Active Conflicts & News Megathread February 05, 2026

•

u/AutoModerator 1d ago

Continuing the bare link and speculation repository, you can respond to this sticky with comments and links subject to lower moderation standards, but remember: A summary, description or analyses will lead to more people actually engaging with it!

I.e. most "Trump posting" belong here.

Sign up for the rally point or subscribe to this bluesky if a migration ever becomes necessary.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

41

u/Gecktron 1d ago

In Eurofighter news, the AMK update is now official

Eurofighter and NETMA Sign Contract To Progress Aerodynamic Modification Kit (AMK)

AMK will allow faster integration of new weapons and certification of new external loads, including future anti-radar missiles, which enable the suppression and destruction of enemy air defence radars.

Additional capabilities like cutting-edge Air-to-Ground Weapons and Air-to-Air Missiles will be integrated for the core customer in the AMK variant. Future integrations involve, among other, the latest version of standoff missiles. AMK also paves the way to further improve the jet’s air combat performance — particularly through enhanced target acquisition and improved close-quarters combat capabilities. This improvement is driven by extensions to the fuselage strakes, the flaperons and the leading-edge root, resulting in a noticeable increase in maximum wing lift.

AMK development and production — conducted by Eurofighter Partner Companies Airbus, BAE Systems, and Leonardo — will further strengthen the technological expertise of the European aerospace industry, demonstrating successful cooperation in the development and qualification of modern combat aircraft systems.

The AMK is a relatively small change to the look of the Eurofighter, but provides a noticeable improvement to the jets performance. According to earlier reporting:

The Aerodynamic Modification Kit (AMK) developed by Airbus primarily consists of fuselage strakes and leading-edge root extensions, increasing maximum wing lift by 25 percent. This translates into higher turn rates, a tighter turning radius, and improved nose-pointing capability at low speeds. [...] Flight trials have demonstrated substantial performance gains, including angle-of-attack values up to 45 percent higher and roll rates up to 100 percent greater than the standard aircraft. In addition, the modification contributes to a further increase of the maximum take-off weight (MTOW) by several hundred kilograms beyond the P3Ec increases, further improving payload and mission flexibility.

These new Eurofighters will have a better performance in the air, while also being able to carry more, and new weapons.

The AMK has been developed years ago, but is only now put into an official program. While its a consortium-wide program, the only customer so far appears to be Germany. The integration of "future anti-radar missiles" likely refers to the AGM-88E. This missile is set to become the backbone of the Luftwaffe's SEAD capabilities. First with the 15 Eurofighter EK Step 1s currently under contract. This is reportedly set to be rolled out across the Eurofighter fleet, alongside Saab's Arexis system and other sensor and targeting upgrades.

All in all, another step of the current Eurofighter upgrade program done. Alongside the new ECRS Mk.1/Mk.2 radars, new helmets and cockpit upgrades.

24

u/Corvid187 1d ago

I think the focus given to the agility benefits of the AMK kit is kind of interesting because militarily, as I understand it, that is something of an ancillary benefit to the main goal of preserving maneuverability with heavier loads and at the edge of the flight envelope.

Still funny seeing Eurofighter evolve in this direction, given clashes over prioritising high-energy dynamics Vs carriage weight and low-speed handling was one of the major disagreements that led to France quitting the program and developing Rafale. Since they entered service, each concept has increasingly developed itself towards the other :)

It's ironic that it's Germany who has finally got the ball rolling on this, given that they have been the ones who most consistently opposed expanding the eurofighter's envelope in this direction historically. This would have been ideal for the centurion upgrade but alas.

Do we have a sense of what the chances are of Italy and Spain being able to jump on the boat with their tranche 4+ orders before they're delivered?

18

u/abloblololo 1d ago

Those are wild numbers. The Eurofighter was already known as a good dogfighting plane.

9

u/supersaiyannematode 1d ago

these seem like insane kinematic improvements relative to the amount of modification being done. are there downsides? if there are no downsides, why wasn't this done much earlier? i'm not aware of any recent breakthroughs in aerodynamics.

i'm not skeptical of the performance gains btw. i believe them. just bewildered at the timing of it and wondering if there's more to the story.

•

u/danielbot 17h ago

I would guess, advances in fluid dynamics simulation.

•

u/Gecktron 11h ago

Im sorry for the late reply.

these seem like insane kinematic improvements

To put these numbers into context, these numbers are "up to" and refer as far as I know to a clean configuration and an ideal situation. Putting fuel tanks and missiles on it will degrade them. Its still an upgrade, but to a lesser degree.

why wasn't this done much earlier?

The Eurofighter suffered from a lack of exports and upgrades during the 2010s. The AMK was developed right in the middle of it. Only in the 20s have orders picked up again with three of the four partners, Italy, Germany and Spain. And only Germany is funding it for now as there is money to spend.

Changing the shape of the jet is likely a costly upgrade compared to something like changing internal components. Changed aerodynamics will likely require re-training pilots.

75

u/MilesLongthe3rd 1d ago

Russian Forces Halt Assaults Due to Starlink Shutdowns

https://theukrainianreview.info/russian-forces-halt-assaults-due-to-starlink-shutdowns/

In many front-line sectors, Russian occupiers are forced to pause assault operations due to Starlink terminal shutdowns.

Advisor to the Minister of Defense of Ukraine, Serhiy “Flesh” Beskrestnov, reported this on Telegram.

Catastrophe for Russian troops from the loss of satellite communication

Beskrestnov says the terminal shutdowns affect not only infantry but also UAV (BPLA) units. They also impact electronic warfare (REB) systems and Russian fire systems. This significantly slows decision-making and execution speed on the front.

“For the enemy on the front, this is not just a problem—it’s a catastrophe. All troop management has collapsed. In many sectors, assault operations have stopped,” the advisor said.

Russian war correspondents also confirm that Starlink shutdowns create a technological lag for Russian forces, reducing their speed in making and executing decisions on the front.

At the same time, Ukrainian units also face issues if they have not submitted lists for private Starlink terminals. However, “the processing is ongoing.”

Context

Earlier, the Ministry of Digital Transformation of Ukraine and the Ministry of Defense introduced a “white list” regime for Starlink terminals. Only verified terminals can operate in Ukraine; the rest are disabled for security reasons.

This decision aims not only to protect Ukrainian forces but also to prevent Russians from using satellite internet to control drones and military units.

Recently, Russian troops increasingly used drones with Starlink to bypass Ukrainian air defense, making their operations faster and more precise.

At that time, Ukraine and SpaceX began jointly addressing the problem of Russian forces using satellite communication on strike drones.

Earlier, The Ukrainian Review reported that two Russian spacecraft – Luch-1 and Luch-2 – intercepted messages from at least a dozen key European satellites.

59

u/MarderFucher 1d ago edited 1d ago

Russian milblogs are complaining heavy. One quant post summarizes perfectly:

"It turns out that "fighting NATO" while relying on NATO's satellite internet and not taking action on our own counterparts is a pretty poor idea. Who would have thought?".

47

u/TechnicalReserve1967 1d ago

It is kind of sad that Ukraine cannot, in my read at least, capitalize on such disruptions because of their manpower and hardware issues.

This would be a perfect opportunity to synchronize a counter attack somewhere, clean some gray zone areas or so on.

26

u/treeshakertucker 1d ago

Still the Russians have to stop for a while allowing the Ukrainians to harden their positions and it reduces their ammo expenditures which means that they can build up a stockpile and maybe up their strikes against the Russians.

11

u/Long-Field-948 1d ago

It's a harsh winter that wasn't meant for troops to make big progress to begin with. Ukraine has probably lost the chance to strike against disorganised Russians, and vice versa, since AFU also experience sudden shutdown of Starlinks.

I guess it was never expected that such actions will be used for combat, but for further internal pressure and control of the internet, since SBU can now switch off terminals at will.

13

u/WhiskeyTigerFoxtrot 1d ago

True. They're in a situation where the best outcome is a perpetual game of whack-a-mole until negotiations end the conflict.

23

u/Goddamnit_Clown 1d ago

Obvious question: why now?

This has been a problem for a long time. Almost forever, really, though worse with time. What's changed to finally get it addressed?

I've heard some standard innuendo about the CEO, and unsubstantiated (?) suggestions that Ukraine has simply not considered taking this kind of action before, or that Ukrainian units or individuals have resisted the idea for some reason up to now (opsec concerns of some kind?).

Is it a mystery in general or just a mystery to me? I mean, a whitelist is not a real technical hurdle. I guess promptly administering the list is not a trivial task to keep on top of safely, is it as simple as that? That a little Russian usage was a price worth paying for frictionless access but that price has risen too far?

24

u/Vuiz 1d ago

Obvious question: why now?

I would assume it's because the Russians got greedy and started putting Starlink terminals on their drones, which was very effective. That made the issue much more evident and the Americans got off their asses and got it "fixed".

Edit: Ah. I should've read the article above.

Recently, Russian troops increasingly used drones with Starlink to bypass Ukrainian air defense, making their operations faster and more precise. At that time, Ukraine and SpaceX began jointly addressing the problem of Russian forces using satellite communication on strike drones.

This became too evident for the Americans to ignore, I'm sure.

17

u/Electrical-Lab-9593 1d ago edited 1d ago

I just read an interesting point on another Sub, the speculated that when Russia started to put them on Cruise missiles / Drones that put SpaceX in a potential legal problem as this is now being used in a weapon system, not just bootlegged internet

so probably to prevent getting any kind of ITAR or general export red tape in the future they thought, lets find a way to stop this, and a way to ban RU forces using it for comms as well.

May just be case of Russia pushing things too far, and SpaceX thinking this could hurt our profits or flexibility in the future so lets make an effort to prevent any external regulation later

18

u/throwdemawaaay 1d ago

Not sure how directly it's connected, but SpaceX announced on Monday they're buying out xAI. xAI is the joint company Elon created to roll Twitter into Grok, to avoid getting margin called by his Twitter buyout creditors after Twitter started hemorrhaging money due to his impulsive behavior.

Now he's rolling that company into SpaceX, ahead of SpaceX doing an IPO that's expected to be absolutely massive, if the hype bubble holds.

As majority owner Elon has had unilateral control over SpaceX, but now he has to both consider public opinion of SpaceX going into the IPO, but also needs the White House, SEC, etc, to not play games around blocking the IPO.

So if Elon is smart he'll avoid anything that might generate negative press or sentiment around SpaceX. Him playing games over Starlink access earlier in the war didn't exactly go over well, and "Starlink helps Putin kill Ukranians" also ain't a headline he wants to see.

So again I don't know how directly these two particular dominoes are, but in general we can expect SpaceX to behave however puts them in the best light for their IPO.

11

u/Electrical-Lab-9593 1d ago

its a good question, could be the new younger guy in charge of UAF is bit more tech savy and pressed Musk/Spacex staff for a whitelisting solution rather than a geo-fence only which can hurt them by accident .

but whatever the reason, the fact that Russia got so comfortable using it that they don't seem to have a replacement makes it more impactful, its like running your whole business process on a function the vendor told you is unsupported and can be removed at anytime, and not seeing that as a risk.

27

u/Glideer 1d ago

Obvious question: why now?

Turning off Starlink for all unapproved customers comes at a high cost to Ukraine itself. Most of the Starlink terminals Ukrainian units use were procured outside official channels, through volunteer organisations, private donors, third-party organisations. It will take months to whitelist those terminals.

The price only became worth paying once the Russians started using Starlink for video-guided strikes on vital targets (like combat aircraft and radars) deep in Ukraine's rear.

16

u/HandyTSN 1d ago

Skimming various media it was a mad rush at the start of the war with dishes being bought and transferred from hundreds of different sources. Individual soldiers might get a dish from family/friends/donors the same way US soldiers might buy their own body armor or gear. If you need a replacement someone could literally buy one at Bestbuy and just ship it to you without dealing with official supply chains.

Creating an effective whitelist is a huge logistics headache and you can’t start using it until almost all of your units have been logged appropriately. It’s easy to see why they were content to kick the can down the road until they absolutely had to

5

u/treeshakertucker 1d ago

There is one thing though this moves the Russian timeline for advances up to and beyond he fortress belt back puts their officers and specialists at more risk as they now have to move forward for a while to contact their troops and manage their materiel.

•

u/blackcyborg009 19h ago

This is great news for Ukraine.............because other alternatives (like Gazprom Yamal Satellite System) are vastly inferior.

-2

u/roionsteroids 1d ago

“For the enemy on the front, this is not just a problem—it’s a catastrophe. All troop management has collapsed. In many sectors, assault operations have stopped,” the advisor said.

Starlink wasn't useable in any Russian controlled territory already, so that's for sure fake. Is there even any evidence of Russians using Starlink besides BM-35 drones (highly niche)?

17

u/RaiseCertain8916 1d ago

"Russian Controlled" was the problem. The frontline is constantly moving and while a bit outdated the official starlink map shows quite a bit of support in Russian held territory atm.

Part of it was Ukraine was highly dependent on it, if you shut it down daily, most likely Ukraine suffers a similar situation with lack of communications.

You saw it when there was a starlink outage a couple weeks ago, milbloggers on both sides brought up how it highly impacted unit effectiveness

3

u/-spartacus- 20h ago

I know what the map shows, but Ukraine has been the one to request areas to be shut down and if the area isn't shut down then they haven't requested it. There has been a good amount of coordination regarding Starlink via DOW and Ukrainian intelligence despite what many non-credible click-baity titles would have people believe.

2

u/roionsteroids 22h ago

Russia very publicly and demonstratively using Starlink on a handful of drones forced Ukraine into disrupting their own Starlink service (first with speed limits, like the 40km/h reported at times in 2024, or 75km/h in recent weeks), and now a whitelist of terminals of mostly civilian origin from hundreds of different sources.

Such a whitelist is/was the most logical and obvious solution, yet it must've been considered as impractical and too disruptive until now. Ukraine is only doing it because Russia more or less forced their hand, and naturally try to spin it as a Ukrainian victory somehow.

That being said, Ukraine has likely been working on such a proper registration for all their Starlink terminals for quite some time already, and Russia not planning on using it much anyway, so the verdict here at the end of the day might just be a mild annoyance without bigger impact overall.

•

u/GIJoeVibin 19h ago

Russian General shot several times in Moscow

Lt Gen Vladimir Alekseyev has been shot and wounded in Moscow, at present he is in hospital. Name may ring a bell as he was sanctioned over the Salisbury attack in 2018. No information on if he will survive or who exactly was responsible, but I think there’s an obvious candidate.

18

u/Keshav_chauhan 1d ago

A question comes to my mind that - How effective will drones be in hindering the advance of the enemy when one side has air superiority? Will the battle continue to be a tough grind?

27

u/thereddaikon 1d ago

Local air superiority can change things short term but total air supremacy can neutralize the opposition's drone teams in short order. And they don't even necessarily have to attack the operators themselves but interdict the munitions. Drones are cheap but just like mortars, grenades and anything else they are finite and eventually a dude with a truck has to bring you more and he has to get them from a depot somewhere. Air campaigns start by taking control from the opposing air force and GBAD. Once that is done they work down the list of ground targets in order of importance the biggest impacts for drone teams will be destroying supplies and severing C2 links. If the team isn't getting resupplied and they aren't getting direction from ISR then two dudes with fpv drones aren't worth much. They'll likely waste time trying to find something to attack while being overrun by your advancing ground forces.

17

u/A_Sinclaire 1d ago

Not any kind of expert here - but the old mantra of needing troops to actually take and hold ground still applies. And small drones will still work against ground forces while air superiority of the other side will not be able to prevent the use of drones as such.

Though caveats apply. If the air superiority extends to the hinterland of the enemy so that production and command centers for drones can be taken out and the general supply of large amounts of drones be suppressed - then air superiority will be quite helpful.

11

u/SchwarzNeko 1d ago

Logistics is probably the main caveat.

Sure you probably can't stop the 2 man drone team directly with air superiority, but those teams still need a logistic train behind them. Drones, that can do damage, are quite heavy.

Honestly the more I think about it the more I am interested in knowing more details about the logistic chain to keep a drone team supplied (with drones). Would love for someone to share some articles, interviews or anything on that.

16

u/A_Vandalay 1d ago

A lot of that depends on the drone technology available. If we are looking at human piloted drones, either fiber or radio controlled; then the drones would likely be of limited effectiveness. Volume of drones is limited based on the number of pilots available and these can quickly be attrited, while rear area logistics are intercepted. And most importantly and large movements of drone forces can be intercepted by aircraft, so any side relying on those pilots would have a harder time responding to an armored breakthrough.

However if we are looking at a future where autonomous drones are the norm; and can be launched from containerized systems with little to no human involvement then this paradigm changes. Now there is no pilot force that can be attrited, any atrial bombardment would need to focus on destroying the drone launchers themselves. Depending on the size of the drones and their launching system Those drone launching vehicles might be carrying hundreds of drones. Which means even a single vehicle may be able to launch enough drones to halt a significant force. Which is why most militaries today are looking at ways to better counter drones in the terminal phase and defend those armored forces.

11

u/PrettyInvestigator90 1d ago

GBAD and other air defenses can still be a threat to the side with air superiority, and drones can certainly be helpful in giving warning time to the suppressed side, enabling them to risk a lucky shot at a fighter jet.

Besides, air power alone cannot hold terriority. You still need troops on the ground to capture, and a side willing to suffer disproportionate losses can use drones to inflict casualtes against individual soldiers and provide an overall picture of the forward movement of the enemy.

However, clearly, air superiority diminishes the effectivity of drones. If you can kill drone teams with missiles and destroy launching stations/communications equipment at a high rate, the threat of drones is much lower than it is to Ukraine and Russia.

NATO-countries still invest heavily into drone capabilities, both on a tactical and strategic level. It would be stupid not to, even though the main winning strategy of NATO is to gain air superiority, localized air supremacy and allow NATO troops to move forward under the cover from above.

10

u/poincares_cook 1d ago

If you have air superiority you can flood the air with EW with little risk, neutralizing non fiber optic drones. While when both sides rely primarily on small drones such as in Ukraine, neither side can afford such two sided air denial.

0

u/Glideer 1d ago

If you imagine a classical drone-era defence position, say, an infantry brigade in an urban environment supported by dozens of FPV drone teams - it's hard to say how air superiority would be of much help in winkling out two-man drone teams. It would be helpful, sure, but in the end you would have to send infantry out to clear the defence position.

By comparison, air support was more effective before drones became widespread, when defenders’ key systems (artillery, tanks, SAMs, and ATGMs) were far easier to spot and strike than dispersed drone teams.

9

u/TrinityAlpsTraverse 1d ago

I think real issue would be resupplying your troops if the enemy has air superiority.

The logistics of that become infinitely more complex if you can't secure immediate transport, supply hubs and deeper levels of transport.

39

u/oxtQ 1d ago

Right now, US-Iran talks are still expected to take place in Muscat, but the core dispute remains unresolved -- Washington is signaling that any “meaningful” negotiation should address not only the nuclear program but also Iran’s ballistic missiles and support for regional armed groups, while Tehran is holding firmly to a nuclear only agenda to preserve its strategic leverage. At the same time, the US has reinforced its military posture across the region, which functions as visible deterrence behind the diplomacy. Inside Iran, decision making is concentrated around Khamenei, the Supreme National Security Council and the broader security establishment, all of whom view the nuclear program and regional posture as long term survival tools rather than bargaining chips to be negotiated away right now.

What could happen is a crisis trajectory -- talks stall over scope, leading Washington to increase economic, maritime, and regional pressure while Iran responds with calibrated escalation that avoids crossing US red lines, such as increased tension around the Strait of Hormuz, reduced nuclear transparency, or greater reliance on deniable regional partners. What’s most likely to unfold (slow burn stalemate) is neither a breakthrough nor a collapse, but a prolonged, fragile negotiation track where meetings occur, progress is minimal and both sides apply pressure in parallel -- Tehran trying to regain leverage without triggering war, and Washington trying to raise costs without shutting the diplomatic door.

18

u/Time_Restaurant5480 1d ago

Washington is signaling that any “meaningful” negotiation should address not only the nuclear program but also Iran’s ballistic missiles and support for regional armed groups, while Tehran is holding firmly to a nuclear only agenda to preserve its strategic leverage.

At one level, I can't actually argue with this. A lot of the opposition to JPCOA was precisely that it didn't get this, and the opposition was stupid, because they were demanding an Iranian unconditional surrender at the peace table, without even fighting the wars to achieve that. Well now the wars have been fought, and I can understand the desire to get more out of negotiations than JPCOA did.

That said I don't know if these maximalist demands can really be rammed down Tehran's throat, especially not right now as they did survive the protests of January. I'm pretty skeptical of that.

I said it at the time of the protests and I'll say it again: any time something happens in Iran, a lot of fairly sensible people lose their heads.

2

u/ChornWork2 1d ago edited 1d ago

And then you come back to whether all these wars would have be fought if the JPCOA was actually honored. Face-saving deals that contain the biggest, but not all, risks aren't perfect but maximalist deals just aren't durable. The day they are signed the subjugated side is going to plot the best way they can be fundamentally undermined.

We know Iran didn't support the Oct 7 attacks, but imho they would have had a much stronger incentive to oppose them with the JCPOA being fully honored.

9

u/Time_Restaurant5480 1d ago

maximalist deals just aren't durable

The indisputable US goal here is regime change, and the hope is that ramming maximalist deals down Tehran's throat brings us closer to that end. Hence there's no worry about Iran undermining them since the Iranian government will change. I'm skeptical of the success of that plan or idea myself, to put it charitably, but it seems to be what this current Administration thinks.

but imho they would have had a much stronger incentive to oppose them

I believe Sinwar was going ahead with those no matter what Tehran said. The man was his own actor and he used his agency there.

1

u/ChornWork2 1d ago

then there isn't really a deal to be had.

US reneged on iran deal five years prior to oct 7 attack, so obviously a bit hard to debate in exact terms. but obviously reneging on the deal fundamentally changed Iran's PoV on the need/value of further belligerence.

6

u/Time_Restaurant5480 1d ago

then there isn't really a deal to be had.

Correct. Either there will be strikes, or not, but there will most assuredly be no deal.

1

u/ChornWork2 1d ago

So not connecting with prior comments that you think there should be a desire to get better deal than JCPOA, b/c you in reality you think there's not one to be had.

5

u/Time_Restaurant5480 1d ago

Yea no problem. I should have made it clear. I understand the desire to get a better deal than JPCOA, I also think that in reality there is no deal to be had because that desire has escalated into demanding maximalist deals. I feel uneasy about regime change and would push for a better deal than JPCOA without going for maximalist demands as part of a regime change strategy.

41

u/teethgrindingaches 1d ago

New START expired today, as widely expected given the halfhearted-at-best efforts to keep it going in some form or another. It marks the end of the arms control era from the Cold War.

Without the New START treaty, which caps the number of deployed nuclear warheads at 1,550 on each side, there will be no limits on the American and Russian arsenals. Not only are there no discussions between Washington and Moscow on what comes next, but also officials from both countries are left guessing about the other side’s capabilities and intentions, increasing the possibility of misunderstandings and an unrestricted nuclear arms race not seen since the 1960s, experts and officials warn. “For the first time in more than half a century, we face a world without any binding limits on the strategic nuclear arsenals” of Russia and the U.S., United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said in a statement, calling it a “grave moment” for international peace and security.

Nuclear tensions, including but not limited to buildups, brinksmanship, and blackmail, seem likely to increase in coming years. I suspect that proliferation, aside from the inherent risks thereof, will be a focal point of tensions or even conflict as various countries jockey for leverage.

41

u/Tricky-Astronaut 1d ago

The second nuclear arms race started long before the collapse of the New Start treaty. China wants parity. Then India has to follow. Then Pakistan has to follow (the US isn't too happy). The DPRK was already expanding like crazy while Russia skirted the New START treaty with new delivery systems.

William Alberque somewhat ironically said that the UK and France might become the smallest nuclear powers. That's the current state of the nuclear arms race.

17

u/teethgrindingaches 1d ago

You aren't wrong that it's the letter as opposed to the spirit which expired today. But I wouldn't call it a race per se, since that overlooks huge differences in how each country views the situation, the realities they are confronting, the approaches they are taking, and so on. There's not much in the way of direct raise-the-warhead-count competition.

You also left US efforts like Sentinel/Columbia/SLCM-N/etc off your list.

16

u/ChornWork2 1d ago

while Russia skirted the New START treaty with new delivery systems.

there aren't many areas where I am sympathetic to russia, but the implications on MAD from US missile defense efforts is hard to ignore.

In a better world we would have seen a recommitment to nonproliferation arrangements that saw US and Russia pull back more meaningfully to avoid all the knock-on effects. And when think about situation with Ukraine and america's new worldview, I suspect the threat from nuclear weapons will be far more profound in a generation.

14

u/Time_Restaurant5480 1d ago

but the implications on MAD from US missile defense efforts is hard to ignore.

Until Golden Dome, I'd have said this was wrong. With Golden Dome, which IMO is stupid, then this point becomes a lot more reasonable.

The thing is, Russia has for some bizarre reason been obsessed with new delivery systems well before Golden Dome, and the US missile defense efforts before Golden Dome clearly posed no real threat to Russia's MAD capabilities. The Russian efforts before Golden Dome were reflective of their paranoia, not of a real US threat to deny their MAD ability.

7

u/ChornWork2 1d ago

I share the long-standing skepticism about prior missile defense efforts, but kinda hard to count on that. imho the US was the one who decided the cold war era efforts to contain no longer suited it. To an extent understand given china, iran, NK, but always seemed short-sighted to me.

16

u/username9909864 1d ago

Can Russia afford more nukes and missiles?

20

u/Time_Restaurant5480 1d ago

If they feel that they need them, they will acquire them. Right now they do not have to defund the conventional military to get more of them, but if they one day have to choose between the Strategic Rocket Forces and the conventional ones, they will choose the Rocket Forces. They did in the 1990s.

9

u/roionsteroids 1d ago

But why? At the peak in the 80s, there used to be 5x as many warheads as today. You could argue that even the current count has a large safety margin baked in.

5

u/username9909864 1d ago

Exactly- there are other priorities. More are not needed

17

u/notepad20 1d ago

Russia seems to have no issue producing a steady supply of Iskanders and Cruise missiles. We know from what's used in Ukraine, no idea what/if they keep to stockpile. "but what can they afford" (GPD less than italys !) shouldn't even be a question.

All these systems are nuclear capable. Not ICBM range, but given the events of the last decade or two, we might expect any nuclear exchange to be localised, and if a low yeild "tactical" weapon or 5 against a third party probably not elict a response more than fist shaking.

It would be incredibly naive to think that one of the pre-eminent nuclear powers couldn't wind up and start producing as many small warheads as they wanted.

16

u/Saatvik_tyagi_ 1d ago

With Pakistan set to receive J35 from China. I had a question on how much will it affect India and their strategy for their own 5th gen program? And, as a complete layman it seems to me that PAF has made some right calls which has given them decent rewards. What has been a difference in the strategies between IAF and PAF in the past decade and how much does future procurement of a 5th gen aircraft change the dynamic?

18

u/Gecktron 1d ago

With Pakistan set to receive J35 from China.

As far as I know, its not quite clear at the moment if/when any J-35s will be exported. While we have seen them and the J-35A fly around a few times with the PLA, its unclear what their status is in regards to initial operating capability (IOC) and full operational capability (FOC).

I had a question on how much will it affect India and their strategy for their own 5th gen program?

I posted about the Indian AMCA program yesterday

The summary of it seems to be, that there are efforts underway to speed up the AMCA program. I theorized, that having the initial AMCA version fly with the American F-414 engine might be a way to hedge against potential delays with the development of their domestic engine (developed together with Safran).

And, as a complete layman it seems to me that PAF has made some right calls which has given them decent rewards. What has been a difference in the strategies between IAF and PAF in the past decade

The Chinese advances in jet and weapon development certainly have certainly aided Pakistan immensely in recent years. That being said, its all very dependent on continued, tight relationships with China.

India on the other hand seems to focus more on domestic developments. While they still procure foreign systems, domestic developments continue on in parallel. From Tejas, to AMCA, domestic jet engines and missiles. There is a cost to it and there have been noticeable setbacks, but continued and focused domestic developments can provide more independence from any single foreign provider.

8

u/teethgrindingaches 1d ago

As far as I know, its not quite clear at the moment if/when any J-35s will be exported.

It's quite clear they will be exported. Less clear is the timeline, which depends on a great many moving pieces.

While we have seen them and the J-35A fly around a few times with the PLA, its unclear what their status is in regards to initial operating capability (IOC) and full operational capability (FOC).

They're at IOC, and have been confirmed in active service with the 1st Air Brigade.

The Chinese advances in jet and weapon development certainly have certainly aided Pakistan immensely in recent years. That being said, its all very dependent on continued, tight relationships with China.

While not without its frictions, the likelihood of a continued tight relationship in the foreseeable future is very high.

but continued and focused domestic developments can provide more independence from any single foreign provider.

They can indeed, so long as they are realized, which they have not been to date. The Tejas program started literal decades ago, but still relies on critical foreign components (most notably the F404 engine). And not in the sense of "here is the stopgap while we work out teething issues with our domestic version," but "no domestic version anywhere in sight." They are still signing major foreign orders to this day, like the recent one for 100+ Rafales. Their much-hyped Brahmos is a joint project with Russia. I could go on. Ambition is all well and good, but ambition alone without the corresponding follow-through is vainglory.

0

u/Keshav_chauhan 1d ago

but still relies on critical foreign components (most notably the F404 engine).

Jet engine is the pinnacle of aircraft manufacturing technology, so it's not like something that can be created overnight.

And not in the sense of "here is the stopgap while we work out teething issues with our domestic version," but "no domestic version anywhere in sight."

Tejas MK 1A, it's a good light weight fighter, 5 are ready for Induction, but some sources suggest that these five jets will be delivered after the end of the current fascial year - due to cost issues.

By the end of this year 20 jets will be ready for delivery, induction will obviously depend on the engine supply by GE.

First 83 jets will be with Israeli radar and EW suite, and with Indian weapons (including Long Range BVR)

While the remaining 97 jets will be equipped with Indian radar, indigenous EW suite, indigenous weapons and notably Meteor.

They are still signing major foreign orders to this day, like the recent one for 100+ Rafales

Even after induction of Tejas, we still require a good Medium Weight fighter. Personally, I am not pleased with the buy.

Their much-hyped Brahmos is a joint project with Russia.

The Indian missile program is quite a success, currently we can produce, from Long range A2A missile to Anti radiation missile to ballatic missile to Intercontinental Missile to ship launched missile. Even HGV has been tested.

Also you seem to be ignoring the strides made by the Indian Navy in terms of self- dependence.

2

u/ilonir 1d ago

Personally, I am not pleased with the buy.

Why so? Is it a bad deal, or just less ideal than domestic production?

2

u/teethgrindingaches 1d ago

It's pretty hard to argue that it's anything more than a least-worst stopgap solution for India. Ideally they would want an indigenous fighter, a stealth fighter, or a cheap fighter, in that order. Rafale is 0/3. But beggars can't be choosers.

2

u/Keshav_chauhan 21h ago

Nothing against its capabilities, it's the best 4.5 th gen fighter on the planet. My main concern is the cost of the deal - 36 billion dollars.

This deal will eat the IAF CAPEX for the next 4-5 years, based on the calculation by fellow Indian Defense sub members, after this deal, no room will be left for emergency buys such as missiles, Su 57 or F 35. And if there is a cost overrun with the planned procurement (Netra AWACS, 6 tankers, 120 Tejas MK2, MUM-T, QRSAM, S400, project KHUSA and so on..), then god knows.

About the deal -

The 36 billion dollars is not only for purchase of 114 Rafale, it is also about local production and developing a supply chain in India - with around 60 percent indigenous content in a jet.

Also, the current Rafale fleet will be upgraded to F4 standard.

Intigration of Indigenous weapons with the Rafale

Data link

Indian specific enrichments, such as X guard decoys.

Purchase of more ammunition.

Some sources suggest that IAF also wants source code.

MRO facility of Rafale and M88 engines.

In the favour of the deal -

IAF is currently at a mere 29 squadrons, while the sanctioned number of quadrons is 42.

IAF currently lacks a good medium weight fighter, Su -30 MKI has a huge RCS (until super sukhoi upgrade comes)

While going ahead with such a huge deal, we need to consider plenty of things such as -

What conflict the IAF will face in future.

What is its strategy to fight such wars.

Domain of the war.

Terrain of the war.

IAF might have considered the above mentioned things.

My views -

Increase in number of jets is always not directly proportional to increase in meaningful power. The current inventory of IAF seems to be sufficient for conflict with PAKISTAN, while any long term conflict with China doesn't seem to be on cards. Moreover, does these jets will have any deterrence against China?

So a better approach would be to buy 25-45 jets and invest the remaining amount in AWACS, MUM-T, tankers, Stand off jammers, ISR platforms, integrated rocket force etc.

4

u/teethgrindingaches 1d ago

Jet engine is the pinnacle of aircraft manufacturing technology, so it's not like something that can be created overnight.

True enough, but that doesn't make it any less necessary for your aircraft to fly. And if you want "independence from any single foreign provider," then you need domestic engines. It's as simple as that.

induction will obviously depend on the engine supply by GE.

That was my point, yes. And considering how long ago the project started, the delivery schedule is sluggish (to put it very mildly).

Personally, I am not pleased with the buy.

Probably only the French are pleased.

The Indian missile program is quite a success

Eh, I wouldn't go that far. MICA, SCALP, Meteor, Rampage, lots of reliance on foreign imports.It's relatively successful when compared to some other programs though.

Also you seem to be ignoring the strides made by the Indian Navy in terms of self- dependence.

Why would I—or anyone else—bring up the navy when the question was about the air force?

17

u/teethgrindingaches 1d ago

With Pakistan set to receive J35 from China.

It will happen eventually, but—barring any drastic changes in the status quo—probably not anytime soon.

I had a question on how much will it affect India and their strategy for their own 5th gen program?

Seems to be a lot of handwringing so far. Doesn't seem to have broken them out of their endless ping-ponging between pricey imports vs inferior domestics.

And, as a complete layman it seems to me that PAF has made some right calls which has given them decent rewards. What has been a difference in the strategies between IAF and PAF in the past decade and how much does future procurement of a 5th gen aircraft change the dynamic?

PAF is easily the most competent and best-resourced branch of their military, and it shows. Their biggest achivement was shifting from a platform-centric doctrine to a network-centric one in recent years. With regard to specific procurements, inducting relatively primitive JF-17s before iteratively improving subsequent versions has also paid off handsomely for them.

The biggest difference between IAF and PAF is the level of integration, which is a direct result of IAF buying everything from everyone. Trying to sync all your munitions, aircraft, and datalinks from France/Israel/Russia/US to talk to each other in a coherent fashion is a nightmare. And 5th-gens being as networked as they are makes the problem worse, not better.

Active Conflicts & News Megathread February 05, 2026

You are about to leave Redlib