There are fewer F-22s, they cost more for the buck, they would fly fewer sorties, they're less reliable, they carry less payload... What I'm saying is that there are diminishing returns - which are not worth it with limited resources (of course, America can afford wasting billions).
This video (at 15:17), goes into more detail - just turn on closed captions.
His every decision since 2000 has been bad for Russia. His every decision since 2014 has weakened Russia's position. I have listed them? Did you read them?
Putin is supporting the west by weakening Russia, duh.
What are these capabilities you're speaking of? Here's Strategos' old video where he summarises Putin's sabotage of Russia's military capabilities (34:00).
1. An emphasis on anti-missile defence (useless).
2. An emphasis on electromagnetic warfare (useless).
3. An emphasis on hypersonic missiles (which are useless without nuclear warheads, and too short-range).
4. No hangars for the aircraft, making the aircraft easy to hit and spot.
5. Developing Poseidon, Burevestnik and Avangard (useless).
6. Not making fake nuclear silos à la China which could strengthen the nuclear arsenal against destruction in a disarming nuclear attack.
At this point, if you haven't seen Strategos' videos, you don't know what you're talking about. It's crazy.
Thee economic threat is to America, not to Russia, right? Russia would only benefit from China's industry.
Well, Russia has been assaulting ==the only defended part of the Ukrainian border for two full years now,== and that's supposed to mean that Putin is not a CIA agent? How so? They can destroy the Dnieper bridges, but are instead allowing NATO supplies into the Ukraine - and that's not sabotage of their own war effort? The latest A-50 was destroyed by its own anti-air defence unit in February - that would actually make sense in the model about treason.
Yes, Putin grew the Ukraine, grew Ukrainian nationalism, created a chaos zone around his borders with quasi-states such as Donetsk and Abkhazia where conflict might flare up while recognising both Georgia and the Ukraine - refusing to take Tbilisi and Kiev when he could. A bloodthirsty American puppet like Saddan Hussein.
"Drop the bomb"... Where exactly? Bombing the Ukraine would be exactly a useless move to do ==nothing== for the war, but create a pretext for an American disarming nuclear strike on Russia. "Dropping the bomb" constructively would be threatening to use nuclear weapons on NATO members - to prevent nuclear war.
That is judging America to be as inept and treasonous as Russia.
Wait a second… those three are useless???
Just because his decisions haven't proven fruitful does not mean he's a CIA asset. Do you think every stupid dictator like Hitler invading Russia makes him a Soviet asset?
The F-22 doesn't need as many because its quality over quantity
Russia has a nuclear subs and nukes on trains. They don't need silos.
So your source is one guy?
There are fewer F-22s, they cost more for the buck, they would fly fewer sorties, they're less reliable, they carry less payload... What I'm saying is that there are diminishing returns - which are not worth it with limited resources (of course, America can afford wasting billions).
This video (at 15:17), goes into more detail - just turn on closed captions.
His every decision since 2000 has been bad for Russia. His every decision since 2014 has weakened Russia's position. I have listed them? Did you read them?
Putin is supporting the west by weakening Russia, duh.
What are these capabilities you're speaking of? Here's Strategos' old video where he summarises Putin's sabotage of Russia's military capabilities (34:00).
1. An emphasis on anti-missile defence (useless).
2. An emphasis on electromagnetic warfare (useless).
3. An emphasis on hypersonic missiles (which are useless without nuclear warheads, and too short-range).
4. No hangars for the aircraft, making the aircraft easy to hit and spot.
5. Developing Poseidon, Burevestnik and Avangard (useless).
6. Not making fake nuclear silos à la China which could strengthen the nuclear arsenal against destruction in a disarming nuclear attack.
At this point, if you haven't seen Strategos' videos, you don't know what you're talking about. It's crazy.
Thee economic threat is to America, not to Russia, right? Russia would only benefit from China's industry.
Well, Russia has been assaulting ==the only defended part of the Ukrainian border for two full years now,== and that's supposed to mean that Putin is not a CIA agent? How so? They can destroy the Dnieper bridges, but are instead allowing NATO supplies into the Ukraine - and that's not sabotage of their own war effort? The latest A-50 was destroyed by its own anti-air defence unit in February - that would actually make sense in the model about treason.
Yes, Putin grew the Ukraine, grew Ukrainian nationalism, created a chaos zone around his borders with quasi-states such as Donetsk and Abkhazia where conflict might flare up while recognising both Georgia and the Ukraine - refusing to take Tbilisi and Kiev when he could. A bloodthirsty American puppet like Saddan Hussein.
"Drop the bomb"... Where exactly? Bombing the Ukraine would be exactly a useless move to do ==nothing== for the war, but create a pretext for an American disarming nuclear strike on Russia. "Dropping the bomb" constructively would be threatening to use nuclear weapons on NATO members - to prevent nuclear war.
That is judging America to be as inept and treasonous as Russia.
So Saddam was a puppet now, too?
There are fewer F-22s, they cost more for the buck, they would fly fewer sorties, they're less reliable, they carry less payload... What I'm saying is that there are diminishing returns - which are not worth it with limited resources (of course, America can afford wasting billions).
This video (at 15:17), goes into more detail - just turn on closed captions.
His every decision since 2000 has been bad for Russia. His every decision since 2014 has weakened Russia's position. I have listed them? Did you read them?
Putin is supporting the west by weakening Russia, duh.
What are these capabilities you're speaking of? Here's Strategos' old video where he summarises Putin's sabotage of Russia's military capabilities (34:00).
1. An emphasis on anti-missile defence (useless).
2. An emphasis on electromagnetic warfare (useless).
3. An emphasis on hypersonic missiles (which are useless without nuclear warheads, and too short-range).
4. No hangars for the aircraft, making the aircraft easy to hit and spot.
5. Developing Poseidon, Burevestnik and Avangard (useless).
6. Not making fake nuclear silos à la China which could strengthen the nuclear arsenal against destruction in a disarming nuclear attack.
At this point, if you haven't seen Strategos' videos, you don't know what you're talking about. It's crazy.
Thee economic threat is to America, not to Russia, right? Russia would only benefit from China's industry.
Well, Russia has been assaulting ==the only defended part of the Ukrainian border for two full years now,== and that's supposed to mean that Putin is not a CIA agent? How so? They can destroy the Dnieper bridges, but are instead allowing NATO supplies into the Ukraine - and that's not sabotage of their own war effort? The latest A-50 was destroyed by its own anti-air defence unit in February - that would actually make sense in the model about treason.
Yes, Putin grew the Ukraine, grew Ukrainian nationalism, created a chaos zone around his borders with quasi-states such as Donetsk and Abkhazia where conflict might flare up while recognising both Georgia and the Ukraine - refusing to take Tbilisi and Kiev when he could. A bloodthirsty American puppet like Saddan Hussein.
"Drop the bomb"... Where exactly? Bombing the Ukraine would be exactly a useless move to do ==nothing== for the war, but create a pretext for an American disarming nuclear strike on Russia. "Dropping the bomb" constructively would be threatening to use nuclear weapons on NATO members - to prevent nuclear war.
That is judging America to be as inept and treasonous as Russia.
Again, if he was actually a CIA asset, he would have behaved more like his predecessor. He would warm relations with the west.
So was Trump a Russian asset? Was Bush a Chinese asset?
How the hell would the CIA have installed an Ex-KGB agent into that position?
There are fewer F-22s, they cost more for the buck, they would fly fewer sorties, they're less reliable, they carry less payload... What I'm saying is that there are diminishing returns - which are not worth it with limited resources (of course, America can afford wasting billions).
This video (at 15:17), goes into more detail - just turn on closed captions.
His every decision since 2000 has been bad for Russia. His every decision since 2014 has weakened Russia's position. I have listed them? Did you read them?
Putin is supporting the west by weakening Russia, duh.
What are these capabilities you're speaking of? Here's Strategos' old video where he summarises Putin's sabotage of Russia's military capabilities (34:00).
1. An emphasis on anti-missile defence (useless).
2. An emphasis on electromagnetic warfare (useless).
3. An emphasis on hypersonic missiles (which are useless without nuclear warheads, and too short-range).
4. No hangars for the aircraft, making the aircraft easy to hit and spot.
5. Developing Poseidon, Burevestnik and Avangard (useless).
6. Not making fake nuclear silos à la China which could strengthen the nuclear arsenal against destruction in a disarming nuclear attack.
At this point, if you haven't seen Strategos' videos, you don't know what you're talking about. It's crazy.
Thee economic threat is to America, not to Russia, right? Russia would only benefit from China's industry.
Well, Russia has been assaulting ==the only defended part of the Ukrainian border for two full years now,== and that's supposed to mean that Putin is not a CIA agent? How so? They can destroy the Dnieper bridges, but are instead allowing NATO supplies into the Ukraine - and that's not sabotage of their own war effort? The latest A-50 was destroyed by its own anti-air defence unit in February - that would actually make sense in the model about treason.
Yes, Putin grew the Ukraine, grew Ukrainian nationalism, created a chaos zone around his borders with quasi-states such as Donetsk and Abkhazia where conflict might flare up while recognising both Georgia and the Ukraine - refusing to take Tbilisi and Kiev when he could. A bloodthirsty American puppet like Saddan Hussein.
"Drop the bomb"... Where exactly? Bombing the Ukraine would be exactly a useless move to do ==nothing== for the war, but create a pretext for an American disarming nuclear strike on Russia. "Dropping the bomb" constructively would be threatening to use nuclear weapons on NATO members - to prevent nuclear war.
That is judging America to be as inept and treasonous as Russia.
He didn't need to take them prior to 2014. Ukraine was a puppet state of Russia. There is also benefit in buffer states since antiquity.
I honestly can't tell if you're trolling
Hypersonics are necessary, considering the scale and sophistication of adversary air defenses.
www.defensenews.com
Hypersonic systems are among the highest priorities in the Defense Department's modernization strategy to ensure continued U.S. battlefield dominance.
www.defense.gov
news.illinois.edu
Top commanders seek to embed EW capability at virtually all echelons as warfighters seek to make up for years of lost time.
www.militaryaerospace.com
Jamming has been important since WWII (see the "Battle of the Beams" for just one example). It became especially important in the context of nuclear warfare during the early Cold War. SAC bombers and Britain's V-Force would have relied heavily on radar and radio jamming to penetrate Soviet air defenses and survive Soviet SAMs (by jamming search and targeting radars) and fighters (by jamming ground-based fighter control radars, the fighters' own radars, and the voice links between pilots and ground controllers). Jamming was likewise important in North Vietnam against the Soviet-derived air defense systems.
However, electronic warfare really started to matter in the late Cold War as the nature of warfare began to change.
The Revolution in Military Affairs that began in the 1970s and 1980s really put a lot of weight behind new technologies for ISR (intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) and C4 (command, control, communications and computing), collectively known an C4|SR. All of these technologies (e.g. battlefield surveillance radar) and these capabilities involve the electronic domain in one way or another.
Another important development in the Revolution in Military Affairs was the rise of "network-centric warfare" and the concept of the "battlespace." Dozens of different air, land, and sea assets all talking to each other and relaying information to each other using electronic means.
For example, a USAF E-8 JSTARS might spot a column of enemy tanks on its surveillance radar. It passes the information along to an Army artillery battery, who executes a fire mission on the target. An Army OH-58
Kiowa Scout is then sent in to do a battle damage assessment, finds that a few of the tanks are still moving and calls in an attack helicopter company to finish the job.
You get some very complicated diagrams of how this is all supposed to work, like the U.S. Army's 2015 ""Win in a Complex World" plan, or this DoD graphic, or this U.S.
Army diagram featuring everything from drones to artillery batteries to satellites.
This Canadian graphic on the "Find, Fix, Track, Target, Engage, Assess" process further underscores an important point: in network-centric warfare, it's possible for one asset to spot a target, one asset to order a strike, one asset to coordinate the strike, and an entirely different set to execute it.
Information is obviously the lifeblood of this modern approach to warfighting. This information is gathered and shared using electronic means. Electronic means are used to coordinate operations, guide weapons, and assess results. Radar, radio, GPS, datalinks, and much more are all essential ingredients of modern warfighting.
And this is why electronic warfare is so important. If I jam your radios, it's harder for you to coordinate an armored attack on my position and call in artillery fires when you run into resistance. If I jam your radars, it's harder for you to locate and target my strike fighters with SAMs. If I jam your GPS signals, it's harder for you to navigate and impossible for you to use GPS-guided bombs like JDAMs.
If I jam your satellites, I rob you of your command, for and communications capability. If I jam your drones, y V can't control them or even get back the information they're gathering.
https://imgur.com/0rMgvST
https://imgur.com/lGS9hmx
So why doesn't the UK weaken itself to benefit the west? Why isn't Putin waging a cold war with China to benefit the west?
Russia economy is benefited by China.
He's benefited Russia in some ways and also raised Russian nationalism.
I'm sure thats why he had Navalny killed…
So why then is Russia evading sanctions and selling oil to China?
So all the Russian cyber attacks on Western Europe and the United States, and Russia backing Iran and North Korea?
The United States sold Saddam chemical weapons in the 1970s to go to war with the ram that does not mean he was a puppet in 2003
