The War in the Ukraine

memfisa

Junior Member
Registered Member
One thing I don't understand is, why aren't the Ukrainians using their NATO weapons to attack Russian mainland? The whole point of war is to do what your enemy doesn't want to do. They now have the capability to do so thanks to the NATO longer range GMLRS. Ukrainians consider Donetsk to be their own country, it seems retarded to be shelling what you consider your own territory.

If they do, one of two things happen. Either Russia retaliates by attacking a NATO base in Poland which leads to article 5 being triggered, congratulations Ukraine actually has a chance of winning the war.

Or Russia does nothing which is a win as it'll make Russia look weak. It'll hurt Russian domestic opinion much more than anything done so far.

I know Americans have made the Ukrainians pinky promise not to use them against Russia, but it's easier to get forgiveness than permission. Even if the government gets pissed, just make a few more fake rape/dead baby videos to get the public back on board.

Seems to be a much better plan than the current one which is to create memes on the internet while sending as many Ukrainians as possible into continuous artillery bombardment.
Russia has a vast array of forces it could unleash on Ukraine, but for whatever idiotic reason they have decided to use this small piecemeal force and constant artillery barrage to methodically grind down the UAF skilled soldiers, which it has been doing very effectively.

It has some very nasty non nuclear weapons that i have yet to see being used, some others which have been used very rarely, and it has an absolute butt load of guided missiles with very potent warheads left over from the Cold War with which it could completely cripple the entire country of Ukraine in terms of its infrastructure, to its economy and supply chains, all the way to political annihilation. It has a whole army sitting in Belarus on vacation or something who knows what they are doing, and could open several new large scale operations on different fronts and launch a massive invasion, one which the current UAF would stand zero chance of defending in its current exhausted form. An actual long term siege of Kiev would be hard to deal with. There would be casualties incurred, these are called expected losses, but the vast majority of them will be Ukrainians sent to be slaughtered.

Don't forget small tactical nukes which Russian brass believe are the direction for de-escalation during war. They believe there would be manageable blow back in using these weapons, and i honestly believe they are correct in their calculation.

Multiple Russian officials have said if western long range weapons are used on Russian territory, they will escalate and so far they haven't bluffed. The only questions are what of those above would they escalate with and where? Attacking Russian territory with these weapons also has the consequence of further galvanizing Russian people behind Putin, by proving everything him and his officials have been saying as correct, exactly the opposite of what you are saying it would do. Do you think someone from Belgorod region is saying Russia should surrender, or demanding Russia crush the country responsible for killing their friends and family? Those attacks which were already done pushed people behind Putin even more.

We always try to use the logic of our own nations and our own experiences and apply them to the way average Russians think, that's our biggest error and why we are so easily fooled by our own liars in chiefs and our state controlled MSM. We have not experienced the suffering Russians have in the last century alone, and we have never experienced a leader who dragged our people and our nation out of ashes and rebuilt it from nothing. Not only that, they didnt erase the suffering and the great achievements from the history they teach their children.
 

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
Yeah, the Russians are screwed because their troops will be stuck on the wrong side of the Dneiper unable to be reinforced while being chewed up by a massive Ukrainian counter-offensive in the Kherson region.
Unless the "massive" counter offensive gets obliterated by an FOAB dropped by a Tu-160. That would mean that Russia's done playing with its food.
The Ukrainians are steadily striking the area- destroying the bridge, the anti-aircraft radar, shooting down planes. Degrading Russian capabilities.
Degrading the tip of the iceberg of Russia's capabilities while the real capabilites haven't even come out yet.
So if they suffer a humiliating and sweeping loss in Kherson they can still claim it in a "territorial dispute" and offer to drop the claim later on in exchange for other concessions.
Or they can drop nothing and send in the real weapons to lay waste to Ukraine and take what's left.
If I were Russia, I would have to annex the area pretty quickly so that an attack on the region is seen as an attack on the Russian Federation itself.
Also, the Russian Federation itself being attacked would allow reserves to be deployed there, and would help justify a partial or general mobilization if that option was wanted. There are already many in the region who have been given Russian passports, so they are officially Russian citizens already.
What is this? Legal advice? LOL There is no law when it comes to use of force. Russia can summon its real strength whenever it chooses regardless of citizenship, disput status, annexation, etc... Who would think that legal advice is what's needed here?? LOL
 

Stealthflanker

Senior Member
Registered Member
Finally let's not forget something even more important: once F-16s and F-15s are "officially in service of the Ukrainian Air Force" the line of distinction between a UAF and non-UAF aircraft firing AIM-120s from within Ukrainian airspace is no longer clear. Most importantly Russia will not be able to meaningfully recognize and communicate the difference and because of the current escalation of their own rhetoric their claims will be rejected.

So Russian AEW cannot detect F-15 and F-16 operating from Ukrainian Runaways ?

Considering how far that Ukranian Tu-141 made it into NATO territory before crashing with a bomb, that'd be good question. And the drone didn't have any stealthy features to begin with.

It actually have some. If you know flateric from secretprojects, he is a legit Tupolev JSC man. He said that Tu-141 do have some stealth features and radar absorber treatment.

My modeling suggest 0.23 sqm. But that assumes no treatment, with treatment it can actually be lower maybe 0.1 sqm or less in 3 GHz frequency where NATO AEW operates
 

BoraTas

Major
Registered Member
Air campaign during the Russian invasion of Ukraine - Russian Air Force

I found no indication that the technical quality of Russian aircraft is affecting the performance of RuAF in the conflict. That doesn't mean that claims about their capability are warranted - they are definitely not, and this war offers some proof that I won't get into now - but it means that they should perform significantly better than they have. Their lackluster performance is due to RuAF personnel incompetence which can only explained by complete institutional collapse of the RuAF compared to the Soviet predecessor.

Being Polish I know the actual level of performance of Soviet /Warsaw Pact air forces and while there were important differences in doctrine which led to each side having their advantage both NATO and WP retained a similarly purpose-driven level of competence. That competence included not only pilots but also ground crews and institutional framework. It existed despite the many problems plaguing WP military culture. RuAF can best be described as "SovietAF LARPers" and let's leave it at that.

The material issues like lack of sufficient number of PGMs that are often brought up by western analysts should not play a part , especially if you consider that Russia is waging it's "Desert Storm" over Ukraine in a very literal sense of the word. Therefore methods of Desert Storm - which involved mass use of unguided munitions - should prevail and bring comparable results. They haven't because Russia lacked the cultural/institutional component which made US aviation effective.

As for using Desert Storm as literal comparison - confusion might arise from conflating the daring raids resembling the invasion of Iraq in 2003 from the first phase of Russian invasion. But in my opinion the correct view to understand this conflict is to see it as Desert Storm against more competent Iraqi ground defenses with the first half (the dynamic part) of Iraqi Freedom overlaid on top of it.

Russia attempted these two very different operations simultaneously, but with absolutely insufficient numbers in air power. That alone is an interesting problem indicating that they paid too much attention to the "shock and awe" approach of Iraqi Freedom and not enough to the grinding material consequences of combined Iran-Iraq war, Desert Storm and Northern/Southern Watch (no fly zone) which makes it a period of 20 years of intense warfare. In other words they thought the effects of 2003 invasion were due to the merits of the forces and tactics used therein rather than due to the consequences of long-term exhaustion of Iraq as a state. Definitely the 8 years of limited warfare that Ukraine waged since 2014 can't be compared to what Iraq went through and I fail to see how they could be conflated.

Another major error seems to be the assumption that US forces in 1991 were numerous because Iraqi forces were numerous and completely ignores the basic mathematics of target, sortie and payload numbers. This in particular is a display of unbelievable incompetence which assumed no backup plan for when the initial psychological shock of the first 1-2 days fails to achieve a political effect and Ukraine consolidates its defenses. This is a level of incompetence that suggests a mental dysfunction at work at the highest levels of Russian political and military authorities. Because this is the only explanation of blatant rejection of the lessons of the many failures of American military in the last 20 years.

The war also revealed some very fundamental limitations arising from the structure of Russian military - namely the role and size of Military Districts. This is a particularly interesting question as it brings attention to Chinese military reform which established Theater Commands - there are important lessons to be drawn from Russian errors. Russia has very limited air force that is not just spread geographically but also isolated due to lack of sufficient infrastructure and support services (aerial refueling).

For example Russia's primary tactical bomber force (Su-24M and Su-34) is physically split between Western, Southern, Central and Eastern districts and any institutional inertia (not to mention corruption) makes it difficult to re-integrate assets while preserving the structure. The USAF has Air Combat Command with centralized assets leaving theater commands with multi-role planes. This meant that Russian tactical bombers couldn't be used in overwhelming numbers because institutional structure kept control and supply separate. Moreover there was no indication that the command of the invasion was handled by an unified command structure. Instead it very much seemed that all the commands pitched in with notional oversight from politically-nominated commanders at the top level. There is no evidence that air forces of western and southern districts coordinated together. That split the ~60 Su-34 at their disposal while separation of districts prevented the most efficient use of all ~120 Su-34s. Similarly Tu-22M3s were not used to the best of their capacity which in comparison to how B-52s were used in Desert Storm (low-altitude bombing runs) suggests that the crews are not trained sufficiently as Long Range Aviation does participate in the operation. These two types alone would mean 150 bombers capable of delivering massed strikes at targets compared to the 40 at best that were used in the initial phase.

There are also consequences in training and use resulting from assets being handed over to formations. For example Naval Aviation has some limited number of warplanes to augment limited AAW of the navy (much like PLANAF did in the past) but that disrupts Air Force planning. If integration is so important then why the Air Force has all the helicopters? The coordination between Ground Force and even VDV and the helos leaves much to be desired, especially compared to American standards, and the only reason is politically motivated shift of helicopters to RuAF.

In terms of tactical shortcomings I see three main ones:

1. Lack of aerial refueling capacity. Russia has only approx. 18 Il-78 tankers but all of them in the Long Range Aviation. This meant that both district commands had no tankers of their own which could be used to practice and develop missions. This also means that no tankers are available to assist in ongoing operations. During Desert Storm most of CAP/DCA was performed by a total of 72 F-15C loitering at high altitudes for 4 to 8 hours with support of large tanker fleet. USN F-14s provided assistance over the Gulf but they were only an auxiliary force. Optimizing mission duration ad profile s significantly reduced the wear of the aircraft and crews (F-15s lost only about 10% of initial readiness at the end of the war) and allowed USAF to maintain continuous air supremacy over the region. Russian Su-35s should be able to do the same but they face two fundamental constraints - lack of spare fuel tanks and lack of tankers supporting the CAP. Lack of fuel means that they can't engage in more aggressive tactics and have to remain in safe Russian airspace which opens Ukrainian airspace to operations by UAF. Lack of fuel means that tactical bombers runs carry reduced payload which combined with fragmentation of assets means multiple low-payload runs that stress the aircraft as save for high-g maneuvering landing and takeoff are the most problematic elements of a mission for life of the plane. Lack of fuel means that enemy forces can "wait out" RuAF knowing very well the time limit on station.

2. Lack of dedicated SEAD capability. Considering that Ukraine is not NATO and follows a Soviet model it was stunningly incompetent for RuAF to never develop even a single unit to training SEAD for which they would have all the resources. That resulted in UA air defenses being operational throughout the entirety of the conflict. At no point during the invasion was there a region where RuAF would succeed in suppressing UA air defenses even temporarily. Destroyed lauchers, radars or batteries do not equal suppression of air defenses as SEAD can (in theory) be achieved with no destroyed enemy SAMs.

3. Lack of coordination between assets. While we have evidence that Ka-52/Mi-28 and Su-25 often do work in tandem (as they should) I haven't seen instances of Flankers and Fullbacks coordinating air-to-air and air-to-ground strikes. Fullbacks don't coordinate among themselves either - Su-34s don't fly in pairs where one aircraft with EW pods performs ECM while the other (or more) hunts for targets.

Note that I did not include lack of situational awareness as a major issue because it is mostly limited by the lack of aerial refueling. While Russia has insufficient number of AEW planes it has sufficient A-50s for operation in Ukraine as long as they can stay in the air - which they can't because of lack of refueling and potential threat of a single S-300 (missed by non-existent SEAD) shooting it down.
Great writing. Less than expected performance is a historical characteristic of Russian Air Forces. It is a 100+ year old phenomenon only exception likely being the late-cold war era. I don't know how they could fix it without firing everyone first. Institutional practices are hard to change once established since they are contagious.
 

Abominable

Major
Registered Member
I like to think that there are still people visiting this thread who want a more constructive take on the conflict and are dissatisfied with the condition of this thread even if they happen to agree with the political bias. I acknowledge that I might be wrong about that. Certainly the discussion in portions of SDF degenerated to levels that I can not tolerate and participate in with good faith. But that's something I won't know unless I test the waters.
I'm not sure wikipedia is much better than Oryx. I mean, at least they aren't using twitter posts as evidence like Oryx does, but their standards for evidence is still poor. Both Ukraine and Russia are making wild claims for numbers of planes shot down, but there's not been many with photographic evidence.

Comparing it to Desert Storm or Kosovo is apples and oranges. Neither Iraq or Serbia had the luxury of 24/7 AWACS coverage of the entire air theatre that couldn't be shot down. SAM sites had to expose their positions whenever they were searching for enemy aircraft. I remember this was mitigated with decoy microwave emitters, but it's completely different to what Russia is dealing with.

Not sure how you came to the conclusion Russia don't train for SEAD. Isn't that what 90% of strike aircraft training is all about, what else do you think they are training for?

To me, Russia seemed content to knock out Ukraine's long distance SAM capability, and then rely on VVS for CAS close to front lines. The former was achieved very early on in the war with ballistic and cruise missiles, and the VVS are largely operating with impunity on the front lines.

I don't think it's the right strategy, it's the fighting with your hands tied behind your back strategy Russians seem
keen on. I don't think America would have allowed Russia to start openly arming Afghanistan or Iraq in the middle of those wars, let alone give them direct intelligence. But then again what do I know.
 

Abominable

Major
Registered Member
Russia has a vast array of forces it could unleash on Ukraine, but for whatever idiotic reason they have decided to use this small piecemeal force and constant artillery barrage to methodically grind down the UAF skilled soldiers, which it has been doing very effectively.

It has some very nasty non nuclear weapons that i have yet to see being used, some others which have been used very rarely, and it has an absolute butt load of guided missiles with very potent warheads left over from the Cold War with which it could completely cripple the entire country of Ukraine in terms of its infrastructure, to its economy and supply chains, all the way to political annihilation. It has a whole army sitting in Belarus on vacation or something who knows what they are doing, and could open several new large scale operations on different fronts and launch a massive invasion, one which the current UAF would stand zero chance of defending in its current exhausted form. An actual long term siege of Kiev would be hard to deal with. There would be casualties incurred, these are called expected losses, but the vast majority of them will be Ukrainians sent to be slaughtered.

Don't forget small tactical nukes which Russian brass believe are the direction for de-escalation during war. They believe there would be manageable blow back in using these weapons, and i honestly believe they are correct in their calculation.

Multiple Russian officials have said if western long range weapons are used on Russian territory, they will escalate and so far they haven't bluffed. The only questions are what of those above would they escalate with and where? Attacking Russian territory with these weapons also has the consequence of further galvanizing Russian people behind Putin, by proving everything him and his officials have been saying as correct, exactly the opposite of what you are saying it would do. Do you think someone from Belgorod region is saying Russia should surrender, or demanding Russia crush the country responsible for killing their friends and family? Those attacks which were already done pushed people behind Putin even more.

We always try to use the logic of our own nations and our own experiences and apply them to the way average Russians think, that's our biggest error and why we are so easily fooled by our own liars in chiefs and our state controlled MSM. We have not experienced the suffering Russians have in the last century alone, and we have never experienced a leader who dragged our people and our nation out of ashes and rebuilt it from nothing. Not only that, they didnt erase the suffering and the great achievements from the history they teach their children.
I don't think there's many other platforms the Russians used besides nukes.

Russia isn't going to nuke the Ukraine unless its got no other option. There are 300,000 NATO troops currently deployed in various European countries that would be a much juicer target.

Tactical nukes are very "dirty" and will lead to a lot of radioactive fallout. Given Russia is likely planning on annexing a lot of the Ukraine I don't think it would be very wise, it would be sh!tting on your own doorstep.
 

sheogorath

Major
Registered Member
In my view this is used as a cover for mercenary pilots flying the aircraft while UAF airmen will be involved to legitimize it. I
That would be an escalation and pretty much a declaration of war by NATO itself. This isn't the 1950's were delay in many communication aspects would lend themselves to plausible deniability.

The simple fact there is an F-16 or F-15 flying within Ukranian airspace, unless NATO has declared the planes as theirs which again means NATO's direct involvement in the conflict which would render the whole "plausible deniability" moot, it would automatically label then an enemy plane.
which is the most important thing for any offensive operation
You'd think the most important thing for an offesive operation would be to have the equipment and manpower to do it in the first place.

And they don't. Ukraine's strategy revolves around throwing almost everything against the russians right away for twitter likes and reddit upvotes.


Even if F-15s are shot down over Ukrainian airspace it will be a positive tradeoff if Russian bombers are shot down in turn and it doesn't have to come to that since ARH missiles that F-15s can use to great effect will simply neutralize the efficiency of ground strike missions.
This revolves on the unlikely notion Ukraine will receive F-15's flown by NATO pilots and that they somehow are inmune to Russian air defenses which will most likely be buffed accordingly.

once F-16s and F-15s are "officially in service of the Ukrainian Air Force" the line of distinction between a UAF and non-UAF aircraft firing AIM-120s from within Ukrainian airspace is no longer clear.

As said above, the distinction will still be pretty clear, unless NATO declares the planes as theirs, opening a new can of worms for this war; so Russia can safely assume they are Ukranian jets and who pilots them is largely irrelevant, just as Russia has no problem shelling poles, americans, brits, canadians, swedes or whomever is on the other side of the contact line.


A lot of your analysis revolves on the unlikely premise that Ukraine will indeed receive F-15's and F-16's, that somehow NATO will be able to pull a "maskirovka" with them and their pilots in the 21st century, that such a thing won't be seen as an escalation where NATO can't call Art 5, and that Russia, somehow can't or won't escalate accordingly.

Basically, in your analysis, the russians are morons who won't see it comming and won't react at all to any of it either, and will try to go about things as business as usual. That the Ukranians are strategic geniuses which will be able to pull all of this off and that the rest of NATO, outside of the US serfs of the balts and poles, will be ok with all of it.

Needless to point out that that's wishful thinking at best.
 
Last edited:

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
Zelensky's wife coming to the US to make a speech in congress to ask for weapons. Zelensky's wife = Chiang Kai Shaik's wife. Shameful.
That is not an appropriate comparison.

Chiang Kai Shaik's wife, Song Meiling visited US several times before 1943 to lobby for China's war effort against Japan. The war is an effort of all Chinese people, be it on the side of ROC government or Communists. There is no controversial among the Chinese.
 

NukedOne

New Member
Registered Member
Idea of using F-22 and F-35 as ultra-long range missile trucks which will go unnoticed could've been plausible, but there is one little technical difficulty. While those planes are stealthy enough to short wave radars used by SAMs and fighter planes for targetting and won't be visible, they are perfectly visible on long wave radars. Those cannot be used to guide missiles, but perfectly fine to locate 'stealthy' planes. And once Russian A-50 sees a plane on long wave radar but finds nothing on short-wave radar - it would instantly assume stealth planes are involved - and this means direct involvement of NATO.
This will trigger immeadiate responce, like attacks on bases in Poland and on AWACS planes nearby or maybe something else.
 
Top