An article I read mentioned them taking a 1.5 ton bomb from 1965 (!!!) and putting a glide kit on it - thus adding a microcontroller, gps, wings, and electric motors.
I am curious to see a teardown of the kit. Probably a lot of generic western components used just as with their drones.
>An article I read mentioned them taking a 1.5 ton bomb from 1965 (!!!) and putting a glide kit on it - thus adding a microcontroller, gps, wings, and electric motors.
Apparently they could shoot them down with patriot missiles except the US doesn't want them used in Russia territory. I'm not sure of the virtue of making Ukraine fight with one arm behind it's back where Russia can destroy all it can in Ukraine's territory but they are largely restricted on striking back in a similar way.
I mean I can understand the desire not to escalate but it would seem reasonable to reciprocate whatever attacks the Russians are carrying out.
Russia destroyed 2 of Ukraine's Patriot launchers, causing Ukraine to decide to stop stationing them on the front lines. (Now they protect Ukrainian cities.)
I think the argument you want is that if the US gave Ukraine a lot more patriot launchers, Ukraine would probably be willing to risk a few of them on the front lines.
The devastation comes from the gliding aspect, which allows the bombs to be deployed from out of range of air defense systems, minimizing the defensive effect for Ukraine of Russia being unable to operate freely in the air over Ukraine.
Russia has its own constellation called GLONASS. It might be possible for Ukraine to jam that and GPS. I’m not sure how that would affect the bomb’s accuracy.
That isn't true. Inertial guidance systems that work for appreciable flight times are too expensive. Many military systems do use GPS, such as HIMARS, Excalibur, JDAMs, etc...
If I had to guess, the reason why the above are jammed and the UMPK isn't is because of better integration with the launch platform and a shorter flight time leading to less inertial drift over time, plus a very large warhead to make up for inaccuracy.
> GPS is almost never used for military guidance systems compared to inertial dead reckoning
GPS is lighter, cheaper, and more accurate (when it works) than inertial navigation systems (which are more reliable to work at all) and is widely used alone or alongside inertial navigation on weapons systems.
This is just one fatal assumption that western had on Russia: they don’t know how to innovate and adapt to modern warfare. In fact it gave the western such impression only because it was not in a serious war for a long time.
If anything it's the opposite. Western military leaders have been shocked by how the Russians keep making the same avoidable errors over and over, and how long their cycle times are to adapt. Even today they don't really have a unified joint staff capable of gathering lessons learned and rapidly turning those into formal doctrine changes.
But they do have the advantage of greater manpower and enormous equipment stockpiles, which compensates for a multitude of errors.
Yeah, if there was a miscalculation of Russian capacity, it was not its ability to fight well, but its ability to absorb the cost of, and willingness to continue the campaign despite, fighting poorly, which is why actually scaling up production wasn’t an immediate response.
Russia has taken (by the most conservative estimates) on the order of 10x both killed and wounded as the Soviet Union itself took in the nearly decade-long war in Afghanistan which was a major contribution to the collapse of the USSR in a little over two years.
The West was startled by the fact that the Ukrainians were able to rout the Russians. Most Western analysts expected Russian to win in the event of an invasion and Zelenskyy pleaded with Putin not to invade the night prior.
That Russia took almost 3 years and a presumed 300-500k casualties to begin deploying basic air support with guided glide bombs, like the west has been doing for 25 years, was indeed surprising.
Every military has the ability to innovate and adapt because the life of every member of the military is on the line each day. It took an astounding number of embarrassments and lives lost for the Russian military to adapt, including a near coup by PMC Wagner.
Quote: "That Russia took almost 3 years and a presumed 300-500k casualties to begin deploying basic air support with guided glide bombs, like the west has been doing for 25 years, was indeed surprising."
Just to point out FAB-500 glider bomb use was already recorded in March 2023, so it took Russian a year not 3 year, so your perception is factually wrong.
BTW, to emphasize the low starting status of Russian military at the beginning of the war does not defend our mistake either, rather it reinforces that argument.
Can the UK's laser weapon Dragonfire take out these glide bombs on the cheap? That's in use now in Ukraine experimentally but 50KW seems like it might only be suitable for mortar rounds and light vehicle defence.
The glide bombs are very hard to track for directing anti-air fire, as they have no heat signature to speak of, emit no appreciable RF, and have relatively small radar cross sections. They're also moving very fast by the time they are near target.
What’s stopping Ukraine and its allies from building these? If they’re so cheap and simple. Let’s say you start pounding blocks down in the major cities in southwest Russia and see how they feel after that
Different approach to waging war. The West is focused on disabling military targets, Russians wage total war without distinction between military and civilian targets. Therefore, Western weapons only need to destroy a rocket launcher vehicle, Russians are ok with pulverising the whole village around it. Details like war crimes are not really a thing they loose sleep over. They have gotten away with so many why would they care now?
But that may also be way of waging war. In fact, the US did the same on Bagadad. Why you lamenting that? I don't understand it. Are you complaining that they may not be following the Geneva Convention's rule? How about Gitmo? There are no rules. The only apparent rules are those that are pushed louder by the media propaganda. As the West currently excels in that, you have the impression that those are the rules. But they would change them quickly and feed you some other "rules" if those would not suit them equally well. And most of the "war crimes" they fed you probably never happen. Lies, lies, lies. The only different you can make to your life is whether you are going to believe them or question them. After Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libia, and Syria, you still believe them? Have they brainwashed you so badly?
> What’s stopping Ukraine and its allies from building these?
Ukraine and its allies have much smaller stores of large, outdated dumb bombs to refit, and Ukraine has a much smaller Air Force with which to deploy them, so it makes little sense for Ukraine and its allies to build this particular solution (the West has purpose developed – or already modified – glide bombs, but, again, Ukraine’s smaller air force and not having the exact planes on which those are integrate is a bit of a barrier, though the second part is relatively easily overcome.)
> Let’s say you start pounding blocks down in the major cities in southwest Russia and see how they feel after that
Neither Ukraine nor, even moreso, its allies are interested in pounding city blocks in Southwest Russia indiscriminately. OTOH, military bases, oil infrastructure, etc. are a bit of a different story, but they are finding ways to do that without glide bombs.
> Ukraine and its allies have much smaller stores of large, outdated dumb bombs to refit,
Unlikely, the US still has a lot (hundreds of thousands) of dumb bombs. As you said, they don't have a good delivery platform until the F-16s get there. The US orders 20-30k JDAM kits _per year_.
There is now the GLSDB (Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bomb) which is supposed to be a cheap, longish-range (~ 150 km) guided bomb built on top of the GBU-39 platform. It was developed by Boeing and Saab.
Ukraine has had it since earlier this year.
Apparently, it is not being as effective as one would've hoped though due to heavy Russian GPS jamming [1]
GLSDB is, as the “Ground Launched” indicates, not the same thing as an aerial glide bomb, but is instead a warhead for GMLRS rockets fired from launchers like the HIMARS.’
EDIT: OTOH, its based on the SDB, which is a (small, 250lb) glide bomb with decent (40km) range whichthe US has currently only integrated the on the F-15E Strike Eagle, which Ukraine doesn’t have. There’s a long list of other potential future carriers envisioned by the US (including the F-16, which Ukraine will soon be operating), and integrating Western weapons with Soviet-design aircraft has been happening a fair amount in Ukraine, so if the problems affecting GLSDB were solved, SDB would be a real possibility for them, as well.
I should have pointed out, the big difference between the rival weapons is political. Ukraine is restricted to using its JDAMs against targets in occupied land. Russia isn't bound that way, which is a problem for cities close to the Russian border, such as Kharkiv and Sumy.
Peace does not require "negotiation" in this war. There is a clear aggressor: Russia. So things are really simple, at least this once. All that is needed is for Russia to stop murdering Ukrainians and retreat from all Ukrainian territory, and we will have peace.
Either Russia is abjectly defeated so they are incapable of fighting, or they are presented with an option which they prefer to continuing the war. The former is extremely difficult (to put it mildly) and the latter is broadly filed under negotiation.
Ukraine is not fighting because "The West" won't let them stop; they're fighting because they know what will happen to them if they do stop. Russian soldiers are brutal occupiers. Russian officials have been deporting lots of children from the territory they've occupied.
That is, I can't see Ukraine trying to negotiate some kind of peace-for-land deal. Apart from anything else, any land Russia occupied as part of such a deal would be used to launch a new attack once they've reconstituted their forces.
So any negotiation would be between "The West" and Russia, over Ukraine's heads. And that is the only kind of negotiation that Putin will countenance; he's been very clear that he thinks Ukraine is not a country, it's people are no more than ill-educated Russians, and its leaders are nazis.
Of course, Russia has negotiated with real nazis before; but it's pretty seditious to mention that in public in Russia nowadays.
>All that is needed is for Russia to stop murdering Ukrainians and retreat from all Ukrainian territory
That would be nice, but what are the chances of that happening in your opinion without the US and Europe's promising that Ukraine will never become a member of NATO and the US and Europe's promising to stop supplying weapons to Ukraine?
Realistically that probably won't happen until there is a regime change in Russia. So, the best option for now is to keep giving Ukraine all of the weapons they ask for in order to maintain a stalemate and inflict as many casualties on Russia as possible. Russia has a large population but it's not unlimited; kill enough and eventually the civilians will march on the Kremlin. This may take years.
Ultimately it's up to the Ukrainians what terms they want to negotiate. But it would seem foolish to give up the option of joining NATO and the EU just to gain a temporary peace. If they're going to survive as an independent country rather than a Russian vassal state then they will need alliances with nuclear powers.
> That would be nice, but what are the chances of that happening in your opinion without the US and Europe’s promising that Ukraine will never become a member of NATO and the US and Europe’s promising to stop supplying weapons to Ukraine?
There is zero chance the war would take more than a slight pause before resuming in full force with a less-capable Ukraine if Ukraine’s allies promised to stop supplying it with weapons. (The Russo-Georgian War, immediately, and with a slight delay because of temporarily Russia-favorable political conditions that emerged in the interim in Ukraine, the Russo-Ukrainian War are both direct results, in fact, of that kind of accommodationist thought winning the day at the 2008 NATO summit with regard to Russia’s demand at the time that Georgia and Ukraine not have Membership Action Plans extended to them. Fool me once…)
There’s a very good chance that Russia will stop if that does not happen, even if it is unlikely that the current leadership would do so.
Chances are small, but I wanted to immediately oppose the "we should start the peace negotiation process" narrative, which often (not necessarily here, but often) implies that Ukraine needs to do something to achieve peace, that Ukraine is somehow responsible for the war and that Ukraine must concede territory.
This narrative is being strongly pushed in various social media by Russian troll farms.
Another option is a "frozen conflict" -- for Ukraine to accept a cease fire with current front lines, but not to recognize Russia's claims of sovereignty. Leaving open the possibility of a final counteroffensive after Putin croaks. Some 43 percent of Ukrainians are open to some form of negotiations, according to a recent poll (independent of Russia's deranged narratives).
That's the standard first-pass response, of course.
It could also serve as an opportunity for Ukraine to do the same in reverse -- ultimately leading to a Russian withdraw (many years later but with many lives spared also).
OTOH, a continuation of the status quo (assuming the political climate in Western countries permits the Ukrainians to do so, which is in itself a highly dodgy proposition) is not at all guaranteed to end in Ukraine's interest, and brings certain obvious tail risks to the rest of the world as well.
Ultimately it's a matter for the Ukrainians to decide. My only point is that it's perfectly possible to discuss different options for achieving the same desired end result (which it seems we agree on) -- without having to label these as being in favor of Russian "peace narratives".
But Russia has no reason to do that. To end the war you need one of two things to happen: send enough weapons (and possibly soldiers) to Ukraine to force the Russians to retreat, which West is clearly not capable of doing, or you need the negotiations. I would not count on Putin suddenly getting conscience-stricken and saying: "what I did was wrong, please forgive me, I'm ending the war now".
Russia isn’t bleeding its economy and military to death in order to win a few patches of land in Eastern Ukraine, and if they are they’re idiots. The only way this war makes sense is if they see these worthless chunks of land as a jumping off point for a larger war of conquest, which is why peace deals aren’t happening.
Yes, it's worthless. Are you a troll or something?
Large parts of the Donbas look like the moon after Russians bombed them. They've sent most of the local men to the slaughterhouse. Industry is gone, mining was obsolete, natural gas resources are less and less valuable as we advance with renewables, etc.
If there is ever a compromise, as a Ukrainian president I'd choose Crimea before Donbas because Crimea is strategically important and protects 80% of the Ukrainian South from invasion.
In an ideal situation, Ukraine should still get it back, because it's Ukrainian territory. But in practical terms, Donbas 2013 was a totally different place to Donbas 2024.
And if those regions are given up today and peace is declared between Ukraine and Russia why would Russia not just apply the same strategy tomorrow to destabilise and then annex a big chunk of Georgia/Estonia/Moldova.
This is a common misconception. It's something that was discussed orally and taken out of its context and is being repeated today [1]. Besides the fact that NATO is a voluntary alliance and not an empire. At one point Russia was even considered for joining NATO.
The Budapest memorandum however was a written agreement, much more meaningful, though sadly not binding.
> USSR was also once told in ~1990 “no NATO expansion to your doorstep”.
No, they weren’t, as even Gorbachev admitted, and even if they had been given private assurance not memorialized in a treaty or even a formal executive agreement, there would be no reasonable expectation of a binding commitment that survived the administrations on each side then in power, much less an actual collapse of the Soviet Union.
It’s not like the Soviet Union didn’t understand the mechanics of how binding international commitments are formed.
World War 3 hasn't broken out despite Ukraine possesing JDAMs.
Ukraine needs a powerful bargaining position before entering negotiations, and though it's regrettable this is the case, a powerful bargaining position derives from power on the battlefield. The best route to peace is therefore to give Ukraine as deadly a sting as possible.
> Let's say we just start the peace negotiation process in earnest this time.
Also, there can be no peace between the sheep and the wolf. Russia believes Ukraine does not and cannot exists. How can that ever lead to long lasting peace and long term territorial integrity for Ukraine?
There was serious discussion in Washington of nuking China after China's entry into the Korean war. (Specifically, nuking concentrations of rice fields, causing starvation until the Beijing relents, at which time Washington would provide food aid.)
When in the 1960s tensions between Moscow and Peking rose, Moscow asked Washington if Washington would be okay with Moscow's nuking China. (Washington replied with a firm no.)
Although Russia is probably not going to resort to nukes, the risk is high enough that I wish my country (the US) had started drastically increasing American preparedness for nuclear war when it started sending military aid to Ukraine.
Given the catastrophe risk involved in their use, there is much to be alarmed at simply to consider the possibilities of accident use - miscommunication, false alarms, broken technology, etc.
It takes more than one thing going wrong at the same time, for an accident to happen, but that happens - that's why we have car accidents - only here we're talking about a potentially civilization/climate ending accident.
Better not to be in that situation in the first place.
The only viable peaceful solution is Russian withdrawal, and Putin has made it clear this is off the menu.
Anything else rewards and encourages the use of invasion, profoundly encourages China to invade Taiwan, and North Korean and Iran.
It will also anyway only be a temporary peace; Putin will try again in some years time. Anyone want to trust him when he promises not to - again?
The West has been forced to spend vast amounts of money, in many ways, and millions of people have been forced to flee Ukraine and resettle in the West, and about 500,000 people have been maimed or killed.
To not win after such costs is to lose.
It also means all nations which have a threatening neighbour need their own nuclear weapons. That's in the end will lead to their use.
There is also a more personal reason.
The world has a lot of shit in it, and people generally are increasingly depressed in their normal, day to day lives, because of it. We are not happy.
Stopping Putin would bright a vast ray of hope and a vision of a decent future in our lives.
I don't think Putin can reasonably enter any kind of peace negotiations now: he's clearly losing Crimea, and the rest of the territory the troops under his command was able to invade does not at all resonate with the Russian people. Also there is the question of reparations: the Russians have already done more damage than the 350B$ of foreign currency their central bank has (had?) oversea...
Intentionally targeting civilian areas with those bombs is a war crime. Ukraine avoids committing war crimes, Russia has committed many of them. There will be charges against Russia. There is even some evidence that Russia commits genocide: forced kidnapping of children, forced reeducation, some ethnic cleansing with deportations (though not very systematic), mass killings of civilians, and public speeches by government officials who deny Ukraine a right to exist and therefore can serve as proof of intent.
The most recent major vote - dems 210 to 0 in favour. Republicans 112 to 101 against
> US House approves critical $61bn Ukraine aid package
https://www.bbc.co.uk › world-us-canada-68861011
20 Apr 2024 — While all 210 Democrats voted in favour of the $61bn aid package, more Republicans were against the legislation than in favour of it, 112 to 101 ...
It's a bit hard to pigeonhole political beliefs but Russia's policies seem kind of fascist and they seem to be supported mostly by far right and xenophobic types in the west.
The entire congress itself has been holding back budget actions, including aid to Ukraine this year. The lend lease act has started May 2022, when it was too late to punch back hard. It ended in Q3 2023 without bringing tanks, pcs on time in 2022.
There are no "lefties" in Congress. Here in the UK, there is definitely a community of vocal old-skool commies that I would refer to as "tankies". George Galloway is probably the most notable tankie politician (recently elected to Parliament).
Galloway is famous for his grovelling address to Saddam Hussein: "I salute your [...] indefatigability."
There is a loud faction rhetorically on the “Left” that does too, though they don’t have any allies in office; their main role is trying to pull the left electorate away from Biden and the Democrats to third parties in the election, so that Trump and the GOP will win.
I don't see them as right wing really, they act the exact opposite of what they should do. There are no rapid actions performed, every bit is very slow and delayed.
“Cheap but effective” is how all militaries outside of the well-financed West operate. One spends trillions on the most advanced planes and bombs and then the enemy sends retail drones with explosives.
The spending comparison may be inaccurate. The western military is grossly overcharged for their toys.
Also:
"Superiority" is a science fiction short story by British writer Arthur C. Clarke, first published in 1951. It depicts an arms race during an interstellar war. It shows the side which is more technologically advanced being defeated, despite its apparent superiority, because of its willingness to discard old technology without having fully perfected the new. Meanwhile, the enemy steadily built up a far larger arsenal of weapons that while more primitive were also more reliable. The story was at one point required reading for an industrial design course at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.[1]
Russia is playing the game of “I have nukes, so I’m gonna do whatever I want. I got tons of oil and customers flush with money. Smuggle rings to get whatever parts I need.”
Ukraine is likely to lose. They’ve figured out precision destruction for less than a price of a car.
Iran is likely to follow. Western weapons are better but too expensive. This is a war of attrition.
Russia will keep on playing until Ukraine is bled dry.
The counter strategy is to strike hot but they got nukes and not directly at war with NATO.
In a mobilized command economy like Russia today, monetary costs in terms of currency have mostly become meaningless. They're nominally paying in RUB which is basically "funny money" and no longer fully convertible to USD or UKP. Russian leaders don't really think in terms of monetary cost. It's more about making effective use of stockpiles and deciding how to allocate limited industrial production capacity. Most of the foreign manufacturing experts have left, and not many Russians have the skills necessary to mass produce precision parts anymore.
(Russian propaganda outlet. May not even open in your jurisdiction. Used it today because corruption allegations against Ursula von der Leyen appeared early there). The fight against Russian oligarchs has actually worked to the advantage of Putin. For the first time in 30 years, the oligarchs have to reinvest their money in Russia.
I don't see a command economy. War expenditures are still pretty low measured in % GDP
RUB which is basically "funny money". No, it isn't. Friends of mine converted dollar and rubles in Moscow easily. Western banks blocking SWIFT and other stuff makes financial transactions difficult. This does not mean the Ruble is worthless.
Russia has a flat income and corporate tax of 13%. This may be eye watering for a westerner.
Russia has raw materials, gas and oil. And little debt. I think the US has 300 times more debt and debt INTEREST payments have reached, according to a recent visual capitalist graph, 1 trillion USD per year alone.
The war in Russia may not be winnable by the west. While the industrial might is bigger than that of Russia, China has more industrial capacity than the EU and US combined.
And BRICS+ are working on their own currency to replace the dollar as the world reserve currency.
Don't get me wrong. I am a western citizen, not from Russia or China as my nick may suggest, and not a fan of Putin. But it is very possible that Russia emerges as a major power from this conflict.
BRICS+ have been "working on" a new reserve currency for years. It's not going to happen. Russia, India, and China have diametrically opposed interests and can't agree on anything specific. South Africa is an economic basket case on the verge of becoming a failed state so their opinion no longer even counts.
You’re getting voted down which is unfortunate, because there’s a larger strategy here worth discussing.
My opinion is thus:
The US has learned from China’s low intensity conflict strategy. If the US had given Ukraine patriot batteries, F-16s, and tanks on day 1, The reaction from Russia could’ve been nuclear. As much as I want to see a bully get punched back in the face, It is not a good strategy to avoid disastrous escalation. Slowly ramping up the technology sent and uncuffing Ukraine gradually is the actual optimal path.
Those conditions only apply to weapons the US and close allies have given to Ukraine. Do you think Ukraine would be better or worse off without America's help? The kind of ungrateful rhetoric your comment exemplifies creates a "no good deed goes unpunished" dynamic which embitters the American public against further military aid to Ukraine.
Be grateful for what is given and don't blame failures on your few charitable benefactors.
I'm American and I am ashamed of my Governments reaction. This war will reach out and touch us very personally and we will regret that we let Ukraine down. You don't have to be a genius to see what is coming our way....
to be fair, Ukrainians have shot down planes and helicopters in Russian airspace with Patriot batteries. The limiting conditions on doing more of that are ammunition (for cover), air defense interceptor and launcher shortages. Saying that the West is to blame for not producing cutting-edge interceptors (that are extremely in demand) as if they were knick-knacks is not entirely fair. I write this as someone who has donated a substantial percentage of my savings to support Ukrainian efforts.
It is very risky to move high valued assets like Patriot batteries close to the front line as in that case these assets are within the reach of low distance surveillance tools Russia has in abundance. Doing this resulted in loss of actual Patriot systems in Ukraine - these were spotted by Russian surveillance drones and then attacked using ballistic missiles.
Ukraine could instead attack launch sites on Russian territory - it has been proven to be highly effective in Crimea - but Ukraine is not allowed to use Western ballistic missiles for that.
May I wonder what would you propose in his stead ?
I am not a military inclined person, but asking for missiles that are purposefully built to target air missiles as well as their delivery mechanisms seems reasonable to me.
These bombs are launched from planes. Patriot missiles can take down those planes but need to be very close to the frontline and therefore are vulnerable. Ukraine lost part of a Patriot system at the Eastern front that way. AFAIK, fighter jets are commonly regarded as the better solution to that particular problem, though these are in turn vulnerable to enemy AA, of course.
The 2022 predictions of Russia's imminent collapse are looking pretty bad as well. Do you call the people who were predicting that trolls? This was has already lasted longer than early-war internet commenters on both sides said it would.
No fair picking on the predictions of others without exposing myself to the same, so here is my prediction: eventually cease fire terms will be agreed upon when both sides become too weary to continue and the war will "end" in a frozen conflict that won't see a satisfactorily conclusion for generations. Think Korea.
Those were too naive to believe some tectonic changes are possible in a dictatorship, where the overwhelming majority at least passively supports the regime. Meanwhile, the "Zelensky was evacuated by Polish forces" is a narrative that was pushed by the Kremlin during the initial months.
A ceasefire is feasible, but given that both sides have unsatisfied medium sized goals in mind, I don't think that it will hold for long.
No one is going to give you an essay on what exactly they should do when they no one here even has all the intel. You can at best guess and present some technobabble that sounds plausible. But the current trajectory of the war and the perpetual cycle of asking for more should speak volumes on the current leadership.
I am curious to see a teardown of the kit. Probably a lot of generic western components used just as with their drones.
reply