John Kettler

They could've come in peace and been welcomed with bread and salt, but their manners were terrible! On a separate note, shall be most interested to learn whether or not the Russians need another CAA commander. Did the Red Army, in the course of the GPW lose that many? I find the Russian senior officer losses in the ground forces staggering and the ones to RuAf debilitating, to say the least. Regards, John Kettler

akd, That looks to be conducted from several hundred meters away, which is surprising given what I've previously seen of UA. ambushes, especially after reading that Atlantic piece where the retired US Marine was talking about how UA infantry did things. Regards, John Kettler

akd, This speaks, yet again, to what I've been saying about my assessment of the RuAF situation, in which the weight of the air effort is being carried by the experienced senior officers, not their underlings. All other things being equal, we should should be seeing mostly captains and majors lost, not lieutenant colonels and colonels, but the killed and captured list shows us no such thing. The less experienced underlings would be more, not less, likely to wind up killed, captured or killed in an accident, but they seem to be a veritable protected class. At the very least, this guy is of rank high enough to make him deputy CO of an aviation regiment. Say that with confidence because someone of his identical rank was downed and was indeed deputy CO of an aviation regiment. Regards, John Kettler

Haiduk, The crew of a Tapir/Alligator is 55 men, which could mean the crew died almost to a man, but it could also be a blend of crew, dockworkers, members of other crews, too. And if there are WIA at the usual KIA to WIA ratio, then this is an even more shattering blow. Regards, John Kettler

Offshoot, Tochka-U warhead has 50 submunitions in it which are impact fuzed and, if my tired brain serves, roughly half the weight of a Grad warhead. I posted this information earlier in the thread (pages 338, 339), together with a photo of the 9N24 submunitions being discussed. Though not as nasty warhead for warhead, being shotgunned with 50 of these from on high while unloading fuel, munitions, trucks, armor, etc. is a huge problem and quite a danger to just a ship hit, too, never mind any people who happen to be in the pattern. In that area you not only have those things but a warehouse (also destroyed) and two aboveground fuel tanks (status unknown). Further, there could be damage to the cranes as well. Post-strike imagery, preferably high res and in color would be most helpful. Regards, John Kettler

Haiduk, Thanks! At least I was able to remove my incorrect post. Here's the right ship class info and pic. https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Alligator-class_landing_ship Regards, John Kettler

deleted

Here's what sank that Ropucha and apparently caused the warhouse to blow up, too. https://dir.md/9n123k-cluster-munition-and-9n24-submunitions-in-syria/?host=armamentresearch.com The 9N123K warhead is designed to function at an altitude of 2250 m, using a low explosive burster charge scattering 50 9N24 HE-FRAG submunitions over the target area. 9N24 submunitions feature partially pre-fragmented (ring) fragmentation, and are fitted with the 9E237 impact fuze which is armed as the submunitions are expelled from the warhead. The fuze is designed to function on impact with the ground or other obstacles, at any angle from 25 to 90 degrees. This fuze also features a self-destruct function, which should ensure the submunition explodes 32-60 seconds after it is deployed from the cargo warhead. 9N24 Technical Specifications Total weight: 7.45 kg Explosive weight: 1.45 kg Approximate number of fragments: 316 Average fragment weight: 7 g For comparison, here is the original warhead for Grad. http://characterisationexplosiveweapons.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Annex-A.pdf 9M22 Rocket The 9M22 is a fin-stabilised rocket with a steel high explosive fragmentation (HE-FRAG) warhead. The 9N51 warhead contains 6.4 kg of TGAF-5 explosive composition, and generates some 3,920 pre-fragmented fragments. The warhead is manufactured with internal scoring designed to fragment into 1,640 fragments, each weighing 2.4 g. The warhead is double-skinned, with the outer skin only lightly scored, in order to avoid damaging its structural integrity during launch. The outer skin is designed to produce an additional 2,280 fragments, each weighing 2.9 g. The rocket motor contains 20.5 kg of a double-base solid propellant. Calibre 122 mm Weight 66 kg Warhead weight 18.4 kg Length 2870 mm Number of fragments: - pre-fragmented (2.4 g) - partially pre-fragmented (approx. 2.9 g) 1640 2280 And here is a later version, shortly before the warheads became detachable para frags. The document details a number of other warheads, but was trying to compare like to like, and even the one below is of roughly the same period as the 9N24. The problem is that some of the later Grad warheads not only are para frag but fitted with proximity fuzes, which the 9N24 doesn't have. 9M28F Rocket The 9M28F is an interim rocket introduced in the 1970s. It has a more powerful rocket motor, and features a more efficient HE-FRAG warhead with pre-formed fragments, designated the 9N55. The 9M28F has a total length of 2,270 mm, and weighs 56.5 kg. The 9N55 warhead contains 5.9 kg of A-IX-2 explosive fill. Its maximum range is some 15 km. Calibre 122 mm Weight 56.5 kg Weight of the warhead 21 kg Length 2270 mm Number of fragments: - pre-formed (5.5 g) - partially pre-fragmented (3.0 g) 1000 2440 Range of fire up to 15 km Regards, John Kettler

The official score is one sunk, two damaged and some fatalities to those aboard these vessels--all from the previously unknown ship-killer Tochka-U! Just imagine 50 of these 9n24 submunitions plummeting down onto the decks of LST equivalents likely loaded with fuel and ammo on the decks and maybe on the docks, too. Never mind what's inside any AFVs carried. Those crump sounds are ammo exploding. OSINTdefender Retweeted Granger @GrangerE04117 Details I got about the attack. At 7:45 AM, a Tochka-U SRBM was fired towards the landing ships Saratov, Tsesar Kunikov, and Novocherkassk. > Saratov sunk at a depth of 5 meters > Kunikov and Novercherkassk left port damaged. 8 killed on Kunikov and 3 killed and 3 injured.. Quote Tweet Aleph א @no_itsmyturn · 43m Ukrainian Navy confirms that the Russian BDK-69 Orsk vessel was destroyed at the Berdyans'k port, Zaporizhzhia oblast https://armamentresearch.com/9n123k-cluster-munition-and-9n24-submunitions-in-syria/ Oryx will now have to add a new category to his list of destroyed and captured weapons! And defense planners now have a whole new antiship threat to worry about. While it's possible to argue that at least some losses from wiped out CPs are tolerable, the direct hit on Russian military capabilities delivered by that brilliant and highly effective Tochku-U strike will be far more measurable and harshly felt, in terms of direct impact on combat power and sustainment on one hand but in terms of foreclosing of previous military options on the other. There is no quick fix for a blow of this magnitude, especially for a force already in acute logistic crisis. Nor, I'm sure, did the planners ever envisage sustaining such devastating losses in a veritable eye blink. It's one thing to maybe lose a patrol craft to an ATGM, but another to lose an entire modernish landing ship loaded with weapons and stores, almost losing three, at that. The Russians should be grateful that these vessels were apparently not carrying the Russian marines in addition to the other cargo. For then, outright catastrophe would've likely ensued. Capacity 10 main battle tanks and 340 troops or 12 BTR and 340 troops or 3 main battle tanks, 3 2S9 Nona-S, 5 MT-LB, 4 army trucks and 313 troops or 500 tons of cargo Complement 87–98 Armament 2 × 2 57 mm AK-257 guns (Ropucha I) 1 × 76 mm AK-176 (Ropucha II) 2 × 30 122 mm rocket launcher A-215 Grad-M Strela 2(SA-N-5) surface-to-air missile system (4 launchers) 2 × 30 mm AK-630 six-barreled gatlingguns (Ropucha II) The Ropucha class, Soviet designation Project 775, is a class of landing ships (large landing ship in Soviet classification) built in Poland for the Soviet Navy. The ships were built in Poland in the Stocznia Północna shipyards in Gdańsk. Designed for beach landings, they can carry a 450-ton cargo. The ships have both bow- and stern-doors for loading and unloading vehicles, and the 630 square metres (6,800 sq ft) of vehicle deck stretches the length of the hull. Up to 25 armored personnel carriers can be embarked. Regards, John Kettler

Machor, For sure, I screwed up what I wrote the first time, but am so mentally fuzzy right now that, even after checking, am sure I got the TBs on the wrong side, but also a) which conflict is the right one, and b) whether the video creator got something crossed up. Regardless, apologies for the resulting confusion, but. the core point remains: Unless the reports are completely false, the Karushka-4 is either temporarily or permanently damaging or destroying mission-critical electronics on the Bayraktar TB2s, downing those targeted. As it happens, I have some experience with such things as HPMs (High Power Microwave) DEWs (Directed Energy Weapons) from my Rockwell days. Indeed, was a co-founder of the DEWWG (Direct Energy Weapon Working Group). Such energies can do all sorts of unpleasant things: including fricasseeing missiles on aircraft carrier flight decks because of the energy from a plethora of radar and other transmitters gets inside via a tiny crack and fries otherwise protected microelectronics, detonate fuel and ordnance, burn out radar and ESM receivers, etc. What will jam a radar at long range can damage or destroy all manner of sensitive gear at lesser ranges. Recall, too, this is a weapon good vs ground, air and space targets. A Swiss Army Knife EW system, if you will. The traditional Soviet approach was to field a jammer to defeat each active surveillance or bomb/nav system the opposition (led by the US) deployed, such as SLAR, JSTARS, TFR. By those standards, Karushka-4 is not evolutionary but revolutionary, because it combines so many capabilities into one devastating system. The transliterated Russian acronym for what we in the west call EW is REC, RadioElectronic Combat, and now the Russians have not just a jammer but damage inflicter, even a target killer. This is precisely why there is such urgency to get that van back to the US and begin meticulous technical exploitation to see what this immensely potent weapon system can do. Even lacking the combined intercept and jamming hardware, about which a great deal can be learned from the imagery, knowing power supplies and so on, the real secrets of Karuska-4 lie in the computers of the command van, for that is where we will learn the Russian understanding of our various targeted systems and what the strike against them looks like, in terms of frequencies, waveform, signal strength, pulse repetition interval, ERP (Effective Radiated Power) and more. Regards, John Kettler

Haiduk, Is there any news yet which would allow us to sort out Azov's ATGM attacks on one or two 03160 Raptor patrol craft? The original video was very hard for me to follow, because, as opposed to the usual jihadi video when ATGMs are used, it wasn't shot from at or near the launcher. Based on what little I could see, I couldn't tell you how many Raptors were present to begin with, and at best, would say one hit was obtained. Do we know for sure how many vessels were engaged, how many hits obtained? Any word on damage sustained on struck Raptor or damages sustained if two were hit? Were there any radio transmissions made by the ship or ships engaged? If so, what was said. Regards, John Kettler

dan/california, Long before there was coding, it was ever true, though not necessarily phrased that way. The odds of getting a good result from any kind of decision based on faulty assumptions, bad data, poor judgment, wishful thinking, ideology, even unwillingness to accept physical reality, are very small and potentially catastrophic. Have seen one recently in which an all-female engineering firm designed a bridge based on, so help me, feminized PC math, not classic STEM. It didn't end well. Regards, John Kettler

akd, Have been seriously concerned at least some of these in clear broadcasts might've been deception ops, but the multi-focal OSINT analyses seem to show that the hard-pressed Russian units are just that and are sounding off in clear. Rael time intelligence jackpot! Regards, John Kettler

Thomm, Much appreciate your analysis, but, as I noted in my admittedly simplistic analysis, there's more to the KE calculation than just the warhead, because, to the best of my knowledge, the whole missile arrives. Don't know how much of that remaining 500 kgs of all up system weight is fuel, but given the incredible aerodynamic stresses and heating loads on the airframe (utterly eclipsing things like the SR-71), aerostructure, propulsion and G/C could easily add another 200 kgs. Your numbers, though, suggest, that if a ship is hit directly, in a real sense it's immaterial whether or not the warhead detonates, for either way, the damage will be vast. Given the driver in the KE equation is V, adding a few hundred kgs to M won't exert much leverage on the result. Regards, John Kettler

db_zero, It would be fascinating to see how well Tamanskaya and the other parade darlings performed relative to equivalent line units, bearing in mind they don't have all the best kit, personnel or manning levels. Regards, John Kettler

DesertFox, Will it arrive gift wrapped with a thank you note from Zelensky for all the goodies the US has provided, or did we have to pay for it so Ukraine can buy even more items it needs on the open market? To be clear, we're getting the C3ISR processing part only, the command van, but not the combined jamming and receiving portion. Krasukha-4 is a dire threat to Bayraktar TB2. Armenia lost nine TB2s to this system in a week! Regards, John Kettler

Taranis, This is a euphemism asserting some of the diplomatic staff is spying. Now, this could never happen, which is why the CIA doesn't, ahem, have stations inside US embassies all around the world and doesn't, ahem, have its own people operating under diplomatic cover, which is of course also the case with the Russians and other nations, right? Regards, John Kettler

Some further thoughts ref why did the Russians use the Kinzhal: 1. Small CEP. Though estimate is 10-20 meters, believe GLONASS guidance would enable more like 5. 2. Effective speed will actually be faster than Mach 10, because MiG-31K, carrying half the weight of the original MiG-25 and in far lower drag configuration, launches at Mach 2,8 or so, resulting in near Mach 13 speed and with minimal air drag at extreme high altitude. Couldn't tell you how much of an improvement that makes in range (neither physicist nor rocketeer), but it further compresses defense reaction time regardless of range to which fired. 3. Kinzhal can evasively maneuver at any point in its flight. This complicates engaging it. 4. Ignoring for the moment its dual capable nature, Knzhal can be used to deliver devastating strikes against ships, devastating not merely because of the 50 kg warhead, but because of reactive follow though of unspent fuel (de facto thermobaric effect) and the. sheer force of impact of a weapon likely to weight 700+ kg at impact. Weapon weighs 1000 kg, half of which is warhead weight. To give a frame of reference, the Maverick missile (~250 kg launch weight) had so much KE it could kill a tank without detonating. During tessts, an IIR version with dummy warhead, did exactly that, smashing in the engine compartment and setting the tank on fire. At Hughes, in my department, Operations Analysis, where we did missile studies, we used to joke that we had a warhead on it only in case it missed. In theory, Kinzhal could deliver a mighty blow without even detonating, whether against a naval target or one on land. Regards, John Kettler

Machor, Gave up too soon on my checking, I see. Concur that this version has a thermal sight (but apparently lacks an oh so helpful LRF to complement it), but the question I have ref Tunguska in the game is which version is being represented, and would the one you show have been reasonably available in the game's 2017 timeframe? ResearchGate shows Tunguska-M as entering service in 1990, but as we've seen in the current war, it's not necessarily rational to expect the latest war toys to be available, not with some version of the ZSU-23/4 now in action! Had no idea there was a likes limit, but am glad you enjoyed my analysis of the immense value the TB2 missile sponges really represent. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/294263909_Tunguska_M1_operational_with_Russian_Army Regards, John Kettler

sburke, Putin made it clear that what he was seeking to do was restore the Great Russian empire of the Tsars, not the Soviet Union. The RF emblem is not the hammer and sickle, but the double headed eagle of the Tsars. https://news.ucr.edu/articles/2022/03/01/putins-dark-designs-restore-pre-1917-russian-empire Regards, John Kettler

akd, Just yesterday I was wondering when we might see our first one of these show up after watching that train with a whole bunch of them aboard. Can you ID the version? Good luck with that, given how much UI clutter is on top of it! Regards, John Kettler

Deleted.

In some ways, these epic fails are small potatoes compared to Dupuy's 'titanic overestimation of friendly losses in the upcoming GW I attack. HIs QJM (Quantified Judgment Model) used so successfully in many analyses, and influenced by the lessons of the Iraqi-Iranian War, predicted an immense horrible bloodbath on our end, yet there were only a handful on the US side. Regards, John Kettler

That can't possibly be the right tank, for this picture is from very early in the war and this tank was captured, I believe, by Azov. Regards, John Kettler

akd, This is the same firm building the Armata series family of AFVs, including the T-14. If there's even a more contemporary CMBS, the T-14 may still not be included! Regards, John Kettler