Ukraine Megathread: Crimea River Build a Bridge, Get Over It

[Oaledonia]

-snip-

That was just an example, and flaws will appear in such a new weapon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_48_torpedo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_SH-60_Seahawk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke-class_destroyer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Combat_System
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_50_torpedo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_54_MAKO_Lightweight_Torpedo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/SLQ-25_Nixie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_submarine_simulator
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/AQS-20A

Unsurprisingly, when your biggest enemy proliferates lots of submarines, you close the gap by becoming the best at ASW.

[Costa Fierro]

We still don't know why the MH-17 was diverted from its original path.

It wasn't diverted. That was debunked a long time ago.

[Oaledonia]

Carrier groups no longer hold the weight that they once held

Also, this made me laugh. Technological progression isn't a one nation track, and the US hasn't simply stalled out on it's advancements. The Flight III Burkes will have even more sophisticated countermeasures, LIDAR, SONAR, and search equipment. The F-35 will be able to carry the Mark 50, meaning Chinese/Russian subs have to somehow achieve soundless rudders/water jets, unless they like exploding. Carrier groups still hold the same power they did in their conception, simply because both nations have progressed in a nearly linear fashion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DCL_Technology_Demonstrator_programme

Just found this, too.

[Respawn]

We still don't know why the MH-17 was diverted from its original path. While planes are known to fly over warzones, if there's a plane whose path constantly crosses a war zone, the Rebels, (or anyone with internet access and some knowledge of how plane routes work,) would know about it, and thus couldn't mistake it for a military plane. On the other hand, if we're having a diverted plane that's not supposed to be there, that could be tragically mistaken for a military plane, which is why Russia's military was repeatedly asking Kiev for a reason as to why the plane was diverted.

I seem to remember that I already explained this to you.

[Costa Fierro]

We still don't know why the MH-17 was diverted from its original path. While planes are known to fly over warzones, if there's a plane whose path constantly crosses a war zone, the Rebels, (or anyone with internet access and some knowledge of how plane routes work,) would know about it, and thus couldn't mistake it for a military plane. On the other hand, if we're having a diverted plane that's not supposed to be there, that could be tragically mistaken for a military plane, which is why Russia's military was repeatedly asking Kiev for a reason as to why the plane was diverted.

I seem to remember that I already explained this to you.

Also, this.

MH17 was pretty much bang on with its normal flight route.

[Shofercia]

We still don't know why the MH-17 was diverted from its original path.

It wasn't diverted. That was debunked a long time ago.

It was diverted. Check the flight history: http://www.businessinsider.com/warnings ... ash-2014-7



See how the original flight misses the conflict zone completely?

[Costa Fierro]

It was diverted.

Nope. Sorry.

[Shofercia]

We still don't know why the MH-17 was diverted from its original path. While planes are known to fly over warzones, if there's a plane whose path constantly crosses a war zone, the Rebels, (or anyone with internet access and some knowledge of how plane routes work,) would know about it, and thus couldn't mistake it for a military plane. On the other hand, if we're having a diverted plane that's not supposed to be there, that could be tragically mistaken for a military plane, which is why Russia's military was repeatedly asking Kiev for a reason as to why the plane was diverted.

I seem to remember that I already explained this to you.

Most of that post talks about Carlos, so I'll requote the relevant part: The plane changed its route in order to avoid turbulence as there was a storm over the Black Sea. These things happen all the time. You're really grasping at straws here.

Yeah, about that Black Sea turbulence, the original flight path doesn't actually cross the Black Sea.

I seem to remember that I already explained this to you.

Also, this.

MH17 was pretty much bang on with its normal flight route.

...that it hasn't taken since the state of the conflict. Also: FlightAware also indicated MH17 should have been on a path that would have taken it over Western Ukraine, not the volatile eastern part of the country. That flight path would have taken the plane near Crimea. However, the air traffic site Flightradar24 showed the plane's final signal came from the east of the country.

[Korva]

I like when Shof tries to peddle military disinformation. It is so much easier to disprove.

And still sticking to the flight diversion conspiracy?

[Shofercia]

It was diverted.

Nope. Sorry.

Here's a map of what actually happened, from Business Insider, hey, maybe Putin bought that too!



In what World is that not diverted? But just in case that would be misleading, BI wrote: FlightAware also indicated MH17 should have been on a path that would have taken it over Western Ukraine, not the volatile eastern part of the country. That flight path would have taken the plane near Crimea. However, the air traffic site Flightradar24 showed the plane's final signal came from the east of the country.

[Shofercia]

I like when Shof tries to peddle military disinformation. It is so much easier to disprove.

And still sticking to the flight diversion conspiracy?

Oh wow, another personal attack from Korva. And it's not a conspiracy, it's what happened. Even Respawn state that: The plane changed its route

I've presented a map from business insider showing the diversion. I've quoted business insider stating that: FlightAware also indicated MH17 should have been on a path that would have taken it over Western Ukraine, not the volatile eastern part of the country. That flight path would have taken the plane near Crimea. However, the air traffic site Flightradar24 showed the plane's final signal came from the east of the country.

This is the first time I'm seeing a fact branded as a conspiracy theory on NSG.

Oh, and it's not disinformation, it's common sense. If Chinese military tech advances, then Chinese military tech advances. It's really simple Korva; it's not complex at all.

[Respawn]

Most of that post talks about Carlos, so I'll requote the relevant part: The plane changed its route in order to avoid turbulence as there was a storm over the Black Sea. These things happen all the time. You're really grasping at straws here.

Yeah, about that Black Sea turbulence, the original flight path doesn't actually cross the Black Sea.

Sea of Azov. Whatever.

Airlines were even urged not to fly over the southern Ukraine region due to security reasons.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/j ... d-airspace

A notice posted by the UK's Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) on 14 June urged carriers to avoid overflying Crimea and parts of southern Ukraine a month ago due to safety concerns, but they were not ordered to avoid the rest of the country.
Airlines were asked not to overfly Crimea, the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov due to the potential for conflicting air traffic control instructions between Ukrainian and Russian authorities.

What, exactly, is your point?

[Oaledonia]

Oh, and it's not disinformation, it's common sense. If Chinese military tech advances, then Chinese military tech advances. It's really simple Korva; it's not complex at all.

That's misinformation, because it implies that the Chinese military is actually creating something revolutionary, when in fact the USN already had a countermeasure to the advancement before China even bought the sub.

[Costa Fierro]

...that it hasn't taken since the state of the conflict.

It has. This was clearly shown in the link. Other flights have passed over the area and other flights have been further south. The flight was in a normal flight path, according to Malaysian Airlines.

[Shofercia]

Carrier groups no longer hold the weight that they once held

Also, this made me laugh. Technological progression isn't a one nation track, and the US hasn't simply stalled out on it's advancements. The Flight III Burkes will have even more sophisticated countermeasures, LIDAR, SONAR, and search equipment. The F-35 will be able to carry the Mark 50, meaning Chinese/Russian subs have to somehow achieve soundless rudders/water jets, unless they like exploding. Carrier groups still hold the same power they did in their conception, simply because both nations have progressed in a nearly linear fashion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DCL_Technology_Demonstrator_programme

Just found this, too.

You found a wikipedia article that has no sources? Why clearly good sir, you've just "won" the debate!

Also, Mark-50's operation range is 50 kilometers. The ranges that I cited is 7.7 thousand kilometers. That's like a guy with an throwing axe threatening a guy with a sniper's rifle that's a mile away. Teddifying, absolutely teddifying.

[Respawn]

Oh wow, another personal attack from Korva. And it's not a conspiracy, it's what happened. Even Respawn state that: The plane changed its route

Planes changes their routes all the time. You do seem to be peddling a conspiracy theory that the Ukrainian air authorities somehow used MH17 in order to bait the rebels.

There were a ton of planes flying that same route on the very same day. MH17 was just unlucky.

[Costa Fierro]

Most of that post talks about Carlos, so I'll requote the relevant part: The plane changed its route in order to avoid turbulence as there was a storm over the Black Sea. These things happen all the time. You're really grasping at straws here.

Yeah, about that Black Sea turbulence, the original flight path doesn't actually cross the Black Sea.

Sea of Azov. Whatever.

Airlines were even urged not to fly over the southern Ukraine region due to security reasons.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/j ... d-airspace

A notice posted by the UK's Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) on 14 June urged carriers to avoid overflying Crimea and parts of southern Ukraine a month ago due to safety concerns, but they were not ordered to avoid the rest of the country.
Airlines were asked not to overfly Crimea, the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov due to the potential for conflicting air traffic control instructions between Ukrainian and Russian authorities.

What, exactly, is your point?

Thunderstorms apparently. According to this, aircraft usually have to maintain a separation of at least 20 miles between thunderstorms and themselves. Avoiding them isn't just about turbulence but also avoiding hail which can sometimes come out of the top of the anvil and can damage turbine engines.

[Respawn]

Thunderstorms apparently. According to this, aircraft usually have to maintain a separation of at least 20 miles between thunderstorms and themselves. Avoiding them isn't just about turbulence but also avoiding hail which can sometimes come out of the top of the anvil and can damage turbine engines.

Exactly.
No idea why certain posters still want to cling to the "muh inside jerb" theory when there is literally zero evidence to support their claims.

[Oaledonia]

Also, Mark-50's operation range is 50 kilometers. The ranges that I cited is 7.7 thousand kilometers. That's like a guy with an throwing axe threatening a guy with a sniper's rifle that's a mile away. Teddifying, absolutely teddifying.

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_32/antitorpedo_2.html
Happy?

In order for the sub to actually be a threat to the carrier group in question with torpedoes (since a BrahMos would be intercepted by a PAK III with Aegis), it has to close within 28 miles, at which point it's already been found by CAP/Seahawk/Sonar/LIDAR/whatever. It's range isn't it's engagement range, any further then 28 miles then it isn't a threat to the carrier.

[Costa Fierro]

Thunderstorms apparently. According to this, aircraft usually have to maintain a separation of at least 20 miles between thunderstorms and themselves. Avoiding them isn't just about turbulence but also avoiding hail which can sometimes come out of the top of the anvil and can damage turbine engines.

Exactly.
No idea why certain posters still want to cling to the "muh inside jerb" theory when there is literally zero evidence to support their claims.

It's risk being shot down by ultranationalists or being slammed into the ground by downdrafts or have engines flame out due to hail and then crashing.

[United Marxist Nations]

Also, Mark-50's operation range is 50 kilometers. The ranges that I cited is 7.7 thousand kilometers. That's like a guy with an throwing axe threatening a guy with a sniper's rifle that's a mile away. Teddifying, absolutely teddifying.

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_32/antitorpedo_2.html
Happy?

In order for the sub to actually be a threat to the carrier group in question with torpedoes (since a BrahMos would be intercepted by a PAK III with Aegis), it has to close within 28 miles, at which point it's already been found by CAP/Seahawk/Sonar/LIDAR/whatever. It's range isn't it's engagement range, any further then 28 miles then it isn't a threat to the carrier.

Pretty sure we all know that if it ever came to, the conventional weapons would have gone out of the window.

[Oaledonia]

Pretty sure we all know that if it ever came to, the conventional weapons would have gone out of the window.

Which means that power in the region hasn't changed at all, furthering my point really. But that's not the argument we were having.

[United Marxist Nations]

Pretty sure we all know that if it ever came to, the conventional weapons would have gone out of the window.

Which means that power in the region hasn't changed at all, furthering my point really. But that's not the argument we were having.

I had to skip two pages to get here, so what have I actually missed? Why are you guys arguing about the capability of Russian and American militaries?

[Oaledonia]

Why are you guys arguing about the capability of Russian and American militaries?

We were arguing over the acquisition of a sub by China weakened the US pacific power. It didn't/doesn't.

[Shofercia]

Oh wow, another personal attack from Korva. And it's not a conspiracy, it's what happened. Even Respawn state that: The plane changed its route

Planes changes their routes all the time. You do seem to be peddling a conspiracy theory that the Ukrainian air authorities somehow used MH17 in order to bait the rebels.

There were a ton of planes flying that same route on the very same day. MH17 was just unlucky.

Again, as I've stated, there's a difference between flying the same route every day and being diverted to fly over airspace where the conflict is ongoing. In once case, it's expected, in another, it's an unidentified flying aircraft. Also, source for thunderstorm in the Sea of Azov please.