> 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.
> 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 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.
>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.
> 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.
> 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.
> Air support is as vulnerable to MANPADs as tanks are to a Javelin
They are not, the fact the Russians have lost so many planes is a testament to their inability to suppress the Ukrainian air defense.
Fighters are capable of flying far higher than MANPAD ceilings the only reason to fly that low is to employ visually guided weapons under cloud cover or to attempt to hide behind the terrain against longer range air defense systems.
Both of these issues can be resolved. By suppressing the enemy long range air defense and by employing laser guided weapons along with ground based designators.
Also fighters can evade missiles, google f16 dodges 6 sams for an extreme example.
> 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.
> The unique situation here is that Russia had deployed extremely sophisticated surface-to-air batteries.
Single launcher. Full battery has 4 launchers and a significantly more sophisticated radar. Arguably that radar would have helped to sort between Ukrainian observation plane and civilian Boeing.
> "Consider the A10 in the current Ukrainian war: CAS is impossible because both sides have too much antiair."
Not really. It's true that anti-air has prevented aircraft from dominating the battlefield, but both sides still use jets and helicopters to come in at low altitude, fire off a bunch of rockets, do a quick U-turn (releasing a bunch of flares) and run away.
Both sides use MI-8s and SU-25s. Not sure if Ukraine has MI-28s, but Russia does. Both sides use glide bombs to hit fortified defense lines.
The Russian KA-52s in particular have been very effective lately because they have guided missiles and night vision equipment, and don't even have to be very close to the front.
If MI-8s, MI-28s, SU-25s, and KA-52s are all being actively used in this war and aren't immediately shot down, I don't see why an A-10 would fare any worse in that situation. Might not be a game-changer, but not useless either.
> We now know that the Russian air force is much less capable than some believed it was.
I'm fairly certain Russia has not bothered to unleash their T-50 PAK's against Ukraine, so that remains to be seen doesn't it? And from all available literature those are at least on par with the F-22 if not slightly better.
Now the B-21 Raider (bomber, not a fighter) is probably without peer currently. That thing looks like a UFO.
>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.
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.
> 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.
> Latest HARM has a 150km range. Kh-58 has a 250km range.
> Where are the F-16s going to take off from (they need pristine runways)?
Probably relatively far from the action.
> Who will maintain them?
Ukrainians its one of the reasons why its taking so long for them to get them.
> How will they refuel without airtankers (they don't have enough range to make it to Donbas and back).
They don't have to fight at the front line, they can be used effectively as missile trucks to throw long range weapons like Storm Shadow and other long range weapons at Russian lines.
If a SU25 and Mig29 can survive doing that a F-16 will have no problem.
> How will they avoid the R37M (300km range) when the AMRAAM is not even 200km? And what about Russian SAMs and EW?
The same way that the SU25 and Mig29 do, the F-16 will survive much better.
> Total Russian losses of multirole/fighter/attack aircraft are estimated at only 42[1] compared to a possible in-service count of approximately 1228[2], for a 3% loss so far.
Comparing losses at a forward operating base to the total number of aircraft in inventory is not very useful. For any military the total number of aircraft in inventory isn't the total force available at any given time. Out of the total inventory there's different levels of readiness.
Losing a bunch of forward deployed operational aircraft is a huge blow to Russia's air power in the region. To replace them they need to strip aircraft from other units at operational readiness decreasing every unit's total air power. It's not Starcraft where a unit can fly from factory to the front lines.
Additionally losing so many aircraft at a base deep in Russian claimed territory changes the power balance in the region. They can now fly fewer sorties and have a lower density of coverage.
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.
reply