Sanctions against Russia

[willedoo]

On 14/01/2023 at 11:11 AM, Bruce Tuncks said:

And US army people have an oath to the constitution I think....  do russians have anything similar? 

Apparently this one. Translation varies slightly with different sources.

 

"I, (full name), solemnly swear allegiance to my Fatherland - the Russian Federation. I swear to sacredly observe the Constitution of the Russian Federation, strictly comply with the requirements of military regulations, orders of commanders and superiors. I swear to adequately fulfill military duty courageously defend the freedom, independence, constitutional order of Russia, the people and the Fatherland".

[willedoo]

I suppose every bit of aid to Ukraine helps in some way, but it makes you wonder if some of the piecemeal delivery of military equipment helps or hinders. The U.K. is reportedly sending a dozen Challenger tanks. The problem is that crews have to be trained, and more importantly, service technicians need to learn a new system, and the logistics of parts and support put in place. A lot of work for 12 tanks.

 

Likewise with the U.K. sending four Apache AH-64E Attack Helicopters. I think the Apache would probably be a fairly complex system. There would be a lot of work training ground crews and flight crews, when the helicopters might only survive for a short time. It would be ok if the small, piecemeal deliveries were the tip of the sword for a long term sizeable force of the systems being supplied, rather than a mix of gear supplied in dribs and drabs.

 

Just one question on the subject - how long would it take a Mi-8 pilot to convert to Apaches? It's not like you could just grab a flight manual and swat up on it during your smoko breaks.

[facthunter]

Just avoid hitting the "GAME OVER" button. Nev

[Old Koreelah]

I guess this situation is very similar to 1950, when the USSR suddenly provided lots of hardware to North Korea; even a seasoned pilot doesn’t learn to fly a MiG-15 in a few days.

 

There were lots of allegations of experienced Soviet pilots fighting UN forces.

[facthunter]

A lot of it can be  done in simulators these days. Cheaper and no lives lost.  Nev

[willedoo]

2 hours ago, Old Koreelah said:

I guess this situation is very similar to 1950, when the USSR suddenly provided lots of hardware to North Korea; even a seasoned pilot doesn’t learn to fly a MiG-15 in a few days.

 

There were lots of allegations of experienced Soviet pilots fighting UN forces.

For a long time it was allegations, even though at the time the American Sabre pilots knew they were dogfighting Soviet pilots. These days it's known fact as a lot of archives were made available after the demise of the Soviet Union.

 

The Soviets had a MiG-15 Fighter Air Corps there, the 64th.,and operated from bases west of the Yalu, just inside the Chinese border. The 64th. Fighter Corps consisted of three air divisions of two air regiments each. The idea was to have two divisions flying with one rotating in reserve, but in the early stages of the war, they only had one division in operation for a few months. Fully operational, it would relate to about 120 Soviet MiG-15's fighting at any given time.

 

They were under restrictions as they were supposed to be incognito at the time. They couldn't operate close to front lines and weren't allowed to cross the coast into Korea Bay in the Yellow Sea. The Russian cemetery at Lushunku (Port Arthur) in China has 125 pilots of the 64th. Fighter Aviation Corps who died there; 16 non combat losses and 109 combat losses. Initially, the Soviet pilots were mainly experienced WW2 veterans, but they had a dumb system of rotating in and out complete units instead of the western system of rotating individual pilots in so as to maintain a large operational base of experience. The Soviets would send an entire division home, then send in an entire inexperienced one.

 

History was made by a Soviet MiG-15 pilot and an Australian Meteor pilot when WOff. Ron Guthrie was shot down by Snr. Lt. N.V. Babonin, to become the world's first pilot to eject with an ejection seat in combat, using a Martin Baker Mk.1E seat. These were the early seats before the automatic parachute and seat restraint harness release was fitted. You had to enjoy the ride under the seat drogue until unassisted breathing height, then release the seat belts, kick yourself out of the seat and pull the D ring like a normal parachutist. Ron Guthrie separated from his seat at quite a big height as he was hoping the wind would take him out into the bay where the Americans could pick him up. The wind wasn't favourable and he made landfall and became a POW.

[willedoo]

3 hours ago, Old Koreelah said:

I guess this situation is very similar to 1950, when the USSR suddenly provided lots of hardware to North Korea; even a seasoned pilot doesn’t learn to fly a MiG-15 in a few days.

Just before the outbreak of the war, the Soviets had units in China teaching them how to fly jets as the Chinese and North Koreans only had propeller driven WW2 era fighter planes. They trained them initially on the MiG-9, then worked them up to the MiG-15. It would be quite a jump up converting to jets.

[willedoo]

On the subject of Ron Guthrie's historic ejection in Korea, I've worked on the earlier MB seats and have a bit of a soft spot for them, due in part to their simplicity compared to modern seats. I've done a full restoration on a Mk.2E Martin Baker seat for a museum, which was an interesting project. The 'E' designation is for the Meteor seat series. They started around 1951 with the Mk.1E which Ron Guthrie had in Korea, and by 1953, the Mk.1E's had been upgraded and re-badged as Mk.2E's to join the manufactured Mk.2E's. The Mk.2 series incorporated an automatic system of releasing the chute, releasing the seat belts, and throwing the pilot forward out of the seat. It meant that a pilot could lose consciousness after ejecting and still survive.

 

The Mk.1 seats had the dingy and survival kit in the backrest, and the pilot sat on the parachute WW2 style. The Mk.2 reversed that so that the parachute was stored in the backrest and the pilot sat on the dingy/survival pack + emergency O2 bottle. The Mk.1 and most Mk.2 seats had no ankle restraints, so before ejection, the pilot had to manually withdraw his feet from the rudder pedal area and place them on foot pegs at the base of the seat. The sides of the seats had a thigh guard section to help stop leg flailing in a high speed ejection. For anyone interested, here's how the Mk.2 seat works (warning: a bit boring for people not into gadgets):

 

1st. step as stated is to retract the legs and place the feet on the foot pegs.

 

Next, reach up above the head and firmly grab the ejection handles, palms facing inward. The handles are positioned at the front top of the headbox. The padded headrest is clipped on to the headbox which contains the packed drogue chute. The drogue stabilises the seat after leaving the aircraft. It stops it from tumbling, but firstly, in a high speed ejection, it throws the seat on to it's back in a horizontal position, feet facing the wind blast. This reduces the wind blast effect on the pilot.

 

When pulled firmly, the handles pop out of their headbox attachment. Attached to them is a canvas face blind sewn in a shape to fit over the pilot's face. Connected to the face blind is a small steel cable that pulls out the sear in the firing mechanism that ignites the ejection gun. Pull the handles and face blind to their fullest extent. The cable length is set so that the gun won't fire until the face blind is completely over the face for protection from wind blast.

 

The main ejection gun is a hollow steel tube running the length of the seat and connected to the aircraft at the bottom. Inside is a secondary sliding tube (attached to the seat at it's top end) which holds the main charge and firing mechanism at it's top. Pulling the ejection handle will yank the cable attached to the sear in the firing mechanism, which in turn will pull out the sear. This allows the spring loaded firing pin to strike the primer cap on the main charge and ignite it. The charge is dry, hard powder in a brass shell, a bit like an upside down mortar shell. Primer cap faces up, the open end of the shell with exposed powder faces down to direct the blast downward inside the inner tube.

 

The resulting blast is like a shotgun blast. The force pushes the seat upward on the guide rails with the attached flaming inner tube moving up inside the main outer tube which is fixed to the aircraft. Those Meteor seats had a 50fps gun which is not too hard on the spine. When the inner tube and seat get halfway up the outer tube, a secondary explosion occurs. This makes it a two stage bang which reduces the chance of a spinal injury. The secondary dry charge is part of the outer tube and is exposed to the inner tube via a small round port. When the bottom end of the inner tube (the exit point of the main blast) passes the port on it's way upward, the flame ignites the secondary charge. Boom, (small delay), Boom, in effect.

 

Forgot to mention, the pilot has obviously ejected the canopy which was done manually in those days. The next gadget is the drogue gun which is activated by a cable static line connected to the aircraft. As the seat moves up, the cable tightens and removes a locking pin from the drogue gun. There is a delay of about 1.5 seconds before the gun fires, to enable the seat to clear the aircraft before deploying the drogue chute. It's a simple setup. The locking pin (now removed) locked a spring tensioned starwheel, which is wound up like a clock is now free to start rotating. On the same shaft as the starwheel is a pinion which engages a sliding rack. The rack and pinion action forces the sliding rack upward. Attached to the top of the rack is a firing pin which strikes a small brass cased charge, around .60 calibre in diameter.

 

The drogue gun has a barrel containing a steel rod which is fired out of the gun. Attached to the rod is a line connected to the drogue chute, which is then yanked out of the headbox. A bit primitive but it works. The early seats had a single 5' drogue chute which was replaced in service by a duplex drogue. The initial small drogue was around 2' and came out first to reduce the load on the main 5' drogue. The line from the drogue connects to the seat via a scissor shackle which in the closed position will hold the weight of the seat. Next step is to kick back and enjoy the ride down to 10,000'. A seat with pilot supported by the drogue chute will descend at approx. 130 to 150 mph.

 

At 10,000' the pilot is safe enough to leave the seat with it's attached oxygen supply, so the next gadget comes into play. The automatic time release unit is bolted onto the starboard side of the headbox. No explosives, but works with a similar wound up starwheel like the drogue gun. The starwheel provides a similar time delay as the drogue gun. An external barometric diaphragm is set to move at the atmospheric pressure at 10,000' and it's movement actions the release of the starwheel's lock. The rotating starwheel then activates another couple of features. A spring loaded cable runs down to the seat belt lock and is pulled, releasing the seat belts. At the same time, a spring loaded locking pin is released from the scissor shackle. This opens it like a pair of scissors and releases it's hold on the drogue chute line. This means that the drogue chute is no longer attached to the top of the seat.

 

The drogue line continues down behind the pilot's shoulders and is connected to a canvas apron positioned behind the pilot's back. The main parachute deployment line is connected to this canvas apron. The drogue line is a continuous line from the apron to the overhead drogue chute, but has a shackle part way along the line that attaches to the scissor shackle so the drogue only pulls on the top of the seat while the scissor shackle is closed. When the scissor shackle is released by the barometric release unit, the pull on the drogue line is now wholly on the apron behind the pilot's back. The resulting force on the apron pushes the pilot forward out of the seat while deploying the main parachute. The end result is that the barometric pressure at 10,000' triggers automatic actions that will safely separate an unconscious or injured pilot and deploy his chute. Nothing to do then but enjoy the view.

 

Edited January 15, 2023 by willedoo

[Old Koreelah]

Thanks for that expose, Willie. I always wondered how those ejector seats work.

 

My brother once showed me a used escape pod from a F-111; much safer option.

I have sat in a F/A18 and was shown the harness that pulls in he pilot’s lower legs; essential, as mine are so plurry long!

 

I have been developing an ejector seat for the LiFEPO4 battery of my camper. Much less complex, but gives me peace of mind re the rare chance of it catching fire. I wish I could do the same for the battery in my plane.

[facthunter]

I suppose if you had a premature ejection, there'd not be much elation.    Nev

[rgmwa]

3 hours ago, Old Koreelah said:

I have been developing an ejector seat for the LiFEPO4 battery of my camper. Much less complex, but gives me peace of mind re the rare chance of it catching fire. I wish I could do the same for the battery in my plane.

James Bond solved that problem a while ago.  You just need a button on the gearstick. 

[facthunter]

Then you will get Charged with Assault with a Battery.  Nev

[Yenn]

Now Ukraine are saying they need more arms to turf Russia out of the country.

What are we doing? We want Russia out of Ukraine but we are not willing to let them attack Russia, meanwhile if the Russians are driven out, they still can attack Ukraine over the border. It looks as if the West is willing to feed arms to Ukraine, but gutless in fixing the problem. Nothing is going to stop Putin except force from the West, which should have been used a year ago.

[facthunter]

And you might be a cinder or glowing in the dark by now.   Nev

[willedoo]

6 hours ago, Old Koreelah said:

Thanks for that expose, Willie. I always wondered how those ejector seats work.

Those seats were early days; the modern ones are fairly flash. It would be a full time job to get the head around all the ins and outs of current seats. These days there's a million different sub-systems going on within them and computerised input as well. Seat belts and other things now are just cut with electrical pyro-cutters, roll correction rockets to stabilise, ankle restraints and knee lifters, pop-up wind blast defectors, arm restraints etc., they've got it all.

 

They say an aircraft is an airframe made up of systems made up of parts. What I like about ejection seats is that there's so much going on with them. These days, they are a major system on their own, with so many sub systems making them up. You can amuse yourself for hours studying them.

 

I've got an old MiG-15 seat which is a lot more primitive than those early Martin Baker seats mentioned, even though it's of the same era. It's just a steel chair with no stabilising features and a gun with a single charge. I've seen a video of the Polish Air Force doing test ejections with them, with a chaser plane filming. The seat with the test dummy tumbled head over heels several times before the pilot/seat separation. Scary stuff, but I guess better than the alternative.

 

 

[willedoo]

On the subject of ejection seats, yesterday I saw these photos on a Russian aviation forum. Allegedly, it's a Ukrainian Su-27 seat found by Russian troops. The seat pack/survival kit is gone, so the pilot must have successfully ejected. The pilot sits on the seat pack which is attached to his parachute harness. The photo is probably a few months old going by the green grass. I think it's been a while since the Ukrainians have lost a Su-27.

 

On these seats the parachute is packed in the headrest/headbox which blows off when the pilot separates from the seat. That's why you can see the headrest missing in the photos. The two round things either side at the top are stabiliser cannisters. On each side a telescopic tube extends out rearward a couple of metres and they have small spinning drogues on them.

 

Edited January 16, 2023 by willedoo

[kgwilson]

I see that Andrey Medvedev a former high ranking Wagner group member who defected in July and has been on the run ever since has crossed the border to Norway and is seeking political asylum. He is reported to be ready to tell everything he knows about the Wagner group. Could be interesting though likely will just confirm what we already know.

[facthunter]

In the end, No-one likes Mercenaries. IF you HAVE to use them you haven't got a cause worth fighting for. Nev

[onetrack]

The Germans have got their rear into gear, and have constructed a new floating LNG terminal in just 200 days - so they can reduce their dependence on Russian gas to bugger-all.

This construction effect is an outstanding record in a country known to take years to carry out developments, and to have massive cost overruns on those developments, while they drag everything out.

 

Of course, this construction has infuriated the German Greens and environmentalists, who claim that environmental concerns and laws were pushed aside to build the terminal.

I guess the Greenies can either have their strict enviro laws, and freeze and starve - or they can rely on LNG imports to live and keep warm, while they plan their next protest.

 

https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/germanys-first-lng-terminal-is-open-for-business/

 

https://twitter.com/wallstreetsilv/status/1612364529434005505

 

 

Edited January 17, 2023 by onetrack

[nomadpete]

Is all quiet on the Eastern front?

 

Here's misquote to start the banter....

 

 

An intelligent Russian once remarked "Every country has it's own constitution; ours is absolutism moderated by assassination."

Anon.

[willedoo]

It's not totally quiet, but certainly a lull in major offensive operations. It looks like both sides are gearing up for spring offensives and are concentrating on planning and force building rather than it being a stalemate. There was a lot of talk of Ukrainian forces having another major push in winter when the ground is frozen, but that seems to be less likely now. The job to take ground is getting harder due to Russia's ongoing defensive constructions and the fact that they are filling the front lines with disposable conscripts as quick as the Ukrainians can destroy them. I don't know if it's accurate, but I read somewhere that troop numbers are now roughly equal on both sides. If correct, it would be the first time since the start of the war that Russia hasn't had a manpower deficit.

 

The Americans are trying to talk the Ukrainians into delaying major offensives until all the recently promised gear is operational and crews are trained in it's use. It makes sense. They've also suggested that Ukrainian artillery should stop trading fire one for one with the Russians, to try and conserve ammunition stocks. The overall commander of Ukrainian forces is a smart cookie; I doubt he would want to launch an offensive by going off half cocked.

 

One big issue making news has been Germany's tardiness in stepping up to the plate on Leopard 2 main battle tank deliveries to Ukraine. At this stage, the Germans won't supply them and haven't been willing to sign export licenses to allow third countries to supply theirs. Poland has had enough of it and has threatened to form a coalition of third countries who possess Leopards and bypass Germany's approval and supply them regardless. There were reports yesterday that the Americans had read the riot act to the Germans and they might soon approve third country supply.

 

It would be in German's interest as a major European arms supplier, as their reputation as a reliable partner has taken a huge hit over the Leopard issue. Particularly so in the context that South Korea is a rising star in the military/industrial world of production, and is partnering with Poland to manufacture defence gear for the European market. Ukraine also has big post war potential to partner in with them as well. They are already an established developer and manufacturer of military equipment, aircraft, jet engines, armoured vehicles etc., so it wouldn't be a hard task for them.

 

Germany's indecision, unreliability and weak leadership could backfire on them. A lot of countries are now doubting German commitment in the event of a major conflict involving NATO directly. Some are questioning their ability to step up to the plate when needed. There is no doubt that German political indecision has aided the Russians since the early days of the war, and some opinions are that Germany is trying to have a bob each way. That theory is based on post war, Russia viewing Germany as being the least enemy-like of their enemies and going back to business as usual where everybody makes money. It does make you wonder a bit as Germany is now headed by an ex-communist who was once described by the East German government as an important ally in the fight against NATO and the West.

 

 

[willedoo]

When you don't want to share your tanks...

 

[willedoo]

All the buzz in the news today is unconfirmed reports that Germany will finally step up to the plate on the tank issue. It sounds like they've finally decided which side they are on. There's talk of 15 tanks from Germany, and up to 100 Leopard 2's all up including the third party countries that want to supply them.

 

It seems to have had a knock-on effect as Switzerland might be finally coming around with ammunition supplies. Until now, they've been hiding behind their neutrality policy so as not to upset their mate and soon to be ex mate Putler. They've previously blocked re-export of Swiss arms possessed by third countries. It's a bit hypocritical of them to be one of Europe's biggest arms manufacturers and exporters, then block countries from using those arms. If they are truly neutral, why try to make billions by supplying the world with weapons of warfare; why not get out of the arms racket altogether and import their defence needs.

 

The behaviour of Switzerland and Germany has got a lot of European countries thinking about more reliable suppliers. Why would they want to continue buying arms from the two recalcitrant countries knowing they will block the use of them if war breaks out. Imagine if the manufacturer of your car stopped you from lending it to a neighbour in a time of need.

[willedoo]

The tank issue has all been centered around estimates of the number of main battle tanks needed by Ukraine to push the Russians out and reclaim their territory. Estimates vary from a minimum of 200-300 up to a wish list of 500. The consensus is that modern western tanks are needed to gain a tactical advantage over the less capable Russian tanks. Ukraine demonstrated their ability to use tanks effectively in their successful push to take back most of the Kharkiv province.

 

There's been a lot of talk about tanks being obsolete with the advent of drones and portable anti-tank guided missiles, but most military people stand by the effectiveness of them when used correctly in a combined arms operation like Ukraine has done. When they are obsolete is when Russians are using them. There wouldn't be many dumber uses of tanks than what Putler's rabble has been doing with them. Since the start of the war, they've driven them all round the countryside in ad hoc fashion, in small numbers and with very little planning or tactics involved. Tanks trundling around the country in groups of two or three are sitting ducks. Putler's mob have squandered around 3,000 of their tank force just by pure stupidity.

 

Another thing the Russians have been doing is trying to use their tanks as poor man's artillery. They prop in the bushes alone or in a small group and try to shell the enemy. Recon drones find them easily, direct artillery fire on to them and that's the end of them. The small firing range of a tank makes that a wasteful use of them. The Ukrainians know to hold them back and use them as an iron fist in a large combined arms blitzkrieg-like offensive push. They're smart people, those Ukrainians.

[kgwilson]

The US is apparently now going to supply some 30 Abrams M1 tanks. While the experts agree it is a very capable tank, it is also very heavy and is a serious gas guzzler with its turbine engine. The logistics requirements are huge for this tank. This seems to be a common thread with high tech US supplied equipment. When the Taliban inherited a large amount of modern high tech US  gear the comment from one of the senior US officials was that it didn't really matter what they left there because it was so unreliable, that it all needed specialised trained service personnel and numerous parts that they did not leave behind.

 

The British Challenger 2 is also a very good tank & even the older Challenger 1 is better that any of the Russian tanks according to former NATO General Sir Richard Shirreff. Only 1 was incapacitated in the Gulf war & that was from British Artillery. Apparently Jordan has 400 Challenger 1s that could be purchased quite cheaply.

 

The consensus though is that the German Leopard 2 is the best fit for use in Ukraine.

 

The real issue is that the decisions on tank supply should have been made months ago as getting them to Ukraine plus training and logistics mean they will not be ready for any Spring Offensive and the numbers promised are too small.

 

Ukraine needs several brigades with about 500 tanks plus the logistics support & training according to General Shirreff. This would allow them to take back and hold all of their lost territory with a huge ground offensive. Only nuclear weapons would stop this. Then of course the territory is useless for anyone.