Ukrainian War Developments

Weaasel said:

The Ukrainians are denying the attack on Belgorod, there are those claiming that it is a false flag. Russia suggests it might suspend peace talks.

Click to expand...

LOL. I'll give the Ukrainians one thing, they are good at trolling.

Mohsin77 said:

You're assuming AWACS can easily detect gunships. They can't.

The most infamous example of this is the 1994 friendly-fire incident. USAF F-15s splashed their own Blackhawks over Iraq, when AWACS couldn't detect them. The F-15 pilots picked them up on their own radar but couldn't identify the bogeys. So they twice asked AWACS if they were friendly. AWACS controllers even knew there were supposed to be Blackhawks in the area, but couldn't detect them, so the pilots shot them down.

So the cause of this failure isn't that Russia lacked enough AWACS coverage here.

Click to expand...

For modern AEW&C systems in service or developed since the new milennium, the ability to track low flying, slow moving targets (including helicopters) is very much now a standard feature and normal capability. But even those modern systems are at the mercy of limitations imposed by terrain.

The Blackhawk shootdown did have the E-3 capable of maintaining radar tracks on the Blackhawks for long parts of the entire episode, the periods where they were unable to consistently track the Blackhawks was due to terrain/topography blocking the line of sight of the radar.


In this Ukrainian raid, the effectiveness of AWACS (if Russia had any airborne at the time) would have been largely dependent on the terrain -- but I do not think it is anywhere near similar to northern Iraq where the 1994 blackhawk shootdown happened.

Are people seriously suggesting Mi-24s can't be detected by a combination of air patrols, ground based radar and AWACS in a time of war? The Americans saw gaps in Russian air defence and got the Ukrainians to launch this attack. There's only one reason for this, Russian incompetence.

tphuang said:

AWACS technology has improved a lot since that time. If the latest KJ-500 can narrow beam F35s from over 100 km out and cannot spot Mi-24s at much shorter range, I would be shocked.

I also would not just advocate AWACS, Russians here need generally more ISR assets. Something like WZ-7 over the top would help Russia immensely.

Click to expand...

But are Russian A50s up to KJ500 standards?

Bltizo said:

For modern AEW&C systems in service or developed since the new milennium, the ability to track low flying, slow moving targets (including helicopters) is very much now a standard feature and normal capability. But even those modern systems are at the mercy of limitations imposed by terrain.

The Blackhawk shootdown did have the E-3 capable of maintaining radar tracks on the Blackhawks for long parts of the entire episode, the periods where they were unable to consistently track the Blackhawks was due to terrain/topography blocking the line of sight of the radar.


In this Ukrainian raid, the effectiveness of AWACS (if Russia had any airborne at the time) would have been largely dependent on the terrain -- but I do not think it is anywhere near similar to northern Iraq where the 1994 blackhawk shootdown happened.

Click to expand...

That's also true, even with proper optimization, terrain is a major factor with gunships. That's why I love gunships : )

plawolf said:

But are Russian A50s up to KJ500 standards?

Click to expand...

Well, what's the standards ? can't really make comparisons when technical specifications for both are not available.

Has been officially confirmed that Izyum has been taken

Regarding Belgorod Gunship raid

Weaasel said:

Nice April Fool's Day...

Click to expand...

Care to explain?


I have the feeling more recently certain members refuse to argue in case they don't agree but instantly mock certain posts they don't like or disagree or even report them!

Guys ... that's the typical issue in/on any forum, it is an exchange and in case one member is only relying on "Western media" it is more than understandable it contradicts, what "Russian sources" say. But to find out, who is spreading lies, who is being fooled by a false claim and who is correct, that's the important part and IMO duty of a forum like this.

Only relying on one side and bashing the other, is only plain stupid! As such, please argue and in case you don't like a certain post, please DO NOT report it as trolling unless it does not violate any rules.

Overbom said:

An addition of extra 50-80k troops to the Donbass front would have finished the job there already. Instead, Russia is playing games with limited troops deployed.

Only a strategic genius such as Putin would decide to unnecessarily prolong a war. He treats war like its a game and not like it is a matter of life or death (that's how all wars should be treated).

If Sun Tzu was alive today he would be banging his head to the wall watching this stupidity.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Russia is going nuclear against NATO anyways, so there is zero excuse to not send troop reinforcements into Russia. Does Russia only have 15-20% of it's armed forces in Ukraine? I don't believe "budget" is excuse, it's actually more costly to drag out the conflict longer in attrition than ending it quickly with a larger force. Putin somewhat wants to win this in a 'civilized' manner to reduce civilian causalities, with minimal Russian forces, in a quick timetable. This is an hubristic misjudgement. It needs more troops/equipments and concentrate it against one area, rinse and repeat until negotiated settlement.

Weaasel said:

What do you mean that the Americans do not have a foothold in the Old World?

Click to expand...

Exactly!! Mr. 'Sun Tzu's descendant' is epically wrong about everything, hence my quip. US obviously has a foothold everywhere in Old World! Smh...

Weaasel said:

Abominable, you keep on uttering this thoroughly absolutist and even ridiculous view when that isn't at all realistic and when much can be gained even without the absolute conquest of Ukraine.

The damage done to Russia's military reputation is due to those who thought that Ukraine wouldn't put up a fight and as such they did not approach with the necessary large amount of caution and deliberateness that they did. Otherwise, they wouldn't have rushed on Kiev so quickly and suffered such heavy casualties in the North.

Do you listen to yourself and think of what would be necessary for the absolute conquest of Ukraine?

Click to expand...

I personally think given the vast economic costs endure, IF total conquest not feasible, then at very minimum, Russia must atleast convert conquered territories in south and east into 'Novorussiya confederation' or Kherson People's Republic with a pro-Kremlin puppet and have them invite Russian peacekeepers. Otherwise, this campaign is a waste of time, lives, and money.

Phead128 said:

.... Otherwise, this campaign is a waste of time, lives, and money.

Click to expand...

Just a personnel opinion: It is in fact nothing but a huge waste of time, lives, and money!