Russia-Ukraine War 2022

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

zhangmdev

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1154
  • Joined: 01 May 2017, 09:07

Unread post05 Oct 2022, 10:56

First ever destroyed Smerch in this war.
smerch.jpeg
Smerch
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4290
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post05 Oct 2022, 11:09

zhangmdev wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:...
It's clear that Ukranians have been more successful overall using the exact same equipment or even much older versions of the same equipment to good effect while Russians have struggled. Just shows the value of training, skills and determination. There are huge amount of videos showing just how badly Russians have been using their tanks and other equipment.


Both sides have such moments. Some commanders are incompetent. Green troops paniced under fire. Recently UKR suffered heavy losses during the offensive operations in Kherson region. Due to the conditions of the battlefield, and the concentration of strong RUS foces, such losses are inevitable. It is never an easy or one-sided fight.


Forgot to answer to this earlier. Anyway, I agree that both sides have had such moments, but Russians have had far more. It's now evident in the light of the latest events where Russian units have taken a serious beating. Anyway my point was mostly that most Russian/Soviet weapons work quite well if you know how to use them, but Russians themselves seem to be really bad at that these days. Their systems are mostly less capable than Western ones and in some cases really seriously so, but many systems are good enough to be at least competitive especially with the older Western systems.

Ukranians on the other hand use much of the same systems, but have used them far more efficiently. Of course Western help has been really needed providing key weapon systems like HIMARS/M270/GMLRS, HARMs, NLAW, Javelin, 155 mm guns and ammo for example. Without that help the Ukranians would've gone out of ammo and weapons to fight with and their losses would've been horrendous at the end. That's probably what Putin had anticipated would happen and luckily he was dead wrong.
Offline

madrat

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3571
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post05 Oct 2022, 13:02

hornetfinn wrote:
zhangmdev wrote:
BRM-1K rescued 2 guys from a disabled BMP-1, got hit by something, damaged but able to drive away. Lucky Z.


Here is another screenshot from that event:
BMP_hitwithmissile.jpg


I'd say that it was a Javelin missile that hit the BRM-1K especially as from the video it looks like the projectile descends towards the vehicle. They were very lucky that the missile hit at that exact spot, basically directly to engine exhaust port. So most of the explosive power went straight through the thin armour and didn't hit anything really vital and was as far away from everybody as possible without hitting the engine straight on. The engine was definitely damaged and everybody inside hurt (at least hearing and concussions) in some way or the other. The very thin armour of BMP-1/BRM-1 actually likely saved the vehicle and everybody inside as thicker armour would've thrown a lot more spalling inside.

Maybe there might be need to fine-tune the Javelin warhead, fusing or targeting algorithms for such targets...

There is a solution. It's called artillery.
Online

zhangmdev

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1154
  • Joined: 01 May 2017, 09:07

Unread post05 Oct 2022, 13:43

Weapons don't have to be particularly good to do the job. If one has artillery support, mined the roads, adequate IRS and communication, it is not hard to beat back a sizable armored column.

Who wins the war is far more about who has the better weapons, or counting the number of tanks, jets, warships, missiles, artillery tubes, or drawing arrows and circles on the map. UKR pushed RUS out of the north without 155mm or HIMARS. RUS have been firing everything all over the places non-stop for seven months, how can UKR counteroffensive at two fronts simultaneously with superior forces? Not because gun does not shoot straight, tank does not drive, or missile does not detonate. Those things work just fine.

The problem is RUS don't understand this war. To them, it is a colonial war, a war of choice, like some sports event or game show on TV. They refuse to believe the Untermenchen won't capitulate. "They must be stupid and need some more severe beating. Then send more missiles, more tanks, more troops, surely they will come to their senses." After the inital advantages are squandered, and when things are progressively getting worse, they decide to mobilize finally. Still, they don't understand mobilization is far more than finding every fighting age men, giving them weapons and trainings, and sending them to fight in the trenches. They treat human as another piece of equipment, another thing.

On the UKR side, they fully mobilized from the beginning. No fighting age man can leave the country. Women are enlisted. They understand mobilization is to put the entire nation on the war footing, to leverage as much resources as possible to fight the war. The most important resource is human. Fighting a war is far more than shooting weapons. To maintain the infrastructures. To evacuate and care for refugees. To produce and distribute food. To provide medical care and education. To fix and improvise machines. And many many more. All need human hands. Civilians are doing most of those tasks, contributing to the war effort in different ways.

In the occupied zone, first RUS forces brutalized the locals, then FSB arrived to surveil everyone. Internet was rerouted and throttled, transportation and commerce broke down, salaries and pentions stopped giving. The life was getting harder and harder even without fighting. Lots of people were forced to leave. Much less locals available to do the works to keep things going.

People often cite VKS lacking of SEAD, or wanting of PGM as the reason RUS does not win. I'd say the reason is more fundermental. RUS does not possess the logistic power to bring in every piece of supply to sustain the war effort. Nor they can count on the locals to provide. Bringing one million mobiks into this mess will worsen the situation further.

+
Ukrainian Forces entered Snihurivka 2 days ago and control parts of it. Battles have been taking place inside and around the city

As of today, all commanders and Russian Officers have fled the city overnight, but Snihurivka is still CONTESTED.

That is what the local said.

+

UKR already in Makiivka, Luhansk region.
makiivka.jpeg
Makiivka


+

A couple of trucks left in Lyman. LE MONDE photo.
lyman-13.jpg
Lyman
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4496
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post05 Oct 2022, 17:38

zhangmdev wrote:People often cite VKS lacking of SEAD, or wanting of PGM as the reason RUS does not win. I'd say the reason is more fundermental. RUS does not possess the logistic power to bring in every piece of supply to sustain the war effort. Nor they can count on the locals to provide. Bringing one million mobiks into this mess will worsen the situation further.


Yes and no, I would say.

Yes, other reasons such as the Russian logistic power (or the lack of it) or the Ukrainian will to fight off the invader are indeed important reasons for sure.
But this is still an "old style" conventional war and as such effective air power and air superiority are vital in order to win a conventional war. Without effective air power it's extremely hard (just not to say almost impossible) for a side, specially the attacking one to win.
And here's where the importance of HIMARS comes! It gives the Ukrainians a capability similar to the typical air power interdiction roles. Ukrainian Mig-29s and Su-27s with HARM missiles make the HIMARS job even easier.
And I strongly believe that the role of HIMARS in destroying countless Russian ammo dumps have been a decisive factor in this new Ukrainian offensive since it seems that in many cases the Russians don't seem to have enough ammo to carry on fighting.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Online

zhangmdev

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1154
  • Joined: 01 May 2017, 09:07

Unread post05 Oct 2022, 19:46

A Russian commentator pointed out before the war: even if we have total control of the sky, there is no guarantee of winning. The Soviets had over Afghanistan, it did not win. The US had over (South) Vietnam, Iraq (2003), and Afghanistan, it did not win any of those. The problem is not having enough of soldiers to control such a large territory. Nobody has. The Soviet and American experience in Afghanistan was only a few cities and large bases were secure. The rest of the territory was crawling with insurgency, waiting to pounce on the enemy convoys and patrols once they were out of the safe zone, and making propaganda videos. That was no way to win.

RUS source lamented about the lacking of men to hold the rear. They drove from Mariupol into Luhansk without being stopped to check their papers. UKR infiltration units successfully operating behind the enemy line proved the point. One may see a continuous line separating the blue and red neatly on the map. That is not the case in reality.

Everyone is disposed to mythologize one's favorite weapon system(s). In a war of this size, no single weapon is decisive. The West depends on air power to do the heavy lifting. The expectation was RUS would deploy its air power like the Americans. After all, they have impressive weapons. During the early days, there were predictions like shock and awe destroying UKR air force and air defense in hours, then bombing the UKR forces retreating from Donbas into oblivion. This was mere a projection from the Western perspective. A dangerous one. RUS has neither the capabilities or the numbers. They could not do that seven months ago, let alone now. Again, even if they could, that is no guarantee. The other side would adapt and fight differently.

+

6 T-62 found on the Kherson front.
vlcsnap-2022-10-06-02h58m28s809.jpg
T-62


+

Last night six Shahed-136 drones attacked Bila Tserkva city in Kyiv oblast. AD can't spot them, so they successfully hit targets.

+

Zelensky confirmed liberation of Novovoskresenske, Novohryhorivka and Petropavlivka of Kherson region.
Offline

jessmo112

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1048
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2020, 02:09

Unread post05 Oct 2022, 22:12

I good article. Who's giving Ukraine more arms, the west or Russia?

https://www.businessinsider.com/russia- ... ns-2022-10

I never considered this.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4496
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post05 Oct 2022, 23:56

zhangmdev wrote:A Russian commentator pointed out before the war: even if we have total control of the sky, there is no guarantee of winning.


Sure. But in a conventional war the attacking side having no control of the sky basically means ZERO chance of winning.


zhangmdev wrote:The Soviets had over Afghanistan, it did not win. The US had over (South) Vietnam, Iraq (2003), and Afghanistan, it did not win any of those.


Hence why I mentioned conventional war several times in my last post. None of those wars that you mentioned were conventional wars but instead they were all counter-insurgency wars.
A better and modern analogies would be for example Desert Storm (1991) or Falklands War (1982). These wars were only (and "easily") won because of air power and control of the sky :wink:
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

skyward

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 91
  • Joined: 01 Jun 2006, 13:33

Unread post06 Oct 2022, 01:34

The allies would win in Desert Storm even if they don't have air control. The allies army were just better at everyway then the Iraqis.
Online

zhangmdev

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1154
  • Joined: 01 May 2017, 09:07

Unread post06 Oct 2022, 05:10

ricnunes wrote:
But in a conventional war the attacking side having no control of the sky basically means ZERO chance of winning.



This is a big assumption. This war is a very big conventional war. UKR has no control of the sky. UKR is attacking. UKR has ZERO chance of winning?

ricnunes wrote:A better and modern analogies would be for example Desert Storm (1991) or Falklands War (1982). These wars were only (and "easily") won because of air power and control of the sky :wink:


Viet Cong was a hybrid force. PAVN was a regular force engaging US in a conventional warfare with armor and artillery.

GW1 was an exception. I said before its goal and scope was relatively limited.

Falklands? Britain didn't control of the sky, which means no loss on the ground due to enemy aircraft in my terms. That was no easy win.
Offline

viperzerof-2

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 282
  • Joined: 15 May 2011, 18:54

Unread post06 Oct 2022, 05:18

Actually I would say Ukraine has local air superiority, not supremacy but superiority.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4290
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post06 Oct 2022, 06:21

madrat wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:Here is another screenshot from that event:
BMP_hitwithmissile.jpg


I'd say that it was a Javelin missile that hit the BRM-1K especially as from the video it looks like the projectile descends towards the vehicle. They were very lucky that the missile hit at that exact spot, basically directly to engine exhaust port. So most of the explosive power went straight through the thin armour and didn't hit anything really vital and was as far away from everybody as possible without hitting the engine straight on. The engine was definitely damaged and everybody inside hurt (at least hearing and concussions) in some way or the other. The very thin armour of BMP-1/BRM-1 actually likely saved the vehicle and everybody inside as thicker armour would've thrown a lot more spalling inside.

Maybe there might be need to fine-tune the Javelin warhead, fusing or targeting algorithms for such targets...

There is a solution. It's called artillery.


Sure that works well, but I think Javelin could easily be modified a little bit to work better against this kind of very lightly armoured target. Actually it's likely already done as most Javelins in Ukraine are early variants and there are several upgrades to the missile. From DOT&E:
https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2017/army/2017javelin.pdf?ver=2019-08-19-113850-147

In FY17, the Army completed testing of the Spiral 2 missile and continued development of the Spiral 3 missile and a new Light Weight Command Launch Unit (CLU). The Army intends these efforts to improve lethality against non-armored
targets and to reduce unit cost and weight.

• The Program Office investigated and addressed Spiral 2 precursor warhead (PCWH) failures experienced in FY16. The Army resumed testing in FY17. The final production‑representative configuration of the Spiral 2 missile performed reliably in 14 of 14 flight tests.

• Test results and lethality modeling of the Spiral 2 missile, which includes a new Multi-Purpose Warhead (MPWH), indicate the Spiral 2 missile has improved warhead fragmentation while maintaining required primary target armor penetration.


Sounds like this has been known and the new Spiral 2 variants will have better capability against lightly armored or non-armored targets.
Online

zhangmdev

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1154
  • Joined: 01 May 2017, 09:07

Unread post06 Oct 2022, 07:03

viperzerof-2 wrote:Actually I would say Ukraine has local air superiority, not supremacy but superiority.


Hard to tell. Not enough information. Not much activities in the air from both sides.

+

Minus 1 Uragan 1 BMP-2M 3 MBT
losses.jpg
Uragan Kherson


+

Reporter with M270 MLRS

https://news.sky.com/story/british-rock ... e-12712600

+

Scrapheap in Lyman, including RF-81852
scrap.jpg
Lyman


+

Found a T-72B3 in running conditions. Reportedly, RUS intentionally left equipments behind to exchange for money.
t72.jpg
T-72B3 alive


+

Recovering a running T-62
t62.jpg
T-62 alive


+

The 128th Mountain Assault Brigade has three Strela-10 AD systems in one place.
Online

zhangmdev

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1154
  • Joined: 01 May 2017, 09:07

Unread post06 Oct 2022, 10:17

RUS source: Ukrainians preparing for offensive in the Zaporizhya, concentrating there the biggest force since the war started and keep increasing.

RUS is very vocal about everything: success, failure, tribulation, anxiety, panic. Very strange behavior.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4290
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post06 Oct 2022, 10:20

zhangmdev wrote:People often cite VKS lacking of SEAD, or wanting of PGM as the reason RUS does not win. I'd say the reason is more fundermental. RUS does not possess the logistic power to bring in every piece of supply to sustain the war effort. Nor they can count on the locals to provide. Bringing one million mobiks into this mess will worsen the situation further.


Agree that there are several fundamental problems with the Russian armed forces. I'd say that their air power weaknesses is one serious problem for the Russians. There they have spent huge amounts of money and effort to create a force that can't win air superiority over Ukraine who has handful of 1980s Soviet aircraft and some similarly old AD systems. That means their ground forces don't get much support from the air and actually are now getting hammered by the Ukranian aircraft.

The Russian Air Force has very many problems when it comes to SEAD alone, there are multiple problems in many other areas also. Basically they seem to have no realistic vision of how to use air power, no realistic doctrine, poor operations planning, poor tactics, techniques, and procedures to implement anything. Their training is likely also very unrealistic. It's like somebody trained only karate katas and then went to thai boxing or MMA match... Basically everything crumbles when they get hit couple of times as they have no suitable training, conditioning, physical toughness or coordination.

When it comes to equipment, they do have a lot of airframes and some pretty good ones by 4th gen standards, but there are several shortcomings otherwise. Lack of SEAD capability, EW support capability and lack of long-range PGM save heavy cruise missiles have made the skies above Ukraine very dangerous for Russian aircraft. They also lack targeting pods and radars have poor resolution and overall performance for radar ground mapping and radar targeting. So making precision attacks or even close to it against Ukranian forces, C2 and logistics has not been effective. Of course even if they had the equipment, it's not clear that they could actually use it effectively due to those other problems they have.

I think not being able to use their their air power effectively has really hindered the Russian capabilities, especially when they are being outranged and out-precisioned by Ukranian artillery and getting their more modern and numerous armored and mechanized forces decimated by modern anti-tank capabilities the Ukranians have. Then they are at a disadvantage when it comes to boots on the ground. So not having real air power to support their ground forces has been disastrous to Russia.
PreviousNext

Return to Air Power

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests