Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine (/thread-23071.html)

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Mick - 08-26-2024

(08-26-2024, 07:56 AM)Goose Wrote:  Russia is importing massive quantities of cheap missile/drone  weapons from Iran and North Korea. Ukraine's partners that could supply such weapons restrict their use. Many of the weapons in this class are relatively short range and therefore of limited utility in Ukrainian service anyway.

What are the odds that Ukraine's partners accede to Zelensky's wishes and lifts restrictions on those missiles? And after the American presidential election?

After Barrage From Russia, Ukraine Calls on West to Lift Restrictions on Missiles - WSJ

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 08-26-2024

(08-26-2024, 08:02 AM)Mick Wrote:  

(08-26-2024, 07:56 AM)Goose Wrote:  Russia is importing massive quantities of cheap missile/drone  weapons from Iran and North Korea. Ukraine's partners that could supply such weapons restrict their use. Many of the weapons in this class are relatively short range and therefore of limited utility in Ukrainian service anyway.

What are the odds that Ukraine's partners accede to Zelensky's wishes and lifts restrictions on those missiles? And after the American presidential election?

After Barrage From Russia, Ukraine Calls on West to Lift Restrictions on Missiles - WSJ

Stranger things have happened, but IMO any lifting of the restrictions from the US will be at best nuanced. The permission to strike Russian troop concentrations and supply points in the north that were massing for an attack was granted well after said attack was over. The US has no clear strategic direction and is being at best responsive, not pro-active. We have (and probably will have) absolutely no strategy. After the election Ukraine will not be the top concern of the new administration, no matter who is elected. ATACMS are probably the only weapon that we supply that can reach any distance into Russia. The unitary warhead version has a published range of 190 mi.The JASSM-ER could come with the F-16 effort. It has a range of 575 miles.  Neither PrSM nor JASSM-ER are currently in Ukraine. JASSM-ER could damage Russia strategically but couldn't reach Moscow, by a factor of 2. Of course, the venerable Tomahawk can easily reach anywhere in European Russia, but nobody has been talking about those.

Germany will not even supply Ukraine with Taurus missiles to Ukraine, let alone allow them to be used against Russia directly. Not happening, period. The current coalition governing Germany is too conflicted to do any such thing.

The UK and/or France just might give permission to use the Storm Shadow/SCALP. Their range is about 300 mi. The political situation in France is very unclear. The UK is adjusting to a new government that does not yet have its feet under it. These situations do not bode well for controversial decisions.

All these weapons are designed to hit high value targets far in the enemy's rear areas. That can be an important plus for Ukraine. They are not designed for mass attacks on area targets. They won't stop Russia's missile attacks on Ukraine. They can make it much more difficult for Russia to launch ALCMs and hypersonic missiles by attriting the ability of the VKS to launch them. However, the VKS can simply switch to using bases located out of range of these cruise missiles. For the SU-35s it will be a PITA, for the TU-22M folks it will just be another day at the office.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - fullmetal - 08-26-2024

Pavel Durov, a dual French/Russian citizen and billionaire-CEO-founder of the Telegram app, was arrested in France on Saturday.  Telegram is apparently a substantial platform for Russian military communications these days.

Quote:Responding to the news, Russian journalist Alexander Sladkov said that Russia's military conducts half of its communications via the messaging app, and said an alternative must be created "urgently."

"Pavel Durov was arrested. This attack on the owner of [Telegram], on which half of the communications in the [war] are held, was expected. Now we urgently need to create a Russian military messenger," he wrote.

Rumor has it that Telegram's lack of moderation ability has enabled criminal activities, and this has led to the arrest.  Durov was also the founder of VKontakte (Russian Facebook).

Telegram's rather open nature has allowed a lot of insight into Russian military communications and Russian milblogger thought spheres.  I wonder if this is yet another one of those external immunizations that will push the Russian military into a more capable posture.

https://www.newsweek.com/russian-military-bloggers-arrest-telegram-pavel-durov-1944293
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/26/who-is-telegram-founder-pavel-durov-and-why-was-he-arrested.html

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 08-26-2024

(08-26-2024, 12:08 PM)fullmetal Wrote:  Telegram's rather open nature has allowed a lot of insight into Russian military communications and Russian milblogger thought spheres.  I wonder if this is yet another one of those external immunizations that will push the Russian military into a more capable posture.

It might, although IMO the actual official use of Telegram by the Russian military is in fact none. Predicting exactly how Russia will respond to immunizing events is difficult. During the cold war the US and NATO were often surprised at what the Soviet Union was able develop and deploy in response to foreign developments. This surprise went both ways, both that the Soviet Union often did much better than we expected but sometimes did much worse. IMO NATO and the US still suffer from the false equivalence of Russia with the Soviet Union. I know I do :-). Russia today consistently under-performs in their responses. That doesn't mean their responses are ineffective, but rather that they are not as robustly effective as one would have expected from the Soviets. The US has seen a massive and radical response from the Soviet Union to communications insecurity at least twice before in history.  We also saw continuous incremental changes from the Soviets that were sometimes quite subtle but very effective. So far, from Russia, we haven't seen any of that. Their troops were using the Ukrainian cellular network for communication during the invasion!

Frankly, I don't think anything that traverses the internet is of great consequence to Russian military communication. The Russians obviously have major issues in that area and sometimes resort to "workarounds" that they shouldn't need. There is where the security issues arise. Will the Russians fix that? I don't think so in the near term because their number 1 priority right now in terms of advanced technology is weapons, not communications.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 08-26-2024

Interesting article about a USAF electronic warfare unit which helped to reprogram EW systems on F16s donated to Europe "to be effective against evolving Russian threats in the spectrum"

https://www.dvidshub.net/news/479401/dominate-spectrum-350th-sww-enables-ew-capabilities-ukrainian-f-16s

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - fullmetal - 08-26-2024

Fun times for Russia:

Quote:The blog site Dva Mayora said that Russian specialists are working on an alternative to Telegram, but that the Russian army's Main Communications Directorate has "not shown any real interest" in getting such a system to Russian troops. The site said Durov's arrest may actually speed up the development of an independent comms system.

https://www.politico.eu/article/telegram-ceo-arrest-pavel-durov-russian-military-communications-france/


How Telegram played itself - A brief description of how Telegram has deliberately set itself up to be opaque to law enforcement and how crime is enabled

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 08-26-2024

(08-26-2024, 07:18 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  Interesting article about a USAF electronic warfare unit which helped to reprogram EW systems on F16s donated to Europe "to be effective against evolving Russian threats in the spectrum"

https://www.dvidshub.net/news/479401/dominate-spectrum-350th-sww-enables-ew-capabilities-ukrainian-f-16s

Pretty interesting. I am glad somebody is at least paying attention to the requirement to program the EW systems. Previously the "owners" of the aircraft would do it. The new owners, Ukraine, obviously don't have the expertise and equipment. Somebody else will need to do it, and it appears that body has been found. A matter of concern is that there is no reference to validation testing. These programming changes are normally flown against simulators at Eglin (and elsewhere) to verify that the correct ECM actions are selected in response to a "real" threat environment. . There are all kinds of things that can go wrong and it can take significant testing to figure out why the ECM gear is doing the "wrong thing". This would be especially true for an EW suite that was unfamiliar to those doing the programming.

In somewhat related news and under the category of "what was old is new again", look at https://www.robins.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3569959/350th-spectrum-warfare-wing-activates-two-detachments-at-robins-afb/. Warner-Robbins has always been heavily involved in the USAF jamming design and validation activities. Lots of that got shut down with the advent of "Stealth" and budget woes. It would appear that is being reversed. Where the money is coming from is an issue. However, looking at https://www.350sww.af.mil/ they are hiring. I can assure you that Georgia Tech is licking their chops.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 08-27-2024

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukraines-f-16s-flying-missions-130956296.html

Ukraine is starting out conservative and using their F-16s to target cruise missiles and drones. This is exactly what they should do, at least until they are close to having at least a functioning squadron of aircraft operating. Then they can go offensive occasionally with well-planned missions that will do maximum damage to the Russians.

One baffling thing (to me at least :-) is that Russia has not established a drone-cruise missile barrier around Ukraine. They could fly one or more Mainstays safely well inside Russian airspace. This aircraft could detect and track anything that is moving at say 100 knots and entering Russian airspace. This capability all by itself would give "early warning" of hostile targets and where they are going. This capability would at a minimum improve the effectiveness of Russian SAMs. Russia is not doing it. Russia could also maintain "many" fighter aircraft both already in the air and alert on the ground. These aircraft would be steered by the A-50s towards the targets until the fighters could lock them up. Russian fighters do have "look down shoot down" capability and are quite capable of doing this mission. Yet they aren't. Why not? Ukraine is already starting to get there with their pitifully small stock of F-16s.

Granted the PVO is no more and the VKS hasn't demonstrated such a defense in its history. However, it isn't rocket science. You can bet your last nickle the US would establish a barrier defense in depth  immediately in a similar situation. The destruction of the Iranian drone/cruise missile element by "coalition" aircraft showed how to do it. This was done with a competent yet improvised air element that had never done exactly that mission before and certainly not with each other. Russia absolutely could do it.

---

Mudhead - Mudhead - 08-27-2024

Curious to know whether this latest incursion into Russia by “a few hundred” Ukrainian soldiers is just a pinprick for news value or the beginning of a strategy to force Russians to make significant redeployment of troops.  I have no idea whether Ukraine has the capability to do enough of these to force a reaction.

---

RE: Mudhead - Goose - 08-27-2024

(08-27-2024, 02:27 PM)Mudhead Wrote:  Curious to know whether this latest incursion into Russia by “a few hundred” Ukrainian soldiers is just a pinprick for news value or the beginning of a strategy to force Russians to make significant redeployment of troops.  I have no idea whether Ukraine has the capability to do enough of these to force a reaction.

IMO Ukraine is looking for a way to accomplish a broader envelopment inside Russia. To do so would be very ambitious but Russia has yet to demonstrate they can stop Ukraine from penetrating into Russian territory. Ukraine is probing and hoping to find another "soft spot". The Kursk incursion has not yet had much affect on Russian offensives further south. I doubt Ukraine believes Russia is going to significantly redeploy since they haven't already. The Russian failure to do so could actually create an opportunity for Ukraine to advance. Take what the defense gives you :-).

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 08-27-2024

As the resident non-expert speculator, I'm not sure I buy the news about the incursion into Belgorod.  ISW, which we all know is highly partisan in favor of Ukraine, still shows Russian control over territory on Ukraine's side of the border near the locations of the reported incursion.  That's the same area where Russia put a large mass of forces and took territory from Ukraine a few months ago.  Of all the places for Ukraine to find a soft spot and encircle large numbers of enemy troops, that does not seem like the most promising location.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - fullmetal - 08-27-2024

Four days ago, I saw a pro-Ukraine account post a video of Russian 56th Guards vehicles being trucked toward Kursk.  Other accounts indicated that the lack of rail transport would lead to severe maintenance and readiness issues and given the doctrinal reliance on rail transport for such long-distance movements.  Some more reading shows that there have been a number of units redeploying from southern Ukraine to Kursk, but the scale of the movement isn't known yet.  Analysts surmise that units from less critical areas of the southern front have been redeployed while maintaining commitment to the eastern invasion.

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-august-22-2024

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 08-27-2024

(08-27-2024, 03:43 PM)TrumpCard Wrote:  As the resident non-expert speculator, I'm not sure I buy the news about the incursion into Belgorod.  ISW, which we all know is highly partisan in favor of Ukraine, still shows Russian control over territory on Ukraine's side of the border near the locations of the reported incursion.  That's the same area where Russia put a large mass of forces and took territory from Ukraine a few months ago.  Of all the places for Ukraine to find a soft spot and encircle large numbers of enemy troops, that does not seem like the most promising location.

Maybe Ukraine had reason to believe that Russia had redeployed the better part of that large mass of troops toward Kursk in order drive the Ukrainians out of that area. Maybe Ukraine knew Russia had not yet redeployed those troops but was intending to do so. Attacking that area will fix those troops in place (hopefully) if they are still there and if they are not it may have become a "soft spot". Arriving on the heels of a redeployment/relief of opposition forces has yielded great results in the past. A "reconnaissance in force" probe risks little and could yield much if those troops were removed. FWIW the troops that participated in Russia's incursion into Ukraine a few months ago are much closer to Kursk than troops from south Ukraine are. Since the previous Russian offensive has wound down those "extra" troops serve little purpose in Belgorod.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - M T - 08-27-2024

So what do people think about Zelensky’s mention of a “victory plan”?  Maybe it is a bit of bluster trying to get an arguable position at a peace conference, or maybe he has an argument that the Russian people (or maybe the oligarchs) are ready to question Putin. Or maybe he’s arguing to strike strictly military targets, specifically bridges, in Russia.

Or maybe someone has the same idea as Goose and thinks the US needs a plan to win, or it may be time to fold. If the US doesn’t have the political will to make one, maybe Ukraine can lay one out, at least as a guide so people can question why the US backs away from steps to win. 

——

The BBC is carrying an article about a man who was serving a 12 year sentence for murder who was released to fight in the war in 2022. Now he has brutally raped and murdered an 85yo woman. He is again convicted, this time for 23 years. But within a week, he was released to go fight in the war again. If these stories get around, people will notice.  

I think that article also said the enlistment bonus is $12K.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 08-27-2024

(08-27-2024, 09:56 PM)M T Wrote:  people can question why the IS backs away from steps to win. 

Freudian slip?

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - thunder_chik - 08-27-2024

Just another indication that we need to be aware of, and prepared for, the three days of darkness.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 08-28-2024

(08-27-2024, 07:42 AM)Goose Wrote:  https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukraines-f-16s-flying-missions-130956296.html

Ukraine is starting out conservative and using their F-16s to target cruise missiles and drones. This is exactly what they should do, at least until they are close to having at least a functioning squadron of aircraft operating. Then they can go offensive occasionally with well-planned missions that will do maximum damage to the Russians.

One baffling thing (to me at least :-) is that Russia has not established a drone-cruise missile barrier around Ukraine. They could fly one or more Mainstays safely well inside Russian airspace. This aircraft could detect and track anything that is moving at say 100 knots and entering Russian airspace. This capability all by itself would give "early warning" of hostile targets and where they are going. This capability would at a minimum improve the effectiveness of Russian SAMs. Russia is not doing it. Russia could also maintain "many" fighter aircraft both already in the air and alert on the ground. These aircraft would be steered by the A-50s towards the targets until the fighters could lock them up. Russian fighters do have "look down shoot down" capability and are quite capable of doing this mission. Yet they aren't. Why not? Ukraine is already starting to get there with their pitifully small stock of F-16s.

Granted the PVO is no more and the VKS hasn't demonstrated such a defense in its history. However, it isn't rocket science. You can bet your last nickle the US would establish a barrier defense in depth  immediately in a similar situation. The destruction of the Iranian drone/cruise missile element by "coalition" aircraft showed how to do it. This was done with a competent yet improvised air element that had never done exactly that mission before and certainly not with each other. Russia absolutely could do it.

What I do not understand at all is how effective Mainstay, or AWACS aircrafts are at picking up incoming missles, aircraft, or whatever, flying low in the weeds so to speak. BI recently had an article how we are now giving Ukraine a long range cruise missle that  has a range of 200 miles.  I am not sure how the Tomahawk missles feels about that.  200 miles is hardly a long range weapon. I have seen articles that indicated that the S400 can find things flying down in the weeds, say  100 to 200 ft above mean ground level about 45 km out.  Can it then intercept that incoming missles in the time left if the incoming weapon is say moving at 500 mph?  Seems to me there is a very good chance that the incoming weapon would hit you before you hit it.  Can an AWACS type aircraft pick up those low flying weapons easily?  Even if they do, how do they facilitate the destruction of those weapons.  Can an AWACS system overide the control of the ground based air defense systems and launch the air defense systems long before the Air defense system radar even finds it? 
This conflict has created a really new issue the worlds militaries need to deal with.  We are no longer talking about expensive Reaper drones firing a few weapons at a target, but more about flying hundreds of cheap drones carrying from 5 to say 50 kilos of explosives. I think it would be very hard for a single country to be able to stop this kind of attack outside of the largest countries on the planetl

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 08-28-2024

(08-28-2024, 07:05 AM)GK3 Wrote:  What I do not understand at all is how effective Mainstay, or AWACS aircrafts are at picking up incoming missles, aircraft, or whatever, flying low in the weeds so to speak.

The short answer is very effective, subject to certain assumptions. I don't know the exact detailed capability of an A-50, but even assuming it is comparable to a late 1990s AWACS, it has a very good Digital Moving Target processor that uses the coherent Doppler shift in the radar returns from moving targets to make them absolutely stand out from the ground clutter. These platforms can even see cars on the freeway if they turn the low speed limit down far enough. The assumptions are 1) the target has a relative velocity component in it's course that is large enough to be detected, and 2) the target has a radar cross section large enough to be detected. The second requirement can be greatly affected by building a "stealth" cruse missile, which both we and the Russians (e.g. KH-101) have done. However, the physical size of most cruise missiles is such that the X band radar will see a missile when it would not see an aircraft of similar stealth. It has to do with the mode of reflection involved. That is one reason (of many) why the  E-7 Wedgetail operating in L band is such a high priority acquisition for the USAF. The USN was very smart (or lucky) in the original design of the E-2. Its radars, including APS-145 (https://www.radartutorial.eu/19.kartei/08.airborne/karte086.en.html) and the latest and greatest APY-9 (https://www.radartutorial.eu/19.kartei/08.airborne/karte083.en.html) operate just below P band.

Quote:BI recently had an article how we are now giving Ukraine a long range cruise missle that  has a range of 200 miles.  I am not sure how the Tomahawk missles feels about that.  200 miles is hardly a long range weapon.

The Tomahawk engine will just be warmed up at 200 miles :-).

Quote:I have seen articles that indicated that the S400 can find things flying down in the weeds, say  100 to 200 ft above mean ground level about 45 km out.  Can it then intercept that incoming missles in the time left if the incoming weapon is say moving at 500 mph?  Seems to me there is a very good chance that the incoming weapon would hit you before you hit it.

45 km is not literally correct. The radar horizon (without refraction) for a radar antenna located 10 feet above the ground and a cruise missile at 200 ft is 34.1 km. If the radar is at 20 ft in the air the horizon is 36.7 km. At 926 kph the 36.7 km will be covered in 142.7 seconds. Obviously the intercept needs to occur well away from the S400 to avoid fragment damage. Can an S400 accomplish this? The answer is a very qualified yes. The S400 does have an "automatic" mode that could in theory launch the missile. How well that actually works is an open question. The Russians tend to prefer a "man in the loop" operation. It is also pretty risky leaving a missile battery in full automatic mode for a long period of time. It is probable there is a non-zero false alarm rate. There are "red on red" issues at the very least, especially because supposedly both Russia and Ukraine aren't using the IFF much if at all. Under normal circumstances you don't do that. It is also obvious you get exactly one chance. There are also missile flight issues. The launch direction may require rapid missile maneuvers very near the ground to happen at rates the missile simply can't do. It is imperative the missile crew and the support staff be aware that a missile may be launched "unexpectedly" :-). Ideally, you want a SHORAD system allocated to defend the S400.

All that said, when the Ukrainians initially received the Patriot systems they apparently did leave it full automatic lots of the time. It worked well. I doubt the S400 would do the same.

Quote:Can an AWACS type aircraft pick up those low flying weapons easily?  Even if they do, how do they facilitate the destruction of those weapons.  Can an AWACS system overide the control of the ground based air defense systems and launch the air defense systems long before the Air defense system radar even finds it?

Yes, an AWACS system can detect such targets almost immediately after they are launched. The AWACS would evaluate the threat and ideally assign an aircraft to shoot it down. The AWACS can track "lots" of such target and coordinate the air battle to (in theory) make the best use of its assigned air assets. The aircraft get a vector (and updated vectors if needed) toward the target. Once the aircraft has the target on its radar, the AWACS quits helping. The aircraft then shoots the missile down. Obviously this engagement can't take forever. It depends on where the missile is coming from. If no aircraft is available with permissive geometry, the AWACS can designate the target for any appropriate missile battery. The NASAMS has often been demonstrated operating in this mode. The AWACS doesn't exactly "take control". The battery computer and guidance uplink participates (as can the battery personnel). However, if the battery has not detected the target the AWACS updates will be used to "steer" the AMRAAM to the target until it is within range. Patriot can be used the same way. Additionally, Patriot batteries can "handoff" targets to NASAMS. In this manner, batteries can engage targets they themselves cannot "see". All this has been demonstrated. The AWACS has clearly demonstrated in actual conflicts the ability to shoot down cruse missiles at scale using aircraft directed by the AWACS. The "other" capabilities have definitely been demonstrated many times, although AFAIK it hasn't been used in conflict.

Russia claims the A-50 can do all these same things as part of their IADS. However, we have not seen them actually do this. Russia also claims they can guide the long range S400 missiles from the A-50. This is a very "big deal" in long range engagements. However, AFAIK we have never actually seen the Russians do any of this, even in drills.

Quote:This conflict has created a really new issue the worlds militaries need to deal with.  We are no longer talking about expensive Reaper drones firing a few weapons at a target, but more about flying hundreds of cheap drones carrying from 5 to say 50 kilos of explosives. I think it would be very hard for a single country to be able to stop this kind of attack outside of the largest countries on the planetl

I am not in complete agreement. The hundreds of cheap "quadcoptor" drones have very limited range. These aren't weapons that have much reach. They are important weapons and certainly will make a tactical contribution in the near future. Most of these drones are not fast. The ones that have reasonable range are more like the  Shahed 136. They are slow and can easily be run down by high performance aircraft. None of these weapons are gamechangers. There is going to be a lot of development of these weapons making them more capable. There will even more improvements in defensive measures IMO. Even in the last two years massive changes have occurred during the middle of a war. Five years from now, the scene will be vastly different than it is today. IMO FPV drones will basically not exist in five years, if not sooner. Their EW signature can't be eliminated. If you radiate and can't defend yourself you will be a big bullseye. Scarily, AI will be used to recognize and attack targets with maybe a "squirt" when that determination is made. In short the future will not look like the present and the correlation of forces will be very different.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Leftcoast - 08-28-2024

(08-28-2024, 07:05 AM)GK3 Wrote:  

(08-27-2024, 07:42 AM)Goose Wrote:  https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukraines-f-16s-flying-missions-130956296.html

Ukraine is starting out conservative and using their F-16s to target cruise missiles and drones. This is exactly what they should do, at least until they are close to having at least a functioning squadron of aircraft operating. Then they can go offensive occasionally with well-planned missions that will do maximum damage to the Russians.

One baffling thing (to me at least :-) is that Russia has not established a drone-cruise missile barrier around Ukraine. They could fly one or more Mainstays safely well inside Russian airspace. This aircraft could detect and track anything that is moving at say 100 knots and entering Russian airspace. This capability all by itself would give "early warning" of hostile targets and where they are going. This capability would at a minimum improve the effectiveness of Russian SAMs. Russia is not doing it. Russia could also maintain "many" fighter aircraft both already in the air and alert on the ground. These aircraft would be steered by the A-50s towards the targets until the fighters could lock them up. Russian fighters do have "look down shoot down" capability and are quite capable of doing this mission. Yet they aren't. Why not? Ukraine is already starting to get there with their pitifully small stock of F-16s.

Granted the PVO is no more and the VKS hasn't demonstrated such a defense in its history. However, it isn't rocket science. You can bet your last nickle the US would establish a barrier defense in depth  immediately in a similar situation. The destruction of the Iranian drone/cruise missile element by "coalition" aircraft showed how to do it. This was done with a competent yet improvised air element that had never done exactly that mission before and certainly not with each other. Russia absolutely could do it.

What I do not understand at all is how effective Mainstay, or AWACS aircrafts are at picking up incoming missles, aircraft, or whatever, flying low in the weeds so to speak. BI recently had an article how we are now giving Ukraine a long range cruise missle that  has a range of 200 miles.  I am not sure how the Tomahawk missles feels about that.  200 miles is hardly a long range weapon. I have seen articles that indicated that the S400 can find things flying down in the weeds, say  100 to 200 ft above mean ground level about 45 km out.  Can it then intercept that incoming missles in the time left if the incoming weapon is say moving at 500 mph?  Seems to me there is a very good chance that the incoming weapon would hit you before you hit it.  Can an AWACS type aircraft pick up those low flying weapons easily?  Even if they do, how do they facilitate the destruction of those weapons.  Can an AWACS system overide the control of the ground based air defense systems and launch the air defense systems long before the Air defense system radar even finds it? 
This conflict has created a really new issue the worlds militaries need to deal with.  We are no longer talking about expensive Reaper drones firing a few weapons at a target, but more about flying hundreds of cheap drones carrying from 5 to say 50 kilos of explosives. I think it would be very hard for a single country to be able to stop this kind of attack outside of the largest countries on the planetl

Or a high value asset at sea ... say an aircraft carrier to close to shore.  Mass attacks by cheap weapons are a going to be a challenge in many areas.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 08-28-2024

Seems like a big problem for the US if it has to defend Taiwan.

---