"More Russian Sukhoi Losses" Topic

I have no idea if the assertions are credible or not, but apparently the Ukrainians are claiming they downed a Russian Su-34 today with a Stinger, AND there is a report that the Russian navy scored an "own goal", downing another Russian Sukhoi over the Black Sea (Su-30, I think, was mentioned).

I have no idea if the latter is credible, or just Ukrainian propaganda, but it is very interesting if it turns out to be true.

Given the number of Stingers in Ukraine, and the supposed increased tempo of jet ops by the Russians, I suspect the former is probably reasonably credible.

From what I've read the VKS is using a lot of unguided munitions that require low level bombing runs to have any kind of accuracy which makes them very susceptible to MANPADS. Seems like NATO's guided stand off munitions would be a huge advantage in a war.

This is interesting because the Russians do have reasonably advanced guided missile tech. So why are they using unguided munitions, which require low flying and expose their aircraft to AA fire and MANPADS?

Is it because they have the tech but their stockpiles are small, and so they want to conserve them? Is it because -- like I think The Economist and others are arguing -- Russian pilots don't train too much and when they do it's with unguided weapons (possibly because of stockpile or cost reasons)?

I mean, on paper Russian guided weapons and aircraft are impressive. So why aren't they using advanced tactics that take advantage of their tech?

I think there are a couple factors at play here:
1. Low stockpiles before the war
2. Bad logistics system to get the guided munitions where they're needed
3. Russians hit a lot of infrastructure targets successfully in the first few days and may have burned through the stockpile they had
4. Sometimes militaries have blindspots and maybe this was a Russian one. Assuming Ukraine couldn't mount an air defense and the VKS fighters would get through.
5. Following Douhet they are making war on the will of the people with low level drops for terror and don't care if they lose jets as long as they break enemy morale. Why waste guided munitions if this is the goal

I imagine a bit of the following, e.g. wanting to keep some in reserve, and they probably expended a tremendous amount of them, especially when one considers how many were used in Syria and other locations too, not to mention the very high costs of precision weaponry.

There never seems to be enough in the way of ammunition, ordnance, and spare parts, especially due to cost.

The SVP-24 is an enhanced navigation system that acts as a computerized bomb sight manufactured by Russian company Gefest & T that is claimed to provide similar accuracy to guided munitions. It proved to be highly effective in the Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War and is being rolled out to all bombers.

link

Russian aviation can fly at low altitude for only one reason – all Ukrainian S-300 and Buk anti-aircraft systems have not yet been destroyed, and they pose a great danger at high altitudes. The danger from MANPADS is assessed as insignificant.
If you have not seen a photo of a downed plane (and it can only be shot down over enemy territory, and now almost every person has a smartphone, which means the opportunity to record such a victory), then this victory was only in the next issue of "Die Deutsche Wochenschau")))

Russia did indeed use Bastion anti-ship missile systems to destroy ground targets. But this does not mean that the Russians are running out of missiles – this means that such a missile system has the ability to regularly fire at ground targets (this has already been done in Syria). And now it is planned to equip this missile system with Kinzhal hypersonic missiles, and it would be nice to use the rest of the old missiles "for their intended purpose."

link

Cuprum, that they are flying low in order to avoid SAMs and to more effectively use unguided weapons is a given, in my opinion.

We already discussed unguided weapons (also: I've seen videos of their use in Syria and Russian unguided weapons seem very imprecise, so I'm not convinced about their effectiveness).

So the other point: why are they not conducting SEAD missions and completely destroying the enemy AA capability, gaining air superiority and making the job of their ground troops easier? My guess is that they simply cannot: either lack of the proper weapons or tactics (the latter due to lack of training).

Then again, I'm "armchair general'ing" here. It just surprises me just how unlike Western armies the Russians behave, completely disregarding modern tactics and shrugging off loss of personnel and kit as if it was nothing…

Thresher, one thing I find unconvincing for the "they are keeping their best kit in reserve" theory, which I also read elsewhere, is…

…in reserve for *what*? Putin has to win this war, his future is in jeopardy (in my opinion, it is even if he "wins", but if he loses I don't see how he won't be toppled by his own people). The Russian military are making fool of themselves. Their kit, which they hope to sell as always, is being used so badly I don't see it will make a good impression on potential buyers.

This has happened before. I know the T-72 (in later Mks at least) is a capable tank, but it was used so badly by the Iraqis that it created a marketing problem for the Russians, which is why they rebranded the most advanced version of the T-72 as.. the T-90. This is going to be a repeat of that debacle, only for all of their military hardware!

Then again, I'm "armchair general'ing" here. It just surprises me just how unlike Western armies the Russians behave, completely disregarding modern tactics and shrugging off loss of personnel and kit as if it was nothing…

Contemporary Western democracies are very casualty adverse, politically its bad news, though it has to be said that can only really applied to recent military adventures and not to a major war directly involving the territory of a Western nation. Putin on the other hand is alleged to have said that he was willing to sustain 50,000 casualties. Neither the Russian public or conscripts are getting much input or consultation on that!

I read an article a few weeks ago about how VKS views itself as long range artillery for the ground forces in it's primary role. As such they expect contested air space and plan to operate in it instead of conducting SEAD and achieving air superiority. Not sure if that's true but it explains a lot about how their air force has conducted the war. Realistically their most likely opponent to prepare for has been NATO and they wouldn't be able to achieve air superiority against the combined air forces of NATO so it might be a blind spot where they didn't actually plan to do this in Ukraine.

In reserve just in case the evil, aggressive, offensive-minded NATO nations decide to invade Russia of course, comrade.

That's the narrative we've been sold.

"
So the other point: why are they not conducting SEAD missions and completely destroying the enemy AA capability…".

Apparently, Russian forces/pilots don't do SEAD sorties since they are not trained for it, nor interdiction sorties either. They're dedicated to pretty much air superiority, close air support, and bombing/rocket/missile attacks of fixed points, according to one post I recently read.

No idea if that is actually true, but current evidence seems to support that.

Who is selling that narrative? With a huge amount of Russian troops tied down in the quagmire that is Ukraine, not finishing up quickly exposes Putin to an even worse danger if NATO intervenes.

I don't think Putin believes NATO is going to ever invade Russia, because that would be insane and would end badly for NATO forces. He may believe NATO could intervene in Ukraine, potentially triggering WWIII, but in my mind that should make him want to end this war quickly and decisively. Not using better weapons and tactics seem to run counter to that goal.

Re: training, I totally buy that. But it boggles the mind that the Russian military doesn't study Western air superiority tactics and why they work. The West certainly studied Russian tactics.

The VVS deemed manpads as a non threat- the problem is that modern manpads have gotten really good. Even if they don't destroy an aircraft, they can create a mission kill, which is just as good, by forcing an abort.

The VVS has a lot of stand-off weaponry, though, so now they are using that in lieu of flying over the target and exposing themselves to lo or high anti air threats. Losses have been reduced (though not to zero!) as a result.

Stand off weapons are both more expensive and have limited inventory, so who knows how the next stage will evolve? I suspect the hope is that the ground forces will have overrun their targets before they have to go to a stage three, but we shall see. The Russians aren't dumb, and will change up tactics when they face obstacles.

Sounds like the Russians are shifting to flying over the target with dumb bombs, perhaps due to lack of precision munitions.

Tgerritsen:

> The VVS has a lot of stand-off weaponry, though, so now they are using that in lieu of flying over the target and exposing themselves to lo or high anti air threats. Losses have been reduced (though not to zero!) as a result.

Bill:

> Sounds like the Russians are shifting to flying over the target with dumb bombs, perhaps due to lack of precision munitions.

It cannot be both at the same time, so which one is it?

The amount of contradictory, misleading and plain old fake news surrounding this war is outstanding. And it's not all coming from the Russians…