4 ms·
NATO/US have big air forces that would simply put a bunch of its big-$$$ aircraft into the air at high altitude to fire expensive and highly accurate air-to-air
by elgenie 3y ago
NATO/US have big air forces that would simply put a bunch of its big-$$$ aircraft into the air at high altitude to fire expensive and highly accurate air-to-air missiles and knock down opposing aircraft, then bomb the ground from high altitude to get rid of anti-air installations, and only then fly in close air support.
Stingers are inexpensive comparatively cheap surface-to-air missiles that allow an individual soldier on the ground to pick off an aircraft that happens to fly sufficiently low; it's useless if air superiority is actually being contested or if aircraft are bombing away from high altitude and mainly functions to whittle down the size of the edge the opposing force's air superiority gives in the ground combat.
- cpursley 3y agoRussia also has accurate air-to-air missiles - with longer ranges. And very good integrated air defense. How do you overcome that without losing half your aircraft (let alone keep them fueled while your air tankers are shot down and airfields pummeled)?
- Armisael16 3y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppression_of_Enemy_Air_Defenses https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppression_of_Enemy_Air_Def... These are questions the US has been working on since Vietnam - they’ve gotten pretty good at it by now.
- cpursley 3y agoWhy aren’t they employing it in this current conflict?
- elgenie 3y agoBecause the US is not a direct party to the conflict and has zero troops fighting in it.
- cpursley 3y agoWe’re all adults here and both know that’s not true - the US is literally making the payroll of the Ukrainian government. But anyways, they’re already using US gear, tactics, ISR - why not this? You don’t need red blooded Americans to employ SEAD.
- greedo 3y agoThe US hasn't supplied Ukraine with aircraft capable of flying SEAD/DEAD according to USAF or NATO doctrine. The Fulcrums launching HARM (old versions at that) are using 10-20% of the missiles capability. So no, other than one old missile, they're not using US gear, nor US tactics, nor US ISR for SEAD/DEAD.
- _kbh_ 3y ago> But anyways, they’re already using US gear, tactics, ISR - why not this? You don’t need red blooded Americans to employ SEAD. They don't have the modern aircraft, or missiles that would make SEAD missions against modern Russian AA effective. Despite the narrative most of the stuff Ukraine is getting is super old.
- cpursley 3y agoWhat’s newer than Patriots, HIMARS, HARMs and the other stand-off weapons and air defense that the West is donating?
- _kbh_ 3y agoThats not most of what Ukraine has been getting though, the majority of what they have been getting is decades old like. - Leopard 1's. - M113 APC's - Mig 29's - Sukhoi 24's - Mi-28's - Mi-8s The HARM's that you speak off, we don't know what variant they are but they won't be super effective because they cannot be effectively integrated with the aircraft Ukraine has so they are probably older variants using pre programmed fixed coordinate attack modes. That should hopefully change once the F-16's arrive and they can start more effectively using more modern air borne weapons especially for SEAD. The air defences are probably some of the most modern pierces of equipment that Ukraine has. HIMARS are a good example of modern equipment with relatively modern munitions but they still haven't gotten any PrSM's or ATACMS.
- greedo 3y agoRussian AAMs don't do any good if they can't target an F-22 or F-35. Russian IADS doesn't do so well against cruise missiles that are stealthy, and the US has THOUSANDs of them, as well as Tomahawk. And how is Russia going to pummel NATO airbases? This isn't 1985 when the Soviet VVS had thousands of fighter bombers tasked with taking out the airfields. They're not next door to Germany/France/UK anymore since NATO has expanded East. The RuAF might have 500 flying aircraft for their entire nation. They have no stealth aircraft in service (the Felon isn't in production yet if ever).
- cpursley 3y agoSame way Russia has pummeled Ukrainian air bases: long range standoff weapons. While behind with aircraft, Russia has objectively outclassed the West with missile tech (and defense). Do yourself a favor and read this book: https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/40658433 https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/40658433
- greedo 3y agoI disagree entirely with your statement "Russia has objectively outclassed the West with missile tech (and defense)." Ukraine has shown that the A2AD, "hypersonic" and cruise missile tech touted by the Russians for decades aren't quite as impressive as the marketing brochures would imply. Let's just look at AA gear. Pantsir has been shown to be ineffective against most drones, Storm Shadow, etc. Same with BUK. S300 and S400 have really good range, but I think that Patriot and SAMP stand up well in comparison. The Ukrainians are using older Patriot missiles and are successfully engaging Khinzal and any cruise missile the Russians can throw at it. NATO has THAAD and better versions of Patriot in their arsenal, so even being generous, I think this is a draw. For offensive weapons, the Russians have nothing in the class of SCALP/Storm Shadow, much less JASSM/LRASM. They would even have a hard time coping with Tomahawk. So what weapon system are the Russians going to use against Lakenheath and Mildenhall? A Kalibr is going to have a very hard time making it across the Baltics to the UK, and I doubt any aircraft doing a suicide mission would make it either. How about Aviano? Same problem. Ramstein and Spangdahlem as well. And Russia sure has done a great job "pummeling" Ukrainian airbases, right? I mean, they've utterly failed at this. The Ukrainians are still flying Fencers, Fulcrums and Frogfoots from their bases.