[Goose]

https://twitter.com/MarquardtA/status/16...45197?s=20

As per Goose's earlier explanation, if Patriot is the target, that would enable a more favorable target geometry for an intercept of this very fast type of missile. Somewhat concerning that the Russians found it but heartening that it could defend itself. Also perhaps heartening that the Russian's didn't use more than one missile to try to take out such a valuable target; they likely don't have many of them.

It is basically inevitable that the Russians would be able to find and geolocate the Patriot batteries operating in Ukraine. Similarly, they can locate all operating NASAMs, S-300 systems and just about everything else operating in Ukraine. It isn't difficult. The only way a battery can avoid this is not use the acquisition radar. If they do that, they can't hit anything. The only thing saving the Ukrainian batteries previously is Russian incompetence against an IADS (they were prepared to fight NATO, not themselves) and the fact Ukraine moves these assets regularly. Against NATO, almost every such site would be on the ATO for the next day. Russia is not trained or resourced to do that (thank goodness).

Russia also probably believed their own press clippings and figured one missile was enough. They probably won't do that next time. It is also good to see that Ukraine did indeed fire a "back up" interceptor. That is doctrine, glad they followed it. This probably also increased the confidence of the Ukrainian crews and of the US in said crews. That said, I am still not sure what actually transpired :-). That is often the nature of these kind of engagements.

What would be REALLY nice to see (and scare the Russians badly) is the Ukrainians fire a missile from a battery that was not targeted (and was in EMCON) but control that missile from the battery that was emitting and targeted. It's supposedly possible. It is a force multiplier because the launch site may not actually even have a radar. Sometimes the geometry is better that way. The missile comes out of nowhere. Probably asking too much :-).

Regarding Bakhmut, it's useful to look at a map. The Ukrainian gains are pretty small but they are taking some higher ground and in multiple areas on the flanks.



https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/16571...93835?s=20

Indeed so, and the high ground is pretty important there. You can see a lot without needing drones. All attacks against it will be uphill. Ukraine has also supposedly re-opened a major road to Bakhmut which will greatly improve their supply situation.  This doesn't mean they will or even intend to take back Bakhmut by direct assault. I think they are smart enough to avoid that meat grinder and do their damage on the flanks. Russia couldn't, or at least didn't, take that approach. I am sure the world will be watching.

[Goose]

https://twitter.com/MarquardtA/status/16...45197?s=20

As per Goose's earlier explanation, if Patriot is the target, that would enable a more favorable target geometry for an intercept of this very fast type of missile. Somewhat concerning that the Russians found it but heartening that it could defend itself. Also perhaps heartening that the Russian's didn't use more than one missile to try to take out such a valuable target; they likely don't have many of them.

It is basically inevitable that the Russians would be able to find and geolocate the Patriot batteries operating in Ukraine. Similarly, they can locate all operating NASAMs, S-300 systems and just about everything else operating in Ukraine. It isn't difficult. The only way a battery can avoid this is not use the acquisition radar. If they do that, they can't hit anything. The only thing saving the Ukrainian batteries previously is Russian incompetence against an IADS (they were prepared to fight NATO, not themselves) and the fact Ukraine moves these assets regularly. Against NATO, almost every such site would be on the ATO for the next day. Russia is not trained or resourced to do that (thank goodness).

Russia also probably believed their own press clippings and figured one missile was enough. They probably won't do that next time. It is also good to see that Ukraine did indeed fire a "back up" interceptor. That is doctrine, glad they followed it. This probably also increased the confidence of the Ukrainian crews and of the US in said crews. That said, I am still not sure what actually transpired :-). That is often the nature of these kind of engagements.

What would be REALLY nice to see (and scare the Russians badly) is the Ukrainians fire a missile from a battery that was not targeted (and was in EMCON) but control that missile from the battery that was emitting and targeted. It's supposedly possible. It is a force multiplier because the launch site may not actually even have a radar. Sometimes the geometry is better that way. The missile comes out of nowhere. Probably asking too much :-).

Regarding Bakhmut, it's useful to look at a map. The Ukrainian gains are pretty small but they are taking some higher ground and in multiple areas on the flanks.



https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/16571...93835?s=20

Indeed so, and the high ground is pretty important there. You can see a lot without needing drones. All attacks against it will be uphill. Ukraine has also supposedly re-opened a major road to Bakhmut which will greatly improve their supply situation.  This doesn't mean they will or even intend to take back Bakhmut by direct assault. I think they are smart enough to avoid that meat grinder and do their damage on the flanks. Russia couldn't, or at least didn't, take that approach. I am sure the world will be watching.