Long ago became sick and damn tired of Ukraine.

Not one more penny.

Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk

(11-15-2022 02:24 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The belief is that they were aimed at Lviv---but that is almost 100km south of Pzewodow and 65 km inside of Poland. I dont see WWIII coming---nor would I say Article 5 is about to be triggered. I do think its now way past time to deploy substantial very high quality air defense systems into western Ukraine. Its also time to sell Ukraine F-16's that can patrol western Ukraine (of course piloted by Ukrainians---not NATO). These systems minimize the chances of this occurring again and would go a long way toward averting a refugee humanitarian crisis that might unflold if Russia is allowed to continue destroying the civilian power and water infrastructure in the Ukrainian population centers. I'd also indicate that NATO will give Ukraine ATACM's missiles if the Russian civilian infrastructure attacks continue. I imagine there would a bunch of bluster from Russia---but the civilian power plant attacks would quietly end without us having to give them ATACM's.

It’s harder to built the support structure and Pilot knowledge from scratch, do any of the nato countries have Soviet aircraft left that Ukraine knows how to fly.

If you really want to get russias knickers in a twist give the Ukraine navy a couple of French diesel electric boats and send them to the Bahamas for a crash course in submarine warfare.

BREAKING: US official now admits blast in Poland caused by stray missile fired by Ukraine

Yup what an absolute lunatic

This was what I was trying to make clear earlier. While some were talking about WWIII and massive retaliations----the smart thing was to first figure out what happened. Sounds like it was an S-300 anti-aircraft missile that likely missed its target (probably fired at an incoming cruise missile) and eventually fell from the sky just over the border. It was clearly not intentional. My sense is, even if it had been a Russian cruise missile----it was not an intentional strike at Poland or NATO. Its pretty unlikely the Russians would risk war with NATO in order to take out a tractor working in a grain drying facility. If it had hit a key bridge or a ammo depot or something like that I might would have felt differently.

However, this does serve as a reminder that beefing up Ukraines anti-aircraft defense further insulates NATO from not just potential wayward Russian missiles---it will also help them protect their civilian power and water infrastructure. Keeping those systems viable is important because it they fail winter----it will cause a massive unwanted refugee crisis in Europe--a place who's energy resources will already be stretched thin by then.

NATO Secretary General Says Polish Missile Incident 'Likely Caused' by Ukrainian Air Defense, but Is 'Not Ukraine's Fault'

Quote:Jens Stoltenberg, the secretary general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), says the missile that landed in Poland “likely” did not come from Russia.

Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Stoltenberg said, “Our preliminary analysis suggests that the incident was likely caused by a Ukrainian air defense missile fired to defend Ukrainian territory against Russian cruise missile attacks.”

“But let me be clear, this is not Ukraine’s fault,” he continued. “Russia bears ultimate responsibility as it continues its illegal war against Ukraine.”

(11-16-2022 12:55 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  NATO Secretary General Says Polish Missile Incident 'Likely Caused' by Ukrainian Air Defense, but Is 'Not Ukraine's Fault'

Quote:Jens Stoltenberg, the secretary general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), says the missile that landed in Poland “likely” did not come from Russia.

Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Stoltenberg said, “Our preliminary analysis suggests that the incident was likely caused by a Ukrainian air defense missile fired to defend Ukrainian territory against Russian cruise missile attacks.”

“But let me be clear, this is not Ukraine’s fault,” he continued. “Russia bears ultimate responsibility as it continues its illegal war against Ukraine.”

Inaccurate. "Russia" as depicted in the cartoon is not actively shooting the gun he holds at "Ukraine", as occurred in reality and has been occurring since Feb. 24th.

(11-16-2022 12:33 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(11-15-2022 02:24 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The belief is that they were aimed at Lviv---but that is almost 100km south of Pzewodow and 65 km inside of Poland. I dont see WWIII coming---nor would I say Article 5 is about to be triggered. I do think its now way past time to deploy substantial very high quality air defense systems into western Ukraine. Its also time to sell Ukraine F-16's that can patrol western Ukraine (of course piloted by Ukrainians---not NATO). These systems minimize the chances of this occurring again and would go a long way toward averting a refugee humanitarian crisis that might unflold if Russia is allowed to continue destroying the civilian power and water infrastructure in the Ukrainian population centers. I'd also indicate that NATO will give Ukraine ATACM's missiles if the Russian civilian infrastructure attacks continue. I imagine there would a bunch of bluster from Russia---but the civilian power plant attacks would quietly end without us having to give them ATACM's.

It’s harder to built the support structure and Pilot knowledge from scratch, do any of the nato countries have Soviet aircraft left that Ukraine knows how to fly.

If you really want to get russias knickers in a twist give the Ukraine navy a couple of French diesel electric boats and send them to the Bahamas for a crash course in submarine warfare.

This is kind of an interesting topic. Warning---This may be kind of a long post.

With respect to the Ukrainian Air Force----there are several issues. Even if we could scrounge up some additional Mig-29's for the Ukrainians---the weapons they fire and the spare parts are all made in Russia----so the continued use of these systems over the long term is simply not viable. The Ukrainians are going to have to transition to new aircraft fairly soon. At the very least---this will certainly happen once the war is over---and it may very well be necessary well before the war is over.

Secondly----we need to consider what planes make sense for the Ukrainians. From a supply standpoint, the F-16 is the easy choice. It is a light versatile 4th generation aircraft that can effectively perform both the interceptor and ground attack roles and can fire most NATO weapons systems. The key here is there are lots of F-16's in US and NATO inventories (many of which are being retired by the US every year and could be available to Ukrainians very quickly). The existing Ukrainian pilots could be trained in the F-16 in just a few months. Money is already set aside to do so and some reports claim thats already underway. Furthermore, if any nation was willing to supply Ukraine with modern fighters---it would likely be the US (or maybe Poland---both of which have F-16's).

So whats the problem? The issue is less about pilots and more about logistics. The F-16 requires a trained ground crew and is designed to fly from long smooth runways (it has a relatively fragile landing gear). The F-16 needs a lot of special equipment to keep it running properly. In other words it needs significant support infrastructure. It needs a relatively safe high quality air base with a trained well equipped ground crew.

The Ukrainian Air Force on the other hand has been able to operate because the Mig-29 and its other strike aircraft are older Soviet designed cold war aircraft built to operate in a post first strike environment. They were built with heavy duty landing gears and intake protection that allow the aircraft to use makeshift grass airfield or roads as landing/takeoff strips---without damaging their landing gears or sucking debris into the engine. Thus, dispersing them to makeshift airfields is exactly how the Ukrainians are using them. The Mig-29s are relatively easy to service even without a lot of infrastructure. The best match for replacing that kind of aircraft is probably the Swedish Grippen. It is has a robust landing gear and is designed to use exactly as the Ukrainians are using it. You can service it and operate it in the field from a couple of trucks. It requires no special tools and it was designed to fly against current Russian aircraft (as that was the biggest security concern for Sweden). The Grippen can use many NATO weapons systems and has a sophisticated radar/weapons suite that could level the battlefield in a way the old Mig-29 can never hope to do. The problem with getting that aircraft is its Swedish and the political will may not really be there to supply that kind of weapons system to a Russian opponent. So, the problem here is more political than logistical.

Aircraft designed for carrier work are probably robust enough to operate from dispersed fields. So the original Hornets might be an option---but there arent that many of them with significant remaining life available. I doubt the Navy wants to give up any of its Super Hornets---so while that would be a viable air frame---I dont see that as being the ultimate answer.

My guess is it will ultimately be the F-16, but that will require bringing in enough anti-air systems to make western Ukraine airbases safe to operate from. So, thats yet another reason I see the Poland missile strike thing resulting in a substantial beefing up of the Ukrainian air defenses in the western half of the county with higher end NATO systems--perhaps even some Patriot batteries. That could pave the way for the infrastructure necessary to operate F-16's. At any rate, it will be interesting to see how this question sorts itself out.

(11-16-2022 01:41 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

Thanks...we were all waiting to hear the demoted piss tester's thoughts on the matter.

(11-16-2022 02:01 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

Idiot

Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk

Moscow’s permanent representative to the United Nations, Vassily Nebenzia, stated that if it had not been for the evidence in the form of photos from the scene, “all facts would have been concealed from the public, and Russia would have been proclaimed the guilty side.”

Slanderous statement. That’s alright. Everyone who has dealt with the US government knows if it’s honest or not.

(11-17-2022 08:04 AM)Todor Wrote:  Moscow’s permanent representative to the United Nations, Vassily Nebenzia, stated that if it had not been for the evidence in the form of photos from the scene, “all facts would have been concealed from the public, and Russia would have been proclaimed the guilty side.”

Slanderous statement. That’s alright. Everyone who has dealt with the US government knows if it’s honest or not.

Let’s be clear, we’re talking about a nation who looked at the entire world in 1939 and decided that of all the nations, Adolf Hitler‘s Germany seemed to be the nation who’s future vision of the world best matched Russia’s future vision. I think that pretty much says it all when considering the judgement and ethical thought process of Russian leadership. Nobody should ever forget that Russia and Nazi Germany began WWII on the same side.

Bottom line, that missile is not in Poland if Russia doesn’t start the first major European land war in almost 80 years. All the death and destruction—-Including the deaths of nearly 80,000 Russian servicemen—— rests entirely at the feet of Russian leader Vladimir Putin.

(11-17-2022 10:52 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Let’s be clear, we’re talking about a nation who looked at the entire world in 1939 and decided that of all the nations, Adolf Hitler‘s Germany seemed to be the nation who’s future vision of the world best matched Russia’s future vision. I think that pretty much says it all when considering the judgement and ethical thought process of Russian leadership. Nobody should ever forget that Russia and Nazi Germany began WWII on the same side.

Bottom line, that missile is not in Poland if Russia doesn’t start the first major European land war in almost 80 years. All the death and destruction—-Including the deaths of nearly 80,000 Russian servicemen—— rests entirely at the feet of Russian leader Vladimir Putin.

Quit talking rationally. Clearly the US started this war. Just ask Todor.

(11-17-2022 11:19 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(11-17-2022 10:52 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Let’s be clear, we’re talking about a nation who looked at the entire world in 1939 and decided that of all the nations, Adolf Hitler‘s Germany seemed to be the nation who’s future vision of the world best matched Russia’s future vision. I think that pretty much says it all when considering the judgement and ethical thought process of Russian leadership. Nobody should ever forget that Russia and Nazi Germany began WWII on the same side.

Bottom line, that missile is not in Poland if Russia doesn’t start the first major European land war in almost 80 years. All the death and destruction—-Including the deaths of nearly 80,000 Russian servicemen—— rests entirely at the feet of Russian leader Vladimir Putin.

Quit talking rationally. Clearly the US started this war. Just ask Todor.

Well, this chain of events began with the US coup. Russia and Ukraine certainly weren’t at war previously.

But the point the UN rep was making is that, without clear photographic evidence collected at the scene early on, it would not be known where this missile actually came from. And where is actually came from is what could have lead to a wider war, or not. And that is dependent on whether anyone trusts what the US says or not. All I said was that anyone who has dealt with the US government knows whether it can be trusted.

No one attempted to answer that.