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 - Goose - 04-07-2022

(04-06-2022, 09:41 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  Argentina fired some Exocets from an improvised land based setup during the Falklands, hitting a British destroyer. If the Argentinians could figure it out, I'm certain the Urkainians could.

Thanks, I didn't know about the Argentinians improvising a ground launcher. Of the three MM38 missiles they attempted to launch, one failed to launch, one failed to guide, and one worked. Not a stellar performance, but pretty good for an improvised configuration IMHO.
Argentina had lots of MM38 missiles, had significant training with them, and had used them for years. That is a whole different situation than attempting to improvise a ground launch facility for a missile you are not familiar with, not trained to use, and have no experience with. I am sure that given the same conditions the Ukrainians could improvise a ground launcher, but the conditions are not at all similar.
If we are talking about giving them NATO weapons, which both Exocet and Harpoon are, I would suggest we have the Poles give them some RBS-15 land based launchers. At least we will only be asking the Ukrainians to learn an entire new weapons system and not adding a requirement to design and build a modification on top of that. However, I still believe Soviet origin systems are all they are going to get, FWIW.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Genuine Realist - 04-07-2022

(04-07-2022, 09:48 AM)Goose Wrote:  

(04-06-2022, 09:41 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  Argentina fired some Exocets from an improvised land based setup during the Falklands, hitting a British destroyer. If the Argentinians could figure it out, I'm certain the Urkainians could.

Thanks, I didn't know about the Argentinians improvising a ground launcher. Of the three MM38 missiles they attempted to launch, one failed to launch, one failed to guide, and one worked. Not a stellar performance, but pretty good for an improvised configuration IMHO.
Argentina had lots of MM38 missiles, had significant training with them, and had used them for years. That is a whole different situation than attempting to improvise a ground launch facility for a missile you are not familiar with, not trained to use, and have no experience with. I am sure that given the same conditions the Ukrainians could improvise a ground launcher, but the conditions are not at all similar.
If we are talking about giving them NATO weapons, which both Exocet and Harpoon are, I would suggest we have the Poles give them some RBS-15 land based launchers. At least we will only be asking the Ukrainians to learn an entire new weapons system and not adding a requirement to design and build a modification on top of that. However, I still believe Soviet origin systems are all they are going to get, FWIW.

Just want to thank all the posters here with weapons and military knowledge. Very interesting.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Phogge - 04-07-2022

Hey GR, does that hybrid Bootleg far right forum still exist. I need some laughs but I can’t remember it’s name.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 04-07-2022

Ukrainians still operating BTR infantry fighting vehicles in Mariupol, in areas thought to be controlled by Russia for weeks. This is the second video I have seen of Ukrainians engaging tanks with outgunned IFVs, and apparently succeeding. Huevos grandes.

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1512134137150427137?s=20&t=ax5eM6lGcP6vt_FoEHguEw[/tweet]

This article was interesting, though of course vague. Just what sort of training US is providing not completely elucidated (nor should it be). If we're sending them Switchblade 600s that haven't even been deployed to US troops yet, perhaps we'll send some other advanced tech like the Norwegian developed Naval Strike Missile which is in limited US deployment. Though sinking the whole Russian Black Sea fleet would perhaps be more capability than the US wants Ukraine to have. Tricky tightrope US/NATO have to walk- if they give them all the goodies and Ukraine is feeling themselves and tries to retake Crimea and the Donbas separatist republics, chances for Russian escalation to tactical nukes goes up too.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/07/us-opens-door-new-weapons-training-ukraine/

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Leftcoast - 04-07-2022

Honest question - How concerned should we be with some of this weapons tech flowing out of Ukrainian hands and into the hands of some of the world's less savory actors?   The potential for some of this tech to be used in terrorism scenarios is chilling.  (SAMs against commercial airliners, anti-ship missiles used against US warships approaching "safe" harbors in San Diego, Seattle, Norfolk, etc).

Not at all saying we shouldn't do this but I am wondering what safeguards ensure these systems don't appear on a post-war black market.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 04-07-2022

Anti ship missiles shouldn't be a proliferation risk. Too big, too much other equipment needed.

MANPADS certainly a risk, but Ukrainian armed forces probably has better custodial tracking on them than the Mujahideen did. They are decentralized compared to other militaries but I don't think they are handing Stingers to the TDF guys- Ukraine operates their own helos and planes and probably would not want to risk losing those assets to friendly fire, so probably only distributing to regular, well trained soldiers.

Same thing with the Switchblade drones. Only actual Ukrainian units, and probably mostly their best units, will be getting the relatively limited number of those.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 04-07-2022

(04-07-2022, 04:20 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  Anti ship missiles shouldn't be a proliferation risk. Too big, too much other equipment needed.

MANPADS certainly a risk, but Ukrainian armed forces probably has better custodial tracking on them than the Mujahideen did. They are decentralized compared to other militaries but I don't think they are handing Stingers to the TDF guys- Ukraine operates their own helos and planes and probably would not want to risk losing those assets to friendly fire, so probably only distributing to regular, well trained soldiers.

Same thing with the Switchblade drones. Only actual Ukrainian units, and probably mostly their best units, will be getting the relatively limited number of those.

I'm a lay person, but can we not just put an AirTag on the weapons systems?  :-)

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 04-07-2022

(04-07-2022, 05:04 PM)TrumpCard Wrote:  

(04-07-2022, 04:20 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  Anti ship missiles shouldn't be a proliferation risk. Too big, too much other equipment needed.

MANPADS certainly a risk, but Ukrainian armed forces probably has better custodial tracking on them than the Mujahideen did. They are decentralized compared to other militaries but I don't think they are handing Stingers to the TDF guys- Ukraine operates their own helos and planes and probably would not want to risk losing those assets to friendly fire, so probably only distributing to regular, well trained soldiers.

Same thing with the Switchblade drones. Only actual Ukrainian units, and probably mostly their best units, will be getting the relatively limited number of those.

I'm a lay person, but can we not just put an AirTag on the weapons systems?  :-)

It seems there are people here with experience in the area. If they were at liberty to discuss I'd be curious if there is any remote tracking or disabling ability. I imagine there are good reasons you wouldn't want that, say some bad actor with good electronic warfare capability tracking your forces or shutting off your weapons.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Softball Fan - 04-07-2022

(04-07-2022, 03:59 PM)Leftcoast Wrote:  Honest question - How concerned should we be with some of this weapons tech flowing out of Ukrainian hands and into the hands of some of the world's less savory actors?   The potential for some of this tech to be used in terrorism scenarios is chilling.  (SAMs against commercial airliners, anti-ship missiles used against US warships approaching "safe" harbors in San Diego, Seattle, Norfolk, etc).

Not at all saying we shouldn't do this but I am wondering what safeguards ensure these systems don't appear on a post-war black market.

That’s a good point and should be part of NATO calculations.  I don’t know what weapons and technology are in Ukraine right now.  I suspect it will be ramped up as the war drags on.

The best and most recent comparison is the exit from Afghanistan leaving the Taliban in charge.  The United States left aircraft including UH-60 Black Hawks, scout attack helicopters, and ScanEagle military drones.  Also 2,000 armored vehicles, a variety of intelligence gathering drones, state-of-the-art night-vision goggles, and a wide array of communication gear.  Because the supplies to the Afghans was not closely monitored and inventoried there is undoubtedly a bunch more equipment in the hands of the Taliban.

Hopefully the Pentagon learned from this and takes some preventative measures with the possibility looming the Russians, while stumbling now, could eventually take over a large portion of Ukraine and get the spoils of war.   Also there are contract soldiers involved who probably wouldn't shy away from the idea of making a profit off of captured equipment.

Is it possible U.S. intelligence could fail as badly as in the final stages of the Afghan war?  IMO it’s not likely with so much social media and news organizations embedded in Ukraine.

Edit: Corrected spelling of goggles. Should have spell checked.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 04-07-2022

(04-07-2022, 05:41 PM)paloalto Wrote:  The best and most recent comparison is the exit from Afghanistan leaving the Taliban in charge.  The United States left aircraft including UH-60 Black Hawks, scout attack helicopters, and ScanEagle military drones.  Also 2,000 armored vehicles, a variety of intelligence gathering drones, state-of-the-art night-vision googles, and a wide array of communication gear.  Because the supplies to the Afghans was not closely monitored and inventoried there is undoubtedly a bunch more equipment in the hands of the Taliban.

I get that 2,000 armored vehicles would be difficult to transport.  Really awful to have them in enemy hands, but I can understand how events on the ground might overtake planning for removal of that equipment.  I have a lot more trouble understanding some of the other "spoils" you mentioned.  For example, why would we not simply have a remote operator attempt to fly the drones out of hostile territory?  Is there any downside?  OTOH, I'm not too worried about "googles" getting into enemy hands.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - fullmetal - 04-07-2022

I am not jazzed at the idea that neo-Nazis of all nationalities (USA included) fighting for Ukrainian independence are getting their hands on this equipment, but I hope the DoD has planned for this.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 04-07-2022

There is really nothing that can be done to prevent a Ukrainian from transferring a Switchblade drone to a third party who will pay very well for it. It is just a risk that we take when we hand out such things. The training manuals are also valuable. There may be (I have no idea, I am conjecturing here) some kind of crypto update that has to be performed periodically or they quit working. That might mean that in six months they don't work any more, but the real danger is the knowledge to be gained by reverse engineering them.
Things like the Javelin have been in Russian hands for so long it is old news. We have to consider anything we deploy in the field as probably compromised. It is just real life. Obviously, it flows the other way too. The "interesting" Russian gear ends up in US labs quite quickly as well. The control unit for their battlefield ESM/EA system controller probably has been at NSA for several weeks by now, unless we already had one. Certainly that hypersonic missile that supposedly failed and crashed in Ukraine is by now being exploited for all it's worth.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - fullmetal - 04-07-2022

The Su-35S shot down and publicized few days ago (as per Twitter) was equipped with L-265M10P/R electronic countermeasures pods that should be of interest to US intelligence.

https://theaviationist.com/2022/04/03/first-russian-su-35s-flanker-e-confirmed-destroyed-in-ukraine/

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 04-07-2022

(04-07-2022, 03:59 PM)Leftcoast Wrote:  Honest question - How concerned should we be with some of this weapons tech flowing out of Ukrainian hands and into the hands of some of the world's less savory actors?   The potential for some of this tech to be used in terrorism scenarios is chilling.  (SAMs against commercial airliners, anti-ship missiles used against US warships approaching "safe" harbors in San Diego, Seattle, Norfolk, etc).

Not at all saying we shouldn't do this but I am wondering what safeguards ensure these systems don't appear on a post-war black market.

Do you mean like what happened to Malaysian Airlines flight 17?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 04-07-2022

(04-07-2022, 06:52 PM)fullmetal Wrote:  The Su-35S shot down and publicized few days ago (as per Twitter) was equipped with L-265M10P/R electronic countermeasures pods that should be of interest to US intelligence.

https://theaviationist.com/2022/04/03/first-russian-su-35s-flanker-e-confirmed-destroyed-in-ukraine/

I am sure they will be. Even if damaged they are useful.
One area that has kind of been a "black hole" is what Russia is using for IFF. Supposedly they designed an entire new system in 2014 or so, but whether it was ever actually fielded I don't know. That may mean Russia and Ukraine are actually using the same IFF hardware if the Russians didn't actually replace theirs. Obviously they would be using different codes, but the long history of Russian IFF being compromised may make people nervous. That may account for the Russians not doing as well as expected in the air. Both sides may not trust their IFF that much.
If indeed the Ukrainians have used helicopters to attack oil facilities in Russia, the Russians not using their IFF may account for their lack of prompt response. It may be they assume everything inside Russian airspace is friendly because they really can't tell without IFF, and visually inspecting every aircraft is impossible. Granted the helicopters were probably flying low, but they still should have been detected.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 04-07-2022

Well, if Russia invaded Ukraine because of NATO expansion, it backfired “bigly”.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/pmakela1/status/1512050929553522689?s=21&t=iyvbBdK2AMZm-2309OBp0Q[/tweet]

Welcome to an 830 mile border with NATO.  I wonder if Finland can loan Ukraine some snipers.



BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - cardcrimson - 04-07-2022

(04-07-2022, 11:49 AM)Phogge Wrote:  Hey GR, does that hybrid Bootleg far right forum still exist. I need some laughs but I can’t remember it’s name.

Far right all depends on your perspective, now doesn't it? My former Congressman Tip O'Neill would be far right to many around here. . . .

http://currenteventsboard.com

The folks there would welcome some fresh viewpoints and discussions on political issues. Refreshingly, alternative viewpoints are welcomed, not censored or banned. . . .

---

(04-07-2022, 05:41 PM)paloalto Wrote:  The best and most recent comparison is the exit from Afghanistan leaving the Taliban in charge.  The United States left aircraft including UH-60 Black Hawks, scout attack helicopters, and ScanEagle military drones.  Also 2,000 armored vehicles, a variety of intelligence gathering drones, state-of-the-art night-vision goggles, and a wide array of communication gear.  Because the supplies to the Afghans was not closely monitored and inventoried there is undoubtedly a bunch more equipment in the hands of the Taliban.

Seriously?

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 04-07-2022

(04-07-2022, 08:10 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:  

(04-07-2022, 05:41 PM)paloalto Wrote:  The best and most recent comparison is the exit from Afghanistan leaving the Taliban in charge.  The United States left aircraft including UH-60 Black Hawks, scout attack helicopters, and ScanEagle military drones.  Also 2,000 armored vehicles, a variety of intelligence gathering drones, state-of-the-art night-vision goggles, and a wide array of communication gear.  Because the supplies to the Afghans was not closely monitored and inventoried there is undoubtedly a bunch more equipment in the hands of the Taliban.

Seriously?

Supposedly all the helicopters and drones were rendered not serviceable before we left. How true that is is probably debatable. The equipment we gave to the Afghan state was no longer "ours". We didn't inventory it or issue it to the end users, so we couldn't really monitor it no matter what we did. Probably lots of it got sold to or given to the Taliban long before we left. Fortunately there was nothing there that contained anything real technologically sensitive.
No matter one's politics, there are lots of things that happened during our tenure in Afghanistan that can be questioned and criticized. Keeping in mind the fact there is no subjunctive in history, such analysis can be useful. Probably it will be done and then ignored. One of the frequent "suggestions" voiced is to only enter into military operations when there is a defined set of achievable goals and thus a well-defined exit point. However, history has repeatedly shown us that oftentimes conditions arise where there is a status-quo that is deemed intolerable, even if there is no obvious "solution". NATO is kind of in that situation right now. NATO and the EU really can't let Putin win. If he does, no European nation is safe, and war crimes become meaningless. How does NATO/EU defeat Putin/Russia without widening the war? Further along those lines, accepting the Finns into NATO virtually guaranties Sweden follows. Finland brings a seriously long border with Russia and a threat to the Baltic fleet/Kalingrad. However, given what happened in Ukraine, can NATO even consider not admitting Finland? Day by day NATO military operations in Europe become more probable, even though their is no clear "exit point". The military sometimes apparently does have to fight wars where the end is uncertain.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 04-07-2022

As long as article 5 remains credible, Russia will not attack a NATO member.  However, as soon as there is doubt as to whether nato will aid, say, Estonia were it to be attacked by Russia, that dramatically increases the probability it will happen.

Putin thought that the West would react as it had when he invaded Crimea.  The current Ukrainian war was a major wake-up moment for the alliance, and has majorly backfired on Putin, almost no matter what happens in Ukraine.  He has now gotten NATO allies to spend money on their militaries, is likely leading Finland and Sweden to join NATO, and NATO to station more troops further East than you would have seen in the alternative universe where Putin doesn’t invade.

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 04-07-2022

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2022/apr/07/pink-floyd-reform-to-support-ukraine

Who said nothing good could come of this. That being said, they look every bit their age.

BC

---