4 ms·

Modern militaries that don't like taking tons of unnecessary losses on the ground are in love with controlling the air. It's not like there's a wide variety of

Modern militaries that don't like taking tons of unnecessary losses on the ground are in love with controlling the air. It's not like there's a wide variety of proven strategies and countries just pick one that they're "in love" with—there's a fairly narrow set, in these circumstances, which all look pretty similar. It's definitely curious that Russia hasn't committed to establishing and leveraging air superiority, despite dedicating very substantial ground forces and on paper being entirely capable of doing so. One of the following must be true: 1) They do not believe they can, so are not trying. 2) They believe they could, but are choosing not to. 3) They tried, but, for some reason that's not currently clear and isn't evident in battlefield losses, failed. (this is probably the least likely and also the most grave—it suggests severe problems with their command structure) Whichever's the case, it's a real head-scratcher and is the main reason this isn't going how most folks thought it would.

mywittyname 5y ago
> it suggests severe problems with their command structure This is what my money is on. Sending ground forces in without establishing air superiority is ludicrous, for reasons that we are seeing now. I guess we have a good idea where the military coup will originate.
lumost 5y ago
A combination of 1 & 3 seems highly likely in my uninformed opinion. Economically, losing aircraft will make a war very expensive very quickly. Losing large numbers of top of the line aircraft will severely harm Russian military aircraft exports. With Europe closing its airspace there aren't many valid approach paths into Ukraine, or ways to get out of Ukraine should things go south. Russia has few stealth aircraft. In the 1991 gulf war, 60's era Soviet SA-2 missiles were able to defend Baghdad against non-stealth aircraft despite weeks of Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses(SEAD) strikes. A MIG-29 costs ~20 million dollars new. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Package_Q_Strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Package_Q_Strike
- whatshisface 5y ago
  >With Europe closing its airspace there aren't many valid approach paths into Ukraine Europe only contacts the western border. Russian aircraft can approach from the north (Russia and Belarus), south (Black Sea) and east (Russia).
- WalterBright 5y ago
  I've often suspected that the F-35 was so expensive only a handful could be built, and would not be risked in combat because it was too expensive to replace.
  - mhh__ 5y ago
    The F-35 isn't that expensive these days. It's still a huge amount of money to spend on something good for nothing but war, insert your view here, but the price isn't much different than the new F-16s being bought by the Israelis. That being said however stealth aircraft are not cheap to maintain at all.
  - lumost 5y ago
    Curiously I wonder if a similar problem is occurring with SA-400 missiles and other Russian air defenses. They may be too expensive to shoot at low cost drones such as the bayaktar.
notahacker 5y ago
I can imagine a considerable problem with the command structure is that if you've got a war that forces are badly prepared for and reluctant to fight in, you have to tread much more carefully with the orders you give your small number of highly trained (and relatively smart) pilots based on home soil than your large number of dispensible conscript troops you've driven into the conflict (or your gung ho special forces). Easier for them to disobey, and much more cause for alarm if they do, and no matter how dedicated they are to following orders, there are fewer pilots and planes to risk than armoured personnel carriers, artillery units and dated tanks.

mywittyname 5y ago

> it suggests severe problems with their command structure This is what my money is on. Sending ground forces in without establishing air superiority is ludicrous, for reasons that we are seeing now. I guess we have a good idea where the military coup will originate.

lumost 5y ago

A combination of 1 & 3 seems highly likely in my uninformed opinion. Economically, losing aircraft will make a war very expensive very quickly. Losing large numbers of top of the line aircraft will severely harm Russian military aircraft exports. With Europe closing its airspace there aren't many valid approach paths into Ukraine, or ways to get out of Ukraine should things go south. Russia has few stealth aircraft. In the 1991 gulf war, 60's era Soviet SA-2 missiles were able to defend Baghdad against non-stealth aircraft despite weeks of Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses(SEAD) strikes. A MIG-29 costs ~20 million dollars new. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Package_Q_Strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Package_Q_Strike

whatshisface 5y ago
>With Europe closing its airspace there aren't many valid approach paths into Ukraine Europe only contacts the western border. Russian aircraft can approach from the north (Russia and Belarus), south (Black Sea) and east (Russia).
WalterBright 5y ago
I've often suspected that the F-35 was so expensive only a handful could be built, and would not be risked in combat because it was too expensive to replace.
- mhh__ 5y ago
  The F-35 isn't that expensive these days. It's still a huge amount of money to spend on something good for nothing but war, insert your view here, but the price isn't much different than the new F-16s being bought by the Israelis. That being said however stealth aircraft are not cheap to maintain at all.
- lumost 5y ago
  Curiously I wonder if a similar problem is occurring with SA-400 missiles and other Russian air defenses. They may be too expensive to shoot at low cost drones such as the bayaktar.

notahacker 5y ago

I can imagine a considerable problem with the command structure is that if you've got a war that forces are badly prepared for and reluctant to fight in, you have to tread much more carefully with the orders you give your small number of highly trained (and relatively smart) pilots based on home soil than your large number of dispensible conscript troops you've driven into the conflict (or your gung ho special forces). Easier for them to disobey, and much more cause for alarm if they do, and no matter how dedicated they are to following orders, there are fewer pilots and planes to risk than armoured personnel carriers, artillery units and dated tanks.