"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (12 Viewers)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Thumpalumpacus said:
The only bright spot here is that they're all Kilo-class, meaning they can each only carry four cruise missiles before needing resupply. On the other hand, these subs are extremely quiet when submerged on electric power. They can make 20 kts fully submerged on batteries, but only for a short distance. And Kalibr missiles have sufficient range to stay outside Ukrainian territorial waters while launching a missile barrage, meaning that mine-laying wouldn't be an effective defense in that regard.

Ukraine will need aircraft equipped with MAD, sonobuoys, and homing torpedoes to get at these craft, and as SaparotRob SaparotRob notes, that's a steep learning curve for the Ukrainian Air Force. Maybe they have some helicopters that are capable of this duty?
Click to expand...
yes they had Mi-14PL but ASW equipment of this one is really POC
 
Putler is going under the knife now? A hypochondriac like him not knowing when he needed to schedule surgery? Which dedicated, "committed to the cause" wacko will have the launch codes? Or will it be "Stalin and his terrified doctors" part deux? Maybe he is sick and feels has to act sooner than later. As Thump said; a spook's gonna' spook.
GrauGeist is right.
 
SaparotRob said:
Putler is going under the knife now? A hypochondriac like him not knowing when he needed to schedule surgery? Which dedicated, "committed to the cause" wacko will have the launch codes? Or will it be "Stalin and his terrified doctors" part deux? Maybe he is sick and feels has to act sooner than later. As Thump said; a spook's gonna' spook.
GrauGeist is right.
Click to expand...
historically such event in russia never ends with returning to the status quo, most probable new tsar will surfacing.
By the way - next update from Her Majesty Intelligence
1651562210687.png


this time i will not be insisting for comments, still digesting last one - i almost forgot how comprehensive and informative are NATO experts delivered assessments. i'm Just working with EASA certification experts for UAV project their documents looks strikingly similar to this delivered by Jagdflieger.

Here is fresh Ukrainian joke i've heard yesterday - sorry is little bit "harsh".
FSB head is standing at the tsar's face
"Sir i have two messages good and bad one.
OK good one first.
gen. Gerasimov has been only wounded in the leg.
What is bad one than?
We are unable to find remaining parts of his body...."
 
Hey Jagdflieger,

Sorry, but for some reason I missed this earlier in your post#5,394.

re "So yes around 120 BTG's constitute around 60% of Russia's BTG trained units. if you know about the composition and tactical role of a BTG, then you will also realize that these formations are totally self-dependent - meaning as some forum members posted, e.g. 1 BTG =700 men + about the same amount or more in a supportive role, is wrong. since they run their own support, logistic, medical etc. within these approx. 700men strong BTG's. - that is why the Russians developed these BTG formations in the first place."

The bold part is incorrect. There is a common misunderstanding about the 'independent' aspect of the current Russian BTG. The BTG is the smallest 'independent' maneuver unit in the Russian army. That means that in terms of command & control they are supposed to be capable of operating for a limited amount of time without as constant supervision and as constant supply/support from higher level assets.

The attached specialty units (like an artillery battery for example) gives them more rapid response to requests for fire support because requests go directly from the line companies to BTG HQ to the artillery battery, as opposed to the larger formation Regiment or Brigade which has 1 or 2 more steps in the division communication network. While they may bring a bit more ready ammunition per gun with them than a regimental artillery unit might have in close proximity, they still have to have a similar ammunition logistics chain - or they run out of ammo. Remember, when they say attached units, we are not talking about giving them an artillery battalion. It is usually 2-4 guns at the most - nothing to laugh at but they still have limited fire endurance.

Another unit that may be attached is an Aviation asset. Again, this unit will be dedicated to the BTG in the command net. The helicopter unit will usually consist of 2-6 attack helicopters operating in reconnaissance and attack, flying out of a rear area base unless there is reason to think more rapid response will be required - in which case the helos might be temporarily forward based in close proximity to the BTG. But, the forward based aviation unit will have only the most basic maintenance support and limited ammunition. They will still have to rely on serious maintenance and resupply from the rear areas. They just won't have to perform the first resupply quite as soon.

The only instance where the examples in limitation I mention above (and several others) might not apply is if the unit does not maneuver in the sense of leaving one area and advancing into another, but instead remains stationary in an attempt to control an area (such as the Russian experience in Afghanistan) in which case more of the support units can be brought to the forward base areas (if they can be kept secure).

The BTG still requires all the normal number of support units or more than a regular unit of similar size, it just won't need it to be in quite as immediate proximity. The same is true for US and most other NATO 'independent' maneuver units.

An extreme example of what we are talking about is the US Army Ranger units. In theory a Ranger unit will deploy with the intent to be reinforced at some point in the near future, or extracted from the area, or make their own way out of the area. The plan is always to equip the unit with at least enough material to accomplish the limited time of the planned mission. But in order to have any confidence that they can operate in this manner they have to constantly maintain a high level of training and competence, including integrating with support units. The last time I had any contact with any Ranger personnel, the average training budget and logistic/support chain for a Ranger battalion exceeded that of the average Armored Brigade. (To be fair, part of the support chain for a Ranger unit includes the transport unit - which could be a fair number of transport aircraft/helos or ship/boat transport - plus aviation assets like attack helicopters and fast movers for CAS.)

Basically, you don't get more for less, You get more by providing more.

Hopefully what I typed makes sense?
 
ThomasP said:
Hey Jagdflieger,

Sorry, but for some reason I missed this earlier in your post#5,394.

re "So yes around 120 BTG's constitute around 60% of Russia's BTG trained units. if you know about the composition and tactical role of a BTG, then you will also realize that these formations are totally self-dependent - meaning as some forum members posted, e.g. 1 BTG =700 men + about the same amount or more in a supportive role, is wrong. since they run their own support, logistic, medical etc. within these approx. 700men strong BTG's. - that is why the Russians developed these BTG formations in the first place."

The bold part is incorrect. There is a common misunderstanding about the 'independent' aspect of the current Russian BTG. The BTG is the smallest 'independent' maneuver unit in the Russian army. That means that in terms of command & control they are supposed to be capable of operating for a limited amount of time without as constant supervision and as constant supply/support from higher level assets.

The attached specialty units (like an artillery battery for example) gives them more rapid response to requests for fire support because requests go directly from the line companies to BTG HQ to the artillery battery, as opposed to the larger formation Regiment or Brigade which has 1 or 2 more steps in the division communication network. While they may bring a bit more ready ammunition per gun with them than a regimental artillery unit might have in close proximity, they still have to have a similar ammunition logistics chain - or they run out of ammo. Remember, when they say attached units, we are not talking about giving them an artillery battalion. It is usually 2-4 guns at the most - nothing to laugh at but they still have limited fire endurance.

Another unit that may be attached is an Aviation asset. Again, this unit will be dedicated to the BTG in the command net. The helicopter unit will usually consist of 2-6 attack helicopters operating in reconnaissance and attack, flying out of a rear area base unless there is reason to think more rapid response will be required - in which case the helos might be temporarily forward based in close proximity to the BTG. But, the forward based aviation unit will have only the most basic maintenance support and limited ammunition. They will still have to rely on serious maintenance and resupply from the rear areas. They just won't have to perform the first resupply quite as soon.

The only instance where the examples in limitation I mention above (and several others) might not apply is if the unit does not maneuver in the sense of leaving one area and advancing into another, but instead remains stationary in an attempt to control an area (such as the Russian experience in Afghanistan) in which case more of the support units can be brought to the forward base areas (if they can be kept secure).

The BTG still requires all the normal number of support units or more than a regular unit of similar size, it just won't need it to be in quite as immediate proximity. The same is true for US and most other NATO 'independent' maneuver units.

An extreme example of what we are talking about is the US Army Ranger units. In theory a Ranger unit will deploy with the intent to be reinforced at some point in the near future, or extracted from the area, or make their own way out of the area. The plan is always to equip the unit with at least enough material to accomplish the limited time of the planned mission. But in order to have any confidence that they can operate in this manner they have to constantly maintain a high level of training and competence, including integrating with support units. The last time I had any contact with any Ranger personnel, the average training budget and logistic/support chain for a Ranger battalion exceeded that of the average Armored Brigade. (To be fair, part of the support chain for a Ranger unit includes the transport unit - which could be a fair number of transport aircraft/helos or ship/boat transport - plus aviation assets like attack helicopters and fast movers for CAS.)

Basically, you don't get more for less, You get more by providing more.

Hopefully what I typed makes sense?
Click to expand...
i think you have explained everything in detail and in precise manner - there is no magic behind new organization of the russian army or its NATO/Ukrainian adversaries - key are logistic and I2C (intelligence, communication and command) - exactly the fields where russian army have shown greatest incompetence and simultaneously Ukrainians made bigger progress.
 
J_P_C said:
historically such event in russia never ends with returning to the status quo, most probable new tsar will surfacing.
By the way - next update from Her Majesty Intelligence
View attachment 666695

.........i'm Just working with EASA certification experts for UAV project their documents looks strikingly similar to this delivered by Jagdflieger.....
Click to expand...

(taken out as it was primarily meant for J_P_C) sorry guys
 
Last edited:
J_P_C said:
well i thought EADS is gone since at least 4 years... now i will not be sleeping until i will find out why Malaysia needs anechoic chamber for RCS measurements.....
Click to expand...
Don't worry and keep your resting time, this project wasn't about an anechoic chamber
In case you had something like this on your mind.
;)
 

Attachments

  • EMC test.png
    EMC test.png
    140.5 KB · Views: 40
Last edited:
One of the aims of the aggressor. When prices go up and there is another food crisis in Africa, we know the reason...
Modern grain elevator complex in Rubizhnoye, Ukraine. Completed in 2020. 30,000 metric tons storage capacity. 3,000 mt per day loading capacity.

1651578390353.png


2f7607c6bbb4ff618f19260f0d50f2cc385.jpg

c080b5938276ab2046f1151934b5acfb.jpg
 
SaparotRob said:
Putler is going under the knife now? A hypochondriac like him not knowing when he needed to schedule surgery? Which dedicated, "committed to the cause" wacko will have the launch codes? Or will it be "Stalin and his terrified doctors" part deux? Maybe he is sick and feels has to act sooner than later. As Thump said; a spook's gonna' spook.
GrauGeist is right.
Click to expand...

If the report is indeed true, and I share wlewisiii wlewisiii 's skepticism, then FSB boss Patrushev seems to be the front-runner, and he's just as loathsome as Vladdie.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 13 (members: 2, guests: 11)

Similar threads

M
Horizon Continues Development of Hybrid VTOL
Replies
0
Views
227
MIflyer
M
N
JF-17 are they worth it and can they hold their own?
Replies
4
Views
1K
RogerdeLluria
R
A
The coming $26 billion windfall for the Canadian Armed Forces. What to buy?
6 7 8
Replies
141
Views
17K
swampyankee
swampyankee
syscom3
Bust The Dragons Jaw! An interesting read on the development and use of the first laser guided bombs in Vietnam.
Replies
7
Views
2K
syscom3
syscom3
T
Asking help in determining year of Chinese military video
Replies
4
Views
1K
Weizenbrot
W
Back