MarmiteLover123 [comrade/them, any] @ MarmiteLover123 @hexbear.net

I looove Marmite!

---

Read more

Posts

1

Comments

2,195

Joined

3 yr. ago

It's likely some joint plan, Trump is set to make an announcement tomorrow on the whole thing.

Trump to announce "aggressive" Ukraine weapons plan tomorrow - Axios

Key takeaway:

Two sources told Axios they had reason to believe the plan was likely to include long-range missiles that could reach targets deep inside Russian territory, including Moscow. However, neither was aware of any final decision.

Trump told reporters Sunday evening that the weapons he would send Ukraine through European countries would include "various pieces of very sophisticated military (equipment)... Video here

Missiles with the range to hit Moscow from Ukraine means missiles with more than 500km range. That excludes a lot of weapons if this happens. The four potential missiles in the US arsenal are:

• Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM). Subsonic low altitude surface to surface cruise missile. Range 1300-2500km, depending on variant.
• Standard Missile-6 (SM-6), surface to air and surface to surface supersonic missile. Range of 500km possible in a surface to surface role.
• AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile Extended Range (JASSM-ER), Stealthy high altitude air to surface cruise missile. Range of around 1000km.
• Precision Strike Missile (PrSM). Surface to surface ballistic missile. Range of over 500km.

If this goes ahead and if it refers to US made weapons (I have significant doubts), a possibility is Typhon launchers with TLAM and SM-6 missiles, which are set to be deployed to Germany next year. The first TLAMs were used over three decades ago during the Gulf War, not exactly new technology. SM-6 missiles would also give Ukrainian air defence the capability to engage Russian aircraft at much longer ranges then they currently can, (SM-6 max range is 370km in a surface to air role), and an ability to engage time sensitive targets in the ground at long range due to the high speed of the missile (3.5 Mach). The Typhon launcher can launch both of these. TLAMs can also be launched from the "ROGUE-Fires", a 4 wheeled unmanned ground vehicle capable of launching a single TLAM.

If JASSM is included, it would be quite concerning as it's a stealth cruise missile that can fly at high altitude, the only known missile with this capability. (most stealthy cruise missiles use a combination of low altitude and stealth to radar and IR sensors). Russian and Syrian air defences (using Russian equipment) failed to shoot down a single JASSM stealth cruise missile during US attacks on Syria. PrSM could also be concerning given the range and ballistic vector. Again, I have significant doubts, but unlike the SM-6 and TLAM, Ukraine already has the equipment needed to launch these missiles, F-16 fighter aircraft and M142 HIMARS trucks.

More likely I can see other weapons which have already been delivered, like ATACMS ballistic missiles and Storm Shadow subsonic stealth low altitude cruise missiles, being delivered again.

However, no one should be surprised if we see TLAMs and JASSMs flying into Russian military bases in the coming weeks. This is very much a possibility.

Trump confirms that more PATRIOT air defence batteries are on the way to Ukraine, likely financed by Germany and Norway. So Germany and Norway buy US military equipment, and send it to Ukraine. A sign of things to come. A lot more of this on the way.

Video source.

Germany is also financing the Ukrainian production of a "high three digit number" of cruise missiles and drones, likely the already existing Ukrainian systems like Long Neptune cruise missile, Bars cruise missile, AN-196 one way attack drone, and the Ukrainian equivalents of German/Shaded and Harop/Harpy one way attack drones. The first batch of these systems will finish production at the end of July. As they are Ukrainian made and operated, no restrictions on striking deep into internationally recognised Russian territory. Some of these systems have ranges between 1000-2000km. In response to Russian air raids, NATO seeks to give Ukraine it's own significant long range strike capabilitiy.

Video source

In other news, after Germany acquired the joint Israeli-US developed Arrow 3 exoatmospheric ballistic missile defence/intercept system, Germany is also interested in acquiring the Arrow 4 system, the replacement of Arrow 2. Arrow 4 is set to offer improved performance against ballistic targets (more altitude and range) and capability against hypersonic threats, likely similar to the performance jump S-500 offers over S-300V. Germany is seeking to protect itself, and Europe, against ballistic missiles from Russia. (That's the only possible perceived threat).

Source article

Yeah the ships sink were not going to Israel themselves, but other ships operated by the parent companies docked at Israel.

In a difference to previous attacks on shipping, Ansarallah/Houthis made sure that the ships were sunk through multiple vectors of attack.

That's just the standard Israeli media line, propaganda not worth paying attention to. However, Barak David was the first source to break the story of Iran preparing Operation True Promise II hours before the first missiles were launched, something he likely got straight from Israeli intelligence.

With sources like this you have to disregard what they're saying on political matters, most of the time they just parrot their government's propaganda.

Being part of unit 8200 would explain how he has such good sources in the Israeli government.

Taking a zero enrichment deal could be smart if, and only if, Iran is able to secure conventional deterrent and military forces capable of preventing a future Israeli air campaign (in other words, an advanced integrated air defence network against ballistic and aerodynamic targets, and modern fighter jets from China and possibly Russia). The problem is, if China is willing to do this, and if Russia is able to spare any military equipment.

I honestly don't think nuclear weapons are an immediate answer to Iran's deterrence issues. There is no immediate answer. In a best case scenario, Iran currently has enough enriched uranium for 10 implosion type devices, which they can then install on Fattah-1 and Khorramshahr 4 ballistic missile re entry vehicles, which they'll then distribute and disperse across the east of the country, to keep out of range of Israeli airstrikes. Let's say 2 missiles per IRGC company/squad, at 5 different locations. Is this enough to establish deterrence, given the performance of Israel's integrated ballistic missile defence network, failure rates of Iranian missile, Mossad assets/infiltration into Iran, and most importantly vs Israel's nuclear triad of likely over 100 warheads? I don't think so. Tel Aviv may risk getting nuked, but that's a risk that Israeli military planners will take at these odds. Iran needs at minimum dozens of nuclear warheads in a breakout scenario to establish adequate deterrence, and that will take longer than a few months, unless there's some hidden cache of enriched uranium no one knows about.

Will HTS in Syria make a move for Tripoli? Barrack is certainly implying that.

I saw, no particular theories. Iran still operates lots of Russian equipment, so it could be ammunition for that.

It helps prevent easy geolocation with the blurs (and yes it would be possible to geolocate without them), but to be honest US infrared early warning satellites probably picked up the launches.

Also nice shot of a Fateh Mobin in action.

Russia also sold their most advanced air defence system at the time, the S-300VM/V4, to Egypt from 2014-2017. An S-300V4 battery is more expensive than S-400, over double the price if I remember correctly. The S-300V and S-300P systems are completely different systems, despite sharing a similar name.

The only foreign operators of the S-300V4/VM are Egypt and Venezuela. Ukraine operates the S-300V1 variant from Soviet era stockpiles. China has their own version, known as HQ-18 or HQ-29, though HQ-29 could be a different system.

Egypt also has the export variant of the S-300V4 though, an advanced mobile anti ballistic missile defence system from Russia, they obtained a few years ago. (The S-300V and S-300P systems are actually completely different systems, that share a similar name). The S-300Vs will almost certainly be providing cover from ballistic threats for the HQ-9Bs in an integrated air defence network (at least I hope they will). The combination of the two systems makes sense. Iran's S-300PMU-2 fire control radars, a similar system to the HQ-9 (the HQ-9 is a direct descendant of the S-300PMU-2/SA-20, but with western radars and command and control technology/philosophy, including track via missile guidance similar to the Patriot system), were likely taken out by Israel's air launched ballistic missiles in attacks in April and October last year. So having a system to cover against ballistic threats is very important if the adversary is Israel. Israel are likely the world leader in air launched ballistic missiles with a vast arsenal only rivaled by China.

For those wondering, Iran did try to get S-300V systems in 2013, but Russia said no. They got upgraded to S-300PMU-2 in the end, but not S-300V. The clown Dmitry Medvedev was responsible for this shambles.

But your overall point is definitely correct, China can provide military hardware just as good (or better) than Europe or Russia, for considerably cheaper. And unlike Russia who are currently at war with Ukraine, there's no need to overpay, pay upfront, or wait for deliveries. Russia is falling behind in the advanced military technology department vs China and the USA.

The whole situation is just weird, more questions than answers.

It seems to be a newly refurbished aircraft. Maybe it was been worked on in Ukraine and is being evacuated now? Very weird because the closest distance between Kyiv/Kiev and Russia is about 200km via the Chernihiv direction, and 300km via Sumy, where the frontline is active. Such a large and immobile target should be well within range of a high altitude R-37M launch by a MiG-31, or a 40N6E launch from S-400 or S-300V4.

A Ukrainian Antonov AN-124 transport/cargo aircraft was spotted flying over Kyiv/Kiev today, and made it's way to Poland shortly afterwards, in other words it was not shot down. The first time a rearward Ukrainian assest has been seen flying over the Ukrainian capital since the start of the war.

Source

Over three years into the Ukraine war, Russia has finally stopped using lower frequency long wavelength radio for communications between strategic bombers . They are now using higher frequency shorter wavelength radio, suggested to be UHF, for communications. UHF radio is propagated by line of sight and has a much shorter range. This means Ukrainian hobbyist radio operators can no longer listen in on the communications of the bombers (for example, the bombers announcing the launch of cruise missiles and launch location on radio), and can no longer announce the launch of missiles on their telegram channels. These telegram channels only know that the missiles are on their way when they get detected and enter Ukrainian airspace. This change has affected all monitoring channels.

How long before Russia uses SATCOM radio for long range secure communications on strategic bomber and refueling aircraft, so they can't be tracked at takeoff and can operate "radio silent". Do we have to wait another three years?

The system was first unveiled at the MAKS 2011 air show. Test firings have been conducted, and Russia is currently building Navy Corvettes that can accommodate these containers as part of the design. The Project 22160 is one such ship.

Has it been used operationally yet? That is unknown. The Project 22160 ships have seen combat in Ukraine, but it's unknown if this system was equipped on them. Obviously putting the system on a warship is different from a perfidious attack using cargo ships.

This is unironically the reasoning. I think Russia was the first to come up with such a system, in Club K, and even conducted test launches.

Video

Test launch

Russia did it first with club K as far as I remember. All sides engage in this.

Unfortunately, that's not true and the claim came from some telegram channels and twitter accounts that did sloppy geolocation work, and ignored other angles (Menchosint in particular). Lots of Iranian and resistance aligned sources did this as they were desperate for something.

The headquarters of the ministry of the interior is in Jerusalem, not Haifa.

The missile did not hit or directly impact the tall skyscraper building that's labeled as the ministry of the interior building on Google maps. It hit a mixed use commerical building around 50-100m away, next to a parking lot. If the target was the tall building, the missile missed by over 50m. (Corrected, initially stated distances in ft)

Geolocation and multiple angles here, highly recommend ignoring political commentary and replies

The mosque did take minimal damage from the shockwaves, mainly debris and blown out windows.