Sergei Lavrov To The Rescue.

When even Sir Patrick Stewart is helpless, enter Sergei Lavrov. This is more than just a meme based on famous Lavrov's "Imbeciles, Fvck" (Debily, Blyat'), aimed in whisper at "glorious" representatives of Saudi "diplomacy":

It is an actual product in Russia:

Here is why it is relevant:

San Francisco (AFP) - Facebook said Tuesday it shut down more than 30 fake pages and accounts involved in what appeared to be a "coordinated" effort to stoke hot-button social issues ahead of November midterm US elections, but cannot identify the source despite hints Russia was involved.

It is surreal what this country is becoming. It is on its way to Orwellian nightmare.  

Virtual Economy Bites A Real (Physical) Ass, Or Does It?

Can one sue the air which may have brought the smoke from a distant fire to one's community? Can one sue a jelly fish for it being a jelly fish and being nasty to the touch, or, can one sue a stump for being a stump, after one hurts his legs and butt trying to jump over it on one's bike? Of course not. But let me drop here all pretense of faux-profundity and state it clear in the most primitive way--LOL!

Days after Facebook’s stock suffered the largest drop in Wall Street history, a shareholder sued the company, accusing the social media network of making misleading statements about its user numbers and operations. The plaintiff, James Kacouris, filed the lawsuit Friday seeking class-action status and to recover damages. Kacouris alleged that Facebook and its chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, violated federal securities laws by misleading shareholders about the company’s number of active users and the slowing growth of its revenue. Kacouris also named Facebook chief financial officer David Wehner in the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Sorry guys, I have no sympathy whatsoever towards any, ahhh

Who ever thought that a so called "company", which "produces" nothing but all kinds of mental disorders for a huge global audience which is fixated on "hip" and suffers from different stages of exhibitionism syndrome, can be counted as a productive force? What kind of "investment" is that? Investing in WHAT--200 pages of code and few buildings with servers in them? But never mind, as Facebook's collapse reveals, get this:

The company’s supporters rushed to its defense, mounting impassioned proclamations that Mark Zuckerberg alone is best suited to lead a quarter of the world’s population and that only he could possibly wield the responsibility for governing what amounts to a global digital dictatorship of two billion people.

Isn't it, finally, a time to call this shit for what it is? Who the fvck is Mr. Zuckerberg? A boy with a knack for writing a software--gee-whiz, there are hundreds of thousands like him software wizards all around the globe and if FB to disappear tomorrow, in no time there will be another social network available, oh wait--there are OTHER social networks. I might not like Bill Gates, who is a typical uber-liberal shithead, but at least Microsoft, despite all of its grossly overrated products, actually produces them in terms of software. It is a product and, however coercive, it is in demand and performs some useful functions. What is useful function of Facebook?

Since when some hipsters and nerds with no serious life, academic or any other experiences (nor education) started to express their, most of the time incompetent, opinions on the whole host of serious issues be them global or community-level. What kind of business model is a Facebook? Profits? As anything in a proverbial FIRE so called "economy" it did turn out some "profits" but the end was inevitable since, even if to discount a (a)moral issue of some billionaires pontificating about things they have no clue about, when the US is being not only deindustrialized, it is losing its labor force. You know, the force which is participating in creating a serious value added--like cars, aircraft, computers, lingerie (well, most of it in China now) et al. At least one can "invest" in companies which produce value. How can one "invest" into the thin air, or, if one wishes, into nothing and expect it to remain a viable "investment"? I don't know. You bought this BS, you live with it. FB was a BS "business" from the get go but it is difficult to explain in the society fixated on being "hip" and in "trend", and suffering from dopamine addiction, and which does not understand what real productive labor is. So, FB "investors", enjoy the wipe-out of historic proportions. There is one silver-lining in all that for all of you, however, your demigod and a ruler, Mark Zuckerberg is not expected to attend food bank lines anytime soon--he made a shitload of money on idiots to worry about that. 

Meanwhile, for future investment, take a look at GE which is about to sell its so called "digital" assets and is ready to get back to where this great American brand started--engines, motors and other very tangible products the demand for which will always be high. But here we are getting to a more general, metaphysical issue of a gigantic crisis of liberal financial capitalism which has completely ran itself into the ground basing its indicators on "earnings" and "profit". But that is a separate issue altogether.  

IL-96-400M Is Getting Ready For Take-Off.

Recall what I wrote 2 years ago about the program of return of the venerable IL-96 into operation. Well, it IS being brought back to life and three days old order of Russian government (in Russian) to issue additional (to already provided 6 billion Rubles) 1.3 billion rubles for retooling of Voronezh Aircraft Plant, getting it ready for series production, starting in 2020, is an extremely important event... geopolitically. How so, one may ask. Well, consider this:

1. While the US deep state goes apoplectic accusing Trump in being a Russian asset, truth is--no economic sanctions on Russia will ever be lifted and, in fact, new ones will be imposed. Russians know this damn well. So much for a "useful" Trump. 

2. Increasing economic sanctions apply to Russia all necessary pressures required for a domestic development primarily in real hi-tech sectors and no more so than in commercial aerospace. 

3. As was pointed out not for once--Russia's commercial aviation market is huge, as is the country itself, which necessitates (always did) an extraordinarily well developed commercial aviation sector. With SSJ-100 and MC-21s flying (MC-21 getting ready for series production) already, but those are regional and mid-range aircraft... 

4. Russia needs wide-body, long-range aircraft which is NOT A-3XX or B-747, 777 or 787 for its domestic flights. Il-96, granted, vastly upgraded, from avionics to aggregates, to some variant of Aviadvigatel PS-90 jet engine which will not have any Western parts in it, fits the bill perfectly while keeping Russia in the wide-body long-range commercial aviation business before CR-929 hits the market.  The same goes for PD-35 engine, albeit rumor has it that IL-96 may benefit from 4 PD-14 engines, with PD-14 being in the final stages of its certification. That makes Il-96-400M a thoroughly Russian airplane.

5. Il-96 is simply an awesome aircraft, it is beautiful, elegant and, in the end, Vladimir Putin himself uses its 300 version as a Russian variant of American Air Force One.

Special Version

6. Finally, it is the aircraft which is GOOD ENOUGH and exists now, as opposed to all future projects, not to speak of the Western wide-body aircraft which are a liability under economic and political war US wages against Russia. 

Resumption of the production of Il-96, which was sabotaged in 1990s by Yeltsin's cabal, is an excellent indicator of Russia doing what needs to be done under present conditions--making oneself independent from key Western technologies and this process was ongoing in earnest since 2014. Because in the end, it is finally being asked in Russia why should Russia support a hostile power by purchasing its technology when Russia can completely out of own resources produce it. It was symptomatic, however, that the largest delegation at the SPIEF 2018 was an American one, headed, as you all may have heard, by Boeing's CEO.    

Didn't Take Long, Didn't it?

Russia may (will) offer newest Karakurt-class (project 22800) missile corvettes for sale abroad. 

Cutting-edge Karakurt-class corvettes, capable of launching Kalibr cruise missiles, may be exported to a number of Asia-Pacific countries, Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Borisov has announced on Monday. “These ships are pretty good, they have large displacement and are well-armed,” Borisov was quoted by RIA Novosti, adding, “Kalibr is what makes the difference.”  

Yes, Kalibr (and Oniks) and, I may add, navalized Pantsir starting from the third hull of the first batch of these ships are what makes all the difference in the world, giving these corvettes a massive fire-power. It was clear from the get go that these ships have a massive export potential. It was just confirmed. Now, expect yet another round of sanctions on Russia and those who would be buying Karakurts. 

  

Is Jim Mattis A Real Deal, After All?

Sure as hell looks like it. I never was too idealistic about this professional-to-professional comms as a method of sorting things out (albeit I count it to be essential), but for anyone who observed Mad Dog (really?) Mattis in the last several months, the conclusion that this USMC General is a real adult in the room must not be discounted. First, today, he states that he is enthusiastic about top dogs talking to each-other (in Russian). Now he says he is ready to meet Shoigu. What's going on? Wink, wink--it is Friday. 

Oh, man, real deal Soul. (Yes, I know Marvin's tragic story).

Speak Of The Devil.

The moment I mentioned anti-shipping missiles, Caspian Flotilla and attached forces decided to do the SINKEX. That is sink something floating on the water. For the love of me I couldn't make it out what ship was it, but from the top it almost looked as decommissioned project 1234 MRK (NATO-Nanuchka-class). Profile wise, however, it looked as an auxiliary--two different events?  So, no matter--we will learn about it in due course but it was something in the vicinity of 600+ tons of displacement and two Kh-31A anti-shipping missiles were used. 

These are high supersonic (M=2.7-3.5) sea-skimmers with 94 kilogram (207 Lbs.) warhead and it didn't take long to sent a hapless victim to the bottom. These missiles are carried by pretty much any front line aircraft (from Sukhois to MiGs) and here is a simple math (and physics). Kinetic energy. Missile with the velocity of Mach=3 has more than 9 (square of velocity) times more energy than similar subsonic missile. A single missile will render anything up to a frigate class nonoperational, two will most likely sink it, and sink it fast. Is this exercise somehow connected to the leaked rumors of US attacking Iran soon? Who knows. 

UPDATE: I think I figured out the issue. In one of the shots you can see, most likely, one of the Caspian Flotilla's Pr. 21631 Tornado-class MRK, the other--is target itself. Even on the foggy picture it was possible to make out Duet double-barrel gun system. So, the target is some kind of auxiliary. 

Looks Like F-15 Will Stick Around For A While.

That is in a form of F-15X being pitched by Boeing. I was about to exclaim: but what about Stealth!? Forgive me for using this moniker instead of more professional terms such as reduced physical fields or low(er) observability, depending on diapason, of course. F-15 is a good aircraft with some "kill history" against inept pilots (mostly Arabs) and old Soviet technology and the idea of modernization is never bad once the fact of this whole Stealth being useless against modern, as one example among many, Air-Defense systems, which do really well in terms of sensor (data) fusion and have no problems in locking onto any "Stealthy" aircraft, that is to say, shoot it down, is considered.

So, in the end it all comes down to a classic Force--its size, structure and the way it delivers its salvo, or salvos of its weapons. That is HOW it is deployed and how it will fare, in case of a serious war with even remotely competent adversary, in terms of its attrition rates. So, numbers do matter, in the end, right? Right, especially since US Air Force knows (I know it does) that first radiophotonics location devices do exist and, in fact, already detect, track and (I assume) lock on any target--stealth, super stealth or, possibly even a super-duper stealth. So, enter good ol' F-15, give it a full glass cockpit, new engines, some modern nice AA weapons and... drum roll... what do we read in the end of this informative article? Ah, here it is.  

 Looking to the future, the sources said, the F-15X is ideally suited to carry hypersonic weapons

Why such an emphasis on hyper-sonic weapons? Because it is all fad, en vogue, all the hype and, actually, in a more serious way--a new technological paradigm. We are not on the verge, we are inside a true Revolution In Military Affairs. No, not the one born out of turkey shoot of grossly incompetent and badly trained Saddam's Army, but out of what (I love to quote him a lot) Douglas Macgregor warned about: 

“In 110 days of fighting the German army in France during 1918, the U.S. Army Expeditionary Force sustained 318,000 casualties, including 110,000 killed in action. That’s the kind of lethality waiting for U.S. forces in a future war with real armies, air forces, air defenses and naval power. Ignoring this reality is the road to future defeats and American decline. It’s time to look beyond the stirring images of infantrymen storming machine-gun nests created by Hollywood and to see war for what it is and will be in the future: the ruthless extermination of the enemy with accurate, devastating firepower from the sea, from the air, from space and from mobile, armored firepower on land.” 

As per F-35 or F-22. Well, you decide. 

Carriers, Again.

Again!?

 

MOSCOW, July 26. /TASS/. The Russian Navy should operate at least four aircraft carriers, Scientific Head of the Krylov State Research Center Valery Polovinkin told TASS on Thursday. The Russian Northern and Pacific Fleets "should have aircraft-carrying ships by definition," the expert noted.

The reason of my frustration is not this never-ending aircraft carrier saga of Russian Navy. Economy, sanctions et al considered. It is obvious that it is better to have carriers than not having them. But as I wrote for years—Russian Navy has issues not with technology, after all, if it puts its mind to it, Russia will build 3-4 of those ships eventually. No, in the end—the problem is mental, it is the issue of operational concept for these ships and forces required to form Carrier Battle Group(s). 

Such statements from the above are not the first time representatives of Krylov State Research Center throw into the Russian media. Enough to take a look at the promotion of this:

The Krylov State Research Centre has developed and presented to the public at large the conceptual design of an aircraft carrier for foreign customers, which was earlier offered for the domestic fleet as well. The Project 23000 was called Shtorm (Storm). The conceptual design envisages the aircraft carrier to displace 80,000-90,000 tonnes and feature a combined powerplant (a nuclear reactor and a gas turbine engine). The ship’s air group should comprise up to 60 aircraft.

"Sublime" isn't it?

But if you get my drift, here IS the real problem with this representative Polovinkin's statement:

 Speaking about the US Navy, which currently operates 11 aircraft carriers, the expert noted that the United States had an excessive number of carrier-led groups but the availability of only one aircraft carrier was a "deadlocked situation."

The issue is not a deadlocked situation with Russia's sole and barely (sometimes) operational carrier Kuznetsov—in this I agree with Polovinkin. My issue is in constant invoking of US Navy's experience with carriers. This is wrong, since the only REAL interest this experience should invoke is purely organizational and operational, not the force structure whenever the talk is about one existing and, possibly, future Russian Navy's carriers. And here is a single example of WHY realistically Russia needs carriers as a NICHE system-- specifically in Mediterranean, apart from Northern and Pacific Fleets. For starters, Polovinkin should learn the latest news that the ranges of modern anti-shipping missiles are either equal or greater than ranges modern carrier-based strike aircraft provide. The dynamics of missile development today testifies to the fact that in the nearest future (10-15 years) those missile ranges will only grow. Hell, they are growing already. This moves carriers into the niche of what US Navy was doing since 1950s—projecting carrier power against third-rate powers with barely any, using modern parlance, A2/AD, forget full blown Sea Denial capabilities. 

But here is the news: since 2011 due to Obama's criminal actions (and inaction)—the whole of Maghreb and Middle East got destabilized through the so called Arab Spring, and, as events in Syria show, it requires a serious military (combined with other means) effort to stabilize the situation and preserve political forces capable to run a country and fight off armies of Jihadists (supported by the US, Europe and Gulf satrapies) which now operate in every single country on the Southern coast of Mediterranean, from Algeria, to Tunisia, to Syria. So, the question is—granted that Europe is realistically militarily impotent and culturally (and gender-wise) confused, at best, in reality suicidal—why not to have a "fire crew" in Med in case one needs to prop up any political regime against terrorist Jihad forces? This is precisely the case for having those pesky MiG-29Ks and Ka-52s on station for immediate reaction to any Jihadis' advances. Hmm, what does this remind me? Ah, yes—Fifth Operational Squadron of the Soviet Navy of 1970-1980s. Are those disturbing events coming in Maghreb? Hell, they are already happening. So, it is "power projection" after all. In the end, Kuznetsov's deployment to Syria was ordered by Putin personally.

I omit here any discussion on the possible Northern and Pacific Fleets' carriers—this is not the point—Russia's A2/AD and Sea Denial clout at those theaters of operations grew exponentially since 2017 and, ironically, put the issue of carriers on the back-burner. But Mediterranean and what is coming there—a reality obvious to anyone with even rudimentary forecasting apparatus—does, indeed, bring the issue of future Russian aircraft carriers to the fore. As Libya and Syria, and, in the end, Yugoslavia in 1999, with NATO gang-raping Serbia for the benefit of Kosovo Jihadists and organized crime, showed it will be wise for Russia to have full blown Mediterranean Operational Squadron back to the full strength and that automatically means at least two aircraft carriers. And while Mr. Polovinkin is very busy trying to promote Krylov Center's "perspective" carrier, he should recall a simple military truism that the best ship is the one you have now, as opposed to sometime in the future. That brings up the most important issue in all of this: what will be that sensible compromise which will allow both to develop and built those ships when needed (soon), with effective technology, on a sensible budget within a sensible operational concept. What they will be: CATOBAR, STOVL or whatever else is not for me to suggest. At least MiG-29K is a very decent aircraft and it does exist and it is a good place to start from.   

On Kuznetsov's Deck

As for the rest, Polovinkin may consider a simple fact that a squadron of MiG-31Ks with Kinzhals at Khmeimim Air Base covers practically whole Mediterranean up to Mallorca against any combination of threats (targets). Just saying. In the end, Russia is NOT an Imperial power nor should she be a global policeman, but it becomes increasingly clear that Russia's main geopolitical export today is political stability and this product is in demand and the rate is going up daily.