By combining ground troops, artillery (and drones), and glide bombs, into an “offensive triangle,” Russia has been able to place Ukrainian troops in untenable positions:
“First, the AFRF [Russian armed forces] continue to pin down Ukrainian ground forces on the line of contact with infantry and mechanized forces,” according to a study by the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), a British think tank.
“Second, they prevent maneuver and inflict attrition with first-person view (FPV) drones, Lancet drones, and artillery firing both high-explosive shells and scatterable mines.”
“Third, the AFRF has increased its use of UMPK glide bombs against Ukrainian forces who are holding defensive positions,” RUSI said. This “creates a competing dilemma: should the AFU [Ukrainian armed forces] hold and invest in static defensive positions to reduce attrition from FPVs and drone-enabled artillery, or retain mobility to avoid destruction from glide bomb strikes, which have the explosive yield to demolish or bury even well-prepared fortifications?”
[…]
The solution to resurrecting Russian airpower proved simple and lethal: glide bombs. By affixing its own satellite guidance system and wings to its huge Cold War stockpile of unguided “dumb bombs,” Russia created a cheap smart bomb that can dropped from up to 60 miles behind the front line.
This keeps Russian aircraft safely out of range of Ukrainian anti-aircraft missiles. While not as accurate as Western counterparts like America’s Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), the Russian munitions are huge — up to 6,000 pounds or close to 3 metric tonnes — so that even a near miss will devastate Ukrainian entrenchments.
While some Western observers dismissed these weapons as a sign that Russia lacked the capacity to manufacture sophisticated smart bombs, no one is laughing now.
[…]
Already, Ukraine claims to have had success in jamming them, leading to a sharp decrease in accuracy. “The golden era of the ‘divine’ UMPK turned out to be short-lived,” lamented a Russian pilot on social media. Perhaps not coincidentally, the Russian advance has slowed in recent months.
The obvious part is cherry picking. For example, as Simplicius pointed out —
Back in August, Zelensky admitted Russia has launched over 3,500 missiles thus far, and since then Russia has only upped the intensity, which means by this point the count is likely over 5,000. Meanwhile, the U.S. has launched a total of 802 Tomahawks during the entirety of the 2003+ Iraq War, and around 2,300 total since the Tomahawk’s inception in the early 80′s.
Sounds kind of significant. Also, taking out Patriot and other AA despite their best efforts to intercept.
Upon looking at that article deeper…
Simply stupid.
Especially considering that even in this war what he described was already done in Battle of Donbass without glide bombs (which kind of undermines the last self-congratulatory part), as Schryver described long before him. https://imetatronink.substack.com/p/a-birds-eye-view-of-ukraine-warhtml
Repeats it, this time with an explicit reference… to Ukrainian propaganda, which all this time multiplied achievements more than USSR did at its worst.
Why does he think it matters, and even constitutes meaningful “gains”? I mean, there was “Muh Lebensraum” lazy nonsense, and there was bogus metrics lazy nonsense (Schryver mocked it back in 2022 https://imetatronink.substack.com/p/destroying-mother-of-all-proxy-armieshtml ), which one it even is?
Even mostly-obsolete Soviet air defenses are indeed dangerous, and obviously it’s better to have close air support than do without. But where the notion of it being “desperately needed” in this case came from? Especially considering amount of artillery and missiles doing similar jobs. I did not see mentions of this being a major problem before, so going on a limb here: maybe this time he parroted opinions of those Americans who compared reports with their own safari wars?
Is it the famous “always project” thing?
Lacks why?
Never mind countermeasures (more of a problem at longer ranges), but “picking off” without exposing themselves? How? Employing Ghost of Kiev™? Otherwise, it’s down to risks and replacement rates. And, well…
At least not claiming that today Patriot could suffice as having air defense capabilities.
But what “airpower”? Russian air force is not going to charge at the old Soviet air defenses, yet NATO could go taunt the latest generation of their descendants?
Besides, the best way to kill aircraft was spelled out back before WWII, and it never was air-to-air. Where this “airpower” would have to come from, to not be prey for cruising and ballistic missiles while on the ground (and much more than this on carriers)?
Or does he really think there’s nothing but “magic triad” behind it?