How accurate is this analogy?
It is not.
The US invading Mexico for fun or profit really is not comparable to Russia stopping a genocide by Ukraine of Ukrainians living in eastern Ukraine, let alone threats of nuclear weapons and bio weapon labs actively bypassing international and western laws regarding testing on humans by doing it to Ukrainians which they clearly don't consider human.
Ill celebrate when a city of 30000 people (artemovsk) and a tiny hamlet(veselaya dolina) surrounded by concrete bunkers is liberated after 6 months.
But Russian soldiers would have died and Ukrainian civilians will have died and it will be all Putins fault...
Could care less what you will celebrate or not.
You propagate Kiev propaganda.
I find it hard to comprehend that Russia with its airforce, artillery , and now these drones has failed for days now to destroy the crossing and bridgehead that the Nazis have created near Liman.
Why destroy the path that brings the Orcs closer to Russian artillery range?
Ukrainians are claiming that theyre using latge amounts of quadcopters to visually detect Russia ln aircraft flying on the deck and they give warning to MANPAD teams. I already saw footage fr a Ukrainian drone in Kherson flying at around 300m observing a su-34 flying at ~40m and dropping bombs. Thats probably how they shot down the 2 sukhois(apparently the one with burning engine also crashed) and is concerning.
Key three words there.... Ukrainians are claiming...
They also say Russian soldiers are raping women and children and male prisoners.
Makes sense considering the video of su30 being downed was shot by enemy drone. I fail to see the reasoning behind risking su34 and su30 flying low on dumb bombing missions which exposes them to MANPADS and short range AA , if they have a shortage of smart munitions and stand off weapons why not use su24s instead
Both aircraft operate in low altitude high speed strike roles... that is their mission... high altitude is against third world countries that only have MANPADS.
If they used Su-24s you would be complaining they are using old shit... is the new stuff not good enough for the job...
Exactly. Im extremely frustrated that in this war, theyre not using Su-24M2s as much, since theyre more expendable. Also no targeting pods at all for su-30s.
Good, I am glad you are frustrated... the Su-30 and Su-34 and Su-24 in all versions have two crew members and are NOT expendable except in your fucked up head.
These planes are not using targeting pods because they are Russian planes and use radar and onboard EO systems to find and attack their targets... they don't need targeting pods.
They were much cheaper to replace, and in this war would be expendable even if upgraded.
You are worrying about the fucking cost?
The pilots are not expendable.
Vast majority of Su-25s crashed after getting hit by MANPADs, and if they got back to base the airframe was unusable.
Actually a majority actually limped home, while the single engined Fitters and Floggers did not after an engine hit because they only have the one engine each.
Vastly more importantly the Su-25s were slow enough to find targets and hit them, while the faster planes did not... meaning they risked getting shot down for no tangible return which is worse than useless.
The point isnt to limp home, but not to get hit. The Su-22M4 and MiG-27K had near equal or equal countermeasure suites and could fire guided weapons from safer ranges.
In the mountains of Afghanistan the faster planes couldn't find or couldn't reach their targets... the slower and more manouverable Su-25s could and did.
Why else was the Su-25 funded and put into service?
1. Afghanistan was COIN, this isn't.
Afghanistan was a war and when ground forces were held up the Su-25 was the best platform to get them moving again.
The vast majority of the time they used rockets and cannon and bombs directly on targets... guided and standoff weapons were not needed.
2. This isnt 1979. You don't use eyeballs to detect enemy troops, you use FLIR targeting pods, and the Su-22M4 and MiG-27 couldve been easily upgraded to carry them.
The Su-25SM3 has an EO targeting system built in to its nose and does not need external weapon pods.
Not when dropping dumb bombs from low altitude.
Yes it is. Flight speed, bomb capacity and diversity, flight range, night and all weather capability, radar performance... crew communication...
They're superior ina near peer conflict. Speed is important in this war. Su-22M4s and MiG-27s couldve been used to strike bridges on the dniepr or kremenchug without fear of attrition.
With decent air to ground weapon loads the MiG and the Sukhoi are slower than the Su-34.
The Su-22M4 and MiG-27 can do the same thing just as well. You're basically admitting the Su-25 doesnt do CAS in this war, loitering over the battlefield, but just does individual strikes.
The Su-25 does in this conflict what it does in every conflict... when enemy forces are bothering your ground forces Su-25s are sent in low and fast to hit the enemy ground forces with bombs and rockets and then they fly home.
This is what this war is. Drones wouldve been ideal, but russia doesnt have them in any meaningful numbers, until possibly now.
The cost of sending MiG-27Ks and Su-17M4s would not be cheaper than using cruise missiles...
The bridges still standing are standing for a reason... not a lack of capacity to hit them.
Btw, any thoughts how many Su-30 and Su-34 were lost so far?
So far we have the word of the Orcs any were lost today... why should anyone believe them?
How is the Su-34 more survivable when doing low altitude runs dropping dumb bombs right above the target compared to the Su-24M2? Its more survivable at high altitude, I agree.
The Su-34 is faster and has modern avionics including EW equipment.
The Su-34 is designed for low altitude penetration of enemy held airspace... the canards are there to reduce turbulence with that huge wing at low altitudes.
This is what russian aircraft with the SVP-24, for all its high technology, should easily do if they use dumb bombs, in order to evade SAMs. instead we see Su-34s flying right on top of their target like its 1943.
You do understand that flying very low and very fast is the only way to survive modern AD for very long?
The difference between now and 1943 is that the US would get 1,000 bombers each carrying 2-3 tons of bombs each and all fly to one German city and bomb that city trying to destroy a specific factory. Half the bombs dropped would land outside the city.... including hitting cities in other countries... the target was often completely missed and the bombers would have to reload and rearm and do it all again the next night and the next night for the best part of a month with no guarantee of even getting one bomb on the target factory, but losing hundreds of bombers and thousands of crew in the process.
These days the target is hit with two bombs from one aircraft on the first pass.
Come on, toss bombing is 1950s tactics possible with 1960s CCRP technology.
Toss bombing allows the delivery aircraft to keep some distance from the target, which is of no use unless the target is an AD system you are trying to hit.
Toss bombing was intended mostly for delivering nuclear weapons with the intention of getting the bomber as far away from the explosion as possible... tactical nukes and tactical jet bombers only... like the Buccanner for instance.
The whole point of flying very low is to evade enemy SAM systems.... doing a steep climb to release the ordinance puts you in vastly more danger than actually flying over the target because most SAMs nearby would detect you.
Your flight path to the target would have been planned to evade any obvious SAM systems.
The point is that no NATO country owns the AD system Ukros used to have half a year ago.
Didn't help them much ...
HATO does not realise that when they take the Ukraines position all their planes are not going to be very effective if they can't deal with the Russian IADS either.
The Ukrainian air defence has remained a threat... some people do not understand the difference between air superiority and air supremacy... air superiority means you can attack with missiles and aircraft including on the front line and deep behind enemy lines, but the enemy still has the capacity to damage you.
The west expects air supremacy like they had with the Taliban in Afghanistan, but they wont be able to achieve that in any way and the fact that their attack and defence is air power based, they are seriously going to struggle in combat with Russian forces... every attack and defence the west is going to haemorrhage aircraft... not to mention how much ready to use ordinance do they have... dispersing and hiding means effectively not being able to use properly and it becomes a token force like the Orc air force.
The fact that the aircraft's own laser could perhaps not be effectively used above 5000m could perhaps suggest why Russian currently have resorted to low level strikes? A simple answer to the problem would be to get more drones in for target designation - without risking the aircraft and the pilot. This is something that should be addressed in the coming weeks.
The laser target marker on the MiG-35 can be used against ground targets out to 30km so I suspect that altitude issue is no longer an issue.
Another problem of course is that in mountains the wind can be a problem and manouvering in mountains is dangerous at the best of times... the afghans often located their bases in places that were hard to get to and reach with aircraft weapons, which is another reason the slower and more manouverable Su-25 was superior... it could also use much shorter airstrips.