To start comparing quotes and simplify insurance-buying, check out Policygenius: policygenius.com/covertcabal Thanks to Policygenius for sponsoring this video!
Oh Covert Caboot... Perhaps it’s now time for you to get with the times in recognizing that Mordor doesn’t actually have the military they’ve claimed they do. The corruption is just too deep, and it seem that everyone in the world but a few select TH-cam analysts like yourself know this, and know it well. Even the excuses you make here while are and sound “charming” (in the eyes of their supporters), they simply don’t reflect the realities of the situation. They simply aren’t the military once thought to have been. I’d be surprised that by the end of this conflict that they’ll place even in the top 100 (with the exception of nuclear capabilities, which require another story due to their country falling apart shortly and these weapons exist in different lands to be occupied by newly created countries)...
During early days of WW2, the USA agreed to lease a couple of aircraft carriers to the UK, and officially it was only these two ships. What was not declared openly was that these two ships were packed with aircraft, ammunition, ground vehicles, bombs and all manner of things that would not have passed through congress. So when the US says "only spare parts", well, two spare wings and one spare body = one whole aircraft.
It's a cheeky way of sending an aircraft without saying you're sending an aircraft. "Hello dealership. I'd like 4 spare tires and wheels, a spare body, 4 spare doors, spare windows, seats, etc. No! I don't want a car... just... some spare parts."
If that was done without Congress’s go-ahead, then it wasn’t “USA” sending the supplies. That was the Pentagon going behind America’s back. This is why people don’t trust the government or the military
I do not think the US has been sending Ukraine aircraft but what they have been sending is probably drones, missiles, MANPADS, radar systems, targeting systems and so on. Who is to say that a consignment of food is not a consignment of targeting systems. Maybe mobile phones are really GPS systems, Radio systems, timing mechanisms and so on.
There's grounds for strong suspicion that much of Russia's putative airframe inventory is either nonexistent or non-operational due to corruption and theft. I think the figures used to compute expected sortie rates in this video are wildly optimistic, and what they actually have is a Potemkin air force optimized for looking impressive at May Day parades but not good for much else.
While your sentiment about corruption and show and tell is on point they were running regular sorties in Syria. I think the problem is that it's many problems in many diff areas that are al contributing to the whole. So yes corruption and mismanagement has depleted theirfleet. It's also not as great as the way it looks at air shows. But also they can't afford the training sorties. They can't retain talent. They can't communicate between units. .they can't manufacture missles. They can't maintain their fleet. Ect ect
It's probably all the sanctions after 2014 that stopped import of high end tech components. They have been having trouble building high tech weaponry ever since
Ukraine has 3 main advantages over Russia that have enabled them to resist Russia much longer than anticipated: 1- Real national movement for preserving their independence no matter the human and economical cost 2- Largest lend-lease, political and financial support ever provided to a foreign country after WW2 3- Russians doing almost everything wrong from the beginning up untill now (keeping up with their traditions)
You forgot number four The California national guard and other militaries from countries like Israel spent the last six or seven years training the ukrainians for a possible invasion from Russia. Plus the United States has sent some of the best military advisors in the world and has been advising them all along. I'm also certain that the United States has been spying for them from the sky while denying it all along. I guarantee you the United States is far far more involved in this war than we are admitting.
Ya Russia should have done a lot of things from the beginning. Like taking control of the west part to keep weapons from getting in. Now it's to late for that.
America would of cut Ukraine off from the world. Then it would of been over faster. That would of killed a lot of morale. Ukraine would t be easy to beat for any power because they are fighters and they won't give up.
I am going to be pedantic here and point out that the second largest air force in the world is actually the US Navy. I just love this fact. Edit: Just to be clear, when I say I am being pedantic, I mean that I am saying this in a sort of joking manner because I know that the video is referring to countries, not individual services within each country. The video isn't wrong (unless China is second now). Actually, though, US Army Aviation might be considered the second largest in individual services. The numbers you find online can vary. Obviously, how you count is a major factor.
@@kalashnikovdevil airforce army navy usmc in order 1-4 for just US numbers. airforce 5.2k army 3.5k navy 2.6k usmc 1.2k but those are prolly not accurate as they are from google.
@@krizzle4087 Basically, the Russians, doctrinally prefer to leave ground fire support usually to their MLRS and tube artillery units, which is why (before the war) they had such a high proportion of Self propelled artillery guns fielded, this has left the VKS (AF) primarily with fighting for air intercept/superiority against an enemy, contrarily US doctrine is to both gain Air superiority then once the airspace/SAM networks have been sufficiently cleared is to provide lots of fire support for ground units, hence the pursuit of, and buildup of large stockpiles of precision guided, and now standoff weapons, paveway bombs, JDAMs HARM/AARGM anti radar missiles, small diameter bomb and soforth not to mention cruise missiles. To contrast that, Russia's rough equivalent guided munition for providing precision strike to troops, is the laser guided Krasnopol shell, in use since Soviet-Afghan war of the 1980s and here relying on outside lasing of the target, by a Forward observer with a laser designator, or Russian drones like Orlan, simply the VKS doesn't operate equipment and munitions like small diameter bomb or JDAMs to have standoff range against Ukrainian weapons like Stingers, and when they do support ground troops they frequently get shot down because of how close they are.
@@krizzle4087 the USAF during thr Iraq invasion started off almost entirely as a strategic force crippling Iraq then once no other threats really presented themselves they supported the ground forced that began to move.
The only thing the orcs use their air power for was clearly demonstrated just the other day, with them assaulting the civilian centres of Kharkiv (including their power station) as well as blowing up a dam to to not just destroy its power generation abilities, but to flood the civilian centre beneath it and down its flood plain... 🤦♂️ All of which are despicable war crimes like everything (and I do mean EVERYTHING) else they’ve been doing as part of their invasion into this sovereign nation... Thankfully, no matter the outcome, the world is going to ensure that Mordor is no more, and that it is absolutely turned into a micro state (just like the apparent micro peenster) in charge of the deranged criminal organization!!! Slava Ukraini 🇺🇦❕ Death and demise to ruZSia and its rashists♠️☠️❕
Two details were not really addressed in this video... 1) Russia's aircraft have a long-standing reputation as "hanger queens." On average, they need greater maintenance, more frequently, than their western counterparts. Who says so? India and most of the ex-Warsaw Pact who actually operated these aircraft. While the aircraft are less expensive to buy, they go through jet engines and other replaceable parts at more than twice the rate of their NATO equivalent.....which means they spend more time out of service having things fixed. 2) Russian military pilots in peacetime got between 50% to 30% of the flight time that their Western counterparts do. Moreover, that training focused on small unit (4-8 aircraft) single function missions. Bombers bombed strategic targets, fighters intercepted enemy aircraft, and ground attack aircraft ran missions on pre-selected targets. They have *very* little practice doing multi-unit combined arms style missions, working with ground controllers doing tactical bombing. or sweeps finding targets of opportunity. And most especially, since a lot of the training is focused on dealing with NATO.....they assume that they will not have...or be able to effect air superiority, other than on a limited tactical basis.
That Russia pilot, Victor Belenko. The one who flew to Japan wit his Mig. He said the military rationed out how much fuel a jet would get for training session. The leaders were worried that if the pilots had full tanks someone might try to fly away like how Belenko did. The guys doing the fueling were lazy and trusted how low the fuel was by asking Belenko. Instead of checking themselves. Belenko was able to build up enough fuel so he could read Japan.
The main issue is people think Air Force is magic because of US dominance in the skies over countries that had no air defenses. The U.S. has never faced an adversary with a serious air defense capability. Ukraine had the largest air defense capabilities in Europe all left from the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
@@ramenizer8952 Yes. I remember during the first Iraq war they were trying to light up the skies with their AA. The F-117 was used the most for bombing and Iraq was basically shooting blindly into the sky. But some people always conveniently forget some history to push their narrative so they will look like they're right.
@@beargryllsstungbybees3186 Yeah sure if you are a 5 year old,hilarious. Why has Ukraine been begging for warplanes from NATO for months? Not going to explain it to you,try thinking.
The other question to be asked is, how many skilled and capable pilots do they have left? Because they certainly have suffered tremendous losses in the last six months (in comparison to all other campaigns post WW2).
It begs the question, why is Ukraine on its knees begging for tanks, planes, ammo, etc when the western media does nothing but tell us that Ukraine is kicking the snot out of the Russians who have inferior equipment, soldiers, etc.? In Feb. 2022, Ukraine started with a military force of between 6-700,000 men, hundreds of planes, thousands of tanks, NATO trained soldiers since 2014 and when the LPR and the DPR Republics asked Russia for military assistance, Russia went into Ukraine under a SMO, Special Military Operations which by Russian law limits them to a total force of 200,000 personnel, of which about 80,000 or so were frontline fighting soldiers and the balance were support, medical, etc. Ukraine had an extreme advantage over Donbass and Russian forces in men and equipment and training relating to the Donbass militiamen. And this showed when Russia first went into Kiev hoping to be able to find a government willing to negotiate human rights for the Donbass people, etc. and entered Ukraine without the "shock and awe" tactic the U.S. uses because Russia, unlike what the western media want you to believe, wanted to limit civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure and the price Russia paid was getting spanked in the spring of 2022. By September, President Putin and his generals had about had it with Ukraine's continued use of Himars against civilian theaters, bus stations, markets, as well as the use of illegal "pedal bombs" where some children were killed. The SMO had changed and Russia mobilized some troops and approx. 150,000 volunteered, including a couple members of the Duma, which I doubt you'd ever see the equivalent here in the U.S. cause we just all talk and have to find proxy countries to fight our battles. So the West and Ukraine always saying how they are kicking Russia arse and such, but if they were, they wouldn't have run out of ammunition and had all their equipment destroyed. The fact the West will not face is that they have already lost. Europe, other than Britain who has to have us tell it what to do everyday, has no more weapons to send and America can't send a tank or a jet for at least a year, but it will be over before than. When and if more tanks come from Europe you will see more planes, but frankly, now a couple Migs go out a shot down a Ukrainian jet 50 kilometers away, and then go have lunch. There was a tictok video I believe where Ukrainian pilots where afraid to fly because of the missile range of one or two of the Russian jets. Russian bombers take off and send guided missiles off and than turn around and go home. You don't see many Russian planes because they just have to run a short time sortie (sp?) and they're done. They don't need dog fights because the Ukrainian fighter has already been shot down. So you can believe western media or also watch some media from reporters done in the Donbass fights and interviewing Russian pilots. The Russians have been open (not the U.S. because they would use info as spy info or what ot) to having other reporters come and report. They do not confiscate video tape, etc, nor do they have assassination lists which includes reporters like Kiev does and has killed. Do what you want with it, I tried to answer the question.
When calculating aircraft losses per 1000 sorties, it's worth noting that more than 10% of the visually confirmed Russian aircraft losses on Oryx's list were not lost during sorties, but rather were destroyed on the ground from the Ukrainian missile strike on a Crimean airbase a few weeks ago.
@@alexisvladimir8148 reason Russian Airforce is on ground is because the Russian generals stole spare parts and fuel to build dacha and trillion rouble boats. I would not be surprised if Moskva was sunk was because air intercept radar was simply off because radar had broken down and Admiral or Captain or both had simply spent the budget ship received for maintenence on hookers and million rouble a bottle vodka. There is no "plan" to Russian military machine unless you count stealing and incompetence as a plan.
@@neoneherefrom5836 Hahahaha. A big round of applause for the Kremlin troll. And our next novelty act is the "The Putin and his Amazingly Dysfunctional Armed Forces".
@@anonypersona3189 But hey, they atleast didnt lose to cavemen in sandals in 21 century and got kicked out... Nor to rice farmers back in time... Russia is fine !
People forget that US and nato have 20 years air to ground combat experience. Something that is hard to gain over six month especially when this is the first major war your have fought in decades. We are able to take this incredibly complicated task and make it look easy given our crews were trained by people who actually seem combat. We have ground forces who know how to call in strikes.
The Russian air force has been doing air to ground combat in Syria for the last 7 years. I'd say if they haven't learned from that it's not due to a lack of opportunities.
@@greghall4836 Only a small portion of Russia’s airforce was deployed in Syria. They only deployed the very best of what they had. Which made people overestimate them and think the rest of their military was on a similar level. Which turned out to be completely false. Most of their military and airforce is far below the level showcased in Syria. And even the forces in Syria weren’t all that impressive given that the enemy had almost no MANPADS and literally zero SAM systems
@@greghall4836 Syria is not a comparable to going up against air defence systems spread out across a country. When the US invaded Iraq in the first Gulf war in 1990 there was hundreds and thousands of anti air batteries spread out across the region. That means an attacking force must have the inventory of parts, fitters, technicians and manufacturing industries to keep a force supplied for months on end. The US has hundreds of thousands of missiles in various classes.
I would recommend that you plot out the AA systems and their capabilities as well. Last I checked Ukraine had a comparatively much more modern Air defence network than iraq in 1991 as well as about an order of magnitude more numerous as well as almost exclusively mobile compared to the mainly static Iraqi air defences. They have also mobilized a bigger army than Iraq had, and the Russians still only have 100-150,000 troops active in the war against the 700-900,000 Ukrainian army. This war is is so unbalanced in so many different ways, it's just fascinating. And in many domains the balance is tilted in a way that is breaking new gound, for instance attacking while outnumbered 5:1, or where the defender has the rest of the world waging economic warfare against the attacker.
I somehow got my hands on apparently the Moskva maintenance report 2 weeks before it sunk. What was clear on the report was how BROKEN it was. So many things were not working/malfunctioning it was surprising it was still floating. For instance 2 of the 4 the engines had been run for over 25,000 hours where maintenance is needed after 5000 hours, meaning their FLAGSHIP was not maintained. If their airforce is anything similar to the Russians pride of the black sea then most of the planes on paper cant even fly.
Yes. Watch the video by LazerPig. Out of 4 air defence systems, one was working and the other were being used for parts to keep the working one going. It could only sail at half speed due to maintenance issues
Its the whole Russian army that is in such state. In 2010 I doubt that they had more than 100 tanks that could move. Its shows just how much Putler prepared for this war that Russians have lost over 2K tanks and 4K APCs and have not completely collapsed by now. In case you wonder why in 2014 they didn't went for an offensive of such scale as now, its because they couldn't. They crushed Ukrainian military in August early September of 2014, but suffered very heavy losses in the process and were unable to continue.
@@skipperg4436 didn't know they suffered heavy losses, I thought it was opportunity while the 2014 coup happened. But it explains why Putin didn't intervene when the pro Russian president was overthrown that year and instead took Crimea
Agreed, I make/create wildlife videos, I get to pick from my own footage, 100hrs can easily become 7 minutes. Having to research and edit video from around the globe must be exhausting and incredibly time consuming.
I confess I am often boggled on a regular myself lol. VERY good video here. What a bonus that the narrator sounds like a real person too. If this IS computer voicesh**t it's totally seamless so I'm (kind of) OK with it. I guess... One last issue though? I've whined to others about such detailed info seeming to spill a LOT of beans. Things like imagery resolution, sortie rates, and much more. Intel people in the countries that don't like us must have little stiffies viewing this type(though again excellent) of video. Hoping as a group that maybe some of the info is intentionally DISinfo? Thanks for the ramble as I boggle away; what do others think???
To those saying that Russia is withholding its air power please tell me what sense does it make to let your army become stuck in a long war of attrition?
The most extreme reason I've heard from pro-Russians who are from the West, is that Russia started this war just to train their army and give them proper combat experience. Which is uh, cartoonishly evil and stupid to say the least. Russia clearly underestimated Ukraine like the rest of the West and thought it'll fall like Kabul to the Talibans.
@@BlkNubiian No. Any pilots able to fly Russian aircraft must already be trained pilots. Full mobilization wouldn't make much of a different for RUAF. RUAF just sucks.
Troops and their equipment are more easily replaced then a aircraft and its pilot. Eastern countries typically have little value on the life of their citizens
Russia is afraid of the S300 and S400 systems the Ukrainians have because they get the job done. Plus, Russia doesn't have the money to give enough pilots enough air time to maintain proficiency. So, they forego training exercises that can develop and maintain complex air operations.
Russia can't run sorties if they don't have enough forward observers or reliable intelligence to provide timely strike packages. There have been so many instances of Russian airstrikes hitting abandoned buildings *days* after Ukrainian forces left. The quality of Russian intelligence is so poor, and the lag time on getting that intelligence to the Russian airforce is so great that its remarkable they ever hit a Ukrainian formation. Yes, Russia doesn't have enough aircraft to carry out a US style air campaign. But you're missing the biggest problem with Russian air command. The Russian air force cannot rely on the intelligence they are provided and they are so slow to receive that intelligence and act that they are literally days of OODA loops behind the Ukrainian forces. Russian air doctrine is fundamentally broken because they don't understand how intelligence integrates with the airforce. Because of this remarkable incompetence, its unsurprising that Russian airforce strikes are mainly stand-off cruise missile strikes at fixed infrastructure rather than UA troops.
The rot runs through the whole Russian Air Force and military in general. Outdated aircraft with outdated avionics/radar/engines using outdated doctrine and relying on outdated intelligence to drop outdated weapons. That’s just the 25% or so that can actually fly. Oh, and the pilot training sucks too. Their intelligence is so bad that I wonder if most of their surveillance and comms satellites don’t even work and are just kept in orbit as a distraction. It would fit with the state of the rest of their military.
@Scouts Honor He's not wrong. We all kind of knew there was a lot of grifting going on in the upper echelons of the Russian military, but had no idea how badly it had affected their combat capabilities. It's been stunning how poorly they've been operating the last 6 months.
@Scouts Honor Have you seen the leaked inspection report of the Moskva before the start of the war? The ship was in dire straits. Hardly any of its missile systems worked. Of the five CIWS systems on board, only one worked. The other four were used for parts. And these are just a couple examples. Guess what the results of the inspection were? Satisfactory. I posted this in a OSINT community. One user who claimed to have had dealings with the Russian navy in the past said that the inspection was par for the course.
@Scouts Honor I think we can all agree that "incompetence" absolutely applies to Russian efforts in all commands in this "special military operation." Some of it is due to corruption and misappropriation of military funds, a good deal of it is leadership, both from the fact that even some of the commanders weren't told it was going to be an actual war (that's not a good kind of "surprise"). Having your soldiers pack their dress uniforms for parades on day 3 of the invasion, another spectacular miscalculation that the Ukrainians would welcome the Russian troops and the Ukrainian forces would capitulate when the T-72s hit the roads. Anyway. So, yeah. Incompetence, and "remarkable" is absolutely deserved and appropriate.
In the beginning of the war, it was clear that Ukraine Intel (heavily supported by US/NATO) exceeded Russia’s. In the last month, it’s clear that Ukraine Intel has mastery over Russia’s. Pilots don’t risk flying into combat without reliable Intel.
So russia vs nato intel. For example, nato attacked kharkiv made russians "run" and "retreat". There was no milutary fight at all, why? Because russian military reduced its batallion from 20 to 1 brigade. Thats 20k to 1000 men. Did nato knew abt this? Yes this is why they took advantage of it. They went far east to take back land. This is what russians expected nato to do. Now the real fighting is in kherson while ukrainians are busy "punching air" in kharkiv.
@@vladinfinite be patient, they know this. Even telegram and youtube people knows so russian knows. They are waiting for the right moment. I.e. the blowing up of the dam. Russians waited for troops to cross the river then blew it up, so now ukronahtzees are stuck and cant resupply. No more pontoon brideges on that river for sure.
It might not be fair to compare Russia Ukraine with Desert Storm. The Desert Storm air campaign is widely seen as about as perfect as you can possibly expect a military campaign to go. It was both 1991 Mike Tyson and the Moscow Ballet. You probably couldn't replicate anything like that ever again. Closer to an alien colonization than a war.
Based on LazerPig's video re: the Moskva, and then reports of their truck tires crumbling because poor maintenance, I'm convinced Russia's air force is a no show because they skipped maintenance and are down to bare bones
also lets not forget that the russian air force got its ass pummeled by a missle strike at its own air field so far behind there lines in crimea that it makes you wounded what in blood soaked protestant hell is the russian air defense doing they jerked there dicks raw over how the S-300 and S-400 could in intercept nato missiles yet low and fucking behold there main airbase and a shit ton of russian fighter craft eats repeated missle strikes mean while every few weeks a shit load of helicopters and troops get blown up at Kherson airport by himars
Russia has about 5 percent of its military budget stolen by generals Problem is that 5 percent is the most important part. 12 million Euro plane is useless without parts. 3 million euro tank is useless without fuel. The Russian men might have endless supply of shells and rpg but their new uniforms, night vision, and rations have been stolen by their own officers and replaced with cold war crap and food that expired 2 decades ago.
Either Russian inventory is not as deep as presented or they are holding it back. I suspect they are holding it back on purpose because they have larger plans but those plans now maybe going out the window as things start to crumble.
@@bighands69 Pahahaha holding it back. Stop coping, losing 1/3rd of your active tank pool(photographically confirmed so more likely 2/3rds) including half of all your T-80s (Visually confirmed) isn't holding back. If they did SEAD properly they'd have saved over 3-5 billion USD by now in equipment/men. Even if they lost 100 aircraft of SU-30 and MIG-29 series it wouldn't come close to what their losing now. They dont have the capability and that's that.
Another factor limiting the Russian AF is the rampant systemic corruption within the Russian military. Aircraft poorly maintained, stolen/"lost" fuel, inadequate replacement parts that are likely of poor quality, "modern" weapon systems (ie guided 'smart' weapons) that have not performed as well as "predicted" and having fewer of those due to both sanctions as well as the aforementioned corruption. So, a better analogy would be that both sides at the start of the war were more analogous to Iraq during the '91 Gulf War (Russia being slightly more advanced). But, now the tables have likely flipped in Ukraine's favor in terms of technological edge. And, given the performance the Ukrainians have demonstrated, thanks in large part to having become a western/NATO-trained force over the last few years, with mostly 'outdated' weaponry, and piecemeal modern replacements gifted by the west, they're only going to get deadlier.
I suspect that most replacement parts were scrapped from other aircraft, their reser4ve aircraft and much of their in service aircraft are little more than empty shells. *I expect Ukraine and other small European nations* to become the dumping ground for Soviet and Russian made weapons as the NATO countries upgrade.
@@1SCme That has already happened but after thirty years, the former Warsaw Pact members only have so much to give. Ukraine is likely to be equipped with F-16 and F-15 over the medium to long term. In the meanwhile, the emphasis is on upgrading their current inventory.
@@aymonfoxc1442 Mostly small individually, combined Poland, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Albania, and the Czech Republic (not to mention other non-NATO countries) have a massive amount of Russian military hardware they are looking to replace. As they are replaced, what isn't being put into reserve (which can be costly) will be marketed or given to other countries. I would like to see the west give Ukraine modern equipment that is scheduled to be removed from service (like F-16s and A-10s from the US), but that doesn't look like it is going to happen. Even these are a very short term solution - they're fine to put into action now, but they're being retired because they're worm out, at the end of their life expectancy - they're not a longer term solution. In contrast the Soviet era equipment is being phased out to save maintenance money to reinvest in newer equipment (MIGs for F-35a, T-crap for M-1s, etc.). Meanwhile Ukraine will be hampered economically with rebuilding - they'll upgrade their existing equipment, but I expect it to be a long time before Ukraine goes on a large scale switch out of Russian era weapons for NATO weapons - Ukraine will rely on quantity and their newfound battlefield reputation over quality for defense.
@@1SCme True, these countries had a lot of Soviet equipment (some still do) and many have produced a lot of derivatIves over the last 30 years but a lot of this gear has already been given to Ukraine and more will likely be given to them within a year. The maintenance and ready-rates of stored equipment also varies across different countries, so the challenge of supllying it to Ukraine varies. Ukraine will require hardware beyond the next year or two and that hardware will need to have a sophisticated ecosystem of supporting industry with the capacity to produce, supply and maintain it - this simply does not exist in other European countries. Poland has given around 200 T-72 Twardy tanks and has another 100 to potentially supply once its replacements begin arriving in country (Abrams and K2 tanks being Poland's will fill Poland's new tank fleet), whilst the Czechs have also given Ukraine dozens of tanks but no Western countries have large industrial production of Soviet / Russian equipment and Ukraine's military industrial complex (which was quite capable) has been devastated. If the war drags on, equipment will have to keep coming. The West was already struggling to source shells for Ukrainian tanks and artillery, hence the transition to 155mm guns and M270 / HIMARS. The Finns can produce some bullets but even the demand for this simple product is too great. Heck, Ukraine has even been facing problems with worn out gun barrels on its Soviet era artillery and tank guns, so logistical issues are already starting to bite. The transition to Western weapons systems is something that Ukraine, NATO and various governments are talking about openly and ammunition / maintenance really are big driving factors. It's just a shame that Ukraine has to undertake such a logistical exercise during wartime and if the war drags on for to long, Ukraine will have to complete this transition to keep fighting. Afterall, they can't rely on Russia abandoning supply caches every time they need more artillery shells. So, whilst old equipment can continue to be delivered for now, it's not sustainable and eventually Ukraine will require new aircraft and new vehicles to provide for a stable, maintainable military. Worn out hand-me downs can only stretch so far and even though fairly recent production models or durable weapon systems can be maintained for the long term (just as current legacy platforms around the world have been), this is only possible if there is a sufficient industry to support their maintenance. Still, maintenance costs will have to be brought down and maintaining rare oddities isn't likely to be conducive in this regard because nobody will be eager to finance the construction / reconstruction of an industrial base to do so. So, whilst I hope Ukraine receives all the weapons possible (be they of Soviet origin, or otherwise) and the war is brought to an end soon, Ukraine and the West need to prepare for a long war. Either way, defence costs will have to be brought under control regardless of how quickly the war ends because Ukraine will need a sustainable military and the West will need to reduce the burden of the war on its economy and industrial base to maintain support for Ukraine. Of course, after the war, Ukraine and the West will have to focus on rebuilding the country. The F-16s that you mention would certainly be a great asset to Ukraine but I am inclined to think that the A-10s would be even better because they were designed for fighting the armour-centric style of the Russian army, are reported to be easy handling (thus easier to train on quickly), robust and have a surprisingly good record in air-to-air combat. Given the performance of the Russian Air Force and indeed, the Russian ground forces, I think these could be a huge boon for Ukraine.
Don’t forget their lack of proper antiradar missiles. They simply have no effective way of killing Ukraines ground based AA. Which is mind boggling to someone accustomed with modern war strategies.
@@bouloshijazin5129 they don't use them PROPERLY ( I had to capitalize it because some people didn't seem to see it) so they MAY as well not even exist. To the people down below this is sarcasm not an actual argument 🙄
You would think that, 30 years after watching a Soviet-style ADA network get annihilated in 12 hours by the US, they would have thought of some way to either emulate or counteract it. But no.
There are several examples of Russian pilots using Kh-31. The main reason they are ineffective is the vast intelligence and sensors from the West. Ukraine simply shut down the radars and move before they get hit.
There are some factors you've missed. First, whether Russian jets fly low, at medium height altitudes or high up, they are being destroyed by highly advanced SAM systems from the West guided by systems I choose not to mention, which can override any protective systems the Russians now possess. Losses of over 20% per sortie on the Russians' part is common in the War in Ukraine. This is unsustainable. The other factor is the jamming technology provided by the West, for which Russia has no answer whatever. This makes the planes useless even if Russia put them in the air. There is also the issue that there are key components of aircraft Russia cannot get right now...some expected, some not expected. Estimates are that in a full scale war with the West (a distinct possibility should Russia use chemical or tactical nuclear weapons) Russia could only field an effective Airforce for 6 weeks. For these reasons, Russia is not fielding an Air Force en masse at present...nor will they do so in the months ahead. If they did, they would lose the little AirForce they have in short order, and this they do not want to do. The issue for the Russians at present is they no longer possess the conventional military necessary to stop an adversary from invading Russia, should an entity wish to do this. Crimea will go back to Ukraine, as will most all the Russian's gains, other than a slim slice of the Donbas. Of course, the addition of Sweden and Finland to NATO doubled the border that the Russians must man, and they don't have the manpower and equipment to do that either. Actually, this expansion of NATO was the largest blow by far to Russia, and will impact their strategic position for centuries to come. Putin did not see the Ukrainians' will to fight and armaments, the sanctions, the freezing of oligarchs' monies, or the poor state of Russia's military to fight an armed conflict...but most important, Putin did not see the expansion of NATO coming. In similar manner, Putin did not see the coming addition of Ukraine to NATO after the war, as there are no remaining reasons for the West to placate the Russians whatever, will be the most unpleasant reality soon for the Russians. This will be the end of his leadership in Russia.
@@ScaryRevenant Cry your eyes out, I know the truth hurts. It was NATO's invitation to Ukraine to join them that helped to start the conflict. Something very similar occurred in Cuba in 1962. Read more, talk less.
Nuclear weapons are the very reason the Nato is not invading russia. Today i heared that russia is taking steps to mass mobilize. One of them is taking the current held ukrain terretorys as "russia". By that they tell their own people that ukrain troops are invading russia. That could turn the 125.000 russian troops into over a million. By the end of WW2 Russia had close to 12milion soilders, plus roughly 9 million who died thats 21 million soilders fielded over the entire war. Most where conscripts but they where deadly in their own regard. After all desertion meant the death of them and their families. Dont count Ukrainian victory before russia went all out. And hope that they dont use Nuclear weapons. Even if they used tactical nuclear weapons , í would not count on Nato counter invading. That could end with the launch of all nuclear missiles and the end of humanity. The Nuclear Shield as its called. The only reason the World let Russia do as it pleases. Becourse there is no counter to it. Sure the US has defenses against a couple missiles. But not against the 6000 missiles they have. The Nato is walking a fine line of being at war with Russia without being at war with Russia. I have no doubt that special forces from the Nato states are currently in ukrain helping with the war in their own way. As i have no doubt russia is sending its spys and assasins across the world to sow fear of going against it. I dont think ukrain will regain the crimera. Maybe the rest but even that i doubt. They will fight for it but the west will keep pushing for peace talks. As the West will keep Ukrain armed enough to not fall but not enough to be a threat to russia.
I think people are starting to realize that most of Russian weapons are on-paper. Available inventory indicates that most of their airforce are not fit to fly or are potentially destroyed from storage
@@augustuslunasol10thapostle cause Russia has to diffend the biggest territory of its own ... Russia cant use whole army in one point. Ukraine can use whole army at this war and has troops advantage so its not a miracle that Russia is struggling...
@@petrkdn8224 the USA lost those for very different reasons and were not related to military action or inaction but due to politics and bad policy making along with not knowing what kind of country/people they were dealing with
step 2: ignore the falling value of every NATO currency and the rising price of everything? the real war is not being fought on the ground or even in the air. Its economic and propaganda.
@@JeanLucCaptain Euro inflation: 9,1% Dollar inflation: 8,5% Ruble inflation: over 14,5% They're also projected to lose 8% of their GDP, while America and Europe are projected to begin to recover.
@@Testimony_Of_JTF time is certainly not on Russia’s side. The big question is, at what point Russia resorts to nukes on Ukrainian soil. Because that’s the easy button that Russia can use, but would be extremely bad for them to use as well.
Interestingly enough, both sides have been able to use Soviet origin SAM systems and AA networks to a degree with success. Which indicates the relevance of these systems in modern times.
Well both are supplied by soviets so thats expected but the S125 is being used in Ukraine and many other nations despite being wildly outdated. Reason being an S125 once shot down an F117 stealth so Russia still sells it as a stealth kileer while not disclosing the facts and failures by the US that lead to that shoot down. Just saying sometimes utilization doesn’t equal effectiveness. Ive also seen some macim machine guns in Ukraine, should we now consider them relevant?
The Russian air force is nowhere near as capable as the US in 1991, I don't know what you are talking about. No F16, F15, A10, GNSS guided true precision munition, GMLRS counter, anti radiation counter, anti air proficiency, true combat usable IFF, performant satellite imagery, ELINT equivalent etc etc etc. They are at 60, 70s level, with some very little 80, 90s comparable technology, given more by Kalibr and laser guided heli launched ATGMs. So let s be serious.: They have no answer even for 20 HIMARS. They are a propaganda army, with stupidly large amount of ammunition.
@@TrusePkay we knew it would happen eventually. Since on radar the cheaper GRADD rocket looks almost the same as HIMARS they had to retrain to detect the difference so they wouldn’t waste AD missiles but given that all they have left is S-300 missiles they are more apt to use them even if the rocket is a gradd and not a himars . That’s how they are shooting them down , they aren’t scared to use the s-300
During OEF 8 in 2007 for the entire year. The 82nd CAB had a 95% availability. 80% may be acceptable but I think there would be reliefs of command under war circumstances. Sequestration brought us down to 60% at one point…
@@germen343 I was in 82nd CAB until the end of 1992. We were never below 80% availability and on most days, were at 100%. We would do a 6 hour flight mission at night and then Delta company could provide additional hands on wrenches all day to have it ready again for the next night. I used to fly about 120 hours per month in the back of the UH-60L. If an engine gave us trouble, it could be swapped out in a few hours by two men. Individual flight control components like pitch links could be swapped in minutes. We didn't wait for parts to break, but changed them out preventatively.
Dropping down to 70% raises eyebrows and causes officers to sweat in the US. Meanwhile in Russia, rising up to 70% gets big grins, pats on the back, and a few medals for excellence.
Guys, HERE is The Savior HalleluYAH translates “Praise ye YaH” YaH is The Heavenly Father YaH arrives via the TENT OF MEETING YaH was Who they Crucified for our sins ** NO FEMALE INVOLVED WHATSOEVER ** - Hebrew Book of Isaiah Isaiah 42:8 "I am YaH; that is my Name! I will not yield my glory to another or my praise to idols. Isaiah 43:11 I, I am YAH, and there is no other Savior but Me. Isaiah 45:5 I am YaH, and there is none else.
I watched a channel that talked about Russia's SEAD ability and they said Russia not only don't have enough specialized aircraft and weapons but also do very little SEAD training. It's questionable how much training time Russian pilots get in general as it's very expensive.
That, and Ukraine has plenty of Soviet SAMs, which the USSR specifically designed to blow the crap out of NATO Airforces. They expected to be on the receiving end of their own quite effective SAM systems.
Yeah, it's absolutely clear now that NATO would utterly annihilate Russia in a conventional war. They don't even have a counter for HIMARS, which is 90s tech. Imagine what hundreds of F35's would do.
@@ferrous3262 Electronics is king, and US is more advanced in those regards. They probably wouldn't even be able to get into a position where they could fight back 😆. What you see in movies is misleading.
"It's unlike that even the US could've kept up a high rate for over six months straight" Bold to assume the US needs 6 months to obtain air superiority.
@@muhammaDEsmustafa Since when the Taliban ever got air superiority? And they got no jets, Afghanistan wasn't a conventinal war against uniformed soldiers and clear military equipment and instalations like in Ukraine.
@@gabbyprincip1575 Vietnam was 60 years ago and SEAD/DEAD got developed during the war, eventually the U.S achieved air superiority at the end but the political war had been lost already.
There are multiple reasons for the failure. Russia re-started their Air Force in 91 getting most of the pilots and the planes but not the ground crews. The lack of combat training for pilots is a huge concern. Most of the pilots have less than 40 hrs of combat training. The maintenance of the fighters has been neglected for many years so even if Russia has impressive numbers on paper, the reality is that less than 30% are operational. The Russian Air Force passed the 90`s almost without any funding and that spills over today. There are good Russian pilots but the majority of them are or were engaged in Syria. According to some sources, the Russian pilots need to volunteer for the Ukrainian "special operation" which makes sense since a lot of "Wagner group"-pilots are flying Russian Air Force Su-25s. The main issue remains, that Russia severely underestimated Ukraine in so many ways. Add to that the intelligence and sensor information provided by the west. The few Russian air sorties were badly planned and not coordinated.
@@Zantides no he is actually correct. The top two as listed is the US Air Force, followed by the US Navy for most units. Not as a combined item, each of them has more then Russia. (This is caused by Carriers which are a NAVY resource, so all planes located on them are under Navy command. Where as the Air Force launches from various US bases around the world and is under Air Force command. The dude simply grouped all US listings as one thing, which isn't how lists work. I'm a Canadian and even I know this about the US Military. It is also easily sourced information to find. The US does like to brag about it's military.
Russian air force tried really hard to emulate the U.S airforce tactics but it really went bad for them since they have just few fighters and will never be able to catch up with the mightiest and biggest air force fleet on earth, the U.S.A 💪🏻💯🦅⚔️🇺🇸 Long live the U.S.A ❤️💪🏻💯🎯🦅🇺🇲💯⚔️
Thank you for your video. There may be more to the lack of Russian air superiority than you presented. One more factor is corruption and as a consequence, the lack of modern stand off missiles. As it is too risky for Russian aircraft to fly close to their targets for the reason you presented they just do not fly at all. One more thing to consider is morale. There was no aircraft flyover during the victory day parade! The official reason was poor weather, which was an obvious lie. There is reason to believe that Russian airforce command and Kremlin are on bad terms. Russian airforce feels cheated, see corruption and lack of modern missiles abd equipment above, and simply refuse to be cannon fodder. Keep up the good work!
The kremlin allocated money The generals steal it There is no way the Russia airforce would be angry with the kremlin it should be the other way round .
Great video but I think you miss one important point - pilots are scarce. russia doesn't have enough pilots for all its planes because training them is super expensive so what's the point in having 1000 planes if you only have only 500 pilots to fly them? This is also the reason they go above and beyond to rescue every single pilot and also the reason why you can see some pilots being really old. There's just not enough of them, and the ones that do 'exist' don't have as much flying hours as western pilots so they can't fly as well and are easier to shoot down. Also you missed the Belarusian military bases/airfields which russians also use to send missiles towards us. There's at least 2 of them
There's been several reports from US/UK intelligence published over the summer that the lack of Russia air superiority is likely due to a confluence of these factors: - Lack of PGM (precision guided munitions) for accurate target strikes since most of their PGM supply has been used in the multi-year, and seemingly endless, Syria war (backing Assad has turned out to be a critical error here). The only thing that can be armed on current Russian aircraft are standard bombs and munitions, thereby increasing the likelihood of missed targets or even bombing their own troops. Would be largely ineffective. - Lack of fighter pilots - it has been leaked that Russia has been calling up retired fighter pilots, a clear signal that they don't have enough fully trained capable pilots to man their large inventory of fighter aircraft. After Putin took power, there was more of a push for aircraft "count" then instituting a comprehensive fighter pilot training/recruitment program. Also, due to economic stresses, many fighter pilots transitioned to commercial airlines. Russia seems hesitant, for now, to pull the trigger on forcibly pulling these pilots to fight in the war since it would cripple their commercial airline industry, or lead to an exodus of fleeing the country similar to the mobilization effort. - Maintenance/spare parts crisis - Many of Russia's aircraft are in poor condition and missing critical repair parts. You can easily find 3 or 4 verified TH-cam videos of Russian fighter aircraft crashing right after take-off, or not even leaving the runway and crashing off a cliff just within the last several months. This could also be linked to the above point on lack of qualified pilots. - Ukraine defensive success - if you roll back the tape to the first month or two of the war, Russia used many fighter aircraft but several were shot down by advanced missile defense systems or direct air-to-air combat by the Ukraine air force. A US general (with access to intelligence) estimates that Russia has lost 55-60 advanced fighter aircraft since the start of the war. Ukraine believes it is over 100. So if the number is somewhere in between, that is a huge % of its active fighter fleet, not to mention the loss of pilots.
I have also heard rumors about the lack of fuel in Russia. It might be fake or over exaggerated but some foreign air liners in Moscow can not get fuel in time. The other certain factor is the powerful use of electronic warfare by NATO forces. Even if they had PGM ammunition, their precision is lost in the minute they enter into territory of Ukraine. Actually, if one thinks about it, NATO has a massive amount of advantage in this war and they do have the utmost audacity to exploit that.
In addition to air defense, there is another point that levels the effectiveness of the Air Force. This is a strategy of fighting by the Ukrainian army in small mobile groups.
This kind of calls into question why Russia would/ should even bother spending so much money on an airforce that isn't even capable of making a major difference in a war against the poorest country in Europe...
Well unironically enough, the Ukrainian's S300s are giving the Russian own airforce a lot of trouble, so I suppose that system, in particular, is working as advertised.
I wonder if we look at modern Russia like the medieval world looked at the Byzantine Empire around 1445? We've watched one of the most feared armies ever turned into a joke.
Conducting a sustained air campaign is a very complicated matter. You must have a whole bunch of air packages working together, such as electronic jamming, air-to-air (fighters), air-to-ground (bombers), and last but not least intelligence-gathering and coordinating (AWACS). Had they tried to actually do this, they would have probably lost 90% of their air force.
They don't have much of those capabilities you listed or the appropriate experience to deploy them in Ukraine. Look at Desert Storm's air campaign and compare it with Russia's in Syria and Ukraine. Obvious difference in skill and hardware.
@@SHVRWK that's simply untrue russia has a very good airforce but it's too risky to send them into ukriane Iraq didn't have very cable air to air missiles but ukriane is being supplied by nato so russia is saving its air force for the future
@@Thunder_playz_331 that’s untrue, Iraq at the time of the 1st gulf war, the one that involved the infamous bombing campaign, the Iraqis had more Sam’s that were for their time more up to date, than the Ukrainians do now. It really comes down to the fact that the Russians do not have the specialized aircraft nor proper training to carry out a sustained SEAD campaign, they are more than capable of contesting enemy air superiority, but suppressing air defenses isn’t something the Russian Air Force was made to do.
@@Thunder_playz_331 >Russia has a very good airforce >But it would also get blown up completely because Ukraine is using the most basic hand-me-down old NATO stuff Ahh the ol' Vatnik paradox
Anti-air has also been developed at a similar pace as fighter jets and this can also be a large contributing factor in limited air support from both ends. I honestly do not think you will ever see US warplanes being transferred to Ukraine unless it is used from a distance. The risk is just too great to be shot down. Land-based missiles and rockets seem to be the main effective strategy for both sides.
The US do not use warplanes on their own. They are part of a wider force infrastructure. When the US goes up against air defence systems they will be using signal jamming and decoy systems. The US could send in a series of cheap missiles that makes it appear like several squadrons are attacking. They can also fly stealth aircraft in that mix so that they cannot tell what is real and what is not. I suspect that Ukraine has learned how to do this.
The Russian Generals will be acutely aware of what's happened on the ground, and if it was decided to try to gain massive air superiority, they might realise that ground to air missile systems might be used to counter them. Their army and navy have both felt the fury of pi$$ed off Ukrainian forces, so they might want to keep at least one part of their armed forces relatively intact.
This event is probably really opening alot of eyes up to what capable drones can do, on a smaller scale than the big expensive monster drones such as the US prefers.
Drone efficiency in Ukraine has a lot to do with russian incompetence and faults in tank engineering, such as the tendency for even relatively small explosions to set off armaments, blowing the turret off.
@@LRBeforeTheInternet Yes. The smaller switchblade 300 isn't designed to take out tanks though, but it works against most russian tanks because older russian tanks have a known design flaw that makes them very susceptible to the ammunition igniting. Jack-in-the-box, russian turret blows off and the tank is so much scrap. Phoenix ghost are reportedly pretty similar. They're about to receive switchblade 600s, those are a lot bigger and have a larger warhead. They are intended for anti armor. Unfortunately they won't be available in large numbers, but for the right target they'll be devestating.
I agree that small drones with a Granade that wounds soldiers very effect. Had the moral effect of a sniper and artillery combined. Then there is the ability to get real time actuate intel for artillery. All for for less then a 1k per pop is very impressive and makes me want to get a drone
The big drones are much more capable. Which is why medium sized Byraktars haven’t done anything since the first couple months. Competent air defense makes those slow with small short ranged munitions very vulnerable to short ranged SAMs
Thank you for this, I was under the impression that Russia was just not using their air force because the cost per benefit was too high. Surprising given the size of Russia's landmass that the amount of planes is small, especially since they're using a lot of it in Syria.
I think if all the reports of losses and captures of Russian soldiers during the counter-offensive are true, then we can assume Russia is doing everything it can without incurring the wrath of NATO. Because why would they let such a horrible defeat come over them if they can help it?
@@kevinhulvey7018 I am not sure about that respectfully disagree Kevin. The red line for incurring the wrath of NATO has long past and gone over significantly. We are far past that point. I believe Russia used up all of their munitions, most of their conscripted forces, and were practically begging China for MRE (food) for soldiers. Ukraine endured, and are now using the full brunt of power lent to them by America and NATO. Its very clear that NATO training/technology/intelligence that Ukraine now possess is far superior to Russia's who are still using Soviet era tactics and weapons. Kadyrov is now looking for an out, and Lukashenko is looking to enter the conflict because he knows Russia is desperate and he will not stay in power without Putin's support. We all hope Ukraine will win. God Bless all.
@@kevinhulvey7018 I highly doubt Russia fears Nato, infact it is the other way around because a dictator with nukes in hands is much more dangerous than anything else. If there were mass captures, then we would have seen those soldiers, like how Russia showed in Marioupol. We all know Ukraine wouldn't simply not share footage.
@@kevinhulvey7018 they won’t let a defeat happen, and he has shown restraint in not using nuke weapons when he has them and ukraine is not a nuclear power. He will tho of we keep escalating, so this thing will probably spiral pretty bad.
@@chrisbreezy-ryanbarbosa4320 there's so much propaganda in this comment. If Russia still using soviet tactics and weapons, why do Ukrainian "superior powers" can't stand against cheap shahid drones not to mention real rockets?
Well, you definitely missed mentioning the fact that Russian aircraft are clearly not on the same level as the US' were in 1991. Targeting, tracking, navigation - all of this seems to be very bad. Russian aircraft were seen multiple times using commercial-grade GPS receivers for navigation. And their *true* precision weaponry seems to be very limited in numbers.
"The US couldn't have kept up such a sortie rate over 6 months." Which is why we carried out intelligence and focused on destroying AA installations before the ground invasion... which Russia did not do. And no, Russia did not "try this". They went in with a few sorties early on, none of which succeeded in locating AA. This video feels like it's downplaying these failures.
Russia doesn't do high-quality SEAD/DEAD. Without high-quality SEAD/DEAD you're just flying meat. As for their 'experience' they haven't fought an 'equal' opponent since WWII.
Well, they actually did fight equal opponent since WW2. In Vietnam War it said the dogfights between USAF and North Vietnam, a lot of those piloted by Soviet.
As always, absolutely excellent analysis. You answered all my questions and some that I didn't even think about. To me the main issue is that russia is launching a war against a sovereign nation with not only a peacetime strength military, but one that has been hollowed out by decades of corruption and low budgets following the collapse of the USSR. And as we saw in afghanistan, even the USSR at it's peak strength struggled to wage a successful campaign outside of its own borders. If russia wanted WWII levels of effective sorties they would need to commit to a WWII style war footing throughout their entire economy, converting civilian factories to making planes and bombs, etc.
I almost didn’t click on this video because “Covert Cabal” sounds like a Qanon channel, and we all know they’re pro-Russki. so glad i ended up watching anyway! 😊
Hi! Nice job on the OpenSource intelligence part :) I'd like to add the suspicion of them not being able (or even being denied somehow!) to simply locate targets to their airforce. They have the firepower for sure, but seemingly, simply does not know WHERE to strike. Fur sure they have inferior satellite imagery to the west, and they pretty much lack the numbers in recce pods and capable, high flying drones, which, in total are the responsible for daily target acquisition in the West... Even their frontline troops lacked any overhead support.
Russia has really turned out to be a paper Bear. Looks good on paper lacks any teeth. Did you know that a maintenance report on the Moskov warship said only about 1/3 of its systems actually functioned correctly. Thats their capital warship. God knows how bad the others are. Lazerpig did a video on it. Very interesting.
@@justicehenrydamian475 An old ship upgraded and modernized in 2019 - 2020. The claim that it's old also doesn't hold much water since most navies tend to retain ships for decades. As an example, the USS Nimitz was launched 1972 and commissioned in 1975, whereas the Moskva launched in 1979 and commissioned in 1982, thus the Moskva is actual a relatively "new" ship. The Nimitz is still the proud centerpiece of Carrier Strike Group 11, whereas the Moskva is now a wreck at the bottom of the sea.
I might suggest that the key factor is spare parts. Spare parts are expensive but not glamorous. Governments like to point to impressive displays of their aircraft but no one gets excited about warehouses full of spare parts. But planes are technological marvels that break, all the time. To fix the plane you need trained technicians and sufficient spare parts. If you don't have the spare parts, then the aircraft will break down quickly and no longer be useable, unless you cannibalize other aircraft. Modern warfare is expensive and most nations just cannot afford the cost.
A perfect illustration of that point would be the Black Hawk helicopter crash in Afghanistan. The Taliban probably had no idea that helicopters have parts needing full replacement after set time intervals. And there aren't likely to be any parts available.....
@Scouts Honor I do not "blindly believe" anything; but I did spend six years in the USAF heavily involved with planning, organizing and implementing logistical plans and know first hand, the time, money and effort required to keep aircraft flying and performing. I also had access to information regarding the logistics capabilities of both NATO allies and the Warsaw pact military. The Russian Air Force has some very capable people; but they do not have the funds to sustain a long war of attrition. The more that a weapon's system can do, the more expensive it is, and therefore, the fewer can be purchased. On top of that, new weapons are so expensive they cannot be tested thoroughly, which means that all sorts of problems come up, only in combat. As a result, those systems are either quickly exhausted or replaced with older, less effective, but more reliable weapons - like the Russian Air Force relying on dumb bombs...
Poor old russia embitterdly trying to keep up with far more powerful countries than itself simply is not able to contain the high standards other, economically superior countries hold. Only solution is getting off of their high horse and dont f*** with the western alliance anymore.
@Scouts Honor "Russia has air superiority in Ukraine since Day One" that is factually incorrect. To this day, the Ukrainian airspace remains contested and we've reached a point where we see roughly the same amount or even more sorties/day being conducted by Ukrainian Airforce than by the Russian one. The airspace being contested is also one of the reasons why Russian airstrikes are always focused on targets right at the frontline and very few have managed to strike deeper into Ukraine in the past months.
@@AbuBakr-gm6bf oh, they are hitting targets for sure. But not every day (6 months of firing Kalibr missiles and Russia would have none left). But they are hitting targets less than 40% of the time. We have radar and satellites tracking every missile they fire into Ukraine and so people with sufficient clearance can see the data and they all say it's about 60% failure rate of Russian missiles.
I think their drone capabilities have probably developed during this conflict; wars force innovation and sides to adapt. I know many NATO countries have massive capability gaps, I've heard the US are struggling to produce 12000 155mm shells a month, Russia are using 20,000 shells a day! The UK havn't developed a decent drone capability yet. And Ukraine is bleeding NATO assets, countries are struggling to keep up with the demand and are weakening themselves in doing so.
Modern combat airplanes are very expensive. The Russians probably concluded that they shouldn't waste resources on a conflict that appears to be headed for a stalemate or a defeat.
Assuming Ukraine's air defense network is only somewhat capable will only lead to confusion. To ask: "how capable is Ukraine's combination of its own air defense with the addition of an ever-increasing array of Western systems?" ... Stingers, Starstreaks, Martletts, Piorun... and now NASAMS, HARM anti-radar missiles, and HIMARS targeting and diminishing rashist capabilities in the electronic domain...
You should have explained, that the Russian fighter jets are made more for Dog Fight and not striking behind enemies lines. Their jets are so old, that they don’t have a GPS, so they had to mount a GPS inside the cockpit 😂
Oryx accredits 376 aircraft kills to Ukraine today. Looking at the list, that seems to include ALL aerial vehicles. It's like 90 helicopters, 80 jets, the rest are drones.
The Era of Close Air Support ist over, at least in modern conflicts I think. SEAD all you want, but you will never stop two Shmocks sitting in the Woods with a Stinger.
@@aquilaFUN with the accuracy of NATO precision weapons you don’t need to get that close that’s whole point . Although there is nothing as nice as the sound of an A10 coming in brrrrr
@@aquilaFUN "Close" means you are targeting enemy forces engaged with friendlies. Not that the aircraft is close to the ground. You could perform close air support from orbit if you wanted to, it's just not practical.
How many countries invaded Iraq? Was Russia or any other country supplying weapons to Iraq? Is anyone suctioned usa and nato? This whole comparison is useless
When the US flew 2 B-52s from the US allllll the way to the Middle East to conduct a bombing run (perfectly timed with desert storm) and flew all the way back. That, is something we will never see from another 'super power'.
US ain't the only ones for doing long bombing raids with "Modern" strategic bombers. Look up the blackbuck raid carried out by the RAF at the start of the falklands campaign. Absolutely ridiculous level of refueling aircraft... but it worked.
@@amartyaroy3754 Yup. It's what happens when you have an asset, but neglect maintaining it, then suddenly need it, just as much as it is a triumph of aerial refueling operations.
NATO intelligence is what allows Ukraine to survive and more importantly keep having SAM systems alive. A sam system needs to turn on its radar to search for targets but that in turn makes it vulnerable to being located. Ukranians SAMs don't need to do that since they will always get intel (fed by NATO AWACS for example) turn the radar on briefly, shoot and run away. That's how Ukrainians are even using manpads to a great effect. Every time a Russian plane is on its way they already know about it. If we're talking about fair, the US air force never faced an adversary with such an advantage.
no, AWACS and similar jets in the AO actually can only see so far into ukraine and definelty can not see the eastern portion bordering russia. much less near kyiv.. ukraine is doing great work by themselves in that aspect
@@adamsauer6516 Wrong, they can see just fine especially when flying from the side of the black sea. And AWACS are just one of he options. The US has 3 spy satellites in geostationary orbit (it means they don't lose the area of coverage by orbiting the planet) and that provides literally live-time situational awareness of the battle space.
He refers to the WWII SAS operation that shot up a German airfield in North Africa...with Jeeps and machine guns. That's some Ukrainian-sized balls right there.
Regarding clouds making it harder for satellites to see ground objects, don't forget there is a technology called Synthetic Aperture Radar. Russia has two optical reconnaissance satellites in orbit now, called Persona and Hendrix, but they were launched between seven and nine years ago, meaning they may be near the end of their working life.
The massive Russian Air Force is sitting next to their 20,000 tanks and 19,000 artillery, manned by their 2,000,000 troops. *You overlooked Russian missile warning systems* on aircraft and helicopters, which appear to be ineffective against smaller missiles, or completely missing or inoperable - pilots have countermeasures, but have to guess when to deploy them.
This is why I am an advocate for a huge reduction in US military spending. Our potential adversaries are just not that capable. Not really required to spend over 3/4 trillion dollars a year. We truly are wasting money that does not need to be wasted.
Especially when you think that Ukraine can achieve way more with way less....The USA needed 1 million bullets for one Taliban in Afghanistan...imagine this huge, ineficient waste of money and recources in Ukraine?
Having overwhelming superiority is way less costly than maintaining such superiority. Also if the US military wasn't as mighty as it is, Taiwan would most likely have been invaded by now. Just having that big stick saves so much turmoil and human lives. The less you have to actually use it for real, the better. Having only a small edge will result in incredibly bloody wars.
To start comparing quotes and simplify insurance-buying, check out Policygenius: policygenius.com/covertcabal
Thanks to Policygenius for sponsoring this video!
Why do you compare russian air force to West ones while Russian military doctrine is completely differente from the western one ?
Special Ops and WAR are two different thing Russian is not even fighting at 20% of it's capabilities do more research on that!
@@carsociety705 cry more 😅
@@RandySnarsh 🤷for what?
Oh Covert Caboot... Perhaps it’s now time for you to get with the times in recognizing that Mordor doesn’t actually have the military they’ve claimed they do. The corruption is just too deep, and it seem that everyone in the world but a few select TH-cam analysts like yourself know this, and know it well.
Even the excuses you make here while are and sound “charming” (in the eyes of their supporters), they simply don’t reflect the realities of the situation.
They simply aren’t the military once thought to have been. I’d be surprised that by the end of this conflict that they’ll place even in the top 100 (with the exception of nuclear capabilities, which require another story due to their country falling apart shortly and these weapons exist in different lands to be occupied by newly created countries)...
Everyone asks where is air force. No one ever asks How is Air Force =(
I'll do you one better. Why is Air Force? >=]
what air force doing?
WHEN is Air Force?
How can air force anything ✈
Whence the Air Force?
During early days of WW2, the USA agreed to lease a couple of aircraft carriers to the UK, and officially it was only these two ships. What was not declared openly was that these two ships were packed with aircraft, ammunition, ground vehicles, bombs and all manner of things that would not have passed through congress. So when the US says "only spare parts", well, two spare wings and one spare body = one whole aircraft.
It's a cheeky way of sending an aircraft without saying you're sending an aircraft. "Hello dealership. I'd like 4 spare tires and wheels, a spare body, 4 spare doors, spare windows, seats, etc. No! I don't want a car... just... some spare parts."
From what I heard old soviet planes were taken apart and deliver to the border by truks
If that was done without Congress’s go-ahead, then it wasn’t “USA” sending the supplies. That was the Pentagon going behind America’s back. This is why people don’t trust the government or the military
That’s not true. No US aircraft carriers were leased to the UK. It was 50 old WW1 vintage destroyers.
I do not think the US has been sending Ukraine aircraft but what they have been sending is probably drones, missiles, MANPADS, radar systems, targeting systems and so on. Who is to say that a consignment of food is not a consignment of targeting systems.
Maybe mobile phones are really GPS systems, Radio systems, timing mechanisms and so on.
There's grounds for strong suspicion that much of Russia's putative airframe inventory is either nonexistent or non-operational due to corruption and theft. I think the figures used to compute expected sortie rates in this video are wildly optimistic, and what they actually have is a Potemkin air force optimized for looking impressive at May Day parades but not good for much else.
My feeling also
While your sentiment about corruption and show and tell is on point they were running regular sorties in Syria. I think the problem is that it's many problems in many diff areas that are al contributing to the whole. So yes corruption and mismanagement has depleted theirfleet. It's also not as great as the way it looks at air shows. But also they can't afford the training sorties. They can't retain talent. They can't communicate between units. .they can't manufacture missles. They can't maintain their fleet. Ect ect
It's probably all the sanctions after 2014 that stopped import of high end tech components. They have been having trouble building high tech weaponry ever since
Agreed.
It is a force meant to look impressive at air shows.
summed it up perfectly (Same can be said for their troop numbers as well.)
So far in the "special operation", Russian close air support has mostly been from the T72.
Yeah, the ukrainian t64 has also been filling the gap in their cas capebilaties
@@kuunoooo7293 cope
@@faq187tim9 seems like a cry baby like you cant take a joke
@@faq187tim9 you're the only one coping here lmaoooo
@@faq187tim9 CIA bot cope
Russian tank turrets have clocked more flying hours than the Russian Airforce.
…and on average achieving higher altitudes.
🤣🤣🤣
Well, at least more takeoffs and landings.
Badoom Tis
Damn now this and the replays was funny 😂
Ukraine has 3 main advantages over Russia that have enabled them to resist Russia much longer than anticipated: 1- Real national movement for preserving their independence no matter the human and economical cost 2- Largest lend-lease, political and financial support ever provided to a foreign country after WW2 3- Russians doing almost everything wrong from the beginning up untill now (keeping up with their traditions)
You forgot number four
The California national guard and other militaries from countries like Israel spent the last six or seven years training the ukrainians for a possible invasion from Russia.
Plus the United States has sent some of the best military advisors in the world and has been advising them all along.
I'm also certain that the United States has been spying for them from the sky while denying it all along.
I guarantee you the United States is far far more involved in this war than we are admitting.
Ya Russia should have done a lot of things from the beginning. Like taking control of the west part to keep weapons from getting in. Now it's to late for that.
America would of cut Ukraine off from the world. Then it would of been over faster. That would of killed a lot of morale. Ukraine would t be easy to beat for any power because they are fighters and they won't give up.
NATO 1. money 2. equipment 3. intelligence.
3. Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake
I am going to be pedantic here and point out that the second largest air force in the world is actually the US Navy. I just love this fact.
Edit: Just to be clear, when I say I am being pedantic, I mean that I am saying this in a sort of joking manner because I know that the video is referring to countries, not individual services within each country. The video isn't wrong (unless China is second now).
Actually, though, US Army Aviation might be considered the second largest in individual services. The numbers you find online can vary. Obviously, how you count is a major factor.
I believe the Marine Corps is fourth or fifth.
@@kalashnikovdevil pretty sure it’s the Army who’s fourth. Marines are 7-9.
@@kalashnikovdevil airforce army navy usmc in order 1-4 for just US numbers. airforce 5.2k army 3.5k navy 2.6k usmc 1.2k
but those are prolly not accurate as they are from google.
Gonna be even more pedantic and say that the US Navy doesn't have an air force, just naval aircraft.
@@Aircool212 Damn! You out-pedanted me!
The depth and level of research that has gone into this video is insane. Amazing job.
I know, getting those pre written talking points from the State Dept is a real chore
@@shibbershabber least they can write. Can't say as much for the FSB guy paying your salary in roubles.
@@michaelgreenwood3413 gay
hit a nerve did I? :P
@@michaelgreenwood3413 couple months ago bro... You miss me or something?
Hows your boys in Ukraine doing? I see Bakhmut went well
One thing to keep in mind is how Russia fights with their AF. They are primarily a tactical support rather than strategic.
I don't understand. The USAF has done both tactical and strategic support. RuAF too.
@@krizzle4087 but now it is used as CAS most of the time.
@@krizzle4087 Basically, the Russians, doctrinally prefer to leave ground fire support usually to their MLRS and tube artillery units, which is why (before the war) they had such a high proportion of Self propelled artillery guns fielded, this has left the VKS (AF) primarily with fighting for air intercept/superiority against an enemy, contrarily US doctrine is to both gain Air superiority then once the airspace/SAM networks have been sufficiently cleared is to provide lots of fire support for ground units, hence the pursuit of, and buildup of large stockpiles of precision guided, and now standoff weapons, paveway bombs, JDAMs HARM/AARGM anti radar missiles, small diameter bomb and soforth not to mention cruise missiles.
To contrast that, Russia's rough equivalent guided munition for providing precision strike to troops, is the laser guided Krasnopol shell, in use since Soviet-Afghan war of the 1980s and here relying on outside lasing of the target, by a Forward observer with a laser designator, or Russian drones like Orlan, simply the VKS doesn't operate equipment and munitions like small diameter bomb or JDAMs to have standoff range against Ukrainian weapons like Stingers, and when they do support ground troops they frequently get shot down because of how close they are.
@@krizzle4087 the USAF during thr Iraq invasion started off almost entirely as a strategic force crippling Iraq then once no other threats really presented themselves they supported the ground forced that began to move.
The only thing the orcs use their air power for was clearly demonstrated just the other day, with them assaulting the civilian centres of Kharkiv (including their power station) as well as blowing up a dam to to not just destroy its power generation abilities, but to flood the civilian centre beneath it and down its flood plain... 🤦♂️
All of which are despicable war crimes like everything (and I do mean EVERYTHING) else they’ve been doing as part of their invasion into this sovereign nation...
Thankfully, no matter the outcome, the world is going to ensure that Mordor is no more, and that it is absolutely turned into a micro state (just like the apparent micro peenster) in charge of the deranged criminal organization!!!
Slava Ukraini 🇺🇦❕
Death and demise to ruZSia and its rashists♠️☠️❕
Two details were not really addressed in this video...
1) Russia's aircraft have a long-standing reputation as "hanger queens." On average, they need greater maintenance, more frequently, than their western counterparts. Who says so? India and most of the ex-Warsaw Pact who actually operated these aircraft. While the aircraft are less expensive to buy, they go through jet engines and other replaceable parts at more than twice the rate of their NATO equivalent.....which means they spend more time out of service having things fixed.
2) Russian military pilots in peacetime got between 50% to 30% of the flight time that their Western counterparts do. Moreover, that training focused on small unit (4-8 aircraft) single function missions. Bombers bombed strategic targets, fighters intercepted enemy aircraft, and ground attack aircraft ran missions on pre-selected targets. They have *very* little practice doing multi-unit combined arms style missions, working with ground controllers doing tactical bombing. or sweeps finding targets of opportunity. And most especially, since a lot of the training is focused on dealing with NATO.....they assume that they will not have...or be able to effect air superiority, other than on a limited tactical basis.
An exercise like Red Flag would have greatly benefited the VVS
That Russia pilot, Victor Belenko. The one who flew to Japan wit his Mig. He said the military rationed out how much fuel a jet would get for training session. The leaders were worried that if the pilots had full tanks someone might try to fly away like how Belenko did. The guys doing the fueling were lazy and trusted how low the fuel was by asking Belenko. Instead of checking themselves. Belenko was able to build up enough fuel so he could read Japan.
The main issue is people think Air Force is magic because of US dominance in the skies over countries that had no air defenses. The U.S. has never faced an adversary with a serious air defense capability. Ukraine had the largest air defense capabilities in Europe all left from the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
@@russ_6214 iraq has a hella ton of aa
@@ramenizer8952 Yes. I remember during the first Iraq war they were trying to light up the skies with their AA. The F-117 was used the most for bombing and Iraq was basically shooting blindly into the sky. But some people always conveniently forget some history to push their narrative so they will look like they're right.
They have very capable air inferiority fighters. Their strike aircraft are very proficient at hitting the ground--no need for missiles.
😆
Hahahahaha..r yu trynna be funny?
@@kennethbryan3738 as a matter of fact, thats funny AF
Stinger go boom
@@beargryllsstungbybees3186 Yeah sure if you are a 5 year old,hilarious. Why has Ukraine been begging for warplanes from NATO for months? Not going to explain it to you,try thinking.
The other question to be asked is, how many skilled and capable pilots do they have left?
Because they certainly have suffered tremendous losses in the last six months (in comparison to all other campaigns post WW2).
Don't believe the ghost of kyiv son , russia has pilots and aircraft in surplus to destroy Ukraine ten times over
Pilot’s wouldn’t be on the ground .
It begs the question, why is Ukraine on its knees begging for tanks, planes, ammo, etc when the western media does nothing but tell us that Ukraine is kicking the snot out of the Russians who have inferior equipment, soldiers, etc.? In Feb. 2022, Ukraine started with a military force of between 6-700,000 men, hundreds of planes, thousands of tanks, NATO trained soldiers since 2014 and when the LPR and the DPR Republics asked Russia for military assistance, Russia went into Ukraine under a SMO, Special Military Operations which by Russian law limits them to a total force of 200,000 personnel, of which about 80,000 or so were frontline fighting soldiers and the balance were support, medical, etc. Ukraine had an extreme advantage over Donbass and Russian forces in men and equipment and training relating to the Donbass militiamen. And this showed when Russia first went into Kiev hoping to be able to find a government willing to negotiate human rights for the Donbass people, etc. and entered Ukraine without the "shock and awe" tactic the U.S. uses because Russia, unlike what the western media want you to believe, wanted to limit civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure and the price Russia paid was getting spanked in the spring of 2022. By September, President Putin and his generals had about had it with Ukraine's continued use of Himars against civilian theaters, bus stations, markets, as well as the use of illegal "pedal bombs" where some children were killed. The SMO had changed and Russia mobilized some troops and approx. 150,000 volunteered, including a couple members of the Duma, which I doubt you'd ever see the equivalent here in the U.S. cause we just all talk and have to find proxy countries to fight our battles. So the West and Ukraine always saying how they are kicking Russia arse and such, but if they were, they wouldn't have run out of ammunition and had all their equipment destroyed. The fact the West will not face is that they have already lost. Europe, other than Britain who has to have us tell it what to do everyday, has no more weapons to send and America can't send a tank or a jet for at least a year, but it will be over before than. When and if more tanks come from Europe you will see more planes, but frankly, now a couple Migs go out a shot down a Ukrainian jet 50 kilometers away, and then go have lunch. There was a tictok video I believe where Ukrainian pilots where afraid to fly because of the missile range of one or two of the Russian jets. Russian bombers take off and send guided missiles off and than turn around and go home. You don't see many Russian planes because they just have to run a short time sortie (sp?) and they're done. They don't need dog fights because the Ukrainian fighter has already been shot down. So you can believe western media or also watch some media from reporters done in the Donbass fights and interviewing Russian pilots. The Russians have been open (not the U.S. because they would use info as spy info or what ot) to having other reporters come and report. They do not confiscate video tape, etc, nor do they have assassination lists which includes reporters like Kiev does and has killed. Do what you want with it, I tried to answer the question.
Keep drinking the kool aid.
@@strippergavemmepinkeye2.023 you say that but navy officers have been found fleeing after their tanks were destroyed...
When calculating aircraft losses per 1000 sorties, it's worth noting that more than 10% of the visually confirmed Russian aircraft losses on Oryx's list were not lost during sorties, but rather were destroyed on the ground from the Ukrainian missile strike on a Crimean airbase a few weeks ago.
So if destroyed on the ground it doesn't count? That makes no sense airplanes are still gone.
@@puellamservumaddominum6180 no but the fact that they were not lost in combat speaks a lot about how russia wants to do this war
@@alexisvladimir8148 so Russian plan is to lose its planes on the ground at airbases for rest of the war?
@@puellamservumaddominum6180 of course not, but it only speaks volume they are loosing them more on non combat roles which is a very terrible reason
@@alexisvladimir8148 reason Russian Airforce is on ground is because the Russian generals stole spare parts and fuel to build dacha and trillion rouble boats.
I would not be surprised if Moskva was sunk was because air intercept radar was simply off because radar had broken down and Admiral or Captain or both had simply spent the budget ship received for maintenence on hookers and million rouble a bottle vodka.
There is no "plan" to Russian military machine unless you count stealing and incompetence as a plan.
I think the only lesson Russias “War” has taught us, is that we grossly overestimated Russias capabilities of waging war.
That’s exactly what they want you to think.
@@neoneherefrom5836 lol because that is exactly what Putin wants people to think of him. That really helps give reason to his credibility
Okay
@@neoneherefrom5836 Hahahaha. A big round of applause for the Kremlin troll. And our next novelty act is the "The Putin and his Amazingly Dysfunctional Armed Forces".
@@neoneherefrom5836 Russia is a joke.
@@anonypersona3189 But hey, they atleast didnt lose to cavemen in sandals in 21 century and got kicked out... Nor to rice farmers back in time... Russia is fine !
People forget that US and nato have 20 years air to ground combat experience. Something that is hard to gain over six month especially when this is the first major war your have fought in decades. We are able to take this incredibly complicated task and make it look easy given our crews were trained by people who actually seem combat. We have ground forces who know how to call in strikes.
The Russian air force has been doing air to ground combat in Syria for the last 7 years. I'd say if they haven't learned from that it's not due to a lack of opportunities.
@@greghall4836 true
@@greghall4836 Only a small portion of Russia’s airforce was deployed in Syria. They only deployed the very best of what they had. Which made people overestimate them and think the rest of their military was on a similar level. Which turned out to be completely false. Most of their military and airforce is far below the level showcased in Syria. And even the forces in Syria weren’t all that impressive given that the enemy had almost no MANPADS and literally zero SAM systems
and post-soviets have 30+ years of ruining its own countries expierence T_T
@@greghall4836
Syria is not a comparable to going up against air defence systems spread out across a country.
When the US invaded Iraq in the first Gulf war in 1990 there was hundreds and thousands of anti air batteries spread out across the region.
That means an attacking force must have the inventory of parts, fitters, technicians and manufacturing industries to keep a force supplied for months on end. The US has hundreds of thousands of missiles in various classes.
I would recommend that you plot out the AA systems and their capabilities as well. Last I checked Ukraine had a comparatively much more modern Air defence network than iraq in 1991 as well as about an order of magnitude more numerous as well as almost exclusively mobile compared to the mainly static Iraqi air defences. They have also mobilized a bigger army than Iraq had, and the Russians still only have 100-150,000 troops active in the war against the 700-900,000 Ukrainian army.
This war is is so unbalanced in so many different ways, it's just fascinating. And in many domains the balance is tilted in a way that is breaking new gound, for instance attacking while outnumbered 5:1, or where the defender has the rest of the world waging economic warfare against the attacker.
I somehow got my hands on apparently the Moskva maintenance report 2 weeks before it sunk. What was clear on the report was how BROKEN it was. So many things were not working/malfunctioning it was surprising it was still floating. For instance 2 of the 4 the engines had been run for over 25,000 hours where maintenance is needed after 5000 hours, meaning their FLAGSHIP was not maintained.
If their airforce is anything similar to the Russians pride of the black sea then most of the planes on paper cant even fly.
It's more of a question if they even exist
Yes. Watch the video by LazerPig. Out of 4 air defence systems, one was working and the other were being used for parts to keep the working one going. It could only sail at half speed due to maintenance issues
Its the whole Russian army that is in such state.
In 2010 I doubt that they had more than 100 tanks that could move.
Its shows just how much Putler prepared for this war that Russians have lost over 2K tanks and 4K APCs and have not completely collapsed by now.
In case you wonder why in 2014 they didn't went for an offensive of such scale as now, its because they couldn't. They crushed Ukrainian military in August early September of 2014, but suffered very heavy losses in the process and were unable to continue.
Laserpig did a good vid of this :(
@@skipperg4436 didn't know they suffered heavy losses, I thought it was opportunity while the 2014 coup happened. But it explains why Putin didn't intervene when the pro Russian president was overthrown that year and instead took Crimea
The amount of work that went into this video is boggling. Thank you!
Agreed, I make/create wildlife videos, I get to pick from my own footage, 100hrs can easily become 7 minutes. Having to research and edit video from around the globe must be exhausting and incredibly time consuming.
It's mind bottling not boggling....
@@meintingles4396 so as long as that was sarcasm from you lol.
Are you boggled?
I confess I am often boggled on a regular myself lol. VERY good video here. What a bonus that the narrator sounds like a real person too. If this IS computer voicesh**t it's totally seamless so I'm (kind of) OK with it. I guess...
One last issue though? I've whined to others about such detailed info seeming to spill a LOT of beans. Things like imagery resolution, sortie rates, and much more. Intel people in the countries that don't like us must have little stiffies viewing this type(though again excellent) of video. Hoping as a group that maybe some of the info is intentionally DISinfo?
Thanks for the ramble as I boggle away; what do others think???
What air defense doing? WHAT AIR DEFENSE DOING?
One of the good explanation without any biases
To those saying that Russia is withholding its air power please tell me what sense does it make to let your army become stuck in a long war of attrition?
The most extreme reason I've heard from pro-Russians who are from the West, is that Russia started this war just to train their army and give them proper combat experience. Which is uh, cartoonishly evil and stupid to say the least.
Russia clearly underestimated Ukraine like the rest of the West and thought it'll fall like Kabul to the Talibans.
@@BlkNubiian No. Any pilots able to fly Russian aircraft must already be trained pilots. Full mobilization wouldn't make much of a different for RUAF. RUAF just sucks.
Troops and their equipment are more easily replaced then a aircraft and its pilot. Eastern countries typically have little value on the life of their citizens
Something tells me Russia is betting on USA and EU from withdrawing support due to financial losses before declaring all out war on Ukraine
Russia is afraid of the S300 and S400 systems the Ukrainians have because they get the job done. Plus, Russia doesn't have the money to give enough pilots enough air time to maintain proficiency. So, they forego training exercises that can develop and maintain complex air operations.
Russia can't run sorties if they don't have enough forward observers or reliable intelligence to provide timely strike packages. There have been so many instances of Russian airstrikes hitting abandoned buildings *days* after Ukrainian forces left. The quality of Russian intelligence is so poor, and the lag time on getting that intelligence to the Russian airforce is so great that its remarkable they ever hit a Ukrainian formation. Yes, Russia doesn't have enough aircraft to carry out a US style air campaign. But you're missing the biggest problem with Russian air command. The Russian air force cannot rely on the intelligence they are provided and they are so slow to receive that intelligence and act that they are literally days of OODA loops behind the Ukrainian forces. Russian air doctrine is fundamentally broken because they don't understand how intelligence integrates with the airforce. Because of this remarkable incompetence, its unsurprising that Russian airforce strikes are mainly stand-off cruise missile strikes at fixed infrastructure rather than UA troops.
The rot runs through the whole Russian Air Force and military in general. Outdated aircraft with outdated avionics/radar/engines using outdated doctrine and relying on outdated intelligence to drop outdated weapons. That’s just the 25% or so that can actually fly. Oh, and the pilot training sucks too. Their intelligence is so bad that I wonder if most of their surveillance and comms satellites don’t even work and are just kept in orbit as a distraction. It would fit with the state of the rest of their military.
@Scouts Honor He's not wrong. We all kind of knew there was a lot of grifting going on in the upper echelons of the Russian military, but had no idea how badly it had affected their combat capabilities. It's been stunning how poorly they've been operating the last 6 months.
@Scouts Honor Have you seen the leaked inspection report of the Moskva before the start of the war? The ship was in dire straits. Hardly any of its missile systems worked. Of the five CIWS systems on board, only one worked. The other four were used for parts. And these are just a couple examples.
Guess what the results of the inspection were? Satisfactory.
I posted this in a OSINT community. One user who claimed to have had dealings with the Russian navy in the past said that the inspection was par for the course.
@Scouts Honor wow that level of making excuses for the Russians and topped with a nice dose of racism 👏
@Scouts Honor I think we can all agree that "incompetence" absolutely applies to Russian efforts in all commands in this "special military operation." Some of it is due to corruption and misappropriation of military funds, a good deal of it is leadership, both from the fact that even some of the commanders weren't told it was going to be an actual war (that's not a good kind of "surprise"). Having your soldiers pack their dress uniforms for parades on day 3 of the invasion, another spectacular miscalculation that the Ukrainians would welcome the Russian troops and the Ukrainian forces would capitulate when the T-72s hit the roads. Anyway. So, yeah. Incompetence, and "remarkable" is absolutely deserved and appropriate.
In the beginning of the war, it was clear that Ukraine Intel (heavily supported by US/NATO) exceeded Russia’s.
In the last month, it’s clear that Ukraine Intel has mastery over Russia’s.
Pilots don’t risk flying into combat without reliable Intel.
Lol. Obviously you had no intel on russians.
@@515coldfire I'm pretty sure he didn't claim to be an intel officer
Russia has satellites and drones,radars and much more for recon ,but i dont understand what the fuck are they doing with it
So russia vs nato intel. For example, nato attacked kharkiv made russians "run" and "retreat". There was no milutary fight at all, why? Because russian military reduced its batallion from 20 to 1 brigade. Thats 20k to 1000 men. Did nato knew abt this? Yes this is why they took advantage of it. They went far east to take back land. This is what russians expected nato to do. Now the real fighting is in kherson while ukrainians are busy "punching air" in kharkiv.
@@vladinfinite be patient, they know this. Even telegram and youtube people knows so russian knows. They are waiting for the right moment. I.e. the blowing up of the dam. Russians waited for troops to cross the river then blew it up, so now ukronahtzees are stuck and cant resupply. No more pontoon brideges on that river for sure.
It might not be fair to compare Russia Ukraine with Desert Storm. The Desert Storm air campaign is widely seen as about as perfect as you can possibly expect a military campaign to go. It was both 1991 Mike Tyson and the Moscow Ballet. You probably couldn't replicate anything like that ever again. Closer to an alien colonization than a war.
Based on LazerPig's video re: the Moskva, and then reports of their truck tires crumbling because poor maintenance, I'm convinced Russia's air force is a no show because they skipped maintenance and are down to bare bones
also lets not forget that the russian air force got its ass pummeled by a missle strike at its own air field so far behind there lines in crimea that it makes you wounded what in blood soaked protestant hell is the russian air defense doing they jerked there dicks raw over how the S-300 and S-400 could in intercept nato missiles yet low and fucking behold there main airbase and a shit ton of russian fighter craft eats repeated missle strikes mean while every few weeks a shit load of helicopters and troops get blown up at Kherson airport by himars
Russia has about 5 percent of its military budget stolen by generals
Problem is that 5 percent is the most important part.
12 million Euro plane is useless without parts.
3 million euro tank is useless without fuel.
The Russian men might have endless supply of shells and rpg but their new uniforms, night vision, and rations have been stolen by their own officers and replaced with cold war crap and food that expired 2 decades ago.
Either Russian inventory is not as deep as presented or they are holding it back. I suspect they are holding it back on purpose because they have larger plans but those plans now maybe going out the window as things start to crumble.
@@bighands69 Pahahaha holding it back. Stop coping, losing 1/3rd of your active tank pool(photographically confirmed so more likely 2/3rds) including half of all your T-80s (Visually confirmed) isn't holding back. If they did SEAD properly they'd have saved over 3-5 billion USD by now in equipment/men. Even if they lost 100 aircraft of SU-30 and MIG-29 series it wouldn't come close to what their losing now. They dont have the capability and that's that.
@@LS-jv9hp keep digesting that propaganda as much as you want time will tell how wrong you are
Another factor limiting the Russian AF is the rampant systemic corruption within the Russian military. Aircraft poorly maintained, stolen/"lost" fuel, inadequate replacement parts that are likely of poor quality, "modern" weapon systems (ie guided 'smart' weapons) that have not performed as well as "predicted" and having fewer of those due to both sanctions as well as the aforementioned corruption. So, a better analogy would be that both sides at the start of the war were more analogous to Iraq during the '91 Gulf War (Russia being slightly more advanced). But, now the tables have likely flipped in Ukraine's favor in terms of technological edge. And, given the performance the Ukrainians have demonstrated, thanks in large part to having become a western/NATO-trained force over the last few years, with mostly 'outdated' weaponry, and piecemeal modern replacements gifted by the west, they're only going to get deadlier.
I suspect that most replacement parts were scrapped from other aircraft, their reser4ve aircraft and much of their in service aircraft are little more than empty shells. *I expect Ukraine and other small European nations* to become the dumping ground for Soviet and Russian made weapons as the NATO countries upgrade.
Russia has the worlds 3rd largest AF, the second largest belongs to the US Navy with 3700 aircraft lol
@@1SCme That has already happened but after thirty years, the former Warsaw Pact members only have so much to give. Ukraine is likely to be equipped with F-16 and F-15 over the medium to long term. In the meanwhile, the emphasis is on upgrading their current inventory.
@@aymonfoxc1442 Mostly small individually, combined Poland, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Albania, and the Czech Republic (not to mention other non-NATO countries) have a massive amount of Russian military hardware they are looking to replace. As they are replaced, what isn't being put into reserve (which can be costly) will be marketed or given to other countries.
I would like to see the west give Ukraine modern equipment that is scheduled to be removed from service (like F-16s and A-10s from the US), but that doesn't look like it is going to happen. Even these are a very short term solution - they're fine to put into action now, but they're being retired because they're worm out, at the end of their life expectancy - they're not a longer term solution. In contrast the Soviet era equipment is being phased out to save maintenance money to reinvest in newer equipment (MIGs for F-35a, T-crap for M-1s, etc.).
Meanwhile Ukraine will be hampered economically with rebuilding - they'll upgrade their existing equipment, but I expect it to be a long time before Ukraine goes on a large scale switch out of Russian era weapons for NATO weapons - Ukraine will rely on quantity and their newfound battlefield reputation over quality for defense.
@@1SCme True, these countries had a lot of Soviet equipment (some still do) and many have produced a lot of derivatIves over the last 30 years but a lot of this gear has already been given to Ukraine and more will likely be given to them within a year. The maintenance and ready-rates of stored equipment also varies across different countries, so the challenge of supllying it to Ukraine varies. Ukraine will require hardware beyond the next year or two and that hardware will need to have a sophisticated ecosystem of supporting industry with the capacity to produce, supply and maintain it - this simply does not exist in other European countries.
Poland has given around 200 T-72 Twardy tanks and has another 100 to potentially supply once its replacements begin arriving in country (Abrams and K2 tanks being Poland's will fill Poland's new tank fleet), whilst the Czechs have also given Ukraine dozens of tanks but no Western countries have large industrial production of Soviet / Russian equipment and Ukraine's military industrial complex (which was quite capable) has been devastated. If the war drags on, equipment will have to keep coming. The West was already struggling to source shells for Ukrainian tanks and artillery, hence the transition to 155mm guns and M270 / HIMARS. The Finns can produce some bullets but even the demand for this simple product is too great.
Heck, Ukraine has even been facing problems with worn out gun barrels on its Soviet era artillery and tank guns, so logistical issues are already starting to bite. The transition to Western weapons systems is something that Ukraine, NATO and various governments are talking about openly and ammunition / maintenance really are big driving factors. It's just a shame that Ukraine has to undertake such a logistical exercise during wartime and if the war drags on for to long, Ukraine will have to complete this transition to keep fighting. Afterall, they can't rely on Russia abandoning supply caches every time they need more artillery shells.
So, whilst old equipment can continue to be delivered for now, it's not sustainable and eventually Ukraine will require new aircraft and new vehicles to provide for a stable, maintainable military. Worn out hand-me downs can only stretch so far and even though fairly recent production models or durable weapon systems can be maintained for the long term (just as current legacy platforms around the world have been), this is only possible if there is a sufficient industry to support their maintenance. Still, maintenance costs will have to be brought down and maintaining rare oddities isn't likely to be conducive in this regard because nobody will be eager to finance the construction / reconstruction of an industrial base to do so. So, whilst I hope Ukraine receives all the weapons possible (be they of Soviet origin, or otherwise) and the war is brought to an end soon, Ukraine and the West need to prepare for a long war. Either way, defence costs will have to be brought under control regardless of how quickly the war ends because Ukraine will need a sustainable military and the West will need to reduce the burden of the war on its economy and industrial base to maintain support for Ukraine. Of course, after the war, Ukraine and the West will have to focus on rebuilding the country.
The F-16s that you mention would certainly be a great asset to Ukraine but I am inclined to think that the A-10s would be even better because they were designed for fighting the armour-centric style of the Russian army, are reported to be easy handling (thus easier to train on quickly), robust and have a surprisingly good record in air-to-air combat. Given the performance of the Russian Air Force and indeed, the Russian ground forces, I think these could be a huge boon for Ukraine.
Don’t forget their lack of proper antiradar missiles. They simply have no effective way of killing Ukraines ground based AA. Which is mind boggling to someone accustomed with modern war strategies.
What about KH-31?
@@bouloshijazin5129 they don't use them PROPERLY ( I had to capitalize it because some people didn't seem to see it) so they MAY as well not even exist. To the people down below this is sarcasm not an actual argument 🙄
You would think that, 30 years after watching a Soviet-style ADA network get annihilated in 12 hours by the US, they would have thought of some way to either emulate or counteract it. But no.
There are several examples of Russian pilots using Kh-31. The main reason they are ineffective is the vast intelligence and sensors from the West. Ukraine simply shut down the radars and move before they get hit.
@@kameronjones7139 not true, they exists and have been used.
There are some factors you've missed. First, whether Russian jets fly low, at medium height altitudes or high up, they are being destroyed by highly advanced SAM systems from the West guided by systems I choose not to mention, which can override any protective systems the Russians now possess. Losses of over 20% per sortie on the Russians' part is common in the War in Ukraine. This is unsustainable. The other factor is the jamming technology provided by the West, for which Russia has no answer whatever. This makes the planes useless even if Russia put them in the air. There is also the issue that there are key components of aircraft Russia cannot get right now...some expected, some not expected.
Estimates are that in a full scale war with the West (a distinct possibility should Russia use chemical or tactical nuclear weapons) Russia could only field an effective Airforce for 6 weeks.
For these reasons, Russia is not fielding an Air Force en masse at present...nor will they do so in the months ahead.
If they did, they would lose the little AirForce they have in short order, and this they do not want to do.
The issue for the Russians at present is they no longer possess the conventional military necessary to stop an adversary from invading Russia, should an entity wish to do this. Crimea will go back to Ukraine, as will most all the Russian's gains, other than a slim slice of the Donbas.
Of course, the addition of Sweden and Finland to NATO doubled the border that the Russians must man, and they don't have the manpower and equipment to do that either. Actually, this expansion of NATO was the largest blow by far to Russia, and will impact their strategic position for centuries to come.
Putin did not see the Ukrainians' will to fight and armaments, the sanctions, the freezing of oligarchs' monies, or the poor state of Russia's military to fight an armed conflict...but most important, Putin did not see the expansion of NATO coming.
In similar manner, Putin did not see the coming addition of Ukraine to NATO after the war, as there are no remaining reasons for the West to placate the Russians whatever, will be the most unpleasant reality soon for the Russians. This will be the end of his leadership in Russia.
Amen
NATO was a major cause for the start of the war, you write like we can win this, but nobody wins when the big ones start to fall.
@@carlkma2037 NATO did not start this war wtf are you smoking 😂
@@ScaryRevenant Cry your eyes out, I know the truth hurts. It was NATO's invitation to Ukraine to join them that helped to start the conflict. Something very similar occurred in Cuba in 1962. Read more, talk less.
Nuclear weapons are the very reason the Nato is not invading russia.
Today i heared that russia is taking steps to mass mobilize.
One of them is taking the current held ukrain terretorys as "russia".
By that they tell their own people that ukrain troops are invading russia.
That could turn the 125.000 russian troops into over a million.
By the end of WW2 Russia had close to 12milion soilders, plus roughly 9 million who died thats 21 million soilders fielded over the entire war.
Most where conscripts but they where deadly in their own regard.
After all desertion meant the death of them and their families.
Dont count Ukrainian victory before russia went all out.
And hope that they dont use Nuclear weapons.
Even if they used tactical nuclear weapons , í would not count on Nato counter invading.
That could end with the launch of all nuclear missiles and the end of humanity.
The Nuclear Shield as its called.
The only reason the World let Russia do as it pleases.
Becourse there is no counter to it.
Sure the US has defenses against a couple missiles.
But not against the 6000 missiles they have.
The Nato is walking a fine line of being at war with Russia without being at war with Russia.
I have no doubt that special forces from the Nato states are currently in ukrain helping with the war in their own way.
As i have no doubt russia is sending its spys and assasins across the world to sow fear of going against it.
I dont think ukrain will regain the crimera.
Maybe the rest but even that i doubt.
They will fight for it but the west will keep pushing for peace talks.
As the West will keep Ukrain armed enough to not fall but not enough to be a threat to russia.
I think people are starting to realize that most of Russian weapons are on-paper. Available inventory indicates that most of their airforce are not fit to fly or are potentially destroyed from storage
And they told you this? Gosh.
@@docprune9922 so where are all those disposable aircraft that they have massive amounts of? Nom existent that's what
@@augustuslunasol10thapostle cause Russia has to diffend the biggest territory of its own ... Russia cant use whole army in one point. Ukraine can use whole army at this war and has troops advantage so its not a miracle that Russia is struggling...
yeah, that goes on for most "leading" militaries, including the US... they managed to lose to Afghanistan and Vietnam... strongest army my ass
@@petrkdn8224 the USA lost those for very different reasons and were not related to military action or inaction but due to politics and bad policy making along with not knowing what kind of country/people they were dealing with
How to have an air force
Step 1: Have a functional economy
step 2: ignore the falling value of every NATO currency and the rising price of everything? the real war is not being fought on the ground or even in the air. Its economic and propaganda.
Exactly. Like Bill Clinton used to say, "It's the economy, stupid."
@@JeanLucCaptain Euro inflation: 9,1%
Dollar inflation: 8,5%
Ruble inflation: over 14,5%
They're also projected to lose 8% of their GDP, while America and Europe are projected to begin to recover.
@@Testimony_Of_JTF time is certainly not on Russia’s side. The big question is, at what point Russia resorts to nukes on Ukrainian soil. Because that’s the easy button that Russia can use, but would be extremely bad for them to use as well.
@@atronite Russia wouldn't. It's easy, but that's stupid. Too stupid. No one wants to burn. Well, burn very intensely.
This is a strange war for modern times.
@E Van agreed. Putin is so stupid he should just pack up and leave.
@E Van
You still think Russia will win, HAHAHA!!! 😂😂
@@a564-c3q You still think Russia will lose...
@Warrior Monk
That's because Russia is a backward country with a backward military.
@@victorzvyagintsev1325
Please, open a bet somewhere and tell me where so we can bet against you.
Go ahead, put your money where your mouth is.
Interestingly enough, both sides have been able to use Soviet origin SAM systems and AA networks to a degree with success. Which indicates the relevance of these systems in modern times.
It is important and will ever be
But both sides are also only fielding soviet-origin aircraft.
If either side had stealth bombers, would those air defenses still be operational?
Well both are supplied by soviets so thats expected but the S125 is being used in Ukraine and many other nations despite being wildly outdated. Reason being an S125 once shot down an F117 stealth so Russia still sells it as a stealth kileer while not disclosing the facts and failures by the US that lead to that shoot down. Just saying sometimes utilization doesn’t equal effectiveness. Ive also seen some macim machine guns in Ukraine, should we now consider them relevant?
"On paper" is a key word when it comes to anything related to Russia. Always remember that.
also for us.
@@space0015 Like what? Most US weapons have been tested and used in battle observable by the public. Try again dummy
The Russian air force is nowhere near as capable as the US in 1991, I don't know what you are talking about.
No F16, F15, A10, GNSS guided true precision munition, GMLRS counter, anti radiation counter, anti air proficiency, true combat usable IFF, performant satellite imagery, ELINT equivalent etc etc etc.
They are at 60, 70s level, with some very little 80, 90s comparable technology, given more by Kalibr and laser guided heli launched ATGMs.
So let s be serious.: They have no answer even for 20 HIMARS.
They are a propaganda army, with stupidly large amount of ammunition.
They have been able to intercept HIMARS missiles recently. Especially at the Kherson battle
@@TrusePkay Oh? Is that what Russian TV is saying now? Just like they destroyed 44 of the 16 HIMARS that Ukraine ever received, I reckon.
@@TrusePkay we knew it would happen eventually. Since on radar the cheaper GRADD rocket looks almost the same as HIMARS they had to retrain to detect the difference so they wouldn’t waste AD missiles but given that all they have left is S-300 missiles they are more apt to use them even if the rocket is a gradd and not a himars . That’s how they are shooting them down , they aren’t scared to use the s-300
@@TrusePkay didn't see any evidence whatsoever.
@@djx7134Mistranslation. They intercepted 44 HIMARS missiles in midair like iron dome
During OEF 8 in 2007 for the entire year. The 82nd CAB had a 95% availability.
80% may be acceptable but I think there would be reliefs of command under war circumstances.
Sequestration brought us down to 60% at one point…
80% is a pipe dream for modern aircraft.
@@germen343 I was in 82nd CAB until the end of 1992. We were never below 80% availability and on most days, were at 100%. We would do a 6 hour flight mission at night and then Delta company could provide additional hands on wrenches all day to have it ready again for the next night. I used to fly about 120 hours per month in the back of the UH-60L. If an engine gave us trouble, it could be swapped out in a few hours by two men. Individual flight control components like pitch links could be swapped in minutes. We didn't wait for parts to break, but changed them out preventatively.
Dropping down to 70% raises eyebrows and causes officers to sweat in the US. Meanwhile in Russia, rising up to 70% gets big grins, pats on the back, and a few medals for excellence.
Guys, HERE is The Savior
HalleluYAH translates “Praise ye YaH”
YaH is The Heavenly Father
YaH arrives via the TENT OF MEETING
YaH was Who they Crucified for our sins
** NO FEMALE INVOLVED WHATSOEVER **
- Hebrew Book of Isaiah
Isaiah 42:8
"I am YaH; that is my Name! I will not yield my glory to another or my praise to idols.
Isaiah 43:11
I, I am YAH, and there is no other Savior but Me.
Isaiah 45:5
I am YaH, and there is none else.
I watched a channel that talked about Russia's SEAD ability and they said Russia not only don't have enough specialized aircraft and weapons but also do very little SEAD training. It's questionable how much training time Russian pilots get in general as it's very expensive.
That, and Ukraine has plenty of Soviet SAMs, which the USSR specifically designed to blow the crap out of NATO Airforces. They expected to be on the receiving end of their own quite effective SAM systems.
What this war showed us, is that the US navy and airforce would absolutely have a field day in a war with Russia.
there hasnt been air to air combat doesnt really prove anything
It's true. It would be a glorious thing to behold
Yeah, it's absolutely clear now that NATO would utterly annihilate Russia in a conventional war. They don't even have a counter for HIMARS, which is 90s tech. Imagine what hundreds of F35's would do.
@@ferrous3262 Electronics is king, and US is more advanced in those regards. They probably wouldn't even be able to get into a position where they could fight back 😆.
What you see in movies is misleading.
@@RitzyBusiness i never even mentioned movies us had more advanced electronics in vietnam and they still didnt win
"It's unlike that even the US could've kept up a high rate for over six months straight"
Bold to assume the US needs 6 months to obtain air superiority.
Actually having pilots who can fly SEAD/DEAD sorties really shortens that timeline.
Well they were unable to get it in Vietnam
20 years in Afghanistan and now Taliban "obtains" all the fighter jets
@@muhammaDEsmustafa Since when the Taliban ever got air superiority? And they got no jets, Afghanistan wasn't a conventinal war against uniformed soldiers and clear military equipment and instalations like in Ukraine.
@@gabbyprincip1575 Vietnam was 60 years ago and SEAD/DEAD got developed during the war, eventually the U.S achieved air superiority at the end but the political war had been lost already.
There are multiple reasons for the failure. Russia re-started their Air Force in 91 getting most of the pilots and the planes but not the ground crews. The lack of combat training for pilots is a huge concern. Most of the pilots have less than 40 hrs of combat training. The maintenance of the fighters has been neglected for many years so even if Russia has impressive numbers on paper, the reality is that less than 30% are operational. The Russian Air Force passed the 90`s almost without any funding and that spills over today. There are good Russian pilots but the majority of them are or were engaged in Syria. According to some sources, the Russian pilots need to volunteer for the Ukrainian "special operation" which makes sense since a lot of "Wagner group"-pilots are flying Russian Air Force Su-25s. The main issue remains, that Russia severely underestimated Ukraine in so many ways. Add to that the intelligence and sensor information provided by the west. The few Russian air sorties were badly planned and not coordinated.
Not failure they did decent job
@@MICLakVER So what have the Russian pilots really achieved apart from killing hundreds of civilians? A whole bunch of...NOTHING!!
@@MICLakVER Decent job? Are you joking? It was a total military failure no matter which way you look at it.
@@jamesflaherty59 He is living in a typical Russian Denial. They made denial an art.
Making up shxt as we go along now, are we?
Where is Russias Air Force? Stuck in the 1970s.
0:53 thats wrong. the second largest air force has the us navy
Are you high, us navy is a part of the us armed forces. He's talking about different countries air strength...
@@Zantides no he is actually correct. The top two as listed is the US Air Force, followed by the US Navy for most units. Not as a combined item, each of them has more then Russia. (This is caused by Carriers which are a NAVY resource, so all planes located on them are under Navy command. Where as the Air Force launches from various US bases around the world and is under Air Force command.
The dude simply grouped all US listings as one thing, which isn't how lists work. I'm a Canadian and even I know this about the US Military. It is also easily sourced information to find. The US does like to brag about it's military.
You’d have to argue at this point that China is number two (three behind both US).
Russian air force tried really hard to emulate the U.S airforce tactics but it really went bad for them since they have just few fighters and will never be able to catch up with the mightiest and biggest air force fleet on earth, the U.S.A 💪🏻💯🦅⚔️🇺🇸
Long live the U.S.A ❤️💪🏻💯🎯🦅🇺🇲💯⚔️
@@Zantides It's STILL the US Navy
Thank you for your video. There may be more to the lack of Russian air superiority than you presented. One more factor is corruption and as a consequence, the lack of modern stand off missiles. As it is too risky for Russian aircraft to fly close to their targets for the reason you presented they just do not fly at all. One more thing to consider is morale. There was no aircraft flyover during the victory day parade! The official reason was poor weather, which was an obvious lie. There is reason to believe that Russian airforce command and Kremlin are on bad terms. Russian airforce feels cheated, see corruption and lack of modern missiles abd equipment above, and simply refuse to be cannon fodder. Keep up the good work!
The kremlin allocated money
The generals steal it
There is no way the Russia airforce would be angry with the kremlin it should be the other way round .
@@sharwama992 Weapons and equipment manufacturing is not done by the airforce. Someone steals the money, but not (or not only) airforce generals.
Holy crap! Really? No aircraft during their victory day parade??? That’s weak AF!
Great video but I think you miss one important point - pilots are scarce. russia doesn't have enough pilots for all its planes because training them is super expensive so what's the point in having 1000 planes if you only have only 500 pilots to fly them? This is also the reason they go above and beyond to rescue every single pilot and also the reason why you can see some pilots being really old. There's just not enough of them, and the ones that do 'exist' don't have as much flying hours as western pilots so they can't fly as well and are easier to shoot down.
Also you missed the Belarusian military bases/airfields which russians also use to send missiles towards us. There's at least 2 of them
Russian airforce was buying Yacht for their oligarch who run United Aircraft Corporation. 🤣🤣
You sure in the America and determine what the number of another countries pilot numbers are . Typical America ignorance..
There's been several reports from US/UK intelligence published over the summer that the lack of Russia air superiority is likely due to a confluence of these factors:
- Lack of PGM (precision guided munitions) for accurate target strikes since most of their PGM supply has been used in the multi-year, and seemingly endless, Syria war (backing Assad has turned out to be a critical error here). The only thing that can be armed on current Russian aircraft are standard bombs and munitions, thereby increasing the likelihood of missed targets or even bombing their own troops. Would be largely ineffective.
- Lack of fighter pilots - it has been leaked that Russia has been calling up retired fighter pilots, a clear signal that they don't have enough fully trained capable pilots to man their large inventory of fighter aircraft. After Putin took power, there was more of a push for aircraft "count" then instituting a comprehensive fighter pilot training/recruitment program. Also, due to economic stresses, many fighter pilots transitioned to commercial airlines. Russia seems hesitant, for now, to pull the trigger on forcibly pulling these pilots to fight in the war since it would cripple their commercial airline industry, or lead to an exodus of fleeing the country similar to the mobilization effort.
- Maintenance/spare parts crisis - Many of Russia's aircraft are in poor condition and missing critical repair parts. You can easily find 3 or 4 verified TH-cam videos of Russian fighter aircraft crashing right after take-off, or not even leaving the runway and crashing off a cliff just within the last several months. This could also be linked to the above point on lack of qualified pilots.
- Ukraine defensive success - if you roll back the tape to the first month or two of the war, Russia used many fighter aircraft but several were shot down by advanced missile defense systems or direct air-to-air combat by the Ukraine air force. A US general (with access to intelligence) estimates that Russia has lost 55-60 advanced fighter aircraft since the start of the war. Ukraine believes it is over 100. So if the number is somewhere in between, that is a huge % of its active fighter fleet, not to mention the loss of pilots.
I was hoping to find an intelligent comment, thank you.
I have also heard rumors about the lack of fuel in Russia. It might be fake or over exaggerated but some foreign air liners in Moscow can not get fuel in time. The other certain factor is the powerful use of electronic warfare by NATO forces. Even if they had PGM ammunition, their precision is lost in the minute they enter into territory of Ukraine.
Actually, if one thinks about it, NATO has a massive amount of advantage in this war and they do have the utmost audacity to exploit that.
During the Cold War, the USAF A-10’s trained to land and takeoff from Western European highways. We also practiced to refuel and arm them.
In addition to air defense, there is another point that levels the effectiveness of the Air Force. This is a strategy of fighting by the Ukrainian army in small mobile groups.
This kind of calls into question why Russia would/ should even bother spending so much money on an airforce that isn't even capable of making a major difference in a war against the poorest country in Europe...
nah, I think russia would manage to pick on moldova pretty well
Ukraine is not the poorest country and still has a lot of the soviet legacy systems. that they have use whit success like s300
Hubris, it looks great on paper so it must be great in practice! Russia sucks at resource allocation.
Well unironically enough, the Ukrainian's S300s are giving the Russian own airforce a lot of trouble, so I suppose that system, in particular, is working as advertised.
Air parity is MUCH better than suffering the enemy's air dominance.
thx for the profound analysis, now i understand better
I wonder if we look at modern Russia like the medieval world looked at the Byzantine Empire around 1445? We've watched one of the most feared armies ever turned into a joke.
But on a much shorter time scale.
We will need to wait to see if this is the case. It looks like it but people need to exercise caution.
Conducting a sustained air campaign is a very complicated matter. You must have a whole bunch of air packages working together, such as electronic jamming, air-to-air (fighters), air-to-ground (bombers), and last but not least intelligence-gathering and coordinating (AWACS).
Had they tried to actually do this, they would have probably lost 90% of their air force.
They don't have much of those capabilities you listed or the appropriate experience to deploy them in Ukraine. Look at Desert Storm's air campaign and compare it with Russia's in Syria and Ukraine. Obvious difference in skill and hardware.
@@SHVRWK that's simply untrue russia has a very good airforce but it's too risky to send them into ukriane Iraq didn't have very cable air to air missiles but ukriane is being supplied by nato so russia is saving its air force for the future
@@Thunder_playz_331 Cope
@@Thunder_playz_331 that’s untrue, Iraq at the time of the 1st gulf war, the one that involved the infamous bombing campaign, the Iraqis had more Sam’s that were for their time more up to date, than the Ukrainians do now. It really comes down to the fact that the Russians do not have the specialized aircraft nor proper training to carry out a sustained SEAD campaign, they are more than capable of contesting enemy air superiority, but suppressing air defenses isn’t something the Russian Air Force was made to do.
@@Thunder_playz_331
>Russia has a very good airforce
>But it would also get blown up completely because Ukraine is using the most basic hand-me-down old NATO stuff
Ahh the ol' Vatnik paradox
Anti-air has also been developed at a similar pace as fighter jets and this can also be a large contributing factor in limited air support from both ends. I honestly do not think you will ever see US warplanes being transferred to Ukraine unless it is used from a distance. The risk is just too great to be shot down.
Land-based missiles and rockets seem to be the main effective strategy for both sides.
The US do not use warplanes on their own. They are part of a wider force infrastructure. When the US goes up against air defence systems they will be using signal jamming and decoy systems. The US could send in a series of cheap missiles that makes it appear like several squadrons are attacking. They can also fly stealth aircraft in that mix so that they cannot tell what is real and what is not.
I suspect that Ukraine has learned how to do this.
doesnt help that Ukraine is extremely flat and open if the country is flooded with stingers etc it would almost be impossible to run sorties
This was really interesting and informative. Great video - thanks!
Thanks for your work
It's a common translation mistake. The original Russian actually translates as Air Farce, not Force.
What an excellent, informative piece. Thank you very much!
12:22 GPS and Starlink now. Cloud cover does impact speed but the internet is still operational.
Russia: attacks Ukraine without air superiority + does random airborne mission
Internet: do you even HOI4 bro?
The Russian Generals will be acutely aware of what's happened on the ground, and if it was decided to try to gain massive air superiority, they might realise that ground to air missile systems might be used to counter them. Their army and navy have both felt the fury of pi$$ed off Ukrainian forces, so they might want to keep at least one part of their armed forces relatively intact.
How much do they pay at the troll farm?
@Scouts Honor lmao this is so ignorant. Why would Ukraine use runways in Poland when they have Bas-90 in Ukraine??
@Scouts Honor I gave you a hint with Bas-90 and you still dont get it
I mean, after the sinking of the Moskva, the Black Sea Fleet has been pretty much a no-show. You might not be wrong.
This event is probably really opening alot of eyes up to what capable drones can do, on a smaller scale than the big expensive monster drones such as the US prefers.
Drone efficiency in Ukraine has a lot to do with russian incompetence and faults in tank engineering, such as the tendency for even relatively small explosions to set off armaments, blowing the turret off.
Isn't Ukraine currently using those exact same Switchblade and Pheonix Ghost drones currently supplied by the U.S.?
@@LRBeforeTheInternet Yes. The smaller switchblade 300 isn't designed to take out tanks though, but it works against most russian tanks because older russian tanks have a known design flaw that makes them very susceptible to the ammunition igniting. Jack-in-the-box, russian turret blows off and the tank is so much scrap.
Phoenix ghost are reportedly pretty similar.
They're about to receive switchblade 600s, those are a lot bigger and have a larger warhead. They are intended for anti armor.
Unfortunately they won't be available in large numbers, but for the right target they'll be devestating.
I agree that small drones with a Granade that wounds soldiers very effect. Had the moral effect of a sniper and artillery combined. Then there is the ability to get real time actuate intel for artillery. All for for less then a 1k per pop is very impressive and makes me want to get a drone
The big drones are much more capable. Which is why medium sized Byraktars haven’t done anything since the first couple months. Competent air defense makes those slow with small short ranged munitions very vulnerable to short ranged SAMs
Thank you for this, I was under the impression that Russia was just not using their air force because the cost per benefit was too high. Surprising given the size of Russia's landmass that the amount of planes is small, especially since they're using a lot of it in Syria.
I think if all the reports of losses and captures of Russian soldiers during the counter-offensive are true, then we can assume Russia is doing everything it can without incurring the wrath of NATO. Because why would they let such a horrible defeat come over them if they can help it?
@@kevinhulvey7018 I am not sure about that respectfully disagree Kevin. The red line for incurring the wrath of NATO has long past and gone over significantly. We are far past that point. I believe Russia used up all of their munitions, most of their conscripted forces, and were practically begging China for MRE (food) for soldiers. Ukraine endured, and are now using the full brunt of power lent to them by America and NATO. Its very clear that NATO training/technology/intelligence that Ukraine now possess is far superior to Russia's who are still using Soviet era tactics and weapons. Kadyrov is now looking for an out, and Lukashenko is looking to enter the conflict because he knows Russia is desperate and he will not stay in power without Putin's support. We all hope Ukraine will win. God Bless all.
@@kevinhulvey7018 I highly doubt Russia fears Nato, infact it is the other way around because a dictator with nukes in hands is much more dangerous than anything else. If there were mass captures, then we would have seen those soldiers, like how Russia showed in Marioupol. We all know Ukraine wouldn't simply not share footage.
@@kevinhulvey7018 they won’t let a defeat happen, and he has shown restraint in not using nuke weapons when he has them and ukraine is not a nuclear power. He will tho of we keep escalating, so this thing will probably spiral pretty bad.
@@chrisbreezy-ryanbarbosa4320 there's so much propaganda in this comment.
If Russia still using soviet tactics and weapons, why do Ukrainian "superior powers" can't stand against cheap shahid drones not to mention real rockets?
Well, you definitely missed mentioning the fact that Russian aircraft are clearly not on the same level as the US' were in 1991. Targeting, tracking, navigation - all of this seems to be very bad. Russian aircraft were seen multiple times using commercial-grade GPS receivers for navigation. And their *true* precision weaponry seems to be very limited in numbers.
what air defense doing?
10:12 Yes, only spare parts were sent. But you could construct 100 complete aircraft from those spare parts.
Objective, factual, attention to details. Good job on this one.
objective ?
Great video I wish you'd done more analysis on how many and what kind of aircraft are at the Russian bases near Ukraine.
Ukraine has about 100 aircraft, 2000 of which have been destroyed by Russia.
"The US couldn't have kept up such a sortie rate over 6 months."
Which is why we carried out intelligence and focused on destroying AA installations before the ground invasion... which Russia did not do.
And no, Russia did not "try this". They went in with a few sorties early on, none of which succeeded in locating AA.
This video feels like it's downplaying these failures.
Russia doesn't do high-quality SEAD/DEAD. Without high-quality SEAD/DEAD you're just flying meat. As for their 'experience' they haven't fought an 'equal' opponent since WWII.
Far as we've seen, they don't do SEAD/DEAD period!
Well, they actually did fight equal opponent since WW2. In Vietnam War it said the dogfights between USAF and North Vietnam, a lot of those piloted by Soviet.
@@manchesterunitedno7 Soviet not Russians 🤷🏾♂️
Korea.... MiG 15s flown by Russians
@@sharwama992 It said after WW2. Soviet have existed by then. Russia only existed again after the end of Cold War. Shouldn't have landmarked WW2.
all the video showing Russia taking on NATO in a conventional war and possibly winning has been rendered mute.
As always, absolutely excellent analysis. You answered all my questions and some that I didn't even think about. To me the main issue is that russia is launching a war against a sovereign nation with not only a peacetime strength military, but one that has been hollowed out by decades of corruption and low budgets following the collapse of the USSR. And as we saw in afghanistan, even the USSR at it's peak strength struggled to wage a successful campaign outside of its own borders. If russia wanted WWII levels of effective sorties they would need to commit to a WWII style war footing throughout their entire economy, converting civilian factories to making planes and bombs, etc.
I almost didn’t click on this video because “Covert Cabal” sounds like a Qanon channel, and we all know they’re pro-Russki. so glad i ended up watching anyway! 😊
Pilots are drunk. Ground crew drunk. Mechanics drunk. Commander drunk and stealing parts
“Capable and experienced”😂😂😂 Russian pilots typically have 1/4th of flight time of any NATO country.
Hi! Nice job on the OpenSource intelligence part :) I'd like to add the suspicion of them not being able (or even being denied somehow!) to simply locate targets to their airforce. They have the firepower for sure, but seemingly, simply does not know WHERE to strike. Fur sure they have inferior satellite imagery to the west, and they pretty much lack the numbers in recce pods and capable, high flying drones, which, in total are the responsible for daily target acquisition in the West... Even their frontline troops lacked any overhead support.
Russia has really turned out to be a paper Bear. Looks good on paper lacks any teeth.
Did you know that a maintenance report on the Moskov warship said only about 1/3 of its systems actually functioned correctly. Thats their capital warship. God knows how bad the others are. Lazerpig did a video on it. Very interesting.
That the capital warship of the black sea fleet. Not the entire navy. And the ship itself is very old
@@justicehenrydamian475 An old ship upgraded and modernized in 2019 - 2020. The claim that it's old also doesn't hold much water since most navies tend to retain ships for decades. As an example, the USS Nimitz was launched 1972 and commissioned in 1975, whereas the Moskva launched in 1979 and commissioned in 1982, thus the Moskva is actual a relatively "new" ship. The Nimitz is still the proud centerpiece of Carrier Strike Group 11, whereas the Moskva is now a wreck at the bottom of the sea.
They are hoping for paper cuts but end up getting folded.
3:52 that casualty figure is now an entire order of magnitude greater, 500,000
I might suggest that the key factor is spare parts. Spare parts are expensive but not glamorous. Governments like to point to impressive displays of their aircraft but no one gets excited about warehouses full of spare parts. But planes are technological marvels that break, all the time. To fix the plane you need trained technicians and sufficient spare parts. If you don't have the spare parts, then the aircraft will break down quickly and no longer be useable, unless you cannibalize other aircraft. Modern warfare is expensive and most nations just cannot afford the cost.
A perfect illustration of that point would be the Black Hawk helicopter crash in Afghanistan. The Taliban probably had no idea that helicopters have parts needing full replacement after set time intervals. And there aren't likely to be any parts available.....
@Scouts Honor I do not "blindly believe" anything; but I did spend six years in the USAF heavily involved with planning, organizing and implementing logistical plans and know first hand, the time, money and effort required to keep aircraft flying and performing. I also had access to information regarding the logistics capabilities of both NATO allies and the Warsaw pact military. The Russian Air Force has some very capable people; but they do not have the funds to sustain a long war of attrition. The more that a weapon's system can do, the more expensive it is, and therefore, the fewer can be purchased. On top of that, new weapons are so expensive they cannot be tested thoroughly, which means that all sorts of problems come up, only in combat. As a result, those systems are either quickly exhausted or replaced with older, less effective, but more reliable weapons - like the Russian Air Force relying on dumb bombs...
@@therealkillerb7643 were you an officer ?
What was your MOS ?
Poor old russia embitterdly trying to keep up with far more powerful countries than itself simply is not able to contain the high standards other, economically superior countries hold. Only solution is getting off of their high horse and dont f*** with the western alliance anymore.
@Scouts Honor "Russia has air superiority in Ukraine since Day One" that is factually incorrect. To this day, the Ukrainian airspace remains contested and we've reached a point where we see roughly the same amount or even more sorties/day being conducted by Ukrainian Airforce than by the Russian one.
The airspace being contested is also one of the reasons why Russian airstrikes are always focused on targets right at the frontline and very few have managed to strike deeper into Ukraine in the past months.
Kalibr cruise missile failure rate: up to 60%
Propaganda they are flying over Ukraine Every days and hitting Target
@@AbuBakr-gm6bf oh, they are hitting targets for sure. But not every day (6 months of firing Kalibr missiles and Russia would have none left). But they are hitting targets less than 40% of the time. We have radar and satellites tracking every missile they fire into Ukraine and so people with sufficient clearance can see the data and they all say it's about 60% failure rate of Russian missiles.
Source: my enemies
Why risk a pilot when you have drones directing loads of artillery.
They had to ask Iran for drones because Orlan-10s are sensitive to EW.
I think their drone capabilities have probably developed during this conflict; wars force innovation and sides to adapt. I know many NATO countries have massive capability gaps, I've heard the US are struggling to produce 12000 155mm shells a month, Russia are using 20,000 shells a day! The UK havn't developed a decent drone capability yet. And Ukraine is bleeding NATO assets, countries are struggling to keep up with the demand and are weakening themselves in doing so.
@@okabear1 russia had stockpiles but they allso went blank
russia now uses 6x less then at the begining and usa is managing the crysis :)
You're probably the only channel on TH-cam that is driven by facts and not fanaticism.
Modern combat airplanes are very expensive. The Russians probably concluded that they shouldn't waste resources on a conflict that appears to be headed for a stalemate or a defeat.
Even while they seem perfectly willing to sacrifice the cream of their tank forces?
If I were to choose between tank force or air force to throw into the meat grinder, I'll pick tank force.
@@fenton5305 If they are smart enough to hold back on throwing resources into a meat grinder, then why throw any into it?
If they actually thought that, they'd be begging for negotiations or making excuses for further retreats by now.
@@lastcrusader101 Because their stupid pointless Leninist ethos won't allow them to admit defeat or back down...
Assuming Ukraine's air defense network is only somewhat capable will only lead to confusion. To ask: "how capable is Ukraine's combination of its own air defense with the addition of an ever-increasing array of Western systems?"
... Stingers, Starstreaks, Martletts, Piorun... and now NASAMS, HARM anti-radar missiles, and HIMARS targeting and diminishing rashist capabilities in the electronic domain...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashism
You should have explained, that the Russian fighter jets are made more for Dog Fight and not striking behind enemies lines.
Their jets are so old, that they don’t have a GPS, so they had to mount a GPS inside the cockpit 😂
They have Glonass but maybe they have problems with it.
250,000 dead Ukrainians rn as we speak
Garmin
@@ChiefJustice Mostly civilians because Russia cowardly and incapable of beating the Ukrainian military.
Oryx accredits 376 aircraft kills to Ukraine today. Looking at the list, that seems to include ALL aerial vehicles. It's like 90 helicopters, 80 jets, the rest are drones.
Russian tank turrets are getting more flight time than their planes.
Monkey Putin and The Flying Turrets.
🤣
The Era of Close Air Support ist over, at least in modern conflicts I think.
SEAD all you want, but you will never stop two Shmocks sitting in the Woods with a Stinger.
If you do SEAD successfully then you can fly high level with precision bombs and you don’t need to get in range of MANPADs
@@steveosborne2297 that's why I said "close air support"
@@aquilaFUN with the accuracy of NATO precision weapons you don’t need to get that close that’s whole point .
Although there is nothing as nice as the sound of an A10 coming in brrrrr
@@aquilaFUN "Close" means you are targeting enemy forces engaged with friendlies. Not that the aircraft is close to the ground.
You could perform close air support from orbit if you wanted to, it's just not practical.
second largest airforce on earth belongs to the US Navy bub
How many countries invaded Iraq? Was Russia or any other country supplying weapons to Iraq? Is anyone suctioned usa and nato? This whole comparison is useless
When the US flew 2 B-52s from the US allllll the way to the Middle East to conduct a bombing run (perfectly timed with desert storm) and flew all the way back. That, is something we will never see from another 'super power'.
US ain't the only ones for doing long bombing raids with "Modern" strategic bombers. Look up the blackbuck raid carried out by the RAF at the start of the falklands campaign. Absolutely ridiculous level of refueling aircraft... but it worked.
They had air superiority in the middle East. Try flying those B52s in hotly contested Airspace like in Ukraine
@@Destroyer_V0 and that too from literally scavenging parts for the Vulcan Bomber. One of the parts was actually an ash tray I read somewhere 🤣
@@amartyaroy3754 Yup. It's what happens when you have an asset, but neglect maintaining it, then suddenly need it, just as much as it is a triumph of aerial refueling operations.
NATO intelligence is what allows Ukraine to survive and more importantly keep having SAM systems alive. A sam system needs to turn on its radar to search for targets but that in turn makes it vulnerable to being located. Ukranians SAMs don't need to do that since they will always get intel (fed by NATO AWACS for example) turn the radar on briefly, shoot and run away. That's how Ukrainians are even using manpads to a great effect. Every time a Russian plane is on its way they already know about it. If we're talking about fair, the US air force never faced an adversary with such an advantage.
And lets not forget whose massive military budget feeds NATO intelligence.
no, AWACS and similar jets in the AO actually can only see so far into ukraine and definelty can not see the eastern portion bordering russia. much less near kyiv.. ukraine is doing great work by themselves in that aspect
@@adamsauer6516 Wrong, they can see just fine especially when flying from the side of the black sea. And AWACS are just one of he options. The US has 3 spy satellites in geostationary orbit (it means they don't lose the area of coverage by orbiting the planet) and that provides literally live-time situational awareness of the battle space.
The Orc Air Force is mostly shot down or crashed by drunk pilots.
Two British SAS squadrons were inserted into Russian territory and they disabled 96% of all fighter aircraft
One of them was personally led by Boris Johnson
@@hirumaryuei and guided by the ghost of QE 2.
@@hirumaryuei and the other by the queen, but only Boris squad made it back alive.
He refers to the WWII SAS operation that shot up a German airfield in North Africa...with Jeeps and machine guns. That's some Ukrainian-sized balls right there.
@@hirumaryuei The other one was flown by Winston Churchills ghost !
Russia: Forced to retreat from a mechanized offensive with no air support
Dunkirk Veterans: First Time???
Regarding clouds making it harder for satellites to see ground objects, don't forget there is a technology called Synthetic Aperture Radar. Russia has two optical reconnaissance satellites in orbit now, called Persona and Hendrix, but they were launched between seven and nine years ago, meaning they may be near the end of their working life.
Because it s a special military operation. Not full scale war
Russia only got rusty crap frm the 1980.
- If only... Some bombers are from 1950-th. Poor copies of American WWII bombers, for sure.
Gotta love some good ol' corruption
I love the smell of petrodollars in the morning.
The massive Russian Air Force is sitting next to their 20,000 tanks and 19,000 artillery, manned by their 2,000,000 troops. *You overlooked Russian missile warning systems* on aircraft and helicopters, which appear to be ineffective against smaller missiles, or completely missing or inoperable - pilots have countermeasures, but have to guess when to deploy them.
tanks are not effective in urban warfare
@@zaganim3813 The US used tanks effectively in Baghdad during the 2nd Gulf war.
what a great video! i actually understood for the first time why this is happening!
This is why I am an advocate for a huge reduction in US military spending. Our potential adversaries are just not that capable. Not really required to spend over 3/4 trillion dollars a year. We truly are wasting money that does not need to be wasted.
Especially when you think that Ukraine can achieve way more with way less....The USA needed 1 million bullets for one Taliban in Afghanistan...imagine this huge, ineficient waste of money and recources in Ukraine?
Having overwhelming superiority is way less costly than maintaining such superiority. Also if the US military wasn't as mighty as it is, Taiwan would most likely have been invaded by now. Just having that big stick saves so much turmoil and human lives. The less you have to actually use it for real, the better. Having only a small edge will result in incredibly bloody wars.
@@Sombody123 Incredibly underrated comment.