The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

[T.C.P]

I'm lost. Which was the Ukrainian missile; the 2nd object? What got jammed?

I thinks its either of two things
1.)
The first object is the UKR AA missile and what it explodes is the Russian decoy. Or the other way around. The third one is the cruise missile slipping through. I wonder what the decoy used here was? Was it a drone or a smaller unarmed rocket?
2.) the first object is an AA missile which self exploded after it missed its target.

 

[IC_IC_IC]

Do they lack sophistication? Iran has been using UCAVs longer then Russia. It's all relative.

Russians/Soviets were able to land the Buran from space in 1988 totally autonomous way ... So it is indeed relative ...

I'm lost. Which was the Ukrainian missile; the 2nd object? What got jammed?

Bright stuff is a russian decoy that gets intercepted, then the cruise missile that launched it appears in the video

 

[IC_IC_IC]

Intel Slava Z

t.me

HIMARS confirmed down

 

[ngatimozart]

Intel Slava Z

t.me

HIMARS confirmed down

Two things.

1. More confirmation is required. It doesn't look damaged or destroyed. This appears to be propaganda or disinformation. The Moderators have no tolerance for that, so be warned any further attempts to post such material will result in immediate sanctions by the Moderators.
2. You are a new member on here so you are expected to add more original input to a post than just three words. At least two lines of text is required.

 

[vonnoobie]

Intel Slava Z

t.me

HIMARS confirmed down

It shows one video of the alleged HIMAR's and support vehicle and another video of an alleged rocket launch by one force or another on the Russian side, At no point does it show a missile striking the HIMAR's and support vehicle so how is it in any way confirmed? That is the same as showing a video of a Nimitz class carrier, A video of the launch of an ASW weapon and coming to the conclusion "Nimitz class carrier sunk confirmed!" .....

 

[relic88]

It shows one video of the alleged HIMAR's and support vehicle and another video of an alleged rocket launch by one force or another on the Russian side, At no point does it show a missile striking the HIMAR's and support vehicle so how is it in any way confirmed? That is the same as showing a video of a Nimitz class carrier, A video of the launch of an ASW weapon and coming to the conclusion "Nimitz class carrier sunk confirmed!" .....

This is why I come to this forum. First of all there is so much expertise here, second the moderation is on point. If one is looking for rah, rah jingoism stay away from here. Its not that I do not have my own bias, rather this place is where I have an opportunity to check it.

 

[tabu]

Colonelcassad

Кадры переброски нескольких десятков польских танков PT-92 Twardy (модернизация Т-72), предположительно, на Украину. Ранее уже были сообщения о передаче Киеву данных машин, взамен которых Варшава получит бывшие в эксплуатации американские Abrams. #Польша @new_militarycolumnist

t.me

Russian online sites already shown and claim asside previous T-72, Poland now already begin to transfer their PT-91. So far NATO seems still trying to get as much as possible all ex Warsaw Pact inventory or Equipment based on Sovyet design.

I don't understand why the west makes such a problem out of handing over western tanks. For me the HINARS is a much bigger game changer on the battlefield than the Abrams would be.

 

[tabu]

Don't get me wrong HIMARS is better then USSR based MLRS. However in this war of attrition, can one HIMARS outweigh 4-6 BM-30 Smerch ? (not counting much more numerous 122mm MLRS Grad). Because that's how the gap that at least need to be close

I don't know about missiles, but the HIMARS launcher is in theory ideal for wars of attrition. Labour and material inputs are the same as an APC-80, if not less, and certainly a fraction of the cost of any modern self-propelled howitzer.

There are no radars, no barrels for astronomical pressures, no sights, no serious armor or heavy-duty engine needed. If not using unguided rockets, it does not even need means of precise aiming of tubes as on a hailstorm. Besides, there is not much wear and tear in use.
I think that the Western military industrial complex, if it cares seriously, will be able to make fifty of them a week on average, even on the existing lines.

Another pity that they didn't develop a version for the poor in time, so that they could just bolt it onto a commercial dumper without armor and horizontal aiming, and with a winch to pull the package in.

Anamda said:

"Ukraine own MIC is close to non existent, which Ukraine themselves already acknowledge two months ago. Ukraine own MIC that supposed to provide the supplies, as Ukraine MIC actually still bigger in capacity then all ex Warsaw Pact NATO members have on manufacturing USSR based ammo."

Winner in the "mutually exclusive paragraph" category

 

[koxinga]

I don't know about missiles, but the HIMARS launcher is in theory ideal for wars of attrition. Labour and material inputs are the same as an APC-80, if not less, and certainly a fraction of the cost of any modern self-propelled howitzer.

That's a lot of assumptions about the cost. HIMARS is a system, it is more than just a launcher. We will come to that below but comparing a launcher cost without munitions or any other support components is just pointless.

There are no radars, no barrels for astronomical pressures, no sights, no serious armor or heavy-duty engine needed. If not using unguided rockets, it does not even need means of precise aiming of tubes as on a hailstorm. Besides, there is not much wear and tear in use.

Again, HIMARS is a system. As part of a standard ToE, the launcher itself is just the business end of it. There will be batt level components like the fire direction centre, intel, weather etc.

That aside, one of the other major cost drivers for the HIMARS are the munitions.

I think that the Western military industrial complex, if it cares seriously, will be able to make fifty of them a week on average, even on the existing lines.

Why 50? Why not a 100?

Another pity that they didn't develop a version for the poor in time, so that they could just bolt it onto a commercial dumper without armor and horizontal aiming, and with a winch to pull the package in.

Do you know what are the cost driver for a HIMARS system? Because you are suggesting that the chassis of the HIMARS is a cost driver.

 

[tabu]

To @koxing

You said:"There are also battalion level components such as fire control centre, reconnaissance, weather, etc."

I suspect that all this is critical for the use of unguided missiles (for which it was originally designed, hence the roots of batch loading and so on).

But for guided missiles it will probably be all right without these components, the targets' coordinates will be provided by regular SAM reconnaissance, the missile in flight kind of does not exchange data with the ground, only with the satellite.

You said:"Then 2 questions: Why 50? Why not 100?"

The figure is from a street lamp, and of course it will vary many times, depending on the desire to use one or another power. I was referring to the subjective feeling that industry could literally flood the army with such (or simplified, but with sufficient functionality) machines if they wanted to.

You said:
"Do you know what the cost of the HIMARS is?"

Cost is an elastic term, the price for the customer is based on repelling R&D, so there are millions out there. But if it really comes down to it, a world war of attrition and mass production, the cost of materials and labour should rather be taken into account.

 

[Karl Franz]

I don't understand why the west makes such a problem out of handing over western tanks. For me the HINARS is a much bigger game changer on the battlefield than the Abrams would be.

It is questionable how much Abrams tanks would be useful in Ukraine in the current conflict. It would take a lot of time to train Ukrainian crews to operate them properly and keep in mind these are very heavy vehicles (not to mention resource-intensive) and these are not Iraqi deserts. We seen much lighter vehicles get stuck in the mud and autumn is approaching to turn the Ukrainian fields into boggy quagmires.

Regarding HIMARS calling anything a game changer means that they have fundamentally changed the course of the game (war). This has not happened and it will not happen with 4 systems. If you have 200 systems blasting on the daily basis which can be replaced in case of losses, then you can have a conversation about game-changing situation.

I believe we are falling in "wunderwaffen" trap again. First it was the Bayraktars then it was self propelled howitzers (CAESAR, PzH 2000, etc) and now its HIMARS. All of these systems help and contribute but they are far too few of them to make any crucial difference. The only systems provided in sufficient numbers to have their presence felt are the M777 howitzers and Warsaw pact era weapons such as 200+ tanks provided by Poland (not counting infantry based weapons such as machine guns or ATGMs).

HIMARS systems did not provide any radically different capability that Ukraine did not already posses through various artillery and tactical ballistic missiles systems (Tochka, BM-30, etc), except for the improvement in accuracy, but remember HIMARS are used against stationary targets in enemy's depth so pinpoint accuracy although helpful didn't alter the end results (if they used a different system they would still hit the target). Why they didn't hit those targets before is an open question.

In regards to reconnaissance and target acquisition I do not believe Ukraine is in a great deficiency, because these tasks have been done by NATO since the beginning of the war. This is probably the main reason why Ukraine is able to find and hit Russian/rebel supply depots.

 

[John Fedup]

WRT finding Russian ammo dumps there is no doubt NATO has helped out. Also the combination of massive artillery strikes by the Russians along with somewhat improved logistical capability allowed needed ammo dumps near the front. This resulted in lucrative targets for Ukraine’s newly acquired HIMARS apparently.

 

[Ranger25]

No doubt HIMARS is making a dent especially when paired with western ELINT pinpointing targets.

Thought this infographic showed a good depiction of the breath of Artillery in Theatre

@Ranger25 Do you have a source for the graphic? Rules are rules.

 

[John Fedup]

No doubt HIMARS is making a dent especially when paired with western ELINT pinpointing targets.

Thought this infographic showed a good depiction of the breath of Artillery in TheatreView attachment 49519

A very sobering graphic as to what Ukraine is facing. Thanks Ranger25!

 

[Ranger25]

WRT finding Russian ammo dumps there is no doubt NATO has helped out. Also the combination of massive artillery strikes by the Russians along with somewhat improved logistical capability allowed needed ammo dumps near the front. This resulted in lucrative targets for Ukraine’s newly acquired HIMARS apparently.

Todays ELINT flights included an RAF Rivot Joint spending the day flying loops in the central Black Sea as well as a USN EP-3 in Eastern Romania
Needless to say these manned flights augment any Space Based reconnaissance the West has been providing

 

[Twain]

Just a couple updates on HIMARS and M270. Reports are that they are having a definite effect on russian logistics. Considering the known problems with russian logistics this is definitely not good news.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1548684752135364608

Not that it is a huge difference but Oryx is saying 12 himars and/or M270 have been delivered. My personal opinion based on various reports, there are more than 8 and less than 12 in Ukraine, prob 8-11.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1548654964205125632

Firms maps showing the decrease in artillery fire

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1548560710069678080

 

[hauritz]

WRT finding Russian ammo dumps there is no doubt NATO has helped out. Also the combination of massive artillery strikes by the Russians along with somewhat improved logistical capability allowed needed ammo dumps near the front. This resulted in lucrative targets for Ukraine’s newly acquired HIMARS apparently.

NATO involvement in this war does have me intrigued. They are providing the weapons, the training, gathering intel, conducting surveillance, contributing to maintenance, providing logistical support, and possibly even directing some of the operations.

Hard to imagine there are not a lot of clandestine operations occurring as well.

I imagine it is frustrating for the Russians to see NATO involvement and not being able to do anything about it.

 

[vikingatespam]

NATO involvement in this war does have me intrigued. They are providing the weapons, the training, gathering intel, conducting surveillance, contributing to maintenance, providing logistical support, and possibly even directing some of the operations.

Hard to imagine there are not a lot of clandestine operations occurring as well.

I imagine it is frustrating for the Russians to see NATO involvement and not being able to do anything about it.

Given the reticence of the current administration, I have my doubts NATO SF are in country.

Russia can indeed do something about NATO involvement.....leave. : ) I can hope.

 

[ngatimozart]

Given the reticence of the current administration, I have my doubts NATO SF are in country.

Russia can indeed do something about NATO involvement.....leave. : ) I can hope.

Whether or not NATO SF are in country is moot because it is a neither confirm nor deny situation.

Anyway the Russians have other problems to concern them at the moment. Ukrainian partisans are active in Russian occupied parts of Ukraine and besides attacking Russian military targets and personnel, they have taken to eliminating Ukrainians who are Russian sympathisers or willingly work for the Russians. Ukrainian partisans target Russian sympathizers as war grinds on (taskandpurpose.com) There are always collaborators in enemy occupied areas during a war and they are traitors who deserve what they get. During WW2 Soviet partisans who operated in the same area, were very forthright with their treatment of Nazi collaborators.

Apparently the VVS has lost a SU-34 Fallback to friendly fire over Luhansk. Ukraine Situation Report: Russia Appears To Shoot Down Its Own Su-34 Strike Fighter (thedrive.com) Unfortunately this happens during wartime, but this one appears to have been a rare bird.

The Ukrainians have captured a Russian T-80BVM tank and here are taking it for a test drive. According to them they have 11 of the type in various stages of disrepair.

There are claims that Russia is using a captured nuclear power plant as a military base. The Ukrainians claim that the Russians have artillery and missile batteries based there and are using them to fire on Ukrainian targets. The Ukrainians cannot retaliate because of the nuclear power plant and the radioactive hazard.

There is a call from Ukraine for Russia to be declared a terrorist state. I have a problem with this because there are far to many instances in history of deliberate shelling and bombing of civilian areas by combatants. If you declare Russia a terrorist state because of this, then a precedent is set and theoretically that could be applied retroactively meaning that many countries including UK, US, France, Germany, PRC, Italy Japan etc., could be classified as terrorist states as well.

There is a claim by the UK CDF that the Russian Army is having morale problems amongst its soldiers.

 

[tabu]

I believe we are falling in "wunderwaffen" trap again. First it was the Bayraktars then it was self propelled howitzers (CAESAR, PzH 2000, etc) and now its HIMARS. All of these systems help and contribute but they are far too few of them to make any crucial difference. The only systems provided in sufficient numbers to have their presence felt are the M777 howitzers and Warsaw pact era weapons such as 200+ tanks provided by Poland (not counting infantry based weapons such as machine guns or ATGMs).

It is exactly what you call "Wunderwaffe" to which a dozen more items should be added, but in the right quantity to allow Ukraine not to lose the war. Soviet weapons are coming to an end. Ukraine does not have an impenetrable rear to organize repair of military equipment, let alone production. The Russian Federation has a numerical advantage in almost all types of armaments and personnel. Only the supply of large quantities of Western weapons superior to the Soviet-Russian ones will allow the statehood and territories to be defended.