Doesn't pic related prove that Soviet IADS works? Even 3 years into the war, still stands. Could the US or NATO even SEAD/DEAD this?

>>63912059 (OP)
>air defense network constantly being breached by fucking Ukraine
>could NATO do it?
Yes, all fields.

>>63912059 (OP)
>soviet era AAs are effective against the shasneed
yeah

>>63912059 (OP)
No. The only reason it stands is because of NATO AWACS.

>>63912059 (OP)

>>63912059 (OP)
Speaking of that leak, the Pentagon estimated 15,500 to 17,500 Ukrainian troops were killed in the first year of the war when we now know it was more like 43,500 from the obituaries and missing. An underestimate of 2.5 to 2.8 times.

>>63912059 (OP)
>soviet IADS can defeat soviet airforce that doesn't have any real proper SEAD doctrine
>therefore we can't SEAD it
brilliant analysis.

>>63912108
wasn't there an edit of this that reversed the KIA count and added a digit to ukraine or something
I think cucker tardson even cited the edit too

>>63912165
Yes, it was DDGSarah who edited the picture to swap the Ukrainian and Russian KIA counts. Ironically 43k wouldn't be a bad estimate for the Ukrainian count since they had 145,885 troops killed in the 1221 days of war.

>>63912205
So lemme get this straight
Are we talking 150000 KIA for UAF and roughly 200-250000 KIA for RuAF ?

>>63912205
>>63912225
the grim thing is that if you do just some guesswork the russians are on at least double that.
like pick related
we know the USSR so including Ukrainians, Balts ect. Lost about 20k in Afghanistan. So 20k x 17 and you'd get about 340k dead at least

>>63912265
>ect
Etc. Short for et cetera. I dunno why people make this mistake so much.

>>63912285
maybe because you know just what is meant even tough it's "wrong"

>>63912225
On Nov 26, 2024 Russian Deputy Defence Minister Anna Tsivilyova accidentally leaked that they had 48,000 missing.
On Nov 29, 2024 BBC knew of 80,973 Russians that were KIA. https://www.bbc.com/russian/articles/clygedgp40yo
So the MIA was 59.3% of the KIA back then. Extrapolating that % to the current 111,387 KIA gives (1+48,000/80,973)*111,387 = 177,416 killed.

Also, on December 1, 2024 poteru.net was at 84193 KIA. https://web.archive.org/web/20241201000347/https://poteru.net/
So with poteru the MIA was 57% of the KIA back then.
So extrapolating with the current 117,913 KIA on poteru gives (1+48,000/84,193)*117,913 = 185,137 killed.

So the killed Russians would be 177,416 to 185,137.

>>63912112
calling.
how did VVS not do proper SEAD when they did it in the first days of the war?
how would your proper SEAD look like? you do realize there's no corridor to the target not protected by double-digit SAMs, so NATO's Serbia tactic of just avoiding those SAMs is not feasible.

>>63912457
The US bombed Iraq for a month, Russia thought it could poorly bomb Ukraine the same day if launched its invasion
You're a fucking stupid cunt, die

>>63912494
Iraq's military was completely dismantled back in 1991, and the US literally kept a NFZ over Iraq since 1991 until 2003 you stupid retard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones_conflict

>>63912457
>how would your proper SEAD look like

Probably a rain of cruise missiles followed by drones and radar decoys like MALDs, EWAR assets jamming everything.
Then followed by penetration DEAD raids by f-35s running the clean configuration, followed by even more SEAD strikes, followed by conventional bombing.

All the while the cruise missiles would keep coming for ammo depots, airfields, and radar installations.

>>63912568
that's not a doctrine.

also when randomly listing some weapons don't leave out the primary weapon for SEAD. that weapon was just mentioned in the news.
https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/4222543/secretary-of-defense-pete-hegseth-and-chairman-of-the-joint-chiefs-of-staff-gen/
>As the strike package approached Fordow and Natanz, the U.S. protection package employed high speed suppression weapons to ensure safe passage of the strike package with fighter assets employing preemptive suppressing fires against any potential Iranian surface to air threats.

>>63912108
>when we now know it was more like 43,500 from the obituaries and missing
Is that what this week's script from your FSB handler is telling you, dalit? But hey, given known casualty rates, that'd mena you jsut admitted to some 300-400k dead ziggers in the first year alone. We must be closing on TWO million then by now.

>>63912631
So why fucking ask the question then?


I'm just saying that in a hypothetical scenario we would most likely see an operation similar to desert storm, meaning mass cruise missile strikes use of decoys and drones and stealth aircraft.

Only thing is that now stealth planes have much more tactical flexibility than they did in the old days.

>>63912637
>I'm just saying that in a hypothetical scenario we would most likely see an operation similar to desert storm, meaning mass cruise missile strikes use of decoys and drones and stealth aircraft.
how would this suppress any IADS? IADS would just turn on and shoot everything down.

>>63912642
Did you not read what I just wrote?

It would be like desert storm. A mass of cruise missiles and decoy drones would target known or proposed AD sites, forcing the AD to reveal itself for follow up or concurrent strikes by stealth aircraft and wild weasels.


Repeat until AD is suppressed or destroyed.

if you've got adequate systems in adequate numbers ("good enough"), and brains, most things work pretty well.

>>63912457
>so NATO's Serbia tactic of just avoiding those SAMs
Spoiler: NATO did not, in fact, avoid those SAMs. It fucked them up hard enough that serbian AA units were forced into fighting essentially a guerilla war in which they had to keep inactive and try to lure NATO aircraft into low-altitude ambushes. Meaning those same NATO aircraft were free to bomb at leisure as long as they remained at higher altitudes.

And that was 26 years ago, with western SEAD capabilities only improving by leaps and bounds since. As have high-altitude and stand-off precision attacks. Serbia lost, and evne what little resistance it could offer only spurred NATO into developing further capabilities to counter even that feeble resistance in case of a repeat.

>>63912642
>how would this suppress any IADS?
By largely annihilating it.

>IADS would just turn on and die to SEAD munitions it cannot intercept menaignfully enough to make a real difference
FTFY.

>>63912653
here's your desert storm. sead against baghdad was a failure and baghdad was off-limits after that failed try.

>>63912637
>Only thing is that now stealth planes have much more tactical flexibility than they did in the old days.
?
there's no SEAD squadron in the USAF that flies F-35.

>>63912457
>how did the VVS not do proper SEAD
no knowledge of where AA actually was, not enough anti-radiation missiles, not enough sorties to begin with
>NATO's serbia tactic of just avoiding those SAMs
not what happened, you're retarded.
they didn't do proper SEAD because ukraine's air defenses were not fucking supressed, it's in the name.

>>63912507
>iraq's military was completely dismantled
incorrect
>NFZ
>they didn't do SEAD because they were already doing SEAD
genius

>>63912679
>2 aircraft losses flying into the densest concentration of AD on the world
>Iraqi airplanes shit themselves and turn back when faced by exhausted pilots running on fumes
Amazing victory
So, remind me how did desert storm end for the Iraqis?

>>63912694
Also
>The mission goal was not met, with the reactors of the research facility only slightly damaged, although many of the secondary targets were hit. F-117 aircraft re-attacked the facility later, causing significant damage


So 40 year old stealth tech completely bodied this invincible AD system and you're telling me the Russians could do anything but die like chumps ?

>>63912688
that's not a doctrine.
you are just saying do more.

israeli and us strike packages against iran which had a meager four double-digit sams involved ~200 planes.
ukraine has 20x as many. so following your logic, your strike package would be ~4000 planes. no one has that.

>>63912707
>t-that's not a doctrine
that is a doctrine, doctrine is to suppress and kill the AA with all the capabilities that can be used to do that.
>you are just saying do more
yes, if you don't do SEAD then you're not doing sead
>b-but the russians half-heartedly tried
i don't care, that's not a proper SEAD doctrine
if they had a proper SEAD doctrine, they would've had air-superiority within the first few days and been pretty much free to do what they wanted over ukrainian skies
>u-ukraine's AA is different
there being more of it is not a roadblock for western style airforces.
>following your logic, your strike package would be 4000 planes
nope, you came up with that on your own.
i think i remember you having a melty over this before, you really don't like the idea that even modern, large intergrated air defenses are vulnerable to good SEAD doctrine.

>>63912065
/thread

>>63912059 (OP)
Most of issue was because they ran out lf missiles, not that they got taken out.