(10-23-2022, 08:52 AM)Treefence Wrote: Imagine being in a firefight, and all you are worried about is breaking bills so you can buy a coke haha. Seriously though, were they trying to use the vending machine as cover, because otherwise wouldn't it make sense to just take the sodas out of the machine?
(10-23-2022, 08:52 AM)Treefence Wrote: Imagine being in a firefight, and all you are worried about is breaking bills so you can buy a coke haha. Seriously though, were they trying to use the vending machine as cover, because otherwise wouldn't it make sense to just take the sodas out of the machine?
(10-23-2022, 09:59 AM)TrumpCard Wrote: If you believe the caption from the article you linked, then Austin is not deploying troops to use in case Russia does unacceptable things “in Ukraine”:
“The 101st Airborne Division of the U.S. Army are in Romania to deter adversaries from attacking NATO territory.”
(10-23-2022, 09:59 AM)TrumpCard Wrote: If you believe the caption from the article you linked, then Austin is not deploying troops to use in case Russia does unacceptable things “in Ukraine”:
“The 101st Airborne Division of the U.S. Army are in Romania to deter adversaries from attacking NATO territory.”
(10-23-2022, 10:10 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: I said "mostly a deterrent" in my post.
But, I also know this is the first time in 80 years such a deployment has been made, and that was for war. And I read/heard that NATO is becoming more open to taking action in Ukraine if Russia crosses certain behavior lines. I don't remember where I saw/heard, because I read and heard many sources of information this am. This was the first time since the war started that I have heard anyone say NATO could get involved. I should have taken note of where it was, but had a headache this morning.
(10-23-2022, 10:10 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: I said "mostly a deterrent" in my post.
But, I also know this is the first time in 80 years such a deployment has been made, and that was for war. And I read/heard that NATO is becoming more open to taking action in Ukraine if Russia crosses certain behavior lines. I don't remember where I saw/heard, because I read and heard many sources of information this am. This was the first time since the war started that I have heard anyone say NATO could get involved. I should have taken note of where it was, but had a headache this morning.
(10-23-2022, 10:52 AM)Treefence Wrote: Goose (or anyone with knowledge) question for you about HARM missiles. From my understanding these are designed to target AA radars that are activated. When it comes to the S-300 system, would that imply they wouldn't target the TEL's? I believe some of the other systems, Buk and Tor, can be a combination of all, with the TELAR's, thus I'd assume they'd be hit by HARM missiles.For the AGM-88s the Ukrainians have, I believe you are certainly correct. I am assuming they do not have AARGMs. In all cases taking out the tracker/illuminator will render the TEL useless for SARH missiles. Most, but not all, of the Russian missiles are SARH. It is theoretically possible that an S-X00 TEL can fire a missile that is ARH using target data provided by another source. However, the S-X00 missile needs a "good" set of tracking data initially and subsequent updates from the launcher to be effective. This pretty much requires the tracker and the command guidance link to be working. Yes, the S-X00 TEL could fire an ARH missile in "sic em" mode but it probably won't hit anything.
Quote:And assuming that's true, are the TEL's rendered useless without their radar system, or are they likely linked into a greater radar network?The Russian IADS is designed to locate targets initially via a network of sensors in which all the radar sites participate in an appropriate way to manage the anti-air battle. The design of these systems goes well back into the 60's, with newer versions of the various pieces being added as upgrades are made. For some reason, as I have previously pointed out, the Russians aren't doing this. We are not seeing wide usage of the 91N6E "Big Bird" and 96L6E "Cheeseboard" acquisition radars. They are apparently also not using their Mainstays to augment the radar picture. This capability is advertised but AFAIK not verified to be present. This takes the "integrated" out of IADS. It may be the Russians feel their 92N6 "Gravestone" radars can adequately perform the acquisition role, but one wonders how. It is worthy of note that the newer Russian SARH missiles are capable of TVM, which helps the engagement accuracy. However, obviously that requires the illuminator.
(10-23-2022, 10:52 AM)Treefence Wrote: Goose (or anyone with knowledge) question for you about HARM missiles. From my understanding these are designed to target AA radars that are activated. When it comes to the S-300 system, would that imply they wouldn't target the TEL's? I believe some of the other systems, Buk and Tor, can be a combination of all, with the TELAR's, thus I'd assume they'd be hit by HARM missiles.For the AGM-88s the Ukrainians have, I believe you are certainly correct. I am assuming they do not have AARGMs. In all cases taking out the tracker/illuminator will render the TEL useless for SARH missiles. Most, but not all, of the Russian missiles are SARH. It is theoretically possible that an S-X00 TEL can fire a missile that is ARH using target data provided by another source. However, the S-X00 missile needs a "good" set of tracking data initially and subsequent updates from the launcher to be effective. This pretty much requires the tracker and the command guidance link to be working. Yes, the S-X00 TEL could fire an ARH missile in "sic em" mode but it probably won't hit anything.
Quote:And assuming that's true, are the TEL's rendered useless without their radar system, or are they likely linked into a greater radar network?The Russian IADS is designed to locate targets initially via a network of sensors in which all the radar sites participate in an appropriate way to manage the anti-air battle. The design of these systems goes well back into the 60's, with newer versions of the various pieces being added as upgrades are made. For some reason, as I have previously pointed out, the Russians aren't doing this. We are not seeing wide usage of the 91N6E "Big Bird" and 96L6E "Cheeseboard" acquisition radars. They are apparently also not using their Mainstays to augment the radar picture. This capability is advertised but AFAIK not verified to be present. This takes the "integrated" out of IADS. It may be the Russians feel their 92N6 "Gravestone" radars can adequately perform the acquisition role, but one wonders how. It is worthy of note that the newer Russian SARH missiles are capable of TVM, which helps the engagement accuracy. However, obviously that requires the illuminator.
(10-23-2022, 11:44 AM)Goose Wrote:(10-23-2022, 10:52 AM)Treefence Wrote: Goose (or anyone with knowledge) question for you about HARM missiles. From my understanding these are designed to target AA radars that are activated. When it comes to the S-300 system, would that imply they wouldn't target the TEL's? I believe some of the other systems, Buk and Tor, can be a combination of all, with the TELAR's, thus I'd assume they'd be hit by HARM missiles.For the AGM-88s the Ukrainians have, I believe you are certainly correct. I am assuming they do not have AARGMs. In all cases taking out the tracker/illuminator will render the TEL useless for SARH missiles. Most, but not all, of the Russian missiles are SARH. It is theoretically possible that an S-X00 TEL can fire a missile that is ARH using target data provided by another source. However, the S-X00 missile needs a "good" set of tracking data initially and subsequent updates from the launcher to be effective. This pretty much requires the tracker and the command guidance link to be working. Yes, the S-X00 TEL could fire an ARH missile in "sic em" mode but it probably won't hit anything.
Quote:And assuming that's true, are the TEL's rendered useless without their radar system, or are they likely linked into a greater radar network?The Russian IADS is designed to locate targets initially via a network of sensors in which all the radar sites participate in an appropriate way to manage the anti-air battle. The design of these systems goes well back into the 60's, with newer versions of the various pieces being added as upgrades are made. For some reason, as I have previously pointed out, the Russians aren't doing this. We are not seeing wide usage of the 91N6E "Big Bird" and 96L6E "Cheeseboard" acquisition radars. They are apparently also not using their Mainstays to augment the radar picture. This capability is advertised but AFAIK not verified to be present. This takes the "integrated" out of IADS. It may be the Russians feel their 92N6 "Gravestone" radars can adequately perform the acquisition role, but one wonders how. It is worthy of note that the newer Russian SARH missiles are capable of TVM, which helps the engagement accuracy. However, obviously that requires the illuminator.
So yes, kill the 92N6 and the S-X00 system is a brick. The S-X00 is also a brick if the 92N6 operators are scared to turn it on.
I guess I should add that the Russian acquisition radars, like all ground based radars, are limited by the radar horizon. If all the aircraft are remaining at low altitude, long range acquisition radars can't see them. Still, these radars have to be present or no need to stay low. Staying low is dangerous on its own for other reasons. Airborne systems can however see these low altitude targets, and that should make the Mainstay exactly that. It hasn't been, which IMHO is inexplicable, unless it just can't do what it was designed to do. We know from it's deployment to Syria it at least kind of works, so this is hard to explain.
(10-23-2022, 11:44 AM)Goose Wrote:(10-23-2022, 10:52 AM)Treefence Wrote: Goose (or anyone with knowledge) question for you about HARM missiles. From my understanding these are designed to target AA radars that are activated. When it comes to the S-300 system, would that imply they wouldn't target the TEL's? I believe some of the other systems, Buk and Tor, can be a combination of all, with the TELAR's, thus I'd assume they'd be hit by HARM missiles.For the AGM-88s the Ukrainians have, I believe you are certainly correct. I am assuming they do not have AARGMs. In all cases taking out the tracker/illuminator will render the TEL useless for SARH missiles. Most, but not all, of the Russian missiles are SARH. It is theoretically possible that an S-X00 TEL can fire a missile that is ARH using target data provided by another source. However, the S-X00 missile needs a "good" set of tracking data initially and subsequent updates from the launcher to be effective. This pretty much requires the tracker and the command guidance link to be working. Yes, the S-X00 TEL could fire an ARH missile in "sic em" mode but it probably won't hit anything.
Quote:And assuming that's true, are the TEL's rendered useless without their radar system, or are they likely linked into a greater radar network?The Russian IADS is designed to locate targets initially via a network of sensors in which all the radar sites participate in an appropriate way to manage the anti-air battle. The design of these systems goes well back into the 60's, with newer versions of the various pieces being added as upgrades are made. For some reason, as I have previously pointed out, the Russians aren't doing this. We are not seeing wide usage of the 91N6E "Big Bird" and 96L6E "Cheeseboard" acquisition radars. They are apparently also not using their Mainstays to augment the radar picture. This capability is advertised but AFAIK not verified to be present. This takes the "integrated" out of IADS. It may be the Russians feel their 92N6 "Gravestone" radars can adequately perform the acquisition role, but one wonders how. It is worthy of note that the newer Russian SARH missiles are capable of TVM, which helps the engagement accuracy. However, obviously that requires the illuminator.
So yes, kill the 92N6 and the S-X00 system is a brick. The S-X00 is also a brick if the 92N6 operators are scared to turn it on.
I guess I should add that the Russian acquisition radars, like all ground based radars, are limited by the radar horizon. If all the aircraft are remaining at low altitude, long range acquisition radars can't see them. Still, these radars have to be present or no need to stay low. Staying low is dangerous on its own for other reasons. Airborne systems can however see these low altitude targets, and that should make the Mainstay exactly that. It hasn't been, which IMHO is inexplicable, unless it just can't do what it was designed to do. We know from it's deployment to Syria it at least kind of works, so this is hard to explain.
(10-23-2022, 03:17 PM)Goose Wrote: https://www.yahoo.com/news/thousands-mol...34625.html
The pot is being stirred everywhere. This is just one reason having troops in Romania may be needed. Last thing NATO and Ukraine want is a wider war, but Russia seems to be creating the threat of it in Belarus and is undoubtedly encouraging dissent in Moldova. As in parts of Ukraine, there are a significant number of people that prefer alignment with Russia.
(10-23-2022, 03:17 PM)Goose Wrote: https://www.yahoo.com/news/thousands-mol...34625.html
The pot is being stirred everywhere. This is just one reason having troops in Romania may be needed. Last thing NATO and Ukraine want is a wider war, but Russia seems to be creating the threat of it in Belarus and is undoubtedly encouraging dissent in Moldova. As in parts of Ukraine, there are a significant number of people that prefer alignment with Russia.
(10-23-2022, 05:09 PM)M T Wrote:I agree, probably that and a few other things that needed clarification.(10-23-2022, 03:17 PM)Goose Wrote: https://www.yahoo.com/news/thousands-mol...34625.html
The pot is being stirred everywhere. This is just one reason having troops in Romania may be needed. Last thing NATO and Ukraine want is a wider war, but Russia seems to be creating the threat of it in Belarus and is undoubtedly encouraging dissent in Moldova. As in parts of Ukraine, there are a significant number of people that prefer alignment with Russia.
I imagine the US-Russia phone call was to inform Russia exactly what we were about to do, and why, and what we weren't doing. The last thing anyone in the world would want is for some Russians to get spooked by this NATO deployment and react like NATO or the US were becoming or threatening to become part of the battle.
(10-23-2022, 05:09 PM)M T Wrote:I agree, probably that and a few other things that needed clarification.(10-23-2022, 03:17 PM)Goose Wrote: https://www.yahoo.com/news/thousands-mol...34625.html
The pot is being stirred everywhere. This is just one reason having troops in Romania may be needed. Last thing NATO and Ukraine want is a wider war, but Russia seems to be creating the threat of it in Belarus and is undoubtedly encouraging dissent in Moldova. As in parts of Ukraine, there are a significant number of people that prefer alignment with Russia.
I imagine the US-Russia phone call was to inform Russia exactly what we were about to do, and why, and what we weren't doing. The last thing anyone in the world would want is for some Russians to get spooked by this NATO deployment and react like NATO or the US were becoming or threatening to become part of the battle.
Quote:The company asked consumers to use electricity sparingly throughout the day and especially during peak consumption hours: from 06.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. and from 5.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m.
“Please do not use energy-intensive electrical appliances, turn off unnecessary lighting, postpone washing to the night hours,” Ukrenergo said.
Quote:The company asked consumers to use electricity sparingly throughout the day and especially during peak consumption hours: from 06.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. and from 5.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m.
“Please do not use energy-intensive electrical appliances, turn off unnecessary lighting, postpone washing to the night hours,” Ukrenergo said.
(10-23-2022, 05:35 PM)M T Wrote: Ukraine continues to ask people to reduce electricity usage due to damage to the grid by Russian missiles:If it weren't for the Terry rule, I could work with this :-).
Quote:The company asked consumers to use electricity sparingly throughout the day and especially during peak consumption hours: from 06.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. and from 5.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m.
“Please do not use energy-intensive electrical appliances, turn off unnecessary lighting, postpone washing to the night hours,” Ukrenergo said.
Maybe California has been hit by some of those missiles but they didn't tell us.
(10-23-2022, 05:35 PM)M T Wrote: Ukraine continues to ask people to reduce electricity usage due to damage to the grid by Russian missiles:If it weren't for the Terry rule, I could work with this :-).
Quote:The company asked consumers to use electricity sparingly throughout the day and especially during peak consumption hours: from 06.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. and from 5.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m.
“Please do not use energy-intensive electrical appliances, turn off unnecessary lighting, postpone washing to the night hours,” Ukrenergo said.
Maybe California has been hit by some of those missiles but they didn't tell us.
