This was filmed before the recent Sukhoi reveal and yes, unless we want to speculate, we still don't know what the new Sukhoi 'plane' can *actually* do, so I probably wouldn't have asked much about it anyway. I am aware of the editing mistake at 20:41 and 20:50, it happens
@@NoSTs123 it cant even take off, it’s a mock up, there’s no tooling or testing. And if countries don’t chip in for the development it may never happen.
This plane just confirms that west has basically zero clue about what is being developed or produced in Russia. Similar surprise were Armata platform or Su-57. Not to mention various drones, missiles, cruise missiles and other stuff that is deep in grey zone of unknown world.
The new fighter, allegedly, is meant for export, a modern day MiG-21 so to say. Thus, I seriously doubt that it will have any measurable impact on VKS doctrine and capability anyway.
Ukraine has confirmed they are not only overhyped but badly lacking in tactical support to ground forces, they simply have no equivalent to NATO air controllers, JTACS etc. especially all the experience the USA has gained in this area in the last 20 years.
Drones especially the combination of Surveillance + Loitering Munition Drones are a new problem. An imbalanced match up which most traditional manned vehicle militaries are not ready to defend against. Russia is just exceptionally weak with this new problem. I knew Drones were horrifying problem. But this is war realy proved their lethality.
@@Neojhun Naah not true, Russia has several platforms that, on paper, are ideal for this. Turns out the Russian army isn't particularly well trained and has never heard of logistics though. Even an old Shilka with a good crew should be able to nullify the drone threat in its area. Turns out Russia doesn't have that though!
i think in this war russia did not fully use their air power,one reason is they do not want hurt the normal people. and the other reason is most of fight is in the city and there are a lot of civilian
@@override367 oh, it’s not true? The Russians are doing great against the drones because you saw some papers that said they have a platform for it? Good update, thanks. I was just looking at pictures of destroyed vehicles, but didn’t have access to the paperwork saying Russians aren’t vulnerable to this. See, I was only get half the story, the part you can photograph.
@@silveriorebelo8045 compared to the armchair generals in the youtube comment sections and the relatively hard task of finding accurate and well analysed military information, I think this video goes in a lot of detail about the organisation and capabilities of the VKS. So yeah, compared to the other junk on TH-cam, this is pretty in depth
Agree, that would be interesting. Conflict with China seems much more likely ( but still remote) vs. conflict with Russia. At least as far as traditional bang bang goes
I'd love to see a reflection of this conversation after the events of Ukraine. Russia's inability to gain air dominance in the first 4 days in amazing.
I too am surprised considering the number of analysts pre-invasion giving the opinion. But I suppose we failed in critically evaluating the authenticity of those analysts who seemed to base predictions off of number of aircraft opposed to actual air-to-air capabilities 😊 Considering the speaker advised that the majority of the Russian Airforce is set up for fixed target attacks they may not be so well equipped or experienced in dealing with air-to-air combat and instead rely on ground-to-air capabilities to control the skies? I’m not an expert so definitely happy to be corrected!
@@joekey8464 Putin wanted to show the world his military is capable of complex, surgical strike shock and awe operations, and they failed miserably. Now they have to resort to their old Gorilla war tactics. Use brute force and numbers to overwhelm the enemy. The nuclear threat makes him look weak in front of the Chinese, and he doesn't even realize it. Politically savvy my ass. Their budget is not what they say it is, or the system is so corrupt that a lot of that money is slipping through the cracks. Which makes me wonder, do they actually properly maintain all those nukes ?
So to answer the question directly, yes. The Russian Air Force is over hyped. If we've learned anything since they invaded Ukraine, it's that the Russian Air Force is anything but formidable.
Leaping to that first resource of all arm-chair generals, Wikipedia, I'm looking at the total airframes listed in active service and I'm wondering to myself how many of those reported planes are actually air worthy, how many are complete hulks, and how many are made up. Because closed to a thousand fighter jets, on the defense budget of the UK, even with spending power adjusted for Russia's economy (well its former economy) I find it pretty hard to believe such a formidable fleet was fully operational. My guess is, at best, these are aspirational numbers. Planes that are theoretically air worthy if they get the time and spare parts to make them so. So they might say 'we have 650 mig 29s' but really half of them are laid up with one bad engine or an airframe you wouldn't want to take up unless you absolutely had to and half the remainder need a ton of time per flight hour due to being old, worn out, and cranky.
Yugoslavia was the same. 50 tanks in garrison - TWO operational. I'd be very surprised of 25% of their air force is fully operational. The Stingers are also little beasts MUCH improved to ignore the flares and now there are thousands in the hands of VERY determined MEN.
Especially after Ukraine military officials confirmed that all stories like “the ghost of Kiev” and many statements of “hundreds of Russian aircrafts shot down” were complete and utter lies for propaganda reasons.
I'd be interested in a follow-up analysis of how the Russian Aerospace Force has performed in real life now that they've gone and invaded someone else's country.
They aren't using their most sophisticated aircraft. But, maybe there's a reason for that. The lack of experienced pilots, the minimal number of units, and the not wanting to d raw out NATO's most sophisticated radar against them.
@@ontheland5055 They've used everything except the Su-57 - which they haven't used simply because they don't have enough to form a squadron yet. They lost a considerable amount of Su-35's which is their second most sophisticated aircraft.
@Maximillian Wylde honesty im not a huge fan of how the stealth jets look. I think the physical requirement of shaping them has taken away alot of the uniqueness from them
Absolutely overhyped ! Too much attention on statistical specs and theoretical simulations have created a mystic image of an indestructible Russian Air Force. Logistics, electronics, communications play a role too !
@@georgeyan3625 The Ukrainians still have assets in the air with which they attack Russian ground targets over a week after the war started. The Russian airforce so far did a pretty lackluster job
I would echo the "statistical specs and theoretical simulations" part. But taking it a step further, Russia published clearly propaganda numbers for their equipment's capabilities. When armchair generals focus on these numbers, it makes it incredibly easy to create propaganda to paint equipment in far more favorable light. Not only are the combined arms non-existent, but the systems simply do not function as advertised. I think the complete lack of Precision Guided Munitions (PGM), other than some early cruise missile strikes which Russia is now out of, biases the picture against their military's capability and simultaneously highlights the enormous leap Russia is behind NATO. Does Russia have a powerful military? Sure. But not by western standards. It's pretty obvious now that Russia is relying on the nuclear deterrent, but given the shape the rest of the military is in that likely isn't much better off. /Edit: I should point out that if Russia just stopped trying to invade it's neighbors and instead worked with western countries geopolitically, there wouldn't even be a need for such a conventional or nuclear façade. Just stop trying to invade neighbors and stop supporting tyrannical governments.
@@SealFredy5 Over hyping their military only causes the USA and the West to up their game. This helps Russia to bully, but fail hard in a shooting war as we now see. It seems even the Russian leadership believed their own hype. Even if Russia "wins" in Ukraine, the war will go to the guerilla phase where Russia will continue to take big losses. I one week Russia has taken 10,000 - 12,000 losses, or about 5% of what they committed. This is not sustainable against 16 million + Ukrainian combatants. Hundreds of Stinger and Javelin antiarmor missiles arriving weekly. During WW2 the axis nations lost less than 2,000 troops taking Yugoslavia in 12 days, but suffered almost 120,000 losses in the next 4 years of partisan fighting. This was mostly just fighting Serbs and Bosnians.
Interesting to see a follow up of this topic now that Russia is fighting a hot war with this air force. I hope it doesn't become a Ph.D. dissertation on what happened when they tangled with NATO air forces for real.
@@swh0rd682 Ha! I heard a comment like that at dinner just tonight. With network centric warfare and LO aircraft and missiles, who knows where the luck of the Ghost of Kiev is coming from?
@@swh0rd682 Bonk has a really good article out on Russia failing to use the majority of her aircraft. It's titled "The Mysterious Case of the Missing Russian Air Force."
@@opmike343 They don't have the pilots. CAPs over Syria have essentially stopped and the thinking is they had to move pilots from Syria to operations in Ukraine. In Syria there are no air defenses to worry about. And this lack of experience in contested environments shows: they can't establish any sense of air superiority over the Ukrainians despite - on paper - having a significant numerical advantage.
Well, the last 10 or so days leads me to say yes, overhyped. On paper they should have been able to easily end the small Ukrainian Air Force yet here we are with Ukrainian air space still contested and Ukrainian fighters still in the air. I don't know any logical reason Russia would hold that card if it was as capable as most people believed before.
Damn...the ukrainian tactics is to fly 2 aicrafts at the time and show up and dissapear. They aren't challenging the Russian Airflrce at all. 90 % of the downed aircrafts are mishaps. Nothing else.
@@christopherchristianvanlan1809 If 90% of the downed aircraft are "mishaps" then that is even more embarrassing for the Russian Airforce Do you Russophiles even stop to listen to read the nonsense you spew out?
Experts don't do that and anyone who does it's not an expert. The US millitary officials do when justifying the costs. Part of that hover is justified, it's wiser to prepare for the worst than to not and end up underestimating the enemy, and it's proper assesment methodology "you have to asumme 100% effectiveness, capabilities and readiness".
@@Palora01 It's also because of how the public ends up getting the second-hand information as opposed to the original information. A real life example is how a study a few years back showed that Russia had seriously expanded its EW capabilities and so on and how well they performed in Ukraine. The report stated that if no action was taken in the US to increase the EW capability, Russia could potentially catch up over a decade. Somehow people interpreted this report as stating that Russia was ahead in the field. It was really weird. Actually not that weird considering there's propaganda to push this idea and the media also gain a lot from overstating Russian capabilities. For the former, there are even western military-orientated news outlets that are actually run by Russian propagandists, like National Interest. There's also the fact that making big scary claims about Russian military equipment will get more attention.
They are not done as a manufacturer That information was misleading, because the company just became a subsidiary of the state corporation United Aircraft Corporation. The development and production are still ongoing.
@@kristjanvalgur8871 but beside Mig 35 or Mig 29k, they do not have much in their product portfolio. Heck even even light fighter segment taken over by sukhoi with launch of Su 75.
In light of the past week, it would appear the entire Russian military apparatus was overhyped. If not for nukes they would be another 3rd world military with numbers. Their tactics in Ukraine appear reminiscent of the Battle of Stalingrad where they just absorb damage and keep pouring in high numbers until eventually they overwhelm. Being a soldier in the Russian army is just cannon fodder and bullet absorption.
Exactly right. Great post. in WW2 Russia sent UNARMED civilians out to fight the Germans. They said for the civilians to find dead Russian soldiers and take their weapons and ammo and use that. Lol. Not a good strategy for winning a war. I did 6 years in the US Navy as a Cryptologist. We studied Russia intensely and we have always known they vastly overstate the capability of their weapons. TULA and Aviaconversia, 2 Russian military electronics contractors tried giving Saddam Hussein GPS jammers to jam our GPS guided bombs. We took the GPS jammers out with GPS guided bombs. Not only that, Israel routinely flies non stealth aircraft right by the Russian air defense systems and the air defense systems never knew they were there. It's suspected they used something call Suter technology. The F15 is 104-0 against the Russian Mig29. Russia bragged about the Mig 25 and how bad ass it was then Victor Belenko brought one to us and we learned that it was too heavy to carry weapons and fuel. If they wanted to have weapons on it they had to cut back on the amount of fuel they put in it and visa versa. It was fast for sure but at high speeds the engine started eating itself. Russia said the Turkish drones that were so effective in Syria wouldn't be effective against Russian advanced air defense systems then a Turkish drone took out the S300 air defense system in Ukraine. The "advanced" air defense system couldn't even protect itself let alone the unit it was in. Russia never has been able to figure out how to properly seal their reactors on their subs to keep from irradiating the crew. They never built a carrier fleet because they couldn't get the catapult right. Their logistics apparatus has always been, to put it mildly, weak. As we can see here in Ukraine, they are struggling to keep fuel in their tanks and to feed their conscripts. Alot if these Russian soldiers are just young kids. One young Russian soldier said he didn't even know he was in Ukraine. They were moving along with what he thought was an exercise and suddenly all hell broke loose and they were under heavy machine gun fire and bombs exploding everywhere. They had no warning and didn't know who was shooting at them or why. They didn't even know they were invading Ukraine. Again, that is piss poor strategy for fighting a war. If they were going up against us or any nation with an advanced military in that kind of formation they would get slaughtered. Instead of javelins and machine gun fire it would have been Warthogs, Apache's and drones with hellfires along with air bombardment from fighter jets. It would have been a nightmare for them. And that's just a few things about the Russian military and it's belligerent rhetoric about how advanced their weapons have become.
@@jamesstreet228 I'm a late cold war child, so I remember all the scary stuff they used to feed us about the Soviets. The last week has me questioning the premise and has me wondering what condition their nuclear arsenal is even in. It would be monstrously expensive to maintain it all, and it doesn't seem like they're very good at the boring bits of war.
@@thorne1239 I'm thinking you might be right, the maintenance cost of those nukes might be a lot I don't know. If we think they have those nukes that is enough, and they can use the money to maintain their airplanes tanks instead.
Damn Bis, you're fast becoming the best german Aviation Magazine for those serious about Military Aviation. Good stuff and it's a welcome fresh breath of air compared to what a lot of others put out. If one compares your work to that of other channels who started out with War Thunder, it's quality stands out even more.
@@MilitaryAviationHistory Well, tsat is ze right job for us Germans getting tse tru.....err information from them! 😉😋 In all seriousness though, don't undervalue having the right ammount of Feingefühl (sensibility just doesn't sound right) to know when to ask and when to just let the interviewee talk, it is far too rare these days.
Wer're just waiting for someone to come forward with a "declassified" MIG-23M manual to show what War Thunder could make better ;) I'm completely with you on this topic, yeah! So nice & rare to get an unbiased expert view on these stuff.
@@LupusAries I would concur with the statement that the info and quality is by far one of the best in youtube. Specially looking back on ROF days. And in interviews something we dutch call fingerspitzengefühl. Which sounds German.. but eh.
Very good analysis, especially with the benefit of hindsight from the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, and how Russia have not been able to achieve air superiority after 1 week.
@@JAnx01 Mainstream media? Nah. It's 2022, you can follow Ukrainian journalists(though some can be a little misleading or overly optimistic), independent journalists stationed in Ukraine, as well as many, many civilian accounts providing updates, footage, etc. If you really want to see some tasty propaganda, lies, misinformation, and overall just a lot of BS, go check putin's speeches and russian state owned media.
@@FakeMaker Aah, don't forget Fox news (I know it not real news). They are trying real hard to get the coveted, "Baghdad Bob" fake journalism award. LOL
I watched this all the way through very interesting and made a lot of sense . Your guest explained everything in an easily understandable way !! Looking forward to an assessment of Chinese air power which should be equally interesting .
Wars are not just military, they are also economic and ultimately political. An expensive Russian fixed wing or rotary aircraft has to be fueled and has to land sometime. Rotary are not designed for high altitude operations. So do the math ... an $80k guided portable munition versus a vulnerable multi-million dollar aircraft (not to mention larger and more capable SAMs to be brought in across the western border and based in secure Western Ukraine). Russia had a GDP less than Italy even prior to sanctions and they do not have militarily capable allies as they did in USSR days. There are millions of angry Ukrainians with high morale and high motivation. Throw in the sanctions and you've got a situation where Russian military forces get bled severely and the cost to reconstitute the losses would have severe impacts on the Russian economy. Ultimately, the two factors will be how motivated are Ukrainians safely based in the west, which is more rugged and defendable, to carry on an insurgency. And the other, how willing will NATO be to supply advanced munitions for asymmetrical conflict. Time will tell. But so far this is looking like a debacle with Russian forces indiscriminate attacks on civilian targets destroying a village to save it, and motivating Ukrainians for a decade to despise Russia and seek western ties. I cannot understand the calculus of Putin in conducting the operation, unless he misunderstood the overall mood of Ukraine towards Russian control of the country. There is an excellent documentary on Netflix, Winter on Fire, which covers the events leading up to the 2014 uprising that destroyed Russian influence in their government and as a consequence emboldened the population seeking a European identity. This is the real threat to Putin, and his ego, the evolving identity of everyday Ukrainians as not Russian, but European. But throwing a fit and punishing a civilian population in this manner seems unsophisticated and likely to achieve the opposite effect of intended.
I think Putin thought it would be like Crimea: the west would complain and impose sanctions but wouldn’t do anything. He obviously misjudged the Ukrainian people and didn’t recognize how determined they were to not be ruled by Russia. His narrative is that the Maidan revolution was a coup by the West and that Ukraine is just being controlled by the US; so he didn’t think they would resist his military. He didn’t realize that the US is aiding Ukraine and obviously intends to profit by their investments, but they aren’t controlling Ukraine in the way the US has done on many previous occasions. Putin bought into his own propaganda and failed to judge the situation realistically; but that’s not surprising considering he’s a dictator that only has yes men telling him what he wants to hear. You are correct; this is going to cost far more than he intended and it could well be his Vietnam. Recovering from this conflict will not be easy or quick.
@@keirfarnum6811 I heard a suggestion that, while Putin no doubt BS's constantly and is doubtlessly selfishly motivated, he probably DOES have rather supremacists beliefs about Russia. That Russia deserves an Empire and that only other Empires/Powers are of any concern. So America must be dealt with, as they are the old enemy. And China, is undeniable a power as well. But all the rest are 'little countries'.
@@keirfarnum6811 Very interesting points! "His narrative is that the Maidan revolution was a coup by the West and that Ukraine is just being controlled by the US; so he didn’t think they would resist his military." It hadn't occurred to me that Putin is actually believing his own lies. I always thought he knew the stuff he said about the west was total bullshit. Manufactured by him, to make Russians feel like they have it pretty good in Russia. He ACTUALLY thought that we had a puppet government running Ukraine. It's almost as if the mere concept of a REAL democratically elected leader, does not compute with Putin's brain. In his mind, it HAD to be the US meddling, because Ukrainians love him. I was always assuming that when he would accuse the west of plotting against him, he was doing it as propaganda for his people. So he could control them and get them to support him. But he actually is that fucking paranoid. So paranoid, that he would invent the idea that Ukraine was governed by secret Nazis, but then invade Ukraine and actually expect the Nazis to be there, forcing people to hate him. Does that mean...that he actually thinks Ukrainians love him and want him to be their president. He's literally a conspiracy theorist lunatic, with a huge military and nuclear weapons. He's convinced himself that all his military stuff works, that It's all awesome and could totally kick the USA's ass. So much so that when he goes to actually use his military to do something, he's SURPRISED when they beat his ass? He's a complete madman. He's a real life super-villain. He's completely insane.
LOL... the SAMs being used look more and more like abandoned Russian equipment. I don't know to what extent anti-air batteries are coming across Poland, but a shit load are coming from Russia near as anyone can tell. Not to mention the literally ridiculous amount of MANPADs that went in.
@@Sundara229 defense contractors, who we buy arms from , that lobby Congress and donate to representatives. Those representatives now represent those companies interest in congress. I’m a political science researcher, and I just described to you the military industrial complex
@@sebastiangarcia-yb5ro You forgot the bit where army generals, usaf generals, admirals, etc... retire and go work for defense contractors, using their personal contacts in government to push through defense budgets/programs, creating a revolving door.
I've loved reading Justin's contributions to Hush Kit. He's a great speaker (love the concise explanations of technical concepts) and fast becoming an Internet celeb in my eyes! 🙂
@4:15 "because we would only find that out for sure if there was actually a flashpoint, which we'd rather hope there isn't" .. and just 7 months later we have one and it does seem that Russian air power is indeed far short of expectations.
This was excellent. A very well learned assessment of the less glamorous factors that contribute to a fighting groups efficacy, and a very well informed one. I'll like and subscribe for that, and also to see more of Bronk's input where I can. And honestly...I also wanna see where his hair stops when he's not in front of a green screen.
@@matthewwilson3651 for start when he started about bias colored things like Russia hit civilians. NATO US did more civilian kills.. and in Syria RUssian air forces were scary efficiant..and another factor limited number of planes did a lot of missions and they were easy to maintain one plane was shot by Turkey and maybe one more was out...ect ect..dude is bias there was few points true but we all know those about flight hours
@@milelojpur5959 regardless of whether or not the US has bombed civilians (they have) using whataboutism as evidence of anti-Russian bias in an interview *about Russian airpower* is not a good argument
Since invading Ukraine’s been a cakewalk, Vladimir Vladimirovich should go invade Finland and Sweden now, quickly, before they join NATO. I’m sure it’ll go awesome, especially Finland.
Idk if an unpopular conflict where demoralized pilots flying cold war leftover planes against their own brothers and sisters, allegedly at the risk of being executed or imprisoned if they don't is really a true reflection of their full air power
@@rodiculous9464 Russians seems pretty happy to bomb the shit out of Ukrainians. When a grandma protesting the war in St petersburg is not ousted by police but by the general population calling her traitor and other nice names, it's hard to say that Russia is anti-war. 30% might be, i guess?
This was fascinating. Although we are immersed in the historical period of the early 21st century, its always refreshing to hear from those who strive to analyze today's events as closely as events from the past, cheers!
I watched your videos back in the day of you playing flight simulators, and talking about air combat- and seeing how far you’ve come has been incredible, and I really enjoy the content you put out. Especially with the input from experts in the field and references to legitimate sources of credible information. Great video, and I would love to see another video on China, Iran, N Korea, and NATO. Keep up the good work!
@@TheJazsa80 Here you are showing the exact opposite mindset to what this entire comment is about. Besides being objectively wrong and more of a ignorant propaganda fueled statement; It is incredibly foolish to think this way just from a art of war standpoint. underestimating your enemy is a good way to be delivered a surprise defeat. Arrogance is never beneficial. You are better off overestimating your enemy if anything. Not to mention that current generation Chinese hardware is quite good, at least on paper. The J-10 and J-20 are quite capable aircraft. The ZTZ-99 is a excellent tank, The Z-10 attack helicopter also looks quite capable. Just because China had factories making cheap plastic children's toys on contract to some American company doesn't mean their military hardware is the same. Japan too had a reputation for cheap disposable crap 50 years ago, and now look how Japanese goods are respected, times change. Likewise it would be incredibly foolish to think that a country with 1.3 billion people and universities filled with scientists and engineers doesn't have some real capability and talent. Never underestimate a potential foe..
@@TheJazsa80 And that's how China beat your asses back to the 38th parallel in Korean war. This goes the same in the Vietnam war and the war in Afghanistan.
@@mikejohnson555 Oh there's a comment mindset that's supposed to be followed? I must of missed the memo, please don't send me to the reeducation camps to correct my thinking. Compared to western military equipment the chinese are only competitive in numbers. The CCP rule china with an iron fist which handicaps technological innovation. The chinese are playing a game of perpetual catch up with military tech and equipment whilst their doctrine stagnates. In other words they don't know how use all the stuff they're stealing or reverse engineering. The chinese military is controlled by the CCP with all top positions filled by those who show party loyalty over military talent. You also suggest the J-10 and J-20 are capable aircraft but neither aircraft has seen combat so how capable they are in combat is unknown.
@@TheJazsa80 Oh boy a unhinged rant.. I think you are missing the basic point of both my comment and the OP. Not underestimating your enemy is basic fundamental smart military strategy, that's it, that's the point. Yet your anger and bias blinds you to this very simple principal. You are falling into the very mindset and trap that causes people to lose wars, not win them.
LOL, you are easy to brainwash you can't even see that this is a nonsense BS speech on top of Russian jets photos with no logic😃😆what can he know 5k+ miles away
@@zeblanmaidaynovich796 This was an honest evaluation from a think tank done with what public info there is. You are mad because he didn’t dog Russia the whole time. You call someone else brainwashed? Lmaoooo
@@blue_diamond_gem the public information he use the likes that comes in The National Interest ? Washington post ? That kind of information ? At least he should have cite a Russian sources.
Very well done, covering a wide range of subjects in good detail… BUT, in any analysis of current Russian air power’s strength or weakness, there was one fundamental omission that should have been addressed: the numbers of aircraft in the Russian inventory. If you look at Russian armored vehicles as an analog, there are a number of “first line” tanks & A.P.C.s/I.F.V.s, but there are many, many more Soviet-era remnants and vehicles in various levels of storage, with very varied levels of operability and capacity- some are barely functional, some are far from being equipped to any “modern” standard… However, on paper, the numbers are impressive, and perhaps being able to field large enough numbers of obsolete A.F.V.s (T-62s, T-72s & others, for example) brings a quantitative advantage that would be hard to overcome (if, for example, a few modern & well equipped tanks were backed up by dozens of obsolete, or lesser-equipped ones, you would have the benefit of numbers both in sheer volume of fire and the ability to sustain losses). HOWEVER, when it comes to aircraft, the wheat must be separated from the chaff: what are the numbers of the newest and most capable aircraft in the Russian inventory? My poor attempts to look into this showed that there are relatively few of each type of what would be considered “first line”, top-shelf aircraft (as you mentioned the TU-160, it is my understanding that there is less than a dozen of the new, more capable variant, either new airframes or comprehensively re-built and re-equipped legacy aircraft, or your mention of the Su-57’s inadequate planned procurement of +/- 75 aircraft). While there may be many more aircraft “on the books”, similar to their armored vehicles, how many are actually modern, upgraded & realistically operable? To be hyperbolic, while an Il-2 Sturmovik may still be capable of launching an attack and dropping bombs, I don’t think anyone would argue it would have a place in modern combat… As with the T-14 Armata, however it might perform, unless it is produced in large enough numbers to represent a viable, useable asset, it is somewhat irrelevant. The same applies to a subject you touched upon- the number of qualified aircrew, who have adequate time in their respective aircraft type to be fully effective- if they can’t get the hours needed in the cockpit, no matter how many planes are produced, it is immaterial… Could you please consider doing a “part two” on this subject, going into the available numbers of the different aircraft, and their sub-types, as I think we can agree, the raw numbers of aircraft can be misleading, and the realistic number of first-line, deployable & capable Russian combat aircraft may come as something of a surprise, being much smaller than many assume… Thank you!
Great discussion. More of this please. Something on Chinese airpower would be great. I think we're more likely to see a hot war with China before one with Russia. Cheers
we will never see a hot war again , we will see a b o i w a r . and guess what it has started . all the auto mated factorys will still be standing , for the 1% to use . after the it
"...have combat experience. Admittedly that combat experience has been mostly flying around dropping unguided munitions on mostly civilian areas, but it's mostly the sort of combat experience a lot of Western air forces have spent the last 10-15 years doing." Does anyone really need lots of fancy planes if they're mostly used for bombing civilian areas?
No, thats why west uses drones for that these days while russians still fly jets ar low altitude dropping dumb bombs and getting show down by freaking stingers
@@amistrophy I didn't write they just bomb civilians. If for the last 10-15 years planes are mostly used for bombing civilian ares, as Justin Bronk said c.5mins in, then most of their planes only need to be capable of doing that, as that's what they'll be doing most of the time.
Hey, thanks for your concern, so nice of you! It's dreadful what's happening. I am not in the affected area, neither are family and friends but it's tragic for the folks that live there.
@@MilitaryAviationHistory I have relatives in Bad Neuenahr and I used to visit often when I was a kid. From what I've heard it was badly damaged. It's a shame because it was such a nice town.
Man, I feel like I'm back in the 90's reading Janes Defense Journals that I snagged from the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia as a kid. :P Good stuff. I'd love to hear more about their ECM capabilities. It seems to me that any conventional war between them and a near peer will be won or lost on the basis of ECM capability and counter-ECM capability. I'm sure they have some nasty surprises up their sleeves as we do most likely in the U.S.
It's easy for armchair experts to claim this Syria proved the Russian planes being simple were much more reliable and were able to refuel and rearm and turnaround in 1 hr while US planes needed 10 hrs because of complicated electronics and software. The airforce has a massive shortage of electronics technicians and software programers. So the numbers of planes in the sky at any one time would leave the US out numbered considerably. So while US planes are more advanced they may not have enough planes in the sky to win a battle.
@@michaelenright1089 Eh... you might check your sources. When necessary, U.S. planes can be turned around very quickly. Much depends also on the model of aircraft. Some aircraft are quicker to turn-around than others. Obviously newer aircraft will be faster. Keep in mind also that we only see the flight documentation of Russian aircraft SHOWN by the Russian government. We don't see their full history of engine failures and general mission failures due to critical systems failures. Yes, Russian aircraft are generally fairly robust, but they increasingly rely on delicate modern digital systems that can and do fail while also sometimes making repairs more difficult. There's just SOOOO many factors at play here when it comes to aircraft turn-around time. So take anything put forth by either American or Russian sources with a huge grain of salt.
Outstanding and very informative discussion in light of the recent (Feb.2022) Russian invasion of Ukraine. It explains a lot about the limitations - - - correction vast limitations, of Russian AirPower.
China and Cuba have much in common Cuba with its making old cars pretty and getting them to keep moving. And China with its old air force. Australia should not do a repeat of ww2. They should buy as much American tech as possible. Wait save and buy heavy into U.S. 6th gen aircraft. Air superiority and Air to ship weapons if you want to survive and prosper. The new Japan plane another hidden killer might be a good choice as well.
@@ThaFunkster100 Mate if you're asking due to fear of Chinese invasion, China isnt going to stretch the limits of its naval reach and power trying to subjugate our nation of a mere 20 million people. China has much more productive strategic goals. Its aircraft have been and still are basically copies of older Russian planes though their home grown avionics might be an upgrade from some of the ancient stuff Russia is using.
I would both double down on their separate requirements - each of the three major military powers, Russia/China/USA all have very different strategic objectives and thus differently built militaries - while countering that both Russia and China are taking actions to counter US global influence and interference in their regions with actions that could very much be considered to be low level warfare, or perhaps non-kinetic warfare if you prefer the term
@@lqr824 lmao some people just do not understand how far Russia had fallen behind and is still behind. There is no logic that will get to their num heads.
Their problem in a real combat situation is going to be keeping enough of anything, especially their new stealth fighters, in the air. It's not just the pilots that need training and experience. You need ground crews with the specialized skills, materials and parts to keep these in the air. They will have a handful of next gen resources available at best and will probably be very reluctant to commit those for fear of losses. The SU-27 variants are a dangerous adversary when properly maintained, when well coordinated and directed, when fielded in consistently competitive numbers and when piloted by experienced aircrew. They can't do any of that. They look good on paper and are pretty menacing sitting on the runway, but are not living up to the hype under battlefield conditions. They just don't have the economic base to field a force that can go toe to toe with NATO under real conditions.
Spot on. The Israelis showed the US you can take say a small number of aircraft and with hot-resupply you can effectively turn a single machine into the equivalent of a half dozen adversaries. The US learned to refuel, rearm and repair their weapons platforms much more quickly which served as a force multiplier. The reverse is also true. Poor support and logistics serves to reduce the effectiveness of a given weapons platform (not even getting into reliability and serviceability) effectively reducing their numbers. They're just not good at maintaining, servicing, and supplying their armed forces. I think a lot of generals got fat looking good on paper. Throw in a few well-placed SAMs and Russia has itself a little problem on their hands.
Indeed. The smallest diameter in the pipeline of steel on target is not the numver of airframes, or evsn the number of skilled pilots, but the turn around time of a single airframe for sortie. With a well traoned groumdcrew and optimized maintenance procedures a single plane can fly 10-15 sorties in a day, a single pilot can fly maybe 4 of those without severely degrading in performance. This of course presupposes that your craft doesnt get shot down in amy of those flights, and that your groundcrew is capable of rearming, refitting and flight checking the machine under an hour.
@@lexwaldez To be fair, you can only squeeze down the size of your air-force so far. But yeah, the Russians are trying to keep everything, if not air worthy, at least on the register so they can claim a numerically impressive air-force. And that's no doubt costing them in actually useable air frames.
Formidable against static targets such as maternity hospitals and bomb shelters that have "children" marked on the road next to them. Granted, also static radar installations were blown up in the beginning. Snarky comment, I know, but the analysis was good and I'm very grateful for the effort that Chris has put to bring us this content. It's good to know your enemy. If you film in Ilmailumuseo again, the beer is on me 🥶
I recall an F-15 pilot saying saying would give his right nut to have an enemy jet just stop in midair... That was shortly after the first demo of the cobra maneuver at... you guessed it, an air show.
@@Triggernlfrl The F-35 is still far from a failure. Modern russian fighter procurement is really not doing very well considering the state of teh Su57
The question I have is a question about budget and airframes. None of this is exactly apples to apples, but drives some thinking. 1 - The British have a budget of about $59B annually and as far as I can tell will end up with about 200 combat airframes. 2 - The Germans have a budget of about $51B annually and as far as I can tell will end up with about 200 combat airframes 3 - The Russians have a budget of about $61B annually and as far as I can tell will end up with about 2100 combat airframes (excluding the large bombers). We can not compare numbers directly, but how does Russia support 10x the number of airframes on about the same budget as Britain and Germany? I can make the same comparison with tanks (even excluding the tanks in reserve). The Russian navy outnumbers the two nations fleets combined. Plus the Russians have to fund their large nuclear forces. So even given the limitations that are given in the video, the numbers would say to me that there is a lot of rust on Russian equipment that is listed active. This may be due to overlap in systems that are being retired, but still. Are the budget numbers wrong or misleading?
@William Mulvaney No, these are numbers from Wikipedia and include the following types: SU-24, SU-25, MiG-29, MiG-31, SU-27, MiG-35, SU-30, SU-34, SU-35S and SU-57. Many of these airframes are exactly was was talked about in the episode. As an example, the number of SU-34 and SU-35S are nearly identical to the number of planes that Britain and Germany have.
Нет, просто ваша техника в 3 раза дороже стоит, а качество точно такое же. Просто Европейские и Американские военные компании хотят больше заработать, а по боевым показателям такие же как Русские. И если вы тут пишете про старую технику России, нужно помнить что она модернизируемая, реальную силу представляет только США, а Европа слаба по сравнению с Россией, так как у вас маленькие армии и мало техники. Например сколько современных Леопардов у Германии, а сколько у России танков т72б3м и т90. Россия в одиночку может раскатать Европу без США.
fascinating hard look into the structure of Russian Military Aviation，in a laidback arm chair setting；yes we still don't know what the new kid can actually do but VKS is still formidable and deserves more respect and attention the message I get is， thank you
Russian General "We have made the most superior plane in the world!" Western Observer "How many squadrons do you expect to have?" Russian General "We have made the most superior plane in the world!"
@@SNOWDONTRYFAN you didn't listen at all, did you? Just looked at the pictures, I guess. The money isn't there, at least not yet. So order as many as you'd like; but you're ordering with hot air. It's a pipe dream until you can pay for it. That doesn't even consider the fact that the SU-57 is really a Gen 4+ fighter with lipstick. You didn't listen to the part about it not being actually stealthy, did you? It's not on par with the F-22 nor F-35, and so your mythical 79 airframes aren't really going to be all that useful even if they materialize. Nevermind the engines, which, being typically Russian, will last a very short time compared to any western engine. Engines, and their experiences with Russian engines, are why the Indians backed out of the program. They don't regret it. How can you look at a photo of an SU-57, with all the bare metal, exposed rivets, and poor fit and finish, and actually believe that it's stealthy? Probably the same way that you can announce with arrogance that 79 are ordered; you ignored what was right in front of you and hear and see what you wish were true. You are not to be taken seriously.
@@skipdreadman8765 Well, if we are into it is F-35 a 5th gen? It cannot super cruise for more then 50 seconds ;) Old Russian engines had issues, new ones not so much. Only 2 nations on this planet developed and tested in actual flight next gen engines - that would be Russia and US. Indian's backed out of the program for the same reason Russia ordered so few - Su-57 offers only marginal better performance in current combat environment over Su-35. Also why US backed out of F-22. Are all 3 idiots? Russia now develops its own F-35... For same reason US develops F-35. I.e. heavy expensive stealth plane is too expensive to make in large numbers. Also with stand off weapons that platform can be taken over by Su-35 or F-15 strike eagle. Think, why US is still making F-15s and why they are in strike configuration - see why Russia likes Su-35s. All of above simply goes into what current wars are fought and what works - Russia has discovered same thing US has discovered. Just 10 years later.
I hadn't really thought about how the doctrine of their air defense missile network would integrate with their aircraft before. Will look into the additional resources. Thank you
Yeah, very informative overview! I'd love to see NATO SEAD capabilities being brought into the equation aswell, because as he already said the Russian air defenses are probably easily detectible. Especially with cruise missiles I think NATO could muster quite a response to that if it would ever come to an invasion.
@@overlord4404 being mobile is one thing but taking an hour to pack up and move is another. They're still static. 50 years ago that would have been effective, but by today's standards they would have a better survival rate by not switching on at all.
I'm an old guy who remembers the hype around Soviet/Russian fighters going back to the MiG-21. While they all had positive characteristics, all were terribly overhyped and there is no reason to think today is any different. When the clouds of propaganda drift away and combat begins, Russian planes serve mostly as ejection seat testing platforms. Russia gets by mostly on bluff and bluster. She has a Potemkin Village military. She builds pretty planes that impress at air shows (except when they are crashing), but we don't see them achieving air superiority and keeping it against air forces of similar size equipped with American fighters. Let's not forget, that is the object of the exercise - gain and keep air superiority so one's bomber can come in and strike enemy targets on the surface. Even now, Russia is struggling to come up with a fighter that can beat the 1970s-technology F-15. Because of Russia's small economy and the expense of these weapons systems, she just isn't able to keep a lot of them in the air or give a large number of pilots adequate training. One thing that cracks me up about Russian hype videos - they typically have someone with a British accent narrate the things, rather than a Russian. One gets the impression they think a Russian accent is undesirable.
I've been saying stuff just like this to my younger friends. They're not familiar with the Russian bullshit machine. People going on about hypersonic missiles and super tanks. Yeah, but they only have 10 of them and none are deployed. The poor fucking infantry are rolling around in BMP-2s with no networking and no fuel. The best helicopters they have are being shot down by stingers again, just like in the 80s. There's a rumour that they've nearly run out of Kalibr cruise missiles and are down to shitty unguided barrage weapons welded to the back of Zil trucks.
@@notspacekeeper There's a website called Migflug that has the combat records of all fighter planes now in use. Here are the numbers of won/losses in air-to-air combat F-4 ............... 306 - 106 F-14 ............. 135 - 4 F-15 ............. 103 - 0 F-16 ............... 76 - 1 F-18 ................. 2 - 1 MiG-21 ......... 240 - 501 MiG-23 ........... 25 - 102 MiG-25 .............. 8 - 8* MiG-29 .............. 6 - 18 SU-27 ................ 6 - 0 * From other sources, two of those MiG-25 air-to-air victories were against unarmed Cessnas shot down by the Cubans. The way to know which side has the better fighters is look at which side is bombing the shit out of enemy targets on the surface.
Interesting comment at about 11:35, stating that the weakness of the VKS is relatively moot due to there being so many tanks and other ground forces which can generate fires. Not really working out that way in Ukraine these days.
great video, extremely informative! i particularly liked the section called "the scary stuff" Russia has done a fantastic job of making itself very safe from attack on its sovereign borders as every country should aim to do rather than focusing fully on attack ability.
@@amrannoordin1644 Hardly, There is just nothing to gain from russia. Some oil and gas, but too far away to exploit IF you can get in that place to begin with. Its just not worth the effort.
@@janzzen1 dude we are like you know providing almost all gas to europe and shit load of oil to China and other coutries more than that we are controlling arctic region more than anyone and it's melting slowly
Excellent, very informative. I learned quite a bit that I was unaware of. I'm also a little astonished that your guest was so well-informed, but still appeared really young.
It’s not faltering, they do better in the declines than the West does because they have every single resource they need in their own country and they make just about everything themselves as well
@@PeterbFree they do better? By what metric? If Russia was a state in the US they would be the 4th largest economy. California, Texas, New York, Russia lol
@@impaugjuldivmax Don't underestimate the Russians. They may be small however they have a big sting in the tail. The Germans and Napoleon learnt that the hard way. The Americans spend far too much for what they get. The west should be more focused. Too many payments to politicians I guess!
Based on what I'm hearing Russian air power doesn't stand a chance against hi tech US airpower and experience. I think it's more than likely the vaunted Chinese air power is similarly lagging in targeting systems and lack experience in air to air combat while we Americans are seasoned, rocking the very best in tech capabilities for our airpower
Infinite money is good to have. Although the Russian planes have many limitations (especially severely lacking avionics) their planes are good bang for the bucks.
@@TheESS1 I agree but it's the level of experience you possess that makes all the difference. Like I'm sure a well trained, seasoned Navy SEAL would be better at fighting and killing with gun and grenades than a poorly trained and motivated conscript
The Gulf war, 30 years ago showed how the western airpower's shock and awe, with its first gen stealth fighter, cruise missiles, precision targeting, etc. achieving air dominance at day one. Russia losing two large cargo aircraft filled with paratroopers is a blunder, how can they even let that happen. Even today Israel is attacking Syria with impunity.
I think the regular rank and file soldier doesnt really have thier hearts in the fight...if it were US as an adversary i think they would be fighting hard
Well if it were up to me we'd have unified the world under one encompassing democratic Gov't so we could do away with war as a whole. We'd focus on education, medicine, science and business without polluting the planet. We'd probably have spaceships that travel faster than light and fancy terraforming machines by now and we'd already be preparing other planets to house humanity. But that's my idealism. Instead we're stockpiling bullets and bombs and preparing for world war 3 and I do feel it's coming. Thankfully my daughters are too young to be conscripted and the possibility of invading the USA is all but impossible so there's that. I just can't believe the prices at the pump and the supermarket. Things are spiraling out of control
Another absolutely masterful video production Bis. Great guest interview. I cannot believe the USAF did not include a self-destruct feature on their reconnaissance drones that would have prevented the Iranians from capturing the aircraft in working order
"If only" has been a very common theme throughout history. You'd think people would learn and as you say be competant enough to consider the what if scenarios and put a device in there to prevent it. Same old story I suspect. Over confidence and arrogance about our own capability and underestimation of the enemy's. (hense Russia steals Atom bomb research, the blueprints of the space shuttle, the shooting down of U2 with Gary Powerš, the crash of the f117 stealth over bosnia) .
I would assume the 'what if' that killed self-destruct features is 'what if we get hacked and they use our drones' self-destruct capabilities?'. I understand that is an argument used against the inclusion of such systems in nuclear weapons.
I'd love to know what their availability rates are by aircraft types as well. For instance we're replacing our Tiger ARHs with Apache because of maintenance issues and a mission ready rate that's down at like 35% or something very low. Have 200 fighters doesnt mean you can use anywhere near that many.
@@Mugdorna Exactly my point. I wonder how many Russia can actually put in the field and have operational at any given time. Not sure they'll be forthcoming with that information. haha
@@ThroneOfBhaal yep. My country bought a few Black hawks and a pair of F16s from the US a couple years back. Our economy has been going down and for years we've never seen them flew and our ppl actually made a meme about it.
During their time in Syria when they were in full deployment, near the start of the intervention, they managed to pull of a sortie rate about 2 - 2.5 times greater than western forces in the region. And this was with fewer aircraft deployed. Ultimately this period was only for like 3 or so months, but they had achieved most of the critical objectives at that point. So you can say that provided that the money doesn't dry up they can certainly match the west in that regard.
I'm not sure I'd call it overhyped, but the priorities of non-NATO air forces tend to be rather different, leading to direct comparisons being rather difficult.
Well it is stated that Russia is focused on defending its territory from a NATO invasion. If that's their priority, they're pretty foolish, as nobody in NATO has any interest in invading Russia !
@@aesma2522 Not really. The offensive capability may be on the way. The first requirement is always to be able to defend yourself otherwise you aren't really a threat to anyone.
The Russian Air Force is of course capable but not the sky darkening force of aircraft it once was. This is the reason the Russians focus so heavily on area denial systems like the S400 SAM system
Wrong, Russia has invested heavily in area of denial systems because in the event of a war they expect to fight close or inside Russia, like all previous wars against Russia. So their stance is defensive as opposed to the US.
@@TRPilot06YT Ah, so the fault for the world ending is on you then? I mean, at least that'd be a sign of being willing the accept responsibility for a doomsday situation. I'd just rather not have the doomsday situation at all, than have it and know who to blame for it.
@@cy-one Send in the nukes. The thing is, the violence is a last resort. When any other way eventually fails violence will guarantee the end of the problem. If you resort to anything else thats just buying time untill you eventually need to resort to violence. Nukes are like violence
Yeah that could be great, this def. was one of my favourite videos so far on this channel... but it's tough, gotta be careful what 'experts' you bring on right haha =)
Yep and an expert who can actually talk to camera and decent audio levels which does take experience. I've seen a fair number of experts brought into YT videos who talk pretty badly with terrible audio which makes it really difficult to follow what they're trying to say.
Lately, we are seeing that they were overhyped. If they're struggling over Ukrainian skies can you imagine how much worse they will fare in NATO skies?
@@Чеховський-ы8ю the fact that they failed to eliminate the Ukrainian Air Force and are losing so many planes to MANPADS just shows how good Russian propaganda was into scaring the West. Now we know the truth and are not afraid anymore.
@J R thanks, the most important thing is to do it secretly, cause Russia bombed lviv today, which is located 50km from border And place od bombing is 2km from me..
Love the video but you only talked about half of the capabilities. None of these aircraft are very much use without highly skilled ground crews or logistics or the ability to air refuel. I’ve personally worked to do a week long surge with the B-1B flying over 100 sorties in a week. Considering the maintenance that’s involved with the B-1 that’s not any easy task. I’m sure the Russians have there own maintenance nightmares and a lot depends on the ability of the maintenance squadrons. A big part of winning an air war with your maintenance squadrons. A well trained air wing with less technology can defeat a high tech enemy
Germany gave up their MiG-29s due to maintenance costs. Literally 8-10 times as many maintenance hours per flight hour as an F-16. The Germans worked their asses off to keep those birds in the air. At any one point, much of Russia's inventory is simply not flyable.
@ICameFromAsia Implying you imps own all those other countries with nationalism. Chinese territories and technology aren't supposed to obey you like you wish about them.
Ah, now this was educational and interesting. Because you often don't hear a lot about exact differences in doctrine and technical capabilities between Western and Russian air power. I liked that somebody finally addressed Russian radar systems and their integration into a complete air defence network. But most importantly I also would like to highlight a small, yet very important part in all of this. It seldom to never gets addressed with a more general audience, but radar is not just a one trick pony where shorter wavelengths are all that matter. The relation between wavelength, bearing accuracy and range is important and different combinations offer their own advantages. This also ties into the grave misconception that stealth aircraft are actually invisible on radar. They are not. They deliberately have a seriously reduced radar cross section against the very shortest radar wavelengths used in fire control radar systems. However against decimetric radar like L-band search radar systems, they can be located. You can't really defeat such systems with stealth techniques either, at least not to my knowledge. At some point you will get a blurry return and if that return is flying at several hundred kilometres a hour at several kilometres altitude, it might actually be a stealth jet. Such systems however are incapable of getting enough bearing accuracy to create a firing solution with. The stealth aircraft thus tries to sit in the medium between unable to be directly targeted by a fire control radar, while being visible by longer wavelength search systems. This further creates the need for quite advanced stand off weaponry and advanced sensors to employ these weapons. In the western case, destroying both short and longer wavelength radar systems would be vital to create air superiority. In the Russian case, their fighters exist to partly to defend their own ground installations. In turn, they would also be supported by their own ground based installations. And that dynamic is often poorly understood. In the "mythological" one vs. one without any other assets, sure a F-35, F-22, Euro fighter etc will probably annihilate either a SU-35 or MiG-35 from very long range. But that scenario will probably never happen if humanity ever goes for its war of ultimate self destruction a.k.a. WW3.
One of the main roles of the E-35 in any conflict is SEAD. Those radars are highly vulnerable to attack by high velocity stand-off weapons,launched for far beyond detection range.
Well said, I'm forever pointing out online we don't live in a video game world to people online with regards to stealth and other much lauded tech. They are specific tools and all weapons have their counter measures. It's quite frightning how many people these days believe all the hype and think the USA can at anytime fly into China/Russia and bomb their president if they wanted to. The ignorence is quite shocking. I hope it's just a limited and specific (i.e. idiot teenagers!😁) cross section i keep seeing and not an indication of the general public view because if it is we are way too overconfident and not just a little bit arrogant with it.
You certainly timed this video well. I found this and You're more recent Video on performance in the Ukraine To be extremely valuable at this time. Thank you so much
I have no problems with the US spending millions experimenting on advance fighter aircraft. There is no such thing as a failed experiment. All experiments are valuable regardless of the outcome. An experiment provides insight into cause-and-effect by demonstrating what outcome occurs when a particular factor is manipulated. Naturally, the more you experiment the more you learn. The US has chosen to use it's financial resources to experiment and develope the best fighter aircraft in the world. Why not since lives depend on it? In life you either lead, follow or get out of the way. When it comes to fighter jets, the US has chosen to invest and lead, while Russia remains somewhat frugal and content to follow.
I think it's less frugality and more a lack of capability. Or rather they're over-aspirational. Russia has an economy about the size of Italy (or it did two weeks ago) if it's going to go with a domestically developed and built air force than it can be either a large force of cheap warplanes, probably little better than ground attack craft for counter insurgency or low intensity conflicts, or a vastly smaller but more competent fleet of strike planes. They can't have both. Not with the money they can spend. They've tried to reach for both by modernizing old Soviet designs and digging out what are, by now, quite elderly airframes that the US and other developed nations are phasing out. In the process they seem to be accomplishing neither. Unable to upkeep the large fleet they're trying to maintain and unable to get more than a trickle of next gen fighters into the air (I believe less than a dozen SU-57s exist, and since they had trouble with the engine, they're slower, less agile, AND less stealthy than they're supposed to be.)
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 83 วันนี้!! คู่เอก "พันฤทธิ์ vs ซุปเปอร์บอล วันของโอม MBK"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1b4pkKHa_Fk/mqdefault.jpg)
This was filmed before the recent Sukhoi reveal and yes, unless we want to speculate, we still don't know what the new Sukhoi 'plane' can *actually* do, so I probably wouldn't have asked much about it anyway.
I am aware of the editing mistake at 20:41 and 20:50, it happens
Well it can vector!
Similar analysis on PLA
@@NoSTs123 it cant even take off, it’s a mock up, there’s no tooling or testing. And if countries don’t chip in for the development it may never happen.
This plane just confirms that west has basically zero clue about what is being developed or produced in Russia. Similar surprise were Armata platform or Su-57. Not to mention various drones, missiles, cruise missiles and other stuff that is deep in grey zone of unknown world.
The new fighter, allegedly, is meant for export, a modern day MiG-21 so to say. Thus, I seriously doubt that it will have any measurable impact on VKS doctrine and capability anyway.
Ukraine has confirmed they are not only overhyped but badly lacking in tactical support to ground forces, they simply have no equivalent to NATO air controllers, JTACS etc. especially all the experience the USA has gained in this area in the last 20 years.
Drones especially the combination of Surveillance + Loitering Munition Drones are a new problem. An imbalanced match up which most traditional manned vehicle militaries are not ready to defend against. Russia is just exceptionally weak with this new problem. I knew Drones were horrifying problem. But this is war realy proved their lethality.
@@Neojhun Naah not true, Russia has several platforms that, on paper, are ideal for this. Turns out the Russian army isn't particularly well trained and has never heard of logistics though. Even an old Shilka with a good crew should be able to nullify the drone threat in its area. Turns out Russia doesn't have that though!
@@override367 "platforms that, ON PAPER, are ideal for this" But this is a REAL hot war with real drones killing real people.
i think in this war russia did not fully use their air power,one reason is they do not want hurt the normal people. and the other reason is most of fight is in the city and there are a lot of civilian
@@override367 oh, it’s not true? The Russians are doing great against the drones because you saw some papers that said they have a platform for it?
Good update, thanks. I was just looking at pictures of destroyed vehicles, but didn’t have access to the paperwork saying Russians aren’t vulnerable to this. See, I was only get half the story, the part you can photograph.
I would love a similarly in depth breakdown of the Chinese air power and doctrine
@@silveriorebelo8045 compared to the armchair generals in the youtube comment sections and the relatively hard task of finding accurate and well analysed military information, I think this video goes in a lot of detail about the organisation and capabilities of the VKS. So yeah, compared to the other junk on TH-cam, this is pretty in depth
Agree, that would be interesting. Conflict with China seems much more likely ( but still remote) vs. conflict with Russia. At least as far as traditional bang bang goes
Chinese Air Force modernization took a Western style route and away from Soviet style route.
Probably the same as the technology they copied.
@@silveriorebelo8045 by the standards of a single yt video this is pretty in-depth
Also more in-depth is always welcome
That man is so brave to give an interview while piloting a jet in his dress casual uniform!
It’S a BaCkGrOuNd
@@n.8911 I suspect that comment flew over your head.
@@jojonesjojo8919 his comment flew over your head mate. His mocking others who would comment “ it’s a background”.
@@n.8911 Norway Jose
@@jojonesjojo8919 🤣🤣🤣bruh
I'd love to see a reflection of this conversation after the events of Ukraine. Russia's inability to gain air dominance in the first 4 days in amazing.
I too am surprised considering the number of analysts pre-invasion giving the opinion. But I suppose we failed in critically evaluating the authenticity of those analysts who seemed to base predictions off of number of aircraft opposed to actual air-to-air capabilities 😊
Considering the speaker advised that the majority of the Russian Airforce is set up for fixed target attacks they may not be so well equipped or experienced in dealing with air-to-air combat and instead rely on ground-to-air capabilities to control the skies? I’m not an expert so definitely happy to be corrected!
Didn’t Russia have this problem in Chechnya?
@@stefanotommassodisimone7241 Georgia, not Chechnya, but yes. In your defense, it's hard to keep up with Russia's bullshit expansionist wars
Russian military is all hype. NATO will have no problem with Russia.
@@joekey8464 Putin wanted to show the world his military is capable of complex, surgical strike shock and awe operations, and they failed miserably.
Now they have to resort to their old Gorilla war tactics. Use brute force and numbers to overwhelm the enemy. The nuclear threat makes him look weak in front of the Chinese, and he doesn't even realize it. Politically savvy my ass.
Their budget is not what they say it is, or the system is so corrupt that a lot of that money is slipping through the cracks.
Which makes me wonder, do they actually properly maintain all those nukes ?
"Russia is not as strong as they think they are and not as weak as it seems from the outside"-Winston Churchill
An accurate description really
The snyway won WW1 and WW2 and had to dave the Brits'' arse twice. Hate is the thanks you on English.
after his third bottle of brandy in the morning. hic.
@@ninonucaro8539 russia won ww1?
@@fulcrum2951 Dont you know, a total collapse of the state followed by brutal civil war and surrendering to the enemy is a great victory
My mans hair going in and out of stealth mode
Hahaha
@A Velsen Thats British hair power.
@A Velsen Haha.... Yes im sure :)
@A Velsen the hair to hair missiles even more so lol
He is likely in quarantine
So to answer the question directly, yes. The Russian Air Force is over hyped.
If we've learned anything since they invaded Ukraine, it's that the Russian Air Force is anything but formidable.
The airmen are drinking a *large* bottle of vodka per day each ... walst wearing a blindfold
Leaping to that first resource of all arm-chair generals, Wikipedia, I'm looking at the total airframes listed in active service and I'm wondering to myself how many of those reported planes are actually air worthy, how many are complete hulks, and how many are made up.
Because closed to a thousand fighter jets, on the defense budget of the UK, even with spending power adjusted for Russia's economy (well its former economy) I find it pretty hard to believe such a formidable fleet was fully operational.
My guess is, at best, these are aspirational numbers. Planes that are theoretically air worthy if they get the time and spare parts to make them so. So they might say 'we have 650 mig 29s' but really half of them are laid up with one bad engine or an airframe you wouldn't want to take up unless you absolutely had to and half the remainder need a ton of time per flight hour due to being old, worn out, and cranky.
And stingers are underrated weapon
Yugoslavia was the same. 50 tanks in garrison - TWO operational. I'd be very surprised of 25% of their air force is fully operational. The Stingers are also little beasts MUCH improved to ignore the flares and now there are thousands in the hands of VERY determined MEN.
Especially after Ukraine military officials confirmed that all stories like “the ghost of Kiev” and many statements of “hundreds of
Russian aircrafts shot down” were complete and utter lies for propaganda reasons.
I'd be interested in a follow-up analysis of how the Russian Aerospace Force has performed in real life now that they've gone and invaded someone else's country.
I think we can see the result, they don't seem to be doing so well.
They aren't using their most sophisticated aircraft. But, maybe there's a reason for that. The lack of experienced pilots, the minimal number of units, and the not wanting to d raw out NATO's most sophisticated radar against them.
Like Dog shit 💩
Justin bronk has been on ward carrols channel a couple of times now, highly recommended if you haven’t seen it
@@ontheland5055 They've used everything except the Su-57 - which they haven't used simply because they don't have enough to form a squadron yet. They lost a considerable amount of Su-35's which is their second most sophisticated aircraft.
Whatever the capabilities, the Su-27 and it's derivatives are damn sexy airplanes.
Thats most important imo😂
Its why in such a f-16 fanboy
su 47 even better
The bendy planes. They look like geese... Or some other animal.
@Maximillian Wylde honesty im not a huge fan of how the stealth jets look. I think the physical requirement of shaping them has taken away alot of the uniqueness from them
Ugly as hell imo
Absolutely overhyped ! Too much attention on statistical specs and theoretical simulations have created a mystic image of an indestructible Russian Air Force. Logistics, electronics, communications play a role too !
i think they did a pretty good job for now
@@georgeyan3625 The Ukrainians still have assets in the air with which they attack Russian ground targets over a week after the war started. The Russian airforce so far did a pretty lackluster job
I would echo the "statistical specs and theoretical simulations" part. But taking it a step further, Russia published clearly propaganda numbers for their equipment's capabilities. When armchair generals focus on these numbers, it makes it incredibly easy to create propaganda to paint equipment in far more favorable light. Not only are the combined arms non-existent, but the systems simply do not function as advertised. I think the complete lack of Precision Guided Munitions (PGM), other than some early cruise missile strikes which Russia is now out of, biases the picture against their military's capability and simultaneously highlights the enormous leap Russia is behind NATO.
Does Russia have a powerful military? Sure. But not by western standards. It's pretty obvious now that Russia is relying on the nuclear deterrent, but given the shape the rest of the military is in that likely isn't much better off.
/Edit: I should point out that if Russia just stopped trying to invade it's neighbors and instead worked with western countries geopolitically, there wouldn't even be a need for such a conventional or nuclear façade. Just stop trying to invade neighbors and stop supporting tyrannical governments.
@@SealFredy5 Over hyping their military only causes the USA and the West to up their game. This helps Russia to bully, but fail hard in a shooting war as we now see. It seems even the Russian leadership believed their own hype.
Even if Russia "wins" in Ukraine, the war will go to the guerilla phase where Russia will continue to take big losses. I one week Russia has taken 10,000 - 12,000 losses, or about 5% of what they committed. This is not sustainable against 16 million + Ukrainian combatants. Hundreds of Stinger and Javelin antiarmor missiles arriving weekly.
During WW2 the axis nations lost less than 2,000 troops taking Yugoslavia in 12 days, but suffered almost 120,000 losses in the next 4 years of partisan fighting. This was mostly just fighting Serbs and Bosnians.
@@georgeyan3625 no, they absolutely have not done well.
Interesting to see a follow up of this topic now that Russia is fighting a hot war with this air force. I hope it doesn't become a Ph.D. dissertation on what happened when they tangled with NATO air forces for real.
but they haven't? NATO (Western aircraft) aren't even in play yet?? it's been an old MIG29 wreaking havoc on RUS drunken bums in the pilot seats.
@@swh0rd682 Ha! I heard a comment like that at dinner just tonight. With network centric warfare and LO aircraft and missiles, who knows where the luck of the Ghost of Kiev is coming from?
@@swh0rd682 Bonk has a really good article out on Russia failing to use the majority of her aircraft. It's titled "The Mysterious Case of the Missing Russian Air Force."
They can’t even secure the Ukraine airspace!
@@opmike343 They don't have the pilots. CAPs over Syria have essentially stopped and the thinking is they had to move pilots from Syria to operations in Ukraine.
In Syria there are no air defenses to worry about. And this lack of experience in contested environments shows: they can't establish any sense of air superiority over the Ukrainians despite - on paper - having a significant numerical advantage.
Well, the last 10 or so days leads me to say yes, overhyped. On paper they should have been able to easily end the small Ukrainian Air Force yet here we are with Ukrainian air space still contested and Ukrainian fighters still in the air. I don't know any logical reason Russia would hold that card if it was as capable as most people believed before.
Damn...the ukrainian tactics is to fly 2 aicrafts at the time and show up and dissapear. They aren't challenging the Russian Airflrce at all. 90 % of the downed aircrafts are mishaps. Nothing else.
I see the Russian trolls are back and shilling in TH-cam comments.
@@christopherchristianvanlan1809 If 90% of the downed aircraft are "mishaps" then that is even more embarrassing for the Russian Airforce
Do you Russophiles even stop to listen to read the nonsense you spew out?
@holcroft1969 MSM can't just conjure burning SU34s falling from the sky after being hit with anti-air fire now can they?
@@christopherchristianvanlan1809 I legit Lol'd at your comment
Generally American Military Industrial Companies over hype russian weapons so that US defense gets more funds.
They should take CCP as a serious threat especially when CCP manage to "hack" the development project of F35
he is British. Not american
@@11vdv11 same thing happens here to.
Experts don't do that and anyone who does it's not an expert.
The US millitary officials do when justifying the costs. Part of that hover is justified, it's wiser to prepare for the worst than to not and end up underestimating the enemy, and it's proper assesment methodology "you have to asumme 100% effectiveness, capabilities and readiness".
@@Palora01 It's also because of how the public ends up getting the second-hand information as opposed to the original information. A real life example is how a study a few years back showed that Russia had seriously expanded its EW capabilities and so on and how well they performed in Ukraine. The report stated that if no action was taken in the US to increase the EW capability, Russia could potentially catch up over a decade. Somehow people interpreted this report as stating that Russia was ahead in the field. It was really weird.
Actually not that weird considering there's propaganda to push this idea and the media also gain a lot from overstating Russian capabilities. For the former, there are even western military-orientated news outlets that are actually run by Russian propagandists, like National Interest. There's also the fact that making big scary claims about Russian military equipment will get more attention.
Sad to hear that Mikoyan is "done as a manufacturer." I mean... damn they made some iconic and legendary air frames.
Yes I also feel bad about that.
But then yakovlev, tupolev all experienced same decline.
They are not done as a manufacturer That information was misleading, because the company just became a subsidiary of the state corporation United Aircraft Corporation. The development and production are still ongoing.
@@kristjanvalgur8871 but beside Mig 35 or Mig 29k, they do not have much in their product portfolio. Heck even even light fighter segment taken over by sukhoi with launch of Su 75.
@@kristjanvalgur8871 so is there any new migs being developed?
@@fulcrum2951 Mig 35, also upgrading older models and planes in the Russian Air Forces.
OK. This kid wins "Best Background" and thus The Internet today. Pretty cool.
In light of the past week, it would appear the entire Russian military apparatus was overhyped. If not for nukes they would be another 3rd world military with numbers. Their tactics in Ukraine appear reminiscent of the Battle of Stalingrad where they just absorb damage and keep pouring in high numbers until eventually they overwhelm. Being a soldier in the Russian army is just cannon fodder and bullet absorption.
Exactly right. Great post. in WW2 Russia sent UNARMED civilians out to fight the Germans. They said for the civilians to find dead Russian soldiers and take their weapons and ammo and use that. Lol. Not a good strategy for winning a war. I did 6 years in the US Navy as a Cryptologist. We studied Russia intensely and we have always known they vastly overstate the capability of their weapons. TULA and Aviaconversia, 2 Russian military electronics contractors tried giving Saddam Hussein GPS jammers to jam our GPS guided bombs. We took the GPS jammers out with GPS guided bombs. Not only that, Israel routinely flies non stealth aircraft right by the Russian air defense systems and the air defense systems never knew they were there. It's suspected they used something call Suter technology. The F15 is 104-0 against the Russian Mig29. Russia bragged about the Mig 25 and how bad ass it was then Victor Belenko brought one to us and we learned that it was too heavy to carry weapons and fuel. If they wanted to have weapons on it they had to cut back on the amount of fuel they put in it and visa versa. It was fast for sure but at high speeds the engine started eating itself.
Russia said the Turkish drones that were so effective in Syria wouldn't be effective against Russian advanced air defense systems then a Turkish drone took out the S300 air defense system in Ukraine. The "advanced" air defense system couldn't even protect itself let alone the unit it was in.
Russia never has been able to figure out how to properly seal their reactors on their subs to keep from irradiating the crew. They never built a carrier fleet because they couldn't get the catapult right.
Their logistics apparatus has always been, to put it mildly, weak. As we can see here in Ukraine, they are struggling to keep fuel in their tanks and to feed their conscripts. Alot if these Russian soldiers are just young kids. One young Russian soldier said he didn't even know he was in Ukraine. They were moving along with what he thought was an exercise and suddenly all hell broke loose and they were under heavy machine gun fire and bombs exploding everywhere. They had no warning and didn't know who was shooting at them or why. They didn't even know they were invading Ukraine. Again, that is piss poor strategy for fighting a war. If they were going up against us or any nation with an advanced military in that kind of formation they would get slaughtered. Instead of javelins and machine gun fire it would have been Warthogs, Apache's and drones with hellfires along with air bombardment from fighter jets. It would have been a nightmare for them.
And that's just a few things about the Russian military and it's belligerent rhetoric about how advanced their weapons have become.
@@jamesstreet228 I'm a late cold war child, so I remember all the scary stuff they used to feed us about the Soviets. The last week has me questioning the premise and has me wondering what condition their nuclear arsenal is even in. It would be monstrously expensive to maintain it all, and it doesn't seem like they're very good at the boring bits of war.
I hope you’re right and I tend to agree but the last thing ya wanna do is underestimate them.
Who are 1st world, 2nd world and 3rd world? Thought there was only one world and it is round.
@@thorne1239 I'm thinking you might be right, the maintenance cost of those nukes might be a lot I don't know. If we think they have those nukes that is enough, and they can use the money to maintain their airplanes tanks instead.
"Implausible deniability" This guy is very articulate, a pleasure to listen to.
He is bri'ish
That's why mate
Accent does wonders
Very nice of Justin to conduct the interview while he’s busy flying.
Damn Bis, you're fast becoming the best german Aviation Magazine for those serious about Military Aviation.
Good stuff and it's a welcome fresh breath of air compared to what a lot of others put out.
If one compares your work to that of other channels who started out with War Thunder, it's quality stands out even more.
Thanks Lupus, very happy to hear you enjoyed it. All credit goes to Justin tho, I just asked ze questions.
@@MilitaryAviationHistory Well, tsat is ze right job for us Germans getting tse tru.....err information from them! 😉😋
In all seriousness though, don't undervalue having the right ammount of Feingefühl (sensibility just doesn't sound right) to know when to ask and when to just let the interviewee talk, it is far too rare these days.
Ve have vays ov making you talk.... About Der VKS!
Wer're just waiting for someone to come forward with a "declassified" MIG-23M manual to show what War Thunder could make better ;) I'm completely with you on this topic, yeah! So nice & rare to get an unbiased expert view on these stuff.
@@LupusAries I would concur with the statement that the info and quality is by far one of the best in youtube. Specially looking back on ROF days. And in interviews something we dutch call fingerspitzengefühl. Which sounds German.. but eh.
Very good analysis, especially with the benefit of hindsight from the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, and how Russia have not been able to achieve air superiority after 1 week.
@@JAnx01 The Teapot calling the kettle black...
@@JAnx01 Ukrainian TB2 go BRRR.
Deal with it.
@@JAnx01 Mainstream media? Nah. It's 2022, you can follow Ukrainian journalists(though some can be a little misleading or overly optimistic), independent journalists stationed in Ukraine, as well as many, many civilian accounts providing updates, footage, etc. If you really want to see some tasty propaganda, lies, misinformation, and overall just a lot of BS, go check putin's speeches and russian state owned media.
@@FakeMaker Aah, don't forget Fox news (I know it not real news). They are trying real hard to get the coveted, "Baghdad Bob" fake journalism award. LOL
I watched this all the way through very interesting and made a lot of sense . Your guest explained everything in an easily understandable way !! Looking forward to an assessment of Chinese air power which should be equally interesting .
Best zoom background eva!
Me too for the first few seconds. I think a background video would be awesome
Some kind of active stealth thing going on with his hair.
I love the mix of madlad background, and razor-sharp insight. Nicely done.
For a child
@@redross8518 Indeed. This 62 year old retired child found it quite delightful.
Wars are not just military, they are also economic and ultimately political. An expensive Russian fixed wing or rotary aircraft has to be fueled and has to land sometime. Rotary are not designed for high altitude operations. So do the math ... an $80k guided portable munition versus a vulnerable multi-million dollar aircraft (not to mention larger and more capable SAMs to be brought in across the western border and based in secure Western Ukraine). Russia had a GDP less than Italy even prior to sanctions and they do not have militarily capable allies as they did in USSR days. There are millions of angry Ukrainians with high morale and high motivation. Throw in the sanctions and you've got a situation where Russian military forces get bled severely and the cost to reconstitute the losses would have severe impacts on the Russian economy.
Ultimately, the two factors will be how motivated are Ukrainians safely based in the west, which is more rugged and defendable, to carry on an insurgency. And the other, how willing will NATO be to supply advanced munitions for asymmetrical conflict. Time will tell. But so far this is looking like a debacle with Russian forces indiscriminate attacks on civilian targets destroying a village to save it, and motivating Ukrainians for a decade to despise Russia and seek western ties.
I cannot understand the calculus of Putin in conducting the operation, unless he misunderstood the overall mood of Ukraine towards Russian control of the country. There is an excellent documentary on Netflix, Winter on Fire, which covers the events leading up to the 2014 uprising that destroyed Russian influence in their government and as a consequence emboldened the population seeking a European identity. This is the real threat to Putin, and his ego, the evolving identity of everyday Ukrainians as not Russian, but European. But throwing a fit and punishing a civilian population in this manner seems unsophisticated and likely to achieve the opposite effect of intended.
I think Putin thought it would be like Crimea: the west would complain and impose sanctions but wouldn’t do anything. He obviously misjudged the Ukrainian people and didn’t recognize how determined they were to not be ruled by Russia. His narrative is that the Maidan revolution was a coup by the West and that Ukraine is just being controlled by the US; so he didn’t think they would resist his military. He didn’t realize that the US is aiding Ukraine and obviously intends to profit by their investments, but they aren’t controlling Ukraine in the way the US has done on many previous occasions. Putin bought into his own propaganda and failed to judge the situation realistically; but that’s not surprising considering he’s a dictator that only has yes men telling him what he wants to hear. You are correct; this is going to cost far more than he intended and it could well be his Vietnam. Recovering from this conflict will not be easy or quick.
@@keirfarnum6811 I heard a suggestion that, while Putin no doubt BS's constantly and is doubtlessly selfishly motivated, he probably DOES have rather supremacists beliefs about Russia. That Russia deserves an Empire and that only other Empires/Powers are of any concern. So America must be dealt with, as they are the old enemy. And China, is undeniable a power as well. But all the rest are 'little countries'.
@@keirfarnum6811 Very interesting points!
"His narrative is that the Maidan revolution was a coup by the West and that Ukraine is just being controlled by the US; so he didn’t think they would resist his military."
It hadn't occurred to me that Putin is actually believing his own lies. I always thought he knew the stuff he said about the west was total bullshit. Manufactured by him, to make Russians feel like they have it pretty good in Russia. He ACTUALLY thought that we had a puppet government running Ukraine. It's almost as if the mere concept of a REAL democratically elected leader, does not compute with Putin's brain. In his mind, it HAD to be the US meddling, because Ukrainians love him.
I was always assuming that when he would accuse the west of plotting against him, he was doing it as propaganda for his people. So he could control them and get them to support him. But he actually is that fucking paranoid. So paranoid, that he would invent the idea that Ukraine was governed by secret Nazis, but then invade Ukraine and actually expect the Nazis to be there, forcing people to hate him.
Does that mean...that he actually thinks Ukrainians love him and want him to be their president.
He's literally a conspiracy theorist lunatic, with a huge military and nuclear weapons. He's convinced himself that all his military stuff works, that It's all awesome and could totally kick the USA's ass. So much so that when he goes to actually use his military to do something, he's SURPRISED when they beat his ass?
He's a complete madman. He's a real life super-villain. He's completely insane.
LOL... the SAMs being used look more and more like abandoned Russian equipment. I don't know to what extent anti-air batteries are coming across Poland, but a shit load are coming from Russia near as anyone can tell. Not to mention the literally ridiculous amount of MANPADs that went in.
VKS may not have yeh the technology comparable to "the west", but man do they produce some beautiful aircraft.
They don't look to good falling out of the sky in flames
Yeah the su 57 is a cool looking plane. Not as cool as the f35 or f22 though 😅
@@3721-t1t the f35 looks like my virgin fat friend and the f22 looks looks cool... but the f15 is the coolest western plane
@@bogdanbogdanoff5164 yea i know😂
@@3721-t1t Oh cmon, it sure LOOKS cooler than f35, almost anything does. Capabilities on the other hand...
The defence industry always overhypes the opposition to get a larger defence budget.
This can only happen if it's not a defence but war industry.
@@solidsnake0408 dod is war industry, endless wars keep the cash flowing
@@sebastiangarcia-yb5ro For whom?
@@Sundara229 defense contractors, who we buy arms from , that lobby Congress and donate to representatives. Those representatives now represent those companies interest in congress. I’m a political science researcher, and I just described to you the military industrial complex
@@sebastiangarcia-yb5ro You forgot the bit where army generals, usaf generals, admirals, etc... retire and go work for defense contractors, using their personal contacts in government to push through defense budgets/programs, creating a revolving door.
I've loved reading Justin's contributions to Hush Kit. He's a great speaker (love the concise explanations of technical concepts) and fast becoming an Internet celeb in my eyes! 🙂
@4:15 "because we would only find that out for sure if there was actually a flashpoint, which we'd rather hope there isn't"
.. and just 7 months later we have one and it does seem that Russian air power is indeed far short of expectations.
This was excellent. A very well learned assessment of the less glamorous factors that contribute to a fighting groups efficacy, and a very well informed one. I'll like and subscribe for that, and also to see more of Bronk's input where I can. And honestly...I also wanna see where his hair stops when he's not in front of a green screen.
dude this is garbage to be honest... not sure what shit they fed you before but this is so cold war nostalgia bias... dude doesnt know shit...
@@milelojpur5959 give your reasons
@@matthewwilson3651 for start when he started about bias colored things like Russia hit civilians. NATO US did more civilian kills.. and in Syria RUssian air forces were scary efficiant..and another factor limited number of planes did a lot of missions and they were easy to maintain one plane was shot by Turkey and maybe one more was out...ect ect..dude is bias there was few points true but we all know those about flight hours
@@milelojpur5959 He didn't say they were hitting civilians, only that they were acting in civilian areas.
@@milelojpur5959 regardless of whether or not the US has bombed civilians (they have) using whataboutism as evidence of anti-Russian bias in an interview *about Russian airpower* is not a good argument
Here is some algorithm food. I really enjoyed it.
Oh you sneaky devil, you! Thank you
Here's more.. Num num
This video was educational and very entertaining! There. nom nom.
9:30 The guest had no idea how well that would age.
Based on recent events, definitely overhyped...
Since invading Ukraine’s been a cakewalk, Vladimir Vladimirovich should go invade Finland and Sweden now, quickly, before they join NATO. I’m sure it’ll go awesome, especially Finland.
Idk if an unpopular conflict where demoralized pilots flying cold war leftover planes against their own brothers and sisters, allegedly at the risk of being executed or imprisoned if they don't is really a true reflection of their full air power
@@rodiculous9464 Russians seems pretty happy to bomb the shit out of Ukrainians. When a grandma protesting the war in St petersburg is not ousted by police but by the general population calling her traitor and other nice names, it's hard to say that Russia is anti-war. 30% might be, i guess?
They win the award for the meanest/coolest looking fighters.
Dont know about that, F-14, F-15 and F-22 is in my book the badest of the badest
I know, they look awesome, maybe not the meanest or coolest, but definitely sexy as hell
@@NYlocked for me its rafale,f-15 super eagle and indias new tedbf naval fighter..ive never seen such beautiful jet before
@@mehanikal5639 Hard disagree
@@graypudding3005 I disagree with your disagreement!
This was fascinating. Although we are immersed in the historical period of the early 21st century, its always refreshing to hear from those who strive to analyze today's events as closely as events from the past, cheers!
I watched your videos back in the day of you playing flight simulators, and talking about air combat- and seeing how far you’ve come has been incredible, and I really enjoy the content you put out. Especially with the input from experts in the field and references to legitimate sources of credible information.
Great video, and I would love to see another video on China, Iran, N Korea, and NATO. Keep up the good work!
Looking at the situation now, this video has aged very well.
Respect your enemy, treat him like an equal and you will never be surprised. Expect the best, Expect talented individuals.
Except if you're facing china. All their stuff is crap and their pilots are more focused on being good communists instead of good aviators.
@@TheJazsa80 Here you are showing the exact opposite mindset to what this entire comment is about. Besides being objectively wrong and more of a ignorant propaganda fueled statement; It is incredibly foolish to think this way just from a art of war standpoint. underestimating your enemy is a good way to be delivered a surprise defeat. Arrogance is never beneficial. You are better off overestimating your enemy if anything.
Not to mention that current generation Chinese hardware is quite good, at least on paper. The J-10 and J-20 are quite capable aircraft. The ZTZ-99 is a excellent tank, The Z-10 attack helicopter also looks quite capable. Just because China had factories making cheap plastic children's toys on contract to some American company doesn't mean their military hardware is the same. Japan too had a reputation for cheap disposable crap 50 years ago, and now look how Japanese goods are respected, times change. Likewise it would be incredibly foolish to think that a country with 1.3 billion people and universities filled with scientists and engineers doesn't have some real capability and talent. Never underestimate a potential foe..
@@TheJazsa80 And that's how China beat your asses back to the 38th parallel in Korean war. This goes the same in the Vietnam war and the war in Afghanistan.
@@mikejohnson555 Oh there's a comment mindset that's supposed to be followed? I must of missed the memo, please don't send me to the reeducation camps to correct my thinking. Compared to western military equipment the chinese are only competitive in numbers. The CCP rule china with an iron fist which handicaps technological innovation. The chinese are playing a game of perpetual catch up with military tech and equipment whilst their doctrine stagnates. In other words they don't know how use all the stuff they're stealing or reverse engineering. The chinese military is controlled by the CCP with all top positions filled by those who show party loyalty over military talent. You also suggest the J-10 and J-20 are capable aircraft but neither aircraft has seen combat so how capable they are in combat is unknown.
@@TheJazsa80 Oh boy a unhinged rant.. I think you are missing the basic point of both my comment and the OP. Not underestimating your enemy is basic fundamental smart military strategy, that's it, that's the point. Yet your anger and bias blinds you to this very simple principal. You are falling into the very mindset and trap that causes people to lose wars, not win them.
That backdrop is wild.
This is one of the most interesting analysis on Russian airforce I ever seen. Thanks
LOL, you are easy to brainwash you can't even see that this is a nonsense BS speech on top of Russian jets photos with no logic😃😆what can he know 5k+ miles away
@@zeblanmaidaynovich796 exactly, they "know" this stuff out of thin air
@@Day-wm7nn imperialist murrika lives in a separate world
@@zeblanmaidaynovich796 This was an honest evaluation from a think tank done with what public info there is. You are mad because he didn’t dog Russia the whole time. You call someone else brainwashed? Lmaoooo
@@blue_diamond_gem the public information he use the likes that comes in The National Interest ? Washington post ? That kind of information ? At least he should have cite a Russian sources.
Very well done, covering a wide range of subjects in good detail… BUT, in any analysis of current Russian air power’s strength or weakness, there was one fundamental omission that should have been addressed: the numbers of aircraft in the Russian inventory. If you look at Russian armored vehicles as an analog, there are a number of “first line” tanks & A.P.C.s/I.F.V.s, but there are many, many more Soviet-era remnants and vehicles in various levels of storage, with very varied levels of operability and capacity- some are barely functional, some are far from being equipped to any “modern” standard… However, on paper, the numbers are impressive, and perhaps being able to field large enough numbers of obsolete A.F.V.s (T-62s, T-72s & others, for example) brings a quantitative advantage that would be hard to overcome (if, for example, a few modern & well equipped tanks were backed up by dozens of obsolete, or lesser-equipped ones, you would have the benefit of numbers both in sheer volume of fire and the ability to sustain losses).
HOWEVER, when it comes to aircraft, the wheat must be separated from the chaff: what are the numbers of the newest and most capable aircraft in the Russian inventory? My poor attempts to look into this showed that there are relatively few of each type of what would be considered “first line”, top-shelf aircraft (as you mentioned the TU-160, it is my understanding that there is less than a dozen of the new, more capable variant, either new airframes or comprehensively re-built and re-equipped legacy aircraft, or your mention of the Su-57’s inadequate planned procurement of +/- 75 aircraft). While there may be many more aircraft “on the books”, similar to their armored vehicles, how many are actually modern, upgraded & realistically operable? To be hyperbolic, while an Il-2 Sturmovik may still be capable of launching an attack and dropping bombs, I don’t think anyone would argue it would have a place in modern combat… As with the T-14 Armata, however it might perform, unless it is produced in large enough numbers to represent a viable, useable asset, it is somewhat irrelevant. The same applies to a subject you touched upon- the number of qualified aircrew, who have adequate time in their respective aircraft type to be fully effective- if they can’t get the hours needed in the cockpit, no matter how many planes are produced, it is immaterial…
Could you please consider doing a “part two” on this subject, going into the available numbers of the different aircraft, and their sub-types, as I think we can agree, the raw numbers of aircraft can be misleading, and the realistic number of first-line, deployable & capable Russian combat aircraft may come as something of a surprise, being much smaller than many assume… Thank you!
This comment has aged well.
@@diplomatosaurus ROFL
This was fantastic! Can you do a video on the JASDF?
Oh my, yes
Good suggestion, I'll add it to the list that keeps getting longer.
@@MilitaryAviationHistory yes please, I havent see one for JASDF from this channel as of yet, im gonna bet its gonna be good
Please do one for Pakistani airforce
@@MilitaryAviationHistory more interesting if you cover US new rival like china
Great discussion. More of this please. Something on Chinese airpower would be great. I think we're more likely to see a hot war with China before one with Russia.
Cheers
For more watch BBC or CNN, this "expert" gets info from them )))
When China can make an engine and a targeting pod and train there pilots and......
@@aphil4581 check , check and check
@@aphil4581 Build aircraft suitable for use on aircraft carriers; have 'stealth' fighters that are not detected by conventional radar.......
we will never see a hot war again , we will see a b o i w a r . and guess what it has started . all the auto mated factorys will still be standing , for the 1% to use .
after the it
Great interview! You just showed a Mig-25 Foxbat not a Mig-31 Foxhound at 19:36... Hey hey, we are all avgeeks, here. Geek being the key word!
I'm not an avgeek, I've just liked military aviation since... ugh.... late 80's. 😂
"...have combat experience. Admittedly that combat experience has been mostly flying around dropping unguided munitions on mostly civilian areas, but it's mostly the sort of combat experience a lot of Western air forces have spent the last 10-15 years doing." Does anyone really need lots of fancy planes if they're mostly used for bombing civilian areas?
No, thats why west uses drones for that these days while russians still fly jets ar low altitude dropping dumb bombs and getting show down by freaking stingers
Even western air forces don't JUST bomb civilians. I think Russians are just built different in this aspect. They can bomb civilians in every sortie.
@@amistrophy I didn't write they just bomb civilians. If for the last 10-15 years planes are mostly used for bombing civilian ares, as Justin Bronk said c.5mins in, then most of their planes only need to be capable of doing that, as that's what they'll be doing most of the time.
Glad to see others revisiting this since the events of late.
Good to see you man, those flood footages from Germany looks devastating.
Hope you and your loved ones are alright and well. Cheers.
Hey, thanks for your concern, so nice of you! It's dreadful what's happening. I am not in the affected area, neither are family and friends but it's tragic for the folks that live there.
Stay safe! Cheers from Milwaukee Wisconsin 🇺🇸🍺.
@William Mulvaney no thanks we have our own idiots :D
@@MilitaryAviationHistory I have relatives in Bad Neuenahr and I used to visit often when I was a kid. From what I've heard it was badly damaged. It's a shame because it was such a nice town.
@William Mulvaney What about your domestic terrorists from BLM?😂
... this man can see the future
Watching this in March 2022... a very truthful and accurate analysis it turns out! Well done!
That guys background image of a cockpit, I just can't take him seriously.
...wanker...
Right
@@seahippies you cry baby😖😖😭
I just can't take him seriously after "client states"
That’s a uni professor for you. They do that sometimes. My UN professor put the damn UN hall behind him.
Man, I feel like I'm back in the 90's reading Janes Defense Journals that I snagged from the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia as a kid. :P Good stuff. I'd love to hear more about their ECM capabilities. It seems to me that any conventional war between them and a near peer will be won or lost on the basis of ECM capability and counter-ECM capability. I'm sure they have some nasty surprises up their sleeves as we do most likely in the U.S.
It's easy for armchair experts to claim this Syria proved the Russian planes being simple were much more reliable and were able to refuel and rearm and turnaround in 1 hr while US planes needed 10 hrs because of complicated electronics and software. The airforce has a massive shortage of electronics technicians and software programers.
So the numbers of planes in the sky at any one time would leave the US out numbered considerably.
So while US planes are more advanced they may not have enough planes in the sky to win a battle.
@@michaelenright1089 Eh... you might check your sources. When necessary, U.S. planes can be turned around very quickly. Much depends also on the model of aircraft. Some aircraft are quicker to turn-around than others. Obviously newer aircraft will be faster. Keep in mind also that we only see the flight documentation of Russian aircraft SHOWN by the Russian government. We don't see their full history of engine failures and general mission failures due to critical systems failures.
Yes, Russian aircraft are generally fairly robust, but they increasingly rely on delicate modern digital systems that can and do fail while also sometimes making repairs more difficult. There's just SOOOO many factors at play here when it comes to aircraft turn-around time. So take anything put forth by either American or Russian sources with a huge grain of salt.
Outstanding and very informative discussion in light of the recent (Feb.2022) Russian invasion of Ukraine. It explains a lot about the limitations - - - correction vast limitations, of Russian AirPower.
There seems to be a whole new relevance to this content, thanks for this.
Great video. I am in Australia, for those of us in the Asia Pacific, any chance you could do a similar video analysing Chinese air power?
Mate, just go down to Chinatown. You can find the news there
China and Cuba have much in common Cuba with its making old cars pretty and getting them to keep moving. And China with its old air force. Australia should not do a repeat of ww2. They should buy as much American tech as possible. Wait save and buy heavy into U.S. 6th gen aircraft. Air superiority and Air to ship weapons if you want to survive and prosper. The new Japan plane another hidden killer might be a good choice as well.
@@aphil4581 Thanks, I will pass it on to the Defence Minister! :D
@@aphil4581 hahaha you are still with alice in wonderland
@@ThaFunkster100 Mate if you're asking due to fear of Chinese invasion, China isnt going to stretch the limits of its naval reach and power trying to subjugate our nation of a mere 20 million people. China has much more productive strategic goals. Its aircraft have been and still are basically copies of older Russian planes though their home grown avionics might be an upgrade from some of the ancient stuff Russia is using.
People seem to forget Russia is not at war with the US and has its own specific requirements for it's aircraft that may not fit with western ideas.
I would both double down on their separate requirements - each of the three major military powers, Russia/China/USA all have very different strategic objectives and thus differently built militaries - while countering that both Russia and China are taking actions to counter US global influence and interference in their regions with actions that could very much be considered to be low level warfare, or perhaps non-kinetic warfare if you prefer the term
Well in other words they succ. Objectively they succ.
what requirement is served, exactly, by pilots getting only two flight hours per week?
@@lqr824 lmao some people just do not understand how far Russia had fallen behind and is still behind. There is no logic that will get to their num heads.
@@lqr824 the budgetary kind
Their problem in a real combat situation is going to be keeping enough of anything, especially their new stealth fighters, in the air. It's not just the pilots that need training and experience. You need ground crews with the specialized skills, materials and parts to keep these in the air. They will have a handful of next gen resources available at best and will probably be very reluctant to commit those for fear of losses. The SU-27 variants are a dangerous adversary when properly maintained, when well coordinated and directed, when fielded in consistently competitive numbers and when piloted by experienced aircrew. They can't do any of that. They look good on paper and are pretty menacing sitting on the runway, but are not living up to the hype under battlefield conditions. They just don't have the economic base to field a force that can go toe to toe with NATO under real conditions.
Spot on. The Israelis showed the US you can take say a small number of aircraft and with hot-resupply you can effectively turn a single machine into the equivalent of a half dozen adversaries. The US learned to refuel, rearm and repair their weapons platforms much more quickly which served as a force multiplier. The reverse is also true. Poor support and logistics serves to reduce the effectiveness of a given weapons platform (not even getting into reliability and serviceability) effectively reducing their numbers. They're just not good at maintaining, servicing, and supplying their armed forces. I think a lot of generals got fat looking good on paper. Throw in a few well-placed SAMs and Russia has itself a little problem on their hands.
Indeed. The smallest diameter in the pipeline of steel on target is not the numver of airframes, or evsn the number of skilled pilots, but the turn around time of a single airframe for sortie.
With a well traoned groumdcrew and optimized maintenance procedures a single plane can fly 10-15 sorties in a day, a single pilot can fly maybe 4 of those without severely degrading in performance.
This of course presupposes that your craft doesnt get shot down in amy of those flights, and that your groundcrew is capable of rearming, refitting and flight checking the machine under an hour.
@@lexwaldez To be fair, you can only squeeze down the size of your air-force so far. But yeah, the Russians are trying to keep everything, if not air worthy, at least on the register so they can claim a numerically impressive air-force. And that's no doubt costing them in actually useable air frames.
Formidable against static targets such as maternity hospitals and bomb shelters that have "children" marked on the road next to them. Granted, also static radar installations were blown up in the beginning. Snarky comment, I know, but the analysis was good and I'm very grateful for the effort that Chris has put to bring us this content. It's good to know your enemy. If you film in Ilmailumuseo again, the beer is on me 🥶
Ukrainian army uses the bomb shelters for shelter and to store weapons. Just like Hamas does.
So were the Typhoons,Eurofighters and B-52s in Afghanistan and Iraq against schools,hospitals and mosques 🤷🏾♂️
@@ceemor3404 Don't forget effective against muslim weddings, but these westerners love their moral high horses, am I right?
Good to see people like you supporting the Palestinian children and their safety in this video.
So where the F15, F16 and F18 in Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen.
Being good at airshows is all that really matters as we all know.
I recall an F-15 pilot saying saying would give his right nut to have an enemy jet just stop in midair...
That was shortly after the first demo of the cobra maneuver at... you guessed it, an air show.
@@fn3048 how is losing paint poor performance LOL u just salty
@@fn3048 Well, I suppose when some jet shoots an F-15 out of the sky, It'll be time to retire them...
That is why we have failed planes like F22 and F35.....
@@Triggernlfrl The F-35 is still far from a failure. Modern russian fighter procurement is really not doing very well considering the state of teh Su57
The question I have is a question about budget and airframes. None of this is exactly apples to apples, but drives some thinking.
1 - The British have a budget of about $59B annually and as far as I can tell will end up with about 200 combat airframes.
2 - The Germans have a budget of about $51B annually and as far as I can tell will end up with about 200 combat airframes
3 - The Russians have a budget of about $61B annually and as far as I can tell will end up with about 2100 combat airframes (excluding the large bombers).
We can not compare numbers directly, but how does Russia support 10x the number of airframes on about the same budget as Britain and Germany? I can make the same comparison with tanks (even excluding the tanks in reserve). The Russian navy outnumbers the two nations fleets combined. Plus the Russians have to fund their large nuclear forces.
So even given the limitations that are given in the video, the numbers would say to me that there is a lot of rust on Russian equipment that is listed active. This may be due to overlap in systems that are being retired, but still. Are the budget numbers wrong or misleading?
@William Mulvaney No, these are numbers from Wikipedia and include the following types: SU-24, SU-25, MiG-29, MiG-31, SU-27, MiG-35, SU-30, SU-34, SU-35S and SU-57.
Many of these airframes are exactly was was talked about in the episode. As an example, the number of SU-34 and SU-35S are nearly identical to the number of planes that Britain and Germany have.
Нет, просто ваша техника в 3 раза дороже стоит, а качество точно такое же. Просто Европейские и Американские военные компании хотят больше заработать, а по боевым показателям такие же как Русские. И если вы тут пишете про старую технику России, нужно помнить что она модернизируемая, реальную силу представляет только США, а Европа слаба по сравнению с Россией, так как у вас маленькие армии и мало техники. Например сколько современных Леопардов у Германии, а сколько у России танков т72б3м и т90. Россия в одиночку может раскатать Европу без США.
@@leper2698 Средне, рабочий на самолётостроительном заводе в России получает 254 доллара в месяц.
Worker, technitian on Russias combat aeroplane manufacturing get 254 dollars per month!!!
@@leper2698 LOL - sounds very patriotic but not sensible. Poland + Germany + France + England + Italy would stop Russia cold.
Seeing recent events, yes, they’re absolutely overhyped.
Being an aviation enthusiast I found Justin’s talk one of the best I’ve actually heard
Excellent
fascinating hard look into the structure of Russian Military Aviation，in a laidback arm chair setting；yes we still don't know what the new kid can actually do but VKS is still formidable and deserves more respect and attention the message I get is， thank you
Russian General "We have made the most superior plane in the world!"
Western Observer "How many squadrons do you expect to have?"
Russian General "We have made the most superior plane in the world!"
79 SU-57 ordered , say no more !
@@SNOWDONTRYFAN basically not near enough.
@@SNOWDONTRYFAN you didn't listen at all, did you? Just looked at the pictures, I guess. The money isn't there, at least not yet. So order as many as you'd like; but you're ordering with hot air. It's a pipe dream until you can pay for it.
That doesn't even consider the fact that the SU-57 is really a Gen 4+ fighter with lipstick. You didn't listen to the part about it not being actually stealthy, did you? It's not on par with the F-22 nor F-35, and so your mythical 79 airframes aren't really going to be all that useful even if they materialize. Nevermind the engines, which, being typically Russian, will last a very short time compared to any western engine.
Engines, and their experiences with Russian engines, are why the Indians backed out of the program. They don't regret it.
How can you look at a photo of an SU-57, with all the bare metal, exposed rivets, and poor fit and finish, and actually believe that it's stealthy? Probably the same way that you can announce with arrogance that 79 are ordered; you ignored what was right in front of you and hear and see what you wish were true. You are not to be taken seriously.
@@mikewade777 More then enough. US has less then 200. No reason for Russia to have more then 1/2 of what US has - they cannot compete on spending.
@@skipdreadman8765 Well, if we are into it is F-35 a 5th gen? It cannot super cruise for more then 50 seconds ;) Old Russian engines had issues, new ones not so much. Only 2 nations on this planet developed and tested in actual flight next gen engines - that would be Russia and US.
Indian's backed out of the program for the same reason Russia ordered so few - Su-57 offers only marginal better performance in current combat environment over Su-35. Also why US backed out of F-22. Are all 3 idiots? Russia now develops its own F-35... For same reason US develops F-35. I.e. heavy expensive stealth plane is too expensive to make in large numbers. Also with stand off weapons that platform can be taken over by Su-35 or F-15 strike eagle. Think, why US is still making F-15s and why they are in strike configuration - see why Russia likes Su-35s.
All of above simply goes into what current wars are fought and what works - Russia has discovered same thing US has discovered. Just 10 years later.
I hadn't really thought about how the doctrine of their air defense missile network would integrate with their aircraft before. Will look into the additional resources. Thank you
Yeah, very informative overview! I'd love to see NATO SEAD capabilities being brought into the equation aswell, because as he already said the Russian air defenses are probably easily detectible. Especially with cruise missiles I think NATO could muster quite a response to that if it would ever come to an invasion.
@@Zoddomthere is a reason why soviet/ russian anti air is highly mobile. Not to menti that its an integrated system
@@overlord4404 being mobile is one thing but taking an hour to pack up and move is another. They're still static. 50 years ago that would have been effective, but by today's standards they would have a better survival rate by not switching on at all.
@@mikewade777 hour? Try 5 minutes
@@overlord4404 no it's an hour.
I'm an old guy who remembers the hype around Soviet/Russian fighters going back to the MiG-21.
While they all had positive characteristics, all were terribly overhyped and there is no reason to think today is any different.
When the clouds of propaganda drift away and combat begins, Russian planes serve mostly as ejection seat testing platforms.
Russia gets by mostly on bluff and bluster. She has a Potemkin Village military.
She builds pretty planes that impress at air shows (except when they are crashing), but we don't see them achieving air superiority and keeping it against air forces of similar size equipped with American fighters.
Let's not forget, that is the object of the exercise - gain and keep air superiority so one's bomber can come in and strike enemy targets on the surface.
Even now, Russia is struggling to come up with a fighter that can beat the 1970s-technology F-15.
Because of Russia's small economy and the expense of these weapons systems, she just isn't able to keep a lot of them in the air or give a large number of pilots adequate training.
One thing that cracks me up about Russian hype videos - they typically have someone with a British accent narrate the things, rather than a Russian.
One gets the impression they think a Russian accent is undesirable.
I've been saying stuff just like this to my younger friends. They're not familiar with the Russian bullshit machine.
People going on about hypersonic missiles and super tanks. Yeah, but they only have 10 of them and none are deployed. The poor fucking infantry are rolling around in BMP-2s with no networking and no fuel. The best helicopters they have are being shot down by stingers again, just like in the 80s. There's a rumour that they've nearly run out of Kalibr cruise missiles and are down to shitty unguided barrage weapons welded to the back of Zil trucks.
@@notspacekeeper There's a website called Migflug that has the combat records of all fighter planes now in use.
Here are the numbers of won/losses in air-to-air combat
F-4 ............... 306 - 106
F-14 ............. 135 - 4
F-15 ............. 103 - 0
F-16 ............... 76 - 1
F-18 ................. 2 - 1
MiG-21 ......... 240 - 501
MiG-23 ........... 25 - 102
MiG-25 .............. 8 - 8*
MiG-29 .............. 6 - 18
SU-27 ................ 6 - 0
* From other sources, two of those MiG-25 air-to-air victories were against unarmed Cessnas shot down by the Cubans.
The way to know which side has the better fighters is look at which side is bombing the shit out of enemy targets on the surface.
Interesting comment at about 11:35, stating that the weakness of the VKS is relatively moot due to there being so many tanks and other ground forces which can generate fires. Not really working out that way in Ukraine these days.
This aged well
great video, extremely informative!
i particularly liked the section called "the scary stuff" Russia has done a fantastic job of making itself very safe from attack on its sovereign borders as every country should aim to do rather than focusing fully on attack ability.
No one is interested in invading Russia...
REALY, nobody.
So doesn't that indicate the Russians' defensive outlook rather than the over-hyped Russian aggressor image promoted in the West?
@@amrannoordin1644
Hardly,
There is just nothing to gain from russia.
Some oil and gas, but too far away to exploit IF you can get in that place to begin with.
Its just not worth the effort.
@@janzzen1 tell that to the energy companys
@@janzzen1 dude we are like you know providing almost all gas to europe and shit load of oil to China and other coutries
more than that we are controlling arctic region more than anyone and it's melting slowly
The last few days has shown how well Russia is at bombing buildings.
And random farms and fields.
And getting shot down by ancient stinger missiles from the 1980s
He's pulling some serious G's in that Cocpit^^
By the looks of his hair some negative Gs
@@maroman556
Hahaha! 😂😂😂
I was going to write something like you - now, No need to..!
This was a great video, I could totally sit and listen to a several hour long deep dive into the Russian air defence system
Excellent, very informative. I learned quite a bit that I was unaware of.
I'm also a little astonished that your guest was so well-informed, but still appeared really young.
Wow! Dude called it on VKS deficiencies w multi-role capabilities, lack of precision munitions, and large scale tactical air capabilities!!
I've been impressed with what Russian can do with a faltering economy
It’s not faltering, they do better in the declines than the West does because they have every single resource they need in their own country and they make just about everything themselves as well
@@PeterbFree Except money. Turns out that's quite important too.
Russia has some great techs but can't produce them in mass due to a small eco in comparison with the whole NATO.
@@PeterbFree they do better? By what metric? If Russia was a state in the US they would be the 4th largest economy. California, Texas, New York, Russia lol
@@impaugjuldivmax Don't underestimate the Russians. They may be small however they have a big sting in the tail. The Germans and Napoleon learnt that the hard way. The Americans spend far too much for what they get. The west should be more focused. Too many payments to politicians I guess!
Based on what I'm hearing Russian air power doesn't stand a chance against hi tech US airpower and experience. I think it's more than likely the vaunted Chinese air power is similarly lagging in targeting systems and lack experience in air to air combat while we Americans are seasoned, rocking the very best in tech capabilities for our airpower
Infinite money is good to have. Although the Russian planes have many limitations (especially severely lacking avionics) their planes are good bang for the bucks.
@@TheESS1 I agree but it's the level of experience you possess that makes all the difference. Like I'm sure a well trained, seasoned Navy SEAL would be better at fighting and killing with gun and grenades than a poorly trained and motivated conscript
The Gulf war, 30 years ago showed how the western airpower's shock and awe, with its first gen stealth fighter, cruise missiles, precision targeting, etc. achieving air dominance at day one.
Russia losing two large cargo aircraft filled with paratroopers is a blunder, how can they even let that happen. Even today Israel is attacking Syria with impunity.
I think the regular rank and file soldier doesnt really have thier hearts in the fight...if it were US as an adversary i think they would be fighting hard
Well if it were up to me we'd have unified the world under one encompassing democratic Gov't so we could do away with war as a whole. We'd focus on education, medicine, science and business without polluting the planet. We'd probably have spaceships that travel faster than light and fancy terraforming machines by now and we'd already be preparing other planets to house humanity. But that's my idealism. Instead we're stockpiling bullets and bombs and preparing for world war 3 and I do feel it's coming. Thankfully my daughters are too young to be conscripted and the possibility of invading the USA is all but impossible so there's that. I just can't believe the prices at the pump and the supermarket. Things are spiraling out of control
Funny you should mention that, because it definitely seems overhyped now.
Another absolutely masterful video production Bis. Great guest interview.
I cannot believe the USAF did not include a self-destruct feature on their reconnaissance drones that would have prevented the Iranians from capturing the aircraft in working order
"If only" has been a very common theme throughout history. You'd think people would learn and as you say be competant enough to consider the what if scenarios and put a device in there to prevent it. Same old story I suspect. Over confidence and arrogance about our own capability and underestimation of the enemy's. (hense Russia steals Atom bomb research, the blueprints of the space shuttle, the shooting down of U2 with Gary Powerš, the crash of the f117 stealth over bosnia) .
I would assume the 'what if' that killed self-destruct features is 'what if we get hacked and they use our drones' self-destruct capabilities?'. I understand that is an argument used against the inclusion of such systems in nuclear weapons.
@@vincere_ Might also get some resistance from the maintenance technicians who work on them.
@@richardstuart325 That too, working with a literal bomb that has the possibility of going off because of an error/hack, would hardly be endearing.
@@akborealisdevstringerdesig3845 That's one way to pretend that your technology didn't get hacked lol
I'd love to know what their availability rates are by aircraft types as well.
For instance we're replacing our Tiger ARHs with Apache because of maintenance issues and a mission ready rate that's down at like 35% or something very low.
Have 200 fighters doesnt mean you can use anywhere near that many.
200 fighters is great and all, but what if only 50 are ready?
@@Mugdorna Exactly my point. I wonder how many Russia can actually put in the field and have operational at any given time.
Not sure they'll be forthcoming with that information. haha
@@ThroneOfBhaal yep. My country bought a few Black hawks and a pair of F16s from the US a couple years back. Our economy has been going down and for years we've never seen them flew and our ppl actually made a meme about it.
@@ThroneOfBhaal considering that their aircraft are designed to be robust and relatively easy to maintaim it could be a lot
During their time in Syria when they were in full deployment, near the start of the intervention, they managed to pull of a sortie rate about 2 - 2.5 times greater than western forces in the region. And this was with fewer aircraft deployed. Ultimately this period was only for like 3 or so months, but they had achieved most of the critical objectives at that point. So you can say that provided that the money doesn't dry up they can certainly match the west in that regard.
Your guest is extremely knowledgeable and fun to listen to. Awesome content. Thanks for making this.
You were right, they air power is wildly over hyped.
I'm not sure I'd call it overhyped, but the priorities of non-NATO air forces tend to be rather different, leading to direct comparisons being rather difficult.
Well it is stated that Russia is focused on defending its territory from a NATO invasion. If that's their priority, they're pretty foolish, as nobody in NATO has any interest in invading Russia !
@@aesma2522 Not really. The offensive capability may be on the way. The first requirement is always to be able to defend yourself otherwise you aren't really a threat to anyone.
@@aesma2522
you must be kidding? That is the sole sense of NATO existence nowadays.
@@aesma2522 not invasion but treat. And NATO is actively treating Russia from the days is emerged from collapse of USSR
@@grunfalan Russia is the one invading neighboring countries, not the other way around.
The Russian Air Force is of course capable but not the sky darkening force of aircraft it once was. This is the reason the Russians focus so heavily on area denial systems like the S400 SAM system
Yes, I really liked that Justin added this into the talk as well to show that it's more than just about 'planes'.
Whenever people discuss the Russian Air Force, they dont tend to take the doctrinal priority of integrated air defense into account
Wrong, Russia has invested heavily in area of denial systems because in the event of a war they expect to fight close or inside Russia, like all previous wars against Russia. So their stance is defensive as opposed to the US.
@@robvelor non of their statements contradict what you said
@@fulcrum2951 I am replying to Daniel's comment not the presenters.
Excellent analysis. Refreshing to watch someone who knows what they’re talking about. Take note TH-cam “influencers”.
Where did you see someone who knows what they are talking about on this video? I looked and couldnt find anyone
absolutely correct
Read 'Real revolution in military affairs by Andrei Martyanov. You'll see the other side of the spectrum as well.
@@marks238 care to point out examples and refute any of the guest's points or are you just making unsupported claims?
@@kishanchali8752 Russia is no enemy for EEUU, China is. Russia is a third level country.
It has become evident That not only is Russian air power over hyped, it’s whole military machine is. The only thing it has is the red button.
I wonder if its also overhyped too.
Cus, you kno mantaining nuclear warheads takes a lot of money and specialised manpower. Which Russia lacks both
@@TRPilot06YT The issue with nuclear warheads is that even if they're mostly degraded, just a few can already cause MASSIVE damage.
@@cy-one Thats why you strike first
@@TRPilot06YT Ah, so the fault for the world ending is on you then? I mean, at least that'd be a sign of being willing the accept responsibility for a doomsday situation.
I'd just rather not have the doomsday situation at all, than have it and know who to blame for it.
@@cy-one Send in the nukes.
The thing is, the violence is a last resort.
When any other way eventually fails violence will guarantee the end of the problem. If you resort to anything else thats just buying time untill you eventually need to resort to violence.
Nukes are like violence
Very interesting topic, and well researched as always. Another very good guest👍🏻
You have a fan in Canada 🇨🇦
Shout out to Bronk for doing this collaboration while flying his jet fighter, now that takes some skill
It's on auto-pilot ..🤔😅🤣
@@douglasgreen437 😂
Great interview 👍
Love this, i'd like more experts.
Yeah that could be great, this def. was one of my favourite videos so far on this channel... but it's tough, gotta be careful what 'experts' you bring on right haha =)
Darn. All the experts are now much younger than I these days.
@@ScumfuckMcDoucheface Read 'Real revolution in military affairs by Andrei Martyanov. You'll see the other side of the spectrum as well.
Yep and an expert who can actually talk to camera and decent audio levels which does take experience. I've seen a fair number of experts brought into YT videos who talk pretty badly with terrible audio which makes it really difficult to follow what they're trying to say.
Lately, we are seeing that they were overhyped. If they're struggling over Ukrainian skies can you imagine how much worse they will fare in NATO skies?
They would've beaten in few days
@@Чеховський-ы8ю the fact that they failed to eliminate the Ukrainian Air Force and are losing so many planes to MANPADS just shows how good Russian propaganda was into scaring the West. Now we know the truth and are not afraid anymore.
@@drakashrakenburgproduction5369 yep, we would fight till the end, Ukraine will rise resist. We just need more jets and equip
@J R thanks, the most important thing is to do it secretly, cause Russia bombed lviv today, which is located 50km from border
And place od bombing is 2km from me..
Love the video but you only talked about half of the capabilities. None of these aircraft are very much use without highly skilled ground crews or logistics or the ability to air refuel. I’ve personally worked to do a week long surge with the B-1B flying over 100 sorties in a week. Considering the maintenance that’s involved with the B-1 that’s not any easy task. I’m sure the Russians have there own maintenance nightmares and a lot depends on the ability of the maintenance squadrons. A big part of winning an air war with your maintenance squadrons. A well trained air wing with less technology can defeat a high tech enemy
Ok Rice we hear you
Germany gave up their MiG-29s due to maintenance costs. Literally 8-10 times as many maintenance hours per flight hour as an F-16. The Germans worked their asses off to keep those birds in the air. At any one point, much of Russia's inventory is simply not flyable.
As was often said by air crew mechanics in WW2 to pilots of all nations, "Bring our airplane back when you've done playing in it". Still true today.
Would be AMAZING if you can get this guy back in a bit and analyze the performance of Russia in the current war.
He did. 3 March.
Looking forward to a breakdown of the Chinese air power.
This was very informative. Thank you.
I don't think you were listening. Watch it again. Although this will be known as the time we should not have waited.
@ICameFromAsia Implying you imps own all those other countries with nationalism. Chinese territories and technology aren't supposed to obey you like you wish about them.
The Chinese air power video has been released and it was worth the wait.
@ICameFromAsia you indians are funny
That guy has a nice virtual background of a plane 😂
the horrible keying of the cam software made me stop watching.
He's a poseur spouting bullshit
@@spacecoasttactical and not you?
And hair stealth tech
Ah, now this was educational and interesting. Because you often don't hear a lot about exact differences in doctrine and technical capabilities between Western and Russian air power.
I liked that somebody finally addressed Russian radar systems and their integration into a complete air defence network. But most importantly I also would like to highlight a small, yet very important part in all of this. It seldom to never gets addressed with a more general audience, but radar is not just a one trick pony where shorter wavelengths are all that matter. The relation between wavelength, bearing accuracy and range is important and different combinations offer their own advantages.
This also ties into the grave misconception that stealth aircraft are actually invisible on radar. They are not. They deliberately have a seriously reduced radar cross section against the very shortest radar wavelengths used in fire control radar systems. However against decimetric radar like L-band search radar systems, they can be located. You can't really defeat such systems with stealth techniques either, at least not to my knowledge. At some point you will get a blurry return and if that return is flying at several hundred kilometres a hour at several kilometres altitude, it might actually be a stealth jet.
Such systems however are incapable of getting enough bearing accuracy to create a firing solution with. The stealth aircraft thus tries to sit in the medium between unable to be directly targeted by a fire control radar, while being visible by longer wavelength search systems. This further creates the need for quite advanced stand off weaponry and advanced sensors to employ these weapons.
In the western case, destroying both short and longer wavelength radar systems would be vital to create air superiority. In the Russian case, their fighters exist to partly to defend their own ground installations. In turn, they would also be supported by their own ground based installations. And that dynamic is often poorly understood. In the "mythological" one vs. one without any other assets, sure a F-35, F-22, Euro fighter etc will probably annihilate either a SU-35 or MiG-35 from very long range. But that scenario will probably never happen if humanity ever goes for its war of ultimate self destruction a.k.a. WW3.
One of the main roles of the E-35 in any conflict is SEAD. Those radars are highly vulnerable to attack by high velocity stand-off weapons,launched for far beyond detection range.
@@nelsoj11 elaborate? my understanding of the world only starts after the invention of smokeless gunpowder.
Very well said
Well said, I'm forever pointing out online we don't live in a video game world to people online with regards to stealth and other much lauded tech. They are specific tools and all weapons have their counter measures.
It's quite frightning how many people these days believe all the hype and think the USA can at anytime fly into China/Russia and bomb their president if they wanted to. The ignorence is quite shocking. I hope it's just a limited and specific (i.e. idiot teenagers!😁) cross section i keep seeing and not an indication of the general public view because if it is we are way too overconfident and not just a little bit arrogant with it.
@@nelsoj11 Gustavus Adolphos? Isn't that a liberal arts college? You've lost me there
Mr Bronk always has an unique insight into aviation matters of the Russian military. Thanks for sharing this video.
8 months later proven correct.
What's been happening the past few weeks. Russias Air Force is a joke and over hyped.
This definitely video aged well considering events over the past 4 months in Ukraine.
You certainly timed this video well. I found this and You're more recent Video on performance in the Ukraine To be extremely valuable at this time. Thank you so much
I have no problems with the US spending millions experimenting on advance fighter aircraft. There is no such thing as a failed experiment. All experiments are valuable regardless of the outcome. An experiment provides insight into cause-and-effect by demonstrating what outcome occurs when a particular factor is manipulated. Naturally, the more you experiment the more you learn. The US has chosen to use it's financial resources to experiment and develope the best fighter aircraft in the world. Why not since lives depend on it? In life you either lead, follow or get out of the way. When it comes to fighter jets, the US has chosen to invest and lead, while Russia remains somewhat frugal and content to follow.
I think it's less frugality and more a lack of capability. Or rather they're over-aspirational. Russia has an economy about the size of Italy (or it did two weeks ago) if it's going to go with a domestically developed and built air force than it can be either a large force of cheap warplanes, probably little better than ground attack craft for counter insurgency or low intensity conflicts, or a vastly smaller but more competent fleet of strike planes.
They can't have both. Not with the money they can spend.
They've tried to reach for both by modernizing old Soviet designs and digging out what are, by now, quite elderly airframes that the US and other developed nations are phasing out. In the process they seem to be accomplishing neither. Unable to upkeep the large fleet they're trying to maintain and unable to get more than a trickle of next gen fighters into the air (I believe less than a dozen SU-57s exist, and since they had trouble with the engine, they're slower, less agile, AND less stealthy than they're supposed to be.)
Awesome details. That air defence network sounds like a tough nut to crack
The problem is the United States has a very cheap Glide bomb the longer range than Russian SAM systems.