dan/california Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 2 hours ago, Haiduk said: Bad day for situation on Kupiansk and Avdiivka directions Russians could capture Krokhmal'ne village. Despaite this is tiny vilage, which had 45 settlers before a war, this is not good, because Russians came on R-07 Kupiansk - Svatove road and now threten to right flank and rear of UKR tropos in Kyslivka northern In Avdiivka Russians multiplied airstrikes and infantry assaults. After losing of many armor in previous asault several days ago, they shifted own efforts to the south and could capture UKR fortified positions near "Tsar hunting" recreation complex. Two days ago Russian recon groups already came to southern streets of Avdiivka, but were expeleld by drone strikes. Now came bad news, Russians managed gain foothold in several buildings on these streets again. Defense of our troops holds on FPV drones, bwcause we have limited ammo for atrillery, very big lack and exhausting of personnel - 110th mech. brigade fights here almost 1,5 years so far. But previuos days reportedly had bad weather for FPV, so Russians using multiple infantry small groups could adbance from the south. Details maybe will come further. Now our forces try to conduct stabilization measures. Video of 4 FAB-500 (of its gliding variant) hit UKR positions (video filmed by Russians). Long-range AD is absent here, so Russian aviation can feel almost free here. One more video of gliding bomb strike - FAB-1500 on Pivdenno-Donbaska coal mine No.3 - main stronghold of UKR troops on Vuhledar - Mariinka sector. It's great we will receive per 50 AASM gliding bombs from France, but Russians drop the same number each 1-2 days... For example, Avdiivka area was hit with 250+ bombs since the year has began, when for whole 2023 the city was hit only with 148 bombs. So clearly Russian aviation is becoming somewhat more competent in its employment, and this is a bad thing. My question, for those who know more about air to air combat than i do, Is can F-16s, with the very longest range radar guided missiles, meaningfully push back at the Russian planes doing these missions. Or is the overlapping of the range of various Russian SAM systems, the distance from witch the glide bombs can be launched, and Russian air to air missiles such that really pushing them back isn't feasible at acceptable risk. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 Now I have a border line silly question, but it is good to ask one of those occasionally. Would it be possible hang a Patriot PAC-2 missile on an F-16? I mean the Russians managed to fire and Iskander from a Mig-31. I realize it would an ENORMOUS integration project, but if PAC-2 missies could be fired from 40,000 feet and just below mach-1 it would add at last a 100km to their range wouldn't it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sojourner Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 Russia has deployed a new air defense system in Moscow How much is that in hryvnia? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiduk Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 During last days Russians activated also near Bilohorivka (Siversk direction). They could capture several our positions and came close the village Though, Russians even avdvancing still suffer enormous losses. The video of dronobombing of 81st airmobile brigade - defenders of Biliholivka sector, causing total annihilation of Russian squad. Huge explosion at 0:45 -this is Russian explosive cable of UR-77 detonated after grenade from UKR drone hit them. Recently Russians shot this charge to destroy UKR positions, but something went wrong and the cable fell down near forward Russian positions, so Russians didn't activate it. UKR drone fixed this mistake %) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seedorf81 Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 (edited) Just now: Trump's chances getting bigger? DeSantis "suspends" his campaign, endorses Trump. Pretty unexpected, I think. Not very good news for Ukraine. Edited January 21 by Seedorf81 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiduk Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 (edited) UKR attack of Russian position between Ivanivka and Yahidne villages, 20 km east from Kupiansk Edited January 21 by Haiduk 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 28 minutes ago, Seedorf81 said: Pretty unexpected, I think. Do you? I'd call it entirely unsurprising. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 28 minutes ago, Seedorf81 said: Just now: Trump's chances getting bigger? DeSantis "suspends" his campaign, endorses Trump. Pretty unexpected, I think. Not very good news for Ukraine. I wouldn't say it is good news, but it is totally expected. Desantis has run one of the worst campaigns in U.S. political history. He may in fact set a new record for the mount of money spent per vote received. Quote https://www.politico.com/news/2024/01/18/desantis-regret-anti-media-campaign-strategy-00136330 Quote https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/05/25/why-cant-ron-desantis-do-anything-right-00098623 Ron DeSantis started the year a rising star and six months later is a bumbling idiot. Or so you’d believe given his press clippings recently. There’s suffering a downdraft in your media coverage, and then there’s free-falling from 30,000 feet. Just to be clear the article above is from last MAY... Desantis is just not a good candidate, and the crater he just made has been a clear inevitability for most of a year. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seedorf81 Posted January 21 Share Posted January 21 (edited) 2 hours ago, JonS said: Do you? I'd call it entirely unsurprising. Well, with Trump possibly/maybe/perhaps having more legal trouble and hence possibly/maybe/perhaps being excluded from the nomination, Desantis possible/maybe/perhaps only had to defeat Haley. And if you're doin' bad, but you're remaining opponent is also doin' bad, why not hang on a little longer? It's pretty obvious to me that neither of 'm cares a lot about the USA as a whole.. Edited January 21 by Seedorf81 Late night where I'm at, so possibly/maybe/perhaps not my best posting ever.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 You can't mass for a mass attack, it is more or less suicidal. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zinz Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 https://v.redd.it/yr52p46138dc1/DASH_1080.mp4?source=fallback Still wanted to share this video. Not especially gory but absolutely brutal with the sound and the snow. Really drives home the brutality of this war. View at your own peril. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenris Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 Slightly interesting clip, seeing a Bradley from the RU perspective. Plus, it's pointed out, you can see the abandoned T-90M that was driven off a week or so ago by the same vehicles. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seedorf81 Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 Short article on drone-war at Cherson front. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67991772 Interesting quote: "On the outskirts of Kherson in an icy field, pilots practise drone flights with plastic bottles tied beneath them, in place of grenades. It takes just 14 hours of training to qualify as a drone pilot. Ukraine's government is encouraging people to take part in free training, as well as to manufacture drones at home to send to the front." Just fourteen hours! Training a recruit to be a decent shooter with a rifle might even take longer than that! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holien Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 11 hours ago, Seedorf81 said: And if you're doin' bad, but you're remaining opponent is also doin' bad, why not hang on a little longer? He knows he will lose and it costs a lot of money to keep a campaign running. He has made a choice to back Trump in the hope he will get something out of it "IF" Trump wins... Either way he will stay in favour of those that voted Trump for future elections... Trump will win the Republican primaries that has been known for quite a while. The Primaries see only a small fraction of those that can vote turn out and it is easy for a hardcore percentage to sway it for Trump. What we don't know is how many of every Republican will vote Trump at the election. Iowa was useful to see that nearly 50% of those that turned out did not vote Trump. In 2024 there are roughly 752k Registered Republican voters - only just over 100k of those voted in the primary. So he only got support from just over 52k of those that came out to vote. A lot can happen in the time before the vote in November. The Democrats have yet to fire up their campaign and Trump is getting a lot of free publicity at the court houses... That could turn out to be bad publicity by Nov... Anyway that's enough on American politics, back to Ukraine... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holien Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 A question for the forum… What if American Aid / support stops this year? My view is that as long as the other countries providing support that Ukraine will be able to defend and hold Russia off but they won’t be able to advance any further. We have seen other conflicts where a small flow of arms is enough to keep the conflict going. Russia has lost the best of their forces and are struggling to keep feeding meat into the attack. Russia rear areas are no longer safe and disruption to the war effort seems likely to continue even without American arms. Ukraine does have problems getting new recruits but I think there is enough to keep Russia at bay. The lack of Artillery shells might cause local setbacks but if a steady supply can be maintained I am thinking that Ukraine can hold the line. Ultimately if the rest of NATO provides funds America will gladly sell Ammo to Ukraine funded via Europe. I guess at worst it will force Ukraine to maybe entertain talking to the devil? Is the loss of American military aid the end of Ukraine? Answers on a postcard… 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zinz Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 https://mastodon.social/@kravietz@agora.echelon.pl/111799191002523223 Corruption in the Ukrainian army. But this time it is getting investigated 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Capt Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 17 minutes ago, Holien said: A question for the forum… What if American Aid / support stops this year? My view is that as long as the other countries providing support that Ukraine will be able to defend and hold Russia off but they won’t be able to advance any further. We have seen other conflicts where a small flow of arms is enough to keep the conflict going. Russia has lost the best of their forces and are struggling to keep feeding meat into the attack. Russia rear areas are no longer safe and disruption to the war effort seems likely to continue even without American arms. Ukraine does have problems getting new recruits but I think there is enough to keep Russia at bay. The lack of Artillery shells might cause local setbacks but if a steady supply can be maintained I am thinking that Ukraine can hold the line. Ultimately if the rest of NATO provides funds America will gladly sell Ammo to Ukraine funded via Europe. I guess at worst it will force Ukraine to maybe entertain talking to the devil? Is the loss of American military aid the end of Ukraine? Answers on a postcard… Well first off let’s pull some data: https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/ What is not on that list is how much the US is providing in C4ISR support, which is critical. But the US accounts for about 1/3 of Ukrainian aid, most of it military. It would be a very big step, and in many ways a retreat from global leadership for the US to pull out of Ukraine completely. Given what we are seeing now is a symptom of “anything but what the Democrates want or makes them look good”, I am not sure it would carry over to a complete pull out of support. First off to fully cut out Ukraine would mean actively severing some military ties and systems. Second, the US would have to essentially place sanctions against Ukraine in order to stop private citizen donations. And all that would take effort and money. Far more likely, assuming Trump wins (and here he would really need all three houses of US government) we would see highly symbolic noise but baseline aid would continue to flow. Trump may use that to try and broker some sort of peace deal so he can look like a “winner”. Regardless even if the US dropped off the support map completely, 2/3rds of aid continues to flow. Europe and the rest of the world would have to step up to try and cover off. Military aid would take a hit but let’s face facts here, most of the military aid has been a bit of a muddle - a mix of equipment and systems thrown at a problem. Some systems are critical, namely the ones that reinforce Ukrainian denial (especially of the air) others have proven to be useful but not deterministic. So keeping Ukraine able to deny Russia is likely very possible in this environment. As Russia continues to demonstrate, defence and denial have a very low bar while offence has an extremely high one. Cash followed by data followed by ammunition are the most important things Ukraine needs. Of all that the US is likely most important for the last one. Now will the US stop selling Ukraine/Europe ammunition? Not likely - that would take active sanctions. The US might stop giving but selling is another thing entirely. US aid is directly tied to US influence. So the real question is how much influence does the US want/need in his region. The dumb answer is “none” which a surprising number of Americans actually believe - or more accurately they appear to believe that US influence is somehow above a requirement for global leadership. However, I strongly suspect that those in charge in the US are not dumb. So what? Well the war would likely continue. Russia would seize on it to try and cut some sort of deal - and then declare total victory. Europe and the rest of the world would have to step up and fill the gap. The war on the ground would likely remain static - gotta be honest, I am not sure if more US military aid would allow for sweeping advances right now regardless. The best we can expect at this point may be a frozen conflict one way or the other. If Ukrainians are starting to refuse to defend their own country, well this thing might be sliding to an endgame anyway. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine-war-recruitment-tensions-challenges-1.7045571 The West cannot supply Ukrainian will, we can only support it. Ukraine likely has one more solid chance this spring summer to try and pull off a major operational victory. I suspect its roots will lie in unmannned superiority, not in fleets of vehicles. If the UA can pull off a high profile victory it will reinforce support (we love a winner). If not, well then we are likely at a Korean Peninsula solution. And the little blue ball will keep spinning while the monkeys throw poop at each other, wondering why it is getting hotter. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Joch Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 16 hours ago, dan/california said: So clearly Russian aviation is becoming somewhat more competent in its employment, and this is a bad thing. My question, for those who know more about air to air combat than i do, Is can F-16s, with the very longest range radar guided missiles, meaningfully push back at the Russian planes doing these missions. Or is the overlapping of the range of various Russian SAM systems, the distance from witch the glide bombs can be launched, and Russian air to air missiles such that really pushing them back isn't feasible at acceptable risk. Short answer, no. Tom Cooper had an interesting write up on this. The F-16/AIM120 combo is out ranged by the SU35/MIG31/R37 combo. You also have to remember the F16 Ukraine is getting are upgraded A models which while competent are not as deadly as the latest models in the U.S. inventory. https://xxtomcooperxx.substack.com/p/its-the-range-stupid-part-1?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2 Way too much emphasis has been placed on the F16 and aircraft in general. One important feature of this war is the way in which SAMs dominate the air battlefield and shape all air operations. Both Ukrainian and Russian air forces are very skittish about coming into range of the other sides SAMs since that is almost guaranteed death. More Patriot batteries would be a lot more useful to Ukraine than 40 year old F16s. 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM Stuff Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 18 minutes ago, The_Capt said: Well first off let’s pull some data: https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/ What is not on that list is how much the US is providing in C4ISR support, which is critical. But the US accounts for about 1/3 of Ukrainian aid, most of it military. It would be a very big step, and in many ways a retreat from global leadership for the US to pull out of Ukraine completely. Given what we are seeing now is a symptom of “anything but what the Democrates want or makes them look good”, I am not sure it would carry over to a complete pull out of support. First off to fully cut out Ukraine would mean actively severing some military ties and systems. Second, the US would have to essentially place sanctions against Ukraine in order to stop private citizen donations. And all that would take effort and money. Far more likely, assuming Trump wins (and here he would really need all three houses of US government) we would see highly symbolic noise but baseline aid would continue to flow. Trump may use that to try and broker some sort of peace deal so he can look like a “winner”. Regardless even if the US dropped off the support map completely, 2/3rds of aid continues to flow. Europe and the rest of the world would have to step up to try and cover off. Military aid would take a hit but let’s face facts here, most of the military aid has been a bit of a muddle - a mix of equipment and systems thrown at a problem. Some systems are critical, namely the ones that reinforce Ukrainian denial (especially of the air) others have proven to be useful but not deterministic. So keeping Ukraine able to deny Russia is likely very possible in this environment. As Russia continues to demonstrate, defence and denial have a very low bar while offence has an extremely high one. Cash followed by data followed by ammunition are the most important things Ukraine needs. Of all that the US is likely most important for the last one. Now will the US stop selling Ukraine/Europe ammunition? Not likely - that would take active sanctions. The US might stop giving but selling is another thing entirely. US aid is directly tied to US influence. So the real question is how much influence does the US want/need in his region. The dumb answer is “none” which a surprising number of Americans actually believe - or more accurately they appear to believe that US influence is somehow above a requirement for global leadership. However, I strongly suspect that those in charge in the US are not dumb. So what? Well the war would likely continue. Russia would seize on it to try and cut some sort of deal - and then declare total victory. Europe and the rest of the world would have to step up and fill the gap. The war on the ground would likely remain static - gotta be honest, I am not sure if more US military aid would allow for sweeping advances right now regardless. The best we can expect at this point may be a frozen conflict one way or the other. If Ukrainians are starting to refuse to defend their own country, well this thing might be sliding to an endgame anyway. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine-war-recruitment-tensions-challenges-1.7045571 The West cannot supply Ukrainian will, we can only support it. Ukraine likely has one more solid chance this spring summer to try and pull off a major operational victory. I suspect its roots will lie in unmannned superiority, not in fleets of vehicles. If the UA can pull off a high profile victory it will reinforce support (we love a winner). If not, well then we are likely at a Korean Peninsula solution. And the little blue ball will keep spinning while the monkeys throw poop at each other, wondering why it is getting hotter. Interesting graphics and analyse ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Capt Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 1 hour ago, Sgt Joch said: Short answer, no. Tom Cooper had an interesting write up on this. The F-16/AIM120 combo is out ranged by the SU35/MIG31/R37 combo. You also have to remember the F16 Ukraine is getting are upgraded A models which while competent are not as deadly as the latest models in the U.S. inventory. https://xxtomcooperxx.substack.com/p/its-the-range-stupid-part-1?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2 Way too much emphasis has been placed on the F16 and aircraft in general. One important feature of this war is the way in which SAMs dominate the air battlefield and shape all air operations. Both Ukrainian and Russian air forces are very skittish about coming into range of the other sides SAMs since that is almost guaranteed death. More Patriot batteries would be a lot more useful to Ukraine than 40 year old F16s. Air to air engagements appear to be much like tank on tank engagements…rare in this war. We saw some air to air action in the first month of the war. Since then it has all been about denial. The IADs/networked-MANPADs situation has basically all but halted air war beyond lobbing stuff at each other, and the unmanned aerial space. F16s are good to reinforce that denial but we will not be seeing them sweep the skies of Russian MiGs anymore than M1s or Leo2 drove Russian tanks back past the Urals. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carolus Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 (edited) One difference: The sky cannot be mined. We still have air ATGMs (MANPADs) and artillery (SAMs) but detection relies on a few sophisticated technology gadgets over which Russia has shown to only have limited control. F-16 won't be *the* game changer but I bet the Ukrainian Airforce will be able to pull off some air ambushes like they have done with PATRIOT from the ground before. Beside that I am waiting for Boing's GLSDBs to enter the arena. In my uneducated view, deep strikes are the way to break the modern denial nut. You just need enough to make the other decide it's not worth staying. Edited January 22 by Carolus 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billbindc Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 1 hour ago, The_Capt said: Well first off let’s pull some data: https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/ What is not on that list is how much the US is providing in C4ISR support, which is critical. But the US accounts for about 1/3 of Ukrainian aid, most of it military. It would be a very big step, and in many ways a retreat from global leadership for the US to pull out of Ukraine completely. Given what we are seeing now is a symptom of “anything but what the Democrates want or makes them look good”, I am not sure it would carry over to a complete pull out of support. First off to fully cut out Ukraine would mean actively severing some military ties and systems. Second, the US would have to essentially place sanctions against Ukraine in order to stop private citizen donations. And all that would take effort and money. Far more likely, assuming Trump wins (and here he would really need all three houses of US government) we would see highly symbolic noise but baseline aid would continue to flow. Trump may use that to try and broker some sort of peace deal so he can look like a “winner”. Regardless even if the US dropped off the support map completely, 2/3rds of aid continues to flow. Europe and the rest of the world would have to step up to try and cover off. Military aid would take a hit but let’s face facts here, most of the military aid has been a bit of a muddle - a mix of equipment and systems thrown at a problem. Some systems are critical, namely the ones that reinforce Ukrainian denial (especially of the air) others have proven to be useful but not deterministic. So keeping Ukraine able to deny Russia is likely very possible in this environment. As Russia continues to demonstrate, defence and denial have a very low bar while offence has an extremely high one. Cash followed by data followed by ammunition are the most important things Ukraine needs. Of all that the US is likely most important for the last one. Now will the US stop selling Ukraine/Europe ammunition? Not likely - that would take active sanctions. The US might stop giving but selling is another thing entirely. US aid is directly tied to US influence. So the real question is how much influence does the US want/need in his region. The dumb answer is “none” which a surprising number of Americans actually believe - or more accurately they appear to believe that US influence is somehow above a requirement for global leadership. However, I strongly suspect that those in charge in the US are not dumb. So what? Well the war would likely continue. Russia would seize on it to try and cut some sort of deal - and then declare total victory. Europe and the rest of the world would have to step up and fill the gap. The war on the ground would likely remain static - gotta be honest, I am not sure if more US military aid would allow for sweeping advances right now regardless. The best we can expect at this point may be a frozen conflict one way or the other. If Ukrainians are starting to refuse to defend their own country, well this thing might be sliding to an endgame anyway. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine-war-recruitment-tensions-challenges-1.7045571 The West cannot supply Ukrainian will, we can only support it. Ukraine likely has one more solid chance this spring summer to try and pull off a major operational victory. I suspect its roots will lie in unmannned superiority, not in fleets of vehicles. If the UA can pull off a high profile victory it will reinforce support (we love a winner). If not, well then we are likely at a Korean Peninsula solution. And the little blue ball will keep spinning while the monkeys throw poop at each other, wondering why it is getting hotter. A couple of points here are worth adding: 1. The question of aid will be concluded long before the election in November. The White House is already offering pretty much what Republicans want on the border in order to get aid to Israel and Ukraine. The Senate is pretty united on supporting that. Does the House GOP go along? It too would largely support aid but Speaker Johnson lives on a knife edge (the GOP margin is *2* votes) and has to get around the extremists who will try to over throw him when/if he goes for it. So...call it a toss up but we'll know which way it's going in the next four weeks at most. 2. US and EU disbursements are not the only route in which Ukraine can access what it needs. There is something on the order of $300 billion in Russian reserves that could be seized and given to Ukraine for its defense. Taking such a step has significant legal and diplomatic repercussions but as Congressional aid gets held up the motivation to get this money for Kyiv has skyrocketed. Watch this space. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-10/white-house-throws-support-behind-seizing-frozen-russian-assets?embedded-checkout=true 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Capt Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 1 minute ago, billbindc said: 1. The question of aid will be concluded long before the election in November. The White House is already offering pretty much what Republicans want on the border in order to get aid to Israel and Ukraine. The Senate is pretty united on supporting that. Does the House GOP go along? It too would largely support aid but Speaker Johnson lives on a knife edge (the GOP margin is *2* votes) and has to get around the extremists who will try to over throw him when/if he goes for it. So...call it a toss up but we'll know which way it's going in the next four weeks at most. I think most non-Americans are really more concerned about "the next guy" issue. Aid for this year, as you note, is very likely to get sorted. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billbindc Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 2 minutes ago, The_Capt said: I think most non-Americans are really more concerned about "the next guy" issue. Aid for this year, as you note, is very likely to get sorted. I should have been more clear. I'm of the opinion that this war as a hot war has about a year to run. If Ukraine gets cut off this year or next (should Trump win) will define what a future Ukraine looks like (as in South Korea or Georgia). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Capt Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 9 minutes ago, billbindc said: Ukraine looks like (as in South Korea or Georgia). Could be worse...Florida... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.