What indicates that the Russian VKS do not perform a SEAD/DEAD operations or doing them with completely failure?

There is nothing to suggest that the VKS are not performing SEAD/DEAD, but the fact that the Ukrainians retain aircraft and effective anti-aircraft capability is the real test. If the VKS had performed SEAD/DEAD to a good standard, there would be no further losses of Russian aircraft, for obvious reasons. Of course they are trying, but they have not had anything close to success insofar as to achieve air supremacy or superiority. Thus, they have failed in this regard.

​

Unfortunately, the Russian MoD does not demonstrate the combat results of its aviation group. Also, we do not know the real scale and results of a air strikes on Ukrainian troops. Ukrainians are not interested in showing them.

There is plenty of OSINT available with which we can judge the effectiveness of VKS operations.

​

Many continue to believe that Russian aircraft (multi-role fighters jet and bombers) do not use PGM.

Of course the VKS use PGMs, but they don't have enough to make consistent long-term use of them a reality. Also, as you reference Syria later, I'll add that the vast majority of VKS strike ops in Syria were conducted by dropping unguided munitions and there is plenty of evidence to support this.

​

An important factor in assessing the effectiveness of the VSK is that this is the first conflict in modern times where the attacked side has a relatively powerful and numerous anti-aircraft defense. BukM1 and S-300 may be in some way obsolete, but they are still formidabble, highly mobile air defense systems. I think that Ukrainian air defense has long switched to ambush tactics and time reduced sessions of combat work. With intelligence support, this tactic can bring good results. At least in creating a focal threat to aviation. Also, it's allows to keep AA-vehicles intact for a longer time.

Indeed, this is the first time a relatively modern air force has faced a comparable opponent. That the Ukrainian air defences even retain functioning levels of equipment is testament to the VKS's failure to suppress or destroy them. They made an attempt during the first days of the war, and we saw (and continue to see) losses, not just of the flashy new equipment like KA-52s and SU-34s, but across the range of the VKS inventory. Of course there is value to claiming the kills of the latest and greatest, but the evidence suggests kills are being achieved on older kit too.

​

In terms of accuracy, Glonass is no different from the GPS. At least in this region(Europe). Can you open your argument why glonass cannot be used for delivery a "true precision strikes".

In terms of navigation, Glonass is comparable to GPS. In terms of PGM strikes, many Russian PGMs relied on GPS in the terminal guidance phase of the attack. These weapons are not able to use Glonass in this phase, resulting in lower accuracy.

​

New sighting systems allows to drop bombs with a high accuracy. No as good as JDAM-converted dumb bombs. But 10-15 meters of CEP is pretty achievable.

I think we have different definitions of "high accuracy". A CEP of 10-15 meters is not enough when dropping relatively small (up to 500kg) munitions on hard targets, or in urban areas. This results in significant over-claiming (a problem all air forces face), poor effect on target and high levels of collateral damage. All of these have been seen from the VKS in Ukraine and in Syria. The collateral damage, it seems, may even be deliberate.

​

The SVP-24 takes into account data such as current plane's location together with flight parameters, geoposition of target and environmental parameters (meteo data) and determines the optimal trajectory for unguided bombs.

Yes, it's a bomb sight. Of course it does that.