Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

That’s my take and I am available for criticism at this time.

John Fetterman: Too Manly for Pennsylvania.  Paid for by the Oz for Senator campaign.

Too often we hand the biggest microphones to the cynics and the critics who delight in declaring failure.

People are complicated. Love is not.

The GOP couldn’t organize an orgy in a whorehouse with a fist full of 50s.

I’ve spoken to my cat about this, but it doesn’t seem to do any good.

Battle won, war still ongoing.

A snarling mass of vitriolic jackals

Republicans are the party of chaos and catastrophe.

We cannot abandon the truth and remain a free nation.

Second rate reporter says what?

Tick tock motherfuckers!

When do we start airlifting the women and children out of Texas?

So it was an October Surprise A Day, like an Advent calendar but for crime.

Fuck the extremist election deniers. What’s money for if not for keeping them out of office?

When someone says they “love freedom”, rest assured they don’t mean yours.

The cruelty is the point; the law be damned.

Republican obstruction dressed up as bipartisanship. Again.

Optimism opens the door to great things.

“But what about the lurkers?”

“Everybody’s entitled to be an idiot.”

Let there be snark.

Today’s GOP: why go just far enough when too far is right there?

All your base are belong to Tunch.

You are here: Home / Foreign Affairs / War for Ukraine Day 331: Prime Minister Kallas Has Some Thoughts To Share

War for Ukraine Day 331: Prime Minister Kallas Has Some Thoughts To Share

by | 112 Comments

This post is in: , , , , , , ,

(Image by NEIVANMADE)

I was offline almost all day, so this will be a brief post. I will say that it sort of feels to me like we’re at something of a pause point, like when you know you have to sneeze, but it hasn’t happened yet. The new military aid packages have been announced, but they won’t even begin to ship for days or weeks. The Ukrainian Armed Forces are doing yeoman’s work under difficult conditions dealing with the meat grinders that Wagner and the Russian military have created at several points along the line of contact that snakes all the way around Russian occupied Ukraine by just wantonly throwing bodies into combat.

Estonian Prime Minister Kallas shared her understanding of the strategic problem set that is Russia:

Here is President Zelenskyy’s address from earlier today. Video below, English transcript after the jump:

Ukrainians! Ukrainian women!

Today was a long day – operational decisions, international communication, and various issues that deserve attention and response.

But now I want to say only one thing.

I don’t want to talk for a long time.

Today, we said farewell to those whose lives were taken by the helicopter crash in Brovary.

Denys Monastyrsky, his colleagues from the ministry: Yevhen Yenin, Yuriy Lubkovych, Tetiana Shutiak, Mykhailo Pavlushko, Mykola Anatsky, Andriy Marynchenko… Guys from the crew: Oleksandr Vasylenko, Kostiantyn Kovalenko, Ivan Kasianov… A woman and a child who were just going to kindergarten in the morning… Mother Olena Ponomarenko and her daughter Milana Ponomarenko…

My condolences to all relatives and friends… It hurts to think about it, it hurts to say about it.

Denys was a professional, genuine person, exactly what the Minister of Internal Affairs should be. Every day we lose people, whom we will always remember and regret that they’re not coming back.

You cannot bring back Ukrainians, patriots, and people who are professional and simply loyal to themselves and the state.

I wish we could all feel that today. Feel how many lives, how many bright people have been taken by wartime. I would like us all to honor their memory today…

Great tribute to all those, whose lives were taken away by the war! Great tribute to all those, who gave their lives for Ukraine!

We are doing everything to remove this war from our land.

Glory to Ukraine!

Here is former NAVDEVGRU Squadron Leader Chuck Pfarrer’s most recent assessments of the situations in Kremenna and Bakhmut:

Finland:

Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania:

Here’s a thread on tanks:

2/ The #Leopard2 is arguably the most prolific tank in Europe. However surplus and reserve tanks make up only a small part of the force.
They could be used to start training and introduce the tank into 🇺🇦 services, but to achieve a real effect in a long war, more …Image
3/ … deliveries over the long run would be necessary.
This is still possible as the Leoprd is still in production, theoretically 3 sites (🇩🇪🇬🇷🇪🇦) could produce it and there are 🇪🇺 funds for joint procurement, hence states could replace donated vehicles.
But will they? 
4/ 1️⃣ trust:
if you stard procuring new 2A7 to replace existing vehicles donated to 🇺🇦, you make a commitment to operate a 🇩🇪 tank for another 30 years.
After recent escapades there will be much greater reluctance to do so.
In an existential security crisis, 🇩🇪 acted irrationally 
5/ Public mood in many countries shift against 🇩🇪 and it will be a hard time to convince taxpayers to put down ~€8 million each for new 🇩🇪 vehicles.

2️⃣ coordination:
Yes, 🐆2 is in production, mut that production is stretched to 3 years per tank to maintain production … 

6/ … at minimal orders. To shorten delivery times and decrease costs, larger “en bulk” orders would be necessary.
Such en bulk orders would need to be coordinated amongst user nations, if there were a clear plan for deliveries and replacement. 
7/ Somebody needs to do that and it is pretty clear that @Bundeskanzler is both unwilling and incapable to do so, even if he finally would allow countries to donate tanks.
Will other leaders coordinate procurement for a defence good not manufactured in their country? I doubt. 
8/ 3️⃣ time:
Allthough this is a long war, unlikely to end in 2023, 🇪🇺 politicians are very reluctant to commit to measuures that take more than a few months to implement.
I remember the debate about Marder IFV, where rennovating older phased out vehicles that would … 
9/ … have taken till 2023 was seen as useless, because “the war will have ended then” (🤪🤡 I told you then it won’t).
Refurbishing a some of old surplus Leopard 2A4 will take equal time, meaning politicians will not even try because they think it won’t pay off. 
10/ and then of course miss these vehicles later.
Still, there will be Leopards in 🇺🇦, but their effect on the war will not be that big.

For some time, 🇺🇲 will work around that problem, searching for T72 and ammo in the rest of the world as long as they find them. 

11/ Then proceeding to deliver M1 #Abrahams.
This takes more time and greater costs than Leopards, but is still feasable. A lot of the arguments against Abrahams are not all too convincing, especially if you regard this as a long war. 
12/ But beware of a new burden sharing debate.
MBT could well be provided by 🇪🇺.
🇺🇲 is hard pressed to deliver #ATACMSforUkraine, #F16 etc.
Republicans will say 🇪🇺 again consumes security at 🇺🇲 expense, and Biden will have few convincing arguments against. 
13/ This of course will fall on all our heads, not just Olaf’s. But … I can’t change that now. 

And another one:

“David” is a “former ADA 16/14R & 96B/P (an air defense soldier & intel analyst w/ airborne experience). He is a “master driver & a 22 yr combat vet.” To which I say “thanks for ur service.”

Don’t know how much tank experience he has, but he gets some things right in his 🧵2/ 

He also gets things wrong.

Since he gives his creds, here are mine:
-37 years in armor.
-served on M60, M60A1, M60A2,M1, M1A1, M1A2
-tank platoon leader, company commander (x2), cav sqdn S3 (in combat), cav squadron Cdr at Armor School (teaching M1 Tank Commanders Course) 3/ 

-Squadron commander, ran the M1 tank commander’s course (while also providing tanks to all leaders who trained at Ft Knox).
-Our squadron trained all soldier/NCOs/Officers (LTs-LTCs) who had never been on an M1/M1A1 tank before while maintaining 120 M1/M1A1/M1A2 tanks. 4/ 
-tank brigade commander, with the mission to deploy to Korea (helped me understand the challenges of moving tanks & establishing logistics flow across oceans).
-Commander Ops Groups at the National Training Center (helped me see how diff units employ tanks on a “battlefield”). 5/ 
-Asst Div Commander/Support for a Tank Division in Combat (learned how tough to supply a division w/ tanks when supply lines were long & cut by the enemy).
-Tank Division Commander in combat.
-Commander US Army, Europe, where we partnered w/ & trained Ukraine’s army.6/ 
Here’s what I learned about tanks:
-The M1-series, in my view, is the best in the world.
-Training of tank crews/units is critical, and can’t be hand-waved (if you do w/ an M1, you’ll be ineffective while breaking lots of stuff).
-Everyone is an M1 expert, until they break it.7/ 
-There’s a reason tankers are called “DATs” (dumb-ass-tankers). It’s because they break things in their tanks & then rely on maintainers/master gunners/loggies to fix it.
-Older tanks break more often (the M1 was fielded in the 1980’s)
8/ 
-Having fired T-72s, Chieftains, Challengers, Leo IIs & Abrams, the M1 requires the most turret training.

-Same true for the engine. The pack “blows” when drivers aren’t trained. A FUPP (the combined engine/trans) is expensive (about $1.5 million) & then must be replaced. 9/ 

*Some* M1 repairs require part replacements (requiring many high tech spare parts to be in a PLL).

Other replacements require pulling things (like FUPPs, sights, etc) to a log center/depot w/ new one being sent forward.

It’s a 500 mile supply line from Poland to the Donbas. 10/ 

Having serviced 250 tanks in 1st Armored when I was ADC-S, you don’t just “put parts on an DHL/C17 or a MI-17 and hop to the front lines.”

(I’m also curious about the “warehouses” David names in “Pirmasens,” “Hohenfels” (the correct spellings) that can turn these parts?…11/ 

…that’s because US Army, Europe hasn’t had permanently stationed tanks since 2013, and the ones there are part of the rotational unit).

While we’re on that point, I’m wondering where the 300 Abrams tanks would immediately that David would deliver to Ukraine? 12/ 

Here are some of David’s other assertions:
-UA got experience with T64s, so it’ll be easy to switch to M1A1s. (I vehemently disagree).
-“the M1 is one of the easiest tanks in the world to keep running with a motivated crew.” (you need crew + an entire support system)….13/ 
-the “motor” is a “jet engine” & can be fixed by Ukrainian jet experts in Ukraine or General Dynamic techs in Poland (first, it’s a *turbine engine* & fixing it requires knowing it, which takes training & certification).

(BTW, it’s a *multi-fuel turbine engine*) 14/ 

-“if the Iraqi’s, Saudi’s, Egypt troops can use the M1, the UKR will have no issues.”

Iraqis paid billions for M1s w/ a permanent GD maintenance contract & a 5-year training period.

Saudis bought M1A2s w/ a 7 year training program, with maintenance contract still in place.15/ 

David points out “there are politics and costs involved in this decision.”

To which I respond “yeah, no kidding.”

That’s sometimes, unfortunately, what happens when you’re in an alliance.

16/ 

I’ll add one last important point:

@SecDef has repeatedly said the *GOAL* is to provide UKR with equipment that they can immediately put to use & which they can easily sustain.

UKR’s army is getting LOTS of different equipment from many different nations. Here are some: 17/ 

Brad’s, Strykers, M777, HIMARS, MRAPs, HMMWVs, Gephards, Patriots, AMX10s, M106’s, NASAMs, HAWK, Caesers…etc, etc, etc.

UKR Army Commanders who I talk with want tanks, but have admitted they struggle w logistics, repair parts getting to the right places, and resupply. 18/ 

So reducing the burden must be a key consideration…and in my professional opinion, the Abrams would cause more of a burden due to training & resupply to a force that’s in a tough fight.

Also in my view, LEO II’s would mean less of a burden.
19/ 

But the decision involves politics, and funding, and decisions.

So, no @secretsqrl123, I won’t “debate” you on these issues.

I would recommend in the future you not insult people w/o knowing their background and goals. 20/20 

For full disclosure: I know LTG (ret) Hertling.

That’s enough for tonight.

Still no new Patron tweets or videos. I’m sure its because he and his human are busy doing their day jobs. So here’s some Ukrainian Army cats and dogs material to hold you till we get Patron updates.

Open thread!

Reader Interactions

Commenters

No commenters available.

  • Adam L Silverman
  • Another Scott
  • Carlo Graziani
  • Chetan Murthy
  • davecb
  • Freemark
  • Geminid
  • Greg
  • J R in WV
  • Jay
  • kalakal
  • Kent
  • Ksmiami
  • Ohio Mom
  • Omnes Omnibus
  • patrick II
  • Rocks
  • Shantanu Saha
  • Sister Golden Bear

Filtered Commenters

No filtered commenters available.

    Settings




    Settings are saved immediately; press X to close the box.

    112Comments

    1. 1.

      Omnes Omnibus

      I would trust Hertling’s technical opinion over that of any internet randos. It also fits my (far, far, far … far more limited) experience with the logistics of keeping a heavy unit functioning.

      Reply
    2. 2.

      Ohio Mom

      I wish there was an animated map of the battle lines, showing how they have moved over time (I tried googling without success).

      I can’t tell the big picture over time from the little maps here because I don’t know enough (any) Ukrainian geography.

      Reply
    3. 3.

      Freemark

      Thanks again Adam for the great info. Without you, Kos, and Mark over at the GOS, my knowledge of what’s going on in Ukraine would be so much worse. The MSM barely seems bother with the war, other than occasional good articles.

      It seems to me that if most of the European countries decide to give Leopards to UKR Germany is not in a good position to prevent it. If those countries do it en mass. Germany loves money like any good capitalist country and I doubt they would threaten to not build or maintain German made military goods for the rest of Europe which would be the main available retaliatory ability.

      Reply
    4. 4.

      Adam L Silverman

      @Ohio Mom: Here you go:

      https://newsmap.pl/2022-russian-invasion-of-ukraine-interactive-map/

      Reply
    7. 7.

      Chetan Murthy

      Oooh lookee: https://euromaidanpress.com/2023/01/21/us-amb-to-osce-expects-us-support-to-transfer-allied-f-16-fighters-to-ukraine/

      The United States expects that the allies’ initiative to transfer F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine will be supported, the US Ambassador to the OSCE Michael Carpenter told in an interview with Delfi.

      Answering the question whether the administration of US President Joe Biden is ready to allow the Netherlands to supply Ukraine with F-16 fighter jets, the ambassador said: “We have long been of the opinion that what our allies supply is their business. And we support the countless contributions (to defense) that our allies have made for Ukraine. And this has been true from the very beginning of the war, when we discussed legacy Soviet systems, to the present period, when we discuss main battle tanks and more sophisticated air and missile defense capabilities and systems. And so I expect there will be broad support in the United States for our allies to continue to increase their contributions,” Carpenter said.

      Reply
    8. 8.

      Adam L Silverman

      @Omnes Omnibus: And now another point of view:

      Reply
    9. 9.

      Chetan Murthy

      @Adam L Silverman: I remember when Gen. Hodges said similar things, Gen. Hertling responded with “Hodges is light infantry; I was a tanker”.  Apparently McCaffrey (from his wikipedia bio: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_McCaffrey ) was (airborne) infantry.

      Seems like Hertling’s opinion (on the maintenance burden) would still be dispositive

      ETA: and maybe it’s worth adding that Hertling’s statement goes against interest, in the sense that he’s badmouthing the platform he fought on, the platform that was basically his bread-and-butter for a long while.

      Reply
    10. 10.

      Shantanu Saha

      Here’s my wholly unsupported opinion about why the US thinks that it’s better to send Leopard 2s to Ukraine than M1 Abrams, because most of the arguments about the Abrams being a logistically complex tank to support can be said about the Leo as well.
      1) The primary power plant of the Leopard 2 is a diesel engine rather than a a gas turbine, so presumably Ukraine, whose army must have a lot of diesel techs because of all the old Soviet armor in its inventory, would be easier to train to repair the engine/power train to support. In other respects, it seems that the tanks should be similar in complexity.
      2) Since so many European countries (and Canada) have Leopards while the only Ukraine supporters operating the Abrams are the US and Australia, there would be much better opportunity for Europeans to get more involved in supporting Ukraine through training and logistical support if the Leos were sent.

      Reply
    14. 14.

      Ohio Mom

      Adam and Another Scott, Thank you both!

      I found the Wikipedia .gif the most helpful for my purposes. It confirmed my memory that Ukraine succeeded on their north border in pushing the Russians out, and also confirmed my current frustration that the eastern border is pretty much a stalemate.

      If every map Adam posts looks very much like the one the day before, it is because it is.

      Reply
    15. 15.

      Omnes Omnibus

      @Adam L Silverman: ​  Also, one of the primary advantages of the Abrams over the Leopard from a soldier’s POV is that the exhaust from turbine engine of the Abrams is so hot that it can heat up multiple cans of Beefaroni in a few seconds. Those of us who had simple diesels and turbo-diesels could only do one can at a time using the one of the internal heaters.​

      Reply
    16. 16.

      Another Scott

      @Chetan Murthy: With all of the anti-aircraft systems being supplied to Ukraine, supplying modern fighter/bombers would be a logical next step.

      Gressel’s thread is a good one.  Supply lines and production of specialized parts and complex systems cannot be started instantly, or even quickly.  Especially coming out of a once – in – 100 – years pandemic.  Ramping up Leopard production is going to be expensive, especially if Germany isn’t assured that the higher rate of production will be sustained.  And why would other NATO countries want to risk being at the mercy of the glacial bureaucracy at the BAAINBw?

      An interview with some analyst guy on DW (IIRC) said that Scholz was very concerned about the “optics” of German tanks being used on russian forces. Too many historical overtones that aren’t there the same way when German artillery, etc., is used (because the pictures would be very different). And sure, it would be a big, big change for Germany. But reality has to win over optics…

      Slava Ukraini!!

      Cheers,
      Scott.

      Reply
    17. 17.

      Chetan Murthy

      http://windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2023/01/russian-identity-fragmenting-because.html

      Russian Identity Fragmenting Because Ever Fewer Russians Want to Take Responsibility for the Entire Empire, Amangildin Says
      Staunton, Jan. 18 – Vladimir Putin’s aggressive nationalism at home and abroad has sparked a crisis in Russian identity because ever fewer Russians want to take responsibility for the entire empire and instead are reidentifying themselves as regionalists and forming alliances with non-Russians, Shamil Amangildin says.
                  The head of the Bashkortostan Section of the Federative Party says that Putin’s effort to destroy the non-Russians within the Russian Federation and his aggression against Russia’s neighbors has backfired on him, generating not more support for his brand of nationalism but revulsion against it among many Russians (region.expert/after-rashism/).
      As a result, “many who had considered themselves Russians have begun to distance themselves from an ethnic Russian identity,” first ethnic Russians in Ukraine who have become part of a Ukrainian political nation as a result of Putin’s aggression but then Russians in the Russian Federation who are now identify with regions rather than the country as a whole.
      This collapse of the ideology of Putin’s Russian world already has had four major consequences:
      ·       First, “the rise of a number of regional identities among people who earlier had an ‘all-Russian’ one, including those who identify as people of the Urals, Siberians, Ingermanlanders and others as well.

      ·       Second, “an intensification of centrifugal attitudes among those with a Russian regional identities,” people who increasingly recognize that “their Motherland is above all their region and not the entire territory of the Russian Federation.”

      ·       Third, “an intensification of centrifugal attitudes among non-Russian minorities, since now Russians with regional identities are becoming their allies in the struggle with the imperial metropolis, the Kremlin.”

      ·       And fourth, a conviction among those in both parts of this new alliance of the belief that “the imperial vertical of power is too burdensome and the time has come to dispense with it” by forming a genuinely contractual federal state.

      In the turmoil that will undoubtedly ensure following the departure of Putin from the scene, there is the risk that for a short time, Russia may develop according to a North Korean scenario, Amangildin says, with an iron curtain and full-blown totalitarianism. But this won’t last long because of the growing regionalization of Russian identities.

      Reply
    18. 18.

      Another Scott

      @Shantanu Saha: The analyst interview on DW (I think) that I mentioned above (and am kicking myself that I cannot quickly find again) said that the Leopard 2 has about 1/2 the fuel consumption of the M1A Abrams.  Logistically, that’s a big difference, given the huge size of Ukraine and the difficult supply routes.

      But it just makes it harder, not impossible, given enough money, time, and effort.

      The question remains, how much to push on Germany for Leopard 2s; how much effort to expend to get supply lines for US M1A tanks; and how much effort to simply say, Bradleys and Strykers and French AMX-10 RC not-tanks are good enough right now, especially when combined with F-16s…

      The west and NATO can work around obstacles to help Ukraine – there’s never only one way to get the job done (and the easy, cheap, obvious, fast way almost never exists).

      Cheers,
      Scott.

      Reply
    20. 20.

      Jay

      The Lviv Museum of Science in Ukraine released video of a new exhibit that allows visitors to sink a model of the Russian warship Moskva. The real Moskva sank in the Black Sea in April, 2022 after a fire. Russia denies Ukrainian claims that Moskva was hit with anti-ship missiles. pic.twitter.com/Mks3YEB9Gd— U.S. Naval Institute (@NavalInstitute) January 21, 2023

      Reply
    24. 24.

      Chetan Murthy

      @Jay: It’s not a nice thing to say, but when I watched that vid, I laughed.  Seeing bad things happen to Russian occupiers doesn’t elicit any sympathetic reaction from me.  Not anymore.

      Reply
    25. 25.

      Greg

      As a complete amateur, I know that the Bradley killed more tanks in Iraq than the M1. Their TOWs reach out further than tank rounds. Better optics than the Russians. The main gun won’t penetrate a tank, but can’t the UA use Brads as tank killers? How much do the Brads need the protection of the M1’s? Aren’t the tanks there to kill other tanks so that the infantry is protected from the tanks?

      I do think that we should be training UA on the M1, and other US systems. At some point they are going to operate them. Might as well get them started.

      Reply
    27. 27.

      Chetan Murthy

      @Greg: I have read that the problem with using the Bradley as a tank-killer, is that while the TOW is in-flight, the Bradly must remain immobile (b/c TOW is wire-guided).  And the target can fire at the Bradley during that interval.  So ideally you want tanks along with Bradleys, so the tanks can shoot at the enemy tanks, keep ’em occupied.

      Reply
    30. 30.

      Another Scott

      This seems to be a decent, balanced summary of the tanks issues – Sydney J. Freedberg, Jr at BreakingDefense:

      Yes, Ukrainian soldiers now have as much experience of tank combat as anyone in the world, but they’ll still face a steep learning curve with whatever type or types of tanks the West provides. To start with, modern Western main battle tanks, tipping the scales at over 60 tons, are much bigger than the Soviet-derived designs, weighing 40 to 50 tons, that Ukraine has used for years. And that size difference is just the most visible manifestation of a fundamentally different design philosophy that requires different training, tactics, supply, and maintenance.

      The good news for Ukrainian tankers is their roomier new rides will boast better armor, greater comfort — critical to combat efficiency after long days in cramped machines — and better electronics. The bad news is the bigger Western tanks have a harder time hiding under cover, guzzle more fuel, and need a larger crew, four troops instead of three. Perhaps most problematic of all, at 55-plus metric tons, they are too heavy to safely cross many Ukrainian bridges. So not only tank crews, but commanders, planning staff, supply units, and maintenance troops will need to learn to use and support their new tanks properly.

      (Emphasis added.)

      It’s a short read and worth a click.

      There are many, many moving parts in these decisions.

      Cheers,
      Scott.

      Reply
    38. 38.

      Kent

      Honest to God, the Ukrainian army is without a doubt the most experienced and competent army on the planet when it comes to taking on Russian forces on the plains of Europe.

      Why don’t we let THEM decide what arms will best suit their needs.

      Reply
    39. 39.

      Another Scott

      @Adam L Silverman: I’m surprised to see that A-10s are still deployed – it looks like some were in Iceland and North Macedonia, and Guam, recently.

      The Secretary apparently isn’t a fan of sending them to Ukraine:

      During an interview in December 2022, Ukrainian Defence Minister Aleksii Reznikov said that in late March he asked the US Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin for 100 surplus A-10s. Saying “We had done our homework. They can deliver heavier bombs, and we could use them against [Russian] tank columns”. Secretary Austin told Minister Reznikov that they would be “squeaky target” and such an idea was “impossible”.[150]

      A-10s are great in a permissive air environment, but ensuring that these days is very difficult. It looks like the recent upgrades to the “C” model make it more survivable, but I still wouldn’t want to be in one in Ukraine given the circumstances.

      Time marches on.

      That said, the US needs something for reliable, effective, and affordable close air support. Maybe drones will take up that role in coming years, but the transition is probably going to be difficult…

      My $0.02. Thanks.

      Cheers,
      Scott.

      Reply
    40. 40.

      Rocks

      @Chetan Murthy: Barry McCaffrey was the commanding general of the 24th Mechanized Infantry Division during Desert Storm.  The 24th had a combination of M1 tanks and Bradleys.  They were the westernmost heavy division in the entire allied attack, and they moved further than any other heavy division, while inflicting huge casualties on the Iraqi army and slamming the door on the retreating Iraqis.  I would absolutely trust whatever McCaffrey has to say about heavy combined arms operations.

      Reply
    41. 41.

      Freemark

      @Adam L Silverman: From what I understand both Egypt and the Saudis have 5 to 7 year maintenance and training contracts that rely heavily on foreign contractors for both training and maintenance. That also they had multi-year buildups to get to the point they were operationally useful.

      According to Hertling the training required just to operate the M1 is significantly higher than for the Leopard II or Challenger II. And that the M1 also requires significantly more maintenance including more replacement parts on a per mile/hour basis. You also have the fact that currently there is no significant supply/training/maintenance hub in Europe for the M1. Poland may become that but definitely not yet. Whereas the Leopards have that in numerous European countries.

      What it comes down to is that the Leopards could be used in 2023. The M1s best time line without a Herculean and very expensive effort would be 2024 at best. And that would probably require US contractors be allowed to work in Ukraine.

      Reply
    42. 42.

      Chetan Murthy

      @Freemark:

      that rely heavily on foreign contractors for both training and maintenance.

      Perhaps worth remembering that this also is the American Way of War.  Remember in AFG, where we stood up the AFG army, but it basically only worked as long as our contractors did all the maintenance and other work ?  So when we pulled our contractors out, everything stopped working, and the army fell apart.  Sure, it fell apart for other reasons too (like morale, will to fight, belief in the government).  But it was *widely reported* that everything we taught them was predicated on contractors running maintenance, logistics, other things.

      Unless we’re ready to send in contractors to UA, that’s going to be a problem for the M1, right?

      Reply
    43. 43.

      Freemark

      @Another Scott: The Air Force has been using that excuse from before the A-10 was ever deployed and there is some truth to it. But the Ukrainians are using SU-25s successfully. If they can do that they can use A-10s and they would do better.

      I do think A-10s being shot down, and some almost certainly would be, could have political blowback here. The Repubs would certainly use that to talk about wasting money among other things.

      Reply
    44. 44.

      Freemark

      @Chetan Murthy: Yes. I think I basically said that so I agree with you.

      What it comes down to is that the Leopards could be used in 2023. The M1s best time line without a Herculean and very expensive effort would be 2024 at best. And that would probably require US contractors be allowed to work in Ukraine.

      Reply
    45. 45.

      Chetan Murthy

      @Freemark: I looked: https://eurasiantimes.com/deathbed-for-sukhoi-jets-with-over-3-dozen-shot-down-ukraine/

      Su-25s Performance On the Battlefield
      The Su-25 Grach (‘Rook’), also known as Frogfoot, is a Soviet-era close air support (CAS) aircraft. The Sukhoi Design Bureau developed it to target small, stationary, and moving ground targets.

      Russia and Ukraine fighter pilots have been operating their Su-25 aircraft close to the ground, mostly to avoid being detected by the radar systems of the adversary.

      But the low-flying approach leaves the aircraft vulnerable to enemy MANPADS, responsible for most aircraft shoot-downs by both sides in the ongoing conflict.

      The Frogfoot has suffered significant losses in the ongoing conflict, with the air forces of both sides primarily using it for ground assaults. The aircraft was also the “most destroyed” fighter in the Ukraine conflict.

      According to data published by the military tracking blog Oryx based on visual verification, 38 Su-25s have been destroyed, 23 of which belonged to Russia and 15 to Ukraine.

      Reply
    46. 46.

      Chetan Murthy

      @Freemark: Yes, I was just bringing up that history, as added support.  To put it perhaps somewhat uncharitably (and I’d be happy to be corrected):

      It shows that at some level, we don’t know how to train our clients/allies in how to maintain our high-tech arms; instead, we just send contractors to do the work.

      There are sound commercial and political reasons for doing things this way, of course, so I’m not saying that it’s a bad thing (for us).  Just that, well, it is what it is.

      Of course, my conclusion might be incorrect.

      Reply
    47. 47.

      Another Scott

      @Freemark: Egypt is a different case. Egypt has had a factory to manufacture the M1 since 1992. It looks like production has had fits and starts, but apparently, as of December 2021, they had plans to upgrade their fleet to M1A2s and will resume production in Egypt.

      KSA and just about everywhere else (except the US) is different with respect to the Abrams, I think.

      To be clear, I don’t doubt that there are more severe logistics issues with the M1Ax than with the Leopard 2. And I’m sure that’s a big reason why Germany is under such pressure to let the Leopards loose in Ukraine.

      But W’s preparation for the Iraq invasion (and hoping to go through Turkey and being told NO) and the resulting heartburn should have been tattooed on planners that multiple plans are always needed. I hope planning has been underway and in-place at the Pentagon to reduce those bottlenecks if the decision is made to send them because the Leopards won’t be going…

      Cheers,
      Scott.

      Reply
    49. 49.

      Chetan Murthy

      @Another Scott: From your link:

      The Egyptian Ministry of Defense continues to produce locally M1A1 Abrams main battle tanks with the collaboration of American Company General Dynamics.

      Do we know how much actual “help” GD provides to the Egyptians ?

      ETA: But also, that Egypt can manufacture them isn’t really the issue, is it?  I’m sure given 10yr, UA could be making M1 tanks.  The issue is how *long* it takes to get from zero knowledge, to being able to maintain and operate M1 tanks.

      Reply
    50. 50.

      Freemark

      @Chetan Murthy: Supposedly Ukraine has 67 SU-25s in use. If they ‘only’ lost 15 to this point that’s good. It does show they could probably operate the A-10 appropriately. And if we supplied US munitions, which I assume we would, they can stand off a good distance more than the SU-25s Ukraine is currently using. Plus the A-10 is significantly more survivable from small arms fire and manpads. But still some would get shot down and it would be much more significant ,propaganda wise, than the US supplied M777s and M113s that have been shown destroyed up to now.

      Reply
    51. 51.

      Another Scott

      @Chetan Murthy: Once a factory is in a country, it’s really, really hard to keep all the knowledge internal, isn’t it??  What keeps GD and the US in the loop there is licenses and all the restrictions in the paperwork, and their need to stay on our good side for future access to technology, financing, and all the rest.

      If Egypt has a factory to make the things, they certainly know how to train the techs to fix them and don’t need beltway bandits to do it for them.

      I don’t doubt that KSA and several of the rest maybe more interested in paying contractors for the care and feeding of their tanks than having their princes learn the skills.  Egypt doesn’t strike me that way, at all.

      Yes, I agree with you and many others, and have said from the beginning (I think), that supply chain issues (and all that entails (human, logistic, parts availability, funding, and all the rest)) are a big problem for the M1 in Ukraine.  (But a problem that can be solved given time and money.)

      FWIW.

      Cheers,
      Scott.

      Reply
    52. 52.

      Freemark

      @Chetan Murthy: I know with the Saudis they don’t want to or have the citizens who want to maintain equipment.  I feel the Poles won’t have the same problem. Neither will the Ukrainians eventually. But that is certainly a long term view.

      Reply
    53. 53.

      patrick II

      @Freemark:

      If the Ukrainians can’t use SU-25’s becuase they are vulnerable to MANPADS and they can’t use A-10’s for similar reasons — is an argument that leaves them without any close air support. That is not a good argument.  Particularly since, as you say, the Warthogs were specifically built to be more survivable in that environment.  The combination of some F-16’s from Netherlands and some A-10s seems like a good combination.

      Reply
    55. 55.

      patrick II

      I have a question, and as is readily clear, I have no experience compared to many here. The question is when I have advocated for A-10s in earlier threads I have been told that they need air superiority and for the Air Force to control the skies before they can be effective since they can’t match up with fighters. But I have also read that there are few, if any, dogfights anymore and the winner is the one with better radar and air-to-air missiles. So, if an A-10 has good radar and some stingers, wouldn’t they at least not be totally incapable in the face of a Russian SU?

      Reply
    56. 56.

      Chetan Murthy

      @patrick II: I wondered: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II#:~:text=A%2D10s%20usually%20fly%20with,defense%20under%20the%20other%20wing.

      A-10s usually fly with an ALQ-131 Electronic countermeasures (ECM) pod under one wing and two AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles for self-defense under the other wing.[81]

      Don’t know whether that’s sufficient or not.  Perhaps it depends on the range of the missiles (the sidewinder is apparently short-range).

      Reply
    58. 58.

      Chetan Murthy

      oy https://www.ft.com/content/f8ba6d3d-0688-4b0e-b3e9-99d83953999e

      Does Ukraine have tanks already? Yes, lots. It had its own fleet of Soviet-era tanks. It has captured more than 500 tanks from Russian forces since their full-scale invasion last February. It has also been supplied with 240 T-72s from Poland and the Czech Republic. But it is losing a lot of tanks to enemy fire — possibly as many as 130 a month, according to Gustav Gressel of the European Council on Foreign Relations.

      Reply
    59. 59.

      Omnes Omnibus

      @Rocks: Using them In combined arms operations, sure.  But McCaffrey didn’t live maintenance schedules, fixing track vehicles in the mud in freezing cold weather, and all that shit that an tanker or SP redleg would have done for a full career.  Hertling did.

      Reply
    60. 60.

      patrick II

      @Chetan Murthy:

      Thank you.  I read your link, and while the sidewinder does seem to have limited range,

      The AIM-9 is one of the oldest, lowest cost, and most successful air-to-air missiles, with an estimated 270 aircraft kills in its history of use.[6] When firing a Sidewinder,[i] NATO pilots use the brevity code FOX-2.

      One of the things that surprised me about this war is that Russian air didn’t control the skies from the beginning. I have seen videos about their wonderful new fighters and I have evidently been propagandized since it now seems they really can’t keep enough of them in the air to make a difference.
      So, it seems the A-10 would not be up against the latest and greatest and might do better than some speculate, especially if the Netherlands and perhaps others send in some F-16s.
      As for their susceptibility to MANPADS, they would do better than the SU-25s Ukraine is using now, and since they are going to fly those missions regardless, I am pretty sure they would prefer the A-10.

      Reply
    61. 61.

      Freemark

      @Chetan Murthy: I believe, as I think you do, that the argument against sending A-10s is a bad argument. The fact that they are vulnerable to MANPADS is true. But that is true of any CAS aircraft including SU-25s, and all helicopters. Yet the Ukrainians still flew 22 air strike missions yesterday. The A-10 is much better at protecting its pilot, it has significantly more effective ordinance and targeting, and has better countermeasures. If Ukraine deployed it like it is its current fleet there is almost no way this would not be an improvement for them.  Some would certainly get shot down because it is a high-risk environment.

      The anti A-10 people always seem to assume that Ukraine will deploy them recklessly behind enemy lines where they would be significantly more vulnerable and would have much lower survivability. Yet their use of their current planes show them to be quite adept at knowing their limits and how to limit vulnerabilities. I don’t think the Ukrainians would be any more reckless with the A-10 than their SU-25s.

      Reply
    62. 62.

      Omnes Omnibus

      @Freemark: I suspect that a lot of the anti-A-10 talk is from the people who have been arguing for yearsthat it should be mothballed.  If it goes to Ukraine and does what it does without problems, it kills their argument that it is obsolete.

      Reply
    63. 63.

      Carlo Graziani

      @Freemark: Yeah, this.

      People like McCaffrey making the “If Egypt can operate M1s, so can Ukraine” argument omit the time factor. Naturally, in peacetime, with a few years of lead time, and without the frenzy of a shooting war and the harrowing priority choices that such a war forces on a nation, Ukraine could certainly adopt M1s as their MBTs.

      But changing or adopting major weapons systems and all their infrastructure in the middle of a fight to the death with Russia is dangerous in the best of circumstances, because the resulting redirection of manpower and resources is disruptive of the war effort in the short term. There has to be a reasoned cost-benefit analysis that shows that the benefits outweigh the costs, and a risk analysis that demonstrates that the risks are bounded and the downsides are known and can be mitigated.

      These are the kinds of decisions that if badly made can make the war situation much worse, by causing fleeting opportunities to be missed, to near-infinite later regret. The freedom to seize and keep the initiative is far more determinative of success in war than is the possession of the best weapons.

      This is the reason that Hertling is so much more credible than McCaffrey on the tank issue, irrespective of their relative military credentials. Hertling has actually done the cost-benefit analysis, and he’s shown his work. McCaffrey has not.

      Reply
    64. 64.

      Chetan Murthy

      @patrick II: Mmm … not so much, I fear: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYDnspMWdaM

      This is an interview with Justin Bronk of RUSI.  TL;DR he argues that Russia controls the airspace over RU-occupied territory, but not over UA-controlled territory.  And that RU has enough fighters that are better than anything that UA has, that they can fly CAP over their occupied lands, and shoot over into UA–controlled airspace with missiles and kill UA planes.  So those UA planes have to be very careful approaching the line of control.

      He has argued that this is part of why we need to get UA better fighters — so that they can actually take the fight to these RU air superiority fighters and control the airspace over the line of control (where ground combat is occurring).

      Reply
    65. 65.

      Chetan Murthy

      @Freemark:

      I believe, as I think you do, that the argument against sending A-10s is a bad argument. The fact that they are vulnerable to MANPADS is true. But that is true of any CAS aircraft including SU-25s, and all helicopters. Yet the Ukrainians still flew 22 air strike missions yesterday.

      Where those air strikes flown in SU-25s ?  Or other planes that are more survivable ?  I actually kind of think that A-10s aren’t a good choice, until F-16s arrive, and this is due to Bronk’s arguments.

      Reply
    66. 66.

      patrick II

      @Chetan Murthy:

      Thanks again.  You’ll educate me yet.

      And regardless, as others say above, if the A-10 is better and more survivable in a ground support role than the aircraft Ukraine uses now, then they should be made available because they are going to be flying those missions either way and I’d just as soon give them their best chance.

      Reply
    67. 67.

      Freemark

      @Omnes Omnibus: A lot of their arguments literally go back to before the A-10 was even manufactured and have been proven wrong numerous times.  It reminds me of Republican arguments like Trickle-Down. Yes argument has been proven wrong numerous times BUT THIS TIME it will work!

      One of the arguments that gets me is that they say that ‘the SU-25 is surviving is because it’s faster and more maneuverable than the A-10.’ Which is true at 1000 ft, but at 50-100 ft off the ground it actually isn’t. Which is how they are flown in this environment.

      Reply
    68. 68.

      Chetan Murthy

      @patrick II: I think it was in that interview (but I might have seen it elsewhere) that he talked about UA pilots having to fly nap-of-the-earth to avoid getting shot by RU missiles from those RU fighters.  They’d fly nap-of-the-earth to their targets, pop up to do the deed, then fly back nap-of-the-earth again.

      He seemed pretty clear that UA planes were overmatched by the best RU fighters, and it was mostly just skill that kept them from all getting shot out of the sky.

      Reply
    69. 69.

      Chetan Murthy

      @patrick II: Well, and then there’s the videos that people have put out debunking whther the “gun that goes brrrt” is actually very good.  As in: apparently in AFG, US ground troops really hated it, b/c it was too inaccurate and produced too much friendly fire.  And apparently a lot of A-10 tank kills were via missiles.  I forget all the details, but there are a number of videos that adduce all sorts of facts.

      I’m not an expert, so I just follow along.  Could be totally mistaken.

      Your best argument is that UA is going to fly these missions anyway.  But then the question is, how long does it take to get a SU-25 pilot trained-up in an A-10, so that he’s as skilled in that A-10, as he was in that Frogfoot, right?  B/c otherwise, putting him in that A-10 is shortening his life.  Which brings us back to Bronk and “send them Western fighters”.

      Reply
    70. 70.

      Carlo Graziani

      @Chetan Murthy: I think that the truth is that nobody knows what would happen with wings of A-10s at the disposal of the UAF. Many wrong things have been forecast in this war, and a very large fraction of those concern the air war.

      Obviously tactics would evolve, given that the platform has never been used in these operational conditions. What might be discovered concerning its usefulness even in MANPADS-saturated environments is unknowable now, even to the air war experts, because the balance of threats and opportunities is totally new.

      Really, the question is whether sustaining the A-10 platform would detract from, say, F-16 support, assuming that that is a real possibility. If the capability to in-train and support both platforms exists, my guess is that the UAF could probably find tactics that make the A-10’s combat usefulness outweigh the inevitable attrition rate that the aircraft squadrons would incur.

      Reply
    71. 71.

      Another Scott

      More on tanks from Wikipedia :

      In December 2014 the Bundestag approved the development of a new generation of tanks while Ursula von der Leyen was Minister of Defence. The decision came amid the war in Donbas, where the Leopard 2A6 tanks that the Bundeswehr aimed to maintain until 2030 seemed rather inadequate. One analyst wrote “One of the Leopard 2’s key disadvantages stems from the fact that it uses tungsten instead of depleted uranium for tank rounds. The choice of material affects performance. Because of the limitations of tungsten ammunition, the Bundeswehr has some doubts as to the ability of its penetrator rounds to punch through the armour of the latest Russian tanks. Specifically, there might be instances where German ammunition might not have enough kinetic energy to ensure a kill against the T-80, T-90 and obviously the Armata,” which was to be shown at the 9 May Victory Day Parades in 2015.[7]

      So, they have spent the last 8 years talking about maybe making a new, more advanced tank. The article gives a Keystone Kops flavored view (they’re apparently still deciding which countries will be part of the program)…

      I wonder if that thinking is still part of the reluctance to send the Leopard 2s.

      Cheers,
      Scott.

      Reply
    72. 72.

      Freemark

      @Chetan Murthy: Most strikes that are CAS appear to be SU-25s whereas the strikes on radar and command installations are probably SU-27 or Mig-29. The Ukrainians appear to fly their SU-25s fairly heavily along the front lines. They do not fly them much behind enemy lines.

      I am not an expert but I have researched on the internet…lol. But from the research I’ve done the F-16 is not nearly as good as the A-10 for CAS. It is more ‘survivable’ but mainly because it does a lot less and is significantly less capable in that role. It stays much farther away from the ground and moves faster so MANPADS are much less of a threat but its usefulness for ground support is also much less.

      The F-16 would be a good replacement for the Mig-29s and the SU-27s though and should be more survivable from long-range air defenses. and Russian fighters.

      Reply
    73. 73.

      patrick II

      @Chetan Murthy:

      That Bronk interview was pretty depressing.
      And about your reference to AFG, Ukraine is a different battlefield environment than fighting close-quarter guerillas, and closer to the environment the A-10 was designed for.

      @Freemark:

      I think Mr. Murthy and Bronk and you all agree that the Ukraine should be given some F-16s.  After listening to the Bronk interview, I would say it is more urgent than I had realized.

      And, while you point out the general positive effect of the F-16, Chetan have have been emphasizing having better air cover for the A-10.  So there a many reasons for F-16s.  If you have the time, listen to the Bronk interview Chetan references above.  High density information that is worth the time.

      Reply
    74. 74.

      Chetan Murthy

      crrrrikey

      “Rolf Mützenich [head of the SPD in Bundestag @spdbt] warns of a new Cold War, while a hot war rages in the middle of Europe. This man & his party are a security risk for Germany & Europe.”#SPD

      I would add not only for Germany and Europe https://t.co/qF4ASOqrcE
      — Taking Action 4 US 🇺🇸🇩🇪🇪🇺🇺🇦 (@takingaction4us) January 22, 2023

      Chairman of Scholz’ party.

      Reply
    75. 75.

      Chetan Murthy

      Crikey, what bullshit: https://www.nzz.ch/international/kampfpanzer-leopard-2-us-ruestungsinteressen-lassen-scholz-zoegern-ld.1722377

      The Ukraine war, it is said again and again, is big business for the German armaments industry. But that’s not true. For the first time in decades, demand for weapons is booming in the West. However, the German producers cannot deliver because they lack the capacities. The US, meanwhile, is already counting what arms sales to European allies could bring in to replace their supplies to Ukraine. The Center on Military and Political Power of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, an apparently Israeli-funded Washington lobbying organization, recently reported that a total of $21.7 billion could be expected, regardless of whether it is are used or brand new weapons.

      It’s as if it’d be better for Ukraine to lose, than for the US to win.  And as if Ukraine winning with Leopards wouldn’t cement Leopards’ value in the eyes of European customers.  Just madness.

      Reply
    80. 80.

      Chetan Murthy

      @Another Scott: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/22/navalny-deputy-maria-pevchikh-putin-opposition-corruption-foundation

      Even Navalny himself, though he has condemned Putin’s war in Ukraine, has been accused of equivocating over whether Crimea should be returned to Ukraine.The efforts are ongoing, but when I ask Pevchikh about this again on the phone last week she says: “You can say that I refuse to discuss it. One day maybe I’ll write a book about it, but there’s too much at stake right now.”

      I  forget who it was here, who said that Navalny isn’t the hero we think of him as.  He’s also got that Russian Imperialist Power Vertical training or genetics or just plain folklore.

      Reply
    81. 81.

      Chetan Murthy

      @Another Scott: I forget whether it was in O’Brien’s piece or somewhere else that I read it this AM, but Scholz was quoted as saying “Russia must not win; Ukraine must not lose”.  And many people pointed out that Scholz never says “Ukraine must *win*”.  That public  opinion in Germany is very divided on even whether Crimea is Ukraine — whether it would be legitimate (I’m appalled) for Ukraine to retake Crimea by arms.

      It’s …. troubling.  Strong signs that Germany (hence, Scholz and the SPD) is setting up conditions for the postwar, when they plan to do business with Russia again.

      That Pomerantsev article went into some of this.

      Reply
    83. 83.

      Chetan Murthy

      @Ksmiami: This was …. funny

      So, what would happen if 🇵🇱🇪🇸🇨🇦🇸🇪🇳🇴🇫🇮🇩🇰🇵🇹🇬🇷🇹🇷 deliver Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine without @OlafScholz‘s consent.

      Well, these countries would be put on the list of countries the German arms industry is not allowed to sell to… which would devastate the German arms industry.

      😂😂
      — Thomas C. Theiner (@noclador) January 22, 202

      If all Olaf understands is the language of money, maybe the rest of NATO should speak to him in that language.

      Reply
    84. 84.

      davecb

      @Chetan Murthy:
      “Civilians talk about battles: generals talk about logistics”.
      It would be very much to the US’s advantage to publicly offer M1 Abrams to any country that was cut off from getting new Leopards because they had donated their old Leopards to Ukraine.  That would put Germany at both a moral and financial disadvantage.
      ​​Proper generalship​​​

      Reply
    85. 85.

      Geminid

      @davecb: Poland’s already buying the South Korean K-2 tank now instead the Leopard. They’ve ordered 1000 “Black Panthers.” Also 600 K-9 155mm self-propelled howitzers.

      Reply
    86. 86.

      Chetan Murthy

      @davecb: The nzz.ch article I linked-to above argues the opposite case: that the *reason* Germany is reluctant to authorize transfers of Leopards from (e.g.) Poland is that the US can then backfill with M1 tanks.  And Germany can’t build replacement Leopards fast enough, so the US will get those replacement orders, shutting Germany out from future orders completely.  It mentions that between casting the armor, and finishing the tank, is 2yr time — it’s that slow.  They’re no longer making them in an industrial manner, but “manufactory” manner.  I take that to mean that they’re making each tank in some sort of artisanal way.

      This logic is of course barking mad, and to the extent that this is really how they think, all that can be done is to route around them.

      Reply
    87. 87.

      Chetan Murthy

      @Geminid: the nzz.ch article talks about this, too.  Very … “aggrieved” that Germany wasn’t considered in the tender process.  Somewhere in there is mentioned that Germany simply couldn’t deliver tanks fast enough — that’s part of why Poland went with South Korea.

      Barking mad, these Germans.  Not all of them, but these particular ones.

      Reply
    89. 89.

      Chetan Murthy

      @Carlo Graziani: It’s all pretty troubling.

      A decade ago, Germany was circumvented in NATO in order to approve operational defence plans for the Baltic states.
      — Andres Kasekamp (@AndresKasekamp) January 22, 2023

      This one is from the former President  of Estonia — so one would think he knows the truth.

      25 years ago to get into EU negotiations.
      — toomas ilves aka “I’m not only on this site” 🙄 (@IlvesToomas) January 22, 2023

      Reply
    90. 90.

      Jay

      I have mentioned this before, but the key advantage modern Western fighter aircraft would bring to Ukraine is the ability to engage the RUASF aircraft on equal footing.

      Right now,

      -the RUSAF aircraft’s main BVR AARAM has a 150nm range, the Ukrainian’s, 100 nm.

      -the RUASF can “paint” a target for the missile from AWACs, fighter aircraft, other fighter aircraft, ground based Air Control or ground based Air Defense, the “painting” is only required for a few seconds to achieve missile lock. Ukrainian fighter aircraft have to “paint” and hold “paint” from missile lock to target destruction. This “illuminates” the Ukrainian fighter aircraft to any radar or EW suite with in range for the course of the engagement.

      The key things modern Western fighter aircraft would bring are;

      • an equal ranged missile
      • a radar capable of supporting multiple targeting and fire and forget missiles
      • computer and datalink systems allowing weapons “hand off”.

      Current Ukrainian tactics are;

      • to fly a CAP in “safe” Ukrainian airspace to let the RUSAF know that they are ready to fight. This keeps the RUSAF, (other than ground attack) well back in “safe” airspace over Russia and Belarus.
      • to fly ground directed “nape of the earth” runs, hiding in the ground clutter, towards RUSAF aircraft, then “popping up” at closer ranges, getting a missile lock, holding lock until the missile impact or forced to break off the attack, then returning rapidly to the nape of the earth.

      Both sides, when flying ground attack missions, no matter the air asset, fly nape of the earth attack runs. While MANPADs are a threat, higher altitudes are more dangerous to to the large density of ground based air defenses. The RUSAF also sends MIG escorts along with the SU-25’s due to Ukrainian Airforce CAP’s.

      BTW, so far, there are a couple of Companies in the eastern EU that are receiving vehicles from Ukraine that are damaged, need major repairs and service, or require upgrades. With some logistics and training, this would be another option to support Freeing the Leopards.

      Reply
    91. 91.

      Chetan Murthy

      @Jay: [by way of saying that you’re speaking what is at some level well-substantiated conclusions] The interview with Justin Bronk says many of the same things about fighter planes.

      Reply
    94. 94.

      Chetan Murthy

      Boy howdy.  I wonder what’s the betting line on the SPD-led coalition falling apart.  Both the Free Democrats and the Greens seem to understand the importance of making this happen, and the SPD …. is painting itself as appeasers.

      Importante déclaration de la ministre 🇩🇪 Annalena Baerbock à ⁦@DariusRochebin⁩ ⁦@LCI⁩ , qui rompt avec le flou du chancelier Olaf Scholz sur la livraison des chars Leopard 2 à 🇺🇦:
      “Si la Pologne livre ses chars Leopard à l’Ukraine, l’Allemagne ne s’y opposera pas.” pic.twitter.com/1CO7F1SDCu

      — MarionVan Renterghem (@MarionVanR) January 22, 2023

      “If Poland delivers its Leopard tanks to Ukraine, Germany will not oppose it”.

      Reply
    95. 95.

      Chetan Murthy

      Via dKos, more thuds and screams from the Topkapi Palace: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/01/22/us-reads-riot-act-germany-refusal-send-leopard-tanks-ukraine/

      Germany has said it will only allow the export of Leopards if the United States also supplies its own Abrams tanks to Ukraine.

      Mr Austin reportedly argued in vain that deploying the US tank would be unnecessarily difficult and time-consuming when there are hundreds of Leopard IIs already in Europe.

      Later Jake Sullivan, president Joe Biden’s national security advisor, read “the riot act” to Jens Plotner, Mr Scholz’s foreign policy advisor, the paper reported.

      Lots more at the link.  Paywall was obstreperous; I got around it by hitting the URL, then rapidly doing a CTRL-P (“print preview”) and reading the generated PDF.

      Reply
    97. 97.

      Another Scott

      John Deere and Caterpillar and similar corps should be setting up factories in Ukraine.

      (Stripping hashtag links)

      Team work of the tractor troops to pull the Ukrainian MAZ-537 from the mud trap.
      #UkraineRussiaWar #War #Ukraine #UkraineWar #Україна #ЗСУ pic.twitter.com/bmoia5e0jO
      — AlexRaptor (@AlexRaptor94) January 22, 2023

      (via Oryx)

      Cheers,
      Scott.

      Reply
    98. 98.

      Chetan Murthy

      @Omnes Omnibus: Oh, sorry, the Topkapi Palace was an Ottoman Palace where the Ottoman sultans lived, the Seraglio was there, and in legend, when succession battles occurred, a lot of the action would take place there — you know, one son having all his half-brothers murdered, etc.  Hence, “screams and thuds from the Topkapi Palace” as a wry shorthand for “sub rosa bureaucratic infighting”.  I first encountered the phrase at Delong’s place, back in the day: https://www.bradford-delong.com/2006/04/more_thuds_and_.html .

      Reply
    99. 99.

      Chetan Murthy

      @Another Scott: Holy cow, if that’s recent, that’s one *warm* winter in UA.  I wonder where (generally speaking) that is.  It’s dated 22 Jan, maybe it was taken in late fall and only now released ?

      Reply
    101. 101.

      J R in WV

      I couldn’t finish reading the DER SPIEGEL report on the readiness of the German military. But the essence of the report can be spelled out in just a few words:

      There is no There There in the German military.

      From the Air Force and Navy to the traditional Army, nothing is combat ready. Nothing.

      Reply
    102. 102.

      Chetan Murthy

      I feel like we’re in Plato’s Cave ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave ) trying to figure out what the shadows on the wall signify:

      In the allegory “The Cave”, Plato describes a group of people who have lived chained to the wall of a cave all their lives, facing a blank wall. The people watch shadows projected on the wall from objects passing in front of a fire behind them and give names to these shadows. The shadows are the prisoners’ reality, but are not accurate representations of the real world. The shadows represent the fragment of reality that we can normally perceive through our senses, while the objects under the sun represent the true forms of objects that we can only perceive through reason.

      Reply
    106. 106.

      Chetan Murthy

      @Omnes Omnibus: I finally read the Spiegel piece.  It seems to me that there was one name that veritably shrieked thru it, by omission.  That of Scholz, of course.  The Cossacks Work For The Czar.

      Ah,  well.

      Reply
    107. 107.

      Omnes Omnibus

      @Chetan Murthy: To me, it indicates a problem that has been developing for quite a while.  Scholz is not the only one to blame.  It looks like the whole German political establishment decided that they would do the absolute minimum to meet NATO and other international commitments but that anything beyond that was unnecessary.  Events have caught them out.

      Reply
    108. 108.

      Chetan Murthy

      @Omnes Omnibus: Oh for certain you’re right about this.  But every leader has a responsibility to change the direction of a bad policy, or to own that bad policy.  That’s what being a leader *means*.  Instead, I feel like this piece lays the blame at (a) predecessors (bad, bad, *bad* predecessors!) and (b) underlings (Lambrecht).  That’s a *convenient* way of exculpating the leader.

      Reply
    109. 109.

      Another Scott

      @Chetan Murthy: Sholz has only been in office about 13 months or so (since December 8, 2021).

      Inflation was above 5% in Germany in January and February before the reinvasion, and has just started coming down from 10% recently. Inflation is toxic in Germany. Politicians in a strong unified government would have trouble under those circumstances – leaders of a 3-way coalition with very different party views would have a hugely difficult time.

      I’m not making excuses, just saying that it’s not easy for him and the German government.

      And that’s before one gets to the cultural earthquake of arguing that German tanks should be running around in a non-NATO country in a hot war against russia.

      I suspect Sholz, and Macron (he said that he’s not “vetoing” sending French tanks, but …), and the US, and the rest will figure out a way forward. But it will take some time because there are lots of moving parts and lots of governments and publics with very different views have to get on board. The public arguments is probably part of the process of bringing the public on board.

      We’ll see!

      Slava Ukraini!!

      Cheers,
      Scott.

      Reply
    110. 110.

      Chetan Murthy

      @Another Scott:

      German tanks should be running around in a non-NATO country in a hot war against russia.

      From the leopard wikipedia article:

      Various versions have served in the armed forces of Germany and 13 other European countries, as well as several non-European nations, including Canada, Chile, Indonesia, and Singapore. The Leopard 2 was used in Kosovo with the German Army, in Afghanistan with the Dutch, Danish and Canadian contributions to the International Security Assistance Force, and saw action in Syria with the Turkish Armed Forces.

      They’re quite happy to sell them to non-NATO countries.  So maybe it’s the “customer uses them in self-defense against Russia” ?  Yeah, that seems like a really great bit of fine print in the contract: “you can’t actually use these to defend yourself, nosirreee”.

      Reply
    111. 111.

      Chetan Murthy

      @Another Scott: Germany sells Leopards to non-NATO countries no problemo.  LIke Indonesia.  So maybe the problem is if a non-NATO country uses them in self-defense against Russia?  Boy howdy some fine print in that contract!

      Reply
    112. 112.

      Another Scott

      @Chetan Murthy: We seem to be talking past each other, and reading the news out of Germany differently.

      My reading is that Germany is going to agree to send Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine in the near future (say, before March 1, maybe substantially before).  Scholz wants other NATO countries to provide him and Germany enough political cover, and his new defense minister wants to know the status of Leopard 2 tanks and the supply chains in Germany before speaking up on the details on what they’ll be providing and permitting.

      (Poland and the Baltic States screaming at him is part of the process, in my view, but it’s not enough.  Scholz will be asked how many tanks?  Scholz will be asked about supply chains for training and spare parts and all the rest.  If they start up production lines for Leopard 2 parts, what are they going to do about the newer tank that they’ve been talking about since 2014?)

      Don’t forget that up until 2014, Germany’s political consensus was that it was important to work with VVP’s russia, to try to draw it into Europe (and to provide Germany with cheap oil and gas inputs for their high-wage, export-driven economy).  2014 was a wake-up call, and 2022 was a political earthquake.  Political and governmental systems built on shrinking defense budgets and shrinking military inventories cannot turn on a time.

      It’s not at all the same, but remember the timeline after the Challenger explosion.  It was 2 years, 8 months, before the next mission flew (in the richest country in the world, in peacetime, without a 100-year pandemic, etc.).  When problems arise in big systems (and wars are big systems), it can take a seemingly inexplicably long time to respond and get on a new track.

      [eta:] I also think that the cultural changes (the reticence to actually overtly participate in another shooting war against russia) are delaying the process, but will be overcome.

      My $0.02.

      Cheers,
      Scott.

      Reply

    Leave a Comment

    Your email address will not be published.

    If you don't see both the Visual and the Text tab on the editor, click here to refresh.

    Clear Comment

    To reply to more than one person, click the X to save & close the box.