4 ms·

I wonder to what extent advice and training of Ukrainian forces, not to mention real-time intelligence, has aided the Ukrainians in denying Russia air superiori

by ttul 5y ago

I wonder to what extent advice and training of Ukrainian forces, not to mention real-time intelligence, has aided the Ukrainians in denying Russia air superiority.

foogazi 5y ago
But the same is true of Russian forces - they also get advice and training
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  I don’t know that they expected the Ukrainians to have satellite and electronic intelligence parity, though.
tablespoon 5y ago
> I wonder to what extent advice and training of Ukrainian forces, not to mention real-time intelligence, has aided the Ukrainians in denying Russia air superiority. I read somewhere that Soviet-style air defense turn out to be most effective against Soviet-style air forces. Basically Western militaries have never invested heavily in SAMs, but invested heavily in anti-SAM weapons an tactics; while Soviet-style militaries did the opposite. That leaves Soviet-style forces with with very good SAM capabilities and weak air forces without the ability to counter it.
- js8 5y ago
  > Basically Western militaries have never invested heavily in SAMs, but invested heavily in anti-SAM weapons an tactics; while Soviet-style militaries did the opposite Hm, I will cynically say that it looks like the Russians were actually more interested in defense, while the Americans were more interested in offense.
  - mulmen 5y ago
    That’s a thing that you can say. But I would be careful not to conflate military doctrine with geopolitical policy.
    - js8 5y ago
      I certainly wish that, at least in the American case, they are different. There is however evidence to the contrary. My country was invaded by Russians in 1968. While it wasn't particularly pleasant, I think it was better than being bombed, or perhaps even, economically starved.
      - mulmen 5y ago
        Of course they are different. But if you are going to battle strike early and strike hard.
  - KptMarchewa 5y ago
    You can see opposite tendencies looking at the ground forces.
    - js8 5y ago
      OK, fair enough. There might be several reasons why is air offensive more important for Americans than Russians and vice versa: 1. Russians won the WW2 using tanks on land, Americans won the WW2 using aircrafts over sea. 2. (If we assume Russians care less about the loss of their troops than Americans.) Attacking another country from the air is more expensive, but safer, than attacking it from the ground. 3. (If we assume Americans are more interested in projecting their force globally than Russians are.) It is easier to move airplanes/missiles/drones around the world on ships than to move heavy mechanized ground troops. On the other hand, Russians have sometimes led the development of heavy ICBMs and nuclear weapons, but that also seems to be more valuable as a global deterrent rather than something you would randomly use during an invasion.
- SEJeff 5y ago
  Western militaries have never heavily invested in SAMs?! Have you heard of the stinger, that the Ukrainians are using to great effect? The US also has the patriot and aegis systems which are really good air defense missiles. That’s not including THAAD, etc.
  - KptMarchewa 5y ago
    THAAD is 21-century system, not a cold war era one.
    - SEJeff 5y ago
      But the OPs comment was that the west ended invested in SAMs, a laughably incorrect statement if you study the order of battle of any western military, US or otherwise.
      - dylan604 5y ago
        It's kind of like saying that we ended investment in 8-bit hardware because we've replaced it with 64-bit hardware. It's not that we stopped, it's that the funding has been repurposed for newer/better things.
      - tablespoon 5y ago
        > But the OPs comment was that the west ended invested in SAMs That's not at all what I said. I suppose it would have been a little clearer if I had said "never invested as heavily" in SAMs compared to the Soviets, but I wasn't focusing on the West. I was making a point about Soviet-style forces fighting one another. Nothing about that implies the West never invested in SAMs or has stopped doing so. It just means they're not as central to its air defense strategy.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > Western militaries have never heavily invested in SAMs?! > Have you heard of the stinger, that the Ukrainians are using to great effect? The US also has the patriot and aegis systems which are really good air defense missiles. That’s not including THAAD, etc. Not like the Soviet Union did. The article I'm trying to paraphrase said that SAMs were far more integral to Soviet air defense strategy than they were to Western air defense, which put more emphasis on using fighter aircraft for air defense than having the Army deploy different SAM systems for every need. Because the Soviets relied more on SAMs, then the West had to put more emphasis on counter-SAM weapons (which the Soviets has far less need to do). Also the article noted that the exception is Western navies, which the article said were in a more similar situation to the Soviet Army. That's why the more capable US SAM systems have naval lineage.
tguvot 5y ago
i listened to interview with leading Ukrainian journalist/analyst a couple of days ago. Apparently Ukraine got intel about time of attack and possible targets so when cruise missiles were flying to take out targets, most of functioning planes were in the air and everything that wasn't stationary (like mobile air defense systems) were moved to different locations

by ttul 5y ago

I wonder to what extent advice and training of Ukrainian forces, not to mention real-time intelligence, has aided the Ukrainians in denying Russia air superiority.

foogazi 5y ago

But the same is true of Russian forces - they also get advice and training

ceejayoz 5y ago
I don’t know that they expected the Ukrainians to have satellite and electronic intelligence parity, though.

tablespoon 5y ago

> I wonder to what extent advice and training of Ukrainian forces, not to mention real-time intelligence, has aided the Ukrainians in denying Russia air superiority. I read somewhere that Soviet-style air defense turn out to be most effective against Soviet-style air forces. Basically Western militaries have never invested heavily in SAMs, but invested heavily in anti-SAM weapons an tactics; while Soviet-style militaries did the opposite. That leaves Soviet-style forces with with very good SAM capabilities and weak air forces without the ability to counter it.

js8 5y ago
> Basically Western militaries have never invested heavily in SAMs, but invested heavily in anti-SAM weapons an tactics; while Soviet-style militaries did the opposite Hm, I will cynically say that it looks like the Russians were actually more interested in defense, while the Americans were more interested in offense.
- mulmen 5y ago
  That’s a thing that you can say. But I would be careful not to conflate military doctrine with geopolitical policy.
  - js8 5y ago
    I certainly wish that, at least in the American case, they are different. There is however evidence to the contrary. My country was invaded by Russians in 1968. While it wasn't particularly pleasant, I think it was better than being bombed, or perhaps even, economically starved.
    - mulmen 5y ago
      Of course they are different. But if you are going to battle strike early and strike hard.
- KptMarchewa 5y ago
  You can see opposite tendencies looking at the ground forces.
  - js8 5y ago
    OK, fair enough. There might be several reasons why is air offensive more important for Americans than Russians and vice versa: 1. Russians won the WW2 using tanks on land, Americans won the WW2 using aircrafts over sea. 2. (If we assume Russians care less about the loss of their troops than Americans.) Attacking another country from the air is more expensive, but safer, than attacking it from the ground. 3. (If we assume Americans are more interested in projecting their force globally than Russians are.) It is easier to move airplanes/missiles/drones around the world on ships than to move heavy mechanized ground troops. On the other hand, Russians have sometimes led the development of heavy ICBMs and nuclear weapons, but that also seems to be more valuable as a global deterrent rather than something you would randomly use during an invasion.
SEJeff 5y ago
Western militaries have never heavily invested in SAMs?! Have you heard of the stinger, that the Ukrainians are using to great effect? The US also has the patriot and aegis systems which are really good air defense missiles. That’s not including THAAD, etc.
- KptMarchewa 5y ago
  THAAD is 21-century system, not a cold war era one.
  - SEJeff 5y ago
    But the OPs comment was that the west ended invested in SAMs, a laughably incorrect statement if you study the order of battle of any western military, US or otherwise.
    - dylan604 5y ago
      It's kind of like saying that we ended investment in 8-bit hardware because we've replaced it with 64-bit hardware. It's not that we stopped, it's that the funding has been repurposed for newer/better things.
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      > But the OPs comment was that the west ended invested in SAMs That's not at all what I said. I suppose it would have been a little clearer if I had said "never invested as heavily" in SAMs compared to the Soviets, but I wasn't focusing on the West. I was making a point about Soviet-style forces fighting one another. Nothing about that implies the West never invested in SAMs or has stopped doing so. It just means they're not as central to its air defense strategy.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > Western militaries have never heavily invested in SAMs?! > Have you heard of the stinger, that the Ukrainians are using to great effect? The US also has the patriot and aegis systems which are really good air defense missiles. That’s not including THAAD, etc. Not like the Soviet Union did. The article I'm trying to paraphrase said that SAMs were far more integral to Soviet air defense strategy than they were to Western air defense, which put more emphasis on using fighter aircraft for air defense than having the Army deploy different SAM systems for every need. Because the Soviets relied more on SAMs, then the West had to put more emphasis on counter-SAM weapons (which the Soviets has far less need to do). Also the article noted that the exception is Western navies, which the article said were in a more similar situation to the Soviet Army. That's why the more capable US SAM systems have naval lineage.

tguvot 5y ago

i listened to interview with leading Ukrainian journalist/analyst a couple of days ago. Apparently Ukraine got intel about time of attack and possible targets so when cruise missiles were flying to take out targets, most of functioning planes were in the air and everything that wasn't stationary (like mobile air defense systems) were moved to different locations