Here we go again-Ukraine once again

[Dargo]

Russia's air force 'remains largely intact,' but more jets won't fix all its problems in Ukraine, NATO commanders say

After 16 months of fighting in Ukraine, Russia's military still has nearly all of its combat aircraft, but neither Russian nor Ukrainian aircraft can control the air, the Royal Air Force's top general said Thursday. Jets and helicopters have not disappeared from over Ukraine, but thickets of air-defense systems make the airspace inhospitable. And even though Russia has a vastly larger air force, other issues may keep it from operating effectively, according to two NATO air commanders. In a speech at the Global Air & Space Chiefs' Conference in London on Thursday, Air Chief Marshal Rich Knighton, chief of the British air staff, said Russia's land force is now "weaker," having lost more than two-thirds of its tanks, "but the air force remains largely intact." Knighton displayed graphics depicting both side's losses, based on assessments by British Defence Intelligence and open-source tracking website Oryx. One graphic said Russia has taken over 220,000 casualties, including 176 military pilots, and lost 162 air-defense systems. A second graphic said Russia's air force retains 96% of its 2,021 fixed-wing aircraft and 90% of its 899 helicopters, with losses of 86 planes and 90 helicopters.

The second graphic noted heavier losses for Ukraine's air force: 68 fixed-wing aircraft, leaving 78% of its 314-plane fleet, and 31 helicopters, or 48% of its 59 helicopters. Ukraine now has 15 combat aircraft for every 100 that Russia has, the graphic said. Those numbers differ slightly from previous estimates. A US intelligence document leaked online this spring listed Russian losses at 72 fighter jets and fighter-bombers and 81 helicopters and Ukrainian losses at 60 fighters and fighter-bombers and 32 helicopters. The leaked document noted that officials had "low confidence" in attrition estimates due to "information gaps," operational security and information operations, and bias in information shared by Ukraine. Knighton said neither Russia nor Ukraine have been able to gain air superiority, "but the advantage is with defense" and the force on offense "faces a massive challenge without air superiority and without being able to strike the adversary in the deep." That echoes comments of numerous US and NATO officials, who have said that effective air-defense networks on both sides prevent both Ukraine and Russia from achieving air superiority and launching effective air attacks on front line or rear-area targets.

Had Russia's air force been able to control the skies when it attacked in February 2022, "it probably would have been a three- or a 10-day war," Gen. James Hecker, commander of US Air Forces in Europe and of NATO's Allied Air Command, said on a June 29 episode of the War on the Rocks podcast. "All the equipment that the 45 nations have offered Ukraine and trucked in would never have gotten there if Russia had air superiority," Hecker said. "They would have had close air support aircraft right on the border of Poland and Romania, over the lines of communications, and as soon as it crossed the border it would have been done." Both sides have effective air-defense networks that are countering the other's operations, added Hecker, who said in March that Ukraine had lost more than 60 aircraft and Russia more than 70. Ukraine now has "a very, very sophisticated, robust, resilient, integrated air- and missile-defense system, as does Russia, so what you're seeing is Russia can't fly their airplanes deep into Ukraine, because they get shot down," Hecker said. "Likewise, Ukraine can't fly theirs into Russia because of that same reason." Aircraft from both sides are still active, however. Airstrikes were part of Ukraine's preparation for the counteroffensive it launched in June. While Russia's air force hasn't brought most of its airpower to bear, its aircraft continue to strike Ukrainian positions and there are signs it is tinkering with new ways to employ them, though often from the safety of Russian-held territory.

"We've been seeing them do experimentations with different types of rockets that they're able to launch from slightly farther back on their side," Dara Massicot, an expert on the Russian military at the Rand Corporation think tank, said on a podcast in April, referring to Russian aviation activity near Bakhmut and Kherson. Massicot and others say Russia's air force could still exploit its numerical advantage if Ukraine's air-defenses network falters, though other factors could inhibit Russian air operations going forward. Its losses have likely taken a heavy toll on its relatively small cadre of skilled pilots, and Western sanctions could limit its ability to repair and build jets. Hecker and his deputy, British Air Marshal Johnny Stringer, also said that despite some recent improvements, issues with training, targeting, and decision-making would likely impede the Russian air force's performance. "The Russians have recapitalized a fair amount of their tactical air force, and they've done a lot on the weapons front as well. But if you don't address all the lines of development," Stringer said on the War on the Rocks podcast, "stand by to have some flashy things that are not capable in the way that perhaps you expected when you were writing the check." Russian strikes on front-line targets still mostly consist of missiles, bombs, and rockets being "lobbed in" with "very, very little accuracy," Stringer said. "That is not the hallmark of a top-tier air force, and to be honest, although we are probably seeing some improvements — and I don't really want to get too drawn on that — they have a long way to go." https://www.businessinsider.com/russ...23-7?r=US&IR=T

[Catfish]

Three soldiers, driver, loader, gunner, in a small mobile vehicle with TOWs and manpads. Spoils russian doctrine anytime.

[Dargo]

The U.S. government is set to effectively buy back recently retired Hawk surface-to-air missile systems from Taiwan, which will then be transferred to the Ukrainian armed forces, according to Taiwanese media outlets. The War Zone has previously noted that sending Taiwan's Hawks to Ukraine would make good sense given that the latter country has a somewhat dire need for additional air and missile defense capacity. The U.S. military and the Spanish government have previously announced plans to deliver Hawk systems and stocks of MIM-23 missiles for them to Ukraine. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...ukraine-report

MIM-23 Hawk

[tonschk]

[Catfish]

^ You mean like Putin was snubbed at the G8 summits? Must have somehow broken his ego when he starts a war of aggression just because of that.
But first this HT "report" is a scam, and second I take it Zelenky is a lot tougher.
He staid in Kyyiv during the russian assault, while Putin ran away several times, from the Kremlin drone attack to Prigozhin marching towards Moscow.

India buys millions of tons of oil from Russia, it only gets its military hardware from them.. what do you expect the "Hindustan Times" to write? Seems they try to please Russia since relations are deteriorating:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/h...es-with-russia

[Skybird]

Why no one can end the Ukraine war. Excellent comment and analysis.

https://unherd.com/2023/07/why-no-on...e-ukraine-war/


Professor Edward Luttwak is a strategist and historian known for his works on grand strategy, geoeconomics, military history, and international relations.

[Jimbuna]

[Skybird]

The NYT gets quoted with remarks on that the Ukrainians have so far pushed 8 of 95 km until the coast of the Asov Sea. Its further said that in the mminent future the Ukrianaisn managed to drop their own losses in vehicles and heavy equipment to 10% (whate ver timnefreame that covers). That obviously means that before, their losses were signficantly above 10%.

I would not be surprised if somebody comes up and shows that they have so far lost in total a quarter of their attack force. Maybe even more.

Their loss ratio is what concerns me most.


87 km to go.

[Jimbuna]

[mapuc]

Now they get MIM-23 HAWK from USA, to be used at the frontline.
Range about 40 km which mean they can shoot down these KA 52 helicopters before they come into firerange to fire their anti-tank missiles, who should have a range about 30 km.

If not take them down then keep these KA 52 on the ground.

Markus

[tonschk]

UKRAINIAN POW - THERE WAS NO FOOD SUPPLIES OR EVACUATION

https://www.bitchute.com/video/eUIYF1Lz5V9Z/

[tonschk]

Russian Airstrike Annihilates Ukraine's Drone Control Centre, Starlink Station In Kherson

[Jimbuna]

[Dargo]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The NYT gets quoted with remarks on that the Ukrainians have so far pushed 8 of 95 km until the coast of the Asov Sea. Its further said that in the mminent future the Ukrianaisn managed to drop their own losses in vehicles and heavy equipment to 10% (whate ver timnefreame that covers). That obviously means that before, their losses were signficantly above 10%.

I would not be surprised if somebody comes up and shows that they have so far lost in total a quarter of their attack force. Maybe even more.

Their loss ratio is what concerns me most.


87 km to go.

Russia’s average assault time to capture a town was like 55 days in their offensive last summer. It took Russia 10 months to move 13 km and Ukraine moving 10 km in 30 days.

Originally Posted by Phillips P. OBrien

Just yesterday the New York Times jumped back into this narrative with an article about how Ukraine’s offensive had slowed after the initial losses. Once again it focussed on what happened in the opening 10 days, when it was shown what should have come as no suprise—that vehicles are very vulnerable on the battlefield. This article even recycled the one picture of a large group of Ukrainian vehicles disabled together that Russian sources endlessly reuse—even though it is a month old. All I will say about this is that the Ukrainian offensive has not ‘slowed’. The risky vehicle assaults have been dialled down and the campaign to destroy Russian artillery, ammunition and command and control has been accelerated. Indeed this campaign seems to be getting major Ukrainians resources, and is starting to show some results. Ukrainian counter-battery fire (amongst other things) seems to be taking an extremely heavy toll of Russian artillery and Russian capabilities are degrading.

At the same time, Ukrainians are making small, but sensible advances, both around Bakhmut and then as reported last night, in the central front. Crucially—they are fighting these campaigns while keeping their own losses down. This is where the Ukraine is slow narrative makes little sense. Ukraine is being smart, not slow. As the New York Times article showed, at first Ukrainian vehicle losses were high, maybe 20% in the first two weeks, but then they dropped by half. This is important. Though the Ukrainians are fighting this counteroffensive and are taking a heavy toll on Russian artillery, they have reduced their own losses. This is a sign of success not failure. So, please dont obsess about lines on the map now—what Ukraine is doing, as Ive been saying for months, is really hard. It will take time. Lets see where we are nearer the end of the summer. My strong guess is that the Ukrainian counteroffensive will not be seen as a failure.
https://phillipspobrien.substack.com...update37?sd=pf

Phillips P. OBrien
Professor of Strategic Studies, University of St Andrews - Scotland, Author: How the War was Won, and Second Most Powerful Man in the World. Editor in Chief, War in History

[mapuc]

I have been searching on YT trying to find same video as posted here on this page.

Here this POW is from Ukraine. The video I try to find he is a Russian POW.

I could be wrong I'm pretty sure I have seen same video some month ago, where the situation was the other way around.

Markus