War in Ukraine, technical and military aspects only

[Roman Alymov]

Missile strike (?) on railway bridge over Kurakhovo water reservoir https://t.me/milinfolive/119433

P.S. Even "guardians" are asking "why only now"

"IN KURAKHOVO, A RAILWAY BRIDGE WAS DESTROYED, THROUGH WHICH AID FOR THE ARMED FORCES OF UKRAINE WAS PASSING

That is, our year-and-a-half battle in Marinka has passed, we are making our way to Kurakhovo through Georgievka, we are fighting there, for the possibility of passage to this large railway node of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, storming Krasnogorovka, the battle for Ugledar has been going on for a long time, there was a heavy reflection of the offensive of the Armed Forces of Ukraine on the Veremevsky ledge. And all this time, supply to the enemy, with whom we fought and are fighting in these directions, went through the railway to Kurakhovo. And we have just broken this bridge.

Most likely, I don't understand a lot, it's okay, I'm a reporter, not the General Staff. But I have a question: why was the bridge broken only now? By the way, we have asked the question at the highest level before: why don't we hit Kurakhovo?

I'm not arguing, there are probably important circumstances that I can't know about. But on the surface, it's so simple: the enemy draws strength through Kurakhovo, but it's not being blown to smithereens. Interesting, isn't it? Why? And now we've broken the bridge. Why was it destroyed?" ( https://t.me/Sladkov_plus/10126 )

Edited March 31 by Roman Alymov

[Markus Becker]

3 hours ago, KV7 said:

Isn't there a problem in that wheeled SPG can be in less locations, so in theory they should be easier to locate?

How much less? I assume the difference is smaller than 50 years ago because a lot of them popped up after 2000. 

[Ssnake]

4 hours ago, KV7 said:

Isn't there a problem in that wheeled SPG can be in less locations, so in theory they should be easier to locate?

I don't think so. 90% of all travel of tracked SPHs would probably still be done on roads. And the extra range of a gun with 70km reach will give you more positioning options. You might not be able to set up a firing location in a remote place, but you probably wouldn't have to, either.

Going from 50km to 70km distance doesn't increase the number of possible firing positions by 40%, it nearly doubles them.

[Mike1158]

IMOHO, the wheeled guns turned up for other than operational reasons.  I must admit to wondering why SPG were/have been based of MBT rather than APC base but you pay the money to have an option I suppose.

[Ssnake]

We have tracked SPHs because we wanted to retain tactical mobility for our armored SPHs. We wanted armored SPHs because we expected a lot of effective counterbattery fire.

If an SPH can evade counterbattery fire because it can execute fire missions fast enough, and setup times are short enough, a wheeled platform is probably a lot more economical to operate, as long as those basic assuptions remain valid.

In the drone age, you'd have to pair them with an effective air defense shield. If you can do that, and the system is nimble, I suppose the balance tips in favor of the wheeled platform.

[glenn239]

20 hours ago, Josh said:

Perhaps, but them feeling that way does not make it so. How many Su-57s are operational? Because last I checked, they were outnumbered by F-35 by a factor 10:1, if you ignore the F-22s.

Wiki says 22 SU-57's are operational with 15-20 more expected in 2024.  If the SU-27 family of aircraft drops in production going forward, I see claims that SU-57 production could surpass 40 per year.  The J-20 is now over 100 units per year and accelerating to the clear intention of exceeding US production, and the F-35 production should be about 160.

That being said, how many F-35's do the Ukrainians have?  That's what the Russians are building against.

Edited March 31 by glenn239

[glenn239]

4 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Going from 50km to 70km distance doesn't increase the number of possible firing positions by 40%, it nearly doubles them.

I think the fundamental problem is that the drones are increasing their search, range and strike capacities much faster than artillery can increase its range.

[Josh]

9 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

I think the fundamental problem is that the drones are increasing their search, range and strike capacities much faster than artillery can increase its range.

The overwhelming number of UAV kills are still probably <20km. The lancets maybe out range tubed artillery but not rocket artillery, and the time it takes them to reach say 40km is vastly greater. If both sides had no shortage of precise artillery, UAV losses would be almost lost in the noise.

[old_goat]

I think truck mounted artillery only makes sense if it is fixed on a specialized, offroad vehicle, best example is the Archer. Most military trucks are NOT offroad vehicles, their looks is deceiving. In dry conditions, they are more or less acceptable, but after some rain, they become like beached whales. Construction industry learned this a long time ago, militaries should follow. It is a pity that often the seeming advantage of being cheaper is more important for those who make decisions. 

[seahawk]

What kills the target does not matter, the problem is that you now get a dense recce coverage up to 50km behind the frontline. If you kill the target with a drone, a rocket or a shell does not make a difference. What makes the difference is that the target can now be detected with no manned airborne asset in the area.

[sunday]

54 minutes ago, old_goat said:

I think truck mounted artillery only makes sense if it is fixed on a specialized, offroad vehicle, best example is the Archer. Most military trucks are NOT offroad vehicles, their looks is deceiving. In dry conditions, they are more or less acceptable, but after some rain, they become like beached whales. Construction industry learned this a long time ago, militaries should follow. It is a pity that often the seeming advantage of being cheaper is more important for those who make decisions. 

I wonder if real off-road wheeled machinery with the needed load capacity to mount 155mm artillery or greater could be built within the limits of a standard railroad loading gauge.

[old_goat]

31 minutes ago, sunday said:

I wonder if real off-road wheeled machinery with the needed load capacity to mount 155mm artillery or greater could be built within the limits of a standard railroad loading gauge.

I already mentioned one, the Archer. It was built on a Volvo A30 articulated hauler. It is 2954mm wide. It can easily carry any gun, it has a payload of 29 tons. I think this chassis is far superior to anything in the world currently used for mounting artillery guns. Its only drawback is that it is a bit slow, although easily comparable to any tracked system. 

 

Edited March 31 by old_goat

[sunday]

12 minutes ago, old_goat said:

I already mentioned one, the Archer. It was built on a Volvo A30 articulated hauler. It is 2954mm wide. It can easily carry any gun, it has a payload of 29 tons. I think this chassis is far superior to anything in the world currently used for mounting artillery guns. Its only drawback is that it is a bit slow, although easily comparable to any tracked system. 

 

As a SPG the Archer has some limitations, in horizontal traverse for instance. Furthermore, it seems the future orders for the Swedish Army will be on a more traditional, Rheinmetall 8x8 truck.

[old_goat]

7 minutes ago, sunday said:

As a SPG the Archer has some limitations, in horizontal traverse for instance. Furthermore, it seems the future orders for the Swedish Army will be on a more traditional, Rheinmetall 8x8 truck.

Yes, MAN HX2 if I remember correctly. It will be a step back, since the HX2 has relatively poor offroad capabilities. Just a side note, in the hungarian army there were some "unofficial" offroad tests with the Rába H14/18/25, (locally modified variants of HX2) and it turned out they are no match for the old soviet Ural and Kraz trucks in hard conditions. 

[crazyinsane105]

3 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Wiki says 22 SU-57's are operational with 15-20 more expected in 2024.  If the SU-27 family of aircraft drops in production going forward, I see claims that SU-57 production could surpass 40 per year.  The J-20 is now over 100 units per year and accelerating to the clear intention of exceeding US production, and the F-35 production should be about 160.

That being said, how many F-35's do the Ukrainians have?  That's what the Russians are building against.

That’s very optimistic thinking on Su-57 production. Unless there is significant interchangeability between Su/27/30/35 and 57, halting production for one doesn’t necessarily mean an increase of production for another. Su-57 seems to be a completely brand new aircraft, and setting up an actual production line for it has challenged the Russians even before the war. 

[RETAC21]

2 hours ago, seahawk said:

What kills the target does not matter, the problem is that you now get a dense recce coverage up to 50km behind the frontline. If you kill the target with a drone, a rocket or a shell does not make a difference. What makes the difference is that the target can now be detected with no manned airborne asset in the area.

I think you are rounding up by a bit. In a mobile battlefield, small drones are not an issue.

[Josh]

17 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

I think you are rounding up by a bit. In a mobile battlefield, small drones are not an issue.

Although on the other hand, we might have to recon with the fact that mobile battlefields are harder to achieve now. Concentrating force in space and time is definitely more difficult in this day and age. But I think the more likely scenario is that warfare gets ever more one sided - given two roughly comparable armies, the side with the superior ISR and communication links is going to exact disproportionate casualties. Even moderate superiority in this realm will make things disproportionate, as technology gets ever more advanced, accessible, and even disposable. We already saw this in Azeri-Armenian war. In some cases UAVs were the attack vector, but the greater unbalance was more that one side could monitor the other and put down fire at will, where as the other was fighting blind, relatively speaking.

[seahawk]

26 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

I think you are rounding up by a bit. In a mobile battlefield, small drones are not an issue.

Small drones are always an issue. Try summer in the Ukraine and then compare how far out a commercial drone can see the the dust from approaching tanks and how far out the soldiers in the trenches can see them.

Simple example. You put a cheap commercial drone at 200m above your position and it can see 5-7km behind the enemy lines on a clear day. That alone makes massing forces for an attack a lot more difficult. The drone operators only need to see dust plumes from vehicles converging on a position, they call in a artillery strike and you got a problem. You need to understand those drone operators similar to the FACs in their tiny Cessnas during Vietnam. They soon know the area by heart and any change will attract their interest. And given the terrain in the Ukraine there is no way to move large numbers of troops without leaving signs of that activity.

[RETAC21]

15 minutes ago, Josh said:

Although on the other hand, we might have to recon with the fact that mobile battlefields are harder to achieve now. Concentrating force in space and time is definitely more difficult in this day and age. But I think the more likely scenario is that warfare gets ever more one sided - given two roughly comparable armies, the side with the superior ISR and communication links is going to exact disproportionate casualties. Even moderate superiority in this realm will make things disproportionate, as technology gets ever more advanced, accessible, and even disposable. We already saw this in Azeri-Armenian war. In some cases UAVs were the attack vector, but the greater unbalance was more that one side could monitor the other and put down fire at will, where as the other was fighting blind, relatively speaking.

This is akin to long range AAMs, all that needs to happen is that the space in which combat happens is much bigger than previously, and more decentralised.

[RETAC21]

3 minutes ago, seahawk said:

Small drones are always an issue. Try summer in the Ukraine and then compare how far out a commercial drone can see the the dust from approaching tanks and how far out the soldiers in the trenches can see them.

Simple example. You put a cheap commercial drone at 200m above your position and it can see 5-7km behind the enemy lines on a clear day. That alone makes massing forces for an attack a lot more difficult. The drone operators only need to see dust plumes from vehicles converging on a position, they call in a artillery strike and you got a problem. You need to understand those drone operators similar to the FACs in their tiny Cessnas during Vietnam. They soon know the area by heart and any change will attract their interest. And given the terrain in the Ukraine there is no way to move large numbers of troops without leaving signs of that activity.

Yes, but all that means is that preparation for an attack needs to be more extensive. Shaping the battlefield needs to be done to a wider depth, so when those guys calling for fire support will be told that too bad, none available.

[Stuart Galbraith]

4 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Wiki says 22 SU-57's are operational with 15-20 more expected in 2024.  If the SU-27 family of aircraft drops in production going forward, I see claims that SU-57 production could surpass 40 per year.  The J-20 is now over 100 units per year and accelerating to the clear intention of exceeding US production, and the F-35 production should be about 160.

That being said, how many F-35's do the Ukrainians have?  That's what the Russians are building against.

They expected 2300 Armatas by 2022. Just saying...

Just because the Chinese know how to produce 5 gen fighters in numbers, it doesn't follow the Russians do. Non sequitur.

The Ukrainians are already outclassed in fighters. They could build 400 Su57s, that won't change. Unless they build a ground attack version of Felon, it's not going to make any difference to the war, because the air war doesn't translate to ground superiority.

What Russia needs is 500 KA50s. It won't get them.

[Roman Alymov]

Video of MT-LB VBIED on pro-Ukr trenches, loication unknown

https://t.me/infomil_live/5320

[Yama]

7 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Wiki says 22 SU-57's are operational with 15-20 more expected in 2024. 

Unlikely, IIRC deliveries in 2022 were only like 5 aircraft and not many more were delivered last year. Also, those aircraft were probably produced using already ordered components, before the sanctions hit.

In addition, those aircraft in service may not have all systems completely operational (or even fitted). F-35 fleet certainly flew around several years with several subsystems incomplete.

[crazyinsane105]

9 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

They expected 2300 Armatas by 2022. Just saying...

Just because the Chinese know how to produce 5 gen fighters in numbers, it doesn't follow the Russians do. Non sequitur.

The Ukrainians are already outclassed in fighters. They could build 400 Su57s, that won't change. Unless they build a ground attack version of Felon, it's not going to make any difference to the war, because the air war doesn't translate to ground superiority.

What Russia needs is 500 KA50s. It won't get them.

Armatas are probably achievable in those numbers, if Russia is willing to sacrifice in other areas. Seems like the tank itself is a great idea but too damn expensive, and at this point in the war, unlikely to give them a bigger advantage than an older T-72. Why? Because tanks are being killed mostly by artillery and FPVs, with tank on tank being extremely rare.

I mean, the newly proposed Abram variant wouldn’t make as much difference in the conflict either 

Several hundred Felons on the other hand is another story altogether. It is multirole, not just for air to air. It has internal weapon bays that can store ground ordinance. They’ll be able to fly much further into Ukraine and deliver payloads well beyond enemy lines. Even if the stealth isn’t as great as the F-35 or F-22, it will be good enough against the Soviet AD that is in Ukrainian arsenal. Main issue is that, not only is there a small number in circulation, it’s unlikely they have the necessary avionics and ordinance even ready…I would reckon they are at least a decade away from even that, if not more 

Edited April 1 by crazyinsane105

[Perun]

It seams that they wont send all of them to Ukraine:

 

The government of Argentina signed a letter of intent for the purchase of 24 Danish F-16s on Tuesday, the first major military procurement made under President Javier Millei.

The letter of intent was signed by Argentinian defense minister Luis Alfonso Petri and his Danish counterpart Troels Lund Poulsen in Buenos Aires. 

“I have had an extremely fruitful meeting with my Argentine colleague who has expressed great satisfaction on becoming member of the family of F-16 nations across the globe. The deal has been negotiated in collaboration with the United States,” said Poulsen in a Danish government statement issued after the signing. The statement continued:

“Danish Defence is in the process of replacing its F-16 fleet with new F-35 jets. Denmark is donating 19 F-16 jets to Ukraine, and the government has decided to sell 24 Danish F-16 jets to Argentina. I am therefore very pleased that my Argentine colleague and I today in Buenos Aires have signed a letter of intent on the possible sale.”

https://www.overtdefense.com/2024/03/27/argentina-signs-letter-of-intent-to-purchase-ex-danish-f-16s/