Zelenskiy begging for Russian airplanes

[Jredbaron96]

Yes. And the S-300 is not mobile at all, and is easy to avoid if you know it is there (or know how to defeat it).

The S-300 has a detection range in the hundreds of kilometers.

And it is not that easy for an aircraft to fire with precision in a zero visibility situation.

That is why things like cruise missiles are so great. They operate via inertial navigation and GPS, and only need a hard fixed location of the target. As an aircraft is always moving in three dimensions, they rely upon the final visual targeting for the final phases. Unless they also have a team on the ground that is using a LASER targeting device to paint the target.

Many smart munitions have internal navigation. Plenty of aircraft, including those uses by the Russians, do not need visual identification to fire and instead rely on long range on-board sensor arrays. This is true for warships as well.

Do not forget, I know how this works. And if you look at most of the video coming out, they have been using a lot of helicopters. Those can safely fly bellow the cloud cover. They are targeting specific locations, the conventional aircraft are more getting area targets.

I think you are overstating the effect cloud cover has on air defense systems and air operations.

 

[Oozlefinch]

The S-300 has a detection range in the hundreds of kilometers.

Yes, and? It's location can be pinpointed by hundreds of kilometers more. It is also highly vulnerable to low flying aircraft (specifically helicopters). It is also very slow to reload.

And moving a battery takes hours.

And finally, Ukraine may no longer have the S-300. There have been reports that their S-300 battalion was wiped out the other day, but no confirmation of this by Ukraine as of yet. But it would not surprise me, knowing how fixed they are and the problems they have been having with both fixed wing and missile attacks. It is not like the S-300 is invulnerable.

I think you are overstating the effect cloud cover has on air defense systems and air operations.

It has almost no impact on air defense operations, other than MANPAD. For RADAR, the clouds might as well not even be there. But for MANPAD systems (STINGER based for example), it pretty much kills their effective use.

 

[Jredbaron96]

It has almost no impact on air defense operations, other than MANPAD. For RADAR, the clouds might as well not even be there. But for MANPAD systems (STINGER based for example), it pretty much kills their effective use.

I'll be honest, I'm not entirely sure what point you are trying to make with this line of discussion.

You said the Russians haven't been able to carry out effective air strikes because of low cloud cover, but that really isn't an inhibition against them.

The reasons the Russians have been flying low enough to be hit by MANPADs is because they can't fly high without risking engagement by other air defense systems.

 

[Oozlefinch]

You said the Russians haven't been able to carry out effective air strikes because of low cloud cover, but that really isn't an inhibition against them.

There is a difference between effective, and accurate. They are not the same thing at all. They have only effectively been using them against fixed locations, and not doing the kind of "hunting" missions that most fighters do in combat.

And there is a huge overlap between MANPAD and conventional ADA systems. However, with low clouds fighters dare not fly below it when possible because of the risk of hitting things, like mountains, buildings, and power lines. But above it, MANPAD just can't track and engage them.

I am really not sure what you are trying to say, it is coming across as an attempt to justify something that is not happening the way you think.

 

[Jredbaron96]

There is a difference between effective, and accurate. They are not the same thing at all. They have only effectively been using them against fixed locations, and not doing the kind of "hunting" missions that most fighters do in combat.

Just to clarify, are you talking about "hunting" air defense systems aka SEAD/DEAD?

If so, the Russians can't run ops like that because they don't have the capacity or doctrine to do so; long range aviation consumes most Russian refuses and Russian SEAD doctrine is much more limited than NATO.

 

[American]

Poland romania hungary finland etc have plenty of russian jets, the same types the ukrainians need no training on as that is what they operated before the war. I say give them those jets, stinger missiles and javelins work great if it is just funding an insurgency, but when funding and arming a military to fight another military head on, there needs to be far more than just missiles.

The former soviet nations still have jets, tanks, and trucks the ukrainians are already trained to use, and in the short term would be more beneficial than just atgm and anti aircraft manpads in the broader picture.

If ukraine survives this they need to branch out past old soviet gear, right now they have no choice because they do not have time in the middle of a hot war to train their forces for new gear, however if they retain independance and are not in a war they should seek gear independant of russia, or do a mix so they can still be armed no matter which sphere they anger.

If Putin was a real man, he's send them a bunch of jets.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Just to clarify, are you talking about "hunting" air defense systems aka SEAD/DEAD?

If so, the Russians can't run ops like that because they don't have the capacity or doctrine to do so; long range aviation consumes most Russian refuses and Russian SEAD doctrine is much more limited than NATO.

Their SEAD doctrine is much more limited, simply because they have never needed it.

Unlike NATO doctrine in which air superiority and controlling the air spaces is a key part of their strategy, the Soviets-Russians-Warsaw Pact has always favored a strategy that is not dependent upon air support. That is why they still use the WWII strategy of massive rocket and artillery barrages to screen their forces, then hitting them fast and hard once it is lifted.

NATO and the US went in for more of a "combined arms" approach, where air superiority was a key part. Or at a minimum where it is contested so the other side can not use their aircraft against you.

The idea of WP tactics is that having to use SEAD is not as important. They simply try to take it out with missiles, or overrun it on the ground. No reason to risk pilots and aircraft if the same thing can be achieved by other means.

But if you look at all the conflicts the Soviets-Russia have been involved in since WWII, they were always against foes with little to no air power or air defenses. So once again, they never needed that particular skill set. However, the US has been fighting foes with such assets since Vietnam. So they had to develop tactics to fight against them, and continue to refine them.

This kind of is why whenever people scream about the PLAN, I bring up Un-Rep. Yes, China has a navy. But they have never conducted prolonged operations away from port, or had to keep their ships at sea for multiple months at a time. Contrary to what a lot of people say, they have neither the doctrine nor the training to operate much outside their territorial waters.

In fact, Iran has more of a SEAD doctrine than Russia does. They were trained in US doctrine back when we were allies, and had to use it during their war with Iraq.

However, what the Russian can and likely have been doing is using "missile storm" tactics. By doing so in a planned manner it is possible to overwhelm air defenses, without putting any of your own aircraft at risk. So long as you are close enough to launch missiles at them, and have enough of them to expend.

And although the US has been resisting, I am wondering if within a decade we will be fielding a new generation of Pershing missiles.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Their SEAD doctrine is much more limited, simply because they have never needed it.

Unlike NATO doctrine in which air superiority and controlling the air spaces is a key part of their strategy, the Soviets-Russians-Warsaw Pact has always favored a strategy that is not dependent upon air support. That is why they still use the WWII strategy of massive rocket and artillery barrages to screen their forces, then hitting them fast and hard once it is lifted.

NATO and the US went in for more of a "combined arms" approach, where air superiority was a key part. Or at a minimum where it is contested so the other side can not use their aircraft against you.

The idea of WP tactics is that having to use SEAD is not as important. They simply try to take it out with missiles, or overrun it on the ground. No reason to risk pilots and aircraft if the same thing can be achieved by other means.

But if you look at all the conflicts the Soviets-Russia have been involved in since WWII, they were always against foes with little to no air power or air defenses. So once again, they never needed that particular skill set. However, the US has been fighting foes with such assets since Vietnam. So they had to develop tactics to fight against them, and continue to refine them.

This kind of is why whenever people scream about the PLAN, I bring up Un-Rep. Yes, China has a navy. But they have never conducted prolonged operations away from port, or had to keep their ships at sea for multiple months at a time. Contrary to what a lot of people say, they have neither the doctrine nor the training to operate much outside their territorial waters.

In fact, Iran has more of a SEAD doctrine than Russia does. They were trained in US doctrine back when we were allies, and had to use it during their war with Iraq.

However, what the Russian can and likely have been doing is using "missile storm" tactics. By doing so in a planned manner it is possible to overwhelm air defenses, without putting any of your own aircraft at risk. So long as you are close enough to launch missiles at them, and have enough of them to expend.

And although the US has been resisting, I am wondering if within a decade we will be fielding a new generation of Pershing missiles.

Which goes back to my point: the reasons the Russians haven't been running rough shed with airpower is because they lack the ability to do so in face of continued Ukrainian interdiction.

 

[Oozlefinch]

because they lack the ability to do so in face of continued Ukrainian interdiction.

OK dude, whatever. You are right, weather has nothing to do with it.

 

[Jredbaron96]

OK dude, whatever. You are right, weather has nothing to do with it.

Because the Ukrainians have been downing Russian aircraft in both clear skies and inclement weather.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Because the Ukrainians have been downing Russian aircraft in both clear skies and inclement weather.

You do not get it, do not want to get it, and I am tired of trying to explain it.

The weather is starting to break now, and the rest of the week is expected to be mostly sunny. Let's see what happens after that.

 

[Jredbaron96]

You do not get it, do not want to get it, and I am tired of trying to explain it.

The weather is starting to break now, and the rest of the week is expected to be mostly sunny. Let's see what happens after that.

I understand completely what you're trying to claim, it just doesn't stack up with reality.

The Russian air force does not become impotent just because there is cloud cover.

 

[Oozlefinch]

The Russian air force does not become impotent just because there is cloud cover.

And I never said it did. However, it does not act with the same precision against ground forces as it does in clear weather. Especially in that it is almost impossible for it to take on interdictory operations, or operate close to their own forces.

Why you keep trying to twist what I say into something completely different I have no idea.

 

[Jredbaron96]

And I never said it did. However, it does not act with the same precision against ground forces as it does in clear weather.

You haven't actually demonstrated that this is significant enough to warrant the ineffectiveness of the RuAF, especially since it's clearly based on a false pretense; the RuAF carried out precision strikes in poor weather in Syria and have done so in Ukraine prior.

The Russians are not being crippled because it is overcast. They are hit precision strikes in this campaign already. They are being limited by the continued operation of the Ukrainian air defense forces and the Russian unwillingness and inability to defeat them.

 

[beerftw]

If Putin was a real man, he's send them a bunch of jets.

You need to convince him that shirtless men riding horses take it up the butt unless they send fighter jet's to their enemy, he might understand and agree when you challenge his shirtless horse ridingness.

 

[Oozlefinch]

You haven't actually demonstrated that this is significant enough to warrant the ineffectiveness of the RuAF

Which I never claimed. Holy hell, you really do not pay much attention to anything said, do you? You just take it in, put your own spin on it inside of your own mind, then spit that back out.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Which I never claimed.

Yes you did.

You first claimed that the Russians had complete air superiority. Another user than pointed out this wasn't true and the Ukrainians were still contesting the air space.

After which you then responded by claiming that the weather was to blame.

I don't see why you decide to deny these things when your posts are still plainly visible to see.

 

[Oozlefinch]

You first claimed that the Russians had complete air superiority. Another user than pointed out this wasn't true and the Ukrainians were still contesting the air space.

The two are not exclusive.

The US had complete air superiority over Iraq and Japan in WWII. Yet both still contested that.

Superiority does not mean lack of an enemy.

 

[Jredbaron96]

The two are not exclusive.

The US had complete air superiority over Iraq and Japan in WWII. Yet both still contested that.

Superiority does not mean lack of an enemy.

But the Russians don't have complete air superiority. They are not able to fly at will over Ukraine. They launched several major air operations just this last weekend and took heavy losses.