Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What happened to Russias Air Force? U.S. officials, experts stumped

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

721–730 of 791 posts

Re: What happened to Russias Air Force? U.S. officials, experts stumped

#721

Post by maratc »

tapas73 wrote: post #488
maratc wrote: post #315

I think that Russia may have a two-prong strategy: either make sure Ukraine is not joining NATO, or make sure that Ukraine that joins NATO is completely wrecked. In the alternative reality, where Ukraine promises tomorrow not to join NATO (ever), the Russian targets for this war may be considered achieved, and everyone could simply go home, probably throwing in a couple billions deal for Ukraine recovery. This would…

problem is - its either nato or russian puppet (e.g. russia would force ukraine to invade moldova)

I think there's a third option -- that of independent Ukraine, unassociated with anyone (Swiss-style). The option of NATO -- as is clear from Russian actions -- isn't acceptable to Russia, but this third option may be.

(And I don't get into the argument of whether Russia should have a say in Ukraine's future — you and I may completely agree that it shouldn't, but Russia clearly thinks otherwise.)

Re: What happened to Russias Air Force? U.S. officials, experts stumped

#722

Post by Ajef »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #569
foepys wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You cannot compare those numbers. Cost of living is very different in Germany and the UK compared to Russia. Personnel costs make up for most of the German budget and a Russian soldier earns only a fraction of a German soldier.

While that is a factor, I can also imagine that Russia has more cost due to the size of the country and the amount of hardware they have to maintain within that budget. The other countries are a lot more compact and focused, both in terms of landmass and the amount of hardware.

Just looking at the land mass is probably misleading too. Most of the population is in the western part of Russia. As soon as you get to the mountains and Siberia there is simply not much there.

Re: What happened to Russias Air Force? U.S. officials, experts stumped

#723

Post by UltraViolence »

sofixa wrote: post #601
UltraViolence wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm puzzled why we haven't created something that can compete with S-300 / S-400 / S-500. At the very least the Patriot SAM should be redesigned to allow for vertical launching to allow shooting in all directions. If you point Patriot one way and you get ambushed from behind you're basically caught with your pants down. At the very least you'd need four Patriot missile launchers pointing in all directions to prevent…

That's why it was funny that Turkey was ostracized for buying Russian/Chinese SAMs ( was it S-400 last or a Chinese version). What else could they possibly buy? The Patriot system isn't even close, and doesn't seem to be working too well for the UAE ( but then again we don't know how S-300/400/500 would deal against drones and light missiles)

Turkey bought S-300 systems and were pummeled for it.

I find this puzzling since Greece, also a NATO member, also purchased Russian S-300 systems but weren't penalized for it.

Re: What happened to Russias Air Force? U.S. officials, experts stumped

#724

Post by mackrevinack »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #296
gamblor956 wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems that the Russian soldiers are making efforts to avoid attacking civilians directly. We must define "efforts" or "avoid" very differently. At the very start of the invasion, there was a video of Russian tanks deliberately trying to run over civilian cars.

The video I think you are referring to shows the tank swerving to avoid incoming fire and (presumably accidentally) running over a civilian car.

what i read was that it was some ukrainian pro-russian "saboteurs" that stole the tank and went on a rampage.

i can't even remember where i read that now so take it with a grain of salt

Re: What happened to Russias Air Force? U.S. officials, experts stumped

#725

Post by vegai_ »

999900000999 wrote: post #335
mercutio2 wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying you would enlist if Germany, France, or the UK was invaded, but specifically Poland isn't worth enlisting for, because it's a former Warsaw Pact country? Or are you saying that you just don't believe in NATO, you would like the US not to have mutual defense alliances at all, and the expansion of NATO is completely irrelevant to your feelings about NATO? Poland and Hungary have done autocratic things I…

>Or are you saying that you just don't believe in NATO, you would like the US not to have mutual defense alliances at all, and the expansion of NATO is completely irrelevant to your feelings about NATO? I'm not enlisting for anything short of America actually getting invaded. During the Vietnam War anyone with a bit of money could get deferments. Those are what I call smart men. I feel absolutely no obligation to die…

If it becomes bad enough, there'll be a draft. But probably not since the US has plenty of soldiers without one.

Re: What happened to Russias Air Force? U.S. officials, experts stumped

#726

Post by littlestymaar »

eternalban wrote: post #655
littlestymaar wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't just compare Fallujah and Grozny. Of course urban warfare is destructive to the city no matter what, but the US and Russian tactics are very different, and so is the destruction. Dropping tons of low precision thermobaric weapons on a city is a Russian thing, unmatched in its destruction. (The is no American equivalent to the TOS-1[1] for instance). That being said, that doesn't mean I approve US invasion o…

> You can't just compare Fallujah and Grozny. That's a fair statement. Depleted Uranium is a gift that keeps on giving. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/us-depleted-uranium-as-ma_b_3... https://www.nuclear-risks.org/en/hibakusha-worldwide/falluja... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#Iraqi_populat...

There not discussion that DU has terrible long term impact, of course it has. The US aren't “good guys” who don't hurt civilians, nobody is arguing that!

Yet, “in terms of city leveling” Fallujah and Grozny are not comparable. That's it.

Re: What happened to Russias Air Force? U.S. officials, experts stumped

#727

Post by fho »

stjohnswarts wrote: post #570
IMSAI8080 wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spacecraft often use stars to orient themselves. The Voyager spacecraft have star trackers to keep the antenna pointing at Earth. They look for the Canopus star.

Don't they need more than 1 star to get an orientation? I mean other than brightness 1 star doesn't give you a lot of information?

I guess if they can confirm that it is a specific star they know where on a I finite line they are. If that line happens to be through earth and the space craft they know where to point their antenna.

Re: What happened to Russias Air Force? U.S. officials, experts stumped

#728

Post by pastacacioepepe »

tguvot wrote: post #683
pastacacioepepe wrote: post #676

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't access it even with Google translate from Europe. What a sad day for the so-called free world. Edit: works with Yandex translate

jump over here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30536790

awesome thanks

Re: What happened to Russias Air Force? U.S. officials, experts stumped

#729

Post by pastacacioepepe »

cmurf wrote: post #693
pastacacioepepe wrote: post #673

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All your variants are based on the assumption that Russia wants to stay in Ukraine. From what I've seen i don't think that's the goal. Russia probably wants eastern Ukraine (and let's admit it, Donbass and Donetsk are not Ukrainian anymore since 8 years), but has no interest in occupying the western part, only in ensuring it stays neutral geopolitically. People talking about Russia planning to invade Finland or other…

It is untenable for Russia to keep any portion of Ukraine. It's a violation of the Geneva Convention and the U.N. Charter. At worst it could be made neutral territory and put in U.N. peacekeeping troops. Two world wars were fought over this issue of just rolling tanks into people's backyards and then staking claim to the land. The sole purpose of these agreements, to which Russia is a signatory (and a founding member…

> It is untenable for Russia to keep any portion of Ukraine

Donbass and Donetsk are not Ukraine since 8 years, in fact Ukraine bombed and harassed them for years, killing civilians and destroying residential areas, without managing to pull them back. Ukraine is permanently split in 2, like it or not. The west can hide their head under the sand for 8 more years, the situation won't change.

> The sanctions on Russia should persist as long as Russia occupies Ukraine. This is what they've previously agreed to.

That's probably what Russia hopes, as the sanctions are going to cause devastating economical damage in Europe. Russia can just turn to China and other Eurasia countries to sell gas and oil, we don't have alternatives. Without Russia's gas, both Germany and Italy will suffer heavy consequences, dragging Europe with them.

We haven't even seen the sanctions Russia will apply on us. We're not going to like it, trust me. And I have NO intention f sacrificing myself because Biden or the european burocrats (who never gave a single fuck about me) ask for it.

I seriously hope this situation will cause a break up between Europe and the USA. It's time for an Eurasia era.

Re: What happened to Russias Air Force? U.S. officials, experts stumped

#730

Post by pastacacioepepe »

us0r wrote: post #714
pastacacioepepe wrote: post #673

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All your variants are based on the assumption that Russia wants to stay in Ukraine. From what I've seen i don't think that's the goal. Russia probably wants eastern Ukraine (and let's admit it, Donbass and Donetsk are not Ukrainian anymore since 8 years), but has no interest in occupying the western part, only in ensuring it stays neutral geopolitically. People talking about Russia planning to invade Finland or other…

> From what I've seen i don't think that's the goal. He literally went on a 45 minute rant about how Ukraine isn't a country right before this started.

Just use your logic. Don't trust the media political circus that is being put up by both sides.
Post reply on HN