sherpa

Want to make it interesting, or you want to keep acting the goof? I can provide massive amounts of proof, so you name the stakes of a gamble, no limit, and I'll gladly agree. If not, shut up.

Can we stop this? A no fly zone is a declaration of war. Call it what it is.

Nothing wrong with that, but nobody should die unnecessarily based on a whiplash political decision the result of grossly ignorant talk shows.

If I might.... Those are decisions made by politicians. If you shock the energy market, you get very high prices that stifle economies and make civilians mad. That anger is directed towards those same politicians that make those decisions, so they are averse to it as a job security issue. The thing to do is rationally address it once this situation cools off. For the US and the Dems, there is simply no excuse to keep stifling our clean nat gas energy options while perusing alternatives that extend beyond renewables to hydrogen and other options.

I couldn't disagree more.

Its much worse. Lying, coward, emotional poster.

I spent two and a half years in the Pacific Fleet Adversaries after sea duty on Kitty Hawk. Graduated rom TopGun as an adversary instructor, the "bad" guys who actually brief, lead a d debrief those sorties that people saw in the movie. Flew against every US airplane, and some foreign ones, like Saudi F-15's and many Canadian detachments. We all had lecture responsibilities. I taught Soviet and US air to air missiles and Soviet SAM systems in use at the time. I can assure you, I can look at this with a cold and dispassionate focus. What would get me emotional is that if US/NATO policy, already announced, is changed because of what clueless ratings grabbers emotionally rant about on ignorant talk shows, because in order to minimize death to our guys, those decisions would have needed to have been made a month ago by sober, knowledgeable, objective, responsible people. Whatever you think, or whatever you call me is of absolutely no consequence.

Not triggered at all. Always funny how you assign nonsense, nonexistent emotions to people. Why bother? But, in the last couple weeks you have called me a coward, a liar and now an idiot. All I suggest is that you are silly, uniformed and knowledge-less in this area. Anyway, someone who would ask that question must have been living underground the last three weeks. The US and its NATO allies have said they will not go to war over this. Bombing a convoy is going to war. Is that hard to understand? Of course, a truly informed question would have been to use your erudite strategy and ask why we just don't drone them.

Not a CNN guy. Who asked that question, and I hope whoever did was not stupid enough to mean "we" being the US or NATO. Please tell me the CNN staff is not that stupid. Having someone ask an idiotic question does not equate to the subject being "discussed."

Your drone strategy is silly. Seems like a video game kid guessing at military capability. I'm hoping that the Ukraine has been sitting on its powder, looking for one huge assault on this convoy. They haven't done a thing in 48 hours, so just maybe they try to attack it all at once with what they've got left. Seems unlikely though, as the Russian convoy is incredibly vulnerable now, and have launched attacks that would seemingly trigger such a response. What would not be smart would be for NATO to to initiate some huge response against them at this too late date. The Russians have a huge problem in front of them, and as isolated as they have made themselves, the degree of difficulty is much greater. Not that their good at that anyway.

NATO made the decision to not engage in direct military action weeks ago. It is way too late now. This plays out with the Russians trying to run the country, and that won't work well, especially since their, (Russian) economy is going to be destroyed by sanctions and voluntary withdrawals by scores of different industry groups. The smart thing now is to prevent the massive loss of life that any late hour offensive would result in. So much for your "drone/Stinger/Javelin" strategy.

I don't know, but I am very concerned about confrontations on the International Space Station? Maybe a symbolic lockout of the Russians from the head?

I don't think it matters how trained his troops were. It is a screaming example of horrible strategy and planning, and that is done at way higher levels.

It's hyperbaric, not hyperbolic.

Biden didn't come to this conclusion, it was provided to him by US Intel sources. He doesn't have that skill. Based on the Russian military performance in this hideous operation, him taking this to WWIII would be as stupid as the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. His only strength against NATO, even as weak as it is militarily now, is the nuc threat. NATO is going to get stronger, and after a week of this Russian adventure, he has managed to alienate is country, largely eliminate them from intl trade, caused Germany to shred its pacifist posture, cause Finland and Sweden to lean towards NATO and now even sway Switzerland, who never opposed Hitler. The only thing he has left is a nuclear threat, and hopefully, the Russians will realize that is an idiotic, course. Whatever the Russian word is for Valkryie, they need to think about it. The Russian military performance has been amateur and pathetic.

And in historical context, they've already lost it. I haven't looked at the inventory since the start of the war, but before that, they were showing SU24' and 25's, which are ground attack. Tough to really get accurate data on some of these things. If you've got a gun, you have some capability, even if you're primarily air to air.

The Russians have evidently ended the Ukrainian Air Force. The photos of an alleged 15 mile long convoy of Russian artillery only 17 miles from Kiev suggests that there is no air opposition available. If there was, that convoy could be wiped out like the Iraqi highway of death.

When I say I never saw them, I meant I never fought them there. Based at Lemoore, we spent a lot of time at the Yuma TACTS range in the winter. We used to do a det every Feb with the Canadians down there, and always used it to train new guys in the F-18 RAG. Kind of funny watching TopGun and seeing the same room we debriefed in all the time. This pic is from there:

The A7E at sea, then with the adversaries, the A4 Superfox,, F5 and the F-18. Never saw them at the Yuma range, which we were at all the time. As you state, such a small community. I think I remember every engagement with a Harrier, 'cause it's such a weird adversary. My brain was better then, but I think I could still draw them up.

Drones are effective until the drone target, with some anti air capability, gets annoyed by them. At that point, they are paper airplanes. They are really slow. They have very limited weapon payload capability. They have no defensive capability, no maneuverability, and can be jammed.

Sure. Thinking back, and as an adversary, having fought all US forces and a number of other countries, the only time I ever fought Harriers was off Kadena, and only once. Didn't see a lot of your guys.

Thanks for the response. I taught and fought the Soviet Air Force to our guys for years, and you are correct. The issue isn't us vs. them The issue is why are they not using their obvious advantage over the Ukrainians?

No I don't, and I'll respectfully answer. Whoever is running this operation for the Russians, and I assume based on Russian current history, is that it is being run from the Kremlin. The Russian Air Force has near peer capability with the US. Not as good, but not more than one generation behind. They are well equipped and well trained. They lack US capability in coordinating force and coordinating all assets. They also lack the independence that US pilots have, being far more dependent on ground control. Anyway, for whatever reason, they are not using their capability, which would overwhelm the Ukraine. If the US was running this thing, the first day would be an absolute onslaught of air power that would have wiped out the air defense system of the enemy, resulting in not air superiority, but air supremacy, meaning they could conduct ground operations with no air threat. US pilots have a bond with our ground guys, which is, essentially, we can't do what you do from here, but we will ensure that you can do it without being bothered, and we will be over you the whole time. The Russians had this capability, but I think they didn't want the video of that operation, thinking they could get this done with much less mess. Clearly, that hasn't worked. As horrible as this human tragedy is, the incompetence is a gift for the west.

A few points. I get by your pic in front of a Harrier that you may know something about military stuff. After sea duty, I got into the Pacific Fleet Adversary Squadron, the is the Navy equivalent of the US Air Force aggressors. You may know what that involved, but for those that don't, we studied Soviet tactics and deployed them against US and other countries air forces. A few points from a guy who has a bit of experience in this. There is no real proof that his "helos and fighters have been getting shot out of the sky by Stingers." I am very skeptical of that. The new Stingers are far more capable, but they have very limited altitude capability, roughly 16,000'. Very lethal for slow movers and helos, but not much of a serious threat for the front line Russian fighters. We never took shoulder stuff as much of a threat, and if the Russians front line fighters are getting shot down by them, they are idiots, which they weren't in their recent action in Syria. I don't believe it. The "ghost of Kyiv, " is pure fiction. the original video was a computer graphic entry. Nice propaganda, but silly.

The only emotion is laughter.