In reply to AtticusMatlock

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.

In reply to nortex97

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.

In reply to B-1 83

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.

In reply to PJYoung

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.

In reply to aezmvp 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.

In reply to ABATTBQ11 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

In reply to GAC06

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

In reply to 74OA 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.

In reply to ttu_85

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.

In reply to AlaskanAg99

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.

In reply to Teslag

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.

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.

In reply to 74OA 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.

In reply to JFABNRGR

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.

In reply to nortex97

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.

In reply to GAC06

Quote:

---

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.

---

Ok, I was responding to a post made up above. The Rand paper is older now on this but pretty on point about the 'bigger picture,' imho. Lockheed I believe claims it is at this point certified to carry over 180 types of munitions so I would guess it wouldn't be a stretch to configure for storm shadow/taurus if needed. One challenge will remain all of the GPS jamming for many of these, regardless of launch platform.

This will be an interesting two months in the conflict.

Thx above commenter, appreciated.

Obviously a biased Ukrainian POV and it wouldn't happen without a very observable Russian border build-up, good intel, and the Poland/Kaliningrad border calculas. However, defending the Baltics would be difficult regardless - so there's that.

The Economist: A fresh Russian push will test Ukraine severely, says a senior general

Quote:

---

The general [Ukrainian General Vadym Skibitsky] says the largest unknown factor of the war is Europe. If Ukraine's neighbours do not find a way of further increasing defence production to help Ukraine, they too will eventually find themselves in Russia's crosshairs, he argues. He plays down Article 5 of nato's collective-defence charter and even nato's troop presence in states bordering Ukraine, which he says may mean little when put to the test. "The Russians will take the Baltics in seven days," he argues, somewhat implausibly. "nato's reaction time is ten days."

---

Realistically, the question is what will happen from the north, and when/if air assault units will be deployed in any 'main strike' effort this year.

Quote:

---

At the moment the Russians are mostly driving separate salients into the long-static front line and have not yet begun the process of generally rolling the line back or attempting to break through and rupture the front to begin a maneuver battle. With that being said I think it's safe to say we're in the opening stages of a Russian offensive, following on and building from their efforts to push the Ukrainian Army out of their fortress line in front of Donetsk (and out of artillery range of the city's civilian population) over the course of the winter.

Is this the main Russian strike? Extremely doubtful. We're likely looking at a shaping operation to pin the Ukrainian Army in place on the existing front line and force the commitment of any and all remaining AFU reserve forces prior to the hammer falling. Among other things there's an entire unengaged Russian operational group - Group "N" - hanging out on the "quiet" northeastern front along the prewar border that has yet to go into action in any serious way. We also haven't seen the sort of extremely heavy missile strikes that would precede a general offensive, although given reports of around 40 bombers airborne with no accompanying strike earlier this week the Russians may have conducted a dress rehearsal for them. And we definitely haven't seen what would be, to me, the largest indicator that we're looking at the real thing - Russian air assaults to seize key points behind Ukrainian lines a-la the war's opening operation at Gostomel Airport.

What immediately strikes me is that it's far from clear where the Russians will even aim their main effort, very much unlike the exhaustively-telegraphed Ukrainian offensive this time last year. They know very well by now how to mass forces covertly and maintain operational security. I also would caution my readers against normalcy bias - just because the war has been very static over the past year and a half does not mean that it cannot become very dynamic very quickly. In fact such a sudden rupture and shock may be precisely what the Russians are counting on to forestall any attempts by NATO to intervene.

---

Ukraine update for May 4th, 2024. Russian kickoff.⬇️

Over the last week or so we've begun to see Russian forces pushing forward across the length of the Ukrainian front line, with notable if modest successes on all axes. I've attached maps (h/t Rybar) showing some of their… pic.twitter.com/1PL634WWRv

— Armchair Warlord (@ArmchairW) May 4, 2024

In reply to ABATTBQ11 You make a good point but would our stockpiles be sufficient to go toe to toe with China for an extended period? I have my doubts. I think the production and stockpile side of US defense policy has been ignored or mismanaged for a long time. Same with our repair and building side when it comes to naval capacity. But point taken on the doctrinal side.

Quote:

---

Russian army deployed about 25 000 military personnel at the Chasiv Yar direction, - spokesperson of Khortitsya command

---

https://liveuamap.com/en/2024/5-may-russian-army-deployed-about-25-000-military-personnel

In reply to Waffledynamics

Waffledynamics said:

---

Quote:

---

Russian army deployed about 25 000 military personnel at the Chasiv Yar direction, - spokesperson of Khortitsya command

---

https://liveuamap.com/en/2024/5-may-russian-army-deployed-about-25-000-military-personnel

---

the meat collection machine is alive and well

In reply to agent-maroon

agent-maroon said:

---

Kind of like they took Ukraine in two days? Color me skeptical on any such claims

---

Much smaller area, and they almost did. They shot themselves in the foot by overextending and being unable to supply and reinforce forward troops. They may not be so stupid the second time around, and if NATO doesn't react fast enough or hard enough they may face some serious issues in pushing the commies out.

In reply to aezmvp

aezmvp said:

---

You make a good point but would our stockpiles be sufficient to go toe to toe with China for an extended period? I have my doubts. I think the production and stockpile side of US defense policy has been ignored or mismanaged for a long time. Same with our repair and building side when it comes to naval capacity. But point taken on the doctrinal side.

---

Big maybes. A war with China would be much different because of the different terrain.

Yes, production and stockpiles have been mismanaged, but we haven't needed those levels of usage and stockpiling. It's very difficult to justify the cost. I think this conflict has been a real eye opener not just for the military, but those funding it. This is not WWII where a car assembly line can just convert to tank production, and I think that has been lost on many people.

Naval capacity is the same as well, but we have been trying to fix that for some time. Autonomous warships have been in development for awhile, and they'll likely be important on whatever the next conflict is as shown in the Black Sea.

In reply to ABATTBQ11

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

aezmvp said:

---

You make a good point but would our stockpiles be sufficient to go toe to toe with China for an extended period? I have my doubts. I think the production and stockpile side of US defense policy has been ignored or mismanaged for a long time. Same with our repair and building side when it comes to naval capacity. But point taken on the doctrinal side.

---

Big maybes. A war with China would be much different because of the different terrain.

Yes, production and stockpiles have been mismanaged, but we haven't needed those levels of usage and stockpiling. It's very difficult to justify the cost. I think this conflict has been a real eye opener not just for the military, but those funding it. This is not WWII where a car assembly line can just convert to tank production, and I think that has been lost on many people.

Naval capacity is the same as well, but we have been trying to fix that for some time. Autonomous warships have been in development for awhile, and they'll likely be important on whatever the next conflict is as shown in the Black Sea.

---

I agree 100%.

And this is where I think the isolationists and "non-interventionalists" are completely delusional. You can't turn off the defense industry (or the "MIC" as they like to term it) and expect to spool up in any short time...like you said, it worked in WWII. But the materiel and weapon systems being built today operate on the decade scale, not the yearly scale.

In reply to Ag with kids Yeah. A fighter is not just a high performance airplane anymore. It's a high performance low observable airplane, radar, EW systems, missile systems, communications systems, AI integration, etc. You can't just throw basic design principles at something when your competition has put in decades of R&D and can easily kill 15 traditional aircraft before you even know you're dead. Most other weapons are the same. Things are integrated and complex and far more lethal. If we'd stopped weapons development on the 90's when the Soviet Union fell, China would've taken Taiwan already, we would look like Europe does now, and Europe would probably be under Russian hegemony.

In reply to Ag with kids

Ag with kids said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

aezmvp said:

---

You make a good point but would our stockpiles be sufficient to go toe to toe with China for an extended period? I have my doubts. I think the production and stockpile side of US defense policy has been ignored or mismanaged for a long time. Same with our repair and building side when it comes to naval capacity. But point taken on the doctrinal side.

---

Big maybes. A war with China would be much different because of the different terrain.

Yes, production and stockpiles have been mismanaged, but we haven't needed those levels of usage and stockpiling. It's very difficult to justify the cost. I think this conflict has been a real eye opener not just for the military, but those funding it. This is not WWII where a car assembly line can just convert to tank production, and I think that has been lost on many people.

Naval capacity is the same as well, but we have been trying to fix that for some time. Autonomous warships have been in development for awhile, and they'll likely be important on whatever the next conflict is as shown in the Black Sea.

---

I agree 100%.

And this is where I think the isolationists and "non-interventionalists" are completely delusional. You can't turn off the defense industry (or the "MIC" as they like to term it) and expect to spool up in any short time...like you said, it worked in WWII. But the materiel and weapon systems being built today operate on the decade scale, not the yearly scale.

---

I hope the war in Ukraine has given us a "wake up call" on our supply chain and production issues on our ability to fight a prolonged conventional conflict.

US and EU still talking about how best to use frozen Russian billions to help Ukraine. Just do it.

$50B