Русский корабль - иди нахуй

[SL Xpress 7516]

7 minutes ago, Schulz2.0 said:

The whole "time is on Russia's Side" argument is based on an unclear time line for how long Western resolve can hold out. It's not indefinite, that's for sure. Without massive western support, both military and financial, this war looks very different. I don't believe Russia just takes over without a fight, but there would be a lot more occupied areas, more mass incarcerations, children taken away, burning of books in the Ukrainian language, suppression of Ukrainian speech, and the slaughter and rape of civilians. 

There is no doubt Russia has a greater appetite for military losses. It's not infinite, but it may take some kind of regime change to install a different mentality. They have a history of grinding down opponents. From Charles XII to Napolean to Hitler. Even Genghis Khan couldn't wipe them out, although he did everything but. This war has been prosecuted basically the way every war is prosecuted by the Russians. They win some and they lose some. 

My mistake was believing the hype Putin had successfully transformed the military. I do think the elite troops operated differently, but they've mostly been wiped out after the initial failures. They were too few and without enough power within the military to make drastic changes. Couldn't be happier to be wrong. 

The more successes Ukraine has on the battlefield, the greater the support provided by allies and the stronger position they'll have at the negotiating table. I definitely think time is on Russia's side all things being equal. My hope is things are so unequal that we see Russia scrambling with their tail between their legs with all the occupied territories returned to Ukrainian sovereignty. 

[CoachTex 2627]

9 minutes ago, statsman said:

Admittedly dumb question- the Israelis put aux fuel tanks on F-16s and bomb Iran. Can the Ukrainians go deep into Russia with them? Maybe land in Finland? Or is that too provocative?

Typically you do not want to fly into defended airspace carrying 2 bags of fuel.  A few reasons.  1 it is no longer a 9 g aircraft in that configuration and 2, it seriously limits weapons load out.

[B00M 6416]

7 minutes ago, 686 said:

 

Ive had to step back from the war for a little while so I’m not as dialed in on the F-16 issue currently. What is the lack of political will based on if it’s not actively wanting Putin to win or pure isolationism/not wanting to allocate the resources? 

 

The arguments I’ve seen are all budget (resources) related. Something like, “we can’t do <insert random expensive thing> in the US, but we can spend how much in The Ukraine?!”

[CoachTex 2627]

Here is the thing you have to remember.  We are not sending or newest and most bad ass stuff to Ukraine.  Most of the support is 20 year old weapons systems that would be phased out anyway. Instead of rotting in a boneyard, systems are getting to go boom as they were intended to do. Most weapons systems have a shelf life and we are slipping them to Ukraine before they expire 

[Parliament 14260]

1 hour ago, Scheiss Meister said:

While it is only a rough comparison, Bakhmut does somewhat compare to a battle with which we are all familiar: the Alamo.  There was no good reason for Travis to disobey orders and stay in the Alamo, just as it seems that there was no real strategic need for Ukraine to stay in Bakhmut.  Santa Anna could have left a small force to keep the Texians fixed in the Alamo, and Russia could have done the same with Bakhmut.  Taking the Alamo did not give Santa Anna any strategic gain other than the boast that he had taken it and slain all of the defenders, just as taking Bakhmut gives Russia no strategic gain other than taking it in a brutal fashion as an example of why to not resist Russia.  Santa Anna used his best troops to take the Alamo, taking high casualties and weakening his army materially, just as is happening to Russia's best troops in Bakhmut.  Finally, just as "Remember The Alamo!" became a battle cry and inspiration for the Texians at San Jacinto, Bakhmut is now an example of Ukrainian resistance and determination in the face of superior numbers.

Uh...does Bakhmut have an impenetrable basement like the Alamo?  Your comparison is dumb and you should feel bad.

Also (not referring to Shitmaster) I need to put some more posters on ignore and I'm not gonna be back to a computer for several days.  How do I block some from my phone?  I'm using the browser, not tapa. Thx

[atomheartbevo 89686]

12 minutes ago, B00M said:

The arguments I’ve seen are all budget (resources) related. Something like, “we can’t do <insert random expensive thing> in the US, but we can spend how much in The Ukraine?!”

6 minutes ago, CoachTex said:

Here is the thing you have to remember.  We are not sending or newest and most bad ass stuff to Ukraine.  Most of the support is 20 year old weapons systems that would be phased out anyway. Instead of rotting in a boneyard, systems are getting to go boom as they were intended to do. Most weapons systems have a shelf life and we are slipping them to Ukraine before they expire 

A lot of people don't understand that when they hear a number, like $200 million in aid, that could be $150 million in weapons systems that were in storage, that we were literally paying to keep maintained/stored well on the off chance that we might need them someday (highly unlikely) or more likely that we would sell them to another country, or use them for spare parts.

[BamaATL 16593]

5 minutes ago, 686 said:

 

Ive had to step back from the war for a little while so I’m not as dialed in on the F-16 issue currently. What is the lack of political will based on if it’s not actively wanting Putin to win or pure isolationism/not wanting to allocate the resources? I guess I could see door number three as being bad press if some get shot down, but there’s an equally plausible chance at this point that the Ukrainians use them to good effect, like they have with everything else we’ve sent them. And yeah some will get shot down, it’s war. Patriot batteries haven’t had this much press since 1991. It’s like a reunion tour.

 

Just my own opinion/suspicion is that there are several things going on here.  The west has legitimate concerns that Ukraine having offensive weapons, like the F-16 (which make no mistake can be used as an offensive weapon platform) could create escalation (with an isolated regime, that may well think it has little to lose).  We'd like to think that the Ukrainians would only use these to defend themselves, but what happens if a hardliner some how came to power and years from now decided to exact vengeance on the Russians?  Fair or unfair, it's not as if Ukraine is exactly the bedrock of political stability during it's post 1991 existence (yes, of course I realize that is due largely to Russia).    The tricky balance is giving the Ukrainians enough to win, but not enough for something like this to happen.  We all tend to think that NATO ascending will be immediate upon this conflicts end, but the reality is that likely it will take considerable time.  

While I'd like to think that this all leads to the dissolution of Russia, there is just as good a chance, if not greater, that this leads to an isolated totalitarian state out of all this.  To me, the dissolution leads to a path for nuclear disarming of the former Russia, but if that doesn't work out, we have an extremely dangerous regime on our hands, with someone now with offensive weapons like a knife at their throat that isn't necessarily going to be bound by the rules of conduct of NATO.  I certainly don't feel bad the Russians on this, they called down the thunder, so it's entirely their fault; but we do at least have to consider potential ramifications of all this and the dreaded unintended consequences.  Prudence demands this.   

Lastly, I do think that privately there is frustration in the west that the counter offensive has not yet started and the general feeling is that we have given the Ukrainians enough to go and win.  At the same time, the Ukrainians, made one last attempt at getting commitments via Zelensky's quick European tour this week.  I understand this from their point of view, if they can get the F-16s prior to a successful offensive, it sets them up for additional air security while the NATO process plays out.  Shoot your shot, so to speak, but do it while you have a leg to stand on (prior to an offensive).   

Bottom line, while politics is certainly a factor, I think long term strategic thinking is just as much at play as anything.  

Again, just opinions, and likely not entirely correct.

[CoachTex 2627]

I guarantee you, that when Ukraine does get f-16s, it won't be block 60 Vipers. It will be block 40s that are destined for Davis-Monthan.

[BamaATL 16593]

3 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

A lot of people don't understand that when they hear a number, like $200 million in aid, that could be $150 million in weapons systems that were in storage, that we were literally paying to keep maintained/stored well on the off chance that we might need them someday (highly unlikely) or more likely that we would sell them to another country, or use them for spare parts.

Our defense budget this fiscal year is $867 billion.  $200 million is likely finding some change you dropped in your car while stuffing you face with fries by comparison.  

[CoachTex 2627]

4 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

Just my own opinion/suspicion is that there are several things going on here.  The west has legitimate concerns that Ukraine having offensive weapons, like the F-16 (which make no mistake can be used as an offensive weapon platform) could create escalation (with an isolated regime, that may well think it has little to lose).  We'd like to think that the Ukrainians would only use these to defend themselves, but what happens if a hardliner some how came to power and years from now decided to exact vengeance on the Russians?  Fair or unfair, it's not as if Ukraine is exactly the bedrock of political stability during it's post 1991 existence (yes, of course I realize that is due largely to Russia).    The tricky balance is giving the Ukrainians enough to win, but not enough for something like this to happen.  We all tend to think that NATO ascending will be immediate upon this conflicts end, but the reality is that likely it will take considerable time.  

While I'd like to think that this all leads to the dissolution of Russia, there is just as good a chance, if not greater, that this leads to an isolated totalitarian state out of all this.  To me, the dissolution leads to a path for nuclear disarming of the former Russia, but if that doesn't work out, we have an extremely dangerous regime on our hands, with someone now with offensive weapons like a knife at their throat that isn't necessarily going to be bound by the rules of conduct of NATO.  I certainly don't feel bad the Russians on this, they called down the thunder, so it's entirely their fault; but we do at least have to consider potential ramifications of all this and the dreaded unintended consequences.  Prudence demands this.   

Lastly, I do think that privately there is frustration in the west that the counter offensive has not yet started and the general feeling is that we have given the Ukrainians enough to go and win.  At the same time, the Ukrainians, made one last attempt at getting commitments via Zelensky's quick European tour this week.  I understand this from their point of view, if they can get the F-16s prior to a successful offensive, it sets them up for additional air security while the NATO process plays out.  Shoot your shot, so to speak, but do it while you have a leg to stand on (prior to an offensive).   

Bottom line, while politics is certainly a factor, I think long term strategic thinking is just as much at play as anything.  

Again, just opinions, and likely not entirely correct.

I also wonder if we are already training Ukrainian pilots to fly the f-16 and don't want to announce that we are sending them until they have pilots to fly them. 🤔

[blacklab 11939]

Kinda what I was thinking, here's 40 f-16's now that you have pilots all trained up

[BamaATL 16593]

3 minutes ago, blacklab said:

Kinda what I was thinking, here's 40 f-16's now that you have pilots all trained up

Honestly, Predators with Hellfire missiles would be a lot better of a suprise motherfuckers.  

[ABSR 5315]

6 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Or, a Surly poster could have just destroyed the shitter at the Patriot site.   Lotsa possibilities.

Occam’s shitter.

[KYHorn 17076]

 

 

[NAVY 6741]

 

RU builds “super” weapons that end up having crucial exhaust port design flaws that any idiot with experience in bulls-eye-ing roughly 2-meter sized womp rats will easily exploit 

I feel like I’ve seen this 

[KYHorn 17076]

 

 

[MagicSoccerSpray 1732]

51 minutes ago, CoachTex said:

Typically you do not want to fly into defended airspace carrying 2 bags of fuel.  A few reasons.  1 it is no longer a 9 g aircraft in that configuration and 2, it seriously limits weapons load out.

 

Conformal fuel tanks

[SL Xpress 7516]

4 minutes ago, 686 said:

 

Ive had to step back from the war for a little while so I’m not as dialed in on the F-16 issue currently. What is the lack of political will based on if it’s not actively wanting Putin to win or pure isolationism/not wanting to allocate the resources? I guess I could see door number three as being bad press if some get shot down, but there’s an equally plausible chance at this point that the Ukrainians use them to good effect, like they have with everything else we’ve sent them. And yeah some will get shot down, it’s war. Patriot batteries haven’t had this much press since 1991. It’s like a reunion tour.

 

Well, I don't know how dialed in someone has to be.

Based on what I've read and what I know in terms of how US administrations think - especially Democratic ones (I apologize in advance for this veering into Cloak Room territory, I do not mean to offend anyone) - there are three main issues. 

The biggest one you've already mentioned. The allocation of resources. There are plenty of people already saying the money passed in the last Congress is about to run out, but the administration is insisting it will last until the end of the fiscal year. They DO NOT want to go to this Congress with hat in hand and ask for more money in this fiscal year. That's less about the war in Ukraine, and more about the dynamics between the House and the administration. With the debt ceiling being front and center, but not the exclusive issue. There are signs the Republicans in the House - McCarthy specifically - are willing to extend more aid to Ukraine, but it will for sure be an unpleasant process that the administration is loathe to embark upon. 

It's highly questionable how much this issue resonates with average Americans, so we're not talking about some kind of massive public outcry if the US suddenly stops sending aid to Ukraine, or dramatically reduces its support. So we're left with politicians who approve spending because they think it's the right thing to do. Which there are plenty of. I'm just saying it's not a vote getter at the end of the day. 

But all of this means any kind of big ticket item - and F-16 exports would be huge, not just for the aircraft itself, but the support systems and the weapon systems it would employ - means less of everything else. That's a lot of artillery shells, SAM missiles and armored vehicles with their support systems that might be part of the opportunity cost involved. 

The second one is logistics. The F-16 is notorious for needing a cleaner runway than other fighter jets. 

Here's a great article that goes over the exact same information I came across, from the exact same source:

https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-may-spot-ukrainian-bases-preparing-for-f16s-expert-says-2023-4

Spoiler

Should Ukraine ever receive F-16 fighters from the US, the jets might not last very long.

The F-16 is so fragile that it requires specially prepared airbases — and those bases can be identified and targeted by Russia, one expert says.

The F-16 has a large air intake under the nose that "sucks everything from the ground directly into it," Justin Bronk, an air-warfare analyst for Britain's Royal United Service Institute (RUSI) think tank said during a recent episode of the Geopolitics Decanted podcast. "So F-16s typically require very clean, very well-maintained air bases."

The F-16 has "fairly lightweight" landing gear because it is designed to have a good thrust-to-weight ratio and "there is no more weight on the jet than there needs to be," Bronk said.

Russian fighters are built to operate on more primitive airfields, while Western carrier-based jets like the F/A-18 are designed to absorb the shock of hard landings on a floating runway.

An Air National Guard crew chief inspects the intake of an F-16 in May 2022.  US Air Force/Senior Airman Erica Webster

"You would have to do a lot of work to get those Ukrainian, old Soviet-pattern runways to a clean enough state to use an F-16 without high risk of foreign object debris going in and damaging the engines," Bronk said. In addition, a lot of Ukrainian airfields are too short to be used by a fully loaded F-16.

"So you'd be looking at resurfacing work on runways and potentially extension work, all of which is highly visible" to Russia's satellites as well as to sources Moscow has on the ground, Bronk added.

Despite being numerically and technologically outmatched by Russian aircraft and air-to-air missiles, Ukraine's air force has proven remarkably resilient and resourceful. But so far, Russia has chosen to not to use its limited stockpile of long-range missiles against Ukrainian airbases because Ukrainian airpower "doesn't pose a massive threat," Bronk said.

But that will change if Western-made jets start operating from Ukrainian airfields. "All of Ukraine's airbases are within reach — because the whole country is within reach — of Russia's ballistic and cruise missiles," Bronk said on the podcast.

Military personnel guard an Su-27 at Ozerne air base in northern Ukraine in December 2018  SERGEI SUPINSKY/AFP via Getty Images

Though Russia's arsenal of missiles is shrinking, they would only need to be launched against a limited number of targets to neutralize any Ukrainian F-16 fleet.

Despite struggling with accuracy in its airstrikes, "Russia has the ability to put craters in things that it wants to," Bronk said. "It can't do loads of them. But if you're having to centralize something like the F-16 around one or two bases because you can only prepare one or two to the required standard within the resource constraints, that's quite a vulnerable posture."

Since Russia invaded in February 2022, Ukraine has been pleading for Western jets to replace its dwindling fleet of Soviet-era MiG-29 and Su-27 fighters, which are badly outnumbered and outgunned by Russia's air force.

Western bloc nations have already sent large quantities of weapons and ammunition — including tanks, artillery, and guided missiles — to Ukraine, but they have yet to send jets because of concerns about Ukrainian unfamiliarity with Western aircraft and for fear of provoking Russia.

US Air National Guard crews replace a part on an F-16 at Ukraine's Mirgorod Air Base in July 2011.  US Air Force/Tech. Sgt. Charles Vaughn

NATO members Poland and Slovakia have agreed to send jets to Ukraine, but they are providing older MiG-29s, which Ukrainian pilots and mechanics are accustomed to but don't have much capability beyond that of the MiG-29s Ukraine already has.

Still, as the conflict drags on into its second year, the pressure to send fighters may prove irresistible. For months, there have been various reports that several Western nations — the US, Britain, France, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Sweden — are considering sending their jets.

Even a small number of Western fighters would be enough to get the Russian Air Force "to back off, at least for a while," Bronk said, and Ukraine's leaders would probably be happy to have any Western jet that is reasonably good condition, but one of the main questions about any such transfer is which jet would be best suited for Ukraine.

US-built F/A-18s or French-made Mirage 2000Cs and Rafale Ms would be "reasonably suitable" for Ukraine's "relatively austere runways," Bronk told Insider in an email. But those jets may not have much utility due to limits on what air-to-air munitions Western countries will provide.

A Swedish JAS 39 Gripen takes off at Bodö airport in November 2018.  Mats Nyström/Försvarsmakten

The Mirage 2000C can only use MICA missiles and would be "totally out-ranged in air-to-air terms," Bronk said, adding that while Rafale Ms use the more capable Meteor missile, "it's highly unlikely" that France would send Rafales or that Ukraine could support dispersed operations with them.

The F/A-18 would require AIM-120C8/D3 missiles to conduct effective attacks from low altitudes on Russian fighter patrols at medium- or high-altitude, Bronk said, but the US may not provide those missiles out of concern that Russia would capture some and gain access to their advanced components.

Bronk has argued that Sweden's JAS-39 Gripen fighter would be the best choice because it is designed to be easy to maintain and to operate from rugged airstrips.

"Gripen is the only option that combines austere and short runway capabilities with comparative ease of maintenance, high in-cockpit automation, and the Meteor missile," Bronk told Insider.

Here's another more recent article, also from Business Insider (which is not a publication I get information from regularly, but it came up on a google search and the quotes are credible and relevant) talking about how outmatched any fourth generation fighter, even one updated as much as the F-16 has been, is in the current air defense environment:

https://www.businessinsider.com/former-f-16-pilot-aircraft-no-fighting-chance-over-ukraine-2023-5

Spoiler

Ukrainian officials have long pressed their Western military backers to send them modern fighter jets, arguing Kyiv needs the airpower to best the invading Russian forces. While some in the West agree, others say fighter aircraft like the ones Ukraine wants wouldn't stand a chance in the current threat environment.

There have been repeated requests for the delivery of American-made F-16s, leading to debates about how effective the fourth-generation planes would be in the skies. One former F-16 pilot told Insider he wouldn't want to fly missions over Ukraine right now, saying that the aircraft can't outmatch Russia's air-defense systems.

Fourth-generation fighters "have no business in a modern-day battlefield," John Venable, a 25-year veteran of the US Air Force, told Insider in a recent interview.

Since the early days of Russia's full-scale invasion in February 2022, Ukraine has sought fighter jets from its Western allies to supplement its diminishing fleet of Soviet-era MiG-29 and Su-27 fighters, which arguably cannot compete against Russia's superior air force.

 

California and Alabama Air National Guard crews replacing an Air Data Controller on an F-16 at Mirgorod Air Base on July 25, 2011.  US Air Force/Tech. Sgt. Charles Vaughn

Kyiv has asked Washington on numerous occasions for American fighter jets like F-15s, F/A-18s, and F-16s, Colin Kahl, the undersecretary of defense for policy, told Congress in late February, but the Biden administration has punted on the request, insisting that aircraft like the F-16 are not what Ukraine needs.

Some lawmakers and military officials have pressed the Pentagon to send F-16s to Ukraine, and one retired US Air Force colonel said he believed the jets would help give Ukraine an edge over Russia above the battlefield.

But other air-warfare experts and officials have said that providing F-16s to Ukraine would be too much of a heavy lift for Kyiv's military, arguing that in addition to the demands of establishing key maintenance and support facilities, these fighter jets would struggle to survive in the present threat environment and provide little impact on the grinding conflict.

As Insider previously reported, Gen. James Hecker, the commander of US Air Forces in Europe, said earlier this year that jets just aren't needed right now. "The Russian, as well as the Ukrainian success in integrated air and missile defense, have made much of those aircraft worthless," he added.

 

F-16 fighters would likely be outmatched by Russian air-defense systems

The airspace above Ukraine remains contested after 14 months of war. But Russia has enjoyed a numerically larger air force, stronger technical capabilities in its fighter jets, and long-range surface-to-air missile systems, according to a recent report on Russian airpower published by the Center for Naval Analyses.

The capable SAM systems "have proven extremely lethal" against Ukrainian aircraft and are the "primary killer" of Ukrainian jets, helicopters, and drones, the report notes.

A Ukrainian Air Force MiG-29 at a military airbase in Ukraine on November 23, 2016.  Danil Shamkin/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Fourth- and fourth-plus-generation fighter jets — like the F-16 — that lack stealth features are "completely outmatched in high-threat environments" because of advanced air-defense systems like Russia's S-400, argued Venable, a veteran and senior research fellow for defense policy at The Heritage Foundation, a Washington-based think tank.

In a commentary published on the think tank's website last month, Venable wrote that the F-16 was not suited for Ukraine's air force for several reasons, including that the S-400 could outsmart the F-16's targeting systems and that it could target the fighter jets before they're in range to fire weapons like Small Diameter Bombs.

 

"Giving Ukraine more MiG-29s will not help the battlefield. And even if we gave them modern F-16s — I would say more modern F-16s — it's not going to change or influence the battlefield in a year, much less in time for a spring offensive," he told Insider in an interview this week, referring to Ukraine's much-anticipated counteroffensive.

Venable said that when he was flying F-16s over Europe earlier in his career as a pilot, his aircraft had solid jamming pods that worked against threats posed by the SA-6 and SA-11 Soviet-era SAM systems. He said that he would have felt comfortable going up against the integrated Soviet air defenses in the 1980s and 1990s knowing he was backed by HARM targeting systems designed to take those on.

An S-400 missile launching from the Ashuluk military base in southern Russia on September 22, 2020  DIMITAR DILKOFF/AFP via Getty Images

"The threat would've been high. There would've been a good possibility that I would've been shot down, but also at least an equal possibility that I could have made it to the target, hit my target, and then I drop successfully and then egress safely from the battlefield," Venable said.

But there's since been a "whole leap in capabilities" from those to the current Russian SAM systems that have evolved over time. "I had a fighting chance back then," he said. "Today, there is no fighting chance."

 

Though sending F-16s to Ukraine does not currently appear to be on the table, the US could instead train the Ukrainian air force on how to use the fighter jets and bring it up to Western standards, Venable said. In other words, the US could get the Ukrainians oriented toward Western calibration — learning about the specific technology, logistical supply lines, maintenance, hydraulic systems, and fighter tactics.

"The end-game goal of that would not be for them to employ F-16s in combat. It would be for them to be spun up in a Western standard — a NATO standard, if you will — to where when they are able to fleet up to a fifth-generation platform, then that step will be a much more simple one for them to take," he said.

Although questions remain as to whether the US will eventually send advanced fighter jets to Ukraine, NATO countries like Poland and Slovakia have already committed to sending MiG-29s to Kyiv.

"Proud to be on the right side, doing the right thing to help protect #lives," Jaro Nad, Slovakia's defense minister, wrote on social media in mid-April after all of the jets that his country promised Ukraine were delivered to Kyiv's air force. "We Stand w/Ukraine."

 

 

My problem with this particular article is it's coming from the vantage point of a US pilot who wouldn't want to fly in the current air space in Ukraine, not from a Ukrainian pilot who is already facing long odds of survival flying old MiGs. I'm not saying the guy is wrong, but I wonder if he'd take the same position if he was flying planes into the Eastern seaboard against an invader who launched an attack on the United States. I just feel like he lacks the right perspective, and he's doing a very poor job in this article of acknowledging it. 

So opportunity cost and effectiveness are two big, salient issues that we're not capable of addressing completely. Or in some ways even a little bit. That's not about wanting the Russians to win. That's about real world issues we're facing in making the decision to send the aircraft.

It's also my opinion - and this is the Cloak Room part, so apologies in advance - that Democratic administrations tend to have a different view of the military and how to oversee military operations than Republicans. As a life long Republican who doesn't really know what I am any more, I have always been biased towards how Republican administrations handle the military. I'm not saying I'm correct on this. I'm saying it's my opinion, and admit it's a biased one.

But if you look at the perspectives that Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Obama, and even Biden have taken in terms of military operations, there is a consistent piece meal approach to them that I have always disagreed with on some level. I don't want to get into a discussion about Truman's approach to Korea, Kennedy's approach to Bay of Pigs (an operation he inherited and almost certainly should have stopped, but regardless the lack of promised air support was a strange mixed message) Johnson's approach to Vietnam, Carter's approach to the Cold War, Clinton's approach to Somalia or the Balkans, Obama's approach to Iraq, Afghanistan, ISIS, Syria, and Libya, or Biden's approach to Afghanistan. I also don't want to indicate a full throated support for everything the Republican administrations did, because they're certainly not without fault. 

But I approve of the bombing campaigns on Hanoi, the all in attitude in taking back Kuwait, the all in attitude with Afghanistan following the WTC attack. I was a part of the initial deployment in Somalia under George Bush, and I'm convinced - rightly or wrongly - that if he'd been president Blackhawk Down doesn't happen. 

To me there's a tendency of Democratic administrations to go part way in, in an effort not to be...I don't know. Too militaristic? Appeal to popular support externally? To not be too bloodthirsty? Not get our hands too dirty? Or, on the other hand, maybe it's smart tactical decision making that prevents something worse from occurring. I'm willing to admit that may be a possibility, even if I don't believe it. But given that the alternative in this case was very little support whatsoever, and an almost tacit approval of how Putin conducts business, I'll take what we have right now under Biden every day and any day, and I'll be very grateful for it. 

But I do feel like there are voices in the administration that don't necessarily want Russia to win, but are concerned about how much the US does to ensure it loses. And for me, that's a historical position Democratic administrations have always possessed in their ranks. Again, rightly or wrongly. It's just my belief, and I admit that. 

So I feel all those forces are at play, along with an isolationist strain that blends in with sympathetic voices to Russia's cause. But it's not as black and white as this guy is making it out to be. Like I've said, the tweet feels like a shot to the groin to get people galvanized that are on the fence to send the F-16s, not as an accurate description of the dynamics at work. 

[Parliament 14260]

19 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

Honestly, Predators with Hellfire missiles would be a lot better of a suprise motherfuckers.  

Why not both.

[Born to Run 6569]

Who the fuck are you again? Like my opinion or not, I couldn’t care less. You offer no opinion or insight, but show up to act the douche. Helluva way to live your life.

Ah yes, to act the douche. So rude monsignor tsk tsk

[AUS-97HORN 11785]

6 hours ago, Mullet Free said:

I don’t look for Russian good news, I just marvel at the pretzels people twist themselves into here. 

that might be the most innane shit I have ever read. 

 

I was wondering what the fuck happened for this thread to increase 3 entire pages in less than 5 hours.  I thought there was a major event.  

The last time we blew through 3 pages in a few hours was when the Uks retook Kharkiv 

having a moron enter the chat like you did dropping NOWLEDGE  (yeah spelled the Nebraska way) wasnt something i was even remotely considering as a possibility. ,

 

[BamaATL 16593]

5 minutes ago, Parliament said:

Why not both.

Because drones can be geo locked to only work in certain areas, pilots have free will.  That and the Ukrainians have demonstrated that they have a few good drone pilots who might not require much in the way of training.  Although, if anyone can solve geo locking, it's probably Orville and Wilbur Wrightchenko.  

[Parliament 14260]

It was rhetorical.

[Born to Run 6569]

I don’t think anyone is whipping ass. Looks like a deadly stalemate currently. Although Russia is closer to winning imo.
 
Today we found out Ukraine has less than a month’s fuel and needs more weapons to launch its counteroffensive that was supposed to give supporting countries confidence that the tide was turning. 
 
I’m going to head out now, so y’all can shake your pom poms without fear of any divergent thoughts. 

My bad fellas I had one of those crusty winter time boogers whilst riding my BMX bike back in 86, and launched a gnarly snot rocket onto the curb thus giving birth to this poster. my bad man

[Gatorubet 30245]

6 hours ago, Mullet Free said:

Is he sandbagging or do we all need a reality check? Suddenly they don’t have enough equipment for the all important counteroffensive. 
 

Maybe Russia is pretty successfully destroying the shit we’re giving Ukraine?

 

[Rimbo 25946]

20 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

Well, I don't know how dialed in someone has to be.

Based on what I've read and what I know in terms of how US administrations think - especially Democratic ones (I apologize in advance for this veering into Cloak Room territory, I do not mean to offend anyone) - there are three main issues. 

The biggest one you've already mentioned. The allocation of resources. There are plenty of people already saying the money passed in the last Congress is about to run out, but the administration is insisting it will last until the end of the fiscal year. They DO NOT want to go to this Congress with hat in hand and ask for more money in this fiscal year. That's less about the war in Ukraine, and more about the dynamics between the House and the administration. With the debt ceiling being front and center, but not the exclusive issue. There are signs the Republicans in the House - McCarthy specifically - are willing to extend more aid to Ukraine, but it will for sure be an unpleasant process that the administration is loathe to embark upon. 

It's highly questionable how much this issue resonates with average Americans, so we're not talking about some kind of massive public outcry if the US suddenly stops sending aid to Ukraine, or dramatically reduces its support. So we're left with politicians who approve spending because they think it's the right thing to do. Which there are plenty of. I'm just saying it's not a vote getter at the end of the day. 

But all of this means any kind of big ticket item - and F-16 exports would be huge, not just for the aircraft itself, but the support systems and the weapon systems it would employ - means less of everything else. That's a lot of artillery shells, SAM missiles and armored vehicles with their support systems that might be part of the opportunity cost involved. 

The second one is logistics. The F-16 is notorious for needing a cleaner runway than other fighter jets. 

Here's a great article that goes over the exact same information I came across, from the exact same source:

https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-may-spot-ukrainian-bases-preparing-for-f16s-expert-says-2023-4

  Reveal hidden contents

Should Ukraine ever receive F-16 fighters from the US, the jets might not last very long.

The F-16 is so fragile that it requires specially prepared airbases — and those bases can be identified and targeted by Russia, one expert says.

The F-16 has a large air intake under the nose that "sucks everything from the ground directly into it," Justin Bronk, an air-warfare analyst for Britain's Royal United Service Institute (RUSI) think tank said during a recent episode of the Geopolitics Decanted podcast. "So F-16s typically require very clean, very well-maintained air bases."

The F-16 has "fairly lightweight" landing gear because it is designed to have a good thrust-to-weight ratio and "there is no more weight on the jet than there needs to be," Bronk said.

Russian fighters are built to operate on more primitive airfields, while Western carrier-based jets like the F/A-18 are designed to absorb the shock of hard landings on a floating runway.

An Air National Guard crew chief inspects the intake of an F-16 in May 2022.  US Air Force/Senior Airman Erica Webster

"You would have to do a lot of work to get those Ukrainian, old Soviet-pattern runways to a clean enough state to use an F-16 without high risk of foreign object debris going in and damaging the engines," Bronk said. In addition, a lot of Ukrainian airfields are too short to be used by a fully loaded F-16.

"So you'd be looking at resurfacing work on runways and potentially extension work, all of which is highly visible" to Russia's satellites as well as to sources Moscow has on the ground, Bronk added.

Despite being numerically and technologically outmatched by Russian aircraft and air-to-air missiles, Ukraine's air force has proven remarkably resilient and resourceful. But so far, Russia has chosen to not to use its limited stockpile of long-range missiles against Ukrainian airbases because Ukrainian airpower "doesn't pose a massive threat," Bronk said.

But that will change if Western-made jets start operating from Ukrainian airfields. "All of Ukraine's airbases are within reach — because the whole country is within reach — of Russia's ballistic and cruise missiles," Bronk said on the podcast.

Military personnel guard an Su-27 at Ozerne air base in northern Ukraine in December 2018  SERGEI SUPINSKY/AFP via Getty Images

Though Russia's arsenal of missiles is shrinking, they would only need to be launched against a limited number of targets to neutralize any Ukrainian F-16 fleet.

Despite struggling with accuracy in its airstrikes, "Russia has the ability to put craters in things that it wants to," Bronk said. "It can't do loads of them. But if you're having to centralize something like the F-16 around one or two bases because you can only prepare one or two to the required standard within the resource constraints, that's quite a vulnerable posture."

Since Russia invaded in February 2022, Ukraine has been pleading for Western jets to replace its dwindling fleet of Soviet-era MiG-29 and Su-27 fighters, which are badly outnumbered and outgunned by Russia's air force.

Western bloc nations have already sent large quantities of weapons and ammunition — including tanks, artillery, and guided missiles — to Ukraine, but they have yet to send jets because of concerns about Ukrainian unfamiliarity with Western aircraft and for fear of provoking Russia.

US Air National Guard crews replace a part on an F-16 at Ukraine's Mirgorod Air Base in July 2011.  US Air Force/Tech. Sgt. Charles Vaughn

NATO members Poland and Slovakia have agreed to send jets to Ukraine, but they are providing older MiG-29s, which Ukrainian pilots and mechanics are accustomed to but don't have much capability beyond that of the MiG-29s Ukraine already has.

Still, as the conflict drags on into its second year, the pressure to send fighters may prove irresistible. For months, there have been various reports that several Western nations — the US, Britain, France, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Sweden — are considering sending their jets.

Even a small number of Western fighters would be enough to get the Russian Air Force "to back off, at least for a while," Bronk said, and Ukraine's leaders would probably be happy to have any Western jet that is reasonably good condition, but one of the main questions about any such transfer is which jet would be best suited for Ukraine.

US-built F/A-18s or French-made Mirage 2000Cs and Rafale Ms would be "reasonably suitable" for Ukraine's "relatively austere runways," Bronk told Insider in an email. But those jets may not have much utility due to limits on what air-to-air munitions Western countries will provide.

A Swedish JAS 39 Gripen takes off at Bodö airport in November 2018.  Mats Nyström/Försvarsmakten

The Mirage 2000C can only use MICA missiles and would be "totally out-ranged in air-to-air terms," Bronk said, adding that while Rafale Ms use the more capable Meteor missile, "it's highly unlikely" that France would send Rafales or that Ukraine could support dispersed operations with them.

The F/A-18 would require AIM-120C8/D3 missiles to conduct effective attacks from low altitudes on Russian fighter patrols at medium- or high-altitude, Bronk said, but the US may not provide those missiles out of concern that Russia would capture some and gain access to their advanced components.

Bronk has argued that Sweden's JAS-39 Gripen fighter would be the best choice because it is designed to be easy to maintain and to operate from rugged airstrips.

"Gripen is the only option that combines austere and short runway capabilities with comparative ease of maintenance, high in-cockpit automation, and the Meteor missile," Bronk told Insider.

Here's another more recent article, also from Business Insider (which is not a publication I get information from regularly, but it came up on a google search and the quotes are credible and relevant) talking about how outmatched any fourth generation fighter, even one updated as much as the F-16 has been, is in the current air defense environment:

https://www.businessinsider.com/former-f-16-pilot-aircraft-no-fighting-chance-over-ukraine-2023-5

  Reveal hidden contents

Ukrainian officials have long pressed their Western military backers to send them modern fighter jets, arguing Kyiv needs the airpower to best the invading Russian forces. While some in the West agree, others say fighter aircraft like the ones Ukraine wants wouldn't stand a chance in the current threat environment.

There have been repeated requests for the delivery of American-made F-16s, leading to debates about how effective the fourth-generation planes would be in the skies. One former F-16 pilot told Insider he wouldn't want to fly missions over Ukraine right now, saying that the aircraft can't outmatch Russia's air-defense systems.

Fourth-generation fighters "have no business in a modern-day battlefield," John Venable, a 25-year veteran of the US Air Force, told Insider in a recent interview.

Since the early days of Russia's full-scale invasion in February 2022, Ukraine has sought fighter jets from its Western allies to supplement its diminishing fleet of Soviet-era MiG-29 and Su-27 fighters, which arguably cannot compete against Russia's superior air force.

 

California and Alabama Air National Guard crews replacing an Air Data Controller on an F-16 at Mirgorod Air Base on July 25, 2011.  US Air Force/Tech. Sgt. Charles Vaughn

Kyiv has asked Washington on numerous occasions for American fighter jets like F-15s, F/A-18s, and F-16s, Colin Kahl, the undersecretary of defense for policy, told Congress in late February, but the Biden administration has punted on the request, insisting that aircraft like the F-16 are not what Ukraine needs.

Some lawmakers and military officials have pressed the Pentagon to send F-16s to Ukraine, and one retired US Air Force colonel said he believed the jets would help give Ukraine an edge over Russia above the battlefield.

But other air-warfare experts and officials have said that providing F-16s to Ukraine would be too much of a heavy lift for Kyiv's military, arguing that in addition to the demands of establishing key maintenance and support facilities, these fighter jets would struggle to survive in the present threat environment and provide little impact on the grinding conflict.

As Insider previously reported, Gen. James Hecker, the commander of US Air Forces in Europe, said earlier this year that jets just aren't needed right now. "The Russian, as well as the Ukrainian success in integrated air and missile defense, have made much of those aircraft worthless," he added.

 

F-16 fighters would likely be outmatched by Russian air-defense systems

The airspace above Ukraine remains contested after 14 months of war. But Russia has enjoyed a numerically larger air force, stronger technical capabilities in its fighter jets, and long-range surface-to-air missile systems, according to a recent report on Russian airpower published by the Center for Naval Analyses.

The capable SAM systems "have proven extremely lethal" against Ukrainian aircraft and are the "primary killer" of Ukrainian jets, helicopters, and drones, the report notes.

A Ukrainian Air Force MiG-29 at a military airbase in Ukraine on November 23, 2016.  Danil Shamkin/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Fourth- and fourth-plus-generation fighter jets — like the F-16 — that lack stealth features are "completely outmatched in high-threat environments" because of advanced air-defense systems like Russia's S-400, argued Venable, a veteran and senior research fellow for defense policy at The Heritage Foundation, a Washington-based think tank.

In a commentary published on the think tank's website last month, Venable wrote that the F-16 was not suited for Ukraine's air force for several reasons, including that the S-400 could outsmart the F-16's targeting systems and that it could target the fighter jets before they're in range to fire weapons like Small Diameter Bombs.

 

"Giving Ukraine more MiG-29s will not help the battlefield. And even if we gave them modern F-16s — I would say more modern F-16s — it's not going to change or influence the battlefield in a year, much less in time for a spring offensive," he told Insider in an interview this week, referring to Ukraine's much-anticipated counteroffensive.

Venable said that when he was flying F-16s over Europe earlier in his career as a pilot, his aircraft had solid jamming pods that worked against threats posed by the SA-6 and SA-11 Soviet-era SAM systems. He said that he would have felt comfortable going up against the integrated Soviet air defenses in the 1980s and 1990s knowing he was backed by HARM targeting systems designed to take those on.

An S-400 missile launching from the Ashuluk military base in southern Russia on September 22, 2020  DIMITAR DILKOFF/AFP via Getty Images

"The threat would've been high. There would've been a good possibility that I would've been shot down, but also at least an equal possibility that I could have made it to the target, hit my target, and then I drop successfully and then egress safely from the battlefield," Venable said.

But there's since been a "whole leap in capabilities" from those to the current Russian SAM systems that have evolved over time. "I had a fighting chance back then," he said. "Today, there is no fighting chance."

 

Though sending F-16s to Ukraine does not currently appear to be on the table, the US could instead train the Ukrainian air force on how to use the fighter jets and bring it up to Western standards, Venable said. In other words, the US could get the Ukrainians oriented toward Western calibration — learning about the specific technology, logistical supply lines, maintenance, hydraulic systems, and fighter tactics.

"The end-game goal of that would not be for them to employ F-16s in combat. It would be for them to be spun up in a Western standard — a NATO standard, if you will — to where when they are able to fleet up to a fifth-generation platform, then that step will be a much more simple one for them to take," he said.

Although questions remain as to whether the US will eventually send advanced fighter jets to Ukraine, NATO countries like Poland and Slovakia have already committed to sending MiG-29s to Kyiv.

"Proud to be on the right side, doing the right thing to help protect #lives," Jaro Nad, Slovakia's defense minister, wrote on social media in mid-April after all of the jets that his country promised Ukraine were delivered to Kyiv's air force. "We Stand w/Ukraine."

 

 

My problem with this particular article is it's coming from the vantage point of a US pilot who wouldn't want to fly in the current air space in Ukraine, not from a Ukrainian pilot who is already facing long odds of survival flying old MiGs. I'm not saying the guy is wrong, but I wonder if he'd take the same position if he was flying planes into the Eastern seaboard against an invader who launched an attack on the United States. I just feel like he lacks the right perspective, and he's doing a very poor job in this article of acknowledging it. 

So opportunity cost and effectiveness are two big, salient issues that we're not capable of addressing completely. Or in some ways even a little bit. That's not about wanting the Russians to win. That's about real world issues we're facing in making the decision to send the aircraft.

It's also my opinion - and this is the Cloak Room part, so apologies in advance - that Democratic administrations tend to have a different view of the military and how to oversee military operations than Republicans. As a life long Republican who doesn't really know what I am any more, I have always been biased towards how Republican administrations handle the military. I'm not saying I'm correct on this. I'm saying it's my opinion, and admit it's a biased one.

But if you look at the perspectives that Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Obama, and even Biden have taken in terms of military operations, there is a consistent piece meal approach to them that I have always disagreed with on some level. I don't want to get into a discussion about Truman's approach to Korea, Kennedy's approach to Bay of Pigs (an operation he inherited and almost certainly should have stopped, but regardless the lack of promised air support was a strange mixed message) Johnson's approach to Vietnam, Carter's approach to the Cold War, Clinton's approach to Somalia or the Balkans, Obama's approach to Iraq, Afghanistan, ISIS, Syria, and Libya, or Biden's approach to Afghanistan. I also don't want to indicate a full throated support for everything the Republican administrations did, because they're certainly not without fault. 

But I approve of the bombing campaigns on Hanoi, the all in attitude in taking back Kuwait, the all in attitude with Afghanistan following the WTC attack. I was a part of the initial deployment in Somalia under George Bush, and I'm convinced - rightly or wrongly - that if he'd been president Blackhawk Down doesn't happen. 

To me there's a tendency of Democratic administrations to go part way in, in an effort not to be...I don't know. Too militaristic? Appeal to popular support externally? To not be too bloodthirsty? Not get our hands too dirty? Or, on the other hand, maybe it's smart tactical decision making that prevents something worse from occurring. I'm willing to admit that may be a possibility, even if I don't believe it. But given that the alternative in this case was very little support whatsoever, and an almost tacit approval of how Putin conducts business, I'll take what we have right now under Biden every day and any day, and I'll be very grateful for it. 

But I do feel like there are voices in the administration that don't necessarily want Russia to win, but are concerned about how much the US does to ensure it loses. And for me, that's a historical position Democratic administrations have always possessed in their ranks. Again, rightly or wrongly. It's just my belief, and I admit that. 

So I feel all those forces are at play, along with an isolationist strain that blends in with sympathetic voices to Russia's cause. But it's not as black and white as this guy is making it out to be. Like I've said, the tweet feels like a shot to the groin to get people galvanized that are on the fence to send the F-16s, not as an accurate description of the dynamics at work. 

tl;dr

[Born to Run 6569]

We don’t need F16s getting shot down over Ukraine. They would and the negative reaction it would generate in the US would out weigh the tactical advantage they’d provide.
F22s are fun to imagine though 
 

What if we set up beach volleyball (not coed; only playing with the boys) and booked Kenny Loggins for a weekend?

[Parliament 14260]

Can I have a go at an in-her-prime Kelly McGillis?

[SL Xpress 7516]

27 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

tl;dr

It's not even as long as the Mark Hertling op/ed you posted yesterday, lol, then posted a video in case it was too much for anyone to read. 

[The Dog 44060]

 

Edited May 17, 2023 by The Dog

[pops 6986]

1 hour ago, Parliament said:

Can I have a go at an in-her-prime Kelly McGillis?

You do you 

[Rimbo 25946]

1 hour ago, SL Xpress said:

It's not even as long as the Mark Hertling op/ed you posted yesterday, lol, then posted a video in case it was too much for anyone to read. 

Yeah, but Mark Hertling actually knows what he's talking about.

[SL Xpress 7516]

Article from Kyiv Independent talking about extensive Russian defensive fortifications along the front. I did not find it particularly informative. I don't know what I'm expecting. Apparently some kind of guided video tour through the bunkers and installations, which obviously isn't going to happen. A lot of blinding glimpses of the obvious. "The fortifications are impressive, but will they be sufficiently manned with soldiers and equipment?" 

Anyway, all the thick red lines are very impressive and scary. 

I can't imagine this is realistic, but I wonder how much Ukraine's army is capable of feints? Because I feel highly confident Russia's forces would not be able to shift deployment on the fly. At least not without it being a complete clusterfuck. Anyway, beyond my paygrade. We'll see what it entails pretty soon. I can't imagine it won't happen by the end of May or in June at the latest. I'm not in any actual hurry as an observer. There may not be a second chance to employ an assault force of this magnitude, equipped in this manner. Best to get this one right. Too much hinging on it being successful.

https://kyivindependent.com/where-does-russia-expect-ukraines-counterattack-overview-of-defensive-lines/

Spoiler

Where does Russia expect Ukraine’s counterattack? Overview of defensive lines

Share

• Share on Twitter
• Share on Facebook
• Share on LinkedIn
• Share via Email

by Igor KossovMay 17, 2023 12:14 AM9 min read

/content/images/2023/05/GettyImages-1485528660.jpg

A Ukrainian soldier looks over a target range, as Ukrainian Armed Forces brigades train for a critical and imminent spring counteroffensive against Russian troops in the Donbas region, Ukraine, on April 26, 2023. (Photo by Scott Peterson/Getty Images)

Listen to this article

 

 

0:00 / 13:12

1X

BeyondWords

As Ukraine gathers forces for the counteroffensive, Russia continues to build defensive lines on a massive scale.

The lines are especially formidable in the southwestern part of Zaporizhzhia Oblast, where many observers expect the main Ukrainian assault to strike.

But defenses have been prepared along pretty much the entire front; in occupied Crimea and inside Russia. They incorporate trenches, bunkers and strongpoints, infantry and vehicle shelters, anti-tank ditches, pyramidal concrete tank barriers called dragon's teeth, and minefields, as well as terrain and water features.

When properly manned, these lines could pose a tough challenge without an easy solution.

Russia’s ability to properly man them is debated. The Russian military can’t hope to defend the entire 800-kilometer front line with equal vigor. During the defense, large Russian formations may have to fall back to prepared positions in a coordinated fashion — Russia’s shown that its large-scale maneuvering capability isn’t the best.

However, fortifications may allow Russians to put up heavy resistance in key areas, possibly slowing down the Ukrainian forces long enough for reinforcements to arrive.

Here is an overview of what Russia’s defenses and troop concentrations look like at different parts of the front and what that can tell us about the battles to come.

A map of Russia's known fortifications across Ukraine, compiled by Brady Africk, a media relations associate in foreign and defense policy at the American Enterprise Institute. (Screenshot)

Kharkiv and Luhansk oblasts

Russia’s easternmost defenses start at the Kharkiv Oblast’s national border and run down through Pokrovske and Svatove, to around Kreminna and Bilohorivka in Luhansk Oblast, a distance of around 140 kilometers.

Satellite images show that this stretch consists primarily of a single, solid belt of defenses set back from the current front line by distances of 5-20 kilometers. However, Russian forces have begun to construct another layer in northern Luhansk Oblast and Kharkiv Oblast, freelance OSINT analyst Pasi Paroinen observed.

Karolina Hird, a scholar with the Institute for the Study of War, said that in case of a Ukrainian attack here, the Russian forces seem like they intend to fall back just once to that one defensive line and try to hold it.

“That’s kind of their only option – to hold that line,” she said. “And then if there’s a Ukrainian breakthrough on that line, that will allow Ukrainian forces to push into occupied Luhansk Oblast.”

According to multiple reports, the Kupiansk axis in Kharkiv Oblast is guarded by a fairly dispersed force grouping, including the battered 1st Guards Tank Army’s 47th Tank Division and the 6th Combined Arms Army’s 138th Separate Guards Motorized Rifle Brigade.

The Kreminna axis in Luhansk Oblast further south has a much higher force concentration, with elements from the Western Military District, Central Military District, Airborne troops, Spetsnaz (Russian special forces), militias from occupied Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, and other irregular formations.

Multiple groupings, including the elite airborne forces have been fighting in the area for months, taking losses without capturing territory. These troops are unlikely to be fresh.

A map of Russian fortifications in Kharkiv, Luhansk, and Donetsk oblasts, compiled from satellite images by Finnish freelance open source intelligence analysts, the Black Bird Group. (Screenshot)

Donetsk Oblast

The defensive lines continue from the west of Sievierodonetsk, running down along the regional border between Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts until reaching the area behind Bakhmut where they peter out.

These defenses were similar to the single-layer hard line to the north, according to the ISW’s April data. New fortifications started in the winter have been completed in the area recently, including in front of Lysychansk and Popasna, Luhansk Oblast.

According to the ISW, another line of defenses runs vertically from the south of Bakhmut, down to the national border.

However, the rear just east of Bakhmut is surprisingly unfortified, reflecting the fact that this is where Russia gained the most recent ground with Wagner Group’s offensive. “It’s too hot of a front line to build anything extensive,” said Paroinen.

Hird pointed out that there are reservoirs and rivers behind Bakhmut that act as natural barriers impeding mechanized movement. As for the existing defenses, the question is who will man them, as there are few conventional Russian forces around Bakhmut other than some Russian Airborne (VDV) units.

The area around occupied Donetsk itself is well-fortified after close to 10 years of both sides building up their defenses. There are extensive fortifications around the Avdiivka area and running from the edge of Donetsk to Marinka. Because these defenses have been there for a long time, they’re often omitted from recent maps of Russian defensive lines.

As a result, Donetsk and its surrounding settlements are a fortress, which would be very difficult and unsuitable for offensive operations. The forces here include many elements of the 1st Donetsk Army Corps, Russia's Southern Military District, the Northern Fleet, and multiple irregular and volunteer battalions.

Western Donetsk Oblast and eastern Zaporizhzhia Oblast

The Russian lines starting near Vuhledar, Donetsk Oblast, become much more sparse and scattered. This state of affairs extends all the way to north of Kamianka in Zaporizhzhia Oblast.

There is no hard line for Russian forces to fall back to and more of a reliance on the water and terrain features of the river-crossed farmland. What trenches and isolated strongpoints exist are probably unmanned for the most part.

The force groupings closer to Vuhledar were “utterly clobbered,” said Hird. “Elements in the area are in absolute shambles. They’ve been trying to take Vuhledar since October and have taken so many losses, entire naval infantry formations were restaffed in 3-4 iterations.”

The Russians along the spottily-defended area are exhausted and there are known issues with command and poor command structure and culture, experts said.

These units include Eastern Military District elements, the Pacific Fleet marines, VDV, some special forces, as well as a few private military companies and irregulars.

A map of Russian fortifications in Zaporizhzhia and Kherson oblasts, compiled from satellite images by Finnish freelance open source intelligence analysts, the Black Bird Group. (Screenshot)

Zaporizhzhia and Kherson oblasts

The hardest going will be in the south, where Russian forces prepared for a defense in depth. There are multiple layers of defensive lines, running up to dozens of kilometers deep. Defensive positions radiate down critical roads and encircle important settlements like Tokmak, Melitopol, and Kamianka.

The roadside fortifications can be seen all the way down towards Crimea. A double line guards the narrow crossing from the mainland into the peninsula and Crimea’s main roads are also being lined with defenses.

Trenches have even been dug along Crimean beaches, which are unlikely to do much, since Ukraine doesn’t have enough of a navy to conduct big landings but they reveal the Russian forces’ concern about the counteroffensive.

But the defensive lines in the southern Zaporizhzhia Oblast are formidable. There are multiple layers of antitank ditches and dragon’s teeth, as well as sheltered infantry and vehicle fighting positions.

Russians have recently been spotted adding more positions between the defensive line and the forward line of contact.

If heavily pressured, Russian forces here will be able to continually fall back to positions behind them, while laying down damage and slowing down the Ukrainians, with the aim of bogging them down and picking them apart.

They will have to do so, in fact, because it’s unlikely that all of these defenses are manned right now. The forces in this part of the front contain the battered remnants of those that withdrew from Kherson and units redeployed from other axes of attack.

However, they’ve also seen months of relatively low-intensity fighting, meaning they’re fresher than their comrades in Donbas.

Likely groupings include elements of the Southern and Eastern Military Districts’ combined arms armies, the Black Sea Fleet marines, Spetsnaz, as well as multiple volunteer battalions.

In Kherson Oblast, the defensive positions start right on the left (eastern) bank of the Dnipro River, which has been heavily mined. Dragon’s teeth and pillboxes further harden the bank. Analysts think it’s unlikely that Ukrainian forces will conduct a large strike across the river.

Russia's defensive line north of Tokmak, Zaporizhzhia Oblast

Russia’s layered defenses, especially in the south, pose a daunting challenge to Ukraine’s forces.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Can Russia man its defensive lines?

For their defensive positions to be effective, the Russian forces need enough troops, equipment, and fighting skill.

"The defenses have the potential to be formidable obstacles, but their utility almost entirely depends on them being supported by sufficient artillery and personnel. It remains unclear if the SGF (Southern Grouping of Forces) can currently muster these resources," the U.K. Defense Ministry has said.

The ISW has repeatedly observed that the Russians might find it problematic.

“For all the fortifications throughout the theater — Russian forces do not have the manpower to properly man these defensive fortifications,” said Hird. “It’s not like there are soldiers stacked up on all of these lines.”

She added that troops in many parts of the front are exhausted and arranged into odd, non-doctrinal formations.

For defenses to be effective, the defending side has to have substantial forces in reserve, being held back from the fortified positions. "Based on our understanding, this simply isn't the case," she said, with all of Russia's combined arms armies already committed.

However, some have cautioned against dismissing Russia’s preparations. Paroinen said that Russian forces could man the more forward defenses with lower quality troops, like mobilized conscripts, and keep more professional units in reserve, while pulling forces from other, quieter fronts, once they realize where Ukraine’s main attack is happening.

“The Russian military likely has the manpower and reserves to mount a stubborn defense, along with minefields and entrenchments,” wrote U.S. military analyst Michael Kofman. “This doesn't mean Ukraine can't break Russian lines, but past offensives suggest that Ukraine has challenges sustaining momentum after a breakthrough is achieved.”

The ability and spirit of the Russian conscripts and their equipment level are in question. It’s also unclear how mobile they will be when forced to fall back to defenses behind them. Russia has lost thousands of infantry vehicles and armored carriers in the war so far.

The other big issue with defensive fall-back maneuvers is the poor coordination in the Russian Armed Forces. Conducting an organized fighting retrograde of an entire brigade or regiment is not a skill Russian forces have exercised so far, Hird said.

“We have seen lots of small-scale tactical official operations all along the line,” she said. “The acumen it takes to do that is very different from what’s needed for large-scale defensive operations.”

BTW, in general I hate static defensive formations in war. There have been plenty of times in history where they've provided the winning edge, but mostly it's the use of mobility to outflank the enemy that wins battles. Personally I consider it a huge sign of weakness from the Russian military that they've resorted to this strategy. But because there isn't anything more productive they can actually accomplish, they dig a bunch of fancy ditches, and after those ditches are dug, they dig some more. But if the defenses work and the Ukrainians bog down in an effective manner, it will have proven successful. My hope is we don't see that happen. 

[bolverk 29683]

I don't know how good an aircraft like the Mirage 2000 is, but it looks like France might give Ukraine some.

 

[956 Worldwide 34715]

7 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

 

Hey…just for shits and giggles…how many days’ supply of fuel does the United States - the standard setter - have on hand (that is, how long would it take to run out if we weren’t resupplied?

Yeah…it’s not a lot more than 30 days. Shit, we were down to 25 days worth of diesel on hand just this fall.

The messaging was “keep supplying us.” But vatniks play it as “see, they’re out of fuel!”


The correlation between takes like his and people who post Zerohedge pieces is pretty close to 100%. They subscribe to the Russian worldview because they consume information from the Russian information sphere.

A sphere that said this would be a 3 day operation. A sphere that says all HIMARS supplied have already been destroyed. These are people who consume lies because they think they taste good.

Yes, there is propaganda all over, sunshine pumping, all that shit. But the difference between the Russian information sphere and the western one is like saying “both John Wayne Gacy and a guy who ran a stop sign are criminals! You’re a sucker for believing the traffic violator!”….as they spew Gacy’s words as gospel truth.

 

I think that this is close to the truth. I think he’s made terminal contrarianism his personality, it’s like adult onset oppositional defiance disorder. People like that end up in the zerohedge and Kimdotcom orbit because those outlets are a bunch of assholes who reflexively offer uninformed contrarian takes about EVERYTHING.  That’s a great space for the Russians but most of them aren’t consuming the real, strong, weapons grade Kremlin copium and hopium. 

[956 Worldwide 34715]

2 hours ago, bolverk said:

I don't know how good an aircraft like the Mirage 2000 is, but it looks like France might give Ukraine some.

 

It’s a capable platform. How well it works for Ukraine and how much better it may be than their MiGs is dependent on the weapons packages, avionics, and radars that are attached to any of them.  The thing is that a 4th gen platform is a 4th gen platform, especially for a place like Ukraine (no long sorties, no carrier ops, not forward deployed far from logistics hubs, etc). The air show theatrics you see of super maneuverability and stuff do not really make a shit. Survivability and effectiveness mostly depends on seeing the target before the target or air defense sees you, and it depends on the quality of the pilots and crews after that. 
 

 

So long explanation, even an early version of the Mirage will be at least as good for them as their MiGs and Sus as long as they can get their pilots trained up. 

[Schulz2.0 28957]

 

[locodos 5387]

9 hours ago, The Dog said:

I don’t think F-16s are the game changer that many think either but he’s right about the “de-escalation” faction.

Give the Russians some credit, they've worked long and hard to purchase the allegiance of the 
"de-escalation" faction.   They have gotten their talking points spread across the political spectrum.  As poorly as the Russians have fought on the ground, they've done a hell of a job influencing Western countries populace.   I sometimes wonder if the US was celebrating winning the cold war in the 3rd quarter.

Remember when the "commies" wanted to take over Korea?  Vietnam?  What was the US reaction?  Now a european democracy is getting eaten and the old Soviets are getting the band back together and we are dithering on our fainting couch.   We have a chance to have 1 of our 2 enemies/global competitors wreck themselves on our OLD/OBSOLETE military stock and somehow/someway a not insignificant portion of our leaders are against the idea?!  Our Grandfathers are rolling in their graves right now.

Yes we have paid handsomely for the weapons, BUT:

1. Most of the equipment is old/outdated and we were paying to have it stored/exercised
2. Patriots are not outdated (as far as I know) but is anyone really against protect civilians from indiscriminate bombing?
3. The defense industry should be drooling at the contracts to replace the old stuff (how are they not howling for this?)
4. It was all sunk cost anyways contracted/built/used/replaced...  it's not like saved cash.  An old plane costs a TON to keep airworthy, tanks and trucks the same to a lesser degree.
5. The US is never going to use these assets unless we are in a long grinding war with a rival super power...  wouldn't it be great if there was one fewer of them around?

I'm even more pissy because I was down in Miami/Aventura yesterday and the fucking Russians are all over the place.  Just living the good life, not a care in the world.  Hopefully they are earlier dissidents who got their money out and fled (booked a flight) to the west, but that seems a bit naïve.  In other news, it's now illegal for Chinese nationals to buy property in Florida, but the Russians are still welcomed with open arms.  And we are still not sure about arms to Ukraine.  FURK

[Bevo 13577]

32 minutes ago, locodos said:

I'm even more pissy because I was down in Miami/Aventura yesterday and the fucking Russians are all over the place.  Just living the good life, not a care in the world.  Hopefully they are earlier dissidents who got their money out and fled (booked a flight) to the west, but that seems a bit naïve.  In other news, it's now illegal for Chinese nationals to buy property in Florida, but the Russians are still welcomed with open arms.  And we are still not sure about arms to Ukraine.  FURK

Russians have been in Miami a long, long time. Maybe there has been a recent influx, but I'm not so sure. Here is an article on Sunny Isles Beach: https://www.businessinsider.com/florida-little-moscow-sunny-isles-miami-russian-money-real-estate-2022-3#among-these-developments-are-several-trump-towers-a-brand-that-has-held-a-huge-appeal-among-russian-investors-looking-to-move-their-money-in-the-post-soviet-economy-4  . Russian oligarchs do own expensive properties in Miami although there has been some talk by the administration to do something about it. It hasn't happened yet, though.

Interestingly, Canada has put in place a ban against foreigners (mainly aimed at Chinese) for buying up properties in Canada. Some states have done the same in the US. A lot of property being bought has been purchased through the Chinese government. I think the total acreage owned by China in the US is 390000 acres if I remember correctly. Chinese nationals are the largest foreign buyers in the US. In 2021, Chinese buyers purchased 6,300 existing housing units worth $4.5 billion. That number is after a slowdown in purchasing due to Covid. In 2018, for example, $30 billion was spent on 40,000 homes. With Canada closing its borders temporarily, expect China's purchasing of US properties to increase.

 

   

[SL Xpress 7516]

33 minutes ago, locodos said:

Give the Russians some credit, they've worked long and hard to purchase the allegiance of the 
"de-escalation" faction.   They have gotten their talking points spread across the political spectrum.  As poorly as the Russians have fought on the ground, they've done a hell of a job influencing Western countries populace.   I sometimes wonder if the US was celebrating winning the cold war in the 3rd quarter.

Remember when the "commies" wanted to take over Korea?  Vietnam?  What was the US reaction?  Now a european democracy is getting eaten and the old Soviets are getting the band back together and we are dithering on our fainting couch.   We have a chance to have 1 of our 2 enemies/global competitors wreck themselves on our OLD/OBSOLETE military stock and somehow/someway a not insignificant portion of our leaders are against the idea?!  Our Grandfathers are rolling in their graves right now.

Yes we have paid handsomely for the weapons, BUT:

1. Most of the equipment is old/outdated and we were paying to have it stored/exercised
2. Patriots are not outdated (as far as I know) but is anyone really against protect civilians from indiscriminate bombing?
3. The defense industry should be drooling at the contracts to replace the old stuff (how are they not howling for this?)
4. It was all sunk cost anyways contracted/built/used/replaced...  it's not like saved cash.  An old plane costs a TON to keep airworthy, tanks and trucks the same to a lesser degree.
5. The US is never going to use these assets unless we are in a long grinding war with a rival super power...  wouldn't it be great if there was one fewer of them around?

I'm even more pissy because I was down in Miami/Aventura yesterday and the fucking Russians are all over the place.  Just living the good life, not a care in the world.  Hopefully they are earlier dissidents who got their money out and fled (booked a flight) to the west, but that seems a bit naïve.  In other news, it's now illegal for Chinese nationals to buy property in Florida, but the Russians are still welcomed with open arms.  And we are still not sure about arms to Ukraine.  FURK

I don't see it completely the same way. The Soviets worked very hard at influencing a sympathetic audience among Western countries, using the religious rhetoric of the proletariat. It was extremely effective in all kinds of ways, leading to the stealing of atomic secrets for one thing, and other advanced military systems. They gained all kinds of apologists for their actions. They still have them. 

The Russians have been helped by the advent of social media, the tribalism and echo chambers it encourages. Anything that encourages dissent of any kind, or represents a contrarian view to the mainstream, they're going to support. Doesn't matter if it's Black Lives Matter or White Supremacist groups. And it can be difficult to discern because a lot of their messaging is hidden as part of a speak truth to power mentality that is extraordinarily seductive to any intelligent person who feels any sense of powerlessness whatsoever. And a lot of the messaging they support has some fundamental legitimacy. They just don't care about that. They seek out divisiveness in whatever form they can find. 

But let's not pretend we don't do the same kind of stuff in return. Heck, look at the recent CIA video. That's a masterpiece in manipulating legitimate Russian fears to turn traitor to the state. Never mind I agree with it wholeheartedly because it's my side doing it. 

I'm also not convinced we can parade the reaction to Korea and Vietnam as unmitigated successes, or some kind of balls to the wall effort on the US part to subvert Soviet intentions. 

Then there's the idea of Ukraine as a European democracy. I'd say it's more accurate to say they have strong aspirations to be a European democracy, and as a people they've been willing to sacrifice their lives and their potential future in ways I'm not sure have many equivalents in order to have one. But Ukraine has a monumentally complex history. The steppes around the Black Sea have a rich complicated past that extends well into prehistory. The Ukrainian (and Russian) people were founded by marauding Vikings who used wholesale slaughter to establish their culture. The separation into two separate cultures is marred by all the complexity of European wars of conquest, including the Polish Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the various Tsars, WWII, etc.. In following their elections post 1991 independence there was a very clear bifurcation between west and east Ukraine that always had a ton of political commentary attached to it way before 2014, with political thinkers wondering if this was a nation state that could actually exist long term. Even the Crimean takeover, while completely unjustified which should have been resisted way more stringently and forcefully by the West at the time it happened, isn't clear cut at all, given Stalin's forced relocation of the local Tartars, and the massive influx of ethnic Russians into the region. It was only given to the Ukraine Soviet Socialist Republic by native Ukrainian son Khrushchev in the 50s, in a move that was protested at the time and was a huge basis for Putin's view it was a historic mistake. Crimea was arguably the strongest pro Russian region in all of Ukraine.

Then you have the Ukraine nationalist rhetoric which is often couched in cultures, language and history that would make many of us uncomfortable. But when you've been marginalized as a people for centuries, with the Russians and others making constant efforts to wipe your existence from the planet, you don't always get to pick your heroes. They're the ones you have. 

None of this is to discount the Ukrainian effort. I have an immense amount of respect and admiration for them as a people. An overwhelming amount, really. This truly is good versus evil in my mind. It's blatantly obvious in all kinds of ways in how the war is being conducted. Russian civilization is marred at its center by cruelty and an almost unbelievable demeaning of the value of human life. This war effort is Putin's equivalent to Hitler's Final Solution for the Ukrainian people. He thinks of them as a historic mistake as a people and like Randy Newman's short people, feels like they have no reason to live. 

But overall what I tend to feel is a great sense of gratitude for the efforts that have already been extended. I wish it was more. I wish it was a whole lot more. But there are a lot of factors at play that simply can't be dismissed. The US is an isolationist country with isolationist tendencies that harken back to its creation. The Republicans began a strategy of all out confrontation and obstruction of virtually anything Democrats want to accomplish under Newt Gingrich, and that strain exists today. So if the Democrats are for supporting Ukraine, there is a segment in the Republican party that immediately wants to make that more difficult. Then there are the Russian sympathizers, of which there are an appalling amount. But what are you going to do? It's a free country, and that's what you get. I also know there's a segment of the Democratic Party that feels uncomfortable being this supportive of Ukraine, but because their party is the one in power they play along because it's important from that standpoint. I don't really care about the reasons. I'm all in favor of anyone who is supportive of our efforts in Ukraine, regardless of how they get there. 

Even with all of that there has been an amazing amount of bipartisan support for the efforts to help Ukraine. The US has slowly ratcheted up the systems they supply to the Ukrainians, from javelins and stingers, to HIMARs, to Abrams, to Patriot air defense systems. I remember bringing up the need to supply Patriot defense systems on this thread shortly after the invasion began and being told by some of the posters that's a step too far, and too risky. Now it seems like the natural progression of US support. 

We're all kind of waiting to see what this spring/summer counter offensive brings. I'm confident it's going to have a huge impact on how the war is conducted from now on. I'm hopeful for Ukraine's future, maybe even a little desperately so. But they first need to bring this war to an end on their terms, and right now that feels a long ways off. 
 

[SL Xpress 7516]

41 minutes ago, Bevo said:

Russians have been in Miami a long, long time. Maybe there has been a recent influx, but I'm not so sure. Here is an article on Sunny Isles Beach: https://www.businessinsider.com/florida-little-moscow-sunny-isles-miami-russian-money-real-estate-2022-3#among-these-developments-are-several-trump-towers-a-brand-that-has-held-a-huge-appeal-among-russian-investors-looking-to-move-their-money-in-the-post-soviet-economy-4  . Russian oligarchs do own expensive properties in Miami although there has been some talk by the administration to do something about it. It hasn't happened yet, though.

Interestingly, Canada has put in place a ban against foreigners (mainly aimed at Chinese) for buying up properties in Canada. Some states have done the same in the US. A lot of property being bought has been purchased through the Chinese government. I think the total acreage owned by China in the US is 390000 acres if I remember correctly. Chinese nationals are the largest foreign buyers in the US. In 2021, Chinese buyers purchased 6,300 existing housing units worth $4.5 billion. That number is after a slowdown in purchasing due to Covid. In 2018, for example, $30 billion was spent on 40,000 homes. With Canada closing its borders temporarily, expect China's purchasing of US properties to increase.

 

   

Chinese have to do something with all the dollars they hold. The real problem is the current account deficit. If we're going to live a lifestyle we can't actually afford through the products and services we sell, then we have to either sell debt or assets to make up the difference. The Chinese realize assets are a safer and better return on their investment, and so they're acting accordingly. Any manipulation of the market, no matter the intention or worthiness, will have all kinds of unintended consequences. Which is not to say we shouldn't do it. I'm a Chinese hawk and feel like we should have been treating them towards the enemy side of the frenemy spectrum long ago. But we're not actually prepared to pay the price to do so, because we're blithefully unaware of all the consequences. Disentangling from the cheap Chinese manufacturing will be immensely painful whenever it occurs. But to me it's an existential threat. You especially see it with the rhetoric in Europe, where different leaders want to separate foreign policy objectives from the US, because they feel like they're more vulnerable to friction with the Chinese than the Americans. Which is a dangerous conceit on any number of levels. 

But all of this has little to do with the war in Ukraine. Maybe tangentially, but it's a painful rhetorical contortion to make the connections. 

That said, if anyone wants to take the discussion to a Chinese thread, I'd love to hear more perspectives on it. 

[KYHorn 17076]

 

 

 

 

[KYHorn 17076]

Someone got a talking to

 

 

 

[KYHorn 17076]

Yeah, keep it up, Russia.

 

 

 

[Bevo 13577]

14 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

Chinese have to do something with all the dollars they hold. The real problem is the current account deficit. If we're going to live a lifestyle we can't actually afford through the products and services we sell, then we have to either sell debt or assets to make up the difference. The Chinese realize assets are a safer and better return on their investment, and so they're acting accordingly. Any manipulation of the market, no matter the intention or worthiness, will have all kinds of unintended consequences. Which is not to say we shouldn't do it. I'm a Chinese hawk and feel like we should have been treating them towards the enemy side of the frenemy spectrum long ago. But we're not actually prepared to pay the price to do so, because we're blithefully unaware of all the consequences. Disentangling from the cheap Chinese manufacturing will be immensely painful whenever it occurs. But to me it's an existential threat. You especially see it with the rhetoric in Europe, where different leaders want to separate foreign policy objectives from the US, because they feel like they're more vulnerable to friction with the Chinese than the Americans. Which is a dangerous conceit on any number of levels. 

But all of this has little to do with the war in Ukraine. Maybe tangentially, but it's a painful rhetorical contortion to make the connections. 

That said, if anyone wants to take the discussion to a Chinese thread, I'd love to hear more perspectives on it. 

Basically, it is a safe investment for wealthy to park their money. From a sales pitch type article to Chinese nationals:

1. Opportunity to Send their Children to the Best Universities in the World
2. Stable and Secure Real Estate Investment
3. A Path to Citizenship
4. Favorable Debt Terms & Mortgage Financing
5. High-Quality Real Estate with Relatively Lower Prices

[KYHorn 17076]

 

 

 

 

 

[SL Xpress 7516]

11 minutes ago, KYHorn said:

Someone got a talking to

 

What do you mean? 

BTW, I love/hate that photo of Bucha and comparing it to Russia. After this war is over I so want the contrast between Ukraine and Russia borders to resemble North and South Korea, or West and East Germany. 

[The Dog 44060]

[KYHorn 17076]

22 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

What do you mean? 

BTW, I love/hate that photo of Bucha and comparing it to Russia. After this war is over I so want the contrast between Ukraine and Russia borders to resemble North and South Korea, or West and East Germany. 

I read it too quickly and thought it was some kind of rapprochement from the SA side after the recent revelation from the American ambassador, which might've indicated that pressure has been placed on SA, but on second glace, it is not so clear that this is an attempt at changing directions.

Edited May 17, 2023 by KYHorn

[The Dog 44060]

they sent all of those shiny new missiles and not only did they all get shot down they just scratched one of the components.

"what are you going to do? bleed on me?"