Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[FLEA]

30 minutes ago, TreeA10 said:

Congressman Dan Crenshaw just did an interview on his podcast with a SEAL who has been fighting in Ukraine. Interesting stuff.  Title of the podcast is "The Truth about Dan Swift, the Navy SEAL Killed in Ukraine."

Some really interesting stuff coming out of this community (war tourism) and some of the ups and downs of it. Was reading an article a few days ago about conflict in the Ukrainian armed forces/other volunteers--that some of these war tourist are woefully "underqualified" for the roles they are self assigning themselves. Not necessarily Navy SEALs, but the story was specifically about a firearms instructor who decided to self appoint himself as a combat medic for a QRF, ended up getting a dude killed after performing chest compressions at an inappropriate time. 

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/some-us-volunteers-ukraine-accuse-another-being-a-war-tourist-2023-1?amp

[uhhello]

41 minutes ago, FLEA said:

Some really interesting stuff coming out of this community (war tourism) and some of the ups and downs of it. Was reading an article a few days ago about conflict in the Ukrainian armed forces/other volunteers--that some of these war tourist are woefully "underqualified" for the roles they are self assigning themselves. Not necessarily Navy SEALs, but the story was specifically about a firearms instructor who decided to self appoint himself as a combat medic for a QRF, ended up getting a dude killed after performing chest compressions at an inappropriate time. 

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/some-us-volunteers-ukraine-accuse-another-being-a-war-tourist-2023-1?amp

Doesn't sound like he killed the guy.  Sounds like they were critiquing him for doing CPR in a tactical situation when he could have been helping others but sounds like they were off the line headed back somewhere in a vehicle.  Who knows.  General point stands though, I'm sure there are a lot of YouTube warriors over there.  

[Lord Ratner]

Baseops is making sure I know the best way I can contribute to the way effort 😂🤣

[gearhog]

This article raises and interesting question. If anyone believes NATO is sincere about backing Ukraine, intending for them to win and drive Russians out, why would we send hundreds of billions of dollars in aid and ground equipment, but little for them to establish air dominance over their own territory?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/31/ukraines-tanks-will-achieve-little-without-modern-fighter-jets/

Another question, is this a legit military target while underway?

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/ukraine-situation-report-m2-bradleys-have-begun-their-voyage-to-the-battlefield

https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/russian-warship-armed-with-advanced-missiles-sails-into-western-atlantic-in-strategic-chess-game-1.6248491

US Treasury. LOL. https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/reports-statements/financial-report/unsustainable-fiscal-path.html

Edited January 31, 2023 by torqued

[Stoker]

For anyone who complains about the cost of the war effort to the US, and points to the US debt... you do realize that the money we're spending on Ukraine is a rounding error compared to Federal spending and liabilities, right? I realize this sounds absurd, but $14 billion just isn't a lot of money. We've basically spent the cost of one Ford-class aircraft carrier to cripple our second most powerful foe for at least a generation. That's a good deal, in my book.

[Lawman]

This article raises and interesting question. If anyone believes NATO is sincere about backing Ukraine, intending for them to win and drive Russians out, why would we send hundreds of billions of dollars in aid and ground equipment, but little for them to establish air dominance over their own territory?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/31/ukraines-tanks-will-achieve-little-without-modern-fighter-jets/
Another question, is this a legit military target while underway?
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/ukraine-situation-report-m2-bradleys-have-begun-their-voyage-to-the-battlefield
https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/russian-warship-armed-with-advanced-missiles-sails-into-western-atlantic-in-strategic-chess-game-1.6248491
US Treasury. LOL. https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/reports-statements/financial-report/unsustainable-fiscal-path.html

We’ve sent million of dollars worth of air defense systems ranging from PAC3 to Geperd to MANPADS like Stinger.

“Oh no we won’t give them Vipers” seems like a statement of ignorance considering their military model doesn’t attempt to achieve Air Superiority through air platforms.


Haven’t done anything to give them Air Dominance… tell that to Russian Fullback, Hokum, and Frogfoot drivers. I’m sure the reason we are seeing the Russians resort to massed drone and cruise missile bombardment or lobbing pods full of rockets at high angle Blind has nothing to do with the danger of exposing their manned platforms to the battlefield.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ecugringo]

7 minutes ago, Stoker said:

For anyone who complains about the cost of the war effort to the US, and points to the US debt... you do realize that the money we're spending on Ukraine is a rounding error compared to Federal spending and liabilities, right? I realize this sounds absurd, but $14 billion just isn't a lot of money. We've basically spent the cost of one Ford-class aircraft carrier to cripple our second most powerful foe for at least a generation. That's a good deal, in my book.

Let's also be honest.  Not a single cent that has gone to Ukraine would have been used in any meaningful way to make the US better.  

Infrastructure desperately needs updating.

Our education sucks.

Health care?  

 

[FLEA]

41 minutes ago, Stoker said:

For anyone who complains about the cost of the war effort to the US, and points to the US debt... you do realize that the money we're spending on Ukraine is a rounding error compared to Federal spending and liabilities, right? I realize this sounds absurd, but $14 billion just isn't a lot of money. We've basically spent the cost of one Ford-class aircraft carrier to cripple our second most powerful foe for at least a generation. That's a good deal, in my book.

The part you leave out though is we are still going to buy that extra Ford class aircraft carrier. I think thats where the contention comes in. 

[gearhog]

2 hours ago, Stoker said:

For anyone who complains about the cost of the war effort to the US, and points to the US debt... you do realize that the money we're spending on Ukraine is a rounding error compared to Federal spending and liabilities, right? I realize this sounds absurd, but $14 billion just isn't a lot of money. We've basically spent the cost of one Ford-class aircraft carrier to cripple our second most powerful foe for at least a generation. That's a good deal, in my book.

That's a fair argument. I'll agree with you that $14 billion really isn't a lot of money. But if you know what isn't a lot of money, then you must also know what is. Would it be fair to say that ten times that is a lot of money? Where would you make the distinction?

2 hours ago, Lawman said:

We’ve sent million of dollars worth of air defense systems ranging from PAC3 to Geperd to MANPADS like Stinger.

“Oh no we won’t give them Vipers” seems like a statement of ignorance considering their military model doesn’t attempt to achieve Air Superiority through air platforms.

Haven’t done anything to give them Air Dominance… tell that to Russian Fullback, Hokum, and Frogfoot drivers. I’m sure the reason we are seeing the Russians resort to massed drone and cruise missile bombardment or lobbing pods full of rockets at high angle Blind has nothing to do with the danger of exposing their manned platforms to the battlefield.

Slow down. It seems like you think my position is to provide Ukraine with Vipers. That's not true. I'd argue Ukraine doesn't attempt Air Superiority not because they don't believe in air platforms as part of their "military model"... but perhaps because they dont fn have any. Ukraine is absolutely begging for both ground and air equipment, specifically F-16s. Are they not fighting this war? You should be explaining to them, not me, what they do and do not need.  Just tell them "Air Superiority is achievable through superior ground-based Air Defenses."

I'm just curious as to the logical gynmastics required by those who want to "help" Ukraine, but not that much.

https://theaviationist.com/2023/01/27/ukraine-requests-two-squadrons-of-f-16s-but-giving-vipers-to-kyiv-is-easier-said-than-done/

Edited January 31, 2023 by torqued

[Stoker]

41 minutes ago, torqued said:

That's a fair argument. I'll agree with you that $14 billion really isn't a lot of money. But if you know what isn't a lot of money, then you must also know what is. Would it be fair to say that ten times that is a lot of money? Where would you make the distinction?

All spending has diminishing marginal utility. There's definitely a point where the "dead Soviets per dollar" ratio doesn't justify spending more. But we aren't close to it yet.

[gearhog]

6 minutes ago, Stoker said:

All spending has diminishing marginal utility. There's definitely a point where the "dead Soviets per dollar" ratio doesn't justify spending more. But we aren't close to it yet.

What is that point? Just ballpark it.

EDIT: This headline dropped in the last 10 minutes.

Biden Admin. To Send Ukraine New $2.2B Aid Package That Includes Long-Range Missileshttps://breaking911.com/breaking-biden-admin-to-send-ukraine-new-2-2b-aid-package-that-includes-long-range-missiles/

Edited January 31, 2023 by torqued

[Stoker]

3 minutes ago, torqued said:

What is that point? Just ballpark it.

The money and effort we spend supporting Ukraine will effectively terminate the ability of our second greatest foe to threaten European security at a less than nuclear scale for the next twenty years or so. I think we should spend commensurate with how much we value that goal. I don't know, man, I'm just a guy who flies planes, not a senior staffer on the Appropriations committee.

I guess my point is, the people who moan and complain about all the money we're spending on Ukraine are either willful or ignorant puppets of Russian information shaping efforts. If someone from your political party had a magic deal where, for 2% of Federal spending a year, they could reunite Europe behind a pro-US banner, crush one of our biggest enemies, generate new markets for US energy exports, and protect 45 million people from subjugation, oppression, and extermination, would you say that is a good deal?

[Lawman]

Slow down. It seems like you think my position is to provide Ukraine with Vipers. That's not true. I'd argue Ukraine doesn't attempt Air Superiority not because they don't believe in air platforms as part of their "military model"... but perhaps because they dont fn have any. Ukraine is absolutely begging for both ground and air equipment, specifically F-16s. Are they not fighting this war? You should be explaining to them, not me, what they do and do not need.  Just tell them "Air Superiority is achievable through superior ground-based Air Defenses."
I'm just curious as to the logical gynmastics required by those who want to "help" Ukraine, but not that much.
https://theaviationist.com/2023/01/27/ukraine-requests-two-squadrons-of-f-16s-but-giving-vipers-to-kyiv-is-easier-said-than-done/

What’s the lead time to establish a trained Viper pilot. What if I give you every 3rd guy is a former Mig29 or other high performance aircraft pilot. Ok now let’s compare that with the time to train a system operator in any air defense system… They are taking rounds against their infrastructure now.

Yes we can give these guys access to the NATO stock of 4th Gen aircraft but acting like just having high performance aircraft is “how we achieve air dominance” is ignorant whether you are reading about it in a rag like Telegraph or saying it as anyone that has been to the Party wearing a US uniform. If the argument was they need X because they’ve expended their hole stocks of Y that would be a different argument. They aren’t making that argument. They are trying to pretend we haven’t given anything that solves the problem and the tanks will somehow be exposed to some massive losses from air power the Russians have yet to demonstrate any capability at doing.

Viper or something similar is a very small part in that massive mechanism we wield to achieve Air Superiority and dominance our way (from the Air primarily). Pretending they have all or some of the other facets of what makes that achievable and the missing link here is us giving them Vipers/Mirages/Tornados/god damned spitfires is ignorant at best. And the other issue with that article is it alluding to the idea that the Uke’s haven’t created a storm of problems for the current Russian air threat both with the systems they had on hand and the ones we are giving them. Acting like the thing that Russian air has been waiting on is the presence of modern NATO armor to get off its ass and be part of this fight is ignorant of all the burning bent hulks of what used to be a Fullback/Frogfoot/etc littering Ukraine over the last few months.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[waveshaper]

18 minutes ago, torqued said:

What is that point? Just ballpark it.

EDIT: This headline dropped in the last 10 minutes.

Biden Admin. To Send Ukraine New $2.2B Aid Package That Includes Long-Range Missileshttps://breaking911.com/breaking-biden-admin-to-send-ukraine-new-2-2b-aid-package-that-includes-long-range-missiles/

The new ordnance item contained in this latest Aid Package = The 'Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bomb (GLSDB)/long-range, all-aspect, precision-attack, ground-launched weapon developed by Saab in partnership with Boeing to address the emerging needs of armed forces.'

U.S. readies $2 bln-plus Ukraine aid package with longer-range weapons -sources | Reuters

[Lawman]

The new ordnance item contained in this latest Aid Package = The 'Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bomb (GLSDB)/long-range, all-aspect, precision-attack, ground-launched weapon developed by Saab in partnership with Boeing to address the emerging needs of armed forces.'
U.S. readies $2 bln-plus Ukraine aid package with longer-range weapons -sources | Reuters

I can’t wait for them to validate that thing because it’s one of the potential game changer toys we keep playing with in Warfighters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gearhog]

34 minutes ago, Stoker said:

The money and effort we spend supporting Ukraine will effectively terminate the ability of our second greatest foe to threaten European security at a less than nuclear scale for the next twenty years or so. I think we should spend commensurate with how much we value that goal. I don't know, man, I'm just a guy who flies planes, not a senior staffer on the Appropriations committee.

I guess my point is, the people who moan and complain about all the money we're spending on Ukraine are either willful or ignorant puppets of Russian information shaping efforts. If someone from your political party had a magic deal where, for 2% of Federal spending a year, they could reunite Europe behind a pro-US banner, crush one of our biggest enemies, generate new markets for US energy exports, and protect 45 million people from subjugation, oppression, and extermination, would you say that is a good deal?

You can't put a price on happiness, right?

33 minutes ago, Lawman said:

What’s the lead time to establish a trained Viper pilot. What if I give you every 3rd guy is a former Mig29 or other high performance aircraft pilot. Ok now let’s compare that with the time to train a system operator in any air defense system… They are taking rounds against their infrastructure now.

Yes we can give these guys access to the NATO stock of 4th Gen aircraft but acting like just having high performance aircraft is “how we achieve air dominance” is ignorant whether you are reading about it in a rag like Telegraph or saying it as anyone that has been to the Party wearing a US uniform.

Viper or something similar is a very small part in that massive mechanism we wield to achieve Air Superiority and dominance our way (from the Air primarily). Pretending they have all or some of the other facets of what makes that achievable and the missing link here is us giving them Vipers/Mirages/Tornados/god damned spitfires is ignorant at best. And the other issue with that article is it alluding to the idea that the Uke’s haven’t created a storm of problems for the current Russian air threat both with the systems they had on hand and the ones we are giving them. Acting like the thing that Russian air has been waiting on is the presence of modern NATO armor to get off its ass and be part of this fight is ignorant of all the burning bent hulks of what used to be a Fullback/Frogfoot/etc littering Ukraine over the last few months.

I don't want to mischaracterize your position, but I think what you're saying to Zelensky's repeated requests is:

1. It takes too long to train good pilots and we choose not to spend that time and money. Shooting a missile is easier.

2. Even if we gave you aircraft, you don't have the support and you would probably fuck it up.

3. We could give you that support, but it costs too much.

4. You're doing fine. (Recent Russian advances notwithstanding)

I hope you don't think I disagree with you.

[Lawman]

I don't want to mischaracterize your position, but I think what you're saying to Zelensky's repeated requests is:
1. It takes too long to train good pilots and we choose not to spend that time and money. Shooting a missile is easier.
2. Even if we gave you aircraft, you don't have the support and you would probably it up.
3. We could give you that support, but it costs too much.
4. You're doing fine. (Recent Russian advances notwithstanding)
I hope you don't think I disagree with you.

No I’m saying you inserted an article which builds on a Bullshit premise as to why it’s necessary to “prove our support” with a modern fighter so that the Ukrainians can support their armor in the field.

Now why you did that is your own reasons, but it’s absolutely BS to say we are somehow halfhearted in our support for Ukraine this many billions of dollars and months into the fight.

Given that we are now facing calls to limit the amount of dollars we can give from within our own countries it’s more important than ever to achieve the maximum dollar value for the assistance we are given and dismiss bullshit like that article for what it is. If somebody is trying imply the Uke’s haven’t received aid in achieving or even achieved some form of air superiority with the equipment on hand (to include the very best ground based systems we own) than please explain why the Russian Air isn’t running around their country wholesale the way we would be in the same place. Why are we see them deliberately choosing to adopt toss bombing in salvos to achieve little in actual accurate effects and expend all the effort and ordnance for a sortie that does little to effect the ground. Surely if air superiority didn’t favor the ground and survivability isn’t in question they wouldn’t adopt such tactics right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FLEA]

1 hour ago, Stoker said:

The money and effort we spend supporting Ukraine will effectively terminate the ability of our second greatest foe to threaten European security at a less than nuclear scale for the next twenty years or so. I think we should spend commensurate with how much we value that goal. I don't know, man, I'm just a guy who flies planes, not a senior staffer on the Appropriations committee.

I guess my point is, the people who moan and complain about all the money we're spending on Ukraine are either willful or ignorant puppets of Russian information shaping efforts. If someone from your political party had a magic deal where, for 2% of Federal spending a year, they could reunite Europe behind a pro-US banner, crush one of our biggest enemies, generate new markets for US energy exports, and protect 45 million people from subjugation, oppression, and extermination, would you say that is a good deal?

Some of us don't value that very high. And thinking Europe will ever get behind a US banner is laughable. They generally do not have high opinions of Americans or American culture. 

[filthy_liar]

4 hours ago, Stoker said:

I realize this sounds absurd, but $14 billion just isn't a lot of money. We've basically spent the cost of one Ford-class aircraft carrier

In reality, $14B is a lot of money in the programming directorates of the services in the pentagon.  And an aircraft carrier is a huge, huge deal.  Just the upgrade of the virginia class subs almost cost the AF some F-35s in one appropriation/acquisition year.  When you look at the entire DoD budget, I agree, 14B isn't earth shattering.  But in every services' fight to the death POM cycle, that's a hell of a lot of bank.

 

[gearhog]

5 minutes ago, Lawman said:

No I’m saying you inserted an article which builds on a Bullshit premise as to why it’s necessary to “prove our support” with a modern fighter so that the Ukrainians can support their armor in the field.

Now why you did that is your own reasons, but it’s absolutely BS to say we are somehow halfhearted in our support for Ukraine this many billions of dollars and months into the fight.

Given that we are now facing calls to limit the amount of dollars we can give from within our own countries it’s more important than ever to achieve the maximum dollar value for the assistance we are given and dismiss bullshit like that article for what it is. If somebody is trying imply the Uke’s haven’t received aid in achieving or even achieved some form of air superiority with the equipment on hand (to include the very best ground based systems we own) than please explain why the Russian Air isn’t running around their country wholesale the way we would be in the same place. Why are we see them deliberately choosing to adopt toss bombing in salvos to achieve little in actual accurate effects and expend all the effort and ordnance for a sortie that does little to effect the ground. Surely if air superiority didn’t favor the ground and survivability isn’t in question they wouldn’t adopt such tactics right?

Again, I still get the impression you think we're on opposite sides of the issue. The article makes the very same justifications as Ukrainian President Zelensky, Ukrainian gov't officials, and Ukrainian military leadership, and other world leaders have been making for Ukr getting Vipers. You think it's bullshit, and I've already said I agree. But that's the argument being made by those who think we're not doing enough. Why did I include it? So someone like yourself could call out the BS better than I could. Well done.

[arg]

Can the M-1 do this

 

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=546114157471898

Edited February 1, 2023 by arg
Apologies to non-facebookers

[GrndPndr]

37 minutes ago, arg said:

Can the M-1 do this

 

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=546114157471898

Yes

[arg]

1 hour ago, GrndPndr said:

Yes

Lets get some beer and prove it.

But can it RUN on beer!

 

[Prozac]

3 hours ago, FLEA said:

Some of us don't value that very high. And thinking Europe will ever get behind a US banner is laughable. They generally do not have high opinions of Americans or American culture. 

If you don’t value European security, you’re a fool. Reference two world wars starting there. Also reference some of our best allies & trading partners being there. You’re also a fool if you don’t believe Europe is very much under the US banner already. Just because Hans told you he doesn’t like American imperialism, it doesn’t mean Herr Scholz isn’t down with a US led Western world. It makes his job easier in many, many ways. 

[Prozac]

3 hours ago, torqued said:

Again, I still get the impression you think we're on opposite sides of the issue. The article makes the very same justifications as Ukrainian President Zelensky, Ukrainian gov't officials, and Ukrainian military leadership, and other world leaders have been making for Ukr getting Vipers. You think it's bullshit, and I've already said I agree. But that's the argument being made by those who think we're not doing enough. Why did I include it? So someone like yourself could call out the BS better than I could. Well done.

Uhhh, no dude. You’ve made it clear that your position is that our support for the Ukes must not be genuine because we’re not giving them Vipers. As others have alluded, that’s a pretty weak argument considering the level of support given so far. It’s like saying you don’t love your wife unless you buy her that $3K Hermes bag that she really, really wants.