Arming Ukraine

I was wondering, could we actually launch those Harpoons from land? Honestly, I think that would be the absolute best way to handle it. 🤔

darkrider55 said:I was wondering, could we actually launch those Harpoons from land? Honestly, I think that would be the absolute best way to handle it. 🤔

3.8 meters for the air-launched version
4.6 meters for the submarine and land-based versions

I believe those are likely the longer variants we're looking at.

Honestly, an air strike version doesn't make much sense here because their air defense is just way too heavy, so the second option is probably our best bet.

darkrider55 said:Honestly, an air strike version doesn't make much sense here because their air defense is just way too heavy, so the second option is probably our best bet.

We’ll just have to wait and see how impenetrable that Russian air defense actually is.

Word is the Americans are prepping an unprecedented level of electronic warfare for the upcoming fight in Ukraine. Maybe they'll have Growlers patrolling Romanian airspace and over the Black Sea, staying out of Ukrainian territory... And if NATO starts beefing up the fleet in the Black Sea on top of all that...

darkrider55 said:Honestly, an air strike version doesn't make much sense here because their air defense is just way too heavy, so the second option is probably our best bet.

And besides, what would they even launch an air version from?

Timothy Nelson5 said:We’ll just have to wait and see how impenetrable that Russian air defense actually is.

Word is the Americans are prepping an unprecedented level of electronic warfare for the upcoming fight in Ukraine. Maybe they'll have Growlers patrolling Romanian airspace and over the Black Sea, staying out of Ukrainian territory... And if NATO starts beefing up the fleet in the Black Sea on top of all that...

What's the range on a Growler?
Or more specifically, how far does their electronic jamming reach?
I can't seem to find the answer.

Maybe we could just slap them onto a MiG-29 instead. 😁

Just kidding—honestly, the ground version is exactly what the doctor ordered.

darkrider55 said:Honestly, an air strike version doesn't make much sense here because their air defense is just way too heavy, so the second option is probably our best bet.

And just out of curiosity, what exactly would they be launching that second version from?

Timothy Nelson5 said:We’ll just have to wait and see how impenetrable that Russian air defense actually is.

Word is the Americans are prepping an unprecedented level of electronic warfare for the upcoming fight in Ukraine. Maybe they'll have Growlers patrolling Romanian airspace and over the Black Sea, staying out of Ukrainian territory... And if NATO starts beefing up the fleet in the Black Sea on top of all that...

NATO ships can't just flood the Black Sea—Turkey has the Bosphorus closed to all warships under the Montreux Convention.

I'm skeptical about the Growler plan, too. Where they're positioned puts them maybe 400311 miles+ miles from the closest front in Donbas, and jamming intensity drops off fast as you get further away. If we start seeing fighting for Odessa or new battles near Mykolaiv, then maybe it makes sense.

hollowdriver13 said:https://twitter.com/visegrad24/statu...35812180643842

Just some Poles having a good laugh at the Russians 😁

They’re basically saying that seeing T-72s showing up on the side of Ukraine has absolutely nothing to do with their own stock of them, since those tanks are pretty much all over the place at surplus military auctions these days.

Now this is just a wicked little joke... 🤣

wanderingmaker3 said:What's the range on a Growler?
Or more specifically, how far does their electronic jamming reach?
I can't seem to find the answer.

Well, you probably won't find it anywhere.

Like wiredseal7 mentioned once, I guess the jamming strength just drops off by the square of the distance...

wiredseal7 said:NATO ships can't just flood the Black Sea—Turkey has the Bosphorus closed to all warships under the Montreux Convention.

I'm skeptical about the Growler plan, too. Where they're positioned puts them maybe 400311 miles+ miles from the closest front in Donbas, and jamming intensity drops off fast as you get further away. If we start seeing fighting for Odessa or new battles near Mykolaiv, then maybe it makes sense.

I mean, do you really think those rules will hold if the Russian military starts using chemical agents or dumping massive amounts of white phosphorus... or something even worse? I guess we'll see.

I have my doubts about the Growlers, too. They're operating maybe 400-311 miles+ miles from the nearest front line in Donbas, and electronic warfare interference tends to drop off by the square of the distance.

If the Russians darken western Ukraine, they might actually give the Ukrainian Air Force a chance to take off and fly for the first 62 miles minutes in relative safety.
And if they start creating a ton of fake takeoff patterns, the Russians won't be able to tell if an actual strike is coming or not... which matters. Plus, it helps the drones. They're already hard to spot, and at those distances, even a weak signal might be enough...
It isn't just about the radar, though.
The comms jamming, the GPS interference... it's complicated.

Timothy Nelson5 said:I mean, do you really think those rules will hold if the Russian military starts using chemical agents or dumping massive amounts of white phosphorus... or something even worse? I guess we'll see.

I have my doubts about the Growlers, too. They're operating maybe 400-311 miles+ miles from the nearest front line in Donbas, and electronic warfare interference tends to drop off by the square of the distance.

If the Russians darken western Ukraine, they might actually give the Ukrainian Air Force a chance to take off and fly for the first 62 miles minutes in relative safety.
And if they start creating a ton of fake takeoff patterns, the Russians won't be able to tell if an actual strike is coming or not... which matters. Plus, it helps the drones. They're already hard to spot, and at those distances, even a weak signal might be enough...
It isn't just about the radar, though.
The comms jamming, the GPS interference... it's complicated.

I doubt we’ll see an all-out war in that scenario—which basically means the Bosphorus stays closed.
Washington is just going to use this to squeeze other countries over their stance on Russia—since those "global sanctions" were basically a total wash anyway.

If the Russians manage to black out Western Ukraine—they’re basically just handing the Ukrainian Air Force an open invitation to take off and dominate the skies early on. 62 miles Safe enough, I guess—for now.
If they start flooding them with fake "launch" signals, the Russians won't even know if they're actually under attack—it’ll just be noise. More importantly, it helps the drones; they're already such tiny, hard-to-spot targets that even a weak signal like that should be enough to guide them in, even from a distance.
It’s not just about the radar systems—there's way more to the story than that.
Comms interference, GPS jamming... it’s all happening again—just another day in this chaotic mess.

Maybe once they hand me those Tomahawks in a few years—if that ever actually happens.
The Navy’s looking at shifting how they handle things—more focus on distributed operations and getting those missile systems out there—basically trying to stop being such an easy target for long-range strikes. It's like moving from a single massive bullseye to a dozen smaller ones spread across the coast just to keep the enemy guessing.

I’ve got my doubts about how much punch those Growlers actually pack—so far, we haven't seen anything besides some pretty outdated Soviet-era gear.

wiredseal7 said:NATO ships can't just flood the Black Sea—Turkey has the Bosphorus closed to all warships under the Montreux Convention.

I'm skeptical about the Growler plan, too. Where they're positioned puts them maybe 400311 miles+ miles from the closest front in Donbas, and jamming intensity drops off fast as you get further away. If we start seeing fighting for Odessa or new battles near Mykolaiv, then maybe it makes sense.

Bulgaria is a NATO member.

Romania is a NATO member.

Turkey is a NATO member.

Which means... NATO ships are already in the Black Sea, and they will continue to be.

slyfox43 said:Bulgaria is a NATO member.

Romania is a NATO member.

Turkey is a NATO member.

Which means... NATO ships are already in the Black Sea, and they will continue to be.

Half of the Black Sea is essentially a NATO sea.
Not to mention if they decide to move into Georgia now...

Turkey is part of NATO, and they’d probably try to block the passage for Americans—it's almost laughable.

velvetbadger11 said:Turkey is part of NATO, and they’d probably try to block the passage for Americans—it's almost laughable.

That's exactly what's happening right now—they're following the Montreux Convention, which lets them shut the straits to all warships during wartime, a move they've already made.

Admiral Gorskov has already been blocked, so NATO hasn't even had a chance to test the waters yet.

wiredseal7 said:That's exactly what's happening right now—they're following the Montreux Convention, which lets them shut the straits to all warships during wartime, a move they've already made.

Admiral Gorskov has already been blocked, so NATO hasn't even had a chance to test the waters yet.

And you seriously think the Turks would try to use force to stop an American carrier?
Would Turkey actually go through with that? Considering the absolute nightmare of consequences that would trigger?

It's just... honestly, it's pretty delusional if you ask me. Why on earth would they even attempt something like that in the first place?

wiredseal7 said:That's exactly what's happening right now—they're following the Montreux Convention, which lets them shut the straits to all warships during wartime, a move they've already made.

Admiral Gorskov has already been blocked, so NATO hasn't even had a chance to test the waters yet.

You might have forgotten this part, or perhaps you left it out on purpose—it applies to all warships belonging to belligerent Powers.
...unless we are talking about the warships of belligerent Powers returning to their home ports in the Black Sea.

All other vessels are permitted to stay in the Black Sea for up to 21 days.

Vessels of War belonging to non-Black Sea Powers shall not remain in The Black Sea more Than twenty-one Days
regardless of why they are there.
Article 19.
In time of War , Turkey not being belligerent , warships shall enjoy complete Freedom of Transit and navigation through The Straits under The same conditions as those laid down in Article 10 to 18.

Vessels of War belonging to belligerent Powers shall not however , pass through The Straits except in cases arising out of The application of Article 25 of The present Convention,

Brenda Murphy3 said:And you seriously think the Turks would try to use force to stop an American carrier?
Would Turkey actually go through with that? Considering the absolute nightmare of consequences that would trigger?

It's just... honestly, it's pretty delusional if you ask me. Why on earth would they even attempt something like that in the first place?

What purpose would an aircraft carrier serve in the Black Sea? Could it even get in there to begin with? There is a massive network of NATO airfields lining the coast, not to mention aerial tankers for those operating from further afield—sending a carrier into that environment simply lacks logic.

Furthermore, NATO (technically speaking) is not a 'belligerent power' in this conflict, so there shouldn't be any restrictions placed on them.