Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

[RoboCod]

I don't really understand what ISR is so won't comment and if it's something we have over the Russians then great. But I tend to draw a hint of concern when reading tween the lines from this article dated back in April of 2016 and considering the world was hit with a global pandemic 4 years later and was also the year Trump was elected into office I can't see how such a period for NATO would have been such a dramatic shift in its strengthening to counter the concerns stated in the article. They even had a General tell the Senate that they were technically outranged, and outgunned on the ground in Europe. That was four years ago so my question is what's changed and does ISR counter that?

https://warontherocks.com/2016/04/outnumbered-outranged-and-outgunned-how-russia-defeats-nato/

Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance.

Essentially, if NATO/US is ever going up against peer/near-peer (China/Russia) outright, then it is the side that can FIND and FIX their opponents targets first that will win that fight. To do that you need better sensors, better tech and better processes to determine your targets. The West has that against Russia.

So while the article you linked might very well be correct, outnumbered and outgunned, it also might well not mean for much either. This is before we consider non-kinetic capabilities too, which take much more precedence now that enemy states continue to operate in this grey zone of non-violent operations.

 

[Enkore]

The biggest issue with a war with Russia is that they can take losses on the chin very well. Not something we in the west are that used to. I'm not sure whether Americans would be able to push through a conscription to fight for Ukraine or even Poland. Even regular private army units will most likely see huge morale and participation drop. Its one thing getting paid to fight men on donkeys with turbans while having A-10 on speed dial - the other to fight russkies in sometimes in hand to hand combat somewhere in a swamp of eastern Europe.

Ultimately American and western capitalist systems teaches self benefit rather than benefit of a whole, so we should not be surprised if our soldiers refuse to fight in bad conditions somewhere thousands of miles from home.

EU/NATO can have all these great armies and alliances but a lot of it will be decided in the moment.. France had a great army, look what happened in WW2.

I've said it before, my concern is that we're repeating Hitler mistake with Putin/Russia. We're are playing into Putins hands and radicalizing Russian population, one day they might just snap and roll into Europe. We should have focused on soft power and underlining methods as we did during Cold War as a main method of attack. Rather than poking at them with a stick and shouting 'You wot m8, come ON THEN' cause they will snap back tenfold and we will not be having a good time at all.

 

[Rroff]

So while the article you linked might very well be correct, outnumbered and outgunned, it also might well not mean for much either. This is before we consider non-kinetic capabilities too, which take much more precedence now that enemy states continue to operate in this grey zone of non-violent operations.

The article seems to be missing a few things IMO - while there is around a brigade worth stationed in Germany/EU the US has been building up stock in Norway and I believe there is an armoured battalion worth still in Finland* (not 100% on that). While Russia has potent ability in the skies in a defensive posture they can't project the kind of air-superiority talked about in the article in a continuous advance - they'd quickly lose the skies as they moved further from their borders limiting the advantages of long range artillery, etc. giving NATO/US forces time to reinforce. (And they are unlikely to win a war of attrition in the longer run in the air).


* Though that wouldn't be the case when the article was written.

 

[Rroff]

Interesting that Ben Wallace seems to be convinced it is imminent - whether that is to make noise and distract from domestic issues or not I dunno. A few pictures popping up on social media of what seems to be back filling of fuel and logistics hardware now which might align with the talk that "enablers" for an invasion are starting to appear in the intel. Still seen nothing indicating the kind of medical support required though - beyond a few small convoys of ambulances.

 

[arknor]

did Russia have such a public build up before the Georgia and Crimea invasions? I don't see any war happening seems less likely than ever now Ukraine isn't exactly alone anymore

 

[Rroff]

did Russia have such a public build up before the Georgia and Crimea invasions? I don't see any war happening seems less likely than ever now Ukraine isn't exactly alone anymore

Both of those people were paying more attention to the Olympic games :s I don't remember Georgia but Crimea there was some build up before hand.

(I'm sure there aren't any upcoming Olympic games though...)

I have rather conflicting thoughts on this situation as on the one hand Russia has used a certain amount of deception to do things like build up more equipment than it appears at face value which isn't something they'd normally bother to do and typical of the kind of tactics Russia uses when actually taking action on the other hand no one has shown the kind of man power mobilisation it would take to convincingly pull off something like this - there doesn't seem to be mass call ups or conscription, any evidence of troop movement or logistics show 1/3rd or even 1/10th of the levels* you'd expect to see for an invasion like this. Any coverage of Russian forces moved to the area shows them bedding in like they expect to be there a long time (not that it is necessarily meaningful) and not the kind of activity you'd expect to see if an invasion was building.


* Especially with snow on the ground you can get a good idea of just how much is and isn't going on, which vehicles and buildings are in use, etc. and for how long.

 

[alchal]

Yeah he's such a coward he should be more like Major Kong for sure.

Germany obviously agrees so they discharged him and sending 5000 helmets over to Ukraine aww such a nice gesture.

If he's not then why won't he face a political opponent in a fair election?

 

[Malevolence]

If he's not then why won't he face a political opponent in a fair election?

Because anyone who tries to run against him either disappears or accidently poisons themselves with a nerve agent or a radioactive isotope. It's not his fault, he's just unlucky (or should that be lucky?).

 

[RoboCod]

The biggest issue with a war with Russia is that they can take losses on the chin very well. Not something we in the west are that used to. I'm not sure whether Americans would be able to push through a conscription to fight for Ukraine or even Poland. Even regular private army units will most likely see huge morale and participation drop. Its one thing getting paid to fight men on donkeys with turbans while having A-10 on speed dial - the other to fight russkies in sometimes in hand to hand combat somewhere in a swamp of eastern Europe.

Ultimately American and western capitalist systems teaches self benefit rather than benefit of a whole, so we should not be surprised if our soldiers refuse to fight in bad conditions somewhere thousands of miles from home.

EU/NATO can have all these great armies and alliances but a lot of it will be decided in the moment.. France had a great army, look what happened in WW2.

I've said it before, my concern is that we're repeating Hitler mistake with Putin/Russia. We're are playing into Putins hands and radicalizing Russian population, one day they might just snap and roll into Europe. We should have focused on soft power and underlining methods as we did during Cold War as a main method of attack. Rather than poking at them with a stick and shouting 'You wot m8, come ON THEN' cause they will snap back tenfold and we will not be having a good time at all.

I wouldn't be too sure on that. Just screech "dirty commies are coming" on the TV enough times and the good patriots of America will rally, I believe.

 

[RoboCod]

The article seems to be missing a few things IMO - while there is around a brigade worth stationed in Germany/EU the US has been building up stock in Norway and I believe there is an armoured battalion worth still in Finland* (not 100% on that). While Russia has potent ability in the skies in a defensive posture they can't project the kind of air-superiority talked about in the article in a continuous advance - they'd quickly lose the skies as they moved further from their borders limiting the advantages of long range artillery, etc. giving NATO/US forces time to reinforce. (And they are unlikely to win a war of attrition in the longer run in the air).


* Though that wouldn't be the case when the article was written.

Agreed. Western Air forces have the basing (and air craft carriers) to project and sustain an air battle much greater than Russia.

 

[NickK]

Agreed. Western Air forces have the basing (and air craft carriers) to project and sustain an air battle much greater than Russia.

The issue an aircraft carrier is that it’s a single asset. It can project however it’s susceptible to hypersonic missiles at long range.

 

[Rroff]

The issue an aircraft carrier is that it’s a single asset. It can project however it’s susceptible to hypersonic missiles at long range.

I'm not sure hypersonics are, yet, much of a threat in the real world vs ships, bit more of a potential headache for land based defences.

 

[NickK]

I'm not sure hypersonics are, yet, much of a threat in the real world vs ships, bit more of a potential headache for land based defences.

Think cruise missile at MACH 5+. There is also a concept of reusing ballistic missiles with conventional re-entry warheads as a ship missile - especially against larger ships and subs.

The latest 2020 Harpoon anti ship missile variant is MACH <0.7

 

[Rroff]

Think cruise missile at MACH 5+.

Thing with a hypersonic missile - to defend against it you need to get out in front of it.

For fixed installations trying to cover a lot of ground that makes for a nightmare situation as you have very little time to react, a myriad different paths it could take and no easy way to know what missile might be going to what target - by the time you've dealt with all that data your options are slim.

For a ship though you can assume the target is you and in many cases the ship will have either advanced air defences of its own or an escort air-defence destroyer or frigate - that takes a lot of variables off the table. You can narrow down its flight path and have your interceptors out in front of it.

No one has anti-ship hypersonics currently which can operate at anything like the headline speeds and reliably hit a moving target - even with their short time to target a ship can still have moved around 300+m from the initial location during the flight time.

Hypersonics don't do hypersonic speeds throughout the entire flight either - in the terminal phase they can even be slower than traditional missiles.

 

[NickK]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/3M22_Zircon

MACH 8-9.

I agree it’s early days.

 

[Rroff]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/3M22_Zircon

MACH 8-9.

I agree it’s early days.

AFAIK the only successful end to end tests have been just under Mach 7 peak speed. They've hit higher speeds in limited tests.

Though they are a nightmare for trying to defend against a swarm heading at your country, etc. they really aren't the problem, yet, for ships, the Russian/Chinese shills, etc. make them out to be.

 

[alchal]

Think cruise missile at MACH 5+. There is also a concept of reusing ballistic missiles with conventional re-entry warheads as a ship missile - especially against larger ships and subs.

The latest 2020 Harpoon anti ship missile variant is MACH <0.7

Non tested in combat , no one knows how well they do.

 

[NickK]

AFAIK the only successful end to end tests have been just under Mach 7 peak speed. They've hit higher speeds in limited tests.

Though they are a nightmare for trying to defend against a swarm heading at your country, etc. they really aren't the problem, yet, for ships, the Russian/Chinese shills, etc. make them out to be.

I know the arc royal's radar can track 2-3000 tennis ball sized drones simultaneously (public info), but incoming MACH 8 is a different tennis ball entirely

 

[PlacidCasual]

I seem to remember reading about the fact the US Navy had very recently war gamed a Taiwan scenario with the Navy using existing tactics and the opposing force innovating using the available weapons the PRC has. The US Navy got smashed. This got presented as a bad thing but actually for the US it's a great way of understanding their vulnerabilities. With modern IT rather than a layered defensive bubble approach that has been the mainstay for decades they were suggesting dispersed co-ordinated assets was a way forward. The risk from Hypersonics is then reduced because it is harder to get the weapon targeted the right place and less assets are at risk and defences can less easily be overwhelmed. Much like the Gulf War in 91 I think the next war (should one ever happen) will show how technology and tactics have progressed and the side that mastered the combination being successful.

 

[NickK]

Non tested in combat , no one knows how well they do.

The issue is that being in a war theatre allows the option to live test. And it only takes a sub 100% success ratio to take out a carrier (ie more than one missile launched and one missile achieves it's purpose). However that also assumes that the missile strike is 100% effective.