Nostr Web Client

Doesn't the Russian doctrine basically assume that they would lose head to head in air combat and sit behind a ton of layered S300 and S400 air defense systems? If they can't win, they can at least try to deny use of the airspace, and the loss of air support would make NATO combined arms tactics much less effective.

Not necessarily saying it's a winning strategy, but they are at least self-aware enough to adapt their tactics according to the reality of combat craft strength.

Springtime for Zeon (Woggy Mk II) 2y ago

That’s not news to us though, we’ve spent a lot in designing our own anti-sam hunting techniques to the point fighter guys tell me it’s the toughest part of the job just keeping up w/ the specs, tactics and study required.

That’s why I think their drone use is the only real worthy wildcard. If they can get us to burn through airframes like they do the ukes’ missiles, they have a shot. Our fleets are aging badly, we wasted years of their lifespan flying circles over the desert and now they’re timing out after decades of use.

Just the scale, man. If you told me that we have enough F-16s to just use them as cannon fodder to blow up SAM sights I’d believe it. Keep in mind we have a shit ton of aircraft sitting in the desert, they could be drone-ified with a few years of work just like the old QF-4 phantoms

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

InceptionState 2y ago

Yeah at that point it's a battle of ISR, cruise missile strikes, drone strikes on air defense systems, etc. And I'm sure we have adapted to prepare for that. But it's much more difficult to wargame how well we would perform against defenses like that. Maybe we manage to hit key components with cruise missiles and it all collapses like with Desert Storm, or maybe it's more resilient than we expected and we take unacceptable losses. There's a lot of uncertainty that will never be resolved unless we actually pull the trigger.