[Goose]

Apparently all the other suppliers also no bid.  Lockheed kept hounding us for a bid.  Finally we bid a ridiculously high price and they accepted immediately.  They didn't even try to talk down the price.  I'm sure this is not the only example of supply chain issues with aging F-16s to keep operational.

Why should they try and talk it down? They are probably on a CPFF contract where they just pass the costs through (plus their material handling and overhead charges, which are a percentage of the costs). If the customer complains, they point to all the "no bids" and say "We had no choice.". That just brings another bunch of money into their organization, which is a "good thing".

I haven't been following the F-35 lately.  The last I checked it was headed for failure; nightmare to maintain; software not completely debugged.   My guess is the military may decide to cut its losses at some point and start from scratch on a completely new, cost-effective design.  I'm too lazy to look up the latest status of F-35s.

The F-35A and F-35B are basically doing pretty well. The software works, although it is "of immense proportions" and always going to be a work in progress. The per unit cost has come down from stratospheric to merely very high. However, the jets work. They were in the "too big to fail" category and enough money was sunk into them they fixed most of the problems. Israel likes them a lot, although they have also tweaked them a lot. The F-35C is a different story, because the Navy never wanted the jet to begin with. It is working "OK", but they aren't rushing to deploy it.

Lots of things on the program were done "wrong". No program should ever be run the way that one was. The Congress has to learn they can't mandate a technical approach and then walk away. When they do, we get all the bad things of the mandated approach with few of the good things. Personally, I would prefer they stay out of it, but if they aren't going to do that, at least ensure they get what they though they ordered. Many books will be written, but it is a "successful" program in the end.

I for one do not think the US will build another manned fighter. The Air Force is starting to try, but I don't think it happens. If you think the F-35 was expensive, hang on for what the "future fighter" will cost.

[Goose]

Apparently all the other suppliers also no bid.  Lockheed kept hounding us for a bid.  Finally we bid a ridiculously high price and they accepted immediately.  They didn't even try to talk down the price.  I'm sure this is not the only example of supply chain issues with aging F-16s to keep operational.

Why should they try and talk it down? They are probably on a CPFF contract where they just pass the costs through (plus their material handling and overhead charges, which are a percentage of the costs). If the customer complains, they point to all the "no bids" and say "We had no choice.". That just brings another bunch of money into their organization, which is a "good thing".

I haven't been following the F-35 lately.  The last I checked it was headed for failure; nightmare to maintain; software not completely debugged.   My guess is the military may decide to cut its losses at some point and start from scratch on a completely new, cost-effective design.  I'm too lazy to look up the latest status of F-35s.

The F-35A and F-35B are basically doing pretty well. The software works, although it is "of immense proportions" and always going to be a work in progress. The per unit cost has come down from stratospheric to merely very high. However, the jets work. They were in the "too big to fail" category and enough money was sunk into them they fixed most of the problems. Israel likes them a lot, although they have also tweaked them a lot. The F-35C is a different story, because the Navy never wanted the jet to begin with. It is working "OK", but they aren't rushing to deploy it.

Lots of things on the program were done "wrong". No program should ever be run the way that one was. The Congress has to learn they can't mandate a technical approach and then walk away. When they do, we get all the bad things of the mandated approach with few of the good things. Personally, I would prefer they stay out of it, but if they aren't going to do that, at least ensure they get what they though they ordered. Many books will be written, but it is a "successful" program in the end.

I for one do not think the US will build another manned fighter. The Air Force is starting to try, but I don't think it happens. If you think the F-35 was expensive, hang on for what the "future fighter" will cost.

[OutsiderFan]

After a rough patch, the F-35 has become a much stronger program of late. The Canadian Air Force choosing the F-35 was a big deal too.

I've very mixed feelings about the F-15EX over more F-35s. On the one hand, it is somewhat cheaper than the F-35, but if stealth is so important these days, how is it even acceptable to have non-stealth airframes? Maybe it makes sense to have a small portion of stealth aircraft at the leading edge of attacks and fill in with cheaper non-stealthy platforms behind, but the F-35 only costs about $10M less than an F-15EX, and 8 F-35s would provide more capability than 10 F-15EXs. It used to be the F-35 cost per flight hour were crazy high, but have now come down. Is Congress and the military really falling on their swords over a $10M per plane difference and not considering the bigger picture of capability per dollar spent? And if you are spending $70M for a plane and you lose $70M if it is shot down, isn't it worth spending $80M to have a far less chance of being shot down than the $70M option?

A big advantage the F-35 has is its ability to control companion drone aircraft in addition to its own fighting capability. The F-15EX can't do this, and I know unmanned drones are cheaper than manned craft, so F-35s can also expand the number of air assets more economically. passing on more F-35s for more F-15EXs doesn't make much sense to me, but whatever.

As for the F-16, it's relatively cheap, the countries buying it aren't wealthy enough to afford 5th generation fighters, and even the F-15EX is too rich for their blood.

[OutsiderFan]

After a rough patch, the F-35 has become a much stronger program of late. The Canadian Air Force choosing the F-35 was a big deal too.

I've very mixed feelings about the F-15EX over more F-35s. On the one hand, it is somewhat cheaper than the F-35, but if stealth is so important these days, how is it even acceptable to have non-stealth airframes? Maybe it makes sense to have a small portion of stealth aircraft at the leading edge of attacks and fill in with cheaper non-stealthy platforms behind, but the F-35 only costs about $10M less than an F-15EX, and 8 F-35s would provide more capability than 10 F-15EXs. It used to be the F-35 cost per flight hour were crazy high, but have now come down. Is Congress and the military really falling on their swords over a $10M per plane difference and not considering the bigger picture of capability per dollar spent? And if you are spending $70M for a plane and you lose $70M if it is shot down, isn't it worth spending $80M to have a far less chance of being shot down than the $70M option?

A big advantage the F-35 has is its ability to control companion drone aircraft in addition to its own fighting capability. The F-15EX can't do this, and I know unmanned drones are cheaper than manned craft, so F-35s can also expand the number of air assets more economically. passing on more F-35s for more F-15EXs doesn't make much sense to me, but whatever.

As for the F-16, it's relatively cheap, the countries buying it aren't wealthy enough to afford 5th generation fighters, and even the F-15EX is too rich for their blood.

[Treefence]

Finland and Sweden have officially been invited into NATO, does that mean they are in once they accept, or is there a long integration process?  Given many countries pledged security protection during this time, as Goose mentioned, they are basically protected under article V unofficially already.  Because we've been hearing about this for months now, it's easy to let this news go by without giving it the proper respect.  This is a monumental decision for Sweden, which has remained neutral since going to war against Napoleon.  Both countries make the alliance much stronger, and I think this is something to celebrate.  

News is coming out that the US fully supports Turkey's modernization of their F-16 fleet, so this might have been part of the deal, though as Goose mentioned, it might have already been green lighted anyway, but why give away something for free, when you can use it as leverage.  

In other news, Norway will give Ukraine 3 M270 MLRS's I think we talked about before how they have 12 in storage.  It's still not the amount Ukraine is asking for, but they've been using the HIMARS to great success, attack large supply depots.  Hopefully once all the M270's are integrated, and better defensive lines are established, hopefully the war improves for Ukraine.

[Treefence]

Finland and Sweden have officially been invited into NATO, does that mean they are in once they accept, or is there a long integration process?  Given many countries pledged security protection during this time, as Goose mentioned, they are basically protected under article V unofficially already.  Because we've been hearing about this for months now, it's easy to let this news go by without giving it the proper respect.  This is a monumental decision for Sweden, which has remained neutral since going to war against Napoleon.  Both countries make the alliance much stronger, and I think this is something to celebrate.  

News is coming out that the US fully supports Turkey's modernization of their F-16 fleet, so this might have been part of the deal, though as Goose mentioned, it might have already been green lighted anyway, but why give away something for free, when you can use it as leverage.  

In other news, Norway will give Ukraine 3 M270 MLRS's I think we talked about before how they have 12 in storage.  It's still not the amount Ukraine is asking for, but they've been using the HIMARS to great success, attack large supply depots.  Hopefully once all the M270's are integrated, and better defensive lines are established, hopefully the war improves for Ukraine.

[Goose]

I've very mixed feelings about the F-15EX over more F-35s. On the one hand, it is somewhat cheaper than the F-35, but if stealth is so important these days, how is it even acceptable to have non-stealth airframes? Maybe it makes sense to have a small portion of stealth aircraft at the leading edge of attacks and fill in with cheaper non-stealthy platforms behind, but the F-35 only costs about $10M less than an F-15EX, and 8 F-35s would provide more capability than 10 F-15EXs. It used to be the F-35 cost per flight hour were crazy high, but have now come down. Is Congress and the military really falling on their swords over a $10M per plane difference and not considering the bigger picture of capability per dollar spent? And if you are spending $70M for a plane and you lose $70M if it is shot down, isn't it worth spending $80M to have a far less chance of being shot down than the $70M option?

The F-15EX is a bomb truck, which the F-35 cannot be because in order to remain stealthy it must carry all it's weapons internally. Some weapons don't fit the bomb bay, so it can't carry them at all. Other weapons have to be "modified", which is expensive and usually involves some compromises. The theory is to use F-35s for the DEAD plan that will reduce the missile threat to tolerable levels and then allow the 4.5 gen "fighters" to operate successfully. These fighters carry more tons of bombs that a B-17 did. They are definitely FINO. Bomb-load wise, 10 F-15EX are much more useful than 8 F-35. The F-15EX carries almost twice the bomb load of an F-35.

Unfortunately, the F-15EX is as costly as it is because they aren't going to build that many of them. The NRE has to be spread over a small number of airframes. It is also necessary "corporate welfare". A big problem with the F-35 was that is sucked up the fighter budget for all three services for years, and it continues to do so. That "side effect" was great for Lockheed, but it had the very real risk that there would be no viable competitors going forward. Belatedly, some people realized that probably wasn't a good position for the military to be in. This was a foreseeable concern at the start of the F-35 program, but congress didn't seem to care much. They thought the "savings" of a common fighter were worth the danger of having only one vendor existing at the end of the program. Unfortunately, the F-35 program created a "too big to fail" problem that gave the vendor the upper hand, destroying most if not all of the benefit of a single fighter. Add to that the basically incompatible requirements of the three users and the fact the air force didn't give a **** about commonality or program cost (they just wanted their airplane) and you kind of have the worst of all worlds. Fortunately, the technologists were able to deliver a good product at a much higher price. It could have been an F-111 re-run.

A big advantage the F-35 has is its ability to control companion drone aircraft in addition to its own fighting capability. The F-15EX can't do this, and I know unmanned drones are cheaper than manned craft, so F-35s can also expand the number of air assets more economically. passing on more F-35s for more F-15EXs doesn't make much sense to me, but whatever.

In the future. maybe. As of now, we don't have a "loyal wingman" or a bomb truck drone. Arguably, for the bombing mission, you are equally well off flying the drone from Indian Springs (OK, Creech AFB for the youngsters) with no F-35 involved. It is an RF link either way and the chairs are more comfortable in Nevada.

[Goose]

I've very mixed feelings about the F-15EX over more F-35s. On the one hand, it is somewhat cheaper than the F-35, but if stealth is so important these days, how is it even acceptable to have non-stealth airframes? Maybe it makes sense to have a small portion of stealth aircraft at the leading edge of attacks and fill in with cheaper non-stealthy platforms behind, but the F-35 only costs about $10M less than an F-15EX, and 8 F-35s would provide more capability than 10 F-15EXs. It used to be the F-35 cost per flight hour were crazy high, but have now come down. Is Congress and the military really falling on their swords over a $10M per plane difference and not considering the bigger picture of capability per dollar spent? And if you are spending $70M for a plane and you lose $70M if it is shot down, isn't it worth spending $80M to have a far less chance of being shot down than the $70M option?

The F-15EX is a bomb truck, which the F-35 cannot be because in order to remain stealthy it must carry all it's weapons internally. Some weapons don't fit the bomb bay, so it can't carry them at all. Other weapons have to be "modified", which is expensive and usually involves some compromises. The theory is to use F-35s for the DEAD plan that will reduce the missile threat to tolerable levels and then allow the 4.5 gen "fighters" to operate successfully. These fighters carry more tons of bombs that a B-17 did. They are definitely FINO. Bomb-load wise, 10 F-15EX are much more useful than 8 F-35. The F-15EX carries almost twice the bomb load of an F-35.

Unfortunately, the F-15EX is as costly as it is because they aren't going to build that many of them. The NRE has to be spread over a small number of airframes. It is also necessary "corporate welfare". A big problem with the F-35 was that is sucked up the fighter budget for all three services for years, and it continues to do so. That "side effect" was great for Lockheed, but it had the very real risk that there would be no viable competitors going forward. Belatedly, some people realized that probably wasn't a good position for the military to be in. This was a foreseeable concern at the start of the F-35 program, but congress didn't seem to care much. They thought the "savings" of a common fighter were worth the danger of having only one vendor existing at the end of the program. Unfortunately, the F-35 program created a "too big to fail" problem that gave the vendor the upper hand, destroying most if not all of the benefit of a single fighter. Add to that the basically incompatible requirements of the three users and the fact the air force didn't give a **** about commonality or program cost (they just wanted their airplane) and you kind of have the worst of all worlds. Fortunately, the technologists were able to deliver a good product at a much higher price. It could have been an F-111 re-run.

A big advantage the F-35 has is its ability to control companion drone aircraft in addition to its own fighting capability. The F-15EX can't do this, and I know unmanned drones are cheaper than manned craft, so F-35s can also expand the number of air assets more economically. passing on more F-35s for more F-15EXs doesn't make much sense to me, but whatever.

In the future. maybe. As of now, we don't have a "loyal wingman" or a bomb truck drone. Arguably, for the bombing mission, you are equally well off flying the drone from Indian Springs (OK, Creech AFB for the youngsters) with no F-35 involved. It is an RF link either way and the chairs are more comfortable in Nevada.

[TrumpCard]

Beyond the anticipated expansion of NATO, which is big news in its own right, the US is significantly increasing its military presence in Europe. This is a major move to deter and control Russian aggression. Given the resources the US will have to devote to maintain this larger military presence, I think we can rest assured the US is committed to very significant military aid for Ukraine in the coming years. There’s still plenty of uncertainty how this war will play out, but the risk that the current administration will lack the will to proceed seems smaller now than it did yesterday.

Edit, here are a couple of links:

https://mobile.twitter.com/nickschifrin/...0172452868

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-to-ramp...84?mod=mhp

[TrumpCard]

Beyond the anticipated expansion of NATO, which is big news in its own right, the US is significantly increasing its military presence in Europe. This is a major move to deter and control Russian aggression. Given the resources the US will have to devote to maintain this larger military presence, I think we can rest assured the US is committed to very significant military aid for Ukraine in the coming years. There’s still plenty of uncertainty how this war will play out, but the risk that the current administration will lack the will to proceed seems smaller now than it did yesterday.

Edit, here are a couple of links:

https://mobile.twitter.com/nickschifrin/...0172452868

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-to-ramp...84?mod=mhp

[Goose]

Beyond the anticipated expansion of NATO, which is big news in its own right, the US is significantly increasing its military presence in Europe. This is a major move to deter and control Russian aggression. Given the resources the US will have to devote to maintain this larger military presence, I think we can rest assured the US is committed to very significant military aid for Ukraine in the coming years. There’s still plenty of uncertainty how this war will play out, but the risk that the current administration will lack the will to proceed seems smaller now than it did yesterday.

Where the resources to support the increased military presence in Europe will come from is a big question all by itself. The current size of the Army is the smallest since before WWII. The Navy and Marines are downsizing. We have "pivoted" towards China. Are we now "pivoting" towards Europe? I suspect we are spinning in circles. Oh, BTW the Stryker is an "interim" vehicle. I am not sure what conclusions can be drawn from our present posture because it was absolutely not sustainable before our increased presence in Europe. Now it is a fantasy-land.

[Goose]

Beyond the anticipated expansion of NATO, which is big news in its own right, the US is significantly increasing its military presence in Europe. This is a major move to deter and control Russian aggression. Given the resources the US will have to devote to maintain this larger military presence, I think we can rest assured the US is committed to very significant military aid for Ukraine in the coming years. There’s still plenty of uncertainty how this war will play out, but the risk that the current administration will lack the will to proceed seems smaller now than it did yesterday.

Where the resources to support the increased military presence in Europe will come from is a big question all by itself. The current size of the Army is the smallest since before WWII. The Navy and Marines are downsizing. We have "pivoted" towards China. Are we now "pivoting" towards Europe? I suspect we are spinning in circles. Oh, BTW the Stryker is an "interim" vehicle. I am not sure what conclusions can be drawn from our present posture because it was absolutely not sustainable before our increased presence in Europe. Now it is a fantasy-land.

[TrumpCard]

Just a guess: pivoting away from the Middle East. If Turkey wants to go after the Kurds or the Saudis want to go after the Houthi, we’re sad, but we don’t have the resources or will to help. Turkey and SA are too important for other strategic reasons and they can balance Iran with their newfound political muscle.

[TrumpCard]

Just a guess: pivoting away from the Middle East. If Turkey wants to go after the Kurds or the Saudis want to go after the Houthi, we’re sad, but we don’t have the resources or will to help. Turkey and SA are too important for other strategic reasons and they can balance Iran with their newfound political muscle.

[Goose]

Just a guess: pivoting away from the Middle East. If Turkey wants to go after the Kurds or the Saudis want to go after the Houthi, we’re sad, but we don’t have the resources or will to help. Turkey and SA are too important for other strategic reasons and they can balance Iran with their newfound political muscle.

I think you are correct that we intend to reduce our presence in the Middle East. Whether that will be possible is unclear. Personnel wise, we have already done so to a large extent. As you might recall, previous attempts at that did not go well. The 5th fleet is probably the exception in that we aren't withdrawing it, at least so far. However, that is also the Indian Ocean, where many say we need increased presence to counter China. Unfortunately, best case, we are short several Army divisions of what we will need just to maintain our new European commitments. At present, we are already sending troops on (obviously unaccompanied) deployments to Eastern Europe. This is wearing out the force. The Army is having trouble meeting it's recruiting goals (as are the other services). Plenty of problems to solve. We just need to solve them and not paper over them. We have been doing far too much of that for a long while.

[Goose]

Just a guess: pivoting away from the Middle East. If Turkey wants to go after the Kurds or the Saudis want to go after the Houthi, we’re sad, but we don’t have the resources or will to help. Turkey and SA are too important for other strategic reasons and they can balance Iran with their newfound political muscle.

I think you are correct that we intend to reduce our presence in the Middle East. Whether that will be possible is unclear. Personnel wise, we have already done so to a large extent. As you might recall, previous attempts at that did not go well. The 5th fleet is probably the exception in that we aren't withdrawing it, at least so far. However, that is also the Indian Ocean, where many say we need increased presence to counter China. Unfortunately, best case, we are short several Army divisions of what we will need just to maintain our new European commitments. At present, we are already sending troops on (obviously unaccompanied) deployments to Eastern Europe. This is wearing out the force. The Army is having trouble meeting it's recruiting goals (as are the other services). Plenty of problems to solve. We just need to solve them and not paper over them. We have been doing far too much of that for a long while.

[TrumpCard]

All fair. Maybe we should be looking closer at European defense spending. They are starting at lower levels and are closer to the problem. We may see more willingness there to add to defense budgets and troop numbers.  Countries about which we’ve had qualms — like Turkey, Hungary, and Poland — may be key to making this work. The challenge of a more aggressive Russia may force the West to be more realist in its foreign policy. The idealism of the Arab Spring didn’t work so well; let’s see if this works out better.

[TrumpCard]

All fair. Maybe we should be looking closer at European defense spending. They are starting at lower levels and are closer to the problem. We may see more willingness there to add to defense budgets and troop numbers.  Countries about which we’ve had qualms — like Turkey, Hungary, and Poland — may be key to making this work. The challenge of a more aggressive Russia may force the West to be more realist in its foreign policy. The idealism of the Arab Spring didn’t work so well; let’s see if this works out better.

[Hurlburt88]

in the "unintended consequences" theme, along with Finland and Sweden joining NATO, this article points out how this war accelerates the transition away from Warsaw Pact weaponry for NATO's eastern members.   https://www.wsj.com/articles/russias-war...thor_alert

If an increase in defense spending can accompany this, all the better.   

And if Ukraine can hold on, geopolitical faceplant for Russia IMO.

[Hurlburt88]

in the "unintended consequences" theme, along with Finland and Sweden joining NATO, this article points out how this war accelerates the transition away from Warsaw Pact weaponry for NATO's eastern members.   https://www.wsj.com/articles/russias-war...thor_alert

If an increase in defense spending can accompany this, all the better.   

And if Ukraine can hold on, geopolitical faceplant for Russia IMO.

[Goose]

All fair. Maybe we should be looking closer at European defense spending. They are starting at lower levels and are closer to the problem. We may see more willingness there to add to defense budgets and troop numbers.  Countries about which we’ve had qualms — like Turkey, Hungary, and Poland — may be key to making this work. The challenge of a more aggressive Russia may force the West to be more realist in its foreign policy. The idealism of the Arab Spring didn’t work so well; let’s see if this works out better.

Poland has been pretty much at their 2% of GDP requirement. They are increasing it to 3%, at least in theory. They are doing all they can IMHO. Turkey is also pretty well armed. The question there is political reliability. Hungary is a zero and will remain there. They don't have the money and their internal politics are not going toward more NATO participation. That won't change unless the internal political situation radically changes. Italy is already doing a lot but they just don't have the money to do more. Spain is in the same situation. The real keys are Germany, France, and the Netherlands. They can and should do much more. Making that happen won't be easy. The populations of these countries that are under 40 or so have no memory of the times they spent more money on the military and had UMT. They simply don't think it should be done. Changing that is the problem, and the politicians aren't really motivated to do it.

[Goose]

All fair. Maybe we should be looking closer at European defense spending. They are starting at lower levels and are closer to the problem. We may see more willingness there to add to defense budgets and troop numbers.  Countries about which we’ve had qualms — like Turkey, Hungary, and Poland — may be key to making this work. The challenge of a more aggressive Russia may force the West to be more realist in its foreign policy. The idealism of the Arab Spring didn’t work so well; let’s see if this works out better.

Poland has been pretty much at their 2% of GDP requirement. They are increasing it to 3%, at least in theory. They are doing all they can IMHO. Turkey is also pretty well armed. The question there is political reliability. Hungary is a zero and will remain there. They don't have the money and their internal politics are not going toward more NATO participation. That won't change unless the internal political situation radically changes. Italy is already doing a lot but they just don't have the money to do more. Spain is in the same situation. The real keys are Germany, France, and the Netherlands. They can and should do much more. Making that happen won't be easy. The populations of these countries that are under 40 or so have no memory of the times they spent more money on the military and had UMT. They simply don't think it should be done. Changing that is the problem, and the politicians aren't really motivated to do it.

[TrumpCard]

This seems encouraging 

https://amp.france24.com/en/france/20220...ar-economy

https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-...-bill/amp/

https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2022/06/de...-cold-war/

[TrumpCard]

This seems encouraging 

https://amp.france24.com/en/france/20220...ar-economy

https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-...-bill/amp/

https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2022/06/de...-cold-war/

[BostonCard]

Russia has given up on snake island.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ralee85/status/1542434258849263616?s=21&t=iIksju6Hp0SMi4oGQBWppg[/tweet]

Apparently, the HIMARS put troops on the island at risk (or more at risk than they already were).

BC

[BostonCard]

Russia has given up on snake island.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ralee85/status/1542434258849263616?s=21&t=iIksju6Hp0SMi4oGQBWppg[/tweet]

Apparently, the HIMARS put troops on the island at risk (or more at risk than they already were).

BC

[Treefence]

Beyond just HIMARS, it sounds like Ukrainians used a 2S22 Bohdana howitzer with TB2's to correct their fire.  Russia has confirmed they are withdrawing out of good will, but clearly it's because the cost outweighed the benefits.  If Ukraine is able to export grain from Odesa, then it might explain why Russia cared about the island.  Russia still has Submarines in the black sea, so who knows.

[Treefence]

Beyond just HIMARS, it sounds like Ukrainians used a 2S22 Bohdana howitzer with TB2's to correct their fire.  Russia has confirmed they are withdrawing out of good will, but clearly it's because the cost outweighed the benefits.  If Ukraine is able to export grain from Odesa, then it might explain why Russia cared about the island.  Russia still has Submarines in the black sea, so who knows.

[BostonCard]

I think getting the Russians out of Snake might have been necessary but not sufficient for grain exports.

BC

[BostonCard]

I think getting the Russians out of Snake might have been necessary but not sufficient for grain exports.

BC

[Goose]

Beyond just HIMARS, it sounds like Ukrainians used a 2S22 Bohdana howitzer with TB2's to correct their fire.  Russia has confirmed they are withdrawing out of good will, but clearly it's because the cost outweighed the benefits.  If Ukraine is able to export grain from Odesa, then it might explain why Russia cared about the island.  Russia still has Submarines in the black sea, so who knows.

Snake Island is 35km from "safe" Ukrainian territory. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61992491 They have all along had plenty of weapons, including even Grad rockets that could reach the target. It never made sense for either side to physically occupy this island. As far as grain exports go, it is true that Russia has submarines that can sink anything coming out of Ukraine. They can do it with both torpedoes and anti-ship missiles. They can also lay mines that give Russia plausible deniability. Ukraine has mined the entire area. Who is to say it wasn't a Ukrainian mine? The incompetent Ukrainians simply missed it when sweeping the channel.

For that matter, the Backfires that have been firing KH-22s into shopping malls can sink those same grain ships from the Caspian Sea. These missiles are very poor land attack missiles because their inertial navigation system is not real precise. When shooting at a ship (which is moving in any case), the missile just needs to get "close enough". The onboard radar then "locks up" and hits the target precisely. Works much better in that case. If there are many ships, it hits the one that appears to be the largest (best radar reflector).

The Russians need Snake Island not at all. Just abject stupidity they kept trying to occupy it.

[Goose]

Beyond just HIMARS, it sounds like Ukrainians used a 2S22 Bohdana howitzer with TB2's to correct their fire.  Russia has confirmed they are withdrawing out of good will, but clearly it's because the cost outweighed the benefits.  If Ukraine is able to export grain from Odesa, then it might explain why Russia cared about the island.  Russia still has Submarines in the black sea, so who knows.

Snake Island is 35km from "safe" Ukrainian territory. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61992491 They have all along had plenty of weapons, including even Grad rockets that could reach the target. It never made sense for either side to physically occupy this island. As far as grain exports go, it is true that Russia has submarines that can sink anything coming out of Ukraine. They can do it with both torpedoes and anti-ship missiles. They can also lay mines that give Russia plausible deniability. Ukraine has mined the entire area. Who is to say it wasn't a Ukrainian mine? The incompetent Ukrainians simply missed it when sweeping the channel.

For that matter, the Backfires that have been firing KH-22s into shopping malls can sink those same grain ships from the Caspian Sea. These missiles are very poor land attack missiles because their inertial navigation system is not real precise. When shooting at a ship (which is moving in any case), the missile just needs to get "close enough". The onboard radar then "locks up" and hits the target precisely. Works much better in that case. If there are many ships, it hits the one that appears to be the largest (best radar reflector).

The Russians need Snake Island not at all. Just abject stupidity they kept trying to occupy it.

[Treefence]

Newest USA aid package to Ukraine includes:

2 NASAMS systems
More HIMARS ammo (no detail and quantity)
150k rounds of 155mm artillery ammo
4 more counter-artillery radars

Nice to see two NASAMS included, wonder if those go to Odessa and Kyiv?  Obviously there will be OPSEC involved, so we likely won't know, just like we don't know where their S-300 batteries are located.  150k rounds of 155mm ammo is a decent amount.  Assuming 5k rounds a day, that's over a months worth, but I'm guessing it lasts longer because they also use (or will use) 105mm and 152mm rounds.  

It also seems Russia bombed snaked island, the theory is they are attempting to destroy equipment they left behind.  In the video going around, 3 of the 4 bombs dropped landed in the black sea...

[Treefence]

Newest USA aid package to Ukraine includes:

2 NASAMS systems
More HIMARS ammo (no detail and quantity)
150k rounds of 155mm artillery ammo
4 more counter-artillery radars

Nice to see two NASAMS included, wonder if those go to Odessa and Kyiv?  Obviously there will be OPSEC involved, so we likely won't know, just like we don't know where their S-300 batteries are located.  150k rounds of 155mm ammo is a decent amount.  Assuming 5k rounds a day, that's over a months worth, but I'm guessing it lasts longer because they also use (or will use) 105mm and 152mm rounds.  

It also seems Russia bombed snaked island, the theory is they are attempting to destroy equipment they left behind.  In the video going around, 3 of the 4 bombs dropped landed in the black sea...

[Treefence]

Tweet from Lloyd Austin here, anyone know why the HIMARS ammo is listed in the draw down, but the rest is under USAI.  Any idea why that's clarified?  Are these different buckets of money?  https://twitter.com/SecDef/status/154295...v7oBkQaTsQ

[Treefence]

Tweet from Lloyd Austin here, anyone know why the HIMARS ammo is listed in the draw down, but the rest is under USAI.  Any idea why that's clarified?  Are these different buckets of money?  https://twitter.com/SecDef/status/154295...v7oBkQaTsQ

[Goose]

Newest USA aid package to Ukraine includes:

2 NASAMS systems
More HIMARS ammo (no detail and quantity)
150k rounds of 155mm artillery ammo
4 more counter-artillery radars

Nice to see two NASAMS included, wonder if those go to Odessa and Kyiv?  Obviously there will be OPSEC involved, so we likely won't know, just like we don't know where their S-300 batteries are located.

It could be Ukraine intends to use these systems as anti-cruise missile assets. Hopefully, if they do that, it will lead to good results. Against many of the anti-ship missiles being used, it is IMHO improbable it will. These missiles spend almost all of their flight time well above the altitude this system can reach, and when they do come downhill, you have only 10 seconds or so to hit it. If you are close enough and get a solution soon enough, maybe. In most cases it will be too far away to reach before it hits, and best case it is a difficult intercept. Against Kalibr missiles, they have a chance. Another possible use for this highly mobile asset would be to cover Ukrainian air (and ground) assets attacking in Kherson Oblast. That is for sure something it can do very well. It will keep the Russian air force off the Ukrainians (and probably make them even more gun shy). These systems are much more capable than MANPADS and can deny the airspace above Ukrainian troops to Russian air.

150k rounds of 155mm ammo is a decent amount.  Assuming 5k rounds a day, that's over a months worth, but I'm guessing it lasts longer because they also use (or will use) 105mm and 152mm rounds.

For reference, each 155mm gun used at Khe Sanh fired about 200 rounds per day. This is the most recent example I can find of what could be called "high intensity" artillery usage. With 100 howitzers in action, that would be 7.5 days worth. Given the intensity of the fighting in the Donbas, I think this number of rounds per day would be conservative. Obviously, you have to be smart about how use use the ammunition you have. It will last as long as it has to last. However, if you have to prioritize and can't fire when you want to, it isn't good.

UPDATE: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/15...-offensive
https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htart/...80507.aspx

Another thing to worry about. Firing 2500 or so rounds may burn out the barrels. I hope the Ukraine got the chrome updated ones.

[Goose]

Newest USA aid package to Ukraine includes:

2 NASAMS systems
More HIMARS ammo (no detail and quantity)
150k rounds of 155mm artillery ammo
4 more counter-artillery radars

Nice to see two NASAMS included, wonder if those go to Odessa and Kyiv?  Obviously there will be OPSEC involved, so we likely won't know, just like we don't know where their S-300 batteries are located.

It could be Ukraine intends to use these systems as anti-cruise missile assets. Hopefully, if they do that, it will lead to good results. Against many of the anti-ship missiles being used, it is IMHO improbable it will. These missiles spend almost all of their flight time well above the altitude this system can reach, and when they do come downhill, you have only 10 seconds or so to hit it. If you are close enough and get a solution soon enough, maybe. In most cases it will be too far away to reach before it hits, and best case it is a difficult intercept. Against Kalibr missiles, they have a chance. Another possible use for this highly mobile asset would be to cover Ukrainian air (and ground) assets attacking in Kherson Oblast. That is for sure something it can do very well. It will keep the Russian air force off the Ukrainians (and probably make them even more gun shy). These systems are much more capable than MANPADS and can deny the airspace above Ukrainian troops to Russian air.

150k rounds of 155mm ammo is a decent amount.  Assuming 5k rounds a day, that's over a months worth, but I'm guessing it lasts longer because they also use (or will use) 105mm and 152mm rounds.

For reference, each 155mm gun used at Khe Sanh fired about 200 rounds per day. This is the most recent example I can find of what could be called "high intensity" artillery usage. With 100 howitzers in action, that would be 7.5 days worth. Given the intensity of the fighting in the Donbas, I think this number of rounds per day would be conservative. Obviously, you have to be smart about how use use the ammunition you have. It will last as long as it has to last. However, if you have to prioritize and can't fire when you want to, it isn't good.

UPDATE: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/15...-offensive
https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htart/...80507.aspx

Another thing to worry about. Firing 2500 or so rounds may burn out the barrels. I hope the Ukraine got the chrome updated ones.

[Goose]

It ain't over till its over. https://www.yahoo.com/news/erdogan-raise...26158.html This could be a problem, because I SERIOUSLY doubt those extradition requests will meet Swedish or Finnish legal standards. Caving on the arms embargo was probably a bitter pill for them to swallow, but it is kind of a fact that embargoing your fellow NATO partners isn't a good look. The US does it, but we don't make a public statement about it usually. Agreeing not to support the PKK can be viewed as a non-concession, as in theory they don't anyway. Also, ATM domestic politics in Sweden and Finland are basically anti-Syrian immigrant, so that is probably palatable. The extradition issue is a big one. We aren't home free yet.

[Goose]

It ain't over till its over. https://www.yahoo.com/news/erdogan-raise...26158.html This could be a problem, because I SERIOUSLY doubt those extradition requests will meet Swedish or Finnish legal standards. Caving on the arms embargo was probably a bitter pill for them to swallow, but it is kind of a fact that embargoing your fellow NATO partners isn't a good look. The US does it, but we don't make a public statement about it usually. Agreeing not to support the PKK can be viewed as a non-concession, as in theory they don't anyway. Also, ATM domestic politics in Sweden and Finland are basically anti-Syrian immigrant, so that is probably palatable. The extradition issue is a big one. We aren't home free yet.