Russia Invades Ukraine

[BobbyMac]

The US won't have full air control in every conflict they are in.

Could you expand on this?

 

[calvegas04]

Could you expand on this?

The US won't always be fighting the village people.

 

[PerthDomer]

You pay taxes to fund defense for literally this reason. So that when crazy mother fuckers decide to do shit that threatens the United States (or their allies) then you can stop them.

Is the premise that “hey we shouldn’t give weapons to these people fighting an enemy of the United States and should instead sit on them and let this enemy get stronger”? Because that’s crazy and people need to get over the ludicrous notion that “Russia wins and starts reconstructing the Soviet Union” is actually an acceptable outcome.

Yup. If war breaks out vs Russia or China the goal is that they attack a nation that A doesn't draw us into war, B can hold out and C allows us to funnel defense money in an efficient way. That's what the USSR did in Vietnam and we did to them ib Afganistan.

If the war ended today it'd probably take 5 or more years for Russia to be confident in making another move in Eastern Europe. If the Ukranians pull this off they'd be incapable of making a move for a decade plus. It'd also change China's strategic calculus. This is the highest efficiency defense spending we've done since the 80s.

 

[RDU Irish]

People thinking getting rid of Putin gets rid of the problem are off base IMO. Plenty of bad mofos behind him to keep the shenanigans rolling - possibly worse. Russia has energy and food security, Europe does not. Taking over Ukraine will force Europe to their knees to avoid going cold and hungry.

 

[Old Man Mike]

Some puzzling way-too-cryptic responses here confuse me. Things seem to be jumbling up in people's heads.

1. The US plans to have full airspace control in any battles WE are "personally" in. We might not be able to pull that off if a China War happened, but probably would have nearly full airspace control even there.
2. The Force Design 2030 program doesn't have much if anything to do with this. This program is about redesigning the size and use of the Marines. This has been a military debate for at least twenty years now. The Marines, under Force design 2030, would shrink markedly in size, and also in individual deployment unit size. They would have very specific uses, for example the securing of port areas and any coastal areas relevant to larger USN action. This program has nothing to do with air control. It has a tiny bit to do with the Marines not being involved with that, but the USAF and the Carrier fleet still aim strongly at air control. If anyone got the impression that Force Design 2030 was slacking on airspace control, they got bad news reporting.
3. The US would have total airspace control over Ukraine right now if WE were flying in the conflict, but we are not so involved.
4. Yes. War still requires the Army on the ground. (If WE are in that war.) It will just not involve the Marines (except for specific Naval Relation reasons) anymore.

 

[PerthDomer]

Some puzzling way-too-cryptic responses here confuse me. Things seem to be jumbling up in people's heads.

1. The US plans to have full airspace control in any battles WE are "personally" in. We might not be able to pull that off if a China War happened, but probably would have nearly full airspace control even there.
2. The Force Design 2030 program doesn't have much if anything to do with this. This program is about redesigning the size and use of the Marines. This has been a military debate for at least twenty years now. The Marines, under Force design 2030, would shrink markedly in size, and also in individual deployment unit size. They would have very specific uses, for example the securing of port areas and any coastal areas relevant to larger USN action. This program has nothing to do with air control. It has a tiny bit to do with the Marines not being involved with that, but the USAF and the Carrier fleet still aim strongly at air control. If anyone got the impression that Force Design 2030 was slacking on airspace control, they got bad news reporting.
3. The US would have total airspace control over Ukraine right now if WE were flying in the conflict, but we are not so involved.
4. Yes. War still requires the Army on the ground. (If WE are in that war.) It will just not involve the Marines (except for specific Naval Relation reasons) anymore.

I think the war has shown that total, not relative control of airspace is a higher bar than we thought. Most thought Rudsia should have it quickly. If we were fighting in the Ukraine we'd have superiority, but I'd guess we'd have trouble neutralizing all Russian assets, especially air defense and planes launched on the Russian side of the border.

 

[PerthDomer]

People thinking getting rid of Putin gets rid of the problem are off base IMO. Plenty of bad mofos behind him to keep the shenanigans rolling - possibly worse. Russia has energy and food security, Europe does not. Taking over Ukraine will force Europe to their knees to avoid going cold and hungry.

Russia can't import high end technology or foreign expertise. The longer this goes the longer their infrastructure/pipelines/oil acquisition will weaken. Emmigration and reduction in fertility will also set them back long term.

 

[Old Man Mike]

As to air control: "total" is a word that would need defining, of course. No military would insist that it mean "nothing at all could get into the air without immediately being neutralized." Total control would amount to something like: opposition air assets cannot make meaningful negative impacts on our forces over any significant time. War always involves losses, so "total" cannot be held to that. It indeed would be too high a bar. We however could be in control of "the high ground" and a constant source of damages to the opposition. That to me is a lot closer to a military strategist's definition of total air control.

As to the Ukraine conflict, I know of no information which indicates to me that if WE were employing our own combined air assets, we would not achieve air space control over Ukraine after a modest time, i.e. rather quickly --- probably a matter of days following real commitment. Again we don't do this because it is not our forces which will be committed for reasons everybody knows.

This assessment is based upon my understanding of the growing inferiority of Russian air strength due to a widening gap in technology. If I am wrong about this gap, I'd be quite interested in hearing others speak to that misconception (actual facts please). The truth or falsity of a significant technological weaponry gap between our Air Force and Russia's is a big deal in world outlook.

 

[BobbyMac]

China
Our Force Design 2030 strategic centerpiece

China would be subject to the greatest show of air power ever... x10. It doesn't have the capability to challenge the US Navy's aircraft due to range limitations while the US can deliver lethality anywhere based on refueling logistics and equipment.

The US holds significant advantages in every vertical, most importantly in institutional experience, command, integration, coordination and tactics.

Iraq had the 4th largest military in the world when they were quickly neutralized... and they were battle tested.

 

[GATTACA!]

China would be subject to the greatest show of air power ever... x10. It doesn't have the capability to challenge the US Navy's aircraft due to range limitations while the US can deliver lethality anywhere based on refueling logistics and equipment.

The US holds significant advantages in every vertical, most importantly in institutional experience, command, integration, coordination and tactics.

Iraq had the 4th largest military in the world when they were quickly neutralized... and they were battle tested.

Just curious so I was poking around for some stats. According to Google the Chinese military has 3.3k aircrafts. The US Navy alone has 3.7k. Making it smaller than only the US Air Force and the US Army lol.

 

[Old Man Mike]

Lend-Lease isn't much of a mystery. It's the old WWii act passed by FDR in order to facilitate support for allies in any war in which we desired to maintain a nominally neutral position, yet wished to very actively supply the ally's effort. It was psychological in that any support sent (anything short of personnel from bombs to SPAM) would be paid back with no interest upon the ability of the ally to do such payment. It is also a tool to (usually) facilitate the ability of the executive branch to free up such support without so much delay and bickering in Congress. Ironically, one nation benefiting most from Lend-Lease was the USSR. It paid back two million but only after we agreed to give it most favored nation status. --- In short, it's a way to theoretically get back our money invested, not the actual "goods." Mostly the US waves the need to repay us, as the countries supported are usually in pretty bad economic shape.

 

[Bishop2b5]

US planes, such as the F-22 and F-35 are generally a full level above anything the Chinese and Russians have. They have some nice stuff and a few planes that look comparable at first glance, but always turn out to be substantially inferior on the whole. As important (and maybe more so) is our airborne control system. The Boeing E-3 Sentry and E-2 Hawkeye, et al, puts our air power in a totally different league than any of our opponents. We not only have the better fighters, bombers, and attack aircraft, but we multiply their advantage by coordinating and controlling them with a system that's vastly superior to theirs also. In a real all out shooting war, we can control virtually any airspace.

 

[BobbyMac]

US planes, such as the F-22 and F-35 are generally a full level above anything the Chinese and Russians have. They have some nice stuff and a few planes that look comparable at first glance, but always turn out to be substantially inferior on the whole. As important (and maybe more so) is our airborne control system. The Boeing E-3 Sentry and E-2 Hawkeye, et al, puts our air power in a totally different league than any of our opponents. We not only have the better fighters, bombers, and attack aircraft, but we multiply their advantage by coordinating and controlling them with a system that's vastly superior to theirs also. In a real all out shooting war, we can control virtually any airspace.

We're f**kin' Skynet b**ches!

 

[pumpdog20]

US planes, such as the F-22 and F-35 are generally a full level above anything the Chinese and Russians have. They have some nice stuff and a few planes that look comparable at first glance, but always turn out to be substantially inferior on the whole. As important (and maybe more so) is our airborne control system. The Boeing E-3 Sentry and E-2 Hawkeye, et al, puts our air power in a totally different league than any of our opponents. We not only have the better fighters, bombers, and attack aircraft, but we multiply their advantage by coordinating and controlling them with a system that's vastly superior to theirs also. In a real all out shooting war, we can control virtually any airspace.

Well Maverick spent two weeks teaching that the enemy has 5th generation fighters, and that's why they had to stay below a low hard deck. I think he knows more than all of us.

 

[calvegas04]

Speaking of the F22 really wish they weren't fazing it out and continued production

 

[BobbyMac]

Speaking of the F22 really wish they weren't fazing it out and continued production

They aren't fazing it out just yet. They are keeping 153 units, just shelving the 30 or so block trainers.

The Raptor's will remain the top tog until 6th Gen, Darkstar takes off in 2030 or so.

 

[calvegas04]

They aren't fazing it out just yet. They are keeping 153 units, just shelving the 30 or so block trainers.

The Raptor's will remain the top tog until 6th Gen, Darkstar takes off in 2030 or so.

Isn't the 22 better than the 35 in terms of air control? I know the 35 is more of a multi purpose fighter.

 

[Old Man Mike]

I guess the poster didn't understand my post about Lend-Lease. There's in practice no difference in "using" it than what we're doing now as far as Ukraine is concerned --- they don't "use" Lend-Lease, it's granted to an ally by the US on our decision alone. Nobody's buying anything here. In theory, if lead-lease is granted, the granted country agrees to pay us back later, but in practice, a country can well count on that debt being forgiven if they are economically strapped. In that picture, we give our support freely to the Ukraine, and also in fact get a LOT back potentially for such support (Fall of Putin, freedon of Ukraine, stabilization of grain prices.) Regardless of payback, we potentially get far more than we "lend." Sure as hell did in WWII, for instance. The reason the current administration activated the Lend-Lease act now was because we have people in Congress who will b!tch about anything on the floor of Congress and thereby delay important aid. There will be no difference in the type of weaponry granted to Ukraine because of this (that's a Pentagon and DIA/CIA decision.) It hopefully will speed the delivery up somewhat. If we didn't have congressional idiots incapable of working with the executive, we wouldn't need political devices like the Lend-Lease Act.

 

[arahop]

Are you comparing the systemic killing of an entire race to what's going on in Ukraine? Millions of people were killed for being Jewish, gypsies, catholic priests, etc. That ain't happening now. Jesus Christ....

Read another book... watch another movie.

Come on Bojangles.

 

[BobbyMac]

Isn't the 22 better than the 35 in terms of air control? I know the 35 is more of a multi purpose fighter.

Yes.

F-22 is to F-35 as F-15 is to F-16

 

[Domina Nostra]

Yes.

F-22 is to F-35 as F-15 is to F-16

Yes.

F-22 is to F-35 as F-15 is to F-16

F35 is also a big F18 upgrade.

 

[BobbyMac]

F35 is also a big F18 upgrade.

Like all 5th gen aircraft, stealth and technology is vastly improved but variants of the F-18's are still in use by the Navy & Marines and have been substantially upgraded.

 

[GoldenToTheGrave]

US planes, such as the F-22 and F-35 are generally a full level above anything the Chinese and Russians have. They have some nice stuff and a few planes that look comparable at first glance, but always turn out to be substantially inferior on the whole. As important (and maybe more so) is our airborne control system. The Boeing E-3 Sentry and E-2 Hawkeye, et al, puts our air power in a totally different league than any of our opponents. We not only have the better fighters, bombers, and attack aircraft, but we multiply their advantage by coordinating and controlling them with a system that's vastly superior to theirs also. In a real all out shooting war, we can control virtually any airspace.

Problem comes in after the first wave of Chinese cruise missile attacks cripples bases in Japan and Taiwan within hours, you have maybe an aircraft carrier or two in theater that air under major threat from long range anti-ship missiles forcing them far out to sea. Any air squadrons would be under major threat from IAD systems and forced to use expensive and limited quantities of standoff munitions that deplete rapidly. Eventually you can suppress air defenses but not eliminate them, making it impossible to just loiter and drop JDAM's as our military has gotten used to in the war on terror.

That's not to say we wouldn't have the upper hand in the air in such a scenario but Ukraine has shown how having a credible anti-air can be maintained in a conventional war and how it impacts the use of air assets in close support. In such an environment things like tube artillery, which has also come a long way, are extremely important and relevant.

 

[Irish#1]

Lend-Lease isn't much of a mystery. It's the old WWii act passed by FDR in order to facilitate support for allies in any war in which we desired to maintain a nominally neutral position, yet wished to very actively supply the ally's effort. It was psychological in that any support sent (anything short of personnel from bombs to SPAM) would be paid back with no interest upon the ability of the ally to do such payment. It is also a tool to (usually) facilitate the ability of the executive branch to free up such support without so much delay and bickering in Congress. Ironically, one nation benefiting most from Lend-Lease was the USSR. It paid back two million but only after we agreed to give it most favored nation status. --- In short, it's a way to theoretically get back our money invested, not the actual "goods." Mostly the US waves the need to repay us, as the countries supported are usually in pretty bad economic shape.

Sounds like lending money to a relative. You're better off lending it with the expectation that you'll never see it again.

 

[Domina Nostra]

Like all 5th gen aircraft, stealth and technology is vastly improved but variants of the F-18's are still in use by the Navy & Marines and have been substantially

Like all 5th gen aircraft, stealth and technology is vastly improved but variants of the F-18's are still in use by the Navy & Marines and have been substantially upgraded.

The F-16 is an Air Force plane. The F35 was planned, in part, to replace the F16, but really hasn’t.

The F18 has been the Navy and Marines’ main plane. The F35 is taking the mantle from the Superhornets as the Navy/Marine elite fighter for the highest value missions. That doesn’t mean they aren’t going to stop using F18s, which are great planes and much cheaper to use.

 

[BobbyMac]

We were talking about F-22's being trimmed.

Not so fast says Congress:

House Moves to Upgrade, Not Retire, Oldest F-22s | Air & Space Forces Magazine

The House Armed Services Committee included language in its 2023 NDAA to prevent the Air Force from retiring any F-22s.

www.airforcemag.com

 

[Valpodoc85]

Speaking of aircraft that just won't die can you imagine the carnage a squadron of A-10's would generate. Operating with excellent night vision, a cannon and rockets. It would be a high value environment

 

[Irish#1]

Seems reasonable to upgrade rather than retire them.

 

[drayer54]

Thought I'd lighten the mood on a Sunday morning.

 

[Valpodoc85]

UK News | Breaking news & latest updates | Daily Mail Online

All the latest breaking UK news with in-depth comment and analysis, pictures and videos from MailOnline and the Daily Mail.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Dude is not 280.....closer to 350