Russian invasion of Ukraine

[Magnagarde]

I doubt they were the primary reason for that. Just like the drone fapping in 2nd Karabakh war, when the majority of damage was actually done by artillery and Su-25 strikes with precision ammunition - but those don't make good videos.
Drones shine much more when airspace is uncontested, they shine as target spotters. Lybia has like 20 lost Bayraktars, that was/is a small scale conflict by any measure.

Turkey had the Syrian airspace completely uncontested, save for the SAA's attempt to down their aircraft. Russia didn't do anything to stop the destruction of Syria troops and equipment. All they did was do to the rebels what Turkey did to the SAA, but the SAA had a much bigger concentration of troops in specific areas.

[Kuntantee]

The TB-2 was used against the SAA positions in Spring 2020 to halt their advance towards Idlib.

Indeed. However, when I said "war", I meant wars that TAF was not directly involved. Some other examples where TB-2s turned the tide: NK and Libya. In both cases, TAF took an advisory role and only operated the drones (may not be the case for NK). In both cases, the conflict ended decisively. Apparently, it's also working quite effectively some country in Africa (Somali?).

Russia is obviously a different beast but TB-2s still proved quite useful, given Russia, for the most part, controls the air in Ukraine and TB-2s still operate.

[Easo]

Indeed. However, when I said "war", I meant wars that TAF was not directly involved. Some other examples where TB-2s turned the tide: NK and Libya. In both cases, TAF took an advisory role and only operated the drones (may not be the case for NK). In both cases, the conflict ended decisively. Apparently, it's also working quite effectively some country in Africa (Somali?).

Russia is obviously a different beast but TB-2s still proved quite useful, given Russia, for the most part, controls the air in Ukraine and TB-2s still operate.

Of course they are useful, even quads from AliExpress are useful to Ukraine right now (and to the opposite side as well, you cannot drag an EW unit everywhere), but the videos are few for what should be an obvious reasons.
Seems that they indeed were reinforced after the war started, as rumours suggested, because Ukraine had only 16 drones at the start and we know that some definitely went down (it's just a slow small plane with no defense capability), yet the strikes have continued.

Plus Ukraine is huge, that gives space to operate from.

[Corvus]

There has been only one confirmed tb2 loss, and it is uncertain how it went down.

The number of buks and other antiair units that the tb2s have taken out is impressive given they are meant to defend against it.

[Easo]

There has been only one confirmed tb2 loss, and it is uncertain how it went down.

The number of buks and other antiair units that the tb2s have taken out is impressive given they are meant to defend against it.

How many? How many is impressive? Similar phrases were used when drones blew up Pantsirs in Lybia - it did not matter to them if the Pantsir was not in the use at the moment or driving somewhere. After Karabkah it is really hard to sell few drone videos as impressive, because that small scale war had what, hundreds of them?
There is fog of war everywhere. I even saw something like mass AA missile launch by Russian forces - we can only guess what was flying there to require something like that.

But yes, confirmed - only one. Have to be more, it's basic logic, but also Lost Armor/Oryx - no proof, no kill.

[Kiri]

This is war, only ones shocked are the sheltered people who do not understand that no matter how hard one tries rules and laws will at least partially break down and bad things will happen. Once more, such is war.

Eh, I am not convinced that it is such an inevitability. It tends to happen, yes, but that, to me, seems more because parties to the war (usually the stronger side since they have more choices) tend to value minimizing their own losses/maximizing their own gains over upholding laws and rules. Heck, terror of one form or another might be precisely what they think they need to achieve that.

In this case, I do not for a moment believe that either side tried their hardest to uphold said rules and laws. But those were decisions made, not some sort of inevitability, something that just happens. Because that would just justify everything. Heck, that is precisely what is being used to justify it happening right now, even though everything is happening by choice.

[YUPPIE]

there's a lot of talks for a Nuremberg trial for Putin to judge him for war crimes:

How would they even uphold this? If Putin traveled abroad and was kidnapped or arrested by foreign officials, he would just threaten the MAD card. They can't arrest him.

[Slant]

Funny to see all the claims about maneuverable hypersonics used being fake or that they are bad, because reasons. Skroe is the local god, I guess. USA is forcing them at the moment for a reason (three failed tests so far, Russia IS ahead, remember, all about that asymmetric response, but there is little reason to doubt that they will catch up, too much money and R&D potential).

Omg, stop it with the bullshit.

Not sure what Putinistas' obsession with hypersonic missiles is. You realise they're just going faster, right? They're not bigger, not more explosive, not smarter, not more or less maneuverable... they're just faster.

Against an opponent that can't even intercept subsonic missiles. Is this Russian propaganda at its stupidest? Nobody gives a shit if they destroy the hospital or destroy it even faster. The damage is the same. And no amount of jerking-off to some fantastic notion of whatever is going to change anything.

This is Russia bullshitting its way through media to influence the simple minded. The same with with the "stealth" SU-35 or whatever they called that abomination that, I can assure you, is about as stealthy as my rust bucket on the road. Or their Armata tank... when did that break down on the red square? 15 years ago? Holy shit, it's been a day and a half, I can tell you. Why isn't that tank in Ukraine? Why do they actually still have T-60s on the road? Man, Russia must be in a worse spot than you thought. Yes, you. Cos I never for a second believed in their capabilities. And now you're gobbling up the next propaganda bullshit piece... it would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. Well, you go ahead, be the cheersquad for Putin. It's not like you have an original thought on your own.

- - - Updated - - -

there's a lot of talks for a Nuremberg trial for Putin to judge him for war crimes:

How would they even uphold this? If Putin traveled abroad and was kidnapped or arrested by foreign officials, he would just threaten the MAD card. They can't arrest him.

Well, to have "Nuremberg Trials", the first step really is to own the country and hunt the guy down you want to put up for trial. That ain't gonna happen. Despite what bullshit people like Easo and Shalcker seem to be consuming as "news intake", nobody in the West, nor in Ukraine... nor anywhere really, has any notion, interest or motivation to even set just one foot inside Russia. There is NOTHING of value in that country. Well, except the gas. But we get that delivered to our doorstep whenever we want at any rate, so why would we slog our way to Moscow?

Nah, no trials are gonna happen. This ends in one of three ways: 1. Ukraine dies. 2. Putin swallows his pride and retreats. 3. Putin swallows a bullet and Russia retreats.

2. Ain't happening. 1. Seems more and more unlikely with each passing day. And 3, which becomes more likely with every passing day, will involve a Russian bullet, not a NATO one. And that'll make any idea of Nuremberg trials obsolete.

[Specialka]

Omg, stop it with the bullshit.

Not sure what Putinistas' obsession with hypersonic missiles is. You realise they're just going faster, right? They're not bigger, not more explosive, not smarter, not more or less maneuverable... they're just faster.

Against an opponent that can't even intercept subsonic missiles. Is this Russian propaganda at its stupidest? Nobody gives a shit if they destroy the hospital or destroy it even faster. The damage is the same. And no amount of jerking-off to some fantastic notion of whatever is going to change anything.

This is Russia bullshitting its way through media to influence the simple minded. The same with with the "stealth" SU-35 or whatever they called that abomination that, I can assure you, is about as stealthy as my rust bucket on the road. Or their Armata tank... when did that break down on the red square? 15 years ago? Holy shit, it's been a day and a half, I can tell you. Why isn't that tank in Ukraine? Why do they actually still have T-60s on the road? Man, Russia must be in a worse spot than you thought. Yes, you. Cos I never for a second believed in their capabilities. And now you're gobbling up the next propaganda bullshit piece... it would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. Well, you go ahead, be the cheersquad for Putin. It's not like you have an original thought on your own.

Nope, you are wrong. It seems that they are sure faster, but also they do not use the same flight path than conventional missile (you know like a bell curve, they flight more directly toward their target and change more easily direction) thus they are harder to intercept. And USA are going full steam on those type of missile as it seems they will be the top of the list in military equipment by 2030 (France is developing them as well as Russia and China are ahead on those project).

[Kronik85]

Omg, stop it with the bullshit.

Not sure what Putinistas' obsession with hypersonic missiles is. You realise they're just going faster, right? They're not bigger, not more explosive, not smarter, not more or less maneuverable... they're just faster.

Against an opponent that can't even intercept subsonic missiles. Is this Russian propaganda at its stupidest? Nobody gives a shit if they destroy the hospital or destroy it even faster. The damage is the same. And no amount of jerking-off to some fantastic notion of whatever is going to change anything.

This is Russia bullshitting its way through media to influence the simple minded. The same with with the "stealth" SU-35 or whatever they called that abomination that, I can assure you, is about as stealthy as my rust bucket on the road. Or their Armata tank... when did that break down on the red square? 15 years ago? Holy shit, it's been a day and a half, I can tell you. Why isn't that tank in Ukraine? Why do they actually still have T-60s on the road? Man, Russia must be in a worse spot than you thought. Yes, you. Cos I never for a second believed in their capabilities. And now you're gobbling up the next propaganda bullshit piece... it would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. Well, you go ahead, be the cheersquad for Putin. It's not like you have an original thought on your own.

I would imagine the use of these missiles is to try and drum up some positive propaganda for the Russia war machine which has nothing but L's in its column so far. Like you say I don't think there are any real benefits to using these things against Ukraine but Putin needs to demonstrate something about his modernization projects to the guys at home.

I don't think anything Easo is saying is wrong though. These things are real, they do work, Russia has them and they might be useful if Russia has to go toe to toe with a nation that is considered to be a peer/rival and when that time actually comes then the USA will have probably caught up. These aren't spicy takes on Easo's part.

- - - Updated - - -

Nope, you are wrong. It seems that they are sure faster, but also they do not use the same flight path than conventional missile (you know like a bell curve, they flight more directly toward their target and change more easily direction) thus they are harder to intercept. And USA are going full steam on those type of missile as it seems they will be the top of the list in military equipment by 2030 (France is developing them as well as Russia and China are ahead on those project).

I think you have missed entirely what Slant's point was here. Is anyone in this thread actually reading each other posts because this is a shit show of people just talking past each other.

[Specialka]

I would imagine the use of these missiles is to try and drum up some positive propaganda for the Russia war machine which has nothing but L's in its column so far. Like you say I don't think there are any real benefits to using these things against Ukraine but Putin needs to demonstrate something about his modernization projects to the guys at home.

I don't think anything Easo is saying is wrong though. These things are real, they do work, Russia has them and they might be useful if Russia has to go toe to toe with a nation that is considered to be a peer/rival and when that time actually comes then the USA will have probably caught up. These aren't spicy takes on Easo's part.

- - - Updated - - -



I think you have missed entirely what Slant's point was here. Is anyone in this thread actually reading each other posts because this is a shit show of people just talking past each other.

He claimed that those missiles only go faster which they do not. Period. Obviously, using those against Ukraine is for internal consumption and a bit of a show off for western power.

[Endus]

Nope, you are wrong. It seems that they are sure faster, but also they do not use the same flight path than conventional missile (you know like a bell curve, they flight more directly toward their target and change more easily direction) thus they are harder to intercept. And USA are going full steam on those type of missile as it seems they will be the top of the list in military equipment by 2030 (France is developing them as well as Russia and China are ahead on those project).

Literally any higher-velocity ballistic will have less curvature than a lower-velocity missile. That's how velocity works with ballistics. Same reason a faster-thrown baseball travels a more-direct path than a high lobbed baseball.

As for "changing direction more easily", physics literally contradicts that. Higher velocity requires higher delta-V to change its path by the same amount in the same space.

[Gaidax]

Yes, Ukraine is just a testing ground for those kind of missiles in that case.

Plausible they wanted more testing done anyway, so why not while doing yet another we got stronk missiles propaganda.

Ukraine does have snowball's chance in hell intercepting such a missile, but I don't think anyone quite can at the moment. The upside is that there are very few of them because expensive AF and eventually AA will catchup.

[Kronik85]

He claimed that those missiles only go faster which they do not. Period. Obviously, using those against Ukraine is for internal consumption and a bit of a show off for western power.

Slant is a big boy and they can defend their own posts but I personally don't find "well acshtually!" posts that ignore the context of what people were actually discussing to be all that useful.

[Specialka]

Literally any higher-velocity ballistic will have less curvature than a lower-velocity missile. That's how velocity works with ballistics. Same reason a faster-thrown baseball travels a more-direct path than a high lobbed baseball.

As for "changing direction more easily", physics literally contradicts that. Higher velocity requires higher delta-V to change its path by the same amount in the same space.

And yet, you are wrong. They are subject to "atmospheric rebound" ?(not sure if it is well translated) meaning they have an easier time evading interception because they can more easily change trajectory.

[Jessicka]

And yet, you are wrong. They are subject to "atmospheric rebound" ?(not sure if it is well translated) meaning they have an easier time evading interception because they can more easily change trajectory.

If it’s just about braking so they land sooner, then I guess that’s changing direction?

Otherwise no, physics simply won’t allow it. That’s why racing cars have to break to turn corners. Changing direction is Cruise Missile strength, allowing it to take safer flight paths to target.

Lastly, all accounts so far say it was just a modified air launched Iskander. Fuck knows if it actually was hypersonic.

[Endus]

And yet, you are wrong. They are subject to "atmospheric rebound" ?(not sure if it is well translated) meaning they have an easier time evading interception because they can more easily change trajectory.

You're just digging a giant hole of disinfo about yourself.

It's literally impossible for a faster rocket to have an easier time changing direction. Citing poorly-translated nothing that doesn't even come up on Google search as if it's a counterpoint to the Newtonian laws of physics is . . . not an argument. It's weaponized disinformation.

They would, obviously, have more-powerful engines, and that provides greater thrust to effect course changes, but the force required to effect a given course change at higher speeds scales linearly alongside that. It isn't "easier" for them to change course. They're just faster.

[Specialka]

You're just digging a giant hole of disinfo about yourself.

It's literally impossible for a faster rocket to have an easier time changing direction. Citing poorly-translated nothing that doesn't even come up on Google search as if it's a counterpoint to the Newtonian laws of physics is . . . not an argument. It's weaponized disinformation.

They would, obviously, have more-powerful engines, and that provides greater thrust to effect course changes, but the force required to effect a given course change at higher speeds scales linearly alongside that. It isn't "easier" for them to change course. They're just faster.

Dude, I am reading right now an article on Le Monde (French Newspapers) which exactly what I say.

https://www.lemonde.fr/international...8267_3210.html

Have fun google trad it.

[Barzotti]

Dude, I am reading right now an article on Le Monde (French Newspapers) which exactly what I say.

https://www.lemonde.fr/international...8267_3210.html

Have fun google trad it.

The article never says that those rockets have an easier time changing direction. It says they are harder to intercept because they are faster and their trajectory is harder to predict (more horizontal than the ballistic missiles). Next time you want to be smug, at least get your facts straight.

[Specialka]

The article never says that those rockets have an easier time changing direction. It says they are harder to intercept because they are faster and their trajectory is harder to predict (more horizontal than the ballistic missiles). Next time you want to be smug, at least get your facts straight.

"meilleures capacités à manœuvrer" = better maneuvering capaticities.