Russian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Looks reasonable. with Best coverage seems achievable with system placed near the Helipad. Otherwise there is considerable coverage Gap. It can however be addressed by deployment of mast.

Other concern tho, presence of S-300 or S-350 and *static* in the island is a juicy target worth expending several Tochkas or massed suicide drone attacks. The island also seems to be uncomfortably -close- to shore where small suicide UAV like Switchblade can be used.

Also the logistical tail might be bit on the large size, as the vehicles for the system needs fuel for their gas turbine generators or external generator needs to be used.

But yeah Grigorovich might be adequate, especially if it comes with ARH guided 9M317MA. Still tho Surface based platform are limited by radar horizon.

View attachment 88181




Well i'm thinking of some picket system tho. e.g 3-4 A-50U flying in shift for Black Sea region and having fighters in QRA. That's what i think will provide the best coverage against low fliers. Or actually try those things like Altius.

Defeating the munitions tho might be prohibitive for small platforms as it now have to carry the detection device.
Are there actually any Russian naval ships in the Black Sea fleet that can actually do air defence? Those boats should have been under the SAM umbrella of friendly naval warships.
 

Stealthflanker

Senior Member
Registered Member
Are there actually any Russian naval ships in the Black Sea fleet that can actually do air defence? Those boats should have been under the SAM umbrella of friendly naval warships.

Grigorovich could, although capped by Horizon.

Grigorovich Radar coverage.jpg

Ideally she can detect inbound drone with 0.4 sqm RCS from 150 km. Engagement range with Shtil tho are only about 65-70 km. She might not be in the right place when the attack occurs.

By the time she has them in crosshair, the damage was already done.
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
2 frigates and (to a certain degree) one missile corvette still on trials.
One certain cruiser was the only area defense asset.

Should be three frigates plus some missile corvettes.

I wonder what is the future of India's Talwar 2 projects. If they are not going through with it, Russia will have to take them over.
 

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
I think one of the Admiral Grigorovich frigates is in the Mediterranean. So that one cannot be used.
Only two in the Black Sea.
 

pmc

Major
Registered Member
The TB-2 flies at 7 km altitude and its glide munitions can reach 14 km. So you need proper area air defense to reach it. Anti-air kamikaze drones seem like the most compact solution. Though the existing ones are too slow for the TB-2. Pantsir and Tor-M2 can barely reach it. China's FM-3000 or Israel's Iron Dome seem like the best solutions. They have good enough kinematics and they are small.
generally Russian airdefense systems are old for this size of campaign against all kind of threats when they want to have both tactical and strategic SAMs over vast swath of area. It is not Just Belarus/Russia but inside Ukraine that need protection. than you have this big Crimean bridge.
Only S350, BUK-M3 and Pantsir SM can easily deal with it but they are few.
There is Pantsir M for naval that just entering on Corvettes. The export version can engage 0.3m to 2m height engagement. this give idea antiship missiles can go that low or autonomous boats.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
"Drones have a low radar cross-section and their detection range is often shorter than the operational range of their weaponry. The Pantsir's operational range has been extended and the drones are identified quite clearly in the combat area", Murakhovsky said.
However, some drones are so small and equipped with electric motors that they can't actually be detected by infrared or radar signatures, Murakhovsky said.

"The use of optoelectronic devices in new air defense systems should be based not only on thermal but also optical contrast, for example", he said. However, he warned, the new air defense system should not be seen as a panacea, he stressed.
"The counter-drone move implies creating multi-layered air defenses integrated with electronic warfare systems. It should also be borne in mind, even a sizable drone is still a very cheap item compared to airplanes and, of course, the focus should be on cutting the cost of the surface-to-air missiles used for such low-cost aerial vehicles. This work has been carried out and resulted in the manufacture of inexpensive small size missiles for another Russian air defense system called Tor", he concluded.
 

Anlsvrthng

Captain
Registered Member
So you are saying that it wasn't worth it to destroy 2 Russian Navy patrol boats for the cost of 2 micro missiles and some hours of TB2 flight? Its not like they wasted a lot of time, the targetting was provided to them by NATO and presumably Ukraine had already stationed some TB2 in S.Ukraine

What could be the expected lifetime of a TB2? Five days?
That mission cost to the Ukrainan army at least one drone statistically.
Time that can't be spent on frontline.


How big is the disadvantage of the Ukrainan military compared to the Russian ?

Using a weapon to make FB like vintory decrease the frontline capabilities.

Destroying two patrol boat looks well on video means less weapon system left where it needed.

Full war means you need to push everything for strategical fights. Assets that can't be used in frontline could be wasted somewhere else.

Means either :
1. Ukrainans wants to get FB likes, doesn't has sense how to fight war, and controled by mindless politicians
2. the TB2 drone useless on places where its matter.
 

sheogorath

Major
Registered Member
Means either :
1. Ukrainans wants to get FB likes, doesn't has sense how to fight war, and controled by mindless politicians

It makes sense in the context of Ukraine waging a war of attrition on behalf of the US to bleed Russia out, with no intentions of mounting counter offensives or winning at all.

Just hoping the US sticks around long enough to make the war unaffordable for Russia. Things might change if the Republicans get a hold of the US government again, though.
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
It makes sense in the context of Ukraine waging a war of attrition on behalf of the US to bleed Russia out, with no intentions of mounting counter offensives or winning at all.

Just hoping the US sticks around long enough to make the war unaffordable for Russia. Things might change if the Republicans get a hold of the US government again, though.

Does not make sense at all, because Ukraine is bleeding out at a far faster rate than Russia. Ukraine has its gdp effectively halved by the invasion, its electrical and transportation infrastructure is severely damaged if not destroyed in many places and unable to import and export by sea due to the blockade and effective loss of ports. If Ukraine losses the south its economically crippled for life, being effectively land locked, and the south is heavy Russian speaking. A lot of Ukrainian income comes from the passage of Russian gas and oil through pipelines. All the refugees mean a significant loss of Ukrainian labor to man their factories.

It does not make sense at all because it's Ukrainian lives that are being destroyed in a far faster rate and they are of all people cannot afford a long term war that will destroy their country. The country isn't just Europe's bread basket, it's also it's basket case. Years of war will reduce the country from third world status to an Afghanistan-Syria level of status.

Not to mention the global recession that's coming.
 

sheogorath

Major
Registered Member
Does not make sense at all, because Ukraine is bleeding out at a far faster rate than Russia.

It makes sense in the context of Ukraine doing the US's biding but we also don't what the US promised the Ukranian leadership in exchange for "sacrificing" the country, whether it is realistic at all, or if the US intends to keep its word if they suceed or fail.

At this point, it is obvious Ukraine leadership doesn't really care about the country or its people all that much so whatever keeps them going could be promises of money or even just good ol' narcisism.

The folly of it all though, is that the US will throw them under the bus if a better deal shows up elsewhere.
 
Top