Ukraine's American Missiles Wrecked 21 Russian Helicopters in Single Operation(forbes.com)
forbes.com
Ukraine's American Missiles Wrecked 21 Russian Helicopters in Single Operation
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/10/22/ukraines-american-made-m39-missiles-may-have-wrecked-21-russian-helicopters-in-a-single-operation/
53 comments
Is anyone at all worried about Russia retaliating directly against America for all this success? The U.S. media loves gloating about this kind of stuff but it seems gratuitous at best.
February 2022, yes. Now, no.
It has become clear that Russia had no capacity to wage war in Ukraine and take on anyone else in a meaningful way. As long as pot boils, but doesn’t spill over the USA will be able to continue to slowly increase its support.
It has become clear that Russia had no capacity to wage war in Ukraine and take on anyone else in a meaningful way. As long as pot boils, but doesn’t spill over the USA will be able to continue to slowly increase its support.
> As long as pot boils, but doesn’t spill over the USA will be able to continue to slowly increase its support.
Also noteworthy is the fact that the support from US in particular and NATO in general has been decades-old and potentially decommissioned hardware that was either mothballed or phased out, and the overall investment, with regards to each nation's budget, amounts to pocket change.
Also noteworthy is the fact that the support from US in particular and NATO in general has been decades-old and potentially decommissioned hardware that was either mothballed or phased out, and the overall investment, with regards to each nation's budget, amounts to pocket change.
>Is anyone at all worried about Russia retaliating directly against America for all this success?
No.
Direct retaliation would mean the end of the Putin regime.
Total financial aid to Ukraine from the US over the last 21 months has amounted to $77 billion so far. About $30 billion or so more has been appropriated but has not been spent yet.
That is a lot of money, but the amount spent so far is only ~0.3% of the US's GDP and ~5.4% of its annual Federal Budget-- spread out over nearly 2 years.
With that, and contributions from other allies roughly doubling that total, Ukraine has fought Russia to a standstill and is very slowly gaining ground.
Any direct conventional retaliation against the United States would bring to bear a much, much, larger percentage of its resources and very likely result in the complete annihilation of any involved forces. Russian forces are very poorly equipped, trained, and led which means there have been single weeks (particularly the last several weeks) in the War in Ukraine where more Russian losses occurred than occurred in total over 20 years of US involvement in the Global War on Terror.
So that leaves a nuclear response.
A nuclear response would end in the annihilation of Russia itself. The Putin regime seems very interested in self-preservation.
That leaves indirect proxy responses. Historically, proxy wars against the United States have not ended well for either the proxy or the supporter of the proxy.
Even proxies who "win" are often damaged to the point of ruin, taking decades to recover.
No.
Direct retaliation would mean the end of the Putin regime.
Total financial aid to Ukraine from the US over the last 21 months has amounted to $77 billion so far. About $30 billion or so more has been appropriated but has not been spent yet.
That is a lot of money, but the amount spent so far is only ~0.3% of the US's GDP and ~5.4% of its annual Federal Budget-- spread out over nearly 2 years.
With that, and contributions from other allies roughly doubling that total, Ukraine has fought Russia to a standstill and is very slowly gaining ground.
Any direct conventional retaliation against the United States would bring to bear a much, much, larger percentage of its resources and very likely result in the complete annihilation of any involved forces. Russian forces are very poorly equipped, trained, and led which means there have been single weeks (particularly the last several weeks) in the War in Ukraine where more Russian losses occurred than occurred in total over 20 years of US involvement in the Global War on Terror.
So that leaves a nuclear response.
A nuclear response would end in the annihilation of Russia itself. The Putin regime seems very interested in self-preservation.
That leaves indirect proxy responses. Historically, proxy wars against the United States have not ended well for either the proxy or the supporter of the proxy.
Even proxies who "win" are often damaged to the point of ruin, taking decades to recover.
Also very important is that the vast majority of military aid to Ukraine involves decades old technology the U.S. would never use.
If anything, some of these will end up saving the U.S. money because maintenance and eventual disposal would have been far more expensive than shipping it to Ukraine.
If anything, some of these will end up saving the U.S. money because maintenance and eventual disposal would have been far more expensive than shipping it to Ukraine.
> Total financial aid to Ukraine from the US over the last 21 months has amounted to $77 billion so far.
To put that in more direct terms: that's $77 billion over 21 months, spread across around 168 million US taxpayers. That comes out to $21.83/month per taxpayer.
To put that in more direct terms: that's $77 billion over 21 months, spread across around 168 million US taxpayers. That comes out to $21.83/month per taxpayer.
coffinbirth(5)
> anyone at all worried about Russia retaliating directly against America for all this success?
Cognisant of, yes. Worried, no. For the same reasons we aren’t sending a carrier strike group to bomb Crimea. To the extent there is a media circus in this fight, it’s around pandering to Russian escalation theatre.
Cognisant of, yes. Worried, no. For the same reasons we aren’t sending a carrier strike group to bomb Crimea. To the extent there is a media circus in this fight, it’s around pandering to Russian escalation theatre.
I think they are more worried about drawing in the US and NATO, despite their chest puffing, than we are of them. I mean, they are barely passing by as it is.
What are you thinking they might try?
What are you thinking they might try?
I'm honestly not sure but I'm also not sure we have ever seen a nuclear power with its back against the wall to this degree have we? I'm not trying to make people worried it's just something I personally worry about.
Kicking the fuckers out of Ukraine and degrading their ability to murder and rape is not “having their back against a wall”.
> not sure we have ever seen a nuclear power with its back against the wall to this degree
The Soviet Union literally collapsed.
The Soviet Union literally collapsed.
> (...) I'm also not sure we have ever seen a nuclear power with its back against the wall to this degree have we?
What do you perceive as "this degree"?
I mean, Ukraine's endgame is to free its occupied territories from Russia's occupation. This means that Russia's worst-case outcome is doing yet another goodwill gesture, pack up and leave, and claim they succeeded in whatever was they claimed their goal was.
All the redline arguments regarding NATO expansion and bullshit about protecting Russian speaking segments of the population were already thoroughly discredited and abandoned, and more importantly Putin's regime didn't even objected to them.
In the meantime, Putin's regime seems to have its populace under tight control to the point they have pundits openly calling out in Russia's own mass media for the death of any Russian citizen not supporting Putin's regime without causing any backlash.
So where is this existential threat you're talking about?
All the harm that was lingering over Putin's regime was already done. Russia's economy is in shambles, Russia's diplomatic standing ceased to be, Russia switched from a world player to a vassal state of China and Iran, and is already being subservient to North Korea. Russia's arms industry also took a major reputation hit. Russia also lost Europe as a energy cliënt, which was basically it's diplomatic and economic support.
At this point the only options on Russia's table is to either continue following the sunk loss fallacy path, or cutting its losses. Which one is supposed to be the wall?
What do you perceive as "this degree"?
I mean, Ukraine's endgame is to free its occupied territories from Russia's occupation. This means that Russia's worst-case outcome is doing yet another goodwill gesture, pack up and leave, and claim they succeeded in whatever was they claimed their goal was.
All the redline arguments regarding NATO expansion and bullshit about protecting Russian speaking segments of the population were already thoroughly discredited and abandoned, and more importantly Putin's regime didn't even objected to them.
In the meantime, Putin's regime seems to have its populace under tight control to the point they have pundits openly calling out in Russia's own mass media for the death of any Russian citizen not supporting Putin's regime without causing any backlash.
So where is this existential threat you're talking about?
All the harm that was lingering over Putin's regime was already done. Russia's economy is in shambles, Russia's diplomatic standing ceased to be, Russia switched from a world player to a vassal state of China and Iran, and is already being subservient to North Korea. Russia's arms industry also took a major reputation hit. Russia also lost Europe as a energy cliënt, which was basically it's diplomatic and economic support.
At this point the only options on Russia's table is to either continue following the sunk loss fallacy path, or cutting its losses. Which one is supposed to be the wall?
Two examples of what Russia has done:
1. knocked a US drone out of the air, and the US did not escalate
2. Fired two air-to-air missiles at a UK spy plane, due to miscommunication. One missed, one failed
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Black_Sea_drone_incident
[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66798508
1. knocked a US drone out of the air, and the US did not escalate
2. Fired two air-to-air missiles at a UK spy plane, due to miscommunication. One missed, one failed
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Black_Sea_drone_incident
[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66798508
(Possible) undersea pipeline and undersea cable destruction.
Pushing the limit with attacks near the Polish or Romanian borders.
Aggressive agitation / Agit-Prop efforts in the US. Likely pushing the MAGA GOP Republicans to obstruct obstruct obstruct, and doing things like not confirming high ranking generals.
Efforts via Wagner in Africa, and leaning on Middle Eastern powers to take action as things get hotter w/r/t Israel and Palestine. This has seen attacks on US bases in the Middle East, albeit without tremendous impacts.
Russia can't really take direction action since now Finland is NATO, and there are tons of NATO, to include US, UK, French, Canadian, et al, forces in Poland, the Baltics, and now Finland. Russia has, at best, token forces blocking most of those borders. They still have some gear in reserve in case NATO gets involved -- not a lot of call for AShMs in Ukraine, for example -- but even then there isn't much stopping NATO forces from driving straight into St. Pete's or Pskov.
Pushing the limit with attacks near the Polish or Romanian borders.
Aggressive agitation / Agit-Prop efforts in the US. Likely pushing the MAGA GOP Republicans to obstruct obstruct obstruct, and doing things like not confirming high ranking generals.
Efforts via Wagner in Africa, and leaning on Middle Eastern powers to take action as things get hotter w/r/t Israel and Palestine. This has seen attacks on US bases in the Middle East, albeit without tremendous impacts.
Russia can't really take direction action since now Finland is NATO, and there are tons of NATO, to include US, UK, French, Canadian, et al, forces in Poland, the Baltics, and now Finland. Russia has, at best, token forces blocking most of those borders. They still have some gear in reserve in case NATO gets involved -- not a lot of call for AShMs in Ukraine, for example -- but even then there isn't much stopping NATO forces from driving straight into St. Pete's or Pskov.
[deleted]
>
March_f6 5 hours ago | parent | context | flag | on: Ukraine's American Missiles Wrecked 21 Russian Hel...
I'm honestly not sure but I'm also not sure we have ever seen a nuclear power with its back against the wall to this degree have we? I'm not trying to make people worried it's just something I personally worry about.
Nuclear powers (including Russia and the USSR) have lost wars before so I’m not sure how they are backed against a wall.
They can always just leave.
I'm honestly not sure but I'm also not sure we have ever seen a nuclear power with its back against the wall to this degree have we? I'm not trying to make people worried it's just something I personally worry about.
Nuclear powers (including Russia and the USSR) have lost wars before so I’m not sure how they are backed against a wall.
They can always just leave.
Russia doesn't have nuclear weapons though, common misconception.
Do you know how expensive their maintenance is? Do you know how corrupt Russia is?
Do you know how expensive their maintenance is? Do you know how corrupt Russia is?
So they don’t have nukes now because of fanciful thinking. Gotcha.
They can't maintain tyres on trucks in storage. The idea that they have any serviceable nukes is not as current as it used to be.
Second statement does not follow from the first. For all we know those tires are poorly maintained because they spend their limited resources on maintaining their nuclear arsenal.
Either way, you can’t call their bluff without risking nuclear annihilation. All it takes is a few dozen MIRV tipped IC/SL ballistic missiles to bypass anti missile systems and destroy a good chunk of the US population.
Either way, you can’t call their bluff without risking nuclear annihilation. All it takes is a few dozen MIRV tipped IC/SL ballistic missiles to bypass anti missile systems and destroy a good chunk of the US population.
They've doubled their military budget and are doing a nuclear modernization iirc
This is a ridiculous and easily debunked assertion.
https://sgp.fas.org/crs/nuke/R45861.pdf
https://sgp.fas.org/crs/nuke/R45861.pdf
Sorry, which part of that 47 pages document debunkes my assertion? I thought you were gonna link me to a video of a Russia nuclear weapon detonating... oh wait that hasn't happened in 70 years...
Literally the entire document debunks your assertion that the Russians have no nuclear weapons.
No it doesn't. The entire document assumes that their nuclear weapons can actually detonated. Let me know if I've missed otherwise. I searched the document and couldn't find any discussion on this point.
> The entire document assumes that their nuclear weapons can actually detonated.
Are you actually assuming that they will not work? That's quite the leap of faith with no substance to back it up
Are you actually assuming that they will not work? That's quite the leap of faith with no substance to back it up
By that logic India, Pakistan, and China don't either.
Russia is another level compared to India and Pakistan in terms of corruption.
China, maybe. The difference is that Chinese nukes are relatively new. How old are Russia's nukes? 40 years old? 60? You do know that nukes are extremely finicky. Getting a nuke to detonate is a highly precise thing.
China, maybe. The difference is that Chinese nukes are relatively new. How old are Russia's nukes? 40 years old? 60? You do know that nukes are extremely finicky. Getting a nuke to detonate is a highly precise thing.
It's easy to avoid retaliation, you just have to surrender.
I'm okay with risks created by UXO from cluster submunitions in the precision targeting of Russian bases. Such high-risk systems can be used responsibility which is why for calls for outright bans are myopic.
Any info on the approximate size of the Russian heli fleet? Sounds like 21 is a big number for them.
Apparently Russia had 899 military helicopters prior to the start of the invasion, with 134 having been produced in 2021. They claimed they then produced 296 in 2022 after the war ramped up, but claims of substantially increased military production appear to be generally unreliable. Still, being able to take out 7% of annual production for even the most generous estimate in a single strike is nothing to scoff at. And up until July of this year, Russia had lost about 90 helicopters making this single strike a significant portion of their total losses thus far.
Even if the numbers lost aren't on their own crippling, this will also force Russia to either relocate its helicopter forces further from the front lines (reducing the overall utility of its helicopter fleet) or invest substantial resources into better defending its bases in the area (of course coming at the expense of defending other critical locations).
Even if the numbers lost aren't on their own crippling, this will also force Russia to either relocate its helicopter forces further from the front lines (reducing the overall utility of its helicopter fleet) or invest substantial resources into better defending its bases in the area (of course coming at the expense of defending other critical locations).
Exactly. Reaching net positive attrition and preventing resupply will make it possible to bring the conflict to an eventual conclusion.
Conversely, the current estimate on total heli fleet losses (including the 21) is 131. This single strike represents a significant chunk of observed/estimated losses to date.
So as some other commentators have pointed out, 21 isn't 'staggering' in the scheme of plausible total fleet size (though we don't know what the mix of models destroyed was was - obviously Ka-52s losses are far more impactful than Mi-8 losses), but the size in a single strike will force adaption.
Finally in absolute terms - 21 is just a big deal period. 21 choppers is on the order of a US army aviation battalion. The most disastrous modern attack helicopter operation by the US Army (the attack on Karbala in 2003) deployed 31 AH-64s, suffered one shoot down, one downing due to equipment failure, and damage on all 29 other airframes (it took about a month for the formation to repair and reconstitute and be able to deploy again). Karbala forced changes to helicopter deployment by the US army, and we'll likely see similar forced adaption by the Russians here.
So as some other commentators have pointed out, 21 isn't 'staggering' in the scheme of plausible total fleet size (though we don't know what the mix of models destroyed was was - obviously Ka-52s losses are far more impactful than Mi-8 losses), but the size in a single strike will force adaption.
Finally in absolute terms - 21 is just a big deal period. 21 choppers is on the order of a US army aviation battalion. The most disastrous modern attack helicopter operation by the US Army (the attack on Karbala in 2003) deployed 31 AH-64s, suffered one shoot down, one downing due to equipment failure, and damage on all 29 other airframes (it took about a month for the formation to repair and reconstitute and be able to deploy again). Karbala forced changes to helicopter deployment by the US army, and we'll likely see similar forced adaption by the Russians here.
> we'll likely see similar forced adaption by the Russians here
The Russian army has been strikingly bad at learning. ATACMs’ range is known. That they were being delivered to Ukraine was known. Yet here are closely-spaced places and choppers within firing range.
Same for e.g. doing in-person meetings of senior leaders in Sevastopol, or recapitulating Bakhmut in Avidiivka.
The Russian army has been strikingly bad at learning. ATACMs’ range is known. That they were being delivered to Ukraine was known. Yet here are closely-spaced places and choppers within firing range.
Same for e.g. doing in-person meetings of senior leaders in Sevastopol, or recapitulating Bakhmut in Avidiivka.
Right, but they will learn. GMLRS apparently isn't pulling in the same haul now as it was last year.
> they will learn
The evidence doesn’t sustain this hypothesis. Within a single command line, lessons are learned. But the effectiveness of tactics moves across the battlefield after demonstrated success is nuts. And senior commanders are dying fast enough that we see reversion time and again.
Russia fights like Syria and other calcified dictatorships more than a modern army.
The evidence doesn’t sustain this hypothesis. Within a single command line, lessons are learned. But the effectiveness of tactics moves across the battlefield after demonstrated success is nuts. And senior commanders are dying fast enough that we see reversion time and again.
Russia fights like Syria and other calcified dictatorships more than a modern army.
The important number is the number of Ka-52. Those have been causing trouble for Ukraine offensive since they can launch missiles from longer range. Estimates there are 200 of them. 21 is large percentage of those, and even more of those active in theatre.
And they're $1.5B RUB / $16 m USD each and it takes a long time to make 1.
The Russian military as a whole had about 1500 helicopters as of 2021. Some of those are probably not operational.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/259396/global-combat-hel...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/259396/global-combat-hel...