Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine (/thread-23071.html)

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Treefence - 12-17-2022

Goose, question for you on the Patriot AD news and the Lend-Lease act. Cut the US theoretically lend Ukraine multiple batteries of Patriot Missiles systems, and only count the missiles used towards the allocation, with the expectation that the batteries of systems would be returned at the end of the war?  I ask because there is a finite amount of money the US allocates to actual military draw downs for Ukraine, I think in the most recent 40 billion dollar allocation, less than 10 billion went to actual military equipment for Ukraine.  Given a Patriot Missile system battery is about a billion dollars, and each missile is 3 million, that would take a significant portion of the budget.  

While some equipment is much more prone to being destroyed in battle, I'd guess the destruction of an actual Patriot Missile battery would be far less likely.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 12-17-2022

(12-17-2022, 11:06 AM)Treefence Wrote:  Goose, question for you on the Patriot AD news and the Lend-Lease act. Cut the US theoretically lend Ukraine multiple batteries of Patriot Missiles systems, and only count the missiles used towards the allocation, with the expectation that the batteries of systems would be returned at the end of the war?  I ask because there is a finite amount of money the US allocates to actual military draw downs for Ukraine, I think in the most recent 40 billion dollar allocation, less than 10 billion went to actual military equipment for Ukraine.  Given a Patriot Missile system battery is about a billion dollars, and each missile is 3 million, that would take a significant portion of the budget.

I am pretty sure that the administration intends (on paper) to do exactly that. Don't count the battery as a "gift" but rather a "lend". Of course, Congress could raise a fuss about that if they wanted to, no matter what the literal interpretation of the law is. Doubt they will. 

Quote:While some equipment is much more prone to being destroyed in battle, I'd guess the destruction of an actual Patriot Missile battery would be far less likely.

Certainly the total destruction of the battery is improbable. The destruction of the radar is the most probable loss if anything. Ukraine will of course need to move the components of the battery around, as they do their S-300s. I would expect the only AN/MPQ-65A in all of Ukraine would become a missile magnet. The Patriot may spend lots of time defending itself. Of course, that would require Russia to mount a bit of a SEAD effort, which we really haven't seen.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Maple Leaf - 12-17-2022

How Putin’s War in Ukraine Became a Catastrophe for Russia - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

This article may be behind the paywall.  Excellent history up to this point.  Does talk about how unprepared the Russian pilots were at the start of the war.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - 81alum - 12-17-2022

(12-17-2022, 01:02 PM)Maple Leaf Wrote:  How Putin’s War in Ukraine Became a Catastrophe for Russia - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

This article may be behind the paywall.  Excellent history up to this point.  Does talk about how unprepared the Russian pilots were at the start of the war.

Yes, I would recommend it too, though the bulk of the article focused, I thought, on the early revelations of Russian corruption, incompetence, and decay.  It seemed to suggest, however, that not a lot has changed--the rot is just too deep, so Russian hopes to reform its military and to start performing better doesn't seem that plausible.

I sometimes think that Americans just don't fully understand the horrific consequences of endemic corruption--but the Russian military is now a vivid example. 

Thank goodness for Russian corruption--and the tunnel-vision of its myopic leadership.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Mick - 12-17-2022

(12-17-2022, 04:38 PM)81alum Wrote:  

(12-17-2022, 01:02 PM)Maple Leaf Wrote:  How Putin’s War in Ukraine Became a Catastrophe for Russia - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

This article may be behind the paywall.  Excellent history up to this point.  Does talk about how unprepared the Russian pilots were at the start of the war.

Yes, I would recommend it too, though the bulk of the article focused, I thought, on the early revelations of Russian corruption, incompetence, and decay.  It seemed to suggest, however, that not a lot has changed--the rot is just too deep, so Russian hopes to reform its military and to start performing better doesn't seem that plausible.

I sometimes think that Americans just don't fully understand the horrific consequences of endemic corruption--but the Russian military is now a vivid example. 

Thank goodness for Russian corruption--and the tunnel-vision of its myopic leadership.

I wonder how that endemic corruption has affected their nuclear program. Also wonder how corruption in the Chinese system has affected China.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 12-17-2022

(12-17-2022, 04:38 PM)81alum Wrote:  Yes, I would recommend it too, though the bulk of the article focused, I thought, on the early revelations of Russian corruption, incompetence, and decay.  It seemed to suggest, however, that not a lot has changed--the rot is just too deep, so Russian hopes to reform its military and to start performing better doesn't seem that plausible.



I sometimes think that Americans just don't fully understand the horrific consequences of endemic corruption--but the Russian military is now a vivid example. 

I agree that we in the US at least don't understand the corrosive effects of corruption on all of society. However, I am also pretty sure we under-estimate how well some societies adapt to their cultural endemic corruption. Russia can still put men into space, launch deep diving submarines, and build nuclear weapons. They still develop very capable systems that are held together with bailing wire. We in the US would never consider trusting such a lash up, but the Russians can make it work (mostly). That makes it extremely difficult to figure out what they are actually capable of doing. We can't apply our standards.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 12-18-2022

Difference between HiMARS and ATACAMS is the possibility of it being aimed at Russian territory. I think the Us could have extracted a promise, that Ukraine would have kept, to only use it for Russian troops in Ukraine, but Russia might not have viewed it that way.

It’s not where I would have drawn the line, but there is a rational line to be drawn.

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 12-18-2022

(12-18-2022, 09:13 AM)BostonCard Wrote:  Difference between HiMARS and ATACAMS is the possibility of it being aimed at Russian territory. I think the Us could have extracted a promise, that Ukraine would have kept, to only use it for Russian troops in Ukraine, but Russia might not have viewed it that way.

It’s not where I would have drawn the line, but there is a rational line to be drawn.

BC

Actually BC, the HIMARS can easily reach Russian territory from lots of places in the Ukraine, particularly in the North. The Ukrainians can also throw rocks across it. The distinction is that the number of "major" military targets inside Russia proper that HIMARS can reach is pretty limited, while with ATACMS it is much less limited. It is indeed a matter of degree, but if Ukraine wanted to gratuitously piss of the US by firing HIMARS into some Russian towns, they could do it. Obviously, that would be insane on their part.

Sadly, I think our unwillingness to provide ATACMS to Russia is driven by the fact the President said we weren't going to do so early on in the war. Once he said that, doing so would be arguably "dishonest". The Russians would certainly look at it that way and would play it that way. I think we have convinced ourselves we can't go back on this "pledge", even though that undoubtedly was not what was intended by the statement at the time.

If we can get JDAMs to work in Ukraine, that may actually be better than ATACMS in that larger (2000 lb) "warheads" can be delivered onto Russian strong points/fortifications. We also have a much bigger stockpile of bombs than we do ATACMS. We can also make more of them much easier. All in all, I would take that alternative if we can execute it rapidly. The US has stated that the launchers delivered to Ukraine have been "modified" so they can't launch ATACMS. I strongly suspect that was a software modification that is easily reversed. Giving Ukraine ATACMS would be "easy", but it appears we simply aren't going to to it. I have some hope for JDAMS as an effective alternative. I would REALLY like to see SLAM-ERs. I think that would make Ukraine very happy and Russia very mad, so that probably isn't going to happen.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - gocard14 - 12-18-2022

(12-18-2022, 11:28 AM)Goose Wrote:  

(12-18-2022, 09:13 AM)BostonCard Wrote:  Difference between HiMARS and ATACAMS is the possibility of it being aimed at Russian territory. I think the Us could have extracted a promise, that Ukraine would have kept, to only use it for Russian troops in Ukraine, but Russia might not have viewed it that way.

It’s not where I would have drawn the line, but there is a rational line to be drawn.

BC

Actually BC, the HIMARS can easily reach Russian territory from lots of places in the Ukraine, particularly in the North. The Ukrainians can also throw rocks across it. The distinction is that the number of "major" military targets inside Russia proper that HIMARS can reach is pretty limited, while with ATACMS it is much less limited. It is indeed a matter of degree, but if Ukraine wanted to gratuitously piss of the US by firing HIMARS into some Russian towns, they could do it. Obviously, that would be insane on their part.

Sadly, I think our unwillingness to provide ATACMS to Russia is driven by the fact the President said we weren't going to do so early on in the war. Once he said that, doing so would be arguably "dishonest". The Russians would certainly look at it that way and would play it that way. I think we have convinced ourselves we can't go back on this "pledge", even though that undoubtedly was not what was intended by the statement at the time.

If we can get JDAMs to work in Ukraine, that may actually be better than ATACMS in that larger (2000 lb) "warheads" can be delivered onto Russian strong points/fortifications. We also have a much bigger stockpile of bombs than we do ATACMS. We can also make more of them much easier. All in all, I would take that alternative if we can execute it rapidly. The US has stated that the launchers delivered to Ukraine have been "modified" so they can't launch ATACMS. I strongly suspect that was a software modification that is easily reversed. Giving Ukraine ATACMS would be "easy", but it appears we simply aren't going to to it. I have some hope for JDAMS as an effective alternative. I would REALLY like to see SLAM-ERs. I think that would make Ukraine very happy and Russia very mad, so that probably isn't going to happen.

With JDAMs, because it is a glider the range is dependent on the altitude of the launch vehicle correct? My fear would be that since Ukrainian aircraft are limited to low altitudes and at or behind the frontlines due to AA this would keep them from launching JDAM bombs with sufficient range to be as impactful.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 12-18-2022

(12-18-2022, 12:24 PM)gocard14 Wrote:  With JDAMs, because it is a glider the range is dependent on the altitude of the launch vehicle correct? My fear would be that since Ukrainian aircraft are limited to low altitudes and at or behind the frontlines due to AA this would keep them from launching JDAM bombs with sufficient range to be as impactful.

It is dependent on the altitude and speed. Your concern is legitimate. However, it is possible to conduct a zoom climb, launch the JDAM, and head for the deck. This makes the targeting by an S-400 or equivalent problematic (but not impossible). If it was a US operation, it would be preceded by HARM equipped aircraft making a similar maneuver. That in the past has caused the threat radars to be reluctant to operate for a while, even if the HARMs don't hit anything. The JDAM aircraft can also carry HARMS if that package is chosen. This approach works best if the illuminating site loses it's nerve. Of course, that mostly works if the site detects the HARM launch, which they often don't. It is hard to hit a radar with a HARM while you are watching your JDAM display count down to a feasible launch solution. It has been done however.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - M T - 12-18-2022

(12-18-2022, 11:28 AM)Goose Wrote:  Sadly, I think our unwillingness to provide ATACMS to Russia is driven by the fact the President said we weren't going to do so early on in the war. Once he said that, doing so would be arguably "dishonest". The Russians would certainly look at it that way and would play it that way. I think we have convinced ourselves we can't go back on this "pledge", even though that undoubtedly was not what was intended by the statement at the time.

Unless there was some specific agreement such as "No nukes = no ATACMS" (which might be politically sensitive if it became public), it would be very easy to say, "Because of the evidence of war crimes against the citizens of Ukraine and the ongoing attack against the civilian power infrastructure, the US has reluctantly decided to remove the restrictions.  We simply can not stand by and watch these barbaric attacks launched from with Russia."

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 12-18-2022

(12-18-2022, 12:51 PM)M T Wrote:  

(12-18-2022, 11:28 AM)Goose Wrote:  Sadly, I think our unwillingness to provide ATACMS to Russia is driven by the fact the President said we weren't going to do so early on in the war. Once he said that, doing so would be arguably "dishonest". The Russians would certainly look at it that way and would play it that way. I think we have convinced ourselves we can't go back on this "pledge", even though that undoubtedly was not what was intended by the statement at the time.

Unless there was some specific agreement such as "No nukes = no ATACMS" (which might be politically sensitive if it became public), it would be very easy to say, "Because of the evidence of war crimes against the citizens of Ukraine and the ongoing attack against the civilian power infrastructure, the US has reluctantly decided to remove the restrictions.  We simply can not stand by and watch these barbaric attacks launched from with Russia."

That might be reasonable if the ATACMS could stop, or even hinder, those attacks. It can't. The range isn't near long enough. It can destroy Russian logistics inside the occupied territories. That is where it mostly can be useful anyway. Almost noplace in Ukraine would be "safe" from such attacks.

UPDATE: Just to illustrate the above point. The following is from the ISW situation report from 16 December.

Quote:Ukrainian Commander-in-Chief General Valery Zaluzhny stated that Ukrainian air defenses shot down 60 of 76 Russian missiles, of which 72 were cruise missiles of the Kh-101, Kalibr, and Kh-22 types, and four guided missiles of the Kh-59 and Kh-31P types.

Ukrainian military officials noted that Russian forces launched most of their missiles from the Black and Caspian seas and the Engels airfield in Saratov Oblast.

Engels is about 300 miles from the Ukrainian border. The others are further. Obviously, none of those locations are in ATACMS range.

The more capable Russian cruise missiles have very long range capabilities. The cheap Iranian drones can be launched from anywhere and don't require infrastructure. There are a few worthwhile targets near Ukraine whose destruction would help a lot. However, at this point even these targets are slightly out of range. The Kerch bridge is probably 40 km too far from Ukrainian controlled territory. Rostov-on-Don is even further. Since Ukraine resorting to attacking the civilian Russian infrastructure is not an option, ATACMS has no role to play in stopping the current Russian attacks.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 12-18-2022

The situation in Belarus is pretty opaque, but it could be a flash point for a wider war. I think it is pretty clear that Lukashenko does not want to become involved in the war. He has let Russia use his country as a staging ground to attack Ukraine, but probably only to prevent Russia from attacking him. It is not clear what Russia wants either. It is probable that the Belarusian government would permit Russia to attack Ukraine from Belarus, but as happened the first time, they would not get full cooperation from the Belarusian population. It is also possible that Putin wants to tap in to the Belarusian army as a source of manpower.

If Russia attempts to get Belarus to supply troops for an attack on Ukraine, it is very probable it will start a civil war in Belarus. Lukashenko knows this and wants no part of it. He is using the threat of becoming "The next Ukraine" to keep his people in line. However, once it becomes clear that Lukashenko can't protect them from Russia and that Russia is calling the shots, lots of Belarusian will fight against the government. This will create a refugee flood into Poland and Lithuania immediately. If I were a rebel in Belarus, I would do my best to land some fire on Poland and Lithuania in order to get NATO involved. Both Poland and Lithuania don't want Russia on their border. Belarus under Lukashenko is bad enough. A full Russian takeover is much worse. I wouldn't be surprised if they took advantage of a Belarusian provocation to willingly get involved.

Hopefully, Putin is smart enough to realize trying to use Belarusian troops is going to cause him more trouble than it would be worth. However, it has been clear for quite a few years that Russia under Putin expects to absorb Belarus sooner or later. Putin may want sooner because his rose colored glasses see a quick fix for his personnel shortcomings. Instead it will at best produce a civil war in Belarus and possibly NATO involvement in the resulting mess. Lets hope that doesn't happen.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 12-20-2022

Interesting article about the target acquisition tech that the Ukrainians have gotten from the West to use against the Russians:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/12/19/palantir-algorithm-data-ukraine-war/

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 12-20-2022

https://www.yahoo.com/news/russian-fighter-jets-struggling-ukraine-230700296.html

This article sheds some light on the state of the Ukrainian air effort and Russia's ability to counter it. Given the range of the Russian air to air missiles, it is quite possible that in many cases the Russian air can stay in Russian airspace and still be a threat. It is also probable that Russia is well stocked with these missiles.

This is another case where the ROE are IMO going to have to change. For Ukraine to actually defend themselves, Russian aircraft and bases that launch missiles of any kind into Ukraine can't simply be off limits. NATO is going to need to address that point internally, because if things remain as they are, the only way Ukraine expels the Russians is regime change in Russia. That is a tall order. Taking back Crimea might do it, but I am not sure anything else would.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 12-21-2022

The Patriot battery is unlikely to arrive before Spring per articles today about the announced delivery.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Treefence - 12-21-2022

Details on the packages that will be announced today, these are two different packages, presidential draw down is the first list, and the second is USAI.  I think in the past, USAI typically is more of a longer term delivery, most likely this means the US is subsidizing former eastern block countries who are going to start producing soviet era munitions. The nice part about this means more Ukrainian weapons will be utilized continually.  I believe the US is also set to announce a new aid package that'll be included in the budget likely signed today, in tandem with Zelensky meeting with Biden and late congress.   

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 12-21-2022

Goose, did you author this one?

https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2022/12/20/is-russia-running-out-of-ammunition

Quote:William Owen, a former soldier and now editor of Military Strategy Magazine, warns against such rosy calculations. Even if some Russian shells are duds, plenty will work. “You will never go wrong by assuming the Russians have the ammunition they judge they need,” he says. To do otherwise is “utterly pointless and stupidly dangerous.”■

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 12-21-2022

(12-21-2022, 07:29 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  Goose, did you author this one?

https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2022/12/20/is-russia-running-out-of-ammunition

Quote:William Owen, a former soldier and now editor of Military Strategy Magazine, warns against such rosy calculations. Even if some Russian shells are duds, plenty will work. “You will never go wrong by assuming the Russians have the ammunition they judge they need,” he says. To do otherwise is “utterly pointless and stupidly dangerous.”■

BC

No, I would never say something was "stupidly dangerous". That could offend all kinds of people :-). If I was quoting somebody, I would have for sure included [sic].

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - newguy - 12-22-2022

the Kuznetsov has caught fire again.
https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/russias-sole-aircraft-carrier-catches-fire-95701155

---