(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .



How to make the war in Ukraine end faster and other stuff [1]

['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.', 'Backgroundurl Avatar_Large', 'Nickname', 'Joined', 'Created_At', 'Story Count', 'N_Stories', 'Comment Count', 'N_Comments', 'Popular Tags']

Date: 2022-10-26

ATACMS missiles: President Biden, please give Ukraine these missiles immediately

Many countries have given military aid to Ukraine. Many are in NATO, some aren’t. Some countries have given more aid than others, but even after 8 months Ukraine still needs certain types of military equipment (and not for want of asking).

So not only does Ukraine need more of what it’s already been given, it also needs new equipment.

Much of this equipment frankly should have been supplied months ago, not least SAM, SHORAD, C-RAM and counter-drone systems. From the get-go the west and its allies have been acting far too timidly towards Russia as if the US, the UK and France don’t have nukes too and as if MAD weren’t a thing. The aid has arrived in dribs and drabs, whereas Ukraine needs shit-loads of equipment now. And tomorrow. And every day after that until the war ends. The more equipment Ukraine gets, the sooner the war will end. [For those that don’t know, “shit-loads” is a technical military term.]

Also check out this list of countries’ aid as a percentage of GDP, it’s eye-opening: www.statista.com/…

Below is a list of the things that imo would bring the end of the war much closer much faster [this is not a comprehensive list, because (a) I might have forgotten to mention certain things, (b) there may well be equipment that would be useful that I’m unaware of and (c) additional items could be added ad infinitum, so I’ve stuck to those items that imo would make the greatest difference to help shorten the war as quickly as possible]:

ATACMS missiles for the HIMARS/M270/MARS II launchers (see image above)

ATACMS missiles imo would make the biggest difference when it comes to shortening the war. (ATACMS is apparently pronounced “attack-ems” — a fitting acronym.)

Currently these launchers only have a range of about 50 miles/80km firing M31 rockets (aka GMLRS Unitary, GMLRS-U). ATACMS missiles would increase the range of these launchers to about 190 miles/300km (I assume the ATACMS missile in question would be the M48 unitary variant — someone will no doubt correct me if I’m wrong).

So with ATACMS missiles, Ukraine could continue to take out the same sorts of targets it’s currently taking out using M31 rockets but at much greater ranges, especially targets such as fuel and ammo dumps, concentrations of troops and equipment, bridges and railheads. Plus crucially, with ATACMS Ukraine could cover all of its occupied territory, including Crimea. Taking out such targets would not only reduce the amount of fuel, ammo, troops and equipment Russia has at its disposal, but also render Russian logistics much more difficult across all occupied territory.

ATACMS missiles could also seriously worsen the damage that’s already been inflicted on the Kerch Strait bridges. Hopefully the bridges would eventually collapse or at the very least be unable to carry trains and vehicles any more. Especially trains because Russian logistics are so dependent on rail.

The lame excuse from the US for not providing ATACMS missiles is that they could be fired at targets in Russia. This is an absolutely nonsensical argument. Firstly, Ukraine has agreed not to fire M31 rockets into Russia and it’s abided by that, so Ukraine could certainly also be trusted not to fire ATACMS into Russia if it made such a promise. Secondly, Ukraine even offered the US a veto over potential targets (which is demeaning imo, but shows how desperately Ukraine needs ATACMS) and still to date the US has refused to supply Ukraine with ATACMS missiles. How very high-handed. I really hope Biden changes his mind, because imo ATACMS would go a very long way to shortening this war. We should be way beyond the point of worrying about “provoking” Putin, as if he needs any provoking anyway, massive shithead that he is (excuse my French). In fact, being weak is provocation in itself to someone like Putin who despises weakness, as several articles I’ve read have pointed out since the start of the war. Plus it sends a terrible message to Iran, China and North Korea and sets a terrible precedent to boot.

Another logical target for ATACMS missiles would be warehouses storing Iranian suicide drones. I’ve read that many are launched from Crimea. ATACMS has the range to take out these warehouses. And taking out stores of drones is far better than trying to shoot them down. They’re being used in such large numbers that some are bound to get through — well until Ukraine gets far better counter-drone defences. More on that later.

Lastly, I saw a joke video a while back with a HIMARS launcher on an inflatable paddling pool approaching the Kerch Strait bridge (before the bridge was attacked). It was a spoof, but it made me wonder whether HIMARS/M270/MARS II launchers could be driven onto barges (or some other vessel) and used to take out various targets in Crimea and south-western Ukraine using M-31 rockets. Targets that spring to mind are Bastion-P launchers (which Russia is now using against ground targets), air bases (including aircraft on the ground), SAM systems, fuel & ammo dumps, concentrations of troops and equipment as well as command & control nodes.

HIMARS/M270/MARS II launchers

The west should send far more of these launchers to Ukraine and also drastically increase production of M31 rockets, not just for Ukraine, but to replenish western stocks.

There are plenty of countries that use the M270 launcher (of which MARS II is a German variant), so it wouldn’t be hard to supply Ukraine with a few more dozen of these launchers if the political will were there: en.wikipedia.org/…

Also hundreds of HIMARS launchers have been built. Surely at the very least Ukraine could be supplied with a few dozen more than it has already?

Also, I read that France will be providing LRU launchers to Ukraine, which AIUI is their version of the M270. I don’t know how many LRUs will be supplied, but the more the better.

SAM/SHORAD/C-RAM/c-UAS systems [see mini glossary below]

Air defence is a huge topic, but it seems to me that the two main priorities for Ukraine at present are systems that can shoot down drones, especially Iranian suicide drones, and systems that can shoot down Russian and Iranian ballistic missiles.

What strikes me as odd is that the IRIS-T SLM and NASAMS systems, which are either already in Ukraine or about to arrive, don’t appear to me to be ideal systems to deal with either threat.

They’ll be useful against low-flying fixed-wing aircraft, attack helicopters and cruise missiles (whether launched from sea or air), but using missiles to shoot down suicide drones is ridiculous overkill, ridiculously expensive and you’re going to run out of missiles pretty damn fast (plus you’d need absolutely loads of launchers and loads of missiles for a country the size of Ukraine).

As for ballistic missiles, can either system take them out? I’ve read seemingly contradictory information on different webpages. Some pages specify anti-ballistic missile capability, others don’t mention it at all (which rightly or wrongly I took to mean that these systems don’t have that capability).

But even if these systems can take out ballistic missiles, Ukraine won’t be getting enough launchers or missiles to cover the entire country, at least not in the short term.

Far more effective approaches would be to (a) take out the factories that manufacture the missiles, either with missiles or a Stuxnet-type cyber attack, (b) take out the missiles while they’re being transported to Russia or (c) take out the warehouses in Russia that store the missiles. I’ve no idea how feasible options (a) and (b) are, but as for option (c) I read recently that Ukraine is about to bring a drone into service with a 1,000km range (approx 620 miles): www.technology.org/… I assume it’s a suicide drone.

Such a drone would presumably enable Ukraine to take out warehouses in Russia storing ballistic missiles, assuming of course that the missiles are actually stored within range and assuming that the drones can reach their targets without being shot down (or that they’re produced in large enough numbers that even if some are shot down, some will get through the defences). And even if Russia stores the missiles out of range of these 1,000km Ukrainian drones and brings the missiles to the launchers by rail, these drones could target the railheads that the missiles are delivered to.

As for suicide drones, there are plenty of cheaper ways to take drones out than using missiles, but Ukraine doesn’t currently seem to have anywhere near enough of such systems. As far as western systems are concerned, AFAIK Ukraine is currently limited to a few Stormer and Gepard vehicles as well as MANPADS. Some other western options I’m aware of are VAMPIRE (firing laser-guided APKWS rockets), Skyguard, Skyshield and MANTIS NBS, all of which would be very useful to (relatively) cheaply take out suicide drones and to protect vital power and water infrastructure.

Apart from VAMPIRE though, I don’t think Ukraine has been supplied with the last three systems I mentioned. Why not I have no idea. All three systems are made by Rheinmetall, a German arms company. No doubt Scholz has lame excuses already prepared as to why these systems can’t be supplied to Ukraine along with Leopard tanks and Marder infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs). Seriously does Russia have something on him? What’s his deal?

VAMPIRE seems like a good solution because it can be fitted to a wide range of vehicles in just a couple of hours, even non-military vehicles like pick-up trucks. Laser guidance (weather permitting) means a hit is pretty much guaranteed (unless the rocket fails) and APKWS rockets are far cheaper than missiles. APKWS is a guidance kit that converts unguided “dumb” rockets into guided precision rockets (AIUI they can be used in a surface-to-surface role as well). From what I’ve read, such converted rockets cost roughly the same as Iranian Shahed-136/Geran-2 suicide drones (between $20,000 and $30,000 each), whereas missiles cost far more than that. Obviously given the choice between shooting down a suicide drone with an expensive missile and not shooting it down, you’re going to choose the former option, but that isn’t sustainable long term.

Ukraine needs huge numbers of relatively cheap systems to take out suicide drones such as guns firing airburst ammo as well as launchers firing relatively cheap APKWS precision rockets. And as a bonus, such systems can also shoot down low-flying fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters. (Possibly even cruise missiles too? I’m not sure.)

I’ve even seen footage of Ukrainian police officers shooting down an Iranian Shahed drone using assault rifles (albeit in daytime) and so therefore I’d have thought that it would be possible to develop relatively simple RCWS and/or automated systems firing 5.56mm, 7.76mm or 12.7mm ammo to take out suicide drones. Such ammo is pretty cheap and fire enough rounds (especially with good detection and targeting systems) and you’re going to stand a good chance of shooting down a suicide drone I’d have thought, even without airburst ammo. Such systems could be located on the roofs of any essential infrastructure you want to protect. As well as on the roofs of all sorts of civilian buildings. Such systems would be pretty damn cheap (militarily speaking) and could be used in vast numbers. Of course they should form part of a multi-layered air defence system with such systems forming the innermost layer (i.e. the very last line of defence). Plus would WWII-style barrage balloons be a good defence against suicide drones? Especially if they had nets strung between them?

As for ballistic missiles, I’ve read that certain Buk and S-300 variants can take them out, but I don’t know if Ukraine has such variants and if it does in what sort of numbers. And Ukraine not only needs loads of launchers it also needs loads of missiles. I don’t know if such systems are still available from former Warsaw Pact countries, but if they are get them to Ukraine in large numbers immediately. All this should have been done months ago though.

The west and its allies need to switch from a reactive posture to a proactive one. And stop telling Ukraine what equipment it does and doesn’t need. Instead listen to Ukraine when it asks for equipment and do everything possible to fulfill those requests. Also ask “What else do you need?” I find it infuriating when the US tells Ukraine that it doesn’t need ATACMS or when Scholz says that it won’t give Ukraine Leopard tanks unless other countries give tanks as well. What utterly pathetic and lame positions to take.

I’ve read that Spain and the US will be supplying Ukraine with I-HAWK systems that can take out ballistic missiles. HAWK is an old system, but has been upgraded over the years (I-HAWK = Improved HAWK), but again Ukraine is going to need loads of launchers and loads of missiles if Iran ends up selling hundreds of ballistic missiles to Russia. Plus according to what I read yesterday, the US HAWK launchers may not be in good condition after many years in storage, so the US may just supply HAWK missiles to be fired from Spanish HAWK launchers. Not sure — time will tell what actually happens. If the US HAWK launchers can be refurbished though, that would be ideal.

Modern systems that AIUI can shoot down ballistic missiles include Patriot, SAMP/T, THAAD, Aegis Ashore, David’s Sling, Barack 8 and Arrow 3. The last three systems are Israeli systems and may not be provided (although I hope they are). And once again Ukraine would need loads of these systems considering the size of Ukraine. The sooner such systems are provided to Ukraine and the sooner Ukrainians are trained up on how to use and maintain these systems the better.

Glossary

SAM: Surface-to-Air Missile

SHORAD: SHOrt-Range Air Defence

C-RAM: Counter-Rocket, Artillery, Mortar

c-UAS: counter-Unmanned Aerial System (i.e. a counter-drone system)

EO/IR sensors: Electro-Optical/InfraRed sensors

RCWS: Remote-Controlled Weapon Station

Fighter jets

There has been talk of providing Ukraine with American F-15s and/or F-16s as well as with Swedish Gripens.

There has also been a lot of talk about how long it would take to train up Ukrainian pilots on western fighter jets. I have no idea how long it would take, but throughout the war Ukrainians have shown themselves to be very fast (and motivated) learners, so the sooner experienced Ukrainian fighter pilots are trained up on western jets the better.

Another issue of course is training the people who will maintain these aircraft and getting a logistics system in place for whatever aircraft Ukraine is supplied with.

None of these things are simple, it would be silly to claim otherwise, but by the same token I’ve read many comments online along the lines of “It would take too long, so don’t bother.” That’s an absolutely idiotic (and defeatist) position to take. Of course it’s possible that such commenters are Russian sympathisers or Kremlin shills. The correct position to take is: “It will take some time, but the sooner we start the better.”

Fighter aircraft would be immensely useful to Ukraine and would bring the end of the war much closer.

These aircraft could target:

- Russian aircraft, drones and cruise missiles

- Russian ships in the Black Sea

- Russian ships and subs in port

- Ports (even if no ships or subs are there)

- Air bases, including aircraft on the ground

- SAM and SHORAD systems

- Bastion-P launchers (which Russia has now started using against land targets)

- Fuel and ammo dumps

- Concentrations of troops and equipment

- Command and control centres

- Bridges

- Railheads

- And once SAM systems have been taken out, aircraft could drop bombs on the Kerch Strait bridges to finish them off

As for which fighter jet is best for Ukraine right now, imo that’s the Gripen. I say that for a few reasons (I have no vested interests):

1) Gripens can operate from roads and can be refuelled and rearmed with a small ground crew of just 5 people in 20 minutes. I’m not aware of any other fighter jet with such capability. Also not being dependent on an airbase to operate from means a Gripen is inherently more survivable than any jet that is, so it would be much harder to take out a Gripen on the ground next to some random road as opposed to other aircraft on the ground at an airbase whose location is known to everyone. This capability would be especially useful near the front lines. As well as near the Russian border, and not just now but after the war has ended too.

2) The Gripen AIUI isn’t as complex as an F-15 to learn to fly (or as logistics intensive). From what I’ve read (as a non-expert) I’ve got the impression that the F-16 and Gripen are fairly comparable in this respect, but then see point 1) again.

3) The Gripen isn’t a stealth fighter, but for a so-called 4th gen(eration) fighter, it has a pretty small Radar Cross Section (RCS) because of its smallish size. An aircraft’s RCS is a measure of how detectable it is by radar and at what sort of ranges. The smaller an aircraft’s RCS the better, since it makes it harder to detect using ground-based radar or airborne radar and it means the aircraft has to get closer to these radars before it can be detected (and engaged by missiles).

4) The Gripen can carry the long-range Meteor and the short-range IRIS-T air-to-air missiles, both of which should be devastating to any Russian aircraft. IRIS-T is also said to have the ability to shoot down air-to-air missiles (AAMs) and surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), increasing the Gripen’s survivability.

5) The Gripen can also take out ships and a wide range of ground targets. Many other aircraft also have multirole capability (although not all), but along with the other points above, this seals it for me as to why I think the Gripen is the best choice for Ukraine right now.

Main Battle Tanks (MBTs) & Infantry Fighting Vehicles (IFVs)

The most obvious choice when it comes to an MBT imo is the Leopard 2 since many European countries use it in various variants: en.wikipedia.org/…

Why Scholz refuses to give Ukraine Leopard tanks boggles my mind. He keeps saying that he doesn’t want to act independently of allies. Why on earth not? Or else call these allies and get the ball rolling. His excuses make absolutely no sense at all. And especially when you consider that Germany has given Ukraine loads of military equipment. Why do Leopard tanks cross a seemingly random line that other equipment that Germany has already supplied doesn’t?: www.bundesregierung.de/...

As for IFVs, supplying Ukraine with German Marders and UK Warriors would make sense imo.

And if countries aren’t going to give Ukraine MBTs or IFVs, then another option would be a system like the Ukrainian-Turkish SERDAR system that can fire anti-tank missiles and that has a 12.7mm (.50 cal) machine gun as well as a secondary 7.62mm gun. SERDAR can be fitted to a variety of vehicles turning them into dangerous and effective systems at a relatively low cost (at least as far as military systems go anyway): www.army-technology.com/…

Switchblade 600

This loitering munition needs to be put into large-scale production ASAP and produced in at least the high hundreds and ideally the thousands.

It would be a game-changer imo, especially in areas like north of Kherson city, near Bakhmut and near Svatove. And several other locations as Ukraine advances.

Switchblade 600 can hit targets such as tanks, APCs, IFVs, SAM and SHORAD systems as well as fuel & ammo dumps. And they’re relatively cheap (as military equipment goes).

D40 & D155

The D40 loitering munition made by DefendTex has already been supplied to Ukraine by Australia. Such munitions supplied in the thousands, like Switchblade 600s, would be incredibly useful to Ukraine.

Plus the D40 can be carried by the D155 drone, greatly extending its range to up to 80km.

Skjold corvette

This may sound like a strange suggestion, but bear with me.

The Skjold corvette is made by Norway. It’s a low-profile, fast and stealthy vessel that carries NSM missiles internally. The NSM (Naval Strike Missile) is both an anti-ship missile and a land-attack missile fired from naval vessels with a range of 185km (approx 115 miles). Norway only has 6 of these corvettes and may well be reluctant to give one to Ukraine, but imo it would be a game-changer.

Because the Skjold is low profile and stealthy it’s hard to detect (and to engage with anti-ship missiles). Because it’s fast it can outrun subs and torpedoes, which most naval vessels can’t.

AIUI warships can’t come into the Black Sea via the Turkish Straits because of the Montreux Convention, but I wonder if a Skjold could be brought into the Black Sea via European canals and rivers? (The Danube empties into the Black Sea.)

A Skjold corvette firing NSM missiles could take out Russian ships at sea, Russian ships and subs in port as well as Bastion-P launchers. A Skjold could also hit ports, airbases, fuel and ammo dumps as well as concentrations of troops and equipment which are currently beyond the range of HIMARS/M270/MARS II launchers firing M31 rockets. At least in Crimea and south-western Ukraine anyway.

There’s a recurring theme in several of my comments in this article: Ukraine needs systems that outrange M31 rockets (which have a range of about 80km). Anything that provides this capability is going to end this war much sooner. And the more such systems Ukraine gets the better.

I’ve covered several ways above that Ukraine could better defend itself from various threats, especially (but not exclusively) suicide drones and ballistic missiles, but there’s another threat that Ukraine needs to protect itself from and that’s another possible attack coming from Belarus.

I have no idea how likely such an attack is, but it would be negligent of Ukraine not to do everything it can to thwart such an attack. It seems to me that Ukraine needs to blow up all the bridges near the border with Belarus, dismantle hundreds of metres of rail track (at least) and crater/mine/block roads. I’ve read that Ukraine has blown up some bridges and rail lines near the border with Belarus and I’ve seen video of Ukrainian troops covering roads near the border. That’s something at least, but is it enough?

Such actions would also make sense along the border with Russia in those areas of Ukraine that have been liberated from Russian occupation.

24/7 surveillance and 24/7 fire control would also be required. (Fire control means that an area is covered by artillery or other fire.)

24/7 surveillance could be achieved by using satellites, High-Altitude Pseudo Satellites (HAPS), long-endurance ISTAR drones, ISTAR aircraft, AEW&C aircraft, hidden/camouflaged CCTV cameras, tripwires and motion sensors. (ISTAR = Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition & Reconnaissance; AEW&C = Airborne Early Warning & Control.)

24/7 fire control could be achieved by using a mix of Remote-Controlled Weapon Stations (RCWS) and soldiers guarding suspected border crossings, especially roads and potential river crossings. Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGVs) equipped with day & night cameras would be another option.

Once the war is over it would also make sense imo for Ukraine to develop “landscaped defences” (to coin a phrase). By that I mean modify the landscape to make a future land invasion far far harder, verging on impossible. And again combine these defences with 24/7 surveillance and 24/7 fire control.

Such defences could include things like:

- Very wide and deep anti-tank ditches that are so wide that they can’t be bridged using military bridge-laying vehicles

- Very high and steep artificial hills that no military vehicle can get over. If a military earth-moving vehicle tries to dig through the hill then 24/7 surveillance and 24/7 fire control would mean that the life expectancy of such a vehicle would be very short.

- Artificially created marshland. Not all military vehicles are amphibious and even those that are would struggle in marshland where propellors could get tangled up in underwater vegetation or get caught up on underwater roots.

Such defences would need to extend the entire length of the border with Belarus and Russia.

Many people like to point out the Maginot line wasn’t effective and that “fixed fortifications are monuments to the stupidity of man”.

Well firstly the Maginot line had two massive glaring shortcomings: it didn’t reach the sea and it didn’t cover the Ardennes Forest. A bucket with holes doesn’t hold water, so I’m not surprised the Maginot line ultimately failed. That said, AIUI it worked well elsewhere.

Secondly, the defences I suggested above aren’t fixed fortifications. They’re designed to make a land invasion extremely difficult, verging on impossible. Combined with 24/7 surveillance and fire control, then I’d expect such defences to be very effective.

FIN

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/story/2022/10/26/2131224/-How-to-make-the-war-in-Ukraine-end-faster-and-other-stuff

Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/

You are viewing proxied material from magical.fish. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.