Is Ukraine about to have a war?
I was suggesting going beyond the obvious candidates i.e. anything you can dangle a bomb or missile off...
The Hawk would be an interesting proposition IMO - it is a trainer after all therefore v quick familiarisation, good at low level.
The Hawk would be an interesting proposition IMO - it is a trainer after all therefore v quick familiarisation, good at low level.
How long roughly would it take you to be confident in weapons systems, basic handling, energy management etc... when put into an entirely new type of roughly the same weight, power, performance?
Another forum I get onto there an Ex Luftwaffe pilot, he did the conversion course from mig - 29 to EF was a 6 month peace time course. It was a 6 months, 5 days a week 2 days in class room and 3 days flying. He seems to think you could get it down to 3 months easily if you cut a lot of the chaff out and possibly down to 2 months if you are willing to take some shortcuts
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,081
Received 2,942 Likes
on
1,253 Posts
The question is, have Ukrainian pilots already been trained on types while the war is ongoing.?
Bare in mind this is Pravda.RU.kidding
It appears India who is buying the cheap Russian oil is having problems sourcing shipping to deliver it as they cannot get insurance for the vessels.
https://english.pravda.ru/news/busin...n_oil_company/
Ohh and prepare for incoming... Oddly enough we do not appear to be on the list..
Bare in mind this is Pravda.RU.kidding
It appears India who is buying the cheap Russian oil is having problems sourcing shipping to deliver it as they cannot get insurance for the vessels.
https://english.pravda.ru/news/busin...n_oil_company/
Indian state-owned energy company Oil and Natural Gas Corp (ONGC) is searching for a ship to transport 700,000 barrels of oil from the Far East, Reuters reports citing its sources. The Indian company started experiencing problems with the transportation of raw materials against the backdrop of the sanctions that were imposed on Russia in response to the military operation in Ukraine.
See more at https://english.pravda.ru/news/busin...n_oil_company/
See more at https://english.pravda.ru/news/busin...n_oil_company/
Having acknowledged the legitimacy of Ukraine's strikes against military facilities on the Russian territory, London has justified air strikes against logistics chains in a number of NATO countries that supply arms to Kiev. Poland and Romania are the first to ask for it.James Heappey, UK's Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, told Times Radio that Ukraine had a legal right to strike military facilities on the Russian territory to disrupt the logistics of the Russian Armed Forces.
It is “completely legitimate for Ukraine to be targeting in Russia’s depth in order to disrupt the logistics that if they weren’t disrupted would directly contribute to death and carnage on Ukrainian soil," Heappey said.
Commenting on this statement, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said that in order to disrupt military logistics, Russia could strike military targets on the territory of a number of NATO countries that supply arms to the Kiev regime.
"Do we have the right understanding here? After all, it directly leads to deaths and bloodshed on Ukrainian territory. As far as I understand, Britain is one of those countries," Zakharova clarified in her Telegram channel.
Every time when they sell weapons to Ukraine, European countries fear that they will become a party to military action and "Putin's wrath". The head of the German Foreign Office, Annalena Baerbock, expressed her concerns on he matter.
"We at the government are united in saying that we will not become a party to the conflict," she said during a press conference on April 20.
Hungary shares a different point of view. Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó said during a visit to Kosovo that Hungary had no plans to supply lethal weapons to Ukraine. In addition, Hungary does not allow their transit to Kiev, as they "could become targets to hostile military actions".
"We are not getting involved in this war," the minister explained.
Incidentally, a group of German public figures wrote an open letter to German Chancellor Olaf Scholz calling for arms shipments to Ukraine to end, as this "drags Germany into war".
"By supplying weapons, Germany and other NATO countries have de facto made themselves a party to the war. Ukraine has thus become a battleground in a conflict between NATO and Russia over security rules in Europe that has been escalating for years," the letter claims.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that negotiations on Ukraine were unlikely to be effective if Kiev continues to receive arms shipments from other countries. In the United States, CNN sources describe arms supplies to Ukraine as an investment in neutralising Russia's army and navy for a decade to come. Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin's recent statements about his intention to "weaken Russia" through military aid to Ukraine are a cynical reminder of NATO being an aggressive organisation that targets Russia in the first place.
Where can Russia strike western logistics and military facilities?
This could be Romania in the first place. Romania may now invade Transnistria to save its Moldovan brothers there.
Poland is next on the list - this country serves as a transit point for all arms shipments from Western countries to Ukraine.
These countries will not survive a Caliber missile attack either physically or mentally. It would indeed be a prelude to Third World War, but US allies would be the first to lose it as they misbehave.
Subscribe to Pravda.Ru Telegram channel, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, RSS!
See more at https://english.pravda.ru/world/151458-poland_romania/
See more at https://english.pravda.ru/world/151458-poland_romania/
It is “completely legitimate for Ukraine to be targeting in Russia’s depth in order to disrupt the logistics that if they weren’t disrupted would directly contribute to death and carnage on Ukrainian soil," Heappey said.
Commenting on this statement, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said that in order to disrupt military logistics, Russia could strike military targets on the territory of a number of NATO countries that supply arms to the Kiev regime.
"Do we have the right understanding here? After all, it directly leads to deaths and bloodshed on Ukrainian territory. As far as I understand, Britain is one of those countries," Zakharova clarified in her Telegram channel.
Every time when they sell weapons to Ukraine, European countries fear that they will become a party to military action and "Putin's wrath". The head of the German Foreign Office, Annalena Baerbock, expressed her concerns on he matter.
"We at the government are united in saying that we will not become a party to the conflict," she said during a press conference on April 20.
Hungary shares a different point of view. Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó said during a visit to Kosovo that Hungary had no plans to supply lethal weapons to Ukraine. In addition, Hungary does not allow their transit to Kiev, as they "could become targets to hostile military actions".
"We are not getting involved in this war," the minister explained.
Incidentally, a group of German public figures wrote an open letter to German Chancellor Olaf Scholz calling for arms shipments to Ukraine to end, as this "drags Germany into war".
"By supplying weapons, Germany and other NATO countries have de facto made themselves a party to the war. Ukraine has thus become a battleground in a conflict between NATO and Russia over security rules in Europe that has been escalating for years," the letter claims.
Primary targets for Caliber missiles
Active suppliers of lethal weapons to Nazi Kiev regime are:- Czech Republic,
- Poland,
- Slovenia,
- Turkey,
- Germany,
- USA.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that negotiations on Ukraine were unlikely to be effective if Kiev continues to receive arms shipments from other countries. In the United States, CNN sources describe arms supplies to Ukraine as an investment in neutralising Russia's army and navy for a decade to come. Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin's recent statements about his intention to "weaken Russia" through military aid to Ukraine are a cynical reminder of NATO being an aggressive organisation that targets Russia in the first place.
Where can Russia strike western logistics and military facilities?
This could be Romania in the first place. Romania may now invade Transnistria to save its Moldovan brothers there.
Poland is next on the list - this country serves as a transit point for all arms shipments from Western countries to Ukraine.
These countries will not survive a Caliber missile attack either physically or mentally. It would indeed be a prelude to Third World War, but US allies would be the first to lose it as they misbehave.
Subscribe to Pravda.Ru Telegram channel, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, RSS!
See more at https://english.pravda.ru/world/151458-poland_romania/
See more at https://english.pravda.ru/world/151458-poland_romania/
2) The country of destination violates human rights systematically and severely.
3) The country of destination has a high risk that the war material to be exported will be used against the civilian population.
4) The country of destination has a high risk that the war material to be exported will War material is passed on to an undesirable end recipient.
Official site of the Swiss government: Google "seco.admin.ch Rüstungskontrolle rechtliche Grundlagen" (I'm not allowed to post links).
That said, our weapons exports are about 0.1% of the GDP ...
The cynic in me does wonder if Germany deliberately picked a weapons system they knew they couldn’t deliver to show they were going to deliver “ heavy weapons” fully aware that Switzerland would veto it, thus allowing Germany a get out clause and the ability to blame the Swiss whilst showing the West they were “complying” with the requests to do more.
S
Last edited by T28B; 27th Apr 2022 at 12:52. Reason: link to supporting information
Commenting on this statement, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said that in order to disrupt military logistics, Russia could strike military targets on the territory of a number of NATO countries that supply arms to the Kiev regime.
"Do we have the right understanding here? After all, it directly leads to deaths and bloodshed on Ukrainian territory. As far as I understand, Britain is one of those countries," Zakharova clarified in her Telegram channel.
"Do we have the right understanding here? After all, it directly leads to deaths and bloodshed on Ukrainian territory. As far as I understand, Britain is one of those countries," Zakharova clarified in her Telegram channel.
That means indeed that Ukraine is entitled to strike those nations causing bloodshed, deaths and war crimes on its territory. As far as I know, outside perverted Putin's brain, there is only one of those at the moment.
German press is saying that BK Scholz is trying to have his cake and eat it in regard to armour to Ukraine. The current proposal before the Bundestag links the supply of armour ( very urgent ) with the proposal to increase Bundeswehr spending by E 100 Mrd ( not very urgent ) , presumably in the hope that he can look like a good guy without actually doing anything (parliamentary log-jam ). The CDU parliamentary leadership has called out this political manoeuvring, saying they will not support this (their votes are needed to pass the motion ) and the two matters need to be split to allow urgent supply to Ukraine.
There also seems possible political deviousness afoot as regards the Gepard AA tanks. The German offer includes no ammo and the Ukrainians say that that renders the Gepard useless for them: one wonders if this is Scholz and his lukewarm defence-minister, Lambrecht, playing silly buggers (see next para )
I don't know how special this ammo is, but it has been reported that Switzerland will not allow supplies already delivered to Germany to be re-exported to Ukraine
There also seems possible political deviousness afoot as regards the Gepard AA tanks. The German offer includes no ammo and the Ukrainians say that that renders the Gepard useless for them: one wonders if this is Scholz and his lukewarm defence-minister, Lambrecht, playing silly buggers (see next para )
I don't know how special this ammo is, but it has been reported that Switzerland will not allow supplies already delivered to Germany to be re-exported to Ukraine
We are concentrating on a high profile but a relatively small part of the conflict. In the end the logistics to the front line is substantially more important than whipping around the troops in a plane that is going to be attracting SAM and AAA from the invaders. The front troops who are conducting the hard yards of the defense need munitions, where they are, and in large enough volume to make it impossible for F-Troop to advance, and better yet, enough supply to get F-Troop to depart the fix and return to Fort Fumble in the worker's idyllic state of collapse. It would take about 30 minutes to check out the average former military driver, or airline puke to fly a Cessna Caravan. blow camo on them and get munitions and expendables out to the troops. Also, get the wounded back to care ASAP. FEDEX, Fred S and the rest have the ability to lend planes to a push out there. There will be losses, but there will be timely resupply, we are not in the long haul period of the war right now, we are still in the stopping the tide phase.
F-Troop have expended a large amount of their available capability, in manpower, precision munitions, and even many of the delivery systems. URA needs to still cope with the local munitions need to stop attacks by the invaders, and even a C208 carries a fair load gear, within normal times, 1.1tons or so, this is a special military op, so 1.5t would not be much to ask for. That's about 10T/day per plane. Add a couple of nice little tucanos (or similar) or other COIN types or OV10 and add star streak to a few for fun and a wave of C208s gets ATW and small arm munitions to the front. Adolf's 6th Army was defeated by logistics before bullets. There are a lot of pilots that would be able to fly these types and do simple BARCAP for airlift, and it adds piquancy by giving a point of focus for point defense at various locations to increase the tally of Russian attack aircraft. Grouse season is open.
The most effective responses from Ukraine will be asymmetric in nature, doing the same thing that F-Troop is doing and failing at doesn't seem to be very Sun Tzu'sy, Von Clausewitz would suggest to fight where the enemy isn't... or maybe that is Taylor Kirsch rabitting away in "Battleship", when he too was saving the world from invaders, ugly ones, much like F-Troop really.
The beauty of the AN-2 (eye of the beholder thingy) is that it can carry a huge amount of gear, and land on any semi-straight road, and is a pain to chase and attack with fast jets. If it is going to be in a gaggle, and someone happens to have some spare starstreaks, then there is going to be a tactical PITA to the attacker, cut a hole in the side, use A-A capable COIN, LCAs, or other to assist give F-Troop a reason to GO HOME.
s.
“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs”
If Maria doesn't like it, perhaps she should take her toys 'n boys and stuff off back to the Peoples Utopia of Kopek. Her people signed the Charter. They can always remove themselves from the Charter which would make for a much more effective UNSC resolution to place UN Peace Keepers in Ukraine immediately. I would want a vote on that one.
Sorry, Louis Rossmann.
Could be a good reason to oppose the 'right to repair' movement?
You may also recall that more than once in the the Sinai UN peacekeepers either were withdrawn or were more or less ignored when various wars there were begun. The peacekeepers were only re-inserted when the shooting stopped and some kind of agreement was put together. Shooting hasn't stopped in Ukraine, has it? No, not as of this morning.
With the above said, a direct intervention (similar to Korea 1950) is certainly an option should a coalition of interested parties assemble and insert such a force (under the general proviso of collective defense per Article 51) without necessarily asking the UNSC "by your leave". That probably won't have a UN 'good housekeeping seal of approval' attached to it regardless of how effective it is, or isn't. Since the UN has some well known limitations as a collective security organization maybe that 'good housekeeping seal' doesn't matter - but some people in positions of power think that it does, in terms of their never ending search for legitimacy. (A generally vain hope, given what a bunch of right bastards most politicians are).
All of the above also applies to any attempt at instituting a no-fly zone. (<- lookie there, aviation content!)
Is not the denial of gas to Poland and Bulgaria yet another huge mistake, if not the biggest?
In geopolitical and economic terms this will surely echo down the years, as customers [not only for gas] take note that the implied threats are, as circumstances change, actually carried out.
Hitherto BU [BU = Before Ukraine] Western pragmatism's default was "they would not dare do it because it would hit them in the pocket". Wrong. That Rubicon has been crossed.
This is like Putin leading the King to a trick, without being sure if the ace and all the trumps have gone.
The scramble for energy security will now hot up to fever pitch. Nuclear, anybody?
In geopolitical and economic terms this will surely echo down the years, as customers [not only for gas] take note that the implied threats are, as circumstances change, actually carried out.
Hitherto BU [BU = Before Ukraine] Western pragmatism's default was "they would not dare do it because it would hit them in the pocket". Wrong. That Rubicon has been crossed.
This is like Putin leading the King to a trick, without being sure if the ace and all the trumps have gone.
The scramble for energy security will now hot up to fever pitch. Nuclear, anybody?
I agree with you on the Article 51 point in general terms, but, you can't put peacekeepers in where there isn't a peace. So don't vote for a bad idea. Further that point, you can't put in a peace enforcement group in (see Former Yugoslavia, 1990's, NATO Operation Deliberate Force which was to enforce the Dayton Agreement) without a peace/peace agreement in place. No, inserting peace keepers into a hot war is a non starter.
You may also recall that more than once in the the Sinai UN peacekeepers either were withdrawn or were more or less ignored when various wars there were begun. The peacekeepers were only re-inserted when the shooting stopped and some kind of agreement was put together. Shooting hasn't stopped in Ukraine, has it? No, not as of this morning.
With the above said, a direct intervention (similar to Korea 1950) is certainly an option should a coalition of interested parties assemble and insert such a force (under the general proviso of collective defense per Article 51) without necessarily asking the UNSC "by your leave". That probably won't have a UN 'good housekeeping seal of approval' attached to it regardless of how effective it is, or isn't. Since the UN has some well known limitations as a collective security organization maybe that 'good housekeeping seal' doesn't matter - but some people in positions of power think that it does, in terms of their never ending search for legitimacy. (A generally vain hope, given what a bunch of right bastards most politicians are).
All of the above also applies to any attempt at instituting a no-fly zone. (<- lookie there, aviation content!)
You may also recall that more than once in the the Sinai UN peacekeepers either were withdrawn or were more or less ignored when various wars there were begun. The peacekeepers were only re-inserted when the shooting stopped and some kind of agreement was put together. Shooting hasn't stopped in Ukraine, has it? No, not as of this morning.
With the above said, a direct intervention (similar to Korea 1950) is certainly an option should a coalition of interested parties assemble and insert such a force (under the general proviso of collective defense per Article 51) without necessarily asking the UNSC "by your leave". That probably won't have a UN 'good housekeeping seal of approval' attached to it regardless of how effective it is, or isn't. Since the UN has some well known limitations as a collective security organization maybe that 'good housekeeping seal' doesn't matter - but some people in positions of power think that it does, in terms of their never ending search for legitimacy. (A generally vain hope, given what a bunch of right bastards most politicians are).
All of the above also applies to any attempt at instituting a no-fly zone. (<- lookie there, aviation content!)
There is no legal right that Russia has to invade a sovereign nation, and doing so just because you happen to have nukes is no basis for global security.
Is not the denial of gas to Poland and Bulgaria yet another huge mistake, if not the biggest?
In geopolitical and economic terms this will surely echo down the years, as customers [not only for gas] take note that the implied threats are, as circumstances change, actually carried out.
Hitherto BU [BU = Before Ukraine] Western pragmatism's default was "they would not dare do it because it would hit them in the pocket". Wrong. That Rubicon has been crossed.
This is like Putin leading the King to a trick, without being sure if the ace and all the trumps have gone.
The scramble for energy security will now hot up to fever pitch. Nuclear, anybody?
In geopolitical and economic terms this will surely echo down the years, as customers [not only for gas] take note that the implied threats are, as circumstances change, actually carried out.
Hitherto BU [BU = Before Ukraine] Western pragmatism's default was "they would not dare do it because it would hit them in the pocket". Wrong. That Rubicon has been crossed.
This is like Putin leading the King to a trick, without being sure if the ace and all the trumps have gone.
The scramble for energy security will now hot up to fever pitch. Nuclear, anybody?
That's a yes, then?
I want to copyright "BU", I am sure it will come in handy over the years.
I want to copyright "BU", I am sure it will come in handy over the years.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,081
Received 2,942 Likes
on
1,253 Posts
Maria apparently has never read the UN Charter. So to assist her in getting her facts straight here, straight from the UN Charter, Article 51...
“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs”
If Maria doesn't like it, perhaps she should take her toys 'n boys and stuff off back to the Peoples Utopia of Kopek. Her people signed the Charter. They can always remove themselves from the Charter which would make for a much more effective UNSC resolution to place UN Peace Keepers in Ukraine immediately. I would want a vote on that one.
“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs”
If Maria doesn't like it, perhaps she should take her toys 'n boys and stuff off back to the Peoples Utopia of Kopek. Her people signed the Charter. They can always remove themselves from the Charter which would make for a much more effective UNSC resolution to place UN Peace Keepers in Ukraine immediately. I would want a vote on that one.
https://www.reuters.com/world/iaea-s...yl-2022-04-26/
Dan Snow was on the telly this morning disparaging the request for Combat aircraft not as a dangerous escalation, but as big and shiney. He didn't seem to regard air power, other than drones as worth a candle.
FB
FB
Commenting on this statement, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said that in order to disrupt military logistics, Russia could strike military targets on the territory of a number of NATO countries that supply arms to the Kiev regime.
"Do we have the right understanding here? After all, it directly leads to deaths and bloodshed on Ukrainian territory. As far as I understand, Britain is one of those countries," Zakharova clarified in her Telegram channel.
"Do we have the right understanding here? After all, it directly leads to deaths and bloodshed on Ukrainian territory. As far as I understand, Britain is one of those countries," Zakharova clarified in her Telegram channel.
