Kiev Is Burning

[mkenny]

1 hour ago, Josh said:

Let us simply hope we never see it.

 

My appraisal of Russian military capability is derived from their capability in the field and the resources they have at hand, nothing more. The Ukraine war exposed a wealth of weaknesses, some easily/already fixed, some in progress that will take some time, and some that show technological and political/military cultural limitations that likely cannot be fully addressed.

 

My view is that increasing weapons performance in terms of speed, accuracy, and automation is going to favor the side that can more rapidly identify targets and dispense PGMs to deal with them. Even if we assume Russia undergoes some kind of military revolution in UAVs, its weakness in ISR above the tactical level is on full display. Say what you will about US logistical bloat (which I agree is a thing), but is efforts to diversify and expand its ISR, C3, and PNT capabilities are broad and bearing fruit. The US has already tested Tranch 0 of its L band Link 16 satellites than will connect its future com layer satellites down to the individual platform level. It has AI systems developed to map its own communications network, detect latencies and failures, and map around them with cross links. It is fully linking its transport satellite layer to the existing commercial EO providers so their content can be downloaded via link 16 in near real time, and having AIs process all the resulting data for targets, prioritize them, and create fire plans based on known available resources. Russia is operating on two cups connected by a string in comparison.

 

The first capability isn't particularly revolutionary; Brimstone or SDB II can do that now. I have no doubt Russia can produce something like this now; what I think it will struggle with is building more advanced sensors and logic for such en mass (though Chinese commercial components can help in this regard). But even assuming they are built in bulk, ground launching these munitions gives them a short range and their low speed means they aren't especially hard targets for point defense weapons (the Western ones as well). You see it as revolutionary development and potentially air force neutralizing*; I think it is an evolving threat that can be managed. The bigger risk in my mind is to front line ground forces rather than air forces. Increasingly smaller, cheaper UAVs that also can be given sufficient automation mean they hit soft or even armored targets randomly all over the FLOT, within their endurance/range. It likely will be perfectly cost effective to expend a single micro UAV per soldier in the future. That seems more game changing than smart moped drones to me.


* Would US autonomous UAVs presumably be able to do the same thing to the PLA-AF then? That would rather change things...

 

You speak as if S-70 was an operational system and Su-57 existed as more than a squadron (non US NATO F-35s already greatly outnumber them). Russia doesn't even build its own RQ-1 class drones (see: Israel Searcher and Iranian Mohajer 6); how is it going to whip up some X-47B class UCAVs?

 

Even if we assume that someone can neutralize GPS (and note that the future proliferated satellites layers in the next few years will have a secondary fallback PNT capability as well), what makes you think that Russian and Chinese UAVs are any less dependent on satellite navigation? Why would the US somehow lag far behind either in nav satellite system counter measures? The US invented this type of system and maintains by far the largest number of tracking and downlink/uplink locations across the globe; why would its system be particularly vulnerable?  If there's a sick man in the satellite nav arena, it is Russia: GLONASS is running on fumes. A third of the active 24 satellites are about to or already have reached their expected end of life. The US might not even need to degrade it in a few years time.

ETA: per wiki, of the 24 GLONASS satellites still operational or in testing, 12 are at or past their seven year expected lifetime. Three more satellites are partially operational with no L2 signal (reduced accuracy) and these are some of the oldest still functioning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_GLONASS_satellites

 

In short game-changing war-winning high-tech western wunder-waffen will  deliver a swift victory-just like it did in Ukraine in June 2023?

[seahawk]

9 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

Not even close to that. All pro-Russians are saying it is just the begining of long war.

From the Russian point of view, absolutely. But I think the Ukrainian part will end in the next 2 years. And it will end with a Russian victory.

Pro-Russians still overestimate the strength and resolve of the West. Morally and economically the West is close to collapse.

Edited December 6, 2023 by seahawk

[Roman Alymov]

2 hours ago, seahawk said:

From the Russian point of view, absolutely. But I think the Ukrainian part will end in the next 2 years. And it will end with a Russian victory.

Pro-Russians still overestimate the strength and resolve of the West. Morally and economically the West is close to collapse.

Who knows.... Above mentioned Alexey Arestovich (former Zalansky's spokesmen, head of military , who is now in excile in US as Ukr Police/SBU is trying to grab him in democratic Ukraine) is saying that if thing continue like this collapse may happen in 3 month. 

https://youtu.be/wLU_vuhfbDE

But Arestovich got established history of lying, so taking his words as 100% truth is not good practice - more interesting is that now he feels pronouncing this is benefiting his career.

[BansheeOne]

12 hours ago, TonyE said:

5 minute clip of the captured Bradley.

 

Now that there is some proof of capture. 👍

Though some have claimed the vehicle was built only last year, which can't be since Bradley production ended in 1995. Rebuilt maybe, but then only in the sense of refurbishment after being pulled from storage; the ODS upgrades are after all long in the past, too.

[Roman Alymov]

48 minutes ago, BansheeOne said:

Now that there is some proof of capture. 👍

Though some have claimed the vehicle was built only last year, which can't be since Bradley production ended in 1995. Rebuilt maybe, but then only in the sense of refurbishment after being pulled from storage; the ODS upgrades are after all long in the past, too.

See my earlier post, claimed to have total milage 240 km, also note driver's screen - so hardly just refurbishment

Pro-Russian recovery group (recon + two BREM teams from two different units, as one BREM failed to pull 34-ton vehicle) complain about how heavy vehicle is, one of Bradley's towing hooks was broken in process.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, BansheeOne said:

Now that there is some proof of capture. 👍

Though some have claimed the vehicle was built only last year, which can't be since Bradley production ended in 1995. Rebuilt maybe, but then only in the sense of refurbishment after being pulled from storage; the ODS upgrades are after all long in the past, too.

It probably means they refilled the Minibar.

[BansheeOne]

1 hour ago, Roman Alymov said:

See my earlier post, claimed to have total milage 240 km, also note driver's screen - so hardly just refurbishment

 

Odometer reset after refurbishment? There's really no other way to explain such a low mileage, unless the vehicle went more or less straight to storage from the assembly line. Even the initial ODS-SA Bradleys weren't new builds, they were all upgraded M2A2s. As were the A3s, and the A4 and the M7 forward observation vehicle in turn are based upon existing vehicles of the two previous variants.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Its standard in Western Armies to reset the Odometer after refurbishment. Britain does it as well.

[glenn239]

5 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

Who knows.... Above mentioned Alexey Arestovich (former Zalansky's spokesmen, head of military , who is now in excile in US as Ukr Police/SBU is trying to grab him in democratic Ukraine) is saying that if thing continue like this collapse may happen in 3 month. 

God, how embarrassing it would be for Putin to have to start openly propping up the Ukrainian army against himself so that Moscow is able to surrender to the West rather than accept Kyiv's surrender to Russia instead.

[Stuart Galbraith]

I'm aware this is almost certainly  bollocks, but it's still hilarious because it would probably work.

 

 

[Roman Alymov]

4 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I'm aware this is almost certainly  bollocks, but it's still hilarious because it would probably work.

 

Taking into account entire land forces of Russian Army is about 550k (spread all actoss Russia) while NK Army is about 1mln (850-1200k, not including reserve) and is all concentrated in one place - there is no doubt that without nuclear weapons used against them, NK could easyly reach Vladivostok. But what's next?

[Roman Alymov]

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

God, how embarrassing it would be for Putin to have to start openly propping up the Ukrainian army against himself so that Moscow is able to surrender to the West rather than accept Kyiv's surrender to Russia instead.

Not sure about " Putin to have to start openly propping up the Ukrainian army" as there is no "start" here, as Russia is PAYING Ukraine for pumpinmg in own NG for free, and transiting it to Europe. De-facto Russia is supporting entire Ukr industry and infrastructire (what is left of it).

[Josh]

9 hours ago, mkenny said:

In short game-changing war-winning high-tech western wunder-waffen will  deliver a swift victory-just like it did in Ukraine in June 2023?

NATO is a much larger and more technically sophisticated force than Ukraine. In particular, NATO has probably has a hundred times as many aircraft as Ukraine had at the start of the war, most which are dramatically more capable in their respective roles.

[mkenny]

2 minutes ago, Josh said:

NATO is a much larger and more technically sophisticated force than Ukraine. In particular, NATO has probably has a hundred times as many aircraft as Ukraine had at the start of the war, most which are dramatically more capable in their respective roles.

Yes that is what I said, that  'game-changing war-winning high-tech western wunder-waffen' will  deliver a swift victory. Just like the way previous deliveries of  'game-changing war-winning high-tech western wunder-waffen '  delivered a swift victory for  Ukraine in June 2023.

[Stuart Galbraith]

31 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

Taking into account entire land forces of Russian Army is about 550k (spread all actoss Russia) while NK Army is about 1mln (850-1200k, not including reserve) and is all concentrated in one place - there is no doubt that without nuclear weapons used against them, NK could easyly reach Vladivostok. But what's next?

Moscow?

 

[Yama]

4 hours ago, BansheeOne said:

Now that there is some proof of capture. 👍

Though some have claimed the vehicle was built only last year, which can't be since Bradley production ended in 1995. Rebuilt maybe, but then only in the sense of refurbishment after being pulled from storage; the ODS upgrades are after all long in the past, too.

Well, what can you expect from used American car?  "Yessir, this Bradley was owned by an old lady, who only used it to drive to Baptist Mass every Sunday. Don't believe me? Check out the odometer reading!"

[Josh]

28 minutes ago, mkenny said:

Yes that is what I said, that  'game-changing war-winning high-tech western wunder-waffen' will  deliver a swift victory. Just like the way previous deliveries of  'game-changing war-winning high-tech western wunder-waffen '  delivered a swift victory for  Ukraine in June 2023.

NATO equipment donated to Ukraine was generally out of service (various armored vehicles), about to be de milled (AGM-160B,AGM-88B, ATACMs Block 1), or deliberately downgraded before delivery (HIMARS, M777). Very little wonderwaffen went to Ukraine. I never expected the summer offensive to make much progress and stated that routinely here. Russia none the less is having a hard time fighting NATOs cast offs and old missiles fired by a handful of Soviet fighters.

[Strannik]

39 minutes ago, Josh said:

NATO is a much larger and more technically sophisticated force than Ukraine. In particular, NATO has probably has a hundred times as many aircraft as Ukraine had at the start of the war, most which are dramatically more capable in their respective roles.

So why not give Ukraine a couple of squadrons of F-35 armed with all the latest toys and be done with this war?  Afraid they won't perform in the real field?

[Roman Alymov]

12 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Moscow?

Moscow is too far away (direct distance between Vladivostok and Moscow is 6417 km, much longer by road) over very uncomfortable terrain. So it is more reasonable for NKoreans to conduct some sort of amphibious attack on some small island nation with capital next to sea and in the middle of busy sea routes few Ro-Ro ships could sneak to as regular transports....  But, again, what's next? Gain some short-living popularity by returning stolen marbles to another small but proud nation? 

[JWB]

 

[Josh]

1 hour ago, Strannik said:

So why not give Ukraine a couple of squadrons of F-35 armed with all the latest toys and be done with this war?  Afraid they won't perform in the real field?

Politically, the Biden administration has been worried about escalation issues from the beginning and has had to be dragged into providing things like MBTs, ATACMS, and soon perhaps old model fighters. Clearly throwing a 5th generation aircraft would be a hell of an escalation in comparison to any of those things.

Another issue is that like the F-16s, a huge amount of training would be necessary for the air and ground crews and a steady parts stream would need to be donated as well. Both of those are things that no NATO nation would want to expend scarce, brand new resources on. F-16 aircraft, maintainers, and parts inventory on the other hand is very plentiful across the alliance and not in high demand.

 

The other consideration would be a wrecked F-35 being recovered and then exploited - the Russians do not seem to use the Su-57s for the same reason (or else they too are "afraid they won't perform in the real field").

 

In any case, sending a handful of F-35s to fight would probably have as much effect as if the Russians sent their existing handful of Su-57s to fight: practically no strategic change at all, after an initial tactical surprise. Small numbers of wonder-waffen rarely influence a conflict. I've noted HIMARS is the only thing that might be an exception - Glenn disagrees, but I suspect cutting the bridge across the Dnieper was a bare minimum requirement to retake Kherson, and HIMARS was the only thing the ZSU had with the reach. But F-35s exist in large numbers - nearly a thousand for all users, with sometimes 100-150 produced per year (there is a current hold on production I think due to delays in Tech Refresh 3, a major processor and software upgrade).

Edited December 6, 2023 by Josh

[glenn239]

2 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

Not sure about " Putin to have to start openly propping up the Ukrainian army" as there is no "start" here, as Russia is PAYING Ukraine for pumpinmg in own NG for free, and transiting it to Europe. De-facto Russia is supporting entire Ukr industry and infrastructire (what is left of it).

Putin must be deeply distressed to see the Ukrainian army veering towards a collapse when he gave his army express orders to lose the war so that he could surrender to the West.

Edited December 6, 2023 by glenn239

[glenn239]

2 hours ago, Josh said:

Russia none the less is having a hard time fighting NATOs cast offs and old missiles fired by a handful of Soviet fighters.

They're having the most trouble with Chinese drones, Soviet mines, and Soviet and Western artillery.

[Strannik]

1 hour ago, Josh said:

Politically, the Biden administration has been worried about escalation issues from the beginning and has had to be dragged into providing things like MBTs, ATACMS, and soon perhaps old model fighters. Clearly throwing a 5th generation aircraft would be a hell of an escalation in comparison to any of those things.

Another issue is that like the F-16s, a huge amount of training would be necessary for the air and ground crews and a steady parts stream would need to be donated as well. Both of those are things that no NATO nation would want to expend scarce, brand new resources on. F-16 aircraft, maintainers, and parts inventory on the other hand is very plentiful across the alliance and not in high demand.

 

The other consideration would be a wrecked F-35 being recovered and then exploited - the Russians do not seem to use the Su-57s for the same reason (or else they too are "afraid they won't perform in the real field").

 

In any case, sending a handful of F-35s to fight would probably have as much effect as if the Russians sent their existing handful of Su-57s to fight: practically no strategic change at all, after an initial tactical surprise. Small numbers of wonder-waffen rarely influence a conflict. I've noted HIMARS is the only thing that might be an exception - Glenn disagrees, but I suspect cutting the bridge across the Dnieper was a bare minimum requirement to retake Kherson, and HIMARS was the only thing the ZSU had with the reach. But F-35s exist in large numbers - nearly a thousand for all users, with sometimes 100-150 produced per year (there is a current hold on production I think due to delays in Tech Refresh 3, a major processor and software upgrade).

I find the reasons, sounded so many times, for almost two years now, quite self serving.

Europe is supposedly allocated untold billions, so $5-6 blns in jets/training/support/munitions is not a huge sum.  Washington already as crossed many red lines, but was reluctant to provide few hundred M1s?

Either they are generally afraid Rus go nuclear (in UA) and according to your much earlier statements:

1. They are not afraid of this escalation 

2. Would benefit West anyway

OR

there is something else here.

P.S.

Even if one buys reluctance re: F-35, (although if they operate beyond the lines - how would they get recovered by Rus?)  what about providing 5-600 M1s and 1500 M2s?

Also I was suggesting at least 2 full squadrons, like 48 a/c, so not "a small amount of wunderwaffe" and Rus allegedly did try their much, much, much scarce Su-57s in this war.

 

Edited December 6, 2023 by Strannik

[glenn239]

22 minutes ago, Strannik said:

I find the reasons, sounded so many times, fir almost two years now, quite self serving.

Europe is supposedly allocated untold billions, so $5-6 blns in jets/training/support/munitions is not a huge sum.  Washington already as crossed many red lines, but was reluctant to pool provide few hundred M1s?

I think on the M1's they were afraid that they'd get plinked for bad PR, like happened to the Leopards.  With the F-35's, all sorts of logistical support issues, but the main miilitary concern is (a)  that they'd get smeared by missile and drone attacks on the ground and (b) that after that it could be open season on F-35's sitting on any tarmac anywhere in the world outside North America.  

The Americans have zero latitude for F-35 losses right now.  They are in a production war with the Chinese J-20's and soon J-31's.  If they started supplying them to Ukraine, they might actually go into short gains or even a net loss on production year on year right at the moment where the Chinese are pushing through 150 or 200 builds.

Edited December 6, 2023 by glenn239