Cubans Are Still Being Recruited by Russia to Fight in Ukraine
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ne-cubans-are-still-being-recruited-by-russia
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
-
Hello, Guest! We have four new competitions (with taglines and awards as prizes) starting.
A new Odds or Evens competition is starting now. Click here to read the rules and message Damien to submit your eight players by 14th September 2024
A new Carabao Cup prediction competition is starting now. Click here to enter to submit predictions for round 3 which begins 17th September.
A new Champions League prediction competition is starting now. Click here to enter to submit predictions for the first round which begins 17th September.
A new Europa League prediction competition is starting now. Click here to enter to submit predictions for the first round which begins 25th September.
For Odds or Evens you have until the 14th September to submit your players. Submissions will be open for the next 6 days, 11 hours, 9 minutes, 6 seconds, and will close on Sep 14, 2024 at 12:30. -
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Jamie (@Vault Dweller) get the depressing job of reviewing United's 3-0 loss at Old Trafford to Liverpool. They discuss what went wrong, Casemiro's day to forget, and the pressure now on Erik Ten Hag. They also take some time to give McTominay a proper farewell, and give their overall thoughts on the Summer Transfer Window.
Iryna Farion has been shot dead in Lviv.
Well, on one hand she was a nasty piece of work ultranationalist who took the "screw Russia" rhetoric to "feck everyone who isn't ethnic Ukrainian"
On the other side this was almost certainly a piece of work by the Russians.
Well, on one hand she was a nasty piece of work ultranationalist who took the "screw Russia" rhetoric to "feck everyone who isn't ethnic Ukrainian"
On the other side this was almost certainly a piece of work by the Russians.
UPOD time again, I suppose
Did he come back from this?
https://www.newsweek.com/top-russian-economist-dies-after-falling-out-window-1929398#:~:text=Valentina Bondarenko, a top Russian,run media reported on Tuesday.
Maybe she said something she shouldnt have?
Maybe she said something she shouldnt have?
He couped out
Looks like a sizeable Wagner convoy got knocked out in Mali and a Grey Zone administrator (propaganda channel) was among the casualties. Dozens of casualties (allegedly).
I picked a source more or less at random, because I was reading about it in Norwegian media.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davida...arget-russian-bombers-at-their-northern-base/
Ukraine has bombed Olenya airfield in Murmansk, 1800 km from the Russia-Ukraine border. The previous record was apparently 1300 km.
200 km from Norway/Finland, 500 km from Sweden.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davida...arget-russian-bombers-at-their-northern-base/
Ukraine has bombed Olenya airfield in Murmansk, 1800 km from the Russia-Ukraine border. The previous record was apparently 1300 km.
200 km from Norway/Finland, 500 km from Sweden.
Last edited:
What now?
Sorry, missed a zero while translating from memory, I read it yesterday.
A lot of internal criticism in Ukraine regarding leadership. Common argument is that the military is still too Sovietized and they should be fighter smarter/more resourceful than the Russians but it's not happening enough.
He needs to significantly curtail his tea consumption and window viewing
Hmm, if true, wonder who the Russians will receive in return.
We've known about this for a long time.
The command and control structures, the NCO culture, the lack of C3i infrastructure and the top down hierarchy culture makes transforming the AFU to a modern western standard fighting force very difficult in the short-medium term.
Do you think that the F-16 have the potential to be a game changer?
No.
Individual weapon platforms need to fit a proper cohesive doctrine as a small cog in the overall fighting strategy of a military. Rarely do individual 'wunderwaffen' work in a broad battlefield context (barring exceptional circumstances, like African tribesman armed with Spears and Shields charging lines of Maxim Guns). The F-16 is a very small piece of the overall NATO doctrine developed in the 1980's called Airland Battle, and later modified to something called 'Full spectrum dominance'. A singular fighter jet, in low numbers, no matter how good, is unable to shift the battlefield on its own without a full integration to its own battlefield needs with specific designs to fit those needs. Sorry if this sounds like word jumble, let me try and explain with examples.
The F-16 was designed as the 'lo' aspect of the 'lo-hi' calculus in the US air force. The 'hi' being the F15. Hi-lo is basically the idea that you have a smaller, limited amounts, of very high quality aircraft that is designed to take control of the skies in rapid time followed by the 'lo' (cheap, more disposable aircraft that have a wider utilization use at more bang for buck), which then supports ground troops. In Modern times the 'Hi' aspect of the US Air force is the F22 (and in the future, the NGAD/FA(XX)/whatever the new air force one is designated as), with the 'lo' being the F-35.
From a strategic perspective, the first and most important mission is SEAD/DEAD (Suppression/denial of enemy air defences). This is a combination of Air superiority 'Hi' fighters (F15C, F-15E/EX, F-22), stand off munitions (TLAMs, JASSM's), anti-radar assets, stealth penetrators (B-2's), going at full operational velocity, before further degradation is completely with more vulnerable assets with higher firepower (B1's, B52's, etc). Once this phase has been completed, the 'Lo' aspect of the mission profile really kicks in. F16's providing mobile air support, air cover, CAS missions, Tactical bombing etc etc, all the while the sky is dominated by the 'Hi'. That's not to say the F-16 cannot do Air to air combat missions, it's very good at doing so, especially since Block 72.
The key part to all of this is real time battlefield command and control. F-16's have great electronic suites, again especially since the latest blocks, but it's not enough to dominate a battlefield on it's own. It requires AWACS and AEWC&C as well as ELINT aircraft in the sky, after the initial SEAD/DEAD phase to provide real time battlefield intelligence to all the constituent parts. The real important part here is command, control and intelligence. US battalions have dedicated, fully trained, communications units with top range C3i equipment to communicate seamlessly with all the other assets on the ground, in the sky, and beyond. F-16's can be raised into the skies to provide CAS/Tactical bombing support and be given real time missions that are not briefly until after take off, with real time intelligence being communicated to the squadrons to assist where it need be. Again, communication is king.
A unit that has been bogged down, suppressed or needs general fire support, cannot make a request, wait for it to be passed down up and down the chain, until a fighter is scrambled, sent to the location to provide assistance. It might be too late then. One of the F-16's job is to provide real time support when and need be. One other really important thing here is "battlefield intiative", which is really dependent on a very well organized, high moral and very well trained NCO group. You cannot wait to escalate up the chain or to ask permission, you have to make decisions in real time, on the spot, without asking for permission. This is what NATO (not all of NATO but western europe and USA) really excel at. Decades and decades of a culture of NCO initiative, fostered by a no-blame culture and instilling that belief in NCO's.
I can give an anecdote from 2003 Iraq War invasion. A Sniper gets bogged down North of Basra and he is under fire from Iraqi's troops. He and his spotter cannot escape and are completely suppressed. The spotter contacts his CO HQ requesting artillery support. His CO HQ responds that there are no artillery units within range of his position to provide support. Rather than escalate to his superior, the radioman at the CO HQ immediately contacts the Air force command to ask for assistance for any assets in the vicinity. The answer is no, but the Air force radioman asks for the Ground force radioman to wait, as he contacts an E-3 Sentry patrolling in the skies above. The E-3 Sentry confirms to the air force radioman that there are naval assets in the region, and in turn the Ground force radioman contacts the USS Theodore Roosevelt with a request for assistance with broad co-ordinates. The USS Theodore Roosevelt radioman contacts an in air E-2 Hawkeye, who commands two patrolling F-18 Hornets to the location of where the sniper is being suppressed. 3 minutes later the F-18 hornets arrive and bomb the troops firing on the Sniper, allowing them to escape.
The entire chain of: Sniper team -> CO HQ -> Airforce -> E3 -> Airforce -> CO HQ -> USS Roosevelt -> E2 -> F18: Took a grand total of 88 seconds. 88 seconds to communicate between three different branches to command and control air support for a sniper team.
Now, why won't this work for Ukraine? So many reasons:
1) No 'Hi' in the calculus to control the skies.
2) Limited SEAD/DEAD to supress and destroy the air defense assets. Ukraine would have to use F-16's to do this, or Mig29's or SU-25's which are not suitable for this purpose.
3) F16's exist to be the 'Lo', high in quantity and allows for tactical sortie flexbility. Ukraine does not have anywhere close to enough to achieve this.
4) No C3i infrastructure to allow for tactical and strategic level asset communication in seconds.
5) No Battlefield intelligence platforms like E3/E2, ELINT or command and control assets.
6) No homogenous NCO culture that allows for on the spot decision making without hesitation.
7) All these factors mean the F-16 will be an order of magnitude less effective in Ukrainian hands than it would be in NATO hands.
If the anecdote was transposed to Ukraine it would go as follows.
Sniper calls in for air support, there are russians around his position. CO HQ says there's no support. Sniper begs. Radioman says he will ask his superior office. Superior officer says he will make a call to the Air force regional commanding officer. Air Force commanding officer has no idea what assets are available. Says feck it, lets scramble a jet (doubt he would even do that to be honest). Jet takes off into the air. By the time it arrives, Sniper is dead. Plane is now intercepted by AA missiles. Plane shot down.
After these prisoners are released, I hope that no more Americans go to Russia.
For further information on why NCO culture is so damn important, and how much NATO emphasizes this, I refer you to some official NATO documents emphasizing the key attributes of an NCO.
https://shape.nato.int/command-seni...ommissioned-officer-nco-tactical-to-strategic
https://shape.nato.int/resources/site7234/General/BISCD040-002 NATO NCO_JO Employment and Development Strat.pdf
I've highlighted two paragraphs that really show how much an NCO is expected to make "On the spot decisions without command"
https://shape.nato.int/command-seni...ommissioned-officer-nco-tactical-to-strategic
https://shape.nato.int/resources/site7234/General/BISCD040-002 NATO NCO_JO Employment and Development Strat.pdf
I've highlighted two paragraphs that really show how much an NCO is expected to make "On the spot decisions without command"
This last one refers mainly to non-combat activities, but the purpose of this is so in combat, the NCO's show the same initiative.
Massive thanks as always for the thorough and very, very informative reply.
After doing my own digging, I kinda concluded that the F-16s alone wouldn't never be enough, but your post paints a much clearer picture. What type of missions could these F-16s realistically fulfill given the current state of the Ukrainian army? It can't just be a PR exercise.
It definitely "helps" the war effort and is not just a PR exercise. But how much it helps really is up for debate.
To answer your question first of all:
1) F-16's have hardpoints that are compatible with practically most NATO missiles that are of relevance. This means stand-off munitions such as JASSM could be used, to strike at pre-determined Russian positions from hundreds of KM's away.
2) They can provide pre-determined low-flying/ in-out tactical bombing runs close to the frontline. Again, mostly on pre-defined positions and co-ordinates.
3) On large scale engagements, they can provide CAS operations, but this will have a survivability problem as the air is very contested and no SEAD/DEAD has been done.
4) They can provide long range intercepts of enemy missiles and enemy aircraft that stray too deep into the frontlines.
All of this will be done at a relatively low sortie-cadence and the effectiveness of such tactical level engagements won't change the strategic overview of the battlefield all that much.
Think of this analogy. Imagine you are a Gaullic tribal leader Vercingetorix fighting Caesar's army at Alessia. The battle is lost but at a razors edge. Afterwards you have the ability to go back in time and try again.
You make your soldiers spears 1 ft longer, the tips 20% sharper, your soldiers swords 15cm longer with much better rolled iron.
Are you going to win the battle this time around? Uncertain. It's still at a razors edge. So are those material improvements a "Game changer?". Probably not. But do they still offer improvement from the previous iteration? Absolutely.
Do you think it's possible that they will get AN/ASQ-213 pods for some of the aircrafts? They won't be able to do any large scale SEAD/DEAD operations either way but at least having a handful of aircrafts equiped with the targeting pods should increase the precision of the HARM missiles quite a bit.
We're talking about the doubling of Ukraine's air force or thereabouts. That changes the game even before you consider any enhanced capabilities the F-16 and its armaments bring.
1) No, we're not doubling our air force. AFU had about 200 combat aircraft pre war, and they are now down to about 120-130 after attrition, loss, lack of spare parts combined with NATO donations of old Mig-29's. The West has pledged 4 squadrons of F-16's.
2) You can 5x it, but if it doesn't suit the need of the battlefield it's not the force multiplication you think it is.
Can you explain to me how hypothetically, even if Ukraine get 200 F-16's, the strategic positions of either side changes?
I don't think it's worth it. You need the F-16 to get within Radar tracking range of any anti-air radar for HARM targeting pods to be really useful and the survivability is just not there for the attrition rates to be worth it.
The black sea fleet has already withdrawn because of the potential anti ship capability of the F16, so you could argue it has already changed the strategic position.
If they drop the bridge to Crimea which is probably worth some attrition to the number of F16's then logistically that could be a game changer for Russia in supplying forces there.
The increased Radar range over the front lines will push up Russia's losses or force them to withdraw further and that reduces the glide bomb tactic.
I'm not saying they will win the war overnight but they will have a larger impact than some think because they are probably the best trained pilots in the best aircraft fighting over Ukraine.
By the way, how many aircraft can Russia regularly field do you think? The numbers of F16 may not be that great but I think Russia's problems in this war to stem from its lack of air power, in reality, over theoretically. The arrival of the F16's is adding pressure to an already failing organization.
How do you know that's the reason, let alone it happened before the first viper took flight. Isn't it more likely it's the drone and missile threat?
Yeah I've seen this narrative and it makes zero sense.
ASuW by Aerial assets is by super advanced platforms that Ukraine won't get (Mako, LRASM) or by rather specific missiles like SLAM-ER (which doesn't even work with most F-16's, only Block 72+ IIRC)
Either way, the only ASuW missile that can even fit on F-16's is SLAM-ER on the Block 72s. All the other stuff isn't even compatible.
Let's break this down piece of by piece:
This is fan fiction.
With what. You need bunker-busting penetrating GBU series bombs to destroy a bridge like Kerch. Stand off munitions with penetrating warheads like JASSM-ER simply won't cut it. Getting a laser guided GBU that close to the bridge is basically a complete suicide mission.
How does the F-16 give extended radar range exactly? AN-APG68 has a double digit KM range. It's also useless because Ukraine doesn't have Link16 which means they cannot datalink F-16 radar data to anywhere anyway.
Oh boy. This is so so so far from being true.
The problems that Russia has is the same. Russia doesn't have pilot training time to do large formation flying, hence you see them stalk out in pairs. Air denial is exponentially more effective than air power for both sides right now. They can't do complex sorties because they will be plucked out of the sky due to lack of SEAD/DEAD.
The same problem that AFU faces.
The complete withdrawal of the Black Sea fleet probably has nothing to do with the F-16. The fact is simply that they have nothing to achieve and everything to risk by staying out. Landing operations were only on the cards during the early days of the war, any idea of that having been long abandoned since. Between the massive attrition the fleet has suffered both due to wear and tear as well as enemy action, their inability to reinforce and Ukrainian abilities to strike targets way offshore with the Neptunes and drones, there is just nothing that the fleet can even hope to achieve by staying out and about. It has become so weak that they cannot even posture anymore and hope to bind significant Ukrainian forces to guard against a threat from the sea. Pulling them back was the prudent decision, F-16 or not. There was just nothing for the ships to do except suffer even more losses and accrue more cost. The ships had already been recalled to the Sea of Azow long before the first F-16 was even inbound to Ukraine.
Overall I would not overestimate what a few squadrons of older F-16s can achieve in Ukraine. The most important thing is that they will replace some of the losses, and take pressure off of the surviving Ukrainian airframes. They will offer the capability to carry most western weaponry without having to hack together adapter kits, which is good but not a gamechanger either. Especially not if the west doesn't deliver a lot more in modern weaponry - not that the older F-16s are even capable of launching the really good stuff. Nothing will change in how either side's SAMs prohibit approaching each other's airspace in any manner that isn't nap-of-earth. The aircraft will be useful, no doubt, but I will be extremely surprised if they change status quo in the air even slightly.
Overall I would not overestimate what a few squadrons of older F-16s can achieve in Ukraine. The most important thing is that they will replace some of the losses, and take pressure off of the surviving Ukrainian airframes. They will offer the capability to carry most western weaponry without having to hack together adapter kits, which is good but not a gamechanger either. Especially not if the west doesn't deliver a lot more in modern weaponry - not that the older F-16s are even capable of launching the really good stuff. Nothing will change in how either side's SAMs prohibit approaching each other's airspace in any manner that isn't nap-of-earth. The aircraft will be useful, no doubt, but I will be extremely surprised if they change status quo in the air even slightly.
I think they withdrew their fleet because the Ukrainians kept sea droning their ships in port and at sea.