I thought maybe the thumbnail was just some generic small plane, but nope. That's the same model that keeps making successful attacks in Russia. The Aeroprakt A-22. That little prop plane. Top speed 127 mph/204 kph. That's what Russia can't find and shoot down.
Empty weight 260 kg. So a normal Pilot 70-80 kg adds 25-30% weight on top. Plus the weight for seat, steering wheels etc. So with a small payload they probably safe quite some weight.
We aren't talking about the weight of the payload though. Don't you need a fairly hefty bomb to meaningfully damage a refinery?
If the answer is no, I would love to see this strategy implemented in a longer ranged plane. Russia's main tank production factory is about 2000 miles from the nominal Ukrainian border.
Total weight is crucial for how far a plane can fly. So - Pilot weight + Payload weight needs to be considered.
In terms of damage, if you hit the right spot without redundancies you can shut down or severely limit operations of a plant even with only a small material damage. Even if there is no visible damage, reducing the structural integrity of pressure pipes and the like can force a shutdown of that equipment until the damage is properly investigated.
In 2019 Houthis successfully attacked two Saudi refineries with a small swarm of drones, forcing a shutdown.
Fifteen here. Underground tanks are not that common. They are a maintenance and environmental nightmare. But it would be nice if you could provide with any evidence other than “trust me bro”.
Man, now you’re just moving goalposts. Did they blow up a refinery or whatever you’re cooking up in your head? It’s clear you’re not having an honest discourse here. Goodbye.
It does also show Russia that Ukraine is capable of bypassing their defenses and successfully attacking infrastructure (or military installations/encampments) several hundred kilometers inside Russia.
Which is most effective at evading Russian air defense? The F-35, an exquisitely designed $110M jet with among the best stealth that Lockheed Skunkworks can create, or the Ukrainian equivalent of a Cessna trainer aircraft?
Depends heavily on what air defense it's stacked against and who coordinated the mission.
Low speed, low altitude aircraft are excellent at evading higher end air defenses, particularly if you've scouted out the anti-air surveillance in advance.
Riminder the Bismarck wasnt critically damaged by top of the line aircraft, it was sunk by a bunch of biplanes which were effectively immune to its AA.
A great example, setting aside the fact that battleships have always been more trouble than they were worth.
Although, modern aircraft carriers are approaching that kind of outdated-ness. I'm genuinely curious to see what happens when America loses it's first $50B floating fortress.
Battlships filled roughly the same position heavy tanks once filled, big heavy hitters that could take a beating. But with the march of progress came their downfall, that and the adoption of different fleet tactics.
I suspect that the big Carriers will be replaced with something more akin to smaller carriers, kinda like what Japan uses. Though those are definitely just destroyers no carriers here. But yeah with VTOL large aircraft carriers will most likely end up being decommissioned or turned into portable hospitals or soemthing specifically the nuclear ones.
Saying they were always more trouble than they were worth is a bit of a miss though: They completely dominated for a period, to the point where entire columns would be redirected or kept in port if intelligence arrived saying that a certain battleship had left port and was on the hunt.
As for the "modern" aircraft carrier: I think it will remain viable until we see a fundamental paradigm shift in how naval warfare is conducted. A carrier is at the centre of a carrier strike group, and is probably one of the most well protected places on the planet at any time, and can move at over 40 knots. I have a hard time imagining what could locate and take out an alert carrier in reasonable distance from shore, other than another carrier group.
I have a hard time imagining what could locate and take out an alert carrier in reasonable distance from shore, other than another carrier group.
Bombers and long range torpedos spring to mind, particularly when the carrier is moving through a relatively right corridor, like the Red Sea.
The Houthis have already functionally shut down the Suez against commercial traffic just by threatening from the coast. And they're employing relatively unsophisticated artillery.
I specified "a reasonable distance from shore" because an important part of the point of a carrier is exactly that it can stay easily 100 km from shore and still strike far inland. If a carrier is in range of shore-based torpedoes, they've likely messed up long ago.
As for bombers: They're historically the major threat to carriers, but I don't see any modern developments that make modern bombers any more of a threat to modern carriers than WW2 era bombers were to WW2 era carriers.
Long range artillery has pretty hard limits, and once you approach the 100km range, time to target becomes a real issue, even for missiles that can be shot down.
Modern anti-air hat a range of several hundred km, and has been combat tested. More short-range systems (< 50 km) are in use (with huge success) every day in Ukraine. Of course bombers have also improved, but I wouldn't put money on the bombers having improved relative to the AA.
Ps. I'm not the person downvoting you, I think you make a decent point, I just disagree :)
Intentionally misleading headline, but not technically incorrect.
These are designed to carry troops through an irradiated battle space and keep them safe from the fallout. At least while they're inside and the filtration systems are functioning properly.
That doesn't mean they were magically enhanced to be impervious to antimaterial weapons, or other types of kinetic damage that happen in combat.
Thanks for this, I didn't know people thought that nuclear-proof meant that it could literally take a nuke. I certainly hope people haven't been thinking that a MOPP suit will make one a super soldier impervious to nukes or anything considered a chemical (which could be interpreted as all matter).
I know I was assuming that the Russians claimed that they were nuclear bomb proof, at least for the 30 seconds that I knew about them before I read this thread. Seeing the picture I didn't believe that they were in in actuality.
Plus, even if it was that kind of nuclear-proof, all that really means is that it can take the pressure of nuclear explosion over its body. Devices based on point pressure, like the kind used in anti-armor rounds or bunker buster bombs, can and do punch through nuclear-hardened targets.
As an example, RPGs use shaped charges to send a jet a molten copper through armor steel. Even though the devices may seem antiquated, they are extremely effective at burning holes through tanks. If that molten jet happens to come in contact with ammunition, it's generally game over.
I have heard a few things, TBH. Everything in the range from simply vaporized and hot to the vaporized metal being in a near plasma state. Shrug.
Wikipedia gives a few numbers ranging from 660K to almost 1200K (copper melt temp is 1358K) from testing it quotes. It seems to be dependent on the cone alloy and the explosive type.
In practice, it's probably is all over the place in regards to temperature. If you can round up a few RPGs, I would totally be down for some testing...
I think the question becomes, should you need to be licensed to operate and should you have to register/insure what essentially become ultralight motorcycles.
If you could get a $1-2k "motorcycle" that was an electric bike, having about a 45 mph top speed, a 20 mile range, and a detachable battery that you could take inside with you to charge, it would be such an efficient, practical method of transportation.
I really like the US take on this one actually. I'm pro ebike and absolutely love motorcycles, but 45 mph is too fast to not require a licence.
Here we have 3 classes numbered as such. Class 1 is 15 mph pedal assisted, class two is 20 mph pedal assisted, and class 3 is 28 mph and allows a dedicated throttle. Class 3 often has limitations for certain bike trails, but most class 3 comes have variable modes to limit them to class 1 and 2 speeds. Generally as long as you're following trail speed limits you really don't have to worry.
This part varies by state, but in general anything over 28 mph is considered a moped and requires a proper license. As an avid motorcycle rider I feel even 28 might be too fast for non-license, but I also understand keeping up with cars, especially in cities, is way safer so I get why the limit is a bit higher than you'd expect.
I rarely go over 20 mph on mine (class 3). I try and minimize the pedal assist but it allows me to push myself because I know if I go to far (I'm old and out of shape), I can use the throttle to get home. The only time I was close to that was on a 25 mile ride with my son last summer when it it was in the upper 90's and humid. It was a circle route and the return was into a stiff breeze. The last mile or so was a slog and I used the throttle a lot just to get back.
Yeah it varies entirely by state, the last time I checked in North Carolina there's a legal definition for "moped" which has a maximum speed fo 30mph, an engine of no more than 50ccs displacement, no external shifter controls, etc. And these are legal for road use without registration or a motorcycle license. I don't know how or if they've adopted laws about electric assist bicycles, but I imagine if it can go more than 30mph under its own power it would require a license plate and a motorcycle endorsement to operate.
At that speed, you want something beefier than a bike frame and parts. A US class 3 ebike is limited to 27mph on a 750W motor. That's stressing the limit of bike parts, even with ebike tires and chains.
A typical human can put down around 250W into a bike, and the best athletes around 400W. 750W plus what you put into it is outside the original intent of bike parts.
If you want to go 45mph, everything needs to go up a notch in design. That increases both weight and cost. A $1-2k range is only possible with the cheapest crap scooter parts. Get closer to $4k and things look better.
People should have some kind of licensing for this. Always should have for the ICE versions, and probably for class 3 ebikes, too. Maybe just the motorcycle license, maybe something specific, but it shouldn't be wide open.
I agree on the licensing part, but you don't need to get that much beefier for 45mph that you spend USD$4k. $1-2k is good ebike territory, I'd put these are $2-3k for something reasonably priced. This is coming from someone that has a 110cc road-going motorbike. Yes, motorbike, not scooter. The frame is about twice as thick as a mountain bikes. The things that really needs the most beefing up are the fork suspension and headstem.
Honestly the whole bloody problem with electric motorbikes and scooters (of the sitting variety) is that they're way overpriced for terrible range (<100km). Something in the $2-3k with that sort range that can go ~75kph would be the sweet spot for consumers I think. Especially if you're paying the costs to get your motorcycle endorsement on top. Which is pretty pricey where I am in Australia.
Bike gears are just not meant for this kind of torque. Cassettes get worn way faster at 750W + rider output. The derailleur transmission is lightweight and cheap, but it has limits and needs to be abandoned if you go much higher.
Who was talking about using bike gears? But also, you should abandon derailleurs at any speed unless you're racing the tour de france. The only advantage they have over internal hub gears is weight. And hub gears can be easily made strong enough to handle that sort of torque.
But you wouldn't necessarily need gears At All for something throttle driven. Electric motors have more than enough range of RPM on a single speed gearing system to get to 45mph. E-bikes only have gears for the human component, not the motor.
However, I have a bottom of the barrel, 250w hub motor ebike. With pedal assist, it gets me cruising at 20mph no problem. I got it from Walmart for $400. I am pretty ignorant when it comes to production and manufacturing but it stands to reason that at 5x the price, they could make something that would safely go a little over twice the speed.
The problem with ebikes is that they manufacture all these huge, fat-tire, inefficient pieces of garbage and then price them at $3k like some luxury item.
Wait, the bike I was hoping for already almost exists. Its called the goat v2. Its just a little over $2k with some promo codes and realistically, it's a couple mph shy of 45.
I think we're going to see bikes like this everywhere within 5 years, which is great!
At this point making a helmet and insurance mandatory and minimal age is only logical.
How many fatbikes will we see if any of the above becomes reality?
Here in the Netherlands fatbikes really started to become a thing after they made helmets mandatory for moped drivers
“During World War II, Churchill told the United States, ‘give us the tools, we'll do the job.’ And I say, give us the tools and we'll finish the job a lot faster,” Netanyahu said in the video.
Yeah, that's what we're afraid of, and exactly why we don't want to give you the weapons.
Comparing himself to Churchill defending the UK from the Nazis has got to be the shittiest analogy I've heard in a long time. You aren't Churchill in this situation, Netanyahu. You're the invader hell-bent on wiping out a population.
There's already a strong emotional connection between Irish and Palestinian people (as shown by Ireland being one of the first European countries to officially recognize Palestine recently). Now there's another association - Churchill and Netanyahu's loathing for their respective people.
Large scale long range highly clandestine professional military operation -> Headline: Guy With Children's Toy (and tons of military grade explosive) Just Defeated Russia!
Both planes cruise at around 100 miles per hour and blend in with civilian air traffic, making them difficult to intercept.
And the ruzzkis are not aware that there is some plane coming from Ukrainian airspace travelling 100s of kilometres around their forlorn country? They are that blind on the border to an active battle ground? And why would there be so much civilian air traffic near that battle ground that they can't oversee all air traffic?
Remembers me btw of German bumblehead Matthias Rust who flew a small single engine plane into ruzzia and landed in front of the Kremlin - in the middle of cold war. They simply didn't see him coming until he parked his plane right in front of their door.
Maybe they’re flying these drones at very low altitudes to avoid conventional detection. I imagine it’d be through less densely populated areas as well for part of the way.
Also it is a pretty long border with Ukraine and the Ukranians have been hard at work dismantling Russian radar and detection capabilities.
Static radar sites are long gone and the mobile radars are Prime targets for himars, storm shadow, scalp, Harm ER, atacms and homebrew drones.
The occupation of Crimea is very expensive in terms of radar losses, and I would not be surprised if the east of Russia has no more radar coverage at all.
And the there was the hunt for those radar planes, epic show of ingenuity.. twice.. so not lucky.
And when they identify one of these they still need to act. How quickly and efficiently can they get interceptors up in the air and vectored in? How operational are their ground-based anti-air capabilities and do they dare shoot something down? And how much coverage do they actually have?
The fuel is (relatively) nothing. Interceptors have to haul ass and that means going full throttle for periods which translates into countless hours of maintenance on those planes. This immobilizes the aircraft after the mission and the ground crew to work on it. It also consumes spare parts and reduces the overall lifetime of the airframe.
China does this to Taiwan by playing chicken at the edge of their defensive zone, forcing a smaller air force to keep up with the interceptions.
That was my point indeed.. flight hours translate to wear and tear, maintenance and spare part usage. And sourcing some of the spare parts is getting harder and harder by the day.
Some defense industry in Russia is already buying back airframes from abroad.. this reduces the value of the Russian defense sector as these countries can shop elsewhere.
And countries with large Russian military hardware stocks cannot get parts in the foreseeable future.. so they also cannot wage war without serious risks to their own readyness.
Such a system can shoot at a maximum range of 30km. How many refineries and ammo depots does Russia have to protect? It's a huge bloody country which makes it very hard to cover with radar and air defence.
The edge that allowed Russia to win against powerful invading armies bites them in the ass here. So much real estate is hard and expensive to protect.
During the height of the Cold War, a kid flew across Europe in a small, slow plane and landed on the damn Red Square. Another guy landed a helicopter on the White House lawn.
Buk is 50km, but s300 already over 100 and s400 does 400km range. And for even shorter range you have pantsir and shilka.
But indeed, so much real estate. And the refineries are very vulnerable.
Can you imagine.. at this development pace in a year suck a plane will carry 10 autonomous drones with thermite charges that deploy on target and spread even more chaos.
The asymmetry between the cost of defense vs. offense here is absurd.
The operation of air defense networks, missiles, and fighter jet interceptions, all to try to down kit aircraft costing less than the average Porsche sports car. Fancy-pantsy capabilities that required billions not long ago can be had for cheap. It's no longer the exclusive realm of low-flying supersonic or stealth aircraft to strike the heart of the enemy. What required billions of R&D can be somewhat achieved on the cheap.
Well no. The cost of defence is not actually what pricetag the system is you use to shoot something done. It is what you are defending and an oil refinery is probably in the hundreds of millions, literally a high-profile target
Yeah, spending a hundred thousand to take out a refinery cracker is an amazing trade. What's a cracker worth, a few tens of millions? Plus lost production etc
They did know, he was actually intercepted by a fighter jet at one point, who followed him for some distance, and was picked up on radar multiple times. They weren't sure if he was hostile or not though.
Russia was anticipating an attack using jets and ballistic missiles, they likely didn't consider a Cessna a threat.
To put the shoe on the other foot, the US had trouble effectively getting fighters up for 9/11. On the surface of it, dealing with a civilian airliner seems like it should be trivial compared to a warplane. But North American air defense had been designed around an assumption that there would always be advance warning of incoming aircraft out over the Atlantic or Pacific or Arctic, not a sudden discovery that an aircraft was already inside US airspace and heading for the Capitol, and alert levels had been lowered after the Cold War.
As a result, at the time, the "ready aircraft" were not kept armed. Loading weapons aboard required time that wasn't available, and the fighter pilots involved scrambled unarmed, with the intention of suicide-ramming Flight 93.
Orders had come from Vice President Dick Cheney for her squadron to get airborne and stop Flight 93 from reaching Washington D.C. Penney and her squadron leader, Mark (“Sass”) Sasseville, were to launch first. With no live missiles on board, they had nothing but their aircraft to use as a weapon. It would take upwards of an hour to assemble and load the missiles on to a jet. Another pair of F-16s would stay until missiles could be loaded, but Penney and Sasseville were to take off immediately.
“I’m zipping up my G-suit when Sass looks at me and says, ‘I’ll take the cockpit.’ [Meaning that he would ram into Flight 93’s front end.] I would take the tail,” she said. “I’ve had people ask me, ‘Who told you would have to ram the airplane? Who ordered you?’ But no one did. What was said was all that was said.”
In the event, the passengers voted to storm the cockpit, were breaking down the door, and the hijackers power-dived the plane into the ground, thus eliminating the necessity.
I mean, there just wasn't any realistic threat that we expected from Russia or China or such. We've got sensor networks that should be able to pick up any aircraft even being prepared, much less flying in from a long ways out, even if they did take off.
There's some accident-risk price to pay for readiness -- like, you can have accidents with weapons, and any time that weapons are floating around outside arsenals, there's at least some potential for them to go astray. And the more weapons systems you have in a "ready to engage" status, the more-twitchy it makes everyone else. Suppose we kept a couple thousand fighters armed and on the runway. That's gonna make some other countries twitchy that they have little time to react.
The "DEFCON level" is basically a slider that trades shorter response time for increased risk of things going wrong.
Armed forces ready to deploy and engage in less than six hours
DEFCON 3
ROUND HOUSE
Increase in force readiness above that required for normal readiness
Air Force ready to mobilize in 15 minutes
DEFCON 4
DOUBLE TAKE
Increased intelligence watch and strengthened security measures
Above normal readiness
DEFCON 5
FADE OUT
Lowest state of readiness
Normal readiness
If we can, we keep it at low levels. Minimizes risk of accidents, avoids putting pressure on other parties.
During the Cuban Missile Crisis, we had it at an elevated level. That means that we can respond rapidly, and we're more-prepared to get hit with a major nuclear strike and still hit back as hard as possible. But it also...creates room for things to go rather badly, accidentally.
At 10:00 pm EDT the next day, the US raised the readiness level of Strategic Air Command (SAC) forces to DEFCON 2. For the only confirmed time in US history, B-52 bombers went on continuous airborne alert, and B-47 medium bombers were dispersed to various military and civilian airfields and made ready to take off, fully equipped, on 15 minutes' notice.[114] One-eighth of SAC's 1,436 bombers were on airborne alert, and some 145 intercontinental ballistic missiles stood on ready alert, some of which targeted Cuba.[115] Air Defense Command (ADC) redeployed 161 nuclear-armed interceptors to 16 dispersal fields within nine hours, with one third maintaining 15-minute alert status.[92] Twenty-three nuclear-armed B-52s were sent to orbit points within striking distance of the Soviet Union so it would believe that the US was serious.
As part of that, military aircraft were loaded with nuclear weapons, including a fleet of interceptors, and dispersed to civilian airports and airstrips to minimize the number that could be destroyed on the ground in the event of a nuclear attack from the Soviet Union.
Some of those airfields were -- not surprisingly -- not as secured against ground intrusions as military bases. At one point, a security guard saw a shadowy figure moving around the outskirts of one such civilian airfield, fired a burst at it from his submachine gun, but it made it over the fence and away. He hit his sabotage alarm. At that alert level, the presumption is that any detected sabotage attempt would be likely part of a preemptive strike, and doctrine dictated that the whole interceptor force get airborne and start heading towards the Soviet Union. They were rolling down the runways across the US when the sabotage alarm was cancelled -- upon further investigation of the traces left, it turned out that the figure was probably just a bear. But...a shit-ton of warplanes armed with (air-to-air, not strategic) nuclear weapons leaving the ground and heading towards the Soviet Union creates further potential for inadvertent escalation.
We had one incident, some years back, where the ground crew at an arsenal dicked up, loaded a bomber with live nukes rather than inert missiles, and the crew inadvertently flew to another airbase before the crew there checked, noticed that they had live nuclear weapons on their field, and started pushing red buttons.
An example of a Bent Spear incident occurred on the August 2007 flight of a B-52 bomber from Minot AFB to Barksdale AFB which mistakenly carried six cruise missiles with live nuclear warheads.[4]
Now, okay, those are extreme examples of risks -- a few F-16s armed with conventional weapons don't pose as much of a concern. But it does illustrate, I think, that there's a tradeoff involved. At the time, the risk of accidents was considered higher than the benefit from having a more-rapid response.
In any event, after 9/11, doctrine was revised, and the ready fighters are now kept armed. I'm not saying that the move was the right one. I'm just saying that there are real tradeoffs to be maintaining a high alert level. The USAF hadn't been told to expect to deal with a civilian aircraft in US airspace suddenly going hostile, so they hadn't structured their response system accordingly. The RuAF may or may not have made decisions about how to deal with civilian aircraft.
The Mathias Rust situation that someone else mentioned, as a I recall, dealt with Soviet doctrine where responses had been relaxed to help avoid accidental shootdowns, and that was part of how he made it to Red Square.
googles
Yeah: "The local air regiment near Pskov was on maneuvers and, due to inexperienced pilots' tendency to forget correct IFF designator settings, local control officers assigned all traffic in the area friendly status, including Rust.[5]"
Rust disappeared from the Finnish air traffic radar near Espoo.[5] Control personnel presumed an emergency and a rescue effort was organized, including a Finnish Border Guard patrol boat. They found an oil patch near Sipoo where Rust had disappeared from radar observation, and conducted an underwater search but did not find anything.
Rust crossed the Baltic coastline over Estonia and turned towards Moscow. At 14:29 he appeared on Soviet Air Defence Forces (PVO) radar and, after failure to reply to an Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) signal, was assigned combat number 8255. Three Surface-to-air missile battalions of 54th Air Defence Corps tracked him for some time, but failed to obtain permission to launch missiles at him.[9] All air defences were readied and two interceptors were sent to investigate. At 14:48, near Gdov, MiG-23 pilot Senior Lieutenant A. Puchnin observed a white sport airplane similar to a Yakovlev Yak-12 and asked for permission to engage, but was denied.[5][10]
The fighters lost contact with Rust soon after this. While they were being directed back to him, he disappeared from radar near Staraya Russa. West German magazine Bunte speculated that he might have landed there for some time, noting that he changed his clothes during his flight and that he took too much time to fly to Moscow considering his airplane's speed and the weather conditions.
Air defence re-established contact with Rust's plane several times but confusion resulted from all of these events. The PVO system had shortly before been divided into several districts, which simplified management but created additional work for tracking officers at the districts' borders. The local air regiment near Pskov was on maneuvers and, due to inexperienced pilots' tendency to forget correct IFF designator settings, local control officers assigned all traffic in the area friendly status, including Rust.[5]
Near Torzhok there was a similar situation, as increased air traffic was created by a search and rescue operation. Rust, flying a slow propeller-driven aircraft, was confused with one of the helicopters participating with the operation. He was detected several more times and given false friendly recognition twice. Rust was considered as a domestic training airplane defying regulations, and was assigned the least priority by air defense.[5]
Around 19:00, Rust appeared above Moscow. He had initially intended to land in the Kremlin, but he reasoned that landing inside, hidden by the Kremlin walls, would have allowed the KGB to arrest him and deny the incident. Therefore, he changed his landing place to Red Square.[5] Dense pedestrian traffic did not allow him to land there either, so after circling about the square one more time, he was able to land on Bolshoy Moskvoretsky Bridge by St. Basil's Cathedral. A later inquiry found that trolleybus wires normally strung over the bridge—which would have prevented his landing there—had been removed for maintenance that morning, and were replaced the next day.[5] After taxiing past the cathedral, he stopped about 100 metres (330 ft) from the square, where he was greeted by curious passersby and asked for autographs.[11] When asked where he was from, he replied "Germany" making the bystanders think he was from East Germany; but when he said West Germany, they were surprised.[12] A British doctor videotaped Rust circling over Red Square and landing on the bridge.[12] Rust was arrested two hours later.[13]
Is it embarrassing? Well, I guess so. Rust made it to pretty sensitive airspace, shouldn't have. But, big picture...odds are also pretty good that if NATO's going to have a war with the Warsaw Pact, it's probably not going to involve sending a little prop plane to Red Square. Not saying that there's no risk there for a decapitation strike or something, but the Soviet airforce had to make a tradeoff in terms of how many of their own aircraft they shoot down accidentally versus whether they make sure to deal with some little prop plane wandering around.
If they actually used a tactical nuke or attacked a Nato member and we retaliated by shooting hundreds of cruise- and ballistic missiles into Russia, I wonder how many they would actually be able to intercept. I'm starting to get the feeling that not many.
It doesn't add any cost to include a throttle on the ebike.
Regulate speeds, not mechanisms. Moving people to micromobility is a benefit regardless of the form of that micromobility. Speed is the safety concern, not any of this loophole-inducing nonsense.
No, no and no. In our country, there's a loophole in traffic regulation allowing for anything under 25kph on bike paths if it's electric powered. This resulted in a super dangerous situation for normal cyclists. I commute by normal bike and believe my it's terrible:
food delivery guys switched to electric scooters (think Vespa) and clog bike paths. These things are way too heavy in case of a collision with a pedestrian or cyclist.
the 25kph speed limit is not observed! Either the manufacturers don't care or the drivers tweak their rides.
the acceleration is way too sudden. Even a regular E-Bike needs to ramp up to speed. And you see when the driver engages his drivetrain by way of them moving their legs. With a throttle you just have a lump of mass that suddenly jumps forward. Super unpredictable.
So now we basically have way too big, way too heavy and way too quick objects on bike paths endangering everyone else.
There needs to be strict mass limits for vehicles allowed on bicycle paths. There need to be acceleration limits. There need to be mandatory checks for pedal-less ebikes. If a bike from a manufacturer is found that can exceed the speed limit, there need to be existentially threatening fines. Because their products are threatening lives!
Still, the issue isn't the presence of a throttle. It's the specs of the machine.
The idea that the law should be framed around whether or not the vehicle needs to be peddled is backwards. The relevant machine specs are what the legislation should address. Which is still, primarily, top speed. All incident evidence we have suggests that below ~20mph / 30 kph, even full automobiles see precipitous dropoffs in serious injuries, so that's the place to start. We see most places really serious about bike networks going reasonably further past that (25 or 20 kph). That's all reasonable. If you further want to have requirements on acceleration or weight, it's worth investigating that.
Having the legislation require peddling is just a way to create weird loopholes in the law. It's pearl-clutching and moral panic. And worse, it creates accessibility issues and can pressure people off the bikeped infrastructure who would've used it reasonably and safely back into cars.
The law should narrowly address the actual problem, not some tertiary smell the problem has created. The idea that a bike that has pedals is magically safer than an identical bike with an identical frame, motor, and everything which has a throttle is preposterous.
I am totally convinced an ebike with a throttle is safer and easier to use for its rider than one without one at any speed. I don't think they should be required -- because that's just silly -- but I think anyone the claiming opposite, that only peddled, throttle-less vehicles are safe, has fallen off the deep end.
You bring up a key factor here: mass. A traditional bicycle weighing 10kg, going 20kph has far less force/momentum than a 35kg ebike going the same speed, and when using the throttle, the acceleration rate from 0 to 20kph increases dramatically as well.
Currently in the US we have people riding class 3 ebikes (and particularly cargo bikes) that can have base weights of 70 or 80 lbs, plus the weight of the cargo, all going at 28mph with a throttle. That's too much momentum to be safe around pedestrians and other bicyclists on multi-use trails.
IMO once ebikes start getting up to 750+ watt motors with a base weight of over 65 lbs, they should probably require some kind of licensing to operate, and perhaps insurance as well.
Ironically, the S-400 was designed to have an anti-missile capability, but it obviously doesn’t work. Russia’s S-400s can’t defend nearby friendly forces—and they also can’t defend themselves.
Specifically, an anti-ballistic-missile capability. It's easier to shoot down cruise missiles than ballistic missiles.
Yeah, with the caveat that we don't actually know for sure that there's a 0% intercept rate, it does seem pretty clear that, even if the rate is non-zero, ATACMS is certainly having no problem taking out S-400 batteries, when the S-400 was designed as a counter for weapons like ATACMS.
I remember watching that video that someone in Ukraine put out a few weeks ago with the glowing-eye trollface overlay...
...where Ukraine filmed a couple of cluster ATACMS shots obliterating an S-400 battery and thinking "well, that's about as bad as it gets for Russia. If it can't counter ATACMS missiles heading straight at the S-400 itself, Russia's only options are going to be destroying the ATACMS on the ground or just absorbing whatever damage Ukraine can do with them."
And absorbing them is gonna suck, because it's a pretty good bet that Ukraine is gonna use them to destroy defenses that could counter other weapons systems to permit those to operate.
So we've got a situation where Russia can't intercept Ukraine's ballistic missiles, but Ukraine can intercept Russia's ballistic missiles.
An awful lot of the footage that we've seen recently is of attacks on Russian air defenses. SAMs, early-warning radars, AEW&C aircraft. That means that it's a pretty good bet that Ukraine intends air attacks.
Some Russian observers are worried that much worse attacks are coming. If the Ukrainians are following American strike doctrine, attacks on air-defense batteries come first. After that, “aviation based on the F-16 comes into play, under the wings of which there is a wide range of ammunition,” one Russian blogger noted in a missive translated by Estonian analyst War Translated.
The Ukrainian air force is getting 85 ex-European Lockheed Martin F-16s—and already has radar-homing missiles and precision glide-bombs for the F-16s to employ in combat.
Yeah. And it seems likely that JASSM-ER is in the upcoming mix too.
The AGM-158 JASSM is the most likely, but not the only option, when it comes to missiles with a range of 300-500 km
Ukraine may acquire F-16 fighter jets, and it is already a matter of the relatively short-term perspective, along with missiles with a range of 300-500 km.
"In the upcoming military aid packages, Ukraine expects to receive F-16 aircraft and missiles with a range of 300–500 kilometers, enabling the Armed Forces of Ukraine to achieve even greater success on the battlefield and liberate our territory from the enemy," as Lieutenant General Serhii Naiev, the Commander of the Joint Forces stated.
Early-on in the conflict, when Russia was doing mass missile strikes and dropping artillery across Mariupol and the like -- I remember images of one missile that targeted a field of Ukrainian solar panels, probably on a generic command to hit electrical infrastructure -- I remember commenting that yeah, it has an impact now, causes some damage, but Russia may regret not having those munitions later on if they need them for actual military targets. Same thing during the campaign against Ukraine's grain infrastructure later.
EDIT: If Ukraine's using F-16s against Russia, Russia is going to have to either defend against them in the air or be able to identify them and destroy them on the ground. Those ballistic missiles Russia used would have been a tool for the latter, and it's probably a good bet that Ukraine's going to be sticking their airbase under a Patriot umbrella. Russia may need a lot of ballistic missiles to get through that.
Ukraine's also explicitly stated that they're going to keep F-16 reserves in NATO countries, use them for training. Russia can't hit those, not without starting a war with NATO.
Serhii Holubtsov, head of aviation within Ukraine’s air force, said that “a certain number of aircraft will be stored at secure air bases outside of Ukraine so that they are not targeted here.”
Holubtsov told the U.S. government-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty that those F-16s could be used to replace damaged aircraft as they undergo repairs as well as for training Ukrainian pilots abroad.
So Ukraine's only exposing the aircraft that it's actively-employing at any one time. If Russia gets some, there's going to be time for Ukraine to adjust tactics and feed more in. Russia may want those ballistic missiles they expended back when.
Early-on in the conflict, when Russia was doing mass missile strikes and dropping artillery across Mariupol and the like – I remember images of one missile that targeted a field of Ukrainian solar panels, probably on a generic command to hit electrical infrastructure
Russia was banking on terror itself being a weapon. The brutality of Russian soldiers on Ukrainian civilians (and especially children) underscores this. I don't know why Russia though this would work. Ukrainians were unarmed during Euromaidan and still went up against and won against superior equipped forces.
Here we have these 25kph IAmAbikeAndNotAMotorcylce Frankensteins on the bike lane and I freaking hate it. They go illegaly on the pedestrian, look at their phones while driving, block the narrow bike lanes. They should be supposed to have a drivers license and go on the street. Most if not all of them are food couriers. They should be treated as such.
Sorry for the rant, and funny enough I live in the EU (in Austria)
I have an ebike that doesn't require pedalling and goes up to 35km/h on full power and full battery. No fat tyres, you'll be happy to know. (Although I still don't understand why the width of tyre bothers you.)
I've driven a taxi for years, driving kids to school, doing this in the third gen. My father used to have "gentleman of the road" on the back of his car.
I use the same principles when in traffic.
My bike is awesome and the reason I don't need to own a car myself.
Better bicycling infrastructure would be cool, and I support something that would come between be between pedestrians and cars as a a lane. I mean, bike lanes already exist, but a more dedicated "light vehicles" lane or smth that you can't walk (or cycle slowly) on.
Because I like bicycling, and a vespa won't fit into my apartment. (Can't leave shit unattended in the bike cellar in my building.)
My bike doesn't require pedalling, but because it's an option, I usually do it and then feel good about it, which leads to a positive feedback loop.
A cold morning? I don't need to use electricity, just pedal and warm up. Get a bit hot, don't want to arrive at job while sweating? -> Glide on electricity and take in the cool breeze.
Ebikes with a throttle are still ebikes, in the US the are specifically listed as class 2 ebikes. I get what you're saying but ebike definitions get a little blurred depending on where you're talking about.
In the US you (hardly) have any bicycle infastructure and ride on the same road as cars.
In the Netherlands bikes and vulnerable traffic ride on seperate lanes.
Introducing bikes that go 50 km/h there driven by 10 years creates a problem.
This issue simply doesnt exist in the US, hence the different classification and laws
Also: Many fatbikes here are illegal and/or tweaked. People simply dont care and ride around uninsured and unsafe at 50 km/h while using their phone.
No, you're kidding yourself, thinking you know what I'm speaking of.
A lot of people have to ask me whether my bike is electric or not. I've owned a moped, a scooter and a light motorbike (125cc).(so dope, I looked up the model and that's the exact bike I had, on sale. Not a similar one, the SAME exact bike, it has custom colours. I owned it about 20 years ago.)
Now this is roughly the first image from Google with "bicycle".
Here is what I ride now. Now please — and be honest — tell me which one of the first four images is that most like?
Did a guy riding a fatbike steal your girlfriend or something?
Asking because you clearly live in a different world then I do
And also completely deaf to all my previous arguements about issues we`re having here. . in the Netherlands.
It's impolite to expect me to answer your questions when I asked you a question first.
Which one of the four images does my current ride most resemble? Please, do tell, as you were just telling me how you know what I drive better than I do.
I've been in the Netherlands as well. Yes, theres a whole lot more bikes, but the rules, the infra and the laws are more less the same as here. I've not had problems with anyone because of the size of the tyres their vehicle has. So explaining your weird generalisation would probably help people understand...
Honestly.. the big bar gives it away for me.
But I agree with looking more like a bike.
Not the typical fatbike im referring to but ok.
Here in NL we have big problem with fatbikes like these illegally modified to go 50km/h
They look like this for example
There are quite a few issues we`re having here in the NL:
Many fatbikes are illegaly modified to go 50km instead of 25
When riding modified fatbikes you are uninsured, in case of an accident the other party has a big problem
There is no age limit, we have many young teens riding fatbikes. Way too young for such a fast bike.
Imagine 10 year olds going 50 km/h straight though a crowded marketplace, a weekly sight here I personally saw many times.
Bike lanes and infra in NL are designed for sub 25 km/h traffic, many fatbikes however drive much faster. This creates dangerous situations for normal bikes. The traffic plan simply wasnt designed for such fast vehicles.
There is no mandatory helmet by law here, as a result the annual deaths amongst cyclist is higher then ever.
Since helmets became mandatory for moped drivers many swithed to modified fatbikes
Fatbikes are often way faster and heavy then a normal bike. If you do crash into a normal cyclist the damage is way worse
To conclude, Ìm not saying every ebike or fatbike is wrong.
Here in the Netherlands the lack of good regulation and law is having a big impact on road safety for cyclists and pedestrians.
We need good regulation asap
That being said: What country are you from? I`m wondering what is different there regulation wise
It's not fatbikes, per se, it's more Chinese EV's.
They make everything from longboards to bikes to scooters (the type I showed and the kickboard type) to mopeds.
A "normal" 25kmh limited e-bike with assist only, (which is the EU-requirement for these, legally, they're not supposed to have a throttle, only pedal-assist) medium range bike will have a motor of like 250-350w. Most of these Chinese wheels will have motors from 500w to several kilowatts. I'm content with a 500w motor, but even with one of those, I can go up to 35km/h on a straight road at full throttle, no pedaling. I used to have a kickboard style scooter that actually did 60 on a full battery, and yes, those can be very dangerous if the driver is irresponsible.
I know bragging smells, but as a thirdgen taxi driver, being polite and careful in traffic was sort of ingrained to me from a very early age. As long as you use the vehicle responsibly, it's okay.
But I know a lot of teenage douchebags don't, and that's where the problem lies, as there's no regulation on these vehicles you deem "fatbikes" (which for the record I now understand, but also think to be highly inaccurate because of the several types of vehicle you're trying to collectively address, most of which aren't fatbikes, but I understand that a vast majority purchases the fatbike types, because they're rather favoured in those shops as usually they have good prices).
There should be access to these, but with like a moped licence. (Idk if that's a thing in NL, but big in Finland. Or nowadays less so mopeds and more those weird atv-cars.)
Personally — if it were possible to completely rehaul traffic infra — I think we should have a lane for actual cars and trucks, then "light vehicles", and then a bikelane/pedestrian combo as is now. But like an added middle step for vehicles that often go above 25 but not usually car speeds, and which are mostly smaller, so would lose out when crashing with cars/buses.
So it's the same regulation for NL and Finland, and those "fatbikers" you dislike probably also order them from similar stores as I. See the thing is there's no regulation on China brining in those vehicles. They just say they are part of the sub 25km/h category, and the vehicles always have modes with less power so you could pass an inspection even. Then China sells them from a European warehouse they have, and because of the free trading within Eurozone, you don't pay taxes or have any sort of tolls or inspection on the thing.
So yeah, I definitely see the danger. Hell, I've honestly had a few bumps myself, but just by myself, really, I don't drive recklessly anywhere populated, just when it's me alone on an empty road. It's just that for me, those empty roads begin pretty much from my outer door, whereas in the NL, especially in cities like Amsterdam, you won't find a place with no other roadusers, and kids having power at their fingers won't be able to resist.
Usually probably their parents order them for the kids, as theyre several hundreds of euros. So... why would any parent order one like that and not a... safe one? Well, the biggest reason for me to have gone to the Chinese shops was simply the price. I'd end up paying literally more than twice the price for less than half the performance and battery. Yes the build would be more quality, the safety would be better. But... 800 euros is already a hefty sum to me, going well above 2k simply wasn't possible for me.
So it's not just a lack of regulation, but, yes, it is that very much as well.
Im from the Netherlands, we have great bike infrastructure.
But fatbike cyclists in particular are horrible drivers, endanger everyone else and dont follow any traffic rules.
Im sure you are a smart and responsible person but the fact is 99% of fatbike cyclist here are assholes
Also: We have 10 year olds driving on tweaked fatbikes going 50 km/h . Not legal but a national problem.
Explain to me how its safe for a 10 year old to drive such a vehicle
Secondly a normal bike is a fraction of the weight of a fatbike.
And the fatbike is moving twice the speed.
If a collision does happen the normal cyclist is very much more at danger then with any normal bike.
The annual death amongst cyclist has skyrocketed here in the Netherlands.
Ebikes and fatbikes are certainly a big factor in this.
Yes but speed limited to and in bike form. I guess yeah you can argue it's not a bike anymore but who cares? To me the important thing is that it should be allowed in bike lanes if it conforms to existing ebike standards. People with disabilities might not be able to pedal and I don't see why they should be prohibited from using a bike lane just because their bike is powered entirely by electricity instead of just mostly.
I used to lose my airborne brigade all the time, but now every time I leave the house I always check that I have everything; "keys, phone, wallet, airborne brigade. OK, check"
forbes.com
Top