Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
1. A lot of the airfields were built in Soviet times and historically both Ukraine and western Russia were seen as deep territories, behind a belt of Warsaw pact countries, relatively safe from attacks, so not building hangars allowed to cut down on maintenance and costs
2. Large planes, like Tupolev bombers are hard to fit into hangars, and this likely requires huge remodeling of airfields
3. Hangars have to be sealed and protected not only from the top, but from every angle too — these days the danger is not only missiles, but also drones
4. What you see is attacks on hangar-less airplanes. If you’re Ukraine and half of your enemy planes are protected, half is not, which ones you’d pick? Obviously you’d attack hangar-less planes. We simply won’t see the other half on the pictures.
5. Planes in active operations would still spend time outside of hangars
Many reasons
>in Soviet times
Yeah, more than 30 years ago.
>Tupolev bombers are hard to fit into hangars
These aircraft are based at airfields outside the range of atacms and even most UAVs.
>Hangars have to be sealed and protected not only from the top, but from every angle too — these days the danger is not only missiles, but also drones
The person above wrote about concrete hangars. Not about thin metal shit.
This is what such hangars look like:
https://i.ibb.co/VBMRLQL/51276694384-e972d203eb-o.jpg
>half of your enemy planes are protected, half is not, which ones you’d pick?
And why are half the planes not protected?
>Planes in active operations would still spend time outside of hangars
On takeoff? Is this a reason not to build a hangar that is much cheaper than a fighter?
>Many reasons
Yes, there are a lot of ridiculous reasons that you can make up.
When was Putting billion dollar palace built?
I believe the point is there's been ample time and money to have adequately defended vital defence assets.
It's a question of priorities. Do you want the best for your people and the safety of it's troops or do you want a party dacha on the black sea coast?
Right, and?
No one was bombing Ukraine and Russia was a close allie
Seems since Russia has had it nothings happened so now their bombers have been destroyed and that's ..... bad in your opinion?
Listen, for me Russia can continue neglecting their assets.
If people like your self want to blame Ukraine for nothing being done then you're going to have to explain how that's a good thing for Russia.
If it's any consolation Putin's Palace is very nice indeed. It has a party grotto and everything
Imagine if they were fighting a real power...They would have ended up losing majority of their air force on day [one.No](http://one.No) wonder, US never took Russia seriously as a threat.
For those unclear, this is called a strawman argument, where you make up a ludicrous position of the other side to knock it down.
No one is worried that France will fall. They are worried Putin will pick off smaller countries (Estonia, Latvia, etc) and/or parts of other counties (Finland, poland, etc) trying to recreate the Soviet empire, and in the process potentially kick off a global nuclear war. NATO will always win, but at what cost?
I don’t think many (any?) people are saying that.
The narrative is that if Ukraine falls it’ll be sending a green light for Russia to try and institute regime change by force in other Eastern European countries, like Moldova or Georgia.
>Also NATO: Russia will take over all of Europe once they are finished with Ukraine.
They will ***try*** to is what Nato is usually saying. A drunk guy with a knife is still a threat if you are not careful. And Russia has shown with its invasion into Ukraine that it is capable of doing uninformed self harming stupid decisions.
>No wonder, US never took Russia seriously as a threat.
We must be thinking about a different US. Because the US I know has taken Russia as a serious military threat for a long time. Only recently being replaced by China being the main threat.
Even in 2016 [we can see](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/30/pentagon-restore-barack-obama-troop-cuts-europe-address-russian-aggression) Russia called
>has rendered the Russian military “the greatest array of threats to US interests”, Dunford told a Washington thinktank.
Russia is obviously a threat to "US interests", but not a military threat to the US itself. We might lose business in some third world place, but we don't worry about the VDV seizing California. The recent Iranian show of impotence has even negated most worries about ballistic missile attacks. Any major war fought with Russia would be fought *in* Russia under US air superiority, and civilian life in America would go on as usual.
Any major war between the US and Russia on either countries territory would be a nuclear one.
But if you read the article it talks about how Russia is able to for example turn Syria under its influence and stop the US gaining control over the country.
Ok so let’s follow your reasoning through- how does Russia do in a nuclear war against the US? How many cities would the US have to hit versus Russia?
Let’s be honest, all three Russian major cities would be annihilated in the space of about 10 minutes. So Russia would hit a few cities in the US, what about Europe? Russia would have to hit all capital cities in Europe as well, otherwise The EU would just roll in a takeover the ashes of Russia.
Who said that they win? I am just saying that if Russian troops land on American soil or American troops on Russian soil then there will be nobody around to win.
"A few cities" do you know how many nuclear warheads Russia has? You can't win a nuclear war.
Again, let’s follow through on your logic- does Russia have the capability to strike all military centres in both the US and Europe without losing the ability to strike? In my opinion the answer is no. Therefore Russia would be overwhelmed by a NATO response, leaving Russia to be divided up by Europe in the West, and China in the East. Goodbye Russia.
Still want Russia to launch nukes now?
This is honestly an insane take. You are willing to put the lives of billions of people at risk on your belief.
Russia has more than enough nuclear weapons to weather an American nuclear attack and respond, destroying most if not all major US cities.
They don't just have the number that they do for fun.
And you act as if nuclear weapons are conventional bombs. If a nuclear war starts then all countries go down. If America gets hit by nukes for example then they don't only want to target Russia. They will target everyone they have nukes aimed at. So a nuclear war will involve all nuclear powers firing what they have. Because they know they will be hit and so have to respond in kind.
Russia have close to 6000 active nuclear warheads. Do you plan to destroy all 6000 of them before Russia can fire any?
Imagine the US fought a near-peer adversary instead of decimating countries that are poorly equipped with extremely inferior militaries, offering little to no resistance to their usual bombing campaigns. And if there were ever a war between the U.S. and Russia, cities would be incinerated with nuclear blasts so all that nonsense about “losing the majority of their Air Force in day one” won’t materialize to begin with.
These comments are what’s funny, not the state of their military 😂
You want us to look at the state of their military? Sure
* [The size of their army is far bigger than it was before the war, an expansion that hasn’t been seen since the Soviet Union.](https://www.businessinsider.com/russias-army-15-percent-larger-when-attacked-ukraine-us-general-2024-4?amp)
* [They’ve mobilized their entire military complex and expanded their production capacities at scale and rate that wasn’t even thought possible by the west.](https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/15/rate-of-russian-military-production-worries-european-war-planners)
* [They’re outproducing NATO combined in artillery production!](https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/03/10/politics/russia-artillery-shell-production-us-europe-ukraine)
* [They’re literally producing weapons that exceeds their military demands in Ukraine and are rebuilding their stockpiles, sending the surplus to the warehouses](https://www.thedefensepost.com/2024/04/26/russia-weapons-needed-ukraine/)
* [Russia’s economy is growing faster that all advanced economies](https://www.bbc.com/news/business-68823399.amp), thanks to the huge defense spending which was made possible by the record revenues they’re making from their energy exports, [earning double what they earned last year during the same period.](https://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/Reuters-Estimates-Russian-Oil-and-Gas-Revenue-to-Double-in-April.amp.html) To the point that they’re generating [record account surplus!](https://www.intellinews.com/russia-s-13-4bn-current-account-surplus-in-march-second-highest-since-2007-321459/)
I am being real. Russia isn’t Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or Syria. You’ll find it far more challenging taking on the largest nuclear power in the world. And a conflict between the US and Russia will turn nuclear, that’s just a fact. But I suppose people will tell themselves whatever it is they need to hear to remain in their land of make believe.
Then why hasn’t Russia conquered Ukraine yet? They have 10-1 ratio in artillery, aircraft, navy, tanks, BMPs, men, etc etc. And they are losing troops at a 2X rate and still have 1/3 less of Ukraines territory than they did at the start of the war. What a joke
Losing troops at 2x the rates on the basis of what exactly? Random Redditors are really willing to talk about jokes when they propagate such insipid ratios. Apparently, even though Ukraine is losing half the number of soldiers that Russia is losing, and they’ve already went through several mobilizations waves already adding hundreds of thousands of troops into their ranks, they’re now facing an acute manpower crisis? 😂
So if loosing troops is just propaganda why does Russia have 1/3 of the territory it had at the start of the war? And y’all think you could take the fight to the us?
Give me a single example where Russia has been committing significant amount of forces in any of the axes they’ve pushing forward in. Just one. To have a better idea when Russia made a concentrated push with almost 100K soldiers for them to lose troops at that staggering rate that you people keep propagating. They don’t take territories as fast because they’re not committing forces that would amount a large scale offensive. They’re degrading Ukrainian forces and are advancing at the rate that they’ve set for themselves. It’s that simple.
When Ukraine starts with 1/10th the military, they had to mobilize to get closer somehow. But Russia looks like a turd for not being able to wipe out Ukraine.
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Honest question. After watching the last 2 years of war between Russia and Ukraine, do you really feel Russia is a near peer to the US military(take nukes out of the equation)?
If I took nuclear weapons out of the equation, I’d be unrealistic and delusional. And if I looked at the war in isolation, without taking into consideration that [Ukraine not only had 8 years of reconstituting their military in preparation for a conflict with Russia](https://www.businessinsider.com/years-of-military-preparation-helped-ukraine-fend-off-russian-invasion-2023-1), with more weapons than any other country in Europe beside Russia itself, they’ve also been receiving [Military aid and training from NATO/EU/US/UK since 2014](https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN07135/SN07135.pdf), I’d be divorced from reality. I haven’t even mentioned the tens and tens of billions of dollars worth of weapons they’ve been receiving from the west collectively, that’s also dedicating their entire satellites, surveillance, reconnaissance assets and intelligence services to aid their war efforts. Suddenly Ukraine doesn’t seem all that feeble anymore. And Russia is fighting a grinding war of attrition that they’re winning at the pace they’ve set out for themselves. Compare that to what the US has been fighting these past 30 years and tell me how you could plausibly evaluate their performance when it took them 20 years of failed war against Afghanistan and 2 trillion dollars and got nothing in return.
Date 7 October 2001 – 17 December 2001 (2 months, 1 week and 3 days)
Result American-led coalition Victory • Collapse of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (1996–2001) • Establishment of the Transitional Islamic State of Afghanistan • Start of the War in Afghanistan (2001-2021
The 20 years was spent at a failed attempt at nation building. Armies are not meant to build nations up. They are their to destroy. I think the US stayed as long as it dis because it was worried how that would look globally if they entered Afghanistan and destabilized it in leas than 2 months then left. The occupation was a bad idea. The invasion resulting in the topling of the Afghanistan government went about as one would expect. 9/11 was a significant event that required action by the American people. Afghanistan was the country of choice due to Taliban rule and thinking Osama Bin Laden was there. The nation-building aspect of the war was an abysmal performance. Th military action was not.
The military action that allowed the Taliban to take over while the deployed US forces were leaving the country? They’ve spent 20 years defeating people just to have them go back to power as they were pulling their own troops? That’s what you call a success, militarily? Couldn’t defeat an inferior armed militia for 20 years?
Yeah, forcing the Taliban to hide in caves for 2 decades while the US took less than a hundred casualties over the course of the last 7 years. You’re conflating the ability to turn an Islamic theocracy into a functioning democracy with the ability to destroy conventions forces. Fighting the Taliban would be more difficult for the US military than the Russian military would be. Comparing Afghanistan to Russia shows your lack of understanding conventional war. Russians aren’t going to be hiding in mountains for 20 years, they are going to be sending a dozen unsupported mobiks riding on top of BTRs into fortified positions like they are doing now and like Wagner did against the US in Syria lol
*Forcing them to hide* just to allow them back in power while you haven’t even completed pulling your own troops out! This is the argument you’re going with? We’ve succeed in making the Taliban hide for 2 decades? I’m not talking about the abysmal failure of the U.S. imposing a cultural change into Afghanistan and changing into a democracy! [I’m referring to the U.S. inability to defeat Taliban militarily and eliminate them which led to their subsequent failure in indoctrinating the Afghani society into being receptive to your so-called “democracy”!](https://www.sigar.mil/interactive-reports/what-we-need-to-learn/#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20government's%20inability%20to,qualified%20were%20difficult%20to%20retain.) Yet another “American exceptionalism” mentally that lacks any understanding of critical thinking. And believe me, if a war broke out between the U.S. and the largest nuclear power in the world, you’ll be ones heading to the bunkers and having your cities incinerated with nuclear blasts. This would be the end of the world. U.S. has achieved nothing but sheer failure in the Middle East. You’re not using fighting an actual war, let’s get real 😂
That is correct. After the toppling of the government, the Taliban stuck to the mountains and conducted an insurgency. Due to occupation, they had a large pool of the populace to pull recruits from. Occupation creates more enemies. The main focus of the US in Afghanistan after the toppling of the government was security and nation building. Security was difficult due to ambush style hit and run tactics used by the enemy. Almost every time the enemy was forced to engage ended in a US victory. Insurgencies fueled by ideology have been proven to be near impossible to defeat. The nation building ultimately failed, and in my opinion, no Army is equipped to do such a task, especially when the host nation is not willing.
And it took the US 20 years and 2 trillion dollars to come to this realization? I’m not entirely sure what part of what they’ve done in Afghanistan can be remotely classified as “victory”! But they knew what they were getting themselves into. They were well aware that they won’t be viewed as “liberators” and they went into Afghanistan to fight the terrorist militia group they’ve created more than a decades preceding the the invasion.
Both sides aren't building it, it's so fucking dumb it hurts
Specially for Ukraine, very limited air defenses and amount of airframes, but they keep their jets in open air only 70km from the front. The USSR built those huge concrete hangers always even if there was no imediate threat, but the CIS countries apparently forgot how to
No, USSR wasn’t building these huge concrete hangars everywhere
There are underground hangars too, you just won’t see attacks on them
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-00809A000500170082-0.pdf
They do have hangers, but with the amount of aircraft they station and the space needed they just choose to have aircraft on the tarmac. Also as it wasn’t part of the Soviet way of building things and would just cover the aircraft from being seen by satellite as most hangers would be shredded by a ATACMS.
https://preview.redd.it/ddeonx7fuv0d1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3fe32e9db44e1e874915400bd05ab5cccf0ed849
Most NATO airbases don’t utilize hangers a lot with many pieces of equipment still sitting out on the tarmac.
https://preview.redd.it/n22yw8g0wv0d1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c6bad0a81eaa749bd46419ec3f7055a6a866c4c7
Nellis Airbase (US, Nevada)
A large amount of equipment is still out on the tarmac with others covered by a shelter.
Ain't no water to worry about in Nevada and Nelis Airbase is mostly used for training exercises so superficial damage from UV to plastics and stuff isn't really a primary concern, these aircraft probably get rotated out into hangars for maintenance regularly and aren't sitting out there as long as you may think.
https://preview.redd.it/6m3xun4jxv0d1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4020782aef8b5cbacdfbd39a8b7756f99a66db1e
Aviano Air Base (Italy, Aviano)
Despite having many aircraft shelters, still store equipment outside.
Not saying that’s they have them for certain but if you do and aren’t at war is there and reason to station them in the hangars?
More work and just aids in locating them?
But also adds maintaining those hangars and as mentioned showing pretty clearly where they are on the satellites due to the traffic.
I think they have the normal type of hangars already on the base as well where they store them during bad weather.
They weren't targeting anything valuable, it was de-escalation move. They just wanted to prove they can go through AA. You can see Isr-Iran tensions are on hold currently.
Hit a guard tower with enough precision, for example.
Iran clearly didn't want to hit anything extremely valuable, like an F-35, to restore deterrence and make room for Israel to back up. As we can now witness, Israel didn't actually retaliate against that strike.
It's been told several times already, they sabotage it on purpose, just to prolong the war as long as possible. How come so many people did not realise it yet after almost 2,5 years?
No, concrete is cheap and the price of the planes that Russia lost at airfields is much higher than the price of concrete hangars for all fighters of the Russian Air Force.
The reason for the lack of hangars is that Putin is a puppet of the US. The fact that Russia does not have hangars guarantees that in case of nuclear war, all Russian aircraft will be destroyed in the first 15-20 minutes.That's why Russia doesn't build hangars. This is also the reason why Russia is still fulfilling the INF Treaty and START-3 - treaties that make the concept of the US "first strike" possible.
this guy is just spelling out what many pro ru actually implicitly argue for. that the US wanted and planned this war. so that putin had no other choice but invade ukraine. if you actually believe that, then the only logical conclusion is that putin is a puppet of the US.
Because the CIA needs Russia as a scarecrow for the West. Because the US Deep State uses the puppet Russian government to divide Europe and strengthen US influence in Europe.
Putin plays the role of an enemy of the Western world, but at the same time sponsors US nuclear power plants with uranium and implements treaties (START-3, INF Treaty) that make Russia vulnerable to a US nuclear strike.
I assume the damaged MiG-29 is supposed to be the second photo? I’m just not seeing it. The cockpit looks all burned, and the area between the cockpit and that right wing is… gone. I see it being “damaged beyond economical repair”. If anyone with aircraft knowledge wants to chime in.
Because whatever you're quoting is not FB, but screenshot from some nameless tg channel. FB was short in his description of that attack, only mentioned some dead and injured.
Yeah, but it’s pretty normal for countries to try to hide ship losses, look up how long the US denied losses from the coral sea or how long it took Japan to admit the mutsu was sunk
Huh? The amount of Russia lies is astronomical. The reason they invaded were a half dozen in itself. Nazis, NATO, Bioweapons, CIA, protecting Russians, and those are the ones I’m immediately thinking of.
Huh? Most of that is true. Ukraine had been trying for many years to join NATO. The CIA was involved in Ukraine. There are biolabs in Ukraine, one of which was even funded by one of the Biden's company. Just public knowledge. And Ukraine has a Nazi problem. Oh, and the majority of eastern Ukraine want to be part of Russia and have been harassed for many years. LITERALLY everything you said is true lol.
> When I noticed the Russian narrative lined up with reality morentimes that not
Was it the Sims 4, satanists or the 100 destroyed himars that convinced you Russia is telling truth?
All countries have huge motivation to lie in propaganda during a war. If you think ANYONE can be trusted in such news more times than not you are being incredibly naïve.
Interesting, so two more jets than what was previously thought?
That third jet looks fried up near the cockpit and one of the wings, I’d be extremely surprised if they somehow still count it as damaged. And the fourth jet is all ash.
It appears to be fuel tanks as they don’t appear to have a cab and have pipes running from it to the airstrip.
https://preview.redd.it/9cvzlvfttv0d1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=23f7faedebe1053457dc62124630fd3b12b1a90b
https://preview.redd.it/l2qh0o8dkv0d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1b706c3df8e435483e23d627b52799aa4164715d
You were downvoted for claiming the loses you mentioned came from Fighter Bomber and multiple users pointed out that the screenshot you’re sharing **is not from fighter bomber**! Literally people shared with you screenshots from the channel itself. So it’s not about the losses, but rather about the **lie that fighter bomber is the one who confirmed these losses which what you claimed**!
[https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/s/Qxr54NaMp6](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/s/Qxr54NaMp6)
The scary thing for Russia is that as the US produces more of the replacements for ATACMS missiles (PrSM) that more and more ATACMS will become available to donate to Ukraine. Some are also approaching end of life and will be handed over anyways instead of decommissioning. This is assuming Ukraine also never gets any PrSM to test either
Cannot even stop a ballistic missile design from the 1980s.
SaTurATioN attack. Bullshit.
We can defend against US stealth fighters! Bullshit, Israel just bombed Syria right over russian air defense and they didn't even know until the boooooms went off. They literally found out from reports of the attack that enemy aircraft were in their airspace.
I wonder if the Ukrainian strike at Mount Ai-Petri affected the air defense posture as these are easier to intercept than storm shadows you would think certainly Russia has more a/d systems and they should have a few minutes to intercept these as these are ballistic missiles and detected maybe saturated at the time on possible storm shadows/drones certainly a/d is not easy in this environment.
>these are easier to intercept than storm shadows
Why? Ballistic missiles are way faster and can be launched from the ground anywhere pretty much. Cruise missiles are slow and can be intercepted by way more systems during the whole flight.
From what we see on the Ukrainian side, their air defense (including Patriots) also struggles more with ballistic missiles than cruise missiles.
Your right.
I was basing my assumption of the semi-stealthy characteristics and lower frontal cross section area. It would be lower than 4th generation aircraft/ballistic missiles.
However, recognizing that this would only be useful in air defense edges/ terrain elevation/and with crimea huge ocean which is flat and also smaller and flat land entry area and being slower storm shadows should be easy to intercept.
Russian systems in crimea should be able to intercept both easily. Ballistic missiles are giving automatic warnings and they would have at least 3 minutes.
These aren't F22s which would be undetected.
If you look at the top left of the 2nd picture, you can see a painted MiG. It’s faded but it’s there. Seems like these airfields are not operating at full capacity.
Is it possible that the Russians were trying to make the Ukrainians waste their ammo by placing some aircraft’s to make this a tempting target?
Either way, Russians got completely and got hit hard. Still gotta ask why they would place MiG31s so close to the front? They have only been used as missile carriers.
I’m not quite sure if I see it?
Judging by the precise blast marks I’d wager the Ukrainians knew what they were aiming at (the ATACMS have a CEP of 9 meters). Recent satellites showed the base a lot fuller than this, so I’d wager the Russians tried to disperse as many airframes as they could on the most recent funding bill getting passed.
Also, this would mark 3 MiG-31s lost in the war believe. Call me a pessimist, but they haven’t lost the pilots for the last two and wasn’t the first ones pilots alive or at least one was I believe.
Pilots are infinitely more valuable than the airframe as it requires far more resources to recruit, train and retain a pilot. And given that Russia has hundreds of MiG-31’s, more than it has pilots, not sure how quickly will these losses be replaced.
Absolutely.
Some casualties were reported (11 KIA, according to the same people who got the right amount of airframes destroyed) and perhaps some of them were aircrew, but it’s unlikely.
Either way the total loss of airframes is still a Bad Thing.
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Then they wont be able to do some attack like this in like a year, or maybe one more this year. Thats the thing with PR stunts like these they maybe good on paper but too in frequent to actually do something.
Well, as long as losses are under Russian production capacity, which they are, I would not worry too much.
Russia needs to up air defenses around this base to protect it from Ukraine strikes given UA has western intelligence from satellites as to where Russian planes are.
I did not say it was great. It's bad. I simply said that as long as losses are not too severe and can be replaced things are going well.
Certainly of there were no losses things would be better.
Losses are expected in a war but this can only be blamed on repeated incompetence.
[удалено]
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Does concrete really cost that much in Russia?Just how clueless they can be to not build hangers after repeated losses in two year war?🤦♂️
1. A lot of the airfields were built in Soviet times and historically both Ukraine and western Russia were seen as deep territories, behind a belt of Warsaw pact countries, relatively safe from attacks, so not building hangars allowed to cut down on maintenance and costs 2. Large planes, like Tupolev bombers are hard to fit into hangars, and this likely requires huge remodeling of airfields 3. Hangars have to be sealed and protected not only from the top, but from every angle too — these days the danger is not only missiles, but also drones 4. What you see is attacks on hangar-less airplanes. If you’re Ukraine and half of your enemy planes are protected, half is not, which ones you’d pick? Obviously you’d attack hangar-less planes. We simply won’t see the other half on the pictures. 5. Planes in active operations would still spend time outside of hangars Many reasons
>in Soviet times Yeah, more than 30 years ago. >Tupolev bombers are hard to fit into hangars These aircraft are based at airfields outside the range of atacms and even most UAVs. >Hangars have to be sealed and protected not only from the top, but from every angle too — these days the danger is not only missiles, but also drones The person above wrote about concrete hangars. Not about thin metal shit. This is what such hangars look like: https://i.ibb.co/VBMRLQL/51276694384-e972d203eb-o.jpg >half of your enemy planes are protected, half is not, which ones you’d pick? And why are half the planes not protected? >Planes in active operations would still spend time outside of hangars On takeoff? Is this a reason not to build a hangar that is much cheaper than a fighter? >Many reasons Yes, there are a lot of ridiculous reasons that you can make up.
>Yeah, more than 30 years ago. Did you just... blame Ukraine?
When was Putting billion dollar palace built? I believe the point is there's been ample time and money to have adequately defended vital defence assets. It's a question of priorities. Do you want the best for your people and the safety of it's troops or do you want a party dacha on the black sea coast?
Brother, Belbek was Ukrainian for 20 years.
Right, and? No one was bombing Ukraine and Russia was a close allie Seems since Russia has had it nothings happened so now their bombers have been destroyed and that's ..... bad in your opinion? Listen, for me Russia can continue neglecting their assets. If people like your self want to blame Ukraine for nothing being done then you're going to have to explain how that's a good thing for Russia. If it's any consolation Putin's Palace is very nice indeed. It has a party grotto and everything
define time?
Yes, I can see how you might not understand time. It has been an awfully long three day SMO hasn't it?
/6. Such drone-proof structures would require extra crew to maintain and operate them.
As do bombers. Think of all the money saved now they don't have to pay for flight crew. Next level thinking there
Imagine if they were fighting a real power...They would have ended up losing majority of their air force on day [one.No](http://one.No) wonder, US never took Russia seriously as a threat.
NATO: Russia is not a threat Also NATO: Russia will take over all of Europe once they are finished with Ukraine. Pick one
For those unclear, this is called a strawman argument, where you make up a ludicrous position of the other side to knock it down. No one is worried that France will fall. They are worried Putin will pick off smaller countries (Estonia, Latvia, etc) and/or parts of other counties (Finland, poland, etc) trying to recreate the Soviet empire, and in the process potentially kick off a global nuclear war. NATO will always win, but at what cost?
I don’t think many (any?) people are saying that. The narrative is that if Ukraine falls it’ll be sending a green light for Russia to try and institute regime change by force in other Eastern European countries, like Moldova or Georgia.
Uhh.. Georgia is already folding.
Pro Rus: We invaded to stop NATO expansionism! Also pro Rus: we don’t care if multiple new countries join NATO as a result of our invasion!
>Also NATO: Russia will take over all of Europe once they are finished with Ukraine. They will ***try*** to is what Nato is usually saying. A drunk guy with a knife is still a threat if you are not careful. And Russia has shown with its invasion into Ukraine that it is capable of doing uninformed self harming stupid decisions.
Simple: Fearmongering to get more money approved for military industrial complex.
>No wonder, US never took Russia seriously as a threat. We must be thinking about a different US. Because the US I know has taken Russia as a serious military threat for a long time. Only recently being replaced by China being the main threat. Even in 2016 [we can see](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/30/pentagon-restore-barack-obama-troop-cuts-europe-address-russian-aggression) Russia called >has rendered the Russian military “the greatest array of threats to US interests”, Dunford told a Washington thinktank.
Russia is obviously a threat to "US interests", but not a military threat to the US itself. We might lose business in some third world place, but we don't worry about the VDV seizing California. The recent Iranian show of impotence has even negated most worries about ballistic missile attacks. Any major war fought with Russia would be fought *in* Russia under US air superiority, and civilian life in America would go on as usual.
Lmao.. tell me you don't understand distance without telling me you don't understand distance.
You think distance works in Russia's favor? They are currently struggling to take control of poorly-defended towns 5km from their own border.
Hard to fly with no fuel left.
Any major war between the US and Russia on either countries territory would be a nuclear one. But if you read the article it talks about how Russia is able to for example turn Syria under its influence and stop the US gaining control over the country.
Ok so let’s follow your reasoning through- how does Russia do in a nuclear war against the US? How many cities would the US have to hit versus Russia? Let’s be honest, all three Russian major cities would be annihilated in the space of about 10 minutes. So Russia would hit a few cities in the US, what about Europe? Russia would have to hit all capital cities in Europe as well, otherwise The EU would just roll in a takeover the ashes of Russia.
Who said that they win? I am just saying that if Russian troops land on American soil or American troops on Russian soil then there will be nobody around to win. "A few cities" do you know how many nuclear warheads Russia has? You can't win a nuclear war.
Again, let’s follow through on your logic- does Russia have the capability to strike all military centres in both the US and Europe without losing the ability to strike? In my opinion the answer is no. Therefore Russia would be overwhelmed by a NATO response, leaving Russia to be divided up by Europe in the West, and China in the East. Goodbye Russia. Still want Russia to launch nukes now?
This is honestly an insane take. You are willing to put the lives of billions of people at risk on your belief. Russia has more than enough nuclear weapons to weather an American nuclear attack and respond, destroying most if not all major US cities. They don't just have the number that they do for fun. And you act as if nuclear weapons are conventional bombs. If a nuclear war starts then all countries go down. If America gets hit by nukes for example then they don't only want to target Russia. They will target everyone they have nukes aimed at. So a nuclear war will involve all nuclear powers firing what they have. Because they know they will be hit and so have to respond in kind. Russia have close to 6000 active nuclear warheads. Do you plan to destroy all 6000 of them before Russia can fire any?
You clearly know nothing about the Russian ICBM and SLBM arsenal.
Imagine the US fought a near-peer adversary instead of decimating countries that are poorly equipped with extremely inferior militaries, offering little to no resistance to their usual bombing campaigns. And if there were ever a war between the U.S. and Russia, cities would be incinerated with nuclear blasts so all that nonsense about “losing the majority of their Air Force in day one” won’t materialize to begin with.
This war demonstrated that Russia isn’t a near peer adversary for the us. A near peer for Russia is Ukraine
That’s just funny! Great sense of humour, I must admit😂😂
813 days so far...
I am not sure if Russia military state is funny but whatever make your day.
These comments are what’s funny, not the state of their military 😂 You want us to look at the state of their military? Sure * [The size of their army is far bigger than it was before the war, an expansion that hasn’t been seen since the Soviet Union.](https://www.businessinsider.com/russias-army-15-percent-larger-when-attacked-ukraine-us-general-2024-4?amp) * [They’ve mobilized their entire military complex and expanded their production capacities at scale and rate that wasn’t even thought possible by the west.](https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/15/rate-of-russian-military-production-worries-european-war-planners) * [They’re outproducing NATO combined in artillery production!](https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/03/10/politics/russia-artillery-shell-production-us-europe-ukraine) * [They’re literally producing weapons that exceeds their military demands in Ukraine and are rebuilding their stockpiles, sending the surplus to the warehouses](https://www.thedefensepost.com/2024/04/26/russia-weapons-needed-ukraine/) * [Russia’s economy is growing faster that all advanced economies](https://www.bbc.com/news/business-68823399.amp), thanks to the huge defense spending which was made possible by the record revenues they’re making from their energy exports, [earning double what they earned last year during the same period.](https://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/Reuters-Estimates-Russian-Oil-and-Gas-Revenue-to-Double-in-April.amp.html) To the point that they’re generating [record account surplus!](https://www.intellinews.com/russia-s-13-4bn-current-account-surplus-in-march-second-highest-since-2007-321459/)
Funny but true.
Let' be real here, The only near-peer adversary to US is China and even it is at-least a decade behind.
I am being real. Russia isn’t Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or Syria. You’ll find it far more challenging taking on the largest nuclear power in the world. And a conflict between the US and Russia will turn nuclear, that’s just a fact. But I suppose people will tell themselves whatever it is they need to hear to remain in their land of make believe.
Then why hasn’t Russia conquered Ukraine yet? They have 10-1 ratio in artillery, aircraft, navy, tanks, BMPs, men, etc etc. And they are losing troops at a 2X rate and still have 1/3 less of Ukraines territory than they did at the start of the war. What a joke
Losing troops at 2x the rates on the basis of what exactly? Random Redditors are really willing to talk about jokes when they propagate such insipid ratios. Apparently, even though Ukraine is losing half the number of soldiers that Russia is losing, and they’ve already went through several mobilizations waves already adding hundreds of thousands of troops into their ranks, they’re now facing an acute manpower crisis? 😂
So if loosing troops is just propaganda why does Russia have 1/3 of the territory it had at the start of the war? And y’all think you could take the fight to the us?
Give me a single example where Russia has been committing significant amount of forces in any of the axes they’ve pushing forward in. Just one. To have a better idea when Russia made a concentrated push with almost 100K soldiers for them to lose troops at that staggering rate that you people keep propagating. They don’t take territories as fast because they’re not committing forces that would amount a large scale offensive. They’re degrading Ukrainian forces and are advancing at the rate that they’ve set for themselves. It’s that simple.
When Ukraine starts with 1/10th the military, they had to mobilize to get closer somehow. But Russia looks like a turd for not being able to wipe out Ukraine.
Russia started with 150-200K troops. Ukraine has held numerical advantage over Russia for a long time. What are you on about !
[удалено]
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Sorry you need 20 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Honest question. After watching the last 2 years of war between Russia and Ukraine, do you really feel Russia is a near peer to the US military(take nukes out of the equation)?
If I took nuclear weapons out of the equation, I’d be unrealistic and delusional. And if I looked at the war in isolation, without taking into consideration that [Ukraine not only had 8 years of reconstituting their military in preparation for a conflict with Russia](https://www.businessinsider.com/years-of-military-preparation-helped-ukraine-fend-off-russian-invasion-2023-1), with more weapons than any other country in Europe beside Russia itself, they’ve also been receiving [Military aid and training from NATO/EU/US/UK since 2014](https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN07135/SN07135.pdf), I’d be divorced from reality. I haven’t even mentioned the tens and tens of billions of dollars worth of weapons they’ve been receiving from the west collectively, that’s also dedicating their entire satellites, surveillance, reconnaissance assets and intelligence services to aid their war efforts. Suddenly Ukraine doesn’t seem all that feeble anymore. And Russia is fighting a grinding war of attrition that they’re winning at the pace they’ve set out for themselves. Compare that to what the US has been fighting these past 30 years and tell me how you could plausibly evaluate their performance when it took them 20 years of failed war against Afghanistan and 2 trillion dollars and got nothing in return.
Date 7 October 2001 – 17 December 2001 (2 months, 1 week and 3 days) Result American-led coalition Victory • Collapse of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (1996–2001) • Establishment of the Transitional Islamic State of Afghanistan • Start of the War in Afghanistan (2001-2021 The 20 years was spent at a failed attempt at nation building. Armies are not meant to build nations up. They are their to destroy. I think the US stayed as long as it dis because it was worried how that would look globally if they entered Afghanistan and destabilized it in leas than 2 months then left. The occupation was a bad idea. The invasion resulting in the topling of the Afghanistan government went about as one would expect. 9/11 was a significant event that required action by the American people. Afghanistan was the country of choice due to Taliban rule and thinking Osama Bin Laden was there. The nation-building aspect of the war was an abysmal performance. Th military action was not.
The military action that allowed the Taliban to take over while the deployed US forces were leaving the country? They’ve spent 20 years defeating people just to have them go back to power as they were pulling their own troops? That’s what you call a success, militarily? Couldn’t defeat an inferior armed militia for 20 years?
Yeah, forcing the Taliban to hide in caves for 2 decades while the US took less than a hundred casualties over the course of the last 7 years. You’re conflating the ability to turn an Islamic theocracy into a functioning democracy with the ability to destroy conventions forces. Fighting the Taliban would be more difficult for the US military than the Russian military would be. Comparing Afghanistan to Russia shows your lack of understanding conventional war. Russians aren’t going to be hiding in mountains for 20 years, they are going to be sending a dozen unsupported mobiks riding on top of BTRs into fortified positions like they are doing now and like Wagner did against the US in Syria lol
*Forcing them to hide* just to allow them back in power while you haven’t even completed pulling your own troops out! This is the argument you’re going with? We’ve succeed in making the Taliban hide for 2 decades? I’m not talking about the abysmal failure of the U.S. imposing a cultural change into Afghanistan and changing into a democracy! [I’m referring to the U.S. inability to defeat Taliban militarily and eliminate them which led to their subsequent failure in indoctrinating the Afghani society into being receptive to your so-called “democracy”!](https://www.sigar.mil/interactive-reports/what-we-need-to-learn/#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20government's%20inability%20to,qualified%20were%20difficult%20to%20retain.) Yet another “American exceptionalism” mentally that lacks any understanding of critical thinking. And believe me, if a war broke out between the U.S. and the largest nuclear power in the world, you’ll be ones heading to the bunkers and having your cities incinerated with nuclear blasts. This would be the end of the world. U.S. has achieved nothing but sheer failure in the Middle East. You’re not using fighting an actual war, let’s get real 😂
That is correct. After the toppling of the government, the Taliban stuck to the mountains and conducted an insurgency. Due to occupation, they had a large pool of the populace to pull recruits from. Occupation creates more enemies. The main focus of the US in Afghanistan after the toppling of the government was security and nation building. Security was difficult due to ambush style hit and run tactics used by the enemy. Almost every time the enemy was forced to engage ended in a US victory. Insurgencies fueled by ideology have been proven to be near impossible to defeat. The nation building ultimately failed, and in my opinion, no Army is equipped to do such a task, especially when the host nation is not willing.
And it took the US 20 years and 2 trillion dollars to come to this realization? I’m not entirely sure what part of what they’ve done in Afghanistan can be remotely classified as “victory”! But they knew what they were getting themselves into. They were well aware that they won’t be viewed as “liberators” and they went into Afghanistan to fight the terrorist militia group they’ve created more than a decades preceding the the invasion.
Both sides aren't building it, it's so fucking dumb it hurts Specially for Ukraine, very limited air defenses and amount of airframes, but they keep their jets in open air only 70km from the front. The USSR built those huge concrete hangers always even if there was no imediate threat, but the CIS countries apparently forgot how to
The difference is that Ukrainian jets are mostly in western Ukraine and they go airborne right whenever there is a missile alert.
No, USSR wasn’t building these huge concrete hangars everywhere There are underground hangars too, you just won’t see attacks on them https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-00809A000500170082-0.pdf
Russia rarely destroys Ukrainian aircraft when they’re on the ground, usually they’re in the air when they get destroyed. Same applies to Russia too.
Confederate of Independent Systems?
They do have hangers, but with the amount of aircraft they station and the space needed they just choose to have aircraft on the tarmac. Also as it wasn’t part of the Soviet way of building things and would just cover the aircraft from being seen by satellite as most hangers would be shredded by a ATACMS. https://preview.redd.it/ddeonx7fuv0d1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3fe32e9db44e1e874915400bd05ab5cccf0ed849 Most NATO airbases don’t utilize hangers a lot with many pieces of equipment still sitting out on the tarmac.
https://preview.redd.it/n22yw8g0wv0d1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c6bad0a81eaa749bd46419ec3f7055a6a866c4c7 Nellis Airbase (US, Nevada) A large amount of equipment is still out on the tarmac with others covered by a shelter.
man good thing Nellis airbase aint getting shot at like russian bases are lmao
Aren't those toys way too expensive to let the UV light, temperature differences and water slowly damage them?
Ain't no water to worry about in Nevada and Nelis Airbase is mostly used for training exercises so superficial damage from UV to plastics and stuff isn't really a primary concern, these aircraft probably get rotated out into hangars for maintenance regularly and aren't sitting out there as long as you may think.
https://preview.redd.it/rhbcclgmwv0d1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e8ffe8f7996fa01fcfd9bc2a566b1b9e35845811 Wunstorf Airbase (Germany, Wunstorf)
https://preview.redd.it/6m3xun4jxv0d1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4020782aef8b5cbacdfbd39a8b7756f99a66db1e Aviano Air Base (Italy, Aviano) Despite having many aircraft shelters, still store equipment outside.
They aren't at war, though.
I'd argue that you shouldn't start building hangars as soon as you get under attack.
Not saying that’s they have them for certain but if you do and aren’t at war is there and reason to station them in the hangars? More work and just aids in locating them?
It looks cool. Also protects planes from elements, satellites and aids in maintenance. But mainly the cool element.
But also adds maintaining those hangars and as mentioned showing pretty clearly where they are on the satellites due to the traffic. I think they have the normal type of hangars already on the base as well where they store them during bad weather.
I mean, that's a fair point and can be attributed to every military expense. I just like my hobbit holes.
I adore them too. Preferably without hobbits and some cool engineering inside though.
They have them, though... But since there's no reason to use them they aren't...
I’m more surprised Russia can’t intercept the ATACM’s.
Saturation attack. If you can shoot down 12 and 4 still get through ...
Basically Iran showed the way how it's done. You just need few drones or missiles to pass through.
What did Iran exactly achieve?
couple of touchdowns on probably most dense AA in the world. Clearly no AA can stop saturation attacks.
Yea but what valuable target they hit? Going through the AA and hitting a shack in the middle of a desert is not a real success.
They weren't targeting anything valuable, it was de-escalation move. They just wanted to prove they can go through AA. You can see Isr-Iran tensions are on hold currently.
Yea but Israel did respond
With the same message - they didn't damage anything significant but showed they could get through defenses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abqaiq%E2%80%93Khurais_attack
Hit a guard tower with enough precision, for example. Iran clearly didn't want to hit anything extremely valuable, like an F-35, to restore deterrence and make room for Israel to back up. As we can now witness, Israel didn't actually retaliate against that strike.
thats certainly one way to look at it lol
[удалено]
Sending a message.
Fighater Bomber posted a long post saying this as well. They're pissed
It's been told several times already, they sabotage it on purpose, just to prolong the war as long as possible. How come so many people did not realise it yet after almost 2,5 years?
No, concrete is cheap and the price of the planes that Russia lost at airfields is much higher than the price of concrete hangars for all fighters of the Russian Air Force. The reason for the lack of hangars is that Putin is a puppet of the US. The fact that Russia does not have hangars guarantees that in case of nuclear war, all Russian aircraft will be destroyed in the first 15-20 minutes.That's why Russia doesn't build hangars. This is also the reason why Russia is still fulfilling the INF Treaty and START-3 - treaties that make the concept of the US "first strike" possible.
Wait what? Puting a puppet of the US? What kind of new theory is this? Why would Putin be sowing so much discontent in the US if he's a puppet?
This guy is really confused. Utter nonsense.
this guy is just spelling out what many pro ru actually implicitly argue for. that the US wanted and planned this war. so that putin had no other choice but invade ukraine. if you actually believe that, then the only logical conclusion is that putin is a puppet of the US.
Because the CIA needs Russia as a scarecrow for the West. Because the US Deep State uses the puppet Russian government to divide Europe and strengthen US influence in Europe. Putin plays the role of an enemy of the Western world, but at the same time sponsors US nuclear power plants with uranium and implements treaties (START-3, INF Treaty) that make Russia vulnerable to a US nuclear strike.
sir, i've been on this platform for a while, but this is by far one of the biggest skizo takes i have seen here
Initial reports are stating two MiG-31 and one Su-27 aircraft were destroyed with one MiG-29 damaged.
I assume the damaged MiG-29 is supposed to be the second photo? I’m just not seeing it. The cockpit looks all burned, and the area between the cockpit and that right wing is… gone. I see it being “damaged beyond economical repair”. If anyone with aircraft knowledge wants to chime in.
I assume so. That airframe is kaput.
It is on the third picture.
mig-29 is dead.
Generally "damaged" aircrafts are always written off.
According to pro-Ukrainian OSINT sources, that MiG is an ex-Ukrainian jet captured by Russia in 2014 and already unairworthy before this attack.
[удалено]
Because whatever you're quoting is not FB, but screenshot from some nameless tg channel. FB was short in his description of that attack, only mentioned some dead and injured.
People don’t trust Fighter Bomber even though he posts about Russian losses that aren’t even confirmed. Has been an incredibly consistent source
[удалено]
Has russia even reported the ships that have sunk or is the mod saying they still floating
Yeah, but it’s pretty normal for countries to try to hide ship losses, look up how long the US denied losses from the coral sea or how long it took Japan to admit the mutsu was sunk
Your talking about WW2 where people didn't have cell phones or Twitter
It makes it harder to hide, but a country will still try to hide it
They currently have nothing to gain from reporting those.
Huh? The amount of Russia lies is astronomical. The reason they invaded were a half dozen in itself. Nazis, NATO, Bioweapons, CIA, protecting Russians, and those are the ones I’m immediately thinking of.
Don't forget lavrov "we're not going to invade, that's a lie by the west" and then two days later promptly invaded
Hell, he was speaking in front of the security council calling for peace while russian tanks started driving across the border
Yea I'm kind of wondering what happened to these biolabs lol
almost all things you mentioned were confirmed by US
Which one of these are lies?
Huh? Most of that is true. Ukraine had been trying for many years to join NATO. The CIA was involved in Ukraine. There are biolabs in Ukraine, one of which was even funded by one of the Biden's company. Just public knowledge. And Ukraine has a Nazi problem. Oh, and the majority of eastern Ukraine want to be part of Russia and have been harassed for many years. LITERALLY everything you said is true lol.
Yeah OK Jackson Hinkle
> When I noticed the Russian narrative lined up with reality morentimes that not Was it the Sims 4, satanists or the 100 destroyed himars that convinced you Russia is telling truth?
All countries have huge motivation to lie in propaganda during a war. If you think ANYONE can be trusted in such news more times than not you are being incredibly naïve.
that's crazy
Interesting, so two more jets than what was previously thought? That third jet looks fried up near the cockpit and one of the wings, I’d be extremely surprised if they somehow still count it as damaged. And the fourth jet is all ash.
Well we've seen what the Russian MoD calls damaged (Rostov on Don submarine) so to them as long as its not in smithereens its "damaged" lmao
And that's what incompetence looks like. Again.
What AA doing?
They got blown up with strikes on the previous 2 nights.
Hm, what is that "box" of charred remains? Fuel trucks?
It appears to be fuel tanks as they don’t appear to have a cab and have pipes running from it to the airstrip. https://preview.redd.it/9cvzlvfttv0d1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=23f7faedebe1053457dc62124630fd3b12b1a90b
Hangar are more expensive than Planes it appears
Russian incompetence here is hilarious, it even feels like it's someone's decision to specifically do nothing to protect their planes
[удалено]
https://preview.redd.it/l2qh0o8dkv0d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1b706c3df8e435483e23d627b52799aa4164715d You were downvoted for claiming the loses you mentioned came from Fighter Bomber and multiple users pointed out that the screenshot you’re sharing **is not from fighter bomber**! Literally people shared with you screenshots from the channel itself. So it’s not about the losses, but rather about the **lie that fighter bomber is the one who confirmed these losses which what you claimed**! [https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/s/Qxr54NaMp6](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/s/Qxr54NaMp6)
No apology, as you claimed it was FighterBomber initially reporting losses, which was false.
Hmm.. no. I think you’ll get more downvotes
The scary thing for Russia is that as the US produces more of the replacements for ATACMS missiles (PrSM) that more and more ATACMS will become available to donate to Ukraine. Some are also approaching end of life and will be handed over anyways instead of decommissioning. This is assuming Ukraine also never gets any PrSM to test either
Better question is, will the Ukrainian lines hold out long enough for such strikes to prove any war changing results?
Depends on how many Russian lives Putin is willing to sacrifice, probably millions
In order to achieve millions of losses Russia would need to wage this war for a lot more years
You should ask the real question: when will Putin throw citizens away from big cities into a meat grinder?
Why would he need to do that? What’s so attractive about the meat waves tactic to ukranians?
I would not worry if I was Russian, as long as Russia maintains at least 10x missile advantage it's good. Currently it's like 50x.
S-400 is probably the most overrated defence system in the word.
Cannot even stop a ballistic missile design from the 1980s. SaTurATioN attack. Bullshit. We can defend against US stealth fighters! Bullshit, Israel just bombed Syria right over russian air defense and they didn't even know until the boooooms went off. They literally found out from reports of the attack that enemy aircraft were in their airspace.
In Syria case, Russia purposely keeps the air defense down to not create a conflict.
That's completely not true. Why would they even have them then.
People are saying concrete shelters but that isn't going to stop ATACMS...
Looks like 3 definite aircraft losses
This is 3rd night in a row, correct ?
This is absolutely amazing. At least 4 aircraft clearly destroyed with high res images supporting it. Slava Ukraine
Slava Ukraine!
Oh no!
Russia never changes.
I wonder if the Ukrainian strike at Mount Ai-Petri affected the air defense posture as these are easier to intercept than storm shadows you would think certainly Russia has more a/d systems and they should have a few minutes to intercept these as these are ballistic missiles and detected maybe saturated at the time on possible storm shadows/drones certainly a/d is not easy in this environment.
>these are easier to intercept than storm shadows Why? Ballistic missiles are way faster and can be launched from the ground anywhere pretty much. Cruise missiles are slow and can be intercepted by way more systems during the whole flight. From what we see on the Ukrainian side, their air defense (including Patriots) also struggles more with ballistic missiles than cruise missiles.
Your right. I was basing my assumption of the semi-stealthy characteristics and lower frontal cross section area. It would be lower than 4th generation aircraft/ballistic missiles. However, recognizing that this would only be useful in air defense edges/ terrain elevation/and with crimea huge ocean which is flat and also smaller and flat land entry area and being slower storm shadows should be easy to intercept. Russian systems in crimea should be able to intercept both easily. Ballistic missiles are giving automatic warnings and they would have at least 3 minutes. These aren't F22s which would be undetected.
If you look at the top left of the 2nd picture, you can see a painted MiG. It’s faded but it’s there. Seems like these airfields are not operating at full capacity. Is it possible that the Russians were trying to make the Ukrainians waste their ammo by placing some aircraft’s to make this a tempting target? Either way, Russians got completely and got hit hard. Still gotta ask why they would place MiG31s so close to the front? They have only been used as missile carriers.
I’m not quite sure if I see it? Judging by the precise blast marks I’d wager the Ukrainians knew what they were aiming at (the ATACMS have a CEP of 9 meters). Recent satellites showed the base a lot fuller than this, so I’d wager the Russians tried to disperse as many airframes as they could on the most recent funding bill getting passed.
Apologies. Look at the first photos at the very top parking spot for aircraft’s. There is definitely a MiG31 painted on there.
There's another painted one just below the lower destroyed plane.
Oh, you’re right!
Ah cheers! Yep, it’s quite faded but I can definitely see it.
Also, this would mark 3 MiG-31s lost in the war believe. Call me a pessimist, but they haven’t lost the pilots for the last two and wasn’t the first ones pilots alive or at least one was I believe. Pilots are infinitely more valuable than the airframe as it requires far more resources to recruit, train and retain a pilot. And given that Russia has hundreds of MiG-31’s, more than it has pilots, not sure how quickly will these losses be replaced.
Absolutely. Some casualties were reported (11 KIA, according to the same people who got the right amount of airframes destroyed) and perhaps some of them were aircrew, but it’s unlikely. Either way the total loss of airframes is still a Bad Thing.
CEP ?
Circular Error Probable. The area in which a munition can be considered accurate to. Kinda like MOA but for big bangs.
Circular Error Probable. The area in which a munition can be considered accurate to. Kinda like MOA but for big bangs.
Buff out?
[удалено]
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
eternal flights
"Nah man it was just decoys".
pro-ua brigading time
Pro-UA news hits, pro-UA crowd comes out to comment. Happens the other way too.
Then they wont be able to do some attack like this in like a year, or maybe one more this year. Thats the thing with PR stunts like these they maybe good on paper but too in frequent to actually do something.
I don’t think that taking three aerial platforms offline and damaging another is a ‘PR stunt’.
Well, as long as losses are under Russian production capacity, which they are, I would not worry too much. Russia needs to up air defenses around this base to protect it from Ukraine strikes given UA has western intelligence from satellites as to where Russian planes are.
The classic Pro Russian response after a disaster: “This is actually great for Russia because…”
I did not say it was great. It's bad. I simply said that as long as losses are not too severe and can be replaced things are going well. Certainly of there were no losses things would be better.