johns624 wrote:

The important thing is the Russians have one fewer SU25.

And that a lack of flying skills is not always dangerous. Sometimes, it saves lives.

https://youtu.be/kS136dhUW5k

Is this confirmed? Ukaine can now launch HARMs from a different aircraft type?

A commenter under the video stated that the Ukrainian Mig 29 recognizes the HARM as an R-27EP.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

https://youtu.be/kS136dhUW5k

Is this confirmed? Ukaine can now launch HARMs from a different aircraft type?

A commenter under the video stated that the Ukrainian Mig 29 recognizes the HARM as an R-27EP.

bt

Yes. Quote:

"Somehow, Ukraine successfully fitted HARM to its MiGs, as the video clearly shows. This would have involved adding a NATO-style weapons pylon to the wings, integrating it with the plane’s electrical system, and adding some kind of physical launch button inside the cockpit. Ukrainian pilots are likely firing the missiles using Pre-Brief mode, which allows the pilot to fire the missile at maximum range against a known radar target. Pre-Brief mode is the simplest launch mode, requires the least amount of pilot training, and doesn’t rely on other NATO hardware not available on the MiG-29."

https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... hter-jets/

God, how I wish (oh, long list, but let's focus on anti-radiation) :
a) Shrikes in quantity are sitting in a warehouse somewhere
b) Shrikes are easily integrated, in a simple way, with all Ukraine planes
c) any mission could have Shrikes at will

One can dream, huh?
d) there's something to take out those A-50's and Il-80s.. .

flyingturtle wrote:

This would have involved adding a NATO-style weapons pylon to the wings, integrating it with the plane’s electrical system, and adding some kind of physical launch button inside the cockpit. Ukrainian pilots are likely firing the missiles using Pre-Brief mode,

But if one read the comment under the video there seems to be more to it.

1) Supposedly Russian pylons were designed to be able to accept some NATO standard weapons.

2) If the MIG sees the HARM as a "Russian Missile" could they some how utilize more functionality other than pre-brief mode?

bt

Phosphorus wrote:

God, how I wish (oh, long list, but let's focus on anti-radiation) :
a) Shrikes in quantity are sitting in a warehouse somewhere
b) Shrikes are easily integrated, in a simple way, with all Ukraine planes
c) any mission could have Shrikes at will

One can dream, huh?
d) there's something to take out those A-50's and Il-80s.. .

Why Shrikes? Could they actually integrate? All I know about is the HARM replaced it and it's got a cool name.

bikerthai wrote:

flyingturtle wrote:

This would have involved adding a NATO-style weapons pylon to the wings, integrating it with the plane’s electrical system, and adding some kind of physical launch button inside the cockpit. Ukrainian pilots are likely firing the missiles using Pre-Brief mode,

But if one read the comment under the video there seems to be more to it.

1) Supposedly Russian pylons were designed to be able to accept some NATO standard weapons.

2) If the MIG sees the HARM as a "Russian Missile" could they some how utilize more functionality other than pre-brief mode?

bt

If you are launching HARM under the pre-briefed mode, it means the missile was programmed on the ground to look for a specific radar at a specific location before it was installed on the aircraft. All that is needed is some sort of power source to keep the missile's electronics running, and something to ignite the launch motor and release the missile once the aircraft flies to a pre-determined location. All the pilot has to do is to navigate to a predetermined area via GPS, and then loft the missile to the target.

It's a very crude way of SEAD, but given the circumstances, and appropriate external support, it is possible. It is also done with some Western fighters that may not have full HARM integration, albeit they can probably get a higher level of integration, including being to program a new target in flight.

To be able to hunt enemy SAM's more effectively, you'll need to fully integrate the HARM missile with the aircraft's systems and sensors; there just isn't the time to modify a MiG or a Sukhoi with the appropriate systems and sensors to do so.

LyleLanley wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

God, how I wish (oh, long list, but let's focus on anti-radiation) :
a) Shrikes in quantity are sitting in a warehouse somewhere
b) Shrikes are easily integrated, in a simple way, with all Ukraine planes
c) any mission could have Shrikes at will

One can dream, huh?
d) there's something to take out those A-50's and Il-80s.. .

Why Shrikes? Could they actually integrate? All I know about is the HARM replaced it and it's got a cool name.

HARM in it's design took account of Soviet tactics against Shrike, which emerged nearly 50 years ago in the Yom Kippor War, against 1st and 2nd generation SAM systems, for the Soviets at least.
And with the US in Vietnam, where Shrike was first used but again, the opponents in time started to adapt, radar discipline being one.
In the Falklands, deployed from Vulcans, it needed a direct hit to destroy a radar, a near miss did not.
So HARM was about speed, flexibility, lethality, over Shrike.

ThePointblank wrote:

If you are launching HARM under the pre-briefed mode, it means the missile was programmed on the ground to look for a specific radar at a specific location before it was installed on the aircraft.

Understood that part. But if what the commentor is saying is true. The MIg recognizes the HARM as a soviet anti radiation, so I was wondering how much more work would it take to take that next step to have the MIG provide the initial targeting on the fly?

With open architecture computing the re-programing would be relatively easy. But with analog system it may be more complicated. But digital to analog converters, or in this case the reverse, are common. Right?

I mean, the hardware might not be truly flightworthy, but in theory you can splice an in-line converter anywhere along the wiring between the cockpit and the hardpoint.

bt

Speaking of electronic warfare;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJ8k3I7pwck

bikerthai wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

If you are launching HARM under the pre-briefed mode, it means the missile was programmed on the ground to look for a specific radar at a specific location before it was installed on the aircraft.

Understood that part. But if what the commentor is saying is true. The MIg recognizes the HARM as a soviet anti radiation, so I was wondering how much more work would it take to take that next step to have the MIG provide the initial targeting on the fly?

With open architecture computing the re-programing would be relatively easy. But with analog system it may be more complicated. But digital to analog converters, or in this case the reverse, are common. Right?

I mean, the hardware might not be truly flightworthy, but in theory you can splice an in-line converter anywhere along the wiring between the cockpit and the hardpoint.

bt

It may not be that the aircraft recognizes the missile as a Soviet anti-radiation missile, but it was told to think that the missile is one. You can fool the aircraft's computer so it handles whatever you are hanging to a broadly equivalent basis.

The R-27P is meant for targeting radar emitting aircraft, it is not meant as a sort of SEAD missile. It's a fairly dumb missile in that it homes in on the biggest radar emitter from the frontal aspect only. The Russians have another dedicated ARM missile for attacking ground-based radars; the Kh-31P, but even then, that missile is fairly limited; it must be programmed on the ground for a specific radar target.

I strongly doubt that (even the Ukrainian) MiG-29's have any means to feed Pre-Briefed targets to the HARM missile or even to directly interface with HARM missiles in order to for example use the Target-Of-Opportunity (TOO) mode or even the Self-Protect (SP) mode. Both the latter two modes require that the missile 'talk' to the launching aircraft in determining if a radar emitter is a threat, and MiG-29's don't have that ability to talk to a HARM missile like that.

Hence, the likelihood of the Ukrainians using the Pre-Briefed mode; it requires minimal input from the launching aircraft other than to fly to a certain waypoint and loft the missile at a target. The type of radar and the location of the radar is loaded into the missile on the ground, and all the missile has to do once launched is to look for that radar at the coordinates that was loaded into the missile's computer.

Assuming this is an actual picture and not photo shopped, it would appear Ukraine's SU-27 fleet has been fitted with HARM.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/u ... es-now-too

GDB wrote:

LyleLanley wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

God, how I wish (oh, long list, but let's focus on anti-radiation) :
a) Shrikes in quantity are sitting in a warehouse somewhere
b) Shrikes are easily integrated, in a simple way, with all Ukraine planes
c) any mission could have Shrikes at will

One can dream, huh?
d) there's something to take out those A-50's and Il-80s.. .

Why Shrikes? Could they actually integrate? All I know about is the HARM replaced it and it's got a cool name.

HARM in it's design took account of Soviet tactics against Shrike, which emerged nearly 50 years ago in the Yom Kippor War, against 1st and 2nd generation SAM systems, for the Soviets at least.
And with the US in Vietnam, where Shrike was first used but again, the opponents in time started to adapt, radar discipline being one.
In the Falklands, deployed from Vulcans, it needed a direct hit to destroy a radar, a near miss did not.
So HARM was about speed, flexibility, lethality, over Shrike.

Thanks for the info!

Vintage wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

spin after crossing the wake turbulence

You can see the wake turbulence effect at 39 seconds in this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3EvTEvhpIs

Watch his exhaust trail. That was long before the stall.

I see a damaged wing in that video.(arrowed at 1min14sec). Loss of lift leads to damaged wing dropping? If the aileron was damaged, little chance of correcting at low airspeed?

art wrote:

Vintage wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

spin after crossing the wake turbulence

You can see the wake turbulence effect at 39 seconds in this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3EvTEvhpIs

Watch his exhaust trail. That was long before the stall.

I see a damaged wing in that video.(arrowed at 1min14sec). Loss of lift leads to damaged wing dropping? If the aileron was damaged, little chance of correcting at low airspeed?

I doubt that is a damaged wing, it looks like the same thing that is hanging off the right wing and breakdown of pixelation. If an outboard part of the wing had broken off, it would have gone up, not down, and the next frame would have shown the piece apart from the plane.

This a case of a pilot banking an aircraft and pulling Gs while it was already on the cusp of a stall. (If a plane goes into a 45° bank, it loses half its lift; when the stall occurs it will be the lower wing that stalls, because it is the one that is traveling slower in a turn).

Classic stall/spin IMO

First pictures and a video of the new HARM launch rail for Ukraine:

https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/15 ... T4BTQ&s=19

Basically, a standard LAU-118/A launcher, attached to a new pylon specifically made for the Ukrainians.

Now all you Need is embedding a "translator" in the new pylon ro allow the aircraft system to talk to the missile. Easier than trying to splice something to existing wiring.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

Now all you Need is embedding a "translator" in the new pylon ro allow the aircraft system to talk to the missile. Easier than trying to splice something to existing wiring.

I don't know, but maybe there exists a separate "add-on" unit which can be wired into the cockpit (mostly just for power supply and with its own simple UI) without needing deep integration with the airframe's own systems for semi-basic operation a bit above just "push to fire".

Klaus wrote:

without needing deep integration with the airframe's own systems for semi-basic operation a bit above just "push to fire".

Without going wireless, then you will need to get into the wire harness of the aircraft. That gets messy. Trying to replace the stores management unit (fire control) would be time consuming and you'll be lucky getting parts.

I've read that the plane recognizes the HARM as a soviet missile, so it is safe to assume they retain the existing fire control unit and all the wiring up to the wing pylon.

From there, there would not be much work to interface with the missile in the pre-program mode.

My question is can they add a translator in the pylon to simulate the Soviet missile and at least covert the commands that may be common to both.

Power would not be a problem if ship power is already ported to the pylon. They can use battery (replaced when needed) if there isn't a power source.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

Klaus wrote:

without needing deep integration with the airframe's own systems for semi-basic operation a bit above just "push to fire".

Without going wireless, then you will need to get into the wire harness of the aircraft. That gets messy. Trying to replace the stores management unit (fire control) would be time consuming and you'll be lucky getting parts.

I've read that the plane recognizes the HARM as a soviet missile, so it is safe to assume they retain the existing fire control unit and all the wiring up to the wing pylon.

From there, there would not be much work to interface with the missile in the pre-program mode.

My question is can they add a translator in the pylon to simulate the Soviet missile and at least covert the commands that may be common to both.

Power would not be a problem if ship power is already ported to the pylon. They can use battery (replaced when needed) if there isn't a power source.

bt

Not likely. It appears very likely that the Ukrainians are using the missiles in the pre-briefed mode, which would allow the Ukrainians to lob the missiles at a fairly long range without risking the aircraft too much. It's the simplest and easiest way of integration, which does not require many modifications to the aircraft, and keeps the risk to the launch aircraft low because all they have to do is to fly to a set waypoint via GPS below radar coverage, pop up, launch, and then dive for the deck again to evade detection and retaliation.

All other modes require some integration with the aircraft's ESM suite and other sensors; even then, many Western fighters may not be able to use HARM because they lack the hardware to effectively use the missile. They may be able to carry the missile and launch it, but cueing it would require data from better equipped aircraft such as Wild Weasel or RC-135's.

Vintage wrote:

art wrote:

Vintage wrote:

You can see the wake turbulence effect at 39 seconds in this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3EvTEvhpIs

Watch his exhaust trail. That was long before the stall.

I see a damaged wing in that video.(arrowed at 1min14sec). Loss of lift leads to damaged wing dropping? If the aileron was damaged, little chance of correcting at low airspeed?

I doubt that is a damaged wing, it looks like the same thing that is hanging off the right wing and breakdown of pixelation. If an outboard part of the wing had broken off, it would have gone up, not down, and the next frame would have shown the piece apart from the plane.

This a case of a pilot banking an aircraft and pulling Gs while it was already on the cusp of a stall. (If a plane goes into a 45° bank, it loses half its lift; when the stall occurs it will be the lower wing that stalls, because it is the one that is traveling slower in a turn).

Classic stall/spin IMO

I'm inclined to agree with this speculation. I don't think any wing tip damage if any was the cause. Both Frogs were VERY heavy and obviously struggling to climb. I'd rule out an engine issue as there is no loss of the Trademark Russian Black Trails. I think he was slow, pulled too hard, left wing stalled, goodnight. Pilot error all day long......

glideslope wrote:

Vintage wrote:

art wrote:

I see a damaged wing in that video.(arrowed at 1min14sec). Loss of lift leads to damaged wing dropping? If the aileron was damaged, little chance of correcting at low airspeed?

I doubt that is a damaged wing, it looks like the same thing that is hanging off the right wing and breakdown of pixelation. If an outboard part of the wing had broken off, it would have gone up, not down, and the next frame would have shown the piece apart from the plane.

This a case of a pilot banking an aircraft and pulling Gs while it was already on the cusp of a stall. (If a plane goes into a 45° bank, it loses half its lift; when the stall occurs it will be the lower wing that stalls, because it is the one that is traveling slower in a turn).

Classic stall/spin IMO

I'm inclined to agree with this speculation. I don't think any wing tip damage if any was the cause. Both Frogs were VERY heavy and obviously struggling to climb. I'd rule out an engine issue as there is no loss of the Trademark Russian Black Trails. I think he was slow, pulled too hard, left wing stalled, goodnight. Pilot error all day long......

And I would put some of that blame on the flight leader, the pilot of the #1 plane, who surely was the senior pilot and possibly very senior pilot. He probably set the stage with a macho attitude and would have lambasted his junior wingman if he couldn't keep up in the takeoff turn. It became a test of manhood. #1 was flying at max performance or close to it (he turned even before reaching the end of the runway) there was no margin for error: there was also no reason for that departure profile.

ThePointblank wrote:

All other modes require some integration with the aircraft's ESM suite and other sensors; even then, many Western fighters may not be able to use HARM because they lack the hardware to effectively use the missile.

Or they are unwilling to lay out the money to develop a robust solution.

Let assume for this instance the MIG has some form of ESM suite. I'm incline to believe that the folks at LM Skunk Works can figure a way to take the MIG ESM data and run it through an emulator then spit it out as data the HARM can use. Even if it's not full functionality, something like programing the target GPS location on the fly or an initial vector heading would cut an enormous amount of reaction time.

But just speculations . . .


bt

Vintage wrote:

And I would put some of that blame on the flight leader, the pilot of the #1 plane, who surely was the senior pilot and possibly very senior pilot. He probably set the stage with a macho attitude and would have lambasted his junior wingman if he couldn't keep up in the takeoff turn. It became a test of manhood. #1 was flying at max performance or close to it (he turned even before reaching the end of the runway) there was no margin for error: there was also no reason for that departure profile.

In light of these sweeping judgments and personal swipes against lead, I wonder: what is your aviation background and experience? Do you have any background or experience in military/fighter aviation?

LyleLanley wrote:

Vintage wrote:

And I would put some of that blame on the flight leader, the pilot of the #1 plane, who surely was the senior pilot and possibly very senior pilot. He probably set the stage with a macho attitude and would have lambasted his junior wingman if he couldn't keep up in the takeoff turn. It became a test of manhood. #1 was flying at max performance or close to it (he turned even before reaching the end of the runway) there was no margin for error: there was also no reason for that departure profile.

In light of these sweeping judgments and personal swipes against lead, I wonder: what is your aviation background and experience? Do you have any background or experience in military/fighter aviation?

How about you Lyle, I've been wondering if you're a pilot.

Lyle is KC-10 flight crew IIRC?

Newark727 wrote:

Lyle is KC-10 flight crew IIRC?

Boom operator.
An honorable profession no doubt.

bikerthai wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

All other modes require some integration with the aircraft's ESM suite and other sensors; even then, many Western fighters may not be able to use HARM because they lack the hardware to effectively use the missile.

Or they are unwilling to lay out the money to develop a robust solution.

Let assume for this instance the MIG has some form of ESM suite. I'm incline to believe that the folks at LM Skunk Works can figure a way to take the MIG ESM data and run it through an emulator then spit it out as data the HARM can use. Even if it's not full functionality, something like programing the target GPS location on the fly or an initial vector heading would cut an enormous amount of reaction time.

But just speculations . . .


bt

The installed ESM gear onboard the Ukrainian MiG's and Sukhoi's may not even have the ability to locate threats, only identify the threat, and the approximate bearing, which isn't that useful. I believe the most advanced Russian gear only has displays in the cockpit that indicate approximate bearing by lighting up a series of lights, showing the threat is at the front, back, left or right, and if the emitter is above or below you or some combination thereof.

In contrast, the AN/ALR-67 RWR onboard the F/A-18 Hornet has the ability to identify, classify, and geolocate threats, pin them down to a specific coordinate via GPS, and display it all on one of the aircraft's multi-function displays. This can be fed to the HARM missile's systems so the aircraft can take advantage of the Self-Protection (SP) engagement mode available to engage a pop up threat that threatening the aircraft.

The last method of using the HARM is the Target of Opportunity (TOO) mode; this requires that the missile and the aircraft's systems be able to fully talk to each other as you are using the missile's onboard sensor to display on a display inside the cockpit a boresight view from the HARM seeker. On the display, it would show what type of radar the missile sees, and will allow the pilot to select the target before launching the missile at the specific radar the HARM missile sees.

ThePointblank wrote:

All other modes require some integration with the aircraft's ESM suite and other sensors; even then, many Western fighters may not be able to use HARM because they lack the hardware to effectively use the missile. They may be able to carry the missile and launch it, but cueing it would require data from better equipped aircraft such as Wild Weasel or RC-135's.

There is pretty much continuous coverage of the battle field by numerous NATO signal intelligence planes. Could these not guide the missile to the target? It would avoid the need to redesign and modify the missiles and aircraft. Just a relatively easy pylon redesign to make the missile fit on the MiG.

The Ukrainian Air Force only has to carry the missile into the target area and release it from the fighter when NATO tells him to do so. From there NATO can continue "providing intelligence" like they have been doing since well before the war escalated.

petertenthije wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

All other modes require some integration with the aircraft's ESM suite and other sensors; even then, many Western fighters may not be able to use HARM because they lack the hardware to effectively use the missile. They may be able to carry the missile and launch it, but cueing it would require data from better equipped aircraft such as Wild Weasel or RC-135's.

There is pretty much continuous coverage of the battle field by numerous NATO signal intelligence planes. Could these not guide the missile to the target? It would avoid the need to redesign and modify the missiles and aircraft. Just a relatively easy pylon redesign to make the missile fit on the MiG.

The Ukrainian Air Force only has to carry the missile into the target area and release it from the fighter when NATO tells him to do so. From there NATO can continue "providing intelligence" like they have been doing since well before the war escalated.

They would need a direct data link to the SIGINT aircraft flying around, plus full integration of the missile to the avionics of the launching aircraft.

The only other way is for the NATO SIGINT aircraft to fly around, geolocating and classifying radar emissions; they will then pass off the coordinates and types of radars detected into something that can be passed along to the Ukrainians on the ground, who can then program the HARM missiles with the location of the radar, and the type of radar detected, and then execute the attack.

To truly take advantage of the full envelope of the HARM missile's capability will require additional hardware that is only found on Wild Weasel's and EW strike aircraft, like the F-16CJ's, the EA-18G's, or the Tornado ECR's. The F-16CJ's require an additional mission computer plus the AN/ASQ-213 pod to effectively hunt enemy radars on its own, while the EA-18G and Tornado ECR's have that capability built in or carries the targeting equipment in pods.

petertenthije wrote:

There is pretty much continuous coverage of the battle field by numerous NATO signal intelligence planes. Could these not guide the missile to the target?

I don't think that is how it works technically, but it would also undoubtedly make NATO an active party in the ukrainian war which we currently still try to avoid!

This would also make the observing NATO aircraft justified targets for russian attacks, a red line Putin is not ready to cross as it is now.

I would much prefer if Ukraine could throw the russians out on their own (with our strong, but still non-combative support), but if Putin did escalate I personally would be in favour of measured involvement of NATO if this was the only way to push Putin back.

But we're not there yet, and I'd hope it will never come to this!

Vintage wrote:

Newark727 wrote:

Lyle is KC-10 flight crew IIRC?

Boom operator.
An honorable profession no doubt.

I wouldn’t go that far, but after 5500 hours as a trunk monkey on KC-10s, a few hundred now on KC-46s, a whopping 6-ish hours as breathing ballast in F-15s and T-38s, about 200 hours as a PPL and an in-progress instrument rating, I know more than when I started. And know enough to not pass sweeping personal judgments against a pilot for his wingman’s screw up.

How about you?

Ok, so you're not a pilot.
I am.

From the beginning of this conversation I thought that you were arguing about things that you didn't really understand.
You should confine disrespectful and abusive comments to subjects you actually know about.
If you feel a need to spew disrespectful and abusive comments.

Vintage wrote:

Ok, so you're not a pilot.
I am.

From the beginning of this conversation I thought that you were arguing about things that you didn't really understand.
You should confine disrespectful and abusive comments to subjects you actually know about.
If you feel a need to spew disrespectful and abusive comments.

Ummm, he did say he was a pilot. Not a jet pilot but a pilot nonetheless.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

Ummm, he did say he was a pilot. Not a jet pilot but a pilot nonetheless.

Tugg

Reading comprehension seems to be a consistent issue with him. That and target fixation. And projection.

Vintage wrote:

glideslope wrote:

Vintage wrote:

I doubt that is a damaged wing, it looks like the same thing that is hanging off the right wing and breakdown of pixelation. If an outboard part of the wing had broken off, it would have gone up, not down, and the next frame would have shown the piece apart from the plane.

This a case of a pilot banking an aircraft and pulling Gs while it was already on the cusp of a stall. (If a plane goes into a 45° bank, it loses half its lift; when the stall occurs it will be the lower wing that stalls, because it is the one that is traveling slower in a turn).

Classic stall/spin IMO

I'm inclined to agree with this speculation. I don't think any wing tip damage if any was the cause. Both Frogs were VERY heavy and obviously struggling to climb. I'd rule out an engine issue as there is no loss of the Trademark Russian Black Trails. I think he was slow, pulled too hard, left wing stalled, goodnight. Pilot error all day long......

And I would put some of that blame on the flight leader, the pilot of the #1 plane, who surely was the senior pilot and possibly very senior pilot. He probably set the stage with a macho attitude and would have lambasted his junior wingman if he couldn't keep up in the takeoff turn. It became a test of manhood. #1 was flying at max performance or close to it (he turned even before reaching the end of the runway) there was no margin for error: there was also no reason for that departure profile.

I had another look at the frozen frame in the video and I agree that the image gives the illusion of wingtip damage.. I go along with the view that the pilot 's intemperate actions provoked a stall with tragic results. RIP.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3EvTEvhpIs

The poster of this you tube shows the clipped wing later in the clip. Is that then an illusion? Tough luck but the you tuber said its the 21st SU 25 done in Ukraine war.

Just circling back to that Russian aircraft downing during the recent offensive. There was some debate as to if it was an air-air kill.

In this video, it is confirmed that it was a manpad kill. Several were launched one hit. Ref 1 min 45 in.

https://youtu.be/ZdEUicDjuhQ

bt

bikerthai wrote:

Just circling back to that Russian aircraft downing during the recent offensive. There was some debate as to if it was an air-air kill.

In this video, it is confirmed that it was a manpad kill. Several were launched one hit. Ref 1 min 45 in.

https://youtu.be/ZdEUicDjuhQ

bt

Looks like an Igla, the 9K38/SA18 variant.

Looking at this Ka-52 getting shot down this week: https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/15 ... 4720998404
I am impressed regularly by the footage quality some of these manpad kills get. Quite often, the Ukrainian forces seem to detect and track enemy aircraft fairly early, which enables them to capture drone footage (like here) or decent smartphone footage (like the Su-25 previously) in addition to placing MANPADS at just the right spot.

Fresh today, Su-34 or SU-30 getting shot down by manpads near Kharkiv while being filmed from a drone. https://nitter.net/Osinttechnical/statu ... 0809466883? (caution: background music)
Two parachutes visible; 4 seconds from the hit to ejection, 5 seconds from ejection to crash.

Loitering munition / cruise missile - believed to be a Shahed-136 - shot down by air defence systems near Odessa: https://nitter.net/Osinttechnical/statu ... 0920396801
If you ever wondered what a hit from a 'proper' SAM looked like.

Some others of the same attack made it through, however. It is, after all, designed for swarm attacks. https://nitter.net/Osinttechnical/statu ... 5170880513
Damage still unclear.

mxaxai wrote:

Loitering munition / cruise missile - believed to be a Shahed-136 - shot down by air defence systems near Odessa: https://nitter.net/Osinttechnical/statu ... 0920396801
If you ever wondered what a hit from a 'proper' SAM looked like.

Some others of the same attack made it through, however. It is, after all, designed for swarm attacks. https://nitter.net/Osinttechnical/statu ... 5170880513
Damage still unclear.

Iranian ambassador shown the door for this:
https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-iran-am ... 48567.html

Trying to assess what was by any standards, a black day for Russian military aviation;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzNo63HUCo0

Just a small dose of humour in a very serious subject...I was reminded of it a couple days ago when a Russian aerial display team fighter was shown over Moscow on the homepage. This war has brought into focus a line that I remember from the movie "The Dirty Dozen". A fake general was inspecting some dressed up airborne troops and turned and looked at their commander and asked "very pretty, but can they fight?". That's what I think of when I see a Sukhoi now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJJHSsLhE24

Not many details and thus not known if related to the invasion, but it seems a miltary aircraft skidded off the runway at Belbek airfield in Crimea. It's unknown what aircraft it was, but the Russians reported that the pilot survived.

https://www.aviation24.be/miscellaneous/accidents/a-russian-military-plane-loaded-with-ammunition-skids-off-runway-at-belbek-crimea-and-catches-fire/

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/285879

Another Su-34 in the books!

LyleLanley wrote:

Vintage wrote:

And I would put some of that blame on the flight leader, the pilot of the #1 plane, who surely was the senior pilot and possibly very senior pilot. He probably set the stage with a macho attitude and would have lambasted his junior wingman if he couldn't keep up in the takeoff turn. It became a test of manhood. #1 was flying at max performance or close to it (he turned even before reaching the end of the runway) there was no margin for error: there was also no reason for that departure profile.

In light of these sweeping judgments and personal swipes against lead, I wonder: what is your aviation background and experience? Do you have any background or experience in military/fighter aviation?

With 1200 hours in fighters, I’ll ask the same question— your experience to make these rather sweeping judgments. How many form take-offs, join-ups out of traffic? A-10s, we’d do these departure 2-3 sorties when deployed as lead or wingee.

penguins wrote:

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/285879

Another Su-34 in the books!

I'd say in the ground, rather than in the books... unless it crashed into a library.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

With 1200 hours in fighters, I’ll ask the same question— your experience to make these rather sweeping judgments. How many form take-offs, join-ups out of traffic? A-10s, we’d do these departure 2-3 sorties when deployed as lead or wingee.

So was that 1200 in the Hun and non-fighter time in the Hog?

Nothing but love, really: I’d give anything to fly a Hawg. Although there was a lot of joshing, no one came close to the amount of action the Hawg guys got. That’s a community that has earned every ounce of respect. Great dudes and dudettes.