4 ms·

I disagree, they have used their airforce extensively in Syria with precision guided bombs, and I'd be very surprised if that didn't help the pilots gain a lot

I disagree, they have used their airforce extensively in Syria with precision guided bombs, and I'd be very surprised if that didn't help the pilots gain a lot of experience too. All those reasons might have explained a lower intensity air presence but not the outright absence of russian planes. I think it's mostly due to public perception because air strikes, no matter how precise, cause a lot of collateral damage, especially when used in cities. Outside of cities, where alternatives to air strikes are viable, you can still see a lot of russian helicopter and artillery action.

ratg13 5y ago
This is what the article argues. That it is possible that they used up most of their precision guided bombs in Syria and are mostly left with unguided munitions.
- mardifoufs 5y ago
  I'm not sure I'd agree because they haven't even used their ballistic or cruise missiles in any significant number either. And we know they have a lot, lot more of those even if we just count Soviet stock. To me that indicates that there is something more to it than just lacking the munition itself.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > they haven't even used their ballistic or cruise missiles in any significant number either Those need targeting. And the article mentions a lack of targeting pods. (UkrAF is largely functional because the initial volley missed many air fields, planes and radar systems.) This increasingly looks like the Russian military procured shiny, expensive kit from cronies and then neglected to equip them.
aynyc 5y ago
I think the area they lack experience is closed air support. Ground troops can't direct air support on enemy targets consistently and accurately. Not that many countries can do that effectively.
stjohnswarts 5y ago
Syrian enemies did not have nearly the level of anti-aircraft (and more incoming from NATO countries) that Ukrainians have. I think they are just trying to keep irreplaceable fighters and bombers intact at the cost of ground forces. Russia know that in a war of attrition they can outlast Ukraine although it will cost them more than they thought now. I think they gambled based on what happened in Crimea and the "contested" regions of Ukraine.

ratg13 5y ago

This is what the article argues. That it is possible that they used up most of their precision guided bombs in Syria and are mostly left with unguided munitions.

mardifoufs 5y ago
I'm not sure I'd agree because they haven't even used their ballistic or cruise missiles in any significant number either. And we know they have a lot, lot more of those even if we just count Soviet stock. To me that indicates that there is something more to it than just lacking the munition itself.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > they haven't even used their ballistic or cruise missiles in any significant number either Those need targeting. And the article mentions a lack of targeting pods. (UkrAF is largely functional because the initial volley missed many air fields, planes and radar systems.) This increasingly looks like the Russian military procured shiny, expensive kit from cronies and then neglected to equip them.

aynyc 5y ago

I think the area they lack experience is closed air support. Ground troops can't direct air support on enemy targets consistently and accurately. Not that many countries can do that effectively.

stjohnswarts 5y ago

Syrian enemies did not have nearly the level of anti-aircraft (and more incoming from NATO countries) that Ukrainians have. I think they are just trying to keep irreplaceable fighters and bombers intact at the cost of ground forces. Russia know that in a war of attrition they can outlast Ukraine although it will cost them more than they thought now. I think they gambled based on what happened in Crimea and the "contested" regions of Ukraine.