OT: Putin's War in Ukraine

[swaghauler]

Not thoughts about the linked article, but one thing that's come up in discussions I've been having elsewhere is that Russia's active protection systems are turning out to be largely ineffective against modern anti-tank missiles because their maximum elevation means they can't engage a pop-up top-attack missile like Javelin or Spike. None of them - not Drozd, Drozd-2, Arena, Arena-M, or Afghanit - can elevate much beyond 20 degrees. Afghanit can only engage with smoke dischargers, and none of the others can do anything. This is where Trophy ends up having an advantage because it can elevate almost to vertical.

The Russian APS systems would still be useful against the older systems being sent like LAW or AT-4, but their ERA packages can also defeat those lighter warheads, even one as light as Kontakt-1. Since Russian defensive systems generally don't work well together (I think Afghanit/Malachit are the only APS and ERA that can be on the same vehicle at the same time), the older APS may be virtually worthless on heavy armored vehicles (e.g. tanks) these days. Anything they can protect against, ERA can also protect against for similar weight, less power draw, and generally better odds against the first strike (possibly worse against follow-up attacks depending on the attacker's accuracy).

IFVs with APS systems would be useful because IFV-mounted ERA tends to be very unfriendly to dismounted troops, and soldiers are trying to use the lighter rockets against them when possible, but other than the BMP-3M and Kurganets (neither of which are in serial production AFAIK), I don't think Russia has IFVs with APS.

Time to go back to the old tried and true method of hanging short lengths of track links and spare road wheels off of the hull. Uparmored and suspension spares all rolled into one!

[kato13]

Related to what Rae said, I don't think Ukraine or the West is going to accept territorial loss.

I am thinking this is going to move into a new phase where Ukraine is going to need to dislodge entrenched Russian (I almost typed Soviet lol) troops whom have their backs against their own border.

I can't really see how the West can give Ukraine an advantage tech wise. They will need Artillery and Airstrikes to dislodge them. Our current assistance IMO mostly helps on easy strikes against moving targets and logistical elements out alone.

What are we looking at Guided shells Counter battery radars Anything like the Dome system would be vulnerable to HARM type weapons correct Drones would be useful, but will have serious attrition rates and would probably be vulnerable to jamming (we wont share our most jam resistant ones).

What would you give the Ukrainian in this new phase

[Vespers War]

Jokingly, I'd give them Trophy now that their tank corps has grown over the course of the war by virtue of capturing more tanks than they lost.

More seriously, I believe I read somewhere that Israel nixed transferring Iron Dome technology to Ukraine, and I presume they'd do the same with Trophy.

Some things I'd provide:
shore-based anti-ship missile batteries*
more drones**
as many LAW and AT-4 as they want***
technical and planning assistance blowing up rail lines connecting Russia to Ukraine****

*Denying Russia free transit of waters they view as theirs will both infuriate them and greatly reduce the value they get from having annexed Crimea. The Ukrainian Navy cannot stand up to the Russian Navy in a fight, but denying Russia large areas of the Black Sea will be useful.

**Even if they're not the most current models, existing recon drones and loitering munitions give Ukraine better tactical awareness and the ability to deny easy movement by Russian forces.

***These systems are no longer effective against tanks, but against anything lighter, or against bunkers or soldiers in regular buildings, they are still effective. Blowing up logistics convoys will still be a good way to weaken Russian forces.

****Russia is still heavily rail-dependent for logistics. They ship things to forward depots by rail and generally only use road transport for the military equivalent of "last mile" delivery. No trains, no supplies.

Dislodging Russian forces won't be pretty. If they have to be evicted by force, it's going to probably involve street-to-street clearing operations in the urban areas. Tactically, stuff that an individual soldier can hump is going to be critical. Strategically, denying logistical capabilities by rail or sea are the main areas where I'd go for supplying them with non-man-portable systems.

[Tegyrius]

What would you give the Ukrainian in this new phase

Assistance for managing their displaced population in the western half of the country. Everyone's gonna want to go home, but "home" isn't there any more for a lot of them, and it'll be a matter of years before reconstruction really is a thing. The sooner everyone who's displaced can be resettled, find permanent housing, start contributing to the economy again, get their kids back into school, and re-establish themselves with social/tribal connections to new communities, the sooner Ukraine's long-term economic and political prospects improve.

- C.

[Raellus]

Gifts for Ukraine

What would you give the Ukrainian in this new phase

NODs. Ukraine doesn't have many. They've been using the CLU units from Javelin systems for night vision, to good effect. Luckily, Russian troops aren't very well-equipped with NODs either.

Some sort of western MLRS system. Something that can shoot-and-scoot, and fire a number of different rocket payloads. Imagine what a barrage of rockets dropping anti-armor submunitions on that miles-long Russian convoy outside of Kiev would do.

If Ukraine is ever going to take back territory currently held by Russian and/or Russian-backed forces, its going to need more artillery, more tactical airpower, and more AFVs. Despite the widespread reports of the demise of the MBT, troops are going to find it hard to make gains on the ground without supporting armor.

-

[kato13]

Zelenskyy says there will be no retaking of Crimea by force. Ukrainians are sick of war and destruction. This isn't a hoorah war; it's a national tragedy.

I expected this but not before negations started. Crimea was Russian until 1954 when clerically it made sense to move it to the Ukrainian Socialist Republic, so insurgency would be a nightmare. Donbass is going to be the final sticky wicket. Maybe some movement on borders or some land for cash (if Russia pays damages, which I expect would only be if Putin was gone and they want sanctions lifted.)

[Spartan-117]

What would you give the Ukrainian in this new phase

I'd give them:

120mm mortars - Easier to manage logistics for than a howitzer battery. Pound those dug in Russian troops!

MOAR Drones - They are already using them to good effect. Again, jet aircraft need a shitload of logistics and when they go down, they take the pilot with them, unless recovered successfully. 1-2 million for a Bayraktar beats 24.8 million for a Mig-29.

MOAR things that need the /Guided qualification - Javelin, NLAW,
Stingers, etc. I'd like to see some cheap, medium ranged SAMs for them. Buying older Soviet systems like the SA-6 and such would be a good option. Shore based ASMs would be useful here. I think some of the nordic countries have relatively portable coastal defense Hellfire systems that would be very useful.

If this all seems like war on the cheap - it is. As Teg pointed out, Ukraine needs to be purposeful about reconstruction and preserving funds for that should be a priority.

Also - 2-6 training camps either in or outside of Ukraine. Have the Ukranian's rotate out company/battalion level units for training when/where possible. My understanding is that manpower isn't an issue - they are engaged in a national level mobilization of every military aged male. Training should be a priority - their performance to date shows impact of Operation ORBITAL and the like.

[Vespers War]

I'd give them:

120mm mortars - Easier to manage logistics for than a howitzer battery. Pound those dug in Russian troops!

MOAR Drones - They are already using them to good effect. Again, jet aircraft need a shitload of logistics and when they go down, they take the pilot with them, unless recovered successfully. 1-2 million for a Bayraktar beats 24.8 million for a Mig-29.

MOAR things that need the /Guided qualification - Javelin, NLAW,
Stingers, etc. I'd like to see some cheap, medium ranged SAMs for them. Buying older Soviet systems like the SA-6 and such would be a good option. Shore based ASMs would be useful here. I think some of the nordic countries have relatively portable coastal defense Hellfire systems that would be very useful.

If this all seems like war on the cheap - it is. As Teg pointed out, Ukraine needs to be purposeful about reconstruction and preserving funds for that should be a priority.

Also - 2-6 training camps either in or outside of Ukraine. Have the Ukranian's rotate out company/battalion level units for training when/where possible. My understanding is that manpower isn't an issue - they are engaged in a national level mobilization of every military aged male. Training should be a priority - their performance to date shows impact of Operation ORBITAL and the like.

Naval Hellfire is relatively short-ranged (~10 kilometers). Sisu, Scania, and Tatra have all made truck-based launchers for the RBS 15 missile (300+ kilometers depending on variant). "Both" might be acceptable here, since it layers defenses with different ranges for different purposes, although I believe Naval Hellfire is adapted from Longbow Hellfire, the newest examples of which date to 2005 and are going to age out of their certified lifespan soon.

[Targan]

What would you give the Ukrainian in this new phase

How about what they gave up in return for the Budapest Memorandum, which Putin has gleefully wiped his arse with

I kid of course, but that whole turn of events means that no nuke-possessing nation will willingly give up its nukes voluntarily EVER again. The lesson is clear - hold onto your nukes, and you won't get invaded. And I say that as someone who really doesn't like nukes.

[swaghauler]

Naval Hellfire is relatively short-ranged (~10 kilometers). Sisu, Scania, and Tatra have all made truck-based launchers for the RBS 15 missile (300+ kilometers depending on variant). "Both" might be acceptable here, since it layers defenses with different ranges for different purposes, although I believe Naval Hellfire is adapted from Longbow Hellfire, the newest examples of which date to 2005 and are going to age out of their certified lifespan soon.

The US Navy has more than a few Penguin Missiles. Give those to the Ukrainians.

What NATO should be doing is gathering up all of their older PACT equipment and giving it to both Ukraine AND Moldova. The US, Germany, and the UK could then transfer older equipment to the NATO allies who transferred equipment to "toughen up" their defensive posture. For instance, give Poland 250 M1 Abrams for her T72s and upgraded Twardy MBTs and have her transfer those PACT tanks to Russia (so they can abandon them in Ukraine) & Moldova. Have her transfer her nearly 200 Leopard 2A4s to Slovakia, the Czechs, and Slovenia along with Canada's leopards and surplus from Germany's mothballed tanks so each one of those countries can have a mechanized division or two with COMMON EQUIPMENT. Give Poland an additional 200 M1s for those Leopards. This would bring Poland up to 450 M1s immediately with the 250 M1a3 SLEPS she already bought coming in as soon as they were ready. That would give Poland a STRONG Mechanized presence along the border. Having all those countries mentioned above transfer their T72s to Ukraine and Moldova would give them around 500 T72s and 130 upgraded Polish Twardy Tanks.

The US should give the Baltic States her old M60A3s in mothballs as well as M114 [155mm] Towed Howitzers and M102 [105mm] Towed Howitzers. Give them M113s as well. We will not deploy the M60s again and they are at least a match for a T72. We should have enough running surplus left to give the Baltic States each THREE Mechanized Brigades plus spares and training tanks. These NATO members currently have ZERO armor.

I'd give Romania the remaining M48A3s from the Marines as other NATO countries in the Balkans also operate that tank and resupply could then be regionalized in the event of a conflict. The Marine M48A3s also have wider tracks (for sand) and would be a better "fit" for Romania's mountainous terrain. Romania could then give her T55s to the African Union (the largest user of T55s) in exchange for BM-21 Rocket Launchers, which Ukraine could use more of. We can then give Romania M109s to bring her artillery power up.

For aircraft, give Poland's Migs to Ukraine NOW, and give her F16s in exchange. Joe has this wrong, the US has more than 800 F16s. Let's get Poland "upgraded" NOW, using this event to get everyone flying similar equipment. She can even give her Helos to Ukraine and we will replace them with Blackhawks, Chinooks, and Apaches since the US is planning to upgrade those forces anyway.
In fact, we should go father...

We have roughly 120 flight-worthy F4s that we convert to drones and Germany and England have almost the same number of Tornadoes between them. Let's get these out to the Baltic States (which have no functional air forces). Forty F4s and Forty Tornadoes aren't that impressive a force, but they are SOMETHING. Alternately, we could sell those aircraft to Africa or Asia and put F16s into the Baltic States' hands. We should buff up the Baltic States so they can at least make the Russians pay for any ground taken.

Let's upgrade our NATO members to send a message to Russia that the US is willing to go all-in on supporting ANY NATO member who is threatened.

[kato13]

As we all love maps.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FPELjq1X0AUqnwZformat=jpg&name=4096x4096

(too large to embed)

[Raellus]

The US Navy has more than a few Penguin Missiles. Give those to the Ukrainians.

Are they shore-launched versions AFAIK, if Ukraine has any navy at all left, it would take some doing to mount Penguins on essentially Warsaw Pact vessels. I imagine it would also be very tricky to rig UAF planes to launch Penguin (on the avionics-weapon targeting links side of things). The simplest, most practical platform ATM would, I imagine, be a land-based mobile launch system.

It makes a lot of sense to offload former Pact members' Pact-based heavy weaponry and aircraft and replace it with western stuff. A sticking point may be who foots the bill for it all. Western stuff is more expensive to purchase and maintain. What needs to happen (and we're starting to see a bit of it already) is that all NATO member nations' defense spending needs to pick up.

Re equipping the Baltic States' air forces with F-4s and other older models, it'll still take a couple of years to train up pilots and, by the time they're ready, those aircraft will be even further out of date. I'd love to see a deal between the Baltics and Sweden for Grippens. Not only is it a newer, arguably more capable (and probably cheaper) alternative, it would bind Sweden closer to NATO.

-

[chico20854]

I'd love to see a deal between the Baltics and Sweden for Grippens. Not only is it a newer, arguably more capable (and probably cheaper) alternative, it would bind Sweden closer to NATO.
-

Two thoughts on the Swede's current level of involvement!

1) Poland and Sweden seem to have reached some level of agreement regarding ELINT coverage of the war. Over the past several weeks the Swedish Air Force has, according to flight tracking websites, been flying ELINT missions over the Baltic west of the Baltic states. In the last week or so those flights have shifted to over eastern Poland, where they are flying alongside American and British RC-135s, NATO E-3s and Italian ELINT aircraft. I haven't done any reading as to if anything has been announced, but since they have their transponders on obviously they don't object to the whole world knowing. (The tactical aircraft, on the other hand, do not have theirs on... usually).

2) During the Cold War Sweden maintained stocks of Viggen fighter-bombers at northeastern Swedish airfields in a pretty much ready to fly condition. These aircraft were earmarked for the Finnish Air Force, which the Russians limited the number (and quality) of airframes they could possess.

I would not be surprised if Sweden and Finland, one or both, are NATO members in 18 months. The timing seems tricky to me... on the one hand, no better time than the present when public opinion is very pro-NATO and the Russian military is so tied down in Ukraine that there are likely to be few serious repurcussions from Putin. On the other hand, things are not going well for Putin and I fear the escalation he may resort to if he feels even more backed into a corner.

Just my amateur rambling thoughts...

[Vespers War]

Are they shore-launched versions AFAIK, if Ukraine has any navy at all left, it would take some doing to mount Penguins on essentially Warsaw Pact vessels. I imagine it would also be very tricky to rig UAF planes to launch Penguin (on the avionics-weapon targeting links side of things). The simplest, most practical platform ATM would, I imagine, be a land-based mobile launch system.

It makes a lot of sense to offload former Pact members' Pact-based heavy weaponry and aircraft and replace it with western stuff. A sticking point may be who foots the bill for it all. Western stuff is more expensive to purchase and maintain. What needs to happen (and we're starting to see a bit of it already) is that all NATO member nations' defense spending needs to pick up.

Re equipping the Baltic States' air forces with F-4s and other older models, it'll still take a couple of years to train up pilots and, by the time they're ready, those aircraft will be even further out of date. I'd love to see a deal between the Baltics and Sweden for Grippens. Not only is it a newer, arguably more capable (and probably cheaper) alternative, it would bind Sweden closer to NATO.

-

Ukraine had virtually no navy to begin with - their largest combat vessel was a single 257 ton Matka-class missile boat (captured by Russia).

Re: Gripens, they're actually fairly expensive. Back in December as part of a pitch to India, Saab revealed that the bid price to Finland for 64 Gripen E was 125 million Euros each with a weapons package, or 101.6 million Euros for just the airplanes (the pitch was to show that Gripen was half the price India was paying for Rafale). Maybe some of the older C and D models could be leased from Sweden as they get more E, like what the Czechs and Hungarians have done, but if they're going for a complete switch from WP to Western aircraft, the F-16 is far more likely to have surplus aircraft become available, given that more than 4,600 of the Falcon have been manufactured to less than 300 of the Gripen.

[Raellus]

@Vespers: I misspoke (or mis-typed, rather). I meant to write that the Gripen would probably be cheaper to maintain and fly (than older US models like the F-4 Phantom). That was just an educated guess, though, and I very well could be wrong. Do you know off hand if a newer build F-16 is cheaper, off-the-shelf, and to fly and maintain, than a current model Gripen I guess I fell for the Saab marketing that the Gripen is a low-cost alternative to NATO's Gen 4 offerings.

Another thing the Gripen has going for it is it's ability to operate dispersed from conventional airbases and take off from and land on roads. It's also designed to be serviced by conscripts. Add all of that to a closer working relationship with Sweden, and I think it might be worth it to the Baltics to pay a little more (and NATO to subsidize the whole deal).

@Chico: I agree. Sweden and Finland have been toying with the idea of NATO membership for close to a decade now (IIRC, Russia's takeover of the Crimea in 2014 and cyber attacks on the Baltic States shortly thereafter were catalysts). If they don't join NATO now, when, if ever, will they Actually, it makes sense to wait a bit until things cool off a bit, at this point. If Putin thinks the west is piling on, it may push him to take more drastic action.

-