Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine (/thread-23071.html)

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 10-12-2023

(10-12-2023, 03:51 PM)Hurlburt88 Wrote:  interesting on the air defense systems I may becoming cynical . . . I feel like this war has already been "won", but the combatants don't realize it and haven't figured out how to stop fighting.   It has been "won" by the US and NATO in a strategic sense, stopping Russia from encroaching more directly on NATO territory. 
 Not worth it to contribute whatever it takes to push Russia back to original borders.  So now I hope and pray that a path can be found to a new peace.  Ugly . . . 

Looking forward to other views!

I am quite sure Poland, Romania and Bulgaria don't see it that way. If Ukraine as a whole becomes part of Russia or a Russian puppet, they now have Russia along their borders in a very direct sense. (Kaliningrad is small enough to be isolated). IMO, if anything, the opposite is true. NATO now has to hope/ensure Ukraine "wins" and gets back almost all it's territory. If that doesn't happen, Russia can point to the fact that however costly it was, they "won" and anybody could be next. If NATO had just said "well, Ukraine isn't part of NATO, so we don't care" then just maybe NATO wouldn't be viewed as a loser if Russia occupies all of Ukraine. As it is, NATO is now tied to Ukrainian victory. It's that simple.

As far as some kind of a "peace" that leaves Russia basically where it is now, Ukraine simply can't accept that. They can't exist as a country under those conditions, and anyway Russia would just "finish the job" when they felt like it. They have to keep fighting until they simply can't any more. If Ukraine goes under, nobody on the eastern flank of NATO will feel safe.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - fullmetal - 10-12-2023

(10-12-2023, 03:51 PM)Hurlburt88 Wrote:  I may becoming cynical . . . I feel like this war has already been "won", but the combatants don't realize it and haven't figured out how to stop fighting.

The point of the war was perhaps never really territorial acquisition.  If you follow the saying that all politics is local, the war may have been an effort to retrench and tighten grip on domestic power in Russia.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - OutsiderFan - 10-13-2023

The losses Russia is taking in its hapless "attack" on Andrivka are just jaw dropping. It's like shooting fish in a barrel for Ukraine. Just yesterday Russia was reported to have lost almost 1,000 people, 42 tanks and 44 APCs. All to gain territory measured in meters.

How can the Russian people stand for this?
How does capturing Ukraine territory do a gd thing for the average Russian?
If your government thinks so little of the lives of its citizens, how do you allow that government to exist?
Look at the amount of resources being pumped into this war effort while Russian citizens get nothing except their future being stolen from them.

It's simply not sustainable.

I wrote a post more than a month ago about how dumb this all is, saying how all this military aid Ukraine is getting is only being used to kill Russians, and the only way to prevail is to kill as many Russians as possible who are being forced to fight against their will. This Andrivka carnage drives the point home in spades.

What's amazing is the Israel-Palestine conflict manages to be even dumber and more senseless.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 10-13-2023

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukrainian-pilots-start-training-f-185417451.html

This is where the real training will occur. The training that can take place in Europe was of limited scope even when F-16s were the first-line fighters of their air forces. The F-16s are being/have been phased out in the EU countries doing the training. Their training naturally was downsized even before that. Even when it was going "full blast", lots of EU F-16 pilots were trained at least partially in the US. As I have been saying literally for years, this current training should have been started in May of 2022, not October of 2023. Even if the US had not ever decided to send F-16s to Ukraine, 100 or so already trained pilots would have made such an action possible much sooner. The cost of training is nugatory compared to all the other costs involved.  Now that we have decided to act, the effects will be long delayed and arrive in dribs and drabs, rather much more effective unitary fighting force.  Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Let's just hope the arrangements are being made to marry the pilots with their planes and ordinance BEFORE they go to Ukraine to fight. A slow ramp up will get people killed and give Russia time to adjust. The task the Ukrainian F-16 squadrons have ahead of them is hard enough without giving the Russians waning and time to figure out how to deal with the threat. Ukraine needs enough HARMs that the F-16 can use them at will. We certainly did in Iraq. Most of the missiles didn't hit anything, but it did force the Iraqis to shut down. Ukraine also needs jamming pods. I doubt we will give them the "latest and greatest", but they need something. Obviously they also need AMRAAMs and Sidewinders.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 10-14-2023

(10-13-2023, 03:51 PM)Goose Wrote:  https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukrainian-pilots-start-training-f-185417451.html

This is where the real training will occur. The training that can take place in Europe was of limited scope even when F-16s were the first-line fighters of their air forces. The F-16s are being/have been phased out in the EU countries doing the training. Their training naturally was downsized even before that. Even when it was going "full blast", lots of EU F-16 pilots were trained at least partially in the US. As I have been saying literally for years, this current training should have been started in May of 2022, not October of 2023. Even if the US had not ever decided to send F-16s to Ukraine, 100 or so already trained pilots would have made such an action possible much sooner. The cost of training is nugatory compared to all the other costs involved.  Now that we have decided to act, the effects will be long delayed and arrive in dribs and drabs, rather much more effective unitary fighting force.  Stupid, stupid, stupid.


Let's just hope the arrangements are being made to marry the pilots with their planes and ordinance BEFORE they go to Ukraine to fight. A slow ramp up will get people killed and give Russia time to adjust. The task the Ukrainian F-16 squadrons have ahead of them is hard enough without giving the Russians waning and time to figure out how to deal with the threat. Ukraine needs enough HARMs that the F-16 can use them at will. We certainly did in Iraq. Most of the missiles didn't hit anything, but it did force the Iraqis to shut down. Ukraine also needs jamming pods. I doubt we will give them the "latest and greatest", but they need something. Obviously they also need AMRAAMs and Sidewinders.

Unfortunately Stupid is a requirement for many government positions, including Congress.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - M T - 10-14-2023

I've been using BBC as my news source for info beyond California (MercuryNews and SF Chron pretty much only report local news).  The Israel-Hamas war has apparently taken all their attention away from the Ukraine.  The latest report on the BBC's news site on Ukraine is 2 days old and it was a day-old news when reported, "Russia attacks Avdiivka stronghold in eastern Ukraine".

If Russia facilitated the Hamas attack, it may be getting what it wanted.

I had to go to other sources to find out what's been going on (Ukraine sea drones attacked 2 ships; what's going on around Avdiivka; Russia use of make-shift armored vehicles; North Korea weapons to Russia; Polish elections; UK tells UN more than 100K war crimes in Ukraine; etc)

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 10-17-2023

ATACMS finally makes their appearance and lots of Russian helicopters are burning. Pretty incredible that Russia knew this was coming and still was not able to provide AD that could intercept the missiles or sufficiently harden their airfields to prevent widespread damage. I guess not that surprising given Russian history in this war, they usually need to get their noses rubbed in it a few times before making changes.

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/JimmySecUK/status/1714270279747444783?s=20[/tweet]

These are the oldest ATACMS, without GPS guidance and with the shortest range of about 100 miles, but with 950 cluster munitions, the heaviest cluster payload on any of the ATACMS variants.

[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1714291525981786265?s=20[/tweet]

---

TrumpCard - TrumpCard - 10-17-2023

Better late than never I guess, but these would have been so much more useful before the war turned into a highly fortified stalemate. 

Hopefully, Ukraine will get another tactical surprise and notch a bunch more hits when the Biden Administration ultimately decides to send the more modern ATACMS.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 10-17-2023

I'm not sure if they will get longer range unitary warhead ATACMS. From the beginning the DOD side has not wanted to send them because of the limited US stocks of the weapon. These older ATACMS are not really in frontline US usage so DOD didn't have a problem with them being sent.

ATACMS is being replaced soon so maybe the US will be more willing to spare longer range ATACMS then. But that is probably a year or two away.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - OutsiderFan - 10-17-2023

(10-17-2023, 11:57 AM)dabigv13 Wrote:  I'm not sure if they will get longer range unitary warhead ATACMS. From the beginning the DOD side has not wanted to send them because of the limited US stocks of the weapon. These older ATACMS are not really in frontline US usage so DOD didn't have a problem with them being sent.

ATACMS is being replaced soon so maybe the US will be more willing to spare longer range ATACMS then. But that is probably a year or two away.

Does Ukraine or an ally nearby have the capacity to manufacture the ATACMS it wants in a joint-venture with Lockheed Martin and another possible manufacturer? I have no idea what missile making companies might exist in Europe or to what degree DoD would be OK with this kind of thing. It would solve the U.S. not wanting to deplete its own supply if Ukraine or an ally of Ukraine can make its own.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - M T - 10-17-2023

Could the unitary ATACMS take out a section of the Kerch bridge?  Maybe the US could spare, say, 10 warheads for that purpose.

Suppose Ukraine had a few and took out the bridge.  Would Moscow then position their supply depots far enough from the front line, fearing a few more were available?  For a small investment, a large gain might be made.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 10-17-2023

(10-17-2023, 12:08 PM)M T Wrote:  Could the unitary ATACMS take out a section of the Kerch bridge?  Maybe the US could spare, say, 10 warheads for that purpose.

Suppose Ukraine had a few and took out the bridge.  Would Moscow then position their supply depots far enough from the front line, fearing a few more were available?  For a small investment, a large gain might be made.

The ATACMS is not an "ideal" weapon to take out the Kerch bridge, but it could probably damage it to the point it wouldn't be useful. A 500 lb warhead sounds like a "lot" but against a concrete bridge it will probably just make a hole, not bring down the structure. A M57E1 with GPS would probably also be required. The INS uncorrected CEP is such that lots of missiles fired would miss the bridge clean. Russia has lots of GPS jamming around that bridge. A StormShadow using it's target recognition capability would be a better weapon if you can get it there. Use INS to get "close" and then home in visually.  It has twice as big a warhead. Now, can the F-16 fire a StormShadow? If so, I bet quite a few Ukrainian pilots would love to fly a very low level attack profile via the Sea of Azov or maybe South Kherson. The casualty rate may be high, but I bet they would do it.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 10-17-2023

Unitary warhead ATACMS would be a pretty good weapon for taking out Kerch bridge. Storm Shadow/SCALP, a British/French cruise missile that Ukraine already fields would also be a good weapon, as would the German Taurus, not yet supplied. These have more dedicated pentration warheads as compared to ATACMS which would be useful for destroying a bridge, but may be somewhat easier for air defense to intercept as they are slower.

Probably a handful for express purpose of destroying the bridge would be good. But it does seem there are some red line escalation concerns around the bridge; Ukraine has not used any Storm Shadows/SCALP missiles for this purpose, they have only used a truck bomb and Ukrainian made naval drones. Germany has expressly said they don't want to send Taurus because they don't want it to blow up Kerch bridge. So maybe the US is also wary of supplying the weapon that destroys the bridge. Unclear.

Could Ukraine manufacture ATACMS? Ukraine has a indigenous capabilities in this area, as seen by the Neptune cruise missiles that took out Moskva and other targets, as well as the Stugna ATGM which has been very effective, both made by the Ukrainian Luch Design Bureau. They have made agreements with Western arms manufacturers to produce and repair things insidd of Ukraine. But Ukrainian arms factories were very high priority targets for Russia from the very beginning and were repeatedly struck. I imagine making ballistic rockets is dangerous work, would probably need to be done in some sort of underground bunker or something.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 10-17-2023

(10-17-2023, 11:57 AM)dabigv13 Wrote:  I'm not sure if they will get longer range unitary warhead ATACMS. From the beginning the DOD side has not wanted to send them because of the limited US stocks of the weapon. These older ATACMS are not really in frontline US usage so DOD didn't have a problem with them being sent.

The "older" ATACMS actually shouldn't even exist. The plan was to "upgrade" them to unitary warheads. The Army decided it didn't want those upgraded missiles anyway and used part of the the money elsewhere. Thank goodness they exist, because for destroying airfields or tank parks, they are the "drug of choice".

Quote:ATACMS is being replaced soon so maybe the US will be more willing to spare longer range ATACMS then. But that is probably a year or two away.

IMO you are precisely correct. We shall see, but I think the "short range ATACMS" are not a threat to be used against Russia proper, so they are kind of "OK". The longer range ones are potentially more of a "threat", so that may also be a problem. However, the main "no" right now is that the US Army doesn't want to deplete it's already inadequate stocks.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 10-17-2023

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/CalibreObscura/status/1714369775206375873?s=20[/tweet]

Video of the ATACMS launch.

More-

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1714357533064781881?s=20[/tweet]

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 10-17-2023

(10-17-2023, 12:41 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  Unitary warhead ATACMS would be a pretty good weapon for taking out Kerch bridge. Storm Shadow/SCALP, a British/French cruise missile that Ukraine already fields would also be a good weapon, as would the German Taurus, not yet supplied. These have more dedicated pentration warheads as compared to ATACMS which would be useful for destroying a bridge, but may be somewhat easier for air defense to intercept as they are slower.

Probably a handful for express purpose of destroying the bridge would be good. But it does seem there are some red line escalation concerns around the bridge; Ukraine has not used any Storm Shadows/SCALP missiles for this purpose, they have only used a truck bomb and Ukrainian made naval drones. Germany has expressly said they don't want to send Taurus because they don't want it to blow up Kerch bridge. So maybe the US is also wary of supplying the weapon that destroys the bridge. Unclear.

StormShadow needs to be air-launched, and doing so from Ukrainian air space using their available MIG/SUKHOI platforms is pretty "iffy". To get the 300 mile range, you have to launch it from relatively high altitude. That makes the launch platform a sitting duck. You also need to be pointed pretty close to boresight on the target. Not impossible, but very risky. This means the missile itself at launch is also a sitting duck. It is also detected and therefore can't sneak through "under the radar".

The alternative of a low-altitude dash to reduce the range to the point you can launch it from low altitude is the best way to approach the problem. You may need HARMs to suppress some Russian air defense systems. You  may also need a CAP to protect the strike from the Russian fighter BARCAP. You may also need jamming capability to allow you to live long enough to do the job. Most of the MIGS are too short-legged and aren't designed to do this kind of mission. F-16s can do this. Too bad Ukraine doesn't have any (yet).

Quote:Could Ukraine manufacture ATACMS? Ukraine has a indigenous capabilities in this area, as seen by the Neptune cruise missiles that took out Moskva and other targets, as well as the Stugna ATGM which has been very effective, both made by the Ukrainian Luch Design Bureau. They have made agreements with Western arms manufacturers to produce and repair things insidd of Ukraine. 

Yes, and after 5 years of Lockheed "technology transfer" Ukraine might be able to build one, assuming the brains of the Ukrainians are not rendered comatose in the process :-). Seriously, this kind of activity is difficult. I suspect even EU nations that are not at war would take a very long time to do this transfer. One big problem would be that while Ukraine has a sense of urgency, US industry will not, and that will make it slow. These big companies are very "process driven". Look how long it is taking to just refurbish these Hawk missile systems.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - gocard14 - 10-17-2023

Ukraine reporting destruction of 9 helicopters, SAM site, and an ammo dump. Not verified, but seems plausible based on the videos circulating and even Russian sources saying they had some major losses. Not a bad start for ATACMS. And of course the larger effect may be forcing dispersal of Russian air  and moving Russian assets/logistics hubs even further from the frontline

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 10-23-2023

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/turkey-erdogan-backs-sweden-nato-153334096.html

Step in the right direction. Now the parliament will probably sit on this until the US makes some kind of reciprocal move on the F-16 deliveries. Obviously neither side fully trusts the other.

Unfortunately the Hungarian opposition to Sweden has become considerably more "serious" over the past year. They may be holding out for more EU money, but it is less clear what their "quid pro quo" may be.

It would be really nice if this was all behind us. There is lots of NATO information that cannot pass to Sweden until they are full members. This is not just a technicality. NATO must follow it's rules or else the trust from other nations who contribute "information" (of various types) will be lost.

---

https://www.yahoo.com/news/first-look-hawk-sams-now-165139927.html

At long last, this effort is FINALLY bearing fruit. To be effective, Ukraine will need a large number of these systems to protect their infrastructure. The good news is that there are lots of HAWK missiles available, so the Ukrainians can use them without fear of running out (unlike Patriot missiles which are real expensive and available in much more limited numbers). Ukraine is really going to need this kind of weapon this winter to blunt what will undoubtedly be a Russian "maximal effort" to destroy the Ukrainian power grid and transportation system. Let's hope the supply of HAWK systems and missiles is sufficient. I would be much happier if they had arrived sooner and in significant quantity. A "first look" doesn't tell us what the inventory target in Ukraine is.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - OutsiderFan - 10-23-2023

What's the O/U on dead Russians, lost tanks, APCs, and artillery before Russia waves the white flag in Ukraine?

Forget Taiwan, China should be invading Russia to seize its oil and mineral assets given how depleted Russia's armed forces are. I don't think the western countries would exactly cry foul and come to Russia's aid, especially when hell is breaking loose in the Middle East.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Mick - 10-23-2023

(10-23-2023, 11:08 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  What's the O/U on dead Russians, lost tanks, APCs, and artillery before Russia waves the white flag in Ukraine?

Forget Taiwan, China should be invading Russia to seize its oil and mineral assets given how depleted Russia's armed forces are. I don't think the western countries would exactly cry foul and come to Russia's aid, especially when hell is breaking loose in the Middle East.

I don't think the Russians will ever wave the white flag in Ukraine. Even if Putin ends up diving out a window, what's waiting behind him is worse, at least as near as I can tell. Russians view the Ukraine war as existential, and it's certainly existential for Putin. Until they run out of 20-50 year old Russians and all the mercenaries they can buy, they'll keep prosecuting the war. I have two concerns: first is a nuclear response motivated by a Russian version of a Tonkin Gulf incident. I could see the Russians coming up with some excuse for using a nuclear weapon or weapons. They would get obliterated by a war with NATO, and it wouldn't be close. I'd hate for them to come to the conclusion that the only acceptable outcome is mutually accepted destruction.

I don't think the Chinese, or anyone else will invade Russia as long as they have the nuclear stockpile and have clearly indicated that they view border assaults as an excuse to use those weapons.

What's worse is the ongoing cooperation between Russia and China. I think both societies are in desperate trouble, demographically speaking. They both have massive retirement-age populations with comparatively small working age populations. It's very difficult for those two societies to feed themselves, much less take on America/NATO. Even with the sanctions, Russians are doing acceptably well selling to the Chinese. But if the Chinese are hit with similar sanctions, they can't feed themselves. If Russia and China come to the conclusion that they're far better off being thugs in charges against American/NATO interests (with the support of countries like North Korea, Iran and others), then we could be in a pickle.

---