Russian special military operation in Ukraine #61

GarryB wrote:How many US carriers would they need to sink to make them back off out of range... I am guessing one.

The target distribution is a big deal. It is a known problem there that if you sling 20 cruise missiles at an enemy flotilla probably 18 of them are going to hit the same ship and the other 2 will have for whatever reason seen another ship first

Not if you use the P-500 and her successors.

Polish Baghdad Bob ?  


“Russia is underperforming” in its war in Ukraine, says Poland’s Foreign Minister
@radeksikorski
. “We are overperforming, and we just need to stay the course until Putin runs out of recruits and resources… We will stay the course,” he adds      

News of the day is that, finally, nuclear doctrine was updated and made to better fit modern day challenges.
Now, it covers whole Union state ( meaning Russia + Belarus) and expands on nuclear answer against non-nuclear states that are attacking Russia with the help of a nuclear one.
This opens doors to a possible tactical nuclear strike on Ukraine, as well as Poland, in regard to its stance towards
Russia and Belarus and complicity in whole Ukraine affair.
Incinerating Rzeszów will be a good warning to the rest of EU sycophants and US itself.
Nobody can say that Poland didn't ask for it with their bellicose rhetoric.
More details will be known when up to date official document is published on Kremlin's website.

https://t.me/rybar/63831

 Statements by Russian President Vladimir Putin at the meeting of the Security Council Standing Conference on Nuclear Deterrence

Key points:

The use of nuclear forces is an extreme measure to protect the country's sovereignty.

Reliable information about the launch of air and space attack weapons towards the Russian Federation will entail a nuclear response.

A critical threat to the sovereignty of the Russian Federation and non-nuclear weapons will be the basis for a nuclear response.

Russia is obliged to take into account the emergence of new sources of military threats and risks for itself and its allies.

Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in the event of aggression against Belarus.

The Russian Federation may consider the issue of using nuclear weapons after reliable data on a massive launch of missiles and UAVs when crossing the border.

The Russian Federation takes a highly responsible approach to nuclear weapons issues, seeking to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and their components.

Russia has expanded the category of states and military alliances against which nuclear deterrence is carried out.

Today, the nuclear triad remains the most important guarantee of ensuring the security of our state.

In the updated version of the document, aggression against Russia by any non-nuclear state, but with the participation or support of a nuclear state, is proposed to be considered as a joint attack on the Russian Federation.

Sujoy wrote:The target distribution is a big deal. It is a known problem there that if you sling 20 cruise missiles at an enemy flotilla probably 18 of them are going to hit the same ship and the other 2 will have for whatever reason seen another ship first

Not if they are a pack of Russian naval missiles that have been happily chatting to each other for decades.

Clearly a double edged sword  

Thanks to Elon Musk: Russians Install Starlink on Shahed-136 for the First Time, Creating a Dangerous New Weapon – Defence Express

During today's night attack, the Ukrainian Armed Forces discovered a Geranium UAV (Shahed-136) equipped with SpaceX's Starlink satellite communications.
"This is a means of receiving feedback from the drone and the ability to transmit information from it and change the flight mission at any distance. That is, turning Shahed into a reconnaissance asset," writes Defence Express.
Such communications may be necessary for the Russian army to transmit information, for example, collected by radio equipment about the positions of the Ukrainian Air Defense Forces. Or, if the drone is equipped with cameras - an image. And in a mode that is unlikely to be recorded.
“It should be added that thanks to Starlink and the installed camera, the Russian Federation can use Shahed as an extremely long-range loitering munition with the ability to conduct additional reconnaissance and destroy even moving targets,” DE adds.
- RVvoenkor

Hope it's not a bluff...

caveat emptor wrote:News of the day is that, finally, nuclear doctrine was updated and made to better fit modern day challenges.
Now, it covers whole Union state ( meaning Russia + Belarus) and expands on nuclear answer against non-nuclear states that are attacking Russia with the help of a nuclear one.
This opens doors to a possible tactical nuclear strike on Ukraine, as well as Poland, in regard to its stance towards
Russia and Belarus and complicity in whole Ukraine affair.
Incinerating Rzeszów will be a good warning to the rest of EU sycophants and US itself.
Nobody can say that Poland didn't ask for it with their bellicose rhetoric.
More details will be known when up to date official document is published on Kremlin's website.

https://t.me/rybar/63831

 Statements by Russian President Vladimir Putin at the meeting of the Security Council Standing Conference on Nuclear Deterrence

Key points:

The use of nuclear forces is an extreme measure to protect the country's sovereignty.

Reliable information about the launch of air and space attack weapons towards the Russian Federation will entail a nuclear response.

A critical threat to the sovereignty of the Russian Federation and non-nuclear weapons will be the basis for a nuclear response.

Russia is obliged to take into account the emergence of new sources of military threats and risks for itself and its allies.

Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in the event of aggression against Belarus.

The Russian Federation may consider the issue of using nuclear weapons after reliable data on a massive launch of missiles and UAVs when crossing the border.

The Russian Federation takes a highly responsible approach to nuclear weapons issues, seeking to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and their components.

Russia has expanded the category of states and military alliances against which nuclear deterrence is carried out.

Today, the nuclear triad remains the most important guarantee of ensuring the security of our state.

In the updated version of the document, aggression against Russia by any non-nuclear state, but with the participation or support of a nuclear state, is proposed to be considered as a joint attack on the Russian Federation.

They should add one more, no matter what the source of the threat, the United States will automatically be included and extensively targeted beacuse 80 % of our warheads are targeted there by default.

Progress in Ugledar. Take it away from the bandera faggots  and their NAFO fluffers and make them all cry..  

   

The point of that moronic dispute is not that ukrs have used nukes, but that they hit tactical nukes storage and detonated it.

Anyone who thinks nuclear weapons can be set off like that probably should not be allowed to be unsupervised.

Russia has resumed production of engines for the Tu 95MS without any problems and recently for the new Tu 160M, which is a very big achievement.

Not just resumed production... they have improved the performance of both engines and improved the efficiency of the Bears propeller blades to reduce noise and vibration significantly.

The new upgraded engines for the Tu-160M will be further improved models that might improve thrust levels to the point where supercruising might be an option which would massively improve performance.

The North stream pipe was damaged along many meters . A normal explosive only makes a hole .

By normal, you mean a block or blob of explosive? Do you think the US Navy are idiots? They would have used an explosive device that was custom designed to do the job... most likely a complicated shaped charge warhead that cut lines into the pipes to extend the destruction and make them not so easy to repair.

Why nuclear ? Well send a message !

The message would be that only the US or France or the UK could have done this to their own ally Germany... and it would have been a message underlined in the radiation left by such a small explosion.

Two types of nukes are Fission and Fusion... the former is Uranium or Plutonium and the energy is created by the atoms splitting releasing lots of energy and lots of radiation. Fusion is fusing light elements of hydrogen together and creates far less radiation... but requires a fisson explosion to generate the heat and pressure to start a fusion reaction. Fusion is cleaner but only makes sense for big booms.

There was no huge boom... just a large area of gas escaping an underwater pipe.

Nuclear strikes in both cases are possible . But if so , then NO government will publish or make public such information . Doing so , will force their hand in a nuclear retaliation . Something they want to avoid .

Ignoring the obvious problems that when a tank explodes its fuel and ammo (HE and Propellant) often all explode together... it would be rather unusual for different explosive types to explode separately...

No government is going to ignore having an opponent explode a nuclear weapon on their territory to avoid having to use their own nukes in retaliation... that is just stupid.

All of a sudden we have a " failed , " Russian ICBM Rocket launch . All of a sudden , we have a " publicised , " Chinese ICBM test launch into Pacific . Why ?

Both launches were scheduled years ago and have nothing at all to do with this so called event.

It's a great machine. I think they should upgrade the rest of the MiG 31 to the BM standard, now it's a great multi-role machine, which apart from the role of an ALCM interceptor is a very dangerous fighter for BVR fights etc. with the new R 77 and R 37M or as a carrier of Kinzhal and ASAT weapons.

It is a great machine, but its replacement is on the way...

I think there is a general underestimation here of what damage a nuclear explosion will do - even a small tactical one, where the explosive power will look somewhat similar to the Beirut explosion.

Not to mention the consequences of using one against Russia...

The west wont even test nuclear weapons and are humming and harrring over whether to send long range weapons to Kiev and allow them to use them as they please... there is no question they would be using nuclear weapons against a target with open air stored explosives that don't need a nuclear weapon to destroy.

Especially when the radiation is clear proof that even the IAEA couldn't fudge over and pretend it could not detect.

There were much smaller explosions successfully used to kill a major gas fire in the 60's. These were small underground explosions that imploded the gas wells to extinguish a major gas fire that lasted for years until nuclear explosions was used! No subsequent radiation leaks were discovered.

The French claim their nuclear weapons don't create any radiation at all... as long as they are detonated in the Pacific Region....

A Carrier is now, with the advent of large ballistic missiles, one of the most significant single points of failure there is in the military. Straight through and explode under the hull.

Correct. And rather ironic. A 200kg HE bomb would not do critical damage to a ship the size of an aircraft carrier but drill it through the decks into the water beneath the ship and use that 200kgs of HE to create a massive airbubble that rises and lifts that part of the ship out of the water and you will break the back of the ship... ships are not designed to be picked up in one place without proper support to the structure and it will break the hull and sink the ship like no hole in the top can.

The target distribution is a big deal. It is a known problem there that if you sling 20 cruise missiles at an enemy flotilla probably 18 of them are going to hit the same ship and the other 2 will have for whatever reason seen another ship first

You clearly don't understand how Russian and Soviet anti ship missiles work... the wolfpack technique means one of the missiles will climb and scan the targets with radar and then it will drop down and allocate each missile in the flight of missiles a target... some targets, like Carriers or AEGIS class cruisers will get 4 or 6 missiles allocated to them to ensure a kill, while any remaining missiles will be allocated other targets to ensure a good clean out of the surface group.

Further they will coordinate their attack to make it more likely they will reach their target so some might climb and then dive on the target while others stay low.

“Russia is underperforming” in its war in Ukraine, says Poland’s Foreign Minister
@radeksikorski
. “We are overperforming, and we just need to stay the course until Putin runs out of recruits and resources… We will stay the course,” he adds

And what did he say about Afghanistan... we are winning... we just need to wait for the Taliban to realise they have lost... we will stay the course and we hope the US will too because despite saying we will stay the course we wont if the US doesn't.

Nobody can say that Poland didn't ask for it with their bellicose rhetoric.

Burn Polish people because their politicians are morons? A bit harsh.

Hope it's not a bluff...

Now it is Russian law... and we know Putin is a stickler for laws.

Regarding the damage to the NS1 pipeline, the explosive charge only needs to rupture the line and trigger the loss of containment. It is the rapid depressurisation and release of stress at the damage site that causes the bulk of the damage.

Big_Gazza wrote:Regarding the damage to the NS1 pipeline, the explosive charge only needs to rupture the line and trigger the loss of containment. It is the rapid depressurisation and release of stress at the damage site that causes the bulk of the damage.

Nord Stream was nuked as well.

Each pipe was laid at least a hundred meter from the rest - yet multiple pipes were blasted - not ruptured - in up to 50 meter long chunks.

Only a nuclear device possesses such power.

Now that all thermal plants are out, destroy the remaining hydro plants, water and food storage all across Ukraine. This will increase the cost of NATO's upkeep for Ukraine.

The only point , I would add to revision of nuclear doctrine , is that non-destructive , followed by low-destructive use of nukes should be considered first , before using them for pinpoint- destructive followed by mass- destructive purposes . The cold war deterrence was established party because of numerous atmospheric tests by both sides ( non-destructive , forgetting the radiation ! ) on TV , that cheated many concerned mothers of a restful night's sleep , because of nightmare of the Armageddon . This pushed many , over the longer term to chain their babies to fence !

The Russian Federation may consider the issue of using nuclear weapons after reliable data on a massive launch of missiles and UAVs when crossing the border.

I'm wondering if a better response would be for Russia to exit the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty.

Then start live testing new designs for a compact but high yield nuke warheads. If I'm not mistaken, that US has quite a lead in this area with their W88 warhead, where the W88 has a greater yield compared to Russian warhead designs of the same weight. This is only based on articles I've read about this matter, perhaps someone can correct if this piece of info is just NATO propaganda.

Get ready: Russia has changed the conditions for the use of nuclear weapons, by Victoria Nikiforova for RiaNovosti. 09.26.2024.

On the evening of September 25, the Russian Security Council held its first open session. President Putin spoke on camera about how the country's nuclear doctrine would be changed. Such changes are adopted without delay, by presidential decree, and come into force immediately after it is signed. So the topic is relevant, one might say, hot.

The threshold for using all the means of our nuclear arsenal - the largest and most technologically advanced in the world - has been significantly lowered.

The loophole that allowed Western powers to fight Russia in a proxy mode, using the manpower of Ukrainians "and various other Swedes," has been eliminated. Now nuclear weapons can be used against non-nuclear states if they wage aggression against Russia with the help of a nuclear state.

"In the updated version of the document, aggression against Russia by any non-nuclear state, but with the participation or support of a nuclear state, is proposed to be considered as a joint attack on the Russian Federation," Vladimir Putin noted.

That is, the Americans, the British, the French will no longer be able to hide behind the backs of the Ukrainians, Poles, Romanians and the Balts. The response, if a corresponding decision is made, will come to everyone.

And then in the West they plunged into their favorite dreams about ubermensch who press buttons, sipping mojito thousands of kilometers from the front, and untermensch who die from Russian bombs and missiles. Now this division is abolished, nuclear weapons are the greatest equalizer.

The possibility of using nuclear weapons in response to attacks by aircraft, missiles and drones has been significantly expanded. And this is not only about carriers of nuclear weapons. Now Russia can respond to any attempt at a massive crossing of our air border.

The relevant provision was communicated to all our strategic opponents. "The conditions for Russia's transition to the use of nuclear weapons are also clearly stated. We will consider such a possibility upon receipt of reliable information about a massive launch of air and space attack weapons and their crossing our state border. I mean strategic or tactical aircraft, cruise missiles, drones, hypersonic and other aircraft," President Putin explained.

Another novelty - Russia will also use nuclear deterrence to protect its closest ally, Belarus . This is in case the slow-witted Poles or Ukrainians try to carry out sabotage there with conventional weapons.

For a long time, our country demonstrated astonishing nobility in trying to contain the rabid Western aggressors with non-nuclear means. We fought as if with our hands tied.

It is completely understandable why this was done. For us, Ukrainians will always be a part of the Russian people - fooled, embittered, but capable of re-education.

The Americans and Europeans took full advantage of this, openly fighting against Russia with the hands of Ukrainians. It turned out to be extremely convenient - they will sit thousands of kilometers from the LBS and pump Nezalezhnaya with money and weapons, and Ukrainian slaves will die for their interests.

Russia's efforts to show responsibility and unwillingness to destroy people were met with boos over our red lines. The height of impudence was Zelensky's request to allow him to strike American missiles at targets in the Russian rear. This idea was openly discussed in the style of "How will Moscow respond ? - Nothing, it's all a bluff!"

Well, it's time to see who's really bluffing. No sooner had President Putin announced changes to Russia's nuclear doctrine than the British tabloids howled like wolves at the moon: "Blood-chilling threats!", "Putin lowers threshold for use of nuclear weapons!"

The Daily Mail article is generously illustrated with photographs of our strategic intercontinental ballistic missile launches, and also goes into detail about a computer simulation that clearly shows what would be left of London if at least one of our nuclear-armed strategic missiles were to hit. Spoiler: nothing.

Do they understand the scale of the threat in the US ? There is a feeling that it is so important for the Democrats to retain power that they are not afraid of any risks and are ready to declare even a nuclear war a "new norm". That is why they continue to lie to the Americans that, supposedly, nothing will happen and it is all a bluff. Under these lies, the States risk turning into a backdrop for Fallout - a wonderful new series about a nuclear post-apocalypse.

Only Donald Trump's team clearly sees all the risks and speaks honestly about them . "Go and negotiate with Putin on Ukraine or face a nuclear war," his son and Kennedy Jr. warned the American establishment a week before the Russian president announced changes to our doctrine. Will the West hear these voices of reason and the warning from Moscow? The question is open.

https://ria.ru/20240926/rossiya-1974816257.html

this time for destroying their own Polish PT-91 Twardy tank.

Another overperforming Pole.

There is a suspicion that America has forgotten how to make engines for its main long-range bombers B-1B Lancer and B-52. And here we are for the entire range of our bombers , although with a creak in some cases, but we continue to produce. Russia is still confidently holding on to the top, having managed not to miss a single critical competence in the 90s. This fact alone can be used to assess the viability of different countries. wrote:

Arrow wrote:This is interesting. The US is losing its ability to produce engines for strategic aviation. Russia has resumed production of engines for the Tu 95MS without any problems and recently for the new Tu 160M, which is a very big achievement.

Russia is the last country that should be crowing about anyone losing their ability to produce aircraft engines

America is supercharged by the best brains money can buy. Them failing at anything is indicative of a massive failure in management, at the very least.