Scrutable

Also when they advance, the Ukrainians will have to start supplying themselves over the infrastructure they just degraded.

bjn wrote: Wed Dec 14, 2022 12:45 pm Also when they advance, the Ukrainians will have to start supplying themselves over the infrastructure they just degraded.

Yes, that's a good point.

Is Belarus about to enter the war? This article believes so...

https://worldcrunch.com/in-the-news/bel ... kraine-war

bjn wrote: Wed Dec 14, 2022 12:45 pm Also when they advance, the Ukrainians will have to start supplying themselves over the infrastructure they just degraded.

This true, but it's not straightforward and not symmetrical. The bridge in Melitopol is likely to be of more use to the Russians than to the Ukrainians in almost any situation, I'd add, but I'm going to talk more generally.

The Russian way of war is extremely dependent on very heavy use of artillery, especially multiple-launch rocket systems like the BM-21 Grad. These systems are particularly logistically demanding, and in general, the Russian army needs a substantial advantage in weight of shell fired to achieve equivalent effects due to a couple of reasons. First is the growing use of precision fires by the Ukrainian side, due in part to the incorporation of NATO equipment. This means for an equivalent impact at the target, Ukraine needs to fire less weight of shell. While this encompasses things like HIMARS and guided Excalibur shells, it also stems from the greater inherent accuracy of systems like the M777, CAESAR and PzH2000 when firing unguided shell. There is also a difference in command, control and communication (C3) that means the Ukrainian artillery is more responsive. Russian artillery is often reported as responding hours late, and failing to even aim at the correct target due to these issues. Again, this means Ukraine needs to expend less weight of shell to achieve the same effect. And it is weight of shell/propellant that determines what needs to be brought along the lines of supply.

The second issue is that Russia lacks the long range precision of systems like NATO standard GMLRS. That's what Ukraine's been mostly using to hit communications, but when Ukraine retakes land, they can restore bridges without there being so great a threat of their destruction, so long as they are not right near the front line.

So what you are saying is true, and the extension of lines of supply can be a major factor in when offensives culminate, but it isn't straightforward or symmetrical in this case.

Looks like Russian air defences are active over Kursk and Bryansk.

UK MoD reports that the Russians are running critically low on munitions, not just rockets, but shells for tube artillery as well. They are manufacturing new munitions but are reducing their stock pile much faster than they can produce them.

bjn wrote: Wed Dec 14, 2022 10:56 pm UK MoD reports that the Russians are running critically low on munitions, not just rockets, but shells for tube artillery as well. They are manufacturing new munitions but are reducing their stock pile much faster than they can produce them.

They are very inefficient in their use of shells, relying on a vast weight of shell to achieve any sort of advance, which I touched on earlier today. It is hardly a surprise. They'll also be facing issues with gun tubes wearing.

Ukraine faces these issues too, of course, and it would be sensible to look into options like retubing worn guns into NATO calibres - at least turning 152s into 155s - as they need renewing, as that would simplify ammunition requirements in the long term.

Washington Post talking about US sending JDAM kits

These turn an unguided bomb into a precision bomb, with GPS guidance. It would make sense to also send compatible bombs, but it's not impossible these could be fitted to the old Warsaw Pact bombs with a bit of ingenuity.

Long overdue, and ought to be pretty simple to integrate, at least for fixed targets.

There's mention of it being unclear if this is for ground or air launched munitions. I'm going to put it on the record that I assume this is for air launched. I have no idea how you'd ground-launch a JDAM. A Ground-Launched Small-Diameter Bomb concept isn't really viable, as a JDAM kit is too wide to squeeze down the tube of any MLRS system. The only real possibility I can think of is cramming one onto a Tochka-U booster, and frankly, while that would be a magnificent bodge, it is, not to put to fine a point on it, completely and utterly insane without extensive development, even in a war with a rather high quantity of Mad Max style improvisations.

EACLucifer wrote: Thu Dec 15, 2022 11:19 am Washington Post talking about US sending JDAM kits

These turn an unguided bomb into a precision bomb, with GPS guidance. It would make sense to also send compatible bombs, but it's not impossible these could be fitted to the old Warsaw Pact bombs with a bit of ingenuity.

Long overdue, and ought to be pretty simple to integrate, at least for fixed targets.

There's mention of it being unclear if this is for ground or air launched munitions. I'm going to put it on the record that I assume this is for air launched. I have no idea how you'd ground-launch a JDAM. A Ground-Launched Small-Diameter Bomb concept isn't really viable, as a JDAM kit is too wide to squeeze down the tube of any MLRS system. The only real possibility I can think of is cramming one onto a Tochka-U booster, and frankly, while that would be a magnificent bodge, it is, not to put to fine a point on it, completely and utterly insane without extensive development, even in a war with a rather high quantity of Mad Max style improvisations.

Interesting. The trick will be for the Ukrainian aircraft to be able to launch the JDAM without getting shot down by Russian air defences.

JDAMS have a published range of 28km, the extended range version is 80km. But you have to drop them from quite high up to get them to travel that far. So within Russian SAM range. You aren't using them without SEAD.

JDAMS have a published range of 28km, the extended range version is 80km. But you have to drop them from quite high up to get them to travel that far. So within Russian SAM range. You aren't using them without SEAD.

Not sure what the costs and quantities available are, but I wondered about cheap drone delivery? I guess theres a certain point where the SAM that shoots down the attacker "costs" more than the attacker - especially if humanitarian factors dont count. Or as lures to HARM-type attacks.

Imrael wrote: Thu Dec 15, 2022 3:11 pm

JDAMS have a published range of 28km, the extended range version is 80km. But you have to drop them from quite high up to get them to travel that far. So within Russian SAM range. You aren't using them without SEAD.

Not sure what the costs and quantities available are, but I wondered about cheap drone delivery? I guess theres a certain point where the SAM that shoots down the attacker "costs" more than the attacker - especially if humanitarian factors dont count. Or as lures to HARM-type attacks.

The lightest bomb that can currently be equipped with a JDAM kit is a five hundred pounder, so any drone that could carry it would be pretty hefty. We'd be thinking conventional aircraft converted to remote piloting, not a quadcopter (technically, a Mallot T-650 could lift it, but quadcopters can bomb accurately enough to not really need guidance anyway). On the other hand, any light plane could probably be adapted to carry at least a five hundred pounder, although the work involved would not be trivial. It's more than something like a Bayraktar TB2 could carry, and I've not seen any signs of Ukraine getting the larger Bayraktar Akinci.

If they were to be able to fit it to a drone, though, it would put the Russians in a hell of a quandary. The drone wouldn't need the sort of electrooptical systems a classic suicide drone needs, just to be able to navigate to the approximate right location and release the guided bomb. And, if it survived, it could be reused. Now I suspect America might demand these only be used on Ukrainian soil, but even so, it would put huge pressure on Russian air defences as a) they could be combined with HARMs to either force the radars to ignore the drones, or hit the radars if they engage the drones and b) the returning drones would be an obvious target for Russian aircraft, but that can be used to potentitally lure them onto air defences.

Most likely, though, they'll be used with crewed aircraft. Any of Ukraine's jets could carry them, and if more attention is needed to program them on the go, the two seat Su-24 has a weapons officer to do that. The Su-24 would also be useful as it has a large payload, and could carry a couple of two thousand pounders if something needed killing really hard. The problem, obviously, is air defences, so it's likely they'd be used for toss bombing, where the aircraft pulls up and releases the bomb on an upward trajectory. We see this a lot with unguided rockets from both helicopters and Su-25 attack aircraft, with the aircraft coming in at treetop height and popping flares as it pops up and turns, with the aircraft never crossing the front line.

So these won't be an enormous game changer, but they will allow a quick response near the front lines. Some JDAM kits have laser seekers, which would allow them to support laser designator equipped troops when rapid responses are needed. Alternatively, there's been attempts to make powered JDAMs, some tested successfully, and they would offer a cheaper, potentially more rapidly deployable alternative to GMLRS.

JDAM kits are also in inventory in huge numbers, with production greater than a hundred kits a day.

In other news, Rheinmetall are opening a new medium calibre ammunition plant soon to increase production of autocannon ammunition. This has been explicitly mentioned in conjunction with meeting the ammunition needs of the Gepards.

There's a couple of much iffier rumours about provision of weapons to Ukraine, incidentally. I don't think either is entirely impossible, but both are very unlikely.

The first is renewed interest in Leopard 2s and modern IFVs. This stems from talk of the US training five hundred Ukrainian troops in combined arms manoeuvre warfare warfare in Germany. That doesn't necessitate any kit Ukraine does not already have.

The other is reports of Britain sending Storm Shadow (aka SCALP EG) cruise missiles. This appears to be a remarkable reach based on Ben Wallace offering no comment on the sorts of systems to be offered if Russia continues to attack Ukrainian infrastructure.

Incidentally, no comment is what America could and should have said regarding ATACMS, rather than painting themselves into a corner with incompetent communications.

EACLucifer wrote: Fri Dec 16, 2022 7:33 am There's a couple of much iffier rumours about provision of weapons to Ukraine, incidentally. I don't think either is entirely impossible, but both are very unlikely.

The first is renewed interest in Leopard 2s and modern IFVs. This stems from talk of the US training five hundred Ukrainian troops in combined arms manoeuvre warfare warfare in Germany. That doesn't necessitate any kit Ukraine does not already have.

The other is reports of Britain sending Storm Shadow (aka SCALP EG) cruise missiles. This appears to be a remarkable reach based on Ben Wallace offering no comment on the sorts of systems to be offered if Russia continues to attack Ukrainian infrastructure.

Incidentally, no comment is what America could and should have said regarding ATACMS, rather than painting themselves into a corner with incompetent communications.

Yes, Storm Shadow would seem like an odd choice.

Also, your last paragraph is spot on.

jimbob wrote: Fri Dec 16, 2022 6:07 pmYes, Storm Shadow would seem like an odd choice.

Personally, I think that Storm Shadow would be a fantastic choice. Long ranged, very low radar profile so nearly immune to interception, and a large, two stage warhead that hits extremely hard. I think they are generally pre-programmed with the target before launch, so integration might be easier than one might think, and it would let Ukraine hit out at basically all of Russia's communications, including finishing off the Kerch Strait Bridge. It's also available in reasonable quantities, and combat proven. Even better would be if the French could be persuaded to send some of the related MdCN, as a ship launched missile could be converted to ground launching.

Unfortunately, I don't think it's terribly likely. The west continues to self deter despite the enormous safety margin they have between current behaviour - and indeed there's a margin for safety even if NATO were to start blasting Russian troops in Ukraine or even the airbases Russia use within Russia - and Russia's nuclear doctrine, and Russia's options for a conventional response can be roughly summed up as "f.ck all"

Judging by some footage going around - I will not link it - Russia is using WWI infantry tactics to go along with the rest of their WWI approach. The machine gun remains as deadly as it was a century ago.

EACLucifer wrote: Sat Dec 17, 2022 10:23 am Judging by some footage going around - I will not link it - Russia is using WWI infantry tactics to go along with the rest of their WWI approach. The machine gun remains as deadly as it was a century ago.

Is this referring to Russian attrition, rather than Ukrainian?

headshot wrote: Sat Dec 17, 2022 12:45 pm

EACLucifer wrote: Sat Dec 17, 2022 10:23 am Judging by some footage going around - I will not link it - Russia is using WWI infantry tactics to go along with the rest of their WWI approach. The machine gun remains as deadly as it was a century ago.

Is this referring to Russian attrition, rather than Ukrainian?

Failed Russian attack on Ukrainian trenches. Seems more reminiscent of the Somme or Verdun than anything I expected to see in the 21st century.

Certainly than anything I hoped I'd see this century.

Christ.

headshot wrote: Sat Dec 17, 2022 1:04 pmChrist.

Yeah. That was roughly my response. And this is also why I don't link to telegram sources - the etiquette there is different, and things aren't always clearly labelled.

I thought this set of posts about re-supply from a Russian military analysist via war translated was interesting
https://wartranslated.com/russian-milit ... st-russia/

EACLucifer wrote: Sat Dec 17, 2022 2:39 am

jimbob wrote: Fri Dec 16, 2022 6:07 pmYes, Storm Shadow would seem like an odd choice.

Personally, I think that Storm Shadow would be a fantastic choice. Long ranged, very low radar profile so nearly immune to interception, and a large, two stage warhead that hits extremely hard. I think they are generally pre-programmed with the target before launch, so integration might be easier than one might think, and it would let Ukraine hit out at basically all of Russia's communications, including finishing off the Kerch Strait Bridge. It's also available in reasonable quantities, and combat proven. Even better would be if the French could be persuaded to send some of the related MdCN, as a ship launched missile could be converted to ground launching.

Unfortunately, I don't think it's terribly likely. The west continues to self deter despite the enormous safety margin they have between current behaviour - and indeed there's a margin for safety even if NATO were to start blasting Russian troops in Ukraine or even the airbases Russia use within Russia - and Russia's nuclear doctrine, and Russia's options for a conventional response can be roughly summed up as "f.ck all"

I was thinking that if we were to supply something with the capabilities of Storm Shadow, wouldn't it be better to supply ground launched missiles. Yes Russia hasn't destroyed the Ukrainian air force, but Russia still has the upper hand in a way that isn't the case with ground based weapons.

jimbob wrote: Sat Dec 17, 2022 5:22 pm

EACLucifer wrote: Sat Dec 17, 2022 2:39 am

jimbob wrote: Fri Dec 16, 2022 6:07 pmYes, Storm Shadow would seem like an odd choice.

Personally, I think that Storm Shadow would be a fantastic choice. Long ranged, very low radar profile so nearly immune to interception, and a large, two stage warhead that hits extremely hard. I think they are generally pre-programmed with the target before launch, so integration might be easier than one might think, and it would let Ukraine hit out at basically all of Russia's communications, including finishing off the Kerch Strait Bridge. It's also available in reasonable quantities, and combat proven. Even better would be if the French could be persuaded to send some of the related MdCN, as a ship launched missile could be converted to ground launching.

Unfortunately, I don't think it's terribly likely. The west continues to self deter despite the enormous safety margin they have between current behaviour - and indeed there's a margin for safety even if NATO were to start blasting Russian troops in Ukraine or even the airbases Russia use within Russia - and Russia's nuclear doctrine, and Russia's options for a conventional response can be roughly summed up as "f.ck all"

I was thinking that if we were to supply something with the capabilities of Storm Shadow, wouldn't it be better to supply ground launched missiles. Yes Russia hasn't destroyed the Ukrainian air force, but Russia still has the upper hand in a way that isn't the case with ground based weapons.

Aside from the ATACMS NATO states don’t have stocks of ground launched missiles with a similar range of hundreds of kilometres.

The US is developing a successor to the ATACMS and in theory the Aegis Ashore anti-ballistic missile interceptors could probably have a land attack role. But overall it’s missiles are air and sea launched.

ETA there’s also a secondary land attack role for some ground launched anti-shipping missiles. But they aren’t very good at that role.

Woodchopper wrote: Sat Dec 17, 2022 6:00 pm

jimbob wrote: Sat Dec 17, 2022 5:22 pm

EACLucifer wrote: Sat Dec 17, 2022 2:39 am

Personally, I think that Storm Shadow would be a fantastic choice. Long ranged, very low radar profile so nearly immune to interception, and a large, two stage warhead that hits extremely hard. I think they are generally pre-programmed with the target before launch, so integration might be easier than one might think, and it would let Ukraine hit out at basically all of Russia's communications, including finishing off the Kerch Strait Bridge. It's also available in reasonable quantities, and combat proven. Even better would be if the French could be persuaded to send some of the related MdCN, as a ship launched missile could be converted to ground launching.

Unfortunately, I don't think it's terribly likely. The west continues to self deter despite the enormous safety margin they have between current behaviour - and indeed there's a margin for safety even if NATO were to start blasting Russian troops in Ukraine or even the airbases Russia use within Russia - and Russia's nuclear doctrine, and Russia's options for a conventional response can be roughly summed up as "f.ck all"

I was thinking that if we were to supply something with the capabilities of Storm Shadow, wouldn't it be better to supply ground launched missiles. Yes Russia hasn't destroyed the Ukrainian air force, but Russia still has the upper hand in a way that isn't the case with ground based weapons.

Aside from the ATACMS NATO states don’t have stocks of ground launched missiles with a similar range of hundreds of kilometres.

The US is developing a successor to the ATACMS and in theory the Aegis Ashore anti-ballistic missile interceptors could probably have a land attack role. But overall it’s missiles are air and sea launched.

ETA there’s also a secondary land attack role for some ground launched anti-shipping missiles. But they aren’t very good at that role.

Ship launched can be converted to land launched relatively easily, and I cited an example of a ship launched example - the MdCN - though Tomahawks are also capable of being land launched, and have been in the past.

And for weapons like Storm Shadow/SCALP EG, it doesn't really matter what the Russian airforce and air defences can achieve at or near the line of contact. They can't operate far beyond it, Ukrainian planes fly over Ukranian territory behind the lines with apparent impunity, and with a range of 560km and low radar observability, it doesn't need to be launched near the front lines to do the job needed. A Storm Shadow launched over Cherkasy Oblast could accurately and reliably hit any part of occupied Ukraine. The American JASSM, meanwhile, which is roughly comparable in performance, is sufficiently independent of the launching aircraft it can even be launched by the crateload by dropping it out of a transport aircraft.

I don't think they'll be sent, but that's due to timidity and self-deterrence, not because there isn't a good use-case for them. Britain's been ahead of some nations on sending advanced kit - notably Brimstone 1 and 2 - but it is unlikely Britain would be willing to go so far out in front of the others in supplying something so capable.