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 - Goose - 06-01-2025

(06-01-2025, 01:39 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  Good point about the benefits of plausible deniability for the US.  If the US had known but did nothing to stop it, we’d get an earful from the Russians.  If we tried to stop it and failed, we’d look weak, and if we succeeded, you can bet word would have leaked out about how the US is tying one of Ukraines arms behind its back.

And these days US OPSEC isn't all that good. IMO it is very probable lots of our "friends" now are much more reticent about sharing sensitive information with the US.

Quote:Apparently one of the bases hit was in Siberia.  That has to be disconcerting.

And while hitting Russia’s bombers gave Ukraine the largest bang for the buck (while I’m sure there aren’t as many hits as the Ukrainians allege, if it’s true that they destroyed even half as many as the 40 $100 million bombers were destroyed they claim to have, that’s a multi-billion dollar hit to the Russian war machine in the span of an afternoon),

I am going to largely withhold judgement on how successful the Ukrainian strike was until we get some independent BDA. The "confirmed" destroyed AFAIK sits at one A-50 and four TU-95s. That is not nothing, but given Ukraine's initial estimates there may well be more to come. It is difficult to know exactly what was damaged. Aircraft that were "direct hits" and which burned totally are easy to assess as "destroyed". Other aircraft sitting nearby may have some damage that is easy to pick up in satellite photos. Others that appear to be untouched may have holes in their fuselage that are very hard to see.

I not "impressed" by valuations of aircraft that were built so very long ago in the Soviet era. That is a "sunk cost" to the current regime. If Russia had no use for these aircraft or had so many of them the loss was irrelevant this attack wouldn't matter at all. What I am impressed by is the replacement costs. Russia does have an immediate important use for these aircraft. The replacement costs for the TU-95s and TU-22Ms is infinite. This is the more significant consideration. Russia cannot build replacements. The tooling is gone and probably the documentation is largely gone. The "corporate knowledge" is also certainly gone. The TU-160 is being built in Russia today but at an extremely low rate. It is also unclear if they can be built without using parts left over from the cancelled initial procurement. The current dollar cost is probably very large, but the quantity and time constraints are potentially more important.

Quote:I’m sure Ukranian planners are thinking of how to implement a similar plan on arm and fuel depots, munitions factories, and other war infrastructure.  Who needs 500 km range Taurus missiles when you can just drive a swarm of drones to within 1 km of the target and let them loose.

It isn't probable Ukraine can repeat this approach at will. This was supposedly an 18 month operation. Lots of planning was required and the number of assets Ukraine can deploy inside Russia is limited. That said, Ukraine might have a few trucks still sticking around inside Russia for a follow-on strike. That would REALLY rattle the Russians IMO.  Unfortunately this kind of FPV attack wouldn't be very effective against the Kerch bridge, which is the FanBoy preferred target for the Taurus :-).

Quote:Last comment, OPEC (aka, Saudi Arabia) agreed to increase oil production by another 400 mm barrels.  That can’t be good for oil prices and thus the Russian economy.

Indeed this may turn out to hurt Russia more than the much flashier drone strike did.

(06-01-2025, 03:58 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  You’ve been given free access to this article from The Economist as a gift. You can open the link five times within seven days. After that it will expire.

An astonishing raid deep inside Russia rewrites the rules of war
https://economist.com/europe/2025/06/01/an-astonishing-raid-deep-inside-russia-rewrites-the-rules-of-war?giftId=f6f6aa7a-ed7e-4b8b-966f-828d10813d01&utm_campaign=gifted_article

(Should be gifted)

Major kudos to the Ukrainians… the amount of thought that went into this was astounding.

Quote:The source described the operation as a multi-stage chess move, with the Russians first encouraged to move more of their planes to particular bases by Ukrainian strikes on other ones. Three days before the attack, dozens of planes had moved to the Olenya airfield in Murmansk province, according to reports published at the time. It was precisely here that the most damage was done.

Thanks for the article BC. Certainly worth a read. While I don't necessarily believe everything the Ukrainians are "revealing", the strike itself is indeed a masterpiece. We will know later just how big of one, but even if it isn't as big as originally claimed, it is indeed at a minimum a great blow to Russia's sense of invulnerability.

Quote:If there really are “fewer than 90 operational Tu-22, Tu-95 and newer Tu-160s in total”, then Ukraine might have single-handedly taken out a third or more of the Russian fleet.  NATO owes the Ukrainians a huuuuuuge thank you.

Also, the victims included “rare and extremely expensive A-50 early-warning planes (Russia’s equivalent of the AWACS)”

It is indeed true that the number of Russian strategic bombers is "small". It is also true that the TU-95 and the TU-22 are beyond obsolete. They are at best tertiary threats to NATO. Both the TU-95 and the TU-22 were mostly operated by the Russian Navy by the end of the Cold War. They were the Russian anti-carrier and (TU-95) anti-submarine weapons. Their original cruise missile armaments were clearly designed for exactly that. The F-14 and the Phoenix missile were built to defeat them. The TU-160 was a supersonic bomber designed to compete with/copy the B-1 design that got canceled. It was canceled because with the advent of look-down-shoot-down technology the original B-1 design (supersonic low-altitude penetrator) was not survivable. Neither is the TU-160 operating as originally designed. It is now relegated to being a large, expensive missile truck.

Missile/bomb trucks are useful, but only after an effective SEAD campaign. Otherwise they are vulnerable air pollution. Russia doesn't do SEAD, so.... Looked at another way, the US isn't sending any B-52s in our first few waves of airstrikes on anyone, including "less than peer" opponents.

Quote:There’s a word of caution at the end about how this could potentially be the equivalent of Sinop (unlikely, but nations are fickle), and of course it highlights our own vulnerabilities.

BC

If Russia's actions against Ukraine hasn't had the result the battle of Sinop did I can't see how Ukraine's response would either. Our own vulnerabilities are also not very new. Our society/nation is and has always been vulnerable to notional well planned covert military surprise attacks. Back in 1918 we were worried about poison gas attacks on large cities. We are still worried about poisons being added to major population center drinking water. These are unfortunately real possibilities. It could be done.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 06-01-2025

(06-01-2025, 05:23 PM)Goose Wrote:  

(06-01-2025, 01:39 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  Good point about the benefits of plausible deniability for the US.  If the US had known but did nothing to stop it, we’d get an earful from the Russians.  If we tried to stop it and failed, we’d look weak, and if we succeeded, you can bet word would have leaked out about how the US is tying one of Ukraines arms behind its back.

And these days US OPSEC isn't all that good. IMO it is very probable lots of our "friends" now are much more reticent about sharing sensitive information with the US.

Quote:Apparently one of the bases hit was in Siberia.  That has to be disconcerting.

And while hitting Russia’s bombers gave Ukraine the largest bang for the buck (while I’m sure there aren’t as many hits as the Ukrainians allege, if it’s true that they destroyed even half as many as the 40 $100 million bombers were destroyed they claim to have, that’s a multi-billion dollar hit to the Russian war machine in the span of an afternoon),

I am going to largely withhold judgement on how successful the Ukrainian strike was until we get some independent BDA. The "confirmed" destroyed AFAIK sits at one A-50 and four TU-95s. That is not nothing, but given Ukraine's initial estimates there may well be more to come. It is difficult to know exactly what was damaged. Aircraft that were "direct hits" and which burned totally are easy to assess as "destroyed". Other aircraft sitting nearby may have some damage that is easy to pick up in satellite photos. Others that appear to be untouched may have holes in their fuselage that are very hard to see.

I not "impressed" by valuations of aircraft that were built so very long ago in the Soviet era. That is a "sunk cost" to the current regime. If Russia had no use for these aircraft or had so many of them the loss was irrelevant this attack wouldn't matter at all. What I am impressed by is the replacement costs. Russia does have an immediate important use for these aircraft. The replacement costs for the TU-95s and TU-22Ms is infinite. This is the more significant consideration. Russia cannot build replacements. The tooling is gone and probably the documentation is largely gone. The "corporate knowledge" is also certainly gone. The TU-160 is being built in Russia today but at an extremely low rate. It is also unclear if they can be built without using parts left over from the cancelled initial procurement. The current dollar cost is probably very large, but the quantity and time constraints are potentially more important.

Quote:I’m sure Ukranian planners are thinking of how to implement a similar plan on arm and fuel depots, munitions factories, and other war infrastructure.  Who needs 500 km range Taurus missiles when you can just drive a swarm of drones to within 1 km of the target and let them loose.

It isn't probable Ukraine can repeat this approach at will. This was supposedly an 18 month operation. Lots of planning was required and the number of assets Ukraine can deploy inside Russia is limited. That said, Ukraine might have a few trucks still sticking around inside Russia for a follow-on strike. That would REALLY rattle the Russians IMO.  Unfortunately this kind of FPV attack wouldn't be very effective against the Kerch bridge, which is the FanBoy preferred target for the Taurus :-).

Quote:Last comment, OPEC (aka, Saudi Arabia) agreed to increase oil production by another 400 mm barrels.  That can’t be good for oil prices and thus the Russian economy.

Indeed this may turn out to hurt Russia more than the much flashier drone strike did.

(06-01-2025, 03:58 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  You’ve been given free access to this article from The Economist as a gift. You can open the link five times within seven days. After that it will expire.

An astonishing raid deep inside Russia rewrites the rules of war
https://economist.com/europe/2025/06/01/an-astonishing-raid-deep-inside-russia-rewrites-the-rules-of-war?giftId=f6f6aa7a-ed7e-4b8b-966f-828d10813d01&utm_campaign=gifted_article

(Should be gifted)

Major kudos to the Ukrainians… the amount of thought that went into this was astounding.

Quote:The source described the operation as a multi-stage chess move, with the Russians first encouraged to move more of their planes to particular bases by Ukrainian strikes on other ones. Three days before the attack, dozens of planes had moved to the Olenya airfield in Murmansk province, according to reports published at the time. It was precisely here that the most damage was done.

Thanks for the article BC. Certainly worth a read. While I don't necessarily believe everything the Ukrainians are "revealing", the strike itself is indeed a masterpiece. We will know later just how big of one, but even if it isn't as big as originally claimed, it is indeed at a minimum a great blow to Russia's sense of invulnerability.

Quote:If there really are “fewer than 90 operational Tu-22, Tu-95 and newer Tu-160s in total”, then Ukraine might have single-handedly taken out a third or more of the Russian fleet.  NATO owes the Ukrainians a huuuuuuge thank you.

Also, the victims included “rare and extremely expensive A-50 early-warning planes (Russia’s equivalent of the AWACS)”

It is indeed true that the number of Russian strategic bombers is "small". It is also true that the TU-95 and the TU-22 are beyond obsolete. They are at best tertiary threats to NATO. Both the TU-95 and the TU-22 were mostly operated by the Russian Navy by the end of the Cold War. They were the Russian anti-carrier and (TU-95) anti-submarine weapons. Their original cruise missile armaments were clearly designed for exactly that. The F-14 and the Phoenix missile were built to defeat them. The TU-160 was a supersonic bomber designed to compete with/copy the B-1 design that got canceled. It was canceled because with the advent of look-down-shoot-down technology the original B-1 design (supersonic low-altitude penetrator) was not survivable. Neither is the TU-160 operating as originally designed. It is now relegated to being a large, expensive missile truck.

Missile/bomb trucks are useful, but only after an effective SEAD campaign. Otherwise they are vulnerable air pollution. Russia doesn't do SEAD, so.... Looked at another way, the US isn't sending any B-52s in our first few waves of airstrikes on anyone, including "less than peer" opponents.

Quote:There’s a word of caution at the end about how this could potentially be the equivalent of Sinop (unlikely, but nations are fickle), and of course it highlights our own vulnerabilities.

BC

If Russia's actions against Ukraine hasn't had the result the battle of Sinop did I can't see how Ukraine's response would either. Our own vulnerabilities are also not very new. Our society/nation is and has always been vulnerable to notional well planned covert military surprise attacks. Back in 1918 we were worried about poison gas attacks on large cities. We are still worried about poisons being added to major population center drinking water. These are unfortunately real possibilities. It could be done.

Unlike the USA and NATO where theory and tactics in dealing with Russia has been subject of endless sand table exercises and existing war plans.  I do not think Ukraine was burdened by old thinking and have been willing seize new ideas and use them immediately.  They don't need fancy predator type drones although I am sure they would like some, but have found a way to use little ones very effectively.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Mick - 06-01-2025

(06-01-2025, 03:58 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  You’ve been given free access to this article from The Economist as a gift. You can open the link five times within seven days. After that it will expire.

An astonishing raid deep inside Russia rewrites the rules of war
https://economist.com/europe/2025/06/01/an-astonishing-raid-deep-inside-russia-rewrites-the-rules-of-war?giftId=f6f6aa7a-ed7e-4b8b-966f-828d10813d01&utm_campaign=gifted_article

(Should be gifted)

Major kudos to the Ukrainians… the amount of thought that went into this was astounding.

Quote:The source described the operation as a multi-stage chess move, with the Russians first encouraged to move more of their planes to particular bases by Ukrainian strikes on other ones. Three days before the attack, dozens of planes had moved to the Olenya airfield in Murmansk province, according to reports published at the time. It was precisely here that the most damage was done.

If there really are “fewer than 90 operational Tu-22, Tu-95 and newer Tu-160s in total”, then Ukraine might have single-handedly taken out a third or more of the Russian fleet.  NATO owes the Ukrainians a huuuuuuge thank you.

Also, the victims included “rare and extremely expensive A-50 early-warning planes (Russia’s equivalent of the AWACS)”

There’s a word of caution at the end about how this could potentially be the equivalent of Sinop (unlikely, but nations are fickle), and of course it highlights our own vulnerabilities.

BC

Given the amount of furtive mapping and photographs our putative enemies have been taking of American bases and the extended vulnerability of our borders, I rather suspect our military has been planning for mass drone attacks against our military bases for decades by now.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Mick - 06-02-2025

Three freight trains blown up.
Mystery as Russia is rocked by 3 train crashes in one night after bridges collapse & tracks ‘blown up’ leaving 7 dead

Was it 40 or 14 Tupolev planes destroyed? Or somewhere in between?
Ukraine’s Drone Attack Roils Russia’s Global Military Strategy - WSJ

Or was it 41?
'Russian bombers are burning en masse' — Ukraine's SBU drones hit 'more than 40' aircraft in mass attack, source says

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 06-02-2025

(06-02-2025, 06:39 AM)Mick Wrote:  Three freight trains blown up.
Mystery as Russia is rocked by 3 train crashes in one night after bridges collapse & tracks ‘blown up’ leaving 7 dead

Was it 40 or 14 Tupolev planes destroyed? Or somewhere in between?
Ukraine’s Drone Attack Roils Russia’s Global Military Strategy - WSJ

Or was it 41?
'Russian bombers are burning en masse' — Ukraine's SBU drones hit 'more than 40' aircraft in mass attack, source says

from the BBC (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1ld7ppre9vo):

Quote:Andriy Kovalenko, head of the Ukrainian government's centre for counteracting disinformation, said at least 13 Russian aircraft were destroyed and others damaged.

This is far from the "final" word. More satellite data will potentially update these numbers, up or down. As previously noted it is often difficult to assess "damaged" aircraft. From an overhead view they may appear fine but still have significant damage rendering them unserviceable. The "real" number is probably closer to 13 than to 40, but 13 is still quite significant. Damaged aircraft may in many cases be effectively destroyed because the Russian ability to repair structural damage on these older aircraft is very limited. The parts required often don't exist. It may also be that the time to repair would just be too long. If major disassembly and reassembly would be required it might take more time than Russia can afford to commit. Repairing and maintaining other aircraft may be triaged above fixing such damage.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 06-02-2025

The failure of today's peace talks to agree on a cease fire is pretty much as expected and not news. What is somewhat news is that Russian media has published the conditions for a cease fire Russia is demanding from Ukraine. Clearly Ukraine finds them beyond unacceptable. The quite chilling action taken by Russia in making the conditions public inside Russia is that it makes it much more difficult for Putin to back away from any of them. The public can now certainly ask "Why did we not get ..." if that later has to be surrendered as a demand. At a minimum, it IMO ensures there will not soon be any agreement. It is unimaginable that Putin would formally reveal such demands and then quickly back away from them.
 
The conditions put forth are actually nothing "new". It is the same stuff Russia has been saying in sound bytes all along. It is now however an "official" position with all the demands in one place. Perhaps this may mandate a rethinking of the US position on a negotiated peace. Unfortunately the "new" position may be an attempt to wash our hands of the whole mess. That would result in us having no further say in the outcome.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 06-02-2025

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/panama-removes-over-650-ships-registry-amid-sanctions-stricter-rules-2025-06-02/

The article deals with Panama de-listing ships involved in the illicit Iranian oil trade, but similar actions could be taken to ensure that its flagged ships were not involved in Russian sanction busting.

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 06-02-2025

(06-02-2025, 02:12 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/panama-removes-over-650-ships-registry-amid-sanctions-stricter-rules-2025-06-02/

The article deals with Panama de-listing ships involved in the illicit Iranian oil trade, but similar actions could be taken to ensure that its flagged ships were not involved in Russian sanction busting.

BC

The US has significant economic interest in Panama. Panama probably will respond to quiet diplomacy and remove ships that are involved in Russian sanction busting. Panama will however resist public threats. Hopefully the State Department will "do the right thing". Unfortunately there are an adequate number of countries that will, for a price, re-flag those tankers. In the end it will either involve boarding and impounding those tankers and/or providing a better deal from suppliers other than Russia.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 06-02-2025

https://www.economist.com/international/2025/06/02/putins-sickening-statistic-1m-russian-casualties-in-ukraine?giftId=a254503c-7775-4659-90c8-504116fb4513&utm_campaign=gifted_article

(should be another gifted article)

A pretty grim milestone that at this point Russian casualties are approaching the 1 mm killed/wounded mark.

Quote:Even so, it is remarkable how Russia continues to absorb such staggering losses (it needs to recruit 30,000-40,000 new soldiers each month to fill the lines). To put them into context, Russia’s losses to date are on a par with the entirety of Britain’s losses in the second world war. They are approaching America’s losses in the same conflict, when its population was a similar size to Russia’s today. The numbers killed in Ukraine are probably more than four times those suffered by America in the eight years of its direct involvement in the Vietnam war, a toll that led to mass protests. Russia’s losses are also about ten times higher than the total number of casualties suffered by the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 06-02-2025

https://united24media.com/latest-news/ukrainian-fpv-drone-that-reached-russias-deepest-airbases-burning-tu-95ms-and-tu-22m3-8818

Among other things this article identifies the exact drone used by Ukraine. Assuming it isn't a very elaborate deception this would confirm the drones were smuggled into Russia. "Final assembly" took place in Russia, so they may have come in in pieces that didn't look like drones. This article also indicates that organic AI was used by the drones to recognize and target the bombers. If true, this may be the most important technological outcome of this raid.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 06-02-2025

Hat tip to James Freeman from the WSJ:

Quote:Bye-ku for a Lot of Russian Planes
Drones, unlike Troy’s toy,
Aren’t things of myth: Beware
Of rigs gifting Bears.
—Anonymous

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Papa John - 06-02-2025

(06-02-2025, 09:19 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  Hat tip to James Freeman from the WSJ:

Quote:Bye-ku for a Lot of Russian Planes
Drones, unlike Troy’s toy,
Aren’t things of myth: Beware
Of rigs gifting Bears.
—Anonymous

I like it but isn't the second line supposed to have 7 syllables?

On second thought, maybe I'm the only person who pronounces "aren't" as a one-syllable word...

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 06-03-2025

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/06/03/russia-ukraine-crimea-bridge-blast-drones/

Ukraine hits the Kirch bridge support structures.  Doesn’t look like they’ve knocked it out, but still an embarrassing failure for Russia that they were able to plant the explosives.

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 06-04-2025

More video released from the FPV attack. 2 A-50 AWACS planes were hit- Russia had 6 of them prior to this attack, so a third of their fleet likely permanently disabled.

https://x.com/ChristopherJM/status/1930257512793616813

Quote:Ukraine's SBU says its drones used AI during Operation Spiderweb: "During the operation, modern UAV control technology was used, which combines autonomous artificial intelligence algorithms and manual operator intervention.

"In particular, some UAVs, due to signal loss, switched to performing the mission using artificial intelligence along a pre-planned route. And after approaching and contacting a specifically designated target, the warhead was automatically triggered."

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 06-04-2025

Stanford angle to this one; Condie Rice shares her thoughts.

https://thehill.com/policy/international/5332284-putin-desperation-ukraine-drone-attack/

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - M T - 06-04-2025

(06-04-2025, 08:19 AM)dabigv13 Wrote:  More video released from the FPV attack. 2 A-50 AWACS planes were hit- Russia had 6 of them prior to this attack, so a third of their fleet likely permanently disabled.

https://x.com/ChristopherJM/status/1930257512793616813

Can you confirm "were hit" as opposed to, say, "were targeted"? The BBC sees no evidence of damage (which doesn't mean there wasn't damage, only that no damage was evident on Monday's satellite imagery).

Quote:At Ivanovo airbase two A50-AWACS planes are seen being targeted. The aircraft serves as an early warning and control asset - or spy plane - and is identifiable by the sizeable radar system on its fuselage.

Ukraine previously shot down two of these aircraft in January and February 2024.

As yet we have not seen any imagery or footage that captures any damage to these aircraft at Ivanovo.

While satellite imagery from the site does show wreckage, BBC Verify has confirmed that the damage was present at the site before Sunday's attack and is likely from another incident.

----

One has to wonder why the US President publicized the Russian's President's claim that he would seek revenge? Was that Putin's intent, and Trump stumbled right into it? Trump could have not mentioned it publicly or just ridiculed it, noting the even larger attack by Russia on the same day.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 06-04-2025

The videos obviously don't show the explosion. I guess you just have to trust that they did blow up when the feed ends.

That being said, it's possible the A-50 planes were non operational. In the video it doesn't appear they have engines.

More on this below-

https://x.com/Danspiun/status/1930324289628086709

...

And a tally from a well known OSINT mapping account based on the video and satellite photos. Note they count the A-50s as attacked, not destroyed.

Quote:Full analyses of the SSU video.

DESTROYED: 12 - Confirmed (by Sat)
Attacked: 11 - Damage unclear
UNK : 1 [Could be double]

Amount = different planes based on geolocation and comparison of distinct features (like counting tires on top of the plane, thanks for that!)

7x TU-95 DESTROYED
4x TU-22 DESTROYED
1x AN-12 DESTROYED
9x TU-22 attacked.
2x A-50 attacked
1x TU-95 UNK (Could be double)

* = double.

Olenya Air Base

4x TU-95 DESTROYED
1x AN-12 DESTROYED
2x TU-22 attacked.

0:06 - 68.14549, 33.45028 (4 - TU-95) [DESTROYED]
*0:11 - 68.14549, 33.45028 (4 - TU-95)
0:12 - 68.14428, 33.44917 (3 - TU-95) [DESTROYED]
0:17 - 68.139964, 33.444592 (1 - TU-95) [DESTROYED]
0:21 - 68.14288, 33.44788 (2 - TU-95) [DESTROYED]
*0:26 - 68.14549, 33.45028 (4 - TU-95)
*0:32 - 68.14549, 33.45028 (4 - TU-95)
*0:38 - 68.139964, 33.444592 (1 - TU-95)
*0:44 - 68.14288, 33.44788 (2 - TU-95)
*0:50 - 68.139964, 33.444592 (1 - TU-95)
*0:55 - 68.139964, 33.444592 (1 - TU-95)
1:01 - 68.15749, 33.46144 (1 - TU-22)
1:10 - 68.151780, 33.456704 (2 - TU-22)
*1:19 - 68.151780, 33.456704 (2 - TU-22)
1:26 - 68.14657, 33.45121 (AN-12) [DESTROYED]
*1:31 - Overview from 1-4

Ivanovo Air Base:

2x A-50 attacked.

1:34 - 57.05792, 40.99297, (A-50 - attacked, moved)
2:00 - 57.057661, 40.993853 (A-50 - attacked)

Dyagilevo Air Base:

3x TU-22 Attacked

2:05 - 54.6465, 39.57386 (1 - TU-22, attacked)
*2:14 - 54.6465, 39.57386 (1 - TU-22)
2:20 - 54.647567, 39.578554 (2 - TU22, attacked)
2:25 - 54.650610, 39.569181 (3 - TU22, attacked)

Belaya Air Base

3x TU-95 DESTROYED
4x TU-22 DESTROYED
4x TU-22 Attacked, at least one heavily damaged
1X TU-95 Attacked, not geolocated. [could be double also]

2:36 - 52.897294, 103.582445 (1 - TU-22) [DESTROYED]
*2:43 - 52.897294, 103.582445 (1 - TU-22) [Based on the tires on top of the plane]
2:49 - 52.900501, 103.574136 (2 - TU-22) [DESTROYED]
3:02 - 52.896425, 103.580545 (3 - TU-22, attacked)
3:03 - 52.905972, 103.577325 (7 - TU-22, attacked)
3:09 - 52.895785, 103.582749 (4 - TU-22) [DESTROYED]
*3:21 - 52.895785, 103.582749 (4 - TU-22)
3:22 - 52.896216, 103.577552 (5 - TU-22, attacked)
*3:29 - 52.900501, 103.574136 (2 - TU-22)
*3:35 - 52.896425, 103.580545 (3 - TU-22, attacked)
3:40 - 52.906, 103.5773 (6 - TU-22) [DESTROYED]
3:52 - UNK (can be double, or not)
3:59 - 52.919, 103.561358 (2 - TU-95) [DESTROYED]
4:05 - 52.916388, 103.56451 (3 - TU-95) [DESTROYED]
*4:16 - 52.919, 103.561358 (2 - TU-95)
*4:20 - 52.919, 103.561358 (2 - TU-95)
4:25 - 52.917217, 103.563544 (3 - TU-95) [DESTROYED]
4:28 - 52.918156, 103.562476 (4 - TU-95, attacked, plane gone)
*4:35 - 52.897294, 103.582445 (1 - TU-22)

https://x.com/GeoConfirmed/status/1930380628391768237

...


More on the operation. Some of this has previously been discussed.

Quote:Details about Ukraine’s daring “Spiderweb” drone attack on Russia’s Air Force continue coming in. The cargo containers hiding the drones were assembled in this warehouse in Chelyabinsk, over 1,000 miles from the Ukrainian border.
....
Russian war bloggers were able to identify the location by comparing photographs from an online real estate listing to a picture released by Ukraine’s security service. Apparently the explosives and/or drones were at least partially assembled there as well.
....
Unwitting Russian truck drivers were remotely hired to drive the containers thousands of miles from Chelyabinsk to air force base all over Russia. The drivers were told they were moving model homes. One of them reportedly said the container blew its lid as the truck was still in motion and drones started flying out of it. Terrifying!

https://x.com/SimonOstrovsky/status/1930384103943147664

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - M T - 06-04-2025

(06-04-2025, 02:35 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  The videos obviously don't show the explosion. I guess you just have to trust that they did blow up when the feed ends.

That being said, it's possible the A-50 planes were non operational. In the video it doesn't appear they have engines.

More on this below-

https://x.com/Danspiun/status/1930324289628086709

If Danspiun is suggesting that the A-50s have been idle and are the same as in the Google image (dated 8/7/2023), that seems unlikely to be true.  The one on the 2nd pad from the left (counting as if you were in front of the planes) has the top of the mushroom is more rotated.  The mushroom doesn't show the white rectangles, but has a dusky color. The position of the flaps on the wings have changed.  The material placed on top the plane has changed.  The Telegram indicates these are "clearly" the same planes as were there on May 2, 2025, but I don't have a source for that May 2 image.

Obviously, the full set of 7 A-50s of 8/7/2023 were not there during the attack. (Too bad, IMO).   I can't speak to the engines, but planes and their engines need maintenance.  Taking out a nearly unique plane that is in for maintenance (versus mothballed) is significant.   I wish someone had posted the May 2 image and the images after the attack for these planes.   Are they still there, but no signs of damage?  Have they been moved?

I would think the obvious place to detonate would have been under the mushroom.  You damage the plane above and below as well as the pedestal and all its wiring.  Of course, if you think they have fuel, hitting the fuel tanks is even better.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 06-05-2025

Yes, the radome on one of the planes has moved. Another of the planes was moved, but without engines, it must have been towed.

Quote:Regarding the A-50 at Ivanovo Air Base, there were two non-operational aircrafts that have been stationed there for a long time. Their tail numbers could not be identified, as they simply do not have any.

https://x.com/avivector/status/1930340733329768873

They just don't look like recently operational planes, with the lack of engines and rusted radomes. However there is this account, though I'm not sure there is any evidence for it-

Quote:Two working A-50s from the 610th Central Air Defense and Defense Command were hit. 

Number one is definitely RF-50608, this is the same plane that was already hit in Belarus, then it was repaired, and this time it was confirmed to have been hit by several drones and is unlikely to be able to return to combat use. 

The number of the second is questionable, but most likely it is RF-50601, which flew in March of this year (potentially it could be RF-94268). So 2/4 of the operating aircraft of this type are affected.

https://x.com/Schizointel/status/1930291465235701796

....

Another first, Ukraine claims to have hit Iskander SRBM launchers preparing to fire

https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/1930535533064700311

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - M T - 06-05-2025

(06-04-2025, 08:19 AM)dabigv13 Wrote:  More video released from the FPV attack. 2 A-50 AWACS planes were hit- Russia had 6 of them prior to this attack, so a third of their fleet likely permanently disabled.

A bit more on this.  In Google Earth (workstation version), you can step back through historical images.  A-50s have been parked on these pads continually since 5/2015. Here are dates and number of A-50s (well, all I can tell is they are aircraft of the same size & shape, with radome).
5/2015 through  10/2020 (generally images every 3 months)     9 A-50s plus 2 similar planes without the radome (with numbers visible on wings)
   On 8/9/2018, there is a 10th A-50 on the taxiway.
After 10/2020,
  5/2021  and 8/2021  9 A-50s  (same layout of all 9 since 5/2015)  The other 2 planes are gone.
 10/2021, 5/2022, 6/2022, 7/2022  9 A-50s  (one has changed to a different position)
  8/2023  7 A-50s
8/6/2023 is the latest image of this location.

I kinda doubt that none of these planes were flown from 5/2015 to 7/2022, but they appear to never have moved.  I believe this means that we are not seeing them move, rather than they never moved.  I expect that goes for the two that were the target of drones.

---