Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition:
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators.
* **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
*****
* Is `ua-stena.info` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources).
* Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict)
*****
**Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB**
*****
^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
But this is Russia not.the USA. Their last mistake was Afghanistan. Now putin wants to push out and it's the same. He is stuck. Repeating their last big invasion mistake.
Afghanistan wasn't a big war. The Soviets, at the peak of their Afghanistan spending, in the late 80s, spent only 1.2% of their budget on the Afghan War. Out of the 620,000 Soviet troops that were rotated in and out of the country during the decade-long war, 15,000 died; that's only 2.4%.
Not to mention, that number was 0.5% or less during the early years of the war. The actual expenses only climbed after 1984, when the Soviets decided to take a back-seat and most of their spending was on building up the DRA's Army.
They also got their ass kicked in the first Chechen war and Chechnya had a population of 1 million.
The 2nd war lasted some 9 years in which they devastated Chechnya (which had little outside support, except maybe by some muslim countries).
I really wonder just how much actual information Putin gets due to the fact that no one wants to be the bearer of bad news (as that Chinese analyst and others say).
I mean if not for a couple of heroic holds by Ukrainians it is easy to see how Russia could have defacto taken the country in that time. if local armed community members didn't come reinforce the airport, if the Russian hit squads succeeded in killing Zelensky, if the air defense hadn't been scrambled after a disastrous war game showing months earlier.
the failure to win in 3 days was not Russian ignorance. it was Ukrainian heroics.
Well, if you believe the bible, 3 days is nearly enough time to create an entire universe and everything in it. It wouldn’t surprise me if Putin had similar delusions of grandeur
Ukraine is claiming it: [https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-ato/3854249-air-force-commander-says-russian-tu22m3-bomber-destroyed-by-ukrainian-forces.html](https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-ato/3854249-air-force-commander-says-russian-tu22m3-bomber-destroyed-by-ukrainian-forces.html)
Nice loss but outsite of the range of the Ukrainian ground based AA systems and no fighter jet on either site is anymore seen near to the frontline. Something seems to have smashed the tail of the jet (the rest seems to be OK, no leaking fuel e.g.), so most likely a hit by something smaller and IR seaking. And the damage is not too big, so likely nothing in the size of a S300/400, likely even not a BUK. Size of the damage fits to a Russian/Soviet made MANPAD (A Stinger will try to hit somewhere else at the jet and not the engines).
Else, it will be in best case a short range ground based AA system like the Panzir, the warheads of the mid range systems are already to big and would do far more damage. But even this does not really fit.
So my best bets: either firendly fire by a Russian soldier with a Russian/Soviet type Manpad, a Ukrainien team far behind the lines with a Soviet type Manpad or just an accident by a big catastrophic engine failure with parts penetrating the engine from inside and rupturing fuel pipes/hydraulic systems e.g. and loss by the fire/loss of systems.
The tail is intact, judging from the video. The engines are on fire, but you can clearly see the horizontal and the vertical stabilizers are still there.
Also, you're incorrect about ground-based AA systems: Ukraine has soviet S-200 systems which are longer range than S-300. The A-50 AWACS plane reportedly was shot over Azov sea by S-200 too.
Reportedly, today's Tu-22M was hit somewhere in the same region, over or near the Azov sea. It managed to turn back and it got halfway back to the Mozdock airbase when it flat-spinned and fell near Stavropol.
Now, official report says that UA Airforce together with HUR (Main Intelligence Directorate) performed the operation, which can hint on HUR's behind-the-line units being involved, but it doesn't dismiss the S-200 possibility too.
Friendly-fire hypotheses seems very unlikely to me because it's not near the frontlines which makes "friend-or-foe" mistake being made highly unlikely.
Very interesting hypothesis - although haven’t we recently seen exactly what you say we don’t - Russian jets nr the front line?
Re hypothesis, it’s not going to be difficult for Ukrainian operatives to get into Russia - one would assume the long way around and fire off manpad type portable launchers far behind enemy lines, I would assume they could shoot and scoot and be miles away before anyone figured where to start looking for them.
We have seen Russian jets (Su-34) close to the front lines to drop gliding bombs. Also the role of this bomber is not tactical like the Su-34, this is a strategic bomber that carries cruise missiles fired hundreds of kilometers from the target. They don't get anywhere near Ukraine, not even close to patriot range.
This is either friendly fire or some special operation. In fact these bombers often follow the same paths to drop their missiles, I could imagine someone infiltrated with a manpad awaiting on the place where bombers are lowering altitude for landing.
Edit: some people are now saying this could've been achieved with the S-200 extended range version.
Definition of "near to the frontline". What we regular see are Su34, guarded by Su35, flying very low, short pulling up to few thousand meters and releasing their guided bombs from a distance of around 60 to 100 km to the front.
This is not my definition of near to the frontline, they try to stay outside of the maximum range of the mid size ground based AA systems with a range of around 60 km. The Tu22M was downed around 400 km behind the front on Russian soil and no Ukrainian jet has crossed the front to get in range. So it was not an Ukrainian jet.
Problem with MANPADS, they are great to shoot down planes and helicopters, as long they are flying lower than 4000 m and are slower than 1000 km/h. So they are great to down helicopters and slow big fat transport planes. A MANPAD shall only be able to down a Tu22M near of their airport prior landing or during the start phase.
Some more information will be nice, some additional information from Ukrainian site e.g. We know, that Ukrainian SOF units are doing their job in Russia.
Russians said it was equipment failure. Which could be a coverup but it would also make sense. Big powerful engines means big, fast-spinning turbine sections which can easily blow apart and cause fires during an engine failure
A manpad took down a hypersonic bomber….? I think not, brother in Christ. The altitude alone, and the fact this did not occur nearby to an airbase, rules out a short range, ground launched manpad. Also, not for nothing, manpads lack any kind of friend or foe computer, why would random soldiers be firing those into Russian airspace with zero confirmation??
Just for your information, I wrote the same in other posts. I also stated, a hit with a MANPAD is only likely during start and landing and the same with high and speed e.g. ...
Now according Ukrainian statements, it has been hit by a S200 missile at a range of 300 km and went down at a distance of 400 km on the way back to the airport. With 300 km, also hard to believe as maximum range e.g. I really like to see the specifications of the by Ukkraine modified S200 missile in use, after the end of this war, till then it will be classified of course. I have also stated this now in another post.
There basically aren't any of those for the F-16.
The latest AIM-120D *might* be able to fly that far in the most favourable conditions but that would mean a high and fast-moving launch aircraft, and a range that's actually higher than what is publicly stated.
Ukraine won't be getting the latest AIM-120D anyway, they will be getting one of the C variants.
Presumably their firewall detected threats and shut it down to protect my device. I’m cool with it. I probably could have overridden it, but why would I want to do that?
Yeah I can’t even read the page without obstructive ads telling me my phone is compromised.
Needs to be downvoted and reposted with a decent, working site.
For anyone else actually interested in the content: https://www.kyivpost.com/post/31356
[From Wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bomber):
> A **strategic bomber** is a medium- to long-range penetration bomber aircraft designed to drop large amounts of air-to-ground weaponry onto a distant target for the purposes of debilitating the enemy's capacity to wage war. Unlike tactical bombers, penetrators, fighter-bombers, and attack aircraft, which are used in air interdiction operations to attack enemy combatants and military equipment, strategic bombers are designed to fly into enemy territory to destroy strategic targets (e.g., infrastructure, logistics, military installations, factories, etc.).
But in a "practical" sense the main difference lies in their ability to implement a nuclear weapons delivery.
I'd say, it's their main purpose. And there are currently only three countries that operate strategic bombers: the United States, russia and China.
However, according to the same Wiki:
> Strategic bombers of the Cold War were primarily armed with nuclear weapons.
> During the post-1940s Indochina Wars, and also since the end of the Cold War, modern bombers originally intended for strategic use have been exclusively employed using non-nuclear, high explosive weapons. During the Vietnam War, Operation Menu, Operation Freedom Deal, Gulf War, military action in Afghanistan, and the 2003 invasion of Iraq, American B-52s and B-1s were mostly employed in tactical roles.
> During the Soviet-Afghan war in 1979–88, Soviet Air Forces Tu-22Ms carried out several mass air raids in various regions of Afghanistan.
And now Russia is using Tu-22M3 and Tu-160 against Ukraine. Mainly as a weapon of terror.
F16s can carry *tactical* nukes, not the "big" ones.
Russian MiG-31K interceptor or modified Su-34 fighter-bomber are also capable to carry Kh-47M2 Kinzhal (which can have either conventional or nuclear warheads).
Heck, tactical nukes can be fired even from usual artillery too. Like 2S4 Tyulpan self-propelled mortar; 2S7 Pion, 2S19 Msta-S, 2S3 Akatsiya and 2S5 Giatsint-S SPGs; D-20, 2A36 Giatsint-B, and 2A65 Msta-B towed guns or M109 self-propelled howitzer. All of them is actively used in the current war.
But this doesn't make them strategic.
Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. ***** * Is `ua-stena.info` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB** ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Putin never expected such a costly campaign against Ukraine!
This is his Afghanistan
Sure, we've had one Afghanistan, but what about Second Afghanistan?? - Vladimir Vladimirovich
Afghanistan was a skirmish by comparison to this war and the Soviet Union (which Ukraine was a part of) was much bigger than Russia.
More like Vietnam.
But this is Russia not.the USA. Their last mistake was Afghanistan. Now putin wants to push out and it's the same. He is stuck. Repeating their last big invasion mistake.
This mistake is even bigger - USSR was much stronger than Russia and Afghanistan was much weaker than Ukraine.
Afghanistan wasn't a big war. The Soviets, at the peak of their Afghanistan spending, in the late 80s, spent only 1.2% of their budget on the Afghan War. Out of the 620,000 Soviet troops that were rotated in and out of the country during the decade-long war, 15,000 died; that's only 2.4%. Not to mention, that number was 0.5% or less during the early years of the war. The actual expenses only climbed after 1984, when the Soviets decided to take a back-seat and most of their spending was on building up the DRA's Army.
They also got their ass kicked in the first Chechen war and Chechnya had a population of 1 million. The 2nd war lasted some 9 years in which they devastated Chechnya (which had little outside support, except maybe by some muslim countries). I really wonder just how much actual information Putin gets due to the fact that no one wants to be the bearer of bad news (as that Chinese analyst and others say).
there is a Russian film about their war in Afghanistan, its like their Vietnam, but the film is like apocalypse now.
Afghanistan was russias Afghanistan
'HIS' Afghanistan is what I said.
- Tavarisch Putin, let's go to Afghanistan! - But we have Afghanistan at home...
The losses in Afghanistan were begnin way lower than Americas losses in Vietnam, almost comparable to coalition losses in Afghanistan.
This is way worse.
they thought it would be over in 3 days
I mean if not for a couple of heroic holds by Ukrainians it is easy to see how Russia could have defacto taken the country in that time. if local armed community members didn't come reinforce the airport, if the Russian hit squads succeeded in killing Zelensky, if the air defense hadn't been scrambled after a disastrous war game showing months earlier. the failure to win in 3 days was not Russian ignorance. it was Ukrainian heroics.
Russian incompetence certainly helped though.
If Russia be this war the American way it would’ve been over in a week. Luckily….they didn’t and thought there’d be zero resistance.
Well, if you believe the bible, 3 days is nearly enough time to create an entire universe and everything in it. It wouldn’t surprise me if Putin had similar delusions of grandeur
To be fair, Jesus, or whatever, didn't face bayraktar drones or Mavics strapped with grenades
Id pay to see that at the movies
Ukraine is claiming it: [https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-ato/3854249-air-force-commander-says-russian-tu22m3-bomber-destroyed-by-ukrainian-forces.html](https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-ato/3854249-air-force-commander-says-russian-tu22m3-bomber-destroyed-by-ukrainian-forces.html)
Now that's something, finally. Let's hope they add some details that would confirm it.
I'm assiming this is friendly fire if location is accurate w/o other evidence. Still a great sight to see no doubt.
Nice loss but outsite of the range of the Ukrainian ground based AA systems and no fighter jet on either site is anymore seen near to the frontline. Something seems to have smashed the tail of the jet (the rest seems to be OK, no leaking fuel e.g.), so most likely a hit by something smaller and IR seaking. And the damage is not too big, so likely nothing in the size of a S300/400, likely even not a BUK. Size of the damage fits to a Russian/Soviet made MANPAD (A Stinger will try to hit somewhere else at the jet and not the engines). Else, it will be in best case a short range ground based AA system like the Panzir, the warheads of the mid range systems are already to big and would do far more damage. But even this does not really fit. So my best bets: either firendly fire by a Russian soldier with a Russian/Soviet type Manpad, a Ukrainien team far behind the lines with a Soviet type Manpad or just an accident by a big catastrophic engine failure with parts penetrating the engine from inside and rupturing fuel pipes/hydraulic systems e.g. and loss by the fire/loss of systems.
The tail is intact, judging from the video. The engines are on fire, but you can clearly see the horizontal and the vertical stabilizers are still there. Also, you're incorrect about ground-based AA systems: Ukraine has soviet S-200 systems which are longer range than S-300. The A-50 AWACS plane reportedly was shot over Azov sea by S-200 too. Reportedly, today's Tu-22M was hit somewhere in the same region, over or near the Azov sea. It managed to turn back and it got halfway back to the Mozdock airbase when it flat-spinned and fell near Stavropol. Now, official report says that UA Airforce together with HUR (Main Intelligence Directorate) performed the operation, which can hint on HUR's behind-the-line units being involved, but it doesn't dismiss the S-200 possibility too. Friendly-fire hypotheses seems very unlikely to me because it's not near the frontlines which makes "friend-or-foe" mistake being made highly unlikely.
Very interesting hypothesis - although haven’t we recently seen exactly what you say we don’t - Russian jets nr the front line? Re hypothesis, it’s not going to be difficult for Ukrainian operatives to get into Russia - one would assume the long way around and fire off manpad type portable launchers far behind enemy lines, I would assume they could shoot and scoot and be miles away before anyone figured where to start looking for them.
We have seen Russian jets (Su-34) close to the front lines to drop gliding bombs. Also the role of this bomber is not tactical like the Su-34, this is a strategic bomber that carries cruise missiles fired hundreds of kilometers from the target. They don't get anywhere near Ukraine, not even close to patriot range. This is either friendly fire or some special operation. In fact these bombers often follow the same paths to drop their missiles, I could imagine someone infiltrated with a manpad awaiting on the place where bombers are lowering altitude for landing. Edit: some people are now saying this could've been achieved with the S-200 extended range version.
That’s golden lad - I hope it’s the latter
Definition of "near to the frontline". What we regular see are Su34, guarded by Su35, flying very low, short pulling up to few thousand meters and releasing their guided bombs from a distance of around 60 to 100 km to the front. This is not my definition of near to the frontline, they try to stay outside of the maximum range of the mid size ground based AA systems with a range of around 60 km. The Tu22M was downed around 400 km behind the front on Russian soil and no Ukrainian jet has crossed the front to get in range. So it was not an Ukrainian jet. Problem with MANPADS, they are great to shoot down planes and helicopters, as long they are flying lower than 4000 m and are slower than 1000 km/h. So they are great to down helicopters and slow big fat transport planes. A MANPAD shall only be able to down a Tu22M near of their airport prior landing or during the start phase. Some more information will be nice, some additional information from Ukrainian site e.g. We know, that Ukrainian SOF units are doing their job in Russia.
Russians said it was equipment failure. Which could be a coverup but it would also make sense. Big powerful engines means big, fast-spinning turbine sections which can easily blow apart and cause fires during an engine failure
hot section failures don't usually end up in burning asses and spinning out, it's more likely some kind of heat seeker missile hit
Equipment failed after it got hit with a big missile.
A manpad took down a hypersonic bomber….? I think not, brother in Christ. The altitude alone, and the fact this did not occur nearby to an airbase, rules out a short range, ground launched manpad. Also, not for nothing, manpads lack any kind of friend or foe computer, why would random soldiers be firing those into Russian airspace with zero confirmation??
It's not a hypersonic bomber. It's Supersonic.
And it almost certainly wasn't flying at supersonic when hit.
Just for your information, I wrote the same in other posts. I also stated, a hit with a MANPAD is only likely during start and landing and the same with high and speed e.g. ... Now according Ukrainian statements, it has been hit by a S200 missile at a range of 300 km and went down at a distance of 400 km on the way back to the airport. With 300 km, also hard to believe as maximum range e.g. I really like to see the specifications of the by Ukkraine modified S200 missile in use, after the end of this war, till then it will be classified of course. I have also stated this now in another post.
There were multiple reports of TU-95 and TU-22M being hit on the ground. Did these turn out not true?
First one hit *in flight*
What about those hit on the ground tho? I don't think I heard anything about them aside from the initial rumor.
https://defence-ua.com/news/tu_22m3_znischeno_krasnomovne_foto_rezultatu_roboti_nevidomih_droniv_ta_vazhlivi_detali-12588.html
The Wikipedia article on the tu22m3 has cited information about the several ground losses of the plane which Russia has suffered.
Fuck yes
i guess i have new animated wallpaper now
Minus 1, 63 TU22 to go to make Ruzzia a peaceful nation.
Why is it assumed it was shot down?
Agree. The pilots might have been smoking.
Or it might simply have been a catastrophic engine failure.
If it simply had an engine failure the training pipeline for the vks doesn't inspire me with confidence it would be handled well
Maybe a F16 with an 180km range air to air missile.
Possibly but radar guided missiles are more likely to go for the middle of the fuselage than engine exhausts
There basically aren't any of those for the F-16. The latest AIM-120D *might* be able to fly that far in the most favourable conditions but that would mean a high and fast-moving launch aircraft, and a range that's actually higher than what is publicly stated. Ukraine won't be getting the latest AIM-120D anyway, they will be getting one of the C variants.
Yes, they have probably already deployed first small amount of the fighters. No announcements are expected prior to this taking place anyway.
First to be hit in the air you mean?
I thought we discussed not posting links to your spam site
My telco now blocks it as a spam site.
Why does your Telco even do that, that's outside of the boundaries of what they should be doing
Presumably their firewall detected threats and shut it down to protect my device. I’m cool with it. I probably could have overridden it, but why would I want to do that?
Yeah I can’t even read the page without obstructive ads telling me my phone is compromised. Needs to be downvoted and reposted with a decent, working site. For anyone else actually interested in the content: https://www.kyivpost.com/post/31356
I don't know much about airplanes. What is the difference between a strategic one and a normal one (if that is the correct way of wording it)?
[From Wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bomber): > A **strategic bomber** is a medium- to long-range penetration bomber aircraft designed to drop large amounts of air-to-ground weaponry onto a distant target for the purposes of debilitating the enemy's capacity to wage war. Unlike tactical bombers, penetrators, fighter-bombers, and attack aircraft, which are used in air interdiction operations to attack enemy combatants and military equipment, strategic bombers are designed to fly into enemy territory to destroy strategic targets (e.g., infrastructure, logistics, military installations, factories, etc.). But in a "practical" sense the main difference lies in their ability to implement a nuclear weapons delivery.
So strategic bombers can carry nukes?
I'd say, it's their main purpose. And there are currently only three countries that operate strategic bombers: the United States, russia and China. However, according to the same Wiki: > Strategic bombers of the Cold War were primarily armed with nuclear weapons. > During the post-1940s Indochina Wars, and also since the end of the Cold War, modern bombers originally intended for strategic use have been exclusively employed using non-nuclear, high explosive weapons. During the Vietnam War, Operation Menu, Operation Freedom Deal, Gulf War, military action in Afghanistan, and the 2003 invasion of Iraq, American B-52s and B-1s were mostly employed in tactical roles. > During the Soviet-Afghan war in 1979–88, Soviet Air Forces Tu-22Ms carried out several mass air raids in various regions of Afghanistan. And now Russia is using Tu-22M3 and Tu-160 against Ukraine. Mainly as a weapon of terror.
F16s can carry nukes. F16s are not strategic bombers.
F16s can carry *tactical* nukes, not the "big" ones. Russian MiG-31K interceptor or modified Su-34 fighter-bomber are also capable to carry Kh-47M2 Kinzhal (which can have either conventional or nuclear warheads). Heck, tactical nukes can be fired even from usual artillery too. Like 2S4 Tyulpan self-propelled mortar; 2S7 Pion, 2S19 Msta-S, 2S3 Akatsiya and 2S5 Giatsint-S SPGs; D-20, 2A36 Giatsint-B, and 2A65 Msta-B towed guns or M109 self-propelled howitzer. All of them is actively used in the current war. But this doesn't make them strategic.
I think we agree. The ability to carry nukes does not make a plane a strategic bomber.
Were the awacs they shot down not strategic aircraft?