Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine

[bannedfromHandV]

Probably been said already but I assume that in providing the various tanks (US, British and European) there’s a high risk that the west will lose a tactical advantage over Russia in that inevitably one or more of these tanks will likely be captured at some point right? 

[magnkarl]

19 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Probably been said already but I assume that in providing the various tanks (US, British and European) there’s a high risk that the west will lose a tactical advantage over Russia in that inevitably one or more of these tanks will likely be captured at some point right? 

As of now Russia doesn't have the capability to produce anything near what the West can. They can probably capture a tank, but copying their parts without the needed Western made tech that goes into it it'll be the Armata all over again.

Heck, they can't even produce ABS, air bags or seat belts that work properly anymore after the sanctions. How would they copy the very intricate tech inside these tanks?

[magnkarl]

Spain stepping up big and saying they'll likely deliver 53 (!) leopard 2's to Ukraine. These are the older standard models, but will likely be refitted in Germany before being sent to Ukraine. Rheinmetall will be busy this spring.

[BleedClaretAndBlue]

 

[blandy]

7 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

As of now Russia doesn't have the capability to produce anything near what the West can. They can probably capture a tank, but copying their parts without the needed Western made tech that goes into it it'll be the Armata all over again.

Heck, they can't even produce ABS, air bags or seat belts that work properly anymore after the sanctions. How would they copy the very intricate tech inside these tanks?

They can (and would) pass on stuff to China, Iran etc. - they already have for some captured kit.

[LondonLax]

11 minutes ago, BleedClaretAndBlue said:

 

I think people give Putin and Russia too much credit for things like this.

He’s not a puppet master pulling all the strings around the world. Furthermore, not everyone who takes a pro-Russian position is doing it because they are being paid in Rubles on the side, which seems to be claimed often. 

The evidence in that article is that someone who sympathises with Russia had helped with the stunt. It doesn’t mean it was the Russian government who orchestrated it (it very well may have been but there has not been any evidence found for that claim as yet). 

If anything over the last year has taught me it’s that Putin is not in fact the 3D chess master he is often made out to be. Furthermore there are also many people out there who sympathise with Russia for many different reasons, not just as a result of a direct financial benefit and direction from Russia’s FSB but often for their own ideological reasons.

[NoelVilla]

3 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

The evidence in that article is that someone who sympathises with Russia had helped with the stunt. It doesn’t mean it was the Russian government who orchestrated it (it very well may have been but there has not been any evidence found for that claim as yet). 

and Chang Frick who this refers to says he don't. But who knows what he really thinks. What we know about him is that he probably do anything for some attention.

[magnkarl]

25 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

I think people give Putin and Russia too much credit for things like this.

He’s not a puppet master pulling all the strings around the world. Furthermore, not everyone who takes a pro-Russian position is doing it because they are being paid in Rubles on the side, which seems to be claimed often. 

The evidence in that article is that someone who sympathises with Russia had helped with the stunt. It doesn’t mean it was the Russian government who orchestrated it (it very well may have been but there has not been any evidence found for that claim as yet). 

If anything over the last year has taught me it’s that Putin is not in fact the 3D chess master he is often made out to be. Furthermore there are also many people out there who sympathise with Russia for many different reasons, not just as a result of a direct financial benefit and direction from Russia’s FSB but often for their own ideological reasons.

I don't know about Paludan, but the far right in Europe is known to at least like Putin and Russia. That isn't far fetched. From reading about Paludan he's Denmark's answer to Tommy Robinson, and characters like this do love the way Putin treats opposition, gays and minorities.

Putin might not pay them, but they often do things to try to make Putin happy. A bit like Quisling in WW2. Hitler wasn't a fan, but Quisling essentially behaved like his puppy for Adolf's approval.

[magnkarl]

51 minutes ago, blandy said:

They can (and would) pass on stuff to China, Iran etc. - they already have for some captured kit.

But judging from Chinas lack of sophisticated parts, and Iran's sanctions, don't you think there's still a small risk to them copying it?

I'm sure Iran and China already has the Leopard\Abrams from their interests in Syria and Iraq.

One needs not look further than China's ridiculous 'wonderful' fighter jets and aircraft carriers to see that the likelihood for China being able to copy Western tech is slim to none.

Edited January 27, 2023 by magnkarl

[LondonLax]

5 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

I don't know about Paludan, but the far right in Europe is known to at least like Putin and Russia. That isn't far fetched.

That’s what I mean. They often happen to align on ideology so end up making the same arguments, rather than one being directed or controlled by the other. 

[BleedClaretAndBlue]

I like this guy;

 

[delboy54]

Far right = Far left...... both despicable regimes that caused millions of deaths in the 20th century and continue to do this in the 21st century 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, magnkarl said:

But judging from Chinas lack of sophisticated parts, and Iran's sanctions, don't you think there's still a small risk to them copying it?

No, they've previously done it. The risk, if they get the kit from Russia is nigh on 90+% - the only protection is on very sophisticated kit, anti tamper tech is used.

For example

Quote

n May 2014, Iranian state TV displayed what was claimed to be a reverse-engineered RQ-170. ...In November 2014 Iran claimed to have carried out a successful test flight of an aircraft based on reverse engineering of the RQ-170....The semi-official Tasnim news agency of Iran reported in September 2016 that a UAV named Sa'egheh, similar in appearance to the RQ-170 Sentinel, had been built. It was said to be able to carry four precision-guided bombs; the range was not stated...The Israeli military shot down a Saegheh drone during the February 2018 Israel–Syria incident. Israeli media reported that the UAV's design was indeed largely based on the RQ-170, IAF Brigadier General Tomer Bar said that the drone was quite advanced and emulated western technology.[35]

 

[magnkarl]

20 minutes ago, blandy said:

No, they've previously done it. The risk, if they get the kit from Russia is nigh on 90+% - the only protection is on very sophisticated kit, anti tamper tech is used.

For example

 

How many are they likely to be able to produce without western tech though? I mean Russia can’t even produce t90s due to half the stuff in them being from the West.

[bickster]

 

[blandy]

41 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

How many are they likely to be able to produce without western tech though? I mean Russia can’t even produce t90s due to half the stuff in them being from the West.

That's a different question. Can they copy it? Yes, most of it. Can they produce approximate replicas, or use (some of) the tech to create new systems for themselves, yes. How many can they produce - depends on precisely what they are replicating and what they can source through dark routes. For example it might (hypothetically) be easier to copy the armour plating than the gun aiming computer (or vice versa) and so on. Downed Russian drones (and Iranian ones) in Ukraine were found to have all kinds of western tech in them, which they shouldn't have done. And civil use tech repurposed for military use (as substitutes for mil tech they presumably didn't manage to obtain). They won't end up with as completely advanced end equipment as the west, but captured kit could both be used to reverse engineer kit to close a gap, or to develop counter-measures to thwart aspects of western weapons systems.

[sidcow]

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

That's a different question. Can they copy it? Yes, most of it. Can they produce approximate replicas, or use (some of) the tech to create new systems for themselves, yes. How many can they produce - depends on precisely what they are replicating and what they can source through dark routes. For example it might (hypothetically) be easier to copy the armour plating than the gun aiming computer (or vice versa) and so on. Downed Russian drones (and Iranian ones) in Ukraine were found to have all kinds of western tech in them, which they shouldn't have done. And civil use tech repurposed for military use (as substitutes for mil tech they presumably didn't manage to obtain). They won't end up with as completely advanced end equipment as the west, but captured kit could both be used to reverse engineer kit to close a gap, or to develop counter-measures to thwart aspects of western weapons systems.

Plus The West are already moving on anyway. If 10 years from now Russia managed to churn out a few hundred Challanger 2 copies. they'll be facing up against Challanger 3's anyway. 

[magnkarl]

21 minutes ago, blandy said:

That's a different question. Can they copy it? Yes, most of it. Can they produce approximate replicas, or use (some of) the tech to create new systems for themselves, yes. How many can they produce - depends on precisely what they are replicating and what they can source through dark routes. For example it might (hypothetically) be easier to copy the armour plating than the gun aiming computer (or vice versa) and so on. Downed Russian drones (and Iranian ones) in Ukraine were found to have all kinds of western tech in them, which they shouldn't have done. And civil use tech repurposed for military use (as substitutes for mil tech they presumably didn't manage to obtain). They won't end up with as completely advanced end equipment as the west, but captured kit could both be used to reverse engineer kit to close a gap, or to develop counter-measures to thwart aspects of western weapons systems.

Again, fair points. But at what cost if the tech is acquired through dark routes? If they cost 10 times what a T-72 costs to make, and the success is what the armata is, it likely won't even make a dent in a potential war against NATO.

Much of the tech found in Iranian drones will likely have been stopped from being shipped now, wouldn't it? There's only so much of this going around at a price where it makes sense to buy.

The history with especially China and Russia is that 'new' versions of models aren't really all that. SU-35, J-90, T-14, 075-Carrier etc. Wunderwaffes and totalitarian regimes and all that.

Edited January 27, 2023 by magnkarl

[blandy]

6 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Again, fair points. But at what cost

This isn't a criticism, more an observation and  some comments from me:

You started off with a statement/question "the likelihood for China being able to copy Western tech is slim to none".

When I said "no it isn't" you then said "How many could they make then?"

When I answered that, you moved to "[well] how much would it cost?"

These are all fair questions and it's interesting. So now my comment. The west, in terms of their national Governments, Departments/Ministries of Defence and Defence contractors also considers these issues you raise (and others) and how to make it all harder for potential enemies to steal, obtain, use espionage, reverse engineer, copy...etc. stuff "we" don't want them to. Obviously, some stuff is not ever going to be given to Ukraine. Some stuff will be given, but downgraded, or not be the latest version, or be old stuff from storage.

With the Tanks, I guess there's been an assessment that giving them what is going to be given is overall a better path than not giving it, in terms of the eventual outcome v risk level. I've posted a number of times about export regulations and the stringency and considerations around those national laws. The US ones are (of the ones I am familiar with) the most stringent and restrictive, but others are not far behind, and they're all about maintaining an advantage, though I'd say for the US ITAR/EAR stuff they're also weighted around protecting their Commercial interests too - some of the stuff appears to be ridiculous, both in its complexity and difficulty to demonstrably comply with (it gets audited) and also in its scope. But I suppose the end (keeping stuff from the bad guys) maybe justifies the means.

Back to the war in Ukraine, there's (I think) as much consideration, if not more, given to all this than there is to the factors that are spoken about publicly - "We won't give Ukraine stuff that they can use to attack Russian soil" - I think that's more weighted towards an "excuse" they can use rather than say "we don't want the bad guys getting hold of the [Missiles/Planes/whatever]"

[pas5898]

The Leopard 2 is from the 1980's, Challenger 2 early 90s etc. 

They wouldn't be handed over if there was any chance of this having an affect on any Nato vs Russia, China, Iran was in the future. If they successfully replicated this tech, then they are still 30/40 years behind.