> There isn't anything in the air for the ukrainians.
According to news reports, the Ukrainian air force and their unmanned planes (UAVs) are flying and fighting, and having a real effect on Russian ground forces. Other countries are sending additional planes.
>Dogfights are not happening regularly in Ukraine.
They are happening far more regularly than US Air Force doctrine calls for, which is never. Posessing total air superiority is baked into nearly every decision.
> The Russians don't rely as much combat air support -
Russia is not using aircraft in Ukraine because regular Russian military is not "technically" there. It's kinda hard to deny your presence if your planes are bombing the country. Most of Ukraine's meager air fleet was grounded in the beginning of conflict so that whole thing turned into artillery war.
On another hand take a look at Syria. Pretty much everything Russia does there is air support.
> The Air Force with an estimated strength somewhere stern that of algeria and chile?
It’s amazing that such a small airforce manages to prevent russia from gaining air superiority and even manages to effectively conduct sorties isn’t it.
Just shows you how different it is when your the invading force. russias airforce losses largely outsize Ukraines even though Ukraine has a smaller airforce and they older planes.
Maybe because they've barely been training those pilots and know the planes would likely be lost if used above Ukraine? Pilots in the Russian Air Force have supposedly been averaging less than 100 flight hours a year, which is next to nothing.
>In Ukraine, I understand, much of the defence against Russian missiles pounding civilians is done from aircraft in the sky, not with rockets from the ground.
Ground based systems still do majority of the work, although this might be for the acute lack of air force.
> Even looking at total aircraft losses per side per month, the worst case is Ukraine with 307 losses over 19 months or 16.2 per month.
Unless this includes UAV's (which would be a bit strange) I don't see how this is even possible Ukraines airforce doesn't even have 300 combat aircraft.
Looking at most sources I cannot find where this number could have come from.
> Weren’t these the signature weapons because Ukraine doesn’t have much of an air force?
It's because they're cheap, easy to deploy, and effective. And Russian planes need to fly low because of other anti air weapons and a general lack of precision munitions.
> The Kalibr missile is quite sufficient for striking stationary objects, so you don't need planes for those.
Perhaps, but how many of those does Russia actually have? Whenever I read reports of US Tomahawk inventory, I'm always surprised by how few they actually have in inventory (e.g. guessing they'd run out quickly in a hot war).
> Air supremacy is already achieved (almost all Ukrainian war planes and strike drones have been shot down)
My understanding is that's not true. The airspace is contested, since neither Russia nor Ukraine have full control.
I don't see how that excuses their failure to achieve air superiority. The Ukrainian Air Force still manages to fly manned and unmanned missions and harass Russian equipment and logistics.
> I would be really curious what an A10 pilot's take on this would be.
An Su-25 pilot’s take would be more relevant, but I don't think Ukraine's Su-25 are flying a lot of sorties right now. (And even Russia’s, which seem to be flying more, aren’t having a great time.)
Neither side is able to suppress the others air defenses (airborne or ground based) enough for tank-killer jets to be used at anything like full effectiveness.
Not true. They are still flying.
reply