Russia invades Ukraine

[najaB]

Is this the case of "repeating news to make it news again" or is Iran actually preparing a massive weapons delivery under the rug?

I doubt Iran will be sending massive amounts of weapons to Russia simply because they don't have massive amounts to send. In many ways their military is still rebuilding from the Iran-Iraq war as the US-led sanctions makes it very difficult for them to get what they need on the open market, they have to either smuggle or make things domestically. Hence the fact that they're still flying F-4s, F-5s and F-14s from the 1970s.

That's not to say that what they have won't be useful to Russia, and they have apparently provided some number of ballistic missiles in the last few days. I think it is this latter move that has perked people's ears again as the Shahed drones have turned out to be barely effective as a weapon of war, and are being used more as weapons of terror against soft civilian targets.

 

[Yew]

I doubt Iran will be sending massive amounts of weapons to Russia simply because they don't have massive amounts to send. In many ways their military is still rebuilding from the Iran-Iraq war as the US-led sanctions makes it very difficult for them to get what they need on the open market, they have to either smuggle or make things domestically. Hence the fact that they're still flying F-4s, F-5s and F-14s from the 1970s.

That's not to say that what they have won't be useful to Russia, and they have apparently provided some number of ballistic missiles in the last few days. I think it is this latter move that has perked people's ears again as the Shahed drones have turned out to be barely effective as a weapon of war, and are being used more as weapons of terror against soft civilian targets.

A cheap drone can eat up a very expensive high performance anti-aircraft missile. A $20,000 dollar drone is an effective way to destroy a $1,000,000 missile from an S300 if there's nobody with a MANPAD in the area.

 

[Sm5]

the Shahed drones have turned out to be barely effective as a weapon of war, and are being used more as weapons of terror against soft civilian targets.

easy to say if your not in Kiev.

People make fun of Russias museum pieces from WW2 being rolled out, but if its pointing at you, its still capable of doing its intended purpose regardless its age.

 

[najaB]

easy to say if your not in Kiev.

People make fun of Russias museum pieces from WW2 being rolled out, but if its pointing at you, its still capable of doing its intended purpose regardless its age.

You are actually making the same point that I am. They are rolling out the old/ineffective stuff and using it for terror attacks rather than war.

 

[brad465]

A Russian fighter plane has crashed into an apartment block in Russia. I do wonder if this could give Russians an insight into what their Government is getting the military to do in Ukraine on an almost daily basis.

Russian tower block in flames after deadly warplane crash

The plane went down in a residential area in the southern Russian town of Yeysk, killing four.

www.bbc.co.uk

A military aircraft has crashed in a residential area of the southern Russian town of Yeysk, killing at least four people and injuring up to 25.
An apartment block was set on fire and emergency services called in. A nearby school was evacuated, reports say.
Russia's defence ministry said the plane, a Su-34 fighter bomber, was on a training flight when one of its engines caught fire on Monday evening...

 

[Trackman]

A Russian fighter plane has crashed into an apartment block in Russia. I do wonder if this could give Russians an insight into what their Government is getting the military to do in Ukraine on an almost daily basis.

from Reuters...

State-owned RIA said the crash took place during a training flight from a military airfield. It quoted the defence ministry as saying the pilots had reported that an engine had caught fire on takeoff, and the plane's fuel had then ignited when it struck the building.

 

[Killingworth]

easy to say if your not in Kiev.

People make fun of Russias museum pieces from WW2 being rolled out, but if its pointing at you, its still capable of doing its intended purpose regardless its age.

In 1944 Londoners experienced indiscriminate attacks by V1 and V2 missiles. Fortunately they were seriously hampered by allied advances on the ground and RAF precision bombing of launch sites so numbers weren't as great as they could have been

I recall an aunt telling of how she was in a bus when a V2 exploded in the next street. They'd been used to air raid warnings but got none for V2s. They did shake morale.

 

[Gloster]

In 1944 Londoners experienced indiscriminate attacks by V1 and V2 missiles. Fortunately they were seriously hampered by allied advances on the ground and RAF precision bombing of launch sites so numbers weren't as great as they could have been

I recall an aunt telling of how she was in a bus when a V2 exploded in the next street. They'd been used to air raid warnings but got none for V2s. They did shake morale.

I think the difference was that with the V-1 you would hear the engine cut out and know that it was about to dive into the ground, so you had a few seconds to duck or seek shelter. The V-2 was supersonic, so you had no warning and the first you knew was when it exploded, if you were still in a state to know anything.

 

[DerekC]

I recall my dad (who was in REME looking after ant-aircraft gun laying radar) telling me about part of "Operation Big Ben". It seems that WWII era radar could detect the V-2 during the re-entry phase from its 50-mile apogee and provide sufficient accuracy to predict which 1km grid square it would fall in. The idea was to fill a cubic kilometre of air with shell bursts and hope one of them would hit the missile. It was never tried because the probability of success was too low and the effect of unexploded rounds (they were evidently quite frequent) too severe and likely to add to the damage.

 

[Sm5]

I guess a substantial amount of jamming equipment is needed. They will be able to triangulate quite quickly where they are coming from.

The other aspect is there will only be so many of them.. using them faster than delivery is why the Russians are where they are. Weve seen several times soviet scatter gun techniques that require teams to load dozens of missiles with lots of effort, when Ukraine benefits more accurate systems requiring much less effort to achieve the same result with far fewer missiles expended.

If you work that back, say 240 rockets, needs crews to load them, several rail wagons for transport, re-loading, storage, arming, loading etc… then fire the lot in 2 minutes.. filling a whole area with pot holes and craters hoping for a “battleship” moment.
where as Ukraine can do the same with the same level of success and accuracy from Russias load with say just 12 rockets, saving the rest for later.

The drones being fired by Russia is no different.. they will run out, Iran wont be able to keep up supply.

Whats impressed me most with Ukraine is their ability to read the NATO manual and drop the Soviet one, in a very short space of time. I dont think anyone on either side of this war expected that. I doubt some of NATOs eastern european members would even achieve that.

 

[Ediswan]

I recall an aunt telling of how she was in a bus when a V2 exploded in the next street.

My mother reported being told "One of those things that don't exist just blew up the station." The station in question was probably Palmers Green.

 

[Russel]

A Russian fighter plane has crashed into an apartment block in Russia. I do wonder if this could give Russians an insight into what their Government is getting the military to do in Ukraine on an almost daily basis.

Russian tower block in flames after deadly warplane crash

The plane went down in a residential area in the southern Russian town of Yeysk, killing four.

www.bbc.co.uk

So, Russia is now liberating Russia...

 

[AM9]

I think the difference was that with the V-1 you would hear the engine cut out and know that it was about to dive into the ground, so you had a few seconds to duck or seek shelter. The V-2 was supersonic, so you had no warning and the first you knew was when it exploded, if you were still in a state to know anything.

Indeed and some survivors reported that the sound of the V2s approaching could be heard after the explosion, - they were the first supersonic flying vehicles.

 

[DustyBin]

Whats impressed me most with Ukraine is their ability to read the NATO manual and drop the Soviet one, in a very short space of time. I dont think anyone on either side of this war expected that. I doubt some of NATOs eastern european members would even achieve that.

Haven’t they been receiving western assistance since 2014? The difference now is that they have the weaponry to use, as well as the tactics.

 

[TheEdge]

Haven’t they been receiving western assistance since 2014? The difference now is that they have the weaponry to use, as well as the tactics.

Pretty much yes. Ukraine has been gradually looking more West since the Orange Revolution and then seriously since the Revolution of Dignity and subsequent Russian action and situation in the Donbass. Part of that has been stripping the Soviet features of the Ukrainian forces and replacing them with more NATO-esque ones.

 

[DC1989]

Even so to overhaul your military in 6,7,8 years like that is incredible

 

[AM9]

Even so to overhaul your military in 6,7,8 years like that is incredible

Equally, for Russia to virtually stand still in weaponry technology, logistics and battle strategy for the last 30 years takes some believing.

 

[DerekC]

Judging by the BBC lunchtime news the concentration of Russian missile strikes on Ukraine's energy infrastructure seems to be having a serious impact. Can the promised NATO air defence systems cope with this, and when are they due to arrive in significant numbers?

 

[ainsworth74]

Can the promised NATO air defence systems cope with this, and when are they due to arrive in significant numbers?

Yes and not quickly enough. There simply isn't the supply of area air defence systems out there to send to Ukraine in any great numbers. NATO (and for once this even includes the US to an extent) simply has divested itself of area air defence systems. Don't get me wrong, they do still exist but there simply isn't the spares to share in the way that we've been able to send ex-Soviet equipment that NATO members still have from their Warsaw Pact days or by depleting our own stocks of other weapons.

We have lots of MANPADs (the shoulder fired anti-air missiles) and some gun based systems (the Germans sent some of theirs for instance) but they are all terminal point defence systems. Effective against drones and aircraft. Marginal against cruise missiles (some Ukrainian managed to shoot down a Kalibr cruise missile using a MANPAD, probably a world first). Useless against short range ballistic missiles. Some slightly chunkier mid-range missile based air defence systems are being sent. I think the French are sending some of their Crotale systems and its already been announced that the Norwegians will be providing some of their NASAMS for instance. But it's dribs and drabs. NATO nations simply don't have big stockpiles of air defence systems available anymore.

If NATO had, in numbers, US systems like Patriot and THAAD (THAAD would be ideal, it's an anti-ballistic missiles system designed to shoot down exactly the sort of ballistic missiles Russia has been using) these would be capable of providing an effective area air defence against both aircraft, cruise and ballistic missiles. But THAAD is not available in great numbers and whilst the situation is better with Patriot I rather suspect that the US only has available what it needs and hasn't kept much spare. Couple that with some shorter range systems like NASAMS, CAMM (UK), Crotale or similar mid-range systems and you'd have a formidable air defence network. But there just aren't the spare launchers and command systems/radars (after all it's not just the missile launchers you need in these larger systems!) available in any great number.

What we're sending will certainly help and will cope with what's being asked of it (at least within what it's designed to cope with!). But it won't be arriving in any great numbers any time soon.

We're paying the price of people thinking that for thirty years one of the few things NATO and the West could rely on was our ability to secure air superiority. Why spend billions on air defence systems you won't need...

 

[Annetts key]

Judging by the BBC lunchtime news the concentration of Russian missile strikes on Ukraine's energy infrastructure seems to be having a serious impact. Can the promised NATO air defence systems cope with this, and when are they due to arrive in significant numbers?

Even if there were tens of air defence systems available, there are thousands of electricity sub stations that could be targeted, and even more pylons…

Maybe some could be protected in large cities.

Maybe some power generating stations could be protected.

But then which do you choose, cities (people) or power generating stations?

For the slow flying drones (that don’t have a radio link back to the operator to control them remotely), using transport helicopters with machine guns mounted in the doorway of the ‘cargo’ area may be the more practical method. Once radar or visual sightings spot them, a reasonable fast helicopter should be able to intercept them, as long as there are enough helicopters and pilots…

So the west could send more helicopters, but does Ukraine have enough pilots? That I don’t know.

 

[DustyBin]

Yes and not quickly enough. There simply isn't the supply of area air defence systems out there to send to Ukraine in any great numbers. NATO (and for once this even includes the US to an extent) simply has divested itself of area air defence systems. Don't get me wrong, they do still exist but there simply isn't the spares to share in the way that we've been able to send ex-Soviet equipment that NATO members still have from their Warsaw Pact days or by depleting our own stocks of other weapons.

We have lots of MANPADs (the shoulder fired anti-air missiles) and some gun based systems (the Germans sent some of theirs for instance) but they are all terminal point defence systems. Effective against drones and aircraft. Marginal against cruise missiles (some Ukrainian managed to shoot down a Kalibr cruise missile using a MANPAD, probably a world first). Useless against short range ballistic missiles. Some slightly chunkier mid-range missile based air defence systems are being sent. I think the French are sending some of their Crotale systems and its already been announced that the Norwegians will be providing some of their NASAMS for instance. But it's dribs and drabs. NATO nations simply don't have big stockpiles of air defence systems available anymore.

If NATO had, in numbers, US systems like Patriot and THAAD (THAAD would be ideal, it's an anti-ballistic missiles system designed to shoot down exactly the sort of ballistic missiles Russia has been using) these would be capable of providing an effective area air defence against both aircraft, cruise and ballistic missiles. But THAAD is not available in great numbers and whilst the situation is better with Patriot I rather suspect that the US only has available what it needs and hasn't kept much spare. Couple that with some shorter range systems like NASAMS, CAMM (UK), Crotale or similar mid-range systems and you'd have a formidable air defence network. But there just aren't the spare launchers and command systems/radars (after all it's not just the missile launchers you need in these larger systems!) available in any great number.

What we're sending will certainly help and will cope with what's being asked of it (at least within what it's designed to cope with!). But it won't be arriving in any great numbers any time soon.

We're paying the price of people thinking that for thirty years one of the few things NATO and the West could rely on was our ability to secure air superiority. Why spend billions on air defence systems you won't need...

This is a good summary. One of the things that may go in Ukraine's favour is the (reportedly) limited number of missiles Russia has left. The kamikaze drones they appear to be using in increasing numbers aren't difficult to shoot down using pretty much any air defence system (including MANPAD and gun-based systems as you've mentioned). The problem is that they're cheap and available in large numbers so can be used in "swarms" to overwhelm defences. I think Ukraine will get to grips with this particular threat fairly quickly, although of course some will always get through.

 

[najaB]

We're paying the price of people thinking that for thirty years one of the few things NATO and the West could rely on was our ability to secure air superiority. Why spend billions on air defence systems you won't need...

To be fair, this isn't a war that we prepared to fight. The air defence systems that we do have are ideal for what we expected them to have to do - defend our forward operating bases in wars in the Middle East/Asia.

 

[Sm5]

To be fair, this isn't a war that we prepared to fight. The air defence systems that we do have are ideal for what we expected them to have to do - defend our forward operating bases in wars in the Middle East/Asia.

But maybe it is one we should be preparing for.

if anything the small £200 drone with a grenade in a plastic cup has inflicted considerable damage in this war. I’m sure that hasnt gone unnoticed by the various tinpot terrorist organisations around the world.

 

[najaB]

Just watched a video that's apparently of a Russian soldier speaking with his wife/girlfriend confirming what we all likely suspected to be the case.

The Russian forces are arranged in three levels:

• The front line is composed of criminals/undesirables
• The second line is composed of the mobilised - their job is to shoot any of the front who try to escape
• The third line is composed of regular army - their job is shoot any of the mobilised who try to escape.

https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1581601563432603648

 

[Killingworth]

I see a lot of brave talk about how well Ukraine is doing but the admission that over the last 8 days 1/3 of their power plants have been knocked out is a very serious blow - and one that has been a long time coming.

The damage is almost certain to take months to repair and rebuild. The other 2/3 must also be vulnerable. The Russians are getting seriously nasty now, previously holding back on acts like these. Their troops may be very low grade but until their missiles, drones and artillery are countered massive damage can still be done, whether guided or indiscriminate.

 

[DustyBin]

But maybe it is one we should be preparing for.

if anything the small £200 drone with a grenade in a plastic cup has inflicted considerable damage in this war. I’m sure that hasnt gone unnoticed by the various tinpot terrorist organisations around the world.

This war has been a game changer in many ways and I’ve no doubt we’re learning an awful lot from it. The kind of improvisation you refer to however would be of limited use against an advanced western military.

I see a lot of brave talk about how well Ukraine is doing but the admission that over the last 8 days 1/3 of their power plants have been knocked out is a very serious blow - and one that has been a long time coming.

The damage is almost certain to take months to repair and rebuild. The other 2/3 must also be vulnerable. The Russians are getting seriously nasty now, previously holding back on acts like these. Their troops may be very low grade but until their missiles, drones and artillery are countered massive damage can still be done, whether guided or indiscriminate.

There’s no doubt Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure is taking a hammering and it’s going to be a difficult winter. I disagree however that the Russians have been “previously holding back”. They’re doing this out of desperation as they’re losing on the battlefield. This isn’t a show of strength it’s a show of weakness.

 

[najaB]

This isn’t a show of strength it’s a show of weakness.

Very much so.

 

[gingerheid]

It's also a sign they realise they're not taking the areas involved.

 

[Brooklands]

Goodness knows what the amateur military strategists of uk rail forums will do if this terrible and unnecessary conflict ends.
I’m sure that when civilian populations were carpet bombed in WW11 with lives lost and homes destroyed they’d be saying “yeah, it’s just a sign of weakness “.
So many on here seem to be blind to the human tragedy unfolding. As usual civilian populations are just pawns in the political games of nation states.
To some of the ‘players’ it’s just a testing ground for their latest hi tech weapons and a showcase for future arms sales.
There are real people suffering here yet all we hear is constant propaganda from both sides and no serious attempt at negotiation which will have to come eventually. Oh no, send more and more weapons is the constant cry as leaders play their political games.
The world has truly gone mad.

 

[Killingworth]

It's also a sign they realise they're not taking the areas involved.

So they don't use nuclear weapons but devastate Ukraine by taking out power and water supplies. I/3 of power in just 8 days. Think about that as winter approaches. Without attacking any more that alone will be crippling.

Yes it's a sign of frontline battlefield weakness but it's a sign of terrifying strength for those confronted with running the country aware of how vulnerable the remaining 2/3 of infrastructure may be.

Russia could probably have done this at any time. They aren't taking the whole country. They aren't taking much more than they have now and may give up a little to create logical borders.. But they're gping to hold as much as they can and devastate what's given up, like Kherson

It's the Russian way of war and will require a massive reconstruction programme however it ends. Putin still holds strong cards. What we can't know is how strongly he holds or will play them.