Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
LMFS wrote:Hole wrote:They´re using "dumb" weapons. But why fly all the way to Lviv to drop some FAB-500´s if you can use a Kaliber missile? It all depends on the target and where it is.
There is no need to risk ambush by AD, NATO has constant airspace monitoring over Western Ukraine and even if the bulk of Ukrainian SAMs are destroyed, a few Buks scattered around and properly cued are still perfectly capable of steadily shooting Russian planes down, which will lead to non acceptable losses in a war that can continue for months and years. Low flying, small CMs are indeed more expensive than dumb bombs, but very difficult to counter for everything but a very dense AD network and still cheap enough for Russia to keep producing them indefinitely. In any case, Russians are not in a rush and proceeding slower allows them to get good intelligence and concentrate on priority targets for a better economy of resources. Basically they have no problem with this approach, but indeed countering NATO surveillance by DEW (what about really powerful land based microwave sources used vs AWACS), EW or stealthier aircraft would be a good improvement and allow a faster degradation of the enemy capabilities. Some of Russia's projects (like Kh-50, Kh-69, Su-57, LTS or PAK-DA for instance) make more and more sense considering this kind of proxy wars vs. NATO that form the context in which Russia will likely need to fight from now onwards.
Constant airspace monitoring? Either the AWACS are shit or there is not much left to send data to. They don´t even try to shot incoming cruise missiles down. Propably because as soon as an AD system turns its radar on it is destroyed.
GunshipDemocracy
