What's new
Frozen In Carbonite

Welcome to FiC! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Uncle Rubick's Russian military media and news thread.

Paulo Brito

Well-known member
Author
Well, nobody ever accused the actual regimes in control of the US and UK to do decent long-term planning. Unlike China.
 

Rufus Shinra

Well-known member
Well, nobody ever accused the actual regimes in control of the US and UK to do decent long-term planning. Unlike China.
China really sucks at long term planning right now. Their diplomatic idiocy of the past two years is directly responsible for the mess by pushing a lot of people in the US' arms for little reason.
 

Paulo Brito

Well-known member
Author
Oh, please. Like the US doesn't fuck-up any nation that starts to grow up too much by their point of view.
Just ask Japan, for example.
 

Wakko

Well-known member
OK, I wouldn't be so pessimistic in all of that. There is a reason why Australia, essentially an island nation, needs SSNs - to protect its seaborn trade from (potential) enemy SSNs. And both UK and US evidently aren't so keen on doing it for Australia. Otherwise, I see only Pakistan in need of some SSNs to keep up with India. And nobody else. S Korea, Japan, Argentina, Algeria, Egypt can do much better with SSKs - stealthier, cheaper to both purchase and maintain, and in coastal waters (where they would be used by those countries) much better than SSNs. It's not like they're going to interdict/protect sea lanes or protect their SSBNs/hunt enemy SSBNs.

It's not nice to take a contract from the French, but since in the case of US and UK it seems to come with a military aliance in which France surely wouldn't agree to participate, it's understandable that Australia agreed to backstab France in this case. But there's a long-term bonus for France here - the creation of AUKUS basically guarantees the end of NATO, and thus much greater geopolitical role for France.
 

Paulo Brito

Well-known member
Author
Well, let's see how much this deal fucks the relations between Australia and China. You know, the (by a wide margin) biggest commercial partner of Australia. Is going to be fun.
 

Rufus Shinra

Well-known member
Oh, please. Like the US doesn't fuck-up any nation that starts to grow up too much by their point of view.
Just ask Japan, for example.
Of course it does, but it would be very hypocritical to ignore the share of responsibility of China in the arms race, considering the current leadership of Australia was strongly pro-Chinese even a few years ago. Let's not lie to ourselves, now, shall we: Chinese diplomacy fucked up HARD over the last two years with ambassadors going on insanely arrogant screeching and rants, making absurd demands all the while Beijing stopped acting as the rational alternative to US hegemony.
OK, I wouldn't be so pessimistic in all of that. There is a reason why Australia, essentially an island nation, needs SSNs - to protect its seaborn trade from (potential) enemy SSNs. And both UK and US evidently aren't so keen on doing it for Australia. Otherwise, I see only Pakistan in need of some SSNs to keep up with India. And nobody else. S Korea, Japan, Argentina, Algeria, Egypt can do much better with SSKs - stealthier, cheaper to both purchase and maintain, and in coastal waters (where they would be used by those countries) much better than SSNs. It's not like they're going to interdict/protect sea lanes or protect their SSBNs/hunt enemy SSBNs.
It's not that much a question of need, especially when China can easily take over a lot of the purchase and maintenance cost as the goal isn't to make profit but to spread more chaos on the sealines.
It's not nice to take a contract from the French, but since in the case of US and UK it seems to come with a military aliance in which France surely wouldn't agree to participate, it's understandable that Australia agreed to backstab France in this case. But there's a long-term bonus for France here - the creation of AUKUS basically guarantees the end of NATO, and thus much greater geopolitical role for France.
The end of NATO will mostly depend on the German elections next week or so, if Berlin can finally get the stick out of its ass and acknowledge the cold hard truth.
 

Wakko

Well-known member
if Berlin can finally get the stick out of its ass and acknowledge the cold hard truth.
IMO it's not about sticks, it's about the fact that the Germans have been thoroughly brainwashed into thinking they don't deserve to be able to protect themselves post-WWII. Where other cultures have military pride and traditions, the Germans have one big black hole, for understandable reasons. They're an economic giant and the motor of the EU, but a geopolitical mouse, and the whole EU suffers from it. And any political force in Germany that would say so will be immediately labeled as fascist. I don't see a quick way out of it, it's a cultural thing that needs generations to change.
 

Rufus Shinra

Well-known member
IMO it's not about sticks, it's about the fact that the Germans have been thoroughly brainwashed into thinking they don't deserve to be able to protect themselves post-WWII. Where other cultures have military pride and traditions, the Germans have one big black hole, for understandable reasons. They're an economic giant and the motor of the EU, but a geopolitical mouse, and the whole EU suffers from it. And any political force in Germany that would say so will be immediately labeled as fascist. I don't see a quick way out of it, it's a cultural thing that needs generations to change.
Then we're fucked unless the rest of the EU is ready and willing to bypass Germany on geopolitical matters and give control to Spain/France/Italy/Greece over the defence policy.
 

<Reaper>666

Well-known member
[...]especially when China is a lot less centred around the sealanes [...]
1631871536165.png

 

Inquisitor Solarion

Well-known member
Of course it does, but it would be very hypocritical to ignore the share of responsibility of China in the arms race, considering the current leadership of Australia was strongly pro-Chinese even a few years ago. Let's not lie to ourselves, now, shall we: Chinese diplomacy fucked up HARD over the last two years with ambassadors going on insanely arrogant screeching and rants, making absurd demands all the while Beijing stopped acting as the rational alternative to US hegemony.
The shift in Australian policy to anti-Chinese has gone on earlier than even the pandemic, and it only got to the breaking point only when they started deliberately pushing the lab leak narrative on behalf the US.

There was no way Australia was going to stay the way it is, I mean, heck, the US couped one PM just because he threatened to leak the CIA station. Never mind the occasional Yellow peril that inflicts Australian politics every damn fucking decade.
 

Wakko

Well-known member
Then we're fucked unless the rest of the EU is ready and willing to bypass Germany on geopolitical matters and give control to Spain/France/Italy/Greece over the defence policy.
Well, it's up to you French to do something about it. You're now the big guys in EU - and the US and UK will do anything in their power to keep you down, so Europe doesn't find its balls anytime soon. As far as I'm concerned, go for it :) I always considered the security architecture of Europe post-1991 to be outdated and actually dangerous for us Europeans, and now that the US and UK are clearly changing posture towards deterring China in the Pacific, which is nonsense for the EU, even a blind person can see how crazy it all is.
 

Rufus Shinra

Well-known member
Well, it's up to you French to do something about it. You're now the big guys in EU - and the US and UK will do anything in their power to keep you down, so Europe doesn't find its balls anytime soon. As far as I'm concerned, go for it :) I always considered the security architecture of Europe post-1991 to be outdated and actually dangerous for us Europeans, and now that the US and UK are clearly changing posture towards deterring China in the Pacific, which is nonsense for the EU, even a blind person can see how crazy it all is.
We're taking the rotating presidency of the Union early next year, so let's pray there aren't too many double blind people.
 

<Reaper>666

Well-known member
Still less so than the US, though.
Rufus, literally all the cargo moves through the Malacca Strait that is either supplying the mainland China or their industrial output. Road and Belt was to furnish and develop mainly ports on main sea and oceanic supply routes.
That is also a reason as to why PRC is developing navy and aerospace integrated surveilance-strike capabilities, plus island chain strategy. Also it is a cornerstone of problem between India and China and their respective naval developement - Indians, in case of war can blockade the Malacca, most likely then with US support and then Chinese are f*****. Literally. Northern Sea Route is not developed nor traversable in any way similarily like the Malacca one. Nor land nor air transport will alleviate even in fraction the supply problems the Chinese will face when something will happen in the Malacca strait. Even if they would have even whole fleet of Mirya analogues (which by the way they bought whole manufacturing rights and whole technical documentation from Ukrainians).
Malacca Strait is a gate to the wrold from perspective of Far East, it is of global strategic importance and currently place the Chinese cannot lost control of. And yes, PRC is very much depandant on the unconstrained and fluid access to the sea routes.
That is why both Belt and Road and island Chains are so important - they are designed for protecting the supply chains of the over 1.3 bln PRC citizens.
 

Rufus Shinra

Well-known member
Rufus, literally all the cargo moves through the Malacca Strait that is either supplying the mainland China or their industrial output. Road and Belt was to furnish and develop mainly ports on main sea and oceanic supply routes.
That is also a reason as to why PRC is developing navy and aerospace integrated surveilance-strike capabilities, plus island chain strategy. Also it is a cornerstone of problem between India and China and their respective naval developement - Indians, in case of war can blockade the Malacca, most likely then with US support and then Chinese are f*****. Literally. Northern Sea Route is not developed nor traversable in any way similarily like the Malacca one. Nor land nor air transport will alleviate even in fraction the supply problems the Chinese will face when something will happen in the Malacca strait. Even if they would have even whole fleet of Mirya analogues (which by the way they bought whole manufacturing rights and whole technical documentation from Ukrainians).
Malacca Strait is a gate to the wrold from perspective of Far East, it is of global strategic importance and currently place the Chinese cannot lost control of. And yes, PRC is very much depandant on the unconstrained and fluid access to the sea routes.
That is why both Belt and Road and island Chains are so important - they are designed for protecting the supply chains of the over 1.3 bln PRC citizens.
If it's as bas as you claim, then there will be one and exactly one answer to a successful blockade of China, and it will involve words such as Second Artillery and counter-value.
 

Paulo Brito

Well-known member
Author
Funny, after updating Firefox for the latest 92.0 (64bits) i have lots of problems with this site, namely post reply's and even using Likes.

Yep, the Belt and Road initiative is a way to mitigate that problem for China.
But if anyone go full blockade, the logical answer is indeed that one - is a full declaration of war and an existential one, so...
 

<Reaper>666

Well-known member
If it's as bas as you claim, then there will be one and exactly one answer to a successful blockade of China, and it will involve words such as Second Artillery and counter-value.
Most likely, yes it is, but also as we know that is not solving problem and generates another.
MAD and nuclear ordinance is not a way to achieve political goals.
Also a successful blocade can be done with sinking one of the many of bulk cargo carriers inside the canal. Sponsoring such act is trivially easy.
 

Rufus Shinra

Well-known member
Most likely, yes it is, but also as we know that is not solving problem and generates another.
MAD and nuclear ordinance is not a way to achieve political goals.
Also a successful blocade can be done with sinking one of the many of bulk cargo carriers inside the canal. Sponsoring such act is trivially easy.
If it is as you indicate, a successful blockade would cause a massive amount of death and destruction in China proper and to its civilian population. The answer to this is nuclear and you know it.

Cause disproportionate destruction in a nuclear power, and everybody dies, that's it.
 

<Reaper>666

Well-known member
If it is as you indicate, a successful blockade would cause a massive amount of death and destruction in China proper and to its civilian population. The answer to this is nuclear and you know it.

Cause disproportionate destruction in a nuclear power, and everybody dies, that's it.
True, and also why it is not a viable policy - no one achieves any goal.
Thus indirect and proxy approach is needed - it's harder to pin responsibility and use traditional means of response.
Ergo if we assume more kinetic US led anti-Chinese colaition - PRC relations, we will see continous military buildup and war by proxy.
Malacca is a focal point which may lead to escalation.
Plus in question of WMDs, they are a point of no return and do not substitute for conventional capabilities. Also as of now, PRC does not seem to have enough of delivery means and warheads to easily threat sufficient destruction of in the face of counter-force strikes and proliferation of anti-missile defenses, as of now.
Also of note, no first use policy, as of now, which can change of course.
That is why also Belt and Road is struggling to achieve - external bases for forward presence and control.
 

Rufus Shinra

Well-known member
Just a reminder: we have zero clue how many nuclear weapons China has. They have an official number, but the amount of ICBM silos they're digging at the moment is way, way too high. Plus, even the official number is more than enough to inflict irreparable damage even to the US (ICBM silos won't be taken out by surprise before they get flushed and the SSBN will be kept way too protected for that, while the US' ABM is, by the Pentagon's own admission, calibrated to intercept rogue shots rather than a mass salvo).
 

aldw

Member
IMO it's not about sticks, it's about the fact that the Germans have been thoroughly brainwashed into thinking they don't deserve to be able to protect themselves post-WWII. Where other cultures have military pride and traditions, the Germans have one big black hole, for understandable reasons. They're an economic giant and the motor of the EU, but a geopolitical mouse, and the whole EU suffers from it. And any political force in Germany that would say so will be immediately labeled as fascist. I don't see a quick way out of it, it's a cultural thing that needs generations to change.
It's why I think that the Germans should have adapted more of the DDR NVA approach to military tradition and culture into the Bundeswehr to give it more dynamism, as it is an example of how military tradition and culture =/= fascism.
 

Inquisitor Solarion

Well-known member
In the latest twist and turn in Russian rocket design planning....


The use of methane instead of kerosene as a fuel in a new Russian super-heavy rocket will make it possible to implement modern technologies of reusability and multiple switching on of engines in flight, said the general designer of an oxygen-hydrogen engine for the Soviet super-heavy rocket Energia, general director and general designer of the Chemical Automation Design Bureau (1993-2015) ) Vladimir Rachuk.
Earlier, RIA Novosti became aware of the termination of the technical design of the Yenisei super-heavy rocket, which was supposed to be based on the technologies of the Soyuz-5 and Soyuz-6 oxygen-kerosene rockets . In turn, Soyuz-5 is an updated Russian version of the Zenit missile, created in the USSR and assembled in Ukraine from Russian components. Instead of a super-heavy rocket powered by kerosene, as the head of Roscosmos Dmitry Rogozin told reporters earlier , the new carrier will use methane. Super-heavy vehicles are designed for launching very large structures, for example, a manned flight complex to the Moon.
So... my understanding is the Soyuz 5/6 was supposed to be some son of Vulkan/Energia rocket, and Yenisei was supposed to be the real Vulkan. Now, apparently they want to push for complete methane propulsion. I have heard hearsay that a methane engine was in the works and testing but I can't find much details on it.
 

Khathi

New member
@Khathi It's been written that the original Nona-M was supposed to be a recoilless rifle and a mortar hybrid. But from one picture of the thing that's floating on the net it doesn't seem to be any different in the back then the Nona-M1 which doesn't have indirect fire capability.
So I take it Nona-M having indirect fire capability was horseshit ?
Not my theme really. Brief lookup shows that it's the other way round: Nona-M with recoilles rifle mode was not adopted, and only gun-mortar variant (dubbed Nona-K and having an indirectfire capability) was used. Similarly, Nona-M1 does have an indirect fire capability, however, as it's an upgrade to the Nona-K, not Nona-M.
 

Khathi

New member
For the gigatroll move, Beijing could give for free a few subs with cruise missiles to Argentina and pay for the maintenance as long as they remember to whom do the Malvinas belong once the fight starts in earnest.
Dunno about China (not their style anyway), but in the Russia there were talks about creation of a sorta sealed reactor capsule as a drop-in engine replacement or a range extender (as an additional section) for diesel boats in the tens. It went mum after about 2014, so maybe they've went from talks to works, though it's all conjecture.
 
Last edited:

Khathi

New member
IMO it's not about sticks, it's about the fact that the Germans have been thoroughly brainwashed into thinking they don't deserve to be able to protect themselves post-WWII. Where other cultures have military pride and traditions, the Germans have one big black hole, for understandable reasons. They're an economic giant and the motor of the EU, but a geopolitical mouse, and the whole EU suffers from it. And any political force in Germany that would say so will be immediately labeled as fascist. I don't see a quick way out of it, it's a cultural thing that needs generations to change.
Well, there's always the option to redivide the Germany and reinstate the NVA. ;)
 
Top Bottom