British F-35Bs to bring vertical landing abilities to highways
thedrive.com
thedrive.com
Similar strips exist in Finland, Poland, Sweden and Switzerland. Though most of the German locations are now retired and removed.
The Ukrainian Air Force has found a new clever way to keep using normal air bases. After a hangar got bombed by cruise/ballistic missiles they would print a 1:1 aerial/satellite picture of the rubble, hang it over the actual rubble and then clean up under the print. It took quite a few weeks for the Russians to understand this ruse.
The doctrine of always having air superiority in NATO (and thus not needing makeshift runways) is so far rather justified given the hilarious level of incompetence shown by the VKS. Although the RAF seems to be more anxious about it, they definitely know much more than me. We do need a lot more air defense though, it's clear that before the next NATO-Russia confrontation they will have a rich arsenal of flying trashcans like the Shahed, as well as some decent missiles.
This sounds very interesting! Any sources?
https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/special-r...
BTW, if you like reading longer reports on the technical/military aspects of this war then I can recommend RUSI. I haven't seen a better source so far. They release a report every now and then.
A critical weakness of the Russian strike campaign was battle damage assessment. First, the Russian military appears to have presumed that if an action had been ordered and carried out then it had succeeded, unless there was direct evidence to the contrary. Evidence of success appears to have disproportionately relied on three data points: confirmation from pilots that they hit their target; confirmation from Russian satellites that a site showed damage; and confirmation from signals intelligence (SIGINT) that Ukrainians reported a strike and damage to their equipment. Russian satellite reconnaissance proved very limited, even though Russian survey space reconnaissance of Ukraine has been conducted since at least 2012, and detailed reconnaissance, in the interests of invasion planning, since mid-2021. A probable reason for this may be the insufficient number of satellites in the orbital grouping of the VKS and the overestimation of their technical capabilities. Indirect confirmation of this explanation is provided by the fact that the AFRF began buying additional satellite images of the territory of Ukraine and individual military facilities on the world market in April 2022. One of the visible failures of satellite intelligence is the inability to detect on time a significant volume of strategic railway movements by the UAF, which, in March 2022 amounted to three–four echelons per day.
The poor Russian battle damage assessment process made the Russian military highly vulnerable to deception, which has been consistent throughout the conflict. Early strikes on Ukrainian airfields, for example, destroyed many hangars. By photographing this damage and printing the resulting pattern on to sheets, it became possible to clear the rubble and erect covers for aircraft to return to the site, sheltering in positions that the Russians would confirm as destroyed. This led – somewhat amusingly – to the Russians debating whether Ukrainian fighter aircraft were operating from subterranean shelters at several sites. Repeated strikes on dummy air-defence positions also saw a considerable wastage of ammunition, while Ukrainian troops could confirm that sites were destroyed over the radio even when they were still functioning, causing Russian aircraft to ignore air-defence systems in their mission planning. The already-publicly reported use of dummy HIMARS (high mobility artillery rocket system) later in the war to lure Russian fires is indicative of the systematic use of deception to ensure survivability by the UAF, and it has proven widely effective.
The presumption of success caused the Russian military to take several unjustifiable risks in the disposition of its forces during the first 72 hours of the conflict. Aircraft did not fly with EW pods during the opening phase as they were not deemed necessary following the presumed success of the strike campaign. Similarly, Russian manoeuvre forces were not properly supported by air-defence units and Russian air-defence units were told to presume that aircraft were friendly. This enabled a significant number of ground-attack sorties by the Ukrainian Air Force, including using UAVs such as TB2, against Russian formations, even when they had attached air-defence units. Ukraine suffered aircraft losses in air-to-air engagements, however.
But yeah you're right, national and collective defense strategies should not rely too much on VKS' weaknesses, that's not the only potential problem.
However, the fact they are just now starting to issue body armor to their soldiers and have not had any real combat experience in the modern age might be difficult challenges to overcome.
It's a lot different to push around your effectively unarmed neighbors than the US, who has been in large scale military conflicts since the 40's. To put it in perspective, the US spends over 800 billion dollars per year on the military. It's more than the next 10 countries, combined.
Still, the us spends more than 2.5x per year than China.
As far as I could tell after a bar argument, this is more or less an urban legend[0]. While the referenced article only debunks the "Every 5 miles" myth, further (brief) reading led me to believe if there were ever any designed airstrips into the interstate system they were short-lived and likely very one-offish style programs.
[0] - https://highways.dot.gov/public-roads/mayjune-2000/one-mile-...
Sorry for offtopic, but I (evidently) got triggered by the inclusion of the word 'unprofitable' in your reply
but otherwise yes? I don't think airports like IAD should run at a loss. they are very expensive to operate and primarily serve commercial airlines. the gate fees and retail rents should absolutely offset that, and if they don't, the airport should be closed.
Or restructured to be profitable. IAD is a good example of where there is clearly enough demand and example of similar scale airports being run effectively. So if they are running at big losses (no idea, not something I've researched) then that to me implies bad management (or poor political constraints) rather a fundamental business model problem.
If they add enough value to justify their existence, shouldn't they also turn a profit?
In all other cases, you are just taxing people who don't benefit from those airports to subsidize the few people who do benefit.
Only if you assume the nonexistence of (or perfect ability to internalize through regulation) externalities (specifically, here, positive externalities.)
large airports overwhelmingly serve for-profit airlines and freight carriers. I'd argue a lot of this activity should really be moved to rail. but either way, it seems that the businesses involved should cover the cost to operate.
smaller airports are mostly used by hobbyists. while cool, this is not a particularly accessible hobby, and I don't feel it is worth subsidizing.
the only exceptions I can think of are airfields in remote communities (Alaska, islands, etc), and strategic locations that are desirable to the military.
Also many municipal airports serve as a beacon to help folks flying at night to get around.[1]
Now, not every unprofitable service is worthy of government funding.
There are public services we choose to run at a loss, like the postal service or public transit. These services definitely could raise their prices in order to turn a profit (they provide enough value that people would still pay the higher prices). We choose to run them at a loss as a sort of wealth redistribution program, where the taxes from the rich subsidize the cost of these services for the poor.
Hand-waving that away because it is wealth redistribution is invalid.
Profit is not a prerequisite of value.
Profit should not be the driving force of every mechanism in society.
Caveat, not every public service which costs money is able to cost too much. Rejecting the profit motive is not equal to rejecting a bounded budget for programs.
If we only put out fires if the property owner has paid their fire fighting fees the fire might uncontrollably spread to other properties, so we are better off just having a public fire fighting service. Every trucking company paying for their own armed escorts is much more expensive than taxes financing a police force that ensures safe travel. Transportation infrastructure, no matter if that's streets, subways or airports, promotes trade and efficient resource use by allowing people and resources to get to places more easily.
It's no different from building roads or sewage systems - you don't try to directly capture the building cost from the people using them because the higher order benefits from having a healthy, growing, functional society (both in the general wellbeing of the population, and in tax revenue) outweigh that.
These benefits are incredibly hard to quantify and likely don't even really directly/immediately affect the people using the transport. If the airport increased prices to try to capture that value in profit they would just be adding that friction back into the system and the benefits would disappear again.
The only effect on the "public good" is to serve a handful of rich hobbyist. And potentially as national defense infrastructure, which I guess is why the feds fund them.
That's probably not a useful data point, as bush planes are massively different from warplanes. A Pilatus PC6 is one of the largest "bush planes" and at max weight, is 1/3 the weight of an empty F-18 and needs 1/5 as much runway to takeoff with no jet blast concerns
That's disappointing. It sounded so cool! The part of this story I recall is that overpasses were spaced widely enough to avoid interfering with airplanes should they need to find a landing spot.
It’s not that they were built for the military, but the advantages to the military were also obvious.
https://www.eisenhowerlibrary.gov/research/online-documents/...
To add - this is a more trodden upon path than many realize. The RAF trained extensively on establishing dispersed airfields for the Harrier force. They dedicated a lot of resources to being able to conduct dispersed operations from modified fields (fields, not airfields) https://youtu.be/QOf1AAf1yqc.
The US Marine Corps’ F-35B community has limited experience with what I’d semi-austere forward arming/refueling points(FARPs).
F-35B landing at FARP. https://youtu.be/le4W1Pk-Dn8
There is enough here about the challenges of fast jets off of roadways and poor condition airfields. I’ll just add that a jet is only as capable as its ground crew, spares, available munitions and fuel stores, so getting those things to a remote strip and protecting them is a big challenge and resource drain. The UK armed forces are already stretched quite thin for personnel so how operable this concept is TBD.
People with an interest in dispersal should watch this video https://youtu.be/MNak9lB_q00 and read this wiki - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bas_90. The nordics really expect much of their aviation infrastructure to be destroyed in a conventional conflict and plan accordingly.
Here's another video talking a bit about the costs of dispersal, and costs basically being the reason for not doing it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-lcu2kBXQI
Setting up redundant hangars and staffing them with trained aircraft mechanics is way, way more expensive than just pouring some extra concrete. Stocking them with the missiles your F-35s are going to need to actually perform missions also requires staffing, perimeter security, hardened bunkers...
It can be done, and is probably a good idea. But it's not a "one easy trick makes your air force invulnerable"-style lifehack.
I believe the targeting problem created by dispersal outweighs these downsides, but they’re real and have to be mitigated. That costs time, money and people.
Bas 90 had an extreme amount of dispersion because Sweden's threat model included nuclear weapon strikes with no way to retaliate. If you're a nuclear power and assume that nuclear attacks on military targets would automatically escalate to MAD, then you might feel better about doing a dozen megabases, rather than a gross highway airfields.
In Czechia we are replacing Gripens that can operate from almost anywhere. It only needs a few hundred meters of road, and single truck to refuel and restock ammunition.
Our new F35 will only be able to operate from a single runway in entire country!
And yes, for full maintenance, you do need need a proper airport and hangars. But for a quick refuel/arm and launch, you don't need that much. It's a trade off in capabilities: do you want to have a highway strip launch capability, or do you want something that is much less likely to get shot down. It's doubtful that the F-35 will only be able to operate at a single runway, unless your country only has one runway. It should be capable of operating off nearly any concrete runway you have (highways are typically not constructed to the same standards as a runway).
There are also civilian airports, but we would propably run out of those very soon. And using civilian infrastructure for military purposes (like bombing foreign country) would not be politically very digestible!
I don't know where you heard that but it's completely untrue. Some older radar absorbent material required intensive maintenance but the F-35 is not like that. It's not that much more difficult to maintain than a previous generation fighter. It would be completely impractical to operate if you needed to completely overhaul it every flight.
>It would be completely impractical to operate if you needed to completely overhaul it every flight.
And? Maybe it is every 2nd or 10th flight, that does not make it much more practical. Cost for operating F35 is astronomical. Old Soviet airplanes we had could take of from grassy fields!
And who's going to sell you replacement parts anyway if your principal adversary is also your plane supplier? You want suppliers that don't threaten to nuke you every other week.
Soviet planes came at a much higher cost...
- right now we have fighters from Sweden (not Soviet design obviously)
- Soviet planes came with technical plans, we would be probably capable to fix them by our selves to huge extend. Ukraine maintained their Soviet planes for 10 years during war. Also we manufactured some airplanes ourself, and even today Czechia produces fighter jets.
- Many countries produces Soviet derived planes and spare parts. Ukraine, India, China.. Half of world operates those, and there is a huge market.
- For Slovakia (and other NATO countries) that operate Migs, Russia was actually supplying spare until very recently. They sabotaged spare parts AFTER it was announced that Migs were going to be send to Ukraine, which was against the support contract.
Nobody in Ukraine would agree with this. For keeping Russian fighters out of your airspace, sure, ground based air defense is great. For taking your territory back, it cannot substitute for jet fighters.
> Jet fighters for air superiority are obsolete.
No they aren't. Why do you think Ukraine is asking for F-16s. You can deny air superiority to the enemies with good air defense, but not establish it for yourself.
And nobody really provided any solid numbers. If numbers are good, it would be easy to prove.
There is a lawsuit going in Switzerland. Swiss do not believe official maintenance cost.
Other countries (Japan and South Korea) have stealth program that has similar issues. Some disagreements with F35. South Korea fighter should cost 30% of F35 maintenance. But that goes into spare parts and features, not coating...
And frankly Russian program ran into a lot of troubles and cost overruns with stealth fighters. I believe Russians have better science and technical knowledge to deliver such airplane cheaply (without software integration). And they did not made any breakthrough that would magically reduce maintenance costs.
I also fail to see how the Russians are in a better position to build a stealth plane (cheaply or otherwise) when historically they've always been behind the US in that regard.
Anyway, opinions aside, big claims should be backed up with evidence and I'm not seeing anything that supports the idea that the F-35 needs that level of maintenance.
F-35 has internal bomb bays, and those have to be opened and closed to add bombs. Those have to be resealed to maintain stealth. It has polymer based coating, how that stuff survives transsonic speeds with friction and heat?
F-22 maintenance cost was quoted at $72000 per flight hour (10 years ago). Stealth used as main cause. Is F-35 somehow different or cheaper?
Russians do not have cost overruns and technical feature creep, the way US does. Go ask on military forums. Problem are finances, not science.
Anyway, I do not believe claim that F-35 needs extensive and expensive maitenance is somehow extraordinary. "Overhaul" of stealth coat cold be some spray on stuff and inspection.
F-35 has a long track of cost overruns and proper maintenance cost is yet unknown.
You're doing a lot of guesswork to reach your conclusions. You have no idea which parts of the F-22 are more fragile and require frequent changes or if the F-35 uses the same materials as the F-22. You're assuming that flaws from the F-22 haven't been fixed for the F-35. We have no idea if there's a problem with the F-35's internal bays, but you assume they need fixing before flying again. And to use your example, I'm not sure if spraying some foam can be consider "extensive overhaul".
You have conjecture, but no evidence, which is a problem as we can reach many conclusions that way. The maintenance costs for example... where you see evidence of a flawed plane, someone else sees evidence of corruption. Everyone's guessing and guessing isn't enough to change my mind.
Regarding Russia's capabilities, historically every country has been better at certain things. The Soviet Union created good SAMs and radars, but they've never been known for having the best computer chips or best stealth. It has nothing to do with feature creep, it's just that some are better than others at some things.
Military forums do a lot of guessing and assuming, which can make it a good echo chamber. Even people in the military have no idea what's being worked on at Skunk Works or the Chinese or Russian equivalent.
For this reason, the aircraft exterior coating, panels, seams, are inspected after each flight, to look for anything that might affect the jet's stealthiness, identifying any damage or scratches. Removing sand particles and dirt that settle on the aircraft surfaces and may turn into abrasions of the coating.
https://www.businessinsider.com/israeli-airmen-explain-the-c...
The only long maintenance mentioned there is the washing of the plane every 3 months. It takes them 2 days by hand (even though some do it with a machine?) and this is mostly to maintain stealth.
Maybe I have a different definition of what "extensive" means, but this doesn't sound like "extensive overhaul after every flight".
I'll leave the discussion after this comment. We're just guessing here and going nowhere.
It's high but considering the expected number of flight hours the airframe can take, it's on par or not significantly worse than others.
For example the Eurofighter is a $120 million plane with an airframe lifespan of 6,000 flight hours, whereas the F-35 is an $85 million plane with an airframe lifespan of 8,000 hours. Even with higher maintenance costs the tradeoff is still pretty favorable.
Compare that to the Gripen E which is cheap to operate, but still costs $85 million, isn't stealth, and is less capable in many respects.
Some of overhaul is buying and installing all the new tools and support systems, etc..
35 years ago we would fight Germany. F-35 are supposed to last until 2050!
(weird thing to say since these countries are part of the global west / NATO).
Besides that, I don't really believe that Orbán is sympathetic to Russia, he's just using the situation for his own benefit.
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2022/04/08/member-states-...
There is zero chance that Russia will be able to conquer the rest of Ukraine. Russia might be able to retain the currently occupied areas but their capability to conduct major new offensive operations is essentially gone and will take years to rebuild.
0: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44067/the-f-35cs-radar...
Since the F22 and B2 are not exported at all, not even to canada, it cannot possibly have been a factor in purchasing either of those.
That the airplanes will be hard to maintain, aren't as rugged, can't handle street landing and improvised conditions. There was a huge scandal because one of the F-16 was flown from USA to Poland and did emergency landing on the way because of some minor technical issue.
20 years later and we lost two MiG-29 to bad maintenance and no F-16.
The efficiency of turnaround is something that is incomparable to all other fast jet systems of which I am aware.
The most informed analyst on this matter appears to be Justin Bronk [0]
If I was an F-35 buyer, I would also buy some more Gripen-C if at all possible. That should be the "High/Low" mix in 2023 and beyond.
If I was king of "The West," I would have had sent all available Gripens to Ukraine months ago.
[0] https://www.rusi.org/news-and-comment/in-the-news/ukraines-t...
[oops, around the Economist paywall] https://archive.is/gOKqZ
Never any seen any Čech actually use that silly term...
"AM-2 matting consists of 1 1/2" x 2' steel rectangles coated with a epoxy nonskid material, available in both 6 and 12 foot lengths, and are assembled in a brickwork pattern to form runways, taxiways, parking and other areas required for aircraft operations and maintenance. Thirty ISO containers can be constructed to form a 1,500 square foot vertical, short landing and take off airfield and can accommodate up to a total of eleven CH53, UH1, AH1 and AV8B aircraft. " [1]
I wonder about FOD. i.e. all the crap in and around a highway that could damage the engines..
They would send out personal to remove FOD (foreign object debris) before any operations and before laying those mats, I assume.
[Numbers found by google search :_) ]
30 ISO containers for just the runway, = 30+ vehicles, + munitions, spare parts, maintenance personnel, that computerized logistics thing - ODIN/ALIS, food and water, security for the personnel, generators to power all the computers to support the aircraft, . would there need to be SAM support? anti-drone support?
Fuel would seem to be a real issue especially - an upgraded refuelling tanker-truck holds ~20k litres, and an F-35b can take ~10k litres I think. One refuelling tanker-truck = two air sorties.
The other thing that they would do is to even out the surface - decades of frost heave has left said concrete slabs pretty uneven, even in a car, never mind a jet, landing.
Concrete is also commonly used on heavy industrial estates - if they've got hundreds of 40 tonne lorries making sharp turns every day, they need the durability.
One of the impulses for changing surfacing methods for runways in Soviet Union was early jets ripping asphalt off the surface, for example, though later planes had higher-mounted exhausts that caused less problems.
As for road landing in Ukraine (and other Warsaw Pact countries, and Sweden), it's a mix of special road segments and special aircraft design (for example, consider MiG-29 with its intake shields that close when it's on the ground, and sturdier landing gear on many aircraft)
It’s going to take a while to go anywhere, but in the meantime I’m working with a couple of aerospace engineer friends/family on solidifying the concept. If nothing else I’m having fun figuring out how to make something the size of a skyscraper fly with next to no energy expenditure.
https://ascelibrary.org/cms/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.00016...
They did this before as part of an airshow demo. The Royal Engineers (Army co-operation!) had built pads at RAF Fairford for RIAT then the F-35B flew in, engaged STOVL mode (i.e. lift fan door open, rear engine nozzle pointed down etc.) and landed vertically on it then took off again.
Can't remember what year it was; Google suggests the MoD released PR saying they had done the same thing at Marham in 2018 but it's possible the demo was by a USMC F-35B.
I wonder if the F35B’s thrust would rip up a highway like SpaceX’s first starship launch.
https://news.usni.org/2014/01/15/sna-2014-heat-f-35-mv-22-co...
> AM-2 matting consists of 1 1/2" x 2' steel rectangles ...
So, are they aluminum or are they steel? Or some structure involving both?
There's an internal BAE project to give them updatable computers which can be ripped out and replaced every few years. Like the Gripen the idea is to separate the flight critical software, which needs lots of certification, from everything else which can then be updated much more easily and rapidly.
They've also been flight testing a radar that can do electronic warfare as well as its normal job and the Typhoon, like the Gripen and Rafale carries the Meteor BVRAAM which is exceptionally good because it has a long range and a lot of energy to maneuver at the point where its nearing its target.
The Harrier and Gripens can and kinda were designed with that in mind. The F-35? I doubt it.
I'm sure on paper someone will write and another one will approve, but in reality and in a real war scenario I have serious reservations.
Unfortunately the Gripen is the plane everyone talks and loves but "nobody" buys them. The Rafale is in a similar situation. AFAIK there are many minor reasons but the main one is: "Nobody got fired for buying IBM", aka the F-16, it's all fine and good, NATO, etc, etc, but America has A LOT of pull when someone wants to buy planes, they tend to be "persuasive"..
EDIT: Guess it's a bait-and-swtich -- LM got their hands on the F16 somehow: https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2619834/air-...
The manufacturer makes a big difference, even if the design is the same. For example, the F-111 (later the EF-111), built by GD and Grumman was a reliable, low maintenance plane. On the other hand, the FB-111 built by Lockheed was a maintenance hog with a 30% readiness rating, even with extensive cannibalization of parts.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/43367/the-uae-has-just...
All of the above under the caveat of needing it now.
Edit: wow apparently as-of 2010 there were around 4,500 F-16 delivered around the world.
Everything that's commonly said about the Gripen performing admirably in rugged conditions and the F-16 being particularly vulnerable to foreign object damage is certainly true, but Ukraine would happily throw people and resources at the problem of maintaining intact and clean runways.
(not because it was a Russia-provoking "escalation" but because they're a neutral country with something in their law prohibiting sending arms into conflict zones... which also has an export-oriented arms industry for some reason)
With the banking part it was always easier to skate most pressures because at the end of the day the World is controlled by rich people and they all have interest in the "safety" of Switzerland. With weapons they are in this narrow "Buy now from us, because we will not sell during the your conflict.". When sh*t hits the fan these typical Swiss dances don't work and I'm guessing they'll have an hard time selling anything of relevance in the future..
For this, the US has the A-10 which was designed with this exact war in mind. It takes off from a short runway (and it can be a pretty rough runway because the engines are so high), requires more basic maintenance, and is proven to take MANPADS hits then still make it back.
A few airframes have taken missile hits during Middle East conflicts and made it back to base. Those then took months of extensive maintenance to restore to operational condition, and in some cases were written off entirely. A-10s are not at all survivable against modern Russian air defenses and would be mostly useless in Ukraine.
That's the best option when all you have are shitty short-range Soviet-era missiles and unguided rockets / bombs from the 1980s and radars that can't see anything past 35km.
If you have low-observability or stealth aircraft, with powerful radars, and weapons with 80km+ range, you would absolutely rather use anything else.
It doesn't matter if your plane is "highly survivable to MANPADS" when A) the enemy has a lot of MANPADS and larger AA weapons, and B) you run out of functional planes because they all got shot up. Not getting hit is strictly better than getting hit, regardless of how "survivable" the plane is.
I nearly broke a spring from a dipped pothole on the M6 south.
Not to forget all the smart motorway signs every 100 meters and signboards overhead, will make a landing "interesting".
I'm sure the exceptionally canny operators of motorway service stations would find a way to make some extra money off them then. Come for a coffee, stay for a jet launch.
With Ukraine you want the plane to take off from Ukraine, not the UK, or else it is seen as direct involvement. So the plane takes off from the UK, lands in the motorway somewhere near Keeeev and then the Ukrainian pilot hops on, to carry out the mission.
He then lands on the highway again, the plane stays still for the British pilot to get in, he does so, flying up to meet a tanker over Poo land to then get home by teatime.
He lands on a regular runway.
We can disperse the fighter jets without needing to resort to landing on roads.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airports_in_the_United...
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/30405/behold-sikorskys...
They claimed it would be half the price of the V280.
Since the Raider X is based on the same platform, it doesn't seem unreasonable it'd be competitive after they fix the documentation. And there might be a tendency to split the winners to sustain multiple builders.
I'd probably also have some concerns about the counter-rotating blades, as they've given the Ka-50/52 some serious problems with vibration - I've heard of them losing munitions from the winglets and experiencing airframe damage. I know Sikorsky isn't Kamov, but still.
Reviews of the F35 are vague. Israel is buying them but it's essentially getting them for free. So why not? Anyone have a true read on if the F35 is actually a dominant platform?
Lots of countries are buying the F-35. It hits a sweet spot of multi-role fighter with a big bonus of stealth. Also, there is VTOL F-35 variant that the US Marines and other countries with smaller carriers are buying.
The F-22 is still better in many ways. The F-35 is what is available now. The Air Force and Navy are working in two separate programs for replacing F-22 and F/A-18E/F respectively. The result should be much better than F-35, but also more expensive.
Sure, there are a few 4th generation airframes still in production and they are useful for certain limited missions like homeland defense and counterinsurgency. But those are dying platforms with little capacity to take upgrades and poor survivability against peer threats so it doesn't make sense for countries like the UK to buy more.
This won't work, it'll fail for the same reasons the proposals to use highways for the Harrier fell apart in reality - too much damage to use it at any time other than wartime, resulting in no training for landing on highways, so it'll never happen even in wartime. Besides which, if you're at war where you need a defensive air force to be able to use make-shift airbases, you've almost certainly already lost.
Also, the "almost certainly already lost" situation is exactly what small countries are facing if Russia attacks them. Their main air bases are going to be attacked. Regular relocation of equipment may be the only way to survive more than a few hours.
But of course highways, infrastructure, is a relevant thing to destroy in war.
Look at Civilian vs Soldier dead for various major wars.
Only ONE war has WAY more soldiers killed than civilians. If Russia is trying to target Ukrainians, they are doing a worse job than any war you can name.
Civilians Soldiers
WW1 10M 7M
WW2 50-55M 21-25M
Korea 2.7M 0.8M
Vietnam 2.5M 1.1M
Kosovo 1-5K 0.5-1K
Afghanistan 500K[1] 100K
Iraq 135K[2] 40K
Ukraine[3] 9K 65-250K
[2] Another definite lie. Studies done in 2004 and 2006 published in Lancet showed around 1M excess deaths of which almost all were directly attributable to the war and at least 31% were directly attributable to US forces. Who knows how many people died in all the conflicts that followed in the next 15 years. The US officially rejects these studies as flawed, but the British MoD considered it to be robust and adhering to best practices. Further, it used the same methodology and team the US considered to be stellar when doing the exact same thing the exact same way in the Congo.
[3] From the Ukrainian MoD and/or Ukraine-leaning groups, so the likely bias is to overstate Civilian deaths, overstate Russian KIA, and understate Ukrainian KIA.
In any case, highways make much more sense logistically and operationally.
Off-topic, but the F-35 VTOL design is amusing to me in that it was designed by Russia, but they never made more than a prototype and sold the tech to the US where we've now used it to make planes to take on Russia.
And it might just provide better cover. Western europe has hundreds of places like this. The enemy has to work out which building you are using in a group of fifty other non-descript buildings.
Who was it pushed NATO right up against Russia's border. Despite repeated statements from the Russians that there would be push-back. --
coob > “NATO have always been on Russia’s border.” (deleted)
On the Soviet Unions border. When the Soviets relinquished control of the client states to the west, they were given an understanding that NATO would not expand east.
(and modded down)
1. The client states weren't client states. They were de-facto annexed polities with centuries of distinct characteristics. After Soviet Union fell these countries could resume their legitimate existence.
2. Russia has always been an imperialistic, genocidal and brutal country, incapable of creating anything of lasting value. A country on the Russia's border has no reason to be categorized under "russian dominion".
Legitimate states have unalienable right under international law to guide their own path, regardless who their neighbours are.
If your neighbour is Russia, you really want to ally with a larger party.
"Who was it pushed NATO right up against Russia's border."
Nobody PUSHED NATO. This is what is wrong about the posting above. The CCE countries, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, knew very wall what Russia was and that it had not changed.
They wanted to join NATO exactly because they knew Russia would one day again attempt to annex them.
Unless Estonia was in NATO, Russian armors might very well be now in Tallinn.
Wow dude, that is quite deranged.
>Unless Estonia was in NATO, Russian armors might very well be now in Tallinn.
Russia borders 14 countries, and I don't think it fought with any except over the issue of NATO membership.
NATO has a pretty questionable history what with Operation Gladio and the like, but I'm not sure how these are examples of NATO aggression given that Russia was, y'know, the aggressor.
NATO was an excuse.
The war in ukraine is colonial and genocidal war with the intent of eradicating Ukrainian language and statehood and subvert the fee will of Ukrainian people under Russian yoke.
Note they accepted Finlands entry to NATO alliance without so much as a whimper.
While complete calculus behind the reasons for the invasion may never surface, these offer excellent commentary why more countries joining NATO was not really the real reason for the war.
'Moreover, this is not even primarily about NATO. ... The larger objective is to re-establish Russian political and cultural dominance over a nation that Putin sees as one with Russia, and then follow up by undoing the European rules-based order and security architecture established in the aftermath of World War II. ... If Russia’s main concern had been NATO enlargement, it would have reacted with rhetoric and/or hostile actions in its neighborhood after each step in the NATO expansion process. The largest wave of NATO’s eastward expansion took place in March 2004, when seven Eastern European countries joined, including the formerly Soviet Baltic states. Russia “grumbled,” as the New York Times put it then, by adopting a Duma resolution criticizing the expansion, but no hostile and sustained rhetoric followed about NATO enlargement as a Western plot against Russian interests.'[0]
'Some claim Russia was goaded into acting by the threat of NATO expansion. But Putin himself said in 2004 that 'Russia has no concerns about the expansion of NATO from the standpoint of ensuring security'. Russia, after all, has a massive nuclear arsenal and has no reason to fear any adversary. What is the purpose of nuclear weapons then? In addition, several countries bordering Russia, including Finland and the Baltic States are already entering the alliance, with not a murmur from Moscow.'[1]
[0] https://www.justsecurity.org/80343/russias-new-assault-on-uk...
[1] https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2023-02-21-expert-comment-no-proxy...
Incredible.
Shocking.
Russia has nukes to protect its sovereignty. It has absolutely nothing to fear from NATO.
What Russia does not like, is to be denied the capability to invade and threaten it's neighbours (because they joined NATO).
Russia: aggression
How many times has Russia invaded western Europe? How many times has Europe launched an invasion of Russia (3).
I mean if you really want to keep score we can continue, and we can explore what happened to some former USSR or Russian Empire countries who didn't join NATO (Belarus being the last dictatorship in Europe and under Putin's thumb, Georgia/Russia wars, Ukraine and the very war we are discussing right now), but I don't think it ends well for your argument...
Since "Western" Europe now includes Poland, the Baltics, Moldova and Finland - perhaps you can answer that question for us.
For extra credit: which "Western" country did Russia sign an active military alliance with -- and not only join it invading one of the above countries; but march together with its troops in victory parades, afterwards?
Beyond that central theme, certain things don't pass the smell test in my opinion. For example:
- Lancets are winning the war. Who is winning the war is debatable but usually I hear that artillery is the decisive weapon of this war. Additionally Ukraine is winning on artillery attrition, with some claims of a 3:1 ratio of attrition, so drones are not significant on this, at least not significant enough to overturn the attrition rates.
- Russia has swarms of drones that home in on RF sources. I have seen no such thing although I am open to being proven wrong here. My understanding is that jamming has been effective for both Russia and Ukraine EXCEPT for offensives where the attackers need to extend beyond the protection of EW.
- Western weapons get less useful by the minute. This one is technically true as all armies adapt to new challenges. However I wonder what the condition of the Crimean bridge is today.
CAS is critical to advances. It is somewhat stopped by MANPADS, but stopped very hard by SAMs. When flying close to the trees, physics make it so that a SAM radar can't detect a plane until they are within 5-8 miles. This means intercepting a plane or helicopter attacking the front lines (launching missiles from a distance) puts the radar very close to the front.
Lancet has a range of about 30 miles, so if you place your SAMs close enough to intercept the planes, they are now in striking distance of the Lancet. Because the Lancet flies in so low and has such a tiny radar cross-section, intercepting it is incredibly hard. Even if it is intercepted, using a $4,000,000 missile to destroy a $35,000 drone is a terrible deal. This deal is even worse when you consider Ukraine can't get any more S-300 rockets and Patriot missiles are of very limited production per year (500 or so IIRC).
Going further, our newest 155mm artillery is the M777 and we've given a bunch to Ukraine. Setting aside the maintenance issue (we admitted 30% are in the shop at any given time which isn't surprising given the reliability issues our marines have had with them), their maximum range is under 20 miles which puts them in the range of a Lancet too.
Russia has had to rely on Kornet ATGMs for most of the war. These are direct fire, so hitting the weak top of a tank is almost impossible. There are videos of a Leopard seeming to take a couple Kornet hits and still being serviceable. In contrast, the Lancet offers Russia the ability to do downward attacks at the thin top armor. We have videos of them doing exactly this to take out a Leopard or two. This issue exists not just for tanks, but for artillery and other vehicles based on the Leopard chassis.
Circling back around, this leads to the artillery attrition. Russia has been consistently shooting 5-10x as many shells as Ukraine. Ukraine is basically out of Soviet 152mm shells and doesn't have a great way to replace parts on their Soviet artillery anyway. NATO has basically given all the spare 155mm shells we have. We're ramping up production, but we won't be matching Russia's advantage for a couple more years at the earliest. This is one of the reasons Biden wants to send cluster munitions -- we're out of everything else.
The Russian drone swarms stuff is just propaganda. There's been no evidence of anything like that. The closest to this is definitely Ukraine with all the small suicide drones they've been pushing out which don't work well against armored targets, but work very well against personnel (and you can't hold ground without people).
Western weapons is more about perception than anything. We in America have a superiority complex when it comes to our equipment. When you aren't facing people with AKs and outdated RPGs, our equipment is a lot more vulnerable than people want to believe. Tanks, IFVs, MRAPs, artillery, etc have all been only a little better than Russia's stuff because ATGMs, drones, and mines are proving to be so powerful. On the flip side, Patriot, MANPADS, and Javelin ATGMs have been and continue to be absolutely stellar.
Based on the crushed Ukrainian offensive (still haven't reached the first true defensive line), I can say without reservation that what Ukraine needs is: attack helicopters to work on defense, more ATGMs, 10x as many man-portable EW systems, and an attack drone that actually works.
A new design is needed IMO.
Has the switchblade performed poorly because the design is inadequate, or has it performed poorly because the it's not suited for Ukraine's situation? If Ukraine had a supply of Lancet clones, would they be performing well for Ukraine?
Lancet-3 is a disposable 12kg drone made pretty cheaply. The Switchblade 600 is 55kg and pretty expensive (not to mention the massive difference between hauling around 26lbs vs 120lbs).
A Switchblade 400/500 with a lower weight could hit that sweet spot too, but I don't think it was ever designed. My guess is that we'll see it and some other solutions in the near future.
If Ukraine had a Lancet-style drone, I believe it could make a massive difference taking out stuff far behind the lines pressuring Russian artillery and tanks.
You have made a lot of points why the lancets MIGHT be very good, and certainly it's one of the most effective weapons on the Russian side today. However my central point remains the same: Ukraine is winning the artillery attrition war despite these features. In order to be a game changer you need to actually change the game, if you're losing 3:1 of your artillery pieces or even 2:1 then it calls in to question how much your weapon is changing the nature of warfare.
Some of your speculation I agree with it and some I don't but on the whole I want to avoid making affirmative statements on the direction of the war, since as I said before, I am not an expert on this. Anything I say would just be speculation.
If anyone is curious to know more, Perun on youtube does powerpoint presentations which SEEM mostly level headed:
- Focus on economics, production, and procurement
- Presents statements of multiple sources, does not take any at face value
- Is clear about what information he knows and doesn't know
- Is incredibly boring which fits my mental stereotype of people who know what they're talking about
HIMARS are basically identical in capabilities to the Russian Tornado S MLRS (which is actually a little newer than HIMARS). Turn off the GPS and the accuracy is worse than artillery.
Lancets don't generally run into EW issues because if there is EW in the area, the spotter drone is affected.
Losses are a very subjective thing and if you look through Oryx yourself, you'll see some interesting repetition. I'll leave that there.
I've watched almost every video Perun has made, but he's not always right.
Tornado S uses GLONASS just like HIMARS uses GPS. They can both be jammed. Tornado S were also already used in Ukraine but they don't use them a lot. Perhaps the supply chain of guided munitions is not great.
We can compare Ukranian vs Russian weapons all day but the proof is in the pudding. It doesn't matter how great the features of Russian weapons are if they can't match the kill rate of Ukrainian weapons.
[0]: https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1497511/m142...
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1497hms/dest...
[2]: https://twitter.com/AndrewPerpetua/status/166895463035136409...
This is a laughable claim. Lancets are awesome weapons, cost effective, accurate, and productive. But they cannot win the war on their own in any sense. They require certain intelligence to use effectively, intelligence that Russia is getting less of than Ukraine through NATO. More artillery is being destroyed by other artillery than Lancets. They just aren't made in the quantity that 152mm shells are.
>Russia has swarms of drones that home in on RF sources. Why do you state this and then immediately say you have seen zero evidence? You can't just release a swarm of RF seeking drones into the sky, you'll blow up all your own people and stuff too.
>Western weapons get less useful by the minute. Could you provide ANYTHING to back up such an assertion.
> "- Lancets are winning the war. Who is winning the war is debatable but usually I hear that artillery is the decisive weapon of this war. Additionally Ukraine is winning on artillery attrition, with some claims of a 3:1 ratio of attrition, so drones are not significant on this, at least not significant enough to overturn the attrition rates."
The first sentence is the claim that doesn't pass his sniff test. The rest of that line is his explanation for why it doesn't pass his sniff test. It should be something like
> - "Lancets are winning the war"
> Who is winning the war is debatable but usually I hear that artillery is the decisive weapon of this war. Additionally Ukraine is winning on artillery attrition, with some claims of a 3:1 ratio of attrition, so drones are not significant on this, at least not significant enough to overturn the attrition rates.
And
> "- Western weapons get less useful by the minute. This one is technically true as all armies adapt to new challenges. However I wonder what the condition of the Crimean bridge is today."
Should be formatted like
> - "Western weapons get less useful by the minute."
> This one is technically true as all armies adapt to new challenges. However I wonder what the condition of the Crimean bridge is today.
But then you made the same mistake right here:
">Western weapons get less useful by the minute. Could you provide ANYTHING to back up such an assertion."
That should be formatted as
> "Western weapons get less useful by the minute"
> Could you provide ANYTHING to back up such an assertion.
Ooof