Russia-Ukraine War - News and Developments PART 2

[jhungary]

I think I've said it before the Iranian Shahed fly straight and level at about 3,000 ft over preprogrammed waypoints until it arrives at its target. Fast air isn't really ideally suited to the task of guns only intercept. If I were flying the latest block F/A-18 E/F, I'd simply use my radar to fry the radioshack electronics on the Shahed. Don't get me wrong Guns intercept is possible but you have to get low and slow behind the flying moped and expose yourself to ground fire.

I think we should be supplying Ukraine with armed Super Tucano or similar ...useful for these pesky drones and close air support for ground troops. Thoughts @jhungary ?

Was talking to an Ukrainian friend this morning, he raise a very good point.

There is a reason why Russia did not even try or attempted to attack troop concentration, even without guidance, they can still swarm Ukrainian frontline troop or armour. Then why the Russian did not do it? It's because most Ukrianian Anti-Air Asset is in the frontline protecting those troop. Which the Russian know if they started targetting them with drone and cruise missile, they would have minimal result. Which is why they target city center.


This drone attack really did reveal the weakness of Ukrainian Anti-Air Defence, because most of them are forward deployed. and they just don't have enough to go round, which mean our priority number one should be increase Ukrainian anti-air capability so they have enough system to strategically deploy within Ukraine rather than using them tactically.

On the other hand, in Super Tucano case, I would argue we should either go big or go home, we should send the Ukrainian some A-10 Thunderbolt instead, there are no point to muck around now, we need to end this quick, imagine what 24 A-10 can do to a Russian front.

The troll said that the US has nothing equivalent to S-70 close to operational. You replied with "ever heard of the X-47".

The X-47 is not close to operational. In fact the X-47 is cancelled. Has never been operational and will never be operational. So your response to him is hilarious and incorrect. Sit down boy because you need to get smart first.

X-47 is a demonstration program for UCLASS, it's not cancelled or suspended, in fact, Navy has said they kept the X-47B in operational readiness for future assessment (whatever that mean) which mean as of now as I wrote, Navy still can place X-47 into operational readiness, if they had not done so already.

On the other hand, UCASS program are not cancelled, it has been pushed from 2020 to 2023. We are expecting to see Boeing, which awarded the UCASS contract back in 2018) to come up with something later this year or next year. Which is now in the form of MQ-28 or formerly known as Loyal Wingman Program

Boeing MQ-28 Ghost Bat - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ziaulislam]

More than half of the drones & missiles were shot down by Ukrainian air defense. That's why the article said they suck.

Well that is very low rate if it's true.
I would expect 90% + to be shot down.

If it's 50% then something is wrong

The drone is basically a decoy/locate with bonus of destruction drone.

It's basically a cheap motorbike with wings and an old Intel processors with rudimentary civilian Gps. Costs the same as motorbike.

It's so much nosy and so slow that anyone can shoot it down

 

[F-22Raptor]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1580518271635566592

 

[Hack-Hook]

Also, Taiwan has been try to argue the expulsion from UN is illegal under article 6 since 1998 (IIRC) it has no result and UN again rejected Taiwan membership to UN on the basis of Article 27 in 2008, so no, you don't really need to have UNSC recommendation or persistently violate UN Charter (which both Taiwan claim to not have) to be removed from UN or UNSC, otherwise Taiwanese case would be a miscarriage of justice, and you can go tell PRC that.

as I say that was not expulsion that handing China sit from Taipei to Peking as far as I'm aware un don't recognize two China . if I'm wrong please correct me on this matter.

It was an expulsion, otherwise if a change of representation was the only scope here, then Taiwan could be in UN because it was not named China, but it isn't.

tell that to Ban Ki-moon not me
his understanding of resolution 2758 was that it state Taiwan is part of China to say otherwise Taiwan must first declare independence , did they made such announcement ? again if I'm wrong please correct me.

What do you mean wrong? I have quote you the entire article.

A recommendation is a procedural, and under point 2, you do not need concurrent vote, which mean Veto does not apply.

Again, if veto is in play, explain to me how Taiwan loses UNSC seat?

2. Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.

3. Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.”

even if Russia had to abstain you must make China agree to that . according what you post. well go and try to achieve the feat

Again, go read up on United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1668

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1668 (XVI) was a resolution of the United Nations General Assembly that determined that any proposal to change the representation of China at the UN would be deemed an "important question" under the UN Charter which would therefore require a two-thirds majority vote. The motion for UN Resolution 1668 was raised in 1961 by United States, Australia, Japan, Italy and Colombia and passed with 61 UN Member States voted in favor of it, 34 UN Member States voted against it, 7 UN Member States abstaining, and 2 UN Member States non-voting. With its Resolution 2758 in 1971, the UN General Assembly voted with a two-thirds majority to change China's representation in the UN from the Republic of China to the People's Republic of China. Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which is entitled by the founding of the United Nations as the cornerstone of modern day diplomacy since the Vienna Congress, was signed and ratified by Republic of China on 18 April 1961 and 19 December 1969.

The keyword here is "ANY" which mean the replacement of ROC by PRC WOULD be deemed an important issue under UN Charter. Otherwise, what is "any" or are you saying PRC replace ROC does not belong to "ANY proposal to change the representation of China?"

in 1971 it didn't get vote and if you count the votes you see it didn't had 2/3rd of the votes but the majority of them

Actually, no, UN ceased to recongnize ROC as a country, which is not according to Article 6. and you cannot simply replace a government of a country and not saying there were no country to begin with? Then what is Taiwan then? Who are the people living in Taiwan? And why Taiwan is not a member of UN if they are simply replacing the "representation" of China?

wrong UN ceased to recognize ROC as China instead recognized PRC as China. the china always were recognized as a country by UN

Initially, the funds will be used to procure 50 Ram II drones, unmanned aerial vehicles with a 3kg explosive payload from Ukrainian companies, according to The Guardian.

well the unmatched performance include 30km of range and 3kg payload
on twitter they estimated if they can collect 10million they can get 50-100 of them that's 100000 - 200000$ per unit

compare them to shahed-136 with 2000+km range and 60kg warhead with a 20000$ price tag

honestly in west they dont have mercy on themselves even when their country is being pounded left and right

Well that is very low rate if it's true.
I would expect 90% + to be shot down.

If it's 50% then something is wrong

The drone is basically a decoy/locate with bonus of destruction drone.

It's basically a cheap motorbike with wings and an old Intel processors with rudimentary civilian Gps. Costs the same as motorbike.

It's so much nosy and so slow that anyone can shoot it down

in nights you have problem seeing it

https://twitter.com/x/status/1580518271635566592

i say the first ever battle between two DJI drone , China won

 

[F-22Raptor]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1580305049368268802

Recent Russian attacks are only terror bombings and will have no impact on the outcome of this war.

 

[Viet]

as I say that was not expulsion that handing China sit from Taipei to Peking as far as I'm aware un don't recognize two China . if I'm wrong please correct me on this matter.

tell that to Ban Ki-moon not me
his understanding of resolution 2758 was that it state Taiwan is part of China to say otherwise Taiwan must first declare independence , did they made such announcement ? again if I'm wrong please correct me.

2. Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.

3. Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.”

even if Russia had to abstain you must make China agree to that . according what you post. well go and try to achieve the feat


in 1971 it didn't get vote and if you count the votes you see it didn't had 2/3rd of the votes but the majority of them

wrong UN ceased to recognize ROC as China instead recognized PRC as China. the china always were recognized as a country by UN

well the unmatched performance include 30km of range and 3kg payload
on twitter they estimated if they can collect 10million they can get 50-100 of them that's 100000 - 200000$ per unit

compare them to shahed-136 with 2000+km range and 60kg warhead with a 20000$ price tag

honestly in west they dont have mercy on themselves even when their country is being pounded left and right


in nights you have problem seeing it


i say the first ever battle between two DJI drone , China won

shahed-136 is cheaper because it is a copy from a chinese that originated from a copy from a German. If you make copy from copy then it becomes cheaper with every with copy version.
Then those suicide drones are probably made by Islamist fanatics or prisoners in Iran. That costs nothing to produce.

 

[jhungary]

as I say that was not expulsion that handing China sit from Taipei to Peking as far as I'm aware un don't recognize two China . if I'm wrong please correct me on this matter.

Already did. If they just don't recognize two China, why not admit Taiwan as "Taiwan"

This is NOT about the name China, this is about sovereignty, where did Taiwan go?

It's quite obvious PRC does not have control of ROC, if they simply trade off Taipei to Peking, then they would have given Taiwan statehood if they are not expelled. Becasue Taiwan would still have a seat in UN.......

tell that to Ban Ki-moon not me
his understanding of resolution 2758 was that it state Taiwan is part of China to say otherwise Taiwan must first declare independence , did they made such announcement ? again if I'm wrong please correct me.

2. Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.

3. Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.”

even if Russia had to abstain you must make China agree to that . according what you post. well go and try to achieve the feat

You don't need veto, in fact, I would argue article 6 does not even applies in Taiwan case, again, if Veto is needed to bump Taiwan off, that would never happen. Another issue is Article 6 also included a clause Taiwan need to be repeating violate UN charter, tell me which UN Charter ROC had repeatedly violate?

Which mean article 6 does not at all applies at all when Taiwan was kick out of UN.

in 1971 it didn't get vote and if you count the votes you see it didn't had 2/3rd of the votes but the majority of them

You do know abstained vote DID NOT count toward the total cast, right?

The result is 76 for to 35 against. That's 76/111 = 68%, you needed 66%.

wrong UN ceased to recognize ROC as China instead recognized PRC as China. the china always were recognized as a country by UN

If only China is concerned and no sovereignty was concerned, then why reject Taiwan bid as Taiwan or why not just replace UNSC with PRC and then created another entity as Taiwan if Sovereignty of Taiwan is NOT an issue here?

It's not about the country China, it's about the legality of sovereignty of ROC, whether or not they call themselves China is not the matter here.

Dude, you do know you are talking about 2 separate steps, right? UN ceased to recognize ROC is a different step than UN recognize PRC as China. Because if this is so, you are discounting everyone in Taiwan as a member of the world, because you are not just replacing ROC, you are taking it out of the entire organisation.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

lol , we don't recognize the voting
by the way let look at the other interesting voting to fight glorification of Nazism just happened one year ago, guess the one who said no are nazi countries ,the one who abstained nazi simpathizers

we again didn't recognize that voting

Nicholas Hill
Deputy U.S. Representative for ECOSOC
New York, New York
November 12, 2021

Explanation of Vote at the Third Committee Adoption of the Combating Glorification of Nazism, Neo-Nazism and other Practices that Contribute to Fueling Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance Resolution

AS DELIVERED

Chair – As we mark the end of World War I with Armistice Day, the United States also joins the world community in commemorating the valiant sacrifice, heroism, and years-long struggle of all allied nations in the defeat of Nazi Germany in 1945 to end the Second World War. The United States joins those in the international community in condemning the glorification of Nazism and all forms of racism, xenophobia, discrimination, and intolerance. In fighting against the murderous ideology of Nazism, the United States fought for the freedom, dignity and human rights of all individuals and our steadfast commitment to preserving and protecting fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of expression.

Today, however, the United States must once again express opposition to this resolution, a document most notable for its thinly veiled attempts to legitimize Russian disinformation campaigns denigrating neighboring nations and promoting the distorted Soviet narrative of much of contemporary European history, using the cynical guise of halting Nazi glorification.

The United States Supreme Court has consistently affirmed the constitutional right to freedom of speech and the rights of peaceful assembly and association, including by avowed Nazis, whose hatred and xenophobia are vile and widely scorned by the American people. We nevertheless firmly defend the constitutional rights of those who exercise their fundamental freedoms to combat intolerance and express strong opposition to the odious Nazi creed and others that espouse similar hatreds.

We have again attempted this year to improve this resolution by engaging in negotiations on the draft text. Despite consistently expressing our concerns with the Russian delegation and proposing revisions to improve the text and protect against unacceptable restrictions on freedom of expression, most of these recommendations were ignored. We discourage States from invoking Article 4 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in order to either silence unwelcome opinions or to excuse their failure to combat intolerance.
For these reasons, the United States has voted against each new version of this resolution since 2005 and is, again, compelled to vote “No” on this resolution, and calls on other States to do the same.

 

[Reashot Xigwin]

What you on about?

Ukraine doing the same:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ThatsInsane/comments/y26981

Remember Russia supposed to be an invading force. While Ukrainian playing defense.

 

[dbc]

On the other hand, in Super Tucano case, I would argue we should either go big or go home, we should send the Ukrainian some A-10 Thunderbolt instead, there are no point to muck around now, we need to end this quick, imagine what 24 A-10 can do to a Russian front.

It would take longer to train Ukrainian pilots on the A-10 as opposed to the Tucano.
The Tucano can be flown by civilians with a amateur pilots license. Plus, the Russians may see the A-10 as major escalation not so much with a crop duster.

 

[ZeGerman]

It would take longer to train Ukrainian pilots on the A-10 as opposed to the Tucano.
The Tucano can be flown by civilians with a amateur pilots license. Plus, the Russians may see the A-10 as major escalation not so much with a crop duster.

Ukraine does not have air superiority either though. Are A-10s even an option for frontlines in that case?

 

[dbc]

Ukraine does not have air superiority either though. Are A-10s even an option for frontlines in that case?

The Russians aren't flying combat sorties in Ukrainian air space so I think those A-10's are safe. Particularly if @jhungary has the right information from his sources that anti-air assets are forward deployed. I guess the only challenge is avoiding blue-on-blue incidents since Ukraine is operating a zoo of anti-air assets donated by the West.

 

[Reashot Xigwin]

Ukraine does not have air superiority either though. Are A-10s even an option for frontlines in that case?

A-10 is considered an overkill that's why there's a lot of hesitancy to give it to ukraine.

A better ground attack aircraft for the Ukrainian is either OV10 Bronco or the Super Tucano.

If not there's always su25.

 

[nufix]

Remember Russia supposed to be an invading force. While Ukrainian playing defense.

Defense is what Russia is basically doing now. They are entrenching themselves in the east, mainly to defend Donbas and Luhanks. The initiative is now in Ukraine's court as they are the ones that are counter attacking.

 

[Tornado23]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1580518271635566592

Yea okay no. Just no, this is an actual verified news source that is using Phonk for this footage. Wtf is wrong with people? Firstly the phonk used has been overused since the past 3 months, or in fact since Phonk became popular on tiktok/YouTube shorts. Secondly what? Cringe. I hate these people that put such music over combat footage. Cringe and disrespectful.