[Goose]

So would you attribute this to a single poorly trained unit or is this possibly the state of the Russian Airforce as a whole?

Russian Air Force as a whole, but I wouldn't over-interpret this failure. I am guessing the Russians had been flying this type of mission for a while and were told the missile threat was nil. As a result they flew it sloppily because it was supposed to be a "milk run". That's where the RWR performance comes into question. If you are flying where there aren't supposed to be any missile acquisition radars and your RWR sees one, drastic action is called for. The game has changed. Even if you are a FD&H pilot (maybe especially if you are :-) the RWR detection should probably have aborted the mission. You are no longer in a "low threat" environment and need a new mission plan. You need a "strike package" that includes a SEAD group out in front of you to engage the Patriot. At the very least you can make the targeting problem much harder and if the SEAD group is "good" they may get enough credible anti-radiation missiles in the air to make the Patriot shut down. The Russians have longer range anti-radiation missiles than we do, up to 70 km. Russia used to have such groups, but they were never numerous. They may have none now. It does absolutely amaze me that 3 SU-34s were brought down like that. Obviously they never knew what was trying to hit them.

Are there any NATO EW aircraft possibly flying within range of the SU 34's who could contribute target data?  From WLIK the NATO early warning aircraft have a detection range of around 600 kms and I assume this is at altitude.

The NATO EW aircraft at 9144 meters (30,000 ft) altitude can "see" a target at 522 meters altitude (up to a range of 423 km) if the radar is "good enough" and the target is "bright" enough. An E-3 can certainly accomplish this. An SU-34 isn't very "stealthy" and the Digital Moving Target Indication would extract it from any ground clutter.  As the target gets higher, the range increases out toward the maximum radar range. However, I don't believe NATO is providing such information (even when it exists) in real-time to the Ukraine. Based on the Moskva sinking, NATO might answer a direct question, but doesn't have a "feed" into the Ukraine's "air defense system". It also appears that both Ukraine and Russia aren't running a theater-wide integrated air defense system anyway. Who does NATO tell?

Your points about Ukraine's best chance is to attack South across the Dnipro is well taken.  Going North gives Russia all the benefits of short LOC.  It seems to me Russia is willing to almost bleed itself dry by constant attacks in the North, hopefully tying down those reserves Ukraine might be otherwise able to use in the South.  If the Ukrainians prove to be able F16 pilots, things might change to some extent.  It seems almost like Russian tactics have changed little since WWII, but technology has negated some of those advantages they had then.

I hope so. Even in WWII the Germans demonstrated they could break through when they had local air superiority and adequate troop strength. For Ukraine, they haven't yet ever had even local air superiority. They are hoping that if they can obtain it they will still have enough troops to put the Russians in an untenable position in the south. Let's hope they can, because in an infantry slugging match, Ukraine loses eventually. 

On another, but related subject, if Iran did in fact launch anti ship rockets at a non Israeli flagged vessel in the Indian Ocean, how long is the rest of the world willing to allow Iran and its allies to totally screw up the worlds shipping with the resulting economic hit.  I would think Russia would prefer that Iran not pull the tail of the tiger for fear someone would take out the Iranian drone factories.

I think Russia has no control at all over what Iran does. I am not confident Iran actually has tight control over all elements of its own armed forces. I am positive Iran does not have absolute control over Hamas, Hezbollah or the Houthi. These factors make the situation very dangerous for everybody. Iran can be dragged into a war it doesn't want because it can't disavow it's proxy forces and still retain it's influence in the middle east. It also has to keep the allegiance of the right wing military (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) because that force is needed to control the Iranian populace. Iran wants to keep the pot boiling but does not want it to boil over. If it does, Iran is in no position to reliably control the outcome and they know it. They don't want a war, but they may get one.

IMO the rest of the world is trying to tiptoe around the situation because they don't want a war either. The multinational naval force is an attempt to defeat the Houthi without actually landing troops. It might work, because the Houthi don't have "good" missiles, have no target acquisition capability,  and are vulnerable to missile attacks from the sea. This also isn't their fight. It doesn't make them stronger in Yemen.

The IO situation is different. That represents a higher level of technology. If Iran is doing the target acquisition for those missiles, I would expect prompt strikes to end that threat. It may be it was some over-zealous part of the military and will not be repeated. Lets hope so. If it is, it will require destroying the Iranian ability to do so. I hope a strong message has be delivered to that effect and that it "works".  Everybody should realize all hell can break lose very quickly here and back away. Let's hope Iran does.

[Goose]

So would you attribute this to a single poorly trained unit or is this possibly the state of the Russian Airforce as a whole?

Russian Air Force as a whole, but I wouldn't over-interpret this failure. I am guessing the Russians had been flying this type of mission for a while and were told the missile threat was nil. As a result they flew it sloppily because it was supposed to be a "milk run". That's where the RWR performance comes into question. If you are flying where there aren't supposed to be any missile acquisition radars and your RWR sees one, drastic action is called for. The game has changed. Even if you are a FD&H pilot (maybe especially if you are :-) the RWR detection should probably have aborted the mission. You are no longer in a "low threat" environment and need a new mission plan. You need a "strike package" that includes a SEAD group out in front of you to engage the Patriot. At the very least you can make the targeting problem much harder and if the SEAD group is "good" they may get enough credible anti-radiation missiles in the air to make the Patriot shut down. The Russians have longer range anti-radiation missiles than we do, up to 70 km. Russia used to have such groups, but they were never numerous. They may have none now. It does absolutely amaze me that 3 SU-34s were brought down like that. Obviously they never knew what was trying to hit them.

Are there any NATO EW aircraft possibly flying within range of the SU 34's who could contribute target data?  From WLIK the NATO early warning aircraft have a detection range of around 600 kms and I assume this is at altitude.

The NATO EW aircraft at 9144 meters (30,000 ft) altitude can "see" a target at 522 meters altitude (up to a range of 423 km) if the radar is "good enough" and the target is "bright" enough. An E-3 can certainly accomplish this. An SU-34 isn't very "stealthy" and the Digital Moving Target Indication would extract it from any ground clutter.  As the target gets higher, the range increases out toward the maximum radar range. However, I don't believe NATO is providing such information (even when it exists) in real-time to the Ukraine. Based on the Moskva sinking, NATO might answer a direct question, but doesn't have a "feed" into the Ukraine's "air defense system". It also appears that both Ukraine and Russia aren't running a theater-wide integrated air defense system anyway. Who does NATO tell?

Your points about Ukraine's best chance is to attack South across the Dnipro is well taken.  Going North gives Russia all the benefits of short LOC.  It seems to me Russia is willing to almost bleed itself dry by constant attacks in the North, hopefully tying down those reserves Ukraine might be otherwise able to use in the South.  If the Ukrainians prove to be able F16 pilots, things might change to some extent.  It seems almost like Russian tactics have changed little since WWII, but technology has negated some of those advantages they had then.

I hope so. Even in WWII the Germans demonstrated they could break through when they had local air superiority and adequate troop strength. For Ukraine, they haven't yet ever had even local air superiority. They are hoping that if they can obtain it they will still have enough troops to put the Russians in an untenable position in the south. Let's hope they can, because in an infantry slugging match, Ukraine loses eventually. 

On another, but related subject, if Iran did in fact launch anti ship rockets at a non Israeli flagged vessel in the Indian Ocean, how long is the rest of the world willing to allow Iran and its allies to totally screw up the worlds shipping with the resulting economic hit.  I would think Russia would prefer that Iran not pull the tail of the tiger for fear someone would take out the Iranian drone factories.

I think Russia has no control at all over what Iran does. I am not confident Iran actually has tight control over all elements of its own armed forces. I am positive Iran does not have absolute control over Hamas, Hezbollah or the Houthi. These factors make the situation very dangerous for everybody. Iran can be dragged into a war it doesn't want because it can't disavow it's proxy forces and still retain it's influence in the middle east. It also has to keep the allegiance of the right wing military (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) because that force is needed to control the Iranian populace. Iran wants to keep the pot boiling but does not want it to boil over. If it does, Iran is in no position to reliably control the outcome and they know it. They don't want a war, but they may get one.

IMO the rest of the world is trying to tiptoe around the situation because they don't want a war either. The multinational naval force is an attempt to defeat the Houthi without actually landing troops. It might work, because the Houthi don't have "good" missiles, have no target acquisition capability,  and are vulnerable to missile attacks from the sea. This also isn't their fight. It doesn't make them stronger in Yemen.

The IO situation is different. That represents a higher level of technology. If Iran is doing the target acquisition for those missiles, I would expect prompt strikes to end that threat. It may be it was some over-zealous part of the military and will not be repeated. Lets hope so. If it is, it will require destroying the Iranian ability to do so. I hope a strong message has be delivered to that effect and that it "works".  Everybody should realize all hell can break lose very quickly here and back away. Let's hope Iran does.