@NutzFordBucks@WarMonitor3 With proper supporting assets, training, command and control etc they still have their uses but russia sucks in a lot of these areas. Russia lacking the supporting assets and to long relying on mass over unit effectiveness leaves russia in current situation
@NavyLookout@AWenham1 That aside, there is enough long term evidence showing that having ships pushing 30+ years of service life is extremely costly for little return. A ship serving 20 years will cost half as much to sustain and greater availability then one at 30+ years.
@NavyLookout@AWenham1 Tbf even new build ships when looked up close will show similar signs, the hull plating dipping in like that isn't anything new and gives zero indication on how much the plating has degraded away.
@WarMonitor3 Literally nothing new, and not really anything of concern. Limited routes, poor terrain and strong defences in place. Russia trying to attack here will achieve no gains of note but will reduce strength in other areas so a win for Ukraine
@AndrewW28950303@WarMonitor3 Ukrainian losses in equipment and personnel are down, russian losses I'm equipment down because they don't want to bring the reminder forward but personnel losses are high. Ukrainian drone advantage has entirely negated russian artillery advantage.
@rshereme Russia invades Baltics, The Canadians make up new future war crimes, the Baltics fight them for every inch of land and Poland gets a hard on knowing they are finally off the leash and can rup the Russians apart, Finland creates greater Finland.
@perikles451@Hippogriffter Literally not, but the Texan ego is known for being so big it's too soft to handle someone pointing out where it excellent and where others do better in other areas..
@perikles451@Hippogriffter Ok well GDP wise Texas wins, Education wise Australia wins, on start ups it's mixed bag with Texas raising far more but Australia getting better results with each dollar raised, similar with research.
@mason_8718 This is also why the USN is suffering so badly from delayed maintenance backlog, older ships require more maintenance and actually have less availability.
@mason_8718 The problem with the USN is NAVSEA, ships are required to meet standards that no other nation on earth's even bothers with. NAVSEA is set up for ships to continue fighting regardless of the damage, to last 35+ years, to have massive growth margins etc.
@mason_8718 In regards to lifespans the US trying to pull every ounch of life from a ship means the hull needs to be over engineered to survive the life of use and have a large growth margin for changing technology.
@mason_8718 Most other nations build there ships to be safe enough to retreat with the damage or safely evacuate the crew if it's too bad. This cuts down on the over engineering of designs though means any foreign design needs massive changes to meet NAVSEA standards.
@T51B1@americansulla@ArmchairAdml If it wasn't for the US habit of Americanising every decent foreign product which then leads to over cost delayed then cancelled projects I would say that should go to South korea or Japan, they have or are designing suitable sized vessels that would perfectly fit the role.
@Major_Ferret@ArmchairAdml Cont.... you could build 3 - 4 Burke's for 1 trump class giving you more presence and 125-200% more fire-power. Frigates have an even lower cgt so the 3 - 4 Burke's would become 5 - 8 Frigates
@Major_Ferret@ArmchairAdml Not even close to correct. Naval ship construction eff8ciency is based off of hours per CGT, CGT is compensated gross tonnage, take the gross tonnage and multiply it by the complexity etc. Flight 3 Burke's have cgt of 105k tons, Trump class likely be 300k-450k t
@andreas_m8073@Alex_Oloyede2 Except the Ukrainians had zero interest in joining NATO, but sure logic would dictate if you fear NATO you attack someone not in NATO...