Justin should really be just a regular guest on the channel. Really good discussion again
@roderickcampbell21052 жыл бұрын
Hi Nekrosmas. I agree. Especially for contemporary matters. I also like your suggestion as Justin's knowledge is deep and wide enough that it's hard to follow if one isn't on one's game. A regularly occurring interview would help bridge the knowledge gap between Justin and most of us. Still, it was a great post.
@Rabmac1UK2 жыл бұрын
@Nekrosmas I agree entirely, the channel is blessed with very Good Luck to have him, and as for what he knows that cannot be spoken.....well he tries to be as helpful as he can. I admire this Channel more and more, always Authoritative and can be veiwed with total confidence
@justinbrown6912 жыл бұрын
He is on a bunch of channels, kinda like Michael Kofman. I sometime just look for them rather than hope they land on a channel I watch/listen to.
@johndonaldson36192 жыл бұрын
@@justinbrown691 Justin Bronk can also be found on Ward Carrol's channel.... - with a number of videos of excellent analysis
@x07182 жыл бұрын
Discussion ?
@jayte49322 жыл бұрын
No bias. no spin. No dramatization. No romanticizing. Just straight facts and analysis. Thank you.
@MilitaryAviationHistory2 жыл бұрын
*PSA Dated 14 July '22* KZbin is experiencing (another) influx of spam/impersonation accounts in comment sections that the automatic bot doesn't flag (yet). I doubt it has to be said but just to be clear, *do not follow* any comments that go around advertising alternative currencies or any of that nonsense. If you see an account doing this, report it to KZbin. If that account is impersonating me (avatar+name), you'll know that it is not me because a) I don't advertise that kind of stuff and b) by clicking on the account which then sends you to a random YT account that is not me.
@jeffreybaker43992 жыл бұрын
Acknowledging the limitations of open-source intelligence, this is excellent work. Well done to all.
@powkung452 жыл бұрын
This guys says the Russians are primarily using helicopters, while another channel Perum claimed the Russians aren't using the helicopters very much... it shows people are heavily influenced by the information bubbles they are in, what sources they follow
@thefisherking782 жыл бұрын
My actual name is the same as yours and it's upsetting to see you capitalize only the second initial. For the sake of JB everywhere, can you please fix that?
@thefisherking782 жыл бұрын
@@powkung45 Perun says they're limiting the _ways_ they use helicopters based on how they've lost them so far. For example, we haven't seen a large scale air assault like the one on Hostomel ever since.
@powkung452 жыл бұрын
@@thefisherking78 The Hostomel assault had to carry troops, most attack missions don't, why wouldn't they be different since?
@jeffreybaker43992 жыл бұрын
@@thefisherking78 Thanks, JB. I changed it back to the original capitalized J. Noticed the other day that it had converted "itself" (hacker? my daughter fooling around with the keyboard when I wasn't looking?) to a small j. Found fixing it to be very low on my list of priorities. If it does another "self" transformation, I'm not going to waste the time to fix it again, but one time, sure, why not.🙂
@santubandieri2 жыл бұрын
I am amazed at the quality of information that is available to anyone who's a bit curious. Thank you for helping us get a grip on the current events.
@supremegreaser23992 жыл бұрын
Just don’t believe everything you hear on the internet.
@GeneralJackRipper2 жыл бұрын
Not only is there very good information out there, but there is also very bad information as well. Sorting between it is the real skill.
@jansix42872 жыл бұрын
I am disappointed by the lack of information on Ukrainian military losses. There’s no way to even estimate who’s winning the artillery war? Only in retrospect by watching front movements, we can conclude that something must’ve worked out for one side or the other.🤷
@crowe69612 жыл бұрын
@@jansix4287 They're not going to want to let those numbers start slipping until they're in a more advantageous position or the war is lost, and they have more control over their area of operations due to government loyalty. The Russians are trying to hide their losses too, the effort has just been as incompetent as the rest of their campaign. This is typical information warfare, you generally don't want the enemy to know precisely how strong you are and where.
@elektrotehnik942 жыл бұрын
@@jansix4287 7-20k military losses is a good bet, for Ukrainians
@patrickcloutier68012 жыл бұрын
Justin Bronx provided valuable insights into the modern battlefield. Based on how effectively drones were used by the Azeris against the Armenians in 2020, it seemed as though future wars would see drones flying over the battlefield, owning everything, like the hunter seekers in the Terminator movies. But as it turns out, even drones have limitations. A show well done.
@oilace12 жыл бұрын
Very powerful analysis by Justin, I had wondered why we were not seeing more drone related attacks, this now makes such a clear picture. Great job guys.
@blackorange56762 жыл бұрын
Yes and no. Heavy attack drones do not work in static fighting. But small drone + artillery the most important thing in such war
@Battlenude2 жыл бұрын
Not even close by comparison. The reason so little fixed wings are used in this conflict is high grade Airdefense with poor command structure. You basicly end up shooting down your own jet. Drones would do better, but they need to get replenished at a steady rate
@patman02502 жыл бұрын
Not really inside but more of his own opinions. Because we already know a lot of stuff he's saying isn't true. The Russians haven't forced the ukrainians to push back with their Sam's. And they're not doing regular sororities they whittled down to nothing at the moment. Dude's obviously a Russian fangirl.
@weeb32442 жыл бұрын
This is a very informative interview; it's incredibly refreshing to see someone talking about this topic that isn't giving out heavily propagandized information
@ronjon79422 жыл бұрын
Bis, I wanted to comment on a recent video in hopes you catch this - I think your channel is one of the greats and I love your attention towards historical integrity. I’m working my way through your WWII and prior history lessons and have learned so much from your research, which in turn has re-inspired me to do my own. Thanks again for what you do, and as soon as I’m able I will be a regular contributor to the channel.
@mikekenney83622 жыл бұрын
So refreshing to hear someone who really knows what he’s talking about. Nice job. Please address logistics and training as a crucial link in air doctrine. From the outside it appears that the Russians have intrinsic limitations in supporting the number of flight hours essential to maintaining an effective unified air arm
@benghazi42162 жыл бұрын
If you want to hear Justin's take on training and more on this conflict as a whole you can look at the interviews he did with Ward Carroll here on KZbin. They are really great
@patman02502 жыл бұрын
Knows what he's talking about but giving his opinions? Most of things he said weren't even true he's basically telling you that Russia's awesome and Ukraine is weak. Telling us we should respect the Russians capability more are you kidding me right now what capability. The capability to lose? He's obviously a Russian fan girl good to know what side he's on.
@B.D.E.2 жыл бұрын
@@patman0250 You need to keep emotions out of it if you ever want to be the kind of person who stands a chance to ever clearly assess any situation.
@twafikd8702 жыл бұрын
@@patman0250 You've been watching too much Tv. The Russians are clearly far superior than the Ukrainians but this is a war like never seen before. It's a truly 2022 high tech conflict - kind of an oxymoron seeing as most of the high tech aspect has been neutralized and we're essentially back to artillery heavyweight bouts. But that's what modern conflicts will look like.
@TJ-wo1xt2 жыл бұрын
what a great discussion, thanks for bringing this interview, good to see that justin is not ideologically driven but factually driven. Great analysis.
@B.D.E.2 жыл бұрын
He's very professional, but of course on an affective and ideological level, he wants Russia to lose as much as the rest of us.
@TJ-wo1xt2 жыл бұрын
@@B.D.E. Russia is winning genius. That's what this video was implying.
@harbomarbo46952 жыл бұрын
It is great that we can see Justin in this channel. He is one of the best analyst around and surely the questions and answers were also amazing.. Great job.. really apreciate your work..
@legoeasycompany2 жыл бұрын
Its been kind of strange at least from the coverage of this conflict with a bunch of footage of aircraft and helicopters early on to just snippets here and there. I'm wondering if Opsec has anything to do with the lack or more footage recently?
@jmi59692 жыл бұрын
It's a stalemate. Both parties effectively denied airspace to each other, and both are too short on aircraft and pilots.
@termitreter65452 жыл бұрын
@Boomstick McNugget Eh its 50/50. The idea that airpower decides a war on its own seems like nonsense, but its still important.
@TzunSu2 жыл бұрын
@Boomstick McNugget Worth remembering is that this is the first time we've seen peer-to-peer air vs SAMs. It's easy to think it would always be as easy as Iraq or Afghanistan, but unless you've got total dominance of the air, losses are high if you want to do damage.
@TzunSu2 жыл бұрын
@@termitreter6545 It's a lot more effective in the defensive then in the offensive. Air dominance makes any kind of large scale attack very, very costly.
@warhead_beast76612 жыл бұрын
@@TzunSu easy to forget but Iraq had pretty much the gold standard of air defence systems in 2003. The big difference between Nato and Russia lies in the capability of SEAD in which the Russians apperently lack pretty greatly
@TorToroPorco2 жыл бұрын
Always great to hear Justin’s insights on the air war. His ability to provide the proper situational context results in some really excellent analysis.
@kgroovr2 жыл бұрын
He is bias to a ridiculous degree, take it all with a dose of salt, this is the first time he has admitted to any RU success at any level.
@xntumrfo9ivrnwf2 жыл бұрын
This guy (Justin Bronk), and Stanimir Dobrev who was interviewed a few times on Military History not Visualized, are HANDS DOWN the most interesting people to listen to regarding the war in Ukraine. Fascinating every time.
@dasgelbevomei47392 жыл бұрын
I'd add Michael Kofman to the list.
@xntumrfo9ivrnwf2 жыл бұрын
@@dasgelbevomei4739 thanks, I’ll check him out
@vikingish112 жыл бұрын
Putting Bronk on the same level as halfwit conspiracy theorist Dobrev is really unfair. MHV should vet his sources better.
@xntumrfo9ivrnwf2 жыл бұрын
@@vikingish11 why do you say so about dobrev ? Sincere question
@vikingish112 жыл бұрын
@@xntumrfo9ivrnwf That's the impression I got from his "analysis" of undisclosed sources. I admit some degree of hyperbolism, but a tiny one.
@stupidburp2 жыл бұрын
I think this shows the importance of highly mobile, well protected, ground based air defenses of various types. MEADS for example should be acquired and replace Patriot for the US. Not just because of the better radar and control but also because of truck based systems that have decent protection and can pick up, move, and set up quickly. Ground and air based optical air defense networks may also be necessary to cover gaps in radar coverage and counter electronic warfare.
@TheCat484882 жыл бұрын
Calling for stabilized aa missle launchers
@miriamweller8122 жыл бұрын
You do get, that Ukraine is simply brutally burned down by NATO and is just completely ruined as a country already? What kind of tactic or stategy shall that be? You think NATO would/should ruin themselves like that and brutally lose?
@kundankumar-tw5wm2 жыл бұрын
@@miriamweller812 what does that have to do with AA defences?
@stupidburp2 жыл бұрын
NATO should improve air defenses throughout all member countries territories. More assistance should be given to Eastern European members in particular.
@bluemarlin81382 жыл бұрын
@@miriamweller812 NATO hasn’t dropped one bomb in Ukraine. Russia has dropped thousands, and perhaps a couple million artillery rounds. Russia has destroyed Ukraine, and no one else. Russia made up fake stories about Russian-speakers being oppressed, provoked separatists to rise up for basically no reason except that Ukraine was moving away from Russia’s orbit, provided the separatists with weapons, training, and personnel, stole Crimea, and now has launched a full fledged war with the intent of re-asserting its influence and stealing Ukrainian oil, gas, and farmland, as well as destroying the Ukrainian national culture and identity. Ever ask yourself why the former Soviet and Warsaw Pact countries that joined the EU are so much better off than the ones who didn’t? Go home, troll.
@BobSmith-dk8nw2 жыл бұрын
Outstanding. I've been retired for a long time now but from my peripheral involvement during the Cold War with some of the systems in use at the time - yes - it costs an absolute fortune to run, maintain and train with that stuff. You very much need major exercises so that all the different elements can be combined in giving the personnel some real experience with doing these things. The other thing is - as we are seeing today - you don't _really_ know how these things are _really_ going to work - until they are being used against each other for real. Also - what you are seeing here today - is how these things are working in the specific context of the Russo-Ukrainian War. Care should be taken to not extrapolate things we are seeing - _or think we are seeing_ - in this conflict to speculation on another conflict or potential conflict. One of the things the USAF put a lot of emphasis on at one time (I just don't know about today) was Proficiency. Pilots were *_REQUIRED_* to put in a certain amount of time within a given time - doing what they were supposed to know how to do - to maintain their Proficiency. This means that not only did they know what they were doing - but - they could do it with speed and efficiency - without thinking. It was as much Muscle Memory as anything else. They did things so much that their minds could control the actions of their bodies - instantly. They didn't have to stop and think about what they were going to do - they just did it without thinking. Their minds could spend all their time on thinking about what they _wanted_ to do - rather than _how_ to do it. Their performance was instinctive - automatic - the intent to do something - WAS - doing it. And ... _If You Don't Use It - You Lose It_ . If they didn't spend enough time continually doing what they were supposed to be able to do - their Proficiency would fall off. All THAT - costs an absolute fortune. Military equipment costs a fortune to operate - and in order to operate it - you have to maintain it. The Fuel, the spare parts, the time personnel spend on what they are doing - are all horrendous. In the last year or so we have seen the cost of Civilian Organizations trying to operate Historic Equipment that was designed to be owned by a Nations Armed Forces - and the lives that were lost because it just wasn't being maintained the way it needed to be. Even during WWII - there were any number of losses because of improper maintenance. "One a day in Tampa Bay" - was really not because of the B-26's - but because they were being maintained by newly trained personnel - which was causing them to lose engines on take off ... which is never a good thing for any aircraft. In my experience both in service and in support - I saw the incredible efforts that were being made by the kids we had out there operating that equipment. I also participated in the Post Cold War Draw Down ... All I'll say about THAT is that I once told someone who was objecting to what was happening: "The Mistake you are making is thinking that things being all fucked up - is an unacceptable state of affairs." The Bean Counters take over and all the money they save will be paid for with blood in the future - but - the Bean Counters don't care. .
@zaco-km3su2 жыл бұрын
You mean the B-26s? The "bean counters" will care when they will be getting bombed. Thing is they don't realise they will be getting bombed. they don't think they will be getting bombed. That's a foreign concept to them.
@BobSmith-dk8nw2 жыл бұрын
@@zaco-km3su The Mention of B-26's was about one specific incident during WWII as an example of what can go wrong when maintenance crews do not have enough experience to do their jobs properly. In this case - it was because they were expanding the size of the force so rapidly that they couldn't get the technicians trained well enough to do their jobs before they started doing them. As a result of losing a number of aircraft and crews - they changed the way they were doing things and made sure the technicians had more training. They stopped having aircraft lose engines on take off - and the problem went away. The Bean Counters are only thinking about saving money and not thinking about anything else - what so ever. .
@zaco-km3su2 жыл бұрын
@@BobSmith-dk8nw Those B-26s....
@bluemarlin81382 жыл бұрын
Now imagine it when everyone from the oligarchs and generals all the way down to the lowly privates are pocketing everything they can, and you have the Russian military.
@mikekenney83622 жыл бұрын
I can hear the experience calling out in your comment. We had one of the largest Field Maintenance squadrons in the USAF devoted entirely to training and proficiency. It was incredibly expensive to keep the air fleet in the air. Without that commitment, the force would have been unreliable…and the IG made sure we knew it.
@thefisherking782 жыл бұрын
God damn that was good! 22yr USAF guy here and very much appreciated the insights.
@purplegeezer2 жыл бұрын
Just want to make a small correction: it’s not true that the Russians lost no helicopters on the way in to Hostomel. Two escorting helicopters were shot down over the Kyiv Reservoir, one Mi-24P and one Mi-35M.
@1CE.2 жыл бұрын
We’re they lost tho? There’s a difference in getting hit but recovered and being straight up destroyed Also just say Kiev. You’re not a politician trying to play the Freedom Fries bs cuz it might boost moral or something
@wessexdruid75982 жыл бұрын
@@1CE. No say Kyiv - because you're not Russian and it doesn't belong to Russia, however much they'd like it to.
@rammusannus53642 жыл бұрын
@@1CE. Yes they were as them falling into the water is captured on video
@tandemcharge51142 жыл бұрын
@@1CE. Idk, would the helicopter being at the bottom of the reservoir be not considered lost? Just needs to buff up paint and it'll be good to go, I guess👌
@1CE.2 жыл бұрын
@@wessexdruid7598 Bro we called it Kiev for literally forever up until 5 minutes ago This word salad bs is so dumb. It’s Kiev, cheer for Ukraine and all that. Calling it the name everyone has always used is no big deal however trying to change that is certainly just semantics for the sake of the slightest of slightest moral boosts and pandering
@QuixEnd2 жыл бұрын
That report he recommended at the end was 10/10. Id suggest anyone read it as well, it's super quick and informative considering how much info it goes through. I don't typically get into the technical details of the war so it's a decent overview.
@hlynnkeith93342 жыл бұрын
You are correct, sir. I read "Ukraine at War" in 2 minutes. A question: The paper recommends 155mm howitzers for Ukraine. Why not 175mm or 203mm guns?
@forcea14542 жыл бұрын
@@hlynnkeith9334 I doubt anyone really has significant numbers of any 175mm or 203mm guns and their ammunition. They have been out of service for literally decades, and a combination of the Peace Dividend, War on Terror and post-2008 GFC Austerity (especially in Europe) means that few people have spent money on maintaining them or storing them.
@hlynnkeith93342 жыл бұрын
@@forcea1454 Thank you for the education. Last touch I had with US Army artillery was Desert Storm. As I recall, 175mm guns fired Copperheads to take out Iraqi armor. But that was 30 years ago.
@xduskflyerx2 жыл бұрын
@@hlynnkeith9334 It was a concise summary, for sure, but I believe the report being referred to is the twenty five page PDF at the top of the page. I am sure It's excellent too, but I haven't read it yet either.
@nc12972 жыл бұрын
I also read it. Great stuff. Devoid of a lot of the overly optimistic "Ruzzia incompetent, ukraine easily wins!" stuff I've seen. Also very reassuring that it seemed to have been published just before the glut of "HIMAR blows up ammo depots" videoes that are almost spammed out from various regions,, as well as the tripling of such systems, which quite nicely deals with the bullet point 1 of their recommendations
@eiko42522 жыл бұрын
Just one thing I think about the Oryx blog, is that it's much easier to get photographic evidence of let's say destroyed tanks, than it is of planes that have been shot down and fallen down somewhere hard to reach. So personally I think that the loss of planes is underrepresented the most because of lack of evidence.
@ThePRCommander2 жыл бұрын
I wouldn't rule out drones in the manner as is done in the interview. It is important to remember that the use of drones in this particular conflict is linked to the type of battlefield behavior drawn up by both actors: - Front-line moves slowly - Battlespace is limited in depth - None of the actors had a realistic plan available from the start, to deliver an operational knockout blow as in, for instance the Luftwaffe delivered against the Red Air Force, in the first days of Barbarossa - Drones in collaboration with robots have not really been used on an operational scale
@jamesd34722 жыл бұрын
Another really excellent video and interview, this guest in particular is amazing at making these complex topics seem much more understandable. When possible, it would be great to see more! I'd read the report before, and it was really excellent so would definitely support his recommendation
@mensch10662 жыл бұрын
Justin's comments on UCAV being a misnomer reminds me about the F-117, which was touted in the press as some sort of game-changing weapons system but was in fact used for very specific, extensively planned out missions at the strategic level and was not really survivable in a fluid combat environment at all, given the actual limitations of its stealth.
@idontwanttoputmyname4032 жыл бұрын
How do you determine it’s “not survivable in a fluid environment” exactly? I’m just curious as to your reasoning.
@douglasm33102 жыл бұрын
@@idontwanttoputmyname403 high attitude, slow, not maneuverable to name a few.
@mensch10662 жыл бұрын
@@idontwanttoputmyname403 Apparently the sources from the 1980s and 1990s showed that you needed to know where radar and SAMs were ahead of time to plan out the mission very precisely. Since the F-117 was very early stealth, if you approached a threat from anything other than an ideal angle, you would be seen and could be shot down quite easily for a "stealth" plane. I'm guessing this is what happened to that F-117 the Serbs brought down in the 1990s - it got too cocky and was seen by supposedly primitive air defenses.
@pedromatos59182 жыл бұрын
@@mensch1066 reaserch the reason it was spoted. ... it was an excellent plane and did alot other combat missions.! 1 down in so many years and combats..thats impressive stats...go search!!!🇺🇦🇵🇱🇵🇹🇬🇧🇨🇦🇺🇲💚🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺💪🏼
@brokeandtired2 жыл бұрын
The shot down F117 was multi linked radars being run by a super computer. They were aided by the Russians and Chinese to do that because they wanted to scavenge the wreckage. Also I hate hearing the old " it can be seen under extreme circumstances, so stealth is useless " argument. Stealths job isnt to be invisible, its to get strikes in before the enemy can react. I.E harder to be seen NOT INVISIBLE. F117 was simply replaced because better stuff was soon available and in most wars being fought at the time stealth wasn't needed..
@Paveway-chan2 жыл бұрын
Man, being an Sa-8 SAM and seeing an Iskandr missile coming out of the heavens like God's middle finger and landing RIGHT on your head - there aren't many worse days a guy can have than that
@Trbrigade2 жыл бұрын
Iskander is shitty innacurate missile.
@vietta64242 жыл бұрын
There won't be, infact.
@B.D.E.2 жыл бұрын
I just watched a video of an Iskander fail and crash and exlode about 500m in front of the launcher. At least it didn't do a full 180 as some Russian BUKs have been doing, but it goes to show that even their newest ballistic weapons suffer from serious issues to do with maintenance and storage, if not poor design and engineering.
@johnpaul30992 жыл бұрын
@@B.D.E. that's a bit deceptive all you see is their failings not their success so your perception is skewed
@davidflitcroft71012 жыл бұрын
@@johnpaul3099 To have even two or three incidents like these failures is inexcusable for a "superpower." As for "successes" of the several thousands of missiles strikes, we have all seen the leveled cities, hospitals, schools, infra-structure. . . As a veteran I don't think these acts of cowardice are "successes" -- esp. considering the volume of strikes. Russia is, unquestionably suffering from numerous failures as Fizzishin listed. Finally, I think Russia is just lucky that Biden is in office, not someone like Bush Senior, or maybe an Eisenhouer or Roosevelt. . .
@CausticLemons72 жыл бұрын
I came here from Millennium 7* and I really appreciate this kind of insider knowledge. The advanced analysis and open discussion in this video is really interesting, and I think has been very informative towards my beliefs about our world.
@csjrogerson23772 жыл бұрын
As an ex military staff officer with 22 yrs served, I can tell that Justin Bronk is a man to pay attention to. He knows his onions. Read the linked report in the description.
@csjrogerson23772 жыл бұрын
@Paddy Angel Although the British and NATO senior officers will completely understand what he says and they may wholeheartedly agree, the politicians, who have half his brains and insight, will not. Even if they did, they couldn't make a beneficially timely decision if another nation depended upon it.
@jamesmandahl4442 жыл бұрын
My dad worked at nintendo
@ifv20892 жыл бұрын
@@jamesmandahl444now thats cool. thank him for his service.
@uwekonnigsstaddt5242 жыл бұрын
Col Douglas MacGregor gives a REAL view on what's going on Ukraine.
@Darrylx4442 жыл бұрын
Thanks for getting Justin back on again.
@colobossable2 жыл бұрын
Would love to hear Justin's thoughts about the effectiveness of the Su25, it seems to really heavily utilised by both sides, is that just because it has lower maintenance requirements and is a more affordable loss? If Russia has only been using the 85 modernised ones then the airframes much be averaging very high readiness and sortie rates. It seems to me that, relatively speaking, the Su25 has been more effective and versatile than the Su34, despite being a generation older. I do realise that on the UKR side it's pretty much all they've got for fixed wing ground attacks.
@PlacidDragon2 жыл бұрын
The Su-25 is heavily armored and designed for close air support / ground attack (look at it as the Russian version of the A-10 without the "flashy cannon") :) It is easily the most "usable" fixed wing aircraft in the Russian inventory for ground attack.
@chrisfawcett47902 жыл бұрын
@@PlacidDragon Yes I agree, but it would be interesting to know if it's just the armouring or if its defensive aids suite seems to work better too. And in terms of offense, if they are dropping dumb bombs and firing strakes of unguided rockets then can they really be very effective given that there aren't large columns of Ukrainian vehicles to target? Also, I think all serious observers know that the A-10 is highly over-rated in terms of peer-conflict effectiveness, so is the Su25 in the same bracket and just used because of a lack of other options, or is low-level strike still a genuinely effective tactic on the modern battlefield? I know that most NATO airforces don't really train for low-level strike as it's considered too risky, although that's partly because they assume they will have the luxury of air superiority and be able to dominate medium to high altitudes.
@ArtemKo___2 жыл бұрын
@@chrisfawcett4790 USA uses an addon on dumb bomb to turn them guided, Russia use bomb fly calculator system on its jets to turn them guided Different approach, same purpose
@ChucksSEADnDEAD2 жыл бұрын
@@ArtemKo___ the US aircraft also have bomb drop calculators, it's still unguided as it's still subject to bad drops, wind drift or the target moving away
@forcea14542 жыл бұрын
Not sure where you're hearing that the Su-25 is more effective than the Su-34, the former has higher losses than the latter, and that's failing to account for the fact that the Su-34 is expected to penetrate deeper into Ukrainian airspace, and thus be put at much greater risk.
@alphainfinitum34452 жыл бұрын
I wonder why he managed to leave out the Ghost of Kiev. We all now know that in the first few weeks, this previously dead pilot came from the shadows of death, and single handedly changed the tide of the air battle. They may have killed him a second time, since his plane has not been seen in a while, but he will probably come back again like he did the first time he was killed.
@elmaxidelsur2 жыл бұрын
This war has thrown a lot of theory out of the window
@GrigoriZhukov2 жыл бұрын
Usually does.
@ericgrace99952 жыл бұрын
Errrrr..No theory survives the first contact with reality ?
@92HazelMocha2 жыл бұрын
Not really. Analysts like the one in this video even predicted the RuAF would have problems since their pilots weren't getting enough flight time, and Russia not bothering to tell it's own military it was going to war was predictably dumb.
@kyle8572 жыл бұрын
Drones were always going to be vulnerable to surface to air weapons. What we need are smaller SAMs which are cheaper to deal wirh drones.
@kalashnikovdevil2 жыл бұрын
Birding shotguns with depleted uranium bird shot.
@rsKayiira2 жыл бұрын
That & SPAAGs!!
@pauljs752 жыл бұрын
Counter drones with other drones that fly like small fighter craft. The majority of drones currently in use don't have the detection or much means of evasion to deal with that. Just need something that can go up quickly and fire off some proximity rounds or buckshot. In a way it's repeating what already happened with manned aircraft, but scaled down to smaller vehicles.
@BirdmansDen2 жыл бұрын
Ukies are currently doing similar thing now, conducting small reconnaissance skirmish with regular drones with attached mortar shells.
@luciuszeus67452 жыл бұрын
A small point about the losses in the force which went into Hostomel. I appreciate that Justin is talking about the EW effect on the larger anti-air systems so is actually referring to those systems not making kills however it is worth pointing out that the ingress to Hostomel was not without shoot-downs in transit. Footage and images confirm at least 3 Mi8's from the 31st Air Assault Guards Division shot down before landing as well as at least 1 KA52 and at least 1 MI28. At least one of those Mi8 shoot downs appears to be by a direct fire unguided weapon (perhaps a BMP1 73mm main gun or SPG-9) whilst preparing to land over the airfield. Also worth noting that the KA52 was brought down over the airfield by the weight and preponderance of small arms fire over time rather than any particular weapon system. While Justin's point regarding the larger AA system absoluetly stands I just felt it was worth pointing out .
@Krusesensei2 жыл бұрын
+1 , important addition
@tha_pzycho2 жыл бұрын
Yeah, We have a not insignificant amount of evidence showing losses at the assault on Hostomel so, at this stage, so claiming that they got in without incidence, thats ruining your credibility from the get go. The isolated assult seemes to have been a sucess by all acounts I have seen, however, they did eventually loose the airfiled to a counterattack, as far as I have seen, loosing the relative elite airboorn troops commited to the attack. As such, althoug a tactical sucess, seems to have been a strategic defeat. So why start with tha BS whe the rest is perfectly reasonable.
@ifv20892 жыл бұрын
There were two waves of landings on the 24th the second lost airframes. The first I haven't seen any footage showing what happend. Just some CNN clip of Airborne elements already on objective. I think the Airborne troops that landed in the first wave of twenty airframes were swapped out after the second wave of two hundred airframes with regular troops came in after the HLS was secured
@swordsman11372 жыл бұрын
@@tha_pzycho i never see evidence they lost the airport from counter attack. I even see the CNN report showing them setting up crew served weapon like Kornet ATGM. Afaik, if you have time to set up crew served weapon, it mean you meet little resistance.
@malithaw2 жыл бұрын
Hostomel assault by itself was a successful operation but unfortunately, the ground support didn't arrive fast enough and they had to leave the place.
@bc-guy8522 жыл бұрын
Brilliant. Justin clearly knows his material. Excellent analysis - a pleasure to watch. Slava Ukraini. Heroyam Slava!
@bearowen54802 жыл бұрын
Largely overlooked in the "comments" section here, is Justin's assessment of the Russians' use of electronic suppression of Ukrainian air defenses, especially its SAMs. This leads me to conclude that most of Russia's losses of tactical aircraft, both fixed and rotary wing, has been to passive systems like MANPADs and traditional, visually-aimed antiaircraft artillery. This is especially true of the Russian fleet of SU-25 attack jets' and Hind attack helicopters' losses to ground fire. In footage I've seen of MANPADs being fired at SU-25s, the defensive use of IR flares seemed quite effective against the Stingers and similar shoulder launched weapons. Without chaff and flares, the Russian losses would presumably be much higher. I'm agnostic about Justin's overall claim that drones have been ineffective, or at least not decisive in the war for possession of the Donbass. I suspect that UCAVs may have been up to more mischief in that theater than we in the public domain are privy to. Justin's point about the somewhat surprisingly low intensity role of air combat in the Ukraine War is well taken. I agree with him that this is partly due to Russia's national command authority's buy-in to the idea that this war would be a 48 to 72 hour cakewalk. There seem to have been no lessons learned from the very effective massive air campaigns utilized by the coalition forces in both Gulf Wars to spearhead the highly successful ground campaign against Sadam Hussein's regime in Baghdad. Clearly, Putin's generals totally underestimated the Ukrainian population's resolve to aggressively fight back to defend its independent soveDonna's. The deciding factor in this war may very well come down to what the US learned in Vietnam. A determined indigenous guerrilla war campaign, materially supported by outside actors, can defeat a massively superior military force, itself compelled by domestic political factors to fight with both arms handcuffed behind its back. If the Ukraunian people and their government have the stomach to fight an insurgent guerrilla campaign, for years if necessary, they will slowly bleed the Russian military and regime to an unacceptable level. As in Vietnam, the Russians, like America, will accept a negotiated peace that gives them Crimea and Donbass. Then the Ukrainians will suffer the foreign domination of their occupied territory for a couple of years before they resume their covert and open resistance. Russia, exhausted by a war their own people think is not worth the further effusion and treasure will find a face-saving means of withdrawing, at least from Donbass.
@CheeseDanish852 жыл бұрын
I have to take issue with your last paragraph. Why would the Russians ever give back the Donbass? It's ethnically very mixed, and there are enough "Russian" citizens in those regions already today that holding those territories will stay vital. Are you completely ignoring the low-key civil war that has already been going on in this region since AT LEAST 2014?
@marttoom59032 жыл бұрын
@@CheeseDanish85 There is no civil war in donbas!! It Russian invasion! Yes, in 2014. Russian regular forces attacked Ukraine. All that blabbering about civil war in Ukraine is Moskovian propaganda, nothing more!
@MrHeHim2 жыл бұрын
@@CheeseDanish85 have to agree, it's been a U.S.S.R. tactic to heavily subsidize Russian citizens to move into Soviet states to hold them and it's a tactic Russia is definitely still using in one way or another. The Russians will use any tactic they can and claim "whataboutism" at every turn to justify it. Russia's motives have never been about there safety and always about holding power with an iron fist.
@neonnexs12392 жыл бұрын
I take issue with the iraq war comment, how does a 12 year air campaign against Iraq sound quick?The United States (and some allies) after desert storm(91) kept bombing Iraq, upto and after the 2003 invasion.
@B.D.E.2 жыл бұрын
@@CheeseDanish85 By russian 'citizens' you mean the agitators, soldiers, and agents they have been sneaking into the region for over a decade.
@gravlaz2 жыл бұрын
Trying too hard to be balanced is also wrong sometimes. Training and maintaining a manned airforce is a lot more expensive than maintaining a UAV force. Pilots need constant training and there is a general pilot shortage across the globe. Training+aircraft is a huge cost when lost. Unfortunately, this expert is fighting the previous war. One can look at Mq 25 program as how the future is going to look like.
@benghazi42162 жыл бұрын
The MQ 25 is a freaking refueling drone. It is literally exists so we can get manned fighters further away from the carriers. No one is substituting an actual air force with UAV's.
@kek2072 жыл бұрын
The lack of guided munitions really bites them because they are reliant on low level attacks to achieve a reasonable level of precision. The Idea would be to have a SEAD as well as Electronic Warfare aircraft always with the strike fleet of Aircraft to take out long and medium threats and to fly high enough to a point where stingers are basically useless
@the7observer2 жыл бұрын
flying low level is also to avoid radar detection
@lightning16052 жыл бұрын
@@the7observer well the problem is flying low exposes you to manpads and AAA, flying high exposes you to Long range radar, SAMs, and Interceptors
@TKUA112 жыл бұрын
This is why they resort to territorism. They shot at downtown vinytsa today, and killed a little girl, and tore off her moms leg. Russia should be declared a terrorist state, they shoot low precision missiles at cities knowing that they’re going to kill non combatants and they should be sent to the international criminal court for their crimes
@MS-wz9jm2 жыл бұрын
This actually isnt the case. SVP-24 allows Su-34 and Su-24 to fly high and drop unguided munitions with effective accuracy (you dont need pinpoint accuracy with a 500 pounder). So the lack of guided munitions is not forcing them to fly lower at all. What is forcing Russian airforce to no fly Su-34 and Su-24 high like they did in Syria is Ukraine has a lot of BUK systems. They are generally left offline (no radar emissions) and they bring them online when they have intelligence of a target from other sources, this makes them hard to take out. It seems Russia is lacking some really good decoys to bait out BUKs and s-300's. In any case its a false assumption to think they Russia has to fly low because they lack precision guided munitions. Its just false. In Syria they flew high above manpads and dropped unguided bombs with pretty good accuracy for the whole war using SVP-24.
@kek2072 жыл бұрын
@@MS-wz9jm Well against a moving target ....
@HegelsOwl2 жыл бұрын
Thanks for your careful efforts making this vid. It is exactly what has been missing from the discussion.
@hongshi82512 жыл бұрын
I thank your guest for his inputs. It’s especially interesting to understand how these big drones are not combat survivable. Space and low level specialized satellites? I doubt seriously that over the next even 5 years that the USA will invest or be able to invest in overwhelming numbers. Manpower is another issue. Investing in a much higher manpower level makes the most sense. United States should be training at least half a million troops a year. A full 10% need to be foreign nationals so we have friends to work with around the world.
@petersmythe64622 жыл бұрын
"Not combat survivable" That's kinda the point isn't it? They're a reasonably affordable system that does not require a new pilot when destroyed. Sure, it gets shot down. How much Russian armor is going down with it?
@xsu-is7vq2 жыл бұрын
drones not survivable is same as claiming missiles only get used once. That’s the point. You use these systems so you don’t have to risk a person to do the dangerous jobs.
@Veldtian12 жыл бұрын
@@xsu-is7vq A Global Hawk starts at *80M fikken USD* you know? You can buy 60+ Tomahawks for that money. Predator drones cost 4M USD.. They're not so disposable as yall think.
@xsu-is7vq2 жыл бұрын
@@Veldtian1 a surveillance aircraft like RC135 cost more than 500 million, plus nearly 30 crews onboard. An attack aircraft like A10 cost $13 million in 1994 money, plus a pilot. Which would you prefer to send into a hostile environment? Which would be cheaper to replace?
@hongshi82512 жыл бұрын
@@xsu-is7vq I certainly get your point. My point is that there's already a counter action for these larger drones like global hawk so investing millions does not make sense. The American military needs overwhelming firepower that our enemies have no answers to. Moreover, we are in need of much greater manpower as the threat level has increased immeasurably.
@AlthewizardofOz2 жыл бұрын
Thanks!
@MilitaryAviationHistory2 жыл бұрын
Thank you, again :) !
@TheStaniG2 жыл бұрын
Its so fucking hard to find an analyst that isnt an outright Ukraine shill and just looks at facts and reasoning from both sides. Refreshing guest appearance.
@micumatrix2 жыл бұрын
Danke!
@MilitaryAviationHistory2 жыл бұрын
Vielen Dank :)
@disanKh2 жыл бұрын
US shows their military capabilities in fighting with rebels and insurgencies in middle East but Russia is fighting with former Soviet satilite state who have their own defence industries along with US, collective Europe and NATOs support. That's why we don't see the kinds of war we show previously.
@DuraLexSedLex2 жыл бұрын
@SKIDROW NIUGINI Depends which part of the war. The Eastern front had truly horrific losses for both sides, so this isn't really worse. It's far worse than the rates at which the Western and Pacific fronts lost General officers though. Also at the end of the day, the US logistics lines in the Invasion of Iraq did not break and managed to kept major maneuver units fueled and supplied against the Iraqi Army, despite being tens of thousands of miles away from the US itself, while also throwing forces at Afghanistan simultaneously. It likewise did a 1-sided stomping of the Iraqi Army, then legitimately feared as 1 of the world's largest and most experienced armored forces, in '91. Russia since that time period has not exactly accrued a list of significant military victories either, despite their adventurism in Grozny (which makes Fallujah seem like a Holiday) and a mess in Georgia they mostly muddled through
@1CE.2 жыл бұрын
@SKIDROW NIUGINI I’m sorry bud but when did Russia level any cities in this conflict? Quite the opposite. They been very calculated in their strikes and tbh it makes sense given they plan to take this territory. Not only that but their entire strategy relies on allowing evacuation from centers as opposed to a straight up encirclement Come on now. Did you also believe in yellow cake in Iraq?
@disanKh2 жыл бұрын
@SKIDROW NIUGINI How many generals did Russia lost ? 20, 30, 50......! Source :) trust me bro.🤣
@disanKh2 жыл бұрын
@SKIDROW NIUGINI Dude you're so funny 🤣 you win.. I am quit.
@DuraLexSedLex2 жыл бұрын
@SKIDROW NIUGINI And yet Fallujah is still the first time in recorded modern warfare that the attacker lost fewer active combatants than the defender, while the Russian shelling in Mariupol was... a mess. Yeah, this whole war has been an unadulterated shitshow.
@katfrog982 жыл бұрын
I've watched this several times; this is a data dense show. The implications are frightening. Thank you very much, well done.
@lintrichards60072 жыл бұрын
I would also posit that the Russians were a bit loss averse with their fixed wing aircraft early on and didn't think they could survive in proximity to advanced Soviet air defense systems.
@S3dINS2 жыл бұрын
Well done sir. Well done
@bluemarlin81382 жыл бұрын
“Advanced” Soviet air defenses. LOL. The S-300 and S-400 are nice systems against 4th gen and previous aircraft, but it’s no surprise that Russia knew how to jam its own systems. It appears as though Ukraine has done something to remedy that though, because Ukraine’s S-300s have been effective at keeping Russia from operating deep into Ukraine. Russia is still actually pretty risk averse with their fixed wing aircraft except directly over the front lines, as Ukraine had been lacking in mid-range air defenses. However, with Ukraine set to receive NASAMS from the US, I expect this situation to improve.
@electricaviationchannelvid78632 жыл бұрын
@@bluemarlin8138 There is no need to send aircraft for the deep west targets since the hard core of the army was on the frontline...the objective was to crunch/grind up those forces... For the deep strikes Russia uses tactical/strategic missiles hitting support/supply lines and command centers 1500+km away if they need... In many cases they get the intel of the incoming western weapon system but they only track them and wait until it is deployed then they strike it because then they can eliminate the operators at the same time with the equipment...
@twafikd8702 жыл бұрын
@@bluemarlin8138 Dude, those ARE the best air defenses ever made with nothing comparable in NATO. Just like NATO actually struggled in Yugoslavia against those early generation SAMs, they will struggle today in an environment like Ukraine.
@petersmythe64622 жыл бұрын
"A hundred ish vehicles destroyed." One combat ground vehicle destroyed would likely justify the cost of something like TB2 though. Have there been a hundred lost TB2s? I don't even think Ukraine ever had more than 25 or so.
@kmonsen2 жыл бұрын
That is not his point, what he is saying is that on a strategic level at least for this conflict drones are not playing a primary importance. I guess it is possible to argue it could have if they had enough of them etc, but the argument was that this war is not being decided by drones.
@twafikd8702 жыл бұрын
@@kmonsen Drones can't survive modern A2/AD environment
@eliasloozen79482 жыл бұрын
@military aviation history : thx for the objective technical approach to the Ukraine conflict! Keep it up!
@georgesiew27582 жыл бұрын
So to sum up the lessons from the war in two simple points. 1) A modern air force is outrageously expensive and is simply unaffordable for all but the US and China. It is not even affordable for the #3 power, Russia. 2) Guerrilla warfare is still alive and well even in this age of integrated air defenses and modern air forces.
@beaujeste12 жыл бұрын
I think facts have proven otherwise
@twafikd8702 жыл бұрын
Ukraine has shown that Russia is stronger than it looks. Having to deal with all that has been thrown at it by Ukraine and 30-50 other countries is no small feat. US and the West have never fought this kind of conflict - maybe Vietnam in a way.
@georgesiew27582 жыл бұрын
@@twafikd870 This conflict doesn't show that Russia is stronger than it looks unless you thought very lowly of the Russian military. Before Ukraine everyone thought Russia was the #2 just behind the US and ahead of China. Now everyone knows Russia is a distant #3 behind the US and China, even though it is still much stronger than #4 or #5 (Japan and France).
@sitrep123able2 жыл бұрын
I can't get enough of Justin Bronk
@TacoSallust2 жыл бұрын
I think too many people are expecting NATO-type warfighting to easily defeat enemy air defenses based on recent wars. Gulf War was 31 years ago, since then Western forces haven't fought a heavy air defense. This is, quite probably, similar to the kinds of combat NATO might face against Russians or Chinese. We have a tendency to both overestimate and underestimate our opponents - clearly the Russians weren't as capable as we originally imagined they would be, but they continue to adapt and improve how they use their assets, especially air defense.
@alexandrejosedacostaneto3812 жыл бұрын
Russia has proven to be a joke. If this was Russia vs the West (without nukes) it's very obvious that the West would have a very clear advantage from the start and that after a few months air superiority would turn to near air supremacy near the frontlines.
@TheSoundsage2 жыл бұрын
Watching their ammo depots getting repeatedly blown to smithereens does not say much about their adaptability or improving their defenses.
@Ronnie-kun2 жыл бұрын
@@TheSoundsage Grasping for straws
@kalashnikovdevil2 жыл бұрын
NATO-type warfighting isn't in play in Ukraine, so drawing conclusions from it on the use of air power when both sides are... diminished air forces shall we say, is really not the bridge to cross at this time. Neither side possesses a decent, or even passable capability for SEAD/DEAD. This is a mission set that NATO pilots are very well drilled on, and as you said during the Gulf War, the roots of that doctrine were tested against the global gold standard of air defense and came out victorious. Things have changed, tactics evolve, as do weapons, but we have yet to receive data on anything regarding the effectiveness of NATO style airpower out of Ukraine, simply because to do so would require NATO getting involved in the conflict.
@praevasc42992 жыл бұрын
Indeed, the West jumped rather quickly from overestimating the Russians to underestimating them, just because they didn't make a serious and well-coordinated effort at besieging Kyiv. However, those who now think the Russians are a pushover, completely misunderstand their aim. That initial rush against the capital with a scary column but no serious logistics was clearly planned as a show of force, the Russians hoped that Ukraine will be scared into surrendering without any serious opposition. Once it was clear that it didn't happen, they quickly recalled those troops, and started what they were always very good at: crawling forwards slowly but surely, while bombing everything in front of them to dust. Hey, if capturing the capital had been their key goal without any regard to civilian casualties (as the media often claims about them), they would have just bombed it to dust and placed their flag on top of the rubble, killing millions in the very first day (they have conventional bombs rivaling the power of small nukes). Thankfully, that wasn't their true goal.
@dirckthedork-knight12012 жыл бұрын
Thank you for your amazing and unbiased analysis (which is hard to find nowadays)
@hellbreaksloose55362 жыл бұрын
The focus of Electronic Attack aircraft should be looked more into. The USN/USMC should expand the EA-18G fleet the USAF should acquire EA capable aircraft and France Germany should also have at least four squadrons of EA aircraft since they have the largest air forces in the continent. I know the French will never buy American but at least Germany should really look into buying the Growler.
@JohnSmith-gd2fg2 жыл бұрын
The French will never buy American? You mean like Beechcraft Super King, Boeing E-3, Boeing C-135, Lockheed C-130 models, General Atomics MQ-9, Grumman E2-C, and historically quite a lot of other aircraft?
@steveperreira58502 жыл бұрын
Electronic warfare is the best bang for the buck. But it’s not glamorous. And you’re not going to get a date very easily by bragging about being an electronic warfare expert. And ugly pilot on the other hand is going to do quite well with the ladies. More than anything else this is the reason militaries around the world stick with Manned Combat aircraft which in fact is totally obsolete. Don’t argue with me, I know the truth, I was in the Air Force, I was married to the prettiest girl in the Royal Air Force, and they wasted millions of That was nice golden British pounds giving her rides in the backseat at fighter aircraft, as a means to impress her. It’s almost like the novel Don Quixote, the fighter pilot is the clown of modern times. You can’t even find one that shut anything down. Go find one… he’ll be a 70 year old, maybe 80 year old pilot from the Israeli Air Force Or the Iranian Air Force. Keep jousting at windmills you idiots!
@kinshaabid30632 жыл бұрын
Very good point on stretching defense budget for just sake of numbers but hugely lacking in preparedness and strategy based allocation
@BosonCollider2 жыл бұрын
I'm annoyed that he replied to the Bayraktar but didn't talk about the Switchblade or loitering munitions in general. The switchblade is absolutely a great counter to artillery, SAMs, and for EWAR in general if you make it radiation seeking. Top 5 things that need to be supplied to Ukraine supplies imho is: 1) Plenty of MLRS like the HIMARS 2) More standard howitzers/mortars. 3) Plenty of loitering munitions, with extra empathis on radiation seeking munitions. 4) Plenty of visually targeted martlet or starstreak missiles to take out Russian drones and break their artillery kill chain, and keep denying access to manned aircraft. 5) Provide adequate replacement guns that use NATO caliber ammunition so that Ukraine can keep fighting when their soviet era ammo stockpiles run out. Those are all critical to breaking the Russian artillery advantage. This also assumes that the west keeps supplying modern ATGMs like the NLAW, and communication equipment like Starlink that is unaffected by Russian ewar attempts.
@alifkazeryu82282 жыл бұрын
yeah... like the west is actually shitting gold, eh? their own people could barely afford gas, there's a lot of unrest in the west, and you really expecting them to foot the bill for all this fancy toys you list? this war is unwinnable for Ukraine from the very start
@user-uc4vg4rg9e2 жыл бұрын
That's a big ask
@user-uc4vg4rg9e2 жыл бұрын
At least the way the US is looking now I don't think her people want to be spending money on other nations when they have to suffer inflation
@brandonschultz32622 жыл бұрын
Did real thought and conversation just take place on KZbin? Wonderful, I love it, keep the conversations going.
@hene1932 жыл бұрын
Great guest! I wish he would remind more often which side he is talking about. It's hard to keep track when it's ukranians and when it's russians. So let's say that as an example say "ukranians ran out of manpads quickly" instead of leaving out the country.
@rsKayiira2 жыл бұрын
Noted this as well.
@johndonaldson36192 жыл бұрын
Justin Bronk can also be found on Ward Carrol's channel.... - excellent analysis
@bigal63692 жыл бұрын
Excellent video. I think the point at the end about training hours and affordability is spot on. The other things that are harder to calculate accurately the individual motivation and discipline which can make a big difference. One thing in particular in this conflict and I may be wrong on this but I do get the feeling that Russia has not fully committed to this war. They have tried to use smaller forces in smaller manoeuvres rather than an all out full commitment of their military might. I think that's one of the reasons why they seem to be struggling.
@kevinw25922 жыл бұрын
I doubt the Russian ability to supply and maintain more forces away from their bases than they are currently using. Their head always got a lot more attention than their tail.
@bigal63692 жыл бұрын
@@kevinw2592 perhaps but never underestimate the Russians. The French and Germans learned that the hard way.
@sharequsman596 Жыл бұрын
@@bigal6369 the underestimated the Soviets and the russian empire both of which were super powers.Russia isn't one and those countries were on the offensive
@tapalmer992 жыл бұрын
Great job I really appreciate collaboration it's definitely a multiplier
@kek2072 жыл бұрын
Just the lack of high quality footage is what upsets me. But I Think after the war a lot of stuff will be released or declassified. Kinda like those Videos of U.S pilot dodging SAMs
@dirckthedork-knight12012 жыл бұрын
Such juicy info and stuff will defently be released *after* the War what we are getting now is just snippets detailed info like that will not be available until the end of the War
@neilclay58352 жыл бұрын
Absolutely top class commentary here
@batuhancokmar73302 жыл бұрын
No one in their right mind would expect TB2 or any other single weapon system to win the war for Ukrainians.. But declaring them not useful or "no replacement for aircraft" is just stupid on this context. 60 confirmed kills out of 4000+ russian vehicles may seem small (and it is), but how many vehicles did Ukrainian *manned* aircraft manage to destroy? If we are comparing visually confirmed kills its exactly 0.. This shining example of manned aviation isn't a good example to prove your point..Strategically, by playing a part in forcing Russian armor to withdraw, regroup and organise their air defenses, TB2 helped buying Ukrainians valuable days if not weeks at the start of the war, so they could organise and fight back, it also contributed to sinking of moskva as a spotter and bait and countless times it harrassed (or helped other assets) snake island, contributing to Ukrainian victory there.. I'd HIGHLY doubt Ukrainians would have done better if they had 12-ish additional MiG-29s or Su-24s in their place of their TB2s. All in all probability, Moskva would have handled all dozen of these aircraft with ease, Buk and Tor-M2 launchers on Snake island would have easier time shooting these aircraft down had they attemted to do bombing runs. So again, the very evidence you provide proves you are wrong. Sure its a teeny tiny UCAV, obviously its never intended to challenge enemy's air superiority, nor its even intended to go againist Russian airforce with literally nothing to back it up... On its intended use case with TuAF, fullfilling CAS duties in a favourable EW environment while backed F-16s providing aircover and SEAD, I'd say TB2 is exponentially more dangerous than its percieved to be in Ukraine or Azerbaijan.
@xXrandomryzeXx2 жыл бұрын
Mad coping right here
@OneHouseofCards2 жыл бұрын
@@xXrandomryzeXx A person know their losing an argument if they have to use insults, like your really adding nothing to the debate.
@Michael-wo6ld2 жыл бұрын
The TB-2 only performed as well as they did because the Russian forces completely failed to use any of the lessons they learned fighting drones in Syria. More recent information from Ukranian sources say that now that Russia has defenses in place (as they should've, if they were competent) TB-2 is of extremely limited utility, to the point that Ukraine has turned down American drones.
@jasonisbored66792 жыл бұрын
how many Russian jets have drones shot down? I think you really misinterpreted that quote. They're not a replacement for aircraft in certain highly important roles, but they are more expendable, and thus can be creatively used to strike targets that you wouldn't dare to expend a real piloted plane on. But they can't achieve any level of air superiority, or do a number of the tasks that the Russians could do if their coordination, training, and logistics had been ready - things that their airframes are perfectly capable of.
@Growlizing2 жыл бұрын
This. While acknowledging that TB2 (or MQ1 or any ucav for that matter) does not strategically win anyone the war, there is a vast difference in cost between a F35, a MQ1 and the TB2. We also have countless videos showing either TB2 or very cheap commerical drones as spotters/reconnaissance, 1. making artillery way more efficient and 2. making any large troop movements highly risky. Also, the smaller the drone, the harder it will be for air defense systems and enemy aircraft to shoot them down. I think they are severely underestimating the utility value of abundant supplies of cheap drones with good cameras.
@ilicurosh2 жыл бұрын
Russia did lose a certain number of planes, helicopters, and tanks. . . but as you can see and hear, that number is four times smaller than the one mentioned by V. Zelenski and his officers. Second, the Russians have been producing completely new types of aircraft and other equipment for 18 weeks. No one has seen those vehicles yet. A part of that production takes place in cooperation with the Chinese military industry. Fantastic new models at significantly lower manufacturing costs compared to American, German or British and French models. The high speed of production as well as the high overall quality of the product are truly amazing. There are people who have seen them.
@Ellirius2 жыл бұрын
"couple" of months - 141 day - 6 Months starting February.
@MilitaryAviationHistory2 жыл бұрын
What's your point? A couple can be two, or more.
@Ellirius2 жыл бұрын
@@MilitaryAviationHistory Ah, only love and good vibes for your channel! =) BUT. I look at it as a communication professional. Consider the difference between: “The Vietnam war lasted a couple of years” vs. “The Vietnam war lasted 19 years.” Both statements are true. But do they have the same influence? In the context of "Ukraine at War: Paving the Road From Survival to Victory" a european tax payer (ich bspw. durch Finanzamt Berlin Charlottenburg) might ask: Had NATO unfucked itself in the last SIX months and come up with a unified, structured system for delivery of military supplies to Ukraine?
@doverivermedia39372 жыл бұрын
Very interesting, insightful and sober discussion. Excellent video ... 🇬🇧
@FSGallipoli2 жыл бұрын
I live in Ukraine and work closely with Bayraktar tb2s, I have to say that he is wrong about tb2 usage... Kyiv siege has been stopped thanks to tb2s, we carved russian convoy piece by piece by them. Unfortunately publicity associated with them really started to put a dent on Russia Turkey relations. Turkish government asked to dial it down, Bayraktar footage and front line shots.. Just like US doesnt want to give 300 miles Himars artillery, for example Turkey did not want to show the footage of tb2 involvement on Moskva and strategical targets shot down in Belgorod by tb2 and all the snake island footage. We clear the Pantsirs, some s300 and tor systems with tb2 as well, their importance in this matter is incredible. So we are being highly secretive about those tb2 footage and leakage to media. Turkey doesnt want public perception in russia to shatter their relations with them, what I heard they are relying on russian tourists in terms of income and Dussia currently building a nuclear plant for them, they dont want some of those critical aggreements to stop. . In terms of game changing attributes, in a war this scale no weapon by itself can make a great difference but tb2 is definitely in top 5 by terms of russian equipment destruction. I can assure it is not like 60 or 100 russian vehicle or equipment like this guy states. You can multiply this number by 4 or 5 easily and make a claim for more but I dont want to give out more info here. The future of warfare is switch to drones and unmanned weaponery. We can see this clearly now.
@hsjawanda2 жыл бұрын
Another superb video! You and Bronk make a good team!
@r00kiepilot2 жыл бұрын
Thanks for this video Chris! I was waiting for your view on the effectiveness of Bayraktar drones in this conflict. Very balanced view, and exactly what I expected. Quite the opposite to the media hype that surrounded these drones at the time of their limited successes.
@BosonCollider2 жыл бұрын
I mean, they are very effective at punishing the exact strategy that the Russians used early on in the conflict, so they were extremely effective given their cost. But single-use expendable loitering munitions are a much more important class of drone than platforms like the Bayraktar.
@simply_felix2 жыл бұрын
Great interview! Thank you
@ftboomer12 жыл бұрын
Western analysts keep trying to fit the Russian strategy into the Western model. Ukraine had more air defense assets than any western army has faced to date so to see the operational differences isn't surprising. Russia doesn't rely on airpower to the extent the west does and this confuses the west quite badly. What Justin is saying validates the Russian view that airpower shouldn't be the prime weapons to be relied on. Justin was excellent BTW.
@werrkowalski29852 жыл бұрын
Air force works, but for it to have a significant effect you need to face a country that doesn't have enough air defenses, or it has very inadequate air defenses. In Iraq what little capable air defenses the Iraqi had was destroyed by the coalition, which meant that the US air force could start bombing. In Chechen war the Russians could start bombing, and it was effective, same in Syrian war. So bombing absolutely works, but you need to ensure safety for your expensive bombers. In Korean war the US air force was able to ensure safety for the bombers for a long time, and North Korea was thoroughly bombed, if it weren't for the assistance of its allies the US forces would have an easy time occupying it. In Vietnam war too the US could operate in relative safety, but the problem was nature of the war, while you can bomb Korean cities, you can't bomb the entire jungle. In Kosovo, again, a display of the effectiveness of bombing campaigns. The whole bomb bomb bomb strategy makes sense, but Russia can't employ it because 1. The Ukrainian forces have capable anti-air weapons 2. The Russians lack advanced planes, if for example they had stealth bombers, then they could start bombing. And what bombers they have are either for close support - these can be shot down easily, or focused on long range standoff missile strikes (Tu-95, Tu-160). So what they are doing is at most launching some missiles from far away.
@ftboomer12 жыл бұрын
@@werrkowalski2985 Considering the Ukranians have lost over 100,000 troops and cannot stage enough equipment to make a difference in battle, artillery focus works well enough. There just wasn't a need to use the air power in Ukraine. Compare and contrast to Syria. Russian air power is very effective for the reasons you state.
@werrkowalski29852 жыл бұрын
@@ftboomer1 True. Maybe the main problem with the Russian plan was that it initially was overambitious, Russians tried an attack on multiple fronts and to surround Kyiv, but even if they fared better they would have suffered a lot of casualties since the battle to take the city would take a long time, and their supply lines would suffer. Or maybe it's just that the Russian military is a shadow of the soviet military in the 1980s, the massive corruption hurt it. One can only be hopeful that the prolonged campaign will yield successes. The problem may be economy though, the long term success may depend on Putin's ability to consolidate power and stamp out corruption.
@ftboomer12 жыл бұрын
@@werrkowalski2985 the first thing to realize is that nobody can take a city like Kiev with 40,000 troops. Given this fact, the logical conclusion is that there was no intention to take Kiev at the time. As a fixing operation to keep the Kiev and Kharkov defenders from reinforcing east, it was very successful. Most Western analysts miss this and pretend there was some serious effort to take Kiev. I recommend the channel Military Summary to follow what is happening if you are interested.
@werrkowalski29852 жыл бұрын
@@ftboomer1 I'm reading understandingwar.
@ivanlazarevic782 жыл бұрын
Much of Air deffence doctrine is learned from war in Serbia in 1999. We applyed that strategy of short pop up radar and fire missile than run away tactic.That deny the much stronger oponent to neutralise Air deffence completely and force airforce to engage from longer distance and higher altitude.
@mrgarland52102 жыл бұрын
I would love a podcast of Justin, military aviation, Perun, the chieftain and military history visualised! Please set this up.
@Wallyworld302 жыл бұрын
Perun went from Peon Gaming channel to Juggernaut Ukraine War Analyst. Perun has really stepped up I'm proud of him.
@dirckthedork-knight12012 жыл бұрын
Perun is not a good source
@Wallyworld302 жыл бұрын
@@dirckthedork-knight1201 Perun sites his sources and does amazing analysis work on the data. You don't have to like him but as a source he sites everything so that's not questionable.
@Vermiliontea2 жыл бұрын
Well, there's also the thing that an air campaign costs lots and lots of money. And russian air campaigns cost more than Western. They need much more maintenance and spare parts, as well as fuel, per flight hours and sorties. The only sort of exemption to that would be the Su-25, which is almost a competent warrior. As it is, regardless, russian air operations have still cost russia a lot. They're probably not happy.
@skromee2 жыл бұрын
Can you make a video about the SU25 ? I see videos of Russians using this aircraft the most. I see them shooting rockets up in the air can they hit their ground targets that way?
@LupusAries2 жыл бұрын
Well it's like dropoing bombs in dive-toss/LABS, you can hit it, technically, but you need either: 1) a lot more munitions for one hit or 2) weapons with a bigger footprint, like clusterbombs or rockets with cluster warheads. Keep in mind that LABS was originally developed for nukes. It is not very precise, because they don't have a ballistics computer configured for this, like Battleships or most other artillery plattforms had and have. I have seen LGBs being lofted which works around it, but that was only in a combat Flight Sim, namely Falcon BMS. I think it was BMS 4.32.
@LupusAries2 жыл бұрын
@@phunkracy Ok are you talking about dropping "dumb" bombs and rockets normally or for firing them in an indirect fire role? I know that the russians have ballistic computers for that, same as most Nato and modern independent aircraft. But the russian aircraft having a ballistic computer calibrated for indirect fire would be news to me. Do you have any further sources, so I could read up on it?
@tomhutchins74952 жыл бұрын
@@LupusAries I don't know the capability they have, but my understanding is that Su-25 uses a range-finding laser coupled to a ballistic computer. I don't know that I'd call it "trivial" exactly, but extending the arc of release angles to support lofting isn't hard. I think the harder problem is for the pilot to distinguish and lase upon the target at the longer range, plus it still requires line-of-sight so you're getting a minimal stand-off capacity but it's not like the weapon can be released safely in a radar shadow. I'd guess this is a method that works against large static targets rather than battlefield ones. Of course even a primitive LGB could pick up a ground-based or UAV-based laser dot for terminal guidance, but that's not what we are talking about here. On the other hand if you salvo multiple rocket pods in the direction of the enemy, that's still a very unpleasant thing to be on the receiving end of even if it isn't accurate.
@LupusAries2 жыл бұрын
@@phunkracy Was that a recent video of his? I couldn't watch his most recent ones due to RL time constraints. It does make sense for it to work though, although the quality of the propellant will be a major factor in determining accuracy, as it was for the italian fleet in WW2. Great guns, horroble accuracy, because their shell manufacture QC sucked. Calculations are going to be a bit more complex, due to the higher speeds at which the weapons plattform moves, but should be doable on decently modern-ish computers.
@LupusAries2 жыл бұрын
@@tomhutchins7495 Depends on if it hits in the same postcode as the target, as if you lofted rockets from an aircraft you could get significant range increases, simply due to the higher energy state of the launching Plattform. However the CEP would getting bigger, and the calculations would be more complicated than in a hovering or slow moving helo. As for lofting the LGB, with that Standoff capability you could stay out of range of an SA-8 or SA-19 though. Now if you combinrd that with something based on the AKPWS, that could be very interesting, kinda like a mini MLRS with terminal laser guidance pro ided by drone or FO.
@phlogistonphlyte2 жыл бұрын
My questions to Justin Bronk...A-10s, F-16s and SAAB Gripen: - What mix? How soon B4 Ukrainian pilots ready? Limited No. of type trained Contractors for maintenance bases in the field in mid/west of Ukraine to save time and to train Ukrainians 4 Long reach, short time scale deployment? NATO helicopters unmentioned in attack/support roles.
@jackspat23692 жыл бұрын
Can anyone discuss impact of US supplying targeting data for Ukrainian SAM systems collected by US assets in the area?
@greggriffiths67312 жыл бұрын
NATO passive EW systems will be collecting all available data. Knowing what to share with Ukraine would be tricky. Remember WWII Ultra intercepts; Sharing too much intelligence would be a valuable signal to the enemy. And if NATO consider Russia a big enough threat to Europe, then that secrecy might trump Ukraine’s immediate needs.
@joelmccoy99692 жыл бұрын
Airbase attacks by Switchblade 600 & 300s operated by commandoes seem like they can only be done near heavily populated areas but can take out a lot of aircraft on the ground. They can be operated remotely enough for the commandoes to be successfully exfiltrated afterward. HIMARS might be considered too expensive if victories by Switchblades start to add up.
@stuartmunro24742 жыл бұрын
Very informative - though I think your guest underestimates the way drones are changing things. They seem to be cost effective, and readily adaptable into a number of roles. We will likely see more of them, and possibly specialist role drones, like anti-air defense.
@twafikd8702 жыл бұрын
Drones are for low level conflicts somewhere in desert. They just can't survive in a high end conflict
@michaelinsc97242 жыл бұрын
Absolutely fantastic video! Excellent information. PLEASE do more of these. Solid information on the Ukrainian conflict is hard to come by.
@casinodelonge2 жыл бұрын
A very interesting and balanced analysis, thank you. This conflict must be pure gold to NATO to be able to assess the capabilities of their one of their main adversaries in a first world battlespace.
@roderickcampbell21052 жыл бұрын
Hi Casino. Pure gold as you say. The NATO intelligence gathering is 24x7 and there's a question of just how much all this intel and related activity will turn up. I suspect it will be years to really get an idea of what it provides, but I bet (you are Casino right?) it's an awful lot of intel.
@jamesmandahl4442 жыл бұрын
Not exactly. This war is being fought differently. This is not how total war would be. Dont just assume what you first see or think. The fog of war is thick, so is the propaganda.
@miriamweller8122 жыл бұрын
Russia fights with a small fraction of their forces, has by far not used all the weapon systems they could and is massively holding back anyway, sine the goal is to stop the fascistic genocide against the over 8 millionRussian Ukrainians, not destroy Ukraine, was NATO/US loves to do with countries, bomb them and leave a failed stated behind.
@wes11bravo2 жыл бұрын
@@jamesmandahl444- Yeah, absolutely. Anyone who believes that what we've seen from Russia so far in Ukraine as being indicative of their general proficiency and potential does so at their peril. Yes, they have problems. But it's a fool's errand to underestimate Russia as a potential adversary should this thing widen out. I'll reserve my opinion on how that would go, but I will say all the protagonists should take great pains to ensure it doesn't.
@roderickcampbell21052 жыл бұрын
@@miriamweller812 Hello Miriam. You speak much truth but falsehoods too. USA and NATO do not wish failed states. Failed states leave behind big headaches. Russia does not have a problem with failed states. They perfected that strategy after all.
@Desicrator552 жыл бұрын
These are always fantastic.
@kek2072 жыл бұрын
It's really weird that they don't focus on SEAD. Even strategic bombers would be really helpful in leveling some key Areas to the ground.
@twinblade022 жыл бұрын
They can't because of the lack of precision systems, auxilliary support and their really crap GLONASS system. After they got cut off from GPS, their precision weapons stopped working. At least, that's what I *hear*. Binkov made a video yesterday about the lack of Russian air support - and apparently, he theorizes that the VKS is being very risk averse because they have to fly deep past UA lines and into their SAM nets to even find targets. With NATO AWACS monitoring the skies and warning the Ukrainians of deployments and incoming strikes, the Ukrainians have the intelligence to counter most attacks by either intercepting, moving, or straight up shooting them out of the sky.
@filmandfirearms2 жыл бұрын
Because Russia doesn't want to destroy Ukraine, they want to occupy it, and they know that doing such a thing would create unrest in the region for decades to come. Better to take their time now to avoid having to fight a bloody guerilla war a few years from now
@rsKayiira2 жыл бұрын
He mentioned short to medium range systems such as OSA and BUK have made this difficult. Along with other challenges.
@kek2072 жыл бұрын
@@rsKayiira but even they should be easily destroyable. You as the Attacker have twice the Detection range as the SAM system. So at 60km you should be able to launch an ARM.
@rsKayiira2 жыл бұрын
@@kek207 they don't have effective SEAD/DEAD capabilities. Thats why you see instances of expensive Iskander missiles hitting a single SA-11.
At about 4:10, don't judge Russian air capabilities based on what you know about US air capabilities! They are NOT equal!
@roymcewen82032 жыл бұрын
An Excellent Overview ! Thank You 👍🏻
@shepherdlavellen33012 жыл бұрын
at least the next COD game won't be about Russia invading anywhere
@maxthehack90722 жыл бұрын
true lol
@kentcartner16122 жыл бұрын
Quality information right here. Amazing 👏
@abrahamdozer62732 жыл бұрын
He didn't mention the use of drones for spotting, directing and correcting ground based artillery in real time. Inexpensive recreational drones with good optics that ae able to generate accurate positional information to gunners on the ground would be worth more than a squadron of close attack aircraft.
@miriamweller8122 жыл бұрын
Only helps Russia, though. Ukraine is not even getting close to the actual frontline, because electronical counter meassure prevents it. That's the big problem with drones, they are even more vulnerable to that than jets. Overall the western surveillance (since they prodive it to Ukraine) is massively lacking, that's why Ukraine is mainly blindly bombarding villages and cities, because those can't move.
@torinnbalasar67742 жыл бұрын
@@miriamweller812 where are you getting your information on Ukraine indiscriminately bombarding civilian centers? Russia is certainly doing it, but Ukraine doesn't really have the artillery to spare, AND has been making a name for itself with precision gunnery.
@abrahamdozer62732 жыл бұрын
@@miriamweller812 It's not helping Russia right now. Anyway, however vulnerable drones are (Are you REALLY going to shoot a $500 drone down with a SAM?) you could put nearly a million drones in the air for the cost of one high performance fighter jet. So, the Ukrainians are indiscriminately bombing the Ukraine? Hmmm. You speak with forked tongue, Yuri.
@heneagedundas2 жыл бұрын
He talks about drones in that role from the 12 minute mark.
@disekjoumoer2 жыл бұрын
Just read the excellent RUSI report. Very sobering picture indeed, given the whims of western weapon deliveries.
@davidwoods74082 жыл бұрын
Good video. Your guest was very informative! Historically speaking, giving the Russians time is always a mistake and that's what is happening.
@paulzx50342 жыл бұрын
Hi from Russia. Yes, you are right. Multiple evidences suggests combat effectiveness is rising and KIA numbers are kept at reasonably low level, and most losses goes to LDNR militia anyway. We also have strong opposition to any ceasefire exactly because now time is on our side and any pause will be used by UKR to regroup etc.
@eastcorkcheeses64482 жыл бұрын
Could tb2 be used in conjunction with a swarm of cheap remote control planes( model airplanes effectively dummyied up to resemble tb2s ) ) as a suppression of enemy air defence tool , ? Either to waste enemy air defence missiles ? or just show the way for something like tb2s to strike radars or tel units ..
@ArchonLicht2 жыл бұрын
Wikipedia page on UCAV literally shows MQ-9 Reaper and TB-2 Bayraktar first. Also if you think of the definition, MQ-9 or TB-2 are Unmanned - check, Combat - check (short-range missile is still a missile), Aerial - check, Vehicle - no ch... just kidding, check. So how are they not UCAVs then? Remotely piloted, yes, but how come that doesn't mean combat?
@theimmortal47182 жыл бұрын
Yeah this sounds off when I listen to it.
@_Saracen_2 жыл бұрын
This was super interesting, thanks for sharing, learned a lot.
@kalaharimine2 жыл бұрын
Lesson No. 1: Make Not WAR, it is not going to end well for everybody involved, and everyone else.
@havinganap2 жыл бұрын
Looking very summery there Chris, hope you're managing to enjoy this weather and not spending all day in the library :)
@micumatrix2 жыл бұрын
Please put Justin’s name in the title so I can prioritize my daily clip selection ;) Great content and guest!
@xray86delta2 жыл бұрын
I just love straight analysis of the data.
@arkad63292 жыл бұрын
So things to learn… Stealth matters, SEAD matters. Drones are great for artillery spotting, but not as massive of a game changer that everyone claimed. Oh and training matters. So wait, you’re telling me all the Facebook Air Marshalls don’t know what they’re talking about?! Lmao
@wrayday71492 жыл бұрын
Well, the Russians don’t take drones nearly as seriously as they should and they are paying dearly for it. Drones are also used for ISR. Without exposing forces you can spot where the large formation of troops are so you can position your military in response. Without that you need to send your Army out to bumble around for the enemy or send up an aircraft burning precious fuel and risking the plane and pilot to find the enemy.
@grahamstrouse11652 жыл бұрын
I think one of the biggest lessons from the early days of the war was that cheap, small/medium-sized drones are hella valuable & worth investing in. Most US drones cost almost as much as a fucking combat jet. They have their uses too but they can fall into that too-expensive-to-use/too-expansive-to-lose category.
@gelinrefira2 жыл бұрын
Which is probably why the PLA is investing so much in satellite and AI now. They want a system that can monitor every part of the world at every moment. Which is also why a satellite constellation like Starlink is a national threat to them, and actually to everyone too. If the NSA want to, it might even be possible to turn Starlink into a gigantic signal intel system. If you are not friendly to the US, Starlink is a threat.
@MrFlintlock72 жыл бұрын
Outstanding, interesting insights on the limitations of (current) drones!
@mpersad2 жыл бұрын
More great analysis, really important lessons being learned. Top video, thank you.
@username-rd8cl2 жыл бұрын
The planes were not sent in force until that anti air craft batteries were taken out. At this point, Ukraine still has some given by NATO. The Air Force is being held back, in case NATO decides to send in forces into Ukraine. There was very little fighter vs fighter battles, most were shot down on both sides by anti aircraft batteries.