Olisko kuitenkin GLSDB tehnyt ensi esiintymisen? Sen verran mitättömän näköinen räjähdys että tuskin Storm Shadow?
Poisto. Siirretty "Ukrainan sodan videot"-topikkiin
Aamuinen RFU. Edelleen P'yatykhatkyn alueelta. Ryssät yrittivät vastahyökätä jälleen, tällä kertaa uutta kautta. Ajoivat omiin miinoihin ja meni pupu pöksyy. Perusryssät lähtivät pian pakkoon, ainoastaan MOD:n Storm-Z ryssät eli wagner-kopiot jatkoi hyökkäystä. RFU:n mukaan koska kadyroviitit ampuu wagner-kopiot jos ne pakenee.
Ukraina ilmeisesti hiukan otti ylänköä kylän länsipuolella. Tämä tuntuu kehittyvän suotuisasti, etenemät ovat pieniä mutta kuitenkin tuntuvia.
Ukraina ilmeisesti hiukan otti ylänköä kylän länsipuolella. Tämä tuntuu kehittyvän suotuisasti, etenemät ovat pieniä mutta kuitenkin tuntuvia.
Ei se riitä jos ihan yksittäisiä ohjuksia saa ammuttua.
Kiina haluaa miehittää Taiwanin, ei lasittaa sitä.
ak.tied
Respected Leader
Jäin miettimään, että kerrassaan viheliäitä nämä dronet. Ihan istuva ankka tuo vaunu. Ei mene varmaan kauaa kun väsäävät kunnon ontelo pst-kärjen noihin lancetteihin ja sitten voi alkaa tulemaan rumaa jälkeä kun pääsevät kannelle iskemään.
wargame
Kapteeni
Jahas taas ydinaseet vaihteeksi päydällä.
Taktisia ydinaseita ei käytetä yhtä vaan jos niita käytetään puhutaan kymmenistä.
Ja toisekseen niitä ei käytetä nyt eikä huomenna, se on viimeinen asia mitä ryssät tekee, koska sen jälkeen se häviää käytännössä maanpäältä.
Niinhän sitä sanottiin ennen ku ryssäkään hyökkäs. "Ei ne hyökkää kun niiden talous kärsii" Ja niin vaan toisin kävi. Ei diktaattoreja kiinnosta. Eikä siihen ytimiä tarvi että länsi lyö pakotteita Kiinalle se riittää että ne hyökkää normi asein sinne. Vaikka länsi on ollut lepsu monessa asiassa niin tämä pakote homma on onnistunu vaikkakin viime uutisissa ollut juttua että taas ryssä saa komponenttia yms välikäsien kautta. Enkä usko että länsi epäröisi olla lyömättä kiinalleki pakotteet jos se alkais perseileen. Toki siinä hommassa länsikin saisi kynsille isosti mutta mieluummin se kuin diktaattoreidein heiluminen miten huvittaa.
näätä
Kersantti
Vaihdelaatikko ja kardaanikin on hävinnyt yhdestä, renkaat kuitenkin nätisti paikallaanMuovipuskurit ehjänä, mut vanteet "räjähtänyt" irti navasta
Ryssälässä varastaminen niin verissä, että kaikki rahanarvoinen häviää alta aikayksikönVaihdelaatikko ja kardaanikin on hävinnyt yhdestä, renkaat kuitenkin nätisti paikallaan
. No ei. Ensimmäinen ajatus oli kun videon katsoin, että tainnut Bolshoi-teatterin lavastusryhmä kivasti asetella autonraadot näyttämölle.
Nick Kane
Majuri
jep ja tuota videota kun hieman kelailee eestaas ni tästäkin puuttuu moottori, vaihteisto kardaani koko pakoputkistoMuovipuskurit ehjänä, mut vanteet "räjähtänyt" irti navasta
vtun amatöörit
ak.tied
Respected Leader
Muovipuskurit ehjänä, mut vanteet "räjähtänyt" irti navasta
Vaihdelaatikko ja kardaanikin on hävinnyt yhdestä, renkaat kuitenkin nätisti paikallaan
Sama paikka maaliskuussa 2022, autot ovat olleet sillalla ainakin siitä asti.
Olisikohan Ukraina "suluttanut" sillan noilla romuilla perääntyessään hidastaakseen ryssän hyökkäystä?
Autot tai siis ladat lentää siistiin riviin heppoisen kaiteen päälle, kaikki samalla voimalla mutta kuitenkin 50 metrin matkalla, mutta valkoiseen muuriin ei ole tullut minkäänlaista kiveniskemää tai edes pölyä. Aika velikultia nuo vanjat. Kuka tällaiseen uskoo paitsi faktantarkastaja.jep ja tuota videota kun hieman kelailee eestaas ni tästäkin puuttuu moottori, vaihteisto kardaani koko pakoputkisto
Katso liite: 79712
Varmasti tärkein oikeasti merkittävä huomio siitä mitä tuo kyseinen video syvällisemmin saattaa viestiä noin strategisessakin mielessä.
Näin nojatuoli seuraajana sitä todellakin on niin kaukana siitä todellisuudesta ja malttamattomana vain odottaa päivittäin "tuloksia", jotta olisi lisää aluevalloituksia Ukrainan toimesta. Kuitenkin iskut selustaan vaikeuttamaan vihollisen toimia kera psykologisen vaikutuksen ja kaikki muu vastaava toiminta ja pienempikin on nimenomaan niitä tärkeitä tuloksia jotka mahdollistavat myöhemmin asioita.
Noiden merkitys vain konkretisoituu vasta myöhemmin kunnolla meille monelle päätteiden ääressä sotaa seuraaville. Tuo kaikki taustatoiminta on kuitenkin kultaakin tärkeämmässä asemassa siihen että niitä alueita voi vallata takaisin itselle.
Pitäisi vain tämän kaiken malttamattomuuden keskellä luottaa Ukrainan sekä länsimaiden strategioihin ja että he suorittavat kyllä. In the AFU we trust. Kuten ovatkin pyytäneet luottamaan.
Viimeksi muokattu:
En tiedä kuinka hyvin sotilassatelliitit ja -elektroniikka on suojattu EMP:iä vastaan, mutta on mahdollista että siviilipuolen satelliitit ja elektroniikka lakkaavat toimimasta melko suurelta alueelta, riippuen räjähdyksen suuruudesta ja räjäytyskorkeudesta.
Käsittääkseni USA on todennut että (sotilas)satelliittien tuhoaminen olisi sodanjulistus.
Iskut jenkkien siviilisatelliitteihin ja jenkkien tietoliikennekaapelien katkomisetkin aiheuttaisivat todennäköisesti sotilaallisia vastatoimia ryssää kohtaan.
Alla olevassa artikkelissa on kerrottu Pentagonin mietteistä asian tiimoilta.
Artikkeli: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/03/08/ukraine-russia-satellite-space-force-policy/
Artikkelin boldaukset otsikkoa lukuunottamatta ovat minun.
War in space: U.S. officials debating rules for a conflict in orbit
How would the U.S. respond if a hostile nation attacked a commercial satellite? White House and Defense Department officials seek an answer.
Ukraine’s use of commercial satellites to help repel the Russian invasion has bolstered the U.S. Space Force’s interest in exploiting the capabilities of the private sector to develop new technologies for fighting a war in space.
But the possible reliance on private companies, and the revolution in technology that has made satellites smaller and more powerful, is forcing the Defense Department to wrestle with difficult questions about what to do if those privately owned satellites are targeted by an adversary.
White House and Pentagon officials have been trying to determine what the policy should be since a top Russian official said in October that Russia could target the growing fleet of commercial satellites if they are used to help Ukraine.
Konstantin Vorontsov, deputy director of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s department for nonproliferation and arms, called the growth of privately operated satellites “an extremely dangerous trend that goes beyond the harmless use of outer-space technologies and has become apparent during the latest developments in Ukraine.”
He warned that “quasi-civilian infrastructure may become a legitimate target for retaliation.”
In response, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre reiterated earlier comments from her counterpart at the Pentagon that “any attack on U.S. infrastructure will be met with a response, as you’ve heard from my colleague, in a time and manner of our choosing.”
But what that response will be is unknown, as officials from a number of agencies try to lay out a policy framework on how to react if a commercial company is targeted.
In a recent interview, Gen. David Thompson, the Space Force’s vice chief of operations, said that while expanding the partnership with the commercial space industry is one of his top priorities, it has also led to a host of unanswered questions.
“The Ukraine conflict has brought it to the forefront,” he said. “First, commercial companies are thinking very clearly and carefully about, can we be involved? Should we be involved? What are the implications of being involved? … And on our side, it’s exactly the same thing. Should we depend on commercial services? Where can we depend on commercial services?”
The Pentagon has long relied on the private sector, he said. But the proliferation of small satellites has created a more resilient system that has provided real-time imagery of the Ukraine battlefield from space, allowing nations to track troop movements, assess damage and share intelligence. Communication systems, such as SpaceX’s Starlink constellation, have kept the internet up and running at a time when Ukraine’s infrastructure has been decimated.
The discussions come as the Pentagon is investing in more systems that were originally developed for civilian use but also have military applications. In the National Defense Strategy released late last year, the Pentagon vowed to “increase collaboration with the private sector in priority areas, especially with the commercial space industry, leveraging its technological advancements and entrepreneurial spirit to enable new capabilities.”
Several companies are developing small rockets that would launch inexpensively, and with little notice. SpaceX, meanwhile, has launched its Falcon 9 rocket at a record cadence, firing it off 61 times last year. The company is on track for even more launches this year.
“We think in a few years we’ll be in the 200, 300, 400 range,” Space Force Maj. Gen. Stephen Purdy Jr. said during a conference this month, referring to total space launches. “There’s a massive increase in commercial launch.”
He said the Space Force would like to get to the point where “we’re constantly launching, and there’s a schedule. There’s a launch in two hours, and there’s launch in 20 hours. Your satellite is not ready? Okay, get on the next one.”
For its next round of national security launch contracts, the Space Force has proposed an approach specifically designed to help small launch companies compete.
One track of contracts will be reserved for the most capable rockets — those able to hoist heavy payloads to every orbit the Pentagon wants to plant a satellite. Stalwarts such as SpaceX and the United Launch Alliance, the joint venture of Lockheed Martin and Boeing, would probably compete for those. Blue Origin, the venture owned by Jeff Bezos, could also potentially bid its New Glenn rocket, though it has yet to fly. (Bezos owns The Washington Post.)
But the Space Force has proposed offering a second track for smaller rockets, allowing start-ups to enter one of the most esteemed and lucrative space marketplaces that could be worth billions of dollars over the next several years. Those companies include Rocket Lab, which has recently christened its launch site on the Eastern Shore of Virginia, adding to its facility in New Zealand, and Relativity, which is scheduled to launch the world’s first 3D printed rocket on Wednesday.
There are also a host of space companies promising to build rockets that have never flown. “The challenge is not lowering the bar too low,” Peter Beck, Rocket Lab’s CEO, said in an interview. “We don’t think it’s useful to have paper rockets competing with real rockets. … There has to be a level of due diligence. There has to be a level of sanity.”
The new approach has “balanced that tension very well between let’s make sure we have what we need for national security access to space and, as best we can, help to foster and take advantage of growth in the commercial market,” Thompson said.
The Space Force is also looking to the private sector for what’s known as on-orbit servicing, refueling spacecraft and repairing damaged ones. At some point, Purdy said, he saw a future where there are propellant depots in space, tugs that can move damaged satellites, junkyards and manufacturing in space on commercial space stations.
In other words, ensuring space has the same war-fighting infrastructure and logistics that exist on the ground.
“In the other domains, we don’t build a ship or a tank or an aircraft and fuel it and then say, ‘Okay, you’re going to operate this for the next 15 or 20 years, and you need to plan all your operations based on the fact that you’re never going to refuel these ever again,’” Purdy said. “That’s hard to wrap your mind around, but that’s how we actually operate in space.”
Removing orbital debris, then, is to create freedom of movement in space, he said, the on-orbit equivalent of saying we “need a mine detection and clearing capability.”
Last year, the Space Force launched a program called Orbital Prime that would give companies seed money to develop the technology needed to clean up space. In the first round of the program, companies can win awards of $250,000, with as much as $1.5 million in a second round of funding. The program will culminate with a test demonstration in orbit.
“New technologies are opening up the market,” Thompson said. “And that’s driven a culture change. We’re trying to adapt to it, but it’s coming with challenges as any change would.”
One of those challenges are the new rules of the road — how best to use commercial technology in warfare, and how to respond when it is targeted. For now, there are more questions than answers.
“I will absolutely tell you with the National Space Council, with the National Security Council, with the office of Secretary of Defense and certainly inside the departments of the Air Force and Space Force, we have an intense discussion now,” Thompson said. “A lot of thinking and development and policy work has to be done.”
War in space: U.S. officials debating rules for a conflict in orbit
How would the U.S. respond if a hostile nation attacked a commercial satellite? White House and Defense Department officials seek an answer.
Ukraine’s use of commercial satellites to help repel the Russian invasion has bolstered the U.S. Space Force’s interest in exploiting the capabilities of the private sector to develop new technologies for fighting a war in space.
But the possible reliance on private companies, and the revolution in technology that has made satellites smaller and more powerful, is forcing the Defense Department to wrestle with difficult questions about what to do if those privately owned satellites are targeted by an adversary.
White House and Pentagon officials have been trying to determine what the policy should be since a top Russian official said in October that Russia could target the growing fleet of commercial satellites if they are used to help Ukraine.
Konstantin Vorontsov, deputy director of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s department for nonproliferation and arms, called the growth of privately operated satellites “an extremely dangerous trend that goes beyond the harmless use of outer-space technologies and has become apparent during the latest developments in Ukraine.”
He warned that “quasi-civilian infrastructure may become a legitimate target for retaliation.”
In response, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre reiterated earlier comments from her counterpart at the Pentagon that “any attack on U.S. infrastructure will be met with a response, as you’ve heard from my colleague, in a time and manner of our choosing.”
But what that response will be is unknown, as officials from a number of agencies try to lay out a policy framework on how to react if a commercial company is targeted.
In a recent interview, Gen. David Thompson, the Space Force’s vice chief of operations, said that while expanding the partnership with the commercial space industry is one of his top priorities, it has also led to a host of unanswered questions.
“The Ukraine conflict has brought it to the forefront,” he said. “First, commercial companies are thinking very clearly and carefully about, can we be involved? Should we be involved? What are the implications of being involved? … And on our side, it’s exactly the same thing. Should we depend on commercial services? Where can we depend on commercial services?”
The Pentagon has long relied on the private sector, he said. But the proliferation of small satellites has created a more resilient system that has provided real-time imagery of the Ukraine battlefield from space, allowing nations to track troop movements, assess damage and share intelligence. Communication systems, such as SpaceX’s Starlink constellation, have kept the internet up and running at a time when Ukraine’s infrastructure has been decimated.
The discussions come as the Pentagon is investing in more systems that were originally developed for civilian use but also have military applications. In the National Defense Strategy released late last year, the Pentagon vowed to “increase collaboration with the private sector in priority areas, especially with the commercial space industry, leveraging its technological advancements and entrepreneurial spirit to enable new capabilities.”
Several companies are developing small rockets that would launch inexpensively, and with little notice. SpaceX, meanwhile, has launched its Falcon 9 rocket at a record cadence, firing it off 61 times last year. The company is on track for even more launches this year.
“We think in a few years we’ll be in the 200, 300, 400 range,” Space Force Maj. Gen. Stephen Purdy Jr. said during a conference this month, referring to total space launches. “There’s a massive increase in commercial launch.”
He said the Space Force would like to get to the point where “we’re constantly launching, and there’s a schedule. There’s a launch in two hours, and there’s launch in 20 hours. Your satellite is not ready? Okay, get on the next one.”
For its next round of national security launch contracts, the Space Force has proposed an approach specifically designed to help small launch companies compete.
One track of contracts will be reserved for the most capable rockets — those able to hoist heavy payloads to every orbit the Pentagon wants to plant a satellite. Stalwarts such as SpaceX and the United Launch Alliance, the joint venture of Lockheed Martin and Boeing, would probably compete for those. Blue Origin, the venture owned by Jeff Bezos, could also potentially bid its New Glenn rocket, though it has yet to fly. (Bezos owns The Washington Post.)
But the Space Force has proposed offering a second track for smaller rockets, allowing start-ups to enter one of the most esteemed and lucrative space marketplaces that could be worth billions of dollars over the next several years. Those companies include Rocket Lab, which has recently christened its launch site on the Eastern Shore of Virginia, adding to its facility in New Zealand, and Relativity, which is scheduled to launch the world’s first 3D printed rocket on Wednesday.
There are also a host of space companies promising to build rockets that have never flown. “The challenge is not lowering the bar too low,” Peter Beck, Rocket Lab’s CEO, said in an interview. “We don’t think it’s useful to have paper rockets competing with real rockets. … There has to be a level of due diligence. There has to be a level of sanity.”
The new approach has “balanced that tension very well between let’s make sure we have what we need for national security access to space and, as best we can, help to foster and take advantage of growth in the commercial market,” Thompson said.
The Space Force is also looking to the private sector for what’s known as on-orbit servicing, refueling spacecraft and repairing damaged ones. At some point, Purdy said, he saw a future where there are propellant depots in space, tugs that can move damaged satellites, junkyards and manufacturing in space on commercial space stations.
In other words, ensuring space has the same war-fighting infrastructure and logistics that exist on the ground.
“In the other domains, we don’t build a ship or a tank or an aircraft and fuel it and then say, ‘Okay, you’re going to operate this for the next 15 or 20 years, and you need to plan all your operations based on the fact that you’re never going to refuel these ever again,’” Purdy said. “That’s hard to wrap your mind around, but that’s how we actually operate in space.”
Removing orbital debris, then, is to create freedom of movement in space, he said, the on-orbit equivalent of saying we “need a mine detection and clearing capability.”
Last year, the Space Force launched a program called Orbital Prime that would give companies seed money to develop the technology needed to clean up space. In the first round of the program, companies can win awards of $250,000, with as much as $1.5 million in a second round of funding. The program will culminate with a test demonstration in orbit.
“New technologies are opening up the market,” Thompson said. “And that’s driven a culture change. We’re trying to adapt to it, but it’s coming with challenges as any change would.”
One of those challenges are the new rules of the road — how best to use commercial technology in warfare, and how to respond when it is targeted. For now, there are more questions than answers.
“I will absolutely tell you with the National Space Council, with the National Security Council, with the office of Secretary of Defense and certainly inside the departments of the Air Force and Space Force, we have an intense discussion now,” Thompson said. “A lot of thinking and development and policy work has to be done.”
Lisäys: NATO:n kanta asiaan
Space is becoming more crowded and competitive, and satellites are vulnerable to interference. Some countries, including Russia and China, have developed and tested a wide range of counter-space technologies. NATO Allies have condemned Russia’s reckless and irresponsible anti-satellite missile test of 15 November 2021.
At the 2021 Brussels Summit, NATO recognised that attacks to, from or within space present a clear challenge to the security of the Alliance and could lead to the invocation of Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.
Arvelen että edellä mainittu viittaus artiklaan 5 pitää sisällään myös ydinlatauksen aiheuttaman EMP:n.
Viimeksi muokattu: