Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 28167
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:08 pm

Seems like there are a bunch of lessons to be learned.

"The West" needs to have a bigger stockpile if they are to be a credible threat in the future. The only good news is Russia is eating through its stockpile pretty darn fast too, and won't be able to replenish it any time soon.

It's not practical to expect allies to be able to take in new aircraft type on the fly. There needs to be months if not years of preparation for pilots, mechanics, trainers, facility engineers and logistics technicians to all come up to speed on a new aircraft type. Similar things may be true to a lesser degree for advanced air defense systems.

In this situation, the diversity of systems is a real problem. The idea used to be you would develop your own weapons then deploy them with your own troops and feed it with your own logistics, but that isn't the case in a proxy war that we now find ourselves in.

It's also not practical to expect pristine air bases for your aircraft. This isn't the Cold War Era where you were OK with flying one-way missions.

Makes me wonder how the West would cope with China invading Taiwan. There would be little time for heavy equipment to be flown in, Taiwan would have to cope with whatever is in place. Would the Taiwanese resist as hard as the Ukrainians have?

What if China launched a "special military operation" from its new bases in the South China Sea? They claim to own everything in the region anyway. Sound familiar?

How quick would we just have to tell allies "sorry, we have no more X left in the stockpile?".
 
Klaus
Posts: 22023
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Fri Nov 18, 2022 5:09 pm

Revelation wrote:
Seems like there are a bunch of lessons to be learned.

"The West" needs to have a bigger stockpile if they are to be a credible threat in the future.

We are. Only with all the restrictions in supplying Ukraine as a not-yet NATO member it's much tougher for them, notably without any of the western air power which is the mainstay of our arsenals.

The only good news is Russia is eating through its stockpile pretty darn fast too, and won't be able to replenish it any time soon.

Indeed, and this will probably mean Russia as a regional threat will be much degraded, so the need for much bigger western stockpiles may not be there in the future either, especially once Ukraine is a full member of the western communities (NATO and EU) and will thus have full access to the whole spectrum.

Still, the limited supplies under current restrictions are a current concern and need to be addressed even so!

It's not practical to expect allies to be able to take in new aircraft type on the fly. There needs to be months if not years of preparation for pilots, mechanics, trainers, facility engineers and logistics technicians to all come up to speed on a new aircraft type. Similar things may be true to a lesser degree for advanced air defense systems.

It's a question whether there even is a viable path right now(!) towards getting Ukraine's air power to a level that really moves the needle in a significant way.

I suspect the available paths are basically ramping up on ground-based supplies to Ukraine including artillery and longer-range missiles (even to the point of accepting them hitting russian bases where Putin's war-criminal terror strikes against the civilian population originate from!) and only in a major escalation situation NATO actually intervening with their existing air forces.

Makes me wonder how the West would cope with China invading Taiwan. There would be little time for heavy equipment to be flown in, Taiwan would have to cope with whatever is in place. Would the Taiwanese resist as hard as the Ukrainians have?

I would expect that, and they do already have primarily US weapon systems across the range, so integration and re-supply should be much less of a logistical and training issue.

What if China launched a "special military operation" from its new bases in the South China Sea? They claim to own everything in the region anyway. Sound familiar?

How quick would we just have to tell allies "sorry, we have no more X left in the stockpile?".

It would be very different in many respects and mostly just the US would have the means of helping out, but western sanctions would immediately trigger a massive economic crash and likely social unrest in China, so at least as long as China is in the precarious situation it is in today I don't see them putting their dangerous rhetoric into reality. It is a major point of concern, however, and we cannot have any illusions about tyrants being ultimately constrained by economic relations. That ship has sailed, taken water and capsized already!
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 28167
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Fri Nov 18, 2022 6:00 pm

Klaus wrote:
I suspect the available paths are basically ramping up on ground-based supplies to Ukraine including artillery and longer-range missiles (even to the point of accepting them hitting russian bases where Putin's war-criminal terror strikes against the civilian population originate from!) and only in a major escalation situation NATO actually intervening with their existing air forces.

Thanks for your post, very thought provoking.

That's another lesson to learn: presuming you have strong enough air defense, precision guided artillery become a very advantageous weapon, presuming you can protect the launchers. You can use it for things that used to need aircraft for precision air-to-ground strikes. The risks associated with CAS (close air support), mainly loss of the pilots, can be eliminated. Also the need for all that costly aircraft related stuff (the airframes themselves, training, logistics, bases, etc) go down as well.

And, I didn't even mention drones as a place for lessons to be learned. It turns out cheap drones are great for observation. It turns out many other drones won't survive in the present of SAMs and even MANPADS.

Related: ubiquitous internet access is now a military necessity. We can see what happens when you can send drone video back from anywhere, and when soldiers can use apps to call in artillery strikes. In turn, denying your enemy use of such is now even more important.

Elon may be known as the Space Karen, but lord knows what the situation would be if he turned off Starlink in Ukraine.

It would be very different in many respects and mostly just the US would have the means of helping out, but western sanctions would immediately trigger a massive economic crash and likely social unrest in China, so at least as long as China is in the precarious situation it is in today I don't see them putting their dangerous rhetoric into reality. It is a major point of concern, however, and we cannot have any illusions about tyrants being ultimately constrained by economic relations. That ship has sailed, taken water and capsized already!

I'm not sure that is a lesson we can take away from the current situation. Western sanctions have been in place for 2/3rds of the year and Russia is little impacted by them, yet. In the case of China, the West is pretty dependent on Chinese manufacturers for all kinds of stuff, so it'd hurt the West pretty darn bad as well. It's not like we have all these factories mothballed waiting to restart if trade with China ends, nor do we have a workforce willing to work in those factories.

I hope sanctions against Russia do kick in soon. I can't stand seeing stuff like this. It's just unbelievable that we still let Russia get away with targeting civilians. There's a huge cost associated with letting the frog boil.

https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1593660305367879682
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 6650
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Fri Nov 18, 2022 6:54 pm

The China/Taiwan scenario deserves its own thread. But lesson learn is relevant.

Because of the body of water, any build up of forces would take longer for China and would give Taiwan more time to prepare.

The chip dilemma is interesting. Both Taiwan and China are chip powerhouse and any conflict will definitely impact weapons production. Hope the new US chip factories are coming along.

Having Korea broadening its arms production capacity will surely help with the Taiwan dilemma.

Because of logistics and terrain, I feel that a Taiwan conflict would be an infantry battle. Perhaps that would benefit Taiwan a little bit more.

bt
 
Vintage
Posts: 1003
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2022 10:48 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Fri Nov 18, 2022 7:10 pm

bikerthai wrote:
Because of logistics and terrain, I feel that a Taiwan conflict would be an infantry battle. Perhaps that would benefit Taiwan a little bit more.
bt
It seems to me that a Taiwan conflict would be an air/naval battle. If it turns into an infantry battle of any size, Taiwan would have already lost the war.
 
johns624
Posts: 6225
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Fri Nov 18, 2022 7:52 pm

Vintage wrote:
bikerthai wrote:
Because of logistics and terrain, I feel that a Taiwan conflict would be an infantry battle. Perhaps that would benefit Taiwan a little bit more.
bt
It seems to me that a Taiwan conflict would be an air/naval battle. If it turns into an infantry battle of any size, Taiwan would have already lost the war.
I agree. The key is to keep them from landing, not defeating them after they have landed.
 
art
Posts: 5443
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Fri Nov 18, 2022 8:04 pm

Russia’s defence ministry on Friday accused Ukraine of executing more than 10 Russian prisoners of war in what Moscow said constituted a “war crime”, the latest allegation of abuse in the nearly nine-month-long war.

The ministry cited a video circulating on Russian social media which it said showed the execution of Russian soldiers. Reuters was unable to immediately verify either the video or the defence ministry’s claim.


https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/11/ ... an-10-pows

I am of the opinion that there is overwhelming evidence that Russian troops have been responsible for a multitude of war crimes in Ukraine. It does not help Ukraine's cause in any way if war crimes can be attributed to UAF troops, as alleged above. I hope that the powers that be in Ukraine will make it absolutely clear that the commission of war crimes against captured Russian troops will not be tolerated.

The freedom of Ukraine is contingent on military support from other countries. The last thing Ukraine wants to do is to jeopardise support for Ukraine among the politicians and public in those countries.
 
Klaus
Posts: 22023
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Fri Nov 18, 2022 9:34 pm

Revelation wrote:
Related: ubiquitous internet access is now a military necessity. We can see what happens when you can send drone video back from anywhere, and when soldiers can use apps to call in artillery strikes. In turn, denying your enemy use of such is now even more important.

Elon may be known as the Space Karen, but lord knows what the situation would be if he turned off Starlink in Ukraine.

Which only reinforces that critical infrastructure must not be controlled privately!

It would be very different in many respects and mostly just the US would have the means of helping out, but western sanctions would immediately trigger a massive economic crash and likely social unrest in China, so at least as long as China is in the precarious situation it is in today I don't see them putting their dangerous rhetoric into reality. It is a major point of concern, however, and we cannot have any illusions about tyrants being ultimately constrained by economic relations. That ship has sailed, taken water and capsized already!

I'm not sure that is a lesson we can take away from the current situation. Western sanctions have been in place for 2/3rds of the year and Russia is little impacted by them, yet. In the case of China, the West is pretty dependent on Chinese manufacturers for all kinds of stuff, so it'd hurt the West pretty darn bad as well. It's not like we have all these factories mothballed waiting to restart if trade with China ends, nor do we have a workforce willing to work in those factories.

China would be completely different regarding sanctions because Russia is almost exclusively selling fossil fuel commodities, not manufactured goods, while with China it's the other way around.

So sanctions would work very differently with China and they know it. Xi is effectively waiting and preparing for when China won't be as dependent on the west as they are now, and closing our eyes to that would be a mistake.

I hope sanctions against Russia do kick in soon. I can't stand seeing stuff like this. It's just unbelievable that we still let Russia get away with targeting civilians. There's a huge cost associated with letting the frog boil.

Sanctions are mostly a slowly increasing, suffocating squeeze, not a hard punch to the face. They can still gain even more of an impact than targeted attacks could, but they are cumulative, not immediate!
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 28167
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Fri Nov 18, 2022 9:43 pm

Klaus wrote:
Which only reinforces that critical infrastructure must not be controlled privately!

Yet the public sector sucks at developing infrastructure. SpaceX vs NASA/ESA/etc is clear evidence of how that plays out.

China would be completely different regarding sanctions because Russia is almost exclusively selling fossil fuel commodities, not manufactured goods, while with China it's the other way around.

So sanctions would work very differently with China and they know it. Xi is effectively waiting and preparing for when China won't be as dependent on the west as they are now, and closing our eyes to that would be a mistake.

As you say, China does work hard to develop new markets for its manufactured goods, and we in the West do not work hard to develop alternate sources for manufactured goods.

Sanctions are mostly a slowly increasing, suffocating squeeze, not a hard punch to the face. They can still gain even more of an impact than targeted attacks could, but they are cumulative, not immediate!

Seems we are in agreement now. Eventually sanctions will make a visible impact, but we're not there yet now.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 6650
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sat Nov 19, 2022 12:55 am

A Video about the Ukrainian crossing over to the spit.

At the end they show some sort of amphibious vehicle bringing over a technical (truck). So they have the ability to ferry over light vehicles it seems.

https://youtu.be/B2o15aCIO74

bt
 
art
Posts: 5443
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sat Nov 19, 2022 10:43 am

Ukraine war will be over by end of spring, country's deputy defence minister predicts

I hope he is not just saying that with a view to boosting morale. The Russian army or leadership would need to crack for the war to end next spring, wouldn't it?


The retired major general says his nation will never stop fighting until victory and even a Russian nuclear strike would not end the struggle to drive out invading Kremlin forces.

That I believe. After the immense inhumanity shown by Russia to the people of Ukraine, I can understand that no Russian presence in Ukraine could be accepted by its people.

https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war- ... r-12750712
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 6650
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sat Nov 19, 2022 10:52 am

art wrote:
I hope he is not just saying that with a view to boosting morale.


So far they have been true to their words.

Starting with the "Offensive by August" and follow-up with "Recapture Kherson by year end". I have confidence that they will do what they say.

bt
 
art
Posts: 5443
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sat Nov 19, 2022 12:14 pm

Food for thought...

Putin’s revolting behaviour is highly visible. Every time he loses a region or city – Kherson last week – which he had previously captured, lootings, kidnappings, rape victims, torture chambers, unburied bodies and unmarked graves are discovered. Some attack him for “indiscriminate” bombing, but that is the wrong word (though his bombs often miss). He does discriminate – against civilians and the installations which give them the electric power, or heat or water they need. He wants to break them.

These are all reported with horror, yet I am not sure Putin’s evil individual deeds are sufficiently linked by Western media or leaders with what 19th-century writers would have called his “fell purposes”.

Putin is not doing this just for fun, although one gets the horrible sense that he and his followers are sadists who positively enjoy their work. He is trying to show that the Western civilisation which he hates is too weak to confront him.

To do this, he tries to enlist its enemies. Iran is providing his drones, and now there is talk of it supplying him with ballistic missiles against which Nato’s defence industries have little to offer. If he were proved right about our feebleness, the world balance of power would alter in favour of this Slavic Sauron and of those – notably China, as well as Iran – who wish us ill. Not for nothing do the Ukrainians refer to the Russian soldiers they resist as “Orcs”.

Western news bulletins often manage to combine shocking reports of Russian atrocities with hopeful accounts of “peace moves”, without seeing how the former undermine the latter. Even stranger is the fact that whenever the Ukrainians win a resounding victory – the Russians’ early retreat from the road to Kyiv, their defeat in Kharkiv, now their flight from Kherson – the cry among some Western political or military leaders goes up for Ukraine to come to the table.

General Mark Milley, the chairman of the US joint chiefs, recently told a Pentagon briefing that Ukraine could not expect to regain the whole of its occupied country: now would be a good time “to negotiate from a position of strength”, because Russia is “on its back”. In a speech the week before in New York, he saw the coming winter as a “window of opportunity” for a negotiated settlement.

On the Continent, President Macron of France still touts his services as peacemaker in the diplomatic marketplace. Here in Britain, retired generals such as Lord Richards, former chief of the defence staff, warn of “General Winter” and say it is “not in anyone’s interest” for the war to continue.

Such views take little account of the Ukrainians. In February, their government could have been decapitated within days by a Russian coup. Instead, President Zelensky famously refused a ride. Backed by American, British and Polish training and kit, his armed forces drove the Russians back. Since then, although the cost in lives and money has been agonising, the Ukrainians have won at every turn, exposing Russian corruption, barbarity and military incompetence.

There seems little reason to defer to the old cliché that the Russians always win in the snow. They have done so when invaded, not as the aggressors they now are. Besides, Ukraine has among its allies some of the greatest winter-war experts: Finland, Sweden, Poland. Judging by the Russian conscripts’ ragged uniforms and downtrodden look, it is they who are literally exposed to the freeze.

In contrast, the Ukrainians have appeared well-trained, well-disciplined, well-informed and with sky-high morale throughout. While the Russians have tried to terrify us by boasting of generals who were “the butcher of Syria” or “General Armageddon”, the Ukrainian military have not paraded vainglorious or brutal hero-leaders. They have professionally, almost anonymously, got on with the job.

After achieving so much, against expectation, Zelensky and his men could not give up now, even if they wanted to. Putin was 100 per cent wrong to invade, and the people whose country he invaded will justifiably insist on his being 100 per cent out of it.

They probably could not achieve this without continued large-scale Western aid. But that is precisely why suggestions about peace “feelers” help Putin. Although his military record has been terrible, he remains resourceful at playing on Western nerves.

At first, many, including General Milley, thought that his mighty show of force would win in a couple of days. Then Putin frightened us badly (and still, to some extent, does) over oil, gas and grain. Then – and simultaneously – he talked darkly of nuclear options. Other threats include cyber-war, an “unshakeable bond” with China, and imported Middle-Eastern killers. The more he sees us looking for a way out because of his threats, the more he will feel emboldened to fight on.

We in the West still have not fully acknowledged how close we came – and might still come – to a geopolitical defeat. If it had not been for Zelensky and his people, we would have continued a process which we first permitted in 2014: the changing of European borders by force. A great European country which, 30 years ago, we helped to liberate, would have been subjugated by the invader’s violence. We would have signalled our impotence to the wider world, with dire global consequences.

Now it feels different. Last week in Bali, a less assertive Xi Jinping seemed to join the US in disapproval of Putin’s nuclear threats, perhaps realising that he had let his country unshakeably bond with a gangster rather than a great power. It does look possible that, with our help, Ukraine can win. Why would we not want that? We should jettison our outdated respect for Russia as an impressively permanent feature of the international order and recognise that, under Putin, it has become a rogue state. We should help Ukraine unstintingly.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/1 ... -ukraines/
 
GDB
Posts: 16570
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sat Nov 19, 2022 12:27 pm

art wrote:
Food for thought...

Putin’s revolting behaviour is highly visible. Every time he loses a region or city – Kherson last week – which he had previously captured, lootings, kidnappings, rape victims, torture chambers, unburied bodies and unmarked graves are discovered. Some attack him for “indiscriminate” bombing, but that is the wrong word (though his bombs often miss). He does discriminate – against civilians and the installations which give them the electric power, or heat or water they need. He wants to break them.

These are all reported with horror, yet I am not sure Putin’s evil individual deeds are sufficiently linked by Western media or leaders with what 19th-century writers would have called his “fell purposes”.

Putin is not doing this just for fun, although one gets the horrible sense that he and his followers are sadists who positively enjoy their work. He is trying to show that the Western civilisation which he hates is too weak to confront him.

To do this, he tries to enlist its enemies. Iran is providing his drones, and now there is talk of it supplying him with ballistic missiles against which Nato’s defence industries have little to offer. If he were proved right about our feebleness, the world balance of power would alter in favour of this Slavic Sauron and of those – notably China, as well as Iran – who wish us ill. Not for nothing do the Ukrainians refer to the Russian soldiers they resist as “Orcs”.

Western news bulletins often manage to combine shocking reports of Russian atrocities with hopeful accounts of “peace moves”, without seeing how the former undermine the latter. Even stranger is the fact that whenever the Ukrainians win a resounding victory – the Russians’ early retreat from the road to Kyiv, their defeat in Kharkiv, now their flight from Kherson – the cry among some Western political or military leaders goes up for Ukraine to come to the table.

General Mark Milley, the chairman of the US joint chiefs, recently told a Pentagon briefing that Ukraine could not expect to regain the whole of its occupied country: now would be a good time “to negotiate from a position of strength”, because Russia is “on its back”. In a speech the week before in New York, he saw the coming winter as a “window of opportunity” for a negotiated settlement.

On the Continent, President Macron of France still touts his services as peacemaker in the diplomatic marketplace. Here in Britain, retired generals such as Lord Richards, former chief of the defence staff, warn of “General Winter” and say it is “not in anyone’s interest” for the war to continue.

Such views take little account of the Ukrainians. In February, their government could have been decapitated within days by a Russian coup. Instead, President Zelensky famously refused a ride. Backed by American, British and Polish training and kit, his armed forces drove the Russians back. Since then, although the cost in lives and money has been agonising, the Ukrainians have won at every turn, exposing Russian corruption, barbarity and military incompetence.

There seems little reason to defer to the old cliché that the Russians always win in the snow. They have done so when invaded, not as the aggressors they now are. Besides, Ukraine has among its allies some of the greatest winter-war experts: Finland, Sweden, Poland. Judging by the Russian conscripts’ ragged uniforms and downtrodden look, it is they who are literally exposed to the freeze.

In contrast, the Ukrainians have appeared well-trained, well-disciplined, well-informed and with sky-high morale throughout. While the Russians have tried to terrify us by boasting of generals who were “the butcher of Syria” or “General Armageddon”, the Ukrainian military have not paraded vainglorious or brutal hero-leaders. They have professionally, almost anonymously, got on with the job.

After achieving so much, against expectation, Zelensky and his men could not give up now, even if they wanted to. Putin was 100 per cent wrong to invade, and the people whose country he invaded will justifiably insist on his being 100 per cent out of it.

They probably could not achieve this without continued large-scale Western aid. But that is precisely why suggestions about peace “feelers” help Putin. Although his military record has been terrible, he remains resourceful at playing on Western nerves.

At first, many, including General Milley, thought that his mighty show of force would win in a couple of days. Then Putin frightened us badly (and still, to some extent, does) over oil, gas and grain. Then – and simultaneously – he talked darkly of nuclear options. Other threats include cyber-war, an “unshakeable bond” with China, and imported Middle-Eastern killers. The more he sees us looking for a way out because of his threats, the more he will feel emboldened to fight on.

We in the West still have not fully acknowledged how close we came – and might still come – to a geopolitical defeat. If it had not been for Zelensky and his people, we would have continued a process which we first permitted in 2014: the changing of European borders by force. A great European country which, 30 years ago, we helped to liberate, would have been subjugated by the invader’s violence. We would have signalled our impotence to the wider world, with dire global consequences.

Now it feels different. Last week in Bali, a less assertive Xi Jinping seemed to join the US in disapproval of Putin’s nuclear threats, perhaps realising that he had let his country unshakeably bond with a gangster rather than a great power. It does look possible that, with our help, Ukraine can win. Why would we not want that? We should jettison our outdated respect for Russia as an impressively permanent feature of the international order and recognise that, under Putin, it has become a rogue state. We should help Ukraine unstintingly.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/1 ... -ukraines/


I wholeheartedly agree, that paper is on most issues on the opposite side to mine, however most broadsheets have a divergence of views from some of it's contributors, not that I think this is the case here.
Since support for Ukraine is as bi partisan as you will get in the UK right now.
The US has also held up well very well, rational leadership, the nutjobs mostly not winning in the Mid Terms and to be fair, the still rational part of the GOP have loomed large in their support too.
And Putin must have been surprised that Europe in general did not cower, they shipped arms and imposed sanctions too.

If Iran does supply ballistic missiles, the case of ATACAMS becomes inarguable, in particular if they can target these sites when they are delivered, NATO have the means to do so.
Then the Ukrainians can do the rest.
Iran is falling apart internally too, those mass demos despite brutal and often lethal use of force is not it seems stopping them.
Ironically, this regime is being more violently proactive in suppression of mass demos than the regime they replaced were.

Worth adding perhaps that not only were the Russians overestimated, the opposite was true of Ukraine, maybe due to the event of 2014?
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 6650
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sat Nov 19, 2022 1:38 pm

GDB wrote:
Worth adding perhaps that not only were the Russians overestimated, the opposite was true of Ukraine, maybe due to the event of 2014?


I take it from a different direction.

If Ukraine was still under another form of dictatorship in February, would the people have resisted as vigorously?

Since 2014, they have tasted the power of self determination and are not willing to give up.

Many examples exists when a country, not used to elections and self determination, fall back into authoritarian form of governance. It really requires the stars to be aligned for such a society to make it through such revolution turmoil.

Recall the Arab Spring. How many ME country made it to the other side?

Ukraine seems to have all the ingredients and the temperament to acheive this. Russia apparently does not. They had their chance since the '90s, but they chose a different path

bt
 
art
Posts: 5443
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sat Nov 19, 2022 3:54 pm

Returning to the possibility of supplying the UAF with better fighters...

A leading UK-based defense think tank has recommended that the West consider providing the Ukrainian Air Force with Saab JAS-39 Gripen C/D fighter jets to prevent the ongoing Ukraine war from shifting dramatically in Russia’s favor.

Experts from the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) said in a report published on November 7 that the Swedish aircraft offers “by far the most suitable candidate” for Western-made fighter jets regarding operational requirements for Ukrainian air defense.

https://eurasiantimes.com/jas-39-fighte ... a-british/

Someone raised the problem of availability. In an earlier post I suggested sources could be Swedish air force or South African air force and that there might be a few white tails. It turns out that there should be 14 Gripen C and D white tails with SAAB. These, combined with a few from Swedish air force, would be enough to get Ukraine going with a couple of small squadrons. More could be added later (ex-South Africa perhaps, Swedish air force as Gripen E starts entering service or new builds).

https://www.facebook.com/14523752216945 ... 551867728/

I think Europe (EU and UK) should step up to the mark and take a decision to fund and supply Gripen C. At some point this war will stop, after which Ukraine will need to rebuild its air force. Why not start in that direction now?
 
petertenthije
Posts: 4731
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 10:00 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sat Nov 19, 2022 5:06 pm

art wrote:
Returning to the possibility of supplying the UAF with better fighters...
the Swedish aircraft offers “by far the most suitable candidate” for Western-made fighter jets regarding operational requirements for Ukrainian air defense.[/quote

While I agree that the Gripen seems tailor made for Ukraine, I still overall would rate it the second best option.

Wars are won by logistics, and the logistics strongly favour F-16s over Gripens.

For starters, there are significantly more F-16s available. There are not many Gripen’s in storage. And except for Brazil and South Africa, all operators are near Russia. So realistically only a handful could be made available. Brazil and South Africa only have a handful, Sweden and Hungary won’t want to cut their fleets now that Russia is being Russia.

Contrast that with the F-16s: the USA alone have them stored by the hundreds.
Various nations , including NATO, have older F-16s in storage / for sale.
Here in the Netherlands we are almost done phasing out the F-16 for the JSF. Those can be made available really fast, some of they were only parked weeks ago.

Further to the availability of the planes themselves, there are a lot more spare parts available. There are a lot more mechanics, a lot more options for (pilot) training, a wider range of ordnance, probably Lockheed will be faster to integrate Ukrainian ordnance into the F-16 then SAAB can with the Gripen. There will be more spare ground equipment.

Again, the Netherlands could hand over half their F-16 fleet plus F-16 specific (ground) equipment tomorrow, and be just fine. Personally I’d be well in favour. I would not be surprised if NATO HQ were already looking into this possibility.

It’s not like the Netherlands are unwilling. Just a few days ago it was announced that 800 million euros worth of equipment has already go e to Ukraine. What’s a few worn out F-16s more or less on that.
 
art
Posts: 5443
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sat Nov 19, 2022 6:01 pm

petertenthije wrote:
art wrote:
Returning to the possibility of supplying the UAF with better fighters...
the Swedish aircraft offers “by far the most suitable candidate” for Western-made fighter jets regarding operational requirements for Ukrainian air defense.[/quote

While I agree that the Gripen seems tailor made for Ukraine, I still overall would rate it the second best option.

Wars are won by logistics, and the logistics strongly favour F-16s over Gripens.

For starters, there are significantly more F-16s available. There are not many Gripen’s in storage. And except for Brazil and South Africa, all operators are near Russia. So realistically only a handful could be made available. Brazil and South Africa only have a handful, Sweden and Hungary won’t want to cut their fleets now that Russia is being Russia.

Contrast that with the F-16s: the USA alone have them stored by the hundreds.
Various nations , including NATO, have older F-16s in storage / for sale.
Here in the Netherlands we are almost done phasing out the F-16 for the JSF. Those can be made available really fast, some of they were only parked weeks ago.

Further to the availability of the planes themselves, there are a lot more spare parts available. There are a lot more mechanics, a lot more options for (pilot) training, a wider range of ordnance, probably Lockheed will be faster to integrate Ukrainian ordnance into the F-16 then SAAB can with the Gripen. There will be more spare ground equipment.

Again, the Netherlands could hand over half their F-16 fleet plus F-16 specific (ground) equipment tomorrow, and be just fine. Personally I’d be well in favour. I would not be surprised if NATO HQ were already looking into this possibility.

It’s not like the Netherlands are unwilling. Just a few days ago it was announced that 800 million euros worth of equipment has already go e to Ukraine. What’s a few worn out F-16s more or less on that.


Sure, if F-16 and Gripen were both equally suited to Ukraine's conditions and needs, F-16 would be preferable. But

Gripen is better suited to reduced airfield infrastructure (designed to be flown from roads)
Gripen is serviceable by personnel with little training
Gripen has a wide variety of western weapons integrated
Gripen is estimated to have a CPFH that is perhaps half of F-16's CPFH

Regarding availability, Sweden intends replacing 4 squadrons of Gripen C with 60 Gripen E in the next 5 years. Hungary's leased Gripens will become available.around 2026. So 60+ Gripen C (I guess) should become available in the next 5 years. More, possibly, if Sweden orders more Gripen E in view of elevated tension with Russia and joining NATO. IIRC Sweden signed an option for 10 more Gripen when (or soon after) the order for 60 Gripen E was placed. Then there are the 14 white tails with SAAB and the last 2 squadrons of SWAF Gripen C to retire at some point (around 2030?) Around 100 Gripen C available by around 2030, I guess.

Whichever - F-16 or Gripen - I think it is time to start to organise rebuilding UAF with non-Russian fighters.
 
petertenthije
Posts: 4731
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 10:00 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sat Nov 19, 2022 6:06 pm

art wrote:
60+ Gripen C (I guess) should become available in the next 5 years.

That’s roughly 4 years and 366 days too late. ;)
 
GDB
Posts: 16570
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sat Nov 19, 2022 6:10 pm

Plus the Gripens that could be made available could also be integrated with the Meteor AAM would would negate the range advantage Russia has with it's later platforms and AAM's compared to Ukraine, easier to do on Gripen than the F-16.

But that's for the future, going back, what happened to those Ukrainians whose defiant radio message to the Moskva became a symbol for national defiance?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... ake-island
 
art
Posts: 5443
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sat Nov 19, 2022 6:26 pm

petertenthije wrote:
art wrote:
60+ Gripen C (I guess) should become available in the next 5 years.

That’s roughly 4 years and 366 days too late. ;)


I would say 8 years too late - we (whoever 'we' are) should have initiated supplying F-16 or Gripen airframes, training, logistics, weapons in 2014 IMO. A fine mess we got ourselves into by not doing that. Or even pre-2014. Russia could not really object, having acknowledged Ukraine's sovereignty in the Budapest Protocol in 1994.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 16185
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sat Nov 19, 2022 7:24 pm

art wrote:
Food for thought...

Putin’s revolting behaviour is highly visible. Every time he loses a region or city – Kherson last week – which he had previously captured, lootings, kidnappings, rape victims, torture chambers, unburied bodies and unmarked graves are discovered. Some attack him for “indiscriminate” bombing, but that is the wrong word (though his bombs often miss). He does discriminate – against civilians and the installations which give them the electric power, or heat or water they need. He wants to break them.

These are all reported with horror, yet I am not sure Putin’s evil individual deeds are sufficiently linked by Western media or leaders with what 19th-century writers would have called his “fell purposes”.

Putin is not doing this just for fun, although one gets the horrible sense that he and his followers are sadists who positively enjoy their work. He is trying to show that the Western civilisation which he hates is too weak to confront him.

To do this, he tries to enlist its enemies. Iran is providing his drones, and now there is talk of it supplying him with ballistic missiles against which Nato’s defence industries have little to offer. If he were proved right about our feebleness, the world balance of power would alter in favour of this Slavic Sauron and of those – notably China, as well as Iran – who wish us ill. Not for nothing do the Ukrainians refer to the Russian soldiers they resist as “Orcs”.

Western news bulletins often manage to combine shocking reports of Russian atrocities with hopeful accounts of “peace moves”, without seeing how the former undermine the latter. Even stranger is the fact that whenever the Ukrainians win a resounding victory – the Russians’ early retreat from the road to Kyiv, their defeat in Kharkiv, now their flight from Kherson – the cry among some Western political or military leaders goes up for Ukraine to come to the table.

General Mark Milley, the chairman of the US joint chiefs, recently told a Pentagon briefing that Ukraine could not expect to regain the whole of its occupied country: now would be a good time “to negotiate from a position of strength”, because Russia is “on its back”. In a speech the week before in New York, he saw the coming winter as a “window of opportunity” for a negotiated settlement.

On the Continent, President Macron of France still touts his services as peacemaker in the diplomatic marketplace. Here in Britain, retired generals such as Lord Richards, former chief of the defence staff, warn of “General Winter” and say it is “not in anyone’s interest” for the war to continue.

Such views take little account of the Ukrainians. In February, their government could have been decapitated within days by a Russian coup. Instead, President Zelensky famously refused a ride. Backed by American, British and Polish training and kit, his armed forces drove the Russians back. Since then, although the cost in lives and money has been agonising, the Ukrainians have won at every turn, exposing Russian corruption, barbarity and military incompetence.

There seems little reason to defer to the old cliché that the Russians always win in the snow. They have done so when invaded, not as the aggressors they now are. Besides, Ukraine has among its allies some of the greatest winter-war experts: Finland, Sweden, Poland. Judging by the Russian conscripts’ ragged uniforms and downtrodden look, it is they who are literally exposed to the freeze.

In contrast, the Ukrainians have appeared well-trained, well-disciplined, well-informed and with sky-high morale throughout. While the Russians have tried to terrify us by boasting of generals who were “the butcher of Syria” or “General Armageddon”, the Ukrainian military have not paraded vainglorious or brutal hero-leaders. They have professionally, almost anonymously, got on with the job.

After achieving so much, against expectation, Zelensky and his men could not give up now, even if they wanted to. Putin was 100 per cent wrong to invade, and the people whose country he invaded will justifiably insist on his being 100 per cent out of it.

They probably could not achieve this without continued large-scale Western aid. But that is precisely why suggestions about peace “feelers” help Putin. Although his military record has been terrible, he remains resourceful at playing on Western nerves.

At first, many, including General Milley, thought that his mighty show of force would win in a couple of days. Then Putin frightened us badly (and still, to some extent, does) over oil, gas and grain. Then – and simultaneously – he talked darkly of nuclear options. Other threats include cyber-war, an “unshakeable bond” with China, and imported Middle-Eastern killers. The more he sees us looking for a way out because of his threats, the more he will feel emboldened to fight on.

We in the West still have not fully acknowledged how close we came – and might still come – to a geopolitical defeat. If it had not been for Zelensky and his people, we would have continued a process which we first permitted in 2014: the changing of European borders by force. A great European country which, 30 years ago, we helped to liberate, would have been subjugated by the invader’s violence. We would have signalled our impotence to the wider world, with dire global consequences.

Now it feels different. Last week in Bali, a less assertive Xi Jinping seemed to join the US in disapproval of Putin’s nuclear threats, perhaps realising that he had let his country unshakeably bond with a gangster rather than a great power. It does look possible that, with our help, Ukraine can win. Why would we not want that? We should jettison our outdated respect for Russia as an impressively permanent feature of the international order and recognise that, under Putin, it has become a rogue state. We should help Ukraine unstintingly.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/1 ... -ukraines/


A lot of "we" in the article. Who is "we" ? We'll see how much popular support for the war there is when people will be freezing in their homes in the UK. Thanks in part to the Tories this newspaper support.
 
johns624
Posts: 6225
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sat Nov 19, 2022 7:34 pm

art wrote:
petertenthije wrote:
art wrote:
60+ Gripen C (I guess) should become available in the next 5 years.

That’s roughly 4 years and 366 days too late. ;)


I would say 8 years too late - we (whoever 'we' are) should have initiated supplying F-16 or Gripen airframes, training, logistics, weapons in 2014 IMO. A fine mess we got ourselves into by not doing that. Or even pre-2014. Russia could not really object, having acknowledged Ukraine's sovereignty in the Budapest Protocol in 1994.
Was Ukraine worth the support back in 2014? That was pre-reforms.
 
Klaus
Posts: 22023
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sat Nov 19, 2022 7:41 pm

petertenthije wrote:
While I agree that the Gripen seems tailor made for Ukraine, I still overall would rate it the second best option.

Wars are won by logistics, and the logistics strongly favour F-16s over Gripens.

For starters, there are significantly more F-16s available.

GDB had linked to a very interesting interview above with a british analyst who underscored the point that the F-16 is a lot more dependent on pristine runways (and thus much more vulnerable to Russia bombing those / already having bombed them now) and needs a lot more personnel and infrastructure to maintain:

GDB wrote:
Ward Carroll, former F-14 Crew, meets in person Justin Bronk of the RUSI, to discuss the air war, air defence, what we have learned about early on, challenges now and ahead;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYDnspMWdaM

Especially under the current conditions those factors should substantially outweigh availability as a factor, even discounting cost.

Gripen deliveries would be coming from a NATO candidate country which Russia would of course interpret as NATO stepping over a line which they would surely respond to with additional harassment of Sweden, as feeble as that may turn out to be.

Given that Russia has been stepping up their war-criminal atrocities blatantly targeting the civilian population en masse I personally see Russia having gone over this particular line first already and I would agree that supplying planes would be justifiable in view of that, but it would still be a very deliberate step to be taken by NATO as a whole even so and it would require very clear and precise messaging towards Moscow to limit Putin's opportunities to misuse that change for his own ends.

I would not be shocked if it turned out that something like this was already in the works as we speak, but as dysfunctional as the russians are I'd still not bet on them missing such a relevant development...
 
GDB
Posts: 16570
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sun Nov 20, 2022 12:53 am

On the front line, this one won't be back;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcHbNwn9Ovw

Another form of SEAD;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQcBb6n6K3I
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 28167
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sun Nov 20, 2022 3:04 pm

art wrote:
Returning to the possibility of supplying the UAF with better fighters...

A leading UK-based defense think tank has recommended that the West consider providing the Ukrainian Air Force with Saab JAS-39 Gripen C/D fighter jets to prevent the ongoing Ukraine war from shifting dramatically in Russia’s favor.

Experts from the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) said in a report published on November 7 that the Swedish aircraft offers “by far the most suitable candidate” for Western-made fighter jets regarding operational requirements for Ukrainian air defense.

https://eurasiantimes.com/jas-39-fighte ... a-british/

Someone raised the problem of availability. In an earlier post I suggested sources could be Swedish air force or South African air force and that there might be a few white tails. It turns out that there should be 14 Gripen C and D white tails with SAAB. These, combined with a few from Swedish air force, would be enough to get Ukraine going with a couple of small squadrons. More could be added later (ex-South Africa perhaps, Swedish air force as Gripen E starts entering service or new builds).

https://www.facebook.com/14523752216945 ... 551867728/

I think Europe (EU and UK) should step up to the mark and take a decision to fund and supply Gripen C. At some point this war will stop, after which Ukraine will need to rebuild its air force. Why not start in that direction now?

Yes, this is the same report that Justin Bronk is describing during the Ward Carroll interview. Justin works for RUSI and is a co-author of it.

IMO we are not going to see a Western fighter introduced into Ukraine. IMO the West has talked itself into not doing so.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 6650
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sun Nov 20, 2022 3:20 pm

Revelation wrote:
IMO we are not going to see a Western fighter introduced into Ukraine. IMO the West has talked itself into not doing so.


IMO it is only a matter of time. Ukraine will eventually run out of ordinance and spare parts for their fighters. I can not imagine the West not providing a minimal complement of aircrafts if only for air cover and anti-drone operation.

If they can somehow integrate AA weapons on to Ukrainian aircraft, it would delay the inevitable but not stop it.

But in the short run, if Ukraine will indeed recapture all the territory by Summer, then I can see them not getting planes before then.

Now that the US midterm election is done, it will take some time for the politics to re-align and a new agenda to emerg. I fore see some consensus will be reached after the new Congress conviene as to whether tanks and jets will be provided to Ukraine this year.

bt
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 28167
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sun Nov 20, 2022 3:22 pm

Some very interesting "man on the street" interviews from inside the Russian Federation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCt25xjVfNc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToOyHmuqPoE

I think it's instructive to see how effective the Putin regime has been at controlling and shaping the dialog. In general, people are cautious if not afraid with regard to expressing opinions in general and especially if they diverge from the party line. All the main talking points are on people's lips: this is a special military operation, this is an internal affair, Ukraine is a part of our sphere of influence, it's best to fight in Ukraine rather than Moscow, we're saving Russia from the evil LGBT community, yada yada. Most young men support Putin, most seem glad they've found a way to not be in Ukraine but also when push comes to shove they say they'd go, things would work out OK for them, etc.

One of Vexler's main points is the Russian populace has outsourced politics to Putin as the price to be paid for the relative prosperity they've enjoyed in the post-USSR, post-Yeltsin era. Seems to be true. Most reflect that the war in Ukraine hasn't impacted them and they just want to avoid the subject.
 
Vintage
Posts: 1003
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2022 10:48 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sun Nov 20, 2022 3:31 pm

Revelation wrote:
"man on the street" interviews from inside the Russian Federation:
I can't imagine why any Russian would be willing to speak against the war into a microphone with a camera pointed at him/her.

That seems like an IQ test. The ones who flunk will be taken away and interrogated.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 28167
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sun Nov 20, 2022 3:32 pm

Gas pipeline catches fire near St Petersburg yesterday, now a warehouse in central Moscow is on fire ( https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/11/ ... ons-a79439 ). I wonder if these are just "normal" emergencies, or if sabotage is happening within Russia.
 
MohawkWeekend
Posts: 2236
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sun Nov 20, 2022 3:40 pm

It was 12 degrees this morning here off the shores of Lake Eire. As I was walking the dog, I imagined what those ill-equipped Russians are feeling in those trenches and damaged buildings.

And knowing that lighting a campfire will bring death from above. If that doesn't break your will to fight........

Of course the Ukrainians are cold too but when you believe in the fight, you press on.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 16185
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sun Nov 20, 2022 3:54 pm

12 degrees is pretty mild.

Or do you mean 12 US degrees ?
 
MohawkWeekend
Posts: 2236
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sun Nov 20, 2022 3:57 pm

US 12 degrees which is pretty darn cold for November.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 24469
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sun Nov 20, 2022 4:01 pm

I missed Russia is allowing child labor, down to age 14, to make up for the missing men.

https://nypost.com/2022/11/10/russia-to ... e-war/amp/

The gift that keeps on giving...
 
GDB
Posts: 16570
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sun Nov 20, 2022 5:49 pm

Not sure if it was or is the case the the West talked themselves out of supplying Ukraine with fighters, more a question of practicality and yes, early on, a genuine concern about escalation.
The latter has been played by Putin too many times to really work now.
As for MBT's as mentioned before aside from training, until the mooted AFV servicing facility is established in Poland for both Eastern and Western originated vehicles, it's a moot point.

However, here is the latest update from Perun, on the Southern campaign, liberation of Khershon, implications and likely next steps;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxR1jmZTLew&t=1449s
 
Klaus
Posts: 22023
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sun Nov 20, 2022 6:36 pm

Revelation wrote:
IMO we are not going to see a Western fighter introduced into Ukraine. IMO the West has talked itself into not doing so.

That is not how it works. This is a very difficult decision but Ukraine will get western aircraft if that becomes an inescapable necessity.

Whether that is already the case and whether this is already in motion I do not know, but I expect that this will happen in some way or another even before Ukraine ultimately gains NATO and EU memberships several years down the road.

If at all possible they will likely receive surplus russian fighter planes at first, but those will be used up eventually and then it's western ones all the way.
 
cpd
Posts: 7553
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sun Nov 20, 2022 6:56 pm

Klaus wrote:
Revelation wrote:
IMO we are not going to see a Western fighter introduced into Ukraine. IMO the West has talked itself into not doing so.

That is not how it works. This is a very difficult decision but Ukraine will get western aircraft if that becomes an inescapable necessity.

Whether that is already the case and whether this is already in motion I do not know, but I expect that this will happen in some way or another even before Ukraine ultimately gains NATO and EU memberships several years down the road.

If at all possible they will likely receive surplus russian fighter planes at first, but those will be used up eventually and then it's western ones all the way.


No fighter planes will be delivered because Russia will consider it an escalation and launch nuclear war.

Note that only Russia is allowed to escalate. :banghead:


I think the Gripen would be a superb machine for Ukraine but so would F16 because there are plenty of them.
 
Klaus
Posts: 22023
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sun Nov 20, 2022 7:22 pm

cpd wrote:
No fighter planes will be delivered because Russia will consider it an escalation and launch nuclear war.

Note that only Russia is allowed to escalate. :banghead:<

Arguments about supply decisions don't have a half-life of more than a few months in times like these. With the situation shifting so do the decisions.
 
GDB
Posts: 16570
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sun Nov 20, 2022 7:34 pm

We should not forget just how much they have captured from their attackers, here is a supercut of Ukrainian farmers doing 'Lend Lease';

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sCV9FAc_fw

When you go to say the Oryx site, which works by visual identification to get the figures, they are stark.
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/a ... pment.html
 
art
Posts: 5443
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sun Nov 20, 2022 9:42 pm

Klaus wrote:
Revelation wrote:
IMO we are not going to see a Western fighter introduced into Ukraine. IMO the West has talked itself into not doing so.

That is not how it works. This is a very difficult decision but Ukraine will get western aircraft if that becomes an inescapable necessity.


Is it not an inescapable necessity? I would love to hear the reasoning used in arguing that Ukraine does not need more fighters. Does Ukraine have to lose every last Russian fighter it has got before the need for western fighters becomes inescapable? Who decides when the need for western fighters becomes inescapable? The same people who have been condemning Ukraine to diminished chances of succeeding in the air pretty much since this war started by blocking supplies of available fighters.

I find it a sad state of affairs that there are countries that want to help Ukraine stand up against Russia's aggression but are not themselves prepared to stand up to Russia's threats, covert or overt. By the way, has Russia stated that the supply of fighters would be seen as escalation pushing it to go nuclear or is that just a supposition on the part of 'the West'?
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 6650
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Sun Nov 20, 2022 10:54 pm

art wrote:
Who decides when the need for western fighters becomes inescapable?


The politician decides whether and the logistician decides when.

If the politician decides that Ukraine needs air cover which I whole heartedly agree, then the logistics will determine at what rate the Ukrainian is using up their air assets, from fighters, to rockets, bombs and missiles.

Once that is known, they would then plan training and logistics appropriately to get western fighters in before the old stock runs out.

And yes the maintenance issue is real. Recall how we all scream for the PZH2000 to be delivered? Well apparently they are now hitting the maintenance wall and availability is low.

If they don't do it right, it would be the same with any western fighters.

bt
 
GDB
Posts: 16570
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Mon Nov 21, 2022 3:52 pm

A plant in Canada with Ukrainian links produces armoured vehicles for the war effort;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Colcp_UuVVc

Very tough times in Khershon, however;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAPG84KIqOE

The real nuclear blackmail;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQbyxjp7fwY

Guess what system is still making it's mark on Russian logistics?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rGsS87d72g

Recently, a further £50m aid package for Ukraine was announced by the UK, counter drone, cold weather gear and a load of 'AA guns'.
Since none of the latter are in the UK inventory, I am curious about what systems, presumably like the M109's sourced internationally?
Had a look but as yet, can find no systems quoted.
 
User avatar
DIRECTFLT
Posts: 3168
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 3:00 am

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Mon Nov 21, 2022 5:54 pm

Zelensky asks NATO to protect nuclear power plants from Russian 'sabotage'

https://www.france24.com/en/europe/2022 ... of-attacks
 
GDB
Posts: 16570
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Mon Nov 21, 2022 7:18 pm

At the other end of the air defence scale, MAPADDING on the front line;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvCWN80D35w

Looks like a grisly attempt to hide casualties, as if eventually 'MIA' never actually is heard of again, not as a POW or anything, will make the families stop thinking the obvious;
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... n-landfill
 
GDB
Posts: 16570
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Tue Nov 22, 2022 1:03 am

Confirmed the improved Brimstone 2 has been sent to Ukraine;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPwpufH17DM

As stated in the video, it would be useful if they could also be integrated with Mi-24's or even SU-25's.

The retreat from Khershon;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ8y3hw6Bqo
 
hh65man
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 7:52 am

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Tue Nov 22, 2022 5:28 am

GDB wrote:
At the other end of the air defence scale, MAPADDING on the front line;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvCWN80D35w

Looks like a grisly attempt to hide casualties, as if eventually 'MIA' never actually is heard of again, not as a POW or anything, will make the families stop thinking the obvious;
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... n-landfill


What a gross method for honouring your dead, just bury then in a landfill and hope they’ll be forgotten. The landfill area needs to be excavated, it will be a monumental task to undertake. Russian army sinking to another low.
 
art
Posts: 5443
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Tue Nov 22, 2022 1:24 pm

The head of Ukraine’s national power grid operator, Ukrenergo, has described the damage dealt to Ukrainian power-generating facilities by Russian missile attacks as “colossal”.


https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/ ... vider-says

At some point living in parts of Ukraine will become unviable, given the lack of electricity. Moving the population further away from Russian-controlled zones may protect them from artillery strikes etc but it won't stop drones and missiles making the areas to which evacuees are moved barely habitable in winter. I imagine that a lot of Ukrainians will opt to become refugees in other countries.

Addressing the drone problem is a matter of great urgency but there is no short term solution in sight, is there? Electricity supply looks like Ukraine's Achille's heel to me. It looks likely to me that drone attacks on Ukraine's power infrastructure can continue more or less indefinitely.

Moscow and Tehran have reportedly inked a deal that would allow Russia to produce Iranian-designed drones to be used on the battlefield in Ukraine.


https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-iran-dro ... 39217.html
 
GDB
Posts: 16570
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Tue Nov 22, 2022 1:53 pm

art wrote:
The head of Ukraine’s national power grid operator, Ukrenergo, has described the damage dealt to Ukrainian power-generating facilities by Russian missile attacks as “colossal”.


https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/ ... vider-says

At some point living in parts of Ukraine will become unviable, given the lack of electricity. Moving the population further away from Russian-controlled zones may protect them from artillery strikes etc but it won't stop drones and missiles making the areas to which evacuees are moved barely habitable in winter. I imagine that a lot of Ukrainians will opt to become refugees in other countries.

Addressing the drone problem is a matter of great urgency but there is no short term solution in sight, is there? Electricity supply looks like Ukraine's Achille's heel to me. It looks likely to me that drone attacks on Ukraine's power infrastructure can continue more or less indefinitely.

Moscow and Tehran have reportedly inked a deal that would allow Russia to produce Iranian-designed drones to be used on the battlefield in Ukraine.


https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-iran-dro ... 39217.html


Not to at all make light of this but I think Perun, in his video about the air/drone war, nailed it when he said 'the Russians have clearly never read a bloody history book', if they think this will win it for them.
Short term solutions include a large ramping up of high quality cold weather clothing, generators, related civil aid, which is being done though it will need to expand a lot, more directly giving Ukraine systems, we know which one, to target the launching sites and storage/assembly of them.
That's a bigger political one.

A few months ago, a video went viral, here the subject of it breaks it down, what they were doing and why;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0wyzF7iv0w

Why he is there;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmmGXscBJfA

On the battlefield of the south;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neBEDHfgpAo

Intercepted call;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8yfe4ytnaU

Putin is lashing out at Ukraine for one reason, on the battlefield, where this will be decided, it's a shitshow.
 
art
Posts: 5443
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:46 am

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine - *Discussion* Thread

Tue Nov 22, 2022 6:58 pm

Did Ukraine take Kinburn only to be driven back across the Dnieper a few days later? 2 UK newspapers report an assault on Kinburn by UAF.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 30496.html
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/ ... on-dnipro/

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Cadet985, Kent350787, NIKV69 and 39 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos