Have sam air defenses and drones made air forces irrelevant in peer to peer fighting.

Have sam air defenses and drones made air forces irrelevant in peer to peer fighting. The Russian Air Force has been a non factor in the war.

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No. If you believe the Ukraine war has changed anything about how wars are fought then you haven't learned anything. This is what you get when you try to educate yourself with the opinions of uninformed retards on twitter or PrepHole.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    > The Russian Air Force has been a non factor in the war.

    Because the Russians have never had a good Air Force. Then being bad has nothing too do with drones or SAMs

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    russia has no sead capabilities so they can't stop enemy aa like america would

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >The Russian Air Force has been a non factor in the war.

    They couldn't SEAD for shit at the start of the war and still can't to this day. You can't have air superiority when your enemy still has many capable SAM systems all over the place not to mention MANPADS coming out of their ears.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    More like the Russian air forces have been irrelevant because:

    >Russia doesn't seem to field anti-radiation missiles missiles
    >Russia doesn't train in SEAD / DEAD
    >The Russian jets are so garbage they have to use western commercial GPS because GLONASS is garbage
    >Russian "precision" munitions are so inaccurate that they probably couldn't reliably even target SAM systems
    >Russian chain of command is a clusterfuck and the Russian forces have zero capacity for competent combined arms warfare

    If you gave the Russian gear to any halfway competent country they'd instantly be able to use it better.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      to be fair, ukraine hardly uses it's airforce too

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        True but kind of a double standard. If there's one thing that for a long time Russia was known for in the arms export industry it was air defence systems. Russian S-300/400, PANTSIR, TOR and BUK are deployed in Ukraine extensively and Russian aviation outnumbers Ukraine by a wide margin. The sheer fact that Ukraine even is able to fly any sorties is an embarrasment in and of itself.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It isn't as embarrassing when you consider the gulf war. Nobody was giving the US shit when the Iraqis we're still able to fly despite the massive overmatch in forces.

          As fun as it was in the early days, the constant shit posting about the Russians being terrible has gotten annoying, not because it's untrue, but because it's become habitual. Of course this will get me labeled as a vatnik but opinions such as that aren't much different than fuddlore. Kinda just a overused talking point.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            for decades people thought they were a peer force (or at least near-peer)
            this is the biggest PrepHole related news in years
            and it's not like it's the same people posting about it every single hour
            but with many posters and an interesting topic you get pretty much constant posts about said topic

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              It isn't news anymore though. It's been months that we've known this. Same tired lines kill off discussion.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                with anything big
                and millions of people
                you will hear same unoriginal shit over and over again
                you should have realized it by now
                are you underb&?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >deflecting from the point

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                yeah
                you are deflecting from my point that it's always been true for any real hapooning
                and will be true for any future hapooning
                with age you just learn to move on and ignore

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Iraqis we're still able to fly

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They've been very active over Kherson for past few weeks. Mainly due to a combination of HARM, HIMARS and TB-3 knocking out Russian radars and SAM sites in the region.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Well a significant portion of it was destroyed at the start and russian jets initially did fly around. So they did do that with decent success. If anything it seems the ukie airforce has become more active after being initially largely suppressed or neutralized.
        There was one ukie pilot initially that just flew to romania or some such I believe.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      doesn't seem to field anti-radiation missiles missile
      They do. But they can't target Soviet built radars. Which are exactly the radars used by Ukraine.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Russian fixed-wing aviation has mostly done unguided high-altitude bombing on cities and emplacements, and rocket attacks on ground forces. I think they became very loss-averse a month or two in to the war, and while it's not indicative of real action the footage we have is of Su-25s lobbing rockets and some airfield footage of FAB-5000s and other fuckoff bombs being loaded into strategic bombers.

        I read an allegation at some point that russkies have poor coordination between AD and the air forces, meaning they have timed corridors and shit for overflying friendly positions, and very poor CAS coordination. The most effective work of russian aviation has probably been with spotting drones.

        I think this is nonsense. Russians have a lot of hostile neighbours with russian/soviet gear. I think the failure is more on their reconnassaince, they do not know where ukie SAMs are, and their ELINT is too poor to flexibly respond to them

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They can, but their only relevant anti radiation missile is the r 77p which barely exists and is really only an air to air missile anyway

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          They shot a bunch of KH-31's early on, but as said before KH-31 doesn't have seekers for former Soviet radars, they only made seekers for NATO kit.

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It is clear that air superiority no longer means absolute battlefield dominance, in particular if your planes are not easy to sacrifice for an objective because they are too hard and expensive to replace.

    Russia strategy was always very AA heavy as they always assumed Nato was going to have air superiority over them so they invested a great deal in anti air systems.

    Modern missiles are a serious danger to planes and they have massive range.
    However planes can carry missiles as well and it's all a game of whom can each the other first or whom can stay undetected.

    The real loser of this war is the attack helicopter that now is getting fucked by literally everything, infantry with high quality manpads, drones, all types of AA, planes and even heavy machine guns are a danger. Attack helicopters have been relegated mostly as a faster moving grad launcher.

    MBT also have suffered, making it clear that some upgrades are necessary, in particular active defense systems from incoming missiles like the javelin.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      If anything this has showed how dominant modern fighters would be. If Ukraine is able to do this much with cold war era relics with an ipad strapped onto it to launch anti-radiation missiles missiles against an incredibly dense concentration of anti-air assets just imagine how much better fifth generation stealth fighters would do.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I feel like the MBT got somewhat redeemed at Kharkiv when it finally managed to fulfil its intended duty of punching through the enemy lines and creating a gap for mechanised unit to exploit.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The main difference between the Ukrainian Kharkiv offensive and the Russian utilization of the MBT aside from a handful of offensives is the numbers and infantry cover. Like we've seen in countless videos in Ukraine having one to two tanks aimlessly driving around in a field is just asking to get blown up or disabled by your anti-tank system of choice. Ukraine figured out the impossible by instead of having a couple of tanks spearheading an assault they instead used formations of like 10-20 tanks at once to spearhead the assault with rapidly dismounting infantry ready to move to the objective. It's obvious that even with proper utilization of the main battle tank there will be casualties but if you play it slow with no infantry cover you are just begging the enemy light infantry to set up more ambushes with the time given to them.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >the attack helicopter that now is getting fucked by literally everything
      IMO much of their role will be delegated to bayraktar-style drones in the future. Much, much cheaper, longer range and loitering times. They can't linger in place, but when the only viable weapons become long ranged missiles, they don't really need to either.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The drone is the most misunderstood thing in Ukraine. People like yourself seem to have this idea that the TB 2 is some magic weapon that can replace anything. It can't. It's a big, slow, and unmanuverable drone that really can't operate in AA heavy environments. It's really optimized for killing terrorists. The only reason why it did so well in the early war was because the Russians were regularly outrunning their air defenses. All those videos started to dry up once the lines solidified. HARM gets introduced along with big offensives, TB2 gets some use again.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I heard it's too small/low emission for Soviet AA to target. Maybe it's bullshit, I don't know.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That is 100% bullshit. Soviet AA (and Russian), despite PrepHole's usual assumptions, are fairly capable.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?
              nah

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              pantsir armenia.webm

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >That is 100% bullshit. Soviet AA (and Russian), despite PrepHole's usual assumptions, ACCCCCK

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Probably the fault of the eternal snoozer

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That is 100% bullshit. Soviet AA (and Russian), despite PrepHole's usual assumptions, are fairly capable.

            What would happen though if we built a drone of similar payload with state of the art stealth tech? The turks can't do that, and it would be much more expensive than a bayraktar, but it might still be worth it.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >that can replace anything
          Not what I said. I said it can replace the helicopter.
          Because
          >can't operate in AA heavy environments
          Neither can the helicopter. The direct fire role of the helicopter, which makes use of their lingering in place ability, will be very dubious in future wars against peer enemies. Hence it is only useful as a mobile missile truck, preferably well behind your own lines - which a byraktarcan do cheaper and perhaps better than a helicopter. A bayraktar cannot replace "real" planes and I never suggested it can.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You really should learn a bit about what you are talking about before showing how little you know on the internet.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Quit acting like anything has changed when you've only just begun to pay attention.

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No. Russia is just insanely incompetent plus in an economic and industrial position that leaves them further reluctant to lose any aircraft. The war itself is unpopular so it's also not like they can mobilize either so they basically ended up in a Vietnam situation on steroids. The fact they can't even hold onto gains and are losing territory is actually one of the more mind-blowing moments in modern history. Right when you think it cant get worse for them it gets worse. Holy shit the Chinese should fund the communist party coup soon and just make the second USSR but as a crippled puppet state for China.

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Not irrelevant. And it has been a factor in the war.
    In the first few months, one of the most important issues was Zenelsky asking for a no fly zone nd jets.

    What actually happened is that the air defenses afflicted a serious attrition on the Russian air force. And realizing this is going to be a long war, they decided they cannot afford this, and they're not going to burn their existing air force "just to take Ukraine".
    What happened is what everyone knew already - that modern and semi modern aircraft cannot be mass produced on a WW2 level, losses can not be realistically be replaced, and in the event of a war, everyone fights with their existing stocks, and cannot expect to product much more besides that.

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

Your email address will not be published.