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

351–360 of 791 posts

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

#351

Post by aynyc »

mardifoufs wrote: post #248
jefftk wrote: post #168

This cites but doesn't link "The Mysterious Case of the Missing Russian Air Force", which is a much more thorough treatment: https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentar... They list three possible explanations: * Too few precision-guided munitions (PGMs) * Risk of friendly fire from surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) due to poor coordination * Lack of experienced Russian pilots

I disagree, they have used their airforce extensively in Syria with precision guided bombs, and I'd be very surprised if that didn't help the pilots gain a lot of experience too. All those reasons might have explained a lower intensity air presence but not the outright absence of russian planes. I think it's mostly due to public perception because air strikes, no matter how precise, cause a lot of collateral damage,…

I think the area they lack experience is closed air support. Ground troops can't direct air support on enemy targets consistently and accurately. Not that many countries can do that effectively.

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

#352

Post by danenania »

jl6 wrote: post #261

I guess everyone's weighing in with their view, so why not? Firstly, we should be mindful that the fog of war is now in play, and a good amount of what we think we know is unverifiable. With that caveat out of the way... It seems that the Russian soldiers are making efforts to avoid attacking civilians directly. Counterexamples exist and could be explained by rogue units, incompetence, or hot-blooded revenge on local…

I don't even see how (b) is going to work at this point--with the massive flow of weapons and money that is coming from the West, and NATO safe havens on the borders, Russia will be playing whack-a-mole against insurgency forever no matter how much force they use.

Imagine if the Iraq or Afghanistan insurgencies had had access to an endless supply of top-of-the-line weapons, orders of magnitude more funding, and 'safe zones' where they could operate without the US attacking them... as far as I can tell, Russia is all but guaranteed a bloody and expensive quagmire until they withdraw.

It seems like Putin went on tilt. It's hard to fathom any rational justification for this.

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

#353

Post by Cd00d »

jl6 wrote: post #261

I guess everyone's weighing in with their view, so why not? Firstly, we should be mindful that the fog of war is now in play, and a good amount of what we think we know is unverifiable. With that caveat out of the way... It seems that the Russian soldiers are making efforts to avoid attacking civilians directly. Counterexamples exist and could be explained by rogue units, incompetence, or hot-blooded revenge on local…

suzerainty

You can't just lob a hundred dollar word out like that! I spent several moments trying to figure out what your typo was before allowing the possibility that you didn't have one.

a relationship in which one state or other polity controls the foreign policy and relations of a tributary state, while allowing the tributary state to have internal autonomy

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

#354

Post by tablespoon »

jl6 wrote: post #261

I guess everyone's weighing in with their view, so why not? Firstly, we should be mindful that the fog of war is now in play, and a good amount of what we think we know is unverifiable. With that caveat out of the way... It seems that the Russian soldiers are making efforts to avoid attacking civilians directly. Counterexamples exist and could be explained by rogue units, incompetence, or hot-blooded revenge on local…

> I speculate that Russian airforce weaponry is not generally high-precision, and the order to avoid targeting civilians implies restraint on use of indiscriminate bombing. Again, we've seen counterexamples which could be explained by all of the above reasons, plus the possibility of friendly fire from failed Ukrainian air defences.

That doesn't explain this, though:

> Vastly outmatched by Russia's military, in terms of raw numbers and firepower, Ukraine's own air force is still flying and its air defenses are still deemed to be viable - a fact that is baffling military experts.

> After the opening salvos of the war on Feb. 24, analysts expected the Russian military to try to immediately destroy Ukraine's air force and air defenses.

> That would have been "the logical and widely anticipated next step, as seen in almost every military conflict since 1938," wrote the RUSI think-tank in London, in an article called "The Mysterious Case of the Missing Russian Air Force."

> Instead, Ukrainian air force fighter jets are still carrying out low-level, defensive counter-air and ground-attack sorties. Russia is still flying through contested airspace.

...

> Did they really launch this invasion on the assumption that the people of Ukraine would just roll over and accept foreign rule?

It seems like it. I've seen videos of captured Russians where they claimed they were lied to and told the Ukrainians would welcome them. IIRC, their invasion of Crimea wasn't met with much resistance, and maybe they assumed it would be the same this time.

Also, if they'd been faster they might have had more success. I've seen reports that the Russian military has been acting in risk-averse ways that gave the Ukrainians time to organize more effective resistance.

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

#355

Post by vkou »

maratc wrote: post #315

I think that Russia may have a two-prong strategy: either make sure Ukraine is not joining NATO, or make sure that Ukraine that joins NATO is completely wrecked. In the alternative reality, where Ukraine promises tomorrow not to join NATO (ever), the Russian targets for this war may be considered achieved, and everyone could simply go home, probably throwing in a couple billions deal for Ukraine recovery. This would…

I doubt that Russian demands about NATO are in good faith. It's hard to believe that the goal of this invasion was to prevent encirclement, given how Finland and Sweeden's reactions were completely predictable.

I think the goal was annexation. The demands put out right now are intentionally unreasonable, but even if they were met, it would not stop the fighting.

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

#356

Post by high_pathetic »

unnouinceput wrote: post #322
hackinthebochs wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The video I think you are referring to shows the tank swerving to avoid incoming fire and (presumably accidentally) running over a civilian car.

It was actually an accident. The tank was Ukrainian and the driver had very poor visibility, hence the swerve on top of civilian (70+ senior actually, that miraculously didn't got any injury) car.

Russian tank - deliberate run-over. Blast about it from all media channels.

Oh, it's a Ukrainian tank. Pfft, it was in a accident, let's not talk about it.

That's why I don't read/watch news, especially nowadays.

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

#357

Post by 8ytecoder »

Cd00d wrote: post #353
jl6 wrote: post #261

I guess everyone's weighing in with their view, so why not? Firstly, we should be mindful that the fog of war is now in play, and a good amount of what we think we know is unverifiable. With that caveat out of the way... It seems that the Russian soldiers are making efforts to avoid attacking civilians directly. Counterexamples exist and could be explained by rogue units, incompetence, or hot-blooded revenge on local…

suzerainty You can't just lob a hundred dollar word out like that! I spent several moments trying to figure out what your typo was before allowing the possibility that you didn't have one. a relationship in which one state or other polity controls the foreign policy and relations of a tributary state, while allowing the tributary state to have internal autonomy

I bet OP plays Civilization.

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

#358

Post by tguvot »

throwawayay02 wrote: post #337
lmohseni wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have footage of cluster bombs striking civilian apartment buildings in Kharkiv: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZuKEwuZznw

There are counter claims that that building was being used for recruitment for the Azov battalion.

like seriously, lol. their intelligence were crappy enough to miss a bunch of air defense systems but they know that in some specific building is an recruitment for azov

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

#359

Post by selimthegrim »

999900000999 wrote: post #110
platinumrad wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without minimizing the awfulness of this invasion and the fact that it must be condemned, it is not nearly as brutal as Russian operations in Chechnya and Syria or the US-led coalition invasion of Iraq, likely because Ukranians are not nearly as much of a racial or cultural other to Russians as Chechens or Syrians. The greater ability of Ukrainians to gain coverage in both traditional and social media may also be a f…

Thank you for articulating this better than I could. You had a CBS* commentator straight up saying this is different than Middle East wars since Kyiv is a " civilized city". That said, I think much of Russia's restraint is due to their end goal. Ukraine's Russian backed president was outted in a coup back in 2014. The new pro West leadership decided to go dancing with John McCain. This entire conflict could of been a…

Germans had a large role in the Haitian port system and economy, that's why the US intervened in the first place.

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

#360

Post by ethbr0 »

PaulHoule wrote: post #240
thereddaikon wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Buk isn't a "cheap and cheerful" alternative to S-300. Soviet air defense doctrine was a multilayered approach featuring systems at almost every organizational level from infantry squad up to theater. Buk and S-300 serve at different organizational levels. Both are competent systems and ironically are probably more effective against Soviet derived air forces than western ones. Starting in WW2 and moving forward each…

You are right about more emphasis on fighters in the U.S. Also the U.S. put its best anti-aircraft missiles on ships.

The US blue-water navy has many similar problems to the Soviet Army. Specifically: operating out of range of land-based friendly fighters and interceptors.

And since there are only so many carriers, naval aviation also can't be assumed.

Consequently, SAMs are prioritized, compared to the army or air force.

Post reply on HN