Totally agree.
1 Like
I flew back to Melbourne from Williamtown yesterday. Seeing 3 x F-35’s taking off, zooming around, touching down and taking off over and over was was pretty awesome.
I can only imagine what it would be like to have them on your side in a fight,you’d feel invincible.
8 Likes
4 Likes
4 Likes
3 Likes
Morning
OSINT investigation into the state of the russian combat aircraft fleet
2/11 Obviously, the dates of the Google imagery are quite disparate, meaning possible and likely miscounting on this basis. Alternatively, recent commercial satellite imagery would run over US$34K, so this is the best that we can do.
3/11 Some of the locations are test centres, flight schools and civilian or mixed-use airports. Nevertheless, the airframes present there are included in the count.
4/11 Russo-Ukrainian war losses, relocations and reorganisations are not accounted for in this count – it is merely an inventory take. Some of the bases have almost certainly been relocated.
5/11 Only whole frames are counted – any of the ones with wholly or partly missing rotor blades, tails, engines, wings, etc., are excluded.
6/11 Only clearly modern military airframes are counted. Any of the airframes that are civilian/museum/display/airshow are excluded.
7/11 The condition of the airframes is varied, but no assessment is made on their integrity or airworthiness.
8/11 ‘Unknown planes’ are all transport (as I’ve struggled with some) and ‘Unknown helicopters’ are probably a mix of attack and transport. The quality of some imagery is at times quite poor.
9/11 The Su-27, 30 and 35 jets are nearly identical visually, so they are clustered up.
10/11 I’ve recorded as many hangars and bunkers as I could see - I’m sure I’ve missed and misidentified a fair few, though. It is unclear if any airframes are inside. Sometimes, airframes are immediately out in front of the hangars and bunkers.
11/11 Corrections/suggestions/updates are all very welcome - please DM me with any. I am otherwise 99% confident in the identification of the fighter jets, though occasional Su-34 vs Su-27/30/35 confusion may happen.
6 Likes
I dont think NATO is trying to keep up, would be a different beast if NATO was actually on the ground and not a proxy. I do agree Russia is evolving, but its still based on the meat grinder play with pockets getting better. The staggering losses of not just troops but equipment is starting to show.
If NATO actually armed Ukraine with another 20% it would be over.
6 Likes
The old maths of 3:1 advantage being required on the offensive seem to be holding true. I think you could even things up by doubling Ukrainian supplies and stop the gradual Russian gains but I think you’d have to go sixfold for them to be able to execute a successful offensive given heavily fortified defensive lines and drone remining.
The offensives of last year were costly and largely ineffective.
3 Likes
Exactly, NATO can help in a big way with defence, attack will still be very hard work. The current fibre-optic advantage could help a bit though.
3 Likes
I think realistically (and sadly) the chances of Ukraine mounting a successful counteroffensive are near zero.
They had a great opportunity when the Russians were on the retreat in the North East before Musk switched Starlink off and the US told them to slow down.
Russia was on the brink of a total morale collapse.
Since then Russia has proved to be extremely effective at the engineering aspect of warfare, they’ve built excellent fortifications in a short period of time.
They’ve got a manpower advantage that Ukraine can’t compete with and a distinct quantity advantage in munitions regardless of range / accuracy.
It would take political will that vastly exceeds what is currently available to turn the tables.
6 Likes
6 Likes
I know this company 
12 Likes
MASSIVE WINTER ASSAULT. Part 2.
1 Like
3 Likes
7 Likes
6 Likes
Russian losses per 14/01/25 reported by the Ukrainian general staff.
+1330 men
+3 tanks
+11 AFVs
+47 artillery systems
+1 MLRS
+72 UAVs
7 Likes
3 Likes