Mattias

Site that visualizes the Oryx visually confirmed losses data. With constant updates: https://github.com/leedrake5/Russia-Ukraine
some interesting examples:

Sorry if posted already but man this is good....

As a regular reader of this splendid thread I felt very much at home in the reasoning, but I think many of us can still pick up a nugget or two here:
 
 

They are not Ukraine skeptics.  They are enablers of authoritarianism.  They love Putin, they love Orban.  Let's not play word games.  They don't care about spending, or war, they care about supporting dictators.

That pilot of MiG-29 told fighter jets enough good against Shakheds in night time, when them hard to spot visually and land radars can pass them, or detect too close to their target, because of they fly usually low. But radars of fighters can detect theese drones - their dimensions and geometry give enough clear signal on radars, he didn't say what type of missiles he used, but if he meant radar, maybe this R-27R/ER semi-active missiles. Also I read some reports, that our fighters use guns, when can detect drones visually in daylight/dawn. But I suppose guns is too dangerous due to high speed of jet and low speed of drone. 
UKR hasn't R-77 missiles, but I think R-27 can be used, though there are contraversal opinions about capabilities of IR homing to lock Shakhed, Orlan or similar drone 

This is because the Ukrainian special forces are so special that they even manage to become invisible when they die. Must have something to do with US Biolabs. 😄

Thank you for answering Zelban. I was thinking a bit more next level. For example do we know what systems that has been shown to be effective/ineffective in this particular context/time? Has there been any particular tactics employed, any new revelations/experiences in the man/machine/effect matrix? 
 
This, of course, links with the AD/laser/air superiority etc discussions. But I guess it is too early to say anything about it.
 
Mattias

In the very long podcast I mentioned earlier Theiner, @noclador on twitter, tackles the ATACMS vs. Hrim-2 issue. He rules in favour of the former because, as I understood it, of the two only ATACMS (being a non ballistic missile) has the attack profile that would allow it to 1. seemingly completely ignore air defences and 2. cause the pattern of damage seen on the bridge. He hypothesis that the US might have given Ua access to the ATACMS guidance system, to mount on a Hrim-2 (3?), but ultimately discards that idea as being too improbable. 
 
 

I think this infographic (not mine) shows the effect a tactical nuke would have:

Ok team, what is your take on this. 
 
I was listening to the "The Daily" podcast of today, under the headline "A Bridge, a Bomb and Putin's revenge" from the New York Times. Normally I only listen to them for US internal political issues, but I made an exception. When the 10th of October retaliatory attacks were discussed, there was some gnashing of teeth and doomsday talk about the potential impact on the Ukrainian moral. Not overly much, but well in line with many of the ill-informed and nervous ”maybe we should try for peace instead crowd”. That made me think… What actually did happen on the 10th, and how bad was it really?
 
Sure Lives were lost, people were most probably crippled and definitely traumatized for life – Horrible injury incurred.
But was it a majestic reaction from the war gods of the east, taking their toll for the Ukrainian insolence of bombing the Crimean bridge?
 
I made a rough calculation:
  
83 missiles (Kh 101, Kh 555, Kalibr, Iskander, S-300 and Torndo S) were supposedly used, as well as 17 Shahid UAV. 
The average warhead size of these weapons is 324 kg, for a total mass of 32 400 kg.
Out of these, 43 were reportedly shot down, reducing the mass delivered by 13 932 kg
For a total of 18 468 kg
As I understand it, that is the equivalent of the bomb load of three (3) A-10 warthogs – if you consider that bombs probably weigh more than missile warheads.
3 single seat attack aircraft worth of ordnance… Is that a massive response to a strategic attack on the jugular of the southern front? 
3 single seat attack aircraft worth of ordnance… Will even the sustained attack of such a force do anything to dent the moral/cohesion/effectiveness/capacity of the Ukrainian nation?
On both account, I think not. Especially since the best of russian missile technology seem to be less accurate than even dumb bombs dropped by an A-10.

Furthermore, I saw somewhere that the total shelf cost for the 10 October attack was 350 million $. Is that money well spent? 

All things considered, Putin certainly managed to catch the headlines… Putting the perceived russian military might back on the agenda. But almost completely unjustified, it seems to me…
 
So, what are your thoughts, have I misunderstood this? Should Putin's gestures have anyone really shaking in their boots?

Ok team, what is your take on this. 
 
I was listening to the "The Daily" podcast of today, under the headline "A Bridge, a Bomb and Putin's revenge" from the New York Times. Normally I only listen to them for US internal political issues, but I made an exception. When the 10th of October retaliatory attacks were discussed, there was some gnashing of teeth and doomsday talk about the potential impact on the Ukrainian moral. Not overly much, but well in line with many of the ill-informed and nervous ”maybe we should try for peace instead crowd”. That made me think… What actually did happen on the 10th, and how bad was it really?
 
Sure Lives were lost, people were most probably crippled and definitely traumatized for life – Horrible injury incurred.
But was it a majestic reaction from the war gods of the east, taking their toll for the Ukrainian insolence of bombing the Crimean bridge?
 
I made a rough calculation:
  
83 missiles (Kh 101, Kh 555, Kalibr, Iskander, S-300 and Torndo S) were supposedly used, as well as 17 Shahid UAV. 
The average warhead size of these weapons is 324 kg, for a total mass of 32 400 kg.
Out of these, 43 were reportedly shot down, reducing the mass delivered by 13 932 kg
For a total of 18 468 kg
As I understand it, that is the equivalent of the bomb load of three (3) A-10 warthogs – if you consider that bombs probably weigh more than missile warheads.
3 single seat attack aircraft worth of ordnance… Is that a massive response to a strategic attack on the jugular of the southern front? 
3 single seat attack aircraft worth of ordnance… Will even the sustained attack of such a force do anything to dent the moral/cohesion/effectiveness/capacity of the Ukrainian nation?
On both account, I think not. Especially since the best of russian missile technology seem to be less accurate than even dumb bombs dropped by an A-10.

Furthermore, I saw somewhere that the total shelf cost for the 10 October attack was 350 million $. Is that money well spent? 

All things considered, Putin certainly managed to catch the headlines… Putting the perceived russian military might back on the agenda. But almost completely unjustified, it seems to me…
 
So, what are your thoughts, have I misunderstood this? Should Putin's gestures have anyone really shaking in their boots?

Building on that analogy russia dropped the equivalent of five Lancaster bomb loads on the 10th, five - over all of Ukraine.
 
A five bomber raid was nothing to write home about back then, nor is it today.

Ok team, what is your take on this. 
 
I was listening to the "The Daily" podcast of today, under the headline "A Bridge, a Bomb and Putin's revenge" from the New York Times. Normally I only listen to them for US internal political issues, but I made an exception. When the 10th of October retaliatory attacks were discussed, there was some gnashing of teeth and doomsday talk about the potential impact on the Ukrainian moral. Not overly much, but well in line with many of the ill-informed and nervous ”maybe we should try for peace instead crowd”. That made me think… What actually did happen on the 10th, and how bad was it really?
 
Sure Lives were lost, people were most probably crippled and definitely traumatized for life – Horrible injury incurred.
But was it a majestic reaction from the war gods of the east, taking their toll for the Ukrainian insolence of bombing the Crimean bridge?
 
I made a rough calculation:
  
83 missiles (Kh 101, Kh 555, Kalibr, Iskander, S-300 and Torndo S) were supposedly used, as well as 17 Shahid UAV. 
The average warhead size of these weapons is 324 kg, for a total mass of 32 400 kg.
Out of these, 43 were reportedly shot down, reducing the mass delivered by 13 932 kg
For a total of 18 468 kg
As I understand it, that is the equivalent of the bomb load of three (3) A-10 warthogs – if you consider that bombs probably weigh more than missile warheads.
3 single seat attack aircraft worth of ordnance… Is that a massive response to a strategic attack on the jugular of the southern front? 
3 single seat attack aircraft worth of ordnance… Will even the sustained attack of such a force do anything to dent the moral/cohesion/effectiveness/capacity of the Ukrainian nation?
On both account, I think not. Especially since the best of russian missile technology seem to be less accurate than even dumb bombs dropped by an A-10.

Furthermore, I saw somewhere that the total shelf cost for the 10 October attack was 350 million $. Is that money well spent? 

All things considered, Putin certainly managed to catch the headlines… Putting the perceived russian military might back on the agenda. But almost completely unjustified, it seems to me…
 
So, what are your thoughts, have I misunderstood this? Should Putin's gestures have anyone really shaking in their boots?

Ok team, what is your take on this. 
 
I was listening to the "The Daily" podcast of today, under the headline "A Bridge, a Bomb and Putin's revenge" from the New York Times. Normally I only listen to them for US internal political issues, but I made an exception. When the 10th of October retaliatory attacks were discussed, there was some gnashing of teeth and doomsday talk about the potential impact on the Ukrainian moral. Not overly much, but well in line with many of the ill-informed and nervous ”maybe we should try for peace instead crowd”. That made me think… What actually did happen on the 10th, and how bad was it really?
 
Sure Lives were lost, people were most probably crippled and definitely traumatized for life – Horrible injury incurred.
But was it a majestic reaction from the war gods of the east, taking their toll for the Ukrainian insolence of bombing the Crimean bridge?
 
I made a rough calculation:
  
83 missiles (Kh 101, Kh 555, Kalibr, Iskander, S-300 and Torndo S) were supposedly used, as well as 17 Shahid UAV. 
The average warhead size of these weapons is 324 kg, for a total mass of 32 400 kg.
Out of these, 43 were reportedly shot down, reducing the mass delivered by 13 932 kg
For a total of 18 468 kg
As I understand it, that is the equivalent of the bomb load of three (3) A-10 warthogs – if you consider that bombs probably weigh more than missile warheads.
3 single seat attack aircraft worth of ordnance… Is that a massive response to a strategic attack on the jugular of the southern front? 
3 single seat attack aircraft worth of ordnance… Will even the sustained attack of such a force do anything to dent the moral/cohesion/effectiveness/capacity of the Ukrainian nation?
On both account, I think not. Especially since the best of russian missile technology seem to be less accurate than even dumb bombs dropped by an A-10.

Furthermore, I saw somewhere that the total shelf cost for the 10 October attack was 350 million $. Is that money well spent? 

All things considered, Putin certainly managed to catch the headlines… Putting the perceived russian military might back on the agenda. But almost completely unjustified, it seems to me…
 
So, what are your thoughts, have I misunderstood this? Should Putin's gestures have anyone really shaking in their boots?

Ok team, what is your take on this. 
 
I was listening to the "The Daily" podcast of today, under the headline "A Bridge, a Bomb and Putin's revenge" from the New York Times. Normally I only listen to them for US internal political issues, but I made an exception. When the 10th of October retaliatory attacks were discussed, there was some gnashing of teeth and doomsday talk about the potential impact on the Ukrainian moral. Not overly much, but well in line with many of the ill-informed and nervous ”maybe we should try for peace instead crowd”. That made me think… What actually did happen on the 10th, and how bad was it really?
 
Sure Lives were lost, people were most probably crippled and definitely traumatized for life – Horrible injury incurred.
But was it a majestic reaction from the war gods of the east, taking their toll for the Ukrainian insolence of bombing the Crimean bridge?
 
I made a rough calculation:
  
83 missiles (Kh 101, Kh 555, Kalibr, Iskander, S-300 and Torndo S) were supposedly used, as well as 17 Shahid UAV. 
The average warhead size of these weapons is 324 kg, for a total mass of 32 400 kg.
Out of these, 43 were reportedly shot down, reducing the mass delivered by 13 932 kg
For a total of 18 468 kg
As I understand it, that is the equivalent of the bomb load of three (3) A-10 warthogs – if you consider that bombs probably weigh more than missile warheads.
3 single seat attack aircraft worth of ordnance… Is that a massive response to a strategic attack on the jugular of the southern front? 
3 single seat attack aircraft worth of ordnance… Will even the sustained attack of such a force do anything to dent the moral/cohesion/effectiveness/capacity of the Ukrainian nation?
On both account, I think not. Especially since the best of russian missile technology seem to be less accurate than even dumb bombs dropped by an A-10.

Furthermore, I saw somewhere that the total shelf cost for the 10 October attack was 350 million $. Is that money well spent? 

All things considered, Putin certainly managed to catch the headlines… Putting the perceived russian military might back on the agenda. But almost completely unjustified, it seems to me…
 
So, what are your thoughts, have I misunderstood this? Should Putin's gestures have anyone really shaking in their boots?

Ok team, what is your take on this. 
 
I was listening to the "The Daily" podcast of today, under the headline "A Bridge, a Bomb and Putin's revenge" from the New York Times. Normally I only listen to them for US internal political issues, but I made an exception. When the 10th of October retaliatory attacks were discussed, there was some gnashing of teeth and doomsday talk about the potential impact on the Ukrainian moral. Not overly much, but well in line with many of the ill-informed and nervous ”maybe we should try for peace instead crowd”. That made me think… What actually did happen on the 10th, and how bad was it really?
 
Sure Lives were lost, people were most probably crippled and definitely traumatized for life – Horrible injury incurred.
But was it a majestic reaction from the war gods of the east, taking their toll for the Ukrainian insolence of bombing the Crimean bridge?
 
I made a rough calculation:
  
83 missiles (Kh 101, Kh 555, Kalibr, Iskander, S-300 and Torndo S) were supposedly used, as well as 17 Shahid UAV. 
The average warhead size of these weapons is 324 kg, for a total mass of 32 400 kg.
Out of these, 43 were reportedly shot down, reducing the mass delivered by 13 932 kg
For a total of 18 468 kg
As I understand it, that is the equivalent of the bomb load of three (3) A-10 warthogs – if you consider that bombs probably weigh more than missile warheads.
3 single seat attack aircraft worth of ordnance… Is that a massive response to a strategic attack on the jugular of the southern front? 
3 single seat attack aircraft worth of ordnance… Will even the sustained attack of such a force do anything to dent the moral/cohesion/effectiveness/capacity of the Ukrainian nation?
On both account, I think not. Especially since the best of russian missile technology seem to be less accurate than even dumb bombs dropped by an A-10.

Furthermore, I saw somewhere that the total shelf cost for the 10 October attack was 350 million $. Is that money well spent? 

All things considered, Putin certainly managed to catch the headlines… Putting the perceived russian military might back on the agenda. But almost completely unjustified, it seems to me…
 
So, what are your thoughts, have I misunderstood this? Should Putin's gestures have anyone really shaking in their boots?

Ok team, what is your take on this. 
 
I was listening to the "The Daily" podcast of today, under the headline "A Bridge, a Bomb and Putin's revenge" from the New York Times. Normally I only listen to them for US internal political issues, but I made an exception. When the 10th of October retaliatory attacks were discussed, there was some gnashing of teeth and doomsday talk about the potential impact on the Ukrainian moral. Not overly much, but well in line with many of the ill-informed and nervous ”maybe we should try for peace instead crowd”. That made me think… What actually did happen on the 10th, and how bad was it really?
 
Sure Lives were lost, people were most probably crippled and definitely traumatized for life – Horrible injury incurred.
But was it a majestic reaction from the war gods of the east, taking their toll for the Ukrainian insolence of bombing the Crimean bridge?
 
I made a rough calculation:
  
83 missiles (Kh 101, Kh 555, Kalibr, Iskander, S-300 and Torndo S) were supposedly used, as well as 17 Shahid UAV. 
The average warhead size of these weapons is 324 kg, for a total mass of 32 400 kg.
Out of these, 43 were reportedly shot down, reducing the mass delivered by 13 932 kg
For a total of 18 468 kg
As I understand it, that is the equivalent of the bomb load of three (3) A-10 warthogs – if you consider that bombs probably weigh more than missile warheads.
3 single seat attack aircraft worth of ordnance… Is that a massive response to a strategic attack on the jugular of the southern front? 
3 single seat attack aircraft worth of ordnance… Will even the sustained attack of such a force do anything to dent the moral/cohesion/effectiveness/capacity of the Ukrainian nation?
On both account, I think not. Especially since the best of russian missile technology seem to be less accurate than even dumb bombs dropped by an A-10.

Furthermore, I saw somewhere that the total shelf cost for the 10 October attack was 350 million $. Is that money well spent? 

All things considered, Putin certainly managed to catch the headlines… Putting the perceived russian military might back on the agenda. But almost completely unjustified, it seems to me…
 
So, what are your thoughts, have I misunderstood this? Should Putin's gestures have anyone really shaking in their boots?

Ok team, what is your take on this. 
 
I was listening to the "The Daily" podcast of today, under the headline "A Bridge, a Bomb and Putin's revenge" from the New York Times. Normally I only listen to them for US internal political issues, but I made an exception. When the 10th of October retaliatory attacks were discussed, there was some gnashing of teeth and doomsday talk about the potential impact on the Ukrainian moral. Not overly much, but well in line with many of the ill-informed and nervous ”maybe we should try for peace instead crowd”. That made me think… What actually did happen on the 10th, and how bad was it really?
 
Sure Lives were lost, people were most probably crippled and definitely traumatized for life – Horrible injury incurred.
But was it a majestic reaction from the war gods of the east, taking their toll for the Ukrainian insolence of bombing the Crimean bridge?
 
I made a rough calculation:
  
83 missiles (Kh 101, Kh 555, Kalibr, Iskander, S-300 and Torndo S) were supposedly used, as well as 17 Shahid UAV. 
The average warhead size of these weapons is 324 kg, for a total mass of 32 400 kg.
Out of these, 43 were reportedly shot down, reducing the mass delivered by 13 932 kg
For a total of 18 468 kg
As I understand it, that is the equivalent of the bomb load of three (3) A-10 warthogs – if you consider that bombs probably weigh more than missile warheads.
3 single seat attack aircraft worth of ordnance… Is that a massive response to a strategic attack on the jugular of the southern front? 
3 single seat attack aircraft worth of ordnance… Will even the sustained attack of such a force do anything to dent the moral/cohesion/effectiveness/capacity of the Ukrainian nation?
On both account, I think not. Especially since the best of russian missile technology seem to be less accurate than even dumb bombs dropped by an A-10.

Furthermore, I saw somewhere that the total shelf cost for the 10 October attack was 350 million $. Is that money well spent? 

All things considered, Putin certainly managed to catch the headlines… Putting the perceived russian military might back on the agenda. But almost completely unjustified, it seems to me…
 
So, what are your thoughts, have I misunderstood this? Should Putin's gestures have anyone really shaking in their boots?

Ok team, what is your take on this. 
 
I was listening to the "The Daily" podcast of today, under the headline "A Bridge, a Bomb and Putin's revenge" from the New York Times. Normally I only listen to them for US internal political issues, but I made an exception. When the 10th of October retaliatory attacks were discussed, there was some gnashing of teeth and doomsday talk about the potential impact on the Ukrainian moral. Not overly much, but well in line with many of the ill-informed and nervous ”maybe we should try for peace instead crowd”. That made me think… What actually did happen on the 10th, and how bad was it really?
 
Sure Lives were lost, people were most probably crippled and definitely traumatized for life – Horrible injury incurred.
But was it a majestic reaction from the war gods of the east, taking their toll for the Ukrainian insolence of bombing the Crimean bridge?
 
I made a rough calculation:
  
83 missiles (Kh 101, Kh 555, Kalibr, Iskander, S-300 and Torndo S) were supposedly used, as well as 17 Shahid UAV. 
The average warhead size of these weapons is 324 kg, for a total mass of 32 400 kg.
Out of these, 43 were reportedly shot down, reducing the mass delivered by 13 932 kg
For a total of 18 468 kg
As I understand it, that is the equivalent of the bomb load of three (3) A-10 warthogs – if you consider that bombs probably weigh more than missile warheads.
3 single seat attack aircraft worth of ordnance… Is that a massive response to a strategic attack on the jugular of the southern front? 
3 single seat attack aircraft worth of ordnance… Will even the sustained attack of such a force do anything to dent the moral/cohesion/effectiveness/capacity of the Ukrainian nation?
On both account, I think not. Especially since the best of russian missile technology seem to be less accurate than even dumb bombs dropped by an A-10.

Furthermore, I saw somewhere that the total shelf cost for the 10 October attack was 350 million $. Is that money well spent? 

All things considered, Putin certainly managed to catch the headlines… Putting the perceived russian military might back on the agenda. But almost completely unjustified, it seems to me…
 
So, what are your thoughts, have I misunderstood this? Should Putin's gestures have anyone really shaking in their boots?

When viewed from space Elon musk’s ego causes a minor eclipse of Zelensky’s balls, but only briefly. 

A really excellent listen. Theiner has some great insights into hardware issues, and in particular regarding artillery. Both technically and politically interesting. The Crimean Bridge discussion follows Steve’s train of thought - though the conclusion lands in ATACMS being the weapon used.
 
 

Either with us or without us .... congratulations on winning comedy hour with a false dichotomy.  I support a Ukrainian victory, I have a flushable toilet and know how to use it, so I tick the civilization box if that is the measure by which civilization has been judged occasionally in this thread.  I am not and never have suggested that Ukraine should cease existing, and I am not taking the Russian side.  So "hypocritically" shall I take a dump on the floor for expressing this view?

There's some irony in "LIBERAL SITE, ENTER AT OWN RISK" when its the con sites that are pushing the Kremlin propaganda.

They know the details. The JCPOA was to prevent them from having enough material to enrich far enough for a weapon. The US withdrawal eliminated that restriction and now we're back where we were 5-6 years ago when they were 3 weeks away from doing so, and everyone was yelling to do something. 
 
As to the rest, the idea that there is some binary decision to be made, either put up with the status quo, or some variation of that, or turn the whole world into a smoking cinder, is just ridiculous. You all are not saying punish Russia if they use one nuclear weapon. You are saying **** it, blow it all up. All of it. Everyone dies because we couldn't do anything else about Putin.
Crazy talk. 
Dave