They probably got help from India and Israel. India has been integrating western weapons onto its Russian airframes for three decades now. Indian Su-30MKI often use MICA missiles from France. And Israel is the world’s leaders for modernizing Soviet aircraft and adding western avionics to them.
I hadn’t thought of those countries. I need to look at that more closely. I had thought of Poland mostly just because they literally had to do the same thing. Integrate Soviet and NATO munitions.
1 Like
The truth is that Soviet equipment is still good stuff at its core. It’s a bit out of a date but the Ukrainians have proven it can still deal damage on a modern battlefield with the right upgrades to it.
For all the acclaim the Patriots have gotten it’s been the old Soviet S300s that have essentially shut down the air war.
True. But to go back to India integrating French missiles on an SU-30…Impressive. But I imagine it’s easier making that work with a plane built this century as opposed to a MiG or Sukhoi made in the 1980s. Not belittling what India and Israel do, but damn. to fire HARMS I think the MiG-29s had to integrate GPS using phones. So I can’t really imagine how they’re pulling all this ■■■■ off. How do you take an Su-24, and get it to attach, launch and hit ■■■■■■■ naval vessels in Sevastopol? I am in awe of that ingenuity.
A lot of it goes back to Soviet design philosophy. Soviet designs, starting in the early 70s, were designed with mostly open end avionics buses similar to the American and French counterparts. It allows for creative workarounds to add features to the planes they never originally included.
A lot of it comes back to nuclear war and what the Soviets imagined it would be like. Unlike us in the west who considered nuclear war to be the end of everything, the Soviets saw it as just the beginning of hostilities. They designed their equipment not only to fight such a war, but to also be upgradable in the aftermath for the post nuclear war hostilities.
It’s really robust equipment for the most part. American stuff tends to be better on the individual weapon level, but as a system I’ve always thought Soviet stuff was really innovative and good. It was designed using an entirely different thought process. Durability, ease of use, and the ability to be easily expanded in the future tends to define Soviet equipment of the 70s and 80s.
As for the Fencer in particular, it was designed on similar principles to the Aardvark. I’m sure the Ukeranians found a way to trick the plane into recognizing the HARMs as some sort of other missile. The Soviets deployed anti-radiation missiles as well. It’s avionics may be treating our HARM like it’s the Russian equivalent.
1 Like
That’s fascinating and makes a lot of sense. I remember reading that the Soviets had designated teams that could go into a taken NATO airbase and make it a Soviet airbase in hours because they made sure the equipment they had could use leftover NATO oil/gas/supplies/refueling equipment… After the NATO soldiers were dead or fled. 
But I always thought of that as logistics and not so much the actual armaments.
The Soviets believed in the philosophy to “waste nothing and use everything.” They learned that fighting the Germans in World War II.
The battle plan for invading Europe depended on them capturing our own airbases. That’s why they were such fans of chemical weapons. Kill the personnel and leave the equipment intact to use.
Well this has been interesting. Thanks RedComet.
2 Likes
Oh but I wanted to mention one other thing that you brought up which seems very accurate about Soviet military equipment:
“It’s really robust equipment for the most part. American stuff tends to be better on the individual weapon level, but as a system I’ve always thought Soviet stuff was really innovative and good. It was designed using an entirely different thought process. Durability, ease of use, and the ability to be easily expanded in the future tends to define Soviet equipment of the 70s and 80s.”
It’s one of those things that I think people don’t understand. Western military equipment is the best, but it is difficult to maintain. It’s why Ukraine still has an air force. The Mig-29s and Su-27s and 24s and 25s are still flying. Cause they can fly anywhere. And F-16s(once the pilots are trained and I am of the opinion that we’ve actually been training them for far longer than was reported) need so much time to make sure the airfields are ready for them. By the way I think we’ll hear about F-16s operating in Ukraine well before anyone thinks they will. Same with every other important system we’ve given Ukraine. We didn’t acknowledge ATACMS till after they were used. Same with HARMs and cruise missiles. I expect the glide bombs will be reported well after they started using them too. Which is a good thing.
Pissing away more in the Ukraine than the entire budget of the USMC?
NIce.
3 Likes
1 Like
The senate passed 95 billion dollar aid package for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan.
They don’t want to hear from the people they represent.
1 Like
And if the people who sent them there do not think they were represented then they will not be reelected. This is how the system works.
Biden big speech about NATO…
1 Like
The Biden admin rejected the peace deal Ukraine and Russia was working on.
Wiping out an entire generation of young ukrainians. All they were saying was give peace a chance…
5 Likes
Here is another link to the Reuters story.
Ukraine entered the war with 700,000 soldiers and has been pulling men off the streets since then, but the Washington Post says Ukraine has an acute shortage of soldiers:
Zaluzhny told Zelensky that Ukraine needs nearly 500,000 new troops, according to two people familiar with the matter, but the president has pushed back on that figure privately and publicly. Zelensky has said he wants more justification from Ukraine’s military leadership about why so many conscripts are needed and has also expressed concern about how Kyiv would pay them . . .Oleksandr, a battalion commander, said the companies in his unit on average are staffed at about 35 percent of what they should be. A second battalion commander from an assault brigade said that is typical for units that carry out combat tasks.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/02/08/ukraine-soldiers-shortage-infantry-russia/
Link without paywall:
What happened to all the Ukrainian soldiers?
That link literally says 250k soldiers. You added the other 450 because it said citizen soldiers?
Oh and Ukraine is clearly losing soldiers and fast.
Why not just stick to that reality of that? Why the need to above and beyond?
