The UK has sent Storm Shadow long-range cruise missiles to Ukraine, and this action has elicited a stern warning from Russia, threatening a “proportionate response”.

The ins and outs of the Kremlin’s stance on this issue were dissected on the Daily podcast, featuring expert analysis of President Vladimir Putin’s recent Victory Day speech.

The news first surfaced in Russian media, provoking an immediate response from Dmitry Peskov, the Kremlin’s spokesperson. His remarks were broadcasted by RIA Novosti, Russia’s state-controlled news agency.

Peskov conveyed Russia’s vehement disapproval of Britain’s move, stating, “Russia views the UK’s decision to provide Kyiv with Storm Shadow long-range cruise missiles extremely negatively. A proportionate response is inevitable.”

The reported supply of multiple Storm Shadow cruise missiles to Ukraine is seen by Russia as crossing a “red line”, a term frequently employed by Russian authorities to denote actions that would compel a robust retaliatory reaction from the nation but never do.

The Ministry of Defence has remained silent on the matter, withholding any official statements or comments on these reports.

Avatar photo
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

223 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

farouk
farouk (@guest_722275)
11 months ago

More sound bites from Moscow. Its invading forces have made a mess of overpowering what on paper is a third rate military which spent less in 20 years on its Military, than Moscow does in one year . if Moscow is unable to run ramshod over the Ukraine after 15 months, what does it expect it will achieve by attacking a member of NATO. No doubt this is aimed at the usual suspects in the West: Unions NGOs Religions Members of Parliament (looks at Labour, Lib-Dems, SNP, Green Party)  The media In which to galvanise them into action into keeping the… Read more »

Last edited 11 months ago by farouk
IKnowNothing
IKnowNothing (@guest_722281)
11 months ago
Reply to  farouk

It’s the tories that are well documented to have accepted Russian money in recent years. Not saying the other parties are squeaky clean, but you can’t point a finger at them and exclude the tories

farouk
farouk (@guest_722290)
11 months ago
Reply to  IKnowNothing

That’s an interesting subject, which the anti-tory crowd have used in which to slander the Tories. To that end want to name me any tory policy which has been exposed which has benefited Moscow. Meanwhile we have those I listed as openly supporting Moscow in one way or another. Who have gone well out of their way in which to peddle the: This is not our fight The Ukraine is full of Nazis Why are we handing the Ukraine weapons The Ukraine started this war Jan 2022 when the present Tory gov handed over around 2000 NLAWS, before the invasion… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_722292)
11 months ago
Reply to  farouk

Yes please. 😆👍

Smickers
Smickers (@guest_722508)
11 months ago

and me

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_722537)
11 months ago
Reply to  farouk

I generally agree with that, but it mustn’t be forgotten a decade ago Boris (and the Party generally) was very keen to kickstart a new relationship with Russia and Putin which I am sure was not unrelated to all the useful dirty money and characters who were feeding both the National and in particular London economy back then. If it took Crimea to on the surface change minds then it’s pretty scary to imagine they were oblivious to the reasons, dangers and threat that ‘openness’ caused here and the fact perhaps it was deliberately locked away from consciousness because the… Read more »

Posse Comitatus
Posse Comitatus (@guest_722558)
11 months ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Agree 100%

farouk
farouk (@guest_722583)
11 months ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Spy wrote:
“”I generally agree with that, but it mustn’t be forgotten a decade ago Boris (and the Party generally) was very keen to kickstart a new relationship with Russia””

Just like every other nation across Europe at the time, be it Germany, France, italy or even Cyprus. However the Uk’s relationship with Moscow these past 20 years has been on a downward spiral Chatham House wrote a most illuminating article on the subject

Last edited 11 months ago by farouk
lonpfrb
lonpfrb (@guest_723043)
11 months ago
Reply to  farouk

Thanks Farouk for the Chatham House link. Impressive width and depth.

Nathan Paxton
Nathan Paxton (@guest_723659)
11 months ago
Reply to  farouk

“To that end want to name me any tory policy which has been exposed which has benefited Moscow.”

Well, the most obvious one is Brexit.

Airborne
Airborne (@guest_722311)
11 months ago
Reply to  IKnowNothing

Same oft repeated chuff in a certain left wing echo chamber! They are all at it, but generally the Tories have been more robust and responsive than the rest of Europe (initially) and most certainly more robust that the left would have been under a Corbyn Government!

Dern
Dern (@guest_722347)
11 months ago
Reply to  Airborne

Suprised Jonsky hasn’t been crying in the comments…

JohninMK
JohninMK (@guest_722367)
11 months ago
Reply to  Dern

Why would I be crying, seems an obvious decision to have made. I do have a different take on it though. This war is an obvious opportunity to test weapons under very realistic conditions and it seems that drones are getting most of the attention. One weapon type as yet untested by NATO there are cruise missiles and how they perform against the current generation of AD systems. Whilst it is politically impossible, due to a multitude of reasons, to supply the obvious one, Tomahawk, we have just shown that it is acceptable to supply a lessor known and more… Read more »

farouk
farouk (@guest_722377)
11 months ago
Reply to  JohninMK

JIMK wrote: “”So, what if the covert objective of this is to do just that, test the viability of subsonic cruise missiles? If sufficient get through, continue on with the SS successor as planned, if they don’t, its back to the drawing board with a new sense of urgency.”” The Storm Shadow came into service around 2003 (So its around 20 years old) since then it has been used in: Iraq 2003 Libya 2011 Syria 2015 and 2016 (French version) Iraq 2016 Yemen 2015 onwards (Saudi use) Syria 2018 (both French and Uk use) Iraq 2021. I think we can… Read more »

JohninMK
JohninMK (@guest_722503)
11 months ago
Reply to  farouk

You missed my point. I didn’t question if it worked OK as it clearly did in those countries you mentioned. What I do question is how well it will “perform against the current generation of AD systems”? Non of the countries you mention had such a system in place, let alone using current technology.

Airborne
Airborne (@guest_722511)
11 months ago
Reply to  JohninMK

“The current generation of AD systems2, those systems at this time are the Russian ones. Regardless if they are modern or old, they are still operated by incompetent, half trained, badly commanded and logistically inept crews, with a fast dwindling manpower and (limited) skill set pool.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_722550)
11 months ago
Reply to  Airborne

Yes maybe but his point is valid the situation in Ukraine is very different to those other environments, otherwise both airforces would be flying much more freely in the others territory. A US pilot already has said he would not wish to fly an F-16 anywhere near or over the contact line and no doubt if he were doing so against Ukraine he would feel likewise. Far different I suspect, despite mostly older systems in both environments, than his view of flying in those other conflicts. That said I don’t think he really got the fact that Ukraine for the… Read more »

Airborne
Airborne (@guest_722705)
11 months ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Disagree, his point has no validity due to him being a Putin supporting troll who has pushed out pro invasion pro Putin and anti Ukraine propaganda for the last 16 months. Just because he has reduced his guff, certainly since the failed Russian cluster fuck of an offensive has gone pear shaped (as expected) due to looking more of a fascist dickhead than normal, does not mean his posts are any more reasoned and relevant! He is playing the waiting game and thinks we haven’t noticed mate. And as I previously mentioned, regardless of the kit, if your people are… Read more »

Farouk
Farouk (@guest_722722)
11 months ago
Reply to  Airborne

Airborne wrote:
“”And as I previously mentioned, regardless of the kit, if your people are shit, it’s all shit.””

Aka, “All the gear, no idea”

DaveyB
DaveyB (@guest_722525)
11 months ago
Reply to  JohninMK

I’m not so sure. When we, France and the US decided to take out the Syrian chemical storage sites and the airfield used to deliver them. Russia had in place both their S400 along with a Tor and some Pantsirs. Meanwhile Syria had been given the latest version of the S300 and upgrades to its Buk systems, which could be networked into the S400 system. Plus they’d been given a large number of new Pantsirs as well. Russia stated that the majority of both TLAM and Storm Shadow/Scalp missiles had been shot down by the “Syrian” air defences. Yet photographic… Read more »

JohninMK
JohninMK (@guest_722539)
11 months ago
Reply to  DaveyB

Thanks, interesting comment. In my original post I suggested two outcomes, that SS gets through or it doesn’t, I didn’t say which I thought it might be, just suggested that problems would be manifest if the latter. Like you imply, I have little doubt that the SS, as do the Kh-22/32 and Iskander/Kinzhal on the other side, has hardware and software that allows it to respond to threats on their journey. As to your Syrian comment, it is a large country. The Russian S-400 and 2x S-300 were positioned to protect Hmeimim AB not Damascus and the location of the… Read more »

Barry Larking
Barry Larking (@guest_722590)
11 months ago
Reply to  JohninMK

Wonderful! A complete grasp of theoretic knowledge from the man/group/cell that had the Moskva tied up alongside when it had sunk in an attack that wasn’t successful.

Can you confirm you condemn Putins war against Ukraine? I can. Will you? If you cannot please feel free to explain.

Airborne
Airborne (@guest_722709)
11 months ago
Reply to  Barry Larking

Just a sad muppet coward who has no answer to reasoned and informed posts! SOP is to ignore them, hope they go away and post generic diversionary comments! But I’m sure Johnny bot will answer once more with chuff, or, will he feel double bluffed and think no answer is best! Johnskie boy, decisions decisions eh?

Airborne
Airborne (@guest_722707)
11 months ago
Reply to  JohninMK

More guff, more yaaaawn and more zero experience posts! Do you still support the illegal invasion of Ukraine by Putin and are you still to afraid to back up your pro Russian support, or still to cowardly? No guff, no evasions, no ignorance of the question, do you still support the illegal invasion of Ukraine by Putin? Yes or no, stop being a spineless coward for once!

Airborne
Airborne (@guest_722424)
11 months ago
Reply to  JohninMK

Oh dear, quite startling how much chuff you post and yet proven to know so little! Yet again Farouk has taken you to task, you have failed, and then as per normal ignored his response and reply! And, any condemnation of Putins illegal invasion of Ukraine yet, how about condemnation of Putins use of cannon fodder citizens, the use of convicted criminals, use of white phos, use by Nazi troops of rape, torture, murder…..still a coward to defend your last 16 months of fascist propaganda.

Jim
Jim (@guest_722427)
11 months ago
Reply to  JohninMK

Yeah we are desperate to test a 20 year old missile that’s just about to go out of service against a bunch of radars run on old washing machine parts.

You got us well done 😂

JohninMK
JohninMK (@guest_722545)
11 months ago
Reply to  Jim

With an ignorant comment like that, plus some of your others, I am very pleased that you are unlikely to be on the payroll protecting the UK from airborne attack.

Posse Comitatus
Posse Comitatus (@guest_722566)
11 months ago
Reply to  JohninMK

The airborne attack that you would no doubt support and praise.

JohninMK
JohninMK (@guest_722642)
11 months ago

Not likely, being too close for comfort to a probable attack site.

Posse Comitatus
Posse Comitatus (@guest_722662)
11 months ago
Reply to  JohninMK

Yeah. Civilian housing being a regular target of Russian targeting. No more than you deserve though.

Airborne
Airborne (@guest_722711)
11 months ago

😂😂😂👍

Airborne
Airborne (@guest_722712)
11 months ago
Reply to  JohninMK

What, a hospital or children’s home! Nob jockey Saville fan!

Jim
Jim (@guest_722609)
11 months ago
Reply to  JohninMK

What’s ignorant about that comment, I’m guessing new handler isn’t eh troll farm today 😀

Airborne
Airborne (@guest_722713)
11 months ago
Reply to  Jim

New handler, old one currently in a Bakhmut weed bed, after 3 hours intensive infantry training course!

Airborne
Airborne (@guest_722710)
11 months ago
Reply to  JohninMK

The only airborne attack round here my little troll is from a low level T72 turret, with attached crew!

JamesF
JamesF (@guest_722452)
11 months ago
Reply to  JohninMK

Storm Shadow has been tested many times in Libya and Syria, Iraq and Yemen. You will be delighted to know that it works just fine.

Last edited 11 months ago by JamesF
JohninMK
JohninMK (@guest_722507)
11 months ago
Reply to  JamesF

You missed my point. It did indeed work well when faced with what AD systems were in place then. What I do question is how well it will “perform against the current generation of AD systems”?

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_722556)
11 months ago
Reply to  JohninMK

Yes I think you have a point I like to think I am objective enough to separate that from my opinions about your other proclivities. SS might be 20 years old but it’s no older than some other missiles we use (only relative updating is the issue between them) and many missiles like Stingers and Hellfire are ancient by comparison. Many aspects of SS will be relevant to new projects including the obvious one particularly when used against a more representative air defence environment both in terms or potential tactics, strategy, improvements and adjusting design factors for replacement platforms. Theory… Read more »

Jim
Jim (@guest_722610)
11 months ago
Reply to  JohninMK

Who knows, those Russian systems can’t even stop Ukrainian propeller powered drones from hitting the kremlin according to the Russian military so their is no point in testing something as lethal as storm shadow against them. 😀

Dern
Dern (@guest_722518)
11 months ago
Reply to  JohninMK

If you weren’t a fascist you’d have no problem condeming Putins invasion of Ukraine, something you’ve been unable to do for over a year.
Ergo: Fascist. Not libel. Fact.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_722552)
11 months ago
Reply to  Dern

Indeed Russia is by any logical definition run on classic Fascist/Nazi lines economically and politically, with a little Stalinism thrown in to keep those addicted sympathisers onside too. A clever ploy I guess to unite far left/right nationalist elements to a single cause, so anyone actively supporting that Govt’s policies and actions on a broad scale by definition has to be a Fascist sympathiser or a hypocrite though a fair measure of delusion (as we see with the likes of Corbyn) always helps to deny such accusations to make themselves feel better about themselves.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_722547)
11 months ago
Reply to  JohninMK

Yes I suggested something similar in another comment. On this very site the discussion about the next joint UK/France attack missile over whether it should prioritise stealth or high speed (hypersonic or high subsonic) with it seems a balance variation between experts in the two Countries. Whatever the other validations for supplying these missiles ( and they are strong to support the Counter Offensive) it won’t be lost on those making these decisions that a real time test of the former slower but stealthy proposal would be invaluable to that final commitment, be it in the end one or two… Read more »

Posse Comitatus
Posse Comitatus (@guest_722563)
11 months ago
Reply to  JohninMK

Not libellous if it’s true. Or honest belief.

Posse Comitatus
Posse Comitatus (@guest_722565)
11 months ago
Reply to  JohninMK

Ha ha !! So what then was Russia’s invasion supposed to demonstrate? How not to invade a country?

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach (@guest_722362)
11 months ago
Reply to  IKnowNothing

Thank you my socialist friend for your contribution🙄

Mark B
Mark B (@guest_722582)
11 months ago
Reply to  IKnowNothing

I much prefer judging parties by their policies and how likely they are to be able to deliver them. The tories reacted quickly to bolster the Ukrainian forces with weapons without which Ukraine might well have colapsed quickly. Would the lawyer in Starmer have meant that his first actions would have been the UN and the ICC – by which time it would have been too late for Ukraine.

Stc
Stc (@guest_722600)
11 months ago
Reply to  IKnowNothing

The truth is that our weakness standing up to Russia and in particular the Biden administration weakness caused this war. Putin is what he is. The US almost gave him a green light at first. The Russians are bullies ; most of our politicians on both benches are too woke. It will bite us on the backside one day. Let’s up we do not end up paying a big a price for Western weakness as the Ukrainians and indeed many Russians are today !

nestor mahkno
nestor mahkno (@guest_722287)
11 months ago
Reply to  farouk

Its all parties, look at who was taking russsian ‘donations’ before russian invasion of Ukraine.

Sean
Sean (@guest_722356)
11 months ago
Reply to  nestor mahkno

😂

George
George (@guest_722414)
11 months ago
Reply to  farouk

Start thinking like a KGB/STASI trained Colonel. A proportional quid pro quo response would be Russia supplying one of our enemies with weapons to attack us. We should expect ISIS, Al Qaeda, IRA etc terrorist activity with dirty bombs. Perhaps laden with Russian radioactive isotopes or chemical and biological weapons. Blatantly obvious where they came from to our security services. But if supplied via Iranian Hezbollah/Hamas/MB groups. Completely deniability by Putin at the UN. I’m actually surprised it hasn’t already happened. Either here in GB or one of our interests elsewhere. Cyprus, Gibraltar, various embassies etc. Even BAE factories around… Read more »

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_722557)
11 months ago
Reply to  George

I assume you mean since the outbreak of the war as it’s happened twice in the last 15 years or so when we were supposedly ‘friends’. I remember during the various Middle East crisis everyone was expecting a dirty suitcase bomb to go off somewhere but never happened. Never knew quite why but certainly if ISIS and AQ were allowed to develop further that would or would soon have happened. Let’s hope enough sanity remains to restrict such escalatory actions from Russia as there are plenty of elements who would exploit opening that particular Pandoras Box to turn that back… Read more »

George
George (@guest_722616)
11 months ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

I meant since we became involved with Ukrainian anti-Russian factions 2014 onward. Certainly since we started training and supplying Kiev with some very effective modern weapons. A huge escalation compared to the links we had with the anti-Soviet underground in Ukraine during the Cold War.
There was some cooperation during initial phases of the war on terror with the Russians. For a while we were pushing in the same direction.
Putin was trained to be cautious, along with devious, ruthless and unpredictable. He likely thrives in the current environment. A real nasty piece of work.

Something Different
Something Different (@guest_722470)
11 months ago
Reply to  farouk

It’s the Republicans in America and elements of the far and hard right in Europe that seem to have either have the problem supporting Ukraine or are pro Russia

Mark Murray
Mark Murray (@guest_722544)
11 months ago

Yet in the UK it seems to be the hard left and the pro Russian, pro terrorist Corbynistas.

Last edited 11 months ago by Mark Murray
Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_722562)
11 months ago

Far right and far left have far more in common than separates them it’s like what colour football shirt you support in Manchester and the hatred in generates. The classic differences ie Captalist against Communist but with both having powerful central control of the economy and output is no longer a defined as neither Russia or China actually can be defined in that way anymore. Nationalism was supposed to a definer but never really was and is a prime mover again in those regimes. Immigration? Well Russia it has been argued by a Russian Political Scientist against the regime has… Read more »

Mark B
Mark B (@guest_722580)
11 months ago
Reply to  farouk

On reflection you are right in saying that Russia have been really quite poor. Ok the west have helped Ukraine with weapons etc. but even so ……

Frank62
Frank62 (@guest_722647)
11 months ago
Reply to  farouk

How much dirty Russian money has the Tories taken since 2000? Who has been in government while reducing our forces to a level that didn’t deter their invasions of Ukraine? I doubt no more than a tiny fraction of the groups you list have any sympathy at all with Putin.

john melling
john melling (@guest_722276)
11 months ago

The Russians on Twitter have been spitting their dummy out all day about Storm Shadow😂
Meanwhile Ukrainian have been gaining ground in counter-offensives done over the past day.
Good choice to make it official even though it’s been going on for a while👍

nestor mahkno
nestor mahkno (@guest_722284)
11 months ago
Reply to  john melling

Did they think we would forget Salisbury?

Mr Bell
Mr Bell (@guest_722323)
11 months ago
Reply to  john melling

The good thing about this announcement is that a huge proportion of Russian high performance air defence assets must now be deployed to protect critical infrastructure. So Kerch Bridge, airbases, rail heads and C3 known sites. All now able to be hit with pin point accuracy.
The redeployment of air defences must surely open up new opportunities to Ukrainian military.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_722345)
11 months ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

A very good point.

I’m sure Johnski Miltonkinski will pop up and say the S400 will solve all those problems!

JohninMK
JohninMK (@guest_722370)
11 months ago

It won’t. The challenge that the Storm Shadow represents needs the full rescources of an IADS, from an intercepter with look down/shoot down radar to a MANPAD, to defeat it. Not forgetting AWACs of course.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_722570)
11 months ago
Reply to  JohninMK

Well said it’s a great weakness for Russia to back up what are effective missiles otherwise, but I’m sure the mad tv pundits will have all the answers to counter matters, if only in their delusionary minds. Can’t wait to see the outtakes.

farouk
farouk (@guest_722353)
11 months ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

Mr Bell wrote: “”The good thing about this announcement is that a huge proportion of Russian high performance air defence assets must now be deployed to protect critical infrastructure. “” That’s very interesting because when France and the UK (along with the US) decide to blatt a number of Syrian sites based in the centre of Damascus in 2018. They all got through. Now Damascus is one of the most heavily defended cities (From Air Attack) in the world which includes Russia S400 (well did as they relocated it on the quiet last year to the Crimea) Around Damarcus airport, the Syrians have… Read more »

Last edited 11 months ago by farouk
John Clark
John Clark (@guest_722376)
11 months ago
Reply to  farouk

I think Storm Shadow (what launch platform????) Will be able to pretty much get past all Russian defences, it’s got a low radar signature, a low infrared signature and multi sensor terminal homing…

So it’s goodbye to the Bridge, goodbye to the Naval base and goodbye and good night to airfield infrastructure in Crimea…

This shit just got terrably real Mr Putin, who was it who said revenge is a dish best served cold?

I do hope at least one bares the name
“Sainsbury’s Reply”

FOSTERSMAN
FOSTERSMAN (@guest_722475)
11 months ago
Reply to  John Clark

It will be interesting to see how they launch stormshadow since it is such a large missile. My bet is they come up with another ingenious land vehicle launcher.

Bob
Bob (@guest_722517)
11 months ago
Reply to  John Clark

Early speculation centred on the SU-24, which I believe they still possess?

lonpfrb
lonpfrb (@guest_723059)
11 months ago
Reply to  John Clark

Salisbury reply?

John Clark
John Clark (@guest_723071)
11 months ago
Reply to  lonpfrb

Absolutely, Sainsbury’s in Salisbury had to close for weeks after the attack!😂😂

My typo …. Flapping auto correct 😂

As in Short Stirling ” MacRoberts Reply” for those who care to loo it up….

DaveyB
DaveyB (@guest_722529)
11 months ago
Reply to  farouk

Storm Shadow uses an imaging infrared “camera” to search for and then lock on to the target based on library imagery. Good luck trying to decoy it by using radar reflective buoys.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_722576)
11 months ago
Reply to  farouk

‘Don’t panic Mr Mainwaring’ … how’s that translate into Russian as Jack Jonesky Drives his T34 towards the front line across the Kerch Bridge?

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_722379)
11 months ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

That is a very good point the threat itself will require a redeployment of the russian IADS…meaning a weakening across the front lines and more opportunities for the rest of the Ukrainian air assets to be used. Sometime we forget how potent just the threat of something can be if it forces a change in behaviour to the detriment of your enemy..without ever using the thing…..

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_722579)
11 months ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Well said which is why the drone attacks in Russia are so important the damage they do are secondary to that prime mission of weakening air defence where it matters.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_722398)
11 months ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

Whereas and a big maybe, if nothing had been said or said afterwards then more of a breakthrough might have happened?

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_722581)
11 months ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

The information had got out, it’s been whispered for a few months but this past week or so it was being reported almost as fair so little point in denying it.

David Lloyd
David Lloyd (@guest_722430)
11 months ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

Exactly. Don’t forget that the war criminal Putin and his equaly unpleasant flunkey Medvedev will now have to move their bunkers further east – just in case

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_722451)
11 months ago
Reply to  David Lloyd

Have any of the Russian leadership actually had any military experience, even their generals, that we know of? None of them seem to be putting up their hands to go to the frontline either. Ukraine will be waiting for them.

David Lloyd
David Lloyd (@guest_722559)
11 months ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Shoigu the Defence Minister has no military experience, he is just one of Putin’s old chums. Those Russian generals who had experience of either the Georgia war or Syria have either been killed or replaced. Lots of them, over 40 I gather

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_722471)
11 months ago
Reply to  David Lloyd

SS is to be used only in UKR territory. Even if it weren’t, it would not threaten their bunkers. Have you heard of Metro 2, Kaminsky Mountain, and Yamantau as just 3. Too deep. We are in nuke territory there and not going there thank you.

Yes, I know Metro 2 isn’t a bunker but an example.

David Lloyd
David Lloyd (@guest_722560)
11 months ago

The Curious Droid youtube channel has a very good one on bunker busting ordnance but mainly considering the Iran nuclear complexes. I would post a link but I expect Lisa would moderate it because it’s right up-to-date on concrete advances

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_722564)
11 months ago
Reply to  David Lloyd

👍

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_722467)
11 months ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

They’ve always prioritised such AD, back to Cold War times when the threat of SAC hung over them. Even then, the wests tech advantage would have negated their massed defences, like in Syria as F outlined. They also have a disadvantage at the huge area they need to defend, even if most is concentrated around the Moscow Bastion.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_722568)
11 months ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

They have lost at least 130 high end defence systems during the war as referenced by Onyx up to the beginning of April. They can’t easily replace those and they have to cover a wide area both in Russia (which is why Ukraine is employing drones there) but more significantly around the horseshoe of their occupied Ukrainian territory and Crimea. Ukraine has apparently lost a 100 but have new often superior systems to them, coming in as replacements but more importantly being inside the horseshoe can far more effectively use what they have. This is only going to get worse… Read more »

Andrew
Andrew (@guest_722277)
11 months ago

i guess ill be the first fool, how will ukraine launch storm shadow, the bbc web site says there are soviet aircraft that can launch it, testing seems to usually take a long time. is this a case of its war, get it done and live testing?

Andrew
Andrew (@guest_722278)
11 months ago
Reply to  Andrew

couldnt even make that lol

nestor mahkno
nestor mahkno (@guest_722282)
11 months ago
Reply to  Andrew

If mig 29’s can launch Harm, am pretty sure they can get Storm Shadow to launch from an Su24.

Amazing what you can jury rig when necessary 😉

Robert Blay
Robert Blay (@guest_722299)
11 months ago
Reply to  nestor mahkno

The updated version of StormShadow (Spear4) can be launched in different modes. In the case of Typhoon, it will have the full fat mid course guidance capability with two way datalink, mid course guidance and re-targeting in flight modes. The version supplied to Ukraine will probably be the fire and forget version. All the targeting information Is programmed on the ground before launch. Once it’s on its way, that’s it, it’s on it’s own. So pretty simple-ish to integrate. It is an extremely capable weapon.

David Lloyd
David Lloyd (@guest_722340)
11 months ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Hi Robert

In 2018 during a joint attack with France and the Americans on a chemical weapons facility in Syria, 8 Storm Shadow were fired from a Tornado. Subsequently, Russia announced that all 8 missiles launched from the Tornado were shot down by Syrian Air Defence Forces, which was denied.

It does have a terminal maneuver where it climbs up and searches for it’s target. The UkR have been shooting down Russian missiles with a similar terminal mode. I expect the defence industry will be interested in how they perform

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_722348)
11 months ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

I don’t know if you saw Lewis Page in the Rantograph slagging off Storm Shadow?

The guy looks and sounds like he spends most of his time in the pub.

Total tosh written by someone who I can confidently say knows nothing about missiles….

Louis
Louis (@guest_722368)
11 months ago

Yes, certainly made me laugh to read. Thought it would be ground launched, got the range wrong, and ignores important facts like it’s stealth or that there are plenty of subsonic missiles that are effective.

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_722380)
11 months ago

Rantograph… not heard that one before…I like it.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_722459)
11 months ago

Isn’t he the guy who’s only interested in the army and the other services are stealing their budget?
I don’t read that Telegraph.

JohninMK
JohninMK (@guest_722285)
11 months ago
Reply to  Andrew

Probably in the same way and from the same aircraft as the UAF launches its AGM-88 HARM missiles.

taffybadger
taffybadger (@guest_722289)
11 months ago
Reply to  Andrew

StormShadow is pretty much self contained, just needs to be taken to a launch point and off it goes.

Dern
Dern (@guest_722476)
11 months ago
Reply to  Andrew

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ekw9S0oXIAEJ-l2.jpg

Whenever a question like this comes up I think of this memo.

DP
DP (@guest_722527)
11 months ago
Reply to  Dern

Love it!

Airborne
Airborne (@guest_722717)
11 months ago
Reply to  Dern

Hilarious, so relevant and so up to date 😂👍

Challenger
Challenger (@guest_722279)
11 months ago

Surely even the Russians must be losing track of how many of ‘red lines’ Ukraine’s supporters have now crossed!

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_722349)
11 months ago
Reply to  Challenger

Graph paper?

Python15
Python15 (@guest_722465)
11 months ago

😂😂😂

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker (@guest_722526)
11 months ago
Reply to  Challenger

Russia’s response might be to arm U.K. enemy’s.
I will keep a look out for Russian cruise missiles appearing with the new
Siberian trained Scottish terrorists.
Don’t need aircraft, they just throw them tossing the caber style of a big hill.

Woody
Woody (@guest_722295)
11 months ago

I’m generally a reader rather than a poster but enjoy input from Daniele and others,
Regarding Ukraine, there is not much reported of air war or superiority by either side and it seems to be a relentless war of attrition on the ground .What are the grown ups view on why AirPower ( excluding drones) has not been more significant?

Levi Goldsteinberg
Levi Goldsteinberg (@guest_722318)
11 months ago
Reply to  Woody

As far as I can gather, the prevalence of MANPADs and other AA systems has made risking aircraft in supporting roles prohibitively risky. To Russians, a few dozen mobiks being killed is not worth risking having a Su-25 turned into Swiss cheese by a Starstreak

john melling
john melling (@guest_722344)
11 months ago

Sounds stupid, to say but it strangely feels like air power has become almost unneeded, as you don’t see many videos and posts talking about air strikes. It’s more aero reconnaissance units with UAVs dropping grenades and mortars.
And also rockets, missiles, and trench warfare with backup from combined arms, tanks and ATVs and IFV etc
From watching the posts from the front lines and as others have said perhaps a lack of aircraft and willingness to use jets knowing AA is also doing damage

farouk
farouk (@guest_722366)
11 months ago
Reply to  john melling

John wrote: “”Sounds stupid, to say but it strangely feels like air power has become almost unneeded, as you don’t see many videos and posts talking about air strikes.”   Not really, the problem for the Russians is unlike the West, they didn’t invest as heavily into PGM and targeting pods (which allow the West to strike from a distance) The UK found that out the hard way when flying a Tornado down the centre line of an enemy runway whilst fitted with a JP233 isnt really that good an idea and yet despite all the evidence that using dumb… Read more »

Last edited 11 months ago by farouk
Dern
Dern (@guest_722482)
11 months ago
Reply to  farouk

Probably because NATO doesn’t invest heavily in Air Defences. I mean we have some sure, but our main way of dealing with the enemy Airforce has always been to have a better Airforce than them.
So Russia never really invested in PGM’s and SEAD because they figured they’d loose the airwar against the west no matter what, so would have to fight them off from the ground. Which makes them look a bit shit when they come up against another Soviet system, that has historically made the same choices in terms of air defence and ground attack.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_722586)
11 months ago
Reply to  farouk

I think it may have been as many as three as I read a while after the event a third had been found which suggests there was a second too. Damn lucky they got away with that one in terms of casualties but if true how do you accidentally release three of them.

Rudeboy
Rudeboy (@guest_722603)
11 months ago
Reply to  farouk

Zero Tornado were lost whilst deploying JP233…

It’s one of the great myths of the war….

One did have a CFT whilst flying away from a strike…

It was loft bombing that had the most casualties…and 1 Tornado was hit at medium altitude whilst using LGB’s…

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_722619)
11 months ago
Reply to  Rudeboy

That’s so interesting, as i’d fallen for that myth too. Thought it common knowledge!

farouk
farouk (@guest_722657)
11 months ago
Reply to  Rudeboy

Rude boy wrote:
“Zero Tornado were lost whilst deploying JP233…””

I never said that any Tornados were lost, I stated that the RAF found out the hardway (which i admit could be construed as a loss so apologies if I gave that impression) that flying an aircraft down the centre line of a runway wasn’t a good idea. The fact remains after 1991, the West gravitated on mass towards Targeting pods and PGMs, which gives them a decisive edge over the Russian air force which was the point I was making. 

Rudeboy
Rudeboy (@guest_722718)
11 months ago
Reply to  farouk

Oddly enough it wasn’t GW1 that forced the change….

It was Kosovo.

So many missions were scrubbed, or targets not engaged, that NATO really started down the all PGM route. Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan with tight ROE drove it even further.

Farouk
Farouk (@guest_722724)
11 months ago
Reply to  Rudeboy

The Buccaneer was the first British Aircraft to be fitted with a targeting pod,. they were used to laze targets for bomb carrying aircraft in the 1991 conflict in Kuwait, Also a load of TIALD laser designator pods were rushed into service for the same war, these pods saw service until they were replaced by the lighting pod for the Tornadoes and sniper for the harriers.

Rudeboy
Rudeboy (@guest_722728)
11 months ago
Reply to  Farouk

Buccaneers got Pave Tack pods in the 1970’s when they were to use them with Paveway for anti-shipping strikes. There weren’t ‘loads’ of TIALD pods…there were 2. Called ‘San’ and ‘Tray’ after the Viz characters. Both were prototypes. It took several years post 1991 before TIALD actually entered full service… Only around 40 TIALD pods were ever made…they were a very rare item. It was only in the mid 2000’s when we started to get limited numbers of Sniper and Litening pods as the resolution on TIALD wasn’t good enough to comply with ROE in Afg… Litening is still rather… Read more »

Farouk
Farouk (@guest_722730)
11 months ago
Reply to  Rudeboy

I never said there were loads of them, i stated the RAF had them, which kind of explains why Buccaneers would accompany other aircraft carrying air to ground ordinance.(Which with your knowledge on the subject you should remember because I do) meaning they weren’t as common as muck. the fact remains the U.K. realised that targeting pods afforded a longer range strike capability and they realised that before 1980, which was reinforced by the 1991 Gulf war, where PGMs really came into their own. as for lightening been as rare as rocking horse shite, I was under the impression the… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_722383)
11 months ago
Reply to  john melling

Yes but this is Russian air power..which seems to struggle against even the quite primitive and weak Ukrainian integrated air defence system..western airforces have proven that they are able to take apart Sophisticated and dense integrated air defence systems with immunity and then pound h very large national armed forces into dust….so I don’t think western nations need to unlearn what they have learnt in the western air campaigns of the 1990s-2020s…what they have learnt is that they don’t actually have a peer in Russia….and therefore the Russian armed forces are probably more exposed to western air power and integrated… Read more »

Sky Blue One
Sky Blue One (@guest_722523)
11 months ago
Reply to  Jonathan

One of their biggest failings is that a sophisticated DAS isn’t theatre entry standard for them and when they do have a DAS of sorts fitted it is generations behind what we would expect in terms of automation. Most of their fits are manually operated. if you look back to the early months of the campaign and footage of Russian aircraft they were banging off countermeasures at a ridiculous rate. It ‘s been suggested that a high number of their aircraft losses was simply down to them expending their countermeasures through fear rather than the aircraft receiving any declaration on… Read more »

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_722585)
11 months ago
Reply to  john melling

I read Ukrainian Pravda which gives a daily coverage of events. Was a very interesting video of Ukrainian jets attacking Russian assets in a forest flying right over them low and fast and it seems hitting their targets too. There are daily reports of air strikes from both sides though most ( esp Russian) seem to be related to long range missile launches and recently winged bombs. But do seem to be strikes on a daily basis so probably more action than we think. Seem to be far less helicopter strikes these days mind they seem to be suicidal as… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_722322)
11 months ago
Reply to  Woody

Hi Woody. 😀
Russia’s reluctance/inability to fully commit.
Russia’s inability to conduct an effective air campaign due to a lack of training/professionalism.
Widespread GBAD from both sides.
Lack of Ukrainian aircraft, reluctance to lose what they have remaining.
Speculation, but unspecified NATO assistance to UKR in warning of incoming AC?

Mr Bell
Mr Bell (@guest_722325)
11 months ago
Reply to  Woody

Effective air defences. Mobile air defences and the utter rubbish state of command, training, integration and accuracy of the Russian air force and missile forces. The Russian inability to conduct a strategic air campaign bodes really very very poorly should any conflict with NATO occur.
I’d imagine the RAF and French air forces alone could probably defeat Russia’s air force.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_722352)
11 months ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

Motivation of knowing you are defending your homeland from invading criminals also helps?

As probably the knowledge of the materiel support NATO and others are offering.

Woody
Woody (@guest_722431)
11 months ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

Thanks for your responses, i wondered if it highlighted differences between western and eastern strategies and technology that air is not being utilised. If you look at the gulf war, air dominance was vital, I get your points that technology has moved on and they are just too vulnerable

Dern
Dern (@guest_722681)
11 months ago
Reply to  Woody

If western nations were involved it would be a very different story for sure. Baisically the USSR invested heavily in Air Defence but not so much in the actual air force, it kind of knew NATO would dominate the skies, so aimed to work around that idea, not fight the inevitable. Russia and Ukraine, both being successors of the USSR, have inherited the same system: Very strong Air Defence, and comparatively weaker Air Forces. So you get two forces really good on the defence, not great on the offence and the result is: not much air combat. If NATO was… Read more »

Dern
Dern (@guest_722481)
11 months ago
Reply to  Woody

There’s a video out there, I don’t have the link sadly, of a SU-25 pilot flying low and fast, and then popping up to fire a bunch of missiles in a ballistic arc. If you know what you’re looking for you can see his radar warning indicator go absolutely batshit the moment he pulls back on his stick, with at least 3-4 different radars illuminating him. (Which means that at least 3-4 people are tracking him and potentially getting ready to lob a Surface to Air Missile at him). For the Ukrainians, flying high is also not an option, because… Read more »

Last edited 11 months ago by Dern
Woody
Woody (@guest_723765)
11 months ago
Reply to  Dern

Thanks Dern,
watching the link 👍

DaveyB
DaveyB (@guest_722659)
11 months ago
Reply to  Woody

HI Mate, the following may answer your question. Air Power is a strategic concept that incorporates everything from a mission objective, to firing a weapon from an aircraft, its supporting logistics and the team supporting the pilot in undertaking their mission.   Last year at the start of the War, Russia most definitely had the advantage in regard to “air power”. But from Day 0, it was squandered through inept leadership and a distinct lack of any strategic thinking in the following successive months, in both the deployment and support of their ground-based air defences (GBAD) and their use of… Read more »

Woody
Woody (@guest_722750)
11 months ago
Reply to  DaveyB

Thanks Davey, Dern,
Both great answers with great detail,

Airborne
Airborne (@guest_722309)
11 months ago

Wow, a swarm of zanussi fridge freezers, with a grenade taped to the handle, dropped from a 1950s flying shed, piloted by half trained cretins on less than 40 hours flying per annum, commanded by incompetent thieves and embezzlers! Yep, time to shit our pants…..not!

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_722319)
11 months ago
Reply to  Airborne

😆👍

Mr Bell
Mr Bell (@guest_722328)
11 months ago
Reply to  Airborne

😃😂😃😂🤣 very funny.
I laughed for days when the Russian air force bombed their own city 40+ miles inside Russia. Couldn’t even bomb the right country.

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF (@guest_722378)
11 months ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

🤣😂😁👍👍

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_722385)
11 months ago
Reply to  Airborne

Free fridge freezers, I will take one of those.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_722588)
11 months ago
Reply to  Jonathan

I am beginning to understand why the Russians are looting so many white-goods from Ukraine now.

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_722599)
11 months ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

It’s a new spin on the old propaganda air drops….instead of leaflets it will be a “hot” white goods air drop.

Barry Larking
Barry Larking (@guest_722389)
11 months ago
Reply to  Airborne

(Speaker of the House of Lords, for it is he) “Thank you M’Lud Archbishop for that thoughtful and reasoned intervention …”

Airborne
Airborne (@guest_722719)
11 months ago
Reply to  Barry Larking

😂👍

Levi Goldsteinberg
Levi Goldsteinberg (@guest_722317)
11 months ago

lol, lmao even

Mr Bell
Mr Bell (@guest_722320)
11 months ago

Yet another threat from these utter losers.
Try it on why don’t you? We will meter out to Russia anything they try to do to us.
Novichok= storm shadow that is our proportionate response.

Louis
Louis (@guest_722365)
11 months ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

Not really. Here we are sending arms to a nation that has been invaded. Salisbury was a state sanctioned poisoning on British territory. Significantly worse. We should have cracked down on Russia then… never good to dwell on decisions we can’t change now though.

Donald Allan MacColl
Donald Allan MacColl (@guest_722327)
11 months ago

we could make sure they don’t win
but we couldn’t win ourselvesas that includes the invasion of russia with either troops or bombs and missleis which they uk don’t have enough of (im talking off both troops and missliels)

but don’t worry, when the chips are down the USA will (or is soppoed to) come in.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_722336)
11 months ago

It isn’t a case of “we” it is NATO.

And NATO has no interest in invading Russia

Dern
Dern (@guest_722346)
11 months ago

But NAFO does… NAFO expansion is non-negotiable.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_722454)
11 months ago
Reply to  Dern

NAFO?

Dern
Dern (@guest_722466)
11 months ago

North Atlantic Fellas Organization (NAFO, French: Organisation des Fellas de l’Atlantique nord, OFAN) is a group that definitely has never pronounced nonsense, and has certainly never been funded, or part of the CIA.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/15/NAFO_OFAN_brain_damaged_cartoon_dogs.jpeg

It’s expansion remains non-negotiable.

Last edited 11 months ago by Dern
nestor Mahkno
nestor Mahkno (@guest_722468)
11 months ago

The CIA does not exist.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_722500)
11 months ago
Reply to  nestor Mahkno

Eh?

JamesD
JamesD (@guest_722653)
11 months ago

I’m utterly shocked that you the master of all military jargon is unaware of the Twitter dog army of NAFO 😂😂 a silly joke as it started has become quite something, raising at this point probably millions for Ukraine while keeping the Russian trolls at bay online.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_722694)
11 months ago
Reply to  JamesD

Sadly true….I can talk to you about the smallest of obscure MoD sites, but id actually never ever heard of this.

As others say, every day a school day here, our collective knowledge is fantastic. 👍

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_722506)
11 months ago
Reply to  Dern

Ok, just got round to looking it up. It does….😆

Dern
Dern (@guest_722520)
11 months ago

I posted a reply with a link, but it’s stuck in approval hell because of the link >:/

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_722561)
11 months ago
Reply to  Dern

I’ll enjoy seeing it, I had no idea of their existence till you mentioned them, I’ve learned something.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_722354)
11 months ago

Christ, less than no interest.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_722455)
11 months ago

I know, it is amazing how much their paranoia after 1812 and 1941 has affected their brains.
Expanded on by Putin to justify his own moves.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_722593)
11 months ago

Perhaps when you spend 200 years rewriting history to suit yourself, you start to get far too good at it for your own good, esp when it all turns inward. Very worrying future across the pond as their position in the World becomes all the more threatened and I fear that inward ‘reflection’ will become far more messy where objectivity isn’t even in the dictionary any more. For all his faults I think Macron sees the prospective dangers in relying on cross pond security just don’t see enough European unity to achieve what he wants mind. But increased self sufficiency… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_722391)
11 months ago

The UK would not need to invade Russia…the RN and RAF on their own have quite the potential to remove the russia navy and airforce from the North Sea as we also sit on pretty much all russia access to sea trade routes it’s game set and match if russia decided to make it more kinetic….that’s even before you add NATO..Simply put the forces that just the key European NATO nations could bring to bear are utterly overwhelming and would completely crush Russia…hundreds of warships….3500+ military aircraft… But we are not going to invade Russia just react and contain Russia… Read more »

Last edited 11 months ago by Jonathan
PeterS
PeterS (@guest_722331)
11 months ago

I doubt that the small number of missiles supplied will make much military difference. But giving Ukraine something they can threaten to retaliate with, if Russian missile attacks on civilian targets continue, might have some deterrent effect.

farouk
farouk (@guest_722338)
11 months ago
Reply to  PeterS

Peter wrote: “”I doubt that the small number of missiles supplied will make much military difference.”” The problem for Russia isn’t the number of Storm Shadow missiles the Uk hands over (Note the UK purchased around 700) but how others followed suit, after the UK started that ball rolling, be it NLAW, Starstreak, Tanks, etc. So in this case, what’s to stop the Germans/Spanish handing over a few KEPD 350 (Aka Taurus) the French their version of the Storm Shadow, meaning that Moscow will have a much bigger problem. But that isn’t the only issue for Moscow regards the supply of… Read more »

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_722355)
11 months ago
Reply to  farouk

Russian logistics are dreadful anything that can be done to make them worse is only going to make it easier for the Ukranians and to increase the infighting between Russian MOD and the private armies like Wagner.

Mr Bell
Mr Bell (@guest_722436)
11 months ago

And the majority of the logistics going into Crimea to keep the Russian stolen territory propped up comes across Putin’s vanity project Kerch Bridge- which surely must now be visited by as many Storm Shadows as possible. Once severed resupplying Russfascist troops based in Crimea becomes a good bit harder.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_722437)
11 months ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

Well I think the first strike is on the railway part of the bridge. That is used for supplies of fuel etc.

The second on the Russia -> Crimea part of the bridge?

Do you think they’d get the hint?

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF (@guest_722369)
11 months ago
Reply to  farouk

Farouk,

Absolutely agree UK is acting w/ malice aforethought in this matter, leading by example. Well done, carry on. 🤣😂😁😉

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_722393)
11 months ago
Reply to  farouk

Very true..it’s a nations will to fight that always matters…on paper the French third republic should have smashed the wehrmacht even without the BEF…instead it fell apart…Ukraine should have fallen apart in the face of overwhelming advantage in numbers of armed forces, industrial capacity and wealth…but it’s still handing Russia its arse a year later….the taliban should never have been able to win in Afghanistan against the combined power of the western world…supporting the Afghanistan government. The will to fight is pretty much everything. The RN and UK armed forces should not have been able to travel 8000 miles, sit… Read more »

Last edited 11 months ago by Jonathan
PeterS
PeterS (@guest_722447)
11 months ago
Reply to  farouk

So a deterrent effect then and probably intended to be. Quite different from NLAW and Javelin which were given to be used asap.

Andrew D
Andrew D (@guest_722484)
11 months ago
Reply to  farouk

👍

Dern
Dern (@guest_722485)
11 months ago
Reply to  farouk

“SHOIGU WERE IS THE AMMUNITION!?”

Marius
Marius (@guest_722341)
11 months ago

Dmitry Peskov, a cheap skate rabble rouser who can make Goebbels seem decent. Anyone who follows news from Putin’s disaster in the Ukraine, will by now know that Peskov counts for nought. As thick as two short planks!

Sean
Sean (@guest_722358)
11 months ago

My own regret is that Ben Wallace didn’t say that that the provision of Storm Shadow, the work required to ensure compatibility with Ukrainian aircraft, and training, was undertaken as “Project Salisbury”… 😏

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF (@guest_722374)
11 months ago
Reply to  Sean

Really would have been amusing if Big Ben would have stated that UK was loaning Tranche 1 Typhoons to launch the Storm Shadows. Believe Mad Vlad might have figuratively screwed himself into the Kremlin”s ceiling over that news; either that or collapse from apoplexy–both interesting options. 🤔😳😁

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_722394)
11 months ago
Reply to  Sean

I think people forget what Russia actually did to this county and how much payback they deserve….what Russia did was an artic five event and the UK had every right to do something pretty nasty in retaliation…a lot of nations would have ( I’m not sure the US would have sat back if it had happens in say Boston).

Challenger
Challenger (@guest_722371)
11 months ago

Russia is finished as any sort of world power / top tier economy, May take a while but they have been militarily hollowed out and shown to be utterly corrupt and incompetent in Ukraine. They cannot win, although whether Ukraine can or whether it’ll degrade into stalemate frozen conflict is another matter. They have a declining population, a ‘brain drain’ caused by the war and a stagnating economy which will get much worse as their war chest is frittered away. Their only desirable exports are oil and gas which the world is going to have to try and get away… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_722395)
11 months ago
Reply to  Challenger

Also at some point chinas going to probably invade east Asian Russia for food production land…

Mr Bell
Mr Bell (@guest_722439)
11 months ago
Reply to  Jonathan

I think your right. China needs resources- especially food, minerals, gas and oil- all in plentiful supply in Russia’s far east. Russia really is a spent force. There is nothing short of Russia’s nuclear arsenal to stop China taking the far east. Would Russia use nuclear weapons to protect its sparsely populated and frankly forgotten about territory. Some of Russia’s far eastern territory is further away from Moscow then New York is.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_722594)
11 months ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

And the Chinese are gradually renaming parts of those regions back to their former Chinese names (15 so far) including Sevastopol. Strange how the Russians said nothing about that yet this week went into a frenzy when Poland restored Kallingrad back to its former Polish name. So beautifully amusing.

Meirion X
Meirion X (@guest_723435)
11 months ago
Reply to  Jonathan

I’m not sure that there is much land suitable for agriculture in the Eastern area of Russia boarding China.
Is not that part of Eastern Siberia very cold in the Winter, with a late Spring?
Yes, oil and gas there!
If Russia was to break-up after the war, the West needs to step in to help a rump East Siberian state to resist China.

Last edited 11 months ago by Meirion X
Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_723456)
11 months ago
Reply to  Meirion X

Hi Meiron There is a lot of Siberia that at present is not much use for agro..but there is also a lot that is of use and is not being well managed due to lack of farmers…but the apposolute fundamental change is climate change and global warming…basically the models show that china is in a zone that will not be conducive to agriculture at all but Siberia, especially the north will will open up, the south of Siberia will need well managing as warming will potentially create soil erosion if it’s not properly farmed. This is from a research from… Read more »

Fedex
Fedex (@guest_722382)
11 months ago

After what they did in Salisbury, Litvinenko and all the other murders carried out by them on UK soil and abroad. Any opportunity we have to put the boot in we should do so. They laughed that we were powerless and insignificant to do anything about their acts. Well they ain’t laughing now.

Mr Bell
Mr Bell (@guest_722441)
11 months ago
Reply to  Fedex

No I think they are about to find out that facing a Challenger 2 in full attack mode is nothing to laugh about.
Storm Shadow a 20 year old missile that we can easily produce better more upto date versions of are nothing to laugh about
NLAW have proven to the cost of thousands of Russfascist armoured vehicles to be nothing to laugh about.
Operation Salisbury in full retribution mode. You reap what you sow Putin. You’ve sowed the seeds for your own downfall.

ABCRodney
ABCRodney (@guest_722388)
11 months ago

I just have to wonder about the timing of this announcement. It makes no sense if it is like some other “Big” announcements it means just an intent. By that I mean like the US Abrams which was heralded but in reality will probably take a year to transpire. This smacks of we are making the announcement because the work is done, they are in place and noons goes WTF when parts of one turn up on Reuters. Everyman and his dog knows that the Ukraine is going launch a counterattack, And most of us must by now know that… Read more »

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_722440)
11 months ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

The threat of the missiles causes key things like ammunition and fuel dumps to be moved out of range.

That of it myself is a big theatre effect.

Nobody killed doing that either. So it is a passive effector.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_722595)
11 months ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

Abrams will get there in the coming months apparently, already training on them in Germany I believe as the US decided to supply older models from existing stock in the end not the ones that would have taken a year.

JamesD
JamesD (@guest_722654)
11 months ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

They couldn’t manage a river crossing as we saw exactly a year ago today, I doubt anyone (sane) within the russian military would ever contemplate an amphibious landing ever again.

Barry Larking
Barry Larking (@guest_722392)
11 months ago

I imagine the Kremlin is wondering what they could ‘donate’ to Argentina …

Meybe if they gavz somthink to uss, then we khuld give it beck? Justz an idea … You got a better one?

Last edited 11 months ago by Barry Larking
Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_722442)
11 months ago
Reply to  Barry Larking

They have nothing useful to donate.

The kit that the Argentinians had in ‘82 was generally as good as the junk Russia us using in 2023.

BTW the core of the professional Argentinian forces was better trained and better lead than the Russian twits are ATM.

Barry Larking
Barry Larking (@guest_722584)
11 months ago

There was me making a joke …

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_722589)
11 months ago
Reply to  Barry Larking

I gets

Esteban
Esteban (@guest_722402)
11 months ago

The UK is completely defenseless against any sort of Russian top and cruise missiles. Everyone knows that. But by all means keep talking. There are no anti-aircraft missiles defending the UK. There is also no airborne early warning for the UK unless someone else is doing it for them. It’s always best to hide behind someone else.

George
George (@guest_722413)
11 months ago

Well, nobody can accuse our government of seeking a peaceful settlement to this war.

Giving the Ukrainians the wherewithal to strike deep inside Russia is a serious escalation. I know Ukraine wants nothing more than to bring NATO forces directly into the war. But let us hope and pray some common sense creeps into the target selection process.
Anyone know how many Russian nuclear reactors are within Storm Shadows 350 mile range?

Mr Bell
Mr Bell (@guest_722443)
11 months ago
Reply to  George

150 mile range isnt it? Probably quite a lot of nuclear reactors- however you have to be utterly raving lunatic- like the Russians are to discharge heavy weapons of any sort around a nuclear power station. I mean who in their right minds wants another Chernobyl?

RobW
RobW (@guest_722495)
11 months ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

I think George is referring to our version rather than the export model Ukraine are getting. Different ranges. But yes you’d have to be a lunatic to target nuclear reactors, especially just 150 miles from your own country. We will have received assurances about their use i.e. not used on Russian territory.

Louis
Louis (@guest_722499)
11 months ago
Reply to  RobW

Is it certain that they are getting the export version? I assume it means new build missiles then.

RobW
RobW (@guest_722515)
11 months ago
Reply to  Louis

It may well be an assumption but its what most articles I have read implied. Wiki states this too. I’m guessing the difference is just software.

Sean
Sean (@guest_722538)
11 months ago
Reply to  Louis

Given Ben Wallace in his speech said the Kalibr had a 2,000km range, 7 times that of Storm Shadow, the maths indicates they’re getting the export version.

Louis
Louis (@guest_722540)
11 months ago
Reply to  Sean

Even better I guess. Doesn’t drain our stocks and keeps missile production open.
MBDA UK must be very busy atm.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_722591)
11 months ago
Reply to  Louis

The oldest ones we have will have multiple components that are close to expiry.

So it was never on the cards to upgrade those to Spear4.

So we donate or we dispose?

Louis
Louis (@guest_722597)
11 months ago

Getting a bit confused now. Everyone seems to be suggesting it is the export variant Ukraine is getting, implying new build. I agree it would make more sense to send old missiles from our stock, especially considering they are double the range. Unless of course they are modifying missiles from our stock to export standard if that can be done.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_722596)
11 months ago
Reply to  RobW

I don’t know but I would suspect they get them in ongoing batches via RAF flights and any use beyond that agreed would immediately stop that supply. So it’s a very small risk I suspect t and certainly hope.

Sean
Sean (@guest_722546)
11 months ago
Reply to  George

And todays stupidest post goes to George 🏆 • You can’t have a peaceful settlement that is isn’t a just settlement. That is what HMG and every other government supporting Ukraine against Russian fascism wants, a just and peaceful settlement with Russian forces withdrawn from Ukraine and reparations to Ukraine. • Why would Ukraine want to irradiate its fields, towns and cities by targeting Russian nuclear power stations? Chernobyl demonstrated a disaster at a plant contaminates for thousands of miles across dozens of countries. As the radiation would undoubtedly contaminate NATO countries too, this would also undermine the support Ukraine… Read more »

Jim
Jim (@guest_723442)
11 months ago
Reply to  Sean

Better than I could have written. I’m guessing a mix of all three Tbh. A being the most dominant.

Jim
Jim (@guest_723441)
11 months ago
Reply to  George

Are you actually serious. I did plan a point by point push back to your comment but Tbh the idea that Ukr is actually going to use donated kit to destroy Russian nuclear power plants is ludicrous and it’s 150!miles BTW. Not 350! Plainly your pension fund is begging for a swift capitulation by the Ukr side. 🙏🙏

George
George (@guest_723511)
11 months ago
Reply to  Jim

150 or 350 depending on the versions we give them. Do you really know for certain, which one is being supplied? The Ukrainian military has numerous militias and politically diverse factions within it’s ranks. Each with their own agendas. Who is to say if someone from Azov or Right Sector will press the button? Ukraine has lived with the fallout from Chernobyl for decades. If desperate enough I can see some nutter attacking a Russian nuclear power station. Especially to bring about circumstances whereby NATO would become directly involved in their war. You seem to forget that Russia and Ukraine… Read more »

Mr_Flibble
Mr_Flibble (@guest_722434)
11 months ago

The UK have sent the export version to Ukraine – 250 km range

So no deep strikes into Mordor, or hitting the bridge, but the Black sea fleet might be just in range.

SteveP
SteveP (@guest_722480)
11 months ago

I imagine the likely attempts at retaliation by the Russian will be cyber and interfering with undersea cables. Hopefully we’ve put in place some plans to deal with these.
This government is generally as hopeless as all of the other ones over the last couple of decades but their performance on Ukraine has been fantastic. Time and again we’ve taken the lead and it’s great to see us continuing to do so

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_722542)
11 months ago
Reply to  SteveP

True, we have been in the lead all the while. Now we just need the Americans to actually deliver those Abrams tanks and their equivalent of Storm Shadow – and maybe some F-16s?

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_722592)
11 months ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

I don’t really understand the reticence about F16

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_722602)
11 months ago

Neither do I. US sells F-16s to Taiwan, notwithstanding the annoyance of China, and is actively looking at ways to speed delivery.
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/exclusive-us-seeks-way-speed-delivery-new-fighter-jets-taiwan-2022-01-20/

Michael Hannah
Michael Hannah (@guest_722607)
11 months ago

I do not think it is a reluctance to send the aeroplanes. I think the Americans have a good handle on what it takes to bring aircrew, ground crew and logistics to support F16 and they understandably think it is an unnecessary distraction .
If I was the Ukrainians I would be going after the Gripen, excellent fighter, designed to be flown off roads by conscripts with an excellent radar. But there are not that many around.

The project to give the Ukraine airforce should have started 9 months ago.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_722611)
11 months ago
Reply to  Michael Hannah

??? I think the Ukranians have an airforce equipped with Soviet junk. They don’t do as much flying as they would like because the junk doesn’t have the effectors or detectors needed. I don’t really believe that it would be a distraction to motivated people to be given something to get their teeth into. I think pilot and maintainer training should have started, as you say, 9 months ago and they would be good by now. The Grippen isn’t the solution are there are no spare frames around. The world is awash with old F16’s and perfect ones that the… Read more »

Jim
Jim (@guest_723440)
11 months ago
Reply to  Michael Hannah

The problem with Ukr taking any western ac is that they are all pretty much designed and deployed to operate in a completely permissive environment. Operating them over Ukraine atm would simply result in many lost pilots. Such is the effectiveness of Russian AF systems that Ukr would achieve nothing with F16’s ( or any other type) over and above that which they would achieve with they’re old soviet types. Frankly this is not a permissive air war. Ukraine must first take it’s kit, equip and train on SEAD/Dead tactics using HARM or equivalent and persue that until Russian AD… Read more »

Sean
Sean (@guest_722548)
11 months ago
Reply to  SteveP

It will be cyber, to avoid possible escalation to direct confrontation with a NATO member. As the Storm Shadow decision was taken months ago, the U.K. has undoubtedly been planning for such a response. Hence the the NCSC’s (GCHQ) beginning to issue further alerts about cyber attacks about a month ago.

Michael Hannah
Michael Hannah (@guest_722605)
11 months ago

I often wonder if they know how stupid they sound?

Bubblehead
Bubblehead (@guest_722639)
11 months ago

200,000 troops dead or badly injured, one old WW2 era tank on display, it’s becoming clear the with the exception of the underwater arena that Russias threat has been greatly overestimated for many many years. The era of just keep throwing bodies at it and we’ll eventually win has long gone.

JohninMK
JohninMK (@guest_722640)
11 months ago

It is possible, even probable, that the first SS attack was today when a factory in Luhansk, so far out of UA’s weapon’s range, was accurately hit. Also, it seems accompanying the SS were the first known use of ADM-160B MALD (Miniature Air-Launched Decoy) decoy missiles, with wreckage found nearby.

farouk
farouk (@guest_722655)
11 months ago
Reply to  JohninMK

Jimk:
 
Three targets in Luhansk were hit:
 
1) Machine Building Plant Nbr100
 
2) Polypak factory used as munitions storage hub.
 
3) Oil depot.

farouk
farouk (@guest_722660)
11 months ago
Reply to  farouk

and from this video, that looks like the middle of the building has been reduced to rubble.

JohninMK
JohninMK (@guest_722676)
11 months ago
Reply to  farouk

That’s a successful mission. It looks like the UAF has had access to the SS for quite a while and the announcement was very carefully timed so as to not tip the Russians off. The RuAF now have a better idea of what they are up against.

Airborne
Airborne (@guest_722714)
11 months ago
Reply to  JohninMK

So, in regard to your posts 16 months ago about Russia taking Ukraine with only missiles and not needing ground forces, in 24 hours (I can cut and paste your post for all to see) what are your thoughts now my little Saville troll?

Jim
Jim (@guest_723437)
11 months ago
Reply to  JohninMK

Well that’s all good for the Russian AF alas they can only sit and watch these little friends tear them several new ones 😂😂😂

Jim
Jim (@guest_723436)
11 months ago
Reply to  JohninMK

It’s stormshadow John, not SS! I realise your getting every little scrap of propaganda in that you can given time is running short but that is pretty desperate.

Frank62
Frank62 (@guest_722644)
11 months ago

If we conducted proportionate response on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine we’d be rolling through devestated Russian territory by now. Funny how Russia throws its toys out of the pram for eventually, reluctantly, belatedly giving Ukraine some measure of the capability Russia has been indescriminately raining on Ukraine for over a year.

JamesD
JamesD (@guest_722656)
11 months ago

So all I’m hearing is ukr will be receiving the MTCR compliant export version which would assume that this model exists in unsold storage somewhere as I can’t imagine the RAF would handicap themselves with it, so is this just a lie or can the full range version itself be handicapped?
As an aside many years ago I’m sure I remember the listed range being 900km but maybe that’s just old age.

Cj
Cj (@guest_722658)
11 months ago

Hi everyone, just wondering if these would be good for taking out the kerch bridge completely so it would be bloody hard to build again.

JohninMK
JohninMK (@guest_722808)
11 months ago

Wreckage found and photographed, Storm Shadow confirmed as weapon used to attack Luhansk.

Last edited 11 months ago by JohninMK
N.
N. (@guest_722946)
11 months ago

so the first targets (confirmed) were in Luhansk, yesterday and today, rather than ‘the’ Bridge. Presumbly this means chances of success were considered too small, given the location / distance / AA? Otherwise, I imagine, this would be ‘the’ top of the list?