quote:

Originally posted by 2BobTanner:
CNN’s New Chief Says ‘Breaking News’ Banner Is Overused

Welcome to 1997. Brilliant.

Stuff you won't see on the news

I had no idea the French supplied these

^^ Which is weird. They've received and are actually receiving HIMARS and 177s from us, Neptunes from the Brits, CAESARS from France, and you have to dig to find it in the news if you wind up finding it at all.

For American media, the extent of other deliveries probably pales relative to the amount pushed by the US; others obviously place more importance on systems supplied or announced by their respective own countries. Other than the French Ceasars, there have been M109 SPHs from around NATO (some Norwegian ones have just been shown in action), a dozen German and Dutch PzH 2000, FH 70 howitzers from Italy, single-digit numbers of MLRS from Germany and the UK tacking onto the American HIMARS delivery; also Gepard SPAAGS and an IRIS-T SLM SAM system from Germany, Starstreak and Brimstone missiles from the UK, truck-mounted Harpoon launchers from Denmark, Bushmaster and Wolfhound MRAPs from Australia and the UK respectively, and apparently about any M113 APC still found in European depots. Spain just announced to supply not just some old Aspide SAM launchers but also 40 mothballed Leopard 2A4, which would be the first Western MBTs after all the T-72 variants dropped off by Poland, the Czechs etc.

So basically the world is getting rid of all their old and outdated military gear by giving it to the Ukrainians…

Yep, and using it to kick some Ruskie ass

quote:

^^ Which is weird. They've received and are actually receiving HIMARS and 177s from us, Neptunes from the Brits, CAESARS from France, and you have to dig to find it in the news if you wind up finding it at all.

These sites help some.

https://www.youtube.com/c/UATVEnglish

https://www.youtube.com/c/FeyginLive (not in English)

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/news

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/ukraine-war

https://www.cnn.com/europe/liv...-06-07-22/index.html

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
So basically the world is getting rid of all their old and outdated military gear by giving it to the Ukrainians…

There's a site I've been following that has a bunch of pics of frontline stuff. Among and amidst the SCARs, there's a bunch of FNC's, and even some F2000's being fielded. Not even the railed version, the optic version. FN apparently just sent them everything nobody wanted to buy. Those F2000's had to have been sitting in inventory at least a good fifteen years, and even longer for the FNC's.

Yep. All the old tech is gone. Next WAR we may find out that all the new tech has back doors built in for use by our enemy. We will basically have no useful equipment.

I think simplicity and quantity is important, something the US Military Industrial Complex and their customers seem to sidestep sometimes. When the shit hits the fan and you run out of missiles at a million dollars a pop, then the enemy who never had million-dollar missiles may win the war with large quantities of regular old boring war material. I think I heard Four Star General Jack Keane say in an interview on Fox News that the Russsian military's possession of massive quantities of low tech materiel, in spite of their problems executing their attack on Ukraine, held an elegance of its own, and for that reason Russia would eventually overtake Ukraine. That statement hit me when I thought about the simplicity of having lots and lots of "regular" stuff, however boring, might more than make up for any differences in sophistication, precision, and cost.

Thanks, Anush.

quote:

Originally posted by wrightd:
the simplicity of having lots and lots of "regular" stuff, however boring, might more than make up for any differences in sophistication, precision, and cost.

Precision and sophistication don't (or at least shouldn't) exist for their own sakes. From what we're seeing in Ukraine I'd say they basically boil down to hits at longer ranges, fewer warheads expended per hit and fewer casualties incurred per hit. There's certainly a logic to seeing virtue in quantities of simpler weapons, but the other guys could still wind up winning.

At the same time, if Russia's reaching back into its stock of older, simpler weapons, then in some cases it should be possible to counter them with older, simpler weapons that are available in greater quantity. Defensive structures that could be beaten by precision weapons could become useful again. Older tanks and armored vehicles can be defeated by shoulder-fired weapons that are smaller, lighter and cheaper than Javelins or NLAWs. Foxholes might still have a reason to exist in the age of drones. "Regular" stuff has been a known entity for some time, so there are a lot of things people already know about how to beat attackers who have to rely on it.

Was reading a Jack Carr book (James Reece) and in the book he wrote that Stalin once said "Quantity has a quality all its own."

quote:

Originally posted by wrightd:
I think simplicity and quantity is important, something the US Military Industrial Complex and their customers seem to sidestep sometimes. When the shit hits the fan and you run out of missiles at a million dollars a pop, then the enemy who never had million-dollar missiles may win the war with large quantities of regular old boring war material. I think I heard Four Star General Jack Keane say in an interview on Fox News that the Russsian military's possession of massive quantities of low tech materiel, in spite of their problems executing their attack on Ukraine, held an elegance of its own, and for that reason Russia would eventually overtake Ukraine. That statement hit me when I thought about the simplicity of having lots and lots of "regular" stuff, however boring, might more than make up for any differences in sophistication, precision, and cost.

Russia's drones

https://asiatimes.com/2022/06/...y-firing-in-ukraine/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?..._channel=UATVEnglish

https://theconversation.com/uk...ery-dominance-184479

https://www.politico.com/news/...bas-weapons-00036156

the Chinese have been getting frisky with Australian and Canadian long range patrol aircraft - including one Australian ASW to ingest a large quantity of chaff

Chaff will do almost nothing to jet engines.

Chaff is thinner than human hair.

Most chaff dispensers the chaff is contained in tubes that are ejected, then the outer containment media (think very thin mylar/paper) is separated from the actual chaff filaments that are typically held in form with a small amount of grease, and the encountering of the "airstream" results in rapid dispersion in a "cloud" of filaments.

If this is ingested, almost all of it will exit the rear of the engine, and very little would adhere to any part of the inlet guide vanes, engine stator blades, combustion section or turbine blades.

But, a "good" bit of "news story" has to have some drama or no one will stay engaged for the commercials

^^^

true but what is does point out is just how far the Chinese are now pushing their encounters

quote:

Originally posted by Jimbo Jones:
Was reading a Jack Carr book (James Reece) and in the book he wrote that Stalin once said "Quantity has a quality all its own."

That may be true for near-peer tech, but it falls apart as the tech differential widens. Large quantities of cavalry didn’t make a difference on 1914 battlefields facing down machine guns. The tech was just too far apart.

More details. There's a possibility it was chaff AND flares ingested by the Aussie P-8.

"An account from Canada’s Global News, meanwhile, asserts that flares, not chaff, released by the J-16 were responsible for actually damaging the P-8, although this is yet to be officially verified..."

Complete article:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-w...gerous-new-precedent

I know a little bit about the chaff and flares used for countermeasures and a thing or two about jet engines, both high bypass turbofan and turbojet.

But if you want to follow the excitement, carry on.

As far as "how far will they go", the Soviets have (knowingly) shot down civilian airliners, and the Chinese have nearly and actually collided with western aircraft. So, it is no new thing.

But, it does not wash the "Dirty Laundry".

The real question should be; "How have we managed to continue this same course to arrive at this point, when we had several incidents more than 20 years ago?"

... P-8A A47-008 Clark Airbase v J-16 Woody Island the Paracels, maritime surveillance, South China Sea, international airspace, May 26 2022; Chinese interception tactic



the J-18 ... flew interception along side and released decoy flares; then moved from ... alongside and positioned 200-300m ahead of the P-8's nose, then released a “bundle of chaff"; the small pieces of aluminum were ingested into ... engine. Pilot returned to base for safety. inspection ...

Aussie Defence not making any further media statements ...

So much for the game of 'look but don't touch'.