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
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.
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.Something different today. The SBU reported that they hit a Su-57 at the Aktubinsk airfield (via Google translate):
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:It will simply exhaust our personnel. We need to focus on one, at most, two types of multi-role aircraft capable of performing the tasks I mentioned. Mirage 2000 is an outdated model, and France has much better aircraft, as does Europe.
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:You are simply wrong. The US and Russia are not at war and it would be a significant and risky escalation for Russia to shoot down US UAVs over international waters. And they are not too far to "spy" on Russia.
I don't follow regular people.Feanor said:Politicians rarely say what they mean, and I don't generally follow politicians. It's an opinion I've encountered from regular people.
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:Russian political leadership is certainly stoking fears of NATO aggression against Russia.
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:What? Russia threatened to supply long range munitions to other countries. We're talking about someone like Iran or North Korea getting Russian missile tech, but in general it could also mean doing things like selling Venezuela Kh-101/102s. It could mean proliferation of Russian hypersonic tech to other countries.
Isn't what the AMX-10RC is, to begin with? A short range, highly mobile, lightly armoured, artillery gun?Feanor said:Ukraine using their AMX-10RCs as improvised artillery
They stole a volier (birdcage) to do it!Feanor said:Russian motorcycles with anti-drone cages used around Rabotino.
Is this the result of the shelling or of poor building maintenance?Feanor said:Ukrainian shelling of Belgorod region continues.
If the escalation is to war with NATO, yes.Then, I don't understand the logic here. Russians would let US drones spy on them just because they are afraid of escalation?
...
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.Then, I don't understand the logic here. Russians would let US drones spy on them just because they are afraid of escalation?
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.If they do transfer technology and the missiles or at least some material means, not just engineering information, then yes, the US should worry.
My point was that Russia has little resources to do that now. It doesn't seems realistic in the short term.
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.Isn't what the AMX-10RC is, to begin with? A short range, highly mobile, lightly armoured, artillery gun?
But because it looks like a tank, they wanted to use it like a tank? Now they may learn to use it properly.
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)
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".There was some comment about advanced missile systems sent to Cuba ,would the Russian government consider the Houthis more of a threat to Western nations in a strategic area ?
Well said.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.
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.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.
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.Things are happening in the war zone. Russia raided a village in Sumy region
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?@Feanor Are you able to confirm that the military headquarters has been evacuated from Crimea and the families of army personnel ordered to leave ?
swerve said:If the escalation is to war with NATO, yes.
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: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.
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: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.
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:No. It's not primarily designed for indirect fire.
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:The Mirage plot thickens. Becoming more of a mirage, not that it is unexpected with the French:
Ukrainian outlet you don't follow.KipPotapych said: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?