Ukrainian Patriot SAM operational/technical discussions

I tried to plot a "Patriot shield" if batteries were emplaced on Poland, Romania and Moldava borders with Ukraine (nota bene: Hungary and Slovakia are not bringing much to the shield, plus their, eeeerh, politics - forget it).
I used this tool to plot flying distances https://www.distance.to/
Then I used Wikipedia (probably optimistic and best case) 160 km range value

Ukraine 2.png
 

Attachments

  • Ukraine.png
    Ukraine.png
    2.1 MB · Views: 4
What you describe would mean shooting at Russian military assets from the territory of Poland, Romania or Moldova.
Imagine they succeed and down, say, a few Su-24 or Su-34.
Better be prepared to seriously defend those launchers and their support infrastructure.

Why not just keep giving SAMs to the Ukrainians, who have been doing a rather good job of operating them themselves? and they can position them more forward and cover more area.
 
It was mostly a "geographical" exercise but - I agree with you about the "politics" of such move. You hit the nail square on the head.
I mean: NATO killing Russian crews... ugh. Big risk of escalation. And since both sides have nukes... would be playing with fire.

I wonder whether a "red line" could be traced: between unmanned and manned strike vehicles (drone / cruise - ballistic missiles vs aircraft).
But the risk of confusion would be high - and then back to square one: ooops, NATO killed a russian crew. You can bet that Vlad would be cynically overjoyed if that happened...
 
Archibald said:
It was mostly a "geographical" exercise but - I agree with you about the "politics" of such move. You hit the nail square on the head.
I mean: NATO killing Russian crews... ugh. Big risk of escalation. And since both sides have nukes... would be playing with fire.

I wonder whether a "red line" could be traced: between unmanned and manned strike vehicles (drone / cruise - ballistic missiles vs aircraft).
But the risk of confusion would be high - and then back to square one: ooops, NATO killed a russian crew. You can bet that Vlad would be cynically overjoyed if that happened...
Click to expand...
I don't really buy the escalation threat. Putin just keeps threatening it to protect his presidency and hence himself. And I think if Putin keeps advancing west NATO involvement will happen eventually anyway.
 
Russians have an expression: "answer for your words." If a person's words do not match his deeds, then such a character is not taken seriously and is considered a clown. Therefore, it would be more correct to listen to what the Kremlin says.
 
paralay said:
Russians have an expression: "answer for your words." If a person's words do not match his deeds, then such a character is not taken seriously and is considered a clown. Therefore, it would be more correct to listen to what the Kremlin says.
Click to expand...
The Kremlin doesn’t unduly worry me. Putin should be well aware that he can’t count on a conventional “flexible response” to any direct attack on NATO. An immediate full on strategic response is more likely now than during the Cold War or any other point in history. Putin isn’t going to be dealing with the slow cognitive decline of Reagan or the relative emotional stability of a Nixon or the comparative “intelligence” of George W. Bush. For Putin, it really doesn’t matter who gets elected or re-elected to the Oval Office. He should fear both of them.
 
Last edited:
dan_inbox said:
What you describe would mean shooting at Russian military assets from the territory of Poland, Romania or Moldova.
Imagine they succeed and down, say, a few Su-24 or Su-34.
Better be prepared to seriously defend those launchers and their support infrastructure.

Why not just keep giving SAMs to the Ukrainians, who have been doing a rather good job of operating them themselves? and they can position them more forward and cover more area.
Click to expand...
I would generally assume a continuation of the status quo, with no pressing need for direct intervention from NATO territory. The ongoing war has started to mirror the Iran-Iraq War, with the no real existential threat to either side but it continues because of mutual intransigence. There’s nothing left to be won or lost, except the lives of the participants. I don’t see any chance of a Brusilov Offensive or an Operation Bagration. The other side isn’t going on to march on Moscow like Piłsudski or even Denikin.

There is apparently enough capacity to supply SAMs and shells to keep the war going ad infinitum. The political aspect will become difficult eventually. It took over a decade of protests for congress to effectively cancel support for South Vietnam and nearly 2 decades of increasing indifference for Afghanistan. Food for thought for both sides.

As a taxpayer, it would be nice to see second and third tier systems supplant something like Patriot in Ukraine, with the serious funding reserved for higher end successor systems for American and only trusted and established allied forces. Looking back, the Low Cost Interceptor would have been an ideal solution to a proxy conflict where the greatest risk is in having truly sensitive technologies fall into the hands of the enemy
 
Last edited:
TinWing said:
I would generally assume a continuation of the status quo, with no pressing need for direct intervention from NATO territory. The ongoing war has started to mirror the Iran-Iraq War, with the no real existential threat to either side but it continues because of mutual intransigence. There’s nothing left to be won or lost, except the lives of the participants. I don’t see any chance of a Brusilov Offensive or an Operation Bagration. The other side isn’t going on to march on Moscow like Piłsudski or even Denikin.

There is apparently enough capacity to supply SAMs and shells to keep the war going ad infinitum. The political aspect will become difficult eventually. It took over a decade of protests for congress to effectively cancel support for South Vietnam and nearly 2 decades of increasing indifference for Afghanistan. Food for thought for both sides.
Click to expand...
The difference is that I expect the Russians to realize that their materiel losses at the current level of conflict are unsustainable, and start rolling out the strategic bombers (for their big jammers if nothing else) and significantly more troops.

Do you lose 1000 tanks a year for the next 10 years, or do you lose 2000 tanks in a single battle?
 
paralay said:
Russians have an expression: "answer for your words." If a person's words do not match his deeds, then such a character is not taken seriously and is considered a clown. Therefore, it would be more correct to listen to what the Kremlin says.
Click to expand...
Like when they said they weren't going to invade Ukraine? Or when they said they didn't have troops in the Donbass from 2014-2022? Or when they said ATACMS was a red line, or fighter jets, or tanks for that matter? Or when they signed a treaty guaranteeing the sovereignty of Ukraine perhaps? It's more a case that one should take their words, invert them, and then listen.

Deterrents don't fundamentally work in attack, because if they did, nobody would be able to defend anything anywhere.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
The difference is that I expect the Russians to realize that their materiel losses at the current level of conflict are unsustainable, and start rolling out the strategic bombers (for their big jammers if nothing else) and significantly more troops.

Do you lose 1000 tanks a year for the next 10 years, or do you lose 2000 tanks in a single battle?
Click to expand...
I don’t think either side has the logistics, leadership or ideological motivation to get 2,000 tanks operable and operational at same time, in the same place. Zhukov was working with tremendous organizational advantages in WWII compared to today. The societal decay on both sides isn’t quite so obvious when it comes to operating systems like Patriot missile batteries. However, for something requiring coordination liked massed armor or coherent efforts at SEAD or air superiority, there is no fundamental capability on either side.
 
Was going to make a large geopolitics posts but I will not. I will only say that some might disagree with the idea forever war between Ukraine and Russia, and discussions of nuclear red lines and how Russia needs to be brought to heel. Not everyone here aligns with the European centrist or here the neocon/neolib geopolitical line of thinking.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom