What's new

IRIAF | News and Discussions

Ok your point is:
From cost perspective, you will go for Su 35

But what for one to one ?
Here Rafael will take the show away from Su 35.

Modern warfare is a complex game.You can not just judge the strength of fighter jet from only Radar's range point of view.What about its SEAD/DEAD capabilities?Can it jamm the enemy air defence radars for self defence?

Now compare Su 35 with Rafael from SEAD point of view also.And then decide.


Surely in military acquisitions ,cost effectiveness plays a pivotal role but cost is not the only factor involved while selecting a fighter jet.
The lack of SEAD I've seen from Russia is not very confidence inducing.

I would've wholeheartedly expected the airspace of Kharkiv to be in full control of Russia.

Either I have bad misconceptions about Russia's SEAD/DEAD capability or mobile air defences (Like large amounts of BUK's and KUB's are vastly underestimated). Russia has not been flying a very large amount of sorties it seems.

You won't be able to 100% of the time prevent bombs from falling into your assets, but you can definitely create contested conditions and down aircraft every so often.
 
.
Either I have bad misconceptions about Russia's SEAD/DEAD capability or mobile air defences (Like large amounts of BUK's and KUB's are vastly underestimated).

We have to calibrate our expectations according to the general factual framework.

Germany's legendary 1940 Blitzkrieg against France lasted no less than six weeks. Ukraine in 2020 is slightly more populous than France used to be (44 versus 41 million inhabitants), and its surface area slightly larger (some 600 thousand versus some 540 thousand square kilometers).

In 2003 it also took the US military three whole weeks to invade Iraq, a totally battered country and thus far weaker than Ukraine in every respect. Moreover, Ukraine is enjoying extensive NATO support (intelligence, weapons, training, propaganda and psy-ops) which Iraq didn't. And perhaps most importantly, the Russians are much more careful about avoiding collateral damage in Ukraine than the Americans were in Iraq.

So I would say Russia's campaign is going according to plan and has been very successful so far. The bear's patience has a limit, as NATO is painfully experiencing at the moment, despite their boundless propaganda backed up by extensive censorship.

Russia's miscalculation was only about the determination of Ukrainian repressive units, including far right militants, to hold hostage their own civilian populations, especially the Russian-speakers in the east, which of course is complicating and slowing down Russian operations to a certain extent. Other than that, what we're seeing is the shattering strength of the Russian steam roller. The efficacy and quality of Russia's post-Soviet military build up is under display.
 
Last edited:
.
So I would say Russia's campaign is going according to plan and has been very successful so far. The bear's patience has a limit, as NATO is painfully experiencing as we speak, despite their boundless propaganda backed up by extensive censorship.

Wouldn’t say “very successful” when you lose up to 10-15% of your invading force (deaths + wounded).

If the roles were reserved and Iran had caused 7,000 US casualties and Iran had not lost a single major city (Kermanshahr would be our Mariupol and let’s Tabriz and Mashhad our Sumy and Karkhiv). I would say that would be a major win for us.

The issue isn’t wether or not Russia can take land, of course it can. It has the military power to crush Ukraine that is not in question. The question is does it have the time, because we know as conflicts rage over time stagnation happens (Yemen, Syria, Libya, etc).

If Russia doesn’t care about “costs” then this could be cateoegized as a successful military operation.

But I think even if Russia wins it will be the whole world talking about the ineptitude of the Russia war machine at doing even the “basics” they teach in military academy.

Hopefully Iran’s military establishment gleans as much information from this war as it can. I am sure it will be taught in military academy’s around the world for years on what to do and what not to do during war.
 
.
3427448.jpg


Chinook with new camouflage.
 
.
Wouldn’t say “very successful” when you lose up to 10-15% of your invading force (deaths + wounded).

Wounded troops don't necessarily qualify as losses since even the slightest scuff is classified and registered as a wound. In effect most of those wounded will return to duty in a matter of minutes or hours.

As for Russian casualty figures, I wouldn't place trust in Ukrainian and western sources at all. It is obvious that these have embarked on a gigantic propaganda campaign where facts no longer matter and psychological conditioning is everything. The fact that they need to resort to such unusual degrees of censorship is further evidence of this.

To my knowledge Russia hasn't published new numbers since March 1, when it reported less than 500 KIA and less than 1600 wounded. Assuming their casualty rate has remained constant (which is not certain), the current number would be around 1500 KIA and some 5000 wounded. If estimates that the Russian invading force consists of 100.000-200.000 troops are accurate, it would mean their losses amount to between 0.75% and 1.5% killed, and about 3% to 6% killed or wounded.

Even if Russia ultimately loses 15000 men (killed) or more taking over or completely neutralizing a country the size of Ukraine with the powerful backers Kiev has, it'd remain within logical expectations.

If the roles were reserved and Iran had caused 7,000 US casualties and Iran had not lost a single major city (Kermanshahr would be our Mariupol and let’s Tabriz and Mashhad our Sumy and Karkhiv). I would say that would be a major win for us.

If the US regime believes it can afford the 7000 casualties, then Iran will not have made a gain. In war, win or loss is determined by whether previously defined political aims intended to be served by the military instrument are met or not. As well as the long term social and political consequences of the war effort.

The US reaching its war objectives like Russia is bound to, would spell doom for Iran. Iran cannot afford but to make any kind of game-changing military action unaffordable for the Americans and deter them effectively from such undertakings, like she has successfully been doing to date.

The issue isn’t wether or not Russia can take land, of course it can. It has the military power to crush Ukraine that is not in question. The question is does it have the time, because we know as conflicts rage over time stagnation happens (Yemen, Syria, Libya, etc).

It depends on the conflict, I'd say. Especially when it comes to this conflict since as mentioned, Russia has not taken the gloves off and is extremely wary of inflicting too much collateral damage (both to Ukrainian and especially Russian-speaking civilians, as well as to infrastructure) when compared to the average NATO campaign.

If Russia doesn’t care about “costs” then this could be cateoegized as a successful military operation.

Economic costs are one thing, but how much human costs a country can afford is a function of its own social tolerance for casualties, as well as of the objective availability of manpower. A third criterion would be whether the losses are worth it considering the underlying political goal to be achieved. Tolerance is higher in Russia than in the west, and manpower is abundant enough. Russia's performance in terms of casualties should be gauged based on its own tolerance / resource levels.

As for whether it's politically worth it for Russia, the alternative - being encircled by NATO on its western borders, might well have heavier consequences in the long term.

But I think even if Russia wins it will be the whole world talking about the ineptitude of the Russia war machine at doing even the “basics” they teach in military academy.

I think this will be limited to the western world and its client states. So far I haven't heard western narratives being echoed in truly independent nations, and I'm not sure that they will adopt them.
 
Last edited:
.
To my knowledge Russia hasn't published new casualty figures since March 1, when it reported less than 500 KIA and less than 1600 wounded. Assuming their casualty rate has remained constant (which is not certain), the current number would be around 1500 KIA and some 5000 wounded. If estimates that the Russian invading force consists of 100.000-200.000 troops are accurate, it would mean their losses amount to between 0.75% and 1.5% killed, and about 3% to 6% killed or wounded.


Based on the amount of armour and vehicle lost plus UAV footage I have seen, Russia has taken Armenia like casualties at a minimum.

Minimum would be 5,000 dead could be as high as 10,000+.

If I were to guess I would say 5,000-7,000 is a safe assumption right now.

The destruction of mechanized armour is Syrian war esque.

As for Ukraine casualties it is at least 1:1 up to 2:1 so Ukraine has probably suffered 7,000-10,000 dead at a minimum.

We won’t know till the end of the war when both sides release their “real” figures and 3rd party organizations release the “estimated range”.
 
.
Based on the amount of armour and vehicle lost plus UAV footage I have seen, Russia has taken Armenia like casualties at a minimum.

Minimum would be 5,000 dead could be as high as 10,000+.

I'm not sure if and with what sort of a ratio casualties can be safely extrapolated from armor losses. If the Ukrainian side is conducting a lot of irregular warfare with hit-and-run ambushes against vehicles, it is possible that Russia would lose relatively more armor than troops. Also, we should beware reports of lost Russian armor in western sources even with pictures added, since both armies largely operate the same types.
 
.
I'm not sure if and with what sort of a ratio casualties can be safely extrapolated from armor losses. If the Ukrainian side is conducting a lot of irregular warfare with hit-and-run ambushes against vehicles, it is possible that Russia would lose relatively more armor than troops. Also, we should beware reports of lost Russian armor in western sources even with pictures added, since both armies largely operate the same types.

Not just armour, but complete Russian vehicles- we can talk more in the chill thread as not to derail this thread.

Casualties are high no doubt about it, mostly due to use of conscript troops.
 
.
Based on the amount of armour and vehicle lost plus UAV footage I have seen, Russia has taken Armenia like casualties at a minimum.

Minimum would be 5,000 dead could be as high as 10,000+.

If I were to guess I would say 5,000-7,000 is a safe assumption right now.

The destruction of mechanized armour is Syrian war esque.

As for Ukraine casualties it is at least 1:1 up to 2:1 so Ukraine has probably suffered 7,000-10,000 dead at a minimum.

We won’t know till the end of the war when both sides release their “real” figures and 3rd party organizations release the “estimated range”.
Its going to be a lot. So much so that Russia hasn't even updated their 499 or something casualties. Cause it be eye popping to many including the Russian people thinking Ukrainians are welcoming them with open arms everywhere.
 
.
Wouldn’t say “very successful” when you lose up to 10-15% of your invading force (deaths + wounded).

If the roles were reserved and Iran had caused 7,000 US casualties and Iran had not lost a single major city (Kermanshahr would be our Mariupol and let’s Tabriz and Mashhad our Sumy and Karkhiv). I would say that would be a major win for us.

The issue isn’t wether or not Russia can take land, of course it can. It has the military power to crush Ukraine that is not in question. The question is does it have the time, because we know as conflicts rage over time stagnation happens (Yemen, Syria, Libya, etc).

If Russia doesn’t care about “costs” then this could be cateoegized as a successful military operation.

But I think even if Russia wins it will be the whole world talking about the ineptitude of the Russia war machine at doing even the “basics” they teach in military academy.

Hopefully Iran’s military establishment gleans as much information from this war as it can. I am sure it will be taught in military academy’s around the world for years on what to do and what not to do during war.

Undoubtedly Iran will be learning intently from this as they did during the Nagarno-Karabakh conflict.
 
. . . . .
lol, how come?
We should be realistic, we got some dumb and lazy people in some positions of power. We also have good people, like people who were early adopters of UAVs.

In recent exercise their were troops operating soft-skinned technicals. I have no problem with big *** machine guns, but can they be mounted on something that can withstand a 5.56x45mm NATO round. Not a Toyota.

If Syria wasn't enough of a lesson to learn how important APS systems on Tanks and IFVs are, I hope they pay attention to Ukraine, because this entire T-72S force is dead otherwise. As a matter of fact, the war should be a wakeup call to T-72S and BMP-2 operators.

Aside from the airforce that only requires money to purchase, the ground forces are very neglected and are well within Iran's capability to improve drastically. Ground forces have not learned much from Syria, just look at the equipment they were sent with in Syria.
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom