Stinger (presumably) in Action

[Stephanie B]

https://youtu.be/p4TB0pqxXXg

Counts as a “feel good video” if you’re not backing the Russians.

(If you are, іди нахуй!)

[BehindBlueI's]

Discussed in the Ukraine thread in the politics section, but I'm leaning toward a filmed training exercise/demonstration of weapon system since I learned they can drone those older helicopters.

Camera work is well centered. No attempt at evasion by the pilot. No signs of more helicopters or other movement in the area. Nothing definitive but it looks pre-planned to me.

[DrkBlue]

I have seen some appearing-to-be credible speculation saying this is most likely an IGLA system, likely from either Ukrainian or Polish stock.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K38_Igla

The area in this Tweet looks like it could be along the Dniepr River. The ambush looked a bit like the Dniepr in the background.
https://twitter.com/insiderznews/status/1498677710717173771

No dog in the fight, as my experience in air defense artillery was seeing a Stinger once.

However, if this was a IGLA, that explains the mission in Libya behind 13 Hours. Also why FedEx has looked at laser countermeasures on some of their aircraft… That ain’t a fair fight.

[HCM]

As discussed in the Ukraine War Thread in the politics section, this video has been Geo located and per Task and Purpose’s Twitter, corresponds to the location of a downed Russian helicopter.


Geolocation of footage of downed Russian helicopter just outside of Kozarovychi (Козаровичі) in Kyiv Oblast. Location: 50.7605860, 30.3661308. H/T to
@L_ThinkTank
for location

The video is attributed to an ISR drone.

[CraigS]

Thanks for posting this and also for the followup posts. Somehow I have managed to see maybe the last half of that video twice on the news but never got the explanation of what it was.
BTW where is 'Ukraine War Thread in the politics section'?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Have to be a site supporter to see that.

[Stephanie B]

Based on the performance of the Russian army, so far, one has to wander about the threat that they posed during the Cold War. It seems that, right now, if the war widened, it would become a generalized target practice session for NATO forces, until Tsar Vladimir III went nuclear.

Somebody called Russia a “Potemkin superpower.” That may have a large shred of truth in it.

[Tuefelhunden]

Interesting point. Makes me wonder if China is a paper tiger as well conventionally speaking.

[jh9]

Based on the performance of the Russian army, so far, one has to wander about the threat that they posed during the Cold War. It seems that, right now, if the war widened, it would become a generalized target practice session for NATO forces, until Tsar Vladimir III went nuclear.

Somebody called Russia a “Potemkin superpower.” That may have a large shred of truth in it.

People were talking about expired MREs (or whatever the Russian equivalent is) and substandard, substitute tires in the Ditch Convoy. The thing about a kleptocracy is that everybody has their hand in the till. I wonder how much of this debacle is as much a surprise to Putin and his cadre as the rest of the world because even the Russian military isn't exempt from being fleeced by the kleptocrats and oligarchs. And I also wonder who's getting polonium in their tea once either the responsible parties or appropriate scapegoats are found.

Weren't they performing as expected while doing business as Wagner as recently as Syria? I wonder how much of the rot is recent because everybody was assuming the situation on paper was an accurate reflection of reality while some politburo middle managers' brothers-in-law were making some scratch on the side.

[Joe in PNG]

Corruption and poor levels of training and equipment for Russian soldiers has been a problem for a long, long time- centuries even.

[Stephanie B]

Weren't they performing as expected while doing business as Wagner as recently as Syria? I wonder how much of the rot is recent because everybody was assuming the situation on paper was an accurate reflection of reality while some politburo middle managers' brothers-in-law were making some scratch on the side.

As far as I can tell, Russian involvement in Syria was only a few thousand troops at any one time. It's pretty clear that the Russians expected only a token resistance from their Slavic brothers and certainly not an entire nation grabbing their rifles, together with every ATGM and MANPAD that can be shoveled across the border.

But the point that there was/is significant corruption in Russian military spending seems to be very much the case. And it's kind of interesting that the Russian secure voice communications system depended on the Russians being able to use cell networks, which have been denied to them by the Ukrainians.

[Boom]

Based on the performance of the Russian army, so far, one has to wander about the threat that they posed during the Cold War. It seems that, right now, if the war widened, it would become a generalized target practice session for NATO forces, until Tsar Vladimir III went nuclear.

Somebody called Russia a “Potemkin superpower.” That may have a large shred of truth in it.

With a defense budget of roughly $50 yearly, spread across all branches of the Russian military you can’t help but wonder how well his nukes are being maintained and what ready state they might be in.

As of 2022, the Federation of American Scientists estimates that Russia possesses 5,977 nuclear weapons, while the United States has 5,428; Russia and the U.S. each have about 1,600 active deployed strategic nuclear warheads.

From what info I can find the US spends around $40 billion yearly to keep our nukes ready. $10 billion shy of the entire Russian military budget...

[Stephanie B]

I had NPR on my car radio this morning as I drove to the state park for a hike. The story was about the families of the Ukrainian soldiers who are KIA. They interviewed one woman as she buried her husband. As I recall the story, she said that he had served in the army around 2014 and volunteered to go back one the war started.

The reporter asked her if she regretted her husband's decision to join the fight. She said no, that it was better to be the widow of a hero than the wife of a coward.

Those are the people who the Russians are facing.

(Here's a list of charities (https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/09/heres-a-list-of-top-rated-charities-to-help-the-ukraine-relief-effort.html), albeit there are some annoying popups.)

[whomever]

With a defense budget of roughly $50 yearly, spread across all branches of the Russian military you can’t help but wonder how well his nukes are being maintained and what ready state they might be in.

As of 2022, the Federation of American Scientists estimates that Russia possesses 5,977 nuclear weapons, while the United States has 5,428; Russia and the U.S. each have about 1,600 active deployed strategic nuclear warheads.

From what info I can find the US spends around $40 billion yearly to keep our nukes ready. $10 billion shy of the entire Russian military budget...

FWIW, I went looking for how much the US spends on nuke maintenance, and found this:

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57240

My not-an-expert reading of that is that the $40B number includes e.g. building (maintaining??) submarines. I dunno what the 'make sure the warheads go boo!m' part is. I'd guess that 'stockpile services' is some of that, maybe 'stewardship and support', dunno about 'facilities and infrastructure. And I haven't clue one about what corresponding Russian costs would be,

So now I'm more confused than when I started looking, except I think some of the $40B isn't warhead maintenance.

[Joe in PNG]

FWIW, I went looking for how much the US spends on nuke maintenance, and found this:

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57240

My not-an-expert reading of that is that the $40B number includes e.g. building (maintaining??) submarines. I dunno what the 'make sure the warheads go boo!m' part is. I'd guess that 'stockpile services' is some of that, maybe 'stewardship and support', dunno about 'facilities and infrastructure. And I haven't clue one about what corresponding Russian costs would be,

So now I'm more confused than when I started looking, except I think some of the $40B isn't warhead maintenance.

Fissile materials go bad over time. For instance, tritium is an essential part of 'nuke go boom', because can it boost the yield of a smaller core. And as we know from night sights, tritium fades out relatively fast. PU and U235 likewise. A lot of the details are classified, but I suspect part of the cost is spinning up new fissionable materials, and part of the cost is reprocessing old cores past their sell by date. And since it's rather scary stuff, you need highly trained staff and lots of protective gear.

[whomever]

Fissile materials go bad over time. For instance, tritium is an essential part of 'nuke go boom', because can it boost the yield of a smaller core. And as we know from night sights, tritium fades out relatively fast. PU and U235 likewise. A lot of the details are classified, but I suspect part of the cost is spinning up new fissionable materials, and part of the cost is reprocessing old cores past their sell by date. And since it's rather scary stuff, you need highly trained staff and lots of protective gear.

Sure, that's the process. What I'm not sure of is how much of the $40B goes for that, as opposed to building new boomers or offices or whatever. The interesting question is whether Russia has been letting things slide to the point that some of their warheads might fizzle, or solid ICBM/SLBM propellants have cracked enough the birds won't fly, etc.

For a non-nuke example, Germany said it was going to send thousands of MANPADS to Ukraine, but it turned out they were Strelas, which I think dates them to before the wall fell(????), and a lot of the propellants have apparently cracked enough to make them unserviceable.

So is the Russian nuke inventory A)largely working, because keeping it working costs the much less than $40B, B)partly working because they have maintained part of it, or C)not reliable across the board? That's the interesting question. I'd guess Vlad is less likely to start throwing nukes if he thinks they might not work. It would be pretty embarrassing if you tried to nuke some Polish air base, or Warsaw, or London and it fizzled.

[Joe in PNG]

Sure, that's the process. What I'm not sure of is how much of the $40B goes for that, as opposed to building new boomers or offices or whatever. The interesting question is whether Russia has been letting things slide to the point that some of their warheads might fizzle, or solid ICBM/SLBM propellants have cracked enough the birds won't fly, etc.

For a non-nuke example, Germany said it was going to send thousands of MANPADS to Ukraine, but it turned out they were Strelas, which I think dates them to before the wall fell(????), and a lot of the propellants have apparently cracked enough to make them unserviceable.

So is the Russian nuke inventory A)largely working, because keeping it working costs the much less than $40B, B)partly working because they have maintained part of it, or C)not reliable across the board? That's the interesting question. I'd guess Vlad is less likely to start throwing nukes if he thinks they might not work. It would be pretty embarrassing if you tried to nuke some Polish air base, or Warsaw, or London and it fizzled.

There's also the explosive bits- the HE lenses, precision detonators, and other bits that have to work perfectly, and probably have to be replaced regularly as well. It was interesting reading about how the mid 40's stockpile was very not ready for wartime use- estimate was that it would take a month to get stuff prepped and assembled for a nuke strike.

[DrkBlue]

There's also the explosive bits- the HE lenses, precision detonators, and other bits that have to work perfectly, and probably have to be replaced regularly as well. It was interesting reading about how the mid 40's stockpile was very not ready for wartime use- estimate was that it would take a month to get stuff prepped and assembled for a nuke strike.

I concur. When in ABQ, I look wistfully towards those mountains out yonder… The US had a small weapons stockpile in the late 1940s, but it was considerably less in size and deployability than one would have guessed. The early B-29/B-50 capability was better than everyone else, but still quite rudimentary.

If visiting town, check out the Nuclear Museum. Been twice and hang out until feet/back ache. The staff there are fascinating to speak with.

Last time I was there, I stumbled onto their then-fresh display of the Palomares bomb. Literally it was one of the actual devices, dented and misshapen, sitting in front of you. A bit deeper into the museum, there is an Atomic Demolition Munition that you may stumble over.

All that speaks to the complexities of what the massive Russian stockpiles consist of… 6000 devices, even in a few depots, is a lot of very hazardous and decaying items to keep maintained. It is reasonable that a percentage are no longer viable, but 10% of the total is sufficient to make massive dent in the history of humanity.

If you care to be scared, read up on the Iskander. The Iskander is holding much of Europe at risk. This picture is from earlier in the week - an Iskander went astray, presumably on its way to some Ukraine location. Very V-2 in 1944.
85857