The War in the Ukraine

Bellum_Romanum

Brigadier
Registered Member
I think he makes good points.

Keep in mind, he has historically always been pro escalatory. He called for a no-fly zone in the first week of the invasion.

Back in the 90s, he almost started WW3 with Russia over an airfield in Kosovo …
WWIII? Against a very weak Russia of 1999? That's nothing but hyperbole. Putin was the PM not yet the President, but let's not sidetracked the topic.
 

Overbom

Brigadier
Registered Member
Huge news. If this actually happens, Russian ships will have to return to their ports for their own safety

Putin going for the anti-Sun Tzu strategy:
"LOnG wARs ArE BEtteR tHaN shORt WarS"

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
The White House is working to put advanced anti-ship missiles in the hands of Ukrainian fighters to help defeat Russia's naval blockade, officials said, amid concerns more powerful weapons that could sink Russian warships would intensify the conflict.
But three U.S. officials and two congressional sources said two types of powerful anti-ship missiles, the Harpoon made by Boeing (BA.N) and the Naval Strike Missile made by Kongsberg (KOG.OL) and Raytheon Technologies (RTX.N) were in active consideration for either direct shipment to Ukraine, or through a transfer from a European ally that has the missiles.
But there are several issues keeping Ukraine from receiving the missiles. For one, there is limited availability of platforms to launch Harpoons from shore -- a technically challenging solution according to several officials -- as it is mostly a sea-based missile.

Two U.S. officials said the United States was working on potential solutions that included pulling a launcher off of a U.S. ship. Both missiles cost about $1.5 million per round, according to experts and industry executives.
The Naval Strike Missile (NSM) can be launched from the Ukrainian coast and has a range of 250 km. It also takes less than 14 days training to operate.

The sources said NSMs were viewed as less logistically difficult than Harpoons, because NATO allies could loan mobile ground launchers which are available, and warheads from Norway.
 

Coalescence

Senior Member
Registered Member
Huge news. If this actually happens, Russian ships will have to return to their ports for their own safety

Putin going for the anti-Sun Tzu strategy:
"LOnG wARs ArE BEtteR tHaN shORt WarS"

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
So surface ships is going to be vulnerable, but what about Russia's submarines? Could Russia still do a naval blockade using submarines?
 

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
According to a report by USNI, Russian hypersonics are underperforming in Ukraine:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
So much cope. "Not accurate". Well they seem pretty accurate to me. I have seen Iskander strikes on S-300 missile launchers and Buks. If it can hit a Buk it is pretty accurate to me. They seem as accurate as possible given existing GLONASS accuracy.

And no one in their right mind uses multi-million dollar weapons like that to target civilians. Poor cost effectiveness.

Media report that about 1700 soldiers in Azovstal Steel Plant have surrendered but no commander has done so yet. Is there any possibility that the "Big Fish" transform themselves into wounded or surrendered soldiers and sneaked away from the Steel Plant? Or they even might bribe the Russian soldiers to let them flee away secretly?
The second in command supposedly surrendered but the commander hasn't come out yet.

Huge news. If this actually happens, Russian ships will have to return to their ports for their own safety
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
I find it funny how the US can declare a war on the Spanish or German Empires supposedly because they sank a ship (Maine, Lusitania). But sinking Russian ships is ok? Fine.
 

Zichan

Junior Member
Registered Member
WWIII? Against a very weak Russia of 1999? That's nothing but hyperbole. Putin was the PM not yet the President, but let's not sidetracked the topic.
Those were not my words: “I'm not going to start Third World War for you," General Jackson told the US commander, according to Newsweek.

According to James Blunt (famous singer):
In an interview with BBC Radio 5 live, broadcast on Sunday, he said: "I was given the direct command to overpower the 200 or so Russians who were there.”

"The direct command [that] came in from Gen Wesley Clark was to overpower them. Various words were used that seemed unusual to us. Words such as 'destroy' came down the radio."

Source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Coalescence

Senior Member
Registered Member
Subs are for hunting, not for blockade. They can augment a task group focused on blockading but they cannot be alone on that mission.

They need surface ships for that
How about declaring the waters a "no sail zone" for ships inbound and outbound for Ukraine, backing the threat up that any ships will be hunted by submarines and shot by anti-ship missiles? This would achieve the same threat as naval blockades.
 

Stealthflanker

Senior Member
Registered Member
They will stay out of range which gives a breathing space to Ukraine. For subs, can't do anything.

In any case forcing their surface ships to go back is a win. For blockade purposes, Russia has to rely on ships.

and their ships weapon do have enough range to stay out of sight. With apparent deployment of A-50 in Black Sea, The Russian ship may not necessarily need to come to near shore.
 
Top