War in Ukraine, technical and military aspects only

[crazyinsane105]

8 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

Below is product of video to text and then Yandex-translation with my corrections, sorry for quality, note it seems like next to every sentence is separated from another by clip cut.

"We are standing near the launcher of the S-350 Vityaz anti-aircraft missile system, which is successfully showing itself in the area of its own defense. Not so long ago, we worked on a large salvo of HIMARS MLRS. There were about 12-16 incoming targets. This complex has successfully coped. Not a single target has reached its destination. The targets were detected  at a range of about 90 km. Accordingly, having let it get closer, steadily accompanying it, the target was hit at a range of about 70 kilometers. The missile maneuvers parallel to the target. Both ATACMS MS and MLRS HIMARS areused against us. The targets were successfully hit. This is one of the newest weapons of the Russian Federation.
This complex is equipped with anti-aircraft guided missiles with self-homing heads. This complex has high mobility and high maneuverability. The complex has an autonomous power supply system, accordingly, it does not need to be tied to the SVEP(?) systems. And, accordingly, due to the fact that the division has a large spread, the spread of equipment, respectively, the survivability of the crews is increased.
The time from the moment of detection to the destruction of the target depends on the range, but as a rule in this area we have from one and a half to three seconds both with the participation of the operator and in automatic mode. The automatic mode of this complex works perfectly. No unnecessary rocket launches were carried out in this mode and all targets were successfully hit.
One of the main advantages of this complex is that the driver-operator is protected here. Due to the fact that the cabin is armored, and even the HIMARS shell with shrapnel  exploded nearby does not cause any harm to the driver, the cabin, or the cabin equipment."

Has any S-350 been destroyed in combat so far? Just curious 

[Roman Alymov]

Just now, urbanoid said:

In 1980s? 

In 1980th (and earlier), USSR was bisy constructing hardened shelters - but on airfields that were supposed to be housing fighter aviation (now mostly outside of RF borders) and with dimensions fit for typical fighters of early 1980th (Mig-23 etc).

But they were too small for new generation of fighters ([hoto below is Su-27 parked next to shelter on Afrikanda airbase)

[urbanoid]

2 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

In 1980th (and earlier), USSR was bisy constructing hardened shelters - but on airfields that were supposed to be housing fighter aviation (now mostly outside of RF borders) and with dimensions fit for typical fighters of early 1980th (Mig-23 etc).

But they were too small for new generation of fighters ([hoto below is Su-27 parked next to shelter on Afrikanda airbase)

Right, and the question was about 1980s, not later. Quite a lot of Su-27s and MiG-29s entered service at the time and as a general rule there was no shelters for them, why?

All in all even before Su-27/MiG-29 hardened shelters weren't necessarily a rule in the Warsaw Pact states, plenty of aircraft had to do without.

[Roman Alymov]

1 minute ago, urbanoid said:

Right, and the question was about 1980s, not later. Quite a lot of Su-27s and MiG-29s entered service at the time and as a general rule there was no shelters for them, why?

All in all even before Su-27/MiG-29 hardened shelters weren't necessarily a rule in the Warsaw Pact states, plenty of aircraft had to do without.

By that time USSR was allready imploding for internal reasons, while Siviet leadership was increasingly in belief that "West is now our friends"  so no surprise no shelters were constructed..... Generally, no surprise the decisions in state at this stage were not logical.

[Stefan Kotsch]

22 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

when all top officials in the country are cherrypicked by West

I don't know what Roman is smoking. It could be that he is too young and hasn't really been able to enjoy socialism himself.

 

[Josh]

9 hours ago, ink said:

It's been a mystery to me for literally decades why the Soviets and now Russia don't just create a make-work project to build cheap pre-fab hangars all over the country. Surely someone with government connections has a construction company that would love a contract like that.

That always amazed me as well. You would almost think someone was paying people NOT to do it?

[Roman Alymov]

Drone wars: dropping nets on big drones used by pro-Ukrainians as night bombers https://t.me/UAVDEV/6756

[seahawk]

7 hours ago, Josh said:

That always amazed me as well. You would almost think someone was paying people NOT to do it?

One can also wonder how they do FOD checks. It is effective but given the weather it often looks like a punishment as well.

[Roman Alymov]

9 hours ago, crazyinsane105 said:

Has any S-350 been destroyed in combat so far? Just curious 

No idea, but i see no reason why it have to be more immune from that than other AD assets of this class.

[alejandro_]

At the same time, this situation has existed not since 2022, 2014, or even since 1991, but since the 80s. The fact is that protective structures - arched shelters - were actively built in the USSR in the 1960s and 1970s for the aircraft that existed and were being developed at that time. And these were MiG-21, Su-7, Su-17, MiG-23 and MiG-27 - quite small machines. At the same time, the MiG-23/27 also had a change in wing sweep with a minimum span of 7.78 meters.

That is why arched shelters of type 2A13 measuring 12.9x28 meters were the most popular. They had a wall thickness of 60 cm and can protect not only from cluster munitions, but even from close bursts of high-explosive bombs. And because of the cost, they were built only in the border military districts, and not throughout the USSR.

But already in the 70s, the MiG-25 appeared with a wingspan of 14 meters, for which standard shelters were no longer suitable. Since 1982, the MiG-29 began to be delivered, which with a wingspan of 11.36 meters climbed into the 2A13 shelter only with a "squeak" and in order not to damage it, some airfields used guide rails. But more often, in order not to take risks and not bear responsibility for a damaged aircraft, they kept it in the open air.

The Su-27 with a wingspan of 15 meters, which began arriving in 1985, also remained without a roof over its head. At the same time, despite plans to build a new type of shelter, the USSR was unable to do so. The country was already teetering on the brink of collapse, so shelters for new planes were built, if they were built, then only in homeopathic quantities.

Moreover, sometimes the shelters were not from possible enemy strikes, but rather from bad weather. And there are several such shelters at the airbase near Myrhorod, or rather - there were. Because they were destroyed by the enemy in the first days of the war.

Thus, arch shelters for the Su-27, at least at the air base near Myrhorod, simply do not exist. And the reasons why they were not built after 1991 are well known and do not require additional explanation, because the much bigger problem was not where to hide the planes, but in general what to fly on, what to fuel the cars with and pay the pilots' salaries.

https://defence-ua.com/army_and_war/chomu_ukrajinski_su_27_stojat_prosto_neba_a_ne_v_ukrittjah_i_scho_bude_z_f_16-15857.html

[TrustMe]

12 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

Below is product of video to text and then Yandex-translation with my corrections, sorry for quality, note it seems like next to every sentence is separated from another by clip cut.

"We are standing near the launcher of the S-350 Vityaz anti-aircraft missile system, which is successfully showing itself in the area of its own defense. Not so long ago, we worked on a large salvo of HIMARS MLRS. There were about 12-16 incoming targets. This complex has successfully coped. Not a single target has reached its destination. The targets were detected  at a range of about 90 km. Accordingly, having let it get closer, steadily accompanying it, the target was hit at a range of about 70 kilometers. The missile maneuvers parallel to the target. Both ATACMS MS and MLRS HIMARS areused against us. The targets were successfully hit. This is one of the newest weapons of the Russian Federation.
This complex is equipped with anti-aircraft guided missiles with self-homing heads. This complex has high mobility and high maneuverability. The complex has an autonomous power supply system, accordingly, it does not need to be tied to the SVEP(?) systems. And, accordingly, due to the fact that the division has a large spread, the spread of equipment, respectively, the survivability of the crews is increased.
The time from the moment of detection to the destruction of the target depends on the range, but as a rule in this area we have from one and a half to three seconds both with the participation of the operator and in automatic mode. The automatic mode of this complex works perfectly. No unnecessary rocket launches were carried out in this mode and all targets were successfully hit.
One of the main advantages of this complex is that the driver-operator is protected here. Due to the fact that the cabin is armored, and even the HIMARS shell with shrapnel  exploded nearby does not cause any harm to the driver, the cabin, or the cabin equipment."

Thanks Roman.

[TrustMe]

To add what Roman said about HAS's. In Britian the main airbases in the north of the country didn't have HAS either as the British MOD refused to pay for them as they were "out of range" of enemy aircraft. Talk about narrow minded.

In the early 1980's the US DOD actually paid for these HAS's to be built as they realised how vulnerable aircaft were from Soviet Su24's flying from Poland.

So, narrow mindedness can exist in NATO too.

[urbanoid]

24 minutes ago, alejandro_ said:

At the same time, this situation has existed not since 2022, 2014, or even since 1991, but since the 80s. The fact is that protective structures - arched shelters - were actively built in the USSR in the 1960s and 1970s for the aircraft that existed and were being developed at that time. And these were MiG-21, Su-7, Su-17, MiG-23 and MiG-27 - quite small machines. At the same time, the MiG-23/27 also had a change in wing sweep with a minimum span of 7.78 meters.

That is why arched shelters of type 2A13 measuring 12.9x28 meters were the most popular. They had a wall thickness of 60 cm and can protect not only from cluster munitions, but even from close bursts of high-explosive bombs. And because of the cost, they were built only in the border military districts, and not throughout the USSR.

But already in the 70s, the MiG-25 appeared with a wingspan of 14 meters, for which standard shelters were no longer suitable. Since 1982, the MiG-29 began to be delivered, which with a wingspan of 11.36 meters climbed into the 2A13 shelter only with a "squeak" and in order not to damage it, some airfields used guide rails. But more often, in order not to take risks and not bear responsibility for a damaged aircraft, they kept it in the open air.

The Su-27 with a wingspan of 15 meters, which began arriving in 1985, also remained without a roof over its head. At the same time, despite plans to build a new type of shelter, the USSR was unable to do so. The country was already teetering on the brink of collapse, so shelters for new planes were built, if they were built, then only in homeopathic quantities.

Moreover, sometimes the shelters were not from possible enemy strikes, but rather from bad weather. And there are several such shelters at the airbase near Myrhorod, or rather - there were. Because they were destroyed by the enemy in the first days of the war.

Thus, arch shelters for the Su-27, at least at the air base near Myrhorod, simply do not exist. And the reasons why they were not built after 1991 are well known and do not require additional explanation, because the much bigger problem was not where to hide the planes, but in general what to fly on, what to fuel the cars with and pay the pilots' salaries.

https://defence-ua.com/army_and_war/chomu_ukrajinski_su_27_stojat_prosto_neba_a_ne_v_ukrittjah_i_scho_bude_z_f_16-15857.html

Ok, I get it, 1980s were hard financially, but surely a shelter must be merely a fraction of the cost of the aircraft?

As stated in the article, they only built shelters in border military districts, not throughout the USSR, even before the 1980s. A HAS is a one time expenditure that will likely result in savings over a long period of time, as the aircraft that aren't affected by elements all the time need less/simpler maintenance.

[Stuart Galbraith]

12 hours ago, urbanoid said:

Right, and the question was about 1980s, not later. Quite a lot of Su-27s and MiG-29s entered service at the time and as a general rule there was no shelters for them, why?

All in all even before Su-27/MiG-29 hardened shelters weren't necessarily a rule in the Warsaw Pact states, plenty of aircraft had to do without.

When you get down to it, the entire region was a throughput to the west. It wasnt a combat zone in itself. It was too far removed from Turkey and the Inner German border to warrant such an investment.

http://www.easternorbat.com/html/kiev_military_district_eng.html

http://www.easternorbat.com/html/belorussian_military_district_.html

http://www.easternorbat.com/html/south-western_stratdir_eng.html

Poland has a similar problem with its legacy airfields. Most are in the West, where they would be most useful, in the East, there were few if any built. Simply because they were built as jumping off points into West Germany, not to defend from the East.

 

As for not building large enough for the next generation aircraft, the Yugoslavs did the same thing.

https://www.fivemillionstarhotel.co/blog-reel/mostar-aircraft-hangar

 

 

37 minutes ago, TrustMe said:

To add what Roman said about HAS's. In Britian the main airbases in the north of the country didn't have HAS either as the British MOD refused to pay for them as they were "out of range" of enemy aircraft. Talk about narrow minded.

In the early 1980's the US DOD actually paid for these HAS's to be built as they realised how vulnerable aircaft were from Soviet Su24's flying from Poland.

So, narrow mindedness can exist in NATO too.

There are a large number of them at Boscombe Down, which never had operational aircraft permanently stations there. IIRC< it was intended as a deployment location for an F111 unit in the US in time of hostilities.

 

There is a question in my mind how useful HAS actually were. I remember one of the guys whom was shot down in the Gulf war wrote a book called 'Team Tornado', and he said in the 1990's of the ones they had at Laarsbruch, they were considerably less optimistic how useful they were after seeing how easy it was to penetrate near identical ones in Iraq. PGM's were around since the late 1960's, but I think it took everyone for surprise quite how common they had become by the late 80's. All part of the microchip revolution. I still think dispersal is more useful than a HAS, because in the end, all you are doing is setting out a nice target location for a PGM. The methods the Luftwaffe pioneered of parking in treelines are probably more relevant, as Ukraine seemingly has found.

 

Edited July 5, 2024 by Stuart Galbraith

[seahawk]

A HAS is one think, but a normal hangar also protected against small drones and the weather.

 

https://www.losbergerdeboer.com/global/solutions/rapid-deployment-space/military-aircraft-shelters/

[TrustMe]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

There is a question in my mind how useful HAS actually were. I remember one of the guys whom was shot down in the Gulf war wrote a book called 'Team Tornado', and he said in the 1990's of the ones they had at Laarsbruch, they were considerably less optimistic how useful they were after seeing how easy it was to penetrate near identical ones in Iraq. PGM's were around since the late 1960's, but I think it took everyone for surprise quite how common they had become by the late 80's. All part of the microchip revolution. I still think dispersal is more useful than a HAS, because in the end, all you are doing is setting out a nice target location for a PGM. The methods the Luftwaffe pioneered of parking in treelines are probably more relevant, as Ukraine seemingly has found.

 

 

In Desert Storm it was the F117's that delivered most of the perscission weapons against Iraqi HAS's using laser guided 2000 lb bombs. They were very effective. I Think F111's did some as well but in the main it was the F117's. 

HAS's are still very useful in terms of near misses, as for dispersal in Iraq, there were dozens of airfields but dispersion didn't help out the Iraqi's very much. It's why Saddam sent a quater of his aircraft to Iran.

 

Edited July 5, 2024 by TrustMe

[Markus Becker]

23 minutes ago, seahawk said:

A HAS is one think, but a normal hangar also protected against small drones and the weather.

 

https://www.losbergerdeboer.com/global/solutions/rapid-deployment-space/military-aircraft-shelters/

Against recon too. You can't tell what's inside. 

[alejandro_]

The Russian Defense Ministry has received a batch of PP-2000 submachine guns, which are capable of firing even after being submerged in water and mud, the Rostec state corporation reported on its Telegram channel on July 5.

https://iz.ru/1722962/2024-07-05/rostekh-peredal-v-voiska-novye-vynoslivye-pistolety-pulemety-pp-2000

I am only aware of these being supplied to pilots.

[glenn239]

15 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

Below is product of video to text and then Yandex-translation with my corrections, sorry for quality, note it seems like next to every sentence is separated from another by clip cut.

"We are standing near the launcher of the S-350 Vityaz anti-aircraft missile system, which is successfully showing itself in the area of its own defense. Not so long ago, we worked on a large salvo of HIMARS MLRS. There were about 12-16 incoming targets. This complex has successfully coped. Not a single target has reached its destination. The targets were detected  at a range of about 90 km. Accordingly, having let it get closer, steadily accompanying it, the target was hit at a range of about 70 kilometers. The missile maneuvers parallel to the target. Both ATACMS MS and MLRS HIMARS areused against us. The targets were successfully hit. This is one of the newest weapons of the Russian Federation.
This complex is equipped with anti-aircraft guided missiles with self-homing heads. This complex has high mobility and high maneuverability. The complex has an autonomous power supply system, accordingly, it does not need to be tied to the SVEP(?) systems. And, accordingly, due to the fact that the division has a large spread, the spread of equipment, respectively, the survivability of the crews is increased.
The time from the moment of detection to the destruction of the target depends on the range, but as a rule in this area we have from one and a half to three seconds both with the participation of the operator and in automatic mode. The automatic mode of this complex works perfectly. No unnecessary rocket launches were carried out in this mode and all targets were successfully hit.
One of the main advantages of this complex is that the driver-operator is protected here. Due to the fact that the cabin is armored, and even the HIMARS shell with shrapnel  exploded nearby does not cause any harm to the driver, the cabin, or the cabin equipment."

Ok, so S-350

- increased lethality against ballistic targets in large salvos, up to 100% kill rate

- better dispersion of battery assets and independent power supplies

- active radar homing warheads

- armored compartments for crews

- AI engagements work very well.

- cheaper than S-400 (not stated, but read that elsewhere)

 

This would be a popular export system after the war, I bet.

 

 

[Yama]

5 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

There is a question in my mind how useful HAS actually were. I remember one of the guys whom was shot down in the Gulf war wrote a book called 'Team Tornado', and he said in the 1990's of the ones they had at Laarsbruch, they were considerably less optimistic how useful they were after seeing how easy it was to penetrate near identical ones in Iraq. PGM's were around since the late 1960's, but I think it took everyone for surprise quite how common they had become by the late 80's. All part of the microchip revolution. I still think dispersal is more useful than a HAS, because in the end, all you are doing is setting out a nice target location for a PGM. The methods the Luftwaffe pioneered of parking in treelines are probably more relevant, as Ukraine seemingly has found.

There probably was a line of thinking, that if enemy takes the trouble to fly over your airbase (or fire a missile on it), then he would also drop a munition powerful enough to penetrate relatively thin wall of typical HAS. So you'd need like a proper cave to really protect your aircraft, or disperse them.

But at that time, massed cheap drones did not exist, and nobody thought about spec ops team (or just some terrorists) which only needs to get within few km's of the base to drop munitions on drones. So it's a new paradigm again.

[KV7]

5 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

There is a question in my mind how useful HAS actually were. I remember one of the guys whom was shot down in the Gulf war wrote a book called 'Team Tornado', and he said in the 1990's of the ones they had at Laarsbruch, they were considerably less optimistic how useful they were after seeing how easy it was to penetrate near identical ones in Iraq. PGM's were around since the late 1960's, but I think it took everyone for surprise quite how common they had become by the late 80's. All part of the microchip revolution. I still think dispersal is more useful than a HAS, because in the end, all you are doing is setting out a nice target location for a PGM. The methods the Luftwaffe pioneered of parking in treelines are probably more relevant, as Ukraine seemingly has found.

HAS raise the difficulty of attack considerably, if you use LGB you need to come close to or overfly it, if you use some standoff munition it needs good accuracy and sufficient power and then less will be available or can be carried. On the other hand if they are in the open or in simple hangers, you can use something far cheaper and available in plentiful numbers, even some lancet class weapon, or you can use some cluster munition and expect to cover several parking bays.

The U.S. attack on Shayrat Airbase showed that a hardened base is even quite resistant to mass cruise missile attacks, where there were many near misses that did no substantial damage.

[KV7]

19 minutes ago, Yama said:

There probably was a line of thinking, that if enemy takes the trouble to fly over your airbase (or fire a missile on it), then he would also drop a munition powerful enough to penetrate relatively thin wall of typical HAS. So you'd need like a proper cave to really protect your aircraft, or disperse them.

But at that time, massed cheap drones did not exist, and nobody thought about spec ops team (or just some terrorists) which only needs to get within few km's of the base to drop munitions on drones. So it's a new paradigm again.

I don't think that was such a good idea even then. Without hardening you can fire a cruise missile with a cluster munition into the area of the hanger bay and expect to cause significant damage, whereas against a HAS you will need a unitary warhead to penetrate, and it will likely miss. Wrecking an air formation at some base goes from a ~10 cruise missile strike to maybe 100 + if you have HAS.

Even if you can overfly it, the losses for a given strike package will be substantially smaller, because you cannot just cover the area with CBU or airbursting conventional bombs and expect to wreck everything in the vicinity.

 

[Roman Alymov]

Factory-made (by Arkmetov's Metinvest) set of grids to protect M1 Abrams from drones

https://t.me/infomil_live/7768

[Roman Alymov]

3 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Ok, so S-350

 

Another cut from the same video https://t.me/sashakots/47702

[Soldier36]

Footage of the Russian kamikaze drone Lancet-51 hitting the Ukrainian Tunguska air defense missile system, near the village of Peschanoye. The 2S6 Tunguska anti-aircraft gun and missile system was developed in the USSR in 1982; now it is quite rare in the Ukrainian and Russian armies. ZRPK "Tunguska" has two 2A38 guns with a caliber of 30 mm and missile weapons. The range of hitting targets with missiles is up to 8 km, and the height is up to 3.5 km. As a result of the Lancet drone strike, a fire started in the Tunguska air defense missile system.