Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

Status
Not open for further replies.
ianh said:
I apologise in advance as this is going to seem overly harsh I know but this is a fantastic example of when I said - people who are not experts but have read some media stories are just saying things which are just plain wrong, as if their opinion is reality when it is far from the case.
Click to expand...
Don't worry, it's not harsh just a bit dumb as I've demonstrated many times over the past nine years I know a lot about the subject, hence providing a large bulk of the threads info on Soviet weapons and tactics.

ianh said:
In reality, F-16's alone without the rest of the force multipliers NATO/US uses, as shown below, are in for a very tough battle
Click to expand...
I wasn't saying it would be easy, there's no such thing as an easy fight unless your flying into the middle east to shoot down poorly maintained/equipped jets decades older than your own.

ianh said:
  • They are out-ranged in individual aircraft radars - the Su-35 has a much longer range and more capable PESA radar (est 200nm) and the Su-27 has a longer range but less capable radar (est 100nm+) - the F-16 uses a much smaller planar array radar (est just 80nm).

  • They are out-ranged in missiles - Su-35 uses 70nm+ ranged R-77-1 whilst F-16 will probably use the AIM-120C-5 or C-7 with a <70nm range - the official figure is just 35nm but its known to be higher than that.
Click to expand...
The Su-35 may have a bigger radar than the F-16s, but the F-16s have a smaller radar signature. And while the AIM-120C7 and the newer Adders have comparable range the Adders are slower so will take longer to reach their target (this is somewhat countered by the fact the Su-35 can outrun an AMRAAM almost as well as an F-16 can outrun an Adder). This engagement has been modelled a few times now by reputable flight simulator channels and the general result between two air wings just going at it is favourable for the F-16s, unfavourable for old F/A-18s and overwhelmingly favourable for new F/A-18s.

You have to remember though that the engagement doesn't need to take place to turn the tide, as merely knowing that Ukraine now have the ability to force an engagement that would likely go in their favour would force Russia to be less aggressive with it's air assets. Just like MANPADS forced them to be less aggressive with their helicopters, NLAWS/Javelins forced them to be more conservative with their tanks (eventually) and HIMARS forced them to be less aggressive with the positioning of their artillery.

ianh said:
  • They have no EW support from the ground or airborne - Russia has lots of jammer, EW and ESM aircraft in theatre already so the Ukrainian radars will get jammed and their comms jammed too.
Click to expand...
I wasn't talking about the Ukrainian air force flying into Russian held territory, I was talking about Ukrainian planes over Ukrainian controlled territory trading with Russian planes over occupied territory. In which case Ukraine will also be able to deploy it's electronic warfare abilities, which granted are smaller than Russia's, but also have the advantage of actually being reliable/functional.

ianh said:
I could go on and on with even more but hopefully by now you can appreciate that the F-16's (if/whenever they arrive) are in for a very hard battle against all the odds and all of this goes exactly the same for the "Australian F-18's" you mentioned too
Click to expand...
If you re-read what I posted, I was saying that the Australian F/A-18s would fair as poorly as the Su-27s and MiG-29s currently in use and be relegated to the same duty (only the newer Super Hornets would have the same advantage over the Su-35 as the F-16s).

ianh said:
Those reasons above are why NATO/US specifically uses multiple aircraft types which support each other in a single "grand plan", leveraging the advantages of each type to nullify the disadvantages of others - F-22 using Stealth to get High Value A-A kills (AWACS, refuellers etc), F-35 using stealth to get A-A/A-G kills taking out ground radars, F-15 to kill enemy fighters, F-16 to kill enemy ground units and all overseen by AWACS to control the battle, able to see deep into enemy territory and pass out new plans instantly across secure data-links whilst refuellers keep planes in the air and EW aircraft blind the enemy etc etc all in aforementioned "grand plan" where everyone is working together, knowing what every piece is doing and covering the deficiencies inherent within each aircraft type. If you take just one single piece of that massive grand plan and throw it into combat against an adversary who has all of that "grand plan" equipment, well thats a suicidal battle as Iraq etc have found out.
Click to expand...
Obviously I'm not going to argue with this as it's a repeat of stuff I've posted myself previously when explaining how hard Russia's lack of cohesion/combined arms was screwing things up for them (I think it was back when they managed to score the first recorded shootdown of their own Su-34 or Su-35 :P).

ianh said:
Luckily for Ukraine, its fairly obvious by now that Russia's version of the "grand plan" isn't as capable as it should be and nowhere near a capable as a NATO/US one, which is the only reason it wouldn't be a suicide mission to fly F-16's directly against the RuAF rather than just performing a "holding action" of the local airspace which is what the UAF is currently doing, but it will still be a very, very hard fight for the UAF even if they get a whole heap of "indirect" support from NATO/US too.
Click to expand...
It's pretty much a given that the supply of F-16s will also come with support from AWACS/etc operating from international or NATO airspace. Russia haven't been harassing (and sometimes ramming) NATO aircraft near Ukraine just for the fun of it, we've been supplying them with intel to help dial in drones and artillery for over a year.
 
Last edited:
HungryHippos said:
With the lines folding a little I do wonder how well built up they are behind those areas as well.

So far no proper break-through but if Ukraine get behind the lines, they could take large swathes of territory pretty quickly here.

With regards to Crimea, if they can blow up the bridge, and with the water supply in trouble, they wouldn't need to attack it properly, it would become impossible for Russia to hold if Ukraine cut off the land bridge to the north of Crimea.
Click to expand...

The Russian defensive lines here is in some parts 30km deep. That's 30km of fortifications, trenches and minefields that Ukraine has to get through to make a "break-through" and they have no air support.
That's why on average they're only taking 50 to 150 meters per day.
 
Last edited:
ubersonic said:
It's pretty much a given that the supply of F-16s will also come with support from AWACS/etc operating from international or NATO airspace. Russia haven't been harassing (and sometimes ramming) NATO aircraft near Ukraine just for the fun of it, we've been supplying them with intel to help dial in drones and artillery for over a year.
Click to expand...

Problem is Russia can position their AWACS to cover most of the battle space while from international/NATO airspace AWACS will only be able to cover the nearest edge of it. There are a lot of people like Grim Reapers doing simulations but those are mostly simplified/approximated when it comes to the electronics and electronics warfare, etc. side of it. This gets into hugely complicated territory I only have a grasp of less than half of but the reality is a far more uphill battle for Ukraine than is often portrayed, but if Ukraine thinks they can make a difference with F-16s I say let them have them - but I do have concerns that if Ukraine escalates the air war it might have unintended consequences of maybe waking Russia up to using the air more with the potential for that to have implications for the ground campaign but as always it is a bit of a wildcard and maybe Russia isn't capable of operating in the air more than they are despite the on paper capabilities.

Interestingly the US seems to be using F-35s on the edge of NATO air space to provide a lot of data, especially for tracking missiles, suggesting their avionic capabilities are significantly more advanced even than what is publicly known.
 
Rroff said:
Problem is Russia can position their AWACS to cover most of the battle space while from international/NATO airspace AWACS will only be able to cover the nearest edge of it. There are a lot of people like Grim Reapers doing simulations but those are mostly simplified/approximated when it comes to the electronics and electronics warfare, etc. side of it. This gets into hugely complicated territory I only have a grasp of less than half of but the reality is a far more uphill battle for Ukraine than is often portrayed, but if Ukraine thinks they can make a difference with F-16s I say let them have them - but I do have concerns that if Ukraine escalates the air war it might have unintended consequences of maybe waking Russia up to using the air more with the potential for that to have implications for the ground campaign but as always it is a bit of a wildcard and maybe Russia isn't capable of operating in the air more than they are despite the on paper capabilities.

Interestingly the US seems to be using F-35s on the edge of NATO air space to provide a lot of data, especially for tracking missiles, suggesting their avionic capabilities are significantly more advanced even than what is publicly known.
Click to expand...

The F-35 can be considered an Electronic Warfare Aircraft with how advanced it's avionics and EW suite is.
 
Grim5 said:
The Russian defensive lines here is in some parts 30km deep. That's 30km of fortifications, trenches and minefields that Ukraine has to get through to make a "break-through" and they have no air support.
That's why on average they're only taking 50 to 150 meters per day.
Click to expand...

On the plus side they only really need to find one route through, and it's a big boarder.
 
Saw video today of a Russian bmp hitting a landmine, but what's funny is there were people sitting on top of the bmp so they went flying like a bowling ball hitting the pins - Strike!
 
Last edited:
potatolord said:
Nothing funnier than a video of people being killed and injured, is there?
Click to expand...

Schadenfreude is a perfectly normal human reaction. We have long standing formats of comedy shows around people injuring themselves and the Darwin awards inspire many rounds of hilarity from people removing themselves from the gene pool.
 
Last edited:
Freakbro said:
Schadenfreude is a perfectly normal human reaction. We have long standing formats of comedy shows around people injuring themselves and the Darwin awards inspire many rounds of hilarity from people removing themselves from the gene pool.
Click to expand...

Do you enjoy watching videos of people being killed and injured?

If so, do you watch them with your gf/wife?
 
potatolord said:
Nothing funnier than a video of people being killed and injured, is there?
Click to expand...

Videos of war are clearly not for you. People are going to enjoy the schadenfreude of invaders that have raped and pillaged their way across a country getting their justice on the battlefield and of course being taken out of the battle making a Ukrainian victory more possible. The more that die and get injured, the better it is for Ukraine. When you have videos of Russians pretending to surrender but actually planning to kill the Ukrainian soldiers accepting their surrender with a grenade, any sympathy for their fate is hard to find. And then you have the stories of the atrocities carried out by Russians on POWs
 
Last edited:
Colonel_Klinck said:
Videos of war are clearly not for you. People are going to enjoy the schadenfreude of invaders that have raped and pillaged their way across a country getting their justice on the battlefield and of course being taken out of the battle making a Ukrainian victory more possible. The more that die and get injured, the better it is for Ukraine. When you have videos of Russians pretending to surrender but actually planning to kill the Ukrainian soldiers accepting their surrender with a grenade, any sympathy for their fate is hard to find.
Click to expand...

They're not something I want to search out and watch, no.

While I want Russia to lose and lose hard, I'm not keen on people getting all sweaty and excited about snuff videos.

People are just making excuses for watching snuff videos. They justify this, on the grounds they are on the right side.

i don't see it as any different to people watching Islamic State videos- and some would no doubt rationalise watching those.
 
potatolord said:
They're not something I want to search out and watch, no.

While I want Russia to lose and lose hard, I'm not keen on people getting all sweaty and excited about snuff videos.

People are just making excuses for watching snuff videos. They justify this, on the grounds they are on the right side.

i don't see it as any different to people watching Islamic State videos- and some would no doubt rationalise watching those.
Click to expand...

Then don't search them out and watch them. However I don't think people need to rationalise it. Its happening, in some countries its shown on the news. I'm sure videos of Ukrainians being killed or injured the same posters would find horrific and upsetting. We've chosen a side in this and Russian soldiers have proven themselves little better than German/Japanese soldiers in WW2 and some of their actions are what we saw IS carry out. So frankly **** them, if they don't want to die, they can go home.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom