[M T]

Assuming Ukraine survives the change in the US, will there be enough shells for this weapon for at least 6 months?

[M T]

Assuming Ukraine survives the change in the US, will there be enough shells for this weapon for at least 6 months?

[Goose]

Apparently Germany is going to be making its new 155 self propelled gun availible to the Ukraine.  Turret is unmanned. Can fire 9 rounds per minute up to ranges of 25 miles and with very long range ammo, up to 35 miles. I believe those figures are far better than our 155mm guns.
I presume we must have something similar in the works, but this seems to be a significant improvement over past gear.
https://www.twz.com/land/ukraine-gets-fi...may-follow
Looking at other similar stuff, it sure appears that Germany knows how to build weapons for war.

Not really. The 155 mm/L52 gun is the same one used in the Panzerhaubitze 2000. The gun has been around for awhile. It is true that the Germans have designed many very good guns. The one used in the Abrams was originally a German design. However, as the severe problems Ukraine has experienced keeping their donated Panzerhaubitze 2000s working can attest, lots of the German designs don't work so well in the field. This particular gun creates what is called a "range overwatch" by using a longer barrel. Same trick that was used with the 75L/43 to 75L/48 change for the WW II Panzer IV, followed by the 75L/70 for the Panther.  No mystery here. This does however increase the chamber pressure considerably. The longer barrel also creates some problems transporting it. 

There is a version of this weapon available from BAE as the M109-52 SPH. https://www.baesystems.com/en-us/product...d-howitzer.  That is a US Paladin with the L52 instead of the L39. As far as the RCH-155 goes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RCH_155) Krauss-Maffei has been flogging this concept since about 2005. The target market was anybody who couldn't afford a Panzerhaubitze 2000 or those who that the Panzerhaubitze 2000 was way too complex/heavy. Nobody would buy these weapons however. Suddenly, after the war in Ukraine started several countries are buying it. Look at the dates on the website operators list. Krauss-Maffei is only going to deliver 18 units this year. Maybe someday the German army will actually get some :-). IMO the odds the US buys any are slim and none.

[Goose]

Apparently Germany is going to be making its new 155 self propelled gun availible to the Ukraine.  Turret is unmanned. Can fire 9 rounds per minute up to ranges of 25 miles and with very long range ammo, up to 35 miles. I believe those figures are far better than our 155mm guns.
I presume we must have something similar in the works, but this seems to be a significant improvement over past gear.
https://www.twz.com/land/ukraine-gets-fi...may-follow
Looking at other similar stuff, it sure appears that Germany knows how to build weapons for war.

Not really. The 155 mm/L52 gun is the same one used in the Panzerhaubitze 2000. The gun has been around for awhile. It is true that the Germans have designed many very good guns. The one used in the Abrams was originally a German design. However, as the severe problems Ukraine has experienced keeping their donated Panzerhaubitze 2000s working can attest, lots of the German designs don't work so well in the field. This particular gun creates what is called a "range overwatch" by using a longer barrel. Same trick that was used with the 75L/43 to 75L/48 change for the WW II Panzer IV, followed by the 75L/70 for the Panther.  No mystery here. This does however increase the chamber pressure considerably. The longer barrel also creates some problems transporting it. 

There is a version of this weapon available from BAE as the M109-52 SPH. https://www.baesystems.com/en-us/product...d-howitzer.  That is a US Paladin with the L52 instead of the L39. As far as the RCH-155 goes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RCH_155) Krauss-Maffei has been flogging this concept since about 2005. The target market was anybody who couldn't afford a Panzerhaubitze 2000 or those who that the Panzerhaubitze 2000 was way too complex/heavy. Nobody would buy these weapons however. Suddenly, after the war in Ukraine started several countries are buying it. Look at the dates on the website operators list. Krauss-Maffei is only going to deliver 18 units this year. Maybe someday the German army will actually get some :-). IMO the odds the US buys any are slim and none.

[GK3]

Apparently Germany is going to be making its new 155 self propelled gun availible to the Ukraine.  Turret is unmanned. Can fire 9 rounds per minute up to ranges of 25 miles and with very long range ammo, up to 35 miles. I believe those figures are far better than our 155mm guns.
I presume we must have something similar in the works, but this seems to be a significant improvement over past gear.
https://www.twz.com/land/ukraine-gets-fi...may-follow
Looking at other similar stuff, it sure appears that Germany knows how to build weapons for war.

Not really. The 155 mm/L52 gun is the same one used in the Panzerhaubitze 2000. The gun has been around for awhile. It is true that the Germans have designed many very good guns. The one used in the Abrams was originally a German design. However, as the severe problems Ukraine has experienced keeping their donated Panzerhaubitze 2000s working can attest, lots of the German designs don't work so well in the field. This particular gun creates what is called a "range overwatch" by using a longer barrel. Same trick that was used with the 75L/43 to 75L/48 change for the WW II Panzer IV, followed by the 75L/70 for the Panther.  No mystery here. This does however increase the chamber pressure considerably. The longer barrel also creates some problems transporting it. 

There is a version of this weapon available from BAE as the M109-52 SPH. https://www.baesystems.com/en-us/product...d-howitzer.  That is a US Paladin with the L52 instead of the L39. As far as the RCH-155 goes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RCH_155) Krauss-Maffei has been flogging this concept since about 2005. The target market was anybody who couldn't afford a Panzerhaubitze 2000 or those who that the Panzerhaubitze 2000 was way too complex/heavy. Nobody would buy these weapons however. Suddenly, after the war in Ukraine started several countries are buying it. Look at the dates on the website operators list. Krauss-Maffei is only going to deliver 18 units this year. Maybe someday the German army will actually get some :-). IMO the odds the US buys any are slim and none.

Thannks for correcting my misconception.  It makes me wonder who makes the best self propelled 155?

[GK3]

Apparently Germany is going to be making its new 155 self propelled gun availible to the Ukraine.  Turret is unmanned. Can fire 9 rounds per minute up to ranges of 25 miles and with very long range ammo, up to 35 miles. I believe those figures are far better than our 155mm guns.
I presume we must have something similar in the works, but this seems to be a significant improvement over past gear.
https://www.twz.com/land/ukraine-gets-fi...may-follow
Looking at other similar stuff, it sure appears that Germany knows how to build weapons for war.

Not really. The 155 mm/L52 gun is the same one used in the Panzerhaubitze 2000. The gun has been around for awhile. It is true that the Germans have designed many very good guns. The one used in the Abrams was originally a German design. However, as the severe problems Ukraine has experienced keeping their donated Panzerhaubitze 2000s working can attest, lots of the German designs don't work so well in the field. This particular gun creates what is called a "range overwatch" by using a longer barrel. Same trick that was used with the 75L/43 to 75L/48 change for the WW II Panzer IV, followed by the 75L/70 for the Panther.  No mystery here. This does however increase the chamber pressure considerably. The longer barrel also creates some problems transporting it. 

There is a version of this weapon available from BAE as the M109-52 SPH. https://www.baesystems.com/en-us/product...d-howitzer.  That is a US Paladin with the L52 instead of the L39. As far as the RCH-155 goes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RCH_155) Krauss-Maffei has been flogging this concept since about 2005. The target market was anybody who couldn't afford a Panzerhaubitze 2000 or those who that the Panzerhaubitze 2000 was way too complex/heavy. Nobody would buy these weapons however. Suddenly, after the war in Ukraine started several countries are buying it. Look at the dates on the website operators list. Krauss-Maffei is only going to deliver 18 units this year. Maybe someday the German army will actually get some :-). IMO the odds the US buys any are slim and none.

Thannks for correcting my misconception.  It makes me wonder who makes the best self propelled 155?

[Goose]

It makes me wonder who makes the best self propelled 155?

It certainly isn't the United States. The consensus is that the South Korean K9 Thunder is the best thing going. This is partially because it is affordable, but all in all it is a very good system. It must also be said that many of the export sales of this system include options (like fire control systems) that are customer specific. Thus the K9 isn't exactly one product. It does however use the German technology for extra range as reverse engineered by the Koreans. As of now, the K9A2 is the best thing going.

It must be said that the US Army is of at least two minds regarding the future of artillery. The Army has spent and wasted many billions of dollars trying to figure out how it would project force in the future. Lost was spent trying to develop a liquid propellant artillery piece that would have ranges greater than the RAP rounds of the current 155 mm howitzers. They couldn't make it work. https://www.gao.gov/products/nsiad-95-25 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM2001_Crusader.

As the above links demonstrate, part of the problem was that the civilian leadership was  focused on a lighter, more mobile force to combat terrorism and rouge states, not near-peer opponents. Another part of the problem is that the Army did not, and does not, know what it wants (if anything) in a self-propelled howitzer (SPH). Most important, given the role of the USAF and its capabilities to provide support, it is arguable that SPH are simply obsolete. Coupled with Army owned long range missiles the ability to bring massive precision fires upon any point of the battlefield in the matter of a few minutes arguably reduces the survivability of artillery to zero. It has been consensus for quite a few years that towed artillery was unsurvivable.

The argument for the SPH is that it can fire and move quickly to avoid the LRASMs and PrSMs that will rain down upon them. One problem with this approach is that while these SPH are moving, they aren't firing. Another is that logistically supporting these SPH when nobody know how many times they will have to move and to where is virtually impossible. The reasons the users are searching for SPH that have longer range is that first they can be further back from the FEBA. This makes counter-battery from the shorter range enemy SPH ineffective. Second, it allows SPHs spead over a wider geographic area to attack any given point. This mitigates the requirement to move fairly frequently because other units can take up the slack. The obvious problem in the first case is that the enemy is also increasing his range in the same manner. The second case requires communication and coordination among geographically (and organizationally) dispersed  units. That isn't easy.

Most importantly, aircraft, large drones, and ballistic missiles will always outrange artillery. It is just physics. The "boost phase" of an artillery projectile must take place while the projectile is in the barrel (RAP excepted). If one wants to increase range one must increase the barrel length and/or diameter. More propellant can then be used, but any that doesn't burn while the projectile is still in the barrel is wasted. There are obvious limitations on size, weight, and breech pressure that limit gunnery range. What can reasonably be done has been done.  These facts limit the "specific impulse" that can be applied because it has to occur very quickly. A rocket engine can burn "for a long time". Aircraft and drones can operate their engines for hours.

SPH main historical advantages were 1) they could respond quicker and in larger volume that missiles, drones, or aircraft, and 2) they could provide large volumes of fire over long periods of time (persistence of fire). Of course if they aren't survivable, it doesn't matter. The US Army doesn't know what it thinks about this, so here we sit.

It should also be noted that the Advanced Gun System (AGS) for the Zumwalt destroyers was a failure. The eventual cost of the projectiles was prohibitive, in the $800,000 to $1,000,000 per shell. That got the program cancelled. I am guessing that was partially a political excuse. It is almost certain the whole concept was fatally flawed from day 1 and never actually "worked".

[Goose]

It makes me wonder who makes the best self propelled 155?

It certainly isn't the United States. The consensus is that the South Korean K9 Thunder is the best thing going. This is partially because it is affordable, but all in all it is a very good system. It must also be said that many of the export sales of this system include options (like fire control systems) that are customer specific. Thus the K9 isn't exactly one product. It does however use the German technology for extra range as reverse engineered by the Koreans. As of now, the K9A2 is the best thing going.

It must be said that the US Army is of at least two minds regarding the future of artillery. The Army has spent and wasted many billions of dollars trying to figure out how it would project force in the future. Lost was spent trying to develop a liquid propellant artillery piece that would have ranges greater than the RAP rounds of the current 155 mm howitzers. They couldn't make it work. https://www.gao.gov/products/nsiad-95-25 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM2001_Crusader.

As the above links demonstrate, part of the problem was that the civilian leadership was  focused on a lighter, more mobile force to combat terrorism and rouge states, not near-peer opponents. Another part of the problem is that the Army did not, and does not, know what it wants (if anything) in a self-propelled howitzer (SPH). Most important, given the role of the USAF and its capabilities to provide support, it is arguable that SPH are simply obsolete. Coupled with Army owned long range missiles the ability to bring massive precision fires upon any point of the battlefield in the matter of a few minutes arguably reduces the survivability of artillery to zero. It has been consensus for quite a few years that towed artillery was unsurvivable.

The argument for the SPH is that it can fire and move quickly to avoid the LRASMs and PrSMs that will rain down upon them. One problem with this approach is that while these SPH are moving, they aren't firing. Another is that logistically supporting these SPH when nobody know how many times they will have to move and to where is virtually impossible. The reasons the users are searching for SPH that have longer range is that first they can be further back from the FEBA. This makes counter-battery from the shorter range enemy SPH ineffective. Second, it allows SPHs spead over a wider geographic area to attack any given point. This mitigates the requirement to move fairly frequently because other units can take up the slack. The obvious problem in the first case is that the enemy is also increasing his range in the same manner. The second case requires communication and coordination among geographically (and organizationally) dispersed  units. That isn't easy.

Most importantly, aircraft, large drones, and ballistic missiles will always outrange artillery. It is just physics. The "boost phase" of an artillery projectile must take place while the projectile is in the barrel (RAP excepted). If one wants to increase range one must increase the barrel length and/or diameter. More propellant can then be used, but any that doesn't burn while the projectile is still in the barrel is wasted. There are obvious limitations on size, weight, and breech pressure that limit gunnery range. What can reasonably be done has been done.  These facts limit the "specific impulse" that can be applied because it has to occur very quickly. A rocket engine can burn "for a long time". Aircraft and drones can operate their engines for hours.

SPH main historical advantages were 1) they could respond quicker and in larger volume that missiles, drones, or aircraft, and 2) they could provide large volumes of fire over long periods of time (persistence of fire). Of course if they aren't survivable, it doesn't matter. The US Army doesn't know what it thinks about this, so here we sit.

It should also be noted that the Advanced Gun System (AGS) for the Zumwalt destroyers was a failure. The eventual cost of the projectiles was prohibitive, in the $800,000 to $1,000,000 per shell. That got the program cancelled. I am guessing that was partially a political excuse. It is almost certain the whole concept was fatally flawed from day 1 and never actually "worked".

[GK3]

It makes me wonder who makes the best self propelled 155?

It certainly isn't the United States. The consensus is that the South Korean K9 Thunder is the best thing going. This is partially because it is affordable, but all in all it is a very good system. It must also be said that many of the export sales of this system include options (like fire control systems) that are customer specific. Thus the K9 isn't exactly one product. It does however use the German technology for extra range as reverse engineered by the Koreans. As of now, the K9A2 is the best thing going.

It must be said that the US Army is of at least two minds regarding the future of artillery. The Army has spent and wasted many billions of dollars trying to figure out how it would project force in the future. Lost was spent trying to develop a liquid propellant artillery piece that would have ranges greater than the RAP rounds of the current 155 mm howitzers. They couldn't make it work. https://www.gao.gov/products/nsiad-95-25 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM2001_Crusader.

As the above links demonstrate, part of the problem was that the civilian leadership was  focused on a lighter, more mobile force to combat terrorism and rouge states, not near-peer opponents. Another part of the problem is that the Army did not, and does not, know what it wants (if anything) in a self-propelled howitzer (SPH). Most important, given the role of the USAF and its capabilities to provide support, it is arguable that SPH are simply obsolete. Coupled with Army owned long range missiles the ability to bring massive precision fires upon any point of the battlefield in the matter of a few minutes arguably reduces the survivability of artillery to zero. It has been consensus for quite a few years that towed artillery was unsurvivable.

The argument for the SPH is that it can fire and move quickly to avoid the LRASMs and PrSMs that will rain down upon them. One problem with this approach is that while these SPH are moving, they aren't firing. Another is that logistically supporting these SPH when nobody know how many times they will have to move and to where is virtually impossible. The reasons the users are searching for SPH that have longer range is that first they can be further back from the FEBA. This makes counter-battery from the shorter range enemy SPH ineffective. Second, it allows SPHs spead over a wider geographic area to attack any given point. This mitigates the requirement to move fairly frequently because other units can take up the slack. The obvious problem in the first case is that the enemy is also increasing his range in the same manner. The second case requires communication and coordination among geographically (and organizationally) dispersed  units. That isn't easy.

Most importantly, aircraft, large drones, and ballistic missiles will always outrange artillery. It is just physics. The "boost phase" of an artillery projectile must take place while the projectile is in the barrel (RAP excepted). If one wants to increase range one must increase the barrel length and/or diameter. More propellant can then be used, but any that doesn't burn while the projectile is still in the barrel is wasted. There are obvious limitations on size, weight, and breech pressure that limit gunnery range. What can reasonably be done has been done.  These facts limit the "specific impulse" that can be applied because it has to occur very quickly. A rocket engine can burn "for a long time". Aircraft and drones can operate their engines for hours.

SPH main historical advantages were 1) they could respond quicker and in larger volume that missiles, drones, or aircraft, and 2) they could provide large volumes of fire over long periods of time (persistence of fire). Of course if they aren't survivable, it doesn't matter. The US Army doesn't know what it thinks about this, so here we sit.

It should also be noted that the Advanced Gun System (AGS) for the Zumwalt destroyers was a failure. The eventual cost of the projectiles was prohibitive, in the $800,000 to $1,000,000 per shell. That got the program cancelled. I am guessing that was partially a political excuse. It is almost certain the whole concept was fatally flawed from day 1 and never actually "worked".

Ukraine seems to be proving that small cheap drones even without fancy guidance systems can function as counter battery fire.  Ukraine has cost russia billions I would think just via their cheap drone systems.  How many drones can you build for the cost of a SPH?  Do you think Reaper drones can survive very long in peer vs peer conflicts?  They were great when the other side had no real airdefense systems, but I wonder how long one would survive in the Ukraine vs Russia conflict. I presume we are working on smaller, much cheaper drones with at least semi hardened controls etc.  The Ukraine conflict is sort like either the Spanish Civil War or WWI when new technology came on line and changed the nature of conflicts.

[GK3]

It makes me wonder who makes the best self propelled 155?

It certainly isn't the United States. The consensus is that the South Korean K9 Thunder is the best thing going. This is partially because it is affordable, but all in all it is a very good system. It must also be said that many of the export sales of this system include options (like fire control systems) that are customer specific. Thus the K9 isn't exactly one product. It does however use the German technology for extra range as reverse engineered by the Koreans. As of now, the K9A2 is the best thing going.

It must be said that the US Army is of at least two minds regarding the future of artillery. The Army has spent and wasted many billions of dollars trying to figure out how it would project force in the future. Lost was spent trying to develop a liquid propellant artillery piece that would have ranges greater than the RAP rounds of the current 155 mm howitzers. They couldn't make it work. https://www.gao.gov/products/nsiad-95-25 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM2001_Crusader.

As the above links demonstrate, part of the problem was that the civilian leadership was  focused on a lighter, more mobile force to combat terrorism and rouge states, not near-peer opponents. Another part of the problem is that the Army did not, and does not, know what it wants (if anything) in a self-propelled howitzer (SPH). Most important, given the role of the USAF and its capabilities to provide support, it is arguable that SPH are simply obsolete. Coupled with Army owned long range missiles the ability to bring massive precision fires upon any point of the battlefield in the matter of a few minutes arguably reduces the survivability of artillery to zero. It has been consensus for quite a few years that towed artillery was unsurvivable.

The argument for the SPH is that it can fire and move quickly to avoid the LRASMs and PrSMs that will rain down upon them. One problem with this approach is that while these SPH are moving, they aren't firing. Another is that logistically supporting these SPH when nobody know how many times they will have to move and to where is virtually impossible. The reasons the users are searching for SPH that have longer range is that first they can be further back from the FEBA. This makes counter-battery from the shorter range enemy SPH ineffective. Second, it allows SPHs spead over a wider geographic area to attack any given point. This mitigates the requirement to move fairly frequently because other units can take up the slack. The obvious problem in the first case is that the enemy is also increasing his range in the same manner. The second case requires communication and coordination among geographically (and organizationally) dispersed  units. That isn't easy.

Most importantly, aircraft, large drones, and ballistic missiles will always outrange artillery. It is just physics. The "boost phase" of an artillery projectile must take place while the projectile is in the barrel (RAP excepted). If one wants to increase range one must increase the barrel length and/or diameter. More propellant can then be used, but any that doesn't burn while the projectile is still in the barrel is wasted. There are obvious limitations on size, weight, and breech pressure that limit gunnery range. What can reasonably be done has been done.  These facts limit the "specific impulse" that can be applied because it has to occur very quickly. A rocket engine can burn "for a long time". Aircraft and drones can operate their engines for hours.

SPH main historical advantages were 1) they could respond quicker and in larger volume that missiles, drones, or aircraft, and 2) they could provide large volumes of fire over long periods of time (persistence of fire). Of course if they aren't survivable, it doesn't matter. The US Army doesn't know what it thinks about this, so here we sit.

It should also be noted that the Advanced Gun System (AGS) for the Zumwalt destroyers was a failure. The eventual cost of the projectiles was prohibitive, in the $800,000 to $1,000,000 per shell. That got the program cancelled. I am guessing that was partially a political excuse. It is almost certain the whole concept was fatally flawed from day 1 and never actually "worked".

Ukraine seems to be proving that small cheap drones even without fancy guidance systems can function as counter battery fire.  Ukraine has cost russia billions I would think just via their cheap drone systems.  How many drones can you build for the cost of a SPH?  Do you think Reaper drones can survive very long in peer vs peer conflicts?  They were great when the other side had no real airdefense systems, but I wonder how long one would survive in the Ukraine vs Russia conflict. I presume we are working on smaller, much cheaper drones with at least semi hardened controls etc.  The Ukraine conflict is sort like either the Spanish Civil War or WWI when new technology came on line and changed the nature of conflicts.

[M T]

I see that Putin and Xi had a video call on 1/21/25, hours after Trump took office.   I presume no one outside the White House is informed if the Moscow-Waashington hotline is used.  Does anyone know if there is any accounting to Congress of its use? 

1/22/25 08:00 PST:  The US President has made a social media post, allegedly directed at Putin, with a threat(??) of "high levels of taxes, tariffs and sanctions".  And, it seems everyone is wondering what there is to tax or tariff, considering current sanctions.  Why didn't he issue another edict, if there was really something he could do along these lines.  Considering the weakness of this threat and the public nature of it, I'd guess his intended audience is not Putin.   If Putin replies, I would have to guess this would be choreographed.

Well, that was quick (before I finished my post)
1/22/25 10:30 PST (9:30 PM Moscow):  Russia responds with  "Polyanskiy said the Kremlin would need to know what Trump wants in a deal to stop the war before the country moves forward. "It's not merely the question of ending the war," Polyanskiy told Reuters. "It's first and foremost the question of addressing root causes of Ukrainian crisis."

----
The BBC reports "Western officials have told the BBC that North Korean troops have already suffered nearly 40% casualties in the fighting in Russia's western Kursk region, in just three months."  That's 4,000 of the 11,000, with 1,000 dead.  I'm guessing since it says "Western officials" rather than "Ukrainian officials" this isn't just straight propaganda.  But, BBC doesn't verify the numbers or give other support.

[M T]

I see that Putin and Xi had a video call on 1/21/25, hours after Trump took office.   I presume no one outside the White House is informed if the Moscow-Waashington hotline is used.  Does anyone know if there is any accounting to Congress of its use? 

1/22/25 08:00 PST:  The US President has made a social media post, allegedly directed at Putin, with a threat(??) of "high levels of taxes, tariffs and sanctions".  And, it seems everyone is wondering what there is to tax or tariff, considering current sanctions.  Why didn't he issue another edict, if there was really something he could do along these lines.  Considering the weakness of this threat and the public nature of it, I'd guess his intended audience is not Putin.   If Putin replies, I would have to guess this would be choreographed.

Well, that was quick (before I finished my post)
1/22/25 10:30 PST (9:30 PM Moscow):  Russia responds with  "Polyanskiy said the Kremlin would need to know what Trump wants in a deal to stop the war before the country moves forward. "It's not merely the question of ending the war," Polyanskiy told Reuters. "It's first and foremost the question of addressing root causes of Ukrainian crisis."

----
The BBC reports "Western officials have told the BBC that North Korean troops have already suffered nearly 40% casualties in the fighting in Russia's western Kursk region, in just three months."  That's 4,000 of the 11,000, with 1,000 dead.  I'm guessing since it says "Western officials" rather than "Ukrainian officials" this isn't just straight propaganda.  But, BBC doesn't verify the numbers or give other support.

[Mick]

Old Broncos never die...they get appointed to be special envoy to Ukraine and Russia. The WSJ reports that he's been given 100 days to end the war between Ukraine and Russia. What are the odds that an 80-year-old ex-three star general, SCU alum and former National Security Advisor is going to be able to achieve that objective?

Trump’s Ukraine Envoy Keith Kellogg Has a Hard Climb to Any Peace Deal - WSJ

Exclusive: Pres-Elect handed plan to halt US military aid to Kyiv unless it talks peace with Moscow | Reuters

[Mick]

Old Broncos never die...they get appointed to be special envoy to Ukraine and Russia. The WSJ reports that he's been given 100 days to end the war between Ukraine and Russia. What are the odds that an 80-year-old ex-three star general, SCU alum and former National Security Advisor is going to be able to achieve that objective?

Trump’s Ukraine Envoy Keith Kellogg Has a Hard Climb to Any Peace Deal - WSJ

Exclusive: Pres-Elect handed plan to halt US military aid to Kyiv unless it talks peace with Moscow | Reuters

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukraine-hits-...26274.html

Once again Russia takes a significant hit on a very important industrial target. IMO the Russia numbers of drones shot down are nonsense. It is attempt to make it look like they actually have a defense. Ukraine can't launch that many long range drones on a regular basis. They don't have them in that quantity. Also, the only way to do that would be by the VKS hitting the drones all along their flight path. That type of operation wouldn't go unnoticed. Point defense systems would be easily overwhelmed. Now, Ukraine needs to repeat it in about 4-5 days. Don't let them fix anything! Damage more things.

It must be acknowledged Ukraine is taking a pounding from Russian drones as well. However, Ukraine does have a credible multi-layer drone defense network that does knock down lots of Russian drones. It has taken Ukraine several years to build it up, and it relies on a lot of "gifted" equipment, some of which wasn't well suited to its eventual operational use. Ukraine has made it work fairly well despite the challenges. Russia hasn't (yet) because they never expected to need it. They do now. How quickly they adapt will be interesting. Ukraine needs to pour it on now, because eventually Russia will adapt. Imperative not to give them the time. Ukraine has a much lower bar to success than Russia does. Putin really can't afford to have the public start openly questioning his conduct of the war. Impacting oil exports "significantly" can accomplish this. It can also affect the Russian recruiting and defense budget.

Ukraine actually has a perverse advantage in the drone war. Ukraine doesn't actually have identifiable economic centers of gravity that are concentrated in a few locations and somewhat fragile. The port of Odessa is probably the closest thing to that Ukraine has, and they load bulk cargo there, not oil. The infrastructure doesn't have the tendency to explode all on its own :-). Russia needs to export to keep the money flowing in. If that flow is significantly reduced, the Russian public is really going to notice. Ukraine's economy is already a shambles. The public already knows that. The Russians are going after the electric grid, but that is widely distributed.
https://world-nuclear.org/information-li...ear-energy

Ukraine has 15 operable nuclear reactors at four plants that generate about half of its electricity. All reactors are Russian VVER types, two being upgraded 440 MWe V-312 models and the rest the larger 1000 MWe units – two early models and the rest V-320s.

Russia can't go after Ukraine's remaining nuclear power plants directly because the resulting fallout (literal and figurative) would be too serious. Eventually, Russia may be able to knock Ukraine out of the war by drone bombardment coupled with its land offensive. It is highly improbable drones alone can do it.

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukraine-hits-...26274.html

Once again Russia takes a significant hit on a very important industrial target. IMO the Russia numbers of drones shot down are nonsense. It is attempt to make it look like they actually have a defense. Ukraine can't launch that many long range drones on a regular basis. They don't have them in that quantity. Also, the only way to do that would be by the VKS hitting the drones all along their flight path. That type of operation wouldn't go unnoticed. Point defense systems would be easily overwhelmed. Now, Ukraine needs to repeat it in about 4-5 days. Don't let them fix anything! Damage more things.

It must be acknowledged Ukraine is taking a pounding from Russian drones as well. However, Ukraine does have a credible multi-layer drone defense network that does knock down lots of Russian drones. It has taken Ukraine several years to build it up, and it relies on a lot of "gifted" equipment, some of which wasn't well suited to its eventual operational use. Ukraine has made it work fairly well despite the challenges. Russia hasn't (yet) because they never expected to need it. They do now. How quickly they adapt will be interesting. Ukraine needs to pour it on now, because eventually Russia will adapt. Imperative not to give them the time. Ukraine has a much lower bar to success than Russia does. Putin really can't afford to have the public start openly questioning his conduct of the war. Impacting oil exports "significantly" can accomplish this. It can also affect the Russian recruiting and defense budget.

Ukraine actually has a perverse advantage in the drone war. Ukraine doesn't actually have identifiable economic centers of gravity that are concentrated in a few locations and somewhat fragile. The port of Odessa is probably the closest thing to that Ukraine has, and they load bulk cargo there, not oil. The infrastructure doesn't have the tendency to explode all on its own :-). Russia needs to export to keep the money flowing in. If that flow is significantly reduced, the Russian public is really going to notice. Ukraine's economy is already a shambles. The public already knows that. The Russians are going after the electric grid, but that is widely distributed.
https://world-nuclear.org/information-li...ear-energy

Ukraine has 15 operable nuclear reactors at four plants that generate about half of its electricity. All reactors are Russian VVER types, two being upgraded 440 MWe V-312 models and the rest the larger 1000 MWe units – two early models and the rest V-320s.

Russia can't go after Ukraine's remaining nuclear power plants directly because the resulting fallout (literal and figurative) would be too serious. Eventually, Russia may be able to knock Ukraine out of the war by drone bombardment coupled with its land offensive. It is highly improbable drones alone can do it.

[BostonCard]

https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/01/29/dom...g_non_subs

This strikes me as very wishful thinking, but after Syria, who knows (that being said, the Russians are meeting with the new Syrian regime, so the more things change, the more they stay the same).

BC

[BostonCard]

https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/01/29/dom...g_non_subs

This strikes me as very wishful thinking, but after Syria, who knows (that being said, the Russians are meeting with the new Syrian regime, so the more things change, the more they stay the same).

BC

[fullmetal]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/20...-pokrovsk/

AFU is starting to make errors typical of Russia by not giving its newest recruits a chance to be effective :(

[fullmetal]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/20...-pokrovsk/

AFU is starting to make errors typical of Russia by not giving its newest recruits a chance to be effective :(

[dabigv13]

A couple days ago Zelensky said they are disbanding/stopping formation of many of these 150-units, and instead sending troops to already established brigades. A good move, probably a bit late but still positive.

The name of the game now is can Ukraine maintain infantry staffing to defend the front for long enough for their long range drone strikes to have big enough economic consequences for Russia that they give up. Russia already doesn't seem to have a great answer for them and Ukrainian drone efforts for longer range drones are ramping up. They have been hitting major oil facilities on an almost daily basis recently.

[dabigv13]

A couple days ago Zelensky said they are disbanding/stopping formation of many of these 150-units, and instead sending troops to already established brigades. A good move, probably a bit late but still positive.

The name of the game now is can Ukraine maintain infantry staffing to defend the front for long enough for their long range drone strikes to have big enough economic consequences for Russia that they give up. Russia already doesn't seem to have a great answer for them and Ukrainian drone efforts for longer range drones are ramping up. They have been hitting major oil facilities on an almost daily basis recently.

[TrumpCard]

https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/01/29/dom...g_non_subs

This strikes me as very wishful thinking, but after Syria, who knows (that being said, the Russians are meeting with the new Syrian regime, so the more things change, the more they stay the same).

BC

The author says that dominoes are falling against Russia, but I don't understand how some of the examples of recent developments listed in the article constitute negative events for Russia.  The author refers to recent events in Belarus and Georgia, for example, but the events described make it sound like Russia's influence is increasing in those countries.

[TrumpCard]

https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/01/29/dom...g_non_subs

This strikes me as very wishful thinking, but after Syria, who knows (that being said, the Russians are meeting with the new Syrian regime, so the more things change, the more they stay the same).

BC

The author says that dominoes are falling against Russia, but I don't understand how some of the examples of recent developments listed in the article constitute negative events for Russia.  The author refers to recent events in Belarus and Georgia, for example, but the events described make it sound like Russia's influence is increasing in those countries.

[Goose]

A couple days ago Zelensky said they are disbanding/stopping formation of many of these 150-units, and instead sending troops to already established brigades. A good move, probably a bit late but still positive.

The name of the game now is can Ukraine maintain infantry staffing to defend the front for long enough for their long range drone strikes to have big enough economic consequences for Russia that they give up. Russia already doesn't seem to have a great answer for them and Ukrainian drone efforts for longer range drones are ramping up. They have been hitting major oil facilities on an almost daily basis recently.

Agree with both your points. IMO the Ukrainian long-range drone effort is probably the most strategically effective card they have to play. Russia SHOULD be capable of interdicting these drones. In theory they can do what Israel and the US/etc. did to the Iranian attempts against Israel. Ukraine doesn't have a ballistic missile augment to complicate the issue, leaving Russia with a simpler problem. Russia could use its point defense missiles to defeat ballistic missiles (if they existed) and the VKS to defeat the drones. However,  so far Russia hasn't deployed the VKS to take down these drones.

Russia is repeatedly reporting shooting down 100+ drones in conjunction with these recent Ukrainian strikes on refineries. Ukraine is saying things like "The refinery was attacked by 8 drones" or similar. IMO some parts of the Russian forces are trying to make it look like they are actually mounting an effective defense. They are making up numbers. Ukraine is using a number of drones that is adequate to overcome the point defense systems Russia has deployed to defend the important targets. No reason to use any more. It is also good to see Ukraine repeatedly attack the same  targets/class of targets repeatedly. This approach has been shown to be the only effective way to make such offensives work.

[Goose]

A couple days ago Zelensky said they are disbanding/stopping formation of many of these 150-units, and instead sending troops to already established brigades. A good move, probably a bit late but still positive.

The name of the game now is can Ukraine maintain infantry staffing to defend the front for long enough for their long range drone strikes to have big enough economic consequences for Russia that they give up. Russia already doesn't seem to have a great answer for them and Ukrainian drone efforts for longer range drones are ramping up. They have been hitting major oil facilities on an almost daily basis recently.

Agree with both your points. IMO the Ukrainian long-range drone effort is probably the most strategically effective card they have to play. Russia SHOULD be capable of interdicting these drones. In theory they can do what Israel and the US/etc. did to the Iranian attempts against Israel. Ukraine doesn't have a ballistic missile augment to complicate the issue, leaving Russia with a simpler problem. Russia could use its point defense missiles to defeat ballistic missiles (if they existed) and the VKS to defeat the drones. However,  so far Russia hasn't deployed the VKS to take down these drones.

Russia is repeatedly reporting shooting down 100+ drones in conjunction with these recent Ukrainian strikes on refineries. Ukraine is saying things like "The refinery was attacked by 8 drones" or similar. IMO some parts of the Russian forces are trying to make it look like they are actually mounting an effective defense. They are making up numbers. Ukraine is using a number of drones that is adequate to overcome the point defense systems Russia has deployed to defend the important targets. No reason to use any more. It is also good to see Ukraine repeatedly attack the same  targets/class of targets repeatedly. This approach has been shown to be the only effective way to make such offensives work.

[BostonCard]

The author says that dominoes are falling against Russia, but I don't understand how some of the examples of recent developments listed in the article constitute negative events for Russia.  The author refers to recent events in Belarus and Georgia, for example, but the events described make it sound like Russia's influence is increasing in those countries.

I had a similar reaction.  Georgia is moving towards Russia, so the dominoes theory only works if the Georgian people stage a "color revolution" against Georgian Dream.  It could happen, but my sense is that Georgian Dream is consolidating power.  Likewise in Belarus, it is possible that Lukoshenko goes the way of Yanukovic, but he could also... not.  That's why I said it was a bit of wishful thinking.

BC

[BostonCard]

The author says that dominoes are falling against Russia, but I don't understand how some of the examples of recent developments listed in the article constitute negative events for Russia.  The author refers to recent events in Belarus and Georgia, for example, but the events described make it sound like Russia's influence is increasing in those countries.

I had a similar reaction.  Georgia is moving towards Russia, so the dominoes theory only works if the Georgian people stage a "color revolution" against Georgian Dream.  It could happen, but my sense is that Georgian Dream is consolidating power.  Likewise in Belarus, it is possible that Lukoshenko goes the way of Yanukovic, but he could also... not.  That's why I said it was a bit of wishful thinking.

BC

[Goose]

I had a similar reaction.  Georgia is moving towards Russia, so the dominoes theory only works if the Georgian people stage a "color revolution" against Georgian Dream.  It could happen, but my sense is that Georgian Dream is consolidating power.  Likewise in Belarus, it is possible that Lukoshenko goes the way of Yanukovic, but he could also... not.  That's why I said it was a bit of wishful thinking.

BC

I too doubt the "domino theory" applies. IMO what happens in Georgia is very unpredictable. Georgian Dream is indeed attempting to consolidate their power, and their opponents are desperately trying to prevent that outcome. The Georgian Dream party is being inhibited a bit by the fact they can't rely on Russia to intervene with troops as necessary. That may keep things in limbo for a long time.

Lukoshenko isn't going to get removed by the populace. The belief is that he has a deal with Putin that as long as he lives he will be allowed to rule in Belarus. This belief is his life insurance policy. He keeps Russia from absorbing Belarus. Lots of the populace wants him gone, but they fear if he is, they get Putin. IMO when Lukoshenko dies, some part of the Belarus population will militarily resist absorption into the Russian federation. One side effect of Ukraine being defeated and absorbed into Russia would be that the Belorussian population will decide that indeed "resistance is futile".

[Goose]

I had a similar reaction.  Georgia is moving towards Russia, so the dominoes theory only works if the Georgian people stage a "color revolution" against Georgian Dream.  It could happen, but my sense is that Georgian Dream is consolidating power.  Likewise in Belarus, it is possible that Lukoshenko goes the way of Yanukovic, but he could also... not.  That's why I said it was a bit of wishful thinking.

BC

I too doubt the "domino theory" applies. IMO what happens in Georgia is very unpredictable. Georgian Dream is indeed attempting to consolidate their power, and their opponents are desperately trying to prevent that outcome. The Georgian Dream party is being inhibited a bit by the fact they can't rely on Russia to intervene with troops as necessary. That may keep things in limbo for a long time.

Lukoshenko isn't going to get removed by the populace. The belief is that he has a deal with Putin that as long as he lives he will be allowed to rule in Belarus. This belief is his life insurance policy. He keeps Russia from absorbing Belarus. Lots of the populace wants him gone, but they fear if he is, they get Putin. IMO when Lukoshenko dies, some part of the Belarus population will militarily resist absorption into the Russian federation. One side effect of Ukraine being defeated and absorbed into Russia would be that the Belorussian population will decide that indeed "resistance is futile".

[Goose]

https://breakingdefense.com/2025/01/army...tion-tour/
Peripherally Ukraine related. The Army is looking at buying through an "open competition". I give this activity about a 20% chance of leading to any procurement. The willingness/ability of the US to procure any significant number of foreign manufactured products of this magnitude is zero. On the face of it that gives BAE an advantage because of its US footprint, but that also makes the item more expensive. The Army will as usual add many features/requirements to the howitzers rendering them incompatible with existing designs, creating NRE requirements and adding significant program risk. I am fairly sure massive amounts of verbiage will be exchanged over an extended period of time resulting in the procurement being canceled.

[Goose]

https://breakingdefense.com/2025/01/army...tion-tour/
Peripherally Ukraine related. The Army is looking at buying through an "open competition". I give this activity about a 20% chance of leading to any procurement. The willingness/ability of the US to procure any significant number of foreign manufactured products of this magnitude is zero. On the face of it that gives BAE an advantage because of its US footprint, but that also makes the item more expensive. The Army will as usual add many features/requirements to the howitzers rendering them incompatible with existing designs, creating NRE requirements and adding significant program risk. I am fairly sure massive amounts of verbiage will be exchanged over an extended period of time resulting in the procurement being canceled.

[Goose]

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukr...025-02-03/

And the beat goes on. Ukraine is continuing to repeatedly pound Russian refineries. I am hoping to see definite re-attacks of previously damaged refineries. Unfortunately the drones apparently do not carry a very large warhead and the damage a near miss can generate is limited. That said, it doesn't take much damage to shut down a refinery, at least for awhile. Repeated attacks complicate the repairs because you can't test a previous repair if the refinery is down due to other more recent damage.

IMO the Russia statistics of how many drones they destroyed are not at all credible. First of all, Russia claims all the damage is done by "falling derbies".  Derbies don't create the magnitude of problems these refineries experience. Second, we see no reference to VKS activities. We also don't hear about how the "70 drones" were shot down. It is not credible that Russia has deployed enough SHORAD along the drone tracks to shoot down that many drones. The Russians don't know which refinery is targeted and they don't know the path the drones will take to get wherever they are going. The drones flying at low altitude give the Russians little time to respond. There is no geometric possibility of one SHORAD battery shooting down 70 drones unless they arrived a few at a time. Ukraine isn't going to do that and there is no indication the engagement lasted very long.

[Goose]

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukr...025-02-03/

And the beat goes on. Ukraine is continuing to repeatedly pound Russian refineries. I am hoping to see definite re-attacks of previously damaged refineries. Unfortunately the drones apparently do not carry a very large warhead and the damage a near miss can generate is limited. That said, it doesn't take much damage to shut down a refinery, at least for awhile. Repeated attacks complicate the repairs because you can't test a previous repair if the refinery is down due to other more recent damage.

IMO the Russia statistics of how many drones they destroyed are not at all credible. First of all, Russia claims all the damage is done by "falling derbies".  Derbies don't create the magnitude of problems these refineries experience. Second, we see no reference to VKS activities. We also don't hear about how the "70 drones" were shot down. It is not credible that Russia has deployed enough SHORAD along the drone tracks to shoot down that many drones. The Russians don't know which refinery is targeted and they don't know the path the drones will take to get wherever they are going. The drones flying at low altitude give the Russians little time to respond. There is no geometric possibility of one SHORAD battery shooting down 70 drones unless they arrived a few at a time. Ukraine isn't going to do that and there is no indication the engagement lasted very long.

[BostonCard]

Also, whether damage is done by debris or by an intact drone is a distinction without a difference.  If Ukraine's aim is to damage the refineries, and Russia's (presumably) is to prevent such damage, then what causes the damage is an academic distinction, that is maybe important to the Russian air defense units trying to deflect blame.

BC

[BostonCard]

Also, whether damage is done by debris or by an intact drone is a distinction without a difference.  If Ukraine's aim is to damage the refineries, and Russia's (presumably) is to prevent such damage, then what causes the damage is an academic distinction, that is maybe important to the Russian air defense units trying to deflect blame.

BC

[GK3]

Also, whether damage is done by debris or by an intact drone is a distinction without a difference.  If Ukraine's aim is to damage the refineries, and Russia's (presumably) is to prevent such damage, then what causes the damage is an academic distinction, that is maybe important to the Russian air defense units trying to deflect blame.

BC

Yes indeed, if you break it you break it, doesn't make much difference how. As far as the previous discusion of falling dominoes, hard to say what will happen in Georgia and I agree with Goose on the situation in Belarus.  Syria I think remains an opportunity, but we don't seem inclined to get involved. The new government, such as it is, seems to prone to kick out both Russia and Iran.
 I would think this would give us an opportunity to at least offer some economic assistance without a quid pro quo. We seem unable to cobble together any sort of middle eastern policy that works. Maybe we help through Turkey. We also have a bad history with Dominoes.  As I recall that was the big bogey man when we got involved in SE Asia. Then of course there is the situation in Africa.  The world is still a fairly dangerous place in many locations.
In my mind the big long term question is what happens when there is no more Putin.  He is not a young man. He is probably approaching or has past his "use by acturial date".  Iran has seen its zone of influence decrease significantly and there may be issues there with its decline in influence.

We can't forget Africa. If you look at a map of Africa, the most "stable" countries are those closest to Europe and the Middle East.  This map reflects just how much of that continent is a mess: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Map-..._314472550

Our new President has now offered more assistance to Ukraine in return for access to its so-called precious metal ores.  Russia seems to find this an issue.  I think the rare earth sources impact a lot of this instability. The following map and article are of interest:
https://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2016/fin...osits.html

[GK3]

Also, whether damage is done by debris or by an intact drone is a distinction without a difference.  If Ukraine's aim is to damage the refineries, and Russia's (presumably) is to prevent such damage, then what causes the damage is an academic distinction, that is maybe important to the Russian air defense units trying to deflect blame.

BC

Yes indeed, if you break it you break it, doesn't make much difference how. As far as the previous discusion of falling dominoes, hard to say what will happen in Georgia and I agree with Goose on the situation in Belarus.  Syria I think remains an opportunity, but we don't seem inclined to get involved. The new government, such as it is, seems to prone to kick out both Russia and Iran.
 I would think this would give us an opportunity to at least offer some economic assistance without a quid pro quo. We seem unable to cobble together any sort of middle eastern policy that works. Maybe we help through Turkey. We also have a bad history with Dominoes.  As I recall that was the big bogey man when we got involved in SE Asia. Then of course there is the situation in Africa.  The world is still a fairly dangerous place in many locations.
In my mind the big long term question is what happens when there is no more Putin.  He is not a young man. He is probably approaching or has past his "use by acturial date".  Iran has seen its zone of influence decrease significantly and there may be issues there with its decline in influence.

We can't forget Africa. If you look at a map of Africa, the most "stable" countries are those closest to Europe and the Middle East.  This map reflects just how much of that continent is a mess: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Map-..._314472550

Our new President has now offered more assistance to Ukraine in return for access to its so-called precious metal ores.  Russia seems to find this an issue.  I think the rare earth sources impact a lot of this instability. The following map and article are of interest:
https://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2016/fin...osits.html

[TrumpCard]

Everyplace is a mess.  Thanks to the folks here for keeping me up to date on all the messes without taking the conversation too deep into partisan politics.  And thanks to those who keep the sports talk alive for the occasional times when I don't feel that sports spectatorship isn't too frivolous for the world we're inhabiting.

[TrumpCard]

Everyplace is a mess.  Thanks to the folks here for keeping me up to date on all the messes without taking the conversation too deep into partisan politics.  And thanks to those who keep the sports talk alive for the occasional times when I don't feel that sports spectatorship isn't too frivolous for the world we're inhabiting.