3 ms·

Shoot down the planes before they drop them. Commentary on this recent trend usually attributes it to weak Ukrainian air defences, for example in this article:

by twic 2y ago

Shoot down the planes before they drop them. Commentary on this recent trend usually attributes it to weak Ukrainian air defences, for example in this article: > Russia’s air force appears to have been a key player in turning the tide of the war in the Kremlin’s favour in recent months at a time when Ukraine’s air defences are at a low ebb. But also: > The Ukrainian analysts write: “Russia uses UMPC bombs primarily to hit its targets in frontline areas, minimising the possibility of its own aircraft being hit by Ukrainian air defences. In just one week, from 26 February to 3 March, Russia used more than 500 [guided aerial bombs with a mounted UMPC]”.

NovemberWhiskey 2y ago
Right; the effective engagement range of the UMPK system from high altitude/speed is enough to keep aircraft out of the range of medium/short range SAM system (SA-11/SA-8 types) and it seems clear that Ukraine doesn't have enough of the long-range system (SA-10 type) to provide sufficient coverage.
amenhotep 2y ago
The whole point of glide bombs is that you can drop them further away from the air defence bubble - if you're not worried about air defence you just bring your planes in close and dump bombs directly on the enemies' heads! They're a reaction to a strong air defence, not a tactic enabled by a weak one. I do think you're right that the counter is to shoot down the planes dropping them, but my understanding is that the way you'd do that is with fighters, not GBAD. If Ukraine had stealth fighters with Meteors patrolling close to the frontlines then the bomb missions would be very dangerous. If they do not have any fighters at all then they are cakewalks, barring Patriot stuntwork. If they have an exhaustible supply of F-16s with AMRAAMs then it is difficult to predict.
- NovemberWhiskey 2y ago
  >They're a reaction to a strong air defence, not a tactic enabled by a weak one. The lack of an effective fighter component in the integrated air-defense system is a problem though, no?
  - amenhotep 2y ago
    Yeah, a big one, but it's a lack where specificity is important, I think. Ukraine's GBAD situation is deteriorating, so one of the things they agitate for a lot is more GBAD aid. Coupled with articles like this one might think that if the west threw a dozen more Patriot batteries at them, UMPK barrages would cease to be a problem. And it would help, but the Russians started working on UMPK in response to an environment where well stocked and widely distributed S300 coverage meant their aviation had trouble operating in close. They are hard to counter.
- twic 2y ago
  Those glide bombs have a range of about 40 miles. If a target has good air defence with a range of more than 40 miles, it's safe, and if it doesn't, it's not. Air defences with that sort of range include, first and foremost, fighters, and also long-range SAMs like Patriot, SAMP/T, and S-300. Ukraine used to have stuff like that, and so wasn't getting glide-bombed, but now doesn't, so it is. If their air defence was even weaker, yes, the Russians could just gravity bomb them. But they haven't reached that point yet.

by twic 2y ago

NovemberWhiskey 2y ago

Right; the effective engagement range of the UMPK system from high altitude/speed is enough to keep aircraft out of the range of medium/short range SAM system (SA-11/SA-8 types) and it seems clear that Ukraine doesn't have enough of the long-range system (SA-10 type) to provide sufficient coverage.

amenhotep 2y ago

The whole point of glide bombs is that you can drop them further away from the air defence bubble - if you're not worried about air defence you just bring your planes in close and dump bombs directly on the enemies' heads! They're a reaction to a strong air defence, not a tactic enabled by a weak one. I do think you're right that the counter is to shoot down the planes dropping them, but my understanding is that the way you'd do that is with fighters, not GBAD. If Ukraine had stealth fighters with Meteors patrolling close to the frontlines then the bomb missions would be very dangerous. If they do not have any fighters at all then they are cakewalks, barring Patriot stuntwork. If they have an exhaustible supply of F-16s with AMRAAMs then it is difficult to predict.

NovemberWhiskey 2y ago
>They're a reaction to a strong air defence, not a tactic enabled by a weak one. The lack of an effective fighter component in the integrated air-defense system is a problem though, no?
- amenhotep 2y ago
  Yeah, a big one, but it's a lack where specificity is important, I think. Ukraine's GBAD situation is deteriorating, so one of the things they agitate for a lot is more GBAD aid. Coupled with articles like this one might think that if the west threw a dozen more Patriot batteries at them, UMPK barrages would cease to be a problem. And it would help, but the Russians started working on UMPK in response to an environment where well stocked and widely distributed S300 coverage meant their aviation had trouble operating in close. They are hard to counter.
twic 2y ago
Those glide bombs have a range of about 40 miles. If a target has good air defence with a range of more than 40 miles, it's safe, and if it doesn't, it's not. Air defences with that sort of range include, first and foremost, fighters, and also long-range SAMs like Patriot, SAMP/T, and S-300. Ukraine used to have stuff like that, and so wasn't getting glide-bombed, but now doesn't, so it is. If their air defence was even weaker, yes, the Russians could just gravity bomb them. But they haven't reached that point yet.