Is Ukraine about to have a war?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 30,922
Received 1,738 Likes
on
750 Posts
One comment says, flowers in November?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 30,922
Received 1,738 Likes
on
750 Posts
That should have been harvested 
Note the dead and cruise missiles!
Note the dead and cruise missiles!
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
https://www.reuters.com/business/aer...es-2022-11-28/
Exclusive: U.S. weighs sending 100-mile strike weapon to Ukraine
WASHINGTON, Nov 28 (Reuters) - The Pentagon is considering a Boeing proposal to supply Ukraine with cheap, small precision bombs fitted onto abundantly available rockets, allowing Kyiv to strike far behind Russian lines as the West struggles to meet demand for more arms.
U.S. and allied military inventories are shrinking, and Ukraine faces an increasing need for more sophisticated weapons as the war drags on. Boeing's proposed system, dubbed Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bomb (GLSDB), is one of about a half-dozen plans for getting new munitions into production for Ukraine and America's Eastern European allies, industry sources said.
GLSDB could be delivered as early as spring 2023, according to a document reviewed by Reuters and three people familiar with the plan. It combines the GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) with the M26 rocket motor, both of which are common in U.S. inventories.
Doug Bush, the U.S. Army's chief weapons buyer, told reporters at the Pentagon last week the Army was also looking at accelerating production of 155 millimeter artillery shells - currently only manufactured at government facilities - by allowing defense contractors to build them…..
Although a handful of GLSDB units have already been made, there are many logistical obstacles to formal procurement. The Boeing plan requires a price discovery waiver, exempting the contractor from an in-depth review that ensures the Pentagon is getting the best deal possible. Any arrangement would also require at least six suppliers to expedite shipments of their parts and services to produce the weapon quickly.
A Boeing spokesperson declined to comment. Pentagon spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Tim Gorman declined to comment on providing any "specific capability" to Ukraine, but said the U.S. and its allies "identify and consider the most appropriate systems" that would help Kyiv.
Although the United States has rebuffed requests for the 185-mile (297km) range ATACMS missile, the GLSDB's 94-mile (150km) range would allow Ukraine to hit valuable military targets that have been out of reach and help it continue pressing its counterattacks by disrupting Russian rear areas.
GLSDB is made jointly by SAAB and Boeing and has been in development since 2019, well before the invasion, which Russia calls a "special operation". In October, SAAB chief executive Micael Johansson said of the GLSDB: "We are imminently shortly expecting contracts on that."
According to the document - a Boeing proposal to U.S. European Command (EUCOM), which is overseeing weapons headed to Ukraine - the main components of the GLSDB would come from current U.S. stores.
The M26 rocket motor is relatively abundant, and the GBU-39 costs about $40,000 each, making the completed GLSDB inexpensive and its main components readily available. Although arms manufacturers are struggling with demand, those factors make it possible to yield weapons by early 2023, albeit at a low rate of production.
GLSDB is GPS-guided, can defeat some electronic jamming, is usable in all weather conditions, and can be used against armored vehicles, according to SAAB's website. The GBU-39 - which would function as the GLSDB's warhead - has small, folding wings that allow it to glide more than 100km if dropped from an aircraft and targets as small as 3 feet in diameter…..
Exclusive: U.S. weighs sending 100-mile strike weapon to Ukraine
WASHINGTON, Nov 28 (Reuters) - The Pentagon is considering a Boeing proposal to supply Ukraine with cheap, small precision bombs fitted onto abundantly available rockets, allowing Kyiv to strike far behind Russian lines as the West struggles to meet demand for more arms.
U.S. and allied military inventories are shrinking, and Ukraine faces an increasing need for more sophisticated weapons as the war drags on. Boeing's proposed system, dubbed Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bomb (GLSDB), is one of about a half-dozen plans for getting new munitions into production for Ukraine and America's Eastern European allies, industry sources said.
GLSDB could be delivered as early as spring 2023, according to a document reviewed by Reuters and three people familiar with the plan. It combines the GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) with the M26 rocket motor, both of which are common in U.S. inventories.
Doug Bush, the U.S. Army's chief weapons buyer, told reporters at the Pentagon last week the Army was also looking at accelerating production of 155 millimeter artillery shells - currently only manufactured at government facilities - by allowing defense contractors to build them…..
Although a handful of GLSDB units have already been made, there are many logistical obstacles to formal procurement. The Boeing plan requires a price discovery waiver, exempting the contractor from an in-depth review that ensures the Pentagon is getting the best deal possible. Any arrangement would also require at least six suppliers to expedite shipments of their parts and services to produce the weapon quickly.
A Boeing spokesperson declined to comment. Pentagon spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Tim Gorman declined to comment on providing any "specific capability" to Ukraine, but said the U.S. and its allies "identify and consider the most appropriate systems" that would help Kyiv.
Although the United States has rebuffed requests for the 185-mile (297km) range ATACMS missile, the GLSDB's 94-mile (150km) range would allow Ukraine to hit valuable military targets that have been out of reach and help it continue pressing its counterattacks by disrupting Russian rear areas.
GLSDB is made jointly by SAAB and Boeing and has been in development since 2019, well before the invasion, which Russia calls a "special operation". In October, SAAB chief executive Micael Johansson said of the GLSDB: "We are imminently shortly expecting contracts on that."
According to the document - a Boeing proposal to U.S. European Command (EUCOM), which is overseeing weapons headed to Ukraine - the main components of the GLSDB would come from current U.S. stores.
The M26 rocket motor is relatively abundant, and the GBU-39 costs about $40,000 each, making the completed GLSDB inexpensive and its main components readily available. Although arms manufacturers are struggling with demand, those factors make it possible to yield weapons by early 2023, albeit at a low rate of production.
GLSDB is GPS-guided, can defeat some electronic jamming, is usable in all weather conditions, and can be used against armored vehicles, according to SAAB's website. The GBU-39 - which would function as the GLSDB's warhead - has small, folding wings that allow it to glide more than 100km if dropped from an aircraft and targets as small as 3 feet in diameter…..
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 30,922
Received 1,738 Likes
on
750 Posts
While US and western supplies are being depleted, surely Russian supplies are being depleted at a far greater rate..
https://www.reuters.com/business/aer...es-2022-11-28/
Exclusive: U.S. weighs sending 100-mile strike weapon to Ukraine
WASHINGTON, Nov 28 (Reuters) - The Pentagon is considering a Boeing proposal to supply Ukraine with cheap, small precision bombs fitted onto abundantly available rockets, allowing Kyiv to strike far behind Russian lines
..
Exclusive: U.S. weighs sending 100-mile strike weapon to Ukraine
WASHINGTON, Nov 28 (Reuters) - The Pentagon is considering a Boeing proposal to supply Ukraine with cheap, small precision bombs fitted onto abundantly available rockets, allowing Kyiv to strike far behind Russian lines
..
I think the Ukrainians have shown they can be trusted with their targeting, and to not strike centres of population. The first target should be Putin's dacha on the Black Sea, followed by every Russian air base and military installation within range. At the same time as providing this capability, the West should remind Russia that it is not the only nuclear power in the region should it think about escalating the conflict.
This is what Russia tried to trigger several times, this almost WW3 like scenario. "We" against "NATO". I'd try to keep the cool. Don't support the "Russia is under threat" narrative. Let them face their inner chaos and power struggles instead. Then the long wait works against them.
Ukraine must be supplied as needed and everybody must be ready for a long war, WW1 style. Whatever Russia comes up with by spring must be met with the right responses.
Ukraine must be supplied as needed and everybody must be ready for a long war, WW1 style. Whatever Russia comes up with by spring must be met with the right responses.
I think the West has to provide Ukraine with the means to strike inside Russia, otherwise Russia is safe in the knowledge it can 'stand back' and launch unending waves of cruise missiles/suicide drones into Ukraine without fear of any comeback.
I think the Ukrainians have shown they can be trusted with their targeting, and to not strike centres of population. The first target should be Putin's dacha on the Black Sea, followed by every Russian air base and military installation within range. At the same time as providing this capability, the West should remind Russia that it is not the only nuclear power in the region should it think about escalating the conflict.
I think the Ukrainians have shown they can be trusted with their targeting, and to not strike centres of population. The first target should be Putin's dacha on the Black Sea, followed by every Russian air base and military installation within range. At the same time as providing this capability, the West should remind Russia that it is not the only nuclear power in the region should it think about escalating the conflict.
This is what Russia tried to trigger several times, this almost WW3 like scenario. "We" against "NATO". I'd try to keep the cool. Don't support the "Russia is under threat" narrative. Let them face their inner chaos and power struggles instead. Then the long wait works against them.
Ukraine must be supplied as needed and everybody must be ready for a long war, WW1 style. Whatever Russia comes up with by spring must be met with the right responses.
Ukraine must be supplied as needed and everybody must be ready for a long war, WW1 style. Whatever Russia comes up with by spring must be met with the right responses.
I think the West has to provide Ukraine with the means to strike inside Russia, otherwise Russia is safe in the knowledge it can 'stand back' and launch unending waves of cruise missiles/suicide drones into Ukraine without fear of any comeback.
I think the Ukrainians have shown they can be trusted with their targeting, and to not strike centres of population. The first target should be Putin's dacha on the Black Sea, followed by every Russian air base and military installation within range. At the same time as providing this capability, the West should remind Russia that it is not the only nuclear power in the region should it think about escalating the conflict.
I think the Ukrainians have shown they can be trusted with their targeting, and to not strike centres of population. The first target should be Putin's dacha on the Black Sea, followed by every Russian air base and military installation within range. At the same time as providing this capability, the West should remind Russia that it is not the only nuclear power in the region should it think about escalating the conflict.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 30,922
Received 1,738 Likes
on
750 Posts
We must not forget for all the success the Ukrainians have had Russia is a much larger country and as such has greater resources and, in a war of attrition, they will come out on top. Historically in wars Russia starts badly but in the long term they get better. However tempting a deep strike into Russia would be an escalation and the reluctance of the West to provide the appropriate weapons is probably a reflection of that concern.
I would target those bases launching missiles and the aircraft that are launching them, all the bridges and rail infrastructure heading into Ukraine, then I would start by knocking the TV channels off the air spreading their bile, drop a few masts should do, redesign Putins palace for him and personally I would let Moscow feel how it is to freeze, a few gas distribution nodes and power ones should do, that would bring it home to those Russians who think it is all one sided...
I think Ukraine has already shown it can be trusted with the weapons they have been given that they will not use them on targets that part of the deal forbids, so I cannot see what is preventing giving them longer range ones.
.
Last edited by NutLoose; 28th Nov 2022 at 15:17.
We must not forget for all the success the Ukrainians have had Russia is a much larger country and as such has greater resources and, in a war of attrition, they will come out on top. Historically in wars Russia starts badly but in the long term they get better.
However tempting a deep strike into Russia would be an escalation and the reluctance of the West to provide the appropriate weapons is probably a reflection of that concern
A deep strike into Russia could be counter-productive by giving the Russian People cause to support the illegal War kicked off by Putin and his cronies.
They did not care much for the Russian affair in Afghanistan....so why risk alienating any popular opinion for little military gain?
Mothers are seeing their Sons head off to Ukraine and coming home in Caskets....or not coming home at all.
Learn a lesson from other Nations that have conducted unpopular Wars....say.....like maybe the Falklands were the Argies thought they could do something similar to what is going on in the Ukraine.
How did that turnout for that Regime?
They did not care much for the Russian affair in Afghanistan....so why risk alienating any popular opinion for little military gain?
Mothers are seeing their Sons head off to Ukraine and coming home in Caskets....or not coming home at all.
Learn a lesson from other Nations that have conducted unpopular Wars....say.....like maybe the Falklands were the Argies thought they could do something similar to what is going on in the Ukraine.
How did that turnout for that Regime?
Deep strikes damaging Ukrainian infrastructure do not seem to be damaging the nation's resolve and I have no reason to believe that deep strikes into Russia would be any different. I cannot recall of a campaign where anything other than wholesale destruction, or the demonstrated prospect of wholesale destruction, has had a significant effect on the willingness of a people to continue a war.
In terms of effect, bleeding a nation of its young men and material, is more likely to bring on war weariness than direct attacks, which will only give a reason for resentment and a feeling that perhaps the losses were somehow justified after all.
In terms of effect, bleeding a nation of its young men and material, is more likely to bring on war weariness than direct attacks, which will only give a reason for resentment and a feeling that perhaps the losses were somehow justified after all.
A deep strike into Russia could be counter-productive by giving the Russian People cause to support the illegal War kicked off by Putin and his cronies.
They did not care much for the Russian affair in Afghanistan....so why risk alienating any popular opinion for little military gain?
Mothers are seeing their Sons head off to Ukraine and coming home in Caskets....or not coming home at all.
Learn a lesson from other Nations that have conducted unpopular Wars....say.....like maybe the Falklands were the Argies thought they could do something similar to what is going on in the Ukraine.
How did that turnout for that Regime?
They did not care much for the Russian affair in Afghanistan....so why risk alienating any popular opinion for little military gain?
Mothers are seeing their Sons head off to Ukraine and coming home in Caskets....or not coming home at all.
Learn a lesson from other Nations that have conducted unpopular Wars....say.....like maybe the Falklands were the Argies thought they could do something similar to what is going on in the Ukraine.
How did that turnout for that Regime?
I'm not sure that the Falklands analogy really holds up to Ukraine, but in terms of how that turned out the Argentineans still claim the islands to be theirs, 40 years after the end of the war. We can't allow that to happen with Ukraine - the Russians must be militarily defeated, and seen to be militarily defeated. If not, this conflict could last for generations.
Deep strikes damaging Ukrainian infrastructure do not seem to be damaging the nation's resolve and I have no reason to believe that deep strikes into Russia would be any different. I cannot recall of a campaign where anything other than wholesale destruction, or the demonstrated prospect of wholesale destruction, has had a significant effect on the willingness of a people to continue a war.
In terms of effect, bleeding a nation of its young men and material, is more likely to bring on war weariness than direct attacks, which will only give a reason for resentment and a feeling that perhaps the losses were somehow justified after all.
In terms of effect, bleeding a nation of its young men and material, is more likely to bring on war weariness than direct attacks, which will only give a reason for resentment and a feeling that perhaps the losses were somehow justified after all.
Deep strikes damaging Ukrainian infrastructure do not seem to be damaging the nation's resolve and I have no reason to believe that deep strikes into Russia would be any different. I cannot recall of a campaign where anything other than wholesale destruction, or the demonstrated prospect of wholesale destruction, has had a significant effect on the willingness of a people to continue a war.
In terms of effect, bleeding a nation of its young men and material, is more likely to bring on war weariness than direct attacks, which will only give a reason for resentment and a feeling that perhaps the losses were somehow justified after all.
In terms of effect, bleeding a nation of its young men and material, is more likely to bring on war weariness than direct attacks, which will only give a reason for resentment and a feeling that perhaps the losses were somehow justified after all.
However I suspect that Putin would hold defensive postions during the winter and attempt a full offensive in the spring with aim of the destroying the Ukrainian army.
I agree.....and isn't this the reason Russia had to quit Afghanistan though it took some years to get that point. In Afghanistan Russian casualities are believed to be 15,000 deaths; a figure probably exceeded in Ukraine so maybe it happen sooner.
However I suspect that Putin would hold defensive postions during the winter and attempt a full offensive in the spring with aim of the destroying the Ukrainian army.
However I suspect that Putin would hold defensive postions during the winter and attempt a full offensive in the spring with aim of the destroying the Ukrainian army.
The only way this can end favourably for Ukraine and the West, is to give Ukrainians the tools to end the war decisively on their terms, and that means long-range weapons. Let Putin talk about 'escalation' - he's being doing that since before the war started. He's bad but he's not (yet) mad, and he knows as well as anyone what the West can inflict on Russia if it oversteps the mark.
