War in Ukraine

They do but how many munitions are you going to use to drop multiple spans on both sides?

https://www.reuters.com/world/europ...ens-after-temporary-halt-operator-2023-09-11/

 

Good question; I really don’t know. That’s a cost benefit analysis that needs to be weighed by those with the information. If it’s worth it to drop a section of the bridge then I’d take out the portion in that photo that would be most difficult to rebuild and would disrupt water traffic for a while.

 

The challenge is that these munitions have a Circular Error Probability (CEP) which means that they have a certain percentage that will be off their exact target. When trying to target the weak points of a bridge, that CEP becomes extremely important. If the CEP is 100 meter for that munition that could mean if you are off 25 meters to the side, it could land in the water and do zero damage. So now you have to fire a lot of these munitions to account for that. Let's assume it would take 4 of these munitions hitting four different spots in order to drop one span on one side of the bridge, then you might have to fire 4 munitions at each spot in order to get one to hit. That means you have fired 16 munitions just to cut off one side of the bridge. There are probably better targets that you do not have to worry about burning that many munitions to have effect on target.

Circular error probable - Wikipedia

 

Interesting .......

Russia asks US to allow Boeing jet purchases in exchange for ceasefire – Bloomberg

Since the start of the war, the US and its allies have frozen around $280 billion in Russian central bank reserves and blocked access to American and European markets for Russian airlines.

Following its invasion of Ukraine, Russia’s aviation sector has struggled due to a lack of access to foreign aircraft and spare parts.

Moscow has also publicly requested the lifting of sanctions on its flagship carrier Aeroflot, which has faced major disruptions due to a shortage of planes and components. American companies, including Boeing, shut down their operations in Russia after the invasion, worsening the situation for the country’s airlines.

Without international cooperation and sanctions relief, the prospect of restoring regular air travel between Russia and other countries remains unlikely in the near future.

 

Of course they want an infusion of new planes. That was probably one of the worst sanctions put on them. For a temporary ceasefire? Doesn’t seem reasonable. If they were to withdraw, then a lot of sanctions get lifted.

They’d probably co-opt a few of those planes for military and government purposes before a single Russian civilian flew on one anyway.

 

leave Ukraine, including Crimea, and we will talk..short discussion

or give donnie the real original tapes this time..

 

Understand and that makes sense. I assumed the cost of success would be part of their decision. Hypothetically, if it takes too many missiles, only provides 4 months of benefits, and doesn’t materially impact Russian supply lines then there probably isn’t a reason to take it out.

 

Honestly, Ukraine should start targeting those planes while they’re sitting empty on the tarmac. Crippling Russia’s aviation sector for a country of that size will make the populace pretty unhappy.

 

Not sure if Pootie Pie gives a crap about an unhappy populace.

 

Again, this has to be more fake news, along with the intelligence about the state of morale in the Russian ground forces as well as Russian demands that Western countries stop supplying Ukraine with weapons. I have been told on this very site in no uncertain terms that 1) the sanctions have had no effect on the Russians; 2) Western weapons have had no effect on the Russians; and 3) Russia can steamroll Ukraine any times it chooses; it just chooses not to for reasons that escape our Western way of thinking. Remember, this is (and has been for a while) all been over but the dying, and only Ukrainians are dying.

 

That is certainly what he wants you to think, yeah. But the reluctance to use conscript formations in battle, to effect another round of mobilization, or to recruit/conscript in either Moscow or St. Petersburg (his two largest population centers by a large margin; also, the historic centers of uprisings against the government) tells me he fears his own people a lot more than he fears this “existential threat” from Ukraine.

 

In my opinion — assuming it can be done with means and ways realistically available to Ukraine — taking out the Bridge is worth it. The strategic informational effect far outweighs any tactical advantage gained by the temporary interruption of supply to Crimea.

 

What do you think would provide a larger strategic informational effect for the moral of Ukranians, the AFU invading conducting the largest invasion of mainland Russia in Kursk since WWII or striking the KSB?

 

It would make the oligarchs and upper classes unhappy. I suspect that most Russians rarely travel, and when they do, it's by train or bus.

Planes are high-value items, so if doing damage to Russia long-term financially is a priority, then it's a good idea. In the short term, Russia would likely not replace those planes until they got enough oil income to stabilize the economy.

 

Difficult to compare, except in the sense that both actions say, "Russia is not on the verge of winning this war." The Kerch Bridge has enormous symbolic value to Russia. If I recall correctly, Putin himself rode over it during the ceremonial opening in a nationally broadcast event. Russia has also concentrated its air defenses around it, recognizing the strategic value. If Ukraine were to orchestrate a successful attack, it would be like smacking Putin in the balls right in front of his people. That would make him incandescently angry. Such anger makes people do stupid things. And we want Putin to do stupid things.

 

Based on the NYTimes story, it appears that the US has talked the AFU out of putting so much attention on the bridge when they achieved a lot of more important success during the execution of Operation Lunar Hail:

The Kerch Bridge episode aside, the Lunar Hail collaboration was judged a significant success. Russian warships, aircraft, command posts, weapons depots and maintenance facilities were destroyed or moved to the mainland to escape the onslaught.

For the Biden administration, the failed Kerch attack, together with a scarcity of ATACMS, reinforced the importance of helping the Ukrainians use their fleet of long-distance attack drones. The main challenge was evading Russian air defenses and pinpointing targets.

Here is a list of some of the targets in Russia that the AFU could prosecute if the Germans allowed them to use this cruise missile to engage them:

Institute for the Study of War

 

First they have to agree to pay for the 400+ they refused to return.

Russia explores buying some of the 400 ‘stolen’ airplanes - Euractiv

 

Pay for it with what? Rubles? Might as well give us Monopoly money.

 

Frozen funds

 

Might as well offer me the meal I already ate for dinner.