johns624 wrote:

NATO in its entirety isn't on a war footing, but the individual planes are. Just like you don't see RuAF planes buzzing NATO planes or ships or illuminating them with radar nowadays. It's serious business.

Yes NATO is on a war footing: the entirety of NATO forces in Eastern Europe are on a war footing. NATO right now is on about the same war footing as the coalition forces were January 29th 1991 or the Twelfth Army group was on July 24th 1944.

I await more hair splitting.

Vintage wrote:

johns624 wrote:

NATO in its entirety isn't on a war footing, but the individual planes are. Just like you don't see RuAF planes buzzing NATO planes or ships or illuminating them with radar nowadays. It's serious business.

Yes NATO is on a war footing: the entirety of NATO forces in Eastern Europe are on a war footing. NATO right now is on about the same war footing as the coalition forces were January 29th 1991 or the Twelfth Army group was on July 24th 1944.

I await more hair splitting.

No, they aren't. If they were, there'd be a lot more stuff forward deployed. You need to stop making "stuff" up and using terms that you don't know the real meaning of. Just like talking about the PZH2000 having a diesel truck. Wrong, it's a fully tracked armored vehicle. You must be confusing it with the French Caesar howitzer.

And we still have not heard from that frigate. You would think with all the satellites, people would have prove or disproved that attack by now.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

And we still have not heard from that frigate.

Well, they're easy to frigate.

Maybe Russia is still looking, too.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2 ... b2711637ca

I guess they did not hit the ship.

But the Russian were spooked enough to keep what ever they have left near Crimea.

bt

Vintage wrote:

johns624 wrote:

NATO in its entirety isn't on a war footing, but the individual planes are. Just like you don't see RuAF planes buzzing NATO planes or ships or illuminating them with radar nowadays. It's serious business.

Yes NATO is on a war footing: the entirety of NATO forces in Eastern Europe are on a war footing. NATO right now is on about the same war footing as the coalition forces were January 29th 1991 or the Twelfth Army group was on July 24th 1944.

I await more hair splitting.

Due respect, NATO is by no means on a "war footing". There are no NATO heavy divisions, particularly US Army units, that have been moved into Eastern Europe; a few NRF battalions perhaps, but that's not a war footing. The USAF has not deployed significant CONUS assets into the area. There's been a few squadrons rotating in and out, but nothing to suggest a war footing. Mostly it's just the resident USAFE units. When you see V Corps and/or XVIII Airborne Corps fully deploy to the theater then we'll talk.

War footing: : the condition of being prepared to undertake or maintain war. (Merriam Webster)

You have your definition and I have mine. However, it is fair to say that your definition seems to be far beyond that of Merriam Webster.

johns624 wrote:

Vintage wrote:

johns624 wrote:

NATO in its entirety isn't on a war footing, but the individual planes are. Just like you don't see RuAF planes buzzing NATO planes or ships or illuminating them with radar nowadays. It's serious business.

Yes NATO is on a war footing: the entirety of NATO forces in Eastern Europe are on a war footing. NATO right now is on about the same war footing as the coalition forces were January 29th 1991 or the Twelfth Army group was on July 24th 1944.

I await more hair splitting.

No, they aren't. If they were, there'd be a lot more stuff forward deployed. You need to stop making "stuff" up and using terms that you don't know the real meaning of. Just like talking about the PZH2000 having a diesel truck. Wrong, it's a fully tracked armored vehicle. You must be confusing it with the French Caesar howitzer.

The reference to the PzH2000 post that you are upset about:
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1470285&p=23296451#p23296181

Was a post where I gave my analysis of what is involved in training the people who would operate an artillery battery; I stated my opinion that in essence, all artillery operates off the same physics, and the ballistic curve is the same for all howitzers; I stated that the re-training of the loaders etc for a different piece could be done in a couple of hours. I discussed target acquisition and gun laying. It was a technical discussion on the operation of a howitzer.

After this, as an aside, I mentioned the vehicle housing the artillery tube and its support system for a PzH 2000, simply because somebody has to maintain that piece of equipment. I made a joke of the fact that it was a German vehicle and in the process I referred to it as a truck.

Google will bring you to the definition of a truck as : a large, heavy motor vehicle used for transporting goods, materials, or troops.

The use of the word "truck" is accurate to describe the PzH2000's carrier.

You were wrong to keep bringing this up from the beginning. Your original assertion was without merit.

par13del wrote:

889091 wrote:

TheSonntag wrote:

This will also be a challenge once the Luftwaffe gets the F-35. You cannot refuel it with the A400m unless the F35 gets a drogue/hose system, which is probably very unlikely.

It just is the way it is, and the A330MRTT fleet allows both kinds of refueling, anyway.

Can't they shoehorn the USN F-35C drogue/probe system into the F-35A? Or too much plumbing involved?

Probably more than plumbing, the US Air Force version does not have the beefier landing gear, salt water protection and other items specific to naval aviation, as a result it has less weight and is a faster jet and probably has a higher stall speed.

On top of that, this would be a typical german extra, something which is deliberately not wanted this time. The F35 shall be procured with minimum/no change this time.

Besides, some interesting news: Büchel Air Base, the base which includes the Nuclear component of the Luftwaffe, will be modernised (the F35 are expected to be delivered around 2026/27, so it will be closed. The article hints that some C17 which are certified to transport nukes will land there, however:

https://www.flugrevue.de/militaer/famil ... n-buechel/
.
The Tornados will move to Nörvenich air base. I wonder whether the nukes will move, too

The Russians canceled the air show flyovers during their Victory day celebrations in many cities:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/craighoope ... 87801b7f1a

The big question, imho unanswered, is why the Russian planes were not shown?

Western experts seem baffled so I read about many reasons (e.g. in the linked article: not enough planes due to battlefield attrition) that sound not convincing to me.

My guess for the reason would be: fear of Ukrainians smuggling manpads over the green border and bring them into proximity of the air show and bring down aircraft during the air show. That would be the ultimate disaster from Russian perspective, therefore I consider the fear as real. Maybe they had information, that an Ukrainian operation was unfolding? Would that be realistic? Don't forget, these air shows are done in several cities (and were canceled everywhere due to bad weather) so protecting the inbound and outbound path of the aircraft entirely against manpad actions would be more or less impossible. Ukrainian sleeper agents could arrive days earlier somewhere in the suburbs of these cities where the planes would approach low and leave their coverage just seconds before the planes pass by to fire their mobile SAMs.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/which-n ... rn-europe/

Pretty interesting NATO graphics showing where the fighters are deployed.

rheinwaldner wrote:

The Russians canceled the air show flyovers during their Victory day celebrations in many cities:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/craighoope ... 87801b7f1a

The big question, imho unanswered, is why the Russian planes were not shown?

Western experts seem baffled so I read about many reasons (e.g. in the linked article: not enough planes due to battlefield attrition) that sound not convincing to me.

My guess for the reason would be: fear of Ukrainians smuggling manpads over the green border and bring them into proximity of the air show and bring down aircraft during the air show. That would be the ultimate disaster from Russian perspective, therefore I consider the fear as real. Maybe they had information, that an Ukrainian operation was unfolding? Would that be realistic? Don't forget, these air shows are done in several cities (and were canceled everywhere due to bad weather) so protecting the inbound and outbound path of the aircraft entirely against manpad actions would be more or less impossible. Ukrainian sleeper agents could arrive days earlier somewhere in the suburbs of these cities where the planes would approach low and leave their coverage just seconds before the planes pass by to fire their mobile SAMs.

I agree with your theory. Originally thought they'd do a "Boston Marathon" bombing or a mortar attack but the Ukrainians know the optics of killing civilians would help Putin. Shooting down a fighter, bomber, helo or heaven forbid the doomsday plane would really make the Russians look bad.

TheSonntag wrote:

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/which-nato-countries-are-deploying-aircraft-to-eastern-europe/

Pretty interesting NATO graphics showing where the fighters are deployed.

Thanks for that share. That is very interesting indeed, especially the Italian carriers.

cjg225 wrote:

TheSonntag wrote:

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/which-nato-countries-are-deploying-aircraft-to-eastern-europe/

Pretty interesting NATO graphics showing where the fighters are deployed.

Thanks for that share. That is very interesting indeed, especially the Italian carriers.

The Global Hawks that do their circuits over the Black Sea fly from NAS Sigonella in Sicily, ELINT aircraft have also flown from there to the Polish airspace.

TheSonntag wrote:

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/which-nato-countries-are-deploying-aircraft-to-eastern-europe/

Pretty interesting NATO graphics showing where the fighters are deployed.

Oddly the infographic in that says the UK has got A300 aloft.
Also Italy 2 aircraft carriers and the US one in the Med/Adriatic. Wouldn't that be the other way around?

Other slight mistakes that makes me think it's not directly from NATO

Vintage wrote:

cjg225 wrote:

TheSonntag wrote:

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/which-nato-countries-are-deploying-aircraft-to-eastern-europe/

Pretty interesting NATO graphics showing where the fighters are deployed.

Thanks for that share. That is very interesting indeed, especially the Italian carriers.

The Global Hawks that do their circuits over the Black Sea fly from NAS Sigonella in Sicily, ELINT aircraft have also flown from there to the Polish airspace.

Which ones? Usually HOMER61 flies from Chania in Greece (CHQ), it’s been a long time since I’ve seen a manned recon asset fly from Sicily in this conflict.

Every Osprey's track that I've followed has led back to Sicily, and I've followed many of them.
The ELINT airplanes that I've see originating from Greece have usually been British.

I'll watch the call signs, but for now my memory of which was which is undependable.

Spacepope wrote:

it’s been a long time since I’ve seen a manned recon asset fly from Sicily in this conflict

Just this morning, my time, I saw a P-8A finishing up its patrol over Southern Romania and a NATO E-3 took over.

I believe the P-8A was heading back to Sicily.

bt

Spacepope wrote:

Which ones? Usually HOMER61 flies from Chania in Greece (CHQ), it’s been a long time since I’ve seen a manned recon asset fly from Sicily in this conflict.

I'm sorry I missed the 'manned" part.
I meant to say Global hawk all along, not Osprey.

ReverseFlow wrote:

TheSonntag wrote:

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/which-nato-countries-are-deploying-aircraft-to-eastern-europe/

Pretty interesting NATO graphics showing where the fighters are deployed.

Oddly the infographic in that says the UK has got A300 aloft.
Also Italy 2 aircraft carriers and the US one in the Med/Adriatic. Wouldn't that be the other way around?

Other slight mistakes that makes me think it's not directly from NATO

Italy has actually 2 aircraft carriers (the older Garibaldi and the newer Cavour) so in theory this is possible but it's on the press in these days that Cavour is fully involved in a massive exercise rather than in real operations (while it's not clear where Garibaldi is).

Another error that I have found is that Italy has already deployed several time their G550 CAEW in the skies above Romania and Poland for electronic surveillance missions.

777 wrote:

their G550 CAEW in the skies above Romania and Poland for electronic surveillance missions.

So was that what I saw on FR24 over Romania the day the rumor about the frigate being hit?

bt

bikerthai wrote:

777 wrote:

their G550 CAEW in the skies above Romania and Poland for electronic surveillance missions.

So was that what I saw on FR24 over Romania the day the rumor about the frigate being hit?

bt

Who knows, it wasn't the only one flying in the area that day.
There are days where on FR24 you can see a vast selection of spyplanes (the super secretive Bombardier CL60, E8-B, RC-135W, G550 CAEW, just to mention those that I remember).

777 wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

777 wrote:

their G550 CAEW in the skies above Romania and Poland for electronic surveillance missions.

So was that what I saw on FR24 over Romania the day the rumor about the frigate being hit?

bt

Who knows, it wasn't the only one flying in the area that day.
There are days where on FR24 you can see a vast selection of spyplanes (the super secretive Bombardier CL60, E8-B, RC-135W, G550 CAEW, just to mention those that I remember).

Along with the French Gabriel Transall over Romania, the Danish and Norwegian ELINT Challengers recently, too (but more over Poland and Baltic)

MohawkWeekend wrote:

rheinwaldner wrote:

The Russians canceled the air show flyovers during their Victory day celebrations in many cities:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/craighoope ... 87801b7f1a

The big question, imho unanswered, is why the Russian planes were not shown?

Western experts seem baffled so I read about many reasons (e.g. in the linked article: not enough planes due to battlefield attrition) that sound not convincing to me.

My guess for the reason would be: fear of Ukrainians smuggling manpads over the green border and bring them into proximity of the air show and bring down aircraft during the air show. That would be the ultimate disaster from Russian perspective, therefore I consider the fear as real. Maybe they had information, that an Ukrainian operation was unfolding? Would that be realistic? Don't forget, these air shows are done in several cities (and were canceled everywhere due to bad weather) so protecting the inbound and outbound path of the aircraft entirely against manpad actions would be more or less impossible. Ukrainian sleeper agents could arrive days earlier somewhere in the suburbs of these cities where the planes would approach low and leave their coverage just seconds before the planes pass by to fire their mobile SAMs.

I agree with your theory. Originally thought they'd do a "Boston Marathon" bombing or a mortar attack but the Ukrainians know the optics of killing civilians would help Putin. Shooting down a fighter, bomber, helo or heaven forbid the doomsday plane would really make the Russians look bad.

Absolutely. Maximum irony would be, that Ukraine could have called the stunt truly a "special operation"! I could also imagine, it would have had a considerable "wake up" effect for the Russian public because it would make visible the Ukrainian determination in an undeniable way.

Seems like a good place for it: Russia/ROC earns the world record record at turret-tossing.

https://en.defence-ua.com/news/russias_ ... -2885.html

LyleLanley wrote:

Seems like a good place for it: Russia/ROC earns the world record record at turret-tossing.

https://en.defence-ua.com/news/russias_ ... -2885.html

You got to be on top of form when going for the record.

1) No extra protective cage or additional armour. (Keep of the fat)

2) Have a full rack of shells. (A full breakfast)

3) Make sure all the hatches are closed when you bail from the tank. (Visualize then execute!)

bt

PS. Oh forgot to mention the important of your training partner/spotter. Make sure your assistant has the right equipment (The larger caliber manpad are excellent) as well as a proper camera angle to capture the record attempt.

LyleLanley wrote:

Seems like a good place for it: Russia/ROC earns the world record record at turret-tossing.

https://en.defence-ua.com/news/russias_ ... -2885.html

Congrats to the Russian Olympic Committee!

And here's another incredible thing. A freedom-loving drone, a car with an open sunroof, and athletes trying to drive away...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQ4HxpQQ3Sg

LyleLanley wrote:

Seems like a good place for it: Russia/ROC earns the world record record at turret-tossing.

https://en.defence-ua.com/news/russias_ ... -2885.html

Really wonder what other customer countries for the T72 think seeing this „record attempts“.

bikerthai wrote:

You got to be on top of form when going for the record.

In this case, being on top of form does not matter. What matters is the partcipation. The more the better even if all throws were 6" high.

Nicoeddf wrote:

Really wonder what other customer countries for the T72 think seeing this „record attempts“.

India has a few. Maybe a good time to unload them for $$ and upgrade with their own modern tanks.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

Nicoeddf wrote:

Really wonder what other customer countries for the T72 think seeing this „record attempts“.

India has a few. Maybe a good time to unload them for $$ and upgrade with their own modern tanks.

bt

Serious question as I am absolutely unfamiliar: does India produce a potent tank superior to the old soviet tech?

bikerthai wrote:

Nicoeddf wrote:

Really wonder what other customer countries for the T72 think seeing this „record attempts“.

India has a few. Maybe a good time to unload them for $$ and upgrade with their own modern tanks.

bt

The issue is with the specific interior layout of the T-72, and how the Russians are using the tank.

Fixing doctrine is relatively easy, but to deal with how the T-72 handles and stores ammunition inside will entail a brand new turret, to move the ammunition to a better spot with blow out panels.

Of course, if they move the ammo storage, then they have to redesign the autoloader, etc.

Nicoeddf wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

Nicoeddf wrote:

Really wonder what other customer countries for the T72 think seeing this „record attempts“.

India has a few. Maybe a good time to unload them for $$ and upgrade with their own modern tanks.

bt

Serious question as I am absolutely unfamiliar: does India produce a potent tank superior to the old soviet tech?

I read about the Indian buying T-90s. That lead me to Indian Arm Forces wiki. They have some of their new tank.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arjun_(tank)

Have to read up on the design myself. Even if they are willing to give up a couple hundred T-72, the problem will be transportation.

bt

ThePointblank wrote:

The issue is with the specific interior layout of the T-72, and how the Russians are using the tank
Fixing doctrine is relatively easy, but to deal with how the T-72 handles and stores ammunition inside will entail a brand new turret, to move the ammunition to a better spot with blow out panels.

I'm not sure an Abrams tank would fare much better if it was hit with the kind of munitions the Bayraktar's are using or the javelins use. Maybe the turret wouldn't he blown sky high in a secondary, but there would still be hot metal ricocheting around inside the tank. Most of the crew would probably be killed.

The Leopard 2A4 from Turkey didn't last long against ISIS, either, although this was a different theater with unsuited tactics.

Vintage wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

The issue is with the specific interior layout of the T-72, and how the Russians are using the tank
Fixing doctrine is relatively easy, but to deal with how the T-72 handles and stores ammunition inside will entail a brand new turret, to move the ammunition to a better spot with blow out panels.

I'm not sure an Abrams tank would fare much better if it was hit with the kind of munitions the Bayraktar's are using or the javelins use. Maybe the turret wouldn't he blown sky high in a secondary, but there would still be hot metal ricocheting around inside the tank. Most of the crew would probably be killed.

But it wasn't like M-1s and Challengers weren't rolling around in a theater with all sorts of potent anti-tank kit from RPG-30s to ATGMs.

Certainly the Saudis have lost M-1s against the Houthis, and Challengers were lost in the desert.

FlapOperator wrote:

But it wasn't like M-1s and Challengers weren't rolling around in a theater with all sorts of potent anti-tank kit from RPG-30s to ATGMs.

The Bayraktar's and the Javelins use a different method; they attack from above.

Perun talked about something like this in one of his war economics video.

https://youtu.be/7QJ6xUGTdI4

Ukraine gets 12 Turkish drones every two weeks.

An effective way to get air support while waiting for western aircrafts.

bt

Vintage wrote:

Spacepope wrote:

Vintage wrote:

No, C-130s fly too slow to refuel fast jets, and there have always been plenty of real tankers above Poland and Romania for the last few months.

Marines tank F/A-18s and F-35s off of KC-130s. Both are in the area, with a KC-130 flying under the callsign "JUICYXX" on the regular.

That's interesting, I've read articles that told of fast jets being within a few knots of stalling while attempting to refuel off prop planes. .

While 250 knots is slow for a jet, it isn´t exactly close to stall speed.

best regards
Thomas

There is a German A310MRTT flying from Rzeszow with the callsign 'GAFMED3'

At a guess the callsign is fir a medevac.

I wonder if it's for civilian or military medical evacuation/treatment.

https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=3f8519

ReverseFlow wrote:

There is a German A310MRTT flying from Rzeszow with the callsign 'GAFMED3'

At a guess the callsign is fir a medevac.

I wonder if it's for civilian or military medical evacuation/treatment.

https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=3f8519

Perhaps some of the wounded evacuated from Mariupo?

bt

bikerthai wrote:

ReverseFlow wrote:

There is a German A310MRTT flying from Rzeszow with the callsign 'GAFMED3'

At a guess the callsign is fir a medevac.

I wonder if it's for civilian or military medical evacuation/treatment.

https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=3f8519

Perhaps some of the wounded evacuated from Mariupo?

bt

Aren't they all in Russian custody/gulag?

From what I read, the wounded (severely?) were sent to near the front line (to be quicky transfered?). The rest are taking the longer (gulag?) route.

Despite everything that happened, there are Russian soldiers who are profensional and would treat these prisoners properly knowing they could well be on the other end of the ledger sone times later.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

From what I read, the wounded (severely?) were sent to near the front line (to be quicky transfered?). The rest are taking the longer (gulag?) route.

Despite everything that happened, there are Russian soldiers who are profensional and would treat these prisoners properly knowing they could well be on the other end of the ledger sone times later.

bt

Professional after what happened in Bucha?

Earlier YouTube video from Operator Starsky (fought at the airport near Kyiv on the first day of the war) provided some distinctions on the behaviors of the more professional troops like the paratroopers vs the regular grunts or conscripts.

Who knows if even the professionals can keep their composure after a month long grind of a war.

bt

Currently, a german military fighter plane (likely EF) is visible at ADSB Global over Poland, with Callsign Baron 11.

This is rather unusual, fighters over Poland are rarely visible.

Germany is planning to procure IRIS-T SLM from manufacturer Diehl Defence and deliver them to Ukraine. These would be units that are currently in production for another customer. Delivery will take several months.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ge ... 022-06-01/

IRIS-T SLM is a medium-range (~40km) air defence system consisting of a radar for target detection, a fire control unit, and a launcher for IR-guided IRIS-T missiles. These are a variant of the air-launched IRIS-T.

"Delivery will take several months".

After his term in office expires I'm sure Scholz will be awarded an all expense paid vacation in Sochi. He may even be able to eat caviar and drink vodka with the boss.

Vintage wrote:

"Delivery will take several months".

After his term in office expires I'm sure Scholz will be awarded an all expense paid vacation in Sochi. He may even be able to eat caviar and drink vodka with the boss.

Why would anybody expect super fast delivery of German medium range SAMs? These systems aren't even in use by the Germans themselves. The German armed forces have a lot of catching-up to do in this field.