The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread
- Thread starter Feanor
- Start date
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
Something different today. The SBU reported that they hit a Su-57 at the Aktubinsk airfield (via Google translate):
On June 8, 2024, a multi-purpose fighter of the aggressor state Su-57 was hit on the territory of the Akhtubinsk airfield in the Astrakhan region of the Russian Federation, located 589 kilometres from the battle line of contact.
This is evidenced by satellite images of the aircraft parking at the enemy airfield.
The images show that on June 7, the Su-57 is standing intact, and on the eighth, the explosion and characteristic spots of fire caused by fire damage appeared near it.
gur.gov.ua
Fighterbomber confirms (citing the same images) and says that it is now being determined whether it can be repaired or will be written off.
t.me
How many 57s are out there in existence? Under three dozen, if I recall correctly? Crazy stuff, really. On the Russian part that is.
On June 8, 2024, a multi-purpose fighter of the aggressor state Su-57 was hit on the territory of the Akhtubinsk airfield in the Astrakhan region of the Russian Federation, located 589 kilometres from the battle line of contact.
This is evidenced by satellite images of the aircraft parking at the enemy airfield.
The images show that on June 7, the Su-57 is standing intact, and on the eighth, the explosion and characteristic spots of fire caused by fire damage appeared near it.
Вперше уражено Су-57
gur.gov.ua
Fighterbomber confirms (citing the same images) and says that it is now being determined whether it can be repaired or will be written off.
Fighterbomber
Да, вчера аэродром в Ахтубинске подвергся атаке БПЛА. 3 штуки долетело. Осколками получил повреждения Су-57, сейчас определяется подлежит он восстановлению, или нет. Если нет, то это будет первая боевая потеря Су-57 в истории. Я еще раз подскажу. За цену только одного этого Су-57, укрытия от...
t.me
How many 57s are out there in existence? Under three dozen, if I recall correctly? Crazy stuff, really. On the Russian part that is.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #10,163
Something to the tune of 25-30 total. And yes as always FB's confirmation seems to be the closest we get to acknowledged Russian aircraft losses. But it appears to be correct.Something different today. The SBU reported that they hit a Su-57 at the Aktubinsk airfield (via Google translate):
On June 8, 2024, a multi-purpose fighter of the aggressor state Su-57 was hit on the territory of the Akhtubinsk airfield in the Astrakhan region of the Russian Federation, located 589 kilometres from the battle line of contact.
This is evidenced by satellite images of the aircraft parking at the enemy airfield.
The images show that on June 7, the Su-57 is standing intact, and on the eighth, the explosion and characteristic spots of fire caused by fire damage appeared near it.
Вперше уражено Су-57
Fighterbomber confirms (citing the same images) and says that it is now being determined whether it can be repaired or will be written off.
Fighterbomber
Да, вчера аэродром в Ахтубинске подвергся атаке БПЛА. 3 штуки долетело. Осколками получил повреждения Су-57, сейчас определяется подлежит он восстановлению, или нет. Если нет, то это будет первая боевая потеря Су-57 в истории. Я еще раз подскажу. За цену только одного этого Су-57, укрытия от...
How many 57s are out there in existence? Under three dozen, if I recall correctly? Crazy stuff, really. On the Russian part that is.
They missed it by only a few meters. There is no visible damage on the place. Damages could be superficial, but it could take time to repair it.
Mirage 2000:
Half a year ago, France invited Ukrainian pilots for basic fly training. These pilots were supposed to fly F16's. It seemed odd to me because French have no F16.
The truth is that they were learning the Mirage 2000. Macron said that pilots and planes will be ready in 6 months. Since it takes one year to train a pilot, it means that they were already training on this plane for at least 6 months before it was officially announced.
If a country gives a plane which they didn't plan to replace soon, they have to buy a new plane to give it to Ulraine or to replace the existing one. They will probably have to build a export variant to give it to Ukraine because their are not allowed to export national variants.
From what I have read quickly, the Mirage 2000-5 is optimised to air to air attacks at high altitudes. If they intend to use them for that purpose they could intercept bombers over Russia.
Half a year ago, France invited Ukrainian pilots for basic fly training. These pilots were supposed to fly F16's. It seemed odd to me because French have no F16.
The truth is that they were learning the Mirage 2000. Macron said that pilots and planes will be ready in 6 months. Since it takes one year to train a pilot, it means that they were already training on this plane for at least 6 months before it was officially announced.
Since then, Ukrainians have realised that nobody will give them any plane less than 30 years old, which are being phased out. Now they have changed their mind and will take what is given to them.Yuri Inhat said:
If a country gives a plane which they didn't plan to replace soon, they have to buy a new plane to give it to Ulraine or to replace the existing one. They will probably have to build a export variant to give it to Ukraine because their are not allowed to export national variants.
From what I have read quickly, the Mirage 2000-5 is optimised to air to air attacks at high altitudes. If they intend to use them for that purpose they could intercept bombers over Russia.
Then, I don't understand the logic here. Russians would let US drones spy on them just because they are afraid of escalation?Feanor said:
I don't follow regular people.Feanor said:
You ar right that politicians don't say what they think. Yet, the general opinion in Europe is that a war with Russia should be avoided but the risk of such a war is high.
I'm myself surprised of the engagement of countries relatively far from Ukraine like France, Spain and Portugal.
It has been so for decades. Since the start of the Cold War, in fact. But it was at the theory level. And it stayed like this. The last two years, Russian media are talking more about it and in the way that this is imminent.Feanor said:
(off line source)
If they do transfer technology and the missiles or at least some material means, not just engineering information, then yes, the US should worry.Feanor said:
My point was that Russia has little resources to do that now. It doesn't seems realistic in the short term.
Isn't what the AMX-10RC is, to begin with? A short range, highly mobile, lightly armoured, artillery gun?Feanor said:
But because it looks like a tank, they wanted to use it like a tank? Now they may learn to use it properly.
Feanor said:
They stole a volier (birdcage) to do it!Is this the result of the shelling or of poor building maintenance?Feanor said:
(see picture of the Leader shop on top of the page)
If the escalation is to war with NATO, yes.
The NATO treaty covers aircraft over the NATO area, including the waters of the North Atlantic & Mediterranean. Shooting down an aircraft of a NATO country over international waters in that area is an act of war against NATO.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #10,168
Countries send recon flights to borders of countries they are concerned with in peacetime. As long as those flights don't intrude on someone else's airspace, you are in principle not supposed to shoot them down. In point of fact even when they do run into someone else's airspace, a shoot-down is often regarded as taking things too far, if the incursion is relatively minor, and can be attributed to a mistake. This is reality. NATO in general and US in particular, aircraft have been operating around Ukraine for the entire duration of this war. They are gathering usable data that no doubt contributes to Ukraine's ability to strike Russia. In particular US RQ-4Bs are almost always in the sky around the time Ukrainian unmanned boats strike Russian ships, suggesting to many that they are literally providing the targeting data in question. This is both a significant problem for the Russian military, and something that you can't easily counter.
Russia is in possession of relatively sophisticated missile technology that can both be exported as a finished product and shared with various dangerous players in the world. This is a credible threat, and would constitute a rather nasty move on Russia's part. In the discussion around the war in Ukraine several times the statement has come up that Russia can't escalate. I think this is a foolish notion. Russia is nowhere near fighting a total war and has plenty of escalation options. In this case they're reacting to western countries giving Ukraine permission to strike Russian soil with western long range weapons. Instead of reacting towards Ukraine, by say dropping a bridge (or 5) into the Dnepr, they are reacting towards the western countries that have chose to take this step by suggesting that since those countries have made the world less safe for Russia by providing this type of permission and support for Ukraine, they might make the world less safe for western countries by allowing the proliferation of dangerous missile technology either as a technology transfer or a sale of finished products. This is a clear action, and it makes sense within this context. Russia is reacting tit for tat to the west here, and it's an example of Russia's most common foreign policy strategy.
No. It's not primarily designed for indirect fire. It's designed for mechanized reconnaissance. It's absolutely not designed for indirect fire, anymore then a T-55 is designed for indirect fire. It's a feature of this conflict where armored vehicles with bigger guns that were initially designed for direct-fire roles are being used as indirect fire weapons, with UAV support making this more effective the it would have been in the past. The AMX-10RC is in principle not designed for a high tech positional meatgrinder like the war in Ukraine. It's designed for a maneuver war.
The source claims it's damage from a drone strike. Sorry for the confusion, I use the word shelling in a vague general sense. I will try to be more specific and accurate moving forward.Is this the result of the shelling or of poor building maintenance?
(see picture of the Leader shop on top of the page)
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #10,170
They sure might. And they could use Iran as a convenient intermediary. "We don't support terrorism, we sold missile technology to our Iranian partners".
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
The Mirage plot thickens. Becoming more of a mirage, not that it is unexpected with the French:
euromaidanpress.com
France can transfer only six Mirage 2000-5 jets to Ukraine, La Tribune says - Euromaidan Press
La Tribune says France can transfer only six Mirage 2000-5s, contributions from other nations with the jets - Qatar, Greece, UAE - are needed for more.
euromaidanpress.com
Ananda
The Bunker Group
Well good luck to expect Qatar and UAE to donate their Mirage 2K. They clearly want to sell their Mirage 2K to the market. So whose in the Euro zone want to buy it ? Doubt Frenchie want to buy it (on the asking price). I also doubt Greece want to give their Mirage 2K especially the 2000-5 version free of charge.
Well said.
The French light armoured force on the far left wing of the attack into Iraq in 1991 led with AMX-10s, IIRC, with heavier armour following. The AMX-10s (supported by attack helicopters, I think) were essentially an armed recce screen.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #10,174
Things are happening in the war zone. Russia raided a village in Sumy region, and has captured Novoaleksandrovka on the Ocheretino axis. There seems to be an ugly story unfolding with Ukrainian Territorial Defense soldiers being blamed for retreating, even though they were facing potential encirclement. On the Vremyevskiy bulge area Russia claims to have fully taken Staromayorskoe. In Chasov Yar Russia has managed to grab what appears to be about half of the Canal neighborhood and is pushing onward. Suriyakmaps is taking a break from their reporting until later this week, so we don't have our most reliable map sources, but I will do my best to lean on other sources in the meantime.
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
I have mostly looked at the Ukrainian sources for the past couple of days. They say that it was a photo op similar to what the “russian partisans” did crossing the Russian border for the photos (and taking some in the Ukrainian villages as well). No idea what the truth is, but just for the informational purposes.
In regard to the Aktubinsk strike and Su-57. The Russian MoD denied any damage to the planes (lol). Fighterbomber said that two were damaged: one that he mentioned earlier and the other that he said can be “patched up on the spot”, so very minor damage it appears, provided it is true. He said that all three drones that were launched hit the site and the AD wasn’t working.
Fighterbomber
Новые фоточки с Ахтубинска. Чтобы два раза не вставать, скажу что повреждены были два Су-57. Второй Су-57 получил незначительные повреждения, которые заделают на месте. Про первый я уже писал. Будут думать целесообразно его восстанавливать, или нет, т.к. борт действительно прототип и к боевым...
t.me
He also reported that none of the painted decoys were damaged in the strike. Haha. Those painted decoys is about the dumbest thing I have seen in a while though.
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
Forgot to add that the Ukrainians also claimed to have hit three Russian AD sites with S-300 and -400 instalatikns - in Dzhankoi, Evpatoria, and Tarkhankut.
t.me
Dnipro Osint | Гарбуз
Знімки всіх трьох батарей С-300 і С-400, які сьогодні були знищені в Криму. Тарханкут, Євпаторія і Джанкой Source ️Dnipro | Deployment Map
t.me
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
I haven’t heard anything about it even in the Ukrainian outlets I follow and they would have certainly mentioned something like this, no doubt in my mind. Or maybe didn’t mention it yet?
swerve said:
But the US, and more so NATO, will never enter a war with Russia because their UAV's are downed when they came dangerously close to the limit of Russian air space during active spying missions. Especially when the air space is considered a war zone. Americans and Europeans know that it's fair game and don't want to escalate for such minor incident. Even the downing of a manned jet would not cause a rapid escalation.Feanor said:
The Russians should know that. The problem is that, maybe, they don't believe that because they are taught in academy teaching, (not only through mass media propaganda), that NATO is preparing to attack Russia under the US leadership. If this is true, it would speak volumes on how scared by NATO they are. Thought, It seems a little bit far fetched.
It doesn't mean that they will want to divert these resources just to create an unsafe atmosphere for the West in other regions of the world. This unsafety would be more theoretical than real because it's unlikely that the countries or groups in question would provoke the US by firing at them. It's practically sure that these weapons will never be used. At the moment, they need all their capacities, not only to strike Ukraine, but to preserve conventional deterrent, if not even simply basic defence, on the western border with NATO.Feanor said:
It's not just a few missiles, or a few drawings to build them, it's also logistic, engineers and military personnel traveling far from Russia and money. If you exclude Venezuela, Iran and North Korea who can operate this technology by their own, they would need to keep permanent teams where the weapons will be transported. I don't doubt their ability to do it. I only doubt that they want to do it, right now, in this context.
It's not a self-propelled howitzer. But it's also not an assault vehicle. It's a support vehicle supposed to fire from a certain distance, but not a very big distance, to help assault troops or stop enemy advance. It's designed to move faster and over longer distances than a tank while still having a large calibre gun.Feanor said:
This article tries to minimise the impact of this decision while it should be taken for what it is. France is not the US, still, they will sent more planes than the US does (zero). Of course nobody expected that France would send dozens of Mirage 2000. Only 37 of the -5 version have been built, and if the article is correct, only 20 remain operational. Others are for spare parts.KipPotapych said:
France is phasing out the Mirage 2000. It's not very complicated for them to sent 6 jets now, the others later. France can survive with a few planes less in their squadrons the time they are being replaced.
That we need the planes from Qatar and the UAE is pure fiction. There isn't enough Ukrainian pilots to be compelled to beg planes from Arab emirates. It was only written by some journalist that we could find more of these planes if Qatar and UAE would agree to donate them. Then someone else writes that the plan will fail if they sell them to India instead of giving them to Ukraine. If we need more Mirage 2000 and Qatar don't want to give them away, France can upgrade plenty other variants.
I worry much more about the financial and political ability of France to fund a sustainable increase of weapon production. The debt of France is as bad as that of Italy and Spain, except that the finances of Italy and Spain are improving while France is slowly sinking into bail-out level.
Macron's historical defeat at the European elections and his decision to dissolve the National Assembly (if I can use this translation) won't help.
If the pro-Russian Marine Le Pen's party wins the announced parliamentary elections, she will join Viktor Orban in his opposition to the war effort.
Last edited: