• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The War in Ukraine

Make no mistake, Russia is bleeding the west. How much Russia really has left in their war chest is anyone's guess. Over the past year and a bit many talking heads have warned that Russia is running out of bombs, missiles, arty, people, planes etc. Clearly, that's not the case as they continue to hold the Ukrainian forces at bay or are pushing them back, even slightly.

All the western military assistance, from ammo and hardware like HIMARS to F-16s to Leos and M1A1s is not winning this for Ukraine. It's simply a matter of time before Russia's final push results in a conquered Ukraine. For the west, the disaster will be a bunch of pulverised western equipment, which will then end up giving it's technological secrets to Russia and the Chinese, who are building up at a phenomenal rate, right before the next war starts in Asia.

Yeah, I make it sound bad - because it is.
There is plenty more in the arsenal, the question is more if countries wish to deplete them more. The US alone could supply all the equipment needed to win this war today if they so choose. There is enough weaponry in the US to arm the whole Ukrainian army from scratch and still have a ton of left overs.

Simple example, there is roughly 1 million US army troops (Reserve, National Guard, Regular duty, etc.), 387k USN, 212k USMC, 500k US Air Force. So that brings us to what, 2 million troops of different skills sets, for the most part exceptionally well equipped. The Ukrainian Army is 780k strong. They could supply it enough equipment at least twice over with the most modern armaments on the planet. And that doesn't even include the reserve equipment the US has, which it has a ton of.

Considering most of what has been supplied was the equipment we were intending to use on the USSR, the US could easily ramp up the conflict with more modern equipment if they wished to. The key is the will to do so.
 
You ignore the Iranian infusion of drones and the several million rounds of artillery ammo NK provided.

If you look at what Russian is attacking with, they don’t have a ton more in the tank, they have come back to their large glide bombs to crate the front and Ukraine lacks enough AD to make them pay.



It could very easily it it was given timely and with proper support.

Other HIMARS and some Arty nothing given to Ukraine has been cutting edge. Nearly all the missiles have been end of life systems.

The issue about the cupboard being empty isn’t really true. It’s simply a narrative that many countries like to promote.
Yes several Western countries are low - because they are feeble weasels (see Canada) and don’t plan for the future or reality. But many NATO countries have a great deal of equipment and ordnance that could be provided with no significant issue wrt China and Taiwan.
another 3-4 Patriot batteries to the Ukrainians would sure as shit change the daily air war towards favouring the Ukrainians.
 
Question:
What would Ukraine gain from working with Moldova and taking out Transnistria? That major ammo dump could be a juicy prize of possible 122 and 152 arty rounds, along with other munitions. Yes, its all very old and alot is mostly useless but even if 20-40% is usable its better than what they have.
It removes a potential threat in their rear, frees up some security forces that can be deployed elsewhere. Gains some political credit with the Moldavian's for re-uniting their country.
 
Does it really matter that there is a better plan if you don't have the tools to execute that plan?

If you can flood the field with low tech solutions before the high tech solutions show up you win.
Those low tech solutions aren’t going to penetrate anything that has a semblance of an A2AD capability.

You’re conflating Ukraine successes in certain areas with the larger picture.

Ask yourself how Ukraine can achieve those successes, what gave them the insight into routes for gaps in the Russian air defense networks.
 
Those low tech solutions aren’t going to penetrate anything that has a semblance of an A2AD capability.

You’re conflating Ukraine successes in certain areas with the larger picture.

Ask yourself how Ukraine can achieve those successes, what gave them the insight into routes for gaps in the Russian air defense networks.

You mean like the North American A2AD space? The UK A2AD space? The EU A2AD space (I am going to cut the Baltic a bit of slack here although a lot of AD batteries were warehoused since 1990).

It wasn't so long ago that that Pentagon was touting the Russian S400/S500/Pantsir complex as the rationale for the entire Stealth Aircraft industry. Now that it is demonstrated that Matthias Rust was right all along and just like the Russians can't do Marx properly they now can't do Air Defence properly the real issue is whether or not the Chinese can do Air Defence properly?



What’s clear is that unmanned systems offer a promising adjunct to traditional naval air power. Captain Wayne Hughes, the dean of fleet tactics, designates scouting, command-and-control, and weapons range as the determinants of tactical efficacy at sea. Unmanned planes come in handy for monitoring the fleet’s surroundings—including, in times of battle, detecting, tracking, and targeting hostile forces. That’s the scouting function. They could contribute to command-and-control, for instance by relaying information and orders. They could even deliver ordnance against enemy vessels or shore targets, as Ukraine’s Black Sea campaign has demonstrated in abundance. In that case weapons range and precision would benefit.

Uncrewed vehicles have a major part to play in all dimensions of sea combat.

Moreover, such an approach would conform to current doctrinal wisdom. Stocking the fleet with unmanned aircraft would comport with “distributed maritime operations,” a concept much in vogue in the service, as well as companion sea-service operational concepts such as the U.S. Marines’ “expeditionary advanced base operations.” Scattering aviation capability and capacity throughout the surface force, and syncing up the fleet’s efforts with U.S. Marine and Army forces operating from Pacific islands—including uncrewed aircraft flying from dry earth—would reduce the likelihood that a foe such as China’s People’s Liberation Army could land a knockout blow against a U.S. task force by aiming everything at a high-value unit like an aircraft carrier.

Disperse capability across many fighting ships, and you reduce the percentage of combat power a successful enemy strike on a U.S. warship deducts from the fleet’s—and the joint force’s—overall strength.

In short, sprearing out capability imparts staying power. A fleet in which everything that floats fights can absorb punishment and persevere on to victory. Which is the point of naval operations. Demonstrating the ability to operate in distributed fashion would convey to prospective foes like China that the U.S. sea services and fraternal armed forces are a tough if not impossible nut to crack. That could give party overseers in Beijing pause. And giving hostile leaders pause when strife looms constitutes the essence of deterrence.

Zeberlein’s brief for distributed air operations deserves a fair hearing. Let’s hope it gets one at the Pentagon and in the halls of Congress.
Lots of low tech penetrators can indeed crash any A2AD system. Sheer mass of cheap threats will sponge up expensive interceptors faster than the interceptors can be built.

Ships can't be built fast enough


Guns can't be built fast enough


Planes, tanks, you name it - none of the exquisites on which NATO (or Russian or Chinese or Indian) war fighting plans were based are being built faster than they are being destroyed in Ukraine.

Everybody is digging deep into old stock and bringing that on line. We laugh at Russian T55s while shipping M113s.

The best hope is the Replicator type programmes. But I don't get the warm fuzzies when CCA/UAV programmes seem to be becoming a fight between suppliers with demonstrated ability to start manufacturing 90% solutions for $2,000,000 and legacy providers trying to defend their $200,000,000 solutions and engineering departments - providers that can't even guarantee that the doors on their civilian aircraft won't fall off in flight.


1712151113957.png 1712151151460.png

US DoD Contract Notice, Arlington VA, 30 December 2022 : Kratos Unmanned Aerial Systems Inc., Sacramento, California, is awarded a $15,515,343 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to procure and deliver a quantity of two XQ-58A unmanned aerial systems (UAS) with sensor and weapon system payloads to accomplish the penetrating affordable autonomous collaborative killer – portfolio objectives, including technical services non-recurring engineering, system / subsystem integration, installation, testing, ground and flight operations, logistics, and maintenance for the UAS as well as government-owned, contractor-operated operations for flight test and demonstration events at government test ranges.

Work will be performed in Sacramento, California, and is expected to be completed in September 2023.



Australia is funding three additional Boeing MQ-28A Ghost Bat unmanned air vehicles as it eyes a demonstration campaign in 2025.

The three Block 2 MQ-28As will be produced locally, and feature improved sensor and payload options, according to Australia’s minister for defence industry Pat Conroy.

The effort sees Canberra putting A$399 million ($259 million) toward the programme. Conroy says that the funding will “go into developing the unique Australian technology that allows the Ghost Bats to work together with each other and with crewed aircraft as one team to achieve their mission”.

Canberra funds three more MQ-28A Ghost Bats


 
You mean like the North American A2AD space? The UK A2AD space? The EU A2AD space (I am going to cut the Baltic a bit of slack here although a lot of AD batteries were warehoused since 1990).

It wasn't so long ago that that Pentagon was touting the Russian S400/S500/Pantsir complex as the rationale for the entire Stealth Aircraft industry. Now that it is demonstrated that Matthias Rust was right all along and just like the Russians can't do Marx properly they now can't do Air Defence properly the real issue is whether or not the Chinese can do Air Defence properly?




Lots of low tech penetrators can indeed crash any A2AD system. Sheer mass of cheap threats will sponge up expensive interceptors faster than the interceptors can be built.

Ships can't be built fast enough


Guns can't be built fast enough


Planes, tanks, you name it - none of the exquisites on which NATO (or Russian or Chinese or Indian) war fighting plans were based are being built faster than they are being destroyed in Ukraine.

Everybody is digging deep into old stock and bringing that on line. We laugh at Russian T55s while shipping M113s.

The best hope is the Replicator type programmes. But I don't get the warm fuzzies when CCA/UAV programmes seem to be becoming a fight between suppliers with demonstrated ability to start manufacturing 90% solutions for $2,000,000 and legacy providers trying to defend their $200,000,000 solutions and engineering departments - providers that can't even guarantee that the doors on their civilian aircraft won't fall off in flight.


View attachment 84211 View attachment 84212







Canberra funds three more MQ-28A Ghost Bats


I didn’t think we read the same reports.

But as far as tanks go:
Ukraine has lost 6 Leo 2 and 1 Challenger 2, none of those are top Western Models.

That is far less than Western production.
Same goes for the IFV’s and Arty.

A Gepard, or Avenger, or the M/SHORAD gun can deal with low tech OWUAS fairly easily.

The West knew the Russian’s AD stunk, but at the time it wasn’t palatable to point to the Chinese threat - so Russia was used as a whipping horse. Do I think China is incredible? no, but they are much more sophisticated than the Russians, and have less Military corruption issues.
 
This China?


  • Summary
  • China 'purges' 9 PLA generals, clampdown seen widening
  • Upheaval weakens PLA, including in strategic rocket force
  • More time needed to clean up corruption - analyst
  • Problems may dissuade PLA from risking major clashes in near term



US Intelligence Shows Flawed China Missiles Led Xi to Purge Army​

  • China missiles filled with water, not fuel: US intelligence
  • Xi seeking to root out corruption, prepare military for combat

 
This China?








I don’t put a lot of stock into OS reports dealing with a small amount of items.

I don’t think they are a giant that some make them out to be, but they are a much more credible threat than the RuAF at this point in time.


Do I what stuff to be cheaper, absolutely I’m a US Taxpayer. But not at the cost of capabilities. Quality has a quantity all of its own. As one can see from all the end of life Javelin missiles success rates. Nearly every single Javelin provided to Ukraine was in decommissioning status.
 
1712156786116.png

The Tomahawk is a long-range, unmanned weapon with an accuracy of about 5 metres (16 feet). The 5.6-metre- (18.4-foot-) long missile has a range of up to approximately 2,400 km (about 1,500 miles) and can travel as fast as 885 km (550 miles) per hour.Feb 4, 2024


The fuel load is 800 to 1,000 pounds (about 450 kg) of fuel at launch, or approximately 150 gallons (600 liters). The missile has a cruising speed of 550 mph (880 kph).Feb 27, 2024


According to budget data from the United States Marine Corps from 2022, each Tomahawk costs around $2 million. As of now, the United States and the United Kingdom are the only countries to deploy Tomahawk missiles, although Australia and Japan have put out bids to purchase Tomahawks.Jan 18, 2024


The Tomahawk demonstrates all the flight characteristics necessary to penetrate enemy air defences at range. And it does so cheaply. Roughly the same price point as the Kratos, Anduril and GAA products - about 2 MUSD.

It is booster launched already. Just like the Kratos machines. So it is runway independent.

I am going to go out on limb and suggest that it would be relatively cheap to increase the size of the fuel tank to increase its range and produce lots of long range Tomahawks, or Valkyries or Furies or Gambits.

For a squadron of F35s, with their pilots, ground crews, air controllers, runways and tankers - how many Tomahawks can I buy for one way trips?
 
  • Insightful
Reactions: ueo
For a squadron of F35s, with their pilots, ground crews, air controllers, runways and tankers - how many Tomahawks can I buy for one way trips?
How many other missions can the Tomahawk do? Oh yeah none.

Also I wouldn’t put a great deal of stock in the ability of the Tomahawk to penetrate a AD network.
 
The thing about the F-35 - it's not just a bomb truck. You put 4 of them in the air, and with their sensor fusion and integral data and awareness sharing systems, it's basically like a stealthy distributed network of AWAC aircraft, all of them pulling info from across the EM Spectrum, sharing it, and updating both threats and targets in real time. Which they then have the ability to strike, or direct strikes by other non-stealthy aircraft.

A BGM-109 is a flying bomb. One that is not autonomous, one that is pre-programmed before flight to fly a specific route and while it's good at that, particularly if the Tom Clancy stories are to be believed, that doesn't make it equal to a flight of manned networked stealthy aircraft.

OK, so lets say that unit cost on a BGM-109 is $1M a pop, and that 4x F-35 is $400M - ish. Fine. So, put 400 BGM-109's in the air and that's better than having 4 F-35?

Nope. You need launching platformS (S) for 400 cruise missiles. How much do those cost? Even truck launchers are not inexpensive, but if you look at the cost of a ship to launch them, you're looking at a big $$$ price tag.

The thing is, the way the US/NATO (ish) look at air warfare is that it's always been a group of complementary systems working together.

Wild Weasel aircraft to knock down Air Defenses
EW Aircraft to plot and jam the AD
Bombers or strike aircraft to hit ground targets
Fighters to protect the other aircraft
Cruise Missiles to strike concurrent with the main strike
Helicopters to do combat recovery
Cargo aircraft to move the bombs/missiles/crews/support gear
Tankers to extend the range and time on station
SOF to provide recce of ground targets, target illum, and BDA
Satellite coverage to provide EW sniffing, visual/radar/IR intel, and BDA after the attacks

Right now, in Ukraine, there is no way to put the integration of all of that into action. The AD's are capable of denial of the front to aviation assets. This means that neither side has air superiority, nor air supremacy.

The prevalence of drones in the frontal areas means that the AD, while capable of denying the air space to large aircraft, obviously has trouble with small drones. The drones are persistent to the point that they prevent the assembly of a large amount of combat power in any area without it being noticed, and if it is noted, then it's attacked because there is still lots of artillery present (on both sides) despite ammo shortages.

You cannot simply say 'replace the F-35 with XXX missiles. They are not as versatile, and they are only a part of the bigger picture.

Focusing on the drone war is a great distraction from the fact that in reality, NATO would have established air dominance (such as various coalitions have done in the past - GW 1, GW2, Libya, etc) and if there is air dominance, then drones are not going to make as much of an impact as they are in Ukraine.

These are my thoughts/rambles.

This is why, in the end, the F-16's will not make as much of a difference as everyone thinks they will - because they are still only a part of the system that's required to establish dominance/superiority/supremacy.

NS
 
The Valkyries, Furies and Gambits are all Tomahawks. They are flying bodies powered by conventional turbojet and turbofan engines and common kerosene type fuels. They fly on auto-pilot and are capable of communicating with the outside world to change course or receive new targeting instructions.

Tomahawks do one thing. They deliver a package of explosives.

The other UAVs can carry a Tomahawk type war head or a separate Tomahawk type missile. They can carry AMRAAMs and Sidewinders, MALDs and EW suites.
They can be launched from ships, boats, trailers and seacans.
They have ranges 3 to 4 times that of Tomahawks meaning that they can be launched from friendly territories more often. Aggressive penetration by submarine or destroyer becomes less necessary.

Harper wanted to buy 64 F-35s. Trudeau has pledged to buy 88.

I would much sooner that the money spent on those extra 24 F35s was spent on Valkyries, Furies and Gambits.

2400 MUSD divided by 2 MUSD = 1200 Reusable Long Range Missiles that can carry other Long Range Missiles.

And you have 24 fewer aircraft to house, maintain and supply with trained ground crew and pilots.
 
The Valkyries, Furies and Gambits are all Tomahawks. They are flying bodies powered by conventional turbojet and turbofan engines and common kerosene type fuels. They fly on auto-pilot and are capable of communicating with the outside world to change course or receive new targeting instructions.
Allegedly
Tomahawks do one thing. They deliver a package of explosives.
Accurately.
The other UAVs can carry a Tomahawk type war head or a separate Tomahawk type missile. They can carry AMRAAMs and Sidewinders, MALDs and EW suites.
In theory.
They can be launched from ships, boats, trailers and seacans.
They have ranges 3 to 4 times that of Tomahawks meaning that they can be launched from friendly territories more often. Aggressive penetration by submarine or destroyer becomes less necessary.
In theory
Harper wanted to buy 64 F-35s. Trudeau has pledged to buy 88.

I would much sooner that the money spent on those extra 24 F35s was spent on Valkyries, Furies and Gambits.

2400 MUSD divided by 2 MUSD = 1200 Reusable Long Range Missiles that can carry other Long Range Missiles.

And you have 24 fewer aircraft to house, maintain and supply with trained ground crew and pilots.
Well I for one am glad you aren’t in charge in that respect.

You’ve focused on what could happen.
88 F-35 to me isn’t enough for Canada to consider its fighter force respectable.
88 F-35 and another F-15EX then I’d think you are at the middle ground for a county of its size and wealth.

Don’t conflate Ukraine issues, and reported solutions as a goal post for Canada. Canada has time to equip/ and should do so with the right mix of capabilities.

I’m not against LROWUAS systems, I’m just against them in replace of a Fighter system that has many additional capabilities.


The West has effectively handicapped Ukraine by giving partial solutions. If we want them to be successful, we need to expand the equipment and training they have, and provide logistical support at the degree of the needs.
 
Addition -

Looking at the list of 'stuff' that goes into Air Control/Supremacy/Dominance/superiority, the F-35 can do a LOT of things.

Wild Weasel aircraft to knock down Air Defenses
EW Aircraft to plot and jam the AD
Bombers or strike aircraft to hit ground targets
Fighters to protect the other aircraft
Cruise Missiles to strike concurrent with the main strike
Helicopters to do combat recovery
Cargo aircraft to move the bombs/missiles/crews/support gear
Tankers to extend the range and time on station
SOF to provide recce of ground targets, target illum, and BDA
Satellite coverage to provide EW sniffing, visual/radar/IR intel, and BDA after the attacks

The F-35 can fit in a bunch of the roles above, which is one of the reasons they were looking at building it in the first place. The 'sensing' part of the F-35 with the Data Fusion and Data Sharing are aspects which I think make it most useable in the modern battlespace.

Or at least, that's my impression, as a Sailor who's now in the Army.
 
Back
Top