"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (9 Viewers)

[Admiral Beez]

Today I came across some experiences of Indian Air Force (InAF) with MiG-29 that suggest otherwise.

But the intake is over the fuselage. India must be kicking up a lot of dust for this to be relevant.

Perhaps the Indian MiG-29 does not have the intake bypass. I believe their naval ones do not.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

We've seen how well Russia trains it's troops. I don't imagine Ukraine is concerned about that.

I honestly believe that Ukraine is just holding the door hard enough to keep the Russians occupied while they are preparing to hit Russia hard.

If you look at the current front lines, Russia's ass is dangling in several places that are ripe for an encirclement and it seems to me that if Russia does a "push" in any of those areas, Ukraine will blitzkrieg them, hard.

In October Russia was throwing them in straight from the "recruiter's" office to stop the retreating. But with this longer pause and with it known that a couple tens of thousands of the conscripts are training in Belarus, the Ukrainians are concerned, concerned enough about a resumption of the drive on Kyiv to make mention of it and keep forces in place.

I agree that Ukraine is husbanding forces for a counterstroke. I think the Russians are doing the same thing. Who jumps off first, and who attacks the critical ground, will make the difference.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

But the intake is over the fuselage. India must be kicking up a lot of dust for this to be relevant.

View attachment 704985

Perhaps the Indian MiG-29 does not have the intake bypass. I believe their naval ones do not.

Those are alternate inlets. The main inlets are obvious, huge, and low:

Forgive the Wiki:

The engines are fed through intake ramps fitted under the leading-edge extensions (LERXs), which have variable ramps to allow high-Mach speeds. Due to their relatively short combustor, the engines produce noticeably heavier smoke than their contemporaries. As an adaptation to rough-field operations, the main air inlet can be closed completely and the auxiliary air inlet on the upper fuselage can be used for takeoff, landing and low-altitude flying, preventing ingestion of ground debris.

 

[cammerjeff]

Yet they seem unable to empower any winners. For all its population and resources, only the Stalinist USSR seems to have sat astride the world stage. All other regimes in that nation have struggled with simple matters like competency and efficiency. And we see what that ended up in. It's perhaps the biggest failed nation/state in history, and soon, I fear, to add another chapter to its dolorous history, once Putin falls as a result of this cruel idiocy.

Thump, I don't know how much Stalinist sat out of the world stage, more like the west did not pay attention to what it was doing in the 1930's. In the 1930's alone the USSR invaded Finland, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia. And after taking over Belarus & Ukraine earlier, they leveraged Hungary, Romania, & Bulgaria into ceding territory or be invaded? I don't consider that sitting out of events.

I was surprised to learn about all the wars that took place in eastern Europe after WWI was "Over"? I know I did not learn about it in history class in the School.

 

[RogerdeLluria]

But the intake is over the fuselage. India must be kicking up a lot of dust for this to be relevant.

Perhaps the Indian MiG-29 does not have the intake bypass. I believe their naval ones do not.

Those are the auxiliary ones for take-off, Mig-29 can't go supersonic with those. The main intakes are below the fuselage siting very close to the ground and behind the front wheel.
During take-off the main intakes are closed with FOD doors, and the auxiliary ones are used. This in theory avoids the ingestion of debris during take-off. However:
Since the doors retracted "up" into the inlet, debris that was kicked up by the nose wheel lodged on or at the bottom of the door seal and then was ingested into the engine when the door opened during the nose gear lifted off the ground during takeoff.

 

[RogerdeLluria]

Su-27 has intake grilles, instead. After take-off the grille is lowered.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Those are alternate inlets. The main inlets are obvious, huge, and low:

I understand, and this is an advantage over the F-16 in rough ops.

This in theory avoids the ingestion of debris during take-off. However:
Since the doors retracted "up" into the inlet, debris that was kicked up by the nose wheel lodged on or at the bottom of the door seal and then was ingested into the engine when the door opened during the nose gear lifted off the ground during takeoff.

Now I get it. Thanks. What they needed was a way for air to flow along the door's outer edge, thus clearing debris.

 

[WAFU]

Nothing magical about operating fast jets from austere locations, its a function of the amount of minor damage you are happy to endure and the tyres.
RAF jets such as Tornado and Typhoon can and do operate from roads and could use a rough field if required.

 

[WARSPITER]

If the F-16 can survive the red dust in the North of Australia (think talcum powder ground to a finer level) on roads or even prepared strips
then it's tough enough for anywhere else. When that dust gets wet it can be a nice abrasive too.

 

[RogerdeLluria]

I understand, and this is an advantage over the F-16 in rough ops.

Not necessarily:
1- Both, Mig-29 and Su-27 have the front wheel in front of the intakes, throwing debris up during take-off. F-16 has the wheel behind the intake.
2- Russian engines, at least early ones, had very low tolerance to debris ingestion compared to western ones.
For the russians those intake systems where a must.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I understand, and this is an advantage over the F-16 in rough ops.

Sure, but I was looking at some info on Ukrainian air facilities, and they have around 35 airfields with paved runways over 2000 meters long. Of course some of those will have been hit, but rendering a runway unusable is quite difficult and usually requires a specialized penetrator warhead.

If dispersal is required, the F-16 is quite capable of taking off from highways, given a long-enough straightaway.

Further to that, the Russians seem to be focused on the energy grid, rather than airfields.

In other words, what advantage the Fulcrum has in inlet design doesn't strike me as very important when compared to the avionics, range and operational conditions in place for the Viper.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Thump, I don't know how much Stalinist sat out of the world stage, more like the west did not pay attention to what it was doing in the 1930's. In the 1930's alone the USSR invaded Finland, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia. And after taking over Belarus & Ukraine earlier, they leveraged Hungary, Romania, & Bulgaria into ceding territory or be invaded? I don't consider that sitting out of events.

I was surprised to learn about all the wars that took place in eastern Europe after WWI was "Over"? I know I did not learn about it in history class in the School.

I wrote "sat astride", not "sat out" -- meaning spanning the world's stage, making a big impact, and so on. That's why I singled out the Stalin era as the one exception to my observation above.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I agree that Ukraine is husbanding forces for a counterstroke. I think the Russians are doing the same thing. Who jumps off first, and who attacks the critical ground, will make the difference.

Further to this musing:

Ukrainian officials continue to support ISW's assessment that an imminent Russian offensive in the coming months is the most likely course of action (MLCOA) and further suggested that Ukrainian forces plan to launch a larger counteroffensive. Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council Secretary Oleksiy Danilov stated in a January 31 interview with Sky News that Russian forces are preparing for a "maximum escalation" in Ukraine within the next two to three months and may do so as soon as the next two to three weeks to coincide with the first anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.[20] Ukrainian Main Military Intelligence Directorate (GUR) Head Kyrylo Budanov stated in a January 31 interview with the Washington Post that Russian forces will focus on occupying a larger area of Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts, supporting ISW's assessment that Russian forces appear to be preparing for an imminent offensive in eastern Ukraine, particularly in Luhansk Oblast.[21] Budanov stated that there are currently 326,000 Russian forces fighting in Ukraine, excluding the roughly 150,000 mobilized personnel still in training grounds that Russian forces have reportedly not yet committed to hostilities.[22] The Russian military will likely continue to accumulate conventional forces in Luhansk Oblast and increase the deployment of remaining mobilized personnel to eastern Ukraine in support of an imminent decisive strategic effort in western Luhansk Oblast.[23] Danilov suggested that Ukrainian forces have their own plans for operations in the coming months, and Budanov stated that Ukrainian forces must return Crimea to Ukrainian control by the summer of 2023.[24] Budanov has recently stated that Ukrainian forces intend to launch a major counteroffensive throughout Ukraine in the spring of 2023 "from Crimea to Donbas."[25]

Institute for the Study of War

This page collects ISW and CTP's updates on the conflict in Ukraine. In late February 2022, ISW began publishing daily synthetic products covering key events related to renewed Russian aggression against Ukraine.

www.understandingwar.org

It seems to me to be a matter of which side is able to launch their offensive first without also launching it prematurely.

 

[buffnut453]

Still a waiting game for what Ukraine's and Russia's next steps will be on the battlefield:

Ukraine war: Russian threat growing, front line troops fear

While morale remains high, Ukrainian forces in the east fear the Russians are improving.

www.bbc.com

 

[cammerjeff]

I wrote "sat astride", not "sat out" -- meaning spanning the world's stage, making a big impact, and so on. That's why I singled out the Stalin era as the one exception to my observation above.

No Problem, I misunderstood your statement. But I don't think Putin is actually doing much diffently than what Stalin did in the 1930's. It's just the reaction to Putin's actions by a large part of the rest of the world is different. No one in the west seemed to really care what Stalin was doing, until he invaded Finland. I have never read of any support for the other countries (other than Finland) that were impacted by Stalin's actions.

 

[Admiral Beez]

If dispersal is required, the F-16 is quite capable of taking off from highways, given a long-enough straightaway.

I agree. And I don't mean to suggest there's anything about the F-16 that hinder UAF ops - I was more pondering how the F-16 dealt with the issues. They'll figure out any challenges. And of course, Ukraine is operating its MiG-29 and Su-27 fighters from highways and paved roads, and only after ground crews have swept the area for objects, and not gravel secondary roads.

So, this...

Not this...

Mind you, if the surface is sufficiently packed down, our forum favourite could manage it.

 

[Glider]

In October Russia was throwing them in straight from the "recruiter's" office to stop the retreating. But with this longer pause and with it known that a couple tens of thousands of the conscripts are training in Belarus, the Ukrainians are concerned, concerned enough about a resumption of the drive on Kyiv to make mention of it and keep forces in place.

I agree that Ukraine is husbanding forces for a counterstroke. I think the Russians are doing the same thing. Who jumps off first, and who attacks the critical ground, will make the difference.

We obviously don't know but I would bet a penny to a pound, that the training the Russian troops are getting in Belarus isn't nearly as effective as the training Ukraine's troops are getting in the UK and other NATO countries.

 

[Admiral Beez]

We obviously don't know but I would bet a penny to a pound, that the training the Russian troops are getting in Belarus isn't nearly as effective as the training Ukraine's troops are getting in the UK and other NATO countries.

As I understand it, Russian training is essentially hazing. They even have a term for it.

Dedovshchina - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

We obviously don't know but I would bet a penny to a pound, that the training the Russian troops are getting in Belarus isn't nearly as effective as the training Ukraine's troops are getting in the UK and other NATO countries.

I agree with your estimate. First, who is training them? There's a lot of KIA they've got in Ukraine.

Second, what gear do they have to learn on? I'm reminded of American troops wielding broomsticks in lieu of guns or trucks painted with the word "tank" on the side, for some late-30s major exercises.

Third, being the recent class of conscripts, I have to question their motivation.

No sure answers for any of these questions, but I'd be surprised if all three lined up positive for these Russian trainees.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Assume the Russians build up sufficient troops and arms to conduct a massive offensive next month or early April 2023, and throws 1/2 million men against Donetsk, forcing the Ukrainians to withdraw to the Zaporizhzhia, Kharkiv and Dnipropetrovsk Oblasts. The Russians will lose at least 100k dead and wounded. And now what? What does Russia do once they've run out of gas, food and ammunition?