Israel-Hamas Conflict: Updates & Discussions

[randomradio]

Iran's supreme leader tacitly acknowledges that Tehran hit little in its attack on Israel

Iran's supreme leader on Sunday dismissed any discussion of whether Tehran's unprecedented drone-and-missile attack on Israel hit anything there, a tacit acknowledgment that despite launching a major assault, few projectiles actually made it through to their targets. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's...

us.yahoo.com

The tacit need to acknowledge that they lack sophistication. That's why even their SAMs are about 15 years behind what's in use elsewhere.

The problem with doing such things is less sophisticated enemies start fixing such holes and render Western advantages useless over time. The same with pulling Russia into a war, which means militarization and hole-fixing.

 

[BMD]

The tacit need to acknowledge that they lack sophistication. That's why even their SAMs are about 15 years behind what's in use elsewhere.

It has S-400 and the recently upgraded Bavaar-373, which has a range of 450km and an altitude of 120km, yet Israel still hit their radar.

The problem with doing such things is less sophisticated enemies start fixing such holes and render Western advantages useless over time. The same with pulling Russia into a war, which means militarization and hole-fixing.

Ukraine is only using old weapons, so they're fixing old holes.

 

[randomradio]

It has S-400 and the recently upgraded Bavaar-373, which has a range of 450km and an altitude of 120km, yet Israel still hit their radar.

The Iranians do not have S-400, and the Bavar is still not sophisticated enough. Decent radar, but not good missiles. It's not capable of 120 km either, it's primarily air defense. The Iranians are working on getting the S-400.

What got hit was an S-300 radar, insufficient reaction time for BMD, not to mention insufficient capability for BMD, and the missile used is relatively new tech.

Ukraine is only using old weapons, so they're fixing old holes.

It's not about Ukraine, it's about their own organization, equipment and training. For example, they do not do enough exercises to check operational readiness, they do not have advanced communications, and their equipment is a mix of old and new with questionable serviceability. And they are fixing these holes.

Imagine had they gone to war with NATO with all these problems. Things would have quickly devolved into a nuclear war.

 

[randomradio]

@Innominate @BMD @Optimist @A Person

What's happening in America (and the UK)-- All the support you see for Hamas in the West.

39 years ago, a KGB defector chillingly predicted modern America

A former KGB agent named Yuri Alexandrovich Bezmenov claimed in 1984 that Russia has a long-term goal of ideologically subverting the U.S.

bigthink.com

 

[BMD]

The Iranians do not have S-400, and the Bavar is still not sophisticated enough. Decent radar, but not good missiles. It's not capable of 120 km either, it's primarily air defense. The Iranians are working on getting the S-400.

What got hit was an S-300 radar, insufficient reaction time for BMD, not to mention insufficient capability for BMD, and the missile used is relatively new tech.

I thought Iran bought S-400s about 8 years ago.

Iran Unveils New Bavar-373 Air Defense Missile System Capable of Inter

google_ad_client = "pub-4068738923530102"; /* 468x15 data sheet menu top dark green */ google_ad_slot = "3500417247"; google_ad_width = 468; go

armyrecognition.com

The SA-20B was supposed to be capable of target speeds up to 3km/s, with 5.5km/s for S-400 and 7km/s for S-500.

The Flap Lid and Tombstone are damn near identical.

It's not about Ukraine, it's about their own organization, equipment and training. For example, they do not do enough exercises to check operational readiness, they do not have advanced communications, and their equipment is a mix of old and new with questionable serviceability. And they are fixing these holes.

They're fixing them against the Ukrainian threat, but they cannot fix them for NATO. This war should have been easy for Russia, a war with NATO is something they can ready themselves for.

Imagine had they gone to war with NATO with all these problems. Things would have quickly devolved into a nuclear war.

Dude, they stand zero chance against NATO in a conventional war. Ukraine lacks true stand-off capability to use against Russia, that is the only reason Russia hasn't been stuffed already. If Ukraine had 1,000 cruise missiles per year to use on Russian territory, it would be a different war altogether. Strategic strikes are a one was affair in Ukraine and that's all Russia has going for it. 4 ATACMS were able to stuff Dzhankoi AFB, extrapolate that 100-fold inside Russia and it's not even a war, it's a mockery.

 

[randomradio]

I thought Iran bought S-400s about 8 years ago.

Iran Unveils New Bavar-373 Air Defense Missile System Capable of Inter

google_ad_client = "pub-4068738923530102"; /* 468x15 data sheet menu top dark green */ google_ad_slot = "3500417247"; google_ad_width = 468; go

armyrecognition.com

The SA-20B was supposed to be capable of target speeds up to 3km/s, with 5.5km/s for S-400 and 7km/s for S-500.

The Flap Lid and Tombstone are damn near identical.

Only the S-300PMU2. The S-400 deal is still under negotiations. It was sanctioned after all.

They're fixing them against the Ukrainian threat, but they cannot fix them for NATO. This war should have been easy for Russia, a war with NATO is something they can ready themselves for.

The issue with Russia wasn't Ukraine, it was their lack of preparedness to fight any major war.

In fact, they had deliberately maintained a weak military versus NATO. On top of that they overestimated their already weak conventional forces. To them, maintaining a strong nuclear posture was enough, that's how they maintained deterrence. Their entire MO was to maintain a fully defensive posture until nuclear diplomacy stepped in.

Dude, they stand zero chance against NATO in a conventional war. Ukraine lacks true stand-off capability to use against Russia, that is the only reason Russia hasn't been stuffed already. If Ukraine had 1,000 cruise missiles per year to use on Russian territory, it would be a different war altogether. Strategic strikes are a one was affair in Ukraine and that's all Russia has going for it. 4 ATACMS were able to stuff Dzhankoi AFB, extrapolate that 100-fold inside Russia and it's not even a war, it's a mockery.

Yes, I spoke about it not just a few posts ago, but also many years ago.

My entire monologue about Russia's weak exchange rate translating to military power since years before the war began was about how the Russians could in a very short time militarize to not just balance out forces but also become a major threat to all of NATO.

Their pre-war coventional forces were entirely defensive and designed for deterrence. Hell, they did not even have a serious defensive posture against Finland.

And now they are doing what I've always warned they would do, rapid militarization. In about 3-5 years their ground forces will catch up with the West, will even exceed the West due to new tech. In 5-7 years, the air force will catch up. You are just lucky their surface fleet has fallen into ruin and will need around 10 years to fix, they are working on new frigates and nuclear destroyers, not just new SSNs.

But the real issue is what comes after, and the West cannot afford that without making serious changes to its economy.

 

[BMD]

Only the S-300PMU2. The S-400 deal is still under negotiations. It was sanctioned after all.



The issue with Russia wasn't Ukraine, it was their lack of preparedness to fight any major war.

In fact, they had deliberately maintained a weak military versus NATO. On top of that they overestimated their already weak conventional forces. To them, maintaining a strong nuclear posture was enough, that's how they maintained deterrence. Their entire MO was to maintain a fully defensive posture until nuclear diplomacy stepped in.

Maybe there's as big a disparity between perceptions and reality with their nuclear forces too.

Russia's conventional problems were very basic problems we wouldn't expect any trained army to have. They are still well behind NATO though.

Yes, I spoke about it not just a few posts ago, but also many years ago.

My entire monologue about Russia's weak exchange rate translating to military power since years before the war began was about how the Russians could in a very short time militarize to not just balance out forces but also become a major threat to all of NATO.

Their pre-war coventional forces were entirely defensive and designed for deterrence. Hell, they did not even have a serious defensive posture against Finland.

And now they are doing what I've always warned they would do, rapid militarization. In about 3-5 years their ground forces will catch up with the West, will even exceed the West due to new tech. In 5-7 years, the air force will catch up. You are just lucky their surface fleet has fallen into ruin and will need around 10 years to fix, they are working on new frigates and nuclear destroyers, not just new SSNs.

But the real issue is what comes after, and the West cannot afford that without making serious changes to its economy.

Their surface fleet is a non-entity and their sub fleet well behind NATO's. They are getting more and more people killed and assets destroyed by the day, which will ultimately weaken their military.

 

[randomradio]

Maybe there's as big a disparity between perceptions and reality with their nuclear forces too.

Russia's conventional problems were very basic problems we wouldn't expect any trained army to have. They are still well behind NATO though.

It's an emerging market + communism problem. But the bad news is they have now identified the problem. And an even worse news is now they are the only power with real combat experience.

Their surface fleet is a non-entity and their sub fleet well behind NATO's. They are getting more and more people killed and assets destroyed by the day, which will ultimately weaken their military.

Nah, all of it's a huge issue due to potential numbers. Their pre-war strength was merely for deterrence. Now we do not know to what extent they will militarize.

The army itself is tripling or quadrupling in size, which will make it much bigger than the US Army. The US has 30 brigades, the Russians are raising almost 60 new brigades worth of troops up and above what they already have. If they also double their fighter fleet and sub-surface fleet, they are entering superpower territory. And this is during the time the US is being forced to dissociate itself from Europe due to the threat in China.

The entire plan was to push Russia into an expensive war while simultaneously crushing their economy so they are no longer a future threat. But the war's had the opposite effect.

 

[BMD]

It's an emerging market + communism problem. But the bad news is they have now identified the problem. And an even worse news is now they are the only power with real combat experience.

We've been learning plenty from the war too. And no, they haven't identified the problem, the problem is their system of government. What they've learnt to do, is basically hold their own in symmetrical warfare against a much weaker country that wasn't given a cat's chance in hell of lasting more than a few months. Then you have all the friendly fire incidents on their own aircraft, great learning.

The other affect is that every NATO country has increased defence spending massively.

Nah, all of it's a huge issue due to potential numbers. Their pre-war strength was merely for deterrence. Now we do not know to what extent they will militarize.

Their surface fleet will still be a non-entity, even in Soviet days it wasn't great, now it's simply a farce.

The army itself is tripling or quadrupling in size, which will make it much bigger than the US Army. The US has 30 brigades, the Russians are raising almost 60 new brigades worth of troops up and above what they already have. If they also double their fighter fleet and sub-surface fleet, they are entering superpower territory. And this is during the time the US is being forced to dissociate itself from Europe due to the threat in China.

The entire plan was to push Russia into an expensive war while simultaneously crushing their economy so they are no longer a future threat. But the war's had the opposite effect.

They're replacing lost troops and feeding them into the blender. Will it blend? Yes. Army size has never mattered against air and technical superiority. Iraq had the world's 4th largest army in 1991, didn't last 6 weeks. The US has AI drones that can autonomously hunt and kill all their lemmings. It's streets ahead on drone warfare. GMLRS-ER will outrange all Russian artillery and rocket projectors and Russian air defence will not stand a cat's chance in hell against US SEAD and AARGM-ER + SiAW.

China is propping them up, they are not funding this internally, once China loses interest, they'll just be left with their shit economy and no market to sell too because they alienated all their neighbours.

Russia wrongly sees the problem as being its diminishing economic sphere causing a shit economy but its economic sphere is diminishing because it has a shit economy. And that will forever be its problem whilst Putin + Medvedev are running the show.

 

[randomradio]

We've been learning plenty from the war too. And no, they haven't identified the problem, the problem is their system of government. What they've learnt to do, is basically hold their own in symmetrical warfare against a much weaker country that wasn't given a cat's chance in hell of lasting more than a few months. Then you have all the friendly fire incidents on their own aircraft, great learning.

The other affect is that every NATO country has increased defence spending massively.

Ukraine and Western support have very little to do with Russia's failure.

Their surface fleet will still be a non-entity, even in Soviet days it wasn't great, now it's simply a farce.

What they are building is really good.

They're replacing lost troops and feeding them into the blender. Will it blend? Yes. Army size has never mattered against air and technical superiority. Iraq had the world's 4th largest army in 1991, didn't last 6 weeks. The US has AI drones that can autonomously hunt and kill all their lemmings. It's streets ahead on drone warfare. GMLRS-ER will outrange all Russian artillery and rocket projectors and Russian air defence will not stand a cat's chance in hell against US SEAD and AARGM-ER + SiAW.

Maybe today. But not 5-10 years from now.

China is propping them up, they are not funding this internally, once China loses interest, they'll just be left with their shit economy and no market to sell too because they alienated all their neighbours.

Russia wrongly sees the problem as being its diminishing economic sphere causing a shit economy but its economic sphere is diminishing because it has a shit economy. And that will forever be its problem whilst Putin + Medvedev are running the show.

The Russians have too much money. Far more than most Western countries.

 

[BMD]

Ukraine and Western support have very little to do with Russia's failure.

That makes it even worse still. And Ukraine only has a fraction of NATO's total capability.

What they are building is really good.

You mean like S-400 was.... And that's the problem - a surface fleet can't possibly be good given their air defence.

Maybe today. But not 5-10 years from now.

It will always be the case. The fact 4 ATACMS can get through on an S-400 defended air base brings into question whether it's even up to PAC-1 standard, which was stopping much faster Scud missiles 33 years ago. ATACMS only does Mach 3 FFS.

The Russians have too much money. Far more than most Western countries.

It's all in the ground though, same as Venezuela. Selling it only produces money so fast, they have no regular economy providing liquid cash. After 2 years of war they have planes falling from the sky voluntarily and bridges and dams collapsing unassisted.

 

[randomradio]

That makes it even worse still. And Ukraine only has a fraction of NATO's total capability.

Their failures have nothing to do with Ukraine or NATO. It's their own failure at gathering intelligence and prosecuting the war.

You mean like S-400 was.... And that's the problem - a surface fleet can't possibly be good given their air defence.

Good luck with that.

It will always be the case. The fact 4 ATACMS can get through on an S-400 defended air base brings into question whether it's even up to PAC-1 standard, which was stopping much faster Scud missiles 33 years ago. ATACMS only does Mach 3 FFS.

That's obviously not the whole story. Or it would be constantly repeated all over the place.

It's all in the ground though, same as Venezuela. Selling it only produces money so fast, they have no regular economy providing liquid cash. After 2 years of war they have planes falling from the sky voluntarily and bridges and dams collapsing unassisted.

They are selling more than enough. They are able to afford fighting a major war and modernizing two to three times faster than all of Europe at the same time.

 

[BMD]

Their failures have nothing to do with Ukraine or NATO. It's their own failure at gathering intelligence and prosecuting the war.

The way I see it, most of the problems that existed at the start still exist, they're just throwing more people at the blender.

Good luck with that.

Well look at the drone strikes in 4 separate areas this morning inside Russia - 3 refineries and an insustrial zone. A tanker railway car also blew up in Crimea. Russia's surface fleet wouldn't last half a day in a war with NATO and once that's gone the ASW planes and helicopters have a free run on any lurking submarines, so it won't even matter how good they are or aren't, ASW Aircraft >> Submarine.

That's obviously not the whole story. Or it would be constantly repeated all over the place.

It would be if Ukraine had a fraction of combined NATO firepower. That's what you don't get. SiAW alone is being produced at a rate of 3,000 per year.

They are selling more than enough. They are able to afford fighting a major war and modernizing two to three times faster than all of Europe at the same time.

Modernising what exactly. You've seen the dam, bridge and wall collapses all over Russia right? People working unpaid overtime in Russian defence companies? They aren't affording jack shit. They had to prevent petrol exports for 6 months and then buy from Kazakhstan. China will get sick of propping them up before long. They've probably given them a time limit already for this escapade.

 

[randomradio]

The way I see it, most of the problems that existed at the start still exist, they're just throwing more people at the blender.

Yeah, they can't correct it in 1 or 2 years, that's why 3-5 years. For now they are compensating with more effective firepower.

Well look at the drone strikes in 4 separate areas this morning inside Russia - 3 refineries and an insustrial zone. A tanker railway car also blew up in Crimea. Russia's surface fleet wouldn't last half a day in a war with NATO and once that's gone the ASW planes and helicopters have a free run on any lurking submarines, so it won't even matter how good they are or aren't, ASW Aircraft >> Submarine.

Their future surface and sub-surface fleets will be different. Their current set of frigates and future destroyers are far more capable than anything in the West. And they are now working on a whole new class of SSNs, some sort of combined SSGN/SSBN.

It would be if Ukraine had a fraction of combined NATO firepower. That's what you don't get. SiAW alone is being produced at a rate of 3,000 per year.

Already said it. Russia's conventional forces were only for deterrence. Just survive long enough for nuclear diplomacy to kick in, that's all.

Modernising what exactly. You've seen the dam, bridge and wall collapses all over Russia right? People working unpaid overtime in Russian defence companies? They aren't affording jack shit. They had to prevent petrol exports for 6 months and then buy from Kazakhstan. China will get sick of propping them up before long. They've probably given them a time limit already for this escapade.

You mean the floods? You must be pretty retarded to think that's a problem. It's just some extra water in the boonies. The UK has gone through worse.

What makes you think anybody is propping them up? Both China and India are making profits off of them, that's not gonna stop anytime soon. And the UK's also helping.

UK ‘helping Russia pay for its war on Ukraine’ via loophole on refined oil imports

£2.2bn-worth of oil processed in China, India and Turkey – to whom Russia supplies crude – was imported in 2023, data shows

www.theguardian.com

The rest of Europe too.

'Europe bought Russian oil via India at record rates in 2023 despite Ukraine war' - Times of India

Europe News: NEW DELHI: In 2023, Europe saw a significant increase in its imports of refined oil from India, coinciding with a notable rise in India's imports of R.

timesofindia.indiatimes.com

The Russians will keep making bank until the day everybody stops using oil. They are just 10 years away from becoming an existential threat to NATO all over again.

 

[Rajput Lion]

@BMD is literally obsessed with Russia...in every single thread.....lol

 

[BMD]

@BMD is literally obsessed with Russia...in every single thread.....lol

randomradio brought it up. I just pointed out that their air defence was shit.

 

[BMD]

Yeah, they can't correct it in 1 or 2 years, that's why 3-5 years. For now they are compensating with more effective firepower.

What war are you watching? They are litterally spamming less efffective firepower and people in larger quantities.

Their future surface and sub-surface fleets will be different. Their current set of frigates and future destroyers are far more capable than anything in the West.

More capable at what, catching fire and sinking?

And they are now working on a whole new class of SSNs, some sort of combined SSGN/SSBN.

So is NATO, even though they already have them. The NATO ones with be shaftless propulsion with electrically driven props though.

The 4 large VPS modules can carry 3 CPS (LRHW) missiles or 7 Tomahawks. So the US one can carry 40 Tomahawks.

Already said it. Russia's conventional forces were only for deterrence. Just survive long enough for nuclear diplomacy to kick in, that's all.

They'll all be dead in a few years.

You mean the floods? You must be pretty retarded to think that's a problem. It's just some extra water in the boonies. The UK has gone through worse.

Not with dams collapsing and flooding Uranium mines though. Or walls and bridges collapsing due to lack of maintenance.

What makes you think anybody is propping them up? Both China and India are making profits off of them, that's not gonna stop anytime soon. And the UK's also helping.

Their books are closed, why do you think that is? Either they're hiding who's propping them up, or their numbers are plain BS.

UK ‘helping Russia pay for its war on Ukraine’ via loophole on refined oil imports

£2.2bn-worth of oil processed in China, India and Turkey – to whom Russia supplies crude – was imported in 2023, data shows

www.theguardian.com

The rest of Europe too.

'Europe bought Russian oil via India at record rates in 2023 despite Ukraine war' - Times of India

Europe News: NEW DELHI: In 2023, Europe saw a significant increase in its imports of refined oil from India, coinciding with a notable rise in India's imports of R.

timesofindia.indiatimes.com

The Russians will keep making bank until the day everybody stops using oil. They are just 10 years away from becoming an existential threat to NATO all over again.

Or until Ukraine destroys the rest of their oil and gas assets. >1/3 of Russia's refineries have been taken out, so if that doesn't reflect in their numbers, something is up with the numbers.

Dying in and spending money on a war does not help you modernise your military faster.

 

[randomradio]

What war are you watching? They are litterally spamming less efffective firepower and people in larger quantities.

The opposite.

So is NATO, even though they already have them. The NATO ones with be shaftless propulsion with electrically driven props though.

The 4 large VPS modules can carry 3 CPS (LRHW) missiles or 7 Tomahawks. So the US one can carry 40 Tomahawks.

View attachment 33185
View attachment 33186

The Yasen class is similar to Virginia. But yeah, their new Laika class is similar to Defiance. As for propulsion, yeah, even India is working on it, so are China and Russia.

Their books are closed, why do you think that is? Either they're hiding who's propping them up, or their numbers are plain BS.

I don't think you understand the dynamics between Russia and China. The Chinese aren't in a position of strength... yet.

Or until Ukraine destroys the rest of their oil and gas assets. >1/3 of Russia's refineries have been taken out, so if that doesn't reflect in their numbers, something is up with the numbers.

Oil prices are rising, enough to compensate for disruptions.

Maybe you don't realize it, but they sell as much energy as the Saudis. You really think they don't have money?

Dying in and spending money on a war does not help you modernise your military faster.

Only the Russians have managed to do that.

 

[BMD]

The opposite.

You claimed Russia was producing more drones right?

SOURCE:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1783492299558691281

The Yasen class is similar to Virginia. But yeah, their new Laika class is similar to Defiance. As for propulsion, yeah, even India is working on it, so are China and Russia.

Zero reference to Laika class being nuclear-electric drive.

I don't think you understand the dynamics between Russia and China. The Chinese aren't in a position of strength... yet.

Only in your head. You say that Europe is sleepwalking....

Oil prices are rising, enough to compensate for disruptions.

Oil prices are still floating around 80p, that's hardly enough to make up for the loss of 1/3 of their refineries.

Maybe you don't realize it, but they sell as much energy as the Saudis. You really think they don't have money?

Saudi Arabia only has 1/4 of the population and is not involved in a major war. Saudi Arabia also has a much higher GDP/capita.

Only the Russians have managed to do that.

Only in your head. What Russia claims it is doing and fact are two different things. The great unbeatable S-400 capable of hitting targets up to 5.5km/s getting taken out by ATACMS missiles. It's all brag with no substance..

 

[randomradio]

You claimed Russia was producing more drones right?
View attachment 33205
SOURCE:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1783492299558691281

That's just Ukraine releasing all their kill videos. The Russians don't do that.

Haven't you heard? Ocheretyne fell due to a Ukrainian battalion running away from its position. That place was a major supply hub, so they left behind a lot of weapons.

Only in your head. You say that Europe is sleepwalking....

If Russia stops supplying oil to China, the Chinese are far more screwed than the Russians are.

Oil prices are still floating around 80p, that's hardly enough to make up for the loss of 1/3 of their refineries.

Shows how you know nothing about this.

Saudi Arabia only has 1/4 of the population and is not involved in a major war. Saudi Arabia also has a much higher GDP/capita.

Lol. Russia sells as much energy as the Saudis, but oil represents 40% of their GDP while that's 16% for the Russians. When it comes to income, that's 75% and 34%.

And what matters is the size of the population, nobody cares about per capita in this metric. Hard cash and population a superpower makes.

Only in your head. What Russia claims it is doing and fact are two different things. The great unbeatable S-400 capable of hitting targets up to 5.5km/s getting taken out by ATACMS missiles. It's all brag with no substance..

I see sand all over your head and face.