Russian invasion of Ukraine

JASR said:
A few pages back, Spider alluded to the fact that Abrams tanks have also proved ineffective and susceptible to defeat mechanisms (albeit different).

This war, as with all others, shows the waning of certain military equipment and the rise of others.

At the start of the war it was Manpads with reconnaissance drones In ascendancy over AFV, now its almost just drones, drones, drones - whether they be short range reconnaissance, naval attack, kamikaze short range and long range.
The Houthi attacks on shipping is similar.

There is, I presume, a large scale discussion in the longterm forward procurement planning in the West - weapons that can nullify drones, and whether certain military items are white elephants in a drone environment - think AFVs, large warships (eg carriers), non dispersed airstrips (Harrier nods).

The throwaway cheap nature of drones could possibly drive a change in carriers/surface combatants. You have smaller but significantly more EMALS UAV capable ships, rather than a $13b (+ aircraft)per unit carrier, with smaller but considerably more ‘picket line’ defence ships to pick up air, sea and presumably undersea drones.

To me, it does feel like a sea change (boom tish) in what is the key weapon in warfare, in the same way that the 1st 2 years of WWII changed warfare - Blitzkrieg tanks and combined warfare, significant use of reasonable submarines, Taranto naval attack by aircraft - showing that AirPower was better than Battleship power.
Click to expand...
The economics of war definitely need some thought, the countermeasures to take down cheap drones needs to be equally cheap to use. This is where directed energy weapons come into their own at around £10 per shot. The biggest challenge is spotting the drones in the first place due to them having such a small radar cross section so the use of combined micro doppler radar and optical detection will be needed.

Undersea drones are an even bigger issue, the countermeasures for which are more limited, relying on traditional methods combined with improved sensor technology. Maybe anti drone, drones are an option, i don't know but im sure people will be there thinking up wild and whacky solutions.
 
Kompany Car said:
The biggest challenge is spotting the drones in the first place due to them having such a small radar cross section so the use of combined micro doppler radar and optical detection will be needed.
Click to expand...
It didn't seem much of a challenge when Iran launched hundreds at Israel, virtually all were shot down, but unlike missiles, they can be shot down by aircraft as they are quite slow.

There will still need to effective defence systems for all attack weapons, and this is the problem Ukraine have had recently, it's not the systems themselves here, it's the ammunition to fire from them, hopefully soon resolved.
 
Stuff:
www.dailykos.com

Russian stuff blowing up: Ukraine hits Russian glide bomb site

Russia’s assault on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure continued through the night. Russia also bombed a hospital in Kharkiv. In Lviv, residents refuse to be broken. Another oil refinery on fire. A single-engine Yak-52 shoots down a drone over Odesa. Not...
www.dailykos.com

Anti drone cages fitted to fuel storage tanks in Russia now...
 
Last edited:
If foreign troops are on Ukraine soil (which they no doubt are) what’s that got to do with Putin, Russia have not declared war technically have they? It’s still a mission, isn’t it?
 
Ok I have to give it to the Ukrainians.. their ingenuity is fucking amazing..



Pretty damn cool, and as far as value for the money goes it probably doesn't get any better that. $2 of steel pipe/rebar and 10-20min of trimming, sharpening, bending and welding? Something like that?

Definitely Julius Caesar approved!
 
From "The Analyst":

TAURUS: THE REAL REASON GERMANY WON’T SUPPLY IT

I admit I knew about this and never said - largely because it was never really clear how well known the information really was and there’s been a lot of speculation and research that shows there’s more publicly known than in the past. Even so I still feel like I shouldn’t be saying anything! Old habits die hard, and for that I am remiss.
Germany is not a nuclear power. It has access to and can deliver American nuclear weapons of the B-61-12 tactical bomb type. But it can only use them if the US gives active permission. They are not a partly German bomb. None of the Nuclear Partnership weapons are. Partner nations merely deliver American weapons.
Storm Shadow and SCALP-EG are a lesser variant of the much more advanced Taurus. You can easily find the technical details on the Taurus online - it has the most incredible warhead capable of penetrating massive amounts of silo grade concrete and protected bunkers as much as three floors deep.
It was never designed or intended to be used as a surface level destroyer of air defence sites or to knockout above ground facilities.
It’s true purpose was to break up Russian command and control systems in their bunkers, but principally to strike at nuclear weapons storage sites and the many missile silos in the Russian west before they launched a nuclear attack. The plan was, that as soon as Russia began deploying nuclear weapons of any kind from reserve bases in wartime, Germany would use Taurus to attack and destroy C2/C3 sites and the launch sites, silos and other structures enabling that nuclear launch. You have to remember that this was before the days of the collapse of the Soviet Bloc and the Warsaw Pact; many of these weapons were forward based in the DDR and Poland when Taurus was first planned and authorised. The venerable Panavia Tornado strike fighter was the main means of delivery - and until F-35 arrives still is. To the Germans this is their antidote to Russian nuclear weapons in Kaliningrad and Belarus.
And they seem to be taking the threat of these more seriously. There has been a rush program to refurbish the entire stockpile - about a third of them were operational. That’s said to have doubled and all of them have been brought to combat readiness by the end of this year. There is even rumour that more have been ordered from SAAB-MBDA. Sweden also uses the missile and it works on the Gripen.
Germany did look long and hard at the Taurus but in many ways they could find little reason Ukraine really needed such a weapon. The StormShadow/SCALP-EG in their minds, was more than sufficient for Ukrainian needs. Besides which even France and the UK had restricted the use of those to inside the 1991 borders, just as America has with ATACMS.
There were sufficient technical changes that it would be difficult to get the Su-24 to deliver the missiles and they are much heavier than the short range SS/SEG versions. It’s not unfair to say that Germany had more than a few good reasons that the Taurus wasn’t viable enough. Yet they understand the importance of the signal it sends.
The main Russian command centres in Crimea have been largely destroyed. The real centre of command is in Rostov-on-Don inside Russian territory and out of bounds.
ATACMS and SS/SEG are enough for what Ukraine needs.
Post war, I wouldn’t be surprised if Ukraine was allowed to purchase such missiles. What it did with them in the event of a new war would be up to them. But in this one Germany has its reasons for retaining the Taurus and, because there is very little willingness to discuss nuclear weapons issues in Germany, the politicians would rather take the heat for not supplying than they would confess to the real reason they had them in the first place. A reason that’s very much returned to the fore, as Putin rattles his nuclear sabre every other day and only this week, threatened again to attack western nuclear bases if deemed necessary.
I understand the German point. CONTINUES...
CONTINUED…
Both practically and essentially, the missiles are probably a bit over the top for Ukrainian needs when you understand their true purpose.
It would in reality, be better if France and the UK resumed production of their versions (and they were supposed to have done so, contracts were said to be announced last July but never happened). That way more - and ideally longer ranged versions could be supplied, de-risking the delivery aircraft of which Ukraine has few left.
Gripen on the other hand has a handy capability to fire both versions with little modification. Sweden needs to make a decision on delivering these aircraft soon.
Olaf Schulz does make himself look like an idiot by not being willing to discuss difficult issues publicly. Yet it’s fair to say Germany has now done more than almost anyone else to supply what it can as quickly as it is able to. For that it must be given credit. Shultz may appear to be naive, but it’s on his watch that much has been forthcoming - and more is en route. Hopefully the above will help with your understanding of the difficult situation and practicalities Germany finds itself in. When you have a history such as theirs, responsibility weighs heavily on modern leadership in ways it’s hard for non-Germans to fully comprehend. Japan has started to move away from its past and endless atonement. Germany is still some way behind.
 
Scottyboi said:
From "The Analyst":

TAURUS: THE REAL REASON GERMANY WON’T SUPPLY IT

I admit I knew about this and never said - largely because it was never really clear how well known the information really was and there’s been a lot of speculation and research that shows there’s more publicly known than in the past. Even so I still feel like I shouldn’t be saying anything! Old habits die hard, and for that I am remiss.
Germany is not a nuclear power. It has access to and can deliver American nuclear weapons of the B-61-12 tactical bomb type. But it can only use them if the US gives active permission. They are not a partly German bomb. None of the Nuclear Partnership weapons are. Partner nations merely deliver American weapons.
Storm Shadow and SCALP-EG are a lesser variant of the much more advanced Taurus. You can easily find the technical details on the Taurus online - it has the most incredible warhead capable of penetrating massive amounts of silo grade concrete and protected bunkers as much as three floors deep.
It was never designed or intended to be used as a surface level destroyer of air defence sites or to knockout above ground facilities.
It’s true purpose was to break up Russian command and control systems in their bunkers, but principally to strike at nuclear weapons storage sites and the many missile silos in the Russian west before they launched a nuclear attack. The plan was, that as soon as Russia began deploying nuclear weapons of any kind from reserve bases in wartime, Germany would use Taurus to attack and destroy C2/C3 sites and the launch sites, silos and other structures enabling that nuclear launch. You have to remember that this was before the days of the collapse of the Soviet Bloc and the Warsaw Pact; many of these weapons were forward based in the DDR and Poland when Taurus was first planned and authorised. The venerable Panavia Tornado strike fighter was the main means of delivery - and until F-35 arrives still is. To the Germans this is their antidote to Russian nuclear weapons in Kaliningrad and Belarus.
And they seem to be taking the threat of these more seriously. There has been a rush program to refurbish the entire stockpile - about a third of them were operational. That’s said to have doubled and all of them have been brought to combat readiness by the end of this year. There is even rumour that more have been ordered from SAAB-MBDA. Sweden also uses the missile and it works on the Gripen.
Germany did look long and hard at the Taurus but in many ways they could find little reason Ukraine really needed such a weapon. The StormShadow/SCALP-EG in their minds, was more than sufficient for Ukrainian needs. Besides which even France and the UK had restricted the use of those to inside the 1991 borders, just as America has with ATACMS.
There were sufficient technical changes that it would be difficult to get the Su-24 to deliver the missiles and they are much heavier than the short range SS/SEG versions. It’s not unfair to say that Germany had more than a few good reasons that the Taurus wasn’t viable enough. Yet they understand the importance of the signal it sends.
The main Russian command centres in Crimea have been largely destroyed. The real centre of command is in Rostov-on-Don inside Russian territory and out of bounds.
ATACMS and SS/SEG are enough for what Ukraine needs.
Post war, I wouldn’t be surprised if Ukraine was allowed to purchase such missiles. What it did with them in the event of a new war would be up to them. But in this one Germany has its reasons for retaining the Taurus and, because there is very little willingness to discuss nuclear weapons issues in Germany, the politicians would rather take the heat for not supplying than they would confess to the real reason they had them in the first place. A reason that’s very much returned to the fore, as Putin rattles his nuclear sabre every other day and only this week, threatened again to attack western nuclear bases if deemed necessary.
I understand the German point. CONTINUES...
CONTINUED…
Both practically and essentially, the missiles are probably a bit over the top for Ukrainian needs when you understand their true purpose.
It would in reality, be better if France and the UK resumed production of their versions (and they were supposed to have done so, contracts were said to be announced last July but never happened). That way more - and ideally longer ranged versions could be supplied, de-risking the delivery aircraft of which Ukraine has few left.
Gripen on the other hand has a handy capability to fire both versions with little modification. Sweden needs to make a decision on delivering these aircraft soon.
Olaf Schulz does make himself look like an idiot by not being willing to discuss difficult issues publicly. Yet it’s fair to say Germany has now done more than almost anyone else to supply what it can as quickly as it is able to. For that it must be given credit. Shultz may appear to be naive, but it’s on his watch that much has been forthcoming - and more is en route. Hopefully the above will help with your understanding of the difficult situation and practicalities Germany finds itself in. When you have a history such as theirs, responsibility weighs heavily on modern leadership in ways it’s hard for non-Germans to fully comprehend. Japan has started to move away from its past and endless atonement. Germany is still some way behind.
Click to expand...
The Taurus and Storm Shadow/Scalp are different weapons systems - they are only similar in that they are air launched cruise missiles. The Taurus is longer range post launch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.