Russian Military Adaptations, RU Threat, & Pac2 vs Pac3 Patriot
Table of Contents 📖
| Topic ID | Topic Title | Timestamp |
|---|
"Good stuff there. And, you know, there's no point deluding ourselves of the potency of the Russians."
Hello Team!
Jonathan introduces the video, mentioning it will cover some fascinating articles and topics to give viewers a greater understanding of the war in Ukraine. He acknowledges that words can be difficult for him at times.
Return to top⤴️
Russian Army Adaptations
An article by Shashank Joshi from The Economist discusses how the Russian army has adapted in key areas and is performing better, despite initial perceptions. Improvements include:
- Infantry tactics: Moving away from battalion tactical groups to using small groups of disposable infantry to reveal Ukrainian positions, followed by larger assault groups. Russian engineers excel at building fortifications and defences.
- Artillery: Reconnaissance drones enable faster targeting of Ukrainian positions. Tactics include withdrawing from positions under assault and then saturating them with fire once Ukrainians attempt to occupy.
- Armour tactics: Tanks being used at a safe distance, with improved camouflage and reactive armour.
- Electronic warfare (EW): Significant improvements, with EW systems deployed every 10km along the front. Ukraine is losing around 10,000 drones per month, with EW responsible for half the losses. EW also used to create decoys.
- Air defences: Increasingly connected to share threat data, shooting down a significant proportion of GMLRS rounds. Command centres moved further back and hardened.
While this sounds concerning, the article notes that if Ukraine can disrupt Russian defences and exploit gaps, Russian coordination is likely to rapidly break down. Russia's defence system is improved but still brittle.
Return to top⤴️
Patriot Air Defence System: PAC-2 vs PAC-3
Jonathan explains the differences between the PAC-2 and PAC-3 Patriot missile systems:
- The Patriot system is designed to identify and intercept various aerial threats. It consists of a radar set, control station, and missile launchers.
- PAC-2 missiles use blast fragmentation warheads and have a longer range against aircraft and cruise missiles. The PAC-2 GEM-T variant has enhanced capabilities against tactical ballistic missiles.
- PAC-3 missiles are smaller, use hit-to-kill technology, and are primarily designed to intercept ballistic missiles. They have less range than PAC-2 but are more manoeuvrable. The PAC-3 MSE has slightly different capabilities than the PAC-3 CRI variant.
- Patriot batteries are expensive and time-consuming to upgrade from PAC-2 to PAC-3 configuration. The US has limited numbers available to provide to Ukraine.
- Both PAC-2 and PAC-3 could potentially intercept Russian Kinzhal hypersonic missiles, as their high-altitude ballistic trajectory makes them vulnerable to interception.
US Military Aid to Ukraine
A commenter provides an analysis of the true cost of US military aid to Ukraine by looking at the Department of Defense budget increases compared to expected inflation-adjusted figures. The difference implies the Ukraine war has cost an additional $26 billion in 2023 and $12 billion in 2024, for a total of around $30-40 billion, much lower than some critics claim.
Return to top⤴️
Drone Losses and Wartime Numbers
Jack Watling from RUSI discusses Ukrainian drone losses, estimated at 10,000 per month. He notes that while this number comes from the Ukrainian General Staff, it is hard to verify and likely fluctuates significantly based on the intensity of operations and type of units using the drones. Artillery units tend to lose far fewer drones than infantry. Watling stresses that while exact figures may not be available, providing a number is still important to convey the scale of the issue and inform policymaking. He cautions that wartime numbers should be viewed in context, as they can be necessary to get the right message across while being misleading in their precision.
Return to top⤴️
The Future Russian Threat
A comment from Brian Ivy, a US Republican, outlines why supporting Ukraine is crucial:
- Russia has the potential to rebuild its massive military in the future.
- Putin has made clear his intentions to reconstitute the Russian Empire.
- Failing to stop Russian aggression in Ukraine now could lead to a future war against a much stronger adversary.
- A militarily strong Ukraine in NATO would help deter Russian expansionism.
- Supporting Ukraine now is far less costly than a direct war with a re-militarized Russia later.
Wrap up
Jonathan clarifies the origin of the "legend of the universe" joke, explaining it was a response to Ramzan Kadyrov awarding himself the title "Hero of Chechnya." He acknowledges struggling with words at times and wraps up the video.
Return to top⤴️