How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[The_Capt]

12 minutes ago, Tux said:

I always thought (perhaps wrongly) that Russia intended to lean more on powerful operational-level SAM systems to provide air superiority, while aircraft were primarily supposed to do their best Il-2 impressions and act as an extra-intimidating supplement to the Army’s artillery.

If I’m right why do we think that’s failed? Off the top of my head I can’t think of too many confounding factors that Ukraine has been able to leverage against Russian S-400-type SAMs (notwithstanding what seemed like a sudden but fairly low-intensity campaign of HARMS use last summer).

If I’m wrong then the reasons for failure have pretty much already been covered and I am happy to stand corrected (and duly educated).

It failed because this describes an effective Air Denial strategy, however in order to accomplish air superiority (which is like "Invading Another Nation 101) you need to be able to conduct an effective SEAD and an Enemy Counter-Air Campaign.  Simply denying airspace to an opponent does not accomplish either of these things.  

For example, if Russia had it SAM network to keep the UAF back off and out of range, and then hit infrastructure and support while conducting a SEAD campaign to lead to a point where they had air superiority...ok, that makes sense.  Problem is they didn't do any of that other stuff in any meaningful way.  As with railways, they wasted a lot of operational strike on terror targets and not air infrastructure. (I mean you can still buy a flight from Frankfurt to Kyiv FFS: https://www.kayak.com/flight-routes/United-States-US0/Kiev-Boryspil-Intl-KBP#:~:text=Looking to visit Kiev%3F,for travelers flying into Kiev. )

More simply put, it failed because the Ukrainians also denied the airspace.

Also, the Russians have never really had a CAS doctrine.  They were not set up for it in the Cold War and they never really bought into it because they have an unhealthy lust for artillery.

Air Denial was the perfect strategy for Ukraine as the defender with a much smaller airpower base.  For Russia it is a slow road to defeat.

[Yet]

27 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

Maybe RU will try to overwhelm UKR AD.  Say they launch huge number of missiles & drones all timed to hit at same time, w aircraft coming in right on heels of this, while AD is already busy / reloading.  It's the kind of thing desperate team would do.  And this all gets to whether Putler is making decisions based on a feeling of desperation or out of clear sighted views to ongoing implications of his choices.  Plus there's the political part of Putler probably pounding on his air force commander to 'do something!'.

most probable is that everywhere on RU there are typewriter notes to shoot the guns at exactly 22:00. due to different timezones, locations and speed of the aircraft, drones and missiles, they will neatly arrive 1 by 1 in time for UA AD to down most of them... now wouldn't that be a joke? even realistic though;)

[Battlefront.com]

30 minutes ago, Tux said:

I always thought (perhaps wrongly) that Russia intended to lean more on powerful operational-level SAM systems to provide air superiority, while aircraft were primarily supposed to do their best Il-2 impressions and act as an extra-intimidating supplement to the Army’s artillery.

That checks out with everything I've read (I'm primarily a ground warfare guy, obviously!) and also what we've seen in this war so far.

30 minutes ago, Tux said:

If I’m right why do we think that’s failed? Off the top of my head I can’t think of too many confounding factors that Ukraine has been able to leverage against Russian S-400-type SAMs (notwithstanding what seemed like a sudden but fairly low-intensity campaign of HARMS use last summer).

If I’m wrong then the reasons for failure have pretty much already been covered and I am happy to stand corrected (and duly educated).

The consensus I've seen, if there even is one, is that the Russian air forces failed in their mission for two very familiar reasons:

1.  They built a force for a different sort of war
2.  They did a half assed job at what they built

It's akin to having a hammer with a broken handle for a job that involves needing a screwdriver.  Even a perfect hammer would not work very well, but some progress might be made.  However, a broken hammer has no chance at all of getting the job done.

As I understand it the Russians figured out a long time ago that if they were to go up against NATO they would be outclassed.  Penetrating NATO airspace in any meaningful way wasn't in the cards.  On the other hand, NATO's ability to penetrate into Russian airspace existed as a real threat.  Russia correctly assessed that they had no hope of a viable offensive doctrine, so they instead spent most of their energy on air defenses.  Fighter aircraft were tasked to be a part of that defensive strategy. 

The offensive part of the Russian airforce, including bombers, was intended for beating up neighbors or, in recent years, a limited foreign campaign (Syria).  For this they expected the environment to be fairly free and clear of most forms of AD, either in total or in volume.  This assumption allowed them to reduce the doctrinal needs to "get in air, get to target, drop ordinance, return to base".  No need for complex technology, aircraft, or tactics.  Just get there, blow stuff up, come home.

Unfortunately for Russia, they did not anticipate a third scenario which was beating up a neighbor who started out armed with significant AD and then received top end NATO systems thereafter.  As has been said, they weren't prepared for this at all and it shows.

Steve

 

[The_Capt]

35 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

Maybe RU will try to overwhelm UKR AD.  Say they launch huge number of missiles & drones all timed to hit at same time, w aircraft coming in right on heels of this, while AD is already busy / reloading.  It's the kind of thing desperate team would do.  And this all gets to whether Putler is making decisions based on a feeling of desperation or out of clear sighted views to ongoing implications of his choices.  Plus there's the political part of Putler probably pounding on his air force commander to 'do something!'.

Again, they probably should have tried that about 10 months ago and not after nearly a year of wasting ammunition and equipment losses. 

That, and this is a Zap Brannigan strategy:

[FancyCat]

5 hours ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Well, all I can say is that this is the Germany everybody for centuries asked for. Weak, divided and confused. But when the dust has settled, it will be the Germans who paid most of the bill, not the Poles, not the Finns, not the Dutch, nor any other European country. For me it only confirms that a united Europe is a folly and that we don't have to expect much gratitude from Eastern Europe.

wut? WUT? Forgive me but im slapping myself silly with this take.

Both East and West Germany were powerful states on either side of the cold war, economically and militarily. By no means was the Bundeswehr or NVA "weak". 

[Battlefront.com]

2 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

wut? WUT? Forgive me but im slapping myself silly with this take.

Both East and West Germany were powerful states on either side of the cold war, economically and militarily. By no means was the Bundeswehr or NVA "weak". 

I think you missed his point.  Which was that for more than a century many in Europe wanted Germany "weak, divided and confused" so that it wouldn't pose a threat to their own countries.  In some respects, people got what they wanted.  Yet even with that, Germany is paying a lot of the bills.

His point about the "gratitude" of Eastern Europe is a bit harsh, but to take the opposite position that Europe has no meaningful geographical divisions within it is not supportable.

What Europeans have to figure out is that their strength is a combination of many nations' abilities, not any one of them.  This has been the strength of the United States, where we have a sense that the common good is only possible by combining what all US states have to offer.  New England and Texas might have their opinions of each other that aren't always positive, but sensible people understand that they need each other as well as the rest of the country.  I mean, where would we New Englanders get good hot sauce?  And I really think Texans would prefer maple syrup on their pancakes than hot sauce

Steve

[danfrodo]

11 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Again, they probably should have tried that about 10 months ago and not after nearly a year of wasting ammunition and equipment losses. 

Putin:  "Exactly!  UKR will never see this coming because it makes no sense!" 

"HA HA!  Brilliant!" exclaims Putin's staff, all shaking in their shoes.

[sburke]

Russian general takes his own life after being sacked by Vladimir Putin (yahoo.com)

A Russian general who led a suppression of opposition activists shot himself in the head after being sacked by Vladimir Putin.

Maj Gen Vladimir Makarov, 72, was found by his wife Valentina with gunshot wounds just weeks after he was fired by the Russian president in late January.

Police have ruled that his death was the latest in a string of suicides among high-ranking Russian security and military figures.

The major general had fallen into a “deep depression” and “didn’t know what to do with himself” after losing his job, relatives told Russian media.

Anonymous sources on social media linked to Russian security services claim he shot himself with a gas-powered hunting rifle in front of his wife.

 

[Tux]

29 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

It failed because this describes an effective Air Denial strategy, however in order to accomplish air superiority (which is like "Invading Another Nation 101) you need to be able to conduct an effective SEAD and an Enemy Counter-Air Campaign.  Simply denying airspace to an opponent does not accomplish either of these things.  

For example, if Russia had it SAM network to keep the UAF back off and out of range, and then hit infrastructure and support while conducting a SEAD campaign to lead to a point where they had air superiority...ok, that makes sense.  Problem is they didn't do any of that other stuff in any meaningful way.  As with railways, they wasted a lot of operational strike on terror targets and not air infrastructure. (I mean you can still buy a flight from Frankfurt to Kyiv FFS: https://www.kayak.com/flight-routes/United-States-US0/Kiev-Boryspil-Intl-KBP#:~:text=Looking to visit Kiev%3F,for travelers flying into Kiev. )

More simply put, it failed because the Ukrainians also denied the airspace.

Also, the Russians have never really had a CAS doctrine.  They were not set up for it in the Cold War and they never really bought into it because they have an unhealthy lust for artillery.

Air Denial was the perfect strategy for Ukraine as the defender with a much smaller airpower base.  For Russia it is a slow road to defeat.

A very clear description of what they were lacking (my bad for totally neglecting the obvious need to occupy the air yourself in an “Air Superiority” situation), followed by…
 

 

23 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

That checks out with everything I've read (I'm primarily a ground warfare guy, obviously!) and also what we've seen in this war so far.

The consensus I've seen, if there even is one, is that the Russian air forces failed in their mission for two very familiar reasons:

1.  They built a force for a different sort of war
2.  They did a half assed job at what they built

It's akin to having a hammer with a broken handle for a job that involves needing a screwdriver.  Even a perfect hammer would not work very well, but some progress might be made.  However, a broken hammer has no chance at all of getting the job done.

As I understand it the Russians figured out a long time ago that if they were to go up against NATO they would be outclassed.  Penetrating NATO airspace in any meaningful way wasn't in the cards.  On the other hand, NATO's ability to penetrate into Russian airspace existed as a real threat.  Russia correctly assessed that they had no hope of a viable offensive doctrine, so they instead spent most of their energy on air defenses.  Fighter aircraft were tasked to be a part of that defensive strategy. 

The offensive part of the Russian airforce, including bombers, was intended for beating up neighbors or, in recent years, a limited foreign campaign (Syria).  For this they expected the environment to be fairly free and clear of most forms of AD, either in total or in volume.  This assumption allowed them to reduce the doctrinal needs to "get in air, get to target, drop ordinance, return to base".  No need for complex technology, aircraft, or tactics.  Just get there, blow stuff up, come home.

Unfortunately for Russia, they did not anticipate a third scenario which was beating up a neighbor who started out armed with significant AD and then received top end NATO systems thereafter.  As has been said, they weren't prepared for this at all and it shows.

Steve

 

…a very clear explanation of why!

Thank you, both. 

(Love this place)

[Battlefront.com]

11 minutes ago, sburke said:

Russian general takes his own life after being sacked by Vladimir Putin (yahoo.com)

A Russian general who led a suppression of opposition activists shot himself in the head after being sacked by Vladimir Putin.

Maj Gen Vladimir Makarov, 72, was found by his wife Valentina with gunshot wounds just weeks after he was fired by the Russian president in late January.

Police have ruled that his death was the latest in a string of suicides among high-ranking Russian security and military figures.

The major general had fallen into a “deep depression” and “didn’t know what to do with himself” after losing his job, relatives told Russian media.

Anonymous sources on social media linked to Russian security services claim he shot himself with a gas-powered hunting rifle in front of his wife.

 

Ah, so a REAL suicide!  How very unusual for a high ranking Kremlin official

But seriously, we do have to keep in mind that statistically Russia has some pretty awful rates of suicide, heart attacks, and alcoholism.  Suicide is about 2x higher than most of the West.  Interestingly, many of the former Warsaw Pact countries are similar.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/suicide-rate-by-country

Steve

[Lethaface]

10 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

What Europeans have to figure out is that their strength is a combination of many nations' abilities, not any one of them.  This has been the strength of the United States, where we have a sense that the common good is only possible by combining what all US states have to offer.  New England and Texas might have their opinions of each other that aren't always positive, but sensible people understand that they need each other as well as the rest of the country.  I mean, where would we New Englanders get good hot sauce?  And I really think Texans would prefer maple syrup on their pancakes than hot sauce

Steve

Exactly, just like different people need to learn to work together. Some people get anxiety to do things they have never done before, but help them once and they will be happy to do it a million times. Other people love trying out new things but get tired of it after doing it a couple of times. Accepting those differences is a good start. 
Perhaps not the best analogy, but it has some resemblance to some of our European 'issues'.

[Bil Hardenberger]

54 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Now there is something.  I checked some stats and it seems the average load is around 30,000 liters of fuel, if you take the smaller and larger capacity rigs and split the difference.  Let's say they purchased 2000 trucks for this mobile reserve concept.  That is 60,000,000 liters of fuel that Russia can't strike with missiles and the supply is readily transportable to any place that needs it.  Be that a rural village or a frontline position.

Time for The_Capt to chime in with another missive on how Russia should not have started a war with people who are so damned clever

Steve

If true, this is the sort of information that I think is a violation of OPSEC and unwise to disclose.  I suspect some misdirection here aimed squarely at the Russian's sense of insecurity;

   "...look we have fuel from all over the world and you can't touch it!"     

I hope it is simply another example of Ukraine's outstanding Information War, which has been running circles around the Russians since the beginning.

Bil

[MSBoxer]

15 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Ah, so a REAL suicide!  How very unusual for a high ranking Kremlin official

Multiple gunshot wounds to the head is the best indicator of suicide.  Open and shut case, no need for an autopsy let alone an investigation.

[sburke]

1 minute ago, MSBoxer said:

Multiple gunshot wounds to the head is the best indicator of suicide.  Open and shut case, no need for an autopsy let alone an investigation.

yeah I think Steve missed the plural there.    hold on honey, I just grazed myself that time, let me try again!

[Battlefront.com]

5 minutes ago, Bil Hardenberger said:

If true, this is the sort of information that I think is a violation of OPSEC and unwise to disclose.  I suspect some misdirection here aimed squarely at the Russian's sense of insecurity;

   "...look we have fuel from all over the world and you can't touch it!"     

I hope it is simply another example of Ukraine's outstanding Information War, which has been running circles around the Russians since the beginning.

Bil

Heh.  Either way, it's brilliant

As for OPSEC, it's the sort of thing that Russia can't counter even if it knows about it.  Best it can do is try to pay Ukrainian kids $15 each for every truck tire they slash.  Probably have more luck doing that than interdicting them militarily.

Steve

[poesel]

These are the real dividers in Europe:

 

and of course this:

 

From: https://atlasofprejudice.com/

[FancyCat]

42 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I think you missed his point.  Which was that for more than a century many in Europe wanted Germany "weak, divided and confused" so that it wouldn't pose a threat to their own countries.  In some respects, people got what they wanted.  Yet even with that, Germany is paying a lot of the bills.

 

Your missing my point, which is to state that Germany has been a leading power in Europe for centuries and continues to be, and that wishes for a "weak, divided and confused" Germany as being "unfair to Germany" is implying that the wishes are unfair or for prior past slights and have no interest in the present when I'm emphasizing that's not remotely true.

Like that meme about Germany rearming, everyone should be worried you see every so often. Jokes they are, but they indicate that people seem ignorant as to German military history, so people might be more lenient towards Germany refusing to "rearm" or make weapons. Not that I'm saying it was wrong for Germany to reduce it's military, just that this pacifist position is not simple.

Or take for example German foreign policy, which one can reasonably consider Aragon alluded to in "weak, divided, confused", as to portray Germany as taking second fiddle to the U.S, following its lead.

No absolutely not. Germany did not weakly expand trade cooperation with Russia, did not weakly lead the Normandy Format and Minsk agreements, did not weakly profit from decades of energy integration with Russia.

This idea that "woe, you will regret empowering Germany" or "woe, we can't make a decision cause you kept us weak" is part of this idea that Germany is not responsible for being the leading economy in Europe or has no obligation to take a position, and that's just not true. Nothing wrong with being opposed to Germany doing this, but acting as if people are unreasonable for pressuring Germany, as if Germany didn't seek out being the most powerful economy in Europe or seek out Russian closeness to the west, that's just not reality. 

Tldr, Germany acting weak, unwilling, indecisive, is not due to European desires for such a Germany, but are simply cover for whatever domestic or foreign policy Germany has.

Which is fine! But shielding from the criticism by acting like Germany didn't want to be the leading economy in Europe and was forced into it is silly.

Edited February 16, 2023 by FancyCat

[Battlefront.com]

2 minutes ago, sburke said:

yeah I think Steve missed the plural there.    hold on honey, I just grazed myself that time, let me try again!

Oops, I did!  And just because it was done in front of his wife doesn't rule out FSB as they appear to like it that way.  They also like using implausible methods of death.  Gas powered rifle?  Yup, I'm sure that would be the go-to weapon of choice for a man no doubt armed with a pistol.  And it's pretty tricky to shoot oneself in the chest with a rifle!

Steve

[sburke]

3 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

Which is fine! But shielding from the criticism by acting like Germany didn't want to be the leading economy in Europe and was forced into it is silly.

you left off Deutsche bank role in laundering Russian money.

[Butschi]

18 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

Your missing my point, which is to state that Germany has been a leading power in Europe for centuries and continues to be

Not to be nitpicky but that's a point you didn't make, really, so noone missed it.  You were only talking about West and East Germany, not about what Germany was centuries ago or is at the present - the latter being what Aragorn was referring to, the point you were missing and only addressed now.

Edited February 16, 2023 by Butschi

[billbindc]

4 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Well, it seems I missed quite an interesting time over the last few hours.  I'm not going to take any action as it seems things have sorted itself out for the most part.  But I think it's safe to say this was not our finest hour or two in this thread.

This is the same as it is in the US.  For those who do not live here, it is easy to not see how geographically divided the United States is.  Not only regions, but areas within.  This has always been the case, but it's certainly become more noticeable since the Internet came about.

Yet at the personal level, good people get along with other good people no matter where they come from.  Fortunately there are plenty of good people.

Steve

If you thought I was going to make a joke about how we need some overweening American with a lot of juice around here to come in and keep these Euros from fighting with each other you would be wrong. I would never do that.

Edited February 16, 2023 by billbindc

[billbindc]

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

That was an interesting read, thanks.

What I got from this is that there's two opinions out there.  The first is that Russia will continue to do what it has done simply because it isn't capable of doing more.  The second is that Russia has been harboring resources in order to save up for a "Bodenplatte" offensive where everything takes to the skies at once in support of a coordinated ground offensive.

I don't have an opinion as to what the Russians are planning on doing, but it would be new for them to engage in a large scale, high tempo use of air power.  It is extremely risky and, so far, they have been very risk adverse with aircraft.  For good reasons, too. 

Aircraft are expensive and time consuming to replace.  They are also one of the only tools Russia retains to deter NATO and other adversaries (or so they think, anyway!).  Each aircraft lost not only weakens what little deterrence they have left, but also gives Russia more bad PR.

If they put 100 platforms into the air at once, just think of how many might get downed.  Even 5 would be pretty horrible from a PR standpoint, but what if they lost 20 or 30?  It's theoretically possible that losses could be that high.  It would be an unmitigated disaster.

The other thing to wonder about is if the Russians think this sort of risk has the possibility of offering a decent reward.  If I were them I'd doubt it.  Russia's activities with air so far have not provided any signs that they are able to significantly impact Ukrainian ground forces' ability to fight.  Which means Russia would be more-or-less giving Ukraine all the opportunities to come out ahead.

My vote is they do "more of the same" vs. big air offensive.  That said, I wouldn't be too surprised to be wrong due to me underestimating how desperate Russia is at this point.

Steve

Would 100 aircraft be remotely enough to materially change anything on the ground? Their PGMS that are left aren't particularly P or G and their pilots are going to be flying for their lives given Ukraine's air defenses. 

[Battlefront.com]

4 minutes ago, billbindc said:

Would 100 aircraft be remotely enough to materially change anything on the ground? Their PGMS that are left aren't particularly P or G and their pilots are going to be flying for their lives given Ukraine's air defenses. 

No, and I think that may be one reason why Russia hasn't risked it's aircraft over Ukrainian lines.  It's one thing to take the risk if you know there's a potential payoff, but what in this war should lead Russia to think they can achieve that?

The best they could hope for is a couple of limited dumb carpet bombing runs over very limited sections of front.  It might even work, but even that would be limited due to the scale of the frontlines.  And my guess is that if they put 100 aircraft in the air only 90 of them would return to base.  10% loss for loosening up a couple of tiny sections of front?  I think even the Russians might not see that as attractive.

What Russia needs, but isn't capable of doing, is ripping open very large sections of Ukrainian front.  I'm talking about 10-20km gaps in multiple places.  This war has shown Russia having problems cleaning out even a couple hundred meters of frontage even with concentrated artillery and mechanized forces.  I don't think some dumb bombs have any hope of improving their track record.

Steve

[Maciej Zwolinski]

46 minutes ago, MSBoxer said:

Multiple gunshot wounds to the head is the best indicator of suicide.  Open and shut case, no need for an autopsy let alone an investigation.

In the year 2000 an ex-chief of the Central Customs Office in Poland was deemed to have committed suicide by shooting himself three times in the stomach. Investigation was very short and the verdict of suicide was accepted.

[JonS]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

an unhealthy lust for artillery.

This sentence does not make sense. Individually, the words are sensible, but put together like this the describe an impossible outcome, something like "intelligent labrador."