3 ms·

Just to add to this point further. Russia has vastly more combat aircraft than Ukraine, but has only been able to achieve local air superiority in a few areas o

by omnee 2y ago

Just to add to this point further. Russia has vastly more combat aircraft than Ukraine, but has only been able to achieve local air superiority in a few areas of the contact line. Ukraine, without having anywhere close to the number of anti-air systems of advanced modern armies have denied most of its airspace to the Russian Airforce, and have shot down many aircraft including the A-50. The key assumption is that stealth would enable the USAF to operate at will within or close to air defence zones, but this has not been tested against a near peer foe.

anovikov 2y ago
It's not just stealth. USAF have perfected their SEAD/DEAD operations over decades. Normal non-stealthy aircraft provided with external assets for triangulating air defence radars can do the job easily and probably, without any losses at all. Any ground-based air defences today are useless and are just a sitting duck against any modern air force. It's just that the Russia doesn't have one. I know it - i passed training as a radar unit commander for Russian radiotechnical troops. We've been trained to understand that our mission us futile and we will never see anything of value on our radars - best we can do is to try to keep them from being destroyed (by employing false emitters, strategically switching off emission when threatened, and frequently moving) and out personnel from getting killed - by explaining them that HARM's shrapnel is small and command trailers have light anti-shrapnel armour and attack comes on a very short notice, so under attack the enlisted will be a lot safer sitting on their assigned places rather than running away. When you switch on emission, you don't get to see anything today because ECMs do a very good job. But everyone can see you. That's been 25 years ago but the equipment we've been trained to operate (it was brand new back then), is still the mainstay of the Russian radar troops, such as Nebo-SV. Slightly modernised versions are entering service now but they won't do a radical difference (modernisations are mostly about using fewer components from ex-USSR countries, because they are either politically hostile or producers gone out of business, not about specs improvement, anyway). In those years, Western anti-radar equipment and tactics have vastly improved though, so if it was one-sided then, it's most certainly so now.

by omnee 2y ago

anovikov 2y ago

It's not just stealth. USAF have perfected their SEAD/DEAD operations over decades. Normal non-stealthy aircraft provided with external assets for triangulating air defence radars can do the job easily and probably, without any losses at all. Any ground-based air defences today are useless and are just a sitting duck against any modern air force. It's just that the Russia doesn't have one. I know it - i passed training as a radar unit commander for Russian radiotechnical troops. We've been trained to understand that our mission us futile and we will never see anything of value on our radars - best we can do is to try to keep them from being destroyed (by employing false emitters, strategically switching off emission when threatened, and frequently moving) and out personnel from getting killed - by explaining them that HARM's shrapnel is small and command trailers have light anti-shrapnel armour and attack comes on a very short notice, so under attack the enlisted will be a lot safer sitting on their assigned places rather than running away. When you switch on emission, you don't get to see anything today because ECMs do a very good job. But everyone can see you. That's been 25 years ago but the equipment we've been trained to operate (it was brand new back then), is still the mainstay of the Russian radar troops, such as Nebo-SV. Slightly modernised versions are entering service now but they won't do a radical difference (modernisations are mostly about using fewer components from ex-USSR countries, because they are either politically hostile or producers gone out of business, not about specs improvement, anyway). In those years, Western anti-radar equipment and tactics have vastly improved though, so if it was one-sided then, it's most certainly so now.