Russia invades Ukraine

[Darth Absentis]

Interesting take for a gaming channel i guess.....

 

 

[sivispacem]

1 hour ago, Darth Absentis said:

Interesting take for a gaming channel i guess.....

 

 

He's put out about 7 brilliant videos.

 

Based on some sleuthing and allusions, I think he's a procurement specialist for the Australian ministry of defence so he definitely knows his stuff. 

[Darth Absentis]

3 hours ago, sivispacem said:

He's put out about 7 brilliant videos.

 

Based on some sleuthing and allusions, I think he's a procurement specialist for the Australian ministry of defence so he definitely knows his stuff. 

Glad to hear you confirming this is in fact an interesting source.

Got to say, there are a few other channels that did what i think is interesting coverage, but this is one that stuck out.

I'd say though, youtube is kinda an underrated source for certain subjects these days. 

Every analysis that goes in depth about anything regarding geopolitical subjects like the war in Ukraine, but is put in text, is either a pretty short summary, or hidden behind a pay wall.

Lately i find myself rather into either youtube, reddit pages and AP-News.

Unless paying for articles or watching actual in depth reports on the news, most MSM summary content seems pretty much done for these days in regards of factual value.

 

edit: watching that vid did not feel like watching an hour either. Guy is a wizard of sorts.

Edited April 21, 2022 by Darth Absentis

[sivispacem]

3 hours ago, Darth Absentis said:

edit: watching that vid did not feel like watching an hour either. Guy is a wizard of sorts.

If I could find someone who could turn a 60 minute PowerPoint presentation into something that engrossing, I'd f*cking hire them on the spot. 

[Aquamaniac]

11 hours ago, sivispacem said:

The Russians have paraded maybe 100-150 crew members after the sinking. It's unconfirmed whether or not these were actually dated before or after the sinking, but if we assume the latter then around 1/4 of the crew probably survived. 

 

I know nothing about ships but to me it doesn't look that much damaged?

[sivispacem]

2 hours ago, Aquamaniac said:

I know nothing about ships but to me it doesn't look that much damaged?

If you look at most of the entrances to the hull of the ship- portholes, doors, etc- they're all heavily soot marked and scorched. It's clear that a major fire has taken place inside the superstructure and substructure, damaging most of the interior of the ship. 

 

There's plenty of historical precedence for internal fires and poor damage control to kill hundreds of personnel whilst leaving the exterior relatively undamaged (except in this instance for the list and significant damage around the forecastle and magazines) 

[flow_42]

I try to avoid discussion about war for several reasons, but today on the radio they said the US spent, yet again, 800 MILLION $? for Ukraine - to help the cause, fight Russia, I guess.

Made me wonder, so far, how much money in total was shifted, going from A to B, since the beginning of the war?! I think, not sure, that Germany also gave hundreds of millions to Ukraine. Is there an overview somewhere?

Do countries build up "new" debts to create that kind of money, or is it money they simply can, NEED TO, spare? maybe someone can enlighten me here.

 

And another thing I overheard on the radio is that in this town where a massacre ought to have taken place, some dedicated people do an investigation and try to build a case, crimes against humanity, killing civilians, you know.

now while I'm ALL for it I wondered why just the day before on the radio they announced that Julian Assange will probably be extradited to the US where he faces up to 100+ years in prison, for doing almost the exact same thing these people in Ukraine are doing now - letting the public know what happened in the war, killing civilians, crimes against humanity.

 

Seemingly it's not a crime (except maybe for the purpatrator, Russia) to expose the violent and cruel acts in THIS war, but it was/is in the US war back then, when the US committed crimes against humanity, killing civilians. today the political stage and media endorses the forthcoming and seeking for truth while back then when Assange leaked the tapes it was not REALLY welcomed. this man might go to jail, for the rest of his life, for showing us the ugly truth about war. I don't understand why he gets so little support from other nations and is doomed for his honorable act.

 

Those trying to expose recent, russian crimes, seem to have the back of a lot of nations. Rightfully so, but I wonder: why is it okay now for people to expose war crimes, but it wasn't back then? 

maybe I'm looking at it the wrong way, possible.

[sivispacem]

11 hours ago, flow_42 said:

I try to avoid discussion about war for several reasons, but today on the radio they said the US spent, yet again, 800 MILLION $? for Ukraine - to help the cause, fight Russia, I guess.

Made me wonder, so far, how much money in total was shifted, going from A to B, since the beginning of the war?! I think, not sure, that Germany also gave hundreds of millions to Ukraine. Is there an overview somewhere?

Do countries build up "new" debts to create that kind of money, or is it money they simply can, NEED TO, spare? maybe someone can enlighten me here.

A lot of what's being sent is stuff that's basically surplus, sitting unused in warehouses. The nominal dollar values of it make nice headlines, but for the most part it's not like the US et al are gutting existing capabilities to supply the Ukrainians. 

Moreover, the figures here are sort of chump change. A total of about $3bn of military aid has been provided to Ukraine since the invasion began. I believe that's the total across all NATO countries supplying arms and capabilities.

 

That's less than 0.5% of the annual US defence budget.

The German federal budget surplus for 2021 was a billion dollars; it's recently (2019-2020) been as high as $30bn

 

11 hours ago, flow_42 said:

now while I'm ALL for it I wondered why just the day before on the radio they announced that Julian Assange will probably be extradited to the US where he faces up to 100+ years in prison, for doing almost the exact same thing these people in Ukraine are doing now - letting the public know what happened in the war, killing civilians, crimes against humanity.

This is hilarious level of false equivalence.

 

Most of what Assange has been charged with is entirely unrelated to war crimes, and none of it has been related to crimes against humanity as we're seeing committed in Russia. 

 

The argument that Assange's disclosure of the commission of potential war crimes in Iraq would be a valid one if that's all he was involved in disclosing, but it's not- WikiLeaks has released huge amounts of classified material that falls well outside the public interest, has endangered the ability of the US and its allies to perform required intelligence and security activities, and personally endangered multiple people, including intelligence agents and assets working in hostile countries. I take particular issue with the latter as, despite never being an employee of any intelligence agency or government entity, I'm individually named within some WikiLeaks data releases.

 

 

Also, hello BUT THE BENZ!. I'm fully aware this is your new account. Please do stay out of trouble this time.

[flow_42]

10 hours ago, sivispacem said:

I'm individually named within some WikiLeaks data releases

I don't mean to be off-topic or derail the thread, just curious: has this story been told around here, in another thread maybe? how did your name end up on a leaked document?

[Aquamaniac]

On 4/21/2022 at 11:52 PM, sivispacem said:

If you look at most of the entrances to the hull of the ship- portholes, doors, etc- they're all heavily soot marked and scorched. It's clear that a major fire has taken place inside the superstructure and substructure, damaging most of the interior of the ship. 

 

There's plenty of historical precedence for internal fires and poor damage control to kill hundreds of personnel whilst leaving the exterior relatively undamaged (except in this instance for the list and significant damage around the forecastle and magazines) 

 

Sounds reasonable, does this imply that the less damaged the ship looks outside the more the damage is inside, I mean the power of the explosions had to go somewhere, or is this a stupid thought?

[sivispacem]

11 hours ago, flow_42 said:

I don't mean to be off-topic or derail the thread, just curious: has this story been told around here, in another thread maybe? how did your name end up on a leaked document?

WikiLeaks runs something called "ICWatch", which is basically a compendium of people they think are members of the intelligence community.

 

They basically pulled together data from a few sources including LinkedIn scraping and some data breaches to build "profiles" of people they think work for the intelligence agencies and make that data publicly available. Despite never working for an intelligence agency, clearly there are enough relevant keywords linked to my real life name that I ended up in their dataset anyway. 

[Evil empire]

On 4/22/2022 at 12:45 AM, flow_42 said:

I try to avoid discussion about war for several reasons, but today on the radio they said the US spent, yet again, 800 MILLION $? for Ukraine - to help the cause, fight Russia, I guess.

Made me wonder, so far, how much money in total was shifted, going from A to B, since the beginning of the war?! I think, not sure, that Germany also gave hundreds of millions to Ukraine. Is there an overview somewhere?

Do countries build up "new" debts to create that kind of money, or is it money they simply can, NEED TO, spare? maybe someone can enlighten me here.

 

And another thing I overheard on the radio is that in this town where a massacre ought to have taken place, some dedicated people do an investigation and try to build a case, crimes against humanity, killing civilians, you know.

now while I'm ALL for it I wondered why just the day before on the radio they announced that Julian Assange will probably be extradited to the US where he faces up to 100+ years in prison, for doing almost the exact same thing these people in Ukraine are doing now - letting the public know what happened in the war, killing civilians, crimes against humanity.

 

Seemingly it's not a crime (except maybe for the purpatrator, Russia) to expose the violent and cruel acts in THIS war, but it was/is in the US war back then, when the US committed crimes against humanity, killing civilians. today the political stage and media endorses the forthcoming and seeking for truth while back then when Assange leaked the tapes it was not REALLY welcomed. this man might go to jail, for the rest of his life, for showing us the ugly truth about war. I don't understand why he gets so little support from other nations and is doomed for his honorable act.

 

Those trying to expose recent, russian crimes, seem to have the back of a lot of nations. Rightfully so, but I wonder: why is it okay now for people to expose war crimes, but it wasn't back then? 

maybe I'm looking at it the wrong way, possible.

The american government prefers hearing people mention massacres a rival nation commited than its own massacres, nothing surprising.

[D9fred95]

On 4/22/2022 at 5:19 AM, sivispacem said:

despite never being an employee of any intelligence agency or government entity,

That's just what a government agent would say!

[Craigsters]

 

[Plage]

@sivispacem: Let me rewind this whole thing in before I address your post any further. In your analysis you said the Moskva provided most of air cover for the fleet and that Ukrainian air assets could operate with relative impunity in the concerned area of the Black Sea now and complete impunity over most of their territory in general. I said in my opinion this is flawed and mentioned the Su-27 as an example for how far the Russian can reach into UA territory to project air superiority. You answered with nonsense like "...other forms of more local fire control and direction..." (what?) which shows that you seem to have no clue how such systems actually work. What directly follows isn't much better as the "no midcourse guidance" part shows. Then you go on to address a post not directed at you in which you make more wrong assumptions. From there on it develops to where we are now.

 

On 4/20/2022 at 2:58 PM, sivispacem said:

Taken from here (courtesy of Google Translate)

 

"One of the additional sources of information for the Triumph air defense system is the radar patrol and guidance aviation complex (AK RLDN). According to the existing concept, the AK RLDN conducts reconnaissance of an air enemy in order to ensure the combat operations of fighter aircraft and long-range air defense systems. In addition, AK RLDN, which have increased survivability compared to ground-based radars, are used to build up and promptly restore the radar field.

 

The type of AK RLDN in the Russian Federation includes the A-50 complex and its modernization A-50U with a radio-technical complex (RTC) of the Shmel-M coherent type. The all-round viewing antenna system installed above the fuselage of the Il-76 aircraft makes it possible to detect airborne objects in a wide range of flight altitudes with high resolution, control fighters and exchange combat information with them. It is planned to develop promising AK RLDN based on the use of various types of RTK."

 

So yes, as I said, the A-50 can provide airborne radar guidance for the S-400.

 

The "additional sources of information" are providing nothing more than Early-Warning (EW) and surveillance capabilities. Guidance means orientation in this example and context and doesn't referes to missile guidance. The aquired data is used to generate an overview of the aerial situation and can't be used for direct fire control of an S-400 battery for example.

 

On 4/20/2022 at 2:58 PM, sivispacem said:

Again you move the goalposts.

 

My mention of the A-50 was purely to illustrate that other systems integrate with the S-400, something you claimed they couldn't do. I've never argued that the A-50 has been used for this purpose during the current conflict. I said it was possible that it was involved, which is a reflection of available capability. "Possible" has no estimative value; I'm not making a judgement of likelihood here, just indicating feasibility. Moreover, this doesn't actually contradict my comment above, as the advertised radar range of the A-50 against airborne targets would make it possible to detect activity 200+km into Ukraine without crossing the Belarussian border.

 

They don't integrate like you think to be. Some of the modern surveillance radars like the 59N6 "Protivnik" and the Nebo-M can also transmit their data directly to SAM units. That's about being in a loop like within the AK RLDN mentioned in the citation. Like said this enhances the EW and surveillance capabilities compared to older systems as the concentrated data can be directly displayed on a screen for example but that doesn't means such data can be used to fire a missile at a target. That's why the S-400 Fire Control Radar is there.

 

"The S-400 anti-aircraft system is often said to have a 400-km range and be capable of intercepting a gamut of targets, from lumbering transport aircraft to agile fighter jets and cruise missiles, and even ballistic missiles. In fact, the missile with a purported 400-km range, the 40N6, is not yet operational and has been plagued by problems in development and testing. In its current configuration, the S-400 system should mainly be considered a threat to large high-value aircraft such as AWACS or transport aircraft at medium to high altitudes, out to a range of 200-250 km. In contrast, the effective range against agile fighter jets and cruise missiles operating at low altitudes can be as little 20-35 km. Moreover, despite its sophistication, an S-400 battery is dependent on a single engagement radar and has a limited number of firing platforms. It is thus vulnerable both to munitions targeting its engagement radar and to saturation attacks. If and when the 40N6 missile goes online, its 400-km technical range cannot be effectively exploited against targets below approximately 3000 meters unless target data can be provided and updated during the missile’s flight by airborne or forward-deployed radars. Such a capability – often known as Cooperative Engagement – has only recently been successfully achieved by the U.S. Navy, and is a highly complex and demanding endeavour that Russia should not be expected to master within 10-15 years."

Source: http://Source: https://www.foi.se/rest-api/report/FOI-R--4651--SE

 

This quote is from the latest and most conclusive analysis not only about the S-400 system but Russian A2AD capbilities in general that I could find. I basically agree to what it's saying except for some minor things like the "below approximitely 3000m" part here for example. You'll see further on that 2000m or even below is absolutely achievable under certain conditions.

 

On 4/20/2022 at 2:58 PM, sivispacem said:

You aren't actually addressing the point here. "It's not easy" doesn't mean it's impossible. I'm speaking to advertised capabilities of the system here. Lots of things that "aren't easy" are still done successfully.

Either these capability do exist, the S-400 is as powerful and effective as you seem to think it is, but they're not relevant to the point you're making as they can't be used in practice, or these capabilities don't exist and the system is actually significantly less capable than you seem to think.

 

You're not adressing the actual point of the whole comment you quoted me from. I said "I doubt that the A-50 can establish a directly data link to an S-400 missile" and asked "Do you've any sources for what you claim?".
You've to understand how "the system here" actually works. The FCR is of specific interest here as it has to be able to pick up and illumate the target itself to launch and guide a missile to a target. There is no other system that can take this task at this point. That's what I mean with "it's not easy".

As for capabilities. The 92N6 has a maximum range of 400km and could depending on where it's placed reach quite far into Ukrainian airspace. Maybe as far as the advertized maximum range of the 48N6D (250km) or even 40N6E (400km) semi-active missiles. I'll give you a distance/range example further below.

If they actually have an active 40N6 it would obviously be a massive game changer. If what is reported is true not only for the fact that it's an active long-range SAM but also because it can make out and hit targets as low as 10m above the ground.

 

On 4/20/2022 at 2:58 PM, sivispacem said:

It's not my claiming that, it's simple application of the laws of physics. The only way an S-400 battery located at or near the maximum range of the radar system would be able to detect and destroy a target within the vicinity of Odesa would be if that target was flying at an altitude and flight profile not consummate with the threats being described here. Against a high-flying AWACS, C4ISTAR or surveillance aircraft, strategic bomber etc...yes. These are the targets that the 40N6 is specifically designed to be used against. 

 

But Ukraine doesn't have those, so the "400km maximum range" is utterly irrelevant to the circumstances on the ground. 

 

This part again is related to the "I doubt that the A-50 can establish a directly data link to an S-400 missile" part I'm mentioning above and has nothing to do with the actual point you're making. I've already explained that something like this doesn't exists. Surely not on the Russian side.

 

On 4/20/2022 at 2:58 PM, sivispacem said:

...How much data do you think is being processed here?! NATO Link 16 can manage a point to point throughput of 1MBit/s plus with frequency hopping, and north of 100kbit/s on fixed channels via UHF, satellite relay or encapsulation over common internet protocols. Link 16 is more than forty years old.

 

Are you really suggesting that Russia completely lacks any kind of Tactical Data Link capability comparable to something used by NATO since the early 80s? Are you suggesting that the automated relay of radar telemetry would represent too large a volume of data for an automated data link build on 1980s technology to handle? Because you can jam pretty decent resolution real-time imagery telemetry into Link 16, and that's orders of magnitude more data than we're talking here.

 

Who says anything about "picking up the phone"?

 

The data throughput is irrelevant here as the aquired radar data can't be directly used to guide a missile as already pointed out above. The 92N6 can get target designations as in where to look and what targets to engage from various "linked" sources but not more. Link-11, Link-16 and ATDL-1 get used exactly the same way with Patriot for example. They're used to generate a picture of the aerial situation and to designate targets. A target still has to be picked up and illuminated by the radar of the Patriot battery.

 

About the actually existing link capabilities when it comes to exchanging aircraft target data.

 

"Moreover, if and when the 40N6 missile becomes operational, in order to fully exploit its range against targets between 3 000 and 10 000 metres altitude, it will be necessary to connect the S-400 battery to an external (airborne or forward-placed) radar that can see the target and provide usable target data for the missile battery. Using an external and forward-placed sensor to provide target data so that a “shooter” (launch unit) positioned further back can fire on a target beyond the horizon is often called a Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC). When applied to airborne targets capable of moving in three dimensions at high speed, this is a demanding task involving a lot of high-tech engineering and integration, which the US Navy has only recently mastered after decades of effort. Given the problems in Russia’s defence industries, perhaps particularly defence electronics, it seems unlikely that Russia will be able to do this anytime soon."
Source: https://www.foi.se/rest-api/report/FOI-R--4651--SE

 

On 4/20/2022 at 2:58 PM, sivispacem said:

You're basing your assessment of their communication abilities on your own experience of 40-50+ year old hardware from a completely different range of manufacturers, and a fundamental misunderstanding of the basic physics underpinning how radar works.

At the end of the day I'm simply reflecting the declared capabilities of the system, it's you who seems to disagree with this capabilities being as described despite your argument about its value being predicated on it.

 

No, I just know that it's not possible to guide a SAM without an FCR at this point. Building up a network in which other participants can take guidance of a SAM is simply fiction at this point.

 

You seem to think that the declared/described capabilities mean something else than they actually do when terms like intergration, support or attached are used.

 

On 4/20/2022 at 2:58 PM, sivispacem said:

So your argument is essentially "Russian kit is utter garbage, except when I need it to be absolutely insanely good, to the point of breaking the laws of physics, for my argument to make sense"?

 

I nowhere said the first and in case of the latter I gave you an example within the laws of physics already and will give you another one below.

 

On 4/20/2022 at 2:58 PM, sivispacem said:

The structure and operational doctrine of the Russian Antiaircraft Regiments of both the Russian Ground Forces and Russian Aerospace Forces are quite different from those of most Western armed forces. Th S-400 also fulfils a role within the anti-air doctrine of Russia that isn't really comparable to that of any Western surface-to-air missile system except possible the Standard family, in that dependent on missile loadout it can cover everything from extreme-long-range countering of strategic air assets, to ABM, anti-cruise missile and low-flying tactical air assets out to mid/long range. 

 

An S-400 regiment is utilizing one 91N6 surveillance radar with a 55K6 command post (System 30K6) in the same manner a Patriot battalion the Information Control Center (ICC). On battery level the setup is bit different when it comes to the used radars but you've something like an Engagement Control Station (ECS) with the launchers plus all the other support units. Things like these and the comparable equipment used are similarities I'm talking about here and such are very well comparable to quite some degree.

 

On 4/20/2022 at 2:58 PM, sivispacem said:

With NATO, it's largely accomplished in an automated manner via a network of Tactical Data Links, these days usually operating on the Link 16 network. Specifics of how Link 16 is implemented within armed forces varies, but most of NATO possesses interoperability with the US JTIDS UHF radio network. A lot of that interconnectivity and interoperability sits, as I've previously mentioned, on long range SATCOM and physical networking infrastructure too. 

 

Patriots are integrated into Link 16 but IIRC Hakws and Rolands are not. These older SAM systems tended to be integrated on Link 1 or Link 6 first generation TLDs, which are only point-to-point rather than broadcast networks (and are also both low-bandwidth and unencrypted). This is where some of the interoperability challenges with older 60s/70s kit comes in; Link 1 was standardised in the early 60s and is reliant on data conversion to interface with later G2/G3 TDL; there's no native cross-compatibility and converting from PTP to broadcast in a reliable way is a pain. I've been out of the loop on direction of travel within NATINADS for over a decade now, but even back then it represented a centralised command and control network for NATO air defence systems that allowed automated interconnectivity and interoperability between decently sized chunks of NATO's air defence forces, including ground, sea and airborne radar, AWACS, C4ISTAR and missile systems across like 40 different countries.

 

None of the mentioned data links can forward data that can be used directly in engagement control. They provide data that gets used for EW, surveillance and tracking to generate a picture of the aerial situation as described above already.
The HAWKS were in the loop via ATDL-1 by utilizing a directional radio relay connection via the antenna mast groups.

 

On 4/20/2022 at 2:58 PM, sivispacem said:

It's not really material to my point, but these other systems have also consistently failed to engage TB-2s and other Ukrainian air assets. That points to deficiencies in situational awareness and basic command and control to me (the same is true of the Moskva sinking)

 

They've shot down 2 out of 20 TB-2. Other air assets besides drones don't seem to be used in the numbers they're available and for the tasks they're meant to be used for. Where for example are the UA attack helicopters and jets engaging Russian tank columns? They're are nowhere to be seen and that's not because the Russians have so many fighters in the air but presumably because the surface to air capabilities are sufficient enough to make such attacks maybe not impossible but a quite challenging and dangerous task.

 

On 4/20/2022 at 2:58 PM, sivispacem said:

Overlaying the hypothetical maximum ranges of various types of S-400 missiles tells us nothing about their ability to engage OTH targets at those ranges. You're labouring a point that's already been addressed several posts ago, and to which you seem unable to find a rebuttal.

I'll state it again: how is an S-400 in Crimea going to target an aircraft flying below ~4,000m near Odesa when that aircraft would be well beyond its radar visibility? The hypothetical range of the missiles is largely immaterial as the limitation lies in radar detection range.

 

I've already told you the answer to that question, which you failed to accept, but we'll come onto that in a moment. 

 

As I'll point out in the following example they can reach down to ~2000m.

 

On 4/20/2022 at 2:58 PM, sivispacem said:

At a 20km range, the time from launch to impact for a Hawk would be in the ballpark of 30 seconds, accounting for acceleration from 0-820m/s.

At a 120km range, the time from launch to impact for a Patriot would be in the ballpark of 1m 40 seconds, account for acceleration from 0-1350m/s

 

The USMC list the reaction time of a Hawk battery as ~35 seconds. So it's still comfortably faster to engage the hypothetical target than a Patriot would be.

 

I've worked with different numbers but the result is about the same. The HAWK is faster by a good margin and would at least theoretically be better suited in your example.

 

On 4/20/2022 at 2:58 PM, sivispacem said:

...No, that's how you've chosen to interpret it. "Providing most of the air cover for the fleet" is a statement of fact. It had by far the longest range air defence radar, the longest range surface to air missiles, and about three times as many of them as the rest of the fleet cumulatively. 

However, the reaction of the Russians has indicated that they through it was a significant blow to their air defence capabilities. Shifting the rest of the fleet much further offshore in response to the sinking is a strong indicator that they view their own ability to defend against airborne targets as seriously degraded.

 

It's not a fact. How big the hole it leaves in relation to the overall air defence capabilities in that area is speculative. When it comes to the long-range capabilites in relation to "fleet defence" you're overestimating the capabilities of the Moskva by far. You also only take sea based assets into account - a few actually armed with mid- and multiple with short-range SAM systems that have ranges of up to 50 and 15km respectively - and also don't seem to understand how far and in which heights a land-based S-400 battery can possibly support operations in this part of the Black Sea region.

To conclude that shifting the fleet further away solely has to do with a loss of air defence capabilities is a little too far fetched.

 

On 4/20/2022 at 2:58 PM, sivispacem said:

Figures I've got for the 5V55RM are 5-90km, and for the 5V55U 150km. Either way, that's more practical reach towards Odesa than ground based radars on Crimea would accomplish, even if we take the assumption that its the 40N6E deployed there and not one of the other missiles. As I said, the inhibition isn't the missile range, it's the radar horizon.

 

The Volna 3R41 "Top Dome" FCR version mounted on the Moskva responsible for guiding the long-range missiles has a maximum range of 100km. That's why a 150km missile doesn't makes sense. I've read about the 5V55RM missile a bit and had found the 90km maximum range number but 75km was given as more realistic. These numbers correspond with what is said here (55/40nm). This also makes clear that the FCR of the Moskva could only engage 3 targets with up to 2 missiles each at once with 8x8 launchers. For comparison: That's half of the targets a single land-based S-400 battery can effectively engage or the same if you want to shoot two missiles at a target. The FCR of the ship had at best 1/4 of the FCR range an S-400 92N6 FCR has (100/400km). The S-400 long-range missile have a range of 200/250/400km versus 90km for the sea-born ones in question. An S-400 battery seems to only consist of 8 launchers on the Crimea from what you can see. That's "only" half of what the Moskva had but in opposition to a ship a battery can be easily resupplied.
Your more practical reach boils down to being able to shoot at three targets maybe 50 or 100km (including radar horizon) earlier depending on the position of the ship than an S-400 with an 48N6D position in NW tip of the Crimea. 

 

On 4/20/2022 at 2:58 PM, sivispacem said:

The logistical challenges of resupply extend far further than here, and equally affect Crimea based assets given that the "land bridge" between Russia proper and Crimea don't really exist, and Russian naval assets can no longer enter the Black Sea.

 

There are 4 S-400 battalions in Crimea, for a total maximum of around 190 missiles of <250km range, or about 95 assuming all of them are 40N6E (the S-400 can only carry two of those instead of 4), so the difference isn't as large as you think. And that's going on a highly questionable assumption, as it's entirely possible there could be no 40N6E missiles in Crimea at all.

 

They don't seem to have any resupply problems. At least not if I look at what was stored at the S-400 battlemanagement site in Sevastopol on the latest available satellite image from Google Maps.

 

A battery only seems to utilize 8 TELs down there. That's 128 missiles on the launchers plus what is stored on the launch sites. Together with the storage above you're far exceeding 190 missiles already and that's just what is visible. The assumption that a TEL can only carry two 40N6 is just that. A 40N6 commercial video from Almaz-Antey shows an animation of a launcher with 4 tubes for example (here). A "Big Missile" for the S-400 was already envisioned from the start and container size therefore presumably taken into consideration. From size comparison of 48N6 missiles displayed in front of their containers (here & here) and a real size cutaway (here) you can see there is room to accomodate a bigger missile. The are no sources that really say or confirm it's two containers and who knows if the whole "rumor" doesn't stems from the S-500 project which is using just two?

 

On 4/20/2022 at 2:58 PM, sivispacem said:

Last time I checked we were talking about defending sea-based assets.

 

We're talking about natural occuring clutter in relation to ground objects. That's not much of a thing anymore on land and the "a bit different" part was aimed at that waves are obviously moving and can be a couple of meters high. That doesn't means their clutter can't be filtered.

 

On 4/20/2022 at 2:58 PM, sivispacem said:

My quick maths makes that around ~300km from Odesa, possibly slightly further.

 

Assuming a radar height of 100m ASL, a radar system located there would have a practical maximum range of about 300km against a target at 4km altitude.

That decreases to 225km against a target at 2km, and 170km against a target at 1km

 

The site at Yevpatoria is the homebase for this S-400 battery. Such fenced in sites are fully build-up with concrete roads, revetments and various other support infrastructur. A battery can also have one or more predestinated field positions that can but don't have to be prepared in before. It can be moved to and deployed at any location which provides enough space.
The distance from a possibly forward deployed battery to known sites on the NW tip of Crimean peninsula to the center of Odessa is slightly below 190km. I've visualized a possible scenario of how something like that could look.

 

 

On 4/20/2022 at 2:58 PM, sivispacem said:

Destruction of low-flying cruise missiles is a specified capability of the S-400. And the irony of you complaining about "selective quoting" when only choosing to discuss missiles, when two of the three examples of key threats were aircraft flying NOE, seems a bit absurd.

 

I said "That it can do at lower ranges is simply a plus of the system and nothing else". Now see what the already linked A2AD analysis says in that relation (hint "ancillary").

 

"The S-400 is a heavy but mobile SAM system, known as Triumf in Russia and the SA-21 Growler by NATO.65 It is marketed as being close to omnipotent against almost all kinds of flying targets, from ballistic missiles and strategic aircraft, to stealth aircraft, cruise missiles and precision guided munitions (PGMs).66 In reality, the system is probably optimized for the interception of ballistic missiles and large high-value aircraft at high altitudes, with an ancillary function against smaller targets at lower altitudes."

Source: https://www.foi.se/rest-api/report/FOI-R--4651--SE

 

The dedicated existing S-400 interceptors for any kind of missile threat are the smaller active missiles with lower ranges. We're talking about aircrafts like the Su-27 for example and the one they shot down obviously wasn't flying such profile as the S-400 FCR could pick it up above the radar horizon. The larger semi-active missiles for the S-400 and the S-300 versions on the Moskva presumably aren't especially great here. If an active 40N6 exists it would presumably be a capable long-range missile interceptor.
 
A lot about the S-400 and also S-300 missiles is simply speculation. This is especially true for the newer S-400 ones. If you for example look closer at the photo with the 48N6 missiles in front of the containers linked above you'll note that the DM version has additional extensions behind the wings that could be an indicator for improved avionics/maneuverability and not only range extension. The English S-400 Wikipedia and some other sources also state a semi-active version of 40N6 exists which isn't totally of the hand as I've read that they had issues with the active missile radar and therefore may just use semi-active ones as interim solution. Besides that most of the infos are at least a couple of years old by now.

 

On 4/20/2022 at 2:58 PM, sivispacem said:

"Someone with experience on a subject but no current access to relevant intelligence or technical data disagrees with the assessment of the Pentagon who have both experience and access to intelligence and technical data" isn't that compelling. 

He makes no argument at all about the effectiveness of the air defence capabilities, which is what is being discussed primarily here. 

 

What the Pentagon actually knows and publicly says are two different things.

Don't you think he took this in consideration when he came to his conlusion?

 

On 4/20/2022 at 2:58 PM, sivispacem said:

You're welcome to run the numbers yourself. Plenty of publicly available calculators for working out radar horizon.

 

Like shown above you can very well get down to ~2k or below at 200km depending on where you place the FCR.

 

On 4/20/2022 at 2:58 PM, sivispacem said:

I never said "there is no ability to receive midcourse guidance", I said that you wouldn't be receiving midcourse guidance if your target was beyond the range of the radar. Again, please go back and read my post in its context. 

 

That doesn't make much sense either. You can only fire a semi-active missile at a target that an FCR is illuminating and an FCR normally has at least the range of the missile it's intended to fire. As the 400km maximum range for the FCR and missile or 100/90km FCR/missile for the Moskva illustrate.

 

On 4/20/2022 at 2:58 PM, sivispacem said:

...again, this is an explicitly declared capability of the S-400 system.

 

The 40N6E has a search and destroy function (largely equivalent to loitering) where it can be fired without SARH guidance, to a specified trajectory and altitude. The active radar aboard then powers on at a specified point in its flight and provides on-target guidance independent of external radar guidance. This also provides some capability for targeting and destroying aircraft at long range beyond the radar horizon without relying on SARH, though I don't believe its exactly a combat proven capability yet. 

 

You're talking about the "magic" missile they don't actually have according to yourself. Even an active missile can't be fired without guidance until the final phase when the active radar of the missile takes over. The S-400 is using SARH and Track-via-Missile for missile guidance.
In general the "search and destroy function" just describes how an active missile radar works and has nothing to do with "loitering". The rest is related to the "look-down" mode of the active radar.

 

On 4/20/2022 at 2:58 PM, sivispacem said:

I suspect the real reason they didn't shoot at the TB-2 is because they failed to detect it in the first place.

 

An 40N6 is ment to shoot down "high value" assets and maybe a drone involved in the attack of a tank column isn't considered high value enough? It's very well possible the drone was detected and picked up by radar but that doesn't automatically means you're going to attack it with an active long-range missile. You normally rely and resort to other more direct means for something like that.

 

On 4/20/2022 at 2:58 PM, sivispacem said:

No, because Russia has made no claims I am aware of about destroying specific targets with certain systems, and what claims they have made are largely nonsense (IE destroying more than the entire inventory of several Ukrainian systems and yet there still being enough operational to cause them real issues).

The confirmation of the Su-27 shootdown incident in question here came from Ukraine, not Russia. And a second factor that may be worth considering is that the S-400 (and even the later S-500) appears to lack native IFF functionality, instead relying on airborne assets to provide that. 

 

Could it be that shooting down a Su-27 was a demonstration of their capabilies and the intended addressee(s) got the message? In this case it seems to be clear what weapon system was used at least. Of course you'll hear at lot of nonsense that's expected in a "special operation" like that but also the case when it comes to claims or statements from manufacturers, the military and government officials concerning capabilities of equipemt, procurement and deployment numbers and the like. The IFF part is simply wrong. All S-400 radars (91N6, 96L6 and 92N6) and many ground based EW, surveillance and tracking radars provide that feature.

 

On 4/20/2022 at 2:58 PM, sivispacem said:

Hang on, 5 minutes ago you were arguing that the S-400 had loads of available missiles and no issues with resupply?

 

I never said they've endless numbers of 40N6 and doubt they would waste them against a TB-2 as already pointed out above.

 

On 4/20/2022 at 2:58 PM, sivispacem said:

...Because I didn't mean battery? What does an S-400 "battery" comprise to you?

 

Battery is a specific terminus used in air defence. It's used analogue to squadron and is what a company in many other types of military units is. 

 

An autonomously operating S-400 battery consists of:

 

1x 96L6 surveillance radar used as Information Control Center (ICC)
1x 92N6 fire control radar as Engagement Control Station (ESC)
Up to 12 launchers (while only 8 seem to be used in the Crimea)

 

Plus various other equipment like command posts, power generators, storage and loading equipment, universal antenna masts and so on.

 

On 4/20/2022 at 2:58 PM, sivispacem said:

Both have ground attack capability, and there's video footage of MiG-29s being used in CAS against ground targets.

 

They obviously have the capabilities but a designated attack aircraft will presumably still be better equipped for this task. That such attacks aren't done regularly from all we know and if rather seem to be done out of desperation and for moral and PR reasons says something. Using a MiG-29 for CAS actually underlines that as this is the least platform to use of all the available ones that have such a capability.

 

On 4/20/2022 at 2:58 PM, sivispacem said:

What I actually said was that low-level strike aircraft represented the highest threat to a Russian amphibious landing in Odesa that SAMs would be capable of countering.

 

You were talking about high threat targets in that respective part which I'm denying they are considering their numbers and standoff capabilities for example but that's an additional topic.

Edited April 30, 2022 by Plage

[Craigsters]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tunnels under Azovstal Steelworks, Mariupol    <<--------seen here first

Edited April 25, 2022 by Craigsters

[trip]

So I had to help out at my mother's house today.  She's Ukrainian born and all....living in the quiet Pennsylvania countryside of course.  

 

But that's not why I stopped into this thread.

 

Alleged Russian sting operation uncovers 'The Sims 3,' guns, grenade. They belive the FSB agent was suppose to stage 3 SIM chips

 

 

This is hilarious.

 

Edited April 27, 2022 by trip

[Craigsters]

 

this has gone viral,   is putin sick with parkinson ? even my 80 year old neighbour   knows about this death grip table hold  video

[Aquamaniac]

1 hour ago, Craigsters said:

 

this has gone viral,   is putin sick with parkinson ? even my 80 year old neighbour   knows about this death grip table hold  video

 

I noticed he hold the table the same way when he met Guterres. The video that showed Putin at church is said to be a fake.

[trip]

I wish I had the time to have started this a couple of weeks back...ahwell.  I hope it only takes me 2 or 3 days to knock out.

 

It will be free on the xbox and windows store.  A game where Ukraine always wins.

Super early screenshot.

 

Not joking by the way.  

 

It will be a super simple game, but still 100% a game none the less.  I hope the fun will be in the leaderboards.  It is a timed game - so get as many points you can before time is up.   Some powerups to add time...some cute little distraction bits.

[Darth Absentis]

Great for Biden to ask 33 Billion to support Ukraine in their war, but i hope this passes trough fast.

At this point, if one would like to support Ukraine(You better do if you live anywhere in NATO territory, if just for self-preservation, and even more so if you actually live in Europe and are Allied with either EU, NATO, or both), it better happens as soon as possible. The longer this war drags on, the more chance there is that Russia can sell its invasion as a victory, or worse, this war will drag on for plently more years, while pro Russian sentiment would be brewing more on Ukraine soil. 

 

That being said, i kinda hope Ukraine knows what it does by asking for self-propelled howitzers.

Really, those things like the PzH 2000 look great and all, but they are not really proven to be the most accurate things there are, it would cost a lot of time to train Ukraine forces with them and thanks to the inaccuracy factor, i feel that might result in more civilian casualties if they do not use it only on really good moments on really isolated targets.

 

I do wonder if it would be interesting for them to get as much aircraft as they can get instead. 

Then again, training actual pilots would take even way longer then training artillery units.

 

 

[Craigsters]

 

seen here news article here one video with dramatic  music here

Edited May 1, 2022 by Craigsters

[Pete4000uk]

A newspaper for Monday 2nd in Russia is going to say that those in the breakaway part of Moldova are being attacked and want Moscow to send help.

 

I've also seen that a message sent to Russian soldiers from the Russian orthodox church that says they are to wipe Ukraine from the face of the earth. 

[universetwisters]

On 4/28/2022 at 12:11 AM, Craigsters said:

 

this has gone viral,   is putin sick with parkinson ? even my 80 year old neighbour   knows about this death grip table hold  video

I remember a few years ago people were analyzing videos he was in and saying sh*t like “when he walks he only moves one arm this is something most future stroke victims do”

 

Hot take but if he dies it wouldn’t be bad

[Plage]

On 5/1/2022 at 4:23 PM, Darth Absentis said:

That being said, i kinda hope Ukraine knows what it does by asking for self-propelled howitzers.

Really, those things like the PzH 2000 look great and all, but they are not really proven to be the most accurate things there are, it would cost a lot of time to train Ukraine forces with them and thanks to the inaccuracy factor, i feel that might result in more civilian casualties if they do not use it only on really good moments on really isolated targets.

 

They're asking for howitzers in general. The USA and Australia have already delivered a couple dozen M777 pieces by now. Which are towed and not self-propelled. In general the Ukraine would be better off with a system like the French CAESAR than Paladin or PzH 2000 because it's much easier to maintain. When it comes to accuracy modern artilley can use smart ammunition like SMArt 155 for example and when it comes to casualties they're presumably used to engage relevant point targets and not to flatten inhabited areas.

Edited May 2, 2022 by Plage

[Pete4000uk]

From The New Voice of Ukraine website

 

https://english.nv.ua/

 

Russia’s Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, said that the risk of a global nuclear war is very real. This ominous warning came not from some deranged psychopath – like the ones who regularly demand Kyiv to be nuked on Russian state TV. These were the words of the top diplomat of the Russian Federation.

 

In diplomatic parlance, Lavrov essentially admitted that their vaunted offensive in Donbas is stalling, the war is lost, and Russia has nothing to counter Western weapons pouring in Ukraine. Politically and militarily, Russia is backed into a corner.

 

Since Putin can’t accept defeat, the Kremlin is indicating that nuclear weapons are on the table as its last resort in this war

This is nothing less than a threat to unleash an atomic war on the world. Even if Lavrov personally may not be eager to bring the end of days – being but a minister of the Russian state – his overlord is perfectly capable of and ready for the apocalypse. Lavrov merely broadcasts his master’s will.

In any case, this was a perfectly serious statement. I’d say it’s on the same level as the infamous article “On the unity of Russian and Ukrainian peoples,” written by Putin last summer. In that text, the dictator made a plain commitment to destroying Ukraine as a political entity if it refuses to forego its sovereignty and get absorbed by Russia.

 

Lavrov threatens the world with destruction, if it prevents Putin from annihilating Ukraine. Both him and Putin are dead serious. In my opinion, the international community should respond to these threats in a way that runs contrary to Putin’s expectations.

 

He brainwashed his populace into expecting a triumph, but as it turns out, it will be Ukraine parading its troops across Moscow. The problem is that Putin has no other way out. Nuclear war is all he thinks about now. That’s his only perceived salvation from a humiliating military defeat in Ukraine.

Putin doesn’t know what to do next, so his finger is creeping towards the nuclear “button.” That’s why I’m certain that Chinese security service will soon join their Western counterparts in figuring out a way to neutralize the Russian dictator – if it hasn’t happened already. Everyone around the globe will be pooling their resources towards stopping Putin. After all, nuclear war must be averted

[_P136_]

1 hour ago, Pete4000uk said:

Russia’s Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, said that the risk of a global nuclear war is very real. This ominous warning came not from some deranged psychopath – like the ones who regularly demand Kyiv to be nuked on Russian state TV. These were the words of the top diplomat of the Russian Federation.

In the same interview he also said that "the biggest anti-Semites are Jews themselves" and claimed that Hitler had "Jewish blood" too, so "it [i.e. being Jewish] means nothing" (translated video excerpt, official transcript). This was in a response to a question about how Zelensky could be a Nazi, although I don't think the context even matters much here.

 

Predictably, his remarks have caused an outrage in Israel, which has been sort of on the sidelines, unwilling to jeopardize its relations with Russia entirely. However, Lavrov's interview is now forcing the government to adopt a more openly pro-Ukrainian stance. That's truly some top diplomacy in action on Lavrov's part, we should all hope he stays in rude health to the very end, unlike those Gazprom executives who seem to be dying like flies one after another.

 

Apparently the Russians are not only the biggest supplier of military equipment to Ukraine (with all the stuff they abandoned) but also a significant contributor to their own eventual demise. The anecdote says it best: "Russia is fighting NATO in Ukraine. They've already lost 20,000+ troops and 2,000+ tanks. What about NATO? NATO hasn't arrived yet."

[KiTTYReCkless]

I am just waiting for ol' Puutz to drop the nukes. I want to explore post fallout Boston IRL. 

 

 

Edited May 2, 2022 by KiTTYReCkless

[OREOBOREALIS]

I think Putin started this war because he is about to die old sick men who wants to do big thing before he passes and to became big name in history thats remembered hundreds of years

after his death. I dont think he cares if he is remembered as good or bad. He just wants to be known like names stalin and hitler etc.

Pure narcissist sociopath scum. 

Spoiler

He talks about ukrainians being nazi and yeah sure theres some nazi trash in ukrainian forces, but at same time Putin himself has as much if not more nazis in russian forces. Russia is very well known to be full of neo nazis and such trash and russia is one of the most racist countries in world.

https://theconversation.com/putins-fascists-the-russian-states-long-history-of-cultivating-homegrown-neo-nazis-178535

https://www.thedailybeast.com/wagners-rusich-neo-nazi-attack-unit-hints-its-going-back-into-ukraine-undercover

Picture literally of Putin supporting russian neo nazis in russia:

 

Spoiler

Russian Nazis

 

Putin is 2 faced. Talks about nazis in ukraine but at same time is supported by nazis himself in russia. Strange men.

--

 

Edited May 2, 2022 by OREOBOREALIS

[Darth Absentis]

At this moment, except for the horrific events that would unfold if they did use one, i'd almost be tempted to wish for Russia being stupid enough to use a nuke. 

 

Then NATO can go and prove their worth, invade Russia and/or ask pretty much for Putins head to be put on trial so this sh*tstick situation is done for and more sensible Russians can retreat the current russian force currently still in Ukraine.

 

Or option B, then NATO can show it has no balls and just allow something like a smaller nuke being used to just happen without much consequences and then be surprised when in a few years or so, someone decides to blow up something else with an other nuke and wonder where the deterrent went to for using such things.

 

Good news though, i do actually not think either Russia or NATO are stupid enough to use nukes on Ukraine soil, let alone Russia using it on NATO soil and NATO using it on Russian soil, unless either party gets invaded and are nearly defeated and neither are situations we are currently even close of reaching.