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 - Mick - 07-20-2022

(07-20-2022, 03:00 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/07/20/ukraine-fighter-jets/

Looks like jets might be back on the menu.

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/JackDetsch/status/1549803973263212544?s=20&t=d1hYOr2bD1Yq4NW7w-_Csg[/tweet]

Roughly estimating, 16 HIMARS firing continuously (obviously not how they would be used) would exhaust the entire historical production run of GMLRS missiles in about 4 days. In a single day they could fire more missiles than can be produced in a year (if internet numbers can be believed, but even if not correct certainly in the ballpark).

So getting Ukraine more launchers might be good for flexibility and survivability etc, but the number of rockets will be the restriction ultimately. Hopefully production of these rockets is being prioritized.

.....

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/haynesdeborah/status/1549860094774493184?s=20&t=xvVXcnH6i2407ZjOtVbQkA
[/tweet]

I'm sure Ukraine would prefer F16s but if they can find a use for Su-25s, then A-10s could perhaps have a role.

There's probably a fair amount of American military inventory that's aging.  I don't think Fairchild has produced a new Warthog in 35 years or so, haven't they?  Too bad the Ukrainians couldn't get all the military gear we left on the ground in Afghanistan...

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 07-20-2022

Or maybe some newer jets:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/07/20/ukraine-fighter-jets/

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 07-21-2022

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-agrees-to-send-ukraine-more-himars-launchers-weaponry-that-is-taking-a-toll-on-russian-forces-090013303.html
This article summarizes the HIMARS state of play. It covers in one place a summary of the good effects of the HIMARS delivers to Ukrainian prospects. By the end of July Ukraine will have 25 HIMARS/M270 type launchers. They are still saying they need 50 to completely stabilize the front and about 100 to go on the offensive. Probably a bit of want rather than need to some extent, but Ukraine has been consistent in this estimate and there are reasons for it.

ATACMS is discussed but there is nothing "new" here other than the idea of hitting the subsequent railway tunnel instead of the Kerch bridge. Others do share my concern about Russia's reaction to an attack on that bridge, so if the same effect is possible without taking that risk, it is a good alternative.

This article does not address the potential shortfall in replacement rounds for the HIMARS systems. It is evident that the Ukrainians need to "feature" these weapons to an extent much greater than the US forces would to accomplish the same mission. This is caused by the fact the US would use air power to do many of these missions and that option is not available to Ukraine. Arguably, the US did not manufacture adequate stocks of these missiles even for US needs/usage rates, so the increased consumption rate may become a problem. At one time we had a very large number of the cluster munition rockets. As these rockets aged, they were not replaced because the US was trying to get out of the cluster munition business. In my view that policy was and is mistaken, but at the very least these rockets should have been replaced one for one with the newer unitary warhead missiles. They were not, and here we are. I really do hope this issue is being addressed. The US needs to look at future needs in Ukraine which could be substantially higher that they are today as the number of launchers increase and the Ukraine goes on the offensive.

The HIMARS systems do have important limitations. The warheads are not very big compared to say a MK-84 (about 10 to 1). That is fine if you are firing at a target that is not "hardened" and you know exactly where it is. If you are a bit uncertain as to the target location or the target has 15 feet of dirt over it, a single missile likely will not destroy it. As we are seeing they also won't demolish a concrete road bridge in one blow either. To do that you need several hits. If the target is spread out over a fairly large area (say a BTG in laager) a single GMLRS with a unitary warhead may do some damage but will not incapacitate (or really damage much unless it hits an ammunition truck) the unit. An rocket with a cluster munition is much more effective in that case but we don't have many of those anymore. The GMLRS AW/DPICM is available (I think, that program had it's troubles), but does Ukraine have any?

The GMLRS rounds are also subject to GPS jamming. Russia has extensive GPS jamming capabilities. They do work, subject to some caveats. These jammers fall in to two classes, some that cover many km and some that are much more localized. The wide area jammers are large and fairly easy to locate because they transmit lots of power. Obviously, destroying them is a priority but you probably can't use a GPS guided rocket to do it. You need an anti-radiation missile. You also need an aircraft that can get close enough to launch it. I don't think Ukraine has any AARGM-ERs lying around and they certainly don't have aircraft that can launch it if they did.

The "local" ones are a different case. They don't emit enough power to easily be located. Their purpose is to disrupt the GMLRS rounds as they approach "high value" targets and cause near-misses. How well they work I don't know, and probably nobody does really. They are a "niche" thing but if they work (and if they have "enough" of them) Russia will lose fewer Generals.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Treefence - 07-21-2022

https://twitter.com/IAPonomarenko/status/1550097696790306817?s=20&t=B_B5A6kUCXHc4VIIE4hTag

Wow, this is quite a military aid package coming form the UK.  We should get more of these announcements from other countries, this typically happens before and after Ramstein meetings. I'll be honest, given the size of the UK and their military, I'm worried this was more of a summary of items that have been given and will be given, but if it's all new, then this is significant.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 07-21-2022

(07-21-2022, 12:02 PM)Treefence Wrote:  https://twitter.com/IAPonomarenko/status/1550097696790306817?s=20&t=B_B5A6kUCXHc4VIIE4hTag

Wow, this is quite a military aid package coming form the UK.  We should get more of these announcements from other countries, this typically happens before and after Ramstein meetings. I'll be honest, given the size of the UK and their military, I'm worried this was more of a summary of items that have been given and will be given, but if it's all new, then this is significant.

One UK scholar in this area hypothesized that Boris Johnson is doing this on his way out because he's concerned that Dominic Cummings will have influence in the next administration and will back away from support of Ukraine.  Here's part of the commentary on the subject from this morning:  https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1550133172909719556.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Treefence - 07-21-2022

(07-21-2022, 12:12 PM)TrumpCard Wrote:  

(07-21-2022, 12:02 PM)Treefence Wrote:  https://twitter.com/IAPonomarenko/status/1550097696790306817?s=20&t=B_B5A6kUCXHc4VIIE4hTag

Wow, this is quite a military aid package coming form the UK.  We should get more of these announcements from other countries, this typically happens before and after Ramstein meetings. I'll be honest, given the size of the UK and their military, I'm worried this was more of a summary of items that have been given and will be given, but if it's all new, then this is significant.

One UK scholar in this area hypothesized that Boris Johnson is doing this on his way out because he's concerned that Dominic Cummings will have influence in the next administration and will back away from support of Ukraine.  Here's part of the commentary on the subject from this morning:  https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1550133172909719556.

Man I hope not, I was never a big fan for Boris Johnson, but I really appreciated his support for Ukraine, and I know Ukrainians love him.  I really do worry the UK support won't be on the same level, but it is extremely popular in the UK to support Ukraine, so maybe there is hope.  That being said, this is such a brobdingnagian aid package, it might've been more than the UK could've provided Ukraine for a long anyway.  It's France and Germany that really need to step up, Germany in particular.  Given their hand in European energy dependence on Russia, they need to do more.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 07-21-2022

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/jmalsin/status/1550177087687757824?s=20&t=I5_hg3PLCF40R5Q3e0cw8Q[/tweet]

Pretty important news, for the whole world really. Hopefully this goes off smoothly.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 07-21-2022

(07-21-2022, 12:40 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  https://twitter.com/jmalsin/status/1550177087687757824?s=20&t=I5_hg3PLCF40R5Q3e0cw8Q

Pretty important news, for the whole world really. Hopefully this goes off smoothly.

Amen, both the signing of the agreement and the subsequent execution.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - M T - 07-21-2022

(07-21-2022, 12:40 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  [ Grain export treaty signing ]

Pretty important news, for the whole world really. Hopefully this goes off smoothly.

The Turkish leader has been the point on this.  To me, this helps to explain the relative hard-line words re NATO membership.  He needed at least to keep up appearances to Russia until this agreement was signed.

Now, the question is, does he soften his stance?

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 07-21-2022

(07-21-2022, 12:24 PM)Treefence Wrote:  It's France and Germany that really need to step up, Germany in particular.  Given their hand in European energy dependence on Russia, they need to do more.

Sadly, even with total commitment and public support (which are not present) Germany just doesn't have that much to give. They drastically reduced their military to insignificance and as a result bought nothing new. A lot of their previous "stuff" got sold (both to other NATO countries and the rest of the world), so they don't have it any more.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 07-21-2022

(07-21-2022, 12:44 PM)Goose Wrote:  

(07-21-2022, 12:40 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  https://twitter.com/jmalsin/status/1550177087687757824?s=20&t=I5_hg3PLCF40R5Q3e0cw8Q

Pretty important news, for the whole world really. Hopefully this goes off smoothly.

Amen, both the signing of the agreement and the subsequent execution.

Yes, the grain is needed to feed a lot of people.  I guess my question is why people are up in arms over European consumption of Russian natural gas, but they aren't upset that Russia presumably is getting some of the proceeds from the sale of this grain.  People in Europe need the natural gas to not freeze in the winter.  (Oil is a little different because it's used for more non-essential purposes and because it's feasible to transport oil via ships instead of via pipeline, so I understand the desire for unity on boycotting Russian oil and purchasing replacement oil elsewhere.)

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 07-21-2022

(07-21-2022, 12:57 PM)TrumpCard Wrote:  

(07-21-2022, 12:44 PM)Goose Wrote:  

(07-21-2022, 12:40 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  https://twitter.com/jmalsin/status/1550177087687757824?s=20&t=I5_hg3PLCF40R5Q3e0cw8Q



Pretty important news, for the whole world really. Hopefully this goes off smoothly.

Amen, both the signing of the agreement and the subsequent execution.

Yes, the grain is needed to feed a lot of people.  I guess my question is why people are up in arms over European consumption of Russian natural gas, but they aren't upset that Russia presumably is getting some of the proceeds from the sale of this grain.  People in Europe need the natural gas to not freeze in the winter.  (Oil is a little different because it's used for more non-essential purposes and because it's feasible to transport oil via ships instead of via pipeline, so I understand the desire for unity on boycotting Russian oil and purchasing replacement oil elsewhere.)

I think most people don't want Russia to benefit but will tolerate that because allowing Ukraine to export grain is even more critical to Ukraine. They are a poor country whose economy is in shambles due to the war. Any real economic activity is a very big deal for them. The fact that this will feed lots of people is an important "side benefit" that accrues independent of who ships the grain. That allows us all to swallow Russia's getting paid.

As I understand it, Russia can export grain and fertilizer right now. Nothing prevents that. However, they can't get paid for it due to sanctions. This agreement provides a mechanism to allow Russia to be paid. Does that match other's understanding?

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Treefence - 07-21-2022

(07-21-2022, 12:52 PM)Goose Wrote:  

(07-21-2022, 12:24 PM)Treefence Wrote:  It's France and Germany that really need to step up, Germany in particular.  Given their hand in European energy dependence on Russia, they need to do more.

Sadly, even with total commitment and public support (which are not present) Germany just doesn't have that much to give. They drastically reduced their military to insignificance and as a result bought nothing new. A lot of their previous "stuff" got sold (both to other NATO countries and the rest of the world), so they don't have it any more.

Yeah that's what I've been reading, which is pretty incredible considering how big of a country and how high of a GDP they have.  Even if they don't have much more to give, they could at least stop blocking other countries from donating items, which might have just happened, apparently Spain will donate 10 Leopard tanks with the permission of the Germans.  Obviously not a ton, but if we start seeing some other western tanks, that would be helpful.  I know logistically, Abrams tanks might be a nightmare, but given how many the US has in storage, It would be nice to see some of those donated at some point.  

There were rumors that the reason the Canadians gave up the Nord stream part was because Germany threatened to withhold and not allow arms to go to Ukraine.  Who knows if this is true, but if so that's pretty gross.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 07-21-2022

Germany has a heck of a lot more military power than Japan has (i.e. none).  Hopefully both of them will increase defense spending to reduce the burden on the U.S.  They are our allies and have the #3 and #4 largest GDPs in the world.  We can't afford to have both of them on the sidelines anymore.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 07-21-2022

(07-21-2022, 05:36 PM)TrumpCard Wrote:  Germany has a heck of a lot more military power than Japan has (i.e. none).  Hopefully both of them will increase defense spending to reduce the burden on the U.S.  They are our allies and have the #3 and #4 largest GDPs in the world.  We can't afford to have both of them on the sidelines anymore.

I suggest that maybe you should look at the Japanese Navy vs. the Kreigsmarine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Japan_Maritime_Self-Defense_Force_ships
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_German_Navy_ships
I can tell you which one I think has more military power and it is not Germany (and it is not close).
FWIW
https://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.php?country_id=germany
https://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.php?country_id=japan

Japan ranks #5, Germany #16.

Japan does a lot. Could they do more? Sure, but Germany is really the poster child of dropping the ball IMHO. Germany ranks behind Japan, South Korea, France, UK, and Italy. There are just barely ahead of Australia. Like many rating systems, I can't say globalfirepower.com is perfect, but it could be pretty flawed and the comparison would still hold.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 07-21-2022

It’s harder to blame low and middle income countries from getting food from wherever is cheapest than to blame rich European countries who were repeatedly warned of the risk of dependence on Russian gas.  Moreover, while, support of lower and middle income countries for Ukraine would be a strong symbolic gesture, it really is only Wrstern European countries who can inflict economic pain on Russia and help bring them to the table (even though to do so will require some sacrifice on their part).

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 07-21-2022

(07-21-2022, 06:51 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  It’s harder to blame low and middle income countries from getting food from wherever is cheapest than to blame rich European countries who were repeatedly warned of the risk of dependence on Russian gas.  Moreover, while, support of lower and middle income countries for Ukraine would be a strong symbolic gesture, it really is only Wrstern European countries who can inflict economic pain on Russia and help bring them to the table (even though to do so will require some sacrifice on their part).

BC

In this case you could say getting food at all. Some low income countries simply couldn't afford to buy anywhere close to enough food if the price of grain goes wild, which it is in the process of doing. They would be shut out of the market. Lots of people would die.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 07-21-2022

https://www.airforcemag.com/dod-air-defenses-to-ukraine-still-several-months-away-as-aid-planning-turns-to-years/
In typical US fashion, when asked about NASAMS the answer given was that it was "several months away". Then you find out they are talking about FINALIZING THE CONTRACT, i.e paperwork, not when Ukraine will get the units!!

I guess one can be optimistic and say that the Ukrainians probably need more extensive training on this system than on previous systems (which is undoubtedly true). One could also hope that the systems are already built and the contract is the long pole in the tent. Nobody said that, which is very concerning. If construction starts after the contract is done, it will be a year before it is delivered, even assuming they can get/already have the parts. In that case, this whole NASAMS thing is bogus. Ukrainian cities will have to endure bombardment by all kinds of missiles for that time.

The NASAMS works pretty well against low speed, low altitude missiles. It isn't very effective against thing like the KH-22, but it is much, much better than nothing. Yesterday Russia fired 7 Kalibr missiles at Odesa. None were intercepted. One NASAMS may not have shot down all 7 of them (depending on geometry and spacing), but certainly "many" of them would have been intercepted. Why wait a year? There are two NASAMS at Andrews. Send them! You don't need a contract, only a bill if lading.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - M T - 07-22-2022

(07-21-2022, 08:43 PM)Goose Wrote:  https://www.airforcemag.com/dod-air-defenses-to-ukraine-still-several-months-away-as-aid-planning-turns-to-years/
In typical US fashion, when asked about NASAMS the answer given was that it was "several months away". Then you find out they are talking about FINALIZING THE CONTRACT, i.e paperwork, not when Ukraine will get the units!!

You must have some other source different from the link you gave.  The article at that link says 

Quote: “I can’t give you details of where it is in the contracting process. But, you know, we don’t see any challenges.”

and

Quote:...still has no delivery date.
“It’s several months,” the defense official said

I take that to mean that the magazine understood the official to say the delivery would be several months off, not the final contract.  And not a year either.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 07-22-2022

(07-22-2022, 12:32 AM)M T Wrote:  

(07-21-2022, 08:43 PM)Goose Wrote:  https://www.airforcemag.com/dod-air-defenses-to-ukraine-still-several-months-away-as-aid-planning-turns-to-years/
In typical US fashion, when asked about NASAMS the answer given was that it was "several months away". Then you find out they are talking about FINALIZING THE CONTRACT, i.e paperwork, not when Ukraine will get the units!!

You must have some other source different from the link you gave.  The article at that link says 

Quote: “I can’t give you details of where it is in the contracting process. But, you know, we don’t see any challenges.”

and

Quote:...still has no delivery date.
“It’s several months,” the defense official said

I take that to mean that the magazine understood the official to say the delivery would be several months off, not the final contract.  And not a year either.

I read it that the "several months" refers to the point when the contracting process will end and they will have a delivery date. If they say they still have no delivery date, I assume that is what they mean. If they had a contract, they would have a delivery date. They didn't say "the delivery date is several months from now". They said they didn't have one. Saying they can't give details of where it is in the contracting process but that they see no challenges indicates to me they don't yet have a contract and the no challenges are to the contracting process. 

Having worked with this process I know that there are contracting mechanisms that allow the contractor to start on the job while the details of the contract are worked out, but at that point there is a contract legally in place and at least a target delivery date. That appears not to be the case here based on their statements. Letter contracts at one point in history were common but today are rather rare. While it is possible a contractor will risk fund construction of a system if they are pretty sure there will eventually be a contract relying on that for something "important" is pretty much unheard of.

---