Has there been a high-end Russian capability in the Rus/Ukraine war that has worked well?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Elysium

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
31 May 2023
Messages
59
Reaction score
87
I think the title summarizes my question well.
Russians do have a ton of expensive high-end capabilities like the A-50, the Ka-52, Su-34/35, Tu-160, advanced T-72 variants, expensive and sophisticated warships.
In my humble opinion the purpose of such capabilities is to render yourself untouchable for an opponent of lesser means and sophistication, or at least seriously limit the zone where it can operate without retaliation.

The problem is from what I've seen , none of these systems delivered on their promise.
A-50s get shot down, Ka-52s are vulerable to Stingers/Iglas, and a forced to hang back, Su-34s/35s either fly low or get shot down, heavy bombers fly outside the range of Ukrainian air defenses and are forced to use expensive cruise missiles, sophisticated tanks get destroyed by Western ATGMs or drones, ships gets sunk by jerry rigged drone boats etc.

A positive example would be a hypothetical stealth aircraft flying well into the range of enemy air defenses, and dropping a couple glide bombs from 30-50km.

Could you please disprove my statement, or name a few high-end Russian weapon systems (Gerans, Orlans and Lancets are obv. not high end) that worked well in Ukraine?
 
I dont think we have seen such pushback against a major power intervening since the vietnam war and maybe one or two of the Mideast conflicts with Israel. We have poured billions into maintaining the state of Ukraine and arming it as well as giving it round the clock Intel. How this has impacted the conflict is hard to say as there are such wildly opposing counts and figures and on top of it this war has made normally reasonable people get extremely worked up (myself included). The propaganda war on all sides is intense. Never seen anything like it.

Some weapons seem to have been targeted to try and tarnish their reputation as export items like the s400. Others have shown to be quite effective like the mig31 or the su35. Another one that has shown some impressive capabilities is the ka52. Ones I am surprised have not recieved as much praise as I would have thought would be the tor.
 
I dont think we have seen such pushback against a major power intervening since the vietnam war and maybe one or two of the Mideast conflicts with Israel. We have poured billions into maintaining the state of Ukraine and arming it as well as giving it round the clock Intel. How this has impacted the conflict is hard to say as there are such wildly opposing counts and figures and on top of it this war has made normally reasonable people get extremely worked up (myself included). The propaganda war on all sides is intense. Never seen anything like it.

Some weapons seem to have been targeted to try and tarnish their reputation as export items like the s400. Others have shown to be quite effective like the mig31 or the su35. Another one that has shown some impressive capabilities is the ka52. Ones I am surprised have not recieved as much praise as I would have thought would be the tor.
Could you please illustrate the effectiveness of said weapons?
From what I've heard, the Mig-31 with its Kinzhals is quite good, but enormously rare and expensive, and the Russians ability to detect and engage high value targets in a timely manner is not very good.
The Ka-52 regularly got shot down by Manpads and that's why they only use it at standoff distance nowadays.
The effectiveness of the S400 and Pantsir have been mixed, with the Pantsir already having a spotty track record even before Ukraine.

Can you give examples of the Su-35s effectiveness?
 
A-50s being shot down doesn't necessarily reflect on the A-50, as it's a cooperative target.

Also, "heavy bombers fly outside the range of Ukrainian air defenses and are forced to use expensive cruise missiles" - they have no choice to use cruise missiles. Neither the Tu-95MS nor the Tu-160 have a notable conventional attack capability that doesn't involve using a conventional cruise missile (they may be able to carry dumb iron bombs). The point of a cruise missile is in part to allow the bomber to remain outside the range of threat systems. From that standpoint, the bombers appear to have worked as intended.

Even some of the issues with losing a lot of armor or vehicles may not be indicative of whether or not they've worked well, as odd as that sounds. It appears that a lot of the issues may relate more to tactics than the systems involved. I think it speaks more to the tactics employed that have prevented a much larger and better equipped military from accomplishing its goals. Sounds familiar (Vietnam).

An example: "We're going to drive down existing roads for dozens of kms after obviously marshalling tons of stuff in Belarus, lying outright about our intentions, and take Kyiv with no problem" - sure, because nobody could have predicted that route of advance and prepared accordingly.

Another example: both sides are clearly having to figure out counter-UAS tactics and techniques on the fly, which is allowing those systems to be highly effective.

Had things gone as Russia expected, Ukrainian farm tractors wouldn't have been one of the two most amusing "weapons" of the past few years (the other being a piano in London).

This also of course shows that Nunn-Lugar was a massive mistake, but that's another story altogether.
 
The main task of Russian weapons to leave NATO "without means of livelihood" is being carried out successfully. A war without losses exists only on the screens of CNN
The T-90M is the best tank for the war until 2022. Now all tanks without their own SAM are outdated. The BMP-3 / BMP-4 is one of the best combat vehicles. The Su-35S completely dominates the skies of Ukraine, a highly efficient multi-purpose aircraft. The R-37M missiles performed particularly well, one missile is one target. Russian missile weapons are generally out of competition, due to their efficiency and cheapness. Well, the future of all the following wars - Russian drones completely paralyzed NATO troops and forced them to flee
 
Last edited:
The main task of Russian weapons to leave NATO "without means of livelihood" is being carried out successfully.

NATO seems to be doing just fine, even expanding. Well, Germany is trying to hurt itself using idiotic energy policies, but that's been happening for years at this point.
 
A-50s being shot down doesn't necessarily reflect on the A-50, as it's a cooperative target.

Also, "heavy bombers fly outside the range of Ukrainian air defenses and are forced to use expensive cruise missiles" - they have no choice to use cruise missiles. Neither the Tu-95MS nor the Tu-160 have a notable conventional attack capability that doesn't involve using a conventional cruise missile (they may be able to carry dumb iron bombs). The point of a cruise missile is in part to allow the bomber to remain outside the range of threat systems. From that standpoint, the bombers appear to have worked as intended.

Even some of the issues with losing a lot of armor or vehicles may not be indicative of whether or not they've worked well, as odd as that sounds. It appears that a lot of the issues may relate more to tactics than the systems involved. I think it speaks more to the tactics employed that have prevented a much larger and better equipped military from accomplishing its goals. Sounds familiar (Vietnam).

An example: "We're going to drive down existing roads for dozens of kms after obviously marshalling tons of stuff in Belarus, lying outright about our intentions, and take Kyiv with no problem" - sure, because nobody could have predicted that route of advance and prepared accordingly.

Another example: both sides are clearly having to figure out counter-UAS tactics and techniques on the fly, which is allowing those systems to be highly effective.

Had things gone as Russia expected, Ukrainian farm tractors wouldn't have been one of the two most amusing "weapons" of the past few years (the other being a piano in London).

This also of course shows that Nunn-Lugar was a massive mistake, but that's another story altogether.
Thinking about it rationally, I couldn't imagine an armed conflict more lopsided than Ukraine-Russia was towards the Russians:
  1. Inherited THE world's largest land army
  2. Massively more military spending, technology, vehicles
  3. Intimately familiar with the enemy's radars, AA missiles, and technology on account of having built it
  4. Massive logistic network that goes literally to the enemy's doorstep
  5. Immune to retaliation due to nukes
  6. Massive indefensible land border for Ukraine

And for the point of cruise missiles: A Tomahawk missile cost $1.5m dollars, while an SDB-2 is $40k. If you can deliver them to a target, both have the same effect. They are not remotely comparable.
 
Last edited:
Su-35 is doing well in air to air role. One of the pilots has already achieved ACE status by shooting down legacy 4th gen fighter aircraft.
 
And for the point of cruise missiles: A Tomahawk missile cost $1.5m dollars, while an SDB-2 is $40k. If you can deliver them to a target, both have the same effect. They are not remotely comparable.

Yes, but choosing the Tomahawk over an SDB-2, assuming both are valid options for your target, is again an issue more of tactics than of weapon performance. If I want to kill a single small outhouse in uncontested airspace, yeah, between the two an SDB-2 is likely the far more rational choice. But if I engage it with a Tomahawk anyway, and the outhouse is annihilated, then two things are true. First, the Tomahawk performed well, and second, the person in the targeting shop who assigned the weapon did not perform well. But that person's incompetence doesn't reflect on the Tomahawk's performance in that engagement. Hence while Russian cruise missile carriers may seem like overkill against Ukrainian targets like theaters and electrical yards, the actual performance of the weapon systems themselves seems to be fine.
 
Into Finland and Sweden? Not sure where else NATO troops are involved here.
If a soldier is wearing a NATO uniform, has NATO weapons in his hands, rides on NATO tanks and is 100% funded by NATO countries, then this is a NATO soldier
There are no other soldiers in Ukraine
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom