News from Ukraine:
NEW: Russia has launched more than 300 sorties into Ukraine the last 24 hours: senior U.S. defense official.
🇷🇺 sorties are not "venturing very far and very long" into 🇺🇦 airspace, the official said. Russia still has more than 60 percent of fixed wing and rotary wing capability.
— Jack Detsch (@JackDetsch) March 21, 2022
Huh. So after three weeks 40% of all Russian aircraft have either been destroyed or are in nonworking condition. I'm just a civilian, but that sure seems like a lot. One thing we seem to have discovered during the Ukraine war is that Russia's air force really sucks.
I keep feeling pulled in opposite directions by things I read.
On the one hand I've been seeing that if we wait five or six days the Russian army will be such a disaster it will just collapse, on the other hand I watch scenes from Mariupol and the bombardment of Kyiv and I think it's time to call Putin's bluff, I don't think they would use a tactical nuke or any other kind of nuke.
It's collapse offensively. They can't do any more attacks in a week. Just consolidate what they have.
The Russian army is huge. It's hard to imagine Ukraine beating them outright no matter how well they do.
Unfortunately for Ukraine, there are good strategic reasons for US policy to lengthen the war and make it as bloody as possible for Russia without directly involving US troops.
The Russian army might have more missiles, but in numbers of troops it's equal to Ukraine's.
Ukraine might only have a tenth the GDP of Russia... But the Ukraine has a third of the population. And they've been fighting this war for eight years, with a draft and reserve build-ups. Their trained reserves are about 4x the size of Russia's, and the number of Ukrainian troops that had seen actual combat is about 90x.
The one serious mistake the Ukrainians made was prewar. If you are going to build your strategy around territorial defense units engaged in irregular tactics, you need to be training them long before you need them. They're throwing hopelessly unskilled volunteers into the fight. They should have started large scale training in 2014. This is the Finnish model, with a militia that has some idea of what they are doing.
Other than that, they've handled this superbly.
Unfortunately for Ukraine, there are good strategic reasons for US policy to lengthen the war and make it as bloody as possible for Russia without directly involving US troops.
Bingo.
Culminating point of victory ≠ collapse.
According to the Clasuewitzean theory people are referring to, if you do not achieve your military goals by the time you reach your culminating point of victory, you may not because you have lost the ability to continue your attack.
That appears to be what's happening there.
But that doesn't mean you can't send in new units or whatever. It just means that the current attack hasn't done what they set out to make it do.
Since they used a substantial amount of their ground power to do this, it's really up to them if they want to pull people out of other sectors or if they are trained, etc.
But one offensive stalling out doesn't mean a war is over.
Informed ex-KGB colleagues and other informed (and not friendly) observers rather believe that in fact Putin and upper command would use tactical / battlefield nuclear devices.
No one informed has said the Russian military will collapse im X days.
What has been said is their offensive capacity will collapse (meaning ground assualt, taking ground by troops). Not the same thing at all.
How many sorties before the aircraft need long term overhauls?
Compound that with lack of maintenance, lack of fuel, lack of training....and actual losses in the field....
Explains why we're not seeing Russian combined arms attacks...
I am told that five senior Russian generals have been killed in the last three weeks of war. If true, that would explain both the lack of progress of the Russian forces and the ferocity of the attack on Ukrainian civilians.
Russians need experienced NCOs more than high-echelon generals. You can replace the latter. You can't grow the former except over time.
I heard that Russia is so short on generals that they may recall Michael Flynn to active duty. 😉
Yeah, I know. 🙂
https://twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1504945518115532806
40% losses would be more than 1,600 planes so I doubt that very much. More likely, they didn't start off with 100% capacity. Who ever has that anyway? There are always aircraft in repair or decrepit or without pilots or idle for other reasons.
According to this,
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-russian-militarys-heavy-losses-from-ukraine-in-charts-2022-3?op=1
Russia has lost 15 fixed wing aircraft, can that actually represent 40% of the working aircraft they had going in to this?
I think it is a combination of two things, if the % is actually correct.
1. Only a part of the Russian airforce was assigned to the invasion.
2. Planes in combat need extra maintenance. There can be many helicopters or planes that are not destroyed, but are otherwise not fit to fly because they lack critical replacement parts or sufficient mechanics in theatre.
remember this is a war of choice with no urgency to attack and plenty of time to marshal their forces. sort of like the japanese trying to attack pearl harbor with half their fleet in dry dock. it's another indication that a) the russians did not take ukraine seriously and b) their armed forces aren't very good. if the stories about oligarchs siphoning off billions from the russian defense budget are true, it seems to me maintenance/logistics is a prime area where it would show up. it ain't sexy and it ain't obvious. you don't parade spare parts.
+1, and a chuckle for “you don’t parade spare parts”
Down 40% capability ≠ 40% destroyed
Some are destroyed. Some may need spare parts. etc.
They were doing about 200 sorties a day throughout most of the past month. So they are pushing. This suggests they need the air power to eithet A: blunt Ukrainian counter attacks or B: Need to hurry up and reduce those cities because they will collapse soon. Also I think it's 60% of available theater assets not total air power.
yep. i'm sure the russians have both air and ground forces tied up watching their western flank just in case ...
Or perhaps all those MANPADs are that good or plentiful.
It probably does suck, but not every craft is 100% flyable either. Some of the maintenance cycles on modern aircraft are ridiculous.
Still, it's Russia. I remember reading that something like 40% of it's nukes weren't going anywhere either, thing is, they still had 60% that would go somewhere.
I have read elsewhere that airspace battles can involve many, many different elements, including very different aircraft with differing capabilities, SAM batteries, detection equipment of various types, EWAR elements, and counter EWAR, down to MANPADs. Coping with all of this at once is something that nobody's airforce trains to do, except for the USAF. (I heard this from a USAF person, so factor in a bit of pride.) But clearly the RA is not doing this. They are nibbling away. In some sense their reliance on conscripts and doctrine really hurts them here, since an airspace battle can be highly fluid and require a lot of coordination and communication.
No, they were not prepared for this. That's good. I think the depletion is due to a combination of UA effectiveness, poor training, and a bad maintenance situation. I believe that they were not prepared for what has happened - they did not expect this.
I do not, however, expect an imminent collapse. They will continue to do the thing they do well, which is artillery (and missiles as artillery). It will hurt. I don't know how this ends.
I do know that every aircraft or helicopter the UA takes out puts more pressure on Moscow and Putin. This is not an organization that copes well with bad news.
60% of their ENTIRE fleet? Or 60% of what was staged for the Ukrainian "special exercise"?
Evidently the Russians are lacking in the sort of active infrared jamming devices which are standard for the USAF. The active devices are reportedly far more effective than the Russian strategy of just spraying out a bunch of flares behind you and praying. The result is few Russian aircraft hang around below 15,000 feet where they are vulnerable to man launched IR guided missiles. Even above 15,000 ft Russian manned aircraft are timid, probably because of reports of the Ukrainians receiving Russian built S-300 long range anti-aircraft missile systems from friendly eastern European countries.
The expanded use of smart missiles in Ukraine is raising questions as to the continued usefulness of both heavy tanks and manned aircraft.
I have heard similar concerns about the Indian Air Force's Russian made Su-30 MKI planes, which form the backbone of the IAF.
One or two more generations of ‘smart’ weapons, operating with greater autonomy, and in swarms, and I think that armored vehicles will go the way of battleships. Same with heavy artillery. When a two-person team with a device costing in five figures can take out a multimillion-dollar vehicle or gun and it’s crew, and move before taking return fire, the advantage is with the agile force.
Interesting article in The Atlantic by Eliot Cohen ‘Why can’t the West admit that Ukraine is winning?’
I sure hope he’s right.
Honestly, my own caution is from the sense that it ain't over until its over.
The things he mentions are quite relevant, for sure. And reason to hope. And yet, there are turns of events that can surprise. Also, as a civilian, I mostly know that the first casualty of war is the truth. So again, I'm cautious.
Haven't read the article, but in addition to what Doctor Jay says about things not being over until they are, which would give a huge political hit to whomever says Ukraine is winning only for in the end Putin getting some kind of victory (I don't think he'll manage full control of Ukraine, but keeping control long term over certain parts, even if under constant guerrilla attacks, is still very possible). I think the other reason is morale and support.
Unless there is real Ukrainian progress pushing Russians back into Russia, as opposed to simply being incredibly effective at stopping or slowing them, which is what they've done so far, calling it Ukraine winning carries a big risk that people in Western nations may start opposing continued support for Ukraine, since they are already winning, so why the continuous need to help them out, and if in reality is more like holding on, that can turn things around in a hurry.
I understand a certain need to highlight Ukraine success, so it doesn't feel hopeless and wither support internally and externally.
Yet the more I dig the more it feels that the Russians are proceeding as planned. Everything is taking much longer than planned, they look terrible in the process, and global/internal reaction hasn't been great for them.
A former US army infantry soldier, has been highlighting aspects of their deployment and how they are proceeding regardless of the news reports. Methodically deploying all the infra for the encirclement, bombardment, and push with seasoned troops. To the point of laying pipelines from Belarus to shorten the supply line. Very informative and concerning for the next few weeks.
Ukraine War: What the West Doesn't Understand EP 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5BAZ2bBUzM
I don’t think it’s proceeding as planned at all. For several weeks, Russian forces have advanced very little in most areas, and have resorted to shelling and bombing rather indiscriminately. They may hope to demoralize the population (something that rarely works), but destroying schools, apartment buildings and theaters does nothing to degrade Ukraine’s military capabilities. Weeks after beginning hostilities, Russia took the risk of using its hypersonic missiles, apparently the only long-range precision weapons they have left able to hit actual military targets (the risk is that one fails to detonate and falls into opponents’ hands). I doubt that was planned, otherwise why not use them from the start?
I didn’t look at the video, but I scanned down scores of comments, all of which at the first level were lavishly laudatory. They read like sock puppetry. Makes me wonder if the whole thing is disinformation. I don’t think resurrected Sun Tzu could put up a YouTube analysis of this war and not get dissent.
Also, the famous 60-kilometer convoy. If it wasn’t going to engage the Ukrainians, why not just leave ‘em all parked in Belarus out of harm’s way? It’s only a 3-hour drive from Kyiv. Please tell me what the brilliant plan was there?
The problem with this is that Cappy's predictions have not been very accurate and they seem to all involve an excessively optimistic view of Russian capability. The best example of this is contained in the most recent video he posted on the subject. He predicts (from Wednesday of last week) that within a week Kyiv will be encircled. Well, no. Not even close. In fact, the Ukrainians have taken back some ground in the western suburbs.
Come now.
- Russia's already lost 20% of its tanks currently inside Ukraine.
- Russia's lost at least 15 planes and 35 helicopters.
- In total, Russia has lost over 1700 vehicles and equipment in Ukraine.
- They've lost at least 14% of their committed fighting personnel.
- They're running low on precision guided munitions.
- They're begging for supplies and personnel from other countries to help.
- Intercepted communications suggest that many Russian soldiers are suffering from frostbite and several generals have been killed.
Think about it. What's the point of laying pipelines in a hot war? They're fixed assets ripe for picking off, particularly when Russia cannot control the airspace and has mostly avoided Ukrainian airspace out of fear of being shot down.
That's not what it says. It says that they are at 60% capability. That could be for lots of reasons and could be only referring to in-theater.
Sarah Kendzior (Gaslit Nation) suggests that one reason the military is not doing well is that, in his paranoia, Putin has been purposely weakening the military to avoid threats to his power.
I don't know if this is true but it is an interesting point.
It would be interesting if there was a major uprising in Belorus right about now.
Given this underperformance, if I am Malaysian Airlines I am nervous.
Putin going to lash out.
I think Detsch got some things wrong. What the SDO said:
...
If you're interested, use this link directly to Defense website -- defense.gov/News/News-Stories/ -- and look for the Senior Defense Official (SDO) briefings. They don't happen every day, but they're filled with lots of info
Detsch later:
"Clarification: US believes that Russia has committed more than 60 % of their fixed wing & rotary wing capability to the war in Ukraine, per senior US defense official. My wording was confusing."
https://twitter.com/JackDetsch/status/1506034124687040526