Thanks for the update. I have read most of the previous sections on air war fare referred to. I thought I understood them that time, clear and logical as they were. Maybe I Even did. But anyhow, thank you for the simplification and the repetition. Much needed. Looking forward to the next installation. But the very short story here seems to be that Ukraine is succesful in establishing corridors in the Russian air defense and is using that to hit Russia where it hurts. Excellent.
What I have read is that Ukrainians have hit ammo depot at Marinovka AB. So, I guess these secondary explosions have causes most of the damage? I.e. it was a good planning and some luck, too.
Also, Fighterbomber has written, that good planes flew away before drones arrived - which means there were many planes non-operational i.e. VKS have a serious problem with repairs and maintenance. But it may be a lie to lessen the UA success.
You have to read all posts from that day, and carefully assess what message is delivered in each of them. How it changes. The lies would be clear then.
Hiding not working airframes under so precious shelters? Or so smart idea.
This idea "almost" worked with that Morozovsk AB big hangar, that was allegedly used for maintenance. But using the same narrative, (and it is a specially created narrative) absolutely does not work in this situation. Especially since one of hangars was used for bolting UPMKs. So it was logical to put around not working airframes, right? Not those that would carry those UPMKs into battle and have shorter distance to route those kits to planes?
Hiding not working airframes under so precious shelters?
Of course not, the Russian maintenance crews love working outside in the rain when there is a convenienent shelter nearby. And if they have to wait for a part or something then, of course, they will push it out of the shelter to make room for an operational aircraft 0xF0
Waiting for a part? OMG You probably mixed flight support crews with someone else. I am telling you, repairs require highly specialised equipment and qualifications and are not done in the field, either under the roof or not. They are done in special airplane repair plants, period. This is not your old VW or something. It is a Lamborghini, with high-end tuning. Waiting for a part... 😔
Yes, you are right, this what they do. But that guy specifically says, there are planes standing without engines, parts, blocks.
Then says in one of hangars were UPMK kits. Then says weapons "number one" always stays near airplanes to be available for quick loading.
Which means it all bunch of lies put together in haste.
And then "they have to do some earth or sand bags around to protect those". Which bullshit again, as hangars were affected by airburst, with 45+ degrees angle of incoming shrapnel. So it all just quickly crafted "something", for those that follow emotions of the message, or overall message, and not read details of what is there actually.
IMHO "non-operational" planes in Fighterbombers comment means planes undergoing service or maintenance. Of course every plane is "non-operational" while maintenance crew is working on it. It's impossible to re-attach a dismantled part within seconds and the plane is good to go.
But nobody would park a "non-operational" plane in a shelter, which is just a broken up hull stripped for spare parts.
Once again, as far as I understand any of such operations, requiring detaching/attaching parts are only done in specialist plants. The only parts of maintenance-repair-overhaul cycle that are "normally" done in the field are equivalent of changing oil in the car. Of course war necessity could press for finding extra solutions. But airframes without engines, in hangars in the field, seriously? Taking it off requires serious machinery. Think of what is required to take off car engine, and then multiply by 100.
The ASCC means Allied Standardisation and Coordination Committee. That body was created already during the Second World War and, between others, was responsible for assigning reporting names to Japanese aircraft the exact origins and type were unknown.
After the Second World War there were lots of Soviet and Chinese aircraft, and rockets, and missiles and then other stuff - designations of which were unknown. And the ASCC's coding was adopted by NATO.
...which is why such reporting names are better known as 'NATO reporting names'.
Same reason of standardising processes that Tom described so nicely. You give them standardised names so that you can put enemies into clusters to identify them (same is for example with Latin names for species). This allows you to train your personal more standardised and personal is getting faster useful.
Very good one, Tom, thanks. One note: the ferry was most likely hit by Storm Shadow, I doubt that Neptune could go that far as Kerch. And I have personal doubts that Neptune went into serial production at all. I mean, if you can get any number of Harpoons if needed, better keep production lines busy with smth more vital.
As far as I know Storm Shadow does not have a suitable warhead, mostly bunker buster. Besides this strike location would not be allowed by "providers" of those weapons.
As for Neptune, it was long ago planned for ground to ground version. It required some changes like a different navigation and a different warhead most probably.
Considering Ukraine claims Neptune hits pretty rarely, once at a month or two intervals, I think even workshop size assembly by hand can provide enough rounds. No industrial size production line needed. Basically the capability they already had just before the war. And if they had a production line, it wouldnt be that easy to switch it to something else entirely.
I doubt that they produce Neptunes now at all. Looks like there was a limited pre-war production. The missile is expensive and requires a lot of hi-tech efforts. Once again, you can get any number of Harpoons for free, then better switch efforts to UAVs.
Okay call it not Neptune, but Neptune G, if you like it. It's a different missile using same launcher. Consider it is equivalent of Kalibr, but 40% smaller. So theoretically it can reach 1000+ km, depends on a first stage booster (which most probably still undergoing evolution).
There was a long standing task to develop domestic cruise missile.
The first task was to have ground to ground capability. In the second stage air to ground was requested.
The industry responded that it is best to develop it based on Neptune, since most of the blocks are there. The first combat tests started already year ago or more. Mostly trajectory over the sea.
Developing ground navigation was a challenge. The new seeker most probably was used, firstly developed some years ago, in 3mm wave band.
All components are domestic, including engines (first and second stage), seeker, warhead, general assembly.
Do not see any reason to skip that development as it gives unique capabilities. Also considering high hit rate for all reported strikes (and there were many, just note when it says Naval Forces hit something, also ru were reporting downing some Neptuns), it seems difficult to counter.
I haven't heard anything, my impression that it was on pause even before the war. I do not think it would be ready even for tests anytime soon. Also I am not sure about the project concept itself, whether it is final or would be changing over the time. I suspect that it was supposed to be subsubsonic. While what's really needed is supersonic UAV. Maybe UA in collaboration with Sweden, may speed up something like this, since lots of RnD, at least with regards to airframe, if not engine, is done already: https://www.twz.com/air/this-is-saabs-concept-for-a-supersonic-stealthy-loyal-wingman-drone
Thank you for sharing info and thoughts. I never doubted UA ability to produce a first-rate missile. My only concern was about ability/necessity of a serial production. But looks like you indeed know better. Thanx
Well, it is effective. As Kalibrs, Kh-101, or Kh-69 (which btw use one and the same engine) or Storm Shadow or RBS 15 MK4 (which also share same engine). So this is a kind of one of the key capabilities in a modern war. And starting technology is more difficult to develop then do variations and upgrades. So once you have key technologies, it is a kind of waste not to develop it further.
Had that ferry been hit by a Storm Shadow, it would've drilled all the way down to its bottom - and then blown up and sunk - because that weapon is jinking upwards and then diving on its target during the final flight phase.
However, Neptune has a flat, sea-skimming trajectory. Which is why the ferry was just set on fire.
Well, ferry eventually sank and pretty fast, actually. That's the answer. Tom, as you perfectly remember from Iran-Iraq war, the hits of ASMs seldomly led to the instant sinking of ships. Remember light Iranian frigate Sahand that took hits of 6 (!!!) missiles, including two Harpoons, but was still afloat until US Navy used guided bombs to finish it off. Same was here, one Neptune was not
enough to sink a boat. My bet it was a SS which struck the ship, set it ablazed either by hit or by engine fuel, finally making hole in the bottom.
And last but not the least: I doubt that Neptune can go that far. Beeline distance between Kherson and Kerch is 330 km. Reportedly Neptune can do 280 as ASM, and 400 in SSM mode. Theoretically in can make it, but I have many doubts since most likely SSM mode was not serial.
The ferry didn't sink fast. It was burning for an entire day before it sank.
Eventually, it sank because
a) Russian skippers are as 'concerned' for the well-being of their crews, passengers, and cargo as those of Greece or Italy,
b) Russian ship-designers have a tradition of installing damage-control centres in entirely wrong places (see Moskva... was certainly 'the best' example for wrong decisions in this regards), and
c) fire-fighting measures are piss-poor even on warships of the Russian Navy (see Moskva), not to talk about the Russian merchant navy.
Sahand survived as much damage (and as long, while losing 20 KIA) because she had a good skipper, a well-trained crew, and was designed and constructed by Vosper on basis of experiences from the WWII (all paid in blood).
And how far a Neptune can go: trust me when I say, even Ukrainians do not know. Not only because the flight-testing was never completed, but - and as the GRU and thus the Russian Navy know - the radars they use to 'aim' the system have an effective detection range of less than 80km (sorry, but 'had to' discuss that topic while preparing this one: https://www.helion.co.uk/military-history-books/war-in-ukraine-volume-7-air-war-2023.php).
But hey: that's what happens when one ignores all the combat experiences since 1945... principally 'because Gareev said' so and he was 'the greatest Russian military theoretician of our times'... :rolleyes:
....can happen to the US Navy, too: see what became of the LCS - designed on basis of 'Israeli combat experiences', which consisted of busying a US Navy officer with a lil bit of what the Israelis thought they know about the naval warfare between Iran and Iraq, and then spending much more time touring him through different night clubs of Tel Aviv...
Russians will always doubt they were beaten by Ukrainian weaponry: it makes their lives too disgusting. “Silly khokhols” are unable to produce weapons, they are able only to jump on the main square of Kyiv singing songs on strange russian dialect.
So, thats why they will deny obvious things: UA has one of best in ex-USSR production and R&D facilities for missiles production and upgrade; UA had already launched mass production of extra far range UAVs; UA works hard on tech parameters of existing models improvement etc.
So, let them think it was a SS hit: their life is already unbearable enough))
Dear Tom, thank you! Especially verbose cover ups for Marinovka AB plus actual were very useful for me.
First off something about "UPMK should be bolted somewhere to FABs", means on airfield, and that possibly hidden from eyes. Ah, so that what was that hangar struck on Morozovsk AB on 15th of June, which was argued were simply doing some parts of MRO. I was wondering then why a lot of aircrafts appear and disappeare around it on regular sat photos. Now it's clear. And probably there was some stock of UPMKs there, as I think that strike had impact on air operations for a week or so.
Then so wonderfully clear that the goals of mentioned "specialist" are to make cover ups. Which went through 3 stages: denial, shocked acceptance and downplay.
Also was wondering why are those thin metal hangars? It seems that those steel balls are a recent thing. Maybe it is connected to Olenya incident last month, for I do not remember such things mentioned before. And air burst obviously. This means more future damage to airframes, even without obvious scorch marks etc.
And then photos of empty hangars, that were full just that morning after strike, wonderfully confirms that hiding possible damage is priority number one.
Another thing that struck me is such a high "luck" at finding ammo sites full to brims very preciselly. I would not even guess aloud what it is. But I have impression it is not coincidence.
Tom, could you explain a bit the IFF situation? What systems do both sides use and how much do they rely on them? How do western SAMs and the F-16s fit into the Ukr IFF system?
Seems that there are now "real" gaps in the Russian air defense due to a lack of supplies and that the Russians won't be able to plug all of these holes, so the Ukrainians just have to find the current hole in the air defense and then ( relatively) have a clear path for an attack.
The problem with the SAM corridors will certainly get worse rather than better for the Russians in the next few months, right?
Excellent and clear explanation, Tom. Will this eventually be pulled together into a publication?
Thanks!
Thanks!
Dear Tom. Many thanks.
Thanks for the update. I have read most of the previous sections on air war fare referred to. I thought I understood them that time, clear and logical as they were. Maybe I Even did. But anyhow, thank you for the simplification and the repetition. Much needed. Looking forward to the next installation. But the very short story here seems to be that Ukraine is succesful in establishing corridors in the Russian air defense and is using that to hit Russia where it hurts. Excellent.
What I have read is that Ukrainians have hit ammo depot at Marinovka AB. So, I guess these secondary explosions have causes most of the damage? I.e. it was a good planning and some luck, too.
Also, Fighterbomber has written, that good planes flew away before drones arrived - which means there were many planes non-operational i.e. VKS have a serious problem with repairs and maintenance. But it may be a lie to lessen the UA success.
I am referring you to this calculated guess by Andrew Perpetua: https://x.com/AndrewPerpetua/status/1826946592458350869
You have to read all posts from that day, and carefully assess what message is delivered in each of them. How it changes. The lies would be clear then.
Hiding not working airframes under so precious shelters? Or so smart idea.
This idea "almost" worked with that Morozovsk AB big hangar, that was allegedly used for maintenance. But using the same narrative, (and it is a specially created narrative) absolutely does not work in this situation. Especially since one of hangars was used for bolting UPMKs. So it was logical to put around not working airframes, right? Not those that would carry those UPMKs into battle and have shorter distance to route those kits to planes?
Hiding not working airframes under so precious shelters?
Of course not, the Russian maintenance crews love working outside in the rain when there is a convenienent shelter nearby. And if they have to wait for a part or something then, of course, they will push it out of the shelter to make room for an operational aircraft 0xF0
Waiting for a part? OMG You probably mixed flight support crews with someone else. I am telling you, repairs require highly specialised equipment and qualifications and are not done in the field, either under the roof or not. They are done in special airplane repair plants, period. This is not your old VW or something. It is a Lamborghini, with high-end tuning. Waiting for a part... 😔
Even a Lamborghine needs new spark plugs, oil and air filters &&&
Yes, you are right, this what they do. But that guy specifically says, there are planes standing without engines, parts, blocks.
Then says in one of hangars were UPMK kits. Then says weapons "number one" always stays near airplanes to be available for quick loading.
Which means it all bunch of lies put together in haste.
And then "they have to do some earth or sand bags around to protect those". Which bullshit again, as hangars were affected by airburst, with 45+ degrees angle of incoming shrapnel. So it all just quickly crafted "something", for those that follow emotions of the message, or overall message, and not read details of what is there actually.
https://x.com/wartranslated/status/1826910576733204631
IMHO "non-operational" planes in Fighterbombers comment means planes undergoing service or maintenance. Of course every plane is "non-operational" while maintenance crew is working on it. It's impossible to re-attach a dismantled part within seconds and the plane is good to go.
But nobody would park a "non-operational" plane in a shelter, which is just a broken up hull stripped for spare parts.
Once again, as far as I understand any of such operations, requiring detaching/attaching parts are only done in specialist plants. The only parts of maintenance-repair-overhaul cycle that are "normally" done in the field are equivalent of changing oil in the car. Of course war necessity could press for finding extra solutions. But airframes without engines, in hangars in the field, seriously? Taking it off requires serious machinery. Think of what is required to take off car engine, and then multiply by 100.
Secondaries are no explanation for all damage caused by 'impacts from the west' , nor all the tungsten balls found in 'hangars 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9....'.
Why NATO has that dirty habit to rename Russian equipment like SA-17 instead of Buk etc. I think it fools amateurs only but not Russian generals :)
The ASCC means Allied Standardisation and Coordination Committee. That body was created already during the Second World War and, between others, was responsible for assigning reporting names to Japanese aircraft the exact origins and type were unknown.
After the Second World War there were lots of Soviet and Chinese aircraft, and rockets, and missiles and then other stuff - designations of which were unknown. And the ASCC's coding was adopted by NATO.
...which is why such reporting names are better known as 'NATO reporting names'.
Same reason of standardising processes that Tom described so nicely. You give them standardised names so that you can put enemies into clusters to identify them (same is for example with Latin names for species). This allows you to train your personal more standardised and personal is getting faster useful.
Very good one, Tom, thanks. One note: the ferry was most likely hit by Storm Shadow, I doubt that Neptune could go that far as Kerch. And I have personal doubts that Neptune went into serial production at all. I mean, if you can get any number of Harpoons if needed, better keep production lines busy with smth more vital.
As far as I know Storm Shadow does not have a suitable warhead, mostly bunker buster. Besides this strike location would not be allowed by "providers" of those weapons.
As for Neptune, it was long ago planned for ground to ground version. It required some changes like a different navigation and a different warhead most probably.
So see no reason why it is not that one?
Range was minimum 300 km, maybe 350+.
Considering Ukraine claims Neptune hits pretty rarely, once at a month or two intervals, I think even workshop size assembly by hand can provide enough rounds. No industrial size production line needed. Basically the capability they already had just before the war. And if they had a production line, it wouldnt be that easy to switch it to something else entirely.
I doubt that they produce Neptunes now at all. Looks like there was a limited pre-war production. The missile is expensive and requires a lot of hi-tech efforts. Once again, you can get any number of Harpoons for free, then better switch efforts to UAVs.
Okay call it not Neptune, but Neptune G, if you like it. It's a different missile using same launcher. Consider it is equivalent of Kalibr, but 40% smaller. So theoretically it can reach 1000+ km, depends on a first stage booster (which most probably still undergoing evolution).
There was a long standing task to develop domestic cruise missile.
The first task was to have ground to ground capability. In the second stage air to ground was requested.
The industry responded that it is best to develop it based on Neptune, since most of the blocks are there. The first combat tests started already year ago or more. Mostly trajectory over the sea.
Developing ground navigation was a challenge. The new seeker most probably was used, firstly developed some years ago, in 3mm wave band.
All components are domestic, including engines (first and second stage), seeker, warhead, general assembly.
Do not see any reason to skip that development as it gives unique capabilities. Also considering high hit rate for all reported strikes (and there were many, just note when it says Naval Forces hit something, also ru were reporting downing some Neptuns), it seems difficult to counter.
Do you know what happened to ace one? It was advertised for its 1 ton payload, probably enough to bring down or severely damage the bridge.
https://defence-ua.com/people_and_company/ace_one_nadsuchasnij_ukrajinskij_bagatotsilovij_udarnij_stealth_bpla_opriljudneno_ogljadove_video_z_tth-3960.html
I haven't heard anything, my impression that it was on pause even before the war. I do not think it would be ready even for tests anytime soon. Also I am not sure about the project concept itself, whether it is final or would be changing over the time. I suspect that it was supposed to be subsubsonic. While what's really needed is supersonic UAV. Maybe UA in collaboration with Sweden, may speed up something like this, since lots of RnD, at least with regards to airframe, if not engine, is done already: https://www.twz.com/air/this-is-saabs-concept-for-a-supersonic-stealthy-loyal-wingman-drone
Thank you for sharing info and thoughts. I never doubted UA ability to produce a first-rate missile. My only concern was about ability/necessity of a serial production. But looks like you indeed know better. Thanx
Well, it is effective. As Kalibrs, Kh-101, or Kh-69 (which btw use one and the same engine) or Storm Shadow or RBS 15 MK4 (which also share same engine). So this is a kind of one of the key capabilities in a modern war. And starting technology is more difficult to develop then do variations and upgrades. So once you have key technologies, it is a kind of waste not to develop it further.
Had that ferry been hit by a Storm Shadow, it would've drilled all the way down to its bottom - and then blown up and sunk - because that weapon is jinking upwards and then diving on its target during the final flight phase.
However, Neptune has a flat, sea-skimming trajectory. Which is why the ferry was just set on fire.
Well, ferry eventually sank and pretty fast, actually. That's the answer. Tom, as you perfectly remember from Iran-Iraq war, the hits of ASMs seldomly led to the instant sinking of ships. Remember light Iranian frigate Sahand that took hits of 6 (!!!) missiles, including two Harpoons, but was still afloat until US Navy used guided bombs to finish it off. Same was here, one Neptune was not
enough to sink a boat. My bet it was a SS which struck the ship, set it ablazed either by hit or by engine fuel, finally making hole in the bottom.
And last but not the least: I doubt that Neptune can go that far. Beeline distance between Kherson and Kerch is 330 km. Reportedly Neptune can do 280 as ASM, and 400 in SSM mode. Theoretically in can make it, but I have many doubts since most likely SSM mode was not serial.
The ferry didn't sink fast. It was burning for an entire day before it sank.
Eventually, it sank because
a) Russian skippers are as 'concerned' for the well-being of their crews, passengers, and cargo as those of Greece or Italy,
b) Russian ship-designers have a tradition of installing damage-control centres in entirely wrong places (see Moskva... was certainly 'the best' example for wrong decisions in this regards), and
c) fire-fighting measures are piss-poor even on warships of the Russian Navy (see Moskva), not to talk about the Russian merchant navy.
Sahand survived as much damage (and as long, while losing 20 KIA) because she had a good skipper, a well-trained crew, and was designed and constructed by Vosper on basis of experiences from the WWII (all paid in blood).
And how far a Neptune can go: trust me when I say, even Ukrainians do not know. Not only because the flight-testing was never completed, but - and as the GRU and thus the Russian Navy know - the radars they use to 'aim' the system have an effective detection range of less than 80km (sorry, but 'had to' discuss that topic while preparing this one: https://www.helion.co.uk/military-history-books/war-in-ukraine-volume-7-air-war-2023.php).
But hey: that's what happens when one ignores all the combat experiences since 1945... principally 'because Gareev said' so and he was 'the greatest Russian military theoretician of our times'... :rolleyes:
....can happen to the US Navy, too: see what became of the LCS - designed on basis of 'Israeli combat experiences', which consisted of busying a US Navy officer with a lil bit of what the Israelis thought they know about the naval warfare between Iran and Iraq, and then spending much more time touring him through different night clubs of Tel Aviv...
Russians will always doubt they were beaten by Ukrainian weaponry: it makes their lives too disgusting. “Silly khokhols” are unable to produce weapons, they are able only to jump on the main square of Kyiv singing songs on strange russian dialect.
So, thats why they will deny obvious things: UA has one of best in ex-USSR production and R&D facilities for missiles production and upgrade; UA had already launched mass production of extra far range UAVs; UA works hard on tech parameters of existing models improvement etc.
So, let them think it was a SS hit: their life is already unbearable enough))
Dear Tom, thank you! Especially verbose cover ups for Marinovka AB plus actual were very useful for me.
First off something about "UPMK should be bolted somewhere to FABs", means on airfield, and that possibly hidden from eyes. Ah, so that what was that hangar struck on Morozovsk AB on 15th of June, which was argued were simply doing some parts of MRO. I was wondering then why a lot of aircrafts appear and disappeare around it on regular sat photos. Now it's clear. And probably there was some stock of UPMKs there, as I think that strike had impact on air operations for a week or so.
Then so wonderfully clear that the goals of mentioned "specialist" are to make cover ups. Which went through 3 stages: denial, shocked acceptance and downplay.
Also was wondering why are those thin metal hangars? It seems that those steel balls are a recent thing. Maybe it is connected to Olenya incident last month, for I do not remember such things mentioned before. And air burst obviously. This means more future damage to airframes, even without obvious scorch marks etc.
And then photos of empty hangars, that were full just that morning after strike, wonderfully confirms that hiding possible damage is priority number one.
Another thing that struck me is such a high "luck" at finding ammo sites full to brims very preciselly. I would not even guess aloud what it is. But I have impression it is not coincidence.
Tom, could you explain a bit the IFF situation? What systems do both sides use and how much do they rely on them? How do western SAMs and the F-16s fit into the Ukr IFF system?
What about those 2 Swedish Awacs donated to Ukraine? Are they making an impact?
They were donated - but are not yet in Ukraine. And that's going to remain that way for the rest of this year: training takes at least 12-14 months.
Huge
It explains the 3 recent striking successes !
Seems that there are now "real" gaps in the Russian air defense due to a lack of supplies and that the Russians won't be able to plug all of these holes, so the Ukrainians just have to find the current hole in the air defense and then ( relatively) have a clear path for an attack.
The problem with the SAM corridors will certainly get worse rather than better for the Russians in the next few months, right?
Also, many AD is around Moscow, St. Petesburg and Bunker Man (aka Great Coward) bunkers.
I really liked this report Tom, very informative and sounds so good for Ukraine
Outstandingly concise and informative. Thanks!
This is a very clear, logical step-by-step explanation of extemely complex military tech stuff. Bravo Tom!