@NotWoofers They won't be in the conversation because Ukraine has licenses to produce APKWS, patriot, Aster and they have Freya and their own AD + EW production. Simply put Russia is too late to scale this
@JettMonroe0x@PolymarketIntel Off ramp went out the window when it started in 2022. Looking forward to the next few years to see some Ukrainian successes
@Bogdan_IR@WarMonitor3 At this rate it's unlikely before 2030 I mean assuming the siege of each city is 18 months exactly like Pokrovsk that's 4.5 years and Sloviansk, Kremina, Dobropillya, Kramatorsk and these lines are more fortified than Prokrovsk you're looking 2030-2031 Putin doesnt have that long
@Frenchroast79@WarMonitor3 EU has a GDP much higher than Russia and can sustain this war for longer. I mean if Russia can't even take the Donbas with just old stored shit Europe gave and now Europe is now properly rearming itself. Simply put Russia is fucked and just like Hitler, Putins ego will kill him
@jj_smither@cameron19460429 Tomahawks just aren't that great for what they are. They have a 25% dud rate so let's say Ukraine gets 20 that's already 5 duds before they even hit anything so that's 15 still up then add in VKS plus GBAD you're maybe looking 1-2 that make it, if even. Too overpriced and limited
@WearyTechnocrat@clashreport While the A50s are Soviet tech from the late 80s/early 90s they've gone under modernization finished in 2014 that's only 12 years ago so not that long ago I wouldn't underestimate them and sure E2s were surged for drones but they also have BM detection capabilities
@WearyTechnocrat@clashreport Sure you do have GB sensors but as we saw from the Iran war with the hit on one in Qatar the US had to move a bunch of AEWC to detect them as well also there is a video of an A50 being low in Alt to detect FP1/2 drones for Omsk E7 would struggle esp in the drone age
@WearyTechnocrat@clashreport Ballistic missiles are totally a relevant threat for them to track because most countries don't have aircraft carriers but do have airfields....... Globaleye makes more sense imo
@WearyTechnocrat@clashreport E2 is prop though not jet engine so you're altitude and speed limited which are major disadvantages especially when it comes to drones, ballistics and CMs
@WearyTechnocrat@clashreport Yeah but the thing about the E2 and Globaleye is you can field many of them, cheaper operating costs, better dispersion due to shorter runways the E7 is stupidly expensive, can only operate on certain runways. Strategically it makes sense to go smaller
@WearyTechnocrat@clashreport I'm glad you brought the Iran war up if you have a few assets Like the E2 that can't be easily replaced but you have several Globaleyes that can launch from basically any airfield making dispersion of said assets more easier then it makes sense to go with several globaleyes
@WearyTechnocrat@clashreport Not really I mean the thing that wins wars now days is cheap and mass produced military equipment it's always been that way since 2022 the MIC is just catching up to that
@WearyTechnocrat@clashreport It does in fact the biggest selling points of the Globaleye is sovereignity, cost and capability. You'd be dumb to spend an E7 unit cost when you can get two Globaleyes and the Globaleye can operate on shorter runways so if an airfield is hit you could basically use most airfield
@WearyTechnocrat@clashreport Global eye is actually the same as the E7 just more compact, same operating time, less cost and it's cheaper to maintain and buy per unit
@pantherajudaea@WXWatcher07 Because CO2 causes atmospheric warming which melts the fresh ice over in the poles which affects the jet stream and AMOC you moron. Israeli retards at it again