The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

[KipPotapych]

Update from Olenya:

Source: https://x.com/avivector/status/1930197847372083433

Another thread with more satellite photos: https://x.com/KOvsianyi/status/1930152545252413931

With a fair amount of clarity now, I see people counting 41, about 30, 23, 22, 17. 16, 13, and 11 units destroyed and damaged. Haha.

The War Zome article only concentrates the subject (numbers line up with Feanor’s last post):

Confirmed Losses Of Russian Aircraft Mount After Ukrainian Drone Assault

Some of the bombers were armed with cruise missiles when Ukraine’s drones rained down on them. Some of the bombers were armed with cruise missiles when Ukraine’s drones rained down on them.

www.twz.com

In the article above, they cited another article that talks about the tires on the aircraft. Interesting for someone with little knowledge of the subject matter (ie, me):

Russia Covering Aircraft With Tires Is About Confusing Image-Matching Missile Seekers U.S. Military Confirms

Russia's efforts to confuse munitions with seekers with imaging-matching capabilities speak to issues that go beyond the war in Ukraine.

www.twz.com

Another article on the related subject:

Satellite images show the unusual tire tactic and fake decoy aircraft that failed to save Russia's bombers from Ukrainian drones

Russia had employed deceptive measures at its airbases in the days and weeks leading up to the Ukrainian operation.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[vikingatespam]

I do agree. Those attacks against airbases could have been done with mortars (it has been done before),

An interesting conjecture; something I have thought about the vulnerability to here. A 81mm mortar would range out to 5 km easily, but you would need spotters with eyes on the target, and likely, no one is going to get away.

 

[vikingatespam]

Today, the SBU also released the full video. I haven’t counted everything — too lazy to deal with it. But maybe someone will find this info useful for their own calculations. Служба безпеки України

Spoiler: Times

Olenya:

• 00:02, 00:07, 00:25 — Tu-95; explosion moment at 00:32
• 00:10, 00:37 — Tu-95
• 00:16, 00:46, 00:53 — Tu-95
• 00:21 — Tu-95
• 00:41 — Tu-95
• 00:57 — Tu-22
• 01:05 — Tu-22
• 01:12 — Tu-22
• 01:22 — An-12

Ivanovo:

• 01:31 — A-50
• 01:55 — A-50

Dyagilevo:

• 02:01, 02:10 — Tu-22
• 02:17 — Tu-22
• 02:20 — Tu-22

"Belaya":

• 02:31, 02:40 — Tu-22
• 02:49, 03:28 — Tu-22
• 02:52 — Tu-22
• 03:02 — Tu-22
• 03:08, 03:13 — Tu-22
• 03:22 — Tu-22
• 03:32 — Tu-22
• 03:47, 03:56 — Tu-22
• 04:05 — Tu-95
• 04:18 — Il-78
• 04:24 — Tu-95

Another link is here:

https://ssu.gov.ua/novyny/sbu-pokazala-unikalni-kadry-spetsoperatsii-pavutyna-u-rezultati-yakoi-urazheno-41-viiskovyi-litak-stratehichnoi-aviatsii-rf-video

The video shows somewhere in the area of 41 "hits" (I didnt count), but I would take a hit to mean anything from very light damage to burning wreck. I dont know what warheads were used, nor the weight of the charge, but I would expect an explosion with a direct contact is likely fatal to the aircraft returning to service, except as spare parts. On the flip side a few "hits" appear to be 5-10 feet away, and it would be difficult to gauge the impact on the airplane. Its quite possible that the damage is not visible to satellite imagery.

I should note, that according to posts on project Owl, the RU are already cleaning up the debris and moving planes around.

Another note - around 3:35 you see that one Tu-22 was already hit, so some planes may have taken more than 1 drone. THis is rather interesting as I suspect a human operator would divert to an undamaged plane. Which in turn brings up something interesting in the video. The attack vectors are all rather different. A minority were very controlled hover-and-drop, but most were at various angles and heights. How much AI control was going on here ?

Another edit: notice how many hits were very carefully aiming for the joint at the fuselage and wing (wing root).

 

[seaspear]

Ukraine targeted the older bombers, there were other aircraft more modern that could also hold the khinzal missiles for instance would these been a better target ?

 

[vikingatespam]

Ukraine targeted the older bombers, there were other aircraft more modern that could also hold the khinzal missiles for instance would these been a better target ?

How many Khinzals are used compared to what the Bears lob onto UKR on a daily basis ? I suspect the Tu-160, which are rarely ever used for conventional deliveries, were deliberately left off the target list.

Im going to take a swag, that based off of the official UKR video, that 20% of the RU strategic bomber force just got retired. Thats a big win.

 

[Feanor]

Ukraine targeted the older bombers, there were other aircraft more modern that could also hold the khinzal missiles for instance would these been a better target ?

There are no more modern aircraft that carry the Kinzhal. Currently only MiG-31Ks carry them. And they're a poor target. Russia has many MiG-31s in storage that could be restored and converted as Kinzhal carriers.

How many Khinzals are used compared to what the Bears lob onto UKR on a daily basis ? I suspect the Tu-160, which are rarely ever used for conventional deliveries, were deliberately left off the target list.

Im going to take a swag, that based off of the official UKR video, that 20% of the RU strategic bomber force just got retired. Thats a big win.

Strategic bombers are only the Tu-95s and Tu-160s, so you're pretty close. The size of the Tu-22M fleet in active service is unclear so... it gets unclear. Either way, an ugly number.

In principle they could pull Tu-95s and Tu-22Ms out of storage, but I'm not sure how well they can overhaul them.

 

[hauritz]

How many Khinzals are used compared to what the Bears lob onto UKR on a daily basis ? I suspect the Tu-160, which are rarely ever used for conventional deliveries, were deliberately left off the target list.

Im going to take a swag, that based off of the official UKR video, that 20% of the RU strategic bomber force just got retired. Thats a big win.

Russia and America are both required to park their strategic bombers out in the open so both sides can use satellites to verify that the other is adhering to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty requirements. That being the case we may see many more of these aircraft retired.

Conspiracy time. This is actually doing the US and NATO a big favour since I doubt Russia has the capability to replace any of these assets. Hitting strategic assets like this will make it a little easier for US and other European nations to justify continuing to pour funding into this war and allow Ukraine access to even more capable long range strike weapons.

 

[vikingatespam]

Russia and America are both required to park their strategic bombers out in the open so both sides can use satellites to verify that the other is adhering to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty requirements. That being the case we may see many more of these aircraft retired.

Conspiracy time. This is actually doing the US and NATO a big favour since I doubt Russia has the capability to replace any of these assets. Hitting strategic assets like this will make it a little easier for US and other European nations to justify continuing to pour funding into this war and allow Ukraine access to even more capable long range strike weapons.

The Bears and Tu22 are the least important leg of the RU nuclear triad. I doubt anyone outside of RU or UKR really cares about these premature deaths.

 

[vikingatespam]

Not to keep talking to myself, but in the UKR video of the drone impacts, if you look at about 0:45, there is a second drone hit on a Bear. However if you notice, there is already one hit on it, in the upper center fuselage. The tires on the wings, which are not far away, do not appear to be disturbed from that original hit. Would this be evidence of shaped charges being used ?

Edit: at 3:03 something small drops from the drone. An arming pin or device of some sort ?

3:32: The Tu-22 is getting double-tapped, with the first hit right behind the cockpit.

 

[rsemmes]

An interesting conjecture; something I have thought about the vulnerability to here. A 81mm mortar would range out to 5 km easily, but you would need spotters with eyes on the target, and likely, no one is going to get away.

Not really. Fire by map, once GPS positioned those tubes (not need for actual mortars) with limited elevation and azimuth get the latest update (can you get an encrypted message in an email and connect a pen-drive to the basic PC controlling the weapons?), you need one person; two, you need help to unpack the box of each wrapped, ready to fire, tube. Again, cheaper and easier with drones. (What if you launch both attacks?)
For what we are reading here, AI accuracy was not that good, anyway.

 

[PachkaSigaret]

In regards to Russia striking the Kherson Regional Administration Building. Zelensky previously signed a decree transferring those as regional military administrations in concordance with Martial Law.

https://www.president.gov.ua/documents/682022-41405?utm_source=chatgpt.com

 

[KipPotapych]

Interesting interpretation of the map:



Different interpretation of the same map earlier:



I saw reports of about a dozen or so Iskander ballistic missiles and another two dozens or so various cruise missiles hitting various targets through out Ukraine. Many more Geran UAVs though.


Probably the best (realistic) assessment of the damage from the Spiderweb operation:

Thread by @emilkastehelmi on Thread Reader App

@emilkastehelmi: On June 1, Ukraine conducted a successful operation targeting Russian strategic bombers and other aircraft. Our battle damage assessment can confirm the following losses: 12 destroyed and 3 damaged ...…

threadreaderapp.com

Original thread on Twitter for those who prefer it that way: https://x.com/emilkastehelmi/status/1930674747014062181

Russia and America are both required to park their strategic bombers out in the open so both sides can use satellites to verify that the other is adhering to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty requirements.

This is not true and the Treaty is actually pretty clear about that. My post on the subject a couple of pages ago:

This is not the case. Here is the exact wording from the Treaty:

The obligation not to use concealment measures includes the obligation not to use them at test ranges, including measures that result in the concealment of ICBMS, SLBMS, ICBM launchers, or the association between ICBMs or SLBMs and their launchers during testing. The obligation not to use concealment measures shall not apply to cover or concealment practices at ICBM bases or to the use of environmental shelters for strategic offensive arms.

That is from article X on page 13 of the actual document.

While the wording is crystal clear in regard to “out in the open”, we can go further and say that, unless specifically defined (which it isn’t), “environmental” is a rather stretchy term.


I am also somewhat puzzled here (this is not related to any comment on this forum, by the way). This discussion of the “out in the open” began with “Ukraine took advantage of the terms of the Treaty to strike”, etc. It then progressed to “it doesn’t matter because Russia withdrew from the Treaty”, etc. Perhaps, that was the intent, to divert the conversation? I don’t know. The reality is that Russia doesn’t have those shelters not because of some Treaty obligations, but likely because no one in this world was thinking of hitting those assets and basically “getting away” with it (well, Ukraine won’t either, but that’s not the point). So they kept them out in the open because it costs (a lot of) money to build shelters, especially shelters for these rather giant planes. Priorities were elsewhere, without a doubt. Construction of shelters for the much smaller airframes (that are used much more often in this war) much closer to the battlefield only began last year (or there about). The thing is that one is probably extremely tempted to point to the Russian incompetence and lack of proper shelters here. If one, however, looks around and sees what is happening in other states with the same capabilities, one would probably conclude that it is far down on the list of priorities for everybody and it has been that way for many many years. The incompetence part comes in where it is nearly 3.5 years and numerous attacks on the Russian airfields (and other strategic locations) took place, some causing significant (in relative terms) damage, and here we (or they) are. Something like this strike was hardly “unpredictable” and was, as they say, a matter of time. The Russian “авось” is, to me, clearly at play here. You can read a very brief and rather primitive description of the term here: Russian avos' - Wikipedia


This is probably the best analysis of the situation I saw post the Ukrainian Spiderweb operation:



Very unsurprisingly, those with best analysis and “forecasts” on what is happening and trajectories of where things might be going turned out to be people born in Soviet Union or those who spent decades on learning and understanding Russia.


Anyway… In other news, Trump said he might impose sanction on both Russia and Ukraine (takes two to tango, he said).

Trump threatens to impose sanctions on Ukraine

Donald Trump has suggested the US could hit Ukraine, as well as Russia, with sanctions unless a peace deal is reached.

www.yahoo.com

Reportedly, Trump also asked the Senate to postpone voting on the Russian sanctions bill:

Trump urges Senate to postpone vote on Russia sanctions bill, Senator says

U.S. President Donald Trump has asked the Senate to delay voting on a bipartisan Russia sanctions bill, Republican Senator Roger Wicker said on June 4.

kyivindependent.com

Personally, I still don’t believe that this thing is even real and has that much of support if it is real. This whole threat makes zero sense from any angle you look at it (except for “drill, baby, drill”).


I flew in to Toronto yesterday and took a bus out of the airport. This thing is still (unsurprisingly) there:



My guess is, at the end of the day, we will have to return it to the rightful owner and will have to pay all parking expenses, as well as those to bring it back to the condition it was in when it was “seized”, etc.

 

[John Fedup]

Interesting interpretation of the map:

View attachment 52952

Different interpretation of the same map earlier:

View attachment 52953

I saw reports of about a dozen or so Iskander ballistic missiles and another two dozens or so various cruise missiles hitting various targets through out Ukraine. Many more Geran UAVs though.


Probably the best (realistic) assessment of the damage from the Spiderweb operation:

Thread by @emilkastehelmi on Thread Reader App

@emilkastehelmi: On June 1, Ukraine conducted a successful operation targeting Russian strategic bombers and other aircraft. Our battle damage assessment can confirm the following losses: 12 destroyed and 3 damaged ...…

threadreaderapp.com

Original thread on Twitter for those who prefer it that way: https://x.com/emilkastehelmi/status/1930674747014062181


This is not true and the Treaty is actually pretty clear about that. My post on the subject a couple of pages ago:


While the wording is crystal clear in regard to “out in the open”, we can go further and say that, unless specifically defined (which it isn’t), “environmental” is a rather stretchy term.


I am also somewhat puzzled here (this is not related to any comment on this forum, by the way). This discussion of the “out in the open” began with “Ukraine took advantage of the terms of the Treaty to strike”, etc. It then progressed to “it doesn’t matter because Russia withdrew from the Treaty”, etc. Perhaps, that was the intent, to divert the conversation? I don’t know. The reality is that Russia doesn’t have those shelters not because of some Treaty obligations, but likely because no one in this world was thinking of hitting those assets and basically “getting away” with it (well, Ukraine won’t either, but that’s not the point). So they kept them out in the open because it costs (a lot of) money to build shelters, especially shelters for these rather giant planes. Priorities were elsewhere, without a doubt. Construction of shelters for the much smaller airframes (that are used much more often in this war) much closer to the battlefield only began last year (or there about). The thing is that one is probably extremely tempted to point to the Russian incompetence and lack of proper shelters here. If one, however, looks around and sees what is happening in other states with the same capabilities, one would probably conclude that it is far down on the list of priorities for everybody and it has been that way for many many years. The incompetence part comes in where it is nearly 3.5 years and numerous attacks on the Russian airfields (and other strategic locations) took place, some causing significant (in relative terms) damage, and here we (or they) are. Something like this strike was hardly “unpredictable” and was, as they say, a matter of time. The Russian “авось” is, to me, clearly at play here. You can read a very brief and rather primitive description of the term here: Russian avos' - Wikipedia


This is probably the best analysis of the situation I saw post the Ukrainian Spiderweb operation:

View attachment 52955

Very unsurprisingly, those with best analysis and “forecasts” on what is happening and trajectories of where things might be going turned out to be people born in Soviet Union or those who spent decades on learning and understanding Russia.


Anyway… In other news, Trump said he might impose sanction on both Russia and Ukraine (takes two to tango, he said).

Trump threatens to impose sanctions on Ukraine

Donald Trump has suggested the US could hit Ukraine, as well as Russia, with sanctions unless a peace deal is reached.

www.yahoo.com

Reportedly, Trump also asked the Senate to postpone voting on the Russian sanctions bill:

Trump urges Senate to postpone vote on Russia sanctions bill, Senator says

U.S. President Donald Trump has asked the Senate to delay voting on a bipartisan Russia sanctions bill, Republican Senator Roger Wicker said on June 4.

kyivindependent.com

Personally, I still don’t believe that this thing is even real and has that much of support if it is real. This whole threat makes zero sense from any angle you look at it (except for “drill, baby, drill”).


I flew in to Toronto yesterday and took a bus out of the airport. This thing is still (unsurprisingly) there:

View attachment 52954

My guess is, at the end of the day, we will have to return it to the rightful owner and will have to pay all parking expenses, as well as those to bring it back to the condition it was in when it was “seized”, etc.

Give the An124 to Ukraine and the rightful owner can sort things with Ukraine.

 

[rsemmes]

Give the An124 to Ukraine and the rightful owner can sort things with Ukraine.

That would be "theft" or just an illegal act?
What does the law in your country say?

 

[John Fedup]

That would be "theft" or just an illegal act?
What does the law in your country say?

Partial compensation to Ukraine for Russia's destruction of the An225