Is the Russian Air Force incapable of complex air operations?

So, let this war be finished soon in the same way that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan or the US intervention in Vietnam were finished: in defeat without obliteration. Let Putin loose face and be deposed so that a new generation can take over in Russia, preferably one which is not controlled by some globalist loon nor one which has dreams of reinstating some former Russian empire. Let Ukraine become the European nation it claims to be which means they need to rid themselves of corruption. Let the mistakes which were made in the de-sovietification of the former USSR be corrected, get rid of the oligarchs and their cronies. Smoke out Lukashenko from White Russia so that that nation can also learn to stand on its own feet once the Putinistas have been purged.

And for the love of ${$deity} stop with the stupid, braindead anti-everything-that-is-Russian attitude that I see growing around me. I see a Tchaikovsky and Stravinsky concerts being cancelled in the Netherlands, Russian-language children's reading hours in the library in Sweden are cancelled, a university in Italy wanted to ban Dostoyevsky from its curriculum and more of such stupidity. Just stop it already, realise that Russia is part of Europe and will remain so after this war is over. Realise, also, that Dostoyevsky was imprisoned by the then-version of Putin, that Ukrainians are just as enamoured of Stravinsky and Tchaikovsky as Russians and others are, that those Russian-language reading hours in a Swedish city would most likely get the children to dislike Putinism more than that it would encourage them to follow him. If Clancy is to believed one of the bigger insults you could make to a Russian was that he was uncultured - некультурный. Let's show that we are not while making clear that it is Putin and his ilk who represent the barbarians at the gate.

Honestly? The Russians go home. Putin makes threats, but they're to scare his adversaries into pulling their punches out of fear, while he does what he was always going to do.

If his goal is to rebuild the Soviet empire, it's an automatic failure if he escalates until Moscow is a smoking pit.

And in that light the historical line that is being drawn makes even less sense.

> Why are you so hung up on defending Russia?

It’s revealing that you frame or interpret this discussion as being about either attacking or defending Russia. Why is it/ought it to be about that?

youtube-dl --write-sub --sub-lang en --skip-download

I translated the subtitles with deepl, it made for a fascinating read!

My country was invaded by Russians in 1968. While it wasn't particularly pleasant, I think it was better than being bombed, or perhaps even, economically starved.

1. Russians won the WW2 using tanks on land, Americans won the WW2 using aircrafts over sea.

2. (If we assume Russians care less about the loss of their troops than Americans.) Attacking another country from the air is more expensive, but safer, than attacking it from the ground.

3. (If we assume Americans are more interested in projecting their force globally than Russians are.) It is easier to move airplanes/missiles/drones around the world on ships than to move heavy mechanized ground troops.

On the other hand, Russians have sometimes led the development of heavy ICBMs and nuclear weapons, but that also seems to be more valuable as a global deterrent rather than something you would randomly use during an invasion.

That's due more to shit tactics (exacerbated by the early spring thaw that has limited off-road movement) than to any specific limitations of their hardware. There is VERY little footage of dismounted infantry screening Russian tanks, or competent employment of other recon assets. Look up some ANNA News footage embedded with the Syrian Arab Army in Jhobar, a Damascus suburb. It took the Syrians years of errors/casualties, but they eventually learned to storm dug-in fanatical enemies in urban environments, and they did it with crappier T-72s than the Russians are fielding now. There is a plethora of modern ATGMs dumped into Syrian insurgent hands too.

>>>Against M1 Abrams it isn’t even going to be a battle

That's a crew quality issue as well. A T-90 or T-72B3 is absolutely a threat to an Abrams.

>>>I question the use of tanks for anything beyond a support / artillery role at this point.

Increasing urbanization/population densities worldwide make sweeping wars of maneuver across open terrain less viable. Tanks are useful in urban environments, but require well-trained soldiers experienced in combined arms (German Kampfgruppe in Stalingrad, US Army-Marine teams in Fallujah).

>>>All tanks seem highly vulnerable to both air and Javelin-like AT.

As my sister comment touches on, this is changing as tank protection moves away from thick slabs of passive armor, to every tank fielding active protection systems such as the Israeli Trophy ( https://youtu.be/6aA9HsmLHBQ ). <-- also some of the coolest footage of shaped charge warheads detonating.

Combine an APS with a laser air-defense system either on another vehicle (current tech: https://www.armyrecognition.com/weapons_defence_industry_mil... ) or on the tank's turret (future tech), and these threats are moderately neutralized.

Then the advantages of the main battle tank will be retained: mobility, protection, and firepower.

Physically, yes. There are plenty of radar satellites.

Power is a problem. AWACS radars draw dozens of kilowatts. You very much want lots of power in military radar, since you're often illuminating something that can be engineered to have a small RCS or is actively spoofing the return signal. This forces you to have big solar panels, big radiator panels for electronics waste heat, big batteries so you can actually run the radar in the 50% of the orbit when you're in Earthshade, big antenna for high gain, big fuel tanks because you have so much atmospheric drag that you're reboosting all the time. An AWACS satellite would be bus-sized, if not bigger.

This hypothetical AWACS satellite would also have the problem that it would have a perfectly predictable orbital track, so you could target it with a very high gain antenna for jamming. And, of course, antisatellite missiles exist, and AWACS birds would badly tempt future adversaries to make yet more orbital debris.

Some of these problems could be mitigated with a larger constellation, which you would want anyway so you can run lower altitudes and (as you note) better coverage. Unfortunately, running a Starlink-style megaconstellation with hardware purchased from military aerospace contractors would cost hundreds of trillions of dollars.

Several NRO birds are known to use synthetic aperture radar, (LACROSSE/ONYX) but almost certainly not for detecting aircraft in flight. Others are for detecting radiated signals. (NOSS) For civilian (-ish) attempts to launch surveillance megaconstellations, see PlanetScope: https://www.planet.com/products/planet-imagery/

edit: not awacs but gives and idea of the monitoring they willing to have public

It’s clear there is a lot of other kit flying there too, judging by the number of aerial refuelling planes (which show up on civilian trackers).

In other words, the state of Russian security is literally nothing but threat of nuclear war. What are the odds those would be as poorly functioning as the rest of the forces?

They are straight up heroes.

I hope they bring the surviving winners to national capitols so they can have parade. They deserve 'Ending of Star Wars' kind of hero status.

The only way that works is if the air force itself is thinking in terms of money irrespective of the larger picture, but I'd find that surprising.