The War in the Ukraine

sheogorath said:

With troops going in the middle of an open field withouth much cover or support, blanketing the entire area is more cost effective than wasting precisión ammo in each of the targets.

If anything, it would have worked better to fire several salvo of cluster Grads.

Click to expand...

Ukraine improvises with aging air defenses to counter Russian missiles​

plawolf said:

Indeed, in addition, this is a near-peer conflict where the other side can and do shoot back.

Typical traditional area fire involves lobbing rounds down range as fast as possible and then packing up and moving on.

The Russians have started to use DJI drones to do forward artillery spotting to vastly increase their effectiveness. But they are finding out to their cost that there is a downside to their current rudimentary organic fire correction methods - that it means Russian artillery are staying put while they try to finesse rounds on target, making themselves much more vulnerable to Ukrainian counter-battery efforts.

Click to expand...

abc123 said:

Of course. It's particulary shameful because the Russians had Krasnopol and Kitolov laser guided ammo for decades now. They had even sold them to China. And now they rely on WW1 tactics.

Click to expand...

abc123 said:

Yes, but to destroy one target with guided rounds you need a few of them, while with unguided you need a crapton of them. Now, guess what's easier for your logistics?

Click to expand...

MarKoz81 said:

View attachment 99949

Click to expand...

MarKoz81 said:

Thank you for your kind words. And since you - and others - liked it so much... here's more!

The comparison of VKS condition at the beginning of the war and after eight months.

Approximate numbers of aircraft delivered to active service with VKS at the end of 2020 best represent the number in available for operations in Ukraine. Peacetime conditions with chronic underfunding characteristic of VKS make it impossible to train pilots on new aircraft within less than a year, even if that pilot has previous experience. While in emergency situation such pilots might be ordered to fly a combat mission their performance will be insufficient and will result in a combat loss in relatively short time.

key:

• W, S, N, C, E - military districts
• type - 90-00s tech, capable of matching 4-4,5 gens, loses to F-22A or F-35A
• type - 80-90s tech, obsolete but functional, matches F-16C but loses to F-15C upg/ EF-2000 Tr 2-3/Rafale F3R
• type - 70-80s tech, obsolete and overmatched, loses to F-16C/Mirage 2000-5.

Aircraft in VKS service - end of 2020:

interceptor:

• 130 MiG-31BM/BSM (W: 24, N: 20, C: 50, E: 36)

air superiority:

• 24 Su-27SM3 (S: 24)
• 42 Su-27SM (W: 18, S: 24)
• 18 Su-33 (N: 18)
• 19 MiG-29K (N: 19)

multirole (air superiority + ground strike)

• 72 Su-35S (W: 36, E: 36)
• 92 Su-30S (W: 32, S: 32, E: 30)

frontal bomber:

• 122 Su-34 (W: 24, S: 36, C: 36, E: 26)
• 66 Su-24M2 (W: 10, S: 31, N: 13, C: 12)

CAS:

• 123 Su-25SM/SM3 (S: 63, C: 12, E: 48)

additionally:

1. 4th and 185th Training centre have a small number of aircraft of each type.
2. A total of 98 Su-35S was delivered to VKS at the end of 2020 but not all were introduced into service
3. The number of MiG-31 in regular service is lower - approx. 80-90, modernization didn't improve capabilities
4. Su-30M2 in VKS service has no meaningful combat potential and is used as training aircraft replacing Su-27UB
5. MiG-29A/SMT and older Su-27P are listed as in service but are in reserve and in unknown technical state
6. Su-34 is technically capable of BVR but only since 2020 pilots included that as part of their training
7. Su-57 was ignored because its current purpose is testing and propaganda

Also multiplier assets should be considered:

AEW:

• 12 A-50M
• 3 A-50U

aerial refueling:

• 18 Il-78M

Now let's correct those figures to reflect better the condition of VKS after eight months of war.

Confirmed losses in 2022:

• 1 MiG-31BM
• 1 Su-35S
• 11 Su-30SM
• 16 Su-34
• 7 Su-24M2
• 19-22 Su-25SM/SM3

Any losses due to wear need to be estimated through comparison with other conflicts but it is plausible to expect 20-30% of aircraft to be unavailable due to long-term maintenance after eight months of continuous use. Combined with combat losses that would reduce the available numbers to approximately:

• 80 MiG-31BM/BSM
• 17-19 Su-27SM3
• 30-34 Su-27SM
• 66-77 Su-35S (+new built in 2021-22)
• 57-65 Su-30SM
• 73-84 Su-34 (+ new built in 2021-22)
• 41-47 Su-24M2
• 73-83 Su-25SM/SM3

This is what VKS has nominally at current moment. Number of available machines due to short-term maintenance (mission capable rate) is difficult to estimate but at 50-60% it will match average MCR of NATO countries so can be ignored.

The number of available pilots is difficult to estimate. Even more so is the number of pilots who have received sufficient training in modern tactics which was impossible before introduction of Su-30SM, Su-35S and Su-34. You can't train modern tactics with a Su-27 using SARH missiles and radar capable of tracking a single target.

This is table of deliveries from 2000 onward with projection to 2030 per 2020 plans:
View attachment 99949

Modern combat training in VKS was impossible before 2012-2013 which means that at first the instructors had to gain experience before the rest of the pilots were trained. This was the main purpose of Syrian campaign. This also means that VKS pilots are not sufficiently trained while in NATO it is standard training since 2000s. This should not be misunderstood as NATO having all pilots properly trained but as NATO having their trained pilots fully familiar with modern tactics while VKS trained pilots are fully familair with Russian/Soviet tactics and depend on individual skill to match the opponent. NATO has therefore a decisive skill overmatch on average.

This explains the abysmal performance of VKS in Ukraine:

1. The pilots have more modern machines (and more capable compared to UAF) but rely on obsolete tactics because they haven't had the time to develop appropriate ones.
2. The logistical system of VKS approaches critical failure because Russia has never learnt to sustain air operations of this intensity and duration and must improvise.
3. Russia has limited ability to pool assets from other districts due to insufficient aerial refueling capability and lack of relevant training.

As for hypothetical conflict with NATO:

1. With approx. 80 Su-35S, 70 Su-30SM and 80 Su-34 for all military districts - VKS has insufficient numbers. UK, Germany or France are not necessary to overmatch VKS. Poland, Czechia and Denmark have ~ 100 fighters. USAF has ~ 100 fighters in Europe and can easily deploy another 100. Finland and Sweden which in this scenario already function as part of NATO due to agreements with aforementioned countries signed in 2022 and EU defense clause have ~ 100 fighters.
2. MiG-31 is a cruise missile hunter and won't be available for other roles in such scenario because of its deployment and tactics.
3. Other aircraft are just targets as they are relative to NATO assets as Iraqi planes in 1991 vs USAF/USN.
4. Russian EW systems on all aircraft have been captured four months ago. Counter tactics are being developed but the initial impression is that Russian EW is underwhelming, and would not be a major problem.
5. Ground air defenses were a problem before February. Now they are well understood to the point where UAF Soviet-era planes are capable of countering them reliably in certain conditions. NATO/USAF knows SEAD. Russia doesn't.
6. Destroying air bases - Russia had neither capacity or skill to destroy Ukrainian airbases similarly to how it had neither for SEAD. They don't have the munitions for anything other than a single strike and most of those will be shot down. NATO assets will operate from western Europe at +1000km distance enabled by USAF/NATO refuelers as per current doctrine.
7. NATO has trained for this since 2014. Russia hasn't and focused on psyops with Wunderwaffen. Didn't work vs Ukraine. Won't work vs NATO.

Hope you liked this fantasy as well! Comment, like and subscribe!

Click to expand...

Virtup said:

I get the general idea of what you're saying and agree with it (not qualified to verify the details), but you must understand that NATO destroying russian assets and helping Ukraine push past Russia's (claimed) new borders will mean the start of an all out nuclear war (a limited one is pure fantasy). I'm simply unable to imagine a scenario where NATO commanders deem getting fully involved worth the risk (+china is a wild card here).

Click to expand...

Sinnavuuty said:

This is not true, one hit is not enough.

In my opinion, this claim of over 80% intercept is a complete lie. I've seen enough videos of SAMs failing, MANPAD interception failures, lack of evidence of large SAM kills by the AFU, plus the continued rhetoric about providing the AFU with all kinds of air defense they can, even people begging for ATACMS. They're even sanctioning Iran for it, by the way, previously everyone believed that all this technology from Iran was all photoshop, but now they're falling into reality.

But a blow from Geran-2 is not enough to destroy an entire unit of electrical generation, if you consider the CEP of Geran-2 and it's not even that accurate, its warhead does small damage to targets that demand much more accuracy and greater explosive power. In fact that this is true, Russia always sends waves of drones to the same place but at different times.

Click to expand...