2022-2024 Russo-Ukrainian War

[Officer of Engineers]

Are going to end up like the LCS program i.e. something that no-one from their respective armed services ever wants to talk about in public.

At best, this would be the HMS SHEFFIELD, concepts proven wrong in combat. Yes, we are just as guilty as the Russians for hubris.

[Officer of Engineers]

Sorry but I would still regard a failure to properly fund your 'plan' as a major failure in planning. Because those plans for fighting any major war? Wouldn't be worth the paper they were written on? I would have thought the top military leadership should have been aware this.

No one is prepared to fight WWIII. They will have to build up, giving us time to build up. What they can send right now? Our AF can more than handle. Our guns can maul them in front of our advance.

Again, pre-Russo-Ukraine War NATO would have absolutely mauled the force that marched to KIev.

[Monash]

At best, this would be the HMS SHEFFIELD, concepts proven wrong in combat. Yes, we are just as guilty as the Russians for hubris.

But not of the grand scale we've seen displayed by Russia in Ukraine, across all branches of the Russian armed services, in multiple combat systems and supply chains and at all levels from top to bottom.

[Monash]

No one is prepared to fight WWIII. They will have to build up, giving us time to build up. What they can send right now? Our AF can more than handle. Our guns can maul them in front of our advance.

Again, pre-Russo-Ukraine War NATO would have absolutely mauled the force that marched to KIev.

True, but I wasn't arguing from the prospective of the here and now, rather commenting on the lack of readiness (munitions wise) apparent in NATO and elsewhere before the invasion of Ukraine i.e. not having stockpiled enough basic munitions to sustain its forces if not exactly at WW3 levels then at least at levels required for some potential major conflict in theaters other than Europe. And yes, its going to take Russia the best part of a decade to rebuild its army and air forces. And I doubt it will even be possible for it to rebuild/modernize its navy, at least its surface fleet to allow for significant force projection. And even then, referencing the army and air force it will basically mean reequipping units with existing (pre-war) systems, no 5th gen fighters, no Armata's, no 'wunder' weapons. They don't have the industrial/technical capacity or the money. So they'll be stuck back where they were in prior to the war with kit dating from the 2010s at best. Some specific niches like say air defense? They can probably afford and have the capabilities to stay relevant and competitive. The rest?

[Officer of Engineers]

But not of the grand scale we've seen displayed by Russia in Ukraine, across all branches of the Russian armed services, in multiple combat systems and supply chains and at all levels from top to bottom.

The Falklands War was every bit a wake up call as the Russo-Ukraine War. Three destroyers sunk because of poor design decisions: thin hulls allowing through and through missiles did NOT stop missiles to explode mid hit. Transport helos sunk with the cargo ship COULD ONLY be circumvented by foot, ie foot infantry carrying all his needed gear. Two small helo carriers with HARRIER fixed wings is no replacement for a proper carrier. The tenacity of the British infanteer overcame a lot of logistics and air defence difficulties but there were there nevertheless.

The AARs of the Falklands War did not do the Brits any favours.

[Officer of Engineers]

The rest?

What more do you want? We can overcome every force that is currently arrayed against us now and in the near future. We cannot and will not array against the Martians. The Soviets tried and they fell without a fight.

[Monash]

What more do you want? We can overcome every force that is currently arrayed against us now and in the near future. We cannot and will not array against the Martians. The Soviets tried and they fell without a fight.

I think you misunderstood my comment 'The rest?" I was referring to other specific fields of military technology (like air defense) where there was a chance the Russians could stay near the front of the curve and produce leading edge gear rather than being trapped for the next decade or so having to replace high value assets lost or worn out during the war with decade old designs, not new ones. It was not a reference to other nations armed forces.

[zraver]

I think you misunderstood my comment 'The rest?" I was referring to other specific fields of military technology (like air defense) where there was a chance the Russians could stay near the front of the curve and produce leading edge gear rather than being trapped for the next decade or so having to replace high value assets lost or worn out during the war with decade old designs, not new ones. It was not a reference to other nations armed forces.

One of the big surprises in Ukraine is just how dependent Russia is on used grey market chipsets. They lack the capability to make the chips themselves and so rely on the grey market to acquire chips we consider obsolete. Closing off Russia's access to western chip technology (assuming we can keep China from supplying them alternative chips) would doom Russia's R&D. Putin's mil-ind base is built on not having to do the heavy lifting when it comes to micro-electronics and computers but through being able to source and repurpose other nations' tech.

[Monash]

One of the big surprises in Ukraine is just how dependent Russia is on used grey market chipsets. They lack the capability to make the chips themselves and so rely on the grey market to acquire chips we consider obsolete. Closing off Russia's access to western chip technology (assuming we can keep China from supplying them alternative chips) would doom Russia's R&D. Putin's mil-ind base is built on not having to do the heavy lifting when it comes to micro-electronics and computers but through being able to source and repurpose other nations' tech.

Z, a big problem is that (according to sources I've read) a lot of relatively 'low end' commercial chips normally used in western consumer goods like TVs and white goods etc can be repurposed for military equipment. (And lacking any reports/evidence to the contrary I have no reason to believe this is not true.) So what Russia has allegedly been doing is 'importing' consumer goods from third parties like the 'Stans' and other countries with which it has close commercial ties and then stripping and repurposing specific components for military components.

Yes it's 'niche' and doesn't solve their basic inability to produce high end military electronics domestically but as stop gap measure? It has some value. The problem is it's extremely difficult if not impossible to completely shut off Russia's ability to import chips given they're ubiquitous in every day products that are not subject to sanctions.

As far as I'm concerned the best current weak point to attack would be critical third party intermediaries. For example the the EU, at the behest of the new labor Government in Britain is considering sanctioning Russian oil processed for sale by foreign refineries (think India etc) that purchase Russian crude oil and then process it and on-sell to other customers. Which is fine as far as it goes but in reality it simply means end users in the EU and GB wouldn't be able to purchase from these type of sources. IMO this idea needs to be expanded globally.

The other issue I would tackle is 3rd party maintenance of Russia's commercial airline fleet. Yes there are bans on selling spare parts to Russia itself. But the US and EU are in a position as the sole source of the needed components to extend those bans to include other nations (the Gulf States come to mind) that provide service facilities to Russian airliners flying into the counties concerned. As a nation Russia is heavily dependent on domestic air transport. Shutting off all sources of external maintenance would cause it major grief.

[Albany Rifles]

Sorry but I would still regard a failure to properly fund your 'plan' as a major failure in planning. Because those plans for fighting any major war? Wouldn't be worth the paper they were written on? I would have thought the top military leadership should have been aware this.

They were like the War & Navy departments Rainbow plans of the 1920s-30s. They were plans for contingencies but until funding came in 1940 the funding wasn't there to fully execute them.

I think our disconnect may be in phrasing...or something. We, DOD/Army, definitely planned. We did soup to nuts, even identifying the best vendors for the jobs. The Army has the lead for planning for all ammunition for artillery to small arms...that's why all of the government run facilities are Army sites and not DOD. So, yeah, we planned out the wazoo. But the wars & F-35s and ships got the yeoman's shares of budgets. We fell below cut lines except for PGM 155mm & MLRS/HIMARS ammo.

So I will concede a failure in execution but not a failure in planning.

And to be clear I am not speaking for other NATO members. They have their own failures to defend.

Not my zoo; not my monkeys.

[rj1]

https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-war...rohres-1929582

[Monash]

They were like the War & Navy departments Rainbow plans of the 1920s-30s. They were plans for contingencies but until funding came in 1940 the funding wasn't there to fully execute them.

I think our disconnect may be in phrasing...or something. We, DOD/Army, definitely planned. We did soup to nuts, even identifying the best vendors for the jobs. The Army has the lead for planning for all ammunition for artillery to small arms...that's why all of the government run facilities are Army sites and not DOD. So, yeah, we planned out the wazoo. But the wars & F-35s and ships got the yeoman's shares of budgets. We fell below cut lines except for PGM 155mm & MLRS/HIMARS ammo.

So I will concede a failure in execution but not a failure in planning.

And to be clear I am not speaking for other NATO members. They have their own failures to defend.

Not my zoo; not my monkeys.

Good post, and yes its partly a phrasing problem. I was thinking in in terms of a failure (at the top), in 'front end' planning not the 'back end' - in this case logistics planning. E.G. If you’re the guy in charge of preparing 'War Plan Orange' one of the important contingencies would be how much fuel and munitions might be needed and where it should be pre-positioned to best support rapid implementation of 'the plan' (if necessary). To my mind then it’s your job to ensure that both will be available in the quantities and locations required, not your logicians. In peace time their job is to plan for the acquisition of these consumables in the quantities specified and their maintenance in situ at those levels. If that is not possible then it's your job (again) to either make it possible or else come up with a new plan that works with what is possible. Not just shrug and say ‘Maah! we’ll worry about that later’.

[zraver]

Monash, we need a better enforcement regime for individuals, corporations and nations that are willingly acting as sanction busters.

[Monash]

Monash, we need a better enforcement regime for individuals, corporations and nations that are willingly acting as sanction busters.

Current sanctions need to be refined (pun intended). For example sure, sanctions were imposed on Russian oil exports to the west but countries like India didn't sign on because they were already heavily dependent on Russian oil imports before the war started. No problem, that's an understandable/justifiable position. What is the problem? Since the sanctions were imposed India has been importing significantly more oil because its' being offered for sale at a discount by Moscow. India wins Putin wins (sort of). The thing is though, refineries in India are processing Russian crude and then exporting it for sale on the international market and making windfall profits as a result. The solution? Identify and name the refineries concerned and threaten the operators of those refineries (and exports of oil by those refineries) with sanctions unless this stops. India can still import all it needs it for its own use. Meanwhile the Indian government needs to be reminded that officially India has abstained/remained neutral during the conflict and yes, that's their right. However this conduct represents de-facto support for Moscow's invasion of Ukraine since Russia benefits from these extra oil sales. As such those sales violate India's own stated position on the war.

Sounds simple when stated like this (and when is international diplomacy ever that 'simple') but that's the gist of what I would like to see happen.

P.S before I forget its the same thing with Russian civilian aviation. From memory (haven't researched this to confirm it) but while Russia is banned from importing parts for the western airliners in its possession it has been getting maintenance done by third parties i.e companies based in the few nations where Russian commercial flights are still welcome. So why not a blanket ban on third party repairs of Russian aircraft? i.e. alter the sanctions regime and issue an warning to all nations that from now on the national carriers of any country found to be servicing Russian aircraft will see their own national carriers banned from receiving western spare part support. The manufacturers know who's importing their spare parts and how much of it their importing. Catch one country doing it? And the mere threat of sanctions on own their airlines should see the everyone stop doing it.

[rj1]

Meanwhile the Indian government needs to be reminded that officially India has abstained/remained neutral during the conflict and yes, that's their right. However this conduct represents de-facto support for Moscow's invasion of Ukraine since Russia benefits from these extra oil sales. As such those sales violate India's own stated position on the war.

We're not going to do sh*t to India.