Jump to content


Photo

Cold War, The Reimagined Series


  • Please log in to reply
7934 replies to this topic

#7921 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53,875 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted Yesterday, 07:19 AM

https://news.sky.com...russia-11806923

British satellites are being put in danger by near-misses with those operated by the likes of Russia and China, a senior defence official has warned.

Air Vice Marshall Simon Rochelle said "the fight is on" to increase the presence of UK military satellites in space, as it has become a "contested environment" between a number of rival nations.

 

Speaking at the Defence and Security International Fair at the ExCel Centre in London, as reported by the i newspaper, the senior RAF officer suggested that Britain needed to build "defensive capabilities" into its satellites.

"There are on-orbit proximity issues daily now, so when you launch your satellite you have to consider what defensive capability you are putting up," he told the conference.

"The fight is on. It is a contested environment and we have to speed up our response to it."

 

 

Ive been to EXCEL, its where I presented on the Steel Beasts stand. :)


  • 0

#7922 Roman Alymov

Roman Alymov

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,417 posts
  • Location:Moscow, Russia
  • Interests:Tank recovery

Posted Yesterday, 07:47 AM

 

 

 

Exactly, which is why I think Roman is on the wrong track to think that a war will automatically scale to full nuclear; it's not about smashing all the other guy's toys.   

As for me, the key problem of this discussion (and others like that) is lack of basics. What are the objectives of sides? Who are these sides? (for example, on what side is China? India? Pakistan? Iran?) What is the political and economic setting of the events? (for example, with economic crisis coming, even idea of possible war may send regional or global economy downslope for years if not decades)
Instead of specifying this boring settings, people prefer jumping to Tom Clancy-style talks about specific systems and targets, niot surprising it brings no result.


  • 0

#7923 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,246 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted Yesterday, 07:52 AM

 

September 13, 2019 13:32 GMT

 

Russia, Belarus Launch 'Union Shield' Military Drills
 
MINSK -- The Russian and Belarusian militaries have launched weeklong joint exercises in the Nizhny Novgorod region, west of Moscow.

The Union Shield 2019 drills are set to involve a total of 12,000 troops and 950 pieces of military equipment, including combat vehicles, aircraft, and helicopters, Russia’s Western Military District said on September 13.

The Belarusian Defense Ministry said it had sent 4,000 soldiers, more than 30 tanks, 80 armored vehicles, 50 multiple rocket launchers, and about 15 aircraft and helicopters.

During the second phase of the exercises, troops will search and eliminate hypothetical saboteurs and illegal armed groups, a statement said.

In August, the chief of the General Staff of the Belarusian armed forces, First Deputy Defense Minister Major-General Aleh Belokonev, said the exercise would be held "deep inside the territory of the Russian Federation and not at practice ranges near [EU] borders" in order to "avoid the escalation of the situation in Europe."

Belarus and Russia are joined in a union state that exists mainly on paper, and the two countries hold joint military exercises that regularly engage the West's attention.

The Union Shield drills are carried out every two years alternately on the territory of Russia and Belarus. Union Shield 2017 was held in Belarus and involved some 12,700 troops.

 

https://www.rferl.or...s/30162768.html

 

 

Basing in Belarus would really add to the Wests problems re Russian missile systems, both surface to surface and surface to air.


  • 0

#7924 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,246 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted Yesterday, 07:55 AM

 

 

 

 

Exactly, which is why I think Roman is on the wrong track to think that a war will automatically scale to full nuclear; it's not about smashing all the other guy's toys.   

As for me, the key problem of this discussion (and others like that) is lack of basics. What are the objectives of sides? Who are these sides? (for example, on what side is China? India? Pakistan? Iran?) What is the political and economic setting of the events? (for example, with economic crisis coming, even idea of possible war may send regional or global economy downslope for years if not decades)
Instead of specifying this boring settings, people prefer jumping to Tom Clancy-style talks about specific systems and targets, niot surprising it brings no result.

 

 

I've tried to supply context, Roman. I'm also not looking for a result other than to learn and, perhaps, entertain and educate. For the record, I really enjoy and appreciate your posts and find having a very intelligent and articulate, "patriotic" Russian on here really adds to the variety quality of discussion. 


  • 0

#7925 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,246 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted Yesterday, 07:57 AM

Stuart, I have been thinking about "arsenal barges" - basically cheap submersible containers that could be moved around larger lakes etc.


  • 0

#7926 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53,875 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted Yesterday, 08:03 AM

Here is an interesting one. Ive Parliamentary publication dated about 1981, and they were discussing alternatives to polaris submarines for carriage of the nuclear deterrent. The MOD actually came up with an idea of a giant crawler tractor that was drive over the seabed in the north sea, not too deep obviously, and would launch its missiles from there. You idly wonder with new technology whether it could be a goer. After all, today you dont physically need people on board to make such a system viable. And you could make it small, carry about 4 cruise missile. It would be cheap, viable and virtually impossible to destroy. It would be like the deployment system envisaged for the MX missile, but underwater.

 

I still dont think we need It I might add. Just that as far as NATO, it would probably be an affordable and secure system. For one thing it would be near impossible for CND to bother it.


  • 0

#7927 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,118 posts

Posted Yesterday, 09:01 AM

Stuart Anyway, by the by. As far as cruise missiles, my father grew up under V1 attack. I accept that technology moves on, but if Britain couldnt be destroyed by 5000 plus weapons, Im not feeling that the Russians have got a chance really. :)

 

 

 

The accuracy of the weapon impacts effectiveness exponentially.   One cruise missile with a CEP of 10 will land within 314 square meters of the aim point 1 time in 2.   The V-1 rocket you mention according to a quick search had a CEP of over 12km.  If the target is an individual building, the 10m CEP is 1.5 million times more accurate.  So, with the exception of a pure terror weapon, less than 10 modern cruise missiles should be militarily more effective than all the V-1's fired at Britain in WW2.


  • 0

#7928 Roman Alymov

Roman Alymov

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,417 posts
  • Location:Moscow, Russia
  • Interests:Tank recovery

Posted Yesterday, 09:38 AM

 

Here is an interesting one. Ive Parliamentary publication dated about 1981, and they were discussing alternatives to polaris submarines for carriage of the nuclear deterrent.  

In mid-1960th there was soviet “Scorpion” program (arming specially constructed navy ships, visually undistinguishable from most common Soviet merchant ships, with  ICBMs)  - in turn, triggered by NATO program of arming surface ships with Polaris missiles. Nothing is new
http://otvaga2004.ru...roekt-skorpion/
https://www.reddit.c...di_in_1963_her/


  • 0

#7929 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,246 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted Yesterday, 10:02 AM

 

Stuart Anyway, by the by. As far as cruise missiles, my father grew up under V1 attack. I accept that technology moves on, but if Britain couldnt be destroyed by 5000 plus weapons, Im not feeling that the Russians have got a chance really. :)

 

 

 

The accuracy of the weapon impacts effectiveness exponentially.   One cruise missile with a CEP of 10 will land within 314 square meters of the aim point 1 time in 2.   The V-1 rocket you mention according to a quick search had a CEP of over 12km.  If the target is an individual building, the 10m CEP is 1.5 million times more accurate.  So, with the exception of a pure terror weapon, less than 10 modern cruise missiles should be militarily more effective than all the V-1's fired at Britain in WW2.

 

 

Or conversely, imagine WW2 if all the V1s and V2s fired at the UK and elsewhere had the accuracy of Kalibr and Iskander and Ar234s were around a year earlier to provide targeting.


  • 0

#7930 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,246 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted Yesterday, 12:46 PM

If one of the wealthiest, most heavily armed countries in the World can't stop this attack on one of its most important facilities situated in open desert, what hope do we have of stopping similar attacks?


  • 0

#7931 Roman Alymov

Roman Alymov

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,417 posts
  • Location:Moscow, Russia
  • Interests:Tank recovery

Posted Yesterday, 01:20 PM

If one of the wealthiest, most heavily armed countries in the World can't stop this attack on one of its most important facilities situated in open desert, what hope do we have of stopping similar attacks?

As I have repeatedly pointed out in this and other discussions, air defense is not some kind of unpenetratable wall – but just temporary obstacle dedicated attack would sooner or later breach. The only question is time and effort it will take. But simplicity of tools used in this particular case is really impressive – de-facto it means that any country could launch similar attack on key targets in Europe from, for example, merchant ship hundreds of miles away in international waters.


  • 0

#7932 GARGEAN

GARGEAN

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,120 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted Yesterday, 01:40 PM

If one of the wealthiest, most heavily armed countries in the World can't stop this attack on one of its most important facilities situated in open desert, what hope do we have of stopping similar attacks?

Says absolutely nothing. Patriots in their hands failed multiple times for reasons of either hands growing out of asses or those SAMs being not so good as advertised (and in that case I would bet on "monkey model" rather than on Patriot in whole). Properly employed AD operated by proper western specialists will be night and day compared to that.


  • 0

#7933 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53,875 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted Yesterday, 02:01 PM

If one of the wealthiest, most heavily armed countries in the World can't stop this attack on one of its most important facilities situated in open desert, what hope do we have of stopping similar attacks?


Although the Saudi military is a bit crap. :)
  • 0

#7934 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,380 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York City

Posted Yesterday, 07:25 PM

If one of the wealthiest, most heavily armed countries in the World can't stop this attack on one of its most important facilities situated in open desert, what hope do we have of stopping similar attacks?


While I agree in spirit, using the KSA as the poster child for any military activity seems disingenuous, Chris. Those ass hats could fuck up a two car funeral.
  • 0

#7935 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53,875 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted Today, 04:08 AM

Bit more on the Russian exercises taking part this year, the centrepiece of which appears to be Tsentr 2019. Union Shield 19 seems to be ongoing at the same time, which means again Russia is breaching the technical limits of an exercise without inviting observers. Again.

 

https://nationalinte...duct-fall-80451


  • 0




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users