mxaxai wrote:Su-34 caught flat-spinning into the ground. https://youtu.be/8vQa_mywq8k
It's still unclear whether a technical malfunction, operator error or combat damage caused this loss.
Or is that a tendency of the SU-34.
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
mxaxai wrote:Su-34 caught flat-spinning into the ground. https://youtu.be/8vQa_mywq8k
It's still unclear whether a technical malfunction, operator error or combat damage caused this loss.
Vintage wrote:Whichever it is, the important thing is that they have one fewer of them today. According to Wiki, they started out with 131 and have lost at least 7. Who knows how many are actually operational.mxaxai wrote:Su-34 caught flat-spinning into the ground. https://youtu.be/8vQa_mywq8k
It's still unclear whether a technical malfunction, operator error or combat damage caused this loss.
Or is that a tendency of the SU-34.
Vintage wrote:mxaxai wrote:Su-34 caught flat-spinning into the ground. https://youtu.be/8vQa_mywq8k
It's still unclear whether a technical malfunction, operator error or combat damage caused this loss.
Or is that a tendency of the SU-34.
flyingturtle wrote:You heard about the German Marder infantry fighting vehicles not being given to Ukraine because its 20 mm gun uses Swiss ammo that the Swiss government can block from sales to third countries, innit?
Apparently, that was a misunderstanding.
Now... the Swiss gubbermint is blocking the German anti-aircraft gun system called Gepard. Different cannon, same reason.
Vlad the Impaler must love Swiss nEuTrAliTy...
https://www.srf.ch/news/international/w ... er-ukraine
GDB wrote:With the confirmation that in addition to MANPADS and triple launcher Starstreaks, the UK is now sending the 8 round launcher on the Stormer armoured vehicle, the Ukrainians will have an under armour short ranged AD system with great mobility.
Meanwhile, maybe Germany pull some Leo 2 MBT's out of storage, even a quite a small number, start training Ukrainians on their use and while they are at it, tell the Swiss if they don't play ball then supplies for THEIR Leo 2's will be under question, in fact the next batch for the Swiss goes to Ukraine.
art wrote:GDB wrote:With the confirmation that in addition to MANPADS and triple launcher Starstreaks, the UK is now sending the 8 round launcher on the Stormer armoured vehicle, the Ukrainians will have an under armour short ranged AD system with great mobility.
Meanwhile, maybe Germany pull some Leo 2 MBT's out of storage, even a quite a small number, start training Ukrainians on their use and while they are at it, tell the Swiss if they don't play ball then supplies for THEIR Leo 2's will be under question, in fact the next batch for the Swiss goes to Ukraine.
Heaven forbid that it Is it no longer permissible to be neutral. During an early 20th century conflict in which tens of millions died it was quite pernissible. During a mid-20th century conflict in which tens of millions died it was quite pernissible. No longer permiisible during an early 21st century conflict in which tens of thousands are dying?
art wrote:GDB wrote:With the confirmation that in addition to MANPADS and triple launcher Starstreaks, the UK is now sending the 8 round launcher on the Stormer armoured vehicle, the Ukrainians will have an under armour short ranged AD system with great mobility.
Meanwhile, maybe Germany pull some Leo 2 MBT's out of storage, even a quite a small number, start training Ukrainians on their use and while they are at it, tell the Swiss if they don't play ball then supplies for THEIR Leo 2's will be under question, in fact the next batch for the Swiss goes to Ukraine.
Heaven forbid that it Is it no longer permissible to be neutral. During an early 20th century conflict in which tens of millions died it was quite pernissible. During a mid-20th century conflict in which tens of millions died it was quite pernissible. No longer permiisible during an early 21st century conflict in which tens of thousands are dying?
GDB wrote:art wrote:GDB wrote:With the confirmation that in addition to MANPADS and triple launcher Starstreaks, the UK is now sending the 8 round launcher on the Stormer armoured vehicle, the Ukrainians will have an under armour short ranged AD system with great mobility.
Meanwhile, maybe Germany pull some Leo 2 MBT's out of storage, even a quite a small number, start training Ukrainians on their use and while they are at it, tell the Swiss if they don't play ball then supplies for THEIR Leo 2's will be under question, in fact the next batch for the Swiss goes to Ukraine.
Heaven forbid that it Is it no longer permissible to be neutral. During an early 20th century conflict in which tens of millions died it was quite pernissible. During a mid-20th century conflict in which tens of millions died it was quite pernissible. No longer permiisible during an early 21st century conflict in which tens of thousands are dying?
Rather a lot of people when considering Swiss 'neutrality' also think 'stashed looted Nazi gold'.
A terrible conflict, they did well out of.
Not cooperative either for a long time when sources for the loot were found, another aspect of 'neutrality'?
A lot of non NATO and non EU nations are helping Ukraine, including with military support. Finland and Sweden might be EU but they have long been neutral, which seems likely to change.
But as ever, the Swiss are blessed with geography, so I accept that their calculations for defence posture differs to those two, they were never under real threat from Nazi Germany either and knew it.
bikerthai wrote:Makes me wonder if any major powers will buy Swiss weapons in the future.
bt
GDB wrote:Rather a lot of people when considering Swiss 'neutrality' also think 'stashed looted Nazi gold'.
A terrible conflict, they did well out of.
Not cooperative either for a long time when sources for the loot were found, another aspect of 'neutrality'?
FW200 wrote:GDB wrote:Rather a lot of people when considering Swiss 'neutrality' also think 'stashed looted Nazi gold'.
A terrible conflict, they did well out of.
Not cooperative either for a long time when sources for the loot were found, another aspect of 'neutrality'?
The Swiss neutrality didn't prevent them from providing Britain with Oerlikon AA guns and Hispano-Suiza aircraft guns.
Ukrainian volunteers have started offering a unique souvenir in exchange for donations - a piece of a skin from a shot down Russian Sukhoi Su-34 attack jet.
TheSonntag wrote:Well, that's not good...Today German MOD Mrs Lambrecht stated in the Bundestag debate regarding the 100 Billion package that currently only 9 Tiger out of 51 are Operational.
Source: I Listened to the debate.
johns624 wrote:TheSonntag wrote:Well, that's not good...Today German MOD Mrs Lambrecht stated in the Bundestag debate regarding the 100 Billion package that currently only 9 Tiger out of 51 are Operational.
Source: I Listened to the debate.
Buckeyetech wrote:Question…is there such thing as land based tomohawk missiles? I know the air launched ones were recently retired…were they scrapped?
johns624 wrote:TheSonntag wrote:Well, that's not good...Today German MOD Mrs Lambrecht stated in the Bundestag debate regarding the 100 Billion package that currently only 9 Tiger out of 51 are Operational.
Source: I Listened to the debate.
tommy1808 wrote:And imagine just for writing this the authors would be jailed for this in Russia.johns624 wrote:TheSonntag wrote:Well, that's not good...Today German MOD Mrs Lambrecht stated in the Bundestag debate regarding the 100 Billion package that currently only 9 Tiger out of 51 are Operational.
Source: I Listened to the debate.
With its main anti tank weapon being the PARS3-LR with a 16% kill probability and no cannon they are pretty much just recon plattforms.
https://www.capital.de/wirtschaft-polit ... 0-mio-euro (sorry, only in German).
best regards
Thomas
flyingturtle wrote:
Yes. Our neutrality means that in a conflict, Swiss companies have to offer armament to all conflict parties - or to none of them.
ReverseFlow wrote:tommy1808 wrote:And imagine just for writing this the authors would be jailed for this in Russia.johns624 wrote:Well, that's not good...
With its main anti tank weapon being the PARS3-LR with a 16% kill probability and no cannon they are pretty much just recon plattforms.
https://www.capital.de/wirtschaft-polit ... 0-mio-euro (sorry, only in German).
best regards
Thomas
I see the French use Hellfire on their Tigers (ok Wiki says so), so would the solution be to buy those and update software etc?
kitplane01 wrote:flyingturtle wrote:
Yes. Our neutrality means that in a conflict, Swiss companies have to offer armament to all conflict parties - or to none of them.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
flyingturtle wrote:kitplane01 wrote:flyingturtle wrote:
Yes. Our neutrality means that in a conflict, Swiss companies have to offer armament to all conflict parties - or to none of them.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
This could sum up our shitty stance in many conflicts. We even tried to stay as "neutral" as possible when the UN sanctioned South Africa for, ya know... Apartheid.
tommy1808 wrote:With its main anti tank weapon being the PARS3-LR with a 16% kill probability and no cannon they are pretty much just recon plattforms.
https://www.capital.de/wirtschaft-polit ... 0-mio-euro (sorry, only in German).
During the test with several mission scenarios, which took place at the Army's request in a climate zone with high temperatures and thus in the missile's upper operational range - and was therefore conducted at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico - there was a "high number of misses," the auditors write, citing internal Bundeswehr documentation of the test firings. Many missiles had "lost their assigned target after firing and selected a new target."
Translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
https://www.capital.de/wirtschaft-politik/rechnungshof-ruegt-raketenkauf-der-bundeswehr-fuer-420-mio-euro
kitplane01 wrote:flyingturtle wrote:
Yes. Our neutrality means that in a conflict, Swiss companies have to offer armament to all conflict parties - or to none of them.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
FlapOperator wrote:kitplane01 wrote:flyingturtle wrote:
Yes. Our neutrality means that in a conflict, Swiss companies have to offer armament to all conflict parties - or to none of them.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
I'd make the argument that the potential value of a true neutral state is more valuable to terminating conflicts in the future than the potential war making potential of a small European state.
At some point, this war and all wars end. I think the recent pillorying of the Swiss for their neutrality when nearly every European state has benefited from it at some point in the last 125 years is classically short sighted and self-referential European posturing.
German gas diversification would have had a far higher deterrent effect, but the Germans refused.
kitplane01 wrote:FlapOperator wrote:kitplane01 wrote:
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
I'd make the argument that the potential value of a true neutral state is more valuable to terminating conflicts in the future than the potential war making potential of a small European state.
At some point, this war and all wars end. I think the recent pillorying of the Swiss for their neutrality when nearly every European state has benefited from it at some point in the last 125 years is classically short sighted and self-referential European posturing.
German gas diversification would have had a far higher deterrent effect, but the Germans refused.
That might make sense if Switzerland was the last possible neutral state. But I am sad to report there are an excess of neutral states. What we actually need is states that, when faced with unnecessary killing, are not neutral.
Actually, when faced with the unneeded slaughter of innocents, I'd rather there were no neutral states. This seems super obvious to me.
kitplane01 wrote:Actually, when faced with the unneeded slaughter of innocents, I'd rather there were no neutral states. This seems super obvious to me.
flyingturtle wrote:Russia will continue with the war as long as they believe they can make valuable gains.
flyingturtle wrote:
I agree with kitplane01. What does Switzerland have to offer? We don't have any weight in Moscow. And a neutral stance is too expensive just for saying "Well, you guys can debate in Geneva." Russia will continue with the war as long as they believe they can make valuable gains. In certain situations, everybody will refuse negotiations.
HowardDGA wrote:flyingturtle wrote:Russia will continue with the war as long as they believe they can make valuable gains.
Maybe not. Bill Browder thinks that Putin will not let himself be embarassed and will escalate the war.. Video here (warning, possibly behind a paywall):
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/10 ... e-conflict
FlapOperator wrote:flyingturtle wrote:
I agree with kitplane01. What does Switzerland have to offer? We don't have any weight in Moscow. And a neutral stance is too expensive just for saying "Well, you guys can debate in Geneva." Russia will continue with the war as long as they believe they can make valuable gains. In certain situations, everybody will refuse negotiations.
Places like Geneva do matter. Organizations like the ICRC do matter. Lesotho or Bhutan just isn't ready for prime time as the new neutral state.
We can't argue for a rules based international order on one hand, and ignore the hundreds of years of data on what such an order means.
FlapOperator wrote:
This war is going to end in some negotiation. WWII in Asia ended in some negotiation. The Euros aren't going to march on Moscow. There is not going to be a unilateral end to Russian combat operations.
JonesNL wrote:It seems that according to Wiki (I know, I know...) there are only 17-24 built and 3-4 in the Black Sea. So that would mean 1-2 in the Black Sea unless there were more to start with or more destroyedTB-2’s destroyed 2 Raptor patrol boats:
https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1521026579555569670
ReverseFlow wrote:JonesNL wrote:It seems that according to Wiki (I know, I know...) there are only 17-24 built and 3-4 in the Black Sea. So that would mean 1-2 in the Black Sea unless there were more to start with or more destroyedTB-2’s destroyed 2 Raptor patrol boats:
https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1521026579555569670
Interestingly they apparently have a Caterpillar engine. So mark those down as 'dual use' and no exports to Russia!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor- ... atrol_boat
https://www.cat.com/en_US/products/new/ ... 94378.html
kitplane01 wrote:If Switzerland avoided war with the combined might of Germany and Italy in 1942 ... that's a decision.
rheinwaldner wrote:kitplane01 wrote:If Switzerland avoided war with the combined might of Germany and Italy in 1942 ... that's a decision.
No, not a decision. An accomplishment. Switzerland is the only soil in central Europe, where since 1803 no foreign armies marched.
And the reason why Switzerland was neutral since then is, because the large European powers mandated it in 1815. In the congress of Vienna, neither of the large powers wanted any of the others to claim full influence over Switzerland so the least common denominator was, that Switzerland would have to exist as an armed and neutral State in between them.
rheinwaldner wrote:Not allowing to being dragged into foreign adversities, imho still is a model, that makes the world more peaceful. If everybody would do it, it would limit the scope of conflicts. If there will ever be a world war again (and there will), the neutral states will not be responsible for it.
rheinwaldner wrote:And, don't forget, even as neutral state Switzerland is participating on all the sanctions of the EU...
kitplane01 wrote:rheinwaldner wrote:kitplane01 wrote:If Switzerland avoided war with the combined might of Germany and Italy in 1942 ... that's a decision.
No, not a decision. An accomplishment. Switzerland is the only soil in central Europe, where since 1803 no foreign armies marched.
And the reason why Switzerland was neutral since then is, because the large European powers mandated it in 1815. In the congress of Vienna, neither of the large powers wanted any of the others to claim full influence over Switzerland so the least common denominator was, that Switzerland would have to exist as an armed and neutral State in between them.
I'm sorry but that's crap. The reason Switzerland is neutral in 2022 is because that's what Swiss voters want, not some constraint imposed 207 years ago.
kitplane01 wrote:The correct method is to consider each case on it's merits. But automatic, unthinking, never-get-involved-even-if-that-allows-slaughter neutrality is just not right. Nations have a positive duty to do good and reduce evil.
rheinwaldner wrote:kitplane01 wrote:rheinwaldner wrote:No, not a decision. An accomplishment. Switzerland is the only soil in central Europe, where since 1803 no foreign armies marched.
And the reason why Switzerland was neutral since then is, because the large European powers mandated it in 1815. In the congress of Vienna, neither of the large powers wanted any of the others to claim full influence over Switzerland so the least common denominator was, that Switzerland would have to exist as an armed and neutral State in between them.
I'm sorry but that's crap. The reason Switzerland is neutral in 2022 is because that's what Swiss voters want, not some constraint imposed 207 years ago.
As no one ever saw the need to overrule (or confirm) neutrality by a public vote, the rationale from 1815 (which in fact roots in events which happened centuries earlier) is valid until today. It served Switzerland well. You can educate yourself here:
https://www.eda.admin.ch/dam/eda/en/documents/publications/SchweizerischeAussenpolitik/neutralitaet-schweiz_EN.pdf
flyingturtle wrote:rheinwaldner wrote:kitplane01 wrote:If Switzerland avoided war with the combined might of Germany and Italy in 1942 ... that's a decision.
No, not a decision. An accomplishment. Switzerland is the only soil in central Europe, where since 1803 no foreign armies marched.
Switzerland was really hated by the United States during the latter 1940ies and early 1950ies.
flyingturtle wrote:Because we lazy asses had only about 400 military dead during WW2 (almost all of them due to drownings, avalanches and other accidents), but we did not open a front against Germany in 1943 or 1944, relieving the troops who fought, suffered and died for our liberty.
rheinwaldner wrote:"Hated" is too strong. More realistic would be diplomatic tensions. But the mood already changed in 1946 by this event and later by this event. Toni Spinas (one of the Swiss mountaineers, who was brought to the crash site to retrieve the deads) personally sat on my grand parents kitchen table and told the story.
rheinwaldner wrote:Because the Swiss liberty never was taken away, nobody had to die to give the Swiss liberty back.
Also, the Swiss army was strong only in defense (would it not be nice, if all armies would?). And they were absolutely not lazy in putting up a believable defense. Unlike the other neutral nations in central Europe, which were overran unhindered, the price for occupation of Switzerland was too high for the Axis to bother.