How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Kinophile]

In many ways, the Battle of Kiev was a Russian self-defeat, rather than a straight Ukrainian victory - by which I mean that the Ivan did pretty much everything wrong and the Ukrainians exploited that.

I don't mean to minimise the victory - it's quite stunning and a massive blow to the invasion. Slava!

But the striking and sinking (? Tbc) of the Mosckva is a very different victory, one that owes everything to UKR initiative, technological ability, imagination and determination. Mosckva wasn't a major direct threat, more of the classic Threat in Being - it's existence and geographical position was probably more unwelcome as a strategic distraction/hold on UKR units than the actual tactical damage it could do.

While it's weapons could do a lot of damage, it was more that it's presence with the BS fleet made an amphibious operation against Odessa always a possibility, even if highly dangerous. The chance of an opportunistic assault just could not be discounted.

Now it can. 

Sinking the Mosckva can probably free up a significant amount of regular troops from the Odessa coast (although I think a large amount already shifted to Kherson), plus the danger of the Neptunes will severely limit RUS naval movements along that coast.

The only way to take out the Neptunes now is with PGMs. And guess who has a severely depleted stock of PGMs, to the point where they're firing off a small fraction of their Wk1 barrage? Also, remaining PGMs will be needed for Donbass, so wasting any on hard to find Neptune launchers will be far, far down the priority list of the RuAF.

I'd love a further discussion on the Naval war if anyone's interested or has knowledge.

Edited April 14, 2022 by Kinophile

[The_MonkeyKing]

5 minutes ago, TheVulture said:

Pentagon says the Moskva is still (technically) afloat

 

 

Ship can pretty much be an empty husk and still float.

I am sure we will find out when the ship gets spotted on open market satellite photos.

[Nicdain]

 

Couldn't resist reposting this one.... 

[Saberwander]

3 hours ago, Taranis said:

I think the doctrinal development of the use of tactical nuclear weapons to break through the front was mostly a Cold War philosophy. This made it possible to contaminate only a small area but to create a breakthrough and launch the immense combat mass of the WARPACT into the breach (the vehicles being NBC protected to pass through without stopping) and drive it to the Atlantic. But I think the limitation of that philosophy at the time was not taking into account NATO's strategic nuclear response to such a breakthrough. I think Ukraine is far too small for such a doctrine that provided for a "continental" breakthrough

All good points however in this war we have seen Russians make breakthroughs, they drove from Belarus to western Kyiv and from Belgorod to eastern Kyiv. However it did them no good, they were unable to destroy troops that the "broke through" and in the end were forced to retreat. These types of breakthroughs need immense numbers and an enemy whos morale has been shattered. Ukrainians defending their country against war criminals will have high morale regardless (especially today when they see they can fight with Russia on equal terms).

This is why I do not think that tactical nuke would severely change the outcome of the battle in the east. Even if Russians resort to it, they can make a breakthrough and then due to vast distances and hostile population end up in a new Kyiv situation, being over extended with no prospects. 

Tactical nuke could however be used to force a surrender. I really do not know what would Zelensky do if Russia went full nuts and started dropping nukes and threatening more. It would make Russia a pariah state but would Ukraine surrender? 

Edited April 14, 2022 by Saberwander

[billbindc]

1 hour ago, Huba said:

Exactly that is the source of concern I expressed in my previous posts. This isn't your typical Cold War/ War Games scenario, this is terrra incognita. 
Edit:I have this impression that as times goes by we are worrying about possible escalation of this conflict less and less. Hence the increased armaments shipments. Nobody says that say tanks or antiship missiles are escalatory anymore. If this trend holds, we will be sending planes and ATACMSs in a month.  We said "I check" to Putin's nuclear sabre-rattling, and it seems he folded, but he might have just not shown us his cards yet.

In assessing the threat of escalation, speed matters. The hesitation over sending the MiG's was a demonstration to the Russians by the US that there were limits to what we would do and that we would think before we acted. That's very valuable if you want your less-than-stable opponent to not overreact to what you actually do. It also creates a sense of what is and is not the kind of thing that they can do themselves. Remember, China does a lot more trade with the West than they do with Russia but Russia now cannot live without China. The demonstration above (inter alia) provides frameworks China can use to restrain Russian reactions  from spiraling completely out of control.

[db_zero]

There is a tactical nuke known as a neutron bomb that has a limited blast and is highly effective against tanks, dug in infantry and infantry embedded in buildings, bunkers, cellars and so on.

It kills by giving off a high dose of radiation and those affected die by radiation sickness that takes place in hours.

The radiation dissipates rapidly-at least that’s what was said when it was proposed to be deployed in Europe in the early 80s.

It was very controversial at the time and no European government would accept it on its soil. The sick joke at the time was it would kill all the inhabitants but leave towns and cities intact and ready to be repopulated in a few days.

I’m not a nuclear weapons expert so how much was actual fact and how much was media hype idk. 
 

I think the US scrapped all it neutron bombs. Russia I don’t know if they developed them or have any but it would seem this is the sort of nuke Putin would use if he intended to dig out entrenched opposition and take over and occupy territory with minimal damage.

[kraze]

3 minutes ago, Saberwander said:

All good points however in this war we have seen Russians make breakthroughs, they drove from Belarus to western Kyiv and from Belgorod to eastern Kyiv. However it did them no good, they were unable to destroy troops that the "broke through" and in the end were forced to retreat. These types of breakthroughs need immense numbers and an enemy whos morale has been shattered. Ukrainians defending their country against war criminals will have high morale regardless (especially today when they see they can fight with Russia on equal terms).

This is why I do not think that tactical nuke would severely change the outcome of the battle in the east. Even if Russians resort to it, they can make a breakthrough and then due to vast distances and hostile population end up in a new Kyiv situation, being over extended with no prospects. 

Tactical nuke could however be used to force a surrender. I really do not know what would Zelensky do if Russia went full nuts and started dropping nukes and threatening more. It would make Russia a pariah state but would Ukraine surrender? 

Russians made it very clear that they will either kill us or force us into slavery beyond Ural with their very real actions. As of right now reportedly about 400.000 Ukrainians have been deported to nobody knows where, 30.000 from Mariupol alone with just as many killed there.

So surrendering means death or slavery regardless. Is it even a choice?

[Taranis]

3 minutes ago, Saberwander said:

All good points however in this war we have seen Russians make breakthroughs, they drove from Belarus to western Kyiv and from Belgorod to eastern Kyiv. However it did them no good, they were unable to destroy troops that the "broke through" and in the end were forced to retreat. These types of breakthroughs need immense numbers and an enemy whos morale has been shattered. Ukrainians defending their country against war criminals will have high morale regardless (especially today when they see they can fight with Russia on equal terms).

This is why I do not think that tactical nuke would severely change the outcome of the battle in the east. Even if Russians resort to it, they can make a breakthrough and then due to vast distances and hostile population end up in a new Kyiv situation, being over extended with no prospects. 

Tactical nuke could however be used to force a surrender. I really do not know what would Zelensky do if Russia went full nuts and started dropping nukes and threatening more. It would make Russia a pariah state but would Ukraine surrender? 

Since the 1st day of the invasion, I never understood the status of the pseudo experts who did not take into account the fanatical defense that the Ukrainians were going to achieve. They were obvious because even in the event of a quick Russian victory, it would have turned into a guerilla war. Now with Bucha, it will be even worse for the Russians! Even with tactical nuke, I don't think (my own opinion) Ukrainian will surrender because they are supported contrary with Japan that was isolated in 1945 and particulary with the recent war crimes. If they surrender, they die. They think with the support of the West that they still can win, moreover it could trigger a NATO reaction. Mariupol had anything left but continue to fight to the death. Glory for its defenders by the way, I'm really contemplative in the face of such remarkable tenacity

[Kinophile]

43 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

Ship can pretty much be an empty husk and still float.

I am sure we will find out when the ship gets spotted on open market satellite photos.

I'm on tenterhooks.

It can also be capsized and still technically afloat. A capsized RUS warship within ASM range is functionally dead. It'll sink/wreck with the next storm, it cannot be salvaged (cos Neptunes) and, very satisfyingly it's a constant reminder of RUS failure.

 

[Bulletpoint]

Is the Moskva also the warship involved in the famous Snake Island episode?

[Taranis]

1 minute ago, Bulletpoint said:

Is the Moskva also the warship involved in the famous Snake Island episode?

Yes it is

[Der Zeitgeist]

Just now, Bulletpoint said:

Is the Moskva also the warship involved in the famous Snake Island episode?

Yep. From "Russian warship, go f... yourself" it's the warship. 

[Bulletpoint]

Brilliant. I guess this revenge has been planned for a long time then, and not just a target of opportunity as I initially thought.

Edited April 14, 2022 by Bulletpoint

[acrashb]

10 minutes ago, db_zero said:

I’m not a nuclear weapons expert so how much was actual fact and how much was media hype idk. 

Wikipedia is your friend:

Neutron bomb - Wikipedia

As is Atomic Rockets:

Projectile Weapons - Atomic Rockets (projectrho.com) - scroll down to the "real science neutron bomb" section, or just search for "designed to maximize lethal neutron radiation".

Essentially, in an enhanced radiation bomb, the recipe is adjusted so that much less of the output is x-rays (which cause the blast) and much more is neutrons. I'm not an expert either, but that's what I've read.

At the time, thought to be more effective against MBTs (which are resistant to blast) than similar-yield traditional fusion bombs.

As for the media hype, many people become deranged by the thought of anything nuclear - there was a lot of BS floating around at the time.

12 minutes ago, db_zero said:

highly effective against tanks, dug in infantry and infantry embedded in buildings, bunkers, cellars and so on.

Yes, not so much, yes unless with thick concrete walls, not so much, and not really.  Earth absorbs neutrons fairly quickly.  Apparently there is some debate about use against modern tanks due to the thickness of armour.

[Ultradave]

22 minutes ago, db_zero said:

There is a tactical nuke known as a neutron bomb that has a limited blast and is highly effective against tanks, dug in infantry and infantry embedded in buildings, bunkers, cellars and so on.

It kills by giving off a high dose of radiation and those affected die by radiation sickness that takes place in hours.

The radiation dissipates rapidly-at least that’s what was said when it was proposed to be deployed in Europe in the early 80s.

It was very controversial at the time and no European government would accept it on its soil. The sick joke at the time was it would kill all the inhabitants but leave towns and cities intact and ready to be repopulated in a few days.

I’m not a nuclear weapons expert so how much was actual fact and how much was media hype idk. 
 

I think the US scrapped all it neutron bombs. Russia I don’t know if they developed them or have any but it would seem this is the sort of nuke Putin would use if he intended to dig out entrenched opposition and take over and occupy territory with minimal damage.

This is the typical story, and is wildly innacurate. It's an "enhanced radiation weapon". The idea behind it is that the enhanced radiation will penetrate the thick armor of tanks, and yes, kill or incapacitate the crew. However, they are STILL nuclear weapons, with massive blast effects. The "neutron bombs" planned were about the same power as normal thermal fission weapons of the time. They just cause LESS destruction than a comparable thermal fission weapon of the same size, but LESS is a very nebulous term when you are talking about multiple KT range nuclear weapons. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 10-20KT weapons. A neutron weapon would cause maybe 30%-50% the blast yield of those. Dwell on that nugget for a while.

There is no leave the cities and towns intact unless the weapons are detonated in the middle of nowhere. 

Another point is that gamma rays are like extremely high energy X-rays. Neutrons are bullets. AND they activate elements making them radioactive. Steel and it's constituent alloys, for example (Iron, cobalt, manganese). They then become radioactive with varying half lives depending on isotopes. The Cobalt used in hardened steels is the most concern because of its 5.27 year half life. Most of the others are in the neighborhood of an hour to 6 weeks or so. 

Since there is blast there is also downwind fallout. Prevailing weather I believe, is not favorable to the Russians for fallout (but do they even care, really?)

Anyway, the whole neutron bomb leaving the infrastructure intact stuff is a wild exaggeration.

Dave

[Haiduk]

@BeondTheGrave @OldSarge @G.I. Joe

And other, who asked about Neptune ASM

The missile R-360 of Neptune complex is not a version of Kh-35U, though has similar parameters. Yes, it has very similar hull, and initially since R&D works have started as far as in 2013 or earlier, the missile should be as  localized and upgraded analog of Kh-35. This gave to Russian propagandists a reason to claim "Stupid Ukrainians proud because could copy old Soviet missile ahahaha!", so far like their claims "BTR-4 is reworked BTR-70". Russians in own chauvinism believed that without Russia all industry in Ukraine completely declined and we can't develop nothing own, but upgrade USSR lagacy. But Soviet/Russian Kh-35 was really "long played" project, started as far as in 1977, first prelimilary design was ready only in 1983, brought to tests only in 1992 and adopted to service in 2003! And Kh-35U with some improvements, like coordinates transmittion via satellite, was adopted in 2015

Currently Russian navy use this missile in next versions: Kh-35 (AS-20) for planes and helicopters, Bal (SSC-6) - coastal missile complex, Uran (SS-N-25) - ship-bases missile complex

Turning back to Ukrainian R-360 - since 2013 the missile have changed at least homing heads (or even three) and many more. First test launches were in 2018, but despite on success, there were found many problems in homing, flight stability also sea-skimming mode had enough hight altitude of flight. In 2019 new tests with new homing head and some constructive changes were conducted, but anyway missile demanded many finalization works. Also there was main problem - previous launches were conducted with USA aid - they detected target and transmitted coordinates to launcher vehicle via own sattelite. Ukraine has been developed own targeting radar Mineral-U, but encountered with many R&D problems, so manufacturer tests were passed only in October 2021 and two radars has been preparing to state test program, but unknown either it was started before a war or not. So, in present time Mioneral-U is nor adopted, but probably can be used in test mode. So, the strike at "Admiral Essen" and  "Moskva" could be done both via US satellite and Mineral-U tergeting. 

Also results of test showed that the carrier of missile complex and radar, based on 8x8 KRAZ-7634NE has low reliability and because of bad financial situation on KRAZ plant, technological problems and inability to provide timely technical support and implement constructive changes, there was assumed a decision to change the carrier to Tatra T815 (Chech Republic). Both Mineral-U radars were produced on Tatra chassis, but crossing of RK-360MC on Tatra took some time, so first battalion of Neptune have to be operational in April 2022 only. To this time the unit, armed with this complex - 65th coastal missile battalion had on armament only one launcher on KRAZ chassis and support vehciles. There is unknown either was a missiles or not, because in 2021, when this battalion was established, there was an information he had only dummy of missiles and first real nissiles have to arrive also in 2022. So, this is one possible answer, why Neptunes have awake only now. First reason - they got a missiles only now, second reason - they could have very short number of missiles and kept its for case of enemy landing attempt n Odesa area. But since new missiles issued and UK/Norway offered own ASMs, they could fire free.   

So, about R-360 pararameters: 7 ... 280 km range, 150 kg warhead, velocity - 900 km/h, radar/satellite coordinates and targeting aquisitoin, seeker field of viev +/- 60 deg (even more than Harpoon), sea-skimming mode, seeking during maneuvering, EW protection, maximum range of launcher from the sea shore - 25 km

Composition of battalion:

Three batteries per 2 launchers: 6 launchers USPU-360 (each has 4 tubes of R-360), deployment time 15 minutes

Technical battery:

6 transport-loader vehicles TZM-360 (4 R-360 missiles on each), deployment time 10 minutes, reloading time 20 minutes

6 transport vehicles TM-360 (4 R-360 missiles on each)

1 mobile command post RKP-360, deployment time 10 minutes.

1 targeting radar (optional) Mineral-U

So one battalion should have 72 missiles. Full salvo in 24 missiles simultainously is possible.

First version of launcher USPU-360 on KRAZ-7634NE 

Serial version of launcher USPU-360 on Tatra T815

Transport-loader vehicle TZM-360 first version (KRAZ)

 

Serial versin of transport-loader vehcile TZM-360 (Tatra)

Transport vehicle TM-360 (KRAZ)

Transport vehcile TM-360 (Tatra), serial variant

Mobile command post RKP-360, first variant

Mobile command post RKP-360 (Tatra), serial variant

Mineral-U radar

Edited April 14, 2022 by Haiduk

[Taranis]

 

[Ultradave]

14 minutes ago, acrashb said:

Yes, not so much, yes unless with thick concrete walls, not so much, and not really.  Earth absorbs neutrons fairly quickly.  Apparently there is some debate about use against modern tanks due to the thickness of armour.

Neutrons are not stopped well by steel. To stop neutrons you need hydrogenous material - water, plastic. Gamma rays are stopped well by steel. The ceramics used fall somewhere in the middle. Concrete is used as shielding for example, and atomic mass wise is in the ballpark of ceramics. Steel can be pretty much transparent to neutrons, a fact we have to take into account in shield designs where a structure may be made up of a web of steel beams. A transverse stiffener in a wall can be a superhighway for neutrons in a direct line of it.

Dave

[The_Capt]

On 4/14/2022 at 12:57 AM, Hister said:

Been away from the forum a while now. So the North collapsed as Steve and some others predicted. What is the situation in the East and South? Will it collapse too or are Russian logistics on par now there?

Reading Russian attack is imminent in the East - is that true or is this BS like imminent attack on Kiev was that media was promoting until it wasn't?

Are Ukrainians waiting for the Russian attack and will they counterattack then? 

What are Steve's (and others) predictions for the war now?

This is why we need new folks, they keep us on point by (re)asking the central questions. So what happens next?

No idea.  I have ideas, opinions and what my instincts are saying but I really do not know.  In my thinking the main effort here is to create a mental framework that allows us to understand what we are seeing, when it happens.  As we confirm phenomenon a lot of other realities die quickly.  For example, we knew about 3-4 days into this war that it was not going to be quick because all the observable phenomenon killed that reality, it collapsed into unreality and fantasy.  

So what am I looking for now?

Strategically - The major shift and re-framing of strategic ends by Russia clearly signaled a change in negotiation position.  Ukraine's increasing strength in dictation of the terms they will accept was another signal.  We should keep an eye on this as it will continue to evolve; negotiation positions are directly tied to viable options (which I have gone on about at length) and as options spaces collapse or expand negotiation positions shift.  Further it is a sign of confidence in those options, we have seen Russia shift its negotiation position dramatically in this war: hard-medium-softer-hard.  That last "hard" negotiating position was the last we heard, likely because Putin thinks his current offensive options will give him what he needs now that the political ends have been conveniently reframed.  So for the strategic, track the options and negotiation positions.

Operationally - There is an indicator here that we have not discussed much but for what is coming will be important: decisions.  A "decision" in military terms seems simple on the surface but it is in fact very complex.  Basically a "decision" is the "death of alternatives" or a collapsing point of options.  Germans lost at Stalingrad, Russians won = German strategic offensive options die in the East...forever (insert ironic trombone sound).  This is primarily how conventional operational military planning thinks, in terms of lines of effort/operations that link "decisions" together in a linked framework that creates a successful outcome - victory (yay!).  These are what I refer to as "positive decisions".

However, in the wacky world of warfare, there are more than "positive decisions".  There are at least two, maybe three more types: null, negative and strange.  A null decision is basically a "non-decision" or an undecidable condition.  It can be generated and projected.  Ukrainian defence has been a master class in the projection of null-decisions onto an opponent; the Ukrainian approach has left the Russian military machine unable to solve for X operationally.  The end result of all those unsolvable decision spaces, along with attrition, create positive decisions for the Ukrainian defence when the entire Russian operational offensive collapsed - so you can see how this can get complex fast.

Wait, there is more!  All human decisions are metastable, which is a fancy word for "semi-permanent but subject to review".  So it is possible to "undecide" something within human perception and cognition to very real effect.  For example, SOF's primary contribution to warfare is not primarily positive decision space, or even null -they contribute here but this is not home turf - they are at home in creating negative decision, or undeciding things.  Classic example is the SOE in WW2.  Its job was not to create positive decisions in Western Europe, it was to "undecide German victory and control" - in the minds of the home front in the UK, the populations in Europe and in the minds of the Germans themselves.  Through demonstration-thru-communication (e.g. raids) the SOE did a lot of damage to German reality in undeciding things.  I am not going to get into Strange but it speaks to a human ability to "remember the future" and relative rationality, but let's leave off that one.

So what? Well for the upcoming fight in the SE, I will be looking for decisions (all types) at the operational level.  The Russians need positive, the UA will likely project null and negative on that...right up to a moment when they think they can get positive ones of their own.  The playout of that decision space will be key in reading the operational flow of things.  Next question is "which ones", well that could fill a separate post but for the Russians is likely means a decisive use of mass to pull off this pincer movement they are lining up, and then resist the UA c-moves. However, we will likely see a lattice work of decisions form up, the shape of that will dictate how things are really going.

Tactical.  Steve covered off a lot of this already.  I will add:

- Russian Mass - will it start working again?  Because it has failed (erm) decisively, so far.   Is there a tipping point in this war where mass will still work?  I suspect yes, but can the Russians build it and project it effectively?  This includes some sort of re-invention of combined arms and joint integration, which Russia desperately needs to create any of those operational decisions I was talking about.

- Russian Fragility - A tactical warfighting unit, within a formation system is a complex beast.  It has redundancies built in but it takes years to build an effective tactical unit and minutes to destroy it.  The Russian war machine has been severely beat up.  Estimates are now circling 25% losses for the initial invasion force. Normally it would take months to re-constitute damage like this and Russia is going to make a run at fixing it in days/weeks.  This will mean the Russian machine going into this phase is more fragile than the first attempt.  What remains unknown is what offsets the Russians have been able to bring to bear for this, if any.

- Ukrainian Friction - What has been amazing to watch in this war is the Ukrainian ability to create and project friction.  This is a primary role in defence, along with attrition but the breadth and scope that Ukrainian defence has been able to project friction in all domains has been breathtaking. Ukrainian defence has been able to create friction across the entire length and breadth of the Russian offensive.   If they can keep that up tactically, they will likely simply grind this next Russian offensive to a halt.

- Ukrainian Mass - they have conventional mass in this fight but are using it judiciously.  I suspect the UA is waiting for its moment, and if it times it right, it will be spectacular.

Beyond these big ticket items, we should be looking out for shifts in equipment and vehicles.  More T90s (and T-14...everyone wants to see a tractor pull on that one) or T62s all start to show something.  Cannon fodder troops in front with the good ones in the back will likely be the order of march, massed dumb artillery fire across broad frontage with little precision.  All this sort of stuff adds up, along with mass surrenders and uncontrolled movements. 

Anyway, strap in because we should see at least a few more big muscle movements before this thing winds down, or falls apart on the Russian side.  How this goes will determine if a stalemate option is even on the table for Russia and what the end-game will look like.  I still consider this the "posturing for end-game" phase with Russia racing for some sort of stalemate and Ukraine not letting them.

Either way, we will be here doing this for the duration.

Edited July 23, 2022 by The_Capt

[OldSarge]

18 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

@BeondTheGrave @OldSarge @G.I. Joe

And other, who asked about Neptune ASM

The missile R-360 of Neptune complex is not a version of Kh-35U, though has similar parameters. Yes, it has very similar hull, and initially since R&D works have started as far as in 2013 or earlier, the missile should be as  localized and upgraded analog of Kh-35. This gave to Russian propagandists a reason to claim "Stupid Ukrainians proud because could copy old Soviet missile ahahaha!", so far like their claims "BTR-4 is reworked BTR-70". Russians in own chauvinism believed that without Russia all industry in Ukraine completely declined and we can't develop nothing own, but upgrade USSR lagacy. But Soviet/Russian Kh-35 was really "long played" project, started as far as in 1977, first prelimilary design was ready only in 1983, brought to tests only in 1992 and adopted to service in 2003! And Kh-35U with some improvements, like coordinates transmittion via satellite, was adopted in 2015

Currently Russian navy use this missile in next versions: Kh-35 (AS-20) for planes and helicopters, Bal (SSC-6) - coastal missile complex, Uran (SS-N-25) - ship-bases missile complex

Turning back to Ukrainian R-360 - since 2013 the missile have changed at least homing heads (or even three) and many more. First test launches were in 2018, but despite on success, there were found many problems in homing, flight stability also sea-skimming mode had enough hight altitude of flight. In 2019 new tests with new homing head and some constructive changes were conducted, but anyway missile demanded many finalization works. Also there was main problem - previous launches were conducted with USA aid - they detected target and transmitted coordinates to launcher vehicle via own sattelite. Ukraine has been developed own targeting radar Mineral-U, but encountered with many R&D problems, so manufacturer tests were passed only in October 2021 and two radars has been preparing to state test program, but unknown either it was started before a war or not. So, in present time Mioneral-U is nor adopted, but probably can be used in test mode. So, the strike at "Admiral Essen" and  "Moskva" could be done both via US satellite and Mineral-U tergeting. 

Also results of test showed that the carrier of missile complex and radar, based on 8x8 KRAZ-7634NE has low reliability and because of bad financial situation on KRAZ plant, technological problems and inability to provide timely technical support and implement constructive changes, there was assumed a decision to change the carrier to Tatra T815 (Chech Republic). Both Mineral-U radars were produced on Tatra chassis, but crossing of RK-360MC on Tatra took some time, so first battalion of Neptune have to be operational in April 2022 only. To this time the unit, armed with this complex - 65th coastal missile battalion had on armament only one launcher on KRAZ chassis and support vehciles. There is unknown either was a missiles or not, because in 2021, when this battalion was established, there was an information he had only dummy of missiles and first real nissiles have to arrive also in 2022. So, this is one possible answer, why Neptunes have awake only now. First reason - they got a missiles only now, second reason - they could have very short number of missiles and kept its for case of enemy landing attempt n Odesa area. But since new missiles issued and UK/Norway offered own ASMs, they could fire free.   

So, about R-360 pararameters: 7 ... 280 km range, 150 kg warhead, velocity - 900 km/h, radar/satellite coordinates and targeting aquisitoin, seeker field of viev +/- 60 deg (even more than Harpoon), sea-skimming mode, seeking during maneuvering, EW protection, maximum range of launcher from the sea shore - 25 km

Composition of battalion:

Three batteries per 2 launchers: 6 launchers USPU-360 (each has 4 tubes of R-360), deployment time 15 minutes

Technical battery:

6 transport-loader vehicles TZM-360 (4 R-360 missiles on each), deployment time 10 minutes, reloading time 20 minutes

6 transport vehicles TM-360 (4 R-360 missiles on each)

1 mobile command post RKP-360, deployment time 10 minutes.

1 targeting radar (optional) Mineral-U

So one battalion should have 72 missiles. Full salvo in 24 missiles simultainously is possible.

First version of launcher USPU-360 on KRAZ-7634NE 

Serial version of launcher USPU-360 on Tatra T815

Transport-loader vehicle TZM-360 first version (KRAZ)

 

Serial versin of transport-loader vehcile TZM-360 (Tatra)

Transport vehicle TM-360 (KRAZ)

Transport vehcile TM-360 (Tatra), serial variant

Mobile command post RKP-360, first variant

Mobile command post RKP-360 (Tatra), serial variant

Mineral-U radar

Thank you, Haiduk! That is very useful information and it looks like it has been successful in at least removing the Moskva from the fight!

[acrashb]

21 minutes ago, Ultradave said:

Neutrons are not stopped well by steel.

That is correct, hence my phrase "there is some debate". 

Details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb#Effectiveness_in_modern_anti-tank_role 

[photon]

22 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

However, in the wacky world of warfare, there are more than "positive decisions".  There are at least two, maybe three more types: null, negative and strange.  A null decision is basically a "non-decision" or an undecidable condition.  It can be generated and projected.  Ukrainian defence has been a master class in the projection of null-decisions onto an opponent; the Ukrainian approach has left the Russian military machine able to solve for X operationally.  The end result of all those unsolvable decision spaces, along with attrition, create positive decisions for the Ukrainian defence when the entire Russian operational offensive collapsed - so you can see how this can get complex fast.

Wait, there is more!  All human decisions are metastable, which is a fancy word for "semi-permanent but subject to review".  So it is possible to "undecide" something within human perception and cognition to very real effect.  For example, SOF's primary contribution to warfare is not primarily positive decision space, or even null -they contribute here but this is not home turf - they are at home in creating negative decision, or undeciding things.  Classic example is the SOE in WW2.  Its job was not to create positive decisions in Western Europe, it was to "undecide German victory and control" - in the minds of the home front in the UK, the populations in Europe and in the minds of the Germans themselves.  Through demonstration-thru-communication (e.g. raids) the SOE did a lot of damage to German reality in undeciding things.  I am not going too get into Strange but it speaks to a human ability to "remember the future" and relative rationality, but let's leave off that one.

This is really interesting - are there any good books that are primers on this sort of operational thinking?

(I've been a lurker for the past 20 years, but this made me post! Huzzah.)

(Also, if you've had a hand in CMCW, many thanks. I've found it a really compelling simulation; forced me to learn to think really differently from either CMBS or the WWII games.)

[The_Capt]

9 minutes ago, photon said:

This is really interesting - are there any good books that are primers on this sort of operational thinking?

(I've been a lurker for the past 20 years, but this made me post! Huzzah.)

(Also, if you've had a hand in CMCW, many thanks. I've found it a really compelling simulation; forced me to learn to think really differently from either CMBS or the WWII games.)

You are very welcome, yes Bil H and I were game leads for CMCW, she is our angry screaming baby but we love her and have not forgotten her either.

Book on this sort of operational thought…tough one as most of this is my stuff and frankly I can’t remember who I stole it from.  If you want to get into it I read stuff like:

Azar Gat - “A History of Military Thought” and “War in Human Civilization”

The famous “Makers of Modern Strategy” edited by Peter Paret.  These are the classics.  “Unrestricted Warfare” “Russian Hybrid Warfare” by Fridman and “The Strategy of Subversion” by Bkackstone (an old Cold War book).  These are really good works on null and negative decision spaces.

But if you really want to up your game read Dune by Herbert, Foundation series by Asimov and The Expanse series by Corey.  Non-fiction is the well documented lies we tell ourselves, fiction is the truth we can only bare to speak through lies.

As for some of it, well I guess it is a book I have yet to write to be honest, just the ramblings of a homeless man on a wargaming forum street corner.

[Haiduk]

According to some information, on Moscow detonated stocks of 30 mm ammunition for AK-630 gun systems. This is not enough critical for such large ship, but two per 150 kg warheads strikes and the fire will obviously throw it out from the game. Though, if the ship could save control systems of its main caliber, P-1000 ASMs, it can keep capability to shell ships and probably coastal facilities (I doubt this missile can be targeted at the ground targets, but Russian sources claims it can shell targes on the coast line)  

[danfrodo]

5 hours ago, DesertFox said:

 

 

I am not very interested in the nuke discussion, he will or he won't and it could go a million different ways.  And he probably won't.  What is for sure is he has a war to fight and also needs to hold on to power when it would seem that lots of folks want him out of power for this mess.

And we see things like the above -- this is big stuff.  We hear that an entire security branch was jailed/sidelined.  Generals being imprisoned.  At first one might say "punishment for incompetence".  But the numbers that are being reported seem to indicate Putin is purging based on fear of these power centers staging a coup.  He may or may have evidence of coup planning, but high level purging is a big indicator of serious problems at levels close to Sauron's idiot twin. 

When we think of collapse we think of the russian army, but collapse can also happen at the top.  Things like this make me think there's possibility of that.