Born Hunter
-
Content Count
18,006 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
31
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Articles
Gun Dealer's and Fieldsports Shop's
Reloading Room
Blogs
Calendar
Store
Classifieds
Everything posted by Born Hunter
-
And the UK has supported Ukraine. Both actions are adversarial to the other but not direct attacks on the other. Russia hasn’t attacked us anymore than we have them. There’s a reason for that, and it’s not that Russia doesn’t fear us or NATO like you implied. There have been no serious claims we should invade Russia ffs. And claims they are shit aren’t theories, they’re direct observations and comparisons to similar Western examples. The narrative until Ukraine was that Russia was a superpower in land warfare. The professional and layman’s consensus was that they were far more cap
-
So not NATO. Just like NATO et al hasn’t and won’t attack Russia… Have you heard of ‘below the threshold’? Both sides are engaging in this, neither have actually shown they don’t fear the other by crossing the threshold. ‘Theoretical’ is your word. Something you still can’t give an actual example of… We’re discussing all sorts and the implications of such. It’s all very real.
-
They haven’t faced it anymore than we have. They haven’t touched NATO! And NATO hasn’t touched Russia! For the last time, what theories specifically are all bollocks? You’ve come on here and outburst that we’re talking bollocks because we won’t actually do anything. Right’o fine whatever, I mean I can’t really do anything with that level of vagueness.
-
But you implied Russia didn’t fear NATO. Despite clear evidence to the contrary. I never said NATO didn’t fear russia… Why come on and say we’re talking bollocks then? And still not be able to give an actual example of the bollocks. Just seems a bit emotional to me.
-
He hasn’t touched NATO and in fact invaded Ukraine to stop them joining. So yeah, he’s clearly ‘really brave’ when it comes to taking on NATO. What strategic talk specifically is bollocks? You’re clearly upset that we think Russia is underperforming but aren’t being specific what is bollocks.
-
I’m honoured they think the UK has decent anti ship missiles to send to Ukraine! What we do have is technical and tactical SME excellence and that has probably been utilised. Our military and defence industry experts will be world leaders in how to successfully carry out that sort of attack.
-
What’s all bollocks? No one’s saying we are going to attack Russia.
-
Sea state 3 that day and using outdated systems that probably struggle with clutter from waves. Seems a likely key factor. That’s assuming the crew were actually well trained and disciplined… Not to mention radar weaknesses (other than clutter), electronic countermeasures, or tactics.
-
A Russian ex MP’s comment I believe. Have they got a secret war military force they’re keeping secret… because their special military operation forces aren’t up to it!
-
Apparently Russia carried out a missile strike on factories in Kyiv that manufacture the Neptune missiles. The Neptune missiles that didn’t sink the Moskva, because it was an accident that caused it to sink…
-
Fucks sake kanny! You’re sin binned until you learn to fact check! This is serious business.
-
Unlikely to be declared if there was. The anti ship missiles it was armed with could be fitted with either nuclear or conventional warheads.
-
Warspite still makes me tingle.
-
From a weapons product development point of view, it’s a perfect field test opportunity. If successful it’s a great story for sales and marketing. Despite left wing scoffs to the contrary, the UK is visibly front and centre on the world stage with supporting Ukraine. Standing by our obligations of the Budapest memorandum and standing by a nation we had deals with bolsters soft power. It makes other nations looking to align with a global power value the UK. If they enter a trade deal with us they are confident we will provide some muscle if things get a bit hot for them. If they are lookin
-
I’ve read into this when it was announced. Unfortunately the UKs anti ship missile options are a bit lacking. For small small enemy ships (fast attack up to corvette) we have a number of either operational or well developed options, sea venom/sea spear/martlet. But in the heavyweight category we only have the obsolete harpoon, with any home grown replacement 10 years away from being operational! It’s a bit of a sore point. Harpoon seems to be on par with Neptune. For land attack the RAF have the storm shadow, and in good numbers, but that is not designed to target ships. Now that’s not to
-
They’re not Ukrainian are they!? Are the bio labs secure!?
-
I could do some damage with one.
-
I think the yanks still use them or similar generation man portable rockets. Other countries have sent similar stuff to Ukraine too. I thinks it’s fair to say they still have their uses for anti materiel, anti personnel and against soft vehicles. But they’re obsolete against modern armour and tanks. Stuff like reactive armour has explosive tiles to ‘explode back’ against the rockets warhead on impact. Or non reactive systems like slat cages stood off from the armour making the rocket detonate at a stood off distance which fucks the shape charges effectiveness.
-
I can only tell you what the literature says, I’ve never used one. Both are fire and forget, ie once fired require no operator input. Javelin is actively guided by heat seeker on board the missile to the point of impact. I think NLAW would technically be considered unguided, but is very smart for an unguided weapon. It uses ‘predicted line of sight’ targeting, that is it calculates the lead required like with shotgun shooting. The rocket once fired has no guidance actively seeking the target, it just follows the line it was fired in but has inertial guidance built in to keep it
-
Not sure what that is, if it was a javelin I’d expect to have struck from above. Have you read about the NLAW that the UK has provided? Very innovative bit of kit and now thoroughly field tested. Unguided but uses a fairly sophisticated but simple lead calculation for the unguided rocket. The really clever bit is that it can be programmed with two different attack profiles, either a direct lateral attack for soft targets, or a flyover where magnetometers in the rocket detect proximity of the target and detonate directly above where armour is weakest. Normally this would require a guided
-
Whether they lost the Moskva through accident (RUS claim) or through missile attack (UKR claim) they appear incompetent. The Neptune missiles are essentially obsolete given modern air defences. For years people have sized up countries military strength by counting assets. “This nation has more tanks/jets/soldiers than this nation so they’re more powerful”. Russia have played heavily to this sort of thinking. Retaining aged hulls and up gunning them to f**k with things that go bang. Seems impressive but there’s a huge and complex chain of systems that go into firing a missile, and it’s the
-
Another major warship lost by the looks of it.
-
-
It’s war at the end of the day. During the Iraq invasion, yank tanks buried alive Iraqis in their trenches! Just filled the trenches with earth to save having infantry clear them.
