Thanks for the update. The graphics for bombing of Kharkiv was illustrative. Should be updated to include the day after, and importantly be read to share in the aftermath of the Sevastopol bombing. But if the attacks against Kharkiv was reduced after taking out Airdefense, wasnt that an argument in favoir of SEAD? Or have I misunderstood?
The reduction of Russian S-300-strikes on Kharkiv in the aftermath of Ukrainian strikes on the Russian air defences - is actually a confirmation of what I've described here: https://substack.com/home/post/p-145920863
With other words: hit the launchers, knock them out. Then the attacks are going to stop.
I didn't create the graphic, the Washington Post did. I did mentioning the deadly bombing immediately after. The graphic was focused on Kharkiv only.
All weapon systems support all other weapon systems.
Choosing a target and attacking a target involves many factors. If you could snap your fingers and remove all enemy air defense systems, that would be good. The same applies to enemy aircraft and infantry. An army without infantry would leave all other weapon systems extremely vulnerable.
There are a lot of advantages to defensive operations and defensive weapons. It is the reason why they exist. But you cannot win a war with defense alone. For that, you need offensive capabilities. If you remove your enemy's offensive capabilities you will not lose the war.
Air defense systems are defensive systems by design. They wil not win a war by themselves. They will, however, make it harder for aircraft, missiles and drones to attack other systems and even the means of production. If you want to attack other enemy systems or means of production with any form of aircraft it is useful to avoid or destroy (Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses (DEAD)) enemy air defenses, or at least force them to hide, blind themselves by turning off their radars, or run away to avoid being attacked themselves (Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD)).
If you can avoid enemy air defenses then they will not impact your attempt to destroy your target of the moment, whatever that is. There is no need to concern yourself with enemy air defenses within the scope of that specific mission.
If you can destroy an enemy air defense system then it will not need to be avoided, destroyed or suppressed in the future. You increase your chances of successful operations in the future.
If you suppress an enemy air defense system, you temporarily remove its ability to stop your airborne attacks on that particular mission but it will survive and you will be forced to avoid, destroy or suppress it in the future. Methods of suppression could include anti-radiation missiles that home in on radar signals: If it destroys the radar, great. If not, then the air defense battery is at least temporarily blinded. It can also include electronic warfare which can provide the radar with so many signals that it cannot perform its mission.
Air defense systems are defensive by design, but there is an exception. The S300 and S400 launchers can fire missiles in a ground attack mode. This is what the Russians have been doing and this turns the air defense systems into an offensive weapon. They use older missiles that normally would be destroyed in peacetime since they cannot realiably be used in an air defense capacity. These missiles have a range of 120 km and are not very accurate. They are similar in nature to the German V2 rocket that was only accurate enough for a target the size of a city. At the beginning of the war, Russia had 8,000 of these expired missiles.
You can't deploy the air defense systems right on the front line or they will be vulnerable to many weapon systems. Given that limitation and the 120 km range, there aren't many Ukrainian cities in range of these expired missiles, but the second largest city in Ukraine, Kharkiv, is in range. The time it takes for these missile to launch and impact Kharkiv is about a minute. That's not enough time for civilians to move to a shelter and it leaves little time for Ukrainian air defenses to react. Since it is a ballistic missile, the Patriot system is the only one that has a missile that could intercept it.
It's easy to determine the location of system that fires a ballistic missile. The edge of Kharkiv is 30 km from the Russian border. If the S300/400s fire 30 km from there, they will be out of range from conventional artillery. They will still be in range of HIMARS/MLRS if the S300 fires within 70 km of the front line. They will always be within range of ATACMS.
It is always useful to attack a Russian air defense system, whether it is being used in an offensive or defensive manner. Anytime a Ukraininan drones spots a Russian air defense system it is targeted by a weapon that is within range. This S400 battery was 60 km from the front line, just minding its own business when it was attacked by ATACMS.
Very good report Don, so the US has limited Ukraine to 100 k to use US weapons, I thought I read somewhere that it had been increased but maybe that is hope wishing. Also I thought the US and NATO where considering increasing the area to along the Russian border again wishful thinking ??
Excellent writeup as always. This 100km limit is such a bs line. Why are we always doing stupid shit like this? Why bother with F-16s if we can't give them all the pieces (such as the ability to do proper SEAD or DEAD)? Lord, we are so stupid sometimes.
That's cold-war politics thinking. Superpowers were involved in proxy wars, but never attacked the other super-power mainland territory or allowed their proxies to do it.
Yes it is. And we need to ditch it. I think one of the real mistakes we made was letting Russia down easy after the war. Letting them think they could still do this stuff, that they had the ability, and that their gear was nearly as good. Maybe not, maybe that would have made things worse and more unstable then. But I can't help but think if Russia hadn't been let off easily maybe they wouldn't have tried this. Leopards don't change their spots as the saying goes, so why did we think we were all buddy-buddy?
Thanks for the update. The graphics for bombing of Kharkiv was illustrative. Should be updated to include the day after, and importantly be read to share in the aftermath of the Sevastopol bombing. But if the attacks against Kharkiv was reduced after taking out Airdefense, wasnt that an argument in favoir of SEAD? Or have I misunderstood?
The reduction of Russian S-300-strikes on Kharkiv in the aftermath of Ukrainian strikes on the Russian air defences - is actually a confirmation of what I've described here: https://substack.com/home/post/p-145920863
With other words: hit the launchers, knock them out. Then the attacks are going to stop.
I didn't create the graphic, the Washington Post did. I did mentioning the deadly bombing immediately after. The graphic was focused on Kharkiv only.
All weapon systems support all other weapon systems.
Choosing a target and attacking a target involves many factors. If you could snap your fingers and remove all enemy air defense systems, that would be good. The same applies to enemy aircraft and infantry. An army without infantry would leave all other weapon systems extremely vulnerable.
There are a lot of advantages to defensive operations and defensive weapons. It is the reason why they exist. But you cannot win a war with defense alone. For that, you need offensive capabilities. If you remove your enemy's offensive capabilities you will not lose the war.
Air defense systems are defensive systems by design. They wil not win a war by themselves. They will, however, make it harder for aircraft, missiles and drones to attack other systems and even the means of production. If you want to attack other enemy systems or means of production with any form of aircraft it is useful to avoid or destroy (Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses (DEAD)) enemy air defenses, or at least force them to hide, blind themselves by turning off their radars, or run away to avoid being attacked themselves (Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD)).
If you can avoid enemy air defenses then they will not impact your attempt to destroy your target of the moment, whatever that is. There is no need to concern yourself with enemy air defenses within the scope of that specific mission.
If you can destroy an enemy air defense system then it will not need to be avoided, destroyed or suppressed in the future. You increase your chances of successful operations in the future.
If you suppress an enemy air defense system, you temporarily remove its ability to stop your airborne attacks on that particular mission but it will survive and you will be forced to avoid, destroy or suppress it in the future. Methods of suppression could include anti-radiation missiles that home in on radar signals: If it destroys the radar, great. If not, then the air defense battery is at least temporarily blinded. It can also include electronic warfare which can provide the radar with so many signals that it cannot perform its mission.
Air defense systems are defensive by design, but there is an exception. The S300 and S400 launchers can fire missiles in a ground attack mode. This is what the Russians have been doing and this turns the air defense systems into an offensive weapon. They use older missiles that normally would be destroyed in peacetime since they cannot realiably be used in an air defense capacity. These missiles have a range of 120 km and are not very accurate. They are similar in nature to the German V2 rocket that was only accurate enough for a target the size of a city. At the beginning of the war, Russia had 8,000 of these expired missiles.
You can't deploy the air defense systems right on the front line or they will be vulnerable to many weapon systems. Given that limitation and the 120 km range, there aren't many Ukrainian cities in range of these expired missiles, but the second largest city in Ukraine, Kharkiv, is in range. The time it takes for these missile to launch and impact Kharkiv is about a minute. That's not enough time for civilians to move to a shelter and it leaves little time for Ukrainian air defenses to react. Since it is a ballistic missile, the Patriot system is the only one that has a missile that could intercept it.
It's easy to determine the location of system that fires a ballistic missile. The edge of Kharkiv is 30 km from the Russian border. If the S300/400s fire 30 km from there, they will be out of range from conventional artillery. They will still be in range of HIMARS/MLRS if the S300 fires within 70 km of the front line. They will always be within range of ATACMS.
It is always useful to attack a Russian air defense system, whether it is being used in an offensive or defensive manner. Anytime a Ukraininan drones spots a Russian air defense system it is targeted by a weapon that is within range. This S400 battery was 60 km from the front line, just minding its own business when it was attacked by ATACMS.
https://x.com/ukraine_map/status/1793897701194502337
This was a successful DEAD mission. It will no longer have to be avoided, suppressed, or destroyed in future missions.
Very good report Don, so the US has limited Ukraine to 100 k to use US weapons, I thought I read somewhere that it had been increased but maybe that is hope wishing. Also I thought the US and NATO where considering increasing the area to along the Russian border again wishful thinking ??
100 km anywhere along the border, but ATACMS cannot be used.
Thanks for the reply Don, that cleared things up for me
Excellent writeup as always. This 100km limit is such a bs line. Why are we always doing stupid shit like this? Why bother with F-16s if we can't give them all the pieces (such as the ability to do proper SEAD or DEAD)? Lord, we are so stupid sometimes.
I can't argue with you there.
That's cold-war politics thinking. Superpowers were involved in proxy wars, but never attacked the other super-power mainland territory or allowed their proxies to do it.
Yes it is. And we need to ditch it. I think one of the real mistakes we made was letting Russia down easy after the war. Letting them think they could still do this stuff, that they had the ability, and that their gear was nearly as good. Maybe not, maybe that would have made things worse and more unstable then. But I can't help but think if Russia hadn't been let off easily maybe they wouldn't have tried this. Leopards don't change their spots as the saying goes, so why did we think we were all buddy-buddy?
It seems like the war is over - no reporting in Western media?