' in flyable condition
but Tom Cruise can fly a 40 year old F14 off a taxiway under fire.
IT'S_HAPPENING.mp4
Soooooooo war profiteering to the max
Doing everything short of declaring for war, hoping Russia takes the bait. Not going to happen.
It will at least appear that Russia has taken the bait before the election. If Russia won't do it, the US will do it for them. It would hardly be the first time. Russia knows this, they've done it, too. I think Russia's play is to have plans prepared and strategically leaked to go further than the US wants to go.
Something like shutting down the Panama canal divides the US naval fleet, shuts down the East Coast and pushes the Chinese into the fray. A ton of their food comes down the Mississippi through the Panama canal.
Putin, Xi Jinping, and Kim Jong Un are all laughing their asses off at us. We keep depleting our own military supplies and robbing ourselves blind to try to win a war that can’t be won, in defense of one of the most corrupt countries in the world, whose leader is an ungrateful Nazi cunt.
https://apnews.com/article/putin-china-xi-wang-yi-b01e0ac05c0bbe707572ce47fa12384e
Putin going to China next month.
Sauces
https://x.com/TheInsiderPaper/status/1704913512970224066
https://insiderpaper.com/biden-to-announce-significant-air-defense-capabilities-for-ukraine-white-house/
Because I saw a job posting for reworking f/a-18 for sale to a foreign Nation.
Sounds expensive
It's free money
Gonna get blowed up. Don't think the Russkies got Wild Weasels too?
they're sending 3,400 soldiers from ft. campbell:
https://twitter.com/101stAASLTDIV/status/1704559125760262489
replacing 1st brigade
they shouldn't be there at all.
it's a nato thing, we just wouldn't understand lol
"Now that the country is a smoking ruin, with hundreds of thousands dead, we are giving them air defense".
This is the 2nd or 3rd time we've sent them "air defense" if I recall
Sounds like the check cleared
Let me guess, 10% for the big guy somewhere.
Did Congress authorize?
Significant air defense capabilities are on the way. Great news for Ukraine considering everything up until now by definition has been insignificant. Russia has been accumulating missiles to bring about a crisis in Ukraine this winter. Maybe they'll get serious and sanction natural gas and oil via Ukraine and altogether to the EU as well.
too bad the Ukrainian Nazis are too proud to learn english to know how to operate that shit...
Just like the supposed F16s we are sending them through proxi France (I think)...they can't fly them bc they don't want to learn english...
At this point, I think Ukraine wants to lose just to make USA/NATO look bad since they were denied entry into the cult of NATO.
France never owned F-16s
I have more than enough of this shit
desperate move. they know its over, they all know its over
nothing like escalating a situation instead of working to find a way to END hostilities.
ever notice how Ukraine never, ever thanks America?
Did Ukraine buy the Russian Air Defense System? Ours suck
🎈 🎈🎈🎈🎈🎈🎈🎈🎈
That first F-35 will help.
5 bucks that midget zelensky is in cahoots with enemies to the US and has no loyalty to anyone except the wef type crowd. zelenky and anyone arguing in support of defending or funding ukraine is reason enough to be completely against any funding or support towards ukraine.
this will backfire on all those supporting him or ukraine (and everyone else) tremendously.
Z was installed by the State Dept and the CIA that overthrew his elected predecessor. SO yeah, technically he is aligned with the enemies of the US.
Imagine if we had those here in the U.S. 😏
I pray Putin Nukes Ukraine
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCR8w0w1DdUOXfF9lNlFU-jw
F35, The Jet That Ate The Pentagon
January 30, 2007 – Richard Cummings – The Scott Horton Show – Episode 233
May 19, 2011 – Mark Sheffield – The Scott Horton Show – Episode 1849
June 21, 2012 – Winslow T. Wheeler – The Scott Horton Show – Episode 2425
March 23, 2012 – Dina Rasor – The Scott Horton Show – Episode 2303
September 19, 2016 – Dan Grazier – The Scott Horton Show – Episode 4263
Mandy Smithberger on the Arms Industry’s Revolving Door
Ep. 5255 – Aaron Mehta on the Unresolved Problems with the F-35
Is The F-35 Worth $115 Million?
Nevertheless 7125% of voters confirmed they will be voting for Biden in the next election.
Ukraine has very, very, very little right now. What little they have, they keep well behind the front lines.
The US is also extremely low on air-defense. The Patriot missile is extremely expensive (roughly $3m per missile) and stocks/production of that were low before the war. So, what are they going to provide?
So, what is the US going to provide? Keep in mind the Patriot missile has zero hope (it's basic physics) of intercepting a hypersonic missile. Furthermore , it's not mobile, meaning that Russia could potentially even take out an entire complex with a number of $15k drones. Or they could simply attrit the system using those drones as decoys.
The US perhaps has a few other "systems" like Stinger missiles, but then you have to ask what has the US actually held back that they could provide now, which they haven't provided before?
Slightly used f35 from the lost and found?
Russia should announce that for every one, they will give an anti-tank missile to the cartels.