Russia invades Ukraine

[Trackman]

from news.sky.com recently:
Don't know if this is new news looking up on the thread on this page.

US will not provide F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine​

The US has ruled out sending F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine, Joe Biden has said.
Ukrainian officials have been stepping up their calls for Western allies to send them warplanes to help their fight against Russian forces.
Earlier, French President Emmanuel Macron said his country hadn't ruled out sending the jets to Ukraine, but added that certain conditions would need to be met before the move could be taken.
It came after Ukraine's most senior presidential adviser said Poland has given "positive signals" that it could be willing to send the jets.

 

[DustyBin]

from news.sky.com recently:
Don't know if this is new news looking up on the thread on this page.

So if I’m reading that right, Macron hasn’t ruled out sending F16s to Ukraine? That’s great, so long as one disregards the small matter of him not having any to send……

On a serious note, I suspect it’s just a (typically) badly written Sky News article. I did actually think Mirage 2000s may not be a bad shout though, funnily enough!

 

[Pete_uk]

What we need to think about is what would the aircraft be used for? I would mostly say air to ground. A cheap and obvious answer would be the A10.
But only the US use them so that's unlikely. I am disappointed at this news but maybe something else will come up.

Some are saying that the tanks we are giving them will be a game changer. I hope that's the case as the game is getting bogged down.

 

[Annetts key]

Some are saying that the tanks we are giving them will be a game changer. I hope that's the case as the game is getting bogged down.

If Ukraine was getting hundreds, I would agree. But not with the number that I have so far heard about.

 

[DustyBin]

What we need to think about is what would the aircraft be used for? I would mostly say air to ground. A cheap and obvious answer would be the A10.

I think they’d mostly be used for ground to air target practice by the Russians to be honest! Whatever aircraft (if any) Ukraine is provided with, they aren’t to going to be flying close air support missions. Both sides have denied the other not only air superiority, but the ability to even operate in contested airspace.

This, I suspect, is the issue. What exactly would the aircraft be used for? There may be the odd air to air encounter, but I suspect they’d mainly be launching standoff missiles at high value Russian targets. I’m not actually sure providing the aircraft themselves is the problem here. The sticking point may well be providing the missiles Ukraine would also need, as they’re the real game changer.

 

[ainsworth74]

I think they’d mostly be used for ground to air target practice by the Russians to be honest! Whatever aircraft (if any) Ukraine is provided with, they aren’t to going to be flying close air support missions. Both sides have denied the other not only air superiority, but the ability to even operate in contested airspace.

Agreed. The frontline is too contested for either side to run effective air to ground (or even any air based) operations. The only things I've seen Ukraine doing is running helicopters at ludicrously low level and then popping up to fire unguided rockets ballistically. No-one appears to be operating close air support missions anymore. Assuming that you can get close enough to the frontline in the first place (though the long range air defences) the number shoulder fired systems you'll run into makes it a quick way to commit suicide.

Now if one side or other achieves a breakthrough (think Kharkiv last September) that might change as the withdrawing side might be in enough chaos that their ground based systems might lose effectiveness in the ensuing confusion but even that feels like it might be too much to hope for.

It's an interesting situation really and makes you wonder if the pendulum has swung in favour of air defence (at least close to the front line)? Then again Ukraine doesn't have access to the arsenal that the US does (with NATO along for the ride) of systems designed to breakthrough air defence networks. Stealth aircraft, stand off ground attack missiles, stealthy cruise missiles, airborne jamming equipment, etc.

This, I suspect, is the issue. What exactly would the aircraft be used for? There may be the odd air to air encounter, but I suspect they’d mainly be launching standoff missiles at high value Russian targets. I’m not actually sure providing the aircraft themselves is the problem here. The sticking point may well be providing the missiles Ukraine would also need, as they’re the real game changer.

My guess is that they're planning to use them to help swat cruise missiles (and possibly drones). Radar on modern NATO fighters will be able to pick out cruise missiles against ground clutter (some ex-Soviet systems should be able to do it as well to be fair) allowing them to intercept and shoot down cruise missiles either with missiles or guns.

 

[Annetts key]

If I were Ukraine, I would be using any F16 aircraft for three things:

• Air defence - to defend against Russian aircraft using ‘modern’ NATO air to air missiles,
• Anti-missile defence - as ainsworth74 described,
• Launch platforms for air to surface (ground) guided missiles, with the aircraft staying well behind the ‘front lines’, this would be especially useful at taking out high value targets such as Russian tanks, artillery, SAM launch vehicles and radar vehicles etc..

It’s also possible that they would use them in a similar manner to how they are using some of their current aircraft - flying just above tree top level to launch rockets or missiles and then quickly turning back so they don’t fly over the ‘front lines’.

 

[bspahh]

If I were Ukraine, I would be using any F16 aircraft for three things:

• Air defence - to defend against Russian aircraft using ‘modern’ NATO air to air missiles,
• Anti-missile defence - as ainsworth74 described,
• Launch platforms for air to surface (ground) guided missiles, with the aircraft staying well behind the ‘front lines’, this would be especially useful at taking out high value targets such as Russian tanks, artillery, SAM launch vehicles and radar vehicles etc..

It’s also possible that they would use them in a similar manner to how they are using some of their current aircraft - flying just above tree top level to launch rockets or missiles and then quickly turning back so they don’t fly over the ‘front lines’.

The appeal of an aircraft is that it can hit ground targets far behind the enemy's front line, which are beyond the range of their ground launched missiles. Its worth doing this often enough to divert some of the Russian's air defenses away from the front line. If the Russians then have to move their supply hubs further from the front line, the supply lines will be longer and there will be less resources at the front line.

 

[Annetts key]

The appeal of an aircraft is that it can hit ground targets far behind the enemy's front line, which are beyond the range of their ground launched missiles. Its worth doing this often enough to divert some of the Russian's air defenses away from the front line. If the Russians then have to move their supply hubs further from the front line, the supply lines will be longer and there will be less resources at the front line.

Exactly. The range of a guided missile when air launched is greater than the same missile when ground launched. Plus, an aircraft will have a far greater area that it can cover compared to ground launchers.

 

[edwin_m]

The appeal of an aircraft is that it can hit ground targets far behind the enemy's front line, which are beyond the range of their ground launched missiles. Its worth doing this often enough to divert some of the Russian's air defenses away from the front line. If the Russians then have to move their supply hubs further from the front line, the supply lines will be longer and there will be less resources at the front line.

Exactly. The range of a guided missile when air launched is greater than the same missile when ground launched. Plus, an aircraft will have a far greater area that it can cover compared to ground launchers.

Doesn't that imply that if they get long-range ground-launched missiles (ATACMS or the SDB) they wouldn't need aircraft? As to the mobility argument, they seem to have done all right with HIMARS and unlike ground launchers, aircraft (possibly excluding Gripen) have to be based at well-known locations.

 

[Annetts key]

Doesn't that imply that if they get long-range ground-launched missiles (ATACMS or the SDB) they wouldn't need aircraft? As to the mobility argument, they seem to have done all right with HIMARS and unlike ground launchers, aircraft (possibly excluding Gripen) have to be based at well-known locations.

The U.S.A. appears even more reluctant to let Ukraine have ATACMS than F16 aircraft. It’s been suggested that as well as the cost (I understand it’s over US$1 million per missile), it’s possible that they will not be very effective, as the Russian air defences may be able to target and destroy these larger missiles more easily.

Note that a F16C/D had a unit cost of US$18.8 million in 1998.

The U.S.A. has already said it will provide GLSDB (Ground Launched Small Diameter Bomb), which are SDB coupled to an existing M26 rocket motor. Range expected to be 150km. However, they would be using M142 HIMARS and M270 MLRS launchers.

The Ukrainians have indeed used M142 HIMARS and M270 MLRS with the existing missiles very effectively. But are limited to important targets because they simply do not have enough launch vehicles to cover the long front line. It not often you see them being used against battlefield targets such as tanks.

With aircraft, if the missiles can be targeted by the pilot (which is an advantage in a F16), they are much more versatile, as they can dynamically select targets over a much greater area. And depending on the missile, can be guided on to a moving target such as a tank.

Although missiles launched from a M142 HIMARS and M270 MLRS can be targeted at a moving target like a tank, if the tank moves, they cannot (as I understand it) be guided to adjust their flight path after launch.

Yes, as with any normal fixed wing aircraft, they will be operated from runways. But that is no different to Ukraine’s existing aircraft. And hopefully, with more aircraft, Ukraine should be able to defend its air space more effectively from Russian attacks.

 

[ainsworth74]

As to the mobility argument, they seem to have done all right with HIMARS and unlike ground launchers, aircraft (possibly excluding Gripen) have to be based at well-known locations.

HIMARS can only be in one place and takes time to get somewhere else to deliver effects. A jet could be launching munitions in south Ukraine in the morning, re-arm and be delivering munitions in north Ukraine by early afternoon.

As for basing I think that firstly people really need to let go of the Gripen as being some sort of super-jet for austere basing. If need be pretty much any aircraft could take off and land from a suitable road rather than runway and be rearmed and refuelled if you want to. Gripen has it as a party piece for sure but it isn't a unique capability. But in any event I'm also not sure that the airbases are quite such an issue as some people are making out. Airbases are pretty tough and it's hard to cripple them for long. As long as the Ukrainians practice dispersion, use hardened shelters or earthen berms for parking aircraft and don't leave aircraft parked in the same place for long periods of time even if the heaviest strikes we've seen so far (around 100 cruise missiles in one go) were concentrated on one airbase it would be whatever made it through Ukraninain air defence would be unlikely to knock out the targeted airbase for that long nor take out the majority of it's aircraft. If the Russians were going to do that, they would have already done so. Is it a concern? Yes, of course. But it isn't a showstopper unless Ukraine suddenly becomes negligent in how they handle their aircraft. It's one of the reasons that Russian doesn't have air superiority, they've not been able to destroy the Ukrainian Air Force.

The U.S.A. appears even more reluctant to let Ukraine have ATACMS than F16 aircraft. It’s been suggested that as well as the cost (I understand it’s over US$1 million per missile), it’s possible that they will not be very effective, as the Russian air defences may be able to target and destroy these larger missiles more easily.

Note that a F16C/D had a unit cost of US$18.8 million in 1998.

The U.S.A. has already said it will provide GLSDB (Ground Launched Small Diameter Bomb), which are SDB coupled to an existing M26 rocket motor. Range expected to be 150km. However, they would be using M142 HIMARS and M270 MLRS launchers.

It would be interesting to see what weapons would be supplied with any jets that might be sent. The US has a lot of toys in its toy box (wider NATO does to, but not as many as the US!) that I'm sure the Ukrainians would love to get their hands on. I suspect some things like air to air missiles are a given and probably fairly non-controversial (or at least less so than sending the jets themselves!). Probably more HARM missiles seeing as they've already managed to kitbash them onto Ukraine's ex-Soviet fleet (there must be some very sweaty defence contractors who are praying no-one ever asks how Ukraine was able to integrate a NATO missile onto an ex-Soviet jet and it not take years and millions of $$$ because otherwise one of their money making wheezes might fall down around their ears). But beyond that it gets interesting. There are some extremely capable long range air to ground munitions available. Some of which make ATACMS look like a firework. You have to figure though that Ukraine isn't going to be getting them and will be getting your more typical Maverick or Hellfire missiles along with perhaps JDAMs (regular bombs with GPS guidance kits) maybe some Paveways (laser guided bombs).

With aircraft, if the missiles can be targeted by the pilot (which is an advantage in a F16), they are much more versatile, as they can dynamically select targets over a much greater area. And depending on the missile, can be guided on to a moving target such as a tank.

Although missiles launched from a M142 HIMARS and M270 MLRS can be targeted at a moving target like a tank, if the tank moves, they cannot (as I understand it) be guided to adjust their flight path after launch.

Sounds like you want the UKs Brimstone! Fire them in the direction of the enemy, tell them where to go looking for things to destroy and they'll happily go off and start searching in the area designated. Once identified it will then prioritise targets and engage accordingly. You have a column of targets and multiple missiles? They'll go after vehicles in sequential order down the column. Have targets across a wider area? They'll divvy up the area between themselves and then engage the highest priority target in their own block. If they can't find any targets they'll self-destruct. The enemy is moving? No problem just ensure that the search box you've given the missile is large enough. It'll find them eventually. You want to fire from behind a hill so enemy air defence can't get an easy bead on you? No problem. You can do that and Brimstone will happily fly over the hill meaning you're never exposed.

It's a very very neat piece of kit and would be nice to see it doing its real job. Being volley fired from aircraft to go hunting Russian armoured columns.

 

[brad465]

Russia are planning an anniversary invasion according to Ukraine:

Ukraine war: Russia planning 24 February offensive, Ukrainian defence minister says

Kyiv says Russia has amassed 500,000 men for an attack in the coming weeks.

www.bbc.co.uk

Ukraine's defence minister has said Russia is preparing a major new offensive, and warned that it could begin as soon as 24 February.
Oleksii Reznikov said Moscow had amassed thousands of troops and could "try something" to mark the anniversary of the initial invasion last year.
The attack would also mark Russia's Defender of the Fatherland Day on 23 February, which celebrates the army.
Mr Reznikov said Moscow had mobilised some 500,000 troops for the offensive.
In September, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a general mobilisation of some 300,000 conscripted troops, which he said was necessary to ensure the country's "territorial integrity".
But Mr Reznikov suggested that the true figure recruited and deployed to Ukraine could be far higher.
"Officially they announced 300,000 but when we see the troops at the borders, according to our assessments it is much more," he told the French BFM network. The BBC cannot independently verify this figure.
Despite some heavy fighting in the eastern Donbas region, the war has entered something of a stalemate in recent months since Ukraine retook the southern city of Kherson.
With the exception of the Russian seizure of the town of Soledar, neither side has made major territorial advances.
But a Russian spring offensive - and a Ukrainian counter-offensive - has long been considered likely. The US-based Institute for the Study of War (ISW) recently said that Moscow could seek to "undertake a decisive action" and launch a "big offensive" in the east.
Mr Reznikov said Ukraine's commanders would seek to "stabilise the front and prepare for a counter-offensive" ahead of the rumoured Russian advance.
"I have faith that the year 2023 can be the year of military victory," he said, adding that Ukraine's forces "cannot lose the initiative" they have achieved in recent months.
The defence minister was in France to strike a deal to purchase additional MG-200 air defence radars, which he said would "significantly increase the capacity of the armed forces to detect air targets, including winged and ballistic missiles, and drones of various types".
Mr Reznikov's comments come as Ukrainian intelligence alleges that President Putin has ordered his forces to seize the Donbas before the end of spring.
But speaking on Monday, Nato Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg warned that there were no indications that Mr Putin had limited his military goals to seizing eastern regions of Ukraine.
"That they are actively acquiring new weapons, more ammunition, ramping up their own production, but also acquiring more weapons from other authoritarian states like Iran and North Korea," Mr Stoltenberg said.
"And most of all, we have seen no sign that President Putin has changed his overall goal of this invasion - that is to control a neighbour, to control Ukraine. So as long as this is the case, we need to be prepared for the long haul."
Meanwhile, Ukraine's Deputy Defence Minister Hanna Malyar said that intense fighting was continuing in the Donbas region, where Russian forces and Wagner Group mercenaries have been trying to take the town of Bakhmut.
She added that Moscow's troops were also trying to seize Lyman - the former Russian logistics hub that Ukrainian troops retook in October.
"Russian troops are actively trying to reach the borders of Donetsk and Luhansk regions," she wrote on the Telegram messaging app. "Our soldiers defend every centimetre of Ukrainian land," she said.
Speaking on Wednesday night, Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky warned that the situation on the front lines of the conflict was testing his forces.
"There is a certain increase in the occupiers' offensive actions at the front - in the east of our country, Mr Zelensky said. "The situation is becoming even more severe."
And in Kramatorsk - a city in the Donetsk region - two civilians were killed and seven more wounded after a Russian missile struck a residential building, the provincial governor said.

This isn't a surprise in some ways, but at the same time it will also be an unwanted reminder of how this has gone on a lot longer than Russia would have liked. I'd have thought if they have the ability to launch a major offensive it would be better to start well before the anniversary in order to try and gain something to show for on the anniversary. Then again maybe they are not logistically capable of doing that.

 

[Pete_uk]

Those b******s have hit another towerblock. Many dead. Many buried.

 

[yorksrob]

As expected, all this procrastination about sending tanks has only given Russia time to prepare and rearm.

 

[Yew]

As expected, all this procrastination about sending tanks has only given Russia time to prepare and rearm.

I think a lull was always expected over winter?

 

[yorksrob]

I think a lull was always expected over winter?

Yes, when Ukraine needed to be rearmed and prepared, instead of having to cajole recalcitrant governments.

 

[edwin_m]

I think a lull was always expected over winter?

There was talk about Ukraine going back on the offensive once the muddy ground froze, but this hasn't happened. It may be because the winter has been mild and the ground is still muddy, or Ukraine may have decided they need the weaponry before they attempt it. Either way it has given Russia an opportunity to re-group and train their conscripts.

 

[ainsworth74]

There was talk about Ukraine going back on the offensive once the muddy ground froze, but this hasn't happened. It may be because the winter has been mild and the ground is still muddy, or Ukraine may have decided they need the weaponry before they attempt it.

Bit of both I suspect. From what I've been reading it seems like it's been an unusually mild winter in Ukraine meaning that even when the ground has frozen it hasn't frozen deeply enough to support heavy vehicles movements. So considering that I can well believe that Ukraine have decided to not even attempt anything and instead focus on holding Bakhmut and preparing for the seemingly inventible human wave in the spring.

Either way it has given Russia an opportunity to re-group and train their conscripts.

It'll be interesting and, no doubt, horrific to see how that pans out. I expect the Russians to be more organised in some respects this spring than they were last spring but with worse equipment, poorer junior officers (as attrition has no doubt be horrific) and probably less equipment in general.

One thing we probably desperately should send Ukraine as soon as possible, if any is still within its service life which is an open question, is DPICM (basically artillery cluster bombs) for the NATO calibre 105mm and 155mm artillery pieces and the HIMARS and M270 rocket artillery. It was designed for exactly the sort of conflict currently being fought as it has fragmentation bomblets (for anti-personnel) and shaped charge bomblets (for anti-armour) all within one shell (though their anti-armour capability is somewhat limited unless scoring multiple direct hits). If a Russian human wave intermixed with whatever tanks they've been able to reactive from some warehouse or field is coming my way I'd want DPICM in as many tubes as I could get my hands on.

 

[JamesT]

One thing we probably desperately should send Ukraine as soon as possible, if any is still within its service life which is an open question, is DPICM (basically artillery cluster bombs) for the NATO calibre 105mm and 155mm artillery pieces and the HIMARS and M270 rocket artillery. It was designed for exactly the sort of conflict currently being fought as it has fragmentation bomblets (for anti-personnel) and shaped charge bomblets (for anti-armour) all within one shell (though their anti-armour capability is somewhat limited unless scoring multiple direct hits). If a Russian human wave intermixed with whatever tanks they've been able to reactive from some warehouse or field is coming my way I'd want DPICM in as many tubes as I could get my hands on.

The difficulty with that would be that we've signed up for the Convention on Cluster Munitions, which prohibits using them or transferring them to other countries.

 

[najaB]

The difficulty with that would be that we've signed up for the Convention on Cluster Munitions, which prohibits using them or transferring them to other countries.

The USA is not a party to the convention, for what it's worth.

 

[ainsworth74]

The USA is not a party to the convention, for what it's worth.

Quite and they're the ones that are most likely to have stocks. The "we" was more in a general NATO/Western sense rather than a UK specific sense to be clear!

 

[Cloud Strife]

Ukraine is saying that Russia may have amassed up to half a million troops to support a new attack. It seems hard to believe, but I sincerely hope that Ukraine has a solid plan for territorial defence if this indeed happens.

 

[ainsworth74]

Ukraine is saying that Russia may have amassed up to half a million troops to support a new attack. It seems hard to believe, but I sincerely hope that Ukraine has a solid plan for territorial defence if this indeed happens.

I can just about believe that they've gotten those numbers. I find it less credible that they've managed to give them more than the most cursory training, equipped them with much more than a dubious assault rife and have enough vehicles of any type to enable them to move and be protected whilst moving. Quite apart from sustaining them in the field with food, fuel and ammunition. I really do wonder if we're going to see human wave attacks of the sort we saw by the Soviet Union during various points of the Winter War and Second World War.

 

[brad465]

Ukraine is saying that Russia may have amassed up to half a million troops to support a new attack. It seems hard to believe, but I sincerely hope that Ukraine has a solid plan for territorial defence if this indeed happens.

Depends where they are amassed, is it not speculated that much of the northern border is now heavily mined? I would have thought the Donbas will be their first focus given the significance for Putin.

Dr Mike Martin provided his analysis yesterday:

https://twitter.com/ThreshedThought/status/1620833900577828865

Some interesting positioning going on in Ukraine by both sides … and what the new weapons deliveries mean. A thread.

Continued...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Feb 2023 ==

Bit of both I suspect. From what I've been reading it seems like it's been an unusually mild winter in Ukraine meaning that even when the ground has frozen it hasn't frozen deeply enough to support heavy vehicles movements. So considering that I can well believe that Ukraine have decided to not even attempt anything and instead focus on holding Bakhmut and preparing for the seemingly inventible human wave in the spring.

The forecast for the next 2 weeks or so over Ukraine seems to be conditions will be getting very cold: if the ground is already partly frozen maybe this will be enough to enable movements, but I suspect it will lead to conditions that delay an offensive, or if an offensive does start, abruptly stop it, if the ground is frozen enough to start one but then thaws during the offensive.

 

[najaB]

The forecast for the next 2 weeks or so over Ukraine seems to be conditions will be getting very cold: if the ground is already partly frozen maybe this will be enough to enable movements, but I suspect it will lead to conditions that delay an offensive, or if an offensive does start, abruptly stop it, if the ground is frozen enough to start one but then thaws during the offensive.

Which is, from the Russian's perspective, possibly the worst outcome imaginable. Troops who have advanced beyond the frontline and find themselves unable to advance or retreat with any alacrity and cut off from meaningful resupply. Oh, and they don't (for the most part) want to be there.

I hope the Ukrainians have plenty of room in their POW camps.

 

[brad465]

Which is, from the Russian's perspective, possibly the worst outcome imaginable. Troops who have advanced beyond the frontline and find themselves unable to advance or retreat with any alacrity and cut off from meaningful resupply. Oh, and they don't (for the most part) want to be there.

I hope the Ukrainians have plenty of room in their POW camps.

This doesn't sound much different to the failed offensive towards Kyiv early on in the invasion, where that large convoy was just left to sit there, with one suspected reason being ground conditions making movement either way difficult. I suspect at the time Ukraine left them because it had limited resources and focused elsewhere, but now if a convoy/section of the army got stuck they would be surrounded more easily.

 

[najaB]

This doesn't sound much different to the failed offensive towards Kyiv early on in the invasion, where that large convoy was just left to sit there, with ground conditions making movement either way difficult. I suspect at the time Ukraine left them because it had limited resources and focused elsewhere, but now if a convoy/section of the army got stuck they would be surrounded more easily.

True. Though there were far fewer conscripts and mobilised in the armed forces back then.

 

[Annetts key]

According to figures published by Ukraine, the Russians are still suffering between 500 and 920 deaths per day. If the casualty rate is three times these figures, that’s between 2000 and 3600 Russians per day that may no longer be able to fight.

Now, obviously we have to be careful here, as projected figures on top of estimated figures may not be reliable.

But in any event, they (the Russian side) are loosing thousands per day, and they are barely moving forward. Even when they are flooding the battlefields with conscripts.

As long the Ukrainian forces have enough ammunition and other supplies, and can continue to hold their defensive lines, unless something else changes, I don’t think the Russians will be able to make any large scale advances.

However, while Russia is busy attacking, without more tanks, armoured personnel carriers, more artillery and hopefully more aircraft to launch missiles into and behind the lines, the Ukrainians will have great difficulty mounting any of their own large scale advances.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Quite apart from sustaining them in the field with food, fuel and ammunition. I really do wonder if we're going to see human wave attacks of the sort we saw by the Soviet Union during various points of the Winter War and Second World War.

One of the things that Hitler made mistakes with. Those that don't learn the lessons of history etc--- I would use the word irony, but no words are appropriate with such needless massive loss of life occurring (on both sides). Spring is on the way, so a Stalingrad scenario is probably not on the cards.