Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-25

[grumbler]

The USN does not often just scrap damaged ships because of lack of facilities to repair them. Repair/maintenance docks are not the same as graving (construction) docks. Repair has no impact on construction, except for the impact of rare equipment that must sometimes be taken from new construction to repair existing ships.  For instance, there are 18 US docks capable of handling a Nimitz class carrier, only two of which are use for construction and another two that are capable of complex overhauls.

There is a shortage of maintenance docks for the existing fleet, and of graving docks for planned expansion, but those are separate issues.

The characterization of carriers as "giant moving targets just waiting to be swarmed by drones" is one of those armchair admiral memes. Carriers are no more subject to drone attacks than any other major warship, and much better prepared to fight on after sustaining damage than anything else afloat. My objection to them is not that they are "horribly obsolete" but that their construction is a very poor use of limited resources.

[Darth Wagtaros]

I wonder if funding priorities will change now?

Yeah, you'd hope that the US would realize that the MBT has gone the way of the battleship, and that drones (and shitloads of reserve drone pilots) are a better investment.

But I doubt it. It's still planning to build another six or so carriers.

I remember long ago reading some sci-fi novels with the silly-even-if-cool idea of submarine aircraft carriers.  But submarines as large unmanned aerial drone carriers feels like not so silly of an idea.

I remember some with that.  WarBots or something.

The is exactly the onea I was thinking of. 

(it was silly that the "warbots" were shown as cyborg-looking things on the novel cover, but were actually just regular tanks/armored vehicles with semi-autonomous capabilities)

Yeah, it was false advertising.  I recall they were drones remote controlled by neural interface.  Somehow the entire NATO military had been remade with them, and had no regular infantry or special operations troops left at the beginning of the series.  I remember more of that now.

[Josquius]

. My objection to them is not that they are "horribly obsolete" but that their construction is a very poor use of limited resources.

I believe that's the view of most people who say carriers are outdated.
They exist. They can obviously be useful.
But is building more of them a smart thing to do?
The bar for keeping them in service even is quite a bit higher than it used to be.
It's like battleships in WW2 and the years after. They had a use. But this wasn't the ruler of the oceans one they were designed for.

[Bauer]

I think carriers also have big soft power.  It sends a big message to deploy them, drones wouldn't have the same effect.

[Zanza]

Trump gave Putin an ultimatum of another fifty days (of summer offensive/terror bombing). This time, Putin will see reason for sure!

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Trump gave Putin an ultimatum of another fifty days (of summer offensive/terror bombing). This time, Putin will see reason for sure!

what a dilweed

[Josquius]

Would 50 days take us into mud season?

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Would 50 days take us into mud season?

drones aren't bothered by mud

[viper37]

Would 50 days take us into mud season?

drones aren't bothered by mud

Drones are useless to capture territory though.

Infantry is needed to capture ground.  One day, infantry may not need to be human, but it does not change the fact that infantry is needed to occupy or liberate villages and cities.

[Sheilbh]

Or to defend it for that matter. I'm not a military buff at all but it does feel that no matter what the innovations and developments we still always end up with the poor bloody infantry.

[viper37]

Or to defend it for that matter. I'm not a military buff at all but it does feel that no matter what the innovations and developments we still always end up with the poor bloody infantry.

Yes.  Infantry always need artillery/missile support, really.

Drones is just a new way of doing it.

[viper37]

Trump announces weapons deal with NATO to help Ukraine - as he gives Putin 50-day ultimatum

If an agreement to end the war with Ukraine is not reached in 50 days, Donald Trump said the US would bring in "severe tariffs" of "about 100%" on Russia.

Take this Vlad!

Another 50 day and some 100% tariff on stuff we don't buy!!  That will hurt a lot!!!

[Richard Hakluyt]

According to the BBC the USA would impose secondary tariffs of 100% on countries buying Russian products (mainly oil and gas of course) :

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czdv20v9lp1o


"On the tariffs front, Trump said that the US would impose 100% secondary tariffs targeting Russia's remaining trade partners if a peace deal with Ukraine was not reached within 50 days.

This would see any country that trades with Russia face the tax if they want to sell their products to the US.

For example, if India keeps buying oil from Russia, US companies that purchase Indian goods would have to pay a 100% import tax, or tariff, when the products reach American shores."


This could be pretty bad for Russia, but also very damaging for the USA, so not sure how likely it is to become a reality.

[HVC]

How many euro countries still buy from Russia?

[Sheilbh]

Europe's trying to reduce its dependency particularly on the secondary market with oil - but about 20% of Europe's gas still comes from Russia and Europe is now the largest importer of oil from the countries where Russian oil is getting laundered. I believe that until last year a lot of that laundered oil was also being transported on European shipping but that's been clamped down on.