And my point is just why other countries would have zero incentive to trade with the West?The point is not that other countries can repeat what Russia has done from scratch, the point is that by completely removing Russia from the Western financial system Russia has both a need to create an alternative system as well as zero incentive (whether from fear or enticement) to cooperate in Western sanction regimes against US foes. — boethius
Exactly, this was my point and here we agree.If we take the usual suspects of the sanctions world -- Iran, North Korean, Cuba, Venezuela -- they are simply not large enough countries to create some alternative economic system, and most countries and most companies would not see a cost-benefit to running foul of the US by violating US sanctions. — boethius
First of all, it did prepare for this event to happen when it attacked Ukraine. It only assumed that the response would be similar to what the West had done earlier: impose some sanctions, have a brief cold period and then when the administration changes, it's time again to reset the relationship. Don't you remember this:Russia did not opt out of the Western financial system by itself, whether because there was no desire to or perhaps there was desire but it would have been political unfeasible to just nope out of the Western economic system. Why didn't Russia do it before? — boethius
The answer based on economics would be yes, China needs to sell stuff and yes, we do need Chinese stuff.Yes, it's exactly that the Chinese hub is the answer.
How the situation has changed with Russia essentially joining this group is that Russia is not only significantly larger (a larger population than all these countries combined) but has the resources, has the leverage, to make an equal if not greater cost-benefit proposal to their trading partners. Russia can effectively say to many countries that: you continue to trade or you're not going to eat. As you note, that's a powerful argument to displease the US in favour of Russian foreign policy.
Does China need to sell us stuff? Or do we need to by Chinese stuff? — boethius
Yet don't underestimate just how large was the effect of the February 24th 2022 attack on Europe. This isn't an embargo made on moral grounds, like was done against South Africa. Especially the Eastern and Northern countries of Europe don't give a rats ass about the profits they are missing because of the sanctions. Finally Russia started a war too large just to ignore.It's simply not a logic that scales well in the capitalist system. It takes considerable effort to maintain sanctions on small countries, it's simply not possible to go around ordering people to stop trading with a big enough country such as Russia. At some point it's just too costly and countries tell even the "mighty US" to take a hike. — boethius
Yeah, well, and AWACS or a fighter cannot yet act as an fire control radar to a GBAD missile. Not yet, at least. And it doesn't go like "fire in that direction and maybe the missile will find it's target".However, you could also have the situation where high flying Russian fighters can track low-flying F16, though out of range, so an S-300 or S-400 could then engage with guidance from the Russian fighters. — boethius
Or in other words, the effective engagement range of a SAM is far shorter than it's max range.Keep in mind also that high flying supersonic fighters decrease the range of AA systems because they can outrun incoming missiles. I.e. the range of a 100 km missile travelling at mach 5 is reduced to 50km if fired at a target running away at mach 2.5, and this doesn't take into account altitude, counter measures or additional manoeuvres that will all favour the aircraft. — boethius
I think we are just talking of different things. Obviously you need both, but once you have the air force capable of winning air superiority, then you don't need so much GBAD. If you don't have any aircraft, it's far more easier for the enemy to tackle your GBAD.The idea that an air force is a "more effective" method of air defense is untrue, as I explained. It functions as part of an air defense network, and it won't function on its own. — Tzeentch
Actually, your argument was this:No. My argument was that modern Russian AA like S-300 and S-400 can shoot the AGM-88 down. — Tzeentch
Ok, first an S-300 or S-400 system is quite useless without it's radars working. Optical tracking (with other SAM systems) is still difficult, especially if you aren't aware of the attacker.Also suggesting a somewhat inaccurate idea of how SEAD works.
AGM-88s are no magic bullets. In fact, they're pretty old.
Modern anti-air systems like S-300, S-400, Pantsir, etc. can shoot these missiles down, and it would take absolutely massive volleys to get through a layered defense like what the Russians use. (Not to mention anti-radiation missiles only destroy radar transmitters. To actually destroy an AA installation it would take a lot more). — Tzeentch
Obviously you need both, but once you have the air force capable of winning air superiority, then you don't need so much GBAD. — ssu
Ok, first an S-300 or S-400 system is quite useless without it's radars working. — ssu
Old iron bombs were used in Vietnam, so even that can work (if one is very careful). — ssu
A great example is Israeli attack on Syria GBAD in the Bekaa Valley during "Peace for Galilee" operation named Operation Mole Cricket 19. The Syrian systems weren't so old in the early 1980's. — ssu
And my point is just why other countries would have zero incentive to trade with the West?
Many countries would be happy if the world trade would be done other currency than dollars. But that simply is something that goes back to older times. — ssu
Well, you can say that also for Russia's main battle tanks, artillery, warships too! Just replace the destroyed ones and train new crews! The problem is replacing them. You simply don't have much to do with just the launchers. Well, you can lob the missiles at Kiev, which they have done.Of course. The key here being that radars can be replaced. To destroy these modern systems it would take a lot more. — Tzeentch
Uhh, actually no.You're comparing two different eras.
The Syrian air defenses weren't able to engage the anti-radiation missiles fired by the Israelis, because ground-based anti-missile defense wasn't really a thing back then. All their anti-air systems (coming from the '60s, mind you) were built to engage air planes.
Russian air defense can engage incoming missiles, and the AGM-88, even the G variant, falls well within its maximum target velocity.
This is of course a crucial difference. — Tzeentch
Uhh, actually no.
It's not so simple, actually. — ssu
The real issue is fire discipline and the ability for the radar operator to know when to shut his radar off. The survival of a SAM unit isn't in it's ability to shoot down missiles, it's simply to understand when to not use the radar, when not to engage when to engage. Move and conceal your SAM's and use them only when the situation favors you. — ssu
I remember reading somewhere that this "predatory pricing", as it's called, was used by the Byzantine empire to hold on to their monopoly in the silk trade (after silk worms had been smuggled from China). So the idea isn't a new one.For example, a monopoly may start lowering their prices simply due to the existence of an alternative even if that alternative isn't very good or can't possibly scale ... yet. This happens all the time in hardware in order to protect market share, hopefully drive the upstart out of business, and hardware monopolies are accused of this all the time. — boethius
They don't actually protect so much the system. More like the US takes the system as granted, as something natural and reap the harvest of the dollar being the global currency by spending as recklessly as they can. No, who protect the system are all other Western countries that are OK with current system as holds on.US foreign policy can be viewed as protecting their monopoly on the global trading system. — boethius
I agree and this is important. Even if the dollar based system would collapse, it isn't the end of the World or of the US. It's still the largest economy and when faced with tough decision, it can make them when it has to. Just like the pandemic we went through wasn't, even if you would describe to people before what measures were taken, they wouldn't believe it. Reality isn't a Hollywood catastrophe film epic.This change isn't some catastrophe and the US will still be there and much, if not most, of the globe will still be subscribed to Pax Americana, but it is a profound change for all those current subscribers that aren't "loyal fans". Maybe the US will need to offer a advert-free version for example. — boethius
Yeah, well, and AWACS or a fighter cannot yet act as an fire control radar to a GBAD missile. Not yet, at least. And it doesn't go like "fire in that direction and maybe the missile will find it's target". — ssu
Flight tests of the AN/ASG-18 system, using a modified Convair B-58, began in 1960.[3] During the 1960s, YF-12 flight tests were conducted, which included the use of the YF-12's onboard AN/ASG-18 radar system in conjunction with AIM-47 missiles to shoot down target drones. — Lookdown / shootdown
Generally speaking, a high-performance radar in lookdown mode can detect and track targets at ranges of tens to hundreds of miles (or kilometers), depending on the size and altitude of the target, the radar's power and sensitivity, and the clutter conditions. — ChatGPT
Or in other words, the effective engagement range of a SAM is far shorter than it's max range. — ssu
Speed PAC-2/PAC-3: Mach 4.1 — MIM-104 Patriot, wikipedia
Maximum speed: Mach 4. — AIM-120 AMRAAM, wikipedia
The S-300FM Fort-M (Russian: С-300ФМ, DoD designation SA-N-20) is another naval version of the system, installed only on the Kirov-class cruiser Pyotr Velikiy, and introducing the new 48N6 missile. It was introduced in 1990 and has a missile speed of approximately Mach 6 for a maximum target engagement speed of up to Mach 8.5, a warhead size of 150 kg (330 lb), an engagement range of 5–150 km (3.1–93 mi), and an altitude envelope of 10–27 km (6.2–16.8 mi).
— S-300 missile system
Mid-body strakes enhance lift[1] hence increases range. According to Defence Today, the range depends on the flight profile, from 80 nautical miles (150 km) for a direct shot[1] to 215 nautical miles (398 km) for a cruise glide profile.[...]
The missile can attack targets at altitudes of 15–25,000 meters, guided semi-actively or actively through the Agat 9B-1388 system.[5] — R-37 (missile)
Well, the problem is that for example the S-400 needs a search radar and a separate target acquisition/engagement radar. Similarly the Patriot system needs also. And yes, they benefit from getting an alert from an AWACS or other advance warning systems. But there's a simple technical problem, which you can see from the following pictures:However, sending targeting information from one system to another is not difficult and exists in plenty of forms already.
I do not think sharing the information would be the limiting factor, but rather the range of radar to track targets from look down which will be closely guarded secret. — boethius
(Just a technical note, use acronym SAM, surface to air missile, as with missiles AA stands for air-to-air missiles)Yes, but how much is the critical question.
In the situation we are discussing. Low flying aircraft, such as to avoid Russian ground based AA missiles, cannot reach much above Mach 1. So this is only reducing the effective range of the missile by 20% and that's assuming the F16 is already flying in the opposite direction.
The fact range of anti-air missile (of anytime) is reduced by your speed running away is an advantage to the Russians in this situation of trying to fly high, look-down and track and maybe send tracking information to said GBAD systems or then maybe just shoot at themselves. — boethius
You do notice that there has to be done some engineering work to get these fit into an aircraft? Or to create such multi-function radars that act both in the search and the targeting mode. — ssu
(Just a technical note, use acronym SAM, surface to air missile, as with missiles AA stands for air-to-air missiles) — ssu
Poland's AA defences were no match for the German attack, and the situation was similar in other European countries.[56] Significant AAW (Anti-Air Warfare) started with the Battle of Britain in the summer of 1940. QF 3.7-inch AA guns provided the backbone of the ground-based AA defences, although initially significant numbers of QF 3-inch 20 cwt were also used. The Army's Anti-aircraft command, which was under command of the Air Defence UK organisation, grew to 12 AA divisions in 3 AA corps. Bofors 40 mm guns entered service in increasing numbers. In addition, the RAF regiment was formed in 1941 with responsibility for airfield air defence, eventually with Bofors 40 mm as their main armament. Fixed AA defences, using HAA and LAA, were established by the Army in key overseas places, notably Malta, Suez Canal and Singapore. — Anti-Aircraft Warfare
Those high flying Russian fighters have to stay out of the reach of the Ukrainian GBAD also. And obviously those future F-16s, when they come, will be used very cautiously. Yet in any case, the outcome relies on a large variety of factors than just the specs of the weapon systems. The way the weapon systems are used, the way the forces operate is far more important than the technical aspects of a weapon system. — ssu
Just to give on example:why did we see footage of Bayraktar-drones destroying Russian SAM launchers early in the war and not anymore? The reason is that at start of the war there were so many limitations to SAM use as the Russian aircraft indeed flew over Ukrainian territory, that Bayraktars could have a field day. Then when Russian aircraft weren't flying anymore in Ukrainian territory (or at least, not so much), then the decision to fire on an aircraft was made easy. After all, we ought to remember the unfortunate use of a BUK-M1 shooting down that Malesian plane earlier. — ssu
The men and the military itself does matter also. Best example is just how few Abrams tanks were destroyed when operated by the US Army in Iraq and how many similar tanks have been destroyed by the Houthis fighting Saudi-Arabian troops in Yemen. — ssu
Modern fighter jets shoot other jets and can shoot down cruise missiles. But shooting down artillery rockets is a different thing.You don't need to fit these radars into an aircraft, fighters already have radars that can track, they have to be closer than these massive ground based radars but they can be at high altitude and looking down to track low flying targets trying to evade said massive ground based radars. — boethius
And that example just underlines how difficult it is to use both aircraft and GBAD at the same time. The problem of IFF (identification Friend or Foe) is a difficult one. Even today.Completely agree. — boethius
In many cases you can have the money to buy expensive weapons, but not things like an educated well trained force for their optimal use. And there are many differences, hence we should avoid oversimplifications.That's somewhat an oversimplification, as Iraq is flat and the US had overwhelming superior forces and "next generation" technology (in particular night vision) engaging in the open field. The war in Yemen is not so similar. — boethius
Except that everybody assumed that the Ukrainian Air Force and GBAD would be crushed at start of the war and Russia would gain air superiority. Which didn't happen. Likely they are adapting to the situation, yet it hasn't been the greatest success story.However, for the air war over Ukraine, Russians have proven proficient and their systems effective and presumably have shot down a significant amount of Ukrainian aircraft. — boethius
As for the war itself, the battle for Bakhmut represented Ukraine's last stand. It is clear that the Ukrainian military had no realistic capacity and/or a genuine objective of defeating or defending itself against Russia. Otherwise, it would not have wasted tens of thousands of soldiers on this one settlement. But Bakhmut was more than that, it was the heart of the Ukraine's defence strategy. Sitting above 120 miles of deep underground salt mine tunnels, Bakhmut offered a defensive advantage that cannot be replaced. — yebiga
The UN voted a few times prior, but the suggestion of peacekeepers and votes could depart some from that, or at least perhaps bring more of what the parties want out in the open.
Worthwhile? Try? Waste of time? Futile? — jorndoe
Despite not having been granted a MAP [Membership Action Plan], the country's military has taken major steps in transitioning towards NATO standards since Russia's invasion 15 months ago.
This process is set to accelerate as Kyiv gradually runs out of Soviet-built arms and ammunition, while the West trains Ukrainian troops according to NATO standards and rushes more and more advanced weaponry to the country.
Democracies seem decadent, weak, corrupt and verge of collapse to the authoritarian. And, of course, they are also homosexual and are against traditional values, which the authoritarian regimes often declare to be the sole defenders of. It was so in the 1930's and it is so now.And the talk of the loss of values in the West is rather hypocritical, given the 'values' of Russia's allies. It is not a coincidence that they are all authoritarian states. — Jabberwock
the head of the Kherson region, Oleksandr Prokudin, said that as a result of the explosions, “water will reach a critical level in 5 hours” and that residents in nearby areas would be forced to leave their homes. “Around 16,000 people on Kherson’s right bank are in the critical zone," he said, adding that residents would be evacuated by bus.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.