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 - Hurlburt88 - 10-26-2024

morning WSJ.  HOpefully this is a "free" link  . . .  but I have screwed that up before

https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/ukraine-is-striking-deeper-inside-russiaand-reshaping-the-war-23e0174d?st=ZwSVRP&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 10-26-2024

(10-26-2024, 07:12 AM)Hurlburt88 Wrote:  morning WSJ.  HOpefully this is a "free" link  . . .  but I have screwed that up before

https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/ukraine-is-striking-deeper-inside-russiaand-reshaping-the-war-23e0174d?st=ZwSVRP&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Free, thank you.
The second picture shows just how powerful that explosion was.  It appears the center, oval shaped bunker went first.  Explosion was so powerful that it flattened acres of forest like match sticks.  That explosion probably set off the bunkers all around it.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 10-26-2024

https://www.yahoo.com/news/opinion-why-west-embrace-zelensky-140000644.html

Interesting article. IMO some of what it says is valid. I don't think the calculus of what a Ukrainian victory would do to Russia's future weighs very heavily with the US leadership. I don't think they are that sophisticated. What does inhibit a "rational" analysis that results in the need for a plan to "win" is simply the fear of escalation resulting in a war with Russia and all the risk that entails. Some European allies might be worried about a power vacuum in Russia but the US is not. As usual, we will cross that bridge when we come to it :-).

I do agree with the author that when Russia finally has to deal with the economic consequences of this war internal rebellions are almost assured. If the war is lost these rebellions will be strengthened. Some of them may succeed. Most will not. Many of the "oppressed minorities" are surrounded by solidly Russian territories. Even if they achieved political independence they couldn't survive without Russia. Doesn't mean the won't try. One thing the article says I strongly disagree with:

Quote:A just-as-likely scenario would involve amicable relations among newly independent states and a greatly weakened, even defanged, Russia.

That is the least likely of all the scenarios by orders of magnitude. There are very few ways thing could go "right" and many. many, more ways things could go "wrong". China, Turkey,  and Iran would help the "go wrong" scenario, even if doing so unintentionally. The Muslim rebels can't help but want aid. China wants stability on its northern border and at least "added influence" in that area. They have reasons. Entropy proceeds to disorder, and that will apply in this case :-).

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 10-27-2024

Goose, any lessons from the Israeli attack on Iran; seems like Iran’s Russian made air defense didn’t bother the Israeli Air Force much.  Not that Ukraine would get the 100 or so aircraft that supposedly participated in the attack, or permission to use them over Russian airspace, but it does raise questions about how effective the S-300 and S-400 systems really are.

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 10-28-2024

(10-27-2024, 08:38 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  Goose, any lessons from the Israeli attack on Iran; seems like Iran’s Russian made air defense didn’t bother the Israeli Air Force much.  Not that Ukraine would get the 100 or so aircraft that supposedly participated in the attack, or permission to use them over Russian airspace, but it does raise questions about how effective the S-300 and S-400 systems really are.

BC

Israel is capable of executing a SEAD/DEAD plan. They have F-35Is that can approach relatively close to S-400 (family) systems with impunity. Israel has ELINT assets that have located essentially every S-400 system Iran has. Israel also had the luxury of time. It probably confirmed ever location by either satellite photos or HUMINT. When the SEAD plan was executed the "necessary" S-400 systems (plus probably a few more fore "safety") were destroyed. They never knew what hit them. The subsequent attacks by non-stealth aircraft were therefore unopposed. Just to be cautious, these aircraft mostly used stand-off weapons to avoid penetrating deep into Iranian air space and/or overflying the targets. This also greatly reduced the probability of encountering a SHORAD asset like a TOR or PANTSIR.

The "real" message of this attack to Iran was "When we come for you, you can't stop us. You can't even hurt us. You can't even slow us down. We will reduce you to rubble if we so wish". I hope they got the message. Some of them certainly did. The message here to anyone who wants to listen is that to protect yourself against air attack by even a halfway-competent adversary requires an air force. Missiles cannot (and never have) done the job on their own.

The S-400 system is a "very good" SAM system. It works. It can operate as part of an IADS, although Iran doesn't have enough assets to do that (and Russia in the Ukraine war for some reason is not doing that). There is no reason to believe the Iranians don't operate it well. The S-400 also has the inherent limitations of a land-mobile SAM system. You can't beat physics. Against "good" stealth vehicles all SAM systems have a big problem, some more than others. The missiles launched by these SAM sites have a much worse problem. Even if the S-400 can "see" the target (which they eventually will if it gets close enough), the missiles they launch will not guide on it.

Iran's long-range radars may have seen the potential Israeli attack developing. Their lack of AEW assets undoubtedly greatly hindered that detection. The absence of any kind of a barrier combat air patrol by Iran made the Israeli attack possible. If Iran had an air force there should have been a gigantic furball in the Persian Gulf area over hundreds of miles when the Israeli's strike arrived. The attack(s) may have still have got through, but it wouldn't be a sure thing and there would be losses. If Iran took down a tanker, there could have been big losses. It would at least have been "interesting". FWIW Israel at present has 39 F-35I aircraft (https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-inks-deal-to-buy-25-more-f-35-fighter-jets-for-3-billion/) I would guess they used about half of them on this effort. F-35 availability due to maintenance issues is not what we wish it were, so how many are actually "up" at any given time can be problematic.

Ukraine isn't getting any F-35s, for many good reasons. They apparently aren't getting very many F-16s or trained pilots either. It is possible to accomplish what the Israelis did against Iran using fourth generation aircraft, ECM, and anti-radiation missiles. Doing so still gets practiced by the US and other nations at Red Flag events. There will be losses, but a "tolerable" number, especially when the alternative is national extinction. Had the US two+ years ago spent a few minutes thinking about how Ukraine could actually win a war against the Russian Federation Ukraine might now have a "respectable" air force.  The PVO is gone. The "respectable" Ukrainian air force could do such a thing. That thinking was not done and it appears Ukraine will never get the necessary air power. The beat goes on with no end game. Ukraine proposed one, but it is unfortunately DOA in the EU for sure and the US very probably.

The war in Ukraine is being fought as if it were some crazed video game with a bunch of counter-intuitive, arbitrary rules and constraints made up to make it "more interesting" overlaid by the "real" rules and constraints. Of course, it isn't a game and lots of people are dying every day. It has and will have major consequences.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 10-28-2024

I am hoping to see the West provide significant support against the North Korean troops who just arrived. Send a message that any foreign troops will be targeted hard to deter further escalations by other rogue states.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 10-28-2024

(10-28-2024, 09:11 AM)TrumpCard Wrote:  I am hoping to see the West provide significant support against the North Korean troops who just arrived. Send a message that any foreign troops will be targeted hard to deter further escalations by other rogue states.

It appears the Koreans are going to be deployed in the Kursk area. The following link is an interesting "take" on how to deal with the North Korean troops. https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukraine-stop-north-korean-soldiers-131327523.html

Anything that gets Putin sideways with Kim Jong Un is a good thing. The North Korean troops just melting away might do that. I suspect there isn't a lot of mutual trust between Russian soldiers and North Korean soldiers anyway. Decreasing that trust will also be a good thing.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - M T - 10-28-2024

After looking at pictures of damage in Ukraine, the precision of the Israeli strikes (as shown in this article) is notable.  Not only are there no obvious near-misses (craters around the targets), but the Israelis targeted certain buildings and not others at military sites.  This would suggest very precise intelligence.

I'd have thought Russia could have done that to Ukraine.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 10-28-2024

https://www.yahoo.com/news/intercepted-audio-purports-show-chaotic-170502932.html

In so far as this is "genuine" it appears there are at least some initial teething problems. Hopefully this adventure doesn't end well.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - fullmetal - 10-28-2024

As much as I do not want to see escalation in the Middle East, I was heartened to see Iran's drone production and other weapons facilities targeted, which will hopefully wreck Russia's plans.  I certainly hope things settle down there quickly.

As for the difficulties of integrating NK mercenaries into the Russian military effort...who woulda thunk lol.  Best case, the imported troops surrender and claim asylum?

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 10-28-2024

(10-28-2024, 10:17 AM)M T Wrote:  After looking at pictures of damage in Ukraine, the precision of the Israeli strikes (as shown in this article) is notable.  Not only are there no obvious near-misses (craters around the targets), but the Israelis targeted certain buildings and not others at military sites.  This would suggest very precise intelligence.

I'd have thought Russia could have done that to Ukraine.

It is apples and doughnuts. Israel accomplished two things in their attack. First, its DEAD strikes did exactly that, destroying a significant number of Iranian air defense assets. The goal of this operation was to allow the immediate follow-on strikes to hit their targets with no casualties and to enable future strikes whenever necessary. The second accomplishment was the destruction of critical Iranian weapons manufacturing capabilities by precision strikes upon essential facilities. These were "strategic" targets that wouldn't have much affect on the Iranian ORBAT in an imminent invasion by Israel but could deny Iran the supply of strategic weapons needed to win such a war.

There are important caveats about the Israeli effort. They did not intend to facilitate an immediate invasion of Iran by ground troops. They did not strike Iranian military units in their barracks. They did not try to fix the Iranian military in place so they couldn't move to counter the (non-existent) invasion. Their was no close air support role intended. There was no intention of destroying the more "mundane" Iranian military manufacturing infrastructure, like factories that make small arms ammunition.

Russia faced a different set of problems. First, they don't do SEAD. They have no 5th generation aircraft equipped and trained to do it.  Russia also has never attempted it with their fourth generation assets. They don't even notionally have it in their repertoire. Therefore, whatever air strikes Russia intended against Ukraine would have to be done in the teeth of Ukrainian air defenses. The Ukrainian defenses, while old, were formidable. They were designed to protect "important" point targets and were therefore concentrated around said targets.  Ukraine also had an air force that would fight Russian air strikes. Second, Ukraine presented very few strategic targets. They didn't manufacture lots of missiles. Their "military industrial complex" was in bad shape and could make limited contributions to the war. The R&D facilities were small and well distributed. The only even somewhat "strategic" targets were government administrative facilities, which Russia did try to bomb. Third, Russia did intend to invade Ukraine immediately at the start of hostilities. They needed close air support right from the start. That was where the VKS was expected to spend their effort. They tried, sort of, but it didn't go well.

Russia has never had, even at the height of the cold war, an air force that intended to operate offensively very often. They mostly were tasked with defending against what was assumed to be a "superior" western air threat. Even "strategic" aircraft like the TU-22M were designed to launch cruise missiles against US carriers to defend against them attacking Russia. Russia's precision strategic strike capability is centered around missiles like the Iskander. It is not a VKS asset, but rather an Army asset. No DEAD plan needed. Lots of them used in Ukraine, but with a dearth of "primary" targets were mostly wasted on low value tactical operations.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 10-29-2024

Updating the results of the Israeli air strikes on Iran:

Apparently Israel destroyed four S-300 "systems". It seem probable the Israelis destroyed the early warning/acquisition radars and many of the target tracking radars. They additionally destroyed the command-and-control units. The TELs themselves probably were not separately targeted, though several were probably destroyed as collateral damage.  It turns out Iran only had four of these S-300 systems. I had erroneously believed several additional systems were supplied after the original 2016 deliveries. That means Iran has no operational S-300s remaining.

This situation illustrates the inherent futility of an air defense system based entirely in SAMs. The S-300 is a capable SAM system. It has long range missiles that can strike aircraft at great distances and altitudes. Like all SAM systems it can only hit what it can see and what its missiles can see. The S-300 cannot see F-35Is unless they are "very close" to the tracking radars. The missiles probably can't see the F-35Is at all unless they happen to accidentally run into one.

Putting aside the F-35Is with their stealth capability, the Israeli F-16s carried cruise missiles that can fly "nap of the earth" strikes against fixed targets located hundreds of miles away. These missiles are equipped (as are SCALP/Storm Shadow) with infrared target recognition terminal guidance, so INS steering is adequate to get them "close enough".  The S-300 can detect these very low altitude targets only when the missiles are "very close", something like 14 nautical miles. The S-300 has about a minute and 20 seconds to shoot down the target. The time to acquire, develop a "firing solution", launch the missile plus the required turning radius of the vertically launched S-300 SAMs probably makes killing the inbound missile impossible. It would certainly require operating the S-300 in "full auto" mode and using a search strategy that gave high priority to low altitude targets. If there are several missiles inbound it is virtually certain the S-300 will fail to defend itself, even if everything went "right".

Now consider that in order to defend your country you will need S-300 batteries quite close together. Iran had a total of four. Hopeless task. If these batteries are more than say 35 miles apart cruse missiles can fly right between them. OK, you don't use S-300s for that job. You use lots of cheaper SHORAD systems to hit them. Fine, but you still need such systems every 35 miles around the entire country. Otherwise your system "leaks". Alternatively, you can use an AWACS and a number of "F-16 equivalent" interceptors that can "look down" upon low altitude targets. Lots cheaper. The interceptors don't need to be "everywhere" because the AWACS can see the cruise missiles at longer ranges and send them to intercept at quite high speed. In short, you need an air force. Without it you are doomed. You can't possibly build enough SHORAD/SAM capability to defend your country by themselves. Having some SHORAD around to defend some critical point targets against "leakers" is a "good thing". Having SAMs with an ABM capability is a necessary thing. Ballistic missiles, even depressed trajectory shots are relatively easy to "see" by both ground based and space-based radars. It still isn't cheap, but it can be done.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 10-31-2024

Many of you have undoubtedly seem the articles saying Israel used air to ground ballistic missiles (ALBM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-launched_ballistic_missile) in their strike on Iran. This is an interesting choice on their part. Israel has several ALBMs in their toolkit. They are mostly derived from ground launched ballistic missiles that have been modified for air launch. In some cases this involves using only the second stage of the "original" missile. ALBMs often have longer range than their ground launched parents because a lot of the initial "boost phase" is provided by the launch platform. Sometimes these missiles have to "zoom" to higher altitudes after launch to obtain adequate range.

ALBMs (in almost all cases), like their ground launched parents use up all their fuel very early in their flight. These missiles accelerate to high velocities during this phase. For example, the Russian Kinzhal reaches Mach 10 (7,674 mph). It then slows down during flight, actually fairly quickly. . The term "ballistic" in the name is a bit misleading. These missiles are not limited by the initial flight kinetics, as a bullet is. These missiles all have guidance systems that direct the missile to the target. These missiles can "maneuver". The limitation is that the missile can trade speed for altitude. If the missile needs to climb, it will slow down. The missile will be falling under the pull of gravity. If you want the missile to avoid hitting the ground that quickly, you have to climb. The missile will slow down a bit as it does that. When it runs out of speed, it is a rock. It has no wings.

Because of this constraint the ALBM generally is launched at a high altitude. The launch aircraft give it an initial speed and altitude. If necessary the missile can climb further during the boost phase. There is no free lunch, doing this results in a lower velocity after the fuel is exhausted. The trajectory of the missile therefore makes it easily detectable as it approaches the target. A missile at 30,000 ft can be detected at a range of 187 miles (347.694 km). As an example the Israeli Rampage missile has a maximum speed of 550 m/s. Even assuming it doesn't slow down (which it clearly does) it will arrive at the target in 10 minutes, 32 seconds. Lots of time. The intercept can and should occur fairly far from the S-300 that is defending itself. You may recall the time of detection for an ALCM operating at 100 ft was 1 minute 20 seconds. Even if the missile Israel used was more modern (read faster) than the Rampage, it is still giving the S-300 plenty of time to react. For a missile approaching at altitude no radical maneuver is required to intercept. So why did Israel go this way? Looks like a strange choice given what we know. Equally puzzling, why did the S-300s not successfully defend themselves, at least part of the time? Sounds like a Iran should get their money back :-).

For those of you who want to ask "What about a BrahMos?", it is not a ALBM. When launched from an aircraft it is an ALCM that also happens to be very fast (Mach 3). Its ramjet burns fuel all the way to the target.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 11-01-2024

ADDED DATA for previous post. Made separately so the thread will be bumped.

The 30N6E1 Tombstone radar is the fire control radar for the S-300 PMU1 system. It provides target tracking, missile guidance, and tatget illumination (for SARH missile, i.e. the most common missiles Iran has). It has a range of 300 kilometers (186.4 miles). It can detect up to 100 targets, track and engage 36 of them, and guide 72 missiles. The S-300 battery can operate with the 30N6E1 in an "autonomous" mode. This seems to be the normal mode used in Ukraine and probably in Iran, where the S-300s guard fairly widely separated points. The predecessor to the 30N6E1 Tombstone was the 30N6E Flap Lid (https://www.radartutorial.eu/19.kartei/06.missile/karte005.en.html). It could track only 6 targets.

The Russian IADS is designed to incorporate long range early warning radars. The idea was that the early warning radars would cover 360 degrees and detect targets at long range. These targets would then be "handed off" to the "best" missile battery to engage using the battery's own fire control radar. That fire control radar need only minimal target detection capability because it would be given a good hand-off and could begin tracking almost immediately. Thus the Flap Lid could only track six targets. There would be many more fire control radars than early warning radars. This architecture can be traced all the way back to the SA-2 (used extensively by North Vietnam) where the early warning radar was the Spoon Rest and the target tracking radar was the Fan Song. One only needs to substitute the NATO names through each generation (pretty much. There were some "branches").
https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/196037/sa-2-surface-to-air-missile/
https://www.radartutorial.eu/19.kartei/11.ancient/karte049.en.html
The following link puts it all together for the S-300 https://odin.tradoc.army.mil/WEG/Asset/06eb16ce0da83e5b5dea047e4d00b646.

The "older" S-300 systems used the 91N6 Big Bird as a early warning radar. Iran is known to have at least one of these. This radar operates in  S band as does Patriot. It utilizes a "back to back" antenna to increase the instantaneous area coverage. It is obviously a "big" radar that is expensive. The literature states the system is operated by four crew members. That could true, but the total crew necessary to support this behemoth is lots more than that. There is a newer system that does basically the same task, the 96L6E Cheese Board. https://www.radartutorial.eu/19.kartei/02.surv/karte044.en.html Iran probably doesn't have any of these.

As one can easily see from the antennas the technology of the early warning and fire control radars in the Russian SAM systems is converging. The fire control radar has additional hardware to guide the missiles and illuminate the target. The Russian fire control (and early warning radars) are both mechanically rotated and electronically steered in azimuth. They are mostly electronically steered in elevation (with some fixed elevation mechanical options). As a result the fire control radars may not be able to rotate while guiding missiles. This limits their ability to function as early warning assets over 360 degrees of azimuth. The evolution from the S-300 to the S-400 is made clear in this link https://www.radartutorial.eu/19.kartei/06.missile/karte006.en.html.

The acquisition capability of the 9S35M1 Fire Dome radar used in the BUK-M1 is such that using it has been compared to "searching for a street address while looking through a soda straw". These systems absolutely needed an early warning/acquisition radar to be effective. Russia is now at a place with the S-400 that they can almost eliminate the need for a separate acquisition. Almost, but not quite. If 45 to 60 degree azimuth coverage is acceptable, they can do it. If more is needed, they have a problem. In theory, they also have a command and control issue that several batteries may engage the same target  while leaving others uncovered. In Ukraine that hasn't been a problem because there aren't all that many S-300/400 systems in range of the same targets. It isn't obvious that Russia has an IADS concept anymore. Certainly many problems have come to light in Ukraine, and now also Iran.

The Patriot system uses a single AN/MPQ-53, 65, 65A radar system. These radars are improvements with the 65A being ubiquitous in US systems. As https://missilethreat.csis.org/system/patriot/ says

Quote:Unlike other air defense systems, the Patriot radar is notable for combining surveillance, tracking, and engagement functions in one unit.

This approach yielded a system that had the features the S-400 has evolved towards. However, the US has a newer system, the LTAMDS https://www.rtx.com/raytheon/what-we-do/integrated-air-and-missile-defense/ltamds

Quote:The Army intends to replace these systems with a new radar, the Lower Tier Air and Missile Defense System (LTAMDS), in 2022. Unlike the AN/MPQ-53, -65, and -65A, which can scan only a limited sector of airspace, LTAMDS will possess 360-degree coverage and offer significantly further detection range. While the AN/MPQ-53 and -65-series radars are passively-scanned arrays, LTAMDS is an active electronically scanned array (AESA) and features gallium nitride (GaN) power amplifiers, offering higher jamming resistance, beam agility, and power efficiency over previous systems.

The first six of these radars were delivered (late) in 2023. More are being built. Its big advantage is instantaneous 360 degree azimuth coverage. This is achieved without any need for mechanical rotation. Of course the AEGIS systems had this capability from the beginning, but they are physically a bit large to be land mobile :-). The "new" SPY-6 radars began deliveries in 2020. RTX (Raytheon) is the contractor for both the SPY-6 and LTAMDS, so maybe the upgrade path will be "smooth".

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 11-01-2024

https://www.yahoo.com/news/fighters-bombers-america-needs-win-180000614.html

To this I would only add a concurrence, especially with the last paragraph.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 11-01-2024

(11-01-2024, 03:56 PM)Goose Wrote:  https://www.yahoo.com/news/fighters-bombers-america-needs-win-180000614.html

To this I would only add a concurrence, especially with the last paragraph.

Agree entirely, but you have to be willing to spend the necessary money to pay for expensive hardware.  I think we are already in a rob Peter to pay Paul mode and that may only get worse.  There are many demands on a nations funds and if you are unwilling to do what has to be done to raise the necessary funds to cover all the demands, you end up where we are today. A little for this and a little for that, but no where near enough for everything.  Considering current conditions, this isn't going to change until 9/11 2 happens.
Russia taking brobdingnagian losses but still winning slowly since they can get away with a WW I version of warfare.  If Ukraine had  say 100 F35's and 100 F22s there would probably be few if any functional radars near Ukraine and their manufacturing centers would be under constant attack from stand off missals.
The only thing that makes Russia really dangerous are their nuclear weapons and delivery systems.  And no one even knows if they still work properly. 
Russia has yet to pay the piper for its attack on Ukraine, but the bill is coming due soon and the piper will have to be paid.

If the West is willing to step up and keep Ukraine in the game for another year, Russia could well lose.  But then Ukraine would have to be willing to suffer through another year of significant losses.  The jury is out as to how long Russia can continue to pay the war bill.  There are conflicting viewpoints. But as long as Russia can continue to fight the war using only manpower and artillery, it may well last a while.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 11-02-2024

(11-01-2024, 11:50 PM)GK3 Wrote:  Agree entirely, but you have to be willing to spend the necessary money to pay for expensive hardware.  I think we are already in a rob Peter to pay Paul mode and that may only get worse.  There are many demands on a nations funds and if you are unwilling to do what has to be done to raise the necessary funds to cover all the demands, you end up where we are today. A little for this and a little for that, but no where near enough for everything.  Considering current conditions, this isn't going to change until 9/11 2 happens.

Unfortunately the next "9/11" event may not be from a terrorist group with no strategic weapons. It may be from a nation-state that has plenty of such weapons. Unlike even WW II building modern weapons is slow. Ford Motor could switch from building cars to building aircraft in WW II because the technology for both items was similar. They were both relatively simple metal fabrication problems with relatively few drawings required. There is little similarity between an F-35 and even modern automobiles. The drawing package is immense and can only be executed by special machines. Since the mid 1980s the US has assumed all wars will be "Come as you are" because there won't be time to build a lot of hardware during said war. If we start out with a force that is too small and not adequately equipped attrition will just make the situation worse, not better. In WW II the US had years to build up its forces and weapons. Neither Japan nor Germany was going to win the war outright in the next few years. In the "next war" we may have no time at all. It will be "game on" from day 1. Of course, we have nuclear weapons, but under what circumstances will we use them?

Quote:Russia taking of immense proportions losses but still winning slowly since they can get away with a WW I version of warfare.  If Ukraine had  say 100 F35's and 100 F22s there would probably be few if any functional radars near Ukraine and their manufacturing centers would be under constant attack from stand off missals.

Ukraine doesn't need the F-22s. The air threat just isn't serious enough to require it. Indeed if Ukraine had even 35 F-35s the DEAD mission could be executed guaranteeing at least local air supremacy for Ukrainian fourth generation strike aircraft (if they had any). Unfortunately the ability to strike manufacturing centers with stand-off missiles is not a war-winner as Russia is finding out the hard way in Ukraine. It is problematic for Ukraine but not catastrophic. They fight on.

The F-35 is not a strategic weapon. Its maximum payload while "stealthy" is 5700 lbs. Most US long range missiles do not fit in the F-35 internal weapons bay. The purpose of the F-35 is tactical. It is meant to destroy the ability of the opponents ground forces to resist attack. It does this by precision strikes on logistics nodes, transportation and C3 centers. It can also destroy weapons concentrations and perform DEAD/SEAD. This is possible (at least according to the "book") by using precision weapons to destroy targets that are essential to the enemy's military operations. The Ukrainian army can then successfully break through the fatally weakened Russian forces and inflict a debilitating defeat on Russia that threatens its political existence. 

Unfortunately, Ukraine isn't resourced to conduct such a breakthrough. In their wildest dreams they aren't going to threaten to occupy Russia. The best they can hope for is to drive Russia out of Ukraine and then obtain a political solution. If Russia decides to keep fighting there is nothing Ukraine can do about it. This is the conundrum of this war. No matter how well Ukraine fights, this war ends only when Russia "wins", cannot continue because of economic collapse, or will not continue because of political unrest and/or an outbreak of common sense.

Quote:The only thing that makes Russia really dangerous are their nuclear weapons and delivery systems.  And no one even knows if they still work properly. 
Russia has yet to pay the piper for its attack on Ukraine, but the bill is coming due soon and the piper will have to be paid.

You can be sure that enough of them "work properly" to make doing the experiment too costly to even contemplate. The RVSN RF has always been a breed apart, even back in Soviet times. Unlike the rest of the military they have their own raison d'etre that is independent of the government. They have a "mission" and they take their "responsibilities to the nation" very seriously.

Russia indeed is going to have lots of unavoidable problems due to this war. Some are economic, some are political, and some are demographic. The demographic ones are far enough in the future they probably won't effect the outcome of this war. The political ones could, but Putin can control a lot of those by his own policies and actions for a "significant" length of time. So far, so good. He can also address the economic ones, but there his options are limited. Economics is what it is. Putin can't dictate to the world. However as Venezuela keeps proving a lot of economic pain doesn't necessarily force a change in policy. Let's hope that economics gets Putin before one of the myriad of  issues "gets" Ukraine. Normally one only pays the piper after the the funeral.

Quote:If the West is willing to step up and keep Ukraine in the game for another year, Russia could well lose.  But then Ukraine would have to be willing to suffer through another year of significant losses.  The jury is out as to how long Russia can continue to pay the war bill.  There are conflicting viewpoints. But as long as Russia can continue to fight the war using only manpower and artillery, it may well last a while.

IMO true except I would modify it to say as long as Russia can continue to fight. The character of the war may change. Russia may decide to go on defense for awhile once they take all of Donbas. Russia may just sit back and bombard Ukraine enough to prevent them recovering at all economically. Right now, Russia dictates the battle.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Mick - 11-02-2024

(11-02-2024, 10:22 AM)Goose Wrote:  

(11-01-2024, 11:50 PM)GK3 Wrote:  Agree entirely, but you have to be willing to spend the necessary money to pay for expensive hardware.  I think we are already in a rob Peter to pay Paul mode and that may only get worse.  There are many demands on a nations funds and if you are unwilling to do what has to be done to raise the necessary funds to cover all the demands, you end up where we are today. A little for this and a little for that, but no where near enough for everything.  Considering current conditions, this isn't going to change until 9/11 2 happens.

Unfortunately the next "9/11" event may not be from a terrorist group with no strategic weapons. It may be from a nation-state that has plenty of such weapons. Unlike even WW II building modern weapons is slow. Ford Motor could switch from building cars to building aircraft in WW II because the technology for both items was similar. They were both relatively simple metal fabrication problems with relatively few drawings required. There is little similarity between an F-35 and even modern automobiles. The drawing package is immense and can only be executed by special machines. Since the mid 1980s the US has assumed all wars will be "Come as you are" because there won't be time to build a lot of hardware during said war. If we start out with a force that is too small and not adequately equipped attrition will just make the situation worse, not better. In WW II the US had years to build up its forces and weapons. Neither Japan nor Germany was going to win the war outright in the next few years. In the "next war" we may have no time at all. It will be "game on" from day 1. Of course, we have nuclear weapons, but under what circumstances will we use them?

I wonder how much that doctrine has changed over the past 30 years?

---

(11-02-2024, 10:22 AM)Goose Wrote:  Unfortunately, Ukraine isn't resourced to conduct such a breakthrough. In their wildest dreams they aren't going to threaten to occupy Russia. The best they can hope for is to drive Russia out of Ukraine and then obtain a political solution. If Russia decides to keep fighting there is nothing Ukraine can do about it. This is the conundrum of this war. No matter how well Ukraine fights, this war ends only when Russia "wins", cannot continue because of economic collapse, or will not continue because of political unrest and/or an outbreak of common sense.

I wouldn't count on that last one...

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 11-02-2024

(10-28-2024, 01:31 PM)Goose Wrote:  https://www.yahoo.com/news/intercepted-audio-purports-show-chaotic-170502932.html

In so far as this is "genuine" it appears there are at least some initial teething problems. Hopefully this adventure doesn't end well.

---

(11-02-2024, 01:54 PM)Mick Wrote:  

(11-02-2024, 10:22 AM)Goose Wrote:  

(11-01-2024, 11:50 PM)GK3 Wrote:  Agree entirely, but you have to be willing to spend the necessary money to pay for expensive hardware.  I think we are already in a rob Peter to pay Paul mode and that may only get worse.  There are many demands on a nations funds and if you are unwilling to do what has to be done to raise the necessary funds to cover all the demands, you end up where we are today. A little for this and a little for that, but no where near enough for everything.  Considering current conditions, this isn't going to change until 9/11 2 happens.

Unfortunately the next "9/11" event may not be from a terrorist group with no strategic weapons. It may be from a nation-state that has plenty of such weapons. Unlike even WW II building modern weapons is slow. Ford Motor could switch from building cars to building aircraft in WW II because the technology for both items was similar. They were both relatively simple metal fabrication problems with relatively few drawings required. There is little similarity between an F-35 and even modern automobiles. The drawing package is immense and can only be executed by special machines. Since the mid 1980s the US has assumed all wars will be "Come as you are" because there won't be time to build a lot of hardware during said war. If we start out with a force that is too small and not adequately equipped attrition will just make the situation worse, not better. In WW II the US had years to build up its forces and weapons. Neither Japan nor Germany was going to win the war outright in the next few years. In the "next war" we may have no time at all. It will be "game on" from day 1. Of course, we have nuclear weapons, but under what circumstances will we use them?

I wonder how much that doctrine has changed over the past 30 years?

---

(11-02-2024, 10:22 AM)Goose Wrote:  Unfortunately, Ukraine isn't resourced to conduct such a breakthrough. In their wildest dreams they aren't going to threaten to occupy Russia. The best they can hope for is to drive Russia out of Ukraine and then obtain a political solution. If Russia decides to keep fighting there is nothing Ukraine can do about it. This is the conundrum of this war. No matter how well Ukraine fights, this war ends only when Russia "wins", cannot continue because of economic collapse, or will not continue because of political unrest and/or an outbreak of common sense.

I wouldn't count on that last one...

Common Sense left town in Moscow a long time ago. Also Putin is pushing the actuarial table age that says he should be dead.  Unless he is very lucky, he has limited time left.  So what happens in Moscow when he goes?  I don't think I have seen any discussion of the possibility, yet it is one that needs to be considered.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 11-02-2024

(11-02-2024, 01:54 PM)Mick Wrote:  

(11-02-2024, 10:22 AM)Goose Wrote:  Of course, we have nuclear weapons, but under what circumstances will we use them?

I wonder how much that doctrine has changed over the past 30 years?

Good question. The US has always utilized "strategic ambiguity" to cause other nations to be unsure where the boundary was and therefore be cautious not to cross it. Similarly we have never signed on to any "No first use" pledge because 1) we have already done it once and 2) no nation will honor such a pledge if they believe first use is in their strategic interest. The President can order their use using whatever advisors (if any) he wishes to consult. POTUS has absolute authority. While there is plenty of scholarly analysis on the subject it comes down to what the President  thinks is prudent. This is one reason it is imperative the President be able to evaluate the situation rationally, dispassionately and logically. The POTUS can't be driven by emotion (like anger or fear). The POTUS also has to understand the consequences of acting or not acting (in so far as it is possible) by taking into account all the available facts and precedents. As far as I know no POTUS has ever come close to actually giving the "go" authorization. Let's hope it can stay that way.

Quote:

---

(11-02-2024, 10:22 AM)Goose Wrote:  Unfortunately, Ukraine isn't resourced to conduct such a breakthrough. In their wildest dreams they aren't going to threaten to occupy Russia. The best they can hope for is to drive Russia out of Ukraine and then obtain a political solution. If Russia decides to keep fighting there is nothing Ukraine can do about it. This is the conundrum of this war. No matter how well Ukraine fights, this war ends only when Russia "wins", cannot continue because of economic collapse, or will not continue because of political unrest and/or an outbreak of common sense.

I wouldn't count on that last one...

I definitely am not. Such outbreaks are exceedingly rare in Russia, and when they happened in the past they paradoxically often make things worse, not better.

---