Live data from Hacker News

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

reuters.com

561–570 of 791 posts

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

#561
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…

>It seems that the Russian soldiers are making efforts to avoid attacking civilians directly.

As a way of self-preservation. USSR lost 13K people in 10 years of Afghanistan war. Russia has already lost 6K in 7 days of Ukraine war. Ukrainians are fighting in whatever way they can and tearing Russians a new one. Among the first questions they ask Russian POWs is "Did you shoot?"

>I speculate that Russian airforce weaponry is not generally high-precision,

Russia is running out of high precision weapons, and this one of the reason of them starting to use older non high precision weapons and thus corresponding rise in civilian hits (with the other reason being is that they have already stricken most of the military targets, and the Ukrainians resistance not only didn't decrease, instead it grew tremendously, and so Russians are moving onto non-military targets like civil government offices, TV station, etc).

> 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

stay strong, don't fall for Putin's propaganda.

Wrt. the original article - Russia doesn't have much of new hardware which it has been showcasing over the last years. Most of Russian hardware like planes and armor are somewhat modernized old USSR hardware, and even that mostly is not working due to lacking parts, bad technical service, etc. Now spread this over large territory as you can't leave airforce say in Far East naked. So whatever Russia could have mustered without severe impact to its overall military capability over the whole territory was barely enough only for the originally planned Blitzkrieg, and the Blitzkrieg has utterly failed.

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

#562
post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not if early disclosure accelerates the development of countermeasures! Nor if you’re worried about a wider conflict - perhaps also involving Asia – & want both maximal degradation of Russian capabilities, & “mystery” advantages for as long as possible. Surprise is a force multiplier, but a new capability is only a surprise for a short period. And a simplistic model assuming the Ukrainian allies are optimally pursuin…

You only need to read/listen to German news, to know that there can't have been a "grand conspiracy" of Europeans to not show enough resolve. It is very clear that many (on both sides of the political spectrum, but particularly on the left) did not believe Putin would attack, they considered this the usual sabre-rattling and were completely shocked when he attacked. Also, the risk of deploying secret weapons into a s…

If you assign conclusive weight to recent "news", rather than historical precedents, I think you'll remain at the mercy of constructed narratives about what's really happening in high-stakes diplomacy & warmaking.

The US was shouting from the rooftops that they expected an attack, in a manner putting real credibility at risk. While laypeople, & left footsoldiers, may have completely discounted the possibility, Germany & others in NATO are close enough allies they'd have seen more of the tangible reasons why the US was saying that.

Note that feigned surprise can also be a conscious tactic, to help shepherd-along any alliance stragglers, or domestic opinion. Or, excuse inaction. "No one could have known", say the official mouthpieces for those who ignored the alarms from those who did know. "We are blameless!"

Further, if there was actual confidence in policymakers that an attack was unlikely, & that Putin was deterrable, then pre-announcing the severity of the response would have been very cheap! You won't have to do it, in the expected case. And pre-announcing makes the expected case even more likely.

The risk of coordinating with a leaky/corrupt regime isn't necessarily disqualifyng. There may be portions of the Ukraine government/military in which there was very high trust - such as close contacts in special forces, & those who have repeatedly proven themselves in the last ~8y of lower-grade hostilities. Or, people whose comms have been completely pierced – so NATO knows exactly how much corruption, or mixed-loyalties, they'll express.

Weaponry could also have been pre-positioned just outside Ukraine, or kept in the custody/knowledge of trusted contractors or deniably pre-positioned special forces. I hope you don't think Russians, like the saboteur groups repeatedly confronted in Ukrainian cities, are the only forces who can pretend to be someone else when it suits them!

As another example, no one outside of the home airbase support teams know who's really flying a fighter jet, unless enemies shoot it down & recover the pilot. I hope Ukraine has some world-class fighter pilots! But with lives and practically priceless (in the short term) military hardware at stake, if an even 10% better pilot is ready & willing from an allied counry, I suspect Ukraine can grant them a uniform & citizenship instantly. (It's been surprising how many NATO countries have said it's OK for their private citizens to go fight in Ukraine.)

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

#563
post #353
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 tried to reduce that definition for readability: "suzerain noun: internally autonomous vassal state w/ externally dominated foreign affairs."

What dictionary is your source of truth? I've been using Webster [1] but I feel like there's probably a better option.

[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/

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

#564
post #258
post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ukraine just yesterday flew a MIG-29 back from Romania, unarmed and escorted to the border by Romania jets/from the border by armed Ukranian jets. No-one seems concerned that that's an act of war.

No one seems concerned, except the NATO Secretary General who rushed to Poland specifically to stop Polish President, Andrzej Duda from lending Polish jet fighters: https://news.yahoo.com/no-eu-countries-aren-t-233404478.html Also, that one jet that flew from Romania was flying BACK, because it already belonged to Ukraine, just had an emergency landing in Romania for some unknown reason: https://www.thedrive.com/the-…

this is the shit that will kill all of us. I feel like avoiding a larger conflict overflowing more borders is going to require perfect decision making. What you linked to is not perfect decision making.

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

#566
post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Are the States of the US suzerains of the Federal government?

>> Are the States of the US suzerains of the Federal government?

This word was new to me, but looking it up I wanted to say "Yes" but have since changed to "no". Definition:

Suzerainty (American accent: soo-zer-en-tee) happens when a country X has its own government but cannot act independently because of a more powerful country Y. This more powerful country Y is called the suzerain and can usually control the foreign relations of X (how X interacts with other countries).

When it comes to foreign policy in the US, it is mostly handled at the federal level. States are more likely to strike deals with foreign companies than foreign governments. OTOH the federal government is not equivalent to a distinct country and is made up of representatives from the states.

One thing I don't like about the US system is that all our representatives spend a huge amount of time in Washington D.C., away from the people they "represent". And then the lobbyists have a single destination to convince a lot of people to support their stuff. It might be better if they all stayed in their home states and handled congressing electronically on zoom or something.

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

#567
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…

If want to avoid massive casualties among civilians, it is very difficult to hit a Buk sitting between two buildings. One needs to be pretty insane to use air force against targets until Buk systems aren't destroyed.

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

#568
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…

> Their options seem to be (a) beat a hasty retreat; (b) impose a bloody total subjugation of the population; (c) face a decades-long insurgency that will bleed them dry.

maybe the plan is: d) cut ukraine in half, let a weaker and beaten 'neutral' western Ukraine be the new NATO buffer, and eastern Ukraine is annexed?

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

#569
post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russias military budget is only slightly higher than that of the UK (61.7 billion vs 59.2 billion), even though Russia has a bit more than twice the UK population. France and Germany aren't far behind - 52.8 billion and 52.7 billion respectively. I believe Germany recently pledged to raise it's military spending to 100 billion (a lot of flashy headlines but couldn't find details), so soon it will far outspend Russia.

You cannot compare those numbers. Cost of living is very different in Germany and the UK compared to Russia. Personnel costs make up for most of the German budget and a Russian soldier earns only a fraction of a German soldier.

While that is a factor, I can also imagine that Russia has more cost due to the size of the country and the amount of hardware they have to maintain within that budget. The other countries are a lot more compact and focused, both in terms of landmass and the amount of hardware.

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

#570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I talked to a guy a few weeks ago who worked for a company that developed a guidance system before GPS that used stars like a sextant to navigate. Pretty crazy to think about.

Spacecraft often use stars to orient themselves. The Voyager spacecraft have star trackers to keep the antenna pointing at Earth. They look for the Canopus star.

Don't they need more than 1 star to get an orientation? I mean other than brightness 1 star doesn't give you a lot of information?
Post reply on HN