[RD] War in Ukraine: Other topics

It Seems Russia Is Getting Anti-Tank Missile Vehicles From North Korea. It Would Be A Major Escalation.​


In mid-June, Russian Pres. Vladimir Putin traveled to Pyongyang to meet North Korean strongman Kim Jong Un and sign a defense pact between Russia and North Korea.

Six weeks later, an apparent North Korean missile vehicle appeared near the front line in southern Russia, just across the border with Ukraine.

It seems the closer military ties between Russia and North Korea are finally having a real impact on the fighting. If North Korea really is providing armored vehicles to Russia, it might help solve one of Russia’s biggest battlefield problems as its wider war on Ukraine grinds toward its 29th month: a shortage of purpose-made combat vehicles.

On or just before Tuesday, a Ukrainian drone spotted something strange near Vovchansk, the main battleground in Russia’s two-month-old offensive in northern Ukraine’s Kharkiv Oblast. On close inspection, the odd object appeared to be a Bulsae-4—a six-wheeled, missile-armed tank destroyer.

The vehicle “managed to launch six rockets before leaving,” Ukrainian drone operator Kriegsforscher reported.

The Bulsae-4 is uniquely North Korean. It borrows the chassis of a North Korean version of the Russian BTR-80 armored personnel carrier—and adds a bulky top turret with eight anti-tank guided missiles, each likely weighing tens of pounds and ranging several miles.

A Bulsae-4 performs the same mission that Ukraine and Russia’s dismounted anti-tank missile teams perform—defeating enemy tanks—but does it with greater speed, mobility and protection.

For the Russians, the Bulsae-4 meets a growing need. The Russian army went to war in Ukraine in February 2022 with probably several hundred Shturm and Kornet tank destroyers—and quickly lost around 50 of them to Ukrainian action. Lately, the missile-armed vehicles have been a rare sight along the front line, perhaps because there simply aren’t many left.

We don’t know the details of Russia’s June security pact with North Korea. But it’s possible, even likely, that the terms include significant transfers of North Korean-made vehicles.

From the Russian perspective, it would make sense. It’s no secret the Russians are struggling to build—or recover from long-term storage—enough combat vehicles to make good the roughly 600 vehicles they lose in Ukraine every month.

If the Russian military is getting North Korean vehicles, they may include other types in addition to the Bulsae-4. The Russians are especially hurting for modern tanks and armored personnel carriers, so don’t be shocked to eventually see ex-Korean Pokpung-ho tanks and M2010 APCs on the Russian side of the front line in Ukraine. It might help that the M2010 and Bulsae-4 have the same chassis.

The big question is what South Korea will do. Earlier in the wider war, North Korea and South Korea both supported their respective sides—but quietly. The authoritarian North sold artillery shells and ballistic missiles to authoritarian Russia; the democratic South sold shells to the United States for onward transfer to democratic Ukraine.

Now that North Korea is openly supporting the Russian war effort, South Korea may consider doing the same for Ukraine. Shortly after Putin and Kim signed their security pact, South Korean national security adviser Chang Ho-jin criticized the pact—and said his government would rethink its existing ban on providing weapons to Ukraine.

It’s worth noting that South Korea builds some of the best weapons in the world—and in larger numbers than almost any other country, likely including North Korea.

“I hope that S.K. will respond,” Kriegsforscher wrote.
I hope these are just as flimsy as the original Soviet models. I wonder if NK armour is crewed by NK personnel.
 

Here's what American air-to-air missiles can do for Ukraine's new F-16s against the Russians​

The US is sending Ukraine air-to-air missiles to go with the new F-16 fighter jets coming this summer from European partners, per a new report on armaments.

Ukraine will receive the AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile, known as the AMRAAM, and the AIM-9X missile, The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday. The US also plans to send Kyiv more air-to-ground munitions.

The F-16 Fighting Falcon is a capable fourth-generation aircraft expected to provide a capability boost, augmenting Ukraine's current fleet of aging Soviet fighter jets, but its effectiveness will, in part, be determined by the weapons with which it flies.
Top US generals and Ukrainian officials have cautioned that the fifty-year-old F-16, while an effective combat platform able to perform offensive and defensive operations, won't be a game changer. It faces a daunting operating environment in Ukraine and will likely be a top target for Russia's air-defense systems. Kyiv also simply is not getting enough of the aircraft. That said, there's a lot it can do.

Powerful air-to-air missiles​

The AIM-120 is an all-weather, beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile with active radar for decreased dependence on the aircraft for intercepts. It was built as a follow to the AIM-7 Sparrow missile that Ukraine already has in its arsenal for air-defense purposes.

[IMG alt="An F-16 fighter jet from the Danish Air Force takes off from a US airbase in Germany as part of a large-scale exercise involving numerous fighter jets from several NATO countries on June 6, 2024."]https://i.insider.com/66a929d9fb6d32635ee50285?width=700&format=jpeg&auto=webp[/IMG]
An F-16 fighter jet from the Danish Air Force takes off from a US airbase in Germany as part of a large-scale exercise involving numerous fighter jets from several NATO countries in June 2024. Photo by Boris Roessler/picture alliance via Getty Images
It's unclear exactly which AIM-120 variants Kyiv is receiving or how many. Earlier models of the missile have a range of over 20 miles, while the newest one — the AIM-120D — is said to reach beyond 100 miles. The earliest AIM-120 design was fielded in the early 1990s.

Related stories



A Ukrainian Air Force official said last year that the US would offer the country with AIM-120 missiles that can travel more than 100 miles, pointing to one of the newer variants. Some airpower experts, however, have expressed skepticism that Kyiv would actually get newer weapons because the technology may be too sensitive for the US to risk losing.
On the other missile Ukraine is receiving, the AIM-9X is a short-range air-to-air missile with an infrared seeker and is the newest variant in the Sidewinder family. Like the AIM-120, its specific range is classified. Ukraine already owns the AIM-9M, which has a range of up to 18 miles. The earliest Sidewinder versions entered service in the mid-1950s. Though the AIM-9 is an older system, it's considered to be highly successful.
Armed with AIM-120 and AIM-9X missiles, the F-16 could be used for air-to-air combat against other fighter aircraft, though that may not be the best use. The Russians are operating Su-35 and MiG-31 fighter jets that carry long-range air-to-air missiles like the R-37. These capabilities would seriously threaten an F-16. Greater reach could be decisive, but there are other factors in play in air-to-air combat.
As an alternative, Kyiv can use its F-16s to engage Russian cruise missiles, one-way attack drones, and, potentially, the fighter-bombers that are releasing the highly destructive glide bombs that are pounding Ukraine.

[IMG alt="An F-16C Fighting Falcon assigned to the 85th Test Evaluation Squadron shoots an AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile, or AMRAAM over testing ranges near Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., March 19, 2019."]https://i.insider.com/6077510d74da0300181e1b9d?width=700&format=jpeg&auto=webp[/IMG]
An F-16C Fighting Falcon assigned to the 85th Test Evaluation Squadron shoots an AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile over testing ranges near Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., in March 2019. US Air Force
Col. Gen. Oleksandr Syrskyi, Ukraine's top general, told the Guardian earlier this month that the arrival of the F-16s would strengthen his country's air defenses, but he acknowledged that the jets would likely need to stay at least 40 kilometers or more from the front to avoid being shot down.
Experts at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank wrote last month that "once introduced on the battlefield, F-16s will increase the Ukrainian Air Force's air-to-air capabilities."
With its powerful radar and AIM-120 missiles, the F-16 will provide "an appreciable engagement range improvement compared to Ukraine's Soviet-era MiG-29 and Su-27 fighter aircraft," they argued.
Using its F-16s in a defensive role would help Ukraine relieve some pressure on its existing air defense apparatus, which has been hamstrung by a limited supply of interceptor missiles and available batteries. These include both Western systems like US-made Patriot batteries and NASAMS and Soviet-era equipment.
Beyond air-to-air engagements, Ukraine can use its F-16s in an air-to-ground role, executing suppression and destruction of enemy air defense missions.

[IMG alt="Two F-16 perform fly-bys against a blue sky"]https://i.insider.com/667031d0e07904901819816d?width=700&format=jpeg&auto=webp[/IMG]
Two F-16 perform fly-bys in Fetesti, Romania in November 2023. Inquam Photos/George Calin via REUTERS
Kyiv already has US-provided AGM-88 HARM missiles — or high-speed anti-radiation missiles — to hunt down enemy radar systems, and more are coming with the new jets. With F-16s, Ukraine can potentially better use these weapons to degrade Russia's vaunted air-defense capabilities. The Ukrainians previously jury-rigged them onto its Soviet aircraft.
A coalition of several NATO countries — Denmark, Norway, Belgium, and the Netherlands — have promised Ukraine some 80 F-16s, although the deliveries will be spread out over time. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said earlier this month that Kyiv will need more than a few dozen of the aircraft to actually make a difference. He also suggested they were needed earlier.
Gen. James Hecker, commander of NATO's air command, said Tuesday that the F-16s won't be a "golden bullet" for Ukraine that will immediately win them air superiority because they're going up against advanced Russian air-defense systems.
Hecker said at an event hosted by the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies that the American-made aircraft will help bring Ukraine even closer to the West and help shift its forces to be more aligned with NATO tactics, procedures, and equipment.
"It does move them a step in the right direction," he said.
 

In July Ukraine Launched More Long-Range Attack Drones Than Russia​


For the first time, Ukraine is launching more long-range drone attacks than Russia. Published figures suggest that Russia sent 426 Shahed-type drones into Ukraine in July. Over the same period Ukraine hit back with over 520 drones.

Russia appears to be less effective at shooting down the attackers as the Ukrainian strikes appear to be causing greater economic damage on oil refineries and other targets. Ukraine may be gaining the advantage in the strategic war of long-range drone strikes – and President Zelensky promise more and better strike drones to come.

Russia’s Drone Offensive

Russia ran through most of its stockpiles of ballistic and cruise long-range missiles in the first few months of the war. And while production has increased since 2022, Russia appears to be firing missiles at roughly the rate they are produced, around 120 a month. While missiles are important due to their destructive effects, as seen in a recent strike on a children’s hospital,, much of Russia’s long-range striking power is now in the form of drones. Their chief weapon is he Iranian-designed Shahed series, known in Russia as Geran, which are easy to produce and cost as little at $20,000, compared to a million or more for a missile.

Originally imported from in Iran, Shaheds are increasingly produced under a licensing deal at a giant new facility in Alabuga, east of Moscow. The design has been modified over the last two years but the basics are still much the same: a propeller-driven drone with an eight-foot wingspan cruising at around 110 mph and with a warhead of little over 100 pounds. Apart from low cost, Shahed’s major advantage is its range, which is over a thousand miles and possibly as much as two thousand.
Russia typically fires waves of up to thirty Shaheds at a time. These are picked up by Ukraine’s array of thousands of networked microphones listening for the drone’s distinctive ‘lawn mower’ engine sound, and in the hours it takes for them to reach the targets, mobile anti-drone units with heavy machineguns and automatic cannon are moved into position. Many Shaheds are also brought down by surface-to-air missiles, while others are sent off course or crashing to the ground by customized electronic warfare systems.

There are a couple of other Russian long-range attack drones, but at present the vast majority of the incoming are Shahed types all are currently counted as Shaheds. Ukraine typically claims to shoot down 90% of the incoming Shahed and sometimes 100%. There is no way of verifying this, and clearly Shaheds do still cause damage, but the threat does not appear to be growing. While there have been warnings that Shahed production would rise steeply this year as the Alabuga facility ramped up production, numbers have been relatively stable. Shahed Tracker, an analyst on X/Twitter who compiles data on Russian drone attacks, recorded around 380 Russian long-range drone attacks in both January and February, spiking up to 601 in March, then back to 290, 314, and 336 in June. The total for July was 426.

Ukraine Strikes Back​

In response, Ukraine has developed a wide array of different long-range attack drones – analyst HI Sutton has identified no less than 22 different models, from converted light aircraft to custom-made jet-propelled attack drones. Most, however, are designed to be as simple, cheap and effective as possible, without regards to appearance, like the Drainpipe Drone first seen in April. Some from known sources, mainly Ukrainian startups and groups raising funds for their projects, many are mysterious and known only from debris recovered in Russia.

In 2023 Ukraine was producing just “dozens” of Shahed-type drones per month according to defence industry officials. Attacks, though often high profile, were small scale. That has changed. Mass attacks are increasingly common, sometimes alongside strikes by Storm Shadow or other missiles supplied by Western allies.

All we know about Ukrainian drone attacks comes from Russian officials as the Ukrainians do not talk about them. No one body in Russia issues daily tallies the way the Ukrainian Air Force does with Shahed and missile attacks but statements are issued by local governors and military offices.

Over the last month , on the 5th July the Russian Ministry of Defense “confirmed that its forces destroyed 50 Ukrainian drones within Russian territory”, on 9th July there were 38, on 11th July it was 75, on July 18th, another 33 on July 20th it was 26, and on 22nd July they shot down 80 drones. There were another 20 on the 27th, 41 on the 29th and 19 on the 31st, plus smaller numbers on eleven other days.

These Russian numbers cannot be confirmed and may nor may not represent the total number of drones launched. While the rate of shootdowns claimed is even greater than the Ukrainian claims, there is no sign of the sort of coordinated counter-drone network of sensors and weapons seen in Ukraine.

With these caveats, based statements by Russian state bodies, Ukraine has launched over 524 one-way attack drones in July compared to under 200 in each of the previous two months. This looks like the first month where the Ukrainian total has exceeded the Russian one.

Precision Targeting​

There is little information on what Russian drones are targeting, though reports of blackouts and electrical issues suggest that strikes on Ukraine’s electrical infrastructure continue. Ukraine is reported to have lost roughly half of its 18 Gigawatt capacity and there is an urgent program to rebuild before winter.
The Ukrainian campaign is multi-pronged, against a variety of high-value targets. One target set includes oil refineries and oil and gas storage facilities. Hits generally produce dramatic images and videos on social media making them easy to confirm. The overall damage to the industry is hard to assess but growing. Sanctions make it difficult to repair refineries and Russia may be forced to put up prices or ration supplies.

A second class of target are Russian military airbases. The exact ranges of Ukraine’s different strike drones are unknown, but a recent attack on Olenya airbase in Russia struck from over 1,100 miles / 1,800 kilometers away. This sort of range puts a huge number of Russian bases at risk. These strikes are hard to assess, as the only available damage information comes from satellite imagery which can be frustratingly indistinct. Ukraine claims to have destroyed a Russian Su-30M at Saky airbase and damaged a Tu-22M bomber at Olenya ins trikes on 27th July, but these are impossible to confirm.


Note that for both types of target a small drone warhead can inflict disproportionate damage. A single destroyed Russian fighter could pay for the cost of the entire drone campaign several times over. Some of the larger drones can carry much larger warheads though, up to several hundred pounds, holding a larger range of targets at risk.

Electric substations, which in Russia are cooled by flammable oil, are also targets for Ukrainian drones.

Writing on Twitter/X Mick Ryan, Senior Fellow for Military Studies at the Lowry Institute notes that one function of Ukraine’s drone campaign is to create dilemmas for Russian military planners. Pulling back air defenses from the frontline could help protect airbases but leave troops exposed to air attack. Focusing on air bases means vital oil storage facilities will burn at an increasing rate. Changing protocols to allow defenders to open fire sooner could increase the already terrible rate of friendly fire incidents.

Ryan notes that as well as economic and military effects, the drone campaign is a political weapon. Soaring gas prices and burning oil tanks bring home to Russians the true consequences of invading Ukraine.

Accelerated Production​

The big question is just how many long-range attack drones Ukraine can produce, and whether July is a blip or a trend.

When I talked to drone makers Terminal Autonomy last December, they discussed plans for mass production of their AQ-400 Scythe. The drone’s wooden body can be made by the same facilities that cut flat-pack furniture, and it is easy to assemble by unskilled labor. They believed they could make 500 drones per month by mid-2024 but this would depend on receiving government backing. Other drone makers producing the Bobr, Lyuty and others could have similar capacity, again if they get sufficient funding.
In December, Oleksandr Kamyshin, Minister for Strategic Industries of Ukraine, said he aimed to produce 10,000 strike drones with ranges in the hundreds of kilometers in 2024. That would be over 830 a month.

And last week, during one of his evening addresses, President Zelensky stated that “We are preparing steps to increase the number and quality of our long-range drones.”

One month of increased drone strikes may not be meaningful. Ukraine has not yet exceeded the total of 600 Shaheds launched by Russia in March and December. But July may mark a turning point in the strategic drone war, and the start of increasing problems for Russia.
 

Jam-Proof Fiber Optic Drone Testing In Ukraine​


German developers are demonstrating a new drone in Ukraine called HCX which is immune to radio -frequency jamming and detection because it communicates with its operator via a fiber-optic cable.

Small drones have become ubiquitous in this conflict; Ukraine plans to build more than a million this year. But radio-frequency jamming has also stepped up. In a recent speech, French Army Chief of Staff Gen. Pierre Schill claimed that 75% of drones in Ukraine were taken down by electronic warfare breaking the link between drone and operator, suggesting that the reign of the drone could soon be over.

The HCX made by from HIGHCAT, based in Konstanz, Germany, unspools a fiber-optic cable as it flies. This supplies a high-bandwidth data link immune to radio interference. And because there are no radio emissions, neither the operator nor the drone can be located and targeted.

Flying By Fiber​

HIGHCAT co-founder Jan Hartmann explains that the cable only exerts about 8 ounces/ 250 grams of force on the drone, so it does not obstruct flight. It has a flight range of up to 12 miles / 20 kilometers. The drone drops cable behind it like a trail of breadcrumbs, so there is no tangling.
“The fiber is pretty strong - flying over trees and water is no problem,” says Hartmann. “Flying in circles is also fine, and the drone can even fly backwards.”

Previous efforts to develop fiber-optic guidance for drones include DARPA’s Close Combat Lethal Recon (CCLR) of the early 2000’s and a Russian drone captured in Ukraine in March. DARPA eventually dropped the fiber control for a radio and CCLR evolved into the SwitchBlade used by US forces. The Russian drone appears to have been an experimental model and only one example has been seen. Some missiles like TOW use guidance via copper wires but these only carry the control signals and do not transmit video.

((There are also tethered drones with a thick cable transmitting power as well as data, but these are limited to hovering above their base station so are basically static observation towers or platforms for electronic warfare)).
Fiber-control has attracted little interest in the past because radio control works so well and interference was not seen as a problem. But in the intense electronic warfare environment of Ukraine, drone makers have to keep shifting operating frequency because the jamming is so intense. Some combat vehicles now carry multiple roof-mounted drone jammers to create a protective ‘bubble’ hundreds of metres across, while both sides now deploy large number of backpack jammers and anti-drone guns, rifle-like weapons which fire a narrow beam of radio waves.

“The technology was designed with the frontlines in mind, in particular, the current developments in Ukraine,” says Hartmann. “We wanted to create a COTS [Commercial Off The Shelf] system that wasn’t jammable by enemy combatants.”

The Challenge of Unspooling​

The resulting HCX drone can fly unhindered in the most intense electronic warfare. But getting it to work has not been simple.

“The fiber must not be too easy to unwind, otherwise it will pull itself out due to the downwash of the propeller,” says Hartmann. “Furthermore, the glass fiber must not twist during unwinding, otherwise it will break. The Fly-By-Fiber technology uses specially wound and coated glass fiber spools, which are installed in a special winding technique.”
Fiber-optic guidance does come with a weight penalty compared to radio. The maximum payload of the HCX is 5 kilos / 11 pounds, but some of this is taken up by the fiber optic cable spool. Six miles of cable weighs about three pounds, so a drone with a full 12-mile reel only has about five pounds of payload. However, Hartmann notes that this is still more than enough for a 10x optical zoom camera with thermal imaging. Or a decent-sized munition.

Other benefits include a standard 1000Base-T connection with a speed of 1,000 Megabits per second, roughly a hundred times as much as a radio link, ensuring a clear high-definition view throughout the flight. And while other FPV drones lose their connection when they drop low below the radio horizon in the final dive on a target, a fiber-optic drone will maintain communication.
In principle this type of drone can also explore inside buildings or down tunnels. Radio bandwidth limitations mean that only a few radio-controlled drones can operate in one area, but multiple HCX drones can fly without interference.

HCX could also act as a fiber-optic cable later, establishing high-capacity links to fighting positions which can be used when other means of communication are jammed.

Drones Of The Future​

The other technology being developed as a counter to jamming is autonomy, with AI-enabled drones completing missions after losing communication with the operator. Fiber optic communications has the advantage of being able to relay back video imagery in real time, whereas an autonomous drone has to wait until it could get back into radio range to download data.

Hartmann says HIGHCAT is talking to a number of potential customers/sponsors but is unable to give details. Later this month a team is going to Ukraine to demonstrate HCX and show how well it works in realistic conditions. The plan is to test it in a controlled environment against a jammer, but the drones may end up much closer to actual Russian jammers.

“Should the units want to test it on the frontline, this is possible,” says Hartmann.

HIGHCAT aim to have HCX ready for production in November, and could then produce 3,000 units a month with their industrial partners ODM GmbH. If HCX is successful then others are likely to follow suit, and drones with fiber-optic capability are likely to proliferate. Which is bad news on anyone relying on jammers to protect them.
So kinda like fishing, but with explosives.
 
Kinda like?

Nobody tell the DNR.
 
I dare say a few will work very well as a novelty.

But the cable has weight so it will presumably touch the ground on a long flight
past enemy positions, where it may easily be severed by wire cutters or a sword.

So most likely useful against front line positions.
 
We might see swordrunners running along the line trying to find where it touches the ground... I can picture a cyberpunk movie
 
No anti war weapon will ever beat Ukraine's WW2 era plane going around with pilot and gunner with open canopy hunting drones Wild West Style!
 
I'd be curious to know it the Ukranians are actively using the CV90's drone-killing configuration? They should have been provided with it.
 

Jam-Proof Fiber Optic Drone Testing In Ukraine​



So kinda like fishing, but with explosives.
Russian telegram media claims that Russia started use such drones in Kursk region
Video signal rom drone clear and sharp until explosion

 
Last edited:

Ukraine’s F-16s Have Scored Their First Aerial Kills​

Ukraine’s ex-Danish Lockheed Martin F-16s have scored their first aerial victories. According to Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, the supersonic F-16s shot down Russian cruise missiles during the Russian air raids targeting Ukrainian cities on Monday.

The shoot-downs came three weeks after the first of the nimble F-16s, out of around 85 that Belgium, Denmark, The Netherlands and Norway have pledged, arrived in Ukraine.

“It is excellent to see them in action,” wrote Joni Askola, a Finnish analyst.

It was apparent early on that the Ukrainian air force would assign the F-16s to air-defense duty. They’ve been seen flying with pairs of AIM-9 infrared-guided air-to-air missiles and AIM-120 radar-guided air-to-air missiles. They haven’t been seen with air-to-ground ordnance, even though they are widely compatible with Ukraine’s best Western-made anti-radar missiles and GPS-guided glide bombs.

It makes sense for the F-16s to fly air-defense patrols. Ukraine is under relentless attack from the air—and its armed forces are mobilizing every available weapon to blunt the daily raids.

Monday’s early-morning attacks were the worst so far of Russia’s 29-month wider war on Ukraine. Hundreds of Russian ballistic and cruise missiles and explosive drones—fired by warships and heavy bombers and launchers on the ground—pummeled Kyiv and other cities, destroying wide swathes of Ukraine’s electrical grid and driving thousands of civilians into overnight shelters. Four people died.

The damage could’ve been worse. The Ukrainian air force and army claimed they shot down 102 missiles and 99 drones. Desperate to boost their air defenses, the Ukrainians have begun flying gun-armed helicopters on anti-drone patrols, bolstering an air-defense network that also includes long-range surface-to-air missile batteries, roving patrols of gun-armed trucks—and now the F-16s.

The upgraded, 1980s-vintage fighters are reasonably well-equipped for the role. The Ukrainian air force arms its 1980s-vintage F-16s with 1990s-vintage AIM-120Bs that range as far as 40 miles, guided by tiny radars in their noses. For closer fights, the F-16s carry AIM-9L/Ms—first introduced in the ’80s—that can hit targets several miles away by following their infrared signatures.
These aren’t the latest air-to-air missiles, but they’re reliable—and plentiful in the arsenals of Ukraine’s allies. The Ukrainian air force should have no problem keeping its F-16s fully armed even as more of the single-engine fighters arrive over the coming year.

The Ukrainian F-16s’ first sorties targeted Russian cruise missiles that can’t shoot back. As more of the fighters arrive and the Ukrainian air force expands their mission set, the F-16s may fly into battle against targets that can shoot back: Russian air force fighters and air-defense batteries.

“Once Ukraine acquires additional F-16 jets, more pilots, two Saab AEW planes, increased experience and more missiles, the jets will be utilized for purposes beyond just air defense,” Askola predicted, referring to the two Swedish-made Saab 340 airborne early warning radar aircraft Ukraine is set to receive.

Air force officials are preparing the jets for these dangerous clashes. To protect the F-16s from Russian missiles, Ukraine has retained the fighters’ recently-installed Pylon Integrated Dispensing System and the Electronic Combat Integrated Pylon Systems: PIDS and ECIPS, respectively.

PIDS ejects metal chaff and hot-burning flares to spoof incoming radar- and infrared-guided missiles. ECIPS houses passive defenses to complement the active chaff and flares, including the AN/ALQ-162 jammer for defeating radars on the ground, as well as an AN/AAR-60 missile warning system for triggering the passive defenses.

The jammer requires specific programming in order to recognize and defeat the latest Russian radars. The U.S. Air Force assisted with this programming, deploying airmen from the Florida-based 68th Electronic Warfare Squadron to Europe to tweak the F-16s’ jammers.

“Relying on data provided by Denmark and Norway, then adapting new processes and approaches to the usual process, the team was able to understand the system and start their work,” the squadron stated.

“One F-16 with a reprogrammed pod won’t achieve air dominance alone, but it may give you a pocket of air superiority for a moment’s time to achieve an objective that has strategic importance and impact,” a squadron official said.
 

Ukraine can't use the UK's Storm Shadow missiles on targets inside Russia because the US is standing in the way: reports​

The UK wants to let Ukraine use its Storm Shadow missiles on Russian soil, but isn't giving Kyiv permission out of concern that the US won't back the call, according to multiple reports.

The Telegraph and the Financial Times reported Tuesday that London officials have privately been asking the US for the go-ahead this summer.

But Ukraine has yet to receive the green light to launch the British and French-made cruise missiles on targets inside Russia — a move that it's championed as the next crucial step for the war effort.

Both The Telegraph and FT reported that the US has some say in the decision because Ukraine's Storm Shadow strikes likely rely on American capabilities.
The FT, citing an anonymous source familiar with the discussions, wrote that the missiles need US intelligence and reconnaissance to circumvent Russian GPS jamming.
The Telegraph mentioned that the missiles work in tandem with unnamed "classified US systems."
The new deliberations also come as the UK's Labour Party in June replaced the Tory government, which was aggressively at the forefront of pushing the West for more advanced vehicles, munitions, and aircraft to Ukraine.
But UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer is, according to The Telegraph, choosing a more "consultative approach" with the US, which has often trailed its European allies in providing Ukraine with more powerful weapons.
US officials have long cited concerns of escalation with Russia when it comes to delivering devastating and long-range munitions to Kyiv.
The Pentagon and British and Ukrainian defense ministries did not immediately respond to requests for comment sent outside regular business hours by Business Insider.
"Its accuracy and ability to deliver successfully the payload, as sent and designed by the Ukrainians, has been almost without fault," said then-UK Defense Minister Ben Wallace in June.

Russia, meanwhile, has been playing down its impact on the battlefield, with leader Vladimir Putin saying the missile isn't inflicting "critical" damage.

The UK allowed Ukraine to hit Russian ships and naval facilities in Crimea with Storm Shadow missiles in 2023, marking one of the first major Western endorsements of deep strikes.

Washington later sent Kyiv its long-range ATACMS missiles, but has so far restricted Ukraine from firing its advanced weapons into Russian territory.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy urged the US and UK this week to lift the ban, saying it's become a severe handicap as Russia rains drones and bombs on Ukraine.

"The United States, the United Kingdom, France, and other partners have the power to help us stop terror. We need decisions," he said.

France, which also delivers Storm Shadow missiles to Ukraine, has been supportive of allowing Kyiv to strike deep into Russia.

"We are in fact telling them that we are delivering weapons to you, but you cannot defend yourself," French President Emmanuel Macron said in May, criticizing the situation.
 
Does anyone find it strange how it seems Ukraine is being forced to fight with both it's hands tied behind it's back? As in the restrictions on long range attacks with Western supplied weapons or the large delays before finally being allowed F-16s.

Notice how the Western nations don't bother to give or allow Ukraine to do something until it loses a certain amount of troops in a failed offensive or if it struggles to hold a defensive line. Almost like the West doesn't actually want Ukraine to win, but nonetheless doesn't want them to deescalate/objectively lose either. Sort of like prairie dogging a turd back and forth.

Why also does Zelensky not just decide to ignore Western restrictions and go deep anyways? If he really cared about his nation & people you'd think he wouldn't really care about foreign bureaucratic procedures especially since his nation & people are in a struggle for they're very survival. Unless perhaps he doesn't actually care and knows he'll get a comfy hotel somewhere regardless of what happens?
 
Stances on use of NATO provided weapons to strike military targets deep inside Russia is changing, very slowly, but I think/hope these strikes will be allowed before the end of the year. If Zelensky would use NATO weapons anyway we wishes Ukraine would probably lose access to more weapons or/and financial support. The Russian rethoric/propagand/fearmongering is strong...but I believe it is slowly losing influence over NATO leaders.
 
Does anyone find it strange how it seems Ukraine is being forced to fight with both it's hands tied behind it's back? As in the restrictions on long range attacks with Western supplied weapons or the large delays before finally being allowed F-16s.

Notice how the Western nations don't bother to give or allow Ukraine to do something until it loses a certain amount of troops in a failed offensive or if it struggles to hold a defensive line. Almost like the West doesn't actually want Ukraine to win, but nonetheless doesn't want them to deescalate/objectively lose either. Sort of like prairie dogging a turd back and forth.

Why also does Zelensky not just decide to ignore Western restrictions and go deep anyways? If he really cared about his nation & people you'd think he wouldn't really care about foreign bureaucratic procedures especially since his nation & people are in a struggle for they're very survival. Unless perhaps he doesn't actually care and knows he'll get a comfy hotel somewhere regardless of what happens?
Its complicated.

western nations are cautious about things being considered an escalation that would have Russia consider the western country declaring war on russia directly ("red line"). For example, france not just supporting an ally, but getting directly involved.

Ukraine seeks permission from western countries about how to use the donated weapons so as to not endanger future donated weapons ("we told you not to do that, but you did anyways. We may have to reconsider providing you with more weapons in the future")
 
Remember how in the first incursions of the pro-Ukrainians "Russian" fighters in Russia last year, the use of Belgian assault-rifles and MRAP created some tensions ?

Now western Main Battle Tanks have been used in the Kursk offensive, supported by HIMARS, and no-one raised an eyebrow.

Things are moving too slow, but they are moving.
 
Its complicated.

western nations are cautious about things being considered an escalation that would have Russia consider the western country declaring war on russia directly ("red line"). For example, france not just supporting an ally, but getting directly involved.

Ukraine seeks permission from western countries about how to use the donated weapons so as to not endanger future donated weapons ("we told you not to do that, but you did anyways. We may have to reconsider providing you with more weapons in the future")

I don't buy it because we've already given so much that there is no indication that anyone would stop shipments should he choose to ignore the "rules". Besides given the political situation it would make Western nations look weak to bicker with him over technicalities then deny further shipments when he's being invaded and they've also committed significant quantities of material to show support against Putin so far. Punishing Zelensky for going renegade would also thereby give Putin the instant win, making European nations look complicit to autocrats/giving into appeasement. Very bad for any European nation to do considering the culturally relevant WW2 lead up experience they all had undergone.

And if Russia was serious about red lines they would have used tactical nukes already when the HIMARS were coming in. It's NOT COMPLICATED!

Stances on use of NATO provided weapons to strike military targets deep inside Russia is changing, very slowly, but I think/hope these strikes will be allowed before the end of the year. If Zelensky would use NATO weapons anyway we wishes Ukraine would probably lose access to more weapons or/and financial support. The Russian rethoric/propagand/fearmongering is strong...but I believe it is slowly losing influence over NATO leaders.

Till he drops a nuke, nothing he says is to be believed nor taken seriously.
 
on April , 2024 a new EU law allows European countries to ban LNG exports . No "major importers" supposedly will do that . Macron spoke for a very long time of sending troops to battle . Wherever they had so far been ? Not important , people will not believe it , or something . It also turns out France is the largest importer . One more thing not to believe in . But let me promise you this . One day there will be the smug analysing lot on TV or Youtube that Russians paid in floods of blood and oil .

there is this large number of people who claim my posts are complicated or like "lt's English Jim, but not as we know it" . The fighting is designed to be prolonged so that Russia has to provide economic benefits to major Western countries in order not to be swamped .

wait until the war's end for same smug lot to declare that they did everything right but Ukranians were fools or cowards . Like do you see any of those who claim they were destroying a former superpower with an accounting mistake in the US budget or a fraction of the said ? They are still there ... Take care in challenging this one , ı tend to remember .

this ain't no scientific method ? Remember the time Russians blew up their own pipeline to threaten the elderly Europeans with the Cold as they were uncapable of winning anything except against the fish in the Baltic ? How strange it was to read then that was a contingency plan and the Ukranian generals were all drunk celebrating one of their many victories and it was accidentally approved and the Ukranian Head of State never approved it and tried to stop it and can't be held responsible . You ARE NOT going to read that the EU now allows Russia to repair the stuff "eventually" because Putin is allowing the middlemen to take an higher cut from the trade and that's eating into Westerners' profits . And Russians refused that pointblank .

do not fight a long war with Russians is not Nostradamus . Neither is the one that says every cent the West robbed in the war , be it in dollars or euros will be repaid with interest in the Chinese-American war . Strangely nobody is giving a date for that these days ...
 
Top Bottom