Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Discuss air warfare, doctrine, air forces, historic campaigns, etc.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

mmm

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 157
  • Joined: 30 Jul 2013, 10:58

Unread post13 Aug 2022, 00:25

madrat wrote:F-16 is the only realistic option for the Ukraine. We are not handing Growler over to a lukewarm ally that is cozy to China.


That's interesting, US provided at the time lukewarm ally of Israel with barely a few years old F-4s right around the time they killed a bunch of Americans with the attack on USS Liberty, then by the time of Yom Kippur War they were among the first to fire then cutting edge AGM-65.

That's the equivalent of Ukrainian F-35 dropping SDB II today... Apparently very few would even suggest it, but why is that?

I think it's not mentioned enough that Ukraine handed US access to almost all Flanker variants, up to date short to medium range SAMs, modern electronic warfare systems, top end Russian tanks among other things.
Offline

zhangmdev

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 876
  • Joined: 01 May 2017, 09:07

Unread post13 Aug 2022, 12:53

Ukrainian source reported first success of Stormer HVM air defense system.
Offline

mmm

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 157
  • Joined: 30 Jul 2013, 10:58

Unread post14 Aug 2022, 02:10

https://twitter.com/bayraktar_1love/sta ... 8697300997

I count:

Impact 0:16 0:20 0:23 0:32 0:42?0:46?0:50?0:58
AD Launch 0:02 0:07 0:20 0:24 0:51 1:00
Intercept 0:21 0:26 1:01? (or missile fused on something at least)

So, it appears there's a non zero chance of Russian air defense intercepting GMLRS, better than my expectation to be honest, they are still supersonic in terminal phase and maneuvering target to a degree. ~1/3 of weapons defeated(?), ~50% Pk out of every launch, against a fairly sizable simultaneous attack.

Now there's a lot of known, a very specific, point target site, approximate attack direction, target type, rough routine of night attack. Nevertheless it's enough to impact how Ukraine pick targets and allocate weapons.

I think I might have seen vertical launch, Tor, Pantsir and the like of relatively modern types of point defense make sense. Intercept(?) all happened very shortly after launch so they're positioned very close to the bridge and fired with very little time to spare.

Does not appear they have real simultaneous multitarget capbility of Iron Dome or the like though.

Edit:
https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/stat ... 4120425472

And I think this is just hours later in a follow up attack. The defense probably introduced a level of uncertainty to the level of damage forced Ukraine to expend more weapons. And the Russians seems to have done even better this time.

I think it's enough evidence to say they can be significant complication factor, at least under some circumstances.

https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1558546639744368640

Just so happen Ukraine has some mysterious HARM now. How crews are "OK" from an antenna hit in a soft skinned Pantsir on Kamaz is beyond me. Buks had consistently had its entire missile load blow up from far lesser MAM-L hits.
Last edited by mmm on 14 Aug 2022, 10:28, edited 2 times in total.
Offline

zhangmdev

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 876
  • Joined: 01 May 2017, 09:07

Unread post14 Aug 2022, 08:10

Early stage of the war from Russian POV. Long armored column. Large scale destruction. Road sign. Street battle. VDV walked pass destroyed equipments at Hostomel airfield. All for nothing.

https://video.weibo.com/show?fid=1034:4800924057796731

Blow up at Nova Kakhovka in daytime.

https://video.weibo.com/show?fid=1034:4802258408505373

Point AD system has a very narrow window to intercept GMLRS. The Russians are learning to counter this threat. Of course the other side is adapting too.
Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1850
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post14 Aug 2022, 10:10

@mmm

Buk missiles are lot more heavier so lot more kaboom capability then Pantsyr missiles and buk missiles aren't protected at all at least in earlier versions we see used by both sides. Only version which do offer some protection for missiles is M3 but it isn't saw in this conflict at least I didn't saw one.

Also pantsyr crew container have protection it can be used against light ground targets if that is necessary. So HARM hitting remote weapon station probable doesn't mean harmed crew.
Offline

mmm

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 157
  • Joined: 30 Jul 2013, 10:58

Unread post14 Aug 2022, 11:05

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nymJAKC6qfU

As I found out this is what youtube tells me what a Bayraktar hit with warhead no bigger than Hellfire look like, not very survivable to my untrained eyes.

https://nationalstocknumber.info/part-n ... 1-374-6873

HARM warhead is bigger than a 155mm shell with almost 2x explosive weight and then you adjust for the more energetic RDX to put things in perspective, some damn fine insensitive munition if the 30mm rounds and 12 missiles didn't instantly blow up on an radar antenna hit which sit right beside all the ammo. I'm not sure to what degree the operator station box is armored, most chassis I see don't have an armored driver cab it would be a peculiar mismatch. Regardless it's enough warhead to turret toss MBTs on its own, maybe by miracle a hit from direct behind with structure soaking most effects, then no ammo detonation no fuel fire for some reason and crew compartment wall ate residual shrapnel.

But it's some copeposting without anything of substance, shouldn't take its account of "Pantsir being HARMed" too seriously to begin with.
Offline

zhangmdev

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 876
  • Joined: 01 May 2017, 09:07

Unread post14 Aug 2022, 17:24

Offline

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1850
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post14 Aug 2022, 18:25

@mmm

I wouldn't use videos of attack as evidence you don't see what it look after attack. It could destroy crew compartment or not. Photos on net of captured or damaged sa22 shows fire damage but no shrapnel holes so I doubt crew compartment was breached. I know DIY armor for sa3 radar container protected crew against HARM based on our 1999 experience. So if SA22 have at least some kind of protection for crew from factory it is surely more safe then what our folks did in 1999 on SA3.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4167
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post15 Aug 2022, 08:42

mmm wrote:Just so happen Ukraine has some mysterious HARM now. How crews are "OK" from an antenna hit in a soft skinned Pantsir on Kamaz is beyond me. Buks had consistently had its entire missile load blow up from far lesser MAM-L hits.


MAM-L is laser guided and hits with very high accuracy, so even a small warhead can be highly effective. HARM is passive radar guided missile, which is inherently a lot less accurate homing method (and reason why HARM has such a large warhead). It also depends a lot on many factors like did the Pantsir crew shut down the radar(s) before impact, was only the search radar operating and did it have scanning sectors set (some sectors where it transmitted and others where it didn't). So the HARM could've detonated quite far away from Pantsir with proximity fuze and only damaged the most sensitive parts (radars and antennas). HARM warhead was not designed to penetrate armour but rather destroy and damage sensitive radar equipment with tungsten pellets even if it didn't hit very accurately. But if HARM did infact physically hit the actual radar in Pantsir, it would totally wreck the Pantsir and Kamaz and nobody would survive. That's possible but chances for that are relatively low.

AARGM is far more lethal missile because of that MMW terminal homing, which will give it about similar terminal accuracy to laser guided weapons along with ability to select precise (like the crew cabin instead of radar antenna) aim-point for the missile. When AGM-88A-D are SEAD missiles mostly, AARGM is a DEAD weapon because it has high probability of totally destroying the target because it's at least an order of magnitude more accurate weapon.
Offline

zhangmdev

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 876
  • Joined: 01 May 2017, 09:07

Unread post15 Aug 2022, 09:39

Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4948
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post15 Aug 2022, 15:40

So the war grinds on, now in its 6th month. Going to be a long one it seems, perhaps never ending from the Russian perspective.

I have to imagine its drastically depleted Russian armor and aerospace forces. Something that will largely preclude them from launching simultaneous attacks against other NATO nations. I wonder though, about those supposed 100,000 N. Koreans. If they do come into play, it might change things. Still, I don't see any occupying force in Ukraine having it very easy.
Offline

pron

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 320
  • Joined: 21 Jul 2014, 19:28

Unread post15 Aug 2022, 16:47

mixelflick wrote:So the war grinds on, now in its 6th month. Going to be a long one it seems, perhaps never ending from the Russian perspective.

I have to imagine its drastically depleted Russian armor and aerospace forces. Something that will largely preclude them from launching simultaneous attacks against other NATO nations. I wonder though, about those supposed 100,000 N. Koreans. If they do come into play, it might change things. Still, I don't see any occupying force in Ukraine having it very easy.

The story about the 100,000 N. Koreans looks false.

Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs now says the TV pundit’s claims about 100,000 North Korean soldiers are false, which should hardly come as a surprise. But North Korea could very well send a handful of personnel to gain valuable combat experience and stick it to the U.S. imperialists. After all, it wouldn’t be the first time the DPRK got involved in a foreign conflict.

This one is quite funny. The war in Ukraine haven't been a positive showroom for Russian arms. :D

Putin: WE ARE READY TO ARM OUR ALLIES

Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Monday that Moscow values ​​its ties with countries in Latin America, Asia and Africa and that Moscow is ready to offer modern weapons to its allies. Reuters reports.

- We are ready to offer our allies the most modern types of weapons, from small arms to armored vehicles, and artillery to air defense and unmanned aerial vehicles, Putin said during the opening ceremony of a military forum near Moscow, according to the news agency.
Offline

zhangmdev

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 876
  • Joined: 01 May 2017, 09:07

Unread post15 Aug 2022, 18:03

A few years of WW1 western front had played out in six months. 'The Schlieffen Plan' to take Kyiv, failed. 'The battle of Verdun' to bleed the enemy dry, failed. From advancing at all fronts, to a concentrated assault on a small pocket. Now it has turned into static trench warfare. Is the Z-force preparing 'Kaiserschlacht' to break the stalemate? Where are those fresh troops coming from?

In term of strategic objective: to destroy the Ukrainian state and military, to stop 'NATO expansion', this SMO is an abject failure. In term of man and equipment loss, this war is a disaster to Russia. Asking a couple of pariah states for help is beyond pathetic. Stopping the Z-force has so far costed the West very little. But actually defeating it would require a lot more.

If Russia somehow still wins this, then the final showdown between Russia and NATO is inevitable, maybe this war has brought a few precious years for the West to rearm.

And

Ambush at extreme close distance. RPG shot from the woods.

https://video.weibo.com/show?fid=1034:4802872127455279
Offline

jessmo112

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 902
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2020, 02:09

Unread post16 Aug 2022, 03:13

Amateur hour 2:

The failure of Russian air power.
A very good read on air campaigns.

https://warontherocks.com/2022/08/amate ... -campaign/

There are other powers who rely on tactical ballistic missiles, and likely don't adhere to western doctrine.
I wonder if other powers are watching this or do they care. I didn't realize that it was standard practice for a defender to plan on losing fixed sites early.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4167
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post16 Aug 2022, 08:50

Fixed radar sites are great during peacetime and generally before real war begins as they give nice 24/7 coverage and give great air situation picture. But because they are fixed and fragile things, they can pretty easily be destroyed by the enemy early on as their position is well known and doesn't change. So there is good chance that the attacker can take them out early on and defenders have to plan accordingly. Of course the fixed radars are used for as long as possible but there has to be mobile systems and alternative ways of creating air situation picture. Of course the quality of that air situation picture will likely degrade after fixed radar sites are taken out and mobile systems have to be used very carefully.
PreviousNext

Return to Air Power

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests