3 ms·
The most convincing argument I have heard breaks down to two components. Relative inexperience (not inability) in SEAD(Suppression of Enemy Air Defense) in the
by throwawayffffas 5y ago
The most convincing argument I have heard breaks down to two components.
Relative inexperience (not inability) in SEAD(Suppression of Enemy Air Defense) in the face of a robust Ukrainian air defense network.
A desire to preserve force and munitions in case of direct NATO involvement.
Additionally there is a third potential reason, I am no military expert by I assume the acquisition and engagement of targets in populated areas is hard from the air.
All these probably skews the risk/effectiveness balance toward a less aggressive air stance.
- blaser-waffle 5y agoI agree with those points, but will also add that the VVS is likely as poorly maintained as the Russian Army. They may have a lot of aircraft sitting around, but may only have the fuel, munitions, and parts to keep a fraction of it working. There was a lot of discussion for a while about the state of the tires in the Russian army, and how that often led to break downs or troops getting stuck. Likewise, something as simple or mundane as not having enough flairs or chaff, could be enough to keep much of the fleet grounded, doubly so in the face of a reasonably effective Ukrainian AA network. Multi-million dollar aircraft are temperamental beasts, and missing even a few parts, or not being confident in said parts, is essentially a recipe for casualties, and they can't just conscript more SU-35s