F35 - superfighter or lame duck?

[Vrenn]

If the Russians (as some of thr

End results; US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%. We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age. Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.

You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.

There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. It's doomsday scenario. And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better. You fear it more than we do. If you don't, you should.

Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.

I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible). Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack. And what good does it do attacking sites already launched? But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly. So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs. Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.

The damage won't be from just the blast areas. The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area. But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease. In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today. But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt. Mexico actually benefits from it. But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.

But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt. It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.

AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air. So they will have to take measures for that. But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open. The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread. Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.

You think it's cold in Siberian now?

Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US. The Entire world loses. Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.

First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
There are three main goals of any government in a war:
1) protect its citizens;
2) punish the enemy;
3) to win the war and the further peace.

Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.

How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?

in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.

I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.

Just invade a NATO country and find out. Putin is much more cautious on that one.

As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1

Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.

everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.

in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.

And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying. It ends up being the first and last option. And both sides know it. NO NUKES will be used by either side. Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane. Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.

Just read Russian military doctrine, the part about definitions.

Военная доктрина Российской Федерации

Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации

www.kremlin.ru

---------------------
f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
---------------------------------
The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.

No it doesn't. By your definition of "Regional War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country. And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.

By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.

Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear? Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles. They know how to fight. But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting. And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35. But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.

Keep that in mind, Ivan.

And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads. You may not like the response.

lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks

I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.

I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.

newsflash, Ivan. Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine. Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore. You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.

No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves

You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....



as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...

And what does that have to do with the F-35? If you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on. Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them. The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia. And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them. But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X. And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians. There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well. Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air. Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory. Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable. The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.

if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As. And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap. The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V. With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine. Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.

Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014. But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots. What they lack are fighters. And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.

lol, Ukrainian battle hardened and experienced pilots
One of the biggest problems of America, of its people and even ruling elite is that all they believe in dumb American propaganda.

Ukraine has money neither for new fighters nor even for fuel, their pilots fly 10 hours a year, bombers were used a couple of times in the very beginning of the conflict against civilian targets, but after a Ukrainian pilot Voloshin allegedly shot down a Malaisian civilian Boeing Ukraine stopped using military aicraft at all. Voloshin later committed suicide, or was asked to commit suicide by Ukrainian regime, but now we don't have a witness and the West blames Russia.

All planes the US gives to Ukraine in case of Ukraine-Russia war will be immediately shot down by S-300-350-400 or destroyed on the ground by Iskander. No Russian fighters will be even needed.

The Russians vaunted SAM systems are not world beaters. And using nuclear weapons would be suicide by the Russians. Something they dare not contemplate if they really want to save the Rodina.

and what will the US do if you destroy, let's day a Russian division in Ukraine and Russians retaliate with whiping out your military bases in Qatar, Saudia etc. with nuclear weapons?
start nuclear exchange between Russian and American territories?

Easy answer. Every Military and Industrial target in Russia ceases to exist. WWIII would have just begun and Russia would have fired the first shot but won't have fired the last shot by a long shot. Pull up your bloomers and go home.

Funny. And how exactly do you plan to "cease the existence" of more than 1000 of Russian industrial targets and roughly 5000 military targets, already evacuated and covered with ABD, AIDS and interceptors, by, say, 160 strategic warheads, remaining after the Russian preemptive strike?

There will be no Russian preemptive strike.

Are you sure? Even if there will be choice between "uncontrolled escalation with high risk of the American 1600-nukes strike against unprepared civilians" and "preemptive strike at the moment choosen by the Russians, with possibility of postattack blackmail and after evacuation of the cities"? Do you think they want to commit suicide?

Bot sides are going to have about 72 hours warning. You can't get an ICBM ready in less time. They aren't even targeted anymore And both sides have auditors. The ICBMs on the Subs are a different thing and means that the first strike won't stop the second strike. Meaning, NO winners. Which means, no WWIII by Nuclear Means.

Ha-ha-ha. First of all - if the time of attack is choosen by Russians - they will not give you a warning. Second - SLBM can be used in the first counterforce strike if a submarine can determine her position accurately enough (with GPS or GLONAS). What is more important - they can attack from unusual direction (for example - from South). Third - Russian attacking submarines (or other forces) may attack submarines before they launch their missiles.
That means that Russians (of they are lucky enough) destroy 80-90% of the American nuclear arsenal by the first strike.

1) Russian SLBMs are not accurate enough to attack counterforce targets.
2) Last I heard only TWO, Russian nuclear missile submarines were at sea at any one time. One from the Northern fleet in the Atlantic and one from the Pacific fleet in the Pacific of course.
3) Also last I heard, both of those Russian SLBMs were trained the moment they left port of U.S. or British SSNs with orders to sink them the moment they took actions to prepare to launch their missiles.

4) I know what you'll say next. Sure, the rest of the Russian ballistic missile submarines can launch their SLBMs from port. But that puts them nearly as part from targets in the U.S. as ICBMs. Plus they can be destroyed en masse in port the moment they attempt to launch by a handful of nuclear armed cruise missiles.

1) It depends... For example, R-29RMU2 Layner with 500 kt warheads is pretty good even for silos.
2), 3),4)We are not talking about "any given moment". We are talking about well prepared Russian preemptive strike, ignored by the Sleeping Joe. He call it "bluff" and ordered don't take care about them.

The US military won't ignore it and neither would the Russian Military the other way around. And the only thing the President does is gets to authorize the actual launches. Most of everything else will be done by both sides Military. And if the Russians do launch, minutes later, the US launches since there is absolutely nothing to lose anyway.

Sure, there are things to lose. For example - American citizens and their property. The first strike was counterforce (and the USA lost 90% of nukes and, say, less than 1% of population) . The second one is going to be countervalue, and if you have no tool to prevent "free rides" of the Russian bombers (and F-35 is definitely not such a tool) your position is very vulnerable.

You are still trying to come up ways for the Russians to win in any kind of direct confrontation with the US. Not going to happen. Even if you kept it conventional. Don't fuck with the Eagle.

The Russians can win only if the Americans will be stupid. For example, stupid enough to ignore Russian preparation to the first counterforce attack. And the USA can win only if the Russians will be stupid. For example, stupid enough to play "gentle conventional war" against the whole NATO.

About 10 minutes after the Russian begin their preparations, the US will begin theirs. Doing the preparations does not mean that both sides are required to go to Nuclear War. At some point, both sides will come to their senses. But let's say they don't. The flight time of an ICBM from launch to impact is somewhere between 25 to 30 minutes. And both sides won't launch their Submarine assets saving those for a counter strike it they are smart. And the flight time for the bombers already in place will be about the same from orbit to strike. That means that even if the US is 10 minutes behind Russia, the first batch (the heaviest) will be launched. The US won't win but Russia will lose even worse. Then there is the Naval Assets. And Russia is so far behind there that they don't even need to be counted. As for blackmail after that, there won't be anyone to blackmail or any reason to blackmail as the US and Russia will cease to exist as Governments. It's a no win situation for both sides. And just ain't going to happen. But throw even one Nuke and it will happen. And Russia will have to react like it will which means, here comes the ICBMs from both sides.

BTW, with the assets that NATO currently has, Russia could win. But they have to do it by day 3. I've seen the plan that was once considered and it did involve tactical nukes against many EU sites. But that plan was abandoned when the US adopted the "Throw one Nuke and it's game on" policy. Now, Russia will have about 7 days to defeat the EU and the NATO assets currently in place. It can't do it. But it can if given 2 weeks. The problem is, on the second week, the US assets start rolling in hard and in great numbers. And the ground that Russia took will be lost by week 4 plus a lot of other ground. And Russia will cease to exist as you know it today. What would replace it's government? It's anyone guess. Russia is a different bird than anywhere else on the planet so I don't have the answers. Hell,I don't even know all the questions.

 

[Silver Cat]

If the Russians (as some of thr

End results; US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%. We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age. Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.

You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.

There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. It's doomsday scenario. And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better. You fear it more than we do. If you don't, you should.

Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.

I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible). Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack. And what good does it do attacking sites already launched? But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly. So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs. Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.

The damage won't be from just the blast areas. The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area. But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease. In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today. But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt. Mexico actually benefits from it. But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.

But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt. It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.

AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air. So they will have to take measures for that. But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open. The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread. Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.

You think it's cold in Siberian now?

Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US. The Entire world loses. Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.

First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
There are three main goals of any government in a war:
1) protect its citizens;
2) punish the enemy;
3) to win the war and the further peace.

Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.

How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?

in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.

I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.

Just invade a NATO country and find out. Putin is much more cautious on that one.

As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1

Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.

everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.

in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.

And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying. It ends up being the first and last option. And both sides know it. NO NUKES will be used by either side. Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane. Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.

Just read Russian military doctrine, the part about definitions.

Военная доктрина Российской Федерации

Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации

www.kremlin.ru

---------------------
f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
---------------------------------
The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.

No it doesn't. By your definition of "Regional War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country. And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.

By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.

Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear? Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles. They know how to fight. But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting. And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35. But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.

Keep that in mind, Ivan.

And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads. You may not like the response.

lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks

I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.

I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.

newsflash, Ivan. Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine. Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore. You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.

No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves

You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....



as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...

And what does that have to do with the F-35? If you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on. Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them. The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia. And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them. But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X. And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians. There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well. Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air. Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory. Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable. The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.

if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As. And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap. The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V. With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine. Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.

Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014. But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots. What they lack are fighters. And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.

lol, Ukrainian battle hardened and experienced pilots
One of the biggest problems of America, of its people and even ruling elite is that all they believe in dumb American propaganda.

Ukraine has money neither for new fighters nor even for fuel, their pilots fly 10 hours a year, bombers were used a couple of times in the very beginning of the conflict against civilian targets, but after a Ukrainian pilot Voloshin allegedly shot down a Malaisian civilian Boeing Ukraine stopped using military aicraft at all. Voloshin later committed suicide, or was asked to commit suicide by Ukrainian regime, but now we don't have a witness and the West blames Russia.

All planes the US gives to Ukraine in case of Ukraine-Russia war will be immediately shot down by S-300-350-400 or destroyed on the ground by Iskander. No Russian fighters will be even needed.

The Russians vaunted SAM systems are not world beaters. And using nuclear weapons would be suicide by the Russians. Something they dare not contemplate if they really want to save the Rodina.

and what will the US do if you destroy, let's day a Russian division in Ukraine and Russians retaliate with whiping out your military bases in Qatar, Saudia etc. with nuclear weapons?
start nuclear exchange between Russian and American territories?

Easy answer. Every Military and Industrial target in Russia ceases to exist. WWIII would have just begun and Russia would have fired the first shot but won't have fired the last shot by a long shot. Pull up your bloomers and go home.

Funny. And how exactly do you plan to "cease the existence" of more than 1000 of Russian industrial targets and roughly 5000 military targets, already evacuated and covered with ABD, AIDS and interceptors, by, say, 160 strategic warheads, remaining after the Russian preemptive strike?

Wow, you invented Industrial strength beam up scotty devices. Since your factories and military duplexes are very close together, there will be two warheads targeted for each 10 mile area. In that 10 miles, you are going to have a few hundred thousand trained factory workers and military supplies and personnel. That means that there are actually over 2500 actual targets. Then there is the blast that takes down much more as much as 30 miles away. So you lived through that. Then there is the fallout, starvation,sickness and more. In the end, there are going to be a 95% loss of Russian Population. The US will have a loss of 85%. You only see the other side losing. Newsflash: Start throwing Nukes, even Tactical one and the WORLD ends as we know it. The US goes back to the 18th century but Russia goes back to the stone age. But I guess that idea is just too much for you to fathom. Good, keep it that way.

And your forget, our second strike will be from returning bombers and Naval which you can't touch. You won't have any returning bombers but you will still have a limited navy. That population of Naval Population will be needed. Unlike you, we have females on our Naval Ships and that's going to be very important. Yes, both sides are back to "Go Ye Forth and Multiply".

Russia has zero or near zero farmland anymore. The US has it's southern. In case you haven't noticed, Russia is a lot further north than the US. When the band of farming land shifts southern, it shifts below the Grain Belt of Russia. Russia will have lost it's ability to feed itself. You think the food lines are bad now. You are going to ahve to attempt to live for at least 10 years in that condition. Cannibalism isn't the answer. And even the rich runs out of food sooner or later.

Do you even know effects of the nuclear blast?
We are talking about 160 W76-1 warheads with 90 kt yield.

View attachment 466206
This means, destruction of light building in radius of 3.26 clicks. People in shelters were not injured at all. We are talking about Russian preemptive strike, so their civilians and military personnel were evacuated in advance. Significant part of warheads will be intercepted, but even if all of them will hit their targets it will mean 33,5x160=5360 square kilometres of destroyed buildings and less than one million of the almost accidental casualties.
It is much better to lose 1 million in war, than to lose 40 millions in peace.

You need to refigure. The MMIII warheads are MK-12s at 170KTs. Almost twice what you used in your figures. Nice lie.

Minuteman IIIs no longer carry 170 kiloton warheads. They were rearmed with the 300 kiloton warheads formerly carried by the MX (Peacekeeper) ICBMs.

Did I say "Minuteman III"? All of them were eliminated by the Russian preemptive strike. I said W76-1 (at SLBMs). Two Ohios, 40 UGM-133A Trident II missiles, 160 W76-1 warheads 90-100 kt each.
View attachment 466248

I can tell that the chart is bogus. You left off two of the Nuke loaded AC. The B-1 and the F-35. I would estimate the data taken to make that chart would date back to the early 90s right after the B-2 was introduced.

B-1s are not nuclear already, and F-35s are not nuclear yet. But anyway, F-35 is going to use B-61-12 only, which is almost useless in the GPS-degraded environment. The Lame duck, you know.

 

[Vrenn]

If the Russians (as some of thr

End results; US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%. We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age. Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.

You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.

There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. It's doomsday scenario. And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better. You fear it more than we do. If you don't, you should.

Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.

I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible). Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack. And what good does it do attacking sites already launched? But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly. So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs. Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.

The damage won't be from just the blast areas. The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area. But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease. In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today. But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt. Mexico actually benefits from it. But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.

But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt. It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.

AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air. So they will have to take measures for that. But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open. The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread. Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.

You think it's cold in Siberian now?

Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US. The Entire world loses. Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.

First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
There are three main goals of any government in a war:
1) protect its citizens;
2) punish the enemy;
3) to win the war and the further peace.

Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.

How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?

in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.

I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.

Just invade a NATO country and find out. Putin is much more cautious on that one.

As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1

Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.

everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.

in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.

And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying. It ends up being the first and last option. And both sides know it. NO NUKES will be used by either side. Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane. Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.

Just read Russian military doctrine, the part about definitions.

Военная доктрина Российской Федерации

Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации

www.kremlin.ru

---------------------
f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
---------------------------------
The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.

No it doesn't. By your definition of "Regional War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country. And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.

By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.

Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear? Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles. They know how to fight. But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting. And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35. But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.

Keep that in mind, Ivan.

And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads. You may not like the response.

lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks

I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.

I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.

newsflash, Ivan. Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine. Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore. You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.

No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves

You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....



as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...

And what does that have to do with the F-35? If you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on. Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them. The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia. And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them. But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X. And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians. There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well. Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air. Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory. Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable. The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.

if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As. And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap. The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V. With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine. Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.

Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014. But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots. What they lack are fighters. And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.

lol, Ukrainian battle hardened and experienced pilots
One of the biggest problems of America, of its people and even ruling elite is that all they believe in dumb American propaganda.

Ukraine has money neither for new fighters nor even for fuel, their pilots fly 10 hours a year, bombers were used a couple of times in the very beginning of the conflict against civilian targets, but after a Ukrainian pilot Voloshin allegedly shot down a Malaisian civilian Boeing Ukraine stopped using military aicraft at all. Voloshin later committed suicide, or was asked to commit suicide by Ukrainian regime, but now we don't have a witness and the West blames Russia.

All planes the US gives to Ukraine in case of Ukraine-Russia war will be immediately shot down by S-300-350-400 or destroyed on the ground by Iskander. No Russian fighters will be even needed.

The Russians vaunted SAM systems are not world beaters. And using nuclear weapons would be suicide by the Russians. Something they dare not contemplate if they really want to save the Rodina.

and what will the US do if you destroy, let's day a Russian division in Ukraine and Russians retaliate with whiping out your military bases in Qatar, Saudia etc. with nuclear weapons?
start nuclear exchange between Russian and American territories?

Easy answer. Every Military and Industrial target in Russia ceases to exist. WWIII would have just begun and Russia would have fired the first shot but won't have fired the last shot by a long shot. Pull up your bloomers and go home.

Funny. And how exactly do you plan to "cease the existence" of more than 1000 of Russian industrial targets and roughly 5000 military targets, already evacuated and covered with ABD, AIDS and interceptors, by, say, 160 strategic warheads, remaining after the Russian preemptive strike?

Wow, you invented Industrial strength beam up scotty devices. Since your factories and military duplexes are very close together, there will be two warheads targeted for each 10 mile area. In that 10 miles, you are going to have a few hundred thousand trained factory workers and military supplies and personnel. That means that there are actually over 2500 actual targets. Then there is the blast that takes down much more as much as 30 miles away. So you lived through that. Then there is the fallout, starvation,sickness and more. In the end, there are going to be a 95% loss of Russian Population. The US will have a loss of 85%. You only see the other side losing. Newsflash: Start throwing Nukes, even Tactical one and the WORLD ends as we know it. The US goes back to the 18th century but Russia goes back to the stone age. But I guess that idea is just too much for you to fathom. Good, keep it that way.

And your forget, our second strike will be from returning bombers and Naval which you can't touch. You won't have any returning bombers but you will still have a limited navy. That population of Naval Population will be needed. Unlike you, we have females on our Naval Ships and that's going to be very important. Yes, both sides are back to "Go Ye Forth and Multiply".

Russia has zero or near zero farmland anymore. The US has it's southern. In case you haven't noticed, Russia is a lot further north than the US. When the band of farming land shifts southern, it shifts below the Grain Belt of Russia. Russia will have lost it's ability to feed itself. You think the food lines are bad now. You are going to ahve to attempt to live for at least 10 years in that condition. Cannibalism isn't the answer. And even the rich runs out of food sooner or later.

Do you even know effects of the nuclear blast?
We are talking about 160 W76-1 warheads with 90 kt yield.

View attachment 466206
This means, destruction of light building in radius of 3.26 clicks. People in shelters were not injured at all. We are talking about Russian preemptive strike, so their civilians and military personnel were evacuated in advance. Significant part of warheads will be intercepted, but even if all of them will hit their targets it will mean 33,5x160=5360 square kilometres of destroyed buildings and less than one million of the almost accidental casualties.
It is much better to lose 1 million in war, than to lose 40 millions in peace.

You need to refigure. The MMIII warheads are MK-12s at 170KTs. Almost twice what you used in your figures. Nice lie.

Minuteman IIIs no longer carry 170 kiloton warheads. They were rearmed with the 300 kiloton warheads formerly carried by the MX (Peacekeeper) ICBMs.

Did I say "Minuteman III"? All of them were eliminated by the Russian preemptive strike. I said W76-1 (at SLBMs). Two Ohios, 40 UGM-133A Trident II missiles, 160 W76-1 warheads 90-100 kt each.
View attachment 466248

I can tell that the chart is bogus. You left off two of the Nuke loaded AC. The B-1 and the F-35. I would estimate the data taken to make that chart would date back to the early 90s right after the B-2 was introduced.

B-1s are not nuclear already, and F-35s are not nuclear yet. But anyway, F-35 is going to use B-61-12 only, which is almost useless in the GPS-degraded environment. The Lame duck, you know.

The B-61 for the F-35 (can be used anytime they want to ) is a dumb bomb with zero guidance. Range depends on the height and speed of the Delivery Vehicle (F-35). Estimated range is up to 50 miles. And the F-35 can operate independent of the GPS. Your once upon a time failed again.

As for the B-1 not being Nuclear Capable, it's very nuclear capable but due to the Start agreement, they aren't loaded out as nuke carriers. But they are very capable of being loaded with Nukes in a moments notice. And the stores are in the Armories where the B-1s are located at. That becomes 67 more Nuke Carriers in the even of....... Your once upon a time failed once again.

 

[Dayton3]

As for the B-1 not being Nuclear Capable, it's very nuclear capable but due to the Start agreement, they aren't loaded out as nuke carriers. But they are very capable of being loaded with Nukes in a moments notice.

Well not exactly. The Permissive Action Links hardware would have to be reinstalled as well as a new wiring harness that nuclear weapons also depended on.

 

[Vrenn]

As for the B-1 not being Nuclear Capable, it's very nuclear capable but due to the Start agreement, they aren't loaded out as nuke carriers. But they are very capable of being loaded with Nukes in a moments notice.

Well not exactly. The Permissive Action Links hardware would have to be reinstalled as well as a new wiring harness that nuclear weapons also depended on.

Not anything unsurmountable. What are we talking about, a few hours, a day, a couple of days? Do we fly them to areas that are not going to be hit and mod them for the next attack if there isn't enough time? Or maybe we use them for Tankers by backflushing into KC type birds. Maybe to keep the ECs RC and such so they can stay in the air? I have a lot of faith in the utilization of the many resources.

 

[Silver Cat]

If the Russians (as some of thr

End results; US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%. We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age. Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.

You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.

There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. It's doomsday scenario. And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better. You fear it more than we do. If you don't, you should.

Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.

I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible). Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack. And what good does it do attacking sites already launched? But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly. So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs. Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.

The damage won't be from just the blast areas. The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area. But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease. In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today. But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt. Mexico actually benefits from it. But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.

But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt. It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.

AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air. So they will have to take measures for that. But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open. The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread. Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.

You think it's cold in Siberian now?

Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US. The Entire world loses. Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.

First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
There are three main goals of any government in a war:
1) protect its citizens;
2) punish the enemy;
3) to win the war and the further peace.

Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.

How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?

in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.

I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.

Just invade a NATO country and find out. Putin is much more cautious on that one.

As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1

Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.

everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.

in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.

And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying. It ends up being the first and last option. And both sides know it. NO NUKES will be used by either side. Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane. Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.

Just read Russian military doctrine, the part about definitions.

Военная доктрина Российской Федерации

Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации

www.kremlin.ru

---------------------
f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
---------------------------------
The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.

No it doesn't. By your definition of "Regional War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country. And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.

By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.

Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear? Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles. They know how to fight. But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting. And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35. But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.

Keep that in mind, Ivan.

And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads. You may not like the response.

lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks

I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.

I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.

newsflash, Ivan. Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine. Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore. You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.

No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves

You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....



as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...

And what does that have to do with the F-35? If you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on. Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them. The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia. And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them. But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X. And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians. There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well. Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air. Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory. Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable. The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.

if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As. And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap. The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V. With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine. Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.

Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014. But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots. What they lack are fighters. And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.

lol, Ukrainian battle hardened and experienced pilots
One of the biggest problems of America, of its people and even ruling elite is that all they believe in dumb American propaganda.

Ukraine has money neither for new fighters nor even for fuel, their pilots fly 10 hours a year, bombers were used a couple of times in the very beginning of the conflict against civilian targets, but after a Ukrainian pilot Voloshin allegedly shot down a Malaisian civilian Boeing Ukraine stopped using military aicraft at all. Voloshin later committed suicide, or was asked to commit suicide by Ukrainian regime, but now we don't have a witness and the West blames Russia.

All planes the US gives to Ukraine in case of Ukraine-Russia war will be immediately shot down by S-300-350-400 or destroyed on the ground by Iskander. No Russian fighters will be even needed.

The Russians vaunted SAM systems are not world beaters. And using nuclear weapons would be suicide by the Russians. Something they dare not contemplate if they really want to save the Rodina.

and what will the US do if you destroy, let's day a Russian division in Ukraine and Russians retaliate with whiping out your military bases in Qatar, Saudia etc. with nuclear weapons?
start nuclear exchange between Russian and American territories?

Easy answer. Every Military and Industrial target in Russia ceases to exist. WWIII would have just begun and Russia would have fired the first shot but won't have fired the last shot by a long shot. Pull up your bloomers and go home.

Funny. And how exactly do you plan to "cease the existence" of more than 1000 of Russian industrial targets and roughly 5000 military targets, already evacuated and covered with ABD, AIDS and interceptors, by, say, 160 strategic warheads, remaining after the Russian preemptive strike?

Wow, you invented Industrial strength beam up scotty devices. Since your factories and military duplexes are very close together, there will be two warheads targeted for each 10 mile area. In that 10 miles, you are going to have a few hundred thousand trained factory workers and military supplies and personnel. That means that there are actually over 2500 actual targets. Then there is the blast that takes down much more as much as 30 miles away. So you lived through that. Then there is the fallout, starvation,sickness and more. In the end, there are going to be a 95% loss of Russian Population. The US will have a loss of 85%. You only see the other side losing. Newsflash: Start throwing Nukes, even Tactical one and the WORLD ends as we know it. The US goes back to the 18th century but Russia goes back to the stone age. But I guess that idea is just too much for you to fathom. Good, keep it that way.

And your forget, our second strike will be from returning bombers and Naval which you can't touch. You won't have any returning bombers but you will still have a limited navy. That population of Naval Population will be needed. Unlike you, we have females on our Naval Ships and that's going to be very important. Yes, both sides are back to "Go Ye Forth and Multiply".

Russia has zero or near zero farmland anymore. The US has it's southern. In case you haven't noticed, Russia is a lot further north than the US. When the band of farming land shifts southern, it shifts below the Grain Belt of Russia. Russia will have lost it's ability to feed itself. You think the food lines are bad now. You are going to ahve to attempt to live for at least 10 years in that condition. Cannibalism isn't the answer. And even the rich runs out of food sooner or later.

Do you even know effects of the nuclear blast?
We are talking about 160 W76-1 warheads with 90 kt yield.

View attachment 466206
This means, destruction of light building in radius of 3.26 clicks. People in shelters were not injured at all. We are talking about Russian preemptive strike, so their civilians and military personnel were evacuated in advance. Significant part of warheads will be intercepted, but even if all of them will hit their targets it will mean 33,5x160=5360 square kilometres of destroyed buildings and less than one million of the almost accidental casualties.
It is much better to lose 1 million in war, than to lose 40 millions in peace.

You need to refigure. The MMIII warheads are MK-12s at 170KTs. Almost twice what you used in your figures. Nice lie.

Minuteman IIIs no longer carry 170 kiloton warheads. They were rearmed with the 300 kiloton warheads formerly carried by the MX (Peacekeeper) ICBMs.

Did I say "Minuteman III"? All of them were eliminated by the Russian preemptive strike. I said W76-1 (at SLBMs). Two Ohios, 40 UGM-133A Trident II missiles, 160 W76-1 warheads 90-100 kt each.
View attachment 466248

I can tell that the chart is bogus. You left off two of the Nuke loaded AC. The B-1 and the F-35. I would estimate the data taken to make that chart would date back to the early 90s right after the B-2 was introduced.

B-1s are not nuclear already, and F-35s are not nuclear yet. But anyway, F-35 is going to use B-61-12 only, which is almost useless in the GPS-degraded environment. The Lame duck, you know.

The B-61 for the F-35 (can be used anytime they want to ) is a dumb bomb with zero guidance. Range depends on the height and speed of the Delivery Vehicle (F-35). Estimated range is up to 50 miles. And the F-35 can operate independent of the GPS. Your once upon a time failed again.

B-61 of the earlier versions really are simple gravity bombs. And F-35 is [almost] not able to use dumb bombs. But B-61-12 is going to be a sort of INS+GPS-guided JDAM bomb. And as other JDAM bombs they can not be used in the GPS-degraded environment.

As for the B-1 not being Nuclear Capable, it's very nuclear capable but due to the Start agreement, they aren't loaded out as nuke carriers. But they are very capable of being loaded with Nukes in a moments notice. And the stores are in the Armories where the B-1s are located at. That becomes 67 more Nuke Carriers in the even of.......

Not 67, but 62, and only six of them are fully mission-capable, as Gen. John Hayden told.

The Air Forceâs B-1 bombers are in more dire shape than we thought

"We’re just beating the heck out of them, deploying them, deploying them," Gen. John Hyten told lawmakers.

www.airforcetimes.com

Ok. But it is possible to return someone of them to the active service. You know it, the Russians know it. Very likely, that the bases with B-1 (if the USA ignore possibility of the Russian counterforce strike) are in the short list of the first-wave targets.

 

[Silver Cat]

About 10 minutes after the Russian begin their preparations, the US will begin theirs.

Sure. And the first step of those "preparations" will be the question to Sleeping Joe: "With all due respect, sir, we are going to start, with a 99% possibility a nuclear war, which we are going to lose with a 70% possibility, sir. Even if we win, it will cost us at least 3 million of American lifes, sir. Is this "Ukraine" worth it? "

Doing the preparations does not mean that both sides are required to go to Nuclear War.

The preparations must be done long before the war is started. And one of the most important "preparations" should be "Sell all those flying iPhones to our allies (or even enemies), and start a crush program production of real fighters and interceptors with LR AAMs to be able prevent "free rides" of the Russian bombers"

At some point, both sides will come to their senses.

If the Russians will try to annex Alaska, the Americans won't "come their senses". So are the Russians about Crimea, Donbass and Ukraine.

But let's say they don't. The flight time of an ICBM from launch to impact is somewhere between 25 to 30 minutes. And both sides won't launch their Submarine assets saving those for a counter strike it they are smart.

The accuracy of SLBMs highly depends on navsats. And nav- and comsats have snowball chances to survive first days (may be hours) of a serious war. And this means that the Russians will use at least part of them in the first strike at the point blank range, by supressed ballistic trajectory. As well as Tu-95 with CMs from Venezuella. And Poseindons, attacking Ohio submarines at stations, too.

And the flight time for the bombers already in place will be about the same from orbit to strike. That means that even if the US is 10 minutes behind Russia, the first batch (the heaviest) will be launched.

This decrease flight time to five minutes, and if the USA are ten minutes late - the Launch Under Attack is not possible.

The US won't win but Russia will lose even worse.

Hell, no! First exchange of nuclear strikes may be catastrophic (like Pearl Harbor), but it does not mean the end of the war.

Then there is the Naval Assets. And Russia is so far behind there that they don't even need to be counted. As for blackmail after that, there won't be anyone to blackmail or any reason to blackmail as the US and Russia will cease to exist as Governments.

Why? I mean, yes, Joe Biden is not exists as the President even now, but somebody is (and will be) doing his job. Anyway, there is the nation, there are Generals, political leaders, governors, etc.

It's a no win situation for both sides.

Highly depends on your pre-war objectives. For example, if the returning Crimea and Donbass to Ukraine wad the only US goal, then, if after the Mutual Destruction of Russia and the USA, Ukraine will retake those lands, it will technically mean, that the USA won.

 

[Silver Cat]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/03/05/adam-smith-f35/

The Democratic chairman of the House Armed Services Committee called the Lockheed Martin-produced F-35 Joint Strike Fighter a “rathole” in a virtual event with the Brookings Institution on Friday, and suggested the U.S. should consider whether to “cut its losses” by investing in a range of competing fighter jets.

 

[Vrenn]

About 10 minutes after the Russian begin their preparations, the US will begin theirs.

Sure. And the first step of those "preparations" will be the question to Sleeping Joe: "With all due respect, sir, we are going to start, with a 99% possibility a nuclear war, which we are going to lose with a 70% possibility, sir. Even if we win, it will cost us at least 3 million of American lifes, sir. Is this "Ukraine" worth it? "

Doing the preparations does not mean that both sides are required to go to Nuclear War.

The preparations must be done long before the war is started. And one of the most important "preparations" should be "Sell all those flying iPhones to our allies (or even enemies), and start a crush program production of real fighters and interceptors with LR AAMs to be able prevent "free rides" of the Russian bombers"

At some point, both sides will come to their senses.

If the Russians will try to annex Alaska, the Americans won't "come their senses". So are the Russians about Crimea, Donbass and Ukraine.

But let's say they don't. The flight time of an ICBM from launch to impact is somewhere between 25 to 30 minutes. And both sides won't launch their Submarine assets saving those for a counter strike it they are smart.

The accuracy of SLBMs highly depends on navsats. And nav- and comsats have snowball chances to survive first days (may be hours) of a serious war. And this means that the Russians will use at least part of them in the first strike at the point blank range, by supressed ballistic trajectory. As well as Tu-95 with CMs from Venezuella. And Poseindons, attacking Ohio submarines at stations, too.

And the flight time for the bombers already in place will be about the same from orbit to strike. That means that even if the US is 10 minutes behind Russia, the first batch (the heaviest) will be launched.

This decrease flight time to five minutes, and if the USA are ten minutes late - the Launch Under Attack is not possible.

The US won't win but Russia will lose even worse.

Hell, no! First exchange of nuclear strikes may be catastrophic (like Pearl Harbor), but it does not mean the end of the war.

Then there is the Naval Assets. And Russia is so far behind there that they don't even need to be counted. As for blackmail after that, there won't be anyone to blackmail or any reason to blackmail as the US and Russia will cease to exist as Governments.

Why? I mean, yes, Joe Biden is not exists as the President even now, but somebody is (and will be) doing his job. Anyway, there is the nation, there are Generals, political leaders, governors, etc.

It's a no win situation for both sides.

Highly depends on your pre-war objectives. For example, if the returning Crimea and Donbass to Ukraine wad the only US goal, then, if after the Mutual Destruction of Russia and the USA, Ukraine will retake those lands, it will technically mean, that the USA won.

You operate on the premise that Russia is invincible. Not even close. They couldn't even defeat a small group of US Troops in Syria. They got their asses handed to them but were allowed to cart their dead off afterwards.

Second, you honestly believe that you russians could actually WIN a Nuclear exchange? While we go back to the 18th century, your country goes back to the stone age. But for much of Russia, that's not a great stretch.

Third, you honestly think we need to send manpower to either Georgia or the Ukraine? Nope. They have the manpower. They lack the equipment and training and that is being provided right now. The Russian Military knows this and that is why they have removed their ground forces from Ukraine and are training Rebels. Sacrifical Lambs. Enjoy your vacation, it won't last much longer.

Fourth, there is so much unrest in Russia right now even poisoning opposition isn't working.

I suggest you be very careful that none of your stray shots don't hit an American in Ukraine. That would release one hell of a hornets nest and the question you should ask yourself, do you believe that part of Ukraine is worth the total destruction of Russia?

 

[AZrailwhale]

The F-35 is merely a way for politicians to make shitloads of cash.

You have any evidence to support that claim?

Sure, look how many times it should have been cancelled, yet wasn't. Look who it was that was lobbying to keep the program going, then look at where they went to work after they left government.

The F-35 has never been cancelled because:

1) It is the only game in town to replace five different tactical combat aircraft for three of the U.S. services.

2) It is the only option to replace the AV-8B Harriers flown by several key U.S. allies.

So your claim isn't evidence of any kind and means nothing.

It should have been cancelled numerous times because it is grossly overbudget, and grossly underperforming. That's the inherent weakness when you try and make one airframe do multiple jobs.

Congress thought it would save money

Congress is made up of some of the stupidest people on the planet too. The decision to use a common airframe makes a lot of sense to bean counters. But, to the people fighting and dying, they want the best that they can get. Common airframes are compromises. Compromises kill in the modern era.

The problem with common airframes is that they don't work well at all. The only two exceptions I can think of were the F4 and the A7. Neither of which were designed as common airframes.

The F-4 was modified from a pure air superiority fighter into an attack bomber, an electronic warfare aircraft, and a recon aircraft. It did all of the jobs relatively well, but that was back in the 1960's. The A-7 was a light attack aircraft and that's all I can think of that it did. If you have examples of other jobs it did please educate me. As avionics and air defences improve, the common airframe is not capable of doing all of the jobs assigned to it well. ESPECIALLY when you wish to add a VTOL capability. That is an enormous constraint in airframe design.

No, the F4 was designed as a pure bomber interceptor to be operated over blue water far out of range of fighters to defend carrier task forces from mass attacks by Soviet missile armed bombers. The fact that it did other roles well was because it had two seats and very powerful engines. At A7 was a light attack aircraft developed from the F8 Crusader for the Navy to replace the A4 Skyhawk and the Air Force adopted it for the same role. Both were naval designs that the Air Force adopted with very minor modifications. The F-35 and earlier F-111 are examples of politicians trying to save money by forcing incompatible objectives onto the same airframe. The F-35 was originally designed to be an stealthy attack plane, that once the anti-air threat was reduced could be loaded up with external bombs as a non-stealthy attack plane that had a tertiary mission of being a second line fighter. It was intended as a naval aircraft.

Year air superiority.

Air superiority is killing opposing fighters so as to control the air. The RAF gained aerial superiority over Britain during the BOB by killing the Luftwaffe's fighters so the Luftwaffe's bombers couldn't operate. The USAAF gained aerial superiority over Germany by killing off the Luftwaffe's fighters so the 8th AF bombers could operate. Two different results of the same approach, in the BOB the bombers were denied the ability to operate, in the Battle of Germany, the bombers were granted the ability to operate. The common thread is killing off the opposing fighters so as to control the airspace. The Soviets were never going to control the airspace over the oceans because they had no fighters able to contest the USN's aerial supremacy.

 

[westwall]

The F-35 is merely a way for politicians to make shitloads of cash.

You have any evidence to support that claim?

Sure, look how many times it should have been cancelled, yet wasn't. Look who it was that was lobbying to keep the program going, then look at where they went to work after they left government.

The F-35 has never been cancelled because:

1) It is the only game in town to replace five different tactical combat aircraft for three of the U.S. services.

2) It is the only option to replace the AV-8B Harriers flown by several key U.S. allies.

So your claim isn't evidence of any kind and means nothing.

It should have been cancelled numerous times because it is grossly overbudget, and grossly underperforming. That's the inherent weakness when you try and make one airframe do multiple jobs.

Congress thought it would save money

Congress is made up of some of the stupidest people on the planet too. The decision to use a common airframe makes a lot of sense to bean counters. But, to the people fighting and dying, they want the best that they can get. Common airframes are compromises. Compromises kill in the modern era.

The problem with common airframes is that they don't work well at all. The only two exceptions I can think of were the F4 and the A7. Neither of which were designed as common airframes.

The F-4 was modified from a pure air superiority fighter into an attack bomber, an electronic warfare aircraft, and a recon aircraft. It did all of the jobs relatively well, but that was back in the 1960's. The A-7 was a light attack aircraft and that's all I can think of that it did. If you have examples of other jobs it did please educate me. As avionics and air defences improve, the common airframe is not capable of doing all of the jobs assigned to it well. ESPECIALLY when you wish to add a VTOL capability. That is an enormous constraint in airframe design.

No, the F4 was designed as a pure bomber interceptor to be operated over blue water far out of range of fighters to defend carrier task forces from mass attacks by Soviet missile armed bombers. The fact that it did other roles well was because it had two seats and very powerful engines. At A7 was a light attack aircraft developed from the F8 Crusader for the Navy to replace the A4 Skyhawk and the Air Force adopted it for the same role. Both were naval designs that the Air Force adopted with very minor modifications. The F-35 and earlier F-111 are examples of politicians trying to save money by forcing incompatible objectives onto the same airframe. The F-35 was originally designed to be an stealthy attack plane, that once the anti-air threat was reduced could be loaded up with external bombs as a non-stealthy attack plane that had a tertiary mission of being a second line fighter. It was intended as a naval aircraft.

Year air superiority.

Air superiority is killing opposing fighters so as to control the air. The RAF gained aerial superiority over Britain during the BOB by killing the Luftwaffe's fighters so the Luftwaffe's bombers couldn't operate. The USAAF gained aerial superiority over Germany by killing off the Luftwaffe's fighters so the 8th AF bombers could operate. Two different results of the same approach, in the BOB the bombers were denied the ability to operate, in the Battle of Germany, the bombers were granted the ability to operate. The common thread is killing off the opposing fighters so as to control the airspace. The Soviets were never going to control the airspace over the oceans because they had no fighters able to contest the USN's aerial supremacy.

Air superiority means just that, killing ALL enemy aircraft in the air. The USAAF garnered air SUPREMACY, a huge difference, and not because we shot down their fighters, but because we destroyed their rail transport rolling stock so they were unable to transport fuel to the airfields. The Germans had plenty of aircraft, they had no fuel to train their pilots nor put aircraft up in the air in any numbers.

 

[ESay]

I am far from being an expert in F 35 and other military hardware, but since the discussion has been shifted a bit away from the OP, let me put my 5 cents.

It seems that some guys are stuck in the 70-80s years of the 20th century with all this discussion about nuclear strikes and other stuff. Guys, Russia is an authoritarian shithole with highly corrupted government and oligarchs and high ranked officials with property and bank accounts in the West.

I strongly believe that Putin is a coward at his core and he wont dare to seriously mess with the US. He is too used to a luxury life as is his cronies. Damn, Russia isnt even halted the sells of diesel fuel to Ukraine in 2014-15 years, the most hot years of the Donbass war. How a nuclear war can be even seriously discussed?

 

[Vrenn]

I am far from being an expert in F 35 and other military hardware, but since the discussion has been shifted a bit away from the OP, let me put my 5 cents.

It seems that some guys are stuck in the 70-80s years of the 20th century with all this discussion about nuclear strikes and other stuff. Guys, Russia is an authoritarian shithole with highly corrupted government and oligarchs and high ranked officials with property and bank accounts in the West.

I strongly believe that Putin is a coward at his core and he wont dare to seriously mess with the US. He is too used to a luxury life as is his cronies. Damn, Russia isnt even halted the sells of diesel fuel to Ukraine in 2014-15 years, the most hot years of the Donbass war. How a nuclear war can be even seriously discussed?

On the upper levels, it's not being discussed. Oh, yah, sometimes you might have a Russian Politico bring it up but he's quickly tamped down by the more sane (if not corrupt) others. There is no profit in fighting the US by the Russian Oliarchs. And to the real leaders in Russia, it's all about profit. Screw with the Eagle hard enough (even with the nukes removed from the table) and the real powers in Russia will not make that profit and live so lavishly. Meanwhile, our uber rich will profit from it. On an economical point of view, Russia won't EVER push the Eagle that hard.

 

[Silver Cat]

About 10 minutes after the Russian begin their preparations, the US will begin theirs.

Sure. And the first step of those "preparations" will be the question to Sleeping Joe: "With all due respect, sir, we are going to start, with a 99% possibility a nuclear war, which we are going to lose with a 70% possibility, sir. Even if we win, it will cost us at least 3 million of American lifes, sir. Is this "Ukraine" worth it? "

Doing the preparations does not mean that both sides are required to go to Nuclear War.

The preparations must be done long before the war is started. And one of the most important "preparations" should be "Sell all those flying iPhones to our allies (or even enemies), and start a crush program production of real fighters and interceptors with LR AAMs to be able prevent "free rides" of the Russian bombers"

At some point, both sides will come to their senses.

If the Russians will try to annex Alaska, the Americans won't "come their senses". So are the Russians about Crimea, Donbass and Ukraine.

But let's say they don't. The flight time of an ICBM from launch to impact is somewhere between 25 to 30 minutes. And both sides won't launch their Submarine assets saving those for a counter strike it they are smart.

The accuracy of SLBMs highly depends on navsats. And nav- and comsats have snowball chances to survive first days (may be hours) of a serious war. And this means that the Russians will use at least part of them in the first strike at the point blank range, by supressed ballistic trajectory. As well as Tu-95 with CMs from Venezuella. And Poseindons, attacking Ohio submarines at stations, too.

And the flight time for the bombers already in place will be about the same from orbit to strike. That means that even if the US is 10 minutes behind Russia, the first batch (the heaviest) will be launched.

This decrease flight time to five minutes, and if the USA are ten minutes late - the Launch Under Attack is not possible.

The US won't win but Russia will lose even worse.

Hell, no! First exchange of nuclear strikes may be catastrophic (like Pearl Harbor), but it does not mean the end of the war.

Then there is the Naval Assets. And Russia is so far behind there that they don't even need to be counted. As for blackmail after that, there won't be anyone to blackmail or any reason to blackmail as the US and Russia will cease to exist as Governments.

Why? I mean, yes, Joe Biden is not exists as the President even now, but somebody is (and will be) doing his job. Anyway, there is the nation, there are Generals, political leaders, governors, etc.

It's a no win situation for both sides.

Highly depends on your pre-war objectives. For example, if the returning Crimea and Donbass to Ukraine wad the only US goal, then, if after the Mutual Destruction of Russia and the USA, Ukraine will retake those lands, it will technically mean, that the USA won.

You operate on the premise that Russia is invincible. Not even close. They couldn't even defeat a small group of US Troops in Syria. They got their asses handed to them but were allowed to cart their dead off afterwards.

I don't say, that Russia is "invincible". I say, that there may choose "escalation for de-escalation" to prevent violations of their interests, or "preemptive strike" to prevent "uncontrolled escalation".

Second, you honestly believe that you russians could actually WIN a Nuclear exchange? While we go back to the 18th century, your country goes back to the stone age. But for much of Russia, that's not a great stretch.

I depends on your definition of the terms "to win" and a "nuclear exchange". Nuclear exchange is just a part of a war, important, of course, but not the only one. They could actually "prevail" (if they are clever and lucky and Americans are stupid and unlucky) after the first nuclear exchange. To WIN the War, they need to force the USA to sign a peace treaty and American readiness to sign such a treaty will definitely depends on what exactly the Russians demand. There is one scenario if they demand "unconditional surrender", another - if they want Alaska, third - if they demand to withdraw American forces from Europe. And the postattack bargaining need the tools for the "in-war detterence", "postattack blackmail" and "protracted war".

Third, you honestly think we need to send manpower to either Georgia or the Ukraine? Nope. They have the manpower. They lack the equipment and training and that is being provided right now. The Russian Military knows this and that is why they have removed their ground forces from Ukraine and are training Rebels. Sacrifical Lambs. Enjoy your vacation, it won't last much longer.

Both Ukraine and Georgia don't have enough manpower to defeat Russia. To be honest, most of Ukrainians and Georgians don't want to "defeat Russians".

Fourth, there is so much unrest in Russia right now even poisoning opposition isn't working.

Really? Oh, man...

I suggest you be very careful that none of your stray shots don't hit an American in Ukraine. That would release one hell of a hornets nest and the question you should ask yourself, do you believe that part of Ukraine is worth the total destruction of Russia?

You see, to make such a treat, the USA must to have such possibilities (to be able to win the war, and then - to win the peace). And, what is more important, yes, at least in their declarations Russians are ready to escalate up to the "large-scale war" (in which literally everything will be used). Ukraine is much more important for Russia than to the USA. May be, even more important than Mexico, Cuba and England for the USA.

 

[Silver Cat]

I am far from being an expert in F 35 and other military hardware, but since the discussion has been shifted a bit away from the OP, let me put my 5 cents.

It seems that some guys are stuck in the 70-80s years of the 20th century with all this discussion about nuclear strikes and other stuff. Guys, Russia is an authoritarian shithole with highly corrupted government and oligarchs and high ranked officials with property and bank accounts in the West.

I strongly believe that Putin is a coward at his core and he wont dare to seriously mess with the US. He is too used to a luxury life as is his cronies. Damn, Russia isnt even halted the sells of diesel fuel to Ukraine in 2014-15 years, the most hot years of the Donbass war. How a nuclear war can be even seriously discussed?

On the upper levels, it's not being discussed. Oh, yah, sometimes you might have a Russian Politico bring it up but he's quickly tamped down by the more sane (if not corrupt) others. There is no profit in fighting the US by the Russian Oliarchs.

Right now, it is the USA, who try to fight Russian Oligachs. And they would not became "oligarchs" if they didn't strike back in such situations (even with the risk of mutual destruction).

And to the real leaders in Russia, it's all about profit. Screw with the Eagle hard enough (even with the nukes removed from the table) and the real powers in Russia will not make that profit and live so lavishly. Meanwhile, our uber rich will profit from it. On an economical point of view, Russia won't EVER push the Eagle that hard.

You see, the very existence of the USA may be comfortable or not comfortable for the Russians (both rich and poor). Russian (as well as American) oligarchs became oligarchs not because they allowed anybody to take their profit.

 

[Silver Cat]

I am far from being an expert in F 35 and other military hardware, but since the discussion has been shifted a bit away from the OP, let me put my 5 cents.

It seems that some guys are stuck in the 70-80s years of the 20th century with all this discussion about nuclear strikes and other stuff. Guys, Russia is an authoritarian shithole with highly corrupted government and oligarchs and high ranked officials with property and bank accounts in the West.

I strongly believe that Putin is a coward at his core and he wont dare to seriously mess with the US. He is too used to a luxury life as is his cronies. Damn, Russia isnt even halted the sells of diesel fuel to Ukraine in 2014-15 years, the most hot years of the Donbass war. How a nuclear war can be even seriously discussed?

On the upper levels, it's not being discussed. Oh, yah, sometimes you might have a Russian Politico bring it up but he's quickly tamped down by the more sane (if not corrupt) others. There is no profit in fighting the US by the Russian Oliarchs. And to the real leaders in Russia, it's all about profit. Screw with the Eagle hard enough (even with the nukes removed from the table) and the real powers in Russia will not make that profit and live so lavishly. Meanwhile, our uber rich will profit from it. On an economical point of view, Russia won't EVER push the Eagle that hard.

To lose, say, 10% of their Russian business but to take 100% of the EU business? Sounds like a plan to me.

 

[AZrailwhale]

About 10 minutes after the Russian begin their preparations, the US will begin theirs.

Sure. And the first step of those "preparations" will be the question to Sleeping Joe: "With all due respect, sir, we are going to start, with a 99% possibility a nuclear war, which we are going to lose with a 70% possibility, sir. Even if we win, it will cost us at least 3 million of American lifes, sir. Is this "Ukraine" worth it? "

Doing the preparations does not mean that both sides are required to go to Nuclear War.

The preparations must be done long before the war is started. And one of the most important "preparations" should be "Sell all those flying iPhones to our allies (or even enemies), and start a crush program production of real fighters and interceptors with LR AAMs to be able prevent "free rides" of the Russian bombers"

At some point, both sides will come to their senses.

If the Russians will try to annex Alaska, the Americans won't "come their senses". So are the Russians about Crimea, Donbass and Ukraine.

But let's say they don't. The flight time of an ICBM from launch to impact is somewhere between 25 to 30 minutes. And both sides won't launch their Submarine assets saving those for a counter strike it they are smart.

The accuracy of SLBMs highly depends on navsats. And nav- and comsats have snowball chances to survive first days (may be hours) of a serious war. And this means that the Russians will use at least part of them in the first strike at the point blank range, by supressed ballistic trajectory. As well as Tu-95 with CMs from Venezuella. And Poseindons, attacking Ohio submarines at stations, too.

And the flight time for the bombers already in place will be about the same from orbit to strike. That means that even if the US is 10 minutes behind Russia, the first batch (the heaviest) will be launched.

This decrease flight time to five minutes, and if the USA are ten minutes late - the Launch Under Attack is not possible.

The US won't win but Russia will lose even worse.

Hell, no! First exchange of nuclear strikes may be catastrophic (like Pearl Harbor), but it does not mean the end of the war.

Then there is the Naval Assets. And Russia is so far behind there that they don't even need to be counted. As for blackmail after that, there won't be anyone to blackmail or any reason to blackmail as the US and Russia will cease to exist as Governments.

Why? I mean, yes, Joe Biden is not exists as the President even now, but somebody is (and will be) doing his job. Anyway, there is the nation, there are Generals, political leaders, governors, etc.

It's a no win situation for both sides.

Highly depends on your pre-war objectives. For example, if the returning Crimea and Donbass to Ukraine wad the only US goal, then, if after the Mutual Destruction of Russia and the USA, Ukraine will retake those lands, it will technically mean, that the USA won.

You operate on the premise that Russia is invincible. Not even close. They couldn't even defeat a small group of US Troops in Syria. They got their asses handed to them but were allowed to cart their dead off afterwards.

I don't say, that Russia is "invincible". I say, that there may choose "escalation for de-escalation" to prevent violations of their interests, or "preemptive strike" to prevent "uncontrolled escalation".

Second, you honestly believe that you russians could actually WIN a Nuclear exchange? While we go back to the 18th century, your country goes back to the stone age. But for much of Russia, that's not a great stretch.

I depends on your definition of the terms "to win" and a "nuclear exchange". Nuclear exchange is just a part of a war, important, of course, but not the only one. They could actually "prevail" (if they are clever and lucky and Americans are stupid and unlucky) after the first nuclear exchange. To WIN the War, they need to force the USA to sign a peace treaty and American readiness to sign such a treaty will definitely depends on what exactly the Russians demand. There is one scenario if they demand "unconditional surrender", another - if they want Alaska, third - if they demand to withdraw American forces from Europe. And the postattack bargaining need the tools for the "in-war detterence", "postattack blackmail" and "protracted war".

Third, you honestly think we need to send manpower to either Georgia or the Ukraine? Nope. They have the manpower. They lack the equipment and training and that is being provided right now. The Russian Military knows this and that is why they have removed their ground forces from Ukraine and are training Rebels. Sacrifical Lambs. Enjoy your vacation, it won't last much longer.

Both Ukraine and Georgia don't have enough manpower to defeat Russia. To be honest, most of Ukrainians and Georgians don't want to "defeat Russians".

Fourth, there is so much unrest in Russia right now even poisoning opposition isn't working.

Really? Oh, man...

I suggest you be very careful that none of your stray shots don't hit an American in Ukraine. That would release one hell of a hornets nest and the question you should ask yourself, do you believe that part of Ukraine is worth the total destruction of Russia?

You see, to make such a treat, the USA must to have such possibilities (to be able to win the war, and then - to win the peace). And, what is more important, yes, at least in their declarations Russians are ready to escalate up to the "large-scale war" (in which literally everything will be used). Ukraine is much more important for Russia than to the USA. May be, even more important than Mexico and England for the USA.

If you think the USA would ever sign a peace treaty with an aggressor, you don't understand Americans. Terrorists managed to kill about three thousand Americans and we've overturned more than two governments and killed tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of terrorists and sympathizers in return. If you murdered American civilians with a first strike, we'd use every weapon at our disposal to destroy Russia.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

the picture in Status-6 page is not correct, direction of predominant winds is not taken into account, to contaminate half of US territory wirh radiation nukes must be blown in Mexucan gulf and on Pacific coast, a blast on Atlantic coast will destroy only coastal cities

How do they sing?

is it supposed to mean something?
I start thinking that Russians (including Ukrainians, which are also Russians) outnumber Americans in this forum

Only some Ukrainians are Russians, you moron!

 

[Silver Cat]

About 10 minutes after the Russian begin their preparations, the US will begin theirs.

Sure. And the first step of those "preparations" will be the question to Sleeping Joe: "With all due respect, sir, we are going to start, with a 99% possibility a nuclear war, which we are going to lose with a 70% possibility, sir. Even if we win, it will cost us at least 3 million of American lifes, sir. Is this "Ukraine" worth it? "

Doing the preparations does not mean that both sides are required to go to Nuclear War.

The preparations must be done long before the war is started. And one of the most important "preparations" should be "Sell all those flying iPhones to our allies (or even enemies), and start a crush program production of real fighters and interceptors with LR AAMs to be able prevent "free rides" of the Russian bombers"

At some point, both sides will come to their senses.

If the Russians will try to annex Alaska, the Americans won't "come their senses". So are the Russians about Crimea, Donbass and Ukraine.

But let's say they don't. The flight time of an ICBM from launch to impact is somewhere between 25 to 30 minutes. And both sides won't launch their Submarine assets saving those for a counter strike it they are smart.

The accuracy of SLBMs highly depends on navsats. And nav- and comsats have snowball chances to survive first days (may be hours) of a serious war. And this means that the Russians will use at least part of them in the first strike at the point blank range, by supressed ballistic trajectory. As well as Tu-95 with CMs from Venezuella. And Poseindons, attacking Ohio submarines at stations, too.

And the flight time for the bombers already in place will be about the same from orbit to strike. That means that even if the US is 10 minutes behind Russia, the first batch (the heaviest) will be launched.

This decrease flight time to five minutes, and if the USA are ten minutes late - the Launch Under Attack is not possible.

The US won't win but Russia will lose even worse.

Hell, no! First exchange of nuclear strikes may be catastrophic (like Pearl Harbor), but it does not mean the end of the war.

Then there is the Naval Assets. And Russia is so far behind there that they don't even need to be counted. As for blackmail after that, there won't be anyone to blackmail or any reason to blackmail as the US and Russia will cease to exist as Governments.

Why? I mean, yes, Joe Biden is not exists as the President even now, but somebody is (and will be) doing his job. Anyway, there is the nation, there are Generals, political leaders, governors, etc.

It's a no win situation for both sides.

Highly depends on your pre-war objectives. For example, if the returning Crimea and Donbass to Ukraine wad the only US goal, then, if after the Mutual Destruction of Russia and the USA, Ukraine will retake those lands, it will technically mean, that the USA won.

You operate on the premise that Russia is invincible. Not even close. They couldn't even defeat a small group of US Troops in Syria. They got their asses handed to them but were allowed to cart their dead off afterwards.

I don't say, that Russia is "invincible". I say, that there may choose "escalation for de-escalation" to prevent violations of their interests, or "preemptive strike" to prevent "uncontrolled escalation".

Second, you honestly believe that you russians could actually WIN a Nuclear exchange? While we go back to the 18th century, your country goes back to the stone age. But for much of Russia, that's not a great stretch.

I depends on your definition of the terms "to win" and a "nuclear exchange". Nuclear exchange is just a part of a war, important, of course, but not the only one. They could actually "prevail" (if they are clever and lucky and Americans are stupid and unlucky) after the first nuclear exchange. To WIN the War, they need to force the USA to sign a peace treaty and American readiness to sign such a treaty will definitely depends on what exactly the Russians demand. There is one scenario if they demand "unconditional surrender", another - if they want Alaska, third - if they demand to withdraw American forces from Europe. And the postattack bargaining need the tools for the "in-war detterence", "postattack blackmail" and "protracted war".

Third, you honestly think we need to send manpower to either Georgia or the Ukraine? Nope. They have the manpower. They lack the equipment and training and that is being provided right now. The Russian Military knows this and that is why they have removed their ground forces from Ukraine and are training Rebels. Sacrifical Lambs. Enjoy your vacation, it won't last much longer.

Both Ukraine and Georgia don't have enough manpower to defeat Russia. To be honest, most of Ukrainians and Georgians don't want to "defeat Russians".

Fourth, there is so much unrest in Russia right now even poisoning opposition isn't working.

Really? Oh, man...

I suggest you be very careful that none of your stray shots don't hit an American in Ukraine. That would release one hell of a hornets nest and the question you should ask yourself, do you believe that part of Ukraine is worth the total destruction of Russia?

You see, to make such a treat, the USA must to have such possibilities (to be able to win the war, and then - to win the peace). And, what is more important, yes, at least in their declarations Russians are ready to escalate up to the "large-scale war" (in which literally everything will be used). Ukraine is much more important for Russia than to the USA. May be, even more important than Mexico and England for the USA.

If you think the USA would ever sign a peace treaty with an aggressor, you don't understand Americans. Terrorists managed to kill about three thousand Americans and we've overturned more than two governments and killed tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of terrorists and sympathizers in return. If you murdered American civilians with a first strike, we'd use every weapon at our disposal to destroy Russia.

This is one of reasons why the first strike should be the "counterforce" one, and the attacking side should avoid to hit populated cities.
Ok. Let's play the game. You are Joe Biden, and this is year 2022. You ignored Russians signals and just stressed them more, than than could tolerate, so they decided to make the preemptive counterforce strike. After the first strike the USA lost all their silos, almost all strategic bombers, a significant part of the Ohio submarines and very roughly less than one million of citizens (near half of them - civilians). Weakened and uncoordinated "reflex retaliation strike" was successfuly repeled by their ABD. Right now you have 160 warheads, and you don't know how many of them will be able to hit their targets with unknown accuracy. Putin have, say, six thousand nukes. He demands to remove all American forces from the Eastern Hemisphere, or he will start a "countervalue" strike, in which, say, 75% of the USA citizens will be killed, and leftovers will be occupied by Russia, China and Bolivarian Union.

What are you going to do? To swallow a pill, and save the USA as more or less independent state, or make a useless gesture and destroy few Russian cities (and therefore - thousands of American cities and, may be, even the very existence of the USA)? Are you ready to fight not only for the last man, but for the last woman, children, transgender, non-binary person, whoever else, too?

 

[Silver Cat]

the picture in Status-6 page is not correct, direction of predominant winds is not taken into account, to contaminate half of US territory wirh radiation nukes must be blown in Mexucan gulf and on Pacific coast, a blast on Atlantic coast will destroy only coastal cities

How do they sing?

is it supposed to mean something?
I start thinking that Russians (including Ukrainians, which are also Russians) outnumber Americans in this forum

Only some Ukrainians are Russians, you moron!

Sounds like "only some Yanks are Americans". Ok it's depends on your definition of the terms "Russians" and "Ukrainians". But anyway, most of them (Russians, Ukrainians, Yanks, Americans) don't want to "defeat" anybody. They want safety and prosperity and search their ways for it.