Satellite images of damage done to Saki airfield in Crimea | Hacker News Reader

Satellite images of damage done to Saki airfield in Crimea

twitter.com

127 points_Microft107 comments

The reason this is significant, besides being an enormous loss of difficult to replace aircraft, is that it was so far from the front lines. Russia has been fumbling in the last month to adjust to western HIMAR weapons that have been precisely targeting ammo depots, hqs, and other high value targets far behind the front lines. Russian logistics is largely train based. They ship everything by train and unpack it to a nearby warehouse, then rely on trucks for the last mile. The HIMARs have been destroying the warehouses, meaning Russia is now needing to use trucks for much much more than the last mile because they can't unpack everything near the front. This new strike is even longer range than the weapon specs Ukraine was believed to have. And it was 2 very precise explosions. How this was achieved is not clear, but if Ukraine now has frequent precise missile capabilities for 200-300km strikes, that means Russia may need to scramble their logistics all over again.

Right now the most important location in the war is Kherson, occupied by Russia. It's the only truly valuable asset that Russia has seized, and recent Ukranian advances have made Russia pull 20-30k troops off of other front lines to reinforce this area. It's a very difficult position for Russia. There's just a couple bridges leading into Kherson from the south (Russia / Crimea side) and Ukraine has been blowing them up. Logistics of supplying those 30k troops is going to be really tough. And now Crimea, the main logistics hub for those troops, is appearing very vulnerable.

Ukraine's goal here is to make the defense of Kherson extremely resource intensive, meaning Russia has to either lose the territory or weaken up on other fronts.

I think it's absolutely nuts Russia isn't just walking away from this fight. They're fighting a war of choice. Their military is very slowly getting ground down to capture territory they are unable to comprehensively defend.

Russia is probably suffering from the sunk cost fallacy: this war has been painfully expensive, but they don't have anything to show for that expense.

Realistically, if you were to imagine what the negotiating table looks like at this point, Ukraine is aiming for restoration of its pre-2014 borders--that is recovery of Luhansk and Donetsk, not to mention Crimea. Those terms are almost certainly nonstarters to Russia, but Russia hasn't inflicted sufficient damage on Ukraine to cause them to ask for anything less. For its part, Russia seems determined still to ask for annexation of large parts of Ukraine--they are currently attempting to put together a referendum showing that occupied Kherson wants to be part of Russia (and it seems the current offensive is interfering with their planned timetable--embarrassingly, they might not hold Kherson when the "referendum" is currently planned).

So the only way that Russia is likely to capitulate is if the military situation is so hopeless that it has to admit defeat in the conflict. The military situation has yet to reach that point, though. Instead, we seem to be set for a years-long grinding stalemate as the most likely outcome.

I guess Russia also wants to see what happens in winter when gas resources will be important on several fronts ?

Quite possibly. But since Russia itself is one of those fronts (its tax revenues from oil and gas dropped >30% YoY in July despite high prices), what happens in winter might be More Bad News.

Russians tolerated 10 years of basket case economics in the 90s. Prior to that, they [patiently] suffered under USSR's police state. I wouldn't bet the farm on who can tolerate more pain and misery. They will win that one.

Likely Russian calculus: Fissures in NATO/EU, creation of new fronts (Taiwan, Middle East), and continued madness of US's political and social space are all ticking bombs. It the West that needs to wrap this up quickly, not Russia.

(dated) Likely Western calculus: The European war is intolerable to Chinese (because of BRI plans) and China will lean on Russia to end the war so business can resume. The recent brouhaha over Taiwan however likely has altered the equation.

I agree, there'll be suffering both here and there, and the Russians have suffered stolidly before.

The sauna I used to visit has closed. It was heated using geothermal energy IIRC, and that energy can practically be used to replace a gas-fired furnace somewhere in the city. So the sauna was closed a few days ago. I'm sad about that.

The Russians didn't have to go without a sauna in the nineties, they suffered this: https://nitter.it/pic/orig/enc/bWVkaWEvRllyM0std1ZzQUFqWnotL...

A bakery where I bought a bread this week has stated publicly that the selection may be worse during the winter. There'll be enough, just not as varied as until now. Not like this photo, also from Russia: https://nitter.it/pic/enc/bWVkaWEvRllyM0tqSFVJQUVKWGpFLmpwZz...

The Russians may have a great capacity for suffering compared to westerners, and if the suffering coming their way were only what's coming to the western countries, I don't doubt that the Russians would handle it.

Those were russians coming from the Soviet Union though. What of the Russians in Moscow that have enjoyed western standards of living for the past few decades?

>years-long grinding stalemate

Fortunately, the facts on the ground indicate otherwise. Russia's losses in materiel and men are unsustainable and no match for surviving Ukraine's frequent resupply of western military donations. How much more blood and treasure he wastes is really up to Putin, but there's no way he can sustain the losses as his paper tiger turns to ashes.

As much as I'd love this to be true, we get a lot of propaganda here in the West and in general both sides are burning a lot of resources. Russia had more resources to start with and can probably replenish at least some of them (manpower and tanks).

It's not that clear. Russia had huge stockpiles of stuff. But it's old, and much of it is in poor quality. The tech being deployed in Ukraine is very poor. We've seen WWI era rifles, almost WW2 era tanks, tanks that don't work or don't have gunners, planes without navigation. A gun is still a gun, but they also don't have as many people. The Russian army was a peacetime army. It wasn't ready for war and they've had a tough time recruiting people in the past several months. They've also drawn a hard line against recruiting from ethnic Russians in places like Moscow. The biggest conflict though is in getting the stuff to the frontlines. Their comms, intel, and logistics are pretty poor.

But they do have a lot of people, and if they're willing to let them die, it'll take a long time to get rid of them.

For comparison, Ukraine's military is quickly replacing its old Soviet junk with more modern (sometimes top of the line!), advanced western weaponry while Russia is replenishing its equipment with... even older Soviet junk. Even if Putin is willing to throw more bodies into the meat grinder, the average lifespan of a Russian grunt will diminish at an increasing rate. Russian bodies are piling up faster and faster as WW2 equipment is no match for modern warfare.

For comparison, the Soviet Afghan war had 14.5k killed and 53k wounded over a decade.

Western intel estimates 80k total casualties killed & wounded on the Russian side in 6 months in Ukraine.

> They've also drawn a hard line against recruiting from ethnic Russians in places like Moscow.

Interesting. First I've heard of this.

Sounds like Putin wants the large number of casualties to not be in areas where unhappy family members rioting can affect politics.

Pretty much. Also general racism. The real meat shields are the russian "separatists" from eastern ukraine.

> and no match for surviving Ukraine's frequent resupply of western military donations

The West is only giving weapons to the Ukraine, and unfortunately, as good as they may be, they still need boots on the ground to be operated, and Ukraine is bleeding them as fast as Russia.

That's not much of a problem now that Russia won't/can't mobilize “for real”; but were it to come to this end, the long-term perspective wouldn't look so shiny for Ukraine.

> Ukraine is bleeding them as fast as Russia

Proportionally maybe yes. But count-wise Russians are losing more soldiers than Ukrainians.

That maybe true (do we really have precise enough numbers for that?), but they are of the same magnitude order, which is the problem.

An army of untrained, underequipped nobodies is alright for a civil defense. It's useless for an invading force in a hostile land.

That's what happened in every lengthy major war: the highly-trained experienced pre-war army melts, and they are replaced by hastily trained new recruits. Still, it turns out they work just fine, even on the offensive: Romans conquered Carthago, the Soviets crushed Germany, the Entente put the Alliance to its knees, North-Vietnam is now the ruling body, Mao beat Chag Kaï Chek, the Whites lose the Russian Civil War, etc.

Assuming the populations remain unto control from the governments, my informed guess is that the deciding factor between the Ukraine and Russia will be economical, as it had been for all grindfest-wars. And at this game, I wonder what will crumble first: the Russian economy or the Western support to the Ukraine – hopefully the former. In any case, victor or vanquished, the Ukraine will end up gutted by what is probably a good contender for the stupidest war of the 21st century.

I'm not so sure. As a result of this invasion, Ukraine has gotten immensely more powerful with a demonstrated western backing, both on the theoretical geopolitical level, and the active day-to-day reality on the front.

If they were to pull out, Ukraine would continue to take back Crimea. They would probably sweep the Russians out of Moldova too. They may plausibly assist in a coup in Belarus. That is to say, Russia doesn't have the ability to walk away without Ukraine hitting them several more times.

Fighting to a loss doesn't actually avoid these outcomes but it... buys time for other shit to happen? An openly pro russian second term for trump in the us, for example.

> They would probably sweep the Russians out of Moldova too. They may plausibly assist in a coup in Belarus.

I think those would be quite unwise.

But the thing is, Russia pulling out might lead to the biggest political prize of all - the end of Putin. He'd lose too much prestige. And he knows it. If he visibly loses, he's done. Therefore, he will keep fighting until others at home remove him, until he wins, or until his military is in such a state that it cannot continue.

> I think those would be quite unwise.

Why?

This isn't how Russia thinks though.

Russia is so full of paranoia and hubris that it considers rejection of "superiority of all things Russia" as evidence of a dire threat. As a not entirely absurd metaphor, Russian imperialism is like Fatal Attraction. Russia referred to Ukrainians as "little Russians". But upon rejecting Putanism and Russia, in favor of Ukrainian language, culture, history, and government - that is to Russia completely unacceptable. The only explanation for rejecting the superiority of Russia is corruption, i.e. Nazification.

Of course this is demented, delusional, crazy, but that's an external assessment. Russia will persist in murdering Ukrainians until Russia is stopped. Nations party to the U.N. Charter are obligated to assist under Article 2(5). And I think China and India aren't doing enough to meet this obligation they've voluntarily and formally agreed to.

Here's some much larger shots, along with explanations of what they show and what each destroyed Russian plane is: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/widespread-destruction...

This is a much better link.

Well yeah, pretty much everything is much better than one tweet (even if it contains images)...

Total Russian losses of multirole/fighter/attack aircraft are estimated at only 42[1] compared to a possible in-service count of approximately 1228[2], for a 3% loss so far.

Lack of industrial capacity to produce aircraft parts and munitions is a more likely reason for keeping Russian aircraft on the ground and slowing the pace of the war. It is estimated that Russia in the first three months used up an equivalent of 4 years worth of US production of all types of missiles.[3] And the US has so far sent Ukraine approximately 4 years worth of production of Javelin missiles.[3] The US aren't expecting to be able to double the annual 2100/yr production rate[3] until a few more years time so the limiting factor for Ukraine will soon be industrial capacity of Western countries to manufacture new munitions and equipment.

Impacting all parties to the war is global inflation that is significantly reducing defense industrial capacity output in real terms. For the US, the defense sector contracted 6% in real terms in 2021.[4] With Russia's official inflation rate recently over 17% and many sanctions in place, defense sector output for Russia is a far bleaker situation.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_losses_during...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Russian_militar...

[3] https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/comme...

[4] https://www.iiss.org/blogs/military-balance/2022/02/global-d...

>a possible in-service count of approximately 1228

I doubt most of those are operational. Likely already stripped for parts.

It's also likely that many planes on Saki weren't operational.

The SU-24S probably, but the SU-30s were likely active.

Fwiw, that 42 is visually confirmed total losses, not estimates.

I think the other comment is probably correct that the nominal 1228 planes in service is an over-estimate of flyable airframes by several multiples.

If you compare the losses to what is claimed as active you can rule out whole categories as being "active".

> Total Russian losses of multirole/fighter/attack aircraft are estimated at only 42[1] compared to a possible in-service count of approximately 1228[2], for a 3% loss so far.

Comparing losses at a forward operating base to the total number of aircraft in inventory is not very useful. For any military the total number of aircraft in inventory isn't the total force available at any given time. Out of the total inventory there's different levels of readiness.

Losing a bunch of forward deployed operational aircraft is a huge blow to Russia's air power in the region. To replace them they need to strip aircraft from other units at operational readiness decreasing every unit's total air power. It's not Starcraft where a unit can fly from factory to the front lines.

Additionally losing so many aircraft at a base deep in Russian claimed territory changes the power balance in the region. They can now fly fewer sorties and have a lower density of coverage.

Context: https://old.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/wk3nq2/compi...

Ukraine fired multiple (probably) Neptune missiles into a Crimea airfield

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-360_Neptune

One of the more optomistic estimates show losses at: 12 Su-27 and Su-30 fighters, 5 Su-24 bombers and 6 Mi-8 helicopters. Other people saying only 6x Su-24 and 3x Su-30 https://gagadget.com/en/war/156317-12-su-27-and-su-30-fighte...

Based on?

You mean the missile part or the loss estimates?

Ukraine claimed it was a 'locally made weapon' and they don't have anything else with this much power based on the explosions.

At least that's what the experts I follow on Twitter are claiming. Lots of people claiming ATACMS which I doubt.

It can be also Grim ballistic missile, actually. More or less equivalent of Iskander.

Was ATACMS sold to Ukraine?

Official line is No

Neptune has a 150kg warhead, and the sat images show craters the size of a Suchoi, so ~20m(?). I am really not an expert but that seems a bit of a huge hole for a relatively modest warhead.

The Hrim-2 (Grim/Grom) reportedly has a 500kg warhead. Maybe someone can correct me, but it seems more likely to me.

That would actually make sense, fits the role of the weapon more than an anti-ship missile, I wasn't familiar with Grim.

Well, nobody before this month thought that any were operational, so not really your fault.

Very off topic, but this really bugs me. The last clip there is a portrait orientation video inside a landscape inside a portrait inside a landscape. The remaining video appears on my 24 inch monitor at the physical size of a phone.

The strategy of Russia pointing at a very unlikely fire safety issue and the coyness of Ukraine not taking direct responsibility for it (yet) are interesting from a communication perspective.

It's a tactic Ukraine used before. They rightly assume that most people will understand what happened so they play coy and mock Russia.

It will be interesting to see what Russia says when the "accident" repeats again in another location.

I just read that a whole base went up in flames near Moscow.

There's zero chance that would be a direct attack by AFU. It's _possible_ it was some sort of sabotage operation (if so, it's much more likely to be Russians who oppose the war), but it's also a wooden barracks building... structure fires are a thing that happen for a whole range of reasons.

The chatter seems to be it was a conscript base. Either the conscripts didn’t want to go, or what also happens is that bases get understaffed for X amount of people while still getting the money for those “missing” soldiers. Getting rid of evidence then becomes an option.

A lot of the Russian conscripts seem to be minorities from more rural areas, and Russian military lifestyle is very subpar and is likely a downgrade for those conscripts from their home.

So yeah, the conscripts getting upset and burning down a base is very believable.

I don't understand the reasoning. If Ukraine isn't openly acknowledging the attack doesn't it mean that it's respecting the orcs' "red line" of not attacking what they consider Russia?

If your enemy could be grossly incompetent enough to blow up their own base, or just roughly incompetent enough not to protect it well, why not keep both possibilities open? Maybe they did both :D

It is interesting that Russia aren't accusing them of attacking. That's a bigger deal to me...

Did Russia ever admit that Moskva sank for other reasons than "fire caused a munitions explosion"?

It makes sense though, there's no benefit in accusing Ukraine in this, otherwise it means 2 things:

- anti air defense didn't work

- panic between civilians in Crimea (more so than now people already leaving their holidays)

Ukraine attacked Russia proper (not just Crimea) before. We all remember Mi-24 over Belgorod but there were also Tochkas fired against airbases (IIRC Taganrog and Milerovo).

I don't think red lines exist. Maybe for using western supplied munitions.

Putin had promised harsh repercussions if Crimea was attacked. Russia cannot blame Ukraine without retaliating somehow. It's likely Russia is simply now unable to do any more than what they are currently doing so they prefer blaming their own stupidity rather than the Ukrainians.

The Ukrainians don't need to take responsibility since it's obvious to everybody not swallowing Russian propaganda that they did it... Looking at the traffic jam to leave Crimea, it's also obvious to many Russians there.

>Looking at the traffic jam to leave Crimea, it's also obvious to many Russians there.

I think that traffic might show that Russians are afraid that the bridge will be destroyed, so not only they don't believe Putin's propaganda they are now realizing that things will get worse and need to escape while is still possible.

If only they would realize sooner that Putin fucked their future once more with this war and that is time to put him down.

I doubt those tourists on the beach actually realize the war could come to Crimea in a larger scale and that the bridge would be a prime target - many will just see great balls of fire near their beach and conclude it's better to go home.

And: Usually, ordinary citizens are in no position to take down a dictator unless they risk life and limb by taking to the streets. Some tried, but unless the system starts showing fractures, I doubt many more will. Getting locked up for up to 15y in a terror state is a pretty tall order.

>And: Usually, ordinary citizens are in no position to take down a dictator

I am from Romania, I know how it is done, you need just a spark and a few people with courage to start it, it also helps if the army won't fire on their own parents and brothers but I have no idea if Putin brainwashed or brought in Moskow the most retard of the retards of soldiers (we in Romania know about presidents using brainwashed, less intelligent people to do the dirty thing too).

It really depends on how well Putin brainwashing works, and how many Russians will move the blame for their poor economy to nazzis, gays and their mean neighbors that for illogical reasons want to enter into a defensive alliance.

Well, I don't want to lecture you about your country's history, so please don't take it the wrong way - but IIRC, the Ceaușescu regime was showing signs of fatigue in 1989 - and during that year, the wind of change was blowing pretty strong in CEE Europe.

I would claim that current Russia isn't comparable, I don't see signs that the regime is severely weakened and the security apparatus would stay neutral.

Maybe you are right, maybe Russians can endure a few more years of bad times, maybe Putin can continue moving the blame on others(if he still has money to keep the oligarchs happy and pay the propagandists). So he needs money for the oligarchs(or needs to eliminate them, could be a popular move), money for propaganda, money for the army (to keep them loyal), it will be expensive.

> it also helps if the army won't fire on their own parents and brothers

For a bit of added context, it's a common story that I hear among my friends here in Ukraine with relatives in russia that when they tell their relatives "the russian military are shooting at us, and we have had to hide in the basement", even their relatives respond with "No, you haven't been hiding in your basement. It's all fake."

In fascist russia, the television propaganda cable is thicker than blood.

It’s interesting to observe how at first the propagandists didn’t have guidance so they launched into “oh this means real war!” even calls for tactical nukes and such.

But the government indicated this was an “accident”. Just looking at the video with two simultaneous explosions hundreds of feet apart it seems that was some amazing feat of synchronized negligence. But the propagandists immediately stopped calling for investigations or revenge and switched topics.

> amazing feat of synchronized negligence

This describes so many things. I love it.

It made me laugh out loud in a public place. Brilliant!

The coyness is smarter beyond a simple troll. It's not clear right now how Ukraine managed to do this. Neptunes? ATACMS? Some homebrew shit? Special forces on site (incredibly unlikely)?

Keeping the confusion going is a big advantage

On Nitter:

https://nitter.it/IntelArrow/status/1557449807345733635

Saky on Google Maps, it's easy to find the area that the satellite images show:

https://www.google.com/maps?ll=45.133611,33.577222&q=45.1336...

Except Google steadfastly refuses to label any sort of military installation, even the most obvious airstrips.

Not even the famous secret nuclear bunker?

If you use Firefox, install the nitter-redirect extension. All twitter links are simply replaced by nitter.

If you’re on iOS, just accept your fate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com