War in Ukraine

WHich missiles? If you are talking about ICBMs nobody can stop them. Well you must be, it's the only missile that has the range, and we have Trident, it's the same.

Also, You should know that across Russia there are institutions and bases fly a soviet flag alongside the russian federation flag. He wants the soviet union back.

No, I'm not referring to ICBMs.

  • The UK lacks a dedicated anti-ballistic missile (ABM) system like the US Patriot or Aegis, which are designed for intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBMs) or hypersonic threats.
  • No current UK system is proven against hypersonic missiles (speeds above Mach 5 with maneuverability) or advanced IRBMs with multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs) or decoys.
  • The UK relies on NATO’s integrated air defense, including US systems like Aegis Ashore in Poland, for broader coverage, but these are not UK-controlled and are designed for specific threats (e.g., Iranian missiles).
Russian Non-ICBM Missiles:

Russia’s missile arsenal includes advanced non-ICBM systems, such as intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBMs), hypersonic missiles, and cruise missiles, many of which incorporate recent technological advancements. Below are key systems that could challenge UK defenses, based on their speed, maneuverability, countermeasures, or low-observable flight profiles:

Kinzhal (Kh-47M2):
  • Type: Air-launched hypersonic ballistic missile.
  • Speed: Mach 10-12 (12,250-14,700 km/h).
  • Range: Up to 2,000-3,000 km.
  • Characteristics: Launched from MiG-31K or Su-57 aircraft, it follows a quasi-ballistic trajectory with maneuverability, making it harder to predict and intercept. It can carry conventional or nuclear warheads and has a reported accuracy of 1 meter.

  • Challenge to UK: The Kinzhal’s hypersonic speed and mid-flight maneuverability exceed the capabilities of Sea Viper and Sky Sabre, which are not designed for such high-speed, unpredictable targets. While Ukraine has reportedly intercepted Kinzhals using US-supplied Patriot systems, the UK lacks equivalent systems, and the Kinzhal’s speed and trajectory make interception by Aster missiles or RAF fighters unlikely.
Zircon (3M22 Tsirkon):
  • Type: Hypersonic cruise missile (anti-ship and land-attack capable).
  • Speed: Mach 6-9 (7,350-11,025 km/h).
  • Range: 500-1,000 km (potentially extendable for ground-launched variants).
  • Characteristics: Launched from ships, submarines, or potentially ground platforms, Zircon uses a scramjet engine, flies at low altitudes, and performs evasive maneuvers, reducing radar detection time. It can carry conventional or nuclear warheads.

  • Challenge to UK: Zircon’s hypersonic speed and low-altitude, unpredictable flight path make it nearly impossible for Sea Ceptor or Sky Sabre to intercept, as these systems are optimized for subsonic or slower supersonic threats. Sea Viper’s Aster 30 might engage at the edge of its envelope, but Zircon’s maneuverability and speed likely render interception unreliable.

Oreshnik IRBM:
  • Type: Intermediate-range ballistic missile (experimental, based on RS-26 Rubezh).
  • Speed: Supersonic to hypersonic (Mach 5+, potentially up to Mach 10).
  • Range: 3,000-5,500 km, capable of reaching the UK from western Russia or Kaliningrad.
  • Characteristics: Based on the RS-26 ICBM design but modified for shorter ranges, it may carry MIRVs or conventional warheads. Its high speed and potential for decoys or penetration aids complicate interception. Russia used an Oreshnik in Ukraine in November 2024, confirming its operational status.

  • Challenge to UK: The Oreshnik’s high speed and potential MIRV capability make it difficult for UK systems to counter. Sea Viper’s Aster 30 is not designed for IRBMs with such characteristics, and Sky Sabre lacks the range and speed to engage. NATO’s Aegis Ashore in Poland might have some capability, but it’s not UK-specific and may struggle with MIRVs or decoys

  • Kalibr (3M-14):
    • Type: Subsonic cruise missile (land-attack variant).
    • Speed: Subsonic (Mach 0.8-0.9), with a supersonic terminal sprint in some versions.
    • Range: Up to 2,500 km (capable of reaching the UK from western Russia).
    • Characteristics: Launched from ships, submarines, or ground platforms (e.g., 9M729 variant), it flies at low altitudes (20-50 meters) to evade radar. It can carry conventional or nuclear warheads and uses decoys or electronic warfare to counter defenses.

    • Challenge to UK: While subsonic for most of its flight, Kalibr’s low-altitude profile and terminal sprint make it harder to detect and engage. Sea Viper and Sky Sabre can intercept subsonic cruise missiles, but a massed salvo or use of decoys could overwhelm limited UK interceptor inventories, especially if launched from platforms north of the British Isles.
  • Kh-101/Kh-102:
    • Type: Air-launched subsonic cruise missile.
    • Speed: Mach 0.6-0.77 (up to 900 km/h).
    • Range: 2,500-5,500 km.
    • Characteristics: Launched from strategic bombers (e.g., Tu-95, Tu-160), it flies at low altitudes (30-70 meters) with terrain-following capability and stealth features to reduce radar cross-section. It can carry conventional or nuclear warheads.


    • Challenge to UK: The Kh-101’s stealth and low-altitude flight make it difficult to detect early, reducing reaction time. While Sea Viper and Sky Sabre can theoretically intercept subsonic cruise missiles, a large salvo or coordinated attack with decoys could saturate UK defenses, particularly if launched from bombers operating in international airspace.

      The UK’s primary vulnerabilities are its lack of hypersonic missile defense, limited interceptor stocks, and absence of dedicated ABM systems for IRBMs or advanced SRBMs. While NATO’s broader missile defense network (e.g., Aegis Ashore) could provide some protection, it is not UK-specific and has its own limitations against Russia’s advanced systems. To counter these threats, the UK would need to invest in advanced ABM systems, hypersonic defense technologies, or rely heavily on NATO allies, particularly the US.
 
They literally had a civil war, but hey, 'just talk to a Ukrainian'.

Guy just posts on here without knowing anything about the topic.
What civil war?

There are elements in the Donbas who prefer alignment with Russia who were encouraged and supported by Russia to try to achieve their aims through violence. This was no civil war! It was Russian sponsored aggression.
 
Apparently there was no civil war in Ukraine 2014.

Funny that.....So I asked Grok.

'Was there a civil war in ukraine 2014'.

'Yes, in 2014, a civil war broke out in Ukraine, often referred to as the War in Donbas or the Russo-Ukrainian War. It began after Russia annexed Crimea in March 2014, following a controversial referendum. Pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine, particularly in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, declared independence as the Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) and Luhansk People's Republic (LPR), sparking conflict with Ukrainian forces.

By late 2014, the conflict had killed thousands, displaced over a million people, and led to the Minsk agreements in 2015.'

But hey some guy in Cornwall thinks it wasn't a civil war so how do you like those apples Grok.
 
Berlin will not provide Taurus cruise missiles to Ukraine, says German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius in Kiev.

The Russians have secured 100% control over all of Luhansk Oblast, the only Oblast in Ukraine they have fully managed to do so since the invasion.
 
What civil war?

There are elements in the Donbas who prefer alignment with Russia who were encouraged and supported by Russia to try to achieve their aims through violence. This was no civil war! It was Russian sponsored aggression.
East and West Ukraine are different. The former being mostly Russian speaking and the latter not. A Civil War it most certainly is.

The alliance of EU/NATO/WEF/US etc ie The West started this War. Lets not forget this.
 
Incredible how this slipped down the pecking order, but it looks like Poots has pissed on Donald enough to get him to raise US support of Ukraine. Patriot systems likely to go there along with newer more sophisticated systems.

In my opinion if Ukraine were fully backed they could push Russia out of Donbas and hand a pile of that mineral wealth to the USA for that backing.
 
Incredible how this slipped down the pecking order, but it looks like Poots has pissed on Donald enough to get him to raise US support of Ukraine. Patriot systems likely to go there along with newer more sophisticated systems.

In my opinion if Ukraine were fully backed they could push Russia out of Donbas and hand a pile of that mineral wealth to the USA for that backing.

Not one of your best.

They're fecked.

The Donald will drop them in six months to a year as part of repairing things with his base in time for the mid-terms.
 
The first wave of arms supplies to Ukraine reportedly will cost NATO allies $10 billion according to Axios. The US not spending on any of that.

According to Nato's Rutte, a number of countries are lining up to participate, including the UK, Germany, Finland, Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands. Obviously we and Germany would have to pay a lion's share.....We have...in my view stupidly....already spent many billions on this war. A war that drains us which the US makes bank on.

I get that some people support continuing this war with Russia until some good result that they think is possible is reached......In reality at best all this would do is create a stalemate at worse it escalates and doesn't stop Russia anyway, as the real deciding issue is manpower, which the Russians simply have more of.

For us, this continued spending on foreign wars is worthy of criticism if those people supporting it have any complaints about the cost of living or energy bills.....especially the latter as this war directly relates to the size of that bill.
 
Yes it's a s*** deal for us but the other option is Russia going in and slaughtering people once they took over, then moving on to the next nation. Trump wanted us all to spend more anyway and it's been great business for arms makers everywhere as usual.

But the true financial cost is misunderstood, there haven't been the massive billions claimed, that was just the cost to us when we bought the weapons decades ago, and now given them away (at least I would've preferred a loan that they repay).
 
Yes it's a s*** deal for us but the other option is Russia going in and slaughtering people once they took over, then moving on to the next nation. Trump wanted us all to spend more anyway and it's been great business for arms makers everywhere as usual.

But the true financial cost is misunderstood, there haven't been the massive billions claimed, that was just the cost to us when we bought the weapons decades ago, and now given them away (at least I would've preferred a loan that they repay).
It will last another 41 months, provided the Democrats get their act together. Then the USA will resume its place as the leader of the western world because it understands that a threat to Europe is ultimately a threat to them too.
 
WHich missiles? If you are talking about ICBMs nobody can stop them. Well you must be, it's the only missile that has the range, and we have Trident, it's the same.

Also, You should know that across Russia there are institutions and bases fly a soviet flag alongside the russian federation flag. He wants the soviet union back.
He doesn't. Not in its communist form any way. Had the "Whites" won the revolution, that is what Putin associates with.

He wants a strong Russia with international influence surrounded on all borders by client states to act as buffers against invasion and to provide economic support through captive market.

Russia has been playing that game for centuries.

That is why he wants Ukraine. That is why Russia will not step any further than Ukraine.
 
No, I'm not referring to ICBMs.

  • The UK lacks a dedicated anti-ballistic missile (ABM) system like the US Patriot or Aegis, which are designed for intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBMs) or hypersonic threats.
  • No current UK system is proven against hypersonic missiles (speeds above Mach 5 with maneuverability) or advanced IRBMs with multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs) or decoys.
  • The UK relies on NATO’s integrated air defense, including US systems like Aegis Ashore in Poland, for broader coverage, but these are not UK-controlled and are designed for specific threats (e.g., Iranian missiles).
Russian Non-ICBM Missiles:

Russia’s missile arsenal includes advanced non-ICBM systems, such as intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBMs), hypersonic missiles, and cruise missiles, many of which incorporate recent technological advancements. Below are key systems that could challenge UK defenses, based on their speed, maneuverability, countermeasures, or low-observable flight profiles:

Kinzhal (Kh-47M2):
  • Type: Air-launched hypersonic ballistic missile.
  • Speed: Mach 10-12 (12,250-14,700 km/h).
  • Range: Up to 2,000-3,000 km.
  • Characteristics: Launched from MiG-31K or Su-57 aircraft, it follows a quasi-ballistic trajectory with maneuverability, making it harder to predict and intercept. It can carry conventional or nuclear warheads and has a reported accuracy of 1 meter.

  • Challenge to UK: The Kinzhal’s hypersonic speed and mid-flight maneuverability exceed the capabilities of Sea Viper and Sky Sabre, which are not designed for such high-speed, unpredictable targets. While Ukraine has reportedly intercepted Kinzhals using US-supplied Patriot systems, the UK lacks equivalent systems, and the Kinzhal’s speed and trajectory make interception by Aster missiles or RAF fighters unlikely.
Zircon (3M22 Tsirkon):
  • Type: Hypersonic cruise missile (anti-ship and land-attack capable).
  • Speed: Mach 6-9 (7,350-11,025 km/h).
  • Range: 500-1,000 km (potentially extendable for ground-launched variants).
  • Characteristics: Launched from ships, submarines, or potentially ground platforms, Zircon uses a scramjet engine, flies at low altitudes, and performs evasive maneuvers, reducing radar detection time. It can carry conventional or nuclear warheads.

  • Challenge to UK: Zircon’s hypersonic speed and low-altitude, unpredictable flight path make it nearly impossible for Sea Ceptor or Sky Sabre to intercept, as these systems are optimized for subsonic or slower supersonic threats. Sea Viper’s Aster 30 might engage at the edge of its envelope, but Zircon’s maneuverability and speed likely render interception unreliable.

Oreshnik IRBM:
  • Type: Intermediate-range ballistic missile (experimental, based on RS-26 Rubezh).
  • Speed: Supersonic to hypersonic (Mach 5+, potentially up to Mach 10).
  • Range: 3,000-5,500 km, capable of reaching the UK from western Russia or Kaliningrad.
  • Characteristics: Based on the RS-26 ICBM design but modified for shorter ranges, it may carry MIRVs or conventional warheads. Its high speed and potential for decoys or penetration aids complicate interception. Russia used an Oreshnik in Ukraine in November 2024, confirming its operational status.

  • Challenge to UK: The Oreshnik’s high speed and potential MIRV capability make it difficult for UK systems to counter. Sea Viper’s Aster 30 is not designed for IRBMs with such characteristics, and Sky Sabre lacks the range and speed to engage. NATO’s Aegis Ashore in Poland might have some capability, but it’s not UK-specific and may struggle with MIRVs or decoys

  • Kalibr (3M-14):
    • Type: Subsonic cruise missile (land-attack variant).
    • Speed: Subsonic (Mach 0.8-0.9), with a supersonic terminal sprint in some versions.
    • Range: Up to 2,500 km (capable of reaching the UK from western Russia).
    • Characteristics: Launched from ships, submarines, or ground platforms (e.g., 9M729 variant), it flies at low altitudes (20-50 meters) to evade radar. It can carry conventional or nuclear warheads and uses decoys or electronic warfare to counter defenses.

    • Challenge to UK: While subsonic for most of its flight, Kalibr’s low-altitude profile and terminal sprint make it harder to detect and engage. Sea Viper and Sky Sabre can intercept subsonic cruise missiles, but a massed salvo or use of decoys could overwhelm limited UK interceptor inventories, especially if launched from platforms north of the British Isles.
  • Kh-101/Kh-102:
    • Type: Air-launched subsonic cruise missile.
    • Speed: Mach 0.6-0.77 (up to 900 km/h).
    • Range: 2,500-5,500 km.
    • Characteristics: Launched from strategic bombers (e.g., Tu-95, Tu-160), it flies at low altitudes (30-70 meters) with terrain-following capability and stealth features to reduce radar cross-section. It can carry conventional or nuclear warheads.


    • Challenge to UK: The Kh-101’s stealth and low-altitude flight make it difficult to detect early, reducing reaction time. While Sea Viper and Sky Sabre can theoretically intercept subsonic cruise missiles, a large salvo or coordinated attack with decoys could saturate UK defenses, particularly if launched from bombers operating in international airspace.

      The UK’s primary vulnerabilities are its lack of hypersonic missile defense, limited interceptor stocks, and absence of dedicated ABM systems for IRBMs or advanced SRBMs. While NATO’s broader missile defense network (e.g., Aegis Ashore) could provide some protection, it is not UK-specific and has its own limitations against Russia’s advanced systems. To counter these threats, the UK would need to invest in advanced ABM systems, hypersonic defense technologies, or rely heavily on NATO allies, particularly the US.
You do realise the security services are now paying very close attention to your posts Stirling.
 
He doesn't. Not in its communist form any way. Had the "Whites" won the revolution, that is what Putin associates with.

He wants a strong Russia with international influence surrounded on all borders by client states to act as buffers against invasion and to provide economic support through captive market.

Russia has been playing that game for centuries.

That is why he wants Ukraine. That is why Russia will not step any further than Ukraine.

If European nations had really taken the idea that Putin wants the Soviet Union (not realistic even if he wanted it) back then we wouldn't be waiting five to ten years for military spending to reach five percent.

Not that I think that's going to happen personally.

The only European country that considers itself under threat is Poland and even there a Russian attack isn't expected.....But they aren't so stupid to think it's guaranteed that article five would be activated for an eastern state.
 
If European nations had really taken the idea that Putin wants the Soviet Union (not realistic even if he wanted it) back then we wouldn't be waiting five to ten years for military spending to reach five percent.

Not that I think that's going to happen personally.

The only European country that considers itself under threat is Poland and even there a Russian attack isn't expected.....But they aren't so stupid to think it's guaranteed that article five would be activated for an eastern state.
Poland is under no real risk. Stalin only occupied that country as he was there anyway and held a vehement and irritational hatred for the Poles.

Actually, the USSR had 400 divisions in the field. But for Nagasaki and Hiroshima, Stalin would have happily extended the Soviet western border to the Azores.

The facts are very different now. So long as Russia occupies and controls a buffer zone that is Russia or Russian, he will present that settlement as a victory.
 
I think Trump is going to care more about shoring up his base in the mid term elections than foreign wars in Europe.

His only doing that to sell weapons anyway.

And guess who are the mugs paying for them.
A good earner for the US. There doesn't seem to be much incentive for the war to end from Trump's point of view.
Putin will eventually get what he wants and Europe will spend a lot of our money posturing.

On the flip side. We have to show Putin that we aren't a soft touch. That is a tactic that he will understand. Former KGB cannot be bargained with.
 

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top