Maquisard manqué

From a Facebook post - for what it is worth

 
Military aircraft
  And this is how they did it! The most exciting news these few days, involves the question of how the Ukrainians managed to employ American supplied AGM-88 High-speed Anti Radiation Missile (HARM) against Russian radar equipment when they don't have any Western aircraft capable of using the Air-Launched HARM which requires special avionics to be integrated into the aircraft using it.
  It has now been revealed that the Ukrainian Air Force managed to integrate the AGM-88 HARM onto their Mikoyan-Gurevich Mig-29 Fulcrum's with the help of technicians from Raytheon. Raytheon is the American company that manufactures the AGM-88 HARM.
  But, the deeper question of HOW the American technicians managed to put it off? To integrate Western weaponry into a 1980's vintage Soviet era design is no walk in the park. The answer? The Americans had prior experience with the Mig-29 Fulcrum and deep technical knowledge of the aircraft that helped them to develop a way to integrate the AGM-88 HARM onto it within a short time and with apparently little effort. Back in 1997, the Americans acquired 21 units of Mig-29 Fulcrum-A, the newer Fulcrum-C and a single twin-seater Fulcrum-B conversion trainer, seen here being loaded into a USAF Boeing C-17 Globemaster III, from Moldova.

The acquired aircraft were literally studied to the last bolt by the USAF's National Air and Space Intelligence Centre (NASIC) formerly and perhaps better known as the Foreign Technology Division (FTD). These early model Mig-29 Fulcrum-A and Fulcrum-C are similar, if not identical, to the models that the Ukrainian Air Force is flying today. Hence, any information that the Americans gained from the Moldovian units 25 years ago is still relevant and useful. It is this technical knowledge gained from the exploitation of enemy equipment that gives the Americans their edge.

This is something that comes up a lot in Soviet/Russian weapons design and it basically boils down to the fact that their systems are designed to meet challenging specifications on a budget/technology base that's much smaller than the US has, so what ends up happening is that they will prioritise "hard" factors that can be easily quantified (like number of missiles etc.) and compromise on the "soft" factors (like how compartmentalized your design is and its ability to survive damage).

A good example of this is Soviet jet engines. Soviet engine technology and metallurgy was backward compared to the West, but they still needed to put out comparable amounts of power to Western engines in order to maintain performance (basic physics) in a useful airframe, so they compromised by having engines with very short lifespans/TBOs compared to Western counterparts.

I'm actually writing a paper on this comparing the Russian T-72B3 obr. 2016 and Ukrainian T-64BV zr. 2017 showing how Ukraine's more Westernised approach to modernising its tank fleet has different priorities to that of the Russians.

Beautiful if you don't know what is it...
Another logistic corridor for UA:

The problem is artillery.  High quality infantry are not artillery proof and with ISR doing what it is, employing infantry anyway except dispersed or under the cover of WW1 style artillery (literally see that chart Poesel posted.) seems problematic.
I am not sure how the best infantry in the world deal with being spotted from kms away and hammered with high precision artillery, all the while their logistics train is also being hammered by precision deep strike.
In order to manoeuvre thru that one needs to solve for a lot.  And even then, a small two man team can kill and MBT at 4+ kms with 80-90 percent accuracy after having the target handed off by satellite and tac UAVs.
Crazy days.   

CMCW drove this home for me for the first time. I generally think of CM tactics as either closed (reverse slopes, keyholes, peek and sneak, low tempo &c.) or open (unobstructed lines of sight, fire superiority, high tempo). The Soviet ability to effectively exploit mass with open tactics -- especially in the Soviet training campaign -- was really eye opening in a way than none of the previous games had been.
Open tactics in CMBS have always been a disaster for me, whichever side I play as. I might not be doing them well, but I suffer unacceptable losses and can't achieve fire superiority.

Ah, the PA-48 Enforcer! I've always had a soft spot for the PA-48, not least because the P-51 is probably my favourite aircraft of all time (or at least tied with the Spitfire for that distinction)...and I also have a fondness for weird prototype aircraft and unbuilt design studies.
In all fairness to the people who promoted the turboprop F-51 concept, it wasn't quite as out to lunch an idea as it may sound on the face of it. The Enforcers would have been new-build airframes and the redesign was quite extensive (by the Eighties re-evaluation, the PA-48 was down to about 10% structural commonality with a stock F-51D). From when Cavalier started work on the Turbo Mustang III in the mid Sixties until the re-evaluation of the PA-48 in 1983-84, I don't think anyone was suggesting the Mustang as a frontline attack aircraft for a high-intensity conflict such as NATO vs. Warsaw Pact, but rather as a light attack / counter-insurgency aircraft. Looking at the aircraft used in, or developed for, that role in roughly that timeframe and the decade or two after (A-37 Dragonfly, Strikemaster, IA 58 Pucará, A-29 Super Tucano, OV-10 Bronco, etc.), the PA-48's performance and capabilities look pretty good and it probably would have been competitive in terms of price and operating economics as well. One key difference is that most of the COIN/light attack types that did go into production were based off of trainer designs that were already in large-scale production and didn't require committing to a "new" airframe. Another practical reason the Enforcer never caught on is that the USAF already had the OV-10 Bronco and A-37 Dragonfly in service and there really wasn't any niche to fill between the two types that could justify a third.
Nonetheless, yes, the Piper Enforcer probably does come in ahead of the F-20 Tigershark and the Boeing Skyfox on the list of top efforts to stretch out an existing aircraft design's service life that were ultimately a bridge too far...
Of course, it isn't just aircraft whose mystique can outlive their effectiveness...I remember the consternation from some when the Iowa-class battleships finally got a well-earned retirement to museum ship status in the 2000's.

Sniffed around where, if you don’t mind me asking?  I ask because if your assessment is accurate then something has definitely gone wrong with RA armour.  The problem is that I don’t think we know if it is uniquely a Russian problem (eg not enough infantry) or indicative of a much larger shift.
2km can longer be considered “long range” in a war there 250+ kms is in play.  In fact I am not even sure it is medium range when a man-portable ATGM can hit out to 3+ kms at a reported 90% accuracy.  
Using tanks as some sort of mobile armoured long range snipers “from urban” areas as opposed to a fundamental component of combined arms manoeuvre is a major break from conventional land warfare doctrine.  One, that if confirmed, likely has to do with the nearly 2000 Russian tanks lost in this war, which is starting to rival Iraqs losses in the Gulf War.
Further, this is beyond the vulnerabilities of logistical support and more in line with a front end impact.  Keeping sniper tanks gassed and fed ammo will still be a challenge - perhaps less so than offensive manoeuvres- but using tanks as mobile AT guns in what sounds like a purely defensive role is a devolution as well.
As to the cover of buildings, NLOS ATGMs have already done their job if those tanks are huddled behind high rises.  PGM artillery can finish the job from there as we have learned that there is nowhere to hide on this battlefield - at least if you are Russian.

You can bomb and straff things with A-10s in CMCW, which is set more than 40 years ago (halfway between now and WWII). I recall at the time congress mandated the Pentagon conduct tests to see if the old WWII P51 Mustang was still a viable ground attack platform (it wasn't). Nostalgia over the 'mystique' of certain aircraft often outlive the aircraft themselves.

No.
It's too slow, Russia does have aircraft flying safely behind the lines that could target it and Russian SAMs have better range than HIMARS.
Don't take my word for it. https://www.airforcemag.com/ukraine-says-it-needs-fast-and-versatile-aircraft-not-the-a-10/
But even beyond that. The A-10 will cause Ukrainian deaths. Not just the pilots, who'll have WW1 levels of life expectancy (see all those videos of attack helicopters above the front lines? No? Guess why..) but also Ukrainian troops and civilians.
Terrible visibility, poor accuracy, even ignoring the many many friendly fire incidents there'll be friendly deaths because it pretty much isn't fit for that battlefield.
If you're defending a WW2 style push across the steppes by 200 tanks and supporting infantry, sure, go right ahead. Ukraine isn't.
I admire the A-10 but this is the wrong war for it. Here, have an acerbic hour long video that goes into more detail.
 

Russia wanted own parade in Kyiv. Ok, they got it. On the eve of Independence Day (24th Aug) an exposition of destroyed Russian vehicies was placed like "parade order" on Khreshchatyk - the main street of Kyiv
 

Guy who played orc in Lord of the Rings asks to stop comparing Russians to orcs because orcs are proud warriors who don't steal washing machines.

Here's a link to the latest IAEA statement on the nuclear power plant situation. Concern. Good that all the safeguards data is being received, but that's not really the major concern. 
For review, when they discuss safeguards, they aren't talking about the safety of the plant. What they are talking about is monitoring facilities to ensure that nuclear material (for example, spent fuel) is not diverted for "other" uses. All nuclear plants have them. Saying that, new fuel is a poor material for say, a dirty bomb, and impossible for a nuclear weapon. Spent fuel is so highly radioactive that while it might make material for a dirty bomb, handling it to do so would be incredibly difficult and dangerous, requiring a lot of special equipment and shielding. And while there is Pu in spent fuel, the processes to extract it are only owned by a few countries. 
The bigger danger by far is significant damage to the plant, which could cause a radiation leak. Breaching both the containment and the reactor vessel is not too probable. More likely disabling safety systems that control spent fuel pool cooling (a la Fukushima), leading to the breakdown of the fuel and radiation release.
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/update-91-iaea-director-general-statement-on-situation-in-ukraine

Dave

The tobacco industry has a lot to answer for!!!
 

Hi All,
Sorry for yet another thread sidetrack but to update re @Haiduk's laptop etc:
It's arrived here in Canada at long last. I'll post photos when my phone recharges.
The funds raised came to about $1700 so we've gotten a Laptop for Haiduk's wife and major pc part upgrades for his own PC. Those I will be buying today/tomorrow.
I'll be sending everything to Przemsyl in Poland, with a reliable family member who lives there, on this Monday coming, Aug 22nd.
They'll hand off to someone Haiduk sends to pick up during that week.
If the UKR Law is relaxed a bit then maybe he can pick it up in person, we'll see.
 
POSTSCRIPT
This process has been badly delayed on my end, due to a heavy couple of months for me, personally and work-wise. Especially the personal side. It's been...difficult...to focus outside the household for a while. But things have finally stabilised, the laptop is here beside me and the pc parts are a short walk away to buy, once Haiduk confirms his choices. Everything is moving forward again.
 

There have been some good parodies of the VDV propaganda song, e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzK1gl6UoM0 , maybe the meme corps can come up with one for the Spetsial Nazis as well?

That Putin is such a humanitarian always looking out for the welfare the Ukrainian people, as he invades their country and kills tens of thousands of people in a war that is about cynically grabbing territory.
Yes this war will be "dragged on" by the U.S. until Russia learns the errors of their ways and ends this illegal invasion.

Gotta love inflatable AAD.

FWIW, my line of work for the past 30+ years is wholesale and retail supply chain/inventory management. I've worked with Russian supply chain consultants and a couple of large Russian retailers.  The know how is there--I've seen them efficiently execute pretty advanced systems on the business side to get inventory to where it should be in the right quantities.
BUT, whether or not that expertise transfers to their military is an entirely different matter.

anti-smoking campaign

I used to have a rule that kept conversation civil: whoever mentions the 'T' word first, pro or anti buys drinks!
So can we please not?
...
Anyway, back to the war.  More harrowing video and accounts in this thread here from BBC:
Mosul levels of destruction here.
 
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61634050
 

https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-ato/3494396-ukraines-armed-forces-master-french-howitzers-5-enemy-hardware-units-destroyed.html
Ave Caesar!

The part of all the important gear evaporating on the eve of the invasion is astonishing. As we all know corruption is rife in the R.Army but man...how many lives did that "little act" cost.

On February 24th I doubt most people thought we would ever see M777's in action in Ukraine. Here's hoping in the near future we will see some videos of M142's in action in Ukraine.
In the mean time here is another video of the M777.
 

Whoa there!  So I have taken a few days away because this great Russian offensive has taken on all the glam of watching a blind goat wooing a virgin armadillo.  So we are talking about that 7km "blitz" and a couple UA TD outfits bailing, right?  I mean did I miss the fall of Lviv or something?
So, I disagree that this is "strategic", hell it probably is not operational but we will see if the RA can actually advance more than 20kms before it runs out of gas.  We have been here before.  There was the terrible Izyum offensive that was poised to "pinch off and crush the UA defenders" in some sort of Failais Part Deux, which petered out to whatever that melanoma looking thing has become.  Then the imminent crossing of the S-D River, which turned out to be a catastrophe.  And now the Russians take 7km and we are at the End of Days?
"Imminent collapse" - how many times does this need to happen before people get the point?  The RA has already collapsed twice, strategically and operationally - even if I grant that the UA may have "collapsed" tactically at Popasna.  First was the RA collapse of an entire front in the North, we still remember that part right?  That was likely the turning point in this war and was a collapse by any standard.  Then we have seen another operational level collapse around Kharkiv, my understanding of military theory is that when you are the invader and have withdrawn until the enemy is at your border, things are not going well.
So the real question here is "can the UA do operational offensive?"  And the jury is still out to be honest.  That operation around Kharkiv (a much higher priority than the villages in the Donbas) demonstrated that the UA can re-take ground and pretty quickly.  How well the RA was dug in, how the UA did it and is it repeatable are the unknowns.
We have talked at length about the Russian problems defending a line approximately the same length as the Western Front with a fraction of the troops needed. The line density is something like 100 men per km with what they were showing, and that is stuffing the line with replacements straight from the recruiting depot.  I don't care what the Russian grandfathers were good at, there is a force-space reality here that is going to be impossible to make airtight without another 1 million men and the equipment to arm them.
Meanwhile Ukraine has a 3 month head start in mobilization, I personally think that the UA has more combat ready troops than the RA at the moment and everyday they are getting more with better equipment.  While Russia continues its downward spiral economically and militarily.
As to post-ceasefire (if it happens - Ukraine is signaling the other way, and losing a few dozen kms in the Donbas is likely not to break a nation who had guns within range of its capital) - we had better be ready to pony up and re-build Ukraine a la Marshal Plan, or there was no point in the sunken costs.  Re-building national infrastructure will likely sustain the Ukrainian economy in the short to middle term, in the long term private industry will show up because they are a greedy bunch and this is a market filled with US greenbacks for reconstruction.  We need a functional and well defended Ukraine very badly right now because it will mean the "global order" won this war, and we are willing a pay a lot to ensure that happens (or should be).  We need a bright and shiny Ukraine as a demonstration that the Western based global order still works.  This needs to be a lesson for Russia, and more so for China that we will not let the pen that writes the rules go easily.  If we fail, then we deserve what happens next.

Sorry guys, gonna throw a contrarian bomb again here. Have at it!
... I personally find the quick takes so far to be a little overconfident, even smug, in that British sense (never a good sign).
1. If developments should prove me wrong, e.g. the latest RA push dissolves into chaos  under saturation UA artillery, plus its (usual) logistical c-fk into another bloody 'MARS' debacle (just as their river crossing fiasco became their 'Ozereyka Bay'), then by all means do feel free to gloat.I will be the first to cheer along with you.
2.  But for this observer, a forced evacuation by UA of its 2014 Donbas fortified lines cannot be readily 'spun' as anything but a strategic UA defeat and a desperately needed Russian 'victory'. That is regardless of the cost, whose accounting truly matters only to Moscow, frankly. I take it as given they will eventually start arguing for a cease fire, and "facts on the ground" will matter, a lot. 
3. As of today, all the handwavy confident theories and Twitter anecdata we keep sharing here (me included!) from 2-3 echelons up seem to amount to 'the Russian is finished.' or 'just kick in the door and the whole rotten structure caves in'. Saying it just don't make it so, any more than it did for the original theorist in question.  And believe you me, I've been deeply immersed in those theories since Day One, and patiently waiting for them to show up in force!
5.  So, show us, please! those systemic 'imminent collapse' theories in train, today, on the ground. Today! Not in some vague future halcyon period that happens, umm, over the summer once the UA finally gluts itself with NATO armaments and knowhow, while entire RA units actually mutiny or defect en masse (not just anecdotally), and huge banners and crowds preaching 'Peace Bread and Land' appear in Red Square.
6.  This is a tactical wargaming board. It looks very much to me like the Russians have just turned the tables, operationally if not yet tactically. By finally 'securing' Donbas plus the land bridge, in the very way they said they would do back in March, once it became clear their Czechoslovakia putsch to take the whole country had explosively s&&t the bed....
7.  Meanwhile the UA, for all our fond hopes and armchair projecting, shows no sign yet of being able to mount counterattacks above local/ battalion scale, sustained for about 3 days march (on foot!). Such 18th century tactics will simply not suffice to recover the 20% of their territory in Russian hands today, once those bastards dig in. Yes, there is no question they will figure it out, this particular 'tech' predates gunpowder. And Russians are historically masters at this art. 
8.  I am an amateur in military matters, but I am also a businessman with 25 years experience in emerging markets (many of them 'frontier', which is to say, distressed). If the above situation 'congeals' into a cease fire, it will leave Ukraine as a devastated and impoverished no-mans land, far worse off than 2014. Bloodlands 2022. Not a bulwark or entrepot for modern Europe. No private capital will dare to invest there. Ukraine might as well reach an arrangement with Putin at that point.
...And because they realise, as I do, that we can still lose this war.
[/Gauntlet thrown.]