Ukraine's Sudden High Air Losses Likely Caused By New Russian Missiles

submitted by chakokat from (moonofalabama.org)

all 12 comments
sorted by:
new (suggested)
topinsightfulfun

[–]sdl5 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

And here is where I write what I have been thinking for some time about Russia's pattern of big actions in the Ukr:

They wait for the maximum damage window immediately before a real threat to their side is viable. Sometimes after an attempt or two, often before the first can happen.

By waiting on the flying craft takedowns to these last weeks they all but guaranteed the entirety of the "western trained" Ukr pilots would be in the air or at Ukr bases, that the best available crafts would be at the rear to mid theatre and within reach, and that as usual guards would be dropped due to arrogance from both NATO idiots and Ukr fools.

Anyone with a lick of sense and monitoring the real actual strikes across that region by Ru knew full well the Khinzals were in use, unstoppable, untrackable, and insanely fast while still very accurate on any kind of target.

This is no new weapon unveiled. No change in tactics. And it should be no surprise that Ukr aircraft are now being taken out en masse.

[–]CaelianPost No Toasties 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Very interesting article, though it's unknown how accurate. Good comments as well, though "reader discretion is always advised" at Moon of Alabama.

Bottom line: the USA proxy war against Russia in the Ukraine has given the Russians the incentive to improve their weapons and an excellent way to test them in realistic war conditions. Engineers thrive in this environment and their products show it. Russia, China, and Iran value and respect engineers. The USA values financiers and treats engineers like disposable tissues.

Some of the comments speculate that Russia has had advanced missiles for some time, but have been reluctant to use their best weapons in the Ukraine because they didn't want to provide the USA with information that could be used to develop countermeasures. They are now using better weapons to show the USA what they can expect if they mess with Russia in the Middle East. The message from Russia to the USA: "don't even think about it."

[–]chakokat[S] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

The message from Russia to the USA: "don't even think about it.”

100%!

[–]CaelianPost No Toasties 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

H/T Barry Lyndon (1975)

[–]penelopepnortneyBecome ungovernable 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

And, on another front, per this comment on the MOA piece:

The US is no longer sending the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group to the Eastern Mediterranean, but rather to the 'Central Command area of responsibility' which includes the Red Sea and Persian Gulf. This followed attacks on US forces in Syria and Iraq who were fired on by Iranian-backed militias. The US wishes to avoid backing its forces on the ground, especially if they are taken hostage by rebel militias. They don't want a US ground war. There is also some evidence from remarks by US officials that they may be considering withdrawing US ground forces from Iraq, Jordan and Syria to avoid them being overwhelmed and taken hostage. According to John Helmer at Dances With Bears this signals an acknowledgement by the US of the vulnerability of US carrier groups to Russian Kinzhal missile attacks from the Black Sea. The Eisenhower Carrier Group moved to the Persian Gulf would be less of a target for the Kinzhal missiles which travel at Mach 8 and possess sophisticated targeting capabilities. They are virtually unstoppable. The US is extremely worried about the missile defense vulnerabilities of its naval forces. But the US is definitely itching for a war and I'm guessing long range ballistic missiles against Iran and, if necessary, Russia.

See also here

Posted by: Damien | Oct 25 2023 7:25 utc | 141

[–]CaelianPost No Toasties 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

The US is no longer sending the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group to the Eastern Mediterranean, but rather to the 'Central Command area of responsibility' which includes the Red Sea and Persian Gulf.

Aircraft carriers are very impressive to look at. They are gigantic: literally floating cities. They give the impression of invulnerability, and their effectiveness as instruments of bullying imperialism depends on that impression.

So if Russia, China, Iran, or DPRK takes one or more out with a couple of hypersonic missiles, it looks really bad.

[–]BlackhaloPurity Pony: Pусский бот 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Not to mention that multiple state economies (Alabama, Maryland) are out of business if we stop building them.

[–]penelopepnortneyBecome ungovernable 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

As numerous military analysts have pointed out, they were great during the last world war but are obsolete sitting ducks now because of new weapons technology. Despite that, I think I read a month or so back that the Pentagon is ordering more of them. Forgot who it was who talked about the idiocy of preparing for the last war instead of the next one.

[–]BlackhaloPurity Pony: Pусский бот 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Scott Ritter brings it up a lot, but it's an old axiom. https://www.historians.org/about-aha-and-membership/aha-history-and-archives/gi-roundtable-series/pamphlets/em-40-will-the-french-republic-live-again-(1944)/fighting-the-last-war

[–]penelopepnortneyBecome ungovernable 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks for that excellent link.

[–]penelopepnortneyBecome ungovernable 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Moreover, all of them were shot down far from the front line and outside the radius of Russian air defense systems, as well as outside the standard radius of Russian fighter missiles. Those pilots who were able to eject reported that until the moment their planes were hit, they did not receive warning information about the attack from the appropriate warning systems.

The Americans believe that the Russian Aerospace Forces have acquired new missiles capable of not only hitting targets at a great distance, but also, after launch, independently pursuing a target without illuminating it from the aircraft’s radar, using a radio signature to guide it (the target).

...if it is confirmed, it means that the Russians have acquired a weapon that will neutralize all the advertised advantages of their new main fighter, the F-35.

[–]chakokat[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The claim that there is 'a real massacre in the Ukrainian sky' is valid if the recent daily reports of the Russian Ministry of Defense are near to reality. I for one believe they are.

The typical Ukrainian air-force loss rate over the first three quarters of this year was one to three air planes or helicopters per week.

Since the mid of October the Russian daily reports claimed, according to my notes, the shot down of:

*17 Ukrainian Mig-29 fighter aircraft

*2 Ukrainian SU-24 tactical bombers

*3 Ukrainian SU-25 close air support jets

*1 Ukrainian L-39 fighter jet trainer

*3 MI-8 transport helicopters

That is a total of 26 air assets over just 9 days!

If this is even near to the truth it is a catastrophic loss rate for the Ukrainian air force.

Is this even possible, one might ask. I believe it is. In October 2022, after a decades long development phase, media announced the first kill of a Ukrainian plane by a Russian R-37M long-range air-to-air missile:

The R-37 was developed from the R-33. For compatibility with aircraft that did not have the MiG-31's sophisticated radar, the semi-active seeker was replaced with a variant of the Agat 9B-1388 active seeker. Similarly, folding tail controls allow semi-conformal carriage on planes that are not as big as the MiG-31.

Mid-body strakes enhance lift and hence increase range. According to Defence Today, the range depends on the flight profile, from 80 nautical miles (150 km) for a direct shot to 215 nautical miles (398 km) for a cruise glide profile.

The R-37M designation has since been used for a modernized variant of the missile, also known as RVV-BD (Raketa Vozduh-Vozduh Bolyshoy Dalnosty, or Long-Range Air-to-Air Missile). R-37M's range exceeds 200 km, and it is capable of hypersonic speeds (~Mach 5). It will be carried by the modernized MiG-31BM interceptors and Su-35S and Su-57 multirole fighters. It is not known whether the long-range air-to-air missile for the Su-57, designated as Izdeliye 810, is a derivative of the R-37M.

The missile can attack targets at altitudes of 15–25,000 meters, guided semi-actively or actively through the Agat 9B-1388 system.

The R-37M is claimed to have a maximum reach of 400 kilometer (~250 miles) and a hypersonic speed of Mach 5-6. It can be fired from safe airspace, outside of any Ukrainian air-defense range, deep into Ukraine.

In February 2023 Ukraine claimed to have found the wreckage of an R-37M.

Modified Ukrainian air-planes have been used to fire British Storm Shadow missiles (and the similar French SCALP-EG) at Russian targets. I haven't found any recent report of their successful use.

Ukrainian air assets have to fly near to the ground to survive.

The sudden increase in Ukrainian air losses points to the introduction, in large numbers, of a new variant of the R-37M with an updated targeting capability and/or an even longer range.

The U.S. plans to introduce F-16s fighter jets with 'long range' (100 kilometer, 60 miles) AIM-120D air-to-air missiles to Ukraine. They are clearly inferior to Russian air force capabilities and can only contribute to the losses.