Roman Alymov Posted October 5 Share Posted October 5 23 minutes ago, Yama said: Russian MoD claimed 44 POWs captured in Vuhledar. I am sure they would flaunt it quite a bit if they had captured hundreds. I am not sure there actually were hundreds in Ugledar at the final stages of the defence collapse, as Volkssturm "territorial defence" brigades on the flanks have just retreated without order ( btn commander of 123rd brigade have shot himself after his btn men fled - that led to Urledar semi-surrounded https://t.me/c/1688853451/232703 ) Actuall number of pro-Rus infantry clearing Ugledar was also unlikely to be hundreds, as such numbers are no more present on the frontline where positions are taken or defended by sometimes single man) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roman Alymov Posted October 5 Share Posted October 5 Another version of what was shot down over Konstantinovka Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted October 5 Share Posted October 5 And it still looks as stealthy as my John Thomas. https://x.com/geniune900/status/1842556681139699873?t=Ncwnlar8g5ABx5Hi_YLMEQ&s=19 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Posted October 5 Share Posted October 5 Prototypes probably do not have production level RCS reduction; the first B-21 does not either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted October 5 Share Posted October 5 Some speculation online that it was the SU57s first kill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roman Alymov Posted October 5 Share Posted October 5 37 minutes ago, Josh said: Prototypes probably do not have production level RCS reduction; the first B-21 does not either. Anyway two planes (S-70 and Su-35/57) were operating above Konstantinovka, pto-Ukr defence node. It may indicate they are for some reason immune to SAMs (or pro-Ukr AD in this region is nearly absent - but then why other planes are not active there?). Also, the fact it took close approach to use missile may be (possibly) indication that target lock only possible at short distance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Posted October 5 Share Posted October 5 (edited) The size and shape of an aircraft provides most of the signal reduction; I assume the S-70 has small radar return from the frontal arc outside of the two spikes from the angle perpendicular to the wings. I am just pointing out that finishing steps for RCS reduction (caulking, taping, etc) often are only applied to combat coded aircraft or aircraft explicitly being used for RCS testing. The B-2 fleet require tens of thousands of man hours per year for this type of maintenance alone. Edited October 5 by Josh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roman Alymov Posted October 5 Share Posted October 5 Short documentary about Kirpi MRAP was captured https://t.me/readovkanews/87819 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roman Alymov Posted October 5 Share Posted October 5 30 minutes ago, Josh said: The size and shape of an aircraft provides most of the signal reduction; I assume the S-70 has small radar return from the frontal arc outside of the two spikes from the angle perpendicular to the wings. I am just pointing out that finishing steps for RCS reduction (caulking, taping, etc) often are only applied to combat coded aircraft or aircraft explicitly being used for RCS testing. The B-2 fleet require tens of thousands of man hours per year for this type of maintenance alone. Pro-Ukrainains have found the part marked C-70-4, it is 4th experimental airframe produced (not serial S-70 with full set of stealth features) https://t.me/milinfolive/132175 The most interesting part of the story is the plane was shot down by Russian fighterplane at high altitued at least 10 km deep in enemy territory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenn239 Posted October 5 Share Posted October 5 2 hours ago, Josh said: Prototypes probably do not have production level RCS reduction; the first B-21 does not either. Russian stealth seems more of the 80/20 variety than the American 99 to 1 rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted October 5 Share Posted October 5 55 minutes ago, Josh said: The size and shape of an aircraft provides most of the signal reduction; I assume the S-70 has small radar return from the frontal arc outside of the two spikes from the angle perpendicular to the wings. I am just pointing out that finishing steps for RCS reduction (caulking, taping, etc) often are only applied to combat coded aircraft or aircraft explicitly being used for RCS testing. The B-2 fleet require tens of thousands of man hours per year for this type of maintenance alone. But they havent even taken the basic efforts at reducing RCS using putty. You dont need to go and apply tape or touch it up all the time. But its fairly clear there isnt even the slightest effort at RCS reduction, no least ripples in th skin, exposed rivet heads, panel lines. I dont know whether they were actually trying to use it over Ukraine, or its been out of control for a very long distance, but whilst it might have been a vaguely low observable shape, this was clearly not a stealth aircraft. A stealth technology demonstrator? Possibly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETAC21 Posted October 5 Share Posted October 5 1 hour ago, Roman Alymov said: Pro-Ukrainains have found the part marked C-70-4, it is 4th experimental airframe produced (not serial S-70 with full set of stealth features) https://t.me/milinfolive/132175 The most interesting part of the story is the plane was shot down by Russian fighterplane at high altitued at least 10 km deep in enemy territory. What "really" happened: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted October 5 Share Posted October 5 The telegram thread is interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roman Alymov Posted October 5 Share Posted October 5 2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said: But they havent even taken the basic efforts at reducing RCS using putty. You dont need to go and apply tape or touch it up all the time. But its fairly clear there isnt even the slightest effort at RCS reduction, no least ripples in th skin, exposed rivet heads, panel lines. I dont know whether they were actually trying to use it over Ukraine, or its been out of control for a very long distance, but whilst it might have been a vaguely low observable shape, this was clearly not a stealth aircraft. A stealth technology demonstrator? Possibly. See my message few lines above, "Pro-Ukrainains have found the part marked C-70-4, it is 4th experimental airframe produced (not serial S-70 with full set of stealth features) " What is the sence of putty anf tape (even if we assume it is really useful to apply them) if the engine installed on this proptptype is regular АЛ-31Ф, not stealth exhaust version? Just to waste taxpayers money? Russia is not printing RUR the way USA do with USD. Anyway, taking into account both S-70 and the plane that shot it were able to penetrate into frontline airspace on high altitude, it seems like Ukr AD in this region was not able to see them or not active for some reason.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Posted October 5 Share Posted October 5 3 hours ago, Roman Alymov said: Pro-Ukrainains have found the part marked C-70-4, it is 4th experimental airframe produced (not serial S-70 with full set of stealth features) https://t.me/milinfolive/132175 The most interesting part of the story is the plane was shot down by Russian fighterplane at high altitued at least 10 km deep in enemy territory. I suspect that it was still better to shoot it down than allow it to coast into Ukraine or NATO proper completely intact. But I also would think there wove some established protocol for engaging it within Russian, or at least occupied Ukraine, airspace. I also would assume its default setting would be to return to its launch site. It is hard to imagine the chain of events that lead up to this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted October 5 Share Posted October 5 27 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said: See my message few lines above, "Pro-Ukrainains have found the part marked C-70-4, it is 4th experimental airframe produced (not serial S-70 with full set of stealth features) " What is the sence of putty anf tape (even if we assume it is really useful to apply them) if the engine installed on this proptptype is regular АЛ-31Ф, not stealth exhaust version? Just to waste taxpayers money? Russia is not printing RUR the way USA do with USD. Anyway, taking into account both S-70 and the plane that shot it were able to penetrate into frontline airspace on high altitude, it seems like Ukr AD in this region was not able to see them or not active for some reason.... Because you were seemingly using it near, if not over, a combat zone? Yes, and that may have been luck there were no sam systems present. Indeed, it may have been the task of the drone to find them, perhaps akin to the F16 system to cross locate sam sites with any accompanying system. Anyway. Good luck for you it wasn't one of the more advanced systems, but why bother to use it if it wasnt? Was this another Armatas to Ukraine style stunt and it backfired? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roman Alymov Posted October 5 Share Posted October 5 2 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said: Because you were seemingly using it near, if not over, a combat zone? See above, there is plenty of options why it ended up in combat zone 6 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said: Anyway. Good luck for you it wasn't one of the more advanced systems, but why bother to use it if it wasnt? There is only two options: use it or donate to museum (as it is pre-production vehicle). We do not know how it was used - at least, no combat load found in wreck, and flying in broad daylight is strange - but if it was sent to "find SAM" then why it was shot down by RusAF fighter relatively deep inside potential enemy SAM kill zone? 10 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said: Was this another Armatas to Ukraine style stunt and it backfired? No idea how (if at all) Armatas were used in this war, but it is obvious it was lucky coincidence for Russia production of old T-90-style tanks was not closed in favor of more advanced Armatas as it would reduce production numbers without any boost to performance (as against landmines and drones Armata is as good as T-72, Challenger or T-62 or Abrams - just target). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted October 6 Share Posted October 6 Pretty sure a Challenger 2 would do much better vs landmines, or at least, their crew would, which is the important thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seahawk Posted October 6 Share Posted October 6 10 hours ago, Roman Alymov said: See my message few lines above, "Pro-Ukrainains have found the part marked C-70-4, it is 4th experimental airframe produced (not serial S-70 with full set of stealth features) " What is the sence of putty anf tape (even if we assume it is really useful to apply them) if the engine installed on this proptptype is regular АЛ-31Ф, not stealth exhaust version? Just to waste taxpayers money? Russia is not printing RUR the way USA do with USD. Anyway, taking into account both S-70 and the plane that shot it were able to penetrate into frontline airspace on high altitude, it seems like Ukr AD in this region was not able to see them or not active for some reason.... A Su-57 was providing the escort, so that is no surprise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted October 6 Share Posted October 6 Well, there is debate whether it WAS an Su57 or maybe a Flanker that was suitably instrumented, though it does seem most likely. This is what happens when you try dick swinging new equipment before its ready. Who knows, maybe it was even the Ukrainians jamming it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roman Alymov Posted October 6 Share Posted October 6 1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said: Pretty sure a Challenger 2 would do much better vs landmines, or at least, their crew would, which is the important thing. Well. taking into account Challenger 2 is about 20 tons havyer then typical Soviet tank, quite possibly it would be better against any weapon in terms of crew survival (since this extra ~20 tonns of steel around the crew) but at the same time extra weight will reduce cross-country mobility (=more predictable roads, easyer to plant minetraps) and reduced number of vehicles (as somebody have to produce this extra 20 tons, and be payed for that). What will be overall result - hard to estimate, taking intoi account total number of Challenger 2 tanks on our planet is not enough to create statistically-relevant quantitative data. Empirically, we do not see Western tanks (be it heavy M1 Abrams, Leopard, Challenger or superlight wheeled French ones) providing any visible advantage on the battlefueld compared to 30+ yo Soviet designs. So there is, logically, hardly any reason to expect Armata to provide visible advantage too. What is really valued by crews is optics (especially thermal) - one Russian tank crew in Mariupol went to significant risk to recover their damaged T-72 with thermal sight from under enemy fire, despite of being allready given another T-72 but without thermal. But it was 2022, pre-drone era - now, probably, EW is the main feature of any vehicle, be it tank or small ATV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted October 6 Share Posted October 6 Its not just the extra weight, its the hull shape. Ive looked at the bottom of Challenger 2, and its the same as all British tanks since Chieftain, its a V shape, to help protect against mines. T72 and the Soviet tanks that Ukraine uses do not. Doesnt mean the tank wont be knocked out by a mine, one was. It just means its exceptionally likely the crew is going to survive the experience. Lets put it this way, there would be a LOT more Challenger 2's on the planet if some smug and self satisfied politicians in Britain the 2000's hadnt convinced themselves the chances of a tank battle in Europe were at an end, and cut up 130 of them, and lived off the parts for the next 20 years, putting all the component manufacturers out of work. One of the guys on this grate site talked to his MP about it, and he shrugged his shoulders about it, saying there wasnt anything they could do to stop it. How fortunate for you that there isnt 140 Challenger 2's we sent, instead of the 14 we did. And no, its not been upgraded to be as good as the late pattern Leopard2's, but its still better than pretty much anything else either side can put on the battlefield, and thats the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roman Alymov Posted October 6 Share Posted October 6 (edited) 1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said: Its not just the extra weight, its the hull shape. Ive looked at the bottom of Challenger 2, and its the same as all British tanks since Chieftain, its a V shape, to help protect against mines. T72 and the Soviet tanks that Ukraine uses do not. First, i'm not sure as if hull shape is significant when dealing not with amateur IEDs in Iraq but against factory-made modern HEAT/"cumulative" mines. Second, in tank design (as in any design) everything comes at a price, and having hull optimised to resist mines will increase weight/size, resulting in cost ->less vehicles produced->less tanks on the battlefield->less chances of success. Also, extra weight is reducing cross country opportunities, harder recovery etc. 1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said: Doesnt mean the tank wont be knocked out by a mine, one was. It just means its exceptionally likely the crew is going to survive the experience. I do not have the statistics, but it seems like the main danger for tank crew after landmine hit is not explosion itself, but miles and miles of grey zone they have to walk under drone and artillery attacks to reach safety. And this distance is not dependent on the type of tank they have abandoned. 1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said: Lets put it this way, there would be a LOT more Challenger 2's on the planet if some smug and self satisfied politicians in Britain the 2000's hadnt convinced themselves the chances of a tank battle in Europe were at an end, and cut up 130 of them, and lived off the parts for the next 20 years, putting all the component manufacturers out of work. One of the guys on this grate site talked to his MP about it, and he shrugged his shoulders about it, saying there wasnt anything they could do to stop it. Your complains about your politicians failing to produce more tanks is like one of our Polish members pointing out it was "White" Russian command incompetence that led to Red victory and resulting troubles for Poland - ignoring the obvious fact that having the "White" forces being more competent, Poland would just stay part of Russian Empire. Your politicians in their incompetence and arrogance have convinced themselves they have "won the Cold War" and as result provoked them to all sorts of careless actions, and failure to meed genuene (may be naive) desire of former Soviet people to be integrated into what they believed was "family of civilized nations", combined with even more genuene desire of post-Soviet elites of Russia to be colonial administration for West. There was no need for tanks to finally destroy any chances of Russia resurrecting - couple more decades of ruining education via implementing "best Western practicies", ruining healthcare via "Western-style reforms" etc, combined with integrating our elites and smoke screen of rethorics about "Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok" would have been enough. Note it was not only free - but it was PAID BY RUSSIA"S OWN RESOURCES. But, luckily for us, your Governments and elites were not smart enough to play such long game. 1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said: How fortunate for you that there isnt 140 Challenger 2's we sent, instead of the 14 we did. And no, its not been upgraded to be as good as the late pattern Leopard2's, but its still better than pretty much anything else either side can put on the battlefield, and thats the point. It was NATO planners who decided pro-Ukrainisn got enough of everything, so you are complaining about performance of the same people who have failed in A-stan against tribal religeous militia.... Edited October 6 by Roman Alymov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roman Alymov Posted October 6 Share Posted October 6 Drone video of Iskander strike on cargo vessel in South port of Odessa during ammunition offloaded https://t.me/infomil_live/10856 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted October 6 Share Posted October 6 1 hour ago, Roman Alymov said: First, i'm not sure as if hull shape is significant when dealing not with amateur IEDs in Iraq but against factory-made modern HEAT/"cumulative" mines. Second, in tank design (as in any design) everything comes at a price, and having hull optimised to resist mines will increase weight/size, resulting in cost ->less vehicles produced->less tanks on the battlefield->less chances of success. Also, extra weight is reducing cross country opportunities, harder recovery etc. I do not have the statistics, but it seems like the main danger for tank crew after landmine hit is not explosion itself, but miles and miles of grey zone they have to walk under drone and artillery attacks to reach safety. And this distance is not dependent on the type of tank they have abandoned. Your complains about your politicians failing to produce more tanks is like one of our Polish members pointing out it was "White" Russian command incompetence that led to Red victory and resulting troubles for Poland - ignoring the obvious fact that having the "White" forces being more competent, Poland would just stay part of Russian Empire. Your politicians in their incompetence and arrogance have convinced themselves they have "won the Cold War" and as result provoked them to all sorts of careless actions, and failure to meed genuene (may be naive) desire of former Soviet people to be integrated into what they believed was "family of civilized nations", combined with even more genuene desire of post-Soviet elites of Russia to be colonial administration for West. There was no need for tanks to finally destroy any chances of Russia resurrecting - couple more decades of ruining education via implementing "best Western practicies", ruining healthcare via "Western-style reforms" etc, combined with integrating our elites and smoke screen of rethorics about "Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok" would have been enough. Note it was not only free - but it was PAID BY RUSSIA"S OWN RESOURCES. But, luckily for us, your Governments and elites were not smart enough to play such long game. It was NATO planners who decided pro-Ukrainisn got enough of everything, so you are complaining about performance of the same people who have failed in A-stan against tribal religeous militia.... Read what I said, 'Chieftain'. This was long designed into British vehicles. And yes, it does help. No, im no complaining about Politicians not producing enough tanks. Im talking about them being stupid enough to think Russia had changed enough there was no problem with our throwing them away. Which again flies in the face of the 'NATO was arming against us' horseshit that comes out the Kremlin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now