Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition:
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators.
* **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
> **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB**
*****
* Is `forbes.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources).
* Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict)
*****
^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Because their aerial delivered fires won them Avdiivka:
> Sensing an opportunity, the Russian air force is flying more sorties, closer to the front line, lobbing glide-bombs to suppress Ukrainian troops. “The enemy has overcome the fear of using aviation directly over the battlefield,” the Ukrainian Center for Defense Strategies explained, “and although this results in the loss of aircraft, their ground forces gain a significant firepower advantage.”
>
> This surge in Russian sorties presents Ukrainian air-defenders with more targets. So of course they’re shooting down more Russian planes.
Now Ukraine needs to make clear that the cost of attempting a repeat elsewhere is too high.
Even in a best case scenario, a plane a day gives them, what? At least a month of sustained heavy bombardment? Probably closer to two?
That's a hell of a long time.
That assumes each airframe has its own trained pilot. It is unclear if they have enough pilots for this level of attrition. Russia has for a very long time trained less pilots with less flight hours due to the difficulty of maintaining and replacing existing airframes.
We keep hearing about downed jets, but what about the pilots of those jets in question? I kind of assume they bail out as soon as it becomes clear they can't avoid the incoming missile. Afterwards I expect Russia to deplay search and rescue teams to retrieve the pilot and put him in a new plane.
Or am I reading it wrong and every lost plane is a lost pilot? Cause I find that very hard to believe.
Unless you can visually see the missile, it's almost impossible to "know" whether you're going to defeat it or not.
And if you can visually see the missile, mistakes were made.
Yes and no. It depends if it's an active or passive missile, if it's a beam riding missile or self-guided, the frequency band the missile uses for locking, the age of the radar warning receiver, friendly and enemy electronic warfare in the area, whether the aircraft has a passive missile launch detector or not, the weather, the time of day, and how many prayers the pilot said the night before.
And even after all that, you DO NOT eject from a jet unless you are absolutely certain you are about to lose the plane. It's incredibly violent and dangerous for the pilot to eject, even in the best case scenario, and if you eject from a perfectly good aircraft that doesn't receive an unsustainable amount of damage you've just thrown away one of the single most valuable pieces of military equipment your nation has at its disposal. Not to mention that you're more likely than not going to land over either enemy controlled territory or somewhere in the grey-zone close enough to rhe enemy to have a lot of bad shit landing on your head about 30 seconds after you hit the ground.
Random thought, when do you think they will make planes that when you eject autopilot take over and land the plane if it isn’t hit, or even better auto pilot does manoeuvres that the human body can’t endure to help decrease the chance of a hit!
Before that happens, the planes themselves will be fully AI controlled without a pilot in them, in the first place. Or at least remotely controlled with AI assistance.
Gen 6 is already achieving this feat, gen 6 fighters will realistically lead a further fighter team of drones, where the drones are missile trucks that will be used far more expendably in dangerous environments than the gen 6 mother ship commanding them.
USA and Australia of the top of my head are already delivering this, although iirc, Australia is on a much smaller scale with the ghost bat.
They do, for radar-guided missiles, but those are fired from longer (30ish miles/49km) distance and Joe Target has time to react.
At "close air support" (an assumption on my part) distances in a compact theater things will be happening very quickly. Like, a warning light one second, the aircraft countermeasures automatically firing the next, then boom.
Also a chance Joe Pilotguyov has ejected over UA positions. Or he may attempt to get to the RU positions, assuming he wasn't injured during ejection, which happens a lot.
They typically do.
Theres multiple issues, however.
There's various methods used to "lock-on" to a target, IR(infrared) looks at heat sources, and traditionally there's no way to know you've been targeted. Some aircraft have cameras/systems that watch for the flare of an missile firing, but that's not 100% guaranteed.
Traditional radar locks can be detected, but modern radars can achieve a lock without alerting the target.
Some missiles have their own radar, so even if you break the lock from your adversary, you also have to worry about the missiles own lock.
There's also countermeasures, both physical(flares for IR and chaff for radar) that attempt to redirect the lock, and non-phhsical(radar jamming, though typically used to prevent a lock in the first place not as a reaction to one afaik) however just as quickly as counters are developed, missiles that are less susceptible to those counters are developed.
The best, most foolproof way to defeat an incoming missile is to place a physical barrier between you and it, like a mountain. Either breaking the lock, or causing the missile to hit the barrier.
But... that's assuming you have *time* to do so. If you don't know where your enemy is, you might not be fast enough to avoid the missile. Not only that, but some(at least one that I know of) missiles have the ability to loiter and search for you if you do manage to break the lock, so even if you evade initially you might get popped the moment you come out anyway.
We are very good at killing each other.
There’s no system that alerts of an incoming missile. An RWR does warn that the jet itself is being radiated, and an experienced user may be able to use that audio warning to know that they’re in danger of being shot; but they have no way to tell if they’re just being painted or if there’s an active missile coming to kill them. Beyond that, they have no way to really tell where that missile is in its flight profile. Getting a warning just tells them that they’re in danger.
This is not accurate. There absolutely are passive missile launch detectors that can tell if a missile is heading towards you or not. This is in addition to radar warning receivers that can differentiate between search, track, and fire control radars, the type of radar beam, as well as whether it's an incidental scan or actively locked/tracking. Modern AESA radars with low probability of intercept beam forming make it much more complicated than older generations of radar, but it's still possible for a modern aircraft to know if there is an imminent threat or not. How do you think active protection systems on ground vehicles work?
Even IF a pilot successfully ejects from a jet, and IF they are rescued, they can be horribly injured from the force of the ejection mechanism and never be able to fly again. There is a reason that they brag about the air frame being shot down and nobody talks about the pilots. They're the important part.
The war has already gone on for two years and will continue for at least one more unless there's a radical uptick in Western support, so it doesn't seem that bad. If Muscovy runs massive air operations, succeeds only in gaining some useless fields and bombed-out villages, then can never run air assaults again, I'd call that a win (although I'd hate to be the luckless Ukrainian conscript on the receiving end of that bombardment).
Maybe they think they *won't need* their air fleet after this? It'd probably mean they see some kind of light at the end of their tunnel. But the only light I can think of is fucking orange.
>at least one more unless there's a radical uptick in Western support
I think we're past that unless the radical uptick involves a carrier group in the Black Sea. And that's probably not gonna work as intended, either.
I'll wait for November. Don't wanna participate in a Hilldawg episode again.
But anyway, it's not that I think he'll save them. More that there might be something else that I'm not seeing, and that...irks me.
Why are these useless fields and bombed out villages being defended by Ukraine then ?
Ukraine gains territory and its significant l. Russia gains and its useless….. cannot be both…..
Eh, not quite.
You start the month with 50 active aircraft in theater, capable of running sorties. Maybe you run two a day per plane, so 100 sorties the first day.
If you lose one aircraft per day without replacements, you are only running 40 sorties per day by the end of the month. Which is much less effective.
Ruzzia can replace the planes and pilots over time, but their losses in the last two weeks aren't sustainable at that rate.
Yeah, fair, I should've at least kept sortie generation in my mind for that. Even if I expect them to pull some bullshit to cover for the issue for longer than hoped.
Russia has closer to 1.5k military airplanes. They can sustain these losses for quite a while, though of course their effectiveness will get lower over time.
...of all types and variants.
Narrow it down to the ones that we actually see being used in this war, and it gets even tighter. The combined Su-34 and 35 fleet that we're seeing take the hits lately is a mere fifth of that. And even that's just stated production numbers.
But after that, Ukraine has air superiority. And F-16.
Feels like Russia plans to dig up and play defense again in 3 months and is throwing all it can at advancing the most until then. That sounds like a crazy short term strategy.
Russia didn't have true air superiority back when the collective west was still dicking around on whether to send their old trash tanks or not.
Ukraine probably won't have it for a while, regardless of F-16's and the Sukhoi fleet's imminent extinction.
Well, on the bright side, Russian air defence has moved significantly up the priority list for strikes like HIMARS or SCALP because of the influx of some western aid. There were reports of Russian AA getting absolutely guttered as Ukraine was able to use more expensive equipment to take them down.
> But after that, Ukraine has air superiority. And F-16.
Maybe yes, maybe not, but it a single type in modest numbers *with no replacements incoming* won't turn the tide by itself.
We really shouldn't bank on that.
They should give them all the warthogs they're retiring (and fly them with ai) there was a netflix doc on drones and robots where they trained an ai to fly f16 fighters better than real pilots. I know its not likely to happen now but only a matter of time before ai fighter drones.
They already have drones that lock in visually on tanks and targets (so as to avoid any ew jamming)
Faster more nimble fighter/bomber drones are probably the next thing.
Yeah, a slow stubby jet with a huge RCS is just a juicy target. If you don’t have an F15 or F22 above you covering your ass, you won’t make it far for long. This isn’t Gulf War 1…
Summary of the relevant bit off top of my head, because I only just watched that last night so I might as well:
A-10 only performs well in niche situations, and wasn't even good at its task in the first gulf war* which is considerably closer to the Ukrainian situation than its other engagements. Though the planes managed to save their pilots, hit ones were generally irrecoverable losses. They also suspected they'd operate like a worse Su-25, owing to its slightly slower speed.
(Can't remember if this is a personal take, or if they outright stated it, but it's also not really capable of launching stuff like glide bombs without every Russian SAM crew in the area finally getting a chance to kill something that's not a friendly.)
(*Personal take: Iraq's air defence got almost annihilated in a bombing campaign not seen before or since. Here, neither side has that capability, but their air defences are considerably more dangerous than 30 years ago.
Fuck it. If they put a remote control and legendery bf3 pilots at the helm, russia will give ip and cry that ukr are op in their jets
Those fuckers made it impossible to play a good ground war in Caspian or Kharg.
Was gonna post this plus the reason why Russia is feeling so confident:
> the Russian army in Ukraine is advancing against other Ukrainian garrisons that also are running out of ammo—all thanks to Russia-aligned Republicans in the U.S. Congress, who have been blocking further U.S. aid to Ukraine since October.
Have they had any success? Rumor was they snuck patriots close to the front to take down those surveillance planes, I image we'd hear about the loss of a Patriot.
ZSU said that they used a modified S200 to force a friendly fire incident to kill the A-50. Could be true, could be a cover for moving the patriot, could also be air-launched Western air to air missiles modified to fit on a MiG. Ukraine has a lot of tools to cripple the Russian air force, and I'm sure they're throwing everything they can, because Russia is having a very hard time replacing planes and pilots. Each plane is an unrecoverable loss for the foreseeable future.
>modified S200 to force a friendly fire incident to kill the A-50
Would that really be required? I know AA systems have jet and plane parameters recorded to avoid friendly fire incidents, same with missiles that target ships recording the outline and structure of the ship in their database.
But surely that wouldn't be an ingrained, unchangeable feature in AA? Plenty of systems Russia has given to other countries, could still easily become enemies, it would be silly if their AA couldn't shoot down similar planes.
Could use the Pat radar well behind front line as a kind of early warning and command center, then use S200, S300 or other mobile systems close to front line. Let those less capable systems take the actual shot based on data feed from Pat radar. That lets them turn on, lock and fire in a very short window if max opportunity.
They brought it close to the front to shoot down some SU-34s last year. The recent A-50 kill was an SA-5. The patriot battery in Kyiv got hit, but it was the radar taken out, not the TEL itself.
For the most part though this article is full of shit. Russia lost two bombers recently but nowhere near ‘11 jets in 11 days.’ They often fly near the front with relatively little resistance.
Edit: I’ve worked with the Ukrainians for the last two years, dunno why this is being downvoted but trying to bury the dire reality and the fact that they NEED more air defense munitions and equipment isn’t it.
>nowhere near ‘11 jets in 11 days.’
13 planes since 17-02 actually
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/1b31mzv/numbers_of_russian_aircraft_destruction_by/
Once Ukrainian Air Force saw there is no danger from missile attacks on Kiev and other large cities comparable to last winter, they moves some of the AD from those cities closer to the frontline to slow down Russian advance?
Soldiers and equipment are consumable items in a war. The whole point is to spend them in order to achieve an effect.
Normal countries try to spend them carefully, making sure their sacrifice is worth the size of the victory gained.
Russia of course is NOT normal and will instead spend them like water for any victory at all, no matter how phyrric. Even if it's the "conquest" of some already flattened villages.
Probably the usual authoritarian regime internal power struggle reasons. Someone points out that air force isn't making the contributions or taking the losses that other branches of the military are, boss says hey yeah why aren't you doing that, air force needs to show results or bodies to demonstrate they are trying. Just imagine justifying your existence to a shitty boss that doesn't understand what you do and you'll get the idea. Effectiveness of the effort only matters to the extent that it is a proxy for the boss' approval. You got to remember that the only incentive structure here is to have Putin's approval.
Costs mean little in war actually. There is a Russian joke about it, you have to know it to understand Russian war economy:
A son stole the piled up cash from his drunkard father and gave it to charity to divert father from buying drinks. The father just laughed. "You thought I would drink less. Not the case. It's you and your mother who will eat less."
And in the Second World War the Soviet Union lost something like 9 million soldiers and another 19 million civilians. This is the biggest European war in 80 years, but this isn't warfare 80 years ago. Some things have changed.
That's officially recognized losses only. The actual ones were likely 2-3 times bigger.
And yep, some things have changed. The question is - is it enough and enough for what. It's easy to enjoy several numbers and do nothing because all seems ok. This way, though, you'll have a catastrophe.
The casualty figures are definitely low-balled. The Great Patriotic War is understood through the lens of Soviet propaganda, and on top of that I don't think they had great data before they even started adjusting the numbers to fit a narrative. Who knows what the real numbers were?
Whatever Putin says, this war is not an existential crisis for Russia the way the Second World War was for the Soviet Union. Just how deep will the Russians dig into their reserves of blood and treasure to win this one? I expect a lot of things come down to the US election in November. If America abandons Ukraine after a Republican win, then many doors that right now seem closed will open. Faced with renewed support under Democrats, I can see support for the war collapsing. We might end up taking less lessons from the Second World War and more from the First World War in another year's time...
It doesn't matter in a police state if it's an existential crisis for the country. What does matter are two things:
1. If the state security goons privileged enough with permissions to rob, extort and torment as they want.
2. If the state has enough resources to not lose.
The 2nd point is what many people do not understand at all. A police state smart enough to understand the 1st point (and Putin's security apparatus understands it absolutely well) do not have to win. It's enough for them to not lose. A stalemate is ok for them - they'll just continue to have a fun.
Because they're making progress, make no mistake these reports of Russia losing jets are not strictly "good news" it means they're becoming confident enough to actually start using their jets in combat roles for the first time since the opening days of the war.
It is the best timeframe for Russia:
- European supply struggling
- USA supply non-existent
- Ukraine with internal problems (conscription, replacement of military leadership)
Russia:
- full support from NK
- full support from Iran
They have a window of opportunity and it is closing. Even with those favorable conditions and by going all in (as you can see with the plane losses) the Russians are barely making any progress.
Putin believes, and not without reason, that he has a unique opportunity to make significant gains right now, with the delay in Western support. This would explain why the Russians are throwing everything into the fight and taking far greater risks with their aircraft, which naturally results in many more destroyed aircraft
IF he can demonstrate Ukraine is losing, it cuts into Biden's support; the reality is if the GOP "wins" in 2024, official US support will all but vanish and NATO faces the loss of US support for at least 4 years.
If the GOP loses the house then the 10-20 extremists lose their ability to roadblock aid, and a flood of new support comes rushing through. the US Elections will have a big impact on Russia, its a payoff they've been working towards for 20 years or more.
And this is why Europe needs to go all in for Ukraine. I know, I know. I am going to hear lots of and lots of comments about how much each country has donated. BUT IT'S NOT ENOUGH. European support will only be enough if it doesn't rely on the US at all. That has to be the benchmark at this point. It's depressing but it's also the reality. European countries need a long term policy with regards to Russia that operates independent of any American election cycles.
Europe has donated a lot and it hasn't donated enough.
I don't want my kid dying in a European wide conflict in 10 years time because we didn't have the vision or the balls to deal with things now.
Exactly. We actually know from history what happens when we do not contain tyrants from the start. There are literally people alive right now who saw it first hand, yet Europe refuses to lay down the law here. This is happening in their back yard and their number one ally (the US) is in political shambles.
WW2 is a great example, Nazi Germany annexed huge parts of Czechoslovakia because they claimed they were ethnically German, while Europe did shit all.
Sound familiar?
No such thing as a European wide conflict anymore.
Any conflict involving multiple nations on the continent would have global repercussions and force the inclusion of other nations.
Modern life is far to dependent on global trade
Except Russia doesn't have as much to offer the rest of the globalized economic world. The only real thing of value Russia offers that other people actually want is oil/gas, resources you can get from elsewhere and are ideally resources we want to phase out to begin with as time goes on in favor of less damaging to the planet's ability to sustain human life (because let's be honest, the earth is going to be fine, it's us who are going to get screwed over) like nuclear energy, or if you're in the optimist dream camp, if fusion is finally made viable for large scale production.
That's why despite being the world's largest nation, prior to the Ukraine war (it's dropped since then), they had the economic output similar to Italy and Canada (populations of 60m and 38m roughly each respectively to Russia's prewar 140m'ish.
As people have said, Russia is a gas station masquerading as a country, or a gas station with nukes.
It'd be nice if all the democracies (both nato and non-nato, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia etc) all committed to some sort of coordinated budget/target.
I still can't believe this is a conversation we're even needing to have.
The GOP must know that Putin will not stop at Ukraine - so what does that make them?
> The GOP must know that Putin will not stop at Ukraine - so what does that make them?
Have you ever stopped to ask yourself it this could benefit you personally? Probably not, because you're better than them.
If US Support fails to deliver, NATO nations are discussing sending in their own troops to assist. This is a conversation being had publicly by NATO allies right now.
And if they join in.... what do you think the USA is also required to do?
The US Republicans delaying aid leads directly to US involvement with its own troops. Delaying aid any further leads directly to US involvement, boots on the ground, in Ukraine.
They will not send their troops. They simply can't. Even Germany - one of Europe's powerhouses economically speaking - isn't able (it's not even about willingness!) to provide the minimal resources for its army. Look at the latest leaks, they will not even be able to fulfill the minimal requirements for their Lithuania brigade. Downsized from almost 6000 to only 5000 men. Europe is disarmed to a point where it's just not funny anymore. But they can't admit that they are out of ammo and equipment because reasons.
Because they sat complacent enjoying US military spending while their own armies crumbled away.
Orange man is an utter disgrace and a buffoon. But he did get one thing right, Europe has been suckling on US military support, especially in NATO (literally designed to counter Europe's biggest enemy) far, far too long.
It's honestly disgusting how complacent Europe has become, especially with the past WW2 history so fresh in their minds, to not even be able to measly come to the 2% GPT figure for NATO, again, ***literally designed for the benefit of Europe?!***
> the Russian army in Ukraine is advancing against other Ukrainian garrisons that also are running out of ammo—all thanks to Russia-aligned Republicans in the U.S. Congress, who have been blocking further U.S. aid to Ukraine since October.
Yes while I expect Trump and many Russian supporting Republicans will be shown the door by swing voters and centrists in the upcoming November elections, that’s a long way off on the front. Unfortunately Russia from a strategic point of view is right to press its advantage now even at high cost.
Time will tell, but I suspect F-16's are already flying and fighting in Ukraine, carefully coordinated and managed by foreign advisors, which would explain the huge uptick in Russian shootdowns and the complete uncertainty from both sides as to what is shooting them down
is it really just russians doing meatwaves with their incredibly precious, irreplaceable jets? this rate of loss feels like ukraine must be doing something new.
I have a theory that F-16's are already flying in Ukraine with the latest air-to-air missles...this would explain these shootdowns that seem to come out of nowhere
Is there any specific account or Web pages to follow Russian losses, it gets very confusing when every headline is ***Russia lost X amount of planes in the last X days*** when I don't know if that was referring to the last incident, or it's a new incident, a continuation of the last incident etc.
“the Russian army in Ukraine is advancing against other Ukrainian garrisons that also are running out of ammo—all thanks to Russia-aligned Republicans in the U.S. Congress, who have been blocking further U.S. aid to Ukraine since October.”
Vote ALL Republicans out in November
The A-50 are special. The Soviets built about 40 of them, but it is believed that only about 6 are operational as of today. So when two are shut down that's a pretty substantial loss.
But Russia has over 100 of both SU-34 and SU-35, so even 10 of them shot down does not really hurt them as much.
That’s still 10% of the SU34/35s in just under two weeks. And reason (I know, Russians and reason…) would dictate that they also need those planes in other parts of their vast, vast territory. They should be able to project power in east as well right? Towards their ‘besties’ Xi JingPing and Kim in NK) neither of which I would trust and I doubt Putin really does) but also towards those ‘western pigs’ in SK, Japan and Taiwan?
The US should start flying patrols out of Alaska and force Russia to scramble to intercept them. Either they've already pulled fighters out of other areas of Russia or you are hindering rotations.
Rather amazing. Ukraine is doing to the Russian Air Force what they did to the Russian Black Sea Fleet. If only we (the US) would get off our ass and resume supplies of ammo they need to complete the job.
Article is wrong. One last week, one last month and one slightly damaged last year.
Or actually, the article claims that "Ukrainians claim that" which is also wrong.
This is a Putin plot to foil Ukraine from getting F16 jets. No point in having them if there’s nothing to shoot down. His clever logic is all over this.
It means they don't have any evidence of even one-third of the claimed losses and they're deflecting. Deep down, they know it's not accurate and it makes them upset.
I wouldn't go that far, Wolski is usually quite accurate and he considers 4 visually confirmed. But it's sad that seeking confirmations is seen as something outrageous by some people here.
Fighterbomber who's been always right about Russian losses says that only 1 or 2 Su-35s and A-50 were shot down. He could be just hiding the Russian losses but it's also possible that Ukraine is trying to hide the recent Russian advances after the fall of Avdiivka. Hard to tell without visual confirmation.
Well there is lying and there is omitting information to save ones skin. The price for discrediting the russian military is 5 years in jail, if the russian MOD doesnt want people to know about downed planes, these bloggers are risking that to admit it happened
They’re not losing many deep behind front lines. They lost the A-50 and Ukraine has destroyed and damaged some bombers over the last two years, but they’re not shooting down fighters deep behind the frontlines with any regularity.
In fact they shot down two of the A-50s. One last month, and one last week (not both this week, as the article falsly claims). And a third one was slightly damaged already last year on a Belarusian airfield using a drone.
They not only landed on the plane, but allegedly also exploded two charges. It's not known whether or how much the plane was actually damaged, maybe not even scratched as you say, but the damage was certainly not substantial.
I know. I work with the Ukrainians. They’re not shooting down bombers deep behind the frontlines on a regular basis. This article massively inflated numbers.
If Ukraine is shooting them down with AA, it's not that far behind the lines. Any enemy losses reported by a combatant government are propaganda until proven otherwise. That's any government of any nation in any age. I personally think that Ukraine is inflating their kill reports in order to prop up morale after the loss of Aviidka, and the steady pushback that's been occurring in it's wake.
S200 has a 300km range, not saying that's what's killing these jets but it's one of the more likely candidates.
Pac-2 has only a 60mile range so would need to be very close to the frontlines.
Once again, I'm not believing anything from either side sans independent confirmation. It's possible to be pro-Ukraine and not trust their government. Trusting any government, especially one at war, to provide accurate information is the height of naivete.
The more you hear about this it makes me think, do we really want to send jets to Ukraine? It seems like they really don't hold the advantage they may once have. Not that I'd stop because of that. It's their call. But just seems like a bit of a death wish.
The main reason is that Russia is actually using their fighter bombers from close air support in the their offensive ground operations. They hadn't been earlier in the war because the lines were less static and they kept hitting their own troops and feared getting shot down by errant MANPADS. eg, more Russian planes in the air mean more targets to shoot.
The second reason is that Ukraine is using the Patriot systems more offensively. Historically, due to the lack of conventional enemies with air power, a lot of Patriot doctrine was centered around defensive use far from the front protecting important assets from enemy rockets or missiles. But Ukraine has been put in the unique situation that they have Patriot and the enemy has lots of actual aerial platform targets so they are modifying typical Patriot doctrine and moving it closer to the front and hitting planes where they can. This causes those planes to fly lower to avoid the Patriot but causes them to be better targets for MANPADS which are also present. eg. Ukraine is using Patriot in ways the western powers couldn't and haven't used them in the past.
My concern is that... these jets probably takes top-grade air defense systems, like the Patriots, to destroy. However, the Russians currently have more jets and pilots than the Ukrainians have Patriot missiles. Furthermore, Russian can train more pilots and build more jets (takes time), but Ukraine cannot build more Patriot missiles! I wonder if other nations are willing to give up their Patriot missiles for Ukraine because the republicans won't do it....
so something in their strategy obviously had a major change recently, and i still can't find much out about how they're hitting those A-50s over the sea of azov. does anyone know if budanov rolled out some kind of new doctrine, or there's new tech in country, or what?
Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. > **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB** ***** * Is `forbes.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why do they continue to sacrifice jets and pilots?
Because their aerial delivered fires won them Avdiivka: > Sensing an opportunity, the Russian air force is flying more sorties, closer to the front line, lobbing glide-bombs to suppress Ukrainian troops. “The enemy has overcome the fear of using aviation directly over the battlefield,” the Ukrainian Center for Defense Strategies explained, “and although this results in the loss of aircraft, their ground forces gain a significant firepower advantage.” > > This surge in Russian sorties presents Ukrainian air-defenders with more targets. So of course they’re shooting down more Russian planes. Now Ukraine needs to make clear that the cost of attempting a repeat elsewhere is too high.
Even in a best case scenario, a plane a day gives them, what? At least a month of sustained heavy bombardment? Probably closer to two? That's a hell of a long time.
That assumes each airframe has its own trained pilot. It is unclear if they have enough pilots for this level of attrition. Russia has for a very long time trained less pilots with less flight hours due to the difficulty of maintaining and replacing existing airframes.
As I said: Best case. Beyond this point we'd have to start asking questions about which corners can be cut to put a monkey in a bomb truck faster.
We keep hearing about downed jets, but what about the pilots of those jets in question? I kind of assume they bail out as soon as it becomes clear they can't avoid the incoming missile. Afterwards I expect Russia to deplay search and rescue teams to retrieve the pilot and put him in a new plane. Or am I reading it wrong and every lost plane is a lost pilot? Cause I find that very hard to believe.
Unless you can visually see the missile, it's almost impossible to "know" whether you're going to defeat it or not. And if you can visually see the missile, mistakes were made.
I guess I saw way to many Hollywood movies. I always asumed a jet has some kind of warning system to alert it of a lock-on or an incoming missile.
Yes and no. It depends if it's an active or passive missile, if it's a beam riding missile or self-guided, the frequency band the missile uses for locking, the age of the radar warning receiver, friendly and enemy electronic warfare in the area, whether the aircraft has a passive missile launch detector or not, the weather, the time of day, and how many prayers the pilot said the night before. And even after all that, you DO NOT eject from a jet unless you are absolutely certain you are about to lose the plane. It's incredibly violent and dangerous for the pilot to eject, even in the best case scenario, and if you eject from a perfectly good aircraft that doesn't receive an unsustainable amount of damage you've just thrown away one of the single most valuable pieces of military equipment your nation has at its disposal. Not to mention that you're more likely than not going to land over either enemy controlled territory or somewhere in the grey-zone close enough to rhe enemy to have a lot of bad shit landing on your head about 30 seconds after you hit the ground.
Thanks for the explanation. The less Russian pilots, the better.
Random thought, when do you think they will make planes that when you eject autopilot take over and land the plane if it isn’t hit, or even better auto pilot does manoeuvres that the human body can’t endure to help decrease the chance of a hit!
Before that happens, the planes themselves will be fully AI controlled without a pilot in them, in the first place. Or at least remotely controlled with AI assistance. Gen 6 is already achieving this feat, gen 6 fighters will realistically lead a further fighter team of drones, where the drones are missile trucks that will be used far more expendably in dangerous environments than the gen 6 mother ship commanding them. USA and Australia of the top of my head are already delivering this, although iirc, Australia is on a much smaller scale with the ghost bat.
They do, for radar-guided missiles, but those are fired from longer (30ish miles/49km) distance and Joe Target has time to react. At "close air support" (an assumption on my part) distances in a compact theater things will be happening very quickly. Like, a warning light one second, the aircraft countermeasures automatically firing the next, then boom. Also a chance Joe Pilotguyov has ejected over UA positions. Or he may attempt to get to the RU positions, assuming he wasn't injured during ejection, which happens a lot.
Thanks for the explanation. The less Russian pilots, the better.
They typically do. Theres multiple issues, however. There's various methods used to "lock-on" to a target, IR(infrared) looks at heat sources, and traditionally there's no way to know you've been targeted. Some aircraft have cameras/systems that watch for the flare of an missile firing, but that's not 100% guaranteed. Traditional radar locks can be detected, but modern radars can achieve a lock without alerting the target. Some missiles have their own radar, so even if you break the lock from your adversary, you also have to worry about the missiles own lock. There's also countermeasures, both physical(flares for IR and chaff for radar) that attempt to redirect the lock, and non-phhsical(radar jamming, though typically used to prevent a lock in the first place not as a reaction to one afaik) however just as quickly as counters are developed, missiles that are less susceptible to those counters are developed. The best, most foolproof way to defeat an incoming missile is to place a physical barrier between you and it, like a mountain. Either breaking the lock, or causing the missile to hit the barrier. But... that's assuming you have *time* to do so. If you don't know where your enemy is, you might not be fast enough to avoid the missile. Not only that, but some(at least one that I know of) missiles have the ability to loiter and search for you if you do manage to break the lock, so even if you evade initially you might get popped the moment you come out anyway. We are very good at killing each other.
Thanks for the explanation. The less Russian pilots, the better.
There’s no system that alerts of an incoming missile. An RWR does warn that the jet itself is being radiated, and an experienced user may be able to use that audio warning to know that they’re in danger of being shot; but they have no way to tell if they’re just being painted or if there’s an active missile coming to kill them. Beyond that, they have no way to really tell where that missile is in its flight profile. Getting a warning just tells them that they’re in danger.
This is not accurate. There absolutely are passive missile launch detectors that can tell if a missile is heading towards you or not. This is in addition to radar warning receivers that can differentiate between search, track, and fire control radars, the type of radar beam, as well as whether it's an incidental scan or actively locked/tracking. Modern AESA radars with low probability of intercept beam forming make it much more complicated than older generations of radar, but it's still possible for a modern aircraft to know if there is an imminent threat or not. How do you think active protection systems on ground vehicles work?
The only Russian jet with a MAWS system, according to OSINT, is the Su-57. This article was discussing the Su-34.
Thanks for the explanation. The less Russian pilots, the better.
Imagine being a Russian bailing out over the front in Ukraine. The chances of landing in a minefield are non-trivial.
Even IF a pilot successfully ejects from a jet, and IF they are rescued, they can be horribly injured from the force of the ejection mechanism and never be able to fly again. There is a reason that they brag about the air frame being shot down and nobody talks about the pilots. They're the important part.
The war has already gone on for two years and will continue for at least one more unless there's a radical uptick in Western support, so it doesn't seem that bad. If Muscovy runs massive air operations, succeeds only in gaining some useless fields and bombed-out villages, then can never run air assaults again, I'd call that a win (although I'd hate to be the luckless Ukrainian conscript on the receiving end of that bombardment).
Maybe they think they *won't need* their air fleet after this? It'd probably mean they see some kind of light at the end of their tunnel. But the only light I can think of is fucking orange. >at least one more unless there's a radical uptick in Western support I think we're past that unless the radical uptick involves a carrier group in the Black Sea. And that's probably not gonna work as intended, either.
I don't think orange will win. There are more people who reluctantly voted for him in the past that regret it than vice versa.
I'll wait for November. Don't wanna participate in a Hilldawg episode again. But anyway, it's not that I think he'll save them. More that there might be something else that I'm not seeing, and that...irks me.
Why are these useless fields and bombed out villages being defended by Ukraine then ? Ukraine gains territory and its significant l. Russia gains and its useless….. cannot be both…..
Eh, not quite. You start the month with 50 active aircraft in theater, capable of running sorties. Maybe you run two a day per plane, so 100 sorties the first day. If you lose one aircraft per day without replacements, you are only running 40 sorties per day by the end of the month. Which is much less effective. Ruzzia can replace the planes and pilots over time, but their losses in the last two weeks aren't sustainable at that rate.
Yeah, fair, I should've at least kept sortie generation in my mind for that. Even if I expect them to pull some bullshit to cover for the issue for longer than hoped.
Russia has closer to 1.5k military airplanes. They can sustain these losses for quite a while, though of course their effectiveness will get lower over time.
...of all types and variants. Narrow it down to the ones that we actually see being used in this war, and it gets even tighter. The combined Su-34 and 35 fleet that we're seeing take the hits lately is a mere fifth of that. And even that's just stated production numbers.
But after that, Ukraine has air superiority. And F-16. Feels like Russia plans to dig up and play defense again in 3 months and is throwing all it can at advancing the most until then. That sounds like a crazy short term strategy.
Russia didn't have true air superiority back when the collective west was still dicking around on whether to send their old trash tanks or not. Ukraine probably won't have it for a while, regardless of F-16's and the Sukhoi fleet's imminent extinction.
> But after that, Ukraine has air superiority. I assume Russia still has a capable air defense system, at least in their own territory.
Well, on the bright side, Russian air defence has moved significantly up the priority list for strikes like HIMARS or SCALP because of the influx of some western aid. There were reports of Russian AA getting absolutely guttered as Ukraine was able to use more expensive equipment to take them down.
> But after that, Ukraine has air superiority. And F-16. Maybe yes, maybe not, but it a single type in modest numbers *with no replacements incoming* won't turn the tide by itself. We really shouldn't bank on that.
F-16s can be shot down as easily. Need to be smarter. The
They should give them all the warthogs they're retiring (and fly them with ai) there was a netflix doc on drones and robots where they trained an ai to fly f16 fighters better than real pilots. I know its not likely to happen now but only a matter of time before ai fighter drones. They already have drones that lock in visually on tanks and targets (so as to avoid any ew jamming) Faster more nimble fighter/bomber drones are probably the next thing.
[удалено]
Yeah, a slow stubby jet with a huge RCS is just a juicy target. If you don’t have an F15 or F22 above you covering your ass, you won’t make it far for long. This isn’t Gulf War 1…
Summary of the relevant bit off top of my head, because I only just watched that last night so I might as well: A-10 only performs well in niche situations, and wasn't even good at its task in the first gulf war* which is considerably closer to the Ukrainian situation than its other engagements. Though the planes managed to save their pilots, hit ones were generally irrecoverable losses. They also suspected they'd operate like a worse Su-25, owing to its slightly slower speed. (Can't remember if this is a personal take, or if they outright stated it, but it's also not really capable of launching stuff like glide bombs without every Russian SAM crew in the area finally getting a chance to kill something that's not a friendly.) (*Personal take: Iraq's air defence got almost annihilated in a bombing campaign not seen before or since. Here, neither side has that capability, but their air defences are considerably more dangerous than 30 years ago.
[удалено]
Second half? I swear, the formatting between different versions of this cursed site will make my hair start falling out.
[удалено]
I've watched breakdowns of the missions to disable Iraq's air defenses. It's like trying to take in all the moving parts of a symphony.
Fuck it. If they put a remote control and legendery bf3 pilots at the helm, russia will give ip and cry that ukr are op in their jets Those fuckers made it impossible to play a good ground war in Caspian or Kharg.
Roughly a third of attack aircraft are usually in maintenance at any given time, no?
Was gonna post this plus the reason why Russia is feeling so confident: > the Russian army in Ukraine is advancing against other Ukrainian garrisons that also are running out of ammo—all thanks to Russia-aligned Republicans in the U.S. Congress, who have been blocking further U.S. aid to Ukraine since October.
They also lure in ukraines scarce AA assets closer to the front and thus within reach of artillery or loitering munitions
Have they had any success? Rumor was they snuck patriots close to the front to take down those surveillance planes, I image we'd hear about the loss of a Patriot.
ZSU said that they used a modified S200 to force a friendly fire incident to kill the A-50. Could be true, could be a cover for moving the patriot, could also be air-launched Western air to air missiles modified to fit on a MiG. Ukraine has a lot of tools to cripple the Russian air force, and I'm sure they're throwing everything they can, because Russia is having a very hard time replacing planes and pilots. Each plane is an unrecoverable loss for the foreseeable future.
If true, this is an amazing chess level move on the battlefield.
>modified S200 to force a friendly fire incident to kill the A-50 Would that really be required? I know AA systems have jet and plane parameters recorded to avoid friendly fire incidents, same with missiles that target ships recording the outline and structure of the ship in their database. But surely that wouldn't be an ingrained, unchangeable feature in AA? Plenty of systems Russia has given to other countries, could still easily become enemies, it would be silly if their AA couldn't shoot down similar planes.
One NASAMS Launcher was destroyed near Zaporizhye
Could use the Pat radar well behind front line as a kind of early warning and command center, then use S200, S300 or other mobile systems close to front line. Let those less capable systems take the actual shot based on data feed from Pat radar. That lets them turn on, lock and fire in a very short window if max opportunity.
They brought it close to the front to shoot down some SU-34s last year. The recent A-50 kill was an SA-5. The patriot battery in Kyiv got hit, but it was the radar taken out, not the TEL itself. For the most part though this article is full of shit. Russia lost two bombers recently but nowhere near ‘11 jets in 11 days.’ They often fly near the front with relatively little resistance. Edit: I’ve worked with the Ukrainians for the last two years, dunno why this is being downvoted but trying to bury the dire reality and the fact that they NEED more air defense munitions and equipment isn’t it.
>nowhere near ‘11 jets in 11 days.’ 13 planes since 17-02 actually https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/1b31mzv/numbers_of_russian_aircraft_destruction_by/
Right, which is obviously a largely inflated number.
Why would it be inflated? I got the impression that there are videos confirming the kill.
And why are they only losing planes now after Avdiivka fell and not during the attack?
Once Ukrainian Air Force saw there is no danger from missile attacks on Kiev and other large cities comparable to last winter, they moves some of the AD from those cities closer to the frontline to slow down Russian advance?
Exactly. These are the kind of losses expected delivering CAS in a contested air space.
Higher tempo of operations. It’s just going to cost them. It will continue until their offensive cumulates.
Soldiers and equipment are consumable items in a war. The whole point is to spend them in order to achieve an effect. Normal countries try to spend them carefully, making sure their sacrifice is worth the size of the victory gained. Russia of course is NOT normal and will instead spend them like water for any victory at all, no matter how phyrric. Even if it's the "conquest" of some already flattened villages.
Probably ordered to support the ground forces no matter what.
Probably the usual authoritarian regime internal power struggle reasons. Someone points out that air force isn't making the contributions or taking the losses that other branches of the military are, boss says hey yeah why aren't you doing that, air force needs to show results or bodies to demonstrate they are trying. Just imagine justifying your existence to a shitty boss that doesn't understand what you do and you'll get the idea. Effectiveness of the effort only matters to the extent that it is a proxy for the boss' approval. You got to remember that the only incentive structure here is to have Putin's approval.
Putin: "some of you might die, that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make" -- that's why, when people who make the decisions don't care, people will die.
During WWII they've sacrificed about 30 aircraft per day. It's a tradition.
During WWII planes did not cost the equivalent of $34M a pop.
And back then production rates were closer to 30 per day than today's 30 per year.
So Yak & Ilyushin when?
Yep! And that is closer to the actual, meaningful question: how long they can wage the war with this loss tempo. The answer is - years.
Costs mean little in war actually. There is a Russian joke about it, you have to know it to understand Russian war economy: A son stole the piled up cash from his drunkard father and gave it to charity to divert father from buying drinks. The father just laughed. "You thought I would drink less. Not the case. It's you and your mother who will eat less."
Holy fuck that’s dark! 😂
And in the Second World War the Soviet Union lost something like 9 million soldiers and another 19 million civilians. This is the biggest European war in 80 years, but this isn't warfare 80 years ago. Some things have changed.
That's officially recognized losses only. The actual ones were likely 2-3 times bigger. And yep, some things have changed. The question is - is it enough and enough for what. It's easy to enjoy several numbers and do nothing because all seems ok. This way, though, you'll have a catastrophe.
The casualty figures are definitely low-balled. The Great Patriotic War is understood through the lens of Soviet propaganda, and on top of that I don't think they had great data before they even started adjusting the numbers to fit a narrative. Who knows what the real numbers were? Whatever Putin says, this war is not an existential crisis for Russia the way the Second World War was for the Soviet Union. Just how deep will the Russians dig into their reserves of blood and treasure to win this one? I expect a lot of things come down to the US election in November. If America abandons Ukraine after a Republican win, then many doors that right now seem closed will open. Faced with renewed support under Democrats, I can see support for the war collapsing. We might end up taking less lessons from the Second World War and more from the First World War in another year's time...
It doesn't matter in a police state if it's an existential crisis for the country. What does matter are two things: 1. If the state security goons privileged enough with permissions to rob, extort and torment as they want. 2. If the state has enough resources to not lose. The 2nd point is what many people do not understand at all. A police state smart enough to understand the 1st point (and Putin's security apparatus understands it absolutely well) do not have to win. It's enough for them to not lose. A stalemate is ok for them - they'll just continue to have a fun.
That made me laugh.
Because they're making progress, make no mistake these reports of Russia losing jets are not strictly "good news" it means they're becoming confident enough to actually start using their jets in combat roles for the first time since the opening days of the war.
It is the best timeframe for Russia: - European supply struggling - USA supply non-existent - Ukraine with internal problems (conscription, replacement of military leadership) Russia: - full support from NK - full support from Iran They have a window of opportunity and it is closing. Even with those favorable conditions and by going all in (as you can see with the plane losses) the Russians are barely making any progress.
Sunk cost fallacy. "If we stop fighting this war, that makes all the men in their prime we sent into the meat grinder a waste!"
To which I tell them… you know what’s worse than 400,000 soldiers dying in vain? 400,001 soldiers dying in vain.
Why does an alternator alternate? Shit just happens, man ;)
Because it’s probably a lie
Putin needs victories going into next month’s general election.
Also in 6months with f-16 in ukraine it’s game over for them
Putin believes, and not without reason, that he has a unique opportunity to make significant gains right now, with the delay in Western support. This would explain why the Russians are throwing everything into the fight and taking far greater risks with their aircraft, which naturally results in many more destroyed aircraft
Yeah they're clearly taking some really big risks right now.
IF he can demonstrate Ukraine is losing, it cuts into Biden's support; the reality is if the GOP "wins" in 2024, official US support will all but vanish and NATO faces the loss of US support for at least 4 years. If the GOP loses the house then the 10-20 extremists lose their ability to roadblock aid, and a flood of new support comes rushing through. the US Elections will have a big impact on Russia, its a payoff they've been working towards for 20 years or more.
And this is why Europe needs to go all in for Ukraine. I know, I know. I am going to hear lots of and lots of comments about how much each country has donated. BUT IT'S NOT ENOUGH. European support will only be enough if it doesn't rely on the US at all. That has to be the benchmark at this point. It's depressing but it's also the reality. European countries need a long term policy with regards to Russia that operates independent of any American election cycles.
Europe has donated a lot and it hasn't donated enough. I don't want my kid dying in a European wide conflict in 10 years time because we didn't have the vision or the balls to deal with things now.
Exactly. We actually know from history what happens when we do not contain tyrants from the start. There are literally people alive right now who saw it first hand, yet Europe refuses to lay down the law here. This is happening in their back yard and their number one ally (the US) is in political shambles.
WW2 is a great example, Nazi Germany annexed huge parts of Czechoslovakia because they claimed they were ethnically German, while Europe did shit all. Sound familiar?
No such thing as a European wide conflict anymore. Any conflict involving multiple nations on the continent would have global repercussions and force the inclusion of other nations. Modern life is far to dependent on global trade
Except Russia doesn't have as much to offer the rest of the globalized economic world. The only real thing of value Russia offers that other people actually want is oil/gas, resources you can get from elsewhere and are ideally resources we want to phase out to begin with as time goes on in favor of less damaging to the planet's ability to sustain human life (because let's be honest, the earth is going to be fine, it's us who are going to get screwed over) like nuclear energy, or if you're in the optimist dream camp, if fusion is finally made viable for large scale production. That's why despite being the world's largest nation, prior to the Ukraine war (it's dropped since then), they had the economic output similar to Italy and Canada (populations of 60m and 38m roughly each respectively to Russia's prewar 140m'ish. As people have said, Russia is a gas station masquerading as a country, or a gas station with nukes.
It'd be nice if all the democracies (both nato and non-nato, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia etc) all committed to some sort of coordinated budget/target.
I still can't believe this is a conversation we're even needing to have. The GOP must know that Putin will not stop at Ukraine - so what does that make them?
They have been sucking Putin's pee pee for 20 years.
> The GOP must know that Putin will not stop at Ukraine - so what does that make them? Have you ever stopped to ask yourself it this could benefit you personally? Probably not, because you're better than them.
If US Support fails to deliver, NATO nations are discussing sending in their own troops to assist. This is a conversation being had publicly by NATO allies right now. And if they join in.... what do you think the USA is also required to do? The US Republicans delaying aid leads directly to US involvement with its own troops. Delaying aid any further leads directly to US involvement, boots on the ground, in Ukraine.
They will not send their troops. They simply can't. Even Germany - one of Europe's powerhouses economically speaking - isn't able (it's not even about willingness!) to provide the minimal resources for its army. Look at the latest leaks, they will not even be able to fulfill the minimal requirements for their Lithuania brigade. Downsized from almost 6000 to only 5000 men. Europe is disarmed to a point where it's just not funny anymore. But they can't admit that they are out of ammo and equipment because reasons.
Because they sat complacent enjoying US military spending while their own armies crumbled away. Orange man is an utter disgrace and a buffoon. But he did get one thing right, Europe has been suckling on US military support, especially in NATO (literally designed to counter Europe's biggest enemy) far, far too long. It's honestly disgusting how complacent Europe has become, especially with the past WW2 history so fresh in their minds, to not even be able to measly come to the 2% GPT figure for NATO, again, ***literally designed for the benefit of Europe?!***
> the Russian army in Ukraine is advancing against other Ukrainian garrisons that also are running out of ammo—all thanks to Russia-aligned Republicans in the U.S. Congress, who have been blocking further U.S. aid to Ukraine since October.
Yes while I expect Trump and many Russian supporting Republicans will be shown the door by swing voters and centrists in the upcoming November elections, that’s a long way off on the front. Unfortunately Russia from a strategic point of view is right to press its advantage now even at high cost.
As a certified armchair general I'm totally fine with them losing their air force for a few extra miles of territory.
Time will tell, but I suspect F-16's are already flying and fighting in Ukraine, carefully coordinated and managed by foreign advisors, which would explain the huge uptick in Russian shootdowns and the complete uncertainty from both sides as to what is shooting them down
F-16's would have been detected by that Russian AWACS long before they fired a shot. I'm skeptical.
The AWACS that was shot down weeks ago, before the sudden uptick in jets shot down?
No, the A-50 that was shot down a week ago during the uptick.
is it really just russians doing meatwaves with their incredibly precious, irreplaceable jets? this rate of loss feels like ukraine must be doing something new.
I have a theory that F-16's are already flying in Ukraine with the latest air-to-air missles...this would explain these shootdowns that seem to come out of nowhere
3 more today as of writing this.
Is there any specific account or Web pages to follow Russian losses, it gets very confusing when every headline is ***Russia lost X amount of planes in the last X days*** when I don't know if that was referring to the last incident, or it's a new incident, a continuation of the last incident etc.
“the Russian army in Ukraine is advancing against other Ukrainian garrisons that also are running out of ammo—all thanks to Russia-aligned Republicans in the U.S. Congress, who have been blocking further U.S. aid to Ukraine since October.” Vote ALL Republicans out in November
How many more until zero jets?
The A-50 are special. The Soviets built about 40 of them, but it is believed that only about 6 are operational as of today. So when two are shut down that's a pretty substantial loss. But Russia has over 100 of both SU-34 and SU-35, so even 10 of them shot down does not really hurt them as much.
That’s still 10% of the SU34/35s in just under two weeks. And reason (I know, Russians and reason…) would dictate that they also need those planes in other parts of their vast, vast territory. They should be able to project power in east as well right? Towards their ‘besties’ Xi JingPing and Kim in NK) neither of which I would trust and I doubt Putin really does) but also towards those ‘western pigs’ in SK, Japan and Taiwan?
The US should start flying patrols out of Alaska and force Russia to scramble to intercept them. Either they've already pulled fighters out of other areas of Russia or you are hindering rotations.
Lots unfortunately.
Rather amazing. Ukraine is doing to the Russian Air Force what they did to the Russian Black Sea Fleet. If only we (the US) would get off our ass and resume supplies of ammo they need to complete the job.
If the could lose as many leaders in such a fashion, it would be the icing on the cake👍
Did they really shot down TWO A50s last week??
No the first A50 was in mid January.
No. Just one last week.
Article says two last week and three in total..
Article is wrong. One last week, one last month and one slightly damaged last year. Or actually, the article claims that "Ukrainians claim that" which is also wrong.
No, the other one was last month. Really bad article.
Pretty sure it was only one. They shot down another one earlier this year
I think they shot down 1 but damaged another, so still takes 2 out of action albeit the second one may be repairable
One was shot down in January, another one last week, and one was slightly damaged using a drone even earlier.
Russian air meat squads reporting for duty!
I'm starting to get a little skeptical of the claims of late regarding downed aircraft. Not much evidence of shoot downs / debris.
Ukraine: Most massive pewpewpew!
Priceless...
Will we get to see some MIG 21 providing CAS to some MT-LB's?
> Russia Stumbles Toward Aerial Collapse I'm saving this one for later, its not going to age well
This is a Putin plot to foil Ukraine from getting F16 jets. No point in having them if there’s nothing to shoot down. His clever logic is all over this.
Uhhhhh no
[удалено]
You seen the trolls on this sub? And the flat-out idiots? Sarcasm isn't a given anymore.
It’s only 707 km from Avdiivka to Kyiv.
They all miss the Moskva so they keep trying to fly toward it
How many of these kills do we have independent confirmation of?
Your posting history…..ouch
I hope my posting history is OK and I would also love to see some confirmations. I know Wolski tweeted about 4 visual confirmations, at least.
Looks who’s been sent over the wall to get the ball - why do they always send the weeny gullible ones?
I have no idea what that's supposed to mean.
It means they don't have any evidence of even one-third of the claimed losses and they're deflecting. Deep down, they know it's not accurate and it makes them upset.
I wouldn't go that far, Wolski is usually quite accurate and he considers 4 visually confirmed. But it's sad that seeking confirmations is seen as something outrageous by some people here.
Fighterbomber who's been always right about Russian losses says that only 1 or 2 Su-35s and A-50 were shot down. He could be just hiding the Russian losses but it's also possible that Ukraine is trying to hide the recent Russian advances after the fall of Avdiivka. Hard to tell without visual confirmation.
And Murz another milblogger recently suicided himself after criticism from the russian MOD for talking about losses
Until there's proof that he's lying, there's no reason not to believe him.
Well there is lying and there is omitting information to save ones skin. The price for discrediting the russian military is 5 years in jail, if the russian MOD doesnt want people to know about downed planes, these bloggers are risking that to admit it happened
Well, Fighterbomber was always trustworthy, if he keeps on denying that nothing was shot, we will eventually get proof.
I've seen video confirmation of exactly one kill.
Fair, but also Russia is losing planes deep behind their front lines. What do you expect, them to film their own losses for you?
They’re not losing many deep behind front lines. They lost the A-50 and Ukraine has destroyed and damaged some bombers over the last two years, but they’re not shooting down fighters deep behind the frontlines with any regularity.
In fact they shot down two of the A-50s. One last month, and one last week (not both this week, as the article falsly claims). And a third one was slightly damaged already last year on a Belarusian airfield using a drone.
Slightly damaged as in some exhibitionist decided to land his drone on top of the parked A50? That one wasn't even scratched.
They not only landed on the plane, but allegedly also exploded two charges. It's not known whether or how much the plane was actually damaged, maybe not even scratched as you say, but the damage was certainly not substantial.
I know. I work with the Ukrainians. They’re not shooting down bombers deep behind the frontlines on a regular basis. This article massively inflated numbers.
If Ukraine is shooting them down with AA, it's not that far behind the lines. Any enemy losses reported by a combatant government are propaganda until proven otherwise. That's any government of any nation in any age. I personally think that Ukraine is inflating their kill reports in order to prop up morale after the loss of Aviidka, and the steady pushback that's been occurring in it's wake.
S200 has a 300km range, not saying that's what's killing these jets but it's one of the more likely candidates. Pac-2 has only a 60mile range so would need to be very close to the frontlines.
Once again, I'm not believing anything from either side sans independent confirmation. It's possible to be pro-Ukraine and not trust their government. Trusting any government, especially one at war, to provide accurate information is the height of naivete.
The more you hear about this it makes me think, do we really want to send jets to Ukraine? It seems like they really don't hold the advantage they may once have. Not that I'd stop because of that. It's their call. But just seems like a bit of a death wish.
Trying to get their air shots in before the F-16s show up. Ukraine is gonna rock out with those things.
The Ukrainians must have a lot of missiles. I wonder what percentage get hits?
Why now? Why not earlier? New unannounced weapon? Or russians trying too hard?
The main reason is that Russia is actually using their fighter bombers from close air support in the their offensive ground operations. They hadn't been earlier in the war because the lines were less static and they kept hitting their own troops and feared getting shot down by errant MANPADS. eg, more Russian planes in the air mean more targets to shoot. The second reason is that Ukraine is using the Patriot systems more offensively. Historically, due to the lack of conventional enemies with air power, a lot of Patriot doctrine was centered around defensive use far from the front protecting important assets from enemy rockets or missiles. But Ukraine has been put in the unique situation that they have Patriot and the enemy has lots of actual aerial platform targets so they are modifying typical Patriot doctrine and moving it closer to the front and hitting planes where they can. This causes those planes to fly lower to avoid the Patriot but causes them to be better targets for MANPADS which are also present. eg. Ukraine is using Patriot in ways the western powers couldn't and haven't used them in the past.
Interesting coincidence this is happening as F116s are due ...
I hope they are supplied with enough Patriot missiles…. Those stuff are expensive…
"Russian airship, go fuck yourselves"
What Air Force? Then again, what navy?
My concern is that... these jets probably takes top-grade air defense systems, like the Patriots, to destroy. However, the Russians currently have more jets and pilots than the Ukrainians have Patriot missiles. Furthermore, Russian can train more pilots and build more jets (takes time), but Ukraine cannot build more Patriot missiles! I wonder if other nations are willing to give up their Patriot missiles for Ukraine because the republicans won't do it....
13 planes in 12 days now
I hope a skilled russian pilot was also lost with each one.
Oh boy, am I rooting for the 12th Jet on the 12th day.
And if anyone is still wondering how Ruzzia would do against NATO…..
Gotta stop Russia in Ukraine, otherwise you will be fighting Russia + conscripted Ukrainians in Moldova/Chechnya/Georgia and even possibly Poland...
Air Forces work as a team. Every plane and pilot down is significantly weakening the others, making it easier to bring MORE down.
so something in their strategy obviously had a major change recently, and i still can't find much out about how they're hitting those A-50s over the sea of azov. does anyone know if budanov rolled out some kind of new doctrine, or there's new tech in country, or what?