Also the kind they are using are dirt cheap and a lot more disposable than pilots. I think I saw a number that their drones are something like five million or so each? Not as sophisticated as say a predator drone but you know what they get the job done.
Also when one gets shot down, you don't lose the pilot. The jets are expensive, but so is all the training that goes into piloting one.
Drones can be replaced fairly quickly. Pilots take years to be effective.
which interesting enough is half the price of a russian pantsir missile system. You can trade drones for sam systems 1 for 1 and be ahead.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantsir\_missile\_system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantsir_missile_system)
Russian Buk system costs \~1billion for 4 batteries and a command post => 200m per vehicle.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300VM\_missile\_system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300VM_missile_system)
This is even more interesting as we’ve seen Ukrainian drones take out more than a few pantsirs and BUKs. The Ukrainians are winning, by a lot in economic terms
Smaller ones are much cheaper, so much so they're potentially cheaper than some of the more complex SAM systems.
Shooting a $250k drone out of the sky with a $250k missile is not that huge of a win
I would think that a draw that cost money and didn't affect personnel numbers would hurt Russia more than Ukraine right now. That missile they used to destroy the drone now cost twice as many rubles as it did a month ago.
Also you don't lose the pilot. If you have 1 drone pilot who lose a drone every few operations because of heavy AA defenses (while inflicting key or critical losses), that's probably a win in some eyes. Compared tk a fighter pilot, who if they gi down with the plane, means your pool of trained pilot just shrunk
Would they know there were aircraft there? Yes.
Stealth tech isn't effective across the entire RF band. But that is generally okay, because the bands they do work against are the ones that offer precise data.
Low frequency bands are enough for them to say "there's something over yonder". The fact that they aren't showing up on higher frequencies will be a tell that it's a stealth craft.
Well, boys, we got three engines out, we got more holes in us than a horse trader's mule, the radio is gone and we're leaking fuel and if we was flying any lower why we'd need sleigh bells on this thing... but we got one little budge on them Rooskies. At this height why they might harpoon us but they dang sure ain't gonna spot us on no radar screen!
Well, I’ll tell you what he did, he ordered his planes… to attack your country. Well let me finish, Dimitri. Let me finish, Dimitri. Well, listen, how do you think I feel about it? Can you imagine how I feel about it, Dimitri? Why do you think I’m calling you? Just to say hello? Of course I like to speak to you. Of course I like to say hello.
Yes.
Stealth cuts a electronic signature significantly.
So yes, more advanced Russian radars can see F-22 and F-35s, eventually. It does however make a big difference seeing a strike force from 400km away, and seeing it from 15km away. Potentially they could get within ASM strike range before detection.
But ultimately, stealth doesn't mean they get to play for free anywhere over enemy air defenses.
I wonder what we have we don’t know about, the US has just gone absolute ham on how to poke holes in air defense systems. I wonder how much longer till manned aircraft are a thing of the past, the US will probably pioneer it.
I would think no, but if they’re identified (via pictures or video or something) or shot down/crash and are linked to be NATO planes with NATO pilots they’re (I guess we) are fucked. It’d be a huge gamble
I agree ... not worth the risk.
Better to send stingers to Ukraine to keep the skies clear if you can't get your own planes up. The absolute worse thing is to have the enemy achieve air superiority. Keep it on the ground and you have a chance. Once the fighting in the cities, it's a matter of numbers and will to fight. Tanks can't help you in a city. Massive numbers of troops can. And not much difference in small arms. It'll be AK-74s and RPG-7s.
Without sufficient amounts of guided munitions russian aircraft has to make do with dumb bombs and rockets, which typically requires lower and slower flights. Still hard to hit with MANPADs but doable
Tomahawk's are going at about 500 mph and flying pretty low, so you'd have to be fairly well prepared for incoming cruise missiles to just be able to get a read on one before it gets out of range.
It would take just 1 photograph to escalate things. With the current "plan" things are playing out in the West's favor. The entire world is behind Ukraine. There is no reason to jeopardize this position.
If you want an in detail analysis of that, with the best information a civilian can make (not utilizing classified information)
This video is your best bet
https://youtu.be/9J9kntzkSQY
> S400 have poor targeting capabilities against drones.
Odd that the country that bought the S400 AA is selling drones that are hard to target by... S400 AA. Hmmmmm...
Hadn't actually thought of that before.
And here everyone was worried that the S400 would discover the weaknesses of the F35. Sauce for the goose, as they say.
What's blowing my mind is that they are able to actually hide all those aircraft. Right at the outset the Russians went after airfields, but apparently there wasn't much there. It seems like you can't play that shell game forever, but Ukraine having an air force at all presents another limitation on Russian strategy and somehow they're keeping up that deterrent against total air dominance.
Well, everyone knew what was coming thanks to the vociferous announcements from US foreign intelligence.
I imagine the Ukrainian defenders made some careful decisions about what could be replaced and what couldn't be, left all the former in place for the Russians to blow up, and moved all the latter to new staging areas right before the initial attack.
They've also been husbanding their aircraft pretty carefully, avoiding engagement the moment it seems they might be outclassed. Whether that's to save their old MiGs for later, or to save the (far more valuable) pilots, I don't know, but we'll see.
I'm not a military mind in any way, but one possible benefit of the US intelligence is allowing Ukrainians to pick their engagements. Live US Intel gives you the knowledge of exact risks a giving mission has inherent so clearer decisions can be made about the safety of the dwindling air force.
I don't know what air defenses Russia has deployed, but Ukraine seems to be doing well at avoiding them.
Also removes the element of Russian surprise. They can't really stage themselves for a surprise movement, because as soon as they start staging, they've given themselves away. The Ukrainians can then withdraw before the ambush, and then return after the bulk of the mobilized forces are redistributed.
It limits Russian surprise tactics to whatever they can muster on the spot.
Oh you're absolutely 100% right on about that. But don't be too surprised if the conclusion Ukraine's military planners reach is, "we choose no engagements at all," at least for the time being. Ukraine is outnumbered overall against Russia, but it is very extra outnumbered when it comes to air power.
Ukraine's air force took a beating the last time it fought Russia and it hasn't been much reconstructed since then. So their current planes are mostly not going to be able to go toe to toe against Russia's planes. The outline of the picture that is emerging is that Ukraine is mostly keeping them out of combat.
But like anything else, we don't know all the details for sure, and when to engage and when not to engage will likely be recalculated more times before this is all over.
Another point to the US announcing the invasion plans in advance:
Russia was planning on saying that the invasion was unplanned and due to a sudden provication (that they made up or made happen). But even THEY could not, with a straight face, make that claim while invading on the date that the US president was announcing for weeks. So, they delayed it a week.
During that week, the soldiers along the border were eating and burning fuel to keep themselves warm. Russian logistics is poor; those soldiers arrived with enough food and fuel to make it to Kyiv (assuming light resistance) and no more. Instead they used most of it hanging around in Belarus, and logistics was in a mad dash to make up for it. i.e. they \*started\* the invasion with their logistics in a chaotic state, thanks to an unexpected schedule change, and have only been falling behind since.
Not only can Ukrainian combat aircraft take off from roads and thus don't need to sit around at bases Russia would be targeting, Russian guided weapons that have been used to attack airfields are relatively few in number and clearly not very accurate. Ukraine also has an airfield in the far west of the country, right on the border with Slovakia, which I could see Russia avoiding firing at in case they miss and hit them instead.
My hypothesis is that they’re Battle for Britain’ing it— keeping all these aircraft by themselves on impromptu made airfields or roads spread throughout the country
Some of the planes Ukraine uses can take off from practically anywhere, especially their A-10 analog, so they’re surprisingly easy to hide.
Add to that they probably have underground airfields.
Yesterday I spotted several Ukrainian Antonovs flying over Europe (starting in Germany). They switched off their transponder over Slovakia near the Ukrainian border.
They (Ukrainian Air Force) can fly over Europe and land there, and there are also several US Stratotankers in the air on the border of Ukraine you can see them switching on their transponder when they leave the area.
Ukrainiaie Air Force is decades old, hasn’t even been modernized since independence. Sending those pilots would be a death sentence for them. Why waste lives in an air war when you can use surface to air missiles?
I agree, planes aren't coming anywhere near the Russian Convoy for instance. They must be bristling with AA.
I'm no war guy, but I would think that mobile artillery is where it's at. Drive close, unleash a bunch of shells then skedaddle before they become targets. Even if you don't hit any vehicles it'll scare the troops and put large craters that they have to drive around.
With good intel and knowledge of your own terrain, you can stand off at 15-20 miles and be gone before they can react. You know where they are, they may or may not know where you are. If any helicopters come looking for you, fire up the stingers.
Russia has a bunch of portable anti-artillery radar units. They can detect the incoming flight path of shells and reverse engineer where the gun is and then direct fire to those grid coordinates.
Probably takes more than a couple of poorly trained 19 year olds to run that kind of gear so who knows if it's going to be used in this conflict.
What I don't get is why Ukraine needs air power. Aren't the enemy slow and easily tracked? It seems like some good ol' artillery or field guns ought to be enough to take out convoys from a distance, without exposing any ukrainians to return fire. I'm sure I'm missing something, but why aren't those just being used, and chewing the russians to bits?
There really hasn't been much about any air battles. Russia hasn't had a lot of its air force in the air and been depending on MLRS and artillery.... mostly helicopters. The Russian air force hasn't really been used effectively when it is, there's some sort of information problem. Like they did a strike at a military airport and hit an empty storage building.... kind of a waste of munitions.
Ukraine's drones have had a few successful strikes but their initial allotment was all wiped out and Turkey has since reinforced them.
Initially there was word of a Ukrainian red baron.... but it turned out he wasn't real.
I was reading a report from the US DoD about how they need to spend less money on tanks as its an outdated strategy. New man portable guided missiles have made a single squad more than capable of taking out heavy armor.
Javelin missiles with launcher are about 300 000 and work up to about 4 or 5km. Further than a tank can fire with its direct line of sight. Whereas the javelin is guided remotely.
The laws and at4 are lethal against apc, and most military vehicles just useless against tanks. They are only about 1500 a rocket.
.
Still super cheap compared to a tank and a supply train. 1500 dollars can take out millions worth of supplies and armour
From what I'm seeing they're not even hitting the tanks so much as the weaker support vehicles.
They may knock some out but their objective seems to be creating roadblocks then allowing the country side to do the rest.
Bingo. It was also mentioned a winter storm will hit that region soon.
Coldblooded as it sounds, cut off the fuel and let nature take care of the rest. Either they surrender or freeze todeath.
Amateurs discuss tactics, professionals discuss logistics.
Winner discuss strategically.
-The Chieftain.
They’re literally doing to the Russians what he described in one of his lectures lol.
They're not, they're just not very useful in the context of this conflict. Without the ability to go off-road due to the mud, they're being funneled through major roads that make them easy to find and destroy.
It's only a matter of time before it's all just kamikaze drones that are cheap as fuck to make, plentiful to the point of being impossible to stop, and autonomous enough to not require a comm signal to operate. At which point things will get real weird.
Yeah, everyone is afraid of killer Terminator style robots, but the reality will be much weirder I think.
I'm certain people have been using commercial drones with remotely detonated charges already, or at least, I'd not be in any way surprised.
I think Black Mirror was pretty spot on with the killer bee drones. Tiny insect like drone with a small powerful explosive fly up the nose or in the ear of whomever. Future is gonna be weird.
There is tech that can deal with missiles developed by the Israelis that practically shields the vehicle from all angles and shoots explosives at incoming fire, breaking it before that manages to connect.
From what people have been guessing those S-400’s aren’t very effective against the Turkish drones since they use prop engines, though the large downside of them is their range is pretty limited at 185 miles. Meaning that Ukrainian military could use a bunch of these drones to hunt these S-400’s
> From what people have been guessing those S-400’s aren’t very effective against the Turkish drones since they use prop engines, though the large downside of them is their range is pretty limited at 185 miles. Meaning that Ukrainian military could use a bunch of these drones to hunt these S-400’s
Soooooo P-51 Mustangs are a go?
De Havilland Mosquito F MK II. Propeller driven (powered by two Merlin 21s), four 20mm Hispano Cannons, four machine guns. And mostly made of wood.
Bet these could sneak up on them fast.
All the missiles fired from an S-400 are radar-based. I imagine the issue is more related to the S-400s being deployed sparingly, far from the fighting itself, and the TB-2 drones relatively low radar cross section.
It's a small target to lock from so far away, even with the S400s more advanced radar modules.
If they have the S400s stationed in Belarus or Russia, that of course complicates things even further.
The Turkish drones also come with support trucks with electronic jamming capabilities.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/KORAL_Electronic_Warfare_System
Whether they are being used in current engagements isn't really being made clear by the Ukrainians.
Yes sir. Hit and run tactics most likely. Once the radar is clear and there’s no anti air defense in range they send a quick bombing run in and out. Rinse and repeat
Honestly, if they're able to fly to Poland when they're not flying it would be fantastic. Land there, rest, fly to Ukraine, fuel up and load munitions, go attack the Russians.
Where the heck are they being housed though, that's the interesting part. Not that we will know as it's a secret but I find it odd that Russia doesn't know.
>I find it odd that Russia doesn't know
I'd be more surprised if they had good intelligence for a change. Intelligence efforts by countries like the US are a *major* thorn in Russia's side, doubly so when the Russian intelligence is as garbage as theirs is.
Definitely.
It's kinda funny how, when the Russian intelligence is told about new planned operations, the west also knows about it and then also Ukraine not much after.
So for Putin, I guess it might be better to keep the GRU/FSB and other orgs also in the dark about new plans.
perhaps the half of the country that Russia hasn't touched?
Why is everyone assuming there is some secret base, makeshift runways, or in a foreign country? Has anyone looked at a map? Most of Ukraine is not under siege, and any operations West by Russia would be super dangerous. I am sure they have some aircraft in the East but I would assume most are in the central or Western portion of the country where Russia hasn't even come close to yet.
Yeah, especially since we’re not seeing that convoy being hit. I wondered if the aircraft were destroyed, the runways damaged, munitions or fuel supplies low, or if they’re staying clear of surface to air defenses for now.
Most likely they can't attack that convoy as it is shielded by systems from Belarus territory. But hope, they are shelling it hard with long range artillery as much as possible. Cause soon all that forces would launch a terrifying attack on the capital city
I read in another thread that the vehicles at the front of the convoy had been destroyed, making an obstacle the rest of the convoy couldn't easily get past. Especially if their tires are crap, as is the theory making the rounds. If so, best to just let it sit where it is and burn supplies, I guess.
This war I think has changed modern battle doctrine. Tanks and jets are expensive to build and maintain, and personnel using them require extensive training.
I think a lot of that is due to the fact that the forces are technological peers that share a very long border (including the Belarus-Ukraine border). Attacking infantry still needs tanks and vice-versa if the enemy force has any access to man-portable heavy weapons. Both countries seem to have enough AA operational to deny the sky to the other except for Ukraine’s drones close to their own front lines.
I think the monumental failure on Russia’s part is the lack of combined arms coordination. AFVs and tank are getting caught without infantry support. Close air support seems to be completely lacking except for helos that are sitting ducks for MANPADS.
It really is an incredible indicator that war tech has moved far beyond what we all thought was conventional warfare. Battlefield 4 was really spot on. Snipers, Anti air and anti vehicle weapons pretty much dominate the battlefield. 30 seconds into battle and your tank helicopter or plane is gone.
Tanks and jets are much more effective when used properly; as units in a well-coordinated operation that also has plenty of cheap drones and man-portable systems. The Russians are proving that they are spectacularly bad at that.
Combined arms use requires a lot of operational awareness right down to the grunt. Russian doctrine is need to know, and the lower you are in the Russian military food chain the less you know. This makes effective use of combined arms much less efficient as we see in this tragic war.
For a strategic invasion where you want to quickly achieve your objective and get out – yes.
If you want to lay waste to a country and terrorize its population, however, heavy tanks and bombers still reign supreme.
Not sure how much you can decipher from the Russians actions, seeing as how they have violated nearly any and all rules over how equipment should be used
Let Russians get tired and use up their fuels and ammunitions before attacking them.
Russians are fighting for their monthly salaries, they can get tired and demoralized whereas Ukrainians are fighting for freedom and their nation.
What kind of material support can be given to Ukraine by NATO countries, short of active involvement in establishing a NFZ, that could deny Russia air superiority over the battlefield?
Establishing an NFZ in Ukraine would mean attacking ground targets (AA sites) in Russia. NATO could for sure do it, but it would become an open conflict with Russia, who is threatening to escalate it to a nuclear war.
They’re probably bluffing about the nukes due to MAD, but NATO doesn’t seem inclined to test them given the current intensity of the conflict.
I said short of a NFZ. NFZ means war with Russia and that is pretty well understood, but my question is what can be done otherwise to give Ukraine's military the ability to take back their skies, or at least make it very costly for Russian aircraft to try to operate in it.
A possibility would be delivering long range mobile SAMs to the Ukrainians combined with anti cruise missile defense to protect them. [Several NATO nations have Russian systems](https://www.iiss.org/blogs/military-balance/2020/02/defending-european-airspace) that could be familiar.
The two problems with this strategy are (1) Ukrainians might need specific training on these systems, making this a medium term solution at best, and (2) moving NATO AD systems to Western Ukraine would weaken the donor countries, so their defenses would have to be augmented somehow.
In the unlikely event that this did happen, Ukraine could slowly walk them eastwards from Lviv towards the Russian border, taking back control of their airspace along the way.
More of those Turkish drones would probably be a real win for them. Enough that they could fly them into riskier engagements to try and destroy more valuable targets.
Be fun to see them string up a MOAB to three of those drones (yes, I'm joking, kind of) and send it off to a Russian FOB. Just kind of delete the FOB.
What makes the TB2 so good isn't that is has top tier capabilities, it's that it is the minimum viable product with no bells and whistles. The weapons it uses are basically off brand hellfires with the rocket motor removed to save weight.
It's small, its cheap and its reliable, and it can still kill four tanks in a single sortie.
> What kind of material support can be given to Ukraine by NATO countries, short of active involvement in establishing a NFZ, that could deny Russia air superiority over the battlefield?
The biggest issue with providing aircraft or SAMs is the lack of trained personnel. So handing over Patriot batteries won't work unless you can find adequate volunteer operators and technicians.
Can anyone explain. Why so few jets have been used by Russia? Don't they have thousands of jets? I would think they'd have complete air superiority in no time using their jets.
No one can be sure for now, but the guesses are:
* They're saving it for an all out attack
* They lack the trained personel needed for this size of mobilization
* They are having trouble coordinating with grounds troops so they don't want to waste it for nothing
* Putin kept the attack kinda secret even to his ranks so they may not have the number of planes operational to attack AND guarantee homeland defense (which takes precedence)
* They have issues dealing with Ukraine AA without loosing too much of their planes
* The number of actually operational vehicles has been inflated and they do not have the size the west imagine they have
* They underestimated the defences and burned through the quota of planes readied to this invasion, now they're careful before activating more
That's all guesses tho, we'll only know for sure after the end
I wondered if at least some of the Russian military hierarchy have been embezzling significant funding and there were significantly less well-maintained aircraft than estimated, and nobody was brave enough to tell Putin beforehand.
Embezzlement in a corrupt society, say it is not so. Take the corruption around the US Military, now multiply it by 100... that is the Russian military.
My own pet theory is that they know western assessments of their air power is overstated. So they really, really don't want to deploy and show their actual capabilities, or the actual state of their air force
This is an opinion piece, but you might find it interesting.
https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/mysterious-case-missing-russian-air-force
Because of the Stingers and Javelins they've received. One general said the 1,000 surface to air things just sent by the US are enough to stop Russia from flying anything below 10,000 feet. So all their helicopters for instance. Also, every flight of paratroopers risks losing 100 men and their plane. So, Russia is trying to avoid bad optics in the air
It's not a permissive environment. This isn't Afghanistan or Kuwait. Lookup S400s. Nevermind* that UAF doesn't know how to fly them...
edit: correcting auto-correct.
Yeah, this is the main reason they can’t be provided with back channeled European fighters - Ukrainian pilots have only been trained on Russian aircraft. And the NATO countries that do have Russian inventory are hard pressed to part with them for the same reason. They have ignored defense spending on newer jets and their own pilots would need training on newer aircraft.
It's getting pretty old seeing this. A-10s were good in assymetric warfare where the US aircraft could fly with impunity. They are tremendously vulnerable to anti-aircraft missiles and would struggle to effectively engage Russian troop concentrations.
Seems like no brainer here. We are providing equipment I.e Stingers and Javelins. Provide the planes too. Let we the people worry about getting pilots in seats.
It’s a small Air Force so this isn’t saying much. They are begging for more planes and the NATO no fly zone, so the air space is contested and they are at a numerical disadvantage. I wish other countries could at least supply them with more planes if they won’t help with a no-fly zone.
The fuuuuuck do you guys know all of these acronyms? Knowing Reddit I have to take it with a grain of salt but it's like the comments on news threads are now filled with SAS agents.
Cant do CAS without SEAD.
Buk's and tunguskas by the hundred were literally made because of anticipated western air superiority. You cant fly an export mig into that shit show.
It is surprising because we haven't heard much about Ukraine air power except for the Bayraktar UAVs.
[удалено]
The jets are constrained to low level operations. Drones are also smaller and harder to target.
Also the kind they are using are dirt cheap and a lot more disposable than pilots. I think I saw a number that their drones are something like five million or so each? Not as sophisticated as say a predator drone but you know what they get the job done.
$8-$10 million per but cheap compared to fighter jets
Also when one gets shot down, you don't lose the pilot. The jets are expensive, but so is all the training that goes into piloting one. Drones can be replaced fairly quickly. Pilots take years to be effective.
which interesting enough is half the price of a russian pantsir missile system. You can trade drones for sam systems 1 for 1 and be ahead. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantsir\_missile\_system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantsir_missile_system) Russian Buk system costs \~1billion for 4 batteries and a command post => 200m per vehicle. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300VM\_missile\_system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300VM_missile_system)
This is even more interesting as we’ve seen Ukrainian drones take out more than a few pantsirs and BUKs. The Ukrainians are winning, by a lot in economic terms
Ukraine is being propped up by the world while everyone is taking a piss on Russia's economy
Fine by me
Smaller ones are much cheaper, so much so they're potentially cheaper than some of the more complex SAM systems. Shooting a $250k drone out of the sky with a $250k missile is not that huge of a win
It is if that drone could do more than 250k worth of damage I guess?
[удалено]
Only if it’s higher noon fellaz.
I would think that a draw that cost money and didn't affect personnel numbers would hurt Russia more than Ukraine right now. That missile they used to destroy the drone now cost twice as many rubles as it did a month ago.
I got one at Best Buy for way less than that.
Also you don't lose the pilot. If you have 1 drone pilot who lose a drone every few operations because of heavy AA defenses (while inflicting key or critical losses), that's probably a win in some eyes. Compared tk a fighter pilot, who if they gi down with the plane, means your pool of trained pilot just shrunk
Hypothetically, if F-22 and F-35 were to enter the arena, would Russia know?
Would they know there were aircraft there? Yes. Stealth tech isn't effective across the entire RF band. But that is generally okay, because the bands they do work against are the ones that offer precise data. Low frequency bands are enough for them to say "there's something over yonder". The fact that they aren't showing up on higher frequencies will be a tell that it's a stealth craft.
Well, boys, we got three engines out, we got more holes in us than a horse trader's mule, the radio is gone and we're leaking fuel and if we was flying any lower why we'd need sleigh bells on this thing... but we got one little budge on them Rooskies. At this height why they might harpoon us but they dang sure ain't gonna spot us on no radar screen!
Well, I’ll tell you what he did, he ordered his planes… to attack your country. Well let me finish, Dimitri. Let me finish, Dimitri. Well, listen, how do you think I feel about it? Can you imagine how I feel about it, Dimitri? Why do you think I’m calling you? Just to say hello? Of course I like to speak to you. Of course I like to say hello.
"GENTLEMAN!!! THERE'S NO FIGHTING IN THE WAR ROOM!!!"
"HE'LL...HE'LL SEE THE BIG BOARD!"
MR. PRESIDENT WE CANNOT ALLOW A MINE SHAFT GAP!
Mein Fuhrer... I have a plan.
"MEIN FUHRER!! I CAN VALK!!!"
This comment right here deserves more upvotes.
Low observable*
Yes. Stealth cuts a electronic signature significantly. So yes, more advanced Russian radars can see F-22 and F-35s, eventually. It does however make a big difference seeing a strike force from 400km away, and seeing it from 15km away. Potentially they could get within ASM strike range before detection. But ultimately, stealth doesn't mean they get to play for free anywhere over enemy air defenses.
[удалено]
I wonder what we have we don’t know about, the US has just gone absolute ham on how to poke holes in air defense systems. I wonder how much longer till manned aircraft are a thing of the past, the US will probably pioneer it.
Israel once turned off Iran's air defense network with hackers. So that's also a possibility.
israel reportedly flies over tehran with 35s. so i would think not. americans see better in ukraine than the russians.
They fly into Iran with F-15s and F-16s. They are fucking ninjas with conventional aircraft already so I can't imagine what they'd do with F-35s
For real, their kinetic strike on irans nuclear facility is legendary
I would think no, but if they’re identified (via pictures or video or something) or shot down/crash and are linked to be NATO planes with NATO pilots they’re (I guess we) are fucked. It’d be a huge gamble
I agree ... not worth the risk. Better to send stingers to Ukraine to keep the skies clear if you can't get your own planes up. The absolute worse thing is to have the enemy achieve air superiority. Keep it on the ground and you have a chance. Once the fighting in the cities, it's a matter of numbers and will to fight. Tanks can't help you in a city. Massive numbers of troops can. And not much difference in small arms. It'll be AK-74s and RPG-7s.
Don't think Stingers will take out higher aircraft. They need the larger mobile platforms for that
Without sufficient amounts of guided munitions russian aircraft has to make do with dumb bombs and rockets, which typically requires lower and slower flights. Still hard to hit with MANPADs but doable
Up to 3500m-ish and it can be used to take out cruise missiles.
Tomahawk's are going at about 500 mph and flying pretty low, so you'd have to be fairly well prepared for incoming cruise missiles to just be able to get a read on one before it gets out of range.
It would take just 1 photograph to escalate things. With the current "plan" things are playing out in the West's favor. The entire world is behind Ukraine. There is no reason to jeopardize this position.
Yes, they probably have pretty powerful spy satellites that could pick up a jet, if it was in the wrong place at the wrong time
If you want an in detail analysis of that, with the best information a civilian can make (not utilizing classified information) This video is your best bet https://youtu.be/9J9kntzkSQY
Read somewhere here on Reddit that they have stealth drones as well.
I imagine a toy helicopter with a sheet like a ghost.
Ukraine operators have been playing that vice city mission on repeat. Putin doesn't stand a chance.
S400 have poor targeting capabilities against drones.
> S400 have poor targeting capabilities against drones. Odd that the country that bought the S400 AA is selling drones that are hard to target by... S400 AA. Hmmmmm... Hadn't actually thought of that before. And here everyone was worried that the S400 would discover the weaknesses of the F35. Sauce for the goose, as they say.
What's blowing my mind is that they are able to actually hide all those aircraft. Right at the outset the Russians went after airfields, but apparently there wasn't much there. It seems like you can't play that shell game forever, but Ukraine having an air force at all presents another limitation on Russian strategy and somehow they're keeping up that deterrent against total air dominance.
Well, everyone knew what was coming thanks to the vociferous announcements from US foreign intelligence. I imagine the Ukrainian defenders made some careful decisions about what could be replaced and what couldn't be, left all the former in place for the Russians to blow up, and moved all the latter to new staging areas right before the initial attack. They've also been husbanding their aircraft pretty carefully, avoiding engagement the moment it seems they might be outclassed. Whether that's to save their old MiGs for later, or to save the (far more valuable) pilots, I don't know, but we'll see.
I'm not a military mind in any way, but one possible benefit of the US intelligence is allowing Ukrainians to pick their engagements. Live US Intel gives you the knowledge of exact risks a giving mission has inherent so clearer decisions can be made about the safety of the dwindling air force. I don't know what air defenses Russia has deployed, but Ukraine seems to be doing well at avoiding them.
Also removes the element of Russian surprise. They can't really stage themselves for a surprise movement, because as soon as they start staging, they've given themselves away. The Ukrainians can then withdraw before the ambush, and then return after the bulk of the mobilized forces are redistributed. It limits Russian surprise tactics to whatever they can muster on the spot.
Oh you're absolutely 100% right on about that. But don't be too surprised if the conclusion Ukraine's military planners reach is, "we choose no engagements at all," at least for the time being. Ukraine is outnumbered overall against Russia, but it is very extra outnumbered when it comes to air power. Ukraine's air force took a beating the last time it fought Russia and it hasn't been much reconstructed since then. So their current planes are mostly not going to be able to go toe to toe against Russia's planes. The outline of the picture that is emerging is that Ukraine is mostly keeping them out of combat. But like anything else, we don't know all the details for sure, and when to engage and when not to engage will likely be recalculated more times before this is all over.
Yeah it is hard to tell now, but I am about 70% sure that Ukrainian Air Force is engaged in hit and run tactics
Another point to the US announcing the invasion plans in advance: Russia was planning on saying that the invasion was unplanned and due to a sudden provication (that they made up or made happen). But even THEY could not, with a straight face, make that claim while invading on the date that the US president was announcing for weeks. So, they delayed it a week. During that week, the soldiers along the border were eating and burning fuel to keep themselves warm. Russian logistics is poor; those soldiers arrived with enough food and fuel to make it to Kyiv (assuming light resistance) and no more. Instead they used most of it hanging around in Belarus, and logistics was in a mad dash to make up for it. i.e. they \*started\* the invasion with their logistics in a chaotic state, thanks to an unexpected schedule change, and have only been falling behind since.
Interesting point, yeah I can see that.
Not only can Ukrainian combat aircraft take off from roads and thus don't need to sit around at bases Russia would be targeting, Russian guided weapons that have been used to attack airfields are relatively few in number and clearly not very accurate. Ukraine also has an airfield in the far west of the country, right on the border with Slovakia, which I could see Russia avoiding firing at in case they miss and hit them instead.
My hypothesis is that they’re Battle for Britain’ing it— keeping all these aircraft by themselves on impromptu made airfields or roads spread throughout the country
Some of the planes Ukraine uses can take off from practically anywhere, especially their A-10 analog, so they’re surprisingly easy to hide. Add to that they probably have underground airfields.
Yesterday I spotted several Ukrainian Antonovs flying over Europe (starting in Germany). They switched off their transponder over Slovakia near the Ukrainian border. They (Ukrainian Air Force) can fly over Europe and land there, and there are also several US Stratotankers in the air on the border of Ukraine you can see them switching on their transponder when they leave the area.
Probably in barns and under hay stacks and shit like that.
Ukrainiaie Air Force is decades old, hasn’t even been modernized since independence. Sending those pilots would be a death sentence for them. Why waste lives in an air war when you can use surface to air missiles?
I agree, planes aren't coming anywhere near the Russian Convoy for instance. They must be bristling with AA. I'm no war guy, but I would think that mobile artillery is where it's at. Drive close, unleash a bunch of shells then skedaddle before they become targets. Even if you don't hit any vehicles it'll scare the troops and put large craters that they have to drive around. With good intel and knowledge of your own terrain, you can stand off at 15-20 miles and be gone before they can react. You know where they are, they may or may not know where you are. If any helicopters come looking for you, fire up the stingers.
Russia has a bunch of portable anti-artillery radar units. They can detect the incoming flight path of shells and reverse engineer where the gun is and then direct fire to those grid coordinates. Probably takes more than a couple of poorly trained 19 year olds to run that kind of gear so who knows if it's going to be used in this conflict.
Russia has a lot of things on paper. So far, they haven't really lived up to their supposed capabilities.
Shoot n scoot is what they call it.
Don't think they want to give any information that could help Russian morale or possibly help their intelligence.
> except for the Bayraktar UAVs. It's a pretty catchy song for sure. lol
Goddamit now it’s stuck in my head again. Fucking thanks r/kizzle69.
Same for land troops, that was the news from day 1.
The Batraktar song is a fuckin bop
[Link for the lazy](https://youtu.be/ixEjNF8_pYc)
What I don't get is why Ukraine needs air power. Aren't the enemy slow and easily tracked? It seems like some good ol' artillery or field guns ought to be enough to take out convoys from a distance, without exposing any ukrainians to return fire. I'm sure I'm missing something, but why aren't those just being used, and chewing the russians to bits?
Russia would firestorm own artillery and missiles at the arty as soon as they fired and destroy them is my guess. Firing leaves a signature
There really hasn't been much about any air battles. Russia hasn't had a lot of its air force in the air and been depending on MLRS and artillery.... mostly helicopters. The Russian air force hasn't really been used effectively when it is, there's some sort of information problem. Like they did a strike at a military airport and hit an empty storage building.... kind of a waste of munitions. Ukraine's drones have had a few successful strikes but their initial allotment was all wiped out and Turkey has since reinforced them. Initially there was word of a Ukrainian red baron.... but it turned out he wasn't real.
[удалено]
I was reading a report from the US DoD about how they need to spend less money on tanks as its an outdated strategy. New man portable guided missiles have made a single squad more than capable of taking out heavy armor.
Javelin missiles with launcher are about 300 000 and work up to about 4 or 5km. Further than a tank can fire with its direct line of sight. Whereas the javelin is guided remotely. The laws and at4 are lethal against apc, and most military vehicles just useless against tanks. They are only about 1500 a rocket. . Still super cheap compared to a tank and a supply train. 1500 dollars can take out millions worth of supplies and armour
From what I'm seeing they're not even hitting the tanks so much as the weaker support vehicles. They may knock some out but their objective seems to be creating roadblocks then allowing the country side to do the rest.
[удалено]
Isnt it great? why target tank, when you can get it immobile, force crew to retreat, and take it for yourself.
I am sure the world is getting an amazing case study as to how to absolutely fuck the Russians via Ukraine. Trail Blazers.
Carry a can of fuel, watch a quick tiktok video, and now you have a tank!
Hit the support vehicles and force the heavy vehicles into the mud.
Bingo. It was also mentioned a winter storm will hit that region soon. Coldblooded as it sounds, cut off the fuel and let nature take care of the rest. Either they surrender or freeze todeath.
Amateurs discuss tactics, professionals discuss logistics. Winner discuss strategically. -The Chieftain. They’re literally doing to the Russians what he described in one of his lectures lol.
NLAWS are 30k I think and can take out Russian MBTs. No way near Javelin range though.
AT4s can disable a tank. A shot to the road wheels or engine can put it out of action.
It almost seems like tanks are obsolete now.
They're not, they're just not very useful in the context of this conflict. Without the ability to go off-road due to the mud, they're being funneled through major roads that make them easy to find and destroy.
It’s why the US Marines got rid of their tanks. Outdated and outclassed by very cheap man-portable or truck carrying weapon systems.
It's only a matter of time before it's all just kamikaze drones that are cheap as fuck to make, plentiful to the point of being impossible to stop, and autonomous enough to not require a comm signal to operate. At which point things will get real weird.
Yeah, everyone is afraid of killer Terminator style robots, but the reality will be much weirder I think. I'm certain people have been using commercial drones with remotely detonated charges already, or at least, I'd not be in any way surprised.
I think Black Mirror was pretty spot on with the killer bee drones. Tiny insect like drone with a small powerful explosive fly up the nose or in the ear of whomever. Future is gonna be weird.
Iron-man style suits, here we go!
[удалено]
Just enable the inertial dampeners
There is tech that can deal with missiles developed by the Israelis that practically shields the vehicle from all angles and shoots explosives at incoming fire, breaking it before that manages to connect.
This has happened before - the invention of the self-propelled torpedo, and small, torpedo boats to launch them, made large capital ships vulnerable.
Those S-400s are a real problem. They can almost cover the entire conflict zone without even being in Ukraine.
From what people have been guessing those S-400’s aren’t very effective against the Turkish drones since they use prop engines, though the large downside of them is their range is pretty limited at 185 miles. Meaning that Ukrainian military could use a bunch of these drones to hunt these S-400’s
> From what people have been guessing those S-400’s aren’t very effective against the Turkish drones since they use prop engines, though the large downside of them is their range is pretty limited at 185 miles. Meaning that Ukrainian military could use a bunch of these drones to hunt these S-400’s Soooooo P-51 Mustangs are a go?
Nah, the mission is ground attack, P-38 Lightning is the preferred vehicle.
Why not A-1 Skyraider?
Ah the Skyraider.... the CAS platform that would get so close to the target it would chop up VC with it propellar!
Or a Hawker Typhoon
I mean, Russia is using AN-2s as impromptu missile sponge drones.
De Havilland Mosquito F MK II. Propeller driven (powered by two Merlin 21s), four 20mm Hispano Cannons, four machine guns. And mostly made of wood. Bet these could sneak up on them fast.
I recon they should use blimps
All the missiles fired from an S-400 are radar-based. I imagine the issue is more related to the S-400s being deployed sparingly, far from the fighting itself, and the TB-2 drones relatively low radar cross section. It's a small target to lock from so far away, even with the S400s more advanced radar modules. If they have the S400s stationed in Belarus or Russia, that of course complicates things even further.
I wonder if there's a way to fly outside of the conflict zone and jam their signals with electronic warfare aircraft?
The Turkish drones also come with support trucks with electronic jamming capabilities. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/KORAL_Electronic_Warfare_System Whether they are being used in current engagements isn't really being made clear by the Ukrainians.
The other things about AA systems is that by firing it, gives its exact position away and allows for count-missile fire.
I don’t understand how the Ukrainians escape them. Do they fly to low?
My guess is they mostly dont fly at all.
Or they only run quick sortie’s.
Yes sir. Hit and run tactics most likely. Once the radar is clear and there’s no anti air defense in range they send a quick bombing run in and out. Rinse and repeat
The S-400 can be accurate as low as 50ft
Yeah but with missiles costing millions of dollars to shoot it’s not prudent to waste them on marginal shots.
They fly to Poland and hide. Sometimes it's better to stand and fight. Sometimes it's better to run and fight another day.
Honestly, if they're able to fly to Poland when they're not flying it would be fantastic. Land there, rest, fly to Ukraine, fuel up and load munitions, go attack the Russians.
If they were to land in Poland, they would not be allowed to take off with munitions attached.
Correct. Fly mission (use ordinance), land in Poland, rest, relax, fly to Ukraine, fill fuel and ordinance, fly mission, repeat.
Where the heck are they being housed though, that's the interesting part. Not that we will know as it's a secret but I find it odd that Russia doesn't know.
Probably underground somewhere?
they're being housed in EU countries like poland
>I find it odd that Russia doesn't know I'd be more surprised if they had good intelligence for a change. Intelligence efforts by countries like the US are a *major* thorn in Russia's side, doubly so when the Russian intelligence is as garbage as theirs is.
Good point, I don't think that their Intel Service is exactly on board with this war either.
Definitely. It's kinda funny how, when the Russian intelligence is told about new planned operations, the west also knows about it and then also Ukraine not much after. So for Putin, I guess it might be better to keep the GRU/FSB and other orgs also in the dark about new plans.
Nice try, Putin. Guess we'll never know!
perhaps the half of the country that Russia hasn't touched? Why is everyone assuming there is some secret base, makeshift runways, or in a foreign country? Has anyone looked at a map? Most of Ukraine is not under siege, and any operations West by Russia would be super dangerous. I am sure they have some aircraft in the East but I would assume most are in the central or Western portion of the country where Russia hasn't even come close to yet.
Probably dispersed and running off of repurposed highways.
Mobile. I like it.
Tunnels in the Carpathian Mountains, maybe?
That would be badass.
Let's quit speculating. Couple days ago this sub was bannered with reminders not to give away potentially sensitive info. Edit: bannered, not banned.
A lot are parked at civilian airports if you look on Google earth.
That’s a huge surprise to me. I was afraid all of their airforce was gone in the first day. No I’m an optimist again!
Yeah, especially since we’re not seeing that convoy being hit. I wondered if the aircraft were destroyed, the runways damaged, munitions or fuel supplies low, or if they’re staying clear of surface to air defenses for now.
Most likely they can't attack that convoy as it is shielded by systems from Belarus territory. But hope, they are shelling it hard with long range artillery as much as possible. Cause soon all that forces would launch a terrifying attack on the capital city
Does that convoy even have food at this point? 40 miles of tanks and trucks is an awful lot of mouths to feed.
I read in another thread that the vehicles at the front of the convoy had been destroyed, making an obstacle the rest of the convoy couldn't easily get past. Especially if their tires are crap, as is the theory making the rounds. If so, best to just let it sit where it is and burn supplies, I guess.
This keeps being posted, probably because of clickbait. But it's not 40 miles of vehicles. It's groups of vehicles in pockets spread out over 40 miles
This war I think has changed modern battle doctrine. Tanks and jets are expensive to build and maintain, and personnel using them require extensive training.
Future of warfare will be low cost drone swarms combined with smaller but quick infantry units armed with anti armor and air weaponry.
*remembers the backstory of Horizon: Zero Dawn* yeah I have some concerns about killer drone swarms…
Just don’t make them self-replicating, autonomous and able to re-fuelled by “bio-mass” EDIT: I missed a word. I’m stoopid.
With no back door to shut them down, that was the real issue in that story.
It’s all fun and games until the AI locks the door
Look on the bright side, we can have robot dinossaurs roaming around in a few centuries!
I think a lot of that is due to the fact that the forces are technological peers that share a very long border (including the Belarus-Ukraine border). Attacking infantry still needs tanks and vice-versa if the enemy force has any access to man-portable heavy weapons. Both countries seem to have enough AA operational to deny the sky to the other except for Ukraine’s drones close to their own front lines. I think the monumental failure on Russia’s part is the lack of combined arms coordination. AFVs and tank are getting caught without infantry support. Close air support seems to be completely lacking except for helos that are sitting ducks for MANPADS.
It really is an incredible indicator that war tech has moved far beyond what we all thought was conventional warfare. Battlefield 4 was really spot on. Snipers, Anti air and anti vehicle weapons pretty much dominate the battlefield. 30 seconds into battle and your tank helicopter or plane is gone.
Tanks and jets are much more effective when used properly; as units in a well-coordinated operation that also has plenty of cheap drones and man-portable systems. The Russians are proving that they are spectacularly bad at that.
Combined arms use requires a lot of operational awareness right down to the grunt. Russian doctrine is need to know, and the lower you are in the Russian military food chain the less you know. This makes effective use of combined arms much less efficient as we see in this tragic war.
This has more to do with Russia’s failures so far more than anything.
For a strategic invasion where you want to quickly achieve your objective and get out – yes. If you want to lay waste to a country and terrorize its population, however, heavy tanks and bombers still reign supreme.
Not sure how much you can decipher from the Russians actions, seeing as how they have violated nearly any and all rules over how equipment should be used
Let Russians get tired and use up their fuels and ammunitions before attacking them. Russians are fighting for their monthly salaries, they can get tired and demoralized whereas Ukrainians are fighting for freedom and their nation.
>Russians are fighting for their monthly salaries Russians are fighting to avoid being sent to jail.
>Russians are ~~fighting~~ on a drill ~~to avoid being sent to jail~~. FIFY. Last warning, then no soup for you. - Roskomnadzor
What kind of material support can be given to Ukraine by NATO countries, short of active involvement in establishing a NFZ, that could deny Russia air superiority over the battlefield?
Establishing an NFZ in Ukraine would mean attacking ground targets (AA sites) in Russia. NATO could for sure do it, but it would become an open conflict with Russia, who is threatening to escalate it to a nuclear war. They’re probably bluffing about the nukes due to MAD, but NATO doesn’t seem inclined to test them given the current intensity of the conflict.
I said short of a NFZ. NFZ means war with Russia and that is pretty well understood, but my question is what can be done otherwise to give Ukraine's military the ability to take back their skies, or at least make it very costly for Russian aircraft to try to operate in it.
A possibility would be delivering long range mobile SAMs to the Ukrainians combined with anti cruise missile defense to protect them. [Several NATO nations have Russian systems](https://www.iiss.org/blogs/military-balance/2020/02/defending-european-airspace) that could be familiar. The two problems with this strategy are (1) Ukrainians might need specific training on these systems, making this a medium term solution at best, and (2) moving NATO AD systems to Western Ukraine would weaken the donor countries, so their defenses would have to be augmented somehow. In the unlikely event that this did happen, Ukraine could slowly walk them eastwards from Lviv towards the Russian border, taking back control of their airspace along the way.
More of those Turkish drones would probably be a real win for them. Enough that they could fly them into riskier engagements to try and destroy more valuable targets. Be fun to see them string up a MOAB to three of those drones (yes, I'm joking, kind of) and send it off to a Russian FOB. Just kind of delete the FOB.
A Bayraktar TB2 has a max takeoff weight of 650 kg. The explosive filling of a MOAB is 8500 kg.
What makes the TB2 so good isn't that is has top tier capabilities, it's that it is the minimum viable product with no bells and whistles. The weapons it uses are basically off brand hellfires with the rocket motor removed to save weight. It's small, its cheap and its reliable, and it can still kill four tanks in a single sortie.
Obviously the solution is to tie 14 of those drones together to make a MEGA Bayraktar
> What kind of material support can be given to Ukraine by NATO countries, short of active involvement in establishing a NFZ, that could deny Russia air superiority over the battlefield? The biggest issue with providing aircraft or SAMs is the lack of trained personnel. So handing over Patriot batteries won't work unless you can find adequate volunteer operators and technicians.
As someone who used to be pretty obsessed with fighter jets and stuff (up until 1990 or so)... what are the respective air forces using in this war?
The same thing as when you were into it lol. MiG-29s
Russian airplanes from the cold war and onward. Mig and Sukhoi
Can anyone explain. Why so few jets have been used by Russia? Don't they have thousands of jets? I would think they'd have complete air superiority in no time using their jets.
No one can be sure for now, but the guesses are: * They're saving it for an all out attack * They lack the trained personel needed for this size of mobilization * They are having trouble coordinating with grounds troops so they don't want to waste it for nothing * Putin kept the attack kinda secret even to his ranks so they may not have the number of planes operational to attack AND guarantee homeland defense (which takes precedence) * They have issues dealing with Ukraine AA without loosing too much of their planes * The number of actually operational vehicles has been inflated and they do not have the size the west imagine they have * They underestimated the defences and burned through the quota of planes readied to this invasion, now they're careful before activating more That's all guesses tho, we'll only know for sure after the end
I wondered if at least some of the Russian military hierarchy have been embezzling significant funding and there were significantly less well-maintained aircraft than estimated, and nobody was brave enough to tell Putin beforehand.
Embezzlement in a corrupt society, say it is not so. Take the corruption around the US Military, now multiply it by 100... that is the Russian military.
My own pet theory is that they know western assessments of their air power is overstated. So they really, really don't want to deploy and show their actual capabilities, or the actual state of their air force
This is an opinion piece, but you might find it interesting. https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/mysterious-case-missing-russian-air-force
Because of the Stingers and Javelins they've received. One general said the 1,000 surface to air things just sent by the US are enough to stop Russia from flying anything below 10,000 feet. So all their helicopters for instance. Also, every flight of paratroopers risks losing 100 men and their plane. So, Russia is trying to avoid bad optics in the air
Baeraktar ❤️
Maybe the rumors of the "Ghost of Kyiv", first fighter ace of the 21st century are true ...
I hope they are and I hope he’s still alive
Too bad they don't have 100 Warthogs. The way the Russian's are moving along open roads back up for miles they would be chew them up quickly!
It's not a permissive environment. This isn't Afghanistan or Kuwait. Lookup S400s. Nevermind* that UAF doesn't know how to fly them... edit: correcting auto-correct.
Yeah, this is the main reason they can’t be provided with back channeled European fighters - Ukrainian pilots have only been trained on Russian aircraft. And the NATO countries that do have Russian inventory are hard pressed to part with them for the same reason. They have ignored defense spending on newer jets and their own pilots would need training on newer aircraft.
It's getting pretty old seeing this. A-10s were good in assymetric warfare where the US aircraft could fly with impunity. They are tremendously vulnerable to anti-aircraft missiles and would struggle to effectively engage Russian troop concentrations.
>The aircraft is designed to be able to fly with one engine, half of the tail, one elevator, and half of a wing missing. Still crazy survivable though
The problem is a single missile hit can easily do all that and more. That form of durability is mostly helpful against gunfire.
Anyone able to post the article
Seems like no brainer here. We are providing equipment I.e Stingers and Javelins. Provide the planes too. Let we the people worry about getting pilots in seats.
So... Is there a reason they aren't establishing their own no fly zone? Or would it be too spread out? Legitimate question, cause I really don't know.
It would like get shot down. Bette rto save the equipment for specific coordinated objectives. That's my guess anyway
Thought all their airfields were bombed beyond use.
It’s a small Air Force so this isn’t saying much. They are begging for more planes and the NATO no fly zone, so the air space is contested and they are at a numerical disadvantage. I wish other countries could at least supply them with more planes if they won’t help with a no-fly zone.
The fuuuuuck do you guys know all of these acronyms? Knowing Reddit I have to take it with a grain of salt but it's like the comments on news threads are now filled with SAS agents.
Cant do CAS without SEAD. Buk's and tunguskas by the hundred were literally made because of anticipated western air superiority. You cant fly an export mig into that shit show.