Hey, I am currently filming in Sweden and streaming on Friday 11th afternoon (Central European) from the Swedish Air Force Museum. Make sure you watch for that because I’ll jump into a few cockpits as well !
Russian stealth aircraft are amazing. You pay billions for a jet and you get something that looks like a super yatch or a mansion in Geneva. Very stealthy.
Yuo see Ivan, if spend money on plane, can be shot down by anti-aircraft missile! If spend money on mansion in Geneva, can expertly avoid anti-aircraft missile because of in Geneva! American dogs never see mansion coming!
I love Perun’s take from his corruption vid, roughly: ‘When Russia overhypes its subpar new equipment, the West takes them seriously them and makes ACTUALLY good equipment in response’
@@bigwitt187 Yes, but that's a good thing. Many western military weapons development was run down severely. The Stinger needed a new seeker, we haven't invested in hyper-sonic deference or weapons, missile fences to deal with drones, air defenses fro drones were run down. This is particularly so outside of the US. Europe has virtually no cruise missiles. Worse Europe resolve is weak.
@@bigwitt187 Don’t fall for that. I know everyone says it but it doesn’t help. There are all kinds of reasons why strategists take threats seriously, the principle one being that the alternative can bring catastrophic results. We have consistently underestimated China but I think we’re learning - to our cost - that we were mistaken. That’s why we’re where we are now. Taking them more seriously ten years ago would have been smarter and perhaps we might have been able to keep an edge over them. As a result I think we’ve lost our edge, in technology terms. In training and development, we’re now in a much more parlous position. There’s little reason this couldn’t have happened in Russia. They have some excellent scientists but their manufacturing is not in the same league as China. On the other hand, they have thousands of nuclear weapons…
@@williamzk9083 The problem with Europe isn’t military. The problem with Europe is that major European nations have failed to take leadership on this. It’s not as simple as it sounds but countries like Germany could have used their position to at least start negotiating with Russia. Unfortunately they are stymied by the fact that they are major trading partners. That, in turn can be an advantage. The upshot of that is that the world isn’t listening to them and the United States State Department has been calling the shots, which they shouldn’t be. At the heart of this is weapons sales and the US is going gangbusters selling weapons at the moment. I sincerely hope that Europe can see its way to taking the initiative to get both parties to the negotiating table ASAP.
25:30 This is much funnier if you understand the context. For comparison, NATO pilots are normally required to fly a minimum of 180 hours a year. A pilot lying about flying 56 hours while only flying 9 is particularly terrible. Not to say this doesn't happen in NATO militaries. There's an article I found from Radio Bulgaria mentioning that two pilots with only 17 and 19 flight hours for the six months prior to a crash that killed them both. But most people assumed that the Russian air force was more similar to the United States than Bulgaria's air force. US Air Force fighter pilots regularly spend more time in the air a month than this Russian helicopter pilot was lying about flying in a year...
To my understanding Russian airforce have always had terrible hours. Typically they require the fighter pilot to fly 100 hours, that is really not that much, but they falsified there log. In a airbase located in baltic nationa they investigated this after the cold war, and the average closer to 10 hours than 100. I don't even know if you would be allowed to keep armature license at that time.
@@matsv201 yeah, back in the 1970’s, Western defense analysts believed that the Soviet fighter pilots flew very few hours monthly. Maybe enough to maintain basic flight proficiency, but not enough to learn independent dogfighting. The Soviets emphasized ground control of fighters, and didn’t seem too keen on pilot initiative. Maybe this was necessary because of the lack of pilot training. NATO air forces used the opposite approach: fewer pilots with much more training, flight hours, and experience, in (hopefully) more capable aircraft.
@@gerardlabelle9626 More the other way around, the Soviets were keen on centralized control of everything, and initiative was discouraged. The lower training requirements are a byproduct of this, don't teach your personnel to be able to do more than you need them to, they might get ideas of their own and start a revolution. That's kinda how the Soviet Union started in the first place.
@@SgtBeltfed Agreed. Most Soviet/Russian Air Force Missions and or sorties are shorter than their Western Counterparts. The limited flying hours basically encourage them less to make individual decisions and to ensure centralization of command and decision making. Thus, each pilot is not inclined to make individual decisions. They just follow orders without fail or question.
@@rbgerald2469 Russia has much less mindless machines than NATO army's because the moral of home defence army is a much better one than on the agressor side.
I did my career in the US Marine Corps as an aircraft electrician, so seeing from my perspective on how our pilots often flew, the demand operations had on maintenance to provide "Up" aircraft so the pilots get their flight hours, get their training done, and the immense effort going into that, compared to what the Russian air force is doing is a big surprise. It takes time, money to get a tradition going. But a lot has to do with money. Modern aircraft are expensive. You need to blow a lot of money for parts, training for both ground personnel and aircrew. You're burning fuel, so you're burning a bunch of money, too. And as your pilots are flying, the hours on the aircraft, its components, engines are piling up. These airframes and their components are only rated for so many hours. As I understand, the Soviets had the tradition where their aircraft and components weren't rated for so many hours like western ones are, because they designed them on the premise they were going to get replaced, i.e. destroyed anyways, if it came to a war with NATO. Regardless, these planes and their components need to be replaced and so that's more money. For here in the US, we take it for granted how much money and time is spent to make sure the aircraft and our pilots are taken cared of and ready. Some may even assume other big name air forces put in the time and resources we do, when it's simply not the case. This stuff is expensive. Even with the American air services, with all their training and care for maintenance, we still have mishaps, and unfortunately sometimes they're fatal. Sometimes it's aircrew error, sometimes it's materiel failure. So an air force that doesn't put the training in aircrew and maintenance, I shudder to think how it can be for them if they have to actually fly more. And never mind when there's someone out there trying to shoot you down, just to make things harder.
The Russians believe in management by hysteria. It's rewarded, so it continues. There is no Quality Culture and tech can't succeed without higher standards, so this stealthy new fighter jets might look good at air shows, but they aren't going to be effective in the real world. Worse for the Russians - 3rd world countries won't be clamoring to buy them. The secret to the M-21's success was it's simplicity. Stealth requires sophistication the Russians can't build or buy.
I think part of the problem is corruption. Limits to flying hours or maintenance may not exist on paper... but if someone is trousering the money they’re supposed to buy parts and gas with, then the lack of flying hours is the result.
Precious few people understand the scale of operations and maintenance to support continuous flight ops. Nobody does it like the US. Brits, Canucks, and Aussies are next-closest, but they struggle with significant budgetary constraints. Just for perspective, the USMC has more fixed wing fighters, helicopters, and trainers than the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy combined, and maintains higher OPTEMPO with more deployment commitments. The USMC is now filling the void on UK's Queen Elizabeth carrier by augmenting their air wing with USMC F-35Bs, because the UK doesn't have enough to populate theirs yet. USMC is the smallest of the 4 big services in the US.
The stunning thing is the news story that a pilot lied about getting 56 hours of flight time, when in reality he had only 9. For that fiscal year. What level of proficiency does a pilot maintain with 9 hours of stick time? Russia has champagne dreams, but a Miller Lite budget. From a state security standpoint alone, no Russian news outlet should've printed that story.
@@MrWeenuk21 Americans do not dream of re-establishing an empire with outright land-grabs and annexations. We really have nothing in common with Russia.
I know that this isn't necessarily a complete parallel, but the development of the T-14 'Armata' and the Su-57 and Su-75 are of a similar vein in that while the technical specifications of the prototypes are quite impressive, issues in manufacturing and procurement have largely relegated these to limited procurement at best.
Don't forget the ammunition! Doesn't matter how stealthy you are, if still dropping mainly dumb ammunition. Rather have 'normal' aircrafts with devestating and super precise bombs and rockets with long range.
@@fantabuloussnuffaluffagus I was going to make a snarky comment about the F-22 Raptor being limited too, but there's 187 operational raptors. Quite the difference 😅
Your guest really is a great source. For anyone who doesn't speak Russian, to have someone credible collate the open source material in that language is something I much appreciate.
I think that a lot of the issues that Russia suffers from are the result of deeper issues of Russian society and that stems, at least in part, from choices made by the elite.
There is also another aspect to consider and that is Russian society itself. Many of the skilled engineers and technicians needed to make a military-industrial complex run were lost to Russia with the Soviet client states emigrated for better prospects abroad. It doesn't matter how impressive your specification or technical brief is if you don't have the people with the skills and knowledge to make it a reality.
@@jamesharding3459 This is also a function of the nature of the society and choices about that made by the elite. The US has benefited hugely over the last 70 years or so from the efforts of foreign PhD and Post-Doc candidates flooding in to the US. In fact, one of the ironies of modern right wing policies in the US is to make the country less attractive to such people.
@@penultimateh766 Oh, it’s not just the Germans that know Russian society is inferior. The French do too, so do the Yanks, and so do us Brits. And the Poles know so well they’re buying every modern battle tank they can lay their hands on.
@@penultimateh766 There are slavic societies other than Russia. It has nothing to do with ethnicity. Sometimes you've gotta call a spade a spade and the reality is that current Russian society seriously hampers it in pretty much every way imaginable.
Excellent video. Given the limited amount of trustworthy information coming out of Russia, there is enormous value in hearing a reviewer who speaks Russian and has access to the internal blogs and documentation. Great job
Russian air force is so professional that they can't give up the bright colors and Red Stars decades after every air force of any worth went grey.
Год назад
Interesting Talk. Great Guest :) The youtube chanel "Paper Skies" has an interesting Video about the Soviet "Top Gun" school, that was mentioned. Very interesting stuff
Most of the fighting has been done by militias, Chechens and mercenaries. The Russians have not been doing much of the fighting. Maybe the time to judge them is when they get 300,000 more troops at the front lines.
@@davidgmillsatty1900 *REALITY* (definition): 1. the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
@@petersouthernboy6327 Reality. It has not been the Russian army doing most of the fighting. That is the reality. The only battles the Ukrainians have won is when they had overwhelming odds and the Russians and their allies retreated. Reality. We shall see what happens when the Russians are near parity in troop numbers.
@@davidgmillsatty1900 I can smell the Russian tears from that comment and they are delicious. I shall drink them and then piss on the graves of the VDV in Hostomel
@@abpire First of all I am an American, not a Russian. It is not a war America should be involved in. Europe can fight it out. But for you Ukraianiacs the news since I made that post is awful. Cope with this from the Daily Telegraph in NZ regarding the strikes on the Ukrainian grid: "Russian forces “launched 85 missile strikes at Ukraine,” Zelensky said in an emergency address on Tuesday evening. His office called the situation in the wake of the attack “critical,” adding that most strikes targeted facilities in the center and north of country. The situation in Kiev is particularly hard, according to the deputy head of the presidential administration, Kirill Timoshenko. The Ukrainian energy providers had resorted to emergency power cuts to avoid energy system failures, he added.... At least one person died in the attack in Kiev as a missile shot down by the Ukrainian air defense systems fell on a residential building in the capital, local emergency services confirmed. The Ukrainian Air Force spokesman said that a total of 100 X-101 and X-555 cruise missiles were launched at Ukraine.And here is what an expert on the grid said (reported on Yahoo back on October 19) about the perilous grid situation: "When the transformer is knocked out, this means that plant cannot supply electricity to the grid. Basically, it doesn’t exist. If these transformers are destroyed, it will take a long time to build new ones. It’s not something that can be manufactured beforehand and plugged in where needed. It takes a separate project, developed for a couple of months - complex technological work that cannot be done quickly. This is what lowers the stability of the Ukrainian power grid." There is actually a shortage of transformers world wide. The transformers that are being destroyed are not the small transformers on a utility pole. Most of them are huge. When Russia left Kherson it destroyed two transformers that weighed 250 tons each. They have to be moved on special rail cars. And there are only a few places in the world that make them. The backlog is likely to be years for these very large ones like Kherson has. Kherson is out of electricity and water and running out of food. Kherson was a Pyrrhic victory for Ukraine because Ukraine now has to support it and it could not even support the grid before the Russians retreated from Ukraine. Russia is having great success with the delectrification of Ukraine . One former Russian general put it this way. The Ukrainians will be living in their s**t and will be having an epidemic, presumably due to the lack of potable water. He also said the next attacks will be on the banks and the money printing process. Good luck with your dreams.
I think this guy is Bulgarian. I believe I saw him on another military RU-vid channel by an Austrian guy. Anyway this dude is really insightful on the Russian military and how corruption and basically gundecking at every level is a reason Russian has failed epically.
In a nutshell: They have presented a lot of shiny, prestigious projects & prototypes, but have not made them production-ready, nor included them into the overall combat & communication systems.
Thank you Christoph and Stanimir. An interesting update on issues that (with the exception of funds being diverted to antiaircraft defences) were covered by Air International magazine, approximately 4-1/2 years ago.
I think we focus too much on VKS aircraft capabilities, but war in Ukraine actually shows how formidable Soviet/Russian Missile defense system are, even the older generation operated by Ukraine
@@ReichLife I would say that SEAD has been around since WW2 as a tactical doctrine and probably initiated by the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain
One thing that can't be underestimated with the Ukrainian air defence is NATO intelligence. With NATO AWACS flying on the border and observing huge amounts of airspace, Ukrainian AD doesn't have to have their radar active thus are hidden until the moment to strike. It's very difficult to counter an enemy that doesn't have to expose themselves until they've already fired.
Listen to this, and the description of the slippage in maintenance I can't help wonder if some of the publicised crashes on training & transfer flights aren't a sign of this now having a real impact on both availability and tru numbers of serviceable aircraft of all types. very sad for the families of these aircrew who lost family members, but a sad enlightenment of the state of the Russian airforce.
It doesn’t sound like Russian people care too much about their kids dying in service to the motherland. I hear many mothers in Russia want their children to go fight even if it means they will die. Very strange behavior. Ultra nationalism is insane in how it alters peoples emotions and behaviors. In the west, most people would hate sending their child to war even if it was for a just cause
It has always been this way in Russia. They're very primitive, poor, and suffer from huge dents in IQ dating way back. They don't trust conscripts near aircraft because of foreign sabotage, so only officers are allowed to maintain them. Russian maintenance officers don't compare well with US or NATO enlisted personnel when it comes to training, leadership, and experience, and they don't have access to anywhere near the same diagnostic equipment or spare parts.
In the time RU has tried to get the Su-57 into the air, Lockheed produced 870+ F-35's -- of which nearly all are combat-capable already. A super-power doing super-power things.
@Mitchell Couchman First flight was in October 2000, which, following really complicated math, informs us that the F/X-35 has been around in some form or another for over 22 years.
If the Russian Air Force was comprised of only their best current aircraft types it would be more capable. But it still would not necessarily be enough to establish air dominance because of the ways that it is used, the limitations of the weapons used, the poor availability of aircraft from maintenance burdens, and overall strategic doctrine. If the Russian Air Force had 500 Su-57, 500 Su-34, and 200 Tu-160M2 it would be pretty scary in theory but still limited in practice because of other issues.
The problem is that the Russian military's attitude is "LOOK HOW BIG AND BAD WE ARE (please don't notice how weak our society is)" while the US military's attitude is, "You'll know we were coming when you're picking your dead and wounded friends out of the rubble that used to be your base." Big dogs don't have to bark.
@@katherineberger6329 I like how they name a new aircraft or tank when in actuality it's just an upgraded soviet Era design. It would be like taking the f-16 and giving it an upgrade then calling it the f-46. A great example is the t-80s and t-90s basically being an upgraded t-72 design.
@@theodoresmith5272 That is not entirely true, the difference between the T-80 and T-72 are very large, but the T-90 is more of an overall than anything. New turret, gun, FCS, hull, engine, and other systems and equipment. It shares little in common with the T-72 except the hull armor array, but that is because the T-72 hull armor array was the best at the time.
@@voidtempering8700 The T80 is IIRC more based on the T64. But T64 to T90 all belong to the same family, which follow a flawed soviet doctrine of mass warfare. Otoh a Leopard 2/Abrams were from the beginning expensive, almost modular tanks that lent themselves much more to big upgrades and modernizations. Most modern tanks follow the design trends that were set by those two.
I think we can all agree that the VKS has performed poor-very poor. My questions is why. - Lack of funds? - Corruption? - Bad planes? - Bad ammunition(low tech) - Bad upper operations/operations management
Most likely all those are reasons. First there's bad high command that sows corruption. Corruption leads to lack of funds which leads to bad planes and bad equipment.
A big issue is also the instructors. If nobody comes back they can't teach the next generation of pilots. And as we know: "The best techniques are passed on by the survivors"
It does make sense that Russia focused more on air defence and SAMs more specifically if you take into consideration that they don't have too many pilots and they're probably losing the experienced ones to the commercial air services companies (airlines and air cargo). Also, there aren't that many people that can do the job...physically. You just can't train yourself to do this job. Either you can do it physically or you don't. Still, there are many versions of some of these air defence systems. There's a whole family tree for the S-300. Thing is it appears that they are moving away from that in the future. The S-500 appears to be more flexible. Also, aircraft are expensive so this might offer more value for money to some extent. Having an air force is expensive. One of the things I haven't seen is any mention of the lack of drones in the air force. They have some drones but I would have expected more from Russia.
yeah having a expensive ass jet is nice until you realize maintenance and fuel and ammo costs are even MORE expensive particularly to keep for a long time, but yknow russia always finds shortcuts *laughs in failed logistics for everything practically*
"but yknow russia always finds shortcuts laughs in failed logistics for everything practically" Unless when it comes to bombing, striking or killing civilians or civilian targets, in that case the Russian military is oddly extremely efficient, well-planned and precise.
@@Frserthegreenengine I'd cast doubt on the well planned and particularly precise bit, precision is generally not needed to hit civilian targets, largely because its nice not living in something with a square footage comparable to a car trunk.
I think most of the problems that the russian army (and air force and navy too) have exhibited are due to the simple fact that Russia is basically a poor country.
They want people to think they aren't and then they spend what little money they have on smoke and mirrors. They spend tons of money on the SU57 and the T14 yet they don't even have radios or even uniforms for their infantry.
What are RuAF pilot losses since February 24th 2022? Their most experienced pilots were in Syria, and we saw them transferred to Ukraine pretty early on in the war. Even having decent instructors to teach new pilots must be an issue 🤷🏻♂️
Most of Russia’s Air Force (VKS) equipment is often modernized upgrades to older and obsolete aircraft from the Soviet era VVS which where inherited as result of the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991.
One point that wasn't very much emphasized here was the VKS' problems with IFF. This is actually an endemic problem for the entire Russian Armed Forces, to the point where the ground forces adopted the white-painted letters (the now-infamous Z, for example). 60% of Russian casualties are chalked up to friendly fire, according to Alexander Khodakovsky, leader of the pro-Russia Vostok Battalion. There's just disorganization in poor C4ISTAR, lack of training, lack of useable electronic IFF equipment, and no leadership ability to make improvements to IFF. The VKS is simply ineffective in a highly-contested battlespace where the other side largely uses the same vehicles and weapons (Soviet designs) as they do. The Russian/Iranian drones do nothing to help C4ISTAR but serve as V-1-like vengeance weapons.
The IFF equipment has nothing to do with the white letters. The Americans had their own identification markings in Afghanistan and Iraq. IFF equipment fails.
@@zaco-km3su That's exactly the point. The ground forces have been reduced to using white letters because their airborne IFF equipment is useless in differentiating them from the Ukrainians. Yes, the markings are also meant to differentiate them from other friendly ground units in different combat sectors, yet they fail at that too. The Americans learned from the Gulf War and beyond to use CIPs, reducing blue-on-blue. They also improved IFF equipment quality and procedures in C4ISTAR. What's Russia's excuse for 60% casualties being friendly fire?
To put the 60% figure in perspective: more Russians have been killed by Russians than by Ukrainians. That's just straight up embarrassing. 60% of Russian casualties attributed to friendly fire and no one in Russia bats an eye. One IFV gets hit by friendly fire in the West and the Western world loses their minds. Russian casualties are at least in the tens of thousands (Ukraine says 80K Russian dead, NATO says 100K Russian dead or wounded). 60% of those are friendly fire. You do the math. How many thousands upon thousands of Russian servicemen were hit by their own brothers-in-arms?
@@eddietat95 CIPs fail too. American will use markings, like the Russians, in the next war. There's no replacement for paint. It just works. better to use paint and save lives than to not use paint. The Russians are just bad at everything. They are a joke.
@@eddietat95 CIPs fail. Nice try. Paint is better. Why do you think American use paint? Yes, they use paint in Afghanistan and Iraq. Well, used for Afghanistan. I'm correct. You're incorrect. You're wrong. You fail. I'm not missing the point. You are. It's better to have paint than CIPs. CIPs help at times but not always. It's better to have something than nothing. Do you think CIPs will be useful against pilots? No, they won't.
One of the problems is that the RuAF is that they're heavily dependant on large/heavyweight aircraft. The bulk of the USAF is the F-16 which is cheaper to operate. The Russian's will have to spend a lot more time on maintenance/fuel relative to the US.
I don't think the size/weight of aircraft matters, at least not compared to a lack of organization within the RuAF - lack of C4ISTAR, lack of training for ground and air crew, lack of spare parts production, etc. The RuAF has a high-low capability mix of Flankers/Fullbacks and Fulcrums/Frogfoots that is analogous to the USAF's mix of Raptors/Eagles and Vipers/Warthogs. The amount of fuel used will be more dependent on the mission and organization (i.e. putting up sorties that don't waste time) than the airframe. RuAF should be more concerned about the overall lack of maintenance rather than the inherent maintainability of an aircraft design.
I think the Red Orc Air Force got twin engine fever from the F-15's dazzling combat record and tried over the years to top it. Notice in modern times they really haven't built a successful single-engine, single-tail hotrod comparable to the F-16. I understand they want longer-range planes for security, so they build them bigger. Also, I think they don't trust their own engines enough to only use one. The metallurgy in jet engines is critical, and anyone paying attention knows Ruz quality control is for ****.
Isn't the F-16 the one used for training and flight hours? I would argue heavy aircraft like the Superhornet are more prominent (and more effective) The F-16 is... fine, not great, or good, but fine, and I wouldn't call it the main aircraft of the USAF Not to defend russia, the Superhornet, the Lightning II, the Raptor, are way better than whatever they are making now, but the F-16 is not one of those top of the line fighters
The problem with investing in a stealth air superiority fighter is that you need to use it for that role otherwise it's a waste. Ukraine's air force and stationary SAMs were destroyed fairly early, mobile units with portable AA weapons have been far more common and have proven to be just as effective if not more so. Russia should have had air superiority this whole time, but their lack of practical experience is costing them dearly.
TL:DR : It never was a real stealth aircraft to begin with! It is only slightly stealthy from the front, and not stealthy at all from the sides or rear. Many current fighters, like the Gripen and Rafale, are stealthier, though not in the same class as the F-22 or even the F-35.
Su-57 according to rumors is similar 'stealth' to a bare F18-E. And the internal missiles haven't been delivered so far either: the Su-57's which have been flying (the few existing), have carried external weapons; both A2A & A2G. Then there's the tiny issue of building the radars & components without the west providing technology. They'll have to become ever more dependant on China. You know your airforce is not in a happy place when for the on-going conflict, you're relying on that infamous aerospace juggernaught, *IRAN*, to provide drones, and even *trainers*. Number of flight hours: holy F, I knew many Russian pilots where below half the Nato recommendation but jeez.. There's hobbyists spending more simulated flight hours per month than such professionals spent actually flying per year... Didn't know their training aircraft also were so worn down, but it makes sense. Russian engine reliability & lifetime: this is why I think China has already surpassed Russia in engine design. Yes, per public knowledge Chineses engine development does not run smoothly; lifetime well below Western jet engines. But they seem to have developed mono-crystal blades etc; and they are throwing in massive amounts of engineering hours & money; in addition to 'finding inspiration' from Russia & the West. The future Russian airforce will be cheap-ish drones imo. Compare the amount of stealth designs China has already flying, and the numbers being produced, to Russia. S-Korea, Japan, ... individual countries will have a better-funded and more capable aeronautics sector. The VKS being the weakest link: let's not get ahead of ourselves here, they do have fierce competition with the Russian navy; with the 1 carrier seemingly wishing to hold a BBQ and explore the underwater; or the Black Sea anti-air flagship being able to *either* coordinate the fleet, OR have radars running... And recent reports of the nuclear torpedo-test failing... And the Russian army at times running out of Cold War era equipment and turning to WW2 era instead for their mighty conscripts.
If Russia cant afford or manage to make more than a handful of of these, than it's little more than a prototype. Estimates on advanced US fighters is that it takes 40 hours of maintenance for each 1 hour of flight. This is an average over the life of the aircraft, but you need a pretty sizable fleet to make sure you have enough craft available at all times to make a difference. It's the same reason why the Armata tanks are more of a paper threat than real. Russian engineers and designers can come up with impressive vehicles, but if the country can't afford to make sufficient numbers, their service isn't going to be more than as parade or air show stars.
Yeah, even an F/A 18 with a full ground attack load out took one down too. And the Hawkeye can see them from hundreds of miles away. Felon? Complete crap.
You're aware that the only country operating F-14s is Iran, right? Why would Iran and Russia be engaging in air-to-air battles, given how closely they work together?
If an air force cannot field current/past technology, why would anyone think the same air force could field a newer, more complicated airframe and technology competently?
@@ReichLife There is no such thing as a Wunderwaffe". If African tribes with spears could develop tactics to defeat then cutting edge European armies (which could have won entire wars had they been consistently applied) then anyone can overcome any technological innovation of the enemy. Plus, Western media acts like Ukraine has oodles and oodles of these things. Anyone paying attention knows that Ukraine gets a ridiculous variety of weapons systems (none of which have interchangeable logistics) from a huge variety of countries, none of it in sufficient quantities to have battlefield changing effects.
@@ReichLife Bayraktar footage was published during the Kherson offensive as well. They didn't disappear, they just kept doing missions that wouldn't require them to fly into SAM range.
@@ReichLife Yes, because Bayraktars cannot operate in close range. Glide bombs can only reach so far. Lack of footage doesn't suggest being wiped out. We know Bayraktars were received during periods where no footage was coming out. So there was a flyable fleet of them, just no footage. You're using absence of evidence as evidence of absence.
Because they only have the floor models of anything good, and meant for demo for export sales. In other words, they can't afford enough good equipment.
G'day, Wunderwaffen, Blunderwaffen... WonderWaffles...; Hot Crossed Buns, Squeezed Flat. Served with Ice-Cream, or Flummery and Junket... All empty calories and Sugar-Hit, nothing of substance or worth having. Just(ifiably ?) sayin'. Such is life, Have a good one... Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !
There was a time that the Pentagon said it will take the Russian Air Force only 17 days to decimate the entire USAF. Then the F22 was born.. now, based on what happened in Ukraine, a couple of F15s is more than a match for the best SUs and Migs combined.
It's almost comical how the Russian military were seen as equals even a decade ago, but even for all their gigantic failures, they still hold a chunk of Ukraine virtually uncontested. Let the US not grow complacent and remain chronically underprepared. Overkill is a civilian concept.
The real concern would be defence cooperation between Russia and China. Russia does not have the money or industrial capacity to make advanced weapons in large numbers, but China does. In my opinion we should be working hard to stop any such alliance, and there is a realistic chance that we can. Russia is a lost cause: it will always be invading another country or preparing to invade. Military aggression is hardwired into Russian society. But China is a different case - in the past 70 years they have had a couple of skirmishes with India and the Soviet Union, and a strange one-month invasion of Vietnam, but they've actually been quite restrained militarily compared to other countries around the world. It is not a society that thrives on war, so diplomacy has a chance.
As China is highly dependent on Europe and North America for trade to keep its economy afloat, I don't think they'll be overtly interrested in enabling the Russians to play their old-school imperialist game with all their neighbours. Including themselves.
@@naamadossantossilva4736 partially agree, but most of the T-72 crew fly much lower to be called cosmonauts - they fly within troposphere in take off-and-forget mode
@@blitzfreak3958 Yeah, that's really underwhelming. Especially given the fact that the T72 has been around for what? fifty- odd years now? And their crews can only be blasted high enough to match the cruicing altitude of a Bombardier Q400 turboprop commuter plane... That's rather piss poor, to be honest!
The Su-57 is so "stealthy", it can't defeat the Ukrainian air force, can't penetrate Russian-made and western-made air defenses with impunity, and basically has been a complete nonfactor in the war.
We in Russia do not have aircraft and strategic UAVs that could be used for reconnaissance, and therefore there is no way to destroy air defense. This is one of the important problems today. The Russian army was built to defend against NATO and police operations like the Syrian, and not full-fledged wars that Russia was dragged into. Ukraine has a significant advantage here due to the NATO countries, which conduct intelligence in the Crimea, in Russia, everywhere and transfer all the data to Ukraine
@@vksasdgaming9472 I, too, can throw insults and accusations, but what's the point. If you want to prove something to us, then volunteer to go forward to the front. And I have no desire to listen to insults from nonentities on the Internet. I have my point of view, you have another. If we have to die for the defense of the country, we will die. The main thing is that we will know that we were trying to protect our country.
"Who needs high tech? Our propagandis- expert mister Sprey here said we just need guns and simple aircraft, its not the plane its the pilot" *proceeds to get shot down after realizing they don't have the good planes nor the good pilots*
When you economy is 11th in the world and you're trying to project the idea that you're 1st in military you find yourself playing Three Card Monte. Russia could never afford to build out their Airforce with top flight fighters and bombers so they chose a strategy of 'appearing' to do so. So, they built the SU-57 but they have something less than 20 of them. They focused on super maneuverability while sacrificing stealth. Basically, they designed and produced AC that look great and do amazing stunts at airshows with the idea that the west will believe them to be a legitimate adversary. Meanwhile, the ground forces and particularly the infantry have not seen much investment and it looks like they've been journaling money that should have gone to the infantry and instead it's gone towards Super Yachts and private jets for the oligarchs. They are a paper tiger ... with nukes!
And then, of course, NATO and the US see Russia building these silly parade displays, freak out, and actually build hundreds of aircraft and weapons systems to combat something Russia only completed six of.
With all due respect, that argument is just plain stupid. It isn't impossible for a comparatively weak economy to sustain a modern and capable army, provided they dedicate a significant enough portion of that economy to it, and are efficient enough at doing so. Would you like to compare the economies of the Byzantine Empire and the Rashidun Caliphate of the 7th century? The economies of Sweden and the Holy Roman Empire and the Danubian monarchy during the 30 years' war? The economy of Great Britain (India included) and revolutionary France (Haiti and French Indies included)? Or are you saying that 18th-19th century Prussia was necessarily an economic superpower due to its victories over Austria in the Silesian wars, or because of its victory over France in 1871? Was Japan an economic powerhouse when it beat the Russians in 1905? Did Ethiopia beat back the Italians thanks to its industries? The Russian military has proven itself to be little more than a circus show. That has nothing to do with the size of Russia's economy.
@@Raptorman0909 I... never said they weren't? Did you actually read my comment, or did you stop after the first sentence? My point is that their poor performance has little to do with the size of their economy.
I suppose it's a matter of semantics at this point and I am not arguing the point that the VKS has certainly underperformed. Given the many problems it has been experiencing in the lead up to the war, its resulting disappointments certainly make sense. But the idea that they don't have Air Superiority just rings false to me. They still fly far more sorties than the Ukrainians and in combination with the Ground Based Air Defenses hold battlefield air superiority. It's certainly not overwhelming air superiority, the UkAF still flies here and there and the air defenses still pose a significant threat but I think we often conflate Air Superiority with Air Supremacy. Still an informative video though Chris.
The evaluation of Russia's air activity might always be clouded by the perception of what 'we' think they should be possible of. If they don't perform at that level, it leads to an overreaction of rating them to be lower as they actually are. However, that does not invalidate the point that overall this war has not developed in the way they intended or what observers would have expected. Part of that has to do with the problems that happen in the background (essentially much of what Stanimir focused on).
Air superiority generally means in the air they can successfully dominate any engagement within their own operational sphere in this case the air. However Russians can't fly sorties without fearing of being shot down by AA and that's really not air superiority it's more of a conflicted air space in all reality. Air superiority is much like the US over South Vietnam during the Vietnam War, contested air space for example is much like the US presence over North Vietnam during the Vietnam War in comparison.
@@808INFantry11X Nato had air superemacy over Kosovo but still lost 2 jets to enemy air defence. US had air superiority over Iraq in both wars, but lost ~35 aircraft to enemy fire. Air superiority only means you mostly denie the airspace to enemy aircraft, not that your own aircraft can't be shot down by enemy air defence.
Remember some years ago when we all drooled at the great films of Russian military aircraft? Even then I wondered why they allowed this and if it was all PR and part of the recovery and rise of Putin's Russia. It struck me how most were old equipment rehashed, and I also wondered how many of these geriatric craft they had. Of course I enjoyed seeing such hardware but I wondered if that was all they had. It did not give me the impression that Russia was still a formidable power, more like that it had a great collection of old cold war hardware . Which is still cool, but not very useful in a modern war which may be why we are not seeing the air force play a greater role.
That's easy. Russia is the follow-up to the Soviet Union... which because it did communism totally screwed over its own economy. Russia never managed to built a liberal free market economy. So you have some companies focused mainly on extraction, but incapable of providing added value. Never mind the services.
Russia has been “governed” by a kleptocracy since Yeltsin’s day. They are interested in their own personal wealth, and not that of the nation or the people. They don’t care about the economy. Maybe it’s a legacy of the USSR, which had a fictional economy. The Russian leaders don’t seem to understand that being a major world power requires a world class economy.
Imagine you have a poor but slowly developing economy Then set it on fire, divert all of its resources to unproven and unrealistic theories with no basis on reality When that fails, deny the failure When denying it fails, acuse anyone with proof of being "ignorant brainwashed capitalistic westerners" And when that fails, collapse And repeat
Mr Dobrev misses the point about Russian capabilities. Deeply corrupt, authoritarian nations do not create…capabilities. Or competence. Or skilled professionals.
Maybe I'm just spitballing here, but there seems to be no leadership at all? Is there an academy type system? Just how does the command pipeline work in the Russian Air Force? And what is the situation with the design bureaus? They don't seem to be able to export very much anymore?
@@vksasdgaming9472 All the ones that has ever mattered, in fact. Ilyushin, Mikoyan, Tupolev, Yakolev, Sukhoi and Irkut were all merged by dekree of Tsar Vladimir into what today is PJSC United Aircraft Corporation (UAC). There was of course one other design bureau of significance from back in Soviet times... and of course Tsar Vladimir had to bomb their mightiest aircraft to pieces(!). I REALLY hope that Antonov can get another An-225 up in the air again one day!
It seems as if the Russians (and Chinese) have not learned the lesson that the Americans have - that concentrating so much on impressive (on paper) 'super aircraft' is NO substitute for the work horses in numbers. This is why the USAF is now adding more of the latest version of the F-15 to it's fleet instead of more F22s!
Look at history, even IF you have superior fighters, without sufficient numbers or skilled pilots, it's irrelevant. Germany and Japan both possessed far superior fighters at the beginning of WW2, and it didn't matter because they couldn't replace losses. This is now true with Russias new aircraft or China's "Mighty Dragon". The number of F16/F18 fighters and trained pilots nullify any advantages in real-world situations. Are they "better" than 40+ year old tech in the f16 platform, absolutely. But even those aircraft are modernized and cost a fraction of 5th gen fighters.
Russia embraced capitalism and an openness policy towards investment from abroad , trading energy for manufactured goods. Living standards rose . But Russia became reliant on imports as its own industry was hollowed out. The war exposed these weaknesses where there was no manufacturing capability to produce high quality military products at all levels, from socks, boots, body armour , helmets to rockets, drones and aircraft. Of course Putin wanted a simple regime changed but never believed Ukraine would fight back, and neither did the West . Russia will not be re admitted to club of civilised nations for some time. So it goes backwards. For the Russian people it’s just another grey day.
SU57 has to be a non programme now as sanctions will surely stop them from building anywhere near the rate they would like, even if they can finance it.
