6 ms·

AFAIK Russia didn't get air supremacy in Ukraine, not easily at least, which is strange given all S-300 and S-400 and now S-500 Russia has.

PaulHoule 5y ago
Ukraine has S-300, Buk, Tor and other Soviet-era anti aircraft missile systems, those are dangerous to Russian air assets. (Many of the USSR's most famous weapon systems were built in Ukraine, the Ukraine has pretty much the same tanks, missiles, etc. as Russia -- that is why Russia has to paint a Z on their vehicles otherwise they couldn't tell them apart.) The S-400 is an improved version of the S-300, they upgraded all the parts (radar, missile, launcher) but it is the same architecture (which is basically the same as the US Patriot but in most respects better) The S-500 has insane range, can hit low earth orbit satellites and more relevant it can hit this kind of aircraft hundreds of miles away https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-3_Sentry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-3_Sentry An aircraft like that can light up the battlefield with radar from far away and let stealth aircraft operate close to the enemy without switching their own radar. Anyhow, Russians don't believe in "air superiority" (control the airspace with their own plane) but instead they have anti-aircraft missiles to defend the anti-aircraft missiles that defend their anti-aircraft missiles. They might not control the battlespace completely but it will be a dangerous place to fly.
- redisman 5y ago
  They even shot a Su-35 with apparently a stinger. I guess it was flying very low
  - littlestymaar 5y ago
    “Big” air defense system are good to destroy targets at middle or high altitude. Since both sides have such systems, the only “safe” place to fly is very low altitude (below 500 feet, or 150m) where you're practically hidden from air defenses' radar, but you end up being in the range of MANPADS (though shooting at a fighter jet with a MANPADS is way harder than doing the same on an helicopter)
    - dylan604 5y ago
      Timing has to be a tough one to get right. At 150m altitude and the speed of a jet, it's not going to be in your window of sight for very long.
      - littlestymaar 5y ago
        It's really hard, it only works if the guy is ready to shoot when the plane comes by. The only thing that makes it a little easier than shooting down an helicopter with the same weapon is that jets fly much higher than choppers (which, according to modern doctrine are supposed to fly much lower than what Russians do: ten meters of less above the ground, hiding them as much as possible from MANPADS).
  - hef19898 5y ago
    And Serbia downed a F-117. If something flies it can be downed, if something floats it be sunk and if something can be seen it can be hit. Initially the UH-1 of Vietnam fame was a single engine helicopter because the expected service life was deemed to be too short to justify the expenses of a second one. Stuff that gets used gets damaged, and in war and combat destroyed. Par of the course.
pintxo 5y ago
A SAM system is quite vulnerable while being transported or setup. I guess they did not properly stage their SAM units? Set up the first on on your site of the border, then one within the shield of the first, then the third within the shield of the second?
- ARandomerDude 5y ago
  SAMs also require ground support or they get overrun, captured, and potentially used against your own aircraft. I'm guessing this was a consideration for Ukraine's placement of air defenses. Many things in the military are rock-paper-scissors considerations: - SAMs beat planes. - Planes beat ground forces. - Ground forces beat SAMs. Within the ground forces themselves: - Infantry beats tanks. - Tanks beat artillery. - Artillery beats infantry. Examples of this kind abound.
  - KineticLensman 5y ago
    > Many things in the military are rock-paper-scissors considerations Hence the importance of combined arms operations. Sending a column of tanks on its own is just a case of scissors...scissors...scissors. Pre-operational training is also essential. It's too late, in contact, for infantry to figure out how to fight alongside tanks. Lots of armies seem to discover this the hard way in a war, adapt their tactics accordingly, only to forget it in time for the next war. Incidentally, this also explains the western Battlegroup concept. It's the smallest integrated unit with a sensible mix of different arms, usually structured around an infantry or armour battalion depending on the circumstances.
    - hef19898 5y ago
      Honestly, I didn't expect Ukraine to hold out as long as they did, let alone force the Russians to retreat from Kyiv. It does tell one thing so, despite the counter-insurgency warfare of the last decades, Western militaries are the most experienced fighting forces right now. Maybe they'll have some of the problems against advanced AA, like the Ukrainians are deploying, but when it comes to ground combat no other countries are coming even close it seems. That makes also an interesting case study for Taiwan. If, or rather when, Taiwan can deny its air space a Chinese invasion is basically of the table. The Battle of Britain showed that much. And Ukraine showed that current AA, deployed with proper doctrine and part of a well defined and integrated strategy, can deny air space to modern air forces. Personally, I'm surprised how well drones work. All in all Taiwan seems to have decent chance in case China tries something stupid. Being an island definitely helps as well.
troyvit 5y ago
This article confirms what you say (at least from this source): https://coffeeordie.com/ukrainian-mig-29-pilot-interview/ https://coffeeordie.com/ukrainian-mig-29-pilot-interview/ It's a good read about how Ukrainian pilots worked to foil Russian anti-aircraft measures.
JamesBarney 5y ago
They don't have air supremacy, and even air superiority is iffy and region dependent.
littlestymaar 5y ago
No amount of SAM system can gain air supremacy alone: such systems are pretty much useless against planes flying very low (below 500 feet, or 150m) just because the plane is hidden by the terrain. To get air supremacy, you need to have planes flying in the enemy's sky, but to do so you need to destroy the enemy's own air defence, with what is called a SEAD campaign (which stands for “Supression of Ennemy Air Defense”) and from what is happening in Ukraine it's pretty clear that the VKS doesn't know how to do SEAD (pretty much like the US in the Vietnam war, where they've learned the hard way).
- codr7 5y ago
  Pretty clear? Based on what information exactly? It's a war, any mainstream information is going to be 100% lies and propaganda.
  - littlestymaar 5y ago
    source: every military analysts in the western world after one week of combat. Literally all of them were like “Wait, why do Ukraine still have planes and Russian planes don't fly over Ukraine-controlled land? Are you telling me they can't do SEAD? Holly cow!”, all of them.
    - codr7 5y ago
      They are prostitutes, not analysts; they will say whatever they're being paid to say. This is Russia we're talking about, they could turn Ukraine and their shitty US sponsored Nazi army into a pile of ashes in a millisecond if that was their goal.
      - vt85 5y ago
      - littlestymaar 5y ago
        Of course, and instead they're sacrificing most of their newly modernized T-72 Obr. 2016, Su-35, Su-34 and a lot of VDV folks in a “feint” while making zero progress in the Donbas (their “actual goal”®) in the meantime… I've always found the US war propaganda really cringe, but the Russian one don't even try to make a coherent story. Zero fuck given.
rhino369 5y ago
That’s because Ukraine operates s300 too. Neither side can operate high altitude flights.
wikidani 5y ago
The ukrainians have rather skillfully denied their airspace to the russians using their own AD assets and as a consequence of russian doctrine, they aren't too prepared to deal with SEAD missions so we get this weird situation where both sides deny airspace to each other
- hef19898 5y ago
  That will be, I'm sure, thoroughly analyzed. Advanced stealth aircraft and saturation with drones could enable SEAD missions against advanced AA networks. Or they cannot if AA capabilities catch up. Ukraine looks like an interesting case study for future air power between (near-) peers.
  - wikidani 5y ago
    Well, I agree with what you say but there's the small issue that russia both doctrinally and economically is not in a position to do that in the near future. The RuAF is really in a pitiful state hindered by decades of corruption and the political will of mantaining way too many legacy aircraft

PaulHoule 5y ago

Ukraine has S-300, Buk, Tor and other Soviet-era anti aircraft missile systems, those are dangerous to Russian air assets. (Many of the USSR's most famous weapon systems were built in Ukraine, the Ukraine has pretty much the same tanks, missiles, etc. as Russia -- that is why Russia has to paint a Z on their vehicles otherwise they couldn't tell them apart.) The S-400 is an improved version of the S-300, they upgraded all the parts (radar, missile, launcher) but it is the same architecture (which is basically the same as the US Patriot but in most respects better) The S-500 has insane range, can hit low earth orbit satellites and more relevant it can hit this kind of aircraft hundreds of miles away https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-3_Sentry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-3_Sentry An aircraft like that can light up the battlefield with radar from far away and let stealth aircraft operate close to the enemy without switching their own radar. Anyhow, Russians don't believe in "air superiority" (control the airspace with their own plane) but instead they have anti-aircraft missiles to defend the anti-aircraft missiles that defend their anti-aircraft missiles. They might not control the battlespace completely but it will be a dangerous place to fly.

redisman 5y ago
They even shot a Su-35 with apparently a stinger. I guess it was flying very low
- littlestymaar 5y ago
  “Big” air defense system are good to destroy targets at middle or high altitude. Since both sides have such systems, the only “safe” place to fly is very low altitude (below 500 feet, or 150m) where you're practically hidden from air defenses' radar, but you end up being in the range of MANPADS (though shooting at a fighter jet with a MANPADS is way harder than doing the same on an helicopter)
  - dylan604 5y ago
    Timing has to be a tough one to get right. At 150m altitude and the speed of a jet, it's not going to be in your window of sight for very long.
    - littlestymaar 5y ago
      It's really hard, it only works if the guy is ready to shoot when the plane comes by. The only thing that makes it a little easier than shooting down an helicopter with the same weapon is that jets fly much higher than choppers (which, according to modern doctrine are supposed to fly much lower than what Russians do: ten meters of less above the ground, hiding them as much as possible from MANPADS).
- hef19898 5y ago
  And Serbia downed a F-117. If something flies it can be downed, if something floats it be sunk and if something can be seen it can be hit. Initially the UH-1 of Vietnam fame was a single engine helicopter because the expected service life was deemed to be too short to justify the expenses of a second one. Stuff that gets used gets damaged, and in war and combat destroyed. Par of the course.

pintxo 5y ago

A SAM system is quite vulnerable while being transported or setup. I guess they did not properly stage their SAM units? Set up the first on on your site of the border, then one within the shield of the first, then the third within the shield of the second?

ARandomerDude 5y ago
SAMs also require ground support or they get overrun, captured, and potentially used against your own aircraft. I'm guessing this was a consideration for Ukraine's placement of air defenses. Many things in the military are rock-paper-scissors considerations: - SAMs beat planes. - Planes beat ground forces. - Ground forces beat SAMs. Within the ground forces themselves: - Infantry beats tanks. - Tanks beat artillery. - Artillery beats infantry. Examples of this kind abound.
- KineticLensman 5y ago
  > Many things in the military are rock-paper-scissors considerations Hence the importance of combined arms operations. Sending a column of tanks on its own is just a case of scissors...scissors...scissors. Pre-operational training is also essential. It's too late, in contact, for infantry to figure out how to fight alongside tanks. Lots of armies seem to discover this the hard way in a war, adapt their tactics accordingly, only to forget it in time for the next war. Incidentally, this also explains the western Battlegroup concept. It's the smallest integrated unit with a sensible mix of different arms, usually structured around an infantry or armour battalion depending on the circumstances.
  - hef19898 5y ago
    Honestly, I didn't expect Ukraine to hold out as long as they did, let alone force the Russians to retreat from Kyiv. It does tell one thing so, despite the counter-insurgency warfare of the last decades, Western militaries are the most experienced fighting forces right now. Maybe they'll have some of the problems against advanced AA, like the Ukrainians are deploying, but when it comes to ground combat no other countries are coming even close it seems. That makes also an interesting case study for Taiwan. If, or rather when, Taiwan can deny its air space a Chinese invasion is basically of the table. The Battle of Britain showed that much. And Ukraine showed that current AA, deployed with proper doctrine and part of a well defined and integrated strategy, can deny air space to modern air forces. Personally, I'm surprised how well drones work. All in all Taiwan seems to have decent chance in case China tries something stupid. Being an island definitely helps as well.

troyvit 5y ago

This article confirms what you say (at least from this source): https://coffeeordie.com/ukrainian-mig-29-pilot-interview/ https://coffeeordie.com/ukrainian-mig-29-pilot-interview/ It's a good read about how Ukrainian pilots worked to foil Russian anti-aircraft measures.

JamesBarney 5y ago

They don't have air supremacy, and even air superiority is iffy and region dependent.

littlestymaar 5y ago

No amount of SAM system can gain air supremacy alone: such systems are pretty much useless against planes flying very low (below 500 feet, or 150m) just because the plane is hidden by the terrain. To get air supremacy, you need to have planes flying in the enemy's sky, but to do so you need to destroy the enemy's own air defence, with what is called a SEAD campaign (which stands for “Supression of Ennemy Air Defense”) and from what is happening in Ukraine it's pretty clear that the VKS doesn't know how to do SEAD (pretty much like the US in the Vietnam war, where they've learned the hard way).

codr7 5y ago
Pretty clear? Based on what information exactly? It's a war, any mainstream information is going to be 100% lies and propaganda.
- littlestymaar 5y ago
  source: every military analysts in the western world after one week of combat. Literally all of them were like “Wait, why do Ukraine still have planes and Russian planes don't fly over Ukraine-controlled land? Are you telling me they can't do SEAD? Holly cow!”, all of them.
  - codr7 5y ago
    They are prostitutes, not analysts; they will say whatever they're being paid to say. This is Russia we're talking about, they could turn Ukraine and their shitty US sponsored Nazi army into a pile of ashes in a millisecond if that was their goal.
    - vt85 5y ago
    - littlestymaar 5y ago
      Of course, and instead they're sacrificing most of their newly modernized T-72 Obr. 2016, Su-35, Su-34 and a lot of VDV folks in a “feint” while making zero progress in the Donbas (their “actual goal”®) in the meantime… I've always found the US war propaganda really cringe, but the Russian one don't even try to make a coherent story. Zero fuck given.

rhino369 5y ago

That’s because Ukraine operates s300 too. Neither side can operate high altitude flights.

wikidani 5y ago

The ukrainians have rather skillfully denied their airspace to the russians using their own AD assets and as a consequence of russian doctrine, they aren't too prepared to deal with SEAD missions so we get this weird situation where both sides deny airspace to each other

hef19898 5y ago
That will be, I'm sure, thoroughly analyzed. Advanced stealth aircraft and saturation with drones could enable SEAD missions against advanced AA networks. Or they cannot if AA capabilities catch up. Ukraine looks like an interesting case study for future air power between (near-) peers.
- wikidani 5y ago
  Well, I agree with what you say but there's the small issue that russia both doctrinally and economically is not in a position to do that in the near future. The RuAF is really in a pitiful state hindered by decades of corruption and the political will of mantaining way too many legacy aircraft