Thinking outside the box

Quote

Ukrainian MiGs Firing Radar-Fuzed Rockets—Just The Thing For Shooting Down Russian Drones

Story by David Axe, Forbes Staff • Yesterday 7:03 PM

The United States has pledged to Ukraine a consignment of Zuni unguided rockets. There are two ways the Ukrainians could use them—firing them from the air at targets on the ground, or from the air at targets that also are in the air.  The latter tactic was all the rage ... in the 1940s and ‘50s. But it still could work today. Especially against drones.

The administration of U.S. president Joe Biden announced the Zuni transfer last week. "We are ... committing 4,000 Zuni aircraft rockets, which can be mounted on Ukraine's existing aircraft to engage air or ground targets in the category of air defense, which is still a top priority for Ukraine,” U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Laura Cooper told reporters.  Cooper said she expects American and Ukrainian engineers to work out some expedient for fitting Zuni pods—typically holding four of the 80-pound, 127-millimeter rockets—to Ukrainian air force and army aircraft, potentially including fixed-wing Mikoyan MiG-29s and Sukhoi Su-24s, Su-25s and Su-27s as well as Mil Mi-8 and Mi-24 helicopters.  "This is really just the latest in efforts to help them to make their existing aircraft fleet as effective as possible,” Cooper said.

Owing to a shortage of precision weaponry, Soviet-style unguided rockets such as the 122-millimeter S-13 already are standard air-to-ground weapons for both Ukrainian and Russian aircraft. To avoid enemy air-defenses, jets and helicopters typically fly extremely low then nose up at the last moment and fire their S-13s in a high ballistic arc that lends them extra range—up to three miles.  A volley of 10 ballistic S-13s should impact no farther than 50 feet from the aim point, according to Alexander Shishkin, a retired Russian navy officer.

The Zuni has the potential to be even more accurate. So accurate that it even could work in an air-to-air role. A Zuni rocket is compatible with a variety of screw-in fuzes. With a radar-proximity fuze such as the M414, a Zuni explodes when it passes within 40 feet of a target.  Imagine a Ukrainian MiG closing within five miles of a Russian aircraft and firing a volley of five or 10 Zunis which, triggered by radar, fill the air around the target with countless lethal fragments.  This isn’t how a pilot would want to attack, say, an enemy fighter—which can maneuver and shoot back. But Ukrainian and Russian fighter pilots are doing less and less dogfighting these days as both sides stiffen their ground-based air-defenses and continue to shrink the air space where pilots have any freedom of action.  Instead, Ukrainian fighter pilots increasingly are flying defensive patrols over Ukrainian cities, hoping to intercept some of the hundreds of explosive, propeller-driven Shahed drones that the Russians have been flinging at Ukrainian schools, hospitals and power plants.

The Iranian-made Shahed with its eight-foot wingspan doesn’t reflect a lot of radar energy. Nor is it terribly hot, meaning it’s got a fleeting infrared signature, too. The Russian drones make difficult targets for radar- and infrared-guided missiles. To shoot down Shaheds, Ukrainian pilots often fly close and apparently use their jets’ guns.  It’s dangerous work. At least one Ukrainian fighter jock shot himself down by flying through the debris of an exploding Shahed. With radar-fuzed Zunis, the Ukrainians could more safely engage the drones from farther away.

High-performance fighters firing unguided rockets at targets in the air—it’s a classic tactic. German fighters did it during World War II. The U.S. Air Force in the 1950s briefly had a fighter—the Lockheed F-94C—whose only weapons were unguided rockets fitted to pods in the nose and on the wings.  We should know soon just how the Ukrainians plan to use their new Zunis—and how well they work in that role. If the rockets are effective against Shaheds, expect a second shipment in the near future.  Four thousand rockets isn’t really a lot of rockets, after all. Not when just one Ukrainian fighter, out of a fleet of 60 or more active jets, could fire 10 rounds to shoot down just one of the hundreds of Shaheds the Russians have acquired from Iran.

 

1 hour ago, Mlodj said:

If I were a Ukranian general in charge of logistics, the number of different systems being transferred by NATO would be very concerning.  Maintaining all of those systems (especially in small numbers) must be a yuuuge headache.

I'm just a little guy, but I'm sure it's not fun. They seem to be making it work for now.

1 hour ago, Mlodj said:

Thinking outside the box

 

Or, comedy option B, the US gives Ukraine longer range weapons to hit the drone launch sites, thus negating the problem.

 

14 tanks won't do a lot, even if they are vastly superior to their Russian opponents. This is probably intended to prod the Germans to allow Leopard IIs to be provided to Ukraine in significant numbers.

Quote

UK confirms shipment of guns and 14 Challenger 2 tanks to Ukraine to «break the deadlock».

Story by Daniel Stewart • Yesterday 7:35 PM

UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak on Sunday confirmed the first-ever dispatch of a consignment of 14 Challenger 2 tanks and self-propelled guns to fight the Russian invasion in Ukraine and "break the deadlock".  The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Rishi Sunak - Stefan Rousseau/PA Wire/dpa© Provided by News 360.  On the eve of the first anniversary of the war in Ukraine, the British government has insisted on the need for an "international strategy to break the stalemate", as it considers that the current scenario of a static war is only beneficial for Russia.

UK defense and security officials have considered that "a window has opened in which Russia is at a disadvantage" due to resupply problems and a drop in morale among troops. Therefore, the prime minister "encourages allies to deploy their support planned for 2023 as soon as possible to have the maximum impact," the British government added in its statement.  In this sense, the dispatch of Challenger 2 tanks, as acknowledged by the country's authorities, is "the start of a change of gear in UK support". A squadron of 14 combat tanks will arrive in Ukraine in the coming weeks, along with another batch of AS90 Model 30 self-propelled guns. The defense official will give more details on the artillery and military support next Monday.

Sunak also confirmed that the UK will begin training Ukrainian soldiers in the use of these tanks and guns in the coming days, as the country has done on several occasions over the past six months.  In this context, an extraordinary meeting will take place this week between the foreign and defense ministers together with their counterparts to push for such international action, with the aim of accelerating in the coming days the UK's diplomatic and military support to Ukraine.  According to the Downing Street statement, Sunak is committed to "match or exceed" the UK's defense support to Ukraine by 2023, and has already instructed his ministers and officials to be "as proactive as possible".  The UK Defense Secretary will travel to Estonia and Germany this week to work with NATO allies and other international partners to provide a coordinated response to Russian attacks.  For his part, the Foreign Secretary will travel to the United States later this week to discuss how both countries can leverage their role in pushing for further international action in the Ukrainian war.

By contrast, the Russian Embassy has regretted the decision. "UK seems to intend to reaffirm its status as a NATO leader in terms of arming Kiev and escalating the conflict," it has protested.  "Those Britons who are tired of war and harbor a desire for peace are in for a disappointment today: you cannot put out a fire with gasoline," Russia warns.  "The presence of tanks in the conflict zone," it adds, "will only serve to intensify combat operations, which will generate more casualties, including among the civilian population." The embassy believes that, this situation, "ironically, is entirely in line with London's objectives of prolonging the conflict."

 

5 hours ago, Bill said:

 

LOL at the Russians trying to buy their carrier back from China.

3 hours ago, Mlodj said:

14 tanks won't do a lot, even if they are vastly superior to their Russian opponents. This is probably intended to prod the Germans to allow Leopard IIs to be provided to Ukraine in significant numbers.

 

IIRC, GB doesn't have that many to begin with. There's enough L2s rolling around Europe to arm Ukraine.  Honestly people need to start playing hardball with Germany. Or just send the tanks anyway and tell Germany you'll never buy from them again.

I'm curious as to the efficacy of sending Abrams.

2 hours ago, Bill said:

IIRC, GB doesn't have that many to begin with. There's enough L2s rolling around Europe to arm Ukraine.  Honestly people need to start playing hardball with Germany. Or just send the tanks anyway and tell Germany you'll never buy from them again.

I'm curious as to the efficacy of sending Abrams.

My understanding is that the logistics and support systems required to field the Abrams is a significant enough impediment that it's not practical. 

I claim no expertise only sharing what I've read.

25 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

My understanding is that the logistics and support systems required to field the Abrams is a significant enough impediment that it's not practical. 

I claim no expertise only sharing what I've read.

TBH I think the complexities of western equipment is overstated a bit. Yeah, western training is months long, but a lot of that is on ish like marching in formation, the history of your branch, how to clean your weapon and make your bed fifty times in a row because you're ahead of schedule and your DI needs to kill time, PT, DontDrinkAndDrive.ppt, etc.

A basic infantryman in the US spends two to three months in basic/boot and then two months learning infantry.

Over here I have two weeks to a month. Well, had.

Strip out everything and turn it into a: equipment/first aid, b: drilling the ish out of weapons handling, b: drilling individual movement, 😄 Drilling group movement, d: reacting to contact, e: movement after contact.

And for stuff like group movement there's a bunch of different formations, and you can pare it down to four that fit 99% of situations. Working with instructors from across the west, I'm able to see what works best from their country. I came over with the expectation of teaching US Army tactics, but to be honest my stuff is a blend of US Army, USMC, Canadian Forces, and British. I even did research on WWII US Army platoon and squad doctrine and pulled from that as well.

So in two to four weeks i can take s group of guys that two days ago were working in a coffee shop or as a barista and make them pretty effective comparative to the enemy.

Now you take a crew that knows how a tank works, and according to a former US Army tank commander you could get those guys up to speed in two weeks. Will they be as good as a US Soldier in the same tank? No. But you don't need them to be. You just need them to be better than the other side.

In terms of the west giving equipment, i think the powers that be are letting perfect get in the way of better.

1 minute ago, Bill said:

In terms of the west giving equipment, i think the powers that be are letting perfect get in the way of better.

I think that's some of it. 

I also think there's some legitimate concerns over losing a couple intact tanks to Russia and giving them something to tear down.

5 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

I think that's some of it. 

I also think there's some legitimate concerns over losing a couple intact tanks to Russia and giving them something to tear down.

Honestly i don't think there's much for them to learn. They couldn't build or defeat it even if they wanted to.

50 minutes ago, Bill said:

Honestly i don't think there's much for them to learn. They couldn't build or defeat it even if they wanted to.

If they shipped a couple to China they probably buy a little goodwill

 

‘Russia’s Rambo,’ once a Putin favorite, says he’d now fight for Ukraine and feels ‘nothing but hatred’ for his home country

Russian actor Artur Smolyaninov was the star of one of President Vladimir Putin’s favorite films – about a Soviet unit making a last-ditch stand against Afghan insurgents. Now he is classified as a "foreign agent” and faces criminal investigation.

Smolyaninov was the hero of "Devyataya Rota” (The 9th Company), a Russian feature film that came out in 2005. He played the part of the last soldier standing during a battle in Afghanistan, which Soviet forces occupied for a decade. He was often described as Russia’s Rambo, a nod to the US action movies starring Sylvester Stallone.

Much has changed since then. Smolyaninov is in exile and in a recent interview said he was prepared to fight on Ukraine’s side and kill Russian soldiers. He told Novaya Gazeta last week: "I feel nothing but hatred to the people on the other (Russian) side of the frontline. And if I were there on the ground, there’d be no mercy.”

He said a former colleague had gone to fight on the Russian side. "Would I shoot him? Without any doubt! Do I keep my options to go fight for Ukraine open? Absolutely! This is the only way for me. And if I were to go to this war, I would only fight for Ukraine.”

A few days later, the Russian Ministry of Justice classified the actor as a foreign agent.

Alexander Bastrykin, the head of the Russia’s Investigative Committee, also ordered that a criminal case be opened against Smolyaninov.

 

 

A few 68 ton turbine gas guzzlers in a continental war with Russia on their doorstep? 

The only question is whether it will break down before it bogs down. 

This junk barely survived the 100 hour land war with desert nomads equipped with IEDs.

 

 

8 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

‘Russia’s Rambo,’ once a Putin favorite, says he’d now fight for Ukraine and feels ‘nothing but hatred’ for his home country

He should probably stay away from any windows above the first floor.

Pressure is mounting on the German government to sign off on various European countries’ proposals to donate German-made Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine.

Quote

But German officials, clearly desperate to avoid the appearance of arming Ukraine for offensive action, told The Wall Street Journal they wouldn’t approve the Leopard 2s unless U.S. officials agreed to give Ukraine some of America’s own M-1 tanks.  Think of the U.S. tanks as diplomatic cover for the Germans.

There’s one good reason the Ukrainians would prefer Leopard 2s over M-1s, however. The M-1 has a gas-turbine engine rather than a strictly diesel engine like almost every other armored vehicle has—and that includes the Leopard 2.  In essence, the M-1 is meant to burn jet fuel, and not very efficiently. That can complicate the logistics of any army that operates the type.  When the U.S. Army and Chrysler—later, General Dynamics—designed the M-1 back in the 1970s, they included the 1,500-horsepower gas-turbine in order to lend the tank high acceleration and speed without also weighing it down too much.  Thus the M-1, which in its latest version weighs more than 70 tons, is fast—with a top safe speed of around 45 miles per hour while burning JP-8 aviation fuel. The Leopard 2 also weighs 70 tons, but with its 1,500-horsepower diesel engine might be slightly more sluggish and a few miles per hour slower under some conditions.  The M-1’s slight agility advantage over similar tanks comes at a cost, however. The American tank gulps fuel faster than most tanks do. In one 1990 study, the Washington, D.C. Project on Government Oversight concluded an M-1 would burn 83-percent more fuel than a Leopard 2 would do at the same speed.

That high fuel consumption weighs on an army’s logistics. A U.S. Army unit mixing M-1s with other vehicle types—M-2 fighting vehicles, for instance—needs at least two separate fuel trains. One for JP-8. One for diesel.  And the combined capacity of the logistical trains must increase. According to POGO, when a U.S. Army battalion traded its 40 or so old M-60 tanks for the same number of M-1s back in the 1980s, it also had to add several dozen fuel tankers, trailers and pumps in order to keep the new tanks gassed up over the same distance as before.

When the Germans ask the Americans to give the Ukrainians M-1s as a precondition for Germany signing off on Leopard 2s, the Germans in effect are demanding the Ukrainians accept the extra logistical burden that comes with the American tanks.  There’s one way somewhat to simplify the problem. The M-1’s Honeywell gas turbine in theory can burn any fuel that’s thin enough to move through its lines. The U.S. Army sticks with JP-8, but another army could top off its M-1s with diesel, motor gasoline, kerosene, moonshine, whatever.  It’s unclear whether changing the fuel alters the tank’s performance. The Australian army fuels its M-1s with diesel and hasn’t reported any performance issues.  But force-feeding the M-1 diesel doesn’t do anything to quench the tank’s extreme thirst. Whatever fuel it burns, the M-1 is going to burn a lot of it.

Would the Ukrainians say no to thirsty American M-1s? Almost certainly not. But Leopards 2s with their simpler and lighter logistics probably are better for a small-ish, middle-income country fighting an existential war against a much bigger foe.  German officials might bear that in mind as they weigh whether, and under what conditions, to approve tanks for Ukraine.

 

More burnt offerings

Keep flailing abra

Offer still stands i will buy your plane ticket to russia so you can go fight for glorious motherland

The flailing is coming from the West, Nincompoop. They're panicking bigtime. How many different kinds of tanks and artillery systems are flooding Ukraine without any plan for logistical support? Those fools just need to be seen doing something in the face of defeats in Soledar and Bakhmut falling into a cauldron. 

Internal chaos is now setting in on Zelensky's regime. Someone shot down a helicopter filled with high level officials in the middle of Kyiv. Their version of Baghdad Bob was fired for letting the truth slip and was promptly place on Ukraine's assassination list. 

Tick toc

Back in July I trained a light infantry company that went to Bakhmut in August.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As of January Russia still hasn't taken Bakhmut.

Tick tock indeed.

6 minutes ago, Abracadabra said:

The flailing is coming from the West, Nincompoop. They're panicking bigtime. How many different kinds of tanks and artillery systems are flooding Ukraine without any plan for logistical support? Those fools just need to be seen doing something in the face of defeats in Soledar and Bakhmut falling into a cauldron. 

Internal chaos is now setting in on Zelensky's regime. Someone shot down a helicopter filled with high level officials in the middle of Kyiv. Their version of Baghdad Bob was fired for letting the truth slip and was promptly place on Ukraine's assassination list. 

Tick toc

Lot of wishcasting there.

Russia is in no hurry. They aren't going anywhere. This is their neighborhood.

On the other hand, the EU is bickering about who should be de-militarized first. The Poles don't know who to hate more, the Germans or the Russians. Riots are engulfing France, as I write. The Brit's military recruitment is down 30% and can't field an army.

Let the Ukrainians continue expending major resources defending Bakhmut. A war of attrition is just what the Russians want.

3 minutes ago, Abracadabra said:

Russia is in no hurry. They aren't going anywhere. This is their neighborhood.

On the other hand, the EU is bickering about who should be de-militarized first. The Poles don't know who to hate more, the Germans or the Russians. Riots are engulfing France, as I write. The Brit's military recruitment is down 30% and can't field an army.

Let the Ukrainians continue expending major resources defending Bakhmut. A war of attrition is just what the Russians want.

Ukrainians have been there longer than "Russians". Moscow was founded by a Kievan prince. There's a reason the area is "Kievan Rus".

Acting like Ukrainians are going anywhere or are going to cede land to Russia is stupid and misguided.

In 2014 Ukrainians threw out a Russian puppet leader. Russia didn't like not having a puppet, so they run up a propaganda campaign in Eastern Ukraine and give material support to the Russian speaking Ukrainians there.

Ukraine, as is its right, do what they need to suppress revolutionaries. Doesn't go anywhere, Russia gets impatient, and they invade.

Russia is the imperialist bad actor in this scenario. Until your stupid thick fat head gets that, you'll continue to be a fool.