War in Ukraine, technical and military aspects only

[Soldier36]

Footage of the new Russian air defense system S-350 "Vityaz", army index 50Р6А, adopted for service in 2020. The S-350 Vityaz medium-range air defense system was developed by the Almaz-Antey concern and should replace the S-300PS air defense system and the Buk-M1-2 air defense system. The Vityaz air defense system consists of a 50P6E launcher, a 50P6TE launcher, a 50N6E multifunctional radar with passive electronic scanning and a 50K6E combat control point, located on the BAZ chassis. The 92N6E detection radar from the S-400 air defense system and the 96L6E autonomous all-altitude detector can be used. The main function of the Vityaz air defense system is to cover the S-300V4, S-400, S-500 air defense systems and other targets from missile attacks and medium-sized UAVs; the radar probably does not see small-sized drones. The S-350 air defense system is capable of hitting ATACMS tactical missiles, Storm Shadow and SCALP-EG cruise missiles, HIMARS MLRS missiles, aircraft and UAVs.
One launcher of the S-350 air defense system contains 12 missiles and is capable of firing a salvo equivalent to a division of the S-300 air defense system. The Vityaz air defense system can operate in automatic mode, in active and passive radar modes. The complex uses 9M96E/9M96E2 missiles from the S-400 air defense system and 9M100E missiles.
There is also a South Korean analogue, the KM-SAM air defense system, developed jointly with Russia, as well as the Resurs 3K-96-3E ship-based air defense system. Detailed characteristics of the complex on the screen. The air defense system is capable of simultaneously firing at 16 aerodynamic and 12 ballistic targets. The range of destruction of aerodynamic targets is up to 60 km, at altitudes from 10 meters to 30 km, ballistic targets are hit at a distance of up to 30 km and an altitude of up to 25 km. The deployment time of the air defense system into combat position is 5 minutes. The crew of the S-350 air defense system is 3 people.
The price of a division of the S-350 Vityaz air defense system is presumably about $135 million.

 

 

[Pavel Novak]

On 7/4/2024 at 11:18 PM, 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)

Soviets started in second half of 1980s extensive rebuilding of their east german bases with new large HASes. Problem with researching this is that Germany today demolished lot of them to create space for solar plants.

However the large type of HAS existed already in 1970s in the USSR but was rare. To my knowledge other Warsaw Pact started to build these large ones only in 1980s in limited number.

On 7/4/2024 at 11:26 PM, 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.

Why? Cost, cost and cost. Though Czechoslovakia and East Germany had extensive programs to build them on nearly all their tactical aviation air bases. Poland as much as I know not so much.

13 hours 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

I read somewhere that originally there was even smaller HAS in the USSR with internal width of 11 m instead of usual 13 m. But I did not saw any. In central europe standard was 13 m.

[Perun]

 

[Perun]

5 hours ago, Pavel Novak said:

Soviets started in second half of 1980s extensive rebuilding of their east german bases with new large HASes. Problem with researching this is that Germany today demolished lot of them to create space for solar plants.

However the large type of HAS existed already in 1970s in the USSR but was rare. To my knowledge other Warsaw Pact started to build these large ones only in 1980s in limited number.

Why? Cost, cost and cost. Though Czechoslovakia and East Germany had extensive programs to build them on nearly all their tactical aviation air bases. Poland as much as I know not so much.

I read somewhere that originally there was even smaller HAS in the USSR with internal width of 11 m instead of usual 13 m. But I did not saw any. In central europe standard was 13 m.

On google maps I sow shelters and MiG-31 standing parked in front of them. I dont know could the aircraft enter inside

[Perun]

4 minutes ago, Perun said:

 

 

[Perun]

 

[Pavel Novak]

1 hour ago, Perun said:

On google maps I sow shelters and MiG-31 standing parked in front of them. I dont know could the aircraft enter inside

Dependes on the shelter. It could be the case of new aircrafts vs old small shelters.

In Czechoslovakia in 1985 30th assault aviation regiment moved from Hradec Kralove to Pardubice (and 47th recon in other way) primarily because its Su-25K could fit only to new large HASes built in Pardubice in 1980s. Before that in Hradec Kralove Su-25K could just sit in front of 36 medium HASes here.

[Stuart Galbraith]

20 hours ago, TrustMe said:

 

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.

 

There was also RAF Tornado's using 1000lb paveways. I think some of the fleet used the new TIALD pod, but a lot of the laser designation was done by Blackburn Buccaneers.

[Stuart Galbraith]

15 hours ago, KV7 said:

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.

That might have been true 40 years ago, im not sure it still is.

 

[seahawk]

Still it contains the loss to one plane and one HAS.

[Roman Alymov]

Photos from Storm Shadow and ATACMS wrecks storage point

https://t.me/milinfolive/125488

[Roman Alymov]

Set of drone-directed artillery strikes videos

https://t.me/boris_rozhin/129113

[Ssnake]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

That might have been true 40 years ago, im not sure it still is.

I've seen nothing in your clip that puts a dent in KV7's arguments?

Yes, the needed bombs exist, but everything he wrote is still true compared to the scenario of no hardened aircraft shelter at all.

[Stuart Galbraith]

He says that carrying guided bombs means you cant carry so many. That to me looks like a 500lb, maybe 1000lb bomb casing, which shouldnt take up any more stations than a cluster bomb (a traditional weapon to destroy dispersed aircraft) or just a standard HE bomb in laydown mode would have done. With a guided bomb, its launch and leave. You dont really get much less complicated than that, except maybe exercising a loft delivery.

It IS true that you are containing the effects to THAT Has, and you arent extending the effects beyond that. But you know, in the Battle of Britain, the earth emplacements around aircraft parking areas did the same things. It was rare that anyone just parked fighter aircraft out in the open, except perhaps right at the start of the war. Even in vietnam the Americans were putting up containers full of rocks on dispersal pans to absorb Mortar impacts.

Edited July 6, 2024 by Stuart Galbraith

[TrustMe]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

There was also RAF Tornado's using 1000lb paveways. I think some of the fleet used the new TIALD pod, but a lot of the laser designation was done by Blackburn Buccaneers.

The RAF Tornado's began useing JP233 anti-runway munitions but due to the massive size of of Iraqi airbases it was only partically successful, a lot of the RAF Tornadoes got shot down flying these low level missions due to AAA. The RAF then switched to medium altitude bombing which the Tornado was not designed to do and it became ineffective as a war weapon. 

Only a small number of TIALD pods were avaliable as it was brand new and it was still in R&D. It's effectivness was susposed to be ok.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Yes,  that was on the runway busting missions. Im not sure it was so much the aircraft being ineffective at medium bombing so much as there was a complete lack of training in that environment. There was no logical reason why you couldnt have employed dive bombing, but I dont believe the RAF Tornado pilots were current in that at the time. Dont know if they practice it with Typhoon, it would be interesing to find out.

Yes, TIALD was pretty good, so good in fact they were supposed to graft the unit onto the GR4 upgrade, which ultimately never happened.

Bear in mind, and people often forget this, Tornado wasnt the only one conducting attacks on iraq. Jaguar pilots did. I do know they practiced dive attacks, because I saw them undertaking a drive rocket attack the 2002 Larkhill show, and jolly impressive it was too.

 

 

 

[seahawk]

Desert Storm was too long ago to be considered as an example. Today you have GPS guided bombs, that will hit a HAS with ease. But those bombs will also hit any ramp or revetment and the effect would be larger. The HAS still protects you from anything that is not a direct hit with a sizeable bomb. So light drones, cluster bombs,  shrapnel and such things won`t pepper your planes.

[Yama]

1 hour ago, seahawk said:

Desert Storm was too long ago to be considered as an example. Today you have GPS guided bombs, that will hit a HAS with ease. But those bombs will also hit any ramp or revetment and the effect would be larger. The HAS still protects you from anything that is not a direct hit with a sizeable bomb. So light drones, cluster bombs,  shrapnel and such things won`t pepper your planes.

True, and as we have seen nowadays, pinpoint-accuracy of satellite guided weapons is no longer guaranteed (recall that famous exercise, where B-2 drops 80 JDAMs on "enemy" airfield).

However I think people somewhat underestimate cost of building HAS. Swedish Air Force wanted hardened shelters for its BAS 90 concept, but it turned to be prohibitively expensive, despite lavish amount of money Sweden was spending to defence during that time. So most bases had only lightly build weather shelters.

[seahawk]

A HAS will be less than 10% of the price of a new plane. Now if you ditch the requirement to survive a 250lb bomb, you can use HAMCO structures with earth cover and it becomes quite cheap.

Edited July 6, 2024 by seahawk

[Stuart Galbraith]

The thing you have to remember, you build a HAS, you know where the plane is (or at least, you know where it is at least some of the time) You know where the plane is, you can kill it.

Go and park it on an motorway airstrip, guess what? They have to hit every treeline for miles to have a remote chance of killing your aircraft.

[Roman Alymov]

2 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

The thing you have to remember, you build a HAS, you know where the plane is (or at least, you know where it is at least some of the time) You know where the plane is, you can kill it.

Even pro-Ukrainians are taking this into consideration when constructing MULTIPLE improvised HAS, way more then they need for their shrinking AF 

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Like as not they are constructing the improvised HAS to attract attention, then park the real aircraft elsewhere. Thats what Id do.

[Roman Alymov]

11 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Like as not they are constructing the improvised HAS to attract attention, then park the real aircraft elsewhere. Thats what Id do.

Note they are trying to play this games (see decoy Su-25 on this video or pair of Su-27 painted on concrete filmed during Mirgorod airfield attack) but it is not exactly working against the drones that could look "into the gates" of covers, or against modern satelites. But, first and foremost, UkrAF existance is the product of work of repair plants inhereted from USSR (where dozens of planes are returned to flying condition from hundreds of airframes abandoned on airfields of Ukraine after USSR collapsed and "independent Ukraine" was not able to maintain such numerous airforce). The simpliest way to stop their work is to switch off NG supply to Ukraine - but it will destroy our elite's hopes to "return to normal relations" with West via assistance of politicians like Orban who is now benefiting from Rus NG flow via Ukraine....

[Soldier36]

Russian military personnel spoke about the use of the Scorpion-M wheeled platform in Ukraine. Typically, the Scorpion-M robotic platform is used for transport purposes, but in this case, the wheeled drone was loaded with explosives and sent to a Ukrainian army stronghold. The route of movement of the robotic platform is adjusted from the FPV drone.

 

 

[Soldier36]

The first Ukrainian anti-submarine corvette "Hetman Ivan Mazepa" F211 entered sea trials, we previously talked about it. The ship was built according to the design of the Turkish Ada-class anti-submarine corvettes, project MILGEM. The ship is due to join the Ukrainian fleet in 2024; a total of two ships will be built at a cost of $256 million. The ship is armed with a 76 mm OTO Melara Super Rapid gun, two 12.7 mm Aselsan STAMP machine guns, a 35 mm Aselsan Gokdeniz anti-aircraft artillery mount and a MICA VC air defense system with 16 missiles. Anti-submarine weapons are represented by 324 mm torpedo tubes "Mark 32 Surface Vessel Torpedo Tubes". The ship is armed with Harpoon or Atmaca anti-ship missiles. Armament may change in the future. The ship has a speed of up to 29 knots, with a cruising range of 3,500 nautical miles, a cruising endurance of 10 days, with supplies of 21 days. It is possible to have an S-70B Seahawk helicopter. Displacement corvette "Getman Ivan Mazepa" 2300 tons, power plant - one gas turbine and two diesel engines. The ship's crew is 93 people.