Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What happened to Russias Air Force? U.S. officials, experts stumped

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 791 posts

Re: What happened to Russias Air Force? U.S. officials, experts stumped

#171

Post by abrichr »

coldcode wrote: post #68

You can have an enormous airforce on paper, but not be able to wield it in those numbers. It's possible they simply can't get enough working planes together to make a difference, and what they have working is all that they have. It's also possible that Putin is afraid of some other border being attacked and is keeping all planes for defense (though that seems rather stupid). You can't win a ground war if the enemy ca…

> Of course this did work in WW2 as the USSR sent enormous armies full of people who were often unarmed (pick up a dead mans rifle), and had Commissars behind them to shoot anyone who failed to go forward.

This is not an accurate representation, see:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/31t5on/did_t...

Re: What happened to Russias Air Force? U.S. officials, experts stumped

#172

Post by gpm »

nomel wrote: post #104
blast wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that is the case, why would officials and experts be "stumped"? This seems like the obvious explanation.

I don't see why an official would publicly broadcast active wartime capabilities and tactics that might not be known. And, there's a strong possibility that we're experiencing some psyops here, to make the Russians appear incompetent. There's an active war. If history has taught us anything, psyops is as sure as death, in war.

> I don't see why an official would publicly broadcast active wartime capabilities and tactics that might not be known.

That explains the anonymous officials not agreeing with this stance. That doesn't explain the non-government experts not agreeing that this is the reason though. They don't have any special knowledge and wouldn't be telling the Russians anything they didn't already know.

> And, there's a strong possibility that we're experiencing some psyops here, to make the Russians appear incompetent

There's probably a degree of this, but from what I've seen it also seems to be legitimately the case that they are somewhat incompetent.

Besides which, the Russian's letting that psyop succeed, would itself be direct evidence of incompetence.

Re: What happened to Russias Air Force? U.S. officials, experts stumped

#173

Post by AtlasBarfed »

BoxOfRain wrote: post #161
blippage wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> convivial weapon I had a quick chuckle at that. It reminds me of an old joke: a bullet has your name on it, a hand grenade is addressed "to whom it may concern", and a mortar shell is posted general delivery.

What does that make nuclear warfare, a comprehensive spam campaign?

Yes, see USPS bulk mail.

Re: What happened to Russias Air Force? U.S. officials, experts stumped

#174

Post by 988747 »

gvb wrote: post #123
mrlonglong wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not sell Ukraine some of these nice B52 planes to seek and destroy convoys on the ground ?

MIG-29s which they are already flying, not B-52s which are useless to them. The deal fell apart, however. https://newlinesmag.com/reportage/is-poland-sending-fighter-...

This is a kind of Catch 22 situation with how to deliver those MIG-29s:

If a Polish pilot flies it to Ukraine, Russia will consider that an act of war, and possibly start bombarding Poland. If Ukrainian pilot comes to Poland and takes off from a Polish airport then again: that is an act of war.

The only possibility to deliver them without joining the war against Russia seems to be to disassemble those MIGs and send them by train/truck.

Re: What happened to Russias Air Force? U.S. officials, experts stumped

#175

Post by mattnewton »

evan_ wrote: post #64
mattnewton wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not if your goal is to win a war of attrition.

Ukraine's win condition is not "destroy every airplane in Russia," it's "keep airplanes from blowing up stuff in Ukraine."

(obligatory I don't know what I am talking about, but) Russia has heavy artillery with crazy range. If they know you have air defenses they will just use artillery shelling instead that bypasses your defense, instead of giving you bombers or landing paratroopers as targets. I think that's how most missiles have been sent to Ukrainian cities so far. I don't think deterrence was a credible option for Ukraine before.

Re: What happened to Russias Air Force? U.S. officials, experts stumped

#176

Post by PaulHoule »

gamblor956 wrote: post #151
blast wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that is the case, why would officials and experts be "stumped"? This seems like the obvious explanation.

The "stumped" is not actually in the article. FTA: the issue is that Russia made a huge show of force at the start of the invasion but has apparently held back from actually using much of it (by air or ground). This war could have been over the day it started if Russia had used maximal force, and the conservative approach their actually using maximizes risks and casualties. And that's what has the experts confused: t…

I think it's like this.

Russia eventually wants to bombard Kiev with heavy weapons like

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9A52-4_Tornado

which can use ammunition at an absolutely insane rate. It takes time to move this stuff into place and more time to take the ammunition in, set up resupply paths, etc.

So Russia attacks Kiev with a small force with light weapons, some Spetsnaz, mostly to keep the fight away from the main body of the force which will strike hard when it is ready.

Re: What happened to Russias Air Force? U.S. officials, experts stumped

#177

Post by stouset »

ed_balls wrote: post #157
blast wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that is the case, why would officials and experts be "stumped"? This seems like the obvious explanation.

Depends on what you mean by experts. The strategist I know said this is a political decision. They don't want to inflict too much damage to avoid bloody insurrections in the future. Russian aircrafts are not that precise. What is more, UA army received manpads. It's not worth it.

MANPADs are only effective at very low altitudes (AGL), fundamentally due to the inability to put much propulsion on a rocket intended to be carried by hand. Su-27s, Su-34s, and Su-35s should fly significantly higher than this altitude during strike and interdiction missions, but doing so exposes them to radar-guided SAM systems like the aforementioned Buk (SA-11 / SA-17) or S-300 (SA-10 / SA-12 / SA-20).

Re: What happened to Russias Air Force? U.S. officials, experts stumped

#178

Post by itronitron »

ALittleLight wrote: post #94
boc wrote: post #50

I think we need to consider the possibility that much of the Russian army only existed on paper, and that the true strength was overinflated by trickling up good news only throughout all ranks of the military.[1] Readiness was overstated. Equipment was overstated. Training was for parades, not combat. Everyone in the Russian military had assumed they'd never actually fight a real war, so they could grift and sell rat…

Another part of this is US intelligence sources have an incentive to overstate Russia's strength. A strong scary Russia better justifies American military spending.

Unfortunately that masks the scarier scenario of a failing state with thousands of nuclear weapons.

Re: What happened to Russias Air Force? U.S. officials, experts stumped

#179

Post by ceejayoz »

geoka9 wrote: post #138
ceejayoz wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look closely at 0:04 and you can see the armored vehicle under tow, though, in the molotov video.

The tractor has a Z painted on it? It doesn't look like military, but that's what the Russians are painting on their armor.

I'd expect the Russians are commandeering civilian tractors, and you'd paint recognition symbols on it when you do.
Post reply on HN