Russian special military operation in Ukraine #43

Hole wrote:

Leveling fixed targets is not the same as providing CAS support,

20+ vehicles lost in one failed attack IIRC. The videos are out there Champ.

Bytheway, the Russian units on the flanks of Bakhmut that ran away after making contact with the Ukrainians stated the same: lack of ammo, lack of shells.

Will be interesting to see how you're gonna cope your way out of this.

The 155th got decimated at Hostomel Airport, was withdrawn and replenished

then participated in the suicidal attack on Pavliivka in which Russia lost 600+ men, got reinforced, then did the human wave things around Vuhledar and is now probably somewhere in the ropes hiding from embarrassment.

Being under the nominal command is something very different from being part of the same structure.

you absolute tard, dimwit, dumb

Arkanghelsk wrote:Why is Artemovsk So Important?

What is it about Artemovsk that led both sides to dig in so deeply and commit such immense human and material resources to fighting for the city? Russian military observer Alexey Leonkov says the city’s significance in the broader Russia-NATO proxy war in Ukraine can be divided into three parts: military operational-tactical, military strategic, and political.

In the operational-tactical sense, the battle for Artemovsk led to the loss of large numbers of Ukrainian troops and vast quantities of military equipment, and cracked open one of Kiev’s major fortified stronghold in Donbass, with others including the Avdeevka-Mariinsk-Gorlovka grouping and the Severodonetsk-Kramatorsk grouping of forces.
"These two groupings, against which even more concentrated hostilities will be waged, will open [Russian forces' path] to Pavlograd, after which the expanses of the so-called operational steppe begin, where camouflage will become an issue, and where the concentration of enemy forces will become a very difficult and costly undertaking," Leonkov said.

Military Strategic Significance

At the strategic level, Leonkov noted, the concentration of fighting in and around Artemovsk over these past months gave the Russian side time to train its mobilized troops and to recruit additional contract fighters, while Russia’s military-industrial complex received time to mobilize its resources and ramp up production to wartime levels.

"That is, the amount of ammunition we're producing now is much higher than it was at the start of the special military operation," the observer said. "Besides this, the production of weapons which at the start…numbered in the single digits were increased. Take for example the Tornado-S high-precision rocket artillery system, a direct competitor to the HIMARS and which surpasses the US system in many technical characteristics. At the start of the special military operation there were only about 20 units of this system, while now there are over 100, and this number is growing."

Political Significance

The third significant component of Artemovsk’s liberation is its political symbolism, and has to do with NATO’s support for Kiev in the proxy war against Russia, according to Leonkov.
"The supply of weapons and military equipment in Artemovsk was mainly assigned to the European countries, with systems from their arsenals becoming the main ones. Precisely when we began to work effectively in the use of air-dropped glide bombs, the burden of supplying weapons and military equipment had fallen on the Europeans, who managed to crush voices of dissent demanding a halt to the supply of weapons to Ukraine. The weapons were delivered on the expectation that they would be needed to help Ukraine hold on to this territory. But the city was lost, and with great losses," both among Ukrainians and foreign mercenaries – "possibly including even professional [NATO] soldiers," the observer noted.

Can F-16s Fly Combat Sorties Over Ukraine?

— A discussion of some of the most relevant considerations —

It is effectively impossible to base F-16s in Ukraine. The available runways are woefully deficient, and any aircraft remaining at one base for more than a single sortie are going to become a target of Russian strikes, along with the base infrastructure.

The Ukrainian air force has only managed to retain a handful of airframes to this point in time by assiduously hiding them, and constantly moving them around, using improvised airfields much of the time (highways, grass fields, etc.) The sortie rate of the remaining UAF aircraft is so small as to be nearly invisible. Indeed, with few exceptions, if they fly, they die.

But at least Soviet-era jets were designed and constructed to fly out of "guerrilla airfields". F-16s are not. F-16s require pristine runways and intensive maintenance after each sortie — almost 20 hours of maintenance for each hour of flight time!!!

This means highly trained / exceedingly experienced NATO ground crews and fully equipped maintenance hangars would need to be available anywhere the F-16 seeks to fly — along with an abundant supply of spare parts, spare engines, etc.

That simply is not going to happen in Ukraine.

This means the only plausible basing option will be at NATO facilities in Poland and/or Romania. And anyone attempting to argue against this reality is engaging in pure fantasy.

And, of course, flying F-16s against Russia from bases in Poland and/or Romania is tantamount to a formal declaration of WAR.

But let's assume NATO chooses that option ...

First, we need to consider what the mission of these F-16s will be. Is it to launch with long-range cruise missiles, rise to high altitude, and fire them from distant stand-off range? Because, as I understand it, the F-16 cannot carry, for example, a British Storm Shadow missile. The F-16 is not well-suited for the long-range stand-off role.

Furthermore, an F-16 at altitude over Ukraine is going to be seen by Russian AD assets from hundreds of miles away, and Russian air to air missiles and S-400 SAMs will outrange the F-16s capability to defend itself in almost any scenario.

Additionally, the Russians have clearly demonstrated the capability to routinely shoot down any stand-off munition NATO has launched against them.

I don't see how an F-16 mission to launch long-range stand-off strikes against Russian targets is going to produce any meaningful tactical successes, let along appreciable strategic effects. And I am certain it would only take the Russians a day or two to formulate highly effective ambushes against this tactic. Each subsequent F-16 sortie would then become a one-way kamikaze attack.

As for close-air support (CAS) of ground troops or combat air patrol (CAP) against Russian attack aircraft, there is simply no way the F-16 can accomplish either of those missions without readily available in-air refueling! And that is simply not going to happen over Ukraine. NATO's big, fat, slow tankers will be shot out of the sky at will by the Russians! There is no way of getting around that reality.

Moreover, from the moment the first F-16 commences an attack sortie from a NATO airfield, all NATO ISR assets in the theater will become targets. They will either cease to fly, or cease to exist. And, without them, the F-16 is no longer a useful tool.

Neither F-16s, nor any variety of NATO strike aircraft, are made to function in isolation from the huge logistical infrastructure that supports them. Therefore, the very sentence "Send F-16s to Ukraine" is a logically nonsensical statement.

Simply put, I cannot conceive of ANY way F-16s can be used against Russian forces in Ukraine, even if the latest generation of F-16 Vipers were being flown by experienced NATO pilots.

And, quite frankly, the same limitations would apply to ANY variety of NATO strike aircraft attempting to fly against the Russian military in its own backyard.

If the policy makers of the #EmpireAtAllCosts cult succeed in initiating an air war against Russia in eastern Europe, it will result in catastrophic losses for US/NATO air power and the comprehensive destruction of the myth of US military supremacy.

/end

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:By the way, this attack in Belgorod was of course of no significance from a military point of view.

However the weapons used were mainly western provided. Previously America and its puppets said that the weapons delivered would not be used against russian territory.

Will there be consequences for this?

limb wrote:It seems like in order to take belogorovka maryinka and possibly ugledar, the russians will need to mobilize an additional 150000 people, and produce hundreds of thousands of ATGMs, quadcopters, hundreds more artillery tubes, and up to 6-20 million 100-152mm artillery shells.

2 weeks ago, The MoD made A HUGE DEAL that a "large offensive" 22(!) chechens from the supposedly 10000 strong ahmat took one warehouse in Belogorovka outskirts. Celebrating for ONE FUCKING HOUSE. Wagner needs some well deserved rest, so the offensive capability of russia is gone. Muradov squandered 50+ AFVs in no man's land, so ugledar is out of the question.

AVdeevka will never be taken without a 2nd wave of mobilization, since the local DPR and MoD forces are completely outnumbered. This has me extremely worried. The best the MoD can do is hyper limited trench raids of less than 20 soldiers aimed at taking a single trench line or destroyed dacha, then retreating. The umpk glide kits translated to 0 ABATION OF CIVILIAN MURDERING ARTY STRIKES FROM AVDEEVKA. AFter 3 months of "attacking", 0 progress north of vodyanoe.

Hopefully once wagner takes a rest, we'll see an Artyomovsk flower that flanks Belogorovka and spornoye which the MoD has UTTERLY FAILED TO RECAPTURE IN 7 FUCKING MONTHS, WHILE BRAGGING THAT "ADVANCES" ARE BEING MADE THERE.

ALso, belgorod raids are irrelevant. Russia needs to respond by doing special forces raids in sumy and chernigov that aim to terrorize. How about sending DRGs to Volyn and ZHitomir through the swamps, which are aimed at doing potshots at western svidomites.

owais.usmani wrote:https://twitter.com/imetatronink/status/1661059852897259521

[b]Can F-16s Fly Combat Sorties Over Ukraine?

— A discussion of some of the most relevant considerations —

0nillie0 wrote:and it would just force more spending on F-35's or UCAV's

Regular wrote:From UA point of view, these raids make perfect sense. Russian will have to strengthen their garrison and reinforce border-guards, maybe even employ more UAVs to monitor the vast border. 

And Ukrainians gained PR victory and lost what? Bunch of kamikazes and some handover equipment. More of this to come until Russians will respond with cauterisation

Odin of Ossetia wrote:
I find it a bit surprising that Belgium purchased the F-16 instead of some fighter jets from nearby France.

Odin of Ossetia wrote:


I find it a bit surprising that Belgium purchased the F-16 instead of some fighter jets from nearby France.

Regular wrote:From UA point of view, these raids make perfect sense. Russian will have to strengthen their garrison and reinforce border-guards, maybe even employ more UAVs to monitor the vast border. 

And Ukrainians gained PR victory and lost what? Bunch of kamikazes and some handover equipment. More of this to come until Russians will respond with cauterisation

Regular wrote:
This dumb attack was probably made in order to make Russia fire its kalibr as a punishement.

Hole wrote:........

So that´s what a successful PR operation looks like.

Isos wrote:

Odin of Ossetia wrote:
I find it a bit surprising that Belgium purchased the F-16 instead of some fighter jets from nearby France.

They don't really like French people and their economy is so shitty they better not angry the USA.

Odin of Ossetia wrote:
I find it a bit surprising that Belgium purchased the F-16 instead of some fighter jets from nearby France.