OT: Putin's War in Ukraine

[Vespers War]

Originally Posted by kcdusk

Something that surprises me is. With all the economic sanctions in place against Russia, how is it that they are able to continue to fund the war - but the USA looks to be reducing their spend?

Its almost as if Russia is winning the economic war as well as the war on the ground, which isn't what i expected.

Deficit spending. Their federal budget went from a 2022 surplus of 1.4 trillion rubles to a 2023 deficit of 2.9 trillion rubles. The forecast 2024 deficit is 1.6 trillion rubles, but that forecast includes selling oil for ~20% more than the $60/bbl cap that's been placed on Ural crude via sanctions.

[kato13]

Air Force: Ukraine shoots down another Russian A-50 aircraft over Azov Sea

AGAIN!??????


Incredibly, The Russian Air Force Has Lost Another Rare A-50 Radar Plane

This is reminding me of "Debt of Honor" with the comment about the Japanese AEW-767s. "first about how invincible they were, and more recently about how there were only a few left."


Maybe when the F-16s are finally active (with well trained pilots) they will be able to do better that we all expected.

[Ursus Maior]

Yes, again and it could have been an upgraded A-50U, though that's neither confirmed nor is the exact method of the shoot-down known. What we know is that it happened in the Krasnodar region, which is south of Rostov on the Don and quite far away from the front lines. So we can rule out any of the large premium AA missile systems Ukraine has. Logic follows that infiltrated sabotage/commando type units with drones and or MANPADs are most likely as method for the destruction of this second or third A-50 Russia has now lost. One A-50 was previously shot down and another one earlier possibly sabotaged on ground by an explosive drone attack.

To put it mildly: Russia is losing the war on controlling the skies as it keeps losing data collection, distribution and early-warning methods. Their C³ISTAR capabilites are really thin now, although EW planes with some C²ISTAR capabilites remain. It's unknown how many servicable and especially fly-worthy A-50 remain in Russian service. Before the war nine or twelve A-50 were in service, but their status was unknown in detail.

The successor to the A-50, the A-100, has faced multiple delays in its program and has yet to be introduced into service. This is allegedly planned for this year. However, losing two experienced crews within two months will certainly degrade the Russian AEW&C capabilites in total. This would certainly benefit any military operation against Russia in the foreseeable future.

[Heffe]

Originally Posted by Ursus Maior

Yes, again and it could have been an upgraded A-50U, though that's neither confirmed nor is the exact method of the shoot-down known. What we know is that it happened in the Krasnodar region, which is south of Rostov on the Don and quite far away from the front lines. So we can rule out any of the large premium AA missile systems Ukraine has. Logic follows that infiltrated sabotage/commando type units with drones and or MANPADs are most likely as method for the destruction of this second or third A-50 Russia has now lost. One A-50 was previously shot down and another one earlier possibly sabotaged on ground by an explosive drone attack.

To put it mildly: Russia is losing the war on controlling the skies as it keeps losing data collection, distribution and early-warning methods. Their C³ISTAR capabilites are really thin now, although EW planes with some C²ISTAR capabilites remain. It's unknown how many servicable and especially fly-worthy A-50 remain in Russian service. Before the war nine or twelve A-50 were in service, but their status was unknown in detail.

The successor to the A-50, the A-100, has faced multiple delays in its program and has yet to be introduced into service. This is allegedly planned for this year. However, losing two experienced crews within two months will certainly degrade the Russian AEW&C capabilites in total. This would certainly benefit any military operation against Russia in the foreseeable future.

I suppose it depends on whether or not you want to believe the Ukrainian MOD, but they're apparently claiming it was an S-200 that shot down the most recent A-50.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidax...h=51f6c0bc4743

This would make sense, at least in my mind, as the S-200 has some missiles with a longer range than the Patriot missiles provided to Ukraine thus far.

[Vespers War]

This may also have been a bit of a trap by the Ukrainian forces. They retired the S-200 in 2013, and brought it back during the current conflict with modifications (probably including an improved seeker) to act as a surface-to-surface missile. The speculation I've seen is that the A-50 called it in as an S-200 fired as an SSM, not realizing they were the target for an S-200 SAM.

The S-200 has to make some sacrifices for that range - it's an 8-tonne missile where PAC-2 is 0.9 tonnes and PAC-3 is around 0.3 tonnes, so an entire Patriot TEL with sixteen PAC-3 is only a little more than half the mass of a single S-200. This leads to a situation where its launchers are portable but not mobile; that is they can be transported by vehicles, but they can't move themselves and the set-up and teardown are long by modern standards. This was a smart use of a system that's not very flexible by (assuming the stories are correct) taking advantage of complacency on the other side, where they saw what they expected to see rather than what was actually happening.

[Ursus Maior]

Originally Posted by Heffe

I suppose it depends on whether or not you want to believe the Ukrainian MOD, but they're apparently claiming it was an S-200 that shot down the most recent A-50.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidax...h=51f6c0bc4743

This would make sense, at least in my mind, as the S-200 has some missiles with a longer range than the Patriot missiles provided to Ukraine thus far.

Yes, they seem to claim that's what happened. From what I read by the more credible experts, this seems to be credible, too. I had not thought of that, since the system had been retired 2013 and while it was reactivated some time ago, I think Ukrainian S-200 never possessed the range necessary for such an intercept.

However, there were variants since the 1970s that could reach out to 300 km, namely the S-200M Vega-M (NATO code SA-5b) as well as S-200D "Dubna" (SA-5c). I don't know, if Ukraine purchased or otherwise obtained any of these improved missiles or if an indigenous improvement was developed and deployed. If the former is the case, Bulgaria could be a donor. As a neighboring country with a donor history, it's a likely candidate, but I don't have any knowledge of their inventory.

Another option would be Poland with their indigenous S-200C "Vega" variant. Though the original Soviet SA-200V "Vega" (NATO code SA-5b) could only reach out to 250 km, the Polish variant might be able to surpass this.

[Heffe]

I've been seeing some analysis on the recent batch of Russian planes going down. The gist seems to suggest the following:

• Russia's been making heavy use of glide bombs lately, which they largely credit with their recent success in Avdiivka. These glide bombs can only be dropped currently from Su-34s and Su-35s, and require those planes to increase altitude up to a few thousand meters, during which time they're vulnerable to AA.
• While the A50 was shot down allegedly using an S200 missile variant, those missiles aren't really suitable for hitting fighters at extended range due to lack of maneuverability.
• Germany recently delivered on a second MIM-104 system in December with accompanying advanced radar system. The first one of these systems is allegedly stationed outside Kiev, while the second seems a good candidate for the types of hits being delivered over the last month. My understanding is that Ukraine is up to at least 4 batteries with 6 launchers total (2 systems from the US, 2 systems from Germany now, and 2 launchers from the Dutch).

[Vespers War]

Originally Posted by Heffe

I've been seeing some analysis on the recent batch of Russian planes going down. The gist seems to suggest the following:

• Russia's been making heavy use of glide bombs lately, which they largely credit with their recent success in Avdiivka. These glide bombs can only be dropped currently from Su-34s and Su-35s, and require those planes to increase altitude up to a few thousand meters, during which time they're vulnerable to AA.
• While the A50 was shot down allegedly using an S200 missile variant, those missiles aren't really suitable for hitting fighters at extended range due to lack of maneuverability.
• Germany recently delivered on a second MIM-104 system in December with accompanying advanced radar system. The first one of these systems is allegedly stationed outside Kiev, while the second seems a good candidate for the types of hits being delivered over the last month. My understanding is that Ukraine is up to at least 4 batteries with 6 launchers total (2 systems from the US, 2 systems from Germany now, and 2 launchers from the Dutch).

Yeah, the S-200 is definitely not a fighter-killer. It's an 7-tonne whale of a missile whose warhead alone is 2/3 the weight of an entire PAC-3 missile. It was intended to knock down strategic bombers at very long range; they're perfectly fine against those or cargo aircraft or tankers or AWACS, things which tend to fly high, relatively slow, and don't maneuver well. Against a fighter or attack aircraft that is smaller, faster, and can pull more extreme maneuvers, it's outclassed. Square Pair (the ground-based tracking radar) can track those sorts of targets, but AFAIK the missile has never successfully engaged a small target. It's not a bad system, especially for the era in which it was developed, just specialized.