This might be a little tougher than Putin thought...
- Thread starter Nole Lou
- Start date
Sounds good if they know what they are talking about.
Tweets from
@TrentTelenko
,
@NOELreports
@
@secretsqrl123
today regarding RUS milbloggers panicking regarding Dnipro-Kherson front, Krynky sector. They got reason to be :1) Limited Russian LoC: E79/P57 only roads in
2) Composition of Russian forces: crapola (territorials, BARs, VOLs) mixed in with some tired ok units (MR, a crumb bum VDV & another wrecked naval inf/marine unit). 10th Spetsnaz and 7th AA Div was withdrawn and rushed east not long ago
.3) AFU comparative advantage in arty and drones. Chatter yesterday that AFU using high end drone blockers
.4) AFU stole a march or two in this sector
5) Terrain: Sands Nature Park divides sector in two...that hinge held by a line of crapola (shouts of MAJOR TOMOV ring out!) makes two groups east and west vulnerable
Tweets from
@TrentTelenko
,
@NOELreports
@
@secretsqrl123
today regarding RUS milbloggers panicking regarding Dnipro-Kherson front, Krynky sector. They got reason to be :1) Limited Russian LoC: E79/P57 only roads in
2) Composition of Russian forces: crapola (territorials, BARs, VOLs) mixed in with some tired ok units (MR, a crumb bum VDV & another wrecked naval inf/marine unit). 10th Spetsnaz and 7th AA Div was withdrawn and rushed east not long ago
.3) AFU comparative advantage in arty and drones. Chatter yesterday that AFU using high end drone blockers
.4) AFU stole a march or two in this sector
5) Terrain: Sands Nature Park divides sector in two...that hinge held by a line of crapola (shouts of MAJOR TOMOV ring out!) makes two groups east and west vulnerable
That’s what I’m talkin bout.
Bakhmut and Avdiivka slaughters have left the orcs with weak reserves and weak resolve.
A newly emerged report offers a few new details on a test that compared the A-10 Thunderbolt II attack plane and the F-35 strike fighter, but raises more questions about the 5th-generation jet’s ability to fill the A-10’s close-air support mission.
The classified report, completed in February 2022 by the Defense Department’s Office of Test and Evaluation, was recently released with heavy redactions to the Project On Government Oversight, which sued the Pentagon in federal court after its FOIA request for the report was denied.
The report describes the results of a close-air-support flyoff between the F-35A and the A-10C, which was mandated by Congress in the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act and carried out in 2019.
The test was conducted in “low- and medium-threat environments” and not in a hostile or high-threat environment because the “F-35A, along with the F-35B and F-35C, is being thoroughly evaluated during F-35 IOT&E in high threat scenarios versus modern, dense [surface-to-air missile] and fighter aircraft, missions for which the A-10C was not designed,” the report said.
No ground troops participated in the flyoff, which doesn’t “invalidate the conclusions of this report,” DOT&E wrote in the report. “However, a more dynamic and representative environment for operational testing of these missions may be needed to judge improvements in performance in these or any other systems under test.”
Many details are blacked out in the version released to POGO. For example, it says the A-10 “enabled more attacks than the typical loadout of the F-35A” but does not reveal how many targets each aircraft hit in the test.
The redactions make it hard to discern the context of some of the statements. But there are hints that it required more F-35 sorties than A-10 sorties to accomplish some missions. For example, this half sentence (“sorties than A-10C sorties would be necessary to attack the same number of targets”) is followed by this text: “The number of sorties necessary to complete the same mission objectives in contested environments would depend on air defense suppression plans.”
That may stem in part from the A-10’s ability to carry more munitions. The attack plane was designed around a massive GAU-8 30-millimeter gun that holds 1,350 rounds of ammunition, while the F-35’s GAU-22 25-millimeter gun can only carry about 181 rounds.
Elsewhere, the report noted the A-10’s ability to fly closer to targets than the F-35:
"The test team did not record the slant range to the target with the generated coordinates, so its effect cannot be directly assessed. Even so, tactics typically caused A-10C pilots to fly closer to the target than F-35A pilots, which could explain some of the differences in the measured location errors. Target location error only affects the use of GPS-aided weapons. In any case, the location error is sufficient to cue another [close air support] aircraft's targeting pod."
The report also noted that the newer gun hasn’t always managed to shoot straight. DOT&E told the Pentagon to “fix the F-35A gun, improve digital communication, video data link capability and interoperability with 4th generation aircraft, and develop training programs to further improve F-35A effectiveness in these missions.”
Russ Goemaere, a spokesman for the F-35 Joint Program Office, told Defense One that the program has “improved” the gun and the jet’s interoperability with 4th-gen fighters and said “they are effective.”
In his own analysis, POGO’s Dan Grazier wrote, “Despite the heavy redactions in the released report, it is clear the results of these flawed tests disappointed the powers that be. Had the F-35 come out as the winner, there can be little doubt that a clear, declarative statement to that fact would have prominently appeared in the opening paragraph of the report.”
The Air Force would not comment on the report, nor say whether service leaders had tried to prevent the report’s release. A spokesperson said that close air support is a mission, not a specific platform.
“The future force will be inherently close air support-capable, with the multi-role capabilities to ensure survivability in all scenarios. While successful in permissive environments, the A-10 is not survivable in a highly-contested future fight,” said service spokesperson Ann Stefanek.
The U.S. military has made heavy use of the A-10 in recent decades, deploying it to Iraq for multiple conflicts and to Afghanistan against the Taliban. More recently, the U.S. sent Warthogs to the Middle East to deter aggression and prevent the Israel-Hamas war from spreading.
Air Force officials have long sought to retire the A-10, which was introduced in 1977 as a Soviet tank-buster. But their arguments—that the money would be better put toward more modern aircraft, that satellite-and-laser-guided bombs were sufficient for close air support missions—met fierce resistance from lawmakers whose districts were home to A-10s or the ground troops they protected. Still, recent years appear to be bringing the plane’s service to a close.
When asked about the report, one of the House Armed Services Committee’s prominent members said he’s ready to bid farewell to the A-10—if not its capabilities. Rep. Rob Wittman, chairman of HASC’s tactical air and land forces subcommittee, says he’s confident the Air Force can find a way to retain CAS capabilities as it moves to the F-35.
The classified report, completed in February 2022 by the Defense Department’s Office of Test and Evaluation, was recently released with heavy redactions to the Project On Government Oversight, which sued the Pentagon in federal court after its FOIA request for the report was denied.
The report describes the results of a close-air-support flyoff between the F-35A and the A-10C, which was mandated by Congress in the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act and carried out in 2019.
The test was conducted in “low- and medium-threat environments” and not in a hostile or high-threat environment because the “F-35A, along with the F-35B and F-35C, is being thoroughly evaluated during F-35 IOT&E in high threat scenarios versus modern, dense [surface-to-air missile] and fighter aircraft, missions for which the A-10C was not designed,” the report said.
No ground troops participated in the flyoff, which doesn’t “invalidate the conclusions of this report,” DOT&E wrote in the report. “However, a more dynamic and representative environment for operational testing of these missions may be needed to judge improvements in performance in these or any other systems under test.”
Many details are blacked out in the version released to POGO. For example, it says the A-10 “enabled more attacks than the typical loadout of the F-35A” but does not reveal how many targets each aircraft hit in the test.
The redactions make it hard to discern the context of some of the statements. But there are hints that it required more F-35 sorties than A-10 sorties to accomplish some missions. For example, this half sentence (“sorties than A-10C sorties would be necessary to attack the same number of targets”) is followed by this text: “The number of sorties necessary to complete the same mission objectives in contested environments would depend on air defense suppression plans.”
That may stem in part from the A-10’s ability to carry more munitions. The attack plane was designed around a massive GAU-8 30-millimeter gun that holds 1,350 rounds of ammunition, while the F-35’s GAU-22 25-millimeter gun can only carry about 181 rounds.
Elsewhere, the report noted the A-10’s ability to fly closer to targets than the F-35:
"The test team did not record the slant range to the target with the generated coordinates, so its effect cannot be directly assessed. Even so, tactics typically caused A-10C pilots to fly closer to the target than F-35A pilots, which could explain some of the differences in the measured location errors. Target location error only affects the use of GPS-aided weapons. In any case, the location error is sufficient to cue another [close air support] aircraft's targeting pod."
The report also noted that the newer gun hasn’t always managed to shoot straight. DOT&E told the Pentagon to “fix the F-35A gun, improve digital communication, video data link capability and interoperability with 4th generation aircraft, and develop training programs to further improve F-35A effectiveness in these missions.”
Russ Goemaere, a spokesman for the F-35 Joint Program Office, told Defense One that the program has “improved” the gun and the jet’s interoperability with 4th-gen fighters and said “they are effective.”
In his own analysis, POGO’s Dan Grazier wrote, “Despite the heavy redactions in the released report, it is clear the results of these flawed tests disappointed the powers that be. Had the F-35 come out as the winner, there can be little doubt that a clear, declarative statement to that fact would have prominently appeared in the opening paragraph of the report.”
The Air Force would not comment on the report, nor say whether service leaders had tried to prevent the report’s release. A spokesperson said that close air support is a mission, not a specific platform.
“The future force will be inherently close air support-capable, with the multi-role capabilities to ensure survivability in all scenarios. While successful in permissive environments, the A-10 is not survivable in a highly-contested future fight,” said service spokesperson Ann Stefanek.
The U.S. military has made heavy use of the A-10 in recent decades, deploying it to Iraq for multiple conflicts and to Afghanistan against the Taliban. More recently, the U.S. sent Warthogs to the Middle East to deter aggression and prevent the Israel-Hamas war from spreading.
Air Force officials have long sought to retire the A-10, which was introduced in 1977 as a Soviet tank-buster. But their arguments—that the money would be better put toward more modern aircraft, that satellite-and-laser-guided bombs were sufficient for close air support missions—met fierce resistance from lawmakers whose districts were home to A-10s or the ground troops they protected. Still, recent years appear to be bringing the plane’s service to a close.
When asked about the report, one of the House Armed Services Committee’s prominent members said he’s ready to bid farewell to the A-10—if not its capabilities. Rep. Rob Wittman, chairman of HASC’s tactical air and land forces subcommittee, says he’s confident the Air Force can find a way to retain CAS capabilities as it moves to the F-35.
UNPOSSIBLE
We've been informed by the Kremlin's puppets on here that Russia is able to make PLENTY of ammunition & weapons...
Ukrainian forces hold line in shattered eastern town of Avdiivka - military
Nov 8 (Reuters) - Russian forces, their numbers swelled by reserves, tightened their vise around the shattered eastern city of Avdiivka on Wednesday, but Ukrainian forces are holding defensive lines, Ukrainian military officials said.
The Russian military has focused on eastern Ukraine after failing to advance on Kyiv in the early days of Russia's February 2022 invasion and their troops have been pounding Avdiivka since mid-October.
Online videos show apartment buildings reduced to shells, with 1,500 of its 32,000 pre-war residents remaining.
Anton Kotsukon, spokesperson for the 110th separate mechanised brigade, said Russian forces were massed on three sides of the town.
"They are building up reserves. They've brought in about 40,000 men here along with ammunition of all calibres," Kotsukon told national television. "We see no sign of the Russians abandoning plans to encircle Avdiivka."
Russian forces, he said, were "playing cat and mouse", sending up "huge numbers" of drones while deploying artillery forces to secure a better picture of the town's defences.
General Oleksandr Tarnavskyi, head of Ukraine's southern group of forces, said troops around Avdiivka were "stoutly holding their defences".
Avdiivka has become a symbol of Ukrainian resistance. It was seized briefly in 2014 when Russian-backed separatists captured chunks of eastern Ukraine, but Ukrainian troops retook it and built up fortifications.
Local officials said the Russians were holding back on a "third wave" of assaults after a week of heavy rain.
"The third wave hasn't started yet, but they are preparing for it," Vitaliy Barabash, head of the town's military administration, told the national TV. "Today is already the second day when the weather is favourable for this."
Ukrainian forces regard Avdiivka as a gateway for future advances to recapture territory in the east - the large Russian-held town of Donetsk is 20 km away.
But Ukrainian analysts suggest Russia has little to gain in a protracted drive that has already sustained high losses.
"This task now has a more political nature, given the losses the Russian army has already suffered here," military analyst Denys Popovych told NV Radio. "Unfortunately, this task will continue. There will be a third wave of attacks. And a fourth."
Ukraine's military launched a counteroffensive in June in the south and east, but the advances have been much slower than a campaign last year that recaptured stretches of the northeast.
Russian accounts of the fighting noted strikes against Ukrainian positions near Bakhmut, a town captured by Moscow's forces in May after months of battles.
Reuters could not verify battlefield accounts from either side.
Ukrainian forces hold line in shattered eastern town of Avdiivka - military
Russian forces, their numbers swelled by reserves, tightened their vise around the shattered eastern city of Avdiivka on Wednesday, but Ukrainian forces are holding defensive lines, Ukrainian military officials said.
Russian officials pushing for an 8 year prison sentence for an artist arrested for protesting the war.
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-protests-crackdown-1812e1e6d5fbb609e1220c956725f39e
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-protests-crackdown-1812e1e6d5fbb609e1220c956725f39e
I can't find it, but I read a fairly well reasoned article yesterday about the losses that Russian generals are factoring into their plans. The article detailed a couple of big losses like the attack on an airfield that destroyed 10+ Russian helicopters by ATACMs missiles. The official quoted said the attack could not have been telegraphed any more than it was, but the Russians simply didn't take proper precautions, because they factor in losses, then respond with new tactics.
May be another attack on Sevastopol.
Of course
If he backs down, he is "weak". He went all-in and until his army is forcibly removed, this continues.
Or, until someone within the Kremlin ranks offs him. We know there is unrest in the ranks based on the Prigozhin revolt earlier this year. And that escapade has severely impacted the Wagner involvement/capabilities.
None of the 200 rounds of talks or the 20 ceasefires have prevented Putin from launching a brutal all-out invasion of Ukraine on February 24th, 2022.
Those who argue that Ukraine should negotiate with Russia now are either uninformed or misled, or they side with Russia and want Putin to take a pause before an even larger aggression.
We should not and will not fall into this trap.
Maybe it's just me, but that doesn't seem like a real sound strategy unless they aren't going to arm this kid in any way.
I hope it turns out as bad as possible. They are doing this in Crimea as well.
"A new wave of conscription into the Russian Armed Forces is being prepared in temporarily occupied Crimea.
Source: Representative Office of the Ukrainian President in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea on Facebook
Quote: "The occupying administration is launching draft points right on the central embankment. One of them is actively ‘working’ in the city of Alushta. This is because the Russians are preparing a new wave of mobilisation in occupied Crimea.
Specifically, they [the Russian occupying authorities] are holding meetings and briefings in the Sevastopol military enlistment office. Military draft notices will be handed out accompanied by police or Russian National Guard officers. Particular attention will be paid to the so-called evaders. The occupiers are planning to mobilise up to 30,000 people and draft up to 10,000 conscripts."
https://news.yahoo.com/russia-prepares-draft-wave-crimea-084254319.html
