1) It never existed much
2) They are saving it for a hypothetical conflict with NATO
3) Turns out MANPADS too stronk, they backed off
4) Something else?
Where is the Russian Airforce?
1) It never existed much
2) They are saving it for a hypothetical conflict with NATO
3) Turns out MANPADS too stronk, they backed off
4) Something else?
5) get on the floor walk the dinosaur
No SEAD
effectively useless then in any further war not against a third world country?
USA can SEAD the entire world
They can’t sead
Would it be accurate to say that there has been essentially no air-to-air combat in Ukraine?
no, there were a number of air-to-air engagements early on and in May, you just don't hear about them because Russia got shit on
Why wouldn't western media report on Russian losses?
they did, briefly, and then they moved on, same thing in May. it's hard to get good footage and ultimately not that important compared to the land battle due to both sides' dysfunctional air forces; I'm just pointing out that "essentially no" air-to-air is incorrect
as far as why this is poorly reported, negativity and are much more popular stories so Western media points out anything fun that happens exactly once. Meanwhile, Russians spam (often fabricated) "good news" for morale so you'd hear about it non-stop if they won such engagements, ergo, they didn't
it's kind of humiliating to consistently lose to MiG-29s, but that is life as a Russian pilot
They don't have the communication infrastructure to properly command a large force to carry out complex operations.
The Russian airforce has mostly been firing off missiles from a distance or doing CAS with SU-25's and helicopters which has been doing a decent job(given the circumstances)
But yeah, the modern Russian Military doesn't have the ability to carry out any Gulf War shit. Maybe Rolling Thunder but they know carpet bombing Western Ukraine wouldn't play out diplomatically
Yeah no, your
>muh ghost of kiev
Was proved to be literal nonsense and the Russian and Ukrainian airforces are both equally incompetent.
I don't think there has been a single air to air engagement, even in the first weeks of the war the only time we saw Ukrainian planes flying is when that MiG-29 was strafing gostomel as a CAS/Anti-Helicopter
They Russian air force is honestly used somewhat effectively now.
Speaking with people on the frontlines the Russians effectively have complete air supremacy within a few miles of the fighting areas (which is where it most matters) as they launch airstrikes from beyond manpad range staying over Russian controlled areas.
They fly low coming in, than go up before the strike to hit further away and than turn back and fly low to base.
This is good for morale as their troops get to see them and to call in air strikes and they are quite effective even if often lack precision as the Russian command avoids using modern types of guided munitions whenever possible as they are expensive.
However when they have to fly much further behind the Ukrainian front to strike targets like the HIMARS than they get exposed to S-300s and the like when flying high (which they can at times survive by using chaff) and they get exposed to manpads if they fly low (which often are very hard to avoid as there is rarely enough time to deploy flares and anyway flares don't work against some manpads like starstreak) so they generally try to avoid flying over Ukrainian territory at all and limit themselves at launching bombs on the Ukrainian frontile and about 30km behind it while staying over Russian territory).
When there is an high value target they usually use ballistic missiles or much more expensive long range missiles that even if launched by a plane it have enough range to avoid exposing the plane.
This way they almost lost almost no planes recently.
Of course this only works when you have a pretty linear frontline and you don't try to do deep and narrow offensives like the moronic version of the thunder run the Russians tried to pull of going to Kiev in the first few days, as planes were exposed from all kinds of AA from at least 3 sides to be able to support the front of the spearhead during such offensives.
>(which is where it most matters)
Unless you have a very small, mobile, target that you need to hit a few miles deep into enemy territory. A target, let's say, that has been fricking your entire logistic/ammo storage system for the past couple weeks without pause.
If only Russia could do something about that 🙂
I'd add to this that it is likely that majority of Russian "elite pilots" got killed or captured during the early days. It is those elites who were supposed to run the deep strikes, so russians may have difficulty with that for a reason.
Personally i think that the reason is more that Russia really can't afford to replace large numbers of planes, while they do have thousands of tanks to refurbish and upgrade left over from the USSR they only have a limited number of planes and the economy of Russia can't easily afford to produce very large amounts of planes anymore without going broke. Also some planes are almost irreplaceable which is why we haven't seen Russian long range strategic jet bombers used besides near the end of the Mariupol bombardments when they were very sure that they wouldn't be shot down. Very few things would be as painful for the Russians as Ukrainian smoooookers burning down a bunch of their jet strategic bombers parked in Russia as they are insanely expensive and one of the most modern planes they have having been a very late Soviet design. Also losing them would greatly decrease the Russian long range strike capabilities.
Planes aren't the problem, it's pilots. Even their most experiences pilots have a fraction of the flight hours of even a national guardsman.
>you shouldn't be using your superweapon because you might lose it
Exactly how armatas are winning this war.
>Russhit thinks air superiority is most important within a few km of the front.
>complete air supremacy within a few miles of the fighting areas (which is where it most matters)
So in short they have no air superiority and cannot project air power against fricking Ukraine beyond their own frontline. Gotcha, superpower indeed.
Someone has already pointed this out, but I will try to expand it further.
Saying that you air supremacy within a few miles of the front and that is fine means that you are either: Poor, Russian or using your air force wrong. The whole point of the air force is to transcend the idea that the only thing that exists in war is what you are fighting right in front of you and everything behind that is left to maybe artillery or some special operations, having an actual air force means that there is nothing safe in all the enemy territory because you strike it, watch it or drop forces on top of it and get away from it.
That's the whole reason why the air force is a separate branch and not part of the army, as it was, because the "bomber always gets through" so if there is a congress, and factory, a training camp, airport or antenna complex or wathever it's not safe and will be targeted and this will affect the people at the front by making their life extremely difficult to the point where whatever they do becomes pointless since the enemy is always going over their heads.
That's why achieving air supremacy is so paramount in modern warfare, that's why russhits got so wet with their S-400 and forget about their failed pak-fa because they are so focused on being a land power that they have never really experienced what it means to have an I win button and people at home b***hing how unmanly war has turned when they can just airstrike guerrilla forces and go home to cry about PTSD, also, they are poor and cannot afford a true air force like the US can so there is also a bit of cope in that.
So, no they don't have "air supremacy" if they only operate near the front, in fact it's not even "air superiority" what they have it's the "see? I'm not a loser syndrome" because they can't say that they fricked up this whole "special operation" with a straight face.
>air supremacy within a few miles of the fighting areas (which is where it most matters)
This is utterly false. Air Supremacy is a strategic concept, not a tactical one. Having dominance over the battlefield is great, but if it's a war with another nation-state, their means of production/resupply/training/re-fit aren't on the frontlines. Air Supremacy would mean you've established total control of the air when you intend to operate, and allows you effectively carte blanche to run strikes against critical, strategic infrastructure and command sites. Russia can't SEAD or DEAD, and they're sure as shit not running deep strike interdiction sorties on men, material, and supplies. Of all the institutions of the Russian Armed Forces that've made a poor showing, their Air Force is among the worst. Their marines have done alright in the south though, especially the early days.
much obligated senor
Basically: "we got our asses kicked in the early war and now don't have air superiority outside of our own AA defensive line"
I heard they don't have good friend or foe identification, which causes problems since both Russia and Ukraine use mainly former Soviet equipment. So they can't just wait around until they can identify targets. This won't be a problem when they invade another country, though. This is a lot more believable then the pro-ukraine reddit stories homosexuals here love
A combination of 3 and 4, they are scared of Anti-Air and a large part of the airforce is still stationed away from Ukraine
The air space over eastern Ukraine due to both Ukrainian and Russian anti-air is so lethal as to have effectively shut down all but the most limited fast air sorties. The only things that can survive for meaningful durations and purposes are short range drones. Infantry portable ordnance is potent to the point of shutting down the armored vehicle game.
It’s WWI warfare where artillery and infantry are once again the kings of the battlefield. Movement has been similarly stymied, casualties are high, trenches are common.
1) In the opening hours of the war they were unwilling/unable to destroy a critical mass of AA installation and C3 centers
2) Inadequate SEAD doctrine and aircraft for dismantling a complex IADS that is now on war footing
3) Points 1 and 2 mean the skies are effectively closed over Ukraine for high-medium altitude flight
4) Proliferation of manpads + still extant Ukrainian air force means low altitude flight is risky
5) Russian airforce does not have the airframes or maintenance crews to sustain high intensity operations
6) Other defense priorities mean Russia cannot divert air units as easily as ground units
7) Poor intelligence, uneven coordination with ground forces, and limited numbers of accurate PGMs curtail impact of air strikes
Russia can't achieve true superiority to risk their planes, and those planes are now effectively irreplaceable. Russia had issues filling export orders BEFORE the crimea annexation, post 2014 I can't imagine they had an easy time sourcing parts. Now? There's no way to get a lot of important parts. So Russia can't really afford to risk planes since they can, at best, make only small batches of them and that's being generous.
Something like an Su-35 may as well be those battleships in Warhammer 40k that are essentially lost technologies and are thus so risky to use you just keep them in the back in case you have to. And that's the problem. If Russia uses them, they risk losing them to the point NATO would have undisputed sky dominance (which they will anyway overall, but maybe not in one specific part of the theater if the Russians can concentrate enough Su-35s to challenge F16s or F15s or even EU force typhoons/rafales). If they don't use them, then they never achieve true air dominance
And thus we're in the current situation where Russian bombers use standoff missiles far from the front, because if Russia lost more than a few bombers or top fighters it may represent an irreplaceable loss in capability. They aren't like the Americans where if we lose a few B1 or B-52s we'll just buy more upcoming B21s to compensate. Russia has nothing in the pipeline as a real replacement, and even their new next gen planes they make in almost artisanal small batches like a high end bakery. In contrast the Americans are pooping out F-35s constantly. I'm pretty sure we have more wing formations of F-35s across the navy, AF, and Marines than they do total SU-57 planes. They have like, 10 in service and probably won't have more than two dozen ever barring someone like China outright making them for the Russians
The official vatnik cope logic goes like this
>we make the best AA defenses
>Our AA defenses so good, that even ancient AA Ukraine stole from Soviet Union is giving us trouble
>So you see, current weakness is not, actually, weakness
>but point of stronkness for brave liberating forces
The combat zone in Ukraine is packed with very powerful long-range air defenses on both sides, so it is very rare for Ukraine to use aviation on the front, and Russia shoots only from afar, this is not for you to fight with sandy Black folk on aircraft carriers
The concept of a separate Air Force was never really embraced — there was nothing in Soviet military history that air power played a decisive role; air power was meant to provide a third dimension to the land battle. Soviet fighters tended to be fighter-bombers or interceptors, with the Su-27 "Flanker" not arriving until 1986.
Well in defense of the vatniks they did have strategic bombers and airlift capabilities with global reach along with awacs and antisubmarine capabilities... which probably was to keep themselves symmetric to the USA in terms of capabilities but at least they did have an air force with strategic orientation, maybe not so commited like NATO but hey, it's there.
Even the US Airforce wasn't that great or decisive until it moved away from focusing on awesome but inflexible strategic bombers to the much more flexible multi-role fighters towards late Cold War with conflicts like the Six Day War showing the way to the future.
they can't avoid getting shot down.
if they fly missions over Ukraine they just lose more pilots and planes they can't afford to replace.
In the first 24 hours of the Gulf War there were nearly 3,000 sorties launched to strike Iraq.
It’s taken Russia 5 months to run the same number of sorties over Ukrainian air space and usually they happen far behind their own lines.
The disparity between American and Russian air power is unironically hard to describe.
They're absolutely not hitting anything with the lobbing tactic. Even if their ballistic computers can work on that trajectory, the fact is they are still doing the airborne version of spray & pray. This is simply to pretend to fight. The RuAF wants to protect their airframes and pilots so they pretend to fight, and propaganda dutifully pretends that they're doing something.