[Goose]

[quote="dabigv13" pid='359932' dateline='1660160483']
Satellite photos coming in now from after the strike. Looks like a lot of lost Su24 and Su30s, certainly the heaviest loss of Russian aircraft from a single day/event since WW2. A substantial loss for Russia that will impact their operations in the area and will be hard to replace. The planes lined up on the tarmac are all toast, as are most of the ones that were parked with protecting revetments.

https://twitter.com/EliotHiggins/status/..._SCr98CjAw

Pretty incredible, I wonder how many pilots might have been hit as well.  Now the question is, what did this.  We can see some pretty large craters, I asked someone on Twitter about this and it could be ATACMS, but they didn't rule out ground attack Neptunes.  I think we can certainly say this wasn't an accident caused by Russian soldiers, but we already knew that.

I think the craters could be related to impacts from missiles, but could also be from exploding munitions.

Theories I have seen that seem most plausible- AGM88's clearing a path for slower Neptun, which are subsonic but would have a big warhead. Either the threat of AGM88 or some active strikes to open things up for the slow, big Neptuns. But would be tricky to disable SAM radars that deep I would think, presumably many overlapping systems cover this area.

Alternatively, Ukraine has been domestically developing a short range ballistic missile called the Hrim-2. They likely did not have any operational at the start of the war, but perhaps have brought some online, maybe with some American GPS systems or other engineering assistance.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/do...c-missiles

ATACMS seems less likely to me- we've said as recently as a couple weeks ago that we would not provide them. So I think it would be more inflammatory and unlikely.

This is indeed an "interesting" thing to figure out. I totally agree with you that it is not ATACMS (though I wish it were). So far, the US has been "upfront" about what was sent, although one could argue the "anti-radiation" missiles announcement was a bit ambiguous. We are so reluctant to send these missiles I doubt we would then do so and NOT announce it beforehand.

I can virtually guarantee you it wasn't a Neptun. Anti-shipping missiles are accurate because they use their onboard radar to "lock up" the target. Their GPS capability is designed to get them in the correct general area before they start hunting. Their target is moving anyway, so a specific GPS destination would probably be meaningless when the missile gets there. This is not to say you couldn't build an anti-shipping missile that was also an accurate land attack missile, but why would you? It carries an expensive and heavy radar subsystem that a land attack missile doesn't need. More money, less warhead. Bad idea. Using a super-accurate control law also wastes fuel if you are going to hunt for your target anyway. The Russians have used KH-22 anti-shipping missiles against Odessa, but generally speaking they can't hit anything specific with them. Their experience demonstrates why it is a "bad idea". Hits all over the place. Not the pattern of the attack on the airfield.

The possibility it was a Grom/Hrim (spelling unknown) can't be discarded. They could have some prototypes stashed away for a particularly good opportunity, which this was. It is also theoretically possible it was captured Iskander-M or two.

I don't know, but if I had to guess it would be Spetsnaz. The fact that there were very few (if any) misses and no reports of anybody seeing/hearing anything like missiles supports that idea. Obviously, I am just speculating.

[Goose]

[quote="dabigv13" pid='359932' dateline='1660160483']
Satellite photos coming in now from after the strike. Looks like a lot of lost Su24 and Su30s, certainly the heaviest loss of Russian aircraft from a single day/event since WW2. A substantial loss for Russia that will impact their operations in the area and will be hard to replace. The planes lined up on the tarmac are all toast, as are most of the ones that were parked with protecting revetments.

https://twitter.com/EliotHiggins/status/..._SCr98CjAw

Pretty incredible, I wonder how many pilots might have been hit as well.  Now the question is, what did this.  We can see some pretty large craters, I asked someone on Twitter about this and it could be ATACMS, but they didn't rule out ground attack Neptunes.  I think we can certainly say this wasn't an accident caused by Russian soldiers, but we already knew that.

I think the craters could be related to impacts from missiles, but could also be from exploding munitions.

Theories I have seen that seem most plausible- AGM88's clearing a path for slower Neptun, which are subsonic but would have a big warhead. Either the threat of AGM88 or some active strikes to open things up for the slow, big Neptuns. But would be tricky to disable SAM radars that deep I would think, presumably many overlapping systems cover this area.

Alternatively, Ukraine has been domestically developing a short range ballistic missile called the Hrim-2. They likely did not have any operational at the start of the war, but perhaps have brought some online, maybe with some American GPS systems or other engineering assistance.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/do...c-missiles

ATACMS seems less likely to me- we've said as recently as a couple weeks ago that we would not provide them. So I think it would be more inflammatory and unlikely.

This is indeed an "interesting" thing to figure out. I totally agree with you that it is not ATACMS (though I wish it were). So far, the US has been "upfront" about what was sent, although one could argue the "anti-radiation" missiles announcement was a bit ambiguous. We are so reluctant to send these missiles I doubt we would then do so and NOT announce it beforehand.

I can virtually guarantee you it wasn't a Neptun. Anti-shipping missiles are accurate because they use their onboard radar to "lock up" the target. Their GPS capability is designed to get them in the correct general area before they start hunting. Their target is moving anyway, so a specific GPS destination would probably be meaningless when the missile gets there. This is not to say you couldn't build an anti-shipping missile that was also an accurate land attack missile, but why would you? It carries an expensive and heavy radar subsystem that a land attack missile doesn't need. More money, less warhead. Bad idea. Using a super-accurate control law also wastes fuel if you are going to hunt for your target anyway. The Russians have used KH-22 anti-shipping missiles against Odessa, but generally speaking they can't hit anything specific with them. Their experience demonstrates why it is a "bad idea". Hits all over the place. Not the pattern of the attack on the airfield.

The possibility it was a Grom/Hrim (spelling unknown) can't be discarded. They could have some prototypes stashed away for a particularly good opportunity, which this was. It is also theoretically possible it was captured Iskander-M or two.

I don't know, but if I had to guess it would be Spetsnaz. The fact that there were very few (if any) misses and no reports of anybody seeing/hearing anything like missiles supports that idea. Obviously, I am just speculating.

[Treefence]

[quote="dabigv13" pid='359932' dateline='1660160483']
Satellite photos coming in now from after the strike. Looks like a lot of lost Su24 and Su30s, certainly the heaviest loss of Russian aircraft from a single day/event since WW2. A substantial loss for Russia that will impact their operations in the area and will be hard to replace. The planes lined up on the tarmac are all toast, as are most of the ones that were parked with protecting revetments.

https://twitter.com/EliotHiggins/status/..._SCr98CjAw

Pretty incredible, I wonder how many pilots might have been hit as well.  Now the question is, what did this.  We can see some pretty large craters, I asked someone on Twitter about this and it could be ATACMS, but they didn't rule out ground attack Neptunes.  I think we can certainly say this wasn't an accident caused by Russian soldiers, but we already knew that.

I think the craters could be related to impacts from missiles, but could also be from exploding munitions.

Theories I have seen that seem most plausible- AGM88's clearing a path for slower Neptun, which are subsonic but would have a big warhead. Either the threat of AGM88 or some active strikes to open things up for the slow, big Neptuns. But would be tricky to disable SAM radars that deep I would think, presumably many overlapping systems cover this area.

Alternatively, Ukraine has been domestically developing a short range ballistic missile called the Hrim-2. They likely did not have any operational at the start of the war, but perhaps have brought some online, maybe with some American GPS systems or other engineering assistance.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/do...c-missiles

ATACMS seems less likely to me- we've said as recently as a couple weeks ago that we would not provide them. So I think it would be more inflammatory and unlikely.

This is indeed an "interesting" thing to figure out. I totally agree with you that it is not ATACMS (though I wish it were). So far, the US has been "upfront" about what was sent, although one could argue the "anti-radiation" missiles announcement was a bit ambiguous. We are so reluctant to send these missiles I doubt we would then do so and NOT announce it beforehand.

I can virtually guarantee you it wasn't a Neptun. Anti-shipping missiles are accurate because they use their onboard radar to "lock up" the target. Their GPS capability is designed to get them in the correct general area before they start hunting. Their target is moving anyway, so a specific GPS destination would probably be meaningless when the missile gets there. This is not to say you couldn't build an anti-shipping missile that was also an accurate land attack missile, but why would you? It carries an expensive and heavy radar subsystem that a land attack missile doesn't need. More money, less warhead. Bad idea. Using a super-accurate control law also wastes fuel if you are going to hunt for your target anyway. The Russians have used KH-22 anti-shipping missiles against Odessa, but generally speaking they can't hit anything specific with them. Their experience demonstrates why it is a "bad idea". Hits all over the place. Not the pattern of the attack on the airfield.

The possibility it was a Grom/Hrim (spelling unknown) can't be discarded. They could have some prototypes stashed away for a particularly good opportunity, which this was. It is also theoretically possible it was captured Iskander-M or two.

I don't know, but if I had to guess it would be Spetsnaz. The fact that there were very few (if any) misses and no reports of anybody seeing/hearing anything like missiles supports that idea. Obviously, I am just speculating.

Goose by guessing Spetsnaz are you thinking Russian or Ukrainian special forces?  It would be pretty remarkable if Ukrainian special forces made it there, but they have been given boats recently.  If it were Russian that would be quite the 5th column, and among the most elite Russian forces. Would Crimean or other Ukrainians in occupied territories be eligible for that?  Anyways just wanted to clarify because either way it would be incredible.

[Treefence]

[quote="dabigv13" pid='359932' dateline='1660160483']
Satellite photos coming in now from after the strike. Looks like a lot of lost Su24 and Su30s, certainly the heaviest loss of Russian aircraft from a single day/event since WW2. A substantial loss for Russia that will impact their operations in the area and will be hard to replace. The planes lined up on the tarmac are all toast, as are most of the ones that were parked with protecting revetments.

https://twitter.com/EliotHiggins/status/..._SCr98CjAw

Pretty incredible, I wonder how many pilots might have been hit as well.  Now the question is, what did this.  We can see some pretty large craters, I asked someone on Twitter about this and it could be ATACMS, but they didn't rule out ground attack Neptunes.  I think we can certainly say this wasn't an accident caused by Russian soldiers, but we already knew that.

I think the craters could be related to impacts from missiles, but could also be from exploding munitions.

Theories I have seen that seem most plausible- AGM88's clearing a path for slower Neptun, which are subsonic but would have a big warhead. Either the threat of AGM88 or some active strikes to open things up for the slow, big Neptuns. But would be tricky to disable SAM radars that deep I would think, presumably many overlapping systems cover this area.

Alternatively, Ukraine has been domestically developing a short range ballistic missile called the Hrim-2. They likely did not have any operational at the start of the war, but perhaps have brought some online, maybe with some American GPS systems or other engineering assistance.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/do...c-missiles

ATACMS seems less likely to me- we've said as recently as a couple weeks ago that we would not provide them. So I think it would be more inflammatory and unlikely.

This is indeed an "interesting" thing to figure out. I totally agree with you that it is not ATACMS (though I wish it were). So far, the US has been "upfront" about what was sent, although one could argue the "anti-radiation" missiles announcement was a bit ambiguous. We are so reluctant to send these missiles I doubt we would then do so and NOT announce it beforehand.

I can virtually guarantee you it wasn't a Neptun. Anti-shipping missiles are accurate because they use their onboard radar to "lock up" the target. Their GPS capability is designed to get them in the correct general area before they start hunting. Their target is moving anyway, so a specific GPS destination would probably be meaningless when the missile gets there. This is not to say you couldn't build an anti-shipping missile that was also an accurate land attack missile, but why would you? It carries an expensive and heavy radar subsystem that a land attack missile doesn't need. More money, less warhead. Bad idea. Using a super-accurate control law also wastes fuel if you are going to hunt for your target anyway. The Russians have used KH-22 anti-shipping missiles against Odessa, but generally speaking they can't hit anything specific with them. Their experience demonstrates why it is a "bad idea". Hits all over the place. Not the pattern of the attack on the airfield.

The possibility it was a Grom/Hrim (spelling unknown) can't be discarded. They could have some prototypes stashed away for a particularly good opportunity, which this was. It is also theoretically possible it was captured Iskander-M or two.

I don't know, but if I had to guess it would be Spetsnaz. The fact that there were very few (if any) misses and no reports of anybody seeing/hearing anything like missiles supports that idea. Obviously, I am just speculating.

Goose by guessing Spetsnaz are you thinking Russian or Ukrainian special forces?  It would be pretty remarkable if Ukrainian special forces made it there, but they have been given boats recently.  If it were Russian that would be quite the 5th column, and among the most elite Russian forces. Would Crimean or other Ukrainians in occupied territories be eligible for that?  Anyways just wanted to clarify because either way it would be incredible.

[Goose]

Goose by guessing Spetsnaz are you thinking Russian or Ukrainian special forces?  It would be pretty remarkable if Ukrainian special forces made it there, but they have been given boats recently.  If it were Russian that would be quite the 5th column, and among the most elite Russian forces. Would Crimean or other Ukrainians in occupied territories be eligible for that?  Anyways just wanted to clarify because either way it would be incredible.

Ukrainian. They could have used boats, but if they did they weren't the ones they recently got. It would be rubber boats that infiltrated in, probably many miles from the target. The area is also not easily guarded. Lots of open land. Overland infiltration is totally possible. Many Ukrainians know the area well. It could also be a group of "irregulars". I expect we will see more and more such operations in the "temporarily occupied territories", even if this particular attack turns out to be something else.

[Goose]

Goose by guessing Spetsnaz are you thinking Russian or Ukrainian special forces?  It would be pretty remarkable if Ukrainian special forces made it there, but they have been given boats recently.  If it were Russian that would be quite the 5th column, and among the most elite Russian forces. Would Crimean or other Ukrainians in occupied territories be eligible for that?  Anyways just wanted to clarify because either way it would be incredible.

Ukrainian. They could have used boats, but if they did they weren't the ones they recently got. It would be rubber boats that infiltrated in, probably many miles from the target. The area is also not easily guarded. Lots of open land. Overland infiltration is totally possible. Many Ukrainians know the area well. It could also be a group of "irregulars". I expect we will see more and more such operations in the "temporarily occupied territories", even if this particular attack turns out to be something else.

[dabigv13]

I think a special forces attack would be possible but I imagine the area around the air base would be well secured and the strikes appear to be very accurate. Maybe a relatively close in team with a Switchblade or similar, hitting a munitions dump or fuel tank could make it all go boom. Would think Russian AD could handle that but maybe not. Looking forward to learning more, hopefully from similar strikes in Russian rear areas, and soon.

[dabigv13]

I think a special forces attack would be possible but I imagine the area around the air base would be well secured and the strikes appear to be very accurate. Maybe a relatively close in team with a Switchblade or similar, hitting a munitions dump or fuel tank could make it all go boom. Would think Russian AD could handle that but maybe not. Looking forward to learning more, hopefully from similar strikes in Russian rear areas, and soon.

[Goose]

I think a special forces attack would be possible but I imagine the area around the air base would be well secured and the strikes appear to be very accurate. Maybe a relatively close in team with a Switchblade or similar, hitting a munitions dump or fuel tank could make it all go boom. Would think Russian AD could handle that but maybe not. Looking forward to learning more, hopefully from similar strikes in Russian rear areas, and soon.

Switchblade is a very reasonable idea! I had forgotten about that. The air base security would not extend out that far. A Switchblade 300 drone can go 10 km if needed. They could get much closer than that IMHO. Fly it right to where it needs to go. Russian (or US for that matter) AD wouldn't even see these drones and they are too small to hit with anything either we or they have anyway. On top of that, they wouldn't be in the air very high or very long. The thing that argues against that is that nobody is reporting having seen them in flight. Then again, who was looking? Look a lot like birds at any distance.

It is also eminently possible a team infiltrated right on to the base and placed the explosives by hand. I have been at several US bases where they knew that a security check was in progress and yet the infiltrators got in anyway. Happens all the time. The infiltrators are good at it and find the weak points. Also, even with a war on, when you are that far behind the lines keeping your base security alert and proactive isn't easy. It is a boring job with no reward for doing it well.

[Goose]

I think a special forces attack would be possible but I imagine the area around the air base would be well secured and the strikes appear to be very accurate. Maybe a relatively close in team with a Switchblade or similar, hitting a munitions dump or fuel tank could make it all go boom. Would think Russian AD could handle that but maybe not. Looking forward to learning more, hopefully from similar strikes in Russian rear areas, and soon.

Switchblade is a very reasonable idea! I had forgotten about that. The air base security would not extend out that far. A Switchblade 300 drone can go 10 km if needed. They could get much closer than that IMHO. Fly it right to where it needs to go. Russian (or US for that matter) AD wouldn't even see these drones and they are too small to hit with anything either we or they have anyway. On top of that, they wouldn't be in the air very high or very long. The thing that argues against that is that nobody is reporting having seen them in flight. Then again, who was looking? Look a lot like birds at any distance.

It is also eminently possible a team infiltrated right on to the base and placed the explosives by hand. I have been at several US bases where they knew that a security check was in progress and yet the infiltrators got in anyway. Happens all the time. The infiltrators are good at it and find the weak points. Also, even with a war on, when you are that far behind the lines keeping your base security alert and proactive isn't easy. It is a boring job with no reward for doing it well.

[Treefence]

I think a special forces attack would be possible but I imagine the area around the air base would be well secured and the strikes appear to be very accurate. Maybe a relatively close in team with a Switchblade or similar, hitting a munitions dump or fuel tank could make it all go boom. Would think Russian AD could handle that but maybe not. Looking forward to learning more, hopefully from similar strikes in Russian rear areas, and soon.

Switchblade is a very reasonable idea! I had forgotten about that. The air base security would not extend out that far. A Switchblade 300 drone can go 10 km if needed. They could get much closer than that IMHO. Fly it right to where it needs to go. Russian (or US for that matter) AD wouldn't even see these drones and they are too small to hit with anything either we or they have anyway. On top of that, they wouldn't be in the air very high or very long. The thing that argues against that is that nobody is reporting having seen them in flight. Then again, who was looking? Look a lot like birds at any distance.

It is also eminently possible a team infiltrated right on to the base and placed the explosives by hand. I have been at several US bases where they knew that a security check was in progress and yet the infiltrators got in anyway. Happens all the time. The infiltrators are good at it and find the weak points. Also, even with a war on, when you are that far behind the lines keeping your base security alert and proactive isn't easy. It is a boring job with no reward for doing it well.

One thing with the switchblades is that they wouldn't leaves craters the size we see in satellite pictures, even the 600 version. There are rumors of massive explosions in an airfield up in Belarus as well, we will see if anything comes of that, it wouldn't be the first time a rumor of a massive Ukrainian success followed a confirm success of similar fashion, only to find out it didn't actually happen.  If it's spooky boy stuff, they had some massive explosives.  Time will tell I guess, or maybe not...

---

One thought I had on possible ATACMS, we didn't have any US acknowledgement that the US provided Ukraine with AGM-88 antiradar missiles, until direct proof of such systems was shown by Russian forces.  Is it possible the US gave them the ATACMS, and won't acknowledge it until Russians show definitive proof of their remains?

[Treefence]

I think a special forces attack would be possible but I imagine the area around the air base would be well secured and the strikes appear to be very accurate. Maybe a relatively close in team with a Switchblade or similar, hitting a munitions dump or fuel tank could make it all go boom. Would think Russian AD could handle that but maybe not. Looking forward to learning more, hopefully from similar strikes in Russian rear areas, and soon.

Switchblade is a very reasonable idea! I had forgotten about that. The air base security would not extend out that far. A Switchblade 300 drone can go 10 km if needed. They could get much closer than that IMHO. Fly it right to where it needs to go. Russian (or US for that matter) AD wouldn't even see these drones and they are too small to hit with anything either we or they have anyway. On top of that, they wouldn't be in the air very high or very long. The thing that argues against that is that nobody is reporting having seen them in flight. Then again, who was looking? Look a lot like birds at any distance.

It is also eminently possible a team infiltrated right on to the base and placed the explosives by hand. I have been at several US bases where they knew that a security check was in progress and yet the infiltrators got in anyway. Happens all the time. The infiltrators are good at it and find the weak points. Also, even with a war on, when you are that far behind the lines keeping your base security alert and proactive isn't easy. It is a boring job with no reward for doing it well.

One thing with the switchblades is that they wouldn't leaves craters the size we see in satellite pictures, even the 600 version. There are rumors of massive explosions in an airfield up in Belarus as well, we will see if anything comes of that, it wouldn't be the first time a rumor of a massive Ukrainian success followed a confirm success of similar fashion, only to find out it didn't actually happen.  If it's spooky boy stuff, they had some massive explosives.  Time will tell I guess, or maybe not...

---

One thought I had on possible ATACMS, we didn't have any US acknowledgement that the US provided Ukraine with AGM-88 antiradar missiles, until direct proof of such systems was shown by Russian forces.  Is it possible the US gave them the ATACMS, and won't acknowledge it until Russians show definitive proof of their remains?

[Goose]

One thing with the switchblades is that they wouldn't leaves craters the size we see in satellite pictures, even the 600 version.

True. It is possible those craters were generated by munitions tossed in the air by the ammunition explosions that detonated on impact. No way to prove that though.

There are rumors of massive explosions in an airfield up in Belarus as well, we will see if anything comes of that, it wouldn't be the first time a rumor of a massive Ukrainian success followed a confirm success of similar fashion, only to find out it didn't actually happen.  If it's spooky boy stuff, they had some massive explosives.  Time will tell I guess, or maybe not...

It doesn't take a big volume of explosives to detonate an ammunition store or to trash an airplane, especially if the airplane is fueled. A 5 lb block will do more than fine. Also, if there were several infiltrators placing timed/command detonated charges, they would all go off at once. Big synergy in that.

---

One thought I had on possible ATACMS, we didn't have any US acknowledgement that the US provided Ukraine with AGM-88 antiradar missiles, until direct proof of such systems was shown by Russian forces.  Is it possible the US gave them the ATACMS, and won't acknowledge it until Russians show definitive proof of their remains?

Possible yes, but IMHO not probable. The AGM-88 is a particular type of "anti-radiation" missile. We did say we had given Ukraine "anti-radiation" missiles in advance of so doing. It is in fact possible we gave them several types. So we did give notice, even if we were non-specific. OTOH, the administration has been very explicit that we would not supply ATACMS to Ukraine. If we changed that policy and did not so state, it is quite clearly deceptive on our part. I don't think we are going to do that.

IMHO it is NEVER a good idea for the administration to flatly say what they are not going to do. The "other side" won't be reassured by that because they already don't trust us. Even if they do trust us they won't bet their country on it. OTOH we may have to recant our position, which at best makes us look indecisive and at worst makes us appear deceptive. It is a lose-lose proposition.

[Goose]

One thing with the switchblades is that they wouldn't leaves craters the size we see in satellite pictures, even the 600 version.

True. It is possible those craters were generated by munitions tossed in the air by the ammunition explosions that detonated on impact. No way to prove that though.

There are rumors of massive explosions in an airfield up in Belarus as well, we will see if anything comes of that, it wouldn't be the first time a rumor of a massive Ukrainian success followed a confirm success of similar fashion, only to find out it didn't actually happen.  If it's spooky boy stuff, they had some massive explosives.  Time will tell I guess, or maybe not...

It doesn't take a big volume of explosives to detonate an ammunition store or to trash an airplane, especially if the airplane is fueled. A 5 lb block will do more than fine. Also, if there were several infiltrators placing timed/command detonated charges, they would all go off at once. Big synergy in that.

---

One thought I had on possible ATACMS, we didn't have any US acknowledgement that the US provided Ukraine with AGM-88 antiradar missiles, until direct proof of such systems was shown by Russian forces.  Is it possible the US gave them the ATACMS, and won't acknowledge it until Russians show definitive proof of their remains?

Possible yes, but IMHO not probable. The AGM-88 is a particular type of "anti-radiation" missile. We did say we had given Ukraine "anti-radiation" missiles in advance of so doing. It is in fact possible we gave them several types. So we did give notice, even if we were non-specific. OTOH, the administration has been very explicit that we would not supply ATACMS to Ukraine. If we changed that policy and did not so state, it is quite clearly deceptive on our part. I don't think we are going to do that.

IMHO it is NEVER a good idea for the administration to flatly say what they are not going to do. The "other side" won't be reassured by that because they already don't trust us. Even if they do trust us they won't bet their country on it. OTOH we may have to recant our position, which at best makes us look indecisive and at worst makes us appear deceptive. It is a lose-lose proposition.

[dabigv13]

Maybe, but we never loudly and multiple times stated we wouldn't provide ARM missiles. I think if we do give ATACMS (and we should have already) we will say in advance, and tie it to some Russian atrocity to try and manage escalation risk. The nice thing about a possible Ukrainian indigenous weapon is sidestepping all that so I do hope we're helping them with that capability.

And I agree a Switchblade would not leave a big crater, but a Switchblade blowing up a big stack of Russian bombs certainly could.

We did say we had given Ukraine "anti-radiation" missiles in advance of so doing.

Not quite. We saw AGM88 wreckage before the US announced providing ARM missiles, like a day or two before they announced it. A Ukrainian govt official stated a week or two before the wreckage photo that we had provided ARMs but did not state the type.

So we have sent weapons at least once before announcing it.

[dabigv13]

Maybe, but we never loudly and multiple times stated we wouldn't provide ARM missiles. I think if we do give ATACMS (and we should have already) we will say in advance, and tie it to some Russian atrocity to try and manage escalation risk. The nice thing about a possible Ukrainian indigenous weapon is sidestepping all that so I do hope we're helping them with that capability.

And I agree a Switchblade would not leave a big crater, but a Switchblade blowing up a big stack of Russian bombs certainly could.

We did say we had given Ukraine "anti-radiation" missiles in advance of so doing.

Not quite. We saw AGM88 wreckage before the US announced providing ARM missiles, like a day or two before they announced it. A Ukrainian govt official stated a week or two before the wreckage photo that we had provided ARMs but did not state the type.

So we have sent weapons at least once before announcing it.

[Goose]

We did say we had given Ukraine "anti-radiation" missiles in advance of so doing.

Not quite. We saw AGM88 wreckage before the US announced providing ARM missiles, like a day or two before they announced it. A Ukrainian govt official stated a week or two before the wreckage photo that we had provided ARMs but did not state the type.

So we have sent weapons at least once before announcing it.

You are correct. I knew the confirmation that we had sent AGM-88 missiles was after the fact. For some reason I thought the "anti-radiation" missile quote preceded the finding of debris. It did not. While I am not "morally outraged" that we did this, it is IMHO unfortunate. I would be fine with NEVER announcing in advance what we are sending, but if we set the precedent of doing so IMHO we should either continue to do so or say we no longer will. I have no idea what the thinking was here, but it could be a lot of things, like somebody jumping the chain of command for instance. Bears looking into. It makes no sense to do it intentionally IMHO. The idea we just forgot to mention it is certainly possible, but that shouldn't happen either.

Of course, the cynic in me says sending the AGM-88 and not announcing it is just getting even for announcing we are sending NASAMs and not sending them :-). Seriously, it seems they don't yet have a contract???

[Goose]

We did say we had given Ukraine "anti-radiation" missiles in advance of so doing.

Not quite. We saw AGM88 wreckage before the US announced providing ARM missiles, like a day or two before they announced it. A Ukrainian govt official stated a week or two before the wreckage photo that we had provided ARMs but did not state the type.

So we have sent weapons at least once before announcing it.

You are correct. I knew the confirmation that we had sent AGM-88 missiles was after the fact. For some reason I thought the "anti-radiation" missile quote preceded the finding of debris. It did not. While I am not "morally outraged" that we did this, it is IMHO unfortunate. I would be fine with NEVER announcing in advance what we are sending, but if we set the precedent of doing so IMHO we should either continue to do so or say we no longer will. I have no idea what the thinking was here, but it could be a lot of things, like somebody jumping the chain of command for instance. Bears looking into. It makes no sense to do it intentionally IMHO. The idea we just forgot to mention it is certainly possible, but that shouldn't happen either.

Of course, the cynic in me says sending the AGM-88 and not announcing it is just getting even for announcing we are sending NASAMs and not sending them :-). Seriously, it seems they don't yet have a contract???

[Treefence]

We did say we had given Ukraine "anti-radiation" missiles in advance of so doing.

Not quite. We saw AGM88 wreckage before the US announced providing ARM missiles, like a day or two before they announced it. A Ukrainian govt official stated a week or two before the wreckage photo that we had provided ARMs but did not state the type.

So we have sent weapons at least once before announcing it.

You are correct. I knew the confirmation that we had sent AGM-88 missiles was after the fact. For some reason I thought the "anti-radiation" missile quote preceded the finding of debris. It did not. While I am not "morally outraged" that we did this, it is IMHO unfortunate. I would be fine with NEVER announcing in advance what we are sending, but if we set the precedent of doing so IMHO we should either continue to do so or say we no longer will. I have no idea what the thinking was here, but it could be a lot of things, like somebody jumping the chain of command for instance. Bears looking into. It makes no sense to do it intentionally IMHO. The idea we just forgot to mention it is certainly possible, but that shouldn't happen either.

Of course, the cynic in me says sending the AGM-88 and not announcing it is just getting even for announcing we are sending NASAMs and not sending them :-). Seriously, it seems they don't yet have a contract???

Yeah I mean who knows, your guess is as good as mine with everything.  I was listening to the briefing of the recent draw down and they were asked about HIMARS ammunition.  He was asked how many rounds had been said, he was careful to answer and said many hundreds, but that he also didn't want to tip their hand to the Kremlin. I believe he mentioned it they gave the shorter range rounds, but maybe that could be a lie by omission.  There was also a rumor immediately after that ATACMS would be sent, by the twitter account of @ChuckPfarrer.  This was also a noticeable large draw down after the Olenivka massacre, which happened Jul 29th.  Would that timing make sense logistically for them to deliver the ammunition?  

I thought the Olenivka massacre might be an atrocity on the level Bucha and what the world saw after Russia withdrew from their Kyiv front. If I'm remembering right, after that the west started finally providing heavy military assistance in artillery, apc's afv's, ifv's mlrs, tanks, and Slovakian S-300.  Lots of those were announced, some we found out about after the fact.  Granted the US has almost always announced ahead of time, and still mostly has, but maybe for OPSEC reasons they'll keep some things close to the vest, to give Ukraine their best opportunity to benefit from them.  Anyways just my thoughts and logic jumping from step to step. Hopefully we will know soon enough, and hopefully Ukraine can replicate the success of this attack, because if they can, this war might end a lot sooner than we expect.

[Treefence]

We did say we had given Ukraine "anti-radiation" missiles in advance of so doing.

Not quite. We saw AGM88 wreckage before the US announced providing ARM missiles, like a day or two before they announced it. A Ukrainian govt official stated a week or two before the wreckage photo that we had provided ARMs but did not state the type.

So we have sent weapons at least once before announcing it.

You are correct. I knew the confirmation that we had sent AGM-88 missiles was after the fact. For some reason I thought the "anti-radiation" missile quote preceded the finding of debris. It did not. While I am not "morally outraged" that we did this, it is IMHO unfortunate. I would be fine with NEVER announcing in advance what we are sending, but if we set the precedent of doing so IMHO we should either continue to do so or say we no longer will. I have no idea what the thinking was here, but it could be a lot of things, like somebody jumping the chain of command for instance. Bears looking into. It makes no sense to do it intentionally IMHO. The idea we just forgot to mention it is certainly possible, but that shouldn't happen either.

Of course, the cynic in me says sending the AGM-88 and not announcing it is just getting even for announcing we are sending NASAMs and not sending them :-). Seriously, it seems they don't yet have a contract???

Yeah I mean who knows, your guess is as good as mine with everything.  I was listening to the briefing of the recent draw down and they were asked about HIMARS ammunition.  He was asked how many rounds had been said, he was careful to answer and said many hundreds, but that he also didn't want to tip their hand to the Kremlin. I believe he mentioned it they gave the shorter range rounds, but maybe that could be a lie by omission.  There was also a rumor immediately after that ATACMS would be sent, by the twitter account of @ChuckPfarrer.  This was also a noticeable large draw down after the Olenivka massacre, which happened Jul 29th.  Would that timing make sense logistically for them to deliver the ammunition?  

I thought the Olenivka massacre might be an atrocity on the level Bucha and what the world saw after Russia withdrew from their Kyiv front. If I'm remembering right, after that the west started finally providing heavy military assistance in artillery, apc's afv's, ifv's mlrs, tanks, and Slovakian S-300.  Lots of those were announced, some we found out about after the fact.  Granted the US has almost always announced ahead of time, and still mostly has, but maybe for OPSEC reasons they'll keep some things close to the vest, to give Ukraine their best opportunity to benefit from them.  Anyways just my thoughts and logic jumping from step to step. Hopefully we will know soon enough, and hopefully Ukraine can replicate the success of this attack, because if they can, this war might end a lot sooner than we expect.

[BostonCard]

Could be that the Ukrainians asked us to keep mum about it so that they could run this sort of operation.

I’m sure it will eventually be revealed, but in the meantime, this is a big substantive and also symbolic victory.  Sends a big message to the Russians.

BC

[BostonCard]

Could be that the Ukrainians asked us to keep mum about it so that they could run this sort of operation.

I’m sure it will eventually be revealed, but in the meantime, this is a big substantive and also symbolic victory.  Sends a big message to the Russians.

BC

[GK3]

I think a special forces attack would be possible but I imagine the area around the air base would be well secured and the strikes appear to be very accurate. Maybe a relatively close in team with a Switchblade or similar, hitting a munitions dump or fuel tank could make it all go boom. Would think Russian AD could handle that but maybe not. Looking forward to learning more, hopefully from similar strikes in Russian rear areas, and soon.

Switchblade is a very reasonable idea! I had forgotten about that. The air base security would not extend out that far. A Switchblade 300 drone can go 10 km if needed. They could get much closer than that IMHO. Fly it right to where it needs to go. Russian (or US for that matter) AD wouldn't even see these drones and they are too small to hit with anything either we or they have anyway. On top of that, they wouldn't be in the air very high or very long. The thing that argues against that is that nobody is reporting having seen them in flight. Then again, who was looking? Look a lot like birds at any distance.

It is also eminently possible a team infiltrated right on to the base and placed the explosives by hand. I have been at several US bases where they knew that a security check was in progress and yet the infiltrators got in anyway. Happens all the time. The infiltrators are good at it and find the weak points. Also, even with a war on, when you are that far behind the lines keeping your base security alert and proactive isn't easy. It is a boring job with no reward for doing it well.

My money is on the last paragraph.  The Ukraine has had a long time to infiltrate special operators into the Crimea who have become simply part of the landscape.  Probably well acquainted with the area around the installation and quite possibly aware of infiltration routes.  Russian forces are more or less seeing themselves at a beach resort and are probably not paying anywhere as much attention to base security as they should.  Get them a supply of explosive and associate stuff like timers and detonators and just wait for the right time.  As you point out, keeping infiltrators out when you know they are coming isn't easy, keeping them out when you aren't even thinking about them makes it pretty easy for well trained operators. I have read that Russian munitions are easier to detonate via sympathetic explosions that ours, maybe making the whole thing easier.

[GK3]

I think a special forces attack would be possible but I imagine the area around the air base would be well secured and the strikes appear to be very accurate. Maybe a relatively close in team with a Switchblade or similar, hitting a munitions dump or fuel tank could make it all go boom. Would think Russian AD could handle that but maybe not. Looking forward to learning more, hopefully from similar strikes in Russian rear areas, and soon.

Switchblade is a very reasonable idea! I had forgotten about that. The air base security would not extend out that far. A Switchblade 300 drone can go 10 km if needed. They could get much closer than that IMHO. Fly it right to where it needs to go. Russian (or US for that matter) AD wouldn't even see these drones and they are too small to hit with anything either we or they have anyway. On top of that, they wouldn't be in the air very high or very long. The thing that argues against that is that nobody is reporting having seen them in flight. Then again, who was looking? Look a lot like birds at any distance.

It is also eminently possible a team infiltrated right on to the base and placed the explosives by hand. I have been at several US bases where they knew that a security check was in progress and yet the infiltrators got in anyway. Happens all the time. The infiltrators are good at it and find the weak points. Also, even with a war on, when you are that far behind the lines keeping your base security alert and proactive isn't easy. It is a boring job with no reward for doing it well.

My money is on the last paragraph.  The Ukraine has had a long time to infiltrate special operators into the Crimea who have become simply part of the landscape.  Probably well acquainted with the area around the installation and quite possibly aware of infiltration routes.  Russian forces are more or less seeing themselves at a beach resort and are probably not paying anywhere as much attention to base security as they should.  Get them a supply of explosive and associate stuff like timers and detonators and just wait for the right time.  As you point out, keeping infiltrators out when you know they are coming isn't easy, keeping them out when you aren't even thinking about them makes it pretty easy for well trained operators. I have read that Russian munitions are easier to detonate via sympathetic explosions that ours, maybe making the whole thing easier.

[BostonCard]

Ukraine round-up: Is Russia running out of troops? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-62496905

Headline says it all (to be fair, this is speculative).

BC

[BostonCard]

Ukraine round-up: Is Russia running out of troops? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-62496905

Headline says it all (to be fair, this is speculative).

BC

[OutsiderFan]

German Chancellor Shultz had some quite interesting comments yesterday.

To summarize, he said Germany now recognizes the gravity of the situation, how it is essential that Ukraine prevail, and that means more German military and financial support for Ukraine. This likely also means further divestiture from Russian energy. 

I don't know if this will have a significant impact on the ground or not, but in terms of political will, it seems like it is meaningful. Having Germany "all-in" on Ukraine is important, IMO.

[OutsiderFan]

German Chancellor Shultz had some quite interesting comments yesterday.

To summarize, he said Germany now recognizes the gravity of the situation, how it is essential that Ukraine prevail, and that means more German military and financial support for Ukraine. This likely also means further divestiture from Russian energy. 

I don't know if this will have a significant impact on the ground or not, but in terms of political will, it seems like it is meaningful. Having Germany "all-in" on Ukraine is important, IMO.

[Goose]

German Chancellor Shultz had some quite interesting comments yesterday.

To summarize, he said Germany now recognizes the gravity of the situation, how it is essential that Ukraine prevail, and that means more German military and financial support for Ukraine. This likely also means further divestiture from Russian energy. 

I don't know if this will have a significant impact on the ground or not, but in terms of political will, it seems like it is meaningful. Having Germany "all-in" on Ukraine is important, IMO.

Don't read too much into what Shultz says. He has his own serious political problems to deal with and will say lots of things to mitigate them. He will also say the opposite when he thinks that is to his advantage, or he will say something and do nothing (as he has been). The energy problem in Germany is real and consciousness of this is indeed increasing. How the public will actually respond is anybodies guess. It would be nice if the Chancellor was leading the public, but IMHO he is simply chasing public approval.

[Goose]

German Chancellor Shultz had some quite interesting comments yesterday.

To summarize, he said Germany now recognizes the gravity of the situation, how it is essential that Ukraine prevail, and that means more German military and financial support for Ukraine. This likely also means further divestiture from Russian energy. 

I don't know if this will have a significant impact on the ground or not, but in terms of political will, it seems like it is meaningful. Having Germany "all-in" on Ukraine is important, IMO.

Don't read too much into what Shultz says. He has his own serious political problems to deal with and will say lots of things to mitigate them. He will also say the opposite when he thinks that is to his advantage, or he will say something and do nothing (as he has been). The energy problem in Germany is real and consciousness of this is indeed increasing. How the public will actually respond is anybodies guess. It would be nice if the Chancellor was leading the public, but IMHO he is simply chasing public approval.

[OutsiderFan]

German Chancellor Shultz had some quite interesting comments yesterday.

To summarize, he said Germany now recognizes the gravity of the situation, how it is essential that Ukraine prevail, and that means more German military and financial support for Ukraine. This likely also means further divestiture from Russian energy. 

I don't know if this will have a significant impact on the ground or not, but in terms of political will, it seems like it is meaningful. Having Germany "all-in" on Ukraine is important, IMO.

Don't read too much into what Sholz says. He has his own serious political problems to deal with and will say lots of things to mitigate them. He will also say the opposite when he thinks that is to his advantage, or he will say something and do nothing (as he has been). The energy problem in Germany is real and consciousness of this is indeed increasing. How the public will actually respond is anybodies guess. It would be nice if the Chancellor was leading the public, but IMHO he is simply chasing public approval.

Of course actions are what matters. He could be lying, but heads of state don't typically lie about making such commitments. When listening to Sholz speak, my interpretation was that Germany would have liked to do more previously, but we weren't equipped. It was like the original perspective was we can't stop Russia, so let's let Ukraine fall, and not suffer much ourselves. Now it's more like Ukraine actually might win and we can rid ourselves of the Russian menace if we step up.

[OutsiderFan]

German Chancellor Shultz had some quite interesting comments yesterday.

To summarize, he said Germany now recognizes the gravity of the situation, how it is essential that Ukraine prevail, and that means more German military and financial support for Ukraine. This likely also means further divestiture from Russian energy. 

I don't know if this will have a significant impact on the ground or not, but in terms of political will, it seems like it is meaningful. Having Germany "all-in" on Ukraine is important, IMO.

Don't read too much into what Sholz says. He has his own serious political problems to deal with and will say lots of things to mitigate them. He will also say the opposite when he thinks that is to his advantage, or he will say something and do nothing (as he has been). The energy problem in Germany is real and consciousness of this is indeed increasing. How the public will actually respond is anybodies guess. It would be nice if the Chancellor was leading the public, but IMHO he is simply chasing public approval.

Of course actions are what matters. He could be lying, but heads of state don't typically lie about making such commitments. When listening to Sholz speak, my interpretation was that Germany would have liked to do more previously, but we weren't equipped. It was like the original perspective was we can't stop Russia, so let's let Ukraine fall, and not suffer much ourselves. Now it's more like Ukraine actually might win and we can rid ourselves of the Russian menace if we step up.

[TrumpCard]

To the extent not already clear, the opinions seem to be lining up in favor of the special ops or sabotage on the ground theories, rather than any sort of missile from the air. 

https://mobile.twitter.com/JackDetsch/st...-fq58rAAAA

[TrumpCard]

To the extent not already clear, the opinions seem to be lining up in favor of the special ops or sabotage on the ground theories, rather than any sort of missile from the air. 

https://mobile.twitter.com/JackDetsch/st...-fq58rAAAA

[dabigv13]

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/DAlperovitch/status/1558524498818760704?s=20&t=35aeFxtmmn9jJbWBx4WxXA[/tweet]

Ukraine does not seem to be pressuring Kherson too much directly, but Russia seems to see the writing on the wall nevertheless. Possible that we are at "the end of the beginning".

[dabigv13]

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/DAlperovitch/status/1558524498818760704?s=20&t=35aeFxtmmn9jJbWBx4WxXA[/tweet]

Ukraine does not seem to be pressuring Kherson too much directly, but Russia seems to see the writing on the wall nevertheless. Possible that we are at "the end of the beginning".

[BostonCard]

A more bearish assessment of Ukraine’s capabilities in Kherson…

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/202...on-battle/

Ukrainian military officials are tight-lipped on any timeline for a wider push, but say they need more supplies of Western weapons before one can happen. Ukraine lacks the capacity to launch a full-scale offensive anywhere along the 1,200-mile front line, one security official conceded.

BC

[BostonCard]

A more bearish assessment of Ukraine’s capabilities in Kherson…

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/202...on-battle/

Ukrainian military officials are tight-lipped on any timeline for a wider push, but say they need more supplies of Western weapons before one can happen. Ukraine lacks the capacity to launch a full-scale offensive anywhere along the 1,200-mile front line, one security official conceded.

BC

[dabigv13]

I read that article too. It may be that Ukraine is not prepared for a full scale offensive. It may also be that Russia is not prepared to defend even against a scattered and limited one once they lose overwhelming artillery advantage and can no longer deny airspace, not with 50 year old reservists and 60 year old tanks.

[dabigv13]

I read that article too. It may be that Ukraine is not prepared for a full scale offensive. It may also be that Russia is not prepared to defend even against a scattered and limited one once they lose overwhelming artillery advantage and can no longer deny airspace, not with 50 year old reservists and 60 year old tanks.