TeVu
Kapteeni
Niin sota-aikana se riskiarviointi on erilaista kuin rauhassa. Olen myös sitä mieltä että käytetään hornetit loppuun ja vaikka yksitellen varaosiksi muille sen sijaan että heti lyödään paaliin ja kierrätykseen.
Ukrainan konflikti/sota
Niitä tähdättyjä kertalaukauksia on myös ikävä tähtäillä jos kohti tulee sarjatulta. Eikös tämä ole ihan amerikkalainen doktriini mitä suomen talvisota-ja-puute-kaikesta -mentaliteetti ei vain käsitä.
Mun aikana se meni et lyhyt sarja jotakuinkin kohti, maihin ja tähdättyjä kertalaukauksia, hakeudu suojaan... siis ku yllätettiin jonossa mettäpolulla
Antares
Respected Leader
Tämä on tältä aamulta, mahdollisesti isketty Alchevskiin suurta rakennusta vastaan, mikä voisi tarkoittaa suurta määrää kuolleita ja haavoittuneita. Alchevsk on kaupunki 15-20 km Luhanskin kaupungin länsipuolella M04 maantien varressa. Se on siis Donetskin ja Luhanskin kaupunkien välissä, tosin selvästi lähempänä Luhanskia sijainnin osalta.
Kenraali: USA:n tutkantappajaohjus AGM-88 HARM integroitiin Ukrainan neuvostoaikaiseen MiG-29- ja Su-27-hävittäjäkalustoon vain ”muutamassa kuukaudessa”
Tarkkoja teknisiä detaljeita Yhdysvaltain ilmavoimat ei projektista kerro.
www.tekniikkatalous.fi
Kyllä se käsitetään - ainakin joissain piireissä. MPK:n riveissä on muutamiakin evp kouluttajia, joista yksikin korosti "unohtakaa nuo pulttilukkoaikakauden opit! Ne ovat siirtyneet copy-pastella käsikirjasta toiseen kun kukaan ei ole viitsinyt pysähtyä ajattelemaan!"
On kyllä varsin ristiriitaisia tunteita herättävä video. Visuaalisesti kaunis, mutta kun tietää mikä on lopputulos, niin pistää vihaksi.
Huhta
Greatest Leader
Aseavusta juttua. Hivuttamalla on annettu, jottei ylitettäisi Kremlin punaisia linjoja. Pohditaan myös Putinin eskalaatiovaihtoehtoja, ml. iskut aseavun toimituksessa käytettäviin Nato-maiden tukikohtiin, ydinlatauksen demonstraatioräjäytystä Ukrainassa tai jossakin merialueella.
Kuulemma Venäjällä on myös keinoja, joita se ei ole vielä käyttänyt. Venäjä ei ole käyttänyt Ukrainaa vastaan yhtä tehokkaita kyberhyökkäyksiä kuin esim. Yhdysvaltoja vastaan (Solarwind) eikä se ole liiemmin yrittänyt hyökätä Ukrainan hallintoa vastaan. (Nämä siis jutussa esitettyjä näkemyksiä - mutta mitä ne Wagner-ukot Kiovassa jahtaamassa Zelenskyä sitten olivat?
)
Kuulemma Venäjällä on myös keinoja, joita se ei ole vielä käyttänyt. Venäjä ei ole käyttänyt Ukrainaa vastaan yhtä tehokkaita kyberhyökkäyksiä kuin esim. Yhdysvaltoja vastaan (Solarwind) eikä se ole liiemmin yrittänyt hyökätä Ukrainan hallintoa vastaan. (Nämä siis jutussa esitettyjä näkemyksiä - mutta mitä ne Wagner-ukot Kiovassa jahtaamassa Zelenskyä sitten olivat?
)Ukraine Wants the U.S. to Send More Powerful Weapons. Biden Is Not So Sure.
President Biden wants to avoid provoking Russia at a moment when American officials fear Vladimir V. Putin could escalate the war to compensate for recent losses.
While supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression, President Biden has tried to prevent the conflict from widening. Credit...Doug Mills/The New York Times
By David E. Sanger, Anton Troianovski, Julian E. Barnes and Eric Schmitt
Sept. 17, 2022
WASHINGTON — Flush with success in northeast Ukraine, President Volodymyr Zelensky is pressing President Biden for a new and more powerful weapon: a missile system with a range of 190 miles, which could reach far into Russian territory.
Mr. Zelensky insists to U.S. officials that he has no intention of striking Russian cities or aiming at civilian targets, even though President Vladimir V. Putin’s forces have hit apartment blocks, theaters and hospitals in Ukraine throughout the war. The weapon, Mr. Zelensky says, is critical to launching a wider counteroffensive, perhaps early next year.
Mr. Biden is resisting, in part because he is convinced that over the past seven months, he has successfully signaled to Mr. Putin that he does not want a broader war with the Russians — he just wants them to get out of Ukraine.
A shipment of long-range guided missiles, which could also give Ukraine new options for striking Crimea, the territory Russia annexed in 2014, would likely be seen by Moscow as a major provocation, Mr. Biden has concluded.
“We’re trying to avoid World War III,” Mr. Biden often reminds his aides, echoing a statement he has made publicly as well.
Senior aides to the president also say that when Mr. Biden asked the Pentagon in recent weeks how much the longer-range missile systems would help Ukrainian forces during the next stage of the war, he was told the benefits would be minimal. That led him to conclude, they said, that it was not worth the risk.
The argument over the Army Tactical Missile System, or ATACMS, comes at a critical moment, when officials in the White House, the State Department, the Pentagon and American intelligence agencies appear more concerned than ever that Mr. Putin could escalate the war to compensate for his humiliating retreat.
They do not know what form that escalation might take. But many of the options they are preparing for are bleak: more indiscriminate bombardment of Ukrainian cities, a campaign to kill senior Ukrainian leaders, or an attack on supply hubs outside Ukraine — located in NATO countries like Poland and Romania — that are channeling extraordinary quantities of arms, ammunition and military equipment into the country.
This account of the administration’s effort to control escalation in the war is based on conversations with more than a dozen senior American officials as they struggle to calibrate the next steps — hoping to build on Ukraine’s advances without triggering a wider conflict. It comes as the Ukrainians have gained momentum and the Russians, for now, are still in disarray.
American officials believe they have, so far, succeeded at “boiling the frog” — increasing their military, intelligence and economic assistance to Ukraine step by step, without provoking Moscow into large-scale retaliation with any major single move.
Image
A Ukrainian soldier carrying a U.S.-made Stinger missile. The United States has been steadily sending military, intelligence and economic assistance to Ukraine. Credit...David Guttenfelder for The New York Times
They say that Mr. Putin almost certainly would have pushed back hard if Washington had, at the outset of the war, provided Ukraine with the kind of support it is getting now, such as intelligence that has allowed Ukraine to kill Russian generals and target arms depots, tanks and Russian air defenses with precision-guided rocket attacks. Instead, the Americans believe their incremental strategy, and refusal to give Ukraine advanced weapons or aircraft that could reach deep into Russia, has put guardrails on the conflict.
But Mr. Putin has grown increasingly frustrated as his military struggles.
“We are, indeed, responding rather restrainedly, but that’s for the time being,” Mr. Putin said on Friday, after attending a regional summit in Uzbekistan. “If the situation continues to develop in this way, the answer will be more serious.”
More on U.S. Armed Forces
He claimed that Ukraine was trying to carry out “terrorist acts” in Russia, and described recent Russian cruise missile attacks against Ukrainian infrastructure as “warning strikes.”
- A Culture of Brutality: The Navy SEALs’ punishing selection course has come under new scrutiny after a sailor’s death exposed illicit drug use and other problems.
- Civilian Harm: Following reports of civilian deaths from U.S. airstrikes, the Pentagon announced changes aimed at reducing risks to noncombatants in its military operations.
- Recruitment Woes: Facing headwinds from the pandemic, a tight labor market and demographic shifts, the armed forces are experiencing large shortfalls in enlistments.
- Monument Officers: A group of art experts received intensive training to become part of the U.S. Army Reserve. They will help save cultural treasures in war zones.
The same day, speaking at an intelligence conference in Washington, the deputy director of the C.I.A., David S. Cohen, said Mr. Putin would be asking his military leaders “what has happened, why it is happening, what can we do to push back and to retain our position.”
“I don’t think we should underestimate Putin’s adherence to his original objective, which was to control Ukraine,” Mr. Cohen said. He added: “We should not underestimate his risk appetite.”
Colin H. Kahl, under secretary of defense for policy, said in a statement to The New York Times on Friday that “Ukraine’s success on the battlefield could cause Russia to feel backed into a corner, and that is something we must remain mindful of.”
But he said that while the United States is committed to providing Ukraine with the equipment it needs to counter Russian aggression, the Pentagon has assessed that Ukraine does not need the ATACMS for “targets that are directly relevant to the current fight.”
On Capitol Hill, Democrats and Republicans have expressed support for preventing the war in Ukraine from spilling into a wider conflict. But many lawmakers said the Biden administration was being overly cautious in denying Ukraine additional advanced weaponry.
Ukraine has called for much greater Western assistance, like fighter jets, tanks, and long-range missiles. Although Mr. Zelensky has asked for ATACMS, the Pentagon has instead provided thousands of satellite-guided rockets and 16 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System launchers, or HIMARS, to fire them. Those rockets have struck more than 400 Russian ammunition depots, command posts and radars.
The HIMARS can carry six guided rockets at a time, each of which can strike targets nearly 50 miles away — a range that Pentagon officials say covers the vast majority of Ukraine’s intended targets. By comparison, a HIMARS launcher can carry only one of the larger ATACMS missiles at a time before needing to reload.
Critics say the military aid that the West has provided until now has been enough for Ukraine to stay in the fight but not to win.
Representative Jason Crow, a Colorado Democrat who serves on both the House intelligence and armed services committees, said the United States should send ATACMS to Ukraine.
“Sure, escalation remains a concern, and we have to be mindful of that threat,” said Mr. Crow, a former Army Ranger. “But I don’t think providing ATACMS is substantively escalatory. We need to provide what Ukraine needs to win.”
An increased flow of arms and advice now, said some former officials, is vital to help the Ukrainians capitalize on the counter offensive and survive the coming winter.
“We have a window of opportunity,” said Evelyn Farkas, the executive director of the McCain Institute and a former senior defense official during the Obama administration, speaking at an intelligence and security summit in Washington. “I worry that if we don’t provide the Ukrainians with the weapons they need to push back further, get more territory, they will not be strong enough at the negotiating table and the Russians may regroup.”
Some American officials express concern that the most dangerous moments are yet to come, even as Mr. Putin has avoided escalating the war in ways that have, at times, baffled Western officials.
He has made only limited attempts to destroy critical infrastructure or to target Ukrainian government buildings. He has not attacked the supply hubs outside Ukraine. While he has directed low-level cyberattacks against Ukrainian targets every week, they have been relatively unsophisticated, especially when compared to capabilities that Russia has shown it has, including in the SolarWinds attack on American government and commercial systems that was discovered just before Mr. Biden took office.
Some officials have expressed concern Mr. Putin could detonate a tactical nuclear weapon — perhaps in a demonstration blast over the Black Sea or Arctic Ocean, or in Ukrainian territory. But there is no evidence that he is moving those weapons, officials say, or preparing such a strike.
One senior intelligence official said there was a debate underway inside American intelligence agencies over whether Mr. Putin believes such a step would risk Russia’s alienation from the countries it needs most — especially China — or whether he is holding the option in reserve.
Mr. Biden addressed the issue directly in an interview with CBS for “60 Minutes,” scheduled for broadcast on Sunday, when he warned that turning to nuclear or other unconventional weapons would “change the face of war unlike anything since World War II,’’ an apparent reference to the American use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan.
“They’ll become more of a pariah in the world than they ever have been,’’ Mr. Biden said, in an excerpt released by CBS. “And depending on the extent of what they do will determine what response would occur.”
That last statement appeared to refer to discussion inside the American defense community about how to respond to a demonstration blast — more akin to a nuclear test, though one conducted to warn of potential escalation — versus a strike on a populated part of Ukraine.
Mr. Putin, despite his early setbacks, appeared generally satisfied with how the war was going in recent months, content to give his army the time to make slow progress as it pummeled Ukrainian lines with a brutal artillery campaign.
Image
The tail of a Russian rocket protruding from the pavement in Lysychansk, Ukraine, in June. In the early months of the war, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia appeared generally satisfied in spite of his forces’ slow progress.Credit...Ivor Prickett for The New York Times
But as he made clear on Friday, he is content no more. American officials say Moscow is even more ready to blame the United States for its troubles than it was earlier in the war.
“The disclosures that the U.S. intelligence is helping the Ukrainian side has shifted the Russian narrative even more to the message: We are fighting NATO now,” said Larissa Doroshenko, a researcher at Northeastern University.
There also are signs that Mr. Putin could be worried about his own political standing. Public criticism in Russia is on the rise in the aftermath of the counteroffensive. Commentators have, mostly, avoided any direct critique of Mr. Putin. But some academic experts see harsh assessments of the Russian military command as an implicit criticism of Mr. Putin.
The troubles facing Mr. Putin — from mounting criticism to the Ukrainian military strength — mean that his escalation calculus could change.
That has made the decision on longer-range weaponry particularly difficult.
The recent rhetoric out of Russia may well be designed to make the United States think twice about the ATACMS. The missiles would allow Ukraine to strike deeper into Russia or Crimea. Mr. Zelensky has vowed to take back the peninsula, and has carried out stunning attacks against Russian targets there in recent weeks.
Still, the missiles would not allow the Ukrainians to break the defensive lines that the Russians are trying now to rebuild. And some experts caution that they are unlikely to tip the balance in the war.
Throughout the war, U.S. intelligence has proved adept at learning Russian military plans, but its track record on Mr. Putin’s intentions is more mixed.
Intelligence officials have said publicly that Mr. Putin’s war aims remain the same from the beginning of the war — which include the removal of Mr. Zelensky.
In response to the recent setbacks, Mr. Putin could also consider some kind of additional military mobilization, according to U.S. officials. Mr. Putin has so far been unwilling to trigger a full mobilization. But military experts said he could call up more reservists, or men who have previously served in the military — which would be less politically fraught and could bring forces to the battlefield quicker.
What Mr. Putin decides to do could depend on his assessment of his own strength at home, how quickly he thinks Ukraine can regroup and attempt another counteroffensive — and what he can do to deter, rather than encourage, further American support.
Coffee Man
Respected Leader
On vaikea arvioida nuoleskellaanko tässä venäläisiä vai saksalaisia vai molempia mutta edelleenkin toivon että Suomi löytää jostain selkärankansa ja edes ihan oman etunsa takia kieltää ne perkeleen turistiviisumit. Se on turvallisuusriski mutta se on myös mainehaitta ja maineella todellakin on merkitystä kun puhutaan ulkopoliitiikasta ja sen harjoittamisesta.
Sekä Saksan että Suomen kohdalla on edelleenkin nähtävissä se pitkään jatkunut miellyttämisen tarve ja selittämätön pelko suhteessa Venäjään. Puolalaisilla ja balteilla ei tätä sairautta ole esiintynyt sen jälkeen kun pääsivät Venäjästä lopullisesti eroon. Suomessa ja varsinkin itäisessä Saksassa tätä eroprosessia ei ole vieläkään käyty loppuun eikä ole mitenkään varmaa että tullaan ikinä käymäänkään vaikka Venäjä on nyt näyttänyt harvinaisen avoimesti todellisen luonteensa myös länsimaisille ystävilleen. Täytyy olla suunnilleen aivovokuollut jos venäläisten syöttämää paskaa kykenee vieläkin suu korvissa syömään
Balteista kun puhutaan, niin kannattaa muistaa faktat. Vaikka hallitus on mitä mieltä siellä tahansa, niin viides kolonna vähemmistö siellä kymmeniä prosentteja pitää Venäjän hyökkäyssotaa oikeutettuna. Täällä sentään kansa tietää mikä ryssä on, vaikka hallitus onkin semi munaton.On vaikea arvioida nuoleskellaanko tässä venäläisiä vai saksalaisia vai molempia mutta edelleenkin toivon että Suomi löytää jostain selkärankansa ja edes ihan oman etunsa takia kieltää ne perkeleen turistiviisumit. Se on turvallisuusriski mutta se on myös mainehaitta ja maineella todellakin on merkitystä kun puhutaan ulkopoliitiikasta ja sen harjoittamisesta.
Sekä Saksan että Suomen kohdalla on edelleenkin nähtävissä se pitkään jatkunut miellyttämisen tarve ja selittämätön pelko suhteessa Venäjään. Puolalaisilla ja balteilla ei tätä sairautta ole esiintynyt sen jälkeen kun pääsivät Venäjästä lopullisesti eroon. Suomessa ja varsinkin itäisessä Saksassa tätä eroprosessia ei ole vieläkään käyty loppuun eikä ole mitenkään varmaa että tullaan ikinä käymäänkään vaikka Venäjä on nyt näyttänyt harvinaisen avoimesti todellisen luonteensa myös länsimaisille ystävilleen. Täytyy olla suunnilleen aivovokuollut jos venäläisten syöttämää paskaa kykenee vieläkin suu korvissa syömään
Antares
Respected Leader
Yksi vaihtoehto Ukrainan tukemiseen:
BY JOSEPH TREVITHICK SEP 19, 2022 10:40 PM
A senior U.S. defense official said today that there is a definite possibility that the U.S. government could transfer unspecified tanks to the Ukrainian armed forces in the future.
The remarks from the senior U.S. defense official about tanks for Ukraine were included in a routine Pentagon press briefing about the state of Russia's war on that country earlier today. Ukrainian forces continue to push ahead with a major counter-offensive that began some four weeks ago and has already led to the liberation of a substantial amount of previously occupied territory. Foreign military aid packages full of weapons, ammunition, and other materiel – especially U.S.-supplied High-Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) firing 227mm Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMRLS) rockets and air-launched AGM-88 High-speed Anti-Radiation Missiles (HARM) – have been key to these successes, and continued deliveries are likely to be essential for keeping up the momentum.
"Tanks are absolutely on the table," the senior U.S. defense official said, according to VOA's Carla Babb. The senior U.S. defense official did say that Ukrainian forces would need to demonstrate their ability to maintain more modern Western tanks before American authorities would agree to provide them, according to Foreign Policy's Jack Detsch.
The requirement that Ukrainian forces first prove themselves capable of keeping a fleet of Western tanks going seems unlikely to be a major dealbreaker. U.S officials said similar things in the past ahead of the initial deliveries of HIMARS. Ukraine's military has shown itself very capable of getting contingents rapidly trained to maintain and employ HIMARS and other more complex Western weapon systems, such as the aforementioned AGM-88s and ground-launched Harpoon anti-ship missiles.
Regardless, it's unclear what tanks the U.S. government might be prepared to transfer. The senior defense official's comments have already prompted speculation about the potential of U.S.-made M1 Abrams tanks hitting the battlefield in Ukraine.
There are certainly a number of M1 configurations that are readily exportable, but that would still provide Ukrainian forces with newer and significantly more capable tanks than most, if not all of the Soviet-era designs and derivatives that they currently operate. It is possible that older Abrams in U.S. military inventory could be sufficiently downgraded, with any sensitive fire control, communications, and other systems removed, to allow them to be 'drawdown' and more quickly sent to Ukraine.
A 'drawdown' in this case refers to an authority that the President of the United States has, if certain stipulations are met, to transfer various kinds of materiel straight out of American stocks to allies and partners, something you can read more about here. The U.S. government has already sent billions in military assistance to the Ukrainian armed forces through the drawdown process, as well as other aid purchased directly on its behalf.
In terms of available tanks, the U.S. Marine Corps notably decided a few years ago to divest its entire fleet of M1s, as well as M88 armored recovery vehicles and M60 tank-based Armored Vehicle Launched Bridges (AVLB). The process has seen these vehicles transferred to the Army, though what that service's exact plans might be for them has been unclear. The Army already has thousands of older M1s in storage, too.
At the same time, M1s could present unique maintenance and logistical challenges for the Ukrainian armed forces, in no small part because of their fuel-hungry and complex gas turbine engine powerplants. The vast majority of Western, as well as Soviet-era tanks, use more conventional diesel engines. The Soviet T-64 and T-80 series, which were produced in Ukraine, were also gas turbine powered. However, later variants and derivatives of the T-80, including Ukraine's modernized T-84 Oplot, nixed the turbines in favor of simpler and cheaper to maintain diesel engines.
Transferring wheeled 8x8 M1128 Stryker Mobile Gun System (MGS), which are armed with 105mm guns, but are not tanks, could be another potential option for the U.S. military to help bolster Ukraine's armored vehicle fleets. The U.S. Army announced its plans to divest all of its M1128s last year, meaning that they'd be readily available to send to the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
These vehicles could be particularly well suited for Ukraine under the circumstances, being simpler and cheaper to operate and maintain than an Abrams, if also less capable. In addition, with the Army's retirement of the M1128s, there are no other 105mm gun-armed vehicles currently in U.S. military service, making it just that much less of an issue to transfer relevant ammunition. It is, of course, worth noting that the Army's future Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) light tanks will be armed with 105mm main guns.
Sending the M1128s to Ukraine could be made part of a larger push by the U.S. government to facilitate or otherwise promote the transfer of older tanks with NATO-standard 105mm guns to Ukraine. For instance, there may still be some number of U.S.-made M60A3 Pattontanks, which either are or can be significantly upgraded with modern sensors and other capabilities, in storage in a number of NATO countries that American authorities could seek to help deliver to the Ukrainian military.
The possibility of Germany sending older Leopard 1 tanks to Ukraine, or approving the delivery of Leopard 1s from third parties, has been a topic of discussion for months now, as well. For now, however, German authorities continue to block any transfers of Leopard 1s, among other German-made armored vehicles, to Ukraine.
At the press briefing earlier today, the senior U.S. defense official did specifically highlight how American authorities have already "spent a good deal of effort in encouraging countries largely in Europe who have some of these formerly Russian-made tanks to provide them to Ukraine to supplement Ukraine's existing tank inventory."
With all this in mind, it is very interesting to note that Slovenia, which is a NATO member, announced today that it plans to transfer 28 M-55S tanks to Ukraine as part of a three-way deal that will see it receive 40 unspecified vehicles from Germany in exchange. The M-55Ss, also sometimes referred to as M-55S1s, are highly modified versions of the Soviet T-55 that received an upgrade package developed by Slovenian firm STO RAVNE in partnership with Israeli defense contractor Elbit in the 1990s. The M-55s are armed with NATO-standard 105mm guns in place of the original 100mm D-10Ts, and have modernized fire control systems and optics, among other improvements, as well as the ability to be equipped with ERA. If this deal goes ahead, Ukraine will have to start receiving NATO-standard 105mm tank ammunition, as well.
No matter what, heavy armor, in general, continues to be very actively employed on bothsides of the current conflict in Ukraine, despite equally active discussions about whether the fighting has proven that tanks are increasingly unsuited to modern battlefields. Even older armored vehicles have proven useful in a conflict where the opposing side has also beenmaking use of dated types, at least in part due to attrition.
As such, it's hardly surprising that tanks and other armored vehicles continue have been and continue to be high on the Ukrainian government's military aid wishlists. Replenishing armored vehicles lost in the fighting so far, and potentially upgrading Ukraine's ground combat capabilities in the process, is perhaps even more important now in light of the ongoing counter-offensive.
All told, it still very much remains to be seen when any American tanks might actually make their way to Ukraine, and what types might be transferred. At the same time, even older Western tanks could still be a major boon to the Ukrainian military's ongoing fight to push back the Russian invaders.
Contact the author: [email protected]
Ei pidä intoilla liikaa, tämä on vain yksi optio. Lisäksi pitää muistaa: vaunujen käyttöönotto varastosta ja laivaaminen Ukrainaan vie aikaa, vaunumiesten koulutus vielä aikaa, samoin huoltomiesten koulutus yms. mitä vaunujen tehokas käyttö vaativat. Jos halutaan riskeerata hyödyllinen resurssi heittämällä se taisteluun kiireesti, ollaan samassa tilanteessa kuin miltä Venäjän touhu näyttää. Toisaalta Ukraina tarvitsee vaunuja ja osaavia vaunumiehiä / -joukkueita / -komppanioita yms.
Arvaisin että jos Puola toimittaisi Ukrainalle PT-91 Twardy vaunut, ne voitaisiin ottaa melkein suoriltaan käyttöön, toki olettaen että niille löytyy osaava T-72 miehistö. Vaatinee oman aikansa kouluttaa ko. vaunun erityispiirteet, mutta tuskin sota-aikana ylettömän kauaa - viikko tai pari, ehkä kuukausi?
Näiden Abramsien osalta jos päätös toimituksesta tehtäisiin nyt, ne voisivat ehkä (minun arvaus) osallistua aktiivisesti vastahyökkäykseen ensi vuonna rospuuttokauden päätyttyä. Ei ole arvoton asia, hyvää kannattaa odottaa eikä arvokasta resurssia haaskata. Ehkä olen liian pessimistinen, ehkä näiden miehistön koulutus onnistuisi nopeammin ja näitä voitaisiin käyttää taistelussa talven aikana (pimeä, lumi yms. vaikeuttaa monen vanhemman vaunun toimintaa vanhan optiikan takia) mutta rospuutto varmasti aiheuttaa haasteet toiminnalle. Huolto varmaan kannattaisi järjestää Puolassa ja sinne voitaisiin toimittaa Yhdysvalloista osaava henkilöstö. Puola on tehnyt sopimuksen uusien Abramsien ostamisesta ja ensimmäiset vaunut on toimitettu heille, mutta vaunujen tukiorganisaation rakentaminen on vielä pahasti kesken. Toisaalta mikä olisi parempaa harjoitusta kuin taistelusta tulleiden vaunujen huolto, yhdysvaltalaisten asiantuntijoiden tukena?
Aika näyttää miten käy, mutta ei ole huonoin näkemäni ehdotus. Ukraina tarvitsee lisää vaunuja, kevyitä ja raskaita.
American Tanks For Ukraine Are ‘Absolutely On The Table’
There is already speculation about the possibility of U.S.-made M1 Abrams tanks heading to Ukraine, but there are other potential options.BY JOSEPH TREVITHICK SEP 19, 2022 10:40 PM
A senior U.S. defense official said today that there is a definite possibility that the U.S. government could transfer unspecified tanks to the Ukrainian armed forces in the future.
The remarks from the senior U.S. defense official about tanks for Ukraine were included in a routine Pentagon press briefing about the state of Russia's war on that country earlier today. Ukrainian forces continue to push ahead with a major counter-offensive that began some four weeks ago and has already led to the liberation of a substantial amount of previously occupied territory. Foreign military aid packages full of weapons, ammunition, and other materiel – especially U.S.-supplied High-Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) firing 227mm Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMRLS) rockets and air-launched AGM-88 High-speed Anti-Radiation Missiles (HARM) – have been key to these successes, and continued deliveries are likely to be essential for keeping up the momentum.
"Tanks are absolutely on the table," the senior U.S. defense official said, according to VOA's Carla Babb. The senior U.S. defense official did say that Ukrainian forces would need to demonstrate their ability to maintain more modern Western tanks before American authorities would agree to provide them, according to Foreign Policy's Jack Detsch.
The requirement that Ukrainian forces first prove themselves capable of keeping a fleet of Western tanks going seems unlikely to be a major dealbreaker. U.S officials said similar things in the past ahead of the initial deliveries of HIMARS. Ukraine's military has shown itself very capable of getting contingents rapidly trained to maintain and employ HIMARS and other more complex Western weapon systems, such as the aforementioned AGM-88s and ground-launched Harpoon anti-ship missiles.
Regardless, it's unclear what tanks the U.S. government might be prepared to transfer. The senior defense official's comments have already prompted speculation about the potential of U.S.-made M1 Abrams tanks hitting the battlefield in Ukraine.
There are certainly a number of M1 configurations that are readily exportable, but that would still provide Ukrainian forces with newer and significantly more capable tanks than most, if not all of the Soviet-era designs and derivatives that they currently operate. It is possible that older Abrams in U.S. military inventory could be sufficiently downgraded, with any sensitive fire control, communications, and other systems removed, to allow them to be 'drawdown' and more quickly sent to Ukraine.
A 'drawdown' in this case refers to an authority that the President of the United States has, if certain stipulations are met, to transfer various kinds of materiel straight out of American stocks to allies and partners, something you can read more about here. The U.S. government has already sent billions in military assistance to the Ukrainian armed forces through the drawdown process, as well as other aid purchased directly on its behalf.
In terms of available tanks, the U.S. Marine Corps notably decided a few years ago to divest its entire fleet of M1s, as well as M88 armored recovery vehicles and M60 tank-based Armored Vehicle Launched Bridges (AVLB). The process has seen these vehicles transferred to the Army, though what that service's exact plans might be for them has been unclear. The Army already has thousands of older M1s in storage, too.
At the same time, M1s could present unique maintenance and logistical challenges for the Ukrainian armed forces, in no small part because of their fuel-hungry and complex gas turbine engine powerplants. The vast majority of Western, as well as Soviet-era tanks, use more conventional diesel engines. The Soviet T-64 and T-80 series, which were produced in Ukraine, were also gas turbine powered. However, later variants and derivatives of the T-80, including Ukraine's modernized T-84 Oplot, nixed the turbines in favor of simpler and cheaper to maintain diesel engines.
Transferring wheeled 8x8 M1128 Stryker Mobile Gun System (MGS), which are armed with 105mm guns, but are not tanks, could be another potential option for the U.S. military to help bolster Ukraine's armored vehicle fleets. The U.S. Army announced its plans to divest all of its M1128s last year, meaning that they'd be readily available to send to the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
These vehicles could be particularly well suited for Ukraine under the circumstances, being simpler and cheaper to operate and maintain than an Abrams, if also less capable. In addition, with the Army's retirement of the M1128s, there are no other 105mm gun-armed vehicles currently in U.S. military service, making it just that much less of an issue to transfer relevant ammunition. It is, of course, worth noting that the Army's future Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) light tanks will be armed with 105mm main guns.
Sending the M1128s to Ukraine could be made part of a larger push by the U.S. government to facilitate or otherwise promote the transfer of older tanks with NATO-standard 105mm guns to Ukraine. For instance, there may still be some number of U.S.-made M60A3 Pattontanks, which either are or can be significantly upgraded with modern sensors and other capabilities, in storage in a number of NATO countries that American authorities could seek to help deliver to the Ukrainian military.
The possibility of Germany sending older Leopard 1 tanks to Ukraine, or approving the delivery of Leopard 1s from third parties, has been a topic of discussion for months now, as well. For now, however, German authorities continue to block any transfers of Leopard 1s, among other German-made armored vehicles, to Ukraine.
At the press briefing earlier today, the senior U.S. defense official did specifically highlight how American authorities have already "spent a good deal of effort in encouraging countries largely in Europe who have some of these formerly Russian-made tanks to provide them to Ukraine to supplement Ukraine's existing tank inventory."
With all this in mind, it is very interesting to note that Slovenia, which is a NATO member, announced today that it plans to transfer 28 M-55S tanks to Ukraine as part of a three-way deal that will see it receive 40 unspecified vehicles from Germany in exchange. The M-55Ss, also sometimes referred to as M-55S1s, are highly modified versions of the Soviet T-55 that received an upgrade package developed by Slovenian firm STO RAVNE in partnership with Israeli defense contractor Elbit in the 1990s. The M-55s are armed with NATO-standard 105mm guns in place of the original 100mm D-10Ts, and have modernized fire control systems and optics, among other improvements, as well as the ability to be equipped with ERA. If this deal goes ahead, Ukraine will have to start receiving NATO-standard 105mm tank ammunition, as well.
No matter what, heavy armor, in general, continues to be very actively employed on bothsides of the current conflict in Ukraine, despite equally active discussions about whether the fighting has proven that tanks are increasingly unsuited to modern battlefields. Even older armored vehicles have proven useful in a conflict where the opposing side has also beenmaking use of dated types, at least in part due to attrition.
As such, it's hardly surprising that tanks and other armored vehicles continue have been and continue to be high on the Ukrainian government's military aid wishlists. Replenishing armored vehicles lost in the fighting so far, and potentially upgrading Ukraine's ground combat capabilities in the process, is perhaps even more important now in light of the ongoing counter-offensive.
All told, it still very much remains to be seen when any American tanks might actually make their way to Ukraine, and what types might be transferred. At the same time, even older Western tanks could still be a major boon to the Ukrainian military's ongoing fight to push back the Russian invaders.
Contact the author: [email protected]
Ei pidä intoilla liikaa, tämä on vain yksi optio. Lisäksi pitää muistaa: vaunujen käyttöönotto varastosta ja laivaaminen Ukrainaan vie aikaa, vaunumiesten koulutus vielä aikaa, samoin huoltomiesten koulutus yms. mitä vaunujen tehokas käyttö vaativat. Jos halutaan riskeerata hyödyllinen resurssi heittämällä se taisteluun kiireesti, ollaan samassa tilanteessa kuin miltä Venäjän touhu näyttää. Toisaalta Ukraina tarvitsee vaunuja ja osaavia vaunumiehiä / -joukkueita / -komppanioita yms.
Arvaisin että jos Puola toimittaisi Ukrainalle PT-91 Twardy vaunut, ne voitaisiin ottaa melkein suoriltaan käyttöön, toki olettaen että niille löytyy osaava T-72 miehistö. Vaatinee oman aikansa kouluttaa ko. vaunun erityispiirteet, mutta tuskin sota-aikana ylettömän kauaa - viikko tai pari, ehkä kuukausi?
Näiden Abramsien osalta jos päätös toimituksesta tehtäisiin nyt, ne voisivat ehkä (minun arvaus) osallistua aktiivisesti vastahyökkäykseen ensi vuonna rospuuttokauden päätyttyä. Ei ole arvoton asia, hyvää kannattaa odottaa eikä arvokasta resurssia haaskata. Ehkä olen liian pessimistinen, ehkä näiden miehistön koulutus onnistuisi nopeammin ja näitä voitaisiin käyttää taistelussa talven aikana (pimeä, lumi yms. vaikeuttaa monen vanhemman vaunun toimintaa vanhan optiikan takia) mutta rospuutto varmasti aiheuttaa haasteet toiminnalle. Huolto varmaan kannattaisi järjestää Puolassa ja sinne voitaisiin toimittaa Yhdysvalloista osaava henkilöstö. Puola on tehnyt sopimuksen uusien Abramsien ostamisesta ja ensimmäiset vaunut on toimitettu heille, mutta vaunujen tukiorganisaation rakentaminen on vielä pahasti kesken. Toisaalta mikä olisi parempaa harjoitusta kuin taistelusta tulleiden vaunujen huolto, yhdysvaltalaisten asiantuntijoiden tukena?
Aika näyttää miten käy, mutta ei ole huonoin näkemäni ehdotus. Ukraina tarvitsee lisää vaunuja, kevyitä ja raskaita.
Viimeksi muokattu:
On kyllä tainneet nuo opit siirtyä ihan geeniperimään asti. Myös allekirjoittaneella.
Ei ne koneet ikäänny mitenkään vanhojen autojen tavoin joista ensin menee yhdestä yksilöstä renkaan laakeri ja sen jälkeen toisesta kyljen pelti ruttuun. Meillä on mahdollisuus saada varaosia ihan niin paljon kun niitä kuluu, eli ei tartte edes ruveta kannibalisoimaan toimivia koneita. Se mistä puhutaan lentotuntien loppumisen kohdalla tarkoittaa sitä että rungon/kantavien rakenteiden kuormankesto todellakin tulee vastaan, eli kun niitä on rasitettu tietty määrä kertoja, metalli väsyy ja lopulta antaa periksi. Tuota seurataan aktiivisesti ja täällä ollaan noiden koneiden ennakoivassa ylläpidossa maailman parhaita, koska pakko olla.
Jos huoltokirja kertoo että rungon venymät on sitä mallia että siivet irtoaa joko seuraavalla lennolla tai viimeistään kymmenen tukevan kaarroksen jälkeen niin ei yksikään pilotti hyppää puikkoihin. Ne koneen mukana tonttiin menevät komponentit, riski lentäjän hengestä, aseet ja muu on muutenkin paljon arvokkaampia kun yksi tyhmä ja uhkarohkea seikkailutehtävä. Pätee meidän Hornetteihin ja Ukrainan MiGeihin.
EDIT: tuon huoltaminen tosiaan siis vaatisi että puretaan lentokone rungon ympäriltä, vaihdetaan runko ja kasataan vanhat osat takaisin, jokaisessa välissä tarkistaen komponenttien mitat, toleranssit, ikääntyminen jne. On oikeasti paljon helpompaa ja halvempaa tuossa vaiheessa vaan ostaa kokonaan uusi kone kun ruveta ensin purkamaan, sitten mittaamaan ja lopulta kasaamaan vanhaa uusiksi.
Seksikäs ajatus hillota noita johonkin vuoreen, mutta realiteetti on vähän toinen.
Olisi kiva tietää miten noiden Migien varaosat ja huolto on hoidettu. Ilmeisesti osia on saatavilla länsimaisilta toimittajiltakin.
"Le feu tue!"
-Henri-Philippe Petain
Hyvin kuvastaa tilannetta
Tiedä sitten tarvitseeko noista niin välittää. Se yksikin ex-vanki selitti siinä haastattelussa kuinka heitä oli koulutettu seitsemän päivän sijasta 5 päivää kun "kokki" oli tullut katsomaan joukkoa. Siinä ajassa ei paljoa opi. Sitten saat paskat kamat ja paskimmat hommat. Samaahan se Ukrainan puolelle loikannut kertoi, että viikossa aseenkäsittely ja kerran radalle. Sitten kohti Ukrainaa.
Menee parhaimpien joukkojen aika siihen että vahtii noita linjassa etteivät heti juokse karkuun tai toiselle puolelle antautumaan.
MOT: jos se näyttää siltä ja haisee siltä, se on sitä.
Ossi Tiihosen Vapauden liittoon liitetty ekonomisti ja Helsingin yliopiston taloustieteen dosentti Tuomas Malinen on sitä samaa haisevaa kasaa kuin Ano Turtiainen, tosin Anosta poiketen osaa sekä lukea että kirjoittaa:
..eli Ukrainan avustaminen koituu lopulta lännen tuhoksi ja Venäjän voitoksi..aivan..tämä siis on syynä, miksi Venäjä suorastaan kannustaa länttä tukemaan Ukrainaa!
Ossi Tiihosen Vapauden liittoon liitetty ekonomisti ja Helsingin yliopiston taloustieteen dosentti Tuomas Malinen on sitä samaa haisevaa kasaa kuin Ano Turtiainen, tosin Anosta poiketen osaa sekä lukea että kirjoittaa:
..eli Ukrainan avustaminen koituu lopulta lännen tuhoksi ja Venäjän voitoksi..aivan..tämä siis on syynä, miksi Venäjä suorastaan kannustaa länttä tukemaan Ukrainaa!
Viimeksi muokattu:
Coffee Man
Respected Leader
Olisihan se pitänyt arvata että joku tuohonkin tarttuu.
Voidaan kyllä ihan hyvin sanoa että baltit pääsivät eroon Venäjästä mutta eivät venäläisistä. Vaikka se ei maiden ulkopolitiikassa juurikaan näy niin paikalliset venäläiset ovat balteille ihan todellinen ongelma ja turvallisuusriski erityisesti siksi että massiivinen ja mielipuolinen propaganda uppoaa myös Venäjän ulkopuolella asuviin venäläisiin ja myös siksi että Venäjän ulkopuolella asuvat venäläiset ovat pelinappuloita Putinille ja kumppaneille. Ukrainan kohdalla se oli ihan keskeinen tekosyy sodan aloittamiselle.
Tuo oma kritiikkini oli Suomen kohdalla kohdistettu vain ja ainoastaan päättäjiin. Kyllä kansan enemmistö tietää ja ymmärtää ihan hyvin sen että ryssä on ryssä vaikka voissa paistaisi
Rehellisyyden nimissä on sanottava että kyllä suurin osa päättäjistäkin sen tietää ja ymmärtää mutta useistakin syistä johtuen se näkyy edelleenkin ihan liian harvoin käytännön tasolla. Ehkä se on nyt viisumipelleilystä huolimatta hiljalleen muuttumassa mutta varmaa se ei ole vieläkään.Saksan ja saksalaisten kohdalla ongelma on vielä huomattavasti monimutkaisempi ja moniulotteisempi kokonaisuus.
Viimeksi muokattu: