• RubberDuck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    6 months ago

    Also it is a pretty long border with Ukraine and the Ukranians have been hard at work dismantling Russian radar and detection capabilities.

    Static radar sites are long gone and the mobile radars are Prime targets for himars, storm shadow, scalp, Harm ER, atacms and homebrew drones.

    The occupation of Crimea is very expensive in terms of radar losses, and I would not be surprised if the east of Russia has no more radar coverage at all.

    And the there was the hunt for those radar planes, epic show of ingenuity… twice… so not lucky.

    • ours@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      And when they identify one of these they still need to act. How quickly and efficiently can they get interceptors up in the air and vectored in? How operational are their ground-based anti-air capabilities and do they dare shoot something down? And how much coverage do they actually have?

        • ours@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          Such a system can shoot at a maximum range of 30km. How many refineries and ammo depots does Russia have to protect? It’s a huge bloody country which makes it very hard to cover with radar and air defence.

          The edge that allowed Russia to win against powerful invading armies bites them in the ass here. So much real estate is hard and expensive to protect.

          During the height of the Cold War, a kid flew across Europe in a small, slow plane and landed on the damn Red Square. Another guy landed a helicopter on the White House lawn.

          • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            Buk is 50km, but s300 already over 100 and s400 does 400km range. And for even shorter range you have pantsir and shilka.

            But indeed, so much real estate. And the refineries are very vulnerable.

            Can you imagine… at this development pace in a year suck a plane will carry 10 autonomous drones with thermite charges that deploy on target and spread even more chaos.

            • ours@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              6 months ago

              The asymmetry between the cost of defense vs. offense here is absurd.

              The operation of air defense networks, missiles, and fighter jet interceptions, all to try to down kit aircraft costing less than the average Porsche sports car. Fancy-pantsy capabilities that required billions not long ago can be had for cheap. It’s no longer the exclusive realm of low-flying supersonic or stealth aircraft to strike the heart of the enemy. What required billions of R&D can be somewhat achieved on the cheap.

              • RidderSport@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                6 months ago

                Well no. The cost of defence is not actually what pricetag the system is you use to shoot something done. It is what you are defending and an oil refinery is probably in the hundreds of millions, literally a high-profile target

                • fuckingkangaroos@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  Yeah, spending a hundred thousand to take out a refinery cracker is an amazing trade. What’s a cracker worth, a few tens of millions? Plus lost production etc

        • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          6 months ago

          Still a win for Ukraine if the Russians have to start burning a lot of precious flight hours on checking out every aireal anomaly.

          • thepreciousboar@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            6 months ago

            Maybe they decided is was not worth it and they prefer losing refineries and fuel storage rather than using jet hours

            • maynarkh
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              ·
              6 months ago

              If they lose a few more refineries, that will certainly cut into their jet hours.

          • ours@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            6 months ago

            The fuel is (relatively) nothing. Interceptors have to haul ass and that means going full throttle for periods which translates into countless hours of maintenance on those planes. This immobilizes the aircraft after the mission and the ground crew to work on it. It also consumes spare parts and reduces the overall lifetime of the airframe.

            China does this to Taiwan by playing chicken at the edge of their defensive zone, forcing a smaller air force to keep up with the interceptions.

            • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              6 months ago

              That was my point indeed… flight hours translate to wear and tear, maintenance and spare part usage. And sourcing some of the spare parts is getting harder and harder by the day.

              Some defense industry in Russia is already buying back airframes from abroad… this reduces the value of the Russian defense sector as these countries can shop elsewhere.

              And countries with large Russian military hardware stocks cannot get parts in the foreseeable future… so they also cannot wage war without serious risks to their own readyness.