Air Power and it's role in modern warfare

Militarov wrote:

sepheronx wrote:So you are saying Russia would lose too, on an invasion on its own land even though they have new equipment, strongest IADS, and advanced aircrafts because somehow US/NATO outmatches them? Logistics means nothing?

If Iraq had all of that, they would win. The amount of forces engaged against Iraq were smaller than Iraqi overall forces. It was horrifically out of date and poorly trained. If not why do you think the US would win? Cause of hollywood? You make no sense. Your answer borderline of just because USA, Southern redneck style.

The only determining factor of what you may be saying is Iraqi willingness to fight.

How did you come to that conclusion and where did i say that?

I said that airforce today is winning wars and is main tool in modern warfare i never mentioned Russia.


I hate that "Russian airdefence is better than US airforce" talk, like kids arguing whos dad is stronger. And i would like to skip on it if possible.

No, Iraq would never win, dont be silly. What does it even mean "to win" when 20+ countries with combined forces is attacking you together with every your neighbour basically supporting it? Win how, in what? And having Kurds attacking you on every corner, your own citizens.

It would just prolonge war for another few weeks and another 40.000 dead. And some increase in NATO loses, what would be the point of that?

Its like saying how Germany would win WW2 just if they had better equipment. If you gave them equipment from 70s they would have lost anyways simply coz whole rest of the world was fighting them...

Answer the question. Would you think NATO would win against Russia? Cause they are in similar position.

When I say win, as in defeated Russian forces in Russia and install bases.

sepheronx wrote:

Militarov wrote:

sepheronx wrote:So you are saying Russia would lose too, on an invasion on its own land even though they have new equipment, strongest IADS, and advanced aircrafts because somehow US/NATO outmatches them? Logistics means nothing?

If Iraq had all of that, they would win. The amount of forces engaged against Iraq were smaller than Iraqi overall forces. It was horrifically out of date and poorly trained. If not why do you think the US would win? Cause of hollywood? You make no sense. Your answer borderline of just because USA, Southern redneck style.

The only determining factor of what you may be saying is Iraqi willingness to fight.

How did you come to that conclusion and where did i say that?

I said that airforce today is winning wars and is main tool in modern warfare i never mentioned Russia.

I hate that "Russian airdefence is better than US airforce" talk, like kids arguing whos dad is stronger. And i would like to skip on it if possible.

No, Iraq would never win, dont be silly. What does it even mean "to win" when 20+ countries with combined forces is attacking you together with every your neighbour basically supporting it? Win how, in what? And having Kurds attacking you on every corner, your own citizens.

It would just prolonge war for another few weeks and another 40.000 dead. And some increase in NATO loses, what would be the point of that?

Its like saying how Germany would win WW2 just if they had better equipment. If you gave them equipment from 70s they would have lost anyways simply coz whole rest of the world was fighting them...

Answer the question. Would you think NATO would win against Russia? Cause they are in similar position.

I cant and wont answer that. There are dozens of variables that affect that answer, hence i cant answer it without mathematical model.

Give me your opinion using current knowledge and how everything is operating now. When I say win, I am talking about Russia being able to push invaders out or force them to pull out of region.

I think Russia can, even if their situation is similar to Iraq was. But with newer gear and better training.

sepheronx wrote:Give me your opinion using current knowledge and how everything is operating now. When I say win, I am talking about Russia being able to push invaders out or force them to pull out of region.

I think Russia can, even if their situation is similar to Iraq was. But with newer gear and better training.

If NATO tried same attack models as they used them in Iraq, first few days would be fucked up for both sides. But i think Russians would be able to defend major industrial and military centers. Issue is Russian size, for both sides in different aspects.

However i think Russian Navy would be badly hurt there.

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

Militarov wrote:

x_54_u43 wrote:

wilhelm wrote:
Don't stress about it too much, Elbows.

x_54_u43, Elbows was pretty neutral, and didn't exactly pick on any nation over another.
I really can't see why he deserved the slight dig?

Either way, I was glad when I was a soldier back in the day that I was an infantryman.

On that note, forgive me if I haven't been following as closely as I should the progression of Armata, but is it still in State Trials, or have those been concluded now?
If they are concluded, is there a date that it is to be inducted into service? I seem to recall reading on this site that a production order was announced the other day.

Anyone who thinks air power can significantly affect ground power is a retard, simply put.

Russian air force or American, it makes no difference.

Contract for Armata have begun.

And yet, Iraq and Libya were obliterated by air power in matter of days. Same happened to Germans on Western Front, and to Egyptians and Syrians in wars with Israel... Air power wins the war there is not even a spot for discussion on that matter.

Under full air superiority of the enemy there is very little you can do on the ground, at the best you can do what we did in Serbia... hide, run, evacuate. When you actually operate with your armored and mechanised units while enemy has full air superiority you can only hope they do not have good battlefield awareness or that weater is too challenging for them to perform airstrikes.

I do not agree on this. The war in Ukraine is an example of how today can be stablished an space of air interdiction based only on land surface-air warfare, without a need of air superiority.

Maybe because of incompentent, outdated and few in numbers Ukrainian airforce? Here we are talking about real air superiority, where enemy actually can fly and perform high precision airstrikes and control airspace.

I do not agree. Until now the kind of air superiority that you commented has been based on low vulnerability of the air platforms, but in the case of Ukraine, the Surface-Air weapons proved to be able to destroy every platform fliying, until a point where the alone good tactic for air warfare is to avoid to fly.

Future wars between armed forces with enough developed surface-air weapons, are likely to produce spaces of air interdiction for both sides, like is the Donbass now. The air superiority only works to crush fairly weaker countries that have not enough good surface-air weapons.

The military tactics based on air superiority to destroy land warfare are old and outdated stuf to fight with modern adversaries since the massive development and deployment of surface-air manpads and the improvement of the accuracy of the bigger surface-air platforms.

You are aware that i am Air defence officer right?

Ukrainians lost their borts due to:

1. Bad flying
2. Bad mission planning
3. Outdated warload and airframes

Aganist decent airforce MANPAD-s wont be even remotelly effective as it was aganist Ukrainians or SyAF.

That is why SEAD exists duh, to deal with integrated air defence. Iraqis had more SAM launchers than some countries MANPAD-s, and what good it did to them with all the jamming and Wild Weasels flying around. What good it did to us in Yugoslavia when we werent able to turn our radars on most of the time.

Air defence is king of warfare, was, is and will be for long time.

I'm sure that you know that Novorrussia had access to far better land surface-air systems (not only manpads) than the systems used by your country in the 1990s or by Irak years later. Also I'm sure you know that Novorrussia proved to be able to destroy every type of aircraft flying, and proved to be able to destroy units of the Ukranian aviation fast enough to cause unsustainable damage to the Ukranian aviation. This is the main reason of the air interdiction stablished in Donbass.

Your comment is not right. If the reason of the Ukranian aviation failure would be based on tactics, Ukraine would have solved it in these 2 years, having American advisors (the supposed "masters in the use of the air superiority"), but the air interdiction continues in Donbass, and the tanks of Novorrussia fall not to the Ukranian aviation despite to be not Armatas.

Now now, Air power will have huge issues in many scenarios. Iraq wasn't one, because Iraq couldn't properly devise a different battle plan. They tried in 2003 and were mauled badly. It's a whole ballpark taking on coutries with a different mentality. But at the end, raw firepower will win it; And the air power is part of that huge stick. Getting the boot like "moderats" did in the end of february, will not do any good to your ground forces.

eehnie wrote:

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

Militarov wrote:

x_54_u43 wrote:

wilhelm wrote:
Don't stress about it too much, Elbows.

x_54_u43, Elbows was pretty neutral, and didn't exactly pick on any nation over another.
I really can't see why he deserved the slight dig?

Either way, I was glad when I was a soldier back in the day that I was an infantryman.

On that note, forgive me if I haven't been following as closely as I should the progression of Armata, but is it still in State Trials, or have those been concluded now?
If they are concluded, is there a date that it is to be inducted into service? I seem to recall reading on this site that a production order was announced the other day.

Anyone who thinks air power can significantly affect ground power is a retard, simply put.

Russian air force or American, it makes no difference.

Contract for Armata have begun.

And yet, Iraq and Libya were obliterated by air power in matter of days. Same happened to Germans on Western Front, and to Egyptians and Syrians in wars with Israel... Air power wins the war there is not even a spot for discussion on that matter.

Under full air superiority of the enemy there is very little you can do on the ground, at the best you can do what we did in Serbia... hide, run, evacuate. When you actually operate with your armored and mechanised units while enemy has full air superiority you can only hope they do not have good battlefield awareness or that weater is too challenging for them to perform airstrikes.

I do not agree on this. The war in Ukraine is an example of how today can be stablished an space of air interdiction based only on land surface-air warfare, without a need of air superiority.

Maybe because of incompentent, outdated and few in numbers Ukrainian airforce? Here we are talking about real air superiority, where enemy actually can fly and perform high precision airstrikes and control airspace.

I do not agree. Until now the kind of air superiority that you commented has been based on low vulnerability of the air platforms, but in the case of Ukraine, the Surface-Air weapons proved to be able to destroy every platform fliying, until a point where the alone good tactic for air warfare is to avoid to fly.

Future wars between armed forces with enough developed surface-air weapons, are likely to produce spaces of air interdiction for both sides, like is the Donbass now. The air superiority only works to crush fairly weaker countries that have not enough good surface-air weapons.

The military tactics based on air superiority to destroy land warfare are old and outdated stuf to fight with modern adversaries since the massive development and deployment of surface-air manpads and the improvement of the accuracy of the bigger surface-air platforms.

You are aware that i am Air defence officer right?

Ukrainians lost their borts due to:

1. Bad flying
2. Bad mission planning
3. Outdated warload and airframes

Aganist decent airforce MANPAD-s wont be even remotelly effective as it was aganist Ukrainians or SyAF.

That is why SEAD exists duh, to deal with integrated air defence. Iraqis had more SAM launchers than some countries MANPAD-s, and what good it did to them with all the jamming and Wild Weasels flying around. What good it did to us in Yugoslavia when we werent able to turn our radars on most of the time.

Air defence is king of warfare, was, is and will be for long time.

I'm sure that you know that Novorrussia had access to far better land surface-air systems (not only manpads) than the systems used by your country in the 1990s or by Irak years later. Also I'm sure you know that Novorrussia proved to be able to destroy every type of aircraft flying, and proved to be able to destroy units of the Ukranian aviation fast enough to cause unsustainable damage to the Ukranian aviation. This is the main reason of the air interdiction stablished in Donbass.

Your comment is not right. If the reason of the Ukranian aviation failure would be based on tactics, Ukraine would have solved it in these 2 years, having American advisors (the supposed "masters in the use of the air superiority"), but the air interdiction continues in Donbass, and the tanks of Novorrussia fall not to the Ukranian aviation despite to be not Armatas.

Systems like? Coz from what we are aware Novorossians never had complete battery of any SAM. Only confirmed air defence systems used by Novorossia are Strela-10, Strela-2M and Igla. In Serbia we had alot more in terms of infrastructure, command posts and communication networks and VOJIN than Novorossia will ever probably. Its uncomparable.

Ukrainians havent been flying basically most of the 2015. as they did not have what to fly with.

Not problem with tactics? They used MiG29 to launch unguided 81mm unguided ammunition... They flew Mi-24s into strike missions like they are frontline bombers...

Anyways since majority of your posts looks like you are Vanns brother i will try not to reply to bs anymore.

KoTeMoRe wrote:Now now, Air power will have huge issues in many scenarios. Iraq wasn't one, because Iraq couldn't properly devise a different battle plan. They tried in 2003 and were mauled badly. It's a whole ballpark taking on coutries with a different mentality. But at the end, raw firepower will win it; And the air power is part of that huge stick. Getting the boot like "moderats" did in the end of february, will not do any good to your ground forces.

Half of forum is watching Rambo like military literature, thinking how guys with M60s and muscles are winning the wars.

KoTeMoRe wrote:Now now, Air power will have huge issues in many scenarios. Iraq wasn't one, because Iraq couldn't properly devise a different battle plan. They tried in 2003 and were mauled badly. It's a whole ballpark taking on coutries with a different mentality. But at the end, raw firepower will win it; And the air power is part of that huge stick. Getting the boot like "moderats" did in the end of february, will not do any good to your ground forces.

Doesn't seem like Airpower was doing any good for USA and allies in Iraq and Afghanistan, hence why they needed guys on the ground in the end.

In a conflict with a nation who has modern SHORADS like Pantsir-S1/2, much of those fighter jets are toast.  What will be cheaper and easier to replace? Not the jet, that is for sure.  A nation with a strong IADS will have a field day against US assets in the air, especially now that they are introducing new electronic warfare systems to purposely f*** with US guidance systems and smart bombs, let alone radar.  All the while they open their bases up to attacks from missiles due to the fact the radar systems will pick up the location where those planes fly from.

Real threat is salvo strikes IMO, launched from either jets or from ground based systems.  As doing long range bombardments en mass, is the major threat against Russian IADS cause eventually one will get through and hit the system.  Works vise versa too.

Militarov wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:Now now, Air power will have huge issues in many scenarios. Iraq wasn't one, because Iraq couldn't properly devise a different battle plan. They tried in 2003 and were mauled badly. It's a whole ballpark taking on coutries with a different mentality. But at the end, raw firepower will win it; And the air power is part of that huge stick. Getting the boot like "moderats" did in the end of february, will not do any good to your ground forces.

Half of forum is watching Rambo like military literature, thinking how guys with M60s and muscles are winning the wars.

Sure sounds like it is the other way around.  But instead of watching Rambo, sure sounds like Top Gun. Air power is good to have and very important, but the importance I think you guys are overstating here.

sepheronx wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:Now now, Air power will have huge issues in many scenarios. Iraq wasn't one, because Iraq couldn't properly devise a different battle plan. They tried in 2003 and were mauled badly. It's a whole ballpark taking on coutries with a different mentality. But at the end, raw firepower will win it; And the air power is part of that huge stick. Getting the boot like "moderats" did in the end of february, will not do any good to your ground forces.

Doesn't seem like Airpower was doing any good for USA and allies in Iraq and Afghanistan, hence why they needed guys on the ground in the end.

In a conflict with a nation who has modern SHORADS like Pantsir-S1/2, much of those fighter jets are toast.  What will be cheaper and easier to replace? Not the jet, that is for sure.  A nation with a strong IADS will have a field day against US assets in the air, especially now that they are introducing new electronic warfare systems to purposely f*** with US guidance systems and smart bombs, let alone radar.  All the while they open their bases up to attacks from missiles due to the fact the radar systems will pick up the location where those planes fly from.

Real threat is salvo strikes IMO, launched from either jets or from ground based systems.  As doing long range bombardments en mass, is the major threat against Russian IADS cause eventually one will get through and hit the system.  Works vise versa too.

Militarov wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:Now now, Air power will have huge issues in many scenarios. Iraq wasn't one, because Iraq couldn't properly devise a different battle plan. They tried in 2003 and were mauled badly. It's a whole ballpark taking on coutries with a different mentality. But at the end, raw firepower will win it; And the air power is part of that huge stick. Getting the boot like "moderats" did in the end of february, will not do any good to your ground forces.

Half of forum is watching Rambo like military literature, thinking how guys with M60s and muscles are winning the wars.

Sure sounds like it is the other way around.  But instead of watching Rambo, sure sounds like Top Gun.  Air power is good to have and very important, but the importance I think you guys are overstating here.

Naturally they needed to perform land assault too, what kind of invasion would it be without land operation? -.- However 87% of Iraqi army assets were destroyed from the air, merging naturally both Navy, Air Force, Marines and Army air wing. Statistically Air force is almost always "carrying" the operations or Navy, depending on situation.

NATO countries have more production potential in terms of aircraft than Russians have in SHORAD-s atm, let alone fact that majority of tools used in Russian industry have either Western components or are of foreign origin. You lack strategic views on the matter.  Let alone fact that factories would be targeted first in case of war, to prevent exacly that.

How comes NATO doesnt have Air Defence protecting their airfields?

Suddenly NATO does not have EW capabilities only Russia... Yet USAF and Navy operate like.. what near 200 EW aircraft or so?

Can we like stop now this pointless discussion as i dont have alot of patience for either American or Russian armchair generals that havent even served in Fire brigade.

Also i never watched Top Gun.

Militarov wrote:

sepheronx wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:Now now, Air power will have huge issues in many scenarios. Iraq wasn't one, because Iraq couldn't properly devise a different battle plan. They tried in 2003 and were mauled badly. It's a whole ballpark taking on coutries with a different mentality. But at the end, raw firepower will win it; And the air power is part of that huge stick. Getting the boot like "moderats" did in the end of february, will not do any good to your ground forces.

Doesn't seem like Airpower was doing any good for USA and allies in Iraq and Afghanistan, hence why they needed guys on the ground in the end.

In a conflict with a nation who has modern SHORADS like Pantsir-S1/2, much of those fighter jets are toast.  What will be cheaper and easier to replace? Not the jet, that is for sure.  A nation with a strong IADS will have a field day against US assets in the air, especially now that they are introducing new electronic warfare systems to purposely f*** with US guidance systems and smart bombs, let alone radar.  All the while they open their bases up to attacks from missiles due to the fact the radar systems will pick up the location where those planes fly from.

Real threat is salvo strikes IMO, launched from either jets or from ground based systems.  As doing long range bombardments en mass, is the major threat against Russian IADS cause eventually one will get through and hit the system.  Works vise versa too.

Militarov wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:Now now, Air power will have huge issues in many scenarios. Iraq wasn't one, because Iraq couldn't properly devise a different battle plan. They tried in 2003 and were mauled badly. It's a whole ballpark taking on coutries with a different mentality. But at the end, raw firepower will win it; And the air power is part of that huge stick. Getting the boot like "moderats" did in the end of february, will not do any good to your ground forces.

Half of forum is watching Rambo like military literature, thinking how guys with M60s and muscles are winning the war

Sure sounds like it is the other way around.  But instead of watching Rambo, sure sounds like Top Gun.  Air power is good to have and very important, but the importance I think you guys are overstating here.

Naturally they needed to perform land assault too, what kind of invasion would it be without land operation? -.- However 87% of Iraqi army assets were destroyed from the air, merging naturally both Navy, Air Force, Marines and Army air wing. Statistically Air force is almost always "carrying" the operations or Navy, depending on situation.

NATO countries have more production potential in terms of aircraft than Russians have in SHORAD-s atm, let alone fact that majority of tools used in Russian industry have either Western components or are of foreign origin. You lack strategic views on the matter.  Let alone fact that factories would be targeted first in case of war, to prevent exacly that.

How comes NATO doesnt have Air Defence protecting their airfields?

Suddenly NATO does not have EW capabilities only Russia... Yet USAF and Navy operate like.. what near 200 EW aircraft or so?

Can we like stop now this pointless discussion as i dont have alot of patience for either American or Russian armchair generals that havent even served in Fire brigade.

Also i never watched Top Gun.

I appreciate the neutral view, let's say that ATO in Ukraine launched and this time Russia intervened officially. And NATO decided it would launch offensives into Russia say through the Baltics and through the Black Sea to destroy Russian military assets. Do you think that NATO can achieve a breakthrough? (speaking strictly about their air power) And what do you think NATO's goals would be in such a operation?

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

Militarov wrote:

x_54_u43 wrote:

wilhelm wrote:
Don't stress about it too much, Elbows.

x_54_u43, Elbows was pretty neutral, and didn't exactly pick on any nation over another.
I really can't see why he deserved the slight dig?

Either way, I was glad when I was a soldier back in the day that I was an infantryman.

On that note, forgive me if I haven't been following as closely as I should the progression of Armata, but is it still in State Trials, or have those been concluded now?
If they are concluded, is there a date that it is to be inducted into service? I seem to recall reading on this site that a production order was announced the other day.

Anyone who thinks air power can significantly affect ground power is a retard, simply put.

Russian air force or American, it makes no difference.

Contract for Armata have begun.

And yet, Iraq and Libya were obliterated by air power in matter of days. Same happened to Germans on Western Front, and to Egyptians and Syrians in wars with Israel... Air power wins the war there is not even a spot for discussion on that matter.

Under full air superiority of the enemy there is very little you can do on the ground, at the best you can do what we did in Serbia... hide, run, evacuate. When you actually operate with your armored and mechanised units while enemy has full air superiority you can only hope they do not have good battlefield awareness or that weater is too challenging for them to perform airstrikes.

I do not agree on this. The war in Ukraine is an example of how today can be stablished an space of air interdiction based only on land surface-air warfare, without a need of air superiority.

Maybe because of incompentent, outdated and few in numbers Ukrainian airforce? Here we are talking about real air superiority, where enemy actually can fly and perform high precision airstrikes and control airspace.

I do not agree. Until now the kind of air superiority that you commented has been based on low vulnerability of the air platforms, but in the case of Ukraine, the Surface-Air weapons proved to be able to destroy every platform fliying, until a point where the alone good tactic for air warfare is to avoid to fly.

Future wars between armed forces with enough developed surface-air weapons, are likely to produce spaces of air interdiction for both sides, like is the Donbass now. The air superiority only works to crush fairly weaker countries that have not enough good surface-air weapons.

The military tactics based on air superiority to destroy land warfare are old and outdated stuf to fight with modern adversaries since the massive development and deployment of surface-air manpads and the improvement of the accuracy of the bigger surface-air platforms.

You are aware that i am Air defence officer right?

Ukrainians lost their borts due to:

1. Bad flying
2. Bad mission planning
3. Outdated warload and airframes

Aganist decent airforce MANPAD-s wont be even remotelly effective as it was aganist Ukrainians or SyAF.

That is why SEAD exists duh, to deal with integrated air defence. Iraqis had more SAM launchers than some countries MANPAD-s, and what good it did to them with all the jamming and Wild Weasels flying around. What good it did to us in Yugoslavia when we werent able to turn our radars on most of the time.

Air defence is king of warfare, was, is and will be for long time.

I'm sure that you know that Novorrussia had access to far better land surface-air systems (not only manpads) than the systems used by your country in the 1990s or by Irak years later. Also I'm sure you know that Novorrussia proved to be able to destroy every type of aircraft flying, and proved to be able to destroy units of the Ukranian aviation fast enough to cause unsustainable damage to the Ukranian aviation. This is the main reason of the air interdiction stablished in Donbass.

Your comment is not right. If the reason of the Ukranian aviation failure would be based on tactics, Ukraine would have solved it in these 2 years, having American advisors (the supposed "masters in the use of the air superiority"), but the air interdiction continues in Donbass, and the tanks of Novorrussia fall not to the Ukranian aviation despite to be not Armatas.

Systems like? Coz from what we are aware Novorossians never had complete battery of any SAM. Only confirmed air defence systems used by Novorossia are Strela-10, Strela-2M and Igla. In Serbia we had alot more in terms of infrastructure, command posts and communication networks and VOJIN than Novorossia will ever probably. Its uncomparable.

Ukrainians havent been flying basically most of the 2015. as they did not have what to fly with.

Not problem with tactics? They used MiG29 to launch unguided 81mm unguided ammunition... They flew Mi-24s into strike missions like they are frontline bombers...

Anyways since majority of your posts looks like you are Vanns brother i will try not to reply to bs anymore.

This is what Ukraine said to fear:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_United_Armed_Forces_of_Novorossiya#Air_Defence_Vehicles

And seriously, you and me know that Novorrussia would have had all the needed land surface-air warfare, this and more if necessary, because the air interdiction was a key part of their military strategy. It makes the Ukranian tacticts a secondary factor.

VladimirSahin wrote:

I appreciate the neutral view, let's say that ATO in Ukraine launched and this time Russia intervened officially. And NATO decided it would launch offensives into Russia say through the Baltics and through the Black Sea to destroy Russian military assets. Do you think that NATO can achieve a breakthrough? (speaking strictly about their air power) And what do you think NATO's goals would be in such a operation?

Lets first say that is very unlikely to happen, but if you put it that way...

They would probably fairly easy deal with Kaliningrad as its defences are quite small in numbers and would probably manage to seize full control over its airspace and nearby waters.

However controlling Russian airspace inside actual Russian "mainland" (lets call it that way) would be more challenging. They would probably fly very intensive SEAD missions to deal with air defences and night precision bombing to try and deal with military infrastructure that exists there.

Its hard to predict results as it all depends who is attacking, with what assets, when...what Russians have on disposal in that moment. They would i suppose have success in border areas of Russia but it would get harder to perform missions deeper they get at least from European side as there radar and air defence coverage is most likely the best.

eehnie wrote:

This is what Ukraine said to fear:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_United_Armed_Forces_of_Novorossiya#Air_Defence_Vehicles

And seriously, you and me know that Novorrussia would have had all the needed land surface-air warfare, this and more if necessary, because the air interdiction was a key part of their military strategy. It makes the Ukranian tacticts a secondary factor.

Wikipedia as a source, good one

Key reason is the overall incompetence of Ukrainian Armed Forces, probably the worst performance of one army since... idk Egypt in six day war.

Militarov wrote:

sepheronx wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:Now now, Air power will have huge issues in many scenarios. Iraq wasn't one, because Iraq couldn't properly devise a different battle plan. They tried in 2003 and were mauled badly. It's a whole ballpark taking on coutries with a different mentality. But at the end, raw firepower will win it; And the air power is part of that huge stick. Getting the boot like "moderats" did in the end of february, will not do any good to your ground forces.

Doesn't seem like Airpower was doing any good for USA and allies in Iraq and Afghanistan, hence why they needed guys on the ground in the end.

In a conflict with a nation who has modern SHORADS like Pantsir-S1/2, much of those fighter jets are toast.  What will be cheaper and easier to replace? Not the jet, that is for sure.  A nation with a strong IADS will have a field day against US assets in the air, especially now that they are introducing new electronic warfare systems to purposely f*** with US guidance systems and smart bombs, let alone radar.  All the while they open their bases up to attacks from missiles due to the fact the radar systems will pick up the location where those planes fly from.

Real threat is salvo strikes IMO, launched from either jets or from ground based systems.  As doing long range bombardments en mass, is the major threat against Russian IADS cause eventually one will get through and hit the system.  Works vise versa too.

Militarov wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:Now now, Air power will have huge issues in many scenarios. Iraq wasn't one, because Iraq couldn't properly devise a different battle plan. They tried in 2003 and were mauled badly. It's a whole ballpark taking on coutries with a different mentality. But at the end, raw firepower will win it; And the air power is part of that huge stick. Getting the boot like "moderats" did in the end of february, will not do any good to your ground forces.

Half of forum is watching Rambo like military literature, thinking how guys with M60s and muscles are winning the wars.

Sure sounds like it is the other way around.  But instead of watching Rambo, sure sounds like Top Gun.  Air power is good to have and very important, but the importance I think you guys are overstating here.

Naturally they needed to perform land assault too, what kind of invasion would it be without land operation? -.- However 87% of Iraqi army assets were destroyed from the air, merging naturally both Navy, Air Force, Marines and Army air wing. Statistically Air force is almost always "carrying" the operations or Navy, depending on situation.

NATO countries have more production potential in terms of aircraft than Russians have in SHORAD-s atm, let alone fact that majority of tools used in Russian industry have either Western components or are of foreign origin. You lack strategic views on the matter.  Let alone fact that factories would be targeted first in case of war, to prevent exacly that.

How comes NATO doesnt have Air Defence protecting their airfields?

Suddenly NATO does not have EW capabilities only Russia... Yet USAF and Navy operate like.. what near 200 EW aircraft or so?

Can we like stop now this pointless discussion as i dont have alot of patience for either American or Russian armchair generals that havent even served in Fire brigade.

Also i never watched Top Gun.

talking of potentials? OK, potential also Russia using a tactical nuke on hardened installations near Russia would also be used, wiping out NATO forces.  Since well, it was Medvedev that made it known that part of its doctrine is the use of nukes in a tactical manner, then yeah.

Also, you seem to assume that Russia's Radar and other systems are incapable of reaching into the territories of the countries where NATO would be launching their assets.  S-300's and S-400's easily reach into those territories.

And as for Shorads at bases, that is why I said that Salvo's would be used, to guarantee a strike even if half of its arsenal gets shot down.

They could theoretically build more planes than Russia can build Shorads, but Russia clearly has the ability currently to build more as they are building more with what they have.  Much like Russia could build more aircrafts since there are more facilities to build them than there pretty much is in Europe altogether.  As for parts, yeah no.  Most parts have already been replaced since well, you know, Sanctions.  Thank goodness for that since it forced Russia to turn away from them or moved to new suppliers. And we all know how China would react to a possible invasion of Russia - they would also be supplying.

I guess it is a pointless discussion, cause there are so many variables that stand in the way that makes it very hard.  But at least even NATO member think tanks admitted Russia has a massive advantage at the moment along those borders.

^ In line with the OT.
This is from a little while back. There was another article along the same lines too, but don't have link handy for 2nd one.

http://russia-insider.com/en/history/nato-would-probably-lose-war-against-russia/ri1596

MAD - end of discussion. No one would go conventional.

Let us hope it stays that way.

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

This is what Ukraine said to fear:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_United_Armed_Forces_of_Novorossiya#Air_Defence_Vehicles

And seriously, you and me know that Novorrussia would have had all the needed land surface-air warfare, this and more if necessary, because the air interdiction was a key part of their military strategy. It makes the Ukranian tacticts a secondary factor.

Wikipedia as a source, good one

Key reason is the overall incompetence of Ukrainian Armed Forces, probably the worst performance of one army since... idk Egypt in six day war.

Wikipedia as a collection of links of what the Ukranians feared? As a pro-Western web, they collected every link that included some "information" about how Russia provided warfare to Novorrussia. The Ukranian fears explain very well why they are not flying their remaining fleet.

According to World Air Forces 2016, Ukraine has active (the second number is the total number of aircrafts without the damaged in the war according to aviation-safety.net and without the warfare captured by pro-Russians in Novorrussia and Crimea):

18 of 35 Su-27
12 of 56 Su-24
21 of 114 MiG-29
15 of 27 Su-25
9 of 16 Ka-27/...
33 of 154 Mi-24
3 of 5 Mi-14
2 of 4 Be-12
0 of 26 Ka-25

Where are the sources in support of your comments? We can analyze together their quality. I'm fairly sure that you have access to the exact figures of the Surface-Air systems that have been in Novorrussia during the war, and of course I'm sure that you have the permission to publish it here.

i will transfer that discussion in another relative thread. It is totally out of topic

eehnie wrote:

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

This is what Ukraine said to fear:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_United_Armed_Forces_of_Novorossiya#Air_Defence_Vehicles

And seriously, you and me know that Novorrussia would have had all the needed land surface-air warfare, this and more if necessary, because the air interdiction was a key part of their military strategy. It makes the Ukranian tacticts a secondary factor.

Wikipedia as a source, good one

Key reason is the overall incompetence of Ukrainian Armed Forces, probably the worst performance of one army since... idk Egypt in six day war.

Wikipedia as a collection of links of what the Ukranians feared? As a pro-Western web, they collected every link that included some "information" about how Russia provided warfare to Novorrussia. The Ukranian fears explain very well why they are not flying their remaining fleet.

According to World Air Forces 2016, Ukraine has active (the second number is the total number of aircrafts without the damaged in the war according to aviation-safety.net and without the warfare captured by pro-Russians in Novorrussia and Crimea):

18 of 35 Su-27
12 of 56 Su-24
21 of 114 MiG-29
15 of 27 Su-25
9 of 16 Ka-27/...
33 of 154 Mi-24
3 of 5 Mi-14
2 of 4 Be-12
0 of 26 Ka-25

Where are the sources in support of your comments? We can analyze together their quality. I'm fairly sure that you have access to the exact figures of the Surface-Air systems that have been in Novorrussia during the war, and of course I'm sure that you have the permission to publish it here.

Having aircrafts "in service" means nothing, especially in case of Airforces like Ukraine, Syria, or lets be honest Serbia. Its more than unlikely that Ukraine atm has actually combat worthy more than 25 fixed wing combat aircraft.

Syria on paper in "service" in 2011. had like what... 250 combat aircraft? How many combat/fly worthy? Less than 70. During whole 2015. on youtube appeared less than 10 videos of UA airforce flying, and first thing people do when they see or hear aircraft is to grab phone and film.

My sources are my service record and fact that even with having spares available and ready only 30% of service rates were achieved for J22 Orao back in my time, and they are on average younger than any Ukrainian MiG29 or SU27. Airframes need their life to be extended, its expencive and long procedure, its not Golf 2.

If they had so many active aircraft would imbecile Poroshenko go to "acceptance ceremony" for 2, i repeat 2 refubrished Su-27?

"Ukraine’s fighter force has suffered the worst. In early 2014, Flight counted 80 MiG-29s, 36 Su-27, 36 Su-25s and 24 Su-24s in Ukrainian service—although, to be fair, many of these planes were in disrepair. In any event, in 2015 just 19 MiG-29s, 16 Su-27s, 15 Su-25s and 11 Su-24s remain active, according to Flight."

That, does not mean, they are also flying, just means they are ones in the best shape and they decided to keep them in "active service", flyworthy or not at the moment.

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

This is what Ukraine said to fear:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_United_Armed_Forces_of_Novorossiya#Air_Defence_Vehicles

And seriously, you and me know that Novorrussia would have had all the needed land surface-air warfare, this and more if necessary, because the air interdiction was a key part of their military strategy. It makes the Ukranian tacticts a secondary factor.

Wikipedia as a source, good one

Key reason is the overall incompetence of Ukrainian Armed Forces, probably the worst performance of one army since... idk Egypt in six day war.

Wikipedia as a collection of links of what the Ukranians feared? As a pro-Western web, they collected every link that included some "information" about how Russia provided warfare to Novorrussia. The Ukranian fears explain very well why they are not flying their remaining fleet.

According to World Air Forces 2016, Ukraine has active (the second number is the total number of aircrafts without the damaged in the war according to aviation-safety.net and without the warfare captured by pro-Russians in Novorrussia and Crimea):

18 of 35 Su-27
12 of 56 Su-24
21 of 114 MiG-29
15 of 27 Su-25
9 of 16 Ka-27/...
33 of 154 Mi-24
3 of 5 Mi-14
2 of 4 Be-12
0 of 26 Ka-25

Where are the sources in support of your comments? We can analyze together their quality. I'm fairly sure that you have access to the exact figures of the Surface-Air systems that have been in Novorrussia during the war, and of course I'm sure that you have the permission to publish it here.

Having aircrafts "in service" means nothing, especially in case of Airforces like Ukraine, Syria, or lets be honest Serbia. Its more than unlikely that Ukraine atm has actually combat worthy more than 25 fixed wing combat aircraft.

Syria on paper in "service" in 2011. had like what... 250 combat aircraft? How many combat/fly worthy? Less than 70. During whole 2015. on youtube appeared less than 10 videos of UA airforce flying, and first thing people do when they see or hear aircraft is to grab phone and film.

My sources are my service record and fact that even with having spares available and ready only 30% of service rates were achieved for J22 Orao back in my time, and they are on average younger than any Ukrainian MiG29 or SU27. Airframes need their life to be extended, its expencive and long procedure, its not Golf 2.

If they had so many active aircraft would imbecile Poroshenko go to "acceptance ceremony" for 2, i repeat 2 refubrished Su-27?

"Ukraine’s fighter force has suffered the worst. In early 2014, Flight counted 80 MiG-29s, 36 Su-27, 36 Su-25s and 24 Su-24s in Ukrainian service—although, to be fair, many of these planes were in disrepair. In any event, in 2015 just 19 MiG-29s, 16 Su-27s, 15 Su-25s and 11 Su-24s remain active, according to Flight."

That, does not mean, they are also flying, just means they are ones in the best shape and they decided to keep them in "active service", flyworthy or not at the moment.

Then your source is your own word. And I have to avoid a laugh after your previous answer about sources?

There are some interesting wars around, but non is a good measure regarding air defense and air force. The last, which we could look on are wars in Ukraine, in Syria and Iraq and in Yemen. In all those wars air force is only on one side and air defense on the other side is the same in all of them and is composed with AA guns and MANPADs. Novorussian army capture 10 Osa-AKMs in Debaltsevo so in the time of high war, they were not available for them.

When we look at Ukrainian air force, it is very large on paper, but very few flying. Good indicator was in Crimea, where Russian army capture 45 Ukrainian MiG-29 fighters, but only few was in flying condition. 37 of them Russia return to Ukraine. After the fall of USSR Ukraine sell a lot of their planes around the World as well as spare parts for them. Consideing, that Ukrainian army is also low on money, there is a good question, how many of their planes Ukrainian army is able to repair and bring in flying and combat condition. Other thing is, that Ukrainian air force doesn't have PGMs, so they have to attack with dumb bombs and rocket launchers. Ukrainian planes are not modernized like Russian Su-25SM and Su-24M2, which are able to attack targets from high altitude to avoid AA guns and MANPADs. Ukrainian MiG-29 and Su-27 fighters are air defense fighters only and are not multirole like Russian MiG-29SMT or Su-27SM with multirole radar with ground attack modes and with newer IRST, which also have TV channel and laser designator, that it could be used against ground targets as well. Only capable jet is Su-24M, but they don't have PGMs for them and there is also a good question, how well they are maintained. Next problem for Ukrainian air force was small number of flying hours for their pilots and question of quality of their trainings. All this bring Ukrainian planes to fly quite close to their targets to attack them and with that they expose themselves to Novorussian air defense, which impose to them quite heavy losses and we as well don't know, how many other jets and helicopters were hit and damaged and if Ukraine is able to repair them. Ukraine doesn't receive spare parts from Russia and eastern European NATO members didn't have Su-24 and Su-27 in their armament, so they could not supply Ukraine with spare parts either. So Novorussian air defense with quite small strength was able to secure their air space from Ukrainian air force, which is more result of 25 years of "investments" in their air force than in strength of Novorussian air defense, which is actually quite weak. Ukrainian war could not be a model of air defense effectiveness, than a model, what happened, if you didn't invest in your military for a longer period.

Second war is in Syria. Syrian air force have only a few MiG-29 modernized to MiG-29SM level and around 20 Su-24, which are able to strike targets from high altitude to be safe from terrorist air defense, which also have modern MANPADs, large number of AA guns and even some Osa and Kub SAMs, if they are not already destroyed. The rest of the planes are old MiG-21, MiG-23 and Su-22, which have to fly near target to hit it, so losses between them are quite large. As I know Syria loss few Su-24, which were shot down by Israel over Golan and no MiG-29 was lost for now. That there we got a contingent from Russia, which was by numbers still smaller than Ukrainian air force and engage far larger enemy than what Novorussian army is today. In half a year they bring excellent results, unfortunately Syrian army on the ground was too overloaded and weak that they could make more gains on the ground. Air force could not win the war, but could bring a lot of support to the troops on the ground.

Third war is Yemen, where Saudi coalition have excessive superiority in the ground and in the air. They have a large number of modern F-15S, Tornado, Eurofighter, F-16 and Mirage-2000 jets as well as Apache helicopters and other side is also depending mostly on MANPADs and AA guns. True, Saudi coalition suffer some losses to crashes, but some Apaches were shot down by guns and Emirati Mirage-2000-9D was shot down by old Strela-2 (SA-7) MANPAD. And all this air superiority of Saudi coalition didn't bring any success to their ground troops in ground battles, where they lost battles regularly. Saudi coalition mostly control desert part of Yemen, while Yemeni army and Houtis control more populated highlands and even part of Saudi Arabia. What lessons could we take from Yemen? Only one, that incompetence and cowardice are decisive factors in a war and that even numerical and technological superiority could not save you from defeat.

@Militarov so basically NATO can take on Kaliningrad with minimal losses, than countries like Turkey and US can successfully breakthrough to Russian borders in the black sea region because of numerical and technological superiority. Of course this is if Russia does not launch tactical missiles such as the Iskandar-M or Kalibr against NATO air bases. For example from Kaliningrad, or from the black sea. Could Russia be able to inflict significant casualties against NATO air bases that would make the out come less lop sided?

VladimirSahin wrote:@Militarov so basically NATO can take on Kaliningrad with minimal losses, than countries like Turkey and US can successfully breakthrough to Russian borders in the black sea region because of numerical and technological superiority. Of course this is if Russia does not launch tactical missiles such as the Iskandar-M or Kalibr against NATO air bases. For example from Kaliningrad, or from the black sea. Could Russia be able to inflict significant casualties against NATO air bases that would make the out come less lop sided?

Kaliningrad is very specific place as its not integral part of Russia and it would be very hard to defend for prolonged period of time, at least with what Russians have on their disposal there at this moment.

Well yeah i suppose Turkey could cause major issues in Black sea but Turkey also has major drawback as it lacks real offensive capabilities. They dont have dedicated EW aircraft and "real" bombers, they would have to rely on F16 and F4 and some AWACs support. Unless US uses Turkey or Greece too for own offensive Turkey wouldnt be able to make any gamechanging pushes on its own.

Well, sure that would be one of the first things Russia would do, retaliate aganist ABM installations and fixed military facilities that are in their reach, however US for an example during bombing of Yugoslavia used UK as B52 host base and US for B2 Spirits, some assets will be very far to be reached by Kalibrs and Iskanders from Russia itself.