Thoughts and Comments on Current Russian,Ukrainian Conflict/War

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
It appears that Bakhmut has finally fallen. It only took Russia a year and tens of thousands of dead soldiers to move 25 km up the road from Popasna. Wagner is purportedly pulling out almost immediately, leaving the Russian army to try to hold those gains. Of course, Prigozhin has said before that he’s leaving, so take that with a grain of salt.
Kyiv disputes this.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65657621
Hard to say if the Russian position is third-and-inches and Ukraine is just holding a small area, or if the Ukrainians are trying to obscure what’s going on, or if one or more of the combatants are struggling to get accurate intel.

I’d be more inclined to believe the Ukrainian dispute more than the reports of Russian Pyrrhic victory but I have little doubt we’ll learn more soon.
 
I heard today that Bahkmut has been basically destroyed/flattened and there is no strategic advantage to Russia other than they took the city so Putin can claim a victory.
What the battle for Bakhmut tells us about the war in Ukraine -
 
I’d be more inclined to believe the Ukrainian dispute more than the reports of Russian Pyrrhic victory but I have little doubt we’ll learn more soon.
Regardless of who holds what fraction of a strategically insignificant town called Bakhmut, two interesting developments are afoot:
  1. Russians are pulling troops from other parts of their 1,000km (620 mile) front line as emergency reinforcements Bakhmut. Thus:
    • Weakening the line elsewhere, prime for future exploitation by Ukrainians.
    • Providing juicy targets for Himars strikes while troops are assembling for transport.
  2. Prigozin / Wagner are pulling their most experienced troops and best gear out of Bakhmut and are sending them to Sudan.
    • Maybe Prigozin knows his forces are spent and trapped, and he is trying to get a few of them out while he still can?
    • Maybe the ROI on business in Sudan is now higher than ROI on winning favors from Putin in Bakhmut?


 
I really struggle to fathom how Bakhmut is strategically insignificant given how much both sides have thrown into it?

Well, there are, actually, 3 active participants in the conflict, each one with its own agenda. Each one hates the other two:
  1. Russians (the aggressor), who have ~150K infantrymen in Ukraine as of now
  2. Ukrainians (the defender).
  3. Prigozin / Wagner - the opportunist who is aiming to win favors with Putin, who has (or had?) ~50K infantrymen of his own private army in Ukraine (some experienced, some not)
    • For some weird (random?) reason, Prigozin has gone "all-in" on making a name for himself in Bakhmut.
    • Politically, Bakhmut means everything to #3.
      • Politically, it means much less to #1 and #2.
      • Strategically and militarily, it means very little to #1 and #2.
        • Except that Ukraine is now using Bakhmut to tie up Russian and Prigozin resources around Bakhmut, at the expense of other areas of the front...

 
Retired USAF pilot at work says F16's would splashed pretty easily if they got anywhere near Russian forces.

I think the main advantage of the F16s is not the plane itself, but the radars and fire-control systems. They can acquire targets and shoot at them from a long distance.
 
I think the main advantage of the F16s is not the plane itself, but the radars and fire-control systems. They can acquire targets and shoot at them from a long distance.
He cynically thinks the pentagon would be happy to sacrifice a few planes and Ukrainian pilots to get some S400 signal intelligence and then maybe blast them with Himars.

He also shared the F16 has some capabilities that are classified but doubts those would be on the F16's provided to Ukraine.
 
Why do you care how our allies spend their money?
Good try Peartree, but a little shortsighted. I agree that where they will come from is still open for discussion. We may or may not supply some of ours. I do not know any more than your authority TB. However, Americans are going to provide training (along with allies). Somebody is going to pay for it.
 
He cynically thinks the pentagon would be happy to sacrifice a few planes and Ukrainian pilots to get some S400 signal intelligence and then maybe blast them with Himars.

He also shared the F16 has some capabilities that are classified but doubts those would be on the F16's provided to Ukraine.

This is the retired pilot who thinks this? I guess my reply to him would be that I don’t think the US is calling the shots on how to use the planes, other than maybe limits on attacking Russian territory. In other words, I don’t think the Ukrainians would have to agree to sacrifice the planes and their pilots to find S400s even if that’s what the US wanted, which seems unlikely in the first place.

On the other thing about the classified capabilities, I don’t know about that. I’m sure it’s a concern.
 
Good try Peartree, but a little shortsighted. I agree that where they will come from is still open for discussion. We may or may not supply some of ours. I do not know any more than your authority TB. However, Americans are going to provide training (along with allies). Somebody is going to pay for it.

I’m ok with the cost if we have to pay for training, and we give away some surplus planes for free, and we help pay to service and maintain them. It’s worth the money.
 
You're the one who replied to a comment that clearly said that President Biden had approved our allies request to give Ukraine F-16's. It did NOT say that he had approved the gifting, or the sale, of US stocks of F-16's (despite everyone else assuming exactly that).

My authority on international affairs is worth the electrons it disturbed to appear on your screen. President Biden 's authority is worth somewhat more.
Good try Peartree, but a little shortsighted. I agree that where they will come from is still open for discussion. We may or may not supply some of ours. I do not know any more than your authority TB. However, Americans are going to provide training (along with allies). Somebody is going to pay for i
 
You're the one who replied to a comment that clearly said that President Biden had approved our allies request to give Ukraine F-16's.
You failed to disclose the whole sentence. I never said a word about giving them the jets.

"It sounds like Biden is likely to give the OK for allies to provide F16s to Ukraine and to train Ukrainian pilots on their use" (emphasis added).

My comment stands.

Have a nice day.
 
I guess my reply to him would be that I don’t think the US is calling the shots on how to use the planes, other than maybe limits on attacking Russian territory.
You, he and I don't really know. His era was Desert Storm. Paraphrasing his opinion: the F16 is not very useful as a standalone asset. It is very capable however as part of coordinated operations in the US/NATO system, which the Ukraine doesn't have. He can't fathom how they could be used in Ukraine militarily. Politically yes.
 
I think the main advantage of the F16s is not the plane itself, but the radars and fire-control systems. They can acquire targets and shoot at them from a long distance.
It seems that the Ukrainian Pilots who are here in the US to be tested by the Air Force using simulators are quite impressed with their skills.

 
You failed to disclose the whole sentence. I never said a word about giving them the jets.

"It sounds like Biden is likely to give the OK for allies to provide F16s to Ukraine and to train Ukrainian pilots on their use" (emphasis added).

My comment stands.

Have a nice day.
Training Ukrainian pilots with foreign-supplied hardware, albeit American in origin, may be the least expensive option available. Leaving them to conduct meatgrider offensives with marginal air cover might end up being more costly when it comes time to rebuild. I don’t think it’s a bad assumption that the DoD or the intelligence community has run these numbers.

My guess is that Washington has concluded that the quicker the war ends with Ukrainian victory (barring escalation to WMD use or other combatants entering the fray, obviously), the less expensive it will be overall.

We’ve also discussed at length the value of preventing other aggressive invasions by making other dictatorships and rogue states hesitant to face the Western arms industries on the battlefield. I can think of two states this would conceivably deter: China and North Korea, regarding their ambitions in Taiwan and South Korea, respectively. Helping the Ukrainians fight their evil cousins in one war is clearly less expensive than helping the Taiwanese and the South Koreans fight theirs in two.
 
Further, I would argue that other than fuel, training has very little cost. We're using equipment that we already have and instructors that are on salary anyway. They'll bill the federal government on paper but in reality, we don't spend much. So they bump one American class to make room for a Ukrainian one. Odds are, at this point, we're not training new American pilots on F-16s anyway, but if so, they just catch back up by adding a couple seats to each of the next several classes.
 
Further, I would argue that other than fuel, training has very little cost.
The occasional "it costs too much", or "we are throwing money away", or "we should use that money for domestic program XYZ" are all thinly disguised efforts to support Russia at the expense of Ukraine and US interests. Asking authors of those comments to justify and explain them always falls on deaf ears.

I will renew my call - if anyone can articulate a coherent argument as to why we should NOT be doing everything possible to help Ukraine win, do speak up and share your argument. I genuinely want to hear it.

Otherwise, I will call it as I see it - parroting of Russian propaganda by those Kremlin itself has historically called "useful idiots".

a
 
IIRC the Kinzha is only hypersonic during boost. After that it is continually slowing. It is supposed to be a maneuvering glide vehicle. Same thing with the Chinese hypersonic. Only during boost.
I'm curious to learn more about how Kinzal and Chinese hypersonic missiles are intended to work, but there is a dearth of detailed public records on that subject.
Do you have any sources on Kinzal flight profile that you could share?

From my understanding, the difference between classic basilic missiles (which can and do reach hypersonic speeds) and "new" hypersonic missiles is that the latter fly lower, inside the atmosphere, and use air to change trajectory in flight. Thus, they can fly on a less predictable and lower trajectory path, which is harder to detect and provides lower reaction time to intercept.

From that perspective, it makes little sense for Kinzal (or Chinese hypersonic glide missile) to slow down in the final phase of flight. Once accelerated to Mach 5-10, some kinetic energy dissipation will happen during maneuvering, but it would not make much sense to shed so much of it as to drop into sub-hypersonic flight speeds.

What is more likely is that Kinzal, just like the Iskander that it is based on, is a ballistic missile with limited course correction capability, that can reach hypersonic speeds. More easily so by Kinzal due Migs effectively providing the first stage of acceleration for the missile.
Chinese hypersonic glide vehicle HGV missile, on the other hand, is boosted by one of Chinese ballistic missiles to Mach 5-10 speeds, then glides through atmosphere at hypersonic speeds.
Unless, of course, Chinese are lying as much as the Russians!

Either way, it's very impressive that Patriot battery managed to intercept 6 out of 6 Kinzals that were fired at it!

1684780748312.png
 
You, he and I don't really know. His era was Desert Storm. Paraphrasing his opinion: the F16 is not very useful as a standalone asset. It is very capable however as part of coordinated operations in the US/NATO system, which the Ukraine doesn't have. He can't fathom how they could be used in Ukraine militarily. Politically yes.
The consensus isn't clear-cut; at least according to newsweek regarding a direct battle with Su-35s:
https://www.newsweek.com/russian-su35-junk-ukraine-f16-fighter-jets-1788446https://www.newsweek.com/russia-su35-fighter-jet-ukraine-f16-1801830
Of course, irrespective, there's still the SAMs to worry about which could render much of that moot(ish).

TP
 
If you land one bomb in a solar field, the solar field is capable of adjusting output in real time based on failures?
Per the article:
"Nor did he and others expect solar panels to become targets. Given the small scale of the projects, it would not make sense for Russian to use one of its expensive and scarce missiles to go after solar panels on roofs, he said."
 
If you land one bomb in a solar field, the solar field is capable of adjusting output in real time based on failures?
I can't speak to the specific panels installed in Ukraine, but in general, solar panels are installed in strings. If the panels are just outputting DC, then the string will have panels wired in series, with the number of panels set to give a convenient total DC voltage output. The strings will then be wired either to an inverter for each string or with several strings combining. More modern panels have an AC inverter integrated into the panel. In that case, the strings feed the grid in parallel. A utility-scale array might feed to one or more step-up transformers if the utility wants to transport the power at a higher voltage than 110/220/480.

Bombing damage would take out the string of panels and any connecting wiring that was damaged, but the remaining panels would stay operational. Connecting wiring would be fairly straightforward to repair. If the array is generating 3-phase power, it's possible that you'd get some phase imbalances that could make you need to shut down some additional panels to even out the phases.
 
I can't speak to the specific panels installed in Ukraine, but in general, solar panels are installed in strings. If the panels are just outputting DC, then the string will have panels wired in series, with the number of panels set to give a convenient total DC voltage output. The strings will then be wired either to an inverter for each string or with several strings combining. More modern panels have an AC inverter integrated into the panel. In that case, the strings feed the grid in parallel. A utility-scale array might feed to one or more step-up transformers if the utility wants to transport the power at a higher voltage than 110/220/480.

Bombing damage would take out the string of panels and any connecting wiring that was damaged, but the remaining panels would stay operational. Connecting wiring would be fairly straightforward to repair. If the array is generating 3-phase power, it's possible that you'd get some phase imbalances that could make you need to shut down some additional panels to even out the phases.

Maybe it is better software connected than I thought, but that is another separate weakness. Usually something that damages a significant portion of power generators, causes large amounts of downstream/collateral damage, and subsequent further damage to end-users equipment. When things get overtaxed and shorted......... Well, we'll see.

I'm not making light of or being pessimistic about it. I just have doubts that a solar field is any less susceptible to strategic damage than a conventional generator, except that it may only be a percentage loss of largely foreign sourced products that only produce in the daytime, rather than a complicated machining loss of something that works all the time. So, if you asked me, I would agree that wrecking a solar field would be less disruptive to American life than destroying a gas turbine, coal fired, or nuclear sourced generator.

If I had a dollar for every time I had an electrical product salesman tell me that his products would: Deal with lightning, handle transient voltage issues, be unsusceptible to bad ground loops, be hot swappable in emergency, etc..... I wouldn't be working.

Dealing with war and/or shrapnel generating explosives, isn't part of what most deal with, and isn't part of any design I'm aware of.
 
Back
Top