In Germany @derspiegel, @welt, @ntvde and in Austria @derStandardat write that "the Ukrainian Offensive has failed"... ...
That is wild nonsense.
This nonsense happens, because all of them interviewed the same expert, who doesn't understand Ukraine's Offensive phases, of
1/25
which there are at least 5, and we're barely in the middle of Phase 1 - Attrition & Interdiction.
I wouldn't have to do this thread, if i.e. @derStandardat wouldn't confuse the Ukrainian Army's Assault brigades, with the National Guard's Offensive Guard brigades, but...
2/n
The reason people don't consider Ukraine's Phase 1 a success comes from people being used to US/NATO wars, in which Phase 1 is purely air power.
Phase 1 is meant to attrition enemy forces and interdict/disrupt their lines of communication. The West uses fighters and bombers, 3/n
and cruise missiles for that.
During the 1991 Gulf War 1,700+ coalition combat aircraft needed 37 (!) days and 100,000+ sorties to attrition the Iraqi forces enough to trigger the ground campaign. And 288 Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired at Iraqi targets. 4/n
During the 2003 Invasion of Iraq coalition combat aircraft flew 41,000 sorties and fired 802 Tomahawks at Iraqi targets.
This time the coalition skipped the attrition phase and went directly to Phase 2 - Close Air Support = bombing a road to Baghdad for the 1st Marine and 5/n
3rd Infantry divisions.
Ukraine doesn't have any of this air power; and so Ukraine is forced to replace fighters and bombers with GMLRS, Excalibur, Storm Shadow and drones.
Whereas in US and NATO operations the sky is continuously swarming with fighters and bombers looking 6/n
for enemy positions and vehicles to annihilate, all Ukraine has in the air are drones, which look for russian equipment, ammo points, command centers, logistic points, etc. but the drones can't bomb these objects.
Once a drone spots a target, the drone operator has to request
7/n
mensuration, the results of which are then transmitted to either a M142 HIMARS or M270A1 MLRS launcher, which will enter the target's coordinates into a GMLRS rocket; or transmitted to a M777, PzH 2000, M109A6 or Archer howitzer, which will enter the target's coordinates into 8/n
an Excalibur projectile; or the data is transmitted to the Ukrainian Air Force's 7th Tactical Aviation Brigade, which will enter the target's coordinates into a Storm Shadow...
Did you notice that all of these take time? Ukraine can only hit russian equipment that is static. 9/n
Unlike Western fighters, which can hit the passenger seat of a driving car, Ukraine can only hit russian vehicles and objects that are static. A massive drawback.
Even worse: a US fighter jet can fly deep into enemy territory, and hit a dozen targets 500km behind the front, 10/n
while Ukraine's range is limited to:
Excalibur range: 40 km
GMLRS range: 84 km
Storm Shadow range: 500+ km, but only in limited numbers
Ukraine is massively handicapped by the time it takes to hit a russian target and by the range of its systems. (GLSDB will improve HIMARS 11/n
range but the production line is not yet running...)
Now if you're russia, all you have to do it to park your heavy equipment outside of GMLRS range and Ukraine can't hit it.
It makes no sense to use a expensive Storm Shadow missile to hit i.e. a russian T-90M tank...
12/n
Still Ukraine must attrition russia's heavy equipment before it can begin Phase 2 of the offensive... and the only way to do it is to bait russian forces into GMLRS and Excalibur range.
And Ukraine is doing this right now by attacking the russian lines with four of the ten 13/n
All other brigades (i.e. 35th Marine, 68th Jaeger, etc.) are merely supporting these four brigades. 14/n
A further six brigades can be deployed for this phase. Now the russians are in a dilemma: either bring their heavy equipment forward and risk losing it to GMLRS and Excalibur or leave their heavy equipment out of range and allow Ukraine an unexpected early breakthrough
15/n
through the russians lines... well, the russians decided to bring their equipment forward and Ukraine is hitting it relentlessly.
Still it is a far, far slower process than air power... and unlike in an air campaign Ukraine is losing troops and vehicles... and this has led 16/n
to some analysts declaring the Ukrainian Offensive a "failure"... it is NOT. These "analysts" and "experts" just fail to understand the Ukrainian plan.
And they fail to understand that Ukraine gets stronger every day: Ukraine readied 35 (!) brigades for the offensive, by
17/n
raising new units, splitting existing units, pulling units out of the front and refreshing them... and just 4 of 35 are in the fight now.
All the others are at the training grounds - training every day to improve their skills; AND incorporating the lessons learned in the 18/n
offensive so far.
And every day troops return from training in NATO countries and Sweden; and new equipment arrives - the Offensive Guard brigades started out as light infantry... and are now getting tanks from Germany and Denmark, turning them into mechanized formations. 19/n
So many troops return from training in Europe that Ukraine recently formed three new brigades; and as the russians have stopped attacks in the South and along the Donetsk front, Ukraine recently pulled two elite brigades out of the front to freshen them up for the offensive.
20/n
How can an offensive have "failed" if more than 90% of forces are still training for the offensive?
I do not know when the next Phase of the Ukrainian Offensive will begin... but I am sure it is not tied to a date or certain geographic locations.
21/n
I assume the next Phase will be triggered when Ukraine is confident it has destroyed a certain % of the remaining russian howitzers, rocket launchers, electronic warfare systems, air defense systems; and degraded russian logististics by striking russian supply lines, and 22/n
destroyed most of the russian ammo dumps and command posts... you know, the exact same parameters that triggered the ground campaign of Operation Desert Storm in 1991.
Ukraine's Offensive has barely begun. And due to the lack of air power Phase 1 will take far longer than 23/n
people are used to... but journalists need to come up every day with a fresh new drama.
But the real story here is how many more forces Ukraine is readying, how many more forces Ukraine and NATO are training, and how much more equipment the West needs to donate for these
24/n
new units.
In Phase 3 Ukrainian forces will slice through russian lines and liberate Mariupol; will cross the Dnipro and liberate Northern Crimea; and will destroy russia's army in the South.
Ukraine's victory is inevitable. We just need a bit of patience.
25/end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🇬🇧 decline: Only one SSN is operational, three are no longer fit for service and got no crews. One carrier has no air wing and has been sent to rust away. The other carrier only has an air wing when the RAF cedes a third of its fighters. Only 1 destroyer is operational. The
1/5
frigates are falling apart. New Type 31 frigates won't get Mark 41 VLS or bow Sonar. The RAF took 48 of its Eurofighters apart, because it got no money for spares. The army has just 14 155mm howitzers. The Ajax vehicle is injuring the troops it carries. The Warrior IFVs are
2/5
outdated and falling apart. They amphibious ships are not deployable / crewed for lack of funds. The UK has not anti-ballistic missile system (e.g.Patriot). There is only money for 12 F-35A, the smallest F-35A order on the planet. The tank force is at its smallest since 1938.
3/5
International Law is worthless paper if you cannot and will not back it up with military power.
Dictators do not care for international law. But they fear the US Air Force. The moment the US signaled it would no longer back "international law" putin annexed Crimea and Assad
1/10
gassed his people. International Law is what defence laggards hide behind to not have to spend for their own security (hoping the US will save them from their irresponsibility) .
European politicians like to grandstand about "international law" but NO European nation has the
2/n
the means (nor the will) to the enforce it. European politicians grandstanding about international law always do so in the belief that the US will enforce their balderdash.
So European politicians lecturing the US about "international law" now are utter morons, because they
3/n
All this "NATO is unprepared for the use of drones like the war in Ukraine" is ridiculous, because:
• of course NATO is unprepared for the use of drones like the war IN (!) Ukraine,
• because that is not how a NATO-russia war will be fought. NATO, even just European NATO,
1/4
fields: 244 F-35, 403 Eurofighter, 183 Rafale, 177 modern F-16, 3 Gripen E, and 896 older fighter types.
A total of 1,906+ fighters (without the US Air Force and Royal Canadian Air Force; and with more new fighters entering European service every week).
russia, when counting
2/4
generously can't even put half that fighter strength into the field, and the 1,010 modern European NATO fighters would devastate russia's fighter force.
With NATO air supremacy comes absolute dominance of the battlefield. Every russian moving near the front would get bombed
3/4
Gripen fans keep hyping the Gripen with fake claims & as long as they do, I will counter them:
Scandinavian Air Force officer about the Gripen E: It can either be fully fueled or fully armed or flown from short runways. Never can 2 of these things be done at the same time.
1/25
The Gripen fans keep claiming that the Gripen has a better range than the F-35 and can fly from short runways... then admit that its max. range can only be achieved with external fuel tanks, which weigh so much that the Gripen E can no longer fly from short runways.
2/n
External fuel tanks also mean: the Gripen becomes slower, the radar cross section increases (making detection more likely), the fuel consumption increases,... and even with all 3 external fuel tanks the Gripen E carries 1,340 kg less fuel than the F-35A carries internally.
3/n
Gripen fans continue to spam my mention with claims how fantastic Sweden's Bas 90 and Gripen combination is... and that it would work for Canada's North too...
Ok, let's quickly compare Canada's three northern territories (Yukon, Northwest, Nunavut) and Sweden... ... 1/6
Land area:
🇸🇪 450,295 km2 (173,860 sq mi)
🇨🇦 terr.: 3,593,589 km2 (173,860 sq mi)
The land area of just the three territories (without Canada's 10 provinces) is already 8 times bigger than all of Sweden...
(In total Canada's land area is 9,984,670 km2
2/6
(3,855,100 sq mi) or 22 times Sweden).
Population:
🇸🇪 10.61 million
🇨🇦 terr.: 0.13 million
Sweden's population is 81.6 times bigger than that of the three territories... and if you look at population density:
🇸🇪 23,6/km2
🇨🇦 terr.: 0,013/km2
3/6
Saab loooves to tout the claim that the Gripen can "operate from dispersed air bases".
They do that, because they know no one of you knows what it means. And every time I see someone regurgite "dispersed air bases" (or "road runways" or "short runways") I know I am dealing
1/36
with someone, who knows absolutely nothing about the topic.
So allow me to take you on a deep dive into what "operating from dispersed air bases" actually means.
Let's start with Såtenäs Air Base in Southern Sweden - the most important Swedish air base. 2/n
When the Viggen entered service, Såtenäs received it first.
When the Gripen entered service, Såtenäs received it first.
When the Gripen E entered service, Såtenäs received it first.
In the 1950s Sweden developed the Bas 60 system, which would have dispersed the Swedish 3/n