Russia's War Against Ukraine

[GDS_Starfury]

But it's also unclear whether NATO air forces could ever accomplish that,

there is no doubt in my mind that US and/or NATO airpower would wipe the floor with the current russian air force and air defense systems.

[JasonPratt]

Lt. Gen. Jonathan Braga, commanding general of US Army Special Operations Command, discusses how the Uks knocked out a corps' worth of troops by sheer information warfare.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ukraine-has-taken-17-000-russians-off-the-battlefield-without-firing-a-shot-us-army-special-ops-general-says/ar-AA1jeJgd?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=d77f7c8466d14fcbb31f261c68c2b18e&ei=24

[JasonPratt]

Back on the West's air-war capabilities: it's hard to comprehend, maybe technically impossible, just how much of a muchness we've got in position ready to go, and what we can do with it, and what more we could do once the balloon goes up to push out more effect. Numbers are one thing, but tech quality across the board, training, support (lots and lots and LOTS of different kinds of support), innovative troops from the grunts up to the op commanders...

It's almost like trying to explain what's so great about civilization: there's so much it's hard to know where to even start.

[GDS_Starfury]

we have more tankers then the russians have planes. 
let that sink in for a minute.

[FarAway Sooner]

I'm mostly just playing Devil's Advocate here.  I have no doubts that we could blot the Russian Air Force from the sky, even without NATO help (aside from furnishing air bases and logistics).  The question more becomes how thoroughly we could interdict Russian movement on the ground.

Obviously, even limited air superiority deep into Russia would screw with Russian logistics.  Of course, logistics are less important in sustaining a defensive war than an offensive war.  We're all agreed that if Russia tried to invade a NATO country they'd get their ass kicked seven ways from Sunday.

I'm a firm believer that, when we start a new high-intensity conflict, we can only predict about half of what will happen accurately.  I'm familiar with the NATO doctrine for SEAD and DEAD, and I'm familiar with the importance of peeling back different layers (e.g., high-altitude long range stuff first, medium-range stuff second, and short-range lower-altitude stuff last).  I just worry that all of this doctrine is based on a theoretical framework that hasn't changed much since F4s were flying Wild Weasel missions over Vietnam 50 years ago.  The last time we battle-tested that doctrine was against Iraqi air defenses more than 20 years ago.

Among other things, I'm not sure whether Russia could replace air defenses more quickly than we could replace planes.  One thing we've seen about high intensity warfare is that stockpiles run low a lot faster than anyone believed.

We are also used to air superiority being the only way that you can interdict or attack supplies behind enemy lines.  The advent of mediums ranged MLRS systems and deeper-ranged cruise missiles, coupled with the ability of tiny drones to provide real-time targeting, make mounting a successful offense a little harder.

I'm not saying we couldn't win.  I'm just saying that it might be a lot more expensive--in terms of planes and lives--than we anticipate.  I also think an awful lot of armchair generals like ourselves get a hardon for high-tech stuff and we sometimes forget that quantity matters as much as quality.

Again, I'm not saying I'd put a bet on NATO forces being unable to crack Russian air defenses.  I just don't think we can take it for granted.

 

[JasonPratt]

At the moment we've got overwhelming quantity as well as the quality, and I don't think our operational plans ever envisaged simply turning over ground interdiction duties (or even SEAD/DEAD) to air power. Heck, we've got training and protocols for sub-launched sea-to-ground missiles to successfully fill a lot of target packages without even slightly risking pilots and airframes, not even counting sea-surface packages doing the same thing. (Or air standoff sorties doing the same thing.) Add modern arty fire missions on top of that.

Come to think of it, our total effective force disparity vs Russia right now is so large that I'm a little concerned that US/NATO will just take the opportunity to go all in right now (or the near future) and reduce Russia's military to the stone age with a monstrous ShootEx, while the shooting is good.

(And then the plotting side of my mind starts wondering if that wasn't someone's medium-term goal to begin with, and so subtly goaded Putler into setting up a situational excuse to do it. Icebreaking himself, so to speak.)

[GDS_Starfury]

The question more becomes how thoroughly we could interdict Russian movement on the ground.

this is precisely what Strike Eagles are for.

to elaborate more.  US training, tactics and equipment has not stood still since the last time we did this in Iraq.  on the equipment side we would be using the most advanced sensors and weapons that are a whole lot better then what we had 20 years ago.  I'll let you kids google info about HARM, JSOW and all the other toys at your leisure.  we would also be using dedicated SEAD/DEAD aircraft like the EA-18G Growler and dedicated F-16 Wild Weasels along with the aforementioned F-15e's.  all of this would be working in conjunction with F-35s.  now throw in all the drones, AWACs, JSTARs, and satellites. russian air defense wouldn't know what the fuck hit them.

it wouldnt be a total cakewalk but it is very very doable and I don't think Im being a fan boy in this assessment.

[GDS_Starfury]

I also think an awful lot of armchair generals like ourselves get a hardon for high-tech stuff and we sometimes forget that quantity matters as much as quality.

this isnt 1987 and russia no longer has the quantity and, as Ukraine has shown, they really never had the quality.

[JasonPratt]

The quality was a lot better back in 1985! Even the quality of their tanks from the 60s and 50s would have been a lot better relatively than what they are now. Certainly their logistic support was relatively better than currently. Training, mission doctrine, CCC... my rough guess is that they were better prepared back then, but I'm less sure about that.

[GDS_Starfury]

ATACMS o'clock

https://twitter.com/i/status/1720516380003316172

[FarAway Sooner]

To support the argument that Russian air defenses would be dog meat:  I saw in an article today that the Ukrainian sources claim to have destroyed 3 more S-400s in and around Luhansk this week.  While the Ukrainians didn't cite the weapons used, a Russians telegram channel suggested ATACMs were in use, showing wreckage of two detached ATACMs engines in Luhansk.

Of course, it's a bit unclear what it means to "destroy" a system comprised of multiple radar trucks, multiple mobile launchers, and a command vehicle.  Even if the Ukrainian intel is that good, you wouldn't expect them to reveal to Russians exactly how much detail they have.  But the media won't provide that level of mind-numbing detail to readers any ways.

It's another example of how the whiz-bang aspect of technology has received a lot more coverage in Western journalism than hard-headed appraisals of what's happening.

[Gusington]

^That in a nutshell is the split personality of this war. Hi-tech whiz-bang combined with trench raids. No one could have called that 2 years ago.

[Windigo]

I'm waiting for the four legged drones carrying claymours to start showing up

[JasonPratt]

Or the spider-drone claymores.

[GDS_Starfury]

both of those are now working the gaza tunnels.