OT: Putin's War in Ukraine

[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.

[Raellus]

The Russian navy has involuntarily converted another surface ship into a submarine.

https://www.twz.com/sea/ukrainian-dr...vy-patrol-ship

Commissioned in July 2022, the Sergei Kotov was one of four Project 22160 patrol ships, all based in the Black Sea, and each costing roughly $65m.

The Ukrainians had claimed to have hit Project 22160 with either an SSM or shore-launched rocket during the first year of the war, but that turned out to be false.

The loss of the Sergei Kotov has been confirmed by Russian sources.

-

[Heffe]

Originally Posted by Raellus

The Russian navy has involuntarily converted another surface ship into a submarine.

https://www.twz.com/sea/ukrainian-dr...vy-patrol-ship

Commissioned in July 2022, the Sergei Kotov was one of four Project 22160 patrol ships, all based in the Black Sea, and each costing roughly $65m.

The Ukrainians had claimed to have hit Project 22160 with either an SSM or shore-launched rocket during the first year of the war, but that turned out to be false.

The loss of the Sergei Kotov has been confirmed by Russian sources.

-

There's a solid nighttime video of the sinking available online for anyone interested in seeing it. It appears as though the naval drone fires a forward facing rocket at the Sergey Kotov just prior to impact, opening up the hull prior to its own impact - it's very impressive. It also seems that the Sergey Kotov was one of the Russian craft in the Black Sea capable of launching Kalibr cruise missiles. A worthwhile target.

I keep reflecting on how drones are radically changing the face of warfare in future engagements. I'm sure every branch of the US and European militaries right now are deeply examining the new risks to their own equipment as those risks are being put in the limelight in Ukraine. It also presents some wild opportunities for new equipment, and the militaries that are able to properly capitalize on the new technologies are going to have a decided edge in future conflicts. As but one example, naval drones likely have a more limited capacity at the moment due to radio waves being unable to penetrate as far under the water. I'm sure folks are already looking at implementing AI onto new naval drones that would allow them to be more of a "launch and forget" system, which would remove the need for radio guidance entirely.

[Vespers War]

Playing devil's advocate, it's worth noting a few things about the Project 22160 patrol boats.
1. They're tiny. The US Coast Guard's Legend-class cutters are almost triple the displacement of a 22160.
2. Their armament is a bit funky, consisting of a 76mm dual-purpose gun, a pair of 14.5mm machine guns, modular missile/torpedo launchers, and anti-personnel grenade launchers. After Moskva was promoted from ship to reef they received a Tor-M2 SAM launcher vehicle to park on their rear deck to provide air defense. Notably they don't have any of the 30mm CIWS or any light missile launchers other than the jerry-rigged Tor system.

They're oriented towards an anti-big ship or surface bombardment role, with Kalibr or Uran missiles or Paket torpedoes, with relatively little weaponry dedicated to self-defense from either surface combatants or aircraft. If I had to compare them to something Western, it would be the dedicated anti-submarine frigates from the Cold War that relied on the rest of their battle group for protection from anything else. They fill a useful role, but they are rather vulnerable on their own.

Allegedly this was an attack by MAGURA V5 drones, which are the same type that sank Tsezar Kunikov on Valentine's Day. Since November they've destroyed three landing craft (1 Serna, 1 Akula, 1 Ropucha) a Tarantul missile corvette, and now the Project 22160 patrol ship.

[castlebravo92]

Originally Posted by Heffe

There's a solid nighttime video of the sinking available online for anyone interested in seeing it. It appears as though the naval drone fires a forward facing rocket at the Sergey Kotov just prior to impact, opening up the hull prior to its own impact - it's very impressive. It also seems that the Sergey Kotov was one of the Russian craft in the Black Sea capable of launching Kalibr cruise missiles. A worthwhile target.

I keep reflecting on how drones are radically changing the face of warfare in future engagements. I'm sure every branch of the US and European militaries right now are deeply examining the new risks to their own equipment as those risks are being put in the limelight in Ukraine. It also presents some wild opportunities for new equipment, and the militaries that are able to properly capitalize on the new technologies are going to have a decided edge in future conflicts. As but one example, naval drones likely have a more limited capacity at the moment due to radio waves being unable to penetrate as far under the water. I'm sure folks are already looking at implementing AI onto new naval drones that would allow them to be more of a "launch and forget" system, which would remove the need for radio guidance entirely.

IMHO, commoditized drone tech represents a true "revolution in military affairs."

The cost/benefit ratio is completely out of whack with other weapons platforms. You basically have, roughly speaking $200 to $10k platforms (from the grenade dropping hobby FPV drones to the longer range military suicide drones with thermal and semi-autonomous capabilities) able take out material and personnel much more cost effectively than almost any other option.

For example, the M982 Excalibur 155mm guided projectile costs $68,000 to $250k per round. A JDAM kit $30k - but has to be deployed via a $30 million+ piece of equipment, and a non-permissive environment raises the cost of delivery significantly.

But drones excel in non-permissive environments because they are cheap, the AAA counter-measures are themselves ideal high priority targets for the drones, and no one has really come up with a great strategy to deal with them yet in a near-peer contest like in the Ukraine (in Gaza, Hamas basically just ran out of drones rather than Israel completely nullifying them tactically). Missiles aren't cost effective, and no one has apparently deployed a gun system that works all that great.

The net net is you have a situation where maneuver forces are extremely vulnerable, infantry forces are extremely vulnerable, and Russia's strategy of deploying poorly trained and equipped Mobiks to soak up drones may actually not be the worst strategy out there. Better, from a Russian point of view, to lose a conscript with an AK-74 and some recycled fatigues and boots, than a T-90.