SamSuka
TheMalcontent
TheMalcontent

patreon


Russia-Ukraine SITREP for 19 AUG 2023 23:55 - The Thrill of Victory and the Agony of Defeat

Are you new to our Patreon? You need to click on the link to download the PDF attachment, which has links to all the videos referenced.

This is Report 471, which is 71 pages and - gulp - 8,850 words. Kudos to the team for getting this done in nine hours.

Did we mention we are hopeful we'll be announcing who our new podcast host is in 6 to 9 days?

What's the big story? Ukrainian forces continue to make progress at Robotyne, with strong evidence that Ukrainian forces have already advanced almost to Novoprokopivka.

What's the second story? A Russian Iskander-M SRBM struck the Drama Theater in Chernihiv, killing 7 and wounding 144. There are huge questions about why there was a gathering of drone experts in the building and why information about it was publicly leaked.

Assessments

Summary


Malcontent News cannot operate without your support, and we sincerely appreciate your generosity. Maybe share the report with a friend - if each Patreon brought in one more subscriber - ahhh - a Chief Content Officer can dream.

Thank you for your continued support!

Russia-Ukraine SITREP for 19 AUG 2023 23:55 - The Thrill of Victory and the Agony of Defeat

Comments

It is a very hard question to answer. If Ukraine were modernizing its military and not fighting for its survival, I believe most experts would still state the Gripen would be a great airplane for Ukraine's needs. Here is the question. The UK said, "Fine, here are 14 Challenger 2 tanks," and suddenly the Western allies were, "Here - tanks - a lot of them!" If Ukraine started operating a squadron of Gripens, say by the end of 2023, the impact on the battlefield would be small, maybe even negligible. From a sustainment standpoint, it could even be a negative. On the other hand, the impact of phone calls from General Dynamics lobbyists to Senators and Congress critters on the potential for lost long-term contracts and revenue would have a significant impact on how fast Washington, D.C., is moving. To be clear, the Gripen and F-16 announcements over the weekend were almost certainly settled before President Zelenskyy flew to Europe. Both tranches were either previously announced (Gripen training) or heavily signaled (F-16s from the Netherlands in particular). The Dutch have more than political reasons to see air assets they owned operating over Ukraine. Just under the surface, it is a moral issue. Now - is Sweden playing 3D chess with open talks of an accelerated Gripen program to Ukraine? That's very possible. My view still stands that what Ukraine needs is multiple platforms if the expectation is Ukraine needs to fight to NATO standards. Further, there are no wonder weapons (except M142/M270 GMLRS - they are apparently a wonder weapon) where one platform or system will completely change the battlefield. 1) F-16 for air superiority, CAP, and asset protection. It's a no-brainer. Ukraine's teasing comment about F-16s have already landed in their country is in reference to joint Ukrainian-NATO exercises in the early 2010s. Ukraine needs an air superiority fighter. The Mig-29 has proven itself to be a stellar platform under impossible odds. The biggest issues are a lack of a "glass panel" cockpit which prevents the implementation of modern stand-off weapons no matter how much NATO and DARPA massaging you do, and the inventory of Soviet and post-Soviet era air-to-air weapons is exhausted. 2) F-18 (available from Australia) for a multirole fighter, bomber, and interdiction aircraft. The F-18 was built for all-weather multirole operations, and its undercarriage adopted for carrier landings enables operations on adapted runways. The F-18s in Australia are ready now and would fill a role better done by the F-15. Ukraine has not publicly expressed interest in the F-15. There are some things the F-18 can do better than the F-16, and Ukraine needs that capability. On the other hand, the F-18 is a "dead end" while the F-16 is still in production, and you get into the Gripen sustainment argument. 3) A-10 supported by F-16 and F-18 in lieu of a viable attack helicopter force for ground attack and support, using standoff weapons, with the fire-breathing GAU-8 only used on targets of opportunity in air dominance/superiority scenarios. The A-10 is already rated for alternative runways. Another interesting thing about the A-10. Because of its slow speed (it is even slower than the Su-25) and its high maneuverability, it would be an outstanding aircraft for drone interception (not using the GAU-8 but with sidewinder air-to-air missiles). The Shahed-136 cruise speed and the A-10 stall speed are less than 35 kph apart. Operating at an 85 kph difference in airspeed is still a wide gap, but in an F-16, that gap would be closer to 150 knots with a lot less maneuverability. In all of the above, the benefits aren't in the airframes. It is the weapon systems they can carry and deliver without modifying Microsoft touchscreen tablets.

A good takedown of the doom and gloom WaPo article quoting anonymous pessimistic Pentagon sources again https://open.substack.com/pub/phillipspobrien/p/weekend-update-42?r=26v1qy&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post

Does it make sense to do training on the Gripen? Are there any available, it's a good plane ( and well suited for the conditions in Ukraine) but if there numbers are in the low 10's it looks a bit like a showcase.


More Creators