Top US Air Force General surprised how poorly Russian Air Force has performed

[gambit]

And this is how Russian military people probably think about all these Western "experts" opinions. West should also shut up or sign up. You guys also don't know what you're talking about in regards to airpower in Ukraine. No difference. Except one side sure thinks they are right about everything.

There is nuance to everything and like there is nuance to how USA lost over 3000 fixed wing aircraft in Vietnam, surely some nuance to Russia losing their equipment and how the Russians are doing this war. I'm not commenting on the war itself but the West has been filled with so much "Russia is weak" nonsense in the last few months it's remarkable this is coming from countries who dare not get involved with Russia directly.

Yeah yeah sending weapons etc but USSR sent weapons to Vietnam too. Is it accurate to say that USSR could have destroyed and stomped USA in war since USA "lost so badly" in Vietnam? The difference between the two is that Russians have managed to control territory. We don't know if they can maintain it but USA left Vietnam without control of one inch square.

Yes, let us talk about US airpower in Viet Nam.

Let us start with the FACT that bombing compelled North Viet Nam to call for 'peace negotiation'. Just bombing alone. US/SVN ground forces stopped at the 17th parallel. But not for the USAF and USN. That an aerial bombardment campaign compelled a government to sue for respite. That did not occurred in prior wars where airpower was employed. Most of those US air losses came from ground, not air, defense, and statistically, they were irrelevant when compared to the capacity of the US to wield airpower. US airpower was essentially unchallenged over Viet Nam. By 'unchallenged' I do not mean that North Viet Nam did not put any air defense as they had MIG-21s, but that the North Vietnamese Air Force was no deterrence but more of an annoyance because Operation Bolo rendered ineffective those MIGs. US airpower over Viet Nam was complete despite political restrictions placed upon its tactical operations.

There is no parallel in Ukraine. The contrasts between the two theaters are so much that there is no 'nuance' worthwhile. Russia managed to control parts of Ukraine not because of any 17 parallel equivalent but because the Ukrainians managed to put up a good fight AND that the Russian Army is not as competent as previously believed. Incompetence must be exploited and blamed when necessary. US airpower over Viet Nam was not incompetent but politically restrained. Russian airpower over Ukraine was sheer incompetence in display.

Ain't no 'nuance' here, buddy.

 

[dbc]

You need to stop. You do not know what you are talking about in regards to airpower in the Vietnam War.

Yes, let us talk about US airpower in Viet Nam.

Let us start with the FACT that bombing compelled North Viet Nam to call for 'peace negotiation'. Just bombing alone. US/SVN ground forces stopped at the 17th parallel. But not for the USAF and USN. That an aerial bombardment campaign compelled a government to sue for respite. That did not occurred in prior wars where airpower was employed. Most of those US air losses came from ground, not air, defense, and statistically, they were irrelevant when compared to the capacity of the US to wield airpower. US airpower was essentially unchallenged over Viet Nam. By 'unchallenged' I do not mean that North Viet Nam did not put any air defense as they had MIG-21s, but that the North Vietnamese Air Force was no deterrence but more of an annoyance because Operation Bolo rendered ineffective those MIGs. US airpower over Viet Nam was complete despite political restrictions placed upon its tactical operations.

There is no parallel in Ukraine. The contrasts between the two theaters are so much that there is no 'nuance' worthwhile. Russia managed to control parts of Ukraine not because of any 17 parallel equivalent but because the Ukrainians managed to put up a good fight AND that the Russian Army is not as competent as previously believed. Incompetence must be exploited and blamed when necessary. US airpower over Viet Nam was not incompetent but politically restrained. Russian airpower over Ukraine was sheer incompetence in display.

Ain't no 'nuance' here, buddy.

..add to that the fact that the US was fighting with one hand tied behind its back, thanks to DC and it's weird notion of graduated escalation. two pilot faced general court martial for strafing a Soviet supply ship in Hanoi harbour killing a Russian sailor. Resupply routes were off limits, bridges, roads and rail connecting Vietnam to China as well as ports and hot pursuit into neighbouring Laos was all a no-go.

People forget in the 60's the US was preparing for a nuclear war with the Soviet Union which meant the focus was on fast intercepts of enemy bombers and low flying fast nuclear bomb delivery. Until the F4 Phantom came along late in the campaign USAF didn't really have a fighter that could turn and churn with the MIGS. As a matter of fact, the first squadron of wild weasels in Vietnam flew the F100 F super sabre since the USAF had no fast, agile aircraft for SAM hunting. Most fighters didn't carry a jammer, no RWR receiver and no AWACS.

Considering all of the above it is surprising that the US still achieved air supremacy over Vietnam for extended periods. Finally, the terrain and dense jungles meant it was easy for the enemy to conceal their SAM battery. Ukraine is nothing like Vietnam, one has to be brain dead or seriously uninformed to draw comparisons.

 

[F-22Raptor]

Yes, let us talk about US airpower in Viet Nam.

Let us start with the FACT that bombing compelled North Viet Nam to call for 'peace negotiation'. Just bombing alone. US/SVN ground forces stopped at the 17th parallel. But not for the USAF and USN. That an aerial bombardment campaign compelled a government to sue for respite. That did not occurred in prior wars where airpower was employed. Most of those US air losses came from ground, not air, defense, and statistically, they were irrelevant when compared to the capacity of the US to wield airpower. US airpower was essentially unchallenged over Viet Nam. By 'unchallenged' I do not mean that North Viet Nam did not put any air defense as they had MIG-21s, but that the North Vietnamese Air Force was no deterrence but more of an annoyance because Operation Bolo rendered ineffective those MIGs. US airpower over Viet Nam was complete despite political restrictions placed upon its tactical operations.

There is no parallel in Ukraine. The contrasts between the two theaters are so much that there is no 'nuance' worthwhile. Russia managed to control parts of Ukraine not because of any 17 parallel equivalent but because the Ukrainians managed to put up a good fight AND that the Russian Army is not as competent as previously believed. Incompetence must be exploited and blamed when necessary. US airpower over Viet Nam was not incompetent but politically restrained. Russian airpower over Ukraine was sheer incompetence in display.

Ain't no 'nuance' here, buddy.

..add to that the fact that the US was fighting with one hand tied behind its back, thanks to DC and it's weird notion of graduated escalation. two pilot faced general court martial for strafing a Soviet supply ship in Hanoi harbour killing a Russian sailor. Resupply routes were off limits, bridges, roads and rail connecting Vietnam to China as well as ports and hot pursuit into neighbouring Laos was all a no-go.

People forget in the 60's the US was preparing for a nuclear war with the Soviet Union which meant the focus was on fast intercepts of enemy bombers and low flying fast nuclear bomb delivery. Until the F4 Phantom came along late in the campaign USAF didn't really have a fighter that could turn and churn with the MIGS. As a matter of fact, the first squadron of wild weasels in Vietnam flew the F100 F super sabre since the USAF had no fast, agile aircraft for SAM hunting. Most fighters didn't carry a jammer, no RWR receiver and no AWACS.

Considering all of the above it is surprising that the US still achieved air supremacy over Vietnam for extended periods. Finally, the terrain and dense jungles meant it was easy for the enemy to conceal their SAM battery. Ukraine is nothing like Vietnam, one has to be brain dead or seriously uninformed to draw comparisons.

What’s surprising to me is that the Russians still don’t understand that a 1,000lb/2,000lb guided JDAM bomb is far superior than any ground based artillery.

They are many many years behind the US Air Force.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

What’s surprising to me is that the Russians still don’t understand that a 1,000lb/2,000lb guided JDAM bomb is far superior than any ground based artillery.

They are many many years behind the US Air Force.

Yet all those thousands of JDAM could not beat insurgents in Iraq, Taliban in Afghanistan, not even Assad's 1970s tech army, or even a bunch of sandal wearing Houthis in Yemen.

 

[MH.Yang]

What’s surprising to me is that the Russians still don’t understand that a 1,000lb/2,000lb guided JDAM bomb is far superior than any ground based artillery.

They are many many years behind the US Air Force.

In small-scale wars, precision guided bombs are indeed better. But in the long and large-scale war, artillery is still the king of war.
You can take a look at the list of weapons that Ukraine asked for in the north. Their most urgent demand is 1500 152mm howitzers.
Perhaps you Americans have had too many wars with Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti, Grenada, Panama, Dominica, Somalia and other countries, and have forgotten what the real war is like.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

In small-scale wars, precision guided bombs are indeed better. But in the long and large-scale war, artillery is still the king of war.
You can take a look at the list of weapons that Ukraine asked for in the north. Their most urgent demand is 1500 152mm howitzers.
Perhaps you Americans have had too many wars with Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti, Grenada, Panama, Dominica, Somalia and other countries, and have forgotten what the real war is like.

Americans pee their pants when they hear the word war. Their gene pool has deteriorated so much since the 1970s.

 

[F-22Raptor]

In small-scale wars, precision guided bombs are indeed better. But in the long and large-scale war, artillery is still the king of war.
You can take a look at the list of weapons that Ukraine asked for in the north. Their most urgent demand is 1500 152mm howitzers.
Perhaps you Americans have had too many wars with Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti, Grenada, Panama, Dominica, Somalia and other countries, and have forgotten what the real war is like.

Ukraine asks for that because they are nowhere near having an Air Force as capable as the USAF. Air dropped Precision Guided Munitions are always superior.

A single B-2 Bomber can launch 80 JDAMS in one pass. Russia nor Ukraine are anywhere close to having that capability.

Control of the skies will always be more important than ground based artillery.

 

[serenity]

PGM compared with artillery? They are so different in cost. Russia has been using PGMs as well. The argument that they don't know a PGM is more effective than artillery is absurd. They use both. The US also uses both. The frequency of use is different and Russia cannot afford to make, buy, and use as many PGMs as the US.

 

[jhungary]

In small-scale wars, precision guided bombs are indeed better. But in the long and large-scale war, artillery is still the king of war.
You can take a look at the list of weapons that Ukraine asked for in the north. Their most urgent demand is 1500 152mm howitzers.
Perhaps you Americans have had too many wars with Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti, Grenada, Panama, Dominica, Somalia and other countries, and have forgotten what the real war is like.

It would have been 155, NATO don't stock 152 artillery.

Second They requested that because they can't really go for JDAM as they don't have the mean to use it, in fact, if US or NATO transfer a bunch of Smart Munition to Ukraine, it will just be sitting in a storage as there are no way they can use them, not on a ship, not on an aircraft, so why ask for them??

On the other hand, artillery is only good if you need to suppress something, in a "REAL" war, you want to have weapon to target ratio match as much as possible, because that way you can deal, and in a "REAL" war when you are smaller than your enemy, you won't have as much resources to get over that ratio I mentioned above, which make precision guided munition more valuable. Russia have a million dumb bomb and a few million artillery shell, they can afford to bomb anything and anywhere, Ukraine can't. And even if you can do it, that is done in a wasteful manner, because you need 1 smart bomb on target to do the job for 5 dumb bomb on average. That's why Ukraine is asking for rocket artillery.

As I said before, I would lay off talking about stuff you have no idea about. And I laugh out very loud when you talk about "REAL" war. What do you really know about "Real" war?? LOL

 

[serenity]

What’s surprising to me is that the Russians still don’t understand that a 1,000lb/2,000lb guided JDAM bomb is far superior than any ground based artillery.

They are many many years behind the US Air Force.

What makes you think they don't understand that?

Have the Russians been using guided bombs? Yes... in fact they've even been using air launched hypersonic missiles.

You see the Russians using artillery and your conclusion is the Russians don't have PGMs. nice.

 

[jhungary]

PGM compared with artillery? They are so different in cost. Russia has been using PGMs as well. The argument that they don't know a PGM is more effective than artillery is absurd. They use both. The US also uses both. The frequency of use is different and Russia cannot afford to make, buy, and use as many PGMs as the US.

PGM does not only mean JDAM or Cruise missile, it also meant Copperhead or Excalibur round.

We are already giving Excalibur round to Ukraine, and IMO, we should give them Copperhead or SMARt155

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

PGM does not only mean JDAM or Cruise missile, it also meant Copperhead or Excalibur round.

We are already giving Excalibur round to Ukraine, and IMO, we should give them Copperhead or SMARt155

No Excalibur is given to Ukraine. Export downgraded M777 cannot shoot Excalibur, only basic unguided rounds.

 

[serenity]

PGM does not only mean JDAM or Cruise missile, it also meant Copperhead or Excalibur round.

We are already giving Excalibur round to Ukraine, and IMO, we should give them Copperhead or SMARt155

Yes I'm aware of guided artillery. It's made and used in many parts of the world. What does that have to do with the comment about Russians not being aware a JDAM is superior to artillery? As if Russia has no JDAM equivalents and other PGMs or haven't been using them.

We actually have no idea just how much Russia has been using them. Except laughable western propaganda articles claiming "Russia has run out of PGMs" lololol Westerners honestly believe their own farts at this point. No numbers, no analysis, no Bayesian methods employed. Not even a consideration that perhaps Russians are using artillery because they think artillery achieves objective for much cheaper.

Maybe Russia has plenty of PGMs. They simply use artillery more than NATO doctrine and apply artillery where NATO may choose to apply PGMs (not guided shells). Months after claims of Russia running out or low on PGMs from western publications, Russians still using PGMs. The fact they are using artillery also somehow brings out western trolls to claim Russia has no PGMs or whatever... stupid shit like Russians don't know PGMs>artillery.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

Yes I'm aware of guided artillery. It's made and used in many parts of the world. What does that have to do with the comment about Russians not being aware a JDAM is superior to artillery? As if Russia has no JDAM equivalents and other PGMs or haven't been using them.

We actually have no idea just how much Russia has been using them. Except laughable western propaganda articles claiming "Russia has run out of PGMs" lololol Westerners honestly believe their own farts at this point. No numbers, no analysis, no Bayesian methods employed. Not even a consideration that perhaps Russians are using artillery because they think artillery achieves objective for much cheaper.

Maybe Russia has plenty of PGMs. They simply use artillery more than NATO doctrine and apply artillery where NATO may choose to apply PGMs (not guided shells). Months after claims of Russia running out or low on PGMs from western publications, Russians still using PGMs. The fact they are using artillery also somehow brings out western trolls to claim Russia has no PGMs or whatever... stupid shit like Russians don't know PGMs>artillery.

Not all bombs are guided. Out of 100 American bombs, only 1% is JDAM. JDAM is very expensive.

 

[MH.Yang]

Americans pee their pants when they hear the word war. Their gene pool has deteriorated so much since the 1970s.

There is a sentence "故国虽大,好战必亡;天下虽安,忘战必危" in Sun Tzu's <art of war>, which means that even if a country is very strong, if it is obsessed with war, it will inevitably perish. Even if a country is very safe, if it forgets the war, it will inevitably fall back into danger.

國雖大，好戰必亡_中文百科全書

國雖大，好戰必亡——習近平在德國科爾伯基金會的演講（2014年3月28日，柏林）典出：《司馬法》原文：國雖大，好戰必亡；天下雖安，忘戰必危。釋義：國家即便再強大，如果喜歡戰爭也必然會滅亡。“國雖大，好戰必亡；天下雖安，忘戰必危”一句，辯證地分析了戰爭與國家興衰的關係：好戰的國家必然滅亡，而沒有戰備的國家就會處於危險之中。中華民族是愛好和平的民族，正如習近平所

www.newton.com.tw

In Chinese philosophy, the purpose of developing military capability is not to start war, but to avoid war. War is never the best way to achieve your goals. The greatest victory is always "不战而屈人之兵" (to subdue the enemy without fighting).

夫用兵之法，全国为上，破国次之；全军为上，破军次之；全旅为上，破旅次之；全卒为上，破卒次之；全伍为上，破伍次之。是故百战百胜，非善之善也；不战而屈人之兵，善之善者也。故上兵伐谋，其次伐交，其次伐兵，其下攻城。
<art of war>

不战而屈人之兵 - Wiktionary, the free dictionary

en.m.wiktionary.org