EU keeps piling on sanctions. GOOD
***Russian - Ukraine War Tactical and Strategic Updates*** [Warning on OP]
7,743,906 Views |
48167 Replies |
Last: 1 hr ago by JFABNRGR
"U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently argued that the United States "wanted to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can't do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine". If the United States managed to achieve this, it could neutralize the existence of a threat to the European balance of power for the foreseeable future. And that could set the foundations for redirecting the bulk of U.S. strategic attention towards the threat posed by China in the Indo-Pacific. In contrast, abandoning Ukraine to its own luck could lead to the unraveling of the European security order. That would end up demanding a considerably higher share of America's strategic bandwidth down the line, and thus constitute a far more serious drag on a much-needed rebalance to the Indo-Pacific."
STRATEGY
STRATEGY
This is the one reason I've been surprised China hasn't backed them so far. Granted, a weakened Russia is opportunity for China as well.
Nice clip on the Ukrainian tank plant in Lviv. HOLD MY BEER
I would have thought this would be readily apparent to most with a room temp IQ or higher, alas....this is not the case for some.74OA said:
"U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently argued that the United States "wanted to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can't do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine". If the United States managed to achieve this, it could neutralize the existence of a threat to the European balance of power for the foreseeable future. And that could set the foundations for redirecting the bulk of U.S. strategic attention towards the threat posed by China in the Indo-Pacific. In contrast, abandoning Ukraine to its own luck could lead to the unraveling of the European security order. That would end up demanding a considerably higher share of America's strategic bandwidth down the line, and thus constitute a far more serious drag on a much-needed rebalance to the Indo-Pacific."
STRATEGY
It cannot be more clear to me and most that frequent this thread. This amount that we are spending now is CHEAP to what we are getting. Our grandfathers would have sold most of us into slavery for this kind of ROI against Russia. Not to mention we are gaining the benefit of destabilizing Russia at a net zero cost in lives which is almost unheard of for the USA. I know I am preaching to the choir in the main here though and brought up as recently as Torrids post the other day.
Then there are a few that actually do care about the Ukes. I do. They are a scrappy folk fighting for their very existence and I don't see that as hyperbole. I truly don't. Plus I will admit that there is a bit of sunk cost fallacy for me. We have been the "world's policeman" for generations now but if there was ever a case for it being valid, it is probably now. Even if we stopped right this instant fully, we have already garnered far more net positive than what we did in Grenada, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc. Probably all of those combined.
Yep. We're bleeding Russia dry using only 5.6% of our defense budget and while exposing zero US troops.Eliminatus said:I would have thought this would be readily apparent to most with a room temp IQ or higher, alas....this is not the case for some.74OA said:
"U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently argued that the United States "wanted to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can't do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine". If the United States managed to achieve this, it could neutralize the existence of a threat to the European balance of power for the foreseeable future. And that could set the foundations for redirecting the bulk of U.S. strategic attention towards the threat posed by China in the Indo-Pacific. In contrast, abandoning Ukraine to its own luck could lead to the unraveling of the European security order. That would end up demanding a considerably higher share of America's strategic bandwidth down the line, and thus constitute a far more serious drag on a much-needed rebalance to the Indo-Pacific."
STRATEGY
It cannot be more clear to me and most that frequent this thread. This amount that we are spending now is CHEAP to what we are getting. Our grandfathers would have sold most of us into slavery for this kind of ROI against Russia. Not to mention we are gaining the benefit of destabilizing Russia at a net zero cost in lives which is almost unheard of for the USA. I know I am preaching to the choir in the main here though and brought up as recently as Torrids post the other day.
Then there are a few that actually do care about the Ukes. I do. They are a scrappy folk fighting for their very existence and I don't see that as hyperbole. I truly don't. Plus I will admit that there is a bit of sunk cost fallacy for me. We have been the "world's policeman" for generations now but if there was ever a case for it being valid, it is probably now. Even if we stopped right this instant fully, we have already garnered far more net positive than what we did in Grenada, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc. Probably all of those combined.
having a victorious, large and powerful Ukrainian military allied to NATO would be a very positive force for world peace.
seeing the Russian empire collapse would also be pretty great, as long as it does not allow Iran to gain control over some of their nuclear weapons.
seeing the Russian empire collapse would also be pretty great, as long as it does not allow Iran to gain control over some of their nuclear weapons.
Elite Russian brigade essentially wiped out. LOSSES
Can you attach the JDAM kit to any unguided bomb? If it works on a US 1000lb bomb, can it be attached to a Russian/Ukranian 1102lb bomb?74OA said:JDAMs home in on precise GPS coordinates like HIMARS. Those target coordinates can be input to the JDAM guidance kit attached to a dumb bomb before it is uploaded. All a MIG/SU then has to do is release the bomb anywhere within glide range of the target coordinates and it will guide itself to impact.GAC06 said:
Yes they could but that would be quite an undertaking. A semi packed with explosives is the kind of weapon that took down the Kerch bridge. When they get in range, HIMARS can do it too, at least stop traffic
To hit a specific point in a bridge and drop it, they'd need great accuracy. Our jets can provide that. Ukrainian MiG-29 videos firing HARM still have off the shelf handheld GPS strapped to the panel.
Very unlikely. It's designed to make corrections to our bombs and their shape and weight
As I understand it, yes. But it would require extensive modeling and testing beforehand and having the resulting data for each bomb uploaded to JDAM programming.deddog said:Can you attach the JDAM kit to any unguided bomb? If it works on a US 1000lb bomb, can it be attached to a Russian/Ukranian 1102lb bomb?74OA said:JDAMs home in on precise GPS coordinates like HIMARS. Those target coordinates can be input to the JDAM guidance kit attached to a dumb bomb before it is uploaded. All a MIG/SU then has to do is release the bomb anywhere within glide range of the target coordinates and it will guide itself to impact.GAC06 said:
Yes they could but that would be quite an undertaking. A semi packed with explosives is the kind of weapon that took down the Kerch bridge. When they get in range, HIMARS can do it too, at least stop traffic
To hit a specific point in a bridge and drop it, they'd need great accuracy. Our jets can provide that. Ukrainian MiG-29 videos firing HARM still have off the shelf handheld GPS strapped to the panel.
I'd disagree. It is designed to be a highly flexible kit adaptable to many US/NATO ordinance. It will attempt to guide its payload, no matter what it is attached to by correcting its guide fins to achieve the desired change in direction towards the target. There may be some ordinance it doesn't have the direction controlling capacity to direct but I'd guess if it can be attached to anything of a reasonable size and weight, it will attempt to guide it based on feedback.
There is a ton of time and money in carriage, release, and actually getting to the target. Which stations can it be carried on, in which combinations with other stores, at what release speeds, altitudes, bank, pitch, g's, etc.
It's not something they just slap on a foreign bomb and plug into an equation.
It's not something they just slap on a foreign bomb and plug into an equation.
It's designed to work literally on our ordnance. And nothing else.
And ordnance.
And ordnance.
Perhaps, but I'd suspect if you can attach it, it has quite robust programming and capability. It should be self-correcting based on feedback, otherwise any variability would generate guidance errors. If it wasn't engineered that way, that's actually both surprising and disappointing, as that should be a basic system capability in my view. I know they've adapted the system to new ordinance types in the past so it obviously does have that ability, even if it isn't fully dynamic. For example, I am aware the've made custom bunker busters using the guidance package in the past. It was my impression that a lot of custom programming and design was not required to do so, or that was the story.
The Ukrainians would benefit greatly from a flexible GPS guidance package with that type of adaptive capability. Seems to me an easy opportunity for a defense business to take on.
The Ukrainians would benefit greatly from a flexible GPS guidance package with that type of adaptive capability. Seems to me an easy opportunity for a defense business to take on.
At LOT of testing goes into carriage and release data as I said above. Do you know of a single example of it being integrated on anything but a mk80 series bomb body? I don't.
They don't just slap it on a bomb and hope it won't rip your wing off when released.
They don't just slap it on a bomb and hope it won't rip your wing off when released.
I thought they had adapted JDAM to old 8" barrels during the gulf war to manufacture custom deep penetration bunker busting guided bombs. That would definitely be an unconventional bomb shape if I am recalling correctly, but I may be misremembering which guidance system they adapted.
Did some research, yep, I can't see it ever used for bomb types not conventional US types, MK8x and BLU. I bet it wouldn't take too much to get the guidance package to guide something of similar shape and mass.
Did some research, yep, I can't see it ever used for bomb types not conventional US types, MK8x and BLU. I bet it wouldn't take too much to get the guidance package to guide something of similar shape and mass.
I said "extensive modeling and testing beforehand".GAC06 said:
There is a ton of time and money in carriage, release, and actually getting to the target. Which stations can it be carried on, in which combinations with other stores, at what release speeds, altitudes, bank, pitch, g's, etc.
It's not something they just slap on a foreign bomb and plug into an equation.
Even accepting huge risk to drop from fulcrums and flankers without release testing, what is the benefit of trying to slap it on Soviet ordnance? The bomb is the cheapest part of the weapon by far. Doesn't make sense.
MouthBQ98 said:
I thought they had adapted JDAM to old 8" barrels during the gulf war to manufacture custom deep penetration bunker busting guided bombs. That would definitely be an unconventional bomb shape if I am recalling correctly, but I may be misremembering which guidance system they adapted.
Interested to hear about it if you can find the example. Gulf war meaning DS or OIF? Definitely not DS.
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/weapons-platforms/gbu-31-32-38-jdam/
Quote:
A JDAM kit is under development for the 5,000-lb BLU-113 penetrating weapon, slated for integration and flight-testing on the F-15E. The Advanced 2,000-lb (A2K) BLU-137/B weapon is also being developed for integration onto the F-15E and B-2A. A2K will improve both precision and penetration to strike a wider variety of targets, eventually replacing the BLU-109 bunker buster.
the testing required is often overblown. I had an aerospace professor who was a lead engineer in the late 50s/60s on the AIM 7 or AIM 9 program (can't remember which).74OA said:I said "extensive modeling and testing beforehand".GAC06 said:
There is a ton of time and money in carriage, release, and actually getting to the target. Which stations can it be carried on, in which combinations with other stores, at what release speeds, altitudes, bank, pitch, g's, etc.
It's not something they just slap on a foreign bomb and plug into an equation.
They were initially mounting those missiles with 2x4s and plywood.
Whether it makes sense was not the OP question which is what I answered and, again, I specifically said it would require extensive modeling and testing. Jeebus, dude.GAC06 said:
Even accepting huge risk to drop from fulcrums and flankers without release testing, what is the benefit of trying to slap it on Soviet ordnance? The bomb is the cheapest part of the weapon by far. Doesn't make sense.
ABATTBQ11 said:
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/weapons-platforms/gbu-31-32-38-jdam/Quote:
A JDAM kit is under development for the 5,000-lb BLU-113 penetrating weapon, slated for integration and flight-testing on the F-15E. The Advanced 2,000-lb (A2K) BLU-137/B weapon is also being developed for integration onto the F-15E and B-2A. A2K will improve both precision and penetration to strike a wider variety of targets, eventually replacing the BLU-109 bunker buster.
Ok cool. Hadn't heard of the 5,000lber. But…
Not just slapped on a new bomb, developed, tested, and integrated.
Good point. Then you wouldn't have to worry about adapting the ordinance to attach to the hard points on the former Soviet aircraft, but I guess that is no less problematic than attaching the guidance kit to a totally different type of bomb. FWIW, outside of striking point targets like certain bridges, there are probably not many targets it is needed for that can't also be hit by weapons that don't require aircraft to survive still formidable Russian air defense systems.
74OA said:Whether it makes sense was not the OP question which is what I answered and, again, I specifically said it would require extensive modeling and testing. Jeebus, dude.GAC06 said:
Even accepting huge risk to drop from fulcrums and flankers without release testing, what is the benefit of trying to slap it on Soviet ordnance? The bomb is the cheapest part of the weapon by far. Doesn't make sense.
Ok my bad. In the context of this war, it doesn't make sense to try to put it on soviet bombs. I would be really really shocked by that.
MouthBQ98 said:
Good point. Then you wouldn't have to worry about adapting the ordinance to attach to the hard points on the former Soviet aircraft, but I guess that is no less problematic than attaching the guidance kit to a totally different type of bomb. FWIW, outside of striking point targets like certain bridges, there are probably not many targets it is needed for that can't also be hit by weapons that don't require aircraft to survive still formidable Russian air defense systems.
Second part is largely what I said earlier. I still expect these will go on a as yet unknown western UAV. Outside of extremely high risk deep strikes, this doesn't add a lot. Dropping them near the front lines on survivable sorties isn't better than the himars they already have.
I was trying to figure out how Ukraine would use JDAMs.
So they have the bomb, and the kit - then they'll have to figure out what plane it will go on? Mig-29? Frogfoot? That would need some integration work too, right? I don't think they have any systems where it goes on easily?
So they have the bomb, and the kit - then they'll have to figure out what plane it will go on? Mig-29? Frogfoot? That would need some integration work too, right? I don't think they have any systems where it goes on easily?
Ukraine has been pretty damn good at retooling systems for their use in this war.deddog said:
I was trying to figure out how Ukraine would use JDAMs.
So they have the bomb, and the kit - then they'll have to figure out what plane it will go on? Mig-29? Frogfoot? That would need some integration work too, right? I don't think they have any systems where it goes on easily?
Company I-1, Ord-Ords '85 -12thFan and Websider-
Flanker, Fulcrum, Fencer. I'm guessing they have more Fulcrums than anything since I haven't heard of any of the others getting replacements.
They won't have the electrical connection or targeting pod's necessary to drop them bomb-on-target or update them with the plane's INS/GPS (which is probably inadequate anyway). They will need to be dropped on preplanned targets bomb-on-coordinate inertially guided only is my guess.
I see either very risky deep strikes, which are already possible with existing ordnance, or sorta stand-off attacks on near frontline targets. Or putting them on a UAV we haven't heard of being supplied yet and using them like we use them.
They won't have the electrical connection or targeting pod's necessary to drop them bomb-on-target or update them with the plane's INS/GPS (which is probably inadequate anyway). They will need to be dropped on preplanned targets bomb-on-coordinate inertially guided only is my guess.
I see either very risky deep strikes, which are already possible with existing ordnance, or sorta stand-off attacks on near frontline targets. Or putting them on a UAV we haven't heard of being supplied yet and using them like we use them.
lb3 said:the testing required is often overblown. I had an aerospace professor who was a lead engineer in the late 50s/60s on the AIM 7 or AIM 9 program (can't remember which).74OA said:I said "extensive modeling and testing beforehand".GAC06 said:
There is a ton of time and money in carriage, release, and actually getting to the target. Which stations can it be carried on, in which combinations with other stores, at what release speeds, altitudes, bank, pitch, g's, etc.
It's not something they just slap on a foreign bomb and plug into an equation.
They were initially mounting those missiles with 2x4s and plywood.
AIM-9 has an interesting history. The part about going up against the AIM-4 is interesting. The Air Force was trying to kill the AIM-9 in favor of the AIM-4, but it was decided to do a shoot off. The sidewinder team just showed with a guy and some missiles while the falcon team showed up with 8 guys and a bunch of equipment. The sidewinders were absolutely nails and basically done with development while the falcon sucked balls and couldn't hit ****.
The AIM-9X is a nasty little *****. Look up some videos of its off boresight capabilities. Also, as GAC was saying, look up the "blooper" videos of them doing carriage testing on various ordinance. Some of it actually destroys the plane carrying it when released.ABATTBQ11 said:lb3 said:the testing required is often overblown. I had an aerospace professor who was a lead engineer in the late 50s/60s on the AIM 7 or AIM 9 program (can't remember which).74OA said:I said "extensive modeling and testing beforehand".GAC06 said:
There is a ton of time and money in carriage, release, and actually getting to the target. Which stations can it be carried on, in which combinations with other stores, at what release speeds, altitudes, bank, pitch, g's, etc.
It's not something they just slap on a foreign bomb and plug into an equation.
They were initially mounting those missiles with 2x4s and plywood.
AIM-9 has an interesting history. The part about going up against the AIM-4 is interesting. The Air Force was trying to kill the AIM-9 in favor of the AIM-4, but it was decided to do a shoot off. The sidewinder team just showed with a guy and some missiles while the falcon team showed up with 8 guys and a bunch of equipment. The sidewinders were absolutely nails and basically done with development while the falcon sucked balls and couldn't hit ****.
Reportedly, taffic jams at the Kerch bridge on the way out of temporarily occupied Crimea pic.twitter.com/CMRj14Yq6Z
— Giorgi Revishvili (@revishvilig) December 17, 2022
100% on your Uke comments. If I wasn't already tasked out on caring for my own children, they are a people I would put myself in harms way for on the battlefield between good and evil. I pray for them and am thankful for those who answered their call. God Bless em.
“You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me.”
- Alexander Solzhenitsyn
- Alexander Solzhenitsyn
⚡️Cambodia to provide training to Ukrainian sappers.
— The Kyiv Independent (@KyivIndependent) December 17, 2022
Cambodia will conduct training for 15 Ukrainian sappers in January 2023, including senior leaders of Ukraine's State Emergency Service, in the country's capital Phnom Penh, Cambodia's Foreign Ministry said.
We have Ukrainian and Cambodian military cooperation. Everyone check your 2022 bingo cards.
Featured Stories
See All
2025 Cocoa (FL) quarterback Brady Hart commits to Texas A&M
by Ryan Brauninger
9:10
31m ago
1.4k
In-Home Visit: Brady Hart reclassifies, flips to Texas A&M from Michigan
by TexAgs Recruiting
Key Matchups: No. 20 Texas A&M vs. No. 3 Texas
by Olin Buchanan
17:39
16m ago
504
161:11
17h ago
2.5k
WestAustinAg
2025 Cocoa (FL) quarterback Brady Hart commits to Texas A&M
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
124
E King Trill
2025 Cocoa (FL) quarterback Brady Hart commits to Texas A&M
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
32