Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Russia - threadbanned users in OP

1319531963198320032013690

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,552 ✭✭✭Virgil°


    It's very hard to imagine that the US, Denmark and the Netherlands would be handing over a few squadrons of extremely expensive aircraft, training the pilots, setting up runways and maintenance if they believed these things are just gonna be shot down in short order. Maybe some posters on here need to inform the Ukrainian military that they're making a huge mistake?

    I'm certain some will be lost. It's a war. But there's an almost unlimited supply of them in the west. Once the pilots are there and logistics train set up, what are Russia going to do? They haven't been able to suppress Ukraines ancient airforce so far. How is that going to change?



  • Posts: 1,656 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Flying low and fast nullifies the superior sensors of the F-16. Its also undesirable from a combat perspective for energy reasons - a missile shooting down from a high & fast jet has more energy than a missile shooting up from a slow & low F-16. Combined with the inherent range advantage that Russia already has, the F-16 will lose in these circumstances.

    The obvious solution is don't go close to any threats, which is what they will do. But it limits what use they can be.

    Russia have been using the MiG-31 as described above. Patrolling inside their border and making long-range kills with the R-37M. See page 18

    I would need to see sources on Ukraine attacking inside Russia with Western missiles. I don't believe it to be the case.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,936 ✭✭✭threeball


    F16s won't be going there to Dogfight Russian aircraft. Their main usefullness is to get full utilisation of the HARM anti radar missiles that Ukraine currently fire but in a vastly reduced capability mode in order to take out Russian radar. Taking out 1 Russian radar is worth taking out 5 BUK or other SAM systems or even a MIG as without the radar the rest are basically blind and open to not only getting taken out personally but also being unable to protect whatever they were set up to protect. For example, take out the right radars round Mariupol and Crimea and the Kerch bridge is basically toast. Stick up a KA52 without adequate radar support and they're toast too.



  • Posts: 1,656 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    This war is not being fought on paper. Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian casualties are testament to the fact that Russia have some offensive capabilities.

    Sitting on your arse in safety thousands of miles away and saying haha those Russians have no capability... apart from being stupid it's insulting to Ukraine. If Russia completely suck at everything then it doesn't say much about Ukraine that Russia invaded (which requires superiority), took 20% of their land, destroyed most of their best equipment and they're still there 18 months later despite Ukraine being materially (and otherwise) assisted by the best militaries in the world.

    Oh yeah but they totally suck, fight with shovels etc and to say otherwise is "drinking the cool-aid". Incredible indeed 🙄



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 53,475 CMod ✭✭✭✭Retr0gamer


    They won't be operating deep in enemy territory I imagine. I'd say they will be delivering precision strikes from behind the ukrainian front and ensuring that the KA-52's either aren't being used anymore or deleting any the Russians are stupid enough to send out. I imagine any MiG-31's will be exposed to SAM fire themselves if they try to engage.

    The JAS-39's don't seem to be far off either.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭pcardin




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,216 ✭✭✭Yeah_Right


    You ok? You seem a bit upset. Is it because Russia is losing and Ukraine is getting better equipment? It's ok. It'll be over soon and you can tell us how Russia actually won the war.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,360 ✭✭✭fly_agaric


    I am not a military tech geek so won't get into stats and (publically available or guessed) performance and capability of weapons.

    As far as I know from paying attention daily to coverage of the war, Russia's air defence and Russia's airforce has not yet destroyed all of Ukraine's small airforce (since supplemented with donations of E. European Soviet aircraft), despite having this better equipment from day 1 (they had more of it then I expect) and a huge numerical advantage.

    I think they are therefore unlikely to easily shoot down all the donated F16s once Ukraine does whatever it is doing to keep its current airforce flying.

    I expect this aircraft and weapons it can carry will be an upgrade for the Ukrainian airforce and cause a lot more trouble for Russia in Ukraine, once there are a decent number of them operating (hopefully that will happen some time next year). They are a weapon that I think has been specifically named by the Russian spokespeoplecreatures?! as "escalatory", so that is a good sign in my view.

    I don't doubt US/NATO pilots would not like to be operating in Ukraine, and it is very dangerous. Very few of them (if any?) have gone up against what the Ukrainian pilots must be facing.

    edit: I suppose I am kind of guided by Ukraine here. They are still looking to get them (or some kind of Western aircraft), think they will help, and at this stage (again over 1 year into the war) they must have idea what the logistics burdens, training, personnel requirements etc. will be for their military to run them, and what use they can put them to.



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,003 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    I'm also in the camp that I don't see F-16s being much other than an incremental add.

    There is a bit of a misunderstanding on the application of modern air power. After all, movies love to show the traditional close air support operation, where a JTAC gets on the radio to aid troops in contact. In actuality, the US Air Force allocates something under 5% of its capability to such things (Categorized as dynamic targeting), which can these days be normally better done more rapidly with artillery or other ground-based systems. Even attack helicopters don't like 'over the shoulder' engagements any more, preferring to conduct "attacks out of contact", away from the battle.

    Instead, targeting is normally conducted starting several ATO cycles out. i.e. 3-4 days, with nomination of high payoff targets. It takes that long to assess the threats to the mission and aggregate a package. Be it jammers, airborne warning, SEAD, tankers, whatever is necessary to safely get in, drop payload, and get out. This means that the targets in question normally have to be relatively stationary. So you're talking logistics, major command/control nodes, things like that, which are also normally further behind the front line (and thus also further away from the density of air defense systems). In such a role, they would be doing the job currently done by cruise missiles, except they will make a substantially bigger, more effective, and more accurate bang at the far end.

    Now, if you consider a US or RAF strike package, and then look at what the Ukrainians have to fill that requirement, you must, I think, conclude that the expectations and goals have to be more limited. They'll help, certainly, but no more than the arrival of Leopards or Archers or any other system taken in isolation.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,581 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    I'd have assumed the Black Sea Fleet would be a primary target for the F16s once they're up and running?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,051 ✭✭✭jmreire


    I have not one iota of sympathy for what ever happens to any Russians in Ukraine, any part of it. And the point I was trying to make was not to express any sympathy for them, but to point out the sheer evil propaganda that Putin's factory of lies are capable of. Making fun of the death of a little girl that they murdered. It doesn't get any sicker than that. While on the other hand ignoring the hundreds of thousands of Russians who will never need their shoes again either. Like I said, pure evil is the only way to describe it, and next time I see videos of the rotting bodies of dead Russians, or Ukrainians clearing trenches with tanks, or cluster munitions shredding them, all I will say is "Slave Ukraine", same as I have been doing all along, and will continue to do.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,514 ✭✭✭zv2


    It looks like history is starting up again.



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,003 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Why? They don't seem to be doing a hell of a lot right now to be worth the risk.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,581 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    I'll defer to your military expertise but I'd have thought the fleet would be worth sinking for a number of reasons:

    Huge morale win when sunk

    A sunk ship is a very visible large loss of life - much harder for Putin's regime to hide from their citizens and with sailors being more likely to have been recruited from wealthier parts of Russia than infantry (particularly those recruited from the penal system), I'm assuming it would put more pressure on the regime at home.

    Russian have been using them to launch cruise missiles at Ukraine and the closer the counter-offensive gets to the south and Crimea, the more viable the fleet becomes as an offensive threat.

    Assuming the Kerch bridge will eventually get taken out, Russia will be relying on the fleet to supply Crimea. Without the fleet, Crimea should be easier to take back.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,059 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe



    At this stage I've learnt to trust the Ukrainians who are doing the actual fighting.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,053 ✭✭✭Polar101


    Re: Russia having tons of S-300 AA missiles that will insta-down any F-16s in the region - I thought they fired most of them at civilian targets in Ukraine already.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,059 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe



    Not too bad actually, very approximately only around 10% losses of NATO equipment (visually confirmed) in Ukraine.




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,596 ✭✭✭✭TheValeyard




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,127 ✭✭✭thomil


    I have to agree and disagree here. A fleet that is sunk is definitely a massive PR win, I agree with you on that, especially given that Ukraine has effectively no navy. However, a number of the launching platforms for cruise missiles are Kilo-class submarines, against which Ukraine only has limited countermeasures. Even the F-16s are not able to attack submerged submarines, and Russian sub skippers are generally smart enough not to remain on the surface in broad daylight unless in port. Frigates or corvettes are more vulnerable, but the Black Sea Fleet doesn't have too many of them. Now granted, the fleet can be attacked while in port. It's been done before, Port Arthur, Taranto, or Pearl Harbor are some prime examples. However, the defenses of the likes of Novorossiysk or Sevastopol are pretty extensive and the type of strike package necessary would probably be way beyond Ukraine's capabilities.

    Given that, I believe Ukraine's current strategy actually makes sense. The ongoing threat of Ukrainian marine drones, combined with some high-profile attacks, is keeping the majority of Russian navy assets in the Black Sea effectively bottled up in port with comparatively low effort on the Ukrainian side. Any ship that moves beyond the protective barrier nets of the base is vulnerable to attack, which the recent highly effective attack on a Ropucha-Class LST showed. While Russia may be able to send out the occasional submarine or frigate, the current situation effectively has the Black Sea Fleet under blockade. Why risk a massive strike package to attack such a blockaded force when the odd Storm Shadow or marine drone is enough the keep their heads down?

    Good luck trying to figure me out. I haven't managed that myself yet!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭pcardin




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 604 ✭✭✭mike_cork


    Hopefully Greece can provide some additional equipment



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,633 ✭✭✭Padre_Pio


    The only thing holding the Russian army together at this stage is hundreds of thousands of mobiks.

    Even conservative estimates put the initial 190k invasion force as completely destroyed, and the tens of thousands of prisoners and mercs are buried throughout Bahkmut.

    I could see the war slogging out for another year at least, with Russians taking increasingly high casualties and replacing them with increasingly worse troops.

    Hopefully there will be enough Russian resentment to overthrow Putin in the next few months. Another October Revolution perhaps.



  • Posts: 1,656 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Most likely they will use them as a launch platform for cruise missiles (against static targets). This can be done safely from a distance. This is no great game changer because a number of Western munitions have already been adapted to their Soviet fighters. So it's something they can already do.

    To engage a KA-52 is another matter. It requires getting a sensor acquisition. You see these videos of Ukrainian jets doing terrain-hugging flights, this keeps them safe(ish), but flying like this you cannot acquire a low helicopter from a distance. You have to get pretty close, or you have to bring your aircraft higher to give the sensors a better view. Both of which put the F-16 in too much danger from Russian SAMs and high-flying Russian MiG-31s.

    The MiG-31s fly patrols just inside the Russian border. They have a long-range radar - perhaps up to 400km on upgraded models. This means they can see any Ukrainian aircraft that comes within around 100-200km of the front-line. If they pick something up, they zoom into Ukraine, launch their missile from 200+km away and zoom back to Russia. They can operate relatively safely like this. They've been doing these patrols the whole war and only lost a single one.

    A terrain-hugging F-16 coming to take out helicopters will have no chance against the MiG in these circumstances. It's radar range will be shorter, it's missile range is shorter, the missiles will have less energy as they're shooting up. It would be a turkey shoot for the MiG-31 unfortunately.



  • Posts: 15,801 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    As much as I'd love to see Putin overthrown by a popular uprising, its unlikely to happen in Russia. The internal security setup pretty much rules it out. More likely he'll be taken out by other high ranking people though god knows if or when that might happen.

    I could see the war slogging out for another year at least, with Russians taking increasingly high casualties and replacing them with increasingly worse troops.

    Russia could always fall back on their tried and tested "just keep throwing more and more soldiers at it". It worked earlier when it slowed Ukr progress.

    I'd agree that it's not going to finish any time soon. Honestly I see it going at least another 3-4 years if not more



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,841 ✭✭✭Homelander


    It is all relative.

    Russia performance has been dismal since day one given the size and equipment of their army on paper.

    Obviously they have some capability. Just nowhere near the capability they should have, and the world expected to see last year when they invaded.

    Early last year Ukraine was a $4bn army, Russia was a $60bn army. Also, Ukraine before 2014 had a similar budget to the Irish army with armed forces in a terrible state.

    Long before western aid started arriving the war was still going disasterously bad for Russia, everyone assumed Russia would function as a modern army and steamroll over Ukraine. They didn't because of many factors, including but not limited to dreadful leadership, dreadful logistics, poor training, shocking lack of combined arms ability.

    In no reality is this war anything other than a catastrophe for Russia. If their military was functioning as it should have been the main combat stage of the war would have been over in a few weeks at best, long before anyone could provide any meaningful aid to Ukraine whatsoever.

    They failed to destroy Ukraine's army, they failed to disable its defence network, they failed to destroy its air force, failed to destroy it's command structure, failed to capture key points - they failed at everything and got bogged down in WW2-style ground fighting and attrition warfare.

    We have seen this many times before. All the Arab countries invading Israel, Italy invading Greece, etc. Huge armies that fared badly because of all of the above problems despite having strong militaries on paper.

    The world expected a high-tech war. Russia didn't deliver one and has shown itself incapable of delivering one. Even with very limited support, in the sense of very limited stocks of actual cutting edge Western weaponry, Ukraine has not just halted the invasion but actively reclaimed land and is currently on the offensive, with zero sign of Russia being able to regain any sort of initiative.

    Completely unthinkable last year. It's basically turned into the Iran-Iraq war even though Russia should have had overwhelmingly superiority in every aspect possible to comical degrees.

    There is no way out for Russia in the medium to long term. None.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,514 ✭✭✭zv2


    It looks like history is starting up again.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,335 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    I wonder if a Republican candidate wins the Presidental election will the military aid stop, a lot of Americans don't seem to be too happy with what Biden is doing arming the Ukrainians.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,395 ✭✭✭✭Furze99


    Bit past time? I'm sure any citizen from a state that is supportive in any way of Ukraine would have departed Belarus long ago by now. Unless they were there on some mission critical work or married/ settled in the country.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,596 ✭✭✭✭TheValeyard


    Pretty sure the US had advised all citizens to leave Belarus since April.

    All eyes on Kursk. Slava Ukraini.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,222 ✭✭✭✭briany


    They're only unhappy with it because it's Biden doing it and because there are talking heads like Tucker Carlson out there saying it's the wrong thing to do.

    America has the largest military in the world and very few, if any, threats to its national security that alone would necessitate a military of such a size. So what else is there to do with this if not promote American hegemony overseas? The bonus in this case is that America isn't committing its own troops and it isn't even sending state of the art gear, so isn't that actually an amazing bargain in return for knocking out one of the U.S.'s main global rivals, historically?

    The reason the likes of Tucker Carlson want less arms to Ukraine is because they would quite like to see Russia win. Russia represents what they'd like America to become albeit perhaps with better infrastructure. Authoritarian - ruthlessly stamps out dissent - socially regressive - has an elite class that is heavily protected by state power. They want to see this type of societal structure flourish worldwide.



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement