AtticusMatlock said:

---

Why even announce that? Just let their stuff start getting blown up and let them figure it out.

---

Accountability. I asked this myself some time ago and from what I can tell it usually boils down to this. Could be wrong though, just my own opinion.

With the aid packages, product needs to be itemized and end use clarified. We are not at war. So OPSEC gets a little weird when we also need to have SOME level of accounting for fed dollars to the public. This is a weird area for me as I personally feel pretty hypocritical on it. I would love for this stuff to be kept secret for the Ukes sake, OTOH though, I do feel like we need to have at least a modicum of accountability. Better than the official "stuff" that was used as a line item by the Air Force to account for billions of dollars that one time… I am a strong proponent of having a strong and advanced military. I am also not naive to the machinations and negatives of having a strong military industrial complex. More than most I would wager. Different topic though.

So a large contractor is going to be receiving federal dollars for a new military contract for build/fulfillment that is not even close to the realm of black operations. So it will be public info. And then people who pay attention to these things swoop in and make posts and get clicks. And here we are. I feed them just as much as the clickbait pop culture stuff gets young teens tbh. Oof.

Not saying that is the case for this particular example here but it is definitely a trend overall. And I like/hate it.

nortex97 said:

---

Analyses of the strategic outlook provided by the RUSI folks in the UK:

Quote:

---

The entire report revolves around an urgent plea for the West to remold its strategic concept of warfare, which has been badly degraded and fallen out with the times by several decades of lazy misallocation of resources and reorientation toward colonial policing actions.

In the following paragraph, the author defines precisely the difference between 'maneuver' wars and classic attritional wars, which is relevant in understanding the rest of the exegesis:

Quote:

---

Attritional wars require their own 'Art of War' and are fought with a 'force-centric' approach, unlike wars of manoeuvre which are 'terrain-focused'. They are rooted in massive industrial capacity to enable the replacement of losses, geographical depth to absorb a series of defeats, and technological conditions that prevent rapid ground movement.

In attritional wars, military operations are shaped by a state's ability to replace losses and generate new formations, not tactical and operational manoeuvres. The side that accepts the attritional nature of war and focuses on destroying enemy forces rather than gaining terrain is most likely to win.

---

---

More at the links, as they say. I think both are interesting and informed analyses of the strategic outlook.

---

There is some truth that the West has gotten weak but we still have TLAMs and the author will have to revise his article if we ever give Ukraine a hundred or so of those.

Certainly some BS in their about russia's magnificent battle plans and how they retreated on purpose. Its also a little ironic that the side that works to attrit the enemy versus worry about gaining ground seems to better describe UKR over the Orcs to me. See equipment loss lists.

B-1 83 said:

---

AlaskanAg99 said:

---

It's a double edged sword.

Ukraine can't make impact full gains unless they strike inside Russia. Which they are now doing. Buy using foreign weapon systems will enrage Russia. Which would put all the Baltic states on target. But Russia is already tapped in Ukraine.

Which only leaves nuclear options.

---

I thought Russia was using Iranian drones and Chinese materials? Sounds foreign to me.

---

And North Korean artillery rounds. Russia doesn't have a leg to stand on here as they exhaust their peak war manufacturing capacity.

You make the public announcement when you hope to intimidate the opposition into shutting down their jammers or taking them out of service to move them or move them further back from threats as a force multiplier for the weapons themselves. Russia doesn't know how many may be deployed and when or where so they have to plan to take countermeasures if their jammers are not very expendable.

PJYoung said:

---

AlaskanAg99 said:

---

Which only leaves nuclear options.

---

This again? Come on.

---

Their doctrine is strike first.
It's something to consider.

Two things have been made abundantly clear. The EW space is now the foundational space for any operations. Up until 5 years ago command of the skies was the single greatest combat necessity. Now it's the EW space and the Russians have it.
Next is deep strike capability in a sustained fashion is crucial. Neither side here has it but when executed it has huge effects, sinking ships hitting key infrastructure and for morale/propaganda.
A different factor is exposing how ridiculously thin our material stock piles are and how they've become overly reliant on wunderweapons. Amazing, effective but too expensive to stockpile for a peer to peer conflict.

I'm not sure that's all really accurate. A lot of our weapons have been able to piece Russia's EW capabilities. They do not own the space at all. Ukraine is getting only a small portion of what we have available, and they are not getting a lot of the most modern weapons designed to overcome Russia's EW capabilities. Additionally, they've been given a lot of things piecemeal. If they'd had more sooner, this would probably be a different story.

Additionally, Ukraine doesn't even have a fraction of our aerial capabilities. Even with Russia's SAM's, I think we could own the skies. Ukraine has been taking out the vaunted S300 and S400 with minimal SEAD and DEAD capability. Think of how that would go with F-35's launching fully capable and integrated HARM's or with more GMLRS and ATACMS available. Russia doesn't have a fighter that could go toe to toe with an F-22. Much of their infrastructure deep behind their lines would be very vulnerable.

And we could bring much more combat mass because of a lot of those weapons and shear numbers.

Yes, we need to be able to replenish stockpiles much faster and be prepared to ramp up production of and when necessary, but those wunderweapons are capable and lethal when used all together in the doctrine they were designed for. Ukraine is punching away above it's weight right now, and a lot of that is because of the level of precision they been bring to bear that Russia cannot.

I would have to agree with you, Ukraine is a mix and match of weapons from all over, they have very little real air power … the Russians would be in trouble trying to supply a front with all the jets and long range fire power we have .. I don't see how their supply lines would hold up under a real threat like the US has …. Their troops morale would go out the window if we donkey punched them daily with long range weapons and air power.

I agree w the previous poster as well, we need to step up our production of artillery and shorter range materials, they are cheap to produce, crank up some plants and just get it done. We need to address the drone situation as well, the world has woke up to what small drones can do on the battle field

I still don't understand what this war is all about, however, I do like learning about all the crazy weapons systems

GAC06 said:

---

Move, counter move

The USAF has announced a contract to equip Ukrainian JDAM-ERs with Home-on GPS Jam seekers.

This should enable Ukrainian Air Force strike aircraft to target Russian GPS jammers near the front, allowing other GPS guided munitions like GMLRS and 155mm Excalibur to hit targets. pic.twitter.com/RF75HyyiLA

— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) May 3, 2024

---

F-16s? MORE

That would certainly be a use case. Ready out of the box with no need for adapters. F-16 (to my knowledge) can't carry the Storm Shadow.

ttu_85 said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

That can't be good for morale. Hope is very motivational. Doom is just about the opposite.

---

To us that's true but even Stalin the hardcore soulless commie invoked the patriotism of Mother Russia by 1942, after praises of the party fell on deaf IDGaF ears. But in the name of Momma Russia, millions of bodies where thrown into the meat grinder and they still came on. That worked, sort of, in the 1940's.

Thing is they dont have the demographics or population to play that game these days. Old habits die hard in the land of icy hearts. This mentality is going to ruin them.

---

In WW2 you could make the very real argument that the Germans were an existential threat to the Russian people (forgetting Stalin or communism). Can't say that about voluntarily invading Ukraine.

AlaskanAg99 said:

---

PJYoung said:

---

AlaskanAg99 said:

---

Which only leaves nuclear options.

---

This again? Come on.

---

Their doctrine is strike first.
It's something to consider.

---

I think they may say that, but in reality it probably isn't.

Teslag said:

---

AlaskanAg99 said:

---

PJYoung said:

---

AlaskanAg99 said:

---

Which only leaves nuclear options.

---

This again? Come on.

---

Their doctrine is strike first.
It's something to consider.

---

I think they may say that, but in reality it probably isn't.

---

Putins red lines have been violated for 2 years now.

Would it be reasonable to assume the F-16s will be used as more of a "mobile stand off delivery platform" as opposed to a front-line weapon? I just can't see much surviving in the air close-up on the modern battlefield.

Monkeypoxfighter said:

---

Would it be reasonable to assume the F-16s will be used as more of a "mobile stand off delivery platform" as opposed to a front-line weapon? I just can't see much surviving in the air close-up on the modern battlefield.

---

Yes, under the current circumstances, the Ukrainians are initially likely to use the F-16 in much the same way they're using their existing fleet of fighters for air to air and air to ground.

However, the F-16s have a much better radar, flight computer and EW system than their legacy Soviet fighters and should be far more effective flying those same mission sets.

The F-16 also allows Ukrainian pilots to employ most Western air munitions at their full range of capabilities, rather than cobbling something together to operate the weapons at a very basic level from ex-Soviet fighters.

UK doubling down on its commitment to support Ukraine. "The Storm Shadow would be the main candidate among British-supplied weapons for use against targets deeper within Russian borders. In its export configuration, Storm Shadow has an officially stated range of over 155 miles, although the British examples are understood to have a much greater range, in the region of 350 miles."

Today's SITREP.

It's better than an older Mig-29 radar likely, but not the latest tech. Some of the Euro's have only recently begun retrofitting phased array radars for instance onto their latest generation fighters, the Eurofighters. Specifically, these MLU birds still have APG-66 radars.

Quote:

---

Denmark and the Netherlands will be providing F-16A/B Block 20 MLU (Mid-Life Update) variants that represent late iterations of the 45-year-old fighter jet. These aircraft were modernized through the MLU program between 2003 and 2005 with enhanced avionics, improved radar systems, and upgraded weaponry. With radars such as the APG66 and missiles like the AIM-120 with a range of up to 150 kilometers, they ensure formidable air superiority.

The F-16 MLU features a Head-Up Display (HUD) compatible with night operations, a GPS receiver, and a Westinghouse (now Northrop Grumman) AN/APG-66 fire control radar allowing it to carry and fire six AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missiles, with an operational range of 150 kilometers (95 miles). It can drop guided bombs such as the GBU-24 Paveway III or the Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM). This variant of the fighter also possesses the capability to carry Sniper and Litening targeting pods.

These F-16 fighters will have the capacity to deploy a wide array of bombs and missiles, making them adaptable to various mission profiles for Ukraine. However, these missions will be limited by the training received by pilots.

"You can get proficient on some weapons systems fairly quickly. But ones like F-16s, it takes a while to build," Hecker explained, adding that fielding a few F-16 squadrons with a high enough state of readiness could take four to five years.

---

I don't believe this radar is in service with USAF F-16's any longer, and was not on "C" model and later builds, being the basic original export version radar. If they are using the Zhuk-M on their fulcrum's it is actually probably superior to the -66, but can't be used for targeting via Aim-120's etc. of course. I could be wrong, not sure, but I think we are basically two generations ahead now on that, with the APG-83 system at this point for the F-16 fleet.

That said, it's still incredible they are able to employ the HARM missiles effectively in sensor mode from the mig's. I'll just note I don't think a lot of folks have appreciated the degree to which they have maintained/upgraded their Mig-29 fleet, either.

JFABNRGR said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Analyses of the strategic outlook provided by the RUSI folks in the UK:

Quote:

---

The entire report revolves around an urgent plea for the West to remold its strategic concept of warfare, which has been badly degraded and fallen out with the times by several decades of lazy misallocation of resources and reorientation toward colonial policing actions.

In the following paragraph, the author defines precisely the difference between 'maneuver' wars and classic attritional wars, which is relevant in understanding the rest of the exegesis:

Quote:

---

Attritional wars require their own 'Art of War' and are fought with a 'force-centric' approach, unlike wars of manoeuvre which are 'terrain-focused'. They are rooted in massive industrial capacity to enable the replacement of losses, geographical depth to absorb a series of defeats, and technological conditions that prevent rapid ground movement.

In attritional wars, military operations are shaped by a state's ability to replace losses and generate new formations, not tactical and operational manoeuvres. The side that accepts the attritional nature of war and focuses on destroying enemy forces rather than gaining terrain is most likely to win.

---

---

More at the links, as they say. I think both are interesting and informed analyses of the strategic outlook.

---

There is some truth that the West has gotten weak but we still have TLAMs and the author will have to revise his article if we ever give Ukraine a hundred or so of those.

Certainly some BS in their about russia's magnificent battle plans and how they retreated on purpose. Its also a little ironic that the side that works to attrit the enemy versus worry about gaining ground seems to better describe UKR over the Orcs to me. See equipment loss lists.

---

Well, it is from a Russian propaganda site, so that shouldn't be surprising.

nortex97 said:

---

It's better than an older Mig-29 radar likely, but not the latest tech. Some of the Euro's have only recently begun retrofitting phased array radars for instance onto their latest generation fighters, the Eurofighters. Specifically, these MLU birds still have APG-66 radars.

Quote:

---

Denmark and the Netherlands will be providing F-16A/B Block 20 MLU (Mid-Life Update) variants that represent late iterations of the 45-year-old fighter jet. These aircraft were modernized through the MLU program between 2003 and 2005 with enhanced avionics, improved radar systems, and upgraded weaponry. With radars such as the APG66 and missiles like the AIM-120 with a range of up to 150 kilometers, they ensure formidable air superiority.

The F-16 MLU features a Head-Up Display (HUD) compatible with night operations, a GPS receiver, and a Westinghouse (now Northrop Grumman) AN/APG-66 fire control radar allowing it to carry and fire six AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missiles, with an operational range of 150 kilometers (95 miles). It can drop guided bombs such as the GBU-24 Paveway III or the Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM). This variant of the fighter also possesses the capability to carry Sniper and Litening targeting pods.

These F-16 fighters will have the capacity to deploy a wide array of bombs and missiles, making them adaptable to various mission profiles for Ukraine. However, these missions will be limited by the training received by pilots.

"You can get proficient on some weapons systems fairly quickly. But ones like F-16s, it takes a while to build," Hecker explained, adding that fielding a few F-16 squadrons with a high enough state of readiness could take four to five years.

---

I don't believe this radar is in service with USAF F-16's any longer, and was not on "C" model and later builds, being the basic original export version radar. If they are using the Zhuk-M on their fulcrum's it is actually probably superior to the -66, but can't be used for targeting via Aim-120's etc. of course. I could be wrong, not sure, but I think we are basically two generations ahead now on that, with the APG-83 system at this point for the F-16 fleet.

That said, it's still incredible they are able to employ the HARM missiles effectively in sensor mode from the mig's. I'll just note I don't think a lot of folks have appreciated the degree to which they have maintained/upgraded their Mig-29 fleet, either.

---

The radar isn't a major factor, as neither side will be capable of really countering ADA and thus both sides will most likely continue operating over territory they control. The F-16's will help intercepting cruise missile and drones, lofting JDAM and SDB at preplanned targets, shooting HARM, and most likely launching current and future long range weapons. If they got fencers to launch storm shadows, they can get F-16's to do it. Being outranged by Russian fighters radar is mostly moot at this time.

TH36 said:

---

NorTex,

No one's done it but I'm just gunna take the time to say I've enjoyed your recent post on here. You're actually adding substance to the conversation versus making it seem like Ukraine is Nazi Germany and Russia is trying to defeat the devil. I know you never probably meant to be like that but that's how it came across.

Your recent post have actually set aside all of that and are just talking about the actual military point of view from both sides. Very refreshing.

---

Pretty sure you can thank staff