The Russian Air War and Ukrainian Requirements for Air Defense

[kevinkins]

https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/p ... ir-defence

Just out today. Full report within the link. Nothing that surprising, but the S-400 is mentioned in passing.

Russian GBAD has also been highly effective since March, especially the long-range S-400 SAM system supported by the 48Ya6 ‘Podlet-K1’ all-altitude long-range surveillance radar system.

Also:
In the short term, Ukraine also needs large numbers of additional man-portable air-defence systems (MANPADS) and radar-guided anti-aircraft guns, such as the Gepard, to sustain and increase its ability to intercept the Shahed-136s and protect its remaining power infrastructure and repairs to damaged facilities.

From the same source earlier this year re: GBAD
https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/p ... sias-skies

Might add that Russian GBAD might be "effective" since Ukraine does not have the A/C nor operational history of engaging such systems.

[Dimitris]

I'll just park here and wait for the "based on this, plz buff the stats of the S-400" requests

[KungPao]

lol, highly effective Russian GBAD.....

Yes, super effective as it caused lots of friendly fire incidents. The author has a good sense of dark humor...

[bsq]

I'll just park here and wait for the "based on this, plz buff the stats of the S-400" requests

Hopefully no one will ask for a tune up, as that would be hilarious given its current configuraiton in the sim. Hopefully at some point it will be 'de-tuned' or at least give the option to be de-tuned in terms of load out as to suggest that it can have all tubes loaded with the monster missiles ignores the 'economics' and logistics of producing that many 40N6's.

[kneecaps]

lol, highly effective Russian GBAD.....

Yes, super effective as it caused lots of friendly fire incidents. The author has a good sense of dark humor...

I question how one can even remotely consider using the word "highly effective" when after nine months nothing resembling air superiority has been achieved. Given the apparent imbalance between Russian and Ukrainian capabilities.

[Dimitris]

I'll just park here and wait for the "based on this, plz buff the stats of the S-400" requests

Hopefully no one will ask for a tune up, as that would be hilarious given its current configuraiton in the sim. Hopefully at some point it will be 'de-tuned' or at least give the option to be de-tuned in terms of load out as to suggest that it can have all tubes loaded with the monster missiles ignores the 'economics' and logistics of producing that many 40N6's.

There are multiple Russia-use versions of the typical S-400 battery in the DB:
#1688 - The "IOC" 2008 version, with 8x TELs each able to fire only the 48N6DM.
#543 - Similar to #1688 but with 12x TELs per battery.
#1937 - The improved 2017 version with the 40N6 finally operational. The TELs can now fire either the 48N6DM or the 40N6, and by default they all use the 40N6. If you want any/all of them to use the 48N6DM by default, you can change the weapon-rec defaults in ScenEdit.
#2029 - Similar to #1917 but with 12x TELs per battery.

The reason that the 2017 versions have the 40N6 loaded by default is simply that anyone who wants to use the 48N6DM can just grab one of the 2008 versions. Having all versions default to the 48N6DM would mean that anyone who wanted to test the 40N6 would have no ready-to-use facility but would instead need to modify it in ScenEdit.

[Gunner98]

I'll just park here and wait for the "based on this, plz buff the stats of the S-400" requests

Hopefully no one will ask for a tune up, as that would be hilarious given its current configuraiton in the sim. Hopefully at some point it will be 'de-tuned' or at least give the option to be de-tuned in terms of load out as to suggest that it can have all tubes loaded with the monster missiles ignores the 'economics' and logistics of producing that many 40N6's.

That is easy to do now. Just adjust the magazine loads, delete weapons records, adjust the proficiency, etc. Please do not adjust what is in the DB, designers can adjust as they wish but need to have the ability to put a full-up, functioning, proficient and highly effective S-400 in the game so that we can actually provide a challenge to players.

Thank you

[FilitchM2]

I question how one can even remotely consider using the word "highly effective" when after nine months nothing resembling air superiority has been achieved. Given the apparent imbalance between Russian and Ukrainian capabilities.

That's a strange statement. It is obvious that Ukrainian aviation is not used systematically and its influence on combat operations is out of the question. Obviously, this is achieved by both ground-based air defense and fighter aviation.
The low activity of the Russian aviation in the Ukrainian rear is an indicator both of the capability of the Air Force to suppress the Ukrainian air defense and of the quality characteristics of the Soviet-made air defense equipment (Buk and S-300). On the other hand, it is possible to speak of a conscious refusal to act, which could lead to heavy losses. And to see that the Ukrainian air defense is not able to repel the strikes of cruise missiles and barrage munitions on the entire territory of Ukraine.
In any case, it is not clear to me how the Russian air defense system can affect the ability of the Russian air force to operate throughout the territory of Ukraine.

[kevinkins]

"the ability of the Russian air force to operate throughout the territory of Ukraine."


A little bit of air cover would help don't ya think?

https://twitter.com/GirkinGirkin/status ... i_hI4sAAAA

[FilitchM2]

"the ability of the Russian air force to operate throughout the territory of Ukraine."
A little bit of air cover would help don't ya think?

Yes, air cover is necessary. This is a trivial assertion that does not require proof.
My post was about Russian air defense, not about air cover.

[kevinkins]

Air defense helps enable air cover and ultimately air supremacy. With supremacy, your enemy's ground units will have a hard time moving, attacking or defending. They will find it difficult, if not impossible, to line streets with shallow disrespectful graves at the number we are seeing. Little good the S-400 is doing to prevent that.

Here's one for a cold night:
https://warontherocks.com/2022/04/ukrai ... r-defense/

A nice section is "Ukraine’s Air-Defense Victory".

[FilitchM2]

Russian AD covers Russian troops and objects from ukrainians Tocka and HIMARS and (in very rare cases) planes.
I do not see how the Russian air defense can be responsible for the fact that the Ukrainian air defense is not suppressed, and Russian Air Forces don't operate in deeps of Ukraina territory. I see no how S-400 can hit ukrainians Buk and S-300.

[Mickeys91]

Russian AD covers Russian troops and objects from ukrainians Tocka and HIMARS and (in very rare cases) planes.
I do not see how the Russian air defense can be responsible for the fact that the Ukrainian air defense is not suppressed, and Russian Air Forces don't operate in deeps of Ukraina territory. I see no how S-400 can hit ukrainians Buk and S-300.

Well of course it’s not the Russian air defense that is responsible it’s Russian military in general. Lack of combined arms, constantly switching up plans in operations and goals, lack of man power(doesn’t help with hundreds of thousand fleed the country), relying on your (limited) rocket/missile artillery to achieve what your Air Force could not shows exactly why territory has been lost and not gained since the beginning of summer 4-5 months ago. The entire “operation” is suppose to work as one machine. Maybe the Ukrainian air defense has not been suppressed by Russia because they just can’t and don’t know how.

[FilitchM2]

Russian AD covers Russian troops and objects from ukrainians Tocka and HIMARS and (in very rare cases) planes.
I do not see how the Russian air defense can be responsible for the fact that the Ukrainian air defense is not suppressed, and Russian Air Forces don't operate in deeps of Ukraina territory. I see no how S-400 can hit ukrainians Buk and S-300.

Well of course it’s not the Russian air defense that is responsible it’s Russian military in general. Lack of combined arms, constantly switching up plans in operations and goals, lack of man power(doesn’t help with hundreds of thousand fleed the country), relying on your (limited) rocket/missile artillery to achieve what your Air Force could not shows exactly why territory has been lost and not gained since the beginning of summer 4-5 months ago. The entire “operation” is suppose to work as one machine. Maybe the Ukrainian air defense has not been suppressed by Russia because they just can’t and don’t know how.

Well, I agree with you in common, can be disagree in detail. But if somebody works good at this war - this is Air Defense. And I wondered, why words "highly effective" can't be applied to it.

[kevinkins]

Because Russia has not achieved air supremacy over its ground troops. And as mentioned above, air defense is part of a combined arms approach. Lack of any combined arms talent has failed Russians horrifically. Therefore, Russian air defense can't be "highly" effective when the body bags are piling up at such a rate. Is Russian air defense better than their logistics? Yes. But who cares if you lose the hockey game 15-0 but the goalie stops 75 shots?

[FilitchM2]

Because Russia has not achieved air supremacy over its ground troops. And as mentioned above, air defense is part of a combined arms approach. Lack of any combined arms talent has failed Russians horrifically. Therefore, Russian air defense can't be "highly" effective when the body bags are piling up at such a rate. Is Russian air defense better than their logistics? Yes. But who cares if you lose the hockey game 15-0 but the goalie stops 75 shots?

About the body bags - I suggest you listen less to the pro-Ukrainian propaganda.
You are clearly unable to follow the thread of the discussion. The point was that the air defense system was ineffective. But air defense as a branch of the military is effective. And there is no reason to claim otherwise based on the fact that the infantry has not been able to capture Artemivsk for months.

[BDukes]

Because Russia has not achieved air supremacy over its ground troops. And as mentioned above, air defense is part of a combined arms approach. Lack of any combined arms talent has failed Russians horrifically. Therefore, Russian air defense can't be "highly" effective when the body bags are piling up at such a rate. Is Russian air defense better than their logistics? Yes. But who cares if you lose the hockey game 15-0 but the goalie stops 75 shots?

About the body bags - I suggest you listen less to the pro-Ukrainian propaganda.
You are clearly unable to follow the thread of the discussion. The point was that the air defense system was ineffective. But air defense as a branch of the military is effective. And there is no reason to claim otherwise based on the fact that the infantry has not been able to capture Artemivsk for months.

Yeah they've been distracted by unimportant Kherson. How is the air defense over the Dnipro crossings today?

M

[kevinkins]

Scratch that distraction:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63573387

I read that with all the captured equipment recently, Ukraine may become the third best equipped army in the world. I wonder how impressive today's haul will be?

[bsq]

You are clearly unable to follow the thread of the discussion. The point was that the air defense system was ineffective. But air defense as a branch of the military is effective. And there is no reason to claim otherwise based on the fact that the infantry has not been able to capture Artemivsk for months.

But there is. Russian Air Defence is inefffective. It remains dangerous, but it is ineffective because the Ukrainians realise how dangerous it is and do not play to its strengths. If your airforce showed up 'properly' then perhaps that might be a game changer, but is didnt, showing a distinct preference for some pretty ineffective bomb and rocket attacks. Sure they hit lots of targets, but really how are things like hotels used by ethnic Russians (Odessa) or shopping centres or schools or civillian homes military targets. Of course, Russian Air Defence has added greatly to its prowess by throwing fairly inaccurate old stock AD missiles in order to kill more civillians, so in that role, it is very effective, in the same way I guess as my mother viewed V2 attacks on her home city by the original Nazi's.

If your AD is so effective and good against the systems you quote how was Millerovo hit? Why is the Antonovskiy bridge in bits, impassable except on foot. Why is the army leaving Kherson? My friend this is all symptomatic of tactical as well as strategic failures for which the Russian Air and Aerospace forces must take the lions share of blame. They did not perform and did not have a plan B when the opposisition played to a different rule set.

[FilitchM2]

Of course, Russian Air Defence has added greatly to its prowess by throwing fairly inaccurate old stock AD missiles in order to kill more civillians

Another victim of Ukrainian propaganda. The missiles in the Ukrainian air defense system are expired, and they fall when they try to repel cruise missiles and loitering munitions.

Russian Air Defence is inefffective. It remains dangerous, but it is ineffective because the Ukrainians realise how dangerous it is and do not play to its strengths. IIf your airforce showed up 'properly' then perhaps that might be a game changer, but is didnt, showing a distinct preference for some pretty ineffective bomb and rocket attacks.

You have a wrong understanding of the structure of the Russian army. Air Defense and Air Force are different branches of the armed forces. Thus, criticism of the Air Force cannot be transferred to the Air Defense Forces. On the basis of trivial logic

If your AD is so effective and good against the systems, you quote how was Millerovo hit? Why is the Antonovskiy bridge in bits, impassable except on foot.

Millerevo is a solitary case. Or do you agree that the USAF sucks because 9/11 happened?
Antonov Bridge is passed by vehicles.

Why is the army leaving Kherson?

First of all, I would address this question to political decision makers. Which does not eliminate the problems of the army