I was seeing from other online spaces that this would be about 30% of Russias strategic bomber fleet and it’s accompanying aircraft like their AWACs that got hit.
If that’s the case that’s a staggeringly bad day for the Russian air force, which means it’s a good fucking day.
30% less bombers means drone and missile attacks into Ukraine can be significantly decreased that’s one of the biggest developments since the start of the war.
For what I thought I knew, they only had 3 (some say they had only one but I doubt it) airworthy AWACS (the A50) so losing one makes it impossible to patrool & cover even the most important parts of russia.
Exactly. This is a massive strike that we fully won’t know the repercussions of for a little bit. We’ll just have to see how their optempo changes. It honestly could be even worse for them. They have 120 of those bombers, period. Meaning some of them might not even be air worthy at all and are just spare parts.
@AnalogNotDigital Ah I found BBC, Reuters and AP quoting the Ukranian SBU " SBU officially confirmed it had carried out the strikes, saying that “34% of [Russia’s] strategic cruise missile carriers” were hit" - bbc.com/news/articles/c1ld7ppr… - and that " Tu-95 and Tu-22M3, as well as A-50 were destroyed" - Claims not yet independently verified. - It sounds like a massive hit but I have a feeling that we might see independent claims downgrading the figure a bit. The “strategic cruise missile carriers” is also a bit of qualifier. I would assume that there are independent estimates of what usable air power Russia has. I’m not seeing those chime in yet.
I think the “strategic cruise missile carriers” bit is just a bad translation, it’s clear in ukranian he means “we blew up aircraft capable of launching cruise missiles” and then is discussing the specific aircraft destroyed as separate figures.
I was seeing from other online spaces that this would be about 30% of Russias strategic bomber fleet and it’s accompanying aircraft like their AWACs that got hit.
If that’s the case that’s a staggeringly bad day for the Russian air force, which means it’s a good fucking day.
Thank you, and wow, that’s some good fucking news.
30% less bombers means drone and missile attacks into Ukraine can be significantly decreased that’s one of the biggest developments since the start of the war.
I feel like the AWACs is a way bigger loss than all those obsolete bombers.
Those bombers have been wantonly dropping cruise missiles of to hit Ukraine. Both are significant.
Yeah, because powerful countries for better or worse did not decisively intercede to destroy them.
Oh cmon dude. There are actual reasons that the west escalated their aid over a time.
It’s not a reason I agree with, but their logic in doing so is also entirely justifiable.
For what I thought I knew, they only had 3 (some say they had only one but I doubt it) airworthy AWACS (the A50) so losing one makes it impossible to patrool & cover even the most important parts of russia.
Exactly. This is a massive strike that we fully won’t know the repercussions of for a little bit. We’ll just have to see how their optempo changes. It honestly could be even worse for them. They have 120 of those bombers, period. Meaning some of them might not even be air worthy at all and are just spare parts.
@Bonifratz @AnalogNotDigital I was interested in this - can you share where this figure came from / how calculated?
They have roughly 120 strategic bombers in their air force. 40 of those is 33%.
@AnalogNotDigital Ah I found BBC, Reuters and AP quoting the Ukranian SBU " SBU officially confirmed it had carried out the strikes, saying that “34% of [Russia’s] strategic cruise missile carriers” were hit" - bbc.com/news/articles/c1ld7ppr… - and that " Tu-95 and Tu-22M3, as well as A-50 were destroyed" - Claims not yet independently verified. - It sounds like a massive hit but I have a feeling that we might see independent claims downgrading the figure a bit. The “strategic cruise missile carriers” is also a bit of qualifier. I would assume that there are independent estimates of what usable air power Russia has. I’m not seeing those chime in yet.
I think the “strategic cruise missile carriers” bit is just a bad translation, it’s clear in ukranian he means “we blew up aircraft capable of launching cruise missiles” and then is discussing the specific aircraft destroyed as separate figures.
@Bonifratz @AnalogNotDigital Do you have sources for those stats?