7 ms·

Israel has a deconflicting mechanism with Russia in Syria as does the US and Turkey but it is very true that it could more or less do whatever it wants. Because

Israel has a deconflicting mechanism with Russia in Syria as does the US and Turkey but it is very true that it could more or less do whatever it wants. Because it is the IAF. The Ukrainian Air Force is still operating mostly because the Russian one is somewhat MIA. Possible/Partial explanation for their bad performance is corruption. Another one is much more alarming and that is that the Russian strategy does not require air superiority. Either way it is not relevant to the S-300 which is deployed within the borders of Russia as it is a defensive system. What you want to read about instead is the Krasukha: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44879/ukraine-just-captured-part-of-one-of-russias-most-capable-electronic-warfare-systems https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44879/ukraine-just-cap...

trhway 5y ago
>the Russian one is somewhat MIA it is a bit unclear why, yet Russia has frequently been using much more expensive Su-30/35 fighters and Su-34 bombers for close air support instead of more traditional/suitable/cheap Su-25. As close air support naturally loses a lot of planes to MANPADS and air-defense guns, especially considering that Su-30/35/34 aren't armored like Su-25, Russia has lost a lot of those Su-30/35/34. Also using mostly unguided bombs (despite all the Russian propaganda claims of using only "high-precision weapons"- just look at that glorious state TV report on using "high-precision" where they show plane loaded only with FAB-250 unguided bombs at timestamp 24:55 of https://rutube.ru/video/4b400cbcfbbd6c1b730b5e80138fe598/ https://rutube.ru/video/4b400cbcfbbd6c1b730b5e80138fe598/ - and they even show supposed launch of a ground attack missile from that plane loaded only with those bombs :) Russian planes have had to go pretty low to achieve any resemblance of close hits - it is the city bombing that they do from 8-10 km altitude while bombing any specific target requires to go very low where they again lose to MANPADS and other air-defenses. As a result of high losses (close to 100 planes out of supposedly 1300 combat capable planes that the whole Russia has - that 1300 is an official number, divide by 2x at least to get real number :) Russia has significantly scaled back the close air support and decreased air superiority missions.
- greedo 5y ago
  The RuAF has been using the SU-25 Frogfoot in Ukraine. They've lost roughly 9 or so, more than any other aircraft type. https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-docum...
PeterisP 5y ago
The Russian air force seems to have been effectively smaller than expected in terms of their aircrews. Looking at the KIA/POW pilots in downed RU planes (100-ish?), initially it was surprising how many of them were very senior (like half of them being at e.g. lt cols/wing commander level) and afterwards it was surprising how junior they were (like right out of flight school). A hypothesis was that this indicates that before the war only a limited number of aircrews got sufficient flight time (which, obviously, is quite expensive; especially if many of your planes - just as tanks - aren't properly maintained to save costs or due to corruption) and the same people were used in all the operations in the last decade; and once these air crews "ran out" there is a bottleneck in capable replacements. But S-300 definitely was deployed not only within the borders of Russia but also by Russia in Ukraine, I recall seeing evidence of that - it's a defensive system that is also used to defend the deployed Russian ground forces from air attacks.
gerdesj 5y ago
"Another one is much more alarming and that is that the Russian strategy does not require air superiority." I think you'll agree that is bollocks. No sane modern invasion plan would consider air supremacy as only a nice to have. In this case we can clearly conclude that other assumptions made at the planning stage were badly, badly wrong. Russia really fucked up in their assessment of their adversary in all areas. They assumed that a lightning strike would cause near instant capitulation. It wasn't a "blitzkrieg" because the entirety of the world's intelligence ignored the fuff and called it before kick off, publically. Also UKR were able to prepare somewhat. The horrendous thing about this conflict is that Russia cannot expect to win on their original terms. They will still kill civilians wholesale and destroy infrastructure in a desperate attempt to claim a "win". Civvies have and will die in greater numbers than soldiers in this conflict and that is something that needs to be considered by us all. At what point do we decide that a possible strategic nuclear escalation is a worse worry than a complete massacre of a sovereign nation?
- recuter 5y ago
  > No sane modern invasion plan would consider air supremacy as only a nice to have. Welcome to Russia. They don't fly SEED. And they knew that going in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpzUCSdxi7k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpzUCSdxi7k > They assumed that a lightning strike would cause near instant capitulation. Yes, I'm well aware of this narrative. I happen to think their current plan, however we arrived here, is to play for time. The opposite of a blitz. They are depopulating and starving Ukraine and flattening major cities with long range artillery. You aren't too far off. But it isn't to claim a "win", they aren't cartoon villains. > At what point do we decide that a possible strategic nuclear escalation is a worse worry than a complete massacre of a sovereign nation? Unfortunately at no point. That is part of their calculus. They appear to have gained an edge over the US in both offensive and defensive nuclear capabilities as well as having caught the EU with their pants completely down. This is the likely reason why they wasted a few of their new hypersonic missiles as a demonstration. And why they flew into Swedish air space and flaunted hot nukes which has never happened before even during the Cold War.
  - edgyquant 5y ago

trhway 5y ago

>the Russian one is somewhat MIA it is a bit unclear why, yet Russia has frequently been using much more expensive Su-30/35 fighters and Su-34 bombers for close air support instead of more traditional/suitable/cheap Su-25. As close air support naturally loses a lot of planes to MANPADS and air-defense guns, especially considering that Su-30/35/34 aren't armored like Su-25, Russia has lost a lot of those Su-30/35/34. Also using mostly unguided bombs (despite all the Russian propaganda claims of using only "high-precision weapons"- just look at that glorious state TV report on using "high-precision" where they show plane loaded only with FAB-250 unguided bombs at timestamp 24:55 of https://rutube.ru/video/4b400cbcfbbd6c1b730b5e80138fe598/ https://rutube.ru/video/4b400cbcfbbd6c1b730b5e80138fe598/ - and they even show supposed launch of a ground attack missile from that plane loaded only with those bombs :) Russian planes have had to go pretty low to achieve any resemblance of close hits - it is the city bombing that they do from 8-10 km altitude while bombing any specific target requires to go very low where they again lose to MANPADS and other air-defenses. As a result of high losses (close to 100 planes out of supposedly 1300 combat capable planes that the whole Russia has - that 1300 is an official number, divide by 2x at least to get real number :) Russia has significantly scaled back the close air support and decreased air superiority missions.

greedo 5y ago
The RuAF has been using the SU-25 Frogfoot in Ukraine. They've lost roughly 9 or so, more than any other aircraft type. https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-docum...

PeterisP 5y ago

The Russian air force seems to have been effectively smaller than expected in terms of their aircrews. Looking at the KIA/POW pilots in downed RU planes (100-ish?), initially it was surprising how many of them were very senior (like half of them being at e.g. lt cols/wing commander level) and afterwards it was surprising how junior they were (like right out of flight school). A hypothesis was that this indicates that before the war only a limited number of aircrews got sufficient flight time (which, obviously, is quite expensive; especially if many of your planes - just as tanks - aren't properly maintained to save costs or due to corruption) and the same people were used in all the operations in the last decade; and once these air crews "ran out" there is a bottleneck in capable replacements. But S-300 definitely was deployed not only within the borders of Russia but also by Russia in Ukraine, I recall seeing evidence of that - it's a defensive system that is also used to defend the deployed Russian ground forces from air attacks.

gerdesj 5y ago

"Another one is much more alarming and that is that the Russian strategy does not require air superiority." I think you'll agree that is bollocks. No sane modern invasion plan would consider air supremacy as only a nice to have. In this case we can clearly conclude that other assumptions made at the planning stage were badly, badly wrong. Russia really fucked up in their assessment of their adversary in all areas. They assumed that a lightning strike would cause near instant capitulation. It wasn't a "blitzkrieg" because the entirety of the world's intelligence ignored the fuff and called it before kick off, publically. Also UKR were able to prepare somewhat. The horrendous thing about this conflict is that Russia cannot expect to win on their original terms. They will still kill civilians wholesale and destroy infrastructure in a desperate attempt to claim a "win". Civvies have and will die in greater numbers than soldiers in this conflict and that is something that needs to be considered by us all. At what point do we decide that a possible strategic nuclear escalation is a worse worry than a complete massacre of a sovereign nation?

recuter 5y ago
> No sane modern invasion plan would consider air supremacy as only a nice to have. Welcome to Russia. They don't fly SEED. And they knew that going in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpzUCSdxi7k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpzUCSdxi7k > They assumed that a lightning strike would cause near instant capitulation. Yes, I'm well aware of this narrative. I happen to think their current plan, however we arrived here, is to play for time. The opposite of a blitz. They are depopulating and starving Ukraine and flattening major cities with long range artillery. You aren't too far off. But it isn't to claim a "win", they aren't cartoon villains. > At what point do we decide that a possible strategic nuclear escalation is a worse worry than a complete massacre of a sovereign nation? Unfortunately at no point. That is part of their calculus. They appear to have gained an edge over the US in both offensive and defensive nuclear capabilities as well as having caught the EU with their pants completely down. This is the likely reason why they wasted a few of their new hypersonic missiles as a demonstration. And why they flew into Swedish air space and flaunted hot nukes which has never happened before even during the Cold War.
- edgyquant 5y ago