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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Whilst on paper they have a large force one wonders how much is actually serviceable.

In this case that is the "million dollar" question, putting Russia to the test in this respect is a double edge sword - if they are incapable of or unwilling to escalate in the air Ukraine could end the war very quickly but if it forces them to commit to the air and/or commit to improving their situation in regards to their air force capability it could swing the other way.
 
Last edited:
Surprising that we've heard nothing... Almost seems they havnt tried yet, you'd have expected to see stats of downed drones/missiles if they were making any concerted efforts.
I've seen a few mentions of attack on the power but nothing very significant. Considering all I read about was Russia saving missiles up for winter there hasn't been much at all.

https://twitter.com/Azovsouth/status/1739041785324671353

How do you embed again :(
 
Last edited:
In this case that is the "million dollar" question, putting Russia to the test in this respect is a double edge sword - if they are incapable of or unwilling to escalate in the air Ukraine could end the war very quickly but if it forces them to commit to the air and/or commit to improving their situation in regards to their air force capability it could swing the other way.

As you point out, it’s a hard tactic to pull off when the enemy could change its posture in short order. Achieving air control is one thing, maintaining it and providing ground forces cover to press the advantage over a massive front would be some achievement.
 
I've seen a few mentions of attack on the power but nothing very significant. Considering all I read about was Russia saving missiles up for winter there hasn't been much at all.

Maybe they've learnt from last year that sending them in dribs and drabs doesn't work and saving them up for a larger attack when they think they've found a vulnerability.

Though I suspect partly their strategic bomber fleet is showing some strain after months of use and they've recently been switching over to winter operations.
 
Russia has lost 4 SU-34 and 1 SU-30 in last 3 days, that's $230 million of aircraft.

Forbes says in total Russia now has lost 26 SU-34 in the war, $1.3 billion and 20% of Russia's best bombers. That would be like USA losing 260 F-16 in combat
 
Last edited:
Russia has lost 4 SU-34 and 1 SU-30 in last 3 days, that's $230 million of aircraft.

Forbes says in total Russia now has lost 26 SU-34 in the war, $1.3 billion and 20% of Russia's best bombers. That would be like USA losing 260 F-16 in combat

At least that plus 10-15~% if everything destroyed was minimal spec which they likely wasn’t as Russia have very recently upgraded it’s SU-34 inventory.
A single SU-34m is £70 million plus PAT.
 
bizarre-moment-man-hovering-austrian-829325158.jpg
 
Wouldn't say that's true. The Su-34 is a good plane, not far behind the latest block F-16s or Typhoons, but those planes aren't the F-22, F-35 or Su-57 when it comes to entering contested airspace.
The Su-34 is Russia's best plane when it comes to avoiding being shot down by an incoming missile (and if it's specs are to be believed, as good or better at it than anything NATO have), in theory it's rear facing radar should have picked up the incoming missile and allowed the pilot to fire one or more AA missiles to intercept it, if that failed countermeasures should have been launched and finally it's ECM should have protected it.

Obviously that didn't happen, multiple times over, which means either the pilots weren't trained properly, the planes were not equipped with the defensive missiles/countermeasures they should have been, or the planes don't actually work. None of those are good outcomes for Russia, and put into question the validity of the planes claimed specifications/capabilities.
 
the planes were not equipped with the defensive missiles/countermeasures they should have been

Two things I'd say about that - for one I see far too many instances world wide of military complacency in this regard, probably due to cost :( for the other when things were starting to get move in the few days before the invasion began there was loads of footage of even the top tier Russian units where for instance only about 1/3rd of the T-80 tanks in a column had full kit and 2/3rds were missing stuff like pintle or coax mounted equipment, etc. possibly some of that would be fitted at final staging areas but I suspect in a lot of cases it wasn't. Wouldn't surprise me if more of the Russian planes than not are flying without the full package.
 
Last edited:
The Su-34 is Russia's best plane when it comes to avoiding being shot down by an incoming missile (and if it's specs are to be believed, as good or better at it than anything NATO have), in theory it's rear facing radar should have picked up the incoming missile and allowed the pilot to fire one or more AA missiles to intercept it, if that failed countermeasures should have been launched and finally it's ECM should have protected it.

Obviously that didn't happen, multiple times over, which means either the pilots weren't trained properly, the planes were not equipped with the defensive missiles/countermeasures they should have been, or the planes don't actually work. None of those are good outcomes for Russia, and put into question the validity of the planes claimed specifications/capabilities.


We've seen plenty examples of Russian tanks not fitted with correct armour, not fitted with defensive counter measures and even missing sights. We've also seen Russian ships not fitted with defensive counter measures and missing radar equipment. We've also seen Russian infantry with fake helmets and fake bullet proof vests.

So we should not be all surprised if the su-34 can't do half the things it should be able to on paper simply because it has not been maintained to spec or is missing working parts and equipment

At the time the flagship Moskva sank, half its equipment was missing or broken. And that's a fleet flagship, the rest of the fleet would be in even worse condition. Thats indicative of their state of readiness. If the Russians grounded all weapons systems that were partially broken or not well serviced then they probably wouldn't have a military
 
Last edited:
Have any strikes been successful against the power grid this year? We're well into winter already.
Not yet, Russia did launch a Khinzel missile at Kyiv a few days ago but it got shot down along with a bunch drones. Whilst they don't have enough Patriots to cover every square mile from ballistics missiles there not the biggest threat. Ukraine is far more prepared to deal with the missile strikes this year then 12 months ago, last year they were using up S300 missiles on Kalibr cruise missiles and often has to use AK's to shoot down drones.

Ukraine ow has Patriot, NASSAM, SAMP/T, IRIS-T, Avengers and Geppards all on top of thier own S300 and BUK systems (older Soviet equipment has often been found near the front lines to give cover to troops during the counter offensive). The key is keeping them supplied with ammo.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom