4 ms·

I don't see much "wishful thinking" in the article? It points out a surprising fact (that Russia is not using the air power to the extent that everybody expect

I don't see much "wishful thinking" in the article? It points out a surprising fact (that Russia is not using the air power to the extent that everybody expected) and posits some possible explanations: intentionally holding back (but why?), inability to pre-emptively destroy Ukraine's air defences, lack of guided munitions, etc.

gattilorenz 5y ago
I haven't read this article, but a few days ago another article was explaining how Russian air tactics are different from the US ones, and how they see the air power in a war, which is something you're not considered in your explanations. The gist was that the US goes immediately for dominating the sky. Russia sees ground forces as the main engine of the army, and the Air Force only supports the advancement of ground forces near the border, without bombing far into enemy territory (which is a task for the army's missiles).
- jazzyjackson 5y ago
  How do they expect their ground forces to advance when Turkish drones are allowed to circle overhead? Keeping control of the skies is not unique to US tactics...
  - gattilorenz 5y ago
    Tbh I have no idea, I'm no military expert. I could not find the source article I read, and I guess there's a non trivial chance it might even have been based on Russian propaganda... as usual, take everything with a grain of salt. I just find it hard (and reassuring) to imagine that Russia's army and air force are in such a terrible state.
    - zppln 5y ago
      No, you're right, there has been a difference in doctrine. The Russians put much more emphasis on SAMs traditionally, to enable their ground forces to operate even if they their airforce doesn't own the sky. That's why they have everything ranging fro Iglas to S-400s. They seem to have missed developing a good counter for the Bayraktars though. :)
    - rmbyrro 5y ago
      I don't find it hard to believe, but agree the safest option is to assume they're not incompetent and do our best to fight them off as if they were the best. Maybe that's what parent comment is concerned about when saying "I do hope Western militaries are not counting on Russia's 'incompetence and inexperience'"
- sofixa 5y ago
  That wouldn't make sense though: First as a doctrine, it would be a stupid one - they tend to use paratroopers for surprise taking of advanced positions, and air support is vital to help them keep their position until reinforcements can arrive. Point in case, the failure at Hostomel. Their doctrine emphasises anti-air defenses because air superiority against a superior enemy ( NATO) isn't certain, but that doesn't mean the Air Force shouldn't be used at all, especially against an inferior enemy Second, they don't seem to be even doing that - there are small scale ( 1-2 planes) raids deep in Ukrainian territory, and neither their planes nor their SAMs can deal with the drones Ukraine fields, even over Russian held territory
- wolverine876 5y ago
  I've read many times that the major Russian military reforms over the last decade or so - successful or not - included combined arms, including air and infantry.

gattilorenz 5y ago

I haven't read this article, but a few days ago another article was explaining how Russian air tactics are different from the US ones, and how they see the air power in a war, which is something you're not considered in your explanations. The gist was that the US goes immediately for dominating the sky. Russia sees ground forces as the main engine of the army, and the Air Force only supports the advancement of ground forces near the border, without bombing far into enemy territory (which is a task for the army's missiles).

jazzyjackson 5y ago
How do they expect their ground forces to advance when Turkish drones are allowed to circle overhead? Keeping control of the skies is not unique to US tactics...
- gattilorenz 5y ago
  Tbh I have no idea, I'm no military expert. I could not find the source article I read, and I guess there's a non trivial chance it might even have been based on Russian propaganda... as usual, take everything with a grain of salt. I just find it hard (and reassuring) to imagine that Russia's army and air force are in such a terrible state.
  - zppln 5y ago
    No, you're right, there has been a difference in doctrine. The Russians put much more emphasis on SAMs traditionally, to enable their ground forces to operate even if they their airforce doesn't own the sky. That's why they have everything ranging fro Iglas to S-400s. They seem to have missed developing a good counter for the Bayraktars though. :)
  - rmbyrro 5y ago
    I don't find it hard to believe, but agree the safest option is to assume they're not incompetent and do our best to fight them off as if they were the best. Maybe that's what parent comment is concerned about when saying "I do hope Western militaries are not counting on Russia's 'incompetence and inexperience'"
sofixa 5y ago
That wouldn't make sense though: First as a doctrine, it would be a stupid one - they tend to use paratroopers for surprise taking of advanced positions, and air support is vital to help them keep their position until reinforcements can arrive. Point in case, the failure at Hostomel. Their doctrine emphasises anti-air defenses because air superiority against a superior enemy ( NATO) isn't certain, but that doesn't mean the Air Force shouldn't be used at all, especially against an inferior enemy Second, they don't seem to be even doing that - there are small scale ( 1-2 planes) raids deep in Ukrainian territory, and neither their planes nor their SAMs can deal with the drones Ukraine fields, even over Russian held territory
wolverine876 5y ago
I've read many times that the major Russian military reforms over the last decade or so - successful or not - included combined arms, including air and infantry.