S-70 lost over Ukraine

[Jetronic]

Russia has shot down one of it's S-70 Ohotnik drones over Ukraine. They used an SU-57 Felon to do it. The S-70 is supposed to be a dedicated wingman for the SU-57.

From the footage I've seen it was a very close range kill, so not a mistake. The drone was likely malfunctioning. It appears to be the 4th ever made.

But what's more important here, both were operating over Ukrainian territory, unopposed or harassed by air defense in any way. Both are supposedly stealthy. There have been unconfirmed reports of these systems being used for at least 6 months now, and occasionally some very clear footage was revealed from a drone observing hits on vaulable equipment. Could have been the S-70.

I guess the remains will be on their way to the US soon enough

 

[buster]

I wonder how much both sides are learning from this war, China especially. There have been more talks about expanding chip production in JP/SK as well as talks of a future Asian NATO.

 

[Jetronic]

I wonder how much both sides are learning from this war, China especially. There have been more talks about expanding chip production in JP/SK as well as talks of a future Asian NATO.

I think everyone is rewriting their mode of operations. This isn't like anything fought since WW2. Manoeuver warfare might not be possible against a near peer opponent, and tactical surprise is near impossible to achieve. Total air superiority is questionable aswell.

I fully suspect there will be a renewed focus on digging trenches and foxholes.

 

[edyvw]

I wonder how much both sides are learning from this war, China especially. There have been more talks about expanding chip production in JP/SK as well as talks of a future Asian NATO.

Russians are learning some, but not much if history is an indicator. It is cultural thing. Their tanks are best example of that.

 

[wpod]

Russians are learning some, but not much if history is an indicator. It is cultural thing. Their tanks are best example of that.

Tanks are some what not the tool of choice with the new anti tank weapons. Just like using a multi million dollar missile to shoot down a $50,000.00 missile.

 

[edyvw]

Tanks are some what not the tool of choice with the new anti tank weapons. Just like using a multi million dollar missile to shoot down a $50,000.00 missile.

That was not the point, point was "learning."

During "Desert Storm," T72's performed poorly in Iraq. When the USSR broke apart and cooperation went into high drive, American officers pointed to Russian counterpart's poor performance of tanks, and Russians blamed the training and tactics of Iraqis. Fast forward to 1994, Chechens ambushed the Russian tank battalion in Grozni, destroying some 31 tanks in half an hour. Russians blamed crews, tactics etc.
In the second Chechen war, again, the same issues, and Russians blamed crews and tactics.

It has been 33 years since Desert Storm, and most potent Russian tank is T90, a derivative of T72, and has the same flaws (automatic reloading and no separate ammo chamber with exhaust vents).

That is just an example. There are numerous others.

 

[4wd]

That was not the point, point was "learning."

During "Desert Storm," T72's performed poorly in Iraq. When the USSR broke apart and cooperation went into high drive, American officers pointed to Russian counterpart's poor performance of tanks, and Russians blamed the training and tactics of Iraqis. Fast forward to 1994, Chechens ambushed the Russian tank battalion in Grozni, destroying some 31 tanks in half an hour. Russians blamed crews, tactics etc.
In the second Chechen war, again, the same issues, and Russians blamed crews and tactics.

It has been 33 years since Desert Storm, and most potent Russian tank is T90, a derivative of T72, and has the same flaws (automatic reloading and no separate ammo chamber with exhaust vents).

That is just an example. There are numerous others.

One of my guys was an Abram’s commander during those years - Have heard him say more than once they could have “run up the score” - but there was no need to take any more risks than they did …

 

[BISCUT]

I read a quote I'm reminded of after reading this thread. Something a long the lines of: I don't know exactly what weapons will be used in WWIII but I know WWIV will be with sticks and stones.

 

[edyvw]

I read a quote I'm reminded of after reading this thread. Something a long the lines of: I don't know exactly what weapons will be used in WWIII but I know WWIV will be with sticks and stones.

Einstein.

 

[y_p_w]

Tanks are some what not the tool of choice with the new anti tank weapons. Just like using a multi million dollar missile to shoot down a $50,000.00 missile.

The idea is to protect a more valuable asset and possibly lives.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

The idea is to protect a more valuable asset and possibly lives.

The problem is they don’t value all lives equally, even on their own side

 

[4wd]

The problem is they don’t value all lives equally, even on their own side

Yep, I’m back working the E Med where you never know who wants to get stupid next - so we are not going to work on the wonderful anniversary tomorrow …
Did see a Wasp at our dock - looked like V22’s and Harrier’s although I know they carry a small fleet of 35’s sometimes …

 

[wpod]

The idea is to protect a more valuable asset and possibly lives.

Weapons and tactics change

 

[edyvw]

One of my guys was an Abram’s commander during those years - Have heard him say more than once they could have “run up the score” - but there was no need to take any more risks than they did …

T72, compared to Abrams, had obsolete targeting equipment. At that time, the Yugoslavian M84 was probably the best version of the T72, considering it had Western and YU targeting equipment and much stronger engine. I have seen both in action, and they are serious stuff since they are small, have a low profile, and pack a serious punch (125mm). However, the problem is with auto-loading and ammo position. M1 is not without weaknesses. It is a large tank, it is easy to spot, etc. But, like all western tanks, it has separate ammon compartment with exhaust to vent out the fire and allow the crew 20-30sec to bail out.
So far in UKR it seems Leopard and Challenger are proving most effective.

 

[edyvw]

Weapons and tactics change

Rarely in Russia!
Russian doctrine is still: we have more people to sacrifice than you have bullets.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

Rarely in Russia!
Russian doctrine is still: we have more people to sacrifice than you have bullets.

Bingo.

 

[fdcg27]

It seems to me that a major part of Russia's failure to achieve more in Ukraine is that they lack a strong cadre of junior officers and non-comms and those that they have are not allowed to make tactical decisions on the ground.
Remember how many general officers Russia lost early in the war? What were these guys doing anywhere near the front?
Another puzzling question involves how easily Ukrainian forces have penetrated Russian territory and held it with little opposition. How can this be?
There may be limits to the effectiveness of just throwing men and hardware into a fight and hoping that the country you're invading runs out before you do. While Russia may ultimately reach a negotiated agreement yielding them some gains, at what cost in lives, hardware, national wealth and future relations with the developed world?
Russia had made of itself a pariah for decades to come.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

Total incompetence.

 

[IndyIan]

It seems to me that a major part of Russia's failure to achieve more in Ukraine is that they lack a strong cadre of junior officers and non-comms and those that they have are not allowed to make tactical decisions on the ground.
Remember how many general officers Russia lost early in the war? What were these guys doing anywhere near the front?
Another puzzling question involves how easily Ukrainian forces have penetrated Russian territory and held it with little opposition. How can this be?
There may be limits to the effectiveness of just throwing men and hardware into a fight and hoping that the country you're invading runs out before you do. While Russia may ultimately reach a negotiated agreement yielding them some gains, at what cost in lives, hardware, national wealth and future relations with the developed world?
Russia had made of itself a pariah for decades to come.

I think Putin has his ideas of what territory Russia is entitled to, and he wants to accomplish this by whatever means he can? He's thinking more of his legacy than anything else, and the lives of Russians or anyone else isn't a factor. How the country fares in the short term or even long term overall doesn't matter to him much, as he seems to have a hold on enough power and media that the average Russian has accepted that opposing him doesn't have a good risk/reward ratio? Even the military had a chance to get rid of Putin when the Wagner group rebelled, but they were either afraid of Putin or felt that they might be just exchanging dictators?
I guess usually this type of egomaniac dictator is in smaller countries so its not such a big deal, but this time we have one in a former super power, and then there's the stubborn Ukrainians who believe enough in what they are fighting for to oppose Putin... Hopefully the good guys will win!

 

[Pablo]

.. Hopefully the good guys will win!

Not a lot of chance there. Both sides are NOT good. Putin is only worser, way worser, sure.

I'm not saying we shouldn't help the Ukrainian peoples. We should, but at what cost? This is why this conflict is so nasty, IMHO. If Ukraine was straight up GOOD, by all means.

Anyway, yeah, may Russia fail utterly. Period.