Russia unleashes what may be one of the biggest aerial barrages against Ukraine, Zelenskyy says

[CharlieH]

 

KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — Russia launched about 110 missiles as well as drones against Ukrainian targets during the night Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Friday, killing at least seven civilians in what appeared to be one of the biggest aerial barrages of the 22-month war.

Most of the incoming missiles and drones were shot down during the roughly 18-hour onslaught, according to Zelenskyy. However, scores of people were injured and an unknown number of people were buried under rubble, Ukrainian officials said. Among the buildings damaged across Ukraine were a maternity hospital, apartment blocks and schools.

Zelenskyy said the Kremlin’s forces used a wide variety of weapons, including ballistic and cruise missiles.

“Today, Russia used nearly every type of weapon in its arsenal,” Zelenskyy said on sopcial media platform X, formerly Twitter.

Ukrainian Air Force spokesman Yurii Ihnat said Russia “apparently launched everything they have” in the attack.

If Zelenskyy’s count is confirmed, it would be the largest aerial attack by the Kremlin’s forces since their full-scale invasion in February 2022. According to the Ukrainian air force, the previous biggest assault was in November 2022 when Russia launched 96 missiles against Ukraine.

The bombardment came as fighting along the front line is largely bogged down by winter weather and after Ukraine’s summer counteroffensive failed to make a significant breakthrough along the roughly 1,000-kilometer (620-mile) line of contact.

 

FULL STORY

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

12 hours ago, CharlieH said:

Most of the incoming missiles and drones were shot down during the roughly 18-hour onslaught, according to Zelenskyy.

I suspect this is more psychological than a desire to destroy stuff, given they spaced the attack so most of the missiles/ drones could be destroyed.

 

IMO if they wanted to actually destroy a lot, they would send loads of drones at the beginning to use up the anti missile missiles, and then send the ones with payloads in right after them. The Ukrainians must be limited by the amount of launchers they have, which means they can only launch so many anti air missiles against incoming missiles.

[Morch]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I suspect this is more psychological than a desire to destroy stuff, given they spaced the attack so most of the missiles/ drones could be destroyed.

 

IMO if they wanted to actually destroy a lot, they would send loads of drones at the beginning to use up the anti missile missiles, and then send the ones with payloads in right after them. The Ukrainians must be limited by the amount of launchers they have, which means they can only launch so many anti air missiles against incoming missiles.

 

@thaibeachlovers

 

The Master Tactician Has Spoken.

 

I suspect you've no idea what you're talking about, just running interference as usual.

 

Yeah, Russia launched a major offensive, but actually meant it to fail. Makes sense.

[novacova]

“WARSAW, Dec 29 (Reuters) - Poland summoned the Russian charge d'affaires and demanded an explanation for the violation of Poland's airspace by a missile and an immediate halt to such activities, Poland's foreign ministry said in a statement on Friday evening.

According to the General Staff of the Polish Armed Forces, a Russian missile entered the airspace of the NATO member on Friday morning. Ukrainian authorities had reported a mass attack on various cities throughout Ukraine overnight.”

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/unidentified-object-entered-poland-direction-ukraine-says-polish-army-2023-12-29/

[Rimmer]

Britain giving hundreds of air defence missiles to Ukraine

 

Defence Secretary Grant Shapps has announced that hundreds of British-made air defence missiles are being shipped to Ukraine to protect civilians and infrastructure from drones and bombing.

 

It is understood that the package of around 200 air defence missiles will re-supply UK-developed air defence systems provided to Ukraine in late 2022, topping up Ukraine’s crucial air defence capabilities.

 

The missiles are mounted on a Supacat HMT truck to provide a mobile air-defence platform.

 

Full Story:

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain-giving-hundreds-of-air-defence-missiles-to-ukraine/

 

[LosLobo]

What is notable is that Russia entered NATO airspace.....

 

 

Edited December 30, 2023 by LosLobo

[thaibeachlovers]

8 hours ago, Rimmer said:

Britain giving hundreds of air defence missiles to Ukraine

 

Defence Secretary Grant Shapps has announced that hundreds of British-made air defence missiles are being shipped to Ukraine to protect civilians and infrastructure from drones and bombing.

 

It is understood that the package of around 200 air defence missiles will re-supply UK-developed air defence systems provided to Ukraine in late 2022, topping up Ukraine’s crucial air defence capabilities.

 

The missiles are mounted on a Supacat HMT truck to provide a mobile air-defence platform.

 

Full Story:

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain-giving-hundreds-of-air-defence-missiles-to-ukraine/

 

Worth noting that each missile costs over $200,000, and over half the number being sent would have been used in just the one attack in the OP.

https://www.eurasiantimes.com/british-fighter-jets-fire-dozens-of-asraam-missiles-that-india/

Each ASRAAM missile is said to cost around $225,500.

[impulse]

Keeping in mind that it is RT, I wonder who's telling the truth?

 

Rather than intercepting Russian missiles, Kiev’s Western-provided systems hit apartment blocks, Russia’s envoy to the UN said

 

“But for the work of Ukrainian air defenses, there would have been simply no civilian casualties.” 

 

https://www.rt.com/russia/589951-ukraine-kill-civilians-un/

[thaibeachlovers]

16 hours ago, impulse said:

Keeping in mind that it is RT, I wonder who's telling the truth?

 

Rather than intercepting Russian missiles, Kiev’s Western-provided systems hit apartment blocks, Russia’s envoy to the UN said

 

“But for the work of Ukrainian air defenses, there would have been simply no civilian casualties.” 

 

https://www.rt.com/russia/589951-ukraine-kill-civilians-un/

Can anyone explain how the missiles are intercepted over the city, with the resulting damage from detonated missiles, rather than outside cities?

One might expect the anti air missiles to be aimed away from the cities, but something does not add up.

[Morch]

11 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Can anyone explain how the missiles are intercepted over the city, with the resulting damage from detonated missiles, rather than outside cities?

One might expect the anti air missiles to be aimed away from the cities, but something does not add up.

 

@thaibeachlovers

 

(a)

It's an RT report.....

 

(b)

It can sometimes happen, depending on missile/radar tech, and on the parameters of interception.

[Bkk Brian]

On 12/31/2023 at 11:09 AM, impulse said:

Keeping in mind that it is RT, I wonder who's telling the truth?

 

Rather than intercepting Russian missiles, Kiev’s Western-provided systems hit apartment blocks, Russia’s envoy to the UN said

 

“But for the work of Ukrainian air defenses, there would have been simply no civilian casualties.” 

 

https://www.rt.com/russia/589951-ukraine-kill-civilians-un/

You and your RT. 

 

The following day Ukraine launched a missile attack on Belgorod.

 

Russia says 20 dead after Ukrainian strikes on Belgorod

 

Did RT do an article saying it was Russia's air defense systems and had it not been for them there would have been no civilian deaths?

 

Thought not, I wonder why? 

Edited January 1 by Bkk Brian

[impulse]

43 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

You and your RT. 

 

The following day Ukraine launched a missile attack on Belgorod.

 

Russia says 20 dead after Ukrainian strikes on Belgorod

 

Did RT do an article saying it was Russia's air defense systems and had it not been for them there would have been no civilian articles?

 

Thought not, I wonder why? 

 

Gosh.  I like to hear what both sides have to say.

 

But if I'm ruining the acoustics of your echo chamber, feel free to put me on ignore.   In fact, I'd prefer if you did.

 

And to answer your question, since it was Russkies operating Russkie made, Russkie language air defense missiles in Belgorod, they probably do better than Ukes operating English language air defenses.

 

[Bkk Brian]

32 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Gosh.  I like to hear what both sides have to say.

 

But if I'm ruining the acoustics of your echo chamber, feel free to put me on ignore.   In fact, I'd prefer if you did.

 

And to answer your question, since it was Russkies operating Russkie made, Russkie language air defense missiles in Belgorod, they probably do better than Ukes operating English language air defenses.

 

Oh so it's the instructions on the systems......

 

Your not getting rid of me that easy, no I will not be putting you on ignore.....lol

Edited January 1 by Bkk Brian

[Morch]

45 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Gosh.  I like to hear what both sides have to say.

 

But if I'm ruining the acoustics of your echo chamber, feel free to put me on ignore.   In fact, I'd prefer if you did.

 

And to answer your question, since it was Russkies operating Russkie made, Russkie language air defense missiles in Belgorod, they probably do better than Ukes operating English language air defenses.

 

 

Promotes RT, talks about echo chamber. Whatever.

 

As per your other comment - that would be you assuming stuff. You don't know how well trained/experienced troops are, and not necessarily comparing similar systems, even. And seriously - 'English-language-air-defenses'? Do you think all them armies that buy USA, Russian, Chinese, French or whatever systems are fluent in relevant languages? Doesn't have anything to do with anything.

[impulse]

58 minutes ago, Morch said:

Do you think all them armies that buy USA, Russian, Chinese, French or whatever systems are fluent in relevant languages? Doesn't have anything to do with anything.

They're probably minimally proficient. 

 

Try this...  Borrow a friend's Thai language cell phone and see how well you navigate it.  And understand that an air defense system probably has 10x as many knobs and menu selections.  Then hand it to a 6 year old Thai kid and see how much better he does.  That's the difference between a native language user and someone who's spent a few months training (and getting drunk at night) in the US desert.

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

20 minutes ago, impulse said:

They're probably minimally proficient. 

 

Try this...  Borrow a friend's Thai language cell phone and see how well you navigate it.  And understand that an air defense system probably has 10x as many knobs and menu selections.  Then hand it to a 6 year old Thai kid and see how much better he does.  That's the difference between a native language user and someone who's spent a few months training (and getting drunk at night) in the US desert.

 

 

"And understand that an air defense system probably has 10x as many knobs and menu selections."

 

Comedy gold 

 

You do know NATO has been training Ukraine soldiers in warfare and military defense equipment for many years right? You also must know the UK has trained well over 50,000 Ukraine troops in Salisbury UK in the same skills. Let's not forget all the other countries who have helped train including the US training in Patriot air defense systems.

 

How about the first batch of Ukraine pilots who have just finished their training in F16 fighter jets. I do believe that has more knobs and menu selections to.

Edited January 1 by Bkk Brian

[Morch]

14 minutes ago, impulse said:

They're probably minimally proficient. 

 

Try this...  Borrow a friend's Thai language cell phone and see how well you navigate it.  And understand that an air defense system probably has 10x as many knobs and menu selections.  Then hand it to a 6 year old Thai kid and see how much better he does.  That's the difference between a native language user and someone who's spent a few months training (and getting drunk at night) in the US desert.

 

 

 

You've probably no idea what you're on about.

 

Try this, they don't get the gear and a manual, there's training involved, foreign reps in Ukraine, Ukrainian troops training abroad. It's nothing like your contrived example. Pretty much the same with every sale of anything but basic military gear.

[impulse]

13 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

How about the first batch of Ukraine pilots who have just finished their training in F16 fighter jets. I do believe that has more knobs and menu selections to.

 

If they think they're going to prevail up against Russkie pilots with decades of experience flying Russkie jets, they're going to be in for a rude (but short) awakening.

 

Minimally proficient is the best they can expect after a few months of training.

 

[Bkk Brian]

16 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

If they think they're going to prevail up against Russkie pilots with decades of experience flying Russkie jets, they're going to be in for a rude (but short) awakening.

 

Minimally proficient is the best they can expect after a few months of training.

 

Not sure what that's got to do with your knobs and menu selections on air defense systems 

Edited January 1 by Bkk Brian

[Morch]

21 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

If they think they're going to prevail up against Russkie pilots with decades of experience flying Russkie jets, they're going to be in for a rude (but short) awakening.

 

Minimally proficient is the best they can expect after a few months of training.

 

 

More nonsense.

 

I doubt that there are many Russian pilots about with 'decades of experience' flying whatever.

 

You make a whole lot of the language thing, not sure on what grounds.

 

If that's what the Russians are depending on.....good luck.

[thaibeachlovers]

10 hours ago, impulse said:

 

If they think they're going to prevail up against Russkie pilots with decades of experience flying Russkie jets, they're going to be in for a rude (but short) awakening.

 

Minimally proficient is the best they can expect after a few months of training.

 

Probably takes years of experience on an advanced aircraft to become proficient and I doubt they have years left.

Wonder if they also trained up all the tech support to maintain the planes. That's storemen, mechanics, fitters, avionics, communications, air frame, weapons, defense systems etc etc etc. They also need a whole heap of spares- they won't be finding the right part down at Jim's reconditioned plane spares shop.

Wonder if they need specific US missiles to fit, or will ex soviet missiles do the job with a bit of hammering in the right spot?

 

I hope they ain't going to put Ukrainian badges on US support personnel and send them to Ukraine.

[LosLobo]

12 hours ago, impulse said:

 

If they think they're going to prevail up against Russkie pilots with decades of experience flying Russkie jets, they're going to be in for a rude (but short) awakening.

 

Minimally proficient is the best they can expect after a few months of training.

 

I suggest you watch too much Top Gun.

 

The concept of fighter-to-fighter warfare and dogfights is a thing of the past and a rarity in Ukraine.

Though the F16 is a multirole aircraft it will be used mainly for ground attack and the enemy will be mainly surface to air missiles and not Russian pilots.

Edited January 2 by LosLobo

[impulse]

14 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

I suggest you watch too much Top Gun.

 

The concept of fighter-to-fighter warfare and dogfights is a thing of the past and a rarity in Ukraine.

Though the F16 is a multirole aircraft it will be used mainly for ground attack and the enemy will be mainly surface to air missiles and not Russian pilots.

 

You guys keep getting caught up in the minutia.  I'm just saying that personnel operating indigenous equipment, with native language and idiosyncrasies geared toward their own experiences, are going to outperform someone operating imported equipment that they've trained on for months, and not years or decades.

 

Using myself as an example, I will always be more competent driving on the right side of the road.  That's the way I grew up.  I've done millions of km driving on that side, and shifting with my right hand.  Stick me in my Thai pickup truck and I was marginally proficient, in spite of years and tens of thousands of km driving Thai roads.

 

I do enjoy watching air crash documentaries, and there are quite a few of Soviet pilots crashing Boeings and Airbuses because they're different.  The autopilots act differently and even the attitude indicator is different.  Uke pilots have trained in Soviet aircraft for decades.  They'll be marginally proficient in F16's, for years.  Just like I am driving on the left.

 

[rabas]

On 12/30/2023 at 5:09 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

I suspect this is more psychological than a desire to destroy stuff, given they spaced the attack so most of the missiles/ drones could be destroyed.

 

IMO if they wanted to actually destroy a lot, they would send loads of drones at the beginning to use up the anti missile missiles, and then send the ones with payloads in right after them. The Ukrainians must be limited by the amount of launchers they have, which means they can only launch so many anti air missiles against incoming missiles.

 

Russia intended maximum civilian damage for Putin's propaganda, civilian damage makes news. They had to save up missiles for weeks and blew $1.2 billion on 158 missiles and drones . Russia's total military budget is just $77 billion, which includes nuclear forces, navy, subs, and dooms day weapons development, etc.

 

So Russia did kill several civilians.

 

Days before the Ukrainian air force used one storm shadow missile to obliterate a Russian ship that costs $300 million to replace (and 10 years) along with 1000s of paid for drones and missiles being shipped from Iran, and the lives of almost 100 Russian military personnel. 

 

So after Russia spent $1.2B and lost far more,  Ukraine won the week.

 

Which team would you root for?

 

Full story here:  https://twitter.com/i/status/1741250201200029789

https://twitter.com/RealJakeBroe/status/1741240488236327215

 

[LosLobo]

28 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

You guys keep getting caught up in the minutia.  I'm just saying that personnel operating indigenous equipment, with native language and idiosyncrasies geared toward their own experiences, are going to outperform someone operating imported equipment that they've trained on for months, and not years or decades.

 

Using myself as an example, I will always be more competent driving on the right side of the road.  That's the way I grew up.  I've done millions of km driving on that side, and shifting with my right hand.  Stick me in my Thai pickup truck and I was marginally proficient, in spite of years and tens of thousands of km driving Thai roads.

 

I do enjoy watching air crash documentaries, and there are quite a few of Soviet pilots crashing Boeings and Airbuses because they're different.  The autopilots act differently and even the attitude indicator is different.  Uke pilots have trained in Soviet aircraft for decades.  They'll be marginally proficient in F16's, for years.  Just like I am driving on the left.

 

The only minutiae that I got caught up in was that which you posted.

Though if you are an armchair expert after watching air crash documentaries and driving a car, I am sure experienced pilots with many months of F16 training will be able to cope with the task.
 

Edited January 2 by LosLobo

[thaibeachlovers]

12 minutes ago, rabas said:

 

Russia intended maximum civilian damage for Putin's propaganda, civilian damage makes news. They had to save up missiles for weeks and blew $1.2 billion on 158 missiles and drones . Russia's total military budget is just $77 billion, which includes nuclear forces, navy, subs, and dooms day weapons development, etc.

 

So Russia did kill several civilians.

 

Days before the Ukrainian air force used one storm shadow missile to obliterate a Russian ship that costs $300 million to replace (and 10 years) along with 1000s of paid for drones and missiles being shipped from Iran, and the lives of almost 100 Russian military personnel. 

 

So after Russia spent $1.2B and lost far more,  Ukraine won the week.

 

Which team would you root for?

 

Full story here:  https://twitter.com/i/status/1741250201200029789

https://twitter.com/RealJakeBroe/status/1741240488236327215

 

I'm not "rooting" for either. War is an abomination, and a tragedy for the human species. IMO the leaders of any nations want to kill people should be given clubs and left in a locked room to fight it out with each other. If that happened there wouldn't be any more wars.

Spend the money on making people's lives better, not killing them.

Far as I'm concerned a plague on all warmongers would be a good thing.

 

As for this conflict, IMO Russia will "win", if anyone wins a war, as it has time on it's side till western leaders can't justify sending any more money it's way. Once the money stop the war stops.

Ukraine had it's chance with the much vaunted counter offensive which turned into a fizzle, IMO.

Now it's just a matter of waiting till reality sets in, IMO.

Edited January 2 by thaibeachlovers

[Bkk Brian]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm not "rooting" for either. War is an abomination, and a tragedy for the human species. IMO the leaders of any nations want to kill people should be give clubs and left in a locked room to fight it out with each other. If that happened there wouldn't be any more wars.

Spend the money on making people's lives better, not killing them.

Far as I'm concerned a plague on all warmongers would be a good thing.

I'm not "rooting" for either. 

 

Your post history says otherwise

[rabas]

21 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

You guys keep getting caught up in the minutia.  I'm just saying that personnel operating indigenous equipment, with native language and idiosyncrasies geared toward their own experiences, are going to outperform someone operating imported equipment that they've trained on for months, and not years or decades.

 

Using myself as an example, I will always be more competent driving on the right side of the road.  That's the way I grew up.  I've done millions of km driving on that side, and shifting with my right hand.  Stick me in my Thai pickup truck and I was marginally proficient, in spite of years and tens of thousands of km driving Thai roads.

 

I do enjoy watching air crash documentaries, and there are quite a few of Soviet pilots crashing Boeings and Airbuses because they're different.  The autopilots act differently and even the attitude indicator is different.  Uke pilots have trained in Soviet aircraft for decades.  They'll be marginally proficient in F16's, for years.  Just like I am driving on the left.

 

You exaggerate. Proficient US military pilots can do air frame crossovers fairly quickly. Remember, these are proficient Ukrainian pilots already. 

 

Given a proficient Ukrainian pilot in new air frame against a proficient Russian pilot in an old air frame, each pushing a button to fire a missile after which modern US verses old Russian missile tech takes control, I will choose the Ukrainian in a new air frame.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Probably takes years of experience on an advanced aircraft to become proficient and I doubt they have years left.

Wonder if they also trained up all the tech support to maintain the planes. That's storemen, mechanics, fitters, avionics, communications, air frame, weapons, defense systems etc etc etc. They also need a whole heap of spares- they won't be finding the right part down at Jim's reconditioned plane spares shop.

Wonder if they need specific US missiles to fit, or will ex soviet missiles do the job with a bit of hammering in the right spot?

 

I hope they ain't going to put Ukrainian badges on US support personnel and send them to Ukraine.

 

@thaibeachlovers

 

No, it doesn't take years of experience. Most military flights schools don't last years, and takes less for an experienced pilot to switch to another airplane. As for tech and mechanical support, this is always included in the deal - complete with training for relevant troops. Same goes for spares. There are kits which allow aircraft to carry missiles/armaments they weren't designed to. Often used the other way around, by the way - putting western made missiles/systems on older Russian made aircraft.

 

All this is common knowledge, or easy enough to find out.

 

 

[Morch]

35 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

You guys keep getting caught up in the minutia.  I'm just saying that personnel operating indigenous equipment, with native language and idiosyncrasies geared toward their own experiences, are going to outperform someone operating imported equipment that they've trained on for months, and not years or decades.

 

Using myself as an example, I will always be more competent driving on the right side of the road.  That's the way I grew up.  I've done millions of km driving on that side, and shifting with my right hand.  Stick me in my Thai pickup truck and I was marginally proficient, in spite of years and tens of thousands of km driving Thai roads.

 

I do enjoy watching air crash documentaries, and there are quite a few of Soviet pilots crashing Boeings and Airbuses because they're different.  The autopilots act differently and even the attitude indicator is different.  Uke pilots have trained in Soviet aircraft for decades.  They'll be marginally proficient in F16's, for years.  Just like I am driving on the left.

 

 

You keep saying the same thing. You haven't supported it with anything. It's nonsense.